.

[nauvice]

trying to keep this short and not so huge with a reply to every sentence, or it'll end up way too messy and incoherent. I skipped some parts if I thought we reached a dead end/conclusion. But you can point out to me if I just avoided retorting to your point.

First off I would like to thank the Conceptart.org Lounge Debate Hall for having us here tonight.

lol

Since debate is about discussing multiple sides of an argument through reasoning, it's silly to debate religion. No amount of reasoning or discussion is going to get you to change your mind.

o but we're not arguing religion/atheism with persuasion. We're arguing misconceptions of the multiple sides of. Like, you are not trying to change a person's mind from believing in God, but looking down at him because you think its juvenile thinking, that is arguable.

If there was no theism (note that Deism is a sect of religion) then everyone would be an atheist. Again it is the state of disbelief, the absence of religious beliefs. It's not necessarily the opposite of religion in the way cold is the opposite of hot, its the lack thereof. Using that same example it would be the lack of temperature all together.

We need to separate soft and strong Atheism, because there are atheists who do claim he does Not exist whatsoever. And putting both agnostic atheists and atheists in one boat creates confusion.

Why not consider that there isn't even a question there to begin with?

that's what makes philosophy so awesome imo. mindfucks. and there's rarely ever a settling answer in the true form of philosophy... i think. theology is the sort of the same... I can almost see why some people look down at it... they think its just a bunch of grown men arguing 'fiction', comparing them to Star Wars or Zelda fanatics. I think that's a misconception, but you seem neutral/indifferent on that subject, no point in continuing further.

"We have no idea how the universe came to be."

Do we? I thought there were some theories floating around, but no settled answer

You don't have the knowledge to answer questions you have, so religion gives you an answer that you're not only happy with but you can answer any question too. It's always going to be "God did it." Of course now I am making assumptions about your psychology and beliefs which is absolutely unfair to you. I am sorry for that.

It's coo'. I was more going for a 'group answer' than my own. I hear that often when Im surrounded by religious family, "God's will", its a settling answer, but me, im more of " 'God' may have done it, but Im curious how", rather than arbitrary thought.

[Black Spot]

By this very rationale, those that do not believe in an afterlife and -still- help old ladies across the street are true altruists, and those that act on the belief that their actions in this life will decide their fate in an afterlife are mere opportunists.

Not necessarily. I do it because it makes me feel good about myself and not for any brownie points that I might earn. Once you start thinking about what good deeds will bring you, they sort of become irrelevant and cancel out any goodness. It's only afterwards you can pat yourself on the back and try even harder. I like people in general and want the best for them even though any attempts I do are small and sometimes unwanted, I like to think it helps the word go round. I'm not perfect and struggle with my imperfections - sometimes I win and sometimes I lose, but my beliefs keep me trying. I don't always succeed in making the world happier, but it doesn't stop me trying.

[Anid Maro]

Well yes in a way. Being altruistic can be its own reward with a feel good factor. Why do you feel good? Because you've done something nice and gone out of your way to do so. Believing makes it easier to do as someone who only considers this life the be-all might not consider helping an old lady worthwhile as it doesn't add to their kudos.

By this very rationale, those that do not believe in an afterlife and -still- help old ladies across the street are true altruists, and those that act on the belief that their actions in this life will decide their fate in an afterlife are mere opportunists.

But if someone who does not believe in an afterlife helps an old lady across the street because it gives them a good feeling, doesn't that just make the person a hedonist? Not that there's anything wrong with doing something that makes everyone involved happy, but I don't see that as being any better than an opportunist.

[nauvice]

This part I separated because its a different argument; religion's usefulness rather than the misconceptions of believing/not believing debate.

BuckWeisel It is the assumption of a religion that civilization began when it did, and that is obviously wrong.

Neitzsche said "God is dead". And i think he was saying that we've reached a point where the usefulness of a God has run its course. debatable (if he's referring to first world countries today, maybe). but at least he acknowledges that at some point, it was essential.

"Civilization" is often used as a synonym for the broader term "culture" in both popular and academic circles. Every human being participates in a culture, defined as "the arts, customs, habits... beliefs, values, behavior and material habits that constitute a people's way of life"-wiki

bolded parts... werent they all affected by religion in All large civilizations? yes. you could say 'religion' is not a direct causation to 'civilization', but how can we predict how a civilization would have turned out without its religion. We do know oganized religion brings people together. Especially when many leaders in the past (and in some countries today) have used religion as propaganda for political gain. (in many 'democratic' 3rd world countries, the president was once a Priest)

In the past (and again, in some parts of the world today), religion was synonymous with education. so I dont think it would be out of line to suggest, without large scale organized religion, human progress would not be what it is today. It may not be the only contributing factor, but it is a contributing factor.

Crime is a muddy subject because 'morals' is a muddy subject. But we should at least agree many laws of today were derived from religion.

[Black Spot]

But if someone who does not believe in an afterlife helps an old lady across the street because it gives them a good feeling, doesn't that just make the person a hedonist? Not that there's anything wrong with doing something that makes everyone involved happy, but I don't see that as being any better than an opportunist.

But you might not have considered it as the right thing to do without having sound grounds for doing so in the first place. Doing good is not always as easy as it seems. The old lady crossing the street is easy as you may one day be that old person in need of assistance and by you doing the act, you are teaching those around you that this is the correct way to behave because might have need of it one day. How about nattering to the old lady and getting her life story as every one has lived and has a story? What if she dies the next day after talking to you? Would you feel sorry that you didn't find out more for no purpose other that she was interesting or just shrug your shoulders?

I like to think we make connections with people and it's up to us to what we make of them. The internet is no real meeting place as you can't tell the tone of someone from how they write.

Getting back on topic - how would you like to be thought of as when you're gone? A great artist, husband, wife, parent, friend? Does it really matter? If you don't believe in an afterlife, why would you care?

[squidmonk3j]

But if someone who does not believe in an afterlife helps an old lady across the street because it gives them a good feeling, doesn't that just make the person a hedonist? Not that there's anything wrong with doing something that makes everyone involved happy, but I don't see that as being any better than an opportunist.

That depends on the morality of this good Samaritan

If the sole purpose of the non-believers aid was pleasurable "good feeling", then, yes, I suppose you might brand him as a hedonist consequentialist.

[s.ketch]

Do we? I thought there were some theories floating around, but no settled answer.

The big bang is the most popular and I assume most viable given what we know. Not that you used the world wrong here but theory as used in science is different from laymen use. Theories are groups of proven explanations, observations and data used to describe one or more phenomenon. While that is not the set-in-stone definition it varies from discipline to discipline that is the general gist of it.

Theories and facts are not opposites. Most people think that when theories are proven they then become laws or fact but that is not the case. What most associate theories with is called hypothesis which is an educated, yet unproven statement about something, put in simpler terms-- a guess.

And again we delve into the philosophy of truth and reality because it may be impossible for humans to see the universe how it actually is. Science's goal however isn't to find absolute truth, but simply to get as close to the truth as humanly possible. If anything we will always be 1-2 Cuilsaway from the absolute truth.

[s.ketch]

Neitzsche said "God is dead". And i think he was saying that we've reached a point where the usefulness of a God has run its course. debatable (if he's referring to first world countries today, maybe). but at least he acknowledges that at some point, it was essential.

"Civilization" is often used as a synonym for the broader term "culture" in both popular and academic circles. Every human being participates in a culture, defined as "the arts, customs, habits... beliefs, values, behavior and material habits that constitute a people's way of life"-wiki

bolded parts... werent they all affected by religion in All large civilizations? yes. you could say 'religion' is not a direct causation to 'civilization', but how can we predict how a civilization would have turned out without its religion. We do know oganized religion brings people together. Especially when many leaders in the past (and in some countries today) have used religion as propaganda for political gain. (in many 'democratic' 3rd world countries, the president was once a Priest)

In the past (and again, in some parts of the world today), religion was synonymous with education. so I dont think it would be out of line to suggest, without large scale organized religion, human progress would not be what it is today. It may not be the only contributing factor, but it is a contributing factor.

