Print

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

[scriver]

In my opinion, it's true that we can't prove that there isn't a god somewhere/-how, but we can prove that all the gods of all the Earth's religions do not exist. Take the Christian god, for example. He is defined by the Christian mythology and the Bible, and we can prove those stories to be false. Most of them aren't even Abrahamaic to begin with, but much older than that and about other gods. Sure, you can say "but that doesn't mean God doesn't exist!" but in fact, it does. If the things that defines the Christian god is false, then the possibly existing god can't be the Christian god. If you strip away all the myths and associated mythology from God, he isn't God any longer but a completely different concept.

So no, we can't disprove the notion of "some kind of god/s" existing, but we can disprove the existence of the individual gods of the existing religions. The statement that "it's not logical to say there is no god" does not make it illogical to say that the religious beliefs of Earth's peoples are wrong.

[counting]

I suddenly noticed that the title is about paper of philosophy, but yet all is about religion. Or better put, the religion role in a modern society and in the future? Perhaps a revise of the title?

[Glowcat]

I suddenly noticed that the title is about paper of philosophy, but yet all is about religion. Or better put, the religion role in a modern society and in the future? Perhaps a revise of the title?

Nah. We kinda got sidetracked into one of MZ's arguments. I think it's over now, though one can never be too sure.

[MaximumZero]

I suddenly noticed that the title is about paper of philosophy, but yet all is about religion. Or better put, the religion role in a modern society and in the future? Perhaps a revise of the title?

The paper that I wrote for my Philosophy class deals with humanity leaving religion behind. The motives behind doing so were the (hoped for) prevailing discussion. I am, however, enjoying that we don't have a terrible amount of flames to deal with.

[Strife26]

Hence why I advocate that we should try to make a less religiously based society so that secular charities can appeal to this wider audience. That way, we get the best of both worlds. Plenty of charity, no ideology.

At what level of conditions can I demand of my soup kitchen goers? Shirt and shoes? Clean language? Listening to a radio set to death metal? What if that radio is christian radio? Can I tell them God Bless You as they walk out the door?

All of those things would be fine for the soup kitchen goers. You can tell them God Bless You as they leave if you wish and it won't break the secularism of the charity so long as you are telling them so as Strife26, not as The Bay 12 Soup Kitchen.

I'll assert, that in part, Secular charities are more prone to being used to directly misuse charitable funds, as due to the lack of a direct moral authority above (a religious one largely dependent on a church's support).

Don't bring that into this. Using your god as a debate point is meaningless to me because I don't validate its existence. You might as well be telling me Santa-based charities are better because Santa is always watching them.

Actually, I was thinking direct moral authority as in the ever evil ORGANIZED RELIGION. For all our (generally justified) complaints against them, they usually don't take to kindly to misspending charitable funds, and a religious charity takes a major hit if a church denounces them, you know?

[Strife26]

In my opinion, it's true that we can't prove that there isn't a god somewhere/-how, but we can prove that all the gods of all the Earth's religions do not exist. Take the Christian god, for example. He is defined by the Christian mythology and the Bible, and we can prove those stories to be false. Most of them aren't even Abrahamaic to begin with, but much older than that and about other gods. Sure, you can say "but that doesn't mean God doesn't exist!" but in fact, it does. If the things that defines the Christian god is false, then the possibly existing god can't be the Christian god. If you strip away all the myths and associated mythology from God, he isn't God any longer but a completely different concept.

So no, we can't disprove the notion of "some kind of god/s" existing, but we can disprove the existence of the individual gods of the existing religions. The statement that "it's not logical to say there is no god" does not make it illogical to say that the religious beliefs of Earth's peoples are wrong.

Easy enough response, that's not how one defines the Christian God. Trying to claim that a specific god doesn't exist the way you've stated is roughly like concluding that because he said " . . . the whole southern half of the globe . . . Asia, Latin America, Africa, and the Middle East," JFK either wasn't real or not from Earth.

Don't try to disprove people's faith, it can't be done, is insulting, counter-productive, and makes one sound like an ignorant ass. 

[Leafsnail]

Easy enough response, that's not how one defines the Christian God. Trying to claim that a specific god doesn't exist the way you've stated is roughly like concluding that because he said " . . . the whole southern half of the globe . . . Asia, Latin America, Africa, and the Middle East," JFK either wasn't real or not from Earth.

