The Inevitable Religious talk/debate thread (keep it classy)

[Curt]

CBJ; converting atheists to theism; very difficult, almost never happens.  Converting theists to atheism, on the other hand?  Most of us were believers, once.

I think that was directed at me, but if not w/e I mentioned it in my post. I agree with you but in the scenario I had in my head was a stubborn member from each group, I probably didn't portray that in my post as well as I should have. I don't really consider people a member of either group until they reach adulthood and can competently make their own decision without a huge amount of influence from their parents. No offence to the younger theists on the forum, it's just in my opinion there is too much influence by parents that can support one side or the other.

But yes kanped, I do agree, from what I have seen, it is a much easier transition from theist to atheist.

[moonexe]

Eggman, I'm sorry, but as cleverly thought out as those "proofs" may be, they could also be used to "prove" that God does NOT exist. If everything must have been created, then the same logic should apply to God. For something to be excluded from a rule, it also needs a cause, as one of your arguments states.

If things like the existence of God could be proven, it would have been. I mean, it's been thousands of years. Be realistic.

I do not and will never claim that there doesn't exist something to put order into the universe, but religion is, by nature, created by man. Let's call "God" whatever causes the order of the universe. What argument do you have to prove to me that this "God" is anything like any of what the countless religions that exist claim? What makes the Christian theory worth more attention and practice than any other religion? Nothing.

And yes, I said theory. That word comes back a lot from christians arguing against evolution. I just wanted to point out that the same logic applies to religion.

[eggman]

No need to apologize to me. I did not write it. It was written 100's of years ago. I do not have the answers to very much. Just wanted to see what people thought about Aquinas ideas. I did not direct towards non-beleivers to change their minds. I spent a long time as an athiest. Sometimes something happens along the way that changes things. Once in a while you get shown the light in the strangest of places if you look at it right.

[Linguist_]

I find it hard to have an overall opinion about religion since they are all so different. I am against theism, I suppose. Any religions which require a god, and any people who believe in god even if they don't consider themselves as part of a religion. The religions without a god (the most prominent one for me being Buddhism) are fine.

The reason I am against theism in general is because people who believe in god generally feel that they automatically earn my respect by considering faith and belief ofver evidence and reason. That is, people who are theists tend to say that by calling them out as being wrong is disrespectful. Perhaps it is a bit direspectful if you actively seek to chastise people, but I find theists' opinion of atheists much more disrespectful. In the large Abrahamic religions alone, atheists are cast into an eternity of suffering and pain and are considered enemies of theists. Most of my religious knowledge comes from Catholicism, since I was brought up a Catholic. The Catechism (Catholic book on Catholic doctrince) is very clear about its opinion about atheists:

(2125) Since it rejects or denies the existence of God, atheism is a sin against the virtue of religion. The imputability of this offense can be significantly diminished in virtue of the intentions and the circumstances. "Believers can have more than a little to do with the rise of atheism. To the extent that they are careless about their instruction in the faith, or present its teaching falsely, or even fail in their religious, moral, or social life, they must be said to conceal rather than to reveal the true nature of God and of religion."

While I am aware that, in the Bible at least, most of the barbaric things from the Old Testament, like being encouraged to stone a woman to death if she was not a virgin when you wed her, are absolved when Jesus came along and changed things, I still think the basic idea of Abrahamic theism is deplorable. That thought-crime is something that is okay to these people - it is a sin to think of a woman in a lustful way, doing so is comitting adultery.

I could go on, but no doubt I'd be considered as being disrespectful. Even if a Christian says to me 'but I don't think you'll burn forever in the fiery depths of hell' - you follow Christianity and believe the bible is the word of your god, so yes you do. It is against your religion to accept me as an atheist - part of your purpose as following a religion is to 'spread the word' and convince others that your religion is right.

My strong opinion mostly comes from my experiences in Brazil. Here in the UK, people are much more 'tolerant' about atheism. In Brazil, however, my experience is that people assume you are either Catholic or Protestant (protestant to them meaning any non-catholic Christian, mostly). Tell people that you are atheist and they are shocked and afronted, which I found to be most distasteful.

[Don Boyer]

My strong opinion mostly comes from my experiences in Brazil. Here in the UK, people are much more 'tolerant' about atheism. In Brazil, however, my experience is that people assume you are either Catholic or Protestant (protestant to them meaning any non-catholic Christian, mostly). Tell people that you are atheist and they are shocked and afronted, which I found to be most distasteful.

I had similar reactions in Army Basic Training when I informed my fellow trainees that I was agnostic.  Their first reactions were "You mean you don't believe in God?"  They'd heard of atheists but had no idea what an agnostic was.  When I finally explained it to them, they STILL couldn't wrap their heads around the idea that one can simply not know whether or not God exists.

As far as those "proofs" of St. Thomas Aquinas - they're not really proofs of anything, certainly not in the scientific sense.  He makes many assumptions without any real evidence to back them up.

If things like the existence of God could be proven, it would have been. I mean, it's been thousands of years. Be realistic.

There are many things that took thousands of years to prove - the existence of air as a gas, for one.  Subatomic particles, quantum theory, the recipe for a Twinkie...they all took hundreds of thousands of years of human experience, and new things are always being discovered and as of now have yet to be discovered or even theorized.  There's absolutely no reason why God might not be one of those yet-undiscovered things.

That is truly realistic. 

[xela]

People act like the Judeo-Christian God is neither proven nor disproven, which presumably means we should gamble on the idea of god being proven. This is entirely false.

Any concept of god as defined by humans has been disproven logically, scientifically, historically and philosophically.

The concept of a higher being is one that is up for debate and is neither proven nor disproven. This is the only thing to consider in a religious debate.

If we lived in an infinite universe, then the probability of a higher being is infinite, which means that one has to exist. However, we live in a finite universe with finite probabilities.

We know for a fact that it is highly probable that sentient life more complex than ours can exist somewhere in the universe. This does not constitute a "higher being" since they are in no way related to our world. The concept of a "higher being" refers solely to a master being or a master race that has somehow affected the development of our world.

That alone is an insignificant concept. It does not affect our lives. For it to be a significant concept, you must attribute to this "higher being" the power of creating an afterlife for humans based off of our actions in the living world.

From this stems Pascal's wager. However, let me explain why agnosticism is completely and utterly pointless.

Can anyone here honestly tell me that there is an absolute 0% chance of you going to a beach and being trampled by an elephant? Is it completely out of the realm of possibility? No. It is conceptually possible, just like the idea of a higher being. It is not a circle-square, for example.

Now then, how many of you only go to the beach with an animal tranquilizer gun in hand?

Living your life based on the remote possibility of someone that is neither proven nor disproven to be true is not healthy. It is paranoia, and it limits everything you can accomplish.

[Linguist_]

Living your life based on the remote possibility of someone that is neither proven nor disproven to be true is not healthy. It is paranoia, and it limits everything you can accomplish.

To me, it's theists who are living like that, not agnostics. I always thought agnostics were just indifferent. It's not so simple as the idea of probability, because there either is or there isn't a higher-being.

Agnostics neither believe in a deity nor disbelieve. They just don't do either. To them, they settle on 'no one knows' and leave it be. They don't actively pursue a discussion or a intellectual notion about a god existing, and they don't actively pursue a discussion or intellectual notion about a god not existing.

There's also a wide variety of 'types' of agnosticism. One can be atheist and agnostic and one can be a theist and agnostic. One can be agnostic because they don't think it is possible to know about whether there is a god, and one can be agnostic because, while the idea is possible to find out about, it just isn't known yet.

But any agnostic person I have met just tends to be the kind of person who avoids discussions about god. I've never met an agnostic person who is irritating because of their belief - unless you find indifference irritating. Most theists I've met are irritating in a theist discussion, and many atheists are too.

[Kanped]

I had a long debate with Don earlier in this thread about agnosticism. I am an atheist, agnostic, naturalist, anti-theist, non-determinist, bassist... the list goes on and on and they're all accurate descriptions.

Atheist is NOT a belief but a lack of one; 'I do not believe in god' does not equal 'I believe there is no god'.

[xela]

I guess it comes down to how one defines agnosticism. I generally call indifference secularism, and I call "unsure, yet seeking the truth" agnosticism.

I consider atheism to be the total disbelief in man-made assumptions of any deities, and the indifference to the minuscule probability of some sort of higher being.

