Gunny's Thread on Religion

[Agnapostate]

"Killing in the name of God" is a red herring.

What relation has the comment to a "red herring"? As with the terms "strawman" and "ad hominem attack," that seems a term used in the most inaccurate contexts.

If you look at each and every instance where killing has been done in the name of God, you will find not only killing that goes against what Christianity teaches, but you will find a mortal man behind it with an agenda that also will not be in concert with the teaching of Christianity.

Actually, there's a greater scriptural basis for not only killing, but numerous other acts and behaviors now recognized as immoral than there is against such acts. The scriptural endorsement of slavery in the Old and New Testaments and perceived endorsement of ethnic/racial subjugation in the book of Genesis provided greater ammunition for the anti-abolitionists than the abolitionists, for example.

Fred Phelps is a perfect example. That man is as much a Christian as Adolf Hitler was. He uses the name to try and justify his sick, twisted beliefs. But detractors are QUICK to pick up on his claim to Christianity in an attempt to label all Christians as the same.

Hitler's anti-Semitism was not so far out of line from the founder of Protestantism's angry ranting against "the Jews and their lies." Phelps's beliefs are also not far out of line from scriptural justification for the killing of homosexuals, except that he hasn't actually killed anyone, as far as I know.

I always love this argument.

Prove what YOU believe is fact.

No, JB has one of his rare instances of accuracy here; he's correct that you bear the moral burden of proof because you're the one attempting to assert that existence of something rather than its nonexistence. For example, consider Bertrand Russell's teapot analogy.

If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.

You're not both equivalently guilty of usage of the argumentum ad ignorantiam; it's you who has appealed to ignorance by demanding proof of God's nonexistence instead of offering proof of his existence when the burden of proof is on those who would assert the existence of an unseen object or entity.

So let's apply some logic here. Life, and consequently Man was created by happenstance. Just teh exact mixture of air, water and minerals came together at exactly the perfect time to create life on Earth; which , just happens to be a planet perfectly situated in the galaxy to support life as we know it.

That is neither logical, nor is it mathematically even close to likely.

It's indeed statistically improbable, but if were to occur, how would you know that it had? Would there be large signs or banners announcing that the statistical improbability had in fact come to fruition? What element of Earth would be different had this statistically improbable event indeed become reality?

Where science attempts to encroach on religion, it fails miserably.

Actually, there are numerous falsifiable elements of religion, contrary to the typical assertion that they "cannot touch each other." For example, some of the standard fare against theism consists of this:

The Paradox of Omnipotence

1. Either God can create a stone that he cannot lift, or he cannot create a stone that he cannot lift.

2. If God can create a stone that he cannot lift, then he is not omnipotent.

3. If God cannot create a stone that he cannot lift, then he is not omnipotent.

4. Therefore, God is not omnipotent.

A Perfect Creator Cannot Exist

1. If God exists, then he is perfect.

2. If God exists, then he is the creator of the universe.

3. If a being is perfect, then whatever he creates must be perfect.

4. But the universe is not perfect.

5. Therefore, it is impossible for a perfect being to be the creator of the universe.

6. Hence, it is impossible for God to exist.

The Problem of Evil

1. If God exists, then the attributes of God are consistent with the attributes of evil.

2. The attributes of God are not consistent with the existence of evil.

3. Therefore, God does not and cannot exist.

 

[JBeukema]

And I disagree. Your model is inferior.

there is no room for disagreement. The logical requirements for choosing the best model are simple.

Your model relies on so-called scientific guesswork as opposed to logic.

Wrong. The mdel to which I adhere relies on scientific experimentation and observed fact.

There is nothing actually scientific about your argument. True science is based on the observable within the limit of man's intellect

My model is that which science and reason support

When science exceeds its bounds and attempts to explain that which it cannot, it doesn't work.

