Jump to content

Opinions on religion...?


Synthesthetic

Recommended Posts

What will you do on the day science shows abiogenesis to be true?

I'd accept it. What do you think I would do, go out and blow up things? I may believe but I don't insist. My idea of God doesn't mean I have to argue against demonstrated reality.

I've seldom seen such a shameless admittance of using "god of the gaps". I'd never stoop to such levels, but whatever sooths your soul.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What will you do on the day science shows abiogenesis to be true?

I'd accept it. What do you think I would do, go out and blow up things? I may believe but I don't insist. My idea of God doesn't mean I have to argue against demonstrated reality.

I've seldom seen such a shameless admittance of using "god of the gaps". I'd never stoop to such levels, but whatever sooths your soul.

"Soul"? What's a soul? Can you explain that term? I can't so I don't use it.

You're just not familiar with religionists of my sort, but there are plenty of us, and we're not looking for or expecting soothing. We have certain beliefs, and we also have eyes with which to see and ears to hear. They're not oppositional.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Asterion Orestes

bristrek87

The Catholic church once thought the Earth was flat,

I doubt that was ever officially the case. The old Greek philosopher types had figured out that the world was spherical--& even Dante Alighieri ca. 1300 depicted it as such.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The old Greek philosophers figuring things out hasn't stopped various groups from putting their fingers in their ears and go 'la la lala la I CAN'T HEAR YOU!' at them.

Could be wrong about the Flat Earth bit though, I'll not deny. I'm not up on the various things the Catholic Church (or any other) have denied, now don't deny and maybe in a few cases (cause it wouldn't surprise me) deny again. And looking into it yeah, Flat Earth not a good case buuuut.... other instances of the same sort of thing do exist.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The old Greek philosophers figuring things out hasn't stopped various groups from putting their fingers in their ears and go 'la la lala la I CAN'T HEAR YOU!' at them.

Could be wrong about the Flat Earth bit though, I'll not deny. I'm not up on the various things the Catholic Church (or any other) have denied, now don't deny and maybe in a few cases (cause it wouldn't surprise me) deny again. And looking into it yeah, Flat Earth not a good case buuuut.... other instances of the same sort of thing do exist.

Actually, no one in the middle ages ever thought the Earth was flat. The Greeks pretty much stamped that idea out. The mistaken belief came about due to The Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus by Washington Irving.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The old Greek philosophers figuring things out hasn't stopped various groups from putting their fingers in their ears and go 'la la lala la I CAN'T HEAR YOU!' at them.

Could be wrong about the Flat Earth bit though, I'll not deny. I'm not up on the various things the Catholic Church (or any other) have denied, now don't deny and maybe in a few cases (cause it wouldn't surprise me) deny again. And looking into it yeah, Flat Earth not a good case buuuut.... other instances of the same sort of thing do exist.

Actually, no one in the middle ages ever thought the Earth was flat. The Greeks pretty much stamped that idea out. The mistaken belief came about due to The Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus by Washington Irving.

Hmmm... I was always of the impression that while certain Greek philosophers determined the Earth to be round it took a long time for the idea to become common, particularly in the peasant classes and particularly in the dark ages. As I understand it most scholars and clerics and other well-informed and well-educated individuals would have accepted the notion, or at least have heard of it. But during the Dark Ages it was not uncommon for the peasants not even to be able to count, let alone read or know the shape of the Earth.

edit:

As far as I can tell there are people today in the Western World who still beleive the Earth is flat. Sure some of them might be an example of Poe's Law, but I don't think they all are.

Mind you, these aren't just uneducated people who simply haven't been told differently. They've heard of the concept, but oppose it as zealously as creationists oppose evolution.

Link to post
Share on other sites

what if god created not only the big bang...but scientists also?

Now you're just being completely illogical ... :P

Link to post
Share on other sites

The old Greek philosophers figuring things out hasn't stopped various groups from putting their fingers in their ears and go 'la la lala la I CAN'T HEAR YOU!' at them.

