First  Prev  51  52  53  54  55  56  57  58  59  60  61  62  63  64  65  66  67  Next  Last
Post Reply are you religious? if so, why?
Banned
1789 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22
Offline
Posted 5/12/13

chase6565 wrote:


Ember_McLain wrote:


chase6565 wrote:



So you don't think we should, as they say, 'just try to all get along then'?
No. The beliefs of the religions have stifled humanistic progress and all points in history and, do to their nature, will continue to do so. Rationalism and religious beliefs cannot coexist; one religion cannot even coexist with another for that matter.

Religion was our first attempt at morality, philosophy, and even medicine. It was our first, and it was our worst. Those who cling to this archaic system of absolute morality undermine humanistic progress and are enemies of civil society. Immanuel Kant put it pretty well in the Categorical Imperative: what if everyone committed adultery? What if no one did? This logic can be expanded to all moral decisions. Do you believe the world would be better if everyone was religious? What if no one was? Indeed, a similar argument made by the late Christopher Hitchens frames it pretty well: What's one moral action that a religious person could do that a non-believer could not do? Now, while you're thinking about that, what is one immoral action that a religious person would commit that a non-believer wouldn't even contemplate.

We cannot all get along, unfortunately. The often repeated, "everyone is entitled to believe what they believe" / "we should just love everyone for who they are." ignores the reality of the situation: religion poisons everything. Religion should be treated with ridicule and contempt and I claim that right.

Besides, why would anyone want to get along with liars and hucksters? C'mon now. The removal of the sacrosanct symbolism of religion uncovers atrocities.



I see. Thank you for the input.


I bet to differ, as stated before your belief in religion has NOTHING to do with rationality.
Let's define science at its moment now---There is so much we do not know. We are still trying to grasp a lot of concepts. Like Gravity. Where are these gravitons.

Religion does not hinder education. That is the people themselves. Back in the day religion bought a sense of community and peace and morals to a land, until the corrupt,extremists,mislead took over.
And hindrance to mankind's progress is mankind itself.

Do not blame religion. If you study history and human psyche you will learn that some men
Just want to watch the world burn.

Hey remember gengis khan? He didn't believe in anything when he was taking over Asia. You sir forget the nature of humans.
Posted 5/12/13 , edited 5/12/13
I appreciate the time you've taken to reply, Nuclearspy. I will do you the same honors.


Nuclearspy wrote:
No, its not misleading. He was a Christian and its a well known fact.

You compelled yourself to intervine yet, you don't know what we were talking about? Spacebat specifically cited Newton (you know, that guy who discovered the laws of this thing called gravity?) who is a Mathematician and Philosopher.

Its not WHO Newton is. Its what does Newton believe, and WHY DO YOU BELIEVE in Newton's laws of gravity? Newton believes that mathematics EXISTS. A scientist DOES NOT HAVE THE ABILITY OR AN RATIONAL ARGUMENT for the existence of Mathematics. Are you following this?
I repeat, Newton's gravitation has the virtue of being observable and measurable.

I could very much claim that gravity is caused by a magical flying invisible teapot, and on the grounds that you cannot disprove the existence of said invisible teapot, claim I am right. By all means.

Nuclearspy wrote:
No it is NOT! Are you actually endorsing this?

There are no muslims in the united states senate
There are no triangles with 8 sides
There is not a computer in my living room
There is not an alien lifeform in my refrigerator
Would you like me to keep going?
I would greatly appreciate you to keep going. Your list of disprovables calls only to the direct expectations I made previously. In addition, each one of those is measurable and observable.

I mean, do you equally believe the tooth fairy and the easter bunny are real?

Nuclearspy wrote:
You've pretty much lost any credibility of knowledge in one swoop right here. Thomas Aquinas was an Aristotelean philosopher (Classic empiricism) in the Medieval era. Aristotle's theories have absolutely no impact on the philosophy of rational realism. Useful in other ways? Absolutely.

