Flash Flash Revolution: Community Forums

Flash Flash Revolution: Community Forums (http://www.flashflashrevolution.com/vbz/index.php)
-   Critical Thinking (http://www.flashflashrevolution.com/vbz/forumdisplay.php?f=33)
-   -   Why religion isn't under the same amount of scrutiny? (http://www.flashflashrevolution.com/vbz/showthread.php?t=98737)

chopperdudes 08-29-2008 07:36 PM

Why religion isn't under the same amount of scrutiny?
 
When one openly attacks a religion, they are deemed impolite, rude, and gets attacked back for venturing into enemy territories. however, i think any idea should be subjected to the same amount of scrutiny given the chance to. every scientific theory undergoes a huge amount of scrutiny/peer reviewing/trying to prove it wrong before it is even published to the public.

the theory of evolution undergoes an exception amount of scrutiny (not only by the religious community but more so the scientific peer reviewers), in fact that's one of the reasons why it's one of the most solid theories in present time.

religion is also an idea, however, they undergo little scrutiny and those doesn't really affect it at all. attacks against religions are big no-no's. isn't this unfair?

one of the best flow charts i've seen:

Removed. If the OP wants to salvage a single strand of legitimacy from this thread, he won't mind. If not, I'll gladly lock the thread for lack of an interest in discourse.

GuidoHunter 08-29-2008 07:42 PM

Re: Why religion isn't under the same amount of scrutiny?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by chopperdudes (Post 2770806)
When one openly attacks a religion, they are deemed impolite, rude, and gets attacked back for venturing into enemy territories.

Ah, how nice of you to take an isolated incident and apply it to every instance. Thanks for being so intellectually honest right off the bat.

Quote:

however, i think any idea should be subjected to the same amount of scrutiny given the chance to. every scientific theory undergoes a huge amount of scrutiny/peer reviewing/trying to prove it wrong before it is even published to the public.
Religious ideas undergo massive amounts of religious scrutiny. Scientific ideas undergo massive amounts of scientific scrutiny.

What happens when religious ideas undergo scientific scrutiny or vice versa? Absolutely nothing. They are entirely separate domains governed by very different rules. By definition, science CANNOT scrutinize constructs, and religion is inherently based on a construct.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

infinity. 08-29-2008 08:47 PM

Re: Why religion isn't under the same amount of scrutiny?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by GuidoHunter (Post 2770813)
Ah, how nice of you to take an isolated incident and apply it to every instance. Thanks for being so intellectually honest right off the bat.

It's a generalization.. don't be over-sensitive.


Quote:


Religious ideas undergo massive amounts of religious scrutiny. Scientific ideas undergo massive amounts of scientific scrutiny.

What happens when religious ideas undergo scientific scrutiny or vice versa? Absolutely nothing. They are entirely separate domains governed by very different rules. By definition, science CANNOT scrutinize constructs, and religion is inherently based on a construct.

--Guido

this is said about all religious debates, even though i agree with, it seems like a cop-out to not even discuss the situation at hand. Deleting the flowchart was completely immature.

OP,

attacks against religion happen all the time. look at cases where parents sue schools for religious conduct,

look at what happened on the openings of the scientologist churches,

look at the creationism museum (which coincidentally is less than an hour away from where i live.)

look at the videos on youtube criticizing religion.



if you're going to talk about religion you should just not bring in science all together and vice-versa.

chopperdudes 08-29-2008 08:55 PM

Re: Why religion isn't under the same amount of scrutiny?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by GuidoHunter (Post 2770813)
Ah, how nice of you to take an isolated incident and apply it to every instance. Thanks for being so intellectually honest right off the bat.

isolated incident? :confused: that's a generalization, even one of the rules on the forum if i'm not mistaken.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GuidoHunter (Post 2770813)
What happens when religious ideas undergo scientific scrutiny or vice versa? Absolutely nothing.

in my opinion this is so because theists will not accept the evidences at hand. if there is a system as to how to measure a debate via the evidences and facts given, i think science would be declared the winner on contraversal grounds between science and religion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GuidoHunter (Post 2770813)
They are entirely separate domains governed by very different rules. By definition, science CANNOT scrutinize constructs, and religion is inherently based on a construct.

this is true if the 2 doesn't overlap, but when they do, and the issue is contraversal, it is best that both sides be scrutinized by evidences at hand imho.

btw i got that flow chart from either tass or synth i believe while browsing this forum.

GuidoHunter 08-29-2008 09:37 PM

Re: Why religion isn't under the same amount of scrutiny?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by chopperdudes (Post 2770911)
isolated incident? :confused: that's a generalization, even one of the rules on the forum if i'm not mistaken.

Call it what you want; it's still dishonest.

Quote:

in my opinion this is so because theists will not accept the evidences at hand.
Good thing it's not based on your opinions then. SCIENTISTS, when defining SCIENCE, came up with it. You cannot TEST or PREDICT constructs, therefore science HAS to disregard them entirely.

Here, a site: http://www.physics.smu.edu/~scalise/P3333fa05/SciMeth/

The lecture on the scientific method itself from a class which teaches how the scientific method works. Don't take my word for it, if you don't want to.

Quote:

if there is a system as to how to measure a debate via the evidences and facts given, i think science would be declared the winner on contraversal grounds between science and facts.
Science is based on facts and nothing else, so I'm going to assume you meant "science and religion" at the end there.

Do you understand what you're asking, though? You want a system to measure an idea's value based on testable, provable facts. That is set up entirely in the realm of science. That's like saying you'd bet on the Dallas Cowboys in a football game versus the New York Yankees.

If you come away from this thread learning only one thing, please let it be this: Religion and Science CANNOT tread on each other's toes. They can neither prove nor disprove each other. God, as a scientific construct who is capable of disobeying all of science's rules, cannot be described (or his existence proven) in scientific terms.

Quote:

this is true if the 2 doesn't overlap, but when they do, and the issue is contraversal, it is best that both sides be scrutinized by evidences at hand imho.
See above, especially the part where they don't ever overlap. You may have heard arguments that inappropriately and ignorantly try to overlap the two, but by the definition of each, they cannot.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Infinity.
Deleting the flowchart was completely immature.

This is Critical Thinking, a place for critical thinking, not for taking misleading and ignorant jabs at a side; loaded OP's are not welcome here.

Quote:

if you're going to talk about religion you should just not bring in science all together and vice-versa.
And here we have a winner.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

Relambrien 08-29-2008 11:02 PM

Re: Why religion isn't under the same amount of scrutiny?
 
EDIT: Comment retracted due to this

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tasselfoot
nuh uh. religion threads, especially outside of CT, are a big no-no from Me...

history has shown that there is no good that can come from any religion based thread.

Tass closed pretty much the same thread (by the same guy) in Chit-Chat, so I would assume he wouldn't be particularly happy with this either.

chopperdudes 08-30-2008 01:18 AM

Re: Why religion isn't under the same amount of scrutiny?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by GuidoHunter (Post 2771003)
Call it what you want; it's still dishonest.

dishonest bout what?? are you saying that in your point of view openly attacking religion is acceptable? dunno what you mean.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GuidoHunter (Post 2771003)
Good thing it's not based on your opinions then. SCIENTISTS, when defining SCIENCE, came up with it. You cannot TEST or PREDICT constructs, therefore science HAS to disregard them entirely.

Here, a site: http://www.physics.smu.edu/~scalise/P3333fa05/SciMeth/

The lecture on the scientific method itself from a class which teaches how the scientific method works. Don't take my word for it, if you don't want to.

the lack of falsifiability of relgion & god just makes it useless in terms of predicting, an unfalsifiable claim should stop at just being that, a claim, it does nothing and therefore should not be kept (not saying the morals etc, just ie. events described in genesis for ppl who take them literally).

Quote:

Originally Posted by GuidoHunter (Post 2771003)
Science is based on facts and nothing else, so I'm going to assume you meant "science and religion" at the end there.

sorry yes i will edit that later.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GuidoHunter (Post 2771003)
Do you understand what you're asking, though? You want a system to measure an idea's value based on testable, provable facts. That is set up entirely in the realm of science. That's like saying you'd bet on the Dallas Cowboys in a football game versus the New York Yankees.

if an idea make claims and statements, then yes it does need to be supported by provable facts and empirical evidences. not only in the realm of science, but in everything else OTHER than religion. what's good claiming that i can fly if i don't prove it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by GuidoHunter (Post 2771003)
If you come away from this thread learning only one thing, please let it be this: Religion and Science CANNOT tread on each other's toes. They can neither prove nor disprove each other. God, as a scientific construct who is capable of disobeying all of science's rules, cannot be described (or his existence proven) in scientific terms.

actually, i believe science actually does it's own thing, it's own discoveries, it's own testings, etc. however, when science found something against the believes of theists, they (theists) will tread on science's toes. if you didn't know, creationists tried to advance religion into the education curriculum, therefore renamed it as Intelligent Design (ID), and established it as a "contraversy" to evolution. the unfalsifiability of ID alone makes it pseudoscience. theists have attacked evolution by saying it teaches an immoral way of life and tells us to behave like animals. the facts are the facts, i might say or not believe i'm a male, but it is a fact that i am one.

also, i'm sure you know the burden of proof lies with the claim. it is impossible to disprove god, just as it is impossible to disprove the sphaghetti monster. the lack of proof FOR god isn't not proof against god, but certainly is evidence that He does not exist. also, as mentioned, unfalsifiable claims/things are of no value (factually speaking, not morality).


Quote:

Originally Posted by GuidoHunter (Post 2771003)
See above, especially the part where they don't ever overlap. You may have heard arguments that inappropriately and ignorantly try to overlap the two, but by the definition of each, they cannot.

so you don't think creation overlaps with evolution? you don't think genesis overlaps with any facts in the science and geology field? you don't think the impossibility of noah's ark overlaps with anything at all? or in your opinion they shouldn't be taken literally?

Quote:

Originally Posted by GuidoHunter (Post 2771003)
This is Critical Thinking, a place for critical thinking, not for taking misleading and ignorant jabs at a side; loaded OP's are not welcome here.

CT is a place to debate / make points. aren't you supposed to make a stance and defend it? i was making my stance i'm pretty sure you noticed, and i don't see anything wrong with the validity of that flow chart. it is just an easier way of showing how things work. is that not how science work and religion work?


ps. Guido please i don't see why you're coming across so hot.

Quote:

Tass closed pretty much the same thread (by the same guy) in Chit-Chat, so I would assume he wouldn't be particularly happy with this either.
yes i know. it is not really similar because instead of asking for a full out religion vs science debate, it is still CT as to why religions are subjected to less scrutiny. I didn't make any personal attacks or rude comments, i was just referring to the points.

GuidoHunter 08-30-2008 03:09 AM

Re: Why religion isn't under the same amount of scrutiny?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by chopperdudes (Post 2771549)
dishonest bout what?? are you saying that in your point of view openly attacking religion is acceptable? dunno what you mean.

You stated as fact in all scenarios something that you saw happen in some. As it doesn't happen in all (even many) such scenarios, such a statement is dishonest.

That is, you stated that when religion is attacked, people become defensive, rude, etc., and that most certainly doesn't happen all the time. Not only are such generalizations dishonest and therefore not critical thinking, it was your first sentence, and so it made a very poor first impression.

Quote:

the lack of falsifiability of relgion & god just makes it useless in terms of predicting, an unfalsifiable claim should stop at just being that, a claim, it does nothing and therefore should not be kept (not saying the morals etc, just ie. events described in genesis for ppl who take them literally).
Ah, see, now you're getting it. One key element in the scientific method is the prediction of outcomes (another being falsifiability). Without that, there's no science! Religious claims are inscrutable and should therefore be discarded. That is the very reason why science has no place analyzing religion and the very reason it cannot and should not be held to the same scrutiny as science (as the OP suggests).

Quote:

if an idea make claims and statements, then yes it does need to be supported by provable facts and empirical evidences.
No, sir. Only if the claim can be tested does it need provable facts to support its claim. The instant a construct is introduced, a scientist must throw up his hands and proclaim, "I want nothing to do with this!"

Tell a group of philosophers, theologians, and metaphysicists to prove the existence of God and they'll get hard to work, mounting piles upon piles of (religious) evidence for and against it.

Tell a group of scientists to prove the existence of God and they'll sit on their hands.

That's how it should be, too. As soon as you attempt to falsify or verify a construct, you have left the realm of science.

Quote:

actually, i believe science actually does it's own thing, it's own discoveries, it's own testings, etc. however, when science found something against the believes of theists, they (theists) will tread on science's toes. if you didn't know, creationists tried to advance religion into the education curriculum, therefore renamed it as Intelligent Design (ID), and established it as a "contraversy" to evolution.
That's a stark generalization of what actually happened, but that's neither here nor there.

