BBC TV channels to add more religion

Vonhelmet said:
I haven’t even attempted to argue with you, because you haven’t really gone long on making an argument.

I’m sure we could both come up with lists of badly educated/well educated religious/irreligious folk but that wouldn’t really get us anywhere because you’ve defined, for the purposes of your argument, belief in this evidence based approach as being the bastion of the well educated. The two are not intrinsically linked.

Your argument is based on the idea that empirical evidence is the only evidence that matters, which is itself a faith based position of belief in the scientific method.
Click to expand...
How would we ever discover anything if we didn't believe that something might be there to go looking for?

Empirical evidence irrefutably proved the earth was flat right up until it wasn't.

There are illnesses with no known cures, that doesn't mean they are incurable. It just means that we haven't found a cure yet and as such we must have faith that our research bares fruit.
 
Sliver said:
Well then you have failed. Religion is faith based not evidence based and as such it is false as there is no empirical evidence to support it. So only the badly educated believe it.
Click to expand...

i think you're taking this a bit personally, it's fine that you've reached your conclusion but you can't sit there and say there's no room for religion in modern society, or that you need to be uneducated to believe in god.

riddle me this- what happened before the big bang? where'd all that energy come from?

because unless I've missed something science doesn't have the answer yet, and whilst it's unlikely that it came from a bearded guy sitting on a cloud it's not impossible, you can't prove god doesn't exist.

now you can make a choice, you can choose to say "because i can't prove god doesn't exist, then until proven he does I'll assume he doesn't", which is believing purely on faith there is no god, or you can equally believe on faith that there is.

yes organised religion has its problems, especially when it accumulates enough power, but there's plenty of good to be found in individual people who have spiritual beliefs.
 
adolf hamster said:
i think you're taking this a bit personally, it's fine that you've reached your conclusion but you can't sit there and say there's no room for religion in modern society, or that you need to be uneducated to believe in god.

riddle me this- what happened before the big bang? where'd all that energy come from?

because unless I've missed something science doesn't have the answer yet, and whilst it's unlikely that it came from a bearded guy sitting on a cloud it's not impossible, you can't prove god doesn't exist.

now you can make a choice, you can choose to say "because i can't prove god doesn't exist, then until proven he does I'll assume he doesn't", which is believing purely on faith there is no god, or you can equally believe on faith that there is.

yes organised religion has its problems, especially when it accumulates enough power, but there's plenty of good to be found in individual people who have spiritual beliefs.
Click to expand...
Disbelief of god isn't a position of faith, it's simply rejecting the theistic claim that he does due to insufficient evidence. I don't have faith that the Loch Ness monster doesn't exist, I reject the claim that does exist until proven otherwise.
 
TallPaul1878 said:
How would we ever discover anything if we didn't believe that something might be there to go looking for?

Empirical evidence irrefutably proved the earth was flat right up until it wasn't.

There are illnesses with no known cures, that doesn't mean they are incurable. It just means that we haven't found a cure yet and as such we must have faith that our research bares fruit.
Click to expand...

Faith ? What you are describing and twisting into religion is the scientific method. Faith in your abilities and persistence is not religion.
 
adolf hamster said:
yes organised religion has its problems, especially when it accumulates enough power, but there's plenty of good to be found in individual people who have spiritual beliefs.
Click to expand...

I think that's the understatement of the century, it has a lot of blood on its hands.... how long do we need to wait for the next suicide bomber to try and get to paradise? I'd say a week at the most.
 
Thanks for the replies everyone *thumbs up*

I wrote this thread because I had a bad experience 10 years ago, at a workplace where some of the managers were Christians with very right-leaning views. Believers were promoted over non-believers even though it wasn't a Christian organisation. It was more along the lines of brown-nosing and them working together in convoy. Minority groups were discriminated upon too such as the disabled, non-white ethnicities, and if there was a round of redundancies, women were the first to go. We had one LGBT guy as well who had to keep his sexuality secret. A shame as this happened before the Equality Act 2010 came in.

I just think that religion should be a privilege, not a basic human right. At the end of the day, it is a lifestyle choice, and should (imo) fall in the same category as 16+ or 18+ choices, along with drinking alcohol, being able to vote, joining the military, having a driver's license, viewing mature films, having sex and so on.

Then for RE lessons, I'm all for it as long as it is impartial and its purpose is to teach about the major religions. Then the children can make up their own mind at either 16 or 18 on whether they want to be confirmed.

LabR@t said:
So I think most here are against this then?

Poll?
Click to expand...

