Punkie

...okay...firstly...don't mock anyone for their beliefs...don't judge people by them...I just want to see what people believe and why...If anyone does start taking the piss Im just going to lock the thread.

Personally...I don't believe that there is any sort of "higher power" at all.

Religion IMHO was invented to try and establish a control over people and to make their lives "easier to live" because they would be living by a set of "rules"

Religion really does have little or no place in modern society because we have our own laws, rules and regulations set out to us by those bodies in power.

If there was such a thing as God, Allah any higher power...I dont think they would let innocent people go through as much shit as they do.

Lambchop

iTrader: (1)

I personaly think religion is a pile of shite.

Thank you please.

Punkie

Care to back up why they are a "fool"? I didnt want people to start name calling and pisstaking on this one...

JohnnyB

escosracer, bang on

R5FORD

iTrader: (1)

i belive in god.

JohnnyB

OK R5FORD, could you prove to me he exists ?

Jay,

iTrader: (4)

there is no proof there is a god ! and when say this to a religous person there imediate responce is well in the bible blar blar blar , well who's says thte geezer who wrote this book wasnt a nutter or was just at the wind up

R5FORD

iTrader: (1)

no i cant prove it mate.. its just what iv bene through which makes me belive.

Jay,

iTrader: (4)

my nan said to me when i was about 14 god makes u pay for you sins my reply i best start robbing banks now then

CossieRich

iTrader: (1)

its amzing how some mad man's ramblings in a book have affected so many people that they swear by it and try to live their life according to it. Madness

Jay,

iTrader: (4)

scientists can prove evolution but cant prove there was a god ! good enough for me

Punkie

See I dont think a "madman" created these holy books...I genuinely think they were created to try and keep order in communities and to try and give people guidelines to live their life by in a non forceful manner.

As time has gone on...people have taken these ideas to stupid extremes and the original concept of the "religion" is no longer valid.

alan12112

As a man of facts and figures I can't justify there being a supreme being but there are so many unanswered questions it would be wrong for me to say there is or there isn't

I do realise that certain books such as the bible or the quaran can be quite easy to follow and they have alot of good ideals i.e be good to thy neighbour etc it's just that there are so many things wrong with the bible that it can't be true!! And plus to me it just seems like a system of control - be good now or spend forever burning in hell

Then you get on to the topic of what do you define as a religion?

Do you just say it's about having certain ideals and beliefs? religion isn't definativly about the search of a higher power for example some people believe in Karma which is a concept in Hinduism (IIRC) which is the effect of your deeds effect your future experiances - which does make sense in a lot of ways but not definitivly!!

It all depends on how you see 'religion' IMO you can believe what you want aslong as you dont force your ideals on to others and are peaceful in your expressions of 'religion', I do however think that there is a need for it in modern day society, with lots of people getting more and more worried about debt and various diseases and losses of loved ones etc is there any harm in giving them hope that they may see another loved one once they to leave this world? NO is the answer to that NO!!

One last thing before I go cos I know i've been waffling on for quite a while now - as a man of facts I can seeno factual proof of god but there is no way I can even think that when i'm old and grey and I shut my eyes for that final time that nothing happens - TBH I can't even comprehend that!

BTW I know there are a million spelling mistakes in the above so here is one for all of them (SP)

Lee Ivatt

iTrader: (1)

I had a massive thread on this a few weeks back
https://passionford.com/forum/showth...ight=lee+ivatt

with philosophical arguments that can prove that god is simply an idealology.

when i studied A level philosophy i was far too young and stoned to really understand/take it in. i mean it all made sence, but then when your a stoned teenager you can make anything impossible real and simple things like getting you head around someone riding a bike or the imense flavour of a mars bar can be mind blowing

during the 2 years 1 year was theology 'the study of religion and its existance'. Now im older but maby not wiser. im begining to become intrested in this subject.

Why, well Religion is, dare i say one of the major root causes of all wars and suffering.

myself being an atheist, im intrested to see why people are religious, my theory is rather than a core belief in a god, their belief lies in the fundamentals of their chosen religion. or in otherwords religion is more a way of life/ a club/ a social path.

I understand religion to some people is very important, and id like to keep this thread open minded and aware that people do have different views. so this demands respect.

THE ARGUMENTS FOR THE EXISTANCE OF GOD

Over the centuries, there have been many attempts by religious philosophers to prove the existence of God, and a canon of classic arguments has been developed. Not all of these arguments have their origins in Christian philosophy; Jewish and Muslim philosophers have made significant contributions to the philosophy of religion, and both Plato and Aristotle have influenced its development.
Recent decades have seen a rise in interest in natural theology and the philosophy of religion. Each of the classic theistic proofs has been revived and refined, presented in revised form and defended afresh. Whether any of these arguments for the existence of God is successful, of course, remains controversial.
The theistic proofs section sets out to explain each of the common philosophical arguments for theism, and so to explore the case for the existence of God.
Arguments for the Existence of God

The arguments themselves are arranged under the following headings: Pascal’s Wager, The Ontological Argument, The Cosmological Argument (including the first cause argument), The Teleological Argument (i.e. the argument from design), The Moral Argument, Religious Experience and The Argument from Miracles.
There are, however, two preliminary issues to be dealt with: the God’s Intrinsic Probability, which will bear on the degree of suspicion with which we view the purported theistic proofs, and Reformed Epistemology, which holds that belief in God can be rational even if it cannot be supported by evidence.
Pascal’s Wager

Pascal’s Wager is an argument for belief in God based not on an appeal to evidence that God exists but rather based on an appeal to self-interest. It is in our interests to believe in God, the argument suggests, and it is therefore rational for us to do so.
The claim that it is in our interests to believe in God is supported by a consideration of the possible consequences of belief and unbelief. If we believe in God, the argument runs, then if he exists then we will receive an infinite reward in heaven while if he does not then we have lost little or nothing.
If we do not believe in God, the argument continues, then if he exists then we will receive an infinite punishment in hell while he does not then we will have gained little or nothing.
Either receiving an infinite reward in heaven or losing little or nothing is clearly preferable to either receiving an infinite punishment in hell or gaining little or nothing. It is therefore in our interests, and so rational, to believe in God.
The Ontological Argument

The The Ontological Argument is an argument that attempts to prove the existence of God through abstract reasoning alone. The argument begins with an explication of the concept of God. Part of what we mean when we speak of “God” is “perfect being”; that is what the word “God” means. A God that exists, of course, is better than a God that doesn’t. To speak of God as a perfect being is therefore to imply that he exists. If God’s perfection is a part of the concept of God, though, and if God’s perfection implies God’s existence, then God’s existence is implied by the concept of God. When we speak of “God” we cannot but speak of a being that exists. To say that God does not exist is to contradict oneself; it is literally to speak nonsense.
The Cosmological Argument

The The Cosmological Argument is the argument from the existence of the world or universe to the existence of a being that brought it into and keeps it in existence. It comes in two forms, one modal (having to do with possibility and the other temporal (having to do with time).
The modal cosmological argument, the argument from contingency, suggests that because the universe might not have existed (i.e. is contingent), we need some explanation of why it does. Whereever there are two possibilities, it suggests, something must determine which of those posibilities is realised. As the universe is contingent, then, there must be some reason for its existence; it must have a cause. In fact, the only kind of being whose existence requires no explanation is a necessary being, a being that could not have failed to exist. The ultimate cause of everything must therefore be a necessary being, such as God.
The temporal, kalam cosmological argument begins by arguing that the past is finite. The idea that the universe has an infinite past stretching back in time into infinity is, the argument notes, both philosophically and scientifically problematic; all indications are that there is a point in time at which the universe began to exist. This beginning must either have been caused or uncaused. It cannot have been uncaused, though, for the idea of an uncaused event is absurd; nothing comes from nothing. The universe must therefore have been brought into existence by something outside it. The kalam argument thus confirms one element of Christianity, the doctrine of Creation.
The Teleological Argument

The teleological argument is the argument from the order in the world to the existence of a being that created it with a specific purpose in mind. The universe is a highly complex system. The scale of the universe alone is astounding, and the natural laws that govern it perplex scientists still after generations of study. It is also, however, a highly ordered system; it serves a purpose. The world provides exactly the right conditions for the development and sustenance of life, and life is a valuable thing. That this is so is remarkable; there are numerous ways in which the universe might have been different, and the vast majority of possible universes would not have supported life. To say that the universe is so ordered by chance is therefore unsatisfactory as an explanation of the appearance of design around us. It is far more plausible, and far more probable, that the universe is the way it is because it was created by God with life in mind.
The Moral Argument

The moral argument is the argument from the existence or nature of morality to the existence of God. Two forms of moral argument are distinguished: formal and perfectionist.
The formal moral argument takes the form of morality to imply that it has a divine origin: morality consists of an ultimately authoritative set of commands; where can these commands have come from but a commander that has ultimate authority?
The perfectionist moral argument sets up a problem: how can it be that morality requires perfection of us, then morality cannot require of us more than we can give, but that we cannot be perfect? The only way to resolve this paradox, the argument suggests, is to posit the existence of God.
The Argument from Religious Experience

The argument from religious experience is the argument that personal religious experiences can prove God’s existence to those that have them. One can only perceive that which exists, and so God must exist because there are those that have experienced him. While religious experiences themselves can only constitute direct evidence of God’s existence for those fortunate enough to have them, the fact that there are many people who testify to having had such experiences constitutes indirect evidence of God’s existence even to those who have not had such experiences themselves.
The Argument from Miracles

The argument from miracles is the argument that the occurrence of miracles demonstrates both the existence of God and the truth of Christianity. If the Bible is to be believed, then Jesus’ ministry was accompanied by frequent miraculous signs that his claims and his teachings were endorsed by God the Father. His resurrection from the dead was, of course, the greatest of these, and is still taken by many today to be a solid foundation for their faith. Miracles typically involve the suspension of the natural operation of the universe as some supernatural event occurs. That can only happen, of course, given the existence of some supernatural being.



Arguments for Agnosticism
Agnosticism is the view that knowledge of whether or not God exists is unattainable, that we cannot be justified in believing either that God does exist or that he does not.
There are two approaches to arguing for this view: first, it can be argued that knowledge of God’s existence is unattainable because no evidence could ever justify religious belief, and second, it can be argued that knowledge of God’s existence is unattainable because evidence of God’s existence is unattainable. One argument of each kind is considered here.
The Argument from Uncertainty

The argument from uncertainty takes the fact that we cannot achieve certainty as to whether God exists as justification for agnosticism. Whatever evidence there is for theism and for atheism is fallible, the argument suggests, and therefore ought to be rejected. Of course, we accept fallible evidence as sufficient justification for many of our beliefs, so this argument will only be persuasive if there is some reason to require better evidence when answering religious questions than we require in these other cases. One possible reason for so doing is the importance of being right concerning the existence of God.
The Argument from Incomprehensibility

An alternative approach to arguing for agnosticism is the argument from incomprehensibility. Theists have often been content to say that we are unable to comprehend God, that his being transcends our mundane experiences and that our concepts, which are derived from such experiences, cannot be used to describe him. If true, then this might be thought to count in favour of agnosticism; if we cannot comprehend God, then how can we reason with any confidence concerning his existence?

Arguments for Atheism
Though the history of the philosophy of religion has been dominated by attempts to prove the existence of God, there also exist a number of arguments that seek to disprove theism. These range from a priori arguments that the concept of God is logically incoherent, to a posteriori arguments that the world is not the way that it would be if God existed. The atheistic proofs section surveys these arguments for atheism.


Arguments for Atheism

Within the Arguments for Atheism section, the arguments are arranged under the following headings: The Presumption of Atheism, The Problem of Evil, Problems with Omnipotence (including the paradox of the stone), Problems with Omniscience, Immortality, Heaven and Hell , Petitionary Prayer, The Argument from Autonomy, The Psychogenesis of Religion, and Religion and Memetics.
The Presumption of Atheism

Atheists often suggest that theirs is the default position, that there is a presumption of atheism. This places the burden of proof on the theist; if the theist is unable to make a persuasive case for the existence of God, then the atheist is justified in his atheism. The case for the presumption of atheism may be made in two ways, one resulting in a presumption of weak atheism, and the other in a presumption of strong atheism.
The Problem of Evil

The problem of evil is the problem of reconciling the existence of an omniscient, omnipotent and benevolent God with the existence of a world full of evil and suffering. If God is omniscient then he knows how to bring it about that there is neither evil nor suffering. If God is omnipotent then he is able to bring it about that there is neither evil nor suffering. If God is benevolent then he wants to bring it about that there is neither evil nor suffering. But if God knows how to, is able to and wants to bring it about that there is neither evil nor suffering, then why does he not do so? The simplest answer is that God does not do so because he does not exist. This is by far the most popular argument for atheism.
Problems With Divine Omnipotence

The doctrine of divine omnipotence is the doctrine that God is all-powerful. It is sometimes argued, however, that the concept of omnipotence is paradoxical, logically incoherent, and so that it is logically impossible that there be any being that is omnipotent. This position, if it can be sustained, precludes the existence of God.
Problems with Divine Omniscience

The doctrine of divine omniscience is the doctrine that God is all-knowing. The doctrine of divine omniscience, though, faces several philosophical objections; there are a number of arguments in the philosophy of religion that purport to demonstrate that God cannot possibly know everything. These include arguments that the doctrine of divine omniscience is logically incoherent, that it is inconsistent with the further Christian doctrine of divine impeccability (i.e. the doctrine that God cannot sin), and that it is refuted by the fact of human freedom. If any of these arguments is successful, then there can be no omniscient God.
Problems with Immortality

Even if we can make sense of the justice of heaven and hell, there remains a further problem: immortality. Death, by definition, involves the destruction of a person; if a person is not destroyed by death then they did not die. Once destroyed, though, it is unclear whether a person can be recreated. It is possible, no doubt, for there to be a subsequent person, like to them in every respect, but there is no reason to think that that will be the very same person that died, rather than merely a replica of them.
Problems with Divine Justice

The doctrine of divine justice is also subject to criticism. First of all, it appears to conflict with the idea that God is forgiving. A just God sees that each person gets what he or she deserves; a forgiving God sees that some people’s sins go unpunished. Second, the Christian view of heaven and hell appear in many ways to be unjust. Hell, for instance, appears to inflict an infinitely great punishment upon those who are sent there. How, though, can any finite sin deserve infinite punishment? Just punishments and rewards are proportionate to the badness or goodness of the person that deserves them. Heaven and hell though, are all or nothing. They therefore cannot be just.
Petitionary Prayer

A further doctrinal problem with Christianity concerns petitionary prayer, prayer in which we request (petition) that God do something for us. God’s omniscience implies that he will already have taken all of the information about our needs and desires into account when deciding what to do. His benevolence implies that he will act in our best interests unless there is a good reason not to (and if there is such a reason, our prayers will not remove it). Prayer, then, should never change God’s mind; petitionary prayer shouldn’t ever work.
The Argument from Autonomy

The argument from autonomy is the argument that the existence of morally autonomous agents is inconsistent with the existence of God, and so that the fact that morally autonomous agents do exist disproves the existence of God. God, if he exists, is worthy of worship. If a being is truly worthy of worship, though, then he is entitled to our unconditional obedience. Moral agents, however, cannot be required to give unconditional obedience to any agent. Moral agency requires autonomy, and so the idea of a moral duty to give up one’s autonomy is incoherent; in giving up one’s autonomy one would cease to be a moral agent so would cease to have moral duties at all. We cannot, therefore, have a duty of unconditional obedience to any agent, and there therefore cannot be any agent that worthy of worship. There can therefore be no God.
The Psychogenesis of Religion

The psychology of religion seeks to explain how patterns of thought in the human mind give rise to religious belief, to give a naturalistic account of religion based on human psychology. Psychology is thus used to explain away religious belief. The most influential critics of religion to have used this approach are Ludwig Feuerbach and Sigmund Freud.
Religion and Memetics

A final critique of religion comes from the field of memetics, and the suggestion that there is a God meme. Memetics seeks to apply the theory of evolution not to biological organisms but to ideas. Ideas, like animals, replicate themselves and compete for survival. The same process of natural selection that ensures that only the fittest animals survive will therefore also ensure that only the fittest ideas survive. Fitness of ideas, though, need not be a guide to truth; fitness is simply the ability to survive and reproduce. If the memetic critique of religion is right, then the success of religion can be fully explained by its preference of faith to reason, and its emphasis on evangelism.


well done if you managed to read it all. so whats peoples arguments on this.

CossieRich

iTrader: (1)

so Jesus turning water into wine can be used as a guideline to what? That in itself is lunacy and thats just the 1st one that srpings to mind.

Mike Rainbird

iTrader: (3)

Unfortunately the world is dominated by fanatics that kill in the name of religion, and to me this makes it the route of all evil.

I have absolutely no problem with anyone who wants to believe in a God, but I find it deeply hypocritical / disturbing when they use their belief system as an excuse to harm others.

If there were a God / Gods, then I can't see them wanting death and destruction reined down on anyone in their name.

IMO, if there was no religion, then there would be far more harmony in the world.

My own view is that religion was originally designed to keep the common man in check in the days of old and has been developed from that to what it is today. People mow seem to like to believe in God to enable them to absolve any personal responsibility - as in "it is God's will" etc. To me this seems that religious people are brought up lacking the courage / belief that they can completely control their own destiny, instead trusting it to some alleged higher order. This seems to absolve them of any decisions / wrong doing, as they don't believe they have control over their own lives* - weird.

*For example, in some countries they drive completely irratically in the belief that if their God believes it is time for them to die, then they will die and nothing they can do about it will matter, so they create situations that ensure their/other deaths happen with horrible frequency, where perhaps if they decided to look out for themselves / each other, there wouldn't be half the incidents .

truthordare

I'm sitting on the fence on this one, I can't say that I do believe as there is is no definitive proof, I can't say I don't believe in case I get a lightning bolt up my arse lol.

Debs

Graham S1

Invented by who?

And what about Aboriginies, one of the oldest peoples on Earth, who have suffered no book burnings, religious invasions, and who's oral histories have been handed down over 10's of thousands of years?

The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, surely shows there are MASSIVE gaps in the "bible".

CossieRich

iTrader: (1)

good job your name isnt Benni then

alan12112

that would depend on the religion mate - do you have specific one in mind?

CossieRich

iTrader: (1)

rofl

Rossco

Yep as Mike said religion is the biggest cause of loss of life and behind the start of many wars.

Does not bother me what you belive in, as usual its a small number spoiling it for others, the people taking it to extremes.

dunketh

Purely playing devil's advocate here.. To all those non-believers I pose a couple of questions.

What was here 'before' the big bang? Are we expected to believe gases and whatnot just appeared out of nowhere into nothing and then reacted to create the universe?
And, secondly, here's the killer question:
If you feel confident to state believers cannot prove there IS a God, can you in-turn prove there is NOT a God?

Something to chew over.
I expect its an issue that will never be answered until you're dead, at which point its a little late to re-evaluate your beliefs.

Also, this general sentiment is completely false:
All religions preach peace and love afaik. The biggest cause of loss of life, wars, etc.. is mankind purposefully misinterpreting religion and twisting its various teachings in order to further his own gains. Without religion folk would still kill each other - they'd just find another excuse.
I'm fairly certain the Koran doesnt tell muslims to kill all westerners (though I could be wrong, any muslims here care to confirm?).

Paul Eggleton

And the biggest irony of it all it's been the no.1 cause of war ever since

Punkie

Something like that was maybe invented to give people "faith" that even through the hardest times...when nothing seemed possible...something can always bring a bit of light into your life....

CossieRich

iTrader: (1)

and there you have it. Close the thread. there is no need for any further discussion as you have got it spot on Paul. Nail on the head

Paul Eggleton

Summed up nicely I believe

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMB5L0VoszI

CossieRich

iTrader: (1)

yeah something thats true can bring much light into your life. Face facts, relgion, the bible, the whole thing is a waste if time

JohnnyB

Mrs T

i belive there is something there but maybe not be a good thing
look at what happens in the world wasnt this person meant to be a good one???

Lee Ivatt

iTrader: (1)

exactly what it is.

in the past we didnt really have any science, religion was used to explain the world and its events.

now we can use science to explain 99.9% of everything.

thats all religion is/was, a tool to give the masses hope and understanding.

sadly now tho, the science has taken the unexpained object away, but religion was also like a moral guide. hence why today the world is a more unsavory place. as now parents use computer games to raise their children.

Paul Eggleton

OMG - 1 minute in

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeSSwKffj9o&NR=1

truthordare

I agree to a point, if there is a god surely he would be kind? As for the Tsunami's and earthquakes and disease, I think that is mother natures way of cleaning house, population is too much you need to pare it down, cruel way of doing it but extremely effective.

Debs