What do you believe?

[Gorbachioo]

A priest tells you that "there is a god", and you believe it 'cause he showed some pictures and talked really really convincingly.

A scientist tells you there's these "atoms" that things are made of, and you believe it 'cause he showed some pictures and talked really really convincingly.


So the difference is?

The difference is that the scientist offers you the chance to educate yourself so that you can see for yourself. The scientist also has to convince other scientists that hes right. A priest does neither of these things. He just tells you what a 2000 year old book says about it.

We've talked this trough before.,, :touch:

and for liloe: You still havent given 1 proper reason to believe in god. Not in this discussion or the past ones.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Gorbachioo, the "talk" has been rather one sided as you are on the attack constantly, having a 110%, no budge, no possibility attitude. It's not a rather working way to "discuss" things. To get a better response to your side of things, you shouldn't take such an agressive stance while defending it.

But on your reply; You missed the point a bit, but it doesn't matter as my post could've used more content on it anyway. So how about i add some.

One scientist, 10 scientists, a thousand scientists. It doesn't matter, they could all "lie" about it as much as one, a hundred or a thousand priests do. Religion, in many cases, also gives the chance to educate, learn and realise things for yourself. Much like science does. I'm betting you've heard of people saying that god talks to them, of people that have seen angels and such, when they devote themselves and learn of their belief. Are all those people insane, or could there actually be something there, even if not proven scientifically?

A bit off-topic, but the point i was making, is that as someone claims there is a god, is as believable as someone claiming we're all made of tiny spinning atoms and such. The difference is on what you believe and as such, it's a matter of taste. i've never seen god, but i've never seen an atom either.

And to add, 500 years ago people thought that earth was flat, until proven wrong, so it would be as closeminded to say with a 100% conviction, that there is no god and that devoting ones self to religion(setting aside WHY people believe and have their religion) is stupid.

 

[Huntingtons]

old.Tohtori : Difference of the atom part is that there's proof that atoms exsist - religious people cant prove god exsists - science cant prove all but religion cant prove anything

 

[old.Tohtori]

old.Tohtori : Difference of the atom part is that there's proof that atoms exsist - religious people cant prove god exsists - science cant prove all but religion cant prove anything

That's exactly the point i'm talking about.

What is the proof? A bunch of white coated men claimng that atoms exist?

I'm not saying that atoms don't exist(heck, the science guys say so), but you can see what i mean when i say that one could claim that atoms are humbug, as much as with god?

 

[Raven]

No, because nobody has ever proved gods existence, the whole idea is quite frankly primitive. Christianity simply came from sun worship where the sun was replaced by "god"

 

[Huntingtons]

That's exactly the point i'm talking about.

What is the proof? A bunch of white coated men claimng that atoms exist?

I'm not saying that atoms don't exist(heck, the science guys say so), but you can see what i mean when i say that one could claim that atoms are humbug, as much as with god?

yes, but religious people wont be able to find an electroscope (or whatever they use) and say "hey look, thats your god".

 

[old.Tohtori]

yes, but religious people wont be able to find an electroscope (or whatever they use) and say "hey look, thats your god".

If you change that to "can't at the moment", then i agree.

At the moment, there's no "cold hard evidence", but as i was saying to Gorbachioo, it doesn't mean there can't be, or that there isn't going to be. The whole, flat earth thing.

The point wasn't meant to be taken as literally, the "atoms and god are same", but more as a, how to say, point of view. I think. Especiall notable the "haven't seen god, but haven't seen an atom either", which was the center of it really.

 

[swords]

I would argue that sight is but one sense. But people claim to hear god so It's not all that concrete... I see atoms all the time by the way, big groups of them that we call molecules. There is a device known as a mass-spectrometer which can separate these molecules based on their size and charge.
Now I'd love to see a god spectrometer

 

[UrganNagru]

Similar to what swords has said, if the scientists theories of atoms etc. are total bunkem then how have people managed to uses the rules and calculations they've devised to produce to computer you're using now. I've yet to see religion produce something beneficial from it's ideals that couldn't be produced by ethics or philosophy with out all the god clap trap.

 

[dub]

A priest tells you that "there is a god", and you believe it 'cause he showed some pictures and talked really really convincingly.

A scientist tells you there's these "atoms" that things are made of, and you believe it 'cause he showed some pictures and talked really really convincingly.


So the difference is?

there is no telling or believing involved , anyone can buy a microscope and see brownian motion

scientific method and empirical evidence hasnt really got anything to do with faith based truths , if there ever was apples and oranges this is it.

 

[Rookiescot]

Religion often brings people comfort in times of need. It does not matter whether it is based on scientific fact.
It really dont matter whether its real or not.
The fact is that for many people it makes them happy. And that is never a bad thing.
Obviously there are religious extremists out there (in all faiths) and extremism is always a bad thing.
But for most their faith is simply a source of comfort.
I personally have little to no faith in a higher being. I often question that if there is a God why does he let the shitty things happen when he could intervene.
BUT !!!
Would I condemn someone for having a religious faith? No.
Would I do my best to protect someones right to believe in a God. Yes.

