Thread: Religion
View Single Post
Old June 26th, 2009, 08:44 PM  
Awesome Poster
INFERNO's Forum Picture
Join Date: December 27, 2008
Location: Canada
Gender: Male
Default Re: Religion

Originally Posted by Death View Post
There is much evidence that supports the idea of a way of the world being made an working that does not invlolve God.
So? The world can exist and continue to function without cars, computers, Euclid of Alexandria's book "Elements", etc... . Hell, according to some religions, the world can work perfectly fine without science. So what exactly are you trying to show, other than giving me a biased and incredibly weak argument that leads to a conclusion, where this conclusion can be obtained by numerous other arguments?

Originally Posted by Death View Post
How are you supposed to dispel religion with religion? What am I supposed to say? God doesn't exist becuase God tells me so? As you can probraly see, that sounds retarded since I would be contradicting myself.
I never said anything about dispelling it. I said you can analyze it but not show it is true nor false. You can analyze religion using a religious paradigm, which is what was implied and was rather obvious when I said analyze religion with religion. You're twisting it around to make it a way to conclude something whereas that is not what it is for. You can analyze, say, Christianity using the bible and a religious paradigm. I've not once said it can be used to conclude something.

Originally Posted by Death View Post
What I need to throw in are facts like: God doesn't exists because he doesn't kill non-believers and other 'sinners' as the bible commands in the old testament or nothing happens when you pray. You may well believe in God yourself (I am not saying that this is true however) but that doesn't mean that you should demand that people dissprove his existance in the most ineffective (as in non-proving) ways.
Right, so if someone believes in a religion, then I should tell them to disprove it? I've been saying over and over in this thread and in others, you use faith for proving your religious beliefs and use religious paradigms to analyze it.

But you've forgotten the most basic of English skills for analyzing literature: INTERPRETATION.

Now you've jumped to a whole other story by tossing in something that according to you, is factual. If you are going to tell me that a certain god does not exist, then give a reason why that does involve showing that you have understood some of the belief. Using your logic to a human, if someone calls me and I don't answer it (assuming I am home), then I don't exist. That's essentially what you've said to me, which makes no sense because I'd flop back and forth from existing to non-existing. However, your reason is wrong for yet another reason: some people say god has answered their prayers, so that, using your reasoning, would serve as evidence that he does exist.

You seem to just be using little reasons thrown out by someone who is taking little snippets of the bible and referring to them as factual evidence for your claim. If you indeed are telling me a fact, then there should be not a single person who would say that god has answered their prayers, has killed non-believers, etc... .

Since you somehow say that religious people disprove or prove their god's existence in the most ineffective of ways, then perhaps you can enlighten me, how do you propose to prove/disprove a god's existence in a more effective way. There is a condition to this and it is relatively simple: don't butcher up the basics of religion and/or science and/or whatever other method.

Oh and a little side-note: I'm not a believer in god.

"That is my ambition, to have killed more people, more helpless people, than any man or woman who has ever lived." - Jane Toppan

"There's a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, it's just a son of a bitch getting there" - Sully Erna of Godsmack
INFERNO is offline   Reply With Quote