Religious Discussion 16936 replies

Please wait...

Nemmerle Forum Mod

Voice of joy and sunshine

298,667 XP

26th May 2003

0 Uploads

28,169 Posts

6 Threads

#16911 6 years ago

1600 pages or so is pretty good.

Serio;5657534There aren't any parts of the Bible that are the source of historical facts. There are parts that describe life under certain historical figures, with mentions of certain historical events, but you shouldn't call it, by any means, a valid historical source. These accounts have no verifiable status. I'd compare it to Fox News writing a biography about a man living under a Democrat candidate. So no, there are no parts of the Bible that are "simply history books". Just wanted to point that out.

Guess so, yeah. Perhaps historical accounts is a better way of putting it? I'm not sure what the correct terminology would be for that sort of thing. They're books and they concern historical stuff :uhm:




Guest

I didn't make it!

0 XP

 
#16912 6 years ago
Serio;5657534 Religion isn't absolutely based on faith alone. You can be part of a religion without believing in its deities. I believe there are certain religions that don't require you to believe in the existence of deities, so long as you follow their tenements and doctrines. It's a sketchy argument, but that's how it is for some groups.

If the religion has deities, and you choose not to believe in them, I suppose you could say you're a part of the religion, but it's kind of like saying you went to Applebee's for dinner when all you really did was flirt with the greeter.




Andron Taps Forum Mod

Faktrl is Best Pony

261,808 XP

10th September 2007

4 Uploads

21,762 Posts

1,754 Threads

#16913 6 years ago

Typically, religious people tend to differentiate between religion and faith. As if to say that anyone can be religious (talk the talk, and maybe walk the walk), but only those who truly believe can call themselves x, y, or z. It's pretty ridiculous, but...well......there it is.


"I'd shush her zephyr." ~ Zephyr.



Granyaski VIP Member

High as a kite

107 XP

29th May 2008

0 Uploads

11,881 Posts

1 Threads

#16914 6 years ago
Flash525;5657505 Yet people who believe in an otherwise godlike being that has all this power are still delusional.

An interesting point. We can neither prove nor deny this so hypothetically it is still possible, don't get me wrong I am an atheist but to me there is a difference between saying "It is unlikely an all powerful being exist as it goes against evidence A, B and C plus it is illogical" to "GOD DOESN'T EXIST" because when it comes down to it...we can't actually prove it.

Just because it is illogical does not mean they are incorrect; what if it turns out to be true? What if through science we actually PROVE the existence of the Christian God for example?

Also going back to the point of "something creating God" what if God wasn't created? Human logic dictates that something creates something that was created by something and so on; so what if we simply cannot comprehend suh possibility due to our very nature? Perhaps said God didn't make us able to detetc, measure, study or even comprehend such a thing even through all our power and logic?

I'm not debunking any theories/arguments etc. Simply stirring discussion.




Nemmerle Forum Mod

Voice of joy and sunshine

298,667 XP

26th May 2003

0 Uploads

28,169 Posts

6 Threads

#16915 6 years ago

If you believe something despite awareness of superior evidence to to the contrary, you are still delusional. Whether that thing turns out to be true or not is neither here nor there. IMO.




D.Sporky!

God Send Death

50 XP

10th January 2004

0 Uploads

6,981 Posts

0 Threads

#16916 6 years ago

That's the thing with religion though..It can be so very flexible. On the one hand you have the fundamentalist who believes that the world is some 6000 years old and that man walked when the dinosaurs did. Needless to say there are mountains of evidence that show that this view of the world is completely false. The fundamentalist knows of such evidence, denies it, and continues to believe what he believe's. The man is delusional. On the other hand, you have the more open minded religious person. He observes the mountain of evidence that the first man ignored and accepts the truth of it. He chalks some of the contradictions up to problems of translation of ancient Hebrew to modern English, and others he claims were simply metaphors and not meant to be taken literally. He accepts the fact that there is no way to "prove" his God's existence, but continues believe anyway because it feels right to him and afterall, there is also no way to "disprove" his God's existence. I would argue that this man is not delusional.




Emperor Benedictine

You can't fire me, I quit

55 XP

16th April 2005

0 Uploads

2,437 Posts

0 Threads

#16917 6 years ago

I'd say he's still pretty delusional if he thinks that "it feels right" is a good enough reason to assume the existence of a God. ;)




Andron Taps Forum Mod

Faktrl is Best Pony

261,808 XP

10th September 2007

4 Uploads

21,762 Posts

1,754 Threads

#16918 6 years ago

At that point, you may as well just become a Jedi Knight. However, the price of an airplane ticket to Australia probably isn't cheap =p


"I'd shush her zephyr." ~ Zephyr.



D.Sporky!

God Send Death

50 XP

10th January 2004

0 Uploads

6,981 Posts

0 Threads

#16919 6 years ago

I guess I dumbed that part down too much lol. Maybe he finds it easier to believe that his God created the universe and set natural laws to govern the process of evolution than to believe that the universe came from nothing or always was. Maybe when he studies the universe and the life around him instead of thinking "wow, crazy that this all just happened" he sees the work of a designer. I really don't find that delusional thinking.




Nemmerle Forum Mod

Voice of joy and sunshine

298,667 XP

26th May 2003

0 Uploads

28,169 Posts

6 Threads

#16920 6 years ago
D.Sporky!;5657849That's the thing with religion though..It can be so very flexible. On the one hand you have the fundamentalist who believes that the world is some 6000 years old and that man walked when the dinosaurs did. Needless to say there are mountains of evidence that show that this view of the world is completely false. The fundamentalist knows of such evidence, denies it, and continues to believe what he believe's. The man is delusional. On the other hand, you have the more open minded religious person. He observes the mountain of evidence that the first man ignored and accepts the truth of it. He chalks some of the contradictions up to problems of translation of ancient Hebrew to modern English, and others he claims were simply metaphors and not meant to be taken literally. He accepts the fact that there is no way to "prove" his God's existence, but continues believe anyway because it feels right to him and afterall, there is also no way to "disprove" his God's existence. I would argue that this man is not delusional.

Evidence is something like, 'Something that alters the conditional probability of an observation.' God would be complex - the odds of him occurring ex nihilo, are remote. The examples of complexity we have, without exception, all occur after long trees of much simpler states - many of which don't go on to produce that specific result.

It's true, of course, that a god might have come about in the same manner. But, all else being equal, something that requires two explanations is always going to be less probable than something that requires one. God evolves and then goes on to create a universe that evolves... in that case god just seems like a superfluous premise - they haven't really explained anything.

So I'm not sure how the statements 'I understand that god is improbable' and 'I believe that god exists' are meant to map onto each other. Isn't the real sentiment in the second case 'I hope that god exists'? Otherwise it seems to me they're arguing that god is probable - and that's a disagreement about the evidence. Or they're doing something wrong with actually correcting their beliefs to base them on evidence - in which case they have a delusion on their hands.