Do Med Students Believe In God

[tehdude]

---

Members don't see this ad.

I believe in evolution and am a devote Catholic. I also believe in Devine Initiation.

"In his encyclical Humani Generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII has already affirmed that there is no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of the faith regarding man and his vocation, provided that we do not lose sight of certain fixed points.... Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than a hypothesis. In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines. The convergence in the results of these independent studies—which was neither planned nor sought—constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory." - Pope John Paul II

"Science can purify religion from error and superstition. Religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes." - Pope John Paul II

Was this before or after he condemned condom use to prevent the spread of HIV in Africa? Why do you seldom hear Catholics talk about the millions who will die needlessly from AIDS? Or about him sheltering those who raped and tortured children?

 

[paul411]

Was this before or after he condemned condom use to prevent the spread of HIV in Africa? Why do you seldom hear Catholics talk about the millions who will die needlessly from AIDS? Or about him sheltering those who raped and tortured children?

Minimizing cognitive dissonance by ignoring contradictions and other less desirable things.

 

[Cuthbert]

Was this before or after he condemned condom use to prevent the spread of HIV in Africa? Why do you seldom hear Catholics talk about the millions who will die needlessly from AIDS? Or about him sheltering those who raped and tortured children?

This has obviously hit a nerve with you. I fail to understand how your response relates to the discussion at hand however. You don't hear me talking about those things because none of them pertain to this discussion.

 

[Luelinks]

I believe in evolution and am a devote Catholic. I also believe in Devine Initiation.

"In his encyclical Humani Generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII has already affirmed that there is no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of the faith regarding man and his vocation, provided that we do not lose sight of certain fixed points.... Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than a hypothesis. In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines. The convergence in the results of these independent studies—which was neither planned nor sought—constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory." - Pope John Paul II

"Science can purify religion from error and superstition. Religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes." - Pope John Paul II

Purify religion from error and superstition sounds like the Catholic faith is copping out and altering their beliefs for the sake of appearing valid and reasonable. In fact, the irony is that a lot of religious dogma is not reasonable on a whole bunch of grounds.

Religion can do nothing to science, because science is not affected by outside means. Science does not discriminate nor construe false truths...unless I missed a step of the scientific method and forgot to include "divine intervention".

 

[boggvir]

Lol @ religion needing to tell science about absolutes.

 

[hawkeye pierce]

Religion does affect science and vice versa. Religion puts moral rules upon the scientist (varies by religion).

 

[Nickelpennykid]

This has obviously hit a nerve with you. I fail to understand how your response relates to the discussion at hand however. You don't hear me talking about those things because none of them pertain to this discussion.

This does relate. You chose to quote the late Pope to support that Catholicism and science can play nice, as long as scientific theory can fit nicely within Catholic doctrines, yet you fail to recognize that this is a man who blatantly ignores scientific truth and reason when it comes to the use of condoms in Africa. Condom use unquestionably lowers HIV transmission rates, and John Paul II's stance once again demonstrates the dangers of mixing science and religion / faith.

The sex abuse scandal may not relate, however....

 

[boggvir]

Religion does affect science and vice versa. Religion puts moral rules upon the scientist (varies by religion).

No it doesn't. Religion justifies amoral acts by turning them into moral acts. And often it lags behind society when trying to change it's morality. When slavery was legal, religion was used to justify it. When it started to become unfashionable, the abolitionists also used religion to combat it. Same thing with women's rights. And in 50 years we will say the same thing about gay rights. It's disgusting.

 

[DocArmy]

I think respecting patients and their wishes about treatment is fine. I am opposed to the deference of true science to fairy tales. Blood transfusions, immunizations and reproductive health, among other medical issues, need to be free from the trappings of antiquated magical thinking, in my opinion.

Neil deGrasse Tyson had a GREAT talk about religion and it's influence on science in the world.

 

[Procyon]

I saw The Tree of Life last night. It was an interesting response to this question.

 

[OMG Lizards]

Originally Posted by hfdoc
But not knowing how we came into being exactly still doesn't take away from the fact that were just too perfectly formed down to a minute cell for 'mother nature' to just figure itself out in creating complex DNA

One of the problems with intelligent design is that the human body just isn't designed very intelligently at all. Look at our spines. They are a horrible vertical support system. It's prone to many injuries and puts far too much stress on such a narrow support column. We have one which evolved from the lateral support system in fish who use the aquatic environment for body support.

The skeleton we have, for a bipedal hominid, is terrible. It's anything but intelligently designed.

 

[Luelinks]

Religion does affect science and vice versa. Religion puts moral rules upon the scientist (varies by religion).

No it does not. Reasoning, the outcomes, and choice & consequence, affects morality.

What people do not understand is that religion does NOT dictate moral grounds. Anyone with a normal functioning brain (and without religious dogma) can interpret that conscious murder for instance is wrong by reasoning out: why do I want to kill someone (angry?), what are the consequences (prison), will it hurt their friends and family (probably), do I value life and do they have their own freedom to live (most likely yes).

Also, that reasoning alone is more honest than:

I will not murder so-and-so because I am afraid of the consequences (going to hell).

 

[muhali3]

No it does not. Reasoning, the outcomes, and choice & consequence, affects morality.

What people do not understand is that religion does NOT dictate moral grounds. Anyone with a normal functioning brain (and without religious dogma) can interpret that conscious murder for instance is wrong by reasoning out: why do I want to kill someone (angry?), what are the consequences (prison), will it hurt their friends and family (probably), do I value life and do they have their own freedom to live (most likely yes).

Also, that reasoning alone is more honest than:

I will not murder so-and-so because I am afraid of the consequences (going to hell).

yeah, morality is independent of religion. everyone has a sense of right/wrong whether they are religious or not.

 

[Daedra22]

One of the problems with intelligent design is that the human body just isn't designed very intelligently at all. Look at our spines. They are a horrible vertical support system. It's prone to many injuries and puts far too much stress on such a narrow support column. We have one which evolved from the lateral support system in fish who use the aquatic environment for body support.

The skeleton we have, for a bipedal hominid, is terrible. It's anything but intelligently designed.

Spine? How about genetic diseases and the high percentage of pregnancies which end in spontaneous (and frequently unnoticed) abortion. There are some diseases that children a born with that are so unbelievably cruel I would never even think of them as a punishment for the worst of criminals >.>

 

[StephenMaturin]

This does relate. You chose to quote the late Pope to support that Catholicism and science can play nice, as long as scientific theory can fit nicely within Catholic doctrines, yet you fail to recognize that this is a man who blatantly ignores scientific truth and reason when it comes to the use of condoms in Africa. Condom use unquestionably lowers HIV transmission rates, and John Paul II's stance once again demonstrates the dangers of mixing science and religion / faith.

The sex abuse scandal may not relate, however....

 

[hawkeye pierce]

Ok, I think my last comment was missunderstood. I was just commenting that religion does affect what goes on with science. I never said good or bad.

 

[boggvir]

Well yea it interferes with science.....or blocks it entirely.

 

[Nickelpennykid]

Ok, I think my last comment was missunderstood. I was just commenting that religion does affect what goes on with science. I never said good or bad.

Another swing and a miss...

Do you happen to recall the debate over federal funding of embryonic stem cell research a few years ago? Once again religious groups and the pope (who related stem cell research to abortion) was a driving force in banning public funding. Now this did not stop research since private funding was available, but religion unquestionably played a role in denying public government funding of this research.

 

[hawkeye pierce]

Did the lack of public funding slow it down? of course it did. Did the federal research funding go into other types of research? Of course it did. Is this not affecting science at all? You are again confusing my point. Religion can delay research. It can speed up research.

 

[hawkeye pierce]

Did the church's imprisoning people in the middle ages slow down progress? Of course it did. Did it steer research into more church approved subjects? Of course it did.

 

[boggvir]

Haha what research has religion sped up?

 

[hawkeye pierce]

Boggvir,
I would say religion has helped speed up excavation research of the middle east. The jesuits and a few other major religious groups are very involved in a variety of educational and research projects.

 

[shaggy alfresco]

Boggvir,
I would say religion has helped speed up excavation research of the middle east. The jesuits and a few other major religious groups are very involved in a variety of educational and research projects.

You mean the groups that keep lying about having found Noah's ark?

 

[hawkeye pierce]

Obviously you don't understand what an excavation is. A lot of them are done in jerusalem etc due to the people seeking biblical sites.

 

[DOctor To Be]

If u believe in God but it turns out he does not exist, what do u have to lose? Nothing. If u don't believe in God and it turns out he exists what do u have to lose? Everything
Jesus was one of 3 things: a liar, a lunatic, or he was who he said he was. If he was a liar or lunatic Christianity would have never spread much less still be here today. The reason I say this is because most of Christ's disciples were killed for spreading his message, and they would not have risked their lives for something they knew to be a lie.

 

[shaggy alfresco]

If u believe in God but it turns out he does not exist, what do u have to lose? Nothing. If u don't believe in God and it turns out he exists what do u have to lose? Everything
Jesus was one of 3 things: a liar, a lunatic, or he was who he said he was. If he was a liar or lunatic Christianity would have never spread much less still be here today. The reason I say this is because most of Christ's disciples were killed for spreading his message, and they would not have risked their lives for something they knew to be a lie.

Yea, because there is no way a lot of people can believe in something that isn't true.

 

[Luelinks]

If u believe in God but it turns out he does not exist, what do u have to lose? Nothing. If u don't believe in God and it turns out he exists what do u have to lose? Everything
Jesus was one of 3 things: a liar, a lunatic, or he was who he said he was. If he was a liar or lunatic Christianity would have never spread much less still be here today. The reason I say this is because most of Christ's disciples were killed for spreading his message, and they would not have risked their lives for something they knew to be a lie.

Wow @ the text.

Pascal's Wager...

 

[shaggy alfresco]

The problem with Pasal's wager is that you have no clue which out of the tens of thousands of gods to believe in. So it's not an on/off 50/50 switch. Even within Christianity, should I be a catholic or should I believe in Joseph Smith or neither of the two?

And of course, by that ******* wager, I can say: You can choose to believe in a pink invisible unicorn on Mars or you can choose not to. If you choose not to and you're wrong, blah blah blah...see what I'm getting at?

 

[Luelinks]

The problem with Pasal's wager is that you have no clue which out of the tens of thousands of gods to believe in. So it's not an on/off 50/50 switch. Even within Christianity, should I be a catholic or should I believe in Joseph Smith or neither of the two?

And of course, by that ******* wager, I can say: You can choose to believe in a pink invisible unicorn on Mars or you can choose not to. If you choose not to and you're wrong, blah blah blah...see what I'm getting at?

 

[DOctor To Be]

Yea, because there is no way a lot of people can believe in something that isn't true.

There is a big difference in believing in something that isn't true and dying for believing in something that isn't true.

 

[hawkeye pierce]

Doctor to be. Does this mean that islam is true? I mean look at all these people willing to actually choose to die for their religion. I'm religious myself, but that logic means nothing. Also there are more than those three that jesus could be. The people who wrote the books could be ad libing to his life etc.

 

[DOctor To Be]

The problem with Pasal's wager is that you have no clue which out of the tens of thousands of gods to believe in. So it's not an on/off 50/50 switch. Even within Christianity, should I be a catholic or should I believe in Joseph Smith or neither of the two?

And of course, by that ******* wager, I can say: You can choose to believe in a pink invisible unicorn on Mars or you can choose not to. If you choose not to and you're wrong, blah blah blah...see what I'm getting at?

I agree that it seems daunting to find a religion because there are so many choices, I guess if you were truly interested the best thing to do would be to research the beliefs of the different religions and choose based on which you find works for you. I don't know your personal situation, maybe you have already done that. The thing that sets Christianity apart from the others is that it is the only one that says eternal life is a free gift that you can receive through faith in Jesus Christ, it does not require good works to get to heaven. Also Christianity is more about your personal relationship with Christ, than it is about following the different rules set by each denomination (Methodists, baptists, Catholics, pentocostal, etc). That was something that I had trouble understanding at first.

 

[Luelinks]

I agree that it seems daunting to find a religion because there are so many choices, I guess if you were truly interested the best thing to do would be to research the beliefs of the different religions and choose based on which you find works for you. I don't know your personal situation, maybe you have already done that. The thing that sets Christianity apart from the others is that it is the only one that says eternal life is a free gift that you can receive through faith in Jesus Christ, it does not require good works to get to heaven. Also Christianity is more about your personal relationship with Christ, than it is about following the different rules set by each denomination (Methodists, baptists, Catholics, pentocostal, etc). That was something that I had trouble understanding at first.

I am in the market looking for something that promises me an enlightening return. Something where with a little dedication on my part, giving up me, for a nice little investment into the heaven of financial gain.

Hmm, I really like the appeal of an exchanged traded fund. Perhaps I'll invest 150,000k in that within my lifetime. It will have a great personal relationship with me and the market, but has volatility (you know just like in life). But hey! At least it is dividend yielding at a divine .90 cents/share per quarter... 'nuff to keep me content!

Oh, well I could be safe and say I am investing my hard earned righteous money in a money market savings...I don't have to do much if anything, but will feel great about myself since in the end I will have a meager, if anything, return. Even if inflation is hindering my gains, at least I will know deeeeep down that if I didn't risk anything, I would either end up with no gain or a small gain! Thank you financial adviser Dr. Pascal.

Lets see finally, the Jumbo CD (Christ of Deposit) option offers me a promised 7.77% APR for a deposit of $666,000 + being a devout member of that bank. Wow what a wonderful deal, I will cherry pick that investment since it benefits and is easiest for me!

I sure love looking at the market of available religions, I mean, countless investment options that look good, since I am afraid of the scary idea of not making money.

 

[DOctor To Be]

If religion is not for u then thats fine, it's your choice. I don't poke fun or pass judgement on you because you choose not to believe the things I do, so I would appreaciate the same respect, if you can't have an adult debate without having to make a big joke out of my beliefs then I'm not going to continue this discussion. I hate how some people who choose not to believe in God think that they are smarter than everybody else and that if a person is a believer they are automatically intellectually inferior to you.

 

[boggvir]

There is a big difference in believing in something that isn't true and dying for believing in something that isn't true.

People have died for communism and fascism and their country and for hinduism and for Christianity and for Zeus and for Islam....some of those can't be true if others are.

If religion is not for u then thats fine, it's your choice. I don't poke fun or pass judgement on you because you choose not to believe the things I do, so I would appreaciate the same respect, if you can't have an adult debate without having to make a big joke out of my beliefs then I'm not going to continue this discussion. I hate how some people who choose not to believe in God think that they are smarter than everybody else and that if a person is a believer they are automatically intellectually inferior to you.

I only think I'm smarter than someone when they open their mouths to make illogical and specious arguments, regardless of what side they're on. One side usually (though not always) has a bit of a monopoly on that though.

 

[D elegans]

I was always surprised that Pascal himself didn't see how stupid of an argument "Pascal's Wager" is.

 

[Luelinks]

+1 on boggvir


I went to a Catholic school all my life and an all-male prestigious Jesuit college prep high school, but after growing up, learning about science, logic, reasoning, and making my own decisions did I begin to really see religion and its side effects (good and bad). It took a lot of intellectual honesty, open-mindedness, and courage to leave religion, but the point I stress it to (like I said earlier in this thread) reason why you believe things, does it make sense?, what is the motivation behind it?, are you religious for more cultural reasons or because you were raised that way? Just looking at all the Gods mentioned in human history, comparing religions, their acts, dogma, rules, etc. really opens your mind up to this whole phenomenon. Religion seems like a glamorized, dogmatic, enhancement to simply the concept of "hope" for a better [anything] that fits what you desire or would want to happen, example: life after death.

 

[tehdude]

I only think I'm smarter than someone when they open their mouths to make illogical and specious arguments, regardless of what side they're on. One side usually (though not always) has a bit of a monopoly on that though.

Yeah, about 99% of the time.

 

[shaggy alfresco]

That was pretty epic.

 

[shaggy alfresco]

I have an apology to make. I’m afraid I’ve made a big mistake. I turned my face away from you, Lord.
I was too blind to see the light. I was too weak to feel Your might. I closed my eyes; I couldn’t see the truth, Lord.
But then like Saul on the Damascus road, you sent a messenger to me, and so…
I have had the truth revealed to me. Please forgive me all those things I said. I’ll no longer betray you, Lord. I will pray to you instead.
And I will say “Thank you, thank you, thank you God. Thank you, thank you, thank you God.”
Thank you God for fixing the cataracts of Sam’s mum.
I had no idea but it’s suddenly so clear now. I feel such a cynic. How could I have been so dumb?
Thank you for displaying how praying works: a particular prayer in a particular church. Thank you Sam for the chance to acknowledge this omnipotent opthamologist.
Thank you God for fixing the cataracts of Sam’s mum. I didn’t realize that it was so simple, but you’ve shown a great example of just how it can be done.
You only need to pray in a particular spot to a particular version of a particular god, and if you pull that off without a hitch, he will fix one eye of one middle-class white bitch.

