god thread, number 3 Options

[*disco infiltrator*]

So, it seems that everything talked about in another thread leads to religion.

So here we are!
Debate the existence of God and which one's right and stuff.

I would post links to God threads 1 & 2, but you can't search for three-letter words.
(2 got to 50 pages, think we can beat it?!?)

Er, I'll start.
I'm atheist. Prove me wrong.
By prove, I mean state facts that have been backed up by solid evidence. I have yet to see that happen in all 70 combined pages of threads 1 & 2.

[*mipadi*]

I don't see the need to prove anyone wrong in this area. I'm comfortable with my own personal religious beliefs; the beliefs of others don't influence me unless I intend to discuss and learn from the beliefs of others. I'm not even certain why we bother having these discussions. I'm not concerned with another's personal beliefs, so long as his beliefs are not forced on me in such a way as to affect my own life, such as through governmental legislation.

Besides, how does one prove anything in this area? The logic of the atheist does not work against the faith of the believer, and vice-versa.

[NoSex]

Besides, how does one prove anything in this area? The logic of the atheist does not work against the faith of the believer, and vice-versa.

Agreed. So, in this case, it would be most important to first examine the epistemological nature of both faith, and logic.

I pose these questions to a faith believer:

1. What is faith, exactly?
2. How can we know that we are operating under fatih?
3. How do we gain accurate knowledge from mechanisms of faith?
4. What exactly are the mechanisms of faith?
5. Of what value is faith?
6. Of what use is faith?
7. Imagine that we were to put several individuals in a room to observe an event and attempt to explain said event with two different tools. In the first test we would give them the tools of logic science as a means to explain the observed event. Several of the individuals came out with different explanations. As logic is a tightly defined process, we can study each participant's methodology to determine who went wrong and where, and who has created a cogent, cohesive, and deductive explanation. We can explain why different people came about different explanations and show them what needs to be done in order to become more accurate in their observations, and explanations. Now, moving into the second test, we would give that participants the supposed tools of faith as a means to explain the observed events. Coming out of the experiment, each participant has came to a different conclusion and explanation. How do we determine who is right and who is wrong in their explanations?

[aznxdreamer]

prove that there is no god.

[Ington]

^Thank you.

Frankly, there is no way to prove anything beyond knowledge. We don't know. Instead, why don't we just say what we believe in?

I believe it is possible for there to be a God. Psionics lets it.

[EddieV]

God is a Legend. I am a Legend Killer, boy I can't wait...

That's if he/she/it/they/feces/etc. exists...

[*Programmer*]

yes...there is no right or wrong...awnser...to god's exsistance... it cannot be proven....or unproven...you just simply have to deal with the real awnser "Not Knowing"

The choice has always been up to the person to believe or not...

[*disco infiltrator*]

Heyyyyy guys, if you don't see the point in debate, then don't post. Thanks.

[xxtaintedlips]

i dont know if there is a god, but i sure hope there is because people just cant help me with my problems right now

[sadolakced acid]

the rules of logic dictate skepticism before blind faith.

therefore; you do not believe in a flat earth unless you can prove it is, not you believe in a flat earth untill you can prove it is not.

quite simply, god's existance cannot be proven by the scientific method.

ergo, god does not exist. simple, from a purely logical sense.


of course, outside of logic, god may exist. but there is no evidence of him in this world.

a common quote is the one about "you can't see the wind, but you know it's there". quite fallicious, when used to defend faith in god. you can see the trees move, you can feel the wind.

you cannot see god's actions; actions are merely attributed to god.

god, therefore, is based upon faith alone. you either believe in him or you don't. if you attempt to prove he exists, you will fail.

however; belief in god is faith. science is logic. the two should not cross.

i do not walk into a church and distrust the bible on matters of faith becuase of logic. Ergo, christians should not walk into a classroom and distrust science on matters of logic because of faith.

saying you don't believe in evolution because of faith in god is as absurd as saying you don't believe in god because of evolution.

matters of faith and matters of logic need not, and should not, mix.

[illumineering]

For me, faith occupies a space unburdened by the need for proof in a scientific or logical framework. The experience of living beyond a terminal cancer diagnosis and two near-fatal automobile accidents is proof enough for me.

[NoSex]

prove that there is no god.

The burden of proof is on the theist, not the atheist.

[*mipadi*]

a common quote is the one about "you can't see the wind, but you know it's there".  quite fallicious, when used to defend faith in god.  you can see the trees move, you can feel the wind. 

you cannot see god's actions;  actions are merely attributed to god.

You can't see the actions of the wind, either, but merely the consequences of the action of the wind. The same goes for God. My point is that, using that logic, a religious person can easily point out that one cannot see God performing an action, but one can see the results of such action (e.g. miracles).

[NoSex]

You can't see the actions of the wind, either, but merely the consequences of the action of the wind. The same goes for God. My point is that, using that logic, a religious person can easily point out that one cannot see God performing an action, but one can see the results of such action (e.g. miracles).

It's a false analogy.

We can show exactly how and why there is a causal relation between the wind and the movement of the trees. We can not show such a relation between a so-called miracle and an, for the most part, unknown entity hiding behind the laws of nature.

Obviously we have the knowledge, and scientific instruments necessary to measure, detect, and explain the nature of wind currents and their effects on us and our enviroment. We can demonstrate these proofs and understand them. The same can not be said for any spirtiual form of "measurment or detection."

We don't have faith that the wind is there, we know that the wind is there. It would take a larger amount of assumptions to believe that the wind was indeed not there than to believe that it is. So, reason dictates that we accept the reality of wind. Belief in the exitsence of wind is proportional to evidence, reason, and rationality. The same can not be said for belief in God.

Also, the standard of evidence, burden of proof, and all other mechanisms of proper reasoning need to be considered in the matter.

[*mipadi*]

It's a false analogy.

We can show exactly how and why there is a causal relation between the wind and the movement of the trees. We can not show such a relation between a so-called miracle and an, for the most part, unknown entity hiding behind the laws of nature.

Obviously we have the knowledge, and scientific instruments necessary to measure, detect, and explain the nature of wind currents and their effects on us and our enviroment. We can demonstrate these proofs and understand them. The same can not be said for any spirtiual form of "measurment or detection."

We don't have faith that the wind is there, we know that the wind is there. It would take a larger amount of assumptions to believe that the wind was indeed not there than to believe that it is. So, reason dictates that we accept the reality of wind. Belief in the exitsence of win is proportional to evidence, reason, and rationality. The same can not be said for belief in God.

Also, the standard of evidence, burden of proof, and all other mechanisms of proper reasoning need to be considered in the matter.

And what is science but, in the end, just another way of explaining and believing?

[*Blow_Don't_SUCK*]

And what is science but, in the end, just another way of explaining and believing?

Yes it's true. Science can be that way, but for some reason, I find science much more reasonable than God. Besides, science doesn't really justify your acts and tell you that you're going to hell if you're gay or commit this certain sin. Science has proven a lot of things like gravity, cells, etc. But what has God proven? In the bible he talks of rules we have to live by that are all of a sudden contradicted in the next few books. There's always something about heaven and hell and yet we do not know of it. They talk of blessing those who do not see but believe. Or is that just something the bible used to convince Christians to remain faithful?

[Ington]

Basically, because we don't have hard scientific proof on the existence of God, we shouldn't believe He exists?

You know, at a time, people thought the world was round flat.

Yes it's true. Science can be that way, but for some reason, I find science much more reasonable than God. Besides, science doesn't really justify your acts and tell you that you're going to hell if you're gay or commit this certain sin. Science has proven a lot of things like gravity, cells, etc. But what has God proven? In the bible he talks of rules we have to live by that are all of a sudden contradicted in the next few books. There's always something about heaven and hell and yet we do not know of it. They talk of blessing those who do not see but believe. Or is that just something the bible used to convince Christians to remain faithful?

Lets assume there is a God for a minute. Would it be better for Him to set up a system of rules for mankind to build off of, or to show how things work? Obviously you haven't been reading into it much, because all those things you said were pretty vain. The rules are to avoid chaos. Supposedly He created and loves us all, and the point of it all was to treat each other well. Really, I think if everything were explained first, we'd all have killed each other. Thats why we were created with the mind capacity to solve things for ourselves.

Oh, and Christians read the bible. The bible isn't Christian. Therefore, the bible isn't only for Christians, and that last sentence was pretty shallow as well.

[*Blow_Don't_SUCK*]

Basically, because we don't have hard scientific proof on the existence of God, we shouldn't believe He exists?

You know, at a time, people thought the world was round.

the world is round. Did you mean square?

Isn't that just something that helps prove that we might be wrong about God? That in this period of time we used to think there is a god and then all of a sudden in the future we were able to prove he doesn't?

[NoSex]

And what is science but, in the end, just another way of explaining and believing?

This is the most common mistake among both believers and non-believers. As George H. Smith explained it: Reason is viewed as a single tool, like a hammer or a screwdriver, within a giant tool box full of tools. We use the hammer for some things, and the screwdriver for others. Faith is just another tool within the box. When the hammer does not work we might need a screwdriver. When reason "fails" us, we might need to use faith. However, the problem here is that reason is not a single tool within a tool box, it is the entire tool box. Once you throw out reason, you have no more epistemological tools to work with. It's the end of the line.

This is why I asked all those questions about fatih originally. Those have not yet been answered, unfortunately. Once we can tackle the idea of faith as an epistemological process we can actually begin to have a meaningful debate and discussion on this matter.

[Also, if there is another way, aside from using reason, that we can understand why the tree moves and what that may have to do with wind, let me know. Cause, that would be mighty useful to this discussion.]

[*mipadi*]

I'll start off by saying that I place a heavy emphasis on science; I am a computer science student, after all. When I want to explain something, I pull out my ruler, or protractor, and measure angles, calculate sines, cosines, tangents, radians, and what have you, and draw a conclusion. My studies and research is based mostly around math and science. So naturally, I believe that yes, the wind can be measured with tools, and explained scientifically. Clearly wind is caused by pockets of high-pressure air moving into pockets of low-pressure air. I certainly can explain why one pocket is of a higher pressure than the other. And I can certainly ascribe visual indicators—leaves blowing, trees bending—to wind.

Having said that, if I may play Devil's advocate for a minute, it's certainly easy to see how a religious person could argue this point. Could he not say that the wind itself is caused by God, and every "scientific" indicator, from trees bending to measuring the excitement of the atoms that make up the air (i.e. temperature) is willed by God?

And there we have the crux of the problem: All the application of logic in the world is not going to shake a believer. I don't believe in God because I invest a lot in tools of science, and God doesn't make sense to me. I don't believe what I noted the believer would tell me—I think that's a load of garbage. But it's very easy to see how the faithful can undercut scientific principles. And that is why we have a problem: The tools of science cannot penetrate faith, and faith cannot shake the tools of science. So what is the point of trying to apply the tools or beliefs of one discipline to another?

