Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

I am religious and believe in free will

71 (27.7%)

I am religious and do not believe in free will

10 (3.9%)

I am not religious and believe in free will

114 (44.5%)

I am not religious and do not believe in free will

61 (23.8%)

Total Members Voted: 251

[Frumple]

... most of the lot really buying into that aren't exactly internet savvy, though, or considering 'net reactions to be terribly relevant (I mean, hell, say "I'm a human" in an appropriate youtube comment and see the reaction; or worse, basically any religion besides christianity). Not a very good point to point to, though yeah, there's definitely those that do. Not something that state-side non-christians are particularly sympathetic to, though, considering how they get treated both on and off line.

Putnam's rather poorly communicated point seems to be that a lot of the christian persecution claims are... somewhat overblown. To say the least. Stateside, at least, that's definitely accurate; christians are still overrepresented in political and business positions, still have a number of special legal/taxation privileges that largely don't extend to non-christians, so on, and so forth. Much of the complaints you see generated are from christians being treated, well. Like everyone else.

There are areas where followers are catching actual persecution, mind, it's just... not in the US, to any degree worth note. Or most places, really. Major stuff of that nature tends to be pretty localized these days for christianity.

Still, was mostly just wondering how pervasive the message is, both in other regions of the US and outside of it. I know the persecution complex is pretty intense in several denominations in the US South East, but I haven't had much direct interaction with ones outside of that, yeah.

[Putnam]

i can't continue about abrahamic religions because it makes me le edgy atheist xd

EDIT: if you can't tell, the idea of christians actually thinking they're being persecuted in the US makes me kinda mad

they are being legitimately persecuted! elsewhere in the world. not in the us.

[TheDarkStar]

i can't continue about abrahamic religions because it makes me le edgy atheist xd

EDIT: if you can't tell, the idea of christians actually thinking they're being persecuted in the US makes me kinda mad

they are being legitimately persecuted! elsewhere in the world. not in the us.

There have been instances of it in the US, but very little since about 150 years ago. Nowadays, yeah, you see violent persecution in places like Syria/Iraq or central/northern Africa.

[Teneb]

Still, was mostly just wondering how pervasive the message is, both in other regions of the US and outside of it. I know the persecution complex is pretty intense in several denominations in the US South East, but I haven't had much direct interaction with ones outside of that, yeah.

There is some here in Brazil, though mostly among the evangelicals. Every now and then one of the politicians of the so-called "evangelical bloc" (loose translation, original: "bancada evangélica") will throw a tantrum over "persecution", usually right after they lose a chair in some commission because the politician in question had a website advertising "gay cure".

I do know that I certainly would face some heavy prejudice if I came out as non-abrahamic (atheists are tolerated by all but the most zealous; non-eastern pagans on the other hand...) to people outside my friends and immediate family. At the very least people would refuse to talk to me, and walking in university campus at night would be a risky proposition to say the least (people have been attacked for far less).

[Orange Wizard]

That's pretty terrible

...

Anyway, yeah. The persecution complex is strong, although most of it comes from a difference in definition. Christ talked about persecution and lumped mockery and such in with it, so Christians tend to lump the two together as well.
Complaining about criticisms and mockery and so on is essentially complaining about free speech, which is kinda dumb. Unless you don't like free speech, I guess.

[TheBiggerFish]

.....

That's pretty terrible

[TempAcc]

Still, was mostly just wondering how pervasive the message is, both in other regions of the US and outside of it. I know the persecution complex is pretty intense in several denominations in the US South East, but I haven't had much direct interaction with ones outside of that, yeah.

There is some here in Brazil, though mostly among the evangelicals. Every now and then one of the politicians of the so-called "evangelical bloc" (loose translation, original: "bancada evangélica") will throw a tantrum over "persecution", usually right after they lose a chair in some commission because the politician in question had a website advertising "gay cure".

I do know that I certainly would face some heavy prejudice if I came out as non-abrahamic (atheists are tolerated by all but the most zealous; non-eastern pagans on the other hand...) to people outside my friends and immediate family. At the very least people would refuse to talk to me, and walking in university campus at night would be a risky proposition to say the least (people have been attacked for far less).

Well br is a big place, but I won't deny that if you walk around areas dominated by evangelicals, specially small towns, you best be on your guard if you're commonly known as a non christian around there. I come from a small town from inner Săo Paulo, and while most people over there were chill catholics, there's some really outspoken and quite dangerous evangelicals around there now. If they knew I turned into a spiritist later in life, they'd prob go insane and think the devil has possessed me or something, even though spiritism is pretty popular around where I live.

They're pretty much why I'm wary of evangelicals/protestant cults in general.

