By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - Why try to disprove/disagree with religion?

Runa216 on 24 January 2013





My Console Library:

PS5, Switch, XSX

PS4, PS3, PS2, PS1, WiiU, Wii, GCN, N64 SNES, XBO, 360

3DS, DS, GBA, Vita, PSP, Android

Around the Network
Branko2166 on 24 January 2013

@Richardhutnik

Great post. It goes with what I mentioned earlier. While atheism is not a religion obviously, due to human nature those that identify themselves as such will over time if they haven't already start to exhibit behaviour which is very comparable to those they critique. It's not necessarily a bad thing simply a human trait.



 

 

dahuman on 24 January 2013

you can't disprove theories, therefore you can't disprove religious beliefs. I don't have any problems when it comes to religions that tell people to not be dicks to other people though, but that won't happen since people always have this superiority or inferiority complex on a genetic level.



timmah on 24 January 2013
Runa216 said:
timmah said:

The teachings and life of Jesus are the exact opposite of the religious 'straw man' you've presented. People naturally want to feel superior even without religion, some wrongfully use Christianity (though they would have to completely ignore the words of Jesus to be the way you describe), others, like you, use science, logic, and their own perceived intelligence to build their brand of self-importance and superiority. Your crusade against Religion certainly has some elements of truth about certain vocal ones who misuse religion, but it has turned you into the exact thing you claim to hate. You are the atheist version of the fundamentalist Christian straw man you describe.

EDIT: Also, you ask for undeniable natural proof of the supernatural, which is by definition impossible. This would be akin to asking a being who lives in a two dimensional world to prove or disprove the existance of a 3rd dimension. It would be impossible due to the natural limiatations on how that being is able to observe their surroundings. If the Spiritual world is by definition another dimension, outside of the time and space we are constrained to, we have no direct way of observing it or testing it. You have created a set of constraints for your thinking that make it impossible for you to think outside your own logical box.

Just for the sake of argument, since your logical process takes place entirely inside your own mind, and is influenced by your own personal experiences, upbringing, and multiple other factors specific to you, how can you be certain that those logical processes are propor? How can you be certain the logical process of others on who's work you base your own logic is propor? Can our own thinking (which is just electrical impulses taking place inside our mind) be used to verify itself, or is that circular reasoning? Is there any impirical, provable evidence to show that our minds don't have flaws that cause our logical reasoning to be wrong? This would be impossible since we would in theory be judging our own flawed logical processes using that same flawed logical process, naturally leading to a flawed conclusion without our knowledge. I'm not saying logic should not be used, it absolutely should, I'm just saying that holding your own logic up as the absolute truth is just as arrogant as what you rail against. Many, many people with greater intelligence than either of us have used logic to come up with very different opinions on a myriad of subjects.

EDIT2: You say Religion is bad, I counter that "Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself unstained by the world. " Take a look at Mother Teresa's life and tell me that true religion is bad. You're judging something based entirely on how it is misused. I'm going to start a crusade against kitchen kinves because they are used in murders, nevermind that is not their purpose.

I Was going to reply to this post, becuase it seemed for a moment that you had some good points, then I remembered that your arguments are flawed because they hinge on the undeniable existence of something that has no proof of existing, and the accusations are a variant of "if religion needs faith, so does science."  

So I won't bother.  

With or without God existing, those arguments are at least worth discussing. They certainly do not 'hinge' on that. 

My point on you asking for 'proof' of God was not hinging on any undeniable existence, but was simply arguing that your request is for something that cannot by its own definition exist... your request for natural proof of something outside natural laws is a fundamentally flawed request. You wouldn't ask me to prove something in the field of genetics using the properties of light as my basis. I'm saying the type of proof you request is the problem.

My discussion of logic was purely naturalistic and did not hinge on a diety in any way... it's also an interesting thing to consider regardless of your particular point of view. What's said is, if a non-Christian said the same thing, you wouldn't have been so dismissive

My point on your crusade against religion vs. similar behavior by some fundamentalist Christians was a simple comparison of behaviors, not a religious argument.

