Prove it

[eriador]

Actually, I don't know enough about the theology to know. His book is pretty convincing to me. Have either of you read it?

Edit: And I wasn't ignoring your questions, I was rejecting their premise.

[Locke_]

To which of his books are you refering?

I haven't read any of them. Not because they'd make me uncomfortable with what I believe though. I'm not a creationist. I don't take Genesis, or most of the events of the Old Testament for that matter, literally. I believe in science, scientific progress, evolution, and I don't think the world was created in seven days. I feel like his books are designed to support atheists who believe in science and scare Christians (especially creationists) who don't think about science and religion together very much. I won't read it mainly because I don't have much interest right now in reading a book that I don't think I'll gain much from except maybe a better understanding of someone who disagrees with me. But I can already understand why Dawkins takes his stance, and those who believe what he has to say believe it. But personally, ver very personally, it wouldn't affect me or my belief in God.

I think that's why I've gotten a little frusterated. I understand why you believe what you believe. It makes totaly sense. And I agree with you that there is no proof. I'm curious as to whether or not you can understand or at least accept my understanding my belief in God. Ignoring the agressive premises to my questions, I'd still appreciate answers so that I can understand another person's point of view and belief. My goal isn't to argue at this point, it's just to attain an understanding.

[Rei]

And I wasn't ignoring your questions, I was rejecting their premise.

You're good at that.

And I am with Locke on this one... I am alright with accepting that you cannot believe in a higher power. You find it illogical and it doesn't mesh with your understanding of the world. Great. That is totally fine. What I do not understand is why you insist that because it does not fit in with your logic that it is permanently illogical. And you refuse to even consider the premises which we find to be logical, and where we could find a common ground for understanding despite disagreement.

[Eaquae Legit]

Actually, I don't know enough about the theology to know. His book is pretty convincing to me. Have either of you read it?

Edit: And I wasn't ignoring your questions, I was rejecting their premise.

It's convincing because you don't know enough about theology. You said so yourself. It's full of straw men and caricatures. Of course it was convincing to you - you're just as arrogant, making arguments on a topic you haven't even bothered to try to understand. Yeah yeah, you've got your right to your opinion, blah blah. Just like YE creationists have the right to their opinion. But to someone who actually knows anything about the topic, the arguments are laughable. Why should Dawkins earn any of my respect or money when he can't be bothered to study up on his subject matter?

No I have not read the whole book. I won't spend my money on it. But when it came out, I looked into it with a fair thoroughness. Wanted to know what the fuss was about. Was very underwhelmed. I've encountered far better arguments against God's existence elsewhere.

****

Vic, don't bother. If you've read the rest of this thread you should realise how futile this is.

[Eaquae Legit]

idquomaius

I just felt compelled to comment that I simply adore those three words. They are so very elegant. The English sounds awkward as all hell, but in Latin... Beautiful simplicity. Brilliant.

/random

[eriador]

I totally understand the logic of your belief, and I think you see the logic in mine. However, I have problems with many of your premises. So however logical you might be, I think that you're making a mistake.

And you refuse to even consider the premises which we find to be logical

As I've said, I consider and reject. There's a difference.

I said earlier that the purpose of this thread really was to have people present reasons for their beliefs that everybody could agree on. Now I realize that there aren't "two sides" to this. Every person has their own twisted logic to justify their beliefs, and that logic is personal that nobody else is able to fully agree. Thank you all for helping to end my naiveté, but I think that this thread is as good as dead. This conversation is slipping into ad hominim arguments that do nobody any good. I think this is over.

[Locke_]

I totally understand the logic of your belief, and I think you see the logic in mine. However, I have problems with many of your premises. So however logical you might be, I think that you're making a mistake.

I feel the same way.

I said earlier that the purpose of this thread really was to have people present reasons for their beliefs that everybody could agree on. Now I realize that there aren't "two sides" to this. Every person has their own twisted logic to justify their beliefs, and that logic is personal that nobody else is able to fully agree.

