Religion

[Livius Clades]

Religion is fking stupid

 

/endthread

Your just mad cause Dioism wasn't a choice

[Big Brother]

Not really, it's sophistry and the ancient greeks demolished the argument long before Jesus appeared on the scene. An omnipotent being and sentient life can co-exist, but only with the existence of evil. That's pretty much the end of the argument. By taking away our ability to choose evil, an omnipotent God would also cut away the part of us which makes us human, sentient, however you want to call it. Similarly if God appeared in the sky to poke his finger into every erupting volcano or put down ever disease, our world would be nothing more than a giant doll house full of toys, and we wouldn't be people we'd be possessions. If we were sentient that would be an even crueller fate.

 

Pointing at children dying of AIDS and saying "God must be evil" is just an appeal to emotion, argumentum ad passiones and is a logical fallacy.

 

Yeah, that makes sense.

I guess no one really needs the problem of evil to argue against the existence of god though, plenty of other reasons to not believe in such an entity.

[Spite]

The fact that good and evil are social constructs (they're not, they're moral imperatives which is different but whatever) is irrelevant. Good and evil exist as tangibly as anything else and effect not only our whole society but the physical world we live in. Dismissing them on the basis that their definition is intellectual not empirical is silly.

 

@BB belief or non belief in anything which is non-tangible is fundamentally an issue of experience. A fair comparison which far more people can relate to perhaps is love. Most people believe it exists sure, and many don't believe in a deity. But the point is that until you've experienced love, your belief in it is second hand.

 

And for clarity I mean romantic love.

 

With all these non-tangible, non-measurable things there's an argument from proof (which is borderline impossible) and then an argument from logic. In other words to say things like "there's no evidence for the flood or noah so the bible is therefore bullshit". This Ofc has problems of its own.

 

Anyway just because a lot of religious people are idiots, it doesn't undermine religion. Plenty of atheists are uninformed idiots too.

[Lan]

The fact that good and evil are social constructs (they're not, they're moral imperatives which is different but whatever) is irrelevant. Good and evil exist as tangibly as anything else and effect not only our whole society but the physical world we live in. Dismissing them on the basis that their definition is intellectual not empirical is silly.

 

@BB belief or non belief in anything which is non-tangible is fundamentally an issue of experience. A fair comparison which far more people can relate to perhaps is love. Most people believe it exists sure, and many don't believe in a deity. But the point is that until you've experienced love, your belief in it is second hand.

 

And for clarity I mean romantic love.

 

With all these non-tangible, non-measurable things there's an argument from proof (which is borderline impossible) and then an argument from logic. In other words to say things like "there's no evidence for the flood or noah so the bible is therefore !@#$". This Ofc has problems of its own.

 

Anyway just because a lot of religious people are idiots, it doesn't undermine religion. Plenty of atheists are uninformed idiots too.

Morality itself is a social construct. Good and evil only exist as tangibly as morality does. 

 

Error Theory:

• There are no moral features in this world; nothing is right or wrong.
• Therefore no moral judgments are true; however,
• Our sincere moral judgments try, but always fail, to describe the moral features of things.

 

Therefore, all moral judgments are false because there is no moral knowledge, because there is no moral truth. Moral values are purely chimerical.

 

As for your love example, there is actually scientific and tangible evidence for its existence as a chemical signal in the brain. Comparing the existence of love, which can be observed to that of a deity is silly. As of current, I'd say it's very logical to doubt the existence of any deity. 

[Ibrahim (Banned)]

Morality itself is a social construct. Good and evil only exist as tangibly as morality does. 

 

Error Theory:

• There are no moral features in this world; nothing is right or wrong.
• Therefore no moral judgments are true; however,
• Our sincere moral judgments try, but always fail, to describe the moral features of things.

 

Therefore, all moral judgments are false because there is no moral knowledge, because there is no moral truth. Moral values are purely chimerical.

