"The Religion thread" Part III

[Mulu]

I wasn't going to restart this thread, as I've already made my points, but I hate to leave an already typed response in limbo.

Because you can't prove that what I believe in does or doesn't exist.

Sure I can, it's a historical argument. The idea of the supernatural came from people who lacked our knowledge. You can't refute that. You can't refute that people used to have a supernatural explanation for everything. You can't refute that modern religious belief is a holdover from that time. All supernatural explanations, except the ones you believe in, you reject. So, why hold on to any? Culture, nothing more.

Your belief has no basis is reason. A belief that has no basis in reason is delusional (though just to be clear, the medical definition of delusion of course excludes religious beliefs, without explanation). The only difference between believing in god and believing in leprechauns is that one is socially accepted and the other is not. That's it. Now, you can choose to maintain the belief, either one, but it is irrational. If you want to accept that your faith in god is irrational, then I'll stop arguing with you. I agree.

But you keep pointing to "the supernatural" as though faith requires a belief in daily quasi-natural or deity intervention. And while you're very touchy about other people calling it a "religion," you love trying to lump anyone with the faintest of spiritual beliefs in with the Pat Robertsons of the crowd.

Yes, because either you are willing to believe in the supernatural, which includes a creator spirit by any name, or you are not. If you are willing to believe in even *one* supernatural thing, then you are harboring an irrational and delusional belief. One is sufficient.

The fact that your brand of militant atheism has the dogmatic and bellicose trappings of fundamentalism doesn't exactly make the comparison less apt, of course.

There's nothing "militant" about believing in reality and rejecting the supernatural. Well, I suppose there is a mental discipline involved, since the human brain seems to have a natural affinity for irrational beliefs, but for some of us that discipline comes naturally.

As for circularity, I did say don't be rational. Unless, of course, you believe it's not circular to justify rationality with rationality.

It's not circular to justify rationality with a claim that the Universe is real, no.

But seeing that you apparently believe you're the only person who understands anything, let's go dig up a definition of circular reasoning: "conclusion of an argument is implicitly or explicitly assumed in one of the premises."

Right, so let's break it down, since I seem to have raised your hackles.

Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make when in the presence of religious dogma."

Actually, I beg to differ. Try coming up with a non-circular justification why one should be rational.

Simple, because the Universe exists. It is real. We are real. Understanding that reality is therefore useful.

Now, how did I use "being rational" as a premise to conclude that "being rational" is good? Because as I read it, being rational has to do with your state of mind, and claiming that the Universe exists has to do with objective reality, thus different premises. You are spending way too much time focusing on cute brunettes, and not enough time developing critical thinking skills.

That you'd even try to be clever about definitions of words is pretty weak.

Using the *actual* definitions of words isn't being clever, twisting them is. And I agree, your being clever about word definitions is pretty weak.

Here's the real simple lowdown for anyone who hasn't thrown in the towel on this discussion: When someone tells you they've disproved God, and that all meaning is an illusion, they've got some serious problems with delusions of grandeur.

Pssh, I'm just trying to point out the obvious. "Meaning" is subjective to the observer, thus an illusion. God as a concept comes from the stone age, not from reason, and thus lacks validity as a concept. No delusions of grandeur required, in fact I'd say I was stating something so obvious a child could understand it. Only an adult already poisoned by religious belief rejects reality.

[Lusipher]

your like the Energizer Bunny....

[Killthorne]

Seriously, I gave up reading anything Mulu has to write after he made broad generalizations and assumptions, and reared his ugly head.

He's like a racist, only against religion.

And the sad part is, I could dig out many, many instances of proof on where scientists have lied, shit was made up and believed, and even throw a bit of science and truth back at him disproving macro evolution. Come to think of it, I can't think of any mutation that has ever occurred in nature to be more than a deformity, or something gone horribly wrong due to radioactivity or pollution, or genetic inbred defects..

And honestly, if this guy wants to believe all the matter and energy in the universe suddenly by no reason whatsoever came together into a tiny little spot about the size of a period on this page, and exploded to make planets and stars, and that all of that matter and energy was just there before that with no reason nor explanation, fine by me. I think that's highly delusional in my honest opinion though. Kind of like, can't see the forest for the trees kinda delusional.

