Question about religion and proselytizing

[Gurck]

Originally posted by: MonkeyK

Originally posted by: Gurck

Originally posted by: MonkeyK

Originally posted by: Gurck

Originally posted by: MonkeyK
Deism does not assert these things that you claim. Deism asserts that a deity exists, but has not chosen to reveal itself to us. What could sin mean in this case? Why should such a thing need to be omnipotent or omnicent, all it needs to have done is to create the universe we live in.

Finally, religon is not a hypothesis.

If a deity weren't all seeing & knowing, how would your sins be tallied and action taken against you?

No, religion is not a hypothesis; it's a steaming pile of man-made bull manure. The existence of a deity is the hypothesis. Sorry to group the two

Again you confuse some religions that you know something about with religion in general. For example, in Hinduism, the gods repeatedly make mistakes --doesn't sound like omnicensce to me.

Christianity is, if not the world's biggest religion, a contender for that spot - especially if you include Catholocism, which is a safe bet since it's more or less very similar, especially compared to the ideas proposed by other religions (reincarnation, etc). I'd know more about its numbers if I cared. It's also the religion that I'm confronted with by far the most often as an American. Regardless of differences, all religions hinge on the existence of a deity. You can argue the nickel & dime stuff, but that's the glaring fault with them.

And yes, I looked it up Religion is the belief in a deity or deities. Belief systems without included deities are not, by definition, religions.

Deism is a belief system that includes a deity, but does not say anything about that deity.
Saying that all religion is bull due to your beef with Christianity is a bit narrow minded and equally judgemental to the bull that you so despise.

My biggest beef is with the idea of a deity. Christianity only goes a bit farther due to missionaries and God Squad type people. And deism is a religion only in the vaguest sense of the word. It's really just a cop-out for people too PC and scared to get off the fence.

 

[Ausm]

You want to get a holyroller off your back just fire up a discussion about Dinosaurs.






Sysadmin

 

[torpid]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: torpid
The roots of agnosticism are the belief that we CANNOT know, not that we DO NOT know. The "founder" of agnosticism in fact stated that people who say that they don't know are for all intents and purposes atheists. Instead he believed that the nature of the question is such that we cannot know.

The fact is, in modern language, atheism has come to mean "the belief that there is no god" and agnosticism has come to mean, uncertainty about the existence of a god

Yes, I was just pointing out the roots of the word. I thought it especially appropriate because some people above seem to think that if you eat a fry at mcdonald's that qualifies as agnostic.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: torpid

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: torpid
The roots of agnosticism are the belief that we CANNOT know, not that we DO NOT know. The "founder" of agnosticism in fact stated that people who say that they don't know are for all intents and purposes atheists. Instead he believed that the nature of the question is such that we cannot know.

The fact is, in modern language, atheism has come to mean "the belief that there is no god" and agnosticism has come to mean, uncertainty about the existence of a god

Yes, I was just pointing out the roots of the word. I thought it especially appropriate because some people above seem to think that if you eat a fry at mcdonald's that qualifies as agnostic.

Mmmmmmmm, friiiies.

 

[Doboji]

the very question of religion defies logic. That includes Atheism. Because we are questioning the existence of a being, without any priori evidence whatsoever, it becomes impossible to even address the question utilizing logic.

Therefore attempting to understand religion and god by means of rational logic is futile.

Furthermore, for you religion bashers out there.... this issue does not apply soley to religion, it applies to virtually any emotional issue, or for that matter any opinion.

For example... I love my mother more than I love yours... my mother is the be all and end all, but if your mother was actually mine, then she would be the be all and end all.

You atheist god-bashers, are every bit as fanatical and prostyletizing as any religious zealot.

-Max

 

[Gurck]

Originally posted by: torpid

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: torpid
The roots of agnosticism are the belief that we CANNOT know, not that we DO NOT know. The "founder" of agnosticism in fact stated that people who say that they don't know are for all intents and purposes atheists. Instead he believed that the nature of the question is such that we cannot know.

