Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
RumbleFox

Religion

Recommended Posts

I thought we already had a religion but can’t find it. As a result of the “Unpopular Opinions” thread being hijacked by he religion/atheist chat I thought we should have a separate thread for religion. I hope this can be a place where people with different views talk openly and honestly but with respect for others. All views are welcome but please people on both sides be open to being challenged. Your views being challenged are not an attack on your personally, they are just a differing viewpoint. If the old one was deleted I would ask the Mods to show discretion here and allow this thread to breathe.

 

OK, I will start........ I do not believe in any organised religion or deity and cannot see even one single piece of proof to support one. I am always willing to learn and evolve though so if anyone has a compelling argument I would love to listen.  My worldview is a humancentric and scientific one. Of course I cannot say with certainty that there is not some kind of greater power out there (but if there is it would be a being that was wholly natural and without the “supernatural”) but I can say with pretty much certainty it is not the God of any of the religious books created by men. 
 

X

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not in the slightest bit religious but it always irks me when religion is spoken about solely in terms of belief, supernatural agents and deity. And of course that is a central part but it's not the whole story, it misses the belonging part. 

 

Taking religious belief in its literal sense and believing it to be absolutely true is most likely misguided. But I can see the merits in believing and organising, and I can certainly see the benefit that human society has reaped from organised religion, and I can probably see that modern society suffers in some ways from that lack of belief. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I said in the Unpopular Opinions thread, I'm somewhere in the middle as I'm not overly Religious but I'm definitely not Atheist. I don't knock people for believing or not believing; belief is all opinion or not if you don't want to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think a discussion about religion can go anywhere without first discussing if a Creator exists or not. I'm more than happy to discuss that without even mentioning religion or the Abrahamic God.

 

 

Whilst Evolution goes against what people of the Abrahamic faith believe, it is in no way a tool to disprove the existence of a Creator.

 

 

@RumbleFox you mentioned in the unpopular opinions thread that the side you stand on has "On one side you have peer reviewed, tested and retested empirical data"

 

If you have empirically data that says the evolution is proved through scientific means of testing and recreating the process and all of that is unfalsifiable, you (or whoever has them) can harry up and go pick up his Nobel prize.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not religious in the slightest but I completely understand its appeal and don't get why some people are so rabidly against it.

 

Love going to churches and cathedrals as a tourist and you get the sense of community there. Especially for widows or people who live alone it's a great place to go once a week and make good friends without any fuss. It's just like a local meetup society in that sense. That's how I always  view it. I live near the mosque here and often walk by after a service has finished and see everyone shaking hands and laughing with each other as if they're lifelong friends having a good catch-up for the week. For so many people that's where their friends and emotional support are during the tough times in life. Ultimately I think that's a huge positive religion brings that I don't get why people are so happy to rally against.

 

Sure there's a very, very tiny number of religious nutters who commit heinous acts. But that's the same with anything. The 2 biggest and most common forms of terrorism we heard about in the 70s where bombings from Marxist groups which was an atheistic political movement and from the IRA which was a nationalist movement. Political terrorism has been far more common in my lifetime in this country than religious terrorism, especially when you consider the number of religious people vastly outweighs the number of people in any political movement. People will just find an excuse for their terrorism to hide behind.

Edited by Sampson
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am a humanist, which essentially means I believe that morality doesn't come from any kind of deity but is a human creation.  Humanists UK though do have a number of campaigns that I support, including removing some of the more ridiculous anachronisms like prayers at the start of parliamentary sessions, whereby if you want a seat you have to be there for prayers, or the presence of religious leaders in the house of lords, or state funding for religious selection schools.  All nonsense imo.  I have no issue with other's beliefs, but they should not get preferential treatment as a result.

 

 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, z-layrex said:

We live on a spec in the cosmos. It would take over 80 000 years to travel to the nearest star, and there are stars 100 times bigger than our own sun.

 

For people to think there is a heaven, hell, or to think their God is real over the thousands of other gods invented over the course of human existence is just hilarious to me.

 

People's brains needs to protect themselves from a fear of death and not existing, which I get.

I think this is it. The comfort. I mentioned it last week in the other thread. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not religious, but I know plenty who are, and I know the positives it can bring to people's lives, to communities.

