Why bother with Religion?

[kellie]

I will respond to this question because this and various other posts have made clear to me the distinction with which some of you are having trouble. I apologize for the length of this post but it is necessary to fully respond to the question.

I am willing to accept as truth various historical (and contemporary) accounts of events, explanations of phenomena and existence of persons without actually being able to verify such things with first-hand knowledge or through some other reliable and testable method. At the same time, I am unwilling to believe certain biblical accounts of religious stories ostensibly on the grounds that I am unable to verify the accuracy of these stories with first hand knowledge or by some testable methodology.

Hypocrisy, you declare! How can I accept certain “facts” without first hand knowledge and refuse to believe biblical stories (just because they deal with religion).

Here is why. First, I should point out that I am willing to accept that there was a man named Jesus that lived around the time the bible was written (actually most historians believe he died several decades before the bible was written) and that certain accounts of his life reported therein may be true. The reason why I believe this is for the reasons various posters have alluded to, and are as follows.

For the sake of efficiency of learning, it is necessary that we as a civilization accept various accounts of others as fact, even if we cannot verify them ourselves. To go about proving everything we “know” about the world would be incredibly inefficient, and in many cases impossible. We have to rely on such things (assuming they fit within the bounds of logic and within the bounds of things which we can test).

Think about everything you “know” about modern medicine. For example, most of you have already established that you know, without in most cases having ever gone to medical school or engaged in medical research, that we each have a unique genetic blueprint (which we call “DNA”) that can be extracted from any cell in our body. You know this because it has been widely reported by other members of our community after having been verified by individuals we trust as having special skills and knowledge in this area.

This should not be confused with “faith” in the sense many of you use it to justify your belief in an omniscient, benevolent (although sometimes vengeful) superpower. Nobody says they just have “faith” that each of us has a unique set of DNA. You logically rely, on the scientific abilities of our most gifted group of doctors and scientists, many of whom have verified that they have tested and confirmed this theory.

The biblical accounts upon which I cannot rely, are those that have no comparable equivalent that I can test. For example, a man being born of a virgin 2000 years ago, about 1970 years before in vitro fertilization is rather hard to believe. A man “rising from the dead” is another thing that has no verifiable equivalent. (And unlike my DNA example, there are no “spiritual levitation” experts among us on whose expert abilities we can rely).

Conversely, it is not difficult to me to believe that a Jewish carpenter and his wife had a child who went around claiming to be the son of “God” and that we was executed in Jerusalem. Within our logical framework that we’ve established as a society, I have no reason to believe that this could not have happened.

Please let me know if this makes sense or if you require further clarification.

Thanks Imagine,

Yep, it makes sense, I understand where you are coming from now

I don’t agree but I understand

 

[Em_in_FL]

Thanks Imagine,

Yep, it makes sense, I understand where you are coming from now

I don’t agree but I understand

I too now understand better…

I think it boils down to the fact that all the history of Christianity is difficult to believe if you don’t believe in God in the first place.

Imagine23 hasn’t officially answered the question of his belief in God (athiest or agnostic?), but that seems to be clear from his posts… he clearly does NOT believe in God.

At this point, Imagine23… all we can do for you is pray!

Why bother with Religion?.. Because we believe in God!

 

[Imagine23]

I too now understand better…

I think it boils down to the fact that all the history of Christianity is difficult to believe if you don’t believe in God in the first place.

Imagine23 hasn’t officially answered the question of his belief in God (athiest or agnostic?), but that seems to be clear from his posts… he clearly does NOT believe in God.

At this point, Imagine23… all we can do for you is pray!

Why bother with Religion?.. Because we believe in God!

I am an atheist, and so are all of you. We are all atheists with respect to belief in the gods named Zues, Poseidon, Apollo and the numerous other pagan gods. For me, you just add one more god to the list of gods that you don’t believe in.

Knock youselves out with that prayer stuff. Just don’t use “God” as an excuse to control other people’s lives like so many Christians do.

