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
1356

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    thebaldsoprano
    Closed Accounts Posts: 827 ✭✭✭thebaldsoprano


    chop86 wrote: »
    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.

    Yes, it's an attribute, random things added in by FSM are attributes as well but they're either superfluous or logically inequivalent to this attribute on its own.


  • Options
    #63
    chop86
    Closed Accounts Posts: 61 ✭✭chop86


    thebaldsoprano wrote: »
    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...

    Newtons law of universal gravity describes the gravitational attraction between bodies, not the imagined, the observed. These arent just imagined ideas they are ideas derived from observable/measurable truths.
    Funny as relgion and any deistic ideals themselves are ad hominem, as it itself appeals to ones igorance and emotions rather than to ones intellect or reason.


  • Options
    #64
    coffee_cake
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Politics Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 81,309 CMod ✭✭✭✭coffee_cake


    thebaldsoprano wrote: »
    It's a product of imagination validated by evidence, which gets back to the point I'm making.

    Scientists didn't sit around thinking of things to make up then find proof, they saw a bunch of stuff and looked for explanations. Other way round, I'm afraid


  • Options
    #65
    chop86
    Closed Accounts Posts: 61 ✭✭chop86


    thebaldsoprano wrote: »
    Yes, it's an attribute, random things added in by FSM are attributes as well but they're either superfluous or logically inequivalent to this attribute on its own.


    Of course its logically equivalent, fsm is imagined to follow exactly the attributes of any deity. If you logically believe that a god created the universe, then the idea that sfm created is neither superfluous or inequvalent.
    Its the exact same in fact, illogical unresonable nonsense.


  • Options
    #66
    thebaldsoprano
    Closed Accounts Posts: 827 ✭✭✭thebaldsoprano


    chop86 wrote: »
    Newtons law of universal gravity describes the gravitational attraction between bodies, not the imagined, the observed. These arent just imagined ideas they are ideas derived from observable/measurable truths.

    I didn't say they were just imagined, just that they started in someone's imagination and were validated by evidence. How exactly does one observe a planet moving and arrive at a symbolic representation of this without use of imagination?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    thebaldsoprano
    Closed Accounts Posts: 827 ✭✭✭thebaldsoprano


    chop86 wrote: »
    Of course its logically equivalent, fsm is imagined to follow exactly the attributes of any deity. If you logically believe that a god created the universe, then the idea that sfm created is neither superfluous or inequvalent.
    Its the exact same in fact, illogical unresonable nonsense.

    Then what's the point of FSM? If the main point of a God is to have created the universe, it matters little if they had tenticles or not.


  • Options
    #68
    stevejazzx
    Registered Users Posts: 3,247 ✭✭✭stevejazzx


    thebaldsoprano wrote: »
    I didn't say they were just imagined, just that they started in someone's imagination and were validated by evidence. How exactly does one observe a planet moving and arrive at a symbolic representation of this without use of imagination?

    With his eyes and his brain?


  • Options
    #69
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    It's funny that atheists seem to know the "major problems" in believing what we do without actually doing so themselves.


  • Options
    #70
    chop86
    Closed Accounts Posts: 61 ✭✭chop86


    thebaldsoprano wrote: »
    I didn't say they were just imagined, just that they started in someone's imagination and were validated by evidence. How exactly does one observe a planet moving and arrive at a symbolic representation of this without use of imagination?

    exactly as you said, they observed the planet moving, they didnt imagine the planet moving and then used the scientfic method to further describe what was observed.


  • Options
    #71
    thebaldsoprano
    Closed Accounts Posts: 827 ✭✭✭thebaldsoprano


    chop86 wrote: »
    exactly as you said, they observed the planet moving, they didnt imagine the planet moving and then used the scientfic method to further describe what was observed.

    I'd buy that up to the hypothesis step - you'd be tad stuck then though.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    chop86
    Closed Accounts Posts: 61 ✭✭chop86


    Jakkass wrote: »
    It's funny that atheists seem to know the "major problems" in believing what we do without actually doing so themselves.

    yes, its not that hard. Look up mormonism, and tell me there isnt also major problems there, you dont need belief. Just reason and logic


  • Options
    #73
    stevejazzx
    Registered Users Posts: 3,247 ✭✭✭stevejazzx


    Jakkass wrote: »
    It's funny that atheists seem to know the "major problems" in believing what we do without actually doing so themselves.

