religion

[Iamdan]

There are plenty of reasons to believe in a deity. Fear of the unknown, the want for a higher meaning, I could go on.

[Da_Latios]

It's not a belief, it's an interpretation of amounts.

Still, there's no reason to believe in a god.

No, it is a belief, because you cannot prove it.

For the sake of shutting you up, I will concede to your point.

You STILL provide no reason to believe in a god, nor any evidence. Belief in a god is not beneficial; no, it is the reverse. "Belief" that there are numbers is not harming anyone, and amounts can be REPRESENTED by numbers.

 

@Iamdan I mean like a good reason.

[Zygimantas]

It's not a belief, it's an interpretation of amounts.

Still, there's no reason to believe in a god.

Just like god is another interpretation of someone's perceptions.

[Da_Latios]

It's not a belief, it's an interpretation of amounts.

Still, there's no reason to believe in a god.

Just like god is another interpretation of someone's perceptions.

Yes, but that's not what people claim. People claim in a humanoid all-powerful deity with consciousness, sapience and the power to reason. It has created the universe through a thought process similar to humans.

This kind of god is ridiculous, and it's the one I'm talking about.

[sees_all1]

It's not a belief, it's an interpretation of amounts.

Still, there's no reason to believe in a god.

No, it is a belief, because you cannot prove it.

For the sake of shutting you up, I will concede to your point.

You STILL provide no reason to believe in a god, nor any evidence. Belief in a god is not beneficial; no, it is the reverse. "Belief" that there are numbers is not harming anyone, and amounts can be REPRESENTED by numbers.

Thinking that because you believe in science and math, and all things "proven" is just as ridiculous as a belief in God (and in my opinion, neither are ridiculous). You can't prove anything in science or math without a couple simple statements that are held as absolute truths.

Also, religion never developed nor used an atom-bomb, which is to say that numbers have harmed people more than religion.

[Zygimantas]

It's not a belief, it's an interpretation of amounts.

Still, there's no reason to believe in a god.

Just like god is another interpretation of someone's perceptions.

Yes, but that's not what people claim. People claim in a humanoid all-powerful deity with consciousness, sapience and the power to reason. It has created the universe through a thought process similar to humans.

This kind of god is ridiculous, and it's the one I'm talking about.

I agree, that to me that does not seem true at all. Though if someone were to believe this, and I could not persuade them otherwise, then I would just let them be with their belief.

[Iamdan]

@Iamdan I mean like a good reason.

 

Cmon really?

Define good.

 

If it works for the theist then it's a good reason.

[Da_Latios]

It's not a belief, it's an interpretation of amounts.

Still, there's no reason to believe in a god.

No, it is a belief, because you cannot prove it.

For the sake of shutting you up, I will concede to your point.

You STILL provide no reason to believe in a god, nor any evidence. Belief in a god is not beneficial; no, it is the reverse. "Belief" that there are numbers is not harming anyone, and amounts can be REPRESENTED by numbers.

Thinking that because you believe in science and math, and all things "proven" is just as ridiculous as a belief in God (and in my opinion, neither are ridiculous). You can't prove anything in science or math without a couple simple statements that are held as absolute truths.

Also, religion never developed nor used an atom-bomb, which is to say that numbers have harmed people more than religion.

EVEN IF all my "beliefs" are wrong, and ridiculous, and stupid, and religion didn't develop and atom bomb and that numbers did... you STILL provide no reason to believe in a god, nor evidence for a god. You STILL are wrong in claiming that belief in a god is beneficial, and you STILL are wrong in claiming that a god exists. Me being wrong does NOT make you right.

[Da_Latios]

@Iamdan I mean like a good reason.

 

Cmon really?

Define good.

 

If it works for the theist then it's a good reason.

"I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world."-Richard Dawkins

If we want humanity to advance, we must shed the chains of religion.

 

EDIT: Damn, two posts in a row. I assumed someone would have replied by now. :S

[Iamdan]

EVEN IF all my "beliefs" are wrong, and ridiculous, and stupid, and religion didn't develop and atom bomb and that numbers did... you STILL provide no reason to believe in a god, nor evidence for a god. You STILL are wrong in claiming that belief in a god is beneficial, and you STILL are wrong in claiming that a god exists. Me being wrong does NOT make you right.

 

How can you say that it's not beneficial? Just like that.

 

It's not black and white. You give religion to 1 man and he volunteers his time for people in need. You give religion to another man and he kills his neighbor because his god has a bigger [bleep] than the other god.

 

You can't claim a god exists with scientific terms, because it's irrelevant. Theists don't need evidence. If there were evidence for a deity then it wouldn't be faith.

 

We aren't satisfied with not understanding the world. Technology moves magnitudes faster than our bodies evolve. Just because a small percentage are fundamentalists that doesn't mean scientific progress halts.

 

Even the minority who believe the world is 6000 years old and that is that, don't have to be against advances in water treatment and other important things.

[Da_Latios]

EVEN IF all my "beliefs" are wrong, and ridiculous, and stupid, and religion didn't develop and atom bomb and that numbers did... you STILL provide no reason to believe in a god, nor evidence for a god. You STILL are wrong in claiming that belief in a god is beneficial, and you STILL are wrong in claiming that a god exists. Me being wrong does NOT make you right.

 

How can you say that it's not beneficial? Just like that.

 

It's not black and white. You give religion to 1 man and he volunteers his time for people in need. You give religion to another man and he kills his neighbor because his god has a bigger [bleep] than the other god.

 

You can't claim a god exists with scientific terms, because it's irrelevant. Theists don't need evidence. If there were evidence for a deity then it wouldn't be faith.

He may give bread to a homeless man one day, and crash a plane into a building the next. Today's religion's skewed moral teachings are infectious and evil.

Now, if there were a religion with no murder, no glorified martyrdom, no promise of an afterlife... we may be on to something.

 

Many theists ARE satisfied with not knowing the world. What's that? There are trillions and trillions of galaxies and the universe is 13.7 billion years old(shut up, sees_all1) and the Earth is 4.5 billion years old and humans evolved from a line of African Apes? THAT CAN'T BE TRUE BECAUSE I LOVE JESUS!

[Iamdan]

He may give bread to a homeless man one day, and crash a plane into a building the next. Today's religion's skewed moral teachings are infectious and evil.

Now, if there were a religion with no murder, no glorified martyrdom, no promise of an afterlife... we may be on to something.

 

Many theists ARE satisfied with not knowing the world. What's that? There are trillions and trillions of galaxies and the universe is 13.7 billion years old(shut up, sees_all1) and the Earth is 4.5 billion years old and humans evolved from a line of African Apes? THAT CAN'T BE TRUE BECAUSE I LOVE JESUS!

 

He may do good or bad, therefore it must be bad by default. Right.

 

Do you sincerely believe that religion is slowing down technology?

[sees_all1]

EVEN IF all my "beliefs" are wrong, and ridiculous, and stupid, and religion didn't develop and atom bomb and that numbers did... you STILL provide no reason to believe in a god, nor evidence for a god. You STILL are wrong in claiming that belief in a god is beneficial, and you STILL are wrong in claiming that a god exists. Me being wrong does NOT make you right.

I have seen people pretend that their system of science and math is superior to my beliefs in a higher power. They think I'm ridiculous because I have no proof, and my beliefs are based on nothing. I KNOW that their system of math and science are based off statements that cannot be proven, and they're equally ridiculous (and ignorant or hypocritical) in thinking their system is based in fact.

 

You can't prove that one does not equal zero, I can't prove that it does. I can't prove that God exists, you can't prove that God doesn't. It means that one of us is wrong, no more and no less. Your claims that religion is on the whole destructive to humanity is absolutely ridiculous, especially since you can't prove the most basic of beliefs that you hang your entire argument on.

[Da_Latios]

He may give bread to a homeless man one day, and crash a plane into a building the next. Today's religion's skewed moral teachings are infectious and evil.

Now, if there were a religion with no murder, no glorified martyrdom, no promise of an afterlife... we may be on to something.

 

Many theists ARE satisfied with not knowing the world. What's that? There are trillions and trillions of galaxies and the universe is 13.7 billion years old(shut up, sees_all1) and the Earth is 4.5 billion years old and humans evolved from a line of African Apes? THAT CAN'T BE TRUE BECAUSE I LOVE JESUS!

 

He may do good or bad, therefore it must be bad by default. Right.

 

Do you sincerely believe that religion is slowing down technology?

Who's against stem cell research? All the religious fundies.

 

 

EVEN IF all my "beliefs" are wrong, and ridiculous, and stupid, and religion didn't develop and atom bomb and that numbers did... you STILL provide no reason to believe in a god, nor evidence for a god. You STILL are wrong in claiming that belief in a god is beneficial, and you STILL are wrong in claiming that a god exists. Me being wrong does NOT make you right.

I have seen people pretend that their system of science and math is superior to my beliefs in a higher power. They think I'm ridiculous because I have no proof, and my beliefs are based on nothing. I KNOW that their system of math and science are based off statements that cannot be proven, and they're equally ridiculous (and ignorant or hypocritical) in thinking their system is based in fact.

 

You can't prove that one does not equal zero, I can't prove that it does. I can't prove that God exists, you can't prove that God doesn't. It means that one of us is wrong, no more and no less. Your claims that religion is on the whole destructive to humanity is absolutely ridiculous, especially since you can't prove the most basic of beliefs that you hang your entire argument on.

Will you shut up about the number thing? Stop being a damn child.

I can fly. Want proof? No, you have to prove that I can't.

[Zygimantas]

"I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world."-Richard Dawkins

If we want humanity to advance, we must shed the chains of religion.

Even beyond that, we need to drop all that we think we might know, or what we think is real. Then take a look at who we really are, and what everything really is...

[Iamdan]

Who's against stem cell research? All the religious fundies.

 

No, there are non theists who think we shouldn't be doing it and while I'm for it, I do think they have a valid point.

 

There's really no right or wrong answer in situations like that.

[sees_all1]

Will you shut up about the number thing? Stop being a damn child.

I can fly. Want proof? No, you have to prove that I can't.

I'll stop posting it when you can prove that one does not equal zero, or you stop bashing religion.

[meol]

:unsure: Right. Moving on from the "1=0" argument.

I'll try to explain why I am an atheist, on the spirit of the OP.

 

I started to reject my religion when I realised there was no strict difference between what I believed and what the Hindus/ancient Greeks/Pastafarians believe, even though I quickly eschewed their religion as mythology and superstition.

 

Then, there's the concept of religions as natural phenomena (huge memes, more or less), which honestly makes more sense to me than the plethora of contradicting religions and their divine revelations. It also explains why there are such massive cop-outs like "mysteries of the faith".

 

Then there are a lot of inconsistencies in the concept of a soul, and I know of no religion that doesn't have the concept of a soul in some way of another. A lot of

 

Then, it's easy to see that religion is not necessary for moral, and that religion is often a tool for evil, even today -would there be anti-homosexuality bills/laws in Uganda and Iran without pious Christians and Shiites? Of course, saying religion is inherently evil is a very hurried assumption, but it certainly doesn't make for more moral societies either.

[The Observer]

Not only that, but science in general isn't 'proven'. All we know is what has happened over the last few years in this tiny part of the universe.

 

That's true but imagine where we would be now. We would still be drilling holes in people's heads to drive evil spirits away, etc.

[obfuscator]

The problem with this argument is that it can't be properly summed up in a debate like this. It literally requires bookloads of material to make a valid case either for or against.

 

I will say, however, that a strong reason for me keeping my (barely) faith is the generally rude, condescending, and narrow minded attitude of most atheists.

[L2Ski]

I love this! Keep up the arguments, but try to not be over aggressive with your arguments. Keep it nice and professional.

 

I have a question for a couple of you atheists. What are your views of thoughts (just go with me)? Are thoughts all just chemically induced reactions within the brain that allows to decide whether to do or not do a particular action? What about emotions? Are they also within the chemical-brain function? So then, if they are, what about love? Is love truly true? Or is it just a chemically induced feeling that we really can't trust? Also if love is just that, aren't just practically robots powered by chemicals? Another thing is logic. What about it? Is that just a big chemical process going on in your brain?

 

Just a couple of thoughts.

 

I also read someone comparing religions with other religions. I would, from a christian point of view, be very careful about treading on this ground. Almost all religions are different. Some don't believe in god, some believe god is in everything, some believe that they themselves are god, and so on, but you know what sets (possibly) the Christian/Catholic, or variations there of, beliefs apart? We believe that our God not only cares for us, but he also listens and works out EVERYTHING in our individual lives for our greatest good. We do not believe in taking a persons life at all, especially just because they do not see eye to eye with us (well for the most part, extremists may be different). Where as other religions do not always prohibit this and some and even encourage it, but none of these other religions believe that their god truly loves them. They view him as some who, if they do not please him, will smite them down on the spot. That is not my God.

 

Just another thought that I thought I might through out there.

[Myweponsg00d]

I have seen people pretend that their system of science and math is superior to my beliefs in a higher power. They think I'm ridiculous because I have no proof, and my beliefs are based on nothing. I KNOW that their system of math and science are based off statements that cannot be proven, and they're equally ridiculous (and ignorant or hypocritical) in thinking their system is based in fact.

 

You can't prove that one does not equal zero, I can't prove that it does. I can't prove that God exists, you can't prove that God doesn't. It means that one of us is wrong, no more and no less. Your claims that religion is on the whole destructive to humanity is absolutely ridiculous, especially since you can't prove the most basic of beliefs that you hang your entire argument on.

 

Bro I don't typically like to fling mud but I must say that your argument is completely bone-headed.

 

One doesnt equal zero by pure definition. As a society, we have defined the concept of "zero" to mean "nothing" or "completely lacking". Our word "zero" describes how many objects are in my hand when no objects are in my hand. "One" is how many objects are in my hand when there is more than zero but less than two. It is a single object. It exists.

 

You most certainly can prove, in the sense that we use the word to mean "it is almost certain", that an object that IS somewhere almost certainly is not "zero". Something is more than nothing.

 

Now lets define the concept of "a god" as somebody who magically and spontaneously created the earth as it exists today no more than a few thousand years ago. Then, we find fossils that are millions of years old. Right there, we see a contradiction between what we call "creation by god" and what we call "age". These two ideas have a contradiction with each other.

 

 

I would also like to point out...if religious people lived the rest of their lives as they choose to "believe" in a diety, here would be a glimpse at the life of a religious person:

-You would find it totally acceptable to not take medicine. After all, medicine actually is not PROVEN to work. We just are relatively sure that it does work. Stop taking medicine and just pray to god. Why wouldn't you?

-You probably shouldn't get an education. Theres no proof that you aren't going to win the lottery tomorrow. Why not just bank on it? Why not just live your life with a little faith? Is it that hard to have faith in something?

-You could randomly decide to go hide in a bomb shelter right this very minute. Theres no stone cold evidence that a 10 megaton bomb isnt falling from the sky right now.

-Stop eating. Are you SURE that food gives you nurishment? I mean...REALLY sure? Scientists really haven't provided an infallible proof that food is something we should eat. So since it isn't really PROVEN yet, I should just believe whatever the hell I want to believe. My body only needs air to survive...thats my belief. You can't disprove it!

 

 

As you can see, most religious people don't live their lives this way. Why? Because they are human. Humans have a logical brain for a reason. We naturally know how to make observations and develop predictions that are in accordance with evidence. Most of our actions are governed by evidence. Yet religion comes along and JUST BECAUSE there are billions of people who spread the superstition, people think that this area of our life is not worth living rationally.

[L2Ski]

I have seen people pretend that their system of science and math is superior to my beliefs in a higher power. They think I'm ridiculous because I have no proof, and my beliefs are based on nothing. I KNOW that their system of math and science are based off statements that cannot be proven, and they're equally ridiculous (and ignorant or hypocritical) in thinking their system is based in fact.

 

You can't prove that one does not equal zero, I can't prove that it does. I can't prove that God exists, you can't prove that God doesn't. It means that one of us is wrong, no more and no less. Your claims that religion is on the whole destructive to humanity is absolutely ridiculous, especially since you can't prove the most basic of beliefs that you hang your entire argument on.

 

Bro I don't typically like to fling mud but I must say that your argument is completely bone-headed.

 

One doesnt equal zero by pure definition. As a society, we have defined the concept of "zero" to mean "nothing" or "completely lacking". Our word "zero" describes how many objects are in my hand when no objects are in my hand. "One" is how many objects are in my hand when there is more than zero but less than two. It is a single object. It exists.

 

You most certainly can prove, in the sense that we use the word to mean "it is almost certain", that an object that IS somewhere almost certainly is not "zero". Something is more than nothing.

 

Now lets define the concept of "a god" as somebody who magically and spontaneously created the earth as it exists today no more than a few thousand years ago. Then, we find fossils that are millions of years old. Right there, we see a contradiction between what we call "creation by god" and what we call "age". These two ideas have a contradiction with each other.

 

 

I would also like to point out...if religious people lived the rest of their lives as they choose to "believe" in a diety, here would be a glimpse at the life of a religious person:

-You would find it totally acceptable to not take medicine. After all, medicine actually is not PROVEN to work. We just are relatively sure that it does work. Stop taking medicine and just pray to god. Why wouldn't you?

-You probably shouldn't get an education. Theres no proof that you aren't going to win the lottery tomorrow. Why not just bank on it? Why not just live your life with a little faith? Is it that hard to have faith in something?

-You could randomly decide to go hide in a bomb shelter right this very minute. Theres no stone cold evidence that a 10 megaton bomb isnt falling from the sky right now.

-Stop eating. Are you SURE that food gives you nurishment? I mean...REALLY sure? Scientists really haven't provided an infallible proof that food is something we should eat. So since it isn't really PROVEN yet, I should just believe whatever the hell I want to believe. My body only needs air to survive...thats my belief. You can't disprove it!

 

 

As you can see, most religious people don't live their lives this way. Why? Because they are human. Humans have a logical brain for a reason. We naturally know how to make observations and develop predictions that are in accordance with evidence. Most of our actions are governed by evidence. Yet religion comes along and JUST BECAUSE there are billions of people who spread the superstition, people think that this area of our life is not worth living rationally.

 

Good argument, but I have a question.

 

If religious people are "superstitious" because what they believe may or may not be true, but the Atheists and other non-religionists can go and say that the earth is X amount of years and so on and so forth? If the earth is so old, then we don't we have trees that are say 10,000 years old? 100,000 years old? 1,000,000 years old? and so on? Not that trees should be our overall guidance to the age of the earth, but they do have a time stamp that allows us to date back to years before.

 

I may or may not be wrong, just trying to keep the ideas flowing.

[obfuscator]

Well, trees die like everything else. We have fossilized wood etc that dates back many more years than existing trees.

[Da_Latios]

I have seen people pretend that their system of science and math is superior to my beliefs in a higher power. They think I'm ridiculous because I have no proof, and my beliefs are based on nothing. I KNOW that their system of math and science are based off statements that cannot be proven, and they're equally ridiculous (and ignorant or hypocritical) in thinking their system is based in fact.

 

You can't prove that one does not equal zero, I can't prove that it does. I can't prove that God exists, you can't prove that God doesn't. It means that one of us is wrong, no more and no less. Your claims that religion is on the whole destructive to humanity is absolutely ridiculous, especially since you can't prove the most basic of beliefs that you hang your entire argument on.

 

Bro I don't typically like to fling mud but I must say that your argument is completely bone-headed.

 

One doesnt equal zero by pure definition. As a society, we have defined the concept of "zero" to mean "nothing" or "completely lacking". Our word "zero" describes how many objects are in my hand when no objects are in my hand. "One" is how many objects are in my hand when there is more than zero but less than two. It is a single object. It exists.

 

You most certainly can prove, in the sense that we use the word to mean "it is almost certain", that an object that IS somewhere almost certainly is not "zero". Something is more than nothing.

 

Now lets define the concept of "a god" as somebody who magically and spontaneously created the earth as it exists today no more than a few thousand years ago. Then, we find fossils that are millions of years old. Right there, we see a contradiction between what we call "creation by god" and what we call "age". These two ideas have a contradiction with each other.

 

 

I would also like to point out...if religious people lived the rest of their lives as they choose to "believe" in a diety, here would be a glimpse at the life of a religious person:

-You would find it totally acceptable to not take medicine. After all, medicine actually is not PROVEN to work. We just are relatively sure that it does work. Stop taking medicine and just pray to god. Why wouldn't you?

-You probably shouldn't get an education. Theres no proof that you aren't going to win the lottery tomorrow. Why not just bank on it? Why not just live your life with a little faith? Is it that hard to have faith in something?

-You could randomly decide to go hide in a bomb shelter right this very minute. Theres no stone cold evidence that a 10 megaton bomb isnt falling from the sky right now.

-Stop eating. Are you SURE that food gives you nurishment? I mean...REALLY sure? Scientists really haven't provided an infallible proof that food is something we should eat. So since it isn't really PROVEN yet, I should just believe whatever the hell I want to believe. My body only needs air to survive...thats my belief. You can't disprove it!

 

 

As you can see, most religious people don't live their lives this way. Why? Because they are human. Humans have a logical brain for a reason. We naturally know how to make observations and develop predictions that are in accordance with evidence. Most of our actions are governed by evidence. Yet religion comes along and JUST BECAUSE there are billions of people who spread the superstition, people think that this area of our life is not worth living rationally.

 

Good argument, but I have a question.

 

If religious people are "superstitious" because what they believe may or may not be true, but the Atheists and other non-religionists can go and say that the earth is X amount of years and so on and so forth? If the earth is so old, then we don't we have trees that are say 10,000 years old? 100,000 years old? 1,000,000 years old? and so on? Not that trees should be our overall guidance to the age of the earth, but they do have a time stamp that allows us to date back to years before.

 

I may or may not be wrong, just trying to keep the ideas flowing.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html