This is why Christianity is made fun of

[Baba O'Reily]

The odds of picking the 'right' religion out of so many possible deities make it nearly impossible to get to heaven, especially if you consider the number of possible interpretations of 'good will'. Instead of playing into this sick twisted Poker game known as 'faith', I simply choose to ignore the presence or the abscence of God(s)/god(s)/Goddess(es)/goddess(es) and live my life normally, lol. =^_^=

[Delphine]

=^_^=

Banned.

[Popcorn]

In defense of the moral argument:

If a universal (not universally accepted, because truth doesn't have to be universally accepted) morality exists then it implies that there is an intention behind the universe. The intention would reasonable have to come from a personal being and that would be God. I have come to the conclusion that if there is a God, there must be a universal morality and if there is no God then there cannot be a universal morality.

I'm undecided about moral absolutism. On the one hand, I don't think there can really be such a thing as 'real' morality outside out of our own heads: what we perceive to be a 'moral code' is really just a perverted evolutionary trait: empathy. I really don't believe that the universe as a whole cares whether we all stab each other to death or not, because I think that a) there is no empirical reason to think that's the case, and b) I think it requires a tremendous leap of arrogance to decide such a thing, because it implies that we, as humans, hold some kind of cosmic significance when really I think we're no more significant, to anything other than ourselves, than space dust or pebbles on a beach. But the problem with refuting moral relativity, and ultimate subjectivity, is that it poses all kinds of questions: can a moral code ever be justified in pragmatic/utilitarian terms outside of absolutist terms?

Oh, I don't know, but look: say there is such a thing as Right and Wrong, of a real, universal, absolute morality. What then? I don't see how the existence of such a thing necessarily infers the existence of a Christian God, or any other religious concept of God. How are we supposed to know what is right and wrong? There's no rational reason to believe the Bible has the answers, or the Koran, or a piece of paper I found on the ground. The concept of absolute morality might be called 'God', I guess, but how we're supposed to work anything out beyond that is anyone's guess. Heaven, hell, angels, The Ten Commandments, fire and brimstone-- these are all fairy tales, primitive human inventions that have no obvious connection to Right and Wrong in intellectual terms.

In defense of the Kalam argument:

If the universe does require a cause (which it might not as the laws of casuality were not in existence until the universe was - not that that makes any sense because "until the universe was" implies that there was a "before the universe" which of course, there wasn't) then the cause must exist outside of the limits of the universe (timeless, spaceless and immaterial).

I dunno, man, these are shifting sands we're wading in here. I've read a lot about it, but I'm hesistant to declare any bold claims about what does and doesn't make sense about the universe, causality and infinity, and to be honest I'm cautious to swallow yours. Either way, the discussion here concerns religious belief, and even if there is a creator, which seems to me to be an unconvincing claim, there is simply no reason to assume he had anything to do with the Bible.

From there you only have to argue if the cause was personal or impersonal. From the morality argument you can see that it must be personal.

No, you can't.

I hate to cite it but the Bible is historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus.

No it isn't.

The Bible mentions actual real historical events in it and "historical fiction" was not a genre in existence at the time, so the Bible is most certainly not a novel. Thus there are only three options: it is a hoax, it was written by crazy people or it is true.

There is a fourth possibility: it was written by a bunch of delusional religious nuts of the type that still occupy a significant percentage of the world's current population. You know, the kind that think they see Jesus' face in cheese sandwiches and really mean it. I'm sure everyone who had a hand in the Bible had a real belief in what they were teaching, but that doesn't mean they could have been completely wrong in believing it.

The hoax can be eliminated right off the bat as most of the apostles faced their own death so sincere was their belief.

Uh, really? Have you just categorically denied any possibility of the whole thing being a set-up just because some of the people involved were prepared to die to keep the secret? Such things have occurred many times through history: they could have been motivated for political or conspirational reasons, any kind of stuff, I have no idea. You can't just outright state that it's impossible it was faked, though. What if Jesus himself was just a clever magician who tricked everyone into thinking he was the world's first zombie? What if never died at all? You don't have a clue. I'd personally say it's unlikely, but you can't discount its possibility entirely without a fucking time machine, dude.

