You are Here:
The Inevitable Religious talk/debate thread (keep it classy)

Author (Read 16207 times)

Re: The Inevitable Religious talk/debate thread (keep it classy)
« Reply #75 on: December 10, 2011, 02:02:52 AM »
 

Don Boyer

  • VP/Dir. Club Forum/DAC Chair, 52 Plus Joker
  • Administrator
  • Forum Sentinel
  • *
  • 19,172
    Posts
  • Reputation: 415
  • Pick a card, any card...no, not THAT card!

  • Facebook:

a) The difference is that science does not make assumptions and force the evidence or lack thereof to fit that assumption, it asserts and test and is impartial until the results are clear.  I'll completely agree that mistakes and false positives can and will be made but I think that this is a better way to test for truth and until better findings are discovered, better evidence is presented, I will accept that as far as we CAN know, the results of this method of testing are true.

b) I'm sticking to my definition of what atheism is; it is the definition used by the Brights Movement, the Atheist Community of Austin, even Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris et. al.  If you are an atheist, you must also be gnostic or agnostic (this is also true if you are a theist or a deist, or anything else).  Gnosticism is asserting that you know, absolutely what is true regardless of what that assertion is; only a gnostic atheist says 'I believe there is no god'.  An agnostic atheist, like myself says 'I do not believe there is a god'.  Atheism is not a belief but a lack of a particular belief in a deity; this is the definition that is most commonly used.

here's the (contracted) dictionary.com entry;
"
Atheist, agnostic, refer to persons not inclined toward religious belief or a particular form of religious belief. An atheist  is one who denies the existence of a deity or of divine beings. An agnostic  is one who believes it impossible to know anything about God or about the creation of the universe and refrains from commitment to any religious doctrine."

Those are not mutually exclusive; I deny the existence of a deity ("I do not believe in god") but I also accept that it is impossible to know anything a god, if there is one (I'm confident the 'creation' and in fact the notion of a creation can be explained by mankind and will be at some point, probably before too long).

On the point a), I can buy that, no problem.  In fact, that's why I tend to go more with the science than the faith - people actually test science to see what's true and what isn't instead of simply accepting anything on faith.  It's a lot like our democracy and the legal system in the US - it's not perfect, but given the options, it's probably the better choice available.

"I believe there is no god" and "I do not believe there is a god" are two ways of saying the exact same thing, to my knowledge of English.  Is there more that can differentiate the two viewpoints as you're presenting them?

As far as me, I don't fall into either atheistic category.  I don't find either of the above-mentioned statements to be concurrent with my own beliefs.  I don't firmly assert there is or isn't a god, nor do I hold any beliefs either way.  So agnostic, yes, atheistic, no.

In your last paragraph, you state "Those are not mutually exclusive; I deny the existence of a deity ("I do not believe in god") but I also accept that it is impossible to know anything a god, if there is one (I'm confident the 'creation' and in fact the notion of a creation can be explained by mankind and will be at some point, probably before too long)."  Something seems missing here - Ok, you deny the existence of a deity, fine, but you're confident about "creation" being explained by mankind, etc.  There's one sentence in there that I didn't fully understand due to flawed syntax about how you "accept that it is impossible to know anything a god, if there is one", so I'll need you to elaborate on that, but the concept of creation and the concept of a deity aren't necessarily linked.  The Big Bang Theory is a concept of creation and it makes absolutely no mention of a deity's existence or non-existence.

Here is an interesting video.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=LkaH3hEmV3M#!

I couldn't effectively watch this - my computer at work has no audio - but it's not a surprising concept to me at all.  The majority of religious concepts are man-made inventions created with the intent of exercising control over the faithful and influence in the community.  It's how things were done back in the day...
Card Illusionist, NYC Area
Playing Card Design & Development Consultant
Deck Tailoring: Custom Alterations for Magicians and Card Mechanics
Services for Hire - http://thedecktailor.com/
Pre-Made Decks for Sale - http://donboyermagic.com/
 

Re: The Inevitable Religious talk/debate thread (keep it classy)
« Reply #76 on: December 10, 2011, 06:23:48 AM »
 

xela

  • Queen of Clubs
  • *
  • 2,475
    Posts
  • Reputation: 171
  • Aspire. Conceive. Create.

  • DeviantArt:

  • YouTube:
@Curt: That video proves that there are great religious people. This is a man who clearly knows how the world works. As someone who believes no religion created by man is a correct one, I have two choices: To believe what this priest believes (that to follow a religion is merely a way to get closer to God), or to assume God does not exist.

