Serious The Atheism/Agnosticism thread

[some hero]

Why later?
I disagree with the way you put it. Logic after all is also vulnerable to common knowledge which can be wrong. You shouldn't make such definitive statements and anything is possible. Everything we know, for example, can be disproven at any time. So while yes, with the guidelines already set there are definitely several impossible ideas, we can't say for sure our rules are actually correct in the first place. All we are doing is assuming.

 

[Princess Bubblegum]

Why later?

Here is it is

This is retarded. How many mathematicians do you see gathering together to discuss how square circles don't exist?

I don't think this is a fair comparison for a variety of reasons. First off, by definition, that statement makes no sense, square and circle are defined in a specific ways. This is like pondering if you can have a 4 sided triangle, a triangle by definition has 3 sides, end of story.

God is not like this, unless of course you get into the problem of evil [which even then only applies to specific interpretations Abrahamic Gods], outside of that there is nothing logically wrong with a God claim. For example, I can claim Ra exists, now while no one is experiencing Ra, there is nothing in my definition which is contradictory to reality.

Mathematically, I find the question of God's existence comparable to the existence of an odd perfect number. A perfect number is one whose factors add up to its self, for example: 6 = 1+2+3, 28 = 1 + 2 + 4 + 7 + 14. To date we have not found any odd numbers which do that. Its its not like mathematicians haven't tried, so far we know that no that odd perfect numbers exists which is less than 10^1500. Despite this, no serious mathematician could safely say that no odd perfect numbers exist, for all we know there very well may exist one beyond 10^1500, waiting to be found.

For all we know, God may be like this, just beyond our grasp, however, just like the odd perfect number, the more we know and understand the universe around us, it is becoming incredibly unlikely that they do exist.

Now before I get some other Theist mathematicians down my neck, you have to admit that you believe in a God for other reasons, whether it be a personal experience or realization. In effect, you had the perfect odd number revealed to you personally.

I disagree with the way you put it. Logic after all is also vulnerable to common knowledge which can be wrong. You shouldn't make such definitive statements and anything is possible. Everything we know, for example, can be disproven at any time. So while yes, with the guidelines already set there are definitely several impossible ideas, we can't say for sure our rules are actually correct in the first place. All we are doing is assuming.

First off, the definitions given are the ones we have to deal with, changing them to something else to say the initial standpoint was wrong is "moving the goalposts." For more solid definitions, the truth of something is apparent by definition, at explained in my no '4 sided triangle' earlier.

Continuing, while what you are saying is technically true, the fact is the basis for things like mathematics are rooted in certain axioms which we pretty much have to take for true.

Lets look for example at the union of 2 sets A and B:

Several things become outright apparent here, like that if something is in the union, it is in either A or B, If its in B, its in the union, ect.

They are axioms which are true because that is the only way we can perceive them to be, the apparent fact of how they work is admittedly un-provable. However, because they have been so useful in every field of human knowledge, we take them as true. Without them our entire framework of how we think goes of the window, notions such as proof for example even become nonsensical without them. How can you prove something is in something if you deny the notion of a union for example. You are verging on the realm of literally outside logic, at a certain point, to live at all, even if our reality is a delusion, you have to accept these. Even in the matix, these axioms still apply.

So yea, lets just take set theory as a given, and with it, mathimatics, which does make absolute true statements about reality, well, at least reality as we can ever possibly understand it.

 

[Myzozoa]

What? I don't have to except the axioms of mathematics at all: there is nothing empirical about mathematics. Consider an empty set, I posit that you've never experienced the empty set, and further I assert that humans are incapable of grasping the perception of an empty set necessarily (humans do not have a faculty equipped to imagine or perceive an empty set except in abstract terms). As all ideas come from experience (unless you
re a Scholastic, in which case you should notice how there are no longer any University level departments of Scholasticism, but do notice the continual existence of Humanities departments), including logical propositions which arise only after a subject learns language, the fact that an empty set is an empirical contradiction proves that an empty set isn't real. And thus the foundations of mathematics fail as empirical propositions: how can you perceive zero (which is set theoretically defined as the cardinality of the empty set) when the empty set is impossible to perceive?