The fact is, in modern language, atheism has come to mean "the belief that there is no god" and agnosticism has come to mean, uncertainty about the existence of a god

Yes, I was just pointing out the roots of the word. I thought it especially appropriate because some people above seem to think that if you eat a fry at mcdonald's that qualifies as agnostic.

All I said is that 90% of the time you hear "agnostic" used in day to day conversation, it's used to mean definite belief in a god, usually with uncertainty in other respects (if there is one 'correct' path and which one it is) or occasionally certainty that there isn't one true path or even that all the major religions are wrong. In other words, the same as what's being called "deism" in this thread, as far as I can tell. Not sure why you're bringing up McDonalds fries...

the very question of religion defies logic. That includes Atheism.

Atheism is logic...

You atheist god-bashers, are every bit as fanatical and prostyletizing as any religious zealot.

Yeah, I'm about to catch a flight to a third world country to shove atheism down peoples' throats for 6 months :roll:

 

[Jzero]

Originally posted by: Gurck
All I said is that 90% of the time you hear "agnostic" used in day to day conversation, it's used to mean definite belief in a god, usually with uncertainty in other respects (if there is one 'correct' path and which one it is) or occasionally certainty that there isn't one true path or even that all the major religions are wrong. In other words, the same as what's being called "deism" in this thread, as far as I can tell. Not sure why you're bringing up McDonalds fries...

Not to beat a dead horse, but I have NEVER heard or seen agnostic used in this sense. Most of my agnostic friends sum their beliefs up in this manner: "I would be willing to believe in deities if there was sufficient evidence that they existed, but based on current evidence, it is not possible for me to believe that deities exist."

Sometimes the last clause is "I do not believe deities exist." Some agnostics are also essentially atheists.

I have only heard deism to refer to someone who believes in deities but is non-committal on the specifics.

 

[Gurck]

Who knows, maybe it's regional like soda vs. pop... The definition I've detailed is the one I've always heard for it, although it certainly has been proven wrong by an above poster's link and by my own foray to dictionary.com

 

[Doboji]

Yeah, I'm about to catch a flight to a third world country to shove atheism down peoples' throats for 6 months

Maybe not, but you are likely to come onto internet forums and preach... or put bumper stickers on your car proclaiming your own idiology.

Atheism is logic...

Thats garbage... from websters:

Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
The doctrine that there is no God or gods.

You believe there is no god... you have no proof to this effect... Which is kinda the whole point... how many other logical arguments for existence are there?... A clear cut example of this is the discussion about the expansion of the universe. Many scientists believe there is enough matter in the universe for the expansion of matter to stop, and reverse, while others believe there is not enough, and the universe will eventually expand beyond the reaches of gravity. One of the pivotal points of this argument is the question of quantity of dark matter. Fact is scientists do not know how much dark matter exists, and therefor can only guess how much exists. Until it is discovered they simply don't know. They can't argue logically whether the unfound matter exists, they can only state their beliefs.

Which is exactly what you are doing.

-Max

 

[bobbybe01]

You're all about freedom of religion and/or personal beliefs. I agree that we should all have our own beliefs. But I find it a little strange that you criticize and get pissed when others are just trying to share with you some things they feel could better your life (mainly, because it's their belief that they should share it). For crying out loud, if you don't like them being at your door, just be polite and say "No thanks," or at least have a civil discussion with them. It's not easy doing what they do; so give them so credit.

Edit: However, I understand that sometimes the fundamentalists and others can be a little rude, and that shouldn't be tolerated. It's disrespectful for them to do that. But if they are being polite about it, I think we ought to be polite to them.

 

[Gurck]

Originally posted by: Doboji

Yeah, I'm about to catch a flight to a third world country to shove atheism down peoples' throats for 6 months

Maybe not, but you are likely to come onto internet forums and preach... or put bumper stickers on your car proclaiming your own idiology.

By replying you're doing the same. Shall I say the H word? Nah, it's not necessary

Atheism is logic...

Thats garbage... from websters:

Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
The doctrine that there is no God or gods.

