UPSB v3
Serious Discussion / Should religious discussion be actively pursued?
-
Date: Wed, Apr 14 2010 05:51:35
Please attempt to read this entire initial post to gain some perspective on precisely what I’m talking about before posting. This isn’t some narcissistic way of forcing you to read my poor writing (and rather long and boring writing), its just that I want to keep this topic clear and concisely to the point, not fall apart into some garbage fight. We really are trying to keep Serious Discussion to the standards expected of it, serious.
So in the thread, “What is your religious positionâ€, I got a very expected answer to a question I will commonly ask people:
3) if theistic. Are you anti-non-theist? Do you think actively trying to change peoples positions to a form of theism would make for a better world?
3) if non-theistic. Are you anti-theist? Do you think actively trying to change peoples positions to a form of non-theism would make for a better world?
From what I read in the thread, virtually everyone was opposed to this idea. It really makes me wonder then…Do you think your religious position is beneficial to people?
-Now please don’t confuse the sort of militant theism or militant atheism I speak of as a request to add any particular religious position to government funding. I would be totally against the government funding of ANY religious position, and I would oppose any atheistic encroachment just as much as I oppose theistic encroachment. Even allowing public institutions to work as mediums for encroachment sounds awful to me, especially to schools, which is another point I would like to get to-
-Don’t confuse this with an attempt at converting children to any religious position. If I ever have children of my own, I will hopefully try not to put any pressures to be an atheist upon him/her (At least until he/she is 16 or so), but I can only try so hard.
-The simplest understanding of why we shouldn’t be forcing religious positions onto children is that they won’t have developed the proper objectivity to actively choose what religious position they get, and rather will be passed down their parents. Now obviously there are parents who are generally concerned that if their children don’t learn their religious position, it will negatively affect their lives, and I can understand that. So long as people are abstaining from converting anyone other than those who are: a direct relative to them and absolutely needs to know some of their religious tenants, I’m just fine.
Now that we have the exceptions to the rules out of the way (correct me if you know any more), I think we should move onto the fact that some people simply don’t think religious positions should be discussed or debated at all.
-This is something I utterly disagree with, and simply do NOT understand. Religious positions affect your lives, whether you wish to discuss them or not.
-It couldn’t be clearer that there are certain political decisions that do affect you and are based on others' religious position:
-For those certain Theists who think abortion is murder, wouldn’t you prefer a country (This is US specific, sorry) where abortion was no longer legal?
-For those certain Atheists who think stem cell research could be incredibly beneficial towards human health, wouldn’t you prefer a world where scientists were actually allowed to use the stem cells strains (US specific again unfortunately…) that could be the turning point in modern medicine?
-It could be said that religious positions effect your decision making just as much as socially as they do politically. As an Atheist, I can say that consensual sex isn’t something I can see as being immoral for any reason. For Theists, I’m sure that you’re much more inclined to stick to the tenets of your particular religion, and that’s just fine.
-The question is, don’t you think with these political and social effects on you, you should be discussing this with other people? I personally think that if more people were atheists, it would be a better world, call me discriminatory, call me hypocritical, call me what you like, but at least admit that I’m being honest. I have my religious position because I think its right and I think it benefits my life. If I didn’t think it would affect other people in a positive way, I would be opposed to discussing it with them, but I think it will positively affect people. I would be hugely surprised if certain theists were opposed to actively starting religious discussions, if you genuinely believe that your religious position helps people live better lives, I have to wonder why you aren’t helping more people. If someone wants to try to convince me Christianity is the true way to live your life, I’m honestly glad that they care enough to try to help me, but I won’t let them get away from me questioning their faith as well.
-In Conclusion, I think that religious discussion should be actively pursued, because it affects your life and mine. If you disagree, please explain why.
-Also, remember what I wrote at the beginning of this thread, try to stay on topic, this isn’t a thread on who’s religious position is right, but rather whether or not religious discussion should be actively pursued. -
Date: Wed, Apr 14 2010 05:54:54
I think one should always fully consider both sides of any issue before coming to a conclusion; and I think discussion is the easiest way to do that.
So even if I'm not trying to convince someone to be Christian, if I know they've never really considered religion before, I urge them to discuss it with someone.
IN A SIMILAR WAY, all of my "have been Christian their whole lives" friends, I always play Devil's advocate (oddly literally lol), and make counter-Christian arguments, just to get them to think. -
Date: Wed, Apr 14 2010 06:05:31QUOTE (strat1227 @ Apr 14 2010, 12:54 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>IN A SIMILAR WAY, all of my "have been Christian their whole lives" friends, I always play Devil's advocate (oddly literally lol), and make counter-Christian arguments, just to get them to think.
This is a great thing to do. When I hear my atheist friends use flimsy arguments that are often covered by apologetics, I'll call them out on it. -
Date: Sat, Apr 17 2010 04:17:45
I'm a non-theist.
In everyone's Utopia their beliefs are what is law.
Now back to real life. Humans are ignorant beings. When you tell them something different from what they grew up with or always assumed to be correct they will be resilient to acknowledge that. It's like going back 50 years and telling astronomers Pluto isn't a planet after all.
Same can be said for religious discussion. Regardless of how much you tell people something, there will ALWAYS be those who will not accept your views.
Here's an example: A given fact about the united states is that the country has a Christian Majority. All of our government is intertwined with the Christian belief system and the people approve of it. (Not talking policies, talking about common practices). This has been prevalent ever since the United States was ratified as a country.
Now being in the minority of a free-thinking believing that no religious affiliation should be connected to government or control will be overlooked. When trying to tell a majority that a working system of their principals would be better if they were stripped of religious affiliation nobody would listen except that small minority.
People will hear only what they WANT to hear. Religious discussion is completely useless for those do not have the mental openness to look at things from a different perspective. Those people are in the minority as well.
Gist of the statement. Religious discussion for the benefit of progressive changes to society is absolutely useless if you're in the minority. It's like an ant yelling at the crowd of a Jets game. -
Date: Sat, Apr 17 2010 20:01:26QUOTE (iMatt @ Apr 17 2010, 12:17 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>I'm a non-theist.
In everyone's Utopia their beliefs are what is law.
