EPTReligiosity over facebook. - Page 2
| Blogs > Aberu |
|
The_LiNk
Canada863 Posts
| ||
|
Haemonculus
United States6980 Posts
But for fucks sake don't legislate your religious beliefs in a way that affects me. | ||
|
Ciryandor
United States3735 Posts
| ||
|
SCPlato
United States249 Posts
On January 16 2011 17:33 stormtemplar wrote: Counter argument is that there is no conclusive proof that god DOESN'T exist and thus the fact that some atheists ridicule people of faith for lack of proof and blind faith is hypocritical. The way that logical arguments work forces positive beliefs to be supported. In other words, you can't say "you can't prove that the Sun doesn't have a giant spoon in the middle of it." It is up to you, who makes a positive claim, to show evidence to support your statement. I am not throwing myself into this argument, just saying that you can't use that as a defense against atheism. | ||
|
Impervious
Canada4200 Posts
On January 16 2011 17:51 Mikusbunkarus wrote: The way that logical arguments work forces positive beliefs to be supported. In other words, you can't say "you can't prove that the Sun doesn't have a giant spoon in the middle of it." It is up to you, who makes a positive claim, to show evidence to support your statement. I am not throwing myself into this argument, just saying that you can't use that as a defense against atheism. Religion operates by faith. Faith requires the absence of evidence. Logical arguments require evidence. Therefore, it is impossible to have a logical discussion about religion..... And that's exactly why I don't believe it's real, even though I've been brought up in a highly religious family. Nobody could answer those tough questions properly when I asked at a younger age, because they couldn't. There are no answers that would suffice, because I wanted a logical answer. | ||
|
Spiegel
Australia79 Posts
There is some proof for god's existence, but none of it is admissible and it all comes form unreliable sources ie. Christians. I love coming up with random things to counter the "prove that he doesn't exist" statement. Its brilliant. Staples such as FSM or the celestial teapot are nice. Subterranean dinosaurs on Mar's are good. Other religions gods are fun too. Arguing thsi topic is my hobby other than SC to be honest. Its brilliant fun. But in all seriousness. There probably is no god. and you can believe in whatever crazy theology you want so long as you do not try to poison the minds of children or influence government with your arbitrary archaic doctrines. | ||
|
Reason.SC2
Canada1047 Posts
"Random omnipotent guy in the sky creates universe, and though he believes in good, creates shitty scenarios solely to test the faith and character of his creations. (well not all of them, he only seems to care about that of the humans)." wtf lol sometimes thinking about religion makes me sad. I lose faith. In people's judgment. | ||
|
Gulabi
Canada52 Posts
| ||
|
vinn
Australia112 Posts
On January 16 2011 18:33 Reason.SC2 wrote: In a few hundred years kids are going to be learning about these crazy religion stories that people used to believe in and loling at how gullible and silly people used to be. Humans have had religions for thousands of years. I don't think they'll fade out in a few hundred. ... Religiosity on FB makes me cringe :/ Please tell us if you get a response OP ^^ | ||
|
javy_
United States1677 Posts
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/FbUyV.png) | ||
|
PanN
United States2828 Posts
On January 16 2011 17:02 rel wrote: Try mescaline then tell me there's no Supreme Being. As a man who's done DMT, there is no supreme being. | ||
|
Ideas
United States8113 Posts
On January 16 2011 18:56 vinn wrote: Humans have had religions for thousands of years. I don't think they'll fade out in a few hundred. ... Religiosity on FB makes me cringe :/ Please tell us if you get a response OP ^^ im pretty sure atheism rates has grown a lot since the dawn of enlightenment and industrialization. people are getting too smart for religion and the quality of life has reached a point for most people in industrialized countries where it doesnt serve a meaningful purpose any more (there's not really a need for religion as the "opiate of the masses" any more). I really think we can get an openly atheist person as president within 100 years. edit: also @ Reason.SC2 it's funny because people still do that today at old pagen religions like greek mythology and such. then they go to church and learn about how the REAL god created the earth. | ||
|
RandomAccount#49059
United States2140 Posts
| ||
|
Impervious
Canada4200 Posts
On January 16 2011 19:22 stormtemplar wrote: Here's a slight problem with this. I have no proof, and no proof can be made that you exist. You have proof you exist, because you know you think, but I have no proof and that proof can never be given to me. There is no proof that I'm not just a nameless mind floating in a void of nothingness. If you want everything to be proven before you believe it exists than you're going to have to believe in nothing. Also, in sheer odds, who's better off? If I'm totally wrong, and no god exists, than the exact same thing happens to both of us when we die, but if I'm right and you're wrong I'm much better off Clearly, you've never studied those "sheer odds"..... | ||
|
javy_
United States1677 Posts
