[split] GODS NOT REEL

[thewake]

Interesting: If we are all born in sin, then maybe people can be born gay and homosexuality can still be a sin.

mind=blown

[Cianna200]

The idea that an all righteous and just god would punish the innocent for the sins of the guilty is not just at all, it completely contradicts god as being righteous, if these doctrines don't make sense than god doesn't make sense and god is supposed to be free of nonsensical ways.

[brainiac3397]

(06-04-2014 01:37 PM)Cianna200 Wrote:  The idea that an all righteous and just god would punish the innocent for the sins of the guilty is not just at all, it completely contradicts god as being righteous, if these doctrines don't make sense than god doesn't make sense and god is supposed to be free of nonsensical ways.

I don't know about that.

My religion doesn't have such a concept of "original" sin since it's considered that Adam and Eve were "forgiven/punished" by being given a second chance, but without the whole luxurious immortal time in heaven. Nor does it have a concept of the sin of parents passing down to offspring.

[thewake]

Or maybe your concept of just is wrong and this "God" is correct in his justness, and all of humanity is guilty of sin?

What does it even mean to be just?

[Cianna200]

Satan was stolen from paganism ( for the name Lucifer should ring a bell to the ancient religions) and should not even be in the bible in the first place. If Satan is a challenge for humans than Satan is a helper for god and not a rebellious angel, it's like Satan and God made a deal with each other and Satan is carrying out god's will. The balance of destructive and non destructive is a part of the world but they do not mean that there is a devil and a thing called sin.

[Cianna200]

Supposed your friend committed a murder and your friend's child was punished for their parent's wrong doing, is this good? To be just is to give out careful and fair handling of wrongdoing but things like original sin and eternal damnation are based on revenge and animosity not justice.

[thewake]

(06-04-2014 01:42 PM)Cianna200 Wrote:  Satan was stolen from paganism and should not even be in the bible in the first place. If Satan is a challenge for humans than Satan is a helper for god and not a rebellious angel, it's like Satan and God made a deal with each other and Satan is carrying out god's will. The balance of destructive and non destructive is a part of the world but they do not mean that there is a devil and a thing called sin.

Don't question it. Don't use logic. You just gotta have faith.

Hidden stuff:

I hope you realize that I'm just, ironically, being the Devil's Advocate.

[brainiac3397]

We're told that Satan was a "fallen angel" who struck a deal with God when he claimed he could make humans stray from the "right" path. Thus he was given till the end of the universe to go off and do his evil stuff in tricking mankind and making them all sinful.

Of course the excuse that "Satan made me do it" doesn't pass because Satan doesn't actively involve with humanity, but rather "suggests" things that would make a person lean towards sinning. Any sinner who doesn't repent is just a guest with Satan to his reserved spot in Hell.

So basically Satan is already screwed, he just wants to bring as many others down as he can before spending eternity in hell.

[Cianna200]

Logic is extremely important, faith without open mindedness can lead to absurdities.

[brainiac3397]

(06-04-2014 01:48 PM)Cianna200 Wrote:  Logic is extremely important, faith without open mindedness can lead to absurdities.

Especially since nobody is free from sin. Narrow mindedness would only make people in capable of realizing and/or accepting that those "leading" them in the name of religion might just be sinfully guiding them for his/her own devious purposes.

[Cianna200]

But since many refuse to join Christianity ''Satan'' will win over god, this produces yet another problem, that god is not omnipotent after all.

[Cianna200]

Since Satan is a liar and a trickster, there is a chance that Satan tricked people into believing ridiculous things about god such as God being a hypocrite and an evil and merciless tyrant, this could have been ''Satan's'' trick to make people hate god and it worked as many have turned away from god.

[brainiac3397]

(06-04-2014 01:50 PM)Cianna200 Wrote:  But since many refuse to join Christianity ''Satan'' will win over god, this produces yet another problem, that god is not omnipotent after all.

No HUMAN can be 100% sure of which religion is the "right" one.

And you calling me a sinner for not being Christian?

[Cianna200]

No religion is the absolute truth as our brains are not able to perceive universal knowledge all religions have something true about them but no religion is 100% correct; and I'm not calling you a sinner, I do not believe in sin and I'm no christian either.

[thewake]

(06-04-2014 01:48 PM)Cianna200 Wrote:  Logic is extremely important, faith without open mindedness can lead to absurdities.

Faith is not logical, or open minded. Mencken defined it aptly as "an illogical belief in the occurrence of the improbable." No rational arguments can penetrate it. No logic can surmount it. No evidence can sway it.

