Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion? Showing 2,201-2,250 of 12,463

[Shanna]

yes but the question is what evidence is sufficient for you to believe he exists.

[cHriS]

Hazel wrote: "cs wrote: "Cerebus wrote: "Hazel wrote: "cs, ...Are you really that person who will show that they simply haven't read anything put previously by asking the same question that has already been adeq..."

2286, The Flying Spaghetti Monster? That really needed a reply? phew! ok

I believe there is something rather than nothing. The human mind can understand that. Call 'it' god, it is a word everyone knows what you are talking about. Something beyond our imagination.

I do not believe there is nothing more; we are to well designed to be here by accident.

Jesus was a real person. Was he who he said he was? If he was, that proves there is a God. It is as simple as that. We have documentation saying he was, do we believe some of what was written, some of us do. It was a long time ago and fact and fiction get mixed up. Maybe it is what we are taught/not taught when we are young that plants seeds in our mind, but that argument works both ways and when we get older our education can alter the way we think about things, more so if you study a science. It does not have to be either/or, God and science can complement each other.

[cerebus]

cs wrote: "It does not have to be either/or, God and science can complement each other."
And when they directly contradict each other? Evidence that earth is billions of years old, vs biblical literalism saying 6000 years? Accept evidence or defer to faith?

[cHriS]

Maybe they are both wrong

[Hazel]

cs wrote: "I don't believe that any horned god does exist. ."

Why not?

[cHriS]

Because god is beyond our imagination

[cerebus]

cs wrote: "Maybe they are both wrong"
That's a cop out. You live your life having made a choice. What is that choice? You have faith, that's fine (it's your life, your choice), but please have the courage of your convictions and engage in this discussion....when your faith and science conflict, how do you choose? This is a genuine question, not an attempt to trap or trip.....

[cerebus]

cs wrote: "Because god is beyond our imagination"
But you still believe? If it's beyond your imagination,how do you know you are not believing Ian god of evil? There has to be some point where you say 'this is for me!'....what is it that settles that decision for you?

[Hazel]

cs wrote: "Because god is beyond our imagination"

but you still haven't proved that god is real, as much as you claim you don't need to, in order for your claim of god existing to hold water, then it needs to be proved beyond being an idea, otherwise its reasonable to assume, in light of the evidence available, that god is is a product of our imagination.

And if god is real, why is it the god you seem to err towards (the Abrahamic god) and not cernunnos, or zeus, or vishnu, or john frum?

So again, especially now that you've refuted his existence, what evidence would it take to convince you that the horned god cernunnos exists? I'm not asking "do you believe in cernunnos?", I'm asking "assuming a position of non-belief in cernunnos, what evidence would it take to change your mind?"

[Hazel]

Cerebus wrote: "cs wrote: "Because god is beyond our imagination"
But you still believe? If it's beyond your imagination,how do you know you are not believing Ian god of evil? There has to be some point where you ..."

Cerebus, we actually sort of covered this earlier when I asked cs to define what god is, and he gave god an epithet (the creator) as his answer, and when pushed, said that he "could no more explain this creator to you than you could explain to me, how there has always been something."

As such, we already know that he believes in something that he does not understand, he simply does not know what he believes in, and as an extension of this, that he should not, therefore, be making any claims in regards to it and expect them to be taken seriously, or as anything other than his own wishful thinking, as they cannot be being made based on any sort of knowledge or understanding of the entity he claims to believe in.

[Hazel]

cs wrote: "Jesus was a real person"

Actually, its generally accepted that Jesus as a figure is probably an amalgamation of several people. On top of this, the story of his coming was based on a prophecy that was mistranslated, and it was the mistranslation that came to pass in the new testament... not to mention the prophecy in Isiah that people claim was about the birth of Jesus was actually fulfilled in the book of Isiah within a few verses of it being made... and was about the birth of a child of the Bethlehem tribe to a young woman, and that he would be called Immanuel.

Archaeological evidence also throws the whole thing out of the window too

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WSzQC1...

3 posts in a row is my maximum, otherwise it starts seeming rude...

[cHriS]

Cerebus wrote: "cs wrote: "Maybe they are both wrong"
That's a cop out. You live your life having made a choice. What is that choice? You have faith, that's fine (it's your life, your choice), but please have the ..."
It's not a cop out. There has never been a conflict in my mind. Your example is flawed on both points. You are quoting the bible, written by humans (nothing to do with God)and science which has advanced quite a bit since the bible was written.