Craziness can be eliminated as they all stick to the same story

They could have, and probably were, all been part of the same crazy group self-reinforcing their shared beliefs that make no sense.

and there are multiple accounts of different people seeing Jesus after the resurrection.

They could have been paid, they could not have existed, they could have been misrepresented, the whole thing could have been a trick, blah blah blah...

Even then, I don't think the Bible is a hoax. I just think it was written by people who were either so completely deluded they thought the whole thing was real (and such people still exist today in great numbers, as I mentioned), and were prepared to write it down.

But look what you've done here. You've said:

ONE OF THESE MUST BE TRUE:
1) A man died and mysteriously 'came back to life', something that has never, ever been legitimately recorded as having occurred before or since in history, and that science categorically denies being even remotely possible.
2) The thing was a hoax, trick or illusion of some kind.
3) The whole story is fabricated or exaggerated by a group of delusional religious people.
4) The Bible is outright lying.

... And you've come to the conclusion that option number one is the most likely? How the hell did you do that? You can argue that options 2-4 are unlikely, if you want, but you will never, ever convince me that they are less likely to be true than, you know, the fucking physically impossible. When you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however fucking improbable, must be, get this, the fucking truth! To quote Hume: which is more likely – that a man rose from the dead or that this testimony is mistaken in some way?

It's not proof, it isn't air tight and you might not think it holds much water,

and so it's not evidence.

but its still evidence nonetheless.

Oh right, yeah, I forgot that evidence isn't meant to be a valuable indication of something being true or not, it's meant to be someone's preferred interpretation of a bunch of groundless nonsense.

You admit that logic won't take you to the truth and provide answers and it doesn't make that claim.

I don't think I admit that at all. I think logic can take us as close to 'the truth' as humans will ever be able to interpret it. When I said that 'atheism doesn't hold the answers', I mean it won't ever give people the answers they want: that is, the reassurance that their existence is somehow significant and meaningful, that they'll see their loved ones in the afterlife, that they have nothing to fear and that reality isn't as frightening as it really appears to be. The problem people have is in asking questions to which there can be no answer.

You admit that logic won't take you to the truth and provide answers and it doesn't make that claim. You claim also that religion is intellectually lazy, and causes people not to think. However if logic by your own admission will never give you the truth, so it sounds like by throwing out religion and saying "well I can't find the truth with logic, but it's all I'm going to use" you are sort of giving up. Perhaps you are still thinking but you are only describing reality and not searching for the truth. Now I'm not saying that religion is a guarantee to finding the truth, but it's possible.

It annoys me when people start saying "Oh well we can't trust logic and how do you know if logic is even real blah blah blah" because, as sloppy and broken thinking as it is, to deny logic's value is a logical proposition. And that's why we can't ever escape logic, because it's just the word we use to describe rational human thought. There is good logic and bad logic. Now let's move on.

Does it not interst you or do you try and find it through philisophy?

Philosophy is rational thinking. It is the pursuit of truth through logical reasoning. That's what we've been arguing about. I think your logical reasoning is wrong. I think faith is bad logical reasoning. It's not like "Logic Versus Religion", one or the other; ultimately religion is a kind of logic, but I'm trying to demonstrate why it's so awful it's almost like a denial of itself.

Philisophy is not quite the same as religion but it doesn't deny theism (or ignore it as in the case of hard science).

An awful lot of philosophers deny theism. I think you're getting really caught up in the differences between these doctrines: logic, reasoning, faith, religion and philosophy are all pretty much the same thing, it's just that some of them work and some of them don't. We're currently arguing in favour of, and against, religious faith, right? Stop confusing the argument.

I don't know it just seems like throwing out religion in general and dismissing it as wacky just because it might not be intellectual isn't right.

Why? People believe things that categorically make zero sense. I believe this can be demonstrated by fairly simple logical reasoning. You are apparently rejecting this because 'it doesn't seem right', which smacks to me of personal preference infringing on objective reasoning.

