Religious debate

[Colonel Ronan]

Thank God that's settled.

Also, a random religious question. Why do people who believe in God feel the need to capitalize "He, His" etc. when they are referring to him?

 

[RR7]

Thank God that's settled.

Also, a random religious question. Why do people who believe in God feel the need to capitalize "He, His" etc. when they are referring to him?

Wait, so god is the loch ness monster? He is an angry and vengeful monster.

 

[blazerboy30]

It depends on if you believe those events happened though.

The point is that it would be much more difficult today with so much more documentation and recorded history.

 

[Colonel Ronan]

Wait, so god is the loch ness monster? He is an angry and vengeful monster.

That's Puff the Magic Dragon, silly!

 

[BoBoBREWSKI]

Rent Religulous!

Good, funny movie.

 

[BoBoBREWSKI]

There is nothing to debate. On the religious side you have a bunch of folks who have no proof what they believe in exist, and on the scientific side you have a bunch of folks who can't prove that the stuff on the religious folks side doesn't exist, because unfortunately, it is very hard to research something that does not exist, so you will never find proof it doesn't exist. It is similar to chasing bigfoot or the lockness monster. But much harder.

Bigfoot is real. HOWIE saw it! :dancewookiee:

 

[Eastoff]

The point is that it would be much more difficult today with so much more documentation and recorded history.

Well then by that logic, Ancient Greek/Roman mythology, Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity, Judaism, Muslim, Jainism, Sikhism are equally true.

 

[blazerboy30]

Well then by that logic, Ancient Greek/Roman mythology, Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity, Judaism, Muslim, Jainism, Sikhism are equally true.

I don't see this logic.

Are you saying that something like the belief that lightning is bolts being thrown down from a god, which we have proven as false, is the same as a belief in a God that created the universe, which we haven't proven as false?

 

[The_Lillard_King]

I don't really follow all this stuff . . . but if one believes in Adam and Eve, does that mean they don't believe in the ice age and dinosaurs and that stuff . . . or did Adam and Eve come after the dinosaur age?

Told you I don't know much about this . . .

 

[Idog1976]

but how will you keep the street sweepers doing their jobs?

edit:

but then what do you believe? The Bible was created by organized religion, so are you picking and choosing which organized religion is okay? The Catholics back in the day chose which books went into the new testament and which were rejected.

The real question is what do you believe? Quantum uncertainty or Deterministic physics set in motion by the big bang? Quick question, do you believe in Free Will?

 

[Idog1976]

Well then by that logic, Ancient Greek/Roman mythology, Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity, Judaism, Muslim, Jainism, Sikhism are equally true.

All except Greek/Roman mythology hold the golden thread of truth IMHO. The mythology ones are stores of cultural wisdom they do not point to the truth as those others all do in some way. Sihkism might be another exception, I don't know enough about them other then that they were Hindus that formed a group dedicated to fighting the invading Muslim Princes.

 

[Chutney]

I think it's rather obvious that we live in a more skeptical, rationality-based world than when most religions started. So if you're wondering why we view religions like Scientology less reverently/seriously than Christianity, it's because they were borne in a more skeptical era and are faced with a higher standard of proof. However those ancient religious prophets may have been, there's no doubting that they'd face a lot more criticism and disbelief than they did. Would they have faced as much criticism/disbelief as Scientologists do now? I'm not sure we can answer that.

Regardless of where you stand on the "Is religion fictitious, or not?" question, I think you have to recognize the ways in which humanity has created or added to religion. A lot of what modern religions consist of can't be traced to its origin, and are human inventions that are meant to respond to some particular need at a given time. You need to consider that dynamic process between religion and its followers (or creators, depending on your perspective), because it helps explain why the "older religions" are treated more respectfully than the newer ones: those older ones have developed into more than basic spiritual teachings. They embody cultural and social norms that are steeped in history and often have little do with with God-related matters.

Also, a random religious question. Why do people who believe in God feel the need to capitalize "He, His" etc. when they are referring to him?

People who believe in monotheistic religions (eg: Christianity, Judaism, Islam) usually do that to distinguish their belief in a single god from religions that believe in many (eg: Hinduism). An aspect of respect has also developed around it as well.

 

[barfo]

I don't see this logic.

Are you saying that something like the belief that lightning is bolts being thrown down from a god, which we have proven as false, is the same as a belief in a God that created the universe, which we haven't proven as false?

