Religious debate (split from main board)

[Snakes on a Wii]

Then explain the universe without God.

BTW, I don't think Ockam's razor would 'demand' that the 'God hypothesis' be discarded, you need to clarify that statement.

Science has explained how the universe works pretty well, and none of it requires a god. If you invoke Occam's Razor there, we have a universe without god, and a universe with god. Since the god hypothesis adds no new information, explains nothing better, etc, Occam's razor would say it should be discarded.

And your alternative is? That answered you question, did it not?

An alternative would be a serious, thoughtful response to the question, not just throwing out a biblical non-sequitir.

My words are not empty and I accused you of nothing.
You hold the myopic views, not me.
And I am concerned with an honest investigation of the truth whether you think so or not.

Don't be coy, you were very implicit. You can continue to parrot this fiction that I am a myopic narrow-minded arrogant atheist all you want but I have demonstrated clearly how I am neither myopic, narrow-minded, arrogant, or an atheist.

True, I have seen the light and everyone will someday.

Exactly my point. Every other religious person in the world feels exactly like you, except some of them feel that way about doctrines that directly contradict yours! Think about what that means.

I have never expressed anything that would indicate that I am always right ane everyone else is all wrong, I don't know where you come up with that.

You were talking about how you "know" you're right not too long ago. And when we're dealing with doctrines like these, if you're right, than a lot of other people (hindus, buddhists, muslims, atheists, etc) have to be wrong.

What have you foundwrong with my "Holy book"?

I don't think that anyone who reads the Bible will convert, I believe you can read it all you want and understand none of it if you aren't given the understanding of it.

You're right, you can read the book from an open-minded or critical perspective, or you can read it from a totally gullible and reverent perspective. Your problem is that if you think people aren't reading it and agreeing with it then they're reading it wrong. Can you imagine a Muslim telling you that you're reading the Qu'ran wrong if you don't convert to Islam? Or an atheist who says you don't understand Richard Dawkins if you read the God Delusion and don't become an atheist?

I can understand why don't believe.

I doubt you read what I suggested but if you had then it would have answered your question.

I grew up a Christian, I have read the bible. Then I read about other religions, how different sects of Christianity have interpreted the Bible differently today and in history, and how these interpretations do not fit a pattern of increasing wisdom but rather a pattern in which the Bible is used to justify pre-existing political, social, or theological ideas. I began to realize that every religion in the world was just like Christianity, they all thought that they were right and everyone else was wrong. And if I was so ready to dismiss other Gods, why wasn't I skeptical of the one I was raised to believe in? I decided that I could either be a hypocrite or I could be an equal-opportunity skeptic. And I chose the latter.

I didn't dismiss anything out of hand, I too have read much about most all religions.

The diffrerence is I know there is God.

May you someday come to the same knowledge.

You still dismiss the Eurythpro dilemna. Do you still think it isn't worth your time or do you just not have an answer for it?

 

[gsvol]

Science has explained how the universe works pretty well, and none of it requires a god. If you invoke Occam's Razor there, we have a universe without god, and a universe with god. Since the god hypothesis adds no new information, explains nothing better, etc, Occam's razor would say it should be discarded.

Yes, but most all of the great scientists of history do acknowledge the possiblity of and evidence of God and have no problem with the belief that there is room for both science and faith, some of them have been devout believers.

An alternative would be a serious, thoughtful response to the question, not just throwing out a biblical non-sequitir.

Point out the non-sequitur.

How do you come to the conclusion I gave the response no thought?

Don't be coy, you were very implicit. You can continue to parrot this fiction that I am a myopic narrow-minded arrogant atheist all you want but I have demonstrated clearly how I am neither myopic, narrow-minded, arrogant, or an atheist.

That was my answer to your own projections toward what I thought, if you don't want such responses then don't dish out such nonsense.

Exactly my point. Every other religious person in the world feels exactly like you, except some of them feel that way about doctrines that directly contradict yours! Think about what that means.

That isn't true at all, evidently you aren't the scholar I first took you for.

What directly conflicts what I believe??

You were talking about how you "know" you're right not too long ago. And when we're dealing with doctrines like these, if you're right, than a lot of other people (hindus, buddhists, muslims, atheists, etc) have to be wrong.

God does work in mysterious ways.

There are some things that are universal to most all belief systems, there are some common threads.

You didn't mention other notable religions such as Judaism, Zoroastianism and Bahainism.

Maybe it isn't so much about being right or wrong but about understanding the truth.

Here is a book you might or might not find interesting:

He Walked the Americas.

To me it is interesting that the legends of so many diverse tribes, passed down through two millenia would be so similar.

You're right, you can read the book from an open-minded or critical perspective, or you can read it from a totally gullible and reverent perspective. Your problem is that if you think people aren't reading it and agreeing with it then they're reading it wrong. Can you imagine a Muslim telling you that you're reading the Qu'ran wrong if you don't convert to Islam? Or an atheist who says you don't understand Richard Dawkins if you read the God Delusion and don't become an atheist?

