Religion, Science, Scepticism, Philosophy and things metaphysical

[pavilion103]

Burglar I disagree Fx's perspective and unapolgetic articulateness are extremely well placed in this thread It is the perfect counter to the doctrinal and dismissive statements herein

It's all hot air, bravado and arrogance with zero substance.

Like the guy at the poker table with no cards , trying to bluff and then I call with pocket aces and sink him.

 

[pavilion103]

Hasn't been able to answer my evolution points. No one has. Hasn't been able to provide a more scientific answer than a creator for the origins of the universe. He is like a politician during question time.

 

[Value Collector]

, the warmth in the school was obvious as the teachings of Jesus was told through the school. The caring of others was always encouraged and we were sent to help many different areas in society.

As I said at the start of this thread, Religion and Science can both be dogmas if you allow them, a healthy dose of both is a good thing.

Our Christian Values were encouraged from when this country started, if you don't know what they are, then best you look them up.
Without the influence of Christianity, we wouldnt be where we are today.

The cold stark reality of science without religion is cold. Both contribute in society.
As I said, they work well together.

We need to accept both in society for a healthy society.

That is my view

You don't need Jesus to be a good person. There is no good thing that any religious person does that they couldn't do without religion, But there are many bad things that people do because of their religion.

You use the term "Christian Values" but due to the many brands of Christian mythology it's hard for me to know what you mean, There is a lot of human rights abuses and discrimination (look at the banning of gay marriage) in the name of "Christian values", and the good ones you can cherry pick do not rely on the supernatural claims.

I can't see why you couldn't dump the phony supernatural claims and still be a good person.

Science is not cold, its inspiring, and it is the opposite of dogmatic.

 

[Value Collector]

science is in fact a religion,

No it's not, simple as that.


religion is - the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.

Nothing in science comes close to that, Science is simple a method of establishing what is true and learning about the universe.

 

[pavilion103]

An atheist can be a good person.
That is a fact.

The question is good by what standard?
What do they define as good?
There are no moral absolutes. It is relativism.
They could be good by the same standard as Christians eg feeding the poor, loving others.
Or they could be good by the same standard as Hitler if they choose eg strengthening the gene pool by killing others.
Either way it doesn't matter. It's just like a personal choice: chocolate or ice cream.
Atheism = relativism.

But God has given us a code of moral absolutes.
When we anchor ourselves to them we live in the best way possible that He intended for us.

A person CAN be good without being a believer in God. But if there is no God there are no objective morals and we can make up what we choose.

God does help us to be good. The Holy Spirit transforms us and the good atheist would be even better if he had the Holy Spirit.

But what we all need God for is salvation.
You will die.
I will die.
Best to know where you are going.
It's a free gift given in love.
Only foolishness would reject it.

 

[pavilion103]

No it's not, simple as that. religion is - the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods. Nothing in science comes close to that, Science is simple a method of establishing what is true and learning about the universe.

Science is not a religion. How could anyone say it is? Any Christian who says this is misguided, given that science undoubtedly leads to the conclusion that there is a creator. It backs up the existence of a god and makes it almost impossible to hold the atheistic position.

What is a religion/philosophy is evolution (macro) as I've pointed out in this thread with much evidence that has not been countered effectively.


You can't just drop the supernatural claims for convenience though when all the evidence points to the resurrection (as outlined previously).

 

[Value Collector]

Hasn't been able to answer my evolution points. No one has. Hasn't been able to provide a more scientific answer than a creator for the origins of the universe. He is like a politician during question time.

What points on evolution do you need answering?

 

[pavilion103]

What points on evolution do you need answering?

Scroll back and look at the back and forth between Bellinuit and I.
It went back and forth a bit so I can't just type it all up here or you'll probably dish out the same answers!

If you really care go back and look and post.

 

[Value Collector]

Science is not a religion. How could anyone say it is? Any Christian who says this is misguided, given that science undoubtedly leads to the conclusion that there is a creator. It backs up the existence of a god and makes it almost impossible to hold the atheistic position.

What is a religion/philosophy is evolution (macro) as I've pointed out in this thread with much evidence that has not been countered effectively.


