Another Fucking Religion Thread

[NinjaGeek]

I really don't think a familiar looking animal is more likely than a being which created the universe, reads our thoughts, or whatever else various people believe. I think you misunderstood my point about unicorns (on earth and in the present, didn't think I had to clarify that). The default position on something should be lack of belief. Someone tells you there is a unicorn in their backyard, you don't just believe them. You go to their yard and see for yourself. You also don't say "well I don't believe you, but I also don't disbelieve you." You disbelieve until belief is justified.

EDIT for clarity: Also "I don't know" is not mutually exclusive to disbelief. To continue my example it would be like saying "I don't believe you have a unicorn in your backyard, but I don't know what is there"

Do I believe in the existence of perceivable unicorns that exist on our earth currently? No.

However one take on god could be that he created the universe and just decided to observe this for his own personal enjoyment. Until you disprove god creating the universe (by proving that something else did), I will not say I believe god doesn't exist.

I don't understand what you are saying. Atheism is a term for not believing in god. We didn't make it up for any reason, that's just what the word means. You make it sound like some conspiracy. There are terms for people who only belief in rational things, for example rationalist/ism and empiricist/ism. Atheism is just the term most applicable to religion.

All I'm saying is it doesn't make sense to me why people who acknowledge the fact that we currently have no way of figuring out how the universe is created, would eliminate a possible answer to that question based on no evidence.

Scientists don't just eliminate possible solutions because they're silly or improbable. I'm sure a long time ago the idea of gravity, that all objects just happen to move towards each other in an ellipse, would've been silly, but that doesn't mean they would automatically discount it as something that couldn't be possible.

I can safely say through the observations made by people around the world that there are probably not unicorns on it. And I'm sure through observation we'll soon be able to(and maybe already can) disprove some religions.

But if you look at god at his most basic form of simply a being that created the universe. Well we don't really have that much research or info on the creation of the universe. So while there's no evidence to prove that he did create it, there's no reason to randomly eliminate him as a possibility either. When we learn more about the creation of the universe then we can more easily say if there is or isn't a god.

(And what I was saying about atheism being a way to distance yourself from religion, was not meant to consider it as a conspiracy. I was simply saying that to me since it makes no logic to eliminate the possibility of god from a scientific perspective, the only reason why you would eliminate the possibility of god is to let people know you think religions are wrong)

 

[Matt]

Ever been in the real world? Ever said the pledge of allegiance? Ever looked at money? Heard of Intelligent Design in schools? Heard of the Pro-Life movement? Do you know that gay marriage is illegal in 49/50 states? That Catholics missionaries tell people not to use condoms in Africa?

Those are a few reasons why I am anti-religious.

We can all agree that Catholicism is fucked. Still using rules employed in the middle ages to frighten/persuade people into joining their church to get the tithe

Their made up stuff kills me though, with their "days of obligation" and purgatory

 

[cookiecutter]

Stuff

Basically the reason god is eliminated as a solution because there is no evidence to support that he is the solution. Consider it this way:

We have a question-the origin of the universe. Someone hypothesizes god. Scientists search for evidence, but find none. Therefore god is rejected as the answer to the question. It's not like people are considering a whole bunch of ridiculous ideas, and just happen to reject god, it's just that god happens to be a popular character, so his rejection gets talked about more.

 

[Rabid Headbanger]

Like cookie said, more raving lunatics are running around screaming about god than they are abou purple flying rhinoceri.

 

[Valerie]

Like cookie said, more raving lunatics are running around screaming about god than they are abou purple flying rhinoceri.

Which is exactly what I said on the last page

 

[Rabid Headbanger]

Religion and political threads tend to turn into a clusterfuck.

 

[MasterOLightning]

Some of you really badly misunderstand Catholicism, and do not realize that reforms took place in the 1960s. There's no tithing. There's a collection at mass, as is done in just about every Christian denomination, afaik. Basically no one I know accepts all papal teachings at face value. A minuscule amount actually believe abortions are not acceptable even when a mother's health is in jeopardy, and almost no one actually follows the no contraception rule. To assume that American Catholics believe everything the pope says is tantamount to saying that Americans always agree with President Bush because he is their leader. Catholics are overwhelmingly located in large cities like Chicago and Boston, and urban dwellers tend to be rather liberal. Loud, vocal extremists within the faith distort how the group generally is.

Also, NinjaGeek, stop being stupid. You can't be agnostic about things other than god. a=not and gnostic=regarding god/spirituality, if I know my Greek root words. Atheism is not antagonistic by nature. It is a way of addressing religion - a characteristic of every society ever - not the creation of the universe, as you seem to focus on so heavily.