I chose the latter.

The facts are facts - no religion will ever be correct. The Trinity, Allah, Hashem - at best the Judeo-Christian teachings are a framework for a chance to immerse yourself in God in what few ways we can should one exist.

I mean, come on, the phrase "Everything in the Bible is true" is one I have heard very many people say. You have to be foolish to believe that. A real religious man or woman, who wants to do the work of God, would treat the Bible as a fictional story that helps him or her understand how to act in modern society. Consider it a basic guide to morals, if you will. Let it be the cornerstone of your ideas, so that when you don't abide by rules such as "stone to death any child that raises a hand to his father" you don't feel like a hypocrite.

There are ways to be religious, while maintaining logic. I wish more people would use them.
Forum Founder.
 

Re: The Inevitable Religious talk/debate thread (keep it classy)
« Reply #77 on: December 10, 2011, 10:00:25 AM »
 

Kanped

  • Frequent Flyer
  • *
  • 894
    Posts
  • Reputation: 29

  • Facebook:
@Sabacc  I probably could have worded it all better but that's my own imitations and trying to make what I was saying fit with the dictionary definitions. 

Sp, 'I do not believe in god' and 'I believe there is no god' are not the same, as one is a belief and requires faith, whereas one does not.  If you believe that there is no god, any possibility of one ever existing is eradicated in your mind.  I am willing to be proven wrong, with sufficient evidence ('sufficient' would take an awful lot to achieve; the extraordinary requires extraordinary evidence).  I'll say again; atheism is not a belief but a lack of a particular belief.  Beliefs come from Gnosticism; claiming to KNOW something, without evidence.  Atheism does NOT make that claim.
 

Re: The Inevitable Religious talk/debate thread (keep it classy)
« Reply #78 on: December 10, 2011, 10:19:17 AM »
 

John B.

  • Don't you have work you should be doing? We are watching you.
  • Jack of Diamonds
  • *
  • 1,916
    Posts
  • Reputation: 49

  • YouTube:
@Curt: That video proves that there are great religious people. This is a man who clearly knows how the world works. As someone who believes no religion created by man is a correct one, I have two choices: To believe what this priest believes (that to follow a religion is merely a way to get closer to God), or to assume God does not exist.

I chose the latter.

The facts are facts - no religion will ever be correct. The Trinity, Allah, Hashem - at best the Judeo-Christian teachings are a framework for a chance to immerse yourself in God in what few ways we can should one exist.

I mean, come on, the phrase "Everything in the Bible is true" is one I have heard very many people say. You have to be foolish to believe that. A real religious man or woman, who wants to do the work of God, would treat the Bible as a fictional story that helps him or her understand how to act in modern society. Consider it a basic guide to morals, if you will. Let it be the cornerstone of your ideas, so that when you don't abide by rules such as "stone to death any child that raises a hand to his father" you don't feel like a hypocrite.

There are ways to be religious, while maintaining logic. I wish more people would use them.

ok so with the whole stone to death any child thing it does not litterally mean that, i cant help with that one cause i have not read that part but i know it mentions cutting you eyes out so you dont look upon a woman lustfully and its just trying to make you understand
Do you guys even read this? Like I could have the meaning of life here and I doubt you would know it.
 

Re: The Inevitable Religious talk/debate thread (keep it classy)
« Reply #79 on: December 10, 2011, 10:44:39 AM »
 

Kanped

  • Frequent Flyer
  • *
  • 894
    Posts
  • Reputation: 29

  • Facebook:
@MrMagic; do you believe that this was always the case, with every instance of this kind of talk within the Bible, or do you feel that the morality of the world has changed and the reading of these passages has changed to accommodate that?

I'll make my position clear; it seems to me that you have decided what parts to take literally and which metaphorically because you are a good person and the morality that is literally preached within the Bible clashes with your own understanding of right and wrong.
 

Re: The Inevitable Religious talk/debate thread (keep it classy)
« Reply #80 on: December 10, 2011, 10:47:46 AM »
 

John B.

  • Don't you have work you should be doing? We are watching you.
  • Jack of Diamonds
  • *
  • 1,916
    Posts
  • Reputation: 49

  • YouTube:
Knaped i feel that was the intent, also part of it has to do with the history of them time.
Do you guys even read this? Like I could have the meaning of life here and I doubt you would know it.
 

