A friend, religion, and what to do?

Surfer · 27 Aug 2015 at 16:12

ICDP said:
Sorry, spiritual experiences/hallucinations for an individual cannot in any way be used as evidence for the existence of God for the masses.

Nowhere did i say or imply that...... also the fact that you interpret experiences that are not able to be consistently verifiable to scientific analysis as hallucinations just show your own narrow-mindness.

If a tool is unable to garner information or results about a phenomena then its not the fault of the phenomena...its the fault of the tool being used.

Totally disagree, there is absolutely zero measurable or testable evidence for the existence of God(s).

Well you are right there and that is the point! The difference is i don't denigrate the subjective experience whereas you do.

Same as there is no testable evidence for the existence of..

* the subjective mind and subjective states

* the supernatural - precisely because science measures the natural world.

That is its boundary. Outside of that it cannot speak. Not even to label it as unworthy of investigation...

Why should we give more credence to the existence of the Christian God over the other major Gods of other world religions such as Allah, Krishna, Brahman etc?

I didn't say we should. You are mixing religion with God. Many people do not believe in any organised religion but believe in God.

They are all mythical figures created in the mind of humanity. No different to the tooth fairy, Santa Claus or leprechauns.

Badum tish! /yawn

Religion and science are fundamentally incompatible because one has, and continues to form an understanding of the rules that govern the universe, while the other believes in a supernatural being that exists outside these rules and in fact can change them at will.

Well many respected scientists would disagree with you.

Charles Darwin, Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein, Copernicus, Galileo, Faraday, Planck, Heisenberg, etc etc etc

Quacks and frauds the lot of them i guess according to you who claims that belief in one is utterly incompatible with the other... as they all believed in God (to some extent)

http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/science_religion

The scientific principle requires an open mind that is willing to abandon any and all preconceived ideas or beliefs if sufficient evidence is shown to refute those beliefs. Religious principles on the other hand demand that faith is paramount and anything that challenges that faith should be cast out as impure thoughts.

You are arguing against your idea of religion and god.

Doesn't modern physics posit the existence of dimensions that we cannot see or measure?

And is it not the case that major scientific theories are made up of inferences/assumptions that help them explain the universe? e.g. dark matter. So not actually based on evidence at all. Its not as black and white as you seem to think.

Haze · 27 Aug 2015 at 17:30

these threads always go mental

one of my mates recently went from completely not religious to being Mormon, very confused i was, but he is very happy now

CREATIVE!11 · 27 Aug 2015 at 17:32

Haze said:
these threads always go mental

one of my mates recently went from completely not religious to being Mormon, very confused i was, but he is very happy now

Yeah why has this reached 9 pages? lord have mercy....

Thread was over in the first 2 basically leave said friend alone whatever #yolo as long as he doesn't push views on him.

Done.

BuffetSlayer · 27 Aug 2015 at 19:39

CREATIVE!11 said:
Yeah why has this reached 9 pages? lord have mercy....

You can't have a thread that incorporates religion without venturing into the greatest question never to be answered bro. That's why 9 pages!

SlyReaper · 27 Aug 2015 at 20:11

CREATIVE!11 said:
Yeah why has this reached 9 pages? lord have mercy....

Thread was over in the first 2 basically leave said friend alone whatever #yolo as long as he doesn't push views on him.

Done.

Because if there's just one topic people love to argue about, it's religion. Even a tangentially related topic will devolve into "you're stupid for believing in God", "no, YOU'RE stupid for not believing".

Zethor · 27 Aug 2015 at 20:21

Surfer said:
Nowhere did i say or imply that...... also the fact that you interpret experiences that are not able to be consistently verifiable to scientific analysis as hallucinations just show your own narrow-mindness.

If a tool is unable to garner information or results about a phenomena then its not the fault of the phenomena...its the fault of the tool being used.

Yes, it's the fault of the tool being used, namely, the brain of the person who suffers from hallucinations.

Well you are right there and that is the point! The difference is i don't denigrate the subjective experience whereas you do.

Same as there is no testable evidence for the existence of..

* the subjective mind and subjective states

* the supernatural - precisely because science measures the natural world.

That is its boundary. Outside of that it cannot speak. Not even to label it as unworthy of investigation...

The boundary you speak of separates reality from imagination. The supernatural does not exist , it's product of imagination and it's pointless to investigate it due to the limitless nature of imagination. It would be like attempting to find the largest natural number, all you have to do is to add one to any possible result and the answer can never be found. There is no answer, there's nothing to investigate so doing so is an utter waste of time.

You are arguing against your idea of religion and god.

Doesn't modern physics posit the existence of dimensions that we cannot see or measure?

And is it not the case that major scientific theories are made up of inferences/assumptions that help them explain the universe? e.g. dark matter. So not actually based on evidence at all. Its not as black and white as you seem to think.

