What would make someone believe in god/religion other than another person?

What I mean is the whole basis for someone being raised a christian (or anything) is that their parents told them to or they "found god" by going to another person who explained to them the basis of that religion.

The problem with this is what makes the people who you learned about Christianity, Islam etc from infallible? If you haven't noticed their basis for religion started with their parents, which started with their parents and just goes on and on...Or some other source but you know what I mean.

And because of this people should doubt God is real since the only reason they have to believe in a religion is other people (who obviously can't know since they haven't died yet). The only way we could ever know is if God came down to us (like he used to all the fucking time, he must be lazy, idk) Sooooo...Why doesn't God just come down and re-affirm everyones' belief in him???

People can tell an atheist they lack faith in God so he won't come down to them, but doesn't the atheist just lack faith in humanity who he knows can't actually be certain since their only basis is other people? So God should come down to us (like he did in the bible, in full frontal form, not in some stupid subtle shit) and tell us he exists because the only other proof we have is people with no proof telling us to believe and books full of stupid shit thats have been proven wrong millions of times.

It's really simple. Those are all good question. I've asked them my self several times. I never good a good enough response. It's always the same old shit like "god works in mysterious ways" etc.

If god loves us and he wants us to accept him through faith, shouldn't god with his infinite wisdom know that sometime we'll just overcome superstition.

I know he loves us but where all just going to burn aren't we. It's OUR choice.

What bullshit.

Oh and btw, the simple answer is god is imaginary. Check out GIIvideo's channel on youtube.

it started off as simple intuition in my case, a leap of faith, then I tried to back it up with logic but all my logic imploded on myself and that's when I was able to directly experience without the duality of a separate thinker. although its a moment to moment struggle

Inb4Pantheism

I can't think of anyway to argue against you really, I mean, yeah, religion is often spread by people, but that's only because most people grow up around people. Atheists can become religious and vice versa.

In fact I'm sure the same thing could be said about atheism. I think a problem may arise in assuming that there is a natural mode of thinking to people, such as atheism or theism, when the chances are that there are a vareity of factors that affect whether a person becomes a theist or atheist. Or just don't care.

In fact I'm sure the same thing could be said about atheism. I think a problem may arise in assuming that there is a natural mode of thinking to people, such as atheism or theism, when the chances are that there are a vareity of factors that affect whether a person becomes a theist or atheist. Or just don't care.

The reason atheism doesn't succumb to this argument is b.c. atheism is formed by a lack of evidence. What I mean is, I don't believe in God because I don't have any reason to believe in God. Granted I can't 100% disprove god's existence, but then again I can't 100% disprove godzilla's existence but that doesn't mean I should respect the idea that Godzilla might exist.

So is this an infallible argument against religion? (my original post that is)

The reason atheism doesn't succumb to this argument is b.c. atheism is formed by a lack of evidence. What I mean is, I don't believe in God because I don't have any reason to believe in God. Granted I can't 100% disprove god's existence, but then again I can't 100% disprove godzilla's existence but that doesn't mean I should respect the idea that Godzilla might exist.

So is this an infallible argument against religion? (my original post that is)

I suppose you could say it brings into to question the legitimacy of religion, but I'm not so sure of the effect on God and Theism.

These beliefs are made by men, why would it be unworthy to adopt a belief system from the influence or guidance of another man?

So is this an infallible argument against religion? (my original post that is)

No, I would call it faith.

http://www.destructoid.com/elephant/ul/96400-JEBUS.jpg

My view is, it goes like this.
The ultimate goal in Life is to survive.
You can't live forever, so phycologically you do what you can (over 9000 Hail Marys or whatever) in order to ensure your survival.
Its a hope you cling onto to survive.

The problem with this is what makes the people who you learned about Christianity, Islam etc from infallible? If you haven't noticed their basis for religion started with their parents, which started with their parents and just goes on and on...Or some other source but you know what I mean.

:rolleyes: So instead of indoctrinating them with religion we'll do it with science facts. :rolleyes:

Atheists seem to have this dream of a utopia where children are left to freely explore the natural world. Where they will find logical explanations to the phenomena happening around them. Apparently these atheists have never actually been to an elementary school. Most little kids I know are content to blame natural occurences on whatever silly idea they can think up.

My point being, teaching kids science facts is no better than teaching them that the Bible is literal truth. We should be teaching children not science facts but, the scientific process, to challenge the status quo. The only thing worse than a person blindly follows religion is a person who blindly follows science.

My point being, teaching kids science facts is no better than teaching them that the Bible is literal truth. We should be teaching children not science facts but, the scientific process, to challenge the status quo. The only thing worse than a person blindly follows religion is a person who blindly follows science.

Agreed entirely...If people actually did that... For example, WHEN you follow the scientific process you tend to make the same discoveries that science teaches...

No one follows science blindly (at least seriously), they analyze and test the shit out of every possible hypothesis and then draw a conclusion.

Its not like people go "Plants make their own food using sunlight" and I just accept it without even asking how or why. They provide you with logical coherent proof that adheres to the scientific method. As opposed to religion which says "Jesus's mom never had sex but still had a baby and then that baby walked on water and came back to life" (all of which is impossible btw) and then religion has the arrogance and conceit to say "don't question it, that's blasphemy".