Well that isn't really about what I was talking about, I meant to covey the fact that reading the words means nothing if you aren't given the spiritual help to understand just what the written word really means.

I grew up a Christian, I have read the bible. Then I read about other religions, how different sects of Christianity have interpreted the Bible differently today and in history, and how these interpretations do not fit a pattern of increasing wisdom but rather a pattern in which the Bible is used to justify pre-existing political, social, or theological ideas. I began to realize that every religion in the world was just like Christianity, they all thought that they were right and everyone else was wrong. And if I was so ready to dismiss other Gods, why wasn't I skeptical of the one I was raised to believe in? I decided that I could either be a hypocrite or I could be an equal-opportunity skeptic. And I chose the latter.

That is your perogative, I have no problem with that.

Many are called, few are chosen.

You still dismiss the Eurythpro dilemna. Do you still think it isn't worth your time or do you just not have an answer for it?

Because it is no dilemma to me, I did answer.

What is your answer to the eurythpro dilemma and do you not believe in the socratic principle? I answered and gave you a question which you have ignored. (among many other questions you have also ignored, are those questions not worth your time??)

 

[BeecherVol]

Ya'll are wearin that quote button plum out.

Wow!

 

[IPorange]

Ya'll are wearin that quote button plum out.

Wow!

That was a huge multi-pointed exchange. Unfortunately, it may have burned all the air out of this thread for awhile.

 

[BeecherVol]

That ain't no joke.

I do good to handle one point at a time.

 

[gsvol]

That was a huge multi-pointed exchange. Unfortunately, it may have burned all the air out of this thread for awhile.

Does a human being have an immortal soul?

 

[turambar85]

Does a human being have an immortal soul?

What is the functional purpose of a soul? Is it the control center of the brain? Where does it sit - in what section of the brain (or all of it)?

 

[gsvol]

What is the functional purpose of a soul? Is it the control center of the brain? Where does it sit - in what section of the brain (or all of it)?

So you believe humans have an immortal soul, or not??

What is the functional purpose of life itself??

Why would the soul be centered in the brain??

 

[IPorange]

Does a human being have an immortal soul?

I don't think so. I know of no evidence of a soul, or reason for a soul.

 

[turambar85]

So you believe humans have an immortal soul, or not??

What is the functional purpose of life itself??

Why would the soul be centered in the brain??

1) obviously not

2) I don't have to say that life has a functional purpose, as I am not positing life as existing a priori without any rationalization for doing so, despite positing life in a functional system. You, however, are doing so with the soul.

3) As the soul is listed as the locus of consciousness, it is only fitting to imagine it primarily residing in the realm where consciousness makes the most sense.

So, what role does the soul serve?

 

[gsvol]

1) obviously not

2) I don't have to say that life has a functional purpose, as I am not positing life as existing a priori without any rationalization for doing so, despite positing life in a functional system. You, however, are doing so with the soul.

3) As the soul is listed as the locus of consciousness, it is only fitting to imagine it primarily residing in the realm where consciousness makes the most sense.

So, what role does the soul serve?

1) Do you think you have some purpose to your own life?? If so what might that be, if you don't mind my asking.

2) Likewise I don't have to say a soul has a functional purpose.

I only asked if you believe people have souls, how do you conclude why I asked so easily?? Your intuition or simply rationalization??

3) Listed by whom?

One might say the soul is the connection between the physical and spiritual worlds.

Do you think that everything can be explained in three dimentional terms?

 

[turambar85]

1) Do you think you have some purpose to your own life?? If so what might that be, if you don't mind my asking.

2) Likewise I don't have to say a soul has a functional purpose.

I only asked if you believe people have souls, how do you conclude why I asked so easily?? Your intuition or simply rationalization??

3) Listed by whom?

One might say the soul is the connection between the physical and spiritual worlds.

Do you think that everything can be explained in three dimentional terms?

1) The purpose for a life is defined by either a) society, b) one's parents, c) oneself, or d) a combination of the three. My goal is to move this as close to c) in myself as possible. If labels help you, this is a humanistic existentialist view of purpose.

2) Right, you don't have to say that the soul has a purpose. But...then without one it is pretty irrelevant. It means that all thinking, all thought, all morality, all love ... all of the human experience ... is contained within the brain. If you want to do that, so be it. Kudos.

3) Listed by theology, mainstream and traditional. The soul is thought to be that which differentiates between humans and animals. It is thought to be that which connects us to god. It is thought to be the thing that helps us rise above plain matter and have thoughts, dreams, and love.

You have a choice between denying the soul any earthly purpose or explaining the role and mechanisms of the soul in this life. You went with door number one. I applaud your more advanced (though retreating) theology.

 

[gsvol]

I don't think so. I know of no evidence of a soul, or reason for a soul.

Sticking to the old "life sucks and then you die" philosophy??

Do you think there is such a thing as intuition??

Do you think there is such a thing as the 'supernatural' without tangible evidence or do you think that everything that exists can be explained in three dimentional terms??

And thanks Vol378!

