Thread: Religion
View Single Post
Old June 29th, 2009, 02:17 PM  
Death
Awesome Poster
 
Death's Forum Picture
 
Join Date: May 2, 2009
Location: Britain
Age: 22
Gender: Male
Default Re: Religion

Quote:
Originally Posted by INFERNO View Post
Yes I do find it possible. I have argued religion many times on these forums. I don't use the same approaches you do and I don't argue to show god does or does not exist. I argue using interpretations of the bible, the person's argument, religious paradigm and taking into account the morals of the bible, the person (if the person states them clearly) and my morals (if those are needed for the debate).
You truly believe that it's possible that there's no true science? If you're athiest, how else does this world work? And if you're not arguing to try to promote or dispel God, then what are you arguing for? The quote you gave me looked quite anti-religous to me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by INFERNO View Post
I think I know why you're not understanding what I said. Do you know what a paradigm is? In simple terms, it's a set of assumptions you use that can affect your outcomes, analysis, the data/evidence you look for, etc.. . This is not limited to looking for biblical passages but rather to giving your interpretations of the passages, thereby using religion to refute religion.
But that seems to be a difficult way in which to do it. Basically, are you saying that you can find religious texts or similar items and say why they were written and what the ycould mean in a non-religous sense? Are you saying that you could say that it needn't have anything to do with God since it can be seen from a non-religious persective and has certain morals in it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by INFERNO View Post
You're right, we can give reasons for it being improbable. Faith proves your devotion to a belief, it can give evidence for oneself to believe in it. If one's faith is not good enough for someone else, then so be it. The bible sometimes is taken as evidence for god's existence (I don't consider this evidence for the idea that god is a physical entity though but instead a mental entity), however, religion is not going to provide you with the scientific evidence that you so desire.
I suppose that faith does prove that you are devoted to something but if that's all it does, then that's little proof. If some stranger were to come up to you, you a dagger and say "God has spoken to me. He has said that those with faith shall reap great rewards. You are to give this dagger to another man and tell them to plunge it in their chest. That person should have faith in me, the lord their god and in doing so, will not be hurt but instead will have great wisdom afterwards, njoy good health for the rest of their life, have special privallages in heaven, and enjoy more money than they've ever dreamed off while still on Earth. You must give this dagger to someone and test them.", would you do it?

Would you have blind faith and stab yourself? or would you walk away and leave it? I don't like having faith because there's nothing to tell me that it's true. other peoples' faith will not satisfy me since the could say pretty much anythign and I'd have to believe it. I don't want to be blind like that. One thing that I do agree with you about however is that the book called "The Bible" (I refuse to just call it "the Bible" since it implies that it is a special book beyond the rest and that is bullshit - call me picky) is not evidence but only suggests that said content exists in peoples' minds. It all exists for them. One question though; does that mean that it truly exists?

Quote:
Originally Posted by INFERNO View Post
I said not to mix science and religion, not facts and religion. If you're going to tell me that science is factual then you may be butchering science up also but that is a discussion for another time and place. How do you know god never answers his prayers? If someone tells me that god does, then how can I tell them or show them that god hasn't?
So what are scientific facts then? Is science not based on facts? It must be since science is always proved so it's factual. Religion on the other hand is based on faith which is no evidence because you could say anything and use it as evidence wheras science looks for the answers without making them up to what they want it to be. Science even admits that there are things that are not understood and hav yet ot be explained. Religion on the other hand, 'knows it all'. Do you really thinks so? Really? Also, why would God answer one person but not another? If one truly believes that God has answered him, they are either hallucinating, or assuming God has helped them when in reality it was something completely different.

Say, Nick prays to God and asks him to make him do well in his football match. God does not actually speak to him (in the same way as standard, person-to-person conversations) as far as he's concerned but when he ends up doing well in the match, he then says that God has answered his prayer and his faith is maintained. What do I think? Rubbish; it was not God that made him do well, it's all the practice and effort he put into it as well as the perfomance of his teamates who would have needed to help as well as pot luck and the perfomance of the opposition - it has nothing to do with God as I see it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by INFERNO View Post
Nice debating technique, give me the same question that I gave you which you never answered. Why should I prove/disprove something? If people believe in god, then let them. There's no need nor useful outcome of me doing some elaborate proof of their god. I can criticize it using biblical passages and interpreting them to show how it goes against itself all I want but that is not going to disprove nor prove god's existence. Besides, suppose I do give a believer my interpretation using biblical passages and suppose the outcome of it indicates that due to the contradictions and such, god doesn't exist. What good is that? If someone believes in it, then one random little paper isn't going to change it and it would only fuel the fire for atheists who demand solid evidence for the beliefs while bashing away going "rah, rah, rah, your god doesn't exist, rah, rah, rah".
INFERNO, if you cannot argue in the same way that you just asked me to, it suggests that you are not even able to. Why ask me to do something you can't do yourself? I do agree that you should let people just believe in whatever wild nonsence the like, just so long as they do not preach and if you are on a religion debate, that is a pretty poor argument to use. We are here to debate religion - why tell people to just let people speculate without facts? Why tell people not to debate? Seems pointless to me. And yes, I understand that some religous people are so tied down to one of many deities, but that doesn't mean that you could make them consider other possibilities and be more open-minded on a debate now does it? You do however, have a bit of a point here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by INFERNO View Post
See above, there's no need for me to prove/disprove god's existence. I have stated in other threads I am an atheist, however, I am not the type of atheist who goes around demanding and showing people that their god doesn't exist. I don't believe in it one bit, however, what I find worse is when a fellow atheist comes along and attempts to refute the belief and demanding that the believers show proof. During this time, that atheist doesn't seem to understand the fundamentals of religion and may not understand the actual belief. In that case, I go to my own side where I show how the atheist is wrong but at the same time, I do not show that the believer's beliefs are correct or incorrect.
See the above. I hate it when religious people say stuff exists and use nthing to back it up. Faith won't do for the reasons that I gave above as well. We should be debating here and thus, refuting others' beliefs with facts and whatnot should be allowed. Likewise, they can do it to me for all I care; so long as they do not expect me to believe stuff without backing it up and explaining the why of it. This would not be preaching. It would only be preaching if they did it outside a debate and simply talk about God as if he exists wihout any proof at all.


