Religious Beliefs

Phugoid

Yes. The notion of God IS untouchable by empirical methods (currently). But does that mean we should take it to be true? No. That would be ridiculous, stupid, assumptous and dense.

Something does not automatically become true as soon as Science is found to be practically unable to falsify it.

Anyway, there isn't a single religion out there that doesn't make claims about God's interaction with this universe. There isn't a single religion out there that doesn't have some doctrine about creation (as you said), prayer, miracles, souls, blessings, divine intervention, etc. All of these things apparently happen here, on earth, within easy reach of scientific measure.

Science may have no way to falsify the existence of a God who remains outside the universe, and never bothers us. But it certainly can falsify the type of God that Islam, Christianity, Judaism, etc, boast about. Once you have taken science into consideration, you are left with a God who is unable to communicate with us, and who we are unable to communicate to. So even if he did exist, what good would it do to worship him, or even acknowledge him?

there is no need to be so offensive fair enough you do not believe in God but some people do, maybe you should learn to have some respect for other peoples views. YOU do not have to believe in god no one is asking you to once again that is the whole point of free will.

Reply 22

kemi231

there is no need to be so offensive fair enough you do not believe in God but some people do, maybe you should learn to have some respect for other peoples views. YOU do not have to believe in god no one is asking you to once again that is the whole point of free will.

Sorry, I can't be held accountable for what you or anybody else finds offensive.

What I want to say is what will be said, and unless you can argue with it objectively and rationally, then you have no reason to be offended, and I have no reason not to say it.

Also, I will not respect somebody else's views immediately. If we went about respecting everybody's views, we'd live in a world even more ignorant than it is. Some people's views are quite frankly ridiculous, and challenging them is good for me, good for the person being challenged, and certainly good for society.

Reply 23

OP

kemi231

there is no need to be so offensive fair enough you do not believe in God but some people do, maybe you should learn to have some respect for other peoples views. YOU do not have to believe in god no one is asking you to once again that is the whole point of free will.

Is a rational argument offensive to religious folk?

What's religion?

I think people who follow religion do it because they have a sense of being and in a lot of cases it makes them feel more complete and better in themselves because they believe that there is a higher power up there that is looking over them etc.

whilst people can be completely sceptical its understandable.there is no real hard line proof that there is a god etc. but at the end of the day even as a scientist and being able to discount the majority of things such as Adam and eve because of evolution i still have this whole thing of what cause the big bang, how is it we are here and the never ending questions relating to that. and i think not knowing that forever does mean you don't know why you have existence for some people and that's where the big bearded guy comes into play. its something people can see as being the creator of life.

everyone is their own person and believes what they wan tto believe, if it makes them eel better about life, themselves and the world then so be it. everyone needs some happiness in their life and a lot of the time religion can bring that. it can be a very very social thing that brings people and communities together. or at least it used to be that way hundreds of years ago.

Reply 26

OP

Morzor

What's religion?

The most powerful weapon ever created by man.

Reply 27

Phugoid

Sorry, I can't be held accountable for what you or anybody else finds offensive.

What I want to say is what will be said, and unless you can argue with it objectively and rationally, then you have no reason to be offended, and I have no reason not to say it.

Also, I will not respect somebody else's views immediately. If we went about respecting everybody's views, we'd live in a world even more ignorant than it is. Some people's views are quite frankly ridiculous, and challenging them is good for me, good for the person being challenged, and certainly good for society.

well maybe today is a good day to start taking some responsibilty for the offensive comments you make. you do not have to respect the fact that i am religious but there is no need to insult a religion that many follow. I would never call being an atheist the things you called believing in God, as I respect the fact that not believing in God is your view.

Reply 28

Sex Cauldron

Is a rational argument offensive to religious folk?

I can not speak for everyone that is religious, but the last time i checked a rational arguement did not include ignorant comments.

Reply 29

StandingOnAir

Phugoid

Yes. The notion of God IS untouchable by empirical methods (currently). But does that mean we should take it to be true? No. That would be ridiculous, stupid, assumptous and dense.

Something does not automatically become true as soon as Science is found to be practically unable to falsify it.

I quite agree, and never intended to imply otherwise.

Phugoid

Anyway, there isn't a single religion out there that doesn't make claims about God's interaction with this universe. There isn't a single religion out there that doesn't have some doctrine about creation (as you said), prayer, miracles, souls, blessings, divine intervention, etc. All of these things apparently happen here, on earth, within easy reach of scientific measure.