Now back to real life. Humans are ignorant beings. When you tell them something different from what they grew up with or always assumed to be correct they will be resilient to acknowledge that. It's like going back 50 years and telling astronomers Pluto isn't a planet after all.
Same can be said for religious discussion. Regardless of how much you tell people something, there will ALWAYS be those who will not accept your views.
Sure there will be some people who won't want to listen or even consider changing their minds, but that's not an excuse to not attempt religious discussion at all. I certainly wouldn't be an atheist if it wasn't for religious discussion, so I'm very appreciative of those who do.QUOTE (iMatt @ Apr 17 2010, 12:17 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Here's an example: A given fact about the united states is that the country has a Christian Majority. All of our government is intertwined with the Christian belief system and the people approve of it. (Not talking policies, talking about common practices). This has been prevalent ever since the United States was ratified as a country.
I'm not sure your being historically accurate here though. Its a very well known fact that many of the founders of the US were Christians, but very liberal Christians at that, and some were even deists. The wall separating church and state was the first of its kind, and for the most part was very effective. It was the treaty of Tripoli that said "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion". It wasn't until later that Christianity seeped into government practices.QUOTE (iMatt @ Apr 17 2010, 12:17 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Now being in the minority of a free-thinking believing that no religious affiliation should be connected to government or control will be overlooked. When trying to tell a majority that a working system of their principals would be better if they were stripped of religious affiliation nobody would listen except that small minority.
People will hear only what they WANT to hear. Religious discussion is completely useless for those do not have the mental openness to look at things from a different perspective. Those people are in the minority as well.
Gist of the statement. Religious discussion for the benefit of progressive changes to society is absolutely useless if you're in the minority. It's like an ant yelling at the crowd of a Jets game.
-There have been tons of instances where minority rights were preserved regardless of the majorities feelings towards them. The ACLU has smacked down hundreds of violations of separation of church and state.
-Saying people will hear only what they WANT to hear is obviously a flawed argument, considering the number of people that DO change their minds, for example: atheism is considered one of the fastest growing religious positions in the US.
-Your view of humanity seems rather pessimistic. Can I ask you, were you taught to be a non-theist as a child? If not, how can you be so resistant to the idea of people changing their minds? -
Date: Sun, Apr 18 2010 05:33:41QUOTE (strat1227 @ Apr 14 2010, 02:54 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>I think one should always fully consider both sides of any issue before coming to a conclusion; and I think discussion is the easiest way to do that.
So even if I'm not trying to convince someone to be Christian, if I know they've never really considered religion before, I urge them to discuss it with someone.
Totally agree.
And I also agree with sadistic. More like there are rules on this serious discussion to refrain from religious discussion but I disagree. Though main reasons for refraining from religious/political discussion is to refrain from aggressive arguments, but I highly believe it's just the people's strict nature of "believing what they want to believe", and can be avoided to mentioning so. People are highly emotional to begin with. Religions are emotional too. Many people hate to be wrong. So everyone will act like they know everything.
Religion definitely affect our lives. Anthropologically, religion is rooted deep inside our society. Religion has since caused problems and also solved problems. Religion provides questions.
I partially disagree with Sadistic's view that world is better off with Atheists. I think it makes no differences. I believe almost EVERYTHING good can be used for bad and vise-versa. Religion can be used for good, but it can also be used for bad. Just because we eliminate religion in this world, doesn't mean we could get better society. Atheism can also be used for bad. It's also a good excuse to kill people because "no one goes to hell, god does not exist, it's free for all" sorta stuff. Though so is religion. It's a good excuse to kill people because "God said to kill him".
I do not think the world was so different if humanity began rooted with Atheism.
I think it's really how you use religion. If you use it for good, of course it's gonna be good. God is usually a tool used by parents to teach young children of morals when they are well opened to influence. Whether that child deny religion later on in their life or not is not the problem. Because morals are already deeply rooted into the child, the child will most likely follow these morals most of the time.
Of course I could understand people saying "I could teach children morals without religion as good as using religion". If they find a way, sure. Why should I stop you? GO ahead. Teach them all the morals they need to live in this society.
I'm a hardass atheist. Though I don't particularly oppose religion. If used well, Religion will benefit our society. So we could always make religious discussion regarding how we can use it to benefit us.
People are also confused about definition of God. There are three types of God: Theistic Gods, Pan-Theistic Gods, and Deistic Gods. Many people believe the first two. SOme people believe in the last one. First two were, unfortunately for some people, already denied by science. Though I agree that science isn't perfect, I believe it's more believable. Though some people say these bibles and things are metaphorical, but I just think that's dishonesty. Deistic Gods however, cannot be disproved with science.
Atheism are usually form of denying what Theism says rather than having a system of their own. It's part of the reason why Atheism is not a form of faith. So if Theists bring up some religious god statements Atheists will reply with those in standards. if Theists bring up some deistic god statements, Atheists will reply with those in standards. Theism is "creation of Trumpcards" called God. Atheism is "denial of the trumpcards" called God. Therefore, Atheism cannot create "denial of trumpcards" because in order to do that, trumpcard must be present at that moment, logically.
Of course there are people out there like Richard Dawkins or people like that, who ATTEMPT to create a own system of atheism, but I believe it's futile.
Because there are plenty of ideas about God, Atheists must respond to every statements and ideas they make separately. The difficulty of discussions lies there. And because Theists will consider other theist to have same or almost same idea, certain theist will respond to a post atheist made that were not directed for that theist's idea of God but another idea of God. That's why things become confused at that moment, and the reasons for the aggressiveness happens there. -
Date: Sun, Apr 18 2010 16:07:12QUOTE (Dark Angel-REX @ Apr 18 2010, 01:33 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>I partially disagree with Sadistic's view that world is better off with Atheists. I think it makes no differences. I believe almost EVERYTHING good can be used for bad and vise-versa. Religion can be used for good, but it can also be used for bad. Just because we eliminate religion in this world, doesn't mean we could get better society. Atheism can also be used for bad. It's also a good excuse to kill people because "no one goes to hell, god does not exist, it's free for all" sorta stuff. Though so is religion. It's a good excuse to kill people because "God said to kill him".
