Religion

[Collinsworthington]

I absolutely hate religion. Like , I have an overwhelming hatred towards all of them. Especially like fundamentalists. Like here in America, I feel that if we didn't have religion, we would be 30 to 50 years more advanced. Our country would be such a better and tolerant place to be if old dude here didn't believe in 7 headed dragons and a engineering impossibility like the fucking ark. Basically the middle east would be like the rest of the world with sand if it weren't for religion. I just can't believe that the world still has people killing eeach other over fictional characters. People in the middle east, India and even america are force fed religion right when they pop out of their momma, and then are chained to it for the rest of their lives. They think that because their mom and dad told them so, that THEIR religion is right. Out of all 4500 religions in the world today, they were so special and they KNOW the answers. A person who goes to church for 2 hours on Sunday and Wednesday spend 1/42 of their life worshiping a fictional god and following a bigoted, outlandish, and stupid 2,000 year old book that claims the world is flat, a man made a woman out of a rib, and a dude lived for 1000 years with every animal ever on a medium size boat sailing the world in a flood that has been proven to not of happened.

It kills me that people are brainwashed into putting their life into something fake.

Damn that was an emotional rant. 😂
Opinions?

[drhalsey1]

I think having the belief in a god or gods or whatever else a religion believes in is fine, and I have no doubt that some of the people or events may have existed or occurred, there is no concrete proof that some of it didn't, but none for it either. My problem is that the churches are free to stay against a race or group if it's their "religion". Such as the Westboro Baptist Church protesting pretty much every controversial thing there is today, even protesting at the Orlando victim's funerals for religion sake. I know one thing, if God and Jesus do exist as expressed by religions all around the world, they love everyone ands teach kindness and not to judge, to love all men, so I just believe that if someone is judging or harming another being in the name of the religion, there is something wrong with the person, or if it's more widespread, possibly the religion in itself.

[Judean Zealot]

Someone is apparently extraordinarily ignorant about what classical theism has historically entailed.
a bigoted, outlandish, and stupid 2,000 year old book that claims the world is flat, a man made a woman out of a rib, and a dude lived for 1000 years with every animal ever on a medium size boat sailing the world in a flood that has been proven to not of happened.

Aside from Eve's creation from a rib (which many scholars interpret allegorically, but of course you wouldn't know that), all the rest of your claims demonstrate that you are a brainwashed fool who critiques books you have never read.

I'm also interested how the flood was proven to have never happened.

-----

Can you list for me even a single serious theological work you have read?

[Leprous]

Collinsworthington

Altough I am not religious I must say I do not agree with your post at all.

First of all, there are many religious people (and by many I mean most) who never force their believes onto anyone. People ike these don't do anything wrong by being religious. Saying you hate all religious people is just stupid.

While I agree with you that most (remember I said most) of the bible is not true, I think you are being exceptionally rude towards religious people which is not very nice now is it?

Judean Zealot I wouldn't go as far as calling someone who is not religious a brainwashed fool. While he shouln't call a religious book outlandish and stupid (honestly it has quite allot of historical value and this comes from an atheist) , he is free to believe whatever he wants. I don't think you have to read anything to decide for yourself that you don't want to be religious. (That doesn't mean he should make these claims though)

[Typhlosion]

Whoa, chill man, why the hate on Buddhism, Zoroastrianism or Wicca, man?

[Jinglebottom]

I like my unknown religion.

[dxcxdzv]

Our country would be such a better and tolerant place to be if old dude here didn't believe in 7 headed dragons
Why? 7 headed dragons are kewl.


I'm also interested how the flood was proven to have never happened.
Is there any proof that it had happened or that could let think that it had happened?
This is a serious question btw.

[Bull]

Separate religion and spiritualism. I grew up in a very conservative church (Southern Baptist) and found many of their teachings to be in conflict. Now that I no longer live with my parents I attend a much more open fellowship of believers with no connection to a denomination. I believe in the Supreme Being, I believe Jesus, Mohamad, Buddha all have much to teach us. I am Christian but would never, ever say anyone of faith is wrong in their faith. We see far too many "religious" people espousing hatred. However, there are a multitude of people of faith who proclaim and demonstrate love. Give spirituality a chance. Read the spiritual books, seek to understand the teachings.
Associate with people of faith and see how their lives are enriched by their faith. Learn and practice love for all people. One thing I did learn, actually I learned much, in my former church as a small child was a song "Jesus Loves All the Children of the World", my problem as I got older was that many of the adults in the church did not believe the words of the song because they called themselves Christians but did not love all the children of the world. My faith calls upon me to love all people and that means I cannot, I must not, discriminate against any person on this planet.

[Flapjack]

I absolutely hate religion. Like , I have an overwhelming hatred towards all of them. Especially like fundamentalists. Like here in America, I feel that if we didn't have religion, we would be 30 to 50 years more advanced. Our country would be such a better and tolerant place to be if old dude here didn't believe in 7 headed dragons and a engineering impossibility like the fucking ark. Basically the middle east would be like the rest of the world with sand if it weren't for religion. I just can't believe that the world still has people killing eeach other over fictional characters. People in the middle east, India and even america are force fed religion right when they pop out of their momma, and then are chained to it for the rest of their lives. They think that because their mom and dad told them so, that THEIR religion is right. Out of all 4500 religions in the world today, they were so special and they KNOW the answers. A person who goes to church for 2 hours on Sunday and Wednesday spend 1/42 of their life worshiping a fictional god and following a bigoted, outlandish, and stupid 2,000 year old book that claims the world is flat, a man made a woman out of a rib, and a dude lived for 1000 years with every animal ever on a medium size boat sailing the world in a flood that has been proven to not of happened.

It kills me that people are brainwashed into putting their life into something fake.

Damn that was an emotional rant. ��
Opinions?
We would be hundreds of years behind, religion was used to control people and without that I don't think we would have progressed much. Also do you understand physics explanation? My physics teacher was telling me that one of the best ideas they have now is that the universe we be pulled in by its own gravity (gravity has infinate range) and when it is pulled in on itself, the laws of physics will change and then there will be another explosion. Hard to get your head around right? What evidence is there for this? That the universe seems to be getting pulled into the center but aside from that, the rest is just theory, just like religion.

Why? 7 headed dragons are kewl.

I want onexD

[Judean Zealot]

Judean Zealot I wouldn't go as far as calling someone who is not religious a brainwashed fool. While he shouln't call a religious book outlandish and stupid (honestly it has quite allot of historical value and this comes from an atheist) , he is free to believe whatever he wants. I don't think you have to read anything to decide for yourself that you don't want to be religious. (That doesn't mean he should make these claims though)

I didn't write that about his atheism. I didn't even address his atheism yet. I was addressing the fact that his account of what's written in the Bible is so off kilter that he couldn't possibly have actually read the book. So far as I'm concerned, when one passionately attacks the contents and derivations of a book he hasn't even bothered to read, that's both foolish and symptomatic of indoctrination by others.

Reise

I don't believe it happened myself. That is not the same as the assertion that it was "proven to not of (sic) happened".

[Vlerchan]

Can you list for me even a single serious theological work you have read?
Dawkins, R. The God Delusion.

I also follow him on Twitter.

---

I'm also sceptical about all claims about religion promoting progress or holding us back.

[sqishy]

I'll just respond to some specific parts. I am not religious by the way, or at least not in a conventional sense.

I absolutely hate religion. Like , I have an overwhelming hatred towards all of them. Especially like fundamentalists.

The thing is that, from the rest of your post, you are a fundamentalist. You are a fundamentalist anti-theist on the scale of religions themselves too.

Leaving everything else below aside, you absolutely hate religion, so even that is making you a fundamentalist.



[...]didn't believe in 7 headed dragons and a engineering impossibility like the fucking ark.

There's a thing called metaphor and use of symbols. Sure, many religious people take certain parts of whatever parts of their religion literally, but not all.


I just can't believe that the world still has people killing eeach other over fictional characters.

War happens for more than just differences in religious beliefs, e.g. natural resources.


[...]worshiping a fictional god[...]

Perhaps it would be better that you show the god to be fictional, after you attack the reasoning that is exists, not in it.



[...]and following a bigoted, outlandish, and stupid[...]

...rhetoric...



[...]2,000 year old book that claims the world is flat[...]

This part gets to me a bit. I really don't like people justifying their view of something be bad/false/etc, just because it happens to be old. The pyramids are old. The sun is old. Species are old (in sight of Darwin). The first mathematical ideas of zero are old. One can't just see something as ridiculous just because it's old.

I'm also getting tired of the 'flat Earth' idea being used as some perfect example of backward medieval thinking or that. I won't go into it much, but if we held an idea that the world was flat in the stone ages, it would have been an amazing world model for allowing us to possibly navigate and such. You can't judge an idea to be inherently stupid or whatever, you can only compare ideas and the mindset they were created and sustained in.

There might come a time when the classical Big Bang theory is ridiculed as much then as you are for the flat Earth, because of a shift in seeing how forces and dimensions work and what it means to view the physical universe (which is the same for the flat Earth to the round Earth really).



[...]in a flood that has been proven to not of happened.

While I completely don't believe that the biblical flood happened, I can't prove that it didn't happen with any absolute certainty (sorry!).

This issue goes away though, when I am open to it maybe being metaphorical, rather than literal.





It kills me that people are brainwashed into putting their life into something fake.

Does the perception of these people not consciously put your life into great discomfort?

EDIT: You yourself are putting energy in your life into something fake, from what you have just said. You can hate it, but you're investing some amount of mental energy into doing so.

- - - - - - - -

Dawkins, R. The God Delusion.

I also follow him on Twitter.

That book has more straw men than most...

You follow Dawkins? Must be entertaining :P

[Bull]

Paraxiom
You make a very reasoned and intelligent post!

[sqishy]

Paraxiom
You make a very reasoned and intelligent post!

Thank you; but I feel I was just doing something as my motivation isn't the best today (might make me worriedly complicated when I do have the motivation).

[mattsmith48]

I absolutely hate religion. Like , I have an overwhelming hatred towards all of them. Especially like fundamentalists. Like here in America, I feel that if we didn't have religion, we would be 30 to 50 years more advanced. Our country would be such a better and tolerant place to be if old dude here didn't believe in 7 headed dragons and a engineering impossibility like the fucking ark. Basically the middle east would be like the rest of the world with sand if it weren't for religion. I just can't believe that the world still has people killing eeach other over fictional characters. People in the middle east, India and even america are force fed religion right when they pop out of their momma, and then are chained to it for the rest of their lives. They think that because their mom and dad told them so, that THEIR religion is right. Out of all 4500 religions in the world today, they were so special and they KNOW the answers. A person who goes to church for 2 hours on Sunday and Wednesday spend 1/42 of their life worshiping a fictional god and following a bigoted, outlandish, and stupid 2,000 year old book that claims the world is flat, a man made a woman out of a rib, and a dude lived for 1000 years with every animal ever on a medium size boat sailing the world in a flood that has been proven to not of happened.

It kills me that people are brainwashed into putting their life into something fake.

Damn that was an emotional rant. 😂
Opinions?

The problem is not religion, the problem is stupid people who believe in it, but its their right to believe in whatever bullshit they want, I have no problem with it as long they keep it to them self, only worship their God or Gods in their home and/or in a church, mosque, temple, etc..., not teach it to kids as the truth, if catholic dont bring your kids to chruch its to dangerous for them :p, and if your a politician your not allowed to make decisions based on your religion.

[Judean Zealot]

As the dog returns to it's vomit...

[ethan-s]

I absolutely hate religion. Like , I have an overwhelming hatred towards all of them. Especially like fundamentalists. Like here in America, I feel that if we didn't have religion, we would be 30 to 50 years more advanced. Our country would be such a better and tolerant place to be if old dude here didn't believe in 7 headed dragons and a engineering impossibility like the fucking ark. Basically the middle east would be like the rest of the world with sand if it weren't for religion. I just can't believe that the world still has people killing eeach other over fictional characters. People in the middle east, India and even america are force fed religion right when they pop out of their momma, and then are chained to it for the rest of their lives. They think that because their mom and dad told them so, that THEIR religion is right. Out of all 4500 religions in the world today, they were so special and they KNOW the answers. A person who goes to church for 2 hours on Sunday and Wednesday spend 1/42 of their life worshiping a fictional god and following a bigoted, outlandish, and stupid 2,000 year old book that claims the world is flat, a man made a woman out of a rib, and a dude lived for 1000 years with every animal ever on a medium size boat sailing the world in a flood that has been proven to not of happened.

It kills me that people are brainwashed into putting their life into something fake.

Damn that was an emotional rant. 😂
Opinions?
I take it your religion is evolution?

[Vlerchan]

I take it your religion is evolution?
Evolution isn't a religion, since religions are defined by their claims concerning the unobservable, and to whatever extent you accept evolution*, it remains an observable phenomenon.

---

* I have no idea why I'm in such a cheery mood today.

[Flapjack]

I take it your religion is evolution?
Evolution isn't a theory. It can be proved and when you understand it it is obvious. Do you understand what selection pressure is? Evolution is taught really poorly in schools until biology is studied further, it's a shame really.

Think of evolution like gravity, or is gravity a religion?

[ethan-s]

Evolution isn't a religion,
oh really?


a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance.


from the dictionary.

[dxcxdzv]

oh really?


a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance.


from the dictionary.
...

Which dictionary?

[Vlerchan]

oh really?


a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance.


from the dictionary.

This definition is mundane and generic, and lends itself to absurdity. It leads to literally everything being a religion in the hands of the right person.

Hip-hop, history scholarship, mathematics, blogging, you name it.

It also doesn't matter that it was plucked out of a dictionary if it's a patently unintelligent use of language.

[ethan-s]

...

Which dictionary?

webster.

This definition is mundane and generic, and lends itself to absurdity. It leads to literally everything being a religion in the hands of the right person.

Hip-hop, history scholarship, mathematics, blogging, you name it.

It also doesn't matter that it was plucked out of a dictionary if it's a patently unintelligent use of language.
sure, it can mean anything. video games, rap, my brothers stuffed animal pig, evolution, cars, cell phones, self, the list goes on if in the hands of the right people.

[dxcxdzv]

webster.
There are different Webster dictionaries.
Some (a majority) aren't even true Merriam-Webster's.
You gonna need to be more accurate.

EDIT:
From Merriam-Webster website I got that:

http://nsa38.casimages.com/img/2016/07/01/160701013438254933.png

[ethan-s]

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion

[Vlerchan]

sure, it can mean anything. video games, rap, my brothers stuffed animal pig, evolution, cars, cell phones, self, the list goes on if in the hands of the right people.
OK. Well, when a word refers to everything, it becomes meaningless. It ceases to actually mean [i]anything[/], when it refers to everything, since it's power derives from it's ability to differentiate.

Your - or Webster's - definition of religion, is meaningless.

[ethan-s]

sorry, i screw that up. here is a better definition;

a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

[Vlerchan]

sorry, i screw that up. here is a better definition;

a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
Evolution isn't based on faith.

Case closed. Thank you for the Nobel.

[dxcxdzv]

sorry, i screw that up. here is a better definition;

a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
So by applying this definition to the Theory of Evolution you're stating that it is a belief?

Angry Vler-chan go get some good 'ole Irish whiskey. :p

[Flapjack]

soooo science is a religion guys

[Leprous]

sorry, i screw that up. here is a better definition;

a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

You know, not everything you find on an internet dictionary is actually a fact.....like....not everything on the internet is true man, sorry to ruin it for you. If you want to debate in here you better check your facts and not just rely on 1 random website and concider it to be true.

http://weknowmemes.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/dont-believe-everything-you-see-on-the-internet.jpg

[Judean Zealot]

Evolution isn't based on faith.

Case closed. Thank you for the Nobel.

On that definition my rationalism can't either be classified as a religion. I'm irreligious? Lol.

[Flapjack]

On that definition my rationalism can't either be classified as a religion. I'm irreligious? Lol.
Rationalism isn't a religion either?

[Leprous]

Wait does this mean the nazis were actually a religious organisation? Reise can you confirm?

[Vlerchan]

On that definition my rationalism can't either be classified as a religion. I'm irreligious? Lol.
http://firstchurchofatheism.com/become-ordained/

Welcome, brother?

---

How do you actually define religion? I'd be interested. I tend to refer to it as a system of beliefs centred around unobservable phenomena. But, obviously, lots of philosophy is going to overlap with that, and that's problematic.

[Judean Zealot]

How do you actually define religion? I'd be interested. I tend to refer to it as a system of beliefs centred around unobservable phenomena. But, obviously, lots of philosophy is going to overlap with that, and that's problematic.

I honestly don't believe the term "religion" has much significance beyond it's colloquial use. I suppose I'd define it as a system of rituals or ethics predicated on the assertion of some transcendent state of existence (as opposed to mere utility or social vagaries). That's the best I can do to qualify Judaism, Buddhism, Shamanism, and Philosophical Theism while excluding theoretical mathematics or political ideology.

[ethan-s]

So by applying this definition to the Theory of Evolution you're stating that it is a belief?

Angry Vler-chan go get some good 'ole Irish whiskey. :p

Yes. you do believe evolution is fact, right?


You know, not everything you find on an internet dictionary is actually a fact.....like....not everything on the internet is true man, sorry to ruin it for you. If you want to debate in here you better check your facts and not just rely on 1 random website and consider it to be true.

image (http://weknowmemes.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/dont-believe-everything-you-see-on-the-internet.jpg)
you just lost the debate with this post. are you that desperate that you must question the validity of the dictionary? Just for kicks, lets check some other ones;

"
a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects:"
"the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices:"
"something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience:"

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/religion

[Leprous]

Yes. you do believe evolution is fact, right?



you just lost the debate with this post. are you that desperate that you must question the validity of the dictionary? Just for kicks, lets check some other ones;

"
a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects:"
"the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices:"
"something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience:"

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/religion

I just lost a debate against a man claiming evolution is a religion? Yeah no.
Alright first off all, people who believe in evolution are not devoted to it and won't do practical stuff for it, we aren't going to the church of evolution.

People have already given enough reasons why evolution is not a religion and honestly, this is not a matter of debate nor of opinions, it's a fact evolution isn't a religion.

I don't see how I am desperate at all here. To be honest you seem desperate since you have to rely on a dictionary because you have no other means to prove something that in all honesty, isn't even true.
I don't think the word 'religion' can just be described in words.

Also if you are planning on becoming a frequent poster in ROTW don't go and bash on people saying "hur hur hur you just lost this debate hur hur I'm smarter".

[Vlerchan]

[...] we aren't going to the church of evolution.
You mean universities?

a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects:"
I don't believe either frequentist or bayesian statistical methodologies are the basis of religions.

"the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices:"
Political ideologies aren't a religion.

"something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience:"
This is a stronger definition of religion, but doesn't include evolution.

[Kyle37]

Ya if we could just drop a nuke on religious beliefs altogether people would be way smarter as they wouldn't solve they problems anymore by putting their hands together and hoping, but actually doing stuff to solve the problems.

[Thirdie]

i don't believe in any god and i think religion is stupid. but if people believe and they're not hurting anyone or pushing their beliefs, i'm okay with it

[dxcxdzv]

Yes. you do believe evolution is fact, right?
This is not a matter of what I believe.
Though you should be precise regarding what part of the Theroy of Evolution you're talking about.

Thing is this model has shown multiple times its scientific validity through the discovery of fossils and has also been empirically demonstrated (by that I mean mutations as well as the modification of phenotypes to fit a new environment).

So if one comes to ask me if the Theory of Evolution is a fact, I'll answer that as a whole it is scientifically valid.
Things that constitute the Theory of Evolution are mostly indisputable facts.

Starting from there it is therefore not a belief.

[Judean Zealot]

Ya if we could just drop a nuke on religious beliefs altogether people would be way smarter as they wouldn't solve they problems anymore by putting their hands together and hoping, but actually doing stuff to solve the problems.

Fedora alert.

I know many quite fanatically religious people, and I've seen no indication as of yet that they are any less assiduous in seeking solutions to their problems. Is your experience different?

[Kyle37]

Fedora alert.

I know many quite fanatically religious people, and I've seen no indication as of yet that they are any less assiduous in seeking solutions to their problems. Is your experience different?

This language is out of place. To answer this though, in my experience, religious people see every outcome, especially negative ones, to have some intervention by some holy figure and that the consequences are hand delivered for a reason.

Although this may be great for mass brainwashing, any reasonable person should let go of such beliefs, whether they feel comfortable of presenting that publicly or not.

[Leprous]

Ya if we could just drop a nuke on religious beliefs altogether people would be way smarter as they wouldn't solve they problems anymore by putting their hands together and hoping, but actually doing stuff to solve the problems.

You sir, are not smart enough to post here.

Debunk time!

You know that not all religious people are like that right? There are religious scientists, religious teachers, religious presidents etc, religious docters These people do things in there life.
So you want to kill all off these people? It's not because very religious people rely on praying thay they instantly deserve to die. That's a little rash don't you think? If you nuke all religious people what you will do is kill half of the earth's population which is not a good thing.

For example, more than half of Africa would be dead, India would be empty. Doing this will result in allot of Asian products not being made anymore because all the people there are dead.

Religious people are NOT bad people you know. It's not because someone wants to believe in a god that they are automaticly stupid and only rely on prayer. They also do things you know.

What you are doing right now is comparing very religious people, to ALL OF THEM. You are comparing a group of people to millions.
You know there are many religious people who also respect others right? If I want to be an atheist that's fine for them! They don't care, they won't bother you about it, you're the one being hostile towards them. Not the other way around.

As you said, in your experience religious people do this. If this is in your experience, that doesn't mean all religious people do that.
You know that your attitude is what causes civil wars and discrimination right? It's extreme and not even well supported.

Also, does this mean half of VT are people who only rely on prayers and don't do anything on their own?

[Judean Zealot]

This language is out of place. To answer this though, in my experience, religious people see every outcome, especially negative ones, to have some intervention by some holy figure and that the consequences are hand delivered for a reason.

Although this may be great for mass brainwashing, any reasonable person should let go of such beliefs, whether they feel comfortable of presenting that publicly or not.

I would apologise for unseemly language, if only I could find it.

Believing in providence in no manner detracts from the vigour with which goals are pursued. The most commonly espoused view on providence is that it provides opportunity, which man must then labour to obtain. When Patrick Henry said "An appeal to the Lord of Hosts is all that is left to us", or when the signatories of the Declaration of Independence affirmed their "firm reliance on the protection of divine providence", would you say that they were promoting half-heartedness in the pursuit of liberty?

I might end with a passage from the Bible:

"I went by the field of the slothful, and by the vineyard of the man void of understanding; and, lo, it was all grown over with thorns, and nettles had covered the face thereof, and the stone wall thereof was broken down. Then I saw, and considered it well: I looked upon it, and received instruction. Yet a little sleep, a little slumber, a little folding of the hands to sleep: So shall thy poverty come as one that travelleth; and thy want as an armed man." (Proverbs 24:30 - 34)

[Kyle37]

You sir, are not smart enough to post here.

Debunk time!

You know that not all religious people are like that right? There are religious scientists, religious teachers, religious presidents etc, religious docters These people do things in there life.
So you want to kill all off these people? It's not because very religious people rely on praying thay they instantly deserve to die. That's a little rash don't you think? If you nuke all religious people what you will do is kill half of the earth's population which is not a good thing.

For example, more than half of Africa would be dead, India would be empty. Doing this will result in allot of Asian products not being made anymore because all the people there are dead.

Religious people are NOT bad people you know. It's not because someone wants to believe in a god that they are automaticly stupid and only rely on prayer. They also do things you know.

What you are doing right now is comparing very religious people, to ALL OF THEM. You are comparing a group of people to millions.
You know there are many religious people who also respect others right? If I want to be an atheist that's fine for them! They don't care, they won't bother you about it, you're the one being hostile towards them. Not the other way around.

As you said, in your experience religious people do this. If this is in your experience, that doesn't mean all religious people do that.
You know that your attitude is what causes civil wars and discrimination right? It's extreme and not even well supported.

Also, does this mean half of VT are people who only rely on prayers and don't do anything on their own?

You took my post a little too seriously (I'm not calling for an apocalypse on religious folk lol). People who defend religion are always like "Ya but not all religious people are like that...", but really a majority of them are. Religious people are not bad people, I'm just saying they would be way better without it (just like a hot girl is better with less clothing ;)).

[Judean Zealot]

You took my post a little too seriously (I'm not calling for an apocalypse on religious folk lol). People who defend religion are always like "Ya but not all religious people are like that...", but really a majority of them are. Religious people are not bad people, I'm just saying they would be way better without it (just like a hot girl is better with less clothing ;)).

Would you care to respond to my assertion that if, in fact, the majority of religious people feel like that; it is despite the teachings of religion, not because of them?

[Kyle37]

Would you care to respond to my assertion that if, in fact, the majority of religious people feel like that; it is despite the teachings of religion, not because of them?

No, there is usually some sort of passage in the holy text that condones some kind of awful behavior after the other.

[PlasmaHam]

I don't see why religion is a bad thing. Religion gives hope to people who need it. Regardless of whether or not religions are actually true, society is much better with them.

And believe it or not, a lot of scientists and inventors were actually Christians. Nothing says in the Bible that Christians must be stick in the mud barbarians who must devote all of their time to theology. Christians know that God wants us to enjoy ourselves, and to pursue knowledge to better ourselves. Without religion, many of our societal standards would no longer exists, or be drastically changed. The Great Awakening and the Reformation accelerated social progress. Slavery was abolished in America in part by the influence of evangelicals. And despite what the media likes to say, America was founded upon Christian principles. Compared to countries founded on clearly atheist principles like Nazi Germany and the USSR, I think religion helped.

Religion may have some people doing stuff you might call a waste of time like prayers and rituals. But those activities often bring meaning to people's lives. For what meaning is life if we are simply just evolved bacteria? Many of tried to answer but have failed. But instead, what meaning is life if we are the sons of a great God? Simply knowing that there is a meaning in both life and death will keep many people going. I have had experiences of people who have lost everything, yet still had an urge to survive because of their religion.

Religion gives hope, and that is often a good thing. In Christian doctrine, we can pray to God to help us with something, but he also tells us to try our best to achieve that ourselves. Christians know that, and know that standing around hoping for something to happen isn't normally enough. That hope gives backbone to the actions we then do.

Religion provides so many advantages to our society. The reason so many dislike religion is because it provides accountability and restrictions. It says that man is not as high and mighty as we like to think we are. We are falling from religion and our society is falling with it. 50 years ago, gun laws were looser yet mass shootings were non-existent. Religion or at least respect for religion had society much more caring and considerate. 50 years later, society has become all about me, me, me; and shootings and murders have sky rocketed.

[Leprous]

No, there is usually some sort of passage in the holy text that condones some kind of awful behavior after the other.

You obviously are very ignorant if you think most religious people are like that. Because hey, most, and with most I do mean the vast majority of religuous people believe in god but do not go to church every week or pray often.

They are religious too you know. This is true for christians, most of them are not highly religious. This is a fact just so you know.

[PlasmaHam]

You obviously are very ignorant if you think most religious people are like that. Because hey, most, and with most I do mean the vast majority of religuous people believe in god but do not go to church every week or pray often.

They are religious too you know. This is true for christians, most of them are not highly religious. This is a fact just so you know.

I will say a lot of Christians are lacking in faith, but I will also say Christianity is not your average religion. Christianity is based on faith, not works, so from the outside Christians don't look nearly as religious as let say Jews and Muslims.

[Leprous]

I will say a lot of Christians are lacking in faith, but I will also say Christianity is not your average religion. Christianity is based on faith, not works, so from the outside Christians don't look nearly as religious as let say Jews and Muslims.

I go to a Christian school and was raised by a Christian family and well; they're not extremely religious either.

[Judean Zealot]

No, there is usually some sort of passage in the holy text that condones some kind of awful behavior after the other.

There is not a single major work of thought that I can think of that can't be perverted, through either lack of context or uncharitable interpretation, to condone the most horrific acts or attitudes. I dare say radical (or even divergent) political thought has killed more people than radical religion.

[Kyle37]

I don't see why religion is a bad thing. Religion gives hope to people who need it. Regardless of whether or not religions are actually true, society is much better with them.

And believe it or not, a lot of scientists and inventors were actually Christians. Nothing says in the Bible that Christians must be stick in the mud barbarians who must devote all of their time to theology. Christians know that God wants us to enjoy ourselves, and to pursue knowledge to better ourselves. Without religion, many of our societal standards would no longer exists, or be drastically changed. The Great Awakening and the Reformation accelerated social progress. Slavery was abolished in America in part by the influence of evangelicals. And despite what the media likes to say, America was founded upon Christian principles. Compared to countries founded on clearly atheist principles like Nazi Germany and the USSR, I think religion helped.

Religion may have some people doing stuff you might call a waste of time like prayers and rituals. But those activities often bring meaning to people's lives. For what meaning is life if we are simply just evolved bacteria? Many of tried to answer but have failed. But instead, what meaning is life if we are the sons of a great God? Simply knowing that there is a meaning in both life and death will keep many people going. I have had experiences of people who have lost everything, yet still had an urge to survive because of their religion.

Religion gives hope, and that is often a good thing. In Christian doctrine, we can pray to God to help us with something, but he also tells us to try our best to achieve that ourselves. Christians know that, and know that standing around hoping for something to happen isn't normally enough. That hope gives backbone to the actions we then do.

Religion provides so many advantages to our society. The reason so many dislike religion is because it provides accountability and restrictions. It says that man is not as high and mighty as we like to think we are. We are falling from religion and our society is falling with it. 50 years ago, gun laws were looser yet mass shootings were non-existent. Religion or at least respect for religion had society much more caring and considerate. 50 years later, society has become all about me, me, me; and shootings and murders have sky rocketed.

1. You're basically saying that some people use religion whether or not it is true, but in that case why not just use morality?

2. Scientists can be associated with a religion, I don't think anyone's disputing that. Not sure why you're specifying towards Christianity as this thread talks about religion in general. "My country was founded upon religion" statement doesn't make sense, no matter who says it. The Bible or Quran or whatever can't be treated as a constitution. Nazi Germany was deeply religious while USSR was against religion as it divided the people of different constituent states.

