Thread practicing #1- Religion

[Avenger]

You first.

 

[Zeonix]

This is not how Occam's razor works. It's not about the simplest explanation, but the fewest unfounded assumptions. There is no reason to think "God did it", because God is also an assumption. The sky is blue for an entirely different reason (Rayleigh scattering and whatnot) which makes significantly fewer and less ridiculous assumptions.

How is the existence of a god an assumption but the non-existence of a god a verifiable fact, or the closest thing to it? What definition of a supreme deity are you working with? And what do you say to the person who says the scientific processes behind a blue sky are the result of a god at work at one time or another?

Okay, name a religion you want me to show falsifiable attributes for.

The one you hate most: Christianity. What falsifiable attributes are said to belong to that which they believe to be a supreme deity?


Then you just ruled out quite a few religions as even having the option of being true, pointing out that any religion with falsifiable attributes tends to fail, and fail hard in a trial of logic or fact.

The religions you're thinking about quite clearly state the text was inspired by a god, but not actually written by it. Even in Mormonism, their holy text was created by an angel and not their god.

This is false. A scientific paper is valid by merit of the facts and observations it presents. It doesn't require faith, it requires simple logic. A scientific paper also never indicates that it is completely correct; and generally includes its degrees of error, and what assumptions have been made that need to be verified for the paper to be correct. A scientific paper is also never evidence in itself. A scientific fact is valid by merit of repetition, not by single instance.

You're saying that using information gathered over the course of history, which means you've missed my point entirely.

What you call science in the "olden days" was not science, and no one ever called it science. Science is based on scientific method, and scientific method does not allow what you just said to be true. That is in its definition. Science is never wrong, because science never claims to be right. It provides evidence, from which one can eventually draw conclusions. The more evidence a hypothesis has, the more likely it is to be correct.

Tell that to the scientists of their day. You're somehow completely missing the point that science as it exists now is the manifestation and culmination of thousands of years of trial and error. Leeches and bleeding people out are obviously retarded, but they were regarded as legitimate science in their day, to the point where George Washington was bled to get rid of the sore throat that eventually killed him. To ignore that is to ignore the history of science. If we're going to ignore the history of science, I don't know that I can trust it as it exists today.

If a scientific paper was written on using leeching to cure the flu, then it would provide statistical data, not to mention would have to go through rigorous peer review. This doesn't apply to modern times. It applies to all times.

Once again, you're applying the present to the past. Were wizards real and were they to have time travel capabilities, I'd understand holding people of old to the standards of new, but it doesn't make sense to do so unless the point is to prove them wrong. And they were. Which isn't the point.


Your flaw here is that whereas there is only one option for atheism, there is an infinite amount of options for religion. We know enough about neuroscience to fairly certainly say that our mental processes are a result of chemical reactions in the brain. Synapses, axons, myelin, what have you. There is evidence that cognitive function exists without the need to present a divine, ethereal magnitude to it. There is no evidence to support that cognitive function exists only because of such a divine, ethereal magnitude. Again, a case of Occam's razor.

Who has stated we are only capable of thinking because of a god? Or are you focusing on an aspect of a single religion and applying it to the infinite number of religions that apparently exist?



The difference here being that scientific fields actually are different fields. Mathematics is the study of numbers, physics is the study of physical mechanisms and forces, chemistry is the study of reactions, and biology is essentially a subcategory of chemistry and social sciences which attempt to explain both the more specific chemistry involving biological life and the interactions between biological life and biological life, and the interactions between biological life and static chemistry and physics.

And all of them wouldn't have existed today were it not for organized religion.

Religion can boast no such thing. Obviously I can't tell you to "view" things differently, because your view is a view, and not fact.

And I have stated so. You, however, hold your view to be the only logical view, and you refuse to question how or why you've arrived at that conclusion.

The way I see it, you're time challenged. Whereas science becomes more accurate, and less crazy as time goes on, religion has done the opposite. Granted, you clearly haven't studied any religion and you needlessly focus on Christianity and attribute its dogma to every religion there ever was, but if you were to read the story of religion from the last page to the first, you may come to appreciate just how fascinating and accurate religion can be, if not as a hitchhikers guide to a supreme deity, then as a guide to humanity. Somehow, you believe that science and religion are completely different and can never work together. The Catholic Church has been at this game for quite a while, and they've shown that the two are quite compatible, as have previous civilizations.

But your mind is set, so why bother, right? Keep in mind, I'm probably the least religious person you'll ever meet. I'm not afraid to question all of my beliefs and view things from opposing perspectives, however. Oftentimes, I find that neither perspective is entirely correct, and so I form a new one. Rinse and repeat. It doesn't hurt to try it sometime. I'm not a fan of organized religion, but philosophy is quite fascinating.

As for you, fortnox, you're deluded. I can understand not agreeing with certain things. For example, all of you are completely ignorant of how foreign policy works, how diplomacy works, how the military is used as more than a tool to kill, politics, and basically anything that actually affects us on a day to day basis, but I'm not constantly calling people out for being apathetic *******s who's hardest decision every week is what to eat. Why? Because, regardless of who you are, I show a level of respect I've deemed appropriate for all people. Until, of course, they show they're unworthy of that respect. I'm not religious. I think religion borders on mythology and were it not for so many people taking part in such faith, it would certainly be labeled such. But I don't throw the baby out with the bathwater, either. I understand that religion isn't necessary to understand the notion of tolerance. But it doesn't hurt to read a few stories, be they factual or not, on why one should be tolerant and respectful. On one level, you don't feel the need to respect the religious because you disagree with them. You do so quite openly and quite disrespectfully for two reasons. One, you're soft. You were never taught to respect people through the use of the hammer. Two, you lack decency, which is more to the point. It's one thing to fear a thing and show respect accordingly. It's quite another to do so because, frankly, its the right thing to do. And you most certainly fall into both groups. That's my little take on it.

