Discussion about religion

[Kreekakon]

I'd say we don't hate Christians in particular. We never did. I'd say mostly the type of religious people that are disliked are the people that rub it into our faces, and make it sound like the only form of salvation. Everyone else with beliefs is fine in my book as long as they keep it to themselves, and don't force it upon people who don't like it.

[Zaffre]

The good Christians are not bad. You're good, Robosprog. Here's a comment from a video I saw lately.

i hate you your an athiest fuck your funny but god is real not some
explosion that
made everything which makes mores sence god made
everything or some random explosion made everything

These are the kind of people atheists despise. Because they're overzealous and shove it down our throats.

[CorinthianMerchant]

Religion is like MLP, or breadsticks, or strawberry cake. Just because you find it yummy doesn't mean others do.

[Froge]

Atheist here as well, but Dan's OP post is not a very good argument.

Firstly, even though I am atheist, I do believe that it is a faith as well - atheism isn't any more "logical" than religion. There is no concrete proof that anything we perceive with our senses, and therefore the knowledge that we gather of the physical world, is real. I'm an atheist because I put faith in sensory perception and I believe that all the evidence we have acquired from observing the world is real.

Secondly, from all I've observed "logic" and "reason" are very malleable concepts that vary from society to society. The Elizabethans believed in the great chain of being and that everything in nature was interconnected to a universal hierarchy, and that was their mode of "reason." Obviously, with the scientific knowledge that we gathered today, any of us could argue that this is false. This is then a change in the societal concept of "logic." Believing that everything in nature is interconnected was the Elizabethan's mode of reasoning because it helped them make sense of the world around them. We do the same with science in the modern age. But realistically no one can argue that any one form of logic is better than another.

I don't like what I've just said above. I would like to believe, very strongly, that we hold the "true" form of human logic in our current era of scientific progress, but that is, again, only a faith.

[Kreekakon]

Something that I think a lot of people will mess up is the amount of credibility coming from both atheism, and religion respectively.

Atheism =/= Intelligent ; Religious =/= Stupid

[Ghieri]

Firstly, even though I am atheist, I do believe that it is a faith as
well - atheism isn't any more "logical" than religion. There is no
concrete proof that anything we perceive with our senses, and therefore
the knowledge that we gather of the physical world, is real. I'm an
atheist because I put faith in sensory perception and I believe that all
the evidence we have acquired from observing the world is real.

We can defeat fallacies in sensory perception by using the scientific method and peer-review. For instance, we know that a unobserved particle will literally travel every single possible path to it's destination. We also know that if you stick a sensor on it, it will actually know that it is being sensed, and only take one path.(Google Quantum Superposition)

This goes completely against our sensory knowledge("Common sense") The same for how we know the earth is round, how we go around the sun, etc. We can scientifically prove that. There is little room for interpretation in those cases.

Furthermore, there is a school of thought called "Negative Atheism" which basically says that they cannot be absolutely sure that there isn't a god, but they are still pretty darn sure.(Just like we are pretty darn sure the easter bunny, or the tooth fairy isn't real)

[Your Computer]

I come into the discussion (though i question if it is a discussion) a bit late, somewhat of a shame. It is much easier to discuss religion when stupid and false assumptions about religion are not maintained by the opposing side. All arguments presented here against Christianity are easily refutable, whether with logic or Biblical facts. Educating yourself should be done before engaging in any discussion.

"Religion has been used to manipulate people." You don't need religion to manipulate people, you just need what they believe in, which can be anything. Should we therefore stop believing in anything? After all, it can be used to manipulate us. You don't even need belief. Try love. As you can see, saying that religion has been used to manipulate people is pointless and does not deny said religion.

"Religion has been used for evil." "Evil" here is an assumption never defined. Without an absolute authority, your definition of "evil" is subjective and therefore irrelevant. Even if the religion has been used for what the religion claims to be evil, why should that say anything against the religion? If you want, "_______ has been used for evil." You'd be amazed how many words can be inserted there. As you can see, saying religion has been used for evil is generally pointless and does not deny said religion.

