|
MyLostTemple
United States2921 Posts
On July 14 2008 13:03 Integra wrote:MyLostTemple, Since I am on "WHY" WHY on earth did you start this topic?? I mean it's great to have an discussion and all but this is just the same as starting a discussion if Santa exists or not. 
i said keep it civil...
i started this so people could watch some documentaries. and while i agree with you that god may be only as real as santa you're doing a terrific job of sending this thread towards getting closed. arrogantly making a statement like that and then adding a cocky little winky face at the end isn't going to further this debate.
if you can't manage to keep this discussion civil kindly shut the fuck up and stay out of it. i am happy to say the same to anyone else who is starting to send this thread towards a flame war.
|
United States22883 Posts
Nintu said:
I never claimed I can show you God. The burden of proof argument doesn't apply until a Christian tries to prove to you the Existence of God. When a Christian tries, then go ahead, use it and have fun with it.
The very nature of God that I believe in is absolutely unprovable. Christianity is, and always has been, a Faith based religion. What this means is, if God was provable by scientific reasoning or any sort of amazing flawless argument, then the entire faith aspect would be destroyed. It would no longer be faith, it would be belief.
God could come to you right now and flip cars and shit to impress you, but then you would be believing with your eyes, not with your faith.
"Blessed are those who believe in that which they cannot see"
So God is, conceptually, unprovable by any sort of logical means. That's why when you ask for proof of his existence, any self-aware, spiritually attuned Christian will reply "I cannot do that for you, and I never said I could." Here is the problem as I see it. As an Atheist, I have no qualms with you believing in Christianity if it improves your quality of life and happiness. I do not believe there is any eternal consequence, so there is no obligation to "convert" someone who is already content and happy.
Most religions not work that way, including most sects of Christianity. They attempt to convince people of things without using reason at all, as you have admitted reason does not apply to religion. They may attempt to do so by faith, a deeply personal and subjective experience, by which there should be NO POSSIBLE way to convince someone else of, and then by fear, superstition and repetition.
If you have faith that your feelings are correct, then so be it, but it's absolute bullshit to attempt to convince someone else of your faith, when they have zero access to the personal experience that you feel.
Furthermore, how can you possibly disparage a Muslim who has faith in Allah or a Japanese person who has faith in shinto (not that any exist anymore.) Maybe you don't personally, but many religious people do.
I would submit that if faith is enough reason to believe in God, why not try out all the world's religions because I'm sure each of them has their own sort of faith based experience that confirms their beliefs.
|
On July 14 2008 13:12 Nintu wrote:
I guess to better articulate what I mean,
The question is "If a spiritual world exists that is, by it's own definition "supernatural", then why would you try and disprove it using scientific reasoning?"
One of the conditions of it's existence is that it is not scientifically explained, right? So what's with all the theorycrafting. 0_0
Because this spiritual/supernatural world is affecting our world, the real world. There are serious issues that arise as the result of the existence of religion.
|
On July 14 2008 13:10 blue_arrow wrote:
Integra, Santa doesn't make people murder other people, at least not to the extent that religion does.
I'm sorry if this has been talked about already, and i'll edit this if it has, but I don't see any discussion about the horrible atrocities that are comitted in the name of religion.
This is a weak argument and can be used for eveything and not just religion.
Religion and Science is a tool that can be used for good or for bad.
True religion has killed lots of people. But so has science.
Atomic bombs is an example.
Science can be used by humans to cure diseases and to improve our world or to make weapons and bombs.
Religion can be used by humans to give people hope or to give them death.
EDIT: in fact science has helped kill more people that religion.
|
On July 14 2008 13:10 blue_arrow wrote:
Integra, Santa doesn't make people murder other people, at least not to the extent that religion does.
I'm sorry if this has been talked about already, and i'll edit this if it has, but I don't see any discussion about the horrible atrocities that are comitted in the name of religion.
There has never been a case of God making anyone kill anyone else. Infact, if you're right, and God doesn't exist, then the person is a Loony for hearing God, right?...
But if God does exist, then I doubt you should question his authority to act through people.. Y'know, cause he can create worlds and do crazy shit like that.
In all seriousness, When what.. 80% of the world are "adherents" to a religion, some of them are gonna be nut jobs who use "religion" as a safety net or justification...
It's like being charged with Murder and saying the Russians put you up to it. Even if it's not true, people are going to believe it because it's what they're most afraid of.(Extremism) (Atleast, during the Cold war, that analogy would apply. I'm really too young to make weird references to the Cold War.)
|
On July 14 2008 13:14 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +Nintu said:
I never claimed I can show you God. The burden of proof argument doesn't apply until a Christian tries to prove to you the Existence of God. When a Christian tries, then go ahead, use it and have fun with it.
The very nature of God that I believe in is absolutely unprovable. Christianity is, and always has been, a Faith based religion. What this means is, if God was provable by scientific reasoning or any sort of amazing flawless argument, then the entire faith aspect would be destroyed. It would no longer be faith, it would be belief.
God could come to you right now and flip cars and shit to impress you, but then you would be believing with your eyes, not with your faith.
"Blessed are those who believe in that which they cannot see"
So God is, conceptually, unprovable by any sort of logical means. That's why when you ask for proof of his existence, any self-aware, spiritually attuned Christian will reply "I cannot do that for you, and I never said I could." Here is the problem as I see it. As an Atheist, I have no qualms with you believing in Christianity if it improves your quality of life and happiness. I do not believe there is any eternal consequence, so there is no obligation to "convert" someone who is already content and happy. Most religions not work that way, including most sects of Christianity. They attempt to convince people of things without using reason at all, as you have admitted reason does not apply to religion. They may attempt to do so by faith, a deeply personal and subjective experience, by which there should be NO POSSIBLE way to convince someone else of, and then by fear, superstition and repetition. If you have faith that your feelings are correct, then so be it, but it's absolute bullshit to attempt to convince someone else of your faith, when they have zero access to the personal experience that you feel. Furthermore, how can you possibly disparage a Muslim who has faith in Allah or a Japanese person who has faith in shinto (not that any exist anymore.) Maybe you don't personally, but many religious people do. I would submit that if faith is enough reason to believe in God, why not try out all the world's religions because I'm sure each of them has their own sort of faith based experience that confirms their beliefs.
I entirely agree with you my friend. "Most sect's" of Christianity is arguably, statistically and what-not, but I do believe with the thought behind your words. I do not believe there is 1 "right" denomination of Christianity. In every congregation, there will be bad people. And I entirely accept the fact that many bad things have been done under the name of Christianity. I don't condone it, and it's really very sad. I've never accepted the forceful application of beliefs from one person to another, on either side of this 'argument.' I respect your opinions and your rights to believe in what you believe. =)
|
MyLostTemple
United States2921 Posts
On July 14 2008 13:10 blue_arrow wrote:
Integra, Santa doesn't make people murder other people, at least not to the extent that religion does.
I'm sorry if this has been talked about already, and i'll edit this if it has, but I don't see any discussion about the horrible atrocities that are comitted in the name of religion.
well technically most religious people don't think god is murdering people either. they generally say it's people who are going against gods will (then again a lot of people have been killed in the name of god too).
|
United States22883 Posts
On July 14 2008 13:20 Nintu wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2008 13:14 Jibba wrote:Nintu said:
I never claimed I can show you God. The burden of proof argument doesn't apply until a Christian tries to prove to you the Existence of God. When a Christian tries, then go ahead, use it and have fun with it.
The very nature of God that I believe in is absolutely unprovable. Christianity is, and always has been, a Faith based religion. What this means is, if God was provable by scientific reasoning or any sort of amazing flawless argument, then the entire faith aspect would be destroyed. It would no longer be faith, it would be belief.
God could come to you right now and flip cars and shit to impress you, but then you would be believing with your eyes, not with your faith.
"Blessed are those who believe in that which they cannot see"
So God is, conceptually, unprovable by any sort of logical means. That's why when you ask for proof of his existence, any self-aware, spiritually attuned Christian will reply "I cannot do that for you, and I never said I could." Here is the problem as I see it. As an Atheist, I have no qualms with you believing in Christianity if it improves your quality of life and happiness. I do not believe there is any eternal consequence, so there is no obligation to "convert" someone who is already content and happy. Most religions not work that way, including most sects of Christianity. They attempt to convince people of things without using reason at all, as you have admitted reason does not apply to religion. They may attempt to do so by faith, a deeply personal and subjective experience, by which there should be NO POSSIBLE way to convince someone else of, and then by fear, superstition and repetition. If you have faith that your feelings are correct, then so be it, but it's absolute bullshit to attempt to convince someone else of your faith, when they have zero access to the personal experience that you feel. Furthermore, how can you possibly disparage a Muslim who has faith in Allah or a Japanese person who has faith in shinto (not that any exist anymore.) Maybe you don't personally, but many religious people do. I would submit that if faith is enough reason to believe in God, why not try out all the world's religions because I'm sure each of them has their own sort of faith based experience that confirms their beliefs. I entirely agree with you my friend. "Most sect's" of Christianity is arguably, statistically and what-not, but I do believe with the thought behind your words. I do not believe there is 1 "right" denomination of Christianity. In every congregation, there will be bad people. And I entirely accept the fact that many bad things have been done under the name of Christianity. I don't condone it, and it's really very sad. I've never accepted the forceful application of beliefs from one person to another, on either side of this 'argument.' I respect your opinions and your rights to believe in what you believe. =) Fair enough, then we're at the best agreement possible until I experience something faith worthy myself.