And yes, proponents who would have ID taught in science classes (do note that distinction; there's nothing wrong with teaching ID in school, so long as it's taught in some sort of religious studies class and not in a science class) are making the same grave error as those who somehow think that science and evolution can disprove the Bible. Those are both disgusting claims that have absolutely no intellectual merit.

I'll also point out that your example of the ID-in-school has no bearing on my statement that it addressed. Just because some religious people don't understand science and thus claim that they do interfere with each other doesn't mean that they actually do.

Quote:

the unfalsifiability of ID alone makes it pseudoscience
Carefulcarefulcareful with your terminology here. Firstly, you're making a very broad generalization of ID there, and I'd encourage you to find out more about the various types of ID and what the different types claim before blanketing them all together. ID is religious in nature, and thus based on a construct (not scientific in nature). Pseudoscience is reserved for those beliefs that claim to be scientific nature, but have failed to hold up to scientific rigor (astrology, chiropractics, acupuncture, homeopathy, telekinesis)

Quote:

theists have attacked evolution by saying it teaches an immoral way of life and tells us to behave like animals.
Careful not to derail your own thread.

Quote:

the facts are the facts, i might say or not believe i'm a male, but it is a fact that i am one.
Ahh, here we open up a new door to another very important distinction between science and religion, one of truth.

Ask a Christian how the universe actually came into existence. The likely response? "God created it."

Ask a scientist the same question, and his first words should be, "I don't know." That should, however, be followed by, "But the evidence suggests that..."

Science cannot tell you what actually happened; all it can do is show you what all the evidence suggests. Hypotheses are formed, refuted, revamped, and supported as more facts and evidence are presented. This can lead to a veritable MOUNTAIN of evidence that points to one extremely likely outcome, but can science ever be 100% sure? No. It can be so sure that you'd be a fool to not believe the evidence, but it cannot be certain.

Religion, on the other hand, claims to know the truth. It DOES make those claims of 100% certainty.

Which is right? Nobody knows.

It is due to that uncertainty that many people can logically justify a belief in a Genesis-like creation. They would, however, be at a significant disadvantage if they tried to justify their claim in a scientific environment.

Faith versus evidence. Believe what you want, but you can't justify that you're certainly right.

Quote:

so you don't think creation overlaps with evolution? you don't think genesis overlaps with any facts in the science and geology field? you don't think the impossibility of noah's ark overlaps with anything at all? or in your opinion they shouldn't be taken literally?
My opinion is irrelevant. An educated religious man knows how to and where to draw the line, though.

Quote:

CT is a place to debate / make points. aren't you supposed to make a stance and defend it? i was making my stance i'm pretty sure you noticed, and i don't see anything wrong with the validity of that flow chart. it is just an easier way of showing how things work. is that not how science work and religion work?
Like I said earlier, it was an intellectually dishonest oversimplification created either out of ignorance of methodology or a desire to make a snide jab at a side.

Given the very strict requirements of the Critical Thinking forum, it was entirely inappropriate for an OP.

Quote:

ps. Guido please i don't see why you're coming across so hot.
I know why, but don't sweat it. One reason is to see if you're willing and able to reasonably defend your points, which you seem to be doing well enough so far.

Just don't take it personally, okay? =)

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

Grandiagod 08-30-2008 05:50 AM

Re: Why religion isn't under the same amount of scrutiny?
 
Douglas Adams wrote a terrific piece about this later included in "The Salmon of Doubt".

devonin 08-30-2008 07:30 AM

Re: Why religion isn't under the same amount of scrutiny?
 
Intelligent religious people never suggest that their views are scientific, or should stand up to scientific rigor.

Intelligent scientific people never suggest that their views are religious, or should stand up to religious constructivism (constructionism?).

All kinds of religious and scientific people try to cross those lines all the time. You'll notice the lack of extra adjective in the preceding statement.

Anybody who says religion should stand up to scientific rigor or be discarded simply doesn't understand or doesn't -want- to understand religion and how religion works.

You're asking us to compare Terminator 2 and Stardust. They're both movies, lots of people like one or the other, sometimes both, sometimes neither. Just because they are both movies doesn't mean they should necessarily stand up to the exact same criteria of evaluation, nor should they. If you're evaluating them based on gunfights and explosions, T2 comes out the clear winner. If you're evaluating them on gay pirates and swordfights, Stardust is the clear winner.

The whole point is that neither one is trying to do anything the other one is doing, and trying to force them to compete in the same arena is just foolish.

Edit: The flowchart (which I didn't see, but I'm 99.99% certain I know what it was) was posted by me somewhere on the forum, rather than, I suspect, Synth or Tass.

Grandiagod 08-30-2008 07:49 AM

Re: Why religion isn't under the same amount of scrutiny?
 
I think when something decides that it's the ultimate truth to not criticize it and examine it to see if it's actually TRUE is pretty dumb.

devonin 08-30-2008 08:06 AM

Re: Why religion isn't under the same amount of scrutiny?
 
Well, it's unfortunate that you think it is dumb. But "I think it is dumb" isn't very good CT.

Here's the thing though, explicit in the whole concept of faith is that it does not need to be questioned. Having faith in a construct requires that you be prepared to accept it without subjecting it to scientific scrutiny. Anybody who tells you that religion -does- stand up to scientific scruitny is just as idiotic as someone who says it -should-

Grandiagod 08-30-2008 08:15 AM

Re: Why religion isn't under the same amount of scrutiny?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by devonin (Post 2771881)
Well, it's unfortunate that you think it is dumb. But "I think it is dumb" isn't very good CT.

Here's the thing though, explicit in the whole concept of faith is that it does not need to be questioned. Having faith in a construct requires that you be prepared to accept it without subjecting it to scientific scrutiny. Anybody who tells you that religion -does- stand up to scientific scruitny is just as idiotic as someone who says it -should-

Change "dumb" to the negative adjective or phrase of your choice please.

And you're going back to the whole "If something is taken on faith having proof for it would negate it having to be taken on faith" argument.

Sorry when something claims it's a universal truth and correct in every way and then says you can't criticize it because it relies on faith I see that as a terribly flawed system. It may be the reality of the situation but that doesn't make it correct by any leap of logic.

devonin 08-30-2008 08:56 AM

Re: Why religion isn't under the same amount of scrutiny?
 
Flaws in the church aren't the same as flaws in the faith. This seems to be where your confusion is coming from. And I am not going back to that argument, because I'm not going down the "proof denies faith" road, I'm going down the "Faith requires no proof" road which is a very different flavour.

chopperdudes 08-30-2008 03:27 PM

Re: Why religion isn't under the same amount of scrutiny?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by GuidoHunter (Post 2771742)
You stated as fact in all scenarios something that you saw happen in some. As it doesn't happen in all (even many) such scenarios, such a statement is dishonest.

That is, you stated that when religion is attacked, people become defensive, rude, etc., and that most certainly doesn't happen all the time. Not only are such generalizations dishonest and therefore not critical thinking, it was your first sentence, and so it made a very poor first impression.

nonononono, i'm saying if I openly attack religion, //I//'ll be deemed as rude and offensive and 'why not just leave them be?', and i'm asking why, because if you openly attack the claim that i can fly, it's perfectly acceptable. i'm not saying that when i attack them, they become rude and defensive, nono, misunderstanding.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GuidoHunter (Post 2771742)
Ah, see, now you're getting it. One key element in the scientific method is the prediction of outcomes (another being falsifiability). Without that, there's no science! Religious claims are inscrutable and should therefore be discarded. That is the very reason why science has no place analyzing religion and the very reason it cannot and should not be held to the same scrutiny as science (as the OP suggests).

yes, but any such views without going through the scientific method therefore should not hold any factual values. they can still have moral values, but without falsifiability and the prediction of outcomes, it therefore CANNOT go through the scientific method and holds no meaning. God is unfalsifiable, as is the sphaghetti monster, so why should god hold more validity than the sphaghetti monster?

Quote:

Originally Posted by GuidoHunter (Post 2771742)
No, sir. Only if the claim can be tested does it need provable facts to support its claim. The instant a construct is introduced, a scientist must throw up his hands and proclaim, "I want nothing to do with this!"

the thing is, does a construct hold any factual value at all? it their claims will not and CANNOT be tested or backed up by facts?

Quote:

Originally Posted by GuidoHunter (Post 2771742)
Tell a group of philosophers, theologians, and metaphysicists to prove the existence of God and they'll get hard to work, mounting piles upon piles of (religious) evidence for and against it.

Tell a group of scientists to prove the existence of God and they'll sit on their hands.

That's how it should be, too. As soon as you attempt to falsify or verify a construct, you have left the realm of science.

a contruct need not be falsified because it has never been proven, burden of proof. many theologians have tried to prove the existance of god, but will always end up in circular logic by religious proofs.


Quote:

Originally Posted by GuidoHunter (Post 2771742)
And yes, proponents who would have ID taught in science classes (do note that distinction; there's nothing wrong with teaching ID in school, so long as it's taught in some sort of religious studies class and not in a science class) are making the same grave error as those who somehow think that science and evolution can disprove the Bible. Those are both disgusting claims that have absolutely no intellectual merit.

yes not in science class, which is where ID proponents are attempting. i don't see how you can say evolution doesn't disprove the literal creation. that is why some theists have adapted to what they called theistic evolution, where god help set it in motion. however, there isn't an "insert god-like figure here" in the theory of evolution, and since evolution and creation (in its literal sense) overlap the same area but are contradicting in every way possible. i'd have to say evolution disproved creation (creation is falsifiable, just that God isn't)

Quote:

Originally Posted by GuidoHunter (Post 2771742)
I'll also point out that your example of the ID-in-school has no bearing on my statement that it addressed. Just because some religious people don't understand science and thus claim that they do interfere with each other doesn't mean that they actually do.

so you say for them to attempt to establish creation as a scientific contraversy to evolution renaming it ID still doesn't interfere with each other...

Quote:

Originally Posted by GuidoHunter (Post 2771742)
Carefulcarefulcareful with your terminology here. Firstly, you're making a very broad generalization of ID there, and I'd encourage you to find out more about the various types of ID and what the different types claim before blanketing them all together. ID is religious in nature, and thus based on a construct (not scientific in nature). Pseudoscience is reserved for those beliefs that claim to be scientific nature, but have failed to hold up to scientific rigor (astrology, chiropractics, acupuncture, homeopathy, telekinesis)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design
Quote:

The unequivocal
Quote:

consensus in the scientific community is that intelligent design is pseudoscience...

The US National Science Teachers Association and the American Association for the Advancement of Science have termed it pseudoscience.[19] Others have concurred, and some have called it junk science.
Quote:

Originally Posted by GuidoHunter (Post 2771742)
Ahh, here we open up a new door to another very important distinction between science and religion, one of truth.

Ask a Christian how the universe actually came into existence. The likely response? "God created it."

Ask a scientist the same question, and his first words should be, "I don't know." That should, however, be followed by, "But the evidence suggests that..."

Science cannot tell you what actually happened; all it can do is show you what all the evidence suggests. Hypotheses are formed, refuted, revamped, and supported as more facts and evidence are presented. This can lead to a veritable MOUNTAIN of evidence that points to one extremely likely outcome, but can science ever be 100% sure? No. It can be so sure that you'd be a fool to not believe the evidence, but it cannot be certain.

Religion, on the other hand, claims to know the truth. It DOES make those claims of 100% certainty.

to accept the fact that we don't know is better than to plug the gap with "Goddidit". the answer god did it has no meaning in itself, just as the answer "it's magic". in science we'll never be 100% sure, only so certain after rigorous testing and peer reviews. for christians to say they're 100% certain that god is the answer is just plain ignorant to me. one cannot be 100% certain even with MOUNTAINS of proofs, yet they claim they are based on their faith. and philosophically speaking one cannot be 100% certain of anything as that is intellectual dishonesty and being "close-minded" (and a theory 'proving' you can't be 100% certain)

devonin 08-30-2008 04:11 PM

Re: Why religion isn't under the same amount of scrutiny?
 
Quote:

the answer god did it has no meaning in itself
Only to a non-religious person, and that is the distinction you keep insisting on ignoring.

chopperdudes 08-30-2008 04:15 PM

Re: Why religion isn't under the same amount of scrutiny?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by devonin (Post 2772652)
Only to a non-religious person, and that is the distinction you keep insisting on ignoring.

i'm not making a distinction between religious and non-religious, i'm just saying it has no factual meaning or useful for any kind of prediction or answering any question.

differentiate "god did it" with "it's magic"?

and i'm not talking bout moral values here, as that is a totally differnet debate.

devonin 08-30-2008 04:22 PM

Re: Why religion isn't under the same amount of scrutiny?
 
Quote:

differentiate "god did it" with "it's magic"?
They believe God exists, they don't believe in magic. God to them is a specific construct with specific qualities in which they have invested a great deal of personal faith and belief. Magic is a random term that covers absoluetly everything that an individual person happens to not understand.

