Have you ever just "lost it"?

[MDS]

No one who has not been through such an ordeal can fully appreciate the anguish of it. To take such a terrible event lightly, as proven by;
...
is dreadful in itself. It is completely unrelated to whether or not one has faith or not.

It is a terrible thing to say.

Regards

You should take Clint's advice and not infer things that were not stated. I was not discounting the anguish that the guy was facing nor taking it lightly. I would not wish such a fate on anyone, ever. Period.

It IS directly related to whether or not one has faith and that is what I commented on. Just like TheDukester has said repeatedly, one that has faith believes in an all powerful, omnisicient and omnipresent god and that everything happens for a reason under his control. If you do believe that then it is logical to conclude that god chose to take the unborn child. The minister chose to accept that as god's will that should not be questioned; therefore, my saying 'god did not see fit to give the couple the greatest gift' is simply restating what the minister already believes.

 

[Buckle-meister]

.....Buckle-Meister, what exactly is the political structure of Scotland?.....

Messy. Verrrrrrrry messy!

Regards

 

[Pyrrho]

Religion only sells false hope if it is proven to be a fallacy.

...religion sells a false hope if it is really false.

Um, aren't they the same statement?

Regards

No. Something can be false without being proven to be false.

For an illustration: Suppose I were to tell you that I drive a Ford. However, in your position, far away on the internet, not knowing who I am, you are not likely to be in a position to either prove or disprove the claim. Yet the statement "Pyrrho drives a Ford" is either true, or it is false. Whether you will ever know which it is is irrelevant to whether it is true or false. Whether or not I actually drive a Ford is what makes the statement either true or false. If I do not actually drive a Ford, it is false. Your inability to prove that it is false does not affect its falsity.

So, religion sells a false hope if it really is false. Whether anyone actually proves that it is false or not is irrelevant to whether or not it is false.

Edited to add:

Except, of course, if it is really proven to be false, then it is false. But something can be false without being proven to be false. And someone can believe that something is proven without it really being proven.

 

[ironlung]

Wait a minute!!

.....Buckle-Meister, what exactly is the political structure of Scotland?.....

Don't try and take this thread off topic. Ummmm.........

 

[Buckle-meister]

You should take Clint's advice and not infer things that were not stated.

Perhaps. The problem with forums is that we all lose two rather important senses which enable us to coverge to an accurate interpretation of what exactly a person did or did not mean by their words.

The problem isn't that things weren't stated; they were. The problem was that I seemingly misinterpreted.

...my saying 'god did not see fit to give the couple the greatest gift' is simply restating what the minister already believes.

I have no issue with this. It was the:

So I guess...

that, at least to me, gave a completely different interpretation.

If I have wronged you, I apologise.

Regards

 

[ironlung]

No. Something can be false without being proven to be false.

For an illustration: Suppose I were to tell you that I drive a Ford. However, in your position, far away on the internet, not knowing who I am, you are not likely to be in a position to either prove or disprove the claim. Yet the statement "Pyrrho drives a Ford" is either true, or it is false. Whether you will ever know which it is is irrelevant to whether it is true or false. Whether or not I actually drive a Ford is what makes the statement either true or false. If I do not actually drive a Ford, it is false. Your inability to prove that it is false does not affect its falsity.

So, religion sells a false hope if it really is false. Whether anyone actually proves that it is false or not is irrelevant to whether or not it is false.

Edited to add:

Except, of course, if it is really proven to be false, then it is false. But something can be false without being proven to be false. And someone can believe that something is proven without it really being proven.

Someone so reasonable would NEVER decide to drive a Ford.

 

[Buckle-meister]

No. Something can be false without being proven to be false.

Ok. My mistake. I see the distinction you were making. Hey, I knew what I meant to say!

Clearly you are correct; something is (seeing as acute word accuracy scores bonus points!) false without necessarily being proven to be false. However, if something is false, given sufficient time and resources, one would expect it to be proven false.

Regards

 

[Pyrrho]

Ok. My mistake. I see the distinction you were making. Hey, I knew what I meant to say!

Clearly you are correct; something is (seeing as acute word accuracy scores bonus points!) false without necessarily being proven to be false. However, if something is false, given sufficient time and resources, one would expect it to be proven false.

Regards

One should not necessarily expect proof in all cases. (If I wanted to sound educated, I would go on about Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem, and how it can be proven that there are things that cannot be proven, but I'll use more homely examples instead. But if you are interested, you can start at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel's_incompleteness_theorem ) Your conditions, "given sufficient time and resources" are such that many things can be ruled out. For example, suppose a proof would take a thousand years. Such a proof, started now, would do neither you nor I any good at all. Additionally, some proofs may take more resources than the entire world has, or require technology that no one has. And it can be simple questions, such as, how many atoms are in the universe at this moment? Let us suppose that the correct answer is X (though we do not know this number). Suppose someone were to claim that the universe contained X + 1000 atoms, which they give as a numerical value instead of the expression I used. We could not begin to prove or disprove the claim. Or suppose I were to claim that there is a piece of gold in the center of the earth's moon that is in the shape of a dog. Right now, it would be impossible to prove it to be either true or false, though we might reasonably suspect, first, that I could have no way of knowing what I claim, and second, that as it is not what one would expect to find, it is unlikely that it is true that there is a piece of gold in the center of the moon in the shape of a dog. (Applying this same idea to matters of religion, we can say that most people are probably not in a position to know that their religion is true, and, as all religions, prior to examination, are equally likely, and all contradict each other so they cannot all be true, and as there are infinitely many possible religions, each claim made in favor of a particular religion is most likely false.)

Additionally, someone may prove something, but the proof may not be available to others. To use my earlier example, my wife has considerable evidence regarding what I drive, and she may be said to have a proof regarding the truth-value of the statement, "Pyrrho drives a Ford." However, the fact that she knows what I drive (or don't drive) is irrelevant to you knowing what I do or do not drive. It may be, for example, that an adequate proof has been given regarding your particular religion, but if you (or I) are not aware of it, it does nothing for us. What can be said on this, however, is that there are people who have claimed that they can prove Christianity to be true, and there are those who have claimed that they can prove Christianity to be false. The fact that there is disagreement on the subject does not tell us that everyone who makes such a claim is wrong. The matter may be adequately proven, but if you never read the proof, it will not do you any good. Additionally, a proof might be available, and yet someone may not understand it or otherwise accept it. This does not make the matter any less proven, though it is not "proved to that person's satisfaction".

On all controversial matters, I recommend reading a variety of opinions, from people who all disagree with each other, and consider the reasoning employed by each. Then, after careful consideration, make a judgment. Of course, I know full well that most people will never do this, as many are too lazy, many are too stupid, and many do not see the reason why it is a good idea to question the prejudices they already have. Many people feel quite certain about things that, not only they do not know, but they could not possibly know them to be true. This can be easily seen when considering religious belief; the vast majority of people in the world MUST be wrong in matters of religion, because, no matter what one believes, MOST people in the world disagree. And as one cannot really prove that a falsehood is true, most people could not possibly prove that their religion is true, because most religions must be false, because they all contradict each other, so, AT MOST, one religion is true, so only one religion could possibly be proven to be true (though, as said before, they could all be false, and it may or may not be possible to prove that they are all false).

 

[mulester7]

.....guys, there's only one way Jesus Christ can be proven, and it comes not, from reasoning....sure, there's solid evidence that He existed in that Eastern region at that time, but we weren't there, were we?.....let me assure you....before this life is over, you WILL, CRY OUT, in EARNEST, to Him.....you cannot have an encounter with Him unless He deems it, and I believe with all my heart, THAT He deems it, for every human past accountability....St. John 3:16 says, "that WHOSOEVER believeth in Him, should not perish".....and, "whosoever will, may come", is referenced in a different account of the Four Gospels.....

.....guys, youngsters think they've got plenty of time to dabble wherever, forever, but let me assure you, a day of decision cometh....I say, save yourselves years of running into brick walls, possibly losing things-precious along the way, that didn't need to be lost, and try His Way....God demands our attention sometimes for our own good, it would seem.....

.....too many guys are honestly brought to an encounter, make a commitment, and God, "THROUGH", The Lord Jesus, does His/Their part, They ALWAYS do Their part, and the guy does, splat, "nothing"....he doesn't commit to reading his Bible every day, and being led by the Holy Spirit in earnest prayer....it's GOT to be a relationship with two way conversation....without it, the plane never leaves the ground, and here's the evidence....others, and let's say loved ones, must notice "change" in the new Christian....it's scriptural that "change", must be noticed.....and, it's scriptural that we attend Church, as to be a part of "The Body", and recieve spiritual renewal....the exact words are "forsake not the assembling of yourselves together".....

.....Guys, I love you all, and this is THE BEST I can give you....I believe EVERYTHING, in this life, is a choice....and I believe ALL, in this age of communication, even unto the African Bush country and Polar regions, have received The Message, and are now standing in accountability.....

.....I most firmly believe, "whosoever will, may come".....and I equally believe, ALL, are destined for an encounter with Jesus Christ before leaving this Earth, having heard, as each, must choose......

 

[Tomorrow]

Pretty interesting thread here.

I notice some 'Anti's' statements aren't being addressed...e.g. the issue of multiple religions and which one is 'right' or represents the 'truth'. But then it's a difficult job to prove the unprovable. The 'Anti's' also tend to use some dead-end logic. For example, all religions actually CAN simultaneously represent the 'truth'...in the scientific world of quantum physics by applying the Heisenberg Principle.

To honor my friend Occum and his delightful razor lemme say that the existence of a god cannnot be proven, nor can it be disproven. That's why religions are 'faith' based. You either have faith, or you don't. There is no quad erat demonstatum. (That was for my friend Alandamp. j/k.) Yeah, you caught me. I have 'faith' in parsimony.

One thing that does tear at my gut, though, is the fact that organized religions in general have been the center piece of many a war and have caused millions of deaths over the centuries. Buckle can tell you about his Catholic/Christian neighbors in Ireland. How about the Middle East and those crazy kids in turbans and their neighbors in Israel?! Catholics...man they have sponsored more wars than the U.S. Christians...yep...wiped out those they called "savages"...native Americans and almost wiped out a few other civilizations. And let's not forget the Muslims and Hindis squaring off over Kashmir. And on and on......

I do not trust the 'true believer', no matter the cause.

 

[Pyrrho]

.....guys, there's only one way Jesus Christ can be proven, and it comes not, from reasoning....sure, there's solid evidence that He existed in that Eastern region at that time, but we weren't there, were we?.....let me assure you....before this life is over, you WILL, CRY OUT, in EARNEST, to Him.....you cannot have an encounter with Him unless He deems it, and I believe with all my heart, THAT He deems it, for every human past accountability....St. John 3:16 says, "that WHOSOEVER believeth in Him, should not perish".....and, "whosoever will, may come", is referenced in a different account of the Four Gospels.....

.....guys, youngsters think they've got plenty of time to dabble wherever, forever, but let me assure you, a day of decision cometh....I say, save yourselves years of running into brick walls, possibly losing things-precious along the way, that didn't need to be lost, and try His Way....God demands our attention sometimes for our own good, it would seem.....

.....too many guys honestly brought to an encounter, make a commitment, and God, "THROUGH", The Lord Jesus, does His/Their part, They ALWAYS do Their part, and the guy does, splat, "nothing"....he doesn't commit to reading his Bible every day, and being led by the Holy Spirit in earnest prayer....it's GOT to be a relationship with two way conversation....without it, the plane never leaves the ground, and here's the evidence....others, and let's say loved ones, must notice change in the new Christian....it's scriptual that change, will be noticed.....and, it's scriptural that we attend Church, as to be a part of "The Body" and spiritual renewal....the exact words are "forsake not the assembling of yourselves together".....

.....Guys, I love you all, and this is THE BEST I can give you....I believe EVERYTHING, in this life, is a choice....and I believe ALL, in this age of communication, even unto the African Bush country and Polar regions, have received the Message, and are now standing in accountability.....

.....I most firmly believe, "whosoever will, may come".....and I equally believe, ALL, are destined for an encounter with Jesus Christ before leaving this Earth, having heard, as each, must choose......

People have said the same kinds of things about other religions. It is, however, interesting, that many claim that God made us, in His image, with the ability to reason, though, strangely, many say that we should not exercise that God-given ability when considering religious matters. Of course, with every false religion, it is quite understandable that those who advocate it would not want us to reason about it, but of a true religion, no one could possibly prove it to be false. With every false religion, the command to simply believe makes sense, since it would be impossible to prove that they are true, and one might discover that they are really false. But if your religion is really true, why do you fear a careful and impartial examination of it?

 

[Pyrrho]

Pretty interesting thread here.

I notice some 'Anti's' statements aren't being addressed...e.g. the issue of multiple religions and which one is 'right' or represents the 'truth'. But then it's a difficult job to prove the unprovable. The 'Anti's' also tend to use some dead-end logic. For example, all religions actually CAN simultaneously represent the 'truth'...in the scientific world of quantum physics by applying the Heisenberg Principle.

It may be that every religion is true in part, or that it points to some other thing aside from itself that is true, but it cannot be that they are all true in all of their tenets. To give an example, most religions claim that it is false that Jesus was the son of God, though Christians, typically, claim that it is true. They cannot be both right. And within Christianity, is the pope God's representative on earth? Typically, Catholics say he is, and Protestants say he is not. They cannot both be right.

To honor my friend Occum and his delightful razor lemme say that the existence of a god cannnot be proven, nor can it be disproven.

You wouldn't care to prove your claim that the existence of God cannot be proven one way or the other, would you?

That's why religions are 'faith' based. You either have faith, or you don't. There is no quad erat demonstatum. (That was for my friend Alandamp. j/k.) Yeah, you caught me. I have 'faith' in parsimony.

One thing that does tear at my gut, though, is the fact that organized religions in general have been the center piece of many a war and have caused millions of deaths over the centuries. Buckle can tell you about his Catholic/Christian neighbors in Ireland. How about the Middle East and those crazy kids in turbans and their neighbors in Israel?! Catholics...man they have sponsored more wars than the U.S. Christians...yep...wiped out those they called "savages"...native Americans and almost wiped out a few other civilizations. And let's not forget the Muslims and Hindis squaring off over Kashmir. And on and on......

I do not trust the 'true believer', no matter the cause.

Indeed, religious beliefs are a significant contributor to people's actions, and that is why it is important that people be careful about such things. They kill and torture each other because they feel certain about their beliefs. Too bad they do not put more care into how they acquire their beliefs before they act upon them.

 

[mulester7]

Of course, with every false religion, it is quite understandable that those who advocate it would not want us to reason about it, but of a true religion, no one could possibly prove it to be false.

.....we're dealing with what to our minds is the Supernatural, Pyrrho....and we have been told our way is likened to looking through a glass darkly....there is no reasoning it out.....excellent thoughts, RJBudz....it's a walk of faith, that we'll all receive an invitation to join....some, could use some Bible reading asking "God", that's all you gotta' say, for GUIDANCE to be, where He would have you, to be....as The Dukester pointed out, some of the strongest Christians of this modern era, set out initially to DISPROVE Him....boys, this ain't the time to seek tournament by post....let's be real or let's be silent.....this is the most important discussion we could be having.....

 

[Buckle-meister]

If I wanted to sound educated, I would go on about Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem...

Would that make you sound educated?

...my wife has considerable evidence regarding what I drive, and she may be said to have a proof regarding the truth-value of the statement, "Pyrrho drives a Ford." However, the fact that she knows what I drive (or don't drive) is irrelevant to you knowing what I do or do not drive.

The fact that your wife knows you drive a Ford is not irrelevant, and is not the same as two people who have proved and disproved a particular religion respectively. In the former case, your wife knows a truth, and nothing I think or do can refute that. In the latter, there may only be one answer, in which case only one person can be correct, or, there may be two answers which, although seemingly at odds with each other, are in fact compatible. Sorta like Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle (does this out Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem? ) if you like.

Regards

EDIT: Damnit Rjbudz! You've stolen all my intelligence!

 

[Buckle-meister]

But if your religion is really true, why do you fear a careful and impartial examination of it?

Who does?

Regards

 

[Tomorrow]

EDIT: Damnit Rjbudz! You've stolen all my intelligence!

....and all the while you thought that sucking sound was your subwoofer malfunctioning! Twas my SuperIntelligenceNabber (SIN)!

 

[Buckle-meister]

....and all the while you thought that sucking sound was your subwoofer malfunctioning! Twas my SuperIntelligenceNabber (SIN)!

Clever. Only problem is, I aint super intelligent.
































I'm super duper pooper skooper intelligent!

Regards

 

[Tomorrow]

Clever. Only problem is, I aint super intelligent.
I'm super duper pooper skooper intelligent!

Regards

Any country, and by inference, any person from that country, that has invented golf and scotch whiskey is either quite intelligent OR quite looney. I'm not sure which. (I'll tell ya if I ever break par or turn into an alcoholic.)

 

[racquetman]

Alright, I just spent something like 2 hours reading all the posts on this thread (guess I should have started earlier), so you better believe I'm going to post something.

There are a lot of opinions on god and faith and sexuality and the sort, but our opinions are nothing but our own opinions. You and I are one of a few billion people on the planet so it would be pretty arrogant for anyone of us to sit here and tell someone else we are right and they are wrong.

Why are each of you so convinced you are correct? As was pointed out by at least one person, you believe what you believe mainly because that is what you were taught to believe - maybe it was from your parents or a neighbor or a teacher turned you on to a particular religion or whatever. Had you been born in India or Somalia or Chile or somewhere else, you could easily be arguing against the points you are making now. Geography, opportunities, and life experiences have played a large role in determining what each of us believe. That doesn't mean we are wrong and it doesn't mean that we're right.

Why can't each of us just be happy with our own beliefs? Why do we feel the need to make others believe as we do? If you feel like you won't go to heaven unless you take everything in the bible literally then that's fine with me. But why push that mindset on someone else? Do you need someone else to support your viewpoint before you actually believe it?

I'm just trying to understand why so many intelligent people argue their religious views so adamantly. Don't we realize that it's futile? If another's belief system can be swayed so easily then I'm afraid it's time for them to drink the purple Kool Aid. Nothing any of you say is likely to influence my religious convictions in the least and I'm sure most if not all of you feel the same.

If anyone can explain why we feel the need to behave this way, please enlighten me. I'm trying to look at this from a human behavior standpoint.

 

[shokhead]

This is not going to sound good and i could be wrong but it seems for the most part if you dont belive,well ok. If you do, it seems alot that do want everybody else to. I know nobody has ever come to my door to recruit me not to belive,only to go to there church and belive in there god. Try to just say no thanks. It never gets me far. Again,if you want to belive,thats fine but let me not belive if thats what i want. I could change.