Quote:
Originally Posted by INFERNO View Post
I believe that science and religion can be used and believed by the same person providing they don't begin smashing them together. They are not mutually exclusive.
A lot of scientific facts suggest that God doesn't exist. I have heard about this wasp that have their homes in a hole in the ground. They go off to find food for their young in the hole but first, learn the appearance of the area so that they can find it again. When they return with food, they then put it doen and chekc to see if anything is blocking the hole. In the incredible likely event that nothing is blocking it, they then pick the food up and bring it in. Well, one glitch there I'm afraid. One person, when the wasp was checking, he moved the food. The wasp went to ehere it left the food only to find it missing. Consequently, the wasp looked around and then saw it. It then moved the food to the hole and then dropped it just outside and checked the hole again. Naturaully, the man moved the food again and the wasp did the same hting over and over. Basically, the wasp kept re-checking the hole everytime and was not intelligent enough to understand what was going on and thus, the food never entered the hole until the man finally got bored.

INFERNO, this is a scientific fact. Now tell me, did God create unintellgent and flawed wasp? Wouldn't God have created something better which wouldn't be fooled by such simple things? Let's have another exapmle. When giving birth, the anatomy used is shaped to help the baby come out in only one position. If the baby is in any other position, it becomes a whole lot more complicated. Okay, so a lot of the time, the baby comes out correctly, however, this isn't always the case and things get ugly and difficult. Now tell me, did God design this flawed system? Would he not have allowed the baby to come out in several different positonis and allow appropiate anatomy to support this? There are many other scientific facts that question the power or existacne of God. Please think about what I've said.

Quote:
Originally Posted by trevor20800 View Post
Well, see here. I am a Christin and i believe in Creationism, so here is what i think of all of it

Big Bang Theory

Big Bang Theory and the theory of evolution is that, what caused it. What caused everything to explode in the big bang theory. There was not more matter, because according to the law of conservation of matter, matter can not be created or destroyed, so there would be nothing to cause the "big bang" to happen. So if it did happen, what caused it??? and where was all of this matter that was the size of a speck located?
I'm going to stop you right there. You say that something will have had to have made the big bang but tell me, if God existed, who created him? Same principle trevor20800. Also, scientists (or at least scientists that are not biased and use religion to explain thigns where they should use science) admit that there are things that are not fully understood. That's becuase they look for evidence. Also, according to the book called "The Bible", the big bang never happened; God went straight to making Earth and other planets.

Quote:
Originally Posted by trevor20800 View Post
Evolution
Evolution says we evolved from single celled organisms. How is that possible they are single celled, and if that did happen, wouldn't it be cancer! (cancer is the over reproduction of cells). So, if evolution did happend, what casued us to slowly change over time. How did a fish suddenly come out of the water and breath. And what fish did it mate and survive with it to give it legs and arms. That is not how breeding works. Kinda
We adapt over time as our environent does. How can you connect this to cancer? And no, fish do not just jump out of the water and start breathing. The organisms in the sea would have started to (in so many milleniums I might add) adapt a body system that allows that to breath on air and they would then breath in both places. As they get used to land, they start to evolve to support land alone and they loose anything that had been suited to water. Also, they were never fish, tehy were so simplistic, they could easily adapt and become more complicated to live on land. They were never truly designed for water. Fish however, would have been through evolution. Things don't stay the same. They must change to suit the environt and survive. Those that fail to do so die out. It's called natural selection.

Quote:
Originally Posted by trevor20800 View Post
Down to the point

all of this must be cause by something and weather it did happen or not, something must have caused it! done!
As I've explained before, the body does the evolution thing naturally. t has nothign to do with God. Also, you can't say somehting caused the big bang. We do not truly understand it to my knowledge. I believe collecting matter might have caused an explosion but it is unclear what happened befoere that. Lastly, think. As I've said before, who created God? Please think on that one.

So, I'm athiest and for good reason.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Donkey View Post
Perhaps the entire argument [the death penalty] can be summarised in just a sentence.

We kill people who kill people to show others that killing is wrong.
Death is offline   Reply With Quote