Religion has no idea what it's talking about

[gela]

Humanity is according to the scriptures made very much aware of God as we pass from this life, at which time we're held to account for the lives we lived here; the decisions we made and how we utilized the free will provided to us as a function of our right to our human life and the pursuit of fulfillment of that life. Now the good news is that God has blessed us with his grace and all we need to do to recieve it is recognize his existance and ask Christ to forgive us for our bad decisions, and to pursue a personal relationship with him, as our Lord and savior... The bad news is you're spending your free will in an attempt to undermine the faithfull... and post this life, it's my understanding that his grace is off the table and judgment is upon us... final, unforgiving, infinite judgment. Which will result in unspeakable torment to those that overtly stood between God and the faithfull.

I won't argue that there definitly isn't a god out there.
Im more agnostic in that sense.

But I can assure you, the christian god does not exist.
The bible was written for a society that is nothing like our own. It is outdated.

I'm a good person. If there is a god (highly unlikely..), I don't believe I am going to hell.
God would not punish people for questioning the rubbish that the bible tells you. He gave you free will for a reason.. mabe its to think for yourselves and realise when something is causing more harm then good.
That is flexibility. Realising when something is wrong, and moving to fix it. Not blindly hanging on to it, incase you get thrown into hell as punishment for letting go and opening your eyes.

I have faith in myself, and my own judgement.

[wyoguy]

Hurt said:

If God was proven to be real, I'm quite sure all of us would not reject religious faith. However, we have no reason to believe so and thus, until he shows himself, we won't need to fix anything and we can go on believing what we think is true until something contradicts it. That is the flexibility she's talking about.. while any assertion that may be contrary to the bible's assertions would not have the same flexibility. Religious faith allows only what is deemed true and nothing else.

If God was to prove Himself to everybody all at once, faith would hardly be neccessary.... eh?

On behalf of anyone that has read the bible and accepted it as truth I should remind us all that God has made it very clear that He will reveal Himself as real to each and every person in His own good time. Pity the soul that recieves this revelation post mortum.

[Jack]

So having faith is more important than having the knowledge that god exists? Why did the Judeo/Christian god appear to so many in the O.T. if he wanted to only be accepted by faith? Why did Jesus do what it's claimed he did if faith is all it takes to please this god?

[RealRockingham]

Quote by: rez 1)Nope, they will be the first to admit they don't understand it. What exactly is your point? 2)Sorry bud, but making wild claims without any reasons won't help your argument. In fact, posting off topic won't help your argument either. Suggesting that the billions of neurons in my brain are not "designed" for a specific purpose is just plain out wrong. Our brains are indeed programmed to understand the environment we live in so that we can survive. 3)Holy gosh sir. Does it take an agnostic to realize this? Every scientist and atheist knows that scientific explanations are not perfect explanations and that the only people claiming to hold perfect explanations are the magical thinkers we call theists. 4)I can't believe I am even falling for this off topic nonsense. When people try to solve a problem they have to start at a single point. If we were sitting in a car and tthe tire went flat and I said "hmmm it seems like the car is slightly tipping to one side", then I would be coming up with an explanation/observation. Although I did not out right say the correct answer as to why the car was tiping over it sure as hell was going to lead us into the right direction of finding the solution to the problem. 5). E=MC is based on individual facts, observation, and peer reviewed analysis 6)Huge difference from what I said above. 7)Every certifed teacher that teaches physics fully understands E=mc2 and can fully apply it to general relativity. 8)Whatever you think. You can think that figuring out why your car is tipping to one side is unknowable, but that doesn't mean you can't apply your troubleshooting skills to at least try to explain your car problems.

You misunderstood my point in its entirety- I was replying to Lullabies claim that physicists understand E=MC better then the religious leaders understand their religion. My point being that both have to make a series of assumptions, to find a starting point from which to understand it.

1) Lullaby said he has "faith that physicists understand it fully".

2)It wasn't off topic, it was in response to the above statement by Lullaby, who STARTED this thread. One cannot understand something if they are not equipped to do so.

"Our brains are indeed programmed to understand the environment we live in so that we can survive. "

No our brains are programmed to survive in the enviroment we live in. From a Darwinian perspective, their capacity to UNDERSTAND it is no greater then it needs to be for them to survive. Its just that humans have managed to redirect that capacity to some extent.

