• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

I believe it is wrong to believe in Christianity.

That's fine, Tashah. As long as you don't try to shut me up, it's all good. I've stated that I would never do anything to hinder the rights of religious people. And as a matter of fact, I have enourmous respect for many of the world's religions. Yours, most particularly, has always fascinated me. It doesn't change what I've said at all, just shedding a little more light on my perspective. The fact that I think something is wrong and misguided doesn't prevent me from respecting it.


I think all you really need to do is fine tune WHICH aspect of religion you reject so as to not toss the baby with the bathwater.

Rather than reject all across the board, my approach is to look for commonalities, especially in regards to morality. I'm neither a moral absolutist (especially in regards to arbitrary morality) nor a moral relativist (believing that morality is so subjective it is little more than normative cultural behavior). Instead, I believe there are aspects of morality that are universal, and can be derived from a logical framework based upon that which is intrinsic to all of us. What I imagine is that if one could make some sort of ven diagram out of all the world's religions, you would be able to determine that which is truly moral by looking at the intersections. The more all the religions intersect, the more basic the morality that is being revealed.

Arbitrary beliefs can certainly lead to hateful actions, and there is much mumbo jumbo in religion that stresses arbitrary belief, especially in that aspect of religion that works on the level of socialization. Belief without reason is the scourge of mankind as far as I'm concerned, but I do think it is possible to approach religion in a reasonable manner. It just depends upon what you are looking for and how you limit your search.
 
I think all you really need to do is fine tune WHICH aspect of religion you reject so as to not toss the baby with the bathwater.

Rather than reject all across the board, my approach is to look for commonalities, especially in regards to morality. I'm neither a moral absolutist (especially in regards to arbitrary morality) nor a moral relativist (believing that morality is so subjective it is little more than normative cultural behavior). Instead, I believe there are aspects of morality that are universal, and can be derived from a logical framework based upon that which is intrinsic to all of us. What I imagine is that if one could make some sort of ven diagram out of all the world's religions, you would be able to determine that which is truly moral by looking at the intersections. The more all the religions intersect, the more basic the morality that is being revealed.

Arbitrary beliefs can certainly lead to hateful actions, and there is much mumbo jumbo in religion that stresses arbitrary belief, especially in that aspect of religion that works on the level of socialization. Belief without reason is the scourge of mankind as far as I'm concerned, but I do think it is possible to approach religion in a reasonable manner. It just depends upon what you are looking for and how you limit your search.

See, the thing is that after looking at the world's major religions, and some not so major, I ended up concluding that the few basic things they have in common are not religious in nature. Those same values are found universally among theists and atheists alike and would still be present if religion had never been invented. Furthermore, I think there is a misunderstanding in this thread regarding my perspective. I don't reject religions. I've spent a good chunk of my free time trying to understand them. As someone who is completely unfamiliar with the concept of faith, those who are able to take the leap absolutely fascinate me. I wish I knew what it is that they're able to feel that I've never even come close to feeling.

Other than the basic human values that are common to all of us, religious or not, it's the actual religious aspects of deity worship, weird beliefs, traditions and rituals, which to me are misguided at best and downright evil at worst, that I have a problem with. I'm just someone who believes that the goodness in all of us doesn't need the fear of god or any other supernatural influence to manifest itself. It's there no matter what. Similarly, we don't need religion to tell us what is right and wrong. I believe we already know it. If we didn't, there would be no evidence of that basic universal morality you speak of.
 
Last edited:
“I'm Jewish. I've never read the NT and know nothing of Paul. Sounds like something I should look into.” - CaptainCourtesy

I’d support that for all kinds of reasons!





:mrgreen:​






 
That's fine, Tashah. As long as you don't try to shut me up, it's all good.
I certainly respect your right to express your opinion that all religious people are very misguided.

I suppose we'll just simply have to disagree on this characterization.
 
There is a big difference between religion and spirituality. Both have faith in God. Religion includes rites and rituals that may seem dated. In both, prayer is important.

Faith is easy. Assert your belief in the existence of God. Pray to God. That's it. The right kinds of prayers will be answered.
 
