religion

[Dizzle229]

THE ANSWER TO THE GREAT QUESTION

 

Is there scientific evidence to support God?

Nope.

Well there you go. Who wants cake?

But dear sir/madame, I reject your scientist research and substitute it with my own. Thus I am right. Always. Hoho! Haha! Jolly good and all that.

Hmmm.

 

Well then I invent my own field of research to refute yours!

 

Your move.

[Myweponsg00d]

Because your beliefs only apply to one specific person, and not the entire population? That makes sense. :rolleyes:

You asked me why I don't want a gun pointed to my head, I answered.

You still can't prove or disprove the axiom of non-triviality, but you assume it to be correct all the same. Oh by the way, this axiom directly contradicts the idea of a big bang (making the idea much more relevant than your crazy gun hypothesis).

 

Why would it have to apply to the entire population? My assumption is that it only applies to you. Yet you assume it would apply to all humans. Would it also apply to animals? You can't even prove that shooting you in the head would kill you, now you are claiming it would kill ANYONE?

 

Your beliefs are based at the core on assumptions that you cannot empricially prove. Mine are also based on unprovable assumptions. Since we both make assumptions at some level, I fail to see how your system for predicting gunshot wounds beats my system.

[sees_all1]

Why would it have to apply to the entire population? My assumption is that it only applies to you. Yet you assume it would apply to all humans. Would it also apply to animals? You can't even prove that shooting you in the head would kill you, now you are claiming it would kill ANYONE?

 

Your beliefs are based at the core on assumptions that you cannot empricially prove. Mine are also based on unprovable assumptions. Since we both make assumptions at some level, I fail to see how your system for predicting gunshot wounds beats my system.

What makes you assume that I'm the only special case for your gunshot hypothesis? Because you want me to disprove your hypothesis? Troll harder next time.

[Giordano]

THE ANSWER TO THE GREAT QUESTION

 

Is there scientific evidence to support God?

Nope.

Well there you go. Who wants cake?

But dear sir/madame, I reject your scientist research and substitute it with my own. Thus I am right. Always. Hoho! Haha! Jolly good and all that.

Hmmm.

 

Well then I invent my own field of research to refute yours!

 

Your move.

[Myweponsg00d]

Why would it have to apply to the entire population? My assumption is that it only applies to you. Yet you assume it would apply to all humans. Would it also apply to animals? You can't even prove that shooting you in the head would kill you, now you are claiming it would kill ANYONE?

 

Your beliefs are based at the core on assumptions that you cannot empricially prove. Mine are also based on unprovable assumptions. Since we both make assumptions at some level, I fail to see how your system for predicting gunshot wounds beats my system.

What makes you assume that I'm the only special case for your gunshot hypothesis? Because you want me to disprove your hypothesis? Troll harder next time.

 

What do you mean what MAKES me assume it? It is a fundamental belief of mine. What makes a mathematician believe that 0!=1? Nothing. It is an assumption we make to build upon the system.

 

So since my shooting hypothesis and the field of mathematics both boil down to fundamental assumptions, they are both equally respectable.

[sees_all1]

Why would it have to apply to the entire population? My assumption is that it only applies to you. Yet you assume it would apply to all humans. Would it also apply to animals? You can't even prove that shooting you in the head would kill you, now you are claiming it would kill ANYONE?

 

Your beliefs are based at the core on assumptions that you cannot empricially prove. Mine are also based on unprovable assumptions. Since we both make assumptions at some level, I fail to see how your system for predicting gunshot wounds beats my system.

What makes you assume that I'm the only special case for your gunshot hypothesis? Because you want me to disprove your hypothesis? Troll harder next time.

 

What do you mean what MAKES me assume it? It is a fundamental belief of mine. What makes a mathematician believe that 0!=1? Nothing. It is an assumption we make to build upon the system.

 

So since my shooting hypothesis and the field of mathematics both boil down to fundamental assumptions, they are both equally respectable.

Everyone! Hear this! According to wep, I can't be killed by a gunshot wound to the head! Don't I feel special.

[Zygimantas]

 

What do you mean what MAKES me assume it? It is a fundamental belief of mine. What makes a mathematician believe that 0!=1? Nothing. It is an assumption we make to build upon the system.

 

So since my shooting hypothesis and the field of mathematics both boil down to fundamental assumptions, they are both equally respectable.

I agree with you on this. Everything boils doing to assumptions and is basically subjective.

[Myweponsg00d]

Why would it have to apply to the entire population? My assumption is that it only applies to you. Yet you assume it would apply to all humans. Would it also apply to animals? You can't even prove that shooting you in the head would kill you, now you are claiming it would kill ANYONE?

 

Your beliefs are based at the core on assumptions that you cannot empricially prove. Mine are also based on unprovable assumptions. Since we both make assumptions at some level, I fail to see how your system for predicting gunshot wounds beats my system.

What makes you assume that I'm the only special case for your gunshot hypothesis? Because you want me to disprove your hypothesis? Troll harder next time.

 

What do you mean what MAKES me assume it? It is a fundamental belief of mine. What makes a mathematician believe that 0!=1? Nothing. It is an assumption we make to build upon the system.

 

So since my shooting hypothesis and the field of mathematics both boil down to fundamental assumptions, they are both equally respectable.

Everyone! Hear this! According to wep, I can't be killed by a gunshot wound to the head! Don't I feel special.

 

I fail to see what you think the problem is. Your belief boils down to assumption. My belief boils down to assumption. Doesn't that mean both of our ideas should be treated with equal dignity? Isn't that what you said?

[obfuscator]

 

What is wrong with the flaw you are discussing with the belief that the universe came about, likely by means people dont yet understand, as did life, however just because humans dont understand how it all came about doesnt mean that it necessarily took a God to create it.

 

Absolutely agreed. However, it also doesn't mean that it didn't necessarily take a God to create it.

 

I'm not claiming Christianity is inherently right with its views of how the world came to be. You choose to believe that the official scientific explanation that it randomly came from nowhere is more plausible. I choose to believe that the universe having a creator is more plausible. Neither can be definitively proven wrong, it's just personal choice.

 

In this, of course, I leave aside many other relevant arguments, mainly "is the world better off with religion or without?".

 

And this is where the two theories disagree. While we both agree there is no way we could prove the existance of a God, we have differing opinions about what to do with that. I disbelieve in a God until evidence is given to verify the existence of a God, and you have faith that there is a God out there. You are right it is a personal choice and there is no point in trying to argue this.

 

I would say to your question at the bottom that there has never been a time when people werent religious. Ancient man ritually buried their dead, and people believed in placating gods and spirits before there was a belief in the afterlife. I would say under ideal conditions with no religion that would be one less thing for people to discriminate against, of course you could tell me right back that if everyone was following one religion the same result would be achieved. Nothing is perfect, nor will ever be perfect. Religion or not people have a sense of right and wrong - such as stealing, rape, and murder all being near universally seen as bad and there will always be people who do all those things.

 

I think religion has its advantages for many people, I have seen people go from losers to hard working people when they accepted religion into their life, as well as people not being miserable about their lives being short. Among many other things of course, such as purpose and meaning. So while neither system is perfect I think a world with religion is better for people that need or want it in their lives

 

Agreed.

 

A big argument often used by atheists is that religion does bad in the world - and this is undeniable. It does a lot of bad.

 

It doesn't only do bad though. I've personally seen and lived how religion has changed the lives of many people I know for the better, and as such I believe that regardless of the existence of God, religion can be a positive as well as negative force in the world. Personally, I feel religion does more good than bad...but I suppose that's subjective as well.

[Da_Latios]

Do you want me to shoot you in the head? Do you? No. You don't. Why? Because you think a bullet will come out, enter your skull, and kill you. THIS IS NOT A FACT. The only time it would become a fact is once it has already happened. Before I shoot you, you do not have PROOF that you WILL get shot. It is impossible to PROVE that any future events will ever happen.

You're wrong though.

 

I can assign a weight assignment, statistically speaking the probability that each of the events are going to occur, and sum them.

If you hold a gun up to my head, and pull the trigger, one of several things may happen:

 

Case 1 - There is no bullet in the gun.

Case 2 - There is a bullet in the gun.

In Case 1, there is some percentage that you forgot or just didn't put a bullet in the chamber. This outcome is negative, no positive. If you pulled the trigger, I'd be freaked out and jumpy, emotionally distraught with good reason. Even if I had no emotion this case at best is neutral.

 

In Case 2, there are two more cases.

Case 2.1 - The bullet is a dud,

Case 2.2 - The bullet goes off.

I can find the probability that the bullet is a dud through repeat testing, in fact most bullets are rated this way. 2.1 is slim to none. The outcome in 2.1 is the same though as in 1, and I'd be freaked out. Negative outcome, neutral at best.

 

In Case 2.2, there are several more cases.

2.2.1 - Your aim sucks, and you miss.

2.2.2 - You shoot me.

What's the probability you miss? Don't know, but the outcome is the same as 2.1, and its Negative, neutral at best.

 

In 2.2.2, there are even more cases.

Case 2.2.2.1 - I survive with half my face being blown off

Case 2.2.2.2 - I die.

Both of those to me are negative, in the extreme.

You argue that there might be more cases, some of which are "positive," for some people. If you ask those people if they want to be shot in the head, they may say yes, but they'll have different reasons (like they're tripping on acid).

 

 

 

When you sum up the probabilities multiplied by their expected results (positive or negative), the expected result is grossly negative. You don't even have to make a guess at the probabilities for any one of those outcomes, all the expected results for each probability are negative. There is absolutely no positive for me to be shot in the head, which is why without having ANY certainty in the matter at all, I can tell you I don't want you to hold a gun to my head and shoot.

 

 

 

I don't see how that example, with a thousand or more variables, is the same saying there is no proof for the axiom against triviality. Why does it upset you that math, at it's very core, is a set of large assumptions?

 

Do you want me to shoot you in the head?

He said shoot. SHOOT. IN THE HEAD. Not "do you want me to pull a trigger on a gun which may or may not have a bullet in it?" or "do you want me to shoot AT you?". He said SHOOT YOU IN THE HEAD, which involves the gun firing and the bullet penetrating your skull. You sound like a 5 year old kid playing fantasy games; "I shot you! You're dead!" "No you didn't, I have my shield on!" seriously, what the hell.

While it's true that you may survive a shot to the head, or that the bullet will not be shot at a speed fast enough to penetrate your skull, these extremely rare occurrences are so unlikely they can be completely ignored when determining whether to gamble your life when a man has a gun pointed to your head.

[sees_all1]

The point of this post is to shoot down the notion of free will with a judeo-christian model of the universe.

 

If God is all knowing, as in knowing ALL things before he does them then why did he set Adam and Eve up to fail?

 

He had to of known before he made them that they would eat the apple, and would they have had the ability to change this fate? You might say they made their choice to do so, however the fact that God knew that they were going to make that choice before they made it makes their decisions irrelevant.

 

 

Basically how does free will exist when your actions are known by God before you make them, and God knows if you are going to heaven or hell before you are even born.

If God did not allow Adam and Eve to chose something other than Him, there wouldn't be free will.

I don't think that answers your question though, so let me try something different:

 

 

At the start of the day, you have a choice of what pants to wear, what shirt to wear, and what hat to wear.

You can chose to wear red, blue, or green in each of those garments. The final outcome is what you look like for today.

 

You have 27 possibilities of outfits, red pants, red shirt, red hat; red pants, red shirt, blue hat; red pants, red shirt, green hat; (etc).

You chose some set of pants, shirt, and hat. You go about your day, and your day is influenced by what you're wearing. At the end of the day, you know how your day went (good or bad, somewhere in between). God already knew the choice you were going to make at the beginning, and how your day was going to because of that.

 

What God also knew was the outcome of your day had you have chose any other of the 26 possible sets, something that is difficult to comprehend or even imagine.

Whats even more mind boggling is that not only did God know the outcomes for you, He knew the outcomes for everyone since the beginning of time, in a massive decision tree. God knows the answer to every possible "what if"

 

The important thing to take away from this is that even though God knows everything about everything simultaneously, and everything about all what ifs, God didn't chose any of them.

God may know if we truly desire Him and if we'll be with Him in the end, but He doesn't make our decision, and since we don't know the outcomes of our actions it is enough.

[Zierro]

On the flaws of atheism, lenient sex may or may not be a direct result of an increasing atheist population, but that doesn't really make atheism flawed. There's also the fact that sometimes people act morally specifically because they fear their god, and there are atheists who act immorally because they have nothing to fear. But again, this doesn't make atheism a flawed line of reasoning and religion a positive one. The problem is how the people let the beliefs/disbeliefs get to them, not the actual non-religious stance itself. That's like saying going outside is bad because you can fall off a cliff. You are completely capable of taking a walk outside without going near any cliffs, just like you can be an atheist and have a strict opinion on sex. The problem is not inherent for what atheism is. This is just like the "Video games produce murderers" argument.

 

I've also been noticing a lot of people claiming that atheism is not a belief system. If someone came up to me and claimed I had three eyes, I wouldn't believe them because I consciously and logically decided that it is more probable that the conditions are that I do not have three eyes, and I instead have two, based on the mountains of evidence I've collected by looking in a mirror everyday. This is a counter belief, but still a belief nonetheless. I just don't understand how you can ascribe a status to yourself, based on your own opinion on the matter, and claim that it is not your belief.

 

And before weak atheism is brought up in order to attempt to claim conscious thought is not required to be an atheist, I will first point out what should be obvious - people are not born with the idea of "God doesn't exist" in their minds - their opinions on the existence of a god is that of a rock's: neutral, not applicable, indifferent, irrelevant, nothing. Atheism by definition implies "without god", a stance that hardly fits under "nothing" or "neutral". So my opinion is that you cannot even be an "atheist" until you've at least heard of the concept of god. Until then, your religious stance is "not applicable", just like a rock's stance on communism vs capitalism.

[Myweponsg00d]

 

Agreed.

 

A big argument often used by atheists is that religion does bad in the world - and this is undeniable. It does a lot of bad.

 

It doesn't only do bad though. I've personally seen and lived how religion has changed the lives of many people I know for the better, and as such I believe that regardless of the existence of God, religion can be a positive as well as negative force in the world. Personally, I feel religion does more good than bad...but I suppose that's subjective as well.

 

You again seem to be confused on what atheism even is. An atheist doesn't look at religion and say like "Well, this is good, this is bad, the moral part is good, some of these morals are prejudice..." etc. The only trouble atheists have with religion is simply if a religion encourages belief in some supernatural explanation for real things that happen. Thats it.

 

If someone wants to be a Christian, but interprets the events in the Bible figuratively -- thats perfectly fine. Hell, Einstein was "Jewish". I say "Jewish" because he certainly did not assert that an intelligent creator was responsible for the creation of the universe or for the events that happen within. Nor did he believe that the soul of a person is an actual thing that exists and goes on to actually exist in some place called an afterlife. But, he adhered to Judaism as a source of moral guidance and as a community that he could support and turn to for support.

 

Atheists are not necessarily wholly against religion. They are only against the theistic aspects of religion, that is, the aspects of religion that affirm the existence of a deity. Theres much more to religion than whether or not a deity actually exists.

 

If you have actually read any works by atheists, they seem to have been from books that attempt to make some type of moral/amoral good/back argument for atheism or against religion. If you would like to read a book that is a pure commentary on the essence of atheism, I would suggest starting with The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. This is a very good place for somebody to start if they actually want to UNDERSTAND what atheism is even about.

 

 

If God .....etc

 

Whats up bro? Not gonna respond to me any more? You still want to assert that all beliefs that are based on assumptions are equal? Am I ever gonna get any closure on this argument or are you just going to plug your ears and say "nananananana if I cant hear you I'm not wrong!"

[sees_all1]

I fail to see what you think the problem is. Your belief boils down to assumption. My belief boils down to assumption. Doesn't that mean both of our ideas should be treated with equal dignity? Isn't that what you said?

The difference between my assumption and your assumption is one is impossible to test, the other isn't. When an assumption can't be tested, its beyond the realm of math or science, and becomes philosophy or religion.

[obfuscator]

 

You again seem to be confused on what atheism even is. An atheist doesn't look at religion and say like "Well, this is good, this is bad, the moral part is good, some of these morals are prejudice..." etc. The only trouble atheists have with religion is simply if a religion encourages belief in some supernatural explanation for real things that happen. Thats it.

 

I'm sure some atheists idea of atheism is limited to that. I can say for certain many atheists have far more expansive ideas. If you've ever read Hitchens or Dawkins I'm sure you'll concede that point fairly easily.

 

@Ring_world: The basic problem with that is that knowledge of what is going to happen does not mean you have control over it. If God exists, his lack of intervention in our world is merely doing what he promised us...giving us free will.

 

If God was going to intervene constantly on our behalf, what would be the point of life? (from a religious perspective).

[Zygimantas]

 

@Ring_world: The basic problem with that is that knowledge of what is going to happen does not mean you have control over it. If God exists, his lack of intervention in our world is merely doing what he promised us...giving us free will.

 

If God was going to intervene constantly on our behalf, what would be the point of life? (from a religious perspective).

Umm.. to live for god?

[obfuscator]

But if God was constantly going to prevent us from doing any wrong, this earth as a place of proving oneself would be nonexistent.

[Zygimantas]

But if God was constantly going to prevent us from doing any wrong, this earth as a place of proving oneself would be nonexistent.

Maybe it is nonexistent.

[obfuscator]

But if God was constantly going to prevent us from doing any wrong, this earth as a place of proving oneself would be nonexistent.

Maybe it is nonexistent.

Of course, but from a teachings standpoint that's why God doesn't intervene.

[Da_Latios]

 

You again seem to be confused on what atheism even is. An atheist doesn't look at religion and say like "Well, this is good, this is bad, the moral part is good, some of these morals are prejudice..." etc. The only trouble atheists have with religion is simply if a religion encourages belief in some supernatural explanation for real things that happen. Thats it.

 

I'm sure some atheists idea of atheism is limited to that. I can say for certain many atheists have far more expansive ideas. If you've ever read Hitchens or Dawkins I'm sure you'll concede that point fairly easily.

 

@Ring_world: The basic problem with that is that knowledge of what is going to happen does not mean you have control over it. If God exists, his lack of intervention in our world is merely doing what he promised us...giving us free will.

 

If God was going to intervene constantly on our behalf, what would be the point of life? (from a religious perspective).

If God exists, his lack of intervention in our world is merely doing what he promised us...giving us free will.

True free will is free will without punishment. Is it "free will" if, they choose the option less desirable, would be killed or exiled? That isn't free will.

 

If God was going to intervene constantly on our behalf, what would be the point of life? (from a religious perspective).

But so many religious people think He does. Everything is a "miracle" to the vast majority of Christians I've met. It's a "miracle" if someone survives cancer, it's a "miracle" if a plane crashes and everyone dies but a baby is found alive. It's a "miracle" if you lose your wedding ring and two days later find it. Such ordinary, easily explainable things become "miracles" and "proof of God" to many Christians.

 

I'm sure some atheists idea of atheism is limited to that. I can say for certain many atheists have far more expansive ideas. If you've ever read Hitchens or Dawkins I'm sure you'll concede that point fairly easily.

Many Christians don't read the Bible and oppose abortion. However, you wouldn't say that Christianity is about not reading the Bible and opposing abortion, would you? Just because a number of people who label themselves as "Christian" or "Atheist" have certain similar views, it doesn't mean that's what Atheism or Christianity is. Atheism is simply a "lack of a belief in a god or gods" nothing more, nothing less. You do not have to approve of same-sex marriage if you are an atheist. It's just that many atheists also happen to be humanists, or have humanistic views, and tend to be liberal/left-leaning, politically.

[Myweponsg00d]

I fail to see what you think the problem is. Your belief boils down to assumption. My belief boils down to assumption. Doesn't that mean both of our ideas should be treated with equal dignity? Isn't that what you said?

The difference between my assumption and your assumption is one is impossible to test, the other isn't. When an assumption can't be tested, its beyond the realm of math or science, and becomes philosophy or religion.

 

You're saying that to answer the question we should just test it...? But that seems rather dangerous for you, as one of the possiblities is death...

 

You need to make a decision, do you want shot or dont you? You say one possibility is that you die...but consider my alternative. Why should you make a choice based on what you think will happen? My choice is equally likely and cannot be disproven. Since both of our predictions are based on assumptions then you could really make either choice; both choices are equally respectable. Why should you go with your prediction over my prediction?

[sees_all1]

I can't believe how hard you're trolling right now.

Why should you make a choice based on what you think will happen?

Because of what I think will happen.

 

My choice is equally likely and cannot be disproven.

You can test it in a very simple way, and you know that.

[Myweponsg00d]

I can't believe how hard you're trolling right now.

Why should you make a choice based on what you think will happen?

Because of what I think will happen.

 

Why do you think what you think? Assumption. Why do I think what I think? Assumption. We both have our predictions by assumption so I don't understand why you think yours is any better.

My choice is equally likely and cannot be disproven.

You can test it in a very simple way, and you know that.

 

Again, if you'd like to test it...be my guest.

 

But I'm not really concerned with what happens after we test it, I'm concerned with taking the possible scenarios and making the best decision possible before we decide to shoot or not shoot the gun. Clearly we have two very different predictions so how can we pick one over the other?

 

Also I think you don't really even understand the meaning of trolling. If "trolling" means "disproving your logic" then yeah I'm a huge troll.

[Rainbows]

Sees, burden of proof is resting on you here. :smile:

[obfuscator]

 

Whats to prove? God knows how it turned out before he did anything.

 

He knew all the people who ever lives that would go to heaven and all the people that would go to hell, also he knew that his angels would rebel and make hell. Whats to prove? whats the test? God is clearly setting humanity up for failure, and it is intrinsically evil for God to behave in this manner.

 

If he is all knowing and is okay with casting aside non believers when he knew that they would behave so before he even made the human race is evil, you can call it free will all you want but you ignore the evil of it as well. However if he isnt all knowing then why call him God?

 

If there is a God out there who is all knowing and all powerful then he is evil to allow evil to exist as a test for humanity, when he himself already knows how the test will turn out. This reminds me of that old testament story where God makes a bet with the devil that one faithful man will be faithful to God even when the devil kills his family gives him diseases and destroys everything he holds dear. Wait a second? Why would an omniscient God be subject to prove himself to the devil? Why would God allow such evil to happen to the man when he knew beforehand that he would respond the way he did?

 

Clearly God has sinned, gain at the expense of another is wrong. Also allowing murder to happen needlessly is also evil, guilt by association. I would say that if God allows the devil to exist and has the power to stop him he is guilty just like a person that drives a murderer away after his crime spree. Or more accurately a police officer who watches a gang member rape/kill/dismember a person without acting, wouldnt you say the police man is equally responsible for the crime?

 

And please dont say individual choices or free will, because that is irrelevent when God already knows the results to the test before giving it.

 

tl;dr If God exists, and is omniscient like the judeo-christians say so, then he is more evil then the devil

 

God isn't setting humanity up for failure. Just because some humans will fail doesn't mean all will.

 

God didn't make the human race evil. He made the human race free - and gave us two choices. It isn't His fault some of us choose to be evil.

 

God has never intervened on our behalf, as I've stated several times before that is contrary to the purpose of our existence, which is to take care of ourselves. Surely you realize it would be terribly hypocritical to say we had free will but then constantly intervene on our behalf?

 

 

Please don't say free will? free will. This logic is so often used but is terribly flawed. I've said it before, and I'll repeat: Just because you know the outcome of an event doesn't mean you control that outcome. This is basic knowledge.