The Religion Thread

[silkyman]

Not being funny mate but this has debated for decades, what makes you think you are the one to sum up the disproval of there being a God in under 150 words on a Wednesday night in Macclesfield?

Seems unlikely you would be the one to nail this IMO.

I wasn't the first to come up with that.

 

[silkyman]

could you explain how a lighbulb generates light accurately? about how volcanoes, dead dinosaurs and waves are channeled into light?

Erm. Yes? That's like GCSE level physics. Just because you don't know, doesn't mean no one does.

 

[Jockney]

However we all know 'God ' is a work of fiction and isn't relevant in today's society. It's time we grew up and got rid of outdated nonsense like it.

religious people need to sort there lifes out, imo.

 

[Jockney]

people doing that faith and reason are mutually exclusive thing again.

yes, you are very clever for not believing in god. nothing gets past you. well done.

 

[silkyman]

So it is still a belief formed from words on a page then. And as you say, words that can be changed with new research. So if that's the case, we can't even say these words you believe in are right.

Apologies for having this conversation without Dave-Vale being here but I can't agree with your science disproves religion statement mate when we don't know half of what goes on in the universe, or even on Earth imo.

Just because everyone doesn't know everything, doesn't mean things aren't known. One thing I hate about many pro religious debaters is that they assume their ignorance is universal. ('If evolution is real, where are the half-cow/half fish...' 'What's the use of half an eye')

There has been a lot of science out there and quite a lot of it has gone through the review and tear apart stage and is now recognised as fact. But the fact that the last 2000 years has seen science edited, tested and improved while religion has been 'it's in the fucking book... Shut up' surely shows which is the more likely method to reveal the truth.

 

[silkyman]

people doing that faith and reason are mutually exclusive thing again.

yes, you are very clever for not believing in god. nothing gets past you. well done.

But they are. It's why there has never been a single study showing that homeopathy works. Ask Steve Jobs about alternative therapies.

 

[Jockney]

as an aside, it would be interesting to get former resident god-botherer Max back onto the forums as I am fairly certain that he is the only person to offer a balanced and fresh perspective on this, wot with being a former evangelical christian who once wholly disapproved of homosexuality, only to later come out himself and move away from the church.

 

[Dr Mantis Toboggan]

Erm. Yes? That's like GCSE level physics. Just because you don't know, doesn't mean no one does.

coulomb's law? vector fields? tungsten filament reactions? connecting a few wires ain't understanding, you sanctimonious twat

 

[Jockney]

But they are. It's why there has never been a single study showing that homeopathy works. Ask Steve Jobs about alternative therapies.

some of the most influential scientists of any era were people of faith. many actually were part of the clergy.

as for reason, many of the fundamental principles of western philosphy were expounded upon by god-botherers who were if not always driven then at least informed by their faith. descartes: god botherer and anti-atheist. rousseau, god-botherer. kierkegaard: god-botherer and currently facepalming this thread from beyond the grave.

again, that argument just doesn't stand up. organised religion both hindered and facilitated all sorts of cultural and scientific progression. it's really facile to suggest that we would have reached the so-called age of reason sooner, or more completely, but for the presence of religion. At the very least, religion is a by-product of our curiosity and desire to explore. Directly or indirectly, Christianity influenced the foundation of so much we take for granted in the western world.

 

[Dr Mantis Toboggan]

look at this name dropper

 

[Jockney]

got kierkegaardin' my stacks and jean-paul comin' correct with the other jean-paul. GAULTIER. know wum sayin.

 

[blade1889]

Really not religious in any way shape or form. Brought up by atheist parents but went to a christian school and had a brief spell when I was younger where I did believe...although I'm not entirely sure that wasn't just because Christian Union played fun games and gave out sweets.

And I'm with Silkyman on the peer reviewed scientific material. It does change with new evidence but at the same time is falsifiable. Just because some great religious folk were also religious isn't a reason for religion to be true (if I've understood the debate properly).

My main reason for not believing in religion comes from not finding one yet that will tie in with biology. Specifically around evolution and how long animals have been on this planet for. But also I wholeheartedly disagree with some of the teachings and find it hard to believe in the denouncing of homosexuality for example.

That being said I'm not about to say I dont have to have faith to be an atheist. There are plenty of things we don't understand and never will and to not believe a higher-being caused these things requires faith. The main thing being the starting of the universe. The most common theory being the big bang...but what caused the big bang? Two particles colliding? Well how did those two particles get there? How did time start? Science answers this by saying (apologies for the sloppy paraphrasing here) that before time there was nothing and therefore there has always been time or two particles. But that has never been a satisfactory answer. And at the end of the day whether you chase the big bang theory or religion back to the universes earliest beginnings something is happening out of nothing. A 'higher being' or a particle is appearing out of nothing and that does my head in...regardless of where you put your betting chips it requires some faith.

In my head it makes more sense if time was not a linear continuum but rather a circle of repeating events. Such that the 'end' of this stage results in a crunch and explosion of a new, identical, stage thus there never being a true start or finish and therefore no point at which something came from nothing.

 

[silkyman]

coulomb's law? vector fields? tungsten filament reactions? connecting a few wires ain't understanding, you sanctimonious twat

Erm?

 

[The Paranoid Pineapple]

as an aside, it would be interesting to get former resident god-botherer Max back onto the forums as I am fairly certain that he is the only person to offer a balanced and fresh perspective on this, wot with being a former evangelical christian who once wholly disapproved of homosexuality, only to later come out himself and move away from the church.

I liked Max (in his latter day incarnation) and would welcome a return but why do you suppose this to be a "balanced" perspective? Is it a more balanced perspective than mine - as an irreligious gayer that holds that religion has generally exerted a malign influence on society? Totally respect people's right to practice their faith but don't really see why non-believers ought to give it any credence.

 

[Dr Mantis Toboggan]

it's just cause max is the more likeable token gay

 

[The Paranoid Pineapple]

You are just the WORST

Phoney Smat bastard

 

[Stagat]

surely shows which is the more likely method to reveal the truth.

We're going round in circles mate and I'm about done doing so. This came from me stating Dave-Vale's statement that science disproves religion is just a belief. He ain't even bothered to reply and in his own thread too.

Your last post is not changing my mind on that. Especially when it ends with 'more likely to'. So it isn't sure. It's a belief, which was my whole point with my post to Dave the Ignorer. Agree to disagree with you Silky.

In my head it makes more sense if time was not a linear continuum but rather a circle of repeating events. Such that the 'end' of this stage results in a crunch and explosion of a new, identical, stage thus there never being a true start or finish and therefore no point at which something came from nothing.

Sounds a bit like Shiva as Nataraja.

 

[blade1889]

Sounds a bit like Shiva as Nataraja.

Up there with Einstein, me

Never heard of it before (know very little about Hinduism tbh) but maybe someone has mentioned it in passing and I've latched onto the idea. Think an RE teacher once posed if time could be circular and i kinda shrugged it off at the time but its obviously stuck with me and grown. In my head it works that each cycle is identical and we've already had this conversation a million times over stag...as opposed to the new life I think the Hindu idea is getting at. But I'm a depressingly big believer in determinism, although that's a debate for another day.

Tbqfh it hurts my head and pisses me off that we'll probably never be able to understand how the universe came into being from nothing. We're taught to search for answers and it's so ingrained in us to do so it is (that's a lot of two letter words) easy to imagine why one might invent a god to answer an unsolvable question.

 

[Stagat]

In my head it works that each cycle is identical and we've already had this conversation a million times over stag...

I reckon people reading this thread might agree with that mate

edit: I've only recently started reading up on Hinduism myself really. If you'd mentioned that thing about circular time two weeks ago I wouldn't have known about Nataraja to use as an example.

Been interested in Buddhism for a while. Like reading about it, visiting temples, the imagery etc. The St. Christopher I used to wear travelling got replaced with a Buddha a while back.

But as Saltire said earlier, not enough to probably ever start practicing it.

Hinduism never interested me until recently but finding it really interesting reading about all the different deities now. Loving the imagery too. Some badass looking dudes in Hindu lore.

 

[City169]

Me dad's atheist, pretty sure my mum is (she certainly doesn't practise religion, but no idea on her belief) went to a CofE school for a few years because it was the only one around, don't ever remember buying into it at all tbh

We're going round in circles mate and I'm about done doing so. This came from me stating Dave-Vale's statement that science disproves religion is just a belief. He ain't even bothered to reply and in his own thread too.

Your last post is not changing my mind on that. Especially when it ends with 'more likely to'. So it isn't sure. It's a belief, which was my whole point with my post to Dave the Ignorer. Agree to disagree with you Silky.



Sounds a bit like Shiva as Nataraja.

Pretty sure you can say science disproves areas of religion, particularly some of the stories (but so does common sense on quite a few), but as a whole, no you're probably right.

 

[Cheese & Biscuits]

Well this thread hasn't turned out as expected...

 

[silkyman]

some of the most influential scientists of any era were people of faith. many actually were part of the clergy.

as for reason, many of the fundamental principles of western philosphy were expounded upon by god-botherers who were if not always driven then at least informed by their faith. descartes: god botherer and anti-atheist. rousseau, god-botherer. kierkegaard: god-botherer and currently facepalming this thread from beyond the grave.

again, that argument just doesn't stand up. organised religion both hindered and facilitated all sorts of cultural and scientific progression. it's really facile to suggest that we would have reached the so-called age of reason sooner, or more completely, but for the presence of religion. At the very least, religion is a by-product of our curiosity and desire to explore. Directly or indirectly, Christianity influenced the foundation of so much we take for granted in the western world.

