Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by StudentInSociety)
    Galileo died as a martyr of science.
    Galileo died in his bed of natural causes at the ripe old age of 77.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by driftawaay)
    If I could eradicate one thing from this planet, it would be religion. It is the root of all evil.
    Very poignant today.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by StudentInSociety)
    True, but it gets irritating when you hear people criticising you for just trying to live your life the way you want to be honest.
    You could live your life according to the moral teachings of scripture and have no faith in any god at all, you know.

    I'd criticise the weak-minded belief in god, not that you have a particular set of morals you want to live by. If the Bible teaches moral lessons you agree with, then by all means, live as the Bible teaches. That's not what the criticism is about.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JW22)
    For the sake of argument I'm assuming that a supernatural being created the Universe to show how implausible it is, and what evidence is there to show it did happen? If it doesn't mean it didn't happen please show me the evidence to show it did happen?

    The reason that it is implausible is the way the earth is is dependent on the sun, so it seems logical for an omnipotent and omniscient being who isn't affected by time, space or limited knowledge to have the entire plan of the Universe planned out and create it in the simplest way possible. To create the earth first, then the sun, to have to then redesign the earth and planets to be work with the sun, then create all of the other galaxies is just a stupid way to create the Universe. If a omnipotent and omniscient God was to create the Universe he would do it much more logically, which would include creating the universe and the galaxies then the sun and then the planets not the other way around. An all knowing God wouldn't need to rethink and build on the spot, he would just know what to do.
    Have a look at Colossians 1:17 and Psalms 104. Colossians says 'in him [God] all things hold together'. God maintains the universe. God maintains the Earth. Sure he might use the sun to do this. But he could easily maintain the earth without the sun if he wanted to. The whole world is in his hands.

    Another reason it disproves the bible is because it shows a lack of understanding about the Universe. God created the earth and the heavens then light (sun), from the point of view of a pre Copernican Revolutionary thinking man this makes perfect sense as we used to think the Sun revolved around the Earth, and creating the sun second seemed more plausible. However as we now know the Earth revolves around the sun so it seems illogical to create the sun second and referring back to the paragraph above, an omnipotent and omniscient God is unlikely to create the Universe in such a stupid way, if the Earth is the main reason for the Universe why did he go to all the trouble to make an entire Universe with other Galaxies that we're probably never going to even witness. This makes it so much more likely that it is not the word of God, it is a man prior to the 15th Century thinking that the Sun revolves around the Earth and writes Genesis in a way that would make sense to people of the time who also believed that.
    That says nothing about the word of God, simply that pre-Copernican interpretation of the bible was wrong. The bible doesn't say the sun revolves around the earth.

    You say the order is stupid, and therefore the bible is disproved. I don't think that's a very good point. God could make stuff the order it says in the bible if he wanted. He said 'let there be light' before making the sun. So what? He can do that if he wants to. He is that powerful.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    Galileo died in his bed of natural causes at the ripe old age of 77.
    Whoops my bad! If it helps, he died under house arrest for his scientific work and later died of fever and heart palpitations. The history of the Church and science is really rocky, but that's down to humans (ugh humans).

    What's interesting, in a positively critical way, is that you pointed out my flaw and didn't comment on anything else I said, which is fine because now I know how Galileo died! But that's the point I'm making; everyone's so wrapped around trying to point out issues with religion that we forget to merit the positive aspects of it. You can point out flaws which is fine and sometimes inevitable, but sometimes l feel like they're done with motives laced with malice.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FireGarden)
    You could live your life according to the moral teachings of scripture and have no faith in any god at all, you know.

    I'd criticise the weak-minded belief in god, not that you have a particular set of morals you want to live by. If the Bible teaches moral lessons you agree with, then by all means, live as the Bible teaches. That's not what the criticism is about.
    What ARE you criticising then, might I ask?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by driftawaay)
    If I could eradicate one thing from this planet, it would be religion. It is the root of all evil.
    eeew pseduo intellectual drivel!
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by StudentInSociety)
    You're from Britain right? We just had Remembrance day, celebrating the loss of life of people in the first world war for dying for their country. Soldiers can be viewed as martyrs, yet we remember them and applaud them for it. Didn't Martin Luther King Jr. die a martyr for the civil right's cause? Galileo died as a martyr of science. The concept of being a Martyr is more common than you think, and we all take inspiration from it whether we are aware or not.
    I don't think the two are comparable. Most of the soldiers who fought in the First World War died not for their country, but because they were conscripted into the armed forces by silly politicians playing a rather dangerous game of chess within a web of alliances.

