Slav wrote: » Too bad you don't. Fundamentally, theism and science deal with different realms. Science does not need anything supernatural to be consistent. Similarly, theism in general does not need anything natural to be internally consistent. They just don't have common ground.
Well, that's how discussion boards work, if you are making a statement while asking a question be prepared that your statement will be questioned in return by others. So it comes from your claim that scientific method is good enough to investigate religion. So far you failed to explain why and how. I'm sorry but it was you who brought science in here, not me or anybody else.
Lantus wrote: » what a thread! Something I have recently become more aware of is how incredibly difficult it is to justify non belief in god using logic and reason to a christian, especially those that knock on doors! The definition of reason is by default different for these poeple because the fundemtals of the believe system they use to rationalise the world around them is from a different basis. I often attempt to point out the contradictions in the bible story from my perspective. Like how a god who has the ability to create a universe and planets seems unable to write a clear concise document. That the ability of jesus as an immortal being and son to another immortal being to simply spring back into life and then ascend into heaven somewhat mitigates the concept of sacrifice in terms of the crucification. Can an immortal being who drops dead for a few days and then takes human form again knowing there was no real danger really be said to of sacrificed life? The other key aspects like god getting angry which seems to be a common theme dont make sense from a supreme highly evolved immortal being. The constant anger of god in the OT and destroying the products he has turned out (including pregnant women.) doesn't make any sense. To me these and other aspects would seem to indicate that the bible was written by men in those times attempting to make some understanding of their lives as the descriptions of god reflects people more closley than a supremem being. That doesn't mean a supreme being isn't involved!! I just could never accept that the one depicted in the bible is a fair representation of whatever reality may exist.
Northclare wrote: » That's why spirituality is more accessible and if you lean more twoards the idea of a higher power or a universal oneness life can be easier than believing in hell fire and brimstone :S
richiek67 wrote: » Hi Folks, I'm fascinated with this subject because in a way its quite hard to prove or disprove the existence of a higher being.
I wont mention the word God because I think that god to one person is completely different to someone else. ( I guess that's pretty obvious given all religions ).
I have to say that I have the utmost respect for peoples believes and I would never try to say anything is 'stupid' or 'why do you believe such 'n such'.
I'm completely contemptuous towards the church now , partly due to my own forced upbringing, (thankfully my mother always told me to keep an open mind about things) , my dad was and still is very religious. Though I think partly due to my own scientific reasoning on things. I'm very much into science and though this I think I've been able to see the wood from the trees in terms of some of the miss-guided approaches a lot of religions have. I think in terms of the catholic faith its ridiculous that priests cannot get married and that women cannot be priests. In my view it seems that religions suit those that are wealthy and they like to use it like a stick, Hindu sects for example come to mind. I cant understand that.
I'm still off the opinion that there certainly could be a higher being controlling this. I wonder if the finding of previous life on mars could upset the apple cart, so to speak!
Like I said, I'm into the science aspect of things and I think science can disprove a lot of the things in the religions but obviously not the existence of a higher being. I doubt it'll ever do that.
If they find the existence of life on mars does anyone think this would be significant, and how? Cheers
Tim Robbins wrote: » That is not true. Way more people believed Adam and Eve and in some sort of creationism myth even highly educated people until Darwin came along.
Also, if you read my original question which was if it be proved to you God does not exist would you want to know? I gave science as one example of it being disproven, if logic alone (or any other way) could do it fine - but the question is would you want to know? Not how would you want to know?
The Scientific method is good enough to believe something but it can't disproof God as a concept in no more than it can disprove reincarnation or the existence of the invisible teapot.
No one ever made that claim.
Tim Robbins wrote: » As an atheist, I would definetly prefer to know if any religion (Islam, Christianity, whatever...) was true if it was true. I would accept as evidence something that could stand up the rigors of the scientific method.
Tim Robbins wrote: » if God was to turn up on the Late Late and we could verify him somehow scientifically well then that is good enough for me.
You are wasting time on an interesting discussion.
JimiTime wrote: » In response to this. For the record Phil, I take you seriously and I'd be VERY surprised if I was the only one. I have much respect and admiration for your tone, patience and quite frankly manners that are beyond reproach in terms of the abuse you get from posters like the above. I really wish I had your patience sometimes.
philologos wrote: » I find the hypocrisy bizarre - I don't expect people to watch 90 minutes of video to respond to one post. That's unreasonable and I'm sure that Sarky wouldn't watch 90 minutes of video from a Christian perspective (Context was 90 minutes of Bart Ehrman, a theologian who has been responded to within the theological community for his views, and someone who is certainly in the vast minority on that issue). I don't claim that people have "run away" because they happen to have other things to do on occasion, and I certainly don't conjure up false notions of notoriety in order to make my arguments. That's a rudimentary ad-hominem, and I'm surprised that people who claim to be the champions of logic use it. Being an atheist doesn't give you an excuse to be rude. Neither does being a Christian. If people are willing to enter into a reasonable, calm, and respectful debate I'm all for it. If you're going to be rude and obnoxious that's not a "debate" by any reasonable standard. I wouldn't entertain such a discussion in person and I certainly won't in my free time. Thanks for your encouragement Jimi. Insofar as I communicate anything of the Gospel, I'm going to get responses like that. They are best ignored, in favour of responses that are likely to bear fruit in discussion, and prove interesting for both parties.