It would really be a shame if science and logic eliminated open discussions of philosophy and spirituality. I think all of these discussions (scientific and philosophical) are very valuable and worthwhile.



timmah on 24 January 2013
Runa216 said:



“Then there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is the same as that of the religious fanatics, and it springs from the same source…They are creatures who can’t hear the music of the spheres.”~ The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton University Press, p. 214

"The most beautiful and most profound experience is the sensation of the mystical. It is the sower of all true science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead. To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their primitive forms - this knowledge, this feeling is at the center of true religiousness." Albert Einstein ~ The Merging of Spirit and Science

“In the view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what makes me really angry is they quote me for support of such views”~ The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton University Press, p. 214

"I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." ~Albert Einstein, 1954

"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings." ~Albert Einstein



Around the Network
Kantor on 24 January 2013
ps3-sales! said:
Kantor said:

Well, do you accept that:

  • Religious teachings have no place in a school - Agree to a certain extent: School is for education. The only way I would agree with the teaching of religion is if it's class specific and many different religions were offered as a class choice. Religion should be kept out of science because when it comes down to it, there really is no science involved in religion. Also the pledge should keep "Under God" because that's how it was written.
  • You have no right to force your child or any other to follow your religion - Completely agree: One of the worst things you could do as a parent is force your morals and beliefs onto them. The child will comply because he has no choice and that takes away one of the greatest journey in that childs life of finding their own way and beliefs. 
  • Your religion's ideas of morality do not apply to anyone else - Agree. Why would they? The specified religion's ideas of morality are exactly that: specified. I don't follow any rules/morals from the Islam faith so why would my ideals relate to them? One's religious ideology should be followed by only the people that follow that religon.
  • No religious figure should have any influence in your government - COULD NOT AGREE MORE: A very slippery slope comes into play when involving religon with politics. Unfortunately this already happens. Many people voted for Bush simply because of his public Christian faith and not his views of policies, which in my opinion is wrong.
  • No religious organisation should receive any money from your government - Agree. Why should we get special treatment of our beliefs? Work for your money like everybody else, set up a public charity or have a freakin' yard sale. I can't stand bailouts and religous ones are even worse and make us look bad.
  • Your religion has no right to restrict scientific progress - Agree. Religion does not involve science in any way so who are we to tell them that they are wrong? In reality I think the only situations where people argue AGAINST science using religon is to defend themselves in arguments. We rely on faith, not fact. So in the end both sides attack each other when neither has anything to do with each other.
  • Your religious beliefs do not give you the right to take rights away from other people, whether or not they follow your religion. - Agree. In my opinion religion should not run everything. Religion is a option and we, as citizens have a choice to follow one. Laws and rules still apply weather you belive in God or not. If I kill a Muslim and my excuse was "He threatened me with his religious beliefs" I'd be thrown in jail. 

If you accept all of those things, I feel no animosity towards you at all and it would just be a friendly philosophical discussion. If not, it's rather more serious.
 


Interesting. Mind if I ask you what are your religious views, if any??? I'm surprised that I agreed with all of these, but for the reason of I thought this was mostly common sense. I guess a lot of religous people actually act like this. Hopfully I'm in the majority that think like you do, but unfortunatley I doubt that.

Agnostic-atheist, I suppose.

I would never be able to follow a religion that contradicted scientific teachings, that demonised people for personal choices that harm nobody else, or that forced me to change my lifestyle in any significant way.

So I'm comfortable being non-religious. But I see that you have found religion helps you in your life, and you are happy to keep it as a personal thing and not use it to oppress others, so more power to you.