Have I prayed to God with every fibre of my being because every other avenue of help seemed to be fucked?

Yes I have.

I hope that no-one on these boards ever has to do that.

 

[liloe]

No, because nobody has ever proved gods existence, the whole idea is quite frankly primitive. Christianity simply came from sun worship where the sun was replaced by "god"

I pretty much doubt that Christianity split from the Jews and as such took it's way here up from Israel, right through Greece.

Oh and Gorbachioo, I gave lots of arguments, you just chose to ignore them. It's your personal choice ofc, but you can't say I haven't brought up any arguments. Contrary to you, though, my posts have more content than "your're wrong" "your're wrong" "your're wrong" "your're wrong" "your're wrong" "your're wrong" … you get the picture…

I'm not offended if you don't share my point of view, that's why we can discuss, but I - and I guess everyone else - would pretty much appreciate if you actually read what others write and reply to their arguments, instead of repeating yourself like a parrot.

 

[Laddey]

Zzzz, threads gone way over my head!

 

[Sharma]

Science doesn't tell me I can't have random promiscuous sex, drink loads, smoke weed and generally enjoy my life.

Science doesn't tell me I can't tell someone to fuck off when they're blatently being a cock.

Science doesn't tell me I can't nick something back when i've had something nicked off me (By friends usually, we all do it at some point).

Science doesn't restrain my life other than the fact that when I kick the bucket, that's it.

I don't really get these evangelical born again types because i'm quite certain this planet is not just 2008 years old....unlike a certain world leader.

I always say it, people want to believe then more power to them, I just don't want to hear it - Much like some twonk who stopped me in the street a few months ago and I said I was in a hurry to go get brained on alcohol and he told me 'I believe the word of god is more important', had to make a quick exit for fear of punching the guy. Added onto that fact he was a FEAR THE LAWD I AM FROM TEXAS AND I HAVE COME TO GIVE THE WORD OF GAWD ALMIGHTEH!

People like that scare me.

 

[Sharma]

No, because nobody has ever proved gods existence, the whole idea is quite frankly primitive. Christianity simply came from sun worship where the sun was replaced by "god"

Added onto this fact, there's no evidence the big bang happened either, it's purely theoretical.

Also you cannot disprove the existence of god either, hence the stalemate in the arguement.

/Edit: You people really need to stop bashing Liloe for it, it always comes to blows with you guys and him defending his faith and you can't see past the end of your own nose over it. You believe that science is the key and liloe believes that faith is the key.

Believe it or not there are quite a few people who have really changed thanks to religion, smack heads, murderers and all that shizz have found inner peace through this faith you call 'bullshit' and have become good people - in some cases religion really CAN help.

Just for the most part the christian fundies, muslim fanatics etc cast a bad shadow over faith by pushing misguided interpretations onto the world (IE Church of hate in the US and their campaigns against gays and black people).

I find it quite fortunate that a few of the most friendly people i've ever met have came from a number of different religions and guided by their faith they are good people, although there are exceptions to this.

Stop being so fucking hard headed over this, most of these people aren't trying to convince you to believe it, but rather to educate you that their reasons for believing it are personal reasons they see as right.

You're being more than hypocritical by saying "i'm right, you're wrong."

 

[Rubric]

Science doesn't tell me I can't have random promiscuous sex, drink loads, smoke weed and generally enjoy my life.

Actually it does, it tell you that you will get aids, dodgy liver, cancer and mental illness. You just choose not to listen

 

[Sharma]

Hush you.

 

[crispy]

Well it advises him not to do it since it might not be healthy

 

[dub]

Added onto this fact, there's no evidence the big bang happened either, it's purely theoretical.

Also you cannot disprove the existence of god either, hence the stalemate in the arguement.

"

theories in science is not in opposition to facts , they explain facts (empirical evidence) , this is a common misunderstanding.

there really is no argument , god isnt a physical or mathematical object hence is beyond reach of empirical evidence and that in turn means that he really isnt something you can delve into with scientific methods , wich leads us to the understanding that it makes no sense to ask of science to disprove god

 

[Huntingtons]

I pretty much doubt that Christianity split from the Jews and as such took it's way here up from Israel, right through Greece.

but jesus has the same abilities as many sun gods according to zietgiest (which probably is correct, cba to check but in this case i believe internet tinfoil-heads)

 

[Gorbachioo]

I pretty much doubt that Christianity split from the Jews and as such took it's way here up from Israel, right through Greece.

Oh and Gorbachioo, I gave lots of arguments, you just chose to ignore them. It's your personal choice ofc, but you can't say I haven't brought up any arguments. Contrary to you, though, my posts have more content than "your're wrong" "your're wrong" "your're wrong" "your're wrong" "your're wrong" "your're wrong" … you get the picture…

I'm not offended if you don't share my point of view, that's why we can discuss, but I - and I guess everyone else - would pretty much appreciate if you actually read what others write and reply to their arguments, instead of repeating yourself like a parrot.

