Popular Stupid Myths Number 1: Religion kills people!

[Rupertvdb]

Elaborate? I mean people often discount creationism before reading any of what its theorists say, i heard one talk forget his name and the arguments run slightly deeper than ignoring the evidence we have.

I would also disagree with your comment that non of it makes sense today because that is rot, nothing more nothing less. The Bible has influenced and will continue to influence practically all English literature ever. Most of the stereotype situations you can care to think of are detailed in the Bible. Parts of the Bible took a lot from Platonic thought and the emalgumation covers an awful lot of everything.

To say it has no relevance today is a joke, it deals with human emotions just as real now as they ever were.

 

[mchammer75040]

Man, maybe later when I have time I can go over the very basic of christian doctrin and information that you seem to not have.

1) Regarding the "Through Jesus" is the only way heaven aspect. Your right but you dont have the theological understanding in what this means. Again this is taking a piece of scripture out of the bible and blowing it out of context.

If I dont have the theological understandings behind it then correct me. It says in the bible you can only be saved through jesus, I dont see how its blowing anything out of proportion when you apply it to everyone on the planet. If Im wrong then argue it, dont just say I am and then back away...

2) You dont have a basic understanding on how Bibles are written and yes we do have original transcrips....

How do I not understand how bibles are written? What part are you exactly arguing against here Im confused.

There is no original copies of any biblical book. All of them have either been lost or destroyed over the centuries. Only discovers like the dead sea scrolls and the Codex Sinaiticus has brought us closer to the original copies of the bible, but all we have are copies of copies of copies. If Im wrong correct me and back it up and Ill gladly admit to being wrong.

The question that hasn't been asked yet is, what constitutes as evidence?

If what happens in the bible was backed up by other sources than I would say that would be evidence. For example, jesus we only have records of him living in the bible, no roman records.

 

[Neutrino]

Lack of evidence does not mean evidence. You should know better than that.

No actually in this context I disagree. Consider someone making the hypothosis that says, "God exists." Now this hypothosis has been around for a few thousand years, in which time no direct evidence has been found to support said hypothosis. Granted, this doesn't disprove it, but it is still makes a stronger argument for God's non-existence than his existence.

Look from my perspective. A frog eventually turning into a dog (through evolution), isn't supernatural? Just because it *apparently* takes longer doesn't mean it isn't supernatural.

What? Sorry, that's just not true at all. Religion is based on the supernatural by definition. Evolution is not. Evolution is a scientific theory based on observed evidence that constantly undergoes testing and change. There is lots of evidence to support evolution. They are not even similar.


Of course none of this will ever get us anywhere, but it seems to me that your trying to make the claim that science and religion are similar. This is just not the case. Science is based on logic and evidence and religion is based on faith and intrepretation.

 

[Rupertvdb]

No actually in this context I disagree. Consider someone making the hypothosis that says, "God exists." Now this hypothosis has been around for a few thousand years, in which time no direct evidence has been found to support said hypothosis. Granted, this doesn't disprove it, but it is still makes a stronger argument for God's non-existence than his existence.

Actually some fairly intelligent people over the years have disagreed with you completely. It doesn't make an arguement at all because Christians belief in Deus ...something.. i thought it was abscondus but that is the abondoning God, i am referring to the distant God or the God that hides himself. Basically we are getting into a free will debate now, suffice to say the lack of direct evidence is no argument against God's existence.

What? Sorry, that's just not true at all. Religion is based on the supernatural by definition. Evolution is not. Evolution is a scientific theory based on observed evidence that constantly undergoes testing and change. There is lots of evidence to support evolution. They are not even similar.

Of course none of this will ever get us anywhere, but it seems to me that your trying to make the claim that science and religion are similar. This is just not the case. Science is based on logic and religion is based on faith.

Again false, there are several emminent scientists who believe in God and think that their faith emboldens their science. To go into obvious examples you can use the Teleological argument, or maybe the cosmological, in fact either. If you want to go for science being based in reason try the ontological argument. There are plenty more but these should be a base for you.

 

[Rupertvdb]

I didn't mean to kill this thread...honest...guys??? *echo*

 

[Neutrino]

Actually some fairly intelligent people over the years have disagreed with you completely. It doesn't make an arguement at all because Christians belief in Deus ...something.. i thought it was abscondus but that is the abondoning God, i am referring to the distant God or the God that hides himself. Basically we are getting into a free will debate now, suffice to say the lack of direct evidence is no argument against God's existence.