Mathematics is the abstract study of topics such as quantity (numbers),[2]structure,[3]space,[2] and change

- wikipedia

Mathematics is no less abstract and un-empirical than religion is, when you assert mathematics is real (to be real is to be perceivable for humans) you are going on faith just as much as a pantheist would be. Every wikipedia page will tell you that numbers are abstract, that mathematics is an abstract discourse, there is nothing about it that leads to statements about realness. A belief in the realness of God, in so far as I don't think anyone has ever, or will ever experience a God, is no different than a belief in the realness of set-theory, or the realness of zero, or the realness of an empty set, these things are all abstractions.

So I vehemently deny the conclusion: "mathimatics, which does make absolute true statements about reality, well, at least reality as we can ever possibly understand it." because it makes many statements on the basis of things we cannot possibly perceive, and all human knowledge of the real originates from perceptions.

will edit this when soberer, but man asserting the realness of mathematics in a discussion against the realness of faith is horribly ironic. almost unconscionably misleading.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_mathematics#Empiricism

Edit:

He said "lets just take set theory as a given" admitting it is not an a priori truth of the world, but that we should treat it as such.

Should implies some sort of practical purpose to doing so. Can you think of any practical purpose to mathematics?

You're making a lot of claims but you have no support for them. Hopefully you can post something moderately intelligent when sober.

Can you think of any practical purpose to religion?

A lot of people do, and have used the concept of a God in logical proofs, gee just like mathematics.

Same logical moves.

As for making a lot of claims with 'no support' I'm not going to rehash 200 years of Empiricism, but I will ask you in good faith to attempt to imagine a set with no elements, I can't. It seems intuitively essential to the empty set that it is not perceived. Now normally we could agree that I can imagine an object separate from that subject which perceives it, however that imagining is in and of itself a perception, and secondly the empty set cannot be thought of in the same way as any other object because it is the absence of any object at all. The only way I can grasp it is by thinking of it as a piece of a logical framework: the framework of math, but this is not necessarily the same framework as reality. Just because it is useful to think of reality this way doesn't make it the true nature of reality. There is a utility, a benefit to thinking of it this way, just as some might say there is a benefit to faith.


http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mathphil-indis/

 

[billymills]

He said "lets just take set theory as a given" admitting it is not an a priori truth of the world, but that we should treat it as such.

Should implies some sort of practical purpose to doing so. Can you think of any practical purpose to mathematics?

You're making a lot of claims but you have no support for them. Hopefully you can post something moderately intelligent when sober.

 

[Gisnack]

I was talking about the attributes given to god by christianity,islam and judaism i.e all powerful, all knowing, pure good etc. A 'lesser god' is possible, but he will be closer to the hindu/ancient greek/ancient egyptian gods, who have human feelings.

About mathematics, it is accepted that it is imperfect. I do not believe science can answer all questions about the universe.

 

[Jorgen]

Oh god, empiricism. Tell me, how do you even come to the conclusion that empiricism is the best way to go about getting knowledge in the first place? I'm pretty sure that conclusion didn't come from a test tube.

I mean I'm training to do science for a living and even I'm not this staunch a believer in empiricism. Then again I'm training to do neuroscience at a systems level, wherein we really need to make a lot of assumptions to do anything useful, so I guess if anything I should be pretty open to rationalism.

On a related, anti-empiricism note, I used to love reading the Philosophy Bro blog. The gimmick was obvious but usually not too grating and he did a good job of parsing most concepts down to a digestible, salient level. Too bad it doesn't update anymore, but the archives are still nice.

 

[Myzozoa]

[/quote]

Oh god, empiricism. Tell me, how do you even come to the conclusion that empiricism is the best way to go about getting knowledge in the first place? I'm pretty sure that conclusion didn't come from a test tube.

I mean I'm training to do science for a living and even I'm not this staunch a believer in empiricism. Then again I'm training to do neuroscience at a systems level, wherein we really need to make a lot of assumptions to do anything useful, so I guess if anything I should be pretty open to rationalism.