Bluntly put, faith itself is an absurdity.

[Cianna200]

I never said faith was logic I stated logic is very important and that if faith is not without it's possibility to question than faith can lead to absurdities.

[brainiac3397]

Electricity was improbable to the minds of our ancestors.

How can we know what is and isn't probable?

I bet if you told Mencken we'd travel into space, he'd just laugh at your "faith". Not to mention I'd rather not trust the words of a man who believed in some sort of "illogical" belief that being black meant you were "50 generations" behind the white man.

You may say "it was the belief of the time", to which I'd say "If belief changes over time, then how can I be told with certainty that what is improbable is truly the improbable?"

[Cianna200]

That isn't faith, that is a claim. The point I was making was that if faith is without open-minded ness it can be a problem simliar to when the bible says that faith without deeds is dead.

[brainiac3397]

"I believe that we will land on the moon and send people to space"
Pre-20th century, this statement would be an "illogical belief in the occurrence of the improbable"

Like I said, any human theory on religion and the definition of religions all remain subjective simply because humans are short-sighted and most have a preference to maintaining a status quo in their lives. Humans simply have a fear of the unknown, otherwise more people would be more willing to take a blind step forward.

So who take these brave steps? Those with faith in achieving an outcome in their hope to unlocking something. Thus "logic" is sometimes progressed through faith in it.

[Cianna200]

That statement is contrary to the kind of faith that I acknowledge that Christians have but this all was begun with what someone said to me about belief in sin

[brainiac3397]

Faith in logic finds the logic in faith.

[Cianna200]

Faith abandons reason if it is taken to extremity, we went off topic though.

[thewake]

(06-04-2014 02:10 PM)brainiac3397 Wrote:  Electricity was improbable to the minds of our ancestors.

Yes, but we now know that such a substance as electricity exists. We have evidence. Humanity had to work its way up to that point, and reject multiple fallacious views on the workings of the universe in order to do so.

However, faith is to assert things with no evidence. I don't see how a comparison can be made, unless you're stating that some day we may work our way up to finding proof of a God. If that is true, I will be more than happy to wait and see the actual evidence, while currently remaining an agnostic and an atheist.

Quote:How can we know what is and isn't probable?

Does it seem probably to you that something is true when there is absolutely no evidence for it, even though it has been asserted and philosophized about for thousands of years?

Quote:I bet if you told Mencken we'd travel into space, he'd just laugh at your "faith". Not to mention I'd rather not trust the words of a man who believed in some sort of "illogical" belief that being black meant you were "50 generations" behind the white man.

He died in '56. The Soviets sent their first manned flight in '61. I'm sure it wasn't a completely foreign concept to him. Even if you're right, what does that prove? People don't have to have faith in logic or science, they have ideas based in their previous experience and they test them. Space flight did not magically spring forth from nothingness, it was based on centuries upon centuries of astronomy, physics, and engineering. How is this in any way comparable to faith in the religious sense?

Mencken was also prone to hyperbole, which might explain the 50 generations comment (as well as his unjustified racism, although I think you'll find his comments and actions concerning race were much more nuanced than that one comment would lead you to believe).

Quote:You may say "it was the belief of the time", to which I'd say "If belief changes over time, then how can I be told with certainty that what is improbable is truly the improbable?"

Now, of course there is no way to know the exact probability of a God existing. However, if one were to make a guess, the fact that there is no evidence of God's existence might indicate that the probability of a God existing is rather low. But maybe we haven't progressed far enough to actually detect God's signs?

I find it ironic that this argument is being used to defend faith, which is the old and ancient view that has continuously been pushed back due to the march of human knowledge and progress. Continually, ideas that had basis only in religion or authority have been replaced by those ideas which have their basis in empirical testing and reason. And yet we are to believe that it is truth that the very basis of these beliefs that have been debunked (namely, a faith in God) is somehow true?

Also, Mencken's use of the term improbable wasn't even central to my argument. Let me define faith myself as the belief in something with no rational justification.

***

And with this, I come full circle to the topic at hand. If you base your reasoning off something that is demonstrably not derived from reality or reason (namely, faith) you will not come to reasonable conclusions. Similarly, a house built on a sandy foundation will fall to the ground.

So, of course people come to absurd conclusions when they use religion as their guide. They believe in ghosts and afterlives. They justify their bigotry towards homosexuals or other races.

[brainiac3397]

Quote:If you base your reasoning off something that is demonstrably not derived from reality or reason

Yet what is "derived from reality or reason" is not clearly defined.

