The great and all powerful religion thread!

[skeptik]

Goods deeds are rewarded all the time. Disagree all you want, but in all likelihood you would be wrong. Most genuine atheists I've known (aside from posturing atheists who just mope about and rant about how the world sucks) are very happy with their beliefs about higher powers and their place in the world. I don't need to be a blessed child in order for me to be happy. I don't need an omniscient father figure to pat me on the head for doing what I believe I should be doing internally.

 

[AchrisK]

You guys are silly.

 

[skeptik]

 

[AchrisK]

...There is still something that is ingrained to make us believe that stuff. We want to feel special, not just some insignificant being on a insignificant rock in all of space.

Fear of death, mainly. People are much more comfortable thinking there is life after death rather than contemplating that there is no consciousness after death.

I disagree. I think the "ingrained" idea that there is a supreme being and creator is inborn, and placed there by said creator. This is why people groups without outside influence typically have some system of belief in some type of supreme being. This is why religion hasn't been, and never will be eliminated.

You think it is more comfortable for a Christian to contemplate an afterlife than just an end? To consider that people will end up in hell? That is an uncomfortable thought, to say the least. Do you think it is easier to live knowing there are impossible standards that cannot be met on your own? You think that is easier and more comforting than living for your own self interest and just comparing yourself to other humans?

No.

If Christianity is false, then I do not want to live under the assumption that all of the things it entails are true. I would much rather believe that in the end we rot. THAT is a comforting thought. But believeng, as I do, that Christianity is true, I choose to live according to it. Not to get pats on the head, but because I think it is truth.

 

[Cythraul]

To derail a bit, here is a question to the agnostics...

Why don't you guys stop being pussies and call yourselves atheists?

Agnosticism about x is suspension of judgment with respect to x. That's quite different from a certain brand of atheism, which I'm sure agnostics don't want to be associated with. It has nothing to do with being a pussy.

 

[cookiecutter]

I disagree. I think the "ingrained" idea that there is a supreme being and creator is inborn, and placed there by said creator. This is why people groups without outside influence typically have some system of belief in some type of supreme being. This is why religion hasn't been, and never will be eliminated.

You think it is more comfortable for a Christian to contemplate an afterlife than just an end? To consider that people will end up in hell? That is an uncomfortable thought, to say the least. Do you think it is easier to live knowing there are impossible standards that cannot be met on your own? You think that is easier and more comforting than living for your own self interest and just comparing yourself to other humans?

No.

If Christianity is false, then I do not want to live under the assumption that all of the things it entails are true. I would much rather believe that in the end we rot. THAT is a comforting thought. But believeng, as I do, that Christianity is true, I choose to live according to it. Not to get pats on the head, but because I think it is truth.

Even if it could be scientifically shown that belief in a higher power is biologically motivated (there is some evidence for this I think), that would not suggest that the reason for it being there is supernatural. It would merely show that belief in the supernatural was an evolutionary advantage in itself, or a byproduct of one.

Agnosticism about x is suspension of judgment with respect to x. That's quite different from a certain brand of atheism, which I'm sure agnostics don't want to be associated with. It has nothing to do with being a pussy.

But in light of the (lack of) evidence, the judgment should be obvious.

Technically agnosticism and atheism are not incompatible. Agnosticism refers to knowledge and atheism refers to belief. I cannot not know something and still choose to believe or not believe it. However obviously the connotations given to either position now make them exclusive.

 

[CAIRATH]

Oh Kent Hovind, you crazy motherfucker.

 

[seedofvengeance]

I'm probably happier being an atheist than I ever was as a theist. I found the threat of hell to be quite terrifying.

To derail a bit, here is a question to the agnostics...

Why don't you guys stop being pussies and call yourselves atheists?

Agnostic just means you can't prove whether there is a God or not. Which, in my opinion, no one can fully do, so therefore I am technically agnostic.
On the other hand, I actually have beliefs that range more in the neighborhood of Deism, but there is no way I can prove that I am right.

 

[AchrisK]

Even if it could be scientifically shown that belief in a higher power is biologically motivated (there is some evidence for this I think), that would not suggest that the reason for it being there is supernatural. It would merely show that belief in the supernatural was an evolutionary advantage in itself, or a byproduct of one.

Actually I think it would suggest that the reason is supernatural. But for it to suggest that, one must be willing to consider it. I think it could also suggest an evolutionary reason, if one was unwilling to consider a supernatural one. I don't believe either cause could be proven, only speculated.

 

[cookiecutter]

Agnostic just means you can't prove whether there is a God or not. Which, in my opinion, no one can fully do, so therefore I am technically agnostic.
On the other hand, I actually have beliefs that range more in the neighborhood of Deism, but there is no way I can prove that I am right.

If you can't prove it, why do you believe it? Before someone throws this back at me, remember who the burden of proof lies upon.

Actually I think it would suggest that the reason is supernatural. But for it to suggest that, one must be willing to consider it. I think it could also suggest an evolutionary reason, if one was unwilling to consider a supernatural one. I don't believe either cause could be proven, only speculated.