On a related, anti-empiricism note, I used to love reading the Philosophy Bro blog. The gimmick was obvious but usually not too grating and he did a good job of parsing most concepts down to a digestible, salient level. Too bad it doesn't update anymore, but the archives are still nice.

Oh you know something about empiricism that makes it no good, yet you don't argue against it, cool. I can't respond to this at all, present an argument please.

I think you should be open to whatever knowledge you want, my point was in no way to say attack whatever it is people are perceiving me as attacking here, but I found it hilarious when mathematics was held up as this creator of truth as opposed to that faith shit, fuck that shit amirite?To not be a complete apathetic skeptic requires some presumptions, we all make fucking irrational presumptions so that we don't sit around all day and do nothing because 'lol it's a determined universe' and we have justice and we like justice and it's great: even though we have no idea about what is right or wrong, we really get into it with the laws, and we have science because even though the premises will never all be there it leads to a bunch of pretty useful conclusions, it's okay, just don't lie to yourself about who's beliefs are the most rational and perfect and useful.

 

[Jorgen]

I had assumed dogmatic empiricism, which is admittedly a straw man, but your vehemence about what's honestly a pretty nuanced point made me gravitate toward arguing against that. Basically my argument against it was via paradox as follows:

Dogmatic empiricism is inconsistent
A1: All statements that cannot be verified through observation are indeterminate.
A2: All indeterminate statements ought to parsimoniously be regarded as false
O1: A1 cannot be verified through observation. (that's "observation 1", which I used instead of "axiom 3" because if it were accepted a priori, there probably wouldn't be dogmatic empiricism. It basically functions as an axiom in this sketch tho)
If O1 and A1, then
T1: A1 is indeterminate
If T1 and A2, then
T2: A1 ought to parsimoniously be regarded as false
QED

It's the oldest criticism in the book, I probably didn't do it justice, and tbh A2 is probably not quiiite an axiom of dogmatic empiricism. However, it's totally not necessary as indeterminance itself is incompatible with being true. I just wanted to go the extra mile to say "dogmatic empiricism is false by its own premises" because it seemed more fun.

Of course, if you're my effigy of the strict dogmatic empiricist, you'd probably scoff at this like "Pfft. You're using reason? But what observation demonstrates ~∃(x)∈(x ∩ ~x)? Reason is flawed!" This seems to parallel the closed-minded irrationality that religious belief can manifest, which is far worse than its tenets being empirically non-verifiable.

And that's why people here are arguing with you (or at least, that's why I'm arguing with you), regardless of whether or not that's the actual position you maintain.

Oh, and in reference to the topic of math, I don't think people here are really saying that math is the only real truth-generator. However, mathematical systems seem to be consistent and complete in all but a few esoteric cases, so it's fair to say that it's a very sound and useful way of deriving conclusions once you transpose the noisy concrete world into the clear abstract world. It's interpreting empirical observations and getting the correct real-world axioms that is usually the point of contention, not the reasoning itself (e.g., the flawed truth of 1+1=2). By saying "math is flawed!", you seem to be suggesting that the latter is the bigger problem.

 

[Calm_Mind_Latias]

Oh god, empiricism. Tell me, how do you even come to the conclusion that empiricism is the best way to go about getting knowledge in the first place? I'm pretty sure that conclusion didn't come from a test tube.

I mean I'm training to do science for a living and even I'm not this staunch a believer in empiricism. Then again I'm training to do neuroscience at a systems level, wherein we really need to make a lot of assumptions to do anything useful, so I guess if anything I should be pretty open to rationalism.

On a related, anti-empiricism note, I used to love reading the Philosophy Bro blog. The gimmick was obvious but usually not too grating and he did a good job of parsing most concepts down to a digestible, salient level. Too bad it doesn't update anymore, but the archives are still nice.