Re: The Inevitable Religious talk/debate thread (keep it classy)
« Reply #81 on: December 10, 2011, 05:02:26 PM »
 

eggman

  • Elite Member
  • *
  • 157
    Posts
  • Reputation: 27
I liked those comments on Hitchens and Buddhist beleif. When talking about Religion, I find it of benefit to discuss more of what you beleive than what you do not beleive. Although, as stated, although I am a Catholic, I have read Hitchens. He was actually asked by the Vatican to present the "opposing" view on the cannonization of Mother Theresa. One of his main points was writting at the end of her life. She had fallen into a deep deppression during which time she wrote about how she felt her works were in vain. One particular quote Hitchens refered to was "I offer up my prayers to heaven and they fall back down and pierce my heart."
 Regarding the gentleman who talks about Buddhist beleifs, I practiced the Buddha way of life for some time. I was fortunate to have the opportunity to live in China, be it only for a few months. While their, I spent a lot of time in monasterys and translating various texts. I followed the Dali Llama which is only one of many sects of Buddhist beleif. The Dali Llama does not like to refer to Buddhist beleifs as religion. He states it is more of a philosophy. I think what finally made me leave the Buddhist thought was reading texts of Tibetan Buddhist which stated belief in God is contrary to Buddhist beliefs. I learned later that several other sects of Bhuddist thought such as that practiced in Vietnam do believe in God. Although no longer a buddhist, I do still practice meditation which I learned and have a deep appreciation for the monks that taught me.
« Last Edit: December 10, 2011, 05:28:33 PM by eggman »
 

Re: The Inevitable Religious talk/debate thread (keep it classy)
« Reply #82 on: December 10, 2011, 11:04:27 PM »
 

xela

  • Queen of Clubs
  • *
  • 2,475
    Posts
  • Reputation: 171
  • Aspire. Conceive. Create.

  • DeviantArt:

  • YouTube:
Just adding this in: http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/hitchens_16_4.html

Interesting read about Mother Theresa - and there are countless more article along those same lines.

Her core ideology outside of fanatical and extreme Catholic views, was that suffering must exist in order for good to occur. She believed that if enough people would suffer, it would bring God back into our world. She was, in short, a loon.

Her care facilities did nothing for the sick. Only the dying were permitted, and they would receive no medication, often would get starved, and be barred from any visitors including their own families. All they received was spiritual comfort in their last days. Go ahead and look at some real photographs of what these "homes for the dying" were like. You may be scarred for life. I would argue that it would be more pleasant to die alone than in one of those torture facilities. Many of these people could have been saved with modern medicine, something dear Theresa advocated against.

Meanwhile, she received top medical care from all around the world.

The money she collected for her cause? Almost none of it went to the people suffering, and almost all of it went straight to the Church. In a single account of hers, she held over $50 million, of which none was used for aid of any kind.

Her most basic views are absolutely insane. She has the intelligence of a baboon, claiming things like "contraception and abortion are the greatest threats to world peace." Meanwhile, I am over here thinking the greatest threats to peace are war, weapons and hate.

She has done absolutely nothing to better the world in any way, and her only contributions were to the Church. She is deified by many people, but not me. I will not be treating her existence with respect.


Forum Founder.
 

Re: The Inevitable Religious talk/debate thread (keep it classy)
« Reply #83 on: December 11, 2011, 03:22:03 AM »
 

Don Boyer

  • VP/Dir. Club Forum/DAC Chair, 52 Plus Joker
  • Administrator
  • Forum Sentinel
  • *
  • 19,172
    Posts
  • Reputation: 415
  • Pick a card, any card...no, not THAT card!

  • Facebook:
@Sabacc  I probably could have worded it all better but that's my own imitations and trying to make what I was saying fit with the dictionary definitions. 

Sp, 'I do not believe in god' and 'I believe there is no god' are not the same, as one is a belief and requires faith, whereas one does not.  If you believe that there is no god, any possibility of one ever existing is eradicated in your mind.  I am willing to be proven wrong, with sufficient evidence ('sufficient' would take an awful lot to achieve; the extraordinary requires extraordinary evidence).  I'll say again; atheism is not a belief but a lack of a particular belief.  Beliefs come from Gnosticism; claiming to KNOW something, without evidence.  Atheism does NOT make that claim.

OK, so to say "I do not believe in god" still implies that such a god may exist, but that the speaker doesn't believe in it, in much the same way that some don't believe in psychic powers, ghosts, etc.

To say "I believe there is no god" means that the speaker is firm in the belief that god doesn't exist, period.