Science is essentially the questioning of life while religion is blindly following moronic assumptions based off of ancient superstitious bullshit we KNOW is impossible (healing the blind, virgin birth, water to wine or whatever it was). Science has NEVER just asked people to accept so called scientific facts without backing them up with insane amounts of evidence (proof of that is how unbelievably difficult it is to create a "law" isn't gravity still only considered a theory? Science DEMANDS you back up whatever it is your trying to prove with logic that follows the scientific method you support as well as encourages others to prove you wrong on your theory in hopes of discovering the truth. People of religion would rather simply believe the shit that comes out of the bible without any justification other than hearsay...

So...terrible fucking analogy.

No one follows science blindly.

I would disagree. What about the pseudo-science of racial superiority? Now, I'm not as educated on Nazi Germany as I would like to be but, I never heard about any German citizens or scientists who bothered to experiment and test the Nazi's claim. I suppose you could argue Jesse Owens did just that but, it seems that most took racial superiority as fact simply because it was an argument from authority.

Maybe blindly following science is something that only happens when the opportunity to challenge and question is suppressed as so often happens in authoritarian regimes.

Agreed entirely...If people actually did that... For example, WHEN you follow the scientific process you tend to make the same discoveries that science teaches...

No one follows science blindly (at least seriously), they analyze and test the shit out of every possible hypothesis and then draw a conclusion.

Its not like people go "Plants make their own food using sunlight" and I just accept it without even asking how or why. They provide you with logical coherent proof that adheres to the scientific method. As opposed to religion which says "Jesus's mom never had sex but still had a baby and then that baby walked on water and came back to life" (all of which is impossible btw) and then religion has the arrogance and conceit to say "don't question it, that's blasphemy".

Science is essentially the questioning of life while religion is blindly following moronic assumptions based off of ancient superstitious bullshit we KNOW is impossible (healing the blind, virgin birth, water to wine or whatever it was). Science has NEVER just asked people to accept so called scientific facts without backing them up with insane amounts of evidence (proof of that is how unbelievably difficult it is to create a "law" isn't gravity still only considered a theory? Science DEMANDS you back up whatever it is your trying to prove with logic that follows the scientific method you support as well as encourages others to prove you wrong on your theory in hopes of discovering the truth. People of religion would rather simply believe the shit that comes out of the bible without any justification other than hearsay...

So...terrible fucking analogy.

I think you should be aware of the difference between scientists and people. A lot of people follow blindly what science tells them, because it often hs little impact on their life. And I'd be willing to put money on the possibility that not all scienctists are all that interested in advancing science because they are quite happy with the stage hings are at.

Sure some scientists care about advancing science and testing the shit out of stuff, but most people are indifferant to science and how true it is, because it has no effect on them. I mean, how many people really give a crap about the acceleration caused by gravity, or the shape of the world. I think that the last few thousand years of human history have shown that people really don't care much about the truth.

I think you should be aware of the difference between scientists and people. A lot of people follow blindly what science tells them, because it often hs little impact on their life. And I'd be willing to put money on the possibility that not all scienctists are all that interested in advancing science because they are quite happy with the stage hings are at.

Sure some scientists care about advancing science and testing the shit out of stuff, but most people are indifferant to science and how true it is, because it has no effect on them. I mean, how many people really give a crap about the acceleration caused by gravity, or the shape of the world. I think that the last few thousand years of human history have shown that people really don't care much about the truth.

So if science has very little effect on peoples' lives and hardly even effects them, then why does it matter if they blindly follow it? As opposed to something such as say, religion? Which when followed dictates not only every action but also thought? Religion is used as form of control which hinders the development of the human mind while science is used to broaden our perspective and open up new branches of knowledge we didn't know even existed, making the world a better place to live in.

I think you should be aware of the difference between scientists and people. A lot of people follow blindly what science tells them, because it often hs little impact on their life. And I'd be willing to put money on the possibility that not all scienctists are all that interested in advancing science because they are quite happy with the stage hings are at.

Sure some scientists care about advancing science and testing the shit out of stuff, but most people are indifferant to science and how true it is, because it has no effect on them. I mean, how many people really give a crap about the acceleration caused by gravity, or the shape of the world. I think that the last few thousand years of human history have shown that people really don't care much about the truth.

ROFL

I'm sooooo not gonna even bother answering properly.

It'd feel like sweeping up dog shit.

So if science has very little effect on peoples' lives and hardly even effects them, then why does it matter if they blindly follow it? As opposed to something such as say, religion? Which when followed dictates not only every action but also thought?


Just as an a note, I think that we should change 'To follow science/religion blindly', to 'accept science/religion blindly.' In my opinion it not only reads better, but makes more sense.

I don't believe that there is any real difference between a scientific world-view and a religious world-view, between blindly accepting religion or science; By this I mean that there is no 'better' choice.

I also believe that the amount that a person will accept science/religion is based solely on the society that the individual lives in at the time. In a society where the norm is to accept a certain belief most people will accept that belief, because that is what people do. And so it is not religion that controls people, but the society. Society controls our actions and thoughts to an incredible degree. I think that largely 'belief' in science or religions is a social thing rather than a rational thing.




Religion is used as form of control which hinders the development of the human mind while science is used to broaden our perspective and open up new branches of knowledge we didn't know even existed, making the world a better place to live in.

I have to very much disagree with this. Since the beginning of my research and study of religious texts and thoughts, my perspective has grown hugely, and the development of my mind has taken leaps and bounds. Religion when used bya society as a form of control can do all those things, but so can anything else used by a society to control it's members. Conformity is something inherent in people, not religion.

As for this last part, define better. As far as I see it, technology and knowledge are not 'better' unless that is your belief, a person can see being closer to God (in whatever way they do it) as being 'better', or hedonism, or owning crap; Scientific discovery is not an inherently better path.

I hope I got across what I was trying to get across.

I have to very much disagree with this. Since the beginning of my research and study of religious texts and thoughts, my perspective has grown hugely, and the development of my mind has taken leaps and bounds. Religion when used bya society as a form of control can do all those things, but so can anything else used by a society to control it's members. Conformity is something inherent in people, not religion.

As for this last part, define better. As far as I see it, technology and knowledge are not 'better' unless that is your belief, a person can see being closer to God (in whatever way they do it) as being 'better', or hedonism, or owning crap; Scientific discovery is not an inherently better path.

I hope I got across what I was trying to get across.

Religion tells us to believe that a woman can have a child without sex, people can walk on water, there is an invisible man in the sky, a man can cure diseases with his hand, people can rise from the dead, jesus was not a person but the son of a supernatural being, the earth is 6,000 years old, was created in 6 days and that evolution is wrong. All of these things are told to be accepted without question otherwise they will go somewhere after they die (and no longer exist) to a place of burning. All of these things are wrong and fucking stupid, incredibly fucking stupid. When people accept these things it hinders there ability to reason and think. End of discussion.

Religion tells us to believe that a woman can have a child without sex, people can walk on water, there is an invisible man in the sky, a man can cure diseases with his hand, people can rise from the dead, jesus was not a person but the son of a supernatural being, the earth is 6,000 years old, was created in 6 days and that evolution is wrong. All of these things are told to be accepted without question otherwise they will go somewhere after they die (and no longer exist) to a place of burning. All of these things are wrong and fucking stupid, incredibly fucking stupid. When people accept these things it hinders there ability to reason and think. End of discussion.

No, not end of discussion.

If you stop reading the bible at face value and look into the esoteric meaning, it will make sense.

The "virgin" birth refers not to a woman, but rather a cosmic principle, as is the Christ.

No, not end of discussion.

If you stop reading the bible at face value and look into the esoteric meaning, it will make sense.

The "virgin" birth refers not to a woman, but rather a cosmic principle, as is the Christ.

But Christianity demands you accept these "facts" as truth and if you question them, you're committing blasphemy....

You can't be a christian if you don't believe Christ died and was resurrected, even though that defies every aspect of logic and reason. I mean, people can't rise from the dead...Thats make believe....Religion forces people to accept stupid ideas that make no sense, thus, hindering human thought.

How can you come up with any logical conclusion about how the Earth came to be if you "know" God created the Earth?

My point being, teaching kids science facts is no better than teaching them that the Bible is literal truth. We should be teaching children not science facts but, the scientific process, to challenge the status quo. The only thing worse than a person blindly follows religion is a person who blindly follows science.

Then your point is utter horseshit.

With "Science facts" we can develop new techonolgy, new drugs and medical procedures, new way to increase food production, new ways to purify water and make it more accessible, new ways to travel more effieciently. We can also make predictions about will happen given these facts we've discovered.

You can't do ANY of that with the Bible. None. At best you could say that the literal word of the Bible could inspire someonw, and still then you would need "science facts" to see any of those inovations I mention, through.

Science and "Science facts" are on a league of their own when it comes to being compared with the literal word of the Christian Bible. To compare the two is insulting, and to say that blidnly following Science is worse, is just plain stupid.

I'm not saying that blindly following Science is the best; I would like nothing more than to have critical thinking be a natural, knee-jerk reaction in the human experience. However, if the choices are blindly following Science - which has helped us save billions of lives - or blindly following a religious text, I sure as fuck know which would I would choose...

All science has given us is the ability to kill our neighbors faster and harder. Instead of stones and sticks we have hydrogen bombs.

PROGRESS!

And please, any "medical advances" are completely besides the point. Our general health has declined so much because of our technology and synthetic foods and electrical fields that our medicine can not help us. More and more people are dying from cancer.

Why?

It's not contagious.

Religion tells us to believe that a woman can have a child without sex, people can walk on water, there is an invisible man in the sky, a man can cure diseases with his hand, people can rise from the dead, jesus was not a person but the son of a supernatural being, the earth is 6,000 years old, was created in 6 days and that evolution is wrong. All of these things are told to be accepted without question otherwise they will go somewhere after they die (and no longer exist) to a place of burning. All of these things are wrong and fucking stupid, incredibly fucking stupid. When people accept these things it hinders there ability to reason and think. End of discussion.

If you don't want to continue the discussion, Ok.

But I'll leave this if you (or anyone else) is interested.

First of all it seems to me that you are not discussing Religion, but Catholocism, and sure, Catholocism has a lot of problems, but then again, not every religion is Roman Catholic. Not every religion forces it adherents to believe these things blindly. If your point is that Religion inherently inhibits free and intelligent thought, it can only stand if every person who is religious lacks the ability to think and reason clearly; this is obviously wrong.

