I think I fall into the camp of an agnostic - I'm completely unsure in any religion, let alone any specific one. As a philosophy student, I've had to read a bunch of arguments for God's existence which kind of put me off the idea.
Here's Descartes' Ontological Argument, in my opinion, one of the most flawed pieces of philosophy I've studied. In one fell swoop, he made me feel pretty awkward for those who actually think it's a valid argument. At least in my opinion, it simply isn't. It really did put me off religion when I first read it, but - hey - I'll let you be the judge of it.
(1) Our idea of God is of a perfect being,
(2) it is more perfect to exist than not to exist,
(3) therefore, God must exist.
So you can see why I'm put off the idea of religion a tad, because the logic of that argument is dumbfounding. It's basically saying "God exists because God exists." Which is an argument of which the premises lean on the conclusion, which makes it ... weaker than the arguments I'd make as to why "Mr Nobody" pee'd the bed, when I was a wee scrap of a thing. But I digress.
I do think, contrary to my previous paragraph, that there must be something, and Descartes doesn't put me off that idea. Jesus, and by proxy some religions, either do or don't exist. As someone who spends their days watching TV, writing Fanfiction and playing video games, I think it'd be presumptuous to assume my opinion means any more than the square root of Johnathan Squat. However, there is a bit from a show I really like, the American sitcom It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia which, while intended to be funny, did actually get me thinking about the argument between religion and science. This is an argument I refer to as ...
Science is a liar...
...Sometimes.
In essence, the argument points out that science has been disproven as various new pieces of information come into play, and thus it's hard to stand by something that's constantly changing around. The character Mac then argues that, as most people haven't checked the data scientists use - the fossil records, for example - they too are basically taking a leap of faith, which is something non believers of religion seem to find so deplorable. The line that sells this as a valid argument, to me, is Mac's summation near the end of the clip:
Mac - Oh. Interesting. So, let me get this straight, Mr. Reynolds... You get your information from a book, written by men you've never met. And you take their words as truth, based on a willingness to believe, a desire to accept. A leap of - dare I say it? - faith?
At least to me, it kind of defeats the main argument against the Bible and Jesus' miracles - "Oh, well, you never met the people who wrote that book, you're just going off of faith." By pointing this out, I will admit I paused the episode and sat back and thought about it for a minute. Did I become a devout Christian, or indeed a religious believer? No. But it did open my eyes to the idea that I'm basically just choosing to believe in science. It's an interesting way to look at it, anyway.
So, I guess this huge post was a big long thing of me throwing my hands up and admitting "I don't know." But I think it's comforting to believe there's something, rather than us just being here by some random cosmic equation. Life's scary enough without having faith, you know? If someone put a gun to my head and demanded I picked a side - obviously, I hope that situation never comes up - I'd probably nod and say I do believe that he must have done something to get people talking.
Honestly, this was mostly just me taking the excuse to write about philosophy. I'm super sorry for the long post!
Interesting comment left on the youtube video that also got me thinking:
They only seem even REMOTELY plausible because there was no rebuttal. His arguments fall apart like swiss cheese to anyone who is prepared and experienced, but the whole joke is that creationists construct these savvy yet empty arguments that are very convincing to gullible and uneducated people (and idiots, in the case of most of the characters in this show). Spend a few minutes breaking down the argument, and you will find that both Galileo and Newton were deeply religious and pious followers of the Bible, and each time a major theory has been disproven it was by another scientist. It is also exceedingly rare for a theory to be completely turned on it's head, most often the major shake-ups are refinements or additions to previous theories. Meaning that the earlier scientists often didn't "make a mistake," per se, they just formed an incomplete theory based upon incomplete information. Also, while every worldview relies somewhat on a base assumption or some level of "faith," rational secular worldviews make far fewer assumptions and far more reasonable assumptions than their theological counterparts. Every assumption made by rationalists (the reliability of the senses, etc.) is also made by the Theologically minded, they just go on to make many more unfounded assumptions on top of that.
There are also demonstrably false assertions in the bible, which should call the rest of the data into question. If I'm reading a science textbook that says "most of the time the sky appears green because all the grass in the world reflects onto the sky," I will question everything else in the book as well. Then when I find out it was published in 100AD, I will probably throw it out and get the latest edition with more accurate information.
Ooh, boy. That's a thought provoking one.
I think I fall into the camp of an agnostic - I'm completely unsure in any religion, let alone … moreany specific one. As a philosophy student, I've had to read a bunch of arguments for God's existence which kind of put me off the idea.
Here's Descartes' Ontological Argument, in my opinion, one of the most flawed pieces of philosophy I've studied. In one fell swoop, he made me feel pretty awkward for those who actually think it's a valid argument. At least in my opinion, it simply isn't. It really did put me off religion when I first read it, but - hey - I'll let you be the judge of it.
(1) Our idea of God is of a perfect being,
(2) it is more perfect to exist than not to exist,
(3) therefore, God must exist.
So you can see why I'm put off the idea of religion a tad, because the logic of that argument is dumbfounding. It's basically saying "God exists because God exists." Which is an argum… [view original content]
Well I was born and still live in Northern Ireland to a Protestant father and Catholic mother. As you may or may not know there was this incident known by locals as 'The Troubles' that majorly took place in my home city of Belfast.
It was basically a political war between republicans and democrats over Northern Ireland being part of the UK and not the Republic of Ireland.
Whilst most of the bomb scares and violence had dimmed down when I was growing up, it was still considered dangerous for my parents to be seen together due to them not being of the same strain of Christianity. Even to today, they'll try not to make it obvious by going to a Protestant place of worship once and then going to a Catholic one the next just incase they ran into somebody who still held old views on their relationship.
I went to a catholic school over a Protestant one, not because my mother insisted...it was just a better school.
But my father always tried to raise me as a Protestant and my mother tried as a Catholic. Now if anybody asks me what strain of Christianity I am, I just reply "I'm just Christian". Because I've been raised as both and don't want to choose one or the other.
Most of family is Catholic. But something I have been wondering as of late; and perhaps this might sound a bit strange to you, but what I have been wondering is:
Why are there so many different denominations of Christianity, since the Christian faith only had one original founder, Jesus Christ himself?
And all four Gospel writers wrote down what Jesus taught, and what he did. So obviously the early Church founders would've known what Jesus taught, and how he led by example.
Well I was born and still live in Northern Ireland to a Protestant father and Catholic mother. As you may or may not know there was this inc… moreident known by locals as 'The Troubles' that majorly took place in my home city of Belfast.
It was basically a political war between republicans and democrats over Northern Ireland being part of the UK and not the Republic of Ireland.
Whilst most of the bomb scares and violence had dimmed down when I was growing up, it was still considered dangerous for my parents to be seen together due to them not being of the same strain of Christianity. Even to today, they'll try not to make it obvious by going to a Protestant place of worship once and then going to a Catholic one the next just incase they ran into somebody who still held old views on their relationship.
I went to a catholic school over a Protestant one, not because my mother insisted...it was just a better school.
But my father always tried t… [view original content]
To be honest, what divides us Christians is more politicial than the religious aspect in itself.
I can say with quite a lot of certainty, after being raised as both Catholic and Protestant there really isn't enough of a difference that it is necessary for us to break off into several dominations.
The only real disagreement I can see any logic behind is that Protestants believe that you should only pray to God/Jesus alone and while religious icons such as Mary and the patron saints do hold a large amount of religious significance, they are not worthy of hearing our prayers.
Catholics on the other hand believe one can pray to the patron saint of health for example when somebody is sick or the patron saint of knowledge when studying for an important exam and not necessarily God himself at all times.
Every other difference (at least in my opinion, which could be totally misconstrued btw) is too 'petty' for lack of a better word, for me. I once witnessed my parents arguing for hours about whether or not Jesus should be present on the cross in a place of worship as Catholics will have him on it but Protestants will just have the cross icon. While I have heard both arguments and understand each side, I really can't see why for the sake of this, they need to divide themselves.
Most of family is Catholic. But something I have been wondering as of late; and perhaps this might sound a bit strange to you, but what I ha… moreve been wondering is:
Why are there so many different denominations of Christianity, since the Christian faith only had one original founder, Jesus Christ himself?
And all four Gospel writers wrote down what Jesus taught, and what he did. So obviously the early Church founders would've known what Jesus taught, and how he led by example.
I don't like religion...since it practically splits people apart...you know what I mean? (I'm not saying Religion is bad but....I just don't understand the point of it)
Good question. From my studies I conclude the reason is division. Meaning, in order to conquer is to divide and keep it that way so people don't catch on to become united and one as it is meant to be. Also, in this way a lot of deception and lies are circulated to prevent as many as possible from God's Word even though some believe they are on the right path.
But the way I see it, I don't care about what man says or preaches unless taught directly from the Bible and I read it myself and use my common sense and intuition (Guidance from the Holy Spirit, as I would like to think) to tell if they are of God or a wolf in sheep's clothing whose goal is to mislead away from God's truth.
The tactic to divide and conquer is very popular, yes? Not only in religion but in many other areas as well if one is paying attention to what's going on around the world. http://www.dictionary.com/browse/divide-and-conquer?s=t
Most of family is Catholic. But something I have been wondering as of late; and perhaps this might sound a bit strange to you, but what I ha… moreve been wondering is:
Why are there so many different denominations of Christianity, since the Christian faith only had one original founder, Jesus Christ himself?
And all four Gospel writers wrote down what Jesus taught, and what he did. So obviously the early Church founders would've known what Jesus taught, and how he led by example.
Historically, a prophet with that name probably existed. But he wasn't the son of god. I'm not even open for debate about it. It's simply a 2000 year old fairy tale written by a barbaric desert tribe, and it should have no place in a civilized world.
The claim of the existence of a "god" is absurd in and of itself, and so far there has been not a single shred of factual evidence to support it. No, the ramblings of an indoctrinated Christian who claims to have seen "light" before death do not count. Also, there seems to be a big misunderstanding regarding evidence in general. The person who makes the claim has to offer evidence, or their claim is meaningless and false by default. The same can be applied to religion.
Atheists don't have to prove that there's no god. Christians/religious people are the ones that have to prove that there is a god, since they are the ones making the claim of his existence. No one has ever been able to factually do so, therefore god does not exist. It really is as simple as that. The presentation of factual evidence would be the only way to lend any credence whatsoever to the claim of god's existence, and would change "god does not exist" to "god probably doesn't exist, but it is a possibility". But the latter isn't the case now, as many people think it is. The former is.
Good question. From my studies I conclude the reason is division. Meaning, in order to conquer is to divide and keep it that way so people d… moreon't catch on to become united and one as it is meant to be. Also, in this way a lot of deception and lies are circulated to prevent as many as possible from God's Word even though some believe they are on the right path.
But the way I see it, I don't care about what man says or preaches unless taught directly from the Bible and I read it myself and use my common sense and intuition (Guidance from the Holy Spirit, as I would like to think) to tell if they are of God or a wolf in sheep's clothing whose goal is to mislead away from God's truth.
The tactic to divide and conquer is very popular, yes? Not only in religion but in many other areas as well if one is paying attention to what's going on around the world.
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/divide-and-conquer?s=t
Relgion aside Descartes for all intents purposes was just an awful philosopher. "I think therefore I am" is honestly one of the dumbest logical fallicies i've ever read for partly some of the reasons you've brought up.
Ooh, boy. That's a thought provoking one.
I think I fall into the camp of an agnostic - I'm completely unsure in any religion, let alone … moreany specific one. As a philosophy student, I've had to read a bunch of arguments for God's existence which kind of put me off the idea.
Here's Descartes' Ontological Argument, in my opinion, one of the most flawed pieces of philosophy I've studied. In one fell swoop, he made me feel pretty awkward for those who actually think it's a valid argument. At least in my opinion, it simply isn't. It really did put me off religion when I first read it, but - hey - I'll let you be the judge of it.
(1) Our idea of God is of a perfect being,
(2) it is more perfect to exist than not to exist,
(3) therefore, God must exist.
So you can see why I'm put off the idea of religion a tad, because the logic of that argument is dumbfounding. It's basically saying "God exists because God exists." Which is an argum… [view original content]
I believe that he was a real person, who truly helped anyone he could, and yes, the resurrection thing might be a hard thing to believe in. However, God makes anything happen impossible suddenly possible, so it can't be hard to believe that he came back to life three days later. And as long as we hold on to that belief, and the values that God gave us, and to never fall into the temptations of the devil, we shall be given a place beyond the Golden Gates in the clouds.
I nor anyone spiritual or religious has to prove anything to anyone who chooses to live by only what they see, hear, touch, taste or smell. I am very much aware of what some refer to as the sixth sense...intuition and have noticed that ever since I was young. It's not something I can prove, it's something I experience, something I sense, something that is always a part of me. Of course, everyone has a sixth sense but most don't even know because the older we get, the more difficult it is because we feel less and less of our spirituality. Why else do you think kids can feel so much more intensely and have a unique way of understanding even if nothing was spoken to them?
The reason why so many have difficulty believing is because they already reject what they don't understand. The human experience cannot always be understood by our own knowledge since there is much more than meets the eye. Some will never know that while here on earth because they choose to be close-minded. No one will ever learn anything that way, that is a fact.
The reason why I share what I study is because maybe, just maybe there is someone out there it can help. If not, well, I tried. It's not like I enjoy seeing some people lost and confused. I'm not bothered at all about the naysayers but I wonder who else is reading that have not participated in this discussion.
I think it is very important for people who are genuinely interested to question everything. Do your research and base what you can, if not all, on facts. Come to your own conclusions but be warned there are a lot of deception and lies out there. Being lazy will give you nothing. But to seek then you will surely find.
Historically, a prophet with that name probably existed. But he wasn't the son of god. I'm not even open for debate about it. It's simply a … more2000 year old fairy tale written by a barbaric desert tribe, and it should have no place in a civilized world.
The claim of the existence of a "god" is absurd in and of itself, and so far there has been not a single shred of factual evidence to support it. No, the ramblings of an indoctrinated Christian who claims to have seen "light" before death do not count. Also, there seems to be a big misunderstanding regarding evidence in general. The person who makes the claim has to offer evidence, or their claim is meaningless and false by default. The same can be applied to religion.
Atheists don't have to prove that there's no god. Christians/religious people are the ones that have to prove that there is a god, since they are the ones making the claim of his existence. No one has ever been able to factua… [view original content]
Comments
Ooh, boy. That's a thought provoking one.
I think I fall into the camp of an agnostic - I'm completely unsure in any religion, let alone any specific one. As a philosophy student, I've had to read a bunch of arguments for God's existence which kind of put me off the idea.
Here's Descartes' Ontological Argument, in my opinion, one of the most flawed pieces of philosophy I've studied. In one fell swoop, he made me feel pretty awkward for those who actually think it's a valid argument. At least in my opinion, it simply isn't. It really did put me off religion when I first read it, but - hey - I'll let you be the judge of it.
(1) Our idea of God is of a perfect being,
(2) it is more perfect to exist than not to exist,
(3) therefore, God must exist.
So you can see why I'm put off the idea of religion a tad, because the logic of that argument is dumbfounding. It's basically saying "God exists because God exists." Which is an argument of which the premises lean on the conclusion, which makes it ... weaker than the arguments I'd make as to why "Mr Nobody" pee'd the bed, when I was a wee scrap of a thing. But I digress.
I do think, contrary to my previous paragraph, that there must be something, and Descartes doesn't put me off that idea. Jesus, and by proxy some religions, either do or don't exist. As someone who spends their days watching TV, writing Fanfiction and playing video games, I think it'd be presumptuous to assume my opinion means any more than the square root of Johnathan Squat. However, there is a bit from a show I really like, the American sitcom It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia which, while intended to be funny, did actually get me thinking about the argument between religion and science. This is an argument I refer to as ...
Science is a liar...
...Sometimes.
In essence, the argument points out that science has been disproven as various new pieces of information come into play, and thus it's hard to stand by something that's constantly changing around. The character Mac then argues that, as most people haven't checked the data scientists use - the fossil records, for example - they too are basically taking a leap of faith, which is something non believers of religion seem to find so deplorable. The line that sells this as a valid argument, to me, is Mac's summation near the end of the clip:
At least to me, it kind of defeats the main argument against the Bible and Jesus' miracles - "Oh, well, you never met the people who wrote that book, you're just going off of faith." By pointing this out, I will admit I paused the episode and sat back and thought about it for a minute. Did I become a devout Christian, or indeed a religious believer? No. But it did open my eyes to the idea that I'm basically just choosing to believe in science. It's an interesting way to look at it, anyway.
So, I guess this huge post was a big long thing of me throwing my hands up and admitting "I don't know." But I think it's comforting to believe there's something, rather than us just being here by some random cosmic equation. Life's scary enough without having faith, you know? If someone put a gun to my head and demanded I picked a side - obviously, I hope that situation never comes up - I'd probably nod and say I do believe that he must have done something to get people talking.
Honestly, this was mostly just me taking the excuse to write about philosophy. I'm super sorry for the long post!
Interesting comment left on the youtube video that also got me thinking:
Mary needed some happy time and Joseph wouldn't do it, so she did it with some random guy. Then she lied to Joseph about God and thus Jesus was made.
I never have. I was brought up catholic but I hate church too much for me to be religious.
Well I was born and still live in Northern Ireland to a Protestant father and Catholic mother. As you may or may not know there was this incident known by locals as 'The Troubles' that majorly took place in my home city of Belfast.
It was basically a political war between republicans and democrats over Northern Ireland being part of the UK and not the Republic of Ireland.
Whilst most of the bomb scares and violence had dimmed down when I was growing up, it was still considered dangerous for my parents to be seen together due to them not being of the same strain of Christianity. Even to today, they'll try not to make it obvious by going to a Protestant place of worship once and then going to a Catholic one the next just incase they ran into somebody who still held old views on their relationship.
I went to a catholic school over a Protestant one, not because my mother insisted...it was just a better school.
But my father always tried to raise me as a Protestant and my mother tried as a Catholic. Now if anybody asks me what strain of Christianity I am, I just reply "I'm just Christian". Because I've been raised as both and don't want to choose one or the other.
Most of family is Catholic. But something I have been wondering as of late; and perhaps this might sound a bit strange to you, but what I have been wondering is:
Why are there so many different denominations of Christianity, since the Christian faith only had one original founder, Jesus Christ himself?
And all four Gospel writers wrote down what Jesus taught, and what he did. So obviously the early Church founders would've known what Jesus taught, and how he led by example.
To be honest, what divides us Christians is more politicial than the religious aspect in itself.
I can say with quite a lot of certainty, after being raised as both Catholic and Protestant there really isn't enough of a difference that it is necessary for us to break off into several dominations.
The only real disagreement I can see any logic behind is that Protestants believe that you should only pray to God/Jesus alone and while religious icons such as Mary and the patron saints do hold a large amount of religious significance, they are not worthy of hearing our prayers.
Catholics on the other hand believe one can pray to the patron saint of health for example when somebody is sick or the patron saint of knowledge when studying for an important exam and not necessarily God himself at all times.
Every other difference (at least in my opinion, which could be totally misconstrued btw) is too 'petty' for lack of a better word, for me. I once witnessed my parents arguing for hours about whether or not Jesus should be present on the cross in a place of worship as Catholics will have him on it but Protestants will just have the cross icon. While I have heard both arguments and understand each side, I really can't see why for the sake of this, they need to divide themselves.
I can see God and Jesus being real
I don't like religion...since it practically splits people apart...you know what I mean? (I'm not saying Religion is bad but....I just don't understand the point of it)
Good question. From my studies I conclude the reason is division. Meaning, in order to conquer is to divide and keep it that way so people don't catch on to become united and one as it is meant to be. Also, in this way a lot of deception and lies are circulated to prevent as many as possible from God's Word even though some believe they are on the right path.
But the way I see it, I don't care about what man says or preaches unless taught directly from the Bible and I read it myself and use my common sense and intuition (Guidance from the Holy Spirit, as I would like to think) to tell if they are of God or a wolf in sheep's clothing whose goal is to mislead away from God's truth.
The tactic to divide and conquer is very popular, yes? Not only in religion but in many other areas as well if one is paying attention to what's going on around the world.
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/divide-and-conquer?s=t
Historically, a prophet with that name probably existed. But he wasn't the son of god. I'm not even open for debate about it. It's simply a 2000 year old fairy tale written by a barbaric desert tribe, and it should have no place in a civilized world.
The claim of the existence of a "god" is absurd in and of itself, and so far there has been not a single shred of factual evidence to support it. No, the ramblings of an indoctrinated Christian who claims to have seen "light" before death do not count. Also, there seems to be a big misunderstanding regarding evidence in general. The person who makes the claim has to offer evidence, or their claim is meaningless and false by default. The same can be applied to religion.
Atheists don't have to prove that there's no god. Christians/religious people are the ones that have to prove that there is a god, since they are the ones making the claim of his existence. No one has ever been able to factually do so, therefore god does not exist. It really is as simple as that. The presentation of factual evidence would be the only way to lend any credence whatsoever to the claim of god's existence, and would change "god does not exist" to "god probably doesn't exist, but it is a possibility". But the latter isn't the case now, as many people think it is. The former is.
May I ask what denomination are you? As I've already stated in previous comments, my family is Catholic.
Relgion aside Descartes for all intents purposes was just an awful philosopher. "I think therefore I am" is honestly one of the dumbest logical fallicies i've ever read for partly some of the reasons you've brought up.
I believe that he was a real person, who truly helped anyone he could, and yes, the resurrection thing might be a hard thing to believe in. However, God makes anything happen impossible suddenly possible, so it can't be hard to believe that he came back to life three days later. And as long as we hold on to that belief, and the values that God gave us, and to never fall into the temptations of the devil, we shall be given a place beyond the Golden Gates in the clouds.
What I believe in a nutshell.
Jesus existed - this I know, because clerics tell me so...
I nor anyone spiritual or religious has to prove anything to anyone who chooses to live by only what they see, hear, touch, taste or smell. I am very much aware of what some refer to as the sixth sense...intuition and have noticed that ever since I was young. It's not something I can prove, it's something I experience, something I sense, something that is always a part of me. Of course, everyone has a sixth sense but most don't even know because the older we get, the more difficult it is because we feel less and less of our spirituality. Why else do you think kids can feel so much more intensely and have a unique way of understanding even if nothing was spoken to them?
The reason why so many have difficulty believing is because they already reject what they don't understand. The human experience cannot always be understood by our own knowledge since there is much more than meets the eye. Some will never know that while here on earth because they choose to be close-minded. No one will ever learn anything that way, that is a fact.
The reason why I share what I study is because maybe, just maybe there is someone out there it can help. If not, well, I tried. It's not like I enjoy seeing some people lost and confused. I'm not bothered at all about the naysayers but I wonder who else is reading that have not participated in this discussion.
I think it is very important for people who are genuinely interested to question everything. Do your research and base what you can, if not all, on facts. Come to your own conclusions but be warned there are a lot of deception and lies out there. Being lazy will give you nothing. But to seek then you will surely find.
I am a Christian.
I don't believe it, it seems to me that this is a big conspiracy.
Please do not bump old threads.