Am I getting this right?  Because to me, the word "believe" appears in both sentences, and they're both beliefs.  And atheism is still a belief, though not in the sense of an organized religion being a belief.  You believe in the existence of a universe in which there is no god, and it's the universe you live in.  A belief such as this wouldn't really be gnosticism, as least not as I know the word.  It's like being given a choice of a trayful of different desserts after dinner and saying you aren't choosing any of them and you won't have dessert - that statement, that decision to not choose any desserts is still a choice in itself.

Please note that I'm not trying to be a smartass, I'm just trying to get total clarity on this topic - it's been an engaging and fun discussion at times.

Regarding the gentleman who talks about Buddhist beleifs, I practiced the Buddha way of life for some time. I was fortunate to have the opportunity to live in China, be it only for a few months. While their, I spent a lot of time in monasterys and translating various texts. I followed the Dali Llama which is only one of many sects of Buddhist beleif. The Dali Llama does not like to refer to Buddhist beleifs as religion. He states it is more of a philosophy. I think what finally made me leave the Buddhist thought was reading texts of Tibetan Buddhist which stated belief in God is contrary to Buddhist beliefs. I learned later that several other sects of Bhuddist thought such as that practiced in Vietnam do believe in God. Although no longer a buddhist, I do still practice meditation which I learned and have a deep appreciation for the monks that taught me.

Zen Buddhism, as I've had it explained to me, is rather different from Tibetan Buddhism.  It's simpler and more stripped down, in a way.  Some actually follow the beliefs without taking them as their religion, simply as their philosophy - in America they're sometimes referred to as "Zennists" rather than "Buddhists".  Zen doesn't require you to believe or not believe in any deity, and Buddha himself is certainly not a deity and not to be worshiped as one.
Card Illusionist, NYC Area
Playing Card Design & Development Consultant
Deck Tailoring: Custom Alterations for Magicians and Card Mechanics
Services for Hire - http://thedecktailor.com/
Pre-Made Decks for Sale - http://donboyermagic.com/
 

Re: The Inevitable Religious talk/debate thread (keep it classy)
« Reply #84 on: December 11, 2011, 08:34:17 AM »
 

Kanped

  • Frequent Flyer
  • *
  • 894
    Posts
  • Reputation: 29

  • Facebook:
I actually agree with you that there is a leap of faith or belief required to say that ANYTHING exists but that method of defining things is of no use to anyone.  Since I perceive these thoughts and an assumed someone perceives the words I've written, pointing out that these may not exist is redundant. 

For that reason, I feel that it is reasonable to assume that anything observable and testable by science that has produced repeatable, solid evidence exists and is true; the observations made in those conditions, I feel are even more valuable than our own perceptions.  This is why I work on the assumption of a godless universe; to me there has been no perception of a deity.  I do not believe that there is a universe in which there is no god; I assume as such based upon the best available perceptions (scientific research) available to me.  There is no faith required and as such is not a belief.  Perhaps this is just semantics and confused definition again; as I understand it, a belief is accepting something as true without sufficient evidence to do so.

You understanding of the difference between what I would call agnostic and gnostic atheism is correct.  'Believe' does appear in both statements but 'I like chocolate' and 'I don't like chocolate' both contain 'chocolate'.  It is most definitely a choice but as far as the human understanding of the universe and our own perceptions have taken us, it seems to me to be the most accurate choice; I am concerned only with what is true.  As I say, questioning our perceptions cannot be useful because they are all we have to go on; everything we can know about the universe crumbles away if its very existence is called into question and while it may not exist, we can never know this so it is a fruitless endeavour to work under that assumption.
 

Re: The Inevitable Religious talk/debate thread (keep it classy)
« Reply #85 on: December 11, 2011, 04:07:26 PM »
 

Don Boyer

  • VP/Dir. Club Forum/DAC Chair, 52 Plus Joker
  • Administrator
  • Forum Sentinel
  • *
  • 19,172
    Posts
  • Reputation: 415
  • Pick a card, any card...no, not THAT card!

