The Faith & Religion mega Thread

Originally Posted by bluegospel On the basis that no other religion offers any remedy--to sin and death.

Islam offers a remedy to sin and death, 72 virgins and all that. Bhuddahism and Taoism, if I am not mistaken, offer a means of purification and attainment of enlightenment and life.

Like I said, use your head for something besides a hat rack. Jesus deserves better than you for a defense, Blue.

Originally Posted by moxieman99 Islam offers a remedy to sin and death, 72 virgins and all that. Bhuddahism and Taoism, if I am not mistaken, offer a means of purification and attainment of enlightenment and life. Like I said, use your head for something besides a hat rack. Jesus deserves better than you for a defense, Blue.

Should have been more specific--a viable solution . . .

Originally Posted by bluegospel Should have been more specific--a viable solution . . .

On what basis is eternity in paradise with 72 virgins NOT a "viable" solution? Don't be so stupid as to use some self-referential Bible quote as "proof." If you want to say that you have nothing other than Bible quotes in support of your position, fine, but self reference is not "proof" under any system worthy of intellectual respect, and certainly not up to the standard that we could expect of a God who is perfect creating something in His own image. Self referencial proofs are highly flawed under ANY system, and therefore have nothing to do with free will, so you can toss that red herring aside, too.

I'm in a trolling mood…let the thread derailment begin:

Artist: Here's a little something I've been working on for the past couple weeks…I hope you'll enjoy it. Scientist: …talking, anthropomorphic animals? Surely you must be joking? Do you have any logical justification for entertaining such absurd fantasies? Artist: …well, not really…I just[…] Scientist: […]then it is worthless. Come back when you have something truly valuable and scientifically sound. Artist: Scientist: Oh, don't give me that pitiful look…you should try using that energy currently being spent on self-pity and woe on trying to understand the true beauty of the universe. Why should I see any kind of value in this kind of absurd fantasy? What kind of real understanding does needlessly anthropomorphizing animals give? Absolutely none, so why do you bother with it? Artist: …because it's fun and it gives us something to understand on a personal[…] Scientist: […]WHAT is there to understand? It's a grotesque mutilation of animal nature, nothing more. What possible value is there in taking away the understanding of an animal's true behaviour and replacing it with some petty caricature of human psychology? Artist: I just wanted to bring a little levity to the world! Not everything has to be a science experiment, you know! Scientist: I beg to differ: we can learn much about ourselves through science; no need for these kinds of banal, ridiculous cartoons just to give some faint illusion of "introspective wisdom". If you want to "bring a little levity to the world", I suggest you try a more reasonable approach. I see little "levity" in needlessly transforming other animals into human-puppets.

If this doesn't get the point across about how people (myself included) perceive the scientific community, I have no idea what will. This can also apply to anything; just replace anthropomorphism with any kind of scientifically unsound fiction (fantasy, etc.), and you could probably come up with a very similar conversation.

This is 100% original BTW…I only use [quote][/quote] tags for special formatting.

…perhaps this isn't so much of a thread derailment after all; it can also apply somewhat to religion (although in that case the "Scientist" above would be a bit more justified in his criticism).

Originally Posted by MrCode I'm in a trolling mood…let the thread derailment begin: If this doesn't get the point across about how people (myself included) perceive the scientific community, I have no idea what will. This can also apply to anything; just replace anthropomorphism with any kind of scientifically unsound fiction (fantasy, etc.), and you could probably come up with a very similar conversation. This is 100% original BTW…I only use tags for special formatting. …perhaps this isn't so much of a thread derailment after all; it can also apply somewhat to religion (although in that case the "Scientist" above would be a bit more justified in his criticism).

I'm curious where you see the pro-science side making that argument. I think, I hope, that I've been at pains to show my objection to religion and supernaturalism is that it makes unsupported claims about what it objectively true. The artist makes no such claims, nobody tries to say that the Simpsons' town of Springfield literally exists. Now, we do bandy about the word "truth" is relation to art, saying it's true to human nature or says something true about human existence, but that is a different sense of the word. We all share the experience of living on this planet and we all share a similar biology and psychology and artistic "truth" is true in the sense that it is able to tap into those commonalities, that people in disparate times and cultures can still recognize their experiences in the art.

