Are you religious?

[Jeremiah]

I know Wikipedia isn't the most accurate of information sources, but this seems in depth and has some "proper" references;

Census of Quirinius - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It seems that although Jesus was said to be born during the rule of Herod the Great (the King of Judea), he died in 4 BC and the tax census ordered by Quirinius occurred after the death of Herod's successor in 6AD. Most of this comes from writings at the time, when science wasn't really an exact science, so it's quite possible Luke was just plain wrong, but basing your life and belief system on a story told by people who couldn't get dates right?

Thanks for that link, it did indeed make interesting reading and I'd never came accross it before. But even in the article, theres a lot of discussion about how Luke's Gospel need not contradict this point. Dont get me wrong, I've no doubt the people trying to reconcile the testimony to the dates are Chrisitan, and therefore biased in a way, but if their conclusions are sound from an impartial view, then they should be seen as such. Since there's uncertainty if Luke is accurate, can either side use this?

I'm going to fall back on probability for this one in the absence of absolute proof either way, but with a working theory with a lot of scientific evidence (albeit incomplete) on one side and God, supported by a long history of tortuous and pretty poor logical proofs and a fairly large amount of historical references which are in general pretty inconsistent (I don't think anyone would disagree with that).

Which is more likely;

a) On one (or more) of the billions of planets in the universe at some point during the billions of years of it's existence, conditions became such that extremely simple life could begin. This event would in theory only need to happen once by the way. From there, life developed through a gradual process of evolution until we had humans and tigers and suchlike.

b) A being infinitely more complex than anything we've ever encountered and more complex than anything we can imagine, capable of changing and suspending physical laws that govern without exception every atom of matter in the visible universe came into existence spontaneously, fully-formed and proceeded to create the Universe as we see it and everything in it.

I'd say b) seems a LOT less likely than a). Over geological time, life would have a lot of chances to get started. Billions of planets for billions of years...those are pretty good odds compared to 1 science lab and 6 months on a federal grant!!

Ok, at this point I wont argue for the existance of God, from my religious view, but merely something external to our existance.

I undestand the point you make about the unlikleness of b) but can I ask - what really is more probably: all the required elements to produce life and the universe suddenly coming into existance by themselves (which is required by a), and yet then faces the problems of b)) or these basic elements being created and placed by some "creator" entity who, being external to our universe, would not be bound by our scientifc laws. Lets ignore any ideas of the whole universe coming into being as it is now, and have the view that it is still exanding and developing, as science describes it.

From this view, the idea of a creator is something we encounter every day, in that we as humans design and create mostly everything around us. What evidence do we have to support the spontaneous creation of something as simple as, say, a spark of electricity. Science can show us that everything that exists, has a cause. Or more properly, there is nothing known to exists without a cause. In order to fulfil your argument for a) the initial atoms and molecules and bacteria which contributed to the begining of life would be the only things within our whole domain of science which had no cause. This scenario is far more unrealistic, I would say, than an entity starting creation.

Complex numbers thing =)

Your maths will be far better than mine, so I cant really comment. I know theres numbers from both sides calculating probabilites which are in turn critised by their opponents. Its probably like this in our camps - you have lower probabilities and we have higher ones so they make each of our desired conclusions likely.

I just want to say that I'm not a big fan of arguing scientific evidence for God, as I feel I need to be an expert in that area which seems a bit complicated for me. What I've been meaning to do is just show that Evolution Theory is not fact, neither is it a very solid theory. I understand why it's taught as such since its the best theory we have just now which has the potential to be backed up with scientific evidence, but I feel its wrong to hold it up as truth, since the current evidence mainly still provides us with a bit question mark =) Its been a pleasure discussing this with you Killswitch, you've opened my us up to lots of things I never knew before

 

[Saggy]

Every time i ask about "What is needed for proof?"(in real life as well), i don't get an answer. Atleast a straight one.

You have to ask straight question to get straight answer (=describe god(s)). "What is needed for proof that God greated earth and everything on it?" and answer could be "God(s) (humane) done it once and can surely do it again so by simply letting everyone to know it/they/whatever is about to make clone-earth and actually doing it so we can see it/them/whatever doing it". Asking proof for stuff that one can't even describe is silly and deserves no answer of any sort really. "What is needed for proof that God didn't greate earth and everything on it" and answer could be "seeing the born of similar planet and explaining it by science" - it wouldn't actually prove that god(s) dont exist but it would weaken god(s) since it would be yet another "oh, god can do that too? big deal, we know how it happens".

