Absolutely sue the religious!!!!!
Seriously. We deserve pure religion, and not some bastard between common sense, psychological manipulation and actual religion.
Religious people aren't built for logical debate.
- Thread starter universaldistress
- Start date
Absolutely sue the religious!!!!!
Seriously. We deserve pure religion, and not some bastard between common sense, psychological manipulation and actual religion.
Infinitely relevant, but mainstream science, accepted as fact science, shouldn't be confused with fringe science -or philosophy- like multiverse theory or somesuch?
Interesting points. But I did cite science in the same list as logic, I didn't say they were necessarily the same thing, though good science is always logical even if it turns out to be flawed. Logical thought is a process of thinking? not truth?
The route of the word is to divide (or categorise) or know.
etymonline.com
But I will go with the pursuit of truth. Don't religions search for the truth, well they were based on said pursuit during their infancy, or is it just about a socially selected, naturally selected, socially evolved form of control? My group's stronger than yours cos we are united etc. Anyway, sorry to move off topic, my point is religion falls within the confines of science, yet it is a branch of science which follows flawed conclusion, fudged evidence etc.
So modern science, despite being the child of religion (as ethics and civilisation are also offspring?) is now the mode of thought to hold religion to account?
Does anyone dig?
A maybe is a maybe. Of course it's a maybe lol
How do you know that this - "religion is a set of "beliefs" reliant on maybes" - is a fact?
How do you know that religion is built on nothing but maybes?
Everyone operates under a belief system.
They have certain core pillars they believe, and everything flows from that.
For some, their core belief is that if science cannot demonstrate it is true with convincing evidence, it is not true. What flows from this, is the belief the supernatural does not exist, only the natural world exists.
We might call this the rationalist approach.
They also believe all things that can be known, can be known with logic, and reasoing based on the first pillar (empirical evidence for all things known).
~ ~ ~ ~
There are two ways to look at suppport for this belief system.
One, is that they take it on faith, that their pillars are true, valid, in harmony with reality.
The other, is some form of circular reasoning, that says "I believe these things are true, because they show themselves to be true."
This second can have many forms, but it is self supporting.
Circular reasonig and self supporting systems are fallacious, and suspect.
All belief systems are fallacious, and suspect, but most especially to those of other belief systems.
~ ~ ~ ~
Those who are religious, accept that some things are known by faith.
This is a core pillar to their belief system, and their logic will be built on this.
Since faith, by definiton, is not rational, it could be said that their logic is not rational.
However, since the rationalist's belief system has a fallacious foundation, it is also irrational, at the ground level.
~ ~ ~ ~
There is a third way of knowing, that is not faith, and not rational.
Some say knowledge can be intuited.
They have certain core pillars they believe, and everything flows from that.
For some, their core belief is that if science cannot demonstrate it is true with convincing evidence, it is not true. What flows from this, is the belief the supernatural does not exist, only the natural world exists.
We might call this the rationalist approach.
They also believe all things that can be known, can be known with logic, and reasoing based on the first pillar (empirical evidence for all things known).
~ ~ ~ ~
There are two ways to look at suppport for this belief system.
One, is that they take it on faith, that their pillars are true, valid, in harmony with reality.
The other, is some form of circular reasoning, that says "I believe these things are true, because they show themselves to be true."
This second can have many forms, but it is self supporting.
Circular reasonig and self supporting systems are fallacious, and suspect.
All belief systems are fallacious, and suspect, but most especially to those of other belief systems.
~ ~ ~ ~
Those who are religious, accept that some things are known by faith.
This is a core pillar to their belief system, and their logic will be built on this.
Since faith, by definiton, is not rational, it could be said that their logic is not rational.
However, since the rationalist's belief system has a fallacious foundation, it is also irrational, at the ground level.
~ ~ ~ ~
There is a third way of knowing, that is not faith, and not rational.
Some say knowledge can be intuited.
My sentiments exactly. Take the current big bang theory of the universe, a classic example of a wrong conclusion enabling a creationist dream come true.
Huh?
What do you mean "not the right conclusion"?
How do you tell it's not right?
Bearing in mind that science tests, retests and tries to show that theories are wrong in order to find a "better" answer.
Maybe God exists, maybe god doesn't?
And you think this is what reliigous people think about God?
I get your point but kind of irrelevant as I was viewing from inside my own head lol.
But if pushed I could concede the point based on looking through their eyes.
But of course I stand by my initial statement also . . .
But of course I stand by my initial statement also . . .
it just makes sense..most all theist agree, God can never be fully known.
what right do they have to limit God?
um..see comment on DYW
that is ideal dyw..reality is not ideal..(see cold fusion hoopla)
but study/observation and analysis can be applied to religion and God.
unfortunately ones own beliefs tend to get in the way of objective reasoning when it comes to God (both sides!)
because maybe is better than should have..?
some say god works through intuition..
and
how many agree that when it comes to the religion forum, it should be assumed that belief in God is valid.
science says examine all sides of the subject matter, but most can't get past their own disbelief to be objective about God.
IOW there should not be ANY 'Prove to me God exists' posts, this is not the objective of the religion forum..IOW if your too busy looking for an answer you know does not exist, you won't hear the answers that do exist..( and you derail the thread)
That was as much politics as anything.
Really?
I agree they can be applied to the belief in god (i.e. the study of those who believe) and religion (as a social system) but what can science study/ observe or analyse about god qua god? How many terms have we had the refrain "God is not susceptible to scientific investigation" on this forum?
As in... give me some objective evidence of god?
Which god?
But the Religion forum is a sub-forum of a science one.
Although I did find it amusing and sad at the same time when I read your comment about you finding freer speech on this forum than on some pro-religion forums you've been on.
Good enough.
Instinctively don't agree with that but open to the discussion.
How can one stipulate that a discussion about religion or religion related topics should force its debaters to assume that belief in god is valid? Too big brother for me
Too true. With this you chastise limiting.
With this you then try to impose limitations. Bit askew?
This thread is most definitely not derailed lol. I am open to 'prove to me god exists'. One has to be open to anyt approach. The truth will out.
How can one stipulate that a discussion about religion or religion related topics should force its debaters to assume that belief in god is valid? Too big brother for me
its not a matter of forceing..its a matter of discussion.
if the debate was on whether God wants everyone to 'join his team' or 'be yourself' (which alot of discussions end up being) it automatically assumes God is a valid construct.
Put another way, I would not go into the science forums and start preaching there,(i really don't think i preach:shrug:..) it would be apreciated if they didn't come here to preach their 'no god' beliefs..
not impose..teach..if we learn how to be more effective,we will get to the understandings better..
all i can ever do is share what i believe, its up to the other person to get any wisdom from it..(IOW I can't make you)
If you don't want religious beliefs questioned by those of scientific bent then I'd suggest you don't post on a science forum, whether it's a "religion" sub-forum or not.
If you want a specific thread to not dispute a specific assumption (e.g. "God exists") then the OP should state this clearly... but to apply that to an entire sub-forum... nah... go to a religious website if you want that.
But bear in mind that the longer a thread goes on, the further it will deviate from the OP.
I'm sure you didn't mean it, but this comes across as highly arrogant.
This is a truism.
Again - comes across as yet more arrogance.
... as though what you're saying is to be taken as truth, and that it is up to the listener / reader to accept it or not.Positions such as these rarely make for constructive dialogue, regardless of forum.
This generates more 'logical' notions such as having a soul in order to transcend death and how Heaven will be, plus the other place and any places in-between.
It then becomes 'logical' to defend this scheme vs. any other variations.
It is also subsequently good if one can verify all this by God speaking to them, or at least He being felt as a sensation within.