    Early Christians didn't need to be 'martyred' for their cause -- they could just have kept their beliefs secret and continued to live. In that situation, to voluntarily stick your neck out by practising openly is hardly being martyred. A better comparison would be prisoners who go on hunger strike until a certain demand is met (e.g. granted political prisoner status) and die as a result. Anyway, my main objection was that you implied that using Jesus's death as inspiration to become a martyr was somehow admirable.

    Also, Galileo died of natural causes...

    True, but it gets irritating when you hear people criticising you for just trying to live your life the way you want to be honest.
    Very little of the criticism is actually aimed towards the people who practise religion (except when they do patronising things like going to people's houses and offer to 'save' them). Virtually nobody has any issue with people just going to church or other place of worship and singing hymns or praying in congregation.

    The ideas of religion, however, are as open to criticism as any other ideas. That's just something people have to learn to live with as a natural consequence of a free society.

    There's also a subtle exception here: what you describe as 'just trying to live your life the way you want' isn't always restricted to your own life. A prime example of this is the belief among some religious parents that they somehow 'own' their children and are therefore entitled to not act in the best interests of the child, whether that be through not vaccinating them against potentially fatal diseases, teaching them junk science, or 'raising' them in their own religion (known as 'brainwashing' for those who don't like to euphemise). That sort of thing is always going to be criticised, unfortunately.

    You can do it without scripture just as you can pass a test without tuition. What is different is the fact that religious people try to dedicate everything to their faith to make the world a better place. We're making the decision for ourselves to follow God to humble ourselves and appreciate virtues of God. This doesn't make an atheist any less righteous than a Christian. In fact, we're acknowledging that we are all flawed and we all need a lot of work. We're all in the same boat
    At the end of the day, I just don't buy into the idea that religious scripture has any monopoly on telling me what's right and wrong. I wouldn't say my goal is to make the world a better place (so we differ there) but that's an argument for another day.
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by honestly)
    eeew pseduo intellectual drivel!
    Ew -- negative rep gem!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    I don't think the two are comparable. Most of the soldiers who fought in the First World War died not for their country, but because they were conscripted into the armed forces by silly politicians playing a rather dangerous game of chess within a web of alliances.

    Early Christians didn't need to be 'martyred' for their cause -- they could just have kept their beliefs secret and continued to live. In that situation, to voluntarily stick your neck out by practising openly is hardly being martyred. A better comparison would be prisoners who go on hunger strike until a certain demand is met (e.g. granted political prisoner status) and die as a result. Anyway, my main objection was that you implied that using Jesus's death as inspiration to become a martyr was somehow admirable.

    Also, Galileo died of natural causes...



    Very little of the criticism is actually aimed towards the people who practise religion (except when they do patronising things like going to people's houses and offer to 'save' them). Virtually nobody has any issue with people just going to church or other place of worship and singing hymns or praying in congregation.

    The ideas of religion, however, are as open to criticism as any other ideas. That's just something people have to learn to live with as a natural consequence of a free society.

    There's also a subtle exception here: what you describe as 'just trying to live your life the way you want' isn't always restricted to your own life. A prime example of this is the belief among some religious parents that they somehow 'own' their children and are therefore entitled to not act in the best interests of the child, whether that be through not vaccinating them against potentially fatal diseases, teaching them junk science, or 'raising' them in their own religion (known as 'brainwashing' for those who don't like to euphemise). That sort of thing is always going to be criticised, unfortunately.



    At the end of the day, I just don't buy into the idea that religious scripture has any monopoly on telling me what's right and wrong. I wouldn't say my goal is to make the world a better place (so we differ there) but that's an argument for another day.
    I had a long response but my computer decided to troll me and lose the rebuttal I had I'll probably reply tomorrow when I'm a lot more calm.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Funny that, because I find religious people who go out in public, screaming bible/Quran versus infuriating! Just like how people have the right to follow religion, people also have the right not to and shouldn't have it forced upon them.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bassbabe)
    Funny that, because I find religious people who go out in public, screaming bible/Quran versus infuriating! Just like how people have the right to follow religion, people also have the right not to and shouldn't have it forced upon them.
    Is that forcing a religion on somebody? I bet nobody has ever forced their religion on you, and you're just exaggerating.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pride)
    Have a look at Colossians 1:17 and Psalms 104. Colossians says 'in him [God] all things hold together'. God maintains the universe. God maintains the Earth. Sure he might use the sun to do this. But he could easily maintain the earth without the sun if he wanted to. The whole world is in his hands.

