God, Noun (Philosophy): A celestial being or beings that is/are Omniscient, Omnipotent and Omnibenevolent.

The belief in God has existed since the begining of time. Many have chosen to believe and some have chosen not to. God allows for the few to control the many, and allows the fear of always being watched to permeate many aspects and classes of society. The concept is malleable, it allows change to occur throughout time with no significant change to the basic idea.

The largest religious group at present is Christianity, which worships a series of advanced pagan mythology- and is the largest cult to date. The belief is simple: The traditional Jewish creation myth which involves original sin (which enables no neutral ground) the flood myth, the exile myth, and the messiah myth. All of which allow for simple recruitment, retainment and a preservation through the family. The books call for an elaborate rule system that can be broken (but on occasion, with guilt and a complex forgiveness system.)

Obviously, I don't believe in God. Of course I'm here to disprove him. At this point many of my christian readers have either stopped or have began meticulous examination, waiting to disprove whatever I say. I know I will never get through to most christians, but I may make them think. Hell, maybe I'll even strengthen their faith after a series of "flame wars" disguised as faux dissertations.

The current "Big four" arguments for God are "philosophical proofs." One of them was made by Blaise Pascal, who developed the "wager." A quick guide to it as follows:

Pascal's Wager

/////////////God exists///////God doesn't exist
Believer///////Heaven///////////Nothing
Non-believer////Hell/////////////Nothing

Though good enough for his drunken idiot friends, it wasn't good enough for me. You see, here the odds seem one in four with one odd being good, two being neutral and one being bad. All of which are under the control of the one holding the cards. There are only two variables: God does or does not exist. Unfortunately, the reality of this diagram is harder to draw out than blaise originally intended.

The reality is as follows:

God Doesn't exist/Hindu God exists/Muslim God exists/Christian god exists/...
non-believer///didn't waste time////Hell////// ///// Hell ////////// Hell ...
Christian////////Wasted time/////// Hell/////// ///// Hell ////////// Heaven?
Muslim///////////Wasted time////// Hell /////// //// Heaven? /////////// Hell
Hindu////////////Wasted time///// Rebirth + //////// Hell ///////// Hell
...

The preceeding graph is one I made for Pascals wager, factoring in multiple (but not all!) Gods. I'm not bringing up Roman, Aztec, Mayan, Greecian, Indian Norse, Celtic or Pagan religions (and they were major religions at their time, don't kid yourself.) So, factoring in all these "New" religions creates quite a schizm. There is no 100% like Blaise anticipated, and chosing a religion involves much wasted time and money at church, doing things you don't want to do and constantly fearing a God in the sky who wants to smite you down.

ontological argument
"Perfection in God"
God is Perfect
The only way to make God more perfect is that he must exist
Perfection exists in the universe
God exists

Circular reasoning.

cosmological argument
"Creation theory"
Every action has actions preceeding it.
It is not a static universe
Something must have made us and matter cannot materialize
God made the universe

"Big Bang theory" offers proof that not only does God not have to be the one that made the universe, it looks more propable that he didn't.

teleological argument
"Intelligent design"
The universe functions like a machine
Machines need creators
God is the creator

Again, this is not only a rampant assertion, but it also implies that we needed a God to spawn the universe.

/Arguments for God

Normally, I would have done the disproving in more than a sentence; unfortunately the argument is so dumb that it falls apart in seconds.

Religion has caused victimless law and order to occur in this world for too long. In the third world people are killing children because they believe they have sinned. In the first world it corrupts media, government, education and you. Free your fucking mind and read a goddamned book.

Thanks for sharing that with us.

What do you got, Beany?

I see all these atheist threads that are like:

"Religion is gay because...

Come on!"

And religious threads like:

"Atheism is gay because...

Come on!"

Come on, man. Use logic and reason to tell me why you disagree or at least shut the fuck up- grown ups are trying to talk.

grown ups are trying to talk.

Hours have passed and the only grown up who has spoken hear is me.

I didn't realise you were attempting to start a conversation. It just seemed like preaching ..... and boy what a boring sermon.

Hours have passed and the only grown up who has spoken hear is me.


here

Not to insult your intelligence, but I didn't see you saying anything of substance to begin with.