As I noted, I very much believe in science, and I once made a similar argument to a friend of mine who is currently at working on a philosophy thesis. As he pointed out to me, religion and science are both ways of examining The Truth—and The Truth, ultimately, is defined by one's own perceptions and experiences, which makes it highly subjective. (He had a further interesting discussion, but not being a student of philosophy myself, and having no interest in philosophy, aside from the narrow study of symbolic logic, I didn't care to remember all of his precise details and arguments.)

[Ington]

Science doesn't prove what we need to know. I hope someone has noticed that by now. I am a student of science, but I know it will not tell me what I want to know. It is possible that nothing will.

The unsolvable question is Why?

For example, you may ask why trees move, and someone can answer because of the wind. Well, why is the wind there? Why is it blowing? Why did whatever blew it blow? Why can it blow? Why does it exist? Why does anything exist?

Every time science answers one why, it leads to another question. It will never reach the last question, and thus never truly solves the first.

Basically, we can find out how things happen with ease. Science however, cannot explain the why.

[*Blow_Don't_SUCK*]

Science doesn't prove what we need to know. I hope someone has noticed that by now. I am a student of science, but I know it will not tell me what I want to know. It is possible that nothing will.

The unsolvable question is Why?

For example, you may ask why trees move, and someone can answer because of the wind. Well, why is the wind there? Why is it blowing? Why did whatever blew it blow? Why can it blow? Why does it exist? Why does anything exist?

Every time science answers one why, it leads to another question. It will never reach the last question, and thus never truly solves the first.

Basically, we can find out how things happen with ease. Science however, cannot explain the why.

Well that's better than having a God make up reasons as to why these things happen. Most of the reasons stated is, "Because I am the almighty creator of" blah blah blah it's not enough. though truth is NOTHING is enough, I prefer what science can do than what religion can prove.

[sadolakced acid]

the world is round. Did you mean square?

Isn't that just something that helps prove that we might be wrong about God? That in this period of time we used to think there is a god and then all of a sudden in the future we were able to prove he doesn't?

flat and round like a pizza.

[NoSex]

So naturally, I believe that yes, the wind can be measured with tools, and explained scientifically. Clearly wind is caused by pockets of high-pressure air moving into pockets of low-pressure air. I certainly can explain why one pocket is of a higher pressure than the other. And I can certainly ascribe visual indicators—leaves blowing, trees bending—to wind.

Main Entry: ex·plain
Pronunciation: ik-'splAn
Function: verb
Etymology: Middle English explanen, from Latin explanare, literally, to make level, from ex- + planus level, flat -- more at FLOOR
transitive senses
1 a : to make known b : to make plain or understandable <footnotes that explain the terms>
2 : to give the reason for or cause of
3 : to show the logical development or relationships of
intransitive senses : to make something plain or understandable
- ex·plain·able /-'splA-n&-b&l/ adjective
- ex·plain·er noun
- explain oneself : to clarify one's statements or the reasons for one's conduct
synonyms EXPLAIN, EXPOUND, EXPLICATE, ELUCIDATE, INTERPRET mean to make something clear or understandable. EXPLAIN implies a making plain or intelligible what is not immediately obvious or entirely known <explain the rules>. EXPOUND implies a careful often elaborate explanation <expounding a scientific theory>. EXPLICATE adds the idea of a developed or detailed analysis <explicate a poem>. ELUCIDATE stresses the throwing of light upon as by offering details or motives previously unclear or only implicit <elucidate an obscure passage>. INTERPRET adds to EXPLAIN the need for imagination or sympathy or special knowledge in dealing with something <interpreting a work of art>.

A true explanation leads directly to understanding. We explain the unknown with the known, in hopes that the unknown may one day become known. In the case of trees silently moving, you can most certainly explain this phenomena. This is good.

Having said that, if I may play Devil's advocate for a minute, it's certainly easy to see how a religious person could argue this point. Could he not say that the wind itself is caused by God, and every "scientific" indicator, from trees bending to measuring the excitement of the atoms that make up the air (i.e. temperature) is willed by God?

A religious person could very well say that, but in no way does that make it any more true. As you demonstrated above, we can explain exactly what is going on behind the movement of the trees. We can demonstrate a definate causal relationship behind the movement and the wind. The same can not be said in this instance. A religious individual can not demonstrate that a "God" has a causal relation to the movement of trees or the effects of wind in general.

If a religious person were to say this, it would not be an explanation. As an explanation allows us to understand an often unknown phenomena, we would expect that if subscribing a "God" to the wind was truly an explanation, such a relationship could be demonstrated. No such relation can be shown.

Saying that God causes the wind or created the universe is equivalent to saying that KGHSDAHA causes the wind or that ajknhjkldfHABV created the universe. In these cases, we are attempting to explaining the unknown with the less known, or the unknowable. In many cases where a religious believe understands God to be an explanation to the cosmological problem, in reality, that same "explanation" is almost entirely meaningless, nonsensical, incoherent, and in no way does it truly help us to understand what is happening in our universe.

And there we have the crux of the problem: All the application of logic in the world is not going to shake a believer.

We have been over this before. But, I'll make it quick this time. That is a hasty generalization, and is simply not true.

But it's very easy to see how the faithful can undercut scientific principles. And that is why we have a problem: The tools of science cannot penetrate faith, and faith cannot shake the tools of science. So what is the point of trying to apply the tools or beliefs of one discipline to another?

Refer to my post about George H. Smith's tool box analogy as well as the meaning behind my dubious nature towards faith. Wait till someone responds to my list of questions on the nature of faith, maybe then we will have something to actually discuss.

As he pointed out to me, religion and science are both ways of examining The Truth—and The Truth, ultimately, is defined by one's own perceptions and experiences, which makes it highly subjective. (He had a further interesting discussion, but not being a student of philosophy myself, and having no interest in philosophy, aside from the narrow study of symbolic logic, I didn't care to remember all of his precise details and arguments.)

We can show how "science" is a form of examining the truth. No one has yet to show me how "religion" is even capable of examination, let alone examination of 'the truth.'

Depends on what you are talking about. A great deal of things are subjective, morality, beauty, intellectual taste, and any other number of human experiences. However, The truth, as the truth corresponds with reality, is objective.

"The apple is red. The car is there. God exists. George W. Bush does not exist."

Those are all objective propositions. As in, they have truth values and their truth values can not be determined by the subject.

[*Blow_Don't_SUCK*]

flat and round like a pizza.

Back then no one thought the world was round. They thought it was flat and square.

[sadolakced acid]

religion doesn't require thinking.

plus, it's easier to convince people they need to give thier gold to you so they can get into heaven than to convince them to give thier gold to you because you know the scientific explanation.

[*Blow_Don't_SUCK*]

religion doesn't require thinking.

plus, it's easier to convince people they need to give thier gold to you so they can get into heaven than to convince them to give thier gold to you because you know the scientific explanation.

But that's not the point of this topic (though I am branded a hypocrite when I say this) the point is to prove whether or not God exists! You're saying as if it's alright to just believe in a religion that can benefit you through those "giving things" and yet make you unaware of what really goes on. That's what believing in God does. If we put all our faith on him, it's like we're not even relying on reality to learn what is actually happening. That's like saying, "let's not find cure for AIDS because God can heal it." because you're putting trust to something you're not even sure is there.

[hirador]

I don't think that anyone should try to prove anyone else anything about religion. It's a personal choice and you shouldn't be pursuaded one way or the other by people and pressure. But if you want something to prove about christianity, I would say to you, read the bible, and prove it wrong. I've heard that someone told C.S. Leawis to do that, and it's why he bacame a christian, because he couldn't. But I believe that religion is based more on faith. And faith to me means that just because you can't see it, or explain it, doesn't mean it's not there, and not real. And I guess also, if you don't believe in god, people would say that he doesn't stop existing because people stop believing. I don't know, that's my take on it, but like I said, it's a personal choice.

[*Blow_Don't_SUCK*]

Christianity brought the idea of religion being entirely about faith. Other religions back in way ancient times, religion and gods and etc were told to explain the happenings and to bring wisdom to people. And the bible may have been real evidence, but what makes us so sure that that evidence wasn't written from lies or exaggerations by the authors? Just because Jesus was really there...and according to a few sources besides the bible, no one knows the real authors of the books of the old testament.

Christianty made it so that the whole thing is about faith just so that no one can question.

[eternalyfe]

Personally, religion shouldn't be some worldwide issue. If someone doesn't believe in a God, then that's their opinion. It's not up to other people to tell that person how to live their life, and what to believe in. I certainly don't want someone to try and prove to me that God isn't real. If you really believe in something, then that's great, it's awesome that you have something to rely on when all else fails. And I have nothing against people who don't believe in God. It's just a belief. Not believing doesn't make you bad person.
On that topic, I really don't agree with all of the fighting over in the Middle East either. They're all arguing over what to believe. Really, kids, believe what you want, I'm not going to stop you. You not believing doesn't change the way I feel.

[hirador]

Christianty made it so that the whole thing is about faith just so that no one can question.

Yes, I suppose that very religious people would feel that there is no need to question, that they simply remain faithful and everything would turn out alright. But I guess people just ask too many questions that we may never know the answers to. And they try to force it upon the christians to answer these questions and they don't know the answers either. I suppose you're right, but does that make the religion wrong to practice? does it make it false?

[*Blow_Don't_SUCK*]

Yes, I suppose that very religious people would feel that there is no need to question, that they simply remain faithful and everything would turn out alright. But I guess people just ask too many questions that we may never know the answers to. And they try to force it upon the christians to answer these questions and they don't know the answers either. I suppose you're right, but does that make the religion wrong to practice? does it make it false?

I'm not saying the religion is wrong for other people to practice. I just think that maybe they should stop contradicting themselves. As an aetheist, I deny religion. FOR ME as an individual it's wrong but if the neigbor next door wants to go to church every sunday, then good for him. But really, why believe in something that teaches you things that could be false? Would you rely on false hope? I would rather believe on something more reasonable. And the reason why people force questions upon Christians is because their beloved bible seems to know everything. For evrey explanation God made, it always has the same message, "I am the almighty creator" blah blah blah. We need something more reasonable.

[hirador]

I'm not saying the religion is wrong for other people to practice. I just think that maybe they should stop contradicting themselves. As an aetheist, I deny religion. FOR ME as an individual it's wrong but if the neigbor next door wants to go to church every sunday, then good for him. But really, why believe in something that teaches you things that could be false? Would you rely on false hope? I would rather believe on something more reasonable. And the reason why people force questions upon Christians is because their beloved bible seems to know everything. For evrey explanation God made, it always has the same message, "I am the almighty creator" blah blah blah. We need something more reasonable.

