Ye Religion Thread

[peewee_RotA]

I don't want to be taboo... but Pascal's Wager helps this conversation out.

If you don't believe in God then what is the point in proving the christians wrong? You have nothing to gain. Christians are called to spread the word and have for themselves defences when challenged, however where is the call otherwise? What agnostic or atheist text says that you need more followers?

That's what bothers me is when people who don't believe in God try to push their beliefs on others. I understand that christian people may be pushy, but being pushy yourself makes you just as bad. It's also important to remember the difference between a person who does something wrong and then attributing that persons actions to a whole religion. If you attribute one person's actions to a whole religion (pat robetson is a good example) then you are part of the problem with tolerance and understanding in todays world.


P.S. Why is it that AD and BC are being replaced with BCE and CE while the Roman calander remains unscathed?

[Robot]

Believing that a God (intelligent designer) created the universe is not a blind faith.  It stems from how we've been programmed.  We are designed to automatically assume certain things about other people from what we know about ourselves, because we've been programmed to assume other people are very similar (like we all need food, water, shelter, etc).  If we were all very different, the world would be a lot more complicated (ex: forget any kind of society), so that adds more credibility to intelligent design.  We assume that we can predict things (by repeated coincidences) because of being programmed.  If the universe were made in such a way where we couldn't predict anything, it would be one REAL responsible for the universe.

[quadz]

the same blind faith in god we have is the same blind faith you have in there is no god

I realize this is a lengthy thread, but I have the feeling you haven't read much of what I've written here about my own beliefs.

But to reiterate, I've stated I have no idea whether some sort of supernatural being may exist.

[quadz]

I don't want to be taboo... but Pascal's Wager helps this conversation out.

To me, Pascal's Wager is deeply flawed.

To save typing, there's the Criticism section on: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager

If you don't believe in God then what is the point in proving the christians wrong? You have nothing to gain. Christians are called to spread the word and have for themselves defences when challenged, however where is the call otherwise? What agnostic or atheist text says that you need more followers?

I'm not sure if you're asking me this question or people in general.

However, from my point of view there are a number of mistaken assumptions implied by your questions above.

By way of personal background, as I've mentioned earlier in this thread, I was raised with more rigid Christian upbringing on a daily basis than any human being should ever withstand.

[DaHanG]

That's what bothers me is when people who don't believe in God try to push their beliefs on others.

I don't know what you mean by this. I don't deny there may be some pushy non-believers, but generally I've heard reasoned arguments against religious belief instead of simply dogmatic claims. Why should this be opposed?

I don't see people saying "this is true because the Bible says so!" or "you will go to hell" etc.

The worst I've heard is " "

[peewee_RotA]

I'm not sure if you're asking me this question or people in general.

People in general. I know enough about you that you are not pushy about anything.

I just get mad when religious threads get heated. I don't enjoy them to begin with, but when it becomes about one person having to prove that "only the intellectually inferior would beleive in God" that's un called for. It happens all the time and I'm not accusing anyone specifically of it. Just want to be sure it doesn happen. Same goes for the other argument.

I have some troubles with the opposing sides as well but I know enough to understand their causes. Most people's grievences with religion or non religion in todays world stem from political correctness. Currently America is culturally at a point where sharing and playing nice are more important than the previously noble virtues of faith, righteousness, and God fearing men. That's because through PC thinking we have collectively, and falsely, attributed all virtues stemming from a religion with hate and biggotry. It is no longer proper to describe myself as trying to live a righteous life because some how now I'm calling myself pios and pompus. Even the words humility and jealousy have no where near their original meaning thanks to a collective PC way of thinking.


Then there are those that insist all religion is evil and that's why it's important to disprove it at every turn. The idea that you're simply stirring up descension asside, it takes a very narrow view of history to come to that conclusion. What do the south American Spanish Settlers, the Ottomon empire, the Romans, the Church of England, and Iran all have in common? State sponsored religion. Notice that any example of "attrocities against humanity" that you would attribute to that religion only come from contries who require a specific one of their citizens. The proof that eliminating religion would never solve the problem comes to right more recently than the other examples. The Soviet Union combined with Red China who made state sponsered atheism a requirement have to this day an unknown and unsurpased death toll associated to religious persicutions.

So go back and forth all you want I don't mind and won't join in. Just niether side ever accuse the other side of what I've already mentioned above.



P.S. Out of curiosity Quadz do you have any thoughts on God as a legal concept in America? I honestly think it's important because our rights as citizens come from a power other than the government therefore the government has no authority to abridge them. I think that no matter what you believe it's imortant to leave this legal concept of God alive.

[quadz]

The proof that eliminating religion would never solve the problem comes to right more recently than the other examples. The Soviet Union combined with Red China who made state sponsered atheism a requirement have to this day an unknown and unsurpased death toll associated to religious persicutions.

But wait - if religion were truly eliminated there could be no religious persecutions.

The problem is, of course, is it has to happen voluntarily on an individual basis; beliefs can't be mandated by the state.

P.S. Out of curiosity Quadz do you have any thoughts on God as a legal concept in America? I honestly think it's important because our rights as citizens come from a power other than the government therefore the government has no authority to abridge them. I think that no matter what you believe it's imortant to leave this legal concept of God alive.