    As someone said recently one doesn't have to travel the lenght and width of the universe to know that moons are not made out of blue cheese.


  • Options
    #74
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    achtungbarry wrote: »
    Again a great example of Liber8ors point being proved. a logical argument is made and is then rebutted with an argument about "an eternal being".

    It is a no win situation.

    The ultimate problem is that you see faith and the supernatural as legitimate forms of evidence and I don't.

    Hence debate is pointless.

    You have every right to hold your position as I do have to hold mine but debating it is pointless and only leads to unessessary arguments.

    Neither side will budge and the same arguments will happen over and over and over again.

    This is not to say that people shouldn't debate, it can be fun afterall, but noone should expect to win such a debate and actually convince the other side that they are right. The two methods of debate are incompatible.
    :confused:

    There you go again, arguing in a perfect circle and then trying to claim you're being logical.

    Let's put this argument in numerical form to illustrate what a silly and illogical objection you have just raised:

    1. Steve says he has some great arguments against the Christian religion. One of which is why would God wait so long to begin the most important part of creation. Now, bear in mind that this is an argument against the Christian God - a God who is an Eternal Being.
    2. I quite reasonably point out that there is no logical reason why God, as an Eternal Being, should be in a hurry to do anything in terms of time.
    3. Now you start making a song and dance because I mention an Eternal Being - even though the Christian God (an Eternal Being) was the very subject of Steve's original argument.

    Can you really telll me that you don't see how circular that is?

    Imagine the same argument applied to a different subject:
    1. "I have a good argument against the existence of bats. I stood all day from 10 in the morning till 5 in the afternoon and didn't see any bats."
    2. "Er, that doesn't actually demonstrate anything since bats are nocturnal animals so would come out at night, not in daytime."
    3. "Ha! There's no arguinjg with you bat-believers. There I go presenting a logical argument and you start talking about bats!"

    Jesus wept!


  • Options
    #75
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    chop86 wrote: »
    yes, its not that hard. Look up mormonism, and tell me there isnt also major problems there, you dont need belief. Just reason and logic

    Take a look, and realise what forum you are in.

    I don't think atheists can possibly know about the Christian experience, and as such I think it's a bit condascending that they can somehow come up with the "major problems of believing".

    I just think to myself, "Those who humble themselves will be exhalted, and those who exhalt themselves will be humbled". I hope this happens to all the people who do this sooner rather than later for both your benefit and for mine.


  • Options
    #76
    chop86
    Closed Accounts Posts: 61 ✭✭chop86


    thebaldsoprano wrote: »
    I'd buy that up to the hypothesis step - you'd be tad stuck then though.

    The next step is to test that hypothesis, in the case of a moving planet it is first observed moving. This is now the hypothesis, next we test this. The test reveals the explanation behind the hypothesis, the planet moves because....


  • Options
    #77
    stevejazzx
    Registered Users Posts: 3,247 ✭✭✭stevejazzx


    PDN wrote: »
    :confused:

    There you go again, arguing in a perfect circle and then trying to claim you're being logical.

    Let's put this argument in numerical form to illustrate what a silly and illogical objection you have just raised:

    1. Steve says he has some great arguments against the Christian religion. One of which is why would God wait so long to begin the most important part of creation. Now, bear in mind that this is an argument against the Christian God - a God who is an Bternal Being.

    Any chance of you answering thie question

    'do you consider christinaity a major part of gods creation'

    this is my 5th time in this thread asking you that question
    if so why did he wait so long before making it. If you argue billions of years isn't long becasue he is infinite or becasue we cannot understand it then again why does God act in ways which will invariably confuse the very poeple he wants to believe in him?


  • Options
    #78
    thebaldsoprano
    Closed Accounts Posts: 827 ✭✭✭thebaldsoprano


    chop86 wrote: »
    The next step is to test that hypothesis, in the case of a moving planet it is first observed moving. This is now the hypothesis, next we test this. The test reveals the explanation behind the hypothesis, the planet moves because....

    Yes, but how do you come up with a hypothesis in the first place without use of imagination?


  • Options
    #79
    chop86
    Closed Accounts Posts: 61 ✭✭chop86


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Take a look, and realise what forum you are in.

    I don't think atheists can possibly know about the Christian experience, and as such I think it's a bit condascending that they can somehow come up with the "major problems of believing".