You have demonstrated no such shortcomings. not being able to observe a madeup skydaddy is not a shortcoming of science/ We cannot observe god for the same reason we cannot observe dragons or pixies- there is zero evidence for their existernce. the only difference is that people stoped worshiping gnomes and the wind a long time ago, and you're still backwards and behind the curve. You hae presented no evidence for your calims or your model, so you cannot expect to be taken seiously.

Scientific theory on the origin of life is based on nothing better than "In the Beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth."

Wrong. The Big Bang model is based on observation and mathematics. the conditions of the BB up to mill;iseconds after the start have been reproduced in particle colliders around the world.

You choose to believe in something that is no more scientifically proven by actual scientific fact than any other theory

.

You fail to understand what 'proven' even measn in the scientific world

Power to you. Believe as you will. But don't try and tell me my theory is no better than yours,

I am simply stating the facts

My point being that I am fine with you believing what you want. You on the other hand, relentlessly attack those who believe in a Creator.

I do no such thnig. I destroy the fallacious premises of those who seek to force their belifs on the rest of the world and use legislation to enfore their will- and are too dishonest to even admit to it

 

[RetiredGySgt]

And I disagree. Your model is inferior.

there is no room for disagreement. The logical requirements for choosing the best model are simple.

Your model relies on so-called scientific guesswork as opposed to logic.

Wrong. The mdel to which I adhere relies on scientific experimentation and observed fact.



My model is that which science and reason support



You have demonstrated no such shortcomings. not being able to observe a madeup skydaddy is not a shortcoming of science/ We cannot observe god for the same reason we cannot observe dragons or pixies- there is zero evidence for their existernce. the only difference is that people stoped worshiping gnomes and the wind a long time ago, and you're still backwards and behind the curve. You hae presented no evidence for your calims or your model, so you cannot expect to be taken seiously.




Wrong. The Big Bang model is based on observation and mathematics. the conditions of the BB up to mill;iseconds after the start have been reproduced in particle colliders around the world.

.

You fail to understand what 'proven' even measn in the scientific world

Power to you. Believe as you will. But don't try and tell me my theory is no better than yours,

I am simply stating the facts

My point being that I am fine with you believing what you want. You on the other hand, relentlessly attack those who believe in a Creator.

I do no such thnig. I destroy the fallacious premises of those who seek to force their belifs on the rest of the world and use legislation to enfore their will- and are too dishonest to even admit to it

Ok if your model relies on experimentation and OBSERVED fact, please describe the way you recreated the Big Bang, the way that life began on earth, the detailed process that provides scientific evidence that man evolved from a single cell life form and from an ape like creature.

 

[JBeukema]

Of course the Big Bang is based on the creation of the universe. The laws of physics would not change. Not by science as we understand it. If youo are privy to some other knowledge, I'm all ears.

I said 'as they are now'; I should have phrased that 'as we know them'. The ultimate 'rulebook'' for the universe currently eludes us,. but the models that work in the current universal environment do not aoply to the early stages of the BB

The Big Bang is a so-called scientific theory (it really is not since it defies actual science) that is the scientific community's attempt to de-legitimize religion. It is in fact as provable as Genesis 1.

The BB does not 'defy actual science' in any way, and you cannot show that to be the case

 

[Agnapostate]

That "M" is looming rather large, I'd say...Do you believe there are ANY positive elements?

None jump to mind quickly. The only immediately conceivable one would be that religious prescriptions for charity and altruistic aid would seem to offer stronger motivation for such deeds than mere secular empathy, because of the ideologically fervent nature of many religious persons. But secular rationality also provides for the creation of an economic system that largely eliminates poverty simply on efficiency grounds, so that also doesn't go very far.

 

[JBeukema]

Ok if your model relies on experimentation and OBSERVED fact, please describe the way you recreated the Big Bang, the way that life began on earth, the detailed process that provides scientific evidence that man evolved from a single cell life form and from an ape like creature.

It is not my job to teach you what you should have learned in High school. Elementary and introductory courses in physics and biology are easily found.

