Don't religous people realize that the only source for their religous beliefs come from their parents or other people who got their information from other people and so on and so on.

Religon has simply been just people passing down beliefs to one another. Doesn't anyone seem to have a problem with this? Doesn't this alone basically disprove religion.

People have just assumed Jesus was a god-like figure because of what people told them! There never was any proof. God never came down and spoke to the masses only individuals, I find this rather troubling.

That's why religion works so well, being brainwashed so early in your youth by your own parents...is pretty much genius really.

agreed.

It's completely apparent to me when the first question i ask is "are you parents the same religion".

more than 80% its a yes. Then i ask, if you were brought up by muslims, wouldn't you be muslim? They vehemently say no and persist that God would've shown them the true path of teh jsuszor.

The problem with your argument, although it is but a minor problem, is that it requires an infinite regress (which can easily be "explained away" with primitive man anthropomorphizing nature, eating something that causes visions or simply lying for want of power).

What of those who are raised atheist and come to believe in a god? Doesn't that occurrence shoot a mortal wound in your proposal?

Is it more likely that it's a choice as to whether someone appeals to a higher sense of morality or strictly follows instinct?

And from there, is it not also likely that people personify their moral code, as they do most things? The car's a 'she', the pets are talked to like children, etc. Relationships and bonds develop in humans towards all varieties of inanimate objects, eventually leading to personification on some level, though to varying degrees.

Even critical thinkers (skeptics) do it. 'Nature is an amazing force.' and other such ideas are applying human morality and judgment values to that which, according to the tenets of critical thought, are without personality. We transcribe pieces of ourselves onto everything we know.

Religon has simply been just people passing down beliefs to one another. Doesn't anyone seem to have a problem with this? Doesn't this alone basically disprove religion.

It doesn't disprove religion. It proves the successful nature of the Religious Belief meme, which has propagated by spreading out to other minds and being passed down through generations of humans by means of tradition. It displays at least two traits of a successful meme: fitness and fecundity.

Someone defending the faith could argue (but not for long) about how the longevity of religion is a surefire sign of it's authenticity. Else how could that many people subscribe to it for that long?



Is it more likely that it's a choice as to whether someone appeals to a higher sense of morality or strictly follows instinct?

sense of being the operative word(s) here, right?

We're all equipped with the same ability to hold high morals. Subscribing to God does not, by default, make that set of morals necessarily "higher". For what of the person without God who, while following strictly their own instincts, lives a life of upstanding morals that could equal or exceed that of a religious person?

Morality changes through time.

What Christians do now would be shocking and sick to christians of old.

Morality isnt derived from religion so dont use that argument.

Morality IS religion; it is what you set as more important than merely existing...essentially, what you worship. It may be reason, truth, faith, family, friends, etc. Whatever it is you place value upon, that is what you worship and come to personify as your 'god', whether or not you call it a god or even recognize that you have made yourself subservient.

A god is a ruler of man, is it not? Then how is morality not religion if we are tormented by failures to hold to our own moral codes, and warmed upon our successes? How is morality not religion itself when it dictates our actions and thoughts? Doesn't the Godless man still chastise himself when he thinks upon the 'wrong'? When he acts upon it?

Whether or not you recognize what the god in the system is, if you follow a moral code, you are religious in your ways.

Whether or not you recognize what the god in the system is, if you follow a moral code, you are religious in your ways.

Having a distinction (and acting appropriately) between right and wrong does not need to be defined as having a religion.

God does not have to be inserted as a metaphor for the "system" at all. I could think of a half-dozen other metaphors that could be sufficient in place of "religious" in regard to how a Godless person defines and follows their own moral code.

Adhering to principles or guidelines that helps you stay within certain moral boundaries has everything to do with instilling a set of values to live by. This can't be defined for everyone as a religion, because not all criteria are met to be able to call it a religion. Namely: worship, the presence of a higher power, or any notion of an afterlife.

