261 replies to this topic

[wisp]

Although there is no scientific evidence involving anything that has to do with Religion, any religion.

Not all facts need to scientific. Just something other than one's opinions.

Well, it is a historical fact that Jesus lived 2,000 years ago and said the things he said and died the way He did. Was buried, where the body miraculously disappeared. That much has been proven.

The problem is that people say that that's an awful lot that can't be proven. But really, it can't be disproven, either. Consider, can you prove that Someone is God? Can you Prove that someone can resurrect themselves? Can you prove that God exists and has the power that the Bible says Jesus had? No.

So really, everything about Jesus that CAN be proven, has.


And SOAP, not a word of that was my own opinion.

I als

All you've proven is that that a lot of the Bible claims can't be proven either way which is the Agnostic approach and raelly doesn't prove anything. Hooray, you just preached to the choir.

What can be proven is people embellish things, especially if they're spread by word of mouth over a long period of time before ever being written down. And the fact that there's a period of four decades after Jesus' death before anything is written down about him sends up serious red flags. It may not prove much right away but it does at least prove we should question the validity of the Christian Faith. Christians can call into question the validity of other faiths and even science (which can be proven) but they can't question their own faith?

Yes well, if you saw this it would send up red flags too.



But it's completely innocent.

Same with Christianity, no?

A suggestive photo is a bit different from stories that were passed around completely orally for at least four decades before anything was written down.

[SOAP]

Zuessdammit! I can't keep up with you guys!

So it's all a matter of opinion.

It would require you to really question how true your beliefs are.

It's been the pattern that every time I do that, bad shit happens.

Why should anything bad happen to you just for asking questions? Asking questions is how we learn, why would a wise and powerful God discourage that? Unless he expects to readily accept everything he says just 'cuz. If so, what's the point in having a brain then?

[SOAP]

Yes well, if you saw this it would send up red flags too.



But it's completely innocent.

Same with Christianity, no?

Haha! Cute.

Yes it would send up red flags but if this was an actual photo taken at the office, the proper thing would be to have an investigation. The two individuals in the photo would have to be identified and confronted by the proper authorities and the photo itself would have to be studied. Upon second glance I can already see the woman isn't even directly in front of the man, judging by how further up her feet are from his. She's also doing something with an open filing cabinet which wouldn't be open if the man was directly in front of her.

Same with Christianity. It's early years needs to be investigated. It wouldn't be as easy as that photo but questions will need to asked. We shouldn't just accept things as true just because some preacher at a pulpit says it is.

Edited by SOAP, 01 August 2007 - 10:36 PM.

[Reflectionist]

Haha! Cute.

Yes it would send up red flags but if this was an actual photo taken at the office, the proper thing would be to have an investigation. The two individuals in the photo would have to be identified and confronted and the photo itself would have to be studied. Upon second glance I can already see the woman isn't even directly in front of the man, judging by how further up her feet are from his. She's also doing something with an open filing cabinet which wouldn't be open if the man was directly in front of her.

Same with Christianity. It's early years needs to be investigated. It wouldn't be as easy as that photo but questions will need to asked. We shouldn't just accept things as true just because some preacher at a pulpit says it is.

Right. And if we knew those questions, who to ask them to, or how to find out the answers, we would, wouldn't we?

I certainly am all for questioning Christianity. But I won't ever do it with the intent of wanting to disprove it, or find a flaw. I think that many people who do question Christianity do it for the wrong reasons, and end up looking for something to find wrong with it. They make themselves believe that something is wrong with it.

Edited by Reflectionist, 01 August 2007 - 10:39 PM.

[wisp]

Haha! Cute.

Yes it would send up red flags but if this was an actual photo taken at the office, the proper thing would be to have an investigation. The two individuals in the photo would have to be identified and confronted and the photo itself would have to be studied. Upon second glance I can already see the woman isn't even directly in front of the man, judging by how further up her feet are from his. She's also doing something with an open filing cabinet which wouldn't be open if the man was directly in front of her.

Same with Christianity. It's early years needs to be investigated. It wouldn't be as easy as that photo but questions will need to asked. We shouldn't just accept things as true just because some preacher at a pulpit says it is.

Right. And if we knew those questions, who to ask them to, or how to find out the answers, we would, wouldn't we?

