Summer means no religion or politics?

[MrColossal]

Ok thanks! Rereading your post I see I somehow skipped the one sentence in the middle of a paragraph where you already said the pope would go to prison, sorry!

I chose the pope because if I were to post a link to news articles of people who have killed their children or other people and said God told them to do it one could say they were crazy or not a true believer but the pope... If one doubts his faith I don't know where to go from there!

But just because God demanding murder isn't mentioned in the new testament means nothing, right? God didn't say "Alright, I'm done asking people to kill for me!" and he didn't say "I'm done killing children to prove a point!" he only said he'd never flood the world again. God can do whatever he wants whenever he wants and just because there's no record of him asking people to kill for him in the new testament doesn't mean he isn't doing it right now, right?

One last modifier, what if your father/mother/wife/child killed someone and told you God told them to do it? What if you heard words in your head telling you to kill someone and they identified as God? Sorry if these questions are boring but I am truly extremely interested and not trying to be a jerk or anything.

[loominous]

While I think insults are inappropriate, and everyone in a debate deserves respect as a person, unfounded speculation, no matter how dear to someone's heart, doesn't deserve any.

I do not consider my beliefs to be speculation in any way.  I have had many experiences that affirm my belief in Christ.  It is not unfounded for me to believe what has been confirmed through my experiences.  Although I admit it would be unfounded for you, once again though, this is anecdotal evidence which seems like it isn't wanted here.  So all I can say is that I believe and have faith.

Fair enough. What reason would you give to an unattached observer for believing in your faith? I see Bush saying that god told him to go to Iraq, while Al Quaeda members are being instructed by god to kill as many americans as possible. Palestinian suicide bombers sure seem extremely convinced of their god's presence and will, perhaps even more so than christians. Should I take this as proof that Islam may be the way to go?

There seems to be a few options: either it's the same god, and it doesn't matter which one I worship, though it would be pretty puzzling, as it makes one wonder why it brought different teachings to different people, and why these scriptures encourages conversions, which usually turn out to be bloody affairs, as it's the same god.

Or perhaps just one of them is correct, which beckons the question, which one is the right one, as all of them have devout followers totally convinced of their belief's validity, having witnessed miracles, visions, conversations etc, much like yourself.

Or it might turn out that god is an absent being without any interest in us or our affairs, which makes what rules we live by our own matter.

Or, of course, it might be that there is no god, which makes our situation quite identical to the former.

One reason often given for faith is that it brings happiness. But if you take the example of gays, if I become a christian or muslim, wouldn't my potential happiness be at the expense of their lives? Or people who could've been saved by stem cell research? Or the entire planet if devout followers eager to bring on the final days with a massive holy war in the middle east days get their wish? And wouldn't I just be wrapping myself in a security blanket instead of dealing with the absurdity of our existence?

It's been a while since I read the bible, but I don't ever recall there being any arguments, just commandments. And why should there be; god demands that we follow instructions blindly, as a sign of true faith, and not go around asking for reasons.

The commandments were given in the old testament first to Israel and they were to be followed out of faith.  But in the gospels particularly Matthew Jesus explains why to follow all of the commandments.

Could you give a representative example of these arguments? I don't recall hearing any in sermons, but it was quite a while ago. And didn't Jesus tell us to consider god a shepherd, we being the sheep blindly following him?

(Btw, my use of the word 'commandments' might've been inappropriate, as I wasn't referring to the ten commandments, just commandments in general.)

Edit: Spelling

[Snarky]

Well, I think the title of this thread has been conclusively disproved.

There's a pretty good Op-Ed by Robert Wright in The New York Times this weekend which proposes a kind of consensus world-view that is acceptable to the scientifically inclined and compatible both with rationalistic materialism and at least with a deist notion of a creator god.

The one point where I do not follow or agree with Wright's argument is where he proposes a kind of meta-natural selection process that would give rise to the very principles of evolution by natural selection. This is problematic because the phenomenon of evolution by natural selection in a system with certain initial conditions can be deduced quite straightforwardly (just like the behavior of many algorithms can be proven logically). It is a logical necessity. So unless we're talking about a process by which logical and mathematical truths came to be evolved, the suggestion makes no sense. Where the fundamental axioms of math and logic in fact come from seems to be a question beyond our capabilities to grasp.

We might instead discuss a meta-natural selection process by which the definition of "life" and the whole ecological system came to conform to the assumptions under which evolution is true, but that seems like a case of misapplied analogy.

[Nathan]

But just because God demanding murder isn't mentioned in the new testament means nothing, right? God didn't say "Alright, I'm done asking people to kill for me!" and he didn't say "I'm done killing children to prove a point!" he only said he'd never flood the world again. God can do whatever he wants whenever he wants and just because there's no record of him asking people to kill for him in the new testament doesn't mean he isn't doing it right now, right?

In the old testament there were many people that were commanded to be killed but these were people that came against God's chosen people Israel.  However, Israel refused to keep it's covenant and the new covenant was established between God and believers in Christ.  Since all people are invited to be God's chosen people there is no reason that God would command someone to kill. 

Some would say that Muslims are coming against God's chosen people but they really persecute any country that allows Christianity.  To clarify: I am talking about radical Muslims.

If someone I knew told me they killed someone because God told them to I would assume they were mistaken, and very badly at that.  If I heard voices that were telling me to kill someone then I would seek psychiatric help immediately because it doesn't make sense with the image of God in the bible as far as the new testament goes.

[Nathan]

Fair enough. What reason would you give to an unattached observer for believing in your faith? I see Bush saying that god told him to go to Iraq, while Al Quaeda members are being instructed by god to kill as many americans as possible. Palestinian suicide bombers sure seem extremely convinced of their god's presence and will, perhaps even more so than christians. Should I take this as proof that Islam may be the way to go?

There was a speaker who came to my church named Daniel Shayesteh who was a committed member to the group Hezbollah in Iran.  By age nine he could recite the entire Quran.  I won't go into that detail here but after many years of be committed to destroying any nonbelievers he became a christian.  I don't know how to put it other than that.  I don't remember his whole story but I do know that he spent years researching the different religions and found that Christianity was the only one that made actual sense.  If there is anyone who can answer this question it would be him and you might want to look up some information about him but I'll try my best.

Bush never said that he was told by God that he should invade Iraq.  As far as I remember at least, he said he believed God wanted him to go there, maybe he did, maybe he didn't.

I guess the reasons that I have for believing would as I said fall under anecdotal evidence but this is enough for me.  I have been countless times helped by God.  For instance when I first moved to where I live now in fourth grade I was extremely upset and every week I had a new set of questions.  Every single Sunday all of my questions would be answered. 

When I was in 10th grade I was under a lot of pressure from a friend going through a rough time and several projects coming up and I was extremely worried about something going wrong.  I took my ipod and I went for a walk,  I used the shuffle song function and the first thing that came up was Matthew Chapter six.  One of the main themes of this chapter is that there is no need to worry about tommorrow because God will take care of you.  I had a little over 1,000 songs on my Ipod at the time.  So I stopped worrying and I trusted in God.  Sadly later the same thing happened, and I was worried again.  I went for a walk and incredibly the same thing happened, and as hard as it is to believe it has happened one more time since.  I wish that I could say that I never worry and I always trust in God but I'm not perfect.  I'm not a mathematician but What are the chances of getting a particular song out of 1000 on three specific occasions when it is needed?

Going back to Daniel Shayesteh, when he spoke at my church he showed us some of the quran's that the extremist Muslims use and they are changed quite a bit from the original ones.  The fact is that the extremists (the ones who are killing people) are knowingly altering their 'holy' text.  So they probably don't even believe in what they are teaching they just manipulate people with their religion in a messed up society.

Sorry if I didn't address anything I'm getting a bit tired.

[SSH]

Well, I think the title of this thread has been conclusively disproved.

There's a pretty good Op-Ed by Robert Wright in The New York Times this weekend which proposes a kind of consensus world-view that is acceptable to the scientifically inclined and compatible both with rationalistic materialism and at least with a deist notion of a creator god.

Of course, the whole idea of memes came from Dawkins to start with and one has to recongnise that the natural selection of memes demostrates that religion is a pretty powerful meme, although so is science. Let's agree to come back to the argument in another 2000 years and see what has changed...  

[Vince Twelve]

Jim,  I was in contact with a Father Allan Jones of a Catholic Church.  If you would like his contact information, PM me.  I recognize that he cannot speak for the entirety of the Catholic Church, but he seems to be in very strong disagreement with many of your beliefs regarding faith healing.

I did not ask yet if I could witness a faith healing.  For that, I should probably speak to someone in person, and I haven't had the time to do so, nor do I think I will follow up after this email.

I do not intend to specifically attack you with this, though I am in staunch disagreement with your practice of requiring money in exchange for prayer healing and hope to change your mind about doing so.  Father Jones seems to share my disapproval of the practice.

Perhaps you are not a member of the Catholic church, and another church does support your views, but you directed me towards the Catholic Church, and this is the response I received.  Please let me know if I misrepresented your practices.

He copied my email in black and replied in red.

[edit: email removed.  Jim and I have taken our gentleman's discussion to PM]

[Lionmonkey]

Sorry for not posting answers so long, Evil Genius seemes to have gotten me sucked in for some time.

Lionmonkey, science and people in general usually operate under the assumption that if experiment A led to outcome B every time and never to outcome C, that it'll always will lead to B, provided there's a good, tested explanation why.
Since we know why a light bulb lights up if we send current through it, there's no reason to assume it some day won't.

But there can be a good and "tested" explanation for any theory, even magic unicorns. So why are they discriminated so much?

You seem obsessed with the fact that we can't know anything with 100% certainty, but the thing is, we do know many things with a certainty extremely close to 100%. Usually, these things are called scientific facts.
And ok, granted, there's an extremely minimal chance of the laws of nature suddenly not being valid anymore.
But factoring that infinitesimally small chance into scientific work or daily life isn't useful. It leads nowhere.

First off, I'm not being obsessed. I don't have "All is lie, nothing is true." written in with my blood on a wall. I'm just being patient, re-explaining my point, whenever it is doubted.
Now to the point: Can you really call a fact something that has a chance to not be true? It would be like saying that every human has got 5 fingers on each hand. So why call it the "facts", the "truth"?

It's not about waiting for a miracle, it's about realizing that the fever will eventually go away without alleged prayer healing.

I guess the possibility of coincidence is pretty much eliminated when one prays for a limb to grow back, don't you think?

I'm pretty sure, it is possible to create logical explanation based on any science to explain how it was a coincidence or anything else not tied to religion.

Burned again Lionmonkey!   

Oh dear, masochystic tendencies are acting up again!

I have no idea what you're talking about with that first part though.  Sorry, I just couldn't follow the logic.  First of all, faith healing has never grown a limb back because that's something that cannot happen through other means.

Why not? Because it is impossible, or because there's a very little chance of it?

I think what you're saying is that the axioms that science is based on might some day be proven false, or at least to have exceptions.  This is acceptable.  For example, we've recently (historically speaking) discovered that the force of gravity works differently on things that are very very small.

However, I don't understand how that can be used to discredit a light bulb, or verify prayer healing, or at least bring the two onto the same plane of logic.

Not discredit or validate either of two. Make them be able to happen by chance. If an axiom is either completely or partly invalid, there's a chance both that something that goes against it happen  and that someithing that goes with it happens.
For the sake of it, I'll throw the Euclidean geometry in this: It is being rejected by more and more scientist for the sake of Riemann's but some things that were based on it, still work, don't they?

The unicorn seems like such a silly argument to everyone because we know unicorns are just made up, but if you're going to take this backwards-approach to science, then the two statements:
-There are some unknowns in science, therefore faith healing could be true.
-There are some unknowns in science, therefore unicorns could be real.
Are on the same level of verifiability.

Saying "We know unicorns are made up" is the same as saying "We know earth isn't a sphere" or "We know there's no god": You don't really know that, you find it impossible, based on assumptions you find valid. But to really know that, you would need to have the complete knowelge of everything in the universe and beyond.

There's room for faith.  I don't mind anyone filling in the gaps with a god.  But you have to understand that you can't discuss it in the same way as you can science.  Nor do you have to somehow invalidate science to validate your god.

My opinion is that there's nothing you can legitimally  fill these gaps with. Not in the current era at least. So until then nothing can legitimally considered valid, neither scientific nor religious stuff. I'm not trying to prove anything, only prove everything.