Quote:

i'm just saying it has no factual meaning or useful for any kind of prediction or answering any question.
You're defining 'factual' as meaning 'provable by experimentation and observation' Given that definition, no right-thinking religious person would ever say their belief was factual, so I'm not seeing why this causes such a problem for you.

Let me reiterate: You are holding something to a standard it has never claimed to meet, and then denigrating that something for its failure to meet a standard that, again, it has never claimed to meet.

Taking the opinion statement of fanatics or fundamentalists as being indicative of the whole group is an incredible generalization. If you asked most religious people to prove their belief they would say "I (Note the use of I in that statement) don't need proof."

You clearly do need proof, and that is clearly why you are not a religious person. If you were religious and true to your beliefs, you would simply believe them. That's all there is to it.

"For people who like that sort of thing, this is the sort of thing those people will like"

iceefudgesickle 09-30-2008 02:23 AM

Re: Why religion isn't under the same amount of scrutiny?
 
When one openly attacks a religion, they're thought of as rude? You joking? People BLATANTLY DESPISE religion, specifically Christianity, in this country, and religion is under copius amounts of scrutiny.

Afrobean 09-30-2008 08:23 AM

Re: Why religion isn't under the same amount of scrutiny?
 
quick question about faith in regards to debate:

If I were trying to tell people that guns should be allowed in schools, could I tell them that I had faith that nothing bad would happen? Because I do. I have faith that if teachers were allowed to have guns in school, that them having them would not cause any trouble. I am an atheist, but I have faith in that ideal. With my faith, that means I'm "right" and since it's "faith", it can't be questioned, right?

...

In OTHER WORDS, faith cannot possibly be admissible in intelligent discussion because it's fundamentally broken. You can believe whatever you like, but you can't use your unfounded beliefs to support (or even to denounce) arguments in a discussion. If unfounded beliefs were admissible in debates, it'd be a volley with people throwing ridiculous **** back and fourth with no regard to logic, deduction, or, to be frank, intelligence.

This is why we have the rule of no religion discussion here. What happened? Why are these things allowed now?

Magewout 09-30-2008 08:40 AM

Re: Why religion isn't under the same amount of scrutiny?
 
I see the faith argument as a weak excuse to escape all criticism and nothing more.

Tired_Old_Man 09-30-2008 10:10 AM

Re: Why religion isn't under the same amount of scrutiny?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by iceefudgesickle (Post 2821414)
People BLATANTLY DESPISE religion, specifically Christianity, in this country, and religion is under copius amounts of scrutiny.

There's an awful lot of Christians just on ffr for you to say that. In this new age of reason Christianity is still going strong, weak people need hope, who doesn't need some hope? Christianity is what's wrong with America, it's the reason Mcain and his female Bush will be elected and we'll go into recession.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Afrobean (Post 2821517)
If I were trying to tell people that guns should be allowed in schools, could I tell them that I had faith that nothing bad would happen?

I have faith that dinosaurs never existed. Faith is how you get around blatant flaws.

devonin 09-30-2008 12:37 PM

Re: Why religion isn't under the same amount of scrutiny?
 
Quote:

This is why we have the rule of no religion discussion here. What happened? Why are these things allowed now?
This is a debate about the concept of religious debate, not a religious debate. That's why it's been allowed.

Afrobean 09-30-2008 01:20 PM

Re: Why religion isn't under the same amount of scrutiny?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by devonin (Post 2821671)
This is a debate about the concept of religious debate, not a religious debate. That's why it's been allowed.

:|

You deleted my post, didn't you :(

But really, there is no debate to the concept of it. It's simple. You can't debate it because it's beliefs rather than fact. You can't debate with religion on the grounds that it is unprovable by its own nature.

Not only that, but due to the nature of serious debate, unfounded beliefs aren't admissible on the grounds that they are not empirical. You could mention beliefs and such, but they cannot be used as support or as a means to denounce the opposition. If I have a belief that the death penalty is wrong, I can't walk into a debate and say "my beliefs say this is wrong" and walk out the winner of the argument.

lord_carbo 09-30-2008 02:15 PM

Re: Why religion isn't under the same amount of scrutiny?
 
Afro, the thread is not about whether religion is true or not, but whether religion is scrutinized as much as it should be, and how it should be scrutinized. I'm not sure what you don't understand about that.

Afrobean 09-30-2008 02:32 PM

Re: Why religion isn't under the same amount of scrutiny?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by lord_carbo (Post 2821746)
Afro, the thread is not about whether religion is true or not, but whether religion is scrutinized as much as it should be, and how it should be scrutinized. I'm not sure what you don't understand about that.

It's not a debatable topic. You cannot say "prove it" to someone talking about religion.

That's the problem. You can't scientifically test religion, because if you try, your returned result is that it's not scientifically true. But a person's faith can be contrary to empirically proven truth, and as far as this topic is concerned, that's where it lies.

Thus, this scrutiny that some would suggest is tandamount to frankly stating "gods don't exist and all religions are wrong and/or lies." I personally am in favor of people taking that stance on the subject, but as far as this forum is concerned, I know it can't work. Too many people have their beliefs and they are at odds with the function of this forum. Thus, the best solution is to simply avoid such discussion, not to put a big sticker on it saying "god isn't real".

Vendetta21 10-12-2008 09:48 AM

Re: Why religion isn't under the same amount of scrutiny?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by iceefudgesickle (Post 2821414)
When one openly attacks a religion, they're thought of as rude? You joking? People BLATANTLY DESPISE religion, specifically Christianity, in this country, and religion is under copius amounts of scrutiny.

This is pretty much all that needed to be said to answer the OP's question. QFE.

runnerxc 12-17-2008 12:40 AM

Re: Why religion isn't under the same amount of scrutiny?
 
The idea that religion and science are two non-overlapping realms is not true. Religion makes various claims about the world, as does science. A universe with a god will look very different from a universe without one. Science is concerned with explaining what exists, so the truth claims of religion are directly in conflict with empirical science.

Necros140606 12-17-2008 03:10 AM

Re: Why religion isn't under the same amount of scrutiny?
 
what about this? science usually doesn't tell religion to stop doing something because it's wrong. religion has been telling science to shut up for centuries, now they go all out for contraceptives, genetics, and such. latest thing they've done is saying you can't check the genes of your embryons to see if there will be malformations/genetic diseases. THEY WANT BROKEN HUMANS TO BE BORN BECAUSE,THEY SAY, THE DIFFERENT SHOULDNT BE AVOIDED. yet they burned dissentors and "witches" in the past, and even nowadays people are exorcized. people who most likely need a psichiatric help, not a purification ritual. the amount of contradictions in the religious matters is huge and just cannot be ignored. this alone should keep people far from any religion, but it seems most people still need a sweet lie to feel reassured.

dore 12-17-2008 06:14 PM

Re: Why religion isn't under the same amount of scrutiny?
 
I'd say religion isn't under as much scrutiny is because religion is unprovable and science can be disprovable, so if you're going to criticize something you're more likely to go for the one you can actually disprove. It's hard to criticize religion because religious people believe in what is set forth in a book, and so any argument relies on whether or not you take that book as valid.

Patricoo 12-17-2008 10:51 PM

Re: Why religion isn't under the same amount of scrutiny?
 
You guys have this argument all screwed up. We all know you can't put the same level of scientific testing to religion because of one simple reason previously stated.

Quote:

You can't scientifically test religion, because if you try, your returned result is that it's not scientifically true.
Science, past the theoretical and mathematical concepts, relying on testing. We can talk and talk all day, but the matter is that you can put any major concept of religion into scientific testing. Without testing, without data, it's a discussion of theory.

We can put CERTAIN elements of bible events to scientific recreation, but that doesn't prove most current contexts, especially modern miracles. (Many of which are well documented. The Catholic church has few dubious miracles. For a religion that still has exorcisms, they do a damn good job of investigating "legit" miracles.)

But again to my main point, you guys are completely wrong in this discussion.

You shouldn't be thinking about testing religion on scientific standards, as it's impossible. Now, if you used philosophical standards... *wink wink*

Afrobean 12-18-2008 02:22 AM

Re: Why religion isn't under the same amount of scrutiny?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Patricoo (Post 2924366)
You guys have this argument all screwed up. We all know you can't put the same level of scientific testing to religion because of one simple reason previously stated.



Science, past the theoretical and mathematical concepts, relying on testing. We can talk and talk all day, but the matter is that you can put any major concept of religion into scientific testing. Without testing, without data, it's a discussion of theory.

We can put CERTAIN elements of bible events to scientific recreation, but that doesn't prove most current contexts, especially modern miracles. (Many of which are well documented. The Catholic church has few dubious miracles. For a religion that still has exorcisms, they do a damn good job of investigating "legit" miracles.)

But again to my main point, you guys are completely wrong in this discussion.

You shouldn't be thinking about testing religion on scientific standards, as it's impossible. Now, if you used philosophical standards... *wink wink*

No.

#1: Can we observe him?
#2: Can we observe his actions?
#3: Can we observe any effects of his actions?
#4: Is there any actual evidence to suggest that he exists?

Going after a hypothesis is secondary to answering those questions. If something isn't even observable in any way, it does not exist in the empirical sense. Extradimensional existence that has no effect on our World is irrelevant. You'd be just as right to be arguing that Mister Mxyzptlk exists in the 5th dimension and we just can't see him.

slipstrike0159 12-18-2008 04:18 AM

Re: Why religion isn't under the same amount of scrutiny?
 
Listen, its very easy. There is one term that brings it all together; "moot point."
Its like many have said, it will not work to hold that kind of concept to a scientific standard because it is just that, a concept. No one said, "I believe that noahs arc existed so therefore it is a scientific fact." Even in a previous question about allowing guns in schools. You can believe it, but to claim it as scientific fact does not coincide because it was not tested through those means.
If you really want to know why it doesnt receive the same kind of scrutiny then do an 'experiment'. Go up to as many religion geared individuals and you can and try to 'scientifically' prove to them that God doesn't exist just to see what their reaction will be. To 'prove' my point ill go along with something that was said earlier about being able to "insert God here." You could go all day trying to prove evolution to me but you will get nowhere because of one simple bit of logic. Say, "evolution happened through mutations in genes" and ill say "God made those mutations happen", can you scientifically prove that God did not do that? The answer is no, you cannot and until you can then i will not change my opinion. Moot point.

Necros140606 12-18-2008 06:57 AM

Re: Why religion isn't under the same amount of scrutiny?
 
the "you can't prove or disprove it" argument is just a weak excuse to believe in something that makes you feel better. it has no relevance, no sense, and no reason to exist. anything i can imagine, going down this road, has the same legitimacy as a god from any religion with millions of faithful followers, then. good point.

devonin 12-18-2008 09:10 AM

Re: Why religion isn't under the same amount of scrutiny?
 
Quote:

it has no relevance, no sense, and no reason to exist.
To you, as a clearly non-religious person. To a religious person with faith, God has relevance, sense and a damn good reason to exist.

Just because you elect to not follow their belief system doesn't make their belief system irellevant, nonsensical and pointless, just irellevant, nonsensical and pointless TO YOU.

Quote:

anything i can imagine, going down this road, has the same legitimacy as a god from any religion with millions of faithful followers
You'd take the same general tack in answering objections to your belief system, but that doesn't make the system equally legitimate.

I'm not actually sure why this thread got revived or why this angle on the discussion is still going on. I thought this sort of thing was put to rest back when I pointed out

Quote:

Intelligent religious people never suggest that their views are scientific, or should stand up to scientific rigor.

Intelligent scientific people never suggest that their views are religious, or should stand up to religious constructivism (constructionism?).

All kinds of religious and scientific people try to cross those lines all the time. You'll notice the lack of extra adjective in the preceding statement.

Anybody who says religion should stand up to scientific rigor or be discarded simply doesn't understand or doesn't -want- to understand religion and how religion works.
You're pointing to a container of vanilla ice cream, clearly labelled "Vanilla Ice Cream" and criticizing it for not being chocolaty enough. If it was claiming to be chocolate ice cream, you'd have a really good and well-founded objection that it wasn't chocolatey enough, but since it never claimed to be chocolate, the degree to which it is or isn't chocolate is TOTALLY IRELLEVANT.

QED Stepfiles 12-18-2008 02:06 PM

Re: Why religion isn't under the same amount of scrutiny?
 
I think it's a gross oversimplification to just make the argument that science and religion should stay out of each other's faces because they are distinct realms of thought. Yes, religion at its core is a construct, and as such it is impossible to scientifically determine the legitimacy of religion at the most fundamental level. However, this does not mean that the two things are really distinct. Religious ideals usually lead to religious assertions about the how the natural world is structured, and when this line is crossed, science definitely has the right to get involved.

