I know not all Christians and religionists are closed-minded, it just seems all the ones I meet are :\.

Whether one can "prove" something or not really depends on the principles argument and the instances of acceptable evidence that can be agreed upon by those in the discussion. But these principles- - - unless one only wants to hold a prayer-meeting and yea-say or give "testimony"---, if they are to be adopted by people with different beliefs or different perspectives, these must therefore be grounded outside of religion itself or any religion.
I do not think that everyone participating would be willing to accept this, however. For example, to argue that the Bible is the Word of God (whatever that may mean) because the Bible says it is the Word of God, is to commit the fallacy of circularity. However convincing that argument may be to those "in the faith" as it were, it fails when submitted to the court of logic that is a part of the principles I mentioned.

Regards,
John

I think you would be hard-pressed to find an intelligent person that would argue with you. But nobody has made any "religious evidence claims" that fall in the realm of what you call "circularity". Unless I missed something. Or are you trying to set ground rules for a discussion?


Oh and just because I find this phrase astonishingly elitist...
court of logic

Whom are the judges of that court?

Re: "For example, to argue that the Bible is the Word of God because the Bible says it is the Word of God, is to commit the fallacy of circularity".

For myself, it simply means that without Faith, the Word of God - and proving that's what the Bible is - just goes in circles endlessly. It's the Word of God ... Who says so? The people who wrote it speaking for Him. ... The people writing it were human? Yes, but they wrote it speaking for Him. ... How do we know this? Because the Bible says so. ... How do we know the Bible isn't just written by novels from their time? Because the Bible says so. And on and on it goes, around and around in circles.

Many very intelligent people believe 'circularity' is applicable when it comes to the Bible and other Faiths. And many very intelligent people of great Faith believe trying to 'prove' things would result in running in circles too - but they don't need to prove anything - ergo, it's called Faith.

Logic itself forms its own court, and its laws are the rules of reasoning correctly. I do not find that phrase elitist in the least.
The example I gave of circularity was the most common I could think of at the time, and I think very clearly to the point.
Cheers,
John

That has me laughing.

There must be an authority/judge of what is well-reasoned logic or not. It cannot be logic itself, or else it falls within the fallacy of circularity which is the very thing you argue against.

Not all religious people kill people, but more death, destruction, and chaos has been wrought in the name of religion than for any single other cause, in the history of the human race. How many Crusades were there? Ever hear of the Spanish inquisition? How many missionaries have had armed force backing them, sending the clear message, "Convert or be destroyed"? How many "heathen" cultures and peoples have been wiped out by the Christians that had come to "save" them from themselves? And we can't forget about the good ol' Jihad.

No, not all religious people kill, however uncountable numbers of people have died because of religion. Religion is a handy way to justify any atrocity. Probably the first fight between primitive, rock-wielding tribes started because one side had a Sun God and the other a Moon God.

Well said, MattV. Sadly it's true throughout history and appears to be never-ending.

I can't remember who first said it but it made me think ... when asked about mankind, he replied he loathed them. When asked about people, he replied he loved them. Makes sense to me - gentle smile.

Hitler - Darwinist
Stalin - Materialist
Mao - Materialist
Pol Pot - Materialist

'many more people have been killed (most by their own governments) in the name of evolution-inspired ideologies than in all the wars of recorded history put together'

(No, I don't condone killing in the name of religion.)

What a relief. I now know what has been one of my problems in my life, I've been desperate and blind seeking to find a purpose and rules to run my life by. Apparently just good old human decency and doing the best I can each day to have an open mind and allowing others to have their own beliefs without my shoving mine down their throats isn't enough.
There are many who have been raised in various religious orders that began questioning the validity of those beliefs and that is thier right to do so. Who am I to tell them that they cannot, thru free will, chose whatever path thier lives will take with or without having religion involved. It is also my right to choose how I will live my life as I see fit, which happens to be as a Christian, without being told that there is a very real possibility that I may well be desperatly seeking a purpose for my existence and blindly following, like a lamb to slaughter, the religious beliefs that I have in order to justify and have purpose to my life.
I feel no need to justify my beliefs, they are my own, however, it seems that so many feel the need to fall into the habit of using demeaning terms when discussing those of my faith. It also seems that there are so many that find the need to ramble on and on trying to justify why they don't believe in any form of religion when once would have been sufficient. Who exactly is shoving what down the throats of others?
Unfortunatly the subject of belief or nonbelief in religion will, as it always has, be a hot and highly contested subject. One could only wish that everyone could be open minded enough to allow each to believe the way that they choose, esp. those that have heard the testimony of those that do follow a religion and at that point make an informed decision as to how they wish to proceed with their lives. IMO

Regards to all,
Iodine

From what I can gather from that you are saying that religion can not be proved through science? I think I have to totaly disagree with that statement, there is a whole bunch of scientifical facts out there supporting the ideas of creationism and the Bible, you just have to search for them. Scientists that write our text books though hide that information because they do not wish to be challanged. When I get the time I'll post a list of a whole bunch of websites that have that information on them, they do not try to use Bible verses to prove it, the find some facts and then compare it to what the Bible says. What I find very frustrating is the fact that many people believe that you can not have a christian study these things because they might skip over some details to make it fit, but it is perfectly fine to have an evolutionist look at evidence and skip over some that will make it fit into the evolutionary time scale.

-Steve

I'd be willing to participate.

I Doubt it.

Ms. Iodine, believe as you will. If someone else has a problem with your beliefs, the problem is theirs, not yours. And remember, passive resistance can be so much fun.

Looks like the indoctrination took very well in this one.

I, for one, am interested in seeing just what "scientific facts" you claim to have that will support the entire universe being only six thousand years old, for instance. Or what "evidence" you have that supports the claim that the entire globe was once flooded with water that came out of nowhere, and then just as mysteriously went back to where it came from. Or that dead (not "dead", but dead) people can suddenly be up and around again.

I'm sure that any of your "scientific facts" can easily be refuted by real science - or basic common sense, for that matter.

Lol...well, documented history disagrees with you.

I'm sure that any of your "scientific facts" can easily be refuted by real science - or basic common sense, for that matter.

The above sentence shows exactly how you have abandoned objective reasoning. You have already refuted EVERYTHING that could ever be presented to you, in your mind. You don't care what evidence would ever come out in the future, or what evidence exists. You will prove it wrong using your "real" science.

This mentality can't be taken seriously.

Source?

Since looking up dictators is probably not a good idea here at work.....

You'll have to be patient.

I found a site here (Disclaimer: I have no idea if any of the information from this site is accurate).

Hitler - 42 million
Stalin - 20 million
Mao - 40 million
Pol Pot - No data

Personally,

I see no reason to be concerned over whether throughout history more people were killed in the name of a "religion" than were killed in the name of some other cause.


The fact is clear - very many people have been killed in the name of religion.

Even if these religions had never existed, however, doesn't mean that there wouldn't have been just as many deaths.

I agree John, truly....

my point is that it doesn't really matter....its always the personal beliefs that are held. Whether they are considered "religious beliefs" or not.

The Crusades resulted in Approximately two million deaths¹, combined total both sides. This may not sound like much compared to Stalin, but the population of the entire world at that time is estimated to be between three and four hundred million¹. The population of Europe was approximately thirty-five million². So two million deaths was a significant percentage of the population, at the time.


1 - Source

2 - Source


Note: The numbers presented in various sources were not always in agreement. These two were chosen as representative of the median numbers of the sources that were reviewed.

Yes Matt, and I contend that the "Kingdom of God" is not spread by force and conquest as many in the crusades mistakenly tried to do.

However, your point of comparing percentages does not really mean anything in my opinion. The telling factor is in the sheer numbers.

"Hitler - Darwinist
Stalin - Materialist
Mao - Materialist
Pol Pot - Materialist"

Would it not be more correct to say that all four might better be characterised by something called, for lack of a better phrase, radical dogmatists? Stalin and Mao were perhaps "materialists" just as both claimed to be Marxist, but each had a very different interpretation of what Marx was getting at. I doubt that Hitler understood much about Charles Darwin accept some second-hand slogans. He was not head of the National Darwinist party, and it is obvious that he meant something entirely unique by "socialism."

It has often been, moreover, pointed out by historians (at least in the first three examples) that their followers could be characterised by believing in a "secular religion"; now this is the kind of distorting reductionalism if taken literally can lead us astray, but if taken as an analogy does throw some light on their hold over large numbers of people, and the psychological motivation of their followers.

Or, one could also point out that all of the four's doctrines were characterised by an anti-scientific (despite their mumbo-jumbo to the contrary), anti-rationalist, anti-liberal (in the classical sense) perspective. Their solution to different thinking was the burning of books and of people who held contrary views. They just didn't call them witches or heretics or infidels.

Cheers,
John

Actually, I think you are incorrect in this case. In the first place, one must consider the types of weapons used and their ability to commit mass genocide. During such instances as the Inquisition and the Crusades, there were no bombs or chemical weapons. Secondly, how could 40 million people be killed during the Crusades (as Mao did?) when the population density was simply not adequate for the tactics?

I mean, that's kind of like saying, "I have more money than you because I have 1,000 bank accounts with $100 in each." Even though I have only one with $1,000,000. Both examples require a mathematical machination to account for a lack of control over variables.


Anyway you cut it, it is sad that people die for someone else's belief; religious or political.




This is true jwinathome. However, at this point, I would really like to see the sources for such scientific claims.

I mean, it is difficult to develop pre-conceived notions about data for which there is no title. (joke)

sorry i m lagging behind.

for cmg here is your quote to my challenge for proof



come on is that the best you can come up with.to me the bible is full of nice stories (parables)quoting biblical scripture is hardly proof .you ask for scientific proof well heres my theory .i tell you a story were i cross a river walking on rocks to get to the other side you tell 50 other people .the next thing you know i stood on one rock and jumped straight across, then add 200 years and the next thing i am walking on the water .now you tellme a story told across the years gets blew out of proportion and the next thing its a miracle, when the bible was written people knew now better .what was the last miracle you heard/seen ?

if you have any solid proof i will surely listen i am one person who would like to be religious but as i have alredy stated blind faith is not for me

I am not a religious person, which will become obvious by the following:


From a purely intellectual perspective, I don't see how one, anyone, can use as proof that God exists the fact that something they believe is the "word of God" says so. That sounds so circular that I'm surprised anyone would make the statement.

I would hope that a believer would have as their basis something more than "God exists because God says so". If you believe in God, believe it in your heart and say you know it is true. While I might not understand that, I'll respect it without any reservation.

I can also accept that God's word was what was originally passed down. This may not be exactly what has now been miss-interpreted and miss-translated over the years. I would not get overly charged up over a biblical phrase in an English translation that may or may not mean the same thing now as it did in the original text. Remember too, the mentality and worldly understanding of the people to whom the original word was given.

God may exist - but isn't one of the major concepts of Judeo-Christianity the idea that God allows us free will? Wouldn't scientific proof of God's existence remove any "free will" from us?

Shouln't one believe without proof?

There is nothing irrational about believing in a diety without proof.

i agree with your comment johnwho
but for me i need proof and always will do ,while i can understand peoples belief ,i still will always see it as blind belief and just because i don't believe does not make it untrue and visa/versa for the people who do believe

Personally I think it is irrational to believe in a diety without proof, but I think we are just arguing semantics. As I said in a previous post, faith must transcend rationality. So while I think faith is irrational, I certainly do not think it is stupid or wrong.

So we're back to the "court of logic"....but who decides what is logical or not...it cannot be logic itself. It doesn't work that way.

Some believe that the way they believe (in God) is very logical and or rational.

While faith is irrational to you...you are in the extreme minority.

Oh, and a side point....would experience qualify as proof, if it was repeatable and observable?

Example: I cut myself, it bleeds, then scabs and heals. You see me after its healed up, and I explain to you what happened. You can't see the cut (and there's no scar), so there is no proof that it actually happened. Now you may say...well I know its possible because I've seen it, science can prove it, or something along those lines. Say its the first time it ever happened in existence. To assume that everything requires proof is fine...I concur that everything indeed does need proof. But its safe to say that we have proof now that wasn't always known. (I.E. Gravity.) Isn't it also safe to say that there may be some proof that has yet to be known? I think its extremely limiting to look at everything in the world through materialism. Sure do miss out on a heck of a lot.

My knowledge of formal logic is almost non-existent, so I am not going to offer an answer to this question. What do you think?


I have no problem being in the extreme minority.


It would for me.


I think it is safe to say that.


Edit: fixed some typos

While I certainly won't argue the point, I don't think it is irrational because so many people do it that it is somewhat the "norm". Also, many that believe feel that they have enough proof. While I, like you evidentially, don't recognize that proof, I wouldn't use the word "irrational" to describe them. But, maybe that's just me.

Then I'd want you to repeat it so I could see for myself.

Through observation, I've come to the conclusion that most "normal" people are irrational.

Especially Liberals.

That's because most people are irrational, and the "norm" is what the majority of the people are or do. I don't know what a liberal is though. Know very little about politics lol.

I believe, that on the left side of the Atlantic Ocean, a Liberal leans to the left,

while on the right side of the Atlantic Ocean, a Liberal leans to the right.


Hope that helps.

name='JohnWho' date='Aug 1 2007, 09:01 AM' post='583190']
I believe, that on the left side of the Atlantic Ocean, a Liberal leans to the left,

while on the right side of the Atlantic Ocean, a Liberal leans to the right.
Hope that helps.


Though I get your point Mr. Who, I don't know if I agree. Liberalism (or what we might view as the American Left) is a rampant ideology in Europe, and it is not helping their cause. And by the way secularism is making a strong showing in Europe now as well....check this out....can anyone overseas confirm this?

The German government is encouraging parents to engage in what we would normally call child molestation... (I have edited a bit to remove words that would not be allowed on the forum...thats how bad it is!)

Here is an excerpt:

Booklets from a subsidiary of the German government's Ministry for Family Affairs encourage parents to sexually massage their children as young as 1 to 3 years of age. Two 40-page booklets entitled "Love, Body and Playing Doctor" by the German Federal Health Education Center (Bundeszentrale für gesundheitliche Aufklärung - BZgA) are aimed at parents - the first addressing children from 1-3 and the other children from 4-6 years of age.

"Fathers do not devote enough attention to the (censored: anatomy) and (censored: anatomy) of their daughters. Their caresses too seldom pertain to these regions, while this is the only way the girls can develop a sense of pride in their sex," reads the booklet regarding 1-3 year olds. The authors rationalize, "The child touches all parts of their father's body, sometimes arousing him. The father should do the same."

Another product of the BZgA is a song book aimed at children of four and slightly older which includes several songs espousing (censored: self-gratification). The song-book entitled "Nose, belly and bum" includes one song with the following lyrics: "When I touch my body, I discover what I have. I have a (censored: anatomy), because I am a girl. (censored: anatomy) is not only for peeing. When I touch it, I feel a pleasant tingle."

According to the Polish daily newspaper Rzeczpospolita, the BZgA booklet is an obligatory read in nine German regions. It is used for training nursery, kindergarten and elementary school teachers. Ironically it is recommended by many organizations officially fighting pedophilia, such as the German Kunderschutzbund. BZgA sends out millions of copies of the booklet every year.

Nor does the far left help the cause here in America.

To be fair and balanced, I'll add that the far right doesn't help the cause here in America, either.

I guess it depends on what you would qualify as far right. Michael Savage and people like him, are in my opinion too far right.

Liberal, Democrat, Communist - all one and the same.

Extremists of either type are no help to anyone. They can be quite entertaining, though. All bug-eyed and foaming at the mouth.

If I came out with a book tomorrow that I claimed was 10,000 years old and written by a bunch of religious people who were inspired by my God. Would you believe me? Most wouldn't, and some would. Hence I would have followers. If in this "book" that I claim to have found, it says to spread the word of it, and people went forth and killed people over it. Would you think my religion is nuts?

Seems to me what most religions are doing. See this is why I don't believe in the Bible, but I believe in a God (the Christian God). I can't blindly follow the Bible. To me it's just a book that was randomly found in the last, what 3,000 to 6,000 years ago? It just came out of now where. You can't track where it has been, what sections where wrote when or how there were put in order. You must go by what the book says in it.

I could write a book right now, just like the Bible. Make it sounds like it's written 3,000 years ago and hand it to someone and say it's the work of my (own-different) Lord, and I guarantee you I'll find at least one follower.


I apologize that this post focuses mostly on the Christianity, but it's the only religion I know the most about. I hate to stereotype other religions.


In reference to post #88 by jwinathome, if our (USA) government came out with a study there would be several people who would blindly accept it and practice said activity. It depends on who finds it immoral or wrong. I do not support the said activities but, I believe though some people put too much trust in government.

Yano, I personally am fine with the way you feel about the Bible. But I urge you to get to know the God you believe in, and see why the Bible speaks His heart to His people.

I find these types of statements interesting. Why? Because you're acting like a book has some mystical power. I am not mocking you, but how do you know the Bible is divine? It could be a farce, and these supposed feelings you get could just be your happiness in believing in a greater being, a purpose in life, or whatever. Sometimes I get similar feelings when I play a great game like "yay! This game is so awesome! I really enjoy playing it!" but that doesn't mean the game is divine or anything more than a great game. So how do you truly know the Bible is nothing more than a great book?

Solaris, people have religion because they want to put faith in something that they believe is above all else, and usually life after death. And yes, I did say FAITH, and I am a Christian if you must know.

But, you continue asking the questions like "Why do people need religion, why do they need a purpose, why can't they just live without religion?"

If you are expecting people like me to say that it is because we are weak or that we cannot guide ourselves, then I will say that you are right. If I was like you, blindly living my life, knowing that when I die I will just rot in the ground, I would be VERY AFRAID.

Now that I have given you the answer that you seek, you may now procede to wallow in your victory over those who believe in God.

Study the history,read the predictions in the Bible that were written many many years ago that are coming true and study the history of the Bible.

Here we go again, and again, seems to me that there was mention of Nostradamus and his predictions coming true, and people are finding fulfillment of their predictions in the same way, by what ever fits the description.

The basis for all religions - life after death. Why is this central theme so strong? Strong enough that people wiil kill and die for it? Because people can't or won't accept the thing that they fear more than any other - mortality. Religions are fear-based. They prey and feed upon this fear of mortality, promising great rewards to those that adhere to dogma, and great punishments to those that don't. Religion is a very effective way to control very large groups of people, and to get them to behave in ways that they probably wouldn't without fear driving them.

I know that when I die, all that will be left will be worm food. Am I bothered by this? No. Death is part of the natural cycle of life; why fear the natural? And because of this knowledge, I am left free to live for today. For tomorrow is but a dream that may never come.

I would respectfully disagree with you again Matt, I have no fear of mortality whatsoever. I do however understand that there are eternal consequences to my actions lived out in this temporal life. Again, nothing to do with fear, but utmost respect for the precious God that created all you see.