    That says nothing about the word of God, simply that pre-Copernican interpretation of the bible was wrong. The bible doesn't say the sun revolves around the earth.

    You say the order is stupid, and therefore the bible is disproved. I don't think that's a very good point. God could make stuff the order it says in the bible if he wanted. He said 'let there be light' before making the sun. So what? He can do that if he wants to. He is that powerful.
    I'm sorry if you're resorting to justifications such as 'he can do that if he wants to' there's no point arguing with you.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by StudentInSociety)
    What ARE you criticising then, might I ask?
    Belief in god.

    Belief in answers backed only by faith is a social disease. Every argument for gods' existence are based on assertions or appealing to ignorance. The funny thing is, the dumber way to live is exactly what the biblical god wants.

    The moral teachings of the bible, for the most part, do not involve god any further than simply "god wants us to live this way". That, as a reason to adopt biblical ideals, is poor. That you agree with the parables, and their moral argument for a certain way to behave, is a good reason. "God" telling you, and you thinking about it for yourself are obviously different!
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Having a belief system is fine but believing something simply because you are scared or are told to do so, is pathetic. Too many religious people today follow 'God' because it's what they were told to do.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JW22)
    I'm sorry if you're resorting to justifications such as 'he can do that if he wants to' there's no point arguing with you.
    With that logic, we must reject that a being created the entire universe from nothing. I can't explain it, but I know that an omnipotent god can do it if he wants to.

    Indeed, I don't intend to argue with anyone, my position on the truth of the gospel is not up for debate. I simply intend to answer and pose questions, encouraging people to read the bible.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Emilia1320)
    Faith is not a good thing. As long as individual keeps it on themselves its neutral thing at best. When they start to try to convert others, raise their innocent children to faith and maybe even use it as reason or excuse to violence it turns into evil.

    Faith is like voluntary blindness. Its not smart to believe in something there is no evidence of existing. I could believe in god immediately if there was reason to.
    But god is logical paradox and we are yet to find the reason.
    So you have no faith?

    (Original post by StrangeBanana)
    Still waiting for a reason why faith is inherently good btw
    Page 7 post no. 123
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FireGarden)
    Belief in god.

    Belief in answers backed only by faith is a social disease. Every argument for gods' existence are based on assertions or appealing to ignorance. The funny thing is, the dumber way to live is exactly what the biblical god wants.

    The moral teachings of the bible, for the most part, do not involve god any further than simply "god wants us to live this way". That, as a reason to adopt biblical ideals, is poor. That you agree with the parables, and their moral argument for a certain way to behave, is a good reason. "God" telling you, and you thinking about it for yourself are obviously different!
    Interesting angle, but could you say that the active decision to base moral backbone on the will of God does involve the decision of one's self to do so? Thus causing the action to be influenced by faith, but still decided and executed by the individual. Because after all, even if influenced by religion, you still make the active choice to follow it and live a life of morality.

    We do get to choose to be religious! for example the Catholic sacrament of Confirmation where you learn more about Catholicism and then decide to continue confirmation into faith. This happens when you're a teenager, so you get to be a competent individual and learn to grow peacefully in faith or otherwise.

    What's wrong with saying "God wants us to live that way"? It's not like it's encouraging us to be bad people or not be normal. God is not asking us to be "dumb", he's asking us to grow in humility and acknowledge how fragile and vulnerable we are as people, and look to his power to be the best versions of ourselves we can be! This seriously cannot be seen as a "social disease"!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Okay, rebuttal mark II !!

    (Original post by Hydeman)
    I don't think the two are comparable. Most of the soldiers who fought in the First World War died not for their country, but because they were conscripted into the armed forces by silly politicians playing a rather dangerous game of chess within a web of alliances.

    Early Christians didn't need to be 'martyred' for their cause -- they could just have kept their beliefs secret and continued to live. In that situation, to voluntarily stick your neck out by practising openly is hardly being martyred. A better comparison would be prisoners who go on hunger strike until a certain demand is met (e.g. granted political prisoner status) and die as a result. Anyway, my main objection was that you implied that using Jesus's death as inspiration to become a martyr was somehow admirable.

    Also, Galileo died of natural causes...
    1) I consider soldiers political martyrs; fighters for the right to political and social freedom. And yes, most of them were young men forced by government to fight, but none the less, they were killed for representing a
    political opponent and ideology, thus making them martyrs.