I 100% agree. People who use religion to do horrible things just used religion as an empty tool, and if there was no religion they could have just as easily used something else as the tool. They would have done the things with or without religion. (Ex, look at Hitler, he used politics instead of religion)QUOTEPeople are also confused about definition of God. There are three types of God: Theistic Gods, Pan-Theistic Gods, and Deistic Gods. Many people believe the first two. SOme people believe in the last one. First two were, unfortunately for some people, already denied by science.
I WHOLLY disagree that science can disprove the existence of a Theistic god.
No matter what science proves, it could just be argued that the Theistic god made it that way.
Further, assuming the Theistic god, if he existed, would be all-powerful, even if science DID somehow find a way to "disprove god", it could just be argued that since he's all-powerful he just made it look like he didn't exist.
-
Date: Sun, Apr 18 2010 16:07:19QUOTE-There have been tons of instances where minority rights were preserved regardless of the majorities feelings towards them. The ACLU has smacked down hundreds of violations of separation of church and state.
-Saying people will hear only what they WANT to hear is obviously a flawed argument, considering the number of people that DO change their minds, for example: atheism is considered one of the fastest growing religious positions in the US.
-Your view of humanity seems rather pessimistic. Can I ask you, were you taught to be a non-theist as a child? If not, how can you be so resistant to the idea of people changing their minds?
The argument isn't flawed. The odds people change their mind on hardset religious beliefs is little to none. People want proof. If you don't provide physical proof to show them they were wrong, they will refute it. You can quote ethical theories all days and try to prove them wrong in our way logic, in the end people will not change unless forced to through fear. (Why do you think people go to religion in the first place?)
People only hear what they want to hear isn't a flawed. Think about it, if I told you, "Your penis is small." you would refute that.
Now apply that to many guys. I can guarantee that almost EVERY SINGLE ONE will refute that.
Same applies for religion. If present those of known religious affiliation saying, "You're belief system is wrong." almost all will refute or say , "To his or her own."
People do change their mind, but not on things like this. "Atheism is considered one of the fastest growing religious positions in the US." Great, it's growing fast. That means nothing. Something can grow quickly, but on the overall curve it's a tiny notch far below the majority religion of a country. It's just like saying, "The South Beach diet is the fastest growing diet in the US." It means it's becoming known and recognized, but that doesn't mean that it's people who have CONVERTED from a different diet. Just means it's the new thing.
I'm done arguing on that front because you're blatantly wrong on most accusations and provides a great example of how people are refute things that don't line up with what they believe to be true.
My view of humanity is very pessimistic. People are horribly uneducated and are unwilling to be educated about how the world actually works.
I was not taught to be non-theistic. I am resistant to the idea of people's change of mind VERY EASILY. There is a difference. There's nothing wrong with people who care want to believe in something else, but people shouldn't change their mind just because I tell them to.
People need to become SELF-EDUCATED. Until there is a self-awareness there will be no overall progress in terms of free-thinking.
To go around preaching your views are better than another is no better than any other religion. It does nothing but create chaos. Israel anyone?
If people want to go around believing there's a man in the sky that can see everything that has and had happened then fine, let them. That's their choice. Is it necessarily right? I'll leave that to you to think about.
I am resistant to people changing their minds because the vast majority is unwilling to play the devils advocate against themselves. PEOPLE DON'T QUESTION SHIT. That's why. I have seen this every day of my life. People don't change, TRENDS change.
-
Date: Sun, Apr 18 2010 16:09:58
iMatt if your argument is based on the idea that people rarely change their hardset religious beliefs I think it's your argument that's flawed. I personally did, I know many people who did, and even the previous thread on this topic had several people that did.
Even if you say "well we're all young, you didn't really change so much as just find the one you believe", I know several people who did as adults after YEARS of belief.
So I don't necessarily disagree with your conclusion, but I do believe your premise is flawed -
Date: Sun, Apr 18 2010 16:14:31QUOTE (strat1227 @ Apr 18 2010, 11:09 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>iMatt if your argument is based on the idea that people rarely change their hardset religious beliefs I think it's your argument that's flawed. I personally did, I know many people who did, and even the previous thread on this topic had several people that did.
Even if you say "well we're all young, you didn't really change so much as just find the one you believe", I know several people who did as adults after YEARS of belief.
So I don't necessarily disagree with your conclusion, but I do believe your premise is flawed
Congratulations you know people who have changed their minds. It's still a very small minority of people throughout the world compared to any of the common religious/belief systems. My mom tried raising me christian all the way into high school and it didn't work at all. I'd be the one to say the whole idea is bunk.
I'm referring to the vast majority of people who aren't willing to question themselves and their own morals without a forcing incentive. -
Date: Sun, Apr 18 2010 16:17:57
Meh all I'm saying is you come to a conclusion off of an admittedly false premise.
And to say "well, it's true of most people" is a weak defense IMO -
Date: Mon, Apr 19 2010 05:58:04QUOTE (iMatt @ Apr 18 2010, 12:07 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>The argument isn't flawed. The odds people change their mind on hardset religious beliefs is little to none. People want proof. If you don't provide physical proof to show them they were wrong, they will refute it. You can quote ethical theories all days and try to prove them wrong in our way logic, in the end people will not change unless forced to through fear. (Why do you think people go to religion in the first place?)
People only hear what they want to hear isn't a flawed. Think about it, if I told you, "Your penis is small." you would refute that.
Now apply that to many guys. I can guarantee that almost EVERY SINGLE ONE will refute that.
Same applies for religion. If present those of known religious affiliation saying, "You're belief system is wrong." almost all will refute or say , "To his or her own."
People do change their mind, but not on things like this. "Atheism is considered one of the fastest growing religious positions in the US." Great, it's growing fast. That means nothing. Something can grow quickly, but on the overall curve it's a tiny notch far below the majority religion of a country. It's just like saying, "The South Beach diet is the fastest growing diet in the US." It means it's becoming known and recognized, but that doesn't mean that it's people who have CONVERTED from a different diet. Just means it's the new thing.
-You say that there's little to no chance that some people will change their minds on religion, and I agree, but that still doesn't seem like a defense for not attempting to at all.
-Your logic on this next part seriously confuses me....You say that people need evidence that they're wrong in order to not believe, which isn't even the situation since there's really no way to prove a negative (outside of conceptualization), and then you use an analogy where your the one presenting the claim to be disproven?