 

Some issues I have:

  • Cult-like "religions" that seem to prey on the vulnerable to bring them into their 'community.' (I mean, let's not get into the whole "they're all like that" there are definitely some that are much worse than others, and some that just masquerade as religions when they're out and out cults
  • The fact that young people/children get no say in the religion they follow. Many are taken and have the stuff hammered into them to be the next generation. It completely ruins that person's ability to choose when they're older
  • People who thrust their religion onto you, though this is a minor point. People love thrusting things they like onto you, whether it's your dog or their collection of tin cans
  • Religious people who hide their bigotry and narrow mindedness behind the books they so worship. Cherry picking bits from their sacred documents to justify themselves
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, the fox said:

I don't think a discussion about religion can go anywhere without first discussing if a Creator exists or not. I'm more than happy to discuss that without even mentioning religion or the Abrahamic God.

 

 

Whilst Evolution goes against what people of the Abrahamic faith believe, it is in no way a tool to disprove the existence of a Creator.

 

 

@RumbleFox you mentioned in the unpopular opinions thread that the side you stand on has "On one side you have peer reviewed, tested and retested empirical data"

 

If you have empirically data that says the evolution is proved through scientific means of testing and recreating the process and all of that is unfalsifiable, you (or whoever has them) can harry up and go pick up his Nobel prize.

Not as much of a Nobel Prize as if someone could cite proof of a supernatural deity though? The general scientific consensus is that evolution is the most likely method by which humans came to be. Of course it may be wrong, that is the joy of the scientific method but so far it is the most widely supported of all the theories. 

Edited by RumbleFox
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Kopfkino said:

I'm not in the slightest bit religious but it always irks me when religion is spoken about solely in terms of belief, supernatural agents and deity. And of course that is a central part but it's not the whole story, it misses the belonging part. 

 

Taking religious belief in its literal sense and believing it to be absolutely true is most likely misguided. But I can see the merits in believing and organising, and I can certainly see the benefit that human society has reaped from organised religion, and I can probably see that modern society suffers in some ways from that lack of belief. 

Yeah the foundation’s of the human race can be attributed to religion, it’s given us our morals and laws amongst other things. Is it a coincidence that the world seems more chaotic as people begin to distance themselves away from religion?

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Strokes said:

Yeah the foundation’s of the human race can be attributed to religion, it’s given us our morals and laws amongst other things. Is it a coincidence that the world seems more chaotic as people begin to distance themselves away from religion?

I think that is completely the wrong way round.  People gave religion it's morals and developed their laws (sometimes in the name of religion sometimes not).  It all comes from people becuase there is no god.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am an atheist but I love churches, love hymns, love Christmas. I think lots of people have a weird view of atheists. To me it is just someone who does not believe in any religion and that’s that. It doesn’t define a person? X 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Strokes said:

Yeah the foundation’s of the human race can be attributed to religion, it’s given us our morals and laws amongst other things. Is it a coincidence that the world seems more chaotic as people begin to distance themselves away from religion?

I disagree with this. Of course some morals come from religion but lots from human thought too. Many of the worlds happiest nations currently are more atheistic (Scandinavia, etc) snd highly religious countries are not exactly heavenly ( Saudi, etc). Also there was a time when theology ruled and we now call it the Dark Ages. I would fight to the last for anyone’s right to hold a personal religion but my right to challenge it is equally as valid. To me dogma and “faith” are not positive facets but I understand that everyone is different. X 

Edited by RumbleFox
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Universe had a beginning (the big bang) and that beginning had an uncaused first cause or unmoved mover (God) 

 

Here's why:

 

1. We know from the 2nd law of thermodynamics that the universe will run out of energy, if the universe was eternal it couldn't run out of energy as this would already have happened. 

2. The universe is expanding, Edward Hubble discovered this in 1929. This shows everything came from a single point of infinite density (singularity)

3. Penzias and Wilson discovered the cosmic microwave background (afterglow) in 1965,this shows the big bang theory to be true as there is observable heat from this. 

4. Einstiens theory of general relativity shows that time, space and matter came into existence together. In other words they literally had a beginning. 