Sometimes hope is all people have in their lives, whether false or not. Religion and not just christianity, but all religion, has changed people's lives in very positive ways. Even if it's not true, for them, they live happier and fuller lives. But agian, it all comes down to personal choice. This should not be a debate becaue no side or opinion will win.

[*Blow_Don't_SUCK*]

The true debate is whether you could prove God's existence or not.

(just to get off-topic, relying on false hope is sad. And it'll be painful once you actually find out the hope IS false)

I believe God doesn't exist. He always talks about how he created earth and its mountains and such and such. But hey, mountains or any other forms are created through earth activities. From earthquakes, ice age, and etc. Those are created by the reactions of our environment. If God was real, he WOULD put a stop to this madness of a world. Has he? nope he hasn't. He listens to prayers and such and such. If he were real, then he'd be lazing around in heaven.

God works in msyterious ways

I doubt that. He puts a sick person deserving of life to a better place, but what if that sick person doesn't want the better place? Why can't he just heal the god damn patient? Surely what these religions christians say are just excuses to avoid the questioning of God. And if he were as wise as he says he would've exterminated Adamn and Eve and make a new pair of humans!

[sadolakced acid]

the point is, you cannot explain the wind with anything other than the wind.

magnets can move something without beening seen, but trees are not magnetic, etc..

with god, however, there are multitudes of alternate, logical explinations for things just attributed to god.

which means; you cannot cite god's influence to prove his existance, as it could be the influence of many things.

and when it comes down to it, anything that is attributed to god could be attributed to aliens, which would we equally provable.

[*mipadi*]

Main Entry: ex·plain
Pronunciation: ik-'splAn
Function: verb
Etymology: Middle English explanen, from Latin explanare, literally, to make level, from ex- + planus level, flat -- more at FLOOR
transitive senses
1 a : to make known b : to make plain or understandable <footnotes that explain the terms>
2 : to give the reason for or cause of
3 : to show the logical development or relationships of
intransitive senses : to make something plain or understandable
- ex·plain·able /-'splA-n&-b&l/ adjective
- ex·plain·er noun
- explain oneself : to clarify one's statements or the reasons for one's conduct
synonyms EXPLAIN, EXPOUND, EXPLICATE, ELUCIDATE, INTERPRET mean to make something clear or understandable. EXPLAIN implies a making plain or intelligible what is not immediately obvious or entirely known <explain the rules>. EXPOUND implies a careful often elaborate explanation <expounding a scientific theory>. EXPLICATE adds the idea of a developed or detailed analysis <explicate a poem>. ELUCIDATE stresses the throwing of light upon as by offering details or motives previously unclear or only implicit <elucidate an obscure passage>. INTERPRET adds to EXPLAIN the need for imagination or sympathy or special knowledge in dealing with something <interpreting a work of art>.

A true explanation leads directly to understanding. We explain the unknown with the known, in hopes that the unknown may one day become known. In the case of trees silently moving, you can most certainly explain this phenomena. This is good.
A religious person could very well say that, but in no way does that make it any more true. As you demonstrated above, we can explain exactly what is going on behind the movement of the trees. We can demonstrate a definate causal relationship behind the movement and the wind. The same can not be said in this instance. A religious individual can not demonstrate that a "God" has a causal relation to the movement of trees or the effects of wind in general.

If a religious person were to say this, it would not be an explanation. As an explanation allows us to understand an often unknown phenomena, we would expect that if subscribing a "God" to the wind was truly an explanation, such a relationship could be demonstrated. No such relation can be shown.

Saying that God causes the wind or created the universe is equivalent to saying that KGHSDAHA causes the wind or that ajknhjkldfHABV created the universe. In these cases, we are attempting to explaining the unknown with the less known, or the unknowable. In many cases where a religious believe understands God to be an explanation to the cosmological problem, in reality, that same "explanation" is almost entirely meaningless, nonsensical, incoherent, and in no way does it truly help us to understand what is happening in our universe.
We have been over this before. But, I'll make it quick this time. That is a hasty generalization, and is simply not true.
Refer to my post about George H. Smith's tool box analogy as well as the meaning behind my dubious nature towards faith. Wait till someone responds to my list of questions on the nature of faith, maybe then we will have something to actually discuss.
We can show how "science" is a form of examining the truth. No one has yet to show me how "religion" is even capable of examination, let alone examination of 'the truth.'

Depends on what you are talking about. A great deal of things are subjective, morality, beauty, intellectual taste, and any other number of human experiences. However, The truth, as the truth corresponds with reality, is objective.

"The apple is red. The car is there. God exists. George W. Bush does not exist."

Those are all objective propositions. As in, they have truth values and their truth values can not be determined by the subject.

You're still applying tools of logic to an issue that requires nothing but faith, which is exactly my point: That logic doesn't really work here. You can explain logically why it's foolish to believe in a God, yet that clearly doesn't counteract faith.

[NoSex]

You're still applying tools of logic to an issue that requires nothing but faith, which is exactly my point: That logic doesn't really work here. You can explain logically why it's foolish to believe in a God, yet that clearly doesn't counteract faith.

And how many times will I have to ask?

What other tools are there?

Why doesn't logic work here, and what does work and why?

Counteract what?

What exactly is faith?

So, in this case, it would be most important to first examine the epistemological nature of both faith, and logic.

I pose these questions to a faith believer:

1. What is faith, exactly?
2. How can we know that we are operating under fatih?
3. How do we gain accurate knowledge from mechanisms of faith?
4. What exactly are the mechanisms of faith?
5. Of what value is faith?
6. Of what use is faith?
7. Imagine that we were to put several individuals in a room to observe an event and attempt to explain said event with two different tools. In the first test we would give them the tools of logic science as a means to explain the observed event. Several of the individuals came out with different explanations. As logic is a tightly defined process, we can study each participant's methodology to determine who went wrong and where, and who has created a cogent, cohesive, and deductive explanation. We can explain why different people came about different explanations and show them what needs to be done in order to become more accurate in their observations, and explanations. Now, moving into the second test, we would give that participants the supposed tools of faith as a means to explain the observed events. Coming out of the experiment, each participant has came to a different conclusion and explanation. How do we determine who is right and who is wrong in their explanations?

[*mipadi*]

And how many times will I have to ask?

What other tools are there?

Why doesn't logic work here, and what does work and why?

Counteract what?

What exactly is faith?

I don't think there are other tools. My point is that there's really no way to argue one way or the other. That's the point I have been making. Nothing works when one side is relying on faith, and the other is applying logic.

And, as I said in the beginning, what's the point? I don't care about one person's personal beliefs, as long as they don't affect me; if they affect me, then I'll deal with that issue, but not the issue of that person's faith. What is so important about showing a religious believer the (perceived) error in their thinking and reasoning? If his belief isn't affecting your life, why does it matter? If his belief is affecting your life, why not deal with that issue, rather than attacking his beliefs?

[sadolakced acid]

like i said; can't use science to prove faith, can't use faith to prove science.

[NoSex]

I don't think there are other tools. My point is that there's really no way to argue one way or the other. That's the point I have been making. Nothing works when one side is relying on faith, and the other is applying logic.

And, as I said in the beginning, what's the point? I don't care about one person's personal beliefs, as long as they don't affect me; if they affect me, then I'll deal with that issue, but not the issue of that person's faith. What is so important about showing a religious believer the (perceived) error in their thinking and reasoning? If his belief isn't affecting your life, why does it matter? If his belief is affecting your life, why not deal with that issue, rather than attacking his beliefs?

The point is to discredit faith in the first place.

However, you obviously don't have any ambition to participate in this debate. So, unless you feel like contributing, stop posting about how futile and useless you think the debate is.

Also, note strongly that your argument against debating this issue can be applied to nearly any other philosophical problem. We already went through this, contribute or stop. Please and thank you.

Frankly, I'm tired of hearing about how everyone is too good for this debate topic.

[*Blow_Don't_SUCK*]

So here we are!
Debate the existence of God and which one's right and stuff.

I would post links to God threads 1 & 2, but you can't search for three-letter words.
(2 got to 50 pages, think we can beat it?!?)

Er, I'll start.
I'm atheist. Prove me wrong.
By prove, I mean state facts that have been backed up by solid evidence. I have yet to see that happen in all 70 combined pages of threads 1 & 2.

You guys lost the point. It's not whether faith can be counter-acted or w/e. It's to prove God's existence. Mipadi, you're saying that faith is what we all require just to be assured of his existence, but please, all faith does is assure only YOU (or I guess other Christians) of God's existence. It doesn't help prove to an atheist that God exists. We will need more than faith because not everybody has it.

[*disco infiltrator*]

Did you mean to quote me?...Cause I agree with you.

[*kryogenix*]

religion doesn't require thinking.

plus, it's easier to convince people they need to give thier gold to you so they can get into heaven than to convince them to give thier gold to you because you know the scientific explanation.

Funny thing is, the Catholic Church does not require its members to give them money. So I doubt the motivation is money.

[*Blow_Don't_SUCK*]

Funny thing is, the Catholic Church does not require its members to give them money. So I doubt the motivation is money.

Oh really? Is that why there's a statement in the bible that if you do not offer money, you steal from God and therefore sentenced to hell? (I'm not sure what the specific book is but I'm sure my bible teacher mentioned something about that 3 years ago). And my priests also tell me it's a must to donate money . He even gave me an F for CCD when I didn't hand in an envelope every sunday.

Did you mean to quote me?...Cause I agree with you.

yup

[*mipadi*]

The point is to discredit faith in the first place.

However, you obviously don't have any ambition to participate in this debate. So, unless you feel like contributing, stop posting about how futile and useless you think the debate is.

Also, note strongly that your argument against debating this issue can be applied to nearly any other philosophical problem. We already went through this, contribute or stop. Please and thank you.

Frankly, I'm tired of hearing about how everyone is too good for this debate topic.

How about you not tell me what to do or how to debate? My thoughts do raise an interesting point. Just because I'm not replying in the fashion you'd like, doesn't mean that I haven't made a point. You're not the king of this thread, and you don't dictate the debate style.

My ambition for participation is to point out not only how futile the debate is in the first place, but also to question why it occurs at all. It seems not to be an attempt to gain any insight or to see how other people think, but merely to "win", to prove one's intellectual superiority, and, more importantly, to prove that one is more "intellectual" because one does not believe in a construct such as God. I think this is contemptuous to the extreme. This thread is little more than a carnival for pseudo-intellectuals.

Naturally you'll say that, because I don't "just answer the question", I'm being "too good" for this debate topic. Not at all. I'm just questioning why it occurs. It's on subject. One can't always choose what one wants to debate.

Perhaps my argument against debating this issue is valid. Perhaps many philosopical issues are foolish to debate, and little more than intellectual curiosities with little real bearing. And perhaps not. But I'm not pretentious enough to claim that my ideas are completely original—undoubtedly they've been applied to similar situations before. So then, therefore, there must be some argument that shoots them down completely.

