Total Posts:42|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

To the Religious & Irreligious

Cogito-ergo-sum
Posts: 36
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2010 2:29:09 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Religious

What would you do if Science finally bested you? How much proof would it take? Or rather, what would it take to prove that there is no God?

Irreligious

Could the rationalists/humanists/logicians/atheists etcetera, accept the existence of God? Would it take a direct visitation from the Sublime in order to make you a believer?

An Acceptance

It would seem that if either case were to become entirely true it would prove two things.

1.) In the event of Man triumphing over God, Science besting Religion, it would have to be conceded that since there is and never was a God, Religion is innate within people and its perpetual recurrence through history is a proof of that pattern

2.) If God presented Himself/Herself to the world in its entirety and was the ultimate proof, it would have to be expected that scepticism would still perpetuate as this is also innate in humans, even though God was/is responsible for all things, including God's own criticism as doubt is a test of faith.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2010 3:01:11 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/13/2010 2:29:09 AM, Cogito-ergo-sum wrote:
Religious

What would you do if Science finally bested you? How much proof would it take? Or rather, what would it take to prove that there is no God?

Irreligious

Could the rationalists/humanists/logicians/atheists etcetera, accept the existence of God? Would it take a direct visitation from the Sublime in order to make you a believer?

An Acceptance

It would seem that if either case were to become entirely true it would prove two things.

1.) In the event of Man triumphing over God, Science besting Religion, it would have to be conceded that since there is and never was a God, Religion is innate within people and its perpetual recurrence through history is a proof of that pattern

2.) If God presented Himself/Herself to the world in its entirety and was the ultimate proof, it would have to be expected that scepticism would still perpetuate as this is also innate in humans, even though God was/is responsible for all things, including God's own criticism as doubt is a test of faith.

First, i find it almost anachronistic that you and others view science and faith as competing values. An understanding of God as an author of purpose with (using the word figuratively) a command of the physical sciences, produces a less combative combination of God and science. Those who venerate science may be uncomfortable with that, but such is the way we are.

So, should i be convinced there is no God, i would seek out an alternative form of a higher power in my life. Me being the ultimate source of all in my life is a very unhealthy way for me to live. It is in humility that i find happiness in my life, and humility is dependent on a higher power, so without God, i would need another source of...shall we say perfection for lack of a better word, so that my spiritual principles may continue to guide me.
Yvette
Posts: 859
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2010 3:05:22 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
I would be convinced of a god's existence if there was a good amount of peer-reviewed science supporting it. :D

@innomen

Science and religious faith are completely antagonistic. You can have both in a person, but at the end of the day you either think that, for example if you're a Catholic, the wine in the cup is not blood, or that it has become the blood of Christ. You cannot think both. Well, unless you're the guy who's brain is split in two. Then you can!
In the middle of moving to Washington. 8D

"If God does not exist, then chocolate causing cancer is only true for the society that has evidence for that." --GodSands
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2010 3:11:14 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/13/2010 3:05:22 AM, Yvette wrote:
I would be convinced of a god's existence if there was a good amount of peer-reviewed science supporting it. :D

@innomen

Science and religious faith are completely antagonistic. You can have both in a person, but at the end of the day you either think that, for example if you're a Catholic, the wine in the cup is not blood, or that it has become the blood of Christ. You cannot think both. Well, unless you're the guy who's brain is split in two. Then you can!

Science and religion may have a history of being at odds, but as religion evolves this will change. Science and faith (understand the difference between faith and religion) are not at odds at all. We are speaking of faith in this particular context because we are speaking of the individual.
Yvette
Posts: 859
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2010 3:29:18 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/13/2010 3:11:14 AM, innomen wrote:
At 6/13/2010 3:05:22 AM, Yvette wrote:
I would be convinced of a god's existence if there was a good amount of peer-reviewed science supporting it. :D

@innomen

Science and religious faith are completely antagonistic. You can have both in a person, but at the end of the day you either think that, for example if you're a Catholic, the wine in the cup is not blood, or that it has become the blood of Christ. You cannot think both. Well, unless you're the guy who's brain is split in two. Then you can!