And also, if he believes we all sludged out of the ocean as sea sponges with an evolutionary need to crawl on land, and somehow added matter to ourselves over time and evolved into fishmenape things and then dropped the gills and became who we are today, well forgive me for being abit hesitant on believing in that possibility.

I truly believe we are not evolving, but de-evolving, because you can't add more to your genetic structure than what already is. Like steel over time, it rusts and breaks down, just like almost all matter does over time ( unless it's synthetic like a twinkie in it's package ). It changes, and usually not for the better. That's why our cells die over time, and we die. If we're such evolutionary beings we'd have cheated death by now. Found a way to breathe all the pollutants in the air, grown a protective layer of UV repellent skin. The truth about all these things are not even in the bible. They're found in science! And that's even the saddest part about this evolution crap.

Carbon-14 dating doesn't even work because the earth hasn't reached an accurate state of equilibrium. What I am saying is that the radioactive carbon in the air hasn't reached 30,000 years or so to accurately measure it against the faded radioactive carbons found in fossils. There have been finds so wildly inaccurate that it's mindnumbing that people still cling to evolution theory like it's the only way to be intelligently minded. Please. Study more.

What Mulu doesn't realize is there is alot to believe in about science, much truth in it, and then there's a lot of bullshit. Guesses that to this day, that are held as truth and fact.

That being said, I seriously hope this thread ends because Mulu isn't convincing me, someone who has done their homework and doesn't just blindly follow man conceived notions at every twist.

As for religion and christianity, to lump everyone together and point blame in that direction, when it's your precious "humanity" that fails each and every time, with or without god(s), you obviously are as insane as the delusional christians you blame in your irrational hatred. Humans will never change their ways, as history shows. And it had nothing to do with god, even if they said so. We are here, like fluff says, with our own reasons, and will make up our own minds on how we live, what we choose to believe, and how we treat others. God, well, he can either be nothing to you, or everything.


All I have to do, is look up to the sky, and around, and know that there's something greater than our "accidental" universe. My heart tells me this. Not some book, nor some man on a pulpit. It's stupid not to think so in my opinion. To think anything else would seem ridiculous.

Anyways.. I really am done this time. I am sure Mulu will play "quote, counterpoint" for about ten more pages of self-righteous hatred. *yawns* Some liberal he is.

~Killthorne~

[NickD]

your like the Energizer Bunny....

That's because he's a bot, as I unequivocally proved in the last thread. But then so are you, Danubot!

[Joos]

I truly believe we are not evolving, but de-evolving, because you can't add more to your genetic structure than what already is. Like steel over time, it rusts and breaks down, just like almost all matter does over time ( unless it's synthetic like a twinkie in it's package ). It changes, and usually not for the better.

I still think you are a whingy emo goth wannabe no matter what you say you are not.

blindly follow man conceived notions

Are you talking about someone who believes in what or scientists write in papers, or a priest following the writings in the bible?

All I have to do, is look up to the sky, and around, and know that there's something greater than our "accidental" universe. My heart tells me this. Not some book, nor some man on a pulpit. It's stupid not to think so in my opinion. To think anything else would seem ridiculous.

Just because you choose to believe in magic and mysticism rather human ability to make sence of the world around it doesnt give you the right to call me an idiot, even though you do it indirectly.

[Rotku]

He's like a racist, only against religion.

Race - no choice.
Religion - choice.
A huge difference.

[Rotku]

After reading the rest of the post, I can't help but adding more.

And the sad part is, I could dig out many, many instances of proof on where scientists have lied, sh*t was made up and believed, and even throw a bit of science and truth back at him disproving macro evolution. Come to think of it, I can't think of any mutation that has ever occurred in nature to be more than a deformity, or something gone horribly wrong due to radioactivity or pollution, or genetic inbred defects.

Humans have been on this planet how many years? And to add to that, throughout how many of these years have we been able to write and record what we've seen? Can you really expect a process that takes billions of years to happen to have occurred in our small, minuscule history?

