Mind if I Try to Start a Religious Debate?

[eclipse]

Eh, Eclipse? In what world would a functional human being come to this topic and ask a question like that just so they can designate who to fire away at? Especially considering that you're a staff member, so you can pretty much just ban whoever you want. I honestly can't even begin to imagine your thought processes.

Banning someone outright for getting on my nerves would be a gross abuse of power. I can't do that just because someone disagrees with me. Just because I have a bit more authority doesn't mean I should use it to punish people solely for having a different opinion than me.

That being said, I'm not sure if I want the topic clogged with "hey, you're just imagining things" if someone says that they feel that kind of presence. It doesn't make for good debate.

[Saint of Games]

Eclipse, you win a internet... for being fair

[deleted35362]

That being said, I'm not sure if I want the topic clogged with "hey, you're just imagining things" if someone says that they feel that kind of presence. It doesn't make for good debate.

I understand that, but nobody was pushing that statement into the topic. The idea of this topic is so that religious and non-religious people can understand why they think what they do. I personally do think religious people are imagining things, but I came here to understand how they rationalize these thoughts, and the other atheists hopefully did too. Don't worry; no one is using topic as an excuse to start a flame war. This is the serious discussion section, so you can easily stop any pure flaming/trolling as soon as it happens. That's why I brought up your mod-ship.

Eclipse, you win a internet... for being fair

This isn't the place to suck up to the staff...

[eclipse]

I understand that, but nobody was pushing that statement into the topic. The idea of this topic is so that religious and non-religious people can understand why they think what they do. I personally do think religious people are imagining things, but I came here to understand how they rationalize these thoughts, and the other atheists hopefully did too. Don't worry; no one is using topic as an excuse to start a flame war. This is the serious discussion section, so you can easily stop any pure flaming/trolling as soon as it happens. That's why I brought up your mod-ship.

It would seem somewhat petty, tbh, but eh. I'll keep an eye on this, and see if anyone's interested in answering it. The reason why I'm religious are extremely personal, and it's something I'd rather not post out in the open. Please don't take any offense to this, but I'm not particularly encouraged to post more about myself if it's going to be lumped under "rationalization". Humans are not solely driven by logic - emotion plays a huge role. I see my faith as something that is more emotion-driven than logic-driven; thus, trying to break it down in terms of logic fails.

I could probably make a better analogy in terms of grieving, but that's wandering way off-topic.

[mewyeon]

I also believe by choice And I'm glad someone mentioned the extremists. It's really sad when people will take, for example, the Westboro Church, and say 'this means all Christians hate the US, military personnel, etc, etc'.

[I.M. Gei]

I'm sure most reasonable people don't do that, unless they're idiot r/atheism types and whatnot.

[Tamanoir]

It depends on why you're asking this. It's one thing to be genuinely curious, which I'm fine with. If you're doing it for the purposes of "everyone point at the person claiming to feel God's presence and question/ridicule them 'cause they're delusional", it's not cool.

I am sorry if I offensed you or anyone. That was never my intention. I'm an agniostic, even if I'm more on the agnostic side.

I know it is something really personal, and I may have been indelicate by asking that.

I forgot how important and intimate it can be, and may have been careless

I can't speak for others, but it was just genuine curiosity. I will never judge someone for his beliefs, no matter what I think of it.

My question was more so people can redefine their position to religion. I know that my posistion towards religion isn't as defined as I may affirms.

That was more or less my point. I do think that religion is outside of pure rationalisation (If you re-read my post, you'll see that it is what I express). I think it is closer to others philosophies.

It would seem somewhat petty, tbh, but eh. I'll keep an eye on this, and see if anyone's interested in answering it. The reason why I'm religious are extremely personal, and it's something I'd rather not post out in the open. Please don't take any offense to this, but I'm not particularly encouraged to post more about myself if it's going to be lumped under "rationalization". Humans are not solely driven by logic - emotion plays a huge role. I see my faith as something that is more emotion-driven than logic-driven; thus, trying to break it down in terms of logic fails.

