Something about Religion (come on everbody express your opinion!!!)

[jbgd825]

Originally Posted by hammbone

If Passmore was a loving deity, he'd help Matt keep his job and protect him from his crazy wife.

"Passmore need not love, only be loved by the rest of the goalie community."

The book of Passmore: 1:29

[Bones343]

Originally Posted by Bryan

I was an atheist until I actually did read the Bible.

This reminds me of Billy Madison for some reason. Can't quite put my finger on it but I want to say it has something to do with being dumber for something.


Faith is a great thing. You don't have to be religious to have faith. If you want to use religion as a way to justify having faith, or give it meaning, thats fine. I think it is irrational but atleast is in a good way.

On the other hand, if you are a hardcore 'there is a god and he is this way and says we have to do this and act this way" type person, well that my friend I find just stupid.

For what it is worth, the bible is a great book with many good stories and life lessons. But being a book of fiction and tales, can't be taken as fact or history, because it isn't. Plain and simple.

[toskalawannabe]

Any book of history is written on opinion; the bible is no different. To some jesus was a miracle maker, while to others he was just a pretty nice guy. The people who wrote the history decided he was a miracle man.

To some, I'm just a really good goalie. To others, I'm the next lundqvist. I'll let the writers decide

[Timberwoof]

toskalawannabe, I can't go along with that kind of nihilism: in one swell foop you've compared the Bible to history books based on research into period documents and stated that neither can be trusted. In other words, you've negated one of the basic axioms of science, namely that we can share in and build on the knowledge we've acquired. If you don't accept that we can actually know anything, or even come close because it's all just a matter of opinion, then there can be no systematic sharing of knowledge.


As for God, it seems to me that the only possible scientific position is agnosticism. God is not subject to scientific investigation, therefore science has nothing to say about it. One can safely make scientific hypotheses that do not invoke God (actually, that's the usual practice, because once you invoke God in a hypothesis, it ceases to be scientific). It's petty safe to say that God does not exist, but not to insist on the statement as fact.

Which brings up the "Intelligent Design" "hypothesis". I put "hypothesis" in scare-quotes on purpose: It's not a good scientific hypothesis because it makes no scientific predictions. Any feature that "looks designed" (whatever that means; no one has properly defined it) could be designed but it's okay for it not to have been. So there's no way to even in principle falsify the idea ... just like there's no way, even in principle, to conduct an experiment that would prove or disprove the existence of God.

[wjmurray]

Originally Posted by toskalawannabe

Any book of history is written on opinion; the bible is no different. To some jesus was a miracle maker, while to others he was just a pretty nice guy. The people who wrote the history decided he was a miracle man.

To some, I'm just a really good goalie. To others, I'm the next lundqvist. I'll let the writers decide

Any book of history is based upon first hand accounts of the events. The bible is not a book of history because of the very fact that it was not written by people who were actually alive at the time of the supposed occurrences. It is a second or third hand telling. Of course, in the case of the bible and all religious books, it is stretching it to even say that it is a second or third hand telling because many of the places that events are claimed to have happened at did not even exist at the time the story claims. There are also the little problems like there are no historical records or evidence dating at the time of actual events and no corroborating evidence to back up the story of the bible. Basically, to say that the bible is evidence of itself and therefore history is the same as saying that Lewis Carroll's work is evidence that Wonderland exists. Just because someone sat down and wrote a tale does not make it fact or history without actual evidence to back it up and the bible has absolutely no evidence to back up a single story in its pages.

To put it simply, just because it is a religious book, does not instantly make it true nor does it verify the existence of the mythical figure of Jesus. Religious texts must be able stand up to the same scrutiny as historical documents and if the cannot they must be seen as fiction rather than fact. The bible fails this test miserably and therefore must be seen as nothing more than fiction.

[wjmurray]

Originally Posted by Timberwoof

As for God, it seems to me that the only possible scientific position is agnosticism. God is not subject to scientific investigation, therefore science has nothing to say about it. One can safely make scientific hypotheses that do not invoke God (actually, that's the usual practice, because once you invoke God in a hypothesis, it ceases to be scientific). It's petty safe to say that God does not exist, but not to insist on the statement as fact.

No, the only scientific stance on god is atheism for the simple fact that science does not even begin to derive a hypothesis without observable evidence in the first place and there is no observable evidence upon which to hypothesize the existence of any god. People assume that existence itself is observable evidence of god but that is a falsehood because this god is nothing more than a god of the gaps. To say that just because humanity does not have all the answers, therefore god must be the answer is naive at best and arrogant to say the least. It assumes that we will never find the answer or that humanity is so superior that if we don't understand something then there must be some supernatural cause for that particular phenomenon. Humanity once failed to understand things like thunder, lightning, disease, etc and created gods to explain those things. We now understand those things because rather than simply accepting Thor and Zeus as the answer we actually used science to understand why these things really happened. Science provides us with much more reasonable answers to the questions of where we came from and how the universe came to be than religion ever will.