As for what Christianity did hundreds of years ago, by all means. Hate the action. Hate those involved. But why hate those who had nothing to do with those crimes against humanity? Why throw dirt in their faces? What's the point? Are you going to change their minds? Are they going to change yours? No? Then move along. I don't berate you for belonging to a nation that basically bends over every time the US needs to flex its muscles somewhere, giving us the international support and clout we need to do as we please. It isn't your fault.

As for religiosity in the UK, you might want to look up the stats. Last I read, 70% of the UK was Christian. 76% is religious. Sounds to me like you prefer to hang around people with similar viewpoints because going outside of your monkeysphere hurts.

And this is me being slightly disrespectful to prove a point. It isn't necessary whatsoever, and I could have posted while eliminating 2/3 of what was directed to Fortnox. His mind hasn't changed, and neither has mine.

 

[sub]

It literally means that if you claim something is true, you have to be the one to prove it is true. If you can't, then it is logical to assume it isn't true. This makes sense because if everyone believed things without evidence the world would be chaotic, especially science- things like Homoeopathy, Alternative Medicine and Scientology would be accepted as true if we didn't know that they need to prove they are right and until they do it is most rational to assume they are wrong.

If I assert something to be true but can not prove it, that does not mean it is logical to assume that it is false. It means that it is logical to not accept it as a fact, sure, but lack of evidence for something does not qualify as the claim being false. In regards to our justice system, if there is not enough proof that a man is guilty, we will err on the side of caution and let him go free. Our system of justice is based on the belief that it is better to let a guilty man go free rather than let an innocent man be convicted. This does not mean that we believe the man is innocent, it simply means that there's not enough proof to say that he's guilty.

 

[Zeonix]

I typed this yesterday but the forum went down or some ****:

@Fortnox: And once again, your argument is formatted as if I have a horse in this race. Here's the thing. You need to go ahead and define what you think a supreme deity is. Not the christian god, not the muslim god, not any one god. Now, I know what you're saying. "Why would I do that? Youre the one who has to prove the existence of a deity that you dont believe in! Ha!" That's wonderful, but the point is for you to set parameters that can then be put to the test. What counts for evidence among the religious is obviously not the same for enlightened superhuman open-minded absolutist atheists.


Once that set of parameters is created, we find out if one can even test for a supreme deity. Based on your feedback, we determine if such a being exists within this verse, beyond it, between it or what. What it really boils down to is if there actually is a supreme deity, do we have the mastery of science to test for it or is it beyond our current capabilities? Or are we so arrogant to assume, though we cant even travel to other planets, let alone solar systems and galaxies, that the thing supposedly responsible for everything is so easily probed. Or perhaps the existence of everything is a testament to this things existence. Questions dont hurt anyone. Rather than wag your finger, yell and spit, and become defensive when faced with the very tactics you employ, why not take the high road and go on a mental run?

Ahh **** it. Religious people are borderline insane! Just look at that *******, Newton! Not only Christian but a heretic as well!

 

[-Origin]

Because everyone else was tip-toeing around being pussies, talking about religious respect, and he said it as it is. There is absolutely no reason to believe in religion, it's a logical fallacy, it's stupid.

Thanks for saying that my beliefs make me a pussy. It's not tip-toeing to state my opinion.

 

[Avenger]

How is the existence of a god an assumption but the non-existence of a god a verifiable fact, or the closest thing to it? What definition of a supreme deity are you working with? And what do you say to the person who says the scientific processes behind a blue sky are the result of a god at work at one time or another?

I never said that the non-existence of god was a fact. Fortnox was getting at Russell's Teapot, which is something Bertrand Russell said on the topic:

"Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time."

The one you hate most: Christianity. What falsifiable attributes are said to belong to that which they believe to be a supreme deity?

Please be more specific. Which form of Christianity? And why are you insisting on using rhetoric here? I realize you're fond of arguing, but straw-men and pretend passive aggressive statements really have no place in a proper discussion.

The religions you're thinking about quite clearly state the text was inspired by a god, but not actually written by it. Even in Mormonism, their holy text was created by an angel and not their god.

Islam's Qur'an is a recitation of words told by God to the angel Gabriel/Jibril, and then told in turn to Mohammad, who wrote it down perfectly. It's also well known that most fundamentalist religions, be they Christian, Muslim, Jewish or otherwise, tend to take the written word out of context (attempting to transfer antiquity and medieval societal norms to present day norms).

You're saying that using information gathered over the course of history, which means you've missed my point entirely.

I am saying you are misusing the word "scientific", because what you described has never been science.

Tell that to the scientists of their day. You're somehow completely missing the point that science as it exists now is the manifestation and culmination of thousands of years of trial and error. Leeches and bleeding people out are obviously retarded, but they were regarded as legitimate science in their day, to the point where George Washington was bled to get rid of the sore throat that eventually killed him. To ignore that is to ignore the history of science. If we're going to ignore the history of science, I don't know that I can trust it as it exists today.

Science, as a word we use today, refers to the application of the scientific method. You can't call what you described science, because the scientific method was not applied. It was opinion held by some form of shaman or tribal medicine man.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_methodAgain: SCIENCE hardly existed at all in the 1500ds. Whether you think that the word science meant something different back then is irrelevant, because we know today that science truly originated in the 1700ds along with the scientific method. Obviously it was applied to some extent before that (particularly by Muslim scientists, who did not have the Greek tendency to dismiss empirical evidence in favour of theoretical evidence), but this is when science really became science.