3. Meaning of life? I don't see atheists shooting themselves because they can't find the meaning of life. Love and happiness bro, and making the world a better place. Why can't these, among other reasons be the meaning of life. You'll die anyways, so just live your life, you have nothing to lose. Just don't go killing yourself, thats just a waste and hurtful to others around you.

4. Atheists, agnostics and alike don't see man as on top of the universe. They see themselves as just as insignificant as a cell of bacteria on the ocean floor. On the other hand, Christians see themselves as right under God and above all other species, as Christians believe they are given the responsibility of taking care of the plant for God, and that somehow humans are so special as to deserve their own special creation as opposed to other species. There is no proof that our society is falling because people are "losing" their religion. You and others might see this because society is not turning out exactly how you would like it, and so you see it as failing. I think you just shot yourself with that last statement about shootings (no pun intended). From what I recall, shootings in our modern day era are primarily committed by religious people. And if you think organizations like ISIS are not religious because they don't exactly follow the doctrines of Islam as it is thought in "regular" mosques, is ignorant. This would be the same as saying that Christian orthodox people aren't religious like Catholics. I'm pretty sure mass shootings were around ever since guns were spread around the world. Just because you didn't exist back in that time, doesn't mean you can paint your own picture of the past.

Thankfully I really felt like typing today, so I believe I was able to debunk most if not all of the statements from PlasmaHam.

[sqishy]

"
a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects:"

Political parties and their ideology, along with their supporters, can be included in this definition.

So can sports games and their fans.



"the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices:"

Same as the above.


"something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience:"


Political systems/parties are still included here.

- - - - - - - -

PlasmaHam

Religion is arguably very good in the pragmatic sense, yes.

[Hyper]

Theistic or not people need a system of values. It's what society functions on.

Theistic beliefs simply offer a lot of people more than just a system of values does. Answers & explanations to existential questions and consolation (psychological coping mechanisms) in times of crisis/mourning, being the first two that spring to mind.

I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with religion, I never have, I find views like the OPs to be innanely childish and naive. Masses of people can be goaded into doing lots of things for lots of reasons, meaning the problem is organized religion or organized doctrines of any kind when they are used to manipulate. However as far as history is concerned pretty much every major conflict in the history of man has ultimately been started due to the competition for resources.

Religion has been used a lot in history to justify conflicts to the masses or dehumanize the enemy but the same thing has been just as succesfully done with non-religious doctrines as well.

[Ghaem]

I actually had a question of "Theism - Atheism Axis", anymore I think I cannot convince myself that Atheism is correct, specially the one which are preached by kinds of Mr. Dawkins and Mr. Harris.

Atheism worldview is weak; Its final destination is toward Nihilism and absence of any worth for life and all human values. With a little thinking you can get into it.

[bandofbros20]

I find people with religion are almost always rude, sloppy, hypocritical, self righteous, better than thou assholes. While there are some exceptions I find religion to be a nice idea I just know extremely few people who live the way they preach persay. It's often they're only Christians on Sundays and maybe Wednesdays and all the other time they are rude and judgemental and hypocritical. And that's what bugs me. Most religions have nice ideas like be nice to others, give to the poor, etc but almost all people fail to get close to this and end up shifting on the religion. I feel like if there was a God that cared about us then we would actually help us and not leave us to deal with our own shit

[Ghaem]

I feel like if there was a God that cared about us then we would actually help us and not leave us to deal with our own shit

How do you know it has not?

[sqishy]

I'm suggesting an alternate (or arguably more worthwhile) approach to theism, that the theos in theology/theosophy/philosophy has no necessity to be a personal or human-like god/goddess/etc, or even that it has to have any relation to the qualities of humans, but rather that it is some principle, order, some other entity, or something else, that is 'responsible' for the world. This alternate approach also can mean to say that most religious practice is misled in some way (such as mistaking analogy as reality).

Things get more interesting when the presumption of a personal god/etc is removed. We are not longer making large statements about beards in the sky, the problem of evil for some religions can vanish, and most 'atheists' (anti-theists) are actually theists, some other self-identifying anti-theists are actually nihilists, and arguably a proportion of theists are actually just minds that are searching in a short-sighted way.

I start to get interested when we remove the presumption of the theos relating to the human realm - sure, we can still go into it, but there is far more potential to go beyond, and far more interaction of different theological ideas to see. Nihilism can still be present, too.

Hope this make sense.

[Ghaem]

Paraxiom, there surely is no human-like God, but there must be an intelligent and capable God.

Theologies circulating around Deistic beliefs are not accepted as actual Theism, but semi-theism, in some way like the statement "God's hands are tied".

Nihilism in no way make sense, and I usually call alive nihilists liars, questioning the very reason why they do not commit suicide while if they are honest in their beliefs they have too.

[dxcxdzv]

"Intelligent entity"

Okay.
I'm gonna express my view on the existence of a god, for real, for once.

I'm talking here about an "intelligent and absolute creator" ppl.
When I see people saying that there must some sort of intelligent godlike entity I'm always asking: Proof?
The answer to that is that we don't know ("idk therefore God" 195 IQ spotted) or at least that we can't prove that it is not the case.

Okay guys, lemme tell you, at the moment you are formulating an affirmation you need evidences, is there a real evidence of the existence of an intelligent god? No.
Yeah but look at the world, the Universe, it has to be made consciously! ===> speculation.
And speculation is not a valid evidence that could give credibility to an hypothesis.
There is no reason to suppose the existence of an intelligent entity if there is nothing that could let us think that it is a valid possibility.

You can always say lack of evidence does not mean evidence of a lack, problem is if there is no evidence in the first place there is no valid reason to consider it as even potentially possible.

If I tell you something I need something as a support. The fact that we can't prove the inexistence of something is in no way an excuse to consider this thing valid or even potentially valid.

So, "there must be an intelligent creator" is an invalid statement, unless you can advance an evidence I'll consider the existence of god "pointless to even consider".

Come on guys, convince my heretic atheist mind, or whatever it is called.

[sqishy]

Paraxiom, there surely is no human-like God, but there must be an intelligent and capable God.

Why must there be an 'intelligent and capable' God?

Putting it another way, why make this presumption that 'God' is conscious and of a kind similar to ours, before any further theology is practiced?

It greatly limits the space of speculation and 'what ifs' that can be done in theology; we don't need to think that theology is only about searching for the Truth in some anticipated certain direction.



Theologies circulating around Deistic beliefs are not accepted as actual Theism, but semi-theism, in some way like the statement "God's hands are tied".

The only difference between deism and theism to me, is that deism has a lack of faith/emotion-based reasoning, but what constitutes some reasoning has having that or not can be arbitrary, so I'm okay with leaving that distinction aside.



Nihilism in no way make sense, and I usually call alive nihilists liars, questioning the very reason why they do not commit suicide while if they are honest in their beliefs they have too.

Theistic nihilism is not the same as total nihilism. A theistic nihilist can still find meaning in the observable world we are in; living in 'this world' does not have to necessitate involving whatever could be beyond/behind it.



You can always say lack of evidence does not mean evidence of a lack, problem is if there is no evidence in the first place there is no valid reason to consider it as even potentially possible.


Why not?
I have no evidence that there is any land to the west of the ocean at the coast nearby to me, it doesn't mean there is no valid reason to consider the possibility of land there though.

[dxcxdzv]

I have no evidence that there is any land to the west of the ocean at the coast nearby to me, it doesn't mean there is no valid reason to consider the possibility of land there though.

If you're referring to the Americas, this is a very bad example.

You can wonder if an object does exist at a particular location, indeed, but you can't base your reasoning by taking this as a fact without having evidence.
If you come to travel West and find this object without any evidence this will be an insolent luck. But it does not confirm that you can base yourself on speculation.

If I tell you the existence of a all new boson, I will need - at least - the possibility of its existence, its identified role, as for the graviton for example.
But discussing the existence of an elementary particle is another thing than discussing the existence of an intelligent absolute entity.

[sqishy]

If you're referring to the Americas, this is a very bad example.

You can wonder if an object does exist at a particular location, indeed, but you can't base your reasoning by taking this as a fact without having evidence.

I wasn't talking about fact, I was talking about being open to possibility.



If you come to travel West and find this object without any evidence this will be an insolent luck. But it does not confirm that you can base yourself on speculation.

I don't know what you mean here. If you find the object with properties in agreement with your line of speculative reasoning, then your reasoning is worth something.



But discussing the existence of an elementary particle is another thing than discussing the existence of an intelligent absolute entity.

You will notice that I am not referring to an intelligent absolute entity, I mean anything at all that is 'behind' the world we know.

[Ghaem]

Why must there be an 'intelligent and capable' God?

Putting it another way, why make this presumption that 'God' is conscious and of a kind similar to ours, before any further theology is practiced?

It greatly limits the space of speculation and 'what ifs' that can be done in theology; we don't need to think that theology is only about searching for the Truth in some anticipated certain direction.

Why don't you say that "We" are like "God"? "Consciousness" and "Capability" are definitely two high traits.

There is this simple assumption:

"One Thing" is surely in full control of whole world.This "One Thing" surely has made this whole world at its basics. Everything within this world is created by this thing, directly or indirectly, intelligence included. So this thing can create intelligence, but how cannot it be intelligent itself?

The problem is the Theology unlike science we are not looking for "Ifs and What Ifs"? We look for certain answers and certain answers cannot be achieved through experiments in this field unlike science. They must be achieved from the very source of truth and certainty itself which is God.


Theistic nihilism is not the same as total nihilism. A theistic nihilist can still find meaning in the observable world we are in; living in 'this world' does not have to necessitate involving whatever could be beyond/behind it.

That is not Theistic Nihilism, that's Semi-Theism.

[dxcxdzv]

I wasn't talking about fact, I was talking about being open to possibility.

This is the same thing, to consider something as possible you have first to have something that makes you think that. Something credible and factual. Once there is an evidence you can discuss of a possibility. Or at least if the thing you are discussing is coherent with our actual knowledge.

I don't know what you mean here. If you find the object with properties in agreement with your line of speculative reasoning, then your reasoning is worth something.

The fact that you are right on something for "un-right" (unfunded etc) reasons does not make these reasons right.
If I bet on a match based on the colours of each team and win it doesn't make my reasoning pattern valid.
Putting in place a theory and successfully test it is another story, sure if you wonder about something, test it and that this tests confirms (absolutely confirms) your guess you may state that you were right. However if your guess wasn't based on some evidences it remains luck and a scientifically invalid way to conduct a research.

You will notice that I am not referring to an intelligent absolute entity, I mean anything at all that is 'behind' the world we know.

Same applies for anything. But the presumptions the belief of an intelligent absolute creator is based on can't be compared to a scientific presumption.

[sqishy]

It's unusual for me to be debating with a theist and an anti-theist (in general sight of what theism is) simultaneously.

- - - - - - - -

Why don't you say that "We" are like "God"? "Consciousness" and "Capability" are definitely two high traits.

I don't get you exactly.
We are capable of many things, but most of it is not consciously done (such as doing more than one task at a time).



There is this simple assumption:

"One Thing" is surely in full control of whole world.This "One Thing" surely has made this whole world at its basics. Everything within this world is created by this thing, directly or indirectly, intelligence included. So this thing can create intelligence, but how cannot it be intelligent itself?

I don't like 'surely' being used in these sort of things. Can we presume there is one thing? What if it is many, or not of a nature that can be quantified in number?

Intelligence coincides with certain physical patterns that are more complex than other patterns that coincide with non-intelligence. You're taking the 'top-down' view that certain complexity can only arise from greater complexity, chaos/disorder comes 'after' order; I prefer that we take both this view and the 'bottom-up' view as equal contenders for speculation, at least.

Have you heard of synergy?



The problem is the Theology unlike science we are not looking for "Ifs and What Ifs"? We look for certain answers and certain answers cannot be achieved through experiments in this field unlike science. They must be achieved from the very source of truth and certainty itself which is God.

I'm not looking for objective certainty, but I am very much interested in looking for more reasonable ideas that fit better with what I see.

Do you also presume that the Truth you seek, will benefit you?



That is not Theistic Nihilism, that's Semi-Theism.

What is the 'semi' part?


This is the same thing, to consider something as possible you have first to have something that makes you think that. Something credible and factual. Once there is an evidence you can discuss of a possibility. Or at least if the thing you are discussing is coherent with our actual knowledge.

With this in mind, it is not valid to consider the possibility of an entity/entities responsible for the physical realm we know of?

Do you have a problem with this, if I am talking about something non-physical? If so, what is it about it that makes it non-physical, and what does it mean for something to be physical? Dark energy is pretty 'out there' as an idea, yet you (and I) are fine with it.

We're carrying inductive reasoning and the idea of causality with us into speculation here. I don't see how this conflicts with what you have been saying.



The fact that you are right on something for "un-right" (unfunded etc) reasons does not make these reasons right.
If I bet on a match based on the colours of each team and win it doesn't make my reasoning pattern valid.
Putting in place a theory and successfully test it is another story, sure if you wonder about something, test it and that this tests confirms (absolutely confirms) your guess you may state that you were right. However if your guess wasn't based on some evidences it remains luck and a scientifically invalid way to conduct a research.

I'm guessing you are saying that only reasoning through the scientific method is valid, am I correct?



Same applies for anything. But the presumptions the belief of an intelligent absolute creator is based on can't be compared to a scientific presumption.

If you cannot apply the scientific method to it, yes.

[dxcxdzv]

With this in mind, it is not valid to consider the possibility of an entity/entities responsible for the physical realm we know of?

Do you have a problem with this, if I am talking about something non-physical? If so, what is it about it that makes it non-physical, and what does it mean for something to be physical? Dark energy is pretty 'out there' as an idea, yet you (and I) are fine with it.

There are actually some evidences that let us think about the existence of dark energy.
Physical, non-physical, outside the Universe, this has no real importance in the reasoning process. At the begining you start from observations and/or deductions to consider new possibilities and, why not, build new theories.
If you want me to consider the existence of an entity of any sort, you first need to bring me something that makes its existence possible. It's simple.
If you bring no valid ground to your hypothesis why sould I consider it? As if you can't bring any evidence you'll probably eon't even able to prove it in the end.
I'm also assuming here that "non-physical" refers to things like "dark energy" (ain't see why it is supposed to be non-physical btw, please light me on this point).

We're carrying inductive reasoning and the idea of causality with us into speculation here. I don't see how this conflicts with what you have been saying
I don't get what you mean.

I'm guessing you are saying that only reasoning through the scientific method is valid, am I correct?
Scientific method is the funniest expression I've ever heard.
Science is study, if your reasoning is in all logic valid and/or if it is possible to bring relevant results (ex: Theory of relativity and artificial satellites) thanks to it then it's valid, or at least the phenoma it describes are concrete.
Which, as far as I know, not the case of any belief regarding an intelligent and absolute creator.

If you cannot apply the scientific method to it, yes.
And concretely what do you mean?

------

Spelling mistakes spotted and stuff ===> Am on phone.

[sqishy]

There are actually some evidences that let us think about the existence of dark energy.

I know, yes.



