|
A Plea for Religion (pg. 11)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| srussell0018 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
Can't be arsed to keep fixing my posts. This computer I'm using is way too temperamental :( |
God hates PCs. Buy Mac. |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | | Originally posted by srussell0018 _God hates PCs._ Buy Mac. |
God hates apples more than PCs. No one ever got kicked out of the Garden of Eden for using IBM :mad: |
|
|
| Fledz |
| quote: | Originally posted by srussell0018
Because we all know this has been incredibly effective at stopping people from smoking.
Just like sex education has stopped people from having unprotected sex. I'm looking at you Redd. :p
It's not very effective at stopping people from smoking because smoking is addictive. Religion, in a way, is addictive too. There's a reason it's been called the opiate of the masses. Unless you want to introduce an anti-religion patch, I don't think education will help, unless you're actually teaching "religion is wrong" lessons. |
:rolleyes:
I love your sarcasm, but the truth is education around smoking in the last 20 years has been effective.
Sex education is a different kettle of fish because it isn't bad for you and there are plenty of benefits. There are no benefits with smoking. You can't compare the two.
| quote: | Originally posted by srussell0018
Well I can't prove God exists, and you can't prove otherwise. It appears we are at a stalemate. :o |
You're not at a stalemate. The burden of proof is yours, not his. If you claim something exists, you must prove it. It doesn't work the other way around.
If I tell you that I just saw a 40 tonne purple pig with angel wings fly above my house, is it up to me to prove it or you to disprove?
There is no stalemate. Either you prove it, or you can't make those claims.
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
Not always. It's usually when a rival theory manages to explain more and offer more proof that we throw something in the theorietical dustbin. We don't have anything religion-like to displace religion in this case, so that's why it's very unlikely that's why it's still vigorous amongst believers. |
We do. Plenty of our modern research through sound logic and observation can tell anyone with a decent level of intelligence how illogical and improbable a large portion of what religion teaches is.
Turn water into wine? Rubbish.
Earth is only about 6000 years old? Rubbish.
Resurrection? Rubbish.
Heaven or Hell? I won't say rubbish but the probability is high that it is rubbish. |
|
|
| srussell0018 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Fledz
You're not at a stalemate. The burden of proof is yours, not his. If you claim something exists, you must prove it. It doesn't work the other way around.
If I tell you that I just saw a 40 tonne purple pig with angel wings fly above my house, is it up to me to prove it or you to disprove?
There is no stalemate. Either you prove it, or you can't make those claims.
|
^Sarcasm as well. I don't believe in God either. But I also don't dismiss his/her/it's possibility.
And the Academy of Big Tobacco scientists would disagree as to the benefits of smoking :p
Honestly, I think taxes and cigarette prices have had more effect on people either not smoking, or trying to quit smoking, than education has. People have known cigarettes are bad for you for quite some time now. |
|
|
| srussell0018 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Fledz
If I tell you that I just saw a 40 tonne purple pig with angel wings fly above my house, is it up to me to prove it or you to disprove?
There is no stalemate. Either you prove it, or you can't make those claims.
|
I also don't see how this can't work both ways. You're claiming that God doesn't exist. You're making a claim as well, but are freeing yourself from the burden of proof by placing it on your opponents.
Think of it this way, without even discussing whether there is a burden of proof at all. (And this is hypothetical)
1. I believe God exists.
2. You believe God does not exist.
You cannot confirm or deny either of these beliefs, can you?
There's quite a difference between realizing there is no proof of the existence of God, and believing that there is no possibility of a God existing.
Now that I really think about it, it seems that the problem with religion is the implication that in order to be a follower of the religion, you must ascribe to 100% of their beliefs, and hold 100% of its writings to be true. Like I've said before, in my opinion, ideally a religion should be more like a self-help book, and less like a set of laws. |
|
|
| Fledz |
| quote: | Originally posted by srussell0018
I don't believe in God either. But I also don't dismiss his/her/it's possibility.
|
Neither do I. Did I not already mention this in my very first post? I can't for certain say that a higher deity doesn't exist so I'm open to the possibility. I'm quite sure that if one does exist though, it is nothing like modern religion teaches.
| quote: | Originally posted by srussell0018
And the Academy of Big Tobacco scientists would disagree as to the benefits of smoking :p
Honestly, I think taxes and cigarette prices have had more effect on people either not smoking, or trying to quit smoking, than education has. People have known cigarettes are bad for you for quite some time now. |
Big Tobacco has a giant bias. I'm a qualified Hospital and Research Scientist and I work in the healthcare sector (Pharmaceuticals). I'm quite assured of my own knowledge about the subject of smoking to know what has worked and what hasn't. You touched on it before, smoking is addictive, that's why it is difficult to drop. However, a lot more people do now because they know how it effects them and less are taking it up (as a percentage, not an absolute value). If cigarettes were new right now, they would never be made legal. Look at it that way. |
|
|
| Fledz |
| quote: | Originally posted by srussell0018
I also don't see how this can't work both ways. You're claiming that God doesn't exist. You're making a claim as well, but are freeing yourself from the burden of proof by placing it on your opponents.
Think of it this way, without even discussing whether there is a burden of proof at all. (And this is hypothetical)
1. I believe God exists.
2. You believe God does not exist.
You cannot confirm or deny either of these beliefs, can you?
There's quite a difference between realizing there is no proof of the existence of God, and believing that there is no possibility of a God existing.
Now that I really think about it, it seems that the problem with religion is the implication that in order to be a follower of the religion, you must ascribe to 100% of their beliefs, and hold 100% of its writings to be true. Like I've said before, in my opinion, ideally a religion should be more like a self-help book, and less like a set of laws. |
Incorrect. To be fair to you though, you probably haven't read my next post before you wrote this.
I don't claim God absolutely and utterly doesn't exist. I'm open to the possibility of a higher power but not in a way that current modern religions teach.
Therefore I am not claiming anything. Religious people on the other hand are and can let it influence them, especially on a political level. That affects all of us. The burden of proof is once again on the person that claims something exists, it is not the other persons responsibility to disprove it until it has been proven in the first place. Nobody needs to disprove the existence of God until someone actually proves the existence first.
You need to go and read up about the Burden Of Proof it seems because you don't understand how it works.
| quote: | | Like I've said before, in my opinion, ideally a religion should be more like a self-help book, and less like a set of laws. |
In an ideal world that would be acceptable, as long as it didn't affect anyone else. Unfortunately, it does. |
|
|
| srussell0018 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Fledz
I'm quite sure that if one does exist though, it is nothing like modern religion teaches.
|
The problem with this, though, is that they're not modern. That perhaps is why all of the problems you're discussing with religion exist. They were the best explanation for these things at the time. They're not anymore, but they have refused to adopt science where proof is present.
I think the Catholic church specifically, has actually gradually become more open to scientific discovery than they have been in the past. I'm very interested to see their reaction to the possibly imminent discovery of the Higgs Boson. |
|
|
| srussell0018 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Fledz
You need to go and read up about the Burden Of Proof it seems because you don't understand how it works. |
I do. My arguments are more aimed at anti-theists and people like nou who argue that there is no possible way that God could ever exist, and anybody who is even open to the possibility is an idiot. |
|
|
| Fledz |
| quote: | Originally posted by srussell0018
The problem with this, though, is that they're not modern. That perhaps is why all of the problems you're discussing with religion come from. They were the best explanation for these things at the time. They're not anymore, but they have refused to adopt science where proof is present.
I think the Catholic church specifically, has actually gradually become more open to scientific discovery than they have been in the past. I'm very interested to see their reaction to the possibly imminent discovery of the Higgs Boson. |
Oh definitely, which is why it is even more surprising that that more people haven't cast is aside. Remember though that the majority of the world doesn't live in the modern world. |
|
|
| Fledz |
| quote: | Originally posted by srussell0018
I do. My arguments are more aimed at anti-theists and people like nou who argue that there is no possible way that God could ever exist, and anybody who is even open to the possibility is an idiot. |
Nou is a ing bigoted moron. Have we not all already agreed on this? |
|
|
| Vector A |
| quote: | Originally posted by Fledz
There are no benefits with smoking. |
False. Looking cool is a supreme benefit. |
|
|
|
|
