Religion question?

hurfdurf · 6 Dec 2012 at 15:09

Have an open mind to things, but don't have such an open mind that your brain falls out.

If the scientific community present peer reviewed research on a theory and are willing to change their mind should other evidence surface conflicting with their theory, its understandable and reasonable to believe them, that is not pure faith.

If a priest presents a book with nonsense written in it, containing acts of impossible feats with no evidence and plenty of logical errors, and wants people to believe its contents, no matter how daft or evil in it, it is completely reasonable to question it and criticise it, and takes a completely unreasonable amount of faith to believe said priest.

hurfdurf · 6 Dec 2012 at 15:10

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

Stop circling the drain of solopsism, its not big and its not clever and shows that your views are completely stupid in that that is what you are having to resort to.

estebanrey · 6 Dec 2012 at 15:12

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

Because it's there.

Is this one of those silly "you can't prove I exist and might just be a figment of your imagination" type things?

kaffe · 6 Dec 2012 at 15:13

Everyone has the right to believe in what they want. As long as it's not shoved down my throat I couldn't really give a toot!

hurfdurf · 6 Dec 2012 at 15:20

estebanrey said:
Because it's there.

Is this one of those silly "you can't prove I exist and might just be a figment of your imagination" type things?

Yes and its pathetic of him to go down that route, best to not bother responding to someone who gets disingenuous like that. He won't stand and bang because he knows he is in the wrong.

hurfdurf · 6 Dec 2012 at 15:21

kaffe said:
Everyone has the right to believe in what they want. As long as it's not shoved down my throat I couldn't really give a toot!

There is a massive problem with people spreading lies though, people telling their kids they are going to go to hell and be tortured for being homosexual or having sex for instance.

estebanrey · 6 Dec 2012 at 15:26

hurfdurf said:
Yes and its pathetic of him to go down that route, best to not bother responding to someone who gets disingenuous like that. He won't stand and bang because he knows he is in the wrong.

Reminds me of when people try to argue that as evolution and Intelligent Design are both 'theories' each is as equally likely to be true as the other.

Gilly · 6 Dec 2012 at 15:31

ringo747 said:
What is retarded about it? I'd be interesting in your rationale that brought you to that conclusion.

The fact that it is *******ised from various other religions and expects that it will still be taken at face value. Christmas - stolen from Pagans. Easter - stolen from Pagans. Drink the wine it is my blood - Paganism (or vampires!), take and eat of this bread it is my body - cannibalism. Hell is stolen from Hades, heaven is Elyseum, Dionysus turned water into wine in Ancient Greece, Romulus was born of a God via a maiden (virgin birth)...

It is far more than passing strange that we can pass Roman, Greek, Norsk, Egyptian religions off as myth and yet the *******ised religion of Christianity people are expected to believe.

Why?

[edit]LOL

kaffe · 6 Dec 2012 at 15:32

hurfdurf said:
There is a massive problem with people spreading lies though, people telling their kids they are going to go to hell and be tortured for being homosexual or having sex for instance.

True, but that is an extreme. I don't think anyone really does that any more. Could well just be my ignorance and I'm willing to be proven wrong.

My other half's father is a Vicar, and he wouldn't think twice about telling us how to live our lives (not being married n'all) if you know what I mean.

Gilly · 6 Dec 2012 at 15:33

kaffe said:
True, but that is an extreme. I don't think anyone really does that any more.

Except, just maybe, the pope

kaffe · 6 Dec 2012 at 15:38

Gilly said:
Except, just maybe, the pope

Touché.

semi-pro waster · 6 Dec 2012 at 17:18

Morbius said:
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.

We're still at the point of asking what constitutes a burden of proof? But more importantly what makes a scientific measure (as that appears to be what you're hinting at) the appropriate one to constitute proof?

