The Religion Debate Thread

[swymir]

Ok I'm cutting myself off of the religion thread, because no matter what anyone says it will be wrong to at least 1 other person. There are just to many opinions in the world.

[Der Zauberer]

Once again, the "chair is green" thing is a poor example. Color is relative, and depends on the visual sensual faculties of the viewer. Now, the wavelength of light, however, that is reflected off an object, is non-negotiable.
Of course, if you are arguing that we can know nothing whatsoever, because the knowing depends on our senses, then you are correct, to the extent that knowing depends on our senses.

Kroner, you misread me: I did not say a science which does not account for God is flawed. I said that it as a paradigm for appropriate behavior is flawed. But, no, there is no reason that science should be able to account for God--and it certainly does leave the question open. That is the problem; since science has no say in the matter whatsoever, it is an imperfect source of Truth. It speaks not to the question of God, except that God is possible. This is not sufficient for obtaining the Truth, whether or not there is a God, because, as you say, there is no way to prove or disprove God. God can only be known or not known, not disproven or shown.

As to the argument that God cannot exist because the people who believe in Him cannot prove him is highly faulty, as expressed by most of the others, including kroner, on this thread. Certainly one cannot base his or her belief in the possiblity of the existence of something on the arguments of those who believe it, and I'm pretty sure that God would be upset were he to find that his existence depended on Christians' and Muslims' and others' proving him.

Amd who is this mentally ill inventor of religion you refer to, sammigurl? And what agenda have the mentally ill, so that they should need to invent something "clever" to hold civilisation back?

[west]

God does not exist

It amazes me that a question which has boggled the most intelligent minds of millenia has been answered so simply by a 13-year-old. philosophers, scientists, priests, kings, and warriors have struggled in vain to understand the nature of the universe and the existence or the non-existence of God (or gods, sure)

My stance is that if you think you are 100% certain of something, you're wrong.

But I don't think the philosophical ponderings of Aristotle, Augustine, Descartes, Saadia, Averroes, Plato, Maimonedes, Al-Farabi, Al-gazali, and thousands more should be passed over so lightly, regardless of whether or not you agree with them.

Oversimplifying and purposefully making light of an issue don't disprove it.
It's like a blind person saying color does not exist for anyone just because he himself has no concept of it.

[sammigurl61190]

You just had to bring my age into this, didn't you? My age has nothing to do with it, and you know it.

[west]

As people get older, they get more mature and more things happen to them. It's the way things work. That's one reason the old are venerated as wise in most of the world. 13 years old, or 19 for that matter, really isn't old enough to have seen enough of the world to be able to make a blanket statement one way or the other.

13 years isn't old enough to have discovered the absolute, final, positive answer to anything. Neither is 20, neither is 40, neither is 200.

[sammigurl61190]

Well in my mind's eye, which is what I think, I say there is no such thing as religion. I don't have to repeat my entire previous post.

[David]

Not that I generally partake in me tooism, I will with this statement:

"...the philosophical ponderings of Aristotle, Augustine, Descartes, Saadia, Averroes, Plato, Maimonedes, Al-Farabi, Al-gazali, and thousands more should be passed over so lightly, regardless of whether or not you agree with them."

[west]

the "..." in David's quotation replaces the words "I don't think".

By removing them, of course, David reverses the sentiment of the original quote. Clever.

[David]

I don't even have to read through these 16 pages.

There is no such thing as religion.

God is an imaginary father figure used to scare little kids into not masturbating. A clever illusion designed by the mentally ill to keep human civilization from reaching the stars. An illusion created to prevent humans from accepting that they die and decay away like every other living being, and to effectively control the gullible, stupid majority of the human species. God is billions and billions of people sharing an imaginary friend.

God does not exist. In order for a god to exist, positive evidence would have to be given, becuase DISproving the existence of anything is impossible. When the religious zealots like Scuba Steve ask you to "prove god does not exist" this is a ludicrous statement because the person who makes the POSITIVE statement bears the burden of proof. The naysayer bears no burden other than that he must change his opinion if given hard positive evidence.

God is any number of imaginary beings created by primitive cultures to explain events they did not understand. Some of these fabricated beings have finally faded into obscurity when they were no longer needed to explain reality, while others still persist as a direct result of the social manipulations carried on by those who claimed the existance of the fabricated beings. Those who have come into power over the frightened masses by proporting to know the will of these imaginary beings are often seen to issue directions specifically aimed at controlling the population, claiming such directions came from the being that only they could hear. Anyone viewing these statements from a purely objective viewpoint would realize them for the brainwashing they are, but unfortunately for the majority of the population of the world, those brainwashed, can rarely look at the experience objectively. It is also worth noting that the brainwashing begins at as young an age as possible, indoctrining the offspring of the existing slaves at birth.