You can't just drop the supernatural claims for convenience though when all the evidence points to the resurrection (as outlined previously).

Even if science did prove a god existed ( which it hasn't), it still wouldn't be a religion unless it created a system of worship based on this god.

- - - Updated - - -

Scroll back and look at the back and forth between Bellinuit and I.
It went back and forth a bit so I can't just type it all up here or you'll probably dish out the same answers!

If you really care go back and look and post.

what page does it start on

 

[pavilion103]

You're right about religion.
That's why I ask who do I trust to tell me the truth about God.
Christ came to earth, loved a sinless life, predicted his death and resurrected 3 days later with undeniable evidence.

So I'll trust him to tell me who God is and what his purposes are.

 

[pavilion103]

I'll check what pages when I get time to scroll through

 

[Value Collector]

I'd need even one scientific example of life coming from non-life to believe that this is possible. Not one has ever been observed thus I have to follow the current scientific evidence that life does not come from non-life.

Both you and I believe life came from non life. If you believe the genesis story you believe a god created life from non living material, So whether or not life can come from non life is not the issue between our positions.

The only difference between our positions is you believe a super natural being used magic to created life from non life, where as I believe it was probably a natural process that didn't require a higher intelligence.

 

[Value Collector]

Christ came to earth, loved a sinless life, predicted his death and resurrected 3 days later with undeniable evidence.

So I'll trust him to tell me who God is and what his purposes are.

What undeniable evidence do you have access to that could show those things actually happened.

I mean all the religions have supernatural claims, Muhammad is said to have flown to heaven on a winged horse, is this evidence of Islams version of a god.

 

[pavilion103]

Both you and I believe life came from non life. If you believe the genesis story you believe a god created life from non living material, So whether or not life can come from non life is not the issue between our positions. The only difference between our positions is you believe a super natural being used magic to created life from non life, where as I believe it was probably a natural process that didn't require a higher intelligence.

There are two options then.
That life came from a creator.
That life arose from natural processes.

However scientific evidence suggests that we never observe life coming from non-life during natural processes.
Give me one scientific example of this occurring.
There are none.

Scientific evidence this points to the only way that life can come from non life is by some means other than natural processes.

You might say that they will discover this one day with more time and more money. But then you'd be drawing a conclusion now and hoping for evidence later. You have to go where the scientific evidence is. Keep looking by all means though.

 

[pavilion103]

What undeniable evidence do you have access to that could show those things actually happened. I mean all the religions have supernatural claims, Muhammad is said to have flown to heaven on a winged horse, is this evidence of Islams version of a god.

I will repost this for you when I get time.

The evidence for he resurrection as an historic event is backed up heavily.

Muhammad having flown to heaven has no historical basis, in the same way that I couldn't prove that Jesus ascended to Heaven or performed miracles etc.
However once the resurrection is established then you tend to trust the words of Jesus.

I've already posted examples of those who actively went out to disprove it and became believers. The lawyer also with 255 consecutive murder acquittals weighing up the evidence of it and becoming a believer.

I will post some specific when I get time. I've done so in the thee religion thread multiple times.

 

[overhang]

Value Collector - I really couldn't care less about the public education system, as I never attended and neither did my children, but I was recounting what I have been told by others, especially one that spent her whole life in the public system, and sending her three children in the last thirty years, she couldn't wait to get her son out.
She was disgusted at what it has become.

My recollection of girl convent school is nothing like DocKs, the warmth in the school was obvious as the teachings of Jesus was told through the school. The caring of others was always encouraged and we were sent to help many different areas in society.

As I said at the start of this thread, Religion and Science can both be dogmas if you allow them, a healthy dose of both is a good thing.

Our Christian Values were encouraged from when this country started, if you don't know what they are, then best you look them up.
Without the influence of Christianity, we wouldnt be where we are today.

The cold stark reality of science without religion is cold. Both contribute in society.
As I said, they work well together.

We need to accept both in society for a healthy society.

