once again Cyberian Trooper; I don't care what you call it, its falls under the definition of religion. You have faith thats it. Faith is the basics for religion. You are right it is impossible for me to disprove something. Thankfully the burden of proof is and will always be on the person that makes the positive claim. Which means that you must prove that God exists. That means you have to test, observe, reduplicate the tests, and measure. Good Luck.

as for Science; its all based on facts. sure there are things that science does not know yet, but our understanding is growing all thanks to science. and science is quickly filling all those "i don't knows". Sure we have Theories (did you know Gravity is a Theory?) but gravity is a fact. its observed, measurable, testable, and the testable is open for duplication. which makes it a fact.

Prove that Jesus existed, prove that he died. You can't use the bible. The bible is self proving. This means it proves itself. If god has done everything to prove his existence then why isn't it obvious? Obviously if it was good evidence i wouldn't be asking such questions, but no you keep giving vague answers, and bad evidence, like he gave us proof. But you don't say what the proof is. Just say it!

neowolf thats just it the burden of proof is on the person who makes the positive claim! thats just the way it works!

*sighes* You are still missing the point.

Silly rabbit! No, it's not! It's based on theory. One of the tenets of science is that ALL theories must be falsifiable, meaning that it can be disproven. Evidence, NOT FACTS, are used to support hypotheses and theories. Facts, by definition, can't be disproven and aren't interpretable; evidence is, on both counts. Courts of law deal with facts and burdens of proof and such. There is no burden of proof here. Not in science and not in theology.

Also, I ask again: Why is a scientist's opinions about God more important or authoritative that the opinion of the Pope? I'm sorry for my persistence on the issue, but I'd like to know your thoughts.

ok of course the Pope is going to know more about God than a scientist, but the scientists reject god based on the no evidence for god. I believe the guys that double my life expectancy than a person that disregards theories.

I'm leaving i feel like im playing chess with a chicken.

The feeling is mutual. As for me, I'm leaving because it is late, and I have a class in the morning.

And that is, of course, your choice, a choice that you are thankfully free to make. My point, I suppose, was this, even if you're not here to read it: I think the basic difference here is faith vs. reason. The thing is, IMO, the two are not adversarial and have in our Western culture become far too separate, with reason being revered and faith being reviled. (Personally, I blame Christians for giving faith a bad name, but that's a whole 'nother story.) Uberguy said that only an irrational person would believe something on faith, only he (assuming, of course, that someone with the word "guy" in their screen name is, indeed, a guy ) phrased it as "without proof," I believe. Of course, the definition of faith is believing in things unseen and unproven. So, what he said is that only irrational people have faith.

What is this separation? Really, the two are meant to work together. Rationality is a part of every person. So is faith. And before anyone disagrees with that, I'm not talking about faith in a deity of any sort. Rather, ask yourself, quite seriously, if you believe that the sun will rise the on, say, June 25. Because if you do believe that, you are believing on faith that it will happen. You are believing without evidence that nothing catastrophic will happen either to the Earth or to the sun between now and then when neither supposition is absolutely certain. So, human beings are capable of reason; they are also capable of faith. And there is a reason for that. It is actually the latter, at least IMO, that separates us from the other animals. And yet some seek to expunge it from themselves. They seek to deny that they have it. I honestly do not understand this.

For me, Christianity is, has been, and I'm sure will be for the rest of my life an exercise in faith. For me, as a person who has always prided herself on her rationality, her logic, it is not easy...but I have actually learned more about myself and where I belong in the universe from exercising faith than I have learned from any academic endeavor, including anything scientific. Which is not to say that rationality is bad because of course it isn't. I have simply come to believe that it and faith exist to define and counterbalance each other, that an overabundance of either quality and certainly a deliberate suppression of one or the other is not necessarily a good thing at all.

I quoted Einstein up farther in this thread. I paraphrase now: Reason without faith is lame; faith without reason is blind. Look around you: duality is everywhere. Male and female. Good and evil. Night and day. Hot and cold. Black and white. Wet and dry. Reason and faith. In all examples, one is defined by the other and in some cases can't exist without the other. So why would it be a good thing to abandon faith in the name of revering reason? I say it isn't a good thing at all.

Which is why I asked my question of why we should believe scientists over the Pope. One, a symbol of absolute reason, the other a symbol of absolute faith. My answer to the question: We should believe neither of them blindly nor exclusively. Rather, we should listen to both, for in my opinion, both have much to teach us, coming from different viewpoints and mindsets as they do. I believe the Eastern religions are correct in advocating balance, in advocating embracing the universal duality that is symbolized by the yin-yang. I fear that we in the West, by insisting on one over the other, by pitting faith against reason as if it's some sort of battle and one is the good guy and the other bad does far more harm than good.

