Skepticism

[Trent R]

voh and spaceboy, I understand your argument and I know that mine is slightly flawed. Not my full belief, but something I thought of: Who says God is really omnipotent? It could just be a word that's been attributed to him since who knows when.

Also (not directed at you two, but to everybody), I'm 18 and therefore don't know everything. I'm just telling what I do know and believe.

~Trent

[voh]

And I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying that if God can't control time, the word omnipotent doesn't accurately describe his power. It's just a semantics thing. Roll with it, it's not worth a debate, really

[Trent R]

Agreed voh.


[Edit]: Why don't I like church/state arguments? Because I'm usually very tolerant and it's mostly the very vocal and very intolerant people that argue either side. Also, I don't care too much about politics (mainly cause I just got out of highschool)

[Edit2]: But, if you can be tolerant (which is happening so far) then go ahead. I probably won't participate.

voh, how can you not know that Stan Lee created Spiderman? You sinner!!!!
Hehehehe...

~Trent

[space boy]

voh and spaceboy, I understand your argument and I know that mine is slightly flawed. Not my full belief, but something I thought of: Who says God is really omnipotent? It could just be a word that's been attributed to him since who knows when.

Also (not directed at you two, but to everybody), I'm 18 and therefore don't know everything. I'm just telling what I do know and believe.

~Trent

Then don't call him omnipotent if you assume that he's not. That would avoid a lot of confusion.

[Trent R]

But I do believe he's Omnipotent.

~Trent

[space boy]

And you also believe he can't control time, is that right?

[Trent R]

As far as I know, yes. I believe I already stated that.

But who knows, maybe he can and I haven't seen it. He has power of matter (fish and loaves, water to wine, healing), gravity and other forces (walking on water, separating the Sea), and life (Lazarus and others). So far there's no proof that he can control time, so I won't believe it. Also, that's what I've been taught.

~Trent
PS-Yes, I used the word proof. Please don't go back to that argument anyone...

[voh]

Then don't state it. By definition, we're right as far as god's 'omnipotence' goes (edit: if god really can't control time, that is). Omnipotence means unlimited power. If someone's power is limited, he can't be omnipotent. Definition.

If you keep saying that god is omnipotent but doesn't have unlimited power, then that's a contradiction, which means it's impossible, which means that's one aspect you claim about your god that we're able to disprove. Now, if you agree that the word omnipotent doesn't accurately describe your god's powers, then we're cool.

Otherwise, I'm afraid that this is exactly the kind of rule-bending (in this situation, changing the definition of a word to fit your meaning of it, which is incorrect) that gives religious people a bad name. Think about it.

[Trent R]

Very well. Next topic.

[Edit]:Due to the definition of omnipotent, I will no longer use that word. It does not change my beliefs or what I've said.

~Trent

[space boy]

As far as I know, yes. I believe I already stated that.

I know you did, but i wanted to ask again in case i missed something. It still makes no sense to me how god can be able to control everything and at the same time not be able to control everything. If you abandon logic in favor of faith im out of the discussion.

[Stupot]

GAH!.... I have just written a load here and accidentally deleted it... really don't want to write it all again, but it was basically in defence of Nacho's statement... although "stupid" might be a bit of a harsh term. I prefer to term it as "grossly misinformed"

My gist is, that millions and millions of children are bought up in schools that force children to pray and sing hymns and they are told stories of the Bible... They tell you that there is a God and that Jesus was his son and that he was born in crib in a stable with an audience of wise-men and sheep, and they never once tell you that you're not expected to take it all literally... How are the kids supposed to know? (I think it's organised indoctrination, but that's because I'm conspiranoid.)

Now, if you are born of a religious family then you are receiving similar messages from your parents, and other relatives... and it is an obvious fact that most religious people come from religious familys.

I didnt have the religious family (thank God Wink ) but I did have the C of E schooling.  As I got older, though, I began to question what I had been taught and realised that everything wasn't meant to be taken literally... but never once had anyone informed me of this... I had to work it out for myself...  Some people can't work it out for themselves... and lack of intelligence must surely be one of the main reasons

What I think Nacho is saying (and if he's not then I am) is that not everybody has the intelligence or independent thought needed to make this realisation that everything in the Bible isn't literal... And "stupid" people are surely more likely to grow up STILL believing this bullshit that their parents and teachers neglected to tell them was not in fact entirely true.

[Trent R]

As for religion in school? I've never been taught anything religious in the public school system, despite living in Utah which is a very religious state. Sure, there's the mention of things (generally cultural things of Mormonism/Utahism, but not beliefs of the LDS Church) but never Bible stories or anything else. Most I've ever heard of religion while in public schooling was in 9th grade when the Earth Science teacher told us he had to teach the theory of evolution. He said that it is required of him by the state to teach it, so we had to learn it for the test and curriculum but not necessarily believe it.

~Trent
PS-Restating my edit above, "Due to the definition of omnipotent, I will no longer use that word. It does not change my beliefs or what I've said."

[MillsJROSS]

I think anyone who can believe, without a doubt, that every word that is in the Bible is true, is, and I'm holding back here, an idiot. I also think, that anyone who can believe, without a doubt, that there is no god, is an idiot, too.

Life it far too short for us to deal in absolutes. I prefer to hang my beliefs in limbo. That's not to say I don't think about the great questions. I just find, that my mind generally takes me to the conclusion that I don't have the answer or the ability to obtain the answer. As that's the case, I don't completely discount any belief, but I do use rational thought to guide me to probable answers to life's questions.

I think people are entitled to their beliefs, but to say without a doubt you know something, one way or the other, seems arrogant. We're allowed to have beliefs, and have strong convictions, but I think we always must reassess our core beliefs. We must be able to answer why we believe in something, and not be offended when our beliefs are questioned.

I think this is what Nacho is trying to get at. He can't understand someone who believes in something without question. I find it scary that anyone can do that.

-MillsJROSS

[Ozzie]

@Stupot: Depends on your education and where you grow up, I guess. Here in Germany we don't pray or sing hymns in school (not that I can remember at least!) and the religious education is quite open to the world of science, the modern society and their views.
We learn that the bible isn't meant to be taken literally.
So, I don't know. I can't say that I come from a christian family, but yeah, I got taken to church a few times, I was in the kids church choir (so actually quite voluntarily) and had religious class in school until the tenth grade. Then on the spur of the moment I switched to ethic. I actually was kinda surprised I did this seeing my choice of subjects after the holidays. I think I learned more there, but I never had to defend my belief or lack thereof in any way I can remember. While state and church aren't really separated in Germany religion isn't really force upon kids.

Of course, except if you parents force you to it, but well, how should society change that.

[Trent R]

Of course, except if you parents force you to it, but well, how should society change that.

And I don't think it can change(or will soon). The role of a parent is to teach and raise their kids as they know best. If that involves religion or not, then so be it. Yes, some parents literally force things on their kids. But when it comes to religion? I doubt it's forcing and more just being a parent and passing on their own beliefs.

~Trent

[Stupot]

I think people are entitled to their beliefs, but to say without a doubt you know something, one way or the other, seems arrogant.

But the argument here isn't about the existene of God.  The argument is about the 'literalness' of the Bible... there are parts of it that ANY intelligent religious person would agree are not supposed to be taken entirely literally - even the Arch Bishop of Canterbury or the Pope would agree... it is the undeniable concensus... but there are some people who STILL believe these things because of their being naive or misinformed (or stupid)... these are the people we are talking about.  They're denying the facts.

Just because some people still believe it, doesn't mean the rest of us have to respect that... some people believe Earth is flat when, again ANY normal intelligent person would agree that it's not... would you have a problem with me calling them stupid?...

[Trent R]

Can we at least be agreed that God gave Rock N' Roll to everyone?

~Trent
PS-Yes this was a useless post. I'm out for the evening, so good night to you fine gentlemen.

[Khris]

voh:
I agree, though I have to say that IMO expecting others being respectful towards one's own beliefs has to be earned (or at least is a privilege one can loose). I don't feel the need to be respectful towards someone's belief that smurfs are real. I'll get back to that later.

1) Even though I said I believe in the Big Bang theory (parts of it), I do not believe in evolution from monkeys. God made man in his own image (from the book of Genesis). As for the evidence of neanderthal bones, I have an interesting point that I'll make later.

First of all, man didn't evolve from monkeys; according to the theory of evolution, they have a common genetic ancestor. (You using that stupid and wrong understanding of the TofE - which is still actively misused by creationists to discredit it - doesn't exactly improve your stance in this discussion, if I may say so.)
Secondly, if you ditch parts of your religion but believe in other parts, why not ditch it altogether? Simply doesn't make any sense.
And I'd still love to hear that interesting point about Neanderthal bones.

Since I fear that this debate is going to drift off into a debate about god's existence, I'd like to throw in my two cents regarding that:
It's a completely moot point. There's no way to prove either point of view. (You all know that, I'm sure.)

