Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Respect for the religious + religion - where does it start/stop?

Options
1…2526283031

Comments

  • Options
    #812
    RikuoAmero
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,135 ✭✭✭RikuoAmero


    From the person who stops chemo therapy because he is "certain" that the homeopathic cream is going to work

    Funny you say that...
    http://7online.com/health/11-year-old-girl-dies-after-refusing-chemo-therapy/487908/


  • Options
    #813
    RikuoAmero
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,135 ✭✭✭RikuoAmero


    Yes, I believe what I believe. And other people believe what they believe. What's your point?

    The problem is that we are skeptics. We're here listening to you saying "This is what I believe about reality, this is what I know". According to you, Jesus is the Son of God, he was God in the flesh. He purportedly did various miracles (which of the miracles talked about in the bible, by the way, do you believe/know happened? All of them? Some of them? None?). You've stated that Roman Catholicism didn't "work for you", so...what? Transubstantiation (wine and wafer literally turn in to the blood and body of Jesus) isn't true? The pope isn't the Vicar of Christ? He isn't infallible?
    Then, over there in the other corner, we've got a Roman Catholic. He says things different to you. He says the pope IS the Vicar of Christ, no doubt about it. He says that the wine and wafer do literally turn into the blood and body of Christ at communion.
    Then, over yonder, I see a Muslim. He says something different. He says that Jesus isn't the Son of God, he was not God in the flesh. He says that to even entertain the possibility of a man being divine is a sin. He says that Jesus didn't resurrect.

    Now I am a skeptic, along with everyone else here. We want to know, which, if any of you, are telling the truth. Can all of you be speaking truth simultaneously? Logic says no, that would violate the laws of identity, excluded middle and non-contradiction (Jesus cannot both be God in the flesh, and not divine).
    We are curious about what really is true, and we want to ascertain the truth. We want answers. To find the truth, we must have ways of sifting claims. We're not content with just leaving it at "people believe what they believe". We want to be able to find out which of those people actually do have true belief.


  • Options
    #814
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    katydid wrote: »
    My opinion of Creationists is very simple; they are wrong, because science proves them wrong.

    What? You said science doesn't apply to religion!

    Because I've got news for you: science says dead people do not rise from the dead after three days. It says virgins do not get pregnant. There is no Heaven in the sky for Jesus to ascend into. There's no such thing as a miracle. Angels do not appear unto people and predict the future. Prophecy is a crock.

    The Christian story in the Bible is absolutely impossible, says science.


  • Options
    #815
    RikuoAmero
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,135 ✭✭✭RikuoAmero


    Zubeneschamali wrote: »
    What? You said science doesn't apply to religion!

    Because I've got news for you: science says dead people do not rise from the dead after three days. It says virgins do not get pregnant. There is no Heaven in the sky for Jesus to ascend into. There's no such thing as a miracle. Angels do not appear unto people and predict the future. Prophecy is a crock.

    The Christian story in the Bible is absolutely impossible, says science.

    Katy is just maddening. She says logic, reason and science can't be applied to religion, yet says creationism (a form of religion) isn't true because science can prove it wrong...?
    Can you keep a position for longer than five minutes Katy?


  • Options
    #816
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    katydid wrote: »
    Evolution is far from perfect - handy opt-out clause there, alright. Covers all the inexplicable bits that of course couldn't possibly be down to anything other than science..


    So all the times it went wrong = God? Great stuff.
    katydid wrote: »
    Whether the question was "What reason/what scientific reason/what logical reason/what rational reason" the answer remains the same. Even if you ask it ten times.


    You can't provide any reason why you chose the faith you chose?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #817
    katydid
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,351 ✭✭✭katydid


    Zubeneschamali wrote: »
    What? You said science doesn't apply to religion!

    Because I've got news for you: science says dead people do not rise from the dead after three days. It says virgins do not get pregnant. There is no Heaven in the sky for Jesus to ascend into. There's no such thing as a miracle. Angels do not appear unto people and predict the future. Prophecy is a crock.

    The Christian story in the Bible is absolutely impossible, says science.