-But Atheism is growing because people are converting. That's why the percentage of atheists who check the "previously religious" on polls are in the 90's.QUOTE (iMatt @ Apr 18 2010, 12:07 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>I'm done arguing on that front because you're blatantly wrong on most accusations and provides a great example of how people are refute things that don't line up with what they believe to be true.
I'm sorry that I'm the one that's so blatantly biased. I'll try not to refute things that don't have support gathered from methodological naturalism from now on, I wouldn't want to be stepping outside my epistemological boundaries.QUOTE (iMatt @ Apr 18 2010, 12:07 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>My view of humanity is very pessimistic. People are horribly uneducated and are unwilling to be educated about how the world actually works.
I was not taught to be non-theistic. I am resistant to the idea of people's change of mind VERY EASILY. There is a difference. There's nothing wrong with people who care want to believe in something else, but people shouldn't change their mind just because I tell them to.
People need to become SELF-EDUCATED. Until there is a self-awareness there will be no overall progress in terms of free-thinking.
To go around preaching your views are better than another is no better than any other religion. It does nothing but create chaos. Israel anyone?
If people want to go around believing there's a man in the sky that can see everything that has and had happened then fine, let them. That's their choice. Is it necessarily right? I'll leave that to you to think about.
I am resistant to people changing their minds because the vast majority is unwilling to play the devils advocate against themselves. PEOPLE DON'T QUESTION SHIT. That's why. I have seen this every day of my life. People don't change, TRENDS change.
-People can't self-educate themselves as easily as you'd like to think. You probably didn't know the concept of objectivity until it was taught to you, and similarly many skeptics used to not even know that atheism was an option, and those who did most almost certainly feared public rebuke. It wasn't until atheists began spreading the skepticism that the spread of atheism picked up, theism always filled its spot previously.
-I would like to think I live in a country that is more stable than Israel, and it seems that many of the people there don't so much have religious discussion but rather, as you said, simply preach.QUOTE (iMatt @ Apr 18 2010, 12:07 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>If people want to go around believing there's a man in the sky that can see everything that has and had happened then fine, let them. That's their choice. Is it necessarily right? I'll leave that to you to think about.
I am resistant to people changing their minds because the vast majority is unwilling to play the devils advocate against themselves. PEOPLE DON'T QUESTION SHIT. That's why. I have seen this every day of my life. People don't change, TRENDS change.
-If people believing that there's a man in the sky didn't affect peoples lives, including mine and my friends and my family, I would be in total agreement with you mate, but as it turns out there are direct consequences of religion, a few of which I listed in my first post.
-Some people do change though, and the hundreds of atheist testimonials of people switching because of religious discussion proves this....QUOTE (Dark Angel-REX @ Apr 18 2010, 01:33 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Religion definitely affect our lives. Anthropologically, religion is rooted deep inside our society. Religion has since caused problems and also solved problems. Religion provides questions.
I don't quite agree on this one. I think it provides answers rather than questions. "Where did we come from?" ,"What created us?", "How does cosmology work?", such things seem to have already been answered by religion.QUOTE (Dark Angel-REX @ Apr 18 2010, 01:33 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>I partially disagree with Sadistic's view that world is better off with Atheists. I think it makes no differences. I believe almost EVERYTHING good can be used for bad and vise-versa. Religion can be used for good, but it can also be used for bad. Just because we eliminate religion in this world, doesn't mean we could get better society. Atheism can also be used for bad. It's also a good excuse to kill people because "no one goes to hell, god does not exist, it's free for all" sorta stuff. Though so is religion. It's a good excuse to kill people because "God said to kill him".
I do not think the world was so different if humanity began rooted with Atheism.
-I can't think of any atheist who ever followed the reasoning of not-fearing-hell to do anything immoral, and I honestly think that its a falsely spread claim that Christians (I'm assuming that's where your drawing hell from) don't do things out of the fear of hell (except perhaps children). The lower homicide and general crime rates in more secular countries would disagree strongly with the assertion that you need religion to maintain morality.
-There are immoral Theists and there are immoral atheists, we can all agree on that, but the difference is atheists never do immoral things because of their atheism, as opposed to the obvious instances where theists have.
-I'm not so sure how you can claim the world wouldn't be different if humanity began rooted with Atheism. The Catholic church was perhaps the most influential institution ever, it shaped the history of our world an insanely large amount, clearly this particular organization with its many religious motives would not have existed if the world was "rooted with atheism".QUOTE (Dark Angel-REX @ Apr 18 2010, 01:33 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>I think it's really how you use religion. If you use it for good, of course it's gonna be good. God is usually a tool used by parents to teach young children of morals when they are well opened to influence. Whether that child deny religion later on in their life or not is not the problem. Because morals are already deeply rooted into the child, the child will most likely follow these morals most of the time.
Of course I could understand people saying "I could teach children morals without religion as good as using religion". If they find a way, sure. Why should I stop you? GO ahead. Teach them all the morals they need to live in this society.
Its been done, and again, I'm befuddled by how you can say people have trouble living moral lives when you yourself are an atheist and you see these secular countries with perfectly functioning societies.QUOTE (Dark Angel-REX @ Apr 18 2010, 01:33 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>I'm a hardass atheist. Though I don't particularly oppose religion. If used well, Religion will benefit our society. So we could always make religious discussion regarding how we can use it to benefit us.
People are also confused about definition of God. There are three types of God: Theistic Gods, Pan-Theistic Gods, and Deistic Gods. Many people believe the first two. SOme people believe in the last one. First two were, unfortunately for some people, already denied by science. Though I agree that science isn't perfect, I believe it's more believable. Though some people say these bibles and things are metaphorical, but I just think that's dishonesty. Deistic Gods however, cannot be disproved with science.
Atheism are usually form of denying what Theism says rather than having a system of their own. It's part of the reason why Atheism is not a form of faith. So if Theists bring up some religious god statements Atheists will reply with those in standards. if Theists bring up some deistic god statements, Atheists will reply with those in standards. Theism is "creation of Trumpcards" called God. Atheism is "denial of the trumpcards" called God. Therefore, Atheism cannot create "denial of trumpcards" because in order to do that, trumpcard must be present at that moment, logically.
Of course there are people out there like Richard Dawkins or people like that, who ATTEMPT to create a own system of atheism, but I believe it's futile.
Because there are plenty of ideas about God, Atheists must respond to every statements and ideas they make separately. The difficulty of discussions lies there. And because Theists will consider other theist to have same or almost same idea, certain theist will respond to a post atheist made that were not directed for that theist's idea of God but another idea of God. That's why things become confused at that moment, and the reasons for the aggressiveness happens there.
I would like to, but because most of this is really off-topic from the course discussion, I unfortunately shouldn't really be responding to it....Maybe in a PM though? -
Date: Mon, Apr 19 2010 07:47:06QUOTE (strat1227 @ Apr 19 2010, 01:07 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>I WHOLLY disagree that science can disprove the existence of a Theistic god.
No matter what science proves, it could just be argued that the Theistic god made it that way.
Further, assuming the Theistic god, if he existed, would be all-powerful, even if science DID somehow find a way to "disprove god", it could just be argued that since he's all-powerful he just made it look like he didn't exist.
in that case, you would be talking about deistic god. Not theistic God. That's what people confused themselves with. They mix up deistic god and Theistic God, which should be treated as separate. Deistic God cannot be disproved by science. Theistic (most) can be disproved by science. That was the point I made in that post. Because people mix up these things, proper discussion cannot be made.
Theistic God refers to religion of Judaism/Christianity, Islam...such as Allah or Yaweh. Bible clearly states that Yaweh made ocean and then humans and animals by saying "be made". However, we know through science that human didn't just pop out in to the place, but rather evolved through biological evolution.
Pan-Theistic God refers to religion like Hindu, and Shinto(may be)...such as Vishnu or Amaterasu-Omikam. Shinto is similar to Greek Gods though. Hinduism, as well can be disproved by science in same matter.
The only God that cannot be disproved by science is Deistic God. Deistic God is a God that does nothing to do with Human affairs but rather the Universe as whole. In deistic God, you could say what you've said: "No matter what science proves, it could just be argued that the Deistic God made it that way".
-
Date: Mon, Apr 19 2010 08:02:32QUOTE (Sadistic @ Apr 19 2010, 02:58 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>I don't quite agree on this one. I think it provides answers rather than questions. "Where did we come from?" ,"What created us?", "How does cosmology work?", such things seem to have already been answered by religion.
sorry that was one of the longer sentence that I was trying to delete, but unfortunately left half-deleted and it makes no sense. Please forget it.QUOTE-I can't think of any atheist who ever followed the reasoning of not-fearing-hell to do anything immoral, and I honestly think that its a falsely spread claim that Christians (I'm assuming that's where your drawing hell from) don't do things out of the fear of hell (except perhaps children). The lower homicide and general crime rates in more secular countries would disagree strongly with the assertion that you need religion to maintain morality.
-There are immoral Theists and there are immoral atheists, we can all agree on that, but the difference is atheists never do immoral things because of their atheism, as opposed to the obvious instances where theists have.
-I'm not so sure how you can claim the world wouldn't be different if humanity began rooted with Atheism. The Catholic church was perhaps the most influential institution ever, it shaped the history of our world an insanely large amount, clearly this particular organization with its many religious motives would not have existed if the world was "rooted with atheism".
-It was an example. I cant think of any atheist who ever followed the reasoning of not-fearing-hell to do anything with immoral neither. however I was talking about how you can justify killing by using Atheism (whether that person really believes in it or not). Therefore, using Atheism as tool rather than one's belief. I was rather talking about "if" instances.
-I believe so too.
-Well the reason we can't know is rather because we never experienced humanity that started atheistic. It's apparent that major part of humanity started out theistic. If you look at Theism in a way that cause so many problems, of course that will be the only thing you would see. But you can't ignore all of the good things Christianity done. I was merely saying those things to mean how Atheism or Theism can be used as a bad tool as well as good tool. The same concept you can use Kitchen knife for killing rather than cutting foods. To get into this part more carefully, I could only think of very very small minority that seriously believed in killing people for religious reasons. I think mostly everyone who kills certain people were done out of self-interest or some other reasons, but used religion to justify it.QUOTEIts been done, and again, I'm befuddled by how you can say people have trouble living moral lives when you yourself are an atheist and you see these secular countries with perfectly functioning societies.
Refer to above.
-
Date: Mon, Apr 19 2010 16:08:07QUOTE (Dark Angel-REX @ Apr 19 2010, 03:47 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>in that case, you would be talking about deistic god. Not theistic God. That's what people confused themselves with. They mix up deistic god and Theistic God, which should be treated as separate. Deistic God cannot be disproved by science. Theistic (most) can be disproved by science. That was the point I made in that post. Because people mix up these things, proper discussion cannot be made.
Theistic God refers to religion of Judaism/Christianity, Islam...such as Allah or Yaweh. Bible clearly states that Yaweh made ocean and then humans and animals by saying "be made". However, we know through science that human didn't just pop out in to the place, but rather evolved through biological evolution.
Pan-Theistic God refers to religion like Hindu, and Shinto(may be)...such as Vishnu or Amaterasu-Omikam. Shinto is similar to Greek Gods though. Hinduism, as well can be disproved by science in same matter.
The only God that cannot be disproved by science is Deistic God. Deistic God is a God that does nothing to do with Human affairs but rather the Universe as whole. In deistic God, you could say what you've said: "No matter what science proves, it could just be argued that the Deistic God made it that way".
I know the difference thanks
A. You're assuming that if a Theistic God exists, the Bible is his absolute truth. Maybe a Theistic God exists that 1. doesn't follow the Bible, or 2. NONE of the religions know about. B. You're assuming the bible HAS to be taken literally. The bible says God made men, it doesn't say anywhere that they "popped into place." Maybe he "made" them through evolution. Perfectly plausible explanation.
Theistic Gods have been in NO way disproven by science, no matter how many times you repeat it
Also, ALL of my previous arguments HAVE to apply to Theistic Gods, because I said that he "makes it look like he doesn't exist" and does other things to affect the world, which, per your definition, MAKES them theistic and not deistic.