I'm not interested in what Webster's has to say about the technical definition of atheism. It's the logical conclusion to come to about religion.

You believe there is no god... you have no proof to this effect... Which is kinda the whole point... how many other logical arguments for existence are there?... A clear cut example of this is the discussion about the expansion of the universe. Many scientists believe there is enough matter in the universe for the expansion of matter to stop, and reverse, while others believe there is not enough, and the universe will eventually expand beyond the reaches of gravity. One of the pivotal points of this argument is the question of quantity of dark matter. Fact is scientists do not know how much dark matter exists, and therefor can only guess how much exists. Until it is discovered they simply don't know. They can't argue logically whether the unfound matter exists, they can only state their beliefs.

I need no proof. It's not logical and it's very clear why religion exists - and that isn't because a deity or deities exist. There is a lot about physics that we have yet to learn. We can and will only be able to do so by observing and experimenting, something religion would rather not have happen. Stem cell research, for example, could lead to an expansion in biological knowledge and abilities akin to the computing industry's growth the past few decades. Since one of religion's most basic funtions is to explain what we don't understand, the more we know the more their powerbase crumbles. Do you believe in evolution, and that the earth revolves around the sun? It seems absurd to think otherwise, doesn't it? Yet a few centuries ago the debate would closely resemble this thread The more you know...

I'll say it again - those claiming a god or gods exist are the ones making the claim, and so are the ones with something to prove. It's been many millenia, and we're still waiting on that proof.

 

[Gurck]

Originally posted by: bobbybe01
You're all about freedom of religion and/or personal beliefs. I agree that we should all have our own beliefs. But I find it a little strange that you criticize and get pissed when others are just trying to share with you some things they feel could better your life (mainly, because it's their belief that they should share it). For crying out loud, if you don't like them being at your door, just be polite and say "No thanks," or at least have a civil discussion with them. It's not easy doing what they do; so give them so credit.

Edit: However, I understand that sometimes the fundamentalists and others can be a little rude, and that shouldn't be tolerated. It's disrespectful for them to do that. But if they are being polite about it, I think we ought to be polite to them.

Personally I'm curt but polite to JoHo's. However I do feel that what they do is extraordinarily rude. The ones in my area seem quite tolerant though, and don't push the issue when it's made clear that you're not interested. If like NSF4 one put their foot in my door to hold it open... it's likely punches would be thrown.

 

[torpid]

I'm afraid you can't just use science when you want to and discard it when you don't. The default answer in science is "I don't know whether X is true or false". It's not "X is true" nor is it "X is false". Both are conclusions that one would come to after intensive experimentation. Even then, it is important to include the possibility that experimentation leads to an incorrect answer. At best it will be "X appears to be false based on evidence we now have".

If you want to rely on logic and speak of whether omniscience/omnipresence/omnipotence are logical possibilities, then do that. Stop bringing up science, because it is a losing argument for both sides of "the question".

 

[Gurck]

We're going to have to agree to disagree here. The nonexistence of a deity is not merely a claim made by people, the way that the existence of one is; nonexistence is substantiated by observation. I think it's the normalization of religion responsible for your feelings on the subject; the fact that millions of people buy into it makes it much more legitimate in the eyes of many - but I'm not swayed by that. A tech/IT analogy is this: Millions of people use AOL. Does that legitimize that ISP? You're making a mockery of science by saying it has to disprove the existence of a deity.

Edit: It's also been proven that we have an instinctual tendency toward a religion, much like we do toward learning a language, eating fatty foods as insurance against times of little food, fearing spiders, snakes, and heights, etc. I can relate to how hard it can be in certain cases to overcome this in that I'm absolutely terrified of spiders. I know it's not rational, but I'm quite powerless over it. The difference, of course, is that I don't try to make others afraid of spiders nor do I feel superior to those who aren't afraid of spiders. Much like the innate irrational fears and the desire for too much fatty/sugary foods which many of us have, the instinct toward religion has served its purpose and is now not only no longer needed, but actively detrimental to our advancement.

