Official Religious Debate Thread

[Veritas]

The problem is you addressed atoms and gravity by saying:

Atoms and gravity are in the physical world and have evidence in abundance to support their existence so this comparison doesn't work at all.

Unfortunately, their evidence is not supported.

Which is quite a bit different than "their evidence is all inductive." Inductive evidence supports their existence, it just doesn't say anything about the truth of their existence from a severe skeptics point of view.

[Smegma]

The problem is you addressed atoms and gravity by saying:

Atoms and gravity are in the physical world and have evidence in abundance to support their existence so this comparison doesn't work at all.

Unfortunately, their evidence is not supported.

Which is quite a bit different than "their evidence is all inductive." Inductive evidence supports their existence, it just doesn't say anything about the truth of their existence from a severe skeptics point of view.

Yes, but that evidence appears to not be completely supported.

[jrgp]

The problem is you addressed atoms and gravity by saying:

Atoms and gravity are in the physical world and have evidence in abundance to support their existence so this comparison doesn't work at all.

Unfortunately, their evidence is not supported.

Which is quite a bit different than "their evidence is all inductive." Inductive evidence supports their existence, it just doesn't say anything about the truth of their existence from a severe skeptics point of view.

Yes, but that evidence is still not completely supported.

the evidence is completely supported and proven to be valid by scientists; does the opposing opinion of religious people really matter, for practical reasons?

[Smegma]

the evidence is completely supported and proven to be valid by scientists; does the opposing opinion of religious people really matter, for practical reasons?

No, it hasn't.

Its not just scientists versus religion. As I said, for pragmatic purposes it doesn't matter (for the most part). Though, this isn't about utility, its about truth.

[jrgp]

But.. Are you saying you don't believe in atoms or gravity?

Well, regardless of the belief/theories, the ones derived from real scientists should be favored over the religious ones since scientists are trying to procure facts, not ways to please god. 

[Smegma]

It has nothing to do with belief, but knowledge.

Well, regardless of the belief/theories, the ones derived from real scientists should be favored over the religious ones since scientists are trying to procure facts, not ways to please god.

Have you even read my posts?

[Veritas]

The problem is you addressed atoms and gravity by saying:

Atoms and gravity are in the physical world and have evidence in abundance to support their existence so this comparison doesn't work at all.

Unfortunately, their evidence is not supported.

Which is quite a bit different than "their evidence is all inductive." Inductive evidence supports their existence, it just doesn't say anything about the truth of their existence from a severe skeptics point of view.

Yes, but that evidence appears to not be completely supported.

Are you saying inductive evidence as a whole, or specifically in this case?

I'm not sure what you mean by "not completely supported."

[Smegma]

In both cases.

[Mangled*]

Mangled* seems to think that the presence of dozens of religions prove that they're all misguided attempts by humans to find something that doesn't exist.

Yes, that is precisely what I think. Now please go ahead and explain what makes this incorrect.

Smegma appears to be saying that spiritual experiences are in fact evidence of something deeper that truly does exist.  Seems opposite to me.

One man's spiritual experiences are another man's walk in the park. Sadly enough, some people think that when they feel happy/stoned/love/chocolate they are experiencing God. Of course, they're attributing those feelings to God because they want to feel their belief is reinforced. Religious people who rationalise lose faith.

You seem to be in the habit of choosing to ignore particular questions I put towards you whilst trying to pick holes in the opinions I give. If you believe anything then you have to be able to justify it.

If God did exist then he would not be everything to everyone, he would not be Allah and Jehovah at the same time. What makes you so certain what you believe is the truth and what makes you so sure you know how God thinks?

I think you'll find all theistic religions promote the idea that they are the absolute one truth and all other religions are false. So how do you know you're in the correct one?

Go on, why are you in the right faith?

[Veritas]

In both cases.

As a whole, inductive evidence supports a conclusion. It just doesn't confirm it.

For the specifics, you're going to have to elaborate there.

[Smegma]

As a whole, inductive evidence supports a conclusion. It just doesn't confirm it.

But its the only supporting evidence, so then, I still hold my position.

For the specifics, you're going to have to elaborate there.

Its the exact same reason as the case before.

[Shard]

I would just like to give my opinion on religion.

Peopled, in the beginning turned to religious beliefs as a way to explain the unexplained. I believe it's still like that now.

[Veritas]

Peopled, in the beginning turned to religious beliefs as a way to explain the unexplained. I believe it's still like that now.

This wouldn't be a problem if people didn't cling to the religious explanation after the scientific explanation was found.

[Mangled*]

Peopled, in the beginning turned to religious beliefs as a way to explain the unexplained. I believe it's still like that now.

This wouldn't be a problem if people didn't cling to the religious explanation after the scientific explanation was found.

Hey, I think we finally got there!

Ok, this thread can be locked now, we have reached an obvious conclusion.

[The Geologist]

Not by a long shot, but nice try.

[PANZERCATWAGON]

Peopled, in the beginning turned to religious beliefs as a way to explain the unexplained. I believe it's still like that now.

This wouldn't be a problem if people didn't cling to the religious explanation after the scientific explanation was found.

why is the scientific explanation more favourable than the religious explanation. either could be right

[Veritas]

Peopled, in the beginning turned to religious beliefs as a way to explain the unexplained. I believe it's still like that now.

This wouldn't be a problem if people didn't cling to the religious explanation after the scientific explanation was found.

why is the scientific explanation more favourable than the religious explanation. either could be right

Are you seriously suggesting that the sky is a sea? The sun revolves around the Earth in it's celestial sphere?

I could go on, but I think you get the point.

[Shard]

I think its just the fact, science is making such huge leaps in discovery's, people see it as the new way forward. Whereas religion has been around for so long it was the norm, then science rocked its socks, and proved somethings which people attributed to Gods grand design but was really obvious when it was looked into.

I agree with Panzer, either could be right, but its up to you what you believe. Personally I'm atheist, because I just can't understand how a being that made us would let us get screwed over by nature, and the odd dictator. So I think there isn't one. You guys get me?

[jrgp]

Personally I'm atheist, because I just can't understand how a being that made us would let us get screwed over by nature, and the odd dictator. So I think there isn't one. You guys get me?

Maybe us getting screwed by nature caught him/her/it completely off guard and said entity lacks the means to protect us?

[Veritas]

Personally I'm atheist, because I just can't understand how a being that made us would let us get screwed over by nature, and the odd dictator. So I think there isn't one. You guys get me?

Maybe us getting screwed by nature caught him/her/it completely off guard and said entity lacks the means to protect us?

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?"
-Epicurius