the problem with faith and religion

[SAM HARRIS]

I don't know which is worse, someone beating you over your head with a Bible. Or someone who does not believe in God beating you over your head with there opinion. Can't we just agree to disagree and let it go?

 

As far as someone who posted about leaving your believes in your house or your church. what would you be called if you said the to homosexuals to "leave" it in your house. I think you would be called a bigot.

People should be free to express there beliefs without the fear of being labeled. This world is big enough for ALL to exist.

 

 

i agree dude 100% all i am doing is asking questions about the dangers of theistic beliefs and are they true or not. i never advocated bashing someone or outlawing religious belief just like we dont outlaw belief in elvis. they r just questions which is good. thats how monetary systems and other ideas get outdated and we move on in society. i think its good that we r recognizing that christianity has some problems with some of its claims.

[SAM HARRIS]

You would be wrong thinking that I agree that faith in God is a failing argument. You would also be wrong in thinking that I agree that the Christian religion is necessarily "dangerous". As I have stated on several occassions, science is not currently equipped to answer the question as to whether God exists. That does NOT mean that He doesn't exist, it simply means that we cannot use science to "prove" that He does or does not exist. You are looking for something that we (humanity) currently are not capable of. We are continuously expanding our capabilities. Will we ever be able to "prove" God exists? I don't know. Maybe. Whether we do or don't doesn't really bother me much one way or the other.

 

I'm not certain why you think you are going to hell for using your "brain and logic". Nor, for that matter, do I understand why you think that God doesn't want you to use your brain. Regardless, I think I am done w/ this thread.

 

 

cool,

 

but do u think i am going to hell becuase i dont believe jesus is god or the resurrection or living in a fish or a talking donkey or adam and eve or a talking snake or jesus healing lazurus... logic and reason and common sense tell me this isnt true. its not my job to prove god doesnt exist just like its not my job to prove that zeus isnt real and taking a interest in human events. u r making the claim so u need to back it up like any other claim,

 

like in a business meeting

 

like telling your kids about std's

 

like taking directions

 

like giving directions

 

like talking about astronomy

 

like where to buy a book.

 

 

u make the claim that something is true and it obviously needs to b backed up by facts. i dont understand what is so terrible or politically incorrect about this.

 

as a christian u should b willing to have this discussion 4 ur whole life, at work, on a thread and give ur reasons...

 

go bills!

[SAM HARRIS]

for some reason u change the rules when it comes to ur religion and u believing it to be TRUE. i sincerely disagree and wish that u could recognize that. u say faith isnt outdated and does make sense but then u say well i or humanity cant answer those questions yet, seems a little bias to me but cool

[outsidethebox]

i agree dude 100% all i am doing is asking questions about the dangers of theistic beliefs and are they true or not. i never advocated bashing someone or outlawing religious belief just like we dont outlaw belief in elvis. they r just questions which is good. thats how monetary systems and other ideas get outdated and we move on in society. i think its good that we r recognizing that christianity has some problems with some of its claims.

There is nothing wrong with having questions. I just hope you respect other peoples beliefs. I am a christian, I do believe Jesus Christ is my savior. I will not push people into believing what I believe for what I know in my heart and soul is true.

 

without trying to be insulting, I tink you may be a bit younger than I am. I also had questions when I was younger. If I am wrong I apologize.

 

trying to explain your faith on a message board is futile. I cannot change your mind as much as you cannot change my mind. If your looking for proof Jesus Christ existed, there are other writings besides the Bible that talk about Jesus being real. there have been many archialogical findings that were written about in the Bible.

 

But you see, it isn't physical proof christians need to believe in God. it's all about faith, either you have it or you don't. You don't need science to have faith. you can't "proof" faith. you can't see it, touch it, smell it to know it's real.

 

i wish you well in your search for your answers. I hope you find them.

 

Peace.

[SAM HARRIS]

There is nothing wrong with having questions. I just hope you respect other peoples beliefs. I am a christian, I do believe Jesus Christ is my savior. I will not push people into believing what I believe for what I know in my heart and soul is true.

 

without trying to be insulting, I tink you may be a bit younger than I am. I also had questions when I was younger. If I am wrong I apologize.

 

trying to explain your faith on a message board is futile. I cannot change your mind as much as you cannot change my mind. If your looking for proof Jesus Christ existed, there are other writings besides the Bible that talk about Jesus being real. there have been many archialogical findings that were written about in the Bible.

 

But you see, it isn't physical proof christians need to believe in God. it's all about faith, either you have it or you don't. You don't need science to have faith. you can't "proof" faith. you can't see it, touch it, smell it to know it's real.

 

i wish you well in your search for your answers. I hope you find them.

 

Peace.

 

 

probably got me on the dude comment, yes i am a young 24,

 

 

what do u mean u know god or the christian god is true becasue u know its true, i dont understand. i am trying to point out that faith is a failed science per say and u people keep answering well faith is the answer. i used to b a christian and have read all of lee strobels books and john pipers books. the cannon of scripture was finnally put together in 396 at the council of hippo something i thinks thats it. thats just the new testament, the gospels, apart from paul were written 60=90 years after christ, historically speaking i think jesus was a real person but i doubt he had magic....

 

 

this is a great conversation and thanks so far for all the input and civility

[SAM HARRIS]

also not to b distasteful but nobody respects anyones beliefs on anything, they respect there reasons. i will give u a perfect ex

 

if i said the moon doesnt exist or the holocaust never happened u would b under no obligation to respect my belief, why

 

because it has no facts, proof, reason and common sense about astronomy or history...

[outsidethebox]

probably got me on the dude comment, yes i am a young 24,

 

 

what do u mean u know god or the christian god is true becasue u know its true, i dont understand. i am trying to point out that faith is a failed science per say and u people keep answering well faith is the answer. i used to b a christian and have read all of lee strobels books and john pipers books. the cannon of scripture was finnally put together in 396 at the council of hippo something i thinks thats it. thats just the new testament, the gospels, apart from paul were written 60=90 years after christ, historically speaking i think jesus was a real person but i doubt he had magic....

 

 

this is a great conversation and thanks so far for all the input and civility

hey no problem. I understand where your coming from. Keep questioning, keep asking. That is the only way you can find out for yourself. I know there are a lot of bad things done in the name of God. i also can understand how someone can not believe in God with so much bad being done in the name of God. You could also say how much bad is being done in the name of science, nuclear bombs for one. It doesn't mean science is bad.

 

As far as the writings of Paul being written 60-90 years after Christ. that is in debate. there is are other writings such as Luke, Mark and John which are believed to be written 30 years after Christ. if you are interested, look up the dead sea scrolls. They are believed to be over 4000 years old and are about 98% accurate from the Old Testament of today.

 

If you are looking for answers, there out there. But your not going to find God in a book or the internet. You will find him in your heart, your soul. All I ask from you is to keep an open mind.

 

i have enjoyed our conversation. Good luck and good night.

[SAM HARRIS]

hey no problem. I understand where your coming from. Keep questioning, keep asking. That is the only way you can find out for yourself. I know there are a lot of bad things done in the name of God. i also can understand how someone can not believe in God with so much bad being done in the name of God. You could also say how much bad is being done in the name of science, nuclear bombs for one. It doesn't mean science is bad.

 

As far as the writings of Paul being written 60-90 years after Christ. that is in debate. there is are other writings such as Luke, Mark and John which are believed to be written 30 years after Christ. if you are interested, look up the dead sea scrolls. They are believed to be over 4000 years old and are about 98% accurate from the Old Testament of today.

 

If you are looking for answers, there out there. But your not going to find God in a book or the internet. You will find him in your heart, your soul. All I ask from you is to keep an open mind.

 

i have enjoyed our conversation. Good luck and good night.

 

 

30 years... ok

not sure what that does for u

 

yes the dead sea scrolls show the accuracy of the old test writings r beign passed down but not that living in a fish is true or that killing homosexuals is right... not sure what u mean here.

 

what do u mean i will find god in my heart or soul, do u mean conciousness or mind???? peace

[DC Tom]

Yeah, because in the Church of Global Warming, it is all about "common sense and being honest with yourself".

 

Global Warming ain't science. Used to be...but lately, in the past few years, it's lost the one crucial quality that makes a scientific theory scientific: it is no longer falsifiable. That does not mean "It's clearly happening, therefore it can't be false". What that means is that the theory and its proponents do not and will not allow any other interpretation of data or challenge to the theory. Which means it cannot be investigated or researched. Which means...it's not science.

 

That's also yet another reason science and religion aren't compatible - God is not a falsifiable concept, hence is not and cannot be scientific. Doesn't mean the two can't coexist...just means that the two will always be distinct from each other.

[SAM HARRIS]

religion is a word that is like sports

 

there are thousands of religions, this should trouble fundamentalists. 4 some reason it doesnt, i think there is a big difference when u say god or a higherpower or the whole of humanity and science r different yes. but arguing the same way for the christian god is way way different....

 

i feel safe saying people cant raise from the dead or there r no such thing as a talking snake...

 

IN HONESTY THE QUESTION BEING ASKED AT NAUSIM IS WHAT ARGUMENT DO WE HUMANS, WITH THE CONFLICT IN RELIGION BECOMING A PROBLEM IN THE EAST VS THE WEST, WHAT ARGUMENT DO HUMANS HAVE AGAINST REASON OR COMMON SENSE OR EVIDENCE? i mean either jesus is full of magic powers or he isnt.

[Taro T]

cool,

 

but do u think i am going to hell becuase i dont believe jesus is god or the resurrection or living in a fish or a talking donkey or adam and eve or a talking snake or jesus healing lazurus... logic and reason and common sense tell me this isnt true. its not my job to prove god doesnt exist just like its not my job to prove that zeus isnt real and taking a interest in human events. u r making the claim so u need to back it up like any other claim,

 

like in a business meeting

 

like telling your kids about std's

 

like taking directions

 

like giving directions

 

like talking about astronomy

 

like where to buy a book.

 

 

u make the claim that something is true and it obviously needs to b backed up by facts. i dont understand what is so terrible or politically incorrect about this.

 

as a christian u should b willing to have this discussion 4 ur whole life, at work, on a thread and give ur reasons...

 

go bills!

After THIS post, I am done w/ this thread.

 

You are the one starting this thread. You are the one asking the questions. And you are the one seemingly claiming that God doesn't exist. That would put the onus on you. But as I've stated, far too many times, YOU can't prove God doesn't exist; just as I can't prove that He does exist. (Science isn't equipped to prove, nor disprove, the existance of God. ) YOU are making a claim that something is true - namely that God doesn't exist. By your own words, that puts the onus on YOU.

 

You've written that the question of whether the Christian God exists "has a myriad of claims and certainties... its either true or false, one or the other people", well if it has certainties and is obviously true or false, why don't you enlighten us and explain how His existance is false?

 

I have never written that you are politically incorrect. That statement appears to be another one of the strawmen you have consistantly set up apparently trying to draw someone into a pissing match w/ you.

 

Why in the world should I have a discussion about religion at WORK? You obviously haven't been in the working world very long, if at all.

 

The whole premise of this thread is that you are curious about Christianity but then you have the audacity to tell me how I should be living as a Christian?!?!? You know absolutely nothing about me, you don't even know which particular religion I follow, but you know how I should profess and express MY faith. As I stated at the beginning of this post, I am done w/ this thread.

 

PS - I don't know anything at all about you, so how am I supposed to tell you whether or not you will be going to hell? Even if I did know you, that's not my call to make. For not believing in Jesus, I doubt that gets you eternal damnation.

[SAM HARRIS]

After THIS post, I am done w/ this thread.

 

You are the one starting this thread. You are the one asking the questions. And you are the one seemingly claiming that God doesn't exist. That would put the onus on you. But as I've stated, far too many times, YOU can't prove God doesn't exist; just as I can't prove that He does exist. (Science isn't equipped to prove, nor disprove, the existance of God. ) YOU are making a claim that something is true - namely that God doesn't exist. By your own words, that puts the onus on YOU.

 

You've written that the question of whether the Christian God exists "has a myriad of claims and certainties... its either true or false, one or the other people", well if it has certainties and is obviously true or false, why don't you enlighten us and explain how His existance is false?

 

I have never written that you are politically incorrect. That statement appears to be another one of the strawmen you have consistantly set up apparently trying to draw someone into a pissing match w/ you.

 

Why in the world should I have a discussion about religion at WORK? You obviously haven't been in the working world very long, if at all.

 

The whole premise of this thread is that you are curious about Christianity but then you have the audacity to tell me how I should be living as a Christian?!?!? You know absolutely nothing about me, you don't even know which particular religion I follow, but you know how I should profess and express MY faith. As I stated at the beginning of this post, I am done w/ this thread.

 

PS - I don't know anything at all about you, so how am I supposed to tell you whether or not you will be going to hell? Even if I did know you, that's not my call to make. For not believing in Jesus, I doubt that gets you eternal damnation.

 

 

This is very easy for anyone to understand, i will try and clarify

 

i am not making any claim you r stating that god exists just like u might state that the easter bunny exists... that fine but the onus is not on the one responding to the claim on a truth. russell's teapot is a great ex

 

i will use ur argument and tell me if it makes sense that i need to prove that god doesnt exist...

 

i believe that it is true that there is a teapot in eliptical orbit around r sun.

 

can u prove to me that this isnt true........... no

 

can u b agnostic about such a teapot.............. not really

 

since u cant prove to me that teapots dont exist clearly its ok for me to believe that it is TRUE that teapots or a teapot is in eliptical orbit around r sun.

 

 

do u see the problem with ur argument....

[Dr. Fong]

You are the one starting this thread. You are the one asking the questions. And you are the one seemingly claiming that God doesn't exist. That would put the onus on you. But as I've stated, far too many times, YOU can't prove God doesn't exist; just as I can't prove that He does exist. (Science isn't equipped to prove, nor disprove, the existance of God. ) YOU are making a claim that something is true - namely that God doesn't exist. By your own words, that puts the onus on YOU.

 

 

What if he just said he has FAITH that god doesn't exist?

[SAM HARRIS]

im not making any claim, christians r saying this is god and its true, im responding. sry but i think the onus is on u respectfully.

[SAM HARRIS]

What if he just said he has FAITH that god doesn't exist?

 

 

this logically doesnt make sense,

 

do i have to have faith that zeus or thor or the easter bunny doesnt exist.

 

no

 

what is god? where is he? what is he made of? and why r there so many beliefs about him? each one of these questions can be asked about santa or a leprechaun and we still have no answer i think that shows that there might b a problem with thinking he exists...

[SAM HARRIS]

this is a great way to destroy how bad the philosophy of faith is....

 

if i was charged with murder and in the court room i said prove to me that my fingerprints or dna or any other forensic evidence didnt showed up by the powers of magic...

 

end of argument, faith when it comes to metaphysics doesnt make sense.

 

science with intellectual honesty is how we should approach metaphysics. so far i think these claims in the bible coupled with the faith argument dont make any sense.

[StupidNation]

I cringe to think many people here think their arguments go into the realm of deep thoughts with Jack Handy. Metaphysics if the queen of all science and all other sciences are subject to it. Metaphysics makes no claims as a substitute for other sciences, but makes generalities as to all of them. When biology or chemistry dictates to metaphysics it's beyond their scope as the one is empirical and matter, and other is spiritual and abstracted from mater. Biologists will say all life is in flux materially in regards to the body, a metaphysicist can say, "This is John despite his matter in constant flux."

 

The problem with all the arguments here is that they are based on false suppositions, poor constructed contradictions and contraries posed as consistent with reason, and finally that I'm a lemming for not believing 2+3=blue.