Science and religion may have a history of being at odds, but as religion evolves this will change. Science and faith (understand the difference between faith and religion) are not at odds at all. We are speaking of faith in this particular context because we are speaking of the individual.

(If I'm understanding you correctly as talking about people seeking answers from both science and their own faith...rather late for me atm so apologies if I read wrong)--again, an individual has to choose which they will believe when it comes down to it. The Catholic blood of Christ example--you cannot believe both. You might believe that according to science it is not blood but that it symbolizes blood, but that means that at the end of the day you are a person of logic and not faith. You have to choose.
In the middle of moving to Washington. 8D

"If God does not exist, then chocolate causing cancer is only true for the society that has evidence for that." --GodSands
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2010 3:46:32 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/13/2010 3:29:18 AM, Yvette wrote:
At 6/13/2010 3:11:14 AM, innomen wrote:
At 6/13/2010 3:05:22 AM, Yvette wrote:
I would be convinced of a god's existence if there was a good amount of peer-reviewed science supporting it. :D

@innomen

Science and religious faith are completely antagonistic. You can have both in a person, but at the end of the day you either think that, for example if you're a Catholic, the wine in the cup is not blood, or that it has become the blood of Christ. You cannot think both. Well, unless you're the guy who's brain is split in two. Then you can!

Science and religion may have a history of being at odds, but as religion evolves this will change. Science and faith (understand the difference between faith and religion) are not at odds at all. We are speaking of faith in this particular context because we are speaking of the individual.

(If I'm understanding you correctly as talking about people seeking answers from both science and their own faith...rather late for me atm so apologies if I read wrong)--again, an individual has to choose which they will believe when it comes down to it. The Catholic blood of Christ example--you cannot believe both. You might believe that according to science it is not blood but that it symbolizes blood, but that means that at the end of the day you are a person of logic and not faith. You have to choose.

Well we don't have the inquisition any longer in the church, so i isn't quite like that. Most people of faith do not struggle with details of religion that are inconsistent with their relationship with God, this would be a struggle for a mind that is looking at it's feet rather than beyond. In about half an hour i leave for mass, and i can assure you that i wouldn't waste a moment in such thought - maybe when i was much younger though.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2010 4:10:39 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/13/2010 2:29:09 AM, Cogito-ergo-sum wrote:

Irreligious

Could the rationalists/humanists/logicians/atheists etcetera, accept the existence of God? Would it take a direct visitation from the Sublime in order to make you a believer?


Personally, I would like a God to exist, but feel all evidence around us points to there not being one. However, I would probably not be convinced by a vision or a voice in my head, because that's a delusion. However, if God appeared, very clearly, and revealed his existence, and it was verifiable by other people, then yes.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
Yvette
Posts: 859
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2010 5:03:01 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/13/2010 3:46:32 AM, innomen wrote:
At 6/13/2010 3:29:18 AM, Yvette wrote:
At 6/13/2010 3:11:14 AM, innomen wrote:
At 6/13/2010 3:05:22 AM, Yvette wrote:
I would be convinced of a god's existence if there was a good amount of peer-reviewed science supporting it. :D

@innomen

Science and religious faith are completely antagonistic. You can have both in a person, but at the end of the day you either think that, for example if you're a Catholic, the wine in the cup is not blood, or that it has become the blood of Christ. You cannot think both. Well, unless you're the guy who's brain is split in two. Then you can!

Science and religion may have a history of being at odds, but as religion evolves this will change. Science and faith (understand the difference between faith and religion) are not at odds at all. We are speaking of faith in this particular context because we are speaking of the individual.

(If I'm understanding you correctly as talking about people seeking answers from both science and their own faith...rather late for me atm so apologies if I read wrong)--again, an individual has to choose which they will believe when it comes down to it. The Catholic blood of Christ example--you cannot believe both. You might believe that according to science it is not blood but that it symbolizes blood, but that means that at the end of the day you are a person of logic and not faith. You have to choose.

