[Is there a God?]

So you're telling me you know the entirety of its contents despite having not fully watched it. Okay, what's in it?

[Is there a God?]

Oh... that's a bit of a non-answer, I've mentally skipped it. I'm being lazy with words now, have a video:

 

[hide=Video contains cursing]

[/hide]

EDIT: Randox doesn't like capitalization.

[Is there a God?]

Oh, for the more fundamentalist inclined: why doesn't 'god' heal amputees?

[Is there a God?]

Eh, so its qualities of being omnipotent/omniscient/omnipresent/omnibenevolent are pretty much irrelevant, but still there because Christianity requires it so its not useless? I'm confused with what I'm saying now, that's refreshing.

[Is there a God?]

I'll try and interpret your argument, please correct me if I'm wrong here:

 

Premise 1: Some moderate christian faiths advocate moral teachings inspired by 'jesus'

Premise 2: These teachings are inspiring to people, therefore an otherwise irreligious person would benefit society more

Conclusion drawn: moderate christian faith probably does more good than harm

 

I'd say whilst that's probably a good thing, it makes this deity a little moot - don't you think? But then again, the crux of the issue isn't really religion in itself, but rather - the default human state of ignorance.

 

@Vezon: What was your reasons for believing in the existence of a god/gods again?

[Is there a God?]

I don't see the harm in irreligion, please elaborate?

[Is there a God?]

I've forgotten where I've found 'em to be honest, but it's a claim worth looking up. I'll update you on that later though.

[Today...]

... I went cycling for two hours straight. I came home soaked in sweat with stiff legs. I've now gotten leg cramps whilst arguing on OT once again (sudden surge of activity, which seems surprising).

 

Has anyone got any suggestions for preventing said leg cramps in future? I think I put too much energy into a short burst...

[Is there a God?]

Oh, that's misinterpretation on my part. It's true, persons without religion who've lived a poor lifestyle could be inspired to do good in society by these teachings. The question then shifts to 'is it outweighed by the costs of these religions', and what happens if we do without it?

[Is there a God?]

If you're going to merit the church for helping the individual do so, you must show us how the church is likely to actively engage the individual in donating to the correct charities. I envision these churches discouraging donations to efficient charities in favour of its own, but I really don't know much about these churches so I'm relying on information provided by yourself and others to correct these presumptions.

 

Oh, and on the point of striving for the most efficient charity: it's actually more complicated than that, because some causes sound trivial but are much more efficient at saving lives and/or improving standard of living (by a longshot no less).

 

EDIT @Vezon: If you're going to assert that I'm wrong, please illustrate how. To assert that I'm supposedly wrong without explanation/argument is no better than a response from myself saying 'no, you're wrong'.

[Is there a God?]

Different issue: it sounds less than likely that churches, even those which promote moderate Christianity, would advocate efficient charities over its own (vested interest in receiving revenue for the maintenance and upkeep of its organization.)

[Is there a God?]

What happens if there really is a place such as Heaven and Hell, or maybe reincarnation and Karma exist. The only way that I will be able to save myself from Hell or being reincarnated into a dandelion would be to believe.

 

Is that logical or not?

 

I've addressed this in one of my earlier responses about the Pascal's Wager (which is what you're appealing to).

 

@Randox: I was talking to champion in that post.

[Is there a God?]

I'd say that's failure on the part of promoting secularist teachings, not the merit of religion. I don't see many examples of such though, so whilst it sounds nice in theory, it doesn't necessarily work that way in reality (not denying that it does happen, because it sounds plausible)

 

EDIT - on the part of donating to charity, I'd like to ask: which charities are we talking about? If we're talking about donations to the churches, that's a whole different story (inefficient charities squandering money, i.e. opportunity cost argument.)

[Is there a God?]

Please elaborate; how does it help? Can we do without it? If harm is not a requirement, but a relatively likely byproduct - is it still good? Oh, and what makes the belief more true/plausible?

 

EDIT @Randox: It's a thing we can do without; its benefits are negligible and can be achieved just as well, if not better, with irreligious organizations without the extra burden of increasing the risks associated with religion.

 

Further edits:

 

@champion: If we don't have reasons to believe, evidence to believe, any form of trust in religious advocates, and reasons of why belief is bad... why believe?