I certainly am all for questioning Christianity. But I won't ever do it with the intent of wanting to disprove it, or find a flaw. I think that many people who do question Christianity do it for the wrong reasons, and end up looking for something to find wrong with it. They make themselves believe that something is wrong with it.

I think you might be looking at this wrongly. When scientists test their hypotheses, they are, essentially trying to prove them by trying to DISprove them. By attempting to disprove an hypothesis, they create situations in which they think the hypothetical idea might fail. If it doesn't hold up, it's discarded. If it does hold up, then they consider it proven. I think for many of us, this is what we are trying to get out of religion (or Christianity) - of course there is no definitive proof either for or against God, but we can find enough information to prove or disprove such beliefs for our own minds.

[Reflectionist]

Haha! Cute.

Yes it would send up red flags but if this was an actual photo taken at the office, the proper thing would be to have an investigation. The two individuals in the photo would have to be identified and confronted and the photo itself would have to be studied. Upon second glance I can already see the woman isn't even directly in front of the man, judging by how further up her feet are from his. She's also doing something with an open filing cabinet which wouldn't be open if the man was directly in front of her.

Same with Christianity. It's early years needs to be investigated. It wouldn't be as easy as that photo but questions will need to asked. We shouldn't just accept things as true just because some preacher at a pulpit says it is.

Right. And if we knew those questions, who to ask them to, or how to find out the answers, we would, wouldn't we?

I certainly am all for questioning Christianity. But I won't ever do it with the intent of wanting to disprove it, or find a flaw. I think that many people who do question Christianity do it for the wrong reasons, and end up looking for something to find wrong with it. They make themselves believe that something is wrong with it.

I think you might be looking at this wrongly. When scientists test their hypotheses, they are, essentially trying to prove them by trying to DISprove them. By attempting to disprove an hypothesis, they create situations in which they think the hypothetical idea might fail. If it doesn't hold up, it's discarded. If it does hold up, then they consider it proven. I think for many of us, this is what we are trying to get out of religion (or Christianity) - of course there is no definitive proof either for or against God, but we can find enough information to prove or disprove such beliefs for our own minds.

The point was, a scientist will go in just to see if it can be disproven.

An atheist will scour the Bible looking for inaccuracies, looking for something for an excuse to say it's disproven. That's not what I want to do, and that was my point.

Sorry, I should've been clearer.

[wisp]

The point was, a scientist will go in just to see if it can be disproven.

An atheist will scour the Bible looking for inaccuracies, looking for something for an excuse to say it's disproven. That's not what I want to do, and that was my point.

Sorry, I should've been clearer.

While in some (perhaps even many) cases this does hold true, certainly it doesn't apply to all scientists or all atheists. It's just the louder, more militant ones that make the rest of them seem like they're just out to get Christianity. Really, for a lot of people, the scientific way of thinking, as I mentioned (albeit not quite as clearly as it sounded in my head) is just what makes the most sense. I don't think most of them are really doing it out of spite or anything.

[LionHarted]

I was referring to such ludicrous statements as:

"One could arrive at a perfectly right conclusion using perfectly wrong evidence in a perfectly useless way."

Which, is illogical to the point of hilarity. Along with many other things you've said.

It's illogical to point out that correct conclusions do not always require logical thought processes?

Well, shit. Logic seems to contradict truth.

[wisp]

I was referring to such ludicrous statements as:

"One could arrive at a perfectly right conclusion using perfectly wrong evidence in a perfectly useless way."

Which, is illogical to the point of hilarity. Along with many other things you've said.

It's illogical to point out that correct conclusions do not always require logical thought processes?

Well, shit. Logic seems to contradict truth.

As I said before... if you've come to a 'correct conclusion' by accident or without logical processes, it's usually just dumb luck. I'm really bad at putting my abstract thoughts into words, but I'll try my best to do it using an example.

In high school, when I was taking calculus, there were some times when the proper method of solving the problems escaped me. Sometimes, even though I might've missed a step, or done something out of order, or substituted an incorrect step for a correct one, I would come out with the correct answer. That doesn't mean that I was coming to the correct answer in spite of using the wrong or "illogical" method; it means I just had some dumb luck. Had I tried to do any other problems the same way, I would have gotten an incorrect answer.

Just because some illogical reasoning might once in a while lead to what seems to be a correct answer, the "correct answer" should still be tested with the proper, logical reasoning and/or evidence to confirm its actual validity.