What I meant by that statement is that the past is a lot bigger than you realize. There was a time where humans existed without organized religion. This is generally "prehistory" and is marked as the time before writing. Even after the invention writing it would still be centuries before Judaism, Christianity and Islam came to be. There was no more war or immoral act during this time than after the big 3, mainly because there were less people mind you but still. The reason civilization began was because people were settling thanks to the agricultural revolution. Small settlements grew and became cities. So there we have the invention of writing, possibly the most important invention in human history next to language, and then civilization without the help of organized religion. So I feel perfectly comfortable with the assertion that humanity would have been just fine without religion. Not that I think it should be eliminated now.

Culture is a lot of things. Religion is part of culture just as food is a part of culture. Surely it had some affect. If it weren't for religion then Western Europe wouldn't have been reunited after the fall of Rome. Without that, then there probably would have never been an United States. I wouldn't be here right now. But does that justify religion? Not at all. As you said it's usefulness may have run out. I am inclined to agree.

[nauvice]

same with buck, I skipped stuff we've reached a dead end. you can tell me if I avoided replying to anything.

Dpaint makes a good point though. In the op Zwarrior clearly puts a definition of what atheïsm is forward based on his opinion.

point not found, it wasnt meant to be based on a fact... opinion... debate is almost impossible without it. Anyway, no, there's no excuse for dpaint, he read my long winded OP, kudos, but he clearly missed the first paragraph.

First of all, believing is something you hold to be true without there being any evidence for it. If there was evidence, it wouldn't be believing anymore, but knowing. That playing chess stimulates parts of the brains is a fact, it's not something you can believe or not believe.

touchy subject. some would say God is a fact, or God's nonexistence is a fact (with what they call evidence). Not to argue they are wrong, that's not what this thread is about, but we're clearly both not specifically on either side, cant argue for them. so dead end

Bad example. You don't run with scissors because of the risk it carries with it (some people still run with scissors because they don't see the risk as that high). For the same reason people abide by traffic rules: if we didn't we'd end up crashing our cars and in the worst case, die. I guess what my point is, it's a simple cause and effect, and has nothing to do with morals or beliefs.

cause and effect can be belief. We are agreeing. you believe the cause of jumping out of a 10 story building's window could result in death. A christian believes sin could result in hell (not will, some christians dont pass judgment, and leave that to god). Same premise, but you are not christian, so you just have a harder time visualizing that as a reality.

Now, if you're going to claim that Christians (or religious people in general) are more moral than atheïsts[...]

I dont know if I suggested that, but I dont think that at all. That's impossible to measure. Its especially hard when you consider who is a Christian by faith or just by title.

[...]In the US (and other parts of the world) it's the people who cling on to a doctrine that's over 2000 years old to keep things as they are and even reverse things (for instance, teaching creationism in school rather than evolution, taking away marriage from homosexuals, etc.) Another example is that people used the Bible as an argument to not give slaves their rights, and not see them as humans. Because the Bible says so. It's not a coincidence that being conservative and being religious go hand-in-hand.

Cant argue for them. Christians have reinstated often that the Bible is open to interpretation. And if its used as a tool for those people's personal gain (actually... that's not fair to say, some could really be spiritual and just really believe in that stuff, rather than use it for their own interest... I cant prove what's going on in their heads.)

But what I can say is that you're focusing on the "negatives" of religion. and I in turn have focused on the "positives" of. question is, which one outweighs the other....

And finally, I think Jason Rainville said:

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"

Because logically speaking? Yes it is.

no its not. It goes back to the true and false semantics he and I were arguing about. and he worded it well, if something is not true, doesn't mean its false, The gray area between true and false, shouldnt be ignored.

[robcortez1787]

I believe in him! I look up to him! and who I am know is all because of him!
the almighty one.

"Why pray for strength, why not the ability to be Stronger"
-Morgan Freeman (BRUCE ALMIGHTY/ EVAN ALMIGHTY)

[Jason Rainville]

And finally, I think Jason Rainville said:

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"

Because logically speaking? Yes it is.

Z already said it, but yeah it actually isn't. Read my scientist story

now, I qualify that by quoting... Sagan I think? (I have all these quotes in my head but can never remember who said what ) ; positive claims require positive evidence, exraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

While a of e is not e of a means that we cannot say the god claim is false, the fact that there's no positive (let alone extraordinary) evidence for the claim means it's also not true.