Peace to all.

 

[buffalo]

I will respond to this question because this and various other posts have made clear to me the distinction with which some of you are having trouble. I apologize for the length of this post but it is necessary to fully respond to the question.

I am willing to accept as truth various historical (and contemporary) accounts of events, explanations of phenomena and existence of persons without actually being able to verify such things with first-hand knowledge or through some other reliable and testable method. At the same time, I am unwilling to believe certain biblical accounts of religious stories ostensibly on the grounds that I am unable to verify the accuracy of these stories with first hand knowledge or by some testable methodology.

Hypocrisy, you declare! How can I accept certain “facts” without first hand knowledge and refuse to believe biblical stories (just because they deal with religion).

Here is why. First, I should point out that I am willing to accept that there was a man named Jesus that lived around the time the bible was written (actually most historians believe he died several decades before the bible was written) and that certain accounts of his life reported therein may be true. The reason why I believe this is for the reasons various posters have alluded to, and are as follows.

For the sake of efficiency of learning, it is necessary that we as a civilization accept various accounts of others as fact, even if we cannot verify them ourselves. To go about proving everything we “know” about the world would be incredibly inefficient, and in many cases impossible. We have to rely on such things (assuming they fit within the bounds of logic and within the bounds of things which we can test).

Think about everything you “know” about modern medicine. For example, most of you have already established that you know, without in most cases having ever gone to medical school or engaged in medical research, that we each have a unique genetic blueprint (which we call “DNA”) that can be extracted from any cell in our body. You know this because it has been widely reported by other members of our community after having been verified by individuals we trust as having special skills and knowledge in this area.

This should not be confused with “faith” in the sense many of you use it to justify your belief in an omniscient, benevolent (although sometimes vengeful) superpower. Nobody says they just have “faith” that each of us has a unique set of DNA. You logically rely, on the scientific abilities of our most gifted group of doctors and scientists, many of whom have verified that they have tested and confirmed this theory.

The biblical accounts upon which I cannot rely, are those that have no comparable equivalent that I can test. For example, a man being born of a virgin 2000 years ago, about 1970 years before in vitro fertilization is rather hard to believe. A man “rising from the dead” is another thing that has no verifiable equivalent. (And unlike my DNA example, there are no “spiritual levitation” experts among us on whose expert abilities we can rely).

Conversely, it is not difficult to me to believe that a Jewish carpenter and his wife had a child who went around claiming to be the son of “God” and that we was executed in Jerusalem. Within our logical framework that we’ve established as a society, I have no reason to believe that this could not have happened.

Please let me know if this makes sense or if you require further clarification.

Imagine, think about this - you have not learned anything at all in life on your own. It has all been passed down to you from before. Some of it you trust without question, but some you do not. Why the difference?

 

[nkelly]

I am an atheist, and so are all of you. We are all atheists with respect to belief in the gods named Zues, Poseidon, Apollo and the numerous other pagan gods. For me, you just add one more god to the list of gods that you don’t believe in.

Knock youselves out with that prayer stuff. Just don’t use “God” as an excuse to control other people’s lives like so many Christians do.

Peace to all.

How can you insult us believers and God and then say “Peace to all”!!?? I don’t think you have any interest in creating peace!

I PRAY you don’t find out God exists after it’s too late!
You will one day. God loves you and cares for you and all you can do is give Him the two fingers! You’ve become too cynical and hard-hearted.

God bless,
Noel.

 

[mmortal03]

Not to be rude to AlegreFe or nkelly, but to be perfectly clear, these “Please pray this” requests or “I am praying for you” or “The only thing we can do is pray” comments are only going to scare away someone who isn’t a Christian. These are not the ways to convince someone who in not a Christian to become one. While there is a chance that it might come across to them as well intentioned, it will more likely come across to them as you being “holier than thou”, naive, or “another one of those superstitious religious people”. Let me try to create a frame of reference for you: If a polytheistic believer came up to you who were dealing with a problem and said to pray to one of their gods, or that they were praying for you, you would, at least in your mind, roll your eyes, or possibly make you want to pat them on their heads and say “aw, isn’t thwat sweet” or “thank you, that means a lot to me, hon”.

Do you really think that someone who doesn’t believe in any form of a personal God, could or will find anything but ridiculousness from you asking them to pray a prayer?

 

[nkelly]

Not to be rude to AlegreFe or nkelly, but to be perfectly clear, these “Please pray this” requests or “I am praying for you” or “The only thing we can do is pray” comments are only going to scare away someone who isn’t a Christian. These are not the ways to convince someone who in not a Christian to become one. While there is a chance that it might come across to them as well intentioned, it will more likely come across to them as you being “holier than thou”, naive, or “another one of those superstitious religious people”. Let me try to create a frame of reference for you: If a polytheistic believer came up to you who were dealing with a problem and said to pray to one of their gods, or that they were praying for you, you would, at least in your mind, roll your eyes, or possibly make you want to pat them on their heads and say “aw, isn’t thwat sweet” or “thank you, that means a lot to me, hon”.

Do you really think that someone who doesn’t believe in any form of a personal God, could or will find anything but ridiculousness from you asking them to pray a prayer?

Mortal, I didn’t ask Imagine to pray. Maybe you’ve got me mixed up with someone else.

 

[mmortal03]

Mortal, I didn’t ask Imagine to pray. Maybe you’ve got me mixed up with someone else.

Right, that was AlegreFe. You said, “I PRAY you don’t find out God exists after it’s too late!”, which is right up there with “I am praying for you” or “I will be praying for you”. Could have just been a figure of speech, however, any of that kind of stuff always comes across to non-Christians as if you are negatively criticizing them because you believe something that they don’t.

 

[Gunger]

This should not be confused with “faith” in the sense many of you use it to justify your belief in an omniscient, benevolent (although sometimes vengeful) superpower. Nobody says they just have “faith” that each of us has a unique set of DNA. You logically rely, on the scientific abilities of our most gifted group of doctors and scientists, many of whom have verified that they have tested and confirmed this theory.

The biblical accounts upon which I cannot rely, are those that have no comparable equivalent that I can test. For example, a man being born of a virgin 2000 years ago, about 1970 years before in vitro fertilization is rather hard to believe. A man “rising from the dead” is another thing that has no verifiable equivalent. (And unlike my DNA example, there are no “spiritual levitation” experts among us on whose expert abilities we can rely).

Conversely, it is not difficult to me to believe that a Jewish carpenter and his wife had a child who went around claiming to be the son of “God” and that we was executed in Jerusalem. Within our logical framework that we’ve established as a society, I have no reason to believe that this could not have happened.

Please let me know if this makes sense or if you require further clarification.

Ahhh… but this goes back to my original response. You may not have to have faith that DNA is DNA…and you don’t have to have faith that the DNA actually works…but, based on your own experiences, you TRUST (i.e., have faith) that it will. Othewise, you probably wouldn’t get out of bed in the morning-- what would be the point?

Again, the critical point here is that you experience it and…in reality…have FAITH in it. It works. As you say, it is verifiable.

But WHEN did it start working? That is what you cannot explain. Do you need to, you might ask? By your own argument, yes, you do-- turn about is fair play here. I tell you that God is real. He is real from my own personal experience and the experience of billions of other people. I have FELT him in my life. I have SEEN him work miracles (I would argue that one of those miracles is that he brought you here to this board and has kept you pressing… ). I KNOW he exists. You tell me, “prove that he exists FOR ME, but prove it on my grounds, scientifically verifiable grounds.”

That is something I cannot do. I ask you to have faith. You say “AHA! see, I can verify for you that science works…where can you show me God works, why can’t you get beyond the “myth” and get to the substance?” That leads back to one of the two issues I hilighted before: the simple fact that it WORKS is scientific PROOF of God.

Why should you believe it? You already do…you have faith that it works.

How do I know that God exists, that it is God that makes science work? With the same conviction, and ironically for many of the same reasons, you know science works: billions of people believe it, thousands of the greatest minds of every age have agreed that it is so…and I’ve seen it for myself.

One final thing, keeping in mind the caveat that it is unfair (for either side) to adequately justify (pun intended) our arguments in a written online forum: while it may be easy to simply say, “you are not providing me with answers, simply pointing me back to the same old “faith” argument,” the reality is that I am pointing you back to the same arguments that support your foundational belief in science. In other words, you cannot argue for “science” in the vaccum of your own personal experience-- you rely on…you trust… the experience of others to reach those conclusions because they, and millions of others, have been able to verify it. Likewise, you cannot expect Christians to argue for religion in the vaccum of YOUR personal experience. At some point, it will ALWAYS boil down to faith.

It’s up to you, and only you, to decide what, in who, and why you will have faith.

Now, if I say that “you are in my prayers,” please do not take offense. That is not meant as a slam on you, nor does it mean that I see myself in some position of authority over you-- far from the contrary. It means I can identify with your doubt (I’ve been there). It means I sympathize with your frustration (I’ve been there). It means that I wish you the peace, the confidence and the amazing affimation that faith in God brings with it. Think of it as me saying “I hope you never have another need for the rest of your life, that you live for eternity in complete happiness and that we both come to know the greatest love there is.” Gods.

You are in my prayers…

G

 

[Neithan]

I am an atheist, and so are all of you. We are all atheists with respect to belief in the gods named Zues, Poseidon, Apollo and the numerous other pagan gods. For me, you just add one more god to the list of gods that you don’t believe in.

Knock youselves out with that prayer stuff. Just don’t use “God” as an excuse to control other people’s lives like so many Christians do.

Peace to all.

Ohh… and I was really starting to respect you until you threw in this gem.

There is one rationally demonstrable God. Mythic deities are another story entirely. If you want to say that Christian revelation and miracles are myths, fair enough–but the existence of God? That just undermines your credibility.

 

[mmortal03]

How do I know that God exists, that it is God that makes science work? With the same conviction, and ironically for many of the same reasons, you know science works: billions of people believe it, thousands of the greatest minds of every age have agreed that it is so…and I’ve seen it for myself.

It isn’t because people believe that it works, it is because people believe that it can be DEMONSTRATED to work, with the scientific method and empirical findings. There is a big difference there.

One final thing, keeping in mind the caveat that it is unfair (for either side) to adequately justify (pun intended) our arguments in a written online forum: while it may be easy to simply say, “you are not providing me with answers, simply pointing me back to the same old “faith” argument,” the reality is that I am pointing you back to the same arguments that support your foundational belief in science. In other words, you cannot argue for “science” in the vaccum of your own personal experience–

Yes you can. Within my own space on Earth I could definitely start at the foundations of science and demonstrate through scientific, phyisical, empirically-based experiments that the findings of science match up well. Attending a university, or even just taking a chemistry class in high school can develop this trust through physical experiements.

You can’t connect this to the unfalsifiable mysteries of Catholicism. There may be, however, evidence out there that may bolster the foundation of Catholicism, that can be tested, and that is all that we can provide anyone who “doesn’t just believe it”. What needs to be provided here is the evidence that we do have that proves that Catholicism is more likely than any other religion. Once we have done that, then we can say that the rest of it comes down to faith. So, what work has been done on demonstrating the greater likelihood of Catholicism over all other religions?

Remember, he isn’t asking anybody to verify it in the context of his personal experience at all. He is asking for what we can give him to verify it in terms of empirical evidence, and it would be a laughable argument to insinuate that his personal experience is that which is science-based and that therefore we have nothing to provide him on that front. Further, Gunger, your argument is using an appeal to majority, and billions of organisms of a same kind (humans) could all have a tendency to slip into a belief that is universally and ultimately wrong, something like the religious belief of an afterlife. This could be simply a flaw in something that we are emotionally susceptible to. If Catholicism represents ultimate truth, it should be able to be empirically demonstrated to ALL individuals with at least some testability in this very world where this truth exists, outside of the subjective thoughts in our heads.

 

[mmortal03]

If you want to say that Christian revelation and miracles are myths, fair enough–but the existence of God? That just undermines your credibility.

It doesn’t undermine his credibility at all. There are great arguments out there for the non-existance of a supernatural creator of the universe, and there is no scientific way to prove it either way.

 

[ribozyme]

It doesn’t undermine his credibility at all. There are great arguments out there for the non-existance of a supernatural creator of the universe, and there is no scientific way to prove it either way.

Yup, you are correct, you cannot prove anything in science.

 

[mmortal03]

Yup, you are correct, you cannot prove anything in science.

Right, if you want to play the semantics game, then you can actually only prove that the probability of something is REALLY REALLY low. However, that probability is not the same thing as someone saying that they believe something because they just can’t get their emotions around it being any other way, e.g. someone saying,“It just ain’t probable that there is no God!” and basing it on nothing but intuition.

Look, don’t get me wrong, I am a Catholic, however, I am trying to rid this thread of the subjective fluff and just get down to the very arguments that we DO have that we can base on science.

 

[ribozyme]

Right, if you want to play the semantics game, then you can actually only prove that the probability of something is REALLY REALLY low. However, that probability is not the same thing as someone saying that they believe something because they just can’t get their emotions around it being any other way, e.g. someone saying,“It just ain’t probable that there is no God!” and basing it on nothing but intuition.

Look, don’t get me wrong, I am a Catholic, however, I am trying to rid this thread of the subjective fluff and just get down to the very arguments that we DO have that we can base on science.

Regarding science (or in this context empiricism), I have some comments about the resurrection I have posted in another thread that I also think would be appropriate here:

I did not refer to the resurrection of Jesus. I, of course, do not believe it happened. I will convey my own beliefs on the epistemology on the resurrection of Jesus here: I believe it cannot be explored through empiricism. For example, I know of no way of how it can be falsified in a Popperian fashion. Also, let’s assume the resurrection did actually happen. How am I going to believe in it based on the testimony of people how saw Jesus resurrected. This will be suceptable to Occam’s razor; if we ask the question “What happened? A resurrection or the disciples conveying (intentionally or unintentionally) a mistruth?” Occam’s razor will always slice the former, even if it is correct. The latter assumes that the laws of nature did not take an exception to Jesus’ body and the disciples were deluded (this is a plausible assumption as humans do experience delusions such as thinking they were abducted by UFOs), in contrast to the resurrection scenario, which does not involve plausible assumptions (e.g. Jesus was divine man).

 

[Neithan]

It doesn’t undermine his credibility at all. There are great arguments out there for the non-existance of a supernatural creator of the universe, and there is no scientific way to prove it either way.Today 1:06 pm

Show me a good argument for the “non-existence of a supernatural creator of the universe.” All I’ve come across are only attempts to poke holes in the proofs of God’s existence, with additional inductive attempts based on totally arbitrary assumptions that can simply be ignored without consequence.

The problem with the scientific method, of course, is that it deals purely with material nature. I mean, you can’t prove anything intelligible with an empirical method. So the argument that ‘science can’t prove it’ is not an argument at all. This is just common sense.

If one accepts the Principle of Sufficient Reason, which is necessary for one to accept the demonstrations of science, then the existence of God is a logical necessity.

The atheist’s only real defense is Hume’s Fork, although many like to use Occam’s Razor. There are serious problems with each. If one invokes the former, than you are a total skeptic and science is as pointless an endeavour as religion–therefore calling on a lack of scientific evidence to prove God makes you look completely ridiculous.
Occam’s Razor is merely a method for simplifying scientific theories, and given that no reliable “theory of everything” exists, it is simply a non-argument. In addition, the logical proofs of God’s existence are antecedent to any application of the Razor, so in no case could it be assumed that entities are being multiplied beyond necessity.

 

[wcknight]

I am an atheist, and so are all of you. We are all atheists with respect to belief in the gods named Zues, Poseidon, Apollo and the numerous other pagan gods. For me, you just add one more god to the list of gods that you don’t believe in.

Knock youselves out with that prayer stuff. Just don’t use “God” as an excuse to control other people’s lives like so many Christians do.

Peace to all.

It’s interesting that you bring up ancient deities. The fact that there is no evidence of any of these having any effect on humanity in the last 2000+ years have made them all obsolete. IF there had been some miraculous events associated with any other gods, then there might be some following or belief in them.

Christianity on the other hand has had hundreds if not thousands of events leading to millions of believers.

Yes there are also myths about these gods, but no apparitions, directly dealings as with the lives of various saints. The fact that Christ had 4 writers relating His story, and eye witness accounts from various other folks during His time makes a huge difference in His credibility. The fact that Christ or His Mother, Mary have appeared to variuous folks throughout history keeps them in the public’s mind.

It is not just coincidental that these other religions have been displaced and discarded. When nothing of consequence happens for thousands of years, that faith disappears. That has not been the case for Christianity and so it flourishes even after almost 2000 years since Christ lived.

 

[ribozyme]

The atheist’s only real defense is Hume’s Fork, although many like to use Occam’s Razor. There are serious problems with each. If one invokes the former, than you are a total skeptic and science is as pointless an endeavour as religion–therefore calling on a lack of scientific evidence to prove God makes you look completely ridiculous.
Occam’s Razor is merely a method for simplifying scientific theories, and given that no reliable “theory of everything” exists, it is simply a non-argument. In addition, the logical proofs of God’s existence are antecedent to any application of the Razor, so in no case could it be assumed that entities are being multiplied beyond necessity.

I invoke Occam’s razor to pick the explanation with less implausible assumptions. If we accept Hume’s fork, we cannot prove or disprove the existence of a supernatural power, but there are other arguments one can use to cast serious doubt on the existence of the Christian God.

 

[Neithan]

I invoke Occam’s razor to pick the explanation with less implausible assumptions.

Right, but this applies to scientific theories. There are logical proofs for God. Furthermore, there is no scientific “Theory of Everything.”

If we accept Hume’s fork, we cannot prove or disprove the existence of a supernatural power,

You couldn’t prove or disprove the existence of anything actually. Which is quite a drastic position to take.

but there are other arguments one can use to cast serious doubt on the existence of the Christian God.

Before we go there–my last post was only discussing proofs for the so-called ‘Deistic God.’

In any case, what are these arguments against the Christian God? I assume you mean the Problem of Evil?

 

[happy34]

well there is so much evidence of God everywhere u just have 2 look. im not a Catholic either but i think every1 should read thses articles no matter what u believe i was a Catholic for the forst 4 years of my life then an atheist for about 7 now i am a christian i dont know what denomination.PLease read the whole article even if u dont agree with it! also if u cant click on thses links and have it pop up just copy and paste them. they may save u from eternity in hell if ur an atheist they r interseting fillthevoid.org/Children/TheBattle/ForbiddenPractices/WhatisaForbiddenPractice.html fillthevoid.org/RomanCatholicism/main.html fillthevoid.org/Apologetics/Apologeticspage.html [URL Not Found/404(name removed by moderator)age.html](URL Not Found/404(name removed by moderator)age.html) fillthevoid.org/Entertainment/media.html fillthevoid.org/Creation/Evolution.html fillthevoid.org/Versions/Ommisions.html fillthevoid.org/Versions/number-7.html
fillthevoid.org/Prophecy/BibleProphecy1.html i will accept any NICE pms please reade ALL of these and God bless