I am still at the level of ideas and impressions. :)

It seems almost no one is an actual empiricist because the epistemology can lead to extreme skepticism, not only on subjects not available to scrutiny to scientific investigation such as alleged religious events or paranormal phenomenon, but also on common sense issues. An empiricist, for instance, could argue that some existence of some "theoretical entities" such as gas molecules and enzymes are not firmly established because one does not observe them directly; one only observes their effects. For instance, concerning the former, by positing that a gas is composed of point particles behaving in a Newtonian fashion (kinetic theory), one can derive macroscopic phenomenon such as the gas law. The latter, we can appreciate the effects of enzymes through studying a biological reaction; in solution in physiological conditions, the reaction would proceed at a fairly slow rate a given concentration of reactant, but one does notice an acceleration in reaction kinetics when the respective enzyme is added. For enzymes, one just observes the effects of processes -- the binding on an specific antibody (on a Western blot), x-ray diffraction on its crystallized form (and from this one can infer its tertiary structure from the diffraction pattern), its location on a gel (in correspondence with its molecular weight), or kinetic acceleration of a reaction -- but no one has directly observed one because our senses are unable to experience the molecular realm (not that is its a separate realm).

But the strongest argument for empiricism is that the entirety of scientific knowledge that humans value in some respect, especially the material that has is without any significant controversy and presented in high school and undergraduate science textbooks, was all known on the basis of experience, through investigation and observation of natural phenomenon, and experiments conducted with a meticulous attention to the set-up and imposed conditions to test in a controlled environment various hypotheses underlying a phenomenon that scientists are interested in.

 

[Princess Bubblegum]

Well, first off, I want to say that I hold the Platonic position on mathematical theory. I do believe that numbers exist, like in actuality, so admittedly I am a bit biased in that area.

I actually do not disagree with what you are saying, you are correct in saying that one can never really understand what an empty set it. However, I do think we can understand an empty set well enough. Without getting into set theory, I find this comparable to when a person says "we can never understand infinity." While it is true that it is impossible to know an infinite set, we can still use our knowledge of it to do practical applications in mathematics with limits to calculus. For all realistic purposes, yes we understand infinity. There is a very similar level of understanding which happens with the empty set.

Also there is this philosophical proof of an empty set :P

The fool saith in his heart that there is no empty set. But if that were so, then the set of all such sets would be empty, and hence it would be the empty set.

On the subject of the truth of mathematics and numbers, consider that even if all of mathematics was wrong and that it is just a very useful fiction (Fictionalism), one still would have to accept that it is still true in the sense of how we can use it. Even if the notion of 2+2=4 is nonsensical, in your life as you know it, it is still very useful and absolutely true in this delusion that we live in. Furthermore, if it is all a fiction, within the fiction there are still absolute truths with the system. Even if numbers to not exist, in our imaginary system, it is still absoletely true that primes are infinite for example.

My God comparison to the odd perfect number is just a comparison of how we prove and disprove things and how something can be in a state of being neither. Its just a logical comparison, I could of used a court room comparison to a similar effect. I actually agree with you saying that the: "realness" of God is no different that that of mathematics, if someone believes in both.

 

[billymills]

I think Jorgen's explanation of empiricism explains a fair bit about the problems I had with your post myzozoa. The empty set is well defined, just as well defined as any other set. Its existence is partially axiomatic. You may be more inclined to discuss an 'arbitrary set', more than the very widely used empty set. An arbitrary set has unknown properties which can not be experimentally determined. However we are looking at a god with some well defined properties (Abrahamic was the word thrown around). The only problem arises when these properties are inconsistent, so discussing the case where the properties are completely unknown and can not be determined is irrelevant.

Can you think of any practical purpose to religion?

A lot of people do, and have used the concept of a God in logical proofs, gee just like mathematics.

Same logical moves.

I'm glad to see we're finally on the same page. Of course there is practical purpose to religion. They are very parallel in this sense. The problem only comes from cases where there is contradiction between mathematics (of which logic is a subset) and a specific religion. I avoid any religions where I see a logical inconsistency because I believe mathematics is a better framework to adopt. I see it as better defined, more useful and simpler. This does not affect the general case, which I believe you were arguing, where god could have any possible properties.

 

[Myzozoa]

I had assumed dogmatic empiricism, which is admittedly a straw man, but your vehemence about what's honestly a pretty nuanced point made me gravitate toward arguing against that. Basically my argument against it was via paradox as follows:

Dogmatic empiricism is inconsistent
A1: All statements that cannot be verified through observation are indeterminate.
A2: All indeterminate statements ought to parsimoniously be regarded as false
O1: A1 cannot be verified through observation. (that's "observation 1", which I used instead of "axiom 3" because if it were accepted a priori, there probably wouldn't be dogmatic empiricism. It basically functions as an axiom in this sketch tho)
If O1 and A1, then
T1: A1 is indeterminate
If T1 and A2, then
T2: A1 ought to parsimoniously be regarded as false
QED

It's the oldest criticism in the book, I probably didn't do it justice, and tbh A2 is probably not quiiite an axiom of dogmatic empiricism. However, it's totally not necessary as indeterminance itself is incompatible with being true. I just wanted to go the extra mile to say "dogmatic empiricism is false by its own premises" because it seemed more fun.

Of course, if you're my effigy of the strict dogmatic empiricist, you'd probably scoff at this like "Pfft. You're using reason? But what observation demonstrates ~∃(x)∈(x ∩ ~x)? Reason is flawed!" This seems to parallel the closed-minded irrationality that religious belief can manifest, which is far worse than its tenets being empirically non-verifiable.

And that's why people here are arguing with you (or at least, that's why I'm arguing with you), regardless of whether or not that's the actual position you maintain.

Oh, and in reference to the topic of math, I don't think people here are really saying that math is the only real truth-generator. However, mathematical systems seem to be consistent and complete in all but a few esoteric cases, so it's fair to say that it's a very sound and useful way of deriving conclusions once you transpose the noisy concrete world into the clear abstract world. It's interpreting empirical observations and getting the correct real-world axioms that is usually the point of contention, not the reasoning itself (e.g., the flawed truth of 1+1=2). By saying "math is flawed!", you seem to be suggesting that the latter is the bigger problem.

You did just fine in presenting dogmatic empiricism, I probably wouldn't have picked the same words. Unsurprisingly this is the same form as an argument against inductive logic, you replace some words and you can 'disprove' induction. I didn't have to choose empiricism to make this 'critique,' I chose it because it is convenient for moving against math as the 'special, one and only true' discourse and the claim:

"They (math) are axioms which are true because that is the only way we can perceive them to be" rings especially false to me.



I wouldn't claim A2. As for A1, I would say "all presentations that cannot be verified through experience are ungraspable presentations (claims based on ungraspable presentations can only lead to statements that are vacuously true)' this does not preclude what I have been getting at, which is that certain numbers like zero and definitions like the empty set, and definitions for faith or God or Gods are meaningful symbolizations, no one disagrees about this point except princess bubblegum as a platonic. My argument from the beginning has solely been to show the similarities between faith, and certain popularly idealized 'rational' discourses like Math. Math is flawed and every framework is flawed, math is pretty good because the premises lead to the conclusion in almost every case (I'm aware of problematic cases but I am not far enough in math to have them trouble me, and for the most part they don't worry science much). Basically my goal is to show that if faith (really hard to define predicate which is part of why i am not being persuasive) is flawed, then math is similarly guilty. This doesn't preclude one being 'useful' but 'useful' is a lot different than 'true' or 'real'.

 

[billymills]

Please stop using zero and empty set as if they were something special. It is just as easy to conceive of an empty set as it is to conceive of any other set. 'Set' itself is abstract, an empty one is no more so.

'Useful' is a very different from 'true' or 'real' because it is a useful concept. It is easily defined and intuitive. 'Real' and 'truth' are uninteresting, poorly defined, useless concepts.
Why should I care what is 'useful?' Because I can apply it to a variety of circumstances and solve problems.
Why should I care what is 'truth' or 'real?'

 

[Tsycho17]

So uh, pardon me from deviating the discussion from what I personally skimmed to be semantic bickering.