Who has stated we are only capable of thinking because of a god? Or are you focusing on an aspect of a single religion and applying it to the infinite number of religions that apparently exist?

Russell's Teapot...

And all of them wouldn't have existed today were it not for organized religion.

This strikes me as a highly bombastic claim that cannot possibly be supported by anything other than your opinion. I expect you can provide me with sources that show that scientific consensus is that those sciences would not exist today without organized religion?

And I have stated so. You, however, hold your view to be the only logical view, and you refuse to question how or why you've arrived at that conclusion.

I've barely stated my view, and I have never claimed anything you say I've claimed... Straw-men burn easily, but sure do create a spectacle.

Now, you mentioned "the non-existence of a god a verifiable fact" but no atheist I've ever met thinks this way, neither any scientist. Being open-minded is a major part of the rationalistic philosophy. Anything can be accepted as true if it is empirically proven- otherwise we would never accept ridiculous things like supermassive black holes, the speed of light changing in a vacuum and particles that act differently when they are observed. We accept these things because we know they are proven to exist- we also accept that a god or some form of creator could feasibly exist, but that with the knowledge we currently have it's only about as likely as there being a teapot orbiting the sun.

Actually, there are various scientists and fields working on ways to prove or disprove the existence of a prime mover. I have read a physicist's work on showing cyclical universe progression through studying data received by our deep space telescopes, and apparently in 2018 when the new data comes in, we might be able to show that the universe as we know it has not only existed once, but many, many times (contraction, expansion, etc). Obviously it's very tricky to disprove the existence of something which has no attributes that we can check for... It's like trying to spot an invisible, pink unicorn.


---

That being said, arguing with Zeo is hopeless, as he tends to employ rhetoric to a degree that I have only ever witnessed in real life psychopaths. I've told him this before, and I'll tell him again: Become a politician, you'd be great at it. Don't go for science: it requires you to understand scientific method.

 

[Avenger]

I don't know him well enough to know whether this is true but saying things like this isn't going to help. If you really want someone to come around to your way of thinking you have to be kind, forgiving, impartial and (most of all?) patient. Being aggressive makes people close their minds more than anything else, makes them go into their psychological shells and black out anything you try to tell them.

Wisdom from years of gradually converting every Christian I know.

I'm saying Zeo is trolling. He is not the kind of person to change his mind, nor are most hardcore religious people.

 

[Zeonix]

Not quite. Assuming something is false isn't the same as saying it's impossible. It's not saying that the man can't be guilty, just that there isn't enough evidence to say he is. So, we're in agreement here, it's just syntax

Now here's the lovely mini-essay I wrote yesterday before the forum went down.



Man, that's a bad way to start your argument. Not only are you wrong but you're slandering the person you're arguing against for no good reason and it just makes you look bad.

That isn't part of the argument. That's an analysis of your personality as depicted by your words which, unless posted at the behest of a gun to your head, would logically be considered to be an indication of your thought processes. And, considering this is the internet, you can state your opinion with absolutely no consequence, further causing me to infer that you're stating your true opinion of the religious, that of course being that they border on mentally ill, and was later contradicted by your "approach" to the religious.

As I'm sure you're capable of discerning, this initial analysis has nothing to do with the argument we're currently engaged in.

Okay, your argument is already pretty stupid. You're not actually talking about the subject, but instead making massive assumptions about me and the way I live and using them to try and discredit my argument?

Once again, this is simply how I perceive you as based on what you type here on the forum. Furthermore, I made it pretty clear I was being as equally abrasive as you purposely in order to demonstrate how fruitless such an engagement is. This seems to have evaded you, despite my saying quite clearly my intended goal with the overall tone of my post.

I can see you're trying to say I'm not respectful enough towards the religious, but this is a topic for discussing religion. That's exactly what I'm doing. It's not like any religious person would come in here expecting not to see atheists arguing against religion.

Okay, I'm somewhat-militant as an atheist. Wherever I go if I see religious people I'd like to try and open their minds. But I keep some basic rules:

• If they are obviously dependent on religion in a psychological sense and attacking their beliefs would cause them distress, leave them alone.
• If they become majorly uncomfortable or distressed during the discussion, let it be.
• If they don't want to talk about it, don't.

With these in mind I'm quite content that my little religious attacks aren't going to seriously distress people around me.

Because a thread is about religion doesn't necessitate that one blatantly insult anyone and everyone who is religious by placing them in the same category as people labeled crazy. Creating rules around the perception that, should you insult them and their beliefs, they become "distressed" is flawed as those who truly believe in their chosen faith would remain unshaken in their stance. And so, according to your rules, you'd condone moving further into aggressive territory because they aren't shaking in their boots, as it were. Sounds quite disrespectful as, once more, you're neither changing their mind nor they yours. You also said you don't hang around the religious, so I don't understand why these rules would be necessary in the godless circles you roam.

Now you're actually getting somewhere and I can see the source of your confusion. First of all, I don't hate anyone. Ever. In all walks of life I try to follow a mostly pacifistic approach- don't cause people anger or suffering if it's possible to avoid it. This is much the reason behind the rules I bulletined above, if I believe my actions are distressing or harming someone I will stop.

And yet you condone Avenger's response, and offer him applause despite how abrasive and disrespectful it was. You know. Because people were pussy footing around the "truth". Interesting.

Secondly, what I actually meant by that statement. It wasn't there to throw dirt in anyone's faces, it wasn't to be spiteful. I was only trying to discredit Christianity- to point out that it is a dark, cruel thing. It is not a philosophy of peace- because it's followers do not follow Jesus' philosophy. They use religious dogma to control people, and they use any method they want to spread their religion- because organised religion is a political tool to manipulate the masses, that's what it has always been and always will be.