[Ian Barker]

That's not what I'm getting at. What I'm saying is that a woman will never be a Pope and although you and many others, I know, believe God isn't physical, language still counts. But I get your point, mine is less about religion and more about the Church itself so it's a bit off topic isn't it?

Yeah, I have no interest in defending the church.

About Heaven: I still think it's childish to seek a reward for good actions and a punishment for bad actions. That's why the concept of Heaven and Hell makes no sense to me. What we are as men and women and what we leave behind in this life should be what matters, much more than whether we go to heaven or hell.

This is what I was talking about earlier... all your stock seems to be placed in the well-being of society. I don't think God cares about that so much.

Even in his infinite wisdom, he's still making a decision that could be based on rules that he might change, just like you admittedly said he's done before.
But why should a Higher Power change rules?

Yeah this is something that confuses me too.

Could you please tell me more precisely where in the New Testament is homosexuality mentioned? As far as I knew, Jesus never talked about it.

I was thinking of 1 Corinthian 9, but I went back and checked and it wasn't specifically about homosexuality after all:

9I have written you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— 10not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. 11But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat. 12What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church?

I think I was talking to somebody about this verse as it may pertain to homosexuality and ended up remembering as part of the actual verse. My bad. Still, I think it can be safely assumed that homosexuals are are among the "sexually immoral" in this case.

[macabre]

Today a young man on acid realized that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration, that we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively, there is no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we are the imagination of ourselves.

This makes more sense than religion to me. It even makes life more mystical than believing in heaven or god. (for me anyways.)

[nauvice]

I wish more people would stop for a second to think about how strangely...antropomorphe, and male (and, before the 20th century, in the Judeo-Christian world, white) God is.

I can agree, but not to this. I'm less concerned if people want to give God an appearance and refer to him as 'he'. Its not literal speak, And I would stop doing it but its just common language and easier to communicate that way. God's appearance isnt written in stone.

What I am troubled with though, is no women can be priests. I dont know any argument that I've agreed with yet, with good reasoning for that. but I read a comic book called 'Y: the last man' where a plague kills the Y chromosome completely. Only the female of any species exist. Religion is almost dead, not just because people have lost faith and some women have destroyed any patriarchal system since, but the women who want to stay with faith, cant be priests! so cant go on with church... and the Catholic women were desperately searching for at least one male left so he can become Pope and communicate with God, since women cant for they are not the image of Christ, who was a man... anyway the comic isn't just about that, but its great and I found this particular concept funny/interesting to think about.

[nauvice]

skipped stuff we've reached a dead end/conclusion on so I dont have to reply with "okay, okay, understood, true dat"

I'd actually really like that but I don't know if I have the time for it. If I did try I'd probably be really behind.

^Goog. same for me, it sounds like a great concept, but I'd probably fall behind. I can hardly follow a comicbook club's reading list.

Because theological "theories" have almost always been wrong. There's no firmament, we weren't created 6,000 years ago and sin does not hold us down. they pretty much have no value when discussing the origins of everything.

my only response to that is there are people who do. Its like I was saying about the black bird not valuing "inner feelings" as answer to our origin, whilst white bird holds it with equal respect with "rational thought" or even more than.

I dont know if I'd put "created 6,000yrs ago" belief with ALL of theology. Not all of it is that backwards. differing theist viewpoints are the little gray heads on the white bird's back, fighting each other. some ignore historical science completely, others do not. I dont.

I'm talking about god. the fact that he's invisible and intangible and has seemingly no real effect on our world is much more easily explained by the fact that he may not exist. I could make a similar claim about any other god or weird being or quirk about our universe and failing to show any evidence for it I could say that it's invisible and intangible and we'll never find it.

well, hence the black bird/white bird division. I think this has reached a dead end, at this point it would no longer be a debate clearing misconceptions, but the clashing of beliefs and turn into persuasive argument.

Speaking of this topic I'm surprised that I haven't heard theists arguing for a god that exists on a dimension above ours. We can interact with the 2nd dimension (the "flat" dimension) but it can't interact or experience our 3d world. If 2d beings existed, they could travel around a sphere without ever knowing they were on one, perceiving only flat ground. Once they ended up at the same point they started after going in a straight line, they would be quite rightly perplexed.

Being 3d, and traveling through but not aware of the 4th dimension, it's possible that we could travel in one direction for a long period of time, and far from finding the "end of the universe" we would find ourselves in the same place we started. this could be possible IF our universe was in fact a 4th dimensional sphere. Since we can move through but not perceive the 4th dimension, it's "Possible" that a being created our dimension, as it's only an object in "his." problem is, infinite regress still happens, with the question of "how did that 4th dimensional being come into existace?"

wat. this is all new to me, but you sort of ended it already with that last sentence, because it still does not really prove anything. something worth pondering about maybe

I'm not arguing that that's not true, but I am asking what relevance that has to anything. I'm happy yet I believe something for which there's no real reason to believe? I'd be kidding myself.

you're only kidding yourself if you doubt it, people with faith do not. Its like that dinner scene in Hook where he could only see the food if he really believed.

[Flake]

But if someone who does not believe in an afterlife helps an old lady across the street because it gives them a good feeling, doesn't that just make the person a hedonist?

Maybe it's just because it seems the right thing to do. Or at least offer to do.

I've carried old ladies shopping up the stairs for them, it didn't give me any great pleasure or smugbuzz, it just seemed that "Hey! I could carry these in one hand while she'd take 5 minutes to limp up the stairs with it. I am actually going that way and I live three doors up. Want a hand with that Missus?"

I gain nothing, but I lose nothing either and, well, I was going that way and I'm currently more fitted for the task in hand. No biggie.

[crossmirage]

Out of curiosity, what do you guys think of polytheism, animism, and/or Gnosticism?

[Flake]

I don't ponder such things.

I tend to divide life into

"dick move" or "not a dick move".

[crossmirage]

I don't ponder such things.

I tend to divide life into

"dick move" or "not a dick move".

Fair enough. That works for me.

[Flake]

Sorry, I totally oversimplified as usual,
What I was driving at is that the worthwhile aspects of ALL religions are best summed up as the "Don't be a dick, be nice to your fellow man" parts.

I can get with that, and I think Atheists, Christians, Muslims, Wiccans, Buddhists, Hindus,Whatevers could ALL get with that.?

"Go Forth and Be Nice"!

"Go Forth and help!"

Those are some commandments that would test peeps.

[nauvice]

cuil theory was an interesting read, ended spending way too much time than necessary on it.

What I meant by that statement is that the past is a lot bigger than you realize. There was a time where humans existed without organized religion. This is generally "prehistory" and is marked as the time before writing. Even after the invention writing it would still be centuries before Judaism, Christianity and Islam came to be.

yes however Abrahamic religions are far from being the first religions.

There was no more war or immoral act during this time than after the big 3, mainly because there were less people mind you but still. The reason civilization began was because people were settling thanks to the agricultural revolution. Small settlements grew and became cities. So there we have the invention of writing, possibly the most important invention in human history next to language, and then civilization without the help of organized religion.

false. I agree on how a civilization could start, all big things start out small. but how it grows and stays intact, is with the help of religion (and other factors.)

I would say the most important inventions in human history between language and writing, are morals, culture, and religion- which is synonymous with both culture and morals (not saying it introduced morals, or came before it, but in most cultures, its a whole package).

That whole package is important because, like language, or actually even more than language, all 3 of these is what has united and kept humans together. History proves humans can be the same ethnicity and hate each other, they can speak the same tongue and hate each other, but if they share the same culture, then they share a common interest, and are more likely to stick together.

Still before the invention of writing, Tribes have been conquering other tribes and convert them to their culture, and continue to do so until becoming a large powerful enough civilization. never done without religion in the picture... there is no atheistic civilization known.

perfect example to all of this: Americas. A land with only two notable civilizations in central and south, none in north. but full of tribes who look alike, or some even spoke the same tongue, but had different cultures, and so some would rather side more with European Aliens before ever sticking with their 'enemy'.

