religion

[Alg]

...I'm not good at arguing, I just pretend to be :razz:

[Iamdan]

Man, I love this!

 

Good arguments by you all, since I was gone most of the day I don't have time to respond to each of you individually, but I agree with bits and pieces of each of your guys' statements.

 

@ Da_Latios: As Mask stated, people are very focused on the leviticus passages, which may or may not be a bad thing. One reason why many people excuse these Old testament laws is because frankly they were set-up for a group of people who did not have modern day doctors, anti-bacterial soaps, running water to bathe, etc.

 

For example, you stated "I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15:19- 24. The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense." many people know that a group of women, when living in a group, will after sometime all begin to have their "time" around the same date. Also, you forgot to mention that it says that women should leave (not direct quotation) for I believe 7 days. So in a way, when these laws were written, they were allowing the women to leave and have I guess women to women time where they could persay paint nails, have parties, etc. I'd love to continue discussing this, but i'm running out of time.

 

Sorry I can't respond to more. Keep up the discussion!!

 

EDIT: If this doesn't make any sense, I apologize. I am quite tired and may or may not be thinking very coherently.

 

Ignore the outdated morals rules and laws. They made sense (for the most part) at the time. Religion is philosophy amongst other things.

 

Was there actually a man who ate from the tree of knowledge which caused the human race to become imperfect? Of course not. Only fundamentalists believe this. We know a perfect universe is physically impossible when we use radios to 'listen' to the beginning of the universe.

 

What about technology creating weapons that allow us to destroy ourselves? What about advanced medicine being a major contributor to overpopulation and thus reduced standards of living?

 

Since evolution is so slow, our bodies are the same as our tribal ancestors, yet we live in a much different environment. You could say we aren't designed to live with 'knowledge.'

[L2Ski]

Man, I love this!

 

Good arguments by you all, since I was gone most of the day I don't have time to respond to each of you individually, but I agree with bits and pieces of each of your guys' statements.

 

@ Da_Latios: As Mask stated, people are very focused on the leviticus passages, which may or may not be a bad thing. One reason why many people excuse these Old testament laws is because frankly they were set-up for a group of people who did not have modern day doctors, anti-bacterial soaps, running water to bathe, etc.

 

For example, you stated "I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15:19- 24. The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense." many people know that a group of women, when living in a group, will after sometime all begin to have their "time" around the same date. Also, you forgot to mention that it says that women should leave (not direct quotation) for I believe 7 days. So in a way, when these laws were written, they were allowing the women to leave and have I guess women to women time where they could persay paint nails, have parties, etc. I'd love to continue discussing this, but i'm running out of time.

 

Sorry I can't respond to more. Keep up the discussion!!

 

EDIT: If this doesn't make any sense, I apologize. I am quite tired and may or may not be thinking very coherently.

 

Ignore the outdated morals rules and laws. They made sense (for the most part) at the time. Religion is philosophy amongst other things.

 

Was there actually a man who ate from the tree of knowledge which caused the human race to become imperfect? Of course not. Only fundamentalists believe this.

 

What about technology creating weapons that allow us to destroy ourselves? What about advanced medicine being a major contributor to overpopulation and thus reduced standards of living?

 

Since evolution is so slow, our bodies are the same as our tribal ancestors, yet we live in a much different environment. We aren't designed to live with 'knowledge.'

 

Interesting concept. So maybe.. We are supposed to rely on something to guide us? (I feel like a complete religious nut right now, but don't judge me. I'm just throwing ideas out)

[Zygimantas]

*snip*

Yes. Religion is a delusion, and so is rationality or even delusions. Everything is a delusion :)

And for some reason it's okay to disrespect one delusion but not another. It's somehow absurd to think that the religious man's delusion is less a delusion than Weapon's, here.

 

I'm not religious. Didn't think I'd have to point that out again but everyone seems to think I am. Weapon's post - both versions - exemplifies what I hate about antitheists. Namely, the belief that their beliefs are untouchable but anyone else's are worthy of mockery.

Yes, it is quite contradictory to say one belief is "wrong" and a delusion, and then say what you believe is "right". On the other hand life can be a big contradiction itself... oh well :P

[Alg]

Yes, it is quite contradictory to say one belief is "wrong" and a delusion, and then say what you believe is "right". On the other hand life can be a big contradiction itself... oh well :P

All I ask is for the self awareness to realize that. :shades:

[fakeitormakeit2]

Well the Bible is God's word, and the major stuff he wants to get through gets through. And I'm pretty sure that at multiple points God either a) instructs people to help kill people, or b) helps people to kill people (i.e. Jericho).