And so once more you suggest discarding the baby with the bathwater. How often is it that modern christians go out of their way to raze cities to the ground? Sins of the father and all that. The actions of people hundreds of years ago shouldn't be attributed to the people of today, nor the people who originally founded said religion. I don't remember too many stories of Jesus and Paul roundhouse kicking non-believers in the throat for not complying. There is good and bad in every religion. In science, man uses knowledge both to make a better world for tomorrow, and also to ensure there is no tomorrow. This is the way of the world. This is the way of humanity. Religion is no different. One hand preaches peace, the other preaches war. Why? Because this is the internal conflict humanity has dealt with since its inception: Chaos or Law?

In 2001 the British Social Attitudes Survey found that 58% of Britan think they "belong to" a religion ("Religion by Year". British Social Attitudes Surveys. 2007. Retrieved 2009-05-24.). And not nearly as many as you think are Christian- church attendance has been and is still dropping drastically and immigration is ever growing, resulting in a very different, much more secularised picture. Most commentators now refer to England as a "multi-faith, post-christian society" (Fergusson, David (2004). Church, State and Civil Society. Cambridge University Press. p. 94. ISBN 052152959X.).

Also in 2001, a census was taken indicating 71.6% of respondents considered themselves to be Christian, and 76.8% belonged to one religion or another as indicated here, which also cites your survey:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_United_Kingdom#Statistics

In 2005, 38% stated they believed in a god, and 40% believed in some kind of force or spirit. Not exactly the picture you were painting.

With thanks to Wikipedia.

Minus the parts of the same page that stated otherwise, obviously.

Now in terms of what I've noticed as a person living in England, most religious people seem to congregate into the same areas. There are parts of the country such as Roehampton where everyone is religious and atheists are given weird, alienated looks- there are many other parts of the country where atheism is very common and in some places it's even weird to see religious people, particularly in alternative and rock scenes where you might see some Pagans and Wiccans, but you'd almost never see a Christian.
It's not that I try to avoid places where there are many Christians, more that the kind of people I like to hang out with tend to be atheists anyway.

Incredible. It's almost like people with similarities congregate (Harlem, Chinatown, Little Italy, etc), thus creating the illusion that outsiders are less numerous than they might actually be. Truly incredible.

Aaand regarding the newest since then:



Wha..? Well no, we're not so arrogant as to assume that. I don't think anyone knows how the universe was created and I don't think anyone ever will. And when did I ever become defensive and yell and spit?
And I don't think defining what a deity is would change this discussion in the slightest, if you really want go by the dictionary definition of god "The creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority".

Nice to see you basically threw away my last post. Also kind of sad, as that post is pretty much where the religious and the more "logical" could begin a conversation rather than an argument. If you're stating the religious must prove the existence of a "supernatural being", which may not even be the case if our verse is but a small piece of something much larger in a very natural sense, they need to be told how to go about proving its existence. If you refuse to tell them, you're not working towards some kind of middle ground, and you're certainly not working towards changing their minds as, generally, the more one questions their beliefs, the more ridiculous that belief seems if its founded in fantasy.

And before something terrible happens, Im going to post this and then respond to Avenger.

 

[Avenger]

No need, I already know the jist of what you're about to say. It mostly involves rhetorical putdowns and hinting that I'm wrong though you have no evidence to support it.

 

[Zeonix]

I never said that the non-existence of god was a fact. Fortnox was getting at Russell's Teapot, which is something Bertrand Russell said on the topic:

"Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time."

And so my asking for specifics as to how to test for a supernatural being becomes more relevant.

Please be more specific. Which form of Christianity? And why are you insisting on using rhetoric here? I realize you're fond of arguing, but straw-men and pretend passive aggressive statements really have no place in a proper discussion.

I'm using rhetoric? This is the second post you've decided to stall by asking me to further break down a specific religion. If all religion is essentially baseless, why the need to break it down to denominations? Christianity, as a whole, shares basically the same stories and rules. Some denominations have their own quirks. These quirks aren't relevant to the larger theme, especially as it relates to the powers of their god. How difficult is it to to narrow down the abilities of a deity?

Islam's Qur'an is a recitation of words told by God to the angel Gabriel/Jibril, and then told in turn to Mohammad, who wrote it down perfectly. It's also well known that most fundamentalist religions, be they Christian, Muslim, Jewish or otherwise, tend to take the written word out of context (attempting to transfer antiquity and medieval societal norms to present day norms).

Which means we're at the receiving end of a very long game of telephone, starting from the very beginning. Inspired by God, as told by Gabriel, as written by Mohammed, as translated by blah blah blah. As a side note, you tend to focus on Abrahamic religions. There are quite a few out there that are quite a bit older than, at the very least, the big 2. Trying branching out if you're going to put them all in the same basket.

I am saying you are misusing the word "scientific", because what you described has never been science.

Science, as a word we use today, refers to the application of the scientific method. You can't call what you described science, because the scientific method was not applied. It was opinion held by some form of shaman or tribal medicine man.
Again: SCIENCE hardly existed at all in the 1500ds. Whether you think that the word science meant something different back then is irrelevant, because we know today that science truly originated in the 1700ds along with the scientific method. Obviously it was applied to some extent before that (particularly by Muslim scientists, who did not have the Greek tendency to dismiss empirical evidence in favour of theoretical evidence), but this is when science really became science.

I'm going to go ahead and lump this all together. There is a reason there is a distinction between science and modern science. The latter is quite different from the former, but the latter would not exist without the former. Once again, science is an accumulation of knowledge. Nothing comes from nothing. To disregard science's past is to throw out the present.

