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

The major probelms in believing in religion

Options
2456

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Biro
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,091 ✭✭✭Biro


    stevejazzx wrote: »
    Evidently that should beself evidential.

    What should?


  • Options
    #33
    chop86
    Closed Accounts Posts: 61 ✭✭chop86


    It appears that when theists are pushed to define there god, there beliefs always return to deism. Deism being free from any evidential proof, relying solely on faith.
    I think the question of a deity is now a question of logic and reason.
    For one to see if there is any logic or reasoning behind the possilbility of a deity you only have to substitute the word 'god' for 'flying spaghetti monster'.


  • Options
    #34
    stevejazzx
    Registered Users Posts: 3,247 ✭✭✭stevejazzx


    Biro wrote: »
    I'm not sure who specifically tried to stop him, but they were wrong to do so.

    Evidently.
    biro wrote:
    Lots of people act in ways which baffle us too. Doesn't make them wrong.
    Evidently...:)
    biro wrote:
    No, don't assume anything about me! ;)
    Noted, altohugh paradoxically, a foreboding statement such as that has me naturally assumng all kinds of things about you.:)


  • Options
    #35
    stevejazzx
    Registered Users Posts: 3,247 ✭✭✭stevejazzx


    Biro wrote: »
    What should?

    faith?


  • Options
    #36
    Biro
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,091 ✭✭✭Biro


    stevejazzx wrote: »
    Noted, altohugh paradoxically, a foreboding statement such as that has me naturally assumng all kinds of things about you.:)
    I assumed it might... :D


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    thebaldsoprano
    Closed Accounts Posts: 827 ✭✭✭thebaldsoprano


    stevejazzx wrote: »
    now we have know that the beginning of the universe may not have even needed a singularity to start it.

    Can you provide a reference to that?


  • Options
    #38
    Biro
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,091 ✭✭✭Biro


    stevejazzx wrote: »
    faith?

    Faith is evidence of nothing, except maybe faith! If faith was proof of something then faith in that something would change to knowledge of that something.


  • Options
    #39
    abcdggs
    Registered Users Posts: 1,831 ✭✭✭abcdggs


    surely it is impossible to disprove something that requires faith to become real, and is only ever as real as one believes it is. i think we would spend our time better discussing whether it is better to tie our left shoe first or right


  • Options
    #40
    Biro
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,091 ✭✭✭Biro


    abcdggs wrote: »
    surely it is impossible to disprove something that requires faith to become real, and is only ever as real as one believes it is. i think we would spend our time better discussing whether it is better to tie our left shoe first or right

    Does the shoe you tie first corrispond with whether you are right handed or left handed?


  • Options
    #41
    achtungbarry
    Closed Accounts Posts: 831 ✭✭✭achtungbarry


    abcdggs wrote: »
    surely it is impossible to disprove something that requires faith to become real, and is only ever as real as one believes it is. i think we would spend our time better discussing whether it is better to tie our left shoe first or right

    Exactly. The very act of engaging in such debates is only lending legitimacy to the arguments of those that do view faith and the supernatural as acceptable forms of evidence


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    abcdggs
    Registered Users Posts: 1,831 ✭✭✭abcdggs


    Biro wrote: »
    Does the shoe you tie first corrispond with whether you are right handed or left handed?
    not sure, i know i like to keep it fresh and mix it up every now and then. really keeps the spice in my life, lol


  • Options
    #43
    chop86
    Closed Accounts Posts: 61 ✭✭chop86


    thebaldsoprano wrote: »
    Can you provide a reference to that?

    http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0602515


  • Options
    #44
    Biro
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,091 ✭✭✭Biro


    abcdggs wrote: »
    not sure, i know i like to keep it fresh and mix it up every now and then. really keeps the spice in my life, lol

    Helps me get outta bed in the morning!! :D


  • Options
    #45
    chop86
    Closed Accounts Posts: 61 ✭✭chop86


    abcdggs wrote: »
    surely it is impossible to disprove something that requires faith to become real, and is only ever as real as one believes it is. i think we would spend our time better discussing whether it is better to tie our left shoe first or right

    It is impossible, thus logic and reasoning steps in. Is it logical and reasonable to have faith in a flying spaghetti monster?