I mean what makes the human mind so important anyway? Without a creator humans have to be left to their own devices to come up with a purpose

We have no purpose beyond that which we give ourselves, and that is exactly what frightens religious people. That is the ultimately arrogant and selfish nature of belief; in submitting to an invisible God, you're only empowering yourself, declaring yourself to be somehow cosmically signficiant. That you're going to Heaven. Doesn't that feel great?

[Baba O'Reily]

=^_^=

Banned.

Fuck. God damn equal to the power of underscore to the power of equal.

[Plorpus III]

The bible can not be proof of the ressurection of Jesus as it has been changed an indefinate amount of times by the church, and how much of it was in the new testament to begin with is impossible to know. The only version of the bible we know to be unchanged is the Torah, and Christians disregard much of that anyway. There are several writings about a man named Yesshua or whatever Jesus's actual name was, but none of them mention anything of him being divine. The only ones that suggest this are refferring to the bible itself, and are years after his death.
I'm going to go out on a imb here and say that there is about as much proof that Scientology is the correct religion as there is for Christianity. Why? Elron existed. We know this. Yes, he was a science fiction writer and was considered insane, but Dianetics says otherwise. Jesus most likely existed, there were many writings about him. Yes, he was considered crazy by most Jews and to the romans he was an enemy, but the Bible says otherwise. Everything else in these books, be it Xenu and Thetans or Heaven and Hell, is unprovable and by modern science, impossible.

[Radrappy]

The Ramayana could be evidence then!! By the GODS I had no idea. Not only that, but Greek recorded mythology and religious text??? All evidence. However now we have a lump of religious beliefs contridicting eachother with their so-called evidence. The thing about religion, is that NO HUMAN BEING KNOWS MORE ABOUT WHAT LIES AFTER DEATH THAN ANY OTHER. all religious persons KNOW JUST AS MUCH AS SOMEONE FROM ANY OTHER RELIGION. "religious experiences" and revlations aside, no one is the wiser.

Religion can help people and I some people need it. By all means use it if it works for you. However for those that it doesn't work for, please, for the love of humanity leave them the fuck alone. Missionaries disgust me.

[Crazy Penguin]

NO HUMAN BEING KNOWS MORE ABOUT WHAT LIES AFTER DEATH THAN ANY OTHER.

We know what happens. The body shuts down and decays.

[Double-S-]

You claim "logic has never failed us". I'd love to know what universe you come from. Logic created communism (which, not coincidentally, almost always tries to eliminate religion), for starters. Oh, wait, you meant only good logic, right? Well take the word "good" and put it in front of just about anything and you won't find much bad. For example, take... oh, let's randomly pick "good" religion. Are you going to say Mother Theresa was looney? I guess she is by your argument. Yeah, that whole devoted-her-life-to-others thing is stupid since she did it because of her faith.


Then there's the one major flaw in your argument, Popcorn. If I'm reading you correctly, basically what you are saying is: "Christianity (and all religion) is bogus because it ignores logic. This is wrong; logic is the absolute best way we have to approach life, and I prove this with logic. [insert 'proof' here]"

Also known as "Statement A is validated by the use of Statement A", which I'm pretty certain is some kind of... logical... sin. I find this no less ludicrous than somebody saying "I choose to approach life through faith in something, and because it is by faith I can't always explain it logically."

[Cuckooguy]

blahblahblahdebateblahblahblahtalkingtoomuchblahblahblahshutupblahblahblahbloohbies

[Popcorn]

You claim "logic has never failed us". I'd love to know what universe you come from. Logic created communism (which, not coincidentally, almost always tries to eliminate religion), for starters. Oh, wait, you meant only good logic, right? Well take the word "good" and put it in front of just about anything and you won't find much bad.

This strikes me as a profoundly pointless chunk of text. Yes, I sort of loosely, haphazardly agree with everything you've said here.

For example, take... oh, let's randomly pick "good" religion. Are you going to say Mother Theresa was looney? I guess she is by your argument. Yeah, that whole devoted-her-life-to-others thing is stupid since she did it because of her faith.

Yes.

