Poll: Who believes in God?

[ChroniC]

I had trouble understanding that but:

There's no such thing as a definitive answer unless you place faith somewhere.



Where does my logic say anything about religion being a model, never mind a perfect model?

There is no "evidence weighted against" religion, that simply makes no sense.

Science and religion are two seperate entities. One fulfills one purpose, one fulfills another. You couldn't analyse religion with the scientific model anyway.

yes you can. Take for example all the evidence that is in favour for God. attempt to find evidence for it, and evidence against it. If all evidence points towards it be true, then hay presto. The unfortunate problem with doing this to God is that you are trying to prove the first known religious text or symbols, or in fact any religious text or symbols, and pretty much all of that if i had the time can be disproved.
So by scientific method, all know evidence for God is wrong, so unless you have something i haven't that is going to change my mind i will never believe.

 

[yantorsen]

more people have died through history because of religion than anything else

source?

 

[p4radox]

Not yet but once everything observable is explained? then do those models become absolute truths?

sid

No, because it's still science, and there's still no way you can know if you know it all. There'll always be another layer of understanding/analysis.

 

[V4NT0M]

no, not at all.

This I do not understand, how can you follow a religion worshiping a being which cannot be proved in anyway to exist based on teachings of others not be blind faith?

 

[yantorsen]

I'd say to disbelief something you cannot prove would be the sensible choice, and would deffo get better odds at ladbrokes

so you disbeleive everything you cannot prove?

 

[yantorsen]

For example, there is no reason to worship God or Jesus other than "they said to do so"!

I didn't realise you were so narrow minded.

 

[yantorsen]

This I do not understand, how can you follow a religion worshiping a being which cannot be proved in anyway to exist based on teachings of others not be blind faith?

you just said it yourself. anything based on something is not blind.

 

[p4radox]

yes you can. Take for example all the evidence that is in favour for God. attempt to find evidence for it, and evidence against it. If all evidence points towards it be true, then hay presto. The unfortunate problem with doing this to God is that you are trying to prove the first known religious text or symbols, or in fact any religious text or symbols, and pretty much all of that if i had the time can be disproved.
So by scientific method, all know evidence for God is wrong.

No, that's rubbish. You're still missing the point.

I feel like I'm going round in circles here...

 

[yantorsen]

more people have died through history because of religion than anything else, so in fact disproves gods existance through religions very existance. (just lol)

Funny thing is if people actually listened to the message of most religions there wouldn't be any wars.

I think you'll also find Stalin killed more people than anyone else has in History and that was the only Official Atheist state, so....

 

[Surfer]

Not yet but once everything observable is explained? then do those models become absolute truths?

sid

??? ehhh

The truth of science isnt its conclusions or discoveries. Its the method.

Take a piece of paper in your hands right now.

fold it in half.

fold it in half again.

do it again...

realised something yet? arrived at the truth yet?

keep folding until you figure it out.

 

[sid]

No, because it's still science, and there's still no way you can know if you know it all. There'll always be another layer of understanding/analysis.

No, but then you can't show that there is another layer of understanding so you are wrongly assuming that there is. As all observables are already accounted for.

 

[yantorsen]

No, but then you can't show that there is another layer of understanding so you are wrongly assuming that there is. As all observables are already accounted for.

but your assuming everything in existance is observable, but why should it be?

 

[sid]

??? ehhh

The truth of science isnt its conclusions or discoveries. Its the method.

Take a piece of paper in your hands right now.

fold it in half.

fold it in half again.

do it again...

realised something yet? arrived at the truth yet?

keep folding until you figure it out.

wtfness??

I meant it in the context of reductionism

 

[p4radox]

No, but then you can't show that there is another layer of understanding so you are wrongly assuming that there is. As all observables are already accounted for.

You can't show that there isn't, so you're wrongly assuming that there isn't.

I'm taking a faith-based position when I say we'll never understand everything. But so are you in saying we will.


It's largely irrelevant anyway. It's all still a model - it might well predict the behaviour of everything in existence, but that doesn't make it a truth. To say it is would be a leap of faith.

 

[sid]

but your assuming everything in existance is observable, but why should it be?

I do mean physical things. At no point am I trying to say you can describe metaphysical things with science.

 

[neodude]

Funny thing is if people actually listened to the message of most religions there wouldn't be any wars.

I disagree.

The Quaran (SP?) teaches muslims that they should kill all infidels. Infidels being anybody that doesn't believe in the teachings of the religion. Sounds friendly.

The bible has examples of god killing thousands of innocent people, ordering the deaths of millions more and ordering rape & child abuse. Thats a good message.

 

[ChroniC]

No, that's rubbish. You're still missing the point.

I feel like I'm going round in circles here...

Ditto.
I'm not missing any points I'm listening to your points and suggesting your points are ridiculous, you however are not listening and just spouting nonsensical non evident beliefs.

 

[sid]

You can't show that there isn't, so you're wrongly assuming that there isn't.

I'm taking a faith-based position when I say we'll never understand everything. But so are you in saying we will.


It's largely irrelevant anyway. It's all still a model - it might well predict the behaviour of everything in existence, but that doesn't make it a truth. To say it is would be a leap of faith.

Erm no, perhaps you can show that there is no more level of understanding below. If it didn't, then by definition it doesn't explain why it is, the way it is. Hence it doesn't explain everything which I said would be a property of such a theory.

 

[tripitaka]

I didn't say previously that I believe in Biblical stories as 'truth' so I'm going to call strawman for arguing against something I hadn't suggested but it was a poor example so I highlighted the point. Some of the stories in Bible might be true, some might be allegorical but that has little to do with Father Christmas being a poor comparison.

The Santa comparison stands. I would suggest that most Christians are perfectly happy to disbelieve in Santa, for exactly the same reasons as I do. As Christians, they presumably do not beleive in Zeus, Poseidon, Jupiter, Shiva or many other gods that people either do or have done in the past.

So why apply different rules to one specific god? Religious faith by it's nature requires a suspension of disbelief, and it is this I find staggering. These people are quite happy otherwise to live their lives according to evidence based science, yet religion becomes this one area where they chose not to do so.

 

[yantorsen]

I disagree.

The Quaran (SP?) teaches muslims that they should kill all infidels. Infidels being anybody that doesn't believe in the teachings of the religion. Sounds friendly.

The bible has examples of god killing thousands of innocent people, ordering the deaths of millions more and ordering rape & child abuse. Thats a good message.

I don't know where you get this from, but most of the examples of things like this I've seen have been taken out of the context from which they are written.