Are you religious?

[noblok]

However what I don't see is why there is this science vs religion debate. The belief in science doesn't mean that you can't also believe in God as well, they are not mutually exclusive. I believe that rather than a "god of the gaps" (which is really continuing the science vs religion debate) that God created, and works through, the laws of science. So when you find out how everything works through science, you not proving God doesn't exist, but rather the way that God did it.

That's still similar to a god of the gaps, though? Maybe 'gap' is the wrong word here, as it isn't used to cross a gap between two things which we have scientific knowledge about (non life to life, life to mind). It is similar to it though in that it offers religion as an answer to a question science can't answer and never will: why are the scientific laws what they are?

I just don't see how a god of the gaps view feeds the religion vs science debate. As soon as science discovers a way to cross the gap between non life and life, the god of the gaps view will admit that it's vision was incorrect and accept the authority of science.

Gah - okay, maybe I could have phrased it better. However, note I did not say that religion caused any of those events; they are, however, baggage associated with their various religions.

I'll agree that it is associated with religion, but I find it a bit overreacting to shun all religion because of it. I think that the focus should be on the positive aspects of religion, rather than the negative aspects of (abused) religion.

One could also be against any egalitarian tendency because of the communist disasters, against liberalism/capitalism because of colonialism/exploitation and against nationalist tendencies because of Nazism. I'm not arguing that these negative excesses should be ignored though. They should be remembered as a warning. I just believe that it's better to take the valuable elements from these traditions and try to somehow achieve these while trying to avoid the negative excesses.

 

[Sneakers|Matriarch]

I am demonstrating the fact that he described things he couldnt have known the things he said 1400 years ago, where did he get it from? who knows for sure, but they most defnitely cant have been simple stabs in the dark (unless he was very very very lucky)
I just choose to believe him when he says he got it from a higher power, nothing has as yet been discredited so on what basis are you saying it is wrong?

to svart:
i can scale your exact same argument to democracy but you quite happily follow it

Just a qustion for you, do you know Nostrodamos real name?

Also he predicted hundreds and hundreds of things that was gonna happend wich didn't. One more thing that makes this even more ridiculous is that I can also guess out whats gonna happend in 1000 years, anyone can; and if you make enough guessings it is all about luck/bad luck if one of your guesses will fit some future event.
I mean he predict war and terrorism -> this has lived with humans almost forever. He predicted air planes, the space and moon-landings etc, nothing shocking here either since humans always looked up in the sky and woundering whats out there. People watched birds and insects fly and studied their constructions etc, woundering and thinking about these things is human not divine.

 

[Thorondorito]

I think he needed to get his next bestseller out...

must be

 

[Lamp]

I recommend reading "God's Debris" by Scott Adams

Synopsis
Imagine that you meet a very old man who—you eventually realize—knows literally everything. Imagine that he explains for you the great mysteries of life—quantum physics, evolution, God, gravity, light, psychic phenomenon, and probability—in a way so simple, so novel, and so compelling that it all fits together and makes perfect sense. What does it feel like to suddenly understand everything? God's Debris isn’t the final answer to the Big Questions. But it might be the most compelling vision of reality you will ever read. The thought experiment is this: Try to figure out what’s wrong with the old man’s explanation of reality. Share the book with your smart friends then discuss it later while enjoying a beverage.


You can download the free ebook here: http://www.andrewsmcmeel.com/godsdebris/

 

[Thorondorito]

Just a qustion for you, do you know Nostrodamos real name?

Also he predicted hundreds and hundreds of things that was gonna happend wich didn't. One more thing that makes this even more ridiculous is that I can also guess out whats gonna happend in 1000 years, anyone can; and if you make enough guessings it is all about luck/bad luck if one of your guesses will fit some future event.
I mean he predict war and terrorism -> this has lived with humans almost forever. He predicted air planes, the space and moon-landings etc, nothing shocking here either since humans always looked up in the sky and woundering whats out there. People watched birds and insects fly and studied their constructions etc, woundering and thinking about these things is human not divine.

That's what I tried to demostrate. Because one guy comes and say "hey, THIS IS GOING TO HAPPEN" and indeed it happens its not enough to beleive he is some kind if deity.

