Siddhartha
Lifer
- Oct 17, 1999
- 12,505
- 3
- 81
Most people follow a religion because a ruler, emperor, or some other king converted to that religion, or followers of a religion conquered their country or the country of their ancestors.
Most people follow a religion because a ruler, emperor, or some other king converted to that religion, or followers of a religion conquered their country or the country of their ancestors.
The Protestant Reformation was extremely bloody.
Both side killed the other in the name of preserving the faith.
However, it is sad to think that people don't realize that protestants owe everything to Catholics, especially the idea of the Trinity and the Canonization of the Bible. Catholics are Christian, every other group has broken communion, and is therefore questionalble.
Please explain how the existence of a diety is illogical. It's not very scientific (because it is an assertion that cannot be disproven), but I don't see how there is any inherent contradiction (particularly any more than the possibility of a deity)
How would it maintain sentience without a physical apparatus (a brain) to do so? What would it eat? Where would it reside? If in space, how would it breathe? How would it be omniscent? How would it be immortal? How would it be omnipotent? How would we know about it? Why would it care?
In science something doesn't exist until its existence is proven. I'm doing my best to explain my point of view, but the religious are the ones with the thing to prove in this situation. They've not been able to do so, of course, and never will
Religion makes perfect logical sense if you see it as something which has helped our species to advance; indeed possibly the only thing which could have done so.
Universalist Unitarians.
But as with Buddhism, this is going to look more like a ritualized philosophy than an actual religion, but I think that is sort of a necessity of being able to admit that there may be more than one path to enlightenment.
Amused
Elite Member
- Apr 14, 2001
- 57,347
- 19,503
- 146
To believe in something without proof is illogical. To believe the negative without proof is illogical. Therefore agnosticism is the only logical position.
I never said the existence of a deity is illogical. Only to believe in such an existence without proof is illogical. Since neither the existence nor lack thereof can be proven, agnosticism is the only tenable position.
Sometimes "I don't know" IS the logical answer.
Amused
Elite Member
- Apr 14, 2001
- 57,347
- 19,503
- 146
No, it is not. It literally means "without knowledge." It is the position that one does not know if a god exists or not.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/agnostic.htm
Originally posted by: Gurck
How would it maintain sentience without a physical apparatus (a brain) to do so? What would it eat? Where would it reside? If in space, how would it breathe? How would it be omniscent? How would it be immortal? How would it be omnipotent? How would we know about it? Why would it care?
In science something doesn't exist until its existence is proven. I'm doing my best to explain my point of view, but the religious are the ones with the thing to prove in this situation. They've not been able to do so, of course, and never will
Religion makes perfect logical sense if you see it as something which has helped our species to advance; indeed possibly the only thing which could have done so.
Lots of Christian assumptions there. What is the necessity of breathing? Why immortality? Why ominicience? Why omnipotence?
Of course the existence of something that is beyond one's comprehension is difficult to prove or disprove. What test can I apply when I don't come close to understanding the thing iteself?
It's every bit as much a leap of faith to say that everything spontaniously emerged out of nothing as it is to say that what we are able to experience has been created.
I sit corrected, I've always heard it used to mean that the agnostic person(s) believed in a god, but were unsure of which religion to follow, if any *shrug* Learn something new every day. 9/10 times you hear it used in conversation though, it'll mean a definite belief in a god, the only doubt being the I-dotting and T-crossing.
Elegant enough, however logic may be based on assumptions (i.e. if A=B, B=C -> A=C, we assumed that A=B and that B=C to apply deductive logic). Why do we seek to understand the order of the universe? I believe that we have a fundamental assumption that there is order. If order exists, it implies an orderer.
Originally posted by: MonkeyK
Originally posted by: Gurck
How would it maintain sentience without a physical apparatus (a brain) to do so? What would it eat? Where would it reside? If in space, how would it breathe? How would it be omniscent? How would it be immortal? How would it be omnipotent? How would we know about it? Why would it care?
In science something doesn't exist until its existence is proven. I'm doing my best to explain my point of view, but the religious are the ones with the thing to prove in this situation. They've not been able to do so, of course, and never will
Religion makes perfect logical sense if you see it as something which has helped our species to advance; indeed possibly the only thing which could have done so.
Lots of Christian assumptions there. What is the necessity of breathing? Why immortality? Why ominicience? Why omnipotence?
Of course the existence of something that is beyond one's comprehension is difficult to prove or disprove. What test can I apply when I don't come close to understanding the thing iteself?
It's every bit as much a leap of faith to say that everything spontaniously emerged out of nothing as it is to say that what we are able to experience has been created.
