Another Fucking Religion Thread

[Zephyrus]

For the sake of poor Astrum's thread getting hijacked by a renewed zeal for discussion of religion, I'm taking the initiative to create this thread for all you logical phallus's.

As for my position on religion, this post from the previously mentioned thread pretty much sums it up.

I'm generally apathetic on the subject of religion, so I'm not much to participate in such discussions. My basis for this is that human logic can always win the argument (because we are all restricted to the context of human logic), but the fact that a divine entity may exist is beyond the bounds of human logic, therefore it's pointless to argue such matters in the first place.

Fire away.

 

[Valerie]

I'm an Atheist, and I like Sartre's existentialism. Here's a link on that for whoever wants it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existentialism#Sartrean_existentialism

 

[Zephyrus]

Born, baptized, raised, confirmed a practicing Roman Catholic.

 

[ThisIsACoolName]

Gatotism is my faith.

 

[mutantllama]

I'm a pastafarian. To be serious I'm an Athiest and don't feel like explaining my views but I will some other time.

 

[Zephyrus]

I think just being an atheist speaks for itself, so you're off the hook, buddy.

 

[Addo_Of_Nex]

I was raised Christian, but stopped believing around 11. Over those years, I slowly morphed into the vehement atheist I am today.

Nothing much else to add here.

 

[Vimana]

I believe in God. I believe in Science as well. I believe the big bang was fueled by God.

And as Einstein said: "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

I don't believe in what the Catholics believe. They don't deserve their fucking name. Catholic means universal, and how is it universal to say people of every religion but yours go to Hell? By their teachings, all the fucking prophets went to hell, because none of them were Catholic.

I don't believe in Hell, I don't believe people go there if they are bad. Or that they go to Heaven if they are good. That whole concept was copied from the Elysian Fields and Tartarus in my opinion. The only thing I follow is the ten commandments, but I'm a little shaky on that because the translation was probably obscured over the years.

 

[Crimson_713]

I've been Christian for all my life, and as I'm not really up for debating this subject, I'll just leave it at this.

If there is no god, where did the matter in the universe come from? What caused the big bang? Where did all that stuff come from? If nothing else, I know, personally that there is some sort of divine intervention there, I just happen to believe in a specific part of the faiths that developed afterwards.

 

[Valerie]

I've been Christian for all my life, and as I'm not really up for debating this subject, I'll just leave it at this.

If there is no god, where did the matter in the universe come from? What caused the big bang? Where did all that stuff come from? If nothing else, I know, personally that there is some sort of divine intervention there, I just happen to believe in a specific part of the faiths that developed afterwards.

You can't say that a creator must have created something just because you don't know how it got here. You can't say that a divine being created all of the universe and just leave it at that. Who created the creator then?

 

[Crimson_713]

See, the problem with asking questions about that is that nobody knows, and personally, I think it's beyond a human mind's capacity to know the answers to these questions. If your argument is "who created the creator," that still doesn't answer the question of how everything came to be. It's answering a question with a question, which is best saved for political debates when politicians are trying to save face.

 

[CAIRATH]

I am an atheist and sceptic. Should be no surprise to anyone who participated in the previous religion thread and the Intelligent Design/Evolution thread.

I guess I'll wait and see if any interesting new discussion pops up here, or if I get bored enough to reply with rehashes of the previous arguments.

 

[Zephyrus]

This guy:

Discuss.

 

[CAIRATH]

Actually I guess I'll contribute this. It's a recent documentary on the court case surrounding ID being taught in a public school in Dover, Pennsylvania. You can watch the entire thing online right there for anyone who is interested.

I thought it was overall pretty interesting and ocasionally hilarious and absurd (my favourite has to be find/replace mistake they made in early drafts of the intelligent design biology book when they were trying to erase the fact that it ID is nothing more than re-branded creationism). It really makes it painfully clear that the ID movement has no leg to stand on whatsoever. Luckily the whole thing had a happy ending, from my point of view atleast.

 

[CAIRATH]

This guy:

Discuss.

Dawkins is a legend. His delivery is sometimes hard to swallow for some, but I completely support his world view and personally find him to be a very enjoyable read (and listen).

His primary view that is at the root of a book like The God Delusion (and to a lesser degree his other books) and his documentaries (such as The Root of All Evil, a title he himself was not happy with by the way) is that people should follow reason rather than blindly relying on superstition and make-belief, and accepting these things without any kind of critical thought. Something I couldn't agree more with.

 

[Addo_Of_Nex]

This guy:

Discuss.

I love Dawkins. I love his approach and delivery when making points.

The only book of his I've read it "The God Delusion", but I enjoyed that very thoroughly.

 

[cookiecutter]

Born, baptized, raised, confirmed a practicing Roman Catholic.

You say that human logic wins every time. How then, do you divorce your logic from your beliefs? I am unable to do this, hence my atheism. You also say that "a divine entity may exist is beyond the bounds of human logic". This is true, but any entity that exists beyond science and logic has, by definition, no affect on the world, and therefore its existence is irrelevant. Also, any god concept posited by the major religions are certainly within the realms of science and logic, since all religions make claims that are testable.

If there is no god, where did the matter in the universe come from? What caused the big bang? Where did all that stuff come from? If nothing else, I know, personally that there is some sort of divine intervention there, I just happen to believe in a specific part of the faiths that developed afterwards.

There is no evidence God created the universe. none whatsoever. For all you know a unicorn did it. Maybe I did it and just forgot. Maybe it was totally natural. Whatever it is, there is no evidence to support a positive claim yet. What you are doing is called the Argument From Ignorance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance), which is a logical fallacy. You have an unsolved problem and then invent a solution instead of actually finding the real answer. This is what people did before Darwin to explain biodiversity. Eventually there will be someone who can shed more light on the origin of the universe, but right now it is wrong and illogical to believe you know the answer.

This guy:

Discuss.

I would marry him if he would have me. He says everything I want to say and he says it so well

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

The only problem I have with Dawkins is that sometimes it seems as though his arguments are more suited towards "high school arguments" about religion rather than an actual logical discussion, even if what he says is totally true ("why don't you believe in Thor? The Flying Spaghetti Monster?" These are true but I think it could be explained more eloquently; then again what that is might be just the thing to get people to stop being so stupid who watch shitty liberal media networks like CNN). Otherwise I think he is the number one "celebrity" atheist and a definite great ally to have in the battle of wits re: religion.

On a funny note, there was part of his article (maybe on the book of his) on Wikipedia that said that some scholars (fuck them I guess?) discount his entire book because it presents no research. I think this is turning a blind eye to the fact that the book is pretty much not claiming to be a compendium of researched and sourced information but rather his own genuine account on the problem. Why use someone else's ideas if your own suffice?

 

[cookiecutter]

The only problem I have with Dawkins is that sometimes it seems as though his arguments are more suited towards "high school arguments" about religion rather than an actual logical discussion, even if what he says is totally true ("why don't you believe in Thor? The Flying Spaghetti Monster?" These are true but I think it could be explained more eloquently; then again what that is might be just the thing to get people to stop being so stupid who watch shitty liberal media networks like CNN)

I think this is because 30 seconds on CNN with a retarded host is not a great place to have a logical discussion.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

Fair enough. Then there are officially NO problems with Dawkins!