 

You can believe in your "moral nihilism" if that's what you choose to believe but I think most of us would all agree that if our female relatives are raped and slaughtered in front of us, that it would be morally wrong. However not only would we believe it to be morally wrong but we would believed it to be objectively morally wrong. What I mean by "objective" is that if the rapists and murderers somehow successfully took over Europe/America and brainwashed us all to believe that it was ok to commit those acts, it would still be objectively morally wrong regardless of human experience. In fairness to Lan however, if we agree that our universe contains objective morality, which it certainly does, then it can only make sense with God’s existence, because God is required as rational basis for objective morality. Without God morality is subjective, as God is the only conceptual anchor that transcends human subjectivity.

Edited August 13, 2015 by Khilafah

[Lan]

You can believe in your "moral nihilism" if that's what you choose to believe but I think most of us would all agree that if our female relatives are raped and slaughtered in front of us, that it would be morally wrong. However not only would we believe it to be morally wrong but we would believed it to be objectively morally wrong. What I mean by "objective" is that if the rapists and murderers somehow successfully took over Europe/America and brainwashed us all to believe that it was ok to commit those acts, it would still be objectively morally wrong regardless of human experience. In fairness to Lan however, if we agree that our universe contains objective morality, which it certainly does then it can only make sense with God’s existence, because God is required as rational basis for objective morality. Without God morality is subjective, as God is the only conceptual anchor that transcends human subjectivity.

Of course it would be morally wrong, and I would call it morally wrong. But I cannot delude myself into thinking that those judgement are anything but purely chimerical. Any time we make a moral judgement, we are relying on our emotions to explain it. For example, you would likely consider homosexuality to be morally wrong. I call it love, which I consider morally right.

And if America and Europe are nothing but rapists, don't move here. Go move to Saudi Arabia where rape isn't acknowledged and everyone throws a fit any time women are given rights.

[Spite]

I didn't say morality is objective therefore your whole argument is irrelevant

[Lan]

I didn't say morality is objective therefore your whole argument is irrelevant

 

Philosophical Logic (from the Ancient Greek: Î»Î¿Î³Î¹ÎºÎ®, logike)^[1] is the use and study of valid reasoning.^[2][3]

^{https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic}

 

 

Reason is the capacity for consciously making sense of things, applying logic, establishing and verifying facts, and changing or justifying practices, institutions, and beliefs based on new or existing information.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reason

A fact is something that has really occurred or is actually the case. The usual test for a statement of fact is verifiability, that is, whether it can be demonstrated to correspond toexperience. Standard reference works are often used to check facts. Scientific facts are verified by repeatable careful observation or measurement (by experiments or other means).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact

 

Not believing in God is perfectly logical. Good, evil and God? Not so much.

[Ibrahim (Banned)]

Of course it would be morally wrong, and I would call it morally wrong. But I cannot delude myself into thinking that those judgement are anything but purely chimerical. Any time we make a moral judgement, we are relying on our emotions to explain it. For example, you would likely consider homosexuality to be morally wrong. I call it love, which I consider morally right.

 

Okay so say you were born a hundred years ago were the overwhelming consensus was that being gay was morally wrong: Would you say that therefore at that time being gay WAS indeed morally wrong yes or no? And if you said "no" what are you basing it on since you don't believe in objective morality?

[Lan]

Okay so say you were born a hundred years ago were the overwhelming consensus was that being gay was morally wrong: Would you say that therefore at that time being gay WAS indeed morally wrong yes or no? And if you said "no" what are you basing it on since you don't believe in objective morality?

I say no, because all moral judgments are false, regardless of how many people believe them. I base this on my own feelings, just like anyone else bases their own morals on. But mostly, I think calling love morally wrong is absurd.

[Ibrahim (Banned)]

I say no, because all moral judgments are false, regardless of how many people believe them. I base this on my own feelings, just like anyone else bases their own morals on. But mostly, I think calling love morally wrong is absurd.

 

1) If you truly believe that moral judgements are false (moral nihilism) then why are you making a moral judgement?

 

You either believe in subjective morality, moral nihilism or objective morality, you can't be hovering between all of them, as you're currently doing.

 

2) If you believe in subjective morality and you lived a hundred years ago and believed like everyone else that being gay was morally wrong, how could you say that at that time it wasn't morally wrong since morality according to you is subjective and not objective?

 

I'm not going to make a third point for objective morality because if you believed in objective morality, you would essentially believe in God, which you don't. 

Edited August 13, 2015 by Khilafah

[Lan]

1) If you truly believe that moral judgements are false (moral nihilism) then why are you making a moral judgement?

 

You either believe in subjective morality, moral nihilism or objective morality, you can't be hovering between all of them, as you're currently doing.

 

2) If you believe in subjective morality and you lived a hundred years ago and believed like everyone else that being gay was morally wrong, how could you say that at that time it wasn't morally wrong since morality according to you is subjective and not objective?

 

I'm not going to make a third point for objective morality because if you believed in objective morality, you would essentially believe in God, which you don't. 

1. I can make moral judgement while acknowledging they are a false play on emotion. It's called expressivism. 

2. lol. WTF? For starters, this is not 100 years ago. I'm not sure why you keep bringing that up. Second....

 

FEAR ME!!!

[Ibrahim (Banned)]

I PITY YOU!!!

[The Governor]

Just my two cents. If intelligent beings like humans need creators, and god is an intelligent being, then he too needs a creator. If God does not need a creator, then neither do we.

[RMLand]

Where's "Leninism" and Sandersism?

[Kyoko]

You should put an other option, and Confucianism isn't really a religion, its more of a longstanding set of social policies that various Imperial Dynasties found convenient.

Edited August 21, 2015 by Kyoko

[Doktor Avalanche]

In fairness to Lan however, if we agree that our universe contains objective morality, which it certainly does, then it can only make sense with God’s existence, because God is required as rational basis for objective morality. Without God morality is subjective, as God is the only conceptual anchor that transcends human subjectivity.

So you are implying that in order for us to have an objective stance and believe in a set of universal morals for which every sentient living entity universally abides by, there must be a divine entity? I admit I smoked a couple banana peels back in my college days and debated whether or not trees dream, but I very much disagree with this stance that:

Objective Morality = Divinity

What evidence or theory do you have to make such a claim?

Edited August 21, 2015 by VasiliusKonstantinos

[MrGam]

I'm a Muslim, cause why not?

[Quasar]

I'm a christian, I believe in what most of what these other Christians have mentioned in this thread.

 

 

I think you did a good job of summing it up. While I agree that a lot of people may find it hard to believe, the alternative of there being no creator is just as hard to believe as well. The 'Big Bang': That there was nothing, and nothing happened to nothing which caused nothing to explode for no reason creating everything. 

 

Well a lot of scientists are dropping the theory of the 'Big Bang' and considering a new theory called "Rainbow Gravity Theory" which is the theory that the universe never had a beginning and stretched back in time infinitely. Personally I think either one is proof of god in it's own right.

"I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end."

If the Big Bang is right then it makes sense to be the beginning and the end I also agree that if the universe was created by a bang out of nothing it makes no sense. If Rainbow Theory is correct then there is no beginning therefore meaning God has always existed.

Logically trying to debate the universe and god are one in the same. Either the universe has always existed or it started from a bang from nothing, either way  It's hard to debate.

Anytime Religion is to be debated against Science I always think of "Newtons flaming laser sword" or "Alders Razor" which is summarized as "what cannot be settled by experiment is not worth debating"

 

I've done a lot of studying of religions and other teachings. My beliefs are very erratic when it comes to religion and spirituality but ultimately I am a christian. I think that crapping on any other persons religion or belief system makes you a bigot. I also think that groups or people that use religion as a means of control or converting do not follow their religion but use it as a means of monetary or political gain, this is personally why I don't go to church.

Not one religion is right, claiming that your god is the one 'true god' is a very brainwashed way of thinking. You are entitled to your beliefs just like I am, but claiming that your god is the only real one is not logical. Other religious followers will claim the same thing which creates the divide between which god is the real one and so on.

 

I think there are many bigots and ignorant people in all religions and 'non-religions' I respect all beliefs but when you call out and criticize a whole religion or 'god' because you don't believe in them it makes you look like an ignorant person.

 

One question I have for all the Atheists in this thread is:

Do you know what Astral Projection is? If so, how do you explain such a thing?

 

Yes it has been recorded that certain parts of your brain are activated and a certain chemical is released. Near Death Experiences are similar in which a chemical is released in your brain and you experience most of your life and possibly a 'Light Tunnel' situation. Unlike NDE's Astral Projection is usually relatively the same in the reports of people who have experienced them. Also even if a chemical is released and a whole 'world' is simulated in your mind, why would you think it is any less real than what you see in front of your face right now?