  • Facebook:
@Kanped - I get the impression now that while we use slightly different interpretations, we're basically of a similar mind on this.  If I've got this right, you state the evidence thus far seems to lean towards the universe being godless, I state that the evidence shows neither the presence nor absence of any god, but beyond that, we're both agnostics awaiting proof one way or another.  Correct?
:)
Card Illusionist, NYC Area
Playing Card Design & Development Consultant
Deck Tailoring: Custom Alterations for Magicians and Card Mechanics
Services for Hire - http://thedecktailor.com/
Pre-Made Decks for Sale - http://donboyermagic.com/
 

Re: The Inevitable Religious talk/debate thread (keep it classy)
« Reply #86 on: December 11, 2011, 04:56:32 PM »
 

eggman

  • Elite Member
  • *
  • 157
    Posts
  • Reputation: 27
I did not mean to bring up Mother Theresa to start another thing about her. My point was actually about Christopher Hitchens. I could provide copious amounts of documentation about Mother Theresa but what is the point to do so here? To the gentleman who mentioned Zen Buddhists, please correct me if I am wrong but is not Zen Buddhists beleif mainly Japanese Buddhism. Just asking for my clarification. Thanks.
 

Re: The Inevitable Religious talk/debate thread (keep it classy)
« Reply #87 on: December 11, 2011, 05:37:18 PM »
 

Kanped

  • Frequent Flyer
  • *
  • 894
    Posts
  • Reputation: 29

  • Facebook:
@Kanped - I get the impression now that while we use slightly different interpretations, we're basically of a similar mind on this.  If I've got this right, you state the evidence thus far seems to lean towards the universe being godless, I state that the evidence shows neither the presence nor absence of any god, but beyond that, we're both agnostics awaiting proof one way or another.  Correct?
:)

Pretty much; I do call myself an atheist by my own definition but I am unquestionably agnostic.  I would personally probably go slightly further towards the anti-theism camp than you tend to lean and I might consider myself less non-committal than I gauge your position to be.  To me, the evidence dictating that there is no reason to believe in god is as compelling as the evidence for believing in the existence of myself.  The chances of there being a god, especially one we can comprehend, communicate with etc. is so vastly small that I choose to ignore it completely, in the same way that I choose to ignore the possibility that I don't exist.  I can't say that possibility isn't there (it is) but there is nothing useful I can do with it.

I don't think I've ever put it like this before but while I will not say 'I believe there is no god', if undeniable evidence could somehow be found that conclusively proves that there was no god, my life and my outlook on it would not change at all.
 

Re: The Inevitable Religious talk/debate thread (keep it classy)
« Reply #88 on: December 12, 2011, 01:09:53 AM »
 

Don Boyer

  • VP/Dir. Club Forum/DAC Chair, 52 Plus Joker
  • Administrator
  • Forum Sentinel
  • *
  • 19,172
    Posts
  • Reputation: 415
  • Pick a card, any card...no, not THAT card!

  • Facebook:
@Kanped - I get the impression now that while we use slightly different interpretations, we're basically of a similar mind on this.  If I've got this right, you state the evidence thus far seems to lean towards the universe being godless, I state that the evidence shows neither the presence nor absence of any god, but beyond that, we're both agnostics awaiting proof one way or another.  Correct?
 :)

Pretty much; I do call myself an atheist by my own definition but I am unquestionably agnostic.  I would personally probably go slightly further towards the anti-theism camp than you tend to lean and I might consider myself less non-committal than I gauge your position to be.  To me, the evidence dictating that there is no reason to believe in god is as compelling as the evidence for believing in the existence of myself.  The chances of there being a god, especially one we can comprehend, communicate with etc. is so vastly small that I choose to ignore it completely, in the same way that I choose to ignore the possibility that I don't exist.  I can't say that possibility isn't there (it is) but there is nothing useful I can do with it.

I don't think I've ever put it like this before but while I will not say 'I believe there is no god', if undeniable evidence could somehow be found that conclusively proves that there was no god, my life and my outlook on it would not change at all.

I recall hearing someone quote from Sartre - I'll paraphrase.

Sartre opted to believe in God.  When asked why, he gave a simple explanation.  If he believes in God, Heaven, etc. and it turns out that God exists, great - he get all the wondrous after-life benefits of going to Heaven as a believer.  If he believes in God and it turns out God doesn't exist, it won't make any difference to him once he's gone.  The same applies if he doesn't believe God exists and there is no God.  But if God does exist, and he chooses not to believe in him, there are penalties in holding such belief once he dies!

