|
|
Moonlith
Bad-mannered
Supreme Hero
If all else fails, use Fiyah!
|
posted June 03, 2008 10:54 AM |
|
Edited by Moonlith at 11:13, 03 Jun 2008.
|
You know what really makes me laugh? People who claim they are self-convinced there is a god.
Let me try and debunk any solid grounds for backing up religion here 
First of all, religion is all about Faith, BELIEF, and as such, any religious person trying to use science or FACTS to proof he or she is right is a walking contradiction and a fool
What this means is that a debate is fundamentally impossible to begin with, since religious people have no place in a debate based on facts and logic - they have only ONE counter, and that counter is "I believe".
Now then, there are two types of people who believe:
A) The ones that believe in a mainstream religion
B) The ones that are self-convinced there is something greater. Note I say CONVINCED here.
Let me explain why both have no solid grounds.
A): Back in the good old days, there was good grounds for believing in some higher deity. It was a good and logical theory, at the time, and people believed it. If you don't know what causes thunder and lightning, it is an obvious assumption some pissed off higher being is causing it.
Through time, however, time and time again, through science people began to discover the true reasons behind many of these natural wonders. Now, under normal circumstances, whenever a theory is proven false (since religion fundamentally is nothing but a theory that just couldn't be proven), the theory is let go of. For some reason, people clung to religion regardless (probably due to those boogie man stories of landing in a pit of fire if you don't believe the crap they spewed at you. Yes, in essence, it is no different from scaring your children with monster stories just to make them OBEY!).
Anyway, in my world, whenever a book contains a lie, 2 lies, 3 lies, more lies, its credibility goes DOWN fast exponentially. If a book contains obvious lies, the author needs to do some pretty damn good convincing to make the other crap appear like truth.
As such, any religious book contains the following:
1) Lies / bullcrap, proven by science.
2) Lies / bullcrap, YET TO BE proven by science.
(It's funny to note how through time number 1 increased and number 2 decreased)
Of any books existing, none contain as much bullcrap, lies, superstitious warnings and twistings as religious books, all backed up by the lousy argument: "It's all a matter of how you interpret the original stories".... *smacks forehead* Of course, how could I be so foolish, it is all a matter of how you interpret 2000+ year old fairytales...
Now for some reason, people continue to believe in religion. Why? To belong to a group? To feel they are not completely useless because their fragile mind couldn't handle that truth? Or is it because they truly believe in that fictional character as portrayed by that book full of lies ? Because let me tell you, there is as much ground for believing flying pink elephants truly exist, as there is for believing such kind of God exists.... And yet why is the former so easily dismissed, and the latter not? Because more people believe in the same thing? We have a term for that: indoctrination. Power of the masses works wonder too.
There are people who claim they don't, of course, believe EVERYTHING their religion tells them... But then I wonder why you would believe in half of it to begin with if you don't believe the other half.... You're not a Christian then, you're a half-Christian. And that's not really anything.
This brings me to B.
B): There are also people who DON'T believe in mass religion and instead are convinced some higher deity exists. Again I wonder, on what grounds? Did you look up at the sky one day and tell yourself out of the blue; "I believe there is some higher being we haven't seen yet" for no apparent reason? I don't believe so, there is a ground for this. And this ground is other religion.
Simply put, if in this western society there was no religion, you wouldn't even BEGIN to think about some higher deity.
Of course there are many things science hasn't explained yet, maybe never will. However, does that give grounds to concluding therefor it MUST be religious in nature? Of course not, at the most it is a theory; one that can never be proven.
What really pisses me off, is religious people trying to sell their crap as truth, and IMPOSE it on others.
If someone can give me any solid grounds for believing in religion, please do so. As it is, I cannot see even one. Saying you believe "just because you can" is pure bullcrap, yet it seems to be the only reason left....
Which says a lot about my conclusion Believing in religion = pure bullcrap.
Now I'm sorry if some people feel offended by this... But I feel equally offended when religious people try to push their ungrounded believes onto others. Fact is, aside from having no logical backup, there isn't even GROUND to BELIEVE....