    I just think to myself, "Those who humble themselves will be exhalted, and those who exhalt themselves will be humbled". I hope this happens to all the people who do this sooner rather than later for both your benefit and for mine.

    I know what forum im in, i was mormonism as comparison so you can see how easy it is to " know the "major problems" in believing what we do without actually doing so themselves" You dont belive in mormonism but know its nonsense, in the same i dont believe in a deity.

    The second half of your point isnt a point, but just nonsense.


  • Options
    #80
    chop86
    Closed Accounts Posts: 61 ✭✭chop86


    thebaldsoprano wrote: »
    Yes, but how do you come up with a hypothesis in the first place without use of imagination?

    In the case of your exmaple the hypothesis came by looking at the planet and seeing it move.


  • Options
    #81
    stevejazzx
    Registered Users Posts: 3,247 ✭✭✭stevejazzx


    PDN wrote: »
    :confused:

    Imagine the same argument applied to a different subject:
    1. "I have a good argument against the existence of bats. I stood all day from 10 in the morning till 5 in the afternoon and didn't see any bats."
    2. "Er, that doesn't actually demonstrate anything since bats are nocturnal animals so would come out at night, not in daytime."
    3. "Ha! There's no arguinjg with you bat-believers. There I go presenting a logical argument and you start talking about bats!"

    Jesus wept!

    Quite frankly that is batty.:pac:


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    thebaldsoprano
    Closed Accounts Posts: 827 ✭✭✭thebaldsoprano


    chop86 wrote: »
    In the case of your exmaple the hypothesis came by looking at the planet and seeing it move.

    All that comes from looking at something and seeing it move is just that - seeing it move. What I'm asking is how did a hypothesis come about after seeing it move?


  • Options
    #83
    chop86
    Closed Accounts Posts: 61 ✭✭chop86


    PDN wrote: »
    :confused:

    There you go again, arguing in a perfect circle and then trying to claim you're being logical.

    Let's put this argument in numerical form to illustrate what a silly and illogical objection you have just raised:

    1. Steve says he has some great arguments against the Christian religion. One of which is why would God wait so long to begin the most important part of creation. Now, bear in mind that this is an argument against the Christian God - a God who is an Eternal Being.
    2. I quite reasonably point out that there is no logical reason why God, as an Eternal Being, should be in a hurry to do anything in terms of time.
    3. Now you start making a song and dance because I mention an Eternal Being - even though the Christian God (an Eternal Being) was the very subject of Steve's original argument.

    Can you really telll me that you don't see how circular that is?

    Imagine the same argument applied to a different subject:
    1. "I have a good argument against the existence of bats. I stood all day from 10 in the morning till 5 in the afternoon and didn't see any bats."
    2. "Er, that doesn't actually demonstrate anything since bats are nocturnal animals so would come out at night, not in daytime."
    3. "Ha! There's no arguinjg with you bat-believers. There I go presenting a logical argument and you start talking about bats!"

    Jesus wept!

    You say there is no logical reason why a god would be in a hurry.
    That is not sound logical reasonng as you are making an assumption there is a god. First step should be what is the logical resoning behind there being a need for a deity.


  • Options
    #84
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    chop86 wrote: »
    I know what forum im in, i was mormonism as comparison so you can see how easy it is to " know the "major problems" in believing what we do without actually doing so themselves" You dont belive in mormonism but know its nonsense, in the same i dont believe in a deity.

    I don't know that Mormonism is nonsense actually. I just deem it most probable that the God of Christianity exists rather than not based on my personal experiences, and other factors. Check out my reasons on the link in my sig it'll save us both time.

    To say you don't believe in a deity is quite different to saying that I have problems in my life without even having lived it or experienced God or the Holy Spirit. Another bit of wisdom from the teacher who changed the world: "First take the log out of your own eye".
    chop86 wrote: »
    The second half of your point isnt a point, but just nonsense.

    It's nonsense to suggest that the haughty and the arrogant should be taken down a notch? Hardly.


  • Options
    #85
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    stevejazzx wrote: »
    Any chance of you answering thie question

    'do you consider christinaity a major part of gods creation'

    this is my 5th time in this thread asking you that question
    if so why did he wait so long before making it. If you argue billions of years isn't long becasue he is infinite or becasue we cannot understand it then again why does God act in ways which will invariably confuse the very poeple he wants to believe in him?