  • Options
    #46
    thebaldsoprano
    Closed Accounts Posts: 827 ✭✭✭thebaldsoprano


    chop86 wrote: »
    For one to see if there is any logic or reasoning behind the possilbility of a deity you only have to substitute the word 'god' for 'flying spaghetti monster'.

    There's an implicit assumption here that God(s) would have the same attributes as flying spaghetti or monsters. Why not set 'true' and 'false' to have the same attributes while you're at it...


  • Options
    #47
    abcdggs
    Registered Users Posts: 1,831 ✭✭✭abcdggs


    if there is proof then yes most definitely, but dont forget about our boy ockham


  • Options
    #48
    chop86
    Closed Accounts Posts: 61 ✭✭chop86


    thebaldsoprano wrote: »
    There's an implicit assumption here that God(s) would have the same attributes as flying spaghetti or monsters. Why not set 'true' and 'false' to have the same attributes while you're at it...

    If i were a follower of the fsm church, than yes they would have the same attributes: I believe/have faith he exists. It cannot be proven that fsm doesnt exist.

    Any further discussion about 'god' should be compared with FSMism, as both have equal validity, and also share the same route to that validity


  • Options
    #49
    thebaldsoprano
    Closed Accounts Posts: 827 ✭✭✭thebaldsoprano


    chop86 wrote: »
    If i were a follower of the fsm church, than yes they would have the same attributes: I believe/have faith he exists. It cannot be proven that fsm doesnt exist.

    Any further discussion about 'god' should be compared with FSMism, as both have equal validity, and also share the same route to that validity

    That is one interesting church! :eek: First I'd heard of it... It looks like I let my own idea of God get in the way of things - pretty much a God that created the universe and that's it.

    Fair enough, taking attributes from the Bible is just as valid from a logical standpoint as taking attributes from FSM, no offence to Christians.


  • Options
    #50
    chop86
    Closed Accounts Posts: 61 ✭✭chop86


    thebaldsoprano wrote: »
    That is one interesting church! :eek: First I'd heard of it... It looks like I let my own idea of God get in the way of things - pretty much a God that created the universe and that's it.

    Fair enough, taking attributes from the Bible is just as valid from a logical standpoint as taking attributes from FSM, no offence to Christians.

    FSMism is relativley well known. http://www.venganza.org/.
    FSMism isnt just about taking attributes just from the bible or just christianity. It can be compared to all relgions including your own deism, its used to highlight the illogical and irrational need to have a super-natural being, or faith in one.


  • Options
    #51
    thebaldsoprano
    Closed Accounts Posts: 827 ✭✭✭thebaldsoprano


    chop86 wrote: »
    FSMism is relativley well known. http://www.venganza.org/.
    FSMism isnt just about taking attributes just from the bible or just christianity. It can be compared to all relgions including your own deism, its used to highlight the illogical and irrational need to have a super-natural being, or faith in one.

    Actually, the God(s) or attributes attributed to them wouldn't be equivalent at all - the sourcing of these attributes would be, which is a completely different thing. The existence and actions of a God would need to be argued on their attributes, not on how those attributes are obtained.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    chop86
    Closed Accounts Posts: 61 ✭✭chop86


    thebaldsoprano wrote: »
    Actually, the God(s) or attributes attributed to them wouldn't be equivalent at all - the sourcing of these attributes would be, which is a completely different thing. The existence and actions of a God would need to be argued on their attributes, not on how those attributes are obtained.

    And what attributes does your god have? How do you know he doesnt have tentacles?!
    The point of FSMism isnt just about how these attributes are obtained, since you cant obtain attributes of something invisible and super-natural, Its about assigning attributes to a product of the imagination and how people belive these attributes to be true.
    What attributes does your god have?


  • Options
    #53
    thebaldsoprano
    Closed Accounts Posts: 827 ✭✭✭thebaldsoprano


    chop86 wrote: »
    And what attributes does your god have? How do you know he doesnt have tentacles?!