Yes, which leads into the "ad hominem" arguments you refer to. Part of talking about this is getting personal with the person you're speaking to. It's not just personal reasons for why you believe something. It is, likewise, personal reasons why you don't believe in something else. It sounds like you look at ad hominem arguments in a negative light, realistically they are important along with arguing about generalities.

Thank you all for helping to end my naiveté, but I think that this thread is as good as dead. This conversation is slipping into ad hominim arguments that do nobody any good. I think this is over.

Now that the religious side has been questioned and questioned, I'd appreciate if you answered some of my questions, or at least let me know why you don't like the "premises" to my questions and what these premises are. I'm looking for points of view, opinions, and beliefs the same as you.

[eriador]

I feel that I've explained myself several times over. Read the thread and get back to me. I'll do my best to answer any unanswered questions.

[Analytic Mind]

Although this is not meant to piss anyone off, it probably will so sorry ahead of time.

My theory about religion is that we all are just trying to find happiness in our lives. In our early lives ignorance is truly bliss (which we realize later). As we get older we start to get how the world works and begin to understand that it isn't that great world we remember as a child. A totally careless world in which we were happy. In our adolescent years we are still trying to find a way to be more permanently happy. We are at the same time thinking more about the world around us and wondering why it is how it is. This leads some of us to believe in a higher being who may be pulling the strings of our lives. The belief in a religion and God for most people (though they may not think it is such) is a way to try to find the happiness that we all only catch glimpses of and never keep with us forever.

The thing is that no one is always happy, it is a feeling like everything else and thus is not ever going to be permanent.

[Boothby]

Sounds like a reasonable theory...not pissed off.

(though, going back to the first post, my foot is apparently pissed on...)

[eriador]

Could I paraphrase that and say that religion is an immature reaction to the harsh realities of life, or am I missing a subtlety of your argument?

[Boothby]

eriador,

While I understand your sentiment, I would also say that you're unquestionably adding your own bias to Analytic's nominally neutral statements. And as far as "missing the sublety," of his (?) argument, I get the sense that you couldn't care less about what he said, and you're just inserting your own preferred opinion.

[eriador]

Maybe you're reflecting your biases and the subtlety I missed was the neutral tone. :p

Neither of us is totally right here, so let's not argue it.

Perhaps I should have said:
"So from one extreme it could be said that religion is an immature reaction to reality."

[Boothby]

I'm not sure that I ever really expressed my opinion on the topic here, so it would be incorrect to include me in the category of "people who are not totally right here."

However, your statement "So from one extreme it could be said that religion is an immature reaction to reality" is correct, reflects your point of view, and totally ignores Analytic's previous statement (as I said before). Well done.

The fact that I tend to agree with that extreme (if pushed) has nothing to do with it...

[eriador]

I guess I'm just phrasing it with words that aren't value-neutral. So, as AM said, spiritual thought is an attempt to grasp at happiness in a fundamentally unhappy life. I think that we can say that's a fair assessment. I believe that that's an immature approach, but my belief doesn't belong here.

[Analytic Mind]

I don't think that it is necessarily an immature reaction to try to keep striving for such a goal. I mean it may be slightly irrational to try to reach such an unreachable goal such as permanent happiness, but i wouldn't say it is immature in any way. As humans we are naturally pretty irrational. I ask you this, if we totally believed that this world was a horrible place would any of us really want to remain living in it? Though it may be a not so happy life, the way we continue is by taking those moments of happiness and trying to either sustain them with all our might or by just enjoying them thouroughly until the (not so nice) life we have become accustomed to takes over again.

[eriador]

You have a point...

Though I wonder if there aren't more rational ways of seeking happiness, given your premise.

[Azarel]

...I'm pretty sure there aren't an infinite number of religions.

Sorry, just wanted to pick that nit.

Re: God Delusion - I haven't bothered reading Dawkin's book because after the reading the blurb on the back I came to the conclusion that he wasn't so much talking about God, or Christianity but more the various mistakes and crimes that people within Christianity have made.

This approach is very popular among people who either can't be bothered with faith in the unseen or people who don't want to belong to Christianity or people who belong to another faith and wish to combat Christianity.