 

The cause of the big bang then is something that is timeless, space less and immaterial. That sounds a lot like God to me. A common objection to this is who caused God but rember, the cause is timeless, hence eternal. This is why we know the cause was uncaused. 

 

Next we have the moral argument. Please remember this argument stands irregardless of religion. A common objection is (look at the old testament that isn't moral) this argument is for the existence of any diety so please don't get tied up in a religion here. 

 

1. Objective moral values and duties cannot exist without an absolute and perfect standard. 

2. Objective moral values and duties do exist. 

3.therefore an absolute and perfect standard exists. 

 

Objective morals cannot exist without an absolute standard as there would be nothing to set out what is right and wrong, we could only use our own subjective reasoning. You might say we have simply evolved to be moral but this doesn't work as we know cultures vastly differ on what they think is right and wrong and there are examples of morals and duties going against an evolution model. 

 

Objective morals do exist though. Everyone knows that murdering a child is evil. To deny objective moral values exist is to say I don't think murdering a child is good but that's only my opinion. 

 

Finally we know from historical evidence that Jesus existed, preached that he was the son of God, was crucified, was buried in the tomb of Joseph of Arimethea, the tomb was found empty and that several individuals and groups claimed to see the risen Jesus. These are historical facts accepted almost universally among scholars. 

 

I believe these facts are best explained by the ressurecgion theory. Given that Jesus died, it stands to reason that he believed in his claims,he may have been deluded but it seems highly unlikely he was willing to be crucified for a lie. We know the tomb was found empty for a number of reasons, firstly it was discovered by women who at the point in time were not reliable sources, it seems highly unlikely that charletans would use women as sources unless they actually did find the tomb empty. Secondly we know from Jewish sources that upon this discovery they said "the disciples have stolen the body" if Jesus tomb was not empty, the Jews would have said no, look the tomb is not empty. 

 

We then know from an early Creed dated to around AD 45 and inependant sources, that several individuals and groups claimed to see the risen Jesus. The first thing that strikes me, is individuals hallucinate but there is no such thing as group hallucinations. The second thing that strikes me is how willing people were to die for their belief. Usually here we can attribute this to some earthly gain but there is none. Just horrific deaths. 

 

We then have Paul, who was Saul of Tarsus. He persecuted and helped stone disciples. However he converted to Christianity after encountering Jesus whilst in the way to Damascus to hunt disciples. Paul's transformation is overwhelming to me. 

 

This all gave me enough to go from athiest to believing it.could be true. When one takes a step of faith and invites Jesus into their lives, that's when the overwhelming evidence arrives. Through my own sanctification and relationship with Jesus, I know he is real. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Benguin said:

The Universe had a beginning (the big bang) and that beginning had an uncaused first cause or unmoved mover (God) 

 

Here's why:

 

1. We know from the 2nd law of thermodynamics that the universe will run out of energy, if the universe was eternal it couldn't run out of energy as this would already have happened. 

2. The universe is expanding, Edward Hubble discovered this in 1929. This shows everything came from a single point of infinite density (singularity)

3. Penzias and Wilson discovered the cosmic microwave background (afterglow) in 1965,this shows the big bang theory to be true as there is observable heat from this. 

4. Einstiens theory of general relativity shows that time, space and matter came into existence together. In other words they literally had a beginning. 

 

The cause of the big bang then is something that is timeless, space less and immaterial. That sounds a lot like God to me. A common objection to this is who caused God but rember, the cause is timeless, hence eternal. This is why we know the cause was uncaused. 

 

Next we have the moral argument. Please remember this argument stands irregardless of religion. A common objection is (look at the old testament that isn't moral) this argument is for the existence of any diety so please don't get tied up in a religion here. 

 

1. Objective moral values and duties cannot exist without an absolute and perfect standard. 

2. Objective moral values and duties do exist. 

3.therefore an absolute and perfect standard exists. 

 

Objective morals cannot exist without an absolute standard as there would be nothing to set out what is right and wrong, we could only use our own subjective reasoning. You might say we have simply evolved to be moral but this doesn't work as we know cultures vastly differ on what they think is right and wrong and there are examples of morals and duties going against an evolution model. 