 

[Gunny]

You have in fact made assertions. You assert that God does not exist and have derided those who believe God does exist. Thread after thread.[/qrong]

i have said that there is no evidence that deity exists and that the logical conclusion ios therefore a model of the universe that does not include deity- just as it doe not include pixies, dragons, or a teakettle orbing around Jupiter.

I'm asking you the same question you attempt to use as the be-all, end-all ... prove what you believe is fact.

You already conceded that it is fact. It remains fact until such evidence is put forth. That's the nature of logic and the burden of proof. Like many people, you jump to conclusions without reading what I say. i oft choose my words carefully

in case you missed it, I have said repeatedly that gnostic atheism is logically fallacious in the exact same manner as theism

If you cannot, then your belief is no better nor worse than mine;

My model is superior, for it relies wholly on natural forces that are either observed fact or supported byall available evidence, while yours makes assumptions regarding an indetectable isupernaturalentity that defies the laws of the universe- with no supporting evidence. That makes your mosdel unworthy of consideration until such evidence is forwarded.

Looks like an impasse to me.

 

[Sky Dancer]

What "Big Bang"? You mean that scientific theory that actually defies scientific law? The Big bang is based on a theory of something being created from nothing. A scientific impossibility. Simple scientific equation: you cannot create something from nothing.

The 'Big Bang' does not say anything was created. Also, the laws of physics as they are now are not applicable even in the early phases of the BB, when the environment was much different- there is no logical reason to assume they would e applicable to the 'beginning' 9for want of a better term) of the BB. Bear ni mind that 'creation' or cause is impossible in the case of the BB, as cause entails time and spacetime came into being with the Big Bang

Of course the Big Bang is based on the creation of the universe. The laws of physics would not change. Not by science as we understand it. If youo are privy to some other knowledge, I'm all ears.

The Big Bang is a so-called scientific theory (it really is not since it defies actual science) that is the scientific community's attempt to de-legitimize religion. It is in fact as provable as Genesis 1.

Who cares about creation theory scientific or otherwise?

What difference does it make?

Be here now.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Of course the Big Bang is based on the creation of the universe. The laws of physics would not change. Not by science as we understand it. If youo are privy to some other knowledge, I'm all ears.

I said 'as they are now'; I should have phrased that 'as we know them'. The ultimate 'rulebook'' for the universe currently eludes us,. but the models that work in the current universal environment do not aoply to the early stages of the BB

The Big Bang is a so-called scientific theory (it really is not since it defies actual science) that is the scientific community's attempt to de-legitimize religion. It is in fact as provable as Genesis 1.

The BB does not 'defy actual science' in any way, and you cannot show that to be the case

Go ahead please provide the experiment you used or reviewed to prove the Big Bang, the experiment you used to recreate how life began on earth, the experiment you used to prove life evolved from a single cell creature into the myriad of life forms present and past, the experiment you used to prove man evolved from an ape like creature.

 

[Gunny]

You have not read much on this board then, we have several right NOW actively creating threads to ask peoples belief's and then attacking anyone that posts they believe in a God or religion.

Ohh and I notice you have a cartoon against religion but none against the rabid atheists that try to belittle the religious and are very vocal about their attacks.

As I said, the reason for secularist attacks against religion and theism is as a result of the undue influence that those exert over wider society. Have you witnessed comprehensive or detailed secularist attacks against astrology on this board? Both belief in astrology and belief in religion are based on a certain degree of irrationality and faith despite a lack of evidence, but secularists have no interest in attacking the former because it lacks any relevance in mainstream society.

I am not saying religion is blameless by any means. If you have not encountered anyone who has an interest in attacking religious beliefs simply because they consider it irrational a baseless, you may want to re-read you comment wherein you compare it to things regarded as superstitions.

"Attack" is somewhat more comprehensive than that. I'm referring to complaints about secularists penning detailed and comprehensive critiques of religious belief, such as the "Unholy Trinity" of Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens. There exist detailed attacks on religious belief where detailed attacks on belief in astrology do not exist because religious belief exerts an undue influence over mainstream society where belief in astrology do not. Though secularists consider both forms of belief to be based on irrationality, there is little use in attacking astrology where there may be greater use in attacking religion, since belief in its tenets can be reduced, thereby reducing its influence.



