[quote]THE_CLAMP_DOWN wrote:
Faith vs Reason arguments do not work.[/quote]
That’s because they do not necessarily oppose each other…
We’ve had way to many of these threads…I can’t see any good coming from yet another one. People believe what they believe and those who can’t back their shit up, mock.
I am out…At least for now. I am tired of religion threads.
Well, I will take these posts as a “no.” I just figured maybe we could have actual discussions about beliefs on religion, but I guess even the ones that post the most in religious threads don’t really want to discuss anything just argue.
I just think it’s a shame every religious “discussion” just becomes “God is the only way” vs. “religion is a fantasy.” Never any references or sources to back up anything that either side believs.
And by the way, I’m not just taking sides with believers because I’m a believer. Too often believers tell people to “open their minds” and “believe in the truth” yet don’t offer any real reason to do so. When I was a non believer quoting the Bible didn’t mean a hill of beans. Find other evidence.
Non believers can be dogmatic too. Almost everyone, believers included, take evolution as the truth yet even those who argue the most for it never bother to look up information on either side of the debate. Know what you believe and why and no what your advesaries believe and why. Otherwise you are all right, debate just becomes argument.
I do not think there is any way to have the debate as you wish , there is no plce to go for definative proof that God does exsist, You can not use the Bible because if I do not believe in God , why should I believe in the bible. Religeon is opinion .
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]THE_CLAMP_DOWN wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]THE_CLAMP_DOWN wrote:
Faith vs Reason arguments do not work.[/quote]
There is Faith in all arguments about Reason.[/quote]
Some reason my edit never went through.
What I meant was : Faith in Faith vs Faith in Reason arguments
So you are right.[/quote]
Any type of Reason has basic assumptions in its foundations. And basic assumptions always involve faith. It’s inescapable.[/quote]
This is very true, but there are different forms of faith in practice. Science should be practiced with the notion that our current beliefs are open to being transcended and proving false. Whereas, religious faith assumes full transcendence and revelation prior to belief, hence they are not subject to falsifiability.
Most religions admit further revelations, but this does not negate the previously held beliefs. This generally isn’t the case for the sciences. With that said, I have met plenty of scientists who are violently zealous about their personal, little articles of belief.
To the OP, is there any way you could change the title to “Anyone Interested in a Seriously Awkward Discussion?”
[quote]BBriere wrote:
Well, I will take these posts as a “no.” I just figured maybe we could have actual discussions about beliefs on religion, but I guess even the ones that post the most in religious threads don’t really want to discuss anything just argue.
I just think it’s a shame every religious “discussion” just becomes “God is the only way” vs. “religion is a fantasy.” Never any references or sources to back up anything that either side believs.[/quote]
I actually do enjoy religious discussions. Even amongst the 'fuck you’s there is still good material and there are quite few knowledgeable folks around here, but I am burnt out on it is my problem. I myself have typed enough to fill up a book on the matter. It’s been hit pretty hard. I just need a break and I will come back to it.
It’s not about not wanting a good religious discussion, I just need some recovery time.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I do not think there is any way to have the debate as you wish , there is no plce to go for definative proof that God does exsist, You can not use the Bible because if I do not believe in God , why should I believe in the bible. Religeon is opinion . [/quote]
I agree about the Bible, but there are other sources that help verify the truth to what is in the Bible. Unfortunately, too many Christians just say “the Bible says…”
This is what caused me as an unbeliever to actually research what you could believe from the Bible. I’ve just seen enough arguments on here become God is real vs. No he isn’t. Congratulations, you both lost. I want people to prove whatever they claim on either side.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]BBriere wrote:
Well, I will take these posts as a “no.” I just figured maybe we could have actual discussions about beliefs on religion, but I guess even the ones that post the most in religious threads don’t really want to discuss anything just argue.
I just think it’s a shame every religious “discussion” just becomes “God is the only way” vs. “religion is a fantasy.” Never any references or sources to back up anything that either side believs.[/quote]
I actually do enjoy religious discussions. Even amongst the 'fuck you’s there is still good material and there are quite few knowledgeable folks around here, but I am burnt out on it is my problem. I myself have typed enough to fill up a book on the matter. It’s been hit pretty hard. I just need a break and I will come back to it.
It’s not about not wanting a good religious discussion, I just need some recovery time.[/quote]
I understand perfectly. I’ve enjoyed discussing matters with you in the past, but I took a few months off from posting myself for the same reasons. Best of wishes and hope to hear from you again soon.
