Thread: Religion
View Single Post
Old April 21st, 2010, 04:45 PM  
Apparitions
Nice Poster
 
Apparitions's Forum Picture
 
Name: Dan
Join Date: February 25, 2009
Location: South London, England
Age: 22
Gender: Male
Default Re: Religion

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by INFERNO View Post
I can tell you spent some time on it . I'm an atheist, however, in the past I was a Christian so I know some information on it. As Death said, my posts don't always reflect this because I have the philosophy that if I'm going to debate someone, I'm either going to use my philosophy versus theirs and relate that to the topic at hand. Alternatively, I'm going to step out of my shoes and adopt their view, use evidence from their side to refute them and so forth.
So basically you just like a nice argument ? I'm the same... I like how you use 'their' evidence and argue for the other side. I guess it helps when debating with religious people when you know what they will say (it's usually fairly predictable anyway...).

Quote:
Originally Posted by INFERNO View Post
This definition seems to be able to include science as a religion because there is no deity and it can explain how the universe works. The deciding factor on this boils down to one word used in your definition: "beliefs".
Yeah, I see what you mean. It's difficult to put a definition to religion since there are many types of religious beliefs. If I may add this though: Scientists doesn't usually believe, they prove.

Quote:
Originally Posted by INFERNO View Post
In this counter-argument of yours you seem to have decided to pin-point your argument of religion directly onto Christianity. Although it is a common religion, it is not the only religion and so I'll agree that it's probably a harder one to understand but that does not suffice to refute all other religions. According to your definition of religion, no higher being may be required, so this example of Christianity cannot be used as a template for arguing against religions without higher beings (i.e. how can a religion with no higher being have evidence for its existence or truthfulness?).
I chose Christianity as it the religion I understand the most having been Catholic for 12 of my 15 years alive. It is also rather easy to find contradictions in Christianity because of this. If I had chosen Islam for example it would have been wrong of me to do so as I do not know too much about it and would have looked stupid. It is hard to disprove the religions without a Deity because they are usually quite philosophical and you have to understand their beliefs to disprove them. Going to LaVeyan Satanism again I have to find fault in certain ideas of theirs though. It is a sin to be stupid and apparently you should all be very intelligent etc which is just not realistic. I would argue against religions such as this though as their philosophical beliefs tell people how to live their lives which I absolutely hate about religion the most. I will look more into these religions though, just so I can argue against them .

Quote:
Originally Posted by INFERNO View Post
By "diminished proof" I mean altering the definition or criteria of proof from being evidence that something is 100% (as we cannot know everything in the universe to this very day) to a definition whereby the evidence is constrained by the knowledge gradient in the modern world. I chose an alternative term, "diminished proof" to make this distinction clear so as to not get confused with simply "proof".
Oh I understand now. Of course, we hardly know anything about the universe but I think making wild assumptions with no proof provided like what some Religions do is worse than the Scientific method of making a guess based on some kind of evidence (e.g. the Big Bang theory which is much more believable than the Christian's 'God created the world in 7 days' story). I think if people followed the Scientific stuff instead of the religious stuff then our knowledge of these things would improve as it isn't being held back by fairy tale, outlandish statements told to us by religion (well most of them anyway).

Quote:
Originally Posted by INFERNO View Post
Simply put, it seems your argument is that the concept of god came from a primitive society and culture seeking explanations for natural phenomena. However, in this day and age, alternative, reliable, testable explanations via science can suffice much better. Fair enough to me.
Does that mean you like it? I'm glad if so . I do not know the scientific reasons why there is no God too much so I use the historical and astrological reasons (the ones in Zeitgeist. I suggest you watch it, it's very interesting.).

Quote:
Originally Posted by INFERNO View Post
Hold on, now you're straying away again. Recall your definition of religion and the example you gave of a religion lacking a higher being. This is an incorrect argument right from the start. You have a point that some religions, such as Christianity does have astrology as part of its origin but as mentioned in my previous argument, pin-pointing your argument onto Christianity does not work. It will only work if all others are the same or very similar but they're not in their origin.
Ah, I made a mistake when writing that. I meant that significant parts of some religions are based on Astrological patterns etc instead. My bad .

Quote:
Originally Posted by INFERNO View Post
Correct, I could not disprove it using my 7 senses. However, I can challenge you by saying that you have the burden of proof but if you fail at providing adequate proof, then one can say your belief is incredibly weak or that it is disproved due to insufficient evidence on your part.
How do you know that I don't have proof . If I said this then I would try and make up some 'proof', much in the same way as certain religions do.

Quote:
Originally Posted by INFERNO View Post
I think there are various reasons for this and you provided one already. My others revolve around the religion being accepted by a large population for so long that eventually it may be perceived as correct, otherwise it would have been disproven earlier. It's not a strong argument on their part and is faulty but it's one that is commonly used. The others involve socialization and enculturation, meaning one teaches it to their child and the child will believe it for some time. In a small population that is religious to one religion in particular, if someone does not believe in it, then they may have a fear of ostracism. In other words, humans universally across cultures have a desire to be perceived positively, so some may accept the religion just for this purpose or for the self-serving purpose of not being rejected by the society.
Yes, it's a shame that a lot of people just accept religion and don't question it. We could possibly have far more independent thinkers in this world than we do know, which would be beneficial to society. I guess some people just get so comfortable with their beliefs that they are scared of questioning them in case they realise that they are possibly wrong. I dislike parents passing their religion on to their kids, which is lazy and quite controlling of them. When I have kids I plan to give them information them on many religions and let them decide for themselves as others, even religious parents, should. I guess the world doesn't work that way though . As for being part of a religion just to not be persecuted I think that this is one of the worst things about the world today. In Islam countries for example people are badly persecuted for not worshipping Allah and whatever and some people there aren't brave enough to admit that they think it's a load of bullshit. This even happens in the Western world where there are places where if you don't believe in the Christian God then you are persecuted as much as you are in Islamic countries. This needs to stop.

Quote:
Originally Posted by INFERNO View Post
I never said you cannot try to disprove them, you can do that all you want.

Religion is different because it may be a philosophical belief on life, not one that involves praying. People generally are more receptive then. But, for those that do involve a higher being, it's not always receptive as people may be more inclined to view it as a cult. Also, if there's a large group all believing and practicing, then people may consider it less likely to be due to mental illnesses and more receptive to it because the chances all of them suffer from the same is reduced.
I know you didn't say that, I'm just saying it in response to the people who do believe this (free speech ftw). I generally prefer philosophical religions, they generally use their brains more than religions with God(s). It is a shame when the religions you talk about here are called 'cults' by people, including the biased, prejudiced media who don't make the effort to learn about these religions and try and scare people off them by using the 'cult' label which is viewed negatively. Yet another example of our corrupt media. I see what you mean by more people believing means they might not be delusional (they are though, why are humans different from other animals and plants and have an afterlife to look forward to?). Me calling them delusional does not mean that I view them as mentally ill (religion is quite a hard-to-explain delusion). After all I have many religious friends that are equally if not more, only that I view their beliefs as massively optimistic to say the very least. By the way, I didn't say that you said that I think that religious people are not as intelligent as me, just so you know.
My arguments/views above.

Apparitions is offline   Reply With Quote