Religion has no idea what it's talking about

[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?

[davedes]

Certain religions use a system of "blind faith." This is where nobody has a bloody clue, but everybody believes it anyways.

Let us not assume that all religions follow this, though. Buddhism is a good example of a religion that discourages blind faith.

[stardust]

oh boy. ... Can you prove that stars exist?

[Simonius]

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?

I don't think that your argument sets a level playing field between religious and non-religious people. I think perhaps the big bang or unified field theory would surely be analogous to the natue of God.

And of course the funny is you have admitted to essentially being a religious or faith based person. You believe in science but dont understand it, you merely have faith that someone else does so you delegate your thinking on the matter to them.

That is in principle the exact same thing as the illiterate medieval peasent believing in religious concepts he does not understand because the priest told him.

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: Simonius I don't think that your argument sets a level playing field between religious and non-religious people. I think perhaps the big bang or unified field theory would surely be analogous to the natue of God. And of course the funny is you have admitted to essentially being a religious or faith based person. You believe in science but dont understand it, you merely have faith that someone else does so you delegate your thinking on the matter to them.

I believe cars work. I don't understand them. I believe in a blueprint of a Honda Accord even though I can't personally understand it.

One reason I don't believe in God is because I don't understand it but neither does ANYONE ELSE. That's the point you missed.

[RealRockingham]

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?

Do physicists understand E=MC squared fully?

Only after making certain assumptions that are "common sense". But these have not been proved, the fact that they are common sense ot the human mind doesn't make them right. The human mind is designed to allow the survival of humans at a caveman stage of development, not to be able to understand the theoretical but in practice irrelevant nature of the universe.

Newton's theory of gravity, contrary to what you might think, is not PROVED. In most practical situations, it serves, but Newton made certain unproven and unprovable assumptions to "prove" his own theory, for example that maths, derived from the human mind, can accurately be used to determine the universes nature.

200 years or so down the line, we know that Newtons theory and those derived from it were critical in getting ourselves to our level of development today. But that doesn't mean that it is CORRECT- and the current crisis in understanding and taking further the understanding of the universe is sometimes blamed on flaws in the theory of gravity.

So, E=MC squared is understood by physicists so long as they make ASSUMPTIONS beforehand. Much like religion can be understood by those who preach it, so long as they make certain ASSUMPTIONS beforehand, primarily that their holy texts and prophets are correct. Another flaw in your argument actually, as physicists= "Gods" prophets in this context. In this context, the religious leaders, however= teachers who teach students E=MC squared, but don't fully understand it. Thus you must compare the physicists to the prophets, not the religious leaders.

FYI, I am agnostic. I have faith in scientific theories practical application. However, in my opinion, the theoretical nature of the universe is fundementally unknowable by the human mind(whether their be a God/s or not), as the human mind is not designed/evolved to understand it.

[Simonius]

Quote by: Lullaby Chainer I believe cars work. I don't understand them. I believe in a blueprint of a Honda Accord even though I can't personally understand it.

Which is not an analogy as we are discussing things beyond normal understanding and personal expericence.

Quote by: Lullaby Chainer One reason I don't believe in God is because I don't understand it but neither does ANYONE ELSE. That's the point you missed.

I refer you back to my previous awnser which directly addresses that point.

[RealRockingham]

Quote by: Lullaby Chainer One reason I don't believe in God is because I don't understand it but neither does ANYONE ELSE. That's the point you missed.

The prophets of various religions theoretically did, as I addressed in my previous post... though most people will probably miss that statement due to the length.

"physicists= "Gods" prophets in this context. In this context, the religious leaders, however= teachers who teach students E=MC squared, but don't fully understand it"

[JaneDoe321]

Quote by: Lullaby Chainer I believe cars work. I don't understand them. I believe in a blueprint of a Honda Accord even though I can't personally understand it. One reason I don't believe in God is because I don't understand it but neither does ANYONE ELSE. That's the point you missed.

I'm theologically an atheist (I'm congregationally a Unitarian Universalist, but that's confusing due to the wide spectrum UU covers, so I wanted to put my union card out there... ). However, I would say your argument is flawed.

I would say that as much as physicists understand their realm, actual theologians understand theirs, as well. Both camps include a fairly healthy dose of "faith". The only real difference is that physicists (et. al) believe that what is currently unknown *MAY SOMEDAY BE KNOWN* by people who are still alive, based on more study, better technology, etc. Theologians (for the most part) seem the believe that the unknown is *SUPPOSED* to be unknown by the living, and will someday be known, but only in the afterlife. The reasons for this vary depending on who you ask, from too complex to be understood by the mortal mind to a complicated test of fealty by the deity in question, etc.

