is religion real ?

[MCL]

Religion is real but is there truley a right one? hmm?

 

[Napalmbrain]

You can't just throw numbers--which are virtually infinite in number themselves--and expect order to come about, even in billions of years. A single, intelligent being who knows how to work and create this sort of thing is required, a master planner and creator. Coincidence? Sense, that does not make.

It's true, the chances of everything in the Universe being favourable for the existence of life are indeed slim, but not impossible.

I've said it many times before, the intelligent design argument is bad science which lacks any good evidence.

 

[AndThen?]

If one believes that knowledge is just certain belief (as in people who believe in something 100% have knowledge that it is true, or in short, that belief can be the basis for knowledge), then one would have to conclude that there two forms of knowledge, one in which a person (who is subjective and fallable) knows something through the belief in it, and knowledge of facts and evidence.

Also another simple explanation is that what you describe as knowledge is the philosophy of knowledge, whereas we're working with the science of knowledge.

In science of knowledge, something has to be proven true, or at least proven until closer looks can prove it to be different than previously thought.

Yeah, what I've been trying to say is that rational knowledge isn't the only knowledge, and justification doesn't always have to be "facts and evidence".

 

[Squall7]

Yeah, what I've been trying to say is that rational knowledge isn't the only knowledge, and justification doesn't always have to be "facts and evidence".

True, but justification has to make sense. There's a lot of people (me included) that think that religion doesn't make sense.

 

[AndThen?]

That's because you're not religious.
So long as it makes sense to the "knower", it's knowledge.

 

[manred]

My opinion is that there is no scientific evidence for religion nor against it.

I myself was once a Catholic, though I changed my belief to atheism. Though my belief in there not being a God is my belief and many others as well. Same goes for those who do believe in God.

I honestly think that the only way to answer your question is to simply wait until death comes upon you.

Until then, just believe what you want to believe and let others believe in their own religion.

There is no right or wrong answer that will be found in this thread. Just opinions.

 

[JonRyan]

wow seems like a lot has gone on since i left my thread :/
sorry folks i was busy creating a league for smash.
anyways i just got done reading what i missed and it seems like i would agree most with Boethiah. i have to address andthen though i would like you to explain more on beliefs being considered knowledge.
also whoever said that they can't believe random assembly of molecules is how creation started, i have this to say. if you follow that logic then how would you explain spontaneous generation? or fires that start from heat without a spark??

 

[Squall7]

That's because you're not religious.

It's also because I was not bought up to be religious. Many people I've met said that they were at least at one point religious, and actively rejected it because of it's contradiction of acceptance, yet it's hatred towards their lifestyle.

I on the other hand have never been religious. The lifestyle I live in would be considered fine by many Christians (not all since I live with my girlfriend, but we're not yet married - not through lack of will, but through lack of funds). I remember when I was around the age of 8, I thought the spacing of the stars and the expansion of the universe seemed a lot like an explosion. I was informed by my big brother about the theory of the Big Bang, and things seemed to fit from there.

In essence, without the prior knowledge of religious beliefs, I came to a conclusion by myself about a theory in science. That fuels my belief that there doesn't have to be a creator for our existence.

So long as it makes sense to the "knower", it's knowledge.

Ah, but it's belief knowledge, not fact knowledge. Boiling down these two to the same word confuses people. They are not the same.

That being said, it's possible for knowledge to be both, but only incidentally (the knowing of something as fact is just that. The belief in something comes without the fact, once the fact is established the knowledge becomes fact and not belief).

My opinion is that there is no scientific evidence for religion nor against it.

While there is no scientific evidence against the existence of God, the fact that it's a artificial belief structure is telling. It's why it's not science's job to disprove religion, but logic's.

Also, the fact that it is not disprovable is due to the willingness of people to hold onto it. What we do know is that literal translations are not the truth. The Earth is not 6000 years old (or anywhere near that figure). What happens is that people start accepting only parts of the bible rather than the entirity of it.

The amount of different religions, both past and present, are also part of it's arguement against it. Why are Greek gods untrue, yet the Christian God is? Because the Christian God is more popular? What about Ancient Egytptian beliefs? Why is Ra considered false, while Yeweh (sp?) considered true? I'm sure at the time of their origins (where there was incredibly limited numbers of it's members), the Abrahamnic religions were considered to be laughable.

Then there are religions which are basically the same, but with different names for different things. Yet all claim non-believers will not get into the divine space (heaven as Christians call it - Vikings would have called it Valhalla, etc).

There are many logical arguements against religion. There is only belief (or belief knowledge for the sake of NowThen) backing religion up by its believers.

I honestly think that the only way to answer your question is to simply wait until death comes upon you.

Well, so long as religion is true, and there is an afterlife, then you'll find out. On the other hand, if you're an atheist with no belief in the afterlife (like me, I believe you simply decompose - and I'm fine with that), then there will be no consciousness to even contemplate what is happening, so you won't get an answer in the end. The ultimate irony of atheism - you won't know if it's true (fact knowledge), even after death!

 

[Sovieto]

It's also because I was not bought up to be religious. Many people I've met said that they were at least at one point religious, and actively rejected it because of it's contradiction of acceptance, yet it's hatred towards their lifestyle.

I on the other hand have never been religious. The lifestyle I live in would be considered fine by many Christians (not all since I live with my girlfriend, but we're not yet married - not through lack of will, but through lack of funds). I remember when I was around the age of 8, I thought the spacing of the stars and the expansion of the universe seemed a lot like an explosion. I was informed by my big brother about the theory of the Big Bang, and things seemed to fit from there.

In essence, without the prior knowledge of religious beliefs, I came to a conclusion by myself about a theory in science. That fuels my belief that there doesn't have to be a creator for our existence.


Ah, but it's belief knowledge, not fact knowledge. Boiling down these two to the same word confuses people. They are not the same.

That being said, it's possible for knowledge to be both, but only incidentally (the knowing of something as fact is just that. The belief in something comes without the fact, once the fact is established the knowledge becomes fact and not belief).


While there is no scientific evidence against the existence of God, the fact that it's a artificial belief structure is telling. It's why it's not science's job to disprove religion, but logic's.

Also, the fact that it is not disprovable is due to the willingness of people to hold onto it. What we do know is that literal translations are not the truth. The Earth is not 6000 years old (or anywhere near that figure). What happens is that people start accepting only parts of the bible rather than the entirity of it.

The amount of different religions, both past and present, are also part of it's arguement against it. Why are Greek gods untrue, yet the Christian God is? Because the Christian God is more popular? What about Ancient Egytptian beliefs? Why is Ra considered false, while Yeweh (sp?) considered true? I'm sure at the time of their origins (where there was incredibly limited numbers of it's members), the Abrahamnic religions were considered to be laughable.

Then there are religions which are basically the same, but with different names for different things. Yet all claim non-believers will not get into the divine space (heaven as Christians call it - Vikings would have called it Valhalla, etc).

There are many logical arguements against religion. There is only belief (or belief knowledge for the sake of NowThen) backing religion up by its believers.


Well, so long as religion is true, and there is an afterlife, then you'll find out. On the other hand, if you're an atheist with no belief in the afterlife (like me, I believe you simply decompose - and I'm fine with that), then there will be no consciousness to even contemplate what is happening, so you won't get an answer in the end. The ultimate irony of atheism - you won't know if it's true (fact knowledge), even after death!

Technically, we will know if it is true. Because since "God created everything" we will still go somewhere regardless if we don't believe him. You have to believe him in order to go to heaven, we will go to hell. So in essence, we'll know if it's true or not.

By the way, throwing out a question.. no doubt as of recent years (1980-) or so the number of Atheists is rising by ten folds. It seems the younger generations are adapting it as a new wave type thing. My question is: why do you think this is starting (aside from the 1980's metal rebellion) and will it continue and why?

One more thing, the whole "spontaneous generation" thing, I recently took a brief course on this and I will do my best to retell. I believe it was amino acids, which help make up cells, are found in nature. In the years believed where the creation started, Earth was a giant pool with extremely rough weather patterns and intense happenings. It is believed that from some combination of amino acids, other molecules, and frequent lightning strikes, extremely primitive life forms were created.

That's the most I can recall, but it isn't believed that bacteria poofed out of thin air or that molecules just decided to come bond and create a life.

It's kind of funny, I mean electricity can bring us back to life, and also if you look at Frankenstein (hehe), so the possibility of lightning being that secret ingredient that sparked a life form out of molecules.. makes a bit more sense.

 

[Squall7]

Technically, we will know if it is true. Because since "God created everything" we will still go somewhere regardless if we don't believe him. You have to believe him in order to go to heaven, we will go to hell. So in essence, we'll know if it's true or not.

Unless, as I suspect, there is no heaven or hell, and people just decompose, there will be no consiousness (or even subconsciousness) to even contemplate what is happening.

By the way, throwing out a question.. no doubt as of recent years (1980-) or so the number of Atheists is rising by ten folds. It seems the younger generations are adapting it as a new wave type thing. My question is: why do you think this is starting (aside from the 1980's metal rebellion) and will it continue?

In my opinion, they're reacting to religion's intolerance (and therefore contradiction) of a great many things, such as it's inability to accept that gay people don't choose to be gay, or that sex before marriage is fine, etc... In essence people don't feel that 'warmth' from religion that it seemingly promises.

Not that it's a bad thing per se. They will not get that warmth from atheism, but at least they will get the freedom.

Will it continue? To some. To others, they will invariably cling to their religious convictions. Also, the economic recessions increases superstition (including religious superstition).
http://www.newscientist.com/article...ch-could-be-a-boon-for-irrational-belief.html

I suspect that advances in research will eventually shake the beliefs of some of the more scientific religious people, at least to become more secular in their beliefs, if not break it altogether.

Though I also suspect that the arguements surrounding atheism and theism will drive others to adopt the extremes of each position (it seems the need to be seen as right is extremely powerful).

Unfortunately, because of the above, the more people that become atheists, the stronger some people's convictions to be more devout religious believers. Take for example:
[video=youtube;MOxEa4mkPik]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOxEa4mkPik&feature=PlayList&p=6037F21CD947B5D5&playnext=1&index=9[/video]
and
[video=youtube;i74ZnwEuEMg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i74ZnwEuEMg&feature=related[/video]

One more thing, the whole "spontaneous generation" thing, I recently took a brief course on this and I will do my best to retell. I believe it was amino acids, which help make up cells, are found in nature. In the years believed where the creation started, Earth was a giant pool with extremely rough weather patterns and intense happenings. It is believed that from some combination of amino acids, other molecules, and frequent lightning strikes, extremely primitive life forms were created.

That's the most I can recall, but it isn't believed that bacteria poofed out of thin air or that molecules just decided to come bond and create a life.

It's kind of funny, I mean electricity can bring us back to life, and also if you look at Frankenstein (hehe), so the possibility of lightning being that secret ingredient that sparked a life form out of molecules.. makes a bit more sense.

Funny you should say that...
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126914.400-artificial-molecule-evolves-in-the-lab.html

A SYNTHETIC molecule that performs an essential function of life - self-replication - could shed light on the origin of all living things. The lab-born strand of ribonucleic acid (RNA) can evolve in a test tube to double itself ever more swiftly.

 

[Sovieto]

That was it! RNA, but they said at the times it was possible to occur in nature and they did an experiment that proved it using electricity and gases/what not at the time. (I hate cells so much, so everything is a mess to me)

This is kind of weird how were discussing something and have the same point of view...

 

[Squall7]

That was it! RNA, but they said at the times it was possible to occur in nature and they did an experiment that proved it using electricity and gases/what not at the time. (I hate cells so much, so everything is a mess to me)

This is kind of weird how were discussing something and have the same point of view...

Lol. I know, kinda bizarre.

Still, I as long as we don't agree too much, I don't think the universe will be swallowed up in a massive paradox...

 

[Deanis]

"It's kind of funny, I mean electricity can bring us back to life, and also if you look at Frankenstein (hehe), so the possibility of lightning being that secret ingredient that sparked a life form out of molecules.. makes a bit more sense."

Lightning can also instantly kill....

 

[Squall7]

"It's kind of funny, I mean electricity can bring us back to life, and also if you look at Frankenstein (hehe), so the possibility of lightning being that secret ingredient that sparked a life form out of molecules.. makes a bit more sense."

Lightning can also instantly kill....

Just like DNA can kill (especially when mutated, such as Cancer).

I'm always amazed at both how resilient we are, and how fickle we are. When a person can survive days and days under rubble, but can also be killed by an embolism.

 

[Deanis]

LOL... true.. or someone can survive stranded in the jungle for a week, then eat something slightly uncooked and die.





....yeaahhhh....