My view on religion.

[Sneakz]

Thank God someone like cruddybuddy posted, wow finally taking Religion of the defense.

Dont mind my post count, I use to be a vistor here for a while, never really cared about creating accounts online.

Well back to the point, I have arguments like this with my Jewish freind (He's atheist but for the sake of his parents hes a Jew)

Anytime we argued it always went back to the famous question, Ill just quote him.

"Well if God created everything who created god?"

I always laugh at this question, why do atheist disbeleive that God could exist out of nowhere, but yet EXPECT me to beleive that an explosion came from NOTHING?!?!?

So yah really whats harder to beleive.

A Divine being existing from nothing? Or a ... divine umm explosion existing from nothing.

BTW Can you guys really stop complaining about these 3 things

RELIGION CAUSES MURRRRDDEERRRRR

seriously killing happen for many reasons like possesion of material objects, don't blame religion for everything.

OH YAH! WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU PICK THE WRONG RELIGON, YOU JUST WASTED YOUR TIME WORSHIPING THE WRONG GOD

... I cant really say you haven't, but really its about what you believe has the most understanding of God, then again if you don't believe in God yet, you shouldn't be worrying about which religion is right anyway.

Also, Don't act like the time you spend worshiping God could have been used for something better. Dropping 10 mins 5x a day WILL NOT KILL YOU. (BTW I'm Muslim) and if you think a little umm mathematically, Your odds and way better than an atheists.


YOU CHRISTIANS ARE FORCING US TO BE CHRISTIAN!!!!

...Well maybe going door to door is a little pushy, but I know for fact that it is a sin not to offer someone you know a chance to join Islam, and you will be looked good upon if you do decide to spread the religion but hey, why did they Atheist dude make a topic in the first place? Don't tell me he wanted to just share his opinion, obviously he was looking for people to convert into nothing or just try to make religion look stupid.

ALSO STOP INSULTING RELIGION AND BELIEF AND GOD YOUR ALL ACTING LIKE ARROGANT BASTARDS SAYING THAT THOSE THAT BELIEVE ARE IDIOTS YOUR NOT BETTER THAN NO ONE YOUR HUMAN DON'T THINK THAT YOUR BELEIF IN EVOLUTION HAS MADE YOU ANY MORE INTELLIGENT.

 

[spokenrope]

Thank God someone like cruddybuddy posted, wow finally taking Religion of the defense.

There have been several members on the board who have presented the argument for religion. Otherwise, there wouldn't have been very much back and forth going on.

 

[Sneakz]

Thank God someone like cruddybuddy posted, wow finally taking Religion of the defense.

There have been several members on the board who have presented the argument for religion. Otherwise, there wouldn't have been very much back and forth going on.

As you could tell many of those who did post for the side of religion weren't that good and were being severely beaten by the atheists ... so it wasn't to good of a battle going back and forth

 

[Sneakz]

Sorry spokenrope your right there were more than cruddybuddy that posted good points (like Dirtie)

I just got really lazy after the 6th page and just started reading in between the lines and ignoring posts aimed directly at ppl

 

[chalupa]

applauds for Sneakz and Cruddy Buddy (good job bringing Mario into this)

I am going to reinforce the last statement as it was very well said.
as far as religion causes murder, don't be a Jack Thompson and point fingers at one subject, many things cause murder, how many people have we heard of being killed for a car or in attempt of stealing a car? I'm not trying to say that it was ok for those christians to kill but this is just another example of human stupidity. we can all agree that human stupidity makes many problems in our life.

Be happy that Christians that are spreading the gospel around are actually doing the job they are given. I think it has to do with our society making being a Christian being so convenient and mandatory that we have Christians that dont do a very good job at defending Christ and maybe join the religion just because its "family tradition." It would be better that these people would be ashiest than pretend Christians. Tragically pretend christians out-number true christians so a good chunk of our steriotypes are outputted to these standards.

 

[lastdual]

Those who bash on "religion" are always good for a laugh. Blaming the world's problems on religion in general is like blaming poverty on "economics".

Furthermore, to say that religion is "bad" or "evil" is a self-contradicting statement, as objective values cannot exist apart from religion.

To say that any behavior or decision is objectively "better" than another, is to say that man is meant to live in certain way. Hence, there is a meaning for which man exists - and a "meaning" in this sense of the word can only be the fruit of a Mind (i.e.: God). In other words, if man is intended to live a certain way, there must be someone who intended it.