    No, it can't. Religion is a belief system about what is beyond science. Scriptures and teachings have, from time immemorial, tried to explain natural phenomena through recourse to the supernatural, but many of these explanations are unnecessary, or prove to be unnecessary with the passage of time. The creation story is one of those things; while science has explained some of the story, it nevertheless remains a very significant exploration of human nature, and the relationship between humans and the earth, and humans and the divine.

    Of course the Christian story in the Bible is impossible, according to science. At least, parts of it are. But that's not the issue, since no one is trying to say it is possible according to science...


  • Options
    #818
    katydid
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,351 ✭✭✭katydid


    RikuoAmero wrote: »
    Katy is just maddening. She says logic, reason and science can't be applied to religion, yet says creationism (a form of religion) isn't true because science can prove it wrong...?

    And that's inconsistent how? Creationism isn't religion, it's an interpretation of religion that is clearly and demonstrably wrong. However, the creation myth is still a valid and a valuable myth.
    Religion per se is far more complex than one interpretation of it, and where it addresses issues beyond our scientific comprehension it's simply not possible to marry the two.

    You mind ME maddening. I find YOU maddening that you can't understand the difference between interpretations of religion that are erroneous and the larger concept of religion.

    So we're quits :-)


  • Options
    #819
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    katydid wrote: »
    And that's inconsistent how? Creationism isn't religion, it's an interpretation of religion that is clearly and demonstrably wrong. However, the creation myth is still a valid and a valuable myth.

    How?


  • Options
    #820
    katydid
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,351 ✭✭✭katydid


    Nodin wrote: »
    So all the times it went wrong = God? Great stuff.



    You can't provide any reason why you chose the faith you chose?

    All the times it went wrong...who knows? I don't claim to know. Unlike you, I'm not waffling on vaguely about "wiring" and then taking opt-out clauses when "wiring" doesn't explain everything. I'm being honest, I'm saying I don't know.

    I have, repeatedly, given the reasons I chose the faith I chose. Apparently, those reasons aren't enough, since they don't conform to "reason and logic", but to my gut feeling that something is right for me. Maybe I just should say I must be "wired" to that particular frequency; would that satisfy, I wonder?


  • Options
    #821
    katydid
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,351 ✭✭✭katydid


    Nodin wrote: »
    How?

    Because, as I've said TWICE, it is an exploration of human nature, and humans' relationship with the rest of the world and with the deity. Like all myths, it tries to explain the world in a poetic and symbolic way.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #822
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    katydid wrote: »
    I have, repeatedly, given the reasons I chose the faith I chose. Apparently, those reasons aren't enough, since they don't conform to "reason and logic", but to my gut feeling that something is right for me. Maybe I just should say I must be "wired" to that particular frequency; would that satisfy, I wonder?

    O. You just 'feel' its right. That makes it clearer. Total nonsense, but at least we can say the reason is 'it feels right'.


  • Options
    #823
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    katydid wrote: »
    Because, as I've said TWICE, it is an exploration of human nature, and humans' relationship with the rest of the world and with the deity. Like all myths, it tries to explain the world in a poetic and symbolic way.

    Yes, but how is it useful to say some deity created the world in x amount of time etc when no such thing ever happened?


  • Options
    #824
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    katydid wrote: »
    Of course the Christian story in the Bible is impossible, according to science. At least, parts of it are. But that's not the issue, since no one is trying to say it is possible according to science...

    But you just said Creationism is wrong because it is impossible according to science!


  • Options
    #825
    RikuoAmero
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,135 ✭✭✭RikuoAmero


    Creationism isn't religion, it's an interpretation of religion that is clearly and demonstrably wrong.

    Is Anglicanism not an "interpretation" of christianity? Can I apply science to Roman Catholicism and Anglicanism?
    So how is it you can apply science to an interpretation of religion, but not religion itself? Is an interpretation a separate thing from the religion?
    Oh and you're wrong by the way. There are people who try to say that the christian story is true according to science. Take Ken Ham for example. He did a debate last year with Bill Nye, where he tried to argue for a "historical science" that supposedly proves, through science, a literal reading of the bible.


  • Options
    #826
    katydid
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,351 ✭✭✭katydid


    Zubeneschamali wrote: »
    But you just said Creationism is wrong because it is impossible according to science!
    Yes...


  • Options
    #827
    katydid
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,351 ✭✭✭katydid


    Nodin wrote: »
    O. You just 'feel' its right. That makes it clearer. Total nonsense, but at least we can say the reason is 'it feels right'.

    So any human decisions that can't be explained by a scientific hypothesis are "total nonsense". Hmm.


  • Options
    #828
    katydid
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,351 ✭✭✭katydid


    Nodin wrote: »
    Yes, but how is it useful to say some deity created the world in x amount of time etc when no such thing ever happened?

    It isn't, in itself. As part of a creation myth, it indicates the belief that this happened in stages. Not an unreasonable hypothesis for a primitive people to make when developing their creation story.


  • Options
    #829
    katydid
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,351 ✭✭✭katydid


    RikuoAmero wrote: »
    Is Anglicanism not an "interpretation" of christianity? Can I apply science to Roman Catholicism and Anglicanism?
    So how is it you can apply science to an interpretation of religion, but not religion itself? Is an interpretation a separate thing from the religion?
    Oh and you're wrong by the way. There are people who try to say that the christian story is true according to science. Take Ken Ham for example. He did a debate last year with Bill Nye, where he tried to argue for a "historical science" that supposedly proves, through science, a literal reading of the bible.

    Can you apply science to Anglicanism or Roman Catholicism? Sure you can. I can't imagine you'd be terribly successful. The bits that have had science supplied to them have already been through the process.
    You can apply science to an interpretation of religion, because interpretations of religion are, by their nature, open to it. Religion itself is a more complex concept; it is a systemised belief in a deity. While it's possible to scrutinise and sometimes disprove specific claims, it is clearly impossible to prove or disprove the basic contention of the existence of a deity.
    I should have thought the distinction was fairly clear.

    I didn't say that there aren't people who deny the science that disproves certain religious claims.


  • Options
    #830
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    katydid wrote: »
    Yes...

    Creationism is wrong because it is impossible according to science.

    Christianity is impossible according to science.

    Therefore...


  • Options
    #831
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    katydid wrote: »
    So any human decisions that can't be explained by a scientific hypothesis are "total nonsense". Hmm.


    'I feel this is right'

    'Why?'

    'I just do'

    when applied to selecting a religious faith underlines the bogus nature of the enterprise.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #832
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    katydid wrote: »
    It isn't, in itself. As part of a creation myth, it indicates the belief that this happened in stages. Not an unreasonable hypothesis for a primitive people to make when developing their creation story.


    The whole "use" of the creation myth is that it says it happened in stages......That's grasping at straws to be honest.


  • Options
    #833
    RikuoAmero
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,135 ✭✭✭RikuoAmero


    You can apply science to an interpretation of religion, because interpretations of religion are, by their nature, open to it.
    Except for where they (very frequently) command you to believe and say you shouldn't apply science to it.
    Religion itself is a more complex concept; it is a systemised belief in a deity
    So Theravada Buddhism isn't a religion, since it has no deity?
    While it's possible to scrutinise and sometimes disprove specific claims, it is clearly impossible to prove or disprove the basic contention of the existence of a deity.
    Wrong. It is certainly possible to disprove a deity who is described as having done certain actions. For example, if someone says he worships a deity that, every Thursday, takes various famous national monuments and juggles them for a half hour for the lulz, I can say "Well, there is no evidence of that action happening, therefore I can say with a high degree of certainty that a monument juggling deity doesn't exist".
    Part and parcel of the christian god's description is the claim that he died and resurrected. Well...there's no strong evidence in favour of that. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence here.


  • Options
    #834
    katydid
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,351 ✭✭✭katydid


    RikuoAmero wrote: »
    Except for where they (very frequently) command you to believe and say you shouldn't apply science to it.


    So Theravada Buddhism isn't a religion, since it has no deity?


    Wrong. It is certainly possible to disprove a deity who is described as having done certain actions. For example, if someone says he worships a deity that, every Thursday, takes various famous national monuments and juggles them for a half hour for the lulz, I can say "Well, there is no evidence of that action happening, therefore I can say with a high degree of certainty that a monument juggling deity doesn't exist".
    Part and parcel of the christian god's description is the claim that he died and resurrected. Well...there's no strong evidence in favour of that. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence here.

    Can you give me an example of where "they command you to believe?"