Russell's Teapot...

Feel free to speak in specifics.

This strikes me as a highly bombastic claim that cannot possibly be supported by anything other than your opinion. I expect you can provide me with sources that show that scientific consensus is that those sciences would not exist today without organized religion?

I actually meant to write "as it exists today", but I'll go along with what is written. Who do you think funded scientific research for thousands of years? Where would we be without those crazy warmongers who expanded their empires and attracted great minds to their stable society, who would go on to create zany inventions and think crazy thoughts? How would they go about doing that without a theme, be it manufactured or manipulated or what have you, to bring everyone together to their cause in the first place? A belief in a higher power has pervaded mankind since we could think. Whether that belief is justified or not, it was a driving force in gathering people, and creating some kind of link between a people. Because even if we're completely physically different, at least we both acknowledge there's something beyond us out there, somewhere.

I've barely stated my view, and I have never claimed anything you say I've claimed... Straw-men burn easily, but sure do create a spectacle.

If you can say so little while being so full of venom, you're quite accomplished at being an, in a word, *******.

Actually, there are various scientists and fields working on ways to prove or disprove the existence of a prime mover. I have read a physicist's work on showing cyclical universe progression through studying data received by our deep space telescopes, and apparently in 2018 when the new data comes in, we might be able to show that the universe as we know it has not only existed once, but many, many times (contraction, expansion, etc). Obviously it's very tricky to disprove the existence of something which has no attributes that we can check for... It's like trying to spot an invisible, pink unicorn.

Invisible pink unicorn, perhaps, but men smarter than either of us are spending their time and resources looking for it. At the same time, proving our current universe is not in its infancy, but the result of a phoenix-like life, does not disprove a deity. In some, it would only make their god that much bigger, because, first, we're clearly not dealing with but a single universe if the multiverse theory proves correct, but the conditions that we live in today may be warped from their previous incarnations.


---

That being said, arguing with Zeo is hopeless, as he tends to employ rhetoric to a degree that I have only ever witnessed in real life psychopaths. I've told him this before, and I'll tell him again: Become a politician, you'd be great at it. Don't go for science: it requires you to understand scientific method.

Keep in mind Avenger deals with psychopaths on a daily basis, and is thus extremely experienced in making such a determination. Or he's full of ****.

I'm not sure where the idea that I'm trolling came from. I've made it perfectly clear in several posts that I'm not religious. That doesn't mean I don't take the time to understand why I don't believe a thing. That doesn't mean I don't take the time to try to understand a concept from a believer's perspective in order to empathize with them, and see where they logic may have made a wrong turn. That is far more than most of you have done, quite evidently, as simply saying "It's bull****" suffices. I don't think religious people are crazy. I don't think they're stupid. There are far more angles to be considered that haven't even been mentioned in this thread because, as with all things, nothing is simple. Anyone who tells you otherwise doesn't know what they're talking about, and is either trying to blind you or are themselves blind.

*It's alright, Avenger. Don't read it. It's more of an illustration that its possible to understand where someone with an opposing or different viewpoint is coming from without speaking with disdain or poison. Because there aren't too many vocal religious people on the board, I figured I'd argue for them. Also, I totally just hammered two people at the same time.

Also, imagine how short this thread would be if I didn't participate.

 

[Chakra-X]

I label myself as agnostic. I agree with Zeo that absolutism, in the sense of philosophy, is not useful. I can not state there is absolutely no higher power and I can not state that there is because I am not convinced either way.

I may have a scholarly understanding of all the mainstream religions, but they are supposedly designed that you don't need to be understand their core values. They all pretty much seem to preach love, care, fairness, respect, etc. But then you get more definitive details such as despising homosexuals, treating women as second class citizens, or having an entire slab of land reserved for your people. To tell me that a god/angel/diety/whatever formed a text thousands of years ago, and that I must obey it and to simply trust that it is true without sufficient evidence to back it up is a very, very, hard pill to swallow. To tell me I must do these things because a specific deity is watching me or else I will be punished for eternity, and that I have to just have faith that it is true, makes me ask questions.



True, in my wonderful suburbia, I can setback and look towards more grounded aspects of life which keep me going, but put me in a dire situation where all hope is lost and the only thing keeping going is the unconditional love of God, it would be rather difficult to ignore that.

Both polytheistic and monotheistic religions seem like placeholders for what humans do not understand. Where is heaven? Above us...Until we find out about the solar system, so then heaven is revised to a different dimension. God created the world in 7 days, until we began carbon dating and developed a scientifically plausible history of the Earth and the universe, so "days" apparently could conveniently be "thousands of years" for God.

There are still things we do not understand. Yeah chemical reactions allow us to love another person so we can procreate as a species. But for mother****ing sakes why the **** does it have to be this complicated? Why can't all species just produce asexually? Why do we have to be sad when a spouse dies or leaves? Why don't we just go fourth and **** other mates to produce? Why experiment with new food, new technology, new art, and culture? Why does our circulatory system have to be so ******* complicated? Everything just seems to fit and "be" that to say all of this is just a coincidence from random chemical occurrences and nothing else, without raising such philosophical questions, does not tell the entire story. That does not mean "oh God must of did that", but it does make one want to look beyond the facts we have now.

This is probably asking for too much, but people should try to me less of an ******* as much as possible, without having religion to found it. I'm not going to steal from you because Jesus does not want me to, I am not because that item is yours and it would bring you sadness and/or anger if I were to and I would have attained something that is not rightfully mine. I can't say what is going to happen when we die and there are still things we do not understand, so if someone turns to Islam to find the answers, I am not going to demean him by saying he is mentally ill. However, to have huge organizations dedicated on pure faith which contribute to education, politics, and war seem dangerous.

For example, all of you are completely ignorant of how foreign policy works, how diplomacy works, how the military is used as more than a tool to kill, politics, and basically anything that actually affects us on a day to day basis, but I'm not constantly calling people out for being apathetic *******s who's hardest decision every week is what to eat.

All of those topics you listed are important to America's future and the entire country could do better with better grasp of them, but I am selfish. I honestly do not spend enough time researching those affairs as much as I should, but what concerns *me* as a senior in college for animation, is getting good enough so I can get a job, to raise a family and live comfortably so i can have time to ponder things like that. That affects me on a day to day basis more than understanding our President's efforts in Libya.

 

[DiebytheSword]

I label myself as agnostic. I agree with Zeo that absolutism, in the sense of philosophy, is not useful. I can not state there is absolutely no higher power and I can not state that there is because I am not convinced either way.

I may have a scholarly understanding of all the mainstream religions, but they are supposedly designed that you don't need to be understand their core values. They all pretty much seem to preach love, care, fairness, respect, etc. But then you get more definitive details such as despising homosexuals, treating women as second class citizens, or having an entire slab of land reserved for your people. To tell me that a god/angel/diety/whatever formed a text thousands of years ago, and that I must obey it and to simply trust that it is true without sufficient evidence to back it up is a very, very, hard pill to swallow. To tell me I must do these things because a specific deity is watching me or else I will be punished for eternity, and that I have to just have faith that it is true, makes me ask questions.

I'm just going to state here that bigotry that hides behind the bible is completely wrong. I cannot speak for other religions, I am not well versed in them. But there is a written order to the bible, things written later have more weight than things written prior. You are judged according to your measure, so, judging by Leviticus puts you in a very narrow corridor of behavior. If I were to hate gays because they were unnatural, then I must never indulge in shellfish, for they too are an abomination before god. If I were to follow Leviticus, I must follow all of Leviticus. I must sell my daughter to slavers because she has back talked me. I must lead a lynch mob against my neighbor and stone him to death because he swore. These are things no modern christian does because no modern christian should follow Leviticus. It is superceeded by the golden rule and thou shall not judge, both new laws in place by Christ. Christs birth and death changed the rules, the old covenants are no longer valid when they countermand a new law. A woman whom you married is cleaved of one flesh with you, I should treat my women, therefore, as my own temple. My own arm, my own flesh. I am not her master, nor is she something to be disrespected. As far as I remember, the people of Israel lost their land because they lost their way with god. Therefore, I'm not one to back the religious argument that it is their land. I'm one to say that the land was purchased for an oppressed people, and suddenly people want to renege on that sale and kill the people who it was bought for, but that is another topic.

My point is this, bigots exist in every philosophy. Are you saying there are no atheist that beat their women or hate gays? I know more than one homophobe on this board that also isn't religious. Bigots are not created by the bible, they hide behind the bible for false moral ground that they do not have. Those people are doing it wrong, literally and spiritually.

The world would be a better place if people tried to understand each other rather than condemn them for their beliefs. Oh wait, that's your line. But I'm the hypocritcal insane person that talks to imaginary beings. What do I know.

 

[Chakra-X]

My point is this, bigots exist in every philosophy. Are you saying there are no atheist that beat their women or hate gays? I know more than one homophobe on this board that also isn't religious. Bigots are not created by the bible, they hide behind the bible for false moral ground that they do not have. Those people are doing it wrong, literally and spiritually.

The world would be a better place if people tried to understand each other rather than condemn them for their beliefs. Oh wait, that's your line. But I'm the hypocritcal insane person that talks to imaginary beings. What do I know.

Are you speaking to me or others on this thread? I am not calling anyone religious insane at all.

I am not saying the religious texts are the cause of bigotry, homophobia, etc, because their core believe is love. But there are more finer details, which many believers do not necessarily follow, that are supported in them. As you said with Leviticus, there are many concepts that have no place in modern times. People can choose to ignore that, but some people, who may not want to kill every gay and even have gay friends, still believe their ultimate fate is hell. You don't need to be Christian to hate gays at all, but for those who subscribe to the bible to the T (or at least they like to think they are) feel that it must be correct. To me that brings up the idea of what else in these texts no longer have a place in society. We are never too evolved for "love thy neighbor" to be relevant, but for me at least, I question the validity of the holiness of the Old Testament, New Testament, and Quran.

My point was not to say Christians are naturally bigots because I am familiar of many who follow Jesus and hold not grudge against gays. My point was that these smaller details which develop such extreme ideas can be found in these texts and they are poisonous to organized religion, which is why I prefer the Jeffersonian Bible if I were to be religious.

 

[DiebytheSword]

To clarify, no, that entire post is not aimed at you. Nor should you feel it was. My point to you, and you only, was that following the bible to a "T" invalidates living your live to Leviticus unless you intend to drop shellfish, sell your daughter into slavery for disagreeing with you, stone your neighbor who had an etramarital affair, stone your other neigbor who cussed out loud etc. These people are not following the bible to a T, these people are using a snippet from the bible to excuse their hatred. That is not being Christlike in the least.

 

[Heron]

A logical debate is what is needed with the athiests, They are after all human beings even if they dont try to get to know there creator. Some one who can offer that answer would need to be able to explain the importance of history.

 

[Avenger]

I'm using rhetoric? This is the second post you've decided to stall by asking me to further break down a specific religion. If all religion is essentially baseless, why the need to break it down to denominations? Christianity, as a whole, shares basically the same stories and rules. Some denominations have their own quirks. These quirks aren't relevant to the larger theme, especially as it relates to the powers of their god. How difficult is it to to narrow down the abilities of a deity?