Well we don't have the inquisition any longer in the church, so i isn't quite like that. Most people of faith do not struggle with details of religion that are inconsistent with their relationship with God, this would be a struggle for a mind that is looking at it's feet rather than beyond. In about half an hour i leave for mass, and i can assure you that i wouldn't waste a moment in such thought - maybe when i was much younger though.

I'm not sure you understand what I'm saying. A person cannot believe one thing with their faith and something contradicting based on evidence. Forget specifics for a moment, I'm giving examples of ways in which faith and evidence cannot go together.

Say you know based on evidence that female cows have udders on Tuesdays. You've only ever seen them on Tuesdays, after all, and you believe as your faith that they do not have udders every other day of the week. While I don't think it's the smartest way to think, this is basically how most people think--evidence and science generally are given precedence in one arena, faith in another. But as history progresses, so does what evidence tells us. Over the years, evidence builds up, and finally you have to make a choice--do you accept based on evidence that cows have udders on Wednesdays, too, or do you continue to believe what your faith tells you? You cannot have it both ways. Similarly, you cannot simultaneously believe that the earth was literally formed in 7 days while at the same time accept the scientific explanation.

Is that more clear?
In the middle of moving to Washington. 8D

"If God does not exist, then chocolate causing cancer is only true for the society that has evidence for that." --GodSands
Andrew27
Posts: 155
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2010 6:07:54 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Yet again people cnfucing science and relgion, they are two totally seperate thing lol Faith is just that faith it doesn't require knowledge or evidence just belief, scientific underanding wouldn't be there if that principle was applied to scientific enquiry! If God appeared to everyone then faith would die as it would ecome fact. I dont believem that the sky is blue it IS blue doesn't matter what i belive, relgion is about how you live your life, how you relate to others, moral questions NOT to expalin the world, thats sciences job!
Cogito-ergo-sum
Posts: 36
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2010 8:05:46 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/13/2010 6:07:54 AM, Andrew27 wrote:
Yet again people cnfucing science and relgion, they are two totally seperate thing lol Faith is just that faith it doesn't require knowledge or evidence just belief, scientific underanding wouldn't be there if that principle was applied to scientific enquiry! If God appeared to everyone then faith would die as it would ecome fact. I dont believem that the sky is blue it IS blue doesn't matter what i belive, relgion is about how you live your life, how you relate to others, moral questions NOT to expalin the world, thats sciences job!

So why don't you believe in Bertrand Russell's Teapot? There is no evidence for it, but on faith alone you could believe it, even though it is an example/hypothesis.

Not to explain the world? Are you kidding. Genesis 1 anybody? A lot of religions have an opening gambit which states God made everything. If God appeared faith would die? I think those who are religious would have Biblical fits of rapture and transcendence.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2010 8:21:23 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/13/2010 3:11:14 AM, innomen wrote:
Science and religion may have a history of being at odds, but as religion evolves this will change.

I've always had a problem when people say, "when religion evolves."

I know that religion, as a social construct and order, will evolve with the times and views of adherents as time wears on. I'm disputing that fact.

But, really, if religion were to actually be something that had a hint of objective truth in it, how can it evolve? Religion and faith is supposed to be adherence to the ultimate, perfect thing - the divine. The ideas within the Holy Books are supposed to be final, or at the very least unchangeable unless by divine decree (though why would the divine rescind any orders?) - so how can they "evolve" into something different, that changes with the times? And this isn't "evolve" as in, new prophets come from on high - how does such fundamental ideas, like hatred against homosexuality, get brushed aside so easily in things which claim objective truth?
Atheism
Posts: 2,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2010 8:38:43 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/13/2010 3:11:14 AM, innomen wrote:
Science and religion may have a history of being at odds, but as religion evolves this will change.
Here's the thing. Religion doesn't evolve. People still take the bible literally. In fact, some take it even more so than when it was first published, I'm sure.
I miss the old members.
Andrew27
Posts: 155
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2010 8:50:06 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Yes that is unfortunately the case. I don't understand why people take religious book literally when it suits and not when it doesn't! The bible for instance didn't float down to earth from up high, it was written by men, in some cases women, and it was decided by men which books would make up the bible, then there is the whole case of translation and the fact that most stuff gets distorted.