[Hazel]

cs wrote: "Cerebus wrote: "cs wrote: "Maybe they are both wrong"
That's a cop out. You live your life having made a choice. What is that choice? You have faith, that's fine (it's your life, your choice), but..."

its a cop out because you're not actually answering his question, which was when science and your belief in god conflict and/or contradict one another, how do you chose which to accept? How do you reconcile the differences?

[cHriS]

Hazel wrote: "cs wrote: "Jesus was a real person"

Actually, its generally accepted that Jesus as a figure is probably an amalgamation of several people. On top of this, the story of his coming was based on a pr..."

Jesus was a real person, no doubt about it. He was just one of many prophets speaking about God. Prophets were like pop stars are today, there were hundreds of them. The question is, was Jesus the son of God? And did God make us in his likeness? If you believe he was and he did then God exists and he looks a bit like us. Evidence, It's there in the bible, but what bits are accurate and what bits are not is open for debate.

[cerebus]

cs wrote: "Cerebus wrote: "cs wrote: "Maybe they are both wrong"
That's a cop out. You live your life having made a choice. What is that choice? You have faith, that's fine (it's your life, your choice), but..."
But if the bible is written by humans what do you base your belief on?? If it's nothing to do with god, what do you base your belief on?

[cerebus]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bChqvM...

[Hazel]

Ah, well, Jesus was deified by vote at the council of Nicaea in 325AD.

The bible is not a good source of information, it is not reliable, as most of it was written by "anonymous", it has been shown to be full of additions and edits, added much later than each book was written.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3d4Mf0...

[Hazel]

Cerebus wrote: "http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bChqvM..."

wow, I haven't heard any James in ages :)

[cerebus]

cs wrote: "If you believe he was and he did then God exists and he looks a bit like us. Evidence, It's there in the bible, but what bits are accurate and what bits are not is open for debate."
Right, so let's debate it! How do you decide which bits are accurate and which are not?? This isn't a trick question, I'm not trying to entrap you. What I want to understand is, you have religious faith, what is that based on, and if you don't base your faith on the enitirety of one biblical source, how do you choose which bits to accept and which bits to reject? You say the bible is written by humans....which bits do you accept, and which do you reject,and why? This isn't a trick, in all honesty, please try and convince me!

[cHriS]

Hazel wrote: "Cerebus wrote: "cs wrote: "Because god is beyond our imagination"
But you still believe? If it's beyond your imagination,how do you know you are not believing Ian god of evil? There has to be some ..."

Can we reverse the debate a bit. As much as you both think that because I believe in Flying Spaghetti Hoop Monster with horns and non existing god I'm odd. I think you believing in nothing is just as odd.

So far this debate goes like this.

I believe in a god.

Prove it, I can't, ok so god can't exist.

Well what is the alternative to a god?

Don't know, we will have to wait 500 years to maybe find out.

Unless you have a better alternative to god, then god wins.

I am on a win win bet here, if there is a god, I win.

If there is no god you loose.

Lets have some alternative, even if they are only personal theories.

[cerebus]

Hazel wrote: "Cerebus wrote: "http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bChqvM..."

wow, I haven't heard any James in ages :)"
I know,but they are vastly underrated....they made no noise when those other britpop bands were blowing their own horns, but James were better than them all....and smarter :)

[Hazel]

Oh your god, cs, have we really come down to pascals wager? Is that really where we are? Pascals wager was thrown out as rubbish a long time ago. What if you believe in your abrahamic god, and you're wrong, and so end up being punished by the god that really is there, assuming there is one? And it is the abrahamic god that you seem to be arguing for.

You also throw in the "either or" fallacy. Well done, two fallacies in one post. Survey says urrr-urrrrrr. Try again.

How about you actually answer the questions being asked, rather than using diversionary tactics?

In factk, before answering anything else, answer tis: is there any chance that you will actually admit that you may be wrong, and that god may not exist? I have said that I would change my mind if the evidence was good, I'm open to being proved wrong, and to being converted. What about you? Do you forsee anything changing your mind about the existence of god?

[cHriS]

Cerebus wrote: "cs wrote: "If you believe he was and he did then God exists and he looks a bit like us. Evidence, It's there in the bible, but what bits are accurate and what bits are not is open for debate."
Righ..."

I am not here to convince you, I am not selling God, if someone knocks my door selling god I say no thanks.

I believe Bernarde Soubirous did see the Virgin Mary, and if you work back from that point the rest falls into place.

As with all this kind of evidence 'reasonable doubt' has a place and from there you make a judgement, and that is what I have done.