Then there's the one major flaw in your argument, Popcorn. If I'm reading you correctly, basically what you are saying is:
Quote:
"Christianity (and all religion) is bogus because it ignores logic. This is wrong; logic is the absolute best way we have to approach life, and I prove this with logic. [insert 'proof' here]"

But in claiming that, you are attempting to stake a logical claim. You can't argue against logic with logic. There is absolutely no argument anyone can make that escapes logic. 'Logic' isn't an option, it's not like one possible route to interpreting the universe: it's the only way. It is just the word for the human rational faculty.

[Delphine]

blahblahblahconspiracytheoryblahblahblahworldcupblahblahblah

blahblahblahdebateblahblahblahtalkingtoomuchblahblahblahshutupblahblahblahbloohbies

It's not funny when someone else has already done it, guys.

[Double-S-]

Obviously I am not saying logic is bogus. And yes, it is simply the word to describe human reasoning. But as you said, there is good logic and bad logic. And logically, I find that attempting to prove logic using logic is bad logic. Attempting to prove anything using itself is bad logic, and this is a logical statement that you can't really argue with. (You may try to counter by saying faith does this also, which is not really true. Faith doesn't validify itself by outright trying to prove itself. The very definition of faith is a belief in something that is not evident, its only proof is its result in changing lives, something which you obviously will refuse to believe.)

The difference between you and anyone who finds religion attractive is that, Popcorn, is that you simply assert that logic is the end all and that any other belief is stupid and that you are obviously right. When there is nothing really obvious to outright prove or disprove you. Then you will say "science" and the like, but it's all just a human observation of this world we live in.

[Popcorn]

The difference between you and anyone who finds religion attractive is that, Popcorn, is that you simply assert that logic is the end all and that any other belief is stupid and that you are obviously right.

But I am obviously right. If there is no rational reason to assume something to be true, then it should not be taken to be true. There is point-blank no reason to assume that a God as envisioned by religious belief exists, that the Bible is true, or that gay people are going to hell. It simply makes no sense. It is categorically nonsensical.

The only difference between believing in a Christian God and Father Christmas is that God is 'personal'. People don't like people criticising their religious beliefs because they directly affect their moral worldview; with Father Christmas, it doesn't really matter either way. With God, the subject matter isn't trivial in implication, as it is with belief in Father Christmas, but it deploys exactly the same line of reasoning, and as such should be treated with the same criticisms.

If people want to play nonsensical guessing games about tooth faries and Father Christmas they can, but they have to accept that they are probably going to end up with false conclusions. And religious people don't. That's where their reasoning fails.

When there is nothing really obvious to outright prove or disprove you. Then you will say "science" and the like, but it's all just a human observation of this world we live in.

But it's all we goddamn have. It's how we operate. We look at things like cause and effect, we work things out, we operate rationally, we deduce. It's what separates us from the animals. Yes, you can say "at the end of the day it's just the way we see the world", and I agree with you, but we don't have anything better. This very argument is an argument of our own rational faculties; to deny their use or purpose is to mean this argument can't possibly be happening. We are rational, and sometimes we get things wrong. There are useful ways of looking at the world and working things out, ways that have weilded a vast bounty of knowledge, and faith-- the conscious suppression of these useful ways-- isn't one of them.

[gr4yJ4Y]

I know I'm late on the draw here, but some post ago you made mention on how you don't think that a human life is any more significant in the history of the universe than anything else (if I understood you correctly). Within the view of the one human life, it may appear that nothing was accomplished, but the little things may have large effects much farther down the line.

I think Eternal Darkness does a good job representing this (I think I can cite this, since we are all gamers here). Each page, or life of someone seem insignificant in itself, but when you see the story as a whole, it all adds up.


I think there must be a universal moral truth. I'm not going to go as far as to claim that it is proof of God's existence or that it's known to us. But surely you can't think that cultural relativism is the answer. You can't look back on things like slavery and canibalism and feel indifferent about it.

Everyone has a void in their life. Many people fill it with religion (which I would personally recomend). Others fill it with alcoholism, money, work, or philosophy. Philosophy may seem right now, but in the grand scheme of things, I think much of what is uplifted today will be looked back on as foolish, as we progress.