Simple question: Why is Zeus is dismissed as a fairytale, and the God YOU believe in, not ? What makes them different? Just because a huge bunch of stupid people follow one DOES NOT give solid backup to justify the more likely existance of one over another.
George Carlin
The 10 comandments <---- So true...
Mind you, I am not against spiritualism. Spiritualism =/= religion though.
Quote:
"So," said the wealthy business man to the priest, "it's a deal then! You keep them stupid, and I'll keep them poor."
Quote:
Religion is based, I think, primarily and mainly upon fear. It is partly the terror of the unknown and partly, as I have said, the wish to feel that you have a kind of elder brother who will stand by you in all your troubles and disputes....A good world needs knowledge, kindliness, and courage; it does not need a regretful hankering after the past or a fettering of the free intelligence by the words uttered long ago by ignorant men. -- Bertrand Russell
____________
|
|
Elvin
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Endless Revival
|
|
posted June 03, 2008 11:32 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Now for some reason, people continue to believe in religion. Why? To belong to a group? To feel they are not completely useless because their fragile mind couldn't handle that truth? Or is it because they truly believe in that fictional character as portrayed by that book full of lies ? Because let me tell you, there is as much ground for believing flying pink elephants truly exist, as there is for believing such kind of God exists.... And yet why is the former so easily dismissed, and the latter not? Because more people believe in the same thing? We have a term for that: indoctrination. Power of the masses works wonder too.
Slightly ridiculous reasoning my friend  Of course flying pink elephants exist. The reason they are dismissed is that they make no sense, have no significance, no role. As for the former argument you duscard religion as a trend much as emo. I'd expect you to know better than that whether you believe in a religion or not. Besides you are pissed at the 'foolish' people who do that, how can you really believe all are like that? Shallow if you ask me.
Quote:
There are people who claim they don't, of course, believe EVERYTHING their religion tells them... But then I wonder why you would believe in half of it to begin with if you don't believe the other half.... You're not a Christian then, you're a half-Christian. And that's not really anything.
Again makes little sense. Believing in the essence of a religion's teachings but not in every single word of say the bible does not make you half a Christian. Besides the book was not written by divine element even if it might have been the inspiration.
Quote:
Of course there are many things science hasn't explained yet, maybe never will. However, does that give grounds to concluding therefor it MUST be religious in nature? Of course not, at the most it is a theory; one that can never be proven.
You miss the whole point. Things are not religious or scientific, they just are what they are. It's how you can perceive them, how you try to define them. Some theories will be totally pointless of course.
____________
H5 is still alive and kicking, join us in the Duel Map discord server!
Map also hosted on Moddb
|
|
Moonlith
Bad-mannered
Supreme Hero
If all else fails, use Fiyah!
|
|
posted June 03, 2008 11:40 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Slightly ridiculous reasoning my friend Of course flying pink elephants exist. The reason they are dismissed is that they make no sense, have no significance, no role. As for the former argument you duscard religion as a trend much as emo. I'd expect you to know better than that whether you believe in a religion or not. Besides you are pissed at the 'foolish' people who do that, how can you really believe all are like that? Shallow if you ask me.
It is my way of saying I don't see why people follow religion By all means, give me a reason then. If not for the possible reasons I listed, then why?
Quote:
Again makes little sense. Believing in the essence of a religion's teachings but not in every single word of say the bible does not make you half a Christian. Besides the book was not written by divine element even if it might have been the inspiration.
What "essence" ? Morals? You don't need religion for that... What essence are you talking about?
Quote:
You miss the whole point. Things are not religious or scientific, they just are what they are. It's how you can perceive them, how you try to define them. Some theories will be totally pointless of course.
Of course. And I'm saying religious is a poor way of perceiving things, as it has no solid grounds.
____________
|
|
Elvin
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Endless Revival
|
|
posted June 03, 2008 11:49 AM |
|
|
No you don't need religion for that, however people's individual morals are not strong enough, it can be guidance to them. Just as it can doom them and make them blind.
And no I can give you no reason to believe, that's a personal choice. I've always believed that such discussions are pointless because eventually you will be forced to agree or agree to disagree, hence why I usually avoid them. You can learn something along the way but in the end I find I have better things to do
____________
H5 is still alive and kicking, join us in the Duel Map discord server!