I wasn't saying it makes a scientific arguement, I was saying it makes a common sense argument, which I think it does.

Again false, there are several emminent scientists who believe in God and think that their faith emboldens their science. To go into obvious examples you can use the Teleological argument, or maybe the cosmological, in fact either. If you want to go for science being based in reason try the ontological argument. There are plenty more but these should be a base for you.

No I don't see how that makes what I said false. Science is based on the scientific method which is in turn based on logic and evidence. First, the fact that some scientists believe in religion does not change science itself or its methods. Second, while the teleological and ontological arguments are interesting philosophical theories they do not change what I said. For starters they are both highly debated and are essentially thought exercises at best without any evidence to back them up, plus they have little to do with the methods science uses. Furthermore, I was talking about mainstream religion and specifically christianity which does not use logical arguments such as those to support god's existence. It uses faith and an intrepretation of the bible to do so.

So I still stand by my statement that scientific and religious methods are completely different.

To give an example, as an average person, in order to support science all I have to do is go outside and turn on my car. There is no equivalent test for religion.

 

[poseyjmac]

Science is based on logic and evidence and religion is based on faith and intrepretation.

depending on the religion though, that statement might not always be true.

 

[CptStern]

scientology is not a religion, just a tax loophole :E

 

[Neutrino]

depending on the religion though, that statement might not always be true.

Well as I said earlier I was specifically talking about christianity. Sorry I was vague on that point.

However, having said that I'd be interested to know of any religion that is based on anything like the scientific method.

 

[poseyjmac]

me too hehe

 

[Rupertvdb]

I wasn't saying it makes a scientific arguement, I was saying it makes a common sense argument, which I think it does.

I wasn't using a scientific retort, i was using a retort based on common sense, i do not think that your common sense argument does make much sense. Let's take a look at it, you suggest that there being no evidence for God's existence to be supportive of a atheist standing. I would disagree and say that at best you could get an agnostic point of view for one thing.

The atheist ideal is that God is a falsehood, just as you seem to think Christians must prove God's existence the atheist must prove the lack thereof.

Ignoring that the issue at hand. The distant God, as in the God that does not reveal himself is far more in tune with common sense than you suggest. The key concept behind 'God' is that we have free will and so we can benefit through faith because we are making a choice that is unforced and based on personal feelings. If God 'chose' to reveal himself and so we went from having a belief to having a knowledge then free will is rendered impotent and the essence of religion is lost.

No I don't see how that makes what I said false. Science is based on the scientific method which is in turn based on logic and evidence. First, the fact that some scientists believe in religion does not change science itself or its methods. Second, while the teleological and ontological arguments are interesting philosophical theories they do not change what I said. For starters they are both highly debated and are essentially thought exercises at best without any evidence to back them up, plus they have little to do with the methods science uses. Furthermore, I was talking about mainstream religion and specifically christianity which does not use logical arguments such as those to support god's existence. It uses faith and an intrepretation of the bible to do so.

So I still stand by my statement that scientific and religious methods are completely different.

To give an example, as an average person, in order to support science all I have to do is go outside and turn on my car. There is no equivalent test for religion.

Your car analogy is disproved by the philosophy of science. It is an old and redundant example, the concept of induction is not a very advanced one and is full of holes so i would say your version of science is in fact skewed as well.

In fact science may well be based in logic and reason but where the authority of logic and reason comes from escapes me, where is it? Scientific method is a very hotly debated philosophical concept, how can you ever claim knowledge, Plato came up with a tripartheid definition of knowledge which people would possibly agree with, this in itself contains an infinite regress. The claim of science being so totally objectively true is not a simple one. I am holding a book by a man called Chalmer called 'What is this thing called science?' you would do well to read it.

P.S. on the lack of evidence to back them up bit...that is not true, it is simply not conclusive because you need faith. The ontological argument i feel is flawed, but that is because of an infinite regress which as stated earlier plagues a lot more than just religion. The Teleological and Cosmological, two other arguments have evidence but it is open to interpretation.

 

[Rupertvdb]

However, having said that I'd be interested to know of any religion that is based on anything like the scientific method.

Just saw this and would like to re-emphasise, read some philosophy about scientific method, you'll find it less solid an entity than you think.