However the basic tenets of loving each other, caring for people and trying to live a good life and do right by people cant be a bad thing. lets take mother Teresa of Calcutta for example, many might think she was misguided in her beliefs, for most of her life she actually doubted the existence of God but she did many wonderful things and is an inspiration. If some ones beliefs help them to b a better person is that a bad thing? The church for example is a huge entity with people believing may things, many of the radical, many of them moderate, just because of a few preaching hate, should everyone be condemned?
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2010 9:03:16 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/13/2010 2:29:09 AM, Cogito-ergo-sum wrote:
Religious

What would you do if Science finally bested you? How much proof would it take? Or rather, what would it take to prove that there is no God?

You do get religious scientists you know.


Irreligious

Could the rationalists/humanists/logicians/atheists etcetera, accept the existence of God? Would it take a direct visitation from the Sublime in order to make you a believer?

We form our view of the world from our senses and our logic.


An Acceptance

It would seem that if either case were to become entirely true it would prove two things.

1.) In the event of Man triumphing over God, Science besting Religion, it would have to be conceded that since there is and never was a God, Religion is innate within people and its perpetual recurrence through history is a proof of that pattern

2.) If God presented Himself/Herself to the world in its entirety and was the ultimate proof, it would have to be expected that scepticism would still perpetuate as this is also innate in humans, even though God was/is responsible for all things, including God's own criticism as doubt is a test of faith.

It is innate to want and it is innate to think.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2010 9:08:29 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/13/2010 8:21:23 AM, Volkov wrote:
At 6/13/2010 3:11:14 AM, innomen wrote:
Science and religion may have a history of being at odds, but as religion evolves this will change.

I've always had a problem when people say, "when religion evolves."

I know that religion, as a social construct and order, will evolve with the times and views of adherents as time wears on. I'm disputing that fact.

But, really, if religion were to actually be something that had a hint of objective truth in it, how can it evolve? Religion and faith is supposed to be adherence to the ultimate, perfect thing - the divine. The ideas within the Holy Books are supposed to be final, or at the very least unchangeable unless by divine decree (though why would the divine rescind any orders?) - so how can they "evolve" into something different, that changes with the times? And this isn't "evolve" as in, new prophets come from on high - how does such fundamental ideas, like hatred against homosexuality, get brushed aside so easily in things which claim objective truth?

My oh so humble opinion: religion is supposed to provide a structure to faith, and in some cases an avenue toward faith - faith being a relationship with a power greater than yourself. The role of the holy books have become almost idolatrous in my view in that people have come to worship the book more than their God, or even the spiritual principles that are supposed to be communicated from that book. The evolution of religion in my eyes would be toward an understanding of that. For religion to remain useful it must evolve with us or it will be (and is in many ways) be left behind as an anachronism. There needs to be a solid connection between spiritual principles, the role that God plays in those principles, and religion assisting in that understanding.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2010 12:02:55 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
If god showed himself to me I would have to commit myself to the futile task of defeating the bastard.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2010 12:06:29 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/13/2010 12:02:55 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
If god showed himself to me I would have to commit myself to the futile task of defeating the bastard.

That was funny.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2010 12:08:49 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/13/2010 12:05:52 PM, Andrew27 wrote:
why?

Look around you at what He supposedly created.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
surfride
Posts: 4
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2010 12:13:40 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
If I was ever shown clear and convincing evidence that a god or gods existed, I would have no choice but to change my position, because I believe in what is real. However, this would require something pretty crazy.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2010 12:20:41 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/13/2010 12:15:23 PM, Andrew27 wrote:
such as?

