Print

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

[fqllve]

I'm not offended by your position. Let me reword it:

Religious belief is self-serving (it comforts and assuages believers), promotes group cohesion (encourages interaction with other believers), and is largely mythological (it relies on personification as an explanatory system). And I would include that it is anthropocentric.

None of those things is inherently positive or negative. It might still offend some people to suggest they're true of religion though.


(And I vote we change the title to Theism Redux because that's what we're discussing. Either that or we should debate amongst ourselves about whose atheism is more atheistic. I would probably lose, though my atheism is strong.)

[Heron TSG]

I will eat my bowler hat if someone comes up with a new, original argument to use in the a/theism arena.

I had to take up the challenge. Here are a few attempts.

1. Everybody is right. Depending on what you think, your world changes because of quantum mechanics.

2. Everybody is wrong. There is no empirical evidence to support the existence or nonexistence of a deity.

3. There is a deity, but if you don't believe in it it erases all memory of it from your brain, leading you to believe that it never existed, and you will never accept that other people know the deity that you will never see.

4. FREE SPEECH in AMERICA is "BULL SHIT", EVIL EDUCATORS block and suppress www.timecube.com. You are educated evil, and might have to kill the evil ONE teaching educators before you can learn that 4 corner days actually exist -but all Cube Truth denied. Dumb ass educators fear me and hide from debate. They are paid to teach a propaganda book - not Cube Truth - for which they would be fired. Evil teachers betray students, as ONE is a Death Value. Cube 4x4 voids 1 & God.

One of those has to be new to this thread, right?

[Shrugging Khan]

My atheism is strongest. OONGA!

[Il Palazzo]

Bitches don't know 'bout my atheisms!

[freeformschooler]

Yo dawg, I heard you like atheism, so I put an atheist in your atheist, so you can disbelieve while you disbelieve.

amidoinitrite?

This thread is great even though I don't agree with 90% of you guys.

edit: ahahaha the time cube site is hilarious.

[Criptfeind]

One of those has to be new to this thread, right?

I like #4

[fqllve]

What's brilliant? Time Cube plus text to speech.

I used to use Opera's TTS, but vozme is great for free.

[Leafsnail]

I don't think I've ever seen the "One of the properties of perfection is existence" argument here yet.

[Muz]

This thread is not about just stating your own viewpoint. This thread is about making cogent arguments to convince others. You're entitled to your own beliefs, and you don't have to defend them to us. However, if you post in this thread expect to have your beliefs challenged by one group or another. "I can believe whatever I want, and you're all fascist Nazi douchebags for trying to change me" is not an acceptable defense, whether you're an atheist or a theist.

I don't think you can convince others. Everyone will believe what they want. There's a reason it's called faith. There is no argument on either side, that's why these religion threads go on forever, until people give up on arguing anything, and just derail the thread. I don't believe that some books are enough to justify the existence of something, nor do I believe that just because there's no evidence of it, that it doesn't exist.

Most of the arguments are on attacking claims. Some sects of Christianity may attack homosexuals. Some anti-Christians will attack anti-homosexuality, arguing that homosexuality is natural, etc. That's fine and all, but that doesn't mean that a God/several Gods doesn't exist. Same goes for evolution, omnipotence/omnibenevolence, etc. Nor would ad hominem attacks on Muslim clerics or Hindu practices disprove God.

I'd actually like to see a good religious discussion thread somewhere. IMO, it's a very good philosophical argument. But there's not really much to argue. In the end it sort of boils down to either:
- I don't believe in God(s) because there's no reason to.
- I believe in God(s), this is the kind of God(s) I believe in, and some personal stuff that I can't prove.

And then some more attacks on anyone who makes any kind of stance.


Personally, I dislike a few people who claim to be atheists because they're so intolerant of religion. I don't agree with some parts of Christianity, but I don't go out and tell them that Jesus never existed or that their book was false. Atheists like to argue that they don't like people telling them that they'd go to hell, but an atheist going around verbally slapping theists in the face is just as bad.