[illumineering]

The point is to discredit faith in the first place.

However, you obviously don't have any ambition to participate in this debate. So, unless you feel like contributing, stop posting about how futile and useless you think the debate is.

Also, note strongly that your argument against debating this issue can be applied to nearly any other philosophical problem. We already went through this, contribute or stop. Please and thank you.

Frankly, I'm tired of hearing about how everyone is too good for this debate topic.

It seems like you are attacking rather than debating. Mipadi's contributions to this thread have been thoughtful and insightful. His comments do contribute to this debate and raise valid issues.

Your attempt to proclaim logic and science as the paragon of life seems to be a personal vendetta against those who value other measures of quality and worth. Even though you have managed to proclaim your allegiance to science, you have yet to offer any rationale that vaults it to the lofty position you claim it holds.

Yes, I too have a wealth of education in the sciences and logic, but find my personal compass guided by more than what can be proven. It's pompous to believe that science has the capacity to interpret the entirety of the universe and humankind. It is only one mechanism of understanding and interpretation of life that is as valid as believing in God is.

Your absolute zeal for scientific rationalization will never serve as the authority/seal of approval of my personal observations. That belief makes a false assumption that someone other than me is the determinant of my reality and able to dictate how I exercise my freewill. To surrender that gift to science is the very thing you are criticizing religion for doing.

While you have an extensive vocabulary and value logic, remember, your opinion of life remains nothing more than a personal belief. The attempt you are making to force it to the point of absolute truth is an exercise in futility.

[*Blow_Don't_SUCK*]

REMEMBER

So here we are!
Debate the existence of God and which one's right and stuff.

I would post links to God threads 1 & 2, but you can't search for three-letter words.
(2 got to 50 pages, think we can beat it?!?)

Er, I'll start.
I'm atheist. Prove me wrong.
By prove, I mean state facts that have been backed up by solid evidence. I have yet to see that happen in all 70 combined pages of threads 1 & 2.

---

All you guys are doing are stating your personal opinions on science and faith and their capability. Please stay on topic. (Ouch I'm a hypocrite)

[*CrackedRearView*]

It seems like you are attacking rather than debating.  Mipadi's contributions to this thread have been thoughtful and insightful.  His comments do contribute to this debate and raise valid issues.

Your attempt to proclaim logic and science as the paragon of life seems to be a personal vendetta against those who value other measures of quality and worth.  Even though you have managed to proclaim your allegiance to science, you have yet to offer any rationale that vaults it to the lofty position you claim it holds.

Yes, I too have a wealth of education in the sciences and logic, but find my personal compass guided by more than what can be proven.  It's pompous to believe that science has the capacity to interpret the entirety of the universe and humankind.  It is only one mechanism of understanding and interpretation of life that is as valid as believing in God is.

Your absolute zeal for scientific rationalization will never serve as the authority/seal of approval of my personal observations.  That belief makes a false assumption that someone other than me is the determinant of my reality and able to dictate how I exercise my freewill.  To surrender that gift to science is the very thing you are criticizing religion for doing.

While you have an extensive vocabulary and value logic, remember, your opinion of life remains nothing more than a personal belief.  The attempt you are making to force it to the point of absolute truth is an exercise in futility.

Studiously put.

[*Blow_Don't_SUCK*]

Like I said, we are here to debate God's existence. So far all the answers that were given either tries to prove that nothing can beat faith or science. Truth be told, we may never find the answer. We have to cling to what we strongly believe in. However we can't help but prove out sometihng that helps us create a theory. Either God exists or doesn't. If God doesn't exist, what about the other gods. The Islamic God or the Hindu God. Why is it that we have a much trouble debating the Christian God than other gods in general? Nowadays it's hard to find proof that there is even a god. I don't believe there is even a single god. You guys can stick to whatever god you're faithful to, but I'll stick to my belief. Nowadays what can faith do? I want to know what's out there. If God is willing to make known himself in the olden days and not now, so be it. If he wants to hide the proof he doesn't even exist (if he actually does), so be it. To me he's just a technique to get people to live a good and moral life.

[hirador]

Like I said, we are here to debate God's existence. So far all the answers that were given either tries to prove that nothing can beat faith or science. Truth be told, we may never find the answer. We have to cling to what we strongly believe in. However we can't help but prove out sometihng that helps us create a theory. Either God exists or doesn't. If God doesn't exist, what about the other gods. The Islamic God or the Hindu God. Why is it that we have a much trouble debating the Christian God than other gods in general? Nowadays it's hard to find proof that there is even a god. I don't believe there is even a single god. You guys can stick to whatever god you're faithful to, but I'll stick to my belief. Nowadays what can faith do? I want to know what's out there. If God is willing to make known himself in the olden days and not now, so be it. If he wants to hide the proof he doesn't even exist (if he actually does), so be it. To me he's just a technique to get people to live a good and moral life.

I agree with a person that posted on another thread like this. These aren't going to change anyone's mind about religion. There's no reason for these topics because we know what we know. Unless there is a scientific or religious breakthrough, we pretty much all know the same facts about The creation of humans and God's existence, no one can prove either one to be right at this point in time. That's just my opinion.

[NoSex]

[quote]
How about you not tell me what to do or how to debate?
[/quote]

I'm not telling you what to do or how to debate. I'm nicely asking for you to ignore the thread if you feel the debate is useless. You aren't adding anything to the debate by constantly trying to discredit it.

[quote]
My thoughts [i]do raise an interesting point.[/I]
[/quote]

Not really. We have all heard it a million times from both sides. I'm trying to move the debate on, but you insist on this meaningless stagnation. If you honestly believe it will go no where, ignore the thread. Please.

[quote]
Just because I'm not replying in the fashion you'd like, doesn't mean that I haven't made a point. You're not the king of this thread, and you don't dictate the debate style.[/quote]

You aren't debating the topic. You are trying to tell us why no one should ever debate this topic, you are the one trying to be the "king" of the thread. If the existence of this thread is so threatening to you, I suggest that you ignore it until you are able and willing to contribute. The point here is to debate the topic at hand, and that is what I am trying to do.

[quote]
My ambition for participation is to point out not only how futile the debate [i]is in the first place, but also to question why it occurs at all.[/I][/quote]

1. I don't believe the debate is futile.
2. It's entertaining. Very.
3. I have learned a great deal by participating in these forms of debate.
4. It's a very important topic that nearly every human being has some form of interest in. THis only adds to its interest.
5. If you are so adamently opposed to the debate, I suggest you either ignore this thread or create a topic to debate the importance behind debating religious ideas. Otherwise, you are just disturbing this debate.
6. You have made your point in this thread several times now, you have ignored all my counter points. We heard you the first time, please progress with the debate, or stop.

[quote]
It seems not to be an attempt to gain any insight or to see how other people think, but merely to "win", to prove one's intellectual superiority, and, more importantly, to prove that one is more "intellectual" because one does not believe in a construct such as God. I think this is contemptuous to the extreme. This thread is little more than a carnival for pseudo-intellectuals.[/quote]

Thanks for the ad hominem arguments, not to mention the extreme straw man of what exactly is going on here. I'm sorry, but I don't agree at all with your opinion. None of these are my intentions.

[quote]
Naturally you'll say that, because I don't "just answer the question", I'm being "too good" for this debate topic. Not at all. I'm just questioning why it occurs. It's on subject. One can't always choose what one wants to debate.[/quote]

We have already gone through all of this in another topic.

Scroll down a bit. There you go.

[quote]
Perhaps my argument against debating this issue [i]is valid. Perhaps many philosopical issues are foolish to debate, and little more than intellectual curiosities with little real bearing. And perhaps not. But I'm not pretentious enough to claim that my ideas are completely original—undoubtedly they've been applied to similar situations before. So then, therefore, there must be some argument that shoots them down completely.[/I]
[/quote]

I think this is where the great irony lies. You are essentially attacking this thread because you feel it is meaningless to debate. But, you know this debate will continue. Whether it be here, or somewhere else, theological discussion is a main topic in all levels of philosophical discussion. People, since they continue to debate, obviously find some value you in. What are your reasons for telling us that such value does not exist?

And, don't worry, no one here, insofar as I have seen, has been "pretentious" enough to claim that their ideas and completely original. Whatever your goals are, they seem "futile" and "meaningless" to me. As, those who continue debate continue for their own personal reasons, and those who ignore the debate and detest it, will do so for their own. Are you trying to fit one subjective taste against another?

[QUOTE]
It seems like you are attacking rather than debating. [/quote]

I'm trying to debate the topic at hand and being attacked for it.

[QUOTE]
Mipadi's contributions to this thread have been thoughtful and insightful. His comments do contribute to this debate and raise valid issues.[/QUOTE]

We have already discussed these issues. He ignores my counterpoints and continues ad nauseam.

[QUOTE]Your attempt to proclaim logic and science as the paragon of life seems to be a personal vendetta against those who value other measures of quality and worth. [/QUOTE]

I never proclaimed any such thing. You also are operating on an ad hominem argument. I am challenging those "other measures of quality and worth" and trying to get meaningful responses. Refer back to my list of questions directed to faith believers.

[QUOTE]Even though you have managed to proclaim your allegiance to science, you have yet to offer any rationale that vaults it to the lofty position you claim it holds.[/QUOTE]

What thread are you reading? I never proclaimed my allegiance to science, not even close. Midpadi might have, but I came no where close. Nor, would I.

[QUOTE]
Yes, I too have a wealth of education in the sciences and logic, but find my personal compass guided by more than what can be proven.[/QUOTE]

That's cool, but for an entirely different debate.

[QUOTE] It's pompous to believe that science has the capacity to interpret the entirety of the universe and humankind.[/QUOTE]

I would have to agree. Science isn't even about that. I'm glad I never said anything like that.

[QUOTE]It is only one mechanism of understanding and interpretation of life that is as valid as believing in God is.[/QUOTE]

You would have to prove that.

[QUOTE]
Your absolute zeal for scientific rationalization will never serve as the authority/seal of approval of my personal observations. [/QUOTE]

You might need to reread the thread. You got me all wrong. Straw man, straw man.

[QUOTE]That belief makes a false assumption that someone other than me is the determinant of my reality and able to dictate how I exercise my freewill. To surrender that gift to science is the very thing you are criticizing religion for doing.[/QUOTE]

Straw man.

[QUOTE]
While you have an extensive vocabulary and value logic, remember, your opinion of life remains nothing more than a personal belief. The attempt you are making to force it to the point of absolute truth is an exercise in futility.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, I was never attempting such a thing. Silly straw men.

{MY QUOTES WON'T WORK AND IT MAKES ME CRY}

[*disco infiltrator*]

Alright.

