Religion

[RumbleFox]

6 minutes ago, Benguin said:

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. 

 

 

You’re kidding right? There have been too many death cults, suicide pacts to even mention? 

[Strokes]

2 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

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

Yeah that’s a much better way of putting what I was attempting to express.

 

[Ollie93]

27 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. 

 

Two points; firstly that what if the universe is expanding then suddenly contracts down to atom size and again, then expands etc. This is the view Prof Brian Cox has, seems logical to me, as space isn't actually expanding, it is believed to just be stretching. Think of a rubber band expanding then suddenly snapping back. This would make this a cycle and just just a singular event. Thus not needing a 'god' to start it.

 

Secondly, you can have group hallucinations if you're all tripping on LSD/mushrooms etc. 

 

If there was one god, then why does every religion claims theirs is the one?

[Vacamion]

 

10 years ago I was a raging atheist, I read the new atheists and was full of hope that religion could be argued away. I would provoke discussions with the religious in order to be able to criticise them and their beliefs.

 

I’ve calmed it a bit since. Whatever blows your hair back, and all that...    

 

I’m still very much deity-less myself and I think it’s a ridiculous proposition that the creator of the cosmos, with its hundred billion plus galaxies and in the vastness of space and time, would care very much about how humans love each other or dress, or what they eat on Friday, or whatever.

 

I think that people should be free to believe whatever they want to believe or not believe, provided it doesn’t impinge on others and provided they don’t try and proselytise their faith or lack of faith to others, or force their children to follow them in their beliefs, or to gain in public life (or punish others in public life) because of their belief or non-belief.

 

Sadly, most organised religions (and some of the more hardcore atheist positions) currently do not live up to this aspiration.

[whoareyaaa]

I reckon we have been created by a different race from another planet somewhere in the universe that's why there is talk of 'god's' and what not throughout time, but i don't believe Jesus had any hand it.

 

 

[RumbleFox]

6 minutes ago, Vacamion said:

 

10 years ago I was a raging atheist, I read the new atheists and was full of hope that religion could be argued away. I would provoke discussions with the religious in order to be able to criticise them and their beliefs.

 

I’ve calmed it a bit since. Whatever blows your hair back, and all that...    

 

I’m still very much deity-less myself and I think it’s a ridiculous proposition that the creator of the cosmos, with its hundred billion plus galaxies and in the vastness of space and time, would care very much about how humans love each other or dress, or what they eat on Friday, or whatever.

 

I think that people should be free to believe whatever they want to believe or not believe, provided it doesn’t impinge on others and provided they don’t try and proselytise their faith or lack of faith to others, or force their children to follow them in their beliefs, or to gain in public life (or punish others in public life) because of their belief or non-belief.

 

Sadly, most organised religions (and some of the more hardcore atheist positions) currently do not live up to this aspiration.

Pretty much my exact story. I was a hardcore atheist now I’m more relaxed but every once on a while it does wind me up haha. Religion should definitely bot be above criticism or question though. We should be able to challenge it as long as done correctly. X 

[Benguin]

7 minutes ago, Ollie93 said:

Two points; firstly that what if the universe is expanding then suddenly contracts down to atom size and again, then expands etc. This is the view Prof Brian Cox has, seems logical to me, as space isn't actually expanding, it is believed to just be stretching. Think of a rubber band expanding then suddenly snapping back. This would make this a cycle and just just a singular event. Thus not needing a 'god' to start it.

 

Secondly, you can have group hallucinations if you're all tripping on LSD/mushrooms etc. 

 

If there was one god, then why does every religion claims theirs is the one?

Is there any evidence of that though? I've heard his theory but it is hust that, an unsubstantiated theory. 

 

The evidence doesn't support that the disciples were using drugs, I can't remember who it was but someone used this theory and it was rejected by scholars. That said, I'm not aware of any drugs that cause people to see the same thing, become of right mind again, take the drug again and see the thing, become of right mind again, and then go to their deaths over the validity of the hallucination. Seems wildy irrational to believe that could be an explanation. 

[Benguin]

18 minutes ago, RumbleFox said:

You’re kidding right? There have been too many death cults, suicide pacts to even mention? 

