Religion

[Guest]

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever

Login with username, password and session length

[Malgoroth]

The problem I have with atheism is that it falsifies all religions on basis of there not being an 'interventionist god'.
Just because we do not knowingly experience the presence of a God in any way does not necessarily mean God does not exist.

Fixed.

There is no problem with atheism. There is only your particular disagreement with it. 

[Malevolence]

Why exactly was this thread started? We all know everyone has different views, what is the point, just for the sake of arguing?

Why wouldn't this thread be started? Humanity has been debating philosophy for thousands of years and we are no closer to consensus on a wide variety of subjects than we were back when we began, but that has never stopped us before from throwing more time and effort into the grinder in hope of a breakthrough.


Also, Malgaroth, Atheism's truthfulness is disputable just like any deity's. It's just as impossible to disprove something exists as it is to prove an intangible entity is real, and Atheists, in general, operate solely off the principle of Occam's Razor (a useful logical device) that since the universe works just fine without a god to drive it, and there is no evidence of a god available that is sufficient to fit their definition of evidence, it is more likely for a god to not exist than to exist, in keeping with the simplest possible solution.

Of course, then there'll be those who argue that god IS necessary for the function of the universe because (insert unexplained phenomena X, such as origin of the universe) and therefore occam's razor is not a valid logical tool to apply. This can go on in a circle for eons, and in fact has, assuming we define an eon as a 'really long period of time with no definite period', where one side will say "god is unnecessary!" and the other will say "yes he is!" and frankly it comes down to opinion.


This is, of course, the reason we invented the philosophical methodology to help us tackle this problem... which has unfortunately thus far yielded negligable results in either direction. Which, as I mentioned above, leads us back to... throwing more time and effort into the grinder in hope of a breakthrough.


In short: it's a fun mental exercise.

[Spartan_Marine88]

My biggest issue with Atheists (not atheism) is that most of them are extremely stubborn and 90% of them (who i have met) who try to dispute my beliefs with me just end up going "NO! NO! your an idiot there is no god!"

But personally when it comes right down to it i try to follow one thing i have ever agreed with Voltaire saying "I disagree with what you have to say but will fight to the death to protect your right to say it." (i generally consider the man a dick)

[SX23]

Fixed.

There is no problem with atheism. There is only your particular disagreement with it. 

Malgoroth.... Who determines if there's a problem with a said idea? Is it some kind of pre-established rule, or is it based on a community reaction to a precept? If, for example, Unknown decides there's a problem with atheism, and share his point of view to make some of us agree, then there WILL be a problem with atheism.

On what base do you declare that there is none?

[Malevolence]

My biggest issue with Atheists (not atheism) is that most of them are extremely stubborn and 90% of them (who i have met) who try to dispute my beliefs with me just end up going "NO! NO! your an idiot there is no god!"

But personally when it comes right down to it i try to follow one thing i have ever agreed with Voltaire saying "I disagree with what you have to say but will fight to the death to protect your right to say it." (i generally consider the man a dick)

To be completely fair, both sides do that. Just being a member of one side you tend to notice it less than the opposing side doing it.

[Spartan_Marine88]

To be completely fair, both sides do that. Just being a member of one side you tend to notice it less than the opposing side doing it.

Very true, but its most noted for Orthodox Religions and Atheists (usually Scientist Atheists), as they are the ones who deal with almost the exact absolute (god is allpowerful/ does not exist in any form).

Just like politics...

[Demon767]

cbf reading everytin

i shall quote

Religion is the root of all evil

[Demon767]

also i just remembered

religion cant base evidence on anything. they say BLASPHEMY blah blah. opinions

E.g

When we balance units in EIR. we dont use opinions but hard facts. science has facts. religion has opinion and Popular belief.

religion sucks
asians ftw

[Spartan_Marine88]

asians ftw

Yes because committing suicide whenever you have failed has always been the best way to make yourself smarter

btw someone should ban you from intelligent discussion

and now this thread will need a lock, it was going well too

[Demon767]

no wrong, im expressing my opinion. its fanatics like you who close off when anything such as facts is brought it

religion cant base evidence on anything. they say BLASPHEMY blah blah. opinions

ur an epic first hand example

[Spartan_Marine88]

no wrong, im expressing my opinion. its fanatics like you who close off when anything such as facts is brought it

ur an epic first hand example

You stated religion sucks with no reasoning whatsoever. I have already stated that while i believe in a god/gods i follow no organized religion whatsoever (while close to the protestant sect). And refuse to believe that a clever mathematical formula can prove the existence or lack thereof anything.