Could be wrong about the Flat Earth bit though, I'll not deny. I'm not up on the various things the Catholic Church (or any other) have denied, now don't deny and maybe in a few cases (cause it wouldn't surprise me) deny again. And looking into it yeah, Flat Earth not a good case buuuut.... other instances of the same sort of thing do exist.

Actually, no one in the middle ages ever thought the Earth was flat. The Greeks pretty much stamped that idea out. The mistaken belief came about due to The Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus by Washington Irving.

The issue with Columbus' voyage, and why he had to go to the SPanish, was that he thought the Earth's circumference was SMALLER than it is, not flat. Everyone else went, "Aw HELL no, dude, the Earth is NOT that small, and you do NOT have enough supplies to make that journey. Plus, your ships suck. Get a repair job, kthx." Isabella and Ferdinand were the only ones who would believe his bad math.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Uhm ... Why can't God have created life, the Big Bang, the mathematical precision that our world and universe operate with, our physical bodies ... Why can't God have created evolution, and everything else, as a way for us to learn about our universe and ourselves, and to get closer to Him/Her/It? To discover Divinity for ourselves?

I'm a big fan of "God did it ... in this amazing, natural, astounding way that we're still figuring out, and becoming closer to God by understanding."

But that's just me. It doesn't have ot be one or the other; it CAN be a mix of both.

*deep breath* He might have.

This doesn't mean anything though. Firstly, as I said, none of the arguments point to any particular deity. Secondly, they're not scientifically valid arguments anyway. Science needs evidence first and foremost. There is no evidence that God did any of that stuff, therefore claiming it as fact is as ludicrous as me claiming I built a time machine and started it all myself.

Some people see science and evolution and whatnot and take that as evidence against a deity. I take it as evidence FOR a deity. Scientific? No. But not everything needs, or can, be rationally explained by science - not at this time, anyway. Claiming that there IS no God is also ridiculous, because you can't disprove the existence of a deity, either. Really, agnosticism is the more scientifically rational belief.

On the other hand, if you already believe in God, feel free to explain it to yourself that way, I don't have a problem with that. Just don't expect me to listen to you about it.

So in a calm discussion, where you want me to listen to your views, you're going to not even give me the basic respect of listening to mine?

Link to post
Share on other sites

What, if anything, am I missing out on by not having religion play any role in my life? Or, alternatively, what are religious people missing in their lives that they feel the need to believe?

Experience the love of God ?

"The stars blazed like the love of God, cold and distant." - Roger Zelazny

I used to believe in God. Now I am convinced that if I ever did feel the love of God (which I doubt in the first place) it was an invention of my mind. I would much rather feel love of a real person close to me.

God's love, to me, is very close and warm. It's the peace I get when praying, the tingles I get when explaining my beliefs to people ... It's the thankfulness I feel to have such a loving, caring, accepting, supportive family, when I think of how blessed my life really is, no matter how hard it seems at the time. It's the satisfaction I get when I help other people, how good it makes me feel.

I'm not discounting how important human love is, and it's hugely important to me, but a spiritual higher power's love is also very important. Maybe I'm imagining things, but even if I am, religion is a huge benefit to my life and if I'm happy, I don't see why anyone has the right to try to ruin that happiness, simply because they don't feel that the source of it is valid.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The old Greek philosophers figuring things out hasn't stopped various groups from putting their fingers in their ears and go 'la la lala la I CAN'T HEAR YOU!' at them.

Could be wrong about the Flat Earth bit though, I'll not deny. I'm not up on the various things the Catholic Church (or any other) have denied, now don't deny and maybe in a few cases (cause it wouldn't surprise me) deny again. And looking into it yeah, Flat Earth not a good case buuuut.... other instances of the same sort of thing do exist.

Actually, no one in the middle ages ever thought the Earth was flat. The Greeks pretty much stamped that idea out. The mistaken belief came about due to The Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus by Washington Irving.

The issue with Columbus' voyage, and why he had to go to the SPanish, was that he thought the Earth's circumference was SMALLER than it is, not flat. Everyone else went, "Aw HELL no, dude, the Earth is NOT that small, and you do NOT have enough supplies to make that journey. Plus, your ships suck. Get a repair job, kthx." Isabella and Ferdinand were the only ones who would believe his bad math.

But they didn't finance his trip; private investors and Jewish financiers did. The Spanish monarchs gave him permission to sail under the Spanish flag; the Portuguese king provided a nautical almanac because they knew something about the land that was not India; Spain and Portugal split the wealth Columbus brought back.

Of course, that has nothing to do with the earth being flat or round, but no one really thought he was going to sail off the edge of the earth.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Some people see science and evolution and whatnot and take that as evidence against a deity. I take it as evidence FOR a deity. Scientific? No. But not everything needs, or can, be rationally explained by science - not at this time, anyway. Claiming that there IS no God is also ridiculous, because you can't disprove the existence of a deity, either. Really, agnosticism is the more scientifically rational belief.

That's not the way it works! The burden is not on me to disprove something's existance, it's on you to prove it. If we had to disprove everything we'd get nowhere for we would have to do it to everything imaginable.

As it is, yes there is a chance that a God exists, even the one you specifically believe in. There's also a chance that in the next five seconds a black hole will appear above your head and suck you in before closing as if it was never there. The chance is miniscule, so we don't bother with it.

I am not saying evolution and other scientific theory is evidence against a deity. I don't have to because there's no reason to believe there's one in the first place.

[Minor aside, the whole "listening to point" thing which I didn't include in the quote for tidying reasons: That's not really what I meant. I was refering to how certain groups try to convert people to their belief systems, or force them onto others: See Creationism. Couldn't really think of a better way to get that across]

Finally, I'm not advocating the destruction of religion. I'm not even trying to ridicule people's beliefs. I am merely attempting to demonstrate that religion and science must be kept seperate (again, not meaning religious people can't accept scientific theory, but rather that religion has no ground upon which to argue with scientific theory). The person I was replying to (in the post you quoted) was making several incredibly basic mistakes about the nature of science. I understand that belief doesn't need evidence or rationalisation and I'm fine with that, but they were trying to give it just that, and simultaniously making a mockery of scientific theory.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Religious person here agreeing that religion has no ground upon which to argue with scientific theory. There's no evidence for a God/gods. I have a personal belief that God exists and a personal consonance with a particular theology. That doesn't demand evidence, nor do I purport any evidence to anyone else. I don't see how someone not believing as I do could be ruining anything I feel, since that doesn't depend on what someone else feels.

Historical fact is another thing. What's claimed as history is either recorded, orally or in written language, in which case it is in fact history, or not recorded, in which case it's conjecture or belief and shouldn't be pushed on anyone.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Asterion Orestes
Historical fact is another thing. What's claimed as history is either recorded, orally or in written language, in which case it is in fact history, or not recorded, in which case it's conjecture or belief and shouldn't be pushed on anyone.

Then again Napoleon ostensibly defined history as "a set of lies agreed upon." :twisted: :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

But they didn't finance his trip; private investors and Jewish financiers did. The Spanish monarchs gave him permission to sail under the Spanish flag; the Portuguese king provided a nautical almanac because they knew something about the land that was not India; Spain and Portugal split the wealth Columbus brought back.

Of course, that has nothing to do with the earth being flat or round, but no one really thought he was going to sail off the edge of the earth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tordesillas

Link to post
Share on other sites

After looking into it I did say Flat Earth wasn't the best example. And, come to think of it, it's even one of the things that got a loud buzzer/flash on QI one time. Should've remembered. Alas. But my point wasn't hinged on the church specifically thinking the Earth was flat so....

And I agree, it seems likely to me, with no evidence on this so this is only my personal PoV, that even the educated people knew the Earth wasn't flat, and even if sailors knew that was the case, I'm sure there were plenty who did. They're still around now will all this evidence to the contrary, people have ridden around the world on motorbikes and seen it from above.... seeing the curve even when you're on a plane during a clear day. So it seems possible there were plenty back then who thought it, even if the educated and sailors didn't. No real way of proving it though.