[LionHarted]

As I said before... if you've come to a 'correct conclusion' by accident or without logical processes, it's usually just dumb luck.

So?

Just because some illogical reasoning might once in a while lead to what seems to be a correct answer, the "correct answer" should still be tested with the proper, logical reasoning and/or evidence to confirm its actual validity.

Opinion. Standard. Belief.

Why should people think that way?

[wisp]

As I said before... if you've come to a 'correct conclusion' by accident or without logical processes, it's usually just dumb luck.

So?

Just because some illogical reasoning might once in a while lead to what seems to be a correct answer, the "correct answer" should still be tested with the proper, logical reasoning and/or evidence to confirm its actual validity.

Opinion. Standard. Belief.

Why should people think that way?

Because otherwise people will go through their lives being taught false 'facts' that were discovered as possibilities and never checked for their validity.

Honestly, I don't even know why this is being questioned.

Edited by wisp, 02 August 2007 - 01:07 AM.

[Wolf O'Donnell]

Oh, how so? Saying it isn't contradictory doesn't make it so. It seems contradictory to me, unless your definition of prayer is something different from mine.

When you prayer, you're sending your thoughts and feelings to God, are you not? It's like a conversation between you and God. You're asking him for something or just talking to him. Now if God will not change his mind, because if he did that meant his first idea probably wasn't a very good one (and being a perfect God, why wouldn't his first idea be a good one?), what difference does prayer make?

Forgive me, I still don't understand you.

You stil don't? That's funny.

You stated that God will never change his mind. Yet you also state that prayer makes a difference. How? If prayer won't change his mind, then God is in effect ignoring your prayers. So how does prayer make a difference? You still don't see what I'm getting at? You still don't see the contradiction in your sentence? Okay, let's say it's not a contradiction for your sake.

If God doesn't change his mind, how does a prayer make a difference?

Why would it be contradictory for a perfect and benevolent God to give you what you want every once in awhile?

A perfect, omniscient God's decision must be perfect. Do you not agree? If he has planned something, then why should he then let you have what you want if it's against his perfect plan? A perfect, omniscient God knows best. He knows that doing A, B and C, is better for you. So if you pray to him and tell him not to do A, B and C, and he does it then...

1. God's initial plan wasn't perfect after all.
2. He's a bad father for caving in and giving you what you want instead of what you need.

Now I don't know about you, but don't the above points kinda contradict the idea of a perfect God?

Moreover, what makes you think that God hadn't already made up His mind before you asked?

Oh come now, do you really think that's realistic? A perfect, omnipotent, omniscient God hasn't made his mind up already, even though he knows you will ask him something? A God who is supposed to be the source of all morals, who knows everything and therefore knows what's best?

[LionHarted]

Why should anything bad happen to you just for asking questions? Asking questions is how we learn, why would a wise and powerful God discourage that? Unless he expects to readily accept everything he says just 'cuz. If so, what's the point in having a brain then?

I'm not talking so much about "questioning" my belief in God than allowing myself to compromise (or "question", if you prefer) the moralities that come with.

A perfect, omniscient God's decision must be perfect. Do you not agree?

No. I don't. A perfect, omniscient God's decision must be not bad.

1. God's initial plan wasn't perfect after all.
2. He's a bad father for caving in and giving you what you want instead of what you need.

Now I don't know about you, but don't the above points kinda contradict the idea of a perfect God?

1) I never said what you wanted wasn't in God's plan. You said that.
2) God always gives you what you need, in the Christian picture, so it's a moot point. Is my father a bad father for getting me juice on top of the water I already have?

A perfect, omnipotent, omniscient God hasn't made his mind up already, even though he knows you will ask him something?.

He knows what you'll ask Him for.

Because otherwise people will go through their lives being taught false 'facts' that were discovered as possibilities and never checked for their validity.

And the word will be such a horrible place because we won't know everything about it. Boo-freaking-hoo.

Some people don't care. Did that ever occur to you? Did it ever occur to you that telling people what they should believe about the world and how they should view it is more or less exactly the illogical, controlling, manipulative reasoning most often attribute to religion?

Edited by LionHarted, 02 August 2007 - 08:22 AM.

[Wolf O'Donnell]

A perfect, omniscient God's decision must be perfect. Do you not agree?

No. I don't. A perfect, omniscient God's decision must be not bad.

So, a perfect, omniscient God cannot necessarily make perfect decisions?

