RELIGION VS SCIENCE - the wrong discussion!

[Keep The Reason]

Yeah okay, I can see where you're coming from. Although I still stand by what I wrote.

Which is another way of saying "I have my fingers in my ears".

[Aaron]

Because the guys on your side of the debate have run this discussion for two thousand fucking years.

Oh dear. I don't think this statement is true and even if it was I don't think it's a legitimate gripe.

When is it ENOUGH? We have heard every argument, from every angle, and we've addressed them in minute detail, and you have even the remotest audacity to suggest we have our fingers in our ears??

LOL. That's funny. I intended the fingers-in-ears to be a general picture for two parties having an argument, not even atheist and theist, just a generic argument (although when I wrote it I was actually picturing an atheist being the one who was trying to argue with the finger-in-the-ear theist). It's funny how you misunderstood me. You know I'm not out to make you look bad KTR. It's not my goal in life to be mean to you.

Science has repeatedly pounded the realm of religious world-view into a huddled ball on the floor -- specifically the Christian religion -- until you're left with completely vague propositions like, "God hates sin" "There is a Heaven and Hell" "Jesus is redeemer" -- all empty assertions that are undemonstrable and rely on belief detached from empirical evidence, mere word-of-mouth, and an ancient discredited book of poetry and mythology.... and we have our fingers in OUR ears?

Science doesn't do anything. Individuals do. Science isn't a worldview and it isn't a religion. Science in my opinion is the word that describes the act of people using their brains with reason and integrity to further understanding and its not unique to the most recent additions on the spectrum of human life.

[Aaron]

Yeah okay, I can see where you're coming from. Although I still stand by what I wrote.

Which is another way of saying "I have my fingers in my ears".

No. You even said yourself

Technically, for discussion purposes, nothing is wrong with it.

and then you went on to describe that while there was nothing technically wrong with the approach I outlined it was still bad because as you said

...the guys on your side of the debate have run this discussion for two thousand fucking years...

which to me implies that apparently Christians have been keeping all of humanity from expressing their opinions for the last 2000 years.



***KTR, IN REFERENCE TO YOUR POST DATED (Mon Nov 28, 2011 21:30 Universal Time Coordinated) I JUST EDITED THIS POST CAUSE I FELT BAD FOR MAKING OUR BICKER TAKE UP MORE POSTS THAN IT HAS TO0.***

[Keep The Reason]

Oh dear. I don't think this statement is true and even if it was I don't think it's a legitimate gripe.

It's legitimate. Theistic worldviews have held sway even longer. I was being magnanimous by only going back 2k years. It's more like 5k.

LOL. That's funny. I intended the fingers-in-ears to be a general picture for two parties having an argument, not even atheist and theist, just a generic argument (although when I wrote it I was actually picturing an atheist being the one who was trying to argue with the finger-in-the-ear theist). It's funny how you misunderstood me. You know I'm not out to make you look bad KTR. It's not my goal in life to be mean to you.

I'm all choked up. I don't think you're mean-- I think it's absurd for the side that has its arms buried up to their elbows in their ears to assert that "both sides have their fingers in their ears". Theism has had the stage for thousands of years. It's only now we're saying "Hey, you know what? No." with any foundational backing and support. And your response is to claim we're not listening to this song that has been played for centuries.

I didn't misunderstand you. I'm calling you out for suggesting that we have our fingers in our ears when we have listened to every known argument and addressed every point. Your best answer is that we aren't listening ??

No, you aren't listening. It's not a two way street. It's been a one way street-- replete with policing from the tips of swords and the flames of the fagots -- for a long, long time on the side of theism. Rebuttal in any meaningful way is just making its first inroads (and knocking out home run after home run I daresay). Even materialists had little foundation until Darwin helped us understand that life could exist and evolve without a god in the mixture. That's a mere 150 years ago. For more than 10 times that time frame, theists have owned the stage.

Science doesn't do anything. Individuals do. Science isn't a worldview and it isn't a religion. Science in my opinion is the word that describes the act of people using their brains with reason and integrity to further understanding and its not unique to the most recent additions on the spectrum of human life.

And theism is the abandoning of that reason in favor of faith in a book and a mythology.

[Keep The Reason]

and then you went on to describe that while there was nothing technically wrong with the approach I outlined it was still bad because apparently Christians have been keeping all of humanity from expressing their opinions for the last 2000 years...

Where did I say that? Show me where I said anything even close to this strawman nonsense.

[humanguy]

My question to you atheist is this: If your life depended on answering the 'god question' right, who would you trust? Jesus christ i.e. god or a scientist claiming 'no' for the time being UNTIL (if ever) he gets an answer?

But life doesn't depend on answering the 'god question' anymore than it depends on the question of whether or not Batman will die in the next movie.

Some people take such things seriously, and it doesn't mean that there's anything wrong with them. We all have different interests and that's what makes humanity so fascinating. Until, that is, it becomes a total pain in the ass.

Spoiler: Batman dies in the next movie. I know that because Jesus told me.

[Aaron]

Spoiler: Batman dies in the next movie.

Batman could take on Superman, batman never dies.

[ReasonToFollow]

You're not only assuming that there is a God. You're also assuming many other things about your God, and you're drawing conclusions that don't logically follow from your assumptions, or even from the 'facts' as we are able to determine them.

I'm not sure if this is what you mean, but are you implying that hypothetically if I assume there's a god for a minute, it doesn't necessarily mean it's my Judeo-Christian God? I thought it was a given that by assuming there's a god it's the god that sent Jesus Christ! Isn't this a Christian-Atheist forum? So my other assumptions still stand because it's PERFECTLY logical that if Jesus is for real then Hell etc is also real just as the Bible says.