The only reason that God is not subject to scientific examination is because there is no evidence to support the creation of that hypothesis in the first place.

Originally Posted by Timberwoof

Which brings up the "Intelligent Design" "hypothesis". I put "hypothesis" in scare-quotes on purpose: It's not a good scientific hypothesis because it makes no scientific predictions. Any feature that "looks designed" (whatever that means; no one has properly defined it) could be designed but it's okay for it not to have been. So there's no way to even in principle falsify the idea ... just like there's no way, even in principle, to conduct an experiment that would prove or disprove the existence of God.

Intelligent design is not a scientific hypothesis because there is no observable evidence to support it. The main problem with ID is that it start with a hypothesis and then goes out looking for any "evidence" it can to support it. It then goes on to throw out any observable evidence or phenomena that refutes it which automatically invalidates ID as being scientific or worthy of discussion. Basically, the fact that ID throws out observable and reproducible evidence because it goes against religion falsifies it as a valid scientific hypothesis before it even gets started.

No one has to create an experiment to disprove the existence of god because there is no reason to start the experiment in the first place. Without observable evidence or phenomena, one cannot even begin to go through the process of the scientific method in order to prove the whether or not the hypothesis of god is correct or not. There is no basis upon which to create the god hypothesis which automatically invalidates it in the first place. (An no, a religious text is not evidence for the existence of god or the creation of a hypothesis. If that were true then every other god or character and event in every work of fiction would automatically have to be considered potentially real based upon the fact that someone put it down on paper which is absolutely ridiculous.)

[cdnredraider]

Originally Posted by wjmurray

No, the only scientific stance on god is atheism for the simple fact that science does not even begin to derive a hypothesis without observable evidence in the first place and there is no observable evidence upon which to hypothesize the existence of any god.

What is your scientific data to prove that God does not exist. You claim there is some because its a matter of fact. There must be cold hard proof that there is NO god if you are to be an athiest(very wrong) without there being any faith.

At least an agnostic (still wrong) acknowledges that there isn't hard evidence either way and therefore it can no be proved that god does exist or that god does not exist.

So things like string theory and when Einstien deduced the theory of relativity were all based upon observable evidence? Some would claim that the appearance of everything we see today out of nothing (Big Bang??) would be evidence that something created it.

[Timberwoof]

Originally Posted by wjmurray

The bible is not a book of history because of the very fact that it was not written by people who were actually alive at the time of the supposed occurrences.

I don't agree with this definition of history book because that invalidates just about all of them.

About the rest I think we are in violent agreement.

[wjmurray]

Originally Posted by cdnredraider

What is your scientific data to prove that God does not exist. You claim there is some because its a matter of fact. There must be cold hard proof that there is NO god if you are to be an athiest(very wrong) without there being any faith.

At least an agnostic (still wrong) acknowledges that there isn't hard evidence either way and therefore it can no be proved that god does exist or that god does not exist.

So things like string theory and when Einstien deduced the theory of relativity were all based upon observable evidence? Some would claim that the appearance of everything we see today out of nothing (Big Bang??) would be evidence that something created it.

The problem with believers is that they feel they are justified in saying that we have to prove that there is a god. The facts are that if you are going to make the assertion that there is a god, you have to provide evidence to back up your supposition, which you cannot. The fact that there is no evidence to even come up with a hypothesis which includes god, precludes the idea of god from even entering any type of scientific discussion or a discussion based upon reality itself.

It is apparent that you do not understand the basis upon which Einstein built the theory or relativity. He did not pull it out of his posterior as many believe, but instead built upon things like the laws of inertia, electricity, optics and mechanics that were built upon observable phenomena. He did in fact use laws that were defined by the observable universe in order to come up with his theories of relativity and special relativity.

As for String Theory, it is in fact still a mathematical theory rather than a scientific theory because it is not based upon or corroborated through experiment and observation. People love to point to string theory as though it proves that theories are just a hypothesis in science, but they fail to understand the difference between a scientific theory and a mathematical theory. But that requires an understanding of the scientific method and the scientific definitions of hypotheses and theories rather than layman usage of those terms. Before you attempt to argue things about science and its theories (facts), you must be cognizant of what they mean and how they come about and the subtle line between those theories derived through science versus mathematics.

[wjmurray]

One other thing that people fail to realize is that science adapts as new evidence comes to light. Theories in science, by their very nature can readily adapt if new evidence does come to light. Science does not collapse if new evidence refutes a theory, but instead moves forward and becomes more clear as to the answers about the universe in which we live. Religion, on the other hand collapses as evidence proves it wrong. There is a reason that the old gods, no longer exist and that reason is science has proven to us that we don't need some guy in a funny hat with a hammer to explain thunder and other natural phenomena. Science killed the old gods and it will eventually bring about the long overdue demise of the remaining shackles of ignorance that humanity still chooses to wear.