 

[Phraxtion]

Found this thread late... there are so many questions here and I want to respond. Unfortunetly I dont have the time, but I have a book that I think would be good for both sides of the disagreement.. no its not the bible. Its callled "I dont have enough faith to be an Atheist". Very interesting read if you believe in God or not. Which I proudly do . The first half of the book uses truth, science, reason, logic, etc. showing beyond a reasonable doubt that God exists without speaking any words from the bible.

Before any of you start assuming to much please just give it a read.

 

[Rupertvdb]

Try responding, i did and hopefully people will be able to either take something from what i wrote or even reply, don't be lazy

 

[CptStern]

this is the one truth:

Brian : I am NOT the Messiah!
Arthur : I say you are Lord, and I should know. I've followed a few.


Brian : I'm not the Messiah! Will you please listen? I am not the Messiah, do you understand? Honestly!
Girl: Only the true Messiah denies His divinity.
Brian : What? Well, what sort of chance does that give me? All right! I am the Messiah!
Followers: He is! He is the Messiah!
Brian : Now, fcuk off!
[silence]
Arthur : How shall we fcuk off, O Lord?

 

[Neutrino]

I wasn't using a scientific retort, i was using a retort based on common sense, i do not think that your common sense argument does make much sense. Let's take a look at it, you suggest that there being no evidence for God's existence to be supportive of a atheist standing. I would disagree and say that at best you could get an agnostic point of view for one thing.

I think you somewhat misunderstood my meaning. I agree that it supports an agnostic viewpoint rather than an atheist one. If you look back I didn't say it proves anything, only that, on a common sense level, it is more supportative of one viewpoint than another. And also I am technically agnostic.

Ignoring that the issue at hand. The distant God, as in the God that does not reveal himself is far more in tune with common sense than you suggest. The key concept behind 'God' is that we have free will and so we can benefit through faith because we are making a choice that is unforced and based on personal feelings. If God 'chose' to reveal himself and so we went from having a belief to having a knowledge then free will is rendered impotent and the essence of religion is lost.

That's interesting, but it's all just speculation. It also demonstrates one of the many problems I have with religion. Basically, I see the argument that religion must be accepted on faith to be very convienent. It neatly allows a person to claim it is impossible to question it, as the "essence of religion" would then be lost.

Your car analogy is disproved by the philosophy of science. It is an old and redundant example, the concept of induction is not a very advanced one and is full of holes so i would say your version of science is in fact skewed as well.

Please explain further if you would. I was saying that scientific theories are supported by the fact that they repeatable and demonstratable. I don't see how that is a flawed viewpoint.

In fact science may well be based in logic and reason but where the authority of logic and reason comes from escapes me, where is it? Scientific method is a very hotly debated philosophical concept, how can you ever claim knowledge, Plato came up with a tripartheid definition of knowledge which people would possibly agree with, this in itself contains an infinite regress. The claim of science being so totally objectively true is not a simple one. I am holding a book by a man called Chalmer called 'What is this thing called science?' you would do well to read it.

Where is the authority of logic and reason? Well, when they can be used to create a theory which is in turn tested and verified and later turned into a demonstratable scientific principle I consider that to be pretty authoritative. In everyday life they seem to be a very reasonable way to explain things using cause and effect. Of course you can bring up quantum and meta physics when arguing about the objectivity of science, but that's a whole other argument which isn't even close to being fully understood anyway.

P.S. on the lack of evidence to back them up bit...that is not true, it is simply not conclusive because you need faith. The ontological argument i feel is flawed, but that is because of an infinite regress which as stated earlier plagues a lot more than just religion. The Teleological and Cosmological, two other arguments have evidence but it is open to interpretation.

I don't know of any evidence that directly supports their line of reasoning. Granted the teleological argument uses material evidence in its arguments but it is merely one interpretation of that evidence like you say. I personally think the teleological argument is flawed in that I think it draws faulty conclusions from the data.

 

[Neutrino]

Found this thread late... there are so many questions here and I want to respond. Unfortunetly I dont have the time, but I have a book that I think would be good for both sides of the disagreement.. no its not the bible. Its callled "I dont have enough faith to be an Atheist". Very interesting read if you believe in God or not. Which I proudly do . The first half of the book uses truth, science, reason, logic, etc. showing beyond a reasonable doubt that God exists without speaking any words from the bible.

Before any of you start assuming to much please just give it a read.

I will try to take a look at the book sometime if I can find it around here. However, I highly doubt it proves god's existence beyond a reasonable doubt.

