is religion real ?

[Chewy]

10 pages is a new record for a religion thread, isn't it?

It had to get out of hand eventually, always does always will.

 

[Syntax]

I've decided to reopen this thread. With that, I've deleted about two pages of posts. So, if you see your post missing it is most likely due to another issue I've taken care of. Any further flaming, racism, trolling etc will most likely result in a ban along with the possible closure of this thread.

 

[lbu8]

History? I wouldn't look at the Bible as a source of reference, lol...

Well most of it no, but the majority of the old testament did happen. Everything about the kings and wars is fact.

 

[Squall7]

Back by popular demand?

Hopefully people can keep their temper this time. If you lose your temper in this kind of debate, and in this system (whereby one has to actually plan what they are going to say before posting it, and therefore not have knee-jerk swearing), there's not really much excuse. Rationality will always win in an arguement for rational thought.

 

[Brawny]

Really, if you're going to write a book that you make up with a spiritual beings and things, why would you write it in the setting of your own life...?

 

[Squall7]

Well most of it no, but the majority of the old testament did happen. Everything about the kings and wars is fact.

Actually, recently, while these Kings were real, in actual fact the lands were more like local villages rather than entire countries.

http://www.newscientist.com/article...separating-fact-and-fiction-in-the-bible.html

 

[Boethiah]

Faith is an important part of knowledge, and it's important to realise that. That being said, what's one person knows might not be true to another person.
I still love you, though.

I don't understand that example. Faith is believing in something despite the lack of proof, and knowledge is knowing something by using facts to come to a conclusion.

Just because someone doesn't think something is true, it doesn't mean it isn't. There are some people that think the world is six thousand years old. This is obviously false.

 

[AndThen?]

knowledge is knowing something by using facts to come to a conclusion.

That's only rational knowledge. If I was religious, you bet I'd be saying "I know there's a God", because some things don't need to be/can't be rationalised. Faith operates totally separate from reason, but that doesn't mean that it's not knowledge.

So, for this example of afterlife, he can know it's true, but I can know it's not. My knowledge stems from my own beliefs, and his stems from his faith.

It's kind of complicated, I know... part of the diploma I'm doing is Theory of Knowledge.

 

[Diomedes]

It's kind of complicated, I know... part of the diploma I'm doing is Theory of Knowledge.

My views on the ToK guide are quite cynical, but I do have every intention to successfully complete the diploma.

 

[RPGMasterTurk91]

Asking if religion is real, is like asking if Christianity and Judaism are real. Of course they are.

The actual question is, is what they believe in real?

I have quite an odd stance when it comes to religion, which I won't go into now. To put it simply, I don't believe there is a god. I believe that everything came from nothing, and a series of coincidences formed the earth and of course, evolution of life.

I don't see how that seems infeasible. It makes much more sense than a magic man in the sky with sandles did it.

Hey DRMARIO long time no talk!

I've been looking through almost all of the this thread and decided that I would discuss this topic when I had the time to.

Unfortunately, I completely disagree with your stance when it comes to the "beginning of the universe and life", which includes no intelligent being.

First off:

I can't imagine a computer being made by just putting all the elements in a box and then shaking it until it becomes a fully operational computer!

The same go's for lifeforms,

I don't believe any life form can be made by random attachment of molecular small cells.

Instead its more obvious that an engineer(someone who knows how the parts work and what they are) puts all the elements/parts in the right place for the computer to even work. Design(pen&paper:code's & form), knowledge(What&how), understanding(Rules&process follow), creative(mouse,screen,keyboard,...),...!

The complexity of any lifeforms or element we know of and not know of is certainly not a random collisions of cells or evolution in time. And more proves that there is One God = Intelligent Designer Who made everything and knows how it all works.

Which will get me to your question Is religion real?

There are true and false religions.

True: religion that believes in on creator of all
Fals: man-made statues as gods, multi gods, Greek gods, Sun, stars or moon or mountains, etc....

Very well put! That just about sums it up, but I couldn't leave without voicing my own opinion in my own words! Here's my counter argument:

This sort of thinking is irrational. The entire universe formed (over many millions or even billions of years) by coincidence. All sites in nature have been formed at random. However, the fact that ALL living beings require oxygen in order to live has not changed. The same basic component to allow something to "live" is still there--it has not been randomly selected differently for any certain creature. Is this a coincidence? If we said that "every milisecond, there is a 10% chance that the Earth will explode", we would conclude that within that first second, chances are that the entire earth will have exploded. Up until now, the earth has not exploded. The possibility that 90% overruled the 10% virtually infinite times is accepted, but the reality is not recognized and never will be. Therefore, the reality that "everything came about by coincidental activities taking place within the universe, and all lifeforms came about through this process".

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.

 

[Boethiah]

Hey DRMARIO long time no talk!

I've been looking through almost all of the this thread and decided that I would discuss this topic when I had the time to.

Unfortunately, I completely disagree with your stance when it comes to the "beginning of the universe and life", which includes no intelligent being.

First off:



Very well put! That just about sums it up, but I couldn't leave without voicing my own opinion in my own words! Here's my counter argument:

This sort of thinking is irrational. The entire universe formed (over many millions or even billions of years) by coincidence. All sites in nature have been formed at random. However, the fact that ALL living beings require oxygen in order to live has not changed. The same basic component to allow something to "live" is still there--it has not been randomly selected differently for any certain creature. Is this a coincidence? If we said that "every milisecond, there is a 10% chance that the Earth will explode", we would conclude that within that first second, chances are that the entire earth will have exploded. Up until now, the earth has not exploded. The possibility that 90% overruled the 10% virtually infinite times is accepted, but the reality is not recognized and never will be. Therefore, the reality that "everything came about by coincidental activities taking place within the universe, and all lifeforms came about through this process".

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.

No, people just can't wrap their head around the idea that a being similiar to them created everything. So, people resort to the notion that a god(s) must have done it.

THAT, does not make sense.

 

[Boethiah]

That's only rational knowledge. If I was religious, you bet I'd be saying "I know there's a God", because some things don't need to be/can't be rationalised. Faith operates totally separate from reason, but that doesn't mean that it's not knowledge.

So, for this example of afterlife, he can know it's true, but I can know it's not. My knowledge stems from my own beliefs, and his stems from his faith.

No, he is just confused as to what knowledge is. We cannot make a new brand of knowledge stemming rational knowledge. Theists claim to know there is a god(s), but are confusing that with faith. Just because they were brought up with that belief and were taught it was fact, it does not mean it is real fact.

Maybe I'm just not grasping around the idea that knowledge is bendable and customizable.

 

[AndThen?]

I'm just not grasping around the idea that knowledge is bendable and customizable.

Mmm. It confused me at first, but when I had people saying "I know there is a God", "I know sex before marriage is wrong", and many other things which I wouldn't call knowledge, it kinda dawns on you. What makes knowledge is what's called "Justified true belief". ie it needs justification, to be "true" (this is another complicated ball game altogether), and for you to believe it. Here, justification comes from faith.

But yeah, that's off topic.

 

[Squall7]

Mmm. It confused me at first, but when I had people saying "I know there is a God", "I know sex before marriage is wrong", and many other things which I wouldn't call knowledge, it kinda dawns on you. What makes knowledge is what's called "Justified true belief". ie it needs justification, to be "true" (this is another complicated ball game altogether), and for you to believe it. Here, justification comes from faith.

But yeah, that's off topic.

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.

 

[navarre]

I've decided to reopen this thread. With that, I've deleted about two pages of posts. So, if you see your post missing it is most likely due to another issue I've taken care of. Any further flaming, racism, trolling etc will most likely result in a ban along with the possible closure of this thread.

You've removed my witty remarks? I stand insulted.

Were you the person who closed it in the first place? Just curious.