From the Other Side of the Fence

[Pyree]

First off, saying faith has no purpose is an ignorant statement used to bolster your own beliefs, it is the intellectual equivalent of a Shaman saying that facts have no purpose in science. And, c'mon, falling of a cliff and "having faith" that a cloud will catch you is an intellectually dishonest argument for the very reasons you cite. Of course facts, physics, and science rule our world. But facts, physics, and science are tools created to define, give meaning, and explain the PHYSICAL world. Facts, physics, and science do nothing and can not explain the SPIRITUAL world. So, it stands to reason that if facts, physics, and science are tools to define and explain the physical world, then religion is a tool to explain and define the spiritual world. Do you find it unreasonable or illogical that religion is just as valid to define and explain the spiritual world as facts, physics, and science are valid to define and explain the physical world?

You say there is no God. You say that religion is obsolete. You say that faith has no purpose. Facts, physics, and science provide all the proof and literal facts you need. But yet, here you are creating a thread looking for some explanation, seeking answers to questions that you do not understand. If you only wanted to cement your own beliefs due to the failure of forum replies to convince you on a matter of faith, then you have succeeded. But at the very least, do not be ignorant to the idea that facts, physics, and science may have become a form of religion for you, that you have faith in facts, physics, and science to provide the answers to all your questions.

Try as you might, you can not separate the physical man from the spiritual man. The mind and spirit are two sides to the same coin and can never be separated. What man does to satisfy his mind and curiosity about the physical world, through facts, physics, and science, he should also do to satisfy his curiosity about the spirit through religion and spirituality. Therefore, if you are truly interested in learning and understanding the Bible and religion, attend weekly Church services, look for local Bible study group meetings, go take a class on world religions at the local community college.

Ultimately, you will find that faith and religion are far more a common and binding thread throughout the history of humanity right into modern times than facts, physics, and science could ever hope to be.
Good luck!

The thing is spiritual enlightenment is something that religion promotes, and the spiritual world spawn religion in an almost egg and chicken situation. The spiritual world is a self construct that needs faith to explain, explore and expand. Without the spiritual world, there needs to be scientific or at least philosophical explanation. The spiritual world and the physical world is not two separate thing, it is two different view on the same thing. Many people without religion have philosophical enlightenment on big questions that religion use the supernatural to answer. While spirituality can fulfil your curiosity for some big questions, it is not the only pathway nor satisfy everyone's curiosity. For personal purpose of satisfying one's curiosity, spiritual or scientific/philosophic works the same, it will answer the questions. For the development and making progress for the society, I will have to give my vote to the scientific/philosophic approach. Nothing against moderate religious people. You can practice all you want. But I do have a thing about extremist ideas and people who gives all the credit to the higher being and not the people like the scientist, engineer, doctors, nurses and care worker, the soldiers, teachers, farmers, adult movie actor and actress and sex workers (yes I mean it, screaming "oh my god" but what make you feel that way is really the person in front of and/or behind you is just plain rude 😀. That also goes for anyone performing such activity, not just for the people in that industry. I think that's enough sidetracking to lighten up the mood). Of course there are people with other different jobs and profession that should have their credit attributed to them but instead attributed to the higher being instead, the list is just too long.

 

[Pyree]

Answer this question first, "What is God?"

I my definition, it is a human construct, as in human created god. However, there are physical phenomenon that would be "god" because it dictates the world as we know it. But that is not something worth worshipping, although I would say not to destroy the environment is a good thing.

Evolution doesn't disprove the existence of a higher power in any way whatsoever.. it merely provides a scientific defintion for the process. Who's to say God didn't create the evolutionary process?

Who's to say evolution is not a natural selection process? Without evidence to suggest a higher being is involve, the process of evolution to happen is defaulted to the most apparent reason with supporting evidence.

 

[chunkymonster]

You acknowledge that it is fallible but proceed to say that doesn't mean it is incorrect? So it's fallible but correct? If it's fallible and incorrect how does one discern between what is "true" and what is not - seems a bit subjective. If you say it is fallible but it is correct, how do you know - sounds subjective. Either way subjectivity doesn't really sit well with me for an "organized" religion because it is rare that two people agree on everything. Hence why there are so many branches of Christianity with completely different beliefs.. anything from Baptism (how to do it, when to do it, what it means) to speaking in tongues (always interesting) to whether or not a woman can be a pastor.

You hit the nail on the head, the Bible is fallible because it was written by fallible men. However, it does mean that what was recorded in the Bible to be incorrect or untrue. Think of a court reporter. The court reporter is a human being that makes mistakes just like the writers of the Bible. But just because the court reporter is a fallible human being, it does not automatically make what they recorded any less true or any less correct. Fallible men can accurately record the truth just like a court reporter can accurately record court proceedings and just like the writers of the Bible accurately recorded the word of God.

So whether Genesis is true or not doesn't matter? It's quite common to hear a retort like this when something blatantly goes against Biblical teachings.. a retreat to the "unarguable" core of Christianity - "Nothing matters, let's discuss the bottom line - and that is Jesus is the savior and you can't prove otherwise."

So, let me get this straight, its okay to accept that science does not have all the answers right now and live on the faith that someday science will provide those answers but it's not acceptable for a Christian to call Genesis an allegory and live on the faith that when they meet God in heaven they will learn the answers. Kind of hypocritical, don't you think?

Whether you make excuses for science not having all the answers and have faith that science will provide them or whether you make excuses for Genesis and have faith that when you meet God in heaven the answers will be given, both rely on faith. Like it or not, it comes down to your choice of faith.

Let's pretend that religion is in fact "a tool to explain and define the spiritual world." How does one explain the unexplainable? Beyond that, if "religion" is the tool, let's acknowledge the fact that there are many, many religions. These different religions, by definition, do not "explain" the spiritual world in the same way at all, most notably in how to get there. Imagine if we had just as many theories describing how water turns to ice as different religions have describing how to get to heaven.

You are missing the simple fact that science and religion are two completely different disciplines and require different ways of thinking. A scientist would not go to the Seminary to learn physics no more than a Seminarian would attend M.I.T. to learn religion. Science can not quantify why a person has emotions any more reliably than Genesis accurately explaining the creation of the universe.

I always find it intriguing to dig into the mind of someone that proclaims Christianity (or any religion) is the saving grace and that it is the "one true way" and that you have to take it on faith like they have. Take five devout people of great faith from five different religions that differ and put them in a room. Who has the "best argument" for their religion? It's the same story from them all - it's my faith - but they can't all be right.

Calling out incompatibility between the many religions in the world misrepresents and ignores their commonality. The Sumerian Enuma Elish and Zorastrianism share a common history and origin which feeds into the Abrahamic religions which have their own common history and origin. Even Hinduism believes in a single god and has common themes in its origin story when compared to other religions. There is some divergence when you get into Eastern religions but even those differences stop at a core belief of a centralized moral code. It is in the ego and ignorance inherent in Man that asks the question of which is "right" or "best". You can engage in the fools debate about which religion is "the best" or which religion is "right" but that just blatantly ignores the teachings and intent of each religion to provide a moral and philosophical framework that feeds the spiritual nature of Man. People would much rather satisfy their ego by knowing that they are following the "right" or "best" religion than consider the idea that all religions have something to offer.

Facts, physics, and science don't have all of the answers right now, nor does it proclaim to.

I dunno, I've read and heard rhetoric from scientific zealots proclaiming that religion serves no purpose and only idiots and fools believe in any form of God; like the OP for example. Point being there are zealots on both sides, but that's exactly what they are, zealots locked into their narrow paradigm and ego of why what they believe is "right" and "best" with little ability to consider what is outside their belief.

Being inquisitive and trying to learn as we live is a great experience. I certainly don't let religion spoil that experience for me, after all, religion proclaims to know what happened to create me, what happens when I die and even knows the ideal way that I should live. What's the fun in knowing everything! 🙁

There is nothing that I have ever read in any religious text that automatically precludes you from following scientific method and learning any and all things you choose to. The notion that religion and scientific method are incompatible is plain false.

The greatest gift God gave Man was free will and with it Man is free to questions, choose, and live however we darned well please, including freely choosing to believe in God or not.

 

[Reynod]

Guys as an athiest I am staying out of this discussion but I will give you fair warning that if the discussion devolves to abuse and anyone comlains to me via PM then I will close the thread ... much as I have done in the past.

Whilst I don't mind people taking pot shots I in other threads) at zealots, fundamentalists, Scientificologists, or jihaddists, I take a dim view to people abusing mainstream Christian, Buddist, Taoists and a heap of others that I can't remember because I am unworthy.

Lets keep it clean.

 

[Nubfish]

One word: Mormonism. I would not be Christian if I wasn't Mormon.