Debate Classics : Religion

[FoxDemonSoavi]

Considering it has been a while since this thread was completely destroyed, it has come to my attention that we probably need to clean these up a bit.

This thread's purpose is to discussion (or rather, argue) your standpoint on religion. Do you believe religion to be a false representation of the human character/emotions/needs, or do you believe that there is actually a greater being out there governing our actions? What religion is the right religion?

Discuss it here. - Maestro

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Just to start up the debate on religion again I have an odd quote from the bible
Judges 1:19;

"And the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron."

That means that God let it slip that he has no power over iron contruction. So if you have iron you are safe from god's wrath. This strikes me as odd.

 

[Wings]

Considering it has been a while since this thread was completely destroyed, it has come to my attention that we probably need to clean these up a bit.

This thread's purpose is to discussion (or rather, argue) your standpoint on religion. Do you believe religion to be a false representation of the human character/emotions/needs, or do you believe that there is actually a greater being out there governing our actions? What religion is the right religion?

Discuss it here.

 

[Narkidin]

One of my fav debates, I find many people find these topics insulting, but all you have to remember is that it is only a persons opinion and nothing else.

Do I belive in god, sure why not. Though the thought of death makes me wander; what will it be like? What I, don't belive is the bible. I think that it;s 50% BS. The reason why is if you look at it's history and the many legends that follow it (i e The Devinchi Code), you can tell that the Bible is one of the oldest book in the world. Many people back in the day would have killed someone like me for saying such stuff about the bible and god. So for this reason, I belive that over the years people added stuff to the bible and so I feel that it's 50% BS.

 

[Roman Candle]

the Bible is the oldest book in the world.

No, it's not. The Bible was not written till after Jesus' death. Believe it or not, they had invented writing before that.

I don't believe in God, but I wish I did. I utterly despise people who go around saying things like "Religion is stupid" and "Science disproves religion!". I think of religion as something totally natural and neccessary to human society.

 

[macchia]

He didnt say it was the oldest writing in the world, just the oldest book. I dont know if it is but it might be. But yeah, people were writing on papyrus for thousands of years BC and stone before that. I'd imagine, though, since paper(not papyrus) was invented in China the oldest book is Chinese in all likelyhood.

 

[arcthemonkey]

Considering the fact that half of the bible was around well before Christ, with the Torah - being part of the Bible, being more than 3,300 years old (We're talking like 1,200 B.C.), claiming it was written after Jesus is a bit silly. Unless you were referring to the parts ABOUT Jesus, but that's an obvious observation.

 

[Minkoff]

I don't believe in God, but I wish I did. I utterly despise people who go around saying things like "Religion is stupid" and "Science disproves religion!". I think of religion as something totally natural and neccessary to human society.

When you present arguments in their simplest forms without any evidence to back them up, you make them look stupid, but the sentiments expressed are often really not. "Religion is stupid" is extremely vague. Put differently, it doesn't sound so dumb. Try "from an outside perspective, some of the basic ideas behind religion seem silly." Because that's what they're really trying to say. And it's true, they do. If religion didn't exist and someone came along talking about their deep emotional relationship with an omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, man-like being that nobody could sense in any physical way, they'd probably be laughed at. I don't see why you can despise a statement like that, because it's true even if it doesn't make religion wrong.

"Science disproves religion!" is also vague, and also partially true. There are certain mainstream interpretations of religious texts that don't make much sense according to human knowledge and logic. A concept like God is impossible to disprove, but if you take away the arbitrary significance humanity places on itself and its surroundings, the need for a God isn't all that grand and the idea that everybody and everything is the result of a completely meaningless infinite random process becomes much less hard to comprehend. Keep exploring science, proving further and further how much everything fits in perfectly with a straightforward, observable logical process and God still isn't disproved. But there comes a certain point when you just have to let it go and say "okay, while this is possible, it's a completely arbitrary belief, and whatever logic that led me there is broken and outdated." It's just a lot simpler just to say that when that point comes, the concept is disproved. In other words, depending on what your set of evidence is and who you trust, yes, science can in fact virtually disprove religion.

If you have a problem with people who just can't agree to disagree when it comes to atheism versus ALL RELIGION, you have a point, but I hope you know they're a vocal minority. Just like most religions. By the way, I'd like to believe in God too, but not because I'm ashamed of atheists. I just think it would help me sleep better at night.

 

[Narkidin]

"Science disproves religion!"

Big words, but if you do belive that or any scientists who do you only show people two things:

1) You do not have the fundamental understandings of science.

2) And your not being open minded.

Lets do something most people would not think of, lets use Science & Religion to prove if god does or does not exsist (try thinking fourth dementionaly not 3).