Damnit, I want a TARDIS.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Some people see science and evolution and whatnot and take that as evidence against a deity. I take it as evidence FOR a deity. Scientific? No. But not everything needs, or can, be rationally explained by science - not at this time, anyway. Claiming that there IS no God is also ridiculous, because you can't disprove the existence of a deity, either. Really, agnosticism is the more scientifically rational belief.

That's not the way it works! The burden is not on me to disprove something's existance, it's on you to prove it. If we had to disprove everything we'd get nowhere for we would have to do it to everything imaginable.

I don't want to prove anything to you. If you take a good, long, honest look at life and different beliefs and whatnot and still find no rational reason to believe in a deity, and don't try to force others to not believe, then that's perfectly all right.

I'm not saying you're the one doing this, but when I say "I believe in God" and someone immediately tells me to prove it, I get a little miffed. I don't want to have to prove why I believe what I believe; I just wants others to not get on my case about it.

Oh, I wasn't trying to get you to disprove the existence of a deity, either. Re-reading my post, I see that I might have come off sounding like that, and if I did, I apologise.

I am not saying evolution and other scientific theory is evidence against a deity. I don't have to because there's no reason to believe there's one in the first place.

Some people do, and I have plenty reason to believe in a deity. My reasons aren't your reasons, obviously, but they're still reasons to believe.

[Minor aside, the whole "listening to point" thing which I didn't include in the quote for tidying reasons: That's not really what I meant. I was refering to how certain groups try to convert people to their belief systems, or force them onto others: See Creationism. Couldn't really think of a better way to get that across]

I take it you mean Creationism as nutcase Christians present it, with the Earth being 8,000 years old or whatnot, and God lying to us by making it appear older. I don't hold with that at all. I do hold with the idea that God put into place all the events that led to the Big Bang, and evolution, and the eventual emergence of humanity, over billions and billions of years. Because really, boxing a deity into a man-made construct like time, and then further restricting that deity to an already inaccurate 24-hour day? Total BS. So yes, with THAT view of Creationism I tend to get (politely) dismissive. It's like, "Really? God made science, and the science don't add up, buddy."

Finally, I'm not advocating the destruction of religion. I'm not even trying to ridicule people's beliefs. I am merely attempting to demonstrate that religion and science must be kept seperate (again, not meaning religious people can't accept scientific theory, but rather that religion has no ground upon which to argue with scientific theory).

Oaky, I think I understand now. Again to pick on young-Earth Christians, but only because they're the most obvious group, you're arguing that it's ludicrous to dismiss hundreds, if not thousands, of years of scientific research simply because "My interpretation of the Bible says differently." I completely agree with that.

Interestingly enough, the young-Earth theory is a relatively recent one. Christian scientists even a hundred, hundred-fifty years ago, found no quarrel between the Earth being ancient and the Bible's creation accounts. A couple years ago I was reading Answers in Creation, a Christian site dedicated to disproving the young-Earth creationists' theories, and I ran across an article that I can't find now, that quoted a scientist from the mid-1800's, I think, studying fossilized trees, talking about the old age of the Earth and not having an issue with believing that God did it.

I think, from a religious perspective, that you can use a religious text to uphold science, to give it a little extra boost, but you can't use it to disprove science. The Qur'an goes into detail about embryonic development, for example, over a thousand years before humans were able to see that small, which gives it validation amongst the religious-minded. But even if it didn't mention that, that's no reason to claim that embryonic development doesn't occur. Is that a good comparison? It's the one that stuck out most in my mind.

The person I was replying to (in the post you quoted) was making several incredibly basic mistakes about the nature of science. I understand that belief doesn't need evidence or rationalisation and I'm fine with that, but they were trying to give it just that, and simultaniously making a mockery of scientific theory.

Gotcha. ^_^

Link to post
Share on other sites
Historical fact is another thing. What's claimed as history is either recorded, orally or in written language, in which case it is in fact history, or not recorded, in which case it's conjecture or belief and shouldn't be pushed on anyone.

Then again Napoleon ostensibly defined history as "a set of lies agreed upon." :twisted: :rolleyes:

Napoleon was an undereducated egoist and political zealot, not the best definer of truth himself.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...