Map also hosted on Moddb
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted June 03, 2008 12:21 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Faith is not "pure imagination". Rather the "substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen". NOT the Hope of things not seen or the evidence of things hoped for. Because that would be cognition, sense, science.
I disagree.
How is faith evidence of things not seen? Of course I believe by 'not seen' you mean undetected, ie. no evidence, so there is a contradiction in terms here but I'm willing to let that slip and say that I disagree that faith is a form of evidence.
People can have faith in anything but it's not really any kind of evidence relating to those things.
Faith is mere stubbornness That's not even an attack, it is. It's believing in something with no need for proof, even if it means rejecting counter-proof. It provides a very good shield for religion
I also wouldn't say that hoping for things not seen or evidence for things hoped for is science. At all.
In fact, what
Hope has nothing to do with science, apart from a driving force. Hope alone creates nothing.
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 03, 2008 03:03 PM |
|
|
Quote:
We don't have all the information, and are making observations without all the factors.
As far as we know, we have all of the factors. Of course, we know that we probably don't, which is why we're trying to find out more. But until we find more, there's no reason for us not to attempt to figure everything out based on what we do know. Of course, new knowledge might require us to change or rethink our findings.
Quote:
For some reason, however, we keep saying that there is no other forces we can't see, touch, taste, or measure.
The difference between gravity and God is this: we feel gravity. It is a physical force. Nobody feels God except as a placebo.
Quote:
You can find a "study" to show just about anything, but that doesn't make it true.
But it sounds correct based on what I've seen. A lot of people think (granted, I live in the Bible Belt) that atheist=satanist.
Quote:
A Christian would be a better candidate than an athiest.
And that's one of the things that's wrong with America today.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Galev
Famous Hero
Galiv :D
|
|
posted June 03, 2008 03:42 PM |
|
Edited by Galev at 15:43, 03 Jun 2008.
|
Quote:
Simple question: Why is Zeus is dismissed as a fairytale, and the God YOU believe in, not ? What makes them different? Just because a huge bunch of stupid people follow one DOES NOT give solid backup to justify the more likely existance of one over another.
Thank you very merry much of your kindness goodness to be a lovely man like that: calling me a member of "a huge bunch of stupid people".
On the other hand
Quote:
I disagree.
You may.
Quote:
How is faith evidence of things not seen? Of course I believe by 'not seen' you mean undetected,
Quite not: I meant undecetable (more precisely, by senses). You can't see heat = undetected -by eyes. You take special glasses and the problem solved. Or: The tiny kind of insect yet unknown because no man could ever encounter it =undetected. But you could detect it, if you encountered it.
But: I use some paralells: If your eyes mean all your senses and eg. your skin means your faith: You can never detect heat with your eyes but you can detect it through faith. Thus you have evidence of it, by faith. [in the Hungarian translation, by Károli there is a word that might rather mean "confidence" in English nowdays, but as a Hungarian, it is hard for me to be exact and correct with these "defin(it)e" problems about what a word means.
Quote:
I disagree that faith is a form of evidence.
You still may do that, as you please.
Quote:
People can have faith in anything but it's not really any kind of evidence relating to those things.
There is a pale but certain difference betveen "anything" and "one concrete thing" -if I'm right. Nevermind.
Quote:
Faith is mere stubbornness
In some aspect it is. (but might without "mere")
Quote:
Hope has nothing to do with science, apart from a driving force.
Correct me if I misunderstood, but hope is only the "mere" engine of the car. It does nothing with it's motion, it does nothing with the car. (I could use many other paralells, like fuel, wheel etc. It's not a strict like of paralell, I know there are many other forces behind science's progression, so hope is not "the engine of it" -not strictly. We could of course chat about how everyone has hopes even without realising them as their motives, but that would be a wholu new thread...)
Quote:
Hope alone creates nothing.
We agree.
|
|
executor
Famous Hero
Otherworldly Ambassador
|
|
posted June 03, 2008 04:33 PM |
|
|
Quote:
A lot of people think (granted, I live in the Bible Belt) that atheist=satanist.