(me personally, I've never had any even minutely compelling reason to believe in an interactive deity, so I dismiss the fairy tale as just that... and I don't come from a family that was observant of religion at ALL until I was in my teens and already thinking on my own, so I'm not rejecting god out of anger or something)

[RealRockingham]

Quote by: JaneDoe321 I'm theologically an atheist (I'm congregationally a Unitarian Universalist, but that's confusing due to the wide spectrum UU covers, so I wanted to put my union card out there... ). However, I would say your argument is flawed. I would say that as much as physicists understand their realm, actual theologians understand theirs, as well. Both camps include a fairly healthy dose of "faith". The only real difference is that physicists (et. al) believe that what is currently unknown *MAY SOMEDAY BE KNOWN* by people who are still alive, based on more study, better technology, etc. Theologians (for the most part) seem the believe that the unknown is *SUPPOSED* to be unknown by the living, and will someday be known, but only in the afterlife. The reasons for this vary depending on who you ask, from too complex to be understood by the mortal mind to a complicated test of fealty by the deity in question, etc. (me personally, I've never had any even minutely compelling reason to believe in an interactive deity, so I dismiss the fairy tale as just that... and I don't come from a family that was observant of religion at ALL until I was in my teens and already thinking on my own, so I'm not rejecting god out of anger or something)

I'm not sure whether all theologians believe that the entirety of the unknown will someday be known to us- frex, according to Christian faith, we will be of inferior intellect to God even in heaven, and thus incapable of knowing certain things.,

[xyzer]

Belief Systems(Religions or non religious beliefs) exist because of the metaphysical realities of human existence and humans environment. We just can't explain somethings so we invent reality through a human lens. Mixed into this is the problem of human morality in a socialized world. Those who live together have to have some ethical and moral behavioral standards or societal chaos results. It seems to me the two often go together.

As long as the tenets of certain human beliefs are not forced on to the masses who cares what others believe is the secret of human existence? Seems to me much more important to have a rule of law and behavioral constraints than to have a religious belief system? I think thats why modern society grows increasingly secular. We realize humanly conceived belief systems can be flawed?

[Gods_Mercenary]

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

Any pro or con depends on the person who follows it. A missionary to haiti, for example, is an example of a pro, while an extremist firebombing a market is a con.

There is as much reason to doubt religion as any other set of ideas that can't be proven before your eyes.

I'm not sure there's a rason to trust religion, though refering to religion as one monolithic thing is kind of clunky, but certain aspects of all religions do certainly contain great wisdom.

[PubliusInfinitu]

Quote by: Lullaby Chainer I believe cars work. I don't understand them. I believe in a blueprint of a Honda Accord even though I can't personally understand it. One reason I don't believe in God is because I don't understand it but neither does ANYONE ELSE. That's the point you missed.

She didn't miss the point friend; quite to the contrary, she stated as incontestable fact, that you have evoked faith as understanding, only this you do in matters of absolutely no potential consequence to you; yet on matters essential to your being you simply dismiss faith as absurd.

[PubliusInfinitu]

Quote by: xyzer Belief Systems(Religions or non religious beliefs) exist because of the metaphysical realities of human existence and humans environment. We just can't explain somethings so we invent reality through a human lens.

Wow man... how enlightened... Of course it's the classic claptrap of the atheist, which seeks to set aside any accountability for their own failings.

Of course there is nothing of substance in the argument, it has no basis in fact, this despite their own religion (Secular Humanism) requiring that it is founded upon nothing but 'facts.'

But this is typical of the ideological left...

[gela]

I have faith, that if I chose to go to university, and study physics and maths, I would be able to understand, and confirm, E equals MC squared.

My reason for this faith, is that plenty before me have done the same thing.

conversly, If I happened to get my degree, and disprove E equals MC squared, I have faith that the scientific community will assess the evidence, and if I was right, they would change the formula.

There is no 'changing to fit the current evidence' in religion.
Just 'follow the book and shut up' forever.

Sciences ability to fix itself is why I have faith in it. I have faith that if the faults in its logic on certainthings haven't been realised and fixed already, they will be realised and fixed sometime in the future, when the evidence is available.

[rez]

Quote by: PubliusInfinitu you have evoked faith as understanding,

Sorry Publius, this is not news and in fact anybody with a brain can read the exact post where Chainer, admited to it.

Quote by: Publius only this you do in matters of absolutely no potential consequence to you

I will give you the benefit of the doubt, considering anybody that can read will understand that is not what he did exactly.

"professionals" or "experts" in the religious community claim that the universe was created. However, they have not the slightest clue where they came up with that claim. The only reason for this claim can be found in a book written 2000 years ago by primitive man.

Chainer does not put faith in reality explanations written 2000 years ago, by primitive man. You do.

yet on matters essential to your being you simply dismiss faith as absurd.

Sorry but you are wrong. Faith is not up for debate in this thread. Please read my post, learn from it, and start posting relevant threads.

[Jack]

Of course it's the classic claptrap of the atheist, which seeks to set aside any accountability for their own failings.

Is it atheists who credit gods for their good fortune and blame the devil for their misfortune? Is it atheists who surrender all personal responsibility for their actions and attitudes by invoking the will of the gods, predestination or their own sinful nature?

[rez]

Quote by: RealRockingham Do physicists understand E=MC squared fully?

Nope, they will be the first to admit they don't understand it. What exactly is your point?

Only after making certain assumptions that are "common sense". But these have not been proved, the fact that they are common sense ot the human mind doesn't make them right. The human mind is designed to allow the survival of humans at a caveman stage of development, not to be able to understand the theoretical but in practice irrelevant nature of the universe.

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.

Newton's theory of gravity, contrary to what you might think, is not PROVED. In most practical situations, it serves, but Newton made certain unproven and unprovable assumptions to "prove" his own theory, for example that maths, derived from the human mind, can accurately be used to determine the universes nature.

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.

200 years or so down the line, we know that Newtons theory and those derived from it were critical in getting ourselves to our level of development today. But that doesn't mean that it is CORRECT- and the current crisis in understanding and taking further the understanding of the universe is sometimes blamed on flaws in the theory of gravity.

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.

So, E=MC squared is understood by physicists so long as they make ASSUMPTIONS beforehand.

E=MC is based on individual facts, observation, and peer reviewed analysis.

Much like religion can be understood by those who preach it, so long as they make certain ASSUMPTIONS beforehand, primarily that their holy texts and prophets are correct.

Huge difference from what I said above.

Another flaw in your argument actually, as physicists= "Gods" prophets in this context. In this context, the religious leaders, however= teachers who teach students E=MC squared, but don't fully understand it. Thus you must compare the physicists to the prophets, not the religious leaders.

Every certifed teacher that teaches physics fully understands E=mc2 and can fully apply it to general relativity.

FYI, I am agnostic. I have faith in scientific theories practical application. However, in my opinion, the theoretical nature of the universe is fundementally unknowable by the human mind(whether their be a God/s or not), as the human mind is not designed/evolved to understand it.

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.

[PubliusInfinitu]

Quote by: gela I have faith, that if I chose to go to university, and study physics and maths, I would be able to understand, and confirm, E equals MC squared. My reason for this faith, is that plenty before me have done the same thing. conversly, If I happened to get my degree, and disprove E equals MC squared, I have faith that the scientific community will assess the evidence, and if I was right, they would change the formula. There is no 'changing to fit the current evidence' in religion. Just 'follow the book and shut up' forever. Sciences ability to fix itself is why I have faith in it. I have faith that if the faults in its logic on certainthings haven't been realised and fixed already, they will be realised and fixed sometime in the future, when the evidence is available.

That is absolute nonsense... You've stated slat out that you reject religious faith... what there is no chance of is you being open to the existance of God... now this I base on your own testimony.

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 have a personal relationship with God, if you need some evidence, info or what have you, feel free to ask away... and as long as I feel you're sincere in your queries, I'll be happy to help in any way I can.

Open your heart and get to know the Father. He's right there in you... all you have to do is ask and he'll answer.

[Hurt]

Quote by: PubliusInfinitu That is absolute nonsense... You've stated slat out that you reject religious faith... what there is no chance of is you being open to the existance of God... now this I base on your own testimony. 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 have a personal relationship with God, if you need some evidence, info or what have you, feel free to ask away... and as long as I feel you're sincere in your queries, I'll be happy to help in any way I can. Open your heart and get to know the Father. He's right there in you... all you have to do is ask and he'll answer.

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.