See, the thing is that after looking at the world's major religions, and some not so major, I ended up concluding that the few basic things they have in common are not religious in nature. Those same values are found universally among theists and atheists alike and would still be present if religion had never been invented. Furthermore, I think there is a misunderstanding in this thread regarding my perspective. I don't reject religions. I've spent a good chunk of my free time trying to understand them. As someone who is completely unfamiliar with the concept of faith, those who are able to take the leap absolutely fascinate me. I wish I knew what it is that they're able to feel that I've never even come close to feeling.

Other than the basic human values that are common to all of us, religious or not, it's the actual religious aspects of deity worship, weird beliefs, traditions and rituals, which to me are misguided at best and downright evil at worst, that I have a problem with. I'm just someone who believes that the goodness in all of us doesn't need the fear of god or any other supernatural influence to manifest itself. It's there no matter what. Similarly, we don't need religion to tell us what is right and wrong. I believe we already know it. If we didn't, there would be no evidence of that basic universal morality you speak of.

I like this outlook. The basic doctrines against lying, stealing, killing, and hurting people exist without any faith or any specific one. They're ideas that we hold because we are human, irrespective of any notions about spirituality. The problems only come up when people decide that they have to kill each other over semantics. That's the real difference between any faiths. We would do well to forget about the nonsense and focus on real, tangible things that can actually help people.
 
Paschendale said:
I like this outlook. The basic doctrines against lying, stealing, killing, and hurting people exist without any faith or any specific one. They're ideas that we hold because we are human, irrespective of any notions about spirituality. The problems only come up when people decide that they have to kill each other over semantics. That's the real difference between any faiths. We would do well to forget about the nonsense and focus on real, tangible things that can actually help people.

Actual morality on an individual scale is based on enlightened self-interest. We don't want others to do X to us, therefore we don't do X to others. On a societal scale, we collectively decide that because X is bad for society in general, we will not permit anyone to do X. Unfortunately, there are people who can't handle the fact that morals can and do change over time and over geographical distances, therefore they invent gods to "give us morals" that are supposedly unchanging, but still change over time, the believers are just blinded to it.

Everyone gets their morality from the same place, some are just more honest about it than others.
 
Everyone gets their morality from the same place, some are just more honest about it than others.

The arrogance of this statement is breathtaking. Not all morality is based on self interest. Altruism does exist.
 
The arrogance of this statement is breathtaking. Not all morality is based on self interest. Altruism does exist.

Nope, sorry. I don't believe that true altrusim exists at all. Everyone gets something out of helping others, even if it's just feeling good about themselves. Pure altruism, getting absolutely nothing whatsoever out of an act for another person doesn't happen IMO.
 
The right kinds of prayers will be answered.

Circular reasoning warning.

What kind of prayers will be answered? "The right kind." If your prayers weren't answered, it must be that you didn't pray properly. It couldn't possibly be that you're speaking to your own imagination.

:roll:
 
Circular reasoning warning.

What kind of prayers will be answered? "The right kind." If your prayers weren't answered, it must be that you didn't pray properly. It couldn't possibly be that you're speaking to your own imagination.

:roll:

I wasn't when I did it. Prayers for wealth and fame do not get answered. Prayers for health and well-being do. Of course you have to BELIEVE for this to work.
 
Nope, sorry.

I forgive you.

I don't believe that true altrusim exists at all. Everyone gets something out of helping others, even if it's just feeling good about themselves. Pure altruism, getting absolutely nothing whatsoever out of an act for another person doesn't happen IMO.

You're mistaking self-interest for selfishness. They are not the same. Your definition of altruism is a straw man. Nobody is saying that the altruist doesn't get personal satisfaction. The definition of "pure altruism" isn't getting nothing whatsoever out of an act that benefits others. If somebody does something good for somebody, as great material expense to themselves, for nothing other than the personal satisfaction of doing the right thing, that is altruism. Happens all the time. QED
 
You are the one making the claim. Are you going to present this mathematical proof that 1+1=/=2, or will you continue making excuses and other diversions?
Too bad. I've done the proof. I've done it by hand and have no intention of redoing it and then trying to figure out how to post it. I am uninterested in whether you accept it or not. Your acceptance has no bearing on it's veracity.
Please support your previous claims with the following:

1) Present the mathematical proof that demonstrates 1+1 does not equal 2.
Already explained.
Thank you for conceding that you will NOT defend your claim or show that you are correct. You will only assert you are right and nothing more.

Claiming that once upon time in a far away thread, long long ago you showed you were right is not proof or evidence of anything other than your unverifiable opinion.


