Is there a God?

[Jonanananas]

It depends what you're referring to. If we're referring to actions caused by religious belief, it can be evaluated easily.

 

Uh...no? First of all, the only thing you could possibly be talking about are actions openly caused by religious belief. The human mind is far to complex to be able to judge which actions are really caused by religion. And even if you're only looking at these obvious examples...you have some idiots promoting intolerance and violence....and you have some people helping out in third-world countries, helping children, being charitable, whatever.

 

 

Personally I don't think religion makes a difference at all, at least on the big perspective. The reason being, it comes from the minds of humans. Reasons based on religion are ultimately reasons based on human nature. Whether it takes the detour through religion doesn't matter. But that's just my personal opinion, nothing I am sure of.

 

I've always found c) to be a weird point. Given that until now, only humans are capable of communicating in the way we do here, it's very reasonable to assume that you do indeed exist. Even in the unlikely case that you are AI, the situation won't really change.

It's also a poor example. Omar's existence is evident by observation - as you've said, we are the only known beings that communicate in this manner.

I'm just saying atheists aren't necessarily more rigorous about their beliefs. I chose the example of my existence because strictly speaking, nothing proves I do. It's a reasonable assumption to say I do exist, but it's still an assumption, and you could be dreaming or in some sort of matrix. Is this an interesting question? Not really. It's not like we can exit this matrix: the truth of the answer doesn't matter. Same goes for the existence of a God; it may or may not be true, but that doesn't really matter--what does matter is whether believing he does is useful.

 

Ah yes. In that case, I agree with you

[Assume Nothing]

Religion isn't merely a detour, it's a tool which propagates ignorance. The actions are quite evident - it's verifiable by observing what religious persons believe and whether their actions are consistent with it. It's a bit far fetched to say that a religious person who withdraws medicine from their child because their doctrine says so were not motivated by their religion to do so.

 

I can't say I disagree that it's human nature to be ignorant, but given that religions often impede our ability to get out of it - it's not hard to conclude that religion is a cause of social ills.

 

EDIT - it's a cause for concern when the only reason some people are charitable is because their doctrine says so - it provides a framework for abuse, which often happens (of which I've provided ample examples of already). I'm not sure whether you could fairly say the benefits outweigh the drawbacks, in all honesty. What's preventing secular organizations from doing the same?

[Jonanananas]

Religion isn't merely a detour, it's a tool which propagates ignorance. The actions are quite evident - it's verifiable by observing what religious persons believe and whether their actions are consistent with it. It's a bit far fetched to say that a religious person who withdraws medicine from their child because their doctrine says so were not motivated by their religion to do so.

 

I can't say I disagree that it's human nature to be ignorant, but given that religions often impede our ability to get out of it - it's not hard to conclude that religion is a cause of social ills.

 

EDIT - it's a cause for concern when the only reason some people are charitable is because their doctrine says so - it provides a framework for abuse, which often happens. I'm not sure whether you could fairly say the benefits outweigh the drawbacks, in all honesty. What's preventing secular organizations from doing the same?

 

You are applying different yardsticks here. You argue that secular organizations can be charitable just as well yet ignore that douchebags can be douchebags just as well without religion.

 

I should also mention that you should distinguish between religion and religious doctrine. The latter will most likely be negative. The former is far too complex to be judged easily.

[Assume Nothing]

You're deliberately evading the notion of causality. Douchebags without religion aren't douchebags because they aren't religious, they're douchebags because of the way they were raised or whatever other external factors caused them to be douchebags.

 

Religions, specifically Christianity, often entails acceptance of religious doctrines. It's also why I mention them so often.

[Jonanananas]

You're deliberately evading the notion of causality. Douchebags without religion aren't douchebags because they aren't religious, they're douchebags because of the way they were raised or whatever other external factors caused them to be douchebags.

 

Religions, specifically Christianity, often entails acceptance of religious doctrines. It's also why I mention them so often.

 

And you know that douchebags with religion are douchebags because of religion? Yeah, right. As said, the human mind is far too complex to judge that. And please don't bring another of these examples where parents don't give their children medicine or any of that. Yeah sure, without religion they might have given it medicine. They also might not have because they believe that the state puts mind-control chemicals in there or whatever.