A Godless person may feel triumphant or let down by their own abilities when it comes to living up to the moral standards they have set for themselves. That's just using retrospect to analyze their own reactions. Hoping to improve upon those reactions or learning to not have those same reactions in the next situation could hardly be considered "worshipping" the morals they're striving for.

I don't see how a set of values can "rule" over an individual, when it is the individual's perrogative to either abide by the values, or just let them fall by the wayside. Who is really in control? The person, not the values they have set as the "model" for living.

What?! Why would my parents lie to me?!!

If moral equates with religious, how come so much immorality has been perpetrated by, or in the name of, religion?

I see nothing moral in the Malleus Maleficarum, the book which was used to justify the persecution and slaughter of thousands.

What was "moral" about the Spanish Inquisition? The Crusade, orgies of rape and plunder?

How about the way virtually every Abrahamic religion oppresses women? Where is the morality there?

Then there is the ritual sexual mutilation of innocent male infants--fat lot of morality THERE.

Arms, I'm arguing that subjective morality, what we each choose as our right and wrong, becomes the basis of our individual religious code, whether or not we recognize a god beyond the morals themselves. We try to adhere to what morals we have with absolution. Every Catholic is taught the Church's morals, but their personal religion usually takes into account bits and pieces of the real world, leading their religiosity down splitting paths. In the end, you have endless numbers of Catholics, each with slightly varying religious codes. The same goes for any other type of thinker: we are given a moral code and serve it wholely, crafting it into our own as we grow old. Our filtered perception of this world becomes our 'god' as we follow our set of morals.

And also; you can be extremely moral and upright in your ways, but if your morals are disagreed with by most others, you will be seen as an evil man. Evil does not equate immorality unless you believe in a truly objective measure of good and evil, ie a father-type God.

Malleus Maleficarum...don't know anything about that book, so I can't comment on that.

The Spanish Inquisition, Crusades, Abrahm's Patriarchy, and circumcision are all based in morality: for the leadership, a morality which deemed actions we see as disgusting 'moral, and for the masses, blind loyalty for their greater good 'moral'. Whether or not people died because of the moral system of the persecutors doesn't change that morals did exist, just not in a form we like to consider as a code of honor (dishonor if you prefer).

The Godless have just as much fervor for their gods as the Christians do for their gods.

That's right, we have to decide wether or not jesus was a crazy person as the jew's claimed him to be.

it's in our hearts that us christians know the truth, and believing in such a event is something you just have to do.

I could be wrong but reason has led me to the belief that we should all

"Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law."

or in the words of Jesus, Confucius, Buddha, and Mohammed "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you".

That in turn showed me that their is a unified force and direction to the universe and its mechanations and the beauty of life and the value of existence has shown me that I am an instrument to purpose, by whatever definable hand, which I simply choose to call "God". From there, I posit that logically if God is in everything and is outside of the universe he is also part of the universe (no, not patheism).

This shows me the validity of the idea of Jesus and thusly and find the worship of him as my coming full circle in the awareness of the truth of a certain spiritual concept. That being, the omnipresent and all permeating nature of God himself.

I'll listen to anyone who believes they can prove me wrong but by my initial tool of reason this honestly feels right.

I could be wrong but reason has led me to the belief that we should all

"Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law."

or in the words of Jesus, Confucius, Buddha, and Mohammed "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you".

That in turn showed me that their is a unified force and direction to the universe and its mechanations and the beauty of life and the value of existence has shown me that I am an instrument to purpose, by whatever definable hand, which I simply choose to call "God". From there, I posit that logically if God is in everything and is outside of the universe he is also part of the universe (no, not patheism).

This shows me the validity of the idea of Jesus and thusly I find the worship of him/God as my coming full circle in the awareness of the truth of what is only a certain spiritual concept. That being, the omnipresent and all permeating nature of God himself.

I'll listen to anyone who believes they can prove me wrong but by my initial tool of reason this honestly feels right. :)

Show me how the interrelation of all that exists DOES NOT suggest a flow that, according to laws of physical matter made by scientists, suggests a cause to that its effect. I make no unfounded arguments but you my friend, everything you say is without clout.

Wait, so because some famous guys have a similar view on morality, there must be a God and that that God is Jesus?... that is incredibly stupid, especially when you realize that the GD was first found in Hinduism, who would have influenced Confucius and whose texts were ripped off by a lot of religions, including Judaism and Christianity. Then in Judaism Moses states the GD, who would have influenced whoever wrote the NT, who would have influenced Mohammed. It's just the spreading of an idea through literature, like moral relativism or nominalism. That doesn't prove the existence of a god and everything else you wrote is speculative gibberish with nothing presented to back it up.

Morality IS religion; it is what you set as more important than merely existing...essentially, what you worship. It may be reason, truth, faith, family, friends, etc. Whatever it is you place value upon, that is what you worship and come to personify as your 'god', whether or not you call it a god or even recognize that you have made yourself subservient.

A god is a ruler of man, is it not? Then how is morality not religion if we are tormented by failures to hold to our own moral codes, and warmed upon our successes? How is morality not religion itself when it dictates our actions and thoughts? Doesn't the Godless man still chastise himself when he thinks upon the 'wrong'? When he acts upon it?

Whether or not you recognize what the god in the system is, if you follow a moral code, you are religious in your ways.
That's ridiculous. Your definition of religion, and definition of "god", are about ten thousand miles wider than those in the dictionary. I believe in the laws of physics and am subservient to them, therefore I am a religious man. I place value upon good food, therefore I worship food as a god. Right.

There is a difference between acknowledging the existence of something and worshiping it, or between valuing something and worshiping it.

Wait, so because some famous guys have a similar view on morality, there must be a God and that that God is Jesus?... that is incredibly stupid, especially when you realize that the GD was first found in Hinduism, who would have influenced Confucius and whose texts were ripped off by a lot of religions, including Judaism and Christianity. Then in Judaism Moses states the GD, who would have influenced whoever wrote the NT, who would have influenced Mohammed. It's just the spreading of an idea through literature, like moral relativism or nominalism. That doesn't prove the existence of a god and everything else you wrote is speculative gibberish with nothing presented to back it up.

sigh...you sadly make assumptions and make a dozen logical fallacies in an attempt to prove me wrong instead of trying to understand anothers position and correctly rebuff it. None of what you said about the genesis of religion itself says anything to what my previous post stated. Why there is a God. Why? Oh right, thats for another thread. I apologize, I should go back to it and make you angrier so you can continue whining. Its just feels a little pointless when someone only responds with inane bullshit you know? But I recognize that that is irrelevant.

Speculative gibberish eh? Ok mr ad hominem redundancy, show me how it is gibberish. Show me how the interrelation of all that exists DOES NOT suggest a flow that, according to laws of physical matter made by scientists, suggests a cause to that its effect. I make no unfounded arguments but you my friend, everything you say is without clout.

What you said about literature boils down to this: People found out about religion because it was an idea that could be written down. How does that in any way disprove anything I've said??

Geez man, I just came into this thread to share a view and possibly (and reasonably) defend my position. Instead of doing so you throw a hissy fit as soon as I post. Grow up. If your mad that your an ignorant, self righteous, misguided fool in denial go talk to someone about it.

Your not arguing, you're ignoring what Im saying, making pointless statements, and whining. If all you can say is "I dont understand what you are saying" (which is all youve been saying albeit in less concise words) then you shouldnt be speaking.

Woah, you say very little for someone who writes so much. Nice of you to make up lies about me, too. I was paying attention and I made no logical fallacies whatsoever. What you said was "That in turn showed me that their is a unified force and direction to the universe and its mechanations and the beauty of life and the value of existence has shown me that I am an instrument to purpose, by whatever definable hand, which I simply choose to call "God"." And what was the "that" at the beginning of the quote referring to? Why, all the famous religious people holding the same moral principle.

Show me how the interrelation of all that exists DOES NOT suggest a flow that, according to laws of physical matter made by scientists, suggests a cause to that its effect. I make no unfounded arguments but you my friend, everything you say is without clout.

