1. Standard memberHand of Hecate
    Merciless Vagabond
    Deep in it.
    Joined
    08 Feb '05
    Moves
    14614
    09 Feb '13 03:211 edit
    Why is this such a hard concept to grasp? I object to any religion that is certain of everything and requires proof of nothing.
  2. Joined
    16 Feb '08
    Moves
    86307
    09 Feb '13 04:39
    Originally posted by Hand of Hecate
    Why is this such a hard concept to grasp?
    Indeed.
  3. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    09 Feb '13 06:08
    Originally posted by Hand of Hecate
    I object to any religion that is certain of everything and requires proof of nothing.
    In other words, you object to religion, because religion is about being certain of something for which there is no proof.
  4. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12693
    09 Feb '13 08:40
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    In other words, you object to religion, because religion [b]is about being certain of something for which there is no proof.[/b]
    Christianity is faith and belief in things of which it has much evidence. Expressing a certainty in God is just as valid as the atheists expressing their certainty that their is no God. But the Christian has more evidence for the existence of God than the atheist have to the contrary.
  5. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    09 Feb '13 09:58
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    Christianity is faith and belief in things of which it has much evidence.
    The words 'faith' and 'belief' imply trust beyond what is justified by the evidence.

    Expressing a certainty in God is just as valid as the atheists expressing their certainty that their is no God.
    No, it is not just as valid. In the absence of evidence either way, the default position would be that there is no God, just as the default position with regards to fairies is that they do not exist.
    In the presence of evidence either way, the validity of each claim depends on the quality of the evidence for each position. It is highly unlikely that the evidence supporting each position is exactly equal. Further, each individual is privy to a different set of evidence, so from another individuals perspective, you cannot make the claim at all as you do not know what evidence they are privy to.

    But the Christian has more evidence for the existence of God than the atheist have to the contrary.
    Blatantly false. Evidence for both views has been presented time and again on these forums, and Christians invariably have to admit that they cannot present a convincing evidence based argument and that their beliefs are based on faith.
  6. Standard memberwolfgang59
    Infidel
    Dunedin
    Joined
    09 Jun '07
    Moves
    45641
    09 Feb '13 10:171 edit
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    Christianity is faith and belief in things of which it
    has much evidence. Expressing a certainty in God is
    just as valid as the atheists expressing their certainty t
    hat their is no God. .
    NOBODY says they have faith in atheism!
  7. Joined
    27 Sep '06
    Moves
    9651
    09 Feb '13 11:02
    Originally posted by Hand of Hecate
    Why is this such a hard concept to grasp? I object to any religion that is certain of everything and requires proof of nothing.
    What's so hard about grasping the concept that "the Bible is the claim and not the evidence"?

    I agree with your objection to religion, but are you certian that there isn't a belief system in this world that doesn't prove what it says?
  8. Standard memberKepler
    Demon Duck
    of Doom!
    Joined
    20 Aug '06
    Moves
    20099
    09 Feb '13 13:04
    Originally posted by josephw
    What's so hard about grasping the concept that "the Bible is the claim and not the evidence"?

    I agree with your objection to religion, but are you certian that there isn't a belief system in this world that doesn't prove what it says?
    Mathematics might well fit the bill. The only system in which you can prove things with absolute certainty and yet no one would even attempt to prove something they did not believe to be true.
  9. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    09 Feb '13 13:28
    Originally posted by josephw
    I agree with your objection to religion, but are you certian that there isn't a belief system in this world that doesn't prove what it says?
    If there was, why is nobody bothering to circulate the proofs? I concede however that there may be a religion that can prove its claims but keeps those proofs secret - but once the claims were proven, it would, by definition, cease to be a 'belief system' or 'religion' and instead enter the realm of scientific fact.
    Do you 'believe in' gravity? No, its merely a fact of science that you either know about, or do not know about. If God existed and you could prove it, it would be a fact of science that people either know about or did not know about. The moment you use the word 'belief' you are essentially admitting that you lack sufficient means to prove your case to someone else.
  10. Joined
    27 Sep '06
    Moves
    9651
    09 Feb '13 14:02
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    If there was, why is nobody bothering to circulate the proofs? I concede however that there may be a religion that can prove its claims but keeps those proofs secret - but once the claims were proven, it would, by definition, cease to be a 'belief system' or 'religion' and instead enter the realm of scientific fact.
    Do you 'believe in' gravity? No, its m ...[text shortened]... essentially admitting that you lack sufficient means to prove your case to someone else.
    "If there was, why is nobody bothering to circulate the proofs?"

    Proofs? What proof do you require? Is not the fact that what exists proof enough for a creator? Or do you blindly accept without proof that what exists came into being without a cause? Does not science demonstrate that matter conforms to design? Can you provide proof that design is merely by chance?

    Do you dismiss out of hand the historical record of eye witness accounts, as proofs, of the resurrection of Jesus simply because you didn't see it with your own two eyes?

    What proofs do you have that I should believe in your claim that life began 500 million years ago? Where you there?
  11. Joined
    15 Oct '06
    Moves
    10115
    09 Feb '13 14:12
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    If there was, why is nobody bothering to circulate the proofs? I concede however that there may be a religion that can prove its claims but keeps those proofs secret - but once the claims were proven, it would, by definition, cease to be a 'belief system' or 'religion' and instead enter the realm of scientific fact.
    Do you 'believe in' gravity? No, its m ...[text shortened]... essentially admitting that you lack sufficient means to prove your case to someone else.
    Actually everyone has a "belief system", aka "world view".

    The article in the following link puts it in a perspective that, unless I've misread your viewpoint, I don't think you'll find objectionable. Here's an excerpt:

    http://spaz.ca/aaron/school/science.html

    Other than those assumptions which are absolutely necessary, science rejects assumptions of faith. Science is a belief system which aims to minimize faith. Religion, on the other hand, is a belief system based completely on faith. This is a satisfactory distinction, but I feel we can make the difference much clearer.

    One of the greatest features of science is that it works as an algorithmic process of belief revision. No scientific belief being held can be said to be absolutely true, no matter how convincing it is. This is how science compensates for the small amount of faith it requires. All scientific beliefs are wrapped in a protective condition: A scientific belief can only be true if the basic assumptions of science are true, and absolute certainty cannot be obtained due to the problems inherited from subjectivity. All scientific statements have a built in emergency exit! Beliefs are able to change in light of new evidence or ideas.
    Religion in this regard, is a polar opposite. Beliefs are dictated and taken on faith. Belief revision is not encouraged. Indeed, religion has difficulty changing its dogma when pressured. Take for example, Christianity’s recent struggles to keep up with the rapidly changing times. Changes in the Christian belief system have had to been made with regards to the equality of women, homosexuality, and other social changes in our modern cultures. Belief systems which are based around faith change painfully and slowly.


  12. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    09 Feb '13 14:56
    Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
    Actually everyone has a "belief system", aka "world view".

    The article in the following link puts it in a perspective that, unless I've misread your viewpoint, I don't think you'll find objectionable. Here's an excerpt:

    http://spaz.ca/aaron/school/science.html

    Other than those assumptions which are absolutely necessary, science rejects as ...[text shortened]... Belief systems which are based around faith change painfully and slowly.


    There are, however, ongoing attempts to convince the public that same-sex attraction is genetically based. (Marmor 1975) Such attempts may be politically motivated because people are more likely to respond positively to demands for changes in laws and religious teaching when they believe sexual attraction to be genetically determined and unchangeable. (Emulf 1989: Piskur 1992) Others have sought to prove a genetic basis for same-sex attraction so that they could appeal to the courts for rights based on the "immutability". (Green 1988)

    http://catholiceducation.org/articles/sexuality/ho0039.html#02
  13. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    09 Feb '13 15:09
    Originally posted by josephw
    Proofs? What proof do you require?
    Valid proof that can be set out in such a way that I can understand them of course. That is what proof is isn't it? What do you mean by the word?

    Is not the fact that what exists proof enough for a creator?
    No.

    Or do you blindly accept without proof that what exists came into being without a cause?
    No. I do not take either stance. Blindly choosing one or the other takes faith.

    Does not science demonstrate that matter conforms to design?
    No.

    Can you provide proof that design is merely by chance?
    No.

    Do you dismiss out of hand the historical record of eye witness accounts, as proofs, of the resurrection of Jesus simply because you didn't see it with your own two eyes?
    No, I do not dismiss the accounts because I didn't witness it personally. I do not consider personal witness the best form of proof. I do however dismiss the accounts and have solid grounds for doing so.

    What proofs do you have that I should believe in your claim that life began 500 million years ago? Where you there?
    A massive body of scientific evidence. I am afraid it is such a large body of evidence that I cannot hope to present it all here, but if you took the trouble to read a few science books on the subject you would probably find enough evidence presented in them to satisfy you. I find it hard to believe that you didn't learn all about it in school, but that's the american education system for you.
  14. Joined
    15 Oct '06
    Moves
    10115
    09 Feb '13 15:10
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    There are, however, ongoing attempts to convince the public that same-sex attraction is genetically based. (Marmor 1975) Such attempts may be politically motivated because people are more likely to respond positively to demands for changes in laws and religious teaching when they believe sexual attraction to be genetically determined and unchangeable ...[text shortened]... immutability". (Green 1988)

    http://catholiceducation.org/articles/sexuality/ho0039.html#02
    Seems like yet another indication of your homophobia, that this is your response to my post.
  15. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    09 Feb '13 15:12
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    There are, however, ongoing attempts to convince the public that same-sex attraction is genetically based.
    My understanding is that same-sex-attraction is largely due to the brain development in the womb. This may be due to both genetic and environmental factors.
    What do you think is the most likely cause of same-sex-attraction?
    Do you think it can be changed?
    Would you want it changed if it could? If so, would you want to change it for medical reasons, or religious ones?
Back to Top