I  think the problem with the argument that has been happening is on one side their is a person who has seen faith healing work, and on the other side there are people who want to disprove that it works, you cannot stop someone from saying it works if they have seen it work and certainly you cannot disprove someone over the internet, so whether you believe it works or not it doesn't matter because neither side will except the other sides evidence.

I think that you are close to the true problem, but not in the bullseye: The people decide for themselves what is that they see or hear, because they want their own personal beliefs to be true.

Ok then, let me maybe sum up what I've learned so far... God does things, only he knows why, humans can NOT know his plan. If God does it it is Good. God can not do bad. The devil can interfere with humans but ONLY IF God allows him to. If the devil does it it is Bad. HOWEVER because God allowed it to be done then it is Good because God can not do Bad. So the devil's actions are Good.

Did God allow the snake to tempt Adam and Eve?

How about this: God has a version of Fifth Freedom, which mortals don't have. That allowed god to kill people because the rules don't apply to him.

[Matti]

Now to the point: Can you really call a fact something that has a chance to not be true? It would be like saying that every human has got 5 fingers on each hand. So why call it the "facts", the "truth"?

It's a fact that people can have more than five fingers, so your point being?

[RickJ]

The one point where I do not follow or agree with Wright's argument is where he proposes a kind of meta-natural selection process that would give rise to the very principles of evolution by natural selection. This is problematic because the phenomenon of evolution by natural selection in a system with certain initial conditions can be deduced quite straightforwardly (just like the behavior of many algorithms can be proven logically). It is a logical necessity. So unless we're talking about a process by which logical and mathematical truths came to be evolved, the suggestion makes no sense. Where the fundamental axioms of math and logic in fact come from seems to be a question beyond our capabilities to grasp.

Snarky, Father George Coyne, former director of the Vatican Observatory, has an interesting take on this subject.  He suggests that our universe is fertile in that there is an abundance of opportunity for matter to come together in interesting and complex ways.   He explains that although such events occur by chance they are also inevitable.  Here is a link to his lecture "Dance of the Fertile Universe" and some other links posted earlier in this thread.   Also in the interview with Prof. Dawkins he explains how he has reconciled his religious and scientific beliefs.

http://www.adventuregamestudio.co.uk/yabb/index.php?topic=38359.msg506390#msg506390

With regard to the Old Testament Fr. Coyne states that it reflects the beliefs of the divinely inspired people who wrote it.  IMHO, if one can get their head around this idea and accept it then one can benefit from those documented lessons/experience of humanity without surrendering one's intellect.   

The Dali Lama in his book, "The Universe in a Single Atom: The Convergence of Science and Spirituality" (very enjoyably and can be had for a couple of $ from Amazon)  talks about how traditional Buddhist cosomological beliefs are outdated.  He explains that at the time when these beliefs came into being they were a pretty good explanation of how universe worked based on what was known and could be observed.      He says that now (several thousand years later) we know more and have better tools of observation.   He claims that the traditional beliefs are the best the people of long ago could do with what they had to work with.  He warns that clinging to the traditional beliefs and disregarding all the knowledge and observations accumulated since that time discredits one's own faith/religion.

I agree with this notion and I believe that's what this and other religious threads are ultimately about.   It always seems to get down to the same boring old thing... Person A cites a ridiculous or illogical portion of the Bible as proof of God's non-existence.  Person B gives an equally ridiculous or illogical explanation or justification as proof of God's existence.   Then we go on to the next example blah, blah, blah....

Literal Believers
Wouldn't you agree that God's greatest gift to man is man's ability to think, reason, and contemplate "the meaning of life the universe and everything" (D.Adams)?  Then how big of sin would it be to close one's mind to the wonders and mysteries of the universe around us and fail to appreciate it's underlying beauty, eloquence, and simplicity?   

Un-Believers
Wouldn't you agree, now and all throughout history, for whatever reason(s), humanity, has had spiritual needs?     For example, most religions provide a basis for comforting the sick and dying, of how we should behave and treat each other, and how to live a happy, and fulfilled life (which brings us back to the sick and dying part).   Would you find the benefits that Christianity or other religions have to offer more accessible if there weren't "literal believers" running around saying "The Earth is 10000 years old and God put fish fossils on mountain tops to confuse dopey scientists!"?

[Khris]

But there can be a good and "tested" explanation for any theory, even magic unicorns. So why are they discriminated so much?