Redirection, another fancy bit of rhetoric. I asked you to break it down because Christianity "on the whole" doesn't agree with itself on so many points that it is an eternally moving goalpost. I thought this was obvious?

Which means we're at the receiving end of a very long game of telephone, starting from the very beginning. Inspired by God, as told by Gabriel, as written by Mohammed, as translated by blah blah blah. As a side note, you tend to focus on Abrahamic religions. There are quite a few out there that are quite a bit older than, at the very least, the big 2. Trying branching out if you're going to put them all in the same basket.

You keep making mistakes and brushing over them, while trying to poke holes in what I write - yet all you sit with is rhetoric. I told you that it was TWO deliveries. God to Jibril, then Jibril to Mohammad. Beyond that - according to Islam - nothing has ever changed. No translations, because Arabic is the divine language.

I'm going to go ahead and lump this all together. There is a reason there is a distinction between science and modern science. The latter is quite different from the former, but the latter would not exist without the former. Once again, science is an accumulation of knowledge. Nothing comes from nothing. To disregard science's past is to throw out the present.

What you were talking about, was not the past of science. The past of science lies in empirical methodology and theoretical proofs. Your example had neither of these, and thusly is not science any more than astrology is science.

Feel free to speak in specifics.

Feel free to make sense, and not repeat the same logical fallacy.

I actually meant to write "as it exists today", but I'll go along with what is written. Who do you think funded scientific research for thousands of years? Where would we be without those crazy warmongers who expanded their empires and attracted great minds to their stable society, who would go on to create zany inventions and think crazy thoughts? How would they go about doing that without a theme, be it manufactured or manipulated or what have you, to bring everyone together to their cause in the first place? A belief in a higher power has pervaded mankind since we could think. Whether that belief is justified or not, it was a driving force in gathering people, and creating some kind of link between a people. Because even if we're completely physically different, at least we both acknowledge there's something beyond us out there, somewhere.

So with your logic, I could get away scott free with saying "Without Hitler, CERN never would have existed!"

Or "Without Stalin, there would be no iPods!"

Or "Without Jesus the Mexican gardener back in '75, you wouldn't have been born!" (clearly referring to the butterfly effect).

I think you get the point here. "What ifs" are not useful in any situation, and you have absolutely no way of knowing what scientific development would be today without the church or the khalifates. Religion does not inspire war, it enables war. War is a result of "some" wanting "more" and "more" wanting "all", and is almost always about resources rather than ideology.

Though I think religious people are delusional, that doesn't mean I think they're warmongers. Mind you, I am a bit edgy about letting people with imaginary friends who say doomsday is coming near power over nuclear weaponry.

If you can say so little while being so full of venom, you're quite accomplished at being an, in a word, *******.

Is this rhetoric thing working for you?

Keep in mind Avenger deals with psychopaths on a daily basis, and is thus extremely experienced in making such a determination. Or he's full of ****.

Heh. Okay, Zeo.

But I'm the hypocritcal insane person that talks to imaginary beings. What do I know.

I never called you hypocritical, I called all religious people (regardless of direction) delusional.

My problem with religion does not lie in that I think religion is evil. It lies in that it endorses ignorance and logical fallacies. You can disagree with me in this all you want, but all religions can't be right. In the end, there can only be one or a handful that get it right, even if atheists turn out to be wrong. You can't have both Ganesh and Allah.

I don't think religions are a main cause of war. I think organized religion allowed for a significant consolidation of power only superceded by the consolidation of power that nationalism allowed. Now, on their own, neither nationalism nor organized religion are bad - but once they are corrupted, it is very, very difficult to halt and reverse this corruption. I think this is the main reason Christianity committed genocide and slaughtered innocents; not to mention waged war on everything that could crawl - not the faith in some supreme deity.

There are examples of religions enforcing civility as well, like Islam and its philosophy on war. Mohammad was, surprisingly enough, an incredibly civilized warlord - as were the warlords who followed in his footsteps. If he had not been, the conquests of Islam would have been just as brutal as those of Christianity.

My point here is that I think faith is harmless on its own, but very dangerous in conjunction with power, which is why I think the separation of religion and state is essential to a well functioning society, and that there is no reason to be offended by be calling you delusional any more than I would be offended by you calling me godless. They're polar opposites, rebranded.

 

[DiebytheSword]

To be fair, not all of that statement was aimed at you. It is only one of many things I have been associated with since I'm Christian. Christianity does not dominate or conquer, men dominate and conquer, and they hide behind the scripture with their violence and hate, none of which is Christ like nor inherently Christian. These are the actions of sick men who rally behind a symbol that does not mean what they make it to mean.

And as for mental illness, would you be happy if I said you had antisocial personality disorder because you fit the following:

1.Callous unconcern for the feelings of others and lack of the capacity for empathy. - could give a **** about my feelings, obviously
5.Incapacity to experience guilt and to profit from experience, particularly punishment. - how many times have you been warned about being nasty to people?
6.Markedly prone to blame others or to offer plausible rationalizations for the behavior bringing the subject into conflict. - you flamed x-person because he's a troll, not because you like to be offensive.

Now that doesn't mean I think you are sick, or have APD, I'm only pointing out that you erect a huge straw man that religious people are mentally ill by fitting some discriptions of delusional paranoia, and then go on to claim that we shouldn't be offended by this. But you clearly are not a Psychologist or Psychiatrist. You mold the data to make your point and then pull up your suspender straps because of how superior you are.