A distinction that hasn't been made in this thread is that between Christianity the faith, and Christianity the moral philosophy. I don't identify with the faith element of Christianity at all anymore, but I really don't find anything objectionable about the moral philosophy of Jesus. Jesus never said anything about gays or abortion, and his views on social justice work for me. Where people get crazy with religion is when they get too hung up on the faith aspect.

 

[Matt]

Some of you really badly misunderstand Catholicism, and do not realize that reforms took place in the 1960s. There's no tithing. There's a collection at mass, as is done in just about every Christian denomination, afaik. Basically no one I know accepts all papal teachings at face value. A minuscule amount actually believe abortions are not acceptable even when a mother's health is in jeopardy, and almost no one actually follows the no contraception rule. To assume that American Catholics believe everything the pope says is tantamount to saying that Americans always agree with President Bush because he is their leader. Catholics are overwhelmingly located in large cities like Chicago and Boston, and urban dwellers tend to be rather liberal. Loud, vocal extremists within the faith distort how the group generally is.

Yes, I know all this. I didn't mean to imply that the practice of tithing was still occurring and it's perfectly feasible that, as in all sects, people disagree with the religion's overall stance on certain issues. However, you cannot argue that the Catholic church's views on abortion, gay marriage, etc are extremely conservative, meaning that they oppose them for the most part, which isn't good.

 

[NinjaGeek]

Basically the reason god is eliminated as a solution because there is no evidence to support that he is the solution. Consider it this way:

We have a question-the origin of the universe. Someone hypothesizes god. Scientists search for evidence, but find none. Therefore god is rejected as the answer to the question. It's not like people are considering a whole bunch of ridiculous ideas, and just happen to reject god, it's just that god happens to be a popular character, so his rejection gets talked about more.

I wasn't aware that scientists did in-depth research on the creation of the universe.

Let me phrase this in another way.

Say we are in medieval times. Someone makes a hypothesis that the moon is made of cheese. He's probably a rambling idiot and scientists should most definitely ignore his opinion, as there's no evidence that the moon was made of cheese. But that doesn't mean we've proven that the moon isn't made of cheese. When we travel to the moon (or find another way to observe it's properties via a telescope) then we can say it isn't made of cheese.

God may be just as dumb and he probably doesn't exist, but just because we haven't gathered the evidence, doesn't mean there isn't any. When we finally can start researching the creation of the universe in depth, we can prove or disprove the existence of god. Til then we just wait, and ignore the crazy people who have no evidence to support their random hypotheses.

 

[Cythraul]

Also, NinjaGeek, stop being stupid. You can't be agnostic about things other than god. a=not and gnostic=regarding god/spirituality, if I know my Greek root words.

Big fuckin' deal. We all know how he's using the word, i.e. to refer to suspension of judgment. You can certainly suspend your judgment with regards to the existence of unicorns, tables, ghosts, etc.

 

[NinjaGeek]

Also, NinjaGeek, stop being stupid. You can't be agnostic about things other than god. a=not and gnostic=regarding god/spirituality, if I know my Greek root words. Atheism is not antagonistic by nature. It is a way of addressing religion - a characteristic of every society ever - not the creation of the universe, as you seem to focus on so heavily.

Pretty sure cookie cutter used it in the context of something other than god first. And either way.


ag·nos·tic (āg-nŏs'tĭk) Pronunciation Key
n.

1.
a. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
b. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
2. One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.


adj.

1. Relating to or being an agnostic.
2. Doubtful or noncommittal: "Though I am agnostic on what terms to use, I have no doubt that human infants come with an enormous 'acquisitiveness' for discovering patterns" (William H. Calvin).

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/agnostic

 

[cookiecutter]

I wasn't aware that scientists did in-depth research on the creation of the universe.

Let me phrase this in another way.

Say we are in medieval times. Someone makes a hypothesis that the moon is made of cheese. He's probably a rambling idiot and scientists should most definitely ignore his opinion, as there's no evidence that the moon was made of cheese. But that doesn't mean we've proven that the moon isn't made of cheese. When we travel to the moon (or find another way to observe it's properties via a telescope) then we can say it isn't made of cheese.

God may be just as dumb and he probably doesn't exist, but just because we haven't gathered the evidence, doesn't mean there isn't any. When we finally can start researching the creation of the universe in depth, we can prove or disprove the existence of god. Til then we just wait, and ignore the crazy people who have no evidence to support their random hypotheses.

Where you are wrong is that on a default you should believe nothing. In your example until evidence is gathered, it is best to say you don't know what the moon is made of but it's not cheese. You can revise your opinion as new evidence arrives. You don't hold cheese/god as a viable option just because it hasn't been disproved. If that were the case, EVERYTHING would have to be a viable option pretty much.

Some of you really badly misunderstand Catholicism, and do not realize that reforms took place in the 1960s. There's no tithing. There's a collection at mass, as is done in just about every Christian denomination, afaik. Basically no one I know accepts all papal teachings at face value. A minuscule amount actually believe abortions are not acceptable even when a mother's health is in jeopardy, and almost no one actually follows the no contraception rule. To assume that American Catholics believe everything the pope says is tantamount to saying that Americans always agree with President Bush because he is their leader. Catholics are overwhelmingly located in large cities like Chicago and Boston, and urban dwellers tend to be rather liberal. Loud, vocal extremists within the faith distort how the group generally is.

This is why I made the distinction between judging a religion based on its doctrines, and judging its adherents individually. Thankfully many people realize that a lot of religion is irrational and ignore it. Hopefully they'll eventually realize the whole thing is bogus.

A distinction that hasn't been made in this thread is that between Christianity the faith, and Christianity the moral philosophy. I don't identify with the faith element of Christianity at all anymore, but I really don't find anything objectionable about the moral philosophy of Jesus. Jesus never said anything about gays or abortion, and his views on social justice work for me. Where people get crazy with religion is when they get too hung up on the faith aspect.

Jesus also told people to sell all their belongings and live in poverty, but that is rather foolish. The problem with Christianity as a moral philosophy is that the good parts are 1) surrounded by a load of immoral or silly ideas, and 2) not particularly unique and/or obvious. Personally I think Bill Gates (an atheist) is a better role model than Jesus. Gates made a fortune through ingenuity and has now become the world's greatest philanthropist. What I am trying to illustrate here is that it's very easy to have a good moral code and ideas without the baggage that necessarily comes with religion.

 

[CAIRATH]

All I'm saying is it doesn't make sense to me why people who acknowledge the fact that we currently have no way of figuring out how the universe is created, would eliminate a possible answer to that question based on no evidence.

Scientists don't just eliminate possible solutions because they're silly or improbable. I'm sure a long time ago the idea of gravity, that all objects just happen to move towards each other in an ellipse, would've been silly, but that doesn't mean they would automatically discount it as something that couldn't be possible.

Say we are in medieval times. Someone makes a hypothesis that the moon is made of cheese. He's probably a rambling idiot and scientists should most definitely ignore his opinion, as there's no evidence that the moon was made of cheese. But that doesn't mean we've proven that the moon isn't made of cheese. When we travel to the moon (or find another way to observe it's properties via a telescope) then we can say it isn't made of cheese.

What you don't seem to understand is that from a scientific view, if you make a claim or state a hypothesis, the burden of proof is on you. And in the event of lack of proof, it is assumed to not be true until proof is found. Your form of agnosticism means you might as well never be sure of anything because who is to say that any given fact is really true? That would be an incredibly unwieldy and unproductive way of dealing with reality. The scientific world view is to consider everything that be can proven or reasoned to be 'true' and everything that can't be 'untrue' until proven otherwise. The only reason why people like you (as well as many religious apologists) have such a problem with this way of thinking is because you are considering truth to be undynamic and final when a scientific truth is anything but.

Science goes by empirical data, what we can perceive, measure, test and verify. That is what is considered true. Everything else is assumed not true until it can be proven otherwise. That also means that a scientific truth is not static. Since our ability to observe, measure and test things changes over time that also means the conclusions we draw from those things can change. Something that was considered true can be disproven later, and a hypothesis that was thrown out because it couldn't be tested can be accepted later on when it can.

A scientific hypothesis can never really be "forever true" for the simple reason that a scientific hypothesis has to be falsifiable by definition, and it is difficult to come up with a body of evidence for a hypothesis that completely rules out all possible ways to falsify it.

Anyway, that was just my ramble in a response to your mentions of science and hypotheses. In reality the existance of god doesn't even enter into any of this because the god hypothesis is not falsifiable and thus not a scientific hypothesis and therefor never even enters the scientific field. It is simply a claim made with no evidence and no way of testing it. That is why it is on equal footing with the flying spaghetti monster/teapot as far as science is concerned.

 

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

In reality the existance of god doesn't even enter into any of this because the god hypothesis is not falsifiable and thus not a scientific hypothesis and therefor never even enters the scientific field. It is simply a claim made with no evidence and no way of testing it. That is why it is on equal footing with the flying spaghetti monster/teapot as far as science is concerned.

This is what I claimed a page and a half ago, but CC made a pretty good point...if God exists and created humans, he lies in our universe and can have other effects on our natural world. That would be scientifically testable. If God exists, created humans, and left the world to its own accord, he is now irrelevant anyway.

My original point was similar to/the same as what you just said; (the hypothetical) God and science can never touch because (the hypothetical) God is on a different level of existence than humans (who invented science to qualify natural occurrences)...CC was saying that if, eventually, evidence came around point out the existence of God as plausible, likely, or even veritably true, he would switch to Christianity and repent to save his soul given his newfound knowledge. My response to this was that I didn't consider it true atheism...it isn't steadfast enough. I figured that the problem with his idea was that he assumes that God can somehow be discovered EVENTUALLY (however small the chance), when in reality, the idea of a god existing is impossible according to logic and reason (everything humans stand for).