There can be a good, tested explanation for magic unicorns? Please elaborate. Please also compare it to the explanation why light bulbs produce light if current runs through them. Please emphasize the similarities of both explanations as far as their scientific validity is concerned, if there are any.

I'm pretty sure, it is possible to create logical explanation based on any science to explain how it was a coincidence or anything else not tied to religion.

Please talk to a doctor before making unsubstantiated claims about possible scientific explanations for spontaneous regrowth of limbs.
Also note that nobody has ever, ever witnessed such a thing with a human being, while there are countless people who claim to have witnessed or experienced the cure of other ailments (though exclusively ones that could've been cured by doctors/medicine/time).
Also note that that's the main point of the argument and it isn't invalidated just because some stubborn atheist might desperately look for a natural explanation.

Facts, truth, etc.

It is a fact that the earth is very similar to a sphere in shape. Fact != absolute truth.
Since we did many different things (GPS, to name one) all based on the assumption that the earth is a sphere and they all worked out, the earth being a sphere has been established as a scientific fact. I believe Gould said that a fact is a concept that's so well established that questioning it is silly.

A few other examples?
-You can't post here without at least indirectly using an electronic device of some kind.
-Lock yourself in without access to water and you will die after a few days.

See?

Of course you can stomp your feet and close your eyes and put your fingers in your ears and sing "LALALA", but that won't change the fact that your line of argumentation ("we can't know anything for sure") is nonconstructive, useless and downright silly in the light that all constructive work is based on ignoring the conclusion you seem to draw from that ("give up on finding out anything about anything") and thus delivers and delivers.

[Vince Twelve]

Un-Believers
Wouldn't you agree, now and all throughout history, for whatever reason(s), humanity, has had spiritual needs?     For example, most religions provide a basis for comforting the sick and dying, of how we should behave and treat each other, and how to live a happy, and fulfilled life (which brings us back to the sick and dying part).

I wouldn't call them "needs" but I would say that religions around the world have done some good for some people throughout history.  Such as, in the example you gave, helping comfort people near death with the promise of eternal life in heaven or reincarnation, or whatever.  Also, some people who might not have been able to be good people for the sake of being good people have found guidance in the codes and rules of a religion.  I do think, however, that such comfort and moral guidance can be come by through other non-spiritual means, such as the love of your family and friends, and introspection, respectively.  Though, some people may not be able to find such things on their own, and for them, I'm happy if religion can point them in the right direction. 

Also, religious groups do perform a lot of charitable acts around the world.  I would just prefer that those acts didn't usually also come with a bible lesson.  But hey, can't complain about people building a school or a hospital in Africa or whatever.

On the flip side of the good religion has done, however, I think that a lot of bad has been done either for or through religions.  Scientology is a pretty plain example of how one can use religion to bend the will of many to serve the few.  Throughout history there have been wars causing millions of deaths in the name of religion.  Even now, religion serves to fuel hatred in some against certain groups of people. 

Note, though, that I'm not being so arrogant as to make any judgement about whether or not the world would have been better if religions like Christianity or Islam had never existed.  Just saying that there's good (which I believe can be found through other means) and bad that comes from religions.

Would you find the benefits that Christianity or other religions have to offer more accessible if there weren't "literal believers" running around saying "The Earth is 10000 years old and God put fish fossils on mountain tops to confuse dopey scientists!"?

I don't care what an individual believes.  If you want to believe that man and dinosaurs walked together and that gays are evil and lawn gnomes come to life at night to do the bidding of Dionysus, I could care less.  What bothers me is when that effects other people's lives who didn't ask for it, such as:

-Polluting education (Intelligent Design, I'm looking at you.  Teach that stuff in church, not in public schools)
-Polluting law (Separation of Church and State is there for a reason.  Now explain to me why Jimmy can't marry Bobby.)
-Mentally or Physically harming others (If you believe that "the gays" are the reason our military people are dying in Iraq, let's keep that to ourselves, shall we?  And put away those pointy white hats, while you're at it.)
-Polluting your kids (I know, people can raise their own kids however they want, but in some cases I can't help but feel angry at the poison some parents pour into their kids' ears.)

[Lionmonkey]

It's a fact that people can have more than five fingers, so your point being?