You don't understand how science works, the dark matter hypothesis is not the result of a dream some scientist had, it is the result of observations.. in other words, indirect evidence. Something is holding the galaxies together and something is causing gravitational lensing on huge scales, whether it's dark matter or something else, we will figure it out sooner or later. Your gods, ghosts and pixies leave no trace, no direct or indirect evidence so it's perfectly reasonable to state they don't exist.

SexyGreyFox · 27 Aug 2015 at 20:31

FoxEye said:
You've taken something absurd, told us you think it's absurd, and then made the huge step to say that therefore religion is absurd.

I never said religion is absurd :confused:

Religion has a lot going for it and can be very helpful to billions of people.

ICDP · 27 Aug 2015 at 21:12

Surfer said:
Some nonsense about spiritual experiences = testable evidence... etc.

Zethor said:
Yes, it's the fault of the tool being used, namely, the brain of the person who suffers from hallucinations... etc.

Thanks Zethor, couldn't have put it better myself.

Kalexuz · 27 Aug 2015 at 21:25

My wife's dad has recently re-discovered christian religion and his views are delusional.

I'm atheist, I guess, but I don't seek to bash religion however the stuff he was coming out with last time he was in my house was really difficult to listen to. I almost felt abused in my own home!

At one point he was actually saying that pedophilia and homosexuals are one and the same and that it's only because society has accepted one, is it no longer taboo. The worst part, his own son, my bro in law, is gay. :confused:

I'd try talk your friend out of it if it's extreme religion. My wife goes to Quakers weekly, harmless.

Raz · 27 Aug 2015 at 21:27

matt_fsr said:
Genuine question here, so I'd prefer less of the daft GD replies than usual please.

I've a good friend, who has recently 'discovered' religion it seems. He's started doing the regular Church attending thing, and going to Church groups, and I was at his place for the first time recently, and saw a Bible laying about - so it does seem to be genuine.

Only problem is, I'm pretty strongly Atheist - and have little or no time for organised religion. I don't seek to actively 'bash' religion, I just think it's all a lie contrived to keep the powerful, powerful and the poor/weak in their place.

Luckily, he's the kind of guy who wouldn't push his views on me, so it's unlikely to come to any kind of direct conflict - at least as far as things are at the moment, but that could change depending on if or how he changes. (Will leave that one for the time being)

Trouble is, with me feeling strongly against religion, I'm feeling like I should try and get him out of this situation - but is that being selfish? I have a feeling that maybe in a few years, or 5, or 10, whatever... he may turn round and say "why didn't you tell me it was all BS?" - then I'd feel terrible for not having spoken up before.

Is that just me being selfish though? Am I best off just leaving him to it, as it's his own life and choices?

(Borderline SC topic I know, but SC is too quiet these days)

As has been said it's best to leave him to it. It may give him some comfort, and answer some of the questions he may have about life, or he may be at a point in his life where he's looking for something deeper.

A lot of people tend to forget that religion goes beyond believing in God. It gives people an opportunity to feel part of something, and they share not just beliefs but also rituals and traditions that make them feel part of a community.

dirtychinchilla · 27 Aug 2015 at 21:52

Surfer said:
Well many respected scientists would disagree with you.

Charles Darwin, Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein, Copernicus, Galileo, Faraday, Planck, Heisenberg, etc etc etc

Not a single one of those names has lived in the 21st century, and barely any of them even lived in the 20th century. We live in an age of enlightenment, where people don't need the millstone of religion around their necks to get along in life.

CREATIVE!11 said:
Yeah why has this reached 9 pages? lord have mercy....

Thread was over in the first 2 basically leave said friend alone whatever #yolo as long as he doesn't push views on him.

Done.

Yeah, but not everyone agrees with you obviously :confused:

ICDP · 27 Aug 2015 at 22:06

Surfer said:
Doesn't modern physics posit the existence of dimensions that we cannot see or measure?

No, modern physics theorises the existence of dimensions we cannot observe or measure YET. Though you can be guaranteed if the evidence is for these theoretical dimensions is not found, the theory will be rejected. That is one of the fundamental cornerstones of the scientific method.

http://home.web.cern.ch/about/physics/extra-dimensions-gravitons-and-tiny-black-holes

Surfer said:
And is it not the case that major scientific theories are made up of inferences/assumptions that help them explain the universe? e.g. dark matter. So not actually based on evidence at all. Its not as black and white as you seem to think.

No as I have stated, scientific theories MUST have observable, measurable and testable evidence to support them before they become accepted. Dark matter is a theory that was proposed based on actual observations of gravitational effects. There are methods that can be used to measure these effects. Since it was first proposed more and more evidence is being found to support the dark matter theory.

http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2015/dark/

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/08/150820144842.htm

The existence for God requires no such rigorous standards and relies on faith alone. For this reason I live my life under the assumption God most likely does not exist.

FoxEye · 27 Aug 2015 at 22:21

dirtychinchilla said:
Not a single one of those names has lived in the 21st century, and barely any of them even lived in the 20th century. We live in an age of enlightenment, where people don't need the millstone of religion around their necks to get along in life.