***

The basic philosophic question of origins yields two possible positions, either:

Existence Precedes Essence
(we simply exist, and then make up a reason after-the-fact)

-or-

Essence Precedes Existence
(there is a preexistent meaning for which man exists)

***

If you take the former position, all values must logically be relegated to a matter of personal opinion. There is no "true" or objective basis to say any action is good or evil. It's all a matter of opinion, and thus subjective and ultimately meaningless. This is a perfectly logical position to take, but, if one is intellectually honest, they should not then start making moral statement such as "religion is evil" - nothing is "evil", all positions are equally meaningless.

***

Religion is the basis of values. Furthermore, it is a realm of thought that, properly understood, is not in conflict with other realms such as science. Science is like the wrench in your hand - it is a means to an end - and it is neutral on the subject of values. If I hold a gun to your head, science can explain the velocity of the bullet and trajectory of the blood that splatters on the wall, but whether I *should* pull the trigger or not - that is essentially a religious question.

Lastly, some like to soften their position by simply being against "organized religion". Please don't make this philosophic blunder... Language, by its nature, constitutes the organization of ideas. If you so much as tell someone else about your religious views, you've basically created an "organized religion". Maintain the right to correctly interpret your thoughts if someone misinterprets you, and now you have a "hierarchy of authority". This position is simply absurd.

 

[Sneakz]

"There is no "true" or objective basis to say any action is good or evil. It's all a matter of opinion, and thus subjective and ultimately meaningless."

That's it, That is one of the greatest points you could have ever made. Thank you lastdual.

With out religion there would be no ethics, nothing to define what is good or evil.

Religion tells us what to do and not to do, and that we base the rest of or decision on what stops us from killing our grandfathers for the inheritance etc.

BTW I'm going to sleep now, Ill check back tomorrow, but really this pointless since were all obviously to ignorant to listen to the others opinion.

 

[Legend]

My view on those that have views on religion, economy, war, politics, etc.


Don't waste your time. 99% of the time, nobody is really going to care about what you say or think, in regards to your "view", so ultimately - it doesn't matter.
It's great that you want to use your freedom of speech around 'ere, but I mean... it ain't gunna do much other than start a flamewar, or anythin' else.
I mean, look at the posts above mine. This topic is screaming, "FLAMEWARRRRRRZ!", even with just the threadname.

I need to look into becoming a mod around 'ere.
This is ridonculous.

 

[Jiggah]

"There is no "true" or objective basis to say any action is good or evil. It's all a matter of opinion, and thus subjective and ultimately meaningless."

That's it, That is one of the greatest points you could have ever made. Thank you lastdual.

With out religion there would be no ethics, nothing to define what is good or evil.

Religion tells us what to do and not to do, and that we base the rest of or decision on what stops us from killing our grandfathers for the inheritance etc.

BTWÂ I'm going to sleep now, Ill check back tomorrow, but really this pointless since were all obviously to ignorant to listen to the others opinion.

Wow, this is just wrong. Think about it. How did we determine what was good in the Bible/Koran/Torah/etc.? Morality and the idea of good and evil is something that we already have. While some parts of the Bible strengthen these aspects, there are many parts the Bible and many of the religions have contradicting views on what is morality and moral behavior. Should we stone people for working on the Sabbath? Should we kill women who are not virgins when they are wed? These are things that are in the Bible, yet many Christians don't adhere to them...I wonder why? So the idea that religion is somehow a moral compass for us is wrong. We decided what was moral in the Bible, therefore morality, the idea of good and evil, was already instilled in us before these religions popped up.

 

[Bowser128]

Religion is the basis of values.

With out religion there would be no ethics, nothing to define what is good or evil.

Are you suggesting that those who have no religion have no morals? Your statements are, quite frankly, ridiculous. I'm an atheist, and I know right from wrong, I don't need the threat of an omnipotent overseer to stop me raping and killing people.


Edit: I was being an arse.

 

[Azimuth]

The truth is the non-believers in this thread have nothing personal against religion, we aren't directly bashing religion. We are just providing evidence that some claims in religion totally contradict reason and logic, if you spout bull then be sure you have something to back it up.

@sneakz, your argument is flawed, just because someone doesn't believe in god doesn't mean he has no morals. So by your logic the only thing stoping you from stealing, raping and killing is some guy in the sky who will punish you, if you do believe this then you are the one who has no morals.