Physical, non-physical, outside the Universe, this has no real importance in the reasoning process. At the begining you start from observations and/or deductions to consider new possibilities and, why not, build new theories.
If you want me to consider the existence of an entity of any sort, you first need to bring me something that makes its existence possible. It's simple.

Right.



If you bring no valid ground to your hypothesis why sould I consider it? As if you can't bring any evidence you'll probably eon't even able to prove it in the end.

You're fine with not considering it, but at the same time you bring your mind to actively consider and argue for the lack of this thing.

For that which is 'not of this world' let us say, we cannot prove that it doesn't exist, from within this world. Your reasoning is fine with saying we cannot prove its existence, but you can't go the extra mile and say that it proves its absence. If no information 'gets across' from the 'outside' of this world to within it of a form that we use as evidence, then that means no evidence can be got of absences of anything outside this world, from within it.



I'm also assuming here that "non-physical" refers to things like "dark energy" (ain't see why it is supposed to be non-physical btw, please light me on this point).

I was wondering if you brought physicality into this, for which I was saying that dark energy is probably non-physical by most definitions of what physicality can be. If it's not relevant then that's fine.



I don't get what you mean.

Causality as an idea can be used in one way to speculate about what is 'outside' this world. I'm not saying that I myself do that, that is irrelevant, I am saying that it is arguably doable, worth trying.



Scientific method is the funniest expression I've ever heard.
Science is study, if your reasoning is in all logic valid and/or if it is possible to bring relevant results (ex: Theory of relativity and artificial satellites) thanks to it then it's valid, or at least the phenoma it describes are concrete.
Which, as far as I know, not the case of any belief regarding an intelligent and absolute creator.

I didn't intend to sound silly by saying the 'scientific method' - you know what I mean, right?

Science to me is a term for which the scientific method and knowledge got from it, are grouped in. Crudely, it is the method that seeks to obtain knowledge of the environment through theory, experimentation and observation.

The phenomena science describes are concrete in that they are corroborated extremely well. Einsteinian Relativity might be proven wrong scientifically in the future, just like Newtonian Physics was by Relativity. It's concrete in its pragmatic value for technology, that I can agree on.

Even if I were to suspend all past beliefs and argue for the existence of an intelligent creator, it doesn't have to mean that I expect significant pragmatic value out of it for me.



And concretely what do you mean?

If the scientific method cannot be applied meaningfully to a certain entity, then that entity cannot be brought into the realm of science.

An example would be the emotional significance of an art piece, or whatever similar.



Spelling mistakes spotted and stuff ===> Am on phone.

Is alright.

[dxcxdzv]

You're fine with not considering it, but at the same time you bring your mind to actively consider and argue for the lack of this thing.

As it is a question that seems worth asking to a majority it can be intesredting to discuss about it. That being said, personally I won't bring the idea of the existence of such an entity in my reasoning. Therefore I won't consider use it, we can still talk about it though, but in the field of research, it looks - at least to me - as very sterile.
Let say then that beyong co sider it or not I express my ideas.

For that which is 'not of this world' let us say, we cannot prove that it doesn't exist, from within this world. Your reasoning is fine with saying we cannot prove its existence, but you can't go the extra mile and say that it proves its absence. If no information 'gets across' from the 'outside' of this world to within it of a form that we use as evidence, then that means no evidence can be got of absences of anything outside this world, from within it.

It seems like there is a misunderstanding.
I am not stating its absolute inexistence. I'm saying that there is no reason to co sider it valid and therefore no reason of bringing it on the table when we talk about, for example a point often argued by Gaheam, the natural order of the Universe and its creation as well as the one of life.

The fact that we have no evidence surely doesn't say it doesn't exist, but if we have no evidence there is no reason to suppose it exists. This is the big difference.

I didn't intend to sound silly by saying the 'scientific method' - you know what I mean, right?
Sure. Just that I find it funny.

Science to me is a term for which the scientific method and knowledge got from it, are grouped in. Crudely, it is the method that seeks to obtain knowledge of the environment through theory, experimentation and observation.

There is really no "to me". Science aims at explaining phenomena of the Universe (and beyond) in a concrete way.

If the scientific method cannot be applied meaningfully to a certain entity, then that entity cannot be brought into the realm of science.

An example would be the emotional significance of an art piece, or whatever similar.
Feelings can actually be really well explained. The most probant example being addiction with the chemical pattern of transmission of i formation between our neurons.
Though I get what you mean, but if something cannot be explained, can it exist at all? Unfortunately as far as I know there is neither a demonstration of the "absolute mega power of it" nor a real counter-example.

Perhaps I missed some of your sentences, I'll recheck o ce I get the hand on my own computer.

[sqishy]

As it is a question that seems worth asking to a majority it can be intesredting to discuss about it. That being said, personally I won't bring the idea of the existence of such an entity in my reasoning. Therefore I won't consider use it, we can still talk about it though, but in the field of research, it looks - at least to me - as very sterile.
Let say then that beyong co sider it or not I express my ideas.

Alright.



It seems like there is a misunderstanding.
I am not stating its absolute inexistence. I'm saying that there is no reason to co sider it valid and therefore no reason of bringing it on the table when we talk about, for example a point often argued by Gaheam, the natural order of the Universe and its creation as well as the one of life.

No reason to consider it with intention to find the 'Truth', without given 'leaps' of faith as it were, yes.



The fact that we have no evidence surely doesn't say it doesn't exist, but if we have no evidence there is no reason to suppose it exists. This is the big difference.

Same as above.



Sure. Just that I find it funny.

Alright then.



There is really no "to me". Science aims at explaining phenomena of the Universe (and beyond) in a concrete way.

I meant how I see it to be defined.



Feelings can actually be really well explained. The most probant example being addiction with the chemical pattern of transmission of i formation between our neurons.

I was referring to the experience, not the physics that coincides with it (using 'coincides' to not bring in the topics of physicalism, qualia and so on).



Though I get what you mean, but if something cannot be explained, can it exist at all? Unfortunately as far as I know there is neither a demonstration of the "absolute mega power of it" nor a real counter-example.

I cannot explain why pain feels unpleasant, yet it exists to me.



Perhaps I missed some of your sentences, I'll recheck o ce I get the hand on my own computer.

That's okay.

[dxcxdzv]

I was referring to the experience, not the physics that coincides with it (using 'coincides' to not bring in the topics of physicalism, qualia and so on).
Experience?

I cannot explain why pain feels unpleasant, yet it exists to me.
1) If you cannot explain something it doesn't mean it is absolutely unexplainable, well, you know that already.
2) It doesn't mean this thing can't be explained in the future with whatever progress permitting its comprehension.

For pain the transmission of the signal to the brain and its interpretation as an "alert signal" through nociception look at first sight well documented. But, that's not the subject here.

[sqishy]

Experience?

The feelings/emotions perceived.



1) If you cannot explain something it doesn't mean it is absolutely unexplainable, well, you know that already.
2) It doesn't mean this thing can't be explained in the future with whatever progress permitting its comprehension.

Certain explanations may not intersect with other explanations (i.e. explanation through artistic meaning, and explanation through scientific meaning). I agree though.



For pain the transmission of the signal to the brain and its interpretation as an "alert signal" through nociception look at first sight well documented. But, that's not the subject here.

I'd prefer not to get into physicalism/related here, yes.

[WhoWhatWhen]

I feel like that too. If people stopped relying on a book written 2000 years ago to live their lives we would be 1000% more advanced. It literally promotes homophobia, slavery, rape, sexism, etc and people still follow this book so closely?? I think it is just people who need someone to lead them are the ones who believe in God/religion. The real leaders don't need a god to be good people and live their lives.

Also religion is kind of a pile of crap. Especially Catholicism (I grew up Catholic so I know). But people can live their lives however they want it's none of my business.:metal:

[Jinglebottom]

Personally, I was taught to treat everyone equally regardless of religion. I didn't get that treatment in return but it is what it is. I really have no idea why some parents teach their children to hate members of different religions/sects, it's so toxic and doesn't accomplish any good. I saw 12 year olds who mocked the beliefs and rituals of the other group. Why?

[jamie_n5]

I am a strong Christian myself. I don't think that a world without God and the promise of eternal life through Jesus Christ would be so very pointless and sad. Through the grace of God we are very privileged here in America.

[sqishy]

I really have no idea why some parents teach their children to hate members of different religions/sects, it's so toxic and doesn't accomplish any good. I saw 12 year olds who mocked the beliefs and rituals of the other group. Why?

One good persisting question. Most of the time I put it down to tendencies in human nature, which does make it hard to have an optimistic outlook on the future of humanity, that does not involve looking for a 'reset' switch through some form of mass population wiping for a new beginning.

Whatever about the diverse criticisms of religion in whatever forms, if every one was practiced with more consistency and no double standards such as the dislike/hatred of other beliefs you mention, even that would have a much better effect on the world.

[Leprous]

In my opinion religion and politcs should never be mixed. That always ends badly. I also have the opinion that someone's religion shouldn't be visible in public to other people.

Paraxiom xbob18 I think the main problem with the hate between religions towards other religions is not because parents teach their children to hate them, but rather them telling their children only their religion is right.
If there is only one god why are there so many different religions? It is just something I fail to understand.

However I'm afraid that parents will keep teaching these things to their children. If people were more open about other religions allot would be solved. A prime example would be the general hate Christians have towards Satanism. Why? It's just a religion like any other.

Also in my opinion schools should never teach religion to children. Nor should parents force their children to also have the same religion like they do. Every child should have a choice. If they want to be religious then they have that right, not matter what religion. They also have the right not to believe.

Will also add that I personally think one of the biggest flaws in the US is how they are very driven by religion. For example the homophobia caused by extreme Christians. Mormons aren't exactly the most open minded people (as far as I'm aware). Religion and politics should be seperated, especially in the US. Just like Ben Carson lashing out at Clinton because she was inspired by a man who 'worships Lucifer'. This is actually an example of how Christians tend to have a natural hatred towards Stanism, which needs to be solved.

[Dalcourt]

Will also add that I personally think one of the biggest flaws in the US is how they are very driven by religion. For example the homophobia caused by extreme Christians. Mormons aren't exactly the most open minded people (as far as I'm aware). Religion and politics should be seperated, especially in the US. Just like Ben Carson lashing out at Clinton because she was inspired by a man who 'worships Lucifer'. This is actually an example of how Christians tend to have a natural hatred towards Stanism, which needs to be solved.

oh yes that is very true...it's claimed that religion and politicsare separated in the USA but as you pointed out this is far from true.
Sometimes it feels there's more religious fanatics in the stats now as dring the time of witch hunting in medieval Europe...
Hearinf so many religious references in politics makes me cringe sometimes...

How can anyone close a speech with a sentence like "God bless America" !?
What god? mine? that of the speaker? maybe I don't want my country to be blessed by some god cuz I don't believed in the existence of such a concept?

religious beliefs should be kept in private and not be used in such a manner not in the US and not in any other country.

[Flapjack]

How can anyone close a speech with a sentence like "God bless America" !?
What god? mine? that of the speaker? maybe I don't want my country to be blessed by some god cuz I don't believed in the existence of such a concept?


I don't see the harm in that buddy, you don't have to ask your god to bless the USA! If someone believes in god and they ask that god to bless the USA then who's it hurting? I would understand you being offended if they were saying god curse but they mean well.

[Dalcourt]

I don't see the harm in that buddy, you don't have to ask your god to bless the USA! If someone believes in god and they ask that god to bless the USA then who's it hurting? I would understand you being offended if they were saying god curse but they mean well.

As it is claimed that politics and church are two separate entities...you can't close a political speech with a blessing...just contradicts this separation. And I think most US citizens would be highly offened if this blessing said would be anything but Christian.

[PlasmaHam]

As it is claimed that politics and church are two separate entities...you can't close a political speech with a blessing...just contradicts this separation. And I think most US citizens would be highly offened if this blessing said would be anything but Christian.

Doesn't that infringe on free speech? Politicians should have the right to speak whatever ever they want in their speeches, they are people like you and me and should have the right to reference religion. If you take offense to that, too bad, life isn't fair.

From a historical standpoint, separation of church and states has lost its original meaning. The Founding Fathers added numerous religion connotations in their various documents like the Constitution and Declaration of Independence. They meant for religion to be allowed in government, but not for the government to support an official religion. Government supported religion were a big problem back then, and they didn't want America to become the same.

I wouldn't take offense to someone asking their god to bless America, and I doubt most Christians would. In the eyes of a Christian, asking a pagan god to bless America is useless, but we respect the right to liberty.

For those who like to talk about how we need more separation of church and state, yet protest tax-free churches, that is hypocritical.

[PlasmaHam]

Apologizes if I am going at this for a Christian perspective, but that is my strong suit when it comes to religion, so bear with me.

In my opinion religion and politcs should never be mixed.

I agree with you that there should never be a theocracy like the ones of the Middle Age Europe and currently in the Middle East and elsewhere. True religion gets corrupted by politics. However, I think you are talking about something much more extreme.

I think the main problem with the hate between religions towards other religions is not because parents teach their children to hate them, but rather them telling their children only their religion is right.


Well, I will say that some religions are guilty of that, but that is not universal. I have been raised in a Christian household, I am born again believer, go to church every Sunday, etc. Basically, I am a good Christian, yet I experience no hatred towards other religions. The Bible teaches to be accepting of others, and tolerance towards religion. 1 Corinthians 10:31-32 and John 4:7-27 are good examples of that. I know of no Christian or really any other religious member who hates other religions.

I don't see how this is a religion thing anyway? From your logic, an atheist who was always taught religion was wrong would hate religion. A capitalist who was always taught socialism was wrong would hate socialists. This is more of a flawed representation of humanity as a whole/

However I'm afraid that parents will keep teaching these things to their children. If people were more open about other religions allot would be solved. A prime example would be the general hate Christians have towards Satanism. Why? It's just a religion like any other.


Well, a majority of Christian converts are not children, but okay. Again, Christians, and people in general, have the right to not like certain ideologies. Christians see Satanism as Jews would see Hitler worship, and should have the right to such.


Also in my opinion schools should never teach religion to children. Nor should parents force their children to also have the same religion like they do. Every child should have a choice. If they want to be religious then they have that right, not matter what religion. They also have the right not to believe.


American public schools have never taught religion, at-least in a forced or clearly preaching way. Prayer was just a formality that students did not have to do, and Bible reading was for both literature and reading practice. In fact, a lot of teachers and education experts encourage Bible and other religious readings to promote, guess what? Tolerance.

I don't know where you got that other idea. Christians and most of other religions stress salvation or joining as your own choice, not your parent's. Sure, your parent can have influence on you, and that is their right, but it is your choice. I have seen kids from clearly atheist families become great Christians, while kids from devout Christian families becoming nothing but drug-addicts and criminals.

Will also add that I personally think one of the biggest flaws in the US is how they are very driven by religion. For example the homophobia caused by extreme Christians. Mormons aren't exactly the most open minded people (as far as I'm aware).

Do I not have the right to my own opinion? The left just loves to call anyone who doesn't agree with their principles as homophobic, sexist, racist pigs. I don't believe in gay marriage and transgender junk, but I'm not going out there and killing people about it. Respect the person, not the sin.

