If you believe in god, you're an idiot... - Page 39

corradojeff · #**381** 01-20-2011, 03:11 PM

I consider myself Agnostic. I grew up Catholic and converted (forced to convert) to Christianity when my parents split. When I got older I studied theology and the more I read the more I realized how Agnostic I actually was.

I think an important point is being missed.

There is no "fact" that god exists and there is no "fact" that he doesn’t exist but there is the undeniable truth that the idea of a god does affect the people who believe. Sometimes that effect is negative and other times its positive but it is there.

No, I don’t believe there is a god in a corporeal sense but I do believe that the idea of a god exists in people and that it has a very real and sometimes tangible effect on that person and the people around them.

P.S. I am not talking about "God" or "The God" I am referring to a god. Any sort of god that anyone believes in.

Daldolma · #**382** 01-20-2011, 03:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chtulu [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

We explain our existence by a combination of the anthropic principle and Darwin's principle of natural selection. That combination provides a complete and deeply satisfying explanation for everything that we see and know. Not only is the god hypothesis unnecessary. It is spectacularly unparsimonious. Not only do we need no God to explain the universe and life. God stands out in the universe as the most glaring of all superfluous sore thumbs.

Also, there is evidence of why Our universe does not require a God to function (aka, evidence). Newtonian Laws explain phenomenons that were only explained through metaphors and stories based on God. Physics in general as solved many mysteries that we once chalked up to just "God's work". Evolution is another huge scientific understanding that further shows that God was not required to have animals live and change. Let's not also forget genetics and astronomy that have played their roles. You don't here people explaining that the Sky is blue because it's God's favorite color, or that we have droughts because he's angry with us. No, it is explained in ways humans understand, and that require no divine intervention.

What really confuses me is that you some how equate life outside of this planet to a divine entity that is omnipotent and omission. We are proof that it is capable to have life on a planet, why would we think that life couldn't happen any where else? We have an example of why it's plausible that there can be life elsewhere, we don't, however, have an example of super natural beings that have existed to postulate the existence of other divine creatures.

But it's ok, you're just like any other typical Theist. No real argument, just ad homniems and absurd, invalid logic. But thanks for being a condescending dick.

1 - If you believe that any of the current theories regarding the origins and development of life on Earth provide a "deeply satisfying explanation" for everything we see and know, you're an idiot or you're ignorant -- there's no middle ground. Even evolution, the most basic and most substantiated theory for how life has developed, is very much incomplete. Read: not deeply satisfying. And that doesn't even begin to touch upon the primordial ooze origins, which is essentially guesswork. Not that it matters. What you seemingly can't wrap your head around is that there's no zero-sum argument regarding science and religion. It's perfectly acceptable for the physical laws of the universe to govern all development on Earth. The question is how were these laws created? How was the universe created? Everything observable to humanity has a beginning and an end: what was the beginning of the universe? If you say a primeval atom, as attested in the Big Bang Theory, what makes you any more certain than someone who says a sentient Creator? Answer: nothing. Any discussion of the origin of the universe is, by definition, a *highly* unproven theory based as much on guesswork as anything else. On a universal scale, we're smaller than ants. We can adequately describe the universe's origins insofar as an ant can adequately describe Earth's origins. Read: not at all.

2 - You continue to cite the disproval of old beliefs of Divine Intervention as evidence that God doesn't exist. Like I stated above, it's equivalent to someone "disproving" the existence of extraterrestrial life by showing Billy Bob that the UFO in his backyard is a firefly. You're not disproving the existence of extraterrestrial life: you're proving that the "UFO" is a firefly, and that Billy is an idiot. Nothing more, nothing less.

3 - And your last paragraph of debate just proves how in over your head you are -- even without remarking upon the difference between "omission" and "omniscient", which I assume is what you meant. You say, "We are proof that it is possible to have life on a planet. Why wouldn't we think it could happen anywhere else?" I say we are proof of the creative powers of sentient beings. Why couldn't that explain the creation of the universe? Mankind is capable of creating life -- we've done it. We're capable of creating or re-creating many of the elements and conditions of our universe. If the existence of mankind depended upon it, we could probably even create a new "planet" -- of course it would be mechanic, not organic, but that's not really the point. So who's to say that an infinitely more advanced sentient Being is not responsible for the creation of the universe as we know it? It's far from objective fact, but it's just as valid as a belief in a primeval atom. And it's just as grounded in observable evidence as the notion that "We are evidence of life on a planet, so there's life on a planet elsewhere." Hell, we can knock off both of these birds with one stone -- who's to say that this life on another planet isn't a hyper-advanced species that forged the universe, including its physical properties, while creating all life as they saw fit? There you go -- you've got sentient Creator and extraterrestrial life all wrapped up in one theory, and it's not any less absurd than the notion of a primeval atom. And it's all based on a modicum of observable evidence and a heap of guesswork.

Beauregard · #**383** 01-20-2011, 03:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dunes [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

So you know where Im coming from, I probably fall around a #5 on that chart.

Premise: Religion is good.

Let me explain my take on it, despite the fact that I lean agnostic.

Religion came about for several reasons, to name a few at a high level:
-1- As a means of explaining the (then currently) unexplainable
-2- As a means of providing hope for the downtrodden
-3- As an additional societal norm for group cohesion
-4- As a means of providing justification for ones actions and as a means of control (dont take a offence at this one yet; see below)

So a bit more detail before I explain my premise.

-1- In an era with even basic mathematics did not exist, you can rest assured that there was a lot that was unexplainable. As societies grew, so did our understanding of the world, and more probable explanations came to be. This might in part explain the theological distillation from gods of everything (thunder, war, the hearth, the etc etc) down to "God", as subject matter for each of those other Gods was no longer unexplainable. Every new scientific/technical discovery of worldly significance deals another blow to religion.