You have so far done nothing more than given me several beliefs, from a single view-point and with the added point that these beliefs must be taught in a naturally restricting way, and then correlated this to Religion. Which seems to my rational mind to be wrong. You have show no causal link that Religion causes an inability to reason and think effectively. You have shown that certain indoctrination processes lead to an inflexible mind, making it harder to accept or consider new ideas.


How can you come up with any logical conclusion about how the Earth came to be if you "know" God created the Earth?

Same way as when you know God didn't create the earth?

All science has given us is the ability to kill our neighbors faster and harder. Instead of stones and sticks we have hydrogen bombs.

PROGRESS!

And please, any "medical advances" are completely besides the point. Our general health has declined so much because of our technology and synthetic foods and electrical fields that our medicine can not help us. More and more people are dying from cancer.

Why?

It's not contagious.

1.) Not true, life expectancy has risen and is only getting longer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy#Timeline_for_humans Because of science we are living longer.

2.) Cancer death rates are declining as well, you are wrong about that too. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/20/AR2008022000995.html

3.) Science has done more than "create bombs", it has further advanced the human mind and understanding. (I'm talking to you and I'm not anywhere near you!!!, the whole reason we are talking about this is because of science.)

4.) This is irrelevant to how religion hinders human thought. Science may be the alternative but I'm just saying religion diminishes the human mind. You brought science into this not me. This is definitely a logical fallacy but I don't which one (anyone else know?)

5.) Next time you get in any kind of accident or need to go to the hospital let me know how much your feel about "evil technology" saving your pathetic life you worthless fucking cretin.

You have so far done nothing more than given me several beliefs, from a single view-point and with the added point that these beliefs must be taught in a naturally restricting way, and then correlated this to Religion. Which seems to my rational mind to be wrong. You have show no causal link that Religion causes an inability to reason and think effectively. You have shown that certain indoctrination processes lead to an inflexible mind, making it harder to accept or consider new ideas.

How about a posteriori reasoning? A person is taught from birth creationism is how things came to be. They now fail to accept any kind of evidence (carbon dating, fossils, evolutionary progression, human genome) as to how creationism might not be true. Due to religious teaching this person is incapable of accepting basic evidence drawn out through a logical, scientific conclusion.

The reason I didn't provide you "the hard hitting proof" you have now just requested is because its so obvious...Turn on the TV and listen to the shit that pours out of peoples' mouths that literally defy all reason and logic (logic is something they accept, except when it contradicts their baseless values and moronic assumptions)...Granted they can still apply logic to things, but when it comes to important stuff such as, how old the planet is, or how our species came to be they immediately condemn basic reasoning because it exposes their ignorance and hurts their weak social constructs. And yes, I am only using Christianity as an example but EVERY religion demands it's followers to accept some ancient superstitious bullshit that defies all we have come to learned. If you are either too stupid to believe it or just too lazy to look it up I will gladly find you some logic defying concepts from each major religion...


Same way as when you know God didn't create the earth?

If God didn't create the Earth we should pursue how our planet came to be. If God did create the Earth and we "know because it says in a book" than why bother figuring it out? God did it. How? He can do anything, no reason to pursue. There's a reason philosophers avoided the simple "god did it" answer. It doesn't provide any new information and restricts human thought, think outside the box, think philosophically, scientifically and the concept of God is no longer needed, God was created for simple people to understand complicated things.

1.) Not true, life expectancy has risen and is only getting longer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_ex...ine_for_humans Because of science we are living longer.

Life may be longer(I don't think that's true, anyway), but it is generally worse.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9E0CE7DB1E3EF93BA35751C1A964958260
http://media.www.thetriangle.org/media/storage/paper689/news/2008/01/11/News/Student.Depression.Rates.Rising-3149759.shtml
http://www.netdoctor.co.uk/menshealth/facts/depressionsuicide.htm
http://www.irishhealth.com/index.html?level=4&id=1447
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/may2008/ptsd-m29.shtml
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4818769

Shall I go on?


2.) Cancer death rates are declining as well, you are wrong about that too. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...022000995.html

Not so.

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/050603.html

For a while we thought some key cancer rates were flat or declining, but on further study it turns out they're going (oops) up. This bombshell dropped in 2002 with the publication of a paper innocuously titled "Impact of Reporting Delay and Reporting Error on Cancer Incidence Rates and Trends." The gist: A significant fraction of cases (3 to 12 percent, depending on cancer type) don't get reported promptly to the leading U.S. cancer data registry--in fact, it can take anywhere from 4 to 17 years following initial diagnosis before most (99-plus percent) cancers are counted. The missing cases can make early trend reports misleadingly rosy. Melanoma incidence in white males, for example, was once thought to be easing; now analysts think it's rising 4 percent per year.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/590100.stm

http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2007-05/2007-05-15-voa61.cfm?CFID=19806790&CFTOKEN=92091903

http://www.fitsugar.com/1778847

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3076645/

http://www.familiesagainstcancer.org/?id=26

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/97724.php

Do you want me to go on?


3.) Science has done more than "create bombs", it has further advanced the human mind and understanding. (I'm talking to you and I'm not anywhere near you!!!, science...It can do that)

What mind? Show me this mind. Science understands nothing, it merely has developed tools to further its sensory perception and built technology to make us more complacent and destroy us more easily.