But yes, we seem to have finally narrowed things down for where we stand!  ;)

@eggman - Zen originated in China as Ch'an and was brought to Japan by a Chinese monk named Bodhidharma, the founder of Ch'an.  Zen is the Japanese form of the Chinese word Ch'an, which in turn is the Chinese form of the Pali word jhana, which means "meditation".  Check out Wikipedia or buddhanet.net (or one of the countless other online resources for information about Buddhism) if you want to know more.  As an Internet-connected Buddhist, you should be aware of such resources, right?
Card Illusionist, NYC Area
Playing Card Design & Development Consultant
Deck Tailoring: Custom Alterations for Magicians and Card Mechanics
Services for Hire - http://thedecktailor.com/
Pre-Made Decks for Sale - http://donboyermagic.com/
 

Re: The Inevitable Religious talk/debate thread (keep it classy)
« Reply #89 on: December 12, 2011, 06:00:10 AM »
 

Kanped

  • Frequent Flyer
  • *
  • 894
    Posts
  • Reputation: 29

  • Facebook:
@Sabacc; that's called 'Pascal's Wager' (coming from  Blaise Pascal, not Sartre, who actively spoke out against it).  The problem with it is that it gives no clue which god the wagerer is supposed to believe in; just pick one?  How about my old hi-fi system, maybe that's god?  It's every bit as likely that there's an afterlife but you can only go there if you're an atheist.
 

does God exist?
« Reply #90 on: March 27, 2012, 08:27:13 PM »
 

eggman

  • Elite Member
  • *
  • 157
    Posts
  • Reputation: 27
never mind .............
« Last Edit: March 27, 2012, 08:50:16 PM by eggman »
 

Re: The Inevitable Religious talk/debate thread (keep it classy)
« Reply #91 on: March 27, 2012, 08:41:23 PM »
 

Curt


  • 52 Plus Joker Member
  • Frequent Flyer
  • *
  • 780
    Posts
  • Reputation: 74

  • Facebook:
Eggman, I just added your post to this thread since it basically covers what is being discussed in this topic.

For the newer members of the discourse, remember to keep with thread free of snarky comments and just state opinions and arguments for what ever your personal beliefs are.

 

Re: The Inevitable Religious talk/debate thread (keep it classy)
« Reply #92 on: March 27, 2012, 08:48:10 PM »
 

eggman

  • Elite Member
  • *
  • 157
    Posts
  • Reputation: 27
Eggman, I just added your post to this thread since it basically covers what is being discussed in this topic.

For the newer members of the discourse, remember to keep with thread free of snarky comments and just state opinions and arguments for what ever your personal beliefs are.
  Alright, I deleted my post. I did not want to bring this thread back up as it became unproductive. Tnaks anyway.
 

Re: The Inevitable Religious talk/debate thread (keep it classy)
« Reply #93 on: March 27, 2012, 09:01:07 PM »
 

Curt


  • 52 Plus Joker Member
  • Frequent Flyer
  • *
  • 780
    Posts
  • Reputation: 74

  • Facebook:
I understand that this thread may have died out, but I have some trouble finding how a thread about this topic will ever be "productive". I very highly doubt that anyones religious views will be swayed one way or another by what someone who they have never met saying something via an online forum, and if they do, their belief or lack of belief is very weak. This discussion will always boil down to, here are the reasons I believe and here are the reasons I don't. The side that believes will always find some sort of logic to support their belief and the other side will state their logic to deny it. No matter how hard anyone tries, there is going to be a stalemate between theists and atheists because both have their opinions and its damn near impossible to covert either.

In short, feel free to post and respond to how you feel about religion, but do not expect to convert anyone into believing in a deity or visa versa, no matter how strong of an argument can be made. Religion is just one of those things that people have their opinions set in stone about.

As I stated earlier in the thread, I would not call myself religious in any sense but have no issue with those who choose otherwise. I am just not a fan of people putting so much effort into convincing each other one way or the other, it is up to the individual to believe what ever he or she may want to.
« Last Edit: March 27, 2012, 09:04:48 PM by Curt »
 

Re: The Inevitable Religious talk/debate thread (keep it classy)
« Reply #94 on: March 27, 2012, 09:04:04 PM »
 

eggman

  • Elite Member
  • *
  • 157
    Posts
  • Reputation: 27
I understand. I just wanted to start a new discussion based around some reading I was doing. Once I saw it moved to this thread I decided to delete it. Not a big deal.
 

Re: The Inevitable Religious talk/debate thread (keep it classy)
« Reply #95 on: March 27, 2012, 09:18:30 PM »
 

NathanCanadas

  • King of Hearts
  • *
  • 2,767
    Posts
  • Reputation: 65
  • Check out my sales post in my signature!

  • YouTube:
I understand. I just wanted to start a new discussion based around some reading I was doing. Once I saw it moved to this thread I decided to delete it. Not a big deal.
How did you manage to delete it? Did you just edit it and delete the text?
 