On a cosmic time scale, we really haven't progressed much. Homo Sapiens appear 200k years ago, and only 50k years ago began to show improvement in intelligence.
The universe is believed to be 13.8 billion years old.

So basically we're left with the typical human insistence that one idea trumps another simply because one side may believe their argument is better. One side will say "God exists till proven otherwise" and the other says "God doesn't exist till proven otherwise". So what's left? Absolutely nothing because in our short lifespans of 60-80, we seem to want to be part of some idea or belief that surpasses our own mortal existence to feel a sense of long-term worth beyond death.

We can go just keep going back and forth on the issue of religion, because I'm pretty sure that's something we've been doing as humans since our existence. All I really care about is how those involved in the debate behave.

So I just say my opinion and let others figure this shit out because in perhaps 0.1-110 years I'll be dead, and then I'll have my answer to whether there is or isn't an afterlife

[thewake]

I'm not saying God doesn't exist. I'm saying I don't believe God exists because the answer is currently unknowable. It may never be knowable. The answer of an afterlife may also be entirely independent of a God, but it is similarly unknowable (and I am similarly skeptical of its existence).

What is derived from reality or reason is clearly (although not perfectly) defined, and has been for many many years. Humans have empirical knowledge which is garnered from reasoning based upon reality, and we have a priori knowledge which is garnered from reasoning outside of experience. The scientific method itself is a practical application of empirical knowledge and reasoning. If our knowledge from reason and reality was not clearly defined, could we have developed the scientific method, mathematics, logic, and all the things that have burst forth from them?

As an exercise: Can you say if there is or is not an alien civilization halfway across the universe called the Rexnalktorians? Let's assume that this civilization has sufficiently advanced medicine to allow us to live forever. Let's also, for the sake of argument, assume this civilization has not contacted us and currently we have no means of actually verifying their existence (although we may or may not be able to verify it in the future). I'm, of course, agnostic on this issue. I don't know, and no reasonable person can know, if they exist or not. There's no way to be certain. There could be dozens or hundreds or thousands of alien civilizations in the universe.

But do I believe the Rexnaltorians exist? Well, that's an interesting question. How can I believe something exists with no evidence for it? Certainly I may want them to exist, as it would provide a great comfort to me and many other people. Their existence may give new meaning to human life, answering the question, "are we alone?" We could use their medicine to allow us to live forever. But I must say that I don't believe they exist, on top of not knowing if they exist.

Of course, there are flaws with this comparison. We know, for a fact, that civilizations can exist, but we have no similar evidence of gods existing. But I believe this weighs more in favor of the Rexnaltorians than it does in favor of a God.

And why would we think the Rexnaltorians are the ones who exist? Why not the Ilbnarians, the Vish Confederacy, or the Pripnurbers? Those alien civilizations are all just as likely to exist, aren't they? Similarly, why is your God real? Why not the gods or spirits of numerous other religions?

And I say all of this to hit at the major point: Atheism is not the statement "God does not not exist." Atheism is the statement "I do not believe God exists."

[brainiac3397]

I don't believe in "my god"(just a God) just to clarify my view there(compared to that of the crazier folk who seem to have their own personal God).

Personally I'm more along the lines that the various religions that existed, exist and will exist are all just different takes on a single concept, the existence of either a powerful deity, multiple deities, no deities(but some sort of spirit energy).

Who knows, perhaps God is actually like a Multivac from that Assimov short-story. Or maybe God is Q. Seeing as we don't know whether a metaphysical being/power exists, it's not exactly possible to figure out what it exactly is.

But I do support your point since it's the idea I'm trying to point out. There is a very big difference between the former and latter statement you point out at the bottom of your post.

[Ky]

Hebrews 11:1 (English Standard Version) - Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.

Nature of Science (The Butterfly Project, teacher resource) - Scientific knowledge is tentative. Although scientific knowledge is supported by a wealth of data from repeated trials, it is not considered the final word. Scientific knowledge is at the same time stable and malleable. Scientists continually test and challenge previous assumptions and findings. After all, science is a human endeavor, and we know human perspective is limited and fallible. This idea of fundamental uncertainty is vital to scientific studies and is the basis of great scientific discoveries.

Is faith unscientific? Undoubtedly - science does not involve using faith to accept ideas. Is it irrational? No - at least, not any more than science is.