Anyway, Christianity takes over, tribes are united, no more segregation since they have all a common culture, and civilizations are constructed.
(*note, I know this part is touchy since some people would say that's whats wrong with christianity... all the slaughtering it causes, but no. people killed people. religion was used as tool for righteousness and to bring unity)

So I feel perfectly comfortable with the assertion that humanity would have been just fine without religion. Not that I think it should be eliminated now.

As you said it's usefulness may have run out. I am inclined to agree.

is-ought problem, "given knowledge of the way the world is, how can one know the way the world ought to be?"-Hume

[Ariel9]

This is what I was talking about earlier... all your stock seems to be placed in the well-being of society. I don't think God cares about that so much.

[...]

Still, I think it can be safely assumed that homosexuals are are among the "sexually immoral" in this case.

Why wouldn't God care about society though, since our soul does spend the most active part of its existance in this society, in this life? If you believe in miracles (and to some degree, I do too, although I don't think they're divine intervention) then you do believe he cares.

Oh, that's okay then. Me and many Christians (even Catholics, although usually they get cast out for believing thing) don't think something between two consenting adults who makes them happy and doesn't hurt anyone is immoral. But that's just a personal view, thanks for digging up the verse for me!

[Armonah]

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"

Because logically speaking? Yes it is.

Z already said it, but yeah it actually isn't. Read my scientist story

Scientist A goes up to scientist B with a new fossil. Scientist A says "Hey B! This fossil is related to the Quinciclorplax." Scientist B says "But we don't have any evidence for that, so we can't conclude that it's true. Scientist A says "So you're saying that this isn't a relative of Quinciclorplax?! You have no evidenec for that!" Scientis B says "No, I didn't say that. I merely said that we cannot conclude that it is true that this is a related creature."

Either way, lack of evidence means you can't make a claim and say it's true. Yet this doesn't apply to religious debates, where they use the "absence of evidence" phrase to say that there might be a God out there, we just haven't found evidence for it yet. This would be the equivalent of Scientist A saying "It's a relative of the Quinciclorplax until we've found conclusive evidence to support that claim."

some would say God is a fact, or God's nonexistence is a fact (with what they call evidence). Not to argue they are wrong, that's not what this thread is about, but we're clearly both not specifically on either side, cant argue for them. so dead end

God isn't a fact. If he was, religion would be a non-issue and it would defeat the whole point of believing. The rest of your argument has nothing to do with my original argument about playing chess (and that it has nothing to do with believing, but simply wanting or not wanting to play). The last line looks like a cop-out.

cause and effect can be belief. We are agreeing.

Now you're just putting words in my mouth.

you believe the cause of jumping out of a 10 story building's window could result in death.

No, I know it would.

A christian believes sin could result in hell (not will, some christians dont pass judgment, and leave that to god). Same premise, but you are not christian, so you just have a harder time visualizing that as a reality.

That's true.

Cant argue for them. Christians have reinstated often that the Bible is open to interpretation. And if its used as a tool for those people's personal gain (actually... that's not fair to say, some could really be spiritual and just really believe in that stuff, rather than use it for their own interest... I cant prove what's going on in their heads.)
But what I can say is that you're focusing on the "negatives" of religion. and I in turn have focused on the "positives" of. question is, which one outweighs the other...

Actually, I said that the evidence I linked earlier might not be related to religion as much as socio-economic health, although it is pretty conclusive that religiousity doesn't stop people from committing crimes.
I'm not denying that religion has it's positives, though. On an individual level religion can offer support and comfort, and in some more extreme cases a reason to get up every morning. There's also evidence that religion can be a solid foundation for small communities and even marriages (assuming those people are of the same religion, though). My first boyfriend was a pretty devout protestant (which is a branch in Christianity), and he told me that once an elderly woman of his church (who had attended that church pretty much all her life) had gotten too old to go there every sunday, the church's community started to take care of her.
However, I do believe that religion has no place in public healthcare, public education, the courtrooms, and our government.