I used to get depressed when strong-theists wondered what stopped atheists from stealing/killing/raping. Which means to me that they don't do that stuff cuz their god told them not to. I don't do that stuff cuz I'm simply a nice person. Now I fear that religion is what holds crazy people back. Some of them actually WANT to go on a rampage and kill everyone in sight, but they submit to their religion instead.
I've always thought religion to be purely a bad thing, from all the corruption, war, and not to mention mistranslation!
Could religion have a pleasant purpose? To keep insane people in check? Naah!
Most people just hope that their religion is correct. People who seriously, truly believe in their religion... fly planes into buildings.
... but what really makes me sad, is when people forsake their own reality. The things they could do, the people they could befriend, even the pleasures they could feel, all ruined predeterminally by some religion. People out there waste their time praying instead of assessing an issue. To thank some jerk like Yahweh instead of appreciating your own effort is shameful. Religion is beyond reality. Saying anything otherwise is silly.
Heaven or Hell? Yahweh or Satan?
I only care about reality, and all I see is a world in turmoil. :[

 

[Princess Bubblegum]

Eh, I am really hesitant to blame the problems of the world to religion its self. While religion has done terrible things, and continues to do terrible things, I honestly think people just use it as a scapegoat for their bigotry and hatred. People have done equality as terrible things under the flag of nationalism or capital. From an outside perspective, I see religion as simple a force to unite people, I don't have any other sense of good or bad outside of that. Heck from a historical perspective, we have religion to thank for the formation of early-city states in the ancient Middle East.

Now can I condemn the actions of a religion? Of course, I just think it is unfair to condemn in general.

---

On a different note, I do think at some level there is some fundamental problem with most religious faiths: they discourage the use of critical thought when evaluating things. This is particularly problematic in dogmatic Christianity in the US. From my perspective, I think you can actually trace back to one of Jesus's teachings of roughly 'one must believe by faith alone.' Jesus himself praises a child's ability to blindly believe him, saying we should all believe like a child does.

If that isn't against critical thought, I don't know what is. When I read this I almost threw a fit. No. It is not ok to have a critical though process like a child. >:(

 

[T_Tmiah]

Some of them actually WANT to go on a rampage and kill everyone in sight, but they submit to their religion instead.
I've always thought religion to be purely a bad thing, from all the corruption, war, and not to mention mistranslation!
Could religion have a pleasant purpose? To keep insane people in check? Naah!
[

Obviously if you are crazy religion wont stop you, but if your not it may stop you from doing the small stuff.

Those " People who seriously, truly believe in their religion... fly planes into buildings." having a bigger pool will mean you will have more psychopaths in said pool. Psychopaths who can band together are dangerous, you don't necessarily need religion for that but it helps.
look at communism, atheist doctrine but you still have shit crazy people doing mad stuff.


"all I see is a world in turmoil. :["
Just pray aliens exist so that we can become united and have red neck earthlings to fight the war.
There will always be someone who want power/resources and can lead the masses against other masses. Even though those masses don't particular care. You don't need religion for that, you got patriotism a bigger culprit.

 

[Jorgen]

From my perspective, I think you can actually trace back to one of Jesus's teachings of roughly 'one must believe by faith alone.' Jesus himself praises a child's ability to blindly believe him, saying we should all believe like a child does.

Yep, it's a running theme throughout the bible. Doubting Thomas has the fucking gall to ask to see Jesus' nail wounds after he, uh, claims to have risen from the dead, and then Jesus shows him and subsequently grills him for not instantly believing. "Blessed are those who have not seen, but believe". Screw you Jesus, that was totally reasonable. I mean, if he isn't skeptical, he and your apostles probably end up following some schmuck claiming to be you instead!

And the Old Testament is even more nuts about it. During the exodus through the desert, Moses taps a rock twice for water and God is all "How DARE you not believe?!? No holy land for you!" Of course, for OT God, that's an incredibly tame example.

Faith is considered a virtue. It's basically the defining feature of religion.

Re: Religion does horrible things
Ehhh, I'm hesitant to fall into the "religion is horrible because it has led people to do bad things" camp. Mostly because of T_Tmiah's point. There's been plenty of atrocities not fueled specifically by religious belief. Plenty of horrible, horrible things have been done in the name of nation-state, ideology, justice, or even science. Religious faith is just as bad as any other thing that can narrow one's mind about what ought to be done, although it is, perhaps, the mind-narrower that applies to the most people.