My point being that "can have" and "always have" are different things.

There can be a good, tested explanation for magic unicorns? Please elaborate. Please also compare it to the explanation why light bulbs produce light if current runs through them. Please emphasize the similarities of both explanations as far as their scientific validity is concerned, if there are any.

Okay. Here's what comes up first after typing "why light bulbs produce light if current runs through them?":

Electricity flows through a thin wire in the light bulb called the filament. The filament used in a bulb has a property called "resistance." Resistance is the amount of friction that an object will put against electricity flowing through it. A filament has a lot of resistance to electricity. Therefore as a result of this, the filament heats up and starts glowing, converting electrical energy to light energy. This is because of the Joule-effect, which means that resistances heat up when electrical current runs through them.

Elaboration: A unicorns horn is actually a vegetable, called carrot. The carrot has got a glue, applied to it's base, which gives it a property, called "stickyness", which allows it to stick (to adhere to someone or something; to remain affixed to someone or something). Ttherefore, as the result, the carrot sticks and becomes a horn.
Comparison: The main stuff, causing the effect are described. Explanation of properties is given. The ending result is acknowelged.

Please talk to a doctor before making unsubstantiated claims about possible scientific explanations for spontaneous regrowth of limbs.
Also note that nobody has ever, ever witnessed such a thing with a human being, while there are countless people who claim to have witnessed or experienced the cure of other ailments (though exclusively ones that could've been cured by doctors/medicine/time).
Also note that that's the main point of the argument and it isn't invalidated just because some stubborn atheist might desperately look for a natural explanation.

My point (again) is that people will always look for an explanation that is comforting to their own personal beliefs. That is why a stubborn to the bone atheis won't be convinced if a God goes to Earth and repeats everything, Bible said he's done. And that is why a superzealous religious person will never drop faith even if a machine that can do everything gods can do is construced.

It is a fact that the earth is very similar to a sphere in shape. Fact != absolute truth.
Since we did many different things (GPS, to name one) all based on the assumption that the earth is a sphere and they all worked out, the earth being a sphere has been established as a scientific fact. I believe Gould said that a fact is a concept that's so well established that questioning it is silly.

I doubt our technology would have advanced past middle ages if no one would question "concepts that were so well established that questioning them was silly".

A few other examples?
-You can't post here without at least indirectly using an electronic device of some kind.
-Lock yourself in without access to water and you will die after a few days.

See?

How do I know, these were electronic devices, I used, how do I know that what I saw/felt was what actually was there? How do you know that a person is dead if you can only trust your senses in this?

Of course you can stomp your feet and close your eyes and put your fingers in your ears and sing "LALALA", but that won't change the fact that your line of argumentation ("we can't know anything for sure") is nonconstructive, useless and downright silly in the light that all constructive work is based on ignoring the conclusion you seem to draw from that ("give up on finding out anything about anything") and thus delivers and delivers.

First of all, in a discussion like this, there can never be less than two people who are singing "LALALA".
Secondly, is being a devil's advocate really nonconstructive and useless, is it not what allows for better elaboration of arguments?
Thirdly, does someone really need to believe in one's point to prove it?

My conclusion is that, religious or not, people are the same when their personal beliefs are questioned. So remember kids: next time you are in a science v.s. religion discussion, don't forget that you are no better than your opponent.

[MrColossal]

But it seems by your logic you also don't know if you're in a debate. You don't even know if you're talking just because you're senses are telling you you are doesn't mean it's actually happening. You also don't know if the person you're talking to is listening, or if they can listen, it could be chance that they are saying the proper things to follow the conversation. You also don't know if there is any air in the room to vibrate to make your sound move to his ears, maybe there is a wall of vacuum between the two of you that appeared for a second and muffled everything you said before it got to him. You also don't know if you're really a brain in a jar or a coma patient or a sea sponge. You also don't know if you're not god.

So it seems by you're "we can't know anything for sure!" debating tactic you shouldn't even have bothered posting in this thread because you can't have an opinion, there are just too many unknowns!!

re: unicorns. a horse with a carrot on it's head is not a unicorn. If someone makes a claim that a Unicorn is a horse like creature with a horn in it's forehead, a lion's tail, a goat's beard and cloven hooves and that the horn can neutralize poison, also sometimes only virgins can see them. There are claims that you can then refute. If someone presents you with a unicorn of classical definition, you look at it and see that a carrot is glued to it's head you can then state "This is a horse and there is a carrot glued to it's head" You're skipping the whole hypothesis part of your argument that anything can be true.