"Religion is the enemy of imagination." I have to say, this is the first time i've ever seen anyone say (write) that, and i've heard and seen far more arguments against religion than presented in this topic. Nevertheless, "imagination" here appears to imply many things: cultural advancement, free thought and... art? "For almost over 2000 years," so for several thousand years before that time, where religion still existed, religion did not prevent cultural advancement? So, are you saying only Christianity is preventing cultural advancement? Concerning "free thought," many religious figures even today are considered great thinkers, by both believers and non-believers of religion. I recommend reading the works of St. Augustine, Justin (the) Martyr, and those like them and let me know when you've wrapped your head around that. Concerning "art," i have no idea what you were trying to say for that, but it doesn't seem like it was anything against religion but more against art.

"Christianity has been altered many times." Actually, if you do any scholarly research on the subject, the number of these so-called "alterations" aren't even significant, let alone the verses they relate to. Here's something you may have not known: Religious people back then, and even people in tribes or in the East today, could remember entire chapters and books from their religion and recite them to you perfectly. For example, many Islamic followers today could recite to you chapters out of the Qu'ran, word for word, without looking up the chapter in the Qu'ran. It is part of their culture to remember what is written.

"Life is a test." Christianity does not promote this.

"God is everything, everywhere, knows everything, and controls everything." "God is everything" is not promoted anywhere in the Bible. "God controls everything," the Bible recognizes that while He is capable, it nevertheless requires action from Him.

"Free will vs Omniscience." While the Bible does not explicitly say that God is omniscient, it does imply it several times. Nevertheless, i wouldn't say it is safe to say that omniscience denies free will. If omniscience is simply knowing, then there is no intervening by God. If there is no intervening, then i cannot safely say that omniscience denies free will.

"There is lots of suffering in the world, therefore God cannot exist." I'm not sure why people believe is it safe to argue this. The only time God promised a world without suffering in the Bible concerns the afterlife. Though, actually, the argument is said against the statement "God is all-loving." However, the Bible never says God is all-loving; in fact, God is known to take sides and is Biblically shown that He does. This is not to say that He takes side with those you believe are evil or that He was the cause of those pictures you posted.

1. God is perfect, So any internal/external change is therefore less than perfect, therefore God cannot change, Nor can he think (because thought requires change) he is just a enternal everything where nothing changes just the same.

2. Suppose somehow my previous argument about God not been able to think is somehow defeated, Then he must have had every thought about everything ever to have happened and still to happen in the instant he became God, But God is eternal so either he never had those thoughts (about anything and everything) or he always has those thoughts not in a cycle but a constant view, he is a spectator with no control because he cannot change anything to gain control. If the world was created by God then God created it to achieve perfection, but as God is everything it stands to reason that God wasn't perfect before he created the earth because he created the earth to achive perfection thus he was not perfect and thus not God nor eternal!

3. assuming my first two arguments are somehow defeated; God used his intellect to create the world/universe therefore his intellect must be abstract from the world as we been the world have no access to God's intellect, i.e A sciencetist may look out onto space and say "i see no evidence of God" and the theologist may reply "thats because God is above/outside our universe looking in" but the contradiction lies ahead, how can one look into/affect the world/universe with forces that are abstract/non-existent in the world/universe. Its like me trying to use a microscope in a light-proof room.

4. If God is perfect, And God is everything even right now, Then the world is perfect right now, and the universe is perfect in all time to come else otherwise God (been everything) would not be perfect, Thus there would be no need for the Judgement Day, and if there was a need, then Judgement day would have to be today else God (been everything) wouldnt be perfect today and thus not God.

5. Morality, if God is equal to morality then God can't exist (P1) If God exists, then God is omnipotent. (P2) If God is omnipotent, then God has free will. (P3) If God has free will, then it is logically possible for God to perform some morally unjustified action. (P4) It is not logically possible for God to perform some morally unjustified action (i.e., there is no possible world at which God performs a morally unjustfied action). (C1) So, God does not have free will. [by P3 and P4] (C2) So, God is not omnipotent. [by P2 and C1] (C3) So, God does not exist. [by P1 and C2] Understanding P3 correctly seems, to me, to be the central problem for formulating this argument. Philosophers have argued that in order for God to have free will and for his having free will to not be a problem for his omnibenevolence, the following conditions must obtain: (a) it is logically possible that God performs a wrong (morally unjustified) action and (b)God in fact never actually performs any wrong (morally unjustified) action. And to deny that omnipotence entails free will just seems mistaken.