And of course, Nostradamus was a lucky man (or not so lucky, his hit ratio is indeed low)

 

[Chronictank]

Why did nostradamus predict some things centuries ago? Was he a 'kind of god' ?

I'm sorry mate but have you actually researched into what Nostradamus actually wrote rather than what he was "said to" have wrote,
various theories of his have already come out short he made hundreds of stabs in the dark, some of them came though thats probability not prediction
I gave it a go reading his "predictions" but gave up after a while as it is very vague and worded so carefuly to mean many things and cover a range of things.
He is the 15th century version of a fortune teller

He also visited Egypt where he studied various religious texts, assumably applying them to his theories, so for all we know he might have pulled things out of the various religious books out there

Now in comparison Muhammad (pbuh) made pretty specific "theories" regarding many elements of life none of which as yet have been proven wrong.

so i fail to see why you bring Nostrodamus up other than the assumption (sorry if im wrong) that you simply followed the common (incorrect) belief in what he represented


Muhammad(pbuh) is also never represented as a "divine" entity, he is never portayed as a god in any sence of the word so im not sure where you get that from

Just a qustion for you, do you know Nostrodamos real name?

-snip-

constructions etc, woundering and thinking about these things is human not divine.

was talking about Muhammad(pbuh) not nostrodamus neither of which are divine as you quite rightly say


Edit: I am in the firm beleif that science goes hand in hand with religion, religion has given us the clues to inverstigate science is simply the proof that religion was right all along
in my opinion anyway regarding the qu'ran

 

[Chronictank]

Edit: I am in the firm beleif that science goes hand in hand with religion, religion has given us the clues to inverstigate science is simply the proof that religion was right all along
in my opinion anyway regarding the qu'ran

Edit: I am in the firm beleif that science goes hand in hand with religion, religion has given us the clues to inverstigate science is simply the proof that religion was right or wrong all along

nerf edit timer+rush typing

 

[Thorondorito]

I'm sorry mate but have you actually researched into what Nostradamus actually wrote rather than what he was "said to" have wrote,
various theories of his have already come out short he made hundreds of stabs in the dark, some of them came though thats probability not prediction
I gave it a go reading his "predictions" but gave up after a while as it is very vague and worded so carefuly to mean many things and cover a range of things.
He is the 15th century version of a fortune teller

He also visited Egypt where he studied various religious texts, assumably applying them to his theories, so for all we know he might have pulled things out of the various religious books out there

Now in comparison Muhammad (pbuh) made pretty specific "theories" regarding many elements of life none of which as yet have been proven wrong.

so i fail to see why you bring Nostrodamus up other than the assumption (sorry if im wrong) that you simply followed the common (incorrect) belief in what he represented


Muhammad(pbuh) is also never represented as a "divine" entity, he is never portayed as a god in any sence of the word so im not sure where you get that from


was talking about Muhammad(pbuh) not nostrodamus neither of which are divine as you quite rightly say


Edit: I am in the firm beleif that science goes hand in hand with religion, religion has given us the clues to inverstigate science is simply the proof that religion was right all along
in my opinion anyway regarding the qu'ran

Of course. Im not defending him. But you just answered yourself. Nostradamus wasnt a prophet, neither jesus or anyone related on bible or other so-called 'books'.

If I say the earth will be rectangular in 5.000 years and by any means it will... does it mean im a prophet or even worst a deity? NO.

It just means Im a lucky man as Nostradamus was and religion prophets were, and im taking into account that the things they did were true, which honestly i doubt. People walking through water, people changing water into wine, people resurrecting other people, opening the great sea, ... and the list goes on and on.

 

[Chronictank]

It just means Im a lucky man as Nostradamus was and religion prophets were, and im taking into account that the things they did were true, which honestly i doubt. People walking through water, people changing water into wine, people resurrecting other people, opening the great sea, ... and the list goes on and on.

This is the problem,
i am not talking about the bible for the reasons i have said before, i think acts have been taken out of proportion and rather than the symbolic meanning being used over the years though various translations its literal meaning has been pushed to the masses.