|
On July 14 2008 13:20 MyLostTemple wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2008 13:10 blue_arrow wrote:
Integra, Santa doesn't make people murder other people, at least not to the extent that religion does.
I'm sorry if this has been talked about already, and i'll edit this if it has, but I don't see any discussion about the horrible atrocities that are comitted in the name of religion. well technically most religious people don't think god is murdering people either. they generally say it's people who are going against gods will (then again a lot of people have been killed in the name of god too).
Allot of people have died in the name of freedom and liberation as well.
|
On July 14 2008 13:16 blue_arrow wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2008 13:12 Nintu wrote:
I guess to better articulate what I mean,
The question is "If a spiritual world exists that is, by it's own definition "supernatural", then why would you try and disprove it using scientific reasoning?"
One of the conditions of it's existence is that it is not scientifically explained, right? So what's with all the theorycrafting. 0_0 Because this spiritual/supernatural world is affecting our world, the real world. There are serious issues that arise as the result of the existence of religion.
This depends. If you believe the Spiritual/Supernatural world is directly affecting our world, as in God is pulling strings of world affairs, then I don't believe this is an issue because we can't exactly stop him. Assuming you mean the much more logical "people are doing bad things in the name of ____", then yes this is true, but I do not believe it is the affect of one religion itself.
Religion is being used as a tool, very unreligiously and terribly, I admit. This does not make religion responsible, atleast not anymore than a hammer is responsible if you murder someone else with it.
If it wasn't Religion, it would be philosophy, or sects of Science, or something else. In either case, religion cannot be extinguished, and it would be silly to blame it for all the mis-use in the first place anyway.
|
On July 14 2008 13:16 Integra wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2008 13:10 blue_arrow wrote:
Integra, Santa doesn't make people murder other people, at least not to the extent that religion does.
I'm sorry if this has been talked about already, and i'll edit this if it has, but I don't see any discussion about the horrible atrocities that are comitted in the name of religion. This is a weak argument and can be used for eveything and not just religion. Religion and Science is a tool that can be used for good or for bad. True religion has killed lots of people. But so has science. Atomic bombs is an example. Science can be used by humans to cure diseases and to improve our world or to make weapons and bombs. Religion can be used by humans to give people hope or to give them death. EDIT: in fact science has helped kill more people that religion.
Yes, evils have been helped along by both science and religion; evil has been comitted in the NAME of science and religion as well. But, in our modern world, do you see more atrocities being comitted in the NAME of religion, or in the NAME of science?
In fact, in our modern world, religious groups USE science to perpetuate their evils, while science using religion, in this era, is much less common.
|
god isn't murdering people, people are murdering people in the name of god, or because of their religious belief.
|
United States22883 Posts
On July 14 2008 13:20 MyLostTemple wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2008 13:10 blue_arrow wrote:
Integra, Santa doesn't make people murder other people, at least not to the extent that religion does.
I'm sorry if this has been talked about already, and i'll edit this if it has, but I don't see any discussion about the horrible atrocities that are comitted in the name of religion. (then again a lot of people have been killed in the name of god too).
True, but in those cases religion was used as a tool by the corrupt to manipulate the masses, just as Stalin and Hitler did with nationalism.
Human nature and bad environments lead us to do bad things more than anything else.
|
MyLostTemple
United States2921 Posts
something i've always wondered is: if god exists, why would he necessarily care that people believed in him?
if i was the omnipotent being that created the universe and had a vested interest in people acting in a Good way, why would people buying into me existing matter? Arn't they going to find out either way? Why would i punish (assuming i was that type of god) people for not believing in me? To me this always seemed like one of the fishier parts of religion.
it's self evident that people can behave morally with our without the belief in god. so what necessitates this?
|
MyLostTemple
United States2921 Posts
On July 14 2008 13:23 Integra wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2008 13:20 MyLostTemple wrote:On July 14 2008 13:10 blue_arrow wrote:
Integra, Santa doesn't make people murder other people, at least not to the extent that religion does.