As yet, we can't conclusively disprove the existence of God.

Why not just accept that and wait for such a time as you may have all the facts and evidence at your disposal.

By all means choose not to believe yourself. By all means have discussions with your friends and see where that leads.

Why do some people demand that atheism be the only choice and all religious people should become 2nd class citizens... un-friend them, fire them, force them at gunpoint to renounce their beliefs... Yes I'm being deliberately extreme here, but that /is/ the prevailing attitude.

It is not "live and let live until I can 100% disprove God". It is "I don't believe; belief is bad; stop believing right now or else!" with so many of you.

And you call that enlightenment

Squark · 27 Aug 2015 at 22:21

dirtychinchilla said:
Not a single one of those names has lived in the 21st century, and barely any of them even lived in the 20th century. We live in an age of enlightenment, where people don't need the millstone of religion around their necks to get along in life.

Yeah, but not everyone agrees with you obviously

So the people who essential enabled and created our modern society by their scientific discoveries don't matter because they believed in God, and don't live today?
That's a strange view you have there.

dirtychinchilla · 27 Aug 2015 at 22:26

No, you've completed twisted what I said. Some of those people have drastically advanced science, but the majority of them lived in ages where there were things that had not been discovered and were put down to religion (creation of the universe, evolution as minor examples). The more we learn, the less there is to ascribe to a creator. These people mostly lived in periods where a lot was ascribed to a creator; doesn't make the religions any more valuable.

ICDP · 27 Aug 2015 at 22:34

FoxEye said:
As yet, we can't conclusively disprove the existence of God.

Sorry, but this statement is a ridiculous logical fallacy, the irony in your posts is actually very amusing. Why do we (assuming atheists) need to disprove your God?

You make a bold claim then ask us to disprove that claim. Go look up Russell's Teapot, it is so apt in this instance... actually never mind here it is.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot

FoxEye · 27 Aug 2015 at 22:36

Um, wait. The creation of the universe is still not fully understood. It's still very controversialist even among atheists, as to exactly how it came about.

FoxEye · 27 Aug 2015 at 22:42

ICDP said:
Sorry, but this statement is a ridiculous logical fallacy, the irony in your posts is actually very amusing. Why do we (assuming atheists) need to disprove your God?

You make a bold claim then ask us to disprove that claim. Go look up Russell's Teapot, it is so apt in this instance... actually never mind here it is.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot

LOL, you really are angry.

I didn't say you need to. Science can for all ends and purposes completely ignore God and does not need to even think about it. Science works on observation and modelling. Science isn't really concerned with God.

All you are doing is demonstrating that you a) really have a lot of contempt for people who beleve, b) like to take everything they say out of context, and c) have a decidedly closed mind in this area.

Some very clever people have left the door open to the existence of God (some notable ones already listed), because it is no inconceivable (really, why should it be?) and they do not want to claim it impossible when they cannot disprove it.

This is the fundamental point here. If you cannot disprove it, why claim it is impossible? You can ignore it (as said, science does not need to prove/disprove God). You can choose not to believe in God. This is all well and fine.

But people making statements to say "I know 100% there is no God" are doing so /on faith/ rather than through any objective means.

ICDP · 27 Aug 2015 at 22:56

FoxEye said:
LOL, you really are angry.

Ah the old "stop getting angry defence". Laughably childish and so obviously passive aggressive.

FoxEye said:
I didn't say you need to. Science can for all ends and purposes completely ignore God and does not need to even think about it. Science works on observation and modelling. Science isn't really concerned with God.

I already said this myself many times in this thread. Thanks for agreeing with me finally.

FoxEye said:
All you are doing is demonstrating that you a) really have a lot of contempt for people who beleve, b) like to take everything they say out of context, and c) have a decidedly closed mind in this area.

More irony.

FoxEye said:
Some very clever people have left the door open to the existence of God (some notable ones already listed), because it is no inconceivable (really, why should it be?) and they do not want to claim it impossible when they cannot disprove it.

Again, I have already conceded that I cannot say with 100% certainty that God does not exist, just that he most likely doesn't given the total lack of tangible, measurable and observable evidence.

FoxEye said:
This is the fundamental point here. If you cannot disprove it, why claim it is impossible? You can ignore it (as said, science does not need to prove/disprove God). You can choose not to believe in God. This is all well and fine.

Straw man argument. I never said the existence of God was impossible, just unlikely given the lack of tangib...hmm, I reckon you know what I am going to say next.

FoxEye said:
But people making statements to say "I know 100% there is no God" are doing so /on faith/ rather than through any objective means.

Wrong, people making this type of statement are doing it purely objectively based on the total lack of tangib...hmm, I reckon you know what I am going to say next.

Dolph · 27 Aug 2015 at 23:00

No scientist worth their education will take a position either way on an untested hypothesis. That choice can only be made using unverifiable beliefs.