In the qu'ran (which i use for the reason stated earlier), there is a whole set of chapters on "truths" which is the main source of my argument, at this time the rest is irrelevant. Explaining various scientific facts in a way so people who have no prior knowledge of the field at the time could understand.
None of these facts have been disproven as yet (to my knowledge), even today with all this technology at hand, in fact the oposite has occured various findings have supported what is written in it 1400 years ago.
This is not luck by any stretch of the imagination, nor is it a prediction they are simple "facts" of life.
Someone in this thread said scientists prove what it is by what it is not,
but science as yet has to proove that anything in those chapters are incorrect/inacurate varous people have tried from the research i did a few years ago but they all seemed to concentrate more on twisting around words and reorganising passages than actually proving anything

this is why nostradamus (as explained before) is a irrelevant comparison,
he made no attempt at stating fact, simply made predictions of the future.

 

[Thorondorito]

This is the problem,
i am not talking about the bible for the reasons i have said before, i think acts have been taken out of proportion and rather than the symbolic meanning being used over the years though various translations its literal meaning has been pushed to the masses.

In the qu'ran (which i use for the reason stated earlier), there is a whole set of chapters on "truths" which is the main source of my argument, at this time the rest is irrelevant. Explaining various scientific facts in a way so people who have no prior knowledge of the field at the time could understand.
None of these facts have been disproven as yet (to my knowledge), even today with all this technology at hand, in fact the oposite has occured various findings have supported what is written in it 1400 years ago.
This is not luck by any stretch of the imagination, nor is it a prediction they are simple "facts" of life.
Someone in this thread said scientists prove what it is by what it is not,
but science as yet has to proove that anything in those chapters are incorrect/inacurate

this is why nostradamus (as explained before) is a irrelevant comparison,
he made no attempt at stating fact, simply made predictions of the future.

Yeah, i understand. But the fact that there is something not yet proven doesn't imply it exists, does it?

Has anyone demostrated that alien life exists? Nop, so if I say there is alien life... Can you, religion or science demostrate it?

Honestly, who do you think would give you a more accurate answer to that question?

My choice: Science.

I know science and religion can coexist, the reason I say this is because some people are trying to discredit science arguing that religion has the answer for things that cannot be proven, while science lies and do false documents...

And as I said before: Religion is a way to think there is something after death. A way to escape.

 

[Gorbachioo]

This is the problem,
i am not talking about the bible for the reasons i have said before, i think acts have been taken out of proportion and rather than the symbolic meanning being used over the years though various translations its literal meaning has been pushed to the masses.

In the qu'ran (which i use for the reason stated earlier), there is a whole set of chapters on "truths" which is the main source of my argument, at this time the rest is irrelevant. Explaining various scientific facts in a way so people who have no prior knowledge of the field at the time could understand.
None of these facts have been disproven as yet (to my knowledge), even today with all this technology at hand, in fact the oposite has occured various findings have supported what is written in it 1400 years ago.
This is not luck by any stretch of the imagination, nor is it a prediction they are simple "facts" of life.
Someone in this thread said scientists prove what it is by what it is not,
but science as yet has to proove that anything in those chapters are incorrect/inacurate varous people have tried from the research i did a few years ago but they all seemed to concentrate more on twisting around words and reorganising passages than actually proving anything

this is why nostradamus (as explained before) is a irrelevant comparison,
he made no attempt at stating fact, simply made predictions of the future.

Could you name a couple of those scientific facts? (If you have already, then sorry !)

 

[Chronictank]

Yeah, i understand. But the fact that there is something not yet proven doesn't imply it exists, does it?

Has anyone demostrated that alien life exists? Nop, so if I say there is alien life... Can you, religion or science demostrate it?

Honestly, who do you think would give you a more accurate answer to that question?

My choice: Science.

I know science and religion can coexist, the reason I say this is because some people are trying to discredit science arguing that religion has the answer for things that cannot be proven, while science lies and do false documents...

And as I said before: Religion is a way to think there is something after death. A way to escape.