[Popcorn]

I know I'm late on the draw here, but some post ago you made mention on how you don't think that a human life is any more significant in the history of the universe than anything else (if I understood you correctly). Within the view of the one human life, it may appear that nothing was accomplished, but the little things may have large effects much farther down the line.

I think you've misunderstood what I mean by 'significance'. In terms of cause and effect, and exerting influence on the universe (even if it's only a very small part of it)-- actually changing things-- of course we are significant. But that doesn't mean we're important. We're 'significant' in terms of our own perceptions, but no more 'significant', in terms of value or worth or importance, than a single blade of grass. Let me put it this way: the universe doesn't 'care' if we blow the entire planet up. We'll care, because it directly concerns us, but from a universal/objective perspective it's no more notable as an event than specks of dust floating aimlessly in space. (I mean, after all, isn't that all we are?)

But surely you can't think that cultural relativism is the answer. You can't look back on things like slavery and canibalism and feel indifferent about it.

Of course I do think certain things are morally right or wrong. If I didn't, I'd be trying to get away with every immoral or illegal stunt I could as long as it benefited my own ends: I'd be a completely selfish being. What I'm suggesting is that, although I can't convince myself that there are universal moral absolutes, that doesn't mean I think that moral codes we invent ourselves can't be worthwhile. I don't think they have any cosmic truth or significance (see above) but that doesn't mean they can't be important to us. The mistake people make is in endowing morality with an importance beyond our own ends.

In the end, it all comes down to empathy. Humans evolved the capacity to feel sorry for someone else because it's a social advantage: the fact that watching a friend get eaten alive by wolves is distressing meant that tribes of cavemen lasted longer. Some people think it's a frightening thought that something as important as morality has almost certainly occured only as a product of an arbitrary biological trait, but I think that scenario is far more beautiful and romantic a concept than if some prick up in the sky gave it to us.

Everyone has a void in their life. Many people fill it with religion (which I would personally recomend).

This is what really gets me about religious belief. I think it's a patently ludicrous thing to think, as I've just spent about twenty pages arguing, but that's quite separate from my real beef with religion: I think it is, as I've mentioned, selfish, delusional, retardant to societal development and ultimately potentially damaging. It's not just a matter of it being a case of sloppy reasoning-- the implications of religious faith are, I think, really worrying. I think Eve biting into that apple was the best decision humanity ever made.

[Ecco]

Since this debate is starting to get heated and rediculous, and because I feel I'm starting to see circular reasoning from all prties involved, I feel I should step in with this proposition. I would like for everyone here to drop this debate for the time being and go watch the movie Contact, starring Jodie Foster. This movie probably presents the most balanced position in the age old religion vs. science debate.

[Senbei]

Alternatively, everyone should drop this debate and go watch The Fifth Element, 'cause it's a good flick.

[Crazy Penguin]

[Wooduck51]

I've done this on several forums and it will eventually become a debate where we all repeat the SAME THING.

[Plorpus III]

You mean it hasn't already?
Person one: Religion!
Person two: Science!
And so on, so forth.

[smiths32]

But I am obviously right. If there is no rational reason to assume something to be true, then it should not be taken to be true.

How to you believe that the universe came about? I'm under the impression that you probably believe that it was the big bang, of which there is no rational reason to assume it to be true, neither scientifically or philosophically.

There is point-blank no reason to assume that a God as envisioned by religious belief exists, that the Bible is true, or that gay people are going to hell. It simply makes no sense. It is categorically nonsensical

People get the wrong idea about "gay people going to hell." True, homosexuality is considered sin. But only those who have not accepted Christ as their saviour will go to hell. Meaning that is possible for a gay person to go to heaven.

[Popcorn]

Holy fuck, you guys. If there are people here who aren't enjoying the debate or think it's stupid or whatever then you can all go and watch Contact-- the bit where the thing blows up is particularly good, I recommend it-- but otherwise stay the fuck out.

How to you believe that the universe came about?