(Former) Lead Moderator and (Eternal) VGC Detective

dsgrue3 on 24 January 2013
timmah said:
Where did he say genetic info changes after birth? He said there's an argument to be made that genetics are not the only determining factor. If there was a 100% gay/straight switch in genetics we should have no bisexuals, nor people who switch orientation later in life, but we have both. There are also potential hormonal factors to take into account, as well as environmental factors, upbringing, etc. If somebody is born with a greater propensity to be gay based on genetics, it's possible that certain factors in their upbringing could affect whether they end up being gay or not. How our brain processes information is far to complex to call our sexual attractions a simple genetic on/off switch. Is there a genetic condition that makes me like brunettes or curly hair? What about the fact that I like boobies so much? Or that I don't like super-skinny chicks but prefer a woman who's got curves (in the 8-12 size range like my hot wife). How about foot fetishes, are those purely genetic? How about masculine men who are gay, or effeminate men who are straight?

You say there is no 100%, then you argue that anybody who doesn't agree with you 100% is ignorant. Nice.

And on the 'turn gay' thing, most likely he was bisexual on some level and after his divorce, he was so turned off by women that he went into a homosexual relationship. Just because it's anecdotal doesn't mean it's false, this is not the only case where this has happened. There are degrees of attraction, which is why some people are bisexual and can 'switch' what sex they are sexually engaged with. Even though there are clearly genetic factors, it is not an on/off switch in all cases, and there can be factors outside of genetics that influence sexual orientation.

EDIT: How the hell did this turn into a gay/straight discussion? Yeesh.

Where did he say it? Well if you had read it, you would know.

Also, even if he believes people aren't born gay, that doesn't mean he also believes genetics play no role.

1) Genetics are not alterable post-birth, thus they cannot play a role if he's advocating you aren't born gay or have some predisposition toward homosexuality. In other words, as I stated, he's advocated that it is entirely devoid of genetic basis and simply a product of environment. 

Quite simple to understand...

Not really worth addressing the rest, because you admitted that in your anecdotal evidence he was probably bisexual (undoubtedly).



Runa216 on 24 January 2013
timmah said:
Runa216 said:
timmah said:

The teachings and life of Jesus are the exact opposite of the religious 'straw man' you've presented. People naturally want to feel superior even without religion, some wrongfully use Christianity (though they would have to completely ignore the words of Jesus to be the way you describe), others, like you, use science, logic, and their own perceived intelligence to build their brand of self-importance and superiority. Your crusade against Religion certainly has some elements of truth about certain vocal ones who misuse religion, but it has turned you into the exact thing you claim to hate. You are the atheist version of the fundamentalist Christian straw man you describe.

EDIT: Also, you ask for undeniable natural proof of the supernatural, which is by definition impossible. This would be akin to asking a being who lives in a two dimensional world to prove or disprove the existance of a 3rd dimension. It would be impossible due to the natural limiatations on how that being is able to observe their surroundings. If the Spiritual world is by definition another dimension, outside of the time and space we are constrained to, we have no direct way of observing it or testing it. You have created a set of constraints for your thinking that make it impossible for you to think outside your own logical box.

Just for the sake of argument, since your logical process takes place entirely inside your own mind, and is influenced by your own personal experiences, upbringing, and multiple other factors specific to you, how can you be certain that those logical processes are propor? How can you be certain the logical process of others on who's work you base your own logic is propor? Can our own thinking (which is just electrical impulses taking place inside our mind) be used to verify itself, or is that circular reasoning? Is there any impirical, provable evidence to show that our minds don't have flaws that cause our logical reasoning to be wrong? This would be impossible since we would in theory be judging our own flawed logical processes using that same flawed logical process, naturally leading to a flawed conclusion without our knowledge. I'm not saying logic should not be used, it absolutely should, I'm just saying that holding your own logic up as the absolute truth is just as arrogant as what you rail against. Many, many people with greater intelligence than either of us have used logic to come up with very different opinions on a myriad of subjects.

EDIT2: You say Religion is bad, I counter that "Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself unstained by the world. " Take a look at Mother Teresa's life and tell me that true religion is bad. You're judging something based entirely on how it is misused. I'm going to start a crusade against kitchen kinves because they are used in murders, nevermind that is not their purpose.