Earlier you said that you can't really disagree that today's laws were derived from religion, even (or especially) the really old ones. I'm guessing you mean the laws that say thou shall not steal and murder? Because I'm pretty sure those laws were in place way before Christianity made it's introduction, and that those same laws apply in other cultures with different religions. You seem to be of the belief that without religion, there would be anarchy and everyone would just do whatever they felt like doing, but every civilisation had rules (written or unwritten ones) that kept them together. We as humans are basically group animals that can't survive on our own. Hell, even animals that have to live in groups have rules that the entire pack abides by. Because that's beneficial to everyone, and increases the odds of survival.
It's also worth pointing out that not every rule in the good book is still a law today. If a man dies and leaves no kids behind, the woman he was married to isn't automatically married to his brother, who needs to fulfill his brother's duty of making offspring. It's also okay to wear clothing of mixed fiber, to have tattoos, to have a religion that's different from Christianity, and to eat shellfish and pork. Just like there are laws in place that didn't come from religion.
We don't need religion as a moral compass to see what's right and wrong.

all your stock seems to be placed in the well-being of society. I don't think God cares about that so much.

Following the wise words of Flake, I'd call that a dick move.

[s.ketch]

yes however Abrahamic religions are far from being the first religions.

But now you're shifting the argument, we've haven't been talking about minor Pagan religions. You honestly can't compare some extremely simplistic nature-based superstition of pre-historic man with an empirical, organized, and political religion like Christianity. Unlessit's Paganism in Rome right before Christianity hit it big. Even then everyone worshiped different gods, performed different rituals and had different ideas about how the universe worked. You can't really place those two on the same ground because they were reflections of two different types of societies.

I mean Jedi is a religion. All religions aren't equal in terms of their influence on people and society. Yes there was some form of religion before the major ones but they didn't cause humanity to become better because they existed.

{QUOTE]"given knowledge of the way the world is, how can one know the way the world ought to be?"-Hume[/QUOTE]

I'm not sure that means what you think it means. I wasn't saying how the world ought to be. I wasn't implying religion should be eliminated. All I said was that I am inclined to believe that religion is no longer useful. That isn't a switch from describing how the world is to how I think it should be. That's just a proposition to how the world is.

[Sinix]

So, let's see what we've discovered.

Altruism doesn't exist... that's an easy one. All positive and negative organic life interactions result from what we could call hedonism, but then again.. are basic chemical interactions really in need of such an elaborate philosophical word? We're just overgrown chemical reactions.. playing out a sequence of events that is so elaborate it is somewhat troubling to even ponder the magnitude of it all.

Our silliest mistake is that we often think about the concept of identity as something that exists through the fabric of time.. when in fact sensory perception and therefore consciousness itself only represents a moment in time.

Good and evil become irrelevant when you try to take them out of context.

You know, philosophical rambling can be helpful for an artist. Especially if you need to strengthen your resolve in the potential of your own abilities and the productivity of the actions you take. Remember that observation is your most important ability and the space you occupy assures you of a unique potential for greatness which can be realized at your own leisure.

Anyway, it's fun for me to put these thoughts into words now and then.

[squidmonk3j]

if something is not true, doesn't mean its false, The gray area between true and false, shouldnt be ignored.

This notion, combined with your suggestion that non-belief is a belief, leads me to conclude that your system of logic is non-classical - you are, in fact, rejecting the axioms upon which Aristotelian logic relies. I suspect that this is an informal mistake, and that your use of terms (logic, belief, truth etc) is merely whimsical. But if I am mistaken, and you subscribe to a multi-valued system of logic (or perhaps you're making an appeal to Gödel's theorem?), please enlighten us.

[Slash]

You guys are too smart for your own good.

One of these days I might stumble upon a discussion like this that actually brings something new to the table, I hope that my world will be rocked!

Sorry, I totally oversimplified as usual,
What I was driving at is that the worthwhile aspects of ALL religions are best summed up as the "Don't be a dick, be nice to your fellow man" parts.

I can get with that, and I think Atheists, Christians, Muslims, Wiccans, Buddhists, Hindus,Whatevers could ALL get with that.?

"Go Forth and Be Nice"!

"Go Forth and help!"

Those are some commandments that would test peeps.

Ideally, this is a great idea. This is how things will be when i become dictator of the world. But as it is now, that reasoning has some flaws, and that is that no one seems to agree on what's nice, and what's a dick move. In some religions you're a dick if you donate your organs. In others you're a dick if you eat cow. And in others you're a dick if you don't mutilate your son or daughter's genitals.. So depending on your point of view you can be nice and helpful, or a dick if you save someone's life with your heart, feed a starving man with beef, or save a foreskin.

