Yet another religion thread: what constitutes weird?

Article 17 is a very good one and I feel the argument is strong. http://www.godisimaginary.com/i17.htm
Tell me what is illogical about this argument?
a) First it goes on to provide a whole list of Leprechaun related things, then it says Leprechauns are imaginary. Just because "there's no evidence that they exist". Therefore they are imaginary. And i ask: what would be adequate evidence that they exist? Can you really say that they don't exist just because there's no evidence you accept to that?
Let me remind you that for millions of years there was no evidence that microbes existed. And people couldn't see them. That doesn't mean they didn't exist. And yes, i do believe that Leprechauns might exist. :p

b) "God has never left any physical evidence of his existence on earth." Then please tell me how the earth and universe were created. Tell me what caused the Big Bang. And provide evidence please.

c) "
Every experiment we devise demonstrates, yet again, that God is imaginary." Please be so kind as to provide citations on this. List of experiments, data, publications etc. One thing i can't stand is people talking out of their ass.

d) Do i really need to go on with this?

Do i really need to read all 50 long articles to arrive to the conclusion that the guy can't make a point quickly and that his arguments are weak?

If you can't see what's wrong with the optical illusion video from my previous posts, i'm not going to break it down for you. You need to use your own brain to evaluate things and not let others do it for you or your faith blind you (and yes, atheism is a faith too).

See, our main difference is that i'm not interested in trying to convince you that whatever you believe is stupid or wrong. You can go on believing whatever you want. And i would be grateful if you or that website writer did the same and and didn't try to save me from my false beliefs (sounds familiar at all?).
 
a) First it goes on to provide a whole list of Leprechaun related things, then it says Leprechauns are imaginary. Just because "there's no evidence that they exist". Therefore they are imaginary. And i ask: what would be adequate evidence that they exist? Can you really say that they don't exist just because there's no evidence you accept to that?
Let me remind you that for millions of years there was no evidence that microbes existed. And people couldn't see them. That doesn't mean they didn't exist. And yes, i do believe that Leprechauns might exist. :p
First of all, there was proof that microbes existed.. they made people sick and spoiled food. People just didn't have the technology to physcially see them yet. They were present since the beginning of human existence and our immune systems, gastro intestinal tract, etc. were well aware of the presence of microbes.

There is no evidence for the existence of Leprechauns, you have no reason to believe that there is any chance that they exist, you would not even know the name or idea of a Leprechauns if someone had not made it up first. People knew that something was causing them to be sick and that their food spoiled but they just didn't know what it was yet. I could tell you there is a teapot orbiting between the earth and mars and the teapot tells me things at night. How would you prove me wrong? Could you? Does that mean that it is possible the teapot does speak to me at night? Same deal, except the teapot doesn't have a 2000 year old reference.

b) "God has never left any physical evidence of his existence on earth." Then please tell me how the earth and universe were created. Tell me what caused the Big Bang. And provide evidence please.

No one knows exactly how the universe was created, that doesn't mean you automatically assume that god did it. Hundreds of years ago people thought god/gods made them sick, when it turns out it was actually microbes.

Scientists are actually pretty sure about how the planets, solar systems, galaxies, and stars work and it has nothing to do with a god.

The big bang is a theory in itself, and no one knows what started the beginning of matter. Tell me, what created god before god existed? Oh, wait he conveniently exists outside of time and space.

Every experiment we devise demonstrates, yet again, that God is imaginary." Please be so kind as to provide citations on this. List of experiments, data, publications etc. One thing i can't stand is people talking out of their ass.

d) Do i really need to go on with this?

Do i really need to read all 50 long articles to arrive to the conclusion that the guy can't make a point quickly and that his arguments are weak?

You got me here I don't have the citations, I suppose I could look around. You could do the milk jug experiment for yourself :)

If you can't see what's wrong with the optical illusion video from my previous posts, i'm not going to break it down for you. You need to use your own brain to evaluate things and not let others do it for you or your faith blind you (and yes, atheism is a faith too).
What's wrong with the experiment? You can replace the milk jug with anything, including jesus/god and you will get the same results obviously. It proves a solid point,

See, our main difference is that i'm not interested in trying to convince you that whatever you believe is stupid or wrong. You can go on believing whatever you want. And i would be grateful if you or that website writer did the same and and didn't try to save me (sounds familiar at all?).

I'm not trying to convince you of anything either, you said the website presented weak arguments, I wanted to see what you thought was weak about them. Like I said we each arrive at different conclusions, you seem to have thought about your beliefs and they work for you, its all good.
 
You got me here I don't have the citations, I suppose I could look around. You could do the milk jug experiment for yourself :)

What's wrong with the experiment? You can replace the milk jug with anything, including jesus/god and you will get the same results obviously. It proves a solid point
The milk jug experiment is underestimating my intelligence. As i said, the whole site has atheists and idiots as a target audience (not saying that atheists are idiots, but atheists will accept more easily what it says without really questioning it, since they agree on principle with it).

The main problem seems to be that you're trying to compare apples and oranges. Apples being everything spiritual that doesn't physically exist in front of you, like God and Leprechauns, and oranges being your jug of milk and microbes. You can't compare apples and oranges. That is elementary school knowledge.

As for the rest, this discussion is starting to bore me. You should get an imagination, really. Next thing you're going to tell me that mermaids don't exist. Hah.



(edit: btw, i did enjoy the discussion, it was fun)
 
Atheists believe in what they see, Theists in what they see and in faith. Neither one can prove the other one wrong. It is impossible by logic.

Anyways, Agnosticism ftw. :p
 
Atheists believe in what they see, Theists in what they see and in faith. Neither one can prove the other one wrong. It is impossible by logic.

Anyways, Agnosticism ftw. :p

What you mean to say is that theists can not be proven wrong because their arguments are not testable, they rely solely on "faith". Atheistic arguments rely completely on testable evidence, not on deep seeded emotion.

Siren:
The discussion is boring me as well, I'm not going to continue debating with someone who claims to be logical, yet denies the fact that leprechauns are imaginary characters. Give me a break.

It's not about having an imagination, I have an imagination. However, I also have a brain that is not satisfied with fairy tale explanations of things. As long as you admit that faith is the absence of logic/reason, and you are satisfied with that, then I accept where you stand in the discussion and there is no more to be said.
 
The discussion is boring me as well, I'm not going to continue debating with someone who claims to be logical, yet denies the fact that leprechauns are imaginary characters. Give me a break.
Just because you don't believe in them, it doesn't mean that they don't exist. You can't prove they don't, and i can't prove they do, so for all i know they might exist.

As long as you admit that faith is the absence of logic/reason, and you are satisfied with that, then I accept where you stand in the discussion and there is no more to be said.
I do not admit or accept that. :)
 
As long as you admit that faith is the absence of logic/reason

Not to interject or be presumptuous, but faith in what? Because I have faith (in an almost purely religious sense of the word, more so than mere "confidence") in the good of man, and I have a purely logical basis for that. One that has roots in biology and sociology as well as optimism.
 
I've read through the thread. I see discussions and debates on specific things, which I think are irrelevant in the bigger issue that's obviously behind this entire discussion.

For instance: It's very true that religions of all sorts, including Christianity, have reaped economic favor of all kinds ..now and in the past, as Villain tried to show. But also, I was a raised Roman Catholic (and a very devout one at that), and I can attest to the fact that in general we weren't obligated to pay anything to belong. It was all voluntary and very little, like I believe hyena said at some point. I know of other religions that definitely pay much much more. Either way, some religions cost some or a lot of money sometimes, and sometimes not. Like many other aspects of life, religions have their good sides and their bad sides.

Take, for instance, a hallucinogenic drug.. They're very popular among populations worldwide (something that's evident by their market price anywhere), and it's pretty clear that the reason for this is their overall 'great feeling' and the satisfaction users get from their corresponding 'high', a high that's evidently worth the price. They'll even say that it's a wonderful experience and that it satisfies them in some deep way ..that it fills a void. But they have their bad side. Under the influence of certain drugs, one might find it much easier to jump out of a window ..or otherwise do something to cause real harm to oneself AND to OTHERS around.

In the same way, religions fill voids and make people, worldwide, feel good. They help many feel like they have a purpose in life. They help people cope with the fact that our life is finite. They feed the ever-present hope that the human species has for something 'more'.
And it certainly has its good, I have seen it myself.. conversion to religion fixing a known criminal to a better life; and I would say myself that it undoubtedly did the person good. It is also very true that it helps sick people recover, because the mind (whatever it believes) is very powerful, and it WILL have an effect on other biological processes in your body.
But religious belief certainly has its negative sides, as evident on the millions of shameful acts, losses, deaths, and wars that our history has seen and our present still sees; from the tortures and deaths of the inquisition, the crusades, and the warfare in Ireland by the Christians; to the 'martyr' suicides of Islamic 'terrorists'; to severe segregation and maltreatment of the lower castes of Hinduism; to the unbelievable mass suicides of some modern 'cults', who truly and innocently believed what their minds were persuaded to believe.

Eitherway.. things like "how much money they bring in or not" say nothing about the actual validity of it all.

I absolutely love life. Human emotions really do control our psyche and they are very powerful. So I can say that this "love" for life has driven me to understand every aspect of it as much as is possible. I have sought to know everything there is to know about things like Physiology, Neuroscience, Cognitive Psychology, Consciousness, Evolutionary Biology, Sociology, and Philosophy; and I also have highly advanced information on Chemistry, Physics, and Thermodynamics,..everything that "makes the world go-round" that I painfully acquired in college. And I can tell you that, while there still remain a lot of questions and a lot to be discovered, I more or less am a very lucky person to have the question "who am I, and what am I doing here?" satisfactorily answered.
What people don't know, and don't realize, is how much information there actually IS about these subjects. And it is all out there for the taking, for anyone and everyone who is interested.

So hyena, to answer your question, I do find it a bit "silly" when someone confronts me with certain "deeply religious" beliefs, which make absolutely no logical sense. But I try not to show it.. I'm also not a religion-fighter. I try to be, above all, a respectful and understanding individual.

Forgive me for saying so.. (I don't mean to offend)
But I do know you somewhat. I don't know you personally, but I did know you for a while in this forum, and I have always thought you were indeed a smart individual. And I know that your world has surrounded finances and the like, and not certain other things. And based on what I think I know of you, and on what you've posted in this very thread, I think you are someone who would turn into an Atheist in no-time, if you were exposed to some information...
 
Forgive me for saying so.. (I don't mean to offend)
But I do know you somewhat. I don't know you personally, but I did know you for a while in this forum, and I have always thought you were indeed a smart individual. And I know that your world has surrounded finances and the like, and not certain other things. And based on what I think I know of you, and on what you've posted in this very thread, I think you are someone who would turn into an Atheist in no-time, if you were exposed to some information...

No offense taken at all. On the contrary, welcome back and thanks for answering this thread.

I am very curious as to which information you are referring to, so I would invite you to share if possible. I think I have been confronted by several agnostics in my life, and some of them were quite smart and well-read; I don't think any of them wanted to convince me, but anyway I was never really driven to embrace their system of thought. I don't have extensive experience of talking to atheists, all I can say is that - again - I really never thought I wanted to be an atheist.

edit: what do you mean about my world having surrounded finances? i certainly don't have any money :p
 
hyena said:
what do you mean about my world having surrounded finances? i certainly don't have any money :p
Aren't you in banking? And don't you have a phD at least roughly related to finances/economics? (I don't remember well, I'm sorry)

hyena said:
I don't have extensive experience of talking to atheists, all I can say is that - again - I really never thought I wanted to be an atheist.
Well, if I'm ever in Rome, or you in New york, you're officially invited for a chat.
 
@mag: yeah, i have a phd in econ, and i work in economic research. i was just joking. i'll be glad to take you up for the chat if the opportunity ever arises, any sneak peek you can give me in writing now?
 
Article 17 is a very good one and I feel the argument is strong. http://www.godisimaginary.com/i17.htm
Tell me what is illogical about this argument?

I'm sorry ian but the man who wrote this is a complete moron. He actually plays the whole "why does suffering exist" card as well as the other stereotypical non-beleiver ones. This guy should actually pick up a bible and talk to actual believers and figure out what christianity (and the other religions) are actually about. He comes off as very ignorant to me.
 
Its been a long time since I last saw that avatar! Welcome back, Mag.

I have been only a reader of this thread, but I like it a lot. I have even been able to read the longer posts, which I hardly ever am in other threads. To add my 2 cents, I think these two worlds, namely logical reasoning and religious beliefs, dont simply go together. To paraphrase Wittgenstein, religious beliefs and moral principles can never be put into words and make sense in terms of logic, but that doesnt make these beliefs inferior, and Id never laugh at those who try to formulate them. Personally, Id never discuss religion on the level of logical reasoning with anyone, because there is nothing we could actually talk about. You can only share your religious experience with people, your story so to speak. I am a believer, simply because I had an experience that brought me to it. For me its about how you go about in life, your actions, not words.
 
"Weird" to me is anyone whose religion has no basis. By 'basis' I mean that for these so-called weird individuals, they are fully aware that the religion they practice is a falsehood, yet they persist. A great example would be Scientology. Invented by Hubbard. All such "religions" for which some person thought it'd be cool and trendy to make up their own religion and then follow it, with no evidence to suggest a supernatural kind of being of any sort actually exists, is what I label as weird. If it isn't divine or existing, why worship it? Not to mention that the nature of divinity implies that it must be omnipotent and by extension omniscient & omnipresent. Such a being would violate the laws of physics, and again by extension, must exist, if it does so exist, outside those laws- which is likely to say outside our known universe. One could also posit that such things are too far fetched and believe that such a being cannot exist at all. However, those positions are much more valid than one which worships a human invention knowingly.

As for faith/religion and reason/logic, I find that they do in fact coincide often, because in any scientific endeavor, we can never absolutely prove a given hypothesis. We can show a highly significant trend of evidence suggesting the hypothesis is true, however since we can never know if the experiment will yield the same results if done just one more time, we will never know absolutely, and must take on 'faith' that the conclusion is true. In the same way, as I stated in my above paragraph, religion based on nothing is foolish nonsense. One must have good evidence and reason for believing as one does. This evidence, again, can never be absolutely conclusive due to the aforementioned nature of divinity, but again, significant evidence can be shown to back up one's belief system that the being they worship exists, or that no such beings exist.
 
@Kov: Thanks for the support, man, me and my mermaids were starting to feel alone. :p (i know i'm a bit harsh/absolute sometimes)
 
What's wrong with the experiment? You can replace the milk jug with anything, including jesus/god and you will get the same results obviously.

If it's any consolation, as a non-baptised agnostic who was raised by atheists and does not believe in the existence of God, I still think that site has some of the silliest contents I've seen. People with brains should temporarily forget about coming to a conclusion concerning deities and organize in a very educated lynch-mob to ban the authors from the Internet forever.

Also, I'm gonna sue: yesterday it convinced me jugs of milk do not exist and you wouldn't believe the mess my refrigerator is in today!

(Yeah, I know we've moved on, but I was on a spiritual journey to find milk.)
 
He has another site based on one of his books http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/ it was an interesting read.

Sam Harris is a little more hard to swallow. Maybe I'll find something from Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion sealed the atheistic deal for me, I didn't reach any conclusions typing on a forum.

I'm not much of a philosopher so I don't get to into those "2+1 = 3 but how do we really know what three is and oh the color green really could be a chair we just can't prove that it's not" useless arguments.

Scientific "faith" is not the same as religious faith. Religious faith is the belief in an idea with no logical/reasonable basis in reality. There is no evidence for religious ideas, souls, heaven, jesus christ, god, adam and eve, creation, none of it. Just because your bosom burns when you read the gospel doesn't make it a factual truth based in reality with testable ideas.
 
I'm sorry ian but the man who wrote this is a complete moron. He actually plays the whole "why does suffering exist" card as well as the other stereotypical non-beleiver ones. This guy should actually pick up a bible and talk to actual believers and figure out what christianity (and the other religions) are actually about. He comes off as very ignorant to me.

Have you ever heard of the author before? Welcome to the internet.

He is arrogant and seems corrosively ignorant because he doesn't sugar-coat his beliefs. I respect the atheistic and the devoutly religious standpoints more than I respect the agnostic one. I feel as though the agnostic is stuck halfway or just confused for one reason or the other and needs to put in the effort to come to a reasonable conclusion. Either there is a god or there isn't, and I'll tell you there's a hell of a lot more evidence for one of these scenarios than the other.