None of which have even the slightest parallels with the early Church and the manner in which they all went to there deaths. The biggest detterent to willingly dying for a belief, is seeing someone else die for said belief. We have lots of evidence of people willing to die for their beliefs but very little of people repeatedly dying for something they don't believe in. That's the point, the fact that people died for their conviction that christ was risen shows that they, at the very least, were genuine in their conviction. They could have been wrong but it is beyond the bounds of reason to suggest they were deceitful and didn't believe that they had seen christ risen 

 

[Ollie93]

16 minutes ago, Benguin said:

Is there any evidence of that though? I've heard his theory but it is hust that, an unsubstantiated theory. 

 

The evidence doesn't support that the disciples were using drugs, I can't remember who it was but someone used this theory and it was rejected by scholars. That said, I'm not aware of any drugs that cause people to see the same thing, become of right mind again, take the drug again and see the thing, become of right mind again, and then go to their deaths over the validity of the hallucination. Seems wildy irrational to believe that could be an explanation. 

isn't everything just theory until it can be disproved, then a new theory arises?

 

Correct me if i'm wrong, but isn't the only evidence of anything Jesus related, is only what has been written in the bible? Passed down over thousands of years, where some of it could've been changed in translation etc? Seems a bit far fetched to say that it proves anything, when a lot of it is just stories telling us humans how to be nice.

[Benguin]

1 minute ago, Ollie93 said:

isn't everything just theory until it can be disproved, then a new theory arises?

 

Correct me if i'm wrong, but isn't the only evidence of anything Jesus related, is only what has been written in the bible? Passed down over thousands of years, where some of it could've been changed in translation etc? Seems a bit far fetched to say that it proves anything, when a lot of it is just stories telling us humans how to be nice.

Yes but I personally like to follow the evidence where it leads. The evidence at the moment points to a universe with a beggining. 

 

Firstly I'd invite you to ask yourself why the bible can't be considered evidence? Afterall the Bible isn't one book but a collection of historical documents. 

 

Secondly I'd invite you to look at textual criticism. Where the bible is concerned the textual critism is probably the most prominent. 

 

Thirdly I'd invite you to look at methods historians use to gage the reliability of documents. As an example a story is less likely to be true if it makes the writer look good or the writer stands to gain something. 

 

Fourthly,id invite you to look at scholarly opinion, both atheistic and theistic. Afterall, it is from experts in their field where we get most of our information. It might surprise you to see what the scholarly opinion is. 

 

Finally I'd invite you to explore the other sources, such as Josephus and Tacitus.

 

 

[RumbleFox]

17 minutes ago, Benguin said:

None of which have even the slightest parallels with the early Church and the manner in which they all went to there deaths. The biggest detterent to willingly dying for a belief, is seeing someone else die for said belief. We have lots of evidence of people willing to die for their beliefs but very little of people repeatedly dying for something they don't believe in. That's the point, the fact that people died for their conviction that christ was risen shows that they, at the very least, were genuine in their conviction. They could have been wrong but it is beyond the bounds of reason to suggest they were deceitful and didn't believe that they had seen christ risen 

 

I take your points, the situations are not quite the same. I think my issue os twofold. Firstly that it’s so long ago and has been passed on, often verbally, that even “facts” are hard to substantiate. And secondly, even if people did die for it it still isn’t proof of a Devine creator? X 

[Benguin]

2 minutes ago, RumbleFox said:

I take your points, the situations are not quite the same. I think my issue os twofold. Firstly that it’s so long ago and has been passed on, often verbally, that even “facts” are hard to substantiate. And secondly, even if people did die for it it still isn’t proof of a Devine creator? X 

It is not the age of a document that is the bone of contention for reliability but rather the amount of time that has elapsed from the event to the writing of said document. For example, the earliest source for figures like Alexander the great are hundreds of years after the fact but with Jesus we have the AD 45 Creed in 1 corinthians. Your point suggests that a historian writing on the events of the last ten years would be come less reliable as time goes by. 

 

No, its not outright proof but it makes up part of the problem. As far as I'm concerned I believe scholarly opinion is true where the historicity of Jesus is concerned so I am far more interested in what explains those facts. Scholarly opinion is to determine the facts and then leave it there but nonetheless there is still an explanation for those facts. Of all the theories posited, the resurrection theory is the only one that seems logical to me. 

 

 

[RumbleFox]

2 minutes ago, Benguin said:

It is not the age of a document that is the bone of contention for reliability but rather the amount of time that has elapsed from the event to the writing of said document. For example, the earliest source for figures like Alexander the great are hundreds of years after the fact but with Jesus we have the AD 45 Creed in 1 corinthians. Your point suggests that a historian writing on the events of the last ten years would be come less reliable as time goes by. 