And yes, it is theists that live the way I described, not agnostics. However, agnostics can lean one way or another. A priest can question his faith and be agnostic, and an atheist can wonder of the possibility of a god and be agnostic. My wager simply states that it's always wiser to prepare for the probable. Bring sun screen to a beach, not a tranquilizer gun. Live a good, full life - not a half life where you cower in fear and base your actions off of someone else's decisions and not your own.

I think the easiest combatant to Christian views (since Judaism has no Hell, this does not apply) is that Hitler can go to Heaven by accepting Jesus and finding God. Now as far as we know, that didn't happen (although he was a Christian). However, it's a fact that plenty of murderers, rapists and all-around horrible people "found God" and are now permitted into Heaven as per Christian dogma. Meanwhile, all the fantastically amazing people that denounced Jesus (not just atheists, but any non-Christian) are going straight to Hell.

So my options are Heaven with the rapists and evangelicals, or Hell with the rest of civilization.

Also, what even IS Heaven? Can you have sex in Heaven? Do you have to get married before you do that there, or is that just an arbitrary rule created for the world of man?

Also, why is it that if I rape a woman, I have to pay her some money and marry her as punishment, but if I so much as think about wanting what my friend has, I am punished in the after life? In other words, why isn't "Do not rape" a commandment? Why is "Do not be jealous" a commandment on the same level as "Do not kill"?

The Bible is a scary place. It gets less brutal in the New Testament, but far more hypocritical and obtuse since it's basically just the writings of various people that change over time.

[Kanped]

Look, I'm sorry everyone but that's just NOT what the word 'agnostic' means; 'a' without 'gnosti' knowledge.  I.e. there is no way to know for sure, absolutely 100%.  Someone who is gnostic believes that they know 100% for absolute fact about something (it can be about ANYTHING).

There is the difference; 'I believe there is no god' is gnostic atheism.  Anyone who is an atheist or theist is also gnostic or agnostic.

[eggman]

When I posted the Aquinas five proofs of God I was hoping it would not be put in this thread. I wanted to see discussion about that existence of God rather than falling into the Religion trap. I do practice my religion and I perfectly understand many have negative ideas about religion which is fine, we should all be able to say what we beleive be it pro or con. However, I just wanted to get a discussion going about your ideas of the existence of a creator be it pro or con. I was hoping to stay away from the religous side of things. That is why I originally started Aqinas in a new thread. Still, if people find it more interesting to move it to discussion on religion that is fine. Carry on my good men.

[Daniel]

Ok, so I just saw this thread and well, more religion talk. haizz...
Ermm let me say this, I skimmed through the thread coz it's so long so I'm sorry if i missed anything. ok, i'm a muslim, though not a really religious one and i don't really know much about my own religion much less others. but, I have faith. I'm 17, I'm still young, it's hard to actually care about the future and about the afterlife at times. so I don't actually read the Quran coz it's in arabic and i'm pretty sure the translated versions would not be exactly the same. To learn arabic together with malay, english and mandarin would be way too much for me right now. so, sometimes I go to mosque to just listen to the 'good' parts and it helped me understand that asking too many questions would shake your faith. I know it sounds like it means that there are actually no answers but honestly sometimes, there are no answers. (this would be pretty much in my view of my religion so bear with me ok) We are created and placed on this earth to prove our worthiness for heaven. Some questions are left without an answer to actually test our faith. If there is an answer to everything then why place us here? Might as well be enjoying ourselves in heaven. Everything is a test and if your faith is strong then you would know that everything that happened to you is a blessing. A blind man told an Ustaz, I am grateful that god made me blind for it leaves me unable to sin with my eyes. Bonus points if you ask me. and about all the wars and bad stuff people do for the 'benefit' of their religion, I honestly don't know what they're doing, seriously. sick people. so ask me anything about my religion and i will try to answer it, if i can

I understand choosing to be spiritual, it makes life bearable. It's nice feeling that someone is always watching over you. However, I don't know why that someone has to be some bloke who we can literally define and create images of.

Ermm... you can't create images of Allah. Neither can you create images of the Prophets or Prophet Muhammad (i know you can't create images of Prophet Muhammad but I'm not sure about the rest, sorry)

and to those who believe otherwise, I honestly understand and respect what you believe because I have an athiest friend who keeps asking about this and he's actually writing a book on religion.

[eggman]

I have read a bit on Islam. I find it very interesting and find wisdom in its writtings. I am familiar with the "ban" for lack of a better word on images of the prophet but I have a religous art work book that displays many paintings of the prophet. They were painted by muslims in the 1200's. I am not trying to contradict what you say as I know it is correct I just wanted to ask you why these paintings of the prophet were allowed at the time. They are definetly artists renderings of mohamed. I have a few muslim friends and I have yet to get a straight answer. I suspect it has something to do with different interpetations between Shia and Sunni. I ask this question with respect to your Religion. It is something I have been trying to figure out since I purchased the book. Any help would be appreciated.

[Daniel]

I have read a bit on Islam. I find it very interesting and find wisdom in its writtings. I am familiar with the "ban" for lack of a better word on images of the prophet but I have a religous art work book that displays many paintings of the prophet. They were painted by muslims in the 1200's. I am not trying to contradict what you say as I know it is correct I just wanted to ask you why these paintings of the prophet were allowed at the time. They are definetly artists renderings of mohamed. I have a few muslim friends and I have yet to get a straight answer. I suspect it has something to do with different interpetations between Shia and Sunni. I ask this question with respect to your Religion. It is something I have been trying to figure out since I purchased the book. Any help would be appreciated.

Wow, after years of not having religious studies,I feel very rusty. I know that you are not allowed to draw or paint his face. I usually see pictures where his face is blank and is filled with an arabic word. are the ones in your book with faces?

I honestly have never heard of shia and sunni but quick googling brought me to understand that they have a few differences and while I did not read much I now that in these times, there are two types of ermm, how do i put it, religious leaders(?) or groups. One, says that what the Prophet Muhammad didn't do, we shouldn't do and the other, well, otherwise. Honestly I believe we are given our intellect to make things better. To improve. I heard once from an Ustaz about this. He said, someone told him, we shouldn't make bubur asyura(i totally don't know how to explain this, it's food) for break fast since our Prophet didn't. He answered, we'll if we can't make them, then it must be a sin! But imagine this, when the TIME comes, when we face the gates of hell, the angel guarding the door would ask one by one, what sin did you commit? the first guy answers, i stole! the next person answers, I murdered! you don't expect and elderly woman to come up and say, i made bubur asyura do you? if so, i fell sad for the woman. haha well, that's just a basic understanding of the differences

i would get back to you about them later when my grandparents wake up and i'll be able to ask them, it's 2:15 am here

[eggman]

Thanks, that would be great. Yes, they are full portraits showing face. The Taliban destroyed a # of paintings but the Taliban would destroy a painting that had on it any image of a human (any human)

[eggman]

People act like the Judeo-Christian God is neither proven nor disproven, which presumably means we should gamble on the idea of god being proven. This is entirely false.

Any concept of god as defined by humans has been disproven logically, scientifically, historically and philosophically.

The concept of a higher being is one that is up for debate and is neither proven nor disproven. This is the only thing to consider in a religious debate.

If we lived in an infinite universe, then the probability of a higher being is infinite, which means that one has to exist. However, we live in a finite universe with finite probabilities.

We know for a fact that it is highly probable that sentient life more complex than ours can exist somewhere in the universe. This does not constitute a "higher being" since they are in no way related to our world. The concept of a "higher being" refers solely to a master being or a master race that has somehow affected the development of our world.

That alone is an insignificant concept. It does not affect our lives. For it to be a significant concept, you must attribute to this "higher being" the power of creating an afterlife for humans based off of our actions in the living world.

From this stems Pascal's wager. However, let me explain why agnosticism is completely and utterly pointless.

Can anyone here honestly tell me that there is an absolute 0% chance of you going to a beach and being trampled by an elephant? Is it completely out of the realm of possibility? No. It is conceptually possible, just like the idea of a higher being. It is not a circle-square, for example.

Now then, how many of you only go to the beach with an animal tranquilizer gun in hand?

Living your life based on the remote possibility of someone that is neither proven nor disproven to be true is not healthy. It is paranoia, and it limits everything you can accomplish.

Christians do beleive that not only does God exist, but he has lived among us and told us a thing or two. Not arguing with your post, I see logic in your statements.

[Don Boyer]

Look, I'm sorry everyone but that's just NOT what the word 'agnostic' means; 'a' without 'gnosti' knowledge.  I.e. there is no way to know for sure, absolutely 100%.  Someone who is gnostic believes that they know 100% for absolute fact about something (it can be about ANYTHING).

There is the difference; 'I believe there is no god' is gnostic atheism.  Anyone who is an atheist or theist is also gnostic or agnostic.

...and then you have me - pure agnostic.  I don't believe or disbelieve in a god, and I don't engage in any sort of religious worship, except perhaps following some Zen Buddhist concepts (which do not require the existence or non-existence of a god).  I'm not much on organized religion, but I leave people to their own devices as long as they aren't harming themselves or others around them.  I believe in me, and in those things around me that are provable by logical means.  I take very little on faith.

[Kanped]

Don; you do not believe in god, therefore are an atheist.  No matter how moderate your attitude may be, if you do not believe that there is a god up there, even if your answer is 'I don't know if there is or not', you ARE an atheist.

[eggman]

somebody denying God's existence is provable: somebody who believes that it is impossible to know whether or not God exists
2. somebody denying something is knowable: somebody who doubts that a question has one correct answer or that something can be completely understood
"I'm an agnostic concerning space aliens."


Def. Of agnostic

Def. of Gnostics (general)
Many Gnostic sects were Christians who embraced mystical theories of the true nature of Jesus and/or the Christ which were out of step with the teachings of orthodox Christian faith. For example, Gnostics generally taught docetism, the belief that Jesus did not have a physical body, but rather his apparent physical body was an illusion, and hence his crucifixion was not bodily

[Kanped]

I'm taking it from the literal Greek meaning and the meaning used by the majority of philosophers that I have read on the subject.  It makes perfect sense to me to use that definition.

[eggman]

I thought you had a little confusion between agnostic and gnostic. Gnostic implies a "special knowledge". Put an a-infront of the word and it is like a subtraction. atopic dermatitis would be "not normal skin". The philosophers would use the word gnostic in discussions of which you relate. Gnostic is from the greek word for knowledge. The origin of the gnostics is quite interesting. I am not doing this so much  to correct you I am trying to recall what I learned in a philosophy class I took many years ago. I got a B- in it but it appears much of it has left me. I found Greek philosophy especially confusing.

[moonexe]

What a waste of energy...

[Daniel]

Thanks, that would be great. Yes, they are full portraits showing face. The Taliban destroyed a # of paintings but the Taliban would destroy a painting that had on it any image of a human (any human)

Well... I asked my grandparents and yes, it's wrong to have full portraits of the Prophet. Islam has been split into different groups with slightly different views and maybe that's why but I'm sure most groups still don't allow that as in it's wrong. Maybe it's just some people who don't actually understand this last time. About the shia and sunni, they said there are actually more than just those two groups. Pretty much because people start decided to change stuff you know. and because people move all over the world and after generations and generations, people lose tract of the real thing. Not that the Quran change but the actual lifestyle of the people. The Quran is basically the simple terms. I think. It's hard to explain. Ermm... let me give an example. When people pass away, funerals *(as in providing food and drinks for people who come to visit the late person) were not actually written in the Quran because of that there is a group of Muslims, the Muhammadiyahs who says that were are not suppose to have it. I'm in a group lead by Imam Syafi'i( the 'group' name is written in arabic and i dont know how to translate). You can click this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shafi'i if you want to know more. We have funerals* to quench people's throats after they help say prayers. You can have these type of funerals but you're not suppose to have it if it causes you problems as in money or stuff like that.

P.S. Don't actually take my word for everything because I could be wrong. This what I understand and what my grandparents understand ok. It's not concrete.

[eggman]

Thanks very much for taking the time to gather some info. I know there are more "sects" in Islam then Shia and Sunni but I know those are the two biggest. Sauidi Arabia has its own "brand" of Islam. Anyyway, thanks again

[NathanCanadas]

So I won't post all of my beliefs in detail here because
1) I don't think I should reveal everything on the web
2) I'm too lazy to write it all out.

But basically I don't think there is a god. There's many things that wouldn't work if there were one IMO. Also, why would he let all the people that destroy nature, pollute, have a lot of money to live in mansions... live perfect lives and not do anything to help all those suffering in India, China, North Korea, and Africa among other places. Why would the majority of hard-working americans do everything they can to live a decent life while the top 3% is just chilling, buying stocks and letting our economy crash by selling stocks. Why would a small group of individuals be allowed to decide the fate of our nation without a potential god doing anything. I'm too lazy to write some more right now.