 

Objective morals do exist though. Everyone knows that murdering a child is evil. To deny objective moral values exist is to say I don't think murdering a child is good but that's only my opinion. 

 

Finally we know from historical evidence that Jesus existed, preached that he was the son of God, was crucified, was buried in the tomb of Joseph of Arimethea, the tomb was found empty and that several individuals and groups claimed to see the risen Jesus. These are historical facts accepted almost universally among scholars. 

 

I believe these facts are best explained by the ressurecgion theory. Given that Jesus died, it stands to reason that he believed in his claims,he may have been deluded but it seems highly unlikely he was willing to be crucified for a lie. We know the tomb was found empty for a number of reasons, firstly it was discovered by women who at the point in time were not reliable sources, it seems highly unlikely that charletans would use women as sources unless they actually did find the tomb empty. Secondly we know from Jewish sources that upon this discovery they said "the disciples have stolen the body" if Jesus tomb was not empty, the Jews would have said no, look the tomb is not empty. 

 

We then know from an early Creed dated to around AD 45 and inependant sources, that several individuals and groups claimed to see the risen Jesus. The first thing that strikes me, is individuals hallucinate but there is no such thing as group hallucinations. The second thing that strikes me is how willing people were to die for their belief. Usually here we can attribute this to some earthly gain but there is none. Just horrific deaths. 

 

We then have Paul, who was Saul of Tarsus. He persecuted and helped stone disciples. However he converted to Christianity after encountering Jesus whilst in the way to Damascus to hunt disciples. Paul's transformation is overwhelming to me. 

 

This all gave me enough to go from athiest to believing it.could be true. When one takes a step of faith and invites Jesus into their lives, that's when the overwhelming evidence arrives. Through my own sanctification and relationship with Jesus, I know he is real. 

 

Thank you so much  for  your long message, I appreciate your input and though I’m already quite familiar with a lot of the arguments you have quoted from people such as William Lane Craig it’s always nice to read them again. My issue is you speak on such certain terms “this proves that, etc) but, again, none of the arguments you have given are any more than word games or philosophical rabbit holes. The only “fact” on there is that Jesus existed but nothing to say he was the son of God? Again, I am genuinely not trying to be obtuse but nothing you have said is compelling to me? And also, just to highlight one small section, any good magician can make groups of people think they saw something they didn’t. Mass hallucination is a very real and very well researched phenomenon so your statement that it cannot happen seems incorrect to me? X 

Edited by RumbleFox
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, RumbleFox said:

Not as much of a Nobel Prize as if someone could cite proof of a supernatural deity though? The general scientific consensus is that evolution is the most likely method by which humans came to be. Of course it may be wrong, that is the joy of the scientific method but so far it is the most widely supported of all the theories. 

OK, you have yet to show me the peer reviewed papers of the validity of evolution or any empirical evidence of it. Can someone re-reacte the process of evolution in a lab? and do you know why? Because there is non. 

 

That's all a theory based on the belief that future scientists can fix the holes in it or find a better theory. A belief.

 

 

I find it dishonest that people will parrot the sayings of scientists who by their own words said that they have no empirical evidence nor can they re-creat the process of evolution in a lab as some kind of truth.

 

You know why there is a consensus on the theory? Because the other option is "Creation". And they can't have that.

 

 

" scientists " with an agenda will shamelessly put things like "humans evolved from fish" as absolute truth on kids books even though they have no proof of it. 

 

Any scientists worth his salt and isn't dishonest, and believes in the big bang can deny that there is a force/entity outside the known universe that caused the universe and it's far stronger than the laws of the university like gravity and electromagnetism and that force/entity can not be caused. That's why you find people who don't mind the idea of a Creator but aren't religious.

 

People laugh at people who put their belief in holy books yet they put their trust in people who have no problem admitting that their theory are likely wrong.

 

It's all belief no matter how anyone can spin it. I just want more honesty in such discussions because if people looked closely at what they are hinging their afterlife on (be it you believe there is one or not) they will be much less smug.

 

 

 

 

Edited by the fox
  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

I think that is completely the wrong way round.  People gave religion it's morals and developed their laws (sometimes in the name of religion sometimes not).  It all comes from people becuase there is no god.