CJ is a black woman from the depths of the sea. Do you think this can be proved wrong, Lionmonkey?

[Matti]

It's a fact that people can have more than five fingers, so your point being?

My point being that "can have" and "always have" are different things.

Yes, they are. Nevertheless we can state it as a fact that peple don't necessarily have five fingers. But your argument was that there's no such thing like a fact because we can't say for sure. But we indeed can say for sure that there are people with more than five fingers..

[Khris]

My point (again) is that people will always look for an explanation that is comforting to their own personal beliefs. That is why a stubborn to the bone atheis won't be convinced if a God goes to Earth and repeats everything, Bible said he's done. And that is why a superzealous religious person will never drop faith even if a machine that can do everything gods can do is construced.

I'm gonna reply to this because it's the only thing that hasn't been replied to and is worth replying to.

Here's a quote:

When asked what they would do if scientists were to disprove a particular religious belief, nearly two-thirds (64%) of people say they would continue to hold to what their religion teaches rather than accept the contrary scientific finding, according to the results of an October 2006 Time magazine poll.

This clearly shows that one doesn't have to be super-zealous to hold on to irrational beliefs (or that 64% of US citizens are super-zealous).
MY point being that comparable behaviour on the atheist side is practically non-existent, since a standard argument of the atheist side is listing several obviously supernatural experiences that would make them convert immediately. Which is consistent with their world-view, btw., because rational behavior includes the ability of accepting the own belief system to be wrong.

[Babar]

MY point being that comparable behaviour on the atheist side is practically non-existent, since a standard argument of the atheist side is listing several obviously supernatural experiences that would make them convert immediately. Which is consistent with their world-view, btw., because rational behavior includes the ability of accepting the own belief system to be wrong.

But I thought that according to you, "rational behaviour" is to not believe in something that (you believe) can't happen.
The caveat here is your use of the word "obviously". Someone (on these very forums, in a thread much like this one) once said that even if they experienced something, they still wouldn't believe it, and instead look for "rational" explanations.

A voice came to you in a dream and said "BELIEVE IN GOD"? - That's just a dream, it isn't real!
A voice came to you in your waking state and said "BELIEVE IN GOD"? - That's just a hallucination, it can't be real!
A voice came to EVERYEONE and said "BELIEVE IN GOD"? - That is obviously an airborne drug released by the CIA to control the masses.


Personally, I'd say that "empirical" is a better word to use than "rational" in this case. You believe that the entirety of existence does not go beyond what you can see, smell, hear or touch. Personally, for me there is more.

[Khris]

I can list a few things:
-Somebody grows a limb back
-A bearded, long-haired guy wearing sandals descends from heaven, gets beheaded, falls to the ground, then walks over to his head, reattaches it and rises back up again.
-The water of a big lake turns into tasty wine

If any of those happened in front of my eyes, that'd be enough for me to convert.

I'd still say that in this case, "rational" is the proper word.

And for me, there's nothing more than what can be conceived using the senses, because even if there were something, I'd have to believe it without evidence. To me, there's no point in doing that.
Our reality is defined by what we can sense, anything beyond that doesn't have any noticeable effect by definition and can (and should) be neglected.

[Babar]

* Babar shrugs

Okay. If you say so.

[MrColossal]

Babar, just some small question to your points, you say that personally for you there is more than the senses can attest for. How do you feel there is more? You sense it some how, right? Traditionally, if something goes beyond the senses of the body the only way to know it's there is with machines or some sort of experiment that shows a hypothesized result.

Humans can not sense X Rays however we know exactly what they are and how they work and how to use them. Humans can not use their eyes, fingers, mouths or ears to sense viruses but we have built extensions of our body that allow us to see and touch them. Humans used to accept the emission theory but then we used our senses and extra-sensory machines to reverse that belief.

Would you say that through using your senses you have come to accepting a certain truth about the universe and this truth is that there is a god or something outside of the physical world?

Basically, something in the physical world made you believe in a non physical world, right?

_{Edit by Andail: Fixed link}