Science may have no way to falsify the existence of a God who remains outside the universe, and never bothers us. But it certainly can falsify the type of God that Islam, Christianity, Judaism, etc, boast about. Once you have taken science into consideration, you are left with a God who is unable to communicate with us, and who we are unable to communicate to. So even if he did exist, what good would it do to worship him, or even acknowledge him?

With the exception of some miracles happening today (healings and the like), none of the things you suggested need be empirically verifiable. Belief in God that is compatible with modern scientific thinking certainly does not necessitate a deistic faith.

Sex Cauldron

The actual belief that there is a God, isn't so bad. I'm more agnostic, I don't have the answer but I'm not going to make them up and shout at people to accept them. My problem is with organised religions / cults and there myths and superstition. That's the obsurd part. Zombie jesus etc

But we have agreed that belief in God is unaffected by empiricism and logical reasoning - if someone does then choose to believe, and believes that such a being interracts with the world, it only seems natural that they attempt to understand the way in which it does that. If you believe first in God's existence, then "myths and superstition" are hardly unreasonable. Following your example with Christianity, if someone believes that God exists, it would be silly for them to say that it is impossible (or stupid, or absurd) for God to raise a man (his son) from the dead.

Reply 30

kemi231

well maybe today is a good day to start taking some responsibilty for the offensive comments you make. you do not have to respect the fact that i am religious but there is no need to insult a religion that many follow. I would never call being an atheist the things you called believing in God, as I respect the fact that not believing in God is your view.

Perhaps you didn't understand.

It is NOT my fault what YOU find offensive. Okay?

Every single thing that I do would offend SOMEBODY out there. The fact that I'm wearing 3/4 length trousers would offend somebody, the fact that I'm not drinking on a friday night might offend somebody else, the fact that I haven't showered today might offend somebody, the fact that I have long hair might offend somebody.

None of these things are my fault. It is simply not my fault what other people get offended by, and it is certainly not my duty to live my life in such a way that nobody ever gets offended.

And as I have said before, some ideas don't DESERVE respect. You don't just get respect for having an idea. It has to be a credible idea, and you have to provide reasons for having that idea. Unless you do that, you haven'ted earned (that's right, earned) anybody's respect, and so you shouldn't expect it.

Reply 31

I think a number of responses by religious people in this thread have provided us with one of the answers to the question of why people are religious - because the human mind refuses to accept that it doesn't know something.

This effect has been noted and well documented by psychologists and sociologists, and there have been many extremely interesting studies done on it. People, for whatever reason, hate not knowing something. And rather than remain unknowledgable until they have reason to believe something, they would rather just grasp an explanation that fits the gap.

An interesting experiment was done on split brain patients (split brain patients are people who have had the 'link' between the left hemisphere and the right hemisphere of their brain surgically severed as a treatment for seizures - it means the left and right brain cannot communicate with each other, but the person still functions very well).

Now, one side of the brain deals with written communcation and also motor activity (movement). The other side deals with verbal communication and response. So what was done on these patients was that they were given written instruction to stand up and walk around. The patients read it, and their motor neurons complied - they stood up, and walked around the room. Now, THAT hemisphere knew why it was walking - because it had been instructed to by written communcation. But the other hemisphere didn't know, since they cannot communicate. So the researchers then asked the subject, verbally (and hence speaking to the side which did not know), why he/she was walking. And in every single case, the subject, rather than admit he didn't know, made up an answer that seemed to 'fit' that situation. Some of them said 'I'm going to get a soda'.

I thought that experiment was absolutely fascinating, and it is one of many that have piled on the evidence for the fact that the human brain is, for whatever reason, uninclined to admit that it doesn't know, and would rather make up a story to fit the situation or to answer the question.

This is one of the reasons why religion isn't questioned by people.

Reply 32

OP

Phugoid

Perhaps you didn't understand.

It is NOT my fault what YOU find offensive. Okay?

Every single thing that I do would offend SOMEBODY out there. The fact that I'm wearing 3/4 length trousers would offend somebody, the fact that I'm not drinking on a friday night might offend somebody else, the fact that I haven't showered today might offend somebody, the fact that I have long hair might offend somebody.