 

As for the second point: Yes of course. But you can't say "religion" and only look at part of the picture. Just because doctrines exist doesn't mean that they make up the entirety of the religion which is what you are basically basing your argumentation upon (probably not on purpose, but still)

[Assume Nothing]

I can't claim they are douchebags because of religion - that's a bit far-fetched. I can claim many of their immoral actions are derived from religion, yes. Of course, I accept your point - they could have withdrawn the medicine anyway, but with far less convincing causes (religious dogma, regardless of how fallacious, is still convincing for the uncritical mind) - they are far less likely to.

 

I think you're missing the point a bit, as for your second paragraph. Religious doctrines are the foundation of a religion, which is why they're so inherently relevant to religious discussion - without doctrine, it's difficult - if not impossible for a religion to exist.

[Kimberly]

Religion isn't merely a detour, it's a tool which propagates ignorance. The actions are quite evident - it's verifiable by observing what religious persons believe and whether their actions are consistent with it. It's a bit far fetched to say that a religious person who withdraws medicine from their child because their doctrine says so were not motivated by their religion to do so.

 

It's equally far-fetched to say definitively that religion in modern day society "propagates ignorance." That can be your personal opinion, for sure, but it really does not make sense to proclaim it as truth. A phenomenon of people saying one thing and doing another is not strictly limited to religion. You certainly can't quantify any actions based on what they're "claiming" and then say for sure that religion is bad, when not all the facts are clear...Again, your personal belief and impossible to say it so starkly like there's no other option. :/

[Assume Nothing]

I do believe that it's fair to say it depending upon context, which is why definitions are often called for in debate.

 

Does religion, in its entirety - i.e. not omitting the fundamentalist views, impede scientific/social/educational progression? If it does, it's a tool for 'propagating ignorance' - for that is to say, a thing which aids the increase of ignorance.

[Kimberly]

I do believe that it's fair to say it depending upon context, which is why definitions are often called for in debate.

 

It's not fair to say it regardless of the context. In no way, shape, or form can you verify the outrageous claims you're trying to make. It is only your opinion, no matter what the context. You can argue this but you will always lack the evidence you need to verify your opinions as fact just in the same way a person of faith cannot prove there is a higher power.

 

This trait is very similar to the same people that you tend to talk about in religious discussions for being illogical.

[Assume Nothing]

I agree - it may cause outrage, but does that make it outrageous - for that is to say, does that make the claim grossly implausible? It doesn't - because it's a natural claim based on the effects of religious belief, and there is good reason to accept it (request elaboration if you may).

 

It doesn't require the evidence that you claim it does, simply because we can operate on the notion of causality. If we could identify something in religion that operates as a tool for causing ignorance, then the claim that religion can propagate ignorance would be well-founded. I think a better question would be - 'even if it can, would it? - and does the counter-effects supersede it?'

 

I see that you've touched on the point that all in all, it's my opinion - a truism. It's a little meaningless/trivial to make that claim, as it does not invalidate my position (unless you are implying that it's a subjective matter - but that doesn't seem to be the case here).

 

As a sidenote, I don't understand why you would be so defensive of religion. If you are trying to balance the equation so to speak, you could try providing effective reasoning and counter-reasoning as opposed to adding to the number of respondents.

[Kimberly]

It doesn't require the evidence that you claim it does, simply because we can operate on the notion of causality. If we could identify something in religion that operates as a tool for causing ignorance, then the claim that religion can propagate ignorance would be well-founded.

 

It most certainly does require the evidence you're speaking of if you're using to make such an important and impacting claim. Simply speaking, there are far too many variables that you could ever account for. You have no means to measure the communities you are examining and determining for a fact that the entire community was "made ignorant" by any single thing, let alone a belief structure. You can't even measure to what extent a community is ignorant and successfully determine what caused that. Look at the United States, for one thing.

 

It is most certainly not well founded, and if you were conducting such a thing as an experiment, you know full well that you'd be laughed out of the scientific community. It is best to recognize that this is only your opinion, and that to qualify it as fact is as impossible (and I'm repeating myself here, I know) as trying to prove a higher power exists.

 

EDIT: As for your sidenote, you're completely twisting where I'm coming from. This has nothing to do with defending a religion and everything to do with the fact that what you're saying makes no sense stated as fact. I have provided plenty of counter-points. I don't know if you'll ever find it sufficient, but these issues with your proposed analysis are crystal clear.

[Assume Nothing]

I didn't say an entire community was made ignorant - that's a straw man argument from poor interpretation by yourself. I'm saying religion allows for, and continues to cause ignorance by omission/rejection of many scientific/educational things.