I don't claim to know. You need to be awfully clever to have a legitimate take on that cookie and I don't have the knowledge necessary to crack it. But the religious conception of God (heaven, hell, sin, scripture, miracles) has no place in the debate.

I'm under the impression that you probably believe that it was the big bang, of which there is no rational reason to assume it to be true, neither scientifically or philosophically.

I disagree very strongly with that. Have you read A Brief History of Time? Do you think guys like Stephen Hawking are just talking a load of bollocks? I can't claim to have fully understood the arguments involved in order to properly defend them, but I'm deeply suspicious of anyone who is prepared to discount them entirely, without demonstrating the relevant credentials, when the Big Bang theory is the hypothesis supported by a vast majority of the scientific world. Anyway, I want to draw the argument away from this, because I believe it's not relevant to the debate.

People get the wrong idea about "gay people going to hell." True, homosexuality is considered sin. But only those who have not accepted Christ as their saviour will go to hell. Meaning that is possible for a gay person to go to heaven.

That's what one batch of religious people believe, yes. Then there is another (huge) batch of people who think that homosexuals are going to hell anyway. Then there is another bunch of people who think that an evil alien overlord called Xenu is secretly suppressing all of their souls because millions of years ago he flung them from outer space into an enormous volcano and then reprogrammed them to believe an alternative reality. None of these beliefs make any more or less sense than any of the others.

[smiths32]

I disagree very strongly with that. Have you read A Brief History of Time? Do you think guys like Stephen Hawking are just talking a load of bollocks? I can't claim to have fully understood the arguments involved in order to properly defend them, but I'm deeply suspicious of anyone who is prepared to discount them entirely, without demonstrating the relevant credentials, when the Big Bang theory is the hypothesis supported by a vast majority of the scientific world. Anyway, I want to draw the argument away from this, because I believe it's not relevant to the debate.

Let me just make these last points about these issues. How does something come from nothing? From a scienific view, everything must have a begining and end, if that's so, then where did the matter and anti-matter (or whatever that triggered the big bang) come from?

Secondly, don't you think the world is too perfect to have been created by chance? Sure there are problems but why is it that the Earth is just the right distance from the Sun so that it can nourish life as opposed to being so close that the planet is too hot, or so far away that it cannot supply us with energy (I'm not sure if that bits worded right so forgive me).

Finally, what about our purpose in life? As a Christian, I believe that it's our purpose to serve our God, following his commands as best as we can in a world oppressed by sin. What do you think our purpose in life is Popcorn? Surely we aren't born without some sort of purpose.

[gr4yJ4Y]

Basic physics will tell us that for something to be set in motion, a force must be acted upon it. So therefore there must be an original motion or something to start the original motion. We can call this "God" to link it to the arguement at hand.

And instead of watching a movie, go read the writings of Discortarianism:
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~tilt/principia/body.html

[Popcorn]

Let me just make these last points about these issues. How does something come from nothing? From a scienific view, everything must have a begining and end, if that's so, then where did the matter and anti-matter (or whatever that triggered the big bang) come from?

Well, have you read A Brief History of Time, or any of the other relevant scientific and philosophical texts that attempt to answer those questions? Like I keep saying, I don't want to get into that debate because I don't think either of us are fully qualified to discuss it; the topic of religion, however, is very separate.

Secondly, don't you think the world is too perfect to have been created by chance? Sure there are problems but why is it that the Earth is just the right distance from the Sun so that it can nourish life as opposed to being so close that the planet is too hot, or so far away that it cannot supply us with energy (I'm not sure if that bits worded right so forgive me).

Dude, this is old hat. Douglas Adams:

'Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for.'

We are a product of our environment. It's not like we spontaneously 'occurred' one bright morning millions of years ago and were lucky enough to have done it on a planet just right for our purposes; we evolved out from the conditions of the planet.

There are lots of other demonstrations against your thinking here. Try reading some David Hume, as I recommended to someone else earlier in the thread. Check this shit out.

Finally, what about our purpose in life? [...] Surely we aren't born without some sort of purpose.

Why the hell not?