The Faith & Religion mega Thread

Originally Posted by brianL Let us all pray (wherever we are) for peace between oskar and Tinkster...Amen. :D

Thanks - that was very touching :D



Cheers,
Tink

>> "Jesus told you not to go to church. What are you doing!!"
there was a new directive about a month ago passing down asking me to not only look at things objectively scientific but try to take a look at those finer higher ideals again ... hmm , as i said i was instructed and i have no choice but hope that this is not done too early and hope for the best ...

ok , seriously ...

>> ""I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." -Stephen F Roberts"

but i guess we need to be responsible especially if you are one of the brighter brains ... at least try not to let the people hear this as this attitude actually is quite bad now ... go ahead visiting whatever churches , temples and shrines(pick one or two(if you can) and be serious about them) but look into the eyes(not of the people this time) of those sprouting "no-sense"(but you have to know how to pick which is which though as not everything are "non-sense") hard hard ... i think nothing will happen actually so dont worry , at least you have got a presence ... if agian nothing , then at least this can be fun ...

btw , to use only linux at home is not that spooky actually ...



[EDIT::]have left out something ... very scary ... ^_^


.

Thomas of Aquinas's proof of God's existence:

"4. The Argument from Degree. We notice that things in the world differ. There are degrees of, say, goodness or perfection. But we judge these degrees only by comparison with a maximum. Humans can be both good and bad, so the maximum goodness cannot rest in us. Therefore there must be some other maximum to set the standard for perfection, and we call that maximum God."

Therefore, as Dawkins points out:

"... people vary in smelliness but we can make the comparison only by reference to a perfect maximum of conceivable smelliness. Therefore there must exist a pre-eminently peerless stinker, and we call him God."

That's precisely the sort of nonsense that Dawkins is so good at and that he got panned for by Mary Midgley. Either he is deliberately playing dumb (which makes him an ideologist and as such unfit to be be considered an authoritative voice in the debate) or his understanding of these matters is "limited", to say the least. I'm not questioning the man's talent as a scientist - but as soon as he approaches the humanities, he behaves like so many scientists do: like a bull in a china shop.
Being a linguist by formation, I have my doubts about anyone approaching the humanities with the positivist attitude that culture can be reduced the way that inanimate objects can be. It makes about as much sense as believing that artificial universal languages can be valid substitutes for natural languages. Let's translate Shakespeare into Esperanto, shall we? Let's reduce Mondriaan's paintings by saying that, essentially, they are a collection of sweeps and stripes and boxes and that's it. If he knew anything at all about Plato, Aristotle and Thomism, he would be aware that he is drawing up a parallel between two radically different qualities. One (goodness) is a spiritual one and as such belongs to essence, the other one (smell) is a physical one an as such a matter of existence. Considering that God is all essence (being) and zero existence (physical), God can't have any smell whatsoever and it's plain to see that Dawkin's argument doesn't cut ice . Smelly gods have their place in Greek mythology, not in the great monotheist religions.

He's an irritating bugger: Dawkins. Arrogant and childish. Gives atheism a bad name.

Originally Posted by Tinkster As I said: you didn't get it.

Did so!
YOU didn't get it!

LALALALALALALA! *fingers in ears*

But thanks for looking up the verses.

Originally Posted by jay73 That's precisely the sort of nonsense that Dawkins is so good at and that he got panned for by Mary Midgley. Either he is deliberately playing dumb (which makes him an ideologist and as such unfit to be be considered an authoritative voice in the debate) or his understanding of these matters is "limited", to say the least. I'm not questioning the man's talent as a scientist - but as soon as he approaches the humanities, he behaves like so many scientists do: like a bull in a china shop.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQvJPr8THlw
Say what you want about Dawkins, but leave the bulls out of it. They're decent people.

Being a linguist by formation, I have my doubts about anyone approaching the humanities with the positivist attitude that culture can be reduced the way that inanimate objects can be. It makes about as much sense as believing that artificial universal languages can be valid substitutes for natural languages. Let's translate Shakespeare into Esperanto, shall we? Let's reduce Mondriaan's paintings by saying that, essentially, they are a collection of sweeps and stripes and boxes and that's it. If he knew anything at all about Plato, Aristotle and Thomism, he would be aware that he is drawing up a parallel between two radically different qualities. One (goodness) is a spiritual one and as such belongs to essence, the other one (smell) is a physical one an as such a matter of existence. Considering that God is all essence (being) and zero existence (physical), God can't have any smell whatsoever and it's plain to see that Dawkin's argument doesn't cut ice . Smelly gods have their place in Greek mythology, not in the great monotheist religions.