I could probably make a better analogy in terms of grieving, but that's wandering way off-topic.

I share your feelings about the bolded parts.

I think that attacking someone for his beliefs is like directly attacking him, and I'm opposed to that.

And I'm convinced everyone needs to have beliefs to live, even if they're not religious (once again, the links between religion and philosophies).

We're not completely rational peoples.

If I say that religion is not on the rational side, it's not to ridicule it, or to lessens its valor, but to say it is different.

I hope I have clarified the situation. And once again, sorry for all the troubles I may have caused.

[BlueFire]

I also believe by choice And I'm glad someone mentioned the extremists. It's really sad when people will take, for example, the Westboro Church, and say 'this means all Christians hate the US, military personnel, etc, etc'.

Yes. I hate when news stories mention one's religion and make other people of that religion look bad, while people don't generalize similarly towards Atheists.

[I.M. Gei]

Yes. I hate when news stories mention one's religion and make other people of that religion look bad, while people don't generalize similarly towards Atheists.

Is this really true? It often seems to me that Christians have to actually kill people in order to be called militant, while atheists (and Muslims) simply have to exist publicly to be called militant.

[Steampunk]

As James Randi says, you cannot prove a negative. That is probably my biggest gripe with gung-ho atheists: they claim to know for certain that God does not exist, even though there really is no way that can be proven. In that respect, they aren't much different from Christians who claim that God does exist. Just proves what I've believed for a long time: the radical-to-moderate continuum is not a straight line, but a horseshoe. The more radical you are, the more alike the radicals of the opposing position you become. Personally, I have no issues with religious people. Since the OP is looking for arguments against religion, here are a few that stand out to me.

Religion is a broad term that includes radically different traditions. Animism, Buddhism, Druidism, Wicca[nism?], Scientology (everyone's favorite) and the Egyptian, Greco-Roman, and Norse polytheistic myths could be considered religions. Let's also not forget Pastafarianism [®Amen]. In this case, though, we seem to be discussing the Abrahamic faiths specifically.

There is of course the infamous Problem of Evil, which the Greek skeptics summed up pretty well:

"Is God willing to prevent evil but not able? He is not omnipotent. Is he able but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"

Basically, if God is...God, why does evil exist?

There are also inconsistencies in Abrahamic beliefs, such as the role of Satan (for example). In Judaism, Satan is not evil per se. Rather, he is an agent of God who tempts people to sin, then tells God whether they gave in to temptation or not. In Christianity, Satan actually has several different incarnations, though the best known (and most widely accepted) version is that he was an angel who rebelled against God and was cast out of heaven. Not sure how he went from being God's narc to the root of all evil, but it is a very interesting career change. There is also the whole Book of Genesis fiasco. Many Christians consider that to be the true origin story of mankind, even though historic record suggests it was written for political reasons and even the Jews did not consider the story of Adam and Eve to be an actual explanation of where man came from. St. Augustine also didn't consider it an actual origin story. Ironic considering Christians in the United States are fighting tooth and nail to have it taught alongside (and even in place of in some areas) evolution because they genuinely believe it is factual.

[Espinosa]

I believe "militant Islam" in 99% cases refers to the ideology of Jihad and, narrowing it down, to descriptions of terrorist attacks.

"Militant Christian" isn't a collocation I've ever observed in common use; 'fanatic', 'bigot', 'zealot' are more common negative companions in that case. Militant atheism in modern use refers to vocal protest to religion, its legal (or whatever else) persecution, but if you look back to French or Russian revolution, physical retaliation and genocide were also present.

[Esau of Isaac]

As James Randi says, you cannot prove a negative. That is probably my biggest gripe with gung-ho atheists: they claim to know for certain that God does not exist, even though there really is no way that can be proven. In that respect, they aren't much different from Christians who claim that God does exist.