1. God's initial plan wasn't perfect after all.
2. He's a bad father for caving in and giving you what you want instead of what you need.

Now I don't know about you, but don't the above points kinda contradict the idea of a perfect God?

1) No. God always gives you what you need, in the Christian picture, so it's a moot point.
2) I never said what you wanted wasn't in God's plan. You said that.

1. If God gives you what you need then he won't listen to your prayers. What he was giving you in the first place must have been what he needed, as he is perfect and knows everything. If he changes his mind because of your prayer, that must have meant his intial plan wasn't giving you what you need. But if he's omniscient, he must have realised that long before you prayed, so he wouldn't have put that imperfect plan into operation in the first place.

2. It's irrelevant as to whether you said that or not. It's a point that is implied from the situation.

[LionHarted]

So, a perfect, omniscient God cannot necessarily make perfect decisions?

A perfect, omniscient God is not necessarily limited to perfect decisions; just has the ability to make them. A perfect God can only make positive decisions, not necessarily "perfect" ones (i.e., ideally, God might set up our lives so that we all become Christian; realistically, if everybody was Christian, there would be little incentive to be Christian).

1. If God gives you what you need then he won't listen to your prayers.

God doesn't have to give you only what you need.

2. It's irrelevant as to whether you said that or not. It's a point that is implied from the situation.

The omniscient God who knows everything you will ever do knows everything you will ever ask for. You must be talking about a different god.

Edited by LionHarted, 02 August 2007 - 08:12 AM.

[wisp]

Because otherwise people will go through their lives being taught false 'facts' that were discovered as possibilities and never checked for their validity.

And the word will be such a horrible place because we won't know everything about it. Boo-freaking-hoo.

Some people don't care. Did that ever occur to you? Did it ever occur to you that telling people what they should believe about the world and how they should view it is more or less exactly the illogical, controlling, manipulative reasoning most often attribute to religion?

Teaching people cold, hard facts is different from telling people what they "should believe." Facts are facts. Religion is often viewed as illogical, controlling, and manipulative (your words, not mine) because religion takes its beliefs (which are different from facts in that the source of a religious belief such as one in God cannot be empirically proven) and tells people they must share these beliefs (without any empirical evidence) or else burn in Hell for eternity.

Also, on the off chance that someone's gotten a fact wrong or even just a little off because of lack of data/testing, etc., history, science, and other realms that gather and teach facts will correct themselves so that we learn the correct information. Religion will never admit to being wrong on its finer points.

There's a very distinct difference, and it looks to me like you're glazing over it in an attempt to prove me wrong. Or would you prefer for the world to be ignorant? Ignorance (at least, widespread ignorance of facts that everyone should learn in order to function properly in society) does nothing but breed negative things like bigotry and contempt for others based on a lack of understanding of them.

Edited by wisp, 02 August 2007 - 11:35 AM.

[LionHarted]

Teaching people cold, hard facts is different from telling people what they "should believe."

No contest here.

However, why should people need to know the facts? Why should we teach them? There's an entire ideology behind science, not just a process. And ideologies are systems of belief, ways of looking at the world. What gives you the right to preach your ideologies, and why can't religion preach its own?

Facts are facts. Religion is often viewed as illogical, controlling, and manipulative (your words, not mine) because religion takes its beliefs (which are different from facts in that the source of a religious belief such as one in God cannot be empirically proven) and tells people they must share these beliefs (without any empirical evidence) or else burn in Hell for eternity.

And science takes its beliefs (about how people should observe the world) and tells people that they must share these beliefs (despite science's inability to explain everything) or else they are "illogical".

Which, if you really are atheist, is roughly the equivalent of telling someone they'll burn in hell.

Also, on the off chance that someone's gotten a fact wrong or even just a little off because of lack of data/testing, etc., history, science, and other realms that gather and teach facts will correct themselves so that we learn the correct information. Religion will never admit to being wrong on its finer points.

1) Note that a majority of modern world religions have modified whatever false beliefs they have had about the earth and history itself (evolution, the idea that the earth was the center of the universe, the shape and scale of the earth, etc. etc.);
2) Note that so little can be said, using empirical evidence, in favor of or against the existence of God that "correct information" is essentially nonexistent;
3) Note that the claim "there is no God" requires as much of a logical leap as the claim "there is a God", given that lack of evidence does not constitute lack. One cannot claim that either position is "wrong" with absolute evidence at his side; at least, not so far as we know.