-2- In an era when even basic medical care did not exist or was out of reach of most, religion provided some sense of hope. "Yes, my existence is miserable right now, but someday I will be rewarded for my faith with everything my that my I (my culture) hold dear." Also, "Yes, you may be able to knock down my shanty and steal my possessions, but someday, I will be rewarded for my faith and you will get what is coming to you." As medical care has improved and become more readily available, again, religion is replaced in the hearts of men (and women) by more worldly concerns.

-3- In an era when people were still being eaten by lions and threatened by invading forces, group cohesion and identity were critical. Group cohesion formed cultures, which in turn formed towns, cities, and nations of similarly minded people. Nations did tend to use religion (-4-) as a means of control, but this never would have worked if the people hadnt already adopted their form of religion as a societal norm. Ever has religion played a part in the rise and fall of empires. I will say this, though - religion is becoming less and less a motivator for war than economics. Economics, however, have always played a part in war.

-4- Persona A, "Why did you do that?" Person B, "Because its the right thing to do." This is a broad one, because it encompasses not only our moral "duties" but also our more proactive decision making processes (going to Church, volunteering at a food bank, etc). Unfortunately, this is also the one that gets us in trouble because it is so action-oriented. Person A, "Why are you going to blow yourself up in a highly populated location?" Person B, "because (someone told me that) its the right thing to do." Again, some conflict still ensues due to religion, but it is becoming increasingly less of a motivator despite media attention on the nut job suicide bombers.

So yes, there are pro's and cons to religion, and yes, a post in a forum cant even scratch the tip of the subject. Nevertheless, my premise that religion is good stands true in my mind. What other means is there of making sure that a person does the right thing unless its fear of divine retribution? Also, dont even try to make the argument of "well, what is 'the right thing'?" I think its safe to say that the right thing means not killing the kid that stole your lunch money just because you wont get caught (and other such examples). This simple rule of not killing unecessarily, not stealing, helping others when in need, and basically most of the 10 Commandments, is what keeps our ever growing, hedonistic, and entitled populations from destroying each other completely. Sure, thats a "sky is falling" scenario, but I personally would hate to see a world where religion does not, and never did exist. Sure

Agreed completely except the premise that religion is good. I would argue it used to be good, and has outlived its purpose. We have science now.

Religion was our first attempt at damn near everything. Philosophy, Medicine, Astronomy, Morality, etc. We have transcended religion in every aspect.

Example of inferior religious morality - god has a clear stance on homosexuality, yet we now know they are born that way and we shouldn't discriminate against them because they aren't sinning. So we have 2 camps in America that hold the two different opinions, where it shouldn't even be an issue.

Asher · #**384** 01-20-2011, 03:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beauregard [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Ok here's something I know. If we were created like the bible tells us our creator is a fucking moron because he gave us an appendix we don't need.

How do you know that the appendix has no use? As far as science is concerned now it has no function and it is not known what its purpose is but that is not to say it doesn't have one. Maybe time will tell.

Asher

Molitoth · #**385** 01-20-2011, 03:19 PM

Beauregard · #**386** 01-20-2011, 03:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Asher [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

How do you know that the appendix has no use? As far as science is concerned now it has no function and it is not known what its purpose is but that is not to say it doesn't have one. Maybe time will tell.

Asher

Umm as far as science is concerned we used it hundreds of thousands of years ago to process the high amount of dirt in our diet.

corradojeff · #**387** 01-20-2011, 03:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dunes [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

What other means is there of making sure that a person does the right thing unless its fear of divine retribution?

Lot of people are stating things similar to the above in this thread. Since you are a self proclaimed "5" on the scale I will ask you: When you see a brick of money sitting on a counter at a bank (I don’t know just roll with it) so you think to yourself "I shouldn't steal that or god will punish me"?

When my morals are tested the first thing I usually think is "I don't want to go to fucking jail". The argument has been made that the laws have been formed with a deep base in religion, and that very well may be, but the fact remains that if you’re caught the law with fuck you in the ass with the largest dildo it can find and that is what is scary.

Asher · #**388** 01-20-2011, 03:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beauregard [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Umm as far as science is concerned we used it hundreds of thousands of years ago to process the high amount of dirt in our diet.

I learned something knew today. I had always been told it had no purpose. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Asher

Beauregard · #**389** 01-20-2011, 03:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by corradojeff [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Lot of people are stating things similar to the above in this thread. Since you are a self proclaimed "5" on the scale I will ask you: When you see a brick of money sitting on a counter at a bank (I don’t know just roll with it) so you think to yourself "I shouldn't steal that or god will punish me"?

When my morals are tested the first thing I usually think is "I don't want to go to fucking jail". The argument has been made that the laws have been formed with a deep base in religion, and that very well may be, but the fact remains that if you’re caught the law with fuck you in the ass with the largest dildo it can find and that is what is scary.

Morality is innate. We don't need punishment and reward to justify our behaviour. There are fine reasons for humanity to develop morality in an evolutionary perspective.

Asher · #**390** 01-20-2011, 03:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by corradojeff [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

There is no "fact" that god exists and there is no "fact" that he doesn’t exist but there is the undeniable truth that the idea of a god does affect the people who believe. Sometimes that effect is negative and other times its positive but it is there.

While I agree it does serve a good purpose, I think it is sad that we need this crutch to be good.

I consider myself a kind and good person even though I have no religious affiliation. I don't like how I am considered evil because I am agnostic by some people who are religious.

Like Beauregard says, I would like to see religion done away with. I am sure over time it will happen. More and more people are turning to Atheism and Agnosticism. Democracies always move left. The US is just moving a bit slower than other western nations.

People shouldn't need to believe in a God to be good. Of all our human qualities, I think this depresses me most of all.

Asher