And evolution only proves that the bible written by man is wrong, not that a guiding hand of some sort helped our species come out ontop

Hell for all i know we are an alien races science project that they forgot about

World War 2 has many examples of men who have defied odds and lived past what science has stated is possible with many more examples of anomalies such as the 82 year old man in india who doesn't eat or drink water apparently for more then 70 years.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2010/05/10/indian-man-survives-without-food-and-water-baffles-doctors/ 

[Demon767]

I totally accept that Spartan. As do i follow god. but what i believe is that the world would be a much better place without religion.

Religion doesnt evolve ethics of the many. Community attitude and Law and Order shapes that image.

Australians are known for their easy going larikan attitude to life. That was not formed by Religion

Americans attitude towards there daily duties, either domestic, or offshore, is based on their constitution and their Laws. As soon as we add Religion we start to stray away from normal human ethics and start believing that their Above the common man, to a another extent, an opposing religion. we all know what im talking about.

Religion, in many ways than one, down the years have shaped negative aspects of contemporary life.

We could have a Muslim from Iran coming to America and he will be ridiculed and defamed by the public and employers.

We could have another Muslim coming From Australia (Point back towards the attitudes of a typical aussie) and this muslim will still be treated the same way as the Iranian. No matter how they were brought or, or where they were brought up.

Both countries have different standards of living, but both put into a negative basket when they drop the common denominator on them.

We than also have self image issues that Religion can have among one another. believing one is better, or far superior to the other. this also causes issue.


If we didnt have religion, we will still have democracy, law and order. These were not Made from Religion. Democracy was made by Athenian radicals such as themisticles, pericles and ethialtes. Non were swayed by the Greek religion. and all were made upon the principle that Every man was equal under the Law. That is common ethics that humans have.

The end 

[Spartan_Marine88]

Ah ok, that is a lot different then how i thought you originally meant you were talking about Religion in the organized power scheming sense and not the spiritualistic faith that should be yours and yours alone not to force on someone else

[Demon767]

i dont have enough time to make concise arguements atm as im very busy with my last compulsory year of schooling.

1 last thing to think about before i leave this thread for like a week or so

there is a significant change on how religion was used. before the initiation of christ and mohammed.

prime example

The Greek Gods. The Greeks believed in Moderation (not told by the gods, but their own ethics) If someone over lavished themselves, than the Gods will Punish them. Not the People.

A distinct change occured in Christianty and Islam. common belief was that Humans had the DUTY to right the wrongs of the sinners. Not let god do with them as they please. From than on, it was used as a Tool for Humans to say. "I do this in the name of God because He commanded me to" Or "I do this because it is in his name"

I have some interesting evidence that could convince you of how religion does not create ethics.

The birth place of democracy. Athens. with Pericles Speech towards the Athenians. we can see that the ethics people of that time did infact have of one another.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2UJLXKlkvlM
A very good quote, from pericles speech is as follows

"We make friends by doing good to others, not by receiving good from them"
Spoken 430BC. Long before Christianity.

This, is awfully similar to the words in the bible "Do good to others so they do good onto you" or something along those lines im sorry im not to familiar with the bible. Or "Love thy nieghbour" i dunno but if you familiar with the bible i do believe you will know what i mean.

underlining. Democracy, law and order, makes ethics. Not solely accountable is religion. nor do we need religion to have the same ethics.

ANYWAYS ive wasted to much time writing this long ass essay when i should be infact memorizing my own essay for my exams

[Mysthalin]

SX - read what I had written just in the last page.