That is my view

Why do Christians attempt to have such a monopoly over morality? Do you really need a book to tell you not to steal etc? You see I personally have a conscience that helps me determine right from wrong but Christians require the threat of hell and reward of heaven to persuade them right from wrong which is frankly just troubling.

Christianity really nails the perfect cult, you have an almighty magical god that can never be proven but if you believe hard enough then he will reveal himself to you (also known as a placebo, manipulation of the mind). You require a reward for following (heaven) and a deterrent for not (hell), you condone contraception because its important your cult out grows all others to give you a monopoly. Religion was established at a time of very limited understanding of earth, people required a reason why their crops were flooded or children becoming sick. When his couldn't be answered it's just too easy to say a magical overlord in the sky has a plan and everything is done for a reason but we can never know this plan or that reason because he operates in mysterious ways.
Teach your children what you like at home but don't poison other children with religious dogma.

 

[rumpole]

Why do Christians attempt to have such a monopoly over morality? Do you really need a book to tell you not to steal etc? You see I personally have a conscience that helps me determine right from wrong but Christians require the threat of hell and reward of heaven to persuade them right from wrong which is frankly just troubling.

.

I'm not a religious person, but I'd be interested in a scientific reason for the development of a "conscience".

It could be counter productive to survival in some situations, and would seem to detract from the prime motive of living creatures to survive.

 

[Value Collector]

There are two options then.
That life came from a creator.
That life arose from natural processes.

There could also be other options also. But yes, you believe in a creator, I think it is probably a natural process, So between us there is mainly to options, but other options do exist, for example it could be a supernatural process that is not a "Creator"

However scientific evidence suggests that we never observe life coming from non-life during natural processes.
Give me one scientific example of this occurring.
There are none.

We never see evidence of gods creating life from non life either. Give me one scientific example of a god creating life.

The natural processes that it took to make the first life may not exist on earth anymore, So it may be wrong to expect it to still be happening, Or it may be such a rare event that it is wrong to expect to see it in the brief history of humans.

Also, you seem to think the difference between life and non life is black and white, but there is a grey area, there is non living material that has many properties of life, but which is not life. It's possible that first life came from these non living self replicating molecules.

Scientific evidence this points to the only way that life can come from non life is by some means other than natural processes.

We are a long way from understanding all the natural processes that go on and have gone on in the universe, So it's incorrect to say the only answer to a phenomenon is the supernatural. Years ago we didn't understand how the sun worked or before that lightning, supernatural causes were given, we have since learned they are completely natural and explained by physics.

You might say that they will discover this one day with more time and more money. But then you'd be drawing a conclusion now and hoping for evidence later. You have to go where the scientific evidence is. Keep looking by all means though.

I am happy to say "I don't know" to the things science is yet to explain, It is the religions that try and draw conclusions before the evidence is in. the difference between you and me is, I say "I don't know, perhaps we could find out" you say, " I don't know, therefore god did it"

 

[overhang]

I'm not a religious person, but I'd be interested in a scientific reason for the development of a "conscience".

It could be counter productive to survival in some situations, and would seem to detract from the prime motive of living creatures to survive.

I believe this question was asked during the Bill Maher debate and his answer was simply that we don't know yet. Now of course we could substitute a religious reason that simply god created man and women and stop at that but for most enquiring minds that just doesn't cut it. You would think it has to do with the fact we're social species that depend on each other to survive.

 

[Value Collector]

I'm not a religious person, but I'd be interested in a scientific reason for the development of a "conscience".

It could be counter productive to survival in some situations, and would seem to detract from the prime motive of living creatures to survive.

If you mean conscience as it a feeling of right from wrong, it basically goes back to survival and the development of social groups.

An individual living in a social group is much more likely to survive than one that goes it alone. And an individual that has antisocial behaviour will be ejected from the group reducing its chances, So there would be a natural progression of animals that do consider others and live by the social rules staying in the group spreading their genes and the ones the don't being ejected and not thriving.

A member of a group that shares food we be welcome in the group, one the steals gets ejected. So we have this constant play in our brains, we want to do whats good for us, but we also want to protect the group and protect our status in it. this is where the origins of conscience come from.