Of course they are. I'm merely explaining why opposition to religion has traditionally appeared; it's always been a matter of objection to its excessive influence or power. That was the basis behind the opposition to excessive entanglement between church and state in both historical and modern terms.



Secularism is a neutral condition and a happy medium between state theism and state atheism. Although "atheism" is technically merely the lack of theism, strong atheism has manifested itself in the form of direct anti-theism. State theism seeks to impose religious mores or principles on a public citizenry, while state atheism seeks to obstruct and diminish them through the vessel of the government. Secularism does neither; it merely prevents the undue influence of either extreme. The problem with theists is a poor framing wherein secularism is itself depicted as an extreme akin to state atheism and some form of theism as "moderate,"



I don't believe there are many positive elements caused directly by religious belief that couldn't be replicated by secular rationality, whereas there are clearly negative elements of religion that could seemingly only stem from faith in particular religious doctrines but not from that same secular rationality. I can envision an obvious role for secular rationality aiding the formation of detailed ethical codes; I cannot envision any basis in secular rationality for declaring jihad.



Then where did Elijah and Enoch go, and where did Paul go during his "third heaven" experience? And what of Jesus's comment in Matthew 5:12 that "great is your reward in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you"? I see no scriptural justification for your interpretation of the role of the 144,000; the book of Revelations indicates that they are a "missionary corps" of messianic Jews who proselytize during the Great Tribulation.

There are numerous passages in the Bible that clearly explain Hell is not a fire and brimstone place.

Psalms 72:8 And he will have subjects from sea to sea
And from the River to the ends of the earth.

What conceivable relation has this to hell? This is a description of the Messiah's reign on Earth in general.

Revelation 20:3 and 4

3 With that I heard a loud voice frome the throne say "Look! The tent of God is with mankind, and he will reside with them, and they will be his peoples. And God himself will be with them.
4 And he will wipe out every tear from their eyes, and death will be no more, neither will be mourning nor outcry nor pain be anymore. The former things have passed away."

That would be Revelations 21:3-4, not chapter 20. And this similarly has no conceivable relation to hell, because it's a description of the "new heaven and a new earth." There also seems to be a rather obvious conflict between your account and verse 8, which notes "ut the cowardly, unbelieving, abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death."

There is also an implication of different degrees of suffering existing in hell. For example, consider Matthew 10:15, wherein Jesus states of cities that refuse to accept the apostles' gospel, "it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment than for that city." Similarly, he remarks of Capernaum that "it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment than for you." This is then repeated in Mark 6:11. Then, it's remarked in Hebrews 10:29, "[o]f how much worse punishment, do you suppose, will he be thought worthy who has trampled the Son of God underfoot..." How then can different degrees of punishment and suffering exist in a state of permanent death, when sensory capacities and self-awareness are nonexistent?

I WIll relpy to you when I have time. Good post, though.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Ok if your model relies on experimentation and OBSERVED fact, please describe the way you recreated the Big Bang, the way that life began on earth, the detailed process that provides scientific evidence that man evolved from a single cell life form and from an ape like creature.

It is not my job to teach you what you should have learned in High school. Elementary and introductory courses in physics and biology are easily found.

What? Are you claiming that science DOES have an experiment that validates the Big Bang? That validates how life began on earth and proof that man evolved from an ape like creature?

You should publish them, you will be FAMOUS.

 

[Gunny]

if religion works for you and it gives you inner peace helps you through the day,helps you through times of adversity and bad times....bless ya...go for it....i just dont like those who think because they believe in something and someone else may not,they are somehow better,and dont seem to mind letting those people know.....OR the religious zealots,who go WAY overboard with it,and carry it to the extreme....

I mostly agree. I don't like religious zealots anymore than I do anti-religion zealots. One believes in believing and one believes in disbelieving. I've heard a lot of arguments -- mostly dismissals and/or insults that disbelieving is not a belief.