The argument he was mocking presumes that there has to be something perfect in existence. And if we don't see it around us, it has to be God... well how logical! Anything perfect I know of is just a construction. A perfect circle, a perfect line, a perfect woman. What makes god an exception there.

He was not seriously suggesting that if there was a god he'd smell - he was pointing out the idiocy of the argumentation.

Originally Posted by oskar Did so! YOU didn't get it! LALALALALALALA! *fingers in ears* But thanks for looking up the verses.

Uh-huh.

/me shrugs... "wasn't the first time I wasted time and effort at LQ, won't be the last ..." :D




Cheers,
Tink

Oh well...

Originally Posted by Tinkster Well, if you read the good book for entertainment do me a favour and spare me your exegesis

So the number of laughs you get out of dead serious holy scripture is directly proportional to your disability to interpret them?

(2) From "Don't prance around in the Prater in a pink undergown" you conclude that "going to the Prater is bad" per se.

No from "Don't prance around in the prater" I conclude that prancing around in the prater is being discouraged. Yes, it was in the in the context of people putting their goodness on display, but that doesn't change the meaning of this particular sentence.

At least we could agree that god could have worded that better, so that even people like me could understand it. I still think that god should personally take care of these kinds of things. Prophets are such an unreliably system... He should write it in the sky with birds, or talk through the thunder... You know... heavy shit. If you're all powerful, and the best you can come up with is a book, I'm not impressed.

As I said: you didn't get it. Cheers, Tink

And as I already stated:

LALALALALALALAICANTHEARYOULALALALA!

Nice video. Ironically enough, this is very much an English only issue. Most European languages have a similar expression, only they use "elephant" instead of "bull" - and Dutch even has "china display" instead of "china shop". More room for havoc.

he was pointing out the idiocy of the argumentation.

What idiocy? Can Dawkins prove that the idea is wrong? Some amusing images in his parallel but what about the logic? A typical case of rhetoric, in short.
For sure, neither can one prove that the idea is true but that is the whole point : without any conclusive proof, one makes a bad preacher for any cause. This applies to people like Dawkins no less than to religious fundamentalists.

well how logical!

Again, please demonstrate your reasoning here. I would really like to hear logical refutation of the idea that perfection exists even if we don't find any empirical evidence. Whether circles and lines are just figs of the imagination or mental entities that are as real as the next empirical fact - only on a different plane - is a philosophical issue that has raged on since Plato. And after all that time, we are still waiting for a conclusive answer.

No from "Don't prance around in the prater" I conclude that prancing around in the prater is being discouraged.

Seriously? So you assume that "Don't drink and drive" means that both drinking and driving are being discouraged?

At least we could agree that god could have worded that better

Oh right, so Shakespeare is a great writer because his writings are oh so easy to understand... And Einstein, of course, was an idiot because his ideas are way beyond most of us.

I would appreciate it if this thread was kept to people telling what religions they believe in, not the stuff they hate about them. I figured that was the point anyway...

Originally Posted by oskar No from "Don't prance around in the prater" I conclude that prancing around in the prater is being discouraged.

But you're omitting half the sentence. And you're still not
getting it.

Originally Posted by oskar Yes, it was in the in the context of people putting their goodness on display, but that doesn't change the meaning of this particular sentence.

I suppose a sensible dialogue with you will be impossible if
you slice and dice not only below the level of a wider context
but even chop bits out of a phrase to match your intention.

Originally Posted by oskar At least we could agree that god could have worded that better, so that even people like me could understand it. I still think that god should personally take care of these kinds of things.

How about we agree that you should read Dr Seuss for your
entertainment? Much easier for you to understand, I'm sure.
Or some other book with 3 to 4 word sentences, no complex
structures with commas and other weird stuff?

I certainly don't have your problem with the Gospel.

I'm curious: is there a "special" edition of the Bible for
Austrians? A Luther, or Elberfelder? Einheitsuebersetzung? Or
were we both looking at the KJV? Probably wouldn't make a
big difference with your inability to understand a simple
sentence, but hey ... :D



Cheers,
Tink

Either he is deliberately playing dumb (which makes him an ideologist and as such unfit to be be considered an authoritative voice in the debate) or his understanding of these matters is "limited", to say the least.

