Religion question?

[Morbius]

Also the people you mentioned were either not contemporary to Christ or the writings (particularly Thallus) are heavily disputed.

Also, even if there was a man named Jesus, who had several followers and was executed, there is still no extra-biblical evidence of the miraculous events that allegedly occurred. For instance, the saints rising from their graves and walking into town.

Assuming there was a historical Jesus then I see the Bible as being a bit like the film Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter. Based on a real person but with some creative additions. I know there is a slightly more fringe theory that suggests that there was no historical Jesus, but I don't think it really matters either way.

 

[dirtychinchilla]

You miss the point, I wasn't referring to the validity of specific examples, people will make up their own minds on the immutablility of reality etc themselves. I was trying to illustrate that you need to be very careful when using the word impossible to defend or attack an argument.

No no I got it, and I'm glad you showed it to me, very interesting! You make an excellent point and I'll bare in mind that I shouldn't use definite statements in future.

I hate to interject here and I havent followed the entire conversation, but would you specify which biblical scholars and exactly what they are saying regarding the resurrection and the verified historical proof that you seem to be referring to?

Also the people you mentioned were either not contemporary to Christ or the writings (particularly Thallus) are heavily disputed.

Following up Castiel's point...isn't it important that you question your faith so that it actually gives it both value and meaning? Surely you aren't encouraged just to accept what you're told and blindly follow it?

 

[Angilion]

So you think that either science is right or religion is right? Science and religion are not at war.

I said what I think and it bears no resemblence to what you have just claimed I think. Please stop making things up and claiming that they're my thoughts. That's just not acceptable.

I'll try to say the same thing differently, in case you didn't understand it before:

Religion and science are completely seperate things covering completely seperate areas with completely seperate ways of thinking. As a result, they are mutually exclusive.

In a similar way, desert scorpions and deep sea squid are mutually exclusive. Does that mean that desert scorpions and deep sea squid are at war?

Science and religion are at war in some ways in some parts of the world, but that's only because some theists are trying to corrupt and destroy science. The conflict relies on some people pretending that science and religion are not mutually exclusive when in fact they are.

There is a very important difference in my analogy. If you put either animal into the other animal's place, it's the misplaced animal that will die. But if you put religion into science, it's science that dies.

 

[Castiel]

snip.

To be fair, I don't think you understand what Mutually Exclusive means, it means that the two cannot both be correct or that they contradict each other in a subject related context. Effectively in this example that Science automatically rules out or precludes Religion or vice versa.

Not that they deal with separate subject matter or are unrelated in context.

Therefore Science and Religion are not mutually exclusive as they deal with separate persepective and contexts and although the questions may be related, each is not necessarily in contradiction with the other but can, in many ways, complement each other. Equally there are also times when they are in conflict also, the relationship between Science and Religion is a complex and dynamic one, with each illustrating a multifaceted co-existance which often overlaps in the pursuit of knowledge or explanation, sometimes producing both complementary and conflicting views, oddly so at times.

 

[starfighter]

That and some people are very selective about which rules they abide by.

I'm glad someone agrees, I just feel religions aim is to teach people to be good, which can't by definition be a bad thing. I do personally believe in God but also science, I agree with evolution but think that God caused the big bang.

I just think religion tries to tell people how to be good, but while some rules are still relevant like "You shall not steal." others such as Halal meat aren't as we now have more painless ways of killing animals which would be better, but Halal slaughter was the best option at the time.

We need a new more modern religion (not scientology), I think I might start it.

 

[RDM]

I don't recall talking about any other myths. I am talking about probably the most widely attested event which is core of the Christian faith. I suggest you do some research into it as your responses would suggest you haven't done so.

The problem is that it isn't widely attested, the only "primary" source is the bible. Just because Thor is mentioned in the poetic edda doesn't make him real. Just because the resurrection is mentioned in the bible doesn't make it real. There is no proof that the resurrection happened. There is no proof of an empty tomb (there are even conflicting accounts in the bible of who and when said empty tomb was discovered).