I see your point, but in my eyes at least if a considerable ammount of theories in religion hold true (as they do in the qu'ran) i am going to take it on faith that the others are pretty accurate to until ofc proven otherwise. As soon as somone prooves it wrong i will seriously question my beliefs, just as i did 6 yrs ago when i realised the gutting truth that i believed in it as before hand i would argue with people about the possibility that there is no god to watch them squirm as it might have prompted me into doing a little digging for myself.
I regard religious books as a text book, a text book doesnt explain what isnt but what people have proven is, if that makes any sense

But saying religion is a farse with nothing to back it is just as stupid as saying religion is the truth with no evidence to support it.

Edit: Im not sure that all is entirely coherant prod me if something doesnt make sense
Edit: Gorba read the whole thing there are good points either way

 

[Gorbachioo]

I see your point, but in my eyes at least if a considerable ammount of theories in religion hold true (as they do in the qu'ran) i am going to take it on faith that the others are pretty accurate to until ofc proven otherwise. As soon as somone prooves it wrong i will seriously question my beliefs, just as i did 6 yrs ago when i realised the gutting truth that i believed in it as before hand i would argue with people about the possibility that there is no god to watch them squirm as it might have prompted me into doing a little digging for myself.
I regard religious books as a text book, a text book doesnt explain what isnt but what people have proven is, if that makes any sense

But saying religion is a farse with nothing to back it is just as stupid as saying religion is the truth with no evidence to support it.

Edit: Im not sure that all is entirely coherant prod me if something doesnt make sense
Edit: Gorba read the whole thing there are good points either way

err.. what whole thing? And will you or will you not name a couple of those scientific facts that you speak off? -,-

 

[Wij]

I think most of these arguments (not having read every page sorry) are covered ably by Richard Dawkins 'The God Delusion'. Top of the Amazon bestseller list atm.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/God-Delusio...93055489/ref=pd_ts_c_th_1/202-0218927-0768626

If you've read it and have a problem with any of the conclusions he reaches then feel free to come back here. Otherwise you'll find all the stuff I've read so far is well covered.

 

[Huntingtons]

I see your point, but in my eyes at least if a considerable ammount of theories in religion hold true (as they do in the qu'ran) i am going to take it on faith that the others are pretty accurate to until ofc proven otherwise. As soon as somone prooves it wrong i will seriously question my beliefs, just as i did 6 yrs ago when i realised the gutting truth that i believed in it as before hand i would argue with people about the possibility that there is no god to watch them squirm as it might have prompted me into doing a little digging for myself.
I regard religious books as a text book, a text book doesnt explain what isnt but what people have proven is, if that makes any sense

you havnt given 1 single solid argument of why god should exsist. i cant give you one why he shouldnt on top of my head. give me a days thought of it

/edit

the problem with science is that science evolves all the time, its not static. while religion for most of the time is static, it cant evolve. It can evolve but the second it happens it questions itself. So when one thing in science is proven wrong the other argument stays valid till proven wrong, thats how i see it anyway :<

 

[Wij]

i cant give you one why he shouldnt on top of my head. give me a days thought of it

Occam's Razor. A universe not created by nor maintained by God is a simpler proposition that one that is.

 

[noblok]

Occam's Razor. A universe not created by nor maintained by God is a simpler proposition that one that is.

Occam's razor is merely a methodology. It says (or at least proves) nothing about truth or existence.

 

[Huntingtons]

Occam's Razor. A universe not created by nor maintained by God is a simpler proposition that one that is.

thats not an argument. to state an argument you need facts: I rock, because im e-peen can get an e-rection and i have more posts than you + my chanter is rr12 (example LOL?!) - i have the statement: i rock and i have the facts to back up my statement: epeen + daoc char. you only have half of it (a universe not created by...) why is it simpler? you need to back that up

 

[Chronictank]

you havnt given 1 single solid argument of why god should exsist. i cant give you one why he shouldnt on top of my head. give me a days thought of it

/edit

the problem with science is that science evolves all the time, its not static. while religion for most of the time is static, it cant evolve. It can evolve but the second it happens it questions itself. So when one thing in science is proven wrong the other argument stays valid till proven wrong, thats how i see it anyway :<

i did;

there is a whole set of chapters on "truths" which is the main source of my argument, at this time the rest is irrelevant. Explaining various scientific facts in a way so people who have no prior knowledge of the field at the time could understand.
None of these facts have been disproven as yet (to my knowledge), even today with all this technology at hand, in fact the oposite has occured various findings have supported what is written in it 1400 years ago.