At the end of the day, I'm still going to think you are a smart guy, that you're funny, and that most conversations with you will not be a waste of my time. But on this subject, you are hopelessly jaded, purposefully insulting, and willing to swing for the fences to attack something that can't be disproved or proved. You're not even willing to discuss it, unless I'm willing to accept your point of view as right, which voids the point of discussion.

 

[Zeonix]

First off, Heron, I almost joined the other side of the debate after reading your post. Secondly, Avenger eats bait like its his day job.

Redirection, another fancy bit of rhetoric. I asked you to break it down because Christianity "on the whole" doesn't agree with itself on so many points that it is an eternally moving goalpost. I thought this was obvious?

And yet another deflection. Your objective was to what? Determine the abilities said to belong to that of the Christian deity. Jesus could be a penguin in one of the denominations and it wouldn't make a difference to God's stats. If you can't answer the question, just say so. We'll move on.

You keep making mistakes and brushing over them, while trying to poke holes in what I write - yet all you sit with is rhetoric. I told you that it was TWO deliveries. God to Jibril, then Jibril to Mohammad. Beyond that - according to Islam - nothing has ever changed. No translations, because Arabic is the divine language.

Do you read arabic? I don't, so I'm forced to read a translation of said text. Which doesn't make arabic any less of a divine language. It's divine because it was supposedly used to communicate with Mohammed through Gabriel. Does this mean Allah spoke Arabic? Or does this mean Allah, through Gabriel, communicated in such a way that Mohammed could understand, in much the same way God in the Bible communicated with the Hebrews in their language? Is this relevant at all? No, because in every case, God didn't actually write anything down. The closest you can come to to God writing **** down is with the ten commandments via lightning or whatever. So back to the point, inspired by, but not written by God.

What you were talking about, was not the past of science. The past of science lies in empirical methodology and theoretical proofs. Your example had neither of these, and thusly is not science any more than astrology is science.

And what you continue to do is ignore history because it's inconvenient. Because astrology, cosmology and astronomy were once intertwined and one. It was only later that people began to differentiate between the metaphysical aspects of astrology in favor of the purely physical aspects found in astronomy. Once again, the knowledge gathered was cumulative and astrology played a pivotal role in creating the other branches. Yes, astrology was once science, because astronomy and cosmology fell under that umbrella.

Feel free to make sense, and not repeat the same logical fallacy.

And rather than answer an inquiry with specifics, Avenger decides to use empty words to discredit what might amount to an interesting conversation should he choose to participate.

So with your logic, I could get away scott free with saying "Without Hitler, CERN never would have existed!"

Or "Without Stalin, there would be no iPods!"

Or "Without Jesus the Mexican gardener back in '75, you wouldn't have been born!" (clearly referring to the butterfly effect).

I think you get the point here. "What ifs" are not useful in any situation, and you have absolutely no way of knowing what scientific development would be today without the church or the khalifates. Religion does not inspire war, it enables war. War is a result of "some" wanting "more" and "more" wanting "all", and is almost always about resources rather than ideology.

Though I think religious people are delusional, that doesn't mean I think they're warmongers. Mind you, I am a bit edgy about letting people with imaginary friends who say doomsday is coming near power over nuclear weaponry.

If you're going to compare any of those to how pervasive, inspirational, destructive and beneficial religion has been throughout human history, you're as deluded as the people you've insulted in this thread. Most of this section has nothing to do with anything, but that's par the course for you when you find it difficult to make a point.

Is this rhetoric thing working for you?

I like how any kind of perception on my part is instrumental in my grand plan to sway everyone to my side. Perhaps you should read the words as they are, and not Jinx out and look for hidden meaning.

Heh. Okay, Zeo.

What is the third option?

I never called you hypocritical, I called all religious people (regardless of direction) delusional.

My problem with religion does not lie in that I think religion is evil. It lies in that it endorses ignorance and logical fallacies. You can disagree with me in this all you want, but all religions can't be right. In the end, there can only be one or a handful that get it right, even if atheists turn out to be wrong. You can't have both Ganesh and Allah.

Which goes back to specific religions being part of a whole, where each religion is able to pinpoint a specific section of a whole, but none can see the beast in its entirety. This concept is several thousand years old and isnt that hard to follow.

I don't think religions are a main cause of war. I think organized religion allowed for a significant consolidation of power only superceded by the consolidation of power that nationalism allowed. Now, on their own, neither nationalism nor organized religion are bad - but once they are corrupted, it is very, very difficult to halt and reverse this corruption. I think this is the main reason Christianity committed genocide and slaughtered innocents; not to mention waged war on everything that could crawl - not the faith in some supreme deity.

There are examples of religions enforcing civility as well, like Islam and its philosophy on war. Mohammad was, surprisingly enough, an incredibly civilized warlord - as were the warlords who followed in his footsteps. If he had not been, the conquests of Islam would have been just as brutal as those of Christianity.

My point here is that I think faith is harmless on its own, but very dangerous in conjunction with power, which is why I think the separation of religion and state is essential to a well functioning society, and that there is no reason to be offended by be calling you delusional any more than I would be offended by you calling me godless. They're polar opposites, rebranded.

And your last few paragraphs is why....

I consider religious belief to be a form of mental illness in the category of paranoid delusions. I have no respect for it, nor will I ever.

Right, Avenger. Talk about rhetoric.

 

[Avenger]

How is that rhetoric? Rhetoric implies a tool in speech or communication which aims at manipulating the reader. I told you my opinion in a very straight-forward fashion. If I used rhetoric I'd convince you of this without ever mentioning it. Apophasis, if you will.

 

[-Origin]

I like how "to Jinx out" is now a thing on these forums.

Sorry, carry on.