@shakirmoledina, I was born a muslim, but quickly lost touch. The stuff you are saying is the same taught to most muslims at an early age. That the beauty and uniqueness of this world can only be explained by an ultimate creator. But what you forget is the numerous flaws and faults that are all around us.What about all the useless things in this world that have no function but still exist, this obviously could not happen if a perfect creator did design the world. The feeling you attribute to god has been studied and determined to be a hormonal release at times of high meditation or prayer.

@cruddybaby, so your only answer to the question of god is that it is too great for us to understand?

Could people please argue in a respectful manner, you don't have to name call and capitalize every letter to get your point across

 

[NetixRiqua]

religion is created for evil people by the good people... and yer another atheist is right here!

religion is like a universal rule guideline

 

[Dirtie]

Religion is the basis of values.

With out religion there would be no ethics, nothing to define what is good or evil.

Yep you two are absolutely right, as I'm an atheist I often go out to kill and rape small children because I have no religion telling me right from wrong.

Edit: See lastdual's post below

And cruddybuddy, your Super Paper Mario analogy for the existence of God (or a god) was excellent, and I have in fact heard the "dimension analogy" elsewhere before. (I knew you were clever, but didn't know you could be serious as well

)

Here is how I would describe it:

Lets say you were a 2D person on a 2D plane, and there were other 2D people on that plane. When you saw another person, they would simply appear to you as a line, as you would to them (actually you would see nothing, since a plane has no depth - which even serves to illustrate my point further, but let's keep it simple for now).

Now lets say there was a 3D person, capable of moving through 3D space, which the 2D plane I just described resided in. If any part of the 3D person intersected that plane, you would still only see a line (or series of lines, as a cross-section). That 3D person could simply appear to disappear, and what's more, they would be able to view the entire plane and the inhabitants on it in full, and even affect them in ways they couldn't possibly imagine (or they'd have a hard time at least) - such as blowing on them or speaking to them. Yet those inhabitants have no idea what the mysterious lines are, or where the mysterious lines or chilly wind or voice originate from (they can't even perceive what they themselves look like in full). The most they can do is make guesses and theories, unless the 3D person explains to them directly.

Even this could be a sufficient theoretical analogy for God (with God being the 3D person obviously). But let's say you took it one or two steps further instead, and had a person/being that could move through time (which is logically the 4th dimension), or the dimension after that (the space-time continuum perhaps?), etc etc - do you see what I'm trying to say here?

Obviously we reside in the 3rd dimension, so using the same idea, God could reside in any dimension greater in number than this one (and possibly move between them). Only a person/being (in this case God) residing in a dimension greater in number than another dimension, can observe (and affect) the lesser dimension in full.

At least, that all makes logical sense to me

Super Paper Mario illustrates the idea in such a simplistic and clever fashion, I applaud Nintendo (I think Sega also has a similar upcoming game for PSP) for thinking outside the box

 

[lastdual]

Are you suggesting that those who have no religion have no morals? Your statements are, quite frankly, ridiculous. I'm an atheist, and I know right from wrong, I don't need the threat of an omnipotent overseer to stop me raping and killing people.

I think some are misinterpreting the logic here.

It's perfectly possible for an atheist to have values. However, let's say my values conflict with yours. Which one of us is right? Is there some universal truth in values that we can appeal to? Who interprets this truth? Where did this truth come from? Why should we follow it anyways - especially if there is no afterlife and I'm in a position to better myself here and now?

It's nearly impossible to live without a value system, but an intelligent atheist understands that, by nature of taking the former of the origin scenarios I described above (existence precedes essence), such values as held by an atheist must be viewed as merely a matter of opinion.

Thus, a real atheist will conclude that there is no "truth" in values. The great atheistic philosophers throughout history have understood this.

 

[Jiggah]

It's easy to just say "morality is derived from religion," but seriously take a look at all the religious texts. They all have contradictory moral values, which is something people always seem to want to avoid. The fact that we as a society have to decide what is the real moral value in those contradictions already shows that morality is outside the limits of religion. Therefore, morality is not something religion has created nor is it necessary to have religion to be moral. Also, the term "survival of the fittest" is a misnomer to what Evolution is all about. Evolution is not about "survival of the fittest," it's about survival of a population who are best adapted to their environment over time. It would be easy to say, we have morality because as the human population, we need more than a single individual to survive thus it would be beneficial for us to be good to our neighbors whether they are extremely healthy or they are blind and meek because we need the genetic diversity.

The idea of God being outside our realm works against religion. If God is really outside our realm of understanding, what makes religion the answer to understanding God? How can any religion make the claim that they are the one true religion, if they lack the understanding of this God. The most both sides (science and the different religions) can say is that they don't know what or who God is and therefore religions and their texts have no relevancy to God. So, we should just ignore religion anyway.

