The only excuse for religious belief is ignorance
- Locked due to inactivity on Aug 4, '16 4:31pm
Thread Topic: The only excuse for religious belief is ignorance
-
I say this because I encounter many Christians who pick and choose what in the Bible they choose to believe. This is better than believing the Bible is the literal word of God, but just barely. It is quite sad that people who can demonstrate enough critical thought to know bulls--- when they hear it or see it will still cling to the source of that bulls---. What reason do you have to continue believing? What good has religion ever done for you? I'll offer a warning to the uninitiated: if you wish to counter my thoughts, be prepared for a lengthy debate. I only argue because I respect you and your capacity for critical thinking and wish only to be the catalyst to start it. And hey, maybe someone will even change my mind, because I am genuinely curious. If you can reason well enough to know that at least some of the stuff you are taught in wrong, why cling to the entity that perpetuates those lies?
-
If you have no excuse what does that make you?
In order to recognize bulls---, youd first have to have at least a partial grasp on the truth. And heres the thing about the truth, even if it does exist, even if there is onecontinuous reality with rules which prevail throughout the universe in one solid chunk of existence that will always be fact, these facts are literally impossible for humans to be sure of. What you can be mostly sure of generally requires such mathematical genius that 99 percent of humans will never know for themselves what the truth even possibly could be. People are down to observation and critique of others viewpoints when it comes to knowimg the truth. We don't rely on logical critique of the universe to define our take on the truth, but critical observation of eachother. And really in the end, the only thing we can be sure of is our own thoughts, so whats the difference in believing in the holy book, or the text book? It all ends up about the same. Some of the most important scientists in history were Christian, and some of the most successful tyrants were atheist. There is coalition between religion and counterproductivity but there is no actual cause and effect. Religion hasnt been shown to be the CAUSE of bulls---. Just happens to the belief of people who perpetuate it, because it is everywhere.
What has religion done for me? Well for one thing, I find faith to be beautiful. I could write essays on how much I appreciate it from now till next year, but the fact is, it's artistic to have total control of your own thoughts in the way is strived for by Christians. The existence of religion and prerooted depth of thought and reaction that goes into relgion has also made it possible to write some of the most intense things I make. When I write about god, and the devil, and hell, and demons and angels and the characters of the bible, im playing with cultural connotations that have exited for 2000 years. The power of it is INCREDIBLE to me. But thats just me. What has religion done for other people would be a better question. Well for one thing Christianity gave you, your morality. The idea of a universal right and wrong is a religious thing. You play along with it despite not believing in its source but make no mistake, your values are christian. And even the organization of your values is christian. The moral compass is an Abrahamic invention. I don't believe in moral right and wrong, but I acknowledge it has balue to most every other person on the planet.
I don't believe the entity that perpetuates lied is religion itself. Religion is a system of thinking, not a thought. You might as well say science perpetuates lies because scientists constantly revise their conclusion.
The true culprit is inability to evolve in terms of thinking, and that is not a trait of religion, but a trait of humans. -
To correct a few things in your post there Tony:
Fallacies:
-The burden of proof lies on the person making the claim. Science claims things and then goes out and provides repeatable and explainable experiments and tests to support themselves. Religion does not.
-Some scientists have been Christian before, this is true. But Christianity has also been the default normality in the past. Today however, 93% of the national academy of science is atheist.
-Two of the most well known Atheist tyrants were Stalin and Pol Pot, however, if you look in to your history a bit further, they never used their lack of belief to further their tyranny. Unlike almost every religious tyrant throughout history, it wasn't a weapon to them.
-Religion being the cause of counter-productivity:
Well the crusades, the witch trials, and Nazi Germany are some good historic ones. But if you want a more modern example, I'd suggest looking in to the HPV vaccine, abortion laws, stem cell research, or the public schooling issues in Orange County Florida right now.
-Personal claims: Hold no grounds in court, hold no grounds in science, hold no grounds here.
-Morality is not Christian. Morality sums up to "hey that sucks, I don't want that happening to me, so I won't do it to you." Shall we look at the morals taught by Christian figures however?
2Kings Ch2 v23-24 (this man is now a saint)
Judges 14:12-19 (kills 30 men to honor a bet about shirts)
2Kings 1:9-14 (Elijah kills 150 men to prove himself)
Judges 11:24 (sacrifices his daughter to pay a debt to god)
2kings 10:18 (lies and genocide in exchange for power)
Numbers 31:17-18 (kill all men and non-virgin women. Rape the rest)
But these don't count right? After all, the bible standards are held to a different moral code than today? Right? So we couldn't possibly base our morals off those, Right?
-Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed. Religion is the denial of observation so that faith may be preserved. To say they are the same is to completely ignore the foundation of both. -
My friend no offense, but I think you're not reading everything thoroughly.
Burden of proof us totally irrelevant here, im not saying who does or doesn't have proof at all, im saying the way we get proof renders facts irrelevant in the large picture. It has nothing to do with passing the buck proving claims.
In regard to your statistics, again irrelevant. My point that I already made in this regard is that thise statistics are coalition not cause and effect. I went on previously to offer alternate rationalization. That applies to you're next three points.
The question tongue asked was a personal one. I answered it as the question was asked; however, I also acknowledged the Irrelevance of personal claims myself, and corrected it.
In regards to your last two points, in the sstatements you're referring to, I emphasized the word systems to make it clear that the comparison had a certain scale to it. My argument isnt that they don't have dismilarity, but that at the scale it matters, they do not. Argue against my perspective but don't try to say that of two thoughts one is less of a thought because its different then other. -
But maybe I misunderstood you. Feel free to correct me.
-
Honestly though it does look like you skimmed and assumed the generic stance because most of this business was totally addressed in my original statement. And what wasn't, was intended to be somewhat implied.
-
Here is my ultimate beef with your response Slim.
1. You didn't actually answer question, but of course it doesn't apply to you as I was posing to those who actually believe.
2. Perhaps I am simplifying with this assessment, but it seems like your response boils down to one of two ideas: truth is either non-existent or impossible to find. Ideas such as these are the antithesis of human nature because science is a natural result of human curiosity, as are most other disciplines. If I am reading your response correctly, the only reason we have for existing on this planet is to remain in the cave. I'm speaking of Plato's Allegory of the Cave, you may have heard of it. To say that all truth is subjective is the ultimate cop-out because it commits the same evil as religion: it denies the personal and intellectual growth of humanity and only keeps humanity chained up in the Cave.
As for agnosticism, I do not find it to be as evil as Sophistry, which is the philosophy that the search for truth is futile. Agnosticism, however, is also a cop-out. Acknowledging even the possibility of a deity's existence is as good as believing in its existence with absolute certainty, because it means that you are still at least partly given to the superstitious and the archaic as opposed to the rational and the proven. Even in sitting on the fence you are allowing a widespread culture of irrationality and anti-intellectualism to flourish.
I expected when I created this thread to simply debate religion. I needed a few days away from it because your response has made this a much bigger discussion. It seems we are now not only speaking about religion and atheism, but also the very nature and vitality of humanity itself. -
I would read this, but I'll leave it to the three geniuses in the club. I might read this later on, though. Some-thing's compelling me...
-
420 purge it NewbieI view agnosticism as mostly a phase as a path of uncertainty from one religion to the next. Most people who claim agnosticism from my experience are agnostic atheist or agnostic deist. Or they just avoid these deep questions and move on with their lives.
-
Well first, to be clear: I dont believe we have any reason outside of the conditions by which we evolved for existing on earth. While im open to the notion I've seen no logical suggestion that we are. And furthermore, In making my observations on the nature of truth, I don't mean to say it's futile to pursue it, Im just pointing out that the pursuit of which Is the same whether you follow one path or another. This because ultimately we are not driven by the math of a situation but the rhetoric of its champions. Most people don't have the math background to understand the beautiful universe, so we rely on the words of those who do to interpret it. They are the people we judge not the theory. It will alwayd come down to putting your faith in humans, and one human is no more infallible or trustworthy then the other.
In short, my position is first that religion gives me art, and it is what led to the current culture that alows for your existence as you. Its given billions of people Inspiration, and hope. It provides jobs, it opens forums of discussion, it simplifies things for the people who live for the moment and creates challenge for those who think. I propose the reason its associated with such widespread attrocity is becuse it is widespread. Ice cream sales go up at the same time as drownings, but ice cream eaters aren't necessarily accident prone.
Hope that clarified my answer to you. -
Mazela NewbieChrist is the dumbest thing invented
-
Christ is fine, noble even. His message has been subverted by Christian institutions. They hide behind him to disguise their ugliness.
This thread is locked, therefore no new posts can be made.
