The great and all powerful religion thread!

[Zephyrus]

Religion is just one big gamble tbh.

Conversely, so is atheism.

 

[King Richard]

Fyi, god does exist. He is in my sig.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

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

That's not a fair evaluation of theism, since it equates theism with Christianity. There are clearly healthier and more satisfying forms of theism out there.

Because I'd rather keep up a theist facade so my parents don't think that listening to metal killed my religion.

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.

I really don't think it's the whole "reward for good deeds" issue that's at the heart of why theism is so attractive. The fear of death and and desire for meaning in one's life are probably what drives it. And I'm pretty sure atheists aren't immune to those natural human sentiments.

 

[skeptik]

I was responding to a specific post tbh, I wasn't making any kind of broad proposal, but rather a specific response to a specific point.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

So you agree with what I said above?

 

[skeptik]

I think it's all certainly part of the equation, which is of course different for every individual. Certainly it would be a vast overstatement to suggest that the basis for all religious belief is the desire for man to have his good deeds rewarded.

 

[Manic Ferocity]

The real question is if our world is objective or not. Are good deeds considered as such because of society's influence or are they embedded into our minds at birth?

My friend came up with an interesting counter-nihilism theory. Life comes down to positive and negative energy. An out-of-tune guitar is going to sound like shit to the ear (thus giving off negative energy and causing some kind of negative reaction). Deeds are obviously considered positive and sin is considered negative. By exerting negative energy (sin), negative consequences are bound to occur. If this were not the case then pain would not be an unpleasant experience and humans would be emotionless creatures.

I found it to be an acceptably substantial theory (but probably redundant in some way).

 

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

The world is very subjective in many ways. Some are more objective than others, but since the human race's knowledge is pretty much underwhelming, we don't know too many things objectively.

OI, your friend's theory is proven wrong by science tbh. It is also really shallow in that it assumes that realistically subjective things (a detuned guitar sounding "bad") are objective. Someone going "I enjoy the sound of a detuned guitar" would ruin the theory and you could never convince him of the other way. In science, the concept of objectivity/absolutism is apparent in gravity; someone can say "gravity doesn't hold me down, I can fly", but we can observe that this person in fact cannot (without some kind of flying-aid of some sort, in which case he'd be correct but a moron anyway).

 

[Zephyrus]

And some people enjoy pain as well.

 

[skeptik]

I don't say that 'our world' is objective insofar as I don't believe it's impossible for the world to contain such a thing in itself, but I don't think that's what you meant, rather you were indicating moral absolutism, if I'm not mistaken. I disagree with moral absolutism, and I think it's absurd to believe that there is a right and wrong answer to moral questions outside of the human experience and basic matter of prudence. Most things that are considered 'moral' tend to be so in order to serve the best interests of the greater prosperity of a given community in so far as said community believes that it would accrue that benefit.

 

[Manic Ferocity]

I think the average human would consider a detuned guitar to sound bad (hence why there's even a point to tuning a guitar to begin with). However, I agree with the consensus that some may consider a detuned guitar to sound good. I think this is due to constant exposure causing the person's objectiveness to become subjective (kind of like how people get into, say, noisecore or raw black metal, they simply acquire an ear for it and accept the obnoxious sounds that may come from both genres).

The same can be said for serial killers because, the majority of the time, their morality is warped due to certain factors that would make them think that immoral things are acceptable.

I know I sound a bit smug but I do find logic in this theory.

 

[skeptik]

You're mistaking universal agreement for objective truth; the two are conceptually exclusive from one another. There was never anything objective about the statement "a detuned guitar sounds bad". It was always a subjective claim under the guise of objectivity due to the legitimacy granted to it by universal agreement.

 

[Manic Ferocity]

Does the fact that a "detuned guitar sounds bad" need to be addressed by someone in order for the person being informed to formulate the same opinion?

 

[Manic Ferocity]

And some people enjoy pain as well.

This is usually a gained thing, though.

 

[AchrisK]

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).

The existence of God vs the existence of flying pink unicorns is not a valid comparison. I know you guys love that one, but it really doesn't cut it. Millions of people over thousands of years have believed in God and have given their lives (both by devotion and death) for that belief. If you can find some other untrue belief that has that kind of devotion, then maybe you could use that.

The narrowmindedness I am speaking of is that of proclaiming that nothing that can't be proven scientifically can exist. As if science is the only valid way to evaluate anything. That is narrow.

 

[skeptik]

The existence of God vs the existence of flying pink unicorns is not a valid comparison. I know you guys love that one, but it really doesn't cut it. Millions of people over thousands of years have believed in God and have given their lives (both by devotion and death) for that belief. If you can find some other untrue belief that has that kind of devotion, then maybe you could use that.

This proves precisely bupkis. All it does is indicate that a number of people agree that something for which there is no basis to believe exists, exists. The fact that your argument hinges on the fact that there are no cults worshiping an invisible flying pink unicorn demonstrates the feeble nature of the claim you're attempting to put forth.

 

[Cythraul]

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

It depends on how you assess the arguments on both sides. Justification for agnosticism about x comes from a (roughly) equal weighting of the arguments pro and con regarding x. On the other hand, if you're just looking at the argument about the existence of God as between educated, scientifically-informed opinions and ignorant, Kent Hovind-type opinions, then your conclusion should be obvious. However, I don't think that would fairly characterize the debate as it has proceeded throughout history. My justification for my agnostic position does not come from any view about how much either side of the argument actually has. It has more to do with how much justification I have for taking either view at this moment in time.

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.

I don't like the way you're distinguishing between agnosticism and atheism. Agnosticism very clearly has to do with belief. It's a refusal to take either position on an argument (a suspension of judgment) based on epistemological factors.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Yeah, and epistemological factors aren't really a concern for a lot of atheists (at least atheists like cookiecutter). They have the same standards for belief in no god that people have for belief in gravity, matter, and anything else we take to be true on observation.

 

[AchrisK]

This proves precisely bupkis. All it does is indicate that a number of people agree that something for which there is no basis to believe exists, exists. The fact that your argument hinges on the fact that there are no cults worshiping an invisible flying pink unicorn demonstrates the feeble nature of the claim you're attempting to put forth.

What I said wasn't meant to prove anything but the weak nature of the oft-made comparison between believing in God and believing in fairytales.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Inasmuch as God is an idea created to explain natural phenomena that were once a mystery to people, I'd say there's quite a hell of a lot of similarity between God and fairy tales.