One more thing, PLEASE stop assuming that people don't know what they're talking about/misunderstood you when they disagree with you. It's very very very annoying to make a perfectly legitimate response to an argument and hear back "you're confused" or "you don't understand the difference" or something like that. -
Date: Mon, Apr 19 2010 16:40:26
DAR your definitions are wronng
Theism is simply a general term for any belief in god
Deism is a specific term for the belief in god which will not manifest himself supernaturally. Basically Deism is a theory of the creation of the world.
Deism is one form of Theism -
Date: Mon, Apr 19 2010 17:05:28
The distinction he makes isn't necessarily incorrect though, from wikipedia:
QUOTEDeism holds that God is wholly transcendent: God exists, but does not intervene in the world beyond what was necessary to create it
I think that's the difference he's making, an active vs inactive god -
Date: Wed, Apr 21 2010 00:11:31QUOTE (Dark Angel-REX @ Apr 19 2010, 03:02 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>-It was an example. I cant think of any atheist who ever followed the reasoning of not-fearing-hell to do anything with immoral neither. however I was talking about how you can justify killing by using Atheism (whether that person really believes in it or not). Therefore, using Atheism as tool rather than one's belief. I was rather talking about "if" instances.
No offense, but that sounds like your arguing on rather weak grounds. Similarly I could say to a Christian, "clearly you do immoral things because you don't believe that the wrath of Zeus will descend upon you when you die".....QUOTE (Dark Angel-REX @ Apr 19 2010, 03:02 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>-Well the reason we can't know is rather because we never experienced humanity that started atheistic. It's apparent that major part of humanity started out theistic. If you look at Theism in a way that cause so many problems, of course that will be the only thing you would see. But you can't ignore all of the good things Christianity done. I was merely saying those things to mean how Atheism or Theism can be used as a bad tool as well as good tool. The same concept you can use Kitchen knife for killing rather than cutting foods. To get into this part more carefully, I could only think of very very small minority that seriously believed in killing people for religious reasons. I think mostly everyone who kills certain people were done out of self-interest or some other reasons, but used religion to justify it.
-Well I could point to the specific ways in which the Roman Catholic Church kept Europe in the dark ages, or how much the enlightenment, an incredibly secular time in history, benefited humanity, or how helpful religion was in the continuation and justification of war, racism, sexism, slavery, etc......But I will concede that its a very speculative thing to address. -
Date: Wed, Apr 21 2010 08:50:25QUOTEDAR your definitions are wronng
Theism is simply a general term for any belief in god
Deism is a specific term for the belief in god which will not manifest himself supernaturally. Basically Deism is a theory of the creation of the world.
Deism is one form of Theism
Thanks for the correction. From now on, i'll say "religious Gods" as Theistic God of my definition..QUOTE (strat1227 @ Apr 20 2010, 01:08 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>I know the difference thanks
A. You're assuming that if a Theistic God exists, the Bible is his absolute truth. Maybe a Theistic God exists that 1. doesn't follow the Bible, or 2. NONE of the religions know about. B. You're assuming the bible HAS to be taken literally. The bible says God made men, it doesn't say anywhere that they "popped into place." Maybe he "made" them through evolution. Perfectly plausible explanation.
A. Not necessarily what I was saying. Religion is based on stories and/or texts. God is the creation of a religion, not the other way around. So if I am able to disprove and point out the contradictions and/or fallacy of holy text or holy story, that means that specific God has been disproven. Obviously there are thousands of religion out there and thousands of different Gods out there. Do you think all of them are true? Certain religion will conflict with another religion because it contradicts each other. Which means either side or both is wrong. Human faith are, more or less, with fallacies and wrong assumptions of the world. Only type of theism that cannot be disproven is Deism.
B. Well i know there are people out there who talk about metaphoric parts of Bible, but as I said before, I just think that's dishonesty in an attempt to make religion true. People long ago took it literal, many people still do. It's relatively recent when people started to take it metaphorically because advancing science conflicting with their religion. Religion has long suppressed science for their own reason to preserve religion. My bible teacher when I was in High-School took it metaphorically, saying Bible is rather another type of literature rather than true display of God.
Religion is basically human made, which I assume you know. God did not write the bible. God did not define itself. Who wrote the bible? Human. Who defines God? human. Who makes religion? Human. Obviously, people seriously believed in the fact that human was brought into the place all of the sudden. In case you don't know, in Europe most of the Educational Seats are taken by Christians, who oppose educating Biological Evolution fully for religious reasons (they still teach it, but they make them write in a rather, indirect way) until college degree. Which probably proves how much people believe in this "God directly made human".
Old Testament Genesis 2~5:QUOTEthe earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters. Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light. And God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.
Science says sun was made before water on earth. God made the word "night" and "day"?
Do you honestly believe God made true ethics, and it's just human who mistake them into believing wrong ethics? Or are ethics just human made? Do you believe human have ever seen God?
I know I have only brought the Bible as an example. It is not safe to say "all" religion was disproved by science. Though it is safe to say most.
I would say, that the only perfect God I have ever seen is in deism.QUOTETheistic Gods have been in NO way disproven by science, no matter how many times you repeat it
how have it not been disproven? No matter how many times you say it, your explanation doesn't justify your point.QUOTEAlso, ALL of my previous arguments HAVE to apply to Theistic Gods, because I said that he "makes it look like he doesn't exist" and does other things to affect the world, which, per your definition, MAKES them theistic and not deistic.
Hmm? I must have missed it. I don't see that anywhere.QUOTEOne more thing, PLEASE stop assuming that people don't know what they're talking about/misunderstood you when they disagree with you. It's very very very annoying to make a perfectly legitimate response to an argument and hear back "you're confused" or "you don't understand the difference" or something like that.
I didn't assume because you disagreed. I agree when I agree. I assumed because I thought you were trying to say something else. You are making wrong assumption right there. And do you honestly believe your post is perfectly legitimate response? Or is it overestimation of your ability? What's more annoying is the use of smiley faces in such manner.
When you are talking about something, you will always have to prepare for any type of responses. Have you read any of the philosophical text in the language the writer wrote? If so, then you would quickly understand its unbelievable length of explanation. They do this because they want to explain something perfectly, otherwise, with some things left out misunderstanding will conflict with the understanding of the philosophy. Kant is a good example. Translated versions tend to be simplified though. There are thousands of creative responses over here and there that easily made a philosopher thinking for very long time.
-
Date: Wed, Apr 21 2010 08:58:13QUOTE (Sadistic @ Apr 21 2010, 09:11 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>No offense, but that sounds like your arguing on rather weak grounds. Similarly I could say to a Christian, "clearly you do immoral things because you don't believe that the wrath of Zeus will descend upon you when you die".....]
No offense, but I don't really get your point. sorry.QUOTE-Well I could point to the specific ways in which the Roman Catholic Church kept Europe in the dark ages, or how much the enlightenment, an incredibly secular time in history, benefited humanity, or how helpful religion was in the continuation and justification of war, racism, sexism, slavery, etc......But I will concede that its a very speculative thing to address.
Yes of course. I know.
Though one thing to point out. If everyone believes in something, it makes it true. In the age where sexism were present, people thought it was true. Japan had a lot of sexism problems, and it's not totally overcome yet. But people 60 years ago seriously did believe that wife doing housework and husband going to jobs were the true ethics, even women (like my grandmother).
Basically anything can be justified. Deep indoctrination of people could make people seriously believe slavery is okay. -
Date: Wed, Apr 21 2010 13:47:28
Ok, I was going to go through 1-by-1 and refute your points, but let's just set it up like this:
A. Knowing the fact that ALL of Jesus' speeches were full of analogies and metaphors, why is it "dishonest" to assume the rest of the bible is as well?
B. Assuming that the bible is metaphorical, how does disproving a literal part of the bible (saying a virgin can't give birth, the ark wouldn't actually float, etc) actually disprove the God itself?
C. Also, AS YOU FUCKING POINT OUT YOURSELF, the bible was written by men, simply *INSPIRED* by God, also it has been passed down and translated many many times, so as I'm sure you know, it could be very different from the original. So even if you disregard my first two points and still think disproving the literal words of the bible disprove God, then you know you're not disproving the original so it STILL doesn't mean anything.
The point here is, I don't believe every word in the bible is literal truth. So you can disprove any part of it in there and it doesn't mean anywhere near saying God doesn't exist.
You use the word "prove" and such so loosely, you need to realize when we're talking about science, even GRAVITY isn't fucking proven yet, not until the LHC finishes its job. You can't just come to conclusions on your own and say they're PROVEN facts. -
Date: Thu, Apr 22 2010 02:50:50QUOTE (strat1227 @ Apr 21 2010, 10:47 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Ok, I was going to go through 1-by-1 and refute your points, but let's just set it up like this:
A. Knowing the fact that ALL of Jesus' speeches were full of analogies and metaphors, why is it "dishonest" to assume the rest of the bible is as well?
how do you know Jesus' speeches were full of metaphors and analogies?QUOTEB. Assuming that the bible is metaphorical, how does disproving a literal part of the bible (saying a virgin can't give birth, the ark wouldn't actually float, etc) actually disprove the God itself?
that doesn't prove anything. Because you assume it's metaphorical.QUOTEC. Also, AS YOU FUCKING POINT OUT YOURSELF, the bible was written by men, simply *INSPIRED* by God, also it has been passed down and translated many many times, so as I'm sure you know, it could be very different from the original. So even if you disregard my first two points and still think disproving the literal words of the bible disprove God, then you know you're not disproving the original so it STILL doesn't mean anything.
No. I seems like have to get into the fundamentals first. It wasn't inspired by God. It was inspired by the idea of God. I'll say this again: Do you honestly believe anyone has ever experienced God directly? If you can't experience God directly, how can you be inspired? No. God is an idea of humanity. It's idea of God that inspires people. People always experience at one point of their life, how they are alive or why they exist. Unfortunately, science wasn't anything so known back then before common era. Easiest way to explain everything is the so called "God", a trumpcard capable of explaining everything. Though obviously, that trumpcard is an idea. An imperfect idea because it's human made. Though we do know that many things people didn't understand back then were proven by science today (although we still got a lot of things we don't know).
God is perfect, God is imperfect, God is absolute, God is plural, etc......Do you honestly believe one of these are true? Or do you believe all of these are true (which is paradoxical)? Or do you believe all of these are not true?
If you answer the third, you are either deist or atheist (at certain degree). And the only thing that was able to answer this question was Deism and Atheism.QUOTEThe point here is, I don't believe every word in the bible is literal truth. So you can disprove any part of it in there and it doesn't mean anywhere near saying God doesn't exist.
That's always a good way to escape from being disproven, and you are like one of those religion preservers. People believe what they want to believe; not a bad thing of course, but last thing you want when thinking philosophically.QUOTEYou use the word "prove" and such so loosely, you need to realize when we're talking about science, even GRAVITY isn't fucking proven yet, not until the LHC finishes its job. You can't just come to conclusions on your own and say they're PROVEN facts.
It depends on what you mean by "prove". I don't know what you were talking about proving gravity. Do you mean it exist or not? Do you mean the 9.8m/s^2? Graviton? What do you mean by prove? You have to clear those kinda things first. Right now it's no close to legitimate. Even the whole paragraph you write is an attempt of proving something. Attempt to prove I am wrong and you are right. So it's very ironic that you say "you can't just come to conclusions on your own and say they're proven facts". Your first point (A.) of that post is exactly what you've said that I have somehow done. You can't just come to conclusions on your own and say they're proven facts. Rather, none of your claims are really supported; not even with relative correct facts.
It's very interesting how you, whether you want it to or not, use profanities and sometimes capitalize it. Other than the fact that it's annoying, it's extremely difficult to find the necessity of it. I can understand what you are trying to say without using those unnecessary extra one word, okay? Although you did say stop making assumptions, what I assume about you right now is that you are either overconfident or angry. Whether my assumption is wrong or not is not the problem. The point is, that is what your post makes me assume. And I also assume that that is how people could generally assume from your post.
And I'm very sure that is not good.
Please relax. -
Date: Thu, Apr 22 2010 03:05:45
Yes, I use profanities when I'm impassioned about something, sorry, get over it.
