Religion. Discuss ( or should that be argue )

Religion can never be proven, short of the actual second-coming.

Religion doesn't need to be proven, it exists!

It can be dis-proven once and for all by science though, and it will be, sooner rather than later

Of course it can't, it's unfalsifiable.

How do you suppose science could disprove 'religion' (I am guessing you mean the existence of 'god')?

I don't know, with test-tubes and what-not.

prove unicorns do not exist e.t.c

£100 does sound a lot like Tynan.
Can you do photoshops too?

Ha, it really does

and they have a onetri spok

I don't know, with test-tubes and what-not.

Well, there you go, you don't know, no one does, not me, not the religious and certainly not scientists, religious belief is unfalsifiable, ask a Christian or a Muslim what he would be willing to accept as evidence that his beliefs are mistaken and they will not (cannot) give you an answer.

The claim 'god exists' doesn't mean anything (nor does the claim that 'god doesn't exist') it's just a category error, not a lot scientists can do to disprove (or prove) you might as well ask them to disprove the idea that "our collectively silent noise lights the quantum feeling of love".

£100 does sound a lot like Tynan.
Can you do photoshops too?

ill give it a go, got photoshop

Still want that poster?

There are children on the bus, no older than 4 who are singing highly complicated songs in unison about christianity. And hitting the high notes. It's distinctly creepy, if nothing else for their religious fervour. They're toddlers, yet quite threatening. They're trying to encourage other people on the bus to join in.

I feel like I'm on the set of a new Omen film.

why is it all the nutters that mumur to themselves in library's, on buses and on the street are all chanting religious verses ?

freaks

If they are murmuring their chant, how do you know the subjects of their mummer was a religious verse? OR did you ask them to speak up, a speak clearly?

well i was extrapolating from the guy sitting next to me right now
maybe i have extrapolated to far

Stephen Fry's incendiary moment:

YouTube - Stephen Fry on Catholicism, from the Intelligence Squared debate.

I was going to put his 'argument' against religion, but then I realised that it's not an argument, it's just true.

I more than like him, we share a common theme of suffering in our lives - he was cast out of the city, beat, tortured and nailed to a cross by his own people, his crown of thorns cut and poised his head and he was left to die in the sun by his own people. I was banned from this forum 3 days

..and have to endure and defend Bendtner.

Stephen Fry's incendiary moment:

I was going to put his 'argument' against religion, but then I realised that it's not an argument, it's just true.

That's an argument against one very specific form of organised religion though, it's not an argument against religiousness or spirituality in general.

A point that I would like to make, which I think people often miss when they criticise religion, is that despite all the faults they have been philosophising for thousands of years. Therefore in terms of approaches to life they have a lot of very valid and relevant points. IMO anyone who indiscriminately dismisses this collective knowledge is taking a either a foolish or an arrogant stand.

Personally I am not religious or especially spiritual, but I do really enjoy listening to Thought for the Day on R4 when I can. For the most part the points and views made are very insightful. It's a shame these aspects are always undermined/valued by the -ive parts of religious and political organisations.

I also think it would be worthwhile for all of the most ardent critics of religion to spend more time studying the their teachings, as they would probably learn a great deal. Although I never knew him I know that my Grandfather was incredibly knowledgeable on all religions. He was also a staunch atheist. I always figured if he thought it was worth knowing about that said something.

Shout it at your vicar when he is on his bike: "Do a schism"

10 gold stars to anyone that can get near enough to the pope to yell 'DO A KID!'

love this forum

anyone care for some otter's noses..
http://vodpod.com/watch/2715505-youtube-monty-python-life-of-brian-pfj-splitters

There are no disbelievers during severe turbulence on a flight

One of my favourite websites

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/

YouTube - Scientology Ad: Invitation to Freedom

In!

A point that I would like to make, which I think people often miss when they criticise religion, is that despite all the faults [/] they have been philosophising for thousands of years.

A point that I would like to make, which I think people often miss when they criticise racism, is that despite all it's faults, racists have been philosophising for thousands of years.

IMO anyone who indiscriminately dismisses this collective knowledge is taking [/] either a foolish or an arrogant stand.

IMO anyone who indiscriminately dismisses this collective knowledge is either foolish or arrogant or a darkie.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Ok, joking aside, hopefully you took my point that antiquity is no measure of validity, if we want to claim antiquity as a measure of credible claims about the nature of the world then the Mesopotamians have a thing or two to say about the shape of the planet and the Chinese can tell us how the universe coalesced into a giant cosmic egg which held inside itself the opposed principles of Yin and Yang and when they were perfectly in balance Pangu (a fur covered primitive giant with horns) was born from this cosmic egg, Pangu then made the earth with his giant axe and the moon with his right eye.

Is it true ? Well it's older than the three currently dominant monotheisms so anyone who dismisses is either arrogant or a fool.

I am not sure which to choose, I think I would have to go with 'arrogant' - only in that choosing 'fool' might be a kind of self-refuting response.

Therefore in terms of approaches to life they have a lot of very valid and relevant points.

You have simple stated this, you may have used the word 'therefore' - suggesting that you have just made a argument supporting this claim but you have not made the case at all ?

Can you say why you feel 'they' have a lot of very valid and relevant points ?

I also think it would be worthwhile for all of the most ardent critics of religion to spend more time studying the teachings, as they would probably learn a great deal.

I also think it would be worthwhile for all of the most ardent critics of fascism to spend more time studying Mein Kampf as they would probably learn a great deal.

This is undoubtedly true, but you don't need to read Hitler to think fascism might be a failed political philosophy, nor do you need to read the insane ramblings of camel-herders to know that the claims of religion are largely rooted in faulty thinking, poor logic, confirmation bias, coercion and intellectual dishonesty.

There are no disbelievers during severe turbulence on a flight

In what ?

Hinduism ? Christianity ? Has it been tested and shown that people suddenly develop a belief in Ganesh, the elephant headed deity, in a life or death moment ?

I think if you don't believe that something exists - then a gun against your head or an aeroplane heading for the sea is not going to convince you that Shinto's uncountable number of spirit gods are suddenly real or Yahweh or our elephant headed friend - regardless of the folklore myth of instantaneous crisis conversion.

People will reach for a stranger's hand for comfort when they are desperately frightened, in fact scare people enough and they will do most anything to alleviate the fright, but we mustn't confuse fear with religious belief.

I couldn't help myself.