You were a hardcore Bible thumper?
Religion, what's the point?
- Thread starter TheRedFlag
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
You were a hardcore Bible thumper?
right but for Dawkins I presume that "intelligence" could be something impossible to imagine except in absolutely abstract conceptual terms.
I think that's correct. Science describes fact as theory for a good reason. because, however remote the chance, there is always scope for revision according to the discovery of new evidence. which covers Newton, Einstein, and quantum theory.
an interesting thought experiment would be "what would constitute proof of God?". imagining a potential proof seems as difficult as imagining god in the first instance.
We also don't know if I will suddenly turn into a dinosaur but there is no reason to believe it. Unless we have some faith!
I grew up in a very religious family in rural South Carolina. You bet I was.
No bud. That’s logic.
Faith is that (very) dead people come back to life, or that virgins can have babies.
Hows it logical that we don't know if we can find a solution to something we logically cannot? By following logic we can never get to the start because there will always be something preceding it.
Dead people coming back to life and all is faith.
I’m not really sure where you’re going with the first part there.
I've got it open in another window so no need post it.
Fyi I used to discuss/argue with Bible thumpers. Even had a couple of "elders", American Mormons I believe, where they had to physically remove one as he thought Islam was the right religion. I was also black listed form door knocking "Bible thumpers" because I would invite them in, put the kettle on and show them why and where the Bible was wrong. I was was well versed.on contradictions in the Bible and would happily adopt a new one to argue with my local priest (much more jovial and friendly these days tbh).
Point being i have no bias to the Bible and could quite as easily argue against the story of Job and its accuracy etc. I don't accept it as God's word in its current forms.
All that said I still don't see your argument here.
Interesting. What age were you when you changed your mind? And was it a slow process or some event that led to it?
You said we don't really know for sure if we will never know the origin of the universe. I'm saying, logically that is not true. Logically, we will never ever know. Maybe you have faith in science that we will and I'm trying to make you say that
I wouldn’t be posting it for you to read.
Those are not remotely the same thing.
Well, I’m sorry that you can’t see something so obvious.
I've read that opening sentence ten times now and still can't understand it.
Breakdown that logic for me please?
Very slow process that began in my teens and kept going through my 20s.
The funny thing is the look on folks faces when they ask me “why?” and I tell them “because I actually read and studied the Bible.”
Logically, we can never explain the origin of the universe.
I need to get some sleep, new job early start. Hopefully can get into this with you at another time.
I don't really agree with these notions. I think science has massive leaps of "faith" in certain aspects too.
Anyway another time
Why would you though? Why is the concept of a God more satisfactory to you than accepting the fact that science cannot explain everything yet? Why not make peace with the latter?
Same
Jehovah's witnesses. Sorry. Elder Mitchell and another.
No need to be sorry. It's just not there for me. Anyway bedtime for me. Early start
That is not a logical conclusion.
It is possible we may never know but, if we ever do, it'll be by the same process by which find out everything else about the nature of reality.
incorrect. If we come to an explanation it will always be "what caused that". How is it logical to expect we'll know?
Also not remotely the same… honestly they’re not even actually Christians. Neither are Mormons
faith and belief are interesting ideas. people do have faith in science and believe in scientific facts. i don't think that's a problem unless someone is trying to equate one form of faith with another. when they sent people to the moon, they didn't know it would work but had faith, within a margin of error, that it should. this is obviously very different from the idea of blind faith or even faith in that which cannot be proven.
i think people only get defensive from prior debates where some religious person will say "hey look you have faith and believe in things too" as if the two forms of belief are exactly the same. belief in science comes from experiment and proof and repitition of these. belief in religion comes from tradition initially and then person-centric application of tradition according to a given person's own reality.
i think people only get defensive from prior debates where some religious person will say "hey look you have faith and believe in things too" as if the two forms of belief are exactly the same. belief in science comes from experiment and proof and repitition of these. belief in religion comes from tradition initially and then person-centric application of tradition according to a given person's own reality.
Last edited:
I don't expect to know but it is possible we may. Stating we never will is speculation, not logic.
Even if your reasoning were so, it's in no way an argument for the existence of a god or gods.
I'm arguing if its logical or not. Your "it is possible we may" is no more possible than me turning into a dinosaur or Rashford becoming a top player any time soon.
Well, for starters, we’d then know the origin of the universe and would now be asking a question about the origin of something else.
At least you've studied it, which is something that I've never done.
The only thing I would say (and this is just a general point) is that studying something as a young person and coming to hard conclusions, is obviously different than doing so as an older person with more experience and hopefully wisdom.
So, understanding the origin of the Universe is an equivalent expectation to thinking you'll transform into another species of creature spontaneously? You think that is a logical argument?
Right. So it has no logical end.
I'd argue me turning into a creature is even more probable. Any origin you find will need to have another origin and us as humans logically will never be able to reach the end.
I could say similar about how religions use “Sunday school” type deals to indoctrinate children into their beliefs before their brains are fully formed.
Ever wonder what would happen to religion if we all agreed to not tell anyone about the concept until they were in their 20s?
I think you mean intuitively conceivable rather than logical do you not?
In this hypothetical, the question did have a logical end… we’re now talking about a new hypothetical question that science could hypothetically examine.
There’s nothing illogical about that.
To be fair, from an atheists perspective no one knew about religion until someone "invented" it. It's logical a belief system would likely form? Don't disagree with the first point.
The odds of you spontaneously turning into a Therzinosaurus are lower than humanity ever comprehending the nature of reality? That's just ridiculous.
“Science knows it doesn't know everything ..... Otherwise, it'd stop.
― Dara O'Briain
Evidence of a particle that would allow supernatural beings to exist (Gods and ghosts etc) would be a start. A Bayesian analysis of each view is bound to fail as the assigned probabilities would be hugely swayed depending if you are a theist or an atheist. Most of the experimental ways of testing have been tried and failed e.g. prayer for intervention so I have no idea what is left to try.
Almost all "proof" offered by non-atheists tends to be arguments from things like ontology, authority or incredulity (plus many more), none of which really get far above someone wanting something to be true. That said non-existence also has to rely on mainly arguments but they are far more logical and consistent arguments. And in in the end it is up to the person asserting something to produce proof. And there is no reliable or repeatable evidence.
My question, as you know, is obviously not explaining the origin of a single event. That would be trivial. It's the broader question of reaching a conclusive answer. We can't. Not logically. If you have faith we will you can say it
Since it is intuitively not conceivable how can say, logically, that we will have an answer?
At least I can conceive with my imagination the idea of matter taking on another form due to external influences. I can't conceive how the origin of the Universe, "nothing" started.
You're really torturing the definition of the word logic.