Besides, Thomas Aquinas has a pretty good proof for the existence of God anyway. Google the unmoved mover. I could handle his arguments and tell him why he is wrong RATIONALLY. You however, are stuck until you recognize that the only RATIONAL arguments for existence with dualistic philosophy. However, thats a deadly position for an atheist to hold.
I have respect for Aquinas primarily because he's one of the few philosophers to acknowledge the impossibility of the theist position. That being said, let's examining his proofs for god -- I'm familiar with all 5.

The first 3 of Aquinas's proofs are essentially the same (The Unmoved mover, the uncaused cause, the cosmological argument) all involve an infinite regress; the answer raises a prior question. All 3 rely on a regress and invoke god to terminate the regression. This is illogical, to claim god himself is immune to the regress. Even if we accept god a solution to the regression, it's a complete non-sequitor to claim god is omnipotent or omniscient. This is also logically backwards, omnipotence and omniscience are mutually incompatible. It does not follow that the solution to the infinite regress is God, to claim this is to claim you have evidence you cannot possibly have.

Aquinas's 4 proof (Arguments from Degree) is silly. To claim there must be a perfect maximum metric in which to measure smelliness in which we need a pre-eminently peerless stinker and then to derive via fatuous conclusion god is that metric is another non-sequitur.

Aquinas's 5th and final proof (Teleological argument) is just a slap in the face of evolutionary biologists. Given what we know currently, modern science has, in fact, disproved this.


Nuclearspy wrote:
Uh, no. How did you get to probability? This has got to be the worst statement you've made because I love reduction. You're going to try to backpedal your way out of this one because you're out of your league.
Humans have intuitive knowledge, sir. A foundation on which to build knowledge about the world. You interested?
The probability issue arises when, as previously mentioned, if asked if I believe in the easter bunny or the tooth fairy. Given the sheer improbability of their existence, I would claim that I do not believe in them (though I can't with 100% certainty disprove them). This ties directly with what I mentioned previously: that humans are pragmatic reductionists who generally favor both solutions and STRONG vs weak arguments.
320 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M
Offline
Posted 5/12/13
Ember, the moment you mention 'impossibility of X position', I become rather skeptical of you. After all, 'impossibility' depends on correspondence theory, which is a very large assumption.

Be aware that reality isn't something taken for granted.
Posted 5/12/13 , edited 5/12/13

VeniVidiVici- wrote:
I bet to differ, as stated before your belief in religion has NOTHING to do with rationality.
Let's define science at its moment now---There is so much we do not know. We are still trying to grasp a lot of concepts. Like Gravity. Where are these gravitons.

Religion does not hinder education. That is the people themselves. Back in the day religion bought a sense of community and peace and morals to a land, until the corrupt,extremists,mislead took over.
And hindrance to mankind's progress is mankind itself.

Do not blame religion. If you study history and human psyche you will learn that some men
Just want to watch the world burn.

Hey remember gengis khan? He didn't believe in anything when he was taking over Asia. You sir forget the nature of humans.
In Iran, if a woman is convicted of a crime she will to sentence to being gang raped by the revolutionary guard and then, now the she is no longer a virgin, stoned to death. Who but the godly would even contemplate such an horrible action? And they do that, not only believing it is right, but believing that god is on their side.

I agree, that some men "just want to watch the world burn." You're right. But let me propose a challenge, one originally proposed by the late Christopher Hitchens: You name me one moral action that a religious person would do that a non-believer wouldn't. You may have to think about that, but now consider what is an immoral action that a religious person would commit that a non-believer wouldn't even dream of. You don't even have to think for a moment to answer that. Good people will do good things, bad people will do bad things; if you want a good person to do a wicked thing, that takes religion.


TAO_Arecibo wrote:

Ember, the moment you mention 'impossibility of X position', I become rather skeptical of you. After all, 'impossibility' depends on correspondence theory, which is a very large assumption.

Be aware that reality isn't something taken for granted.
"Impossible", I do stand by those words, though your skepticism is warranted.