Assertions pertaining to such things as the age of the universe, or the existence of intelligent design, definitely fall within the scientific method to test. And, should these things be scientifically shown to be most likely false (which they pretty much have been), then this still says a lot about the religion itself as a construct. Logically, if natural observations result from religious concepts, and those natural observations are false, then it's an easy logical jump to conclude that there's something wrong with that construct of religion in the first place. Of course, this falls far from actually proving the existence or non-existence of a God, but it does suggest that the particular treatment of such a God that a particular religious construct has used is somewhat flawed.

The major problem, though, is not that science should not be allowed to test certain aspects of religion, but it is more that science is inherently flawed. Testing and repeated testing only yields statistics - we can only say that things are most likely true, but we can never really show that anything is definitely the case. After all, 99.9999999% is still not 100%. And, for this, science can never really show that a certain religion is definitely flawed, but only that a flaw most likely exists.

So, yes, the existence of God or gods is definitely not really something that science can ever say anything about, but there is something to be said about what certain religions say that the existence of such a God translates to in terms of our world. And, there are plenty of intelligent scientists who use this concept to talk about certain aspects of religion. There are also a considerable number of intelligent religious people who argue for religion in the context of science. I've seen and read books that argue for religion in scientific terms, and while I personally didn't find many of the arguments satisfying, there was still an impressive amount of scientific detail.

The point is, I reiterate, that at their most basic levels, science and religion are separate, but as we look past this basic level, then there is a noticeable overlap. So I think it's just being lazy (and, to a degree, politically correct, which to me is even worse than being lazy) to just nonchalantly throw this argument away as "irrelevant."

Patricoo 12-18-2008 05:02 PM

Re: Why religion isn't under the same amount of scrutiny?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Necros140606 (Post 2924618)
the "you can't prove or disprove it" argument is just a weak excuse to believe in something that makes you feel better. it has no relevance, no sense, and no reason to exist. anything i can imagine, going down this road, has the same legitimacy as a god from any religion with millions of faithful followers, then. good point.

When you have hundreds and, in most cases thousands of years of scripture, teachings, dogma and generations upon generations of followers, that argument holds some weight. When something is the "generally accepted norm" you often find yourself needing to prove otherwise.

Ironically, this is the case with science. Many theories still hold significant weight just because they are widely accepted as true, but not proven factual. E.G. gravity. You need to disprove them completely, or at least enough so to make it seem outstandingly unlikely, to disprove them.

It's not the strongest argument, but when your best argument against a point contrived on the concept of belief and opinion is "thats stupid" then you don't have much sway, do you?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Afrobean (Post 2924545)
No.

#1: Can we observe him?
#2: Can we observe his actions?
#3: Can we observe any effects of his actions?
#4: Is there any actual evidence to suggest that he exists?

Going after a hypothesis is secondary to answering those questions. If something isn't even observable in any way, it does not exist in the empirical sense. Extradimensional existence that has no effect on our World is irrelevant. You'd be just as right to be arguing that Mister Mxyzptlk exists in the 5th dimension and we just can't see him.

Is sounds like your agreeing with me. Are you agreeing with me?

devonin 12-18-2008 05:39 PM

Re: Why religion isn't under the same amount of scrutiny?
 
Quote:

So I think it's just being lazy (and, to a degree, politically correct, which to me is even worse than being lazy) to just nonchalantly throw this argument away as "irrelevant."
Criticizing a religion for failing to stand up to scientific rigor is only relevant if that religion has made any claim that it does in fact stand up to scientific rigor.

Otherwise, you're straw manning the religious claim by misrepresenting it as "Scientific claims we can expose the flaws in" when it has never suggest that is what it is.

This has nothing to do with political correctness, this has to do with apples and oranges.

I'll direct you, once more, to the claim I quoted above, especially in regards to the "intelligent religious people" versus "religious people" distinction I drew.

When you say that you've seen all these cases of religious people trying to use science to prove their beliefs, well yes, I've seen them too, I've read several books on christian apologetics, and looked into several "scientific" proofs for ID and so forth. The reason you find these things not very compelling is that they aren't very compelling. They tend to either try to justify after the fact, or just stretch credulity much further than the broadest extrapolation.

As regards your specific examples of "the age of the universe, or the existence of intelligent design" I'd suggest that for one, most realistic proponants and opponents of ID differ primarily in their conception of whether "Things just happened" or "Things were made to happen" actually represents the proper application of Occam's Razor, rather than any more formal disagreementm and for two, the only religious people who disagree over the actual age of the universe are, in my opinion, idiots.

QED Stepfiles 12-18-2008 07:10 PM

Re: Why religion isn't under the same amount of scrutiny?
 
While religious claims are not scientific claims, whenever you make any remark about an observable phenomenon, there is implicit scientific content in your statement. As was repeated ad nauseum throughout this thread - many religious ideologies escape the realm of testability, but this by no means means that some of the specifics of what such ideologies claim manages to do the same. Anything really that relates to concrete ideas in our natural world is subject (rightfully) to scientific scrutiny. It's not like comparing apples with oranges, it's like comparing vanilla ice cream with a chocolate/vanilla twist ice cream and remarking "hm, I don't know about the chocolate in this, but the vanilla smells a bit strange."

Of course, this falls down to whether or not you believe in science as an ideology - but then again, science is founded upon the simplest set of assumptions we can come up with, and is also founded upon observable, repeatable experiments, so Occam's Razor really doesn't favor religion or ID at all...

I'm actually not quite sure what you were getting at in the last paragraph, Devonin... I think you missed a punctuation mark or something because I couldn't really understand what the structure of the sentence was (the one with Occam's Razor) <.<... and most religious supporters (Christians especially) disagree wholeheartedly with the scientific perspective on how old the Universe is (it comes with the territory), so I'm not sure where you are getting that from.

devonin 12-18-2008 11:39 PM

Re: Why religion isn't under the same amount of scrutiny?
 
My statement goes like this: People who support ID intelligently tend to claim that the unliklihood of the universe existing by pure chance means that a creator is the simplest explanation. People who oppose ID intelligently tend to claim that the characteristics implicit in a creator are too complex and advanced, and that random chance is the simplest explanation.

They both think they are correctly applying Occam's razor to the question of the creation of the universe.

Quote:

and most religious supporters (Christians especially) disagree wholeheartedly with the scientific perspective on how old the Universe is (it comes with the territory),
I disagree. I think you'll find that "The earth is 4000 years old" people are in the miniscule tiny minority of most religious people. The true converging of religious and scientific ideology is best expressed as "The process happened as it appears to, but guided by God's divine plan" I think very few people seriously believe the 7 days genesis creation story as anything other than a good allegory for the process that led to the evolution of humans. Creationism and Evolution are perfectly compatible unless you have an unnecessarily critical view of religion, or an unnecessarily cynical view of science.

gnr61 12-19-2008 12:12 AM

Re: Why religion isn't under the same amount of scrutiny?
 
unless you consider the Bible from a purely literalistic standpoint, which a larger portion of Christians than you seem to believe -do-, in which case you are by necessity making claims that can be put to scientific test and scrutiny (ex: noah's flood, literal creationist theory--which is what i was taught -in science class- to be a scientific truth for much of high school).

devonin 12-19-2008 12:31 AM

Re: Why religion isn't under the same amount of scrutiny?
 
Quote:

which a larger portion of Christians than you seem to believe -do-,
Yes, because I believe, based on 15 years in catholic school, and association with a large number of christian, that not nearly as many people as you seem to think believe in a literal interpretation of the old testament.

sumzup 12-19-2008 02:06 AM

Re: Why religion isn't under the same amount of scrutiny?
 
As has been stated many times before, but seemingly ignored, religion and science are mutually exclusive and have no reason to overlap at all. Science deals with the realm of testable things; as religion, by definition, requires faith in something that is untestable, there's no way that science can attempt to do anything regarding religion. Science deals with facts, not faith.

By the same token, religion shouldn't try to interfere with science. Having ID taught as science in schools is ridiculous. Science is something that is proven with a reasonably degree of certainty, and continues to reinvent itself with the addition of new evidence. Religion assumes, and nothing further can be done about it. There's nothing wrong with having ID in schools; it should just never be discussed in a science class, because ID is not true science. It's merely a cover for creationism.

Now, to clear some things up. Someone earlier used the incredibly weak example (by their own admission) of gravity being something that is likely, but not 100% certain. Gravity is accepted fact; once something has been tested again and again and stands up to the rigor of every applicable test, it's safe to say that it is the truth. In fact, gravity is governed by a set of laws that cannot be broken. A law is a simple statement/description of what is happening; gravity is gravity, and that's that.

It's worth noting that the word "theory" as used in scientific circles means something incredibly different from its usage in common parlance. A scientific theory consists of an assertion that is backed up by a large body of evidence and is generally accepted as an accurate explanation of a natural phenomenon. "Theory" in common usage means a hypothesis...basically a guess. This confusion has resulted in ID proponents trying to put ID on the same lavel as evolution, with the rationale that both are just "theories."

Basically, by definition, science and religion should have nothing to do with each other, and indeed one should not attempt to try and examine one with the other. Doing so leads to nowhere. If both sides left each other alone, the world would be much better off.

One last thing, to address the original question. Religion cannot be subject to scrutiny beyond what is present in scripture (obviously there can be various interpretations of different statements, etc.); on the other hand, science should be subject to heavy scrutiny (and indeed thrives on it). The only way for science to be science is if there is continuous testing and attempts to discover more.

Afrobean 12-19-2008 06:08 AM

Re: Why religion isn't under the same amount of scrutiny?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by devonin (Post 2924644)
To you, as a clearly non-religious person. To a religious person with faith, God has relevance, sense and a damn good reason to exist.

Being "relevent" doesn't matter. Thinking that it would be good for him to exist also doesn't matter. I think it would be good if I had telekineses, but does that mean I do?

Quote:

Just because you elect to not follow their belief system doesn't make their belief system irellevant, nonsensical and pointless, just irellevant, nonsensical and pointless TO YOU.
I pointed this out in that thread the other day. It is a logical fallacy to believe in something just because it can't be proven wrong. It is also, again, a logical fallacy to believe that something exists just because it would be good or feel "right" for it to exist. If there is no evidence why believe in it?

Yeah, faith, I know, but why place faith in that? Why not place faith in the stories of Oddyseus or Heracles? Peter Parker or Clark Kent? What makes that particular ancient religious texts worthy of being taken seriously while other ancient literature is scoffed as entirely fictional?

Quote:

You'd take the same general tack in answering objections to your belief system, but that doesn't make the system equally legitimate.
Wait.

Are you saying that people who believe in God are more likely to be right than those who believe in Russel's Teapot? Do you honestly think this is true? All are equally (un)likely due to the lack of any sort of evidence in either camp.

Quote:

You're pointing to a container of vanilla ice cream, clearly labelled "Vanilla Ice Cream" and criticizing it for not being chocolaty enough. If it was claiming to be chocolate ice cream, you'd have a really good and well-founded objection that it wasn't chocolatey enough, but since it never claimed to be chocolate, the degree to which it is or isn't chocolate is TOTALLY IRELLEVANT.
What about the pseudoscience of intelligent design and all the hogwash they try to concoct to "prove" religious things "scientifically"? Are we not allowed to talk ill of their ilk? "OMG LOOK AT THIS BANANA IT FITS MY HAND PERFECTLY there's no way the banana could have developed this characteristic through evolution"

Just to make things clear, I'm not wholly against believing in a divine presence. I just can't stand it when people try to act like it's rational or logical to believe in these things; it's not, that's why it's FAITH. I also can't stand organized religion, and frankly, if there is a god of any kind, I can assure you with great confidence that he is unlike any god in any religion or that anyone has ever thought of. This Great Creator everyone likes to talk of so much is defined as being outside the realm of human understanding, so why would you venture to think that you or anyone else on this planet could know what they're talking about when referring to him?

Quote:

intelligent design, definitely fall within the scientific method to test.
There are plenty of things we don't know and likely never will about the specific origins of life on Earth, nor the specific way in which evolution went down the paths that it has. There was a spark that initiated life from essentially nothing. What is this spark? Where did it come from? Can you prove that an extradimensional intelligence did not cause it? I don't personally believe it myself, but I don't think science will ever definitively be able to say, at least not as far as it being a good enough answer to make the godfreaks give in to the possibility of there being no God and no afterlife.

Quote:

Many theories still hold significant weight just because they are widely accepted as true, but not proven factual. E.G. gravity.
Gravity is not "widely accepted as true, but not proven factual". You are a fool if you think otherwise.