And honestly, if this guy wants to believe all the matter and energy in the universe suddenly by no reason whatsoever came together into a tiny little spot about the size of a period on this page, and exploded to make planets and stars, and that all of that matter and energy was just there before that with no reason nor explanation, fine by me. I think that's highly delusional in my honest opinion though. Kind of like, can't see the forest for the trees kinda delusional.

Umm... you can't be serious? So it's more likely that some big mythical being made everything?

And also, if he believes we all sludged out of the ocean as sea sponges with an evolutionary need to crawl on land, and somehow added matter to ourselves over time and evolved into fishmenape things and then dropped the gills and became who we are today, well forgive me for being abit hesitant on believing in that possibility.

Forgive me for being a bit hesitant on believing that some big guy sitting in the sky one day decided that he would make a world, clicked his fingers and there it was, and then made humans out of dirt. Please tell me what is more realistic. I know what I (and an ever growing part of the developed world) believe is.

Carbon-14 dating doesn't even work because the earth hasn't reached an accurate state of equilibrium. What I am saying is that the radioactive carbon in the air hasn't reached 30,000 years or so to accurately measure it against the faded radioactive carbons found in fossils. There have been finds so wildly inaccurate that it's mindnumbing that people still cling to evolution theory like it's the only way to be intelligently minded. Please. Study more.

Well, current estimates of the worlds age average around 4.54 billion years (4.54×109 years) old - much longer than 30,000 years.

What Mulu doesn't realize is there is alot to believe in about science, much truth in it, and then there's a lot of bullshit. Guesses that to this day, that are held as truth and fact.

What Killthorne fails to realize is that the difference between thinking that a guess of science may be correct and thinking that the guess of religion may be correct is that one is provable and one isn't. And FWIW, C14 dating isn't the only way of dating something.

As soon as someone can come to me and say "I believe there is a god. God can be proved by these test and is supported by these facts" then I might start thinking about taking people serious when they rant about religion. But unfortunately, I can't see that happening any time soon.

[Vendrin]

He's like a racist, only against religion.

Race - no choice.
Religion - choice.
A huge difference.

Ah so it's ok to mock people for making different choices now? Honestly I don't care that Mulu doesn't believe in God. I'm not sure I do either. I really don't care either way about it. I just don't see why he has to call everyone an idiot who does.

[Rotku]

It's no more alright for Mulu to mock people for believing in god as the opposite is alright. But it is far less extreme than a race based attack.

[Inaubryn]

Hey can I play?

Ok. Gawd lovers... show me undeniable, tangible, physical proof that God exist. And no the whole, "Look around you at the trees and animals and blah, blah, blah," won't serve. Show me hard evidence that would hold up in a court of law. That is to say beyond a shadow of a doubt.


Conversely, Gawd haters, atheist and what not, do the same only proving God doesn't exist. Show my hardcore, tangible proof that would hold up in a court of law. That is to say beyond a shadow of a doubt.


I will personally pay any person in this thread that can do so $500. I mean that in all seriousness, Because here's what I'm bettin'. I'm bettin' neither side, for all your blustering, especially Mulu, can do it. Mulu hates religion. Duly noted. Mulu thinks anybody that buys into religion and its theories are not as smart as he is. Duly noted. And as fun, intriguing, condescending, enlightening, insulting, berating, frustrating and infuriating as it may be, you're makin' an unwinnable argument. All of ya. This isn't to say don't argue and don't debate.. but this debate was alive and well way before anybody here was born and hasn't been won yet.

You can't dissuade true believers and you can't dissuade true unbelievers. Hardly anybody ever changes their minds in these arguments. But... I'll give the believers this... over the course of this three page, highly belabored argument, the believers have been fairly courteous. Mulu's gotten a bit outta hand at times, not the whole time but at times. Reminds me of Mulu's constant, "how he hated ALFA and was headed to Avlis because it was better" threads. Heh. Love ya, Mulu, but relax. Good times.