I am curious though, how do you reconcile your effort of trying to prove god's existence with the religious requirement of faith?

 

[mchammer75040]

I will try to take a look at the book sometime if I can find it around here. However, I highly doubt it proves god's existence beyond a reasonable doubt.

Dont waste your time with the book it plays off of the exact same arguments we are arguing over in this very thread. The whole premise of the book is based off the assertion that it takes "more faith" to be an atheist or any non-christian religious denomination than it does to be a christian :rolling:.

EDIT: They try to support this assertion with supposed evidence, but everything can be found on the web so its not worth wasting your time or money over. Its the same arguments that have been dished out for years.

 

[Kadayi]

Yes, but what does the blind man base his faith upon? Because someone says so? I hope not.

You can't prove to a blind man that the colour blue exists, because in his reality it doesn't exist, and there is no way that he can prove to himself with any certainty that it exists. The most you can hope to do is to persuade him that it exists in your reality and for him to accept that notion as a truth. Blue no longer exists as a mere object, it exists as a mental concept shared by you and the blind man.

The question is then, if we remove all the blue from the world, do we remove the concept of blue at the same time? Or does the concept/memory of blue still exist after it's physical disappearance?

 

[Rupertvdb]

I think you somewhat misunderstood my meaning. I agree that it supports an agnostic viewpoint rather than an atheist one. If you look back I didn't say it proves anything, only that, on a common sense level, it is more supportative of one viewpoint than another. And also I am technically agnostic.

cool

That's interesting, but it's all just speculation. It also demonstrates one of the many problems I have with religion. Basically, I see the argument that religion must be accepted on faith to be very convienent. It neatly allows a person to claim it is impossible to question it, as the "essence of religion" would then be lost.

I personally don't agree with Christianity, or at leats strands of it, i am fairly undecided to be fair, however, this argument makes a lot of sense to me despite how undesirable it is. When you take steps to prove something then the black and white standard you impose changed the nature of any argument. I think the choice element of religion is a very important aspect to it. It's obviously going to be hard to swallow if you disagree because no oen likes to admit they 'don't get it'.

Please explain further if you would. I was saying that scientific theories are supported by the fact that they repeatable and demonstratable. I don't see how that is a flawed viewpoint.

Because induction is not a very strong argument, just because you can prove something several times does not mean it is universally true, you could simply be missing something. Think of the premise 'all swans are white' if you find a black swan then this whole system is destroyed. This is falsification, you test theories by trying to make them fail, that is how Popper thought science progressed. Now this was also shown to be inherently flawed but it has some value.

Basically i am saying your scientific method theory is a lot less sturdy than you make out, science shares a lot with religion, a man called Kuhn came up with the concept of Paradigm shifts that introduced sociology to scientific advancement. When you say reason and method you act like the truth always outs, which is not the case at all, there is as much internal bickering and strife as any religion (well maybe not any, but you get the picture)

Where is the authority of logic and reason? Well, when they can be used to create a theory which is in turn tested and verified and later turned into a demonstratable scientific principle I consider that to be pretty authoritative. In everyday life they seem to be a very reasonable way to explain things using cause and effect. Of course you can bring up quantum and meta physics when arguing about the objectivity of science, but that's a whole other argument which isn't even close to being fully understood anyway.

You are talking about a very different scientific method than i am and yours, in all honesty, does not address the point. Religion works in just the same way as science, every day people find religion as practical and helpful, but we are talking about the bigger picture, or at least i thought we were. Yes the lights turn on thanks to science, but yes, religion gives solace and purpose to millions in just as firm a way. The nature of science is what is at stake, or rather in less dramatic terms, being debated.

I don't know of any evidence that directly supports their line of reasoning. Granted the teleological argument uses material evidence in its arguments but it is merely one interpretation of that evidence like you say. I personally think the teleological argument is flawed in that I think it draws faulty conclusions from the data.

that'sup to you, perhaps if you illustrate your problems i could have a go at addressing them but it doesn't matter, it is partially faith based and so i won't convince you.

Anyways, thoughts?

 

[Neutrino]

Anyways, thoughts?

Sorry, I have to leave for a while. I'll be back later and try to respond though.