Animals may be better then humans, as they aren't clouded by thoughts, but saying "science will prove these things", is as good as "they can't prove these things" at the moment. How they relate to god/gods, is that it's outside evolution and as such, we had to get it somewhere else. Soul related if you will.

Easy enough to explain that stuff by evolution, proving it is another task. Soul related stuff fits in both religions and science, the difference is that in religion point of view soul is (usually) humane stuff and in science point of view "some sort of energy".

 

[Tesla Monkor]

The Christian God is not a very nice entity if you chose believe the bible.

I clicked on the atheist button, and I am solidly behind that choice. At some level, religious people scare me - to have such an unwavering belief in something that is basically no better than a fairytale for grown ups (and a nasty fairytale at that) is profoundly unsetteling.

Religion and decent human behaviour are not linked, eventhough the various religions will try to make it appear that way. You do not need to read a religious text or be told by an employee of whatever religion you follow. To be nice to your fellow people, or to help out those that need it should come naturally. It is one of the things that makes sharing this planet bearable.

Religion has been around for as long as humanity - in one form or another. It does not seem unlikely that cavepeople revered fire or large animals as incarnations of the divine. Christianity in it`s many flavours as well as all the other religions are pretty recent inventions, certainly no older than 3-4 thousand years. That is peanuts in the history of humanity, yet there are millions of people believing that this latest incarnation of the divine is more real than the one the cavepeople believed in.

It has been intertwined with our history for good or for bad - the discussions whether God exists or not have been multifold and never get resolved acceptably for either party involved. As I see it, it does not matter in the end whether he exists or not, since you need to take care of your own thing yourself anyway - every religion has that safetyvalve installed, where if you question your deity, you get ignored and told off. He, she, it, will take all the credit and none of the burden in our lives if left to the religious people.

There is a great quote in the movie Contact, where the first representative is refused because she is not religious (and a scientist). She is accused of believing the planet houses a population that is for 95% mentally deranged because they believe in a higher power. (The movie never answers it, and finished leaving religion and science in swapped places, both parties know theyre right but cannot convince the other.)

At times, that quote makes me wonder, am I really landlocked on this planet where so many people are mentally deficient, or am I, part of the 5% that does not believe, the odd one out. Science would shoot itself in the foot here, and statistically join the majority. Still, 5% is a chance they are wrong. I think I am quite happy to be in the 5%, and will hope that the religious lot will accept me, and not behead me for being an unbeliever. History shows not being religious is usually a bad carreer movie.

Time will tell.

 

[Killswitch]

Its been a pleasure discussing this with you Killswitch, you've opened my us up to lots of things I never knew before

It's been more interesting than my regular FH conversations about who pwned which nubcake

By the way...the point you made about the Creator and the start of the universe is called the "Argument by Infinite Regress" and it doesn't really work. You take an impossibly complicated thing like the universe and say "something must have created this". This introduces a new impossibly complicated thing called God (or Allah). What created that?

I have no idea what the current "best guess" theory is for the creation of the Universe, but introducing a Creator makes the problem more complex, not less.

At this point, I'm going to abandon this thread coz it's getting long and because I'm getting out of my depth!!

 

[Jeremiah]

At this point, I'm going to abandon this thread coz it's getting long and because I'm getting out of my depth!!

Ditto ^^

 

[Chronictank]

Im going to bow out also, not going to have time to burn on FH today

Looks like you have had too much love alraedy

You must spread some reputation around before giving it to Killswitch again

You must spread some reputation around before giving it to Jeremiah again

Discussions are fun

 

[old.Tohtori]

Of course, I was curious to see what reply I might get

It was a good answer though

The Old Testament God was a bit of a meanie!!

Oh i know, but the Old Testament meanie god(i have a bigger theory on this, but probably needs own thread) is a bit different from the "sent only son to save humanity" god.

The old testament meanie, as an example, gae people wisdom and knowledge to build the tower of babel, a towerthat united all nations, made all languages one...then saw it as a threat and tore it down. He's no small potato.

By the way, my theory on this old/new testament is based on my own religion(nordic) and involves many gods. There's actually mention of odin(in a sense) returning back to egypt, mention of the "demi gods" and such. I'm writing a bit bigger thing on it though.

Let's just say, old testament=Loki, New testament= Odin, is the basic jist.

Easy enough to explain that stuff by evolution, proving it is another task. Soul related stuff fits in both religions and science, the difference is that in religion point of view soul is (usually) humane stuff and in science point of view "some sort of energy".

This is basically why religion can't be proven to science people(in any "easy" way) as there's always "It might be some kind of yibbayabba or a thingydoodaa".

