Religion.

[Defeatist Elitist]

3. I think he meant when someone just spouts out "God doesn't exist." That can be offensive to Christians.

Well they shouldn't be offended? I mean, I'm never offended, and it's not like it's an attack on them. If they really have a problem with it, then they should try to prove it wrong. If they can't, then tough luck.

[YokaiKnight]

3. I think he meant when someone just spouts out "God doesn't exist." That can be offensive to Christians.

My point still stands, though. Take another look.

3 (again). Ass. :(

Cursing is bad. You're setting a horrible example for the memberbase! Shame on you.

Well they shouldn't be offended?

Taking offense to something is an emotional response. You generally can't just stop someone's emotional response to something, especially if it deals with something close to home. Edited December 2, 2008 by YokaiKnight

[lolDeath]

2. It's useless if nobody listen to the others. 23 pages topic is the proof.

3. What if you call a Black is an Idiot Africa Monkey? That is just the same when you say God is not real to a Catholic or Christian.

3. Oh yes, I am rather angry. Okay. and to tell...I am also an atheist XD

2. 23 pages is proof that we aren't all listening to one another and having a conversation?

3. No, it's not, one is being racist, the other is pointing out a flaw. Also, if you hadn't noticed, this is a debate on religion. As in, this topic is for people to discuss it from all perspectives.

3. You used 3 twice.

[Florete]

Well they shouldn't be offended? I mean, I'm never offended, and it's not like it's an attack on them. If they really have a problem with it, then they should try to prove it wrong. If they can't, then tough luck.

My point still stands, though. Take another look.

I was only clarifying Silver's point, not making my own. ^_^

[YokaiKnight]

I was only clarifying Silver's point, not making my own. ^_^

(what I meant to say is that I thought his point was pretty clear.)

[Esau of Isaac]

Of the universe they created, I guess. Are you still God if your amazing, frame-by-frame scribble drawing self only has total dominance over one dimension?

But it's so awesome to envision God getting nailed by the Dai Gurren Brigade :(

That last battle was seriously mind-shatteringly epic. Like, the most epic battle in anime.

Up until this point you were replying to things with the same anwers as the others, so I'll skip that. I don't really understand what you're saying here.

In other words, you were led to the conclusion that events were transpiring as they were because of your belief in God, which was illogical.

What is most reasonable can just be a matter of opinion, especially in this case. Some people think a higher being is perfectly reasonable, and why shouldn't they?

Because it lacks evidence, and is therefore indeed not reasonable?

A little extreme, don't you think? I've always believed that if someone is fine with who they are and are happy with how they live, they have a good life and shouldn't have to change. If that includes religion, more power to them.

The point is that you can't act as though being ignorant and happy is alright just because they're happy. Fulfillment doesn't only have to come from happiness, and happiness shouldn't have to come from ignorance, but from other sources. Who do you know would like to say to others "I am pleased at life because I know that I am ignorant"?

"Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Sorry if you aren't American, but it's right there.

You are aware that that doesn't change anything at all, right? Like, anything?

Being happy is not in any way an intrinsic right, and never has been.

In my honest opinion, happiness is the ultimate goal in life. There are wrong ways to be happy, like if you enjoy killing, but if you aren't happy with how you live your life, what are you doing?

Of course happiness is the ultimate goal in life; it's the ultimate goal of any person on the planet. That's not my point, however. My point is that while the end goal may remain the same, the means by which to get there don't have to involve ridiculousness like ignorance. Again, would you say that the child that laid in a tank his entire lifetime and simply sat in pleasure lived a good life? Could you say, having lived the life that you have, that you would envy that, and want an existence of nothing but pure pleasure?

I doubt it. I want happiness, but not at the cost of ignorance. Some may, but I don't.

3. What if you call a Black is an Idiot Africa Monkey? That is just the same when you say God is not real to a Catholic or Christian.

No it's not. Calling a black individual a racist term is offensive because it is bigoted and harsh with no reasoning or logic. Stating God's existence as false has nothing intrinsically to do with racism.

It doesn't matter whether they were offended, because if offending others was illegal, entertainment as a whole would not exist.