Why does some scientists having faith prove that God exists? You simply can't claim that because 'this or that person' was religious, then religion is accurate. It's indoctrinated into people from an early age. It's only, in the history of humanity, incredibly recent that atheism has become an accepted position in many countries (FFS, in the USA, it's illegal for an atheist to run for public office in places). Religion was ubiquitous, so it stands to reason that many great thinkers had religion. Throw in that the Church was pretty much the only place where a layman could get even the basic semblance of an education, and science and religion being intertwined is understandable. And what about the great thinkers of antiquity. Pre Christian philosophers. Muslim scientists of the Islamic Golden Age. Geniuses from Ancient China, Rome, and Hindu traditions. Are they all 'right' in their religious beliefs too?

It used to be that religion was the only place in the west to be given the tools to be a scientist or philosopher. Less so now though. And suddenly more and more people are questioning what is inflicted on them as kids.

I agree that religion and science both have roots in the same place in the human psyche. Curiosity.

'Why the fuck did that earthquake just kill everyone I know'

And we're back to my basic reason for being such a godless heathen. When we didn't know how plate tectonics worked, we blamed The Big Man and the village else man would demand sacrifice to appease him, or prayers to make sure it didn't happen again. Now, we know that it doesn't need a God to make a fault line go crunch or a hurricane, or a volcano. You can be the most pious geologist or meteorologist in the world and your religious belief will have as much influence on your findings as what football team you support.

When the only way to explain the world around you is 'God' then it's logical to believe in a god. Or gods. When we know why things happen without a God (or gods) then it becomes less and less logical to add in a layer of complexity to the universe. Thousands of years of human intelligence has disproved the requirement for a god time and again. There's not many places left for him to hide (God of the gaps concept) you can pretty clearly extrapolate forward.

Does gravity work? Yes, for the entirety of history, something falling off a tree has hit the floor, but what if next time, it doesn't? You can't PROVE gravity, therefore gravity isn't real.

It's about as logically accurate as just hoping that the human race will never quite suss out that last tenth of a billionth of a second after the Big Bang, just so you can pretend that that's where God lives.

 

[silkyman]

Meanwhile, religion does a pretty good job of disproving itself.

Oh, so you believe in the branch that started when the random guy in America read some invisible gold tablets in his hat do you? Aren't you lucky that THAT just happens to be the right one. Or is it the one which started so the King could get a divorce?

Are we all really pissing off Odin and Kon Tiki or are Vikings and Incas all spending eternity in hell for not worshiping a religion they had no way of ever knowing existed. Seems a bit of a c*** trick, that....

And on that, what about the poor bastards in the Old Testament? Were there awkward conversations when Noah arrived at heaven?

'What do you mean I'm going to hell?'

'Well... You never REALLY accepted Jesus into your heart did you?'

'Wait, what... Who? You could have fucking told me you omnicient prick'

 

[silkyman]

And on being 'lucky'... Unless we have any real 'young earth' creationists on...

What was god doing in the billions and billions of years between creating the universe and actually creating the earth. Or the billions of years between that and creating life. Or again until humans arrived. And the 10s of thousands before actually showing up to start issuing rules and regulations.

Isn't it absolute arrogance to believe that the supreme creator who made everything, only cares about this one species which only inhabits a vanishingly small sliver of the history of time and and infinitely small dot in the universe? All on the say so of a handful of people.

 

[silkyman]

And that's probably quite enough for a Friday morning...

 

[JimJams]

I am God.

And you're all in big trouble.


Unless you're in Little China. We've done that already.

 

[Dr Mantis Toboggan]

anyone who believes in the supremacy of their belief and denigrates another people on theirs is a nob imo. I ain't religious but believe in what u want to believe in. life is hard if Allah helps u through it great. If u believe your toothbrush is a god also great. If u don't believe in anything also great. Just don't be a twat. Should be the first commandment that

 

[silkyman]

coulomb's law? vector fields? tungsten filament reactions? connecting a few wires ain't understanding, you sanctimonious twat

Erm. That was kind of my point. Just because one person can't explain the physics behind it perfectly, doesn't mean that no one can.

 

[silkyman]

anyone who believes in the supremacy of their belief and denigrates another people on theirs is a nob imo. I ain't religious but believe in what u want to believe in. life is hard if Allah helps u through it great. If u believe your toothbrush is a god also great. If u don't believe in anything also great. Just don't be a twat. Should be the first commandment that

'Believe what you want as long as your belief doesn't harm anyone else' has always been my attitude. It's when people demand special treatment, or actively hurt people because of what they believe that I get pissed off.

 

[silkyman]

I am God.

And you're all in big trouble.

Ah, but God refuses to prove he exists because proof denies faith, and without faith, you are nothing.

And outing yourself is a dead giveaway, so it's time to vanish in a puff of logic.