I agree on a poll :-)
 
Oh please, you can sort that out with simple meditation ...... which is scientifically proven to aid mental well being..... This leads to me to the conclusion that prayer is tripe along with the dirge associated with it.
 
TallPaul1878 said:
You seem frustrated.

Science proves that those without faith are more prone to mental health issues and suicide.

I pray for you.
Click to expand...

But isn't faith itself simply the result of mental issue, known as delusion?

Personally, a person who can accept and come to terms with the reality of life on earth, that they will never see their dead relatives for example, is a much better example of excellent mental health.

Religion just masks the actual mental issues.
 
enkoda said:
Disbelief of god isn't a position of faith, it's simply rejecting the theistic claim that he does due to insufficient evidence. I don't have faith that the Loch Ness monster doesn't exist, I reject the claim that does exist until proven otherwise.
Click to expand...

I don't have to believe - regardless if anyone does; there is proof or no proof - just as those that choose to believe regardless of anyone else's belief, proof or no proof.

Typically maths starts off with a zero sized set for the model then adds by proof that fits. However it is provable that a model exists that an unknown state exists - even with a known state (ie there is a god or there isn't a god as a input) however the result is also not defined. So regardless whilst there is no proof (ie completely know model) then what you believe (god/no-god) is irrelevant.

Now if you choose to believe in something without that proof then it just means you have decided either subconsciously or not without proof. And the same is true for non-belief.

I personally find it offensive that someone pushes their decision (belief) on me.
 
Mason- said:
The issue with that is that you’re assuming the conscious is separate from the physical. Yet people whose heads get whacked have their personality changed...
Click to expand...

That gets complicated as if there was a separation we have no idea how it might work - people's personalities can change with experience, etc. or someone might be hiding their true personality until something like that limited their ability to control it and so on.
 
Rroff said:
That gets complicated as if there was a separation we have no idea how it might work - people's personalities can change with experience, etc. or someone might be hiding their true personality until something like that limited their ability to control it and so on.
Click to expand...
There isn't a separation. That is my point. Conscious, mind etc. is just our brain. So when your brain stops, your mind and conscious does too. There's nothing more to it. And the burden of proof is on you to prove me otherwise. No one who has died has come back to life. No one without a brain has had consciousness.
 
Mason- said:
There isn't a separation. That is my point. Conscious, mind etc. is just our brain. So when your brain stops, your mind and conscious does too. There's nothing more to it. And the burden of proof is on you to prove me otherwise. No one who has died has come back to life. No one without a brain has had consciousness.
Click to expand...

I'm not trying to prove otherwise - science still doesn't fully cover consciousness and self awareness with no hard evidence one way or the other. If there was a separation it would still likely require some kind of "connection" to a brain for awareness of this existence at least within the normal mechanics.

When we look at the most fundamental building blocks of nature we see no capacity for intelligence or self awareness within them so how does a complex arrangement of them produce an awareness of themselves?
 
Fusion said:
Just what we need :/

I was hoping they'd get rid rather than increase. "Thought for the day" on Radio 4 is very dated really, asking religious figures to pontificate on ethics/moral issues, although the points themselves are often worthwhile. Just seems like something that belongs in a bygone age.
Click to expand...

You may feel that (tbh I feel thatfor the whole or Radio 4), but there will be plenty of people that dont. Like it or not religion is a major part of a significant number of people’s lives. The BBC has a remit to provide a broad range of content to appeal to a broad range of people, religion being one of them.

Besides that it sounds like a fair amount of the content is going to be less for those that are religious, rather to teach people about different religions (that doesn’t mean “brainwash” or convert). Knowing more about others is never a bad thing.
 
Rroff said:
I'm not trying to prove otherwise - science still doesn't fully cover consciousness and self awareness with no hard evidence one way or the other. If there was a separation it would still likely require some kind of "connection" to a brain for awareness of this existence at least within the normal mechanics.

When we look at the most fundamental building blocks of nature we see no capacity for intelligence or self awareness within them so how does a complex arrangement of them produce an awareness of themselves?
Click to expand...
Why do the fundamental building blocks of nature have to themselves be intelligent or self aware? Why can it not only present itself after being combined with others?

A nut won't drive you place to place, but as part of a car it can.

I posit that most people believe in a deity, or indoctrinate them self into a religion mainly for one reason. Because they can't face the truth that their life is meaningless. A nihilistic population won't amount to much.
 
Mason- said:
A nut won't drive you place to place, but as part of a car it can.
Click to expand...

That isn't really the same - the parts of a car separately have their function you choose a nut as part of what makes a car because of its properties.

If what you were saying is true then a complex enough computer simulation of intelligence should itself be self-aware and conscious which is a pretty contentious subject.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom