Do you believe?

[TomOfSweden]

I don't believe Christians have historically gone to war because of some inherant flaw in Christian morals. They might be the best guide that exist to live your life by. Who am I to judge? I think the Crusades where more down to politics than religion and is nothing Catholics/Christians today need to feel guilty about. Ethics is an interesting subject and is not my gripe with Christians or religions in general.

My gripe is the claims religious people make on the origins of our world, and the the bits about heaven, hell and angels. The supernatural stuff. When people are not able or willing to back up their claims there's no debate and it quickly turns farcical.

Not being able to prove that god doesn't exist is not the same thing as proving god exists. All you've done is opened up an infinite number of alternatives. It's just a mathematical head-game and is just silly. Nobody would ever even consider it in any other type of discussions. In logic it's known as "Arugment from ignorance". Link

We have so far never seen a shred of evidence to suport any form of supernatural force. Let's for the sake of argument assume there aren't any, until there apears some. Now we've radically changed the whole basis for suicide bombers, willing troops in the Crusades and a whole host of hate crimes. What all religious people need to understand is that by treating scientific evidence as a cute option in life they are giving nurishment to all the fundamentalists in the world. Humans are social creatures. We tend to believe things we are taught instead of thinking for ourselves.

IDC: You're just dead wrong about the dinosaur example. The bones are evidence of something. We know what types of animals create bones of the sort and we can deduce from this that dinosaurs actually did live at one point. Claiming they didn't is just being daft on purpose. We have no evidence any form of supernatural force ever has created anything on earth ever. Any form of energy exchange leaves traces. Considering all the worlds miracles all the time we should be able to at some point register any of these. But it's so far showed nothing. Claiming god covers all these traces up is...nice.... But why would that benevolent force do that? How can any of this make sense to anyone?

Playing head-games of logic just because you desperately want a god to exist is just deluded. There used to be good reason to believe a god existed. But science has progressed. Today we have other more plausible theories that doesn't necesarily involve anything supernatural. Let's move on. I find just laughing at the religous is a lot harder now when skyscrapers go up in smoke on Mahattan.

And there's religious and religious. Einstein was religious. He believed god was that first spark of life that set off the whole evolution and that first little bump that started the big bang. Today, that is a totally plausible explanation. We don't know any better theory. He did however not believe in heaven, interventions by god or any other supernatural force. So it isn't actually religion as such I'm against, only people who today believe in a supernatural entity interveaning on earth...and on top of that have the bad taste to teach it as fact to their children.

There is absolutly no conflict between being a faithful Catholic and being an atheist. You can follow all the moral comandments. Just don't make any claims on the existance of heaven. It might exist, maybe not. Let's just leave it at that and let some scientist mangage to prove it one day. Just don't count on it, like so many suicide bombers are doing. The church can have a major role as suport and help in our world even if we renounce this rediculous claim in the supernatural benevolent force. It doesn't take much to realise that it's the words in the Bible and Koran that help people, and have helped for all these years. Not some mythical god. The words can keep helping us in a secular world.

The miracle with the American footballer wasn't in god, but on his competetive nature. Would he really be happier by living a lie? God can easily be taken out of the equation. I don't believe we need to live in fear of god to behave against each other. It's a bad reason for faith.

My all time favorite quote is from Arthur C Clarke. "Magic is just what we call science we don't understand", I know the quote isn't exact, but it catches the essance of it.

edit: Denying that science is the best model for explaning how the world works is just plain stupid. Science is today in direct conflict with all of the major organised religions, (except Budhism). Science isn't optional.

[cariad]

My gripe is the claims religious people make on the origins of our world, and the the bits about heaven, hell and angels. The supernatural stuff. When people are not able or willing to back up their claims there's no debate and it quickly turns farcical.

It is supernatural stuff, you are quite right. And to accept any degree of 'proof' you have to be prepared to the supernatural. It is a circular argument I know - but not farcical, unless you choose to view it that way. I suspect that if you were given such a proof your response would be either, that is nonsense since you are quoting the supernatural to prove the supernatural or that you agree you don't understand the proof, but since the supernatural does not exist, in your mind, it is merely a case of science not having developed enough to give a natural explanation.

