The great and all powerful religion thread!

[V.V.V.V.V.]

I think we are kind of talking ourselves into a corner with the words "rational" and "irrational" in these discussions tbh. Oh well.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

I think we are kind of talking ourselves into a corner with the words "rational" and "irrational" in these discussions tbh. Oh well.

Or maybe just using it to avoid making actual arguments. If you really believe something to be irrational, you might as well just go on and give a counterexample to illustrate the irrationality of it.

 

[Thoth-Amon]

Like I said, it helps to have a balanced input of perspectives regarding faith and religion. The church I go to, the few times I do, is staffed by priests associated with Harvard University, its divinity school, and who serve as the chaplains for the university's Catholic Student Center. These guys have doctorates in theology and put a lot of substance into their arguments. I'm not saying I agree with what they are saying, but it helps me better understand why people choose to be religious etc.

so you are saying that most peope there just believe anything the priests say while you are more critical in analyzing their homilies

 

[Zephyrus]

Not me exclusively.

 

[cookiecutter]

I think we are kind of talking ourselves into a corner with the words "rational" and "irrational" in these discussions tbh. Oh well.

I don't think so. I don't think it is possible to argue that belief in god is rational

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

I agree, but since rationality and logic apparently don't apply to this god, we're talking to a wall basically.

 

[cookiecutter]

 

[AchrisK]

Do you mean to say that this is actually a legitimate point of argument? I could justify the existence of any friggin' mythical creature I want to just by saying "they have a real effect on the world, you just haven't noticed it yet". Seriously.

Dude, this is why I said you should familiarize yourself with the discussion.

It was all about a hypothetical God, and the question I was posing was, "Can science verify and test this God?" You can read back through it to understand it better.

This was all in response to people saying that they would not believe in God (a supreme spiritual being) until science proves it to be true.

 

[Thoth-Amon]

Dude, this is why I said you should familiarize yourself with the discussion.

It was all about a hypothetical God, and the question I was posing was, "Can science verify and test this God?" You can read back through it to understand it better.

This was all in response to people saying that they would not believe in God (a supreme spiritual being) until science proves it to be true.

honestly i'm not sure that science could 'prove' god exists if he is a spiritual being... then again without any direct evidence it's no wonder that so many people have no reason to believe in him

 

[AchrisK]

honestly i'm not sure that science could 'prove' god exists if he is a spiritual being...

I tend to agree. Which is why I marvel when people make statements that they will wait until science proves God* to believe in him. It reveals to me that the choice of disbelief is based not on a lack of evidence, but on a decision not to believe. Actually, let me rephrase. I think it reveals that the individual is not interested in, and has chosen not to entertain, the idea of God*.

*I am using "God" somewhat generically to reference a supreme being and creator.

...then again without any direct evidence it's no wonder that so many people have no reason to believe in him

But what *is* a wonder is that so many more people, with just as little tangible proof, seem to naturally embrace the idea of the existence of a supreme being and creator. I know it doesn't prove anything, but it is something to think about. It's not nothing.

 

[Rabid Headbanger]

But what *is* a wonder is that so many more people, with just as little tangible proof, seem to naturally embrace the idea of the existence of a supreme being and creator. I know it doesn't prove anything, but it is something to think about. It's not nothing.

It's also amazing how many people are completely fucking stupid.

Just because people believe the Jews are to blame for everything, despite no proof, doesn't mean they're right.

Just because people don't believe in global warming despite contrary evidence doesn't mean thier right either.

It's always amazed me how whole groups of people can be ridiculously ignorant of reality.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

BUT WHAT IS REALITY HUH!?

AchrisK, I feel the need to point out a necessary fundamental problem in your argument:

I tend to agree. Which is why I marvel when people make statements that they will wait until science proves God* to believe in him. It reveals to me that the choice of disbelief is based not on a lack of evidence, but on a decision not to believe. Actually, let me rephrase. I think it reveals that the individual is not interested in, and has chosen not to entertain, the idea of God*.

To me, this is a problem of the god and not of the science. You are saying that we are asserting science's superiority because we say that God can't be proven by science because the evidence can never exist, and believe that we are claiming scientific fact to be unreachable by the idea of a god.