I'm certainly no legal authority, but when I think of our rights as citizens coming from a power other than the government, I'm thinking simply of the constitution.

Myself, I don't see how any legal concept of God could be useful, considering there is not anywhere near unanimous agreement among citizens on things like:

[peewee_RotA]

But wait - if religion were truly eliminated there could be no religious persecutions.

Funny, but you'd have to assume that the evils of those, and other, socialist governments ended at religious persecutions. In fact I'm pretty sure a greater number of political executions took place, however the soviet union and red china used similar methods to record political executions as they did with th chernobyl incedent; they simply didn't try.

I'm certainly no legal authority, but when I think of our rights as citizens coming from a power other than the government, I'm thinking simply of the constitution.

The constitution can be ammended. The legal understanding of a God cannot.

Which rights in particular did you have in mind?

The unalienable rights endowed by our creator as refered to in the declaration which refer to life, liberty, and the persuit of hapiness. These 3 basic listings are popularly, and in the past legally, extended to the bill of rights as well. Most states had a bill of rights similar to the first set of ammendments which had similar wording.

Also unalienable rights, self evident truths, and rights endowed by our creator all tend to be used to describe the same rights.

I personally look at it this way: the freedom of speech as an unalianble right endowed by a creator which happens to be pretty self evident.


To give a further example of the bill of rights extending from unalienable rights.
The right to liberty would be no government power abridging or infringing on speech, religion, the right to bear arms, and the right to assemble.
The right to life would be that the government could not take your life without due process,

[reaper]

Has this been proven?

[reaper]

Also unalienable rights, self evident truths, and rights endowed by our creator all tend to be used to describe the same rights.

yup, you can believe in the rights regardless of god's existence, personally i'd prefer we just took god out of the equation.  he's in many equations, and has done much more harm than good.

[Whirlingdervish]

the views of stephen hawking do not necessarily discount god, but rather put him in his place.
He never says that a god could not exist or that he is improbable (in certain circumstances)

they do, however, point towards the lack of a need for a god to exist, and the lack of things for god to do if he does exist.

If god is outside of the universe and has been so since the beginning of that universe, (before recordable time) then he is not part of the equation and thus can be ignored for all intents and purposes.


Even a believer in God should be able to admit that there is no scientifically verifiable evidence that any god has ever done anything in or to the universe that could be recorded by any means available to man.
We haven't yet stumbled across a phenomenon that could not be explained by applying the laws of physics, and thus the likelyhood of God ever having alterred the universe in any way, becomes next to nill as far as humans are concerned, at this point in time.

Before anyone says "well.. I felt god one time so I know he exists", they should probably take into account that feelings are not really scientifcally useful evidence, as they cannot be recorded and they vary in meaning and magnitude from being to being. An inch worth of feelings is different from one person to the next and thus feelings are not accurate units of measurement.


Science has never been about saying that this or that is totally impossible.
No sane person could ever say the same about religion.



Science is all about measurability.

Religion needs no ruler.

 

[reaper]

We haven't yet stumbled across a phenomenon that could not be explained by applying the laws of physics,

sure we have, it's called life.

[quadz]

But wait - if religion were truly eliminated there could be no religious persecutions.

Funny, but you'd have to assume that the evils of those, and other, socialist governments ended at religious persecutions. In fact I'm pretty sure a greater number of political executions took place, however the soviet union and red china used similar methods to record political executions as they did with th chernobyl incedent; they simply didn't try.

Yes.

[reaper]

I'm pretty sure whatever such a being may or may not be, it did not go out of its way to create humans and grant us rights.

that's the opposite of what I think. without life what would be the point of creation, I think life is the point of creatiing the universe.

[Whirlingdervish]

what a life-centric point of view.
not very surprising tho, considering that people place an undue amount of importance on something that means very little to anyone but themself.

hrmm. how to begin...


STOP BEING A SELF-CENTERED IDIOT!

THE RELATIVELY TINY AMOUNT OF LIFE ON EARTH MEANS SQUAT IN THE GRAND SCHEME OF THINGS, AND IT IS NOT IMPORTANT ENOUGH TO JUSTIFY THE CREATION OF AN INFINITELY COMPLEX AND POWERFUL MYTHICAL BEING JUST TO EXPLAIN AWAY ITS INCEPTION TO A BUNCH OF MONKIES WHO ARE TOO FUCKING STUPID TO REALIZE THAT MAYBE THEY SHOULD STOP THINKING THAT THEY ARE THE CENTER OF THE UNIVERSE AND THAT IT ONLY EXISTS SO THAT THEY CAN, IF THEY WANT TO KNOW THE TRUTH.


THE FACT THAT YOU EXIST AND THINK YOU ARE IMPORTANT, DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE UNIVERSE NEEDS YOU OR THAT IT WAS CREATED FOR YOU.

THESE ARE BIG FAT FALLACIES THAT ONLY SERVE ONE PURPOSE: MAKING PEOPLE FEEL BETTER ABOUT THE FACT THAT THEY DO NOT MEAN ANYTHING, AND THAT NOTHING THEY DO WILL GREATLY AFFECT THE WORLD/UNIVERSE.

THESE FALLACIES ARE THE CORNERSTONE OF ALL RELIGION.