So, lemme end by sayin' this... you're all nerds go find somethin' else equally geeky to do and stop usin' anti-personnel mines and IEDs on this stupid horse. Hasn't it suffered as much as a dead horse can suffer? Okay. Love ya. Bye bye.

[Lusipher]

Belief in God is belief depends on having faith. You either will believe or not. You can talk all you want out of your rear, but it all comes down to what do you believe in your heart? We as humans think we are so important that we should question everything and not just take something on faith. I know that will be hard for some folks here, but thats what it means to believe in God. If you cant do it then thats something you will have to deal with one day.

We can all say its hard to believe in the Divine when we are but one mudball in a universe of planets that could have life and also those lifeforms could create greater beings in their minds to fill some void that they need to make themselves feel like they belong. Its a difficult thing to try and wrap around, but we each have to make that choice ourselves.

What I hate is all this "religion is bad, religion is stupid. You are a moron because you believe" stuff. Either believe or dont but stop telling people their idiots because they arent like you. If your an atheist then goodie for you. Good luck on Judgement day.

This is all senseless and I dont know why this couldnt have just died. Its no use trying to keep this thread alive. You will either believe or not. Your not going to change folks minds. Your just going to make people upset and its not worth arguing.

[Rotku]

I personally have nothing wrong with people believing in religions. What I strongly dislike is when people stop questioning their beliefs - and this applies equally to atheists as it does to any religious people. The big problem with religion however, is perfectly illustrated in your post Danubus, where you say:

"We as humans think we are so important that we should question everything and not just take something on faith. I know that will be hard for some folks here, but thats what it means to believe in God."

To me, that is 90% of everything that is wrong with religion summed up in one neat little sentence. Now don't get me wrong, not all religious people are like this - in fact, the person whose beliefs I hold the greatest respect for is strongly religious, not that I would believe them myself, but she has clearly thought them out well and will happily have them questioned and debate them with anyone, without resorting to some arguments that we see occuring in most religious debates (eg. "You can't prove there's no such thing as god") - it's just that religion, by its definition, seems to encourage this sort of thinking. It's unhealthy, simple as that.

So for that reason, debate is good and should not be stopped merely because some cannot stand to have their beliefs questioned. Debating and having your beliefs brought into question is healthy. If you cannot stand to have arguments raised against your belief and cannot look at the evidence with an objective view then you do fall into that category of people blinded by religion (or a lack of religion).

[AlmightyTDawg]

Because you can't prove that what I believe in does or doesn't exist.

Sure I can, it's a historical argument. The idea of the supernatural came from people who lacked our knowledge. You can't refute that. You can't refute that people used to have a supernatural explanation for everything. You can't refute that modern religious belief is a holdover from that time. All supernatural explanations, except the ones you believe in, you reject. So, why hold on to any? Culture, nothing more.

And I've said plenty of times already that the historical argument isn't a mathematical lock. For it to be "proof" you need much more legwork. It's like saying... "okay, so we have this theory that our ancestors came up with. It had nine-hundred distinct pieces. We've disproven eight-hundred and fifty, therefore the other fifty are wrong." Now you can have a pretty gosh darned good intuition that the next fifty are wrong. And in a court, surely no expert would look good after that kind of cross. But proof? Sadly no.

Your belief has no basis is reason. A belief that has no basis in reason is delusional (though just to be clear, the medical definition of delusion of course excludes religious beliefs, without explanation). The only difference between believing in god and believing in leprechauns is that one is socially accepted and the other is not. That's it. Now, you can choose to maintain the belief, either one, but it is irrational. If you want to accept that your faith in god is irrational, then I'll stop arguing with you. I agree.

Two major problems here - first, if a belief in God was rational, it would no longer be faith. Now you're welcome to argue faith has no value or place, but again you're tackling a metaphysical problem that neither you nor anyone else has the chops for. Of course that comes by way of your limited appreciations of the word rationality and sanity. Now, there's probably a good marker in assessing how individuals deal with the unexplainable - a reflexive reference to God might meet a "profile" and be less rational than a reflexive belief that there is a scientific application. But we're talking about sweeping generalizations, not proof.

Second, your definition of delusional is again off the mark. Delusion is about being resistant to confrontation with actual fact. It's kind of like the "old theory" example above - if someone kept believing one of the disproven eight-hundred and fifty elements, then they would be delusional. The cavemen-dinosaur dioramas meet this definition. But for deciding not to take the inferential leap, however satisfying it might be to you, doesn't qualify.

Yes, because either you are willing to believe in the supernatural, which includes a creator spirit by any name, or you are not. If you are willing to believe in even *one* supernatural thing, then you are harboring an irrational and delusional belief. One is sufficient.

And as I pointed out, I harbor a great many irrational beliefs. Of course I believe everyone on these boards harbors irrational beliefs, come join the human experience. Couple that with the fact that there are plenty of beliefs on which rationality provides no compelling basis for a decision, and such is life. And again irrational doesn't equal delusional. A number of irrational beliefs I've held have been addressed with facts and then changed.

There's nothing "militant" about believing in reality and rejecting the supernatural. Well, I suppose there is a mental discipline involved, since the human brain seems to have a natural affinity for irrational beliefs, but for some of us that discipline comes naturally.

It's not anything nearly as self-congratulatory as discipline; it's merely an aesthetic preference carried to logical conclusion.

It's not circular to justify rationality with a claim that the Universe is real, no.

Actually, the error was made twice over - first rationality (or rather a preference for it) was accepted as a premise given the overall structure of the argument. Granted, it wasn't a true simple modus ponens as written, but I took the liberty of making the pretty tiny logical jumps with you. Second, each individual line in "[s]imple, because the Universe exists. It is real. We are real. Understanding that reality is therefore useful." are tacitly justified by a rational argument.

And that is really the difference between us in a nutshell. You're dealing on the up front, written logic, and I'm arguing from underlying assumptions permeating all of that. And beyond that, I think you're missing how much has already been long-conceded in your quixotic quest to rid the world of those tiny vestiges of irrationality. If I would venture my guess, that premise is nearly as delusional as anything else mentioned in the thread.

Pssh, I'm just trying to point out the obvious. "Meaning" is subjective to the observer, thus an illusion. God as a concept comes from the stone age, not from reason, and thus lacks validity as a concept. No delusions of grandeur required, in fact I'd say I was stating something so obvious a child could understand it. Only an adult already poisoned by religious belief rejects reality.

Actually, there's a lot of value there lying hidden in the "subjective to the observer" part - and that which is so casually dismissed is where the value of faith and belief are at their apex. And of course, plenty things that were believed in the stone age continue to be believed. The question is what has been disproven, what has been proven, and what has been neither. And Mulu has a model that lumps similar suggestions into a bucket (aka the "supernatural") and declares the refutation of most equals the refutation of all.

Heck, it sounds good. And I'll happily admit it has native appeal for me too. Yet, despite all the pointed language "delusional," "insane," "rejects reality" the inability to cope with simple logical truisms represents errors in logic virtually identical to those villified.

without resorting to some arguments that we see occuring in most religious debates (eg. "You can't prove there's no such thing as god") - it's just that religion, by its definition, seems to encourage this sort of thinking. It's unhealthy, simple as that.

It's not unhealthy to point out that there's no ability to disprove god, as Rotku has suggested. It is however unhealthy to use that as a springboard for the overreaching assertion that there must be a god. So he may be right that one tends to follow the other, and equates the unhealthiness between them. But it's important to recognize precisely where proof ends and aesthetic preference begins, as with Mulu's "historical argument."

[Swift]

What Mulu doesn't realize is there is alot to believe in about science, much truth in it, and then there's a lot of bullshit. Guesses that to this day, that are held as truth and fact.

And most of the bible cannot be explained, yet millions of people hold that as truth and fact as well.

Whose more delusional, those who believe in science, or those who believe in a mystical being that we have absolutely no way of proving his existence?

Call me a sceptic, but i deem those who follow organised religion to be the more delusional. At least science can be disproven.

[Veilan]

What really, again and again, bugs me is the inflexibility of both sides most of the time, who prefer to pigeonhole into extreme and generalizing positions instead of having to question some of their own conceptions.