    Just hold your horses right there. I have just come on line again in the last 15 minutes after looking after something at work. I have questions addressed to me and points being made in 8 different threads and I don't appreciate being badgered because you are feeling impatient and you think your question is more important than anyone else's. Do I make myself clear?

    Yes, I think that redeeming mankind is the pinnacle of God's work of creation.

    Again, there is no reason why God should do anything in a hurry or in a way that satisfies you personally. Also, God has given us brains that are able to think logically, so there is no reason why the question of how long creation took should confuse anybody who can think relatively clearly.

    You see, being in a hurry to do anything is because of constraints of time. We only have 70-odd years or so, there's only 24 hours in a day, procrastination is the thief of time etc. etc.

    But, for an Eternal Being, there are no constraints of time. One day is to Him as a thousand years, and a thousand years is like one day. So it doesn't make the slightest bit of difference to him whether He chooses to do something tomorrow or whether He chooses to wait a zillion light years.

    It must be amusing to Him to see a puny finite human stamp their feet, fold their arms, and lisp to themselves, "Well, if God doethn't do everything in a way that I can understand then I thimply refuthe to believe in Him!" The amazing thing, Steve, is that even after such a display of petulant arrogance He still believes in you and He still loves you.


  • Options
    #86
    chop86
    Closed Accounts Posts: 61 ✭✭chop86


    thebaldsoprano wrote: »
    All that comes from looking at something and seeing it move is just that - seeing it move. What I'm asking is how did a hypothesis come about after seeing it move?

    Logic and reasoning. I see a planet moving, therefore my hypothesis is that the planet moves.
    What is your logic and reasoning behind the god creator?


  • Options
    #87
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    chop86 wrote: »
    You say there is no logical reason why a god would be in a hurry.
    That is not sound logical reasonng as you are making an assumption there is a god. First step should be what is the logical resoning behind there being a need for a deity.

    Good grief! Don't they teach people how to think any more in schools?

    Come on, Choppy, this is hardly rocket science. If Steve is advancing an argument against religion (worshipping a God) then it is permissable for me to counter His argument with points that would hold true if there were a God.

    Try to understand the basic principles that hold in a debate, otherwise this thread will continue to continue as the illogical atheist trainwreck to hell.


  • Options
    #88
    thebaldsoprano
    Closed Accounts Posts: 827 ✭✭✭thebaldsoprano


    chop86 wrote: »
    Logic and reasoning. I see a planet moving, therefore my hypothesis is that the planet moves.

    Logic and reasoning are used to determine whether or not a hypothesis is valid. I'm asking how does one come up with a hypothesis in the first place?

    'The planet moves' is an observation, not a hypothesis btw...


  • Options
    #89
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    thebaldsoprano wrote: »
    Then what's the point of FSM? If the main point of a God is to have created the universe, it matters little if they had tenticles or not.

    The point of the FSM is to highlight flaws in introducing supernatural beings into models of how things work.

    A lot of people expect that God (their god) be considered for having done something, yet reject out of hand that something like the FSM be considered also.

    Which highlights the bias of religious people expecting their particular supernatural being to be given an easy ride for no other reason than it happens to be the one they believe in.


  • Options
    #90
    coffee_cake
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Politics Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 81,309 CMod ✭✭✭✭coffee_cake


    Jakkass wrote: »
    It's nonsense to suggest that the haughty and the arrogant should be taken down a notch? Hardly.
    Why? What difference do they make to you? Just because they're irritating to you personally doesn't mean "should" anything.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    chop86
    Closed Accounts Posts: 61 ✭✭chop86


    Jakkass wrote: »
    I don't know that Mormonism is nonsense actually. I just deem it most probable that the God of Christianity exists rather than not based on my personal experiences, and other factors. Check out my reasons on the link in my sig it'll save us both time.

    To say you don't believe in a deity is quite different to saying that I have problems in my life without even having lived it or experienced God or the Holy Spirit. Another bit of wisdom from the teacher who changed the world: "First take the log out of your own eye".



    It's nonsense to suggest that the haughty and the arrogant should be taken down a notch? Hardly.


    So how does faith trump logic and reasoning. I have no doubt that you feel a god in your everyday experiences, but that doesnt mean there is a god there. These are not evidence of any sort for a deity


Advertisement