As for the usefulness of art, well, I argue vehemently for the pure pursuit of scientific knowledge regardless of usefulness, so clearly utility is not a major concern for me. (Why do people equate reason and rationality with pragmatism and utility? Art is not irrational for not contributing in a direct and tangible way to the bare necessities of our existence. If art improves the quality of your life, then creating it or enjoying it is eminently rational.) Anyone concerned with human flourishing, ie, anyone who embraces Humanism, which is rather the philosophy de rigueur for many scientists among others, should have an interest in art, since it relates so intimately to our well being.

Science gives us facts about nature. What we do with that information is a whole separate issue. I want to express that it is possible to face with grace and fortitude that the universe, for all its wonder and beauty, does appear indifferent to us, but this is not to criticize anyone who finds that prospect depressing or wag a finger and say 'why can't you accept it'. It is to offer hope. We do not need to accept the crushing dogma of religion to find value and morality and happiness, we can choose to live our lives free from obscurantism and superstition.

@reed9

To be honest, I think my post is trying to illustrate the stereotype, not necessarily the truth. All I was trying to get across is that I, and I'm sure many others, feel that there's somewhat of an underlying attitude of "art is stupid" or some such in the scientific community. I'm not making any claims that this is the truth, just that it's the general impression. I suppose the only reason I said I was "in a trolling mood" was because I felt that the post I was about to write was rather unjustified…

There's a PM waiting for you in your inbox in response to your reply to mine, BTW. It might help clarify some of what I'm talking about. I apologize if this seems like time wasted; I know I should probably take this crud elsewhere, preferably outside of LQ. I think most of this "art vs. science" argument may just be a result of miscommunication/misunderstanding and my own issues.

Anyways, back to the regularly scheduled arguing over whose God is the "One True God" or whatever this thread is supposed to be about.

Originally Posted by bluegospel The water in itself can never be awful.

If you honestly think so, then you definitely lack imagination.

There's water poisoning, you can drown in water, it can be poisoned, or it can contain some kind of infection, plus it is conductive you could at least get shocked by spilling it in right place. As far as I know, most of the things on earth can be used to kill somebody if you think creatively enough, so it will be unwise to say "water in itself can never be awful".

Originally Posted by bluegospel How so?

Well, here's a direct uncensored reply:
You have a very nasty habit of running away and hiding from ALL difficult questions, yet you claim that your aim is to please "truth-loving god". Every time a strong arguments appears, you lay low for a while until something "simpler" appears, then you try to shift focus of discussion. Hypocrisy? You ignored skeptic's bible (dragons?), omnipotence argument, problem of evil, lack of evidence for divine origin of bible. Like it or not, you're arrogant and suffer from heavy case of confirmation bias - you willingly refuse to see any flaws in your faith and willingly refuse to even consider opponent's position. In other words, you assume that being christian makes you right, while at same time you claim this is not the case.
Also, I'm pretty sure there were plenty of flawed logic in your posts during, but I'm not in the mood for digging through 3 months worth of text in order to point it all out - people already did that, by you refused to see their arguments.
I'd advise to change your habits. Bible, biblical citations, praising jesus, trying to scare people by mentioning hell, sins and last judgement are not interesting. This kinds of arguments are old, well-known, and can be easily discarded by a child with a little common sense (especially if said child thinks that god is less likely to exist than santa claus). If you keep doing this - i.e. trying to brute force people into christianity, you'll simply run out of the audience, since even talking to wall is much more entertaining. I'd advise to concentrate on logical problems without relying on bible at all. An existence of god can be an interesting subject with many logical problems that could provide some exercise for the brain, however, if you'll keep relying only bible and won't listen to other people, you won't ever even notice those problems, and will learn nothing from them.