Quote:

Is sounds like your agreeing with me. Are you agreeing with me?
In that section you quoted, I was saying that this potential divine presence definitely does not exist within our Realm, if he exists at all. Because of this, I feel it is more than reasonable to say "God does not exist", because speaking purely literally, he is not real if he does not exist within this realm that we call the Universe. Semantics, a little I suppose, but I think it's perfectly reasonable logic. I'm willing to admit that it's possible that there is some sort of divine intelligence, they just don't exist within our Universe.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dev
the unliklihood of the universe existing by pure chance

The unlikeliness of said chance is irrelevant. The Universe and life exist, so the intensely small chance of it happening randomly doesn't matter. It's like... if someone had a one in a million chance at winning the lottery, and won it. You wouldn't look at this guy's winnings and think "wow, there's no way he won the lottery; he must have gotten that money in some other way because the chances of him winning are simply too low!"

It's like, throughout the entire Universe, we're here to observe what we have. We wouldn't even be here to think of questioning how small the chance is unless the small chance goes through. I just don't understand how people can think like that. How can it matter how small a chance there is of you physically existing if there is actually a chance and given potentially infinite time and chance?

And it's not random either. The first spark of microbial life was random chance, but evolution, mutation, and survival of the fittest took us the rest of the way to what we are. That's why the watch example is a poor one. We didn't start out as a watch. We started out as a microscopic living cog, and that cog met other mutated cogs and the cogs worked together in a way that helped them survive and procreate and millions of years later, they were a timepiece.

Quote:

religion and science are mutually exclusive and have no reason to overlap at all.
Religion says: god created man in his image from dirt
Science says: we evolved from apes

Religion says: Jesus was crucified, died, then rose from the dead.
Science says: It is not possible to be dead for that long of a time, then miraculously revive for "no reason".

Religions attempt to define the physicial world in one way or another. That's where it overlaps with science.

Synexi-XI 12-19-2008 10:10 AM

Re: Why religion isn't under the same amount of scrutiny?
 
why was my post deleted?



people nowadays need proof for everything, mostly atheists towards creationism and god.

The old testament was written by a king so that he could control his kingdom better by telling them he was a representative of god. What actually happened over 2000 years ago was probably entirely different from what was written. Maybe Jesus did in fact exist, but perhaps he wasn't as miraculous as people believed him to be.

devonin 12-19-2008 11:12 AM

Re: Why religion isn't under the same amount of scrutiny?
 
Quote:

Being "relevent" doesn't matter. Thinking that it would be good for him to exist also doesn't matter. I think it would be good if I had telekineses, but does that mean I do?
The statement to which I was responding claimed that belief in God was irellevant, nonsensical and pointless. Thus my response that to some people it is actually relevant, sensical and pointful. Your objection here gets the same response. I'd also suggest that the religious arguments in support of there being a God are actually more valid than any arguments you might put forward that you have telekenesis, especially since it is much more clear and obvious when you fail to demonstrate your power when called upon.

Quote:

It is a logical fallacy to believe in something just because it can't be proven wrong. It is also, again, a logical fallacy to believe that something exists just because it would be good or feel "right" for it to exist. If there is no evidence why believe in it?
It is not a logical fallacy to believe in something on the grounds that it hasn't been disproven. It is a logical fallacy to claim your belief is -correct- solely because it has not been proven incorrect. I can believe that there is intelligent life elsewhere in the galaxy, and even though that has not been proven correct, I'm not committing a fallacy to say "I believe there is intelligent life on other planets" It would only be a fallacy if I said "You can't prove there is NO life on other planets, therefore there IS life on other planets"

The whole point of having -faith- in the existance of God is that you are only claiming to believe it, you are not claiming that you know for a fact it is true. if you claimed to know for a fact it was true, you woudln't be demonstrating faith.

Quote:

Are you saying that people who believe in God are more likely to be right than those who believe in Russel's Teapot? Do you honestly think this is true? All are equally (un)likely due to the lack of any sort of evidence in either camp.
I'm saying that generally speaking, intelligent religious people have reasoning and logic behind their belief in God. You can and many do disagree with their logic, but very few people believe in God "Because, and you can't prove otherwise" whereas with Russell's Teapot, the whole basis for claiming it is just as likely to exist is because it is just as impossible to disprove. And that's far less by way of reasoning.

Quote:

What about the pseudoscience of intelligent design and all the hogwash they try to concoct to "prove" religious things "scientifically"? Are we not allowed to talk ill of their ilk? "OMG LOOK AT THIS BANANA IT FITS MY HAND PERFECTLY there's no way the banana could have developed this characteristic through evolution"
For what now, the fourth time? I direct you to the disparity in usage in my posts of the phrases "Intelligent religious people" and "religious people" Anybody who is religious and tries to "prove" their faith through science is doing it wrong.

Quote:

The unlikeliness of said chance is irrelevant. The Universe and life exist, so the intensely small chance of it happening randomly doesn't matter. It's like... if someone had a one in a million chance at winning the lottery, and won it. You wouldn't look at this guy's winnings and think "wow, there's no way he won the lottery; he must have gotten that money in some other way because the chances of him winning are simply too low!"
You really love this line of reasoning, and unfortunately it doesn't actually work. For one, the odds of winning a lottery are so dramatically better, that if you reduced the odds of the universe forming in this exact way by pure chance to the same odds as winning the lottery, the odds of winning the lottery would probably be somewhere on the order of 1 in 2. For two, the more accurate comparison would be something like "If he won ten seperate lotteries, ten weeks in a row. Would you be more likely to think "Wow, what a lucky person to randomly select the correct numbers that frequently" or would you be more likely to think "He's cheating or otherwise doing something outside the bounds of the game"?"

Which is actually the Occam's Razor brand simplest explanation for someone winning the lottery 10 weeks consecutively? Is it "What a lucky stiff" or "He has inside info" What if he wins 20 seperate lotteries consecutively? At some point the sheer unlikihood of the accomplishment lends credence to the idea that an outside agent is at work.

Quote:

Religion says: god created man in his image from dirt
Science says: we evolved from apes
I'd suggest that most intelligent religious people understand that Genesis and other old testament stories are allegorical and don't refer to literal events. When the Catholic Pope freely suggests that evolution is almost certainly correct, though guided by God's Divine Plan, you really can't insist that "religion says" man==dirt.

Quote:

Religion says: Jesus was crucified, died, then rose from the dead.
Science says: It is not possible to be dead for that long of a time, then miraculously revive for "no reason".
They could even agree that you can't miraculously revive for no reason. The reason this particular person miraculously revived was that he was the Son of God. So I don't see a fundamental issue with these statements either.

Quote:

Religions attempt to define the physicial world in one way or another. That's where it overlaps with science.
Religions tend more to want to explain the way the world is, rather than define the things in the world.

Quote:

why was my post deleted?
Because it failed to meet the standards of posting in this forum. You made one random, off-topic unsupported statement, and then said that you like to stay out of these discussions, so I granted your preference.

Quote:

The old testament was written by a king so that he could control his kingdom better by telling them he was a representative of god.
That's actually not true at all. The Old testament, at least according to those who believe in it, was written by th Anshei Knesset HaGedolah which was a group of several dozen scribes, rabbis, theologians and sages.

Quote:

Maybe Jesus did in fact exist, but perhaps he wasn't as miraculous as people believed him to be.
There is absolutely no question at all that Jesus of Nazareth was a real person. There's also absolutely no question at all that he was a prophet who spent much of his life travelling and preaching to people. Really the only question is about the validity of his claims.

Synexi-XI 12-19-2008 11:59 AM

Re: Why religion isn't under the same amount of scrutiny?
 
Around which time would this old testament be written?

Afrobean 12-19-2008 12:20 PM

Re: Why religion isn't under the same amount of scrutiny?
 
Hi, this one is a little long. Contained herein are comments and replies to Devonin's recent similar response to a previous post of mine, and a cut-em-up response to Synexi-XI's much shorter post. You kiddies out there might just want to skip it, but for those adventurous enough to dig in, I suggest you make a bathroom break before getting into it. For those with weak constitutions, I'll give you a brief summary of the essential points I'm trying to make: why have faith in one piece of ancient writing and scoff at another? Why believe in ancient writing with no other evidence of proof? Why believe that any person- yourself or myself included- could ever come close to identifying the core identity of this divine creator that is so heavily worshiped across the world? Why attempt to claim that your beliefs are based in logic or reason when they are in fact merely you taking faith in the words of long dead anonymous writers and nothing more?
...
Quote:

Originally Posted by Synexi-XI (Post 2925692)
why was my post deleted?

If your previous post contained the things that this one did, I'll go out on a limb and say it's because you're talking a lot about things you don't know a thing about.

Quote:

people nowadays need proof for everything, mostly atheists towards creationism and god.
No. People need proof because to believe in something without any reason is asinine. At least religious folks can fall back on the "it feels right" reason, even if it is a logical fallacy. But there must be a reason. To buy into bull**** without reason is something no good person would ever do, atheist or not.

Quote:

The old testament was written by a king
Can you prove this? The authors of the bible are largely forgotten through the sands of time, particularly the old Jewish scripts.

Quote:

so that he could control his kingdom better by telling them he was a representative of god.
I'll go ahead and say now that I agree in principle even though your "kingdom" thing is a little off-mark. All stories in the ancient world were told to teach lessons and such. The lessons of the stories in the bible are especially morality driven, even to a fault. This is why, even though I don't believe that the texts deserve to be taken literally by any means, I still feel that they're worthy of study, along with everything the other areas of the ancient world have given us. You don't have to actually believe that the vengeful hand of God would flood the world to learn a thing or two about morality; it's just good imagery to convey a message.

After all, I don't believe that there was actually a man named Orpheus who ventured into the Underworld to reclaim his fallen love from Hades. But it's still a worthwhile story to know of.

Quote:

What actually happened over 2000 years ago was probably entirely different from what was written
The Old Testament is a lot older than that. It was old already when Jesus was alive a little over 2000 years ago. I believe the first writings that would become the New Testament were first penned a couple hundred years after Jesus died, although I might be mistaken in this regard.

Quote:

Maybe Jesus did in fact exist, but perhaps he wasn't as miraculous as people believed him to be.
It's essentially historical fact that there was a man named Jesus who hailed from Nazareth who was crucified. The question isn't whether the man existed, but rather whether he is the son of this God and whether the apparent miracles detailed in the Bible are as accurately detailed as they claim.

Personally, I don't know how anyone could take it as fact. For me, it'd be like looking at the recent Tim Burton flick about Sweeney Todd and thinking that's how it really was.

AND NOW FOR THE FUN STUFF YEE HAWWWWWW

Quote:

Originally Posted by devonin (Post 2925717)
The statement to which I was responding claimed that belief in God was irellevant, nonsensical and pointless.

Hey, buddy, I don't appreciate you clumping me in with the nihilists. All I said was that it wasn't rational or logical, not that it was irrelevant or pointless. I have used the word "irrelevant", but never to identify the value that an individual person has in their faith.

Quote:

Thus my response that to some people it is actually relevant, sensical and pointful.
If by "relevant, sensical and pointful" you mean to say "rational" or "logical", I have to disagree. Any person who thinks believing in these things is logical is a fool. If it was logical, it would be science; a matter of fact, not faith.

Quote:

Your objection here gets the same response. I'd also suggest that the religious arguments in support of there being a God are actually more valid than any arguments you might put forward that you have telekenesis, especially since it is much more clear and obvious when you fail to demonstrate your power when called upon.
Poor justification, because people call on God everyday and he fails to prove himself. As far as evidence stands, my claiming to have telekinesis shouldn't have any less weight than the tall tales people hear in church every Sunday. Both are unproven- both are only evidenced by a person's claimed witness of it. Aside from the claimed witnessing, there is nothing pointing to this being true; if the witnessed claim cannot be verified or debunked, both should hold the same logical value.

Oh, and by the way, before you try it, I've decided not to show my telekinesis to anyone. A little trick I learned from God-- see, it'd be a gross display of my power to show actual evidence of it.

Quote:

It is not a logical fallacy to believe in something on the grounds that it hasn't been disproven.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_proof
Negative proof, the fallacy of appealing to lack of proof of the negative, is a logical fallacy of the following form:

"X is true because there is no proof that X is false."

Just because something cannot be proven false does not mean that it's any more reasonable to believe in it regardless. There are plenty of things which can never be proven false, but do you see people going around believing in such silly things?

Can you prove that no one on the Earth has telekinesis? No...? Then I guess there must be someone, RIGHT?

Quote:

It is a logical fallacy to claim your belief is -correct- solely because it has not been proven incorrect. I can believe that there is intelligent life elsewhere in the galaxy, and even though that has not been proven correct, I'm not committing a fallacy to say "I believe there is intelligent life on other planets" It would only be a fallacy if I said "You can't prove there is NO life on other planets, therefore there IS life on other planets"
This is just a spinning of words, good chap. To say that "you believe" should be no different than saying "there must be". Existence is a binary value; either something exists or it doesn't. To say "there is" without absolute objective proof of it (hint: doesn't exist) should carry the same value as "I think there is".

Essentially, I'm saying that "truth in your mind" and "truth" (as defined by your subjective perception) are the same.