The necessity of breathing is to transport oxygen to the body's cells, which then use it in chemical reactions to sustain life. There's no assuming on my part in regards to "god's" all-knowing and all-seeing nature; if the common conception of god was that he wasn't omniscent, there would be no reason for followers of religion to act the way they do, for they wouldn't be caught. If he weren't omnipotent, the same goes; he'd know but be powerless to punish you for your sins. The concept of an omniscent and omnipotent god or gods is the behavioral reinforcer behind all religions, and all mention it directly or insinuate it. Immortal, perhaps not - but he'd be at least 10,000 years old. No living organism can attain that age that I know of; the oldest would be certain species of tree that can survive a few millenia - but they haven't any of the other prerequisites. No brain, are not omniscent nor omnipotent, etc. Further, the ability to punish sinners in the ways that god supposedly does so is a comic-book fantasy. The only way to transport someone is to physically do so - and there is no way to transport someone to a place which doesn't exist (heaven, hell). There's no need to disprove it; again, the religious are the ones with the hypothesis. They must now prove it or it is not fact. A hypothesis which has gone 10 millenia or more without being proven is ridiculous and can be safely assumed to be false, even without all the supporting evidence.
In more down-to-earth terms... the idea of a deity is simply preposterous. It's a lot like figuring out a puzzle. Once you see the solution (how religion has helped us to come together to form societies, which are better for us for very practical reasons, while feeding our inquisitive nature, which is associated with intelligence and the key requirement to society & civilization) you can't un-see it and it seems painfully obvious. People who haven't yet figured it out aren't lesser people in any way, and unlike religion, you can prove that a puzzle is solve-able, but you look on in wonder as they struggle in vain to see what's so obvious to you, often going along paths which seem like a good idea but result in them being no closer to solving the puzzle - or worse, farther from it.
Originally posted by: Gurck
Originally posted by: MonkeyK
Originally posted by: Gurck
How would it maintain sentience without a physical apparatus (a brain) to do so? What would it eat? Where would it reside? If in space, how would it breathe? How would it be omniscent? How would it be immortal? How would it be omnipotent? How would we know about it? Why would it care?
In science something doesn't exist until its existence is proven. I'm doing my best to explain my point of view, but the religious are the ones with the thing to prove in this situation. They've not been able to do so, of course, and never will
Religion makes perfect logical sense if you see it as something which has helped our species to advance; indeed possibly the only thing which could have done so.
Lots of Christian assumptions there. What is the necessity of breathing? Why immortality? Why ominicience? Why omnipotence?
Of course the existence of something that is beyond one's comprehension is difficult to prove or disprove. What test can I apply when I don't come close to understanding the thing iteself?
It's every bit as much a leap of faith to say that everything spontaniously emerged out of nothing as it is to say that what we are able to experience has been created.
The necessity of breathing is to transport oxygen to the body's cells, which then use it in chemical reactions to sustain life. There's no assuming on my part in regards to "god's" all-knowing and all-seeing nature; if the common conception of god was that he wasn't omniscent, there would be no reason for followers of religion to act the way they do, for they wouldn't be caught. If he weren't omnipotent, the same goes; he'd know but be powerless to punish you for your sins. The concept of an omniscent and omnipotent god or gods is the behavioral reinforcer behind all religions, and all mention it directly or insinuate it. Immortal, perhaps not - but he'd be at least 10,000 years old. No living organism can attain that age that I know of; the oldest would be certain species of tree that can survive a few millenia - but they haven't any of the other prerequisites. No brain, are not omniscent nor omnipotent, etc. Further, the ability to punish sinners in the ways that god supposedly does so is a comic-book fantasy. The only way to transport someone is to physically do so - and there is no way to transport someone to a place which doesn't exist (heaven, hell). There's no need to disprove it; again, the religious are the ones with the hypothesis. They must now prove it or it is not fact. A hypothesis which has gone 10 millenia or more without being proven is preposterous. In more down-to-earth terms... it's preposterous.
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
Amused
Elite Member
- Apr 14, 2001
- 57,347
- 19,503
- 146
It implies no such thing. That is an assumtion. An illogical one at that, since there is no evidence of any deity.
Let me put it this way: Unanswered/unanswerable questions are not proof of anything but ignorance. The most pathetic arguments I hear for proof of a deity are the unanswered question arguments.
"How did...? Must be god."
Um, no.
Originally posted by: Gurck
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.
How is A=B a logical assumption? Assumptions are not guaranteed to be logical, they are the building blocks of logic.
Originally posted by: MonkeyK
Originally posted by: Gurck
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.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.
Originally posted by: Gurck
Originally posted by: MonkeyK
Originally posted by: Gurck
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
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.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 384
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter