Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Super19

Religion cannot be proven by worldly sciences

2,035 posts in this topic

See what we have here is a proper debate but I ask you who is right? Can either of us actually prove these claims. No . We were not around to witness the acts or results of these mythical or supernatural events that today make up the worlds religions. man has created this rollercoaster ride and it is way out of control.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember I did say parallels :) See what we have here is a proper debate but I ask you who is right? Can either of us actually prove these claims. No . We were not around to witness the acts or results of these mythical or supernatural events that today make up the worlds religions. man has created this rollercoaster ride and it is way out of control.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the non religious here, what do you base your views of Jesus off of? Bible or Qur'an?

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Neither. My views of Jesus come from South Park and Mel Gibson.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't you have to believe in god(s) to be a misotheist? I think anti-theist would be more apt here. I wouldn't be too fond of the Abrahamic god as described in the Bible/Quran/Torah if I thought he were real, but I'd have no qualms with other descriptions of deities (eg. the deistic god). I wouldn't consider myself to be an anti-theist because I don't think there's anything inherently bad about believing in deities. It can be destructive, constructive, or neutral depending on the person's ancillary beliefs. The best approach is a case by case basis for beliefs rather than a blanket opposition to theism.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So does your science view come from the same place?

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ha, oh boy. Anti-theism is the new insult to direct towards non-believers, eh? You're not just non-religious, your ANTI-religious. You know what I'm really wondering, why is that a bad thing? I will make no apologies for anti-theistic viewpoints. I see absolutely no benefit to theism in any way, shape, or form. I think, personally, that belief in God is silly (oh my, was that offensive?). Well, I do happen to feel that believing in God is childish. If you find that offensive, it's actually YOUR problem and not mine.To me, it is ridiculous.

Let me phrase this another way. If I, and J.R. and Sharpshooter, are anti-theistic, then believers in God are anti-science. See how that works? Believing in a supernatural, all-powerful God or Gods is anti-science in the same way that a lack of belief in the same God(s) is anti-theistic. You can easily be categorized as anti-anything. Are you liberal? Well then, how dare you be so anti-conservative! You should be more tolerant!

The logic is weak, gentlemen.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ha, oh boy. Anti-theism is the new insult to direct towards non-believers, eh? You're not just non-religious, your ANTI-religious. You know what I'm really wondering, why is that a bad thing? I will make no apologies for anti-theistic viewpoints. I see absolutely no benefit to theism in any way, shape, or form. I think, personally, that belief in God is silly (oh my, was that offensive?). Well, I do happen to feel that believing in God is childish. If you find that offensive, it's actually YOUR problem and not mine.To me, it is ridiculous.

Let me phrase this another way. If I, and J.R. and Sharpshooter, are anti-theistic, then believers in God are anti-science. See how that works? Believing in a supernatural, all-powerful God or Gods is anti-science in the same way that a lack of belief in the same God(s) is anti-theistic. You can easily be categorized as anti-anything. Are you liberal? Well then, how dare you be so anti-conservative! You should be more tolerant!

The logic is weak, gentlemen.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ha, oh boy. Anti-theism is the new insult to direct towards non-believers, eh? You're not just non-religious, your ANTI-religious. You know what I'm really wondering, why is that a bad thing? I will make no apologies for anti-theistic viewpoints. I see absolutely no benefit to theism in any way, shape, or form. I think, personally, that belief in God is silly (oh my, was that offensive?). Well, I do happen to feel that believing in God is childish. If you find that offensive, it's actually YOUR problem and not mine.To me, it is ridiculous.

Let me phrase this another way. If I, and J.R. and Sharpshooter, are anti-theistic, then believers in God are anti-science. See how that works? Believing in a supernatural, all-powerful God or Gods is anti-science in the same way that a lack of belief in the same God(s) is anti-theistic. You can easily be categorized as anti-anything. Are you liberal? Well then, how dare you be so anti-conservative! You should be more tolerant!

The logic is weak, gentlemen.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, my favorite weak sauce argument is that we have a belief in non-belief.

Think about that one.   ;)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, my favorite weak sauce argument is that we have a belief in non-belief.

Think about that one. ;)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, my favorite weak sauce argument is that we have a belief in non-belief.

Think about that one. ;)

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey some atheist do :P

I wonder when atheism stopped being "the belief that there is no god" and started being "a lack of belief in god."

It seems to me lacking a belief in god because of lack of evidence is more in line with agnosticism.

As in an agnostic atheist - I do not KNOW there is no God, but I do not believe there is one.

Gnosticism/Agnosticism is about knowledge whereas theism/atheism used to be about belief. Suddenly only theism means belief in god whereas atheism is changing to "lack of belief" even though it didn't used to be.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I get where you're coming from, but I really don't think it's much of a stretch for atheists to conclude that there is no factual God(s) based on empirical evidence. For example, based on you argument, how can we conclude that unicorns never existed?! This is why the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists. It's completely absurd, yet un-disprovable.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I get where you're coming from, but I really don't think its much of a stretch for atheists to conclude that there is no factual God(s) based on empirical evidence. For example, based on you argument, how can we conclude that unicorns never existed?! This is why the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists. It's completely absurd, yet un-disprovable.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think people misunderstood me earlier during the whole "what does atheism mean" discussion. I think it's entirely reasonable based on the evidence (or lack of) to be an agnostic atheist - to claim that you don't know, but that you don't believe - but I feel like atheists just like to say "lack a belief" because then they don't feel like they're holding an irrational belief in something science can't prove. But we all have beliefs that science can't prove, it's ok to not know something 100% and still believe it.

I mean sure atheists lack a belief, but from looking at history and science if they were to make an inference to the best explanation whats wrong with concluding "hmm I don't believe."

It's even more interesting when they equate a belief in god to a belief in Santa or the Easter bunny - but I'm willing to bet they don't just "lack a belief" in santa or the easter bunny but also do not believe they exist.

With regards to the FSM I can confidently say not only do I lack a belief in it I also do not believe it. Can science disprove him, no maybe not, but I think it's reasonable to conclude he probably doesn't exist therefore I do not believe in him.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By "do not believe" do you mean "believe it doesn't exist"? To me, the former sounds identical in meaning to "lack a belief".

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.