Religion has no idea what it's talking about

[Lullaby Chainer]

Just to clear up some things..

I don't have FAITH that e=mc^2.. I just currently believe it does just like I believe alpha works in math when needed.. I don't understand alpha either. A lot of scientists that use alpha in their calculations may not understand it either but you very well know they believe it works. If the scientific community were to start having doubt, then I would be less sure that e=mc^2... which means it's not faith. Faith wouldn't change like that.

We rely on this kind of belief, or trust (and not faith) to specialize in intellectual advancement.

However with religious leaders, they aren't actively looking for evidence to explain things about God. We don't know where he abides, what he's made of, how he can listen to our thoughts, how he intervenes with our world undetected, etc.

In fact, they opening say that trying to understand God is futile.

I hope that clears stuff up for you guys.

[Rainbow]

Quote by: Jack 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.

1.
An atom possesses No ability of self-creation.
Therefore, an atom Had to be created.

2.
Homo Sapiens possesses no scientific means Neither to include Nor to exclude (that very first atom's) Creator.
(The Science takes a passive and/or neutral approach, instead and indeed.)
Therefore, a statement that there is No (that very first atom's) Creator stands for syllogism, and can Not be taken as a valid argument.

3.
The real factor behind Creator's existence denial :
- Sociology and/or Psychology

P.S.
I already presented my approach on God.
In short :
- the Creator and/or intelligent-intellectual Entity, not necessarily associated and/or affiliated with the biblical description of God, at all.
(I can expand that subject upon a request, though).

[gela]

1. An atom possesses No ability of self-creation. Therefore, an atom Had to be created. 2. Homo Sapiens possesses no scientific means Neither to include Nor to exclude (that very first atom's) Creator. (The Science takes a passive and/or neutral approach, instead and indeed.) Therefore, a statement that there is No (that very first atom's) Creator stands for syllogism, and can Not be taken as a valid argument.

BS.
Under that logic, then another Creator must have created the Creator. Its a never ending cycle.
The other explanation is that the Creator always was and always will be.
If thats the case, then whats wrong with the assumption that a certain amount of atoms always were and always will be?

3. The real factor behind Creator's existence denial : - Sociology and/or Psychology

The real factor in the continued support for the creator theory is denial.

[Kuldeep]

Religion has no idea what it's talking about!!!

How can it have any idea ??? Religion is not any human being with a mind which could have some idea.

Religion is a set of some assumptions about the creation of this universe, framed by a group of influncial persons of a particular time.

Ofcourse the religuious persons have absolutely no idea what they are talking about. What they talk is purely with blind faith in what has been laid down in their respective religions.

However, it is also a fact that even those who believe in no religion but have faith in science and its developments are not talking anything special about which regious persons are trying to talk at least.

[Winter wind]

Quote by: zhavric Excuse me, but who the hell died and made you moderator?

Easy skipper. I was interested in your response to that post (because you learn more from people you disagree with then people you agree with). I just wanted one of your well thought out answers.

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.

Well, unless you lower to our level, zhavric, I'm afraid you'll have a hard time convincing anyone. Though, when I think about it, I doubt that's your goal. Out of pure curiosity, why do you post? To learn? To teach? To debate? To vent?

[Zhavric]

Because nearly all of you are wrong almost all of the time.

[Winter wind]

So you're posting because you want to change our minds?

[Lullaby Chainer]

Let's not psychoanalyze each other.. alright?

Get on topic.

[Winter wind]

Quote by: lullaby chainer Let's not psychoanalyze each other.. alright? Get on topic.

I responded to your op. If you could respond to that if you have the time...?

[HelioPrime]

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?

Trust is a matter of personal opinion so it's up to each individual. If atheists choose only to trust that which has definite and verifiable evidence then its their loss.

It's sort of like reflexology which I enjoyed while staying in NY. It came as a second part of a massage. I asked the spa lady if it really works and her answer was clinically no, there is no connection between the feet and organs, but for many people it appears to have an impact. She said it most certainly won't work if you close your mind to it in advance.

Kind of illustrates the topic at hand. Reflexology has no evidence in solid medical science. Yet it appears to work for many people. Could just the actions of working the feet and hands cause the brain to interact with the body and improve health? We don't know, but closing yourself to the possibility before even going for the service will probably close you to this possibility.

Seems to be the mode of thinking atheists want everyone else to hold as well. To assume a negative at all times without otherwise solid proven evidence. I think much of the alternative medicine industry would fall off the face off the earth if such attitudes were taken by everyone.