Its not the fact that they have been put out there,
its the fact that they are supported by modern theorem the mor ewe learnthe closer it gets to whats in the book, THAT is why i believe in it.
Effectively i beleive we have been given a manual to life, we just choose to ignore/contort(is that the right word?) it

Science may be evolving, but i'll quote Lamp as i think he explain it best

Synopsis
Imagine that you meet a very old man who—you eventually realize—knows literally everything. Imagine that he explains for you the great mysteries of life—quantum physics, evolution, God, gravity, light, psychic phenomenon, and probability—in a way so simple, so novel, and so compelling that it all fits together and makes perfect sense. What does it feel like to suddenly understand everything? God's Debris isn’t the final answer to the Big Questions. But it might be the most compelling vision of reality you will ever read. The thought experiment is this: Try to figure out what’s wrong with the old man’s explanation of reality. Share the book with your smart friends then discuss it later while enjoying a beverage.

If you already have the answers, what need is there for a constant evolution?
Surely it would make sense to do an independant investigation and see if the answers match thus proving or disproving a theory?

To gorba,
the reason i am not re-quoting myself for you is:
a) you very obviously cant be bothered to read it all so you obviously wont read all the points,
if you cant be bothered to take my opinion into consideration it is not a discussion you are simply looking for an excuse to have a rant
b) If you dont read the comments as they are discussed you wont be in a position to analyse it in context

So again, go back and read the various points thrown back and forth in the thread

 

[noblok]

why is it simpler? you need to back that up

It's simpler because it supposes one less entity.

 

[Thorwyn]

Being religious and believing in God are different things.

Am I religious? No

Do I believe in (some) God? I don´t know.

Quite obviously, God (if he/she/it exists) doesn´t want to communicate with us. So I can´t see a reason why I should spend my lifetime "talking" to him. If some sunny day I die, wake up and there´s a God who want´s to have a chat with me... fine. I´m prepared for that. And if he decides to send me to hell for not spending my life crawling around on my knees, chanting his name... so be it.

As for religions... if people want to spend their lifes following a religion and if they´re drawing power from their faith, then who am I to tell them they shouldn´t. As long as they´re not trying to "convert" me. I´m actually enjoying a good discussion with religious people from time to time. What I just don´t get is peoples urge to evangelize other people. What´s this based on? Why do they care what other people believe? Does it make a difference for them, their god and their afterlife? I mean... if I`m 100% convinced that my belief is correct... then why not lean back and let all the infidels follow their wrong idol. It´s their own fault if they can´t see the light.

 

[Chronictank]

Being religious and believing in God are different things.

Am I religious? No

Do I believe in (some) God? I don´t know.

quite right they arent the same thing

if I`m 100% convinced that my belief is correct... then why not lean back and let all the infidels follow their wrong idol. It´s their own fault if they can´t see the light.

Theres a difference between discussing and preaching tho
I am very against preaching, because its nothing but a glorified version of shouting at someone so they cant do anything other than listen
Discussing however is expessing your opinions and listening to their argument, people can take it how they will

 

[Wij]

Occam's razor is merely a methodology. It says (or at least proves) nothing about truth or existence.

Of course it's a methodology. When things are us unknowable as these supposed Gods are then you can never prove they do not exist, they've been defined to be disprovable (any religion that said someonething disprovable like "God is an old woman who lives at 112 Doncaster Road, Selby and who greets you with tea" wouldn't last very long). It's like trying to prove I'm not surrounded by invisible unicorns who don't interact with the rest of the universe in any fashion. I can't PROVE it. However, Occam's razor tells us that it is far more likely that I'm not surrounded by invisible unicorns. The list of things we can't prove the non-existence of is infinite but you don't spend your life pondering how wrathful the unicorns are or whether the purple-just-out-of-sight-Care-Bears are in a slightly odd mood do you ?