Rather off-topic commentary:
From satan's point of view, atheism would be much more an efficient tool than satanism. Atheism implies that there is no God, while satanism points out that there is God, whom you oppose. That way, atheism would be more efficient in turning people away from believing in God and worshiping God than satanism could ever be.
____________
Understanding is a three-edged sword.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 03, 2008 04:39 PM |
|
|
I would, however, like for you to respond to the question: why believe in the Abrahamic God and not Zeus?
Quote:
You can't see heat = undetected -by eyes. You take special glasses and the problem solved.
Or, you know, you can feel it with your skin.
Quote:
But you could detect it, if you encountered it.
If I ever encounter God, I'll detect him/her/it. Until then...
Quote:
From satan's point of view, atheism would be much more an efficient tool than satanism.
On the other hand, Christianity is an easier path for Satan to get people to turn to Satan worship, since Christians believe in God and Satan, whereas atheists believe in neither.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted June 03, 2008 05:29 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Simply put, if in this western society there was no religion, you wouldn't even BEGIN to think about some higher deity.
Great, we are becoming too "humanistic"... Just kidding, I have nothing against them. But it is perfectly possible that we do believe in something higher and lower than us...(In a way, making us nazis)
Just the same with science, if people don't have the need to evolve or satisfy some need, people don't invent... People tend to philosophy, then (best scenario)... Btw, saying that religion is BS on a few pages all the time isn't fun to read give some new reasons 'cuz we know we can't perceive a god.
And I do go out sometimes between 2 and 4... No pink elephants, yet...
Quote:
*sigh* oh my god people still with this over and over again..you wont convince anybody here and either change the minds or thoughts of the others if its that the purpose,if its not then I or other could use that time typing for other better things than lose the time here discussing what the other should believe.If he believes in god then its good and if the other no,whatever..then he doesnt what you should care so much if he does or not,taking care or thinking about our own problems and family its enough than being chatting in a forum with unknow ppl who you dont even care.
riiiight... Good luck with that... We are exchanging ideas. That is the glory of man or am I mistaken? We are discussing (u ppl have no idea how good I feel reading and "participating" this discussion) and maybe ppl desire a bit more than just money and family problems. After you solved those problems, then what? Are you going to follow some man who helped you through those problems and has some ideas about jews, black ppl and homosexuals and the use of toxic gass without thinking? Good luck with that...
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
OmegaDestroyer
Hero of Order
Fox or Chicken?
|
|
posted June 03, 2008 06:45 PM |
|
|
Quote:
A Christian would be a better candidate than an athiest.
And that's one of the things that's wrong with America today.
The generally intolerant attitudes towards atheists and religion alike?
____________
The giant has awakened
You drink my blood and drown
Wrath and raving I will not stop
You'll never take me down
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 03, 2008 07:07 PM |
|
|
I have seen intolerance to Islam and pagan religions, as well as to atheism, mostly coming from Christians.
I have not seen American atheists having an intolerant attitude to religion. They oppose it, but they aren't intolerant.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
OmegaDestroyer
Hero of Order
Fox or Chicken?
|
|
posted June 03, 2008 07:52 PM |
|
|
Calling religious people superstitutous, illogical, irrational, foolish, ignorant, etc., is quite intolerant.
Christians don't get it as much as they give it, I'll give you that, but they have taken quite a bit of flak in the recent years with the scandals of the Catholic church. And despite what some Catholics I've spoken to think, they are Christians. Plus the association of Christians with neoconservative Republicans isn't really the most positive light to be cast in.
____________
The giant has awakened
You drink my blood and drown
Wrath and raving I will not stop
You'll never take me down
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted June 03, 2008 08:11 PM |
|
|
Quote:
But it sounds correct based on what I've seen. A lot of people think (granted, I live in the Bible Belt) that atheist=satanist.
You not only live in the Bible Belt, you live in a small town in the Bible Belt. It's not even close to being representative. (it's not representative about many other things as well)
I live in an area traditionally considered to be on the edge of the Bible Belt, i.e. semi-Bible Belt. I think there is a fairly small minority who even go to church on a regular basis. And out of those people, an even smaller percentage who would refuse to vote for someone who was an admitted athiest.