In this vein, then, is it wrong to claim that unicorns, dragons, and the Bogeyman do not exist? I understand where you are coming from, but most of the things we conclude are false could in some unreal event in fact be true, could they not? In that sense, then, is it wrong to claim that anything is wrong?

[Tamanoir]

Is this really true? It often seems to me that Christians have to actually kill people in order to be called militant, while atheists (and Muslims) simply have to exist publicly to be called militant.

Each time I listen to the medias using indifferently Islamists and Muslims, that really make me sad... It seems that every time they are evoked, Muslims are associated with the worst of their religion...

...I have another questions for you believers.

What is your position towards your religious authorities (For Christians, the Pope and the Vatican) ?

As James Randi says, you cannot prove a negative. That is probably my biggest gripe with gung-ho atheists: they claim to know for certain that God does not exist, even though there really is no way that can be proven. In that respect, they aren't much different from Christians who claim that God does exist. Just proves what I've believed for a long time: the radical-to-moderate continuum is not a straight line, but a horseshoe. The more radical you are, the more alike the radicals of the opposing position you become. Personally, I have no issues with religious people. Since the OP is looking for arguments against religion, here are a few that stand out to me.

Radicals are the worst ennemies of their groups. That's often the case, the vocal minority obscure the larger groupss who just want to live their faith (or absence of), without being bothered. And when you feel aggressed, you join the vocal minority to defends your opinion.

I personnally sincerely thinks that these radicals/extremists aren't moved by Faith. They do that for pure political purpose in order to manipulate others, or are just screaming in order not to listen to the voice of their souls and their own doubts.

...I really hate hypocrisy aboveeverything, it seems... I don't care how people feel as much as ythey're honest with themselves...

Lucifer's story always really bothered me. I do prefer imaginig that if God exists, He is more of a stealth mentor that is always testing humans to prove their worth, because I think it makes a better story.

EDIT : And you can prove negatives : Death, Cold, etc. are negatives, they're the absence of Life, Heat, etc.

In this vein, then, is it wrong to claim that unicorns, dragons, and the Bogeyman do not exist? I understand where you are coming from, but most of the things we conclude are false could in some unreal event in fact be true, could they not? In that sense, then, is it wrong to claim that anything is wrong?

I really think proving the existence of God is irrelevant. It's not about God's existence, it's about Faith. Everyone can believe in something that exists.

I woild say it's more about Trust. You have to trust in God's existence, and then trust him...

Edited May 14, 2013 by TendaSlime

[Green Poet]

In this vein, then, is it wrong to claim that unicorns, dragons, and the Bogeyman do not exist? I understand where you are coming from, but most of the things we conclude are false could in some unreal event in fact be true, could they not? In that sense, then, is it wrong to claim that anything is wrong?

It does sound unlikely when you put it that way. . . I would propose that it's too much of a stretch to say that everything we know to be true could be false, so that we have a basis with which to go about separating facts from myths with civility.

As for unicorns and the like, I think that these are thought to be fictional simply because of the way religious history has ended up; even though the existence of God and the Bogeyman are equally incompatible with the scientific method, only the former's case has garnered a respectable following. From an atheist's point of view, this historical deification is arbitrary, but by nature it's a considerable argument from the position of a person of faith (as in, along the lines of "Christianity is prevalent because it is inherently correct").

Edited May 14, 2013 by Green Poet

[mewyeon]

I'm sure most reasonable people don't do that, unless they're idiot r/atheism types and whatnot.

I hope so

I believe "militant Islam" in 99% cases refers to the ideology of Jihad and, narrowing it down, to descriptions of terrorist attacks.

"Militant Christian" isn't a collocation I've ever observed in common use; 'fanatic', 'bigot', 'zealot' are more common negative companions in that case.

From what I know, I think that's about right

[Steampunk]

In this vein, then, is it wrong to claim that unicorns, dragons, and the Bogeyman do not exist? I understand where you are coming from, but most of the things we conclude are false could in some unreal event in fact be true, could they not? In that sense, then, is it wrong to claim that anything is wrong?

