Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Religion, Science, Scepticism, Philosophy and things metaphysical

Jump to new
pavilion103 said:
Agree.

On another point, this thread is just becoming the same as the other religion thread.

Was there a specific purpose for this one?
Click to expand...

I created this forum to discuss Religion, Science, Scepticism, Philosophy and things metaphysical as the title said. I didn't want to use the Religion is Crazy thread as there are many aspects of religion worthy of discussion apart from the acts of those with extreme views. I also didn't want to impinge on The Beauty in Religion thread as that would have been too restrictive and the OP said at the outset "Plenty of threads here vilifying religion so it's time for a positive one. If you want to post bigotry or conspiracist nonsense please go elsewhere. Just the good here."

So religion was one of several topics that could be discussed here, but my hope was that it would be discussed at a more philosophical and scientific level than just each calling the other side fools.

I'm interested to discuss origins.
Click to expand...

I kicked off the thread with a post about a newly translated pre-biblical tablet that described a great flood and was supposedly used to save all animals. It was pertinent to the thread as it was relevant to the historicity of the biblical story of Noah and if true, would also have relevance to the origins of man (as our lineage would all descend from those people).

Your first response to this thread was to express audacity that the source of the story was a website on evolution and you were immediately in attack mode (as if it were relevant where the tablet story came from - there were many sources, I just found it there). The issue was the story, you were up in arms at the source I used.

What a staggering website to put this article on "Why Evolution is True"

........

I thought your article must have been a creationist one. Bizarre that it's on an evolution website when it actually supports some sort of flood account!

I guess people tend to whack up a bunch of text and draw whatever conclusion they want! Weird.

There was a big discussion on stigmata, relevant to scepticism. Some discussions on a new theory of life. Articles were posted on a new type of stem cell, on how to evaluate the authenticity of "extraordinary" stories posted on Facebook, on a conspiracy theory relating to snow in the US South, Neanderthal Genes Found in Modern Human DNA, Charles Eisenstein - Sacred Economics, the Ken Ham - Bill Nye debate and other things. Some topics took off, others didn't. That is to be expected. But there is obviously interest in this thread as it has grown quickly.

IMO it is successful, though at times it may get bogged down in certain topics that are of interest to just a few.There have been lot of insults thrown at other people who do not share the same views, as documented above. I personally try to avoid doing that.

However, I am less concerned about the insults that the constant statements from some people adamantly stating what other posters think, ignoring completely what these other posters say, or what certain groups in society think, without any evidence to back up those statements. For instance, I have a few times stated my position on a deity, on abiogenesis, on the Big Bang, yet I am being told that I have a different position on these than I declared. Also people trying to put a label on me that doesn't conform to how I see myself. That is arrogance.

But where this forum goes is up to the participants. My intention is to post articles on thread related topics that I find interesting and whether others want to discuss or not is not for me to decide. However, I think this thread is needed as the topics are of interest to many people and there isn't another thread that is more appropriate for their discussion.
 
Chris45 said:
Artist, here is a list of epithets used by some of the atheists here when discussing the people and / or the ideas they disagree with:
gullible, brainwashed, bigoted, sanctimonious, nonsensical, asinine, thoroughly indoctrinated, ignorant, pious, superstitious, ridiculous and ludicrous, delusion, religious nonsense, blinkered, religious drones, magic book, slave to religious superstition, celestial dictator, arrogant, religious myth and poison.

Perhaps you can appreciate why we theists get a little annoyed and sometimes feel the need to respond in kind.
Click to expand...

You were able to find examples I did not find, even though I looked back through a couple or three threads. I am not surprised, and, as I wrote above, I lament the use of such terms by either side. It is possible to research these matters, either as an original researcher or as a consumer of others' work (which is the case for most people) without the rancour so while I understand theists' annoyance I don't agree either side needs to respond in (that) kind. These issues easily inflame emotions yet the emotions won't lead to understanding of the issues.

I know of an atheist who is so highly regarded for his work in the community that, when he became seriously ill, he was being prayed for by religious communities in Australia and overseas. And he was highly appreciative of their prayers. He, likewise, values the work that some religious leaders carry out in the community. That is the model I prefer to follow.
 