4.) This is irrelevant to how religion hinders human thought. Science may be the alternative but I'm just saying religion diminishes the human mind. You brought science into this not me. This is definitely a logical fallacy but I don't which one (anyone else know?)

All thought, whether religious or scientific, is the cause of all human suffering.



5.) Next time you get in any kind of accident or need to go to the hospital let me know how much your feel about "evil technology" saving your pathetic life you worthless fucking cretin.

I have many problems, and hospitals or doctors do not understand them nor can they help. I wouldn't want them to, anyway. I will accept my fate with grace when it comes.

How about a posteriori reasoning? A person is taught from birth creationism is how things came to be. They now fail to accept any kind of evidence (carbon dating, fossils, evolutionary progression, human genome) as to how creationism might not be true. Due to religious teaching this person is incapable of accepting basic evidence drawn out through a logical, scientific conclusion.

Once again, you have merely pointed out that indoctrination results in indoctrination.

Your example there can be applied to a variety of things, for example:

'A person is taught from birth that non-white people are inferior. They fail to accept any evidence (studies, Iq tests etc) as to how this belief might not be true. Due to racist teachings this person is incapable of accepting basic evidence drawn out through a logical, scientific conclusion.'

You have shown that indoctrination causes people to be inflexible, but you have not produced the causal link to religion. Anything taught in the way implied above with have a long lasting effect on a person, which possibly may hinder their rational process.


The reason I didn't provide you "the hard hitting proof" you have now just requested is because its so obvious...Turn on the TV and listen to the shit that pours out of peoples' mouths that literally defy all reason and logic (logic is something they accept, except when it contradicts their baseless values and moronic assumptions)...Granted they can still apply logic to things, but when it comes to important stuff such as, how old the planet is, or how our species came to be they immediately condemn basic reasoning because it exposes their ignorance and hurts their weak social constructs.

The thing is, I put on the Tv and listen to the shit pouring out of everyone's mouth, and ,y'know what, it's not just the religious spraying a shit storm, it's literally everyone.

Once again, you have not proved the link to religion, by this I mean that you have not shown me how this is somethng that occurs only among the religious, or that religion causes it. People do these things, regardless of their religious backgrounds.

Just because people can be irrational, and some of these people are religious; does not mean that relgion causes people to be irrational.

And yes, I am only using Christianity as an example but EVERY religion demands it's followers to accept some ancient superstitious bullshit that defies all we have come to learned. If you are either too stupid to believe it or just too lazy to look it up I will gladly find you some logic defying concepts from each major religion...

Logic defying concepts are not limited to religion. Religion is not the source or cause of all logic defying concepts.

Also, it is not neccesary for logic-defying concepts to cause negative outcomes. It is possible that logic-defying concepts are used to illustrate a wider points, or to communicate certain ideas, which are not neccesarily wrong.


If God didn't create the Earth we should pursue how our planet came to be. If God did create the Earth and we "know because it says in a book" than why bother figuring it out?

Why not? To get closer to God, to understand God, to become more like God? Surely there are plenty of reasons for those people that want to make them.

God did it. How? He can do anything, no reason to pursue. There's a reason philosophers avoided the simple "god did it" answer. It doesn't provide any new information and restricts human thought, think outside the box, think philosophically, scientifically and the concept of God is no longer needed, God was created for simple people to understand complicated things.

Why not? God can do anything, is it not worth learning how God does what he does?

And why not ask, 'How?' after the God did it answer?

I don't think that thinking philosophically and scientifically makes the concept of God no longer needed.

All science has given us is the ability to kill our neighbors faster and harder. Instead of stones and sticks we have hydrogen bombs.

Right, it hasn't allowed us to increase the yield of food giving crops and thus save billions of people that would have otherwise starved... oh wait, yes it fucking has.

Please do humanity a favor and kill yourself. Preferably with a stick or a stone.


And please, any "medical advances" are completely besides the point. Our general health has declined so much because of our technology and synthetic foods and electrical fields that our medicine can not help us.

No, it's not besides the point. It's only besides the point for a dishonest individual that conveniently wants to ignore all the wonderful progress Science has brought us.

Cancer rates, on the other had, would be besides the point (or at least not be a case against Science) since we still have the highest life expectancy than ever before! So even with a high cancer rate - which you somehow (without any proof whatsoever) decided to blame on Science - we are still better off!

Life may be longer(I don't think that's true, anyway), but it is generally worse.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9E0CE7DB1E3EF93BA35751C1A964958260
http://media.www.thetriangle.org/media/storage/paper689/news/2008/01/11/News/Student.Depression.Rates.Rising-3149759.shtml
http://www.netdoctor.co.uk/menshealth/facts/depressionsuicide.htm
http://www.irishhealth.com/index.html?level=4&id=1447
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/may2008/ptsd-m29.shtml
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4818769

Shall I go on?

Those are irrealevent to the discussion. Technology allows people to live longer. Just because "depression" is rising doesn't mean a thing. Technology didn't do that...In Fact, technology can cure depression through medication and electro-shock therapy...So..Yeah...Plus, its a general consensus that life now, is much more relaxed and easier than it was when we had no consistent source of food and no way to prevent disease. Your argument fails on so many, many levels.

