Why do so many still have these religious beliefs?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sword,

It doesn't mean that it isn't either. What's your alternative and what is your evidence for it?

Can I suggest that you try reading up a little on fallacious reasoning before you post again? You may or may not have something to say that's worth listening to, but for now there's no way of knowing because you keep exiting the discourse by relying on very bad thinking. 

[floo]

It doesn't mean that it isn't either. What's your alternative and what is your evidence for it?

Science is likely to explain all in the end, it has done pretty well so far, much better than religion, imo.

[SusanDoris]

Sword,

Can I suggest that you try reading up a little on fallacious reasoning before you post again? You may or may not have something to say that's worth listening to, but for now there's no way of knowing because you keep exiting the discourse by relying on very bad thinking.

I don't think Sword is going to read up on anything, let alone on fallacies; and I do find that the word 'smug' keeps popping up in my mind when I read his posts.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

Science is likely to explain all in the end, it has done pretty well so far, much better than religion, imo.

So your faith is in science then?

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

I don't think Sword is going to read up on anything,

Actually SusanDoris, there's a book I'm going to do a lot of reading-up on. I'll even recommend it to you...

It's called The Bible 

[Dicky Underpants]

Actually SusanDoris, there's a book I'm going to do a lot of reading-up on. I'll even recommend it to you...

It's called The Bible 

Well, it isn't a book - it's a library. And like many libraries, it is filled with a number of subjects, not all of which agree in the details with one another, in particular on the occasions where they appear to be talking about the same things.
Since the books therein have all been designated 'holy writing', this has unfortunately led to a number of problems. Such as treating the Song of Solomon as if it had some allegorical religious meaning. Whereas, it's a poem about sex.

[ippy]

I never had any indoctrination, all things aside. I posted something twice purposely today.
I did it because people pass over things they cannot answer. Today it shows that someone reads but passes over content and just notes posted twice.

God, himself has always lead me. The knowledge I have was NOT man taught it is God taught as with the disciples.

You are so wrong and obviously unable to see real indoctrination.

God is real you just haven't the guts to actually consider this reality.
Because the truth is so frightening to you if you allow yourself to acknowledge the fullness of what that means.

Get your head out of the sand man, you are not an Ostrich and God is still there no matter where you hide. 

If as you say you managed to avoid being indoctrinated what is it that makes you think and believe this book of yours has a factual base when as you must be aware there's no evidence that would or could confirm any of the magical, mystical and superstition based parts of it to be found anywhere?

Why then do you still believe the magical, mystical and superstition based parts of it without evidence, probably and more than likely because you've been indoctrinated.

If you feel you want to respond please don't start using the bible as evidence to back up the bible, only I'm sure you must realise  doing that would make you look daft.

ippy

[SusanDoris]

So your faith is in science then?

Name one thing in Science that needs faith, and only faith, to believe it.

Actually SusanDoris, there's a book I'm going to do a lot of reading-up on. I'll even recommend it to you...

It's called The Bible 

This sounds somewhat patronising as well as smug, I think.
You may be interested - although more likely not - to know that some years ago I was challenged to read a chapter in a gospel. The Library could only get me a complete New Testament in audio, so I listened to it all the way through over the next week. I recommend doing this - you will then get a better idea of the ludicrous statements littered throughout. As for Paul's letters - well, I bet the recipients used to dread their arrival and probably drew lots to see whose turn it was to have to read and respond.

[ippy]

I don't think Sword is going to read up on anything, let alone on fallacies; and I do find that the word 'smug' keeps popping up in my mind when I read his posts.

I wouldn't have said smug S D.

ippy

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Science is likely to explain all in the end, it has done pretty well so far, much better than religion, imo.

No Floo you don't believe that because people who believe that are supposed to be one of my ''straw men''......ask the usual suspects e.g. Papa Smurf.

[bluehillside Retd.]

No Floo you don't believe that because people who believe that are supposed to be one of my ''straw men''......ask the usual suspects e.g. Papa Smurf.

In which Vlad fails to grasp that it precisely is a straw man when he uses it to mis-characterise what posters he's responding to have said. If a different poster says something else, that's another mater.

[SusanDoris]

I wouldn't have said smug S D.

ippy

[Walt Zingmatilder]

In which Vlad fails to grasp that it precisely is a straw man when he uses it to mis-characterise what posters he's responding to have said. If a different poster says something else, that's another mater.

Hillside........... will you now and publicly agree with what Floo has said regarding science or will you now and publicly repudiate it?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hillside........... will you now and publicly agree with what Floo has said regarding science or will you now and publicly repudiate it?

In which Vlad fails to grasp that I have no obligation either to agree with or to repudiate anything. This is the same Vlad though who knows perfectly well that I don't agree with Floo, not least for the philosophical reason that we'd have no way to know whether we ever did know "all".

Will Vlad now "publicly repudiate" his own relentless misrepresentations of what I've said consistently about pretty much everything, and while he's at it publicly repudiate too his own personal re-definitions of "scientism", "philosophical naturalism", "atheism" etc etc? 

 

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

Name one thing in Science that needs faith, and only faith, to believe it.

I'll let Floo answer that one...

Science is likely to explain all in the end.

which sounds very much like a commitment to all causes/explanations having to be ones that rely on empirical evidence.

You may be interested - although more likely not - to know that some years ago I was challenged to read a chapter in a gospel. The Library could only get me a complete New Testament in audio, so I listened to it all the way through over the next week. I recommend doing this - you will then get a better idea of the ludicrous statements littered throughout.

Now that's a recommendation I may take you up on. I try and read through the bible from cover to cover as it helps to get overall pictures.

As for Paul's letters - well, I bet the recipients used to dread their arrival and probably drew lots to see whose turn it was to have to read and respond.

Just out of interest, what were your conclusions about Hebrews 11, that heroic chapter on faith?

[SusanDoris]

I'll let Floo answer that one...which sounds very much like a commitment to all causes/explanations having to be ones that rely on empirical evidence.

Well, surprise, surprise! Another question SotS avoids answering.

Now that's a recommendation I may take you up on. I try and read through the bible from cover to cover as it helps to get overall pictures.
Just out of interest, what were your conclusions about Hebrews 11, that heroic chapter on faith?

It was a few years ago so |I do not remember and most certainly haveno intention of allocating any of my life's remaining minutes to looking for it!

[Sassy]

begging the question, NPF, and shifting the burden of proof, the fallacies are strong in this one

Fallacies... again an atheist, yourself, use a word you can neither prove or sustain in the face of the fact you deliberately ignore the overwhelming evidence of Christians healing and being healed today by the power of God.
The truth is that you ignore and cherry pick actual proof because you cannot face the fact that in todays world Christian men and women are by their actions showing Gods word to be truth.

Healing of terminal cancer and serious illness including the lame walking and blind and deaf hearing are no fallacy.
The fact if you wanted to, you can search and see the evidence for yourself. You hide, like so many behind words such a fallacy and the truth is that you deliberate ignore the evidence in the world today.

Even if given proof and even if you wanted to go and see it for yourself, meet the people and the doctors (some no Christians) the truth is you choose not to believe or look for evidence which proves you wrong.
Until you look for evidence which proves you wrong then you cannot and do not have the right to use arguments of words alone.
Because the world knows you and other atheist cannot prove your case against the reality of God working amongst his own people.

[Sassy]

I don't think Sword is going to read up on anything, let alone on fallacies; and I do find that the word 'smug' keeps popping up in my mind when I read his posts.

The same can be said about you and other atheists posting here.
Because in light of evidence in the world you choose not to believe. Selective reasoning is not good and it is displayed in huge amounts by atheists here. Thinking that they can ignore the true things that prove God is real and his Son Jesus Christ spoke the truth.

 People today do, do as Christ did.They heal the sick and raise the dead. But you do not want the truth otherwise you would look for it where it counts in the real world. I believe atheists are too scared of searching where it matters because they would be left without excuse when it comes to what counts as truth.

[floo]

The same can be said about you and other atheists posting here.
Because in light of evidence in the world you choose not to believe. Selective reasoning is not good and it is displayed in huge amounts by atheists here. Thinking that they can ignore the true things that prove God is real and his Son Jesus Christ spoke the truth.

People today do, do as Christ did.They heal the sick and raise the dead. But you do not want the truth otherwise you would look for it where it counts in the real world. I believe atheists are too scared of searching where it matters because they would be left without excuse when it comes to what counts as truth.