What faith and science have in common is that neither can be proven, but both can be supported. Indeed, they should not be mutually exclusive - it is faith that tells us we can/can't succeed, we were/weren't created for a purpose, and there is/isn't a God, just as science tells us we are/aren't undergoing severe climate change, we have/haven't a common ancestor with other species, and gravity is/isn't a force that attracts large objects to one another at a strength somehow proportional to each object's mass. In both cases, one can have assurance in data they perceive as positive and conviction in something that cannot be reliably proven when in actuality, concrete data exists on neither side. Data in both faith and science is supported by evidence (in varying factors), and can change drastically when further evidence is introduced.

Faith and science fail, indeed, when you introduce dogmata. Examples of dogma can be as far-fetched as "Scientific findings are the final word; everything scientists say is fact and if you know what's good for you, you will never question a scientist ever" and "There is exactly one God; no more and no less could possibly exist under any circumstances whatsoever and anyone who even thinks otherwise will go straight to Hell right this minute". Alternatively, there are dogmata that are more subtle, but still construed as immutable fact by the ignorant. For the purposes of this thread, let's say these dogmata are the following:

- Being homosexual is a sinful lifestyle, and gays will go to Hell because God hates them. (Religious)
- Being homosexual is a result of mental illness, and one can choose not to be gay. (Scientific)

We all know that neither of those statements are true; evidence in both faith and science, respectively, does not support either hypothesis. Regardless, dogmata will cause people to not only be assured of something they can't prove, but assume that it is the truth regardless of all evidence. It's why many neoconservatives are so quick to say "God hates X" when evidence suggests that God is love, and why many liberals are so quick to accept any scientific findings when the scientific method they abide by is admittedly quite tentative.

The intuition of faith and belief and the sensory details of science and logic can go hand-in-hand just as well as they work against each other; what's important to note is that dogmatic people already know this and are using their understanding in an unwise manner.

[Ky]

I have another point to note.

Atheism - "I do not believe a God exists" - is a faith, in a manner of speaking, just as various monotheistic religions - "I believe a God exists" - and polytheistic religions - "I believe multiple gods exist" - are faiths. There is nothing irrational about any of this.

Dogma ruins this too. Antitheism - "No God exists and anyone who claims otherwise is a liar" - and bigoted forms of fundamentalism - "God exists, and only God exists, and anyone who claims otherwise is a heathen" - are dogmatic claims.

[brainiac3397]

Catma will be our salvation.

[thewake]

(06-05-2014 07:16 AM)brainiac3397 Wrote:  I don't believe in "my god"(just a God) just to clarify my view there(compared to that of the crazier folk who seem to have their own personal God).

Personally I'm more along the lines that the various religions that existed, exist and will exist are all just different takes on a single concept, the existence of either a powerful deity, multiple deities, no deities(but some sort of spirit energy).

Who knows, perhaps God is actually like a Multivac from that Assimov short-story. Or maybe God is Q. Seeing as we don't know whether a metaphysical being/power exists, it's not exactly possible to figure out what it exactly is.

I would like to point out that thinking all the Gods are based on a single concept is itself a concept of God distinct from the other concepts. This God might not be your "personal God," but it is a particular conception distinct from other conceptions that it contradicts.

(06-05-2014 07:50 AM)DoA Wrote:  Hebrews 11:1 (English Standard Version) - Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.

Nature of Science (The Butterfly Project, teacher resource) - Scientific knowledge is tentative. Although scientific knowledge is supported by a wealth of data from repeated trials, it is not considered the final word. Scientific knowledge is at the same time stable and malleable. Scientists continually test and challenge previous assumptions and findings. After all, science is a human endeavor, and we know human perspective is limited and fallible. This idea of fundamental uncertainty is vital to scientific studies and is the basis of great scientific discoveries.

I think I agree with both definitions, although I think a better contrast would be between reason and faith.

(06-05-2014 07:50 AM)DoA Wrote:  Is faith unscientific? Undoubtedly - science does not involve using faith to accept ideas. Is it irrational? No - at least, not any more than science is.

Dictionary.com defines irrational as:

Quote:3. not in accordance with reason; utterly illogical: irrational arguments.

Wikipedia defines irrationality as:

Quote:...cognition, thinking, talking or acting without inclusion of rationality. It is more specifically described as an action or opinion given through inadequate use of reason, emotional distress, or cognitive deficiency.

But wait, isn't faith the "the conviction of things not seen"? In other words, faith is belief without verification. It it without evidence. If that's the case, there is no rational reason to have faith. Reason is based upon making sense out of things, but faith is about accepting things when they do not make sense. It is irrational by definition.