I wasn't preaching, it's all logic + numbers.

Hey, you should be a computer programmer!

Hey! You should learn better burns.

H4T3 - Well said.

Beany - Come on, man. Engage the argument. Defend your position. This is a FORUM: a public meeting or assembly for open discussion. Use it. Don't just insult the man - even if he insults you first. Stand back, and use your logic, or, failing that, your faith / the writings of others.

He cannot defend his position, that is why (like the adult he claims to be) he has picked or at least engaged a simple flame war.

His position cannot be defended b/c his position is grounded only in his faith (or as many like to call it......imagination)

I would like to point out that in this argument:

cosmological argument
"Creation theory"
Every action has actions preceeding it.
It is not a static universe
Something must have made us and matter cannot materialize
God made the universe

God falls victim to it's logic as well. He is not exempt. What made God and why is it acceptable that he is eternal and the universe cannot be? I would also point out that the Big Bang is an event NOT the beginning of the universe, as far as we truly know.

I like your Pascal's Wager. Keep working on it. I would like to see it filled with every god we know of.

He cannot defend his position, that is why (like the adult he claims to be) he has picked or at least engaged a simple flame war.

His position cannot be defended b/c his position is grounded only in his faith (or as many like to call it......imagination)

I would like to point out that in this argument:

cosmological argument
"Creation theory"
Every action has actions preceeding it.
It is not a static universe
Something must have made us and matter cannot materialize
God made the universe

God falls victim to it's logic as well. He is not exempt. What made God and why is it acceptable that he is eternal and the universe cannot be? I would also point out that the Big Bang is an event NOT the beginning of the universe, as far as we truly know.

I like your Pascal's Wager. Keep working on it. I would like to see it filled with every god we know of.

I think you have hit the nail on the head - the cosmological argument isn't valid, for explaining god or anything else. Therefore, it shouldn't be used, right? From the looks of things, you just agreed with H4T3 there...

I think you have hit the nail on the head - the cosmological argument isn't valid, for explaining god or anything else. Therefore, it shouldn't be used, right? From the looks of things, you just agreed with H4T3 there...

Completely. The first part of that post was not directed at him but at the troll -beany- I think.

There is not ONE single theistic argument for the existence of God that I have encountered, that does not get it's ass handed back to it by science.

Science FTW.

Win, goddamnit.

Use logic and reason to tell me why you disagree or at least shut the fuck up- grown ups are trying to talk.

Profanity is the attempt of a feeble mind to express itself forcefully. You could try not being rude to other people, you know; it never hurt anyone.

Whether or not various religions are true is completely irrelevant with regards to what I am about to say to you:
"Religion is the opiate of the masses."

I believe that without religion (in any shape or form), society as we know it would fall apart. Religion keeps so many people in line and forces them to suppress their "evil tendencies". I think that religion is what has kept us all from killing each other over the years. Granted, religion has also caused us to kill each other (see the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, the Holocaust, etc.); it is (like most complex philosophical concepts) a double-edged sword.

Have you read Brave New World? I think the society of the future is going to be exactly like that. You know what? That means we'd still have religion - religion with all the religious aspects stripped out, basically just a tool for social conformity.

Whether or not you believe in it, the world needs some sort of religion. Now if only the people who believe in it wouldn't be represented by idiots like Fred Phelps and Jim Bakker, maybe assholes like us wouldn't always be insulting them because of their beliefs.

Think about that.

Peace and love,
T

Science FTW.

You know, I'm pretty sure that I've schooled you in this argument several times before, but IIRC you just ignored my posts because you knew I was right, so I'm going to say it again where you can't possibly ignore me, because now I've insulted your pride and you HAVE to defend yourself (aren't humans funny?):

Science and religion are not inherently opposed to each other. Religion does not attempt to explain natural phenomena. I don't ever remember a priest telling me that "it's thundering outside because God is pissed". Religion attempts to answer questions that science cannot - questions about the purpose of natural phenomena, you know, like, "Why are we here?"

You go ahead and show me a scientific argument for the purpose of our existence. You know, a lot of the greatest scientists have been religious people, like Albert Einstein for instance. I'm not going to commit such a blatant logical fallacy as to say, "if Einstein did it then it must be right," but I think you see my point. Religion does not attempt to answer the question, "How did we get here?" Religion attempts to answer the question, "WHY did we get here?"

Completely different. Science simply assumes the absence of a creator - but even in the presence of God, the laws of physics are not suddenly invalidated. If God WERE scientifically proven to exist (which it is impossible to do; I don't need you to post the tired arguments as to why this is impossible to do because I know them all), it wouldn't really change a thing about the scientific method or the inquisitive nature with which we approach the universe.

Stop pitting two completely different areas of thought against each other. It's stupid and reflects a flaw in your view of religion.

^ There are many religions that try to answer "how" we got here. Take Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, and Greek/Roman, ones for example.

Either these are not religions, your definition is wrong, or what you say doesn't really hold true in practice (a very good reason to take a Science vs. Religion view, in practice).

I think that religion is what has kept us all from killing each other over the years.

Could you then explain what religion the early humans practiced?

P.S. If "Profanity is the attempt of a feeble mind to express itself forcefully", then why did you call Fred Phelps and Jim Bakker "idiots", and "us" (whoever you're referring to) "assholes"?

Profanity is the attempt of a feeble mind to express itself forcefully. You could try not being rude to other people, you know; it never hurt anyone.

Whether or not various religions are true is completely irrelevant with regards to what I am about to say to you:
"Religion is the opiate of the masses."

I believe that without religion (in any shape or form), society as we know it would fall apart. Religion keeps so many people in line and forces them to suppress their "evil tendencies". I think that religion is what has kept us all from killing each other over the years. Granted, religion has also caused us to kill each other (see the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, the Holocaust, etc.); it is (like most complex philosophical concepts) a double-edged sword.

Have you read Brave New World? I think the society of the future is going to be exactly like that. You know what? That means we'd still have religion - religion with all the religious aspects stripped out, basically just a tool for social conformity.

Whether or not you believe in it, the world needs some sort of religion. Now if only the people who believe in it wouldn't be represented by idiots like Fred Phelps and Jim Bakker, maybe assholes like us wouldn't always be insulting them because of their beliefs.

Think about that.

Peace and love,
T

The feeble minded, huh?

From someone who thinks society would fall apart without religion? Please.

Isn't it Norway who has the highest atheist percentage among developed countries in the world?

Isn't Norway the number 2 place to live in the world?

What about Japan, a country with an abnormal atheist percentage? The largest amount of centarians, the third best economy and the third best standard of living after only America (who's standard is falling) and Germany.

Or China, where 59% of the people claim to be non-religious.

Ooooh, shit's running rampant there, huh?

Who's feeble minded, now? You can't imagine a world without God because you don't want to. You add fear and tell people that things will be chaotic without God. But look! America is one of the most religious countries out there and for some strange and prevalent reason we have the highest crime rate in the world!

Religion isn't the opium of the people- opium is.

EDIT: Oh yeah, suck my fucking cock.

You go ahead and show me a scientific argument for the purpose of our existence.

Would living in order to reproduce count?

Who's feeble minded, now? You can't imagine a world without God because you don't want to. You add fear and tell people that things will be chaotic without God. But look! America is one of the most religious countries out there and for some strange and prevalent reason we have the highest crime rate in the world!

Stop being ridiculous. I did not say that "things will be chaotic without God". What I said is that religion (generally speaking, which does not even mean it has to be a theistic religion, e.g. Daoism) is one of the things that helps to hold society together. It has nothing to do with whether or not the religion is false and everything to do with the fact that it keeps people "drugged up" in a sense.

I am not Pat Robertson. I'm not telling you that "things will be chaotic without God" and I'm not trying to use fear as a conversion tactic. Hell, I could be using this argument AGAINST someone like Pat Robertson in a debate. The fact that you make assumptions about my motives (without even bothering to read my argument properly, by the way) says a lot about your style of argumentation (riddled with illogic).

