Print

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

[ECrownofFire]

on the op, my opinion is that religion generally pertains to a set of beliefs that may often contradict facts,

Could you think of some examples of this?

what do you mean? do you disagree with me that many, or at least some, religious authorities and religious scriptures state "truths" that disagree with observed phenomena?

i will provide one example: some religions claim a god or several exist. gods have not been proven true, therefore they may be false. some religions claim that their god is the only one.
if gods are proven false, then we must assume religions who claim gods exist contradict facts. is one god is proven true, we must assume religions who claimed their god was the only god and whose god was not the god proven true hold a belief that contradicts facts. if all gods are proven true, all religions who hold the belief that their god was the only one hold a belief that contradicts facts

even if gods remain unprovable, some religions must be wrong, therefore i win

Saying that "some religions must be wrong, therefore religion in general is wrong" is like saying "some theories of science must be wrong therefore science in general is wrong".

And who said that religions had to be mutually exclusive? Could it be that all religions are simply seeing a different "version" of one or more gods? (Criptfeind ninja'd )

Gods are completely irrelevant to religion in general anyway. There are plenty of atheistic religions out there, including Buddhism.

[Sowelu]

even if gods remain unprovable, some religions must be wrong, therefore i win

This isn't that thread.  You're looking for the atheism thread.  oh wait it closed i wonder why

[fqllve]

This isn't that thread.  You're looking for the atheism thread.  oh wait it closed i wonder why

Because atheists suck!

Oh wait...I'm an atheist.

[CoughDrop]

on the op, my opinion is that religion generally pertains to a set of beliefs that may often contradict facts,

Could you think of some examples of this?

what do you mean? do you disagree with me that many, or at least some, religious authorities and religious scriptures state "truths" that disagree with observed phenomena?

i will provide one example: some religions claim a god or several exist. gods have not been proven true, therefore they may be false. some religions claim that their god is the only one.
if gods are proven false, then we must assume religions who claim gods exist contradict facts. is one god is proven true, we must assume religions who claimed their god was the only god and whose god was not the god proven true hold a belief that contradicts facts. if all gods are proven true, all religions who hold the belief that their god was the only one hold a belief that contradicts facts

even if gods remain unprovable, some religions must be wrong, therefore i win

Saying that "some religions must be wrong, therefore religion in general is wrong" is like saying "some theories of science must be wrong therefore science in general is wrong".

And who said that religions had to be mutually exclusive? Could it be that all religions are simply seeing a different "version" of one or more gods? (Criptfeind ninja'd )

Gods are completely irrelevant to religion in general anyway. There are plenty of atheistic religions out there, including Buddhism.

I don't think he said that...

[Criptfeind]

I don't think he said that...

Your kidding right?

That was like the entire point of his post.

[CoughDrop]

Yes, I don't see anywhere where he said that all religions are false. You can't prove that they are all false, but anyone could tell you that they can't all be true.

[fqllve]

It's the "I win" that implies, not that all religion is false, but that religion in general is dumb.

[ECrownofFire]

Yes, I don't see anywhere where he said that all religions are false. You can't prove that they are all false, but anyone could tell you that they can't all be true.

Well, why not?

Granted, details would be different, but the overall idea of a religion isn't exclusive with any other, even with a varying amount of gods. Could just be a "distorted view" as Criptfeind said.

[Askot Bokbondeler]

i was providing an example that was requested, i'm arguing that religion may interfere with the neutrality with which one should approach science. atheism may also interfere with the neutrality of a scientific experiment trying to affere the existence of gods, for example... luckily that's the only belief an atheist holds religiously(theoretically) therefore it doest interfere much in a science not concerned with the afference of unprovable gods

and some theories of science are certainly wrong, they are taken as hypotheses, though, and one does not have faith in them...ideally

 

what if all religions are distorted views of the same god?