In any case, they are capable of understanding practical applications, as I SAID IN MY PREVIOUS POST, however theoretical but merely academic functions are likely a different matter- the extent to which the human mind can understand these is debatable. Most scientists, neurological or not, would agree with me.

3)No, they claim their Gods do. For example, Christians won't claim to understand WHY God did a lot of what he did, merely that he did. The Bible is about how to save your self, but doesn't bother to EXPLAIN IT much.

Sure, the religious tend to claim their beleifs are the most perfect hat we can REACH, but that doesn't equate to them actually being perfect.

And one could argue that the belief that maths can be used to explain the world is every much as bit a magical belief.

4)How was it offtopic? It was related to whether physicists understand E=MC properly.

In any case, "If we were sitting in a car and tthe tire went flat and I said "hmmm it seems like the car is slightly tipping to one side", then I would be coming up with an explanation/observation."

So? I was talking about theoretical, not practical, science. So, taking it further into the theoretical arena, why does the deflated tire cause the car to tip? Umm, gravity. However, what causes gravity? Well to answer that, as Newton did, you have to first start with the "magical belief" that maths can explain reality TOTALLY, or at least to this extent, as well as assume a series of theories derived from that said magical belief are correct.

As one said, one must start at a single point to understand anything. However, because of that assumption, you can never be certain(as Lullaby, whom I WAS REPLYING TO, said Physicists are) that you are right. Trial and error isn't perfect either, at least on such a far reaching and theoretical level. Frex, trial and error can "prove" that the Earth is flat.

5)
You said:
"E=MC is based on individual facts, observation, and peer reviewed analysis": but all are made with an assumption beforehand. Also, remember my point about being able to "prove" that the Earth is flat, with "individual facts, observation, and peer reviewed analysis".

6)How so? Your saying that with the assumption that " individual facts, observation, and peer reviewed analysis" must be made from a mathematic basis, and thus with your own bias.

A religious person, on the other hand, beliefs they are just as valid if made on the basis of their holy text.

Your ASSUMPTION is the latter is not valid, but you give no reason this is so.

7) I can only say LOL. According to your first point even a physicist doesn't fully understand it. Yet you claim that a teacher does. Wrong.

They have a vague understanding of most of the logic behind it, but most of their knowledge is based on the practical, and some theoretical applications OF IT, with the assumption that the theorem is totally correct in all situations.

Yes, everything needs a starting point, but one cannot guarantee that the assumption and logic used to found it is accurate.

8)On one level its knowable, but going deeper then that it isn't. The level one is capable of going to is more then enough for practical applications, but not for totally understanding the theory behind the practical applications, whcih require assumptions at God like mental capacity to fully understand

The key word is try. So what, where talking theory. Troubleshooting skills aren't incompatible with religion either.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Lullaby Chainer I believe E equals mc squared. Do I understand why? Nope. However, I have faith that physicists understand it fully.

Then shame on you for not taking the time to understand it and wording your argument to make it sound like you're blindly following along. We trust scientists because the scientific method dictates that scientists have to have evidence for their assertions. They can't guilt or intimidate people into believing things as theists do. While I may not understand complex scinetific phenomenon I trust there are those who do and who have challenged the claims of individuals coming up with complicated hypotheses. That's a lot different from faith. Trust is earned. Faith is demanded.

[loser]

One reason I don't believe in God is because I don't understand it but neither does ANYONE ELSE.

Some do but you just don't know it.

The human mind is designed to allow the survival of humans at a caveman stage of development...

I assume that you are speaking of man's apex of development when you say "at a caveman stage of development". Obviously, a cave is about the most perfect shelter that a man could live in (requires no heating or cooling, withstands most all destructive weather elements, impervious to fire, rust, and termites, etc.). This infers that a man who lives in a cave (i.e., a caveman) is a lot smarter than one who doesn't. This agrees with the law of entropy. Man was created perfect...it's been all downhill ever since.

[wyoguy]

Quote by: Jack So having faith is more important than having the knowledge that god exists? Why did the Judeo/Christian god appear to so many in the O.T. if he wanted to only be accepted by faith? Why did Jesus do what it's claimed he did if faith is all it takes to please this god?

Aye, ya got me there Jack. There are many that know the reality of God... and shudder. One must have a certain knowlege that the works of Christ apply to him or her personally. The realization of God is only the first step of faith and is usually accompanied by a conviction of sin. Mind you, I learned all of this after the fact, after I'd experienced it first hand. Only then did I seek any doctrine or congregation.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: loser Some do

Nope. You're wrong. As you've offered no support for your claim (as usual) your argument is stumped by a simple negation. I expect improvement from you, Loser.