I think generalizations are one of the primary sources for disdain of religion. @ jjrox32, are you thinking of Islam that professes the Qu'ran is the word of God? Because the Catholic Church doesn't believe that and Catholics comprise about half of all the Christians in the world. Furthermore, I saw someone say along the lines that they believe God is like everything and more, etc., well that also has a place in Christian theology (which is called panentheism). In addition, there are rampant quoting of the Old Testament out of context and without the understanding the the Old Testament is "Old" for a reason, a distinguished older view of God which Jesus metaphorically set the Christians free from, which is rendered "complete" (i.e. no more). People who quote the Bible to disprove all of Christianity using a literal interpretation make the same mistake as fundamentalists, not to mention completely ignore historicity, the historio-critical method and textual criticism. In addition to those who think those with faith are superstitious because of actions such as divine intervention, it's already been discussed in various theologies such as Process Theology and Weak Theology.

 

I could go on and on about misconceptions, but my point is, again, people generally fail to distinguish between theology and religion, which is a large, if not the entire, causation of miscommunication, disdain, etc.. [see Dr. Caputo's Philosophy and Theology]

[Myweponsg00d]

*snip*

Yes. Religion is a delusion, and so is rationality or even delusions. Everything is a delusion :)

And for some reason it's okay to disrespect one delusion but not another. It's somehow absurd to think that the religious man's delusion is less a delusion than Weapon's, here.

 

I'm not religious. Didn't think I'd have to point that out again but everyone seems to think I am. Weapon's post - both versions - exemplifies what I hate about antitheists. Namely, the belief that their beliefs are untouchable but anyone else's are worthy of mockery.

 

This is a total misconception of what it means to even be an atheist. Atheists don't take "beliefs". By "belief" I mean that a belief is something that is basically irrational and held onto for no reason.

 

For example, it is not my BELIEF that the earth orbits the sun. It is a fact.

 

Atheists don't believe in god because we don't "believe" in anything. We observe things the way they are and act according to what evidence suggests.

 

A lot of people erroneously think that "atheism" means that, no matter what, we REJECT the idea of a god. This simply is not true. If there were a god that communicated with us, took place in our daily lives, showed proof of his existence, et cetera...people who are currently athiests would not "blindly" reject his existence. If there happened to be scientific proof of a magical being who creates things and answers prayers, people who are "atheists" would not just plug their ears and be like "lah lah lah NO THERE IS NO GOD!!!"

 

However, this is what creationists do. They have their BELIEF and they stick to it no matter what.

 

It truly aggrivates me when I get condemned for being "closed minded" as an atheist. If anything, atheism has allowed me to be way more open minded than any sort of religious belief would. If I took up a religion, I would have to live my whole life thinking that there can only be one true story for how and why we exist, and this story is the one of the scriptures. With atheism, I am free to observe new evidence, reshape my thoughts about the universe, and continue to analyze my existence as new information arrives. The life of an atheist is not one of closed-mindedness; it is a life of wonder, curiousity, and discovery.

 

Yes, it is quite contradictory to say one belief is "wrong" and a delusion, and then say what you believe is "right". On the other hand life can be a big contradiction itself... oh well :P

 

I use the word "delusion" because it is the only word that I know to describe a belief that is firmly held despite evidence to the contrary. Do you know of any other words I could use?

 

For example: thinking that if you step on a crack, you break your mother's back. That is a delusion, from my understanding of the word.

 

I could call it "superstition" if you perfer. I still suspect that I would recieve a negative reaction for using that word to describe religious beliefs though.

 

Which brings me back to my original point. If someone claims that they are living their lives in fear because they accidentally broke a mirror, you would call them superstitious or even delusional. Yet if you hold religious beliefs (which have just as little evidence as the mirror-breaking thing) you aren't crazy or delusional; you're just religious. I seriously don't understand.

[Iamdan]

^^ Let's call it faith instead of belief when talking in a religious sense, as they have different meanings.

 

Atheists deny the existence of a deity. If one were to show itself, anyone would believe in it. That's not what faith is. You're comparing apples to oranges.