We have so far never seen a shred of evidence to suport any form of supernatural force. Let's for the sake of argument assume there aren't any, until there apears some.

In other words, I am right unless you can prove that I am wrong... Is that not what you accuse 'religious' people of saying?

What all religious people need to understand is that by treating scientific evidence as a cute option in life they are giving nurishment to all the fundamentalists in the world.

I strongly object to the statement that religious people treat scientific evidence as a cute option. It is incorrect and potentially offensive.

Playing head-games of logic just because you desperately want a god to exist is just deluded. There used to be good reason to believe a god existed. But science has progressed. Today we have other more plausible theories that doesn't necesarily involve anything supernatural.

Smiles - I loved Tom! Follow your own logic.

1. There used to be good reason to believe a god existed. (Will not dispute this)
2. Science has progressed (Agreed - and it has not answered any of the fundamental questions which gave rise to why people believed a god existed.)
3. Today we have more plausible theories... (These are only theories, by definition there is no proof of them...dare I suggest you are playing head games here?)

Einstein was religious. He believed god was that first spark of life that set off the whole evolution and that first little bump that started the big bang. Today, that is a totally plausible explanation. We don't know any better theory.

I can go along with that.

He did however not believe in heaven, interventions by god or any other supernatural force. So it isn't actually religion as such I'm against, only people who today believe in a supernatural entity interveaning on earth...and on top of that have the bad taste to teach it as fact to their children.

I may be wrong here, in which case please forgive me, but I suspect you would guide your children to not believe in the supernatural since there is no scientific proof of it. As someone who does believe in the supernatural, although I would call it spiritual, I find such guidance equally misguided. Children are intelligent beings, they should be presented with the facts - i.e. this is my experience, this is why I believe it, other people say etc - and then left to discover the world for themselves.

Just in case you have not already guessed I do believe in spiritual entities which are alive and very active on earth. I am sorry you are against me because of that belief.

There is absolutly no conflict between being a faithful Catholic and being an atheist. You can follow all the moral comandments. Just don't make any claims on the existance of heaven. It might exist, maybe not. Let's just leave it at that and let some scientist mangage to prove it one day. Just don't count on it, like so many suicide bombers are doing. The church can have a major role as suport and help in our world even if we renounce this rediculous claim in the supernatural benevolent force. It doesn't take much to realise that it's the words in the Bible and Koran that help people, and have helped for all these years. Not some mythical god. The words can keep helping us in a secular world.

Why should everything left be scientists?

I agree the words in the Bible and the Koran and other spiritual books can help society - but that rather misses the point about faith. Christianity, which is my faith, and the one I know most about it, is primarily about having a relationship with God, not about following a code of conduct.

edit: Denying that science is the best model for explaning how the world works is just plain stupid. Science is today in direct conflict with all of the major organised religions, (except Budhism). Science isn't optional.

Science is not optional I agree. But you imply that it is the only discipline which should be used to explain the world works. Why?

cariad

[TomOfSweden]

It is supernatural stuff, you are quite right. And to accept any degree of 'proof' you have to be prepared to the supernatural. It is a circular argument I know - but not farcical, unless you choose to view it that way. I suspect that if you were given such a proof your response would be either, that is nonsense since you are quoting the supernatural to prove the supernatural or that you agree you don't understand the proof, but since the supernatural does not exist, in your mind, it is merely a case of science not having developed enough to give a natural explanation.

Now you're actually making assumptions that are a bit insulting. If any supernatural force would become proven as true I would accept it in minutes. I believe in science. The thing is that this has in a way happened over and over again in the world. Gravity is a prime example. It was seen as a supernatural force until Einstein came up with relativity, explaning how it could work without needing god.

Just to be perfectly clear on this, I am prepared to believe in the supernatural. I did have religious beliefs when I was young. I know perfectly well what it entails. It passed.

In other words, I am right unless you can prove that I am wrong... Is that not what you accuse 'religious' people of saying?

Except that I didn't make any claims. I used the word assumption. I only introduced another explanation that has equal merit than the supernatural method. Not equal merit as far as proof is concearned, only in a purely mathematical sense.

I strongly object to the statement that religious people treat scientific evidence as a cute option. It is incorrect and potentially offensive.

ok, sorry. I'll rephrase that. Religious people who believe in anything supernatural treat scientific evidence as a cute option.

Smiles - I loved Tom! Follow your own logic.

1. There used to be good reason to believe a god existed. (Will not dispute this)
2. Science has progressed (Agreed - and it has not answered any of the fundamental questions which gave rise to why people believed a god existed.)
3. Today we have more plausible theories... (These are only theories, by definition there is no proof of them...dare I suggest you are playing head games here?)

In many cases all we have is theories but a theory isn't the same thing as an unsubstaintiated guess. Gravity is only a theory. But good luck explaining it in any better way than Einstein did. Theories can be better or worse than other theories. It's not head games. Mathematics and predicate logic can be used to prove things. Without a doubt...or until new better evidence comes along for a new better theory.

Why don't you just ask yourself why you believe god exists? That should quickly answer why people seem to need answers to the "fundamental questions". I agree that science doesn't answer them but chances are pretty good that neither does religion. The creationism myth is as much an unsubstantiated guess as a theory. Not only are there other better theories against it but also masses of physical evidence.

I may be wrong here, in which case please forgive me, but I suspect you would guide your children to not believe in the supernatural since there is no scientific proof of it. As someone who does believe in the supernatural, although I would call it spiritual, I find such guidance equally misguided. Children are intelligent beings, they should be presented with the facts - i.e. this is my experience, this is why I believe it, other people say etc - and then left to discover the world for themselves.

Just in case you have not already guessed I do believe in spiritual entities which are alive and very active on earth. I am sorry you are against me because of that belief.

If what you say is true then you display what I would define as good parenting. I have no problems with you telling your children what you believe, only that you don't tell them that it's the only truth.

There's been plenty of research into childrens intelligence and I do think it's valid to say that they are more gullible than adults, (for various reasons), so I do think it's criminal to fill their heads up with undeniable truths.

Why should everything left be scientists?

I think it's better to leave the cutting edge research to the people with the training for it, and then just read their research. I have a degree in formal and symbolic logic. I am better at breaking down problems logicaly than people with no training, (try me he he he). I trust that physisists are better than me at physics and so forth. It's not that everything should be left to scientists but let's not ignore people who probably are better at understanding complicated concepts than we are. Quantum physics requires a degree in maths just to grasp it's basic concepts. That doesn't retract from it's merits at all.

Seeing a only theologically taught priest argue with a scientist about evolution just makes me sad. The priest has no training in it. His arguments are always, (compared to the scientists) stupid, but this keeps going on over and over again.

I agree the words in the Bible and the Koran and other spiritual books can help society - but that rather misses the point about faith. Christianity, which is my faith, and the one I know most about it, is primarily about having a relationship with God, not about following a code of conduct.

Let's pretend that your relationship is really only about you talking to yourself. That what you are doing is vocalising your anxieties and problems to yourself to help you cope with them. Suddenly faith has helped you but without the necesity of a mythical god. To reiterate. You don't know god exists at all. Nobody does. You're just guessing.

Religion exists for a reason and I believe it can help people. Let's just leave the supernatural out of it until we can prove it. Love for instance is an all internal process. You don't need anybody to feel loved. It's all in your head. Because of your religion you have the power to feel loved just like that. It's a great power and capacity you have, but it doesn't prove god exists, only the power of religion.

Science is not optional I agree. But you imply that it is the only discipline which should be used to explain the world works. Why?
cariad

It's the best system we have. Before it we had religion, which is another popular method. It's good to use systems to explain the world because it allows research to be transfered between people. There has been a large variety of various research systems, but the one founded by Imhotep has won out over ther rest for a very good reason. It's the best system for finding flaws. Before displaying your theory you need to prove that you did your best to disprove it. It makes it a lot easier to identify bad science and allows us to easily focus on research with valid results.