Could it be that America has the highest crime rate because of our lack of gun control, or maybe because we consider possession of marijuana to be a crime? Yes, I do believe that's it - last time I checked, 59% of the people in jail were there for drugs; I'll cite that if you don't believe me (let me dig through my facts). Now you tell me what the hell correlation that has with religion. I guess that could prove your point, that opium is the opium of the people. Maybe all those people were just smoking opium to deal with the hardships of having to go to church, or something like that. You see, I'm too stupid to figure it out, just a dumb religious fanatic who only knows how to inspire fear in people in the hopes that they'll believe in God. I only wish that my powers of reasoning were as awe-inspiring as yours, so that I could make sense of this whole situation. It's OK though, I know that all I have to do is pray and Jesus will come down in a magical white light and make everything better. After all, I'm retarded and don't know how to think for myself.

Don't tar me with the same brush as those televangelists. An atheist could argue what I'm arguing just as well as I could and believe it - in fact, a lot of them do.

Further reading, since I know you won't do it by yourself:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_of_the_People

Now, I know that if you put out a dish of balsamic, the flies will fall right into it, but that doesn't mean you have to spew venom all over the place just because you don't like what I'm saying.

We're all adults here. Let's act like it, please. If you continue to discourse with me in such a barbaric manner I will simply not dignify your immaturity with a response. Please do me the common courtesy that I have shown you.

^ There are many religions that try to answer "how" we got here. Take Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, and Greek/Roman, ones for example.

"God created us" is a very broad definition of how we got here. This is not inherently opposed to evolution, the big bang, or solar nebular theory. The "science vs. religion" conflict, more often than not, comes from individual interpretation - e.g. some fundamentalist Christian sects that literally believe God made the world in seven days.

Either these are not religions, your definition is wrong, or what you say doesn't really hold true in practice (a very good reason to take a Science vs. Religion view, in practice).

Okay, this is true. Let me rephrase:
Not ALL religions are opposed to science. I do not believe that modern Christianity and Judaism are opposed to science, for instance, but, like I said, there will always be people who believe that God made the world in seven days. Fundamentalists - you can't get rid of them.

However, from a scientist's point of view, the two do not have to be opposed to each other. That's just from the point of view of the fundamentalists.

Could you then explain what religion the early humans practiced?

Well, early humans basically invented religion, didn't they? I mean, it had to come from SOMEWHERE... ;)

No; I know what you mean, but maybe the early humans were killing each other all the time. Perhaps religion arose as a result of people's needs to justify the moral code they followed as opposed to a method of explaining things like thunderstorms. There is also the "Stoned Ape" theory, but I don't think anyone seriously believes that.

Keep in mind that the early humans didn't really have much of a society to be held together with religion - and I am not saying that religion is all that keeps us together (which, if I did, I certainly didn't mean to), simply that it is a necessary aspect of society. Even if one day humans do completely eradicate religion, it will come back in some shape or form, I think - like the "Our Ford" thing from Brave New World; you remember that? I think this is a terribly accurate portrayal of future society.

P.S. If "Profanity is the attempt of a feeble mind to express itself forcefully", then why did you call Fred Phelps and Jim Bakker "idiots", and "us" (whoever you're referring to) "assholes"?

Well, to be fair, "idiots" is not really a profane term. If you would prefer "cretins" or perhaps "cerebrally-challenged individuals", I could edit my post.

My use of the word "assholes" was more to make a point than anything else, but I don't remember what the point is that I was trying to make. I did do this conscious of the statement I made earlier and well-aware of the fact that it was contradictory, but I figured that since I was using it recursively nobody would be too upset.

We must also consider the other possibility, which is that I have a feeble mind. I do not consider myself to be a supreme authority on anything and I am by no means infallible, so this will never be out of the question.

You are correct. Maybe I was a little too harsh, calling Jim Bakker and Fred Phelps "idiots". What I meant to say is that I disagree strongly with the way they express their beliefs and cause problems for other people.

Thank you for being civil with me. I do appreciate your good manners. :-)

Would living in order to reproduce count?

Yes, that is the biological purpose of our existence, but that's not what I was getting at. We know why we're here, but WHY are we here? (I am aware of how stupid that looks, but I'm going to say it anyway for lack of a better way to express myself. I apologize if this is too feeble-minded for some of you :-p)

Religion is something to give people a sense of higher meaning to their lives. Science can also do that for some people. I am sure that Alexander Fleming found a great deal of higher meaning in his life by saving other people through the discovery of penicillin, for instance.