 

[cookiecutter]

What you don't seem to understand is that from a scientific view, if you make a claim or state a hypothesis, the burden of proof is on you. And in the event of lack of proof, it is assumed to not be true until proof is found. Your form of agnosticism means you might as well never be sure of anything because who is to say that any given fact is really true? That would be an incredibly unwieldy and unproductive way of dealing with reality. The scientific world view is to consider everything that be can proven or reasoned to be 'true' and everything that can't be 'untrue' until proven otherwise. The only reason why people like you (as well as many religious apologists) have such a problem with this way of thinking is because you are considering truth to be undynamic and final when a scientific truth is anything but.

Science goes by empirical data, what we can perceive, measure, test and verify. That is what is considered true. Everything else is assumed not true until it can be proven otherwise. That also means that a scientific truth is not static. Since our ability to observe, measure and test things changes over time that also means the conclusions we draw from those things can change. Something that was considered true can be disproven later, and a hypothesis that was thrown out because it couldn't be tested can be accepted later on when it can.

A scientific hypothesis can never really be "forever true" for the simple reason that a scientific hypothesis has to be falsifiable by definition, and it is difficult to come up with a body of evidence for a hypothesis that completely rules out all possible ways to falsify it.

Anyway, that was just my ramble in a response to your mentions of science and hypotheses. In reality the existance of god doesn't even enter into any of this because the god hypothesis is not falsifiable and thus not a scientific hypothesis and therefor never even enters the scientific field. It is simply a claim made with no evidence and no way of testing it. That is why it is on equal footing with the flying spaghetti monster/teapot as far as science is concerned.

Very well said post that basically synthesized my responses to Ninja Geek. Your first paragraph was what I meant when I said that the default position on something is non-belief. Also, good summary of the scientific world view. That is the way I try to think and evaluate things.

This is what I claimed a page and a half ago, but CC made a pretty good point...if God exists and created humans, he lies in our universe and can have other effects on our natural world. That would be scientifically testable. If God exists, created humans, and left the world to its own accord, he is now irrelevant anyway.

My original point was similar to/the same as what you just said; (the hypothetical) God and science can never touch because (the hypothetical) God is on a different level of existence than humans (who invented science to qualify natural occurrences)...CC was saying that if, eventually, evidence came around point out the existence of God as plausible, likely, or even veritably true, he would switch to Christianity and repent to save his soul given his newfound knowledge. My response to this was that I didn't consider it true atheism...it isn't steadfast enough. I figured that the problem with his idea was that he assumes that God can somehow be discovered EVENTUALLY (however small the chance), when in reality, the idea of a god existing is impossible according to logic and reason (everything humans stand for).

Good summary of our little argument.

As I said, any God which has an effect on the natural world can be tested by science, even if the being himself cannot. An analogy from Astronomy (I just studied it for hours ), would be like finding planets around distant stars. It's very rare to actual view them, but we can view their effects on the stars, and therefore discover the existence of planets.

When I said that I would change my mind if God descended from the heavens, or whatever, I was merely trying to show that my disbelief was not based on dislike for God, but on lack of evidence. I think there are numerous logical problems with God's existence, but could these not be overcome with omnipotence? Either way, it's like debating what Superman can and can't do.

 

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

Fair enough. I don't want to breed argument between us since I know we both think basically the same thing and it's not really worth it.

 

[NinjaGeek]

It feels like you two are missing the points of my posts, but I'm sure you are feeling the same feeling towards me. And as my response to your posts would only be restating points I've already made, there's really no reason for me to continue this argument especially one that is splitting hairs of terminology and isn't really that relevant.

 

[CF87]

Christians can finger their assholes all night for all I care. You can't go to heaven when it's not real!

If god was real and did create people in his image than you would be able to sin all you want and go to heaven. If god has to send people to hell because he fucked up he's a coward, that's the epitome of not taking responsibility for your actions because you're god. You put me here where is my reward.

When I die I better be surrounded by naked angels with brown hair ready to fuck the shit out of me. fuck my sins gone

It's impossible to be perfect so just kill us all now and try again. In my next life if figuring out I was reincarnated am going to really hate god. I'd rather burn in hell. I would hope god would know i'd do the samething, he's god. I don't need to wait 80 years being a bible thumper and try and go to heaven.

If you read this GOD fuck you, you suck.

 

[Pessimism]

^Thanks for the input Augustine.

 

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

I can't even count the amount of bad points and logical fallacies in that post on my own two hands, mainly because there are more than 10.