You complain that science prevents us from living longer and I prove you wrong and you're just too stubborn and ignorant to admit it so you tell me depression levels are raising...Wow, you want to know why? They've always been the same, its just the due to a more comfortable lifestyle we have time and money to spend studying things like depression and we can classify them as diseases now and even cure them. As opposed to before when we didn't even know they existed. I'd rather live in a world with higher depression rates than death rates anyway...

Technology makes life easier, not harder, everyone knows that...What are you? A COMPLETE FUCKING IDIOT? Go live in the woods without any tools and tell me if its better and more convenient.

Not so.

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/050603.html



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/590100.stm

Posted in 2000, that was 8 1/2 years ago. Thats nearly a decade.

http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2007-05/2007-05-15-voa61.cfm?CFID=19806790&CFTOKEN=92091903

Yes, thats true, BUT..Its in Africa, which is composed of 3rd world shit holes, of course cancer will go up there...THEY HAVE NO WAY TO PREVENT IT (I.E. technology/science)

http://www.fitsugar.com/1778847

Thats not as a whole thats for white, middle class women. Fantastic it proves nothing.

[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3076645/

http://www.familiesagainstcancer.org/?id=26

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/97724.php

Do you want me to go on?

http://www.cancer.org/docroot/NWS/content/NWS_1_1x_Cancer_Deaths_Down_Again.asp

All your links are either old or don't address the problem as whole. This whole cancer debate is fucking pointless anyway, the thing is people are living longer than they ever have. You were wrong. I was right. Cancer or no cancer, people are living longer due to medical advances, regardless of side effects...



What mind? Show me this mind. Science understands nothing, it merely has developed tools to further its sensory perception and built technology to make us more complacent and destroy us more easily.

You really don't think that the human mind has evolved since cavemen? I'm all out of insults because I'm stunned at your stupidity.


All thought, whether religious or scientific, is the cause of all human suffering.

Instinct has no role in this? (Instinct isn't thought btw) Instinct is essentially reaction.

I have many problems, and hospitals or doctors do not understand them nor can they help. I wouldn't want them to, anyway. I will accept my fate with grace when it comes.

Yeah, its called down syndrome. Why don't you stop licking Ted Kaczynski's testicles and do the world a favor and take your 12 year old anarcho-primitivist ideals and go live in the woods by yourself.

Please do humanity a favor and kill yourself. Preferably with a stick or a stone.

Yeah, its called down syndrome. Why don't you stop licking Ted Kaczynski's testicles and do the world a favor and take your 12 year old anarcho-primitivist ideals and go live in the woods by yourself.

Made thread worth reading.

Made thread worth reading.

well then, that's yr climax

well then, that's yr climax

brah u trollin?

To the OP: The fact that people claim to experience God in the way they do makes it irrelevant that some else introduced the concept. If they choose to believe in feeling and experience over logic, then they make the jump, no argument about it.

To the tangent on the thread: Science beats the shit out of religon. It's not ambigous, restrictive personally, yields inventions and products, plus I can actually fucking prove science. Religon is means to acceptance and happiness, which is what philosophy is supposed to be for. At least philosophy is based (albeit loosely in the crazy cases) on logic. Religon is just intimidates me, it doesn't comfort, without that guarentee.

You have shown that indoctrination causes people to be inflexible, but you have not produced the causal link to religion. Anything taught in the way implied above with have a long lasting effect on a person, which possibly may hinder their rational process.

Are you serious? Religion forces their followers to adhere to such inane statements about life (i.e. creationism) constantly. Being religious means denying logic and common sense. In every religion there is some ridiculous belief about life that is and was validated by nothing other than some guy a long time ago who was just looking for a simple answer. The point is, religion specifically hinders the ability for human thought, think about it, why would you pursue logic and reason anymore if you believed you had the answer to everything? The problem is, those alleged answers have been proven wrong not just by science but also by common sense, everyone knows people can't walk on water and be resurrected. As Hume said, religion (specifically Christianity) requires that you ignore common sense and accept miracle based on nothing but blind faith.

So here is the connection between religion and "people being inflexible" (I prefer the term "completely retarded and brainwashed", but yours is more PC I suppose): Religion demands it's followers to accept ridiculous ideas and claims questioning those ideas is "sinful", due to this, they deny facts and truth of the world despite evidence. How do you not see that connection? What other than religion and totalitarianism demands that you accept their beliefs and ideals without question? Nothing (other than maybe your parents when your 5 years old )



The thing is, I put on the Tv and listen to the shit pouring out of every one's mouth, and ,y'know what, it's not just the religious spraying a shit storm, it's literally everyone.

Yeah but theres a difference between calling someones opinion "shit" when it's nothing more than a subjective view on the world that is nothing more than just, an opinion and listening to someone talk about an invisible man in the sky calling it the absolute truth and me saying that's BS.


Once again, you have not proved the link to religion, by this I mean that you have not shown me how this is somethng that occurs only among the religious, or that religion causes it. People do these things, regardless of their religious backgrounds.

No. That's not true. People don't make random shit up about the world that EVERYONE knows is not true and then tell people its the way. Where else other than religion do people make stunningly and embarrassingly wrong facts such as "The Earth is 6,000 years old" and then request this crap be taught in schools? Nothing other than religion is that arrogant or wrong. Although schools and science make claims they believe to be true when they are proven wrong they correct the statement. Religion refuses to do that. Nothing other than religion refuses to change it's mind even when clearly proven wrong.