But I do not think that it is really in the realm of science to, using the scientific method, discern some sort of higher spiritual purpose for human existence. That is why we have spirituality - for some reason, we are concerned with ourselves as we relate to things beyond time and the physical world, and if they are beyond time and the physical world - how are we supposed to investigate them scientifically?

Stop being ridiculous. I did not say that "things will be chaotic without God". What I said is that religion (generally speaking, which does not even mean it has to be a theistic religion, e.g. Daoism) is one of the things that helps to hold society together. It has nothing to do with whether or not the religion is false and everything to do with the fact that it keeps people "drugged up" in a sense.

I am not Pat Robertson. I'm not telling you that "things will be chaotic without God" and I'm not trying to use fear as a conversion tactic. Hell, I could be using this argument AGAINST someone like Pat Robertson in a debate. The fact that you make assumptions about my motives (without even bothering to read my argument properly, by the way) says a lot about your style of argumentation (riddled with illogic).

Could it be that America has the highest crime rate because of our lack of gun control, or maybe because we consider possession of marijuana to be a crime? Yes, I do believe that's it - last time I checked, 59% of the people in jail were there for drugs; I'll cite that if you don't believe me (let me dig through my facts). Now you tell me what the hell correlation that has with religion. I guess that could prove your point, that opium is the opium of the people. Maybe all those people were just smoking opium to deal with the hardships of having to go to church, or something like that. You see, I'm too stupid to figure it out, just a dumb religious fanatic who only knows how to inspire fear in people in the hopes that they'll believe in God. I only wish that my powers of reasoning were as awe-inspiring as yours, so that I could make sense of this whole situation. It's OK though, I know that all I have to do is pray and Jesus will come down in a magical white light and make everything better. After all, I'm retarded and don't know how to think for myself.

Don't tar me with the same brush as those televangelists. An atheist could argue what I'm arguing just as well as I could and believe it - in fact, a lot of them do.

Further reading, since I know you won't do it by yourself:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_of_the_People

Now, I know that if you put out a dish of balsamic, the flies will fall right into it, but that doesn't mean you have to spew venom all over the place just because you don't like what I'm saying.

We're all adults here. Let's act like it, please. If you continue to discourse with me in such a barbaric manner I will simply not dignify your immaturity with a response. Please do me the common courtesy that I have shown you.

Sorry, sometimes I'm forced to be a prick. It's a virtue of these arguments to begin with.

Oh yeah, almost forgot- America is also the violent crime capital of the world.


Lack of gun control? Are you crazy, or just european?

Yes, that is the biological purpose of our existence, but that's not what I was getting at. We know why we're here, but WHY are we here?

Why assume there is another why?

Religion is something to give people a sense of higher meaning to their lives.

How is it that belief based on a hunch can provide higher meaning than belief based on what you and others can see with their senses?

That is why we have spirituality - for some reason, we are concerned with ourselves as we relate to things beyond time and the physical world, and if they are beyond time and the physical world - how are we supposed to investigate them scientifically?

Why is it rational to investigate them if science can't draw conclusions?

Sorry, sometimes I'm forced to be a prick. It's a virtue of these arguments to begin with.

You're not arguing with some bull-headed Bible-thumper, you know. I'm not entering this argument with the "I have to make the other person believe this" mindset that most religious arguments seem to start with. I'm just telling you that I think religion is an important aspect of society and for what reasons, see? So I think it's important to keep an open mind, and even if you won't do that for me, I'll do it for you, since most of the people in this forum seem to be very intelligent, including you.

Oh yeah, almost forgot- America is also the violent crime capital of the world.

No it's not. (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BTT/is_153_25/ai_75211996)

"Australia and the United Kingdom have the highest violent crime rates in the world, according to a recent survey conducted by Leiden University in Holland."

Also, IIRC, Rio de Janeiro, in Brazil, is the most violent city in the world.

If you read further:

"America did not even make the "top 10" list of the survey, which corresponds with other research showing that crime has steadily fallen in the U.S. in the past 10 years. Depending on which data one chooses, violent crime in the U.S. has declined between four and 11 percent in the past three years."