Religion in itself is harmless; it's intolerance, blindly following harmful aspects, and forcing religion upon others that causes harm.

[Shrugging Khan]

Do you consider a parent raising a child to become a member of the same religion as them an act of "forcing religion upon others"?

[freeformschooler]

Do you consider a parent raising a child to become a member of the same religion as them an act of "forcing religion upon others"?

It depends. If, at any point in their lives, the child decides for themselves against what they were raised to be, it can go two ways. If the parents forbid it, they are forcing their religion upon them. If they don't, then that's probably okay.

[Shrugging Khan]

So you see no problem with telling a child what to believe, as long as it may magically separate itself from its upbringing at some later point?

[Tellemurius]

So you see no problem with telling a child what to believe, as long as it may magically separate itself from its upbringing at some later point?

thats what parents do genius, they lie to your ass making it easy for them until you discover the truth then they have a little pow-wow. remember, THE CAKE ISN'T REAL.

[Mephisto]

So you see no problem with telling a child what to believe, as long as it may magically separate itself from its upbringing at some later point?

It's no big feat. It happens all the time.


Anyway, a topic for discussion if you (not you specifically to Khan, but to the thread in general) wish: lady at my university says she's Jewish and Christian because those are the only two religions that teach their followers to be nice to one another. I already know she's full of crap, but what do you think?

[Sowelu]

Me personally, I don't care that much about religion.  Religious wars are stupid, but they have absolutely zero bearing on the existence or nonexistence of a Divine Creator.

I do believe in a creator though.  Mostly because, seriously...Math?  Physics?  That is AWESOME, and I firmly believe that there is Someone out there who needs a high-five.  Are they anything remotely like a human, probably not.  Could they just be a force of nature?  Okay, probably.  But the universe is such that life is possible, which is just mind-blowing.  Maybe there's the Great and Holy RNG up there, churning all on its lonesome, the one and only divine power with its only mission to re-roll universes until it gets one containing life.  Well, fine, then I think that RNG is worthy of respect of its existence, even if not worthy of worship itself.

I guess my arguments are kind of like evolutionists', really:
1) The universe is incredibly complicated, driven by a huge number of variables.
2) The conditions required for life are an incredibly narrow band, too small for chance.
3) If not by chance, then by an intelligently guided hand.
4) Therefore:  A higher power must have set those initial variables.

And yes...by the Anthropic Principle, it's a given that any person in any universe would look around and say "How strange and unlikely that this universe, by chance, is perfect to allow our existence!"  If it wasn't, they wouldn't exist at all.  But the Anthropic Principle is only a reminder about sampling bias.  It doesn't explain where it all came from in the first place.

And yeah I used to be a major theoretical astrophysics (and sci-fi) nerd, so I've heard that this universe could just be a descendant of some prior universe.  But universes have to come from somewhere.  Life came from a convenient mix of chemicals and probably a convenient lightning strike, that's fine, the ingredients were all there.  But where the hell do you get the ingredients for a brand new universe?  Until physics makes some huge new strides, my answer is going to have to be Outside, or Backstage, or *Above*.  With the implication that there's some divine-level critters wherever universes come from.  It makes sense that there would be one Source, and it makes the most sense if it was intelligent.

Honestly, trying to figure out the rules here is like trying to work out evolution from a single generation (single universe).  It's really goddamn hard, and you don't get any hints; you just need to be really really good at quantum physics or whatever.  I guess I can come up with some falsifiability here, though.  If quantum mechanics proves that it's possible to kick off a big-bang just like ours, from outside of space-time, with the correct random parameters...well then, there is not a need for any Prime Mover, and I admit defeat.  This is possible in my lifetime!  Anything less--anything that can only be created from an existing universe, say--and God is still up in the air, the only other explanation.

Hey, crazy shit you pull out of your ass turns out to be true sometimes.  Witness the cosmological constant.