On January 16 2011 19:22 stormtemplar wrote: Here's a slight problem with this. I have no proof, and no proof can be made that you exist. You have proof you exist, because you know you think, but I have no proof and that proof can never be given to me. There is no proof that I'm not just a nameless mind floating in a void of nothingness. If you want everything to be proven before you believe it exists than you're going to have to believe in nothing. Also, in sheer odds, who's better off? If I'm totally wrong, and no god exists, than the exact same thing happens to both of us when we die, but if I'm right and you're wrong I'm much better off For the first part, read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism#The_solipsist_needs_a_language and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_language_argument As for Pascal's Wager, there are a plethora of counter-arguments out there that completely dismantle the wager. There are consequences if you are wrong. Religion is used to shape laws and guidelines that affect the lives of hundreds of millions, if not billions, of people. One such example: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2009/03/28/texas-wrapup-yup-doomed/ . Furthermore, statistically speaking, the odds you pray to the right god is 0, because there are an infinite number of potential gods out there. | ||
|
KurtistheTurtle
United States1966 Posts
But I despise the institution of religion. I actively take measures to abolish it in my community. Not personal faith, I have no problems with individuals, but the tendencies of religion to directly oppose beneficial forward progress--like stem cells, and whether or not you can run for public office. As I've studied the history of cosmology I'm astounded at how consistently the manifestations of the religious aspect of man stand directly opposed to progress, to science. There is no debate about under god, its unconstitutional. If somebody tries to get you to say it, you smile and say no thanks to your fellow American. And then you support the pulling of funding for religious organizations, churches which don't serve the public and vote for politicians who aren't Christian. If they push saying "under god" further than suggesting or politely asking, then let them know you'll say under god if they say under [my name]'s meaty cock. I mean, its just words after all. | ||
|
KurtistheTurtle
United States1966 Posts
Morality defines the law. Morality, more often than not, is gleaned from Christian religious convictions. Therefore, Christian religious convictions = the law. I desire the eradication and separation of morality from religious conviction | ||
Nyovne
Netherlands19135 Posts
| ||
|
SCPlato
United States249 Posts
On January 16 2011 17:57 Impervious wrote: Therefore, it is impossible to have a logical discussion about religion..... No it is not, that is just a lazy way to try and separate logic from the argument. Many people use faulty logic when trying to defend theistic views, but that does not mean that everyone's arguments are as such. You saying that is just stereotyping everything into "faith" theists and "logic" atheists, its lazy. You also have to consider that it comes down to religion and God, which are not intrinsically linked as many people like to say. I am just trying to say that atheists who say there is no logic behind theistic views are taking the quickest exit from the conversation they can. Back on topic. I think saying Under God is not constitutionally acceptable. Establishment clause also encompasses atheism as well. This means that to admit to a supreme being would be to ostracize an entire group of people who do not share this belief. However, for the most part, I think that people worry wayyyyy to much on being politically correct. | ||
|
Impervious
Canada4200 Posts
On January 16 2011 19:58 Mikusbunkarus wrote: No it is not, that is just a lazy way to try and separate logic from the argument. Many people use faulty logic when trying to defend theistic views, but that does not mean that everyone's arguments are as such. You saying that is just stereotyping everything into "faith" theists and "logic" atheists, its lazy. You also have to consider that it comes down to religion and God, which are not intrinsically linked as many people like to say. I am just trying to say that atheists who say there is no logic behind theistic views are taking the quickest exit from the conversation they can. You can't have a logical debate about something that doesn't follow any rules of logic at a fundimental level..... It's not taking the easy way out - it's the fucking facts..... I have not seen a convincing argument from the religious side that has not had a more convincing argument pointing out the flaws in said religious argument..... Show me one, if you can, because I've seen a lot of arguments so far, and I'm definitely interested in reading an indisputable argument, if it exists. You're right that God and religion are not as linked as I'm making it out to be. However, almost every religion debate I've ever read/heard has eventually lead down to the "no logic behind theistic views" path at some point..... Maybe I am trying to take the quickest way out, but I'd rather do that than waste my time beating a dead horse. However, at the same time, the same thing can be said about God as well. For further interesting information: It's about 15 minutes of video between the two, however, it gives a really, really good overview of how many debates go, and, seriously, most of the arguments that are presented sound a lot like this: only in a more serious and realistic sounding. | ||
| ||