Aw, Sig, you're being truthful on the little guy. Now he just might leave.

Kinky Friedman said best what Ol' Blue is trying to say: "They Ain't Makin' Jews Like Jesus Anymore."

Originally Posted by SigTerm If you honestly think so, then you definitely lack imagination. There's water poisoning, you can drown in water, it can be poisoned, or it can contain some kind of infection, plus it is conductive you could at least get shocked by spilling it in right place. As far as I know, most of the things on earth can be used to kill somebody if you think creatively enough, so it will be unwise to say "water in itself can never be awful". Well, here's a direct uncensored reply: You have a very nasty habit of running away and hiding from ALL difficult questions, yet you claim that your aim is to please "truth-loving god". Every time a strong arguments appears, you lay low for a while until something "simpler" appears, then you try to shift focus of discussion. Hypocrisy? You ignored skeptic's bible (dragons?), omnipotence argument, problem of evil, lack of evidence for divine origin of bible. Like it or not, you're arrogant and suffer from heavy case of confirmation bias - you willingly refuse to see any flaws in your faith and willingly refuse to even consider opponent's position. In other words, you assume that being christian makes you right, while at same time you claim this is not the case. Also, I'm pretty sure there were plenty of flawed logic in your posts during, but I'm not in the mood for digging through 3 months worth of text in order to point it all out - people already did that, by you refused to see their arguments. I'd advise to change your habits. Bible, biblical citations, praising jesus, trying to scare people by mentioning hell, sins and last judgement are not interesting. This kinds of arguments are old, well-known, and can be easily discarded by a child with a little common sense (especially if said child thinks that god is less likely to exist than santa claus). If you keep doing this - i.e. trying to brute force people into christianity, you'll simply run out of the audience, since even talking to wall is much more entertaining. I'd advise to concentrate on logical problems without relying on bible at all. An existence of god can be an interesting subject with many logical problems that could provide some exercise for the brain, however, if you'll keep relying only bible and won't listen to other people, you won't ever even notice those problems, and will learn nothing from them.

Okay Sig, I yield discretion to you, when I'm "laying low," as you say, it's your prerogative: use the keyword, "Gauntlet to blue:" at the beginning of your post, and direct me to the question I'm apparently avoiding. I'll resign myself to that question. If you're so bold.

Originally Posted by bluegospel Okay Sig, I yield discretion to you, when I'm "laying low," as you say, it's your prerogative: use the keyword, "Gauntlet to blue:" at the beginning of your post, and direct me to the question I'm apparently avoiding. I'll resign myself to that question. If you're so bold.

Look, everybody knows that in response you will:

• Post a citation from bible.
• Add a pompous statement that will imply that your faith makes you superior by saying that
  1. you as a christian have an access to some kind of "knowledge" i'm incapable of understanding.
  2. every non christian is incapable of "truly" being happy, "truly" living, etc. What is "truly"? If I live, I live "truly", If I'm happy, I'm "truly" happy.
• Hide from all replies that follow.
• Arrive several days later to proudly present another fallacious argument.

You always follow this pattern, and frankly, it is simply boring.

Anyway, in order for a religion to be officially accepted as "truth", following is required;

1. Proof of divine origin of "holy book".
2. Proof of existence of god.
3. Proof that "holy book" tells the truth (god can lie. It has no reason not to lie to something as insignificant as humanity).
4. Proof that "holy book" was indeed inspired by real creator and nod some kind of devil (which is far more likely, IMO).
5. Solution to problem of evil.
6. Solution to the problem of omnipotence, which is actually a variation to a problem of evil (why there is a suffering and tests when god is supposed to have ability to make everything perfect, foresee future, and is meant to be just and loving).
7. In case of bible, deal with skeptics annotated bible (dragons, unicorns, flat earth and factual errors)

Also, you can't circular evidence ("bible tells the truth because bible says it tells the truth") or your holy book(until you prove its divine and can be trusted), or flawed argument (like "bible tells the sky is blue, which means the bible always tells the truth"). Science can be broken down into simple experements that can be used to demonstrate the truth. Any programming problem can be broken down into small elements, where each element can be explained, and its underlying principles can be illustrated. Yet with religion people prefer using verbal trickery to fool their opponent instead. Doesn't look right to me. "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it".