But again, this is just spinning words to avoid the real situation-

That it is a fallacy to use lack of evidence as evidence. All the lack of evidence proves is that it's possible, but we already knew it was "possible" based on the very simple ideal of "God works in mysterious ways"; God not providing evidence of his existence is just a test of our faith.

Quote:

The whole point of having -faith- in the existance of God is that you are only claiming to believe it, you are not claiming that you know for a fact it is true. if you claimed to know for a fact it was true, you woudln't be demonstrating faith.
I get the feeling that you don't know too many overtly religious people. They don't just believe it; they KNOW it. They're unwilling to admit any possibility that does not include their specific beliefs. After all, the bible tells them not to entertain such notions that there might not be a god.

Quote:

I'm saying that generally speaking, intelligent religious people have reasoning and logic behind their belief in God.
NOOOOOOOOOO

They cannot. Any reason any intelligent person could put forward as a reason to believe can be spat back at them as a logical fallacy.

"it feels right"
"it's not proven wrong"
"look at this banana HOLY **** MY HAND FITS IT PERFECTLY LOL"


Quote:

You can and many do disagree with their logic, but very few people believe in God "Because, and you can't prove otherwise" whereas with Russell's Teapot, the whole basis for claiming it is just as likely to exist is because it is just as impossible to disprove.
Are you seriously setting aside the point of Russell's Teapot just because people don't have Faith in its existence? What kind of **** is that?

The point of it is to point out how illogical it is to believe in something without proof. The point is to show that just because something hasn't been proven false, does not mean that it is MORE worthy of being believed in. Yes, that's right, it hasn't been proven that God does not exist, BUT YOU CANNOT USE THAT AS A LOGICAL FOUNDATION FOR FAITH. I mean, I guess you could, but you'd be relying on a logical fallacy to claim your beliefs to be based in reason rather than faith.

If you're going to have faith in this ****, just have faith in it. Don't try to bull**** everyone and say that there is logic or reason to it.

Quote:

For what now, the fourth time? I direct you to the disparity in usage in my posts of the phrases "Intelligent religious people" and "religious people" Anybody who is religious and tries to "prove" their faith through science is doing it wrong.
And what about you? Claiming that the lack of false evidence is a justifiable logical foundation for belief? You don't think that's wrong either?

Quote:

You really love this line of reasoning, and unfortunately it doesn't actually work. For one, the odds of winning a lottery are so dramatically better
Odds are irrelevant. The odds could be 1/2 and my example would stand just the same. It doesn't matter if the specific likelihood is 1/2 or one in a million. The idea behind it is that the small chance of success doesn't matter because we already know that the chance succeeded.

Quote:

that if you reduced the odds of the universe forming in this exact way by pure chance to the same odds as winning the lottery, the odds of winning the lottery would probably be somewhere on the order of 1 in 2.
I was going to look up a picture of the Strawman from the Wizard of Oz, but I think the meta comment here is enough for you to get my meaning.

Quote:

For two, the more accurate comparison would be something like "If he won ten seperate lotteries, ten weeks in a row. Would you be more likely to think "Wow, what a lucky person to randomly select the correct numbers that frequently" or would you be more likely to think "He's cheating or otherwise doing something outside the bounds of the game"?"
Again, you're overlooking the point and jumping on an irrelevant part. The chance could be one in a googolplex and the idea still holds; we're here, so we know the small chance succeeded regardless.

Quote:

Which is actually the Occam's Razor brand simplest explanation for someone winning the lottery 10 weeks consecutively? Is it "What a lucky stiff" or "He has inside info" What if he wins 20 seperate lotteries consecutively? At some point the sheer unlikihood of the accomplishment lends credence to the idea that an outside agent is at work.
Ok, BUT that's substantive. To come to a LOGICAL conclusion at that end, more evidence than that would be needed, such as, say, ACTUALLY knowing that there is an "outside agent" to begin with. If a person is the only person in the world and he "wins the lottery" a hundred times in a week, who would you point to as the "outside agent"? Where is the actual evidence of this "outside agent"?

All of the evidence in this situation would be one man saying what he'd done and nothing else. It would be his word against NOTHING. Why would you say that Occam's Razor would implicate an outside agent when there is no actual evidence to support such a claim (and yet, there is evidence of the contrary in the one man's eyewitness)?

Quote:

I'd suggest that most intelligent religious people understand that Genesis and other old testament stories are allegorical and don't refer to literal events.
Genesis doesn't matter. Actually, I would say nothing in the Old Testament matters. I don't know if there's a shred in there that a reasonable person could actually believe in the modern world.

It's the New Testament that people believe that bugs me. These miracles in the parables; this man rising from the dead. AND PEOPLE ACTUALLY BELIEVE IN THESE. It's not like with Genesis where a reasonable person goes "oh, well, it's just a metaphor, see?" They actually believe that this Jewish son of a carpenter was crucified, died, then came back to life a few days later.

Quote:

When the Catholic Pope freely suggests that evolution is almost certainly correct, though guided by God's Divine Plan, you really can't insist that "religion says" man==dirt.
I was just trying to point out an easy to identify instance of religion attempting (and failing) to define the physical world. "Science and religion don't overlap"... except that whenever religion tries to define the physical world, they do. Don't give me malarkey about it being a metaphor, because the whole lot of stories are riddled with that as far as I can tell. People actually believe it (or have believed in the past), and in doing so have tread on the ground that science is supposed to lay claim to.

Quote:

They could even agree that you can't miraculously revive for no reason. The reason this particular person miraculously revived was that he was the Son of God. So I don't see a fundamental issue with these statements either.
You don't see a fundamental issue with the idea that this mine is supposed to have risen from the dead, something we know to be scientifically impossible? I mean, if there was a single documented case or even a justifiable reason to believe it, I'd understand, but it's all words in a book. I could write words on a piece of paper, does that make them any more right for it? How about if I write it anonymously? Does that lend any credence to the nonsense I might write? How about if my writing is discovered 2000 years from now? Should they believe what I've written? What if the first thing I write is "you have to believe this"? Should they then?

What makes these writings worthy of worship, of faith, of belief? I really want to know, because I think it is absurd that you think it's a good idea to believe in this, yet would laugh in the face of someone who worshiped Zeus and believed the stories of his Sons of that God. That's what I don't get about this organized religion stuff; why is it that one ancient book is regarded as Holy and True while another is simply fictional literature to be studied by high school students.

Quote:

Religions tend more to want to explain the way the world is, rather than define the things in the world.
No... there are plenty of definitions of things, you just SELECTIVELY ignore them by calling them metaphors and things. Yeah, they are metaphors, I'd say, but then, I'd also say that "rising from the dead" is a metaphor, and that "miraculously healing lepers" is a metaphor, and that "walking on water" is a metaphor.

Quote:

Really the only question is about the validity of his claims.
I heard in one of those fancy pants specials on the History Channel that it's possible that Jesus never actually claimed much of the things said about him in the bible and that he was merely a profit in his times and little more. They said it was only after he was dead and that the church of his teachings was being established that his story transitioned from that of a martyred profit to that of a miraculous Son of the God identified in Jewish scripts.

~kitty~ 12-19-2008 12:28 PM

Re: Why religion isn't under the same amount of scrutiny?
 
I feel as if the motivation of this thread isn't substantial enough to have anyone use it for any particular reason other than to debate about a debate which leads to the debate itself, then you get confused and that would be the whole purpose of making this thread of reverse psychology, just to self-gratify yourself rather than ask the question out of literal curiosity...

If not, then I just prefer not to get into this myself...
I also didn't read even half of what people have been saying in this, but it's not something worth reading in my opinion... but I still believe getting worked up about this thread isn't worth it, lol.

dore 12-19-2008 03:36 PM

Re: Why religion isn't under the same amount of scrutiny?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Afro
This is just a spinning of words, good chap. To say that "you believe" should be no different than saying "there must be". Existence is a binary value; either something exists or it doesn't. To say "there is" without absolute objective proof of it (hint: doesn't exist) should carry the same value as "I think there is".

Essentially, I'm saying that "truth in your mind" and "truth" (as defined by your subjective perception) are the same.

But again, this is just spinning words to avoid the real situation-

That it is a fallacy to use lack of evidence as evidence. All the lack of evidence proves is that it's possible, but we already knew it was "possible" based on the very simple ideal of "God works in mysterious ways"; God not providing evidence of his existence is just a test of our faith.

That's just not true for things that you cannot personally observe. Yes, for things you can readily observe and test existence is a binary value but for things for which there is no evidence (either for or against its existence) then there is an element of uncertainty. Saying "I believe this to be true" means that you recognize that there is no evidence to prove or disprove your claim but that, if evidence ever became available, it would point to your beliefs.

I believe in a god (not in the Christian sense) because I think that it is arrogant for humans to assume that they are the highest form of consciousness when, by the very fabric of their higher being, something greater than us would not be observable to us. I'm not saying, however, that there is a god or any specific definition of god, just that there is something out there bigger than us who probably doesn't affect our trivial daily lives but probably has affected our development as a society and species.

By saying that, I am not saying that "There is a god," I'm saying that "There is a god in my conception of the world." Shown evidence otherwise, sure, I'll change my view to not include a god. But when the very fabric of the being you're trying to debate is (presumably) beyond our observation, you can't suggest that people who believe in said being are trying to propose their ideas as truth.

PS I know that many Christians try to propose their ideas as truth but that is because they accept the Bible as truth in an almost scientific way. And I think they're wrong. I'm merely defending religion and spirituality as a whole because it's possible to be religious and not be a part of a major/organized religion.

Synexi-XI 12-19-2008 04:20 PM

Re: Why religion isn't under the same amount of scrutiny?
 
debating about religion is a debate that can never be ended. this thread could go on for pages upon pages.



and as far as proof is concerned of the events during jesus' era, there were far more specific details about hundreds of events besides jesus' story. We have historical facts about things far older than jesus yet this is one story that has almost no decisive proof at all.

devonin 12-19-2008 05:19 PM

Re: Why religion isn't under the same amount of scrutiny?
 
Quote:

Hey, buddy, I don't appreciate you clumping me in with the nihilists. All I said was that it wasn't rational or logical, not that it was irrelevant or pointless. I have used the word "irrelevant", but never to identify the value that an individual person has in their faith.
L2Read Pokey, the person I quoted and responded to was Necros who used those exact terms, you're the one who jumped in to respond to an interplay between other people.

Quote:

If by "relevant, sensical and pointful" you mean to say "rational" or "logical", I have to disagree. Any person who thinks believing in these things is logical is a fool. If it was logical, it would be science; a matter of fact, not faith.
No, if by "relevant, sensical and pointful" I meant "Rational or logical" I'd have said "Rational or logical" I said "relevant, sensical and pointful" because I meant "Relevant, sensical and pointful"

Quote:

Poor justification, because people call on God everyday and he fails to prove himself.
God's covanant with humanity after the flood was that He gave humans free will to do with what we pleased. If He constantly interceded any time someone asked Him nicely, he would be breaking that promise. Makes perfect sense to me that God isn't all the time interfering.

Quote:

Oh, and by the way, before you try it, I've decided not to show my telekinesis to anyone. A little trick I learned from God-- see, it'd be a gross display of my power to show actual evidence of it.
Fair enough. And if you can give me any kind of compelling reason why I ought to treat you as though you have telekenises, maybe I'll even have faith that you do.

Quote:

Negative proof, the fallacy of appealing to lack of proof of the negative, is a logical fallacy of the following form:

"X is true because there is no proof that X is false."
Dude I'm a philosopher, I understand how the fallacies work. As I pointed out in the post you're quoting, to claim X is true because there is no proof that X is false is absolutely a fallacy, and I never once said otherwise, so I don't see the point of this statement by you.

Quote:

Just because something cannot be proven false does not mean that it's any more reasonable to believe in it regardless. There are plenty of things which can never be proven false, but do you see people going around believing in such silly things?
All the time. What's your point?

Quote:

This is just a spinning of words, good chap. To say that "you believe" should be no different than saying "there must be".
I disagree completely. "I believe that there is one perfect person out there for me to be with forever." I can believe that, and live my life according to the belief that it is so, and have that turn out to be false. I've committed no logical fallacy to express a belief that something is so. So no, "I believe" is demonstrably different from "There must be" In fact, "I believe" is what you say when you feel something is so, but are unable to test or prove that it is so...so you know...the exact opposite of making a claim that something -is-.