Re: The Inevitable Religious talk/debate thread (keep it classy)
« Reply #96 on: March 27, 2012, 09:22:57 PM »
 

Aaron

  • Haven Citizen
  • *
  • 1,296
    Posts
  • Reputation: 64

  • Facebook:

  • Skype:

  • YouTube:
My personal opinion on religion is this:

I think that there is a god, but I think he judges you based on what kind of person you were, not if you worshiped him your whole life and spent all your life tryng to please him. I don't really believe what the bible says, mostly because of how many times it has been translated and edited throughout history. I don't like how the Pope has so much power over people in Catholosicm, He is just a person. I think maybe at one point, a very very long time ago, there may have been some truth to what the bible said, but not anymore. There has been so much corruption in religion throughout history, I just don't like it. Anyway I put it kinda short there so ya thats what I believe.
People say nothing's impossible, but I do nothing everyday.

Today I found something that reminded me of you. But don't worry I flushed and everything went back to normal.
 

Re: The Inevitable Religious talk/debate thread (keep it classy)
« Reply #97 on: March 27, 2012, 09:31:17 PM »
 

Kanped

  • Frequent Flyer
  • *
  • 894
    Posts
  • Reputation: 29

  • Facebook:
CBJ; converting atheists to theism; very difficult, almost never happens.  Converting theists to atheism, on the other hand?  Most of us were believers, once.

Since the topic's alive again; Aaron, why do you believe that there is a god?
 

Re: The Inevitable Religious talk/debate thread (keep it classy)
« Reply #98 on: March 27, 2012, 09:51:47 PM »
 

Aaron

  • Haven Citizen
  • *
  • 1,296
    Posts
  • Reputation: 64

  • Facebook:

  • Skype:

  • YouTube:
CBJ; converting atheists to theism; very difficult, almost never happens.  Converting theists to atheism, on the other hand?  Most of us were believers, once.

Since the topic's alive again; Aaron, why do you believe that there is a god?
I don't know I just think that there is some higher power that is above us, that you go somewhere when you die, idk but I think it is just that I don't really know what I believe, I just think that religion is a load of crap. When I acctually think about it though, I have no idea why I think there is a god, maybe it is just for something to turn to when you feel down, like an imaginary friend. But there really is no solid evidence about anything in religion. When I think about what I believe in, I just really don't know, I think what actually happens when we die will be so extrordinary that we can't even imagine it. Or we will just die and be done idk.

I do respect people who are religous though, I have a friend who is Mormon, he believes very heavily in god and the bible and everything, I just don't and he acepts me for that also. But
People say nothing's impossible, but I do nothing everyday.

Today I found something that reminded me of you. But don't worry I flushed and everything went back to normal.
 

Re: The Inevitable Religious talk/debate thread (keep it classy)
« Reply #99 on: March 27, 2012, 09:53:35 PM »
 

eggman

  • Elite Member
  • *
  • 157
    Posts
  • Reputation: 27
But I demand physical proof!

St. Thomas Aquinas proposed five proofs in which humans can use natural reason to prove the existence of God through extrinsic evidence. Through the use of natural reason we can logically conclude in the existence of God. Yet strictly speaking, God’s existence cannot be definitively proven through laboratory tests and experimental science. Not all things are subject to experimental science. It is illogical to say, "If I can not see, taste, touch, feel or hear something it must not exist!" Reason and extrinsic evidence must also be considered. Experimental science and intrinsic evidence cannot definitively prove historical events, and yet by reason we know they have occurred. And surely were science falters and extrinsic evidence fail, reason and intrinsic evidence can prove the spiritual which can not be measured by material sciences.

St. Thomas Aquinas five proofs of the existence of God

Aquinas’ first proof is through the argument of motion. It can be noted that some things in the universe are in motion and it follows that whatever is in the state of motion must have been placed in motion by another such act. Motion in itself is nothing less then the reduction of something from the state of potentiality to actuality. Because something can not be in potentiality and actuality simultaneously, it follows that something can not be a mover of itself. A simple example of this is a rubber ball motionless on a flat surface. It has the potential for motion, but is not currently in the state of actual motion. In order for this to happen, something else in motion must set the ball in motion, be that gravity, another moving object or the wind. And yet something must have set that object in motion as well (even gravity, a force caused by matter warping the space-time fabric, attributes its existence to pre-existing matter and the exchange of pre-existing graviton particles). Thus pre-existing motions cause all motions. Yet, this chain can not extend into infinity because that would deny a first mover that set all else in motion. Without a first mover, nothing could be set in motion. Thus we acknowledge the first and primary mover as God.