[Rolepgeek]

I can see how they would think christianity is being persecuted

because finally people are complaining about being stomped on by christians, yeah

what?

"Wah we can't force children to practice our religion in public schools, we're so persecuted"

"Wah people people complain when we make movies about how awful atheists are, we're so persecuted"

You really jump to conclusions, don't you?

No. That's not it at all. If you want an example of what I mean, try posting "I'm a christian" on a relevant youtube comment section and see what kind of reaction you get. It doesn't bother me personally, but I can see why other people might see persecution there.

Try posting "I'm an atheist" on a relevant youtube comment section and see what kind of reaction you get.

Youtube comments are a dick to literally everyone. If you're saying that being Christian is unpopular, that's one thing, and people shouldn't be dicks regardless. But that is by no means persecution. Nor is 'you are obliged to perform your job duties, and if you don't want to because of your religious beliefs, quit and get a new job'.

I mean, part of the problem is that Christianity grew up as a persecuted religion, for it's very early years. And now that it's not the uberdominant religion in it's hometown anymore, it's being reminded of those days of not everyone being Christian. It's a religion with a persecution complex. The meek shall inherit the earth. You shall have rewards in heaven as you had suffering on earth. Everyone wants to believe they're a martyr. That last applies to everything, including atheism, though, so meh.

[origamiscienceguy]

Please read what I said. I myself am not offended, or bothered by youtube comments, but I can see how somebody else might find it that way.

[Rolepgeek]

No, I get that you aren't. I'm just saying that those people are kinda dumb. Not stupid, necessarily, but dumb.

[Dozebôm Lolumzalěs]

    1. The "unmoved mover" argument. We know that there is motion in the world; whatever is in motion is moved by another thing; this other thing also must be moved by something; to avoid an infinite regression, we must posit a "first mover," which is God.
    2. The "nothing is caused by itself" argument. For example, a table is brought into being by a carpenter, who is caused by his parents. Again, we cannot go on to infinity, so there must be a first cause, which is God.
    3. The cosmological argument. All physical things, even mountains, boulders, and rivers, come into being and go out of existence, no matter how long they last. Therefore, since time is infinite, there must be some time at which none of these things existed. But if there were nothing at that point in time, how could there be anything at all now, since nothing cannot cause anything? Thus, there must always have been at least one necessary thing that is eternal, which is God.
    4. Objects in the world have differing degrees of qualities such as goodness. But speaking of more or less goodness makes sense only by comparison with what is the maximum goodness, which is God.
    5. The teleological argument (argument from design). Things in the world move toward goals, just as the arrow does not move toward its goal except by the archer's directing it. Thus, there must be an intelligent designer who directs all things to their goals, and this is God.

I do not get these arguments at all.

1, 2, 3: These are all saying "everything has a mover, a cause, a bringer about". Well, who says that has to be God?! God "just is"? Okay, the Big Bang "just is". Done.

4. Goodness is (obviously) partial. And in addition, this seems to be a masked version of the "every atheist is immoral" argument. Because seriously, it's impossible to, without a bearded guy in the sky telling you, figure out that some things are bad.[/sarcasm]

5. Things happen. There is no overall goal. Done.

Edit: This, number 5, appears to be somewhat more challenging, actually.

The Teleological or Design Argument
This is one of the oldest and most popular and intelligible of the theistic proofs. It suggests that there is a definite analogy between the order and regularity of the cosmos and a product of human ingenuity. Voltaire put it in rather simplistic terms: "If a watch proves the existence of a watchmaker but the universe does not prove the existence of a great Architect, then I consent to be called a fool."

No one can deny the universe seems to be designed; instances of purposive ordering are all around us. Almost anywhere can be found features of being that show the universe to be basically friendly to life, mind, personality, and values. Life itself is a cosmic function, that is, a very complex arrangement of things both terrestrial and extraterrestrial must obtain before life can subsist. The earth must be just the right size, its rotation must be within certain limits, its tilt must be correct to cause the seasons, its land - water ratio must be a delicate balance. Our biological structure is very fragile. A little too much heat or cold and we die. We need light, but not too much ultraviolet. We need heat, but not too much infrared. We live just beneath an airscreen shielding us from millions of missiles every day. We live just ten miles above a rock screen that shields us from the terrible heat under our feet. Who created all these screens and shields that make our earthly existence possible?

Once again we are faced with a choice. Either the universe was designed or it developed all these features by chance. The cosmos is either a plan or an accident!