I know in the past my outlook has been limited. I couldn’t see examples of where life had been definitive. But I can admit it when the evidence is clear, as clear as Sam’s mum’s new cornea.
That’s extremely clear! Extremely clear!
Thank you God for fixing the cataracts of Sam’s mum. I have to admit that in the past I have been skeptical but Sam described this miracle and I am overcome!
How fitting that the sighting of a sight-based intervention should open my eyes to this exciting new dimension. It’s like someone put an eye chart on the wall in front of me and the top five letters say: I C G O D.
Thank you, Sam, for showing how my point of view has been so flawed. I assumed there was no God at all but now I see that’s cynical. It’s simply that his interests aren’t particularly broad.
He’s largely undiverted by the starving masses, or the inequality between the various classes. He gives you strictly limited passes, redeemable for surgery or two-for-one glasses.
I feel so shocking for historically mocking. Your interests are clearly confined to the ocular. I bet given the chance, you’d eschew the divine and start a little business selling contacts online.
**** me Sam, what are the odds that of history’s endless parade of gods that the God you just happened to be taught to believe in is the actual one and he digs on healing, but the AIDS-ridden African nations, the victims of the plague or the flood-addled Asians, but healthy, privately-insured Australians with common and curable corneal degeneration?
This story of Sam’s has but a single explanation: a surgical God who digs on magic explanations. It couldn’t be mistaken attribution of causation, born of a coincidental temporal correlation, exacerbated by a general lack of education vis-a-vis physics in Sam’s parish congregation. And it couldn’t be that all these pious people are liars. It couldn’t be an artifact of confirmation bias, a product of groupthink, a mass delusion, an Emperor’s New Clothes-style fear of exclusion.
No, it’s more likely to be an all-powerful magician than the misdiagnosis of the initial condition, or one of many cases of spontaneous remission, or a record-keeping glitch by the local physician.
No, the only explanation for Sam’s mum’s seeing: they prayed to an all-knowing superbeing, to the omnipresent master of the universe, and he liked the sound of their muttered verse.
So for a bit of a change from his usual stunt of being a sexist, racist, murderous ****, he popped down to Dandenong and just like that, used his powers to heal the cataracts of Sam’s mum – of Sam’s mum!
Thank you God for fixing the cataracts of Sam’s mum! I didn’t realize that it was such a simple thing. I feel such a dingaling, what ignorant scum!
Now I understand how prayer can work: a particular prayer in a particular church in a particular style with a particular stuff and a particular book for particular problems that aren’t particularly tough, and for particular people, preferably white, for particular senses, preferably sight – a particular prayer in a particular spot, to a particular version of a particular god.
And if you get that right, He just might take a break from giving babies malaria and pop down to your local area to fix the cataracts of your mum!
Hallelujah!

http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=14661

 

[Luelinks]

@ the people who chose response #1, how are you all certain God exists, as you claim?

 

[OMG Lizards]

If u believe in God but it turns out he does not exist, what do u have to lose? Nothing. If u don't believe in God and it turns out he exists what do u have to lose? Everything
Jesus was one of 3 things: a liar, a lunatic, or he was who he said he was. If he was a liar or lunatic Christianity would have never spread much less still be here today. The reason I say this is because most of Christ's disciples were killed for spreading his message, and they would not have risked their lives for something they knew to be a lie.

Is there any evidence that He actually existed?

Not trolling, genuinely interested.

 

[judasreznor]

Is there any evidence that He actually existed?

Not trolling, genuinely interested.

One could very easily say that their experience of God is evidence that He exists.

 

[judasreznor]

[YOUTUBE]JKGtcVoBhBQ[/YOUTUBE]

All that that video illustrates is that Richard Dawins is mean-spirited. His response pre-supposes that he is the final arbiter of the experiences of all individuals. How can he know what that man experienced? What does his opinion that the man is hallucinating matter? Notice that I did not necessarily establish what God one would experience, only that experience cannot be denied. Empirical evidence is a wonderful tool, but is not the de facto best tool for every subject. As stated earlier, if we keep science where it should be and religion where it should be, they are both useful and meaningful. One cannot, in a wholesale manner, completely disregard the existence of God because there is not necessarily empirical evidence for the existence of such a being. There are other systems of logic that support belief in a God. It is my understanding that those who state with assurance that there is absolutely no God (and, remember, empirical evidence is not the only defensible means of discussing the issue) are as misguided (and faith-based) as those that say without doubt that God does exist. One must have faith in either position.