I also read the blurb on the back of "The Dawkins Delusion" written by a Christian who used to be an atheist. He commented on the book by saying it made him embarrassed to have ever been an atheist because of the either ill-informed or badly constructed arguments Dawkins made.

There's the rub I think, the bible doesn't have much of a 'cover to judge' you actually have to read it and think about it to have a opinion worth listening to.

An old friend of mine once said - "You're born, you die, and that's it, the bible is a load of rubbish"

To which I replied - "Have you ever read the bible?"

"Well, no..." he said.

Wow... how dumb do I feel now, reading the Bible and believing in it?




--
Um, I don't feel dumb by the way, I was being sarcastic etc...

[eriador]

...I'm pretty sure there aren't an infinite number of religions.

Sorry, just wanted to pick that nit.

As we are defining religion, there are mutually exclusive religions (i.e. if one is right, the other can't be). Therefore, for any value of reality, there is at least one extant religion that doesn't reflect reality. This means that the religion must be in some way imagined, and there are no bounds to imagination. Therefore, there are an infinite number of possible religions that conform to our current definition, regardless of what the reality is.

Re: God Delusion - I haven't bothered reading Dawkin's book because after the reading the blurb on the back I came to the conclusion that he wasn't so much talking about God, or Christianity but more the various mistakes and crimes that people within Christianity have made.

This approach is very popular among people who either can't be bothered with faith in the unseen or people who don't want to belong to Christianity or people who belong to another faith and wish to combat Christianity.

Or that's what his publisher wrote.

Anyway, it's too easy to pick on Christians... they've done so much stupid s*** and can't even put together a coherent idea of truth. That's why I put together this thread for somebody to put together an argument that amounts to more than "you can't prove s***," which is exactly what I believe, and pretty much shows them to be idiots, or "you have to have faith" which is bullshit if I've ever heard it, simply because it sounds like brainwashing more than anything. I'm f****** tired of Christianity. It's the worst possible religion if you ask me. f*** it.

There's the rub I think, the bible doesn't have much of a 'cover to judge' you actually have to read it and think about it to have a opinion worth listening to.]

Lol. The bible is a waste of paper if you ask me. When your beliefs are based on a document that can be called upon to support the broad range of (universally f****** stupid) beliefs that Christians have, you don't have much of anything.

[Azarel]

...So let me get this straight.

This thread was another opportunity for you to 'pick on Christianity' and you do so because it's so easy? So with the same fervour that many religious zealots have had in the past, you choose to use any and all forms of debate, piss-taking and or borrowed logic to pursue and affirm your own religion of non-religion.

Well bravo, good for you for standing up for your beliefs. Shame you can't keep a civil tongue while doing it but, then, nobody's perfect. You're angry with religion for some reason I'm unaware of but you carry on mate, keep busting a gut I'm sure we'll pay attention sooner or later.

For the meantime, keep believing what the scientists tell you. You know, those theories they keep re-evaluating and disproving amongst themselves. I like the one where the world is flat, and the sun revolves around the earth and so on. I especially love how they keep telling us that every food under the sun can give you cancer, like it makes a feckin' difference. Or how there is an obesity gene so we don't have to blame ourselves for becoming such fat ba$tards and not exercising.

I digress. The point is you have a choice to believe in what you believe. Even in that belief you may interpret it differently to someone who read the exact same words you did at the same time. If reading the Ender series taught you anything, it should have taught you that people will believe whatever they want to, about any given situation.

So all I'd say to you is, the only way to confidently say 'The bible is a waste of paper' is to read it from cover to cover and then decide for yourself. Otherwise you're talking out of the canine backside from your forum avatar.

The only idiot here is, well, maybe that's too strong a word but, do you really think you'll reduce Christianity to rubble by swearing alot and calling people names?

If my beliefs are based on an ancient document that can still in the year 2008 be called upon to support the universally f-ing stupid beliefs I have then, I think I have a shed-load more than you my friend.

For example: 1 timothy 3:16

Beyond all question, the mystery from which true godliness springs is great:
He appeared in a body,
was vindicated by the Spirit,
was seen by angels,
was preached among the nations,
was believed on in the world,
was taken up in glory.

or: 2 Timothy 3:16

All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that all God's people may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

--
It's good to belong /wink

[Eaquae Legit]

I like the one where the world is flat,

Point of fact: educated people have known the world is round at least since the time of Eratosthenes.

