Search
Calendar
Who's Online
Donate
Login
Register
Reset Password
Home
Login
Register
MurraysWorld
>
Chit Chat
>
Religious Discussions
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Poll
Do you believe in God?
Yes, there is a God
36 (45.6%)
No (atheist)
33 (41.8%)
Unsure (agnostic)
10 (12.7%)
Total Voters: 78
Pages:
1
...
34
35
36
[
37
]
38
39
40
...
342
Reply
Author
Religious Discussions
(Read 275326 times)
Mark
Murraymaniac
Posts: 56,007
Gender:
Mark
Re: Religious Discussions
« on: January 04, 2009, 10:27 pm »
Quote
Quote from: nkp2 on January 04, 2009, 10:23 pm
A distinction is needed to be clarified again here! "A GOD" existing, yes ok. but the gods as portrayed by the popular religions is ridiculous.
A distinction is clearly not needed as I said in my last post, "you can definitely laugh at religion though".. I obviously wouldn't have said that if my point was referring to God of a religion.
IP Logged
Neil
John McEnroe
Posts: 16,715
Gender:
Neil
Re: Religious Discussions
« on: January 04, 2009, 10:35 pm »
Quote
Quote from: Mark on January 04, 2009, 10:27 pm
A distinction is clearly not needed as I said in my last post, "you can definitely laugh at religion though".. I obviously wouldn't have said that if my point was referring to God of a religion.
But you put "God" with a capital G. That tends to refer to the Christian god does it not?
IP Logged
Mark
Murraymaniac
Posts: 56,007
Gender:
Mark
Re: Religious Discussions
« on: January 04, 2009, 10:39 pm »
Quote
I thought it was proper English to capitalise God based on how I used it in the post we are talking about but if that is not the case, I still think it was pretty clear due to my insult to religion that I was not defending the theory of a religious God.
[ Last edit by Mark January 04, 2009, 10:54 pm ]
IP Logged
Neil
John McEnroe
Posts: 16,715
Gender:
Neil
Re: Religious Discussions
« on: January 05, 2009, 02:14 am »
Quote
I have just finished Chapter 4 in A God Delusion and I can't believe you think that "God having always existed" is as acceptable as the ingredients having always existed.
Having thought about it more, surely the ingredients will still have to exist if "a god" always existed or not no?
And from Dawkins himself, he points out that we have a lovely explanation for evolution of life in Darwin, but not an explanation for the evolution of the universe YET.
Any designer (as you are apparently attributing at the very least when you say "God" - ignoring anything else about this "God) has to be massively more complex than that which he is creating and had to be designed himself. Hence it's so much more statistically improbable than even the CHANCE of the Universe forming (which only has to happen once) that it can be thrown out of the window.
I can't tell you if the ingredients were there pre "Big Bang" or not, or what was at the centre when it started etc etc, but I can say with absolute belief and confidence, that "a god" was not "always there" prior to this "Big Bang" to make it happen. Whatever happened, I think is most likely to have happened by chance, although I've read that it could have happened with births of Universes in parallel/serial etc etc. You've read it, you should know what I am talking about. At any rate, I'd be satisfied with knowing how the Big Bang started rather than if the ingredients were there or not....... Maybe in the true "space" (the bits between galaxies with no protons/neutrons/electrons in them presumebly) have some "Force" in them which we don't know about and caused the initial Big Bang?!
Sorry to have gone on, but read the end of Chapter 4 and tell me if you can still say "God may always have existed" is the same as saying "The ingredients always existed"
IP Logged
Mark
Murraymaniac
Posts: 56,007
Gender:
Mark
Re: Religious Discussions
« on: January 05, 2009, 07:25 am »
Quote
Quote from: nkp2 on January 05, 2009, 02:14 am
I have just finished Chapter 4 in A God Delusion and I can't believe you think that "God having always existed" is as acceptable as the ingredients having always existed.
Considering you are talking to someone who has already finished the book, I'm surprised that you have once again massively misunderstood me on this subject.
I never said it was acceptable to say God always existed, I was very clear in only making comparisons rather than judging the theory on its own. The concept of something always existing is so completely out of our comprehension that I don't feel it is appropriate to apply logic from our current understanding of the world which leads me to think that there is not a big difference from saying something simple always existed over that of a complex being.
[ Last edit by Mark January 05, 2009, 08:07 am ]
IP Logged
Neil
John McEnroe
Posts: 16,715
Gender:
Neil
Re: Religious Discussions
« on: January 05, 2009, 06:53 pm »
Quote
But it is...... because if we look at how complex things come to be, it appears that they develop from simple things. Earth got more complicated, Life got more complicated, the Solar System got more complicated etc etc etc. We just don;t know how it started. For that reason I disagree with you that it's not much different.
Regardless, you shouldn't attribute the word "God" anyway, you know it causes confusion
IP Logged
Mark
Murraymaniac
Posts: 56,007
Gender:
Mark
Re: Religious Discussions
« on: January 05, 2009, 08:22 pm »
Quote
Quote from: nkp2 on January 05, 2009, 06:53 pm
But it is...... because if we look at how complex things come to be, it appears that they develop from simple things. Earth got more complicated, Life got more complicated, the Solar System got more complicated etc etc etc. We just don;t know how it started. For that reason I disagree with you that it's not much different.