But don't mind me, I'm not bringing anything new to the table either, dunno why i even made this post, or why i will press "reply" after i finish typing.

[nauvice]

God isn't a fact. If he was, religion would be a non-issue and it would defeat the whole point of believing. The rest of your argument has nothing to do with my original argument about playing chess (and that it has nothing to do with believing, but simply wanting or not wanting to play). The last line looks like a cop-out.

Its not a cop-out, its admitting where one stands and not defending something they dont know much about. I'm not arguing God is a fact, I am arguing some people think it is as much of a "fact" as "playing chess stimulates the brain". If you want to continue with this, you'd have to find someone willing to defend God as a fact, but that's not i. that's a dead end with me.

Now you're just putting words in my mouth.

I did not know people thought cause and effect is not a belief.

No, I know it would.

There's a (supposedly) true story of a man who sweeps sidewalks in front of a very tall building, and a baby fell on top of him! that happened twice in the span of 4 years. same sidewalk, same man, different kids. all 3 survived. What was the likelihood of predicting those kids' survival if you know falling out of a building window would be death. That's false science, we'd have to both be less vague with that proposition, and still test it out before concluding to an absolute answer (which buck or jason, corrected me that there is no such thing in science, just "high likelihood")

Earlier you said that you can't really disagree that today's laws were derived from religion, even (or especially) the really old ones. I'm guessing you mean the laws that say thou shall not steal and murder? Because I'm pretty sure those laws were in place way before Christianity made it's introduction, and that those same laws apply in other cultures with different religions.

seems there's a confusion with my use of the word "religion" being synonymous with "Christianity". If we're arguing what religious people are thinking, then yes I'm arguing only for some Christians, but if we're arguing Religion's usefulness, it would be religion as a whole. I cant argue Christianity to be The Religion above all others, that's persuasive arguement that would lead nowhere except offending people.

You seem to be of the belief that without religion, there would be anarchy and everyone would just do whatever they felt like doing, but every civilisation had rules (written or unwritten ones) that kept them together. We as humans are basically group animals that can't survive on our own. Hell, even animals that have to live in groups have rules that the entire pack abides by. Because that's beneficial to everyone, and increases the odds of survival.

So far we've established morals can and have existed without religion. What religion has done however, is set these ever changing / contemporary / only applied when beneficial-to-one's own-interests / type of morals, set them to stones. There's no way to predict what would happen without religion, or if total anarchy is even possible. What we can say is every succesful civilization were not atheists.

It's also worth pointing out that not every rule in the good book is still a law today. If a man dies and leaves no kids behind, the woman he was married to isn't automatically married to his brother, who needs to fulfill his brother's duty of making offspring. It's also okay to wear clothing of mixed fiber, to have tattoos, to have a religion that's different from Christianity, and to eat shellfish and pork. Just like there are laws in place that didn't come from religion.

I cant argue the "words of the lord". Since its open to interpretation, Christians are not all agreeing with each other on its meanings. Its persuasive argument, not worth getting into.

We don't need religion as a moral compass to see what's right and wrong.

well since you used the word compass, I tend to disagree. If we think a compass is real navigational object that will guide you to your destination, and not a just a figment of our imagination. And religious people think their religion is a real navigational tool that will guide them to their destination, and not just a figment of their imagination. Then religion is a compass to see what is right and what is wrong.

For those without a compass, the right and wrong way is debatable. therefore what's morally right and what's morally wrong, is debatable and has always been a huge philosophical question.

[Liquidpope]

...dunno why i even made this post, or why i will press "reply" after i finish typing.

Uuuuhh, the Devil made you do it?

[Slash]

Hail satan.

No, i think its got something to do with the atheist gene making these kind of conversations seem like flames, and we're just fluttering towards its irresistable lights like helpless little atheist moths.


Since the topic of books was mentioned a couple of times, I'll throw in a recommendation of a book that i found very interesting in my younger years. I have matured a little since then (i hope!) but i believe it would still make sense if i was to re-read it today.

Its called "mythology and the individual" by joseph campbell.