 

No, its not outright proof but it makes up part of the problem. As far as I'm concerned I believe scholarly opinion is true where the historicity of Jesus is concerned so I am far more interested in what explains those facts. Scholarly opinion is to determine the facts and then leave it there but nonetheless there is still an explanation for those facts. Of all the theories posited, the resurrection theory is the only one that seems logical to me. 

 

 

As you rightly point out the problem lies in the delay in writing, thank you for correcting me. Of all the theories posited resurrection seems the most likely to you? I cannot say I agree with that. I would say resurrection is the least likely of any possible explanation surely? Given it’s miraculous nature?

[StriderHiryu]

I was baptised as a Catholic as a kid, but later gave up on religion. There were many, many reasons why I gave it up but one will always stick with me. I am mixed race, my mother is half Polish / half Ukrainian and my father is Indian. My mother is a practising Catholic and my father when he was alive a practising Hindu. One day at Saturday school as part of our teachings, the Priest told us that only Catholics go to heaven. So of course I put my hand up and asked him "what about my dad, will he go to heaven?" Cue the priest getting super awkward as a curious kid asks him this question in front of 20 other kids. He told me that no, he would not go to heaven, to which I asked him why that would be, given that one of the kids fathers in the same room regularly beat his wife and had put her in hospital but was Catholic. Why should he get into heaven, even if he went to Confession, but my dad who didn't beat his wife wouldn't? Again the Priest looked super awkward, but this time dispersed the class rather than answer the question. 

 

At that point the 10 year old me came to the conclusion that it was all complete bollocks. Needless to say I did not go through with Confirmation of the faith.

[Ollie93]

13 minutes ago, Benguin said:

Yes but I personally like to follow the evidence where it leads. The evidence at the moment points to a universe with a beggining. 

 

Firstly I'd invite you to ask yourself why the bible can't be considered evidence? Afterall the Bible isn't one book but a collection of historical documents. 

 

Secondly I'd invite you to look at textual criticism. Where the bible is concerned the textual critism is probably the most prominent. 

 

Thirdly I'd invite you to look at methods historians use to gage the reliability of documents. As an example a story is less likely to be true if it makes the writer look good or the writer stands to gain something. 

 

Fourthly,id invite you to look at scholarly opinion, both atheistic and theistic. Afterall, it is from experts in their field where we get most of our information. It might surprise you to see what the scholarly opinion is. 

 

Finally I'd invite you to explore the other sources, such as Josephus and Tacitus.

 

 

Because, like I said, the majority of it is a story. 

 

I don't know too much about the contents of the bible, however, one man feeding 5000 people with just a fish and a loaf of bread? Tell me why people are starving if this is achievable?

[Benguin]

3 minutes ago, Ollie93 said:

Because, like I said, the majority of it is a story. 

 

I don't know too much about the contents of the bible, however, one man feeding 5000 people with just a fish and a loaf of bread? Tell me why people are starving if this is achievable?

Virtually all of History is predicated on documents similar to the ones in the bible. I think the methods historians use are sound. If you dint that's fine but that reduces your knowledge of history to almost zilch. 

 

Your second point is a separate in entirely. It's essentially a point saying, why would a good god allow people to starve right? Perhaps first we should consider the moral argument. What are. Your thoughts on that? I posted it earlier in this thread. 

[Ollie93]

4 minutes ago, Benguin said:

Virtually all of History is predicated on documents similar to the ones in the bible. I think the methods historians use are sound. If you dint that's fine but that reduces your knowledge of history to almost zilch. 

 

Your second point is a separate in entirely. It's essentially a point saying, why would a good god allow people to starve right? Perhaps first we should consider the moral argument. What are. Your thoughts on that? I posted it earlier in this thread. 

I'd say a lot is found through the finding of bones, skeletons, artefacts, ancient ruins?

 

Well it's not a separate point, you asked why I don't think the bible can be considered evidence, and as stated above, how can something which tells the story of a man feeding 5000 people with a singular fish and loaf of bread, which i'd deem as close to impossible, be considered as factual evidence? 

[Benguin]

9 minutes ago, RumbleFox said:

As you rightly point out the problem lies in the delay in writing, thank you for correcting me. Of all the theories posited resurrection seems the most likely to you? I cannot say I agree with that. I would say resurrection is the least likely of any possible explanation surely? Given it’s miraculous nature?