Just because people can be irrational, and some of these people are religious; does not mean that relgion causes people to be irrational.

Perhaps not as a whole, but there view on the world is wrong. I know not everyone believes in creationism but 55% of America does; Over half of our country believes the world came to be not because of reasoning, logic, or even observation but simply because someone told them. These people hold irrational views. Why? Religion.



Logic defying concepts are not limited to religion. Religion is not the source or cause of all logic defying concepts.

That doesn't mean religion isn't dumb as all hell and I'm just curious, can you name a source that has created logic defying concepts that is even remotely as contagious as religion?

Also, it is not neccesary for logic-defying concepts to cause negative outcomes. It is possible that logic-defying concepts are used to illustrate a wider points, or to communicate certain ideas, which are not necessarily wrong.

True, but the ones that religion holds don't do that. They just make people dumb and ignorant of the world. Believing in talking snakes and bushes does not benefit anything.


Why not? To get closer to God, to understand God, to become more like God? Surely there are plenty of reasons for those people that want to make them.

Why not? God can do anything, is it not worth learning how God does what he does?

And why not ask, 'How?' after the God did it answer?

I don't think that thinking philosophically and scientifically makes the concept of God no longer needed.

How? God has all power. God did it for Good and love. Those are the answers, nothing else. Since I have now just told you the meaning of life, how we came to be and the reasons behind existence in 11 words and 2 sentences we can all go back to being stupid, content beings and live a life not only of mediocrity but of complete and utter ignorance.

God and religion are "the opiate of the masses" as Marx put it. Religion and God are for people who lack the ability to think and reason and would rather live as the saying goes "ignorance is bliss". Religion is just a cop out for how things really are because the reality is, life can be quite overwhelming at times and people need something (the opiate) to keep them from utter despair and depression, religion gives them hope in another world. This sounds good because it gives others hope but at what consequence? In return they deny the gifts of our current world in hopes of going to a place that doesn't exist. People will be fine with living a life of utter misery and pain and then die. The end. Not to mention the fact that these people go to extreme and horrific lengths to force these lies down other peoples' throats because, "god forbid" that those people actually find the truth and take away "our little fantasy world" and bring us back into reality. Religion is nothing more than the denial of reality. The reason people do it is because there just too fucking weak minded and lack the courage to step outside of mind control and acknowledge the reality of our current predicament. Religion tells people to be content with themselves, rather than be great. It preaches weakness and frailty over perseverance and strength. Religion is for the weak, reality is for the strong and deserving, and unfortunately not everyone can be in reality. So, enjoy living in the herd stuck in your stall waiting for "eternal life" in a world of lies and deceit while slowly wasting away into certain nothingness.

^-------Points for truth, excellent post, I could not agree more.

It seems to me that you're posts are saying this:

That a religious person must neccesarily deny or discard logic and common sense in a active way.

'Being religious means denying logic and common sense.'

Now while I agree that the leap of faith to believe in God means that one has to take an illogical position, but taking one single illogical position does not mean that a person must neccesarily deny logic and common sense.

There is one single belief, one, that can be attributed to theistic religious believers, and that is the belief in God; the opinion that this neccesarily involves the denial of reason and logic is a leap that I don't believe you can actually support in argument, to do so you would need to show, not just examples of religious un-reason but a logical argument showing that a religious believer is a priori a denier of reason and logic.

So, to clarify; if you are saying that a religious believer must give up logic in the one instance of belief in God, then yes, I agree.

However, if you are saying that being a religious person neccesarily involves one in actively denying logic and reason then I would like you to show me the argument that shows this as true.

'Cause I'm fairly sure that the assumption that religious believers cannot use logic or reason is a pretty un-reasonable and illogical one.

Cop-out

Reply point by point or you automatically lose.

Reply point by point or you automatically lose.

I'm so glad you could condescend to reply to me.

I'm sure, however, that if Mr.Kitty has a problem he can bring it up himself.

I'm so glad you could condescend to reply to me.

I'm sure, however, that if Mr.Kitty has a problem he can bring it up himself.

Whatever; As far as I am concerned, you automatically lose. I don't imagine that you should admit to caring what people think, but that's my perception of a debate where one person stops responding to all the points made by their opponent.

Whatever; As far as I am concerned, you automatically lose. I don't imagine that you should admit to caring what people think, but that's my perception of a debate where one person stops responding to all the points made by their opponent.

Ok, fair enough.

It seems to me that you're posts are saying this:

That a religious person must neccesarily deny or discard logic and common sense in a active way.

'Being religious means denying logic and common sense.'

Now while I agree that the leap of faith to believe in God means that one has to take an illogical position, but taking one single illogical position does not mean that a person must neccesarily deny logic and common sense.

There is one single belief, one, that can be attributed to theistic religious believers, and that is the belief in God; the opinion that this neccesarily involves the denial of reason and logic is a leap that I don't believe you can actually support in argument, to do so you would need to show, not just examples of religious un-reason but a logical argument showing that a religious believer is a priori a denier of reason and logic.

So, to clarify; if you are saying that a religious believer must give up logic in the one instance of belief in God, then yes, I agree.

However, if you are saying that being a religious person neccesarily involves one in actively denying logic and reason then I would like you to show me the argument that shows this as true.