Also not to mention that you can induce Astral Projection yourself.

Edited August 23, 2015 by Quasar

[Big Brother]

People have a tendency to attribute what cannot be explained scientifically with supernatural attributes, like how lightning and thunder was the work of the gods. All that happens is that science and knowledge progress, we learn about the real forces behind such things, and supernaturalism falters. Astral projection is no different, even though we can't explain it with science now, it's only a matter of time, and attributing anything divine or supernatural to it, is nothing but wishful thinking.

 

Call me a bigot if you like, but I don't believe that religion is something that should be accepted by any society. Not with all the pure lies, deceit, ignorance and backwards opinions that come along with it. It shouldn't be okay for some people to convince others that there is a god, a heaven and hell, and that the world was made in seven days (and similar nonsense). It's pure deception, and it's morally wrong. Religion, and especially organized religion, destroys ourselves by inhibiting our actions and decisions, by exerting fear upon us, and by making us believe in complete, utter falsehoods. It needs to stop, and crapping on religion is the least I can do.

[Doktor Avalanche]

Okay. You're a Bigot.

 

 

-Call me a bigot if you like-

 

[Natinator]

 

 

Call me a bigot if you like, but I don't believe that religion is something that should be accepted by any society. Not with all the pure lies, deceit, ignorance and backwards opinions that come along with it. It shouldn't be okay for some people to convince others that there is a god, a heaven and hell, and that the world was made in seven days (and similar nonsense). It's pure deception, and it's morally wrong. Religion, and especially organized religion, destroys ourselves by inhibiting our actions and decisions, by exerting fear upon us, and by making us believe in complete, utter falsehoods. It needs to stop, and crapping on religion is the least I can do.

By that logic, politics shouldn't be accepted either

 

Religion isn't all negatives, many people actually take comfort in religion, in believing that a higher power exists.

[Solomon]

...

Religion isn't all negatives, many people actually take comfort in religion, in believing that a higher power exists.

That's a complicated line. As children, many of us took comfort in believing in the existence of Santa Claus. I have no problem with having been told fantastic stories as a kid but if someone told me now they could make me believe that Santa is real, I'd decline their offer. I'd rather know the truth, even if it's less comforting than the fiction.

[Kyoko]

I follow the traditional central American religious practices.

Edited August 23, 2015 by Kyoko

[Quasar]

That's a complicated line. As children, many of us took comfort in believing in the existence of Santa Claus. I have no problem with having been told fantastic stories as a kid but if someone told me now they could make me believe that Santa is real, I'd decline their offer. I'd rather know the truth, even if it's less comforting than the fiction.

I'd rather know the truth as well but who can say that a god does not exist and that your way of thinking is correct?

If there was something that happened that UNDENIABLY disproves the existence of god then there is no reason to follow a religion.

Once again my signature is perfect for your statement. 

We cannot say that a God exists or doesn't exist, so why debate about such a thing?

There are scientists and regular people that are now thinking that we live in a simulation, how can debate such a thing? There is quite a few things you can reference in the real world than can somewhat prove and disprove such a theory. Even so, if this world is just a simulation then someone had to create it, which basically leads back to God.

If humans had the technology to create whole worlds with sentient beings with free will, am I not the 'God' or 'Creator' of that simulation?

 

What I try to understand is why a lot of atheists crap on other peoples beliefs? I have met plenty of atheists that are not like this, so I am not saying that all atheists are like this.

I have also met plenty of Christians and people of other religions that say the same toward atheists, they crap on atheists because they do not believe in a higher power. Same goes with the ones that try and force their beliefs on people. 

 

I cannot say that the simulation theory is right or wrong, so why do I care what you believe?

I cannot say definitively that there is a God, or that there isn't one so why do I care if you don't believe in one?

Truly I do not give a shit if you believe in one belief or the next, but if I see someone shit on a Muslims belief, or a 

Christian or anyone who has a belief system I instantly think you are a bigot. 

 

Btw I am not talking about you Solomon, i kinda got off topic here lol.