So, I'm actually going to have to ask you to cite your statistics from earlier about America having one of the highest crime rates in the world, because apparently we don't even make the top 10 list now. This kind of invalidates your earlier argument about crime rates a little bit.

Lack of gun control? Are you crazy, or just european?

I am American, if my American English didn't give it away, so I must be crazy.

What I meant was we have way more liberal gun laws than other countries... except for one, it's either Sweden or Switzerland (typical American, always getting those two mixed up, but can you blame me? They both start with the same goddamn aspirated consonantal phoneme and I AM an English-speaker)... anyway, they have more liberal gun control laws than the US and ALSO one of the lowest incidences of gun crime in the entire world because they stress responsible gun ownership so much.

But I digress.

The point here is that America's gun laws are pretty liberal compared to most of the other 190-some countries. I am aware of the gun-control measures that we DO have in place. They just aren't as extensive as other countries (where a lot of the time you can't even own a gun).

Why assume there is another why?

It's pointless to ask ourselves "why assume that?" because so many people do, for reasons that they themselves cannot readily understand. I'm sure there is a reason why we ask that - but I can't tell you what it is. All I know is that many people search for higher meaning in their lives.

So, I don't know. Why DO we assume that? More importantly, how does that play into our development and survival as a society as opposed to a bunch of hairless apes? Well, the latter is what I'm talking about right now, so let's get back to the question at hand, shall we...

How is it that belief based on a hunch can provide higher meaning than belief based on what you and others can see with their senses?

I don't know, but it seems to work for a large percentage of the world's population.

This is why some people call religion "the opiate of the masses", you see? I'm not trying to say that it's RIGHT. That is not in the scope of this discussion. I'm trying to tell you WHY PEOPLE DO IT.

Why is it rational to investigate them if science can't draw conclusions?

Firstly, I am not trying to argue that it is rational.
Secondly, who said it had to be rational? There are many things about human beings and the way we conduct ourselves that are not rational.

It's interesting that you should say this. Many people treat science almost like a religion - e.g., "if science doesn't have an explanation, it must not be worth thinking about," which, in my opinion, is no better than, "God did it". I think it's important for ALL OF US to approach the human experience with an open mind for what our senses and - dare I say it - our SOULS (for lack of a better word) tell us. You know what? I have had plenty of spiritual experiences in my life that I would not attribute to God or to science. Were they rational? Well, who cares?

If I sounded like a hippie freak just now, it's only because I am.

(But I do hold science in very high regard, seeing as how it's all that tells us truths about the physical universe we live in.)

But, really, all this is outside the scope of the argument, since I'm not trying to argue that religion is rational. I'm just trying to tell you why it's an important part of society. Celebrity gossip isn't rational, but it's also an important part of society in a completely different and much more frightening way (since it is infinitely more mundane than religion, which, like it or not, is FASCINATING... who doesn't love a little Greek mythology now and then? Gets the mind going!).

"God created us" is a very broad definition of how we got here. This is not inherently opposed to evolution, the big bang, or solar nebular theory. The "science vs. religion" conflict, more often than not, comes from individual interpretation - e.g. some fundamentalist Christian sects that literally believe God made the world in seven days.

All those religions I mentioned, which I would say represent the some of the most popular religions in the world, don't just say "God created us". They say, "God created us, here's how long ago he did it, how he did it, what he created first, what he created second..."



Okay, this is true. Let me rephrase:
Not ALL religions are opposed to science. I do not believe that modern Christianity and Judaism are opposed to science, for instance, but, like I said, there will always be people who believe that God made the world in seven days. Fundamentalists - you can't get rid of them.

However, from a scientist's point of view, the two do not have to be opposed to each other. That's just from the point of view of the fundamentalists.Well that depends entirely on the definition of "religion" being used. I would say the most common definition of religion would conflict with Science. That is not to say that one must completely hold Science or completely hold religion, but that in key issues (e.g methodologies, evidence, or arguments) they will conflict with each other, and the person will have to believe in one in spite of the other.

Also I would disagree about Christianity and Judaism. The majority of Christians and Orthodox Jews make anti-scientific claims on the origins of the man/universe. The majority believe in the Genesis account of creation, which is completely at odds with current Scientific explanations or the really the Scientific Method as whole.