This is my opinion:
A religious debate (or more accurately, a debate of religion vs. science [since they in no way coincide at all]) should center on the question whether it makes sense to believe in something that can't be proved nor disproved rather than to "believe" in something that can be disproved, until it is disproved.
Religion was born thousands of years ago when "primitive" people tried to explain to themselves how the world worked. A thunderstorm is the work of Thor, God of Thunder.
Now we have the scientific method, the perfect (and only) tool to show us how the world probably is. A thunderstorm is the result of warm and cool air clashing into each other and discharges of electricity.
A clergyman preaches the final truth according to his holy book. Cleverly contrived, these "truths" can't be disproved. The search for answers is over.
A scientist will immediately ditch a theory he regards as the truth as soon as it is disproved, in order to look for a new theory better suited to describe reality. The search for truth is pursued constantly, and while the goal might never be reached, we're taking one step at a time towards it.

I personally don't distinguish between the belief in God, Jesus, Santa Claus, unicorns or fairies. There's simply no reason to distinguish between it other than the fact that religious people might feel insulted.
Stupot already said it: the earth isn't flat. A few decades/centuries from now, it's probably perfectly acceptable to laugh at any irrational beliefs, why not start early?

[Nacho]

Yay! Many replies!

I will try to reply to all of them in the best way I can:

Voh, apparently you disproved the existence of Spider-Man. the existence of God it' s supported by the same amount of evidences. If you can disprove one, and not the other, it's a mistery for me. A mistery that must have answered by you, not me.

God is a supernatural being. An evidence of a supernatural being could be an a proof that something supernatural has been made. Bible is full of "evidences" that support that supernatural things happened (Divine interventions, such creating everything, open the red sea, creating the lenguajes, send us the Deluge...). Everybody agrees that "those evidences" are flawed, so... No evidences.

We are at the starting point, we have nothing.

No archaelogical support.
No rational support.
No scientific support.

Only... "Faith".

Of course, a "common faith" sprouting in the mind of all the earth population at the same time, making everybody feel the same and worshipping the same, would be a big evidence that "something" supernatural put that "faith" there. It should be an unexplained event. As far as I know, inexplicable as well.
But we do not have that. We have "Allahs", "Jahvés", "Gods", "Vishnus", etc, etc... What I can't really understand why believers say "respect me", and are not able to respect, as somebody else said, "StarWarism", "Scientology", "LordoftheRigsosism", or "Flyngspaghettisism".

Where do you put the line? You put the line in that commonly accepted Gods are older?

Ok, that earth was flat is a quite old concept... Excuse me if I don't trust of it. The "age" of the beliefs has never been a support about its plausability.

Do we "accept this commonly accepted Gods" because they are more popular? No. At least, we shouldn' t. Truth is truth, no matter if it's deffensed by everybody or only one (or novbody).

I think that the number of people in the USA believing that the Earth was the centre of the Universe still is around 30%. Even if they were 99%, the Sun would still be the centre of our System. Faith do not move mountains, or planets...

I didn' t deny the existence of God... I just say that the amount of evidences to support its existence is equal to the ones supporting the existence of the flying spaghetti, the Smurs, Superman, or the  pink Unicorn. CERO. Since it' s impossible to proof the unexistance of something, I will not try to prove the unexistance of God. Why do believers say that "Everything but my belief" is false? I don't  know.

I' ve been asked to "respect them".

How can I?

They say "My God is real".

They don' t say "I think my God is real", or "God is real for me", or "Man, it probably does not exist after all, but I draw a set of moral techings from Bible that work for me".

They say "God is real, if you don' t believe in him, you are wrong".

Which could be ok... When you argue with someone, no matter how polite you are, you are basically saying that your point of view is correct, and the other' s side is not, let' s face it. But religion has a set of institutional and moral advantages that are unfair.

If we find that a parent is putting a set of irrational ideas into a kid's mind, with no support of logic, rationality or critical thinking we would probably complain. It is unfair, the kid can' t fight against those irrational ideas. "Man, it' s my dad who is telling me that, it must be true! It' s my teacher who is telling me that! An adult! It MUST be true!"

Why we don't complain when the set of irrational belifs comes in the accepted pack called "Religion"? We should.

At the end, the only reply, no matter how you express it is: "Because I believe on it".

And that's religion. Telling that the ones who do not believe are wrong, but with no support.

[Matti]

If we find that a parent is putting a set of irrational ideas into a kid's mind, with no support of logic, rationality or critical thinking we would probably complain. It is unfair, the kid can' t fight against those irrational ideas. "Man, it' s my dad who is telling me that, it must be true! It' s my teacher who is telling me that! An adult! It MUST be true!"

Yeah, I think if no one would be raised in a christian way (by school and / or parents), christianity would just die, cause few would suddenly become christians as a result of a personal decision in a certain age.

And that's religion. Telling that the ones who do not believe are wrong, but with no support.

That is not true. For many people religion is a personal thing and religion can respect other religions (and atheists too), the beliefs are just different.


Apart of that I second everything Khrismuc posted. Well said.