[trip]

QUOTE (Robinski @ Saturday, May 5 2012, 12:34)

I'm always hesitant to assign a label to my beliefs with regard to religion. The closest label is probably somewhere between atheist and agnostic, but neither sit quite right with me, especially on the internet where atheists are stereotypically arrogant and confrontational people who assert their assumed intellectual superiority because they have different beliefs than the religious.

That is one of the reasons I don't run around telling people I'm atheist. Some atheists give other atheists a bad name. If you look at the top authors/speakers on atheism you'll notice they don't go running around saying god doesn't exist. Even the noted Richard Dawkins claims he doesn't know, and that a god could even exist. In my mind it is all about being open minded and thinking with logic other than emotion.

Religion has always been around as a form of control. I'm not saying that in a bad way. Way way way back there was a need to control people, since at one time in history people were basically savages. They needed to be scared into behaving in a civil mater.

The one thing that should have people thinking about how true religion is how religions(the church) has changed and altered their texts and beliefs as science proves them wrong. Originally earth was the center of the universe. God created earth and everything revolved around us because we are so special. Eventually it was discovered that we are not the center of the universe. So the church just changed their texts and beliefs to match. It's kind of like playing a made up kids game with your friend and he keeps changing the rules(while playing) to his advantage so that he can win.

[SmellyJelly]

QUOTE (ManDog @ Saturday, May 5 2012, 11:33)

I lol at one bit, "Can you see/hear/touch your thoughts" and "Can you see/hear/touch your consiousness" See and touch, no. But your can hear your thoughts, because your thoughts are your thoughts, they're in your mind. So you can basically hear your own thoughts, but not others. Mel Gibson flash-back!

Not to mention that intelligence can be measured through IQ tests.

[Robinski]

QUOTE (trip @ Saturday, May 5 2012, 16:49)

The one thing that should have people thinking about how true religion is how religions(the church) has changed and altered their texts and beliefs as science proves them wrong.  Originally earth was the center of the universe.  God created earth and everything revolved around us because we are so special.  Eventually it was discovered that we are not the center of the universe.  So the church just changed their texts and beliefs to match.  It's kind of like playing a made up kids game with your friend and he keeps changing the rules(while playing) to his advantage so that he can win.

I don't think that's too bad to be honest. I'm gonna be a little ignorant here and only talk in terms of the Christian church, because it's all I know. But the way I see it is that it operates the same way as science. The Bible and religious teachings are just man's approximation of God's word, they are fallible, and as time goes on and we understand more about the universe and what's in it we change what our understanding of God's message is. Just like how in science, when new evidence and theory is found to hold true, we change the textbooks and what we teach.

Hopefully, if we find life on other planets or something, I'd hope that the Church would change its stance on humanity as God's only child and change that to humanity being one of God's many children. Just a (very optimistic) example.

[trip]

Robinski, I hear what you are saying and it is a good point. It would be nice if all religious people felt that way. Just the same as it would be nice if some atheists didn't run around like assholes saying they are right.

My only disagreement with what you are saying is science tends to say "we suggest, or we think possible" while the church says "this is the way". Science always leaves a door open to change while religion claims their statements as absolute until proven wrong.

[Irviding]

QUOTE

What's more I do not feel that the burden of proof lies on the sceptic, whose scepticism is based on rationality and experience, but on the believer.

That's a frequent argument, usually coupled with "prove there isn't a teapot flying around the universe". I feel that since God is something humans have believed in for so many thousands of years, in varying forms, the burden lies on those claiming against that widely held belief. Did Galileo's assertion that in fact, all planets revolve around the sun and not the Earth, not have any burden for him to prove? Should we have just said "oh that's rational", so don't bother proving it at all? I identify as a Christian simply because for the most part I agree with the morals and teachings, and probably also because I like the history of it. My beliefs are more in line with an 18th century Deist though.

By the way, what experience do you speak of? I can get the rationality part, but what experience do you or any others have with proving whether or not a deity exists?

[ishish]

I find the label of atheists being arrogant as tiring.
Shall we discuss style, or content?


I understand that religious people have a lot of their self esteem and worth rooted in these ideas, but to turn on the debater of the other side instead of keeping to the argument is useless.

[trip]

QUOTE (Irviding @ Saturday, May 5 2012, 14:18)

I identify as a Christian simply because for the most part I agree with the morals and teachings

That's the thing. There was a time when those morals and teachings needed to be imposed. I really like to think at this stage in existence those morals and teachings are now just common sense. Not to toot my own horn, but there have been many instances in my life where I have been more moral and forgiving than someone who claims they are christian...and I'm a hard set atheist.

It's almost sad that we need to be told what is socially right and wrong in today's age. Common sense. I know not to have sex with my neighbors wife. Not because I fear going to hell, but because it is just morally wrong. I know not to steal. Not because I fear going to hell, but because I know it is morally wrong.

We shouldn't have to be told to be 'good people'. And I honestly think we shouldn't have to be feared and threatened into being 'good people'. I'm pretty sure it is easy for the healthy functioning person to know basic right and wrong.

