[Debate] - Religion
 

Hi,

I'm an avid listener of a certain radio show in Britain called the 'James Whale'. He is a radical man (to sum it up into one adjective) and he has been behind the scenes in the scene of politics in showbusiness for many years now (over 30 years).

His show airs on a UK radio show called TalkSport between 10.00pm - 1.00am (GMT) on mondays-thursdays.

I always listen to his show and i always find his ideas to be somewhat interesting.

He is not a fan of many things and prefers a state where everything is simplified.

The one thing that he is firmly against is religion. He raises the point that it is the cause of wars and argues that how these religious leaders can say that fighting wars in the name of their religion is justified by their gods.

I'd just like to see what everyone elses opinion is on this :)?

Regards

- miSt

have the same opinion ... moreover I think stupid believing into something which doesn't exist ... that nobody have never seen ... just because human race is affraid about death and has to search a protection into an imaginary God ...

I respect their (your) opinion, but it's my point of view ;)

Took the words right out of my mouth.. :)

Despite the possible controversy I think I'll close this unless Xenon or Erwin decides to unlock it. Nothing--nothing--good ever happens with a religious debate.

I'm happy for this thread to be reopened. Mind our forum rules, and this thread will remain open. :) Religion threads are always controversial as they deal with the basic question of faith. The belief of an absence in God is just the same as the belief in the presence of God - both requires faith, because we do not know if God exists or not. The only way we know is if we know all there is to know in this universe. If you do not know 100% of all there is to know in this universe, then you can never say he exists or he doesn't. It's a matter of faith. :)

Agreed, its a matter of yourself, and mostly how you are brought up. People say god created earth and stuff, scientists say that the Big Bang created...whatever. They say the big-band occured due to many gases forming together or something, so I ask them, where did those gas come from? Where did they original from? They can't just be there, and if they answer that, trust me when I say, I can question there "hypothesis" til they drop.

I am infact a strong believer, but will not go as far as to anhilate another race for there disbelief in my religion, or others beliefs in their religion. I will not attack another person for there beliefs, or even have disbelief in others religion. I think god is god, no matter what religion, race, skin colour..no mater anything, god will always be god, its a sense of faith, as Erwin stated before, but there will always be strong belief in god by many people, more than those of Science, it cannot be taken out.

I actually think scientists should stop trying to prove god does not exist, and work on finding cures for cancer and other diseases, and it seems more of a better use for there talents.

Also to those who have strong belief in science, and want to challenge me in the "creation of the universe field" feel free too, with only one question I can assure you 100% that the Big-Bang theory does not have ample proof of its origination.

I believe that people use religion as a cover-up to life's unanswered questions.

Or they use god's and demons to hide their lack of knowledge (no offence).

I think religion leads to more fighting in the world than anything else. Take catholics and prosetents, terrible things happened thier.

Also, I agree with grog6's statement:)

i dont think anything ever has come of religion besides something to cling onto
even today the wars going on its about religion to some people
false propaganda used to make feel obligated by religion, if u know whats wrong and right its not religion that will do it, its ur own faith in god, cuz religion can often contradict itself

In the old days when no one knew any better, they would just have wars conquer and spread there faith,
and it seems to be reocurring

Religion just basically brings people hope... And hope brings them a will to survive. I will agree with you, though, Religion usually brings military conflict. People say they're not racist or they don't prejudice other ethnic groups or religions, but deep down, they think their own is slightly better, and that's a reason to be right there.

People who have no real religious faith think like this, or when they are brought up being told, muslims are bad, hindus are bad, catholics are bad etc.

The problems are not grown inside, they are put in by influence, belief in religion does not mean fighting, its when you are taught this way, that your race is better than another, or when some problems occur in your life, and it happens to be a person of another religion, they use hate as a sense of belief that its not there fault.

Then explain to me the origin of God.

I cannot, I did not say anywhere I could, again as Erwin said above its a choice of faith, and I was brought up with religion, I neither doubt it, nor know how to prove it, just know its there, and continue to believe in it.

An interesting idea i had today whilst watching the news. I saw muslims protesting in manchester (a british city) today saying that the war was against muslims. How is the war against muslims? They are using their religion as an excuse to vent frustration? This I do not agree with. The war is clearly about liberating the iraqi people (despite what others may think about the oil and such). Yet these people say its a war against the muslim religion.

This is what annoys me the most....

- miSt

Sometimes some people get farfetched ideas, and get influenced by others, Im sure you've heard of peer presure? Like that of above, war against muslims, that is farfetched, I am sure they notice if U.S does win, if they plan to go back to their homeland, they will live in a country of freedom and choice.

That's the problem though. A muslims home is where they are - i have no problem with muslims living in this country. But they refuse to accept that its their home. Even if a muslim was born in Britain many don't deem themselves British. Just for the record im only using muslims as an example as that's what i heard on this radio broadcast last month :)

- miSt

Or as I said, they are being influenced, and it has crowded their sense of decision. I am taking those group of muslims you have mentioned from the radio broadcast. Also it may be sense of pride(nationalism).

I have many muslim friends, none of which act like this.

Ah, but you did say:

So, assuming that "they can't just be there", God can't "just be there" either.

Ok, think about this:

The bible was supposedly written by the 12 apostles, right?

How much would you believe of a book written by 12 guys sitting around drinking wine all the time?

Don't you honestly believe there were a few "hey, let's put this in there since we don't know the real answer" or "I [high]think[/high] this is how it happened" passages? And where is all of the information on Jesus from the time he was 18 until he was 33? Makes you wonder with what they left out, what they didn't put in and why. ;)

Maybe you just indirectly assumed that. But related to the faith topic, it is a choice, and people refer to god for answers to stuff Science just cannot answer. People have a belief in god as creator of all, it gives people sense of happiness, and security. (This may not always abe a good thing)

How about lets put it this way, those who want to believe in god and religion, do whatever, if you don't, do whatever, we don't want to hear anyones thoughts.

Be realistic, this debate will go on forever, because both I and others are not willing to giveup, and I am sure you are not willing to give up.

Take this convo, I had with a fellow, who wasn't so bright, he was not able to get past my 3rd question.

[quoteHow was the universe created?
-The Big bang

How did the Big Bang Occur
-Certain chemical particles, came together (or something)

Where did these chemical, particles or whatever you say it is come from?
-They just exist there, and scientists say so

Do Scientists have Proof?
-Yes

Get it
-No[/quote]
If anyone can provide proof, maybe I will believe that this occurance of mixing chemicals and whatever created chemicals, but it will not change the fact that I will still believe in god.

Many people choose to believe in god, even when there is substantial proof of one thing. Remember that belief in a Religion, dates back looooooonger than any science, and science back then was based on religion.

i wont debate much as i have strong faith but i think that everything has a creator, i mean who created all this? was it just there? i dunno

anyways, imma muslim myself and i dont hate ppl or think this war is against islam

those ppl who protest are angry at the US for supporting israel and think its an invasion on iraq

i dont think that iraq is a real threat but i think that saddam should be removed by any means possible so i kinda support the war

oops, i went off topic...back on topic XD :glasses:

@Disturbed, I love your avatar and signature :p

As we said, those who do protest have been influenced by something, and as you cleared up, it is mainly by the thought that US supports Israel.

I am going to take some time today to read up on teh feud between Iraqis and Israelies, some Muslims and Hindus, and report back on anything else I find.

Maybe you should look up the word "debate" in the dictionary. Just because someone doesn't necessarily believe the way you do, their "thoughts" (as you put it) are as relevant as anyone else's, including yours. That's what debating is all about.

Show me proof of what you say exists and I will believe. Faith and proof are totally different. You believe because it makes it easier to accept what you cannot change. And easier to accept the unexplainable. ;)

Debating sometimes gets out of hand ;) My wording was not clear, but thats what I was hinting at.

The unexplainable is usually pointed at religion, but there are thousands of other reasons for belief in god, not just because you do not understand something. At the end it the word choice rolls up to your door steps.

Do you want to believe in Religion, or do you wish to believe in Science.

The talk of religion reminds me of Dragon's Teeth.

Its a greek mythology (not sure). But anyhow, to make a long story short, dragon was of enormous power who started many wars. Then several nations gathered together and killed the dragon.

What happened was the teeth fell into the ground and became water so that fighting would continue

As for the big bang theory, I find it personally hard to believe something of that magnitude would occur.

Let me explain.
I'll be refering to this book: (Evolution: a theory in crisis."
by Michael Denton) (Non-Religious)

Organisms and watches are similar because both are complex and have many co-operating parts. But they differ also in many ways. For example watches are made of glass and metal, and organisms are not. This is not a relevant difference. Relevant for the validity of Paley's analogy are properties bearing on the questions 'Where did this object come from?' or 'How was it produced?'. The following properties are relevant for the validity of the watchmaker analogy:

Watches don't reproduce
Watches don't have heredity
Watches don't have mutations

Typical for artefacts, a watch is produced from raw materials by external forces. Watches don't self-assemble. Watches don't descend from other watches. There are no father and mother watches, no baby watches. Every single watch we encounter is necessarily produced by external forces because watches are unable to reproduce themselves. Obviously watches need a watchmaker!
We know today that organisms reproduce and self-assemble on the basis of internal information (DNA). Watches don't have internal self-descriptive hereditary information. The instructions to manufacture a watch are located outside the watch, which explains why they cannot reproduce themselves. The properties reproduction and heredity tell us how living individuals come into existence. This is not a superficial difference, but a fundamental difference.

To my surprise Paley proposed designed, self-reproducing watches (10) and concluded that his design inference was reinforced. He was right that self-reproducing watches are a more powerful design. And he was right that self-reproduction is not an 'ultimate' explanation, because self-reproduction was designed by the watchmaker and not by the watch itself. Now my point is that if self-reproducing watches are a more powerful design strategy, then creating the first form of life and let it evolve into all the million of species, is certainly a far more powerful design method. Furthermore, designing the laws of nature and creating the initial conditions of the Big Bang must be the most powerful creation method. Paley wrote his book before Darwin's Origin of Species. If he had known about natural selection, then only the religious dogma of the fixity of species (biblical 'special creation') could prevent that one species could originate from another species. And the whole point of his analogy was to prove a Designer without relying on revealed religious knowledge. (11)
=========

No "offense," but this is simply the most retarded thing i've read. At least get the facts before you make stupid posts.

The bible was written by

40 Authors
Spanning appx 1600 years

NOT 12 guys drinking wine together.

The bible contains everything that we were meant to read. Where was moses the entire "climb" up mount sinai, do we read every single step? Of course not. Simply because we are not told of Jesus's every birthday in exact detail does not mean stuff was "left out"

I'm tired of hearing people talk about the fact there can't be a god because of world suffering and all that.

Do some people have long hair? Yes. Does that mean barbors don't exist? Of course not. Those people simply haven't gone to see a barbor. It's the same with God. People choose to go to him and others do not.

Don't start insulting people or this thread will be locked and key participants banned, if you get my drift.

Just because you don't agree, doesn't make it "retarded" as you put it. And your so-called facts are no more provable than anyone else's. The bible is about faith and whether you want to have faith in that. That's all it is. If you want to believe, so you can try to make sense of all the crap that happens in our lives, then go for it. That's your choice.

first, i am honored to have "drifted" into a role as a "key participant" as filburt1 said.

second, what does "and your so called facts" are no more provable than anyone else's mean?

this isn't garbled junk. it's fact (i'm not saying the contents, but the historical facts of dates written)

thoughrout non-biblical history there is writings and documentations by and about the authors of the books. flavious wrote of paul and peter for example, outside the biblical realm, in his own writings. the bible wasn't a journel entry from 12 drunks...it is an inspired compilation of 40 authors and HISTORICALLY spans 1600 years. You can debate any of it's contents to your will, but dont' debate the way the contents came about...unless you want to say they spanned 1599 years or 1601...i can live with that.

here are some images that some may want to see

1st peter

just historical finding images

most recent find
http://www.lamblion.com/popup/photo-004.html

I want to ask one question and then I will leave this alone. Were you there for any of the so called events you claim are fact? Or are you going by what someone said happened? I'm done.

did you fight in the civil war?

There's photographic evidence that it happened.

Thank you, filburt. ;)

photographic evidence? of the civil war?

what about the war for independance?

point is you base it off historical findings and documetns.

no document has been translated more closely than the bible. if you want to say something isn't reliable, try your history books...which vary edition to edition....country to country

the bible is the same now as it was in 1611...

Of course there's no photographic evidence of that, but it's a generally believed fact that it happened.

(Yes, I know you're going to turn that right around.)

a generally believed fact

can someone say "oxymoron"

---

look i'm only giving this a hard time because the honest researcher knows the validity of the bible. maybe not in there hearts, but at minimum the simple historical validity. just as an honest researcher can prove the civil war happened without video tape of it.