Hel, even if a 500 feet tall giant farting lightning and shooting fireballs out of its tiit, came crashing through the atlantic ocean, scientists would still go "Well you see, it's the ionisphere that is probably creating a temporary rift in the visual cortex of the mind *nod nod nod*"

 

[Saggy]

This is basically why religion can't be proven to science people(in any "easy" way) as there's always "It might be some kind of yibbayabba or a thingydoodaa".

Yes, and lots of this yibbayabba and thingydoodaa has been changed to scientific facts. What do you mean by religion here btw? Why would science people deny the existence of religions?

Hel, even if a 500 feet tall giant farting lightning and shooting fireballs out of its tiit, came crashing through the atlantic ocean, scientists would still go "Well you see, it's the ionisphere that is probably creating a temporary rift in the visual cortex of the mind *nod nod nod*"

If you say "God is 500ft tall giant farting lightning and shooting fireballs our of its tiit, what do you need for proof of that?" and that would actually happen then yes, the existance of that god would be proved. Would that sort of god change anything at all though? Yes, it would be funny as hell to see, that's about it

 

[old.Tohtori]

Yes, and lots of this yibbayabba and thingydoodaa has been changed to scientific facts. What do you mean by religion here btw? Why would science people deny the existence of religions?

If you say "God is 500ft tall giant farting lightning and shooting fireballs our of its tiit, what do you need for proof of that?" and that would actually happen then yes, the existance of that god would be proved. Would that sort of god change anything at all though? Yes, it would be funny as hell to see, that's about it

I meant, the existence of gods and such, creation of world by other means then evolution. I'm not saying science peeps are saying "religion is a myth" Just saying, that no matter what "proof of gods" comes, science will always say that "Well, we don't know yet, but i bet it's science stuff that explains that."

If that "500ft tall giant farting lightning and shooting fireballs our of its tiit" god would appear, wouldn't it pretty much change the way people dismiss the existance of any gods?

Or would you say after that god smacked earth about, "Well, still doesn't change my mind about this bible god guy."

 

[Saggy]

I meant, the existence of gods and such, creation of world by other means then evolution. I'm not saying science peeps are saying "religion is a myth" Just saying, that no matter what "proof of gods" comes, science will always say that "Well, we don't know yet, but i bet it's science stuff that explains that."

If that "500ft tall giant farting lightning and shooting fireballs our of its tiit" god would appear, wouldn't it pretty much change the way people dismiss the existance of any gods?

Hardly anyone denies the existance of any gods since, like I said before, it can mean pretty much anything (like a "500ft tall giant farting lightning and shooting fireballs our of its tiit" or radioactive-fart-turning-rocks-into-living-things"). If that giant (giant = humane, right?) brings all the dead things back alive with those farts and forms new planets with those fireballs then it would change everything (those are the important things in the common religions). The question is in which religion does that giant fit in?

Or would you say after that god smacked earth about, "Well, still doesn't change my mind about this bible god guy."

Yeah, that giant you described wouldn't change my mind about bible god guy.

ust saying, that no matter what "proof of gods" comes, science will always say that "Well, we don't know yet, but i bet it's science stuff that explains that."

Give me your top3 proof of god's existance and we'll see

 

[old.Tohtori]

Hardly anyone denies the existance of any gods since, like I said before, it can mean pretty much anything (like a "500ft tall giant farting lightning and shooting fireballs our of its tiit" or radioactive-fart-turning-rocks-into-living-things"). If that giant (giant = humane, right?) brings all the dead things back alive with those farts and forms new planets with those fireballs then it would change everything (those are the important things in the common religions). The question is in which religion does that giant fit in?

Yeah, that giant you described wouldn't change my mind about bible god guy.

Give me your top3 proof of god's existance and we'll see

Ah ok, now i think i get what you mean.

You're talking about a god that would dissolve the evolution theory, such as "farting things alive and shooting planets out of its tiit" kinda god.

I was merely talking about proving the existence of god(s) in general.

Also you'd still want proof of any particular god in question. Fair enough, though a bit demanding

Top 3 proof that gods exist?

Hmm...

1 or 2: Bi Curious Lesbians.
2 or 1: Whiskey.
3: ...3....3...damn! I'm out!

No no wait!! 3: Both!

 

[Saggy]

Ah ok, now i think i get what you mean.

You're talking about a god that would dissolve the evolution theory, such as "farting things alive and shooting planets out of its tiit" kinda god.

You got it totally wrong

I was merely talking about proving the existence of god(s) in general.

Yes, so did I, and like I said:

Hardly anyone denies the existance of any gods since, like I said before, it can mean pretty much anything (like a "500ft tall giant farting lightning and shooting fireballs our of its tiit" or radioactive-fart-turning-rocks-into-living-things").