[Irviding]

QUOTE (trip @ Saturday, May 5 2012, 13:31)

QUOTE (Irviding @ Saturday, May 5 2012, 14:18) I identify as a Christian simply because for the most part I agree with the morals and teachings That's the thing. There was a time when those morals and teachings needed to be imposed. I really like to think at this stage in existence those morals and teachings are now just common sense. Not to toot my own horn, but there have been many instances in my life where I have been more moral and forgiving than someone who claims they are christian...and I'm a hard set atheist. It's almost sad that we need to be told what is socially right and wrong in today's age. Common sense. I know not to have sex with my neighbors wife. Not because I fear going to hell, but because it is just morally wrong. I know not to steal. Not because I fear going to hell, but because I know it is morally wrong. We shouldn't have to be told to be 'good people'. And I honestly think we shouldn't have to be feared and threatened into being 'good people'. I'm pretty sure it is easy for the healthy functioning person to know basic right and wrong.

But as you argue that it's no longer necessary as they are all social mores now, you're forgetting that those very morals and teachings that are now essentially latent in everyone wouldn't have existed without the religious teachings in the first place.

[Slamman]

I consider myself Old School Christian as opposed to Born Again, they take on a more radical air that's a bit in your face. I feel the pressure to accept a religion should not feel forced, or preached, but given that man doesn't know half of what's reality, God is the only one who really does!

As for Trip, Hoping to influence him in a Godly manner! ha ha
A real good friend of mine was Buddhist and he would bring me along to meetings where they gathered to chant, etc. As soon as they were asking me for money though, I stopped. I didn't want that kind of pressure to accept another religion, I just look at Christians that I know as very nice people, all have faults too, just like you, no Holier Then Thou attitude that I'm aware of

This post has been edited by Slamman on Saturday, May 5 2012, 18:41

[trip]

QUOTE (Irviding @ Saturday, May 5 2012, 14:35)

QUOTE (trip @ Saturday, May 5 2012, 13:31) QUOTE (Irviding @ Saturday, May 5 2012, 14:18) I identify as a Christian simply because for the most part I agree with the morals and teachings That's the thing. There was a time when those morals and teachings needed to be imposed. I really like to think at this stage in existence those morals and teachings are now just common sense. Not to toot my own horn, but there have been many instances in my life where I have been more moral and forgiving than someone who claims they are christian...and I'm a hard set atheist. It's almost sad that we need to be told what is socially right and wrong in today's age. Common sense. I know not to have sex with my neighbors wife. Not because I fear going to hell, but because it is just morally wrong. I know not to steal. Not because I fear going to hell, but because I know it is morally wrong. We shouldn't have to be told to be 'good people'. And I honestly think we shouldn't have to be feared and threatened into being 'good people'. I'm pretty sure it is easy for the healthy functioning person to know basic right and wrong. But as you argue that it's no longer necessary as they are all social mores now, you're forgetting that those very morals and teachings that are now essentially latent in everyone wouldn't have existed without the religious teachings in the first place.

Not true. Religion or not, I'm pretty sure man would have figured out right and wrong somehow. There could have been some charismatic caveman that stood atop a bolder who said "Ya know what guys...it's not fair to steal the food from your neighbor after he spent all day and all of his energy to spear that saber tooth tiger. Maybe if you ask him nicely he may be kind enough to spare a bite. How would you feel if you spent all day and he stole your tiger meat? - think about it guys."

Also those religious teachings that laid ground to our base morals today was pretty nasty and laden with fear. People don't like fear and the further you push down the seed, the longer it will last.

[Typhus]

It's not Gods existence that needs to be proven. It's his benevolence and why he deserves to be worshipped?
I would like someone to explain why he should be worshipped when he has routinely murdered his own creations and damned them for the way he designed them. I see no evidence - Biblical or otherwise - to suggest that I should respect him.

I have no issue with believing in a deity. But I find it incredible that anyone can love him, let alone beg and grovel at his feet.

[ishish]

[/QUOTE]
But as you argue that it's no longer necessary as they are all social mores now, you're forgetting that those very morals and teachings that are now essentially latent in everyone wouldn't have existed without the religious teachings in the first place. [QUOTE]

I agree with 'trip'.
Religion got it's morals from us. It doesn't have a monopoly on 'good'.

If it took Moses coming down Mount Sinai with a stone rulebook telling us to not kill each other for us to stop, how did we make it that far?
Like I said earlier in the thread, homo sapiens are thought to be ATLEAST 100,000 years old.

[GTAvanja]

QUOTE (Typhus @ Saturday, May 5 2012, 20:55)

It's not Gods existence that needs to be proven.

Yes, it is. You can't assume that god is evil without first proving that he exists. You can argue that God as a literary character is evil, but there are a lot of versions of that character.

@OP: Do you honestly think any of those arguments are valid? There isn't a single argument Christians have to offer that hasn't been repeatedly refuted. Internet is the place where religion comes to die. You can find some very interesting debates on YouTube if you're interested in having your hopes and dreams of god's existence crushed.