 

[Tsycho17]

The main thing I'm pondering about here, despite the abundant bad things about most religions, is to find something good about religion.
I've been struggling for a while about this, all I've confirmed is that religious ceremonies and rituals can unite a family to spend quality time together.
Oh wait, if any family member deviates from their religion, they are usually exiled from religious activities. Nevermind about that.

So yeah, psychopaths as an extreme hardly ever think about religion, of course that won't stop their rampage. To elaborate on what I mean by crazy, for example; a hillbilly points his shotgun at a child trespasser on his front lawn. He wants to shoot them and probably gives off a warning shot, but he knows he shouldn't kill them because (his) God dislikes killing when not in life-threatening danger. This hillbilly doesn't really think farther than that. Without considering his religious virtues, he probably woulda eagerly shot the trespasser regardless of their innocence.
So religion, as a manifestation of ego and not as a cult, serves as a guideline for morals, particularly for those who don't bother to make their own morals.
This is why strong-theists wonder why atheists refrain from various disastrous activities. To them, the atheist has no morals, but really they simply made their own morals instead of following one of them pre-made morality things called religion.

Do you guys agree this to be a good thing caused by religion? I think so, at least when it comes to Christianity or Judaism for examples.

Also, it's apparently better to believe in god and be wrong and have nothing happen, then to not believe in god and be wrong, and go to hell!
Yuk yuk!

 

[Calm_Mind_Latias]

Do you guys agree this to be a good thing caused by religion? I think so, at least when it comes to Christianity or Judaism for examples.

Also, it's apparently better to believe in god and be wrong and have nothing happen, then to not believe in god and be wrong, and go to hell!
Yuk yuk!

You do not need religion to instill ethical behavior. On a more primitive level, and I mean people in stage 1 or 2 of Kohlberg's stages of moral development, personal conduct is motivated by crude self-interest, and the possibility for earthly punishment or adverse consequences is certainly an important deterrent for people from engaging in crassly violent acts. One reason why most people do not go on GTA like killing sprees is due to the fear of punishment by the the civil authorities, although this fear of punishment is ablated if the person is suicidal; another reason is that most humans have sympathy and do not want to inflict suffering on their fellow humans.

 

[Princess Bubblegum]

On the note of the threat of Hell, I actually find it extremely amusing how Christians will use this to try to convince non-believers to join them under the threat of eternal torment, and then later say that one can not be saved by their actions, but alone with the belief in Christ.

I don't know about you, but this is extremely contradictory as for an argument to convince Atheists. Taking my perspective, I do not have a belief in God and don't fear hell, but lets say I did, as fears are irrational as any bump in the night will tell you. If I feared hell and did not believe, there is pretty much nothing I can do about it. Any actions I take is by the Christian's admission, pointless, my actions have no bearing on my fate in the afterlife. I can pray and meditate all I want, but as long as I really don't believe in my heart, I will still go to hell.

The only way to believe something which you can't is to sort of self brainwash yourself, and at that point, is it really you who is going to Heaven, or some brainwashed facsimile of you.

Again, not all Christians believe this, however for those that do hold both of these positions, I just don't see the use of trying to convert Atheists at all.

---

I don't know about you, but video games for me actually give an example of a higher moral code outside of direct punishment. For example, in Skyrim I am at a ridiculously high level, if I wanted to I could go into any town and kill everything thing (well except for the children, they are immortal) with no tangible repercussions. So why don't I do that then? There is something about a town by very nature that is enticing, I want to be in the town and be part of it. If I kill everything I would be absolutely alone in the game, and then why play? I use to actually do a similar thing in Fable: commit mass genocide of towns, but there is nothing more eerie than an empty town. Even in games like Destroy all Humans I rarely kill everyone, as then there is no fun to the game anymore.

Admittedly, from time to time I have actually killed everyone in town for the fun of it, but then I soft reset afterwards.