 

[Rupertvdb]

Nice one dude, any good debate is great to have, i am trying to get my brain back in working order before uni term starts again and although this isn't my course at all it helps to get the cogs working

 

[Rupertvdb]

Must sleep now, i shall dig this debate back up as soon as possible, it's genuinely interesting, night all

 

[Phraxtion]

I will try to take a look at the book sometime if I can find it around here. However, I highly doubt it proves god's existence beyond a reasonable doubt.

I am curious though, how do you reconcile your effort of trying to prove god's existence with the religious requirement of faith?

Faith isnt a question for me. My beliefs are strong and I dont have to prove anything more to myself. Like I said, its an interesting read, give it a chance.

 

[Phraxtion]

Dont waste your time with the book it plays off of the exact same arguments we are arguing over in this very thread. The whole premise of the book is based off the assertion that it takes "more faith" to be an atheist or any non-christian religious denomination than it does to be a christian :rolling:.

EDIT: They try to support this assertion with supposed evidence, but everything can be found on the web so its not worth wasting your time or money over. Its the same arguments that have been dished out for years.

Sigh... have you actually read the book and come to your own conclusion or are you just repeating some review you dug up?

 

[aeroripper]

I hear it all the time:

Religion is bad, becuase people fight wars for it..

Put simply, you're talking bollocks

Ok, people have been killed in the name of religion. But how many people have been killed in the name of Politics? The number skyrockets into the multimillions.

Face it, people find excuses for wars etc, religion has nothing to do with it.

Flame me.

No, religion doesn't kill people

people kill people... I really do hope there is a benevolent god out there because the world is starting to become very, very scary.

I'm scared of the US government

 

[falconwind]

religion doesn't kill people. CHURCHES kill people.

 

[mchammer75040]

Sigh... have you actually read the book and come to your own conclusion or are you just repeating some review you dug up?

My aunt has the book and Ive schemed through only parts, Ill probably check it out again but thats what the impression I got. But Im not giving it the benefit of the doubt from what Ive read its the exact samething thats been said for years. Nothing new..

 

[Phraxtion]

My aunt has the book and Ive schemed through only parts, Ill probably check it out again but thats what the impression I got. But Im not giving it the benefit of the doubt from what Ive read its the exact samething thats been said for years. Nothing new..

Well checking it out was all I was asking people to do to begin with. I dont understand why you would tell someone its not worth their time, if you asked my to read a certain book on evolution and I said no because it thought it would be a complete waste of time I would hear from most of the people here that I was closeminded, ignorant, etc. Again, either way its a very interesting read.

Thanks for giving it another look.

 

[mchammer75040]

I dont understand why you would tell someone its not worth their time

Let me first say I wasnt trying to insult you or anyone else when I made the comment on the book. The reason I think its a waste of money and time is because everything said in the book can be found on the net, there really isnt any new arguments. Anyone familar with these kind of debates will have come in contact with the arguments presented in the book.
Like I said I can even point to this thread, the basis of the book is built on the assertion that it takes more faith to be a atheist than to be a christian. Very similar to what some people are debating now. Alot of the stuff about the NT can be found online at a christian organization Im sure since this is apologetics.

 

[jverne]

Ok, I for one am an agnostic!

My view on this:

Every man (and woman) needs to belive in something. In other words to have faith in something. Then comes a wiseguy which thinks of something interesting that a lot of people pick up like "Be nice to your fellowman and you shall be rewarded in the afterlife"! Every relligion at its core has noble intentions! And when a lot of people are involved into this comes another guy which sees an opportunity to gain something (power, money,...) and then he rearanges the sentence "Give me money and you shall be rewarded in the afterlife"! Those with lots of fathe obviously followed! And thats how relligion is and was exploited!
Well, the crusades were thought up for pure economical reasons (most of them)! Theyre were just a tool in the hands of the higher class!
here if it helps:
http://www.medievalcrusades.com/

The middle east (the poorer parts) are today in the late medieval times, in terms of social development! And another problem is that islam was and is much mor zealously preached than christianity was at its height, and therfore there such problems concerning relligion in te middle east! Wait till they get to an industrial level of social development and when the secularization starts kicking in!

The problem with jews in Europe was theyre wealth and therefore everybody hated them (poorer AND richer people)!

Even politics today is a tool to get ceartin people a ceartin thing!

Conclusion:War is inevitable the tools we use to start them can be countless!


The answer: NO, religion is not the cause for wars there will be always something to start a war! Maybe Bush lost in CS:S against Sadam and thats how we got Iraq! :E