To prove deism, for example, you must claim to have information you cannot possibly have. "I cannot explain why the stars are there." "Well, I can, it was god." But, even if you accept the deist position you still have all your work ahead of you. Because to claim you not only know god exists, but that he is a personal god; to know his will, is impossible. Not even great christian philosophers like Aquinas tried to make the jump from deism to theism. To do so you must claim to have evidence that has been withheld from myself and the rest of the world.

20588 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 5/12/13 , edited 5/12/13
Yes, reality is not something to be taken for granted. For all we know, the people commenting on this thread might not exist. They may have just been a delusion my mind created from the need of personal contact. Maybe all the people I have ever met in my life are delusions. Maybe I have been stuck in the wild for 60 years, remembering events from my younger, better days, or maybe they didn't even exist. Perhaps everything I have ever done is just in my head. Now, imagine if I were a being alone, no single soul to interact with or even watch. Now, if I were a being with the ability to create living things, with desires all their own, I would probably create things, beautiful things, and then create living things. And then, I would watch them like a television. Of course, I am incapable of such things. But if one who was capable of these miraculous acts, then what do you think he would do?
Banned
1789 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22
Offline
Posted 5/12/13

Ember_McLain wrote:


VeniVidiVici- wrote:
I bet to differ, as stated before your belief in religion has NOTHING to do with rationality.
Let's define science at its moment now---There is so much we do not know. We are still trying to grasp a lot of concepts. Like Gravity. Where are these gravitons.

Religion does not hinder education. That is the people themselves. Back in the day religion bought a sense of community and peace and morals to a land, until the corrupt,extremists,mislead took over.
And hindrance to mankind's progress is mankind itself.

Do not blame religion. If you study history and human psyche you will learn that some men
Just want to watch the world burn.

Hey remember gengis khan? He didn't believe in anything when he was taking over Asia. You sir forget the nature of humans.
In Iran, if a woman is convicted of a crime she will to sentence to being gang raped by the revolutionary guard and then, now the she is no longer a virgin, stoned to death. Who but the godly would even contemplate such an horrible action? And they do that, not only believing it is right, but believing that god is on their side.

I agree, that some men "just want to watch the world burn." You're right. But let me propose a challenge, one originally proposed by the late Christopher Hitchens: You name me one moral action that a religious person would do that a non-believer wouldn't. You may have to think about that, but now consider what is an immoral action that a religious person would commit that a non-believer wouldn't even dream of. You don't even have to think for a moment to answer that. Good people will do good things, bad people will do bad things; if you want a good person to do a wicked thing, that takes religion.


TAO_Arecibo wrote:

Ember, the moment you mention 'impossibility of X position', I become rather skeptical of you. After all, 'impossibility' depends on correspondence theory, which is a very large assumption.

Be aware that reality isn't something taken for granted.
"Impossible", I do stand by those words, though your skepticism is warranted.

To prove deism, for example, you must claim to have information you cannot possibly have. "I cannot explain why the stars are there." "Well, I can, it was god." But, even if you accept the deist position you still have all your work ahead of you. Because to claim you not only know god exists, but that he is a personal god; to know his will, is impossible. Not even great christian philosophers like Aquinas tried to make the jump from deism to theism. To do so you must claim to have evidence that has been withheld from myself and the rest of the world.


Care to cite sources for the gang rape? That's right, Iran is a Muslim country and them doing what you have stated is against their religion. They do it because they're as you're mentioned bad people, and as I say ignorant of their belief, if that is what they are following.
Your quote actually supports ly statement about mankind's psyche.
I say this with surprise because you are here to refute and don't seem to realize you just supported my reply in thus claiming I'm right.