Well, according to scientists, it happened through slow gradual, changes, where things reacted to one another in ways that formulated this world. If it had happened differently, there might be lifeforms going on about how perfect their world is. This has evidence and is more believable than positing some God of the Gaps.

[QUOTE=Hare_Geist;8115085]Woah, you say very little for someone who writes so much. Nice of you to make up lies about me, too. I was paying attention and I made no logical fallacies whatsoever. What you said was "That in turn showed me that their is a unified force and direction to the universe and its mechanations and the beauty of life and the value of existence has shown me that I am an instrument to purpose, by whatever definable hand, which I simply choose to call "God"." And what was the "that" at the beginning of the quote referring to? Why, all the famous religious people holding the same moral principle.





Well, according to scientists, it happened through slow gradual, changes, where things reacted to one another in ways that formulated this world. If it had happened differently, there might be lifeforms going on about how perfect their world is. This has evidence and is more believable than positing some God of the Gaps.[/QUOTE

Ah, this is much better. To your first paragraph: uh huh...and?

Next I am not trying to disprove evolution or its mechanisms. I think that the fact that everything reacted affirms the existence of a unified view of the universe in which cause and effect are notable in everything. Matter and energy and such. There is absolutely no way of telling how things could have reacted differently (that is scientifically based) without dipping into absurdity. Lifeforms do go about saying how perfect there world is. That is simply an opinion based off a point of view. (Note: Hippies). Again my "God of the gaps" is not disproven by your observations and in my (undisproved) view is only consistently affirmed.


but here are yours in your second to last post:

First sentence: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_ridicule

Second sentence: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_elenchi

Third Sentence: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_elenchi
The whole idea that religion, religious views, and religious beliefs have been transmitted through means other than pure reason is, though true, irrelevant, unless you mean to say that any idea that is transmitted through any means other than personal thought is automatically wrong. Not to say that forcing ideas on others is right.

Fourth sentence: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent

Fifth Sentence: You said "you are wrong because you are wrong". lol. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance


and I think thats it. Not to say you are wrong, only that you are not arguing.

TruthWielder, you're basically using the watchmaker analogy - i.e. the world is so "complex" that it had to be designed. David Hume puts it better than me...

1. For the design argument to be feasible, it must be true that order and purpose are observed only when they result from design. But order is observed regularly, resulting from presumably mindless processes like snowflake or crystal generation. Design accounts for only a tiny part of our experience with order and "purpose".

2. Furthermore, the design argument is based on an incomplete analogy: because of our experience with objects, we can recognise human-designed ones, comparing for example a pile of stones and a brick wall. But in order to point to a designed Universe, we would need to have an experience of a range of different universes. As we only experience one, the analogy cannot be applied.

3. Even if the design argument is completely successful, it could not (in and of itself) establish a robust theism; one could easily reach the conclusion that the universe's configuration is the result of some morally ambiguous, possibly unintelligent agent or agents whose method bears only a remote similarity to human design.

4. If a well-ordered natural world requires a special designer, then God's mind (being so well-ordered) also requires a special designer. And then this designer would likewise need a designer, and so on ad infinitum. We could respond by resting content with an inexplicably self-ordered divine mind; but then why not rest content with an inexplicably self-ordered natural world?

5. Often, what appears to be purpose, where it looks like object X has feature F in order to secure some outcome O, is better explained by a filtering process: that is, object X wouldn't be around did it not possess feature F, and outcome O is only interesting to us as a human projection of goals onto nature. This mechanical explanation of teleology anticipated natural selection. (see also Anthropic principle)

As for the "uh-huh... and?" I was showing why your argument that because of them all agreeing on morality, there must be a God is absurd. It was not a straw man.

TruthWielder, I just want to say that you can have the last word. I honestly don't care and I've put you on my ignore list, as I'm doing with several people who are not worth my time.