There's a very distinct difference, and it looks to me like you're glazing over it in an attempt to prove me wrong. Or would you prefer for the world to be ignorant?

You're arguing a Slippery Slope. Since when does believing in religion in and of itself make anyone ignorant?

Ignorance (at least, widespread ignorance of facts that everyone should learn in order to function properly in society) does nothing but breed negative things like bigotry and contempt for others based on a lack of understanding of them.

And bigotry (at least, a widespread bigotry that assumes that its own interests about what should happen must be the best interests) does nothing but breed ignorance of the interests of those who do not share those same beliefs.

Note that religion tends not to ask people to ignore facts, it tends to ask people to accept unknowns for the sake of saving their souls. Science, on the other hand, tends to ask people to accept facts and ignore unknowns, because those who don't ignore unknowns are deemed "illogical".

Now, let me ask you, in the end, which accomplishes more: ignorance, or acceptance?

Edited by LionHarted, 02 August 2007 - 08:42 AM.

[vodkamaru]

Note that religion tends not to ask people to ignore facts, it tends to ask people to accept unknowns for the sake of saving their souls. Science, on the other hand, tends to ask people to accept facts and ignore unknowns, because those who don't ignore unknowns are deemed "illogical".

A true scientist would be just as skeptical of the "facts" as the unknowns. Science doesn't progress unless we abolish old "facts" which aren't actually facts and replace them with newer "truer" facts. If this didn't happen then people would still believe that the sun orbits the earth or that the earth is flat. So when Galileo comes to the colcusion of heliocentrism which challenged the established "fact" of geocentrism he ignored the temporary truth and accepted the unknowns while the Church held a conservative view matching the Bible.

[the LORD] set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved.

This example, at least, seems contrary to what you suggest.

Edited by vodkamaru, 02 August 2007 - 08:59 AM.

[Selena]

What accomplishes more? Probably ignorance. Unfortunately, what it accomplishes can be horribly negative. Hate crimes and aggression, to name just two. And the list goes on and on.

Furthermore, science does not ignore unknowns. It attempts to find out what they are. Thus all the studies into dark matter and the universe. I assume you just mean god here, as he is the ultimate unknown. When they find out how to prove or disprove him, I'm sure they'll try. And I once again see the horrible notion that science and religion apparently cannot work together. Why do people feel the need to believe one or the other, and hate the leftover? It's saddening to see that. Science and religion, believe it or not, don't have to be mortal enemies for the duration of human history. Religion has always been an answer to the unknowns, whereas science is an answer to the real world around us.

Why should you care about facts, truth and all that? I can't order you into doing it, since you seem to believe that science itself is a belief system as opposed to, well, just science. You don't have to know why or how things work in the world and universe around you. You don't have to do much of anything in life. But if you believe in god, then why waste his gift of a brain? Study, explore and learn. Intelligence is the only thing that can push society itself forward and help right the wrongs of past. And erase some of the needless hate in the world. If people were more informed about Islam, for example, they wouldn't freak out about regular Muslims who aren't crazy fundamentalists.

If you ignore facts and truth, you can be coerced into falling for things that people would otherwise know better than to do. It is incredibly dangerous to be blind to everything around you. Both to yourself and others. You're the one who was saying, somewhat disdainfully, that most of humanity is stupid. You encourage it now?

Learning. Without it we wouldn't be able to cure diseases and all that. You wouldn't have the computer you enjoy using. No video games, which, from your signature, you apparently like to play. You wouldn't have anything apart from spears and fur clothing. And while camping and boar hunting might sound fun, I don't know if I'd like to do it every day of the week.





So yeah, I'd say science and learning is pretty damned important.

[TheAvengerLever]

You stil don't? That's funny.

Yes...funny...Ha...ha?

You stated that God will never change his mind. Yet you also state that prayer makes a difference. How? If prayer won't change his mind, then God is in effect ignoring your prayers. So how does prayer make a difference? You still don't see what I'm getting at? You still don't see the contradiction in your sentence? Okay, let's say it's not a contradiction for your sake.
If God doesn't change his mind, how does a prayer make a difference?

Prayer, whether answered "yes" or "no" makes a difference. No contradiction.