Which brings to our attention a golden question--- are you even comprehending what I am writing??
20588 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 5/12/13
I do believe that, in this argument, we are getting to a point where people are just repeating themselves. Why don't we take a break and contemplate on that mysterious object in the galaxy that is moving in a combined velocity which is four times the speed of light. Just what is it?
2058 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / USA
Offline
Posted 5/12/13
It is written that "Man was created in the image of God". So to begin to understand God we must first began to examine ourselves. We as people build and make things that would otherwise not exist in this world had we not created them. But when it comes to our existence we act as though we "willed" ourselves into existence. But the truth of the matter is nothing will exist except it first be created. Which I know some would then want to argue who then created God? It then would appear we've hit an endless loop. But God being the "Creator of All Things" ...is just that. Our very concept of creation comes from God, without him nothing that exist would exist. Which brings me back to what I said in an earlier post. No one chooses to believe, either you believe or you don't.
Posted 5/12/13 , edited 5/12/13

VeniVidiVici- wrote:

Care to cite sources for the gang rape? That's right, Iran is a Muslim country and them doing what you have stated is against their religion. They do it because they're as you're mentioned bad people, and as I say ignorant of their belief, if that is what they are following.
Your quote actually supports ly statement about mankind's psyche.
I say this with surprise because you are here to refute and don't seem to realize you just supported my reply in thus claiming I'm right.

Which brings to our attention a golden question--- are you even comprehending what I am writing??
The rationale behind the gang rape of virgins comes directly from the Hadith: a virgin cannot be executed. The jump from that to gang rape by the revolutionary guard was obtained from "Love, Poverty, and War: Journeys and Essays" by Christopher Hitchens.

Also, you ask if I comprehend what you are saying, to which I must reply apparently not.

You say "Do not blame religion." however, it can be seen that no morally normal person would even contemplate such wicked actions are those perpetuated by the parties of god. I repeat, good people will do good things, bad people will do bad things; if you want a good person to do a wicked thing, that takes religion.

I would also retort that my challenge is still unanswered: You name me one moral action that a religious person would do that a non-believer wouldn't. You may have to think about that, but now consider what is an immoral action that a religious person would commit that a non-believer wouldn't even dream of. The suicide bombing community is entirely faith based, the genital mutilation community as well.

We may be at an impasse; you claim that I am not comprehending, as it were, while I feel the same about you. I have closely read your responses and both agreed and disagreed on certain points. The ambiguity in comprehension on your end is questionable, perhaps even with some motivated reasoning.

-

I repeat, so that this does not come up for a 3rd time: Religion makes morally normal people say and do wicked and disgusting things. Things they would not with if they did not believe god was on their side. Yes. There are good people. Yes there are bad people. But if you want a good person to commit an atrocity, that takes religion.


minatothegreatjiraiya wrote:

I do believe that, in this argument, we are getting to a point where people are just repeating themselves.
I am inclined to agree with what this fine gentleman said.

Though, perhaps I'm biased, but I believe I've taken the flag today.
43679 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M
Offline
Posted 5/12/13
I'm a devout follower of Madokami. <3

Lol as for why.... why not? >:]
320 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M
Offline
Posted 5/12/13 , edited 5/12/13

Ember_McLain wrote:

TAO_Arecibo wrote:

Ember, the moment you mention 'impossibility of X position', I become rather skeptical of you. After all, 'impossibility' depends on correspondence theory, which is a very large assumption.

Be aware that reality isn't something taken for granted.
"Impossible", I do stand by those words, though your skepticism is warranted.

To prove deism, for example, you must claim to have information you cannot possibly have. "I cannot explain why the stars are there." "Well, I can, it was god." But, even if you accept the deist position you still have all your work ahead of you. Because to claim you not only know god exists, but that he is a personal god; to know his will, is impossible. Not even great christian philosophers like Aquinas tried to make the jump from deism to theism. To do so you must claim to have evidence that has been withheld from myself and the rest of the world.


