- Joined
- Sep 22, 2005
- Messages
- 11,430
- Reaction score
- 2,282
- Location
- Los Angeles
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Sounds...wow...sounds no better than nazism... Just replace "religion" with "conservativism", "capitalism", "judaism" etc. and, bang, atheist nazism.
Religions do not create any conflicts,disputes, strife,hatred, famines, war, on and on......
Ignorance, fear, intolerance, disrespect, does these things.
Religion, in history, has caused every one of those things, including famine. Which religion was trying to starve which religion into submission in Bosnia?
This assertion is as much a statement of belief as the existence of the Creator Deity, and rests on as much empirical support.
First, absence of proof is not proof of absence.
In the particular phenomenon of religious belief, it necessarily exists in the absence of proof--hence the use of the word "faith".
Second, the Bible is not an historical document, nor does it necessarily contradict evolution.
If one charts the progression of creation through the aforementioned seven days, one sees that there is no contradiction with evolutionary theory.
The metaphorical creation myth of Genesis and Darwin are not necessarily in opposition to each other. Darwin neither proves nor disproves God.
Third, personality and "soul" are two different constructs: one an observed psychological phenomenon, the other a metaphysical construct whose import and even existence is a matter of debate among religious thinkers. Buddhism, for example, despite its assertion of rebirth, also asserts the doctrine of anatman--"no soul" in Sanskrit.
Yes. Personality is an observed expression. "Soul" is an imaginary concept.
I do not desire a world filled with recovering Catholics. I do not share your vision of what is "best".
I've never denied anyone their freedom to be wrong. I seek to avoid exercising that freedom in myself, however. That's why I don't have a religion.
That's true. Only problem is, if they are correct, then they need to justify how 75% of America and 30%(80% if you include all other religions beside christianity) of the entire world has, all of a sudden, a "mental disorder".
How about I just say religion isn't a disease. mmk? I have yet to see any proof that it is from you.Don't worry yourself any about helping those poor people who have that horrid disease, religion, just call the people who recognize their need for help "Nazis", and you'll feel all better about yourself.
A great many people I have met assure me there are multiple proofs of the Divine, and have stated their proofs with specificity. Are their interpretations of certain phenomena necessarily accurate or correct? I do not know.You people always like to say that. It makes you feel good, but then you don't admit there's not one shred of evidence for any religion whatsoever.
The irony of this is that William of Occam articulated his principle as means of evaluating and critiquing the theological debates of his time (11th Century). William himself was an English monastic.Frankly, I'm not required to prove there isn't a god. It's not logically possible. However, since nothing observed requires a Magic Sky Pixie to explain it's existence, God is not necessary, and thus by Occam's Razor, a superfluous hindrance to intellectual progress.
I have not made a positive assertion of a deity. I have made a positive assertion of the necessity of religion, and of the inevitability of religion.You people's failure to provide the least bit of evidence to support your claim is your problem. You people are making positive assertions of the existence of something and don't have any evidence whatsoever to back it up. The logical failure is evident there. Also, religion has been a HUGE millstone around the collective neck of humanity, repeatedly interfering and inhibiting progress towards more enlightened existence.
I will only say that the clergy I have known explicitly reject the notion that faith must reject evidence.No. Modern religious belief, as practiced by the Jews, the Christians, and the Muslims, demand not faith in the absence of evidence, but faith to reject evidence. It takes an enormous amount of "faith" to pretend that the religion promoted by the internally inconsistent Bible, for example, has anything to do with any possible "real" god. The stories conflict logically, the stories frequently simply don't fit reality (Noah's Flood being the easiest to dispell, but not the only one), and its simply not possible for a healthy rational mind to accept the document, and hence the religion it advertises, as anything except the rantings of dead ignorant savages.
This is a rather pathetic straw man argument. Nowhere have I asserted, claimed, or implied the inerrancy of any sacred text.A-hah. The usual "it's all a metaphor, not meant to be taken literally argument, except for those places where it can't be checked, and then by golly! it's absolutely inerrantly true!" argument.