No it just doesn't. Try to think critically. For a hypothesis to be considered there needs to be evidence. There is no evidence to suggest the supernatural. That is why it is not considered. It's not like it's thrown out for no reason.

 

[AchrisK]

If you can't prove it, why do you believe it? Before someone throws this back at me, remember who the burden of proof lies upon.

No it just doesn't. Try to think critically. For a hypothesis to be considered there needs to be evidence. There is no evidence to suggest the supernatural. That is why it is not considered. It's not like it's thrown out for no reason.

So it's not considered, eh? You're wrong about that because it is considered, and by a lot of people. Assuming that science has, and can have, all of the answers is such a narrow minded and sad worldview.

 

[WeAreTheLastMen]

There are philosophical questions that science can never answer, and that's where religion comes into play. You can find answers without religion, I just happen to think faith makes it easier. And, for the record, it's pretty moronic to think that most religious people are in it for the "reward system".

 

[Ender Rises]

So it's not considered, eh? You're wrong about that because it is considered, and by a lot of people. Assuming that science has, and can have, all of the answers is such a narrow minded and sad worldview.

Assuming that religion has all the answers is narrow minded and sad, in my opinion.

And it isn't considered by the scientific community. There is no evidence to support the idea that a god made the universe, other than the lack of certainty as to what caused the big bang.

 

[AchrisK]

Assuming that religion has all the answers is narrow minded and sad, in my opinion.

And it isn't considered by the scientific community. There is no evidence to support the idea that a god made the universe, other than the lack of certainty as to what caused the big bang.

What does it really even mean to say that, "religion has all the answers"? It obviously doesn't have the answers to my wife's accounting test.

Religious or spiritual beliefs are typically held as truths about spiritual ideas.

I believe Christianity answers some spiritual questions. I also believe that science is a valuable tool for understanding what we see before us. On the other hand, some people will not consider anything they can't prove in a labratory, so to speak. I think THAT is what is narrow minded and sad.

I understand there is no tangible proof for the existence of God. I think that has been established on this board, and even in this thread, many times.

 

[swizzlenuts]

Agnosticism about x is suspension of judgment with respect to x. That's quite different from a certain brand of atheism, which I'm sure agnostics don't want to be associated with. It has nothing to do with being a pussy.

Why can't you make a decision on based on the evidence provided? I think agnostics are being pussies not to have an opinion on this question.

Agnostic just means you can't prove whether there is a God or not. Which, in my opinion, no one can fully do, so therefore I am technically agnostic.
On the other hand, I actually have beliefs that range more in the neighborhood of Deism, but there is no way I can prove that I am right.

I don't think I can prove or disprove a god, but I'm an atheist. I don't think the Christian god, Muslim god, Jewesh god, etc do not exist, but I also can't prove they don't exist. I also don't believe in the Desitic god or any other god, but I can't prove they don't exist. I take a stance on each god provided to me. I then say how strong of a belief it is by using the term agnostic. I'm an agnostic atheist towards the deistic god, and probably closer to a gnostic atheist towards the Abramahamic gods.

I'd say most 'agnostics' would agree with me.

 

[Vimana]

I'm still wondering if God exists and if so what exactly God is but so far I am thinking if God does exist, then it must be some power in complete control of all of the physics of our universe. Therefore being able to do things that are impossible.

 

[Vilden]

What does that have to do with religion

I don't know what you're talking about. ;-)

(tabs ftl sometimes).

 

[cookiecutter]

So it's not considered, eh? You're wrong about that because it is considered, and by a lot of people. Assuming that science has, and can have, all of the answers is such a narrow minded and sad worldview.

It is not narrowminded not to consider things that are nonexistent. By your logic you are narrow-minded in not believing most of the limitless things that can be imagined but not proven (or even evidenced).

There are philosophical questions that science can never answer, and that's where religion comes into play. You can find answers without religion, I just happen to think faith makes it easier. And, for the record, it's pretty moronic to think that most religious people are in it for the "reward system".

If anything affects reality it can be tested by science. If you mean stuff like moral questions then religion can offer answers. It's the supernatural basis that religions claim to offer answers from that is investigated scientifically.

What does it really even mean to say that, "religion has all the answers"? It obviously doesn't have the answers to my wife's accounting test.

Religious or spiritual beliefs are typically held as truths about spiritual ideas.

I believe Christianity answers some spiritual questions. I also believe that science is a valuable tool for understanding what we see before us. On the other hand, some people will not consider anything they can't prove in a labratory, so to speak. I think THAT is what is narrow minded and sad.

I understand there is no tangible proof for the existence of God. I think that has been established on this board, and even in this thread, many times.

But the only thing that is real is what can be investigated by science. I know you will scoff, but from my point of view the supernatural does not exist and therefore it is not narrow-minded to not consider the supernatural as reality. I have reached the conclusion that the supernatural is not real because there is no evidence anywhere to support it's existence.

 

[skeptik]

*its

 

[Manic Ferocity]

Religion is just one big gamble tbh.