I don't think you understand. There is a very limited number of things you are actually capable of proving. If you've ever talked to a solipsist, you will understand what I mean. Yes, you can't prove deism. But neither can you disprove it. Yes you can't prove atheism. But neither can you disprove it. All this talk of proof is based on correspondence theory of truth, and as I pointed out, it has some issues. That's why, debating about the existance of God is quite pointless. People 'believe' or 'don't believe' in God for practical reasons, not because they can prove or disprove it. And I don't think there's anything wrong with people choosing to believe or not believe simply because they want to. Because ultimately, that's what everything depends on (because you can't prove or disprove your senses either, thus making it a similar choice).
Posted 5/12/13

TAO_Arecibo wrote:
I don't think you understand. There is a very limited number of things you are actually capable of proving. If you've ever talked to a solipsist, you will understand what I mean. Yes, you can't prove deism. But neither can you disprove it. Yes you can't prove atheism. But neither can you disprove it. All this talk of proof is based on correspondence theory of truth, and as I pointed out, it has some issues. That's why, debating about the existance of God is quite pointless. People 'believe' or 'don't believe' in God for practical reasons, not because they can prove or disprove it. And I don't think there's anything wrong with people choose to believe or not believe simply because they want to. Because ultimately, that's what everything depends on (because you can't prove or disprove your senses either).
It's always somewhat bothersome when I hear "you cannot prove atheism." I suppose that's about right, considering Atheism is the proposition that a particular belief isn't true.

With that in mind, I believe a close examination of my previous posts will reveal that I never once said god did not exist. I also never said the belief in god itself is bad, not necessarily.

What IS bad, however, is modern organised religion. That is truly harmful to civil society. From the islamic fascists who believe their bigotry is divine to the evangelical christians who want pseudo-science taught in schools, we should be, as the religious would say, offended.

Also, " debating about the [sic]existance of God is quite pointless." I, and many philosophers, will have to disagree with you there. That is not a pointless debate.
320 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M
Offline
Posted 5/12/13

minatothegreatjiraiya wrote:

Yes, reality is not something to be taken for granted. For all we know, the people commenting on this thread might not exist. They may have just been a delusion my mind created from the need of personal contact. Maybe all the people I have ever met in my life are delusions. Maybe I have been stuck in the wild for 60 years, remembering events from my younger, better days, or maybe they didn't even exist. Perhaps everything I have ever done is just in my head. Now, imagine if I were a being alone, no single soul to interact with or even watch. Now, if I were a being with the ability to create living things, with desires all their own, I would probably create things, beautiful things, and then create living things. And then, I would watch them like a television. Of course, I am incapable of such things. But if one who was capable of these miraculous acts, then what do you think he would do?


Look at the bolded statement. That is technically begging the question (a logical fallacy). You can't show that you are or are not capable of doing such things from a solipistic perspective (which is the perspective from which you make non-assumptive conclusions about reality).

In other words, what you think is reality, may or may not be the case. We assume it is, but we don't know for sure. It's also why 'agreeing upon' the terms of reality is very important in communicating with other people.
43679 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M
Offline
Posted 5/12/13 , edited 5/12/13
And religion in general... I say gods are pretty much just ideals, but they do exist, in their effects on the choices people make..

So if you say God doesn't exist, then I think you're missing something. xD

And really the whole argument over whether he exists or not is kinda pointless cause whether or not he exists, you're still going to make the same choices.... :/ If you think following God will lead you to make better choices/happier, then by all means follow him. o3o If you think following Madokami will lead you to make better choices/happier, follow her. c:

I don't really connect that to whether they have physical forms or not.. xD Gods are still dreadfully powerful without those silly things. :P

/my take on religion
2058 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / USA
Offline
Posted 5/12/13
You're making an issue out of religion when religion has nothing to do with these issues. The problem here is liars. People claiming to be of something they see as good, but in turn not holding to it. In the Bible murder is never justified before God. God has actually commanded against it, so anyone you see doing such, and justifying it in the name of God is a liar. This is no different than someone commiting a crime & saying that Ember_McLain told me it was okay.
First  Prev  51  52  53  54  55  56  57  58  59  60  61  62  63  64  65  66  67  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.