I fully agree that Religion has served it's purpose well in history. It has set down certain laws in society, that were more or less so mandatory for the society to survive. Seeing as a strong and fair justice/law apparatus could not work in the early days of civilisation - having something to prevent crime without a massive army of guardsmen all over(which wouldn't guarantee anything - the guardsmen could be corrupt, lie, steal themselves, etc.) is simply invaluable.

Without religion - the world would definitely not be where it is now. Despite all of religion's crimes(or rather, the crimes of the people that twisted religion) - we don't have the right to disregard everything good that religion has done.

However, now that we do in fact have law institutions that work quite to a good extent, and people have Television to keep them in check(especially after catastrophies : say what you will, the Church WAS a good way of preventing mass panic by proposing mass prayer) - religion is likely just not needed by society any more. However, we're a tolerant society, and some people still feel the need to follow a religion, to have faith in God and the Afterlife. That is their choise - and we don't have the right to stop them from making that choise. Just like religious people don't have the right from atheists making the choise of not believing in anything.


I'm pretty much an Atheist/Agnostic. I can't really say that I'm a pure anything - I'm on the border about some things. Though, I have quite a few friends that are strong believers. We often discuss on theological topics, on whether god exists - but we never get in each others faces about it. I really don't see why this thread can't work - it's been working fine thusfar.


Demon - you have indeed barged in on this thread in a rude and abrupt way, more or less so endangering the topic to be locked, when it's actually a very fun one to read. Please, - if you can't keep up with the conversation's maturity, then just don't post on it. You're welcome to read, and also to post - just do it in a more neutral manner, ok?

[Demon767]

sure myst. understood

[Spartan_Marine88]

Just to not, during the time of the Greek gods before Christianity, science and religion were very close to one another and alot of the great minds of the time were highly involved in both religion (which had a much better and friendlier setup then most of todays) and science. Pericles himself ordered and oversaw the Parthenon. One could argue that Christianities ethics were stolen from the Greek gods like so much else of the religion.

But my coffee is done, and bed is calling so i won't...today at least

 religion is likely just not needed by society any more.

To me, as long as there is still mystery surrounded our planet and lives, religion or atleast spiritualism will always have a place. As to degree i also find it the balance to science and balance is good

[Demon767]

Yea Pericles oversaw the construction of the Parthenon, By getting tribute from the Delian League it controlled. at the time when the Parthenon was built, Was infact the Athenian Empire (The delian league).

Basically athens attacked its allies if they stopped contributing Money to the treasurey of Athens and made decrees to limit the power of its allies. So the longer they tributed to Athens, the stronger athens grew and the weaker Its allies got. So thats why Athens couldnt get kicked out of power. cuz they always had a stronger navy than the rest of its Allies.

Pericles was involved in this. Finding political reason to attack is allies

[Mysthalin]

To me, as long as there is still mystery surrounded our planet and lives, religion or atleast spiritualism will always have a place. As to degree i also find it the balance to science and balance is good

And this is what I meant about tolerance and individual need of faith. You still feel the need to follow a god, to have an explanation of what created us and what awaits us once we are dead - it just makes you feel better to have this knowledge. And, seeing as it's not hurting anybody - you're free to keep this faith.

What I'm saying, however, is that if we took away religion from our westernised society - not much would change - we would hardly see change in anything. If religion just "disappeared" right after the fall of the Roman Empire, or during the middle ages - The Armageddon would have come quite a bit earlier than expected.

[gasgeyser]

Well lets take a look at societies that followed your line of reasoning Mysthalin. Both Russia and China enforced atheism. They had TV yet look at what happened. 60-120 million people are reckoned to have died in Russia. 300million are reckoned to have died in China during the Great Leap Forward alone. Cleary as bad as you make religion sound the facts show that it is better than atheism. Without God the law of the land just boils down to: "it's only a crime if your caught." TV is not some all powerful arbitrator, it is easy for rich men to buy up stations and choose what they do and do not report.

I believe that religion is neccesary for the survival of a nation. Heavily religious socities of the past manage to bare up with the plague, famine and war against Islam all at the same time. Nowadays societies tolerance levels have dropped, a war with Afghanistan toppled the Soviet Union.