[cerebus]

cs wrote: "Unless you have a better alternative to god, then god wins"
No! Substitute god in that sentence for any other noun, and do you still agree? Not knowing, is not the same as saying " it's god!" ....if you want to phrase it as a bet with winners and losers, then that's your choice, but it's still a cop out. You have no evidence, and base your choice on fear. I don't. I base my choice on evidence, and if it is lacking I say "I don't know!" .

And for the love of whichever flavour deity you believe in, answer my morality question!!

[cerebus]

cs wrote:"I am not here to convince you"
Nor me you, but answer the damn questions!

[cHriS]

Cerebus wrote: "cs wrote: "Unless you have a better alternative to god, then god wins"
No! Substitute god in that sentence for any other noun, and do you still agree? Not knowing, is not the same as saying " it's ..."

Prove to me that man landed on the moon, you can't. Does that mean man did not land on the moon?

[cerebus]

cs wrote: "Prove to me that man landed on the moon, you can't."
I did already, which bit did you reject?

[Hazel]

cs wrote: "Cerebus wrote: "cs wrote: "Unless you have a better alternative to god, then god wins"
No! Substitute god in that sentence for any other noun, and do you still agree? Not knowing, is not the same ..."

There is documented evidence from several different sources for this, have we really come back to this? It was put to bed a page ago. give me the money to fund the trip to collect the evidence and bring it to you, and I'll prove it to you.

I mean, think about the implications of what you're asking. You could technically apply that question to anything that we have large amounts of evidence for, but just don't have to hand at this exact moment. You could just as easily have said "prove to me that people died in the holocaust, you can't. Does that mean the holocaust didn't happen?". Your logic is flawed at many levels.

[Hazel]

Now please, please, please answer the questions we've asked. the morality question for Cerebus, the question on whether you foresee anything altering your views from me, as well as the one about what evidence would it need for you to believe in cernunnos, assuming a position of non-belief in cernunnos at the moment.

[cHriS]

Hazel wrote: "Oh your god, cs, have we really come down to pascals wager? Is that really where we are? Pascals wager was thrown out as rubbish a long time ago. What if you believe in your abrahamic god, and you'..."
Yes of course I may be wrong, it is a belief that I have, it makes more sense to me to believe in a Christian God than to believe we are all just happy accidents. I also think that even if there was no God there may still be a life after death. It is also possible that many people believe in God because that suggests a life after death and like religion and god can be seperate so can god and life after death.

[cHriS]

Hazel wrote: "Now please, please, please answer the questions we've asked. the morality question for Cerebus, the question on whether you foresee anything altering your views from me, as well as the one about wh..."

I only believe in one god and that is the one in the god the father,son and holy ghost trio.

[cHriS]

Cerebus wrote: "cs wrote: "Prove to me that man landed on the moon, you can't."
I did already, which bit did you reject?"

You cut and pasted a link, that is not any more proof than me giving a link to a bible page. Proof, I don't even think Hazel would accept that. I could paste a link that shows why man did not walk on the moon.

All we have is the written word and some photo's, all that proves is that someone wrote the words.

[Hazel]

cs wrote: "I only believe in one god and that is the one in the god the father,son and holy ghost trio. "

thats not answering my question. You have stated that you do NOT believe in cernunnos. What evidence would someone have to present to change your mind?

[Hazel]

cs wrote: "All we have is the written word and some photo's, all that proves is that someone wrote the words. "

To be frank, its more than the bible has, because we can demonstrate who wrote the words and prove they were real people, we can have the photographs investigated by experts, who can confirm if they have been doctored or changed in any way, and confirm that they are genuine pictures. There are scientific papers, that are peer reviewed, and involving experiments that have been repeated, that show the data collected by the lunar laser ranging retroreflector array mentioned in the article that Cerebus linked to. The existence of the data, produced by different people in different places, shows that the array is on the moon, and confirms that someone had to go there to put it there. There are moon rock samples brought back from the moon that still exist, and will remain in existence for, well, a very long time. There is the equipment that was used. There are the films as well, which can also be confirmed as genuine by experts.

This situation is in no way comparable to the bible, which is a source with no contemporary accounts to confirm it, it is unknown who wrote it, and it is full of contradictory stories of the same events.

However, what I'd really like to address is that you originally claimed that there doesn't need to be religion for there to be god, but when we finally get an indication of what you mean by god (the one in the god the father,son and holy ghost trio) that is a religious definition of god, so you haven't separated your god from religion, it is in fact intrinsically linked to your religion. If you are arguing for the Abrahamic god, then you are are arguing for the god as described by one of the 3 religions that follow that god, not for an independent entity that is separate to religion.

You still haven't addressed cerebus's question regarding morality. If you need him to re-iterate it, I'm sure he'd be more than happy to do so.

[moosecup]

I believe religion is just one form of a moral compass, which as human beings we must embrace. I am Buddhist, which to me is the understanding that I am formed from the universe and have a duty as a sentient being to help others achieve enlightenment. While a divine God did not create me or the universe, I nevertheless believe that all belief systems encompass this truth - a duty to help (and not harm) others. Science explains so much of what I belief, so I am not willing to live without either.

[Hazel]

A question moosecup (great name btw), if all belief systems include this truth of helping each other, and each belief system (or set of belief systems) developed separate to each other with no interaction (I'm accepting here that, for eg, the abrahamic religions developed from the same starting point etc), does that suggest to you that the idea of helping and not harming others is actually something that is just basically human, and not religious in origin? In the same way as, say, elephants form co-operative herds in which they help each other, and protect each other from harm.

[moosecup]

Excellent point! Yes, I do believe that compassion is a trait of our species (as well as of others) and not necessarily human. I think we have used religion to give a name and an origin to the feeling of compassion, just as religion explains why the sun rises and set daily. It is our way of explaining the unexplainable. In my view, 'religion' as a structure for societal mores helps people whose moral compass is not strong to feel supported in their beliefs. For example, if 'the Bible' didn't say not to, would some people feel less inhibited about killing? I believe so. Others have a stronger compass and can make that decision without falling back on 'religion' to tell them not to do it. I think it occurs because our brain allows us to ignore our inner voices; something in elephants we would call instintual behavior. BTW, my coffee cup at work has moose on it!

[cHriS]

Hazel wrote: "cs wrote: "All we have is the written word and some photo's, all that proves is that someone wrote the words. "

To be frank, its more than the bible has, because we can demonstrate who wrote the w..."

I am trying to keep with you and erebus, but I may not have replied to all the questions or I may have tried to address more than one question in one reply.

I could reply to each of your points but that will take time. But for example, moon rock does fall to earth as does mars rock. An expert may be able to say a photo was taken from the moon but not be able to say if man or machine took it. zoom ahead 70 or so years and there will be no one left alive who could confirm anything.

There doesn't need to be religion for there to be god, correct. Catholic religion for example was because of Jesus and not the other way round. It is good to have a faith but most religions do go over the top. It a bit like a golf club having strict rules, for example no women. The rules may be wrong but that does not alter the game of golf.

I watched the Sky Book Show this week and Melvin Bragg was 'having a go' at Richard Dawkins. Dawkins put reasoning first, but Bragg quoting others puts reasoning second and emotions first. It's worth watching if you can.

[Hazel]

cs, whats the Sky Book Show? I've never heard of it.

moosecup, though I can grasp most of what you're saying, this sentence stood out:

just as religion explains why the sun rises and set daily

How does religion explain this? It doesn't, in any way. Science has explained that the sun doesn't actually rise or set, but that the earth rotates either to face it, or to face away from it. science explains this, not religion.

But I agree completely, those people who claim that without religion, they would have no morals, I actively encourage them to remain within their religion, because if they cant be good without having a "god" tell them to be so, then I'd rather they had their "god" to tell them to do so. I've actually seen people write that they would have no compunction in committing theft, rape or murder if god didn't tell them not to in the bible. That's just terrifying.

Oh, and "religion...our way of explaining the unexplainable" is also a sentiment I have an issue with. Science explains things, science looks for answers, religion, more often than not, simply says "god did it, now don't question further". Accepting god did it as an answer is not really finding an answer, its deciding to not actually look and see whats really going on.

So, was the coffee cup the thing your eyes fell onto while trying to come up with a screen name?

[moosecup]

No, what I meant was that human use religion as a way to explain why the sun sets and rises, to explain the unexplainable. And yes, I agree that science has explained many of these things, but I think there will always be some people who refuse to see that we learn how the universe works as our capacity to understand it evolves. They will say that nothing but religion can explain it rather than waiting for human comprehension to ask why and seek out the answer. Part of my goal as a practitioner of Buddhism is to help others achieve that level of consciousness (as I learn to myself) in thet hope that when they do, violence and suffering will end.
Yes, that's exactly how my screen name was created! I'm Laura in real life.

[Hazel]

Ah, I get where you're coming from now, Laura. See, this is why buddhism is one ideology that I have little issue with :)

[cHriS]

Hazel wrote: "cs, whats the Sky Book Show? I've never heard of it.

..."

Sky Arts Book Show, Thursday evening on Sky TV (UK). Are you in the Uk?

Here is the Link to a video of Melvin Bragg on dawkins.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/relig...

[Hazel]

cs wrote: "Hazel wrote: "cs, whats the Sky Book Show? I've never heard of it.

..."

Sky Arts Book Show, Thursday evening on Sky TV (UK). Are you in the Uk?

Here is the Link to a video of Melvin Bragg ..."

Thanks, I'll check it out, and yes, I'm in the UK.

[cerebus]

cs wrote: "
You cut and pasted a link, that is not any more proof than me giving a ..."

Did you read it? It describes an experiment which if successful, which it is, demonstrates that the item as described being left on the moon, is actually there. If you reject this as evidence then there's not much point continuing because your definition of evidence, like your definition of theory, precludes any possibility of changing your view.

[Hazel]

Oh, cs, I appreciate that you can't be expected to reply to every little thing we ask or say, but I have asked several times for a response to what you would consider to be good evidence to change your view from cernunnos doesn't exist to cernunnos does exist. Please, I'd really appreciate an answer.

If its that cernunnos isn't a palatable deity, I can change the name without changing the question. I can change it to Zeus if you prefer, or Vishnu, or Thor, Apollo, Baldur, Baal, Ishtar, Mithras, Nut, Dionysus, Bride, Sybil, Epona, Horus, Isis, Set, Thoth, Hod, Shiva, Tyr, Vulcan, Frigg, Janus, Xochiquetzal, Nanna, Lugh, Krishna or Mercury if you prefer.

[cHriS]

Cerebus wrote: "cs wrote: "
You cut and pasted a link, that is not any more proof than me giving a ..."

Yes that item may well be there and it could well have been put there by a machine, how does this prove man walked on the moon?

Ps. I do believe that man walked on the moon. I am just showing that it is hard to prove and give it another 70 years it could be even harder. There will be future generations who will dispute documents just as they do now with the bible.

[cHriS]

cernunnos, I'm not sure I understand your question, or rather the reason for your question. I'm thinking chess, make the wrong move and it's checkmate. Give the wrong answer and you have somehow caught me out. :)

I believe god is beyond our imagination so we then have a bit of a paradox if I have to try and say what god looks like. Could god look like 'cernunnos'? no otherwise there would be no paradox. If I wanted to picture god in my mind, like many people do, but I don't, it would be like the bible says. But I guess if someone wants to picture him as 'cernunnos'. thats fine.

You previously asked if I thought there may not be a god and I said yes. There could also be many gods. But I don't buy into that one.

[Hazel]

Sigh, I'm not asking whatgod looks like.

You specifically said "I do not believe in the horned god" in relation to the question I asked on cernunnos. Now that we have established that you do not believe that he exists, what evidence would it take to convince you that Cernunnos does actually exist?

I am asking about cernunnos, the god worshiped by the celts, as opposed to Yahweh, the god that you ahve been arguing for this entire conversation. You claim we can't imagine god, yet you assume that it is yahweh if there is one. Why? Because you ahve not seperated god from your religion.

So, I ask again, if you don't buy into Cernunnos existing, what evidence would it take for you to change your mind? Please stop avoiding the question, and damn well give an honest and straight answer.

The point in the question should be somewhat self evident, considering that you asked me what it would take to change my mind about the existence fo the god that you have been argueing for (Yahweh), who's existence I have rejected, in the same way as you reject cernunnos. So maybe the better question is why do you think your god is any more likely than cernunnos?

[Shanna]

Not a trap cs, Hazel (and I) put "God" and Cernunnos on the same shelf of non-existence, you asked what it'd take to convince her of God's existence and it's probably a similar level evidence it take to convince YOU of Cernunnnos' existence, so what do you consider an adequate level of evidence for Cernunnos?

[cHriS]

Hazel wrote: "Sigh, I'm not asking whatgod looks like.

You specifically said "I do not believe in the horned god" in relation to the question I asked on cernunnos. Now that we have established that you do not b..."

To Hazel and Shanna,

I have answered the question. I believe that there is only one god. If the celts call their god Cernunnos thats fine, but it will be god by another name.

Apollo, Baldur, Baal, Ishtar, Mithras, Nut, Dionysus, Bride, Sybil, Epona, Horus, Isis, Set, Thoth, Hod and the others you listed are names for the same god.

We have only one star in our solar system and we call it the sun. Others from times gone by may refer to it by other names, but it is still the sun.

I think you may be getting confused with the image of the horned Cernunnos, thinking that the image is another god, it is I guess the celts symbol of god.