Quote:

That it is a fallacy to use lack of evidence as evidence. All the lack of evidence proves is that it's possible, but we already knew it was "possible" based on the very simple ideal of "God works in mysterious ways"; God not providing evidence of his existence is just a test of our faith.
And as I said, at length, repeatedly, which you seem to just be ignoring or failing to understand, let me use some clearer text: People who claim that God is proven to exist on the grounds that God has not been disproven are morons, and imbiciles who need to be beaten with sticks. Just because some, even many if you want to be cynical, religious people claim to have proof that their beliefs are correct does not mean that all religious people feel that way, nor does your ability to point out when the stupid people are stupid count as any kind of evidence against the original claim, which is namely "I have faith, without a need or desire for proof, that X is so"

Quote:

I get the feeling that you don't know too many overtly religious people. They don't just believe it; they KNOW it. They're unwilling to admit any possibility that does not include their specific beliefs. After all, the bible tells them not to entertain such notions that there might not be a god.
I know and am friends with a great many overly religious people, including people so overly religious and zealous that they did things like refuse to take the 'world religions' class in highschool because they 'shoudln't be made to learn about religions that are wrong' SO yes, I'm perfectly familiar with overly religious people. And once again, anybody saying that they know for a proven fact that articles of faith are true, then they simply don't understand what faith is.

Quote:

They cannot. Any reason any intelligent person could put forward as a reason to believe can be spat back at them as a logical fallacy.

"it feels right"
"it's not proven wrong"
"look at this banana HOLY **** MY HAND FITS IT PERFECTLY LOL"
Stop straw manning please, and we can actually have this discussion meaningfully. Nobody except six years old children and idiots who don't understand the world try to use your examples as support for why they believe. Learn what the other side actually says before you try and disprove them. Not that you can disprove the claims made by reasonable or intelligent religious people, because they don't claim to have proven anything for you to disprove.

Quote:

Are you seriously setting aside the point of Russell's Teapot just because people don't have Faith in its existence? What kind of **** is that?
No, perhaps I didn't explain myself clearly enough: If you ask someone religious who is also intelligent and reasonable why they believe, they will give you many answers besides "Because nobody has proven it wrong" Conversely, with the example of Russell's Teapot, the reason why you are supposed to grant the potential existance of Russell's Teapot is solely "Because you can't prove it wrong"

Quote:

If you're going to have faith in this ****, just have faith in it. Don't try to bull**** everyone and say that there is logic or reason to it.
Have you read anything I've said this whole time? Sometimes I wonder.


Quote:

And what about you? Claiming that the lack of false evidence is a justifiable logical foundation for belief? You don't think that's wrong either?
I never once said that a lack of evidence against the existance of God was a logical foundation for belief in God. In fact, I believe I said the exact opposite of that, that people who claim that the lack of evidence against the existance of God is a logical foundation for belief in God were idiots.

Quote:

Again, you're overlooking the point and jumping on an irrelevant part. The chance could be one in a googolplex and the idea still holds; we're here, so we know the small chance succeeded regardless.
We KNOW that the small chance succeeded? Wait wait wait...you're claiming something is TRUE without actual PROOF? You have FAITH that your statement is correct? If you could prove that the existance of the universe demonstrated that the odds of everything happening randomly had actually been met, thus that the universe occurred randomly, you'd have single-handedly disproven the existance of god! Man, you should go on tour with that.

The whole reason there's a disagrement between people over whether the universe just happened, or whether it was caused to happen is because there is no proof either way. So no, the fact that we exist does not PROVE that the random chance occured. it just proves that the necessary alignment FOR WHATEVER AS YET UNPROVEN REASON happened.
Quote:

Odds are irrelevant. The odds could be 1/2 and my example would stand just the same.
So if someone won 20 lotteries consecutively 20 weeks in a row, you would still claim as true fact, that they were simply lucky, and guessed well? It would never begin to occur to you that perhaps the chances were slim enough that it became more likely that they were cheating, or otherwise rigging the contest? Man, you should never be allowed to be in charge of money, you're a patsy for all kinds of scam.

Quote:

To come to a LOGICAL conclusion at that end, more evidence than that would be needed, such as, say, ACTUALLY knowing that there is an "outside agent" to begin with. If a person is the only person in the world and he "wins the lottery" a hundred times in a week, who would you point to as the "outside agent"? Where is the actual evidence of this "outside agent"?
I would say that in the actual world as we know it to exist, it would be perfectly logical, given an understanding of odds, probability and the functioning of a lottery system, to suspect that someone winning 20 lotteries in a row could well have been cheating. No, I don't have proof either way at that stage, but I have what I would define as a logical reason to suspect that they might be. You'll notice that I'm not concluding that he DID or DID NOT cheat any more than a religious person is concluding that God DOES or DOES NOT exist.

They are looking at the circumstances, and making what I consider a logical claim to say "You know, there's at least a basis for considering the idea that a God is responsible for creating the universe, and pending further evidence or investigation, I'm going to decide that I personally think this version is more likely"

Quote:

It's the New Testament that people believe that bugs me. These miracles in the parables; this man rising from the dead. AND PEOPLE ACTUALLY BELIEVE IN THESE. It's not like with Genesis where a reasonable person goes "oh, well, it's just a metaphor, see?" They actually believe that this Jewish son of a carpenter was crucified, died, then came back to life a few days later.
Yes they do, and I'm sorry that it bugs you, but something "bugging you" doesn't make it untrue any more than their believing it makes it true. They -think- it is true, and yes, it isn't the strongest logical claim ever, but while it is a fallacy to claim it is TRUE because it hasn't been disproven, that doesn't mean that the lack of evidence against it doesn't help justify believing it. It just doesn't act as anything CONCLUSIVE.

Quote:

I was just trying to point out an easy to identify instance of religion attempting (and failing) to define the physical world.
So yeah, about that straw man.

Quote:

Don't give me malarkey about it being a metaphor, because the whole lot of stories are riddled with that as far as I can tell. People actually believe it (or have believed in the past), and in doing so have tread on the ground that science is supposed to lay claim to.
It's malarky to claim that a metaphor is a metaphor? Sure some people probably believed it to be factual, there are, so far as I know, several branches of Christianity that DO believe it is factual, but again, suggesting that this makes it true of all religions is just idiotic, and I'm freely claiming that I also consider such people as pretty dumb.


Quote:

That's what I don't get about this organized religion stuff; why is it that one ancient book is regarded as Holy and True while another is simply fictional literature to be studied by high school students.
Have you ever met someone who claims to have had a personal religious experience? The reason why an organized religion will point to one book as holy and true and another as not is that their book describes things that were witnessed and personally experienced by the people who wrote them. Yes you could write a book similar to the bible, bury it and hope it got found 2000 years later, but uh...hate to break it to you, but that's not how christianity or the bible came to be.

I mean, there's a continuous sequence of people who knew each other for reals here. The contemporaries of Christ himself are the ones who first put down the stories in the new testament, from their own firsthand accounts, and passed those along to other people who came after, who added their own stories, who passed them along to other people who came after etc etc etc.

nobody FOUND the bible and went "Hey, let's treat this like sacred fact and build a religion around it!" The faith traces back to Jesus and people who knew him in person. That's the difference between the bible and the AfroBible.

Quote:

Yeah, they are metaphors, I'd say, but then, I'd also say that "rising from the dead" is a metaphor, and that "miraculously healing lepers" is a metaphor, and that "walking on water" is a metaphor.
The point here is that Christ is viewed by the followers of Christianity to be possessed of powers beyond those of mortal men. Several of the laws that constrain us didn't necessarily constrain him all the time. Yes, there's no proof for THAT either, but once again, it's an article of faith, and they don't require that proof even if you do.

Quote:

I heard in one of those fancy pants specials on the History Channel that it's possible that Jesus never actually claimed much of the things said about him in the bible and that he was merely a profit in his times and little more. They said it was only after he was dead and that the church of his teachings was being established that his story transitioned from that of a martyred profit to that of a miraculous Son of the God identified in Jewish scripts.
Certainly a possibility. There's not even anything explicitly stated IN THE BIBLE that Jesus wanted anyone to be anything other than a devout Jew. All he ever proposed in his life were fairly modest reforms to the orthodoxy, and an actual "Christian Church" wasn't founded for quite a while later, by as I recall, someone who didn't even know Christ personally. However, he did know the apostles personally, and they continued to preach the teachings of Christ well after he died.

devonin 12-19-2008 05:22 PM

Re: Why religion isn't under the same amount of scrutiny?
 
Double post for great justice. And also so people who aren't Afrobean can just skip our back and forth longposts.

Quote:

debating about religion is a debate that can never be ended. this thread could go on for pages upon pages.
We aren't debating about religion, we're debating about the basis for a belief in religion. Not at all the same thing.


Quote:

We have historical facts about things far older than jesus yet this is one story that has almost no decisive proof at all.
Um...no. There is 100% historically accurate proof of the existance of a preacher named Jesus of Nazareth who was crucified. The Romans were incredibly meticulous keepers of records, and among other things, you may recall from the Christmas story that Joseph and Mary went to Bethlehem because a census had been ordered by the Roman government and they had to go to his hometown to be counted. Those records survived.

Synexi-XI 12-19-2008 05:37 PM

Re: Why religion isn't under the same amount of scrutiny?
 
i meant religion in general. this discussion includes the belief of religion.

i'd like to see where they got these proofs since records of such is complete news to me.

i would much like to be proven wrong on this since i've been reading up on lots of history during that era.

devonin 12-19-2008 06:10 PM

Re: Why religion isn't under the same amount of scrutiny?
 
Quote:

i'd like to see where they got these proofs since records of such is complete news to me.

i would much like to be proven wrong on this since i've been reading up on lots of history during that era.
Take your history classes at a slightly higher level than highschool.

qqwref 12-19-2008 06:30 PM

Re: Why religion isn't under the same amount of scrutiny?
 
I feel that it is difficult to talk about religions simply because there are so many and each one believes so many things. No common religion just says "God exists" and ends at that; if that was the case, then yes, I do agree that religion and science would not overlap.

But that isn't the case, and (from personal experience) it seems that many people have beliefs which imply testable predictions in the real world. devonin has repeatedly said that intelligent religious people would never follow a belief that predicts testable (and scientifically false) things, but the simple fact is that not everyone is intelligent, and people really do believe things that can be scientifically tested. Unfortunately, when religion and science actually conflict on a testable proposition, and they do, religion sometimes ends up winning. Back in the time of Galileo the prevailing belief in Europe was that the Sun orbited the Earth, a belief which was backed by scripture, and when Galileo came into the scene with evidence that it was the other way around, he ended up being forced to recant his beliefs and put under house arrest! You can say only idiots would do this to him, and I agree, but stupidity happens.

Perhaps the best we can say is this: if a certain belief directly implies a testable prediction about the real world, and experiment shows that that prediction is false, then the belief is false. This is just logic, nothing more. And although many beliefs, like the "God exists" belief, do not overlap with science/logic and cannot be proved or disproved, not all beliefs are like this. Look at prayer: some Christians believe that if you pray for something it will be answered, a significant amount of the time. You can actually test this. Say you do a scientific experiment with a large number of people in the same situation (with cancer, say), some of whom pray and some of whom do not. Look at the recovery rate in the two groups. This has been done and I believe the result was that prayer had no effect. In this case, whether you believe in God or not, you would have to conclude that the belief that prayers are granted a significant portion of the time is at best flawed.

devonin 12-19-2008 06:45 PM

Re: Why religion isn't under the same amount of scrutiny?
 
Quote:

In this case, whether you believe in God or not, you would have to conclude that the belief that prayers are granted a significant portion of the time is at best flawed.
God granting prayers would violate his pact to give humanity free will, it comes as no surprise to me that prayers aren't granted.

Grandiagod 12-19-2008 10:04 PM

Re: Why religion isn't under the same amount of scrutiny?
 
Quote:

Um...no. There is 100% historically accurate proof of the existance of a preacher named Jesus of Nazareth who was crucified

Bull****, citation needed.


As far as I know there is no proof that Jesus existed except for documents written decades after his death.

devonin 12-19-2008 10:55 PM

Re: Why religion isn't under the same amount of scrutiny?
 
I don't have some texts laying around to give you some quotes, but every historian of that period or of christianity that I've ever spoken with tells me that there is plenty of evidence that the man actually existed.

Grandiagod 12-19-2008 11:05 PM

Re: Why religion isn't under the same amount of scrutiny?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by devonin (Post 2926278)
I don't have some texts laying around to give you some quotes, but every historian of that period or of christianity that I've ever spoken with tells me that there is plenty of evidence that the man actually existed.

I'm sorry but http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm
If you're CT mod you should know you can't randomly state claims with no proof because "I SPOEK WIFF SOME HISTORIANZ AN THEY TOLD ME SO HURR"

gtfo my house son, no one can out religious fact grandi

devonin 12-19-2008 11:10 PM

Re: Why religion isn't under the same amount of scrutiny?
 