[Delphi]

Just to put my two quick cents in:

I am a Christian and yet I'm an incurable science nerd. There really isn't any reason why religion and science can't exist side by side. If God is real then he would have created the laws of nature and therefore have a perfect understanding of them and be able to manipulate them perfectly, no?

Like, I don't believe we evolved from apes but I do believe that all species on this earth have the capability to change through natural selection and mutation-a form of evolution-that has been proven time and time again. Such as the pepper moth or antibiotic resistant bacteria. Also the sickle cell mutation in Africa that can kill people eventually but will save them immediately from malaria.

With the whole prayer thing, if you believe we lived before this life in the presence of God then who knows how long we lived with him? He could know us better than we know ourselves right now from our time up there. He may already know what we will ask and how we will act. It's like the parent that leaves their kid in the kitchen and tells them not to take cookies from the cookie jar before dinner. Most parents already know what their kid is going to do. If God is our Father then he already knows us. After that, it's just extrapolating from that knowledge.

And again, I really don't see the reason for all the fighting and such against the different sects of religion and those that don't have a religion and all the infighting. Seems kind of like a waste of energy to me...

Just my opinion. *whooshes away*

EDIT: Punctuation and grammar...*mutters*

Edited by Delphi, 02 August 2007 - 10:27 AM.

[Wanchimaera]

I believe that God doesn't hear the prayers of those who are in sin. There must be a confession and a repentance first. It's very disheartening to me, personally, to see that the number of true Christians in the world is so few. I cannot deny my faith. If someone were to threaten to kill me for my faith, I still don't think I could deny it. People who claim to be Christians one day and claim to be atheists the next really make me sick, but it's the people who think they're Christians because they could repeat after some pastor in some prayer and they knew what to say to the questions they were asked by their ministers - who aren't Christians at all - that really cause my stomach to turn. It's probably because I used to be one of them.

I've been on both the giving and the receiving end of prayer and yes, it's very effective. God has a plan and He works through people. There was an older lady that I had known from the time I could barely walk. She died several years ago from cancer. I wondered why God would allow something like that to happen and we prayed for her for weeks before she died. However, what we didn't know is that before she died, she requested that her funeral not be a time of mourning, but a plea for salvation and repentance. She felt that it was worth her life to give salvation to others. Many people's lives were changed at that funeral service and some people who had been fighting with each other suddenly buried the hatchet and became friends.

Ever since I stopped trying to make myself happy and started trying to be a Christian, I've never been more at peace with life. I understand that there are those of you who simply aren't going to be receptive to the message and I'm fine with that. If you refuse to believe in God, it's not my responsibility to make you. I'm not going to shove this stuff down your throat because you've already made up your minds.

Edited by Wanchimaera, 02 August 2007 - 09:11 PM.

[Wolf O'Donnell]

A perfect, omniscient God is not necessarily limited to perfect decisions; just has the ability to make them. A perfect God can only make positive decisions, not necessarily "perfect" ones (i.e., ideally, God might set up our lives so that we all become Christian; realistically, if everybody was Christian, there would be little incentive to be Christian).

But why would a perfect God make imperfect decisions?

1. If God gives you what you need then he won't listen to your prayers.
God doesn't have to give you only what you need.

But if he doesn't, surely he's not being a good father?

The omniscient God who knows everything you will ever do knows everything you will ever ask for. You must be talking about a different god.

Nope, that's the point I'm getting at. If he knows everything you will ever ask for, your prayer is meaningless, because he already knows it before you say it. Surely then prayer is useless as God would have already decided from what he already knows, what the best course of action is?

You stil don't? That's funny.

Yes...funny...Ha...ha?

Funny as in strange. Are you deliberately misinterpreting everything I say?

Prayer, whether answered "yes" or "no" makes a difference. No contradiction.

Actually now that I think about it, maybe you're not deliberately misinterpreting things but some misinterpretation is going on.

Okay then, let's tackle this point from another perspective. If prayer makes a difference, how does it make a difference?

I believe that God doesn't hear the prayers of those who are in sin.

According to a group of Christians, we're all in sin, so what you're saying is that God doesn't hear any prayers at all?

Edited by Wolf_ODonnell, 03 August 2007 - 03:44 AM.

[LionHarted]

But why would a perfect God make imperfect decisions?

A perfect God makes perfectly informed decisions.

But if he doesn't, surely he's not being a good father?

Surely you're not trying to apply your own standards of what a god should be to God.