I assume that you are speaking of man's apex of development when you say "at a caveman stage of development". Obviously, a cave is about the most perfect shelter that a man could live in (requires no heating or cooling, withstands most all destructive weather elements, impervious to fire, rust, and termites, etc.). This infers that a man who lives in a cave (i.e., a caveman) is a lot smarter than one who doesn't. This agrees with the law of entropy. Man was created perfect...it's been all downhill ever since.

There's so much wrong in the quoted text, it's daunting to know where to begin. The more I read of your posts, the more I believe you're an atheist who just posts the way you do to make theists look bad. If that's the case, kindly stop.

[Winter wind]

Quote by: zhavric Nope. You're wrong. As you've offered no support for your claim (as usual) your argument is stumped by a simple negation. I expect improvement from you, Loser.

I doubt you expect anything, Zhavric -_-'

Oh and I don't claim to know everything about God, or that I'm sure I'm right.

There's so much wrong in the quoted text, it's daunting to know where to begin. The more I read of your posts, the more I believe you're an atheist who just posts the way you do to make theists look bad. If that's the case, kindly stop.

This is a good debating technique. Just say your disgusted and walk off the pitch the winner.

Find some patience and debate.

Quote by: lullaby chainer I believe E equals mc squared. Do I understand why? Nope. However, I have faith that physicists understand it fully. Theists believe their god exists. Do they understand it? Nope. However, religious leaders don't understand it either, apparently.

This is asymmetrical. e=mc^2 is more comparable to a Christian saying why "Thou shalt not Murder" is a commandment.

Or to go the other way, belief in God is like the fact that gravity acts over a distance. No one knows why, it just is.
Or maybe conservation of energy (and therefore matter) is a better comparison....

Anyhoo, it isn't fair to say scientists understand the laws of nature that they use. Just take a look at field science (gravity, magnetism, etc). The equations work, we just don't know why or how.

Yet, theists try to get us to believe that this thing they don't even understand is the answer to everything.

Well, the theists look at the results they get and come to a conclusion. I don't claim to have the answer to anything, just to one thing.

Is this a pro or con of religion? Is it reason to doubt religion? Is it reason to trust religion?

Loaded questions, no? How would I say that lack of understanding is a reason to trust religion?

But that aside, we don't mind when it comes to explaining gravity. You look at the results and come to a conclusion.

[Jack]

But that aside, we don't mind when it comes to explaining gravity. You look at the results and come to a conclusion.

But science doesn't just pull a conclusion out of thin air and say, "there, that's why we think it works". They examine the evidence and try to arrive at a conclusion that accounts for that evidence. That conclusion is subjected to critical testing by others to see if it stands or crumbles under further examination. And that conclusion is never presented as absolute fact.

None of that is the case when the conclusion is "god". There's not even a way to know which god we might be talking about. All religion can offer is the suggestion that once you believe you'll understand. A rational, skeptical human would rather base their beliefs on understanding, not the other way around.

There are things science cannot yet explain. Do we keep trying to discover what nature is up to, or do we simply throw up our hands and conclude "god did it" and cease trying to understand?

[Winter wind]

Quote by: jack But science doesn't just pull a conclusion out of thin air and say, "there, that's why we think it works". They examine the evidence and try to arrive at a conclusion that accounts for that evidence. That conclusion is subjected to critical testing by others to see if it stands or crumbles under further examination. And that conclusion is never presented as absolute fact.

Ah yes, the difference between religion and science.
The difference (ideally) is one objective and impersonal while the other is subjective and an experience.
It would be better to compare religion and philosophy rather then religion and science.

[Rainbow]

Quote by: Lullaby Chainer I believe E equals mc squared. Do I understand why ? Nope. However, I have faith that physicists understand it fully. Theists believe their god exists. Do they understand it ? Nope. However, religious leaders don't understand it either, apparently. Yet, theists try to get us to believe that this thing they don't even understand is the answer to everything. Is this a pro or con of religion? Is it reason to doubt religion? Is it reason to trust religion?