 

[Long Way to Go]

Is there any evidence that He actually existed?

Not trolling, genuinely interested.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_myth_theory

Consensus is that he did. As far as him being the Son of God and all that, well, YMMV.

 

[Vishna]

All that that video illustrates is that Richard Dawins is mean-spirited. His response pre-supposes that he is the final arbiter of the experiences of all individuals. How can he know what that man experienced? What does his opinion that the man is hallucinating matter? Notice that I did not necessarily establish what God one would experience, only that experience cannot be denied. Empirical evidence is a wonderful tool, but is not the de facto best tool for every subject. As stated earlier, if we keep science where it should be and religion where it should be, they are both useful and meaningful. One cannot, in a wholesale manner, completely disregard the existence of God because there is not necessarily empirical evidence for the existence of such a being. There are other systems of logic that support belief in a God. It is my understanding that those who state with assurance that there is absolutely no God (and, remember, empirical evidence is not the only defensible means of discussing the issue) are as misguided (and faith-based) as those that say without doubt that God does exist. One must have faith in either position.

Then why not free every patient that suffers from hallucinations onto the streets? If you cannot explicitly prove that what they're seeing is not real you have no right to keep them contained. Just because millions of people suffer from the same delusion does not make it any less of a delusion. If you have listened to Dawkins a bit more than this, you would know that even he would never say that there is empirically and undeniably no God. Because that position would be impossible to prove. Same goes with the "there absolutely is a God" position. The more logical and evident side of the two, however, is that there most likely is no God.

When you say we should keep science and religion where they should be, they are indeed both useful. Science for the progress of man and his accomplishments and religion for the containment, brainwashing, and control of the masses.

 

[judasreznor]

Then why not free every patient that suffers from hallucinations onto the streets? If you cannot explicitly prove that what they're seeing is not real you have no right to keep them contained. Just because millions of people suffer from the same delusion does not make it any less of a delusion. If you have listened to Dawkins a bit more than this, you would know that even he would never say that there is empirically and undeniably no God. Because that position would be impossible to prove. Same goes with the "there absolutely is a God" position. The more logical and evident side of the two, however, is that there most likely is no God. <-- "in my opinion" should be attached to this sentence.

When you say we should keep science and religion where they should be, they are indeed both useful. Science for the progress of man and his accomplishments and religion for the containment, brainwashing, and control of the masses.

Goodness, I cannot disagree with you more. We often contain those with what we consider delusions (because, really, how do we know it isn't real?) because they are a danger to themselves or to society (mostly if they're a danger to society because we have laws against hurting other people). The more logical stance is that there is no God? If one cannot empirically prove one way or the other, then all we are left with are philosophical discussions of the issue, and it isn't nearly as settled as you state. There are serious theologians and philosophers that have very sound logical arguments for their beliefs in God.

Just because religion isn't for you doesn't mean that it is worthless. Science can, and has, been used to harm people. Atheists have hurt people, as have religious people. Sweeping generalizations about theists (or atheists) serve no purpose. Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, and others like them, appear to be very angry with religion. Being angry with religious people and what some religious people have done to harm societies in history is one thing, but it has very little bearing on making a logical case for God not existing. I have heard their arguments picked apart by people who are actually philosophers (William Lane Craig, for instance).

 

[group_theory]

Just a friendly reminder for everyone to try to be cordial and professional.

Religion is a very hot topic, and have been debated since the dawn of time. Many wars have been started over religion. From world leaders to vagabonds, religious belief (or lack thereof) comes in many shapes, style, etc.

You are free to disagree, to defend your position, or questions other. But please try to remain respectful. Treat others how you want to be treated, in real life and online too.



*I don't want to close this thread but if it degenerates, then it will be closed.

 

[deleted357625]

👍

 

[shaggy alfresco]

I have heard their arguments picked apart by people who are actually philosophers (William Lane Craig, for instance).

Oh, pray tell, what are these arguments? They don't exist because you can't prove something like God using logic or science or any other methods.