That's ridiculous. Your definition of religion, and definition of "god", are about ten thousand miles wider than those in the dictionary. I believe in the laws of physics and am subservient to them, therefore I am a religious man. I place value upon good food, therefore I worship food as a god. Right.

There is a difference between acknowledging the existence of something and worshiping it, or between valuing something and worshiping it.

Nah, the difference is quantitative, not qualitative. Worship is worship...whether it's as a dabbler, weekend warrior, connoisseur, or fanatic: giving importance to anything raises it above the reality that it simply is, and places it above that which merely is.

I'm a fucking head-case, so feel free to ignore this bit: The dictionary has very fine and narrow definitions. Look at the reality these words represent, and you'll see that value and divinity are two degrees of the same thing. The cool thing about that, is you can make yourself sound/read better to the average person by compounding words of similar meaning to show greater emphasis.

Think of drama here:

"The value of God is grand."
"The divinity of God is eternal."
"The divine value of God is eternally great."

All three say the exact same thing: God's pretty fucking important. Wasting words in a dramatic fashion makes the third much more appealing to both the eyes and ears. 1984's Newspeak was a good example of exploiting this truth for wrong: consolidation of language to restrict the broad range of emotions that stem from the basic four. Sure, the drama's pointless bullshit, but it brings life to the dead. Further from there, you could change the sentences structure to give it even more emphasis, drama, and life...yet it would still be saying the exact same thing...it'd just touch the heart a little bit deeper than a nice ecstatic, "GOD FUCKING RULES!"

'There is One that is eternally grand in value: the divine God.' sounds more authoritative and philosophically based than 'God rocks!' The meaning is exactly the same, but one appeals to raw emotion, the other to deep thought. It's playing the fucking crowd...and it's all the damned same.

Whoa. This thread was really fucking with my head. I didn't notice that both Hexadecimal and Hare_Geist were posting, and somehow combined their posts in my head. Must be because they both start with an H or something :p

Nah, the difference is quantitative, not qualitative. Worship is worship...whether it's as a dabbler, weekend warrior, connoisseur, or fanatic: giving importance to anything raises it above the reality that it simply is, and places it above that which merely is.
It's true that nothing has any inherent value, so placing value on something raises it above the mundane; I hadn't thought of it like that before. I wouldn't go so far as to say that's worship, though - like you said, it's a different of quantity. That's still a difference! Besides, if I hold that morals are existent I'm not necessarily valuing them, either - merely saying that some things are good and some evil.

I'm a fucking head-case, so feel free to ignore this bit: The dictionary has very fine and narrow definitions. Look at the reality these words represent, and you'll see that value and divinity are two degrees of the same thing. The cool thing about that, is you can make yourself sound/read better to the average person by compounding words of similar meaning to show greater emphasis.

Think of drama here:

"The value of God is grand."
"The divinity of God is eternal."
"The divine value of God is eternally great."

All three say the exact same thing: God's pretty fucking important. Wasting words in a dramatic fashion makes the third much more appealing to both the eyes and ears. 1984's Newspeak was a good example of exploiting this truth for wrong: consolidation of language to restrict the broad range of emotions that stem from the basic four. Sure, the drama's pointless bullshit, but it brings life to the dead. Further from there, you could change the sentences structure to give it even more emphasis, drama, and life...yet it would still be saying the exact same thing...it'd just touch the heart a little bit deeper than a nice ecstatic, "GOD FUCKING RULES!"

'There is One that is eternally grand in value: the divine God.' sounds more authoritative and philosophically based than 'God rocks!' The meaning is exactly the same, but one appeals to raw emotion, the other to deep thought. It's playing the fucking crowd...and it's all the damned same.
Very interesting. This is why I like your posts. This could be rather useful...! :D

I don't think you're necessarily contradicting the dictionary here, though. The meaning is not exactly the same, because one set of words is more... emphasized. "Good" differs from "great" or "eternally great" in the quantity of "goodness" it contains; they do mean basically the same thing, but even the dictionary recognizes the difference in connotation.

Hmm...interesting. I may have a response to that...let me take a shit and get some lunch first, though.