Well humans created religion, so it’s not mutually exclusive. The religion, is what made most follow those laws/morals, in a time which law and order was not so easily enforced.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, RumbleFox said:

Thank you so much  for  your long message, I appreciate your input and though I’m already quite familiar with a lot of the arguments you have quoted from people such as William Lane Craig it’s always nice to read them again. My issue is you speak on such certain terms “this proves that, etc) but, again, none of the arguments you have given are any more than word games or philosophical rabbit holes. The only “fact” on there is that Jesus existed but nothing to say he was the son of God? Again, I am genuinely not trying to be obtuse but nothing you have said is compelling to me? And also, just to highlight one small section, any good magician can make groups of people think they saw something they didn’t. Mass hallucination is a very real and revert well researched phenomenon so your statement that it cannot happen seems incorrect to me? X 

The first argument is not a wordplay at all, Upon the enlightenment, it was a torrid time for a theist as science supported an eternal universe. We know from Science now that the universe was caused and that cause was timeless, space less and immaterial. Its a deductive argument, sure, but there's no good reason why its not sound in my opinion. 

 

The moral argument definitley is a philosophical argument but I don't see any bad logic in it. 

 

There are numerous sources where Jesus claimed to be the son of God. In fact that was the very reason he was sentenced to death. The debate here is whether he was the son of God surely, rather than whether he claimed to be? 

 

Yes magicians can fool people. Yet to hear of one that fooled several people into horrific deaths. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Strokes said:

Yeah the foundation’s of the human race can be attributed to religion, it’s given us our morals and laws amongst other things. Is it a coincidence that the world seems more chaotic as people begin to distance themselves away from religion?

Interesting point. 

 

I often hear of how religion is incredibly harmful, but the bloodiest time in history is post enlightenment. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, the fox said:

OK, you have yet to show me the peer reviewed papers of the validity of evolution or any empirical evidence of it. Can someone reacte the process of evolution in a lab? and do you know why? Because there is non. 

 

That's all a theory based on the belief that future scientists can fix the holes in it or find a better theory. A belief.

 

 

I find it dishonest that people will parrot the sayings of scientists who by their own words said that they have no empirical evidence nor can they re-creat the process of evolution in a lab as some kind of truth.

 

You know why there is a consensus on the theory? Because the the other option is "Creation". And they can have that.

 

 

" scientists " with an agenda will shamelessly put things like "humans evolved from fish" as absolute truth on kids books even though they have no proof of it. 

 

Any scientists worth his salt and isn't dishonest, and believes in the big bang can't deny that there is a force/entity outside the known universe that caused the universe and it's far stronger than the laws of the university like gravity and electromagnetism and that force/entity can not be caused. That's why you find people who don't mind the idea of a Creator but aren't religious.

 

People laugh at people who put their belief in holy books yet they put their trust in people who have no problem admitting that their theory are likely wrong.

 

It's all belief no matter how anyone can spin it. I just want more honesty in such discussions because if people looked closely at what they hinging their afterlife on (be it you belief there is one or not) they will be much less smug.

 

 

 

 

I genuinely think you have misunderstood the theory of evolution. There are thousands of papers and studies on its validity and you only have to look at the domestication of the wolf to see macro evolution at work? 
 

Scientists do not have agendas, my word, they follow the evidence. People don’t seem to question the big bad scientists evil agendas when they wear  glasses, use an iPhone or take antibiotics? 
 

Belief in science is not the same as faith surely you can see that? We know not to walk out of a window as the theory of gravity will pull us to our deaths. We know that we will fall because we have witnessed it, it is a scientifically proveable fact. There’s no “faith” in believing the science in this? Moreover, with regards to what happens before the Big Bang it is of course wondrous and curious and almost impossible to even picture but I trust that the scientific method will one day find an answer to this riddle just as it has to the “magic” of day and night, the tides, what stars are, germ theory, etc. X 

Edited by RumbleFox
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Strokes said:

Well humans created religion, so it’s not mutually exclusive. The religion, is what made most follow those laws/morals, in a time which law and order was not so easily enforced.

Yeah I think your point wasn't that religion was some exogenous force that imposed moral order on people but that it bound people in groups and supported functioning societies

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...