 

[gsvol]

1) The purpose for a life is defined by either a) society, b) one's parents, c) oneself, or d) a combination of the three. My goal is to move this as close to c) in myself as possible. If labels help you, this is a humanistic existentialist view of purpose.

2) Right, you don't have to say that the soul has a purpose. But...then without one it is pretty irrelevant. It means that all thinking, all thought, all morality, all love ... all of the human experience ... is contained within the brain. If you want to do that, so be it. Kudos.

3) Listed by theology, mainstream and traditional. The soul is thought to be that which differentiates between humans and animals. It is thought to be that which connects us to god. It is thought to be the thing that helps us rise above plain matter and have thoughts, dreams, and love.

You have a choice between denying the soul any earthly purpose or explaining the role and mechanisms of the soul in this life. You went with door number one. I applaud your more advanced (though retreating) theology.

1) I have no interest in 'labeling' you.

From the Greek word we had 'diablem" meaning to catagorize and leading to the word diabolical which means devilish.

I'm not trying to put you in a box but to free you from the box in which you have placed yourself.

2) You say but you havn't the faintest idea about what I'm talking about.

3) Do you love? Do you have dreams? Do you have no connection to God? Do you think? Do you believe you exist on the same plane as bacteria for instance?

The role of the soul, if there be such a thing, might not be a mechanical as you imagine.

I have no idea as to what you mean when you say door number one, is this some sort of game show you imagine??

 

[bam15]

Yet, I never said that were "non-Christians" in any of those quotes. Nice try though.

That's pretty stupid.

Considering you labeled it as a different religion, there must be a difference.

Not to mention how it's not "True Christianity," which is clearly Baptists.

 

[g8terh8ter_eric]

That's pretty stupid.

Considering you labeled it as a different religion, there must be a difference.

It's a different religion than that of Biblical Christianity, but it still has Christian roots. There are many things that spin off of one thing, but they are different than the original. It's not that hard of a concept to grasp really.

 

[TennTradition]

Eric - I'm confused by what you mean when you say the Catholic church added books to the bible. Are you talking post-canonization councils? If I remember correctly, the Synod of Hippo gave us the New Testament (inspired, uninspired, whatever you believe...it was sanctioned there). Is that what you consider adding books? Most of the books of the apocrypha were added then...but that's not like adding books. That's forming the bible. Did they add old testament books on top of the accepted bible put together by rabbis and that used by Jesus and his crowd?

 

[OrangeEmpire]

What is the beef with Catholics?

 

[rjd970]

Here I thought all one had to do to be a true Christian was accept Christ as your savior and recognize him as the one true path to heaven. All details after that are up for debate and largely irrelevant to the central message.

...never knew there was a difference between being Christian and "True" Christian.

 

[g8terh8ter_eric]

Here I thought all one had to do to be a true Christian was accept Christ as your savior and recognize him as the one true path to heaven. All details after that are up for debate and largely irrelevant to the central message.

...never knew there was a difference between being Christian and "True" Christian.

Not going to disagree with you on that at all. All I am saying, is that Biblical Christianity and Catholicism are fundamentally different.

 

[IPorange]

eric, could you talk about some of the fundamental differences that you feel creates the schism?

 

[g8terh8ter_eric]

Eric - I'm confused by what you mean when you say the Catholic church added books to the bible. Are you talking post-canonization councils? If I remember correctly, the Synod of Hippo gave us the New Testament (inspired, uninspired, whatever you believe...it was sanctioned there). Is that what you consider adding books? Most of the books of the apocrypha were added then...but that's not like adding books. That's forming the bible. Did they add old testament books on top of the accepted bible put together by rabbis and that used by Jesus and his crowd?

They have added several books in the Old Testament, and they recognize the gospel of Phillip as being an acceptable book of the New Testament. If there are any Catholics out there that think I need to be set straight, please feel free to educate me further if I am wrong about any of this.

 

[KB5252]

eric, could you talk about some of the fundamental differences that you feel creates the schism?

I don't really have any true fundamental differences with the Catholic religion save that I put an emphasis on personal relationship with God. I realize this may have different meanings to different people but it seems to me Catholics seem to place a barrier between themselves and God, the clergy.

 

[TennTradition]

They have added several books in the Old Testament, and they recognize the gospel of Phillip as being an acceptable book of the New Testament. If there are any Catholics out there that think I need to be set straight, please feel free to educate me further if I am wrong about any of this.

But the new Testament books were placed there at AD 350. That's not adding books, that's making the bible. If anything, others took books out.

As for the old testament books, that one is a bit different. If modern bibles use the exact books that were in the bible used during the time of Christ, but the Catholics have extra books, then I could consider that adding. Do you know that to be the case?

 

[g8terh8ter_eric]

eric, could you talk about some of the fundamental differences that you feel creates the schism?

One of the biggest is the Pope. While, I understand he's the leader of the Roman Catholic church, praying to a man and asking him to forgive you is wrong according to the Bible. Also, being a state religion is a huge problem as well. Those are the 2 biggest for me. You could get down to nuances, but there would be too many to go through. The worship of Mary is one that is bad as well.