If he knows everything you will ever ask for, your prayer is meaningless, because he already knows it before you say it.

He can't know you're going to say it if you're not going to say it.

Edited by LionHarted, 03 August 2007 - 08:58 AM.

[JRPomazon]

Christianity is something that shouldn't be overly-praised or bashed. It's a way of thinking. And I believe the reason Christians and others can't completely get along with each other is that Christians sometimes place their views on others. While at the same time, people sometimes want Christians to go against their moral standards for the sake of someone else's lower standards. I'm sure that somewhere there is a middle ground where people like SOAP and Button won't try and wring each other's throats and get along.

[MikePetersSucks]

Surely you're not trying to apply your own standards of what a god should be to God.

Technically, you do too, if you're Christian/Hindu/Jewish/Muslim/Whatever.

[LionHarted]

Technically, you do too, if you're Christian/Hindu/Jewish/Muslim/Whatever.

I don't presume what God should do; I presume what God has said He will/can/has do/ne.

[wisp]

Teaching people cold, hard facts is different from telling people what they "should believe."

No contest here.

However, why should people need to know the facts? Why should we teach them? There's an entire ideology behind science, not just a process. And ideologies are systems of belief, ways of looking at the world. What gives you the right to preach your ideologies, and why can't religion preach its own?

Facts are facts. Religion is often viewed as illogical, controlling, and manipulative (your words, not mine) because religion takes its beliefs (which are different from facts in that the source of a religious belief such as one in God cannot be empirically proven) and tells people they must share these beliefs (without any empirical evidence) or else burn in Hell for eternity.

And science takes its beliefs (about how people should observe the world) and tells people that they must share these beliefs (despite science's inability to explain everything) or else they are "illogical".

Which, if you really are atheist, is roughly the equivalent of telling someone they'll burn in hell.

Also, on the off chance that someone's gotten a fact wrong or even just a little off because of lack of data/testing, etc., history, science, and other realms that gather and teach facts will correct themselves so that we learn the correct information. Religion will never admit to being wrong on its finer points.

1) Note that a majority of modern world religions have modified whatever false beliefs they have had about the earth and history itself (evolution, the idea that the earth was the center of the universe, the shape and scale of the earth, etc. etc.);
2) Note that so little can be said, using empirical evidence, in favor of or against the existence of God that "correct information" is essentially nonexistent;
3) Note that the claim "there is no God" requires as much of a logical leap as the claim "there is a God", given that lack of evidence does not constitute lack. One cannot claim that either position is "wrong" with absolute evidence at his side; at least, not so far as we know.

There's a very distinct difference, and it looks to me like you're glazing over it in an attempt to prove me wrong. Or would you prefer for the world to be ignorant?

You're arguing a Slippery Slope. Since when does believing in religion in and of itself make anyone ignorant?

Ignorance (at least, widespread ignorance of facts that everyone should learn in order to function properly in society) does nothing but breed negative things like bigotry and contempt for others based on a lack of understanding of them.

And bigotry (at least, a widespread bigotry that assumes that its own interests about what should happen must be the best interests) does nothing but breed ignorance of the interests of those who do not share those same beliefs.

Note that religion tends not to ask people to ignore facts, it tends to ask people to accept unknowns for the sake of saving their souls. Science, on the other hand, tends to ask people to accept facts and ignore unknowns, because those who don't ignore unknowns are deemed "illogical".

Now, let me ask you, in the end, which accomplishes more: ignorance, or acceptance?

I don't have time to answer all of this individually right now, but suffice to say: You have entirely missed my point. I was never arguing against religion.

[LionHarted]

Then bringing it up at all defeated your own point.

I'm not arguing against science, either, just pointing out that it, too, subscribes to systems of belief to dictate how it ought to view the world, and what it ought to consider valid.

[Showsni]

Nope, that's the point I'm getting at. If he knows everything you will ever ask for, your prayer is meaningless, because he already knows it before you say it. Surely then prayer is useless as God would have already decided from what he already knows, what the best course of action is?

I don't know. But to quote from C.S.Lewis,

?Well, I do think someone might have arranged about our meals, ? said Digory.
?I?m sure Aslan would have, if you?d asked him,? said Fledge.
?Wouldn?t he know without being asked?? said Polly.
I?ve no doubt he would, ? said the horse (still with his mouth full). ?but I?ve a sort of idea that he likes to be asked.?