Science and religion can co-exist in many ways but science is not concerned with the supernatural or the divine - that's simply outwith its sphere. Science is great at models of predictive accuracy but very broadly speaking to do that it needs repeatable events for testing purposes and verification - science deals poorly with one-off events and that's to be expected as it's not really within its remit. Religion is concerned with the supernatural or the divine but it's poorly placed to comment on most scientific matters - if you wish to think of it as a Venn Diagram then the two circles are largely unconnected, there may arguably be some points of cross-over but not much.

estebanrey said:
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.

You've labelled it as a quote from me but it's Xordium's point there. The powerful observer may or may not exist - I'm an apathetic agnostic on that point. Until and unless the question impinges on my life in any discernable way I'm quite happy to take no position on it except for the sake of the occasional debate.

I'd even agree with you that just because two statements are made at opposite ends of the spectrum that doesn't make them both equally likely but until and unless you can provide a definitive test that proves the (non-)existence of a deity then the most logically sound position is simply to note that you can't say conclusively either way. You might have strong views on particular religions but to say that there is no possibility of any deity existing would be a position of faith.

DAnDan · 6 Dec 2012 at 17:20

kaffe said:
Everyone has the right to believe in what they want. As long as it's not shoved down my throat I couldn't really give a toot!

No, they really don't lol. If it's not true, then nobody has any right to believe in it.

Xordium · 6 Dec 2012 at 18:10

estebanrey said:
Is this one of those silly "you can't prove I exist and might just be a figment of your imagination" type things?

It is exactly that. It neatly demonstrates you are willing to make assumptions and to castigate anyone who challenges them as 'silly'. However, when other people use exactly the same mechanic you deride them for it. That is rather hypocritical.

Xordium · 6 Dec 2012 at 18:14

hurfdurf said:
Stop circling the drain of solopsism, its not big and its not clever and shows that your views are completely stupid in that that is what you are having to resort to.

hurfdurf said:
Yes and its pathetic of him to go down that route, best to not bother responding to someone who gets disingenuous like that. He won't stand and bang because he knows he is in the wrong.

Witty, intelligent and eloquent as ever.

You're the last person I would stand and bang with on these forums. I quite like my immune system and liver how they are at the moment thanks.

kaffe · 6 Dec 2012 at 19:06

DAnDan said:
No, they really don't lol. If it's not true, then nobody has any right to believe in it.

So no one has any right to believe in any religion because you perceive it as untrue?

I'm not religious in any way, shape or form, but saying that a person does not have the right to practice religion is narrow minded and down right rude.

Castiel · 6 Dec 2012 at 19:09

Xordium said:
Witty, intelligent and eloquent as ever.

You're the last person I would stand and bang with on these forums. I quite like my immune system and liver how they are at the moment thanks.

DAnDan · 6 Dec 2012 at 19:17

kaffe said:
So no one has any right to believe in any religion because you perceive it as untrue?

I'm not religious in any way, shape or form, but saying that a person does not have the right to practice religion is narrow minded and down right rude.

But that's not what I said, is it? I didn't mention religion, just that if something is untrue, then people don't have a choice to believe it or not, it's just a fact.

For example somebody wanting to believe that a Ford Ka is faster than a Veyron, that's not up to them to decide that the Ka is faster because they want to believe it is, it's not.

kaffe · 6 Dec 2012 at 19:30

DAnDan said:
But that's not what I said, is it? I didn't mention religion, just that if something is untrue, then people don't have a choice to believe it or not, it's just a fact.

For example somebody wanting to believe that a Ford Ka is faster than a Veyron, that's not up to them to decide that the Ka is faster because they want to believe it is, it's not.

Alright, point taken.

But it doesn't affect you if they think it's faster, surely?

Pudney · 6 Dec 2012 at 19:33

DAnDan said:
But that's not what I said, is it? I didn't mention religion, just that if something is untrue, then people don't have a choice to believe it or not, it's just a fact.

For example somebody wanting to believe that a Ford Ka is faster than a Veyron, that's not up to them to decide that the Ka is faster because they want to believe it is, it's not.

That's fundamentally untrue, people can believe what they want, it has nothing to do with fact. You may not like it but it doesn't change someone's ability to believe falsehoods :confused: