Religious discussion

This isn't a valid description of how it works.

Results and logic get written down. They are tested by independent groups and carefully reviewed. They are available through the ages for being proven false or replaced by more complete theory.

For any theory of real use or interest, the testing goes on forever. The theory of evolution is constantly tested - literally every day. The theory of relativity has been tested for a 100 years, no more so than today as it is used (such as in your cell phone) and is a serous topic in physics as a more unified theory is sought.

This idea that some guy with an agenda can screw this stuff up is ridiculous.

And, the idea that science can lose out in its conveyance to others is an issue of reporting - not of the science. And, anyone who cares can find actual sources - such as reading the research directly.

 

flew however does not answer the question 'does god exist'. If you want to talk about 360 degrees of lack be my guest, as I have proven in the end anyone claiming to be an atheist does not believe in any Gods regardless what they lack.

 

So? He doesn't try to answer that question. Why should he try to answer that question? Is he required to? If so, by what, and is that "requirement" still valid if you don't use the fallacy of equivocation to sneak a different definition in too?

This is the problem with you "debunking" things, you don't actually write out your argument, so we can't verify that your debunking is any better than the thing it debunks.

 

This is so very ironic. The same can be said about the "canonization of scripture" and it's validation through history, tested by independent denominations and carefully reviewed. Yet we still take it on faith, much as you do the community of science.

The idea that "many guys" have tried to destroy and twist the Word of God for thousands of years and have been unable to do so is fact!

 

You are the one who inserts flews BS without pointing out that you are using an attempted redefinition of the word atheism, that was roundly debunked and tossed in file 13 by stanford. flew cannot rationally be used in any formal propositional discussions of religion, theism or atheism

 

The difference isn't in the careful treatment of text. It's in the possibility of consistent independent verification.

Religion is based on faith. Science is based on observation. The only faith in scientific method is that we may meaningfully observe - take measurements, etc.

The realm of religion goes beyond the Abrahamic faiths. And, even within the Abrahamic faiths there are significant differences in interpretation without any methodology for unification.

I'm not here to criticize relgion. I'm more interested that we recognize the major difference between science and religion in the kinds of questions that may be answered. We see too many people trying to use science to discredit religion. And, we see religious methods used in attempts against science. Better understanding of the differences between science and religion may help.

 

I almost agree, along with that, science requires reproducibility, ideally the ability to falsify.

Religion can also use observations, but they may not necessarily be reproducible and usually not. Faith requires belief, (or rejection, or nonbelief, et al) facts/proof are not required.

Dont eat pork for instance, is part of a religion, to this day, for no rational reason I can think of, yet it is an official part of a religion, and recognized as such.

 

And within the science community there are significant difference in the interpretation of "science models" and the conclusion of Climate change.

The New Testament specifically was based on observation by 1st hand accounts. Of course there is a correct interpretation of those observations just as there is in science. When it comes down to it, we take everything we don't have 1st hand observation of on faith.

 

Perhaps cultures benefited from that at one time because meat wasn't cooked thoroughly.and trichinosis was a good possibility. Historical facts involving personalities cannot be reproduced, however a multitude of witnesses on record can legally verify.

 

Agreed.

I would add that falsifiabilty is a key requirement. For example, it's at the root of the reason that science can not address any question related to god. If an hypothesis isn't falsifiable, scientific method excludes it as it isn't addressable. That goes for string theory and other stuff - it's not specific to religion.

 

Yes there are differences between studies and the interpretations of various groups of climatologists from around the world. But, error bars are used to identify the degree that contributing factors are known. And, there is miniscule difference on the fundamental points that Earth is warming due to human activity and that the warming will result in sigificat changes that will affect the human population - changes in agriculture, in sea level, in water availability, etc.

Even the Bible states that God must be accepted on faith alone. God tests man - NOT the other way around.

Science doesn't have faith like that. The experiments and observations that have gotten us to where we are today may be repeated or improved upon at any time. And, that actually happens. Humans have used evolution as a tool for about 12,000 years and we continue to do so today in agriculture, medicine - in fact every area of biology. We're constatly testing the theory of relativity. Careful records maintained by scientific publications can be used to track back to find the basis for principles used today. The same goes for particle physics.

That's not faith.

 

You're avoiding the question. By what logic do you require Flew's definition to answer the question "is there a god?"?

The arguments I have presented in this thread is about the definition of "religion", not of "atheism". The atheism angle in this thread is largely brought by you rather than me. True, I mentioned the Flew definition of atheism, but when I did, I explicitly pointed out which definition I was referring to (although as usual, I didn't try to redefine it, I merely brought attention to the fact that several definitions exist).

 

You opined the existence of irreligious people, I argue they do not exist, after several gyrations we ended up here.

 

You're avoiding the question again. I can see you're arguing that irreligious people don't exist, I don't need you to repeat that. What I don't see is by what logic you require Flew's definition to answer the question "is there a god?"?

 

seems you did need me to repeat it, my point was, is and stands that flews definition ducks the question he set out to achieve.

Flew also criticised several of the other philosophical proofs for God's existence. He concluded that the ontological argument in particular failed because it is based on the premise that the concept of Being can be derived from the concept of Goodness. Only the scientific forms of the teleological argument ultimately impressed Flew as decisive.[25]

During the time of his involvement in the Socratic Club, Flew also wrote the article "Theology and Falsification", which argued that claims about God were merely vacuous where they could not be tested for truth or falsehood. Though initially published in an undergraduate journal, the article came to be widely reprinted and discussed.

The Presumption of Atheism[27] in which Flew forwarded the proposition that the question of God's existence should begin with the presumption of atheism:

"What I want to examine is the contention that the debate about the existence of God should properly begin from the presumption of atheism, that the onus of proof must lie upon the theist. The word 'atheism', however, has in this contention to be construed unusually. Whereas nowadays the usual meaning of 'atheist' in English is 'someone who asserts that there is no such being as God, I want the word to be understood not positively but negatively... in this interpretation an atheist becomes: not someone who positively asserts the non-existence of God; but someone who is simply not a theist.

The introduction of this new interpretation of the word 'atheism' may appear to be a piece of perverse Humpty-Dumptyism, going arbitrarily against established common usage.

'Whyever', it could be asked, don't you make it not the presumption of atheism but the presumption of agnosticism?[28]

"The Presumption of Atheism (1976) made the case, now followed by today's new atheism, that atheism should be the ... default position".[32][33] In recent debates, atheists often forward the Presumption of Atheism referring to atheism as the "default position"[34][35][36][37] or has "no burden of proof"[38][39] or asserting that the burden of proof rests solely on the theist.[28][40][41] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antony_Flew

which of course turns reason on its head.

 

Who gave the kid cancer? If he fell off a wall....who gave him a concussion? This is the world we were given. You like so many others are having a little tantrum here because you believe, in your mind, you could make a better world. You couldn't do it. The pond would still have many ripples. Don't be so haughty.[/QUOTE]
Why can't your god make everything perfect?

 

Perfect the way you imagine it? Perfect in your world seems to defy all kinds of logical laws. How can you have love if there is a choice not to love? Ho can you have charity if there is none in need? How can you have character if there is no challenge? It seems that in your world we would be nothing greater than a marble statue. God does have a better world awaiting those that really want it. Those that will seek to see His design. Neither you nor I can even imagine it. We have finite minds. Without faith it is impossible to be pleasing to God......I read that somewhere. I also read "God gives Grace to the humble but He resists the proud."

 

Why can't your god make everything perfect?[/QUOTE]
Etbauer....can you correct this post so that it reflects those things that I said as opposed to what you said? Thanks.

 

If you are an all powerful being, all of that is up to you. There are no laws save the ones you decide to make. The truth is that if there is a god, everything is a marble statue anyway.

 

Etbauer....can you correct this post so that it reflects those things that I said as opposed to what you said? Thanks.[/QUOTE]
No, the problem is the formatting in your post.

 

You conveniently forget about choice to act. Seems like you might have made your choice.

 

Everything about what a 'choice to act' means has to be defined by an all powerful being if one exists.

 

For example: I cannot choose to be gay or straight, white or black, I can't choose to be born rich or poor, and I can't choose to be on mars. The choices aI'm able to make are very narrowly and arbitrarily defined.

 

In the history of England there were people being killed for no reaon other than that they were devoutly Christian, but din't pick the correct version of Christianity.

In war, those who suffer are often those who had no choice - even including political choice.

In poverty, those who suffer are disproportionately those who are born into poverty.

In disease, no rational choice confers immunity.

Suggesting that suffering is due to poor choice of individuals just doesn't hold up.

 

you are confused....you can choose who to love. You can choose to be either straight or gay (believe it or not, it IS a behavior) You can choose to be the best with what you have. Then again.....I think you are probably entitlement minded.