1) Don't cry, Nate.
2) Let's stop making this debate a personal back-and-forth thing and grow up to respect eachothers' opinions.
3) Michael, we all know that we can't prove either side and that you can't pit logic against faith. The point of the debate is to figure out why each side is representing their ideas a certain way. Why are those advocating logic the atheists and why are those advocating faith the theists, and where do those beliefs stem from? Why don't I have the same faith that a religious person does? Why didn't I believe in God all of my life? Analyzing the reasoning behind the beliefs presented here can lead to unity between the two sides and then there won't be a need for debate. Each side can't comprehend why the opposition thinks the way that they do, and the more debate occurs and the more new points and new thoughts are brought into the debate, the more each side can understand where the other is coming from. Until then, there is a need to debate. You say it's not going to get anywhere, but it has the potential to change peoples' minds and end the conflicts between atheists and theists. I changed a Roman Catholic girl (Tracy, D1SMANTLED, remember her?)'s mind on AIM just by presenting the reasons I was an atheist. The more I wrote, the more she understood, and she figured that the reasoning was correct. That's not saying that the debate is out to convert people; she just happened to agree. It will lead to further understanding and more knowledge and I don't think that's a bad effect at all. Like Nate, I, too, have learned a lot from these types of debate. If you find the first God thread and look at my posts there, they're quite different than my posts today, not only in the structure and composition, but also with the thought-processes. I had no understanding of the other side, or really, my side, whatsoever. All I knew was that I didn't believe in a deity, but I didn't really know why. Debates such as this have helped me formulate my ideas and figure out why I really think this way and I would like to share my knowledge with others, and see why they don't agree. There's a point.

[Spirited Away]

Back then no one thought the world was round. They thought it was flat and square.

I know I've asked this before in GodI and GodII and it doesn't pertain to the topic much but since someone brought it up, it's fair game to discuss, so bear with me...

Well, no one knew the world is spherical nor that earth revolves around the sun, however, the flat-earth theory and the geocentric theory were definitely challenged and later found credible. But why then, did Catholic Church condemned such challenge, such endeavor to further knowledge of the cosmos, as heresy?

I'm in no way attacking religion so no body gets upset with me, please. I'm merely questioning this kind of faith because it scares me... at times. And if it was not faith that ruined a man's life, then what else was it?

A simple query, nothing to argue here, I hope.

[*kryogenix*]

Oh really? Is that why there's a statement in the bible that if you do not offer money, you steal from God and therefore sentenced to hell? (I'm not sure what the specific book is but I'm sure my bible teacher mentioned something about that 3 years ago). And my priests also tell me it's a must to donate money  . He even gave me an F for CCD when I didn't hand in an envelope every sunday.
yup

This is Catholicism we're talking about?

Without a specific passage in the bible, I really can't argue about it. Do you know the context it was in, or even what book it was in?

Well, no one knew the world is spherical nor that earth revolves around the sun, however, the flat-earth theory and the geocentric theory were definitely challenged and later found credible. But why then, did Catholic Church condemned such challenge, such endeavor to further knowledge of the cosmos, as heresy?

I read a great article about that a few weeks ago.

The Galileo Controversy
Why did the Catholic Church condemn Galileo?

[*mipadi*]

This is Catholicism we're talking about?

Without a specific passage in the bible, I really can't argue about it. Do you know the context it was in, or even what book it was in?
I read a great article about that a few weeks ago.

The Galileo Controversy
Why did the Catholic Church condemn Galileo?

Those two articles seem to put quite a spin on the Galileo issue. At one time, I was working on a film script about Galileo (he's of great personal interest to me), and the film centered around the Church's condemnation of his work, so that's where my research was centered. While the events described in those articles aren't wrong per se, they are highly spun to paint a good image of the church--which is what you'd expect from such a website.

Even if you give the articles some credit, it's a good example of why the Church really has no business messing around with science.

[sadolakced acid]

jesus said a rich man can get into heaven as easily as through the eye of a needle.

obviously you're supposed to give your money to the church.

you know, buy pardons, etc.

[Spirited Away]

The

Galileo Controversy
Why did the

Catholic Church condemn Galileo?

The first article states, and I quote, that "Copernicus did not
intend [for heliocentrism to be presented as a theory which explains
the movements of planets in simpler ways than geocentricism]" and
that the clergyman Osiander wrote such preface to... in a way
protect Copernicus. Question: Ptolemy's philosophy was considered as
gospel truth. Wouldn't Copernicus' heliocentric theory counter the
gospel truth, and therefore it would have made him a heretic in the eyes of
believers? Of course, you must agree with me that the fear of being
labled heretic was there, history is evidence enough. Anyway, don't
you think that Corpernicus did not correct Osiander's added preface
because he had a tangible fear of the religious consequences?

Also, though Aristotle refuted heliocentricism, he may be justly
excused. The the lack of scientific instruments in his time could
not support his scientific theory otherwise. The same cannot be said
in Galileo's time. How exactly did Galileo "mocked" the Pope? I'm
confused. If Galileo simply did not agree with Pope Urban VIII's
theory and refuted it in his work since he was presenting a quite
different theory, isn't discrediting other theories fair game? Why
is it mocking? If that's mocking, then isn't the Second
Commandment "mocking" of other religions? (A whole other debate)

No torture? Imprisonment for pursuing knowledge legally and
logically is not torture? You know what we call that nowdays? Not
exactly cruel, though very close to it, but unusual punishment comes
to mind.

I also find the closing statement amusing for its lack of simple logic.

"It is a good thing that the Church did not rush to embrace
Galileo’s views, because it turned out that his ideas were not
entirely correct, either. Galileo believed that the sun was not just
the fixed center of the solar system but the fixed center of the
universe. We now know that the sun is not the center of the universe
and that it does move—it simply orbits the center of the galaxy
rather than the earth."

Duh, of course we know that now because of the technology we have.
But for a man in that time period to find something so close to the
truth is rather amazing, don't you think?
I'll bother with the second article later. I'm still having a hard time
digesting what I just read.

[EddieV]

I do wonder. Why are most intelligent people Aethiest?

[The_AZN_Godfathe...]

If you think about it, every creation has a creator. Those who believe in God would say their creator is God. Though, an Aethiest could argue, "Who created God?"

I'm sorry Aethiests, you may not be able to find the answer to such questions in such a place as a forum. To find an answer like that requires research. A lot of it too.

If there was an exact, clear, obvious answer; If we knew God exists for sure, we would all believe in God already, wouldn't we?

I think this debate is going to be endless...

[sadolakced acid]

mayhaps we should stop argueing about the existance of god and instead assume god exists and argue about god, using science.

there's still plenty to argue.

like;

jesus cannot be the son of god.

god is a spiritual being. Mary, is a corpreal being.

in order for Mary to have a child, she must get sperm.

therefore; god must have sperm.

if god has sperm, and this sperm was able to combine with mary's egg and make jesus, then it must ahve been very close to human.

so close in fact, that god would have had to hae been human.

therefore; either jesus is not the son of god or god is human.

[The_AZN_Godfathe...]

This topic is probably going to go no where.

Perhaps this topic should be closed before people start getting ticked at other people. (As if that hasn't happend already.)

[Paradox of Life]

I don't see the need to prove anyone wrong in this area. I'm comfortable with my own personal religious beliefs; the beliefs of others don't influence me unless I intend to discuss and learn from the beliefs of others. I'm not even certain why we bother having these discussions. I'm not concerned with another's personal beliefs, so long as his beliefs are not forced on me in such a way as to affect my own life, such as through governmental legislation.

Besides, how does one prove anything in this area? The logic of the atheist does not work against the faith of the believer, and vice-versa.

I totally agree. In my opinion, religion is really just a way to make people happy and feel all warm and fuzzy inside even if it's not real. There are many moral lessons that can be learned from religion and it helps you get in touch with a spiritual, sensitive side of yourself. God does not exist. I'm sorry, kiddies, but he doesn't exist. Which is why I'm Atheist. I choose to be my own God because I refuse to be a follower and I choose to be logical rather than gullible. Basically, there are two ways to look at religion.

Believe it and be happy.
Don't believe it and don't be happy.

Of course there are exceptions to that rule, but that's what I see most commonly. Those who are very much in tune with their religion are usually very fulfilled and happy. Those who refuse to believe it, are normally not as happy with their lives as religious people.

There's no reason to debate religion and the existence of God. It's not going to get anyone anywhere.

[*disco infiltrator*]

1. A - T - H - E - I - S - T. Let's all learn to spell the terms of religious beliefs (or lack of) if we're going to accept them/debate against them!
2. Eddie, there's plenty of intelligent religious people that I've met.
3. The whole religious people being happier and non-religious people being unhappy thing is completely untrue. I'm perfectly happy with my life, and from what I've observed, happier than a lot of religious people I've met. And I know you said there are exceptions, but I've never seen that at all and I'm friends with a lot of both atheists and religious people.

[EddieV]

2. Eddie, there's plenty of intelligent religious people that I've met.

Yes but from what I've seen, most are Atheist

[*disco infiltrator*]

There's also plenty of stupid atheists. Don't generalize like that.

[EddieV]

I know I know, I speak of majority, but from what I've noticed, the majority of Atheist's are intelligent.

[NoSex]

I know I know, I speak of majority, but from what I've noticed, the majority of Atheist's are intelligent.

From personal experience, I would say that a minority of atheists are especially intelligent, and that a similar minority applies to those who hold theistic beliefs.
Even if this were true it would not help their argument any. So, it's a moot point.

[*mipadi*]

Believe it and be happy.
Don't believe it and don't be happy.

I don't think that's accurate. I'm strongly atheist, but I am not unhappy. I do sometimes feel that my life has little meaning, but that's not due to a lack of religious faith—I think I'd feel the same way. I'll admit that I don't have any statistics on hand to back up this assertion, but I don't think that the number of unhappy atheists I personally know is significantly more or less than the number of unhappy theists I know.

[Spirited Away]

Basically, there are two ways to look at religion.

Believe it and be happy.
Don't believe it and don't be happy.

Of course there are exceptions to that rule, but that's what I see most commonly. Those who are very much in tune with their religion are usually very fulfilled and happy. Those who refuse to believe it, are normally not as happy with their lives as religious people.

In my opinion, it depends on how religion is valued for each individual. If I don't value religion highly at all, why would not having one make me unhappy? If you mean that having religion brings fulfillment spiritually and therefore happiness, that also depends on value. If I depend on familial fulfillment or romantic fulfillment to feed me spiritually, why would I need religion? As a person who has lived with religion and without, I'm rather content without at the moment... and not as unhappy as people of a faith would think.

Generally, people are unhappy because they make themselves unhappy. Religion has little to do with it unless you value it highly.

[*kryogenix*]

Question: Ptolemy's philosophy was considered as
gospel truth. Wouldn't Copernicus' heliocentric theory counter the
gospel truth, and therefore it would have made him a heretic in the eyes of
believers? Of course, you must agree with me that the fear of being
labled heretic was there, history is evidence enough. Anyway, don't
you think that Corpernicus did not correct Osiander's added preface
because he had a tangible fear of the religious consequences?