Edited December 2, 2008 by Esau of Isaac

[Florete]

In other words, you were led to the conclusion that events were transpiring as they were because of your belief in God, which was illogical

My belief in God? Christ, have you seen my last 12 posts describing how I'm undecided?

[Magical CC]

I was only clarifying Silver's point, not making my own. ^_^

Yes! You understand me!

[YokaiKnight]

God getting nailed by the Dai Gurren Brigade

tee hee hee

It was pretty much on the scale of God-killing, though. For some reason I find God-killing fiction highly entertaining, but not necessarily for the ROW ROW KILL THE BEST GAME GOD aspect.

That last battle was seriously mind-shatteringly epic. Like, the most epic battle in anime.

Now this is the one truth of the universe.

[Esau of Isaac]

My belief in God? Christ, have you seen my last 12 posts describing how I'm undecided?

This entire string of replies stemmed from your conclusion that a series of events occurred as though God had said "What were you thinking?" I stated that this conclusion was based off an unreasonable belief in God, and unless you're contradicting your earlier post then I don't really know what to say.

tee hee hee

It was pretty much on the scale of God-killing, though. For some reason I find God-killing fiction highly entertaining, but not necessarily for the ROW ROW KILL THE BEST GAME GOD aspect.

As do I. I believe it's one of the reasons that I came to like RPGs as a younger kid, because these people would come to fight something that was either a demi-God or outright God in most situations. I mean, just try to think of any RPG out of Japan where you fight something that isn't some kind of interdimensional being with god-like powers. I think the ones that don't follow along those lines might actually be in the minority.

Now this is the one truth of the universe.

Indeed!

[Florete]

This entire string of replies stemmed from your conclusion that a series of events occurred as though God had said "What were you thinking?" I stated that this conclusion was based off an unreasonable belief in God, and unless you're contradicting your earlier post then I don't really know what to say.

I probably should have clarified: The whole God slapping me in the face thing was just the irony in my moment of realization; I never really turned back to God, but I see that I put that in a confusing way. My bad.

One more thing; A belief in God isn't unreasonable at all. Some people choose to live their life believing in a higher being, and no matter what you say, you can't prove them wrong. I realize I'm just saying the same thing over and over again, but no one has convinced me otherwise, so I'll continue with my train of thought.

[lolDeath]

One more thing; A belief in God isn't unreasonable at all. Some people choose to live their life believing in a higher being, and no matter what you say, you can't prove them wrong. I realize I'm just saying the same thing over and over again, but no one has convinced me otherwise, so I'll continue with my train of thought.

Believing something just because someone told you about it and it sounds nice is not reasonable.

[Florete]

Believing something just because someone told you about it and it sounds nice is not reasonable.

It usually takes a lot more than that for someone to convert. People have...experiences. These experiences lead them to a belief. To them, it's perfectly reasonable. Maybe it isn't to you, but is that supposed to change their point of view?

[lolDeath]

It usually takes a lot more than that for someone to convert. People have...experiences. These experiences lead them to a belief. To them, it's perfectly reasonable. Maybe it isn't to you, but is that supposed to change their point of view?

Please, enlighten me, experiences? If you mean people feeling God's presence helping them, I would like to show them some dying children that it should focus more on.

I am also getting pretty sick of people taking something simple and using it as an argument. Yes, opinions are opinions, it has been covered several times by both sides in this debate. If you want a factual debate you are in the wrong place, otherwise everyone can stop repeating it unless someone is actually stating something as a fact that is not as opposed to stating an opinion without a fucking disclaimer.

[Balcerzak]

While this post was initially constructed as a reply to a specific question, it rapidly grew to cover much more general ground, and I think it would be good reading for everyone here in this thread, as it works to clarify things that I've seen be repeatedly blurred on both sides. Then again, I may just think it's a good post because I wrote it. You be the judge, but please do read it.

How are Atheists, Buddhists etc. classified? If they are not religions I mean...

I know this was pages ago (because I went to sleep, and 7 pages sprung up while I slept, and then I had a lot of work, but am now sneaking a break), but I didn't see it get an adequate response and since I was responsible for the confusion I wanted to clear things up.

Buddhism is atheistic.

Buddhism is a religion.

Atheism is a religion.

This is a logical fallacy, of some sort (and not one I'm saying you made, but I'm just using it to illustrate a point). An entirely analogous fallacious logical train of thought would be the following:

A dog is a mammal.

A dog is a canine.

Mammals are canines.

It doesn't follow see? Perhaps I didn't need to go through that, let's consider another angle. Atheism is a belief (technically not true as it's the absence of belief, but I'll discuss more on that later). Religions are systems of beliefs and actions. One of these is a subset of the other. Consider it like this, you've got a giant circle on a piece of paper, called "beliefs", and you've also got a smaller circle inside it called "religions". Now everything in the small circle, every religion, is also a part of the large circle, a belief. But! Not everything in the large circle, belief, is part of the small circle, a religion.

It's fully possible for atheists to partake in religion. However, being an atheist is not a religion in itself, not anymore than there is a religion of people who believe Coke is better than Pepsi, or a religion of people who don't believe mankind will travel beyond the solar system, or for that matter a religion of people who don't believe in Zeus. Religions have to be much more specific than one commonly held, and very general I might add, belief.

On Buddhism in particular, it is a well established system of belief, accompanied by certain guidelines on how to properly act and behave. It's really essentially a philosophy guiding a proper way of life. It's commonly considered to be a religion, and arguably fits under definition 4 I listed previously as a "particular system of faith and worship", depending on what you consider to be "faith" and "worship". Many other structured philosophies could also be considered religions (I would qualify this by saying it depends on the level of devotion they're accorded), even if they usually aren't. However, as mentioned before, plain atheism is not a structured philosophy. It is not a way of life, there are no commonly held tenets held by all atheists, save one, the disbelief in gods, which accords considerable leeway in how one constructs a guiding morality for one's actions.

That being said, I think it's probably time to expand on why the distinction between "lacks a belief in gods", and "believes there are no gods" exists, and is important. (The positions are commonly referred to as "weak atheism" and "strong atheism", respectively. A similar divide can be constructed for agnosticism, where the difference between "does not have knowledge about gods" and "believes no knowledge of gods is possible" is referred to as "weak" and "strong" agnosticism respectively. Furthermore, the important distinction between atheism and agnosticism is between belief and knowledge; the two categories are not mutually exclusive. You can say that "while I don't know if god exists I choose not to believe in him", an agnostic athiest; "I know god doesn't exist and that's why I don't believe in him", a gnostic atheist; "I don't know if god exists, but I believe anyways", an agnostic theist; and "I know god exists and that's why I believe in him", a gnostic theist. All of these categories contain important and fundamental differences. The "evangelical atheists" who go about trying to "convert" people who believe in god tend to be the gnostic atheists, and give the rest of us atheists a bad name. :()

The primary issue, as I understand it, is one of inclusivity. Every person is either an atheist or a theist. These positions are mutually exclusive yet provide complete coverage; if you exist either you believe in deities, or you do not (and you can't do both). The group of people who do not have a belief in deities though, includes people who have never been exposed to the concept of deities (e.g. infants), and such people cannot rightly said to "believe gods do not exist", because they honestly have no conception of gods one way or the other, so trying to make such a claim would be absurd. One could argue instead for the creation of a third class, but classical logic is pretty keen on the law of the excluded middle, and the law of double negation, so adding a third category sort of throws a wrench in the works.

Where the distinction primarily comes into play in debates is, as I understand it, due to the issue of what is called the burden of proof. The burden of proof for an arguement rests on the person making a positive claim. "I believe God exists" and "I believe God does not exist" are both positive claims (they assert that there exist evidence and reasons behind them), yet "I do not believe God exists" is not (which merely asserts that the person has had insufficient evidence presented to them to adopt the first of the positive claims).

I find it personally useful to identify "weak atheism" with "agnostic atheism", and "strong atheism" with "gnostic atheism", but that might be sweeping subtle differences under the rug, and not the technically correct thing to do. (I haven't bothered to do enough thinking and investigating to figure that out or not, and honestly don't particularly care to at this point.)