Medics heal the sick, but no one can bring to life someone who is actually dead, that is a LIE!

[Hope]

Medics heal the sick, but no one can bring to life someone who is actually dead, that is a LIE!

And where does their medical skill come from, Floo?  Furthermore, there have been cases where someone has been buried several days after their death - a death confirmed by medics - and then been found to be alive.  Similarly, people have been en-casketed (is that the correct term for bunging someone into a casket prior to burial), only to be found to be alive - despite a medically-signed death certificate.

You can always say, well, they were never dead, but had simply been in a coma, in a deep sleep, or what ever - but there has seldom been any evidence produced to support that alternative explanation (usually the family is too caught up in the joy for anyone to think about looking for evidence).

[floo]

And where does their medical skill come from, Floo?  Furthermore, there have been cases where someone has been buried several days after their death - a death confirmed by medics - and then been found to be alive.  Similarly, people have been en-casketed (is that the correct term for bunging someone into a casket prior to burial), only to be found to be alive - despite a medically-signed death certificate.

You can always say, well, they were never dead, but had simply been in a coma, in a deep sleep, or what ever - but there has seldom been any evidence produced to support that alternative explanation (usually the family is too caught up in the joy for anyone to think about looking for evidence).

Medical skills came from several years of hard study on the part of the medics, and the contribution of modern science. I repeat no one who is really dead comes back to life. A person might be thought to be dead, but occasionally mistakes are made.

[Gordon]

And where does their medical skill come from, Floo?

Talent, training and experience.

Furthermore, there have been cases where someone has been buried several days after their death - a death confirmed by medics - and then been found to be alive.  Similarly, people have been en-casketed (is that the correct term for bunging someone into a casket prior to burial), only to be found to be alive - despite a medically-signed death certificate.

Details and sources please, including documentation.

You can always say, well, they were never dead, but had simply been in a coma, in a deep sleep, or what ever - but there has seldom been any evidence produced to support that alternative explanation (usually the family is too caught up in the joy for anyone to think about looking for evidence).

Again, details and sources please.

[Anchorman]

Fallacies... again an atheist, yourself, use a word you can neither prove or sustain in the face of the fact you deliberately ignore the overwhelming evidence of Christians healing and being healed today by the power of God.
The truth is that you ignore and cherry pick actual proof because you cannot face the fact that in todays world Christian men and women are by their actions showing Gods word to be truth.

Healing of terminal cancer and serious illness including the lame walking and blind and deaf hearing are no fallacy.
The fact if you wanted to, you can search and see the evidence for yourself. You hide, like so many behind words such a fallacy and the truth is that you deliberate ignore the evidence in the world today.

Even if given proof and even if you wanted to go and see it for yourself, meet the people and the doctors (some no Christians) the truth is you choose not to believe or look for evidence which proves you wrong.
Until you look for evidence which proves you wrong then you cannot and do not have the right to use arguments of words alone.
Because the world knows you and other atheist cannot prove your case against the reality of God working amongst his own people.

NS is an athiest?
Since when?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Shouldn't this thread be in religion and ethics?..............another category blunder?

[Hope]

Talent, training and experience.

I hope that those aren't the only sources, Gordon.  I'd hope that any caring professional will have a love of the subject, a concern for the welfare of others - to name but two.  That said, they will also need a mental capacity to learn and a probably a love of learning as well.  I understand that the human brain is the least 'evolved' organ since the time that homo sapiens first appeared on earth.  In fact, thousands of years after we stopped needing them , the human body includes a number of other obsolete organs.

Details and sources please, including documentation.

http://www.oddee.com/item_98718.aspx  I agree that some of these could have been errors as a result of poor medical facilities - but not all. 

Similarly, articles like this - https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/nov/14/waking-morgue-death-janina-kolkiewicz.  I accept that may seem to be arguing that it doesn't occur, but with many of the examples, it is only assumed that they hadn't actually died - there are no references to results of tests carried out after the event.   As far as I'm aware, there are no medical tests that can be used to confirm whether the person had wrongly been confirmed as dead, or had actually died and then recovered.

Again, details and sources please.

Surely it is you who ought to be producing the evidence for this point - after all, I've simply reported that there is very little, perhaps even none.