None of these things are my fault. It is simply not my fault what other people get offended by, and it is certainly not my duty to live my life in such a way that nobody ever gets offended.

And as I have said before, some ideas don't DESERVE respect. You don't just get respect for having an idea. It has to be a credible idea, and you have to provide reasons for having that idea. Unless you do that, you haven'ted earned (that's right, earned) anybody's respect, and so you shouldn't expect it.

You sir, are a fine gentlemen and a scholar.

Reply 33

MrPhil

1

I love it when people start to think they're cleverer than they are. Imaginary friends, irrational, blah blah blah. How original.

Reply 34

Phugoid

Perhaps you didn't understand.

It is NOT my fault what YOU find offensive. Okay?

Every single thing that I do would offend SOMEBODY out there. The fact that I'm wearing 3/4 length trousers would offend somebody, the fact that I'm not drinking on a friday night might offend somebody else, the fact that I haven't showered today might offend somebody, the fact that I have long hair might offend somebody.

None of these things are my fault. It is simply not my fault what other people get offended by, and it is certainly not my duty to live my life in such a way that nobody ever gets offended.

And as I have said before, some ideas don't DESERVE respect. You don't just get respect for having an idea. It has to be a credible idea, and you have to provide reasons for having that idea. Unless you do that, you haven'ted earned (that's right, earned) anybody's respect, and so you shouldn't expect it.

that is the most pathetic excuse i have ever heard. grow up. IT IS youre fault if you offend someone by insulting their religious beliefs. nobody is asking you to live your life in any way, but surely you must no that insulting someones religious beliefs will offend some people. i was not asking you to respect my idea, but you need to respect the fact that my idea is mine without attacking it. Plus i do not have to justify my idea to anyone as it is my own. all im saying is there is no need to be so rude, and before you say it is " not my fault" once again maybe you should start thinking how youre words affect others....we learnt that in primary school.

Reply 35

StandingOnAir

I quite agree, and never intended to imply otherwise.

Glad!

With the exception of some miracles happening today (healings and the like), none of the things you suggested need be empirically verifiable. Belief in God that is compatible with modern scientific thinking certainly does not necessitate a deistic faith.

Yes, and I would never ever suggest that this type of God simply does not exist. But I know of very few people who simply believe that God exists, and leave it at that. They all insist that God has specific characteristics which they couldn't possibly know about, and which couldn't possibly be true in light of scientific and philosophical knowledge. And so for all of these people, I am quite right to say 'No, that God definitely doesn't exist.'

But I am not able to say that to people whose God is completely uninterventional.

However, the uninterventional God is quite pointless, as there is no reason to worship him, acknowledge his greatness, or to think that he will offer us salvation in an afterlife if his mind-reading abilities show him that our thoughts and actions are compliant with his will.

Also, even if I do meet a person who believes in this type of God, I will argue with him. I will never tell him that his God definitely doens't exist, because there's no reason why he can't exist. But I will criticise his choice to believe in the existence of something for which there is no positive evidence. You can remove all the characteristics which can be falsified if you like, but at the end of the day, you will still be believing in something without a solid basis for doing so, and that in itself is subject to criticism.

But we have agreed that belief in God is unaffected by empiricism and logical reasoning - if someone does then choose to believe, and believes that such a being interracts with the world, it only seems natural that they attempt to understand the way in which it does that. If you believe first in God's existence, then "myths and superstition" are hardly unreasonable. Following your example with Christianity, if someone believes that God exists, it would be silly for them to say that it is impossible (or stupid, or absurd) for God to raise a man (his son) from the dead.

I disagree. I think it's quite possible for somebody to believe in the existence of God, but to reject all myths and notions of earthly intervention on the basis of Scientific falsification. It's possible, it's credible, and it is a belief held by many (deists). However, as I said above, the act of believing in something without positive evidence of its existence (even if no falsifiable evidence exists) is not justifiable.

The possibility that God exists is a reasonable one, it can be rational, it doesn't violate logic, and it doesn't violate our current knowledge. And that is why the belief in God differs from the belief in the particular types of God favoured by all modern religions. The God of all religions is not a reasonable God to believe in the existence of. The deist God is a reasonable God to believe in the existence of - it's possible - but you're still not justified in believing in him due to his lack of evidence.

Reply 36

OP

kemi231

Plus i do not have to justify my idea to anyone as it is my own.

Isn't that religion in general?

Reply 37