The only futile thing I see is atheists attempts to demand everyone think just like them

[Jack]

It's called a placebo effect. It's been studied but isn't fully understood as far as I know. In one sense it's a case of mind over matter. Our brains are capable of truly amazing things. One doesn't need faith to have a sense of wonder about our natural world. One doesn't need a full understanding of the placebo effect to enjoy it's benefits.

[HelioPrime]

Quote by: Jack It's called a placebo effect. It's been studied but isn't fully understood as far as I know. In one sense it's a case of mind over matter. Our brains are capable of truly amazing things. One doesn't need faith to have a sense of wonder about our natural world. One doesn't need a full understanding of the placebo effect to enjoy it's benefits.

So would you pay for a executive massage and reflexology treatment

Or would you just take the massage and skip the foot and hand treatment which would half the price.

[Jack]

If I like the effects, I'd pay for it. I meditate, but without all the religious rationalization some groups add to the practice. Talking to myself helps me organize my thoughts, much the same way praying works for others. I don't have to accept an irrational explanation for something that works for me. If it works, it works. "Why" is less important and debatable.

[HelioPrime]

Ah but would you before going for a massage consider paying for it the first time with no medical evidence to support it having positive effects?

I had the luxury of a parental paid massage, but I think personally I would have paid regardless. Within reason. I would NOT have paid the $285 the spa wanted for the full treatment only because at my age and student level thats a bit to extreme.

[Jack]

Not everything I do requires the full knowledge of the science behind it for me to enjoy an experience. I can even attend churches and get something out of it. In fact, I used the hospital chapels for meditation while my mom was in there dying last year. Just because I don't buy the supernatural aspects of some activity doesn't mean I can't enjoy it for my own purposes. If something produces positive results, that's all that counts. Save worrying about causation until after enjoying the effect.

Now if medicine warned that there could be serious side-effects, I would reconsider. And if the action was totally subjective, like prayer, offering no real world benefit, then I wouldn't bother.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: HelioPrime It's sort of like reflexology which I enjoyed while staying in NY. It came as a second part of a massage. I asked the spa lady if it really works and her answer was clinically no, there is no connection between the feet and organs, but for many people it appears to have an impact. She said it most certainly won't work if you close your mind to it in advance. Kind of illustrates the topic at hand. Reflexology has no evidence in solid medical science. Yet it appears to work for many people. Could just the actions of working the feet and hands cause the brain to interact with the body and improve health? We don't know, but closing yourself to the possibility before even going for the service will probably close you to this possibility.

So, you asked her for evidence, she gave you bad evidence which you ignored and decided to try on your own (probably while being influenced by someone physically stimulating you...) where upon it felt good so you concluded that it "works".

Non evidence and bad evidence considered "evidence". Yup. Helio is still as intellectually bankrupt as ever.

[Rainbow]

Quote by: gela BS. Under that logic, then another Creator must have created the Creator. Its a never ending cycle. The other explanation is that the Creator always was and always will be. If thats the case, then whats wrong with the assumption that a certain amount of atoms always were and always will be ? The real factor in the continued support for the creator theory is denial.

#1
Your expression indicates you that Creator needs to exist within the Universe we live-in all the time.
Am I correct ?

Are you questioning :
- an atom's structure along with its characteristics
- (mem)Branes Theory
- (something else)
???

#2
What are the reasons behind the Creator's denial and/or rejection, then, since the Science can Not be taken under consideration (except for Sociological and/or Psychological factors) ?

[Rainbow]

Quote by: Zhavric Because nearly all of you are wrong almost all of the time.

Expand your expression, please.

[HelioPrime]

Quote by: Jack N Now if medicine warned that there could be serious side-effects, I would reconsider. And if the action was totally subjective, like prayer, offering no real world benefit, then I wouldn't bother.

Are you sure of that?

Depending on what your defining as prayer could you not at least even benefit from the same placebo effect resulting from calm and mental relaxation.

[Jack]

Depending on what your defining as prayer could you not at least even benefit from the same placebo effect resulting from calm and mental relaxation.

Prayer, or supplication, has a very definite meaning with a religious context. I do not subscribe to the notion of talking to an imaginary friend. When I talk to myself I know exactly what I'm doing...talking to myself. Meditation is a means of relaxation and mental discipline and has nothing to do with a higher being or supernatural entity. I could argue that religion compromised behaviors that already existed, renamed them and claim them as their own.