Most people have an innate repugnance to the notion of chance because it contradicts the way we ordinarily explain things. Chance is not an explanation but an abandonment of explanation. When a scientist explains an immediate event, he operates on the assumption that this is a regular universe where everything occurs as a result of the orderly procession of cause and effect. Yet when the naturalist comes to metaphysics, to the origin of the entire cosmos, he abandons the principle of sufficient reason and assumes that the cause of everything is an unthinkable causelessness, chance, or fate.

Suppose you were standing facing a target and you saw an arrow fired from behind you hit the bull's eye. Then you saw nine more arrows fired in rapid succession all hitting the same bull's eye. The aim is so accurate that each arrow splits the previous arrow as it hits. Now an arrow shot into the air is subject to many contrary and discordant processes, gravity, air pressure, and wind. When ten arrows reach the bull's eye, does this not rule out the possibility of mere chance? Would you not say that this was the result of an expert archer? Is this parable not analogous to our universe?

It is objected that the design argument, even if valid, does not prove a creator but only an architect, and even then only an architect intelligent enough to produce the known universe, not necessarily an omniscient being. This objection is correct. We must not try to prove more than the evidence will allow. We will not get the 100 percent Yahweh of the Bible from any evidence of natural theology. However, this universe of ours is so vast and wonderful we can safely conclude that its designer would be worthy of our worship and devotion.

Many object that the theory of evolution takes most of the wind out of the design argument. Evolution shows that the marvelous design in living organisms came about by slow adaptation to the environment, not by intelligent creation. This is a false claim. Even if admitted, evolution only introduces a longer time frame into the question of design. Proving that watches came from a completely automated factory with no human intervention would not make us give up interest in a designer, for if we thought a watch was wonderful, what must we think of a factory that produces watches? Would it not suggest a designer just as forcefully? Religious people have been overly frightened by the theory of evolution.

Even the great critics of natural theology, Hume and Kant, betrayed an admiration for the teleological argument. Hume granted it a certain limited validity. Kant went even further: "This proof will always deserve to be treated with respect. It is the oldest, the clearest and most in conformity with human reason . . . We have nothing to say against the reasonableness and utility of this line of argument, but wish, on the contrary, to commend and encourage it."

Yes, but it is not impossible to conceive of a universe where order naturally comes about as a result of the laws that govern said universe. Therefore, order can spontaneously come into being. Thus, God is not necessary.

[TD1]

Plus, as has oft been said, if the universe requires some goal from an "archer," then why doesn't God? If you can exempt God, why not exempt the universe instead?

[Putnam]

Wow, number 4 is... actually completely stupid?? For one thing, there has never been a perfect movie, yet we compare movie qualities just fine. There is no need for a maximum to compare, there never has been. That makes absolutely no sense.

4<5. Now, what's the maximum integer?

[Antioch]

The unmoved mover is an argument that is quite popular but I have always considered it extremely badly thought out.

Why would a phenomena that "is caused by itself" require any form of sentience, omnipotence or be anything even remotely approximating the idea of a god?

[Dozebôm Lolumzalěs]

Um, the "unmoved mover" isn't even requiring something sentient or thinking to set it into motion.

Two magnets, sitting on a table. They start at rest and zoom toward each other.

Obviously, magnetism is God.

Edit: Um, the "Dozebom Lolumzalis" isn't even requiring "something reading the most recent post" to set it into motion. Sorry, Antioch. But I still think that magnetism is God, a funny concept.

Wow, number 4 is... actually completely stupid?? For one thing, there has never been a perfect movie, yet we compare movie qualities just fine. There is no need for a maximum to compare, there never has been. That makes absolutely no sense.

4<5. Now, what's the maximum integer?

Hmm. You can't actually say that there can't be a largest integer, because in some mathematics, there is. Yet it is a safe assumption that when somebody says the number "two", they are not referring to a member of a finite set of integers that comprises the cartesian product of itself - it's just a standard number.

Plus, as has oft been said, if the universe requires some goal from an "archer," then why doesn't God? If you can exempt God, why not exempt the universe instead?

God is the universe. WE ARE HIS BRAIN CELLS.

Evolutionists attack the moral argument by insisting that all morality is merely a long development from animal instincts. Men gradually work out their ethical systems by living together in social communities. But this objection is a two edged sword: if it kills morality, it also kills reason and the scientific method. The evolutionist believes that the human intellect developed from the physical brain of the primates, yet he assumes that the intellect is trustworthy. If the mind is entitled to trust, though evolved from the lower forms, why not the moral nature also?

Dafuq? We develop a system, using our intellect, of scientific methods and such. When applied, this matches with reality.

One of the biggest refutations of "there must be a god" is simply this:

There can be order emerging without a god. There can be viable things that come about without a higher force causing them to happen.

Has anyone ever actually refuted the above statement?