    2) Saying that early Christians didn't need to be martyred and that "they could just have kept their beliefs secret and continued to live" is quite inconsiderate in the fact that you are asking for a huge population to hide a lifestyle and belief to suit the needs of others. What happened to freewill and human right? It's like saying black people should have painted themselves white in public and only call themselves black indoors to not be lynched back in racially divided North America.

    3) We use Jesus as an example of being true to your beliefs until the very end, through hard times, persecution, torment. Your tone sounds like you've assumed from my point that we were taught to want to die. Dying for what you believe in has happened throughout history, religious and atheist alike. We want to die having lived life fully, haven been the best versions of ourselves as much as possible, and with a strong identity as a Christian.

    (Original post by Hydeman)
    Very little of the criticism is actually aimed towards the people who practise religion (except when they do patronising things like going to people's houses and offer to 'save' them). Virtually nobody has any issue with people just going to church or other place of worship and singing hymns or praying in congregation.
    This is SOOO UNTRUE! Persecution happens everywhere. An example is the Charleston USA shooting which caused the murder of 9 members of a church congregation in a hate crime. The irony is that the person they welcomed into their prayer group became their killer, which parallels with the betrayal of Jesus by Judas. This is an example of martyrdom for the sake of Christ because they died doing the thing that was the motivation of their killing.

    Martyr
    NOUN



    • a person who is killed because of their religious or other beliefs:




    VERB



    • (be martyred)

      kill (someone) because of their beliefs:
      "she was martyred for her faith"


    This is what I mean by using Jesus as inspiration. Of course we don't want to JUST die, but if it leads to a choice, to deny faith and live or to own it and die, hopefully we'd be brave enough to pick the second one.



    (Original post by Hydeman)
    The ideas of religion, however, are as open to criticism as any other ideas. That's just something people have to learn to live with as a natural consequence of a free society.
    True, but do you know how many times a day I hear someone criticising something I believe in linked to Christianity?! It's exhausting! I have no problem with someone questioning the bible; it's bound to happen. However I have a huge problem with people questioning our intelligence and questioning the existence of God!

    (Original post by Hydeman)
    There's also a subtle exception here: what you describe as 'just trying to live your life the way you want' isn't always restricted to your own life. A prime example of this is the belief among some religious parents that they somehow 'own' their children and are therefore entitled to not act in the best interests of the child, whether that be through not vaccinating them against potentially fatal diseases, teaching them junk science, or 'raising' them in their own religion (known as 'brainwashing' for those who don't like to euphemise). That sort of thing is always going to be criticised, unfortunately.
    Things get passed down from generation to generation all the time! it's a natural human trait to pass on the information we acquire from our time to the next. Passing on a faith is not a bad thing, it's just what happens. Surely a person would parent based on what they know, they wouldn't purposely raise a child in a religious home to detriment their development. It's like if you decided to have children and teach them about Evolution rather than Adam and Eve. It's because of what you believe in. If they go on and decide that they'd like to be Christian, would that automatically deem your parenting as "brain-washing" or forcing them to believe in your ideas of science? I wouldn't consider myself "brain-washed". This makes it seem like I'm a non-functioning asset to society, and terms like that shouldn't be thrown around. I'll have you know I'm very well-rounded, thank you very much!

    But seriously you should know that in Catholicism we have Confirmation, which is a sacrament we have to let teenagers entre a spiritual journey of self discovery and discovery of our relationship with God. But this is optional and not everyone goes through with it, so not everyone fully integrates into Catholicism, which is unfortunate but it's life. And even if you were raised to believe that praying is good and that God loves you, how is that bad?! I've been in Catholic education all my life, and I still learnt about Darwinism as well as Creationism!

    (Original post by Hydeman)
    At the end of the day, I just don't buy into the idea that religious scripture has any monopoly on telling me what's right and wrong. I wouldn't say my goal is to make the world a better place (so we differ there) but that's an argument for another day.
    I will not judge your life choices, I just wish you all the best! We all have different motivations in life. Being Christian doesn't put us on a pedestal, in fact, it makes us realise how imperfect we all are! We're all imperfect, but we're all beautifully diverse!
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pride)
    Is that forcing a religion on somebody? I bet nobody has ever forced their religion on you, and you're just exaggerating.
    Zzzzzzzz sorry what was that m8??
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: December 1, 2015
Poll
Do you like carrot cake?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.