Were I to prove it is impossible for unicorns, dragons, and Bogeymen to exist, I'd have to be omniscient and know what earth-shattering discoveries people would about them in the future. Unfortunately, that is beyond my capabilities. Since I cannot predict what new evidence may arise supporting the existence of these creatures in the future, I cannot say for certain they don't exist. I can only say that there isn't enough proof available right now to convince me they are real. That's not saying they aren't real, as we haven't proven that. It's only saying that there's nothing to suggest they are real and I have no reason to believe in them as of now.

And you can prove negatives : Death, Cold, etc. are negatives, they're the absence of Life, Heat, etc.

That is not what the expression means. By "negative," he means you cannot prove that something does not exist or that something is not possible. The example he gives is proving Santa's reindeer cannot fly. You can gather a group of reindeer, take them to the top of a tall building, and push them off to see if they fly. If none of them do, it does not prove that reindeer cannot fly. It only proves that, under certain atmospheric conditions, at a certain time of day, with a certain wind speed blowing from a certain direction, etc, the reindeer they tested either could not fly, or chose not to. That's what the expression is talking about: you cannot prove definitely that something is impossible. You can only prove that whatever you expected to happen did not occur under the testing conditions at the time.

Edited May 15, 2013 by Sheik

[Esau of Isaac]

Were I to prove it is impossible for unicorns, dragons, and Bogeymen to exist, I'd have to be omniscient and know what earth-shattering discoveries people would about them in the future. Unfortunately, that is beyond my capabilities. Since I cannot predict what new evidence may arise supporting the existence of these creatures in the future, I cannot say for certain they don't exist. I can only say that there isn't enough proof available right now to convince me they are real. That's not saying they aren't real, as we haven't proven that. It's only saying that there's nothing to suggest they are real and I have no reason to believe in them as of now.

No reasonable person says this. From a logical perspective you can say that there is simply nothing to support them, but from a realistic position no one suspends disbelief as to whether unicorns and dragons exist. They simply say they don't, and rightly so, because the possibility is so infinitesimal as to be worth dismissing. The concept that everything is equally real is ludicrous, and the notion that we should simply suspend judgment as to whether something is definitively false simply because we are not omniscient is pointless.

From your point of view, what is definitively false?

[Steampunk]

No reasonable person says this. From a logical perspective you can say that there is simply nothing to support them, but from a realistic position no one suspends disbelief as to whether unicorns and dragons exist. They simply say they don't, and rightly so, because the possibility is so infinitesimal as to be worth dismissing. The concept that everything is equally real is ludicrous, and the notion that we should simply suspend judgment as to whether something is definitively false simply because we are not omniscient is pointless.

From your point of view, what is definitively false?

That's just a matter of semantics. I say, "not enough evidence supports their existence, so I don't believe the are real" and you say "they aren't real." They are the same position and opinion. You are correct: those things are mythological, and we don't need an in-depth investigation to prove that. I was trying to explain the logic behind "You can't prove a negative" using your examples. Instead of me trying to explain it, it's probably best I let Randi speak for himself:

From your point of view, what is definitively false?

I consider things false until proven true unless it's a reasonable assumption that isn't going to happen. Myths and fantasy, things like that. I do give people their proverbial day in court if they say they have found evidence that contradicts what I already know/think about something though.

[Esau of Isaac]

That's just a matter of semantics. I say, "not enough evidence supports their existence, so I don't believe the are real" and you say "they aren't real."

I am saying that because the possibility of them existing is so infinitesimally small that it is suitable for someone to state that they are definitively false. When someone says "They aren't real," it is presupposed that they are speaking from a personal point of view. I never stated it was anyone's job to prove a negative.

I consider things false until proven true unless it's a reasonable assumption that isn't going to happen. Myths and fantasy, things like that. I do give people their proverbial day in court if they say they have found evidence that contradicts what I already know/think about something though.