I'm not interested in such gods since those things wont have to have anything to do with religions. To prove some religion and its god(s) right we should see the God doing things 1:1 the religion describes the God been able to do and usually they are almighty and able to do anything.

The formula is simple, really: Description of God -> God doing what the description says -> We see it doing that stuff = proved God. The weaker the god the easier to prove it and by proving one you dont prove the rest.

Also you'd still want proof of any particular god in question. Fair enough, though a bit demanding

Top 3 proof that gods exist?

Hmm...

1 or 2: Bi Curious Lesbians.
2 or 1: Whiskey.
3: ...3....3...damn! I'm out!

No no wait!! 3: Both!

Agreed

 

[old.Tohtori]

Well ofcourse i got it wrong, 'cause i got it right in the first time

Specific God Proving is the case *nod*

You want Buddhists to produce a fat golden f*ck that can bring you back as an ant, christians bring a god who can create worlds and all that bibley stuff and us(yes there's more then me) scandic believers to bring a bearded, one eyed guy riding an eight legged horse across the sky(in a nutshell)

 

[Saggy]

Well ofcourse i got it wrong, 'cause i got it right in the first time

Specific God Proving is the case *nod*

You want Buddhists to produce a fat golden f*ck that can bring you back as an ant, christians bring a god who can create worlds and all that bibley stuff and us(yes there's more then me) scandic believers to bring a bearded, one eyed guy riding an eight legged horse across the sky(in a nutshell)

Yeah, naturally, what else could I want? I still dont see how that giant would have anything do with the bible god? I could call my dog a god and bring proof of its existance - would it prove all other gods too? Is there anything but gods about? Wouldn't it make whole god-business useless?

I'm not looking for a "thing" to call a God and form a new religion, I'm looking for the god(s) of the current religions to prove themselves.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Yeah, naturally, what else could I want? I still dont see how that giant would have anything do with the bible god? I could call my dog a god and bring proof of its existance - would it prove all other gods too? Is there anything but gods about? Wouldn't it make whole god-business useless?

Just meant that proving one gods existence would bring a little less doubt of other gods existences to the minds of people.

This ofcourse all depends on the person in question, but then it becomes a whole 'nother issue.

 

[Saggy]

Just meant that proving one gods existence would bring a little less doubt of other gods existences to the minds of people.

This ofcourse all depends on the person in question, but then it becomes a whole 'nother issue.

Which religion has that giant as a god then? Or would we just form a new religion after seeing that thing? To compare the gods and their existance they should be able to do about the same things - compared to my dog you can freely call yourself a god if you wish etc

 

[old.Tohtori]

Which religion has that giant as a god then? Or would we just form a new religion after seeing that thing?

Well i didn't mean that god literally ofcourse!

Let's say buddha showed up, to be more precise, that would 'cause other gods exixtence to be proven "a bit" atleast, right?

That was my point really.

though if that god does exist, i'm f*cking joining

 

[Huntingtons]

buddah isnt a real god tho. buddhism is probably the worst choice of religion to use for this discussion

 

[Saggy]

Well i didn't mean that god literally ofcourse!

Let's say buddha showed up, to be more precise, that would 'cause other gods exixtence to be proven "a bit" atleast, right?

That was my point really.

Let's not say that since buddhism is a bad choice but if the bibble god would appear it would make a huge difference (depending on what he says/does about the other religions/gods/stuff).

though if that god does exist, i'm f*cking joining

Haha, would be great to see that giant in the news within the next couple of days Would you claim the tittle "profet"?

 

[old.Tohtori]

Let's not say that since buddhism is a bad choice but if the bibble god would appear it would make a huge difference (depending on what he says/does about the other religions/gods/stuff).

Why by the way buddhism is a bad choice? A god is a god is it not?

Anyhoo, if that's no good, let's say...Loki comes down, or actually fades in more like, and starts doing Loki stuff with the fire and all. Or Odin for that matter. The point was that one god appearing would give some nudge towards other gods possible existence.

Haha, would be great to see that giant in the news within the next couple of days Would you claim the tittle "profet"?

Hel yes i'd claim the title, and if that lightning farting motherf*cker wouldn't give me my due respect for telling people about him..well..i'd be really angry

 

[Saggy]

Why by the way buddhism is a bad choice? A god is a god is it not?

There is no god in buddhism?

Anyhoo, if that's no good, let's say...Loki comes down, or actually fades in more like, and starts doing Loki stuff with the fire and all. Or Odin for that matter. The point was that one god appearing would give some nudge towards other gods possible existence.