I hope that helps clear things up.

Reason for Edit: Grammar issues, clarity.

Edited December 2, 2008 by Balcerzak

[Meteor]

I'm guessing that was somewhat intended for me to read. I argued that disbelief and non-belief in a god are equivalent, while Revan argued they are unique. Your explanation classifies them both as atheism, but as separate categories within the group. Apparently, we can both be right, depending on how specific you want to be.

The reasons I believe in a God are few and simple.

1) Pursuing knowledge is an endless road; you can't simply know everything. Example: We can observe that gravity pulls objects together, but why? There's no real logical explanation, and an answer would only lead to more questions. Furthermore, where did life come from? Only living things can produce life.

2) Jesus' teachings resonate with my thinking. In the end, I could be wrong to trust him, but I will have no regrets since I believe what he taught is moral. If you think something else is moral, fine, I won't stand in your way.

[YokaiKnight]

Only living things can produce life.

I beg to differ.

[Duff Ostrich]

One more thing; A belief in God isn't unreasonable at all. Some people choose to live their life believing in a higher being, and no matter what you say, you can't prove them wrong. I realize I'm just saying the same thing over and over again, but no one has convinced me otherwise, so I'll continue with my train of thought.

You cannot prove the nonexistance of anything. That is why there is the 'burden of proof' issue to deal with. In this case, the burden of proof is on the individual making the claim that something exists.

Rather, if there is insufficient evidence that something exists, and I draw the conclusion that I therefore do not have enough reason to believe that it exists, I am the one being reasonable.

That said, it is very much true that one cannot prove that we are Godless beings. It's just that such a claim is inherently empty.

[TripleJ]

I'm a Christian,

of course, it doesn't matter what 'religion' you say you are, were your treasure is, is were your heart is, and where your heart is; that is your religion, and as such there is not one who can say, 'I have no religion', because whatever you care about the most is what you, 'worship' and therein lies religion.

And there is no reason(for me at least) to try and prove Gods existance, you choose either to believe or disbelieve by your own willpower, if you can't believe just by reading the Bible, which is God's word, then you wont beleive if you saw the dead come back to life, or a mountain move into the sea, God can't force you to believe, and neither can I, that's what freedom is for.

[Phoenix]

Ya know... nothing freaks me out quite like a protestant church with those loud preachers saying inspirational things while the church goers keep raising their hands and crying out to God, tears in their eyes and chanting like mad. It makes me hope that they're right in their beliefs in some ways, but... I also know certain aspects of it are wrong and it bothers me. I guess it bothers me because there's just alittle too much emotion for my taste. And yeah I'm talking about the gospel preachers. The ones shouting at the top of their lungs and everyone holding each other and crying and hugging and getting alittle too well aquainted. What I find wrong with it isn't the emotion or the tear soaked cuddling, just a few doctrinal issues.

I do realize something in all of this religious craziness the world is going through. I'm no different, and you're no different from them. None of us are any different from the Catholics, the Athiests, Jewish, Protestant, Muslum, or even Scientologist groups. The only real difference is who we became. I've learned through life that enough psychological influence or torture can heavily shape who a person is and what they believe.

I would be an Athiest myself if not for several factors, and you would be a believer in the existence of God if not for several factors. Yeah logic is nice to have, but people don't give up all of their logic when they accept a religion, just a portion of it depending on what they believe. They still have logic or they would be in an asylum right now claiming they can walk on water if they concentrate hard enough and keep their eyes on the Lord. So it's not a severe lack of logic that makes religion reasonable to the person adhering, it's actually personal proof, which comes in all shapes and sizes. The belief in God usually comes from a host of different sources all thrown together to make a God logical and reasonable.

In reality, with the way the world is, and with the Bible's legitimacy always in question, religions of any kind based on the belief in something out of the ordinary are illogical. This is a world that relies on proof. Whether or not the proof is there which it usually is, the fact of the matter is that people will all come to different conclusions on their own. There's a standard for logic and that's where the Athiests seem to be at right now. Focusing on a nonexistent til proven existent which keeps things like fantasy worlds in check. But then there's faith, which holds most religions together through a slight blend of logic, "faith", and personal proof.