That didn't really answer my question. You were complaining about people that state God is definitively false. I am asking you whether you believe anything can be said to be definitively false.

[eclipse]

TendaSlime - No offense taken! Some people might be willing to share, others not so much. I'm in the latter category (only my family knows, and they aren't weirded out by it). This should hopefully give you enough of an answer.

[Espinosa]

Watching that video: how come people still use the term 'skepticism' to denote a secular worldview? This isn't Diderot's century anymore. If you ignore such a huge period of time in Western philosophy and culture, don't be surprised you're not on the same wavelength with most of the humanity.

[MacLovin]

We can't prove there is a God, and we can't that there is.

Therefore, it does no harm to believe that there is a God.

[Steampunk]

I am saying that because the possibility of them existing is so infinitesimally small that it is suitable for someone to state that they are definitively false. When someone says "They aren't real," it is presupposed that they are speaking from a personal point of view. I never stated it was anyone's job to prove a negative.

Then we are arguing about two completely different things. I never said people couldn't say something didn't exist. I said they could not prove that claim. For most people, that's not an issue.

That didn't really answer my question. You were complaining about people that state God is definitively false. I am asking you whether you believe anything can be said to be definitively false.

Yes. I believe that perpetual motion/free energy/over-unity can be definitively stated to be false because there is mathematical proof that the concept is not possible and empirical observation completely supports that. This is the only case that comes to mind where a person can definitively say that "free energy" has never existed, does not exist, and never will. The way our universe works simply doesn't allow for it.

That's quite different from claiming God cannot exist. So far, there is no proof of that. There have been hoaxes, frauds, and exploitation, but that only proves those particular cases were false. It may be irrational, and logic may dictate he doesn't exist, but there is no actual evidence. How is that different from your examples? Nobody is arguing that those creatures are real. We all agree they are mythical, so we don't really need any evidence there. Conversely, there is heated debate over whether God exists. In that context, evidence is required to prove conclusively his existence or lack thereof. Atheists cannot know definitively God is fake any more than Christians can know definitively he is real. Both sides are arguing from belief (no matter how rational that belief may be), but neither has any proof to support their argument. If we could all agree God was real/fake, that wouldn't matter. Since it's clear we don't agree, it's a matter of belief vs. belief.

[Fruity Insanity]

There isn't, in my opinion, a scientific way to prove that there is (or isn't, at that) a god.

We believe Moses parted the Red Sea because the Bible says so. We believe Jesus rose from the dead because the Bible says so. We believe what we believe.

It all comes down to faith.

But a lot of things are like that.

Everyone has differing views.

And that's pretty much that, I guess.

(And saying that someone is "ignorant" for believing something other than "There's no god" is pretty stupid. And inconsiderate. And immature.)

*leaves before anything happens*

(Religion is such a debated thing that it shouldn't really be discussed... not online, at least...)

EDIT:

Probably what I should be saying now XD

Butttt hey we'll see where this goes. That thread seems to've stopped abruptly anyway. If things end up terrible I guess there's no rule against stopping.

EDIT: So it's worth mentioning that I'm not trying to prove Christianity--I don't believe it was meant to be proven! I'm just saying I don't see how people can disprove it.

Yeah... it stopped... because I left... because I was tired of being called "ignorant" just because of my beliefs. -_-'

And I don't really think it's worth it to disprove religion... it's pretty useless, really...

Edited May 15, 2013 by Fruit Ninja

[BBM]

Why are only atheism and Christianity (and to a lesser extent, the other Abrahamic religions) being discussed? I'm a Hindu. Different religions mesh with science very differently. In Hinduism, for example, Vishnu appears as ten avatars throughout one cycle of the universe. The avatars that have appeared to this point have a curious correlation with the stages of evolution: aquatic -> amphibian -> land animal -> animal/man transition -> first man -> more intellectual and spiritual stages of man.

So if you want to hold a debate of science vs religion, constraining yourself to Christianity offers a relatively limited scope.