I disagree. If you ACTIVELY are pushing your belief that there is no God, or whatever anyone worships, then it is a belief. One has to choose to believe or disbelieve. If one goes so far as to hate religion and have to say so, one most certainly is as ardent a zealot as a revival tent preacher.

I really don't care what others believe. My whole issue with the topic is that no one seems to be able to have a decent conversation about religion on this board without being attacked. Granted, we're pretty lax here, but as of late, this subforum has gotten completely out of control. This isn't the Flame Zone II.

I'd love to have a decent conversation about religion or spirituality.

Now's your chance.

 

[Gunny]

Nor the ones who say god loves 'all his children' or who present the biblical god as one of peace and love and mercy

"God" the Creator. What does "God" actually have to be? A life form beyond the intellectual capability of Man, who is able to create life in its own image. Man himself is capable of recreating life through cloning. Don't think because there is some ban on human cloning that some eggheads aren't already hard at it.

So let's apply some logic here. Life, and consequently Man was created by happenstance. Just teh exact mixture of air, water and minerals came together at exactly the perfect time to create life on Earth; which , just happens to be a planet perfectly situated in the galaxy to support life as we know it.

That is neither logical, nor is it mathematically even close to likely.

Where science attempts to encroach on religion, it fails miserably.

God the creator is not logical.

Life is dreamlike, illusory. Being present, showing up for life on its terms, can be a spiritual path in and of itself.

A creator is more logical than any other explanation.

 

[Gunny]

Wow. I get TWO expand-a-post MFers in one thread. I feel so ... so ... honored.

 

[Sky Dancer]

I mostly agree. I don't like religious zealots anymore than I do anti-religion zealots. One believes in believing and one believes in disbelieving. I've heard a lot of arguments -- mostly dismissals and/or insults that disbelieving is not a belief.

I disagree. If you ACTIVELY are pushing your belief that there is no God, or whatever anyone worships, then it is a belief. One has to choose to believe or disbelieve. If one goes so far as to hate religion and have to say so, one most certainly is as ardent a zealot as a revival tent preacher.

I really don't care what others believe. My whole issue with the topic is that no one seems to be able to have a decent conversation about religion on this board without being attacked. Granted, we're pretty lax here, but as of late, this subforum has gotten completely out of control. This isn't the Flame Zone II.

I'd love to have a decent conversation about religion or spirituality.

Now's your chance.

I have mentioned several non-theistic points of view and they don't appear to interest anyone.

 

[Valerie]

God is a spirit.

'Prove it
Perhaps, once you demonstrate what it is



and therefore not on reason or logical deductions.

You bear the burden of proof. Prove I am not god. i might as well say to prove that there's no such thing ads the tooth fairy. Prove that Krishna and FSM do not exist.

Then the religious should stop acting like it's based on reason or any kind of intelligent thought process.



Prove it

You never did demonstrate that

Prove it

Prove that hell and the soul exist, and that a soul can be in hell

Prove it

The flesh is where we live in this world which is God's garden. The soul is created in heaven.

Proof? Demonstrate that your assertions are valid.

I always love this argument.

Prove what YOU believe is fact.

Since you can't prove it, it's easy to argue the negative.

You can't prove it OR disprove it.

Some people take the easy way out.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Gunny you obviously missed where a certain poster has stated now that science has an experiment that validates and proves the Big Bang, the start of life on earth and that man evolved from an ape like creature.

 

[JBeukema]

RGS: Look up red shift, the expanding universe, background radiation...

 

[JBeukema]

Life is dreamlike, illusory. Being present, showing up for life on its terms, can be a spiritual path in and of itself.

A creator is more logical than any other explanation.[/quote]
neither of your assertions is logical

 

[RetiredGySgt]

RGS: Look up red shift, the expanding universe, background radiation...

None of that is verifiable nor testable. It is man making a guess about what something he can not verify is doing.

Once again provide us with a testable experiment that proves these theories. And if you do, you will be the most famous person on the planet.