This is purely a guess, but I would be surprised if more than 10% of the population in this country went to church on a regular basis. And I would be VERY surprised if it was more than 20%. Yes, it's a guess, but I've traveled this country extensively and have also lived in, or spent a fair amount of time in 10 different states, including 5 western states, 4 borderline Bible Belt states (2 south and 2 midwest), and a New England state.
|
|
e-lysander
Known Hero
Lysander
|
|
posted June 03, 2008 08:27 PM |
|
|
Haha, Moonlith, I appreciate your use of my metaphor.
Every god in the past has been dismissed, the Greek religion was turned into "Greek Mythology". While I agree with that, I'd regard this type of religion has "European Mythology". =P
One of the only logical conclusions I can come up with is flawed, and I do believe this is why many people believe it: "That which moves, must have a mover."
And to this I ask, what "moved" God?
This branch of thought doesn't make any sense. And the Atheist point-of-view (although I would call myself an Atheist) is flawed also... The big bang had to come from somewhere. And since taking the idea that there are unlimited "movers" going back doesn't make sense, the conclusion I can come up with is, it's something so abstract and bizarre, we'd never be able to imagine, or comprehend it. May I also note that I don't believe this idea lends any credence to the idea of a "creator". Even when I was a Christian, I thought, "Where did God come from? There has to be a reason for his existence, how could he have always been? If whatever made him exists, what made that which created God?"
So... I try not the think about it. I've spent literally hundreds of hours thinking about this. I can never come up with anything satisfying. I'll just say I'm an Atheist with aspects of belief that cannot be explained... yet.
|
|
Ecoris
Promising
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted June 03, 2008 08:35 PM |
|
|
Quote:
A Christian would be a better candidate than an athiest.
That's a very general statement, are you saying that a given candidate would be better if he was christian than if he was an atheist? Or that any christian would be better than any atheist?
____________
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted June 03, 2008 08:36 PM |
|
|
I think we all know that he means the first option... Right?
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 03, 2008 09:07 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Calling religious people superstitutous, illogical, irrational, foolish, ignorant, etc., is quite intolerant.
But much of religion is superstition. And it is illogical and irrational. I'm yet to see someone call all religious people foolish and ignorant, though. And, as Corribus said, illogical and wrong are two different things.
Quote:
they have taken quite a bit of flak in the recent years with the scandals of the Catholic church. And despite what some Catholics I've spoken to think, they are Christians
From what I've seen, the priest abuse scandal has mainly hurt the Catholics. Much of the flak coming at them is from other Christians.
Quote:
You not only live in the Bible Belt, you live in a small town in the Bible Belt. It's not even close to being representative. (it's not representative about many other things as well).
Yeah, it really isn't representative, fortunately. But the polls show that atheists are mistrusted.
Quote:
The big bang had to come from somewhere.
What do you mean?
Quote:
That's a very general statement, are you saying that a given candidate would be better if he was christian than if he was an atheist? Or that any christian would be better than any atheist?
I think that what he meant was that being a Christian made him a better candidate in the sense that he or she is more likely to win.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
e-lysander
Known Hero
Lysander
|
|
posted June 03, 2008 09:09 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
The big bang had to come from somewhere.
What do you mean?
What I mean is, odds are this big bang event would have an origin. Even as an Atheist, I'm not willing to place all bets on this "big bang theory".
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted June 03, 2008 09:16 PM |
|
Edited by Binabik at 21:16, 03 Jun 2008.
|
Quote:
That's a very general statement, are you saying that a given candidate would be better if he was christian than if he was an atheist? Or that any christian would be better than any atheist?
It means politically a Christian is more electable than an athiest. Even though I don't think it's a large portion of the population, it's important to get every vote possible. There are people who would not vote for someone who was an athiest, but there are probably very few people who would not vote for someone because they were Christian.
In general, "one issue voters" for any given issue are a small percentage of the population. Most people will look at the whole picture, but that doesn't mean the one issue voters can be ignored.
____________
|
| |
|
|
This Popular Thread is pages long: 
