Lord and Saviour ?

[Lohman446]

and yet it does deny reason to man. religion is by its very definition irrational, as in, not rational.

Really. What about religion demands it to be irrational? I consider myself rational and believe in religion. Isaac Newton considered himself rational and believed in God.

[cockerpunk]

Really. What about religion demands it to be irrational? I consider myself rational and believe in religion. Isaac Newton considered himself rational and believed in God.

[dahoeb]

everyone has a philosophy, yes, but a religion? no. religion is a matter of faith, there are many philosophies that do not include, or outright object to faith.



yeah, there are. and yes, on the topic of religion they are just as unreasonable as anyone else who believes things without reason.

yes, living a life where you accept reason and evidence to form your worldview, and living a life believing things which you can have no reason to believe, yes, those are mutually exclusive. Meh, for some people the physical, corporeal world is separate from their spiritual life. Like I said before, science and nature are the tools, doesn't mean you can't study and have an in-depth understanding of the tools. Just out of curiosity, if they had a life experience which they were absolutely unable to scientifically explain, some sort of spiritual moment, would it then continue to be unreasonable of them?

but, people are hypocrites, it happens.

That depends entirely on what definition you choose to look at. Some definitions define that they are exactly the same, while others state they are different due to the existence of "rituals" in religion and a few others say that "faith" is the dividing line. I don't really think there is any significant difference, they both establish rules and morals for how one should live life, behave and treat others.

I edited my previous post to supplement my position.

[dahoeb]

faith, is irrational. religion is irrational. You said in post #100 that you had faith in mankind, so that's irrational?

[cockerpunk]

not really, as humans have a pretty good track record of thinking and doing good things when they have the right information.

[cockerpunk]

That depends entirely on what definition you choose to look at. Some definitions define that they are exactly the same, while others state they are different due to the existence of "rituals" in religion and a few others say that "faith" is the dividing line. I don't really think there is any significant difference, they both establish rules and morals for how one should live life, behave and treat others.

I edited my previous post to supplement my position.

no, science does not have established rules and morals for how one should live life. philosophies that draw from science, like humanism, naturalism etc etc do.

[Lohman446]

So who gets to decide if something is consisten with or based on reason? I am telling you that religion can be arrived at through reason and logic. You are arguing it cannot. Without supporting premises you are attempting to claim an authority of what you consider rational over what I do. By your own argument that would be evil.

[cockerpunk]

So who gets to decide if something is consisten with or based on reason? I am telling you that religion can be arrived at through reason and logic. You are arguing it cannot. Without supporting premises you are attempting to claim an authority of what you consider rational over what I do. By your own argument that would be evil.

how do you reason you way to

1. a god
2. that god is the christian god
3. that god had a son
4. the bible is an accurate representation of that sons life/death

i'd like logic, mathematics, data and repeatable experiment on all 4 points.

if you can do that, i will grant you that you can reason your way to religion.

[dahoeb]

no, science does not have established rules and morals for how one should live life. philosophies that draw from science, like humanism, naturalism etc etc do.

That's really splitting hairs. See the book of Genesis. See the Big Bang theory.

Science is the god that your philosophy (humanism, naturalism, etc) draws from.

In religion, the God and the subsequent bible is what we draw our philosophy from.

The way you treat science and your 'ism's is not really any different than a Christian treats God and the bible. They're essentially used in the same way.

I've got the feeling that you're just looking at the glass half empty, while I'm looking at it half full.

[cockerpunk]

That's really splitting hairs. See the book of Genesis. See the Big Bang theory.

Science is the god that your philosophy (humanism, naturalism, etc) draws from.

In religion, the God and the subsequent bible is what we draw our philosophy from.

The way you treat science and your 'ism's is not really any different than a Christian treats God and the bible. They're essentially used in the same way.

I've got the feeling that you're just looking at the glass half empty, while I'm looking at it half full.

no, the rejection of faith as a method to determine accuracy is not the same as using faith as a method to determine accuracy.

sorry, you cannot say faith and science are equivalent in any way shape or form. one requires faith, the other rejects faith.

[Lohman446]

how do you reason you way to

1. a god
2. that god is the christian god
3. that god had a son
4. the bible is an accurate representation of that sons life/death

i'd like logic, mathematics, data and repeatable experiment on all 4 points.

if you can do that, i will grant you that you can reason your way to religion.

A). You said all religions.
B) I never said religion had to be the biblical Christian God
C) I never argued the bible was infallible.

How do you prove that a God, gods, or other supernatural power does not exist through empirical testing?

The point is you can no more disprove it than I can prove it. You want your conclusion to be more valid than my conclusion with no more proof. You want your argument to simply be more authoratative then the other because you argue it is. However without that proof you are demanding the same authority you are calling evil.

You can be wrong. I would not label it as evil

[cockerpunk]

A). You said all religions.
B) I never said religion had to be the biblical Christian God
C) I never argued the bible was infallible.

How do you prove that a God, gods, or other supernatural power does not exist through empirical testing?

The point is you can no more disprove it than I can prove it. You want your conclusion to be more valid than my conclusion with no more proof. You want your argument to simply be more authoratative then the other because you argue it is. However without that proof you are demanding the same authority you are calling evil.

You can be wrong. I would not label it as evil

all religions start with step 1. just reason you way to a god, and i'll be happy. from there steps 2-4 can be for any particular religion you wish. just reason your way to a religion. you claimed you could do it, please try.

i don't have to disprove it. just like i don't have to disprove unicorns existing.

[dahoeb]

no, the rejection of faith as a method to determine accuracy is not the same as using faith as a method to determine accuracy.

sorry, you cannot say faithand science are equivalent in any way shape or form. one requires faith, the other rejects faith.

When did I say that faith could be used as a method to determine accuracy?

I said that religion and science can be used in similar ways to guide ones life, which I think most could agree with.

I don't agree with your definition of religion (in which FAITH is a requirement). There are differing definitions of religion (which I already discussed) depending on what text and interpretation you decide to pull from. Even with that one word of distinction, the similarities and parallels still remain.

[Lohman446]

The more I look around the world the more I am certain that it did not arise by chance. The more I learn the more I realize this is true. Consider the pictures of molecular biology, how the particles within our cells function with one another. Scale it up and look at the pictures and the similiarites to how universes interact. There is a pervasive sense of order in the world around us. The laws of physics that can predict particiles through formulas and only prove that existence at the development of better equipment shows this order. The formulas used to arrive at the location of planetary bodies such as Pluto (whatever its refernced as now) show that we are uniquely suited to understand the world around us through reason and logic. That our ability to reason is so in tune with how the world actually works tells me that there is a connection that ties us, those abilities, and the world as we know it around us, even the world that we do not know yet, together.

This is why I have faith in God. Not that God has paused the rules of nature around me and given me some great sign but that the rules of nature exist and we have even the slightest ability to understand those rules.

Science does not disprove to me the existence of a God. The more we understand the more it strengthens in to me the belief that God exists. I don't know exactly what God is. Perhaps its that little spark within all of us. Perhaps its the reason that so many accept that killing another human is just wrong before we know the complex theories. Perhaps its that spark of empathy that we can share with others. I believe that somehow God exists though I do not know how exactly to define God

Can I prove it? No. Does it use logic and reason to get there? The above statements are not irrational. It is as defensible as any argument that God does not exist.

[dahoeb]

The more I look around the world the more I am certain that it did not arise by chance. The more I learn the more I realize this is true. Consider the pictures of molecular biology, how the particles within our cells function with one another. Scale it up and look at the pictures and the similiarites to how universes interact. There is a pervasive sense of order in the world around us. The laws of physics that can predict particiles through formulas and only prove that existence at the development of better equipment shows this order. The formulas used to arrive at the location of planetary bodies such as Pluto (whatever its refernced as now) show that we are uniquely suited to understand the world around us through reason and logic. That our ability to reason is so in tune with how the world actually works tells me that there is a connection that ties us, those abilities, and the world as we know it around us, even the world that we do not know yet, together.

This is why I have faith in God. Not that God has paused the rules of nature around me and given me some great sign but that the rules of nature exist and we have even the slightest ability to understand those rules.

Science does not disprove to me the existence of a God. The more we understand the more it strengthens in to me the belief that God exists. I don't know exactly what God is. Perhaps its that little spark within all of us. Perhaps its the reason that so many accept that killing another human is just wrong before we know the complex theories. Perhaps its that spark of empathy that we can share with others. I believe that somehow God exists though I do not know how exactly to define God

Can I prove it? No. Does it use logic and reason to get there? The above statements are not irrational. It is as defensible as any argument that God does not exist.

Well said.