 

[MonkeyK]

Originally posted by: Gurck
We're going to have to agree to disagree here. The nonexistence of a deity is not merely a claim made by people, the way that the existence of one is; nonexistence is substantiated by observation. I think it's the normalization of religion responsible for your feelings on the subject; the fact that millions of people buy into it makes it much more legitimate in the eyes of many - but I'm not swayed by that. A tech/IT analogy is this: Millions of people use AOL. Does that legitimize that ISP? You're making a mockery of science by saying it has to disprove the existence of a deity.

Edit: It's also been proven that we have an instinctual tendency toward a religion, much like we do toward learning a language, eating fatty foods as insurance against times of little food, fearing spiders, snakes, and heights, etc. I can relate to how hard it can be in certain cases to overcome this in that I'm absolutely terrified of spiders. I know it's not rational, but I'm quite powerless over it. The difference, of course, is that I don't try to make others afraid of spiders nor do I feel superior to those who aren't afraid of spiders. Much like the innate irrational fears and the desire for too much fatty/sugary foods which many of us have, the instinct toward religion has served its purpose and is now not only no longer needed, but actively detrimental to our advancement.

Somehow, I doubt you have observed the nonexistence of a deity. If you want to look at things scientifically (which I consider a belief system --one with a tenet that the universe can be understood by following certian rules), you should substantiate your assertions, otherwise you should not assert. This includes the nonexistence of a diety.

Believe what you will, I certianly won't hold it against you.

 

[Jzero]

Originally posted by: MonkeyK
Somehow, I doubt you have observed the nonexistence of a deity. If you want to look at things scientifically (which I consider a belief system --one with a tenet that the universe can be understood by following certian rules), you should substantiate your assertions, otherwise you should not assert. This includes the nonexistence of a diety.

Believe what you will, I certianly won't hold it against you.

From a logic/science perspective, you cannot assert the nonexistence of something.

 

[cquark]

Originally posted by: Gurck
Christianity is, if not the world's biggest religion, a contender for that spot - especially if you include Catholocism, which is a safe bet since it's more or less very similar, especially compared to the ideas proposed by other religions (reincarnation, etc). I'd know more about its numbers if I cared. It's also the religion that I'm confronted with by far the most often as an American. Regardless of differences, all religions hinge on the existence of a deity. You can argue the nickel & dime stuff, but that's the glaring fault with them.

How could you not include Catholicism? Together the Catholic and Orthodox churches were the original Christian church in the West. They created the Biblical canon that later churches like the various Protestant and Anglican churches use.

There are approximately 2 billion Christians of all denominations (Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, Ethiopian, Nestorian, and Coptic), and only about 1.1 billion Muslims, so yes, Christianity is the world's largest religion.

And yes, I looked it up Religion is the belief in a deity or deities. Belief systems without included deities are not, by definition, religions.

Doboji:
Thats garbage... from websters:

Dictionaries are a good place to start a discussion of the meaning of a word, but a poor place to end one.

Buddism does not require belief in a deity, but it nonetheless considered a religion and one of the world's largest.

 

[Gurck]

Originally posted by: MonkeyK
Somehow, I doubt you have observed the nonexistence of a deity. If you want to look at things scientifically (which I consider a belief system --one with a tenet that the universe can be understood by following certian rules), you should substantiate your assertions, otherwise you should not assert. This includes the nonexistence of a diety.

Believe what you will, I certianly won't hold it against you.

Can't agree with you here. I've never seen god; what's he look like? He .. what, 100 feet tall? beard or clean shaven? What are his physical characteristics? You can't answer because, like me, you've observed nonexistence of a deity. The opposite of observing a deity. What you see around you is the basic ruleset. The only claim being made is that a deity, which has never been observed, exists. Therefore only that side need prove it scientifically.

 

[Gurck]

Originally posted by: cquark

Originally posted by: Gurck
Christianity is, if not the world's biggest religion, a contender for that spot - especially if you include Catholocism, which is a safe bet since it's more or less very similar, especially compared to the ideas proposed by other religions (reincarnation, etc). I'd know more about its numbers if I cared. It's also the religion that I'm confronted with by far the most often as an American. Regardless of differences, all religions hinge on the existence of a deity. You can argue the nickel & dime stuff, but that's the glaring fault with them.