No; I know what you mean, but maybe the early humans were killing each other all the time. Perhaps religion arose as a result of people's needs to justify the moral code they followed as opposed to a method of explaining things like thunderstorms. There is also the "Stoned Ape" theory, but I don't think anyone seriously believes that.
Well, whatever the early humans were doing, it was good enough to survive and make our existence possible, which I would say points to religion not being absolutely necessary.

What about other animals? Like primates, do they follow a religion? They have complex social interactions like we do.

This all depends on what definition of religion you're using; I don't see how religion would be necessary for human existence, at least not using the most prevalent definitions. I think humans are much stronger than that.

It's pointless to ask ourselves "why assume that?" because so many people do, for reasons that they themselves cannot readily understand. I'm sure there is a reason why we ask that - but I can't tell you what it is. All I know is that many people search for higher meaning in their lives.

So, I don't know. Why DO we assume that? More importantly, how does that play into our development and survival as a society as opposed to a bunch of hairless apes? Well, the latter is what I'm talking about right now, so let's get back to the question at hand, shall we...



I don't know, but it seems to work for a large percentage of the world's population.

This is why some people call religion "the opiate of the masses", you see? I'm not trying to say that it's RIGHT. That is not in the scope of this discussion. I'm trying to tell you WHY PEOPLE DO IT.



Firstly, I am not trying to argue that it is rational.
Secondly, who said it had to be rational? There are many things about human beings and the way we conduct ourselves that are not rational.

It's interesting that you should say this. Many people treat science almost like a religion - e.g., "if science doesn't have an explanation, it must not be worth thinking about," which, in my opinion, is no better than, "God did it". I think it's important for ALL OF US to approach the human experience with an open mind for what our senses and - dare I say it - our SOULS (for lack of a better word) tell us. You know what? I have had plenty of spiritual experiences in my life that I would not attribute to God or to science. Were they rational? Well, who cares?

If I sounded like a hippie freak just now, it's only because I am.

(But I do hold science in very high regard, seeing as how it's all that tells us truths about the physical universe we live in.)

But, really, all this is outside the scope of the argument, since I'm not trying to argue that religion is rational. I'm just trying to tell you why it's an important part of society. Celebrity gossip isn't rational, but it's also an important part of society in a completely different and much more frightening way (since it is infinitely more mundane than religion, which, like it or not, is FASCINATING... who doesn't love a little Greek mythology now and then? Gets the mind going!).

America has 5% of the worlds population yet it accounts for 25% of the worlds incarcerated.

I guess I mean in a society where crime is actually crime. Perhaps I meant first-world.

Furthermore, Brazil is also a very religious country. It is no secret that SA is overly religious.

That is not to say that one must completely hold Science or completely hold religion, but that in key issues (e.g methodologies, evidence, or arguments) they will conflict with each other, and the person will have to believe in one in spite of the other.

I don't know about that. I don't think that you have to believe that God made the world in seven days to believe that he did, in fact, make the world.

Also I would disagree about Christianity and Judaism. The majority of Christians and Orthodox Jews make anti-scientific claims on the origins of the mad/universe. They most often than not, believe in the Genesis account of creation, which is completely at odds with Scientific inquiry.

I must be hanging out with renegade Christians and Jews. I am only telling you what I am telling you based on personal observation - most of the Christians and Jews that I know believe in evolution, the big bang, etc. etc.

But, on the other hand, there are A LOT of Christians who hold views that are in opposition to science.

Religion and science might be opposed to each other in the minds of many people, but my point is that they don't have to be.

Well, whatever the early humans were doing, it was good enough to survive and make our existence possible, which I would say points to religion not being absolutely necessary.

Good enough to survive up until the point that we started having a society. Religion might have also arisen as a result of the "divine right" theory - a way for rulers to justify their ruling over other people - in which case it was most certainly a Bad Thing.

What about other animals? Like primates, do they follow a religion? They have complex social interactions like we do.

Complex social interactions are not the same thing as the grand social order that the entire human race follows. We are also not entirely sure whether or not primates have higher reasoning in the same sense that we do - and religion would not be possible without human self-awareness.