Here's the combination that keeps religion going! With faith, you can bypass the non existent until proven existent default. With personal proof, gathered throughout life, your belief makes sense to you and is totally logical in appearance, and with logic, you create the boundries of your belief, which keeps you from ending up in an asylum saying you can walk on water if you just concentrate and keep you eyes on the Lord. This is why people can believe in what they don't see. It's already proven to them in someway through a host of life experiences. It's the same with Athiests. You believe their is no God because it is already proven through a host of life experiences. That makes us all exactly the same. You may be using more logic than us half the time, but that is the only real difference besides our unique features.

Lack of logic in religion? Yes! Total lack? No!

Lack of logic in debating religion? Yes! Total lack? Only if you're debating it with non believers.

Lack of logic in trying to prove the existence or non existence of God? Yes! Total Lack? No.

Lack of logic in using logic as a weapon? No. Total lack? No.

Lack of logic in using logic as a weapon against faith? Yes! Total lack? Yes!

Lack of logic in constantly trying to trip up the Phoenix? Yes! Total lack? Hell yes! B) (I coverz my bases you misreaders.)

"Thank you, come again."

[Meteor]

I beg to differ.

What I gathered from the articles is that amino acids can be created by various means. While they are important to life, they themselves are not alive. Very interesting though, thank you. I actually think it would be pretty cool to see this succeed.

[Esau of Isaac]

and as such there is not one who can say, 'I have no religion', because whatever you care about the most is what you, 'worship' and therein lies religion.

That is not what religion is. You're redefining the word unreasonably.

And there is no reason(for me at least) to try and prove Gods existance, you choose either to believe or disbelieve by your own willpower, if you can't believe just by reading the Bible, which is God's word, then you wont beleive if you saw the dead come back to life, or a mountain move into the sea

I'm pretty sure that comparing reading the Bible to witnessing the dead come back to life is just so ridiculous that I'm not sure why you would even think such a thing.

What I gathered from the articles is that amino acids can be created by various means. While they are important to life, they themselves are not alive. Very interesting though, thank you. I actually think it would be pretty cool to see this succeed.

The point is that with various combinations of energy, one can put together all amino acids, which are the building blocks of life itself. So, yeah, it's very clearly showing that life can come from non-living materials.

[Mr. Sirius]

@ Esau of Isaac

I believe that the Bible is divine in origin rather than human, and if you are an honest person, you can look at the evidences and evaluate their merits accordingly. Are you an honest person to look at the evidences?

Are you willing to accept truth through hard evidences?

[Phoenix]

@ Esau of Isaac

I believe that the Bible is divine in origin rather than human, and if you are an honest person, you can look at the evidences and evaluate their merits accordingly. Are you an honest person to look at the evidences?

Are you willing to accept truth through hard evidences?

Trust me, noone is nowdays unless they have a religion of some kind. Hard evidence to them is either not good enough, meaning not worth consideration stacked against other things, or is just illogical and unsound all together from their point of view. Watch out about that "truth" comment too. I feel a storm coming :o

[Florete]

I stopped coming to this topic after something I noticed on the first page, but now I want to say one final thing. Has anyone seen the movie "Man of the Year?" I feel kind of like Lewis Black's character when he describing something he'd watched on the Holocaust: Basically, one guy was arguing that the Holocaust never happened, and the other was arguing that it had to have happened. In the end, Lewis Black didn't know which side to pick because both sides had good evidence supporting their claim.

This is where I am on religion and science. Both sides have good arguments supporting their claims, yet neither side can explain everything they'd like to, either. So which one do I pick as the correct one? Well, it goes back to that choice post I made a few pages back. In the end, you just have to pick the one that appeals to you the most. We won't be sure until we die.

EDIT: Also, if anyone has heard the song "Same Direction" by Hoobastank, I feel a lot like that also. If you haven't look up the lyrics.

Edited December 3, 2008 by Red Fox of Fire