 

[T_Tmiah]

[quote="Tsycho17, post: 4991761, member: 204806"]The main thing I'm pondering about here, despite the abundant bad things about most religions, is to find something good about religion.
I've been struggling for a while about this, all I've confirmed is that religious ceremonies and rituals can unite a family to spend quality time together.
Oh wait, if any family member deviates from their religion, they are usually exiled from religious activities. Nevermind about that.[/quote]

Not always i know a gay (is more of a no no i think) who was still invited to go to a muslim funeral.

This is why strong-theists wonder why atheists refrain from various disastrous activities. To them, the atheist has no morals, but really they simply made their own morals instead of following one of them pre-made morality things called religion.

Atheist should have no morals because they don't believe in god is silly, who thinks that? Human nature for the most part is good. If we had no good intent we would not be able to function in a normal society. So people made Laws to control & deter those who are the yob & crazy. But even you follow these pre-made morality "LAWS". You are not making your own morals, these were made before you and you follow them.

Also, it's apparently better to believe in god and be wrong and have nothing happen, then to not believe in god and be wrong, and go to hell!
Yuk yuk!

hmmm in Islam that not the case. Certain degrees of wrongness equals to different jail times no matter the religion. That's why its a sin to say that dude is going to HELL as your never 100% sure.

 

[Princess Bubblegum]

I really don't know as much as a probably should about Islam, however from what I have seen, views on hell seem to range from the layman Christian "you do good things are you are alright" to that you have to become Muslim or else you will burn, so I think we are looking at roughly the same spectrum. In many ways I think it may be more overall diverse than Christianity as there is hardly any central authority in Islam, as opposed to you know, the Pope.

 

[T_Tmiah]

Or the Archbishop of Canterbury. But yeah the religion is mixed up with different geographical cultures which messes things up.
But from my understanding, god gave you free will so do the hell you want to do :P

On of the main why I think there must be something aliens, god or whatever is down to this

"EDIT:Just watched the video, it does not have the full clip, but it about a piece of jaw that becomes smaller and smaller, plus moving near to the ear to become an ear bone & randomness caused it"

Random radiation caused such a change, and then while its not benefit to the individual it somehow manges to pass this on, & it being a dominant trait, and then miraculously a million years later the jaw becomes an ear? It seems too far fetched (^_^) but in my head it makes more sense if a black monolith did it (no lie).

 

[Princess Bubblegum]

:|

I have videos to post about this later, but first and foremost, natural selection is hardly random. While the mechanism: radiation, is random, because of the sheer timescales we are talking about and how natural selection works, one can see how in fact the changes aren't "random" each of them has a specific advantage which helped the animal at that point in time survive.

You can believe in aliens all you want for cosmology and ambiogensis, but the research behind evolution solid at this point where we don't need some outside force for it to work at any level.

Also, complexity in biology does not imply intelligent, in fact it suggests the exact opposite. Why would an intelligent creator have our primary life systems based on the inefficient chemicals of hemoglobin and photosynthesis. More importantly, why to rabbit have to eat their own shit to get the full nutrients out of what they eat. Simplicity would indicate intelligence in design.

 

[Rico]

"Religion has done a lot of bad things" is always a very interesting statement to make... it's easy to attribute a lot of our past mistakes, and many of the problems in society to 'religion', but I think it's best to take a step back first. Can you think of any government that hasn't done something dreadful at some point...? Mine thought it was a good idea to take away all the natives' children for 'their own protection'. We're still saying sorry about that one. Religion operates in a similar way, except that for a long time, it transcended national borders. Catholicism gets it fairly bad as much because you've got this one guy saying how everyone else in the world should act, or at the very least 17% of the world's population (The number of people who identify as catholics). How well does any organisation work with one person in charge? I'll let you think of some more recent examples.

The problem isn't as bad nowadays as it used to be... disestablishmentarianism is fairly common, even with many nations boasting a sizable primary religion. On top of that and using christianity as an example, there's what... 41000 denominations now? The worst happened when there was only 1 or 2.

There's always going to be crazies though, in all walks of life. As a video gamer, I have to sit there and argue that no, video games did not make that person go shoot people.


I just thought I'd weigh in a little ^_^


EDIT: (I've waited 20 years to work disestablishmentarianism in to a sentence. Now to go to a religious blog to get the anti- in)