Religion and politics should be seperated, especially in the US. Just like Ben Carson lashing out at Clinton because she was inspired by a man who 'worships Lucifer'. This is actually an example of how Christians tend to have a natural hatred towards Stanism, which needs to be solved.

Well, someone who worships a being of evil and destruction has a few screws lose. I don't blame Carson claiming that, I wouldn't want our next president to be inspired by a mad man.

Freedom of speech seems to be your issue, not religion. People are going to say things you don't like, believe things you don't believe, and act ways you don't want them to. That's the beauty of America, people can say basically anything they want and not worry about being imprisoned or punished for it. If you have a problem with people and their opinions, I am sorry, but that's the way it shall be. You can have your opinion, and I can have mine. If those opinions involve religion, they shouldn't be treated any different than secular opinions.

[Leprous]

PlasmaHam I never said there aren't atheists hating on religions though. I know some do and they are assholes for doing it. Not all religious people hate other religions, but those who do are just downright stupid.

You know, if they act like Satanism is like Jews were for Hitler doesn't that mean they hate on another religion which makes them assholes not respecting those who are Satanists? It actually does. If you resoect everyone for their opinions and beliefs you should respect Satanists aswell. As I said before they don't primarily worship Satan. The Satanic bible has less violence than the Christian one, just so you know.

Also Satanists don't actually worship Satan directly just so you know. What Carson said what completely taken out of context. The man who Clinton admired said he was inspired by Lucifer, did he ever mention worshipping him? No.

You have the right for your own opinion, do I not have the same right? The fact you refer to is as 'transgender junk' just shows you are close-minded to other genders. Shouldn't Christians respect everyone and treat them as equals?

I actually think freedom of speech should be for everyone! Did I ever say religious people don't have the right to give their opinions? No. I however think they should not decide things based on religion that can affect milions of people from different religions.

[PlasmaHam]

PlasmaHam I never said there aren't atheists hating on religions though. I know some do and they are assholes for doing it. Not all religious people hate other religions, but those who do are just downright stupid.

You know, if they act like Satanism is like Jews were for Hitler doesn't that mean they hate on another religion which makes them assholes not respecting those who are Satanists? It actually does. If you resoect everyone for their opinions and beliefs you should respect Satanists aswell. As I said before they don't primarily worship Satan. The Satanic bible has less violence than the Christian one, just so you know.

Also Satanists don't actually worship Satan directly just so you know. What Carson said what completely taken out of context. The man who Clinton admired said he was inspired by Lucifer, did he ever mention worshipping him? No.

You have the right for your own opinion, do I not have the same right? The fact you refer to is as 'transgender junk' just shows you are close-minded to other genders. Shouldn't Christians respect everyone and treat them as equals?


Well, your first point is kinda moot now, since you admitted everyone does it.

Respect the person, not the sin. Christians don't hate Satanists, the Bible says to love all people regardless of religion or opinions. And I know that not all Satanists actually worship Satan, its mainly just a mockery of religion for some people. But there are some who actually worship Satan. A guy only a few miles from me was a Satan worshiper for real. You know what happened to him? He was jailed for sacrificing pets and for killing 3 people and leaving the remains in his backyard for 6 years. His house was full of historically satanic symbols and dead animals. That is real Satanism, and it is why Christians don't like it.

Wow, you basically just reiterated my point about how leftist love to call people who don't agree with their opinions homophobic, racist, sexist, close minded, etc. As I said, respect the person, not the sin.

[Leprous]

Well, your first point is kinda moot now, since you admitted everyone does it.

Respect the person, not the sin. Christians don't hate Satanists, the Bible says to love all people regardless of religion or opinions. And I know that not all Satanists actually worship Satan, its mainly just a mockery of religion for some people. But there are some who actually worship Satan. A guy only a few miles from me was a Satan worshiper for real. You know what happened to him? He was jailed for sacrificing pets and for killing 3 people and leaving the remains in his backyard for 6 years. That is real Satanism, and it is why Christians don't like it.

Wow, you basically just reiterated my point about how leftist love to call people who don't agree with their opinions homophobic, racist, sexist, close minded, etc. As I said, respect the person, not the sin.

That is not actually real Satanism as in the religion, those are just crazy people. You just said Satanists are like Jews to Hitler but in this post you say to respect them? Doesn't that mean the people who don't respect them are bad Christians since they don't listen to the bible?

Wow, I'm not a leftist.

[Flapjack]

The real leftist enters


Respect the person, not the sin. Christians don't hate Satanists, the Bible says to love all people regardless of religion or opinions. And I know that not all Satanists actually worship Satan, its mainly just a mockery of religion for some people. But there are some who actually worship Satan. A guy only a few miles from me was a Satan worshiper for real. You know what happened to him? He was jailed for sacrificing pets and for killing 3 people and leaving the remains in his backyard for 6 years. His house was full of historically satanic symbols and dead animals. That is real Satanism, and it is why Christians don't like it.


I agree buddy but I do find it interesting how you don't blame religion when it is a Christian but instead put it down to the man being crazy, I assume you would do the same for Muslims then? Also you watch Fox News don't you? I recognise that talking point.

[PlasmaHam]

That is not actually real Satanism as in the religion, those are just crazy people. You just said Satanists are like Jews to Hitler but in this post you say to respect them? Doesn't that mean the people who don't respect them are bad Christians since they don't listen to the bible?

Wow, I'm not a leftist.

How do you know that the people doing the Satanic mockery are the real Satanists? Satanism has been recorded throughout history, long before these chumps came along and made it a joke.

You don't understand Christianity, do you? The Bible says we should respect such people, but we are all humans. Every Christian is a bad Christian, only Christ is truly good. Religion is not the issue here, it is simply human nature.

On what do you have a right sided opinion on? You got my point concerning the leftist quote.

[Flapjack]

How do you know that the people doing the Satanic mockery are the real Satanists? Satanism has been recorded throughout history, long before these chumps came along and made it a joke.

You don't understand Christianity, do you? The Bible says we should respect such people, but we are all humans. Every Christian is a bad Christian, only Christ is truly good. Religion is not the issue here, it is simply human nature.

On what do you have a right sided opinion on? You got my point concerning the leftist quote.
The bible also said don't eat shrimp. It says turn the other cheek but also an eye for an eye. Religion can be used to justify nearly anything. From holy wars to charity. Do you think Muslim terrorists are crazy people or do you blame Islam?

[Leprous]

How do you know that the people doing the Satanic mockery are the real Satanists? Satanism has been recorded throughout history, long before these chumps came along and made it a joke.

You don't understand Christianity, do you? The Bible says we should respect such people, but we are all humans. Every Christian is a bad Christian, only Christ is truly good. Religion is not the issue here, it is simply human nature.

On what do you have a right sided opinion on? You got my point concerning the leftist quote.

Seems like Christians are slaves to Christ when you put it that way.

I love how you think I am a leftist. If there is one thing I hate it's socialism. I am a right winged nationalist sorry to spoil it for you. Mimikyu can confirm this.

How do I know? Because I have done research on the topic of Satanism before, that's how.

If you should respect all humans shouldn't you respect the ones wanting to change their gender? You did call them stupid.

Also, no I don't understand Christianity just like I don't understand any other religion in general. Is that a problem? That is my vision.

[PlasmaHam]

The real leftist enters



I agree buddy but I do find it interesting how you don't blame religion when it is a Christian but instead put it down to the man being crazy, I assume you would do the same for Muslims then? Also you watch Fox News don't you? I recognise that talking point.

I wasn't referring to crazy Christians at all. I am not sure how you got the idea that I was defending Christianity in any way. I was simply using Christianity as an example when it came to religion, as that is what most of you are referring to anyway. Different religions have different views when it comes to tolerance and other religions, so using the Bible to judge whether a Muslim was religiously inspired to commit crimes does not work.

If anyone, (maybe Ghaem) feels like defending Islam when it comes to whether religion is good or not, feel free. But Christianity is my strong suit so I will use that.

I have no idea what you mean by a talking point. This whole thing has been entirely original from my own head.

[PlasmaHam]

If you should respect all humans shouldn't you respect the ones wanting to change their gender? You did call them stupid.

Also, no I don't understand Christianity just like I don't understand any other religion in general. Is that a problem? That is my vision.

Eh, that might have been an over-reaction on my part, in terms of calling them stupid. I don't recall saying that, but I am nevertheless sorry. I respect the person, but I don't agree with them wanting to change their gender.

Okay, I meant no offense when I asked you about Christian knowledge. Your claims against it didn't really work when you understand the religion. But understanding religion would give you a better understanding of what religion actually supports. You are bashing religion despite admitting you don't understand religion.

[Vlerchan]

I am a right winged nationalist sorry to spoil it for you.
I never would have guessed.

Ideologically-speaking, could you chose a political or historical figure, you find yourself close to. So, like, Le Penne?

[PlasmaHam]

The bible also said don't eat shrimp. It says turn the other cheek but also an eye for an eye. Religion can be used to justify nearly anything. From holy wars to charity. Do you think Muslim terrorists are crazy people or do you blame Islam?

Old Testament law. Rather complicated, especially for someone who isn't well versed in Christian/Jewish doctrine. But for the sake of the conversation, I will clarify. Mosaic Law does not apply to Christianity, Jesus is the new Law.

You know how you mentioned an eye for an eye, and turning the other cheek. You basically said that both are commanded of Christians. Check out the verse that talked of both of these:

Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other

How is not eating shrimp hurting people? I mean, I guess Forrest Gump might have not made his fortune, but okay.

[Judean Zealot]

Why, just why, isn't there a single reference to any actual theologians in this thread?

[Leprous]

I never would have guessed.

Ideologically-speaking, could you chose a political or historical figure, you find yourself close to. So, like, Le Penne?

Well actually I don't have any. Now that you mention it, I never really thought about it before. I just follow my own beliefs really, never really felt like there are figures I am close to as far as I'm aware.
PlasmaHam Let me rephrase that. I get why there are religions and why people follow them but I don't understand the concept of worshipping a deity.

[Ghaem]

PlasmaHam Let me rephrase that. I get why there are religions and why people follow them but I don't understand the concept of worshipping a deity.

Worshipping or loving?

[Leprous]

Worshipping or loving?

Well, as for religion is there a big difference? You love them but you also worship them don't you? (Using them for all religions)

[Ghaem]

Well, as for religion is there a big difference? You love them but you also worship them don't you? (Using them for all religions)

Worshipping is a type of Admiring. Love also comes from admiration.

Before religion we have Monotheism which is about Love of God too.

I think a day I would make a thread about differences between Monotheism and Religion.

[PlasmaHam]

Why, just why, isn't there a single reference to any actual theologians in this thread?

Well, seeing that this debate is more about discussing the basic principles of religion with non-religious people, I see no real purpose of researching theologians. Most of my theology books and interviews I have are more about Christianity in general than the idea of religions as a whole, which won't help here.

No one has challenged my claims anyway on a theological ground, so I see no need.

[PlasmaHam]

I think a day I would make a thread about differences between Monotheism and Religion.

That will be very interesting to read. I agree with you about there being a difference between religion and belief in God. I almost cringe when I refer to Christianity being a religion.

[Dalcourt]

Doesn't that infringe on free speech? Politicians should have the right to speak whatever ever they want in their speeches, they are people like you and me and should have the right to reference religion. If you take offense to that, too bad, life isn't fair.

From a historical standpoint, separation of church and states has lost its original meaning. The Founding Fathers added numerous religion connotations in their various documents like the Constitution and Declaration of Independence. They meant for religion to be allowed in government, but not for the government to support an official religion. Government supported religion were a big problem back then, and they didn't want America to become the same.

I wouldn't take offense to someone asking their god to bless America, and I doubt most Christians would. In the eyes of a Christian, asking a pagan god to bless America is useless, but we respect the right to liberty.

For those who like to talk about how we need more separation of church and state, yet protest tax-free churches, that is hypocritical.

I totally understand what you say and personally couldn't care less about whether someone wants his country to be blessed r not.
After all it is just figures of speech.
Problem is that this freedom of speech and all will just be granted to you as a politician as long as you use Christian figures of speech...most citizens would be offended by references to other non Christian religious beliefs...as long as this would be the case people cannot really claim that there's freedom of speech and religious freedom cuz as a whole society is just dominated by a few some rather obscure Christian denominations.

[Ghaem]

That will be very interesting to read. I agree with you about there being a difference between religion and belief in God. I almost cringe when I refer to Christianity being a religion.

Well it seems that people here usually confuse these two with each others. In my philosophy there is one-dimensional axis for beliefs:

Actual A-Theism --- Semi-A-Theism --- Agnosticism --- Semi - Monotheism --- Actual Monotheism

Religion is just a product of Monotheism in General.

[Leprous]

Worshipping is a type of Admiring. Love also comes from admiration.

Before religion we have Monotheism which is about Love of God too.

I think a day I would make a thread about differences between Monotheism and Religion.

So that is kinda what I said. Worshipping a deity = loving the deity but not always the other way around if I'm correct.

[Ghaem]

So that is kinda what I said. Worshipping a deity = loving the deity but not always the other way around if I'm correct.

Well, worshipping can come out of Fear too, but in Monotheism you must Love. That makes a difference.

And it is not a deity. It is One Being.

[Leprous]

Well, worshipping can come out of Fear too, but in Monotheism you must Love. That makes a difference.

And it is not a deity. It is One Being.

Well when worshipping a god out of fear there is a big problem going on with the person to be honest. It depends what religion, not all religions have only 1 god.

[Ghaem]

Well when worshipping a god out of fear there is a big problem going on with the person to be honest. It depends what religion, not all religions have only 1 god.

Worshipping is just a very little, but important, part of Monotheism. The greater part is about how we live to have a good life; This is Religion.

[PhillyMorrell]

Religion was obviously created so that man would have something to fear about and do good.
As long as you have a moral compass to do the right things, you can't do fine without religion. Some people need it to keep them within the lines and fair enough to them.

Pokemon Go is my religion! I go in search for figures that I can keep with me and find satisfaction in it.

Isn't that what religion is pretty much about in the end?

[Judean Zealot]

Pokemon Go is my religion!

That's it. I've utterly despaired of the west.

[sqishy]

Paraxiom xbob18 I think the main problem with the hate between religions towards other religions is not because parents teach their children to hate them, but rather them telling their children only their religion is right.
If there is only one god why are there so many different religions? It is just something I fail to understand.

(Sorry for not noticing your mention of me till now.)
I put the diversity of religion down to the diversity of culture, along with the diversity of geography that those cultures are in.


PlasmaHam I never said there aren't atheists hating on religions though. I know some do and they are assholes for doing it.

I see such 'atheists' as really anti-theists. I prefer that so that 'atheism' literally means a lack of belief in a god/gods/etc, which has no necessity to mean 'anti-theism', the belief of a lack of a god/gods/etc.

In my opinion religion and politcs should never be mixed. That always ends badly. I also have the opinion that someone's religion shouldn't be visible in public to other people.

Peanut_

I am for a literally 'atheistic' societal-economic-political state, as a foundation at the least.


I get why there are religions and why people follow them but I don't understand the concept of worshipping a deity.

Following a religion usually entails worship of a deity.