William Lane Craig is adamant he cannot prove god exits. Graham Oppy, whom Craig has described as "scary smart" has written that he cannot prove god doesn't exist.
 
artist said:
William Lane Craig is adamant he cannot prove god exits. Graham Oppy, whom Craig has described as "scary smart" has written that he cannot prove god doesn't exist.
Click to expand...

No one can prove God or disprove God. It's impossible. Any sensible person admits this.

In the same way no one can prove anything. I can't prove that I'm not in a dream right now. I can't prove that the sun will rise tomorrow.

I hate the word proof.
The word to use is evidence.
We examine evidence and make a conclusion based on that evidence.
E.g. Based on evidence the sun will rise tomorrow (but I can't prove that it will).
 
Curious to hear from the theists on this;

If a person lives their life without ever being exposed to the teachings of Christ/Christian doctrine, what happens to them when they die? I suppose whatever the response is, that it applies equally to those that follow alternative religions?
 
lindsayf said:
Curious to hear from the theists on this;

If a person lives their life without ever being exposed to the teachings of Christ/Christian doctrine, what happens to them when they die? I suppose whatever the response is, that it applies equally to those that follow alternative religions?
Click to expand...

My take on it is this.
There were many people in the Bible who never heard of Christ and are in heaven:
Moses, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob etc.

I obviously don't know all the answers.
What I do know is that God is just. His character is one of ultimate justice. He doesn't rip anyone off in the end.
Those who haven't heard of Christ aren't automatically going to Hell.
We are given a conscience. We are given an innate knowledge that some God exists. We can see it clearly in creation also.
I believe that those who have never heard the Gospel message and humbly put their faith in God will not automatically be sent to Hell.

However, this would represent a small minority of the world who have never heard of Jesus.
Just as Moses, Abraham and Isaac never had, but put their sincere faith in God.

The majority who have heard of Christ have the opportunity to investigage his claims or to ignore them.
I believe that if people are sincere in their search they will find Christ.
Unfortunately, most are so indifferent to even investigating these enormous claims. Most dismiss it instantly.
Most I speak to aren't even aware of the piles of evidence when I tell them. They are a bit shocked.

Put it this way. I don't think anyone that is a sincere seeker, investigated the claims thoroughly and humbles themselves will miss out on eternal life.
 
I'll add to that. It certainly isn't some exclusive club.


It's like this example.
It's raining outside.
There is an infinite number of umbrellas.
Some take them and walk across the road safely.
Others cry out "It's not fair that only those with umbrellas can get across the road dry".
Meanwhile their own umbrella is within arm's reach! Everyone can have one.

The rain, like death, we cannot control.
We need to carefully examine if there is a solution.
If there is we obviously need to accept it.
If it's a free gift even better!
Christ offered this solution loud and clear and backed up his claims.
This warrants very serious investigation.
There is no other even like him.
 
Tink said:
Atheists are 100%, there is no God, just as Religion is 100%, there is a God.
Agnostic is the one in the middle.
I think a majority see it that way.
Click to expand...

pavilion103 said:
As Tink says there are three
1) belief in God
2) agnostic = unsure
3) atheism = belief that there is no god
Click to expand...

bellenuit said:
I am an atheist who does not accept the evidence provided as sufficient proof for me to believe in a god. I am quite willing to accept that there might be a god if I see evidence that I deem sufficient.

Atheist: a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods
Click to expand...
atheism - from the Greek atheos (a- not, theos god)
I think "100% belief that there is no God" fits.

Bellenuit's definition suggests to me that atheists are trying to soften their definition of atheism. Could this be an attempt to try and make atheism more appealing to the undecided agnostics by making it sound less adamant? :rolleyes:

A person who lacks belief in the existence of God but is quite willing to accept that there might be a God if he sees evidence that he deems sufficient, sounds less sure and therefore more of an agnostic.

Perhaps we could add a couple of extra classifications:
Apatheticist - a person who doesn't care if there is or isn't a God.
Simpleton - a person who has never bothered to think if there is or isn't a God. :)
 
burglar said:
If I call the origin a miracle, (hypothetically speaking ...) And if I create a miracle worker, And if my imaginary miracle worker creates time. Then I don't have a dilemma for the origin. I could insert the word "eternal" in nearly every post, whilst simultaneously pretending I am not going around and around and around the same metaphysical roundabout.
Click to expand...

You've missed the whole point.

By scientific standards an "in time" creator does not make sense because someone would have had to have made him.

There are two options only if there is a creator
1. In time
2. Eternal

We can eliminate one due to infinite regress.
 
pavilion103 said:
Belrnuit what are your thought on the origin? Apologies if I've missed it posted somewhere
Click to expand...

If you mean the origins of our universe, I simply do not know. Scientific explanations are in the realm of quantum physics and that is way beyond my comprehension, except at a very superficial level. As I've said before, there are many speculations but they are all placeholders IMO (and you could include supernatural creation among them) until some evidence is found to support one in particular or perhaps suggest another explanation. My problem with supernatural creation is that if it can be proved, well and good, but I don't know if that would be possible unless a deity made its existence known beyond doubt and then showed how it did it. However, if it cannot be proved and is just accepted (believed without evidence), then why bother to search for other explanations.

The Big Bang seems at present to be the best explanation of what happened to get from the initial point just after our universe came into being (which may have happened in parallel with other universes coming into being) to where it is today. The Big Bang has some credence as it conforms to much observed data, such as an expanding universe (extrapolate backwards and it is a shrinking universe converging to a point if taken to the extreme). The theory also predicted that if there was a Big Bang then there would be background noise from that event still observable and such noise has been detected. I see the Big Bang more as an explanation of what came after this monumental event rather than an explanation of the event itself or what was before.
 
artist said:
You were able to find examples I did not find, even though I looked back through a couple or three threads. I am not surprised, and, as I wrote above, I lament the use of such terms by either side. It is possible to research these matters, either as an original researcher or as a consumer of others' work (which is the case for most people) without the rancour so while I understand theists' annoyance I don't agree either side needs to respond in (that) kind. These issues easily inflame emotions yet the emotions won't lead to understanding of the issues.
Click to expand...

A contribution from Jesus and Mo on insults.


2014-02-05.png
 
Good on you, bellenuit, for opening this thread, as I said at the start, and I agree there is interest as it has grown quickly.
I do like hearing all the different views.

But where this forum goes is up to the participants. My intention is to post articles on thread related topics that I find interesting and whether others want to discuss or not is not for me to decide. However, I think this thread is needed as the topics are of interest to many people and there isn't another thread that is more appropriate for their discussion.

Agree
 
I wonder how many here have bothered to actually study the evidence presented for the reincarnation of souls?

I originally posted about reincarnation in the "Religion IS crazy!" thread but for the benefit of those who didn't see it, and since this is a new thread I'll provide the links again.

Google "reincarnation research" for more information.

* MailOnline article about Jim Tucker's book: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2509769/New-book-reveals-children-believe-reincarnated.html

Four of the cases described in the book:
(1) "Hunter", a three-year-old golfing prodigy who said he was the reincarnation of 13-time major winner Bobby Jones.

(2) Ryan, a Baptist Minister's five-year-old son, recalls fast cars, big boats, actor friends sunburn and trips to the Eiffel Tower that mirror the life of Hollywood agent and bit-part actor Marty Martin.

(3) Two-year-old James Leininger claims to have been a World War II fighter pilot.

(4) Three-year-old Lee, who believed that he was Sidney Coe Howard - the Oscar-winning screenwriter for arguably the biggest Hollywood blockbuster of all time Gone With The Wind.​

* Washington Post article about Ian Stevenson: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/10/AR2007021001393.html?nav=hcmodule

* Ian Stevenson's paper "Birthmarks and Birth Defects Corresponding to Wounds on Deceased Persons": http://www.childpastlives.org/library_articles/birthmark.htm

* Documentary about six-year-old Cameron Macaulay: "The Boy Who Lived Before": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QgOBfCrxS3U

* Eleven-year-old boy reincarnated, FOX 8 News: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWCUjx4nI98

* Wikipedia entries for Tucker & Stevenson:

Bellenuit cited a skeptic's discussion about the James Leininger case but there hasn't been much other discussion.

I find it puzzling that people can dismiss 40 years of scientific research involving 3,000 cases of apparent reincarnation so easily.
 
Top