From Homo Sapiens' early stages God has been portrayed as unusual, magical, supernatural, etc. Being, that rules the whole World. Later - as technology made progress - God's chracteristic was resembled within literature, art, etc. That image has been following Mankind for millenniums, till today.
Overwhelming majority of people, do not even fatigue themselves in an attempt to correct that image, at all, while religious and/or non-religious approach seems to be irrelevant, completely. Majority of Atheists along with majority of Theists follow that stupidity, since. Yet, both sides pauperize their skulls with that false image, claiming some (alleged) data as facts and/or presenting absurdal determinations as arguments.

I think all the religions should undergo major adjustments, since that image of God is Incorrect, along with God's characteristics.

[Rainbow]

Quote by: Jack But science doesn't just pull a conclusion out of thin air and say, "there, that's why we think it works". They examine the evidence and try to arrive at a conclusion that accounts for that evidence. That conclusion is subjected to critical testing by others to see if it stands or crumbles under further examination. And that conclusion is never presented as absolute fact. None of that is the case when the conclusion is "god". There's not even a way to know which god we might be talking about. All religion can offer is the suggestion that once you believe you'll understand. A rational, skeptical human would rather base their beliefs on understanding, not the other way around. There are things science cannot yet explain. Do we keep trying to discover what nature is up to, or do we simply throw up our hands and conclude "god did it" and cease trying to understand?

God - as you view it, based on religious materials - is Not what you have been taught, so far. Correct your perception, and you will find logical explanations to all the aspects that invlove God.

The word "God" is strongly associated (by religious sources) with something supernatural. That image (along with characteristics) is Incorrect. And you - as a mature and educated individual - should know that by now.

More over, overwhelming majority of Theists have a quite similar approach to yours one.
If you - along with other side - know that the data is incorrect, why do you use it at all ?
Because others do the same ? - is that your answer ?
If "yes", what is the difference between you and them ?

This is nothing personal, but rather pointing a fact, that God is Not what many guys think of. Progress, Jack, that what makes Homo Sapiens to move forward, since backward is our DoomsDay and only.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Winter wind This is a good debating technique. Just say your disgusted and walk off the pitch the winner. Find some patience and debate.

Excuse me, but who the hell died and made you moderator?

If you don't like what I have to say to loser, then deal. I'm not going to spend three pages explaining the elementary scientific equivalent of "1+1=2" nor should I be expected to. The guy's screen name is "loser" and he makes theists look bad. The idea that he's an atheist doing this to be a jerk isn't something we can dismiss. His argument, though... is.

[Jack]

God is Not what many guys think of.

Yet two posts in a row you fail to elaborate on what you conceive god as being.

I use the term to mean whatever it means to those who believe in gods. They establish the definition, I debate based on their interpretation. If you'd like to share your idea of god, please do. But please don't presume I'm operating under a misconception of gods. Not accepting them as real beings, I have no personal definition for what may be a god. A deistic or natural god is as unnecessary and imaginary as the old-man-in-the-sky type god organized religions believe in.

[Scorpion_Saga]

Blind faith=Blind Patriotism? Blood for Oil would seem to prove this point. There is no room for Voodoo-Hoodoo in this age. I think we are beyond that? Well, most countries.

[RealRockingham]

Quote by: Jack But science doesn't just pull a conclusion out of thin air and say, "there, that's why we think it works". They examine the evidence and try to arrive at a conclusion that accounts for that evidence. That conclusion is subjected to critical testing by others to see if it stands or crumbles under further examination. And that conclusion is never presented as absolute fact.

Actually, they do pull a conclusion out of the air- that the fact that
"They examine the evidence and try to arrive at a conclusion that accounts for that evidence" means anything, and that the human mind is capable of understanding the nature of reality, and that maths is an adequate vehicle to achieve that.

[Scorpion_Saga]

True. Although, do we have a formula for human behavior? Or more to the point, particular behaviors? Eventually, we will have a program that will alert us to pending behaviors from a particular mind to "populated" minds. (thought processes, whatever)
Notwithstanding insanity, as it may not be logical.

[Scorpion_Saga]

You know, I read a book many many years ago called "The Gold of the Gods" Since then, I am convinced there may indeed be a "God" Although in this day and age we call him "Extraterrestial"

[RealRockingham]

Quote by: Scorpion_Saga You know, I read a book many many years ago called "The Gold of the Gods" Since then, I am convinced there may indeed be a "God" Although in this day and age we call him "Extraterrestial"

Oh yes, that theories a personal favourite of mine. The first time I read it was in a magazine- at first, I presumed it to be a tabloid, but upon consideration it seemed reasonable