I love Jesus!
- Thread starter Cheruhbim
- Start date
Falkor
Twink Info Legend
you dont have faith in science. science uses trial and error to find out basic truths that dont require faith, and math has proofs that prooves things.....when i drive under bridges i dont have faith that it will stay up. i know the engineers made a bridge that would hold up b/c they understand our natural laws and how to build using them
faith is blindly believing things that you rationally dont even believe in. religion is contingent on faith, science is not.
faith is blindly believing things that you rationally dont even believe in. religion is contingent on faith, science is not.
Druiddroid
OG
there's a degree of faith to everything, but some things are known through knowledge and don't require much faith, like mathematical equations. they make sense. there are reason to believe that there are applications with mathematics.
pascal's wager is the most absurd argument, and it's basically what you're giving. bla bla there's a chance because you don't know everything. yeah well i don't know if there's an eternal drunk party hosted by st. patrick that you can only go to if you believe in leprauchan's existence. it's not antagonistic to say that, it's just that i'm saying both things require the same amount of faith. if i thought there was even a sliver of knowledge that pointed me towards a god that only sends you to heaven if you believe and to hell if you don't, then i would believe in it.
Druiddroid
OG
in terms of purely philosophical thought, there is a degree of faith you have in the bridge falling down, but you have a 99.999% chance of knowing it won't, so it's easy to believe it won't fall
Inkobah
OG
You might want to ask those people from MN a few years back about their faith in regards to bridges falling (remember the story about the bridge collapsing in MN?). I'm sure they would tell you that it sure takes some faith to cross a bridge (or to go under it). The human factor in any architecture alone requires faith, because human-kind is fallible. And that's certainly making the assumption that science is infallible (which historically, it has proven otherwise).
Your definition of faith is a little different than how I would put it as well. You assume that faith and rational thought can't both exist. I'd argue that they can co-exist and that any legit faith requires some rationale to it. Certainly faith is not certainty...there is a trust factor. But how long must human-kind claim they understand everything in the universe? Because historically it follows a pattern: someone comes up with an explanation on the universe, life, and everything, it gets de-bunked, and then a new claim happens, rinse and repeat. Meanwhile, historically everyone jumps on the bandwagon placing their faith (yes, faith) in the human mind and it's ability to understand all.
Now I know that science is at its best these days, but every other time period thought the same thing. We put an awful lot of faith in the fact that science is infallible, which is my point. If we can't be infallible then our science can't either.
First, you're not being antagonistic by saying that. You can believe in the eternal drunken party if you want. But to make the claim that Jesus is the same thing as a leprechaun is a far stretch.
Historically, we know there was a Jewish rabbi (or teacher) named Jesus walking around in Palestine during the same period of the Christian Jesus. There were a few dozen or so that made the claim that this Jesus rose from the dead and that they saw him with their own eyes. Of these few dozen there's a handful of them that we know historically that were martyred for their faith in this Jesus. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't be interested in dying for a claim I wasn't absolutely certain in. As far as I know there's no leprechauns in history (no, little people don't count and yes I saw that South Park - it was good, but fictional), but if I'm wrong I'll gladly reconsider my argument. And I wouldn't die for the argument ever that leprechauns exist. We do know that historically there was a St. Patrick, however, and it's worth noting that he was a Christian...not a drunken leprechaun throwing eternal parties.
Your assertion that you wouldn't like to believe in a God that sends some to heaven and others to hell is a valid one. One I've wrestled with myself. There's a lot of discussion about that topic in Christian circles and some are even saying there is no hell. The Bible is interesting because it uses several words that translate to hell and you actually find no mention of any of those words until the prophets in the Old Testament (meaning it's not mentioned in the first 1000 years + in the Bible's history). What those words (in Hebrew and Greek) actually mean is what's being discussed mainly. For me personally, I define hell as simply being separated forever from God. When God sends people there he's not so much punishing people, but just giving them what they wanted: to have nothing to do with God. I think the Bible's description of being separated from God forever (hell) is poetic, but is basically communicating that "you don't want to be separated from God forever...it's not a fun thing." As for heaven, I personally don't believe in a rapture to heaven. I think when God decides it's time he's bringing heaven here and fixing our messes with things. Rapture theology is actually only about 200 years old...and in my opinion a bad theology.
Finally, I can say that a big reason why I can't deny God is that I've experienced him at work in my own life. I could bore you with the story but it's already TLDR. If you really want to know I'm glad to tell you through PM, however.
-Ink
P.S. Thanks for the stimulating discussion, Druid, Falkor, and others.
Turtlez
Legend
not that im trying to bash chritianity or anything but i've been wondering about this for some time and would be cool if anyone had an answer from the bible explaining it:
If we all originates from adam and eve, and their children, Cain and Abel, were boys.. who did they hook up with to make the next generation?
If we all originates from adam and eve, and their children, Cain and Abel, were boys.. who did they hook up with to make the next generation?
Druiddroid
OG
I would love to, but i see no reason for one to exist[/font]
ideas work in people's lives. ideas influence your actions. you act and think through the idea of a Christian God. god exists the same way that nietzsche's ideas exist within me (backdrop - went to catholic school, didn't find anything motivating, then nietzsche changed my life). sometimes i like to pretend that nietzsche is talking to me, "do it! do it!", even though i know that's just the ideas giving me motivation
we don't put faith that science is infalliable, science is always changing and discovering where we are wrong or right about our predictions of what happens when "X". it shows us a way of understanding persistent results to a specific situation.
tldr: in soviet russia, god creates humans
Druiddroid
OG
Eve ?
Turtlez
Legend
Druiddroid
OG
http://troll.me/images/redneck-randal/redneck-randal.jpg
Ink, you seem fine with this discussion. Since you of all people are happy with it then I am happy with it for the time being. If this topic turns into anything offensive then it will close.
Anywho, on with my argument.
Despite being strongly atheist and not believing for similar reasons to falk0r, my biggest problem with deities is how they often seem to have very poor judgement, despite being omnipotent and all wise. For instance; heaven and hell is a very poor incentive system. Any good designer of similar things will tell you so - if I, as the admin of TI, said to the community that if you are well behaved then you can remain (heaven) but are badly behaved then you will be perma banned (hell) with no middle ground and no definition of where the line between the two is you would think me incompetent, especially if I only reviewed you when you reached say 1000 posts (i.e. death). This is quite well portrayed in the film The Invention Of Lying.
Other cases include the gross inefficiencies of life: Why must we waste energy on exercise to stay fit? Why do deciduous trees exist when evergreens are capable of not wasting resources on shedding and regrowing leaves? Why are all the heavy metals that are vital to technology located at the earth's core? (they sunk there through planet formation and rectifying this through bombardment of the planet with asteroids seems a very inelegant solution, especially for an omnipotent being with millions of years between the metals sinking and the human race being in need of them). Why do we rely on fossil fuels when he could have simply designed life so that capture of sunlight was more efficient? etc. etc.
Next, beyond the issues I have with design I have to call into account the morality and reasoning behind of his decisions. The case study I have is Issac and the burning bush (i think this is the one, my knowledge of the bible is lacking). Requiring a follower to murder his own child without reason seems like something more likely to be found in a Saw film than a text of a kind and loving deity. If the president asked that of you and then stopped you before you actually completed the deed then you would label him as a sadist. There are substantially better ways to prove faith than this such as requiring a non permanent sacrifice (e.g. monetary) if a person did not have faith and was asked to give up some luxury to prove it then he would almost certainly decline. Next, the unwillingness of the deity to prove himself to his followers seems ludicrous to me. Blind faith spawns splinter factions and will ultimately cause some, maybe the majority, of the faithful to actually be worshipping you incorrectly. If I was Allah then I would most certainly not accept al-Queda. Blind faith is also illogical. Why would a deity need or want his followers to blindly believe? I cannot think of a logical reason, the logical conclusion of this requirement is to lead to logical thinkers like darwin to question you and perhaps lose that faith.
My bottom line is that god cannot be as wise, powerful or all knowing as he is claimed to be because I am confident I would make a substantially better deity than he does. Since life is so extremely complex I find it impossible to believe that anything less intelligent than me or even of an inhuman level of IQ would be able to design life, so I do not have any faith, I completely rely on what science can prove. On top of this I am rational before anything else and the other inconsistencies with the logic of what I would define as faith are unreasonable, irrational and unacceptable to me
Edit: also I consider science to be infallible. The understanding of it by individuals might be flawed and entropy often works against its application, resulting in bridges failing, but the scientific reasoning behind those events happening is sound.
Anywho, on with my argument.
Despite being strongly atheist and not believing for similar reasons to falk0r, my biggest problem with deities is how they often seem to have very poor judgement, despite being omnipotent and all wise. For instance; heaven and hell is a very poor incentive system. Any good designer of similar things will tell you so - if I, as the admin of TI, said to the community that if you are well behaved then you can remain (heaven) but are badly behaved then you will be perma banned (hell) with no middle ground and no definition of where the line between the two is you would think me incompetent, especially if I only reviewed you when you reached say 1000 posts (i.e. death). This is quite well portrayed in the film The Invention Of Lying.
Other cases include the gross inefficiencies of life: Why must we waste energy on exercise to stay fit? Why do deciduous trees exist when evergreens are capable of not wasting resources on shedding and regrowing leaves? Why are all the heavy metals that are vital to technology located at the earth's core? (they sunk there through planet formation and rectifying this through bombardment of the planet with asteroids seems a very inelegant solution, especially for an omnipotent being with millions of years between the metals sinking and the human race being in need of them). Why do we rely on fossil fuels when he could have simply designed life so that capture of sunlight was more efficient? etc. etc.
Next, beyond the issues I have with design I have to call into account the morality and reasoning behind of his decisions. The case study I have is Issac and the burning bush (i think this is the one, my knowledge of the bible is lacking). Requiring a follower to murder his own child without reason seems like something more likely to be found in a Saw film than a text of a kind and loving deity. If the president asked that of you and then stopped you before you actually completed the deed then you would label him as a sadist. There are substantially better ways to prove faith than this such as requiring a non permanent sacrifice (e.g. monetary) if a person did not have faith and was asked to give up some luxury to prove it then he would almost certainly decline. Next, the unwillingness of the deity to prove himself to his followers seems ludicrous to me. Blind faith spawns splinter factions and will ultimately cause some, maybe the majority, of the faithful to actually be worshipping you incorrectly. If I was Allah then I would most certainly not accept al-Queda. Blind faith is also illogical. Why would a deity need or want his followers to blindly believe? I cannot think of a logical reason, the logical conclusion of this requirement is to lead to logical thinkers like darwin to question you and perhaps lose that faith.
My bottom line is that god cannot be as wise, powerful or all knowing as he is claimed to be because I am confident I would make a substantially better deity than he does. Since life is so extremely complex I find it impossible to believe that anything less intelligent than me or even of an inhuman level of IQ would be able to design life, so I do not have any faith, I completely rely on what science can prove. On top of this I am rational before anything else and the other inconsistencies with the logic of what I would define as faith are unreasonable, irrational and unacceptable to me
Edit: also I consider science to be infallible. The understanding of it by individuals might be flawed and entropy often works against its application, resulting in bridges failing, but the scientific reasoning behind those events happening is sound.
Falkor
Twink Info Legend
that is just such a horrible example. of course bridges break down and will collapse over time, that has nothing to do with faith. it has to do with agencies not funding for proper upkeep...with proper maintaince nothing would have happened
architecture requires no faith. zero. it requires precise measurements and equations and modeling. you dont pray a building stands up, you take the proper steps to ensure it. and do some buildings fall down? yes...but then you look back and examine the cause and its shoddy engineering, construction, maintaince, heck maybe even a terrorist attack....that is the human element, not the pure science and math and natural laws, its humans failing
why would science be infallable? did the christians beat into you that people think science is infallable therefore its bad? anyone who knows anything about science knows its very fallible - and thats its stregth! you figure things out through peer reviewed and documented trial and error. you need the mistakes to succeed. you need people challenging your hypothesises so you can disprove them and strengthen your theory, or fail to and come to see new light. so dont say science is infallable like its a bad thing
as long as you have faith you will never be fully rational. youll always be partially blind, and in moments when you need reasoning the most, you'll fall prostrate and pray to a voice in your head that never answers back...instead of taking action.
when has human-kind, in recent history at the very least, ever claimed that we know everything in the universe. we claim we dont know everything in the universe, which is what makes people in those fields yearn to experiment in discover (*note, claiming not to know everything in the universe does actually not give religious loons an argument that "well then how do you know theres no creater)
thats science, bud. you come up with a hypothesis, you test it...you get it peer reviewed and they report back either supporting it or showing how its refuted. thats a good thing. you act like one person should just be able to come up with a comprehensive LAW explaining all life, including its orgins and purpose. that likely will never happen. but en route to that, there are going to be people (read: educated scientists) theorizing about life....and most of them are going to be wrong. thats good, they needed to be debunked, to help find the truth. but now people can take pieces of their work that were correct, or did make sense, and try to fit them into another model, and that one will probably get refuted, but then again people try more models trying to explain their theory about life...and after all that trial and error we might get something, or not. but its a hell of a lot better than putting FAITH into someone that claims theyre right and they have the ultimate answeres with nobody else testing his theories
which leads back to my thing in part 1 of the response where we discuss the fallibility of science and how thats a good thing. i really dont know who got your panties in a wad by claiming science was infallible, but they clearly touched a nerve...i guess being infallible is just for deities
and the only reason man is fallible is because were social creatures. i might know somebody i know, for a fact, has led a perfect life, totally infallible, beyond reproach. but thats just my opinion of him based of my personal beliefs and morals. you could think the same man is anywhere from close to perfect (but not perfect, b/c thats sacreligious amirite) to a total scumbag. its all in the eye of the beholder
flawed view aside, how does that have any bearing on science. science is a tool, we didnt invent it we just use it. we dont create laws, we discover them. gravity has always been doing its thing, it didnt just pop into existance when we thought of it. therefore our fallibility, or lackthereof, has no bearing on what is real and true.
where as it actually weakens your arguement. because if you truely believe man is fallible (**** thats been overused...moving on), then so is mans greatest creation - religion. religion is solely man made. the doctrine, the canon, the jobs, the acts of humiliation all of it thought by man. ever since the dawn of history you see people making up religions....why? because they realized that to rule over a large mass you have to unite them, have to blind their rational with faith to keep control. have to make an infallible otherworldy creator to blame for floods, fire, and famine instead of taking responsibilty.
religion is not a tool in the sense that science is. it did not exist before man, and it will be gone once the human race is extinct. you dont use it to find truth, you make it up to hide the truth from yourself, for comfort when you cant think of an explination, for hope when youre hurt or sick. etc
oh and its funny that people profit off faith. like huge profits in the case of those rich evangalists and others. i dont need to pay a church to be fed lies just to feel better about myself and to avoid anxiety about the mortality of man...plenty of other ways to accomplish those tasks
Umpteenth
OG
you got a 1 bullet 2 kills achieve on mw3?
Awesome
<The Awesome>
Truer words were never spoken. It's not always a negative thing, though... it gives people faith - even if they find their faith in ignorance and false comfort. The last thing someone who was raised religiously wants to hear is "don't worry, when you die, your consciousness will cease to exist, thus eliminating the longing for earthly pleasures!".
Sad how theology isn't really taken seriously anymore... I think that if the population studied more into this stuff, then people would begin to think for themselves instead of following a magical book that prohibits fun.
Falkor
Twink Info Legend
faith is bad. teach them! get them knowledge! dont let them be blind and stupid and ignorant.....false comfort is terrible comfort, just accept the truth
theology isnt taken seriously because its a joke. if youre only lesson is to give comfort to idiots, then thats a horrible lesson. its all lies
Cloud
X O
That I can agree with.
Although I believe humans are going to stay stupid, ignorant, and unmotivated for a loooong time.