And now, I will get off my soapbox. Like, peace out, dudes.

Error...does not compute...

Recheck your statement, plenty of scientific sources have shown that stories in the bible have happened.

Scientists have shown that the flood of noah could likely have been the flooding of the black sea.

The fleeing of the jews from egypt is a true story, while didn't seem to happen like the bible says, there is strong evidence for it actually happening that scientists(archaeologists) have found.

Many of the major stories in the bible came from older religions, older stories, yes they might not have happened as they are said to have happened but play a game of "whisper down the lane" and see how many of your stories come out the same as you put in.



I'm sure you are well educated enough to know that when science speaks of theory it is a completely different word and definition than the layman's definition of theory. If anyone isn't that well educated(let's face it you'd have to have an education less than 8th grade by american standards to NOT know the difference) you are an idiot and shouldn't be debating anyone.

Scientific theory isn't the same as layman's theory. Scientific theory has physical evidence supporiting it, multiple ideas and theories supporting it, etc. If you truly think a theory (in science) is the same as layman's theory then you must think that gravity is some silly nonsense as well as the theory of relativity and the theory of evolution and various other theories that are true but still theories.



Yes there is evidence that there was a man that fit Jesus' description, but only the bible records his magicks? Yes it is magic, any way cut it it's magic. How odd that only one semi-historical text records him as being miraculous....fishy? Yes it is.

An irrational and illogical person will rely solely on faith. Which if there was a God, I fully believe didn't intend on us to do, hence the whole God hates us thing(because let's face it "God" hates us why else would it want to destroy us?)



I do believe the sun will rise on June 25...why? because the earth will still turn when we destroy ourselves, the earth will still continue, up until our sun destroys it in a few billion years. Doesn't take much logic to understand that the sun will be the end of the Earth and if we're still here, the end of us(that is if we haven't started populating the universe).

Faith relies on the unknown and how much you don't know about the unknown. The less you know the stronger your faith will be, unless however you are a logical person and have faith(it is known to happen) but someone that is logical will realize where religion falls short and WON'T just chalk it up to "faith" they will actually question that, try to figure it out. Someone that relies purely on faith will essentially be a bumbling idiot because they don't take the time to actually think for themselves but choose to let an outdated, mistranslated book of crap tell them what to do.

Of course I was speaking of theory in the scientific sense, not the vernacular sense. And if you know about that, then I'm sure you know that scientific theories are supported by evidence and must be falsifiable in order to be accepted as true. That which is fact (or at least as close as science gets to such; Newton's laws are apparently not as universal as once thought.) is scientific law, which is a different thing. Uberguy said that science is based on fact, which is not entirely true. I was merely pointing out that it instead tends to rotate more around the idea of theory (in the scientific sense, of course) and the steps that are taken to form them, very little of which relies on fact in the legalistic sense, to which he was alluding with his talk of "burden of proof."



Two things:

1) I agree with your first assertion, which is why my post read in context was quite obviously advocating a balance between faith and reason. Did you not read what I said, or are you being all creationist-like and quote-mining for bits that you can refute and then claim that I'm saying something that I'm not actually saying? But on the other hand:

2) Do you honestly believe it's really possible to rely solely on faith, without any sort of knowledge or rationality whatsoever informing you? I highly doubt it. Like I said, there's a reason we have both. I just question the wisdom of skewing ourselves so greatly in the direction of one at the expense of the other.

(And...not interested in addressing the assertion that "God hates us" as that would detract from this very interesting -- Well, to me, anyway -- discussion otherwise. Maybe I'll address that elsewhen, though. )



Ah, but that isn't what I said, my friend. I said that you cannot know for certain that something won't happen to the Earth or the Sun, not to you or humanity, between now and June 25th that will result in the sun not rising. For instance, there is an infinitesimally-small theoretical chance that our planet/solar system/galaxy will simply blink out of existence all at once. Now, if I'd asked if you thought that you, personally, or humanity in general would be able to see the sunrise on June 25...Well, the chance of that not happening is far greater, on the order of perhaps thousands of orders of magnitude greater. Still, you have faith that the universe will not blink out of existence or that the sun will not explode or that something will not impact the Earth such that it is destroyed or knocked out of its orbit or what-have-you between now and then, mostly because you know something of probability. In this case, knowledge of probability is informing your faith that the sun and Earth will still exist more or less intact on June 25.