To make a "proof" you have to start with a hypothetical, and then come to an inarguable conclusion.
Allow me to do so:
Proof: God cannot be disproven by disproving aspects of the bible.
Hypothesis: If there is a God, the bible was written from his inspiration, but not directly by Him.
(Lines #: Text)
1: The bible may be metaphorical.
2: From (1), the whole text of the bible may not be literal truth.
3: From (2), any scientifically disproven aspects of the bible would therefore not disprove the existence of a God.
Now, find any irreconcilable faults in my logic, I will yield. -
Date: Thu, Apr 22 2010 03:52:34QUOTE (strat1227 @ Apr 22 2010, 12:05 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Yes, I use profanities when I'm impassioned about something, sorry, get over it.
To make a "proof" you have to start with a hypothetical, and then come to an inarguable conclusion.
Allow me to do so:
Proof: God cannot be disproven by disproving aspects of the bible.
Hypothesis: If there is a God, the bible was written from his inspiration, but not directly by Him.
(Lines #: Text)
1: The bible may be metaphorical.
2: From (1), the whole text of the bible may not be literal truth.
3: From (2), any scientifically disproven aspects of the bible would therefore not disprove the existence of a God.
Now, find any irreconcilable faults in my logic, I will yield.
What I mean is that where is your proof that bible is metaphorical? Unless that's proven, your logic is pointless. Once again, do you honestly believe the writer of the bible wrote it metaphorically? Or was the writer just wrong? People long believed bible was literal until science came into the place.
Your always tend to write in "ifs" situation. Maybe everything I write here is metaphorical.
I could do the same thing at you.
Hypothesis: God can be disproven by disproving aspects of the bible.
1. Bible may be literal through the writer's idea of God.
2. from 1. the whole text of the bible may be literal truth.
3: from 2. any scientifically disproven aspects of the bible would therefore disprove the existence of a God because it proves the writer to be wrong therefore his idea of God is wrong and therefore that specific God does not exist.
.'. Religious God can be disproven by disproving aspects of the bible.
-
Date: Thu, Apr 22 2010 04:13:46
Lol have you taken any formal semantics, logics, or proofs courses?
Allow me to simplify my proof in either case:
1. We don't know if the bible is literal or not literal.
2. Therefore, any conclusion drawn from the assumption that it is literal is not "proven," as it only holds true based on a case that is unknown.
*You may notice that this holds true for my proof as well, but mine is a proof by contradiction, saying that BECAUSE we don't know, no conclusion of God's falsehood can be drawn. So it actually helps my proof. -
Date: Thu, Apr 22 2010 23:35:21QUOTE (Dark Angel-REX @ Apr 21 2010, 03:58 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>No offense, but I don't really get your point. sorry.
My point was that you cannot use Atheist's lack of fear of hell as a reasoning for why atheism is at fault for contributing towards making immoral decisions, because it would be similar to saying that Christianity is at fault for people making immoral decisions based on its lack of fear-based retribution standards from Zeus.
PS---you two sorta strayed wayyyyyyy off the thread topic lolz.... -
Date: Thu, Apr 22 2010 23:55:44
meh it's still somewhat on topic, he says religious discussion of a theistic god is pointless because it's disproven lol
but yeah, i guess i've made my point, if he wants to continue we can make another thread -
Date: Fri, Apr 23 2010 02:34:49QUOTE (strat1227 @ Apr 22 2010, 12:13 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Lol have you taken any formal semantics, logics, or proofs courses?
Not everyone pursues higher education, and they shouldn't be looked down upon if thats the case. You should be able to make arguments without such statements, people can still come to valid conclusion without those classes and don't have to be lold at when they don't understand the "rules" you learnt in your course.
I do agree with strat though, you can't disprove a being such as god, its an all powerful being, he could easily of made the bible wrong so skeptics wouldn't believe in him (or her?), its completely unarguable either way.
Thats why I think religious discussion shouldn't be pursed, you can't actually be right or wrong in it its just pointless argument imo. -
Date: Fri, Apr 23 2010 05:14:47QUOTE (Awesome @ Apr 22 2010, 09:34 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Thats why I think religious discussion shouldn't be pursed, you can't actually be right or wrong in it its just pointless argument imo.
More like, that's why you shouldn't argue over apologetics. I much prefer the whole "What kind of epistemological position can you have that accepts this as an ultimate truth, yet reject something of equivalent evidence as rubbish?" or "How can you possibly accept the earth to be 6-10 thousand years old when the radiometric, dendrochronological, geological, cosmological etc. evidence points the other way?". There's plenty of religious discussion you can have that doesn't drag into the hellhole of theological discussion, no pun intended of course
. Once again, considering how vastly important religious positions are, in terms of influencing people in their political and social decisions, I'd say there is plenty of reason to discuss it.
-
Date: Tue, Apr 27 2010 08:06:54
@Strat
i was out for a while and was thinking about this stuff. Now i totally understand what you mean now. And I agree.
however,QUOTE (strat1227 @ Apr 23 2010, 08:55 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>meh it's still somewhat on topic, he says religious discussion of a theistic god is pointless because it's disproven lol
but yeah, i guess i've made my point, if he wants to continue we can make another thread
I don't agree.
I never said religious discussion of a theistic God is pointless. Nor do I think so in anyway.
Reason? Because religion is anthropological, and it well shows what people thought was necessary of those times. It's not pointless.
There are several things I am interested reading about in, such as 'perfecting religion'. I do not think it is possible, but I do think it's possible to get close to it. Many philosophers, including me, think what's written on these holy texts were meant to be read literally in much higher possibility than the possibility of being written to be read metaphorically. Although I do understand that some theists imply that holy texts are metaphoric story, but that is only 'some', and most people will and will want to read it literally. What I mean is that generally, holy texts are meant to be read literally. You don't use metaphorical writing in biography.
So by perfecting religion (or attempt to do so), it is possible to make a new religion, compatible with science and ethics of our era, and use it good for the people (not against the people).
Though i might not take part in it, stuff like these are very interesting.
I was really going to quit this forum, but I came back to say now I understand what Strat meant.
Anyhow, I am going to focus on my college life, so I am going to quit this forum. -
Date: Thu, Apr 29 2010 06:13:33
Why would you make a religion....