 

There is a reason to believe though.

I'd like to know what this reason(s) is.

[Is there a God?]

@champion: If we don't have reasons to believe, evidence to believe, any form of trust in religious advocates, and reasons of why belief is bad... why believe?

[Is there a God?]

If the involvement of secular organizations is making the positive impact, I fail to see how you could argue that religious ideals in itself is the positive thing. I'd argue that it's inherently negative with gradual positive changes.

 

All in all, it doesn't really support the arguments that any of the 'gods' are the 'correct' deity by any regards, but we can measure its effects on individuals and society in general. Could we agree that religion is harmful now?

[Is there a God?]

... but would you say that the increasing acceptance is due to more correct interpretations of scripture, or the interference by secular organizations which promote equity?

[Is there a God?]

We could only attribute causes positively, but if anyone could help me pull up some statistics, the crime rates would argue otherwise (especially violent crime).

 

Of some relevance:

 

[Is there a God?]

By that argument, it still follows that it helped cause some of the 'bad' things that they did.

 

It could be argued that if their religion didn't teach them that homosexuality is 'wrong', then they could have been taught of multicultural acceptance and thus minimized the risks - i.e. risk aversion. It's unlikely to happen in more fundamentalistic backgrounds simply because it doesn't cooperate with the religious beliefs.

 

I can't speculate with any certainty how many wouldn't have harmed others if they weren't theistic, but I can say with some certainty that it would be a smaller number than that if religion wasn't causing it.

 

EDIT @Vezon: It's called an exception to the rule - as long as some still ostracize homosexuality, religion causes harm.

[Is there a God?]

It's not because they're non-theistic though, so you can't attribute it to atheism - the key difference. I wouldn't say adding to bad decisions are harmless.

 

EDIT @Rob: It's their belief that formed the basis - if the religion wasn't there, then those things wouldn't have happened.

[Is there a God?]

I'll reiterate why it matters: beliefs influence actions.

 

[hide][/hide]

 

My beliiefs are that being homosexual is wrong, but that doesn't mean that I (being a religious person) am going to go out of my way to be unkind to them (or God forbid kill them). I bet that there are also non-religious people that hate gays, hate religious people, and other immoral things.

I'd say that belief in itself is enough to cause harm - I'll illustrate by asking: would you vote in favour of minimizing gay rights on that regard? If it's 'wrong' by your account, I'll take that to mean morally impermissible, and thus you're more likely to than otherwise.

 

If you would, that's a good example of how even moderate Christianity may cause harm.

[Is there a God?]

I'll reiterate on why it matters:

 

[hide=Beliefs influence actions][/hide]

 

edit in response to Jona's edit: that's exactly my point. It doesn't make what they believe to be true by any regards, and even if its harmless, it becomes trivial; a waste of time.

[Is there a God?]

@Jona: Question - how do you know which parts to take literally and which parts not? Contradictions in claims between different interpretations of the variations makes it very difficult to believe one interpretation over the others, so what lends more weight in your direction?

 

If there's a contradiction or conflict, which one do you eliminate and why - is it because one defies logic, or is it because it is favourable to your cause, or any other reason I might not have included? These are the issues that make religion as a whole a difficult concept to swallow.

[The 'You're Banned' Game (over 38,000 banned!)]

Banned for rapping about morality in a wig.

[Is there a God?]

Common sense just isn't common in all fairness. The thing which strikes me about moderate religion is why different interpretations insist that certain parts are deemed to be true without evidence, yet other parts as 'obviously' metaphors - it sounds like special pleading to me, as I've said before. Is it because a particular chapter is favourable so you exercise less skepticism?

 

If we take your point - the values of religion is what really matters, not whether the premise of religion is true (i.e. the existence of a deity they call 'god') - then what is the point of it? Secular organizations could provide moral teachings just as well, if not better - 'god' is just an unnecessary burden.

 

I don't know enough about specific chapters and their truth value to make any informed judgement/comment. I'd just note that there is little corroboration without collaboration (a point in reference to why the idea that the same 'god' guides them all is flawed, because of inconsistent revelations. I realise this is slightly irrelevant, but nonetheless worth pointing out.)