I Was going to reply to this post, becuase it seemed for a moment that you had some good points, then I remembered that your arguments are flawed because they hinge on the undeniable existence of something that has no proof of existing, and the accusations are a variant of "if religion needs faith, so does science."  

So I won't bother.  

With or without God existing, those arguments are at least worth discussing. They certainly do not 'hinge' on that. 

My point on you asking for 'proof' of God was not hinging on any undeniable existence, but was simply arguing that your request is for something that cannot by its own definition exist... your request for natural proof of something outside natural laws is a fundamentally flawed request. You wouldn't ask me to prove something in the field of genetics using the properties of light as my basis. I'm saying the type of proof you request is the problem.

My discussion of logic was purely naturalistic and did not hinge on a diety in any way... it's also an interesting thing to consider regardless of your particular point of view. What's said is, if a non-Christian said the same thing, you wouldn't have been so dismissive

My point on your crusade against religion vs. similar behavior by some fundamentalist Christians was a simple comparison of behaviors, not a religious argument.

It would really be a shame if science and logic eliminated open discussions of philosophy and spirituality. I think all of these discussions (scientific and philosophical) are very valuable and worthwhile.

PRecisely.  If you can't prove something or at least offer supporting evidence, then your beliefs need to be treated as the mythologies they are. There is no argument beyond this.  Believing something really hard doesn't make it more real, and 'Well we can't prove it, it's impossible" does not excuse you from the burden of proof. 

Edit* - To clarify, you can believe what you want, the issue I have is when they use that religion to infringe on the rights of others, or when they stick their noses in business that isnt' 'history' or 'philosophy.'



My Console Library:

PS5, Switch, XSX

PS4, PS3, PS2, PS1, WiiU, Wii, GCN, N64 SNES, XBO, 360

3DS, DS, GBA, Vita, PSP, Android

EdHieron on 24 January 2013
richardhutnik said:
Runa216 said:
justinian said:
Atheism is the new religion. That might not make sense to some but it depends on the angle you look at it.
Some atheist hold extreme hate for any religion and those that practice it.

Without even releasing it they themselves are becoming the thing they claim to hate most.
Like the way the catholics of the past persecuted the non-believer, the atheist will do the same to believers in future. Hate doesn't need a god or religion on both sides.

That's my prophecy. Read all about in The Word According to Justinian. Out soon in all good bookshops and e-book retailers. Pick it up.

If Atheism is a religion, then Health is a disease. 

If atheism is a religion, Off is a TV station.

If atheism is a religion, then Sanity is a mental disorder. 

Get where I'm getting at here.  

It is a lack of a religion, which ends up, when getting labelled, and people declare they are it, and do i with others (form groups), begins to increasingly take on religious overtones.  The atom symbol was adopted as the symbol for atheism.  You also have people argue that atheists are so and so (have values).  There is sets of values held common, or sought to be common.  There are certain authors referenced as authorities in regards to atheism, and shown a degree of reverence.  And there is individuals who end up running ads and trying to evangelize a lack of belief.  It all becomes stuff you see that you don't have in regards to people who moved off of believing in Santa.  While Atheism isn't a religion, there is a tendency for some atheists to treat their atheism religiously.


You don't often see / hear believers in Santa tell others that they have to live their lives by regimented and ancient codes that have no real reason for being in place other than some vague notion of "Be Good".



Runa216 on 24 January 2013
dahuman said:
you can't disprove theories, therefore you can't disprove religious beliefs. I don't have any problems when it comes to religions that tell people to not be dicks to other people though, but that won't happen since people always have this superiority or inferiority complex on a genetic level.

yes you can.  all it takes is one well-established fact to disprove a theory.  



My Console Library:

PS5, Switch, XSX

PS4, PS3, PS2, PS1, WiiU, Wii, GCN, N64 SNES, XBO, 360

3DS, DS, GBA, Vita, PSP, Android