It is actually the problem of this god being out of reach of science, or perhaps they are mutually out of reach of each other (likely). It is not that we are saying "well, you can never find the evidence and we won't believe til you do so basically god doesn't exist." It seems in fact to be "well, this god is naturally out of reach of science so why bother if he can't affect the physical world on any noticeable/testable/physical level?" In other words, it is not a problem of us lacking the want to believe, but rather a defiance of said belief due to the god being beyond what we know anyway, and thus (to us) not important/irrelevant.

 

[paranoidmexican009]

heavy metal is my religion

 

[Satanstoenail]

Ack: Thanks for your epic reply. I have a better understanding of your position and thinking. But you do lose me in a few places. Lines like

The eternal reward of Christianity comes not as a reward for good deeds done. The position of Christianity is that nobody is worthy of the etrnal reward, but that God paid the price for it through Christ's sacrifice and it is now available for anyone who would accept the gift.

sound like contradiction and riddle to me. So if the eternal reward is not based on deeds, does it come from absolute faith? No matter what you do in life? If I live my whole life helping those in need, doing nothing but good for those around me and I happen to be a tad cynical about whether or not God exists, am I damned?

And lines like

It is simply a fact that there is less pressure on one's existence when there is nobody to answer to.

sound like assumption to me. How is this a fact? Why is there less pressure on your existence when answering to yourself?

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

Good fucking point on the second one ST, I've been wondering that myself...

 

[AchrisK]

BUT WHAT IS REALITY HUH!?

I can't really say. I know what my perception of it is for some things.

AchrisK, I feel the need to point out a necessary fundamental problem in your argument:

To me, this is a problem of the god and not of the science. You are saying that we are asserting science's superiority because we say that God can't be proven by science because the evidence can never exist, and believe that we are claiming scientific fact to be unreachable by the idea of a god.

Actually I am claiming that discovering God is out of the reach of science. Some of you have said you would not believe until science proves it.

It is actually the problem of this god being out of reach of science, or perhaps they are mutually out of reach of each other (likely). It is not that we are saying "well, you can never find the evidence and we won't believe til you do so basically god doesn't exist." It seems in fact to be "well, this god is naturally out of reach of science so why bother if he can't affect the physical world on any noticeable/testable/physical level?"

But I believe he CAN affect the world in tangible ways, but that the cause of those tangible effects cannot be tested or proved by sceince. See the difference?

In other words, it is not a problem of us lacking the want to believe, but rather a defiance of said belief due to the god being beyond what we know anyway, and thus (to us) not important/irrelevant.

I think this somewhat akin to what I was saying.

 

[skeptik]

The Christian God is inherently outside the reach of science, but not any deity whatsoever. If the only evidence for something is faith, I'm just not going to believe in it. If something can be shown to be real, however, such as some kind of deity affecting the world, then I will believe. Until then, there's no basis for having that belief. And this lack of evidence entire suggests that there is no higher power, not beyond absolute certainty, but to such a degree that the likelihood is rendered nearly irrelevant.

 

[AchrisK]

Ack: Thanks for your epic reply. I have a better understanding of your position and thinking. But you do lose me in a few places. Lines like


sound like contradiction and riddle to me. So if the eternal reward is not based on deeds, does it come from absolute faith? No matter what you do in life? If I live my whole life helping those in need, doing nothing but good for those around me and I happen to be a tad cynical about whether or not God exists, am I damned?

I do not know the answer. The Bible says Christ died for all people, to save them from their sins. It also says that this gift should be accepted, and can be rejected. There are a ton of scenarios that don't fit the churchy idea of accepting Christ as savior in some formulaic way, and I would not presume to be able to understand what is in the heart of each individual, or second guess exactly how God judges each situation. You have people who have never heard, people who may not understand, and a whole array of situations between and beyond those.

What I fall back on is that the Bible says that God loves everyone (John 3:16), that he desires that none should perish (1 Timothy 2:4), he judges based on knowledge, he is just and merciful (I don't have time to look it all up).

I believe that Christianity is true and the Bible has been authored and preserved by God to a degree that we have what we need to be informed of the amount of truth we need to make a decision. I do not pick and choose what part of it I believe.

And lines like

sound like assumption to me. How is this a fact? Why is there less pressure on your existence when answering to yourself?

I just think there is. To me, atheism seems easier than Christianity.

 

[skeptik]

Gods likes sending unbaptized babies to Hell.

 

[AchrisK]

Baptism =/= salvation