1. "If God is perfect, then everything else is imperfect." The Biblical definition of "perfect" normally means to be "without flaw or sin," which normally relates to the Law or what God wants. Note, therefore, that just because something other than God is "perfect," does not mean that God is therefore not "perfect." Nevertheless, i will entertain the thought that "perfect" goes beyond that. The Bible says God does not change, so it is safe to use that as a premise. However, how does thought require change? The person did not get into on how thought requires change.

2. While it is true that reason argues that God is outside of our dimension of time, therefore God's view of time has no start or beginning, being more of a plane and not a line, how does that mean that God therefore is incapable of action? Or that everything He does is not "perfect"? This person seems to be coming from his first argument in some way, which this argument was supposed to be a fallback for the previous argument if it were to be refuted. Though, concerning perfection, the Bible shows God willingly creating things as imperfect ("perfect" here meaning equal to God or complete). After all, why would a wise creator create something equal to himself?

3. You know, his biggest flaw isn't that his arguments have so far been illogical, but incomplete. As for his third statement, "How can God affect the universe with supernatural powers when the universe is not supernatural?" I think St. Augustine's quote would suffice here, "Miracles are not contrary to nature, but only contrary to what we know about nature." After all, natural laws do not apply to God.

4. Christianity does not assume pantheism but denies it.

5. The only reason God cannot commit an unjustified action is because He is the author of morality. This does not deny Him action, nor does it contradict any of His characteristics (although, omni-benevolence is not a defined characteristic of His). And doesn't free will imply self-restriction (e.g. not committing evil by His own definition, not using His omnipotence to deny free will, etc)? Not that "free will" has been defined anyway. A lot of people think that leaving out definitions for keywords or other loose terms is fine within a debate. This is not true and will only cause the debate to go on forever.

[WALP]

Hello im an atheist and agnostic, but I prefer the title: a regular person.

If there is truly a loving god, I dont think he would be any of the gods loved/known/invented by humans.
I think it would be an anonymous god that we can acces in no way.
this god would create all the gods loved by humans, so the religious people could get a happy afterlife knowing that their god , was not false, and that their life on earth was not wasted. he would proberly also do something for atheist and other godless persons though i have no idea what that would be.

[Froge]

Firstly, even though I am atheist, I do believe that it is a faith as
well - atheism isn't any more "logical" than religion. There is no
concrete proof that anything we perceive with our senses, and therefore
the knowledge that we gather of the physical world, is real. I'm an
atheist because I put faith in sensory perception and I believe that all
the evidence we have acquired from observing the world is real.

We can defeat fallacies in sensory perception by using the scientific method and peer-review. For instance, we know that a unobserved particle will literally travel every single possible path to it's destination. We also know that if you stick a sensor on it, it will actually know that it is being sensed, and only take one path.(Google Quantum Superposition)

This goes completely against our sensory knowledge("Common sense") The same for how we know the earth is round, how we go around the sun, etc. We can scientifically prove that. There is little room for interpretation in those cases.

Furthermore, there is a school of thought called "Negative Atheism" which basically says that they cannot be absolutely sure that there isn't a god, but they are still pretty darn sure.(Just like we are pretty darn sure the easter bunny, or the tooth fairy isn't real)

No, I mean literally - sense perception, such as sight or hearing. Science is irrelevant. We see a tree in front of us. Is it a tree? I don't know. I can never confirm for sure that it is a tree regardless of how I observe it. Even if I look at its cells under a micoscope or study its dna sequence, I can't tell for sure that anything I'm looking at its real. Maybe the tree is actually a figment of somebody's imagination. Maybe I'm dreaming. Maybe when I die I'll wake up in a cramped space and realize that trees don't exist because the universe decided to go LOLOLOLOL FUCK YOU.

But I have faith that it is a tree because I put faith in that what I see with my eyes is real.

[Danny Boy]

Insert a Long text telling my argument is incomplete and/ or incorrect.

Oh yeah I forgot you were the one who made the long texts on this forum.

"Some things that you're about to read
might have abominable mistakes for I am not very familiar whit Biblical
events or ideas and I apologize any misunderstandings."

Well I did gave my Opinion and you've proven me wrong.

Thank you for the response.