Do you lose?

no, i still win, they lose, cuz their distorted views are distorted therefore contradict facts... if they disagree, they can't all be right...right? so either they are all slightly wrong, or they are all completely wrong but the one that is completely right

[CoughDrop]

It's the "I win" that implies, not that all religion is false, but that religion in general is dumb.

Eh, sorry for not picking up on these nasty implications. Still, I'd agree that any religion without any empirical evidence for its claims is dumb. Philosophies are often attached along with, and you can't really argue evidence over a philosophy, can you?

Yes, I don't see anywhere where he said that all religions are false. You can't prove that they are all false, but anyone could tell you that they can't all be true.

Well, why not?

Granted, details would be different, but the overall idea of a religion isn't exclusive with any other, even with a varying amount of gods. Could just be a "distorted view" as Criptfeind said.

How likely do you find that to be true?
The chance is so astronomically small that it's not worth bringing up, though you can't disprove it either.
In reality, my facts are nothing more than chances taken on what I believe myself to observe.

[fqllve]

no, i still win, they lose, cuz their distorted views are distorted therefore contradict facts... if they disagree, they can't all be right...right? so either they are all slightly wrong, or they are all completely wrong but the one that is completely right

Religion isn't even about being right. If it was about being right then it would be science.

Religion is like metaphor, it's not about literal truth.

[Criptfeind]

no, i still win, they lose, cuz their distorted views are distorted therefore contradict facts... if they disagree, they can't all be right...right? so either they are all slightly wrong, or they are all completely wrong but the one that is completely right

Slightly wrong is still mostly right man. A metaphor would be, you flip a coin a 100 times, you want heads. You get 99 heads and one tails. Are a loser?

Hum.

... This is not really the thread... But... You feel how you lose if you are the last one to say something? Don't want to do that...

Eh, sorry for not picking up on these nasty implications. Still, I'd agree that any religion without any empirical evidence for its claims is dumb. Philosophies are often attached along with, and you can't really argue evidence over a philosophy, can you?

That. Is not really the point of a religion. Religions are not for evidence, but for the philosophy, that is the point of them. And, yes you can argue over the 'hard' 'facts' of a philosophy.

[CoughDrop]

That. Is not really the point of a religion. Religions are not for evidence, but for the philosophy, that is the point of them.

Then they should be regarded as a philosophies and not truths. 

And, yes you can argue over the 'hard' 'facts' of a philosophy.

I don't quite follow. Could you please provide an example?

[ECrownofFire]

It's the "I win" that implies, not that all religion is false, but that religion in general is dumb.

Eh, sorry for not picking up on these nasty implications. Still, I'd agree that any religion without any empirical evidence for its claims is dumb. Philosophies are often attached along with, and you can't really argue evidence over a philosophy, can you?

Name one religion WITH empirical evidence. Also notice that atheism doesn't have any empirical evidence either, right? You can argue Russel's Teapot and FSM all you want, but neither direction has any more weight to it than the other.

Yes, I don't see anywhere where he said that all religions are false. You can't prove that they are all false, but anyone could tell you that they can't all be true.

Well, why not?

Granted, details would be different, but the overall idea of a religion isn't exclusive with any other, even with a varying amount of gods. Could just be a "distorted view" as Criptfeind said.

How likely do you find that to be true?
The chance is so astronomically small that it's not worth bringing up, though you can't disprove it either.
In reality, my facts are nothing more than chances taken on what I believe myself to observe.

Chance doesn't matter. It can't be proven or disproven, as the above example. You can't give a probability for something that doesn't even have evidence to be true at all (again, this includes atheism).

That. Is not really the point of a religion. Religions are not for evidence, but for the philosophy, that is the point of them.

Then they should be regarded as a philosophies and not truths.

They are, just not by the nuts.

[Criptfeind]

Okay. First you need to establish a ending ground.

Lets go with the betterment of human life.

Now, grab a handful of philosophies and argue to strangers on the internet about what one is best for people to follow to help betterment of human life.

Bonus points if you can get someone to come in and say that philosophies can not be argued over and then explain to him how to argue over them.

Re-re-re-recursion!