Which leads me to this question: Why is it generally assumed that knowledge only informs reason and cannot at all inform faith? Knowledge does not, in itself, equate with evidence; evidence is an application of knowledge in order to explain an event, but the knowledge itself is not evidence. Faith, by definition means to believe in something despite a lack of evidence, but that does NOT mean that it is belief with no knowledge or extrapolation/interpolation or deductive/inductive reasoning to back it up. The popular notion is that knowledge leads directly to reason while faith is just dangling somewhere in the ether, that it's something that only stupid and irrational people have. Not true. Knowledge can also lead directly to faith. A person who relies more on faith than on reason is no more a "bumbling idiot" than a person who relies more on reason than on faith. And the extremes -- a person who relies SOLELY on either faith or reason -- likely do not really exist. It's just that different people use knowledge in different ways, and one is not necessarily superior to the other. As I've said, I think the best condition is balance between the two. And in my own personal experience, the chain has often been thus: Knowledge leads to reasoning and reasoning leads to strengthened faith.

But there's a problem right there and that's the basis of atheism. One reason why there is no proof of God is because even those who have faith can not come with an actual definition of God, how then would anyone be able to come with a proof of God's existence or the proof of it's non-existence?

And then there's the fact that nobody has yet been able to come up with an argument for the existence of one's god that couldn't also be applied to all other gods. Just as nobody has come with any sort of proof of the non-existence of some god that can not also be applied to their own god.

Currently, faith is mostly geographicaly based. People believe in the god that their parents believe in, which is based on what their parents' believed... which mostly falls into the local society's faith.

I agree that abscence of evidence is not evidence of abscence, however I would then ask those who believe in the christian god: how do you know that you believe in the right god, if there is such thing as a god?

The difference between atheists and any religious person is "just one god". In other words, us atheists just lack the belief of your god in addition to all the other gods that you already do not believe in. The day that irrefutable proof of a god will be presented, atheists will most likely stop being atheists and will then believe, because there will be proof. The difference right now is that when science shows proof of a scientific fact, a lot of religious people refuse to admit this fact when it clashes with their faith.


DISCLAIMER: When I use "you" in my reply, I am meaning it as a general "you" and not aimed at any poster in particular.

Okay, I would like to first say that there can be, hm...how to say it...ideas about the definition of God do exist, although not universally, of course. But no belief is universal. My apologies if I misconstrued what you are saying, but it sounds like talking about a universal definition of God, e.g. God is ______ (fill in blank) that every Christian believes. The reason I say this is you cannot forget about more liberal and eclectic practices.


I will admit that this is true. However, this assume that one believes they are right in the first place, which isn't always necessarily true. You still have to go broader than that. Take myself for example, I would never say my pantheon is the "right" one, that it is the "truest" one, nor do I believe that myself. How to explain it...Okay, it's not always about whether your God/Goddess/Pantheon/Whatever exists or not. While that is true of religion historically, and regarding more conservative faiths nowadays, there is moving away from that, a movement towards more liberal and eclectic beliefs that does not necessarily focus on existence but rather on practice and philosophy. To put it in a perspective of using Christianity: not focusing on the question of Jesus' existence, but rather on the focus of what was taught, regardless if Jesus was/is real or not, because whether he existed or not just isn't as important as the lessons themselves.

As for the geographic census on religion, that is true for the most part, I will agree. But, I don't quite see how it plays into the argument, so if could please explain, I would appreciate it.

Anyhow, about your question of the "right" god, that was kind of my point I made about "right" and "wrong." Nobody knows if a "right" or "wrong" exists. Take an idea a friend had. He said he thinks that all the gods and goddesses are all the same entity, just different aspects, names, appearances, what have you, of the same thing. So in a concept such as that, there is no right or wrong. But who knows? That was what I meant. People may come up with reasons why they think they are right, but nobody knows.

As for your last comment: "The difference right now is that when science shows proof of a scientific fact, a lot of religious people refuse to admit this fact when it clashes with their faith." Well, I won't answer that in whole, but I will say this. Not ever Christian is like that, you know. Christianity and science do not have to be exclusive and void of each other. Same with just about any other religion, really. Sure, you have people who will disagree with that idea, but so what? That doesn't mean they speak for everyone.

But, that's part of the "issue". What is and isn't taught as part of your faith. There are many aspects of the bible that aren't taught as a part of current practices, and yet others are emphasized to the point of making them national agendas politically. Who is it that decides which lessons are more valid than others? Religious leaders are just as human as anyone else and just as prone to be falllible. In the various discussions of religion and associated topics on this site, numerous times I've brought up parts of the Bible that have brought a "Wait! Wut??!! THAT's not in the Bible!" reaction from supposed Christians. When I've shown exactly where in the Bible various teachings that are not currently supported (right next to teachings that are being forced down the throats of non-Christians) there is generally either silence, or a "Oh, well, we don't follow THAT any more." If you want to have any one lesson be "true", then ALL the lessons bust be equally "true" or, you're just being hypocritical. And guess what, hypocracy is a sin. Guess there will be many "true Christians" who after death will be arriving at a destination they don't expect, should such a place truely exist.

There has to be some logical basis for those teachings, though, or else you're just telling people "you have to do this because God said so." If the existence of God is a lesser point, you have taken away the basis for those teachings.

This is where I turn to philosophy. Logic can justify most of the rules that are in the Bible and logic is something that people can understand and trust. People are smart; if you give them real reasons, they are capable of weighing them and making judgement calls. The religious perspective tends to assume people aren't capable of seeing logic, but must be told what to do from a voice of authority.




This has nothing to do with God. That's just life and you're not going to enjoy it if you look for the bad all the time, rather than seeing the good. There is no way that your life is so horrible that there's nothing good in it. Even if your life is difficult, there is no better teacher than experience. You'll come out better for the bad experiences.

While it is true there are some trying to erase separation between church and state, but you must look at the demographics. These are conservative hardcore Christians, e.g. Evangelicals, Pentecostals, and southern Baptist. As for who, in my personal belief, it is the believer. I will admit that is one of my criticisms of organized religions, the concept of teaching things like the Bible through preaching. People should read this stuff for themselves. I have no intention to defend religious leaders and such, and in fact, I have a great disgust for the Vatican as an organization.

I will admit that a lot of people disregard sections of the Bible because it does not fit their political view, but you must judge them on that hypocrisy, rather than focusing on their faith. If they take the Bible literally, word-for-word, that is one thing. And generally, the people you are talking about claim they do, that the Bible is to be taken as a literal text. But that does not necessarily apply to someone who thinks the Bible is metaphorical, or focus on a particular section (such as the teachings of Jesus specifically) because how is that being hypocritical? You can disagree with an aspect of an idea, and still agree with the majority of that idea. And when you look at more liberal and eclectic aspects of a religion, again using Christianity as an example, such thinking is not uncommon among such groups. You cannot so easily compare the two sides and call them the same, because each side, while having the same core beliefs or principles, represent various, and even sometimes opposing, ideologies about the same subject(s).

Thales, Anaximenes, and Heraclitus are all Greek philosophers who theorized on what matter is made of, their ideas of what matter is made of are all different. Just as while Heraclitus and Parmenides are both Greek philosophers who theorized on the nature of reality, what they thought as the nature of reality are opposite to each other.

EDIT: This is in response to Oaktree, who posted while I was writing.


But that is not necessarily true, though, not in all cases. If I may be frank, I think you are overgeneralizing by using the ideology of one side to paint the other.

I'm not looking at ideology, but at what religion is at its core. It is a voice of authority delivering laws. It would be considered a philosophy if it wasn't. Buddhism, for example, is considered more of a philosophy than a religion because it uses reasoning more than a voice of authority.

But it's not. That is not true of all religions. Now if you were to argue that it is mostly true of the Abrahamic religions, then yes, I think you would be correct in some respects; not so so much in their early forms, but later on, such as during the expansion outwards from the Middle East, and in modern fundamentalist or conservative contexts.

I don't see how it's not. Abrahamic religion involves teaching people to believe something because it is what is written in a holy book, passed down from God. So God is telling people what to believe through this book. Other religions also have teachings passed down from the Gods. Some other religions also have holy books, others have a set of behaviors and dogma that is passed down. The justification for these behaviors is that the God(s) say(s) so. The only religion that comes to mind that differs from this (at least I think it does, but I'm not all that familiar with it) is Wicca. That isn't based on any rational reasoning either. From what I can tell, it is a series of traditions passed down and taught as magical. If you can give me an example, or better elaborate why you think that religion doesn't require a voice of authority, I may be able to better understand your argument.

I'm not trying to say that it's bad to be religious, what I am trying to say is that the way to bring people together in favor of a certain moral point is to use something accessible to all: logic. A person who is part of a religion for a time may follow its rules while they are part of that religion. If they decide that they don't believe in that religion, then their basis for the things they learned from that religion is gone because there is no longer a voice of authority that they are willing to listen to. Logic does not require a voice of authority and it does not change. Granted, not everyone is fully logical, but everyone requires some small amount of logic simply to survive and thrive, so everyone is capable of it to some degree.