    Firstly, I'm not even sure there is one. Secondly, apart from having created the universe it wouldn't matter.
    chop86 wrote: »
    The point of FSMism isnt just about how these attributes are obtained, since you cant obtain attributes of something invisible and super-natural, Its about assigning attributes to a product of the imagination and how people belive these attributes to be true.

    General relativity started as the product of someone's imagination, and is widely believed to be true, does FSM have a problem with this?


  • Options
    #54
    stevejazzx
    Registered Users Posts: 3,247 ✭✭✭stevejazzx


    thebaldsoprano wrote: »
    Can you provide a reference to that?

    There's this book called a brief of time history which deals with it. Personally i recommend a 'breifer history of time' audiobook which was far easier for me to grasp.


  • Options
    #55
    stevejazzx
    Registered Users Posts: 3,247 ✭✭✭stevejazzx


    Biro wrote: »
    Faith is evidence of nothing, except maybe faith! .

    Yeah I was trying to tell you that evidently I had too much faith in my method.


  • Options
    #56
    chop86
    Closed Accounts Posts: 61 ✭✭chop86


    thebaldsoprano wrote: »
    Firstly, I'm not even sure there is one. Secondly, apart from having created the universe it wouldn't matter.



    General relativity started as the product of someone's imagination, and is widely believed to be true, does FSM have a problem with this?

    Strange, you yourself said: "The existence and actions of a God would need to be argued on their attributes". The fact that you said a god started the universe in itself is an attribute.

    General relativley isnt a product of the imagination, its a product of evidence. It combines special relativley with newtons law of gravity.


  • Options
    #57
    coffee_cake
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Politics Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 81,309 CMod ✭✭✭✭coffee_cake


    stevejazzx wrote: »
    No, I imagine not. But it did for poor Gallieo who had to smuggle the manuscript for his second book off to Holland becasue the Catholic church had decided that noone could say the earth was not the center of the universe. Doesn't that at least show the massive fallability of your church and it's religious doctrines and rules which they are constantly revising?

    Hang on, didn't gallileo get permission from the pope to publish his book and then got into trouble because he made out the pope was an idiot in the book?


  • Options
    #58
    thebaldsoprano
    Closed Accounts Posts: 827 ✭✭✭thebaldsoprano


    chop86 wrote: »
    General relativley isnt a product of the imagination, its a product of evidence. It combines special relativley with newtons law of gravity.

    It's a product of imagination validated by evidence, which gets back to the point I'm making. It's validity isn't influenced by whether it was thought up by Einstein or a fish. Attacking it on this basis is ad hominem, which is all FSM seems to be trying to do...


  • Options
    #59
    chop86
    Closed Accounts Posts: 61 ✭✭chop86


    bluewolf wrote: »
    Hang on, didn't gallileo get permission from the pope to publish his book and then got into trouble because he made out the pope was an idiot in the book?

    Pope Urban VIII personally asked Galileo to give arguments for and against heliocentrism in the book, and to be careful not to advocate heliocentrism. He made another request, that his own views on the matter be included in Galileo's book. Only the latter of those requests was fulfilled by Galileo. and the trouble began.....


  • Options
    #60
    stevejazzx
    Registered Users Posts: 3,247 ✭✭✭stevejazzx


    bluewolf wrote: »
    Hang on, didn't gallileo get permission from the pope to publish his book and then got into trouble because he made out the pope was an idiot in the book?

    that was his first book and he did not make out that the pope was an idiot the pope ended up looking silly becasue gallieo s book inferred a non centric universe but it was only properly understood by scholars so the impact took a while to come around - after that gallieo and his beliefs were somewhat impounded by the church..


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    coffee_cake
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Politics Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 81,309 CMod ✭✭✭✭coffee_cake


    chop86 wrote: »
    Pope Urban VIII personally asked Galileo to give arguments for and against heliocentrism in the book, and to be careful not to advocate heliocentrism. He made another request, that his own views on the matter be included in Galileo's book. Only the latter of those requests was fulfilled by Galileo. and the trouble began.....

    yes I read the wiki article too ;)


Advertisement