Irony Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 I guess I can say that I'm a spiritual atheist, or possibly an agnostic. My reasons: 1) In my opinion, the arguments that prove the existence of God (Ontological, Cosmological, Moral and Teleological) do not work. The Ontological Argument uses dubious logic, Aquinas contradicts himself in the Cosmological argument, and in general I don't think A posterori arguments don't provide 100% proof to suggest that God exists (As our reasoning or logic could be faulty when we made that argument.) 2) The Problem of Evil hasn't been solved, in my opinion. 3) However, I disagree with Dawkins, materialism and atheistic philosophers in general. There is something that is non-material. Not only that, I disagree with Logical Behaviorism, as Logical Behaviorism is an overly deterministic theory, whereas I believe that free will does exist. The reason that I disagree with Dawkins is that I do believe that religion is, on the whole, good. Yes, there are examples of extremism (such as ISIS), but on the whole religion is a good thing. Not only that, if I remember this correctly, the writer of the "Dawkins Delusion" argues that Dawkin's form of Atheism is just as intolerant and obnoxious. Atheism can be just as bad as religion. 4) As well as this, I disagree with those who argue that you cannot use your intuition (definition- feeling of certainty) to say that God exists. You cannot say "Oh, you can use intuition in some circumstances, but you cannot use it to say that God exists." You can either use intuition in all circumstances, or you cannot use your intuition at all. If you take the former stance, you have to allow intuition to say that religious experiences and religious feelings occur. If you take the latter stance, you cannot use your reason (as you the a 'feeling of certainty' to say that reason works), or logic (as you use a 'feeling of certainty' to say that your logic is correct). You also cannot use maths or science (as both require you to use a 'feeling of certainty') Personally, I know that my intuition is totally unreliable, but I have to use it in all circumstances, as otherwise I can know nothing about reality. 5) My intuition tells me that there isn't a God. I guess that you could say that my 'Blik' is that I don't believe that there is a God. 6) The Atheist arguments of the Non-existence of God (e.g. Marx and Freud's) do not work in my opinion either. Guess what is my favourite subject is? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dondon151 Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 Do you or anyone else here think the big bang is a theory? yes, the big bang is a theory, and our available data on the origin of the universe suggests that it's the manner in which the universe came into being. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicholai Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 (edited) Defining belief as a person's reasonable conclusion based on the evidence provided, I think I can say I believe there to be no god, at least as far as religion goes. The idea of a god itself is unfalsifiable, so there's no affirming that one doesn't exist with certainty, unless it's highly specific like the Judeo Christian-God or the Islamic God. Also, people need to clear up what they mean when they say "theory". Scientific theory means one thing and regular usage of the word means something completely different. 1) Anyone who lets people die even though they had the power to stop it is evil. (I think everyone can agree on this.) 2) God lets people die needlessly. (You just admitted this) 3) God is evil. (Follows from 1 and 2) --- 4) God is omnibenevolent (by definition). 5) So God is not evil. (follows from 4). --- 6) God doesn't exist because his existence leads to a contradiction (nothing can be evil and not evil at the same time). There, I proved that God doesn't exist. Argument from evil doesn't disprove a god, it just disproves a god that has tri-omni qualities. There aren't a lot of those. Edited June 11, 2015 by Nicholai Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chiki Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 (edited) Argument from evil doesn't disprove a god, it just disproves a god that has tri-omni qualities. There aren't a lot of those. It proves that Christianity, Islam and Judaism is false, since most theists take for granted that God is omnibenevolent: The object of attitudes valorized in the major religious traditions is typically regarded as maximally great. Conceptions of maximal greatness differ but theists believe that a maximally great reality must be a maximally great person or God. The problem of evil argument works great. I don't think anyone can ever come up with a good counterargument against it. Edited June 11, 2015 by Chiki Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicholai Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 The problem of evil argument works great. I don't think anyone can ever come up with a good counterargument against it. "God isn't omnibenevolent, just fundamentally good. This allows Him to leverage tests on His people." I've also heard "He has the right to do as he wants because he created us." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chiki Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 "God isn't omnibenevolent, just fundamentally good. This allows Him to leverage tests on His people." I've also heard "He has the right to do as he wants because he created us." Sorry, but the first bit just isn't accepted among religious scholars. Everyone thinks God is maximally great. Your mom and dad created you, does that mean they have the right to cook and eat your limbs while you watch? No. Obviously that argument is a pile of crap. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicholai Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 Sorry, but the first bit just isn't accepted among religious scholars. Everyone thinks God is maximally great. Your mom and dad created you, does that mean they have the right to cook and eat your limbs while you watch? No. Obviously that argument is a pile of crap. Both are common arguments, both are perceived to solve the problem by the people using them. Whether they are reasonable or not has absolutely no bearing at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baldrick Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 Spoilered for irrelevancy. I did not say it was theory. Doesn't matter. Creationism is an attempt to explain the origins of the universe, so it falls under the common definition of theory. It's a fact, whether or not you agree with it. So... You didn't even read the rest of my post yet you're telling me what I think I said within it? I did read it and have already addressed the relevant points. One HUGE part about the scientific method is realizing that our observations about the world around us may very well be wrong. I'm sure you know the whole 'The Earth is Flat becoming The Earth is Round' bit, but then people say down, observed, and discovered that due to gravity and centrifugal force it's actually a bit wider at the equator than it is north to south meaning it's actually a bit of an oval. That's part of the method in action. Taking a prior observation, learning from it, and revising what we know as a result. Exactly. When science is wrong, it re-evaluates based on the new data and comes to a more accurate conclusion.When religion is wrong, it keeps the same conclusion and contrives a way for the new data to not contradict it.That is why I object to saying they are both wrong; it implies the same degree of wrongness. Also, I CAN place science in the same category as religion as there are people who WILL turn around and use it as a religion in the exact same way as people will utilize religion. Judging science based on those people is like judging Christianity based on the Westboro Baptist Church. Using it as the source of of knowledge and answers about life; even for things that cannot be scientifically determined Wow, who would've thought using science for things it's not meant to be used for is bad! Far better than you seeing as I know that not every creationist is not out in some crusade to discredit evolution. You have said creationism and evolution are mutually exclusive, and you are a creationist. Even if you are not on a crusade, you are trying to discredit evolution by associating it with an extreme viewpoint. I am under no obligation to respond to Cynthia should I choose not to You did respond to her, though, and that is what I was addressing. my point has nothing to do with if the Bible, or even religion in general, is real. Just that replacing it with an absolute devotion to science So... don't replace it with absolute devotion to science? Seems an obvious solution to me. You can choose to not believe in anything religious and still not care about science. So when Cynthia asked why should we cling to the myth of the Bible, why did you even bring up absolute devotion to science in the first place? It's a non-sequitur. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phoenix Wright Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 Do you or anyone else here think the big bang is a theory? i feel you aren't getting your intended point across--what is it? the big bang is the best theory so far for how the universe was created. some of its arguments aren't particularly strong, inflation for example, but it's what we've got. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eclipse Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 How come reading manga about Jesus and playing game to kill gods of all kinds are bashing religious people? They have the right to respect their gods and I have my right to not to. Bashing religions and bashing religious people are two different things. I look down on religions but I do understand and sympathy with people who are religious. May be they need something to guide them in their life, may be their family forced it on them, may be sad things happen and they need the comfort from someone. I hate eating pepper but even if you love pepper, I still love you. Or cant I? And you ignored my question, what is the different between believing in gods and believing in propaganda or other magical things? Believe in something just because they said so, believe in magical stuff with no proof. Hitler, unicorns and Santa are my example. And I will have you know that I love unicorn. Your problem is that you "look down on religions". You're free to have that mindset, but you MUST be respectful to everyone in Serious Discussion - even people who you think believe in things which you equate to "magical things". Speaking of, putting religion on the same wavelength as propaganda and magic is extremely disrespectful to those who do follow a religion. If you can't see how/why it's disrespectful, then please refrain from posting about religion in Serious Discussion until you figure out why I'm getting on your case. I'm not going to bother discussing theology - there's a lot of background that I'm missing, and trying to argue with what I do know would be equivalent of me waltzing into a FE10 tier list and espousing the virtues of Marcus. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zhadox Posted June 12, 2015 Author Share Posted June 12, 2015 (edited) yes, the big bang is a theory, and our available data on the origin of the universe suggests that it's the manner in which the universe came into being. Explain this data just a bit, so I can make my point. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VDfpL-1GkzQ Found this video and would like peoples opinion on it. Edited June 12, 2015 by Balcerzak Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eclipse Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 First things first. I like checking my sources, and this channel will be biased towards the creationist side. Next. I don't care for the symbolic dissection of most literary works, because it involves some bias on the interpreter's side, which the author may or may not have intended. Throwing around labels like "satanic", "occult", and "luciferian"? This tells me more about the publisher, and it sounds like they'll be injecting their own bias into the video that was linked. Now, let's see how long I can watch this before my head explodes. . . 