Pretty sure that "I've spoken with people whose field this is, and they've made these claims" is a slightly stronger claim than "Some guy told me so" I direct your attention to the testimony of expert witnesses in courts. Yes, "It MUST be true because someone with authority said so" is a fallacious claim, but "From my personal experience, this claim has been made by several people educated in the field" is perfectly legitimate for the informal discussion format of this forum.

kmay 12-19-2008 11:14 PM

Re: Why religion isn't under the same amount of scrutiny?
 
jesus was also a carpenter, or so ive heard. He was a real person, but what we don't know is if he was our savior. The basis for religion is faith, get some or get out. honestly people are debating something that cannot be proven. Our believing in god(s) is also like believing in the theory of relativity. So far we accept it because no one has proved it wrong, but there may be grounds further ahead in life that can prove it wrong.

Grandiagod 12-19-2008 11:15 PM

Re: Why religion isn't under the same amount of scrutiny?
 
Oh i'm sorry i thought unsubstantiated claims in debate was oh, i don't know. One of the biggest taboos in the field. And you saying "I talked to professionals and they said he exists" is about as substantiated as the Bible itself.

Especially when it took 2 seconds of google to make the "experts" you supposedly talked to liars. Get on your game Devonin. If you want an "informal" discussion then go talk to buddies so they won't yell at you for saying crazy untrue ****.

devonin 12-19-2008 11:30 PM

Re: Why religion isn't under the same amount of scrutiny?
 
Stop trolling in my forum. Make your points without the attitude.

Every historical claim about any era or aspect of history is hearsay unless there are physical pieces of evidence that survived to this day, and even then, still hearsay.

How would a book called "My life as a carpenter" by Jesus of Nazareth that is 2000 years old be any more "convincing" to your standards, than Paul writing about his personal experiences with Jesus 40 years after the fact? Anybody could have written that book, anybody could have slapped a made up name on it, and yet this is what you're insisting is necessary to support his existance?

It will be far more likely in 2000 years, that people analyzing the historical record from our day will think Mickey Mouse existed, than will think Grandiagod existed, and you really do exist.

Grandiagod 12-19-2008 11:32 PM

Re: Why religion isn't under the same amount of scrutiny?
 
Okay. Your claim that conclusive evidence of Jesus' existence is incredibly untrue and you have no facts to prove it whatsoever. While I linked facts that prove your unsubstantiated assertions incorrect; you will not refute me because you claim to have no evidence on hand.

In short, either retract your assertion or give some proof.

EDIT, your edit didn't bring any proof whatsoever. Sorry you're beating around the subject. There is no secular proof that Jesus existed. If there was then i'd believe it. I still wouldn't believe in his divinity. Come up with proof please.

kmay 12-19-2008 11:39 PM

Re: Why religion isn't under the same amount of scrutiny?
 
haha dev couldn't fight him. well ill give it a shot
your source says that no books were written when he was alive, but none of the sources he used where written in the time he was alive. so where does his proof leads us, absolutely no where. His defense is that book s written about him were not written while he was alive, but nothing was written in his time period saying he wasn't alive. His argument is moot.

something i googled didn't read it yet, but its "proof"
http://www.tektonics.org/jesusexist/jesusexisthub.html

Sullyman2007 12-19-2008 11:43 PM

Re: Why religion isn't under the same amount of scrutiny?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by devonin (Post 2926278)
I don't have some texts laying around to give you some quotes, but every historian of that period or of christianity that I've ever spoken with tells me that there is plenty of evidence that the man actually existed.

o hi religion thread

So apparently you talked with 2000 year old scholars. It's not that I don't believe you... wait no never mind no i dont believe you.

http://www.culturalresources.com/Jesus.html
Quote:

He became an itinerant rabbi (teacher), gathering a small company of associates (disciples or Apostles) and a larger company of followers, and travelled in Galilee, Tyre, Sidon and finally to Jerusalem over a period of about three years. There he was arrested and brought to trial in the administration of the Roman procurator Pontius Pilate, probably in the year 29 A.D (or possibly 33 A.D.). He was condemned to die by crucifixion. Upon his death, his followers left for their homes, but quickly regathered in Jerusalem, being convinced that Jesus was raised from the dead, or resurrected.
you'd think that a detailed account like this wouldn't just be in the New Testament, but Roman records as well.

if devonin has actual Roman citations that can confirm this, I would really like to see them =)

devonin 12-19-2008 11:55 PM

Re: Why religion isn't under the same amount of scrutiny?
 
Given that I already described my evidence as being the statements made to me by several professors of history, you will either decide to call their knowledge into question, or not.

Regardless, I should never have suggested that there was 100% factual evidence to support -anything- historical, simply because all history, even history that is archaelogy, is pretty much hearsay. So I retract my claim that the existance of a historical jesus is FACT, but I still deny that you've somehow proven he DIDN'T exist, all you've proven is that there is cause to doubt. But there's cause to doubt all of history.

devonin 12-20-2008 12:03 AM

Re: Why religion isn't under the same amount of scrutiny?
 
Quote:

So apparently you talked with 2000 year old scholars. It's not that I don't believe you... wait no never mind no i dont believe you.
What the hell are you on about? "A historian of that time period" means someone who studied the history of that time period. A 2000 year old historian would be "A historian FROM that time period" Thanks for taking a shot without knowing what words mean.

Grandiagod 12-20-2008 12:05 AM

Re: Why religion isn't under the same amount of scrutiny?
 
I wasn't trying to prove he didn't exist. I was just saying that there's no conclusive evidence he existed. He could have existed but there's nothing to definitely say so. And it's not a point you put up for debate.

Sullyman2007 12-20-2008 12:25 AM

Re: Why religion isn't under the same amount of scrutiny?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by devonin (Post 2926363)
What the hell are you on about? "A historian of that time period" means someone who studied the history of that time period. A 2000 year old historian would be "A historian FROM that time period" Thanks for taking a shot without knowing what words mean.

Well sorry for the misunderstanding. It sounded like you actually meant you literally spoke with a person, a historian, from that time period.

When I linked that page from Google, I figured if the Romans kept proper records, it would help solidify the argument that a Jesus of Nazareth did indeed exist at one point in time.

ps im not good at debating

Afrobean 12-20-2008 02:08 AM

Re: Why religion isn't under the same amount of scrutiny?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by kmay (Post 2926304)
jesus was also a carpenter, or so ive heard. He was a real person, but what we don't know is if he was our savior. The basis for religion is faith, get some or get out. honestly people are debating something that cannot be proven. Our believing in god(s) is also like believing in the theory of relativity. So far we accept it because no one has proved it wrong, but there may be grounds further ahead in life that can prove it wrong.

I'm not debating the existence of a deity. I'm debating on the belief system people have. Whether the God as defined by religious texts actually exists is irrelevant to my argument. I'm not arguing that he doesn't exist; I'm arguing that it's not logical to believe in him.

Notice also that believing things such as Einstein's theory of relatively are firmly rooted in logic and science. To believe in the principles behind relativity is to believe a fundamental principle of physics that has not only logic behind it, but also tested evidence. Religion has neither. Religion forgoes logic and instead appeals to feelings. It isn't logical to believe in God, but it certainly can feel right.

ps grandia, I'm sure you know the site you linked to is mere propaganda. Jesus certainly did live back then. His parables may be fictional, but they're based on a real person. Seriously... "all claims of Jesus derive from hearsay accounts". Does that mean that nothing is real unless I see it with my own eyes? I've never been to New York City, so does that mean it's a fictional city? All I have as reason to believe it exists is what I've learned from others. Bro, this is a subjective reality, and sometimes we have to trust "hearsay accounts" as fact, PARTICULARLY as far as history is concerned.

Quote:

Okay. Your claim that conclusive evidence of Jesus' existence is incredibly untrue and you have no facts to prove it whatsoever. While I linked facts that prove your unsubstantiated assertions incorrect; you will not refute me because you claim to have no evidence on hand.
Grandia, you're falling prey to the dreaded negative proof fallacy just LIKE THEM. Quick. Recall your call for proof before you make a fool of yourself!

kommisar[os] 12-20-2008 01:06 PM

Re: Why religion isn't under the same amount of scrutiny?
 
there's proof of many things that happened centuries before jesus. Jesus however is not. I have nothing against people believing the religion, but it's tiring to see everyone saying "if god doesn't exist, prove it" when really it would make sense to prove the contrary.


People have faith and a reason to live when they follow religions, this is a good thing. but proving their god exists because they have faith isn't solid proof.

Grandiagod 12-20-2008 01:17 PM

Re: Why religion isn't under the same amount of scrutiny?
 
Quote:

ps grandia, I'm sure you know the site you linked to is mere propaganda. Jesus certainly did live back then. His parables may be fictional, but they're based on a real person. Seriously... "all claims of Jesus derive from hearsay accounts". Does that mean that nothing is real unless I see it with my own eyes? I've never been to New York City, so does that mean it's a fictional city? All I have as reason to believe it exists is what I've learned from others. Bro, this is a subjective reality, and sometimes we have to trust "hearsay accounts" as fact, PARTICULARLY as far as history is concerned.
Hearsay accounts in this context mean accounts from people who lived decades after Jesus. You know that, don't play dumb.

Quote:

Grandia, you're falling prey to the dreaded negative proof fallacy just LIKE THEM. Quick. Recall your call for proof before you make a fool of yourself!
Saying there's a lack of concrete evidence for the existence of Jesus is nothing of the sort.

Djr Rap dancer 12-20-2008 01:52 PM

Re: Why religion isn't under the same amount of scrutiny?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by kommisar[os] (Post 2926761)
there's proof of many things that happened centuries before jesus. Jesus however is not. I have nothing against people believing the religion, but it's tiring to see everyone saying "if god doesn't exist, prove it" when really it would make sense to prove the contrary.


People have faith and a reason to live when they follow religions, this is a good thing. but proving their god exists because they have faith isn't solid proof.

Can you see the air?
No
Does the air exist ?
Yes
Same for spirit and gods.
He dont need to see something to believe it.
Do you think blind peoples are bored of the life?
No. This help them a lot for the rest of their sense.

So tell me Kommisar...
Do you need to see the Santa to believe in it?
If yes, you must have a problem.

Afrobean 12-20-2008 03:19 PM

Re: Why religion isn't under the same amount of scrutiny?
 
Air itself isn't immediately visible to the naked eye, but it is empirically measurable; we can definitively identify its physical existence using proven scientific principles.

The same cannot be said of "spirit and gods".

Don't bring your "omg u cant see air just lik u cnt see GOD" ideas 'round these parts.

ps granadia, you still suck for seeming to make the argument that nothing is worthy of being "true" unless we hear it from the source.

Djr Rap dancer 12-20-2008 04:20 PM

Re: Why religion isn't under the same amount of scrutiny?
 
Ok, what happen when you put paper in fire.
He came in sender.
But the paper always exist in a sense, but in sender.
Take this example on the spirit of a human.
What happen after the spirit of a human die.
Nothing?

<< Rien ne se pert, Rien ne se cree, mais TOUT se transforme>>
Think at this.

robertsona 12-20-2008 04:28 PM

Re: Why religion isn't under the same amount of scrutiny?
 
I'm sorry, I don't comprehend?

Djr Rap dancer 12-20-2008 04:37 PM

Re: Why religion isn't under the same amount of scrutiny?
 
look, one other example:
Music : music don't really exist, but what made rap?
Its jazz and blues: mean, nothing its lose, but all upgrade.
Same with spirit.

qqwref 12-20-2008 04:42 PM

Re: Why religion isn't under the same amount of scrutiny?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Afrobean (Post 2926478)
ps grandia, I'm sure you know the site you linked to is mere propaganda. Jesus certainly did live back then. His parables may be fictional, but they're based on a real person. Seriously... "all claims of Jesus derive from hearsay accounts". Does that mean that nothing is real unless I see it with my own eyes? I've never been to New York City, so does that mean it's a fictional city? All I have as reason to believe it exists is what I've learned from others. Bro, this is a subjective reality, and sometimes we have to trust "hearsay accounts" as fact, PARTICULARLY as far as history is concerned.

The site he linked to makes a distinction between hearsay and an eyewitness account, which is a pretty important one: an eyewitness account comes from someone who's actually seen something, whereas a hearsay account comes from someone who was told about it by someone else. So, if someone says they have been to New York, it's an eyewitness account - if you trust the person not to lie to you, you will believe New York exists. According to the website, none of the texts from the period which mention Jesus were written by people who actually saw him in action. The site claims that even the Gospels were written by people who not only never saw Jesus, but don't even know anyone who saw Jesus! When the author has that much remove from the person he's writing about, the work just isn't evidence anymore - even if the author always tells what he thinks is the truth, anyone down the line could have fabricated parts of the story (or all of it!).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Djr Rap dancer (Post 2926885)
Take this example on the spirit of a human.
What happen after the spirit of a human die.
Nothing?

But if you don't think a human has a spirit then it does not have to go anywhere. Some people believe that the mind and personality of a dead person is somehow encoded in the brain, so that the 'spirit' decomposes just like the rest of the body.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:49 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright FlashFlashRevolution