I believe I owe an apology; there was a bit of a misinterpretation. I thought you meant "voice of authority" as more as the concept of organization, e.g. the Pope and the Vatican in Catholicism.

Anyhow, I agree at least partially, that religion is used to teach morals. However, in many cases, the religion adopts morals from a group of people rather than the reverse. They just incorporate already-practiced morality and ethics into their faith. Take the Bible for example; a lot of the stuff that was written, in a moral context, was common practices during a particular author's time and region. Religion incorporates then reflects common practices; it's used more as a way to continue those practices rather than to create them.

Also, if you want to be technical, to be completely logical is a mental hindrance. We have the ability to make decisions in part because of irrationality. Just thought I'd point that out. However, to get to the point, you're not quite accurate. True, if someone switches religions, they would not have this voice of authority, as you put it. But they may still practice the same moral they learned because, well, it has already been deeply installed into them through nurturing, and could take many years to change. Although, admittedly, that could be considered as stretching the argument. But it was still a point I would like to make.

Another religion & politics question:

Why do religious people tend to swing conservative? I always thought the liberal philosophies of equality and helping the poor were one of the largest priorities of religious folk (Democrat Harry Reid said that he believed this to be more Christian than whatever conservatives practiced). Jesus himself devoted much of his life to helping the poor. So, why then, do Christians tend to prefer the more "aggressive" politics of bringing the hammer down on gays and women who want abortion? Why do they side with the big business and "I want to keep my money!" politics? It seems to contradict the generous and loving portrayal of God.

The short answer: Jerry Falwell, founder of the Moral Majority. Though its hey-day was the Reagan years, its legacy lives on.

The slightly longer answer: Is varied. Fear plays into it, I think. Some Christians believe that if they come out and say that, for instance, it's OK for gay couples to marry, then God will be offended because they have been conditioned to believe that A) Homosexuality is a gigantic sin that is way worse than any other because Pastor Bubba done told 'em so and B) God actively punishes sin. So for them it follows that, if the government allows things that they consider to be sinful to happen, then God will get pissed off and rain destruction on us all. (Witness those organizations that claimed that 9/11 happened because God was unhappy with America for its citizens' permissive attitude to toward ________, with the blank being filled in with the object of that particular organization's crusade.) Since it is was the Republican party (Due to influence from the Moral Majority) that absorbed these pet issues into its platform, it is the Republican party toward which many Christians flock. Because they think that's what they're supposed to do.

In short, because various churches have chosen to focus obsessively on issues that are ultimately completely irrelevant, Christians have lost sight of what they are supposed to be doing. (i.e. humanitarian work, spreading the gospel, etc.) Very, VERY few Christians these days do what they are supposed to be doing, and I lay the blame for that squarely at Falwell's feet, for he was the architect of the bizarre bedfellowship that is Christianity and right-wing politics.

For me personally: I, as a Christian, am neither conservative nor liberal in either my politics or my spiritual beliefs. Rather, I am a bizarre and perhaps horrible blending of the two. For instance, I am philosophically (but not really politically) pro-life, but I am also pro-gay-rights. Generally, my own socio-political views tend to align most closely with those that make up the Libertarian Party's platform.

Perhaps as a secular, I have no right to say any of this, but I've read the Bible and it always seems that Jesus's main concern in this world was helping the poor. Tolerance of your neighbor and "if your neighbor has no shirt and you have two, give one to your neighbor" philosophies. I don't feel like this is what right-wing politics does, personally. For lack of a better word, it seems more authoritarian than anything (which seems to contradict the "Let Caesar have what is Caesar's" thing)

Perhaps religious people associating with the right is simply habit, as you mentioned with Jerry Falwell.

The Moral Majority actively sought to rally Christians to get involved with politics. It was...I don't want to say a conspiracy because it wasn't. More like a very intense campaign of propaganda. It's why Reagan was elected to both of his terms and why George Bush Sr. was elected to his one term. In the wake of that, perhaps aligning with big government is "habit" for Christians now. They, like most people, tend not to think about things too much and will tend to do what they think they are "supposed" to do. This informs their religious beliefs as much as it informs their political ones.

And you have just as much right to read and opine about the Bible as anyone else. And what you said was true. Like I said, many Christians have lost sight of what they are supposed to be doing. They are far too busy trying to create the biggest possible Christian bubble to live in, to protect them from the Evil World. Which is exactly the opposite of what they are supposed to be doing.