How could you not include Catholicism? Together the Catholic and Orthodox churches were the original Christian church in the West. They created the Biblical canon that later churches like the various Protestant and Anglican churches use.

There are approximately 2 billion Christians of all denominations (Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, Ethiopian, Nestorian, and Coptic), and only about 1.1 billion Muslims, so yes, Christianity is the world's largest religion.

It doesn't interest me, and I was too lazy to use Google

 

[MonkeyK]

You have not observed a deity, it does not mean that you have observed the nonexistence of a diety.

 

[Gurck]

Originally posted by: MonkeyK
You have not observed a deity, it does not mean that you have observed the nonexistence of a diety.

We've observed life and its requirements. Where would a deity live? What would it eat, how would it know things from and impose its will over a distance, etc - I asked this in a post about ~2/3 of the way down and am not going to repeat myself. Unanswerable questions. All evidence points not only to the nonexistence of a deity, but the sheer amound of said evidence makes the proposal laughable, as does a hypothesis dating 10 millenia or more which has yet to be proven. Going by your straw-grasping logic I could say that the solar system actually is ecocentric and devise a theory about giant invisible mirrors put in place to make us think our solar system revolves aroung the sun, etc etc. It doesn't have to make sense, just be impossible to prove by my own criteria, which can be whatever I want :roll:

Actually, it's interesting to note, early astronomers designated extremely strange orbits to planets, including strange little curlicues, to go along with the ecocentric solar system model which was widely accepted in the 16th century. Many devoted their lives to proving this ridiculous and wrong model. Need I mention people also once thought the earth was flat? See the parallels?

 

[Amused]

Arguing over the existence of a deity is so pointless. Neither side can prove their position so why the fsck do you even bother?

 

[Gurck]

Originally posted by: Amused
Arguing over the existence of a deity is so pointless. Neither side can prove their position so why the fsck do you even bother?

I'm just in reply mode now. True to form, the God Squad is hypocritically taking offense at my assertation that their beliefs are wrong while righteously claiming that my beliefs are wrong

 

[torpid]

I've observed the non-existence of doom3. It's not on my computer. Nor is it on any of my friends' computers. No store has it. I've never seen a demo of it. My friend claims he played it, but it was an "alpha" and maybe not "the real thing". The only evidence I have that it exists is word of mouth from other people. I am forced to conclude that doom3 does not exist. This is a perfectly logical conclusion, and very scientific. I looked in every corner of my room, under my bed, inside of my cat's mouth, and saw doom3 nowhere.

 

[MonkeyK]

Originally posted by: Gurck

Originally posted by: MonkeyK
You have not observed a deity, it does not mean that you have observed the nonexistence of a diety.

We've observed life and its requirements. Where would a deity live? What would it eat, how would it know things from and impose its will over a distance, etc - I asked this in a post about ~2/3 of the way down and am not going to repeat myself. Unanswerable questions. All evidence points not only to the nonexistence of a deity, but the sheer amound of said evidence makes the proposal laughable, as does a hypothesis dating 10 millenia or more which has yet to be proven. Going by your straw-grasping logic I could say that the solar system actually is ecocentric and devise a theory about giant invisible mirrors put in place to make us think our solar system revolves aroung the sun, etc etc. It doesn't have to make sense, just be impossible to prove by my own criteria, which can be whatever I want :roll:

Actually, it's interesting to note, early astronomers designated extremely strange orbits to planets, including strange little curlicues, to go along with the ecocentric solar system model which was widely accepted in the 16th century. Many devoted their lives to proving this ridiculous and wrong model. Need I mention people also once thought the earth was flat? See the parallels?

I do not see the parallels. You say that because you cannot concieve of things like a deity's digestive tract that there is evidence of it's nonexistence? No evidence of something does not equal evidence of not something.