It doesn't follow that he wasn't real or not from Earth.  It follows that he was wrong about Earth's geography.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Actually, I was thinking direct moral authority as in the ever evil ORGANIZED RELIGION. For all our (generally justified) complaints against them, they usually don't take to kindly to misspending charitable funds, and a religious charity takes a major hit if a church denounces them, you know?

An arbitrary distinction. There is no more authority from a church in a religious charity than there is from the leaders of a secular charity.

Don't try to disprove people's faith, it can't be done, is insulting, counter-productive, and makes one sound like an ignorant ass. 

By definition, all ideas are up for scrutiny in an open discussion. If an idea cannot hold up under pressure, it can be taken as a sign that the idea may be false. For example, questioning the lack of evidence for a geocentric solar system and existent evidence for a heliocentric solar system is what lead to the revelation that we actually live in one. If Galileo and his fellows had stayed silent because the Church found their ideas insulting, how many more years would people have ignorantly bought into a geocentric system before the truth came out?

Easy enough response, that's not how one defines the Christian God. Trying to claim that a specific god doesn't exist the way you've stated is roughly like concluding that because he said " . . . the whole southern half of the globe . . . Asia, Latin America, Africa, and the Middle East," JFK either wasn't real or not from Earth.

It doesn't follow that he wasn't real or not from Earth.  It follows that he was wrong about Earth's geography.

And the significance of that is that such a powerful figure as a god, not even an omnipotent one, should be more informed than he seems to be in the Bible. Instead, the revelations of the Bible are suspiciously similar to what would have been known by people living at the time of its writing, suggesting that there is no divine influence upon it.

[Phmcw]

A point that made me cringe is that religions are a sound basis for morality.

First of all let's define morality. Morality is a set of rules who try to allow everyone to live in harmony in the best possible way.
Religious peoples can actually only incidentally have a sound morality . The only case were they can really be moral is if they model their belief to espouse the moral rules they have uncovered through logical thinking. Because if they belive in a perfect revealed religion, their lack of flexibility/ reliance on the wiseness of goat herders is bound to bring disasters (see for instance the whole homosexuality clusterfuck).


One that made me laugh is the whole "thank goodness for religious charities".
I mean really? In America? We have the "resto du coeur" who are basically the same thing but secular, and a social security for anything else. Let's see how the most atheist country in the world take care of it's poors. Sweden. Point taken?

[Miggy]

First of all let's define morality. Morality is a set of rules who try to allow everyone to live in harmony in the best possible way.
Religious peoples can actually only incidentally have a sound morality . The only case were they can really be moral is if they model their belief to espouse the moral rules they have uncovered through logical thinking.

Yes, that is what I see religion being useful for, in a morality sense. There are people who don't want to soulsearch themselves for ethics, and would rather just have a set of rules to work from. People who don't want to have to think deeply over why this and that is wrong, they just want to know that it is.

Ideally then yes, all these people should be educated and should lead large pilgrimmages through themselves to achieve perfect mindfulness and carefulness. But the vast majority of people aren't going to do that. They don't care why the rules are in place, or where they came from. They just want the rules and the order it brings them. Religion has evolved, throughout the years, as a way to mediate these rules.

Because if they belive in a perfect revealed religion, their lack of flexibility/ reliance on the wiseness of goat herders is bound to bring disasters (see for instance the whole homosexuality clusterfuck).

Do you really blame religion, and not people, for conservative morality? If there was no religion, would people be more flexible in their moralities? Have the people who say that god tells them gays are bad really been confronted by god and told so, or are they merely using religion as an instrument to channel their conservatism?

A lot of immoral and inhumane things have been done in the name of religion, but I think blaming religion as the deciding factor, and not simply a scapegoat, is wrong. Let's take an extreme example: The crusades. Surely, these were spurred by religious differences between the christians and muslims, no? But would removing religious differences remove wars such as the crusades? I don't think so, people wage war on differences constantly, removing the difference will just lead them to find a new one.
Compare it to for instance hooliganism: Competative sports often leads to violent behavior and hooliganism, injuring and even killing people, and causing loads of damage. Should we get rid of competative sport as a result of this, so that we would avoid hooligans? Or would it simply lead to the same gang of drunk sods starting fights in the name of who has the prettiest hair or whose town/nationality/race/gender is best.

[Phmcw]

Yes, I blame the religions, as facilitator. Faith, and the very idea of God help a lot to rationalize everything, from dedicating your life to the poor to enslave non Muslim women as sex objects, indiscriminately.

Secular humanism make a pretty good job of establishing a baseline morality in Europe, religion is superfluous.