The non-thinking that is Religion.

[Rebelius]

Originally Posted by AlanG

If an "ordinary" person (no offence to Alex intended) can ask questions of religion which "ordinary" religious people can't answer but have to defer to one of the most intelligent men alive it shows a sharp difference in average critical thinking skills of those on each "side". The side it reflects most positively on is certainly not religions.

Alex studied Theology at uni though - so that should put him in a better position to argue things like this than someone who did biology.

I don't know what his main subject was but I'm going to guess something like Philosophy where you're also taught how to argue and things.

not saying he's a genius or anything but it seems to me he's in a better position to argue about this than most people are, even if he is wrong.

I'm sure I could argue a wrong point against a 5 year old and win. It's a skill in debating too - if only the correct person could win an argument, amateur debating would be pretty pointless because it would just be luck of the draw that decided who won.

[Thee Alex]

I did Theology and Fine Art (odd combo) but the Theology was rendered pretty easy by having been brought up in a religious household.

However, I wouldn't say my theological understanding was any better than anyone else who has a serious church background. The problem is a lot of people who claim to follow various faiths these days haven't bothered to read their own religious books.

[GobbHayte]

Originally Posted by Thee Alex

I did Theology and Fine Art

That would explain why you have persistently failed to grasp that failing to scientifically prove the existence of god is not the same thing as disproving it.
I guess they don't teach you in theology or fine art that you can't prove a negative.
Oh wait, it's stupid and illogical to believe in something there is no evidence for, and believing in god is like believing in the tooth fairy, but you're forgetting one thing, anecdotal evidence. There are few, if any, otherwise sane people who would claim to have seen the tooth fairy. There are countless people who claim to have felt the prescence of god or have had other supernatural experiences.
It would be pretty dumb to start believing in god just cos a couple of people say god exists but with no evidence to back it up, yes, but there is the massive weight of the anecdotal evidence to contend with.
There are far too many people who have had spiritual or supernatural experiences to discount them purely because there is no scientific proof, to discount that much anecdotal evidence an alternative explanation for those experiences would have to be provided.

[Thee Alex]

Originally Posted by GobbHayte

.....but there is the massive weight of the anecdotal evidence to contend with.
There are far too many people who have had spiritual or supernatural experiences to discount them purely because there is no scientific proof, to discount that much anecdotal evidence an alternative explanation for those experiences would have to be provided.

Oh for heavens sake, is this how far you're now having to stoop?? Seriously? For real??

BTW, when is your missus going to tell me how a powerless, formless, unconscious, pantheistic 'god' is any different from a non-existent one?

[Hecate]

Originally Posted by Thee Alex

Oh for heavens sake, is this how far you're now having to stoop?? Seriously? For real??

BTW, when is your missus going to tell me how a powerless, formless, unconscious, pantheistic 'god' is any different from a non-existent one?

When?
Hmmmm.......
the day you make it as a comedy genius

failing that....
the day you make it as an internet comedian (that is, someone who isn't laughed at, a concept you have failed to grasp during your miserable existence)

failing that....
when you get your OCD sorted

failing that.....
whilst you are getting your head kicked in


Actually, scrap the last one for being the most likely occurrence.

[GaryM]

Originally Posted by GobbHayte

There are far too many people who have had spiritual or supernatural experiences to discount them purely because there is no scientific proof, to discount that much anecdotal evidence an alternative explanation for those experiences would have to be provided.

(1) A single piece of experimental evidence always trumps mountains of anecdotal evidence. The ancient Mesopotamians could have given you loads of anecdotal evidence as to why the Earth was shaped like a flat disc, but Aristotle's observations that some stars are only visible from some parts of the world blew that theory out of the water.

(2) Alternative explanation for religious feelings?

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

The term God Helmet refers to a controversial experimental apparatus in neurotheology. The apparatus, placed on the head of an experimental subject, stimulates the brain with magnetic fields. Some subjects reported experiences similar to spiritual experiences.[1] The leading researcher in this area is Michael Persinger. Persinger uses a modified snowmobile helmet or a head-circlet device nicknamed the Octopus that contain solenoids which create a weak but complex magnetic field over the brain's right-hemisphere parietal and temporal lobes. Persinger reports that at least 80 per cent of his participants experience a presence beside them in the room, which they variously say feels like God or someone they knew who had died.

[GobbHayte]

Originally Posted by GaryM

(1) A single piece of experimental evidence always trumps mountains of anecdotal evidence. The ancient Mesopotamians could have given you loads of anecdotal evidence as to why the Earth was shaped like a flat disc, but Aristotle's observations that some stars are only visible from some parts of the world blew that theory out of the water.

True, but there is no single piece of experimental evidence for the non-existence of god, only failure to prove god's existence. it's not the same thing.
I've heard about the experiments where the brain was stimulated to produce religious type experiences, but it doesn't answer the question of what stimulated those sensations in a non-laboratory environment. My brain could be tricked into smelling oranges by stimulating the right part of it, this does not mean that oranges do not exist.

[LesMts]

Originally Posted by GobbHayte

True, but there is no single piece of experimental evidence for the non-existence of god, only failure to prove god's existence. it's not the same thing.

What would a piece of evidence that proved the non-existence of God look like?
That's like asking us to prove that there are no wild alligators in Dundee.

[GaryM]

Originally Posted by GobbHayte

True, but there is no single piece of experimental evidence for the non-existence of god, only failure to prove god's existence. it's not the same thing.

There's no evidence for the non-existence of anything, there couldn't be, so that isn't an argument in favour of the existence of god, or if it is then it equally supports anything that can be imagined. If someone believes in the existence of gods simply because they can't be disproved, then aren't they compelled by the same logic to believe in fairies, flying spaghetti monsters and Russell's Teapot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot)?

[Dashingmajor]

Originally Posted by GobbHayte

That would explain why you have persistently failed to grasp that failing to scientifically prove the existence of god is not the same thing as disproving it.
I guess they don't teach you in theology or fine art that you can't prove a negative.
Oh wait, it's stupid and illogical to believe in something there is no evidence for, and believing in god is like believing in the tooth fairy, but you're forgetting one thing, anecdotal evidence. There are few, if any, otherwise sane people who would claim to have seen the tooth fairy. There are countless people who claim to have felt the prescence of god or have had other supernatural experiences.
It would be pretty dumb to start believing in god just cos a couple of people say god exists but with no evidence to back it up, yes, but there is the massive weight of the anecdotal evidence to contend with.
There are far too many people who have had spiritual or supernatural experiences to discount them purely because there is no scientific proof, to discount that much anecdotal evidence an alternative explanation for those experiences would have to be provided.

Wow that's me convinced. Off to a place of worship I go. Some people haven't seen god, but they're sure that he/she/it was there when they did something.
That's good enough for me.
Oh, btw, did these people happen to 'feel' which was the one true god? I don't want to turn up a mosque, only to be proved wrong when I die (how embarrassing would that be!?).

Originally Posted by freakonaleash

When?
Hmmmm.......
the day you make it as a comedy genius

failing that....
the day you make it as an internet comedian (that is, someone who isn't laughed at, a concept you have failed to grasp during your miserable existence)

failing that....
when you get your OCD sorted

failing that.....
whilst you are getting your head kicked in


Actually, scrap the last one for being the most likely occurrence.

Is this not meant to be in the slag off Alex thread? Only I don't see it pertinent to the question asked..

[Thee Alex]

In reply to me asking when Kate will explain how her belief in a 'god' that is formless, powerless, and pointless is any different from their being no 'god' at all....

Originally Posted by freakonaleash

When?
Hmmmm.......
the day you make it as a comedy genius

failing that....
the day you make it as an internet comedian (that is, someone who isn't laughed at, a concept you have failed to grasp during your miserable existence)

failing that....
when you get your OCD sorted

failing that.....
whilst you are getting your head kicked in


Actually, scrap the last one for being the most likely occurrence.

So your reply is based on - insults, threats, and inferences of mental illness?

No answer to the question asked? Are you really giving up with a string of abuse? Nothing wins an argument better than avoiding the final question and calling the other party a 'poopyhead'......

[Thee Alex]

Originally Posted by GaryM

(1) A single piece of experimental evidence always trumps mountains of anecdotal evidence. The ancient Mesopotamians could have given you loads of anecdotal evidence as to why the Earth was shaped like a flat disc, but Aristotle's observations that some stars are only visible from some parts of the world blew that theory out of the water.

(2) Alternative explanation for religious feelings?

Excellent points in this and other replies from Gary.