0:49 - THIS is the first law of thermodynamics! Whether or not it applies to the universe depends on whether or not we consider the universe to be a closed system. . . .and I'm stopping at 1:34. The presenter is insufferable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dondon151 Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 Explain this data just a bit, so I can make my point. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balcerzak Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 (edited) On the subject of the video linked just posts above, the presenter is deliberately disingenuous. The angular momentum discussion was particularly cringeworthy, as there are very valid reasons why certain heavenly bodies can "spin the wrong way". All that is required is that the negative contribution they are making to the total angular momentum of the system (the universe) be offset by an equal magnitude positive contribution that may be found by other heavenly bodies spinning "the right way" even faster. It is my opinion the presenter doesn't care about outright lying about the physics at work to accomplish his transparent goals of proselytization. I stopped watching after it became too much to take and I decided my time is more valuable than listening to continued drivel. On the subject of religion in my personal life, I'm an atheist. While I've been intrigued by LaVeyan Satanism, I've never actually gotten more involved than purchasing and skimming through the Satanic Bible. The only other religion I've ever considered dabbling in was Buddhism, but while that's (to my knowledge) compatible with a lack of belief in gods, it runs counter to many of my deeply held political beliefs about the importance of the self and the ego. I admire their stance on nonviolence, but rather abhor the idea that desiring pleasure and avoiding displeasure is the root cause of suffering/evil. I guess it's possible I never really "got it" as far as their teachings though, and could be laboring under a false interpretation. Actually, now that I think back on it, I probably never gave Taoism a fair shake either, and I think I remember we had some readings about Taoism and quantum physics in high school that were intriguing, but I never revisited the concepts. Also there was an article or something called the Taoism of Pooh, I think, which has always struck me as amusing. My religion, or lack thereof, plays no particularly major role in my lifestyle, as I have other things I place higher importance on as far as how I prefer to spend my spare time. Edit: I neglected to mention that I was raised Christian (Methodist precisely), but after many tortured years of trying to hear the voice of God, I simply could no longer continue to live that way, and have felt better off ever since leaving that all behind. I apologize if my second paragraph was misleading in that regard. Edited June 12, 2015 by Balcerzak Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Naughx Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 (edited) A "god" is so abstract and lacks of a proper accurate definition. (Is it omnipotent or not, interventionist or not?) I don't personally believe in it, but I don't completly reject the existence of "higher" beings. (Like if our universe is some kind of scientific simulation) Edited June 12, 2015 by Naughx Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deleted35362 Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 i'm agnostic, don't like god if he's there...honestly i like it when people say that they believe in god and don't feel like putting themself in a religion because....well not speaking for every religion out there, but it looks like religion makes people more insistent on urging other people to start having the same beliefs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snowy_One Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 *sigh* Please don't read what's below in the spoilers. I really hate to deal with things like this. Doesn't matter. Creationism is an attempt to explain the origins of the universe, so it falls under the common definition of theory. It's a fact, whether or not you agree with it. And right here you lost all credibility. Literally from the second-word on you invalidated all your points because you set up a straw man of my argument, defining what I said as following things I did NOT state, then you set up a Strawman of THAT and attacked the SECOND straw man down the line! At this rate you'll need an entire field of straw in three posts! Here. Let me break it down really, REALLY, simple. I believe in the literal six-day creation. I also believe in the scientific method. I know that the scientific method supports evolution. I do not care because I know that, even if creationism is false, that does not mean that the scientific method will end up supporting evolution. Why? Because the whole point of science is to keep learning and moving forwards. I would rather be called silly for believing in something unscientific as a matter of faith than end up being a pig-headed idiot who doesn't understand that science, evolution, and creationism are all different things. I did read it and have already addressed the relevant points.I seriously doubt that seeing as you didn't represent a single one properly in your arguments. Exactly. When science is wrong, it re-evaluates based on the new data and comes to a more accurate conclusion.When religion is wrong, it keeps the same conclusion and contrives a way for the new data to not contradict it.That is why I object to saying they are both wrong; it implies the same degree of wrongness. Wow... Ummm... Wow. That... that degree of stupid is... wow... This isn't true of any religion and even the most basic of glances would tell you this isn't true. For example Judaism turned into Christianity with the coming of Christ and then turned into Islam with Mohammad as well as Mormonism with Mr. Smith, not to mention a bunch of other branches. This isn't to mention the many internal schisms such as catholicism, protestants, lutherans, calvinism, and so-forth. All these things came about because people took the religion and developed different interpretations and ideologies about them, forming new ones in the process while still maintaining the core aspects. There is so much more, but I don't think it's worth wasting time explaining to someone who could probably be fooled into thinking Jesus turned into a dragon. Judging science based on those people is like judging Christianity based on the Westboro Baptist Church.The difference is that Westboro is one church. Entire nations have tried to extinguish religion in favor of atheism/'science'. Not to mention mocking anyone who does not join a field of work either scientific or directly related to science. How many times have you seen someone go 'your belief is unscientific so you must believe in a giant spaghetti monster' or something similar? Especially when used as a direct insult, attack, or even debating technique? Wow, who would've thought using science for things it's not meant to be used for is bad!​So science can be used to determine things that cannot be determined by science yet that is what it was meant to do? See what I mean by attacking a straw man of a straw man? There are many questions that science simply cannot answer because science only deals with cause, effect, and observation. Even if you are not on a crusade, you are trying to discredit evolution by associating it with an extreme viewpoint.I was unaware that the scientific method and people who opt to distill it down to a level where science should be the only thing was, somehow, representative of the entirety of evolution and the people who believe in it. You did respond to her, though, and that is what I was addressing.Actually, I didn't. Not for what you seem to be thinking at least. Remember, I'm under 0 obligations to reply to her. In case you missed the hint that means I didn't. So... don't replace it with absolute devotion to science? Seems an obvious solution to me.So don't say what I said because you don't like it instead of trying to disprove what I said? Right. Snowy is incredibly well-endowed and fantastically handsome and causes all the ladies AND men to blush just by walking past them because no one can deny his awesomeness and charisma Why thank you. But not going to earn you anything here. Huh? Oh right. You tried writing something else that was already disproven and rendered irrelevant before bringing up your own conclusion to something that wasn't said to disprove a point you clearly don't understand so you can attack an argument that doesn't exist. Ah well. Putting you on ignore until you manage to show the capability of at least reading the things you're responding too. I thing Tumblr might actually be a more fruitful debate at this point. Now, for the rest of you, saner, people; I'm sorry things ended up like this. I honestly expected my post to either be ignored, get a few pokes, or have only a minor debate at best. I did not expect it to end up encompassing the entire topic and I'm sorry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shin Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 I think it would be best for you to abandon ship, Snowy. You're getting into personal attacks rather than trying to defend your point. It also might be worth reading up on some key terms, you seem to be getting them rather muddled. For example, whilst intelligent design and creationism are heavily associated with each other, they're not the same thing. You also misunderstand the scientific community, the theory of evolution's one that's developed over time and been added to. Whilst religions have changed and split over history, a lot of them still hold their same values from their creation. Not that it's necessarily a bad thing in all regards, but it seems rather selective to claim religion is contemporary and changes whilst science does not. As I said at the beginning of this post, you seem to be taking a very emotional response, which isn't productive to discussion at all. You're entitled to believe whatever you like, but it doesn't quite give you the right to be unpleasant. Mind, I'm speaking to you directly in this post, "because they did it first" doesn't quite cut it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blah the Prussian Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 If we're being fair here, isn't it possible that God would be able to have lots of propaganda saying he's good when he's evil in reality? If that's the case, the omnibenevolence wouldn't be a contradiction, as it is a lie. After all, the Bible was theoretically written with the aproval of God. Not saying I believe in God, but it is possible for God to be evil. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicholai Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 Now, for the rest of you, saner, people; I'm sorry things ended up like this. I honestly expected my post to either be ignored, get a few pokes, or have only a minor debate at best. I did not expect it to end up encompassing the entire topic and I'm sorry. Religion always polarizes and receives a ton of attention no matter where it's discussed. This is by far, head-and-shoulders above, not even the the same league civility compared to where this topic is discussed elsewhere. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phoenix Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 (edited) As Rehab said back on page 1, "okay I'll bite". I guess I was raised christian, but it was never apparent until I went to other parts of the country to visit family and wound up going to church with them, my feelings be damned. It was only a minor inconvenience until my teen years. That was when I wound up at a catholic private school in middleschool (I don't remember why they sent me there, as very few people in my family are actually catholic). That was when religion actually started to matter to me. Catholicism wasn't for me in the end, so eventually once I was back in my hometown again I started attending a popular protestant church (no idea what denomination they/we were). I made a lot of friends but it was nearly the opposite of the kind of catholicism I had been exposed to, and that wasn't for me, either, so I just sort of drifted around in my own little philosophical hell for awhile trying to figure out what I believe and why and eventually stopped attending services there. (I tend to disappear on communities a lot. I'm actually kind of surprised I've been on SF as long as I have lol) Sometime during all of that off and on soul searching, I scarred myself for life and know first hand how two conflicting worldviews can really mess up a person. Everything I valued and wanted to do in life before that just sort of disappeared in just a few years. I got some of those values back in some form but not many of them. So as for what I am, I'm a "christian" with existential nihilistic leanings. The christian label is something I avoid as much as possible but I still technically am one, despite disagreeing with so many other christians about so many things. As for how it affects my lifestyle, it's made me extremely patient most of the time, jaded in some areas and only sated in others. I'm always trying to improve myself in whatever areas I can manage, but since I don't have any personal direction in life, it's mostly out of habit or principle. Other than that it's just, "live and learn and let live and learn." @ Shadow X I watched the video out of curiosity. He's kind of obnoxious, not gonna lie, but there are people like that everywhere so I stuck through the whole thing to the end. I don't agree with him, but the points were still very interesting. I'm in kind of a weird spot because I don't fall squarely on either side of that debate. The christians who argue against evolution/for creation always (from what I've seen up to this point) believe the earth (and everything else) is only six thousand years old at most. While I haven't seen anything to convince me that life can begin under the right conditions all on its own, I also haven't seen anything to convince me the earth is only six thousand years old, either. For me, evolution is a separate issue from the universal timeline, but I know for many on the creationist side of things, they're the exact same issue. The way many people interpret Genesis, there's absolutely no way to separate the creation of the the universe, the creation of the earth, and the creation of life from each other in that context, so it seems like arguing against evolution always amounts to going after everything, not just evolution but anything that doesn't fit their interpretation of Genesis, which I do not agree with. People like him are trying to kill a whole flock of birds with one stone to make their version of creation fit by attacking specific methodologies, which is a very dogmatic way of doing things, and the lengths they go to in order to accomplish that prove just how attached to that interpretation they are. Like it's been said before, it's very bias and very disingenuous. I guess the short version of this is that disagreeing with theories is one thing, but trying to lump everything that doesn't fit with your worldview together to try and crush it with anecdotes and (admittedly interesting) factoids, instead of considering that something in your interpretation or ideology might be off base and building off of what parts may still be true is a terrible way of going about things. Edit: Small typo. Edited June 12, 2015 by Phoenix Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicholai Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 I guess the short version of this is that disagreeing with theories is one thing, but trying to lump everything that doesn't fit with your worldview together to try and crush it with anecdotes and (admittedly interesting) factoids, instead of considering that something in your interpretation or ideology might be off base and building off of what parts may still be true is a terrible way of going about things. Disagreeing with theories like atomic theory and evolutionary theory is kind of not reasonable at all... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chiki Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 (edited) Both are common arguments, both are perceived to solve the problem by the people using them. Whether they are reasonable or not has absolutely no bearing at all. Wtf are you talking about? =_= This post is literally nonsense. If we're being fair here, isn't it possible that God would be able to have lots of propaganda saying he's good when he's evil in reality? If that's the case, the omnibenevolence wouldn't be a contradiction, as it is a lie. After all, the Bible was theoretically written with the aproval of God. Not saying I believe in God, but it is possible for God to be evil. Yes, but that doesn't mean the problem of evil argument is wrong. Edited June 12, 2015 by Chiki Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicholai Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 Wtf are you talking about? =_= This post is literally nonsense. Yes, but that doesn't mean the problem of evil argument is wrong. It means the problem of evil is a juvenile and somewhat naive argument that only pertains to some forms of some gods. It's kind of the baby's-first-anti-theological argument, because it's an argument that's easily deflected. That's what I was getting at with my post to you; it's an argument that is very easy to adjust your worldview for, and that's all that the person being presented with an argument needs to do, in the end. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chiki Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 (edited) It means the problem of evil is a juvenile and somewhat naive argument that only pertains to some forms of some gods. It's kind of the baby's-first-anti-theological argument, because it's an argument that's easily deflected. That's what I was getting at with my post to you; it's an argument that is very easy to adjust your worldview for, and that's all that the person being presented with an argument needs to do, in the end. It only looks "naive" if you don't know what you're talking about. Yes, the problem of evil argument only works when you take for granted that God is omnibenevolent. But fortunately, every theist accepts that God is omnibenevolent: According to traditional Western theism, God is maximally great (or perfect), No Christian/Muslim/Jew wants to deny that God is perfect, so the problem of evil argument works. I don't care about Zeus or Quetzalcoatl or whatever. I care about Western theism, and the problem of evil argument works wonderfully for that. Edited June 12, 2015 by Chiki Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.