 

[Cerb]

There is some interesting investigations at the moment on that one. Last stuff I read was looking at how certain amino acid chains (I think it was, I'm no biochemist), building blocks of dna, formed naturally when certain elements suspended in water are exposed to sunlight. They were amazed that the basic building blocks formed within days, and started to join up in ways similar to dna (though far, far less complex). The moment one of those can reproduce itself, it'll quickly outstrip chains that cannot, and dominiate. If this all pans out, then it appears that life is far easier to start than previously believed. (The finding of bacteria in places on earth with no water, oxygen or sunlight already kicks various old theories on what is needed to start life, too)

Darzil

I guess at that stage it goes back....like it always ends up going....to having faith.....personaly i do /shrug

 

[noblok]

In reply to Wij: Yes, but you presented it as if Occam's razor was a reason as to why God shouldn't exist. It can be a convincing reason for you to believe he doesn't, but it isn't a reason as to why he shouldn't or can't exist.

The thing which makes the invisible unicorns and care-bears different from the concept of a god is that they are so defined. The claim that you have knowledge about things you cannot perceive is a bit silly. I would also disagree with people who claim to know what God looks like. However, I wouldn't call supposing there are things you cannot perceive silly. I find it unnecessary, but if some people need to suppose these things to account for their intuition and experience, I won't tell them they're wrong.

I believe intuition shouldn't be discarded too easily. I for one can't believe that there is no such thing as a free will. Complete nonsense from a scientifical point of view, but a world without free will is simply something I cannot accept. A free will is something which can never be proven, but as the concept doesn't (necessarily) contradict science, I see no harm in believing in it.

 

[Wij]

I believe intuition shouldn't be discarded too easily. I for one can't believe that there is no such thing as a free will. Complete nonsense from a scientifical point of view.

Science has nothing to say on the concept of free will. The 'problem' of free will is purely a badly played word-game. The universe may be entirely deterministic or it may have random elements. What you choose to call free will or not is just a question of definition. The facts are that we often make conscious choices and we base them on our experiences, our personality, our hopes and fears. These are the things that make us who we are. The fact that those things may have been pre-determined and/or random doesn't change that fact in the slightest. There would only be a real problem of free will if you could not actually carry out (or at least attempt to) those choices. But you can, so there isn't. Misunderstanding of the role of language causes a great deal of philosophical 'problems' that aren't problems at all.

 

[Gorbachioo]

To gorba,

the reason i am not re-quoting myself for you is:
a) you very obviously cant be bothered to read it all so you obviously wont read all the points,
if you cant be bothered to take my opinion into consideration it is not a discussion you are simply looking for an excuse to have a rant
b) If you dont read the comments as they are discussed you wont be in a position to analyse it in context

So again, go back and read the various points thrown back and forth in the thread

I read everything you say, but i have not seen you listing any of those "scientifical facts". If you have then i just cant find them, so can you please just do us all a favor and say them again? :touch:

I really would actually like to hear them.

 

[Wij]

In reply to Wij: Yes, but you presented it as if Occam's razor was a reason as to why God shouldn't exist.

I intended it as a reason to assume God does not exist unless some hard evidence can be found. The fact that a universe exists or that it is wonderfully complex does not count in this sense as a 'God did it' explanation only makes things more complicated. If the universe in all it's glory exists because God designed it then God must be an incredible thing with all kinds of fantastical attributes. The chances of Him just appearing out of nothing or just being there must be even more unlikely than that of the universe itself doing the same. The fact that our mind finds agency a simpler concept to understand than quantum mechanics, inflation (etc...) is adequately explained by our evolutionary history as social hunter gatherers in Africa, but we should not confuse what our minds are comfortable thinking about with real questions about complexity.

 

[noblok]

In reply to the free will: Yes, that is one possible solution, but it's one which I find unsatisfying. I can't think of free will as analogue with 'the happy junk' (i.e. You can't make any other choices than the ones you make, but it's all right as you agree with them). I think it's best to leave it at that though, or we'll drag this thread too much off-topic .

In reply to Occam's razor: Looks like I just misunderstood you then. For me Occam's razor is a convincing reason not to believe in a deity as well, but for some people it isn't.

 

[ZiggY]

im not religious but i celebrate christmas kinda odd if you think about it