You think that if hundreds of people were being put to death for their faith that nobody would maybe write about how crazy they are for believing something that didn't happen?

As much as I hesitate to throw the same response back to you, but have you actually researched the early Christian faith? They believed an awful lot of different things and it wasn't until Nicea that those beliefs were really formally codified. It is quite possible that the resurrection wasn't a central tenant of very early Christianity as it is today.

Why? Biblical scholars study a text. A feasibility study of whether resurrection is possible or not is not what they do.

Just because a text is considered real doesn't mean it's contents are the truth so I am not sure what point you are trying to make here. It almost seems to be the normal circular "The Bible says it is the truth, ergo anything in the bible is true" argument.

Go have a look at Josephas, Tacitus, Thallus for a start.

So that would be "No, I don't have any texts contemporary with the time that mention the empty tomb or the resurrection".

The only real evidence for the Christian mythology is the bible, which makes it no different from the myriad other myths to a non believer.

 

[Morbius]

I'm glad someone agrees, I just feel religions aim is to teach people to be good, which can't by definition be a bad thing. I do personally believe in God but also science, I agree with evolution but think that God caused the big bang.

I fear I may have unintentionally misled you. I agreed with you in that the rules hadn't been updated for modern times but I don't necessarily agree that religions aim to teach people to be good, if "aim" is even a word that is applicable to religion. I think there are a number of reasons that someone might start a religion. For instance, I don't think Joseph Smith started Mormonism to teach people how to be good - he was a convicted con man with a dubious testimony that had not a shred of evidence in its favour. L. Ron Hubbard said that the easiest way to get rich would be to start a religion, exactly as he did later on with Scientology.

I just think religion tries to tell people how to be good, but while some rules are still relevant like "You shall not steal." others such as Halal meat aren't as we now have more painless ways of killing animals which would be better, but Halal slaughter was the best option at the time.

As with anything, there are two sides to the coin. Some things that religions preach are good, such as "Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself", but others are bad, such as "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." Obviously there are a number of varying ways in which scripture is interpreted. Some denominations are literalist and follow scripture to the letter. Others are more modernist and don't necessarily follow everything, for varying reasons. Those who pick the good bits and ignore the bad, I applaud them for making what I would consider a more moral choice. But then if you've given yourself the authority to pick and choose from scripture, why not just disregard scripture entirely and use your own judgement for everything?

In reality, whether scripture offers good or bad rules is not important. What is important is whether the scripture is truly divinely inspired. In every case, religious scripture has failed to meet its burden of proof in this regard.

 

[Xordium]

To be fair, I don't think you understand what Mutually Exclusive means,

To be fair I don't think he understands science that well either. He seems to keep forgetting that all scientific theories are based upon rather large a priori ideas/assumptions etc that are can not be measured and therefore you take them on faith and have an unsupported belief that they are true.

It would also be fair to say that the question of what construes evidence is rather limited there and will if applied according to those principles exclude some things we take for granted.

For example;

1) Can we measure god? No. Can me measure peoples' perception of a god through their own religious experience? We could try to by measuring physiological markers and a qualitative assessment of the experience. Would people accept this as evidence? No.

2) Can we measure pain? No. Can me measure peoples' perception of pain through their own experiences of pain? We could try by measuring physiological markers and a qualitative assessment of the experience. Would people accept this as evidence? They do daily.

 

[semi-pro waster]

In reality, whether scripture offers good or bad rules is not important. What is important is whether the scripture is truly divinely inspired. In every case, religious scripture has failed to meet its burden of proof in this regard.

What would you say is the burden of proof for religious scripture? The obvious follow on question is then what makes that particular burden of proof the appropriate one?

How do you measure the divine? By definition it is entirely outwith what we can measure, it is exceptional, so how do you define what would be an appropriate burden of proof there? There may not be evidence sufficient to suit you (or me for that matter) but that's a different proposition.

 

[Salsa]

This is even more retarded than the usual monthly "lolreligion" thread in GD.

