Wtf?

[Racoon]

I don't find this relevant at all. Enough historic fact exists to say that Christianity is based on a few true events,

 

I am still waiting for those facts Qfwfq.

So I can quit believing in non-believing!

 

Please illuminate.

It only seems fair after some of the responses you tend to give. :cool:

 

this can be discussed like rational, mature adults. :lol:

[Qfwfq]

Now that was a big F!!!

You're a great observer Boerseun! I'm so glad you noticed!

;)

[Racoon]

You're a great observer Boerseun! I'm so glad you noticed!

:confused:

 

oops, my bad?

I suppose that was pretty obvious, huh? :eek2:

forgive my youthful exuberance.

 

That illustrates your point how exactly Qfwfq??

I would like to believe the FACTS you say exist about Christianity.

and the True events that would contraindicate this whole absurd notion of "disbelief"

 

you provide excellent info in other threads Q - which is why I am so intently curious :cup:

 

that IS what this thread is about.

 

WTF?

[Racoon]

Are you gathering those facts Q?

 

I am still waiting. :evil: :hihi: --->>>:lol:

 

You said that my points were not really relavent at all?

 

I would like an explanation of those Facts and historical truths...

So would most every one who wants to believe in a great Godly truth of Heaven and happy afterlife for believing in Jesus Christ.

 

Perhaps someone else can elaborate

Or do you wish to hold a grudge and point out every incorrect minor technicality??

 

Racoon

[HydrogenBond]

I would like to turn this around. What are the benefits of not having any religion or belief in God?

[Racoon]

I would like to turn this around. What are the benefits of not having any religion or belief in God?

 

My initail responses to Q were a bit harsh I admit.:) But I've been smarmied by responses often enough and witnessed those of others, to let a mistake slip by un-noticed. :cup:

 

Good for you HydrogenBond for trying to enlighten the subject. :)

 

I think a benefit of NOT believing in Organized Religion is not throwing away your Hard Earned Money$$ quite frankly! to those who wish to build "Bigger" churches to get "bigger" gatherings, to get "bigger" profits...

 

Churches today, at least from where I stand, seem to be a BUSINESS.

and Take in money as a Tax Free Charity. :)

 

While not really giving people anything 'tangible'. Unless you consider 'Hope' tangible.

Yes they do community services and help feed and clothe people; but there is always a "You NEED to accept Jesus Christ lecture involved! :)

 

but lets see what others have to say and think...

[HydrogenBond]

Religion is a collective expression that sets the beliefs for a group. Your point of it being a money machine is at least partially true. Wouldn't religion be better served if it taught people to be more independanly spiritual? But why should we get rid of God?

[Boerseun]

Religion is a collective expression that sets the beliefs for a group. Your point of it being a money machine is at least partially true. Wouldn't religion be better served if it taught people to be more independanly spiritual? But why should we get rid of God?

We should at least look critically on the possible existence of a concept such as 'God', and not accept it blindly, like the current setup demands from us. Blind faith in anything opens the doors for a lot of potential abuse to slip in.

 

'God', or religion, for that matter, might be summed up as the universal reference point of Hope for people willing to fall for it, but looking at it critically, definitely not as a wellspring of moral authority, as it currently claims to be. The motivation for doing good isn't doing good for its own sake (which would've been morally sound) but doing good out of fear for eternal punishment (which is driven by personal fear, and ultimately therefore, selfishness). What kind of moral authority is that?

 

I do good unto my neighbour, because doing good gives me a warm and fuzzy feeling. And that's about it. I don't steal my neighbour's stuff, because that's just plain and simply 'wrong', and I won't like it to have to happen to me. I don't kill my neighbour, because of the same reason. That's an immediate justification for my set of moral standards, not some ethereal promise of a reward after I've croaked. I think this approach to morality is more pure and closer to the ideal of what we think of as morality than any religion could ever come. And, as a bonus, I don't have to pay for it.

 

'Getting rid of God' could be seen in the same light as relieving someone with multiple personality disorder of a few of his personalities, or telling little Johnny that his imaginary friend is just that, imaginary. If he wants to keep talking to his imaginary friend, so be it. He should just have the decency of keeping his imaginary friend to himself.

[HydrogenBond]

Physics is the same way, expecially theoretical physics. One postulates other dimensions without any proof and expect schools to teach that as though it has been proven. That also comes down to faith and should also be under lock and key until everyone can see overwelming data. The trick is not to use the G-word.

[InfiniteNow]

However, the postulates made by physicists, theoretical or not, are based on information which itself has already been repeatedly confirmed. In the case of other dimensions, using the mathematical models which have thus far successfully described observables. They also have a chance of being proven correct or replaced by something better. Faith in a god and it's existence will (as far as I know) never be provable.

 

Not quite the same thing actually.

[Qfwfq]

:hihi:

One postulates other dimensions without any proof and expect schools to teach that as though it has been proven.

No, not as if they had been proven. The scientific process is based on bold speculation but also on matching it up with fact.

 

What happens is that many people don't quite know the lines between fact, theory, model, hypothesis and so on.

[Boerseun]

Physics, Natural Laws, Science, postulated extra dimensions and the likes (which are held here to be taken on 'belief', and therefore on a par with religion), differ from religion in one fundamental way:

 

Whether you 'believe' in it or not, you can't break Natural Laws. Scientists won't condemn you to eternal damnation for not 'believing' in Science - you'll just be poorer off for not understanding how the physical world works. But when you die, you die - nobody knows what's on the other side; Science merely predicts that the chances of there being anything at all on the other side is pretty slim, based on our current data set.

 

Believe what you like, but apples don't fall up. That's a Law set in unbreakable stone. And you don't have to 'believe' in Science, you won't go to 'hell' for it. The worst that could happen is that you won't get a job at a research institution. Or you might walk into a wall and break your nose because your 'God' told you that he'll make you go through walls, breaking a few rules along the way.

 

But the 'belief' in anything connected to Science is not comparable at all to the 'Belief' in the supernatural - by definition, I might add.

[Edella]

I'm sorry,this is off topic,but your avatar,Boerseun, just sent beer streaming through my nose.It's quite painful...

[Qfwfq]

Whether you 'believe' in it or not, you can't break Natural Laws.

You can't, sure, and neither can Bob.

 

Science merely predicts that the chances of there being anything at all on the other side is pretty slim, based on our current data set.

Science predicts nothing about it, our dataset offers no basis at all on which to predict such a thing.

 

Believe what you like, but apples don't fall up.

Certainly not, so long as up is the contrary of down and down is the way that a falling apple goes. You can hardly beat tautology... :)

 

But the 'belief' in anything connected to Science is not comparable at all to the 'Belief' in the supernatural - by definition, I might add.

By definition? :hihi:

 

There are many people that believe in scientific facts only because some charismatic figure tells them, just as much as others believe in the things Velikovsky says. In both these cases, just like for religion, they believe because they need to.

[Boerseun]

Science predicts nothing about it, our dataset offers no basis at all on which to predict such a thing.

Of course Science does! EEG's have been taken of people as they die, and seems to indicate that what we know of consciousness and the artifacts thereof (particular brainwave patterns - our dataset) fails at death. It therefore predicts that based on our current dataset, death is, indeed, the end. The way to turn this around is to prove conclusively that the 'essence', or 'soul', that goes on after death, indeed exists, and to set up a test for it and prove it. That will expand our scientific dataset, and knowledge.

By definition? :esmoking:

Of course 'by definition'. Supernatural defines that which falls outside the boundaries of nature, nature, of course, being the realm of Science. Religion, and the belief in 'supernatural' entites, therefore by definition falls outside the scope of science.

There are many people that believe in scientific facts only because some charismatic figure tells them, just as much as others believe in the things Velikovsky says. In both these cases, just like for religion, they believe because they need to.

Like who? And who would count as a 'charismatic figure' in science?

[InfiniteNow]

Like who? And who would count as a 'charismatic figure' in science?

Brian Greene, the rockstar of string theory... That might be one.

 

I also like Michio Kaku...

 

 

Both very charismatic. :eek:

[Buffy]

And who would count as a 'charismatic figure' in science?

Dick Feynman!!!! :eek:

 

Bongo Bongo,

Buffy