Anyway, I'm not really interested in your replies (unless they will provide extra brain excercise, which most likely won't happen), but I'd advise to think about those problems for yourself - IMO, it is a very sad thing when a person blindly believes in something without ever asking himself "is this actually true? WHY is it supposed to be true?". You have a brain. By not questioning your beliefs you refuse to use it, which looks like a waste to me.

@bluegospel
If you want to know where the philosophical world is at with the problem of evil, in summary, look here.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evil/

You'll understand a little more where I, and I think Sigterm, are coming from regarding that problem.

Originally Posted by reed9 @bluegospel If you want to know where the philosophical world is at with the problem of evil, in summary, look here. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evil/ You'll understand a little more where I, and I think Sigterm, are coming from regarding that problem.

One thing...(Although you're surely aware of it, but just in case)

makes it unreasonable for anyone to believe in the existence of God.

As far as I know, the "problem of evil" doesn't work against "evil" god, "non-benevolent" god or "uncaring" god. It can be used against christian god, but wouldn't work against devil or lovecraftian elder gods, for example. So it can't be used against existence of god in general, just against "just, loving, omnipotent and omniscient" deities.

Originally Posted by SigTerm One thing...(Although you're surely aware of it, but just in case) As far as I know, the "problem of evil" doesn't work against "evil" god, "non-benevolent" god or "uncaring" god. It can be used against christian god, but wouldn't work against devil or lovecraftian elder gods, for example. So it can't be used against existence of god in general, just against "just, loving, omnipotent and omniscient" deities.

Yes. That is covered in the piece.

The term “God” is used with a wide variety of different meanings. These tend to fall, however, into two main groups. On the one hand, there are metaphysical interpretations of the term: God is a prime mover, or a first cause, or a necessary being that has its necessity of itself, or the ground of being, or a being whose essence is identical with its existence. Or God is not one being among other beings — even a supremely great being — but, instead, being itself. Or God is an ultimate reality to which no concepts truly apply. On the other hand, there are interpretations that connect up in a clear and relatively straightforward way with religious attitudes, such as those of worship, and with very important human desires, such as the desire that, at least in the end, good will triumph, and justice be done, and the desire that the world not be one where death marks the end of the individual's existence, and where, ultimately, all conscious existence has ceased to be. What properties must something have if it is to be an appropriate object of worship, and if it is to provide reason for thinking that there is a reasonable chance that the fundamental human hopes just mentioned will be fulfilled? A natural answer is that God must be a person, and who, at the very least, is very powerful, very knowledgeable, and morally very good. But if such a being exists, then it seems initially puzzling why various evils exist. For many of the very undesirable states of affairs that the world contains are such as could be eliminated, or prevented, by a being who was only moderately powerful, while, given that humans are aware of such evils, a being only as knowledgeable as humans would be aware of their existence. Finally, even a moderately good human being, given the power to do so, would eliminate those evils. Why, then, do such undesirable states of affairs exist, if there is a being who is very powerful, very knowledgeable, and very good?

My emphasis. The uncaring or evil sort of god would not, I hope, be considered an appropriate object of worship. Of course, it has also been my point that God, as described primarily in the old testament, is not good and not an appropriate object of worship, that even should that god exist, we ought to be morally compelled to oppose it.

Offhand I'd say that Bluegospel has run out of evasions and run away.

What this thread needs is a good open-source Jesuit. The Pope's marines are renowned for their intellectual rigor.

Harold Camping nor anyone can't predict the exact date of the Lord's second coming. All they can do is make guesses based on world events and etc.

In the King James bible, there is reference to the Lord's second coming.

But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only