Let's make sure we're using the same definitions. What do you mean when you say "gospel truth?" There were no infallible statements made about the orbit of Earth and the Sun. Secondly, who does the article state that Osiander was trying to protect Copernicus from?

Copernicus did not correct Osiander because he died the year the book was published.

Also, though Aristotle refuted heliocentricism, he may be justly
excused. The the lack of scientific instruments in his time could
not support his scientific theory otherwise. The same cannot be said
in Galileo's time. How exactly did Galileo "mocked" the Pope? I'm
confused. If Galileo simply did not agree with Pope Urban VIII's
theory and refuted it in his work since he was presenting a quite
different theory, isn't discrediting other theories fair game? Why
is it mocking? If that's mocking, then isn't the Second
Commandment "mocking" of other religions? (A whole other debate)

Read the article a little more closely:

At Galileo’s request, Cardinal Robert Bellarmine, a Jesuit—one of the most important Catholic theologians of the day—issued a certificate that, although it forbade Galileo to hold or defend the heliocentric theory, did not prevent him from conjecturing it. When Galileo met with the new pope, Urban VIII, in 1623, he received permission from his longtime friend to write a work on heliocentrism, but the new pontiff cautioned him not to advocate the new position, only to present arguments for and against it. When Galileo wrote the Dialogue on the Two World Systems, he used an argument the pope had offered, and placed it in the mouth of his character Simplicio. Galileo, perhaps inadvertently, made fun of the pope, a result that could only have disastrous consequences. Urban felt mocked and could not believe how his friend could disgrace him publicly. Galileo had mocked the very person he needed as a benefactor. He also alienated his long-time supporters, the Jesuits, with attacks on one of their astronomers. The result was the infamous trial, which is still heralded as the final separation of science and religion.

Simplicio was the fool in Galileo's work. Using a fool to convey the Pope's message constitutes as mockery in my book.

No torture? Imprisonment for pursuing knowledge legally and
logically is not torture? You know what we call that nowdays? Not
exactly cruel, though very close to it, but unusual punishment comes
to mind.

Well, he was held under house arrest for disobeying an order.

I also find the closing statement amusing for its lack of simple logic.

Duh, of course we know that now because of the technology we have.
But for a man in that time period to find something so close to the
truth is rather amazing, don't you think?
I'll bother with the second article later. I'm still having a hard time
digesting what I just read.

Wait a second. Did Galileo actually prove anything conclusively? Galileo himself acknowledged that couldn't prove the motion of the earth.

jesus cannot be the son of god.

god is a spiritual being. Mary, is a corpreal being.

in order for Mary to have a child, she must get sperm.

therefore; god must have sperm.

if god has sperm, and this sperm was able to combine with mary's egg and make jesus, then it must ahve been very close to human.

so close in fact, that god would have had to hae been human.

therefore; either jesus is not the son of god or god is human.

The Virgin Birth was a miracle. She conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit. This maintains that Jesus is the son of God and that God is not human.

[*chaneun*]

I, myself, am a Christian.

But sometimes, I ask myself, "Why do we believe in something/someone that we can't physically touch, taste, smell, see, or hear it/them?"
But like faith, we can't prove that there is no God, or if there is, for sure. However, some people with strong beliefs and faith KNOW that there is one, but hesitate to prove so.
Meh, I just think that if there is a God, Heaven, and Hell, I have nothing to lose if I'm a Christian. Plus, I have faith, which may sound a little cheesy.

[sadolakced acid]

The Virgin Birth was a miracle. She conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit. This maintains that Jesus is the son of God and that God is not human.

but i said assume god exists, not science is false.

and science says there must be sperm.

egro; my argument holds.

[Retrogressive]

I believe that some people are getting something very confused, especially in the beginning of this topic.

-Religion is not God, it is how man measures God.-

This debate is putting two flawed ideals up against each other, science and religion. There is no exact religion you can put up against science. Every religion is one man's inturpretation of God and the laws of faith. And you cannot put science against God because science is man's tool to measure symmetry and the world around him; as we know man is by nature flawed. We are discovering new things every day with science which means that it could not be seen as the all knowing truth in which we seek. The question is Why and neither religion nor science can explain that in a way that would satisfy us.

I do wonder. Why are most intelligent people Aethiest?

In an essay on religion and science:

The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. He who knows it not and can no longer wonder, no longer feel amazement, is as good as dead, a snuffed-out candle. It was the experience of mystery--even if mixed with fear-that engendered religion. A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty, which are only accessible to our reason in their most elementary forms-it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man. I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the type of which we are conscious in ourselves. An individual who should survive his physical death is also beyond my comprehension, nor do I wish it otherwise; such notions are for the fears or absurd egoism of feeble souls. Enough for me the mystery of the eternity of life, and the inkling of the marvellous structure of reality, together with the single-hearted endeavour to comprehend a portion, be it never so tiny, of the reason that manifests itself in nature.

The response to, "whether scientists pray":

  I have tried to respond to your question as simply as I could. Here is my answer. Scientific research is based on the idea that everything that takes place is determined by laws of nature, and therefore this holds for the actions of people. For this reason, a research scientist will hardly be inclined to believe that events could be influenced by a prayer, i.e. by a wish addressed to a supernatural Being.

    However, it must be admitted that our actual knowledge of these laws is only imperfect and fragmentary, so that, actually, the belief in the existence of basic all-embracing laws in Nature also rests on a sort of faith. All the same this faith has been largely justified so far by the success of scientific research. But, on the other hand, every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe-a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble. In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is indeed quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive.

-Einstein [link]

Hm.... I think he's considered an intellectual these days... But I may be wrong.

[Spirited Away]

1)Let's make sure we're using the same definitions. What do you mean when you say "gospel truth?" There were no infallible statements made about the orbit of Earth and the Sun. Secondly, who does the article state that Osiander was trying to protect Copernicus from?
2)Copernicus did not correct Osiander because he died the year the book was published.
3) Read the article a little more closely:
Simplicio was the fool in Galileo's work. Using a fool to convey the Pope's message constitutes as mockery in my book.
4) Well, he was held under house arrest for disobeying an order.
5)Wait a second. Did Galileo actually prove anything conclusively? Galileo himself acknowledged that couldn't prove the motion of the earth.

1) I'm using the term in the same context as what people, the ordinary mostly, would and have called it in those times. Prove me they'd call it otherwise. Men, leaders of the Church have believed the Bible taught, condoned, accepted the geocentric theory, therefore, what they say must be true. Gospel truth, biblical truth. What is the definition that you want me to perceive? You say there were no infallible statements, yet the Church said state a theory other than Ptolemy's and face house arrest or other forms on unsual punishment.
2) Let me rephrase since I clearly didn't research the first time. Osiander "protected" Copernicus from Protestants, or so the article says, but the chances that Copernicus would have endured the same fate as Galilleo had he not given up proving his theory is most obvious
3) Again, disagreement of theories that did not coincide with your own is mockery. Are you saying that the Church's condemnation of Galilleo's work arised from the Pope's wounded pride, even though it was the Church/Pope that tried to prevent Galilleo's publishing anything by calling it heresy?
Okay, James, you're now Galilleo (for the sake of argument imagine you're actually Galilleo and forget your strong belief in the Pope). You know your theory makes sense and you try to make others see it but the Church says you're committing heresy with your efforts . Though the sensible thing to do is NOT to further their anger, you can't help but believe that they are fools for not following your line of thought... after all... it makes so much sense.
4) A house arrest that also denied him of physicians for his hernia, denied him of having guests... He later found out during this house arrest that whatever he published have been banned. What a way to die.
What are your views about Giordano Bruno?
5) Actually, Galilleo took back a lot of things he claimed during the trials with the threat of torture and imprisonment. However, he did prove that the Venus orbits the Sun (in support of heliocentricism). I agree though, he believed in earth's motion but could not prove it conclusively. Hmm, but his belief in earth's motion while the Church didn't, enough genius for me.

[*kryogenix*]

but i said assume god exists, not science is false.

and science says there must be sperm.

egro;  my argument holds.

Why must there be sperm? Do you not think that God could allow Mary to conceive Jesus without it? It was a miracle.

What is the definition that you want me to perceive? You say there were no infallible statements, yet the Church said state a theory other than Ptolemy's and face house arrest or other forms on unsual punishment.

That's not why Galileo was put under house arrest.

Galileo could have safely proposed heliocentricity as a theory or a method to more simply account for the planets’ motions. His problem arose when he stopped proposing it as a scientific theory and began proclaiming it as truth, though there was no conclusive proof of it at the time. Even so, Galileo would not have been in so much trouble if he had chosen to stay within the realm of science and out of the realm of theology. But, despite his friends’ warnings, he insisted on moving the debate onto theological grounds.

Let me rephrase since I clearly didn't research the first time. Osiander "protected" Copernicus from Protestants, or so the article says, but the chances that Copernicus would have endured the same fate as Galilleo had he not given up proving his theory is most obvious

See above quote.

Again, disagreement of theories that did not coincide with your own is mockery. Are you saying that the Church's condemnation of Galilleo's work arised from the Pope's wounded pride, even though it was the Church/Pope that tried to prevent Galilleo's publishing anything by calling it heresy?

No, it came from disobeying the order from Cardinal Bellarmine. Mocking the Pope by putting his words in the mouth of a fool only made it worse.

Okay, James, you're now Galilleo (for the sake of argument imagine you're actually Galilleo and forget your strong belief in the Pope). You know your theory makes sense and you try to make others see it but the Church says you're committing heresy with your efforts . Though the sensible thing to do is NOT to further their anger, you can't help but believe that they are fools for not following your line of thought... after all... it makes so much sense.

The problem is Galileo was a Catholic himself and believed strongly in the Pope too. Maybe Galileo could get frustrated that others did not follow heliocentrism, but I would think he could understand that some people would be averse to adopting a radical new theory immediately, especially one that Galileo could not conclusively prove himself.

A house arrest that also denied him of physicians for his hernia, denied him of having guests... He later found out during this house arrest that whatever he published have been banned. What a way to die.
What are your views about Giordano Bruno?

I was unaware of the hernia deal. I googled it and read that they denied him a visit to Florence to see doctors about it, but I can't find anything more about the topic. Declining him a visit to see doctors in Florence and declining him medical attention completely are two different matters.

I think Bruno was a misguided man.

[NoSex]

So, in this case, it would be most important to first examine the epistemological nature of both faith, and logic.