'Cause I'm fairly sure that the assumption that religious believers cannot use logic or reason is a pretty un-reasonable and illogical one.

If you make one illogical assumption about the world it leads to another. If everything you live and act by is based off of a lie then it leads to another misconception. Religion is a life style not a just a single belief about a single aspect of life, every action and thought by a religious person over anything that is considered slightly important (say, any ethical decision) is influenced by an illogical belief in God.

Religion is a meme. Memes travel like viruses.

One infected person tells another tells another...or a person reads a book that his the foundation of the meme. Nobody on the planet is born into a religion, or born knowing the mysteries of the universe religion claims to answer.

They must be taught, because many of the "truths" in religion are not self-evident.

Some of these things should be self-evident, such as a soul.

Find a child raised by wolves, teach him how to communicate with you, and ask him if he knows what happens when you die...if he says "It depends upon the sins against the almighty you have committed and failed to repent for" or "Your ghost goes to a paradise" I will cease to be a fucking atheist on the spot.

Religion is a meme. Memes travel like viruses.

One infected person tells another tells another...or a person reads a book that his the foundation of the meme. Nobody on the planet is born into a religion, or born knowing the mysteries of the universe religion claims to answer.

They must be taught, because many of the "truths" in religion are not self-evident.

Some of these things should be self-evident, such as a soul.

Find a child raised by wolves, teach him how to communicate with you, and ask him if he knows what happens when you die...if he says "It depends upon the sins against the almighty you have committed and failed to repent for" or "Your ghost goes to a paradise" I will cease to be a fucking atheist on the spot.

By teaching him to communicate you've already indoctrinated him into yr own belief system.

If you make one illogical assumption about the world it leads to another. If everything you live and act by is based off of a lie then it leads to another misconception. Religion is a life style not a just a single belief about a single aspect of life, every action and thought by a religious person over anything that is considered slightly important (say, any ethical decision) is influenced by an illogical belief in God.

You still haven't shown me an argument as to the neccesity of a religious believer discarding logic and common sense.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Golden_Age
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Islamic_philosophy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_science

As you can see from above, a belief that religion neccesarily causes a person to discard Logic and common sense is false; that it prevents them from furthering science is a misconception, and that the single illogical belief in God has no nullifying effect on a person's reason.

I think it is as wrong to say atheists have no morality, as it is to say that religious people are incapable of logic and common sense.

The problem with the religion is not religion, but the way what is being taught is being taught. Religion is not incompatible with progress or science or logic or common sense, these are unnescesary assumptions that do nothing to help.

You still haven't shown me an argument as to the neccesity of a religious believer discarding logic and common sense.


All you want is a religious person disregarding common sense?

I've already told you. Do you mean someone denying ALL common sense? Because that obviously doesn't happen and it was never my argument, my argument was that religion causes people to deny common sense (implying SOME common sense, i.e. ALOT of common sense)

Do I really need to list out every stupid belief religion demands people accepts? (i.e. 6,000 year old Earth)

Obviously one cannot deny all common sense but religion gets about as close as you can get...

Here's an argument. Mormons believed that Native Americans were direct descendants from a Jewish/Israeli tribe , DNA testing has 100% proven that wrong, yet Mormons continue to believe it.

All science has given us is the ability to kill our neighbors faster and harder. Instead of stones and sticks we have hydrogen bombs.

PROGRESS!

And please, any "medical advances" are completely besides the point. Our general health has declined so much because of our technology and synthetic foods and electrical fields that our medicine can not help us. More and more people are dying from cancer.

Why?

It's not contagious.

OH yeah, that's why the life span of humanity has gone from 20-25 years to 80-90 years. Yup. Fuck science.

Sorry guys, made this post early and didn't realize that mr. theist is also apparently anti-civ.

Having worked with a few anarcho-primitaivsts over the years, I've generally found that none of them actually would want to live the way they seem to want to live. They're into primitiavism for the environmental effects, think that the world sucks and agriculture isn't sustainable, etc. But they still won't turn down medical care or technology for the most part. Except the unibomber and other really unstable people.

It's interesting seeing this thread play out, because the people who are arguing on the side of science are actually responding to arguments and using logic, while the theist is just shouting and going on tangents. Congrats, theist.

Oh, and just to put this out there:

I, as an atheist, don't give a fuck whether my methods are identical to that of a religion. I'm right. Theists are wrong. That's just common sense. My truths can be verified, theirs can't, it just goes on like that. I don't give a fuck if you think I'm "indoctrinating" someone into the "belief system" of science (which is a really oxymoronic phrase), that's the only one that can be verified and that's the only one with any logical basis.

I, as an atheist, don't give a fuck whether my methods are identical to that of a religion. I'm right. Theists are wrong. That's just common sense. My truths can be verified, theirs can't, it just goes on like that. I don't give a fuck if you think I'm "indoctrinating" someone into the "belief system" of science (which is a really oxymoronic phrase), that's the only one that can be verified and that's the only one with any logical basis.

I like this stance. I always said that I'm not doing any indoctrinating, that I'm merely breaking down their system as illogical and saying science is the most logical of what we have.

I like this stance. I always said that I'm not doing any indoctrinating, that I'm merely breaking down their system as illogical and saying science is the most logical of what we have.

Agreed. It is an intelligent logical way of putting.

Theists take notes...