Well if you have then i have missed them. Could you please list them again? Just once more, then i will never ask for it again. Im dying to hear them.

Moderate belief is not a problem. Its stupid, but it doesnt harm anyone. The problem is that moderates become extremists when things go wrong. And that is why we have to get rid of it before we see tougher times. If the bible or any other "holy" scripture didnt excist then i wouldnt bother complaining about religion.

 

[Mojo]

Religion often brings people comfort in times of need. It does not matter whether it is based on scientific fact.
It really dont matter whether its real or not.

It fucking well matters when they start wars over it and do all kinds of nasty shit in its name.

 

[Sharma]

You need to differentiate between fundamentalists/extremists and those that follow it for their own means.

Fundies are the militant types, granted religion has spawned this but you can't tar everyone with the same brush simply because a specific sect from their religion are arseholes.

 

[liloe]

/Edit: You people really need to stop bashing Liloe for it, it always comes to blows with you guys and him defending his faith and you can't see past the end of your own nose over it. You believe that science is the key and liloe believes that faith is the key.

Aww =) thanks for the defense =)

I have to admit that I'm a very scientific person aswell, so I find it very sad when people think that Christians are lunatics that basically live in the medieval. I guess my family and I are better equipped with technical stuff than the average citizen ^^

The big problem is, that people don't make the difference between liberal, traditional/conservative and fundamental religious people. Tradition and conservatism itself isn't a bad thing cause it gives something you can hold to - it's easier so to speak. I for myself have chosen a more liberal way cause I never found my faith to restrict me in any way. Christianity is not what the big churches teach.
Nowhere does the Bible say the premarital sex is forbidden, nowhere does it say that you aren't allowed to drink alcohol. The Bible warns from abusing though cause it clearly says, that those who drink too much act like fools. Now - and let's see that from a clearly scientific pov - nothing is wrong with that =)

Basically what I want to say is, that if it comes to science, we are easier inclined to believe stuff without checking the facts, but when it comes to religion, everyone starts hammering out things he thinks he has heard or stand written somewhere =)

 

[Sharma]

The irony of the situation is this:

The atheists bash religion for blindly accepting what they've read in a book.

Funnily enough this is the case with most atheists have done the exact same thing - They read a book about science they got from school/library/book store and have blindly accepted that this is the truth despite the fact that a lot of these people rarely understand the concepts behind it.

Suprisingly enough a lot of scientists these days are religious and are searching for the answer to these questions and are ready to be proven wrong provided they come across something which outright disproves their beliefs and yet at the same time also search for a reason to believe.

The atheists that state that their PoV is outright correct and religious people are lunies are incredibly hypocritical.

You can only ever have a debate when you understand both sides of the coin and it's quite blatent that a lot of people don't - which is a shame really because a debate over science vs religion without the outright "You're fucking nuts" attitude produces some incredibly interesting philosophical conversations and I love debating it.

I would have loved to take a more active role in this thread but it seems at large that a few just can't seem to let go of their views that religious people are idiots.

 

[Rookiescot]

It fucking well matters when they start wars over it and do all kinds of nasty shit in its name.

Did you read the whole post I made or just the first two lines?

 

[tierk]

It fucking well matters when they start wars over it and do all kinds of nasty shit in its name.

Does it matter when they start wars to promote democracy? Or how about communism? What about wars for resources or facism?

Seems to me that people only choose to look at religion and make it seem that it's the only reason wars happen, when in reality, if we look the recent history, it is wars for land, resources and ideologies, other then religion, that have brought about the most destruction both materially and in the mortality rates.

 

[Mojo]

Did you read the whole post I made or just the first two lines?

Yes, you don't believe in religion but you are OK with people who do, that makes you even more hard for me to understand if i'm honest.

 

[Mojo]

Does it matter when they start wars to promote democracy? Or how about communism? What about wars for resources or facism?

Seems to me that people only choose to look at religion and make it seem that it's the only reason wars happen, when in reality, if we look the recent history, it is wars for land, resources and ideologies, other then religion, that have brought about the most destruction both materially and in the mortality rates.

Yes it does matter, but I have an easier time understanding the drive to go to war over land, food resources than I do non existent entities who come to people in dreams.

 

[tierk]

Yes it does matter, but I have an easier time understanding the drive to go to war over land, food resources than I do non existent entities who come to people in dreams.

Seems to me that the last hundered years all the wars have pretty much been fought for anything but religion and they have been the most destructive ones. WW1, WW2, Korean War, Vietnam, Invasion of Afghanistan (Russain one). Infact just off the top of my head i cant think of many wars that have been fought over religion in a loOong time, so i just dont get your point at all unless off course you are refering to the war on terror which is not a war by any definition.