I pose these questions to a faith believer:

1. What is faith, exactly?
2. How can we know that we are operating under fatih?
3. How do we gain accurate knowledge from mechanisms of faith?
4. What exactly are the mechanisms of faith?
5. Of what value is faith?
6. Of what use is faith?
7. Imagine that we were to put several individuals in a room to observe an event and attempt to explain said event with two different tools. In the first test we would give them the tools of logic science as a means to explain the observed event. Several of the individuals came out with different explanations. As logic is a tightly defined process, we can study each participant's methodology to determine who went wrong and where, and who has created a cogent, cohesive, and deductive explanation. We can explain why different people came about different explanations and show them what needs to be done in order to become more accurate in their observations, and explanations. Now, moving into the second test, we would give that participants the supposed tools of faith as a means to explain the observed events. Coming out of the experiment, each participant has came to a different conclusion and explanation. How do we determine who is right and who is wrong in their explanations?

Are any believers interested in answering my questions?
Or, are their some believers out their who believe that belief in God is more rational than non-belief?

Because, I think we may have been creating a false dichotomy with the Reason Vs. Faith kind of idea. I'm not sure that all believers adhere to the idea of faith, nor do all nonbelievers deny faith and only embrace reason.

[*kryogenix*]

Are any believers interested in answering my questions?
Or, are their some believers out their who believe that belief in God is more rational than non-belief?

Because, I think we may have been creating a false dichotomy with the Reason Vs. Faith kind of idea. I'm not sure that all believers adhere to the idea of faith, nor do all nonbelievers deny faith and only embrace reason.

Although I'd rather discuss this with you, I don't have the time right now at the moment, so I will refer you to this article:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05752c.htm

[*mipadi*]

You aren't debating the topic. You are trying to tell us why no one should ever debate this topic, you are the one trying to be the "king" of the thread. If the existence of this thread is so threatening to you, I suggest that you ignore it until you are able and willing to contribute. The point here is to debate the topic at hand, and that is what I am trying to do.

Threatening? Not at all. I'm just bringing up a very good point. If one hopes to debate this issue, one really needs to know why one is debating this issue, and how one is going about it.

My point as to whether the existence can ever be proven, or even discussed in this context, is quite a valid one; in fact, it is one that has been dealt with often in philosophical thought. Much of Bertrand Russell's work, for example, dealt with existence, claims of existence, and how one deals with existence in logic. Russell eventually noted that existence cannot be shown logically--it exists outside the realm of logical thought. Existence is, in fact, a necessary presupposition to any discussion involving logical thought. So no, my point wasn't raised because I am threatened by any discussion of God (why would I be threated by such discussion, anyway?); my point was raised because it does highlight an issue with this very discussion, that of the claims of existence of a being.

[Paradox of Life]

In my opinion, it depends on how religion is valued for each individual. If I don't value religion highly at all, why would not having one make me unhappy? If you mean that having religion brings fulfillment spiritually and therefore happiness, that also depends on value. If I depend on familial fulfillment or romantic fulfillment to feed me spiritually, why would I need religion? As a person who has lived with religion and without, I'm rather content without at the moment... and not as unhappy as people of a faith would think.

Generally, people are unhappy because they make themselves unhappy. Religion has little to do with it unless you value it highly.

That's true. I don't really know what to say in response to this except hapiness is happiness, but religion helps you find happiness. Sure, religion may not be scientifically proven (and most of it is full of contradictions and lies), but if it helps people cope with their lives, so be it. However, I'm strictly anti-Christanity because it's affecting America politically now. Christians are going way over the edge that it's interfered with beliefs on abortion and homosexuality. But that is a whooole different story.

No one's forcing you to take a religion and for you religious people... just ... don't preach to Atheists/Agnostics and we'll be just fine.

[voguelove]

i do not believe in god.
im the type of person who has to see it to believe it. i havent seen god, i havent had god talk to me, none of my prayers worked, and nothing good has happened in my life.

if god was really here with me, why did he "take" my mom away? why did i suffer from depression for so long? why is it that everything in my life has been negative and why is it that every single time something good happens, something else happens which makes that experience negative? sure, everything happens for a reason..but there no way that anyone could be "punished" for sins as severe as i have. and i havent even done anything.

there is no explaination for god. how can something no one sees make earth? how did adam and eve conceive so many babies of different races? if god truly exisists, why are there so many other religions claiming their gods are real?

also, how did mary have jeus without sex? miracle? i think not. its pretty much impossible to concieve without sperm. and if god is not human, what are so many people worshiping? air?

[sadolakced acid]

Although I'd rather discuss this with you, I don't have the time right now at the moment, so I will refer you to this article:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05752c.htm

and i'd like to refer you to this site:

http://www.bushisantichrist.com/

the fact that the URL is "new advent" makes it seem a bit prone to bias, don't you think?

[Spirited Away]

That's not why Galileo was put under house arrest.
See above quote.
No, it came from disobeying the order from Cardinal Bellarmine. Mocking the Pope by putting his words in the mouth of a fool only made it worse.
The problem is Galileo was a Catholic himself and believed strongly in the Pope too. Maybe Galileo could get frustrated that others did not follow heliocentrism, but I would think he could understand that some people would be averse to adopting a radical new theory immediately, especially one that Galileo could not conclusively prove himself.
I was unaware of the hernia deal. I googled it and read that they denied him a visit to Florence to see doctors about it, but I can't find anything more about the topic. Declining him a visit to see doctors in Florence and declining him medical attention completely are two different matters.

I think Bruno was a misguided man.

According to my own sources, he was house arrest for putting his support of the Heliocentric theory in writing, which he admitted while on trial that it was a rather strong support despite the Pope warning him to treat it as a hypothesis.
Your own article says, that that Galilleo is house-arrested because he made too strong of a support statement for heliocentricism and ventured into theological grounds. The Council of Trent in 1616 stated first that it was heretical and then that the "doctrine of the immobility of the Sun" was false and contrary to Holy Scripture. In his writing, he declared that science is a basis for authority. My question is, how could he avoid clashing with the theology when theology holds the oposite theory? What I see here is a censorship of knowledge. If this is still incorrect to you, please explain how.
You may research for yourself that pleas for pardons and medical treatment were refused. The latter only granted when he was well blinded (cataracts and glaucoma) and sick.

... people being averese to adopting your radical new theory is hardly plausible a crime for house arrest.

To the end of his life - nay, after his life was ended - the persecution of Galileo was continued. He was kept in exile from his family, from his friends, from his noble employments, and was held rigidly to his promise not to speak of his theory. When, in the midst of intense bodily sufferings from disease, and mental sufferings from calamities in his family, he besought some little liberty, he was met with threats of committal to a dungeon. When, at last, a special commission had reported to the ecclesiastical authorities that he had become blind and wasted with disease and sorrow, he was allowed a little more liberty, but that little was hampered by close surveillance. He was forced to bear contemptible attacks on himself and on his works in silence; to see the men who had befriended him severely punished; Father Castelli banished; Ricciardi, the Master of the Sacred Palace, and Ciampoli, the papal secretary, thrown out of their positions by Pope Urban, and the Inquisitor at Florence reprimanded for having given permission to print Galileo's work. He lived to see the truths he had established carefully weeded out from all the Church colleges and universities in Europe; and, when in a scientific work he happened to be spoken of as ``renowned,'' the Inquisition ordered the substitution of the word ``notorious.'' [Source]

[*kryogenix*]

and i'd like to refer you to this site:

http://www.bushisantichrist.com/

the fact that the URL is "new advent" makes it seem a bit prone to bias, don't you think?

Ok... What does that have to do with the topic at hand?

According to my own sources, he was house arrest for putting his support of the Heliocentric theory in writing, which he admitted while on trial that it was a rather strong support despite the Pope warning him to treat it as a hypothesis.
Your own article says, that that Galilleo is house-arrested because he made too strong of a support statement for heliocentricism and ventured into theological grounds. The Council of Trent in 1616 stated first that it was heretical and then that the "doctrine of the immobility of the Sun" was false and contrary to Holy Scripture. In his writing, he declared that science is a basis for authority. My question is, how could he avoid clashing with the theology when theology holds the oposite theory? What I see here is a censorship of knowledge. If this is still incorrect to you, please explain how.

He was allowed to "conjecture" the theory of heliocentrism, but not outright say that it was the truth.

I still have found no source that claims that Galileo was not treated by any doctor. The sources I see say that he was denied to leave town to see a doctor.

... people being averese to adopting your radical new theory is hardly plausible a crime for house arrest.

Are you saying disobeying a direct order after being given a warning should go unpunished?

From here: http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/WestTech/evili.htm

Deflating some Galileo myths

• Galileo created most of his enemies by his own rash attacks.
• Galileo was treated quite leniently.
  • Support from Inquisitor
  • Imprisonment was a loose house arrest
  • Lively Black Market in his books
  • Allowed to keep a Papal pension
  • Galileo corresponded freely
  • He received visitors from Protestant N. Europe (Thomas Hobbes, John Milton)
  • Church took no action when a late book of Galileo was smuggled to Holland and printed.
• Galileo could at any time have found sanctuary in Venice or a Protestant country. Why did he not do so?

[Spirited Away]

He was allowed to "conjecture" the theory of heliocentrism, but not outright say that it was the truth.
I still have found no source that claims that Galileo was not treated by any doctor. The sources I see say that he was denied to leave town to see a doctor.
Are you saying disobeying a direct order after being given a warning should go unpunished?
From here: http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/WestTech/evili.htm
[/list]

He was treated (or given permission to see doctors), with money from his own pockets, when he was already too sick/"wasted", as mention in the source (from the University of Michigan) that I posted. He was denied to leave town to see his own doctors in Florence, to be more accurate.

The said order was to not support a scientific theory because it went against the "Holy Scripture". Are you saying that any or all scientific theories/findings that go against the Bible should be punished?

From your own source:

Galileo made clerical enemies by gratuitous attacks on the Jesuits, Scheiner (1613) and Grassi (1623). Both were competent astronomers, and, in fact, Copernicans.
Galileo summoned to Rome and warned but not charged, 1615.
Rumors of formal charges persisted.
Galileo obtained letter from Cardinal Bellarmine stating that no charges filed or sentence passed.
It appears Galileo's enemies planted a contrary document in Vatican files. It surfaced later during his trial.

He was supported by inquisitors? Let be more specific WHICH of the inquistors supported him because obviously there were those against him from the start. Three other concluded that he defended the Copernican theory as truth. To be fair and history proved it, he had more opposition than support. And "support" isn't even the right word because if they had supported him, they'd have given him a fine or something else rather than house arrest. More like a few of them were lenient because he was an old man.

Several of the ten cardinals apparently pushed for Galileo's incarceration in prison, while those more supportive of Galileo argued that--with changes--the Dialogue ought to continue to be allowed to circulate.(Source)

The Church took no action when the book was smuggled? The Church would had had a hell of a time preventing the book from going to Holland when the said book was already available in the black market.

He declined urgings to escape to the Venetian territory and instead asked that proceedings against him be moved to Florence. His request was denied: the Pope insisted that the old man, weak and ill though he was, make the two-hundred mile wintertime journey to Rome. (Source)

This man had to regret his support of the Copernican theory, you may say it's because of his own making, but I'll say that it's because Christianity was intolerant of theories outside of Christian dogma.

[sadolakced acid]

Ok... What does that have to do with the topic at hand?

i was calling in question the impartialness of a link from "newadvent.org"

[richc]

1. What is faith, exactly?

uh...belief in Jesus Christ, that he was the one and only God. and that He died for our sins.

2. How can we know that we are operating under fatih?

many people who say they are christians have christianity as just part of their life. you are operating under faith when your entire life REVOLVES around your faith. not just one part of it.

3. How do we gain accurate knowledge from mechanisms of faith?

read the bible....

4. What exactly are the mechanisms of faith?

Well. Following God and his rules to the best of your ability. Admitting that you are a sinner. Believing that Jesus died for our sins, then rose again. committing your life to serving God with the talents He gave you.

5. Of what value is faith?
6. Of what use is faith?

kinda the same question.

something i think people dont understand (atheists...)...when they ask the question, "why doesnt God just come save us?"

well, as a christian, life is hard. its inevitable. life is hard. and you might not be satisfied with your life AND THAT IS RIGHT. cause you were made for more than that. you think Earth is your final destination? nononno, earth is just "an inch on a tape measure from New York and San Francesco." Only at HEAVEN will we be satisfied. the Switchfoot CD, "Nothing is SOund" nothing satisfies here on earth.

so why doesnt God save us? save us from what? save us from Death? haha, death is the one way to SATISFACTION. even the most "christiany" people you know are totally satisfied.

and why doesnt God give us all salvation?
well, some believe in predestination. others say that ....idunno cause i beleive in predestination.

[NoSex]

1. What is faith, exactly?

uh...belief in Jesus Christ, that he was the one and only God. and that He died for our sins.

Alright. You are defining faith as a belief system.

2. How can we know that we are operating under fatih?

many people who say they are christians have christianity as just part of their life. you are operating under faith when your entire life REVOLVES around your faith. not just one part of it.

So, when you base a choice on reason, you would be operating on faith? This seems contradictory.

3. How do we gain accurate knowledge from mechanisms of faith?

read the bible....

Alright. How does reading the bible provide as we knowledge that we can classify as accurate?

Reading something usually involves basic cognitive faculties. We comprehend what is on paper and in decided on whether or not to believe said text, we use, in most cases, reason. My questions are pertaining to people who believe that we use "faith" to come to a conclusion on any given truth value.

How does the act of simply reading the Bible present us with accurate knowledge?
How is that any different then reading any other form of text?
How can I use "faith" to gain accurate knowledge from the Bible?

4. What exactly are the mechanisms of faith?

Well. Following God and his rules to the best of your ability. Admitting that you are a sinner. Believing that Jesus died for our sins, then rose again. committing your life to serving God with the talents He gave you.

By mechanism of faith, I meant to ask exactly how by using faith do we come to gain knowledge?

Reason is a well defined and developed way of knowing. I'm asking you, for the most part, to explain what allows us to gain knowledge under the use of faith.

5. Of what value is faith?
6. Of what use is faith?

kinda the same question.

something i think people dont understand (atheists...)...when they ask the question, "why doesnt God just come save us?"

well, as a christian, life is hard. its inevitable. life is hard. and you might not be satisfied with your life AND THAT IS RIGHT. cause you were made for more than that. you think Earth is your final destination? nononno, earth is just "an inch on a tape measure from New York and San Francesco." Only at HEAVEN will we be satisfied. the Switchfoot CD, "Nothing is SOund" nothing satisfies here on earth.

so why doesnt God save us? save us from what? save us from Death? haha, death is the one way to SATISFACTION. even the most "christiany" people you know are totally satisfied.

and why doesnt God give us all salvation?
well, some believe in predestination. others say that ....idunno cause i beleive in predestination.

How do you know any of these things?
If you can know them, please explain them.
Why is any of this true?

You have, for the most part, gone off an a tangent that is non sequitur, and for the most part meaningless. You had missed my most important questions, and failed to accurate answer the rest.

All I want to know, is how can we gain knowledge from faith? So far, your argument seems circular and noncoherent. If faith is simply the belief in "Jesus Christ," how does holding any specific belief let us know anything?

Try at #7, please.

7. Imagine that we were to put several individuals in a room to observe an event and attempt to explain said event with two different tools. In the first test we would give them the tools of logic science as a means to explain the observed event. Several of the individuals came out with different explanations. As logic is a tightly defined process, we can study each participant's methodology to determine who went wrong and where, and who has created a cogent, cohesive, and deductive explanation. We can explain why different people came about different explanations and show them what needs to be done in order to become more accurate in their observations, and explanations. Now, moving into the second test, we would give that participants the supposed tools of faith as a means to explain the observed events. Coming out of the experiment, each participant has came to a different conclusion and explanation. How do we determine who is right and who is wrong in their explanations?

Also, here are some additional questions.

8. Imagine that you were given three divine messages. One of these messages was true. Using faith, how do you determine which message is true?

9. Can you base a choice on faith?

10. If so, how would you go about making such a choice?

Also, on a far more important note. I think we need to focus alot less time on the question "Does God Exist," and more time on the question, "Should we believe a God exists?"

I was never proposing that we could deductively prove or disprove the existence of ever possible god figure. My arguments are based in rationalism and do not even assume such a possibility. The matter I care to deal with are the realities behind reason and faith, epistemology, and what we should believe and why. Not exactly a deductive conclusion on the matter.

[CHiiCKENBUTT]

there's nothing to prove. god & jesus are real & whether you believe in them or not they're real.

[Mulder]

there's nothing to prove. god & jesus are real & whether you believe in them or not they're real.

..sigh.

*grumbles* idiot people not reading the rules of debate.

you have to SUPPORT your beliefs. and besides that, there have been many people who have said the EXACT SAME THING.

I'm atheist. Prove me wrong.
By prove, I mean state facts that have been backed up by solid evidence. I have yet to see that happen in all 70 combined pages of threads 1 & 2.

how is what you said doing that?

and why are god and jesus real?
why not just god? why necessarily jesus? you cant just say, "they're real and thats that".


and sorry if that sounded rude...

[NoSex]

there's nothing to prove. god & jesus are real & whether you believe in them or not they're real.

there's nothing to prove. god & jesus are not real & whether you believe in them or not they're not real.

[See what I did there? Notice how arbitrary and unconvincing this line of argument is? Alright. Cool.]

[colleen92]

I pose these questions to a faith believer:
6. Of what use is faith?

I believe I might have answers 6. In most religions, there is some hope of some kind of afterlife. We believe that keeping our faith strong will promote us in the after life.



We know that there is some kind of superior being (I believe in God. I'm Catholic.) through miracles. I don't know if anyone is familiar with the miracle of Fatima, but it is and amazing occurence that I think one should research before deciding to not believe in God. There are many other miracles that have occured, but I believe that of Fatima is very good proof that God and the Virgin Mary exist.

[chasingvictory]

is evolution solid evidence? ya...darwinism, animals changing blah blah... i've noticed that when there is a flaw in the THEORY of evolution the scientists comes up with other thoeries to fix it up. but my guess is... look at everything around you. look at the human body. look how a woman gives birth. look at the stars and planets..... look at everything. do u think that evolution and big bang created all this? to think that there is at least SOME kind of higher power/designer out there? the world is complicated and someone had to create it. i dont think its random like evolution and the big bang states.

[Spirited Away]

i've noticed that when there is a flaw in the THEORY of evolution the scientists comes up with other thoeries to fix it up. but my guess is...

Er... Do you understand that life is about learning? Do you understand why one hundred years ago, people did not have PDAs or lap tops?

To borrow from Carl Jung, "knowledge rests not upon truth alone, but upon error also." Do you understand that? Do you also know why there are amendments in the Constitution?

And last, but not least, do you know the definition of "THEORY"?

[NoSex]

the world is complicated and someone had to create it.

Why did someone have to create it?

i dont think its random like evolution and the big bang states.

Evolution is not a random process. That's a straw man and a wild misconception.

[timeflies51]

Funny thing is, the Catholic Church does not require its members to give them money. So I doubt the motivation is money.

Ever hear of indulgences? During the middle ages, the Catholic Church claimed that your soul would not be sent to heaven unless you paid indulgences.

[Ington]

I don't believe what any of you are saying, and I don't feel I should waste my time trying to explain my philosophy, as only a select few of you will understand it anyway. Mipadi probably would, as he seems to be touching on it.

I'll tell you what I think about religion, instead.

I believe there is nothing denying the possibility of the existance of God. However, I don't believe that is why people turn to religion. I believe people turned to religion because it is easier to understand than a world created by chance.

the world is complicated and someone had to create it.

I think you mean, "The world is complicated, and I can't understand how it may not have been created by a higher being".

As for me, I don't believe anything. I don't believe anything that did not directly come from my mind. Cogito, ergo sum. I think, therefore, I am. I will question everything, and anything, as the only thing that is certain is my existance.

[*kryogenix*]

Ever hear of indulgences? During the middle ages, the Catholic Church claimed that your soul would not be sent to heaven unless you paid indulgences.

Is this what is being taught in school these days? This is a gross misrepresentation of what happened. Even worse than the version we were taught at my school.

Indulgences do affect going to heaven or hell. Indulgences only remove the temporal punishment that is associated with sin.

What does affect where your soul is headed is if you are absolved of your sins or not. Indulgences are worthless unless you are absolved first anyway, regardless of whether you bought them or you earned them. Also, indulgences are not a license to sin.

[colleen92]

Ever hear of indulgences? During the middle ages, the Catholic Church claimed that your soul would not be sent to heaven unless you paid indulgences.

indulgences were something you paid for in reperation for sins. instead of confession, you'd pay indulgences. it was simply because people were too lazy to say a few prayers or go out and help someone like we do now.

[magicfann]

if there was a god why does he let us f**k up so bad?

[timeflies51]

Is this what is being taught in school these days? This is a gross misrepresentation of what happened. Even worse than the version we were taught at my school.

Indulgences do affect going to heaven or hell. Indulgences only remove the temporal punishment that is associated with sin.

What does affect where your soul is headed is if you are absolved of your sins or not. Indulgences are worthless unless you are absolved first anyway, regardless of whether you bought them or you earned them. Also, indulgences are not a license to sin.

Ah, go figure on the school thing. Or maybe my memory didn't serve me.

Hmm... I think the fact that money can simply "remove the temporal punishment that is associated with sin" is kind of strange to me. Money is suddenly important to religion?

However, I suppose that if they actually used the money to help those in need, perhaps that would be like charity, therefore it would be good. Maybe they did, maybe they didn't. If they didn't, well...