Yeah. My viewpoint there.

This brings me to a question for further discussion:

Is objectivity possible or at least the idealized version being discussed in this post?

[David]

That wasn't me being clever, that was me being tired. I agree with your sentiment that their writings CAN'T be passed over so lightly.

I wish I could of let that stand in its elegant irony, but it was an editing mistake... I will have to remember that technique for a future post.

[rklenseth]

I don't even have to read through these 16 pages.

There is no such thing as religion.

God is an imaginary father figure used to scare little kids into not masturbating. A clever illusion designed by the mentally ill to keep human civilization from reaching the stars. An illusion created to prevent humans from accepting that they die and decay away like every other living being, and to effectively control the gullible, stupid majority of the human species. God is billions and billions of people sharing an imaginary friend.

God does not exist. In order for a god to exist, positive evidence would have to be given, becuase DISproving the existence of anything is impossible. When the religious zealots like Scuba Steve ask you to "prove god does not exist" this is a ludicrous statement because the person who makes the POSITIVE statement bears the burden of proof. The naysayer bears no burden other than that he must change his opinion if given hard positive evidence.

God is any number of imaginary beings created by primitive cultures to explain events they did not understand. Some of these fabricated beings have finally faded into obscurity when they were no longer needed to explain reality, while others still persist as a direct result of the social manipulations carried on by those who claimed the existance of the fabricated beings. Those who have come into power over the frightened masses by proporting to know the will of these imaginary beings are often seen to issue directions specifically aimed at controlling the population, claiming such directions came from the being that only they could hear. Anyone viewing these statements from a purely objective viewpoint would realize them for the brainwashing they are, but unfortunately for the majority of the population of the world, those brainwashed, can rarely look at the experience objectively. It is also worth noting that the brainwashing begins at as young an age as possible, indoctrining the offspring of the existing slaves at birth.

Yeah. My viewpoint there.

This brings me to a question for further discussion:

Is objectivity possible or at least the idealized version being discussed in this post?

What have I said in my last five posts in this discussion?

[west]

Dunno. Wasn't listening

Let me reconstruct from what I know of you...

"Mumble mumble Firefly gorram Religion"
some reference to fixing the bible,
Time travel and some other conspiracy theory. Also something about being Irish Catholic.
and close it all off with another Firefly quote

I've got it down.

[rklenseth]

Dunno. Wasn't listening

Let me reconstruct from what I know of you...

"Mumble mumble Firefly gorram Religion"
some reference to fixing the bible,
Time travel and some other conspiracy theory. Also something about being Irish Catholic.
and close it all off with another Firefly quote

I've got it down.

Wait, I never said anything about Firefly....yet...in this thread nor anything about fixing the Bible. What conspiracy theory? If I believe it then it means it is true.

Actually it was more like my last two posts about there not being any absolute truth and that if you took 20 people and had them all witness the same event then you will have 20 different accounts of that event as well as 20 different observations and interpretations of that event. And then you have to remember the chain reaction of of people observing the observations and interpretations of at least one of the 20 people and then interpreting that. It is mind boggling to even think about. But obviously this is just my observation and interpretation of this subject. So if you say I'm wrong then you prove me right and if you say I am right then you prove me right. So gorram it, I'm right.

And the only absolute truth in this 'verse is that there isn't any absolute truth. Even though it may sound contradicting it isn't. Think about it for a moment.

[rklenseth]

Oh, I now get the fixing the Bible part.

[kroner]

Is objectivity possible or at least the idealized version being discussed in this post?

yes, there is objective truth. it's impossible to know beyond the input you recieve, but it still exists. by very merit of the fact that something exists (which i'll call the universe) it must have properties. these are truth.

rkl: you make a number of assumptions
1. other people exist.
2. they are fundamentally the same as you.
3. they're different take on life is due to fundamental differences in the universe they percieve, not in their perspective of it.

now even if these were all true, it would simply mean that people experience different universes. each one would still have its own objective truths.

you define truth as people's perception, which is of course never objective. but that's not what truth is. absolute truth is the opposite, it's what holds independent of the individual's interpretation.