I tend to agree with everyone else. The one thing I find interesting here though is that it seems like people’s definition for what is acceptable argument support is empirical evidence. Pittbull said “religion is opinion” and “there’s no way to have definitive proof for God”. Forlife mentioned something about faith being the belief in something without hard proof it is actually true.
I don’t understand these types of posts because quite frankly any sort of requirement for ‘hard proof’ prior to believing the tiniest thing is tantamount to being one of the extreme philosophical reductionists that refuses to believe in anything they can’t see—ie. “The back of my computer does not exist until I observe it”.
It’s true that so called ‘hard proof’ in the scientific sense is not forthcoming when discussing religion or theism in general, but why is that the only support worth passing the “rationality test”?
In other words, why is that the only standard to which people will adhere when assessing the rationality of a statement? If that were prerequisite then very little of what we actually do, say, or perceive about the world could be considered rational.
What about inductive reasoning, etc? It’s true such reasoning doesn’t offer certainty of empirical ‘hard evidence’ or deductive logic. But when you think about it, certainty is really not that forthcoming in the world anyways. We crave it because of its simplicity, not because of its superiority.
It’s not any less rational. Just less comforting and much less simple.
[quote]BBriere wrote:
Non believers can be dogmatic too. Almost everyone, believers included, take evolution as the truth yet even those who argue the most for it never bother to look up information on either side of the debate.[/quote]
Because the other side tried to push fantasy as the alternative. No serious scientist has been able to find an alternative to evolution, and the so called conflict in the field is over minor mechanics.
I’ve always wondered where it says in the bible that evolution couldn’t possibly be the methodology that God used to create modern man and the other life on this planet. I mean… can you really take everything in genesis word for word literally?
Divinely inspired or not, how would people born before Jesus know how to describe the precise mechanisms that God used to make all the creatures on Earth?
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
I’ve always wondered where it says in the bible that evolution couldn’t possibly be the methodology that God used to create modern man and the other life on this planet. I mean… can you really take everything in genesis word for word literally?
Divinely inspired or not, how would people born before Jesus know how to describe the precise mechanisms that God used to make all the creatures on Earth?[/quote]
The issue they have is that once you start questioning one part of the Bible, you inevitably question the other parts. Why evolution gets under their skin so badly is simply for the fact that it refutes the literal interpretation of the opening passages of their Mother Goose rip off.
It’s not even questioning the bible, it’s just questioning the interpretation of the bible. That has more to do with questioning the authority of whatever sect of Christianity a Christian believes than it does the actual religion of Christianity.
^
Wow, I’ve never heard like that before. Now I understand.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
I’ve always wondered where it says in the bible that evolution couldn’t possibly be the methodology that God used to create modern man and the other life on this planet. I mean… can you really take everything in genesis word for word literally?
Divinely inspired or not, how would people born before Jesus know how to describe the precise mechanisms that God used to make all the creatures on Earth?[/quote]
The issue they have is that once you start questioning one part of the Bible, you inevitably question the other parts. Why evolution gets under their skin so badly is simply for the fact that it refutes the literal interpretation of the opening passages of their Mother Goose rip off.[/quote]
Aren’t your parents Hindu, or something? Do I have you mixed up with someone else?
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[…]
No, actually the main reason evolution is inconsistent with any valid interpretation of Scripture is evolution is a story of death. Lots of death. For millions of years. The Scripture from Genesis to Revelation unquestionably teaches that death is a direct result of man’s sin.
If man’s sin and its consequence of death is a myth then the story of redemption, THE theme of the Bible, is worthless. Completely worthless. And people like you are then justified in your insolent chortling.[/quote]
You raise an interesting point: it was indeed the concept of sin that I resented early on within christianity (see my post above). And yes, upon rejecting it I started unraveling my belief as a consequence.
It wasn’t indeed a scientifically led conversion (I never really had a problem balancing knowledge and belief - my family are scientists and christians) - it was belief led, and from that very point. Well spotted.
Makkun
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
I’ve always wondered where it says in the bible that evolution couldn’t possibly be the methodology that God used to create modern man and the other life on this planet. I mean… can you really take everything in genesis word for word literally?
Divinely inspired or not, how would people born before Jesus know how to describe the precise mechanisms that God used to make all the creatures on Earth?[/quote]
The issue they have is that once you start questioning one part of the Bible, you inevitably question the other parts. Why evolution gets under their skin so badly is simply for the fact that it refutes the literal interpretation of the opening passages of their Mother Goose rip off.[/quote]
Aren’t your parents Hindu, or something? Do I have you mixed up with someone else?[/quote]
Not seeing your point.