I'm sorry if this has been talked about already, and i'll edit this if it has, but I don't see any discussion about the horrible atrocities that are comitted in the name of religion. well technically most religious people don't think god is murdering people either. they generally say it's people who are going against gods will (then again a lot of people have been killed in the name of god too). Allot of people have died in the name of freedom and liberation as well.
yeah but those are human based rights. freedom of speech and thought are quite important. there is a diffrence between that and dying via suicide bombing because someone drew a cartoon character of your god and you think you'll get 70 virgins in paradise if you do so.
|
On July 14 2008 13:28 MyLostTemple wrote:
something i've always wondered is: if god exists, why would he necessarily care that people believed in him?
if i was the omnipotent being that created the universe and had a vested interest in people acting in a Good way, why would people buying into me existing matter? Arn't they going to find out either way? Why would i punish (assuming i was that type of god) people for not believing in me? To me this always seemed like one of the fishier parts of religion.
it's self evident that people can behave morally with our without the belief in god. so what necessitates this?
It's obvious isn't? GOD EXISTS and he is watching us and millions of other planets sitting in his tv couch laughing his head off. we are gods Soap opera show.
|
United States22883 Posts
How about the freedom to restrict other people's freedom?
|
On July 14 2008 13:24 Nintu wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2008 13:16 blue_arrow wrote:On July 14 2008 13:12 Nintu wrote:
I guess to better articulate what I mean,
The question is "If a spiritual world exists that is, by it's own definition "supernatural", then why would you try and disprove it using scientific reasoning?"
One of the conditions of it's existence is that it is not scientifically explained, right? So what's with all the theorycrafting. 0_0 Because this spiritual/supernatural world is affecting our world, the real world. There are serious issues that arise as the result of the existence of religion. This depends. If you believe the Spiritual/Supernatural world is directly affecting our world, as in God is pulling strings of world affairs, then I don't believe this is an issue because we can't exactly stop him. Assuming you mean the much more logical "people are doing bad things in the name of ____", then yes this is true, but I do not believe it is the affect of one religion itself. Religion is being used as a tool, very unreligiously and terribly, I admit. This does not make religion responsible, atleast not anymore than a hammer is responsible if you murder someone else with it. If it wasn't Religion, it would be philosophy, or sects of Science, or something else. In either case, religion cannot be extinguished, and it would be silly to blame it for all the mis-use in the first place anyway.
Yes, everything cannot be blamed on any sole religion, but why would religion not be responsible (at least partly responsible?). Doctors that perform abortion have been murdered by zealous religious groups. Women and young girls are raped in the name of religion. 9/11 occured beacuse of religion.
|
On July 14 2008 13:30 MyLostTemple wrote:
yeah but those are human based rights. freedom of speech and thought are quite important. there is a diffrence between that and dying via suicide bombing because someone drew a cartoon character of your god and you think you'll get 70 virgins in paradise if you do so.
No, its both ideals. and it depends from person to person how drastic you will be to protect them.
How much freedom can be sacrifised before we can go to war. Same with religion.
|
MyLostTemple
United States2921 Posts
On July 14 2008 13:31 Integra wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2008 13:28 MyLostTemple wrote:
something i've always wondered is: if god exists, why would he necessarily care that people believed in him?
if i was the omnipotent being that created the universe and had a vested interest in people acting in a Good way, why would people buying into me existing matter? Arn't they going to find out either way? Why would i punish (assuming i was that type of god) people for not believing in me? To me this always seemed like one of the fishier parts of religion.
it's self evident that people can behave morally with our without the belief in god. so what necessitates this? It's obvious isn't? GOD EXISTS and he is watching us and millions of other planets sitting in his tv couch laughing his head off. we are gods Soap opera show.
ok seriously integra, just get off the forum. please. your not funny and your not helping this discussion. i already told you to shut up once for cocky and useless remarks. your cynicism is going to stifle this entire conversation. keep in mind this is coming from someone who's in the same atheist camp as you.
please don't post again unless it's going to be mature or i'll ask for a temp ban. these topics are volatile enough as it is and your not helping in keeping this civil.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