 

Take this gem by Dr. Sam Harris just posted above: "faith when it comes to metaphysics doesnt make sense." Really? Why? Because he said so. Faith is not a quantitative thing whatsoever, and is therefore beyond the physical. Metaphysics means literally "beyond physics" and if something cannot be quantified it's metaphysical. God is spirit and is not quantifiable such as where is He and where is He made of questions. That's juvenile and sophomoric. Take the word justice and apply those same criteria of questions. Justice is not quantifiable, and to quantify God into your conundrum is just as preposterous as to have a dog tell you its more intelligent than you. Maybe the dog i... well nevermind.

 

I think the real answer for all these arguments against God existing is precisely because God exists. No one protests the existence of easter bunnies precisely because they don't exist. Imagine spending your time over and over proving something which doesn't exist, like unicorns, and expect people to think you are sane. Welcome to that society.

 

How do bees make honey, or birds make nests for their young without training? Who gives those instincts without learning? Why do salmon run up the stream to lay their eggs? Why do humans strive for happiness even if they seek it in ridiculous things? In this life there is a consistent design which is definite and provable. There is no such thing as a causeless effect. All effects come their source as all designs need a Designer. Life works in a harmony not understandable independently, just as ants do not know why they build a nest, how natural food chains are for harmony although each part doesn't contemplate it's own reasoning in the chain, but they do by design by a Designer.

 

Whether you deny that truth is not relevant, it's clear God designed this world.

[StupidNation]

That's also yet another reason science and religion aren't compatible - God is not a falsifiable concept, hence is not and cannot be scientific. Doesn't mean the two can't coexist...just means that the two will always be distinct from each other.

 

Classical definition of science: knowledge or a system of knowledge of general truths or the operation of general laws based on principles of thought. Scientia, as it was classically understood has always meant a body of known things by PRINCIPLES. Metaphysics is a science, the highest of them all. No, it does not fit the high school definition of science taught today, but those are the facts of the etymology and philology of the word.

 

To say God is incompatible with science is completely incorrect. God is incompatible with experimental sciences based on empiricism and the collection and theories of quantitative research, but not by science's historical understanding of the world as understood for 4,000 years. Have you ever read ancient Greek works on science you would see this meaning, and it has passed through the ages from Socrates to Boethius to Aquinas to Pasteur to mean these same thing until recently where empirical sciences usurped the broader meaning of the word.

 

Modern schooling... have you really treated your students so poorly? 100 years ago this was common knowledge to any college grad.

[John Adams]

I don't know which is worse, someone beating you over your head with a Bible. Or someone who does not believe in God beating you over your head with there opinion. Can't we just agree to disagree and let it go?

 

One of the worst reads I subjected myself to in the last year was Letter to a Christian Nation. Though I agreed with most of its sentiment, it was as awful as the side he attacks.

[John Adams]

I cringe to think many people here think their arguments go into the realm of deep thoughts with Jack Handy. Metaphysics if the queen of all science and all other sciences are subject to it. Metaphysics makes no claims as a substitute for other sciences, but makes generalities as to all of them. When biology or chemistry dictates to metaphysics it's beyond their scope as the one is empirical and matter, and other is spiritual and abstracted from mater. Biologists will say all life is in flux materially in regards to the body, a metaphysicist can say, "This is John despite his matter in constant flux."

 

The problem with all the arguments here is that they are based on false suppositions, poor constructed contradictions and contraries posed as consistent with reason, and finally that I'm a lemming for not believing 2+3=blue.

 

Whether you deny that truth is not relevant, it's clear God designed this world.

 

You continue to propose that metaphysics proves god because of prime mover/intelligent designer/first cause propositions. You also point out (without basis), that no one here knows anything about metaphysics. Perhaps the people who don't agree with you understand your arguments and refute your conclusions.

 

Your argument for god follows Aquinas. All moving things were set in motion by some other moving thing. Tracing that chain of movers back means that there was at one point a "Prime Mover" that you call god. As I said before, any 10-year-old can understand that infinite regression puzzle. But the conclusion that your infinite regression lands on a prime mover, or god, is not necessarily correct. It is correct in the schema that you set up "All moving things were set in motion by another moving thing," but that does not mean the infinite regression lands on god.

 

Your repeating it does not make it so.