The nudge could be in either way - towards to other gods or away from them. Depending on what that god would do and would the other god(s) respond to it.

 

[Huntingtons]

Why by the way buddhism is a bad choice? A god is a god is it not?

buddah is/was a normal person seeking enlightenment and created an order of monks. in this order nirvana exsists, this is where you become "god" but buddah decided to come down on earth again to guide people (in form of a dalai i think?). in Buddhism everybody is their own god and everybody can become god. something like that anyway

 

[old.Tohtori]

buddah is/was a normal person seeking enlightenment and created an order of monks. in this order nirvana exsists, this is where you become "god" but buddah decided to come down on earth again to guide people (in form of a dalai i think?). in Buddhism everybody is their own god and everybody can become god. something like that anyway

Ah yes, forgot *slaps self on wrist* very good point really.

The nudge could be in either way - towards to other gods or away from them. Depending on what that god would do and would the other god(s) respond to it.

Well, yes, if you look at ti from that angle.

If say the god said "There are no other gods!", it would be taken quite seriously, but then again, most would take it as "Hey..wait a minute...are you just saying that?"

 

[Huntingtons]

what if god came down and said he didnt exsist? that would create a great deal of confusion i could imagine onders:

 

[old.Tohtori]

what if god came down and said he didnt exsist? that would create a great deal of confusion i could imagine onders:

That would be REALLY funny

"Look ya pricks, i don't exist, i'm not real, i didn't send any punka** kid down here so stop f*cking bothering me!"

Kinda like what happened in a small island in the galapagos or some sh*t like that.

In the year 14mhmhmm a trade ship landed there, shot a couple of natives and then, for about 500 years or so, they didn't see one f*cking boat.

Like some alien ship came to earth, shot up paris, new york and left

 

[Saggy]

If say the god said "There are no other gods!", it would be taken quite seriously, but then again, most would take it as "Hey..wait a minute...are you just saying that?"

This is why it matters which god we are talking about - bibble god could easily prove all that stuff, some other god(s) perhaps couldn't. On the other hand you wouldn't dare to question this giant god in a fear or lightning

 

[Overdriven]

Like some alien ship came to earth, shot up paris, new york and left

Notice how Switzerland is one of the few countries which never get blown up? Aliens know the value of money

 

[old.Tohtori]

Notice how Switzerland is one of the few countries which never get blown up? Aliens know the value of money

That's only 'cause the nazis sent the whole "first broadcast into space" thingy(i think) and told the aliens;

"Look, thiz hear country, blow zem up. Thiz hear country, blow zem up. Thiz hear country? F*ck 'em. Mein THIZ hear country, ze gold iz there, nein go pokie pokie there."

 

[dub]

I understand why it's taught as such since its the best theory we have just now which has the potential to be backed up with scientific evidence, but I feel its wrong to hold it up as truth, since the current evidence mainly still provides us with a bit question mark =)

thats the difference betveen faith and science , science dont deal in truths but in paradigms.

we could label all text books with " this is just a theory" , but thats is implicit allready.

truths are for believers

 

[Golena]

I'd probably say I wasn't religious.

Right at the beginning someone mentioned science and how believing in science is no different to believing in god because they were both based on theories.
The difference with science is really that it tries to pick the most likely scenario based upon what we know, and the most important difference it's open to change when new stuff is discovered. Most proper scientists will say this is the most likely solution based upon the evidence, not.. this is how it is, there's zero chance i'm wrong!!

That's probably my number 1 gripe with most of the religions.. The innability to admit that they might be wrong, simply dismissing anything that doesn't support the theory with yells of heathen! I'm quite happy for people to believe in god if they accept that with no hard proof of his existance that there's a possiblity that he doesn't. Feel free to tell me what you believe, and why you believe in it. Don't be offended if I choose to believe my own versions.

If you look at how most religions were started and the beliefs behind them it almost always supports an attempt to control a population. Appointing a dictator that tells people to do X doesn't work nearly as well as convincing them a higher being is watching and judging them. It doesn't mean that there's not more than simply an end of worm food, but it does mean that simply accepting everything written in a book during a period of history that you know actually very little about by someone you know even less about and refusing to believe that any of it could be false is perhaps not the smartest thing to do.
The most likely scenario for many of the stories in the bible is that they were simply urban myths and that Jesus was actually the worlds most famous magician. The lessons to be learnt from it certainly in most cases arn't bad, believing that someone was actually raised from the dead by a higher being.. well it's no more likely than the airborn pasta, and if you want to mock me for my pasta belief then accept i'm allowed to mock you for yours..