Your argument is its own refutation. There is considerable evidence of a catastrophic flood some 6,000 years ago covering at least a significant portion of the Tigris-Euphrates valley. Additionally, one should not lose sight of the fact that the last Ice Age ended a mere 14,000 years ago; the Flood myth may merely be the murky remembrance of the ending of that period of glaciation. Thus, the statement the Bible "lies" about the Flood is simply not proven. If the Bible is not lying about the Flood, reversing your logic, the divine origin of Jesus is quite reasonable.If the bible is lying about the Flood, and it is, then there's absolutely no reason - that means NONE - to accept the magical hymen of Mary or any of the other circus acts in the first century that form the basis of "evidence" for Christianity. Jesus, if he existed, was the son of a human sperm donor, just like everyone else.
Yes you do. It's called atheism.I've never denied anyone their freedom to be wrong. I seek to avoid exercising that freedom in myself, however. That's why I don't have a religion.
How about I just say religion isn't a disease. mmk? I have yet to see any proof that it is from you.
Could be one or the other or both. The point is that very few religions stress teaching WHY their followers should do things and instead focus on WHAT the followers should do. This is understandable because many religions tend to be highly complex and NOT intuitive.But is that "blind" faith? Or is it merely misinformed?
I agree but most of these learning institutions are pathetic compared to how university classes are taught.Sunday schools and Bible study groups seem to me to contradict you on this. People do spend time at least attempting to become educated, and to educate others--with no doubt varying degrees of success.
Well i didn't make the claim. I can understand why you thought so but I wasn't making such a claim.You never made the explicit claim. However, your sole example pertained to the afterlife, thus implying the predicate. The significance of the predicate is that it inaccurately narrows the scope of religious belief and its significance to the individual.
Obviously.:mrgreen:While what comes after death is of great importance to many, how one lives until death is for many a religious question of equal or greater importance.
Assuming ignorance is Bliss is assuming that the probability of being ignorant allows a greater chance of favorable outcomes than knowledge."Ignorance is bliss". I will leave a judgment of the intelligence and rationality of the debaters to you.
I don't see how me saying that has anything to do with you thinking I claimed what you said.celticlord said:"No religion" is attainable within the human psyche:scourge99 said:Isn't that a good thing thus tipping the scales ever so slightly toward "no religion".
So its an argument to popularity you wish to propose?How can the scales be tipped towards something not even feasible? My assertion has always been that religious belief of some form is intrinsic to the human condition. Religion--whether celebrated as moral guide or derided as voodoo and superstition--is one of the oldest and enduring aspects of human society and civilization; do we dismiss this as coincidence?
Considering that all these do-gooders could have done the same without a belief in God and the fact that atheists and agnostics do such virtuous things as well, then yes I can argue that religion can be removed without fear of losing such positive things.Yet there are also innumerable examples of beliefs working to alleviate human suffering: Mother Teresa, Damien de Veuster, Albert Schweitzer, Siddartha Gautama, Francis of Assissi, Mohandas "Mahatma" Ghandi, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., just to name a few. Is removing these definitive goods a worthy price to eradicate the putative evils?
A great many people I have met assure me there are multiple proofs of the Divine, and have stated their proofs with specificity. Are their interpretations of certain phenomena necessarily accurate or correct? I do not know.
The irony of this is that William of Occam articulated his principle as means of evaluating and critiquing the theological debates of his time (11th Century). William himself was an English monastic.
However, if you assert there is no God, then yes, you are required to prove your thesis if it is to be accepted as logical argument.
Given your admission above that such proof is impossible, your insistent denial of the possibility of a deity (or deities) is irrational on its face.
Yet the debate of the moment is not the reality or unreality of the deity, but of the necessity of religiosity that impels the assertion of the one or the other. The fervor and anger of your commentary speaks of a most passionate faith in the rightness of your position--of a religious conviction in this regard. The anger of your refutation merely demonstrates the necessity of religion that has been my thesis throughout.
I have not made a positive assertion of a deity. I have made a positive assertion of the necessity of religion, and of the inevitability of religion.
Further, while religious authorities have often impeded scientific research, claiming that religion itself is a "millstone" is paradoxically yet another example of a religiously inclined position.
As for scientific progress leading to "enlightenment"--also a claim lacking in substantiation. (you should take note of the difference between pointing out the unproved nature of your assertions and a disputing of them.)
I will only say that the clergy I have known explicitly reject the notion that faith must reject evidence.
This is a rather pathetic straw man argument. Nowhere have I asserted, claimed, or implied the inerrancy of any sacred text.
Your argument is its own refutation. There is considerable evidence of a catastrophic flood some 6,000 years ago covering at least a significant portion of the Tigris-Euphrates valley.