 

[bronney]

Now lets say there was a 3D person, capable of moving through 3D space, which the 2D plane I just described resided in. If any part of the 3D person intersected that plane, you would still only see a line (or series of lines, as a cross-section). That 3D person could simply appear to disappear, and what's more, they would be able to view the entire plane and the inhabitants on it in full, and even affect them in ways they couldn't possibly imagine (or they'd have a hard time at least) - such as blowing on them or speaking to them. Yet those inhabitants have no idea what the mysterious lines are, or where the mysterious lines or chilly wind or voice originate from (they can't even perceive what they themselves look like in full). The most they can do is make guesses and theories, unless the 3D person explains to them directly.

You got that from super paper mario right?

 

[Dirtie]

The idea of God being outside our realm works against religion. If God is really outside our realm of understanding, what makes religion the answer to understanding God? How can any religion make the claim that they are the one true religion, if they lack the understanding of this God. The most both sides (science and the different religions) can say is that they don't know what or who God is and therefore religions and their texts have no relevancy to God. So, we should just ignore religion anyway.

I don't see how you came to that conclusion. The objective was never to understand God (in Christianity at least), but to obey him and love him etc - why else do you think faith comes into the equation? Like I said in my analogy, evidence can be presented both directly and indirectly - if you believe in the Bible, that is an example of indirect evidence, which also contains accounts of direct encounters. Like what has already been said, some people claim to find evidence in the workings of nature, and so on.

I haven't actually played Super Paper Mario yet myself, but I watched a video, and at one part there appears to be water coming out of mid-air. There's evidence of something there, but you don't know what it is until you flip to 3D view (it ends up being a person sweating). Simplistic example, yes, but I think it illustrates the point well.

You got that from super paper mario right?

Nope, not at all. Like I said I was already aware of the analogy before Super Paper Mario was around

 

[lastdual]

It's easy to just say "morality is derived from religion," but seriously take a look at all the religious texts. They all have contradictory moral values, which is something people always seem to want to avoid. The fact that we as a society have to decide what is the real moral value in those contradictions already shows that morality is outside the limits of religion. Therefore, morality is not something religion has created nor is it necessary to have religion to be moral. Also, the term "survival of the fittest" is a misnomer to what Evolution is all about. Evolution is not about "survival of the fittest," it's about survival of a population who are best adapted to their environment over time. It would be easy to say, we have morality because as the human population, we need more than a single individual to survive thus it would be beneficial for us to be good to our neighbors whether they are extremely healthy or they are blind and meek because we need the genetic diversity.

The fact that there are different religions is only ingored because it is irrelevant. Applying logic and reason to different religious doctrines to determine their credibility - and analysing them by the principle of non-contradiction - are perfectly good enterprises. However, the gist of this thread has been about establishing the logic basis for religion itself. If many are not even willing to entertain that religious thought in general is reasonable, the prospect of debating individual religions is absurd. - If one does not accept the existence of God, why argue about which idea of God is more correct?

It also seems weird to bring in evolution here, but the mechanism of evolution is natural selection - which is basically "survival of the fittest" in the reproductive sense. Obviously this doesn't have to mean chaotic fighting for survival.

The idea of God being outside our realm works against religion. If God is really outside our realm of understanding, what makes religion the answer to understanding God? How can any religion make the claim that they are the one true religion, if they lack the understanding of this God. The most both sides (science and the different religions) can say is that they don't know what or who God is and therefore religions and their texts have no relevancy to God. So, we should just ignore having religions anyway.

The definition of God is an infinite being. Man is a finite being. Thus, it's absurd to expect man to be able to fully comprehend God. This does not mean that man cannot grasp anything about God, or that some such thoughts might be more correct than others. Nor does it make the idea of a single religion being correct absurd - such religion would merely need to be on the correct side of any positions wherein other religions differed.

Furthermore, imagine a religion that proclaims "our doctrine is not any more true than any other religion". Such a religion would have declared itself irrelevant. Clearly, the religion that claims to hold the truth is at least starting from a more logical position.

 

[bronney]

Dirtie, here's something different but related

Enjoy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory_of_the_cave

 

[Dirtie]

Dirtie, here's something different but related

 Enjoy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory_of_the_cave

Thanks for that - I couldn't really pick up what it was trying to convey exactly (even by the article it looks like it's open to interpretation), but the idea is quite similar