Taxation. Appendicitis. Hunger. Death. AIDS. Tuberculosis. Ebola. Faith. Wasps. Taxation...
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2010 12:24:43 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/13/2010 12:22:42 PM, Andrew27 wrote:
so those thing convince that there is agod, well see you inchurch then rangar, jeez

I said supposedly. The point was to demonstrate why IF a being of such immense power existed THEN I would have to be against it in this world. Not to demonstrate that it does exist.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Andrew27
Posts: 155
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2010 12:27:02 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
well the previous post was about what it would tae to convince someone that god did exist ie god appearing etc not all the many reasons people have for not believing you have alot in common with the fundies you kno repeating the same stuff over and over
Atheism
Posts: 2,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2010 1:48:18 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/13/2010 12:02:55 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
If god showed himself to me I would have to commit myself to the futile task of defeating the bastard.

Lol. Part of my sig now. :D
I miss the old members.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2010 2:37:15 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/13/2010 8:21:23 AM, Volkov wrote:

But, really, if religion were to actually be something that had a hint of objective truth in it, how can it evolve? Religion and faith is supposed to be adherence to the ultimate, perfect thing - the divine. The ideas within the Holy Books are supposed to be final, or at the very least unchangeable unless by divine decree (though why would the divine rescind any orders?) - so how can they "evolve" into something different, that changes with the times? And this isn't "evolve" as in, new prophets come from on high - how does such fundamental ideas, like hatred against homosexuality, get brushed aside so easily in things which claim objective truth?

*facepalm*

Suppose that many atheists are physicalists. Suppose they also believe physicalism is true and not only true but that their belief corresponds to the way reality actually is. They have the basic idea down. Now, do you know how many iterations of physicalism there are?
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2010 4:09:40 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/13/2010 2:29:09 AM, Cogito-ergo-sum wrote:
Religious

What would you do if Science finally bested you? How much proof would it take? Or rather, what would it take to prove that there is no God?

Most people amongst the reformed religious thought believe that science discovers the inner-workings of God's creation. They don't believe they're contradictory.

Irreligious

Could the rationalists/humanists/logicians/atheists etcetera, accept the existence of God?

No. God CAN'T exist.

Would it take a direct visitation from the Sublime in order to make you a believer?

No, I would reject him.

It would seem that if either case were to become entirely true it would prove two things.

1.) In the event of Man triumphing over God, Science besting Religion, it would have to be conceded that since there is and never was a God, Religion is innate within people and its perpetual recurrence through history is a proof of that pattern

If religion is innate in people, why are there Atheists?

2.) If God presented Himself/Herself to the world in its entirety and was the ultimate proof, it would have to be expected that scepticism would still perpetuate as this is also innate in humans, even though God was/is responsible for all things, including God's own criticism

I don't see the significance here. That skepticism is innate rather than religion?

as doubt is a test of faith.

I don't think doubt is a test of faith. Doubt is the opposite of faith and actually destroys faith.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2010 3:11:39 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/13/2010 2:29:09 AM, Cogito-ergo-sum wrote:
Religious

What would you do if Science finally bested you? How much proof would it take? Or rather, what would it take to prove that there is no God?

Irreligious

Could the rationalists/humanists/logicians/atheists etcetera, accept the existence of God? Would it take a direct visitation from the Sublime in order to make you a believer?

An Acceptance

It would seem that if either case were to become entirely true it would prove two things.

1.) In the event of Man triumphing over God, Science besting Religion, it would have to be conceded that since there is and never was a God, Religion is innate within people and its perpetual recurrence through history is a proof of that pattern

2.) If God presented Himself/Herself to the world in its entirety and was the ultimate proof, it would have to be expected that scepticism would still perpetuate as this is also innate in humans, even though God was/is responsible for all things, including God's own criticism as doubt is a test of faith.

The day Jesus Christ returns ALL conjecture and scepticism will cease;

Only judgment will remain.
The Cross.. the Cross.