[Azarel]

I like the one where the world is flat,

Point of fact: educated people have known the world is round at least since the time of Eratosthenes.

Yes but it illustrates that at one time, they did not. My point is simply that people who trust in nothing but science must come to terms with the fact that sometimes, they are proven wrong. Science is merely the understanding of nature, which is and always has been working whether anyone understood it or not. The world is not spherical because scientists say it is, it just is. Much in the same way that I believe that God exists not because I say he does, but because he does. If people want proof, and by looking at nature they see nothing but missing links and evolution instead of carefully thought out design, that's their problem.

[zeroguy]

I especially love how they keep telling us that every food under the sun can give you cancer, like it makes a feckin' difference. Or how there is an obesity gene so we don't have to blame ourselves for becoming such fat ba$tards and not exercising.

I won't disagree with your main points here, but I would say these examples are more indicative of the despicable state of scientific journalism/journalists than of any real science. Often stories are either conjured entirely just to attract attention, or are legimitately misunderstood. E.g. a scientist could announce (with evidence) that some food has a slight correlation with cancer, and then media jumps all over it saying it causes cancer.

Yes but it illustrates that at one time, they did not. My point is simply that people who trust in nothing but science must come to terms with the fact that sometimes, they are proven wrong. Science is merely the understanding of nature, which is and always has been working whether anyone understood it or not.

This, on the other hand, I can certainly agree with. However, a certain quote comes to mind... hmm, can't seem to find it, but the gist of it: "Rarely do I see one scientist get up and say 'You are right and I was wrong' and retract their position, while in an intellectual argument with another scientist. It does not happen often, but it does happen. I have never seen religious figures or politicians do the same."

[thatguy1944]

not digress from the current topic but i do not know exactly what i want to believe. I was forced to go between methodist and catholic church consistently at a young age and then because of family issues i stopped going for the past five years. I do not seek a god or any sort of spiritual closure. Recently though i noticed that i have been trying to find happiness. and for this i have been looking to buddhism (i like the dalai lama ) but i still am not sure what to do about how to approach faith and god. although through the crazy talks that i have with my friend i feel that, frankly god doesn't (or at least shouldn't) care about how i seek him/her/it out. I think what matters is the fact that i have tried to seek him out...

there are far too many religions and faiths in this world to just rule out one and say that

"this is it this is the one that you should follow!!"

I think that you should just live a happy, prosperous, and peaceful life...
It shouldn't matter who you talk to in your head.

cuz truth be told (and it will) there are far too many coincidences between jesus and other predominant religious figures, for him to carry the "only son" title...

Keep in mind i am not trying to make any one mad.

Thatguy1944

[Analytic Mind]

Getting back to Eriador's confession of intention, the christians have had many flaws over the years (e.g. Great Western Schism, Inquisition, etc.), but what has made you hate them so much recently? Though I have been trying hard not to express my own opinion on this matter I personally think that some Christians can be extremely hypocritical, not to mention extremely intolerant. This fact is sadly true for all religions, but the thing you have to remember is that not all Christians can be steriotyped as bigots, because alot of Christians are very nice people who are extremely tolerant.

I feel i need to give examples of such a stereotype. Think about people who are Muslim in our world, who are often labeled extremists or terrorists, because their fundamental beliefs are the same as those of known extremists and terrorists. Another example is during World War II. Both the German people and Japanese people in America and their respective countries were labeled Nazis and "JAPS" just because of their country's view point. In this case injustices were inflicted upon both the German and Japanese American's. They were put in internment camps because of their nation of origin.

Is this really fair? Grouping all people with the groups that they are associated with?

Thank you for listening to my ranting

[eriador]

You have a good point. However, I think that even though some Christians are much worse than others, there are fundamental flaws in their theology that make me take pause.

[Analytic Mind]

Take pause? You mean take pause whether you think they have a right to their beliefs? (If i am interpreting incorrectly please enlighten me)