We managed to get God, Darwin, Nazism and ghosts on the first page! Only Hitchens, Dawkins and some scripture for full house.

/Salsa

Thread is now complete.

No Hitchens/Dawkins but Carl Sagan has made an appearance. Much use of the multi quote button and referencing specific scriptures. People caling religion retarded. People demaning proof and facts. Ridicule and general intollerance of peoples beliefs.

Oh and Cas has arrived with a balanced argument as well.

Serionsly why are these threads allowed to persist in GD? They are more suited to speakers corner where the level of retardation suffered by the average poster is much lower an the trolling of religious threads is much less likely.
/Salsa

 

[Robertnpmk]

Most are brought up to follow a religion.

I had a work friend who assumed that if you were christened you had to be a Christian legally!

 

[Morbius]

What would you say is the burden of proof for religious scripture? The obvious follow on question is then what makes that particular burden of proof the appropriate one?

I'd need whichever god or gods the scripture claims existence of to be proved to exist first. If we don't know that a god exists, we can't know about any divine inspiration. It means we can't use scripture as a source, as otherwise you get a circular argument which is a logical fallacy.

 

[Xordium]

Dismissing things purely because they breech some logical fallacy is also a logical fallacy.

You have to take something on faith and believe in something or you are left with your own existence in isolation. Where we draw that line is different but to castigate others for doing something we all do is rather illogical in itself.

Me I like to believe the universe exists, that I and others share it and that it is governed by the laws of science as interpreted by us as observers. I don't think that is that too far removed from someone believing the universe exists, is shared by many and is governed by the laws of science and in someway shaped by some other rather powerful observer.

 

[estebanrey]

Me I like to believe the universe exists, that I and others share it and that it is governed by the laws of science as interpreted by us as observers. I don't think that is that too far removed from someone believing the universe exists, is shared by many and is governed by the laws of science and in someway shaped by some other rather powerful observer.

It is different though. The universe existing and observing the laws of science can be observed and tested, the powerful observer bit can't.

Just because the sentences are similar, doesn't mean that actually that last point doesn't drastically change the stance.

 

[Xordium]

The universe existing and observing the laws of science can be observed and tested,

Only if you take it on faith the universe exists as we perceive it, that it is observable, that any observations will be truthful in their representation, etc.

Some rather hefty assumptions there to believe without any proof.

 

[estebanrey]

Only if you take it on faith the universe exists as we perceive it, that it is observable, that any observations will be truthful in their representation, etc.

Some rather hefty assumptions there to believe without any proof.

I think therefore I am.

You seem to have a loose definition of 'faith'. Taking things as true for granted isn't taking something on faith.

 

[Xordium]

I think therefore I am.

You seem to have a loose definition of 'faith'. Taking things as true for granted isn't taking something on faith.

Taking something on or by faith = means believing something to be true with little or no evidence.

Which is exactly what you are doing in this case is it not?

 

[Morbius]

Dismissing things purely because they breech some logical fallacy is also a logical fallacy.

I'm not dismissing outright the possibility of scripture being divinely inspired, but if you are using a circular argument to justify belief in this claim then your argument is not sufficient grounds for belief.

 

[estebanrey]

Taking something on or by faith = means believing something to be true with little or no evidence.

Which is exactly what you are doing in this case is it not?

There is plenty of evidence the universe exists and that it observes the laws of science.

If you think there is no evidence, what do you think we're looking at through a telescope?

Unless your argument is that because I personally haven't been to space or done a degree in astro-physics then everything a scienctist tells me about it is me taking what they say on 'faith'. If that is your argument, it's a silly one.

 

[Xordium]

There is plenty of evidence the universe exists and that it observes the laws of science.

If you think there is no evidence, what do you think we're looking at through a telescope?

Unless your argument is that because I personally haven't been to space or done a degree in astro-physics then everything a scienctist tells me about it is me taking what they say on 'faith'. If that is your argument, it's a silly one.

Care to give me one bit of evidence that shows the universe exists as you perceive it?