The great and all powerful religion thread!

[Dak]

You're missing my actual point. My point is that the Christian position can't be swayed by anything new in the world, while the Atheist position can't. What I'm saying is, foremost, that the inherent nature of the discussion rests on the premise that God can never be proven not to exist, but also that because God can never be proven not to exist, there is no requirement for evidence in order to believe in him. This is contrary to the Atheist position which requires evidence before there is acceptance. I question why you don't believe that there is an invisible dildo flying around the globe right now, because there is just as much evidence to support that this is true, and it, likewise, cannot be disproven. To restate my point, just because something can't be disproven doesn't mean it's logically acceptable to believe it.



Evidence is not "only stuff," it is the foundation upon which all humans are able to function in the world. Or rather, all creatures. We use evidence to determine how to live our lives. We see that the sun rises every day at approximately the same time and we take this as evidence that it will continue to do so despite the fact that this is not a purely logical assumption, and nonetheless we use this to plan out the way that we live. Evidence is one of the most powerful tools that we as humans have access to, at least insofar as it can be referred to as such. The fact that there is no evidence to believe that something is true in any other situation in life would generally reach the conclusion that we most likely should not believe that it's true. This is no different from a purely logical standpoint. Attributing a positive attribute, namely existence, to something for which there is no basis to attribute that positive attribute is no way to live your life and can lead you into dangerous territory.



I mean informally logical in the same sense of 'logical' that can be applied to our assumption that I mentioned earlier that the sun will continue to rise on a daily basis. While it is not strictly logical, there is a sufficient amount of evidence to suggest that it's true and is an assumption that must necessarily be made in order to function properly. Likewise, we rest on the default position that there is no god because we have no reason to believe that there is one, just as we would not assume that the sun will eventually rise if we have never seen it rise before or hear of anybody tell of a time when the sun once rose and was credible.

I can run with this. So, vaguely speaking about several situations in my life: What I believe to be [God] pushed me/told me to do several things/react certain ways in/to situations that I normally would not and I listened and did [what I was told] and it turned out great, whereas if I had followed conventional thought or done what I normally would do it wouldn't have turned out good.

Now I take this as personal evidence of a higher power. Obviously this can't count as evidence to people who didn't have my experience, but you cannot tell me I am somehow illogical for analyzing my own situation and drawing a conclusion other than "omg you have voices in your head from an imaginary friend."

 

[skeptik]

You are illogical for attributing it to "what I believe to be [God]" without having any reason to believe that it is "[God]" other than your mental faculties suggesting to you that it is. I have gone against my will to instead do what "something inside of me" told me is the right thing to do, but I'm not sitting here claiming that my decision was divinely inspired. It is true that religious beliefs can sway people into "doing the right thing," but there is no possible or logical way to conclude that "[God]" pushed you in the right direction just because you had a change of heart. It could be the very nature of the fact that your beliefs were changing that made you decide to act differently, and that can work both ways, both toward and away from religion.

 

[Dak]

No. See, you didn't have my experience so it is impossible for you to try and explain it away with reasoning that doesn't fit what happened to me it all.
What I have experienced most definitely did NOT come from me. I'll give you that the reason I recognized it as [God] and a particular one at that, does fall to a large degree on upbringing. However, the arguement can be made that [it] didn't have to "identify" itself because He knew I knew.
Regardless, it does not exclude the supernatural aspect in general, which is what you tried to do.

 

[Cythraul]

"the very nature of the fact"

I like when people say stuff like that.

 

[skeptik]

No. See, you didn't have my experience so it is impossible for you to try and explain it away with reasoning that doesn't fit what happened to me it all.
What I have experienced most definitely did NOT come from me. I'll give you that the reason I recognized it as [God] and a particular one at that, does fall to a large degree on upbringing. However, the arguement can be made that [it] didn't have to "identify" itself because He knew I knew.
Regardless, it does not exclude the supernatural aspect in general, which is what you tried to do.

Stop.

"the very nature of the fact"

I like when people say stuff like that.

Me too, which is why I say it.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

But then vihris-gari had to go and attack my statement out of context like it was me trying to prove something, and then you jump on that train of thought.

If all you're trying to say is that what you believe seems true to you simply because you believe it, then there's really nothing to discuss, is there? There's no way to argue against something like that, and to 'take it in context', as you insist that I do, would require me to make the same leap of faith that you do, which would be silly of me.

I mean, I don't know if you really even want to debate this kind of stuff. I just find it funny (and a little frustrating) that you talk about truth so much when all you mean by truth is "truth according to Christianity".

 

[AchrisK]

You're missing my actual point. My point is that the Christian position can't be swayed by anything new in the world, while the Atheist position can't. What I'm saying is, foremost, that the inherent nature of the discussion rests on the premise that God can never be proven not to exist, but also that because God can never be proven not to exist, there is no requirement for evidence in order to believe in him. This is contrary to the Atheist position which requires evidence before there is acceptance. I question why you don't believe that there is an invisible dildo flying around the globe right now, because there is just as much evidence to support that this is true, and it, likewise, cannot be disproven. To restate my point, just because something can't be disproven doesn't mean it's logically acceptable to believe it.

One impasse I think we have is that you seem to be requiring some type of empirical, scientific evidence for God, when you know that will not happen. You are reducing all things to natural, and saying that anything you can't put under a microscope is nonexistent.

Evidence is not "only stuff," it is the foundation upon which all humans are able to function in the world. Or rather, all creatures. We use evidence to determine how to live our lives. We see that the sun rises every day at approximately the same time and we take this as evidence that it will continue to do so despite the fact that this is not a purely logical assumption, and nonetheless we use this to plan out the way that we live. Evidence is one of the most powerful tools that we as humans have access to, at least insofar as it can be referred to as such. The fact that there is no evidence to believe that something is true in any other situation in life would generally reach the conclusion that we most likely should not believe that it's true. This is no different from a purely logical standpoint. Attributing a positive attribute, namely existence, to something for which there is no basis to attribute that positive attribute is no way to live your life and can lead you into dangerous territory.

I still maintain that evidence is just stuff. It is stuff we evaluate in order to make decisions. Now I admit that each piece of evidence points to an actual truth, but we often don't really know exactly what that truth is. Both science and law (and just about everything else) illustrate that often the evidence is wrongly evaluated, but we do the best we can, and we learn from our mistakes.

There are things which people use as evidence for their belief in Christianity. Usually it is a lot of small things over a long period of evaluation. Sometimes it is more dramatic things. But you cannot say that the beliefs are invalid based on the fact that you disagree with the conclusion others have come to, based on their own collections of evidence.

You can keep making your point valid by defining evidence as empirical proof, but why waste time?

I mean informally logical in the same sense of 'logical' that can be applied to our assumption that I mentioned earlier that the sun will continue to rise on a daily basis. While it is not strictly logical, there is a sufficient amount of evidence to suggest that it's true and is an assumption that must necessarily be made in order to function properly. Likewise, we rest on the default position that there is no god because we have no reason to believe that there is one, just as we would not assume that the sun will eventually rise if we have never seen it rise before or hear of anybody tell of a time when the sun once rose and was credible.

Thanks for clearing that up. I will just add that Christianity is presented as a personal belief in a personal God. It is not presented in a way that makes it obvious to all. It seems to be part of the design of Christianity. I am convinced that this has something to do with God granting and maintaining total free will for mankind.

 

[AchrisK]

If all you're trying to say is that what you believe seems true to you simply because you believe it, then there's really nothing to discuss, is there? There's no way to argue against something like that, and to 'take it in context', as you insist that I do, would require me to make the same leap of faith that you do, which would be silly of me.

I mean, I don't know if you really even want to debate this kind of stuff. I just find it funny (and a little frustrating) that you talk about truth so much when all you mean by truth is "truth according to Christianity".

Dude, you are impossible. The context is the conversation in which the statements were made. For you to evaluate my statements in context only requires that you read and comprehend the entire conversation so that you understand the reasons for the statements that were made. I was never trying to debate or prove anything, just to explain a statement I made like 2-3 pages back.

 

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

My parents don't really give a shit.

As to this discussion, I really find it funny when religious people, Christians especially, try to utilize the words "absolute truth" like a hammer of justice for their religion. Good job exemplifying things that have previously caused horrifying travesties of human nature. Keep going!

 

[zabu of nΩd]

@ Ack:

Actually, you did try to debate or prove something in this post:

Dude, you're a mess.

I think it is you who do not grasp the definition of truth. Why don't you give us your definition. Mine is similar to Dakryn's, and that is that truth is the way things actually are. I think any clear thinking person would agree. But let's hear your definition.

Do you think that when someone believes something that they believe it as if it were not the truth? Do you think that holding a belief means that a person feels they can say with absolute certainty that they know that the way they believe is 100% in line with absolute truth? I hope your answer to both of those is correct.

Faith and belief are not synonyms for truth, or the religious alternative words for truth. Faith is a belief in something as truth, that one cannot see. Belief is being well enough convinced to hold something as truth. We all have faith in certain things and we all believe certain things. Faith and belief do not alter truth.

One does not, as you imply, accept things on the terms of truth. Truth is what you accept things as. People accept things as truth based on many different things, like evidences, facts, experiences, things you are told, and the list goes on.

You should read one of them logic books.

Now, perhaps you originally had no intention of getting into a debate, then changed your mind once I started attacking you. But you're definitely exaggerating the extent to which I was "taking you out of context", since you obviously did some debating during the course of our exchange.

 

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

Dakryn: so...if it's just your personal evidence, what gives you the right to tell other people they are wrong or that you know what truth is or that God exists and this is the truth?

 

[CAIRATH]

Congratulations. You saw through my rhetoric.

Yes. As far as I know my parents still think I'm Catholic. They know I don't go to church anymore (except on holidays, or when I happen to be home on a Sunday), and it's no inconvenience to keep it that way. Yes, this is hypocrisy, but it can only do harm to myself, and I'm putting up with it quite well.

And I'm doubly screwed because I was "heavily encouraged" to be the godfather to my sister's son (the baptism was in August). It's enough that my sister raps on me for listening to "evil music."

I'm just unsure how long this facade will hold up. I'm really hoping that my parents can approach me first, in case they pick up any clues. And if that happens, I'll be 100% honest with them.

According to the part of the post you quoted, I'm especially hypocritical. But if I ever have kids, I will raise them as atheists. My parents will be dead in 15-20 years, so converting them shouldn't be a priority if I have a more just future in mind.

That is pretty sad in many ways. Personally I have never had to deal with this as neither of my parents are religious (neither is anyone in the rest of my family, as far as I know).

 

[False Joe]

That's one of the lucky things about living in this country, or just possibly the area I grew up in, but my parents aren't religious in anyway really. They christened my brother, but didn't really bother for me, and I've never been raised with any particular morals other than the common sense ones.

 

[Vimana]

I'm gonna raise my kids agnostics. Maybe when they're a certain age I'll explain every major religion to them to see what they think fits them.

 

[Dak]

Dakryn: so...if it's just your personal evidence, what gives you the right to tell other people they are wrong or that you know what truth is or that God exists and this is the truth?

Personally, I don't, unless someone asks my opinion.

I mean, I don't know if you really even want to debate this kind of stuff. I just find it funny (and a little frustrating) that you talk about truth so much when all you mean by truth is "truth according to Christianity".

You obviously didn't understand one word of my posts, or AcKs for that matter.

@Dodens "Stop" is right because you can't attack a personal experience you don't know anything about. However [stupid] you may feel that someone else's personal experiences are, to argue against them is more so.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

What are you talking about? Explain to me how I'm misinterpreting your posts. You definitely talked about taking the possibility of a truth as actual truth.

 

[AchrisK]

Dakryn: so...if it's just your personal evidence, what gives you the right to tell other people they are wrong or that you know what truth is or that God exists and this is the truth?

What Dak said, but furthermore I think that some of you are ignoring the logical facts of Christianity and of Atheism. By believing one of them, you are automatically calling the other one false. By believing that there is no God, you automatically are of the opinion that all Christians are wrong. So we could just as easily say to you, "what gives you the right to tell all people with a belief in God that they are wrong?" In addition, it is obvious to anyone who pays attention to these discussions that the Atheists are constantly actually saying that Christians are bumbling idiots for believing in this invisible God. In contrast, the Christians typically do not directly call the Atheists wrong, even though it is their position by default. So it's time to stop crying.

 

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

By believing one of them, you are automatically calling the other one false. By believing that there is no God, you automatically are of the opinion that all Christians are wrong.

That isn't how truth OR opinion work, sorry.

The thing is, it's not about how we treat each other, it's about why.

 

[AchrisK]

@ Ack:

Actually, you did try to debate or prove something in this post:

You know, there is a reason we have words such as "faith", "belief", and "possibility" in the English language. And it's important to recognise when you accept a proposition on those terms rather than on truth. They're not the same. And they should never be recognised as the same either, because there have been countless atrocities throughout human history which arose from equating faith with truth.

Dude, you're a mess.

I think it is you who do not grasp the definition of truth. Why don't you give us your definition. Mine is similar to Dakryn's, and that is that truth is the way things actually are. I think any clear thinking person would agree. But let's hear your definition.

Do you think that when someone believes something that they believe it as if it were not the truth? Do you think that holding a belief means that a person feels they can say with absolute certainty that they know that the way they believe is 100% in line with absolute truth? I hope your answer to both of those is correct.

Faith and belief are not synonyms for truth, or the religious alternative words for truth. Faith is a belief in something as truth, that one cannot see. Belief is being well enough convinced to hold something as truth. We all have faith in certain things and we all believe certain things. Faith and belief do not alter truth.

One does not, as you imply, accept things on the terms of truth. Truth is what you accept things as. People accept things as truth based on many different things, like evidences, facts, experiences, things you are told, and the list goes on.

You should read one of them logic books.

Now, perhaps you originally had no intention of getting into a debate, then changed your mind once I started attacking you. But you're definitely exaggerating the extent to which I was "taking you out of context", since you obviously did some debating during the course of our exchange.

Look at my post which you just quoted. You can match it point for point with ridiculous statements in the post of yours which it was in reply to (which I added above for your consideration).

Now pick out any of my points and tell me what is wrong with them.

 

[AchrisK]

That isn't how truth OR opinion work, sorry.

The thing is, it's not about how we treat each other, it's about why.

I don't comprehend your points.