How has lightning being thrown by a god been disproven? If one is willing to believe that god created the earth in 6 days despite all scientific evidence to the contrary, then one should be equally willing to believe in an invisible lightning thrower.

barfo

 

[Chutney]

All except Greek/Roman mythology hold the golden thread of truth IMHO. The mythology ones are stores of cultural wisdom they do not point to the truth as those others all do in some way. Sihkism might be another exception, I don't know enough about them other then that they were Hindus that formed a group dedicated to fighting the invading Muslim Princes.

Sikhism developed as a kind of amalgamation of Hindu and Islamic spiritual wisdom (it had founding writers from both faiths). Culturally, it's very similar to Hinduism, but spirituality, it's much closer to Islam (I'd say it's similar to Baha'ism) because of its monotheism. That's a really really brief summary of it, though. The connection to Hinduism and Islam is a good way to understand its history, but it's very different from both religions.

 

[blazerboy30]

How has lightning being thrown by a god been disproven?

Huh? I don't understand this.

If one is willing to believe that god created the earth in 6 days despite all scientific evidence to the contrary, then one should be equally willing to believe in an invisible lightning thrower.

barfo

What is your point? Their are huge numbers (most?) of Christians that don't take the "6 day" thing literally.

 

[rocketeer]

why wouldn't they be? What does age have to do with it?

There are religions older than christianity. Should we take those more seriously?

barfo

age matters but not necessarily the age itself. just that we know the exact events around when it started. when a science fiction writer starts a religion 60 years ago, it seems pretty easy to dismiss as complete bullshit and that's why most people don't care when it is instantly dismissed. same with someone wanted to worship the jedi or a spaghetti monster.

is that difficult to understand? it says nothing towards what religion is correct or if any religion is correct, just that it is easy to dismiss religions when they pop up out of nothing and we are basically there to witness it.

 

[barfo]

Huh? I don't understand this.

I'm saying, if one is willing to ascribe things to the action of a god, then one can ascribe lightning bolts to a god. Just because it appears to you to be electrical discharges - well, that's the way God intended it to appear to you. You cannot understand his ways, so don't even try. Just accept that he throws lightning bolts.

What is your point? Their are huge numbers (most?) of Christians that don't take the "6 day" thing literally.

Then they are going to BURN IN HELL
My point was that belief in a deity requires suspension of rationality, and if you are going to do that, you are capable of believing in absolutely anything. It's just a matter of choice or chance (or god's will) what irrational set of beliefs is picked.

barfo

 

[barfo]

is that difficult to understand? it says nothing towards what religion is correct or if any religion is correct, just that it is easy to dismiss religions when they pop up out of nothing and we are basically there to witness it.

Logically, one would extrapolate backwards from the current experience and conclude that prior religions are likely to be every bit as phony (or not) as newer religions. Human nature hasn't changed much in the past 2000 years.

barfo

 

[blazerboy30]

I'm saying, if one is willing to ascribe things to the action of a god, then one can ascribe lightning bolts to a god. Just because it appears to you to be electrical discharges - well, that's the way God intended it to appear to you. You cannot understand his ways, so don't even try. Just accept that he throws lightning bolts.



Then they are going to BURN IN HELL
My point was that belief in a deity requires suspension of rationality, and if you are going to do that, you are capable of believing in absolutely anything. It's just a matter of choice or chance (or god's will) what irrational set of beliefs is picked.

barfo

I agree with most of what you wrote, except the "irrational" part. If we don't know how something was created, or how it works, or how it exists, then it isn't irrational at all to believe that God created it.

 

[rocketeer]

Logically, one would extrapolate backwards from the current experience and conclude that prior religions are likely to be every bit as phony (or not) as newer religions. Human nature hasn't changed much in the past 2000 years.

barfo

you don't see how a religion that has basically existed since the beginning of recorded history is harder to instantly dismiss as false than one started within the past 60 years by a science fiction writer?

 

[barfo]

I agree with most of what you wrote, except the "irrational" part. If we don't know how something was created, or how it works, or how it exists, then it isn't irrational at all to believe that God created it.

Except that we've had a long history now of people ascribing things to god because they didn't understand how it worked, and then later on someone figures out how it works or where it came from. So it seems rather foolish to continue to ascribe things to god just because we don't yet understand them. God keeps getting smaller and smaller, and yet all along people draw lines in the sand and say, well, this is it. What's left is really god. And then the rising tide of science washes away the line, and someone draws a new line.

Now you may point out that there is such a thing as a high tide line, and I'll agree that perhaps we will one day reach the limits of our ability to increase our understanding. But it is very clear we haven't reached that point yet. The tide is still coming in (global warming, don't cha know) and so it seems silly to be drawing lines in the sand today and saying "everything on the other side is god".

barfo

 

[barfo]

you don't see how a religion that has basically existed since the beginning of recorded history is harder to instantly dismiss as false than one started within the past 60 years by a science fiction writer?

I can see how it might be harder for some people to dismiss it. I don't have any such difficulty myself.

barfo

 

[Colonel Ronan]

People who believe in monotheistic religions (eg: Christianity, Judaism, Islam) usually do that to distinguish their belief in a single god from religions that believe in many (eg: Hinduism). An aspect of respect has also developed around it as well.

Ah, I see, thanks.

Does The Bible also refer to the Christian God as "He, Him, etc."?

 

[Chutney]

I can see how it might be harder for some people to dismiss it. I don't have any such difficulty myself.

barfo

It's a matter of intention, as far as I'm concerned. They may become distorted over the years, but these older religions were all founded intending to address some pressing need that existed within the surrounding populace. Greek/Roman religions attempted to preserve and glorify a particular cultural legacy, Judaism developed for those disillusioned with religion confined by ethnic boundaries, Christianity sought to fullfill the promises of Judaism, Islam addressed individuals who felt oppressed by warring mercantile tribes. What has Scientology sought to answer? It hasn't addressed some underlying questions in society, so much as its tricked and preyed upon individuals.

You just have to look at how quickly these "older religions" became popular. None of them started off in a position of power where they could force individuals to subscribe to their belief system. People voluntarily subscribed because they felt that they offered something relevant to their current situation/mindset. It's no different than political movements (eg: Marxism).

 

[barfo]

It's a matter of intention, as far as I'm concerned. They may become distorted over the years, but these older religions were all founded to address some pressing need that existed within the surrounding populace. Greek/Roman religions attempted to preserve and exalt a certain cultural legacy, Judaism developed for those disillusioned with religion confined by ethnic boundaries, Christianity sought to fullfill the promises of Judaism, Islam addressed individuals who felt oppressed by warring mercantile tribes. What has Scientology sought to answer? It hasn't addressed some underlying questions in society, so much as its tricked and preyed upon individuals.

I don't know much about scientology, but it is clear that at least some of its devotees think it adds something to their lives. You can say they are being tricked, but one could say that about any religion.

You just have to look at how quickly these "older religions" became popular. None of them started off in a position of power where they could force individuals to subscribe to their belief system. People voluntarily subscribed because they felt that they offered something relevant to their current situation/mindset. It's no different than political movements (eg: Marxism).

How is that any different than Scientology?

barfo

 

[rocketeer]

I can see how it might be harder for some people to dismiss it. I don't have any such difficulty myself.

barfo

that's nice. do you disagree with my response as an answer to julius' question about why some religions are routinely mocked but others aren't?

 

[Eastoff]

I don't see this logic.

Are you saying that something like the belief that lightning is bolts being thrown down from a god, which we have proven as false, is the same as a belief in a God that created the universe, which we haven't proven as false?

and that there was only one man and one woman to start, because inbreeding wouldn't impact things, right? Or how to fit exactly two of every species onto a boat for 40 days and have ALL survive? (what were they feeding the lions, unicorns and sprites?)

 

[Eastoff]

The real question is what do you believe? Quantum uncertainty or Deterministic physics set in motion by the big bang? Quick question, do you believe in Free Will?

There is a limit to knowing exact data for everything. This leaves free will open.

 

[Eastoff]

Huh? I don't understand this.




What is your point? Their are huge numbers (most?) of Christians that don't take the "6 day" thing literally.

At what point do you say "well we don't believe lightening is real" but "6 days isn't real either" is okay? It seems like you could flip this around. "most greeks don't REALLY think zeus throws lightening, but why would anyone really make the world in 6 days?!"

 

[Eastoff]

age matters but not necessarily the age itself. just that we know the exact events around when it started. when a science fiction writer starts a religion 60 years ago, it seems pretty easy to dismiss as complete bullshit and that's why most people don't care when it is instantly dismissed. same with someone wanted to worship the jedi or a spaghetti monster.

is that difficult to understand? it says nothing towards what religion is correct or if any religion is correct, just that it is easy to dismiss religions when they pop up out of nothing and we are basically there to witness it.

most don't really believe in the flying spaghetti monster, he's just trying to prove that you have to teach EVERY single religion if you want to teach creationism.