    Does a religion have to have a god? Good question...I take your point. A religion like Buddhism focuses on spirituality. It's a question I'll have to think about.

    You can disprove that a deity juggles national monuments. You can't disprove that god died and was resurrected. Simples.


  • Options
    #835
    katydid
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,351 ✭✭✭katydid


    Nodin wrote: »
    The whole "use" of the creation myth is that it says it happened in stages......That's grasping at straws to be honest.

    Oh, for heaven's sake, I didn't say that the WHOLE use of the creation myth was to say that it happens in stages. You asked me a specific thing and I answered. You ignored what I wrote about the creation myth being an exploration of humankind and its relationship with the world and with the deity.

    It's getting rather tiresome trying to have a reasonable discussion with someone who selects what they want from posts out of context and ignores the bigger picture. It's just as dishonest as totally misquoting.


  • Options
    #836
    katydid
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,351 ✭✭✭katydid


    Nodin wrote: »
    'I feel this is right'

    'Why?'

    'I just do'

    when applied to selecting a religious faith underlines the bogus nature of the enterprise.

    Why? Does that mean that saying you know you love someone because you just do underlines the bogus nature of human emotions?


  • Options
    #837
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    katydid wrote: »
    Oh, for heaven's sake, I didn't say that the WHOLE use of the creation myth was to say that it happens in stages. You asked me a specific thing and I answered. You ignored what I wrote about the creation myth being an exploration of humankind and its relationship with the world and with the deity..



    How is it so? Please expand.


  • Options
    #838
    katydid
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,351 ✭✭✭katydid


    Nodin wrote: »
    How is it so? Please expand.

    Ah come on, you presumably know the basics of the Genesis story. Man developing relationship with God, man given "dominion" over the natural world, men and women have to live in pain and hardship, relationships between siblings "explain" different races/tribes, man punished for abusing nature by giant flood...etc. etc.

    It's eleven o'clock on Saturday night. I've better things to be doing than writing essays.


  • Options
    #839
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    katydid wrote: »
    Ah come on, you presumably know the basics of the Genesis story. Man developing relationship with God, man given "dominion" over the natural world, men and women have to live in pain and hardship, relationships between siblings "explain" different races/tribes, man punished for abusing nature by giant flood...etc. etc.

    It's eleven o'clock on Saturday night. I've better things to be doing than writing essays.

    ....many seem to think that dominion over nature is the right to abuse it. Not sure what the relationships between siblings bit refers to. The explanation of different races and tribes - being untrue - was useless.

    Jaysus forbid you explain yourself at any time without being hounded.


  • Options
    #840
    katydid
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,351 ✭✭✭katydid


    Nodin wrote: »
    ....many seem to think that dominion over nature is the right to abuse it. Not sure what the relationships between siblings bit refers to. The explanation of different races and tribes - being untrue - was useless.

    Jaysus forbid you explain yourself at any time without being hounded.

    And many think that dominion over nature is custodianship. Yet another example of how scripture is open to interpretation and debate.

    Siblings; I was referring to Cain and Abel - clearly the myth of two brothers is indicative of clashes between humanity, and of course tried to explain the nature of good and evil, and of course an early bit of racism, interpreted by some to imply that black people were the descendants of Abel, and carried his curse.

    Myths are by their nature UNTRUE, but they are not useless; they allow human beings to think about and to explore their own nature and their society. They are starting points for discussion and thought.

    I didn't actually think I would have to explain this; it's kind of basic stuff, really. I have to say that I'm surprised that it seems to be your first time hearing this.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #841
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    katydid wrote: »
    And many think that dominion over nature is custodianship. Yet another example of how scripture is open to interpretation and debate..

    And thus useless.
    katydid wrote: »
    Siblings; I was referring to Cain and Abel - clearly the myth of two brothers is indicative of clashes between humanity, and of course tried to explain the nature of good and evil, and of course an early bit of racism, interpreted by some to imply that black people were the descendants of Abel, and carried his curse..

    Useless as well then.
    katydid wrote: »
    Myths are by their nature UNTRUE, but they are not useless; they allow human beings to think about and to explore their own nature and their society. They are starting points for discussion and thought. ..

    ...so we'd be no better off than with the Greeks, Fair enough.


Advertisement