I see the worship of a deity to be a practice which perceives overall order in the world, which is a much kinder situation for seeing meaning and purpose in things, a good psychological anchor of sorts.

That doesn't mean that I advocate for religion as only a psychological placebo, only that that's what I imagine the motivation to be. It makes the most sense for me as a subconscious tool for people.

Also, this doesn't mean that it does not or cannot find 'Truth'. That can be irrelevant.

- - - - - - - -


Before religion we have Monotheism which is about Love of God too.

I think a day I would make a thread about differences between Monotheism and Religion.

What about polytheism?


In my philosophy there is one-dimensional axis for beliefs:

Actual A-Theism --- Semi-A-Theism --- Agnosticism --- Semi - Monotheism --- Actual Monotheism

I'll make comparisons with my view:

Anti-theism | Atheism | Theism


What is 'semi-theism', and what is the difference between 'actual' and 'non-actual monotheism', for you? (if I have understood correctly)



Religion is just a product of Monotheism in General.

I don't see how monotheism is seen as 'before' religion, and also the only foundation for it. There's duotheism, other polytheism, animism, and so on.

How is monotheism not religious?

- - - - - - - -

Why, just why, isn't there a single reference to any actual theologians in this thread?

I don't see any need to expect references to theologians, taking we are in a teen website for which ROTW is a small subset, theology as a subset of that also. We offer ideas to discuss, without need for study beforehand.

Personally I work better with the ideas without the link to whoever first came up with it (assuming that someone has, which is likely), which also means admittedly that I don't remember theologians much at all. As long as we interact with the ideas and the arguments, we are set.


That's it. I've utterly despaired of the west.

I share your wonder on what this Pokémon storm is all about, but I like to keep hope still :P .

[mattsmith48]

Religion was obviously created so that man would have something to fear about and do good.
As long as you have a moral compass to do the right things, you can't do fine without religion. Some people need it to keep them within the lines and fair enough to them.

Pokemon Go is my religion! I go in search for figures that I can keep with me and find satisfaction in it.

Isn't that what religion is pretty much about in the end?

Well actually religion was created to explain what they didnt understand at the time.

[Gwen]

The people that believe that if religion wasn't around the major wars in the world would of never happened are so stupid they need to wonder if they are deliriously believing in fiction. Like the whole crusades argument when they've done abso-fucking-lutely zero research on the muslim conquests prior. I would rather Christianity became a tiny cult at this point so I could do my own thing in peace. Not my fault vocal sects that don't even have the same beliefs as my church annoy you slightly zzz

[Arkansasguy]

I absolutely hate religion. Like , I have an overwhelming hatred towards all of them. Especially like fundamentalists. Like here in America, I feel that if we didn't have religion, we would be 30 to 50 years more advanced. Our country would be such a better and tolerant place to be if old dude here didn't believe in 7 headed dragons and a engineering impossibility like the fucking ark. Basically the middle east would be like the rest of the world with sand if it weren't for religion. I just can't believe that the world still has people killing eeach other over fictional characters. People in the middle east, India and even america are force fed religion right when they pop out of their momma, and then are chained to it for the rest of their lives. They think that because their mom and dad told them so, that THEIR religion is right. Out of all 4500 religions in the world today, they were so special and they KNOW the answers. A person who goes to church for 2 hours on Sunday and Wednesday spend 1/42 of their life worshiping a fictional god and following a bigoted, outlandish, and stupid 2,000 year old book that claims the world is flat, a man made a woman out of a rib, and a dude lived for 1000 years with every animal ever on a medium size boat sailing the world in a flood that has been proven to not of happened.

It kills me that people are brainwashed into putting their life into something fake.

Damn that was an emotional rant. 😂
Opinions?

If atheism didn't exist . . . there at least would be a few less idiots running around on the Internet.

[PlasmaHam]

I was just browsing around the internet when I stumbled across this.

http://now.howstuffworks.com/2016/07/25/exceptional-americans-religion-optimism-political-belief

Shows the correlation between religion and general word outlook. A good little read if you are interested.

[mattsmith48]

If atheism didn't exist . . . there at least would be a few less idiots running around on the Internet.

How those two things are related?

[Leprous]

If atheism didn't exist . . . there at least would be a few less idiots running around on the Internet.

Except these 'idiots' have more facts to back their claims than religious people do. Just so you know. What proof do you have your 'god' created the planet?

[Vlerchan]

Except these 'idiots' have more facts to back their claims than religious people do. Just so you know.
Prove atheism with 'facts', please.

[Arkansasguy]

Except these 'idiots' have more facts to back their claims than religious people do. Just so you know. What proof do you have your 'god' created the planet?

"New" atheists are almost without exception dumber than rocks.

If you aren't aware of this, either you are unfamiliar with the "new atheists" or you are one of them.

[mattsmith48]

"New" atheists are almost without exception dumber than rocks.

If you aren't aware of this, either you are unfamiliar with the "new atheists" or you are one of them.

Whats new atheist?

[Arkansasguy]

Whats new atheist?

Try Google.

The OP is quite obviously a "new atheist".

[mattsmith48]

Try Google.

The OP is quite obviously a "new atheist".

I would ratter have you explain to me

[Judean Zealot]

Whats new atheist?

You, more or less.

[mattsmith48]

You, more or less.

what did I do?

[Typhlosion]

I'm crashing face-first in this thread, pardon me.


I don't see how monotheism is seen as 'before' religion, and also the only foundation for it. There's duotheism, other polytheism, animism, and so on.

How is monotheism not religious?


Monotheism, the belief of the existence of a single deity, does not require that the monotheists create a belief system, worship, create stories about, or anything else, about that deity. You can be a monotheistic deist, believing that a singular deity is a supernatural cause, but still live your life normally.

[Arkansasguy]

I would ratter have you explain to me

An atheist who feels the need to lambast theism without understanding it at all.

[Typhlosion]

I would ratter have you explain to me

An atheist who feels the need to lambast theism without understanding it at all.

Not understanding religion, or lambasting religion, is not part of the definition. Personal attacks much?

An atheist, simply, is one how disbeliefs in any deity. A "new atheist", term applied to modern atheists like Dawkins and Hitchens, is an atheist that is also against religion, on the grounds that religion is harmful to individuals and/or society.

[Judean Zealot]

Not understanding religion, or lambasting religion, is not part of the definition. Personal attacks much?

An atheist, simply, is one how disbeliefs in any deity. A "new atheist", term applied to modern atheists like Dawkins and Hitchens, is an atheist that is also against religion, on the grounds that religion is harmful to individuals and/or society.

No. New Atheism is primarily characterised by replacing debate with mockery. Anyone with the foggiest notion of classical philosophy will realise a few pages into Dawkins or Hitchens that they're dealing with somebody who has clearly not even bothered to read the works of those they criticize. They are generally the sort of saccharine, moralising, sort of inconsistent nihilists who are so confident of their position that they're unable to hold a simple debate on the subject without their typically snarky fallacies. They are the lowest microbes in the ecosystem of philosophical discourse.

[Ghaem]

No. New Atheism is primarily characterised by replacing debate with mockery. Anyone with the foggiest notion of classical philosophy will realise a few pages into Dawkins or Hitchens that they're dealing with somebody who has clearly not even bothered to read the works of those they criticize. They are generally the sort of saccharine, moralising, sort of inconsistent nihilists who are so confident of their position that they're unable to hold a simple debate on the subject without their typically snarky fallacies. They are the lowest microbes in the ecosystem of philosophical discourse.

Types of Dawkins and Harris if were honest, would with no delay commit suicide I believe.

[Judean Zealot]

Types of Dawkins and Harris if were honest, would with no delay commit suicide I believe.

I don't even think it's a matter of intentional dishonesty. They are simply so mind-bogglingly ignorant about what their ideals imply, and are far to lazy to contemplate it. A smug ignoramus has got to be the very worst affliction a discussion can possibly be dealt.

[dxcxdzv]

Uugh, Dawkins... When you know that this guy is professor at Oxford...

[Leprous]

Prove atheism with 'facts', please.

Prove religion with facts please.

[Leprous]

"New" atheists are almost without exception dumber than rocks.

If you aren't aware of this, either you are unfamiliar with the "new atheists" or you are one of them.

Define 'new' atheist.

[yeehaw]

This thread is still extremely active... jeez.

I was personally raised a Christian and I went to a Catholic CofE (church of England) primary school. It was during that time that I discovered that I did not accept the beliefs that were being drilled into my head constantly. I was basically told on a daily basis that believing in God and Jesus was the norm, and you went to hell if you didn't. You had to follow every single one of the Bible's teachings, even the ones that contradicted each other. There was one day when we were doing some lengthy Bible session and I found that a lot of it didn't make sense (it interfered with today's science and logic) and I asked why this was. My teacher, who was a devout Roman Catholic, looked simply disgusted, and yet couldn't describe why this happened.

I don't mean to bash on Christianity in this true sense, in fact not at all. My stepmother descends from a Roman Catholic family, but since living with my father and I she has loosened from the sense slightly because both me and him are atheists, but she still follows the Christian beliefs and that's totally fine. One of my classmates in my school is a Christadelphian (they aim to follow the practice of the early Christian church) and I just also respect that too.

I apply this incentive with every religion: I'll respect your opinions, as long as you respect mine. Like, if this Buddhist monk came up to me and said "YOU HAVE TO BELIEVE WHAT I BELIEVE" it's obviously going to put me off a bit, isn't it? :P

[Vlerchan]

Prove religion with facts please.
Religious people being incapable of doing this - whether this is true or not - does not legitimise atheism.

I also presume this means I won't be getting those 'facts'.

[Arkansasguy]

Not understanding religion, or lambasting religion, is not part of the definition. Personal attacks much?

An atheist, simply, is one how disbeliefs in any deity. A "new atheist", term applied to modern atheists like Dawkins and Hitchens, is an atheist that is also against religion, on the grounds that religion is harmful to individuals and/or society.

And such individuals are as a rule, completely ignorant of their subjects of discussion.

Note that I'm not saying "Dawkins is stupid therefore he's wrong". I'm saying "Dawkins is stupid therefore it wouldn't be possible to have a fruitful conversation with him.

Prove religion with facts please.


Define 'new' atheist.

People like yourself who are more interested in venting anger than having a rational discussion.

BTW, Vlerchan is an atheist. He's not trying to make you a theist, he's trying to make you intelligent.

[dxcxdzv]

Religious people being incapable of doing this - whether this is true or not - does not legitimise atheism.

I also presume this means I won't be getting those 'facts'.
I already mentionned earlier in the thread why a lack of evidence is enough to adopt an atheist view.
Not an absolute one though.
More the lack of evidence it's the fact that there is no valid reason to consider the existence of a god-like entity in the first place.

[Leprous]

I already mentionned earlier in the thread why a lack of evidence is enough to adopt an atheist view.
Not an absolute one though.
More the lack of evidence it's the fact that there is no valid reason to consider the existence of a god-like entity in the first place.

Vlerchan There's your proof. Also I have a question, if let's say the Christian god is real, then why if he is so powerful did he allow other religions to pop up? I mean he made 2 humans who knew he existed right?

[Leprous]

People like yourself who are more interested in venting anger than having a rational discussion.

BTW, Vlerchan is an atheist. He's not trying to make you a theist, he's trying to make you intelligent.

Actually I am a person looking for facts. For solid proof. I al not here to bash on people even if it seems like it. If a religion cannot provide solid proof then I can't take it serious at all. Is there proof earth was created by a god? No. The big bang is a theory I know, but one that makes more sense than the one religions have. The creation of the earth can easily be proven wrong.

[dxcxdzv]

Vlerchan There's your proof.
Well, this is not a proof.
Rather a deduction, or the way I see things.

[Leprous]

Well, this is not a proof.
Rather a deduction, or the way I see things.

Proof of the lack of proof being the proof.

[Vlerchan]

More the lack of evidence it's the fact that there is no valid reason to consider the existence of a god-like entity in the first place.
When I was a child I had never heard of the Elephants of the Indian subcontinent: fantastic beasts as those might be. I never gave them the thought as a result. This is not indicative of their existence or lack thereof.

@Vlerchan There's your proof.
You have an odd definition of proof. Esp. since Reis isn't setting out to prove a thing.

Also I have a question, if let's say the Christian god is real, then why if he is so powerful did he allow other religions to pop up?
Free will is an essential component of human nature.

[Leprous]

You have an odd definition of proof. Esp. since Reis isn't setting out to prove a thing.


Free will is an essential component of human nature.

The lack of proof religious people have for the creation of the earth is one thing.

It can also be proven it didn't happen. Also then why do religions hate on eachother? I mean it's obviously happening allot.

[dxcxdzv]

When I was a child I had never heard of the Elephants of the Indian subcontinent: fantastic beasts as those might be. I never gave them the thought as a result. This is not indicative of their existence or lack thereof.
I invite you to read my previous posts and see why this kind of analogy is irrelevant in the context I expressed my thoughts.

Proof of the lack of proof being the proof.
Not really.
I don't have the pretention to prove that God doesn't exist at all or whatsoever.
But I mentionned that as there is no valid fact that could lead to consider the existence of a God (I expressed these thoughts in the case of a conscious creator btw) there is no reason to consider such an idea as valid.
This goes as well for any related idea that is primarly unfunded.
And thus, when doing research (more precisely) the idea of a god shouldn't intervene in the reasoning.

[sqishy]

Monotheism, the belief of the existence of a single deity, does not require that the monotheists create a belief system, worship, create stories about, or anything else, about that deity. You can be a monotheistic deist, believing that a singular deity is a supernatural cause, but still live your life normally.

Exactly.



An atheist, simply, is one how disbeliefs in any deity.

Someone who lacks belief in any deity, yes.



A "new atheist", term applied to modern atheists like Dawkins and Hitchens, is an atheist that is also against religion, on the grounds that religion is harmful to individuals and/or society.

These people I prefer to call anti-theists, as they actively believe in the lack of a deity, which is more specific and different than being an atheist. All antitheists are atheists, but not the other way around.


[New atheists] are generally the sort of saccharine, moralising, sort of inconsistent nihilists who are so confident of their position that they're unable to hold a simple debate on the subject without their typically snarky fallacies. They are the lowest microbes in the ecosystem of philosophical discourse.

I don't see them as nihilists, but I do see them as some of the best examples of straw man breeding grounds, along with being pretty narrow-minded.


Types of Dawkins and Harris if were honest, would with no delay commit suicide I believe.

Not understanding why that would/should be necessary. Lack of a belief in a deity has no reason to make you see your life as not worth experiencing.


Prove atheism with 'facts', please.
Prove religion with facts please.

This is one factor in why I choose to take a (proper) atheist stance here :rolleyes: .


And such individuals are as a rule, completely ignorant of their subjects of discussion.

It's uncalled for to say that, as a rule, any atheist is completely ignorant of their subjects of discussion.

You know, the realm of life doesn't all have to be justified by what is beyond it. I'm half saying this 'out loud' for the general thread.



Note that I'm not saying "Dawkins is stupid therefore he's wrong". I'm saying "Dawkins is stupid therefore it wouldn't be possible to have a fruitful conversation with him.

Granted not with religion, but at least in some areas he would be entertaining in some metaphorically dark way.


The Special One

There is nothing justified about concluding there is certain proof of absence, when there is only absence of proof.

[Vlerchan]

The lack of proof religious people have for the creation of the earth is one thing.
Like I said: I'm not interested in making an argument that religious people are incorrect. Just that deriving atheism from this is illogical.

It can also be proven it didn't happen.
If this is a response to the original request - please feel free to share.

Also then why do religions hate on eachother? I mean it's obviously happening allot.
This is a sociological - and not a theological - question.

---
Reise: I'm at work will read and respond to the original later :)

[Leprous]

Like I said: I'm not interested in making an argument that religious people are incorrect. Just that deriving atheism from this is illogical.


If this is a response to the original request - please feel free to share.


This is a sociological - and not a theological - question.

---
Reise: I'm at work will read and respond to the original later :)

Well I am actually interested in proving it isn't right. Well everyone wants something else.

Well, if humans were created (Adam and Eve) and so was the earth within 7 days, why is it we find dinosaur bones and fossils of extinct species? Also let's not forget about Lucy shall we?

But shouldn't the behavior of the religious people be influenced by their religion? It is a sociological question yes, but isn't it influenced by the religion and what the people believe in?

Also the layout of this post is crappy but it's in order of what you said, VT mobile still crappy to make posts look decent.
Paraxiom Well religious people also tend to do the same thing. Not saying all of them, but there are people who also claim atheism lacks proof therefore is wrong.

[sqishy]

Well religious people also tend to do the same thing. Not saying all of them, but there are people who also claim atheism lacks proof therefore is wrong.

I know, I'm tired of some of those people too.

[Arkansasguy]

Actually I am a person looking for facts. For solid proof. I al not here to bash on people even if it seems like it. If a religion cannot provide solid proof then I can't take it serious at all. Is there proof earth was created by a god? No. The big bang is a theory I know, but one that makes more sense than the one religions have. The creation of the earth can easily be proven wrong.

Are you familiar with the difference between rational and evidentiary proof?

Because if you aren't capable of having a *rational* discussion, then there's not much point in trying to engage with you.

[Dalcourt]

Just a short and stupid question from a stupid person: Religion is about belive and not about fact...so how could there be any facts to prove it wrong or right at all?

[Leprous]

Just a short and stupid question from a stupid person: Religion is about belive and not about fact...so how could there be any facts to prove it wrong or right at all?

Because some religious people claim their religion is a fact and there is proof. There are still things that prove creationism wrong though, but that's a different story.
Arkansasguy I don't see how religion has actual solid proof. Which is my point. So what are you trying to say here? I have my opinion here which I see as rational.

[mattsmith48]

Types of Dawkins and Harris if were honest, would with no delay commit suicide I believe.

Why?

I already mentionned earlier in the thread why a lack of evidence is enough to adopt an atheist view.
Not an absolute one though.
More the lack of evidence it's the fact that there is no valid reason to consider the existence of a god-like entity in the first place.

We go for what is most likely with the evidence we have without making shit up to explain the unknown


Well, if humans were created (Adam and Eve) and so was the earth within 7 days, why is it we find dinosaur bones and fossils of extinct species? Also let's not forget about Lucy shall we?

Come on everyone knows its Satan who put dinosaur bones there to make people not believe in God.

[Leprous]

Come on everyone knows its Satan who put dinosaur bones there to make people not believe in God.

FINALLY someone who knows

[DriveAlive]

FINALLY someone who knows

#ActualThingsBenCarsonBelieves

[Arkansasguy]

Just a short and stupid question from a stupid person: Religion is about belive and not about fact...so how could there be any facts to prove it wrong or right at all?

All truth claims are subject to being either right or wrong. Reality is not subjective.

what are you trying to say here?

I'm trying to ascertain the extent of your understanding. It seems that you have not the slightest familiarity with metaphysics.

I would recommend you read some actual theology and philosophy before continuing.

[Judean Zealot]

Well, if humans were created (Adam and Eve) and so was the earth within 7 days, why is it we find dinosaur bones and fossils of extinct species? Also let's not forget about Lucy shall we?

What if I told you that I, probably one of the three most religious people on ROTW, understand that the account of creation in the Bible is not a historical accounting, but rather an allegory which brings out the idea of man being the culmination of an ordered hierarchy of existence? You lot focus far too much on the gift wrapping and entirely ignore the gift itself. Religion is primarily a social and philosophical system; the Bible is simply an imperfect tool for transmitting those truths across the intellectual spectrum.

--------

Creationism, or for that matter any sort of fideist reliance on the Bible, is far from central to classical theism's philosophical tenets.

[sqishy]

Not really. I'm not asserting that atheism is incoherent, but rather that secularism (the idea that the state should refrain from making judgments on religious questions) is incoherent, because it is itself a judgment on a religious question.

How is it a judgement on a religious question?

Secularism is literally a-theistic, irreligious, it states that religion is not to be relevant in the construction and maintaining of a state. That is all it gets into, as I see it.


All truth claims are subject to being either right or wrong. Reality is not subjective.

They are subject to being right or wrong...

...and the reality we are in is not subjective.


An odd way of putting it.

That aside, I see the view of reality being truth-objective (here, that all truth claims and ideas are either right or wrong) as mentally worth only as much speculation/argument as it needs, because for us and all experience we know of, truth claims are not instantly right or wrong. It's a lot of mental investment into something you will never experience as a human.


If you see reality as objective, the human realm has quite a presence of appearing to not be so, at the least, especially with ideas and so on.



I would recommend you read some actual theology and philosophy before continuing.

We don't have to study these things like we are in school or university, taking where ROTW is in, as a website.

If we have some ideas and some introduction into the settings of other ideas and such; some of us will be more read than others, and we can simply describe what we are setting down, before we debate. It should be only as deep as it needs be; we are to help each other aside from the debating.


What if I told you that I, probably one of the three most religious people on ROTW, understand that the account of creation in the Bible is not a historical accounting, but rather an allegory which brings out the idea of man being the culmination of an ordered hierarchy of existence? You lot focus far too much on the gift wrapping and entirely ignore the gift itself. Religion is primarily a social and philosophical system; the Bible is simply an imperfect tool for transmitting those truths across the intellectual spectrum.

--------

Creationism, or for that matter any sort of fideist reliance on the Bible, is far from central to classical theism's philosophical tenets.


The importance of analogy, yes!

(You know me to be very different from your views, but you know me to like particular good explanations when needed.)

[Judean Zealot]

We don't have to study these things like we are in school or university, taking where ROTW is in, as a website.

But one does if one wishes to have a coherent view on what the Abrahamic religions have historically entailed, as well as what is central and what is incidental to those philosophies. Otherwise, while you may be allowed to voice a strong opinion on the matter, it will likely not do you much credit.

[sqishy]

But one does if one wishes to have a coherent view on what the Abrahamic religions have historically entailed, as well as what is central and what is incidental to those philosophies. Otherwise, while you may be allowed to voice a strong opinion on the matter, it will likely not do you much credit.

You can know sections, even small sections, of what the Abrahamic religions are about, and be able to engage in debate/discussion on those sections here, along with speculate and ask about other sections. I would be an example, relatively.

Otherwise, talking about the Abrahamic religions without possibility of judgement of ignorance being placed on most people, is pretty exclusive for ROTW and VT. It highly prefers (demands?) leaving most people out of it till they read lots.

Do we need this?

[Arkansasguy]

How is it a judgement on a religious question?

Secularism is literally a-theistic, irreligious, it states that religion is not to be relevant in the construction and maintaining of a state. That is all it gets into, as I see it.

For one thing, many religions expressly teach that the state has a duty to affirm them as true. For a state to embrace the notion that it should not decide whether any religion is true or false, is to decide that the claims of those religions are false.

Thus secularism by necessity requires the state to reject certain religious claims, and is therefore self-contradictory.

truth claims are not instantly right or wrong.

Yes they are. That we take time to figure things out in no way affects the true nature of things.


We don't have to study these things like we are in school or university, taking where ROTW is in, as a website.

You don't have to in an absolute sense, but if one wants to have an intelligent discussion it would behoove one to.

[Judean Zealot]

You can know sections, even small sections, of what the Abrahamic religions are about, and be able to engage in debate/discussion on those sections here, along with speculate and ask about other sections. I would be an example, relatively.

Otherwise, talking about the Abrahamic religions without possibility of judgement of ignorance being placed on most people, is pretty exclusive for ROTW and VT. It highly prefers (demands?) leaving most people out of it till they read lots.

Do we need this?

We don't need anything. One can talk about something they know nothing about, such as my contributions to Vlerchan's economic threads, but one ought to post with that realisation in mind. I don't go about shrilly decrying schools of thought I know nothing about; I ask and I learn, but I know my limits. I don't see a discussion in ROTW as being in any way distinct from the debates in the agora of antiquity, and as such I consider them to behoove a certain level of respectability.

[sqishy]

We don't need anything. One can talk about something they know nothing about, such as my contributions to Vlerchan's economic threads, but one ought to post with that realisation in mind. I don't go about shrilly decrying schools of thought I know nothing about; I ask and I learn, but I know my limits. I don't see a discussion in ROTW as being in any way distinct from the debates in the agora of antiquity, and as such I consider them to behoove a certain level of respectability.

I'm all for recommending against talking about stuff not properly read, yes, I misinterpreted you for a moment to be on the other end, where some people expect little ignorance in the process of debate or discussion in general.

________________

For one thing, many religions expressly teach that the state has a duty to affirm them as true. For a state to embrace the notion that it should not decide whether any religion is true or false, is to decide that the claims of those religions are false.

Being invariant to a religion is not the same as seeing it as false, at all.


X is invariant to deciding if any Y is true or not. This is not the same as X deciding that all Ys are false.


I can embrace the idea that I should not decide whether certain food dishes are tasty or not. It does not then mean that I am generally deciding that they are not all not tasty.

If this is faulty reasoning, then the abstraction I've done needs a specification on your POV.



Thus secularism by necessity requires the state to reject certain religious claims, and is therefore self-contradictory.

No. An invariance to something ≠ a general view on that thing. Neutrality is not general opposition.



Yes they are. That we take time to figure things out in no way affects the true nature of things.

I meant "not instantly right or wrong" within me talking about our experience as humans, they are not instantly right or wrong for us. As you point out in agreement, it takes time to figure them out. Though I see it as also an 'if we will figure them out', and also that I am not with the objective reality mindset already, that isn't relevant for this point.



You don't have to in an absolute sense, but if one wants to have an intelligent discussion it would behoove one to.

Intelligence is not with the absence of ignorance; intelligent discussions on a topic do not need absence of ignorance on it.

[Judean Zealot]

I'm all for recommending against talking about stuff not properly read, yes, I misinterpreted you for a moment to be on the other end, where some people expect little ignorance in the process of debate or discussion in general.

It is for this reason that I don't express myself strongly on Islam: I simply don't know enough. I've read Avicenna and Averroes, but I still have many gaps in my knowledge. So I got all six volumes of the Cambridge History of Islam and the Arabic Qur'an in PDF format and I'm currently going through them. When I'm done I'll be able to more confidently make judgements, but until then I keep to the sidelines and just snipe at people who overstep their knowledge.

[sqishy]

It is for this reason that I don't express myself strongly on Islam: I simply don't know enough. I've read Avicenna and Averroes, but I still have many gaps in my knowledge. So I got all six volumes of the Cambridge History of Islam and the Arabic Qur'an in PDF format and I'm currently going through them. When I'm done I'll be able to more confidently make judgements, but until then I keep to the sidelines and just snipe at people who overstep their knowledge.

A humble in-topic moderator is a nice role to take sometimes.

[Arkansasguy]

I'm all for recommending against talking about stuff not properly read, yes, I misinterpreted you for a moment to be on the other end, where some people expect little ignorance in the process of debate or discussion in general.

________________



Being invariant to a religion is not the same as seeing it as false, at all.


X is invariant to deciding if any Y is true or not. This is not the same as X deciding that all Ys are false.


I can embrace the idea that I should not decide whether certain food dishes are tasty or not. It does not then mean that I am generally deciding that they are not all not tasty.

If this is faulty reasoning, then the abstraction I've done needs a specification on your POV.




No. An invariance to something ≠ a general view on that thing. Neutrality is not general opposition.




I meant "not instantly right or wrong" within me talking about our experience as humans, they are not instantly right or wrong for us. As you point out in agreement, it takes time to figure them out. Though I see it as also an 'if we will figure them out', and also that I am not with the objective reality mindset already, that isn't relevant for this point.




Intelligence is not with the absence of ignorance; intelligent discussions on a topic do not need absence of ignorance on it.

You clearly didn't listen to a word I just said.

If a system of thought rejects neutrality in principle, it's impossible to be neutral towards it, since by being neutral you are in fact rejecting its tenets.

[Judean Zealot]

You clearly didn't listen to a word I just said.

If a system of thought rejects neutrality in principle, it's impossible to be neutral towards it, since by being neutral you are in fact rejecting its tenets.

Technically you are correct, but I think the distinction between passive nonacceptance and active repudiation is an important one.

[Arkansasguy]

Technically you are correct, but I think the distinction between passive nonacceptance and active repudiation is an important one.

True, but the subject was the governance of a state. It's not possible to do that passively.

[Judean Zealot]

True, but the subject was the governance of a state. It's not possible to do that passively.

No. The active governance is essentially an executive extension of the underlying constitution. The constitution itself is in essence a mode of thought rather than concrete legislation, and as such is subject to passivity in ideal.

[Arkansasguy]

No. The active governance is essentially an executive extension of the underlying constitution. The constitution itself is in essence a mode of thought rather than concrete legislation, and as such is subject to passivity in ideal.

That's true in some respects, but cannot be the case in all. You can fix the number of Senators, term limits, etc. without direct reference to God, but you cannot form an entire social constitution in a neutral manner, insofar as religion is in fact part of society.

[Judean Zealot]

That's true in some respects, but cannot be the case in all. You can fix the number of Senators, term limits, etc. without direct reference to God, but you cannot form an entire social constitution in a neutral manner, insofar as religion is in fact part of society.

I'm not trying to say that constitutional affairs have no bearing on religion. What I'm saying is that the nature of a constitution is an abstract construct, and in matters of thought one can plausibly be truly indifferent, irrespective of the concrete effects that paradigm will bring to bear on executive affairs.

I expected more people to challenge my claim that a constitution is in essence a philosophical doctrine rather than a piece of legislation, but alas, nobody appears to be interested in that angle.

[Vlerchan]

I invite you to read my previous posts and see why this kind of analogy is irrelevant in the context I expressed my thoughts.
I believe it is this post (http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/showpost.php?p=3397905&postcount=63) being referred to:

You can always say lack of evidence does not mean evidence of a lack, problem is if there is no evidence in the first place there is no valid reason to consider it as even potentially possible.
This isn't a problem for the argument being made.

That we do not consider something is irrelevant to whether that claim is true or false - or a valid claim to begin with. So far as proof of religion being true or false is concerned, this is irrelevant.

If I tell you something I need something as a support. The fact that we can't prove the inexistence of something is in no way an excuse to consider this thing valid or even potentially valid.
I'm not claiming that inability to demonstrate something doesn't exist, demonstrates its existence.

The fact that you can't disprove the in-existence of something - however - means it is irrational to claim that something doesn't exist. That statement follows from nothing but your priors. Thus, there persists potential that such a claim, that god exists, is valid.

Well, if humans were created (Adam and Eve) and so was the earth within 7 days, why is it we find dinosaur bones and fossils of extinct species? Also let's not forget about Lucy shall we?
That a god might exist is not a claim predicated on creationism being a true statement of events. This is because religion isn't just fundamentalist Protestantism.

shouldn't the behavior of the religious people be influenced by their religion? It is a sociological question yes, but isn't it influenced by the religion and what the people believe in?
Yes. But what this actually says about god's existence I am unsure, to say the least.

Also the layout of this post is crappy but it's in order of what you said, VT mobile still crappy to make posts look decent.
Don't worry: I'm going to manipulate the layout to suit my rhetorical needs regardless :P.

We go for what is most likely with the evidence we have without making shit up to explain the unknown
The issue is that the level of evidence we have about the formation of the universe favours neither religion nor athiesm.

Thus secularism by necessity requires the state to reject certain religious claims, and is therefore self-contradictory.
In order for the state to address a religious claim, it has to first define what religion is, which violates the independence of the religions themselves.

It's not dealing with religious claims, when 'religious' as a denominator is an incomprehensible notion to the secular state.

[Arkansasguy]

I'm not trying to say that constitutional affairs have no bearing on religion. What I'm saying is that the nature of a constitution is an abstract construct, and in matters of thought one can plausibly be truly indifferent, irrespective of the concrete effects that paradigm will bring to bear on executive affairs.

Not if the subject of the thought is an ethical proposition which commands belief in itself.

[sqishy]

You clearly didn't listen to a word I just said.

I read every word you said.



If a system of thought rejects neutrality in principle, it's impossible to be neutral towards it, since by being neutral you are in fact rejecting its tenets.

Any system of thoughts that do this are then invasive, and aggressively attempt to categorise everything of political and social nature, as for or against it.

That is a very devious way on the religion's side to label secularism as anti-religious, because of its invariance to it.

I am now rejecting the tenets of every religion there is through this view.

There is no way to be literally a-theistic then - all of politics is either for a religion, or against it. This is unjustified invasive rhetoric.

No.



In order for the state to address a religious claim, it has to first define what religion is, which violates the independence of the religions themselves.

It's not dealing with religious claims, when 'religious' as a denominator is an incomprehensible notion to the secular state.

This.

[Arkansasguy]

In order for the state to address a religious claim, it has to first define what religion is, which violates the independence of the religions themselves.

It's not dealing with religious claims, when 'religious' as a denominator is an incomprehensible notion to the secular state.

Assuming that the state is willing to address truth-claims in general (whether this man is guilty, whether these votes are legitimate, etc.), then refusing to address religious truth-claims specifically requires the state to acknowledge a category of things known as "religious", which violates your principle of non-recognition.

I read every word you said.




Any system of thoughts that do this are then invasive, and aggressively attempt to categorise everything of political and social nature, as for or against it.

That is a very devious way on the religion's side to label secularism as anti-religious, because of its invariance to it.

I am now rejecting the tenets of every religion there is through this view.

There is no way to be literally a-theistic then - all of politics is either for a religion, or against it. This is unjustified invasive rhetoric.

No.




This.

So you are then rejecting said tenet as "invasive". Thus demonstrating my point, that neutrality is impossible.

[sqishy]

So you are then rejecting said tenet as "invasive". Thus demonstrating my point, that neutrality is impossible.

I am taking opposition to something that sees me as not being neutral to it. I am fine with being neutral to something that will not do that.

Don't be so sneaky.

[dxcxdzv]

I believe it is this post (http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/showpost.php?p=3397905&postcount=63) being referred to:
I was referring to all my conversation with Paraxiom and not necessarily this sole post. Because this sole statement - I observe it - is being misunderstood quite often. And a bit too often.


This isn't a problem for the argument being made.

That we do not consider something is irrelevant to whether that claim is true or false - or a valid claim to begin with. So far as proof of religion being true or false is concerned, this is irrelevant.

I'm not claiming that inability to demonstrate something doesn't exist, demonstrates its existence.

The fact that you can't disprove the in-existence of something - however - means it is irrational to claim that something doesn't exist. That statement follows from nothing but your priors. Thus, there persists potential that such a claim, that god exists, is valid.

Conversely to some people here I am not stating that this idea or this one is absolutely true or false.

We, humans, and even more particularly me, don't have the infused science. We can only consider things true or false based on our actual knowledge (with research being part of it).
That being said, I can't consider the existence of an intelligent creator if I have no evidence of his existence, I think we will agree that this is the base of atheistic/agnostic reasoning.
However I won't come to think the classical "we don't know", of course we don't know but what made us think about the idea of an intelligent creator in the first place? Well, nothing that can be proudly called an evidence.

What is irrational is to let you drive by unfunded ideas to question your actual views. This is why I'm not agnostic.
If I tell you something, popping right from my mind without clear evidence you can't rationally consider this idea when doing research.

However, provide a valid ground to suppose the idea of an intelligent god might be true and I can start reconsidering my views.

[Vlerchan]

Assuming that the state is willing to address truth-claims in general (whether this man is guilty, whether these votes are legitimate, etc.), then refusing to address religious truth-claims specifically requires the state to acknowledge a category of things known as "religious", which violates your principle of non-recognition.
The state isn't addressing these truth-claims as these aren't truth-claims. Laws regarding guilt or voters-rights are creatures of the state. That it is open to repeal and development should be indicative that it is no reflection of any truth

If I tell you something, popping right from my mind without clear evidence you can't rationally consider this idea when doing research.
This is where I'm lost and I don't think we are going to come to agreement.

I might see reviewing it as a waste of time, but that's not me commenting on whether it might be true or false at all. You seem more like you desire reason to debate on the issue at all and not that you have a position to offer relative to it.

[Vilnius]

I'm not religious in the slightest, but the original post comes across as very angry and ignorant. (Yeah I know I'm a bit late in saying this.)

As long as you're peaceful about it, I don't care what your religion is.

[dxcxdzv]

This is where I'm lost and I don't think we are going to come to agreement.

I might see reviewing it as a waste of time, but that's not me commenting on whether it might be true or false at all. You seem more like you desire reason to debate on the issue at all and not that you have a position to offer relative to it.
I'm not sure to get what you mean, this looks like sort of half an insult to me when I try to translate it.
You seem more like you desire reason to debate on the issue at all and not that you have a position to offer relative to it.
My position is pretty clear imo.
Is it a bad thing to "desire reason to debate on the issue" (I understand it like, "bringing reason and only reason to the debate").
I'm also imagining that you presume reason will kill this debate.

[Judean Zealot]

Not if the subject of the thought is an ethical proposition which commands belief in itself.

It doesn't command belief to the exclusion of religion, it is simply a structure constructed of different materials. The choice of those different materials is merely a passive exclusion, something which is possible given the abstract nature of national constitution.

[sqishy]

It doesn't command belief to the exclusion of relugion, it is simply a structure constructed of different materials. The choice of those different materials is merely a passive exclusion, something which is possible given the abstract nature of national constitution.

Arkansasguy

This is another way to put what I am arguing.

[Arkansasguy]

I am taking opposition to something that sees me as not being neutral to it. I am fine with being neutral to something that will not do that.

Don't be so sneaky.

So the state should be neutral toward those religions which allow the possibility of neutrality, and only reject those that exclude the possibility of neutrality?

The state isn't addressing these truth-claims as these aren't truth-claims.

Yes, they are. Whether or not a man committed homicide or voted twice is a matter of fact. The pertinence of these facts may be a result of positive law, but the facts themselves aren't.

It doesn't command belief to the exclusion of religion, it is simply a structure constructed of different materials. The choice of those different materials is merely a passive exclusion, something which is possible given the abstract nature of national constitution.

The ethical proposition I was referencing was religion. At least some religions command belief as a moral imperative. Consequently, neutrality toward such religions is impossible for the reasons I explained previously.

[Vlerchan]

Yes, they are. Whether or not a man committed homicide or voted twice is a matter of fact. The pertinence of these facts may be a result of positive law, but the facts themselves aren't.
You're falsely equating fact beneath the law with truth.

The former is contingent on violent-force for its persistence. The latter is not - and it also stands independent of the human mind. We can't create our own truths.

Edit.

Unless, of course, you mean that the state's courts must rely on empirical evidence in order to reach a decision. The state never claims that it's rulings are reflective of the truth. Criminal judgements are brought to bear beyond reasonable doubts and civil suits are decided on the balance of probabilities. The state never claims that something is true, or not true, here.

Furthermore, within courts, the state doesn't refuse to acknowledge the truth-value of religious claims. It is more than happy to address their association with the law, and thus there is no issue of catagorisation.

I'm not sure to get what you mean, this looks like sort of half an insult to me when I try to translate it.
I certainly don't mean to.

Perhaps in better English, my understanding your position, is you don't see a reason to have this debate, thus the argued validity of any side is irrelevant.

[sqishy]

So the state should be neutral toward those religions which allow the possibility of neutrality, and only reject those that exclude the possibility of neutrality?


The state has justification to reject the claim of religions that it is impossible to be invariant to them. The religion is unjustified in rejecting the possibility of neutrality to it, it is black-and-white.

[Judean Zealot]

The ethical proposition I was referencing was religion. At least some religions command belief as a moral imperative. Consequently, neutrality toward such religions is impossible for the reasons I explained previously.

A constitution is an ideal construct, not a truth statement or legislative piece. That it doesn't adhere to a conflicting religion is neither a rejection nor a suppression of said religion. It is simply a passive ignoring of it.

[dxcxdzv]

Perhaps in better English, my understanding your position, is you don't see a reason to have this debate, thus the argued validity of any side is irrelevant.
Paraxiom told me something similar and here's my response:

As it is a question that seems worth asking to a majority it can be interesting to discuss about it. That being said, personally I won't bring the idea of the existence of such an entity in my reasoning. Therefore I won't consider use it, we can still talk about it though, but in the field of research, it looks - at least to me - as very sterile.
Let say then that beyond consider it or not I express my ideas.

I gotta say as well that all of this strictly concerns one technical point in one context.
And, yes, I am questioning the validity of any other side on this precise issue.

According to what the OP meant we can safely assume that this thread can be about a way wider range of thoughts other than wether or not there is a intelligent creator etc etc...
And now that I realize that the thread has drifted on a more relevant topic I think we can now close this aparté (i'm just too much fanboying the French word).

[sqishy]

According to what the OP meant we can safely assume that this thread can be about a way wider range of thoughts other than wether or not there is a intelligent creator etc etc...
And now that I realize that the thread has drifted on a more relevant topic I think we can now close this aparté (i'm just too much fanboying the French word).

You are correct with the general "exterminate!" stance of the OP on religion; it has evolved since, yes.

[Arkansasguy]

You're falsely equating fact beneath the law with truth.

The former is contingent on violent-force for its persistence. The latter is not - and it also stands independent of the human mind. We can't create our own truths.

Edit.

Whether or not a homicide or a robbery or what have occurred is a matter of truth or falsehood.

Unless, of course, you mean that the state's courts must rely on empirical evidence in order to reach a decision. The state never claims that it's rulings are reflective of the truth. Criminal judgements are brought to bear beyond reasonable doubts and civil suits are decided on the balance of probabilities. The state never claims that something is true, or not true, here.

Criminal judgments are made based on proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the charge is true. Civil judgments are made based on a balance of probabilities indicating that a position is true. You can't escape truth-judgments.

Furthermore, within courts, the state doesn't refuse to acknowledge the truth-value of religious claims. It is more than happy to address their association with the law, and thus there is no issue of catagorisation.

So you do not object to the state judging the truth of religious claims?

The state has justification to reject the claim of religions that it is impossible to be invariant to them. The religion is unjustified in rejecting the possibility of neutrality to it, it is black-and-white.

Alright. So we're agreed that "make no judgements about religious claims" doesn't work as a political system.

A constitution is an ideal construct, not a truth statement or legislative piece. That it doesn't adhere to a conflicting religion is neither a rejection nor a suppression of said religion. It is simply a passive ignoring of it.

But actual governance doesn't work that way.

[Vlerchan]

Whether or not a homicide or a robbery or what have occurred is a matter of truth or falsehood.
This is subject to the edit.

Criminal judgments are made based on proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the charge is true. Civil judgments are made based on a balance of probabilities indicating that a position is true. You can't escape truth-judgments.
It's not claiming that these are true - not in a manner that is independent of the human mind as a truth-claim must be, the truth constructed here (and, it is constructed) is in fact contingent on it.

There's a reason language like not-guilty is used instead of 'innocent': it's referring to a legal construct.

So you do not object to the state judging the truth of religious claims?
It doesn't judge whether religious claims are true or not. It judges whether reasoning advanced - religious or otherwise - fits in accordance with defined law, which I argued was a creature of the state.

[Judean Zealot]

But actual governance doesn't work that way.

Expand please.

[Arkansasguy]

This is subject to the edit.


It's not claiming that these are true - not in a manner that is independent of the human mind as a truth-claim must be, the truth constructed here (and, it is constructed) is in fact contingent on it.

There's a reason language like not-guilty is used instead of 'innocent': it's referring to a legal construct.

None of which in the slightest changes the fact that such judgments are truth-claims (or in the case of not-guilty verdicts, admissions of ignorance) about a particular set of facts.

It doesn't judge whether religious claims are true or not. It judges whether reasoning advanced - religious or otherwise - fits in accordance with defined law, which I argued was a creature of the state.

What does that even mean?

Expand please.

When it comes to actual governance, the state will interact with any given religion practiced by people in its territory.

[Vlerchan]

None of which in the slightest changes the fact that such judgments are truth-claims (or in the case of not-guilty verdicts, admissions of ignorance) about a particular set of facts.
There's a clear difference between legal truth and truth otherwise. Legal truth is a construction within the law. Like the law itself: if is a creature of the state.

What does that even mean?
Court rulings set about giving greater definition to the law: discussion of reasoning becomes case-law on the conclusion of the case. In other words, Court itself sets about creating law during trial.

---

Furthermore, I should add, that the court judges the truth value of religious claims - when set in accordance with the law, when unable to recognise that these claims are religious, in no manner breaches it's secular commitments.

In the same manner that no one would claim that the furthering of legislation inspired by religious values breaches secular commitments either.

[Living For Love]

Uugh, Dawkins... When you know that this guy is professor at Oxford...
Wasn't that guy who said that people who believe in Creationism aren't worth of living or something?

[sqishy]

Alright. So we're agreed that "make no judgements about religious claims" doesn't work as a political system.


We are not agreeing. If I am to put it your way, secularism is making one, and only one, 'judgement' on religious claims on how political systems should work, in that it will run a state system irrelevant to whatever any religion says it should be like.


Wasn't that guy who said that people who believe in Creationism aren't worth of living or something?

He may well have.

[Bleid]

I absolutely hate religion. Like , I have an overwhelming hatred towards all of them. Especially like fundamentalists. Like here in America, I feel that if we didn't have religion, we would be 30 to 50 years more advanced. Our country would be such a better and tolerant place

Would it really, now?