Thread: Religion
View Single Post
Old June 28th, 2009, 08:59 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
Do you seriously find it plausible that no scientific laws will allow a world to work? You probraly don't and nor do I. As for my argument, if you are so inclined to insult my methods of arguing, how about you stop complaining about it and argue religion yourself? Go on, after me, post something that argues against religion without using any facts. Basically, it is a ludricous idea so I don't see the issue here.
Yes I do find it possible. I have argued religion many times on these forums. I don't use the same approaches you do and I don't argue to show god does or does not exist. I argue using interpretations of the bible, the person's argument, religious paradigm and taking into account the morals of the bible, the person (if the person states them clearly) and my morals (if those are needed for the debate).

Originally Posted by Death View Post
What use is analysis? We should be debating whether or not something is true! You need to use certain facts for your argument and I've been critisized and insulted for doing this. Are you seriously saying that in order to argue against religion, I msut use religious quotes from the bible or whatnot? I find it deeply unlikely that religous enthusiasts will have left anything behind that would argue such a case. If this was not the method to which you were referring, please be more clear next time.
I think I know why you're not understanding what I said. Do you know what a paradigm is? In simple terms, it's a set of assumptions you use that can affect your outcomes, analysis, the data/evidence you look for, etc.. . This is not limited to looking for biblical passages but rather to giving your interpretations of the passages, thereby using religion to refute religion.

Originally Posted by Death View Post
I believe in every religion that I've ever heard. I just don't believe that they are true. Faith does not prove anything. that is why it's called faith. People jsut believe in, full stop. Since when has this been evidence? If people want to prove that religion exists, they should find reasons and try to back them up somehow; not just say that they do. Think about it, I could say that a fairy flies around the moon wihtout requiring any fod but you can't see her. Why ccan you say this is true simply because you believe in it? Okay so maybe we can't truly dissprove it, but we can use reasons to say why it might be improbable. Until we see this fairy or signs of it, it doesn't exist. Al I would want is something to show that she exists.
You're right, we can give reasons for it being improbable. Faith proves your devotion to a belief, it can give evidence for oneself to believe in it. If one's faith is not good enough for someone else, then so be it. The bible sometimes is taken as evidence for god's existence (I don't consider this evidence for the idea that god is a physical entity though but instead a mental entity), however, religion is not going to provide you with the scientific evidence that you so desire.

Originally Posted by Death View Post
INFERNO, you are not supposed to mix facts with religion, according to you. Besides, if you sometimes answer your phone, you must exist for that to be possible. It is impossible to flip between existance and non-existance; even you know that. However, the fact that God never answers his prayers and doesn't show that he exists in any other way seems like a reason to suggest that he is non-existant.
I said not to mix science and religion, not facts and religion. If you're going to tell me that science is factual then you may be butchering science up also but that is a discussion for another time and place. How do you know god never answers his prayers? If someone tells me that god does, then how can I tell them or show them that god hasn't?

Originally Posted by Death View Post
How do you suppose that you can argue religon in a more effective way? In fact, don't tell me, just give me an example. I've said this before, but please, after me, I want you to either prove or disprove God's existance witout using the facts that you think should not be used. I'm actually looking forward to seeing this.
Nice debating technique, give me the same question that I gave you which you never answered. Why should I prove/disprove something? If people believe in god, then let them. There's no need nor useful outcome of me doing some elaborate proof of their god. I can criticize it using biblical passages and interpreting them to show how it goes against itself all I want but that is not going to disprove nor prove god's existence. Besides, suppose I do give a believer my interpretation using biblical passages and suppose the outcome of it indicates that due to the contradictions and such, god doesn't exist. What good is that? If someone believes in it, then one random little paper isn't going to change it and it would only fuel the fire for atheists who demand solid evidence for the beliefs while bashing away going "rah, rah, rah, your god doesn't exist, rah, rah, rah".

Originally Posted by Death View Post
You sure don't show it. I don't remember you ever using any information here at all to show that God doesn't exist let alone say that you don't believe in him. If i am wrong however, please prove me otherwise with quotes from yourself.
See above, there's no need for me to prove/disprove god's existence. I have stated in other threads I am an atheist, however, I am not the type of atheist who goes around demanding and showing people that their god doesn't exist. I don't believe in it one bit, however, what I find worse is when a fellow atheist comes along and attempts to refute the belief and demanding that the believers show proof. During this time, that atheist doesn't seem to understand the fundamentals of religion and may not understand the actual belief. In that case, I go to my own side where I show how the atheist is wrong but at the same time, I do not show that the believer's beliefs are correct or incorrect.

I believe that science and religion can be used and believed by the same person providing they don't begin smashing them together. They are not mutually exclusive.

If you want to know my beliefs, you can ask them anytime you wish but as you did ask for a quote:

"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