The second proof follows closely with the first and expounds the principle of causality. St. Thomas explains that in the world of sense there is an order of causes and effects. There is a cause for all things such as the existence of a clock. And nothing can cause itself into existence. A clock cannot will itself into existence, it must be created and caused into existence by something else. A clockmaker creates a clock and causes its existence, and yet the material of the clock and the clockmaker did not cause themselves to exist. Something else must have caused their existence. All things can attribute their existence to a first cause that began all causes and all things. We call this first cause God.

Aquinas next explains that things of this universe have a transitory nature in which they are generated and then corrupt over time. Because of this the things of nature can be said to be "possible to be and possible not to be". Since it is impossible for these things always to exist, then it indicates a time when they did not exist. If there are things which are transitory (and are possible not to be) then at one time there could have been nothing in existence. However, as was already explained in his second proof, there must have been a first cause that was not of transitory nature that could have generated the beginning of nature.

In his fourth point Aquinas notes that there is a certain gradation in all things. For instance we can group things that are hot according to varying degrees of the amount of heat perceptible in that object. In classifying objects there is always something which displays the maximum fullness of that characteristic. Thus universal qualities in man such as justice and goodness must attribute their varying qualities to God; the source of maximum and perfect justice and goodness.

Finally, Thomas Aquinas says that the order of nature presupposes a higher plan in creation. The laws governing the universe presuppose a universal legislature who authored the order of the universe. We cannot say that chance creates order in the universe. If you drop a cup on the floor it shatters into bits and has become disordered. But if you were to drop bits of the cup, they would not assemble together into a cup. This is an example of the inherent disorder prevalent in the universe when things are left to chance. The existence of order and natural laws presupposes a divine intelligence who authored the universe into being.

Conclusions from St. Thomas Aquinas’ proofs

These proofs reveal many truths about the divine God. The existence of life and the order of creation can be attributed to God; the cause and creator of the universe. From the principal of causality we know that God is infinite and beyond the laws of nature and our human universe. In order for him to be the first cause, he must have been in existence before all else in the universe. We know that nature is composed of things that are not eternal but are transitory. Thus the universe attributes its transitory nature to a first cause that cannot be defined as transitory and is thus not a part of nature. So God is neither of a finite lifetime, nor is he "inseparably a part of nature". Nature by itself is not God. We also know that God is the divine source of justice and goodness; attributes found in all men and woman in varying degrees. In fact our universal feelings of justice demand a God. Justice is not a human attribute created by us, it is a quality imprinted in our very being by our creator. A being who must also posses the very quintessence of justice in order to endow us with justice.

Finally, we know that God is personal. It can be likewise argued that the qualities that make humans personal and conscience are what place us above other created things such as plants and animals. Since God is a higher order of being, he is likewise the very quintessence of a personal being.

But why do bad things happen to good people?

So where is this supremely good, personal and just God in our world? Why so much misery and suffering? This is a fundamental mystery for which human reason cannot fully explain. Although we can reasonably conclude to the existence of God we cannot hope to fully fathom the infinite and divine intellect of our creator with finite human minds.

However, we can reason that God has decided to endow us with free will, a tremendous gift that gives humans the freedom to choose between love of God and hatred of him. We can choose between good and evil. So why did he decide to give us the freedom to choose evil? It is enough to say that God created us as human beings and not as preprogrammed robots. In his infinite goodness he desired the free love of humanity over forced obedience to his will. For love cannot be forced, it must be given by desire and choice.

Because of our free will, some people have embraced evil and selfishness to satiate themselves at the expense of others. True evil is a result of desire of oneself over that of God, and thus sin and evil is a rejection of God. Because God is of infinite perfection, beatitude, and justice, he cannot allow sin to go unpunished. Neither can he allow sinful people to embrace him in his fullness in heaven. Thus our world, tainted by sin, is racked with much sadness and suffering. Sin separates us from the all-pleasing and loving God.

As emphasized before, the simultaneous existence of good and evil is a mystery to human intelligence, but it in no way proves that God does not exist. It only points to our own finite and limited existence. Our God is infinitely good and just, and thus as the source of our lives were are created to be his friends and children. We are called to live in goodness and justice as a response to our love of God. God loves us, but it is up to us to return his love.

           Alright. Since it is starting again I figured I would put this back up. Just a little something I have been reading lately. It is from Summa Theological. Just wanted to see what people thought.