And as I said, then they cannot be absolutes.
It appears we may be using different definitions of "absolute". Please provide your definition.

I have been defining it as "free from imperfection; complete; perfect"

edit: its also possible I should be using another word rather than absolute since it appears to have far broader implications than desired.
I think you DO need to defend them, unless you now agree that nothing is absolute.
I do NOT agree that nothing is absolute. My position is this: if absolutes exist in reality, certainty in their existence is unknowable (at least for now).


Do you understand the difference between:
1) absolutes exist and theists believe in the wrong ones.
2) absolutes may or may not exist but either way theistic reasoning is flawed.


Not true. You present a pattern of behavior. It's your default. It is similar to your position on the existence of God. Although it is not proven, either way, to you, because of the evidence you have seen, you reject the existence of God... at least until the opposite is proven to you.

You have a pattern of behavior... the same old tired militant atheist debate tactics. Although it cannot be proven that future posts will follow this same pattern, because of the evidence I have seen, I reject that you will post in any other way... at least until the opppsite it proven. I suppose that my perception of you is equal in logic to your belief in the existence of God.
Quite often we see a "creative dance", a flurry of excuses accompanied by sarcastic comments, attempts to demean Forum members personally, and smokescreens to conceal the lack of support for one's claims. All in an effort to avoid a direct answer to sincere questions and criticism. These tactics are not substitutes for actual debate of ideas and topics WITH substantiation of claims made.



2) Present the philosophical proof that demonstrates 1+1 does not equal 2 based on the claim that "all concepts, even definitions, are man-made, and therefore subject to change."
Tell us the absolute definition of the word "ONE", both in the past and in the future. When you can do that in absolute terms, you will have proven me wrong.

I can't disprove something when you haven't even STATED your case.

Is this your claim? Philosophically, 1+1 does not equal two BECAUSE both in the past and in the future the definition of the word "ONE" is NOT free from imperfection; complete; perfect (absolute).
 
Last edited:
Circular reasoning warning.

What kind of prayers will be answered? "The right kind." If your prayers weren't answered, it must be that you didn't pray properly. It couldn't possibly be that you're speaking to your own imagination.

:roll:

Especially since there's absolutely no objective evidence whatsoever that *ANY* prayers *EVER* get answered.
 
I wasn't when I did it. Prayers for wealth and fame do not get answered. Prayers for health and well-being do. Of course you have to BELIEVE for this to work.

Oh, there are MORE conditions? Well, color me surprised.
 
There is a big difference between religion and spirituality. Both have faith in God. Religion includes rites and rituals that may seem dated. In both, prayer is important.

Faith is easy. Assert your belief in the existence of God. Pray to God. That's it. The right kinds of prayers will be answered.

Wrong. You do not have to have any faith in any godhead to be a spiritual being.
 
Oh, there are MORE conditions? Well, color me surprised.

Surely you don't think that anybody can do it easily, or they would be doing it. I don't see why the existence of conditions invalidates it.
 
Wrong. You do not have to have any faith in any godhead to be a spiritual being.

I wasn't getting into that, but of course you are correct. A godhead is a construct out of the divine.
 
Surely you don't think that anybody can do it easily, or they would be doing it. I don't see why the existence of conditions invalidates it.

It makes total sense that God would make himself difficult to reach, and then torture people who miss him...eternally.
 
I forgive you.



You're mistaking self-interest for selfishness. They are not the same. Your definition of altruism is a straw man. Nobody is saying that the altruist doesn't get personal satisfaction. The definition of "pure altruism" isn't getting nothing whatsoever out of an act that benefits others. If somebody does something good for somebody, as great material expense to themselves, for nothing other than the personal satisfaction of doing the right thing, that is altruism. Happens all the time. QED

Then your definition of altruism is very different than how most define it. Most see it as giving something for nothing, a concept that does not exist.
 
Thank you for conceding that you will NOT defend your claim or show that you are correct. You will only assert you are right and nothing more.

Claiming that once upon time in a far away thread, long long ago you showed you were right is not proof or evidence of anything other than your unverifiable opinion.

Never claimed I did it in a thread. I did it in college in Advanced Linear Algebra.



It appears we may be using different definitions of "absolute". Please provide your definition.

Complete, total, unrestricted, unchangeable.