First off its a scientists job to think out side the box, but when it comes to "WHO" or "WHAT" created the Earth they choose science. The bible says that Earth was made in seven days scientists say over billions of years.

So whos right?

Well lets look at "TIME"; thats right I said time. We know that time is diffrent in SPACE then on EARTH. So whats not to say that "TIME" where ever god is (according to the bible everywhere or other religions in a diffrent realm). That to god 7 days is a billion years on Earth/Space. Now this does not prove that god exsists or who/what created the Earth, but a true scientist would be open minded to the idea and never say, "Science disproves religion," because it has not.

To disprove it would mean people would no longer follow it.

No, it's not. The Bible was not written till after Jesus' death. Believe it or not, they had invented writing before that.

You don't need to be a smart ass about it, it was a simple typo, should have said: "One of the oldest." Think before you run your mouth off.

 

[macchia]

Considering the fact that half of the bible was around well before Christ, with the Torah - being part of the Bible, being more than 3,300 years old (We're talking like 1,200 B.C.), claiming it was written after Jesus is a bit silly. Unless you were referring to the parts ABOUT Jesus, but that's an obvious observation.

That much is implied, bud. The bible doesnt become the bible until the whole Jesus thing. Before that its a series of gospels passed by word of mouth. The tora and the bible (these vocal gospels written and categorized) dont come until much later.

"If you have a problem with people who just can't agree to disagree when it comes to atheism versus ALL RELIGION, you have a point, but I hope you know they're a vocal minority. Just like most religions. By the way, I'd like to believe in God too, but not because I'm ashamed of atheists. I just think it would help me sleep better at night."

Neither side seems to be aware the idiots who get the screentime are a vocal minority, the vocal minority creates a stereotype applied to the whole. Just like when I think of vegans I think of pseudo terrorists like Greenpeace, some people think of crazyhats like Pat Robertson when religion is braught up and smug coffeesipping charicatures(too often proven real) when athiesm is braught up.
A true scientist, cynical by default, doesnt dismiss without irrefutable proof so smug atheists arent being terribly good scientific minds since the concept of god by its nature can't be disproven. Dont bring up unicorns or spagetti monsters, unicorns arent by their definition beyond any and all laws of science and the universe but the idea of god is. Disproving a single religion doesnt disprove god even a little bit, just the moral doctrine and mythology of a single religion out of hundreds.

 

[Minkoff]

The fact that a concept can't be disproved doesn't make it worthwhile. Most atheists are what people think of as agnostics in that they don't dismiss the idea of God(s) entirely, but that they think the logical default (remember, default, not absolute answer) to the question of whether it or they exist is no. Atheism is atheism, not antitheism.

 

[Roman Candle]

The existance of God is a moot point to science, because science deals in observations. Now, if I said "I have psychic powers, I can make people burst into flames", then a scientist would say "That's stupid", because I'm claiming that I could present evidence to support it, but failing to do so, (assuming here that I don't have psychic powers). However, if you said to a scientist "I believe in something which cannot be observed", then the scientist should be obliged to say "Well, then I can't offer any opinion on the matter". It is true that the logical position of science is negative, but only where science could give an option one way or another. On the subject of religion, science cannot comment.

Arc, if you take the Bible, remove all references to Jesus, then it wouldn't be the Bible, would it now? I don't appreciate your tone in telling me that I'm making "obvious observations". I never said that it wasn't obvious. I said it because someone implied that it wasn't true, as you full well knew, so you can just calm down and get off my back. Much appreciated.

Kobra - Sorry, my mistake. I was in no way aware that it was a typo.

Minkoff - I never said anything about the validity of arguments put forward by intellegent people. I was talking about the average 'forward thinker' who makes the kind of ignorant statements I mentioned.

 

[arcthemonkey]

@Roman Candle -

I swear, I had no tone 0_o

No really, you have no no reason to be offended even remotely by what I said - I simply wasn't certain if people actually thought christianity believed the parts of the Bible about Jesus were written before he was born. Also, I wasn't pointing my response directly at you.

 

[lunarhiro2002]

Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world.
Christianity is on its decline.

Its interesting what the times bring. But eh, its no secret that church attendance has been declining steadily, but not rapidly. Where older denominations lose people the more evangelical gain people. But overall its in a decline.

I think that your refrence to Judges about metal and your analysis of it is not very thourogh.

Your view is one possibility.
Another is that God gave them a command...they tried to do it but couldn't because they did not possess the technology, and manpower to do it.

Kinda like they were to travel through the desert for 40 years and survive they could not do it on their own...they had to be proven that they had to rely on God to get them through their day

Just like in Judges their enemies use of Iron made it impossible for them to follow a command. They again had to rely on God to get them through...