[Timberwoof]

Originally Posted by cdnredraider

What is your scientific data to prove that God does not exist.

You misunderstand science. Geometry has "proofs" of theorems which are then incontrovertible. Science does not. It deals in observations and explanations. Initial observations of falling hammers and orbiting planets results in Newton's theory of gravity. That system of explanations of how matter behaves has never been "proven", and in fact has been refined by Einstein's General Relativity, but it's pretty darned good for most purposes. As more data are gathered, theories are refined to explain the new information.

One basic thing about how science works is that the "burden of proof" is on the person making the positive assertion. Some hypothesis must be accompanied by a description of an experiment that can be carried out whose positive result would confirm the hypothesis and whose negative result would falsify it. So in the case of Newton's Laws, you would set up some dynamic system, predict what the objects will do, and compare the prediction with what really happens. As it turns out, it works pretty well until things start moving really really fast.

You claim that God exists. Okay, then. Show us. Present an instrument or method that will back up your claim. In fact, you don't even have to go that far. All I'll really ask is a definition of God that includes some clue about how to verify or falsify His existence. You could show how scientific hypotheses and theories are incomplete without accounting for the "God Effect", whatever that is.

I thought I posted this earlier, but I can't find it. But it's relevant to this discussion:

Originally Posted by Bertrand Russell

If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.

So. There's this china teapot in an elliptical orbit between Earth and Mars. And you can't prove it ain't so. By your logic about God, you must accept the existence of the teapot. Now can you see how silly it is to conclude that since something can't be disproven, it must be true?

Have I told you about the Invisible Pink Unicorn? She's going to eat the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

[Threeleggedyoyo]

And you misunderstand religion.

Religion is the science of "why." It is not designed to directly tell us how things happen. It's designed to teach us why.

Meaning. Purpose. Love. Motivation. End.

Science is about as useless in these arenas as religion is from a scientific standpoint. But these are irrepressibly significant - even central - elements of the human condition.

If you want to find evidence of God's existence before meeting Him after this life, those are the places to start looking. Those are the categories in which you find data which defines and refines religious models. There's nothing unrepeatable about the experiments it takes to learn for yourself that He exists. The results are just not things you can concretely show to other people any more than I can scientifically prove that my own mother loves me.

God could come down in power and kick our butts to prove His existence if He really wanted - which He's promised to do eventually. But by then we'll have to be ready to meet Him. And the only way to really prepare for that involves loving His principals in our heart of hearts - in other words, obeying them when He's not around. This is the only way we'll ever be comfortable around Him. If you want to know if He's there, live His principals and see for yourself if they produce the promised results.* As Christ put it, "If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself."

He's put the burden of proof on each of us individuals. Our character is on trial, not His existence. Do we WANT to believe in a loving God? Will we care enough to expend some effort to find Him? Will we love His principles enough on their own merit that we will seek to follow them? Will we have a sense of longing and meaning that we'll seek to explain with something larger than our tiny selves? Will we notice that something is missing without Him? None of these things can be adequately addressed if He's standing in recognizable power right in front of us.

There's plenty of things each of us believe in that cannot be proven or disproven.

~Brent

*On a side note, anyone who chooses to seek God will have to be careful to find a way to distinguish between the words of men and the words of God, as there are conflicting religious traditions that can't all be true, and following incorrect principals will lead to unsatisfactory results. I have my own convictions as to how this is done, but this post is more about the aim of religion in general than it is meant to promote my own tradition, and I don't want to go on a tangent that large at the moment.

[Timberwoof]

Originally Posted by Threeleggedyoyo

And you misunderstand religion.

What exactly do you think I think religion is?

Religion is the science of "why." It is not designed to directly tell us how things happen. It's designed to teach us why.

Meaning. Purpose. Love. Motivation. End.

Science is about as useless in these arenas as religion is from a scientific standpoint. But these are irrepressibly significant - even central - elements of the human condition.

This much I actually agree with, and wish more fundamentalists of all types would agree with you on. For the rest, however, you need to correct your spelling of "religion". It's spelled C-h-r-i-s-t-i-a-n-i-t-y and I don't personally agree with that theology.

[Threeleggedyoyo]

Originally Posted by Timberwoof

This much I actually agree with, and wish more fundamentalists of all types would agree with you on. For the rest, however, you need to correct your spelling of "religion". It's spelled C-h-r-i-s-t-i-a-n-i-t-y and I don't personally agree with that theology.

Very fair. I started in a broader sense with the main aim to talk about a belief in God in general, and then talked about some of the Christian thoughts behind how He's known and why that might be. I would think that much of this is applicable to other religions as well, but not as much as Christianity. Some of it may be more universal than is readily obvious, though. Many world religions have a messiah-figure who will one day come, for example.

~Brent

[moving target]

Christianity:

The belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat fruit from a magical tree...