Of course he is deliberately playing dumb. No sane person would find the stinking god idea worth thinking about. It just shows that Thomas's argument is ridiculous either. It doesn't prove anything. Obviously we can't disprove it, but when you think of it, you can't disprove the notion of a smelly god either but it doesn't mean that it is valid.

Generally, you can't prove or disprove the existence of god. Any person saying that they KNOW that god (doesn't) exist(s) is quite out of their mind or experiments with drugs too much. Have they ever gone out to a pub with god to claim that they know god exists. It's impossible to claim the opposite either. It all comes down to believing. You can believe that god exists or it doesn't. But you cannot scientifically prove it. That's why I find religious scientists quite a weird idea. Theologians should not get scientific degrees. I can accept scholars studying ancient religious scriptures, but I consider them to be pure linguists, historians or scholars of literature. What does it mean to be a Doctor of Theology? I really don't think that religion should take any close to science or we'll have more absurd arguments for god's existence.

BTW, check this website - 300 proofs for god's existence

http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm

"ARGUMENT FROM POSSIBLE WORLDS (1) If things had been different, then things would be different. (2) That would be bad. (3) Therefore, God exists. "

It's up to you whether you want to believe in some characters that have been present in the world's literature for centuries. It's not 'god' enough for me.

Originally Posted by jay73 What idiocy? Can Dawkins prove that the idea is wrong? Some amusing images in his parallel but what about the logic? A typical case of rhetoric, in short. For sure, neither can one prove that the idea is true but that is the whole point : without any conclusive proof, one makes a bad preacher for any cause. This applies to people like Dawkins no less than to religious fundamentalists.

If you don't make extraordinary claims, you don't need conclusive proof that any particular extraordinary claim is false. He was just joking about how you guys get all tangled up in words, but you don't feel a need to explain how you get there. How can you assume there'd be a maximum goodness somewhere. Why? That explanation raises questions, but doesn't provide an answer, much less a proof that god exists.

Again, please demonstrate your reasoning here. I would really like to hear logical refutation of the idea that perfection exists even if we don't find any empirical evidence.

That is where we differ. I don't think I have to. And I know I can't.
I know nothing that is perfect. Up until someone can show me something that is, I will assume a very low likelihood for there being any grand cosmic standard of perfection. I don't feel any more need to waste time and energy over this than I feel a need to check under my bed for the bogeyman. Both just too unlikely to even bother.

Whether circles and lines are just figs of the imagination or mental entities that are as real as the next empirical fact - only on a different plane - is a philosophical issue that has raged on since Plato. And after all that time, we are still waiting for a conclusive answer.

Well, if you think the circles and lines are 'real on a different level', then - of course, in this sense god can be real. But he'll have to share his dimension with Geometrical figures, other strange deities and perfect women.

Seriously? So you assume that "Don't drink and drive" means that both drinking and driving are being discouraged?

Nope. I would assume that drinking AND driving is being discouraged. Otherwise it would say "Don't drink OR drive".
Honestly, I don't know where you're going with this.

Oh right, so Shakespeare is a great writer because his writings are oh so easy to understand... And Einstein, of course, was an idiot because his ideas are way beyond most of us.

Different intentions. If you write a rulebook for all humanity it should be clear cut, and not: Stone him who picks up sticks on a Sunday on one page and "Thou shalt not kill" on another.
And what's with the goofy language? Can't god send a translator prophet once in a while.

---

Originally Posted by Tinkster But you're omitting half the sentence. And you're still not getting it.

My bible (new world translation - german) phrases it a bit differently. Anyhow:

Originally Posted by International version But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen.

I thought that sentence made it rather clear.
Well, I suppose you could go out and mix with the hypocrites.
The point is he did not explicitly tell you to go to church. And if you remember, I was answering to the guy who said that everyone who believes should go to the church regularly.

GNULinux - evidence of God's gift to humans of creativity, generosity, co-operation, intelligence...

Originally Posted by oskar My bible (new world translation - german) phrases it a bit differently. Anyhow:

That's one problem with the bible. The amount of revisions it's had by people who weren't even around but felt they needed to change it to their liking. I mean, come on, King James has his own version.

Line up 20 kids in a line. Whisper a phrase in the ear of one kid at the end of the line and have them pass the info down til it reaches the kid on the other end, I'd guarantee the phrase passed along does not end up being the same. That's the bible, a book of tales passed down, changed, revised over the past 2 thousand years, written by man, not a God.

But trust me, if religion gives people that warm and fuzzy feeling that there's a beholder looking out over everyone, all power to them if it gives them that hope they're going someplace heavenly when they die, they're entitled to such things.