(06-05-2014 07:50 AM)DoA Wrote:  What faith and science have in common is that neither can be proven, but both can be supported. Indeed, they should not be mutually exclusive - it is faith that tells us we can/can't succeed, we were/weren't created for a purpose, and there is/isn't a God, just as science tells us we are/aren't undergoing severe climate change, we have/haven't a common ancestor with other species, and gravity is/isn't a force that attracts large objects to one another at a strength somehow proportional to each object's mass. In both cases, one can have assurance in data they perceive as positive and conviction in something that cannot be reliably proven when in actuality, concrete data exists on neither side. Data in both faith and science is supported by evidence (in varying factors), and can change drastically when further evidence is introduced.

You're right to an extent. Neither faith nor science can be proven. It's a given in science that things are never conclusively proven, and that everything is open to being disproven (falsifiable). This is done not because there is no absolute proof, but as a means to coming as close to the real truth as possible. However, faith by definition is not disprovable in the scientific sense, because it is the belief in things without sufficient evidence for believing those things. There's your difference. There is no reasonable evidence or support for things that are based solely in faith, otherwise these beliefs wouldn't be faith based. They'd be based in science.

(06-05-2014 07:50 AM)DoA Wrote:  Faith and science fail, indeed, when you introduce dogmata. Examples of dogma can be as far-fetched as "Scientific findings are the final word; everything scientists say is fact and if you know what's good for you, you will never question a scientist ever" and "There is exactly one God; no more and no less could possibly exist under any circumstances whatsoever and anyone who even thinks otherwise will go straight to Hell right this minute". Alternatively, there are dogmata that are more subtle, but still construed as immutable fact by the ignorant. For the purposes of this thread, let's say these dogmata are the following:

- Being homosexual is a sinful lifestyle, and gays will go to Hell because God hates them. (Religious)
- Being homosexual is a result of mental illness, and one can choose not to be gay. (Scientific)

We all know that neither of those statements are true; evidence in both faith and science, respectively, does not support either hypothesis. Regardless, dogmata will cause people to not only be assured of something they can't prove, but assume that it is the truth regardless of all evidence. It's why many neoconservatives are so quick to say "God hates X" when evidence suggests that God is love, and why many liberals are so quick to accept any scientific findings when the scientific method they abide by is admittedly quite tentative.

There is no evidence to suggest God is love, as there's no evidence to suggest God even exists. At least, apart from unverifiable sources like the Bible (which can hardly be called decent evidence). From a faith based standpoint, the assertion that "being homosexual is a sinful lifestyle, and gays will go to Hell because God hates them" is valid if one believes, through faith, that this is the truth. How is one faith based opinion any more valid than any other faith based opinion? Faith isn't falsifiable.

However, the statement that "being homosexual is a result of mental illness, and one can choose not to be gay" is very much a falsifiable statement. All one must do is give evidence to disprove that being gay is an illness and give evidence to disprove that being gay is a choice. If it is a dogma that is not up to debate, then it is not science because science is falsifiable.

The tentative nature of science does by no means disprove its usefulness. The fact that it is tentative, that it is challengeable, is a mark in its favor. It avoids being this dogma you speak of. Faith, on the other hand, cannot be challenged on its own terms because it operates without the sort of evidence that science takes for granted.

(06-05-2014 07:50 AM)DoA Wrote:  The intuition of faith and belief and the sensory details of science and logic can go hand-in-hand just as well as they work against each other; what's important to note is that dogmatic people already know this and are using their understanding in an unwise manner.

Intuitions may be right or wrong, and are by no means completely based on faith. Intuitions can many times be verified or disproven by evidence.

Arguably, all appeal to faith is dogmatic, at least insofar as these appeals solely rely on faith to justify themselves. After all, faith is belief without evidence.

(06-05-2014 07:54 AM)DoA Wrote:  I have another point to note.

Atheism - "I do not believe a God exists" - is a faith, in a manner of speaking, just as various monotheistic religions - "I believe a God exists" - and polytheistic religions - "I believe multiple gods exist" - are faiths. There is nothing irrational about any of this.

It is not irrational to withhold belief in something when there is no sufficient evidence of that thing existing. It is irrational to believe in something when there is no sufficient evidence.

(06-05-2014 07:54 AM)DoA Wrote:  Dogma ruins this too. Antitheism - "No God exists and anyone who claims otherwise is a liar" - and bigoted forms of fundamentalism - "God exists, and only God exists, and anyone who claims otherwise is a heathen" - are dogmatic claims.

"I don't know if God exists, and to claim otherwise would be to make an irrational assertion."