[Iamdan]

People of all types are pretentious and arrogant. I wouldn't say atheists are special.

 

On the internet you come across a lot of intellectually elitist atheists, but I bet overall it's roughly the same.

[Alg]

People of all types are pretentious and arrogant. I wouldn't say atheists are special.

 

On the internet you come across a lot of intellectually elitist atheists, but I bet overall it's roughly the same.

Truer words haven't been spoken. That's the one prejudice I'm trying to break. As you can probably tell, not going so well.

 

I think I'm done here. Getting too worked up, going to leave before I break something else :razz:

[Zygimantas]

 

Yes, it is quite contradictory to say one belief is "wrong" and a delusion, and then say what you believe is "right". On the other hand life can be a big contradiction itself... oh well :P

 

I use the word "delusion" because it is the only word that I know to describe a belief that is firmly held despite evidence to the contrary. Do you know of any other words I could use?

 

For example: thinking that if you step on a crack, you break your mother's back. That is a delusion, from my understanding of the word.

 

I could call it "superstition" if you perfer. I still suspect that I would recieve a negative reaction for using that word to describe religious beliefs though.

 

Which brings me back to my original point. If someone claims that they are living their lives in fear because they accidentally broke a mirror, you would call them superstitious or even delusional. Yet if you hold religious beliefs (which have just as little evidence as the mirror-breaking thing) you aren't crazy or delusional; you're just religious. I seriously don't understand.

The thing is, people have different opinions on what is evidence and not.

 

If someone said they are living their life in fear because of religion, then they would be considered a crazy religious person :lol:

[sees_all1]

Atheists don't believe in god because we don't "believe" in anything. We observe things the way they are and act according to what evidence suggests.

In math, there are axioms which are held to be true and are not disputed, but are impossible to prove.

 

For instance, the properties of equality:

1. Any number "a" exists, and a = a.

2. If a = b, then b = a.

3. If a = b and b = c, then a = c.

 

Or the properties of addition

0. a + b exists

1. a + (b + c) = (a + b) + c

2. a + 0 = a

3. a + (-a) = 0

4. a + b = b + a

 

And the properties of multiplication

0. a * b exists

1. a(bc) = (ab)c

2. a1 = a

3. For a != 0, a*a^-1 = 1

4. ab = ba

 

And the other axioms -

D. a(b + c) = ab + ac

Z. 0 != 1.

 

 

 

No amount of logic can prove these, and for math to work you just have to accept them. You must believe them, otherwise this "math" and "science" that exists falls apart and nothing is real.

You think these are "facts", but they're not. It's our best guess for what we observe.

 

You atheists say "God does not exist and cannot be proven", I can say in clear conscience that "a+b does not exist". I can't show you direct proof that God exists, but you can't show me direct proof that a+b exists. Math still exists, and religion still exists all the same.

[Iamdan]

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.

[Da_Latios]

You mean you're surprised that laws written for a desert-dwelling culture thousands of years ago are going to conflict with your modern Australian morals? Or, you know, the fact that the Bible isn't limited to Leviticus and Exodus?

 

Every time someone brings up that dissonance, they always quote from Leviticus. No context, historical or literary, is necessary, if course... </sarcasm>

 

I do hate arguing with antitheists. It's like atheism's answer to religious zealots.

You know what? You can take that </sarcasm> tag out of there. What kind of context could you possibly give to justify killing 42 children because they called Elishah bald? (Kings 2:34-24)

The Leviticus laws are God's eternal laws, reflective of his unchanging self. If you're going to look at Christianity, you can't disregard these passages.

 

I do love how you compare anti-theists to religious extremists. When an Islamic radical threatens death (or in many cases, actually goes through with the death threats) you go, "Well, they're religious extremists. But their beliefs must still be respected!"

When an atheist points out the flaws, fallacies and moral [cabbage] in religion, everyone goes, "Oh my! Don't be so mean! Respect everyone's beliefs equally; don't be so EXTREMIST and AGGRESSIVE!"

Seriously, [bleep] everyone who has that mindset.

 

You atheists say "God does not exist and cannot be proven", I can say in clear conscience that "a+b does not exist". I can't show you direct proof that God exists, but you can't show me direct proof that a+b exists. Math still exists, and religion still exists all the same.

Hold up two fingers. Now hold up one more finger. Now you're holding up 3 fingers. There's your damn proof.

You still can't provide the existence of YOUR god, let alone the existence of the hundreds of thousands of gods that exist and have existed.

[sees_all1]

You atheists say "God does not exist and cannot be proven", I can say in clear conscience that "a+b does not exist". I can't show you direct proof that God exists, but you can't show me direct proof that a+b exists. Math still exists, and religion still exists all the same.

Hold up two fingers. Now hold up one more finger. Now you're holding up 3 fingers. There's your damn proof.

You still can't provide the existence of YOUR god, let alone the existence of the hundreds of thousands of gods that exist and have existed.

2 doesn't exist and 1 doesn't exist. Therefore you have no proof that 3 is the sum of 2 and 1.

 

EDIT:

I actually believe that Z isn't true, that is to say one equals zero. Therefore, 2 + 1 = 2. You can't prove me wrong because you can't prove Z.

[Da_Latios]

You atheists say "God does not exist and cannot be proven", I can say in clear conscience that "a+b does not exist". I can't show you direct proof that God exists, but you can't show me direct proof that a+b exists. Math still exists, and religion still exists all the same.

Hold up two fingers. Now hold up one more finger. Now you're holding up 3 fingers. There's your damn proof.

You still can't provide the existence of YOUR god, let alone the existence of the hundreds of thousands of gods that exist and have existed.

2 doesn't exist and 1 doesn't exist. Therefore you have no proof that 3 is the sum of 2 and 1.

Don't be a troll. Are you telling me that I'm not holding up three fingers if all but my thumb and little finger aren't being held up?

If so, you belong in a mental institution.

[sees_all1]

Don't be a troll. Are you telling me that I'm not holding up three fingers if all but my thumb and little finger aren't being held up?

If so, you belong in a mental institution.

I'm dead serious, you can't prove Z. If I don't accept Z as fact, you can't prove that 2+1 = 3, when in fact 2 + 1 = 2.

[Zygimantas]

You atheists say "God does not exist and cannot be proven", I can say in clear conscience that "a+b does not exist". I can't show you direct proof that God exists, but you can't show me direct proof that a+b exists. Math still exists, and religion still exists all the same.

Hold up two fingers. Now hold up one more finger. Now you're holding up 3 fingers. There's your damn proof.

You still can't provide the existence of YOUR god, let alone the existence of the hundreds of thousands of gods that exist and have existed.

2 doesn't exist and 1 doesn't exist. Therefore you have no proof that 3 is the sum of 2 and 1.

Don't be a troll. Are you telling me that I'm not holding up three fingers if all but my thumb and little finger aren't being held up?

If so, you belong in a mental institution.

In reality there is no such thing as those numbers, is what he is trying to say. ( I think)

[Da_Latios]

What's the damn point? There are amounts of things, thus there are numbers. The universe has a limited amount of particles in it, which can be counted using numbers (not in practice of course, but you know what I mean).

[Iamdan]

Numbers don't exist outside of our minds, they are irrelevant whether one value equals another according to our invented system or not.

 

You can prove consistencies between objects to an extremely restricting limit taking into account how tiny the earth is and old the universe is, but that's about it.

[Da_Latios]

I'm not talking about numbers, numbers. I'm talking about amounts. But what's the point anyway? It demonstrates nothing to say that numbers exist only in our minds.

 

There is absolutely NO REASON to believe in a god, much less the Judeo-Christian god, and you can't give me a reason; none exists.

(post directed at sees_all1)

[sees_all1]

I'm not talking about numbers, numbers. I'm talking about amounts. But what's the point anyway? It demonstrates nothing to say that numbers exist only in our minds.

And you still can't prove that 2+1=3 without axiom Z, that 1 does not equal 0.

 

Your entire system of science and math cannot be proven without a few simple beliefs.

[Da_Latios]

I'm not talking about numbers, numbers. I'm talking about amounts. But what's the point anyway? It demonstrates nothing to say that numbers exist only in our minds.

And you still can't prove that 2+1=3 without axiom Z, that 1 does not equal 0.

 

Your entire system of science and math cannot be proven without a few simple beliefs.

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

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

[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.

[Dax]

I remember something Richard Dawkins said: I'm only one more god less towards atheism than you are. You only believe in one out of hundreds, I, none.

 

Or something to that effect. I plan to use it in my epic religious debate I'm having before I die.