Of course there is a 3rd possibility.
They couldn't kill them because they were to fast with the chariots of iron and they had chariots of wood. The wood wheels break easily while the iron ones do not...

 

[whiteshadow]

I have a couple of simple question for atheists. I am curious, what is the harm in believing in God? How do you think we got here and do you think we go to heaven or hell or just turn to dust?


Also, what exactly is scientology? I've heard of it but is it like a religion or is it just like people who believe in evolution and stuff.

 

[Minkoff]

I have a couple of simple question for atheists. I am curious, what is the harm in believing in God?

I'll answer your question in the form of a question. What's the problem with believing in the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

How do you think we got here and do you think we go to heaven or hell or just turn to dust?

That first question is pretty vague but I think the immediate answer is that I was born. Before that? Just take a look at recorded and observed history. And yeah, we probably just turn to dust. Sucks.

Also, what exactly is scientology?

Sorry, but do you live in a fucking cave? Look up Scientology right now (Wikipedia is a good start).

I've heard of it but is it like a religion or is it just like people who believe in evolution and stuff.

"People who believe in evolution and stuff" can belong to any religion at all. A lot of Christians actually believe in evolution. Evolution has absolutely nothing to do with religion.

 

[Roman Candle]

Minkoff, let me answer your question in the form of an answer.
There is nothing wrong with believing in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. People might think you were a bit odd for putting deep, serious, faith, in a farcical, comical being, though. But hey, don't let me stop you. The point is that mainstream religions have ritual; they have weight; they have potence. The flying spaghetti monster... Does not. Really.

 

[Grandor]

Yeah, but even the creator of the Flying Spaghetti monster stated that it was used to criticize a school who forced that intelligent design be teached in evolutions place in their school. Personally, I don't know how anyone could put belief in something like that, but hey whatever floats your boat. As long as your religion isn't something illegal, or something to cause harm to others, then why not?

 

[Minkoff]

You guys are right and in retrospect I'm pretty sure I missed the point of what he was saying. Replace "what's the problem with" with "why not" and it makes a lot more sense. Right answer, wrong question.

 

[Jonathan]

Evolution has absolutely nothing to do with religion.

Not true at all. The theory Evolution in itself is not observational science, but origins science, the difference being that observational science can be observed, wheras origins science is based almost entirely upon theory that happens to fit what we see today. Never has macro evolution (genetic complexity being added) been witnessed, let alone tested in the laboratory. All that has been seen is a decline in the amount of genetic information present in a population gene pool. I.e, Wingless cormorants and Blind (No eyes) fish descended from seeing fish and cormorants. In the case of the fish, the fact it lived in darkness in a cave meant that having no eyes was naturally selected for. This ISN'T Evolution, it is a decline in information. Evolution needs a rise. So, Evolution has never been seen and is based on a theory that loosely fits to the facts. I would call that as much a faith as christianity is.

Christianity could be called a theory that fits to the evidence. I.e a global flood is the theory, and the evidence is millions of fossils layed down in rock layers that were deposited by vast quantities of water. It is an alternative way of thinking, just as plausible as a geological time frame for the laying down of rock layers, maybe more so, because evolution doesn't explain things like Ceolocanths being found only in deep rock layers, nowhere else, yet they are alive today. If the rock layers were only representative of things that got buried in a flood, you would expect fish to be near the bottom because of all of the tectonic activity in a global flood causing rapid under water rock slides.

Sooo, when you say evolution is nothing to do with religion, i would say it is as much an unproven religion, relying on faith, as christianity or islam is.

Plus it isn't compatible with christianity either, i.e. Bible says birds came before land animals, evolution says after, and many other inconsistencies.

The clincher for me is that evolution was a theory made up by Men, who make mistakes, wheras the Bible was written by men inspired by God, who doesn't make mistakes. The evidence for divine inspiration is found in the scientific accuracy, the prophetic accuracy, and the complete acgreement in all of the books of the bible, though some were written thousands of years apart.

Any Questions about the prophecies or anything in general, PM me.

Jonathan (sorry about the long post... :s)

 

[Roman Candle]

4 " 'There are some that only chew the cud or only have a split hoof, but you must not eat them. The camel, though it chews the cud, does not have a split hoof; it is ceremonially unclean for you. 5 The coney, [a] though it chews the cud, does not have a split hoof; it is unclean for you. 6 The rabbit, though it chews the cud, does not have a split hoof; it is unclean for you. 7 And the pig, though it has a split hoof completely divided, does not chew the cud; it is unclean for you. 8 You must not eat their meat or touch their carcasses; they are unclean for you.

The hare does not chew the cud. As for prophetic accuracy - the Bible code produces lots of very accurate prophecy. That doesn't mean that it actually works.

Evolution is a combination of scientific and economical theory; that doesn't make it any less credible or valid.