America has 5% of the worlds population yet it accounts for 25% of the worlds incarcerated.

Where are all these numbers coming from?

I guess I mean in a society where crime is actually crime. Perhaps I meant first-world.

Since when is Australia not a first-world country?

Furthermore, Brazil is also a very religious country. It is no secret that SA is overly religious.

The violence in Rio is a function of class struggle, not religion. Have you seen the place? The poorest of the poor LITERALLY live RIGHT NEXT DOOR to the richest people in the whole damn city. The fact that the police in Brazil are incredibly corrupt and ill-equipped doesn't help at all, and the poor areas ("favelas") are dominated by gangs - which the police would have trouble controlling if they tried, but they don't, because the gangs can afford to pay them off thanks to drug terrorism.

Opium, in other words - your opium of the people - can be said to cause a lot of the violence in Rio. The same can't be said for religion.

This all depends on what definition of religion you're using; I don't see how religion would be necessary for human existence, at least not using the most prevalent definitions. I think humans are much stronger than that.

Religion is not necessary for human existence. I never said that. I think that religion as a tool for social conformity and keeping people "strung out" is a very important part of society.

I don't know about that. I don't think that you have to believe that God made the world in seven days to believe that he did, in fact, make the world.

Again, this depends on the definition of "religion". What definition are you using?

Also, what do you mean by "world"? Earth? Because if you do, that is already at odds with Science.


I must be hanging out with renegade Christians and Jews. I am only telling you what I am telling you based on personal observation - most of the Christians and Jews that I know believe in evolution, the big bang, etc. etc.

Well what definition of religion are you using?

As for the Christians and Jews, here's a poll of Americans (every religion, not just Christians and Jews):

http://www.gallup.com/poll/14107/Third-Americans-Say-Evidence-Has-Supported-Darwins-Evolution-Theory.aspx

The majority of them believe in an explanation of the origins of the universe very distinct from that of Science.



Good enough to survive up until the point that we started having a society. Religion might have also arisen as a result of the "divine right" theory - a way for rulers to justify their ruling over other people - in which case it was most certainly a Bad Thing.

Who says they would have not survived otherwise? Are you saying that everything they did would be a requirement for a society?



Complex social interactions are not the same thing as the grand social order that the entire human race follows. We are also not entirely sure whether or not primates have higher reasoning in the same sense that we do - and religion would not be possible without human self-awareness.

You mean it currently follows. Humans can survive a perfectly good existence that is different to the "grand social order" that it currently follows.

Primates gather food, play and entertain themselves, have sex, build shelters, drink water and interact with each other quite fine without religion. So can we?

That's of course if we agree that religion is required for the "grand social order" of today, which I don't agree with.

Religion is not necessary for human existence. I never said that. I think that religion as a tool for social conformity and keeping people "strung out" is a very important part of society.

I'm sorry, I meant the existence of the human society we see today. My mistake. I don't see how it is necessary for the society we see today to exist.

It's pointless to ask ourselves "why assume that?" because so many people do, for reasons that they themselves cannot readily understand. I'm sure there is a reason why we ask that - but I can't tell you what it is. All I know is that many people search for higher meaning in their lives.

Without knowing the reason for asking it, where is the higher meaning? Without knowing for sure any answer is correct or not, where is the meaning at all? If the question of a higher meaning were answerable, would it still provide a higher meaning?

I'll answer the rest tomorrow, I should know better than to get into religious debate at 3am on a Sunday night ;)

You haven't disproved God, only criticised some arguments that purport to provide proof.

God must first be proven in order to be disproven.

I'm not trying to disprove God. I know better.

I just know, however, that there's no proof, function or benefit behind the allmighty God. I also know that prayers do nothing.

I'm not trying to disprove God. I know better.

Oh? ‪ ‪‪

Obviously, I don't believe in God. Of course I'm here to disprove him

Well- disproving pro-god theories and making a pro-atheism argument.

I should have made myself clearer. Unfortunately there is no concrete way to prove the existance of God. If there were, God would have been gone a long time ago and we'd all be done with this ridiculous mess.

God must first be proven in order to be disproven.

That is not technically true. Jean-Paul Sartre, for example, started his "disproof" from a definition of God, not an argument for God's existence.