For example, how does it follow from assuming the existence of a God that this God is a male (you refer to your God as "He"), that he wants things (such as to make himself known to us in obvious ways, rather than waiting for us to 'discover' that he is 'real' through things like science), that there is a Hell, that your God doesn't want us to express our curiosity about his existence or examine his possible existence in the natural world, and will send us to Hell for doing so, or that he sent himself, as Jesus, to let us know about him? None of those things follow from the existence of God. They follow from your particular understanding and beliefs about the nature of your God. Assuming your basis for those things is the Bible and all you've decided it teaches about your particular Judeo-Christian God, you assert everything about your God as though it's all just a given that doesn't require proof or even evidence/reason to support your assertions.

What I'm trying to say about science and not being able to find God through it is that it's illogical to turn to science for a historically-based religion. We have this person in history, Jesus, that fulfilled 232/232 prophecies in his lifetime meaning that according to the Jews he was indeed the Messiah. Why would quantum physics and the like help you in deciding if he was the Son of God or not?!

Asking me (or others) to "assume" there is a God like the one you believe in doesn't do anything for the discussion. If God is exactly as you believe God to be, then everything you say about God is true and correct - using your beliefs as the standard of truth - and there's no more room for debate or disagreement.

I think the discussion has actually gone to another level. Why is this? Well although it's 'hypothetical' so that I can meet halfway with you and pretend a god exists for a minute, the one thing in it that is real to you is Jesus because he's a historical figure. That's where my argument clutches onto reality and blends what I have shown you as 'hypothetical' with reality.

The instant you show me Jesus isn't who he said he was, then I'll be convinced. NO GOD.

[ReasonToFollow]

So lets say I accepted all the assumptions that he asserted. What then. He is right by definition, and all I can say is that I still would not worship this God, but that everything he is saying is true. We can have a philosophical discussion on the right/wrongness of the actions of this God with respect to human life, and that conversation is fine to have, accurately i think its important to have. But as for the truth claims we are left with our hands tied behind our back, after having assumed those assertions as facts. Something that is important to get out of conversations is a new perspective on a certain issue, and I don't see it with just assuming those things about his God. Because after we are going back to the real world, form this hypothetical one, what did we gain from it as to the validity of a God existing? We still have no prof that this God even exists at all. All we did was assume our way to the conclusion. One assumption that could be made to start things off is the existence of this God, after that we can try to demonstrate attributes not assume them. If we cannot then perhaps there is some problem with the concept of God that we are adopting? what Kind of God, who really wants people to go to "heaven" would obscure its existence from people who sincerely are unable to hold a belief with such poor evidence or lack of any at all?

All I can say is you're absolutely brilliant! Best questions with the most logical answers as to why God is.

"Because after we are going back to the real world, form this hypothetical one, what did we gain from it as to the validity of a God existing? We still have no prof that this God even exists at all. All we did was assume our way to the conclusion."

"what Kind of God, who really wants people to go to "heaven" would obscure its existence from people who sincerely are unable to hold a belief with such poor evidence or lack of any at all?"

So you saw the conclusion but yet no evidence of a god still? Even worse, a god that rejects entry to heaven because of a lack of evidence? Ok, prepare for this evidence because it's pretty mind blowing stuff!

Jesus.

It's like we're trying to spot the elephant in the room here. What more do you need? God sent HIMSELF to us. Every time you pick up a Bible you're holding the words that Jesus said a.k.a. God.

[humanguy]

I thought it was a given that by assuming there's a god it's the god that sent Jesus Christ! Isn't this a Christian-Atheist forum? So my other assumptions still stand because it's PERFECTLY logical that if Jesus is for real then Hell etc is also real just as the Bible says.

Why is anything in the Bible true if Jesus is, as you say, for real?

[Keep The Reason]

The instant you show me Jesus isn't who he said he was, then I'll be convinced. NO GOD.

Well, it doesn't get any easier than this.

Jesus didn't say anything. He wrote nothing, and unless you have some interesting audio recordings, there is utterly not a shred of evidence that he ever spoke at all.

Since he said and wrote nothing, this suffices to meet your challenge. But I'll bet there's no way you'll surrender the argument. Instead, you're just going to move the goalposts, aren't you?

[Keep The Reason]

Ok, prepare for this evidence because it's pretty mind blowing stuff!

Jesus.

It's like we're trying to spot the elephant in the room here. What more do you need? God sent HIMSELF to us. Every time you pick up a Bible you're holding the words that Jesus said a.k.a. God.

I, for one, am glad you're on the theists side of the question.

[ReasonToFollow]

Haha.. you're actually being serious KTR? The mere fact he didn't write anything means he never existed? This isn't even worth rebutting but I'll do it because it's by far the cheapest shot I've heard at disproving God EVER.

Christian and non-Christian historians alike say that there's MORE evidence of the existence of Jesus than ANYONE from his time. Serious historians don't deny the letters from the NT are real either.

So you're telling me that the witness accounts of the NT are made up? Let me ask you this then; would you risk your life for a hoax? John the Apostle was the only one that died of natural causes. The rest murdered for their belief in who Christ was.

[ReasonToFollow]

Why is anything in the Bible true if Jesus is, as you say, for real?

Because if Jesus is for real then he really is the Son of God. The hebrew translation for 'the Son of God' is pretty much 'I AM God', hence why Jesus was crucified because the Jews found it offensive. So if he was God then the Bible i.e. His Word is all true. Need I say more?

[Dr Mundo]

Need I say more?

Please do.