Fanny Cradock wrote: » Well said, Philologos. I don't tend to pop over to AH or A&A so I don't know what Sarky is talking about. But for what it's worth I've always found you to be respectful, even in the face of hostility and mockery. An attitude that is commendable. All this reminds me of a good quote. "There are 5 Gospels - Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and you." Would that I could take that advice on board
philologos wrote: » Thanks for your encouragement Jimi. Insofar as I communicate anything of the Gospel, I'm going to get responses like that. They are best ignored, in favour of responses that are likely to bear fruit in discussion, and prove interesting for both parties.
marienbad wrote: » yuck !!!
JimiTime wrote: » Aw come on and give us a cuddle:D
Fanny Cradock wrote: » Well said, Philologos. I don't tend to pop over to AH or A&A so I don't know what Sarky is talking about.
marienbad wrote: » I thought you were married !
philologos wrote: » Zombrex: It's still not a sound comparison
2) Christian history does not make sense without a Resurrection event: Let's go through this bit by bit: a. You have been with a charismatic preacher for 3 years in Israel, b. You have seen this man endure trials of all sorts, and you have come to know His personal character during this time. c. You see this man die. x. - d. You and the others who were with you at the time, spread the teachings of this individuals thousands of miles throughout the Gentile world, preaching that we can become a new Creation in Christ Jesus if we are baptized and confess that Jesus is Lord (2 Corinthians 5). e. These men are zealous for the spiritual truths that this man taught throughout His worldly existence, even until the point of death, by stoning (James the Righteous - see Josephus' Jewish Antiquities), Thomas who is believed to have been gored with a spear in India, Peter said to be crucified upside down, James Son of Zebedee who was said to have been put to death by Herod in the book of Acts. Now, what on earth can explain the difference between d and e. How on earth if you have seen your best friend, if you have seen this man who has testified to such truths while alive, could they possibly have endured to spread it as zealously as they did and until the point of death? It does not make sense unless something extraordinary happened inbetween both of these events. I'm not saying that this necessarily has to be the Resurrection, but it certainly gives credence to it. If you cannot explain to me conclusively how all 11 disciples went through to the lengths that they did in a reasonable manner, then this will always give credence to something extraordinary having happened to bring these men to those lengths. Then taking into account that in the accounts the mention of women running to the tomb would have been seen as laughable in Jewish society at the time, a lack of an attempt to cover this up would indicate that it was indeed the honest and frank truth of the situation. There are more and more textual implications like these in the Gospels themselves.
Zombrex wrote: » The reason you give for that are utterly unconvincing, even if they were true (Jim Jones wasn't a suicide cult but even if it was the point would be equally valid). The reality is that it is not a "sound comparison" because it destroys your argument. This is again what people mean when they say they aren't taking you arguing for rational Christianity seriously. There is never going to be a church exactly like Jesus. It is easy to find differences between Jesus' ministry and other cults. But pulling up irrelevant differences in order to avoid the point being made (that it is actually relatively easy for a charismatic cult leader to get certain people to extraordinary things, including killing others and killing themselves) is not arguing in a genuine fashion, and it says very little for your position that your Christianity is based on rational argument. You might as well argue that Jim was named Jim and Jesus was named Jesus so how can we compare the two!
Northclare wrote: » Well Sarky if you don't believe in God your prayers are not much use to you. Before I get ready for work I say two prayers,and if I don't say those prayers I'll know the difference throughout the day. I don't affiliate to any religion I'm more a loving God rather than the God who punishes people. I dismiss the God who will throw me into a furnace for not being up to Biblical standards. I'm not going to throw my dog into a burning range if he or she ****s all over the place and has a habbit of humping people's legs and cushions. The God or HP I pray to is more relaxed and forgiving than the guy who burns non Religious people....
philologos wrote: » No, it's not a sound comparison because it is an entirely different situation.
JimiTime wrote: » Its an awful comparison. Jim Jones convinced his people to follow him and whatever he demanded was best for them.
JimiTime wrote: » It was based on that belief that they drank the kool aid. They died in that belief. Jesus' Followers didn't die like that. They based their conviction on an alleged resurrection. Alleged witnesses to this resurrection. So if they actually went to their death for it, they did it knowing it was a lie. I.E. they actually didn't believe in it.
Tim Robbins wrote: » Ok. Here's one for you. We split a large sample set of people with a similar sickness into groups of equal number. Group A: Holy water from the Pope - that they know is from the Pope. Group B: Holy water from the Pope - that they do not know is from the Pope. Group C: Water that is not from the Pope but they are told is from the Pope. Group Normal Water Group E: A placebo Group F: Nothing. Happy such a clinical trial would help us conclude Holy Water is useful or useless for Sick people? PDB, Fanny would you accept evidence for a such a trial for do you think it could still be possible that Holy water could do something? I know you believe it does not but you like me could be wrong. There are millions who do believe it does something.