Absolutely, the evidence Jesus was dead after his crucifixion is overwhelming. It stand to reason then that if jesus was dead, and individuals and groups saw him risen that either he was risen or they were deluded. Given the evidence we have of all the people who saw jesus and what they did, delusion seems highly unlikely so all though miraculous, that christ is risen is what follows logically. 

 

Most scholars who have tried to overcome the facts without the resurrection have arrived at the stumbling block of either they were deluded or christ was risen, looked at the delusion theory and realised that is ludicrous and so have had to come up with alternatives to the dilemma, one of my favourites being that Christ had a twin brother 

[Benguin]

Just now, Ollie93 said:

I'd say a lot is found through the finding of bones, skeletons, artefacts, ancient ruins?

 

Well it's not a separate point, you asked why I don't think the bible can be considered evidence, and as stated above, how can something which tells the story of a man feeding 5000 people with a singular fish and loaf of bread, which i'd deem as close to impossible, be considered as factual evidence? 

Yes some is but I think you'd be surprised how much of history, taught in class rooms is via the sources I'm referring. 

 

Secondly, whilst I believe that happened, I'm not citing there is factual evidence of it happening. If untrue, it still does not take away information that can be gained from texts. For example parts of the bible are used to corroborate secular history, such as roman history and wars as they're mentioned in passing. 

[the fox]

1 hour ago, RumbleFox said:

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 

The theory of a wolf becoming a dog is microevolution and not macroevolution. We can discuss that but the theory of a wolf becoming a dog has nothing to do with human evolution theory. 

 

Oh, scientists don't have an agenda? So everyone has them but not scientists. Maybe I can refer you to the pharmaceutical business and let's see if you still think that way. Well, I'm not saying all of them because their contributions to humanity are undeniable.

 

 

Science has the belief that something will react the same when put in the same conditions based on previous experience. And that's why there is no such thing as scientific fact. It's just a theory backed by arguments and as much evidence as possible. And that's how far it can go.

 

You "trust"? As in you put your belief is someone. That's what's called belief.

 

 

Did you know, some scientists didn't like the idea of the big bang theory because it goes against the popular theory/model at the time which was the static state (the universe is eternal and was always there) because it backs the existence of a Creator. 60-70 years ago, scientists had a consensus that the universe was eternal and now that model has gone out of the window. What stops the model of evolution of being discarded just like the static state model.

 

 

 

 

Edited 20 July 2020 by the fox

[Facecloth]

10 minutes ago, Ollie93 said:

I'd say a lot is found through the finding of bones, skeletons, artefacts, ancient ruins?

 

Well it's not a separate point, you asked why I don't think the bible can be considered evidence, and as stated above, how can something which tells the story of a man feeding 5000 people with a singular fish and loaf of bread, which i'd deem as close to impossible, be considered as factual evidence? 

There's evolution in the bible. Jesus was tiny. They were all tiny back then, and we're much bigger now. That's how he fed the 5000, little tiny people, big fish!

[the fox]

1 hour ago, Benguin said:

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? 

I want to debate this point.

 

The Bible states clearly that the title "the son of god" doesn't mean "a begotten son". Jesus in the Bible said it himself.

 

I can quote you verses if you want.

[Benguin]

5 minutes ago, the fox said:

I want to debate this point.

 

The Bible states clearly that the title "the son of god" doesn't mean "a begotten son". Jesus in the Bible said it himself.

 

I can quote you verses if you want.

What is your view so I know what I'm debating?

 

Do you not believe Jesus was the son of God or do you not believe jesus claimed to be the son of God? 

[Izzy]

[the fox]

1 hour ago, Ollie93 said:

Two points; firstly that what if the universe is expanding then suddenly contracts down to atom size and again, then expands etc. This is the view Prof Brian Cox has, seems logical to me, as space isn't actually expanding, it is believed to just be stretching. Think of a rubber band expanding then suddenly snapping back. This would make this a cycle and just just a singular event. Thus not needing a 'god' to start it.

 

Secondly, you can have group hallucinations if you're all tripping on LSD/mushrooms etc. 

 

If there was one god, then why does every religion claims theirs is the one?

What is backing that theory exactly? Is the singularity that's expanding and retracting eternal. Because if it is not than what created it. And if it is eternal, isn't just a modern day version of the static state theory.