No point telling me what I already know, we both understand the arguments from Dawkins.
As I said before, I don't feel it is appropriate to restrict our thinking based on logic from the current understanding of our world when the concept of something always having existed is so utterly mind blowing. To say God always existed is ridiculous but to say anything always existed, however simple, is only a little less ridiculous.
The rule that something has to have evolved from a previous state can be thrown out the window when we accept that something can exist without something having come before it.
[ Last edit by Mark January 05, 2009, 08:29 pm ]
IP Logged
AVH
Newbie
Posts: 45
Gender:
Location: Serbia
I'm not just perfect. I'm Serb too!
AVH
Re: Religious Discussions
« on: January 05, 2009, 09:48 pm »
Quote
Well, I'm aware that the point of the faith is to believe in something without having any proves which would explain its existance in the reality, but...I don't think I actually
believe
in God.
I'm also aware that many people do, and becoz of that, I can't just exclude all related to it (God's existance etc.), I mean, I do celebrate Christmas (orthodox), but I don't see the point of it. I don't feel obligated to do it, but on the other side, I'd feel weird if I don't, becoz all other members of my family do it.
But my personal opinion about religion and stuff (I hope nobody will get ofended in any way) is: If one man believes in something, he's seen as a nerd guy, but if the big group of people do the same, then that's called
religion
.
IP Logged
Neil
John McEnroe
Posts: 16,715
Gender:
Neil
Re: Religious Discussions
« on: January 05, 2009, 10:00 pm »
Quote
If one man believes in the flying spaghetti monster he's locked up in a mental asylum but if loads of people do, that's religion
As for your other points, you should read the recent posts in this thread. There's not really talk of excluding people, but getting them to understand how ludicrous their ideas actually are.
As for celebrating xmas, that's not really all that religious as it is made out to be.
IP Logged
AVH
Newbie
Posts: 45
Gender:
Location: Serbia
I'm not just perfect. I'm Serb too!
AVH
Re: Religious Discussions
« on: January 05, 2009, 10:06 pm »
Quote
Quote from: nkp2 on January 05, 2009, 10:00 pm
If one man believes in the flying spaghetti monster he's locked up in a mental asylum but if loads of people do, that's religion
As for your other points, you should read the recent posts in this thread. There's not really talk of excluding people, but getting them to understand how ludicrous their ideas actually are.
As for celebrating xmas, that's not really all that religious as it is made out to be.
I think you got that 'phrase' to seriously, guess it's supposed to be a bit sarcastic as well, and the example you used just to screw it up, is senceless
I wasn't talking about excluding people, but excluding all these stories about God and etc, because if I don't believe in God, I shouldn't accept any celebrations and stuff related to
him
, but as I said, I do celebrate Christmas.
And, I've never said that celebrating Christams makes you be a believer, becoz I do "celebrate" it, and I'm not believer.
IP Logged
Neil
John McEnroe
Posts: 16,715
Gender:
Neil
Re: Religious Discussions
« on: January 05, 2009, 10:10 pm »
Quote
I don't agree. You can't help where you were brought up and the celebrations and stuff that go on in that culture. What you can think about (in the xmas example) is that it's not solely about God. Parts of it are, but most of it is borrowed from other historical traditions and festivals/religions.
IP Logged
Tommy
World No 1
Posts: 12,887
Gender:
Location: Banbury, Oxfordshire
woo hoo
Tommy
Re: Religious Discussions
« on: January 05, 2009, 11:23 pm »
Quote
Ridiculous to you! Not to billions of Christians, Muslims,and Jews who follow the same one God.
(sorry, I'm talking to a post of Neils a while back...I'm on my touch pod and it's difficult to type, nevermind QUOTE)
IP Logged
Neil
John McEnroe
Posts: 16,715
Gender:
Neil
Re: Religious Discussions
« on: January 05, 2009, 11:38 pm »
Quote
Quote from: Tommy on January 05, 2009, 11:23 pm
Ridiculous to you! Not to billions of Christians, Muslims,and Jews who follow the same one God.
(sorry, I'm talking to a post of Neils a while back...I'm on my touch pod and it's difficult to type, nevermind QUOTE)
They are ridiculous I'm afraid, and the same one God? They wouldn't thank you at all for saying that
IP Logged
Mark
Murraymaniac
Posts: 56,007
Gender:
Mark
Re: Religious Discussions
« on: January 05, 2009, 11:44 pm »
Quote
I think he means the abrahamic God...
IP Logged
measdale
ATP Level
Posts: 2,029
Gender:
Location: Edinburgh
My life, currently
measdale
Re: Religious Discussions
« on: January 16, 2009, 01:10 pm »
Quote
Quote from: Mark on January 05, 2009, 11:44 pm
I think he means the abrahamic God...
Is that the "abrahamic God" who said "a tooth for a tooth" or the one who said "turn the other cheek?".
IP Logged
Pages:
1
...
34
35
36
[
37
]
38
39
40
...
342
Reply
MurraysWorld
>
Chit Chat
>
Religious Discussions
Powered by SMF
|
SMF © 2006, Simple Machines
Loading...