This post has been edited by GTAvanja on Saturday, May 5 2012, 19:14

[Typhus]

QUOTE (GTAvanja @ Saturday, May 5 2012, 19:07)

QUOTE (Typhus @ Saturday, May 5 2012, 20:55) It's not Gods existence that needs to be proven. Yes, it is. You can't assume that god is evil without first proving that he exists. You can argue that God as a literary character is evil, but there are a lot of versions of that character.

But people will always believe, there's no evidence to suggest he doesn't exist so the prospect of changing their minds is slim.

But there is more than enough evidence to suggest that the God of Abraham is a cruel, vicious tyrant. And I would love to see any evidence of his supposed good nature that can wash away all the blood that's on his hands.

Or perhaps someone will just keep trying to spin his various forays into ethnic cleansing and genocide as proof of his 'infinite love'.

[GTAvanja]

QUOTE (Typhus @ Saturday, May 5 2012, 21:13)

But people will always believe, there's no evidence to suggest he doesn't exist so the prospect of changing their minds is slim.

There is no evidence that he exists either. That's because we can never truly KNOW anything. We can't KNOW that we exist. We can't KNOW that our universe exists. This could be just a computer simulation and we could all be just very advanced AIs. That doesn't mean that you should believe we're AIs simply because there is no evidence that we aren't. You don't live your life based on that assumption.

Every human being, consciously or not accepts certain assumptions:

1. The universe exists
2. You can learn something about reality
3. Models with predictive capability are more useful than models without predictive capability (that's how we got this science stuff figured out).

We still can't prove that any of this is real, therefore science may not be real either. But because we accepted the assumption that the universe exists and that we can learn something about reality, we can accept scientific discoveries because they work within those assumptions.

God doesn't.

God is a model without predictive capability. The entire concept of God is completely useless. There is absolutely no reason to believe that any of that God nonsense is real.

[HydraulicWaRiOr]

Christians say you can't prove that something doesn't exist, so I believe in the gerflagenflopple.

[Supreme]

[3niX]

Well...

I havent managed to read through the whole topic yet... but Id just likde to address this point:

QUOTE

The thing is it isn't perfect, if it was perfect then why are people/animals born with defects? Why do species go extinct? Why are new species created? It's because we live in a constantly changing and adapting system, one which is defined by laws of nature and evolution. The system is far from perfect.

Ive always viewed this as a weak counter-argument because we tend to base perfection on our own perspective which could be, as far as we know (or dont), miles away from the perfection that God has in its mind. Heck, even people who live next to each other can have wildly different perspectives on perfection.

Also, I could argue that a system in which things change and adapt according to individual needs is an excellent example of perfection in itself.

[trip]

QUOTE (3niX @ Saturday, May 5 2012, 15:27)

Also, I could argue that a system in which things change and adapt according to individual needs is an excellent example of perfection in itself.

True. Well said. Next beer 'z on me.

[Robinski]

QUOTE (GTAvanja @ Saturday, May 5 2012, 19:24)

QUOTE (Typhus @ Saturday, May 5 2012, 21:13) But people will always believe, there's no evidence to suggest he doesn't exist so the prospect of changing their minds is slim. There is no evidence that he exists either. That's because we can never truly KNOW anything. We can't KNOW that we exist. We can't KNOW that our universe exists. This could be just a computer simulation and we could all be just very advanced AIs. That doesn't mean that you should believe we're AIs simply because there is no evidence that we aren't. You don't live your life based on that assumption.

Well without getting too Descartes on you, the only thing you can truly know is that you exist. You might be an AI, you might be a disembodied consciousness floating among the space dust of some magic nebula or you might be hooked up to a tank next door to Keanu Reeves, but by the very action of questioning it you know that you exist in some form. Everything your senses tell you migt be a lie, but you do exist somehow, somewhere.

[Typhus]

QUOTE (3niX @ Saturday, May 5 2012, 19:27)

Well... I havent managed to read through the whole topic yet... but Id just likde to address this point: QUOTE The thing is it isn't perfect, if it was perfect then why are people/animals born with defects? Why do species go extinct? Why are new species created? It's because we live in a constantly changing and adapting system, one which is defined by laws of nature and evolution. The system is far from perfect. Ive always viewed this as a weak counter-argument because we tend to base perfection on our own perspective which could be, as far as we know (or dont), miles away from the perfection that God has in its mind. Heck, even people who live next to each other can have wildly different perspectives on perfection. Also, I could argue that a system in which things change and adapt according to individual needs is an excellent example of perfection in itself.

Humans are just about the only perfect creature. You said it yourself, we make our environment evolve to meet our own needs. And I maintain that this trait means that we have effectively 'beaten' evolution. Evolution is a process by which species adapt to their surroundings. But when we can create and mould our surroundings, the evolutionary cycle is hilariously impotent.

So, here's my point. Isn't it more logical to engage in a worship of humanity than the worship of God? Humans, due to their own work, have cured diseases and even explored the stars themselves.
Indeed, our wits allow us to perform 'miracles' on an almost daily basis. Explainable, logical miracles, but miracles all the same.

My challenge is not only to Gods benevolence but his record. What has he ever done that rivals any of the great human accomplishments?
I think we have taken Gods place.