Additionally, one should not lose sight of the fact that the last Ice Age ended a mere 14,000 years ago; the Flood myth may merely be the murky remembrance of the ending of that period of glaciation.
Thus, the statement the Bible "lies" about the Flood is simply not proven. If the Bible is not lying about the Flood, reversing your logic, the divine origin of Jesus is quite reasonable.
Yes you do. It's called atheism.
A great many people I have met assure me there are multiple proofs of the Divine, and have stated their proofs with specificity. Are their interpretations of certain phenomena necessarily accurate or correct? I do not know.
However, if you assert there is no God, then yes, you are required to prove your thesis if it is to be accepted as logical argument. Given your admission above that such proof is impossible, your insistent denial of the possibility of a deity (or deities) is irrational on its face.
Yet the debate of the moment is not the reality or unreality of the deity, but of the necessity of religiosity that impels the assertion of the one or the other. The fervor and anger of your commentary speaks of a most passionate faith in the rightness of your position--of a religious conviction in this regard. The anger of your refutation merely demonstrates the necessity of religion that has been my thesis throughout.
I have not made a positive assertion of a deity. I have made a positive assertion of the necessity of religion, and of the inevitability of religion.
Your argument is its own refutation. There is considerable evidence of a catastrophic flood some 6,000 years ago covering at least a significant portion of the Tigris-Euphrates valley. Additionally, one should not lose sight of the fact that the last Ice Age ended a mere 14,000 years ago; the Flood myth may merely be the murky remembrance of the ending of that period of glaciation. Thus, the statement the Bible "lies" about the Flood is simply not proven. If the Bible is not lying about the Flood, reversing your logic, the divine origin of Jesus is quite reasonable.
Yes you do. It's called atheism.
Don't forget that EVERY culture around the world has a myth involving a great deluge, divine intervenhtion/instruction, that eradicated all the low-lands. For that to be the case there are a few possibiliities :
a) This story is an elaborate fiction deemed worthy of maintaining over the centuries
b) There was a massive deluge of global scale that wiped out all those living in low lands (where did the water come from?? This really is the most intriguing possibility... because IF the deluge can be shown to be accurate.... where does the 'truth' in these stories end?? Soddom and Gomorrah? Lots wife being turned into a pillar of 'salt' ??)
c) There really was a 'deluge' in the time of the first cultures BEFORE humanity spread out to the four corners
None of those. While every major culture does have a major flood story, virtually none of them have more than a few details in common. The Chinese flood stories involve flooding from various rivers and many people survived not to mention why the Gods did it was vastly different. Historically, we know that the area around the black sea did have a massive flood and the earliest flood story of note, the Epic of Gilgamesh is believed to have mutated into the Enuma Elish and eventually got into the Torah as traders from the north moved down into what is now Israel.
The actual evidence for a global flood is absolutely nil. Furthermore, every push to prove a global flood comes up short and often results in even more problems. Walleye tried to argue it by citing a theory that its own creator states requires a miracle to deal with the extraordinary heat. The problem with compacting a global flood into 6,000~4,000 years ago is primarily the resulting heat. The Bible itself kills all life by stating the waters came from within the Earth. Releasing trillions of cubic meters of superheated water instantly will poach virtually all life.
from within the earth does not necessarily equate to super heated water...most springs put out cold water, and they are certainly from within the earth.
most of those OT stories are sensationalized fiction, or exaggerations of some minor event blown out of proportion....
The only acceptable answer is a world with multiple religions. Both one religion and no religion are too strict in so far as "limiting" human thought.
The only acceptable answer is a world with multiple religions. Both one religion and no religion are too strict in so far as "limiting" human thought.
My logic in creating this thread was this:
A world with no religion is not necessarily a world in which religion is outlawed, but a world in which religion never existed.
My logic in creating this thread was this:
A world with no religion is not necessarily a world in which religion is outlawed, but a world in which religion never existed.
I was simply envisioning a world in which the large majority of people finally woke up and realized what religion was, a process of communication between the subconscious and the conscious minds, not a mystic pathway to real-world secret knowledge.
Still that would be a world where no peoples were creative enough to entertain ideas about our existence, our creation, our purpose, and our immortality in some form or shape. That's a fairly limited world. Unless you allow for Gods to be exchanged for aliens or the word God just replaced with other words describing similar metaphysical theories. Humans have a creative thoughtful philosophical essence that sorta goes hand in hand with a variety of religious beliefs.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?