[Kimberly]

I didn't say an entire community was made ignorant - that's a straw man argument from poor interpretation by yourself. I'm saying religion allows for, and continues to cause ignorance by omission/rejection of many scientific/educational things.

 

No...no. Just...no. Don't fall back on that. That is poor form, and a poor attempt on your part to ignore what I'm saying. To validate your claims you would have to examine it in levels, in areas. Aka communities. And then compare the results from different communities to validate your claim that universally religion propagates ignorance.

 

And as said before, there are far...far...far too many variables to effectively do so and have your claims accepted as fact. It is downright laughable.

[Assume Nothing]

prop·a·gate

verb /ˈpräpəˌgāt/ 

propagated, past participle; propagated, past tense; propagates, 3rd person singular present; propagating, present participle

 

Breed specimens of (a plant, animal, etc.) by natural processes from the parent stock

- try propagating your own houseplants from cuttings

 

(of a plant, animal, etc.) Reproduce in such a way

- the plant propagates freely from stem cuttings

 

Cause (something) to increase in number or amount

- operational error includes those errors propagated during the digitizing process

 

Spread and promote (an idea, theory, knowledge, etc.) widely

- the French propagated the idea that the English were violent and gluttonous drunkards

 

Transmit (motion, light, sound, etc.) in a particular direction or through a medium

- electromagnetic effects can be propagated at a finite velocity only through material substances

- a propagated electrical signal

 

(of motion, light, sound, etc.) Be transmitted or travel in such a way

- a hydraulic fracture is generally expected to propagate in a vertical plane

 

 

'Religion propagates ignorance', for that is to say, 'Religion causes an increase in ignorance'

 

If we can identify something in religion that can cause an increase of ignorance, then we have verified that religion propagate ignorance. If we can verify that in the past, it does - then we have verified that religion does propagate ignorance.

 

Religious bodies, specifically those of Christianity, has a tendency of preventing educators from teaching various subjects based on its belief system. In many instances, it rejects fully verified scientific claims simply because it contradicts their own teachings. I could provide an exhaustive list, but it would be of no purpose. It's quite evident that religion serves as a tool, or platform for propagating ignorance. I don't see where my claim would be 'outrageous', for sure.

 

I fail to see how it's necessary to examine it in areas. As for your 'no, just no' statements, I'll just ignore that since it has no substance to speak of.

 

EDIT - 'it's downright laughable' - that's actually rather irrelevant, you might want to delete that before you get accused of appealing to ridicule.

[Crocefisso]

The claim that religion propagates ignorance does not need to be backed up with any evidence so long as it is made clear that the potential is latent and therefore not necessarily present in every instance that there is religion operating within a community (though historically religion has tended to do so anyway).

 

(Might have been said already, I got bored reading the line of discussion).

[obfuscator]

The claim does not need to be backed up with any evidence

This is never true.

[Assume Nothing]

How so?

[obfuscator]

In what world should one be allowed to make claims without any evidence?

[Assume Nothing]

You're omitting the clause beyond that, and you're missing the point here. It depends on the claim though - if we're saying 'x' causes 'y', all we need to verify it would be the identification of a causal agent.

[obfuscator]

You're omitting the clause beyond that, and you're missing the point here. It depends on the claim though - if we're saying 'x' causes 'y', all we need to verify it would be the identification of a causal agent.

Okay. Atheism causes people to be stupid.

[Assume Nothing]

Identify something in atheism which does. Remember: atheism entails only a disbelief in deities.

 

If you can't do that, your claim is unfounded and quite frankly an unjustified attack on my position.

[obfuscator]

Identify something in atheism which does. Remember: atheism entails only a disbelief in deities.

 

Why? I thought I didn't have to provide any evidence for claims I made?

[Vezon Dash]

Identify something in atheism which does. Remember: atheism entails only a disbelief in deities.

 

Why? I thought I didn't have to provide any evidence for claims I made?

 

That's what I understood from the post too...

 

 

Also, inb4duff

[Assume Nothing]

It depends what you classify as evidence. I did put as a clause that even without evidence, there needs to be argument presented. I'm sick of your deliberate misinterpretations of what I write though, it's a waste of time speaking to you.

[Vezon Dash]

It depends what you classify as evidence. I did put as a clause that even without evidence, there needs to be argument presented. I'm sick of your deliberate misinterpretations of what I write though, it's a waste of time speaking to you.

 

His argument is that atheism causes people to be stupid.

 

Is there something that you have *against* religion?