I have been defining it as "free from imperfection; complete; perfect"

Similar.

edit: its also possible I should be using another word rather than absolute since it appears to have far broader implications than desired.

I would agree. The context I am using is completely free from restriction. COMPLETELY. When you say that something can be absolute in concept, but not in reality, it is not absolute.

I do NOT agree that nothing is absolute. My position is this: if absolutes exist in reality, certainty in their existence is unknowable (at least for now).

If we cannot know if it is absolute, than in our reality it is not. I believe we are saying the same things, but I am eliminating the word absolute from this definition. In order for it to be absolute, it must be so universally, both in concept, reality, and perception.

Do you understand the difference between:
1) absolutes exist and theists believe in the wrong ones.
2) absolutes may or may not exist but either way theistic reasoning is flawed.

I see the difference, though both premises are incorrect.



Quite often we see a "creative dance", a flurry of excuses accompanied by sarcastic comments, attempts to demean Forum members personally, and smokescreens to conceal the lack of support for one's claims. All in an effort to avoid a direct answer to sincere questions and criticism. These tactics are not substitutes for actual debate of ideas and topics WITH substantiation of claims made.

So, no response. I made an analogy, one that you do not seen to want... or be able to defend. Demonstrating the veracity of a position by analogizing it to a position that one's opponent argues and understands can certainly make it clearer. My observations are similar to those that you have regarding God's existence. You may divert if you like, but that doesn't alter the validity of what I said.


I can't disprove something when you haven't even STATED your case.

But you CAN answer the question. Tell us the absolute... using my definition of absolute, the absolute definition of the word "ONE" both in the past and future.

Is this your claim? Philosophically, 1+1 does not equal two BECAUSE both in the past and in the future the definition of the word "ONE" is NOT free from imperfection; complete; perfect (absolute).

No. Try this. Philosophically, 1+1 may not equal 2 because both in the past and in the future, the definition of the word "ONE" is not absolute... unrestricted, complete, total, and unchangeable.
 
After a recent and fairly amiable discussion in a thread about living authentically, I came to the conclusion that it was fine for people to believe that homosexuality was wrong and that as long as people did not denigrate, dehumanize, or persecute gays and lesbians that their beliefs did not entail any degree of hatred.

I believe that believing in Christianity is wrong. I think it is wrong that some people believe that the Bible is God's authority on how people should live and that it is infallible and above any criticism. Furthermore, I find it wrong that some people put their faith in Paul who clearly held sexist and anti gay sentiments. Now obviously, he was a man who came from a culture very different than the one we live in now, but that is not how the people who follow his words view him. They see him as speaking on behalf of God. Personally, I think Paul was a con man, a guy who may very well have believed what he was preaching, but was ultimately nothing but a cult leader, perhaps even a Roman spy who became enculturated and then got too big for his own britches. I also believe that Christianity has often worked in opposition to progress, has been used to oppress groups like women and gays, and has even been used by its believers to justify horrible atrocities.

Now does that make me anti Christian? Does that make me a hater of Christians? If someone is entitled to believe that homosexuality is wrong, am I not similarly entitled to believe that Christianity is wrong? Can I do so without dehumanizing, denigrating, or persecuting Christians? Am I not as entitled to speak up about how I feel Christianity is wrong if others are entitled to openly share their beliefs that homosexuality is wrong? Can I hate Christianity without hating Christians? Where is the line?

No, you cannot claim it is wrong because you don't have a really old book to back up your view.

^_^
 
Then your definition of altruism is very different than how most define it. Most see it as giving something for nothing, a concept that does not exist.
Not to be a definition-troll, but I disagree.

The common definition is to do something for the "benefit of others." The end result of which is "something," rather than"nothing." And while it's true that doing charity helps those other than the person donating their time or money, there are indirect benefits to living in a society that promotes selfless charity.

I'm not an altruist, but it seems that the basic belief is that if you do something that benefits others, it makes the community a better place to live in, therefore the person donating the benefit gets to enjoy living in a slightly better world. You could use logic to argue anything... since I just used it to argue that nothing is purely "selfless" but I think the basic idea of altruism is more fruitful and indirectly beneficial than your argument makes it out to be. But maybe I'm simply twisting words to be combative?

Correct me if I misunderstood your view point. Thanks.

:peace
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom