Religion, what's the point?

I think we've scared him away.

Unfortunately he just cannot answer any of these questions, let alone provide us with 'context' to the horrible passages in his holy book.
 
cesc's_mullet said:
I think we've scared him away.

Unfortunately he just cannot answer any of these questions, let alone provide us with 'context' to the horrible passages in his holy book.
Click to expand...

Some people have work to do. This is rather low priority stuff, to do when taking a poo.
 
McUnited said:
As mentioned in response to another poster, God is understood to be eternal, hence has no cause.

Why does it have to God? Well just think about what kind of being it would take to create a universe. Immaterial, timeless, immensely powerful etc. and you get to God.
Click to expand...

The truth is that your god or any other god isn't understood to be anything except what any one individual believes them to be. Bigfoot's are understood to be tall, hairy manlike creatures but that still doesn't mean that they are, or more importantly, that they even exist. You are giving your god these attributes so that he fits into this puzzle that's been designed to prove that this god exists, and you are also removing any possible answer that doesn't have a 'being' being responsible for the existance of our universe, which any respectable scientist would give you a slap on the wrist for.
There are just way too many possible answers right now and an unproven, supernatural being who created everything except his own book can't be that high up the list of possible candidates.

I had a go at the kalam argument to show this.

(1) Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence.
(2) The universe has a beginning of its existence.
Therefore:
(3) The universe has a cause of its existence.
(4) If the universe has a cause of its existence then that cause is a nerd in a high-tech alternate universe who got bored and created a simulation of a universe.
Therefore:
(5) Smart nerds exist in the other universes and do cool stuff when they get bored.

While my example isn't quite as elegant as yours it's just as plausible, and just as fallible. We are inserting something into the equation that doesn't logically belong there for any reason other than us wanting it there, or because we don't actually know what the cause is, or even if there is a cause, but we still picked what we think sounded the most likely anyway. aka an argument from ignorance.
 
Here’s a few verses for @McUnited

Matthew 16
24 Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me. 25 For whoever wants to save their life[f] will lose it, but whoever loses their life for me will find it. 26 What good will it be for someone to gain the whole world, yet forfeit their soul? Or what can anyone give in exchange for their soul? 27 For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father’s glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what they have done.
28 “Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”

Mark 13
“Then they will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory. And then He will send forth the angels, and will gather together His elect from the four winds, from the farthest end of the earth to the farthest end of heaven. Now learn the parable from the fig tree: when its branch has already become tender and puts forth its leaves, you know that summer is near. Even so, you too, when you see these things happening, recognize that He is near, right at the door. Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place…“ (Mark 13:26-30)

Luke 21
“Then they will see the Son of Man coming in a cloud with power and great glory. But when these things begin to take place, straighten up and lift up your heads, because your redemption is drawing near. Then He told them a parable: Behold the fig tree and all the trees; as soon as they put forth leaves, you see it and know for yourselves that summer is now near. So you also, when you see these things happening, recognize that the kingdom of God is near. Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all things take place.“ (Luke 21:27-32)
Click to expand...
 
I've only read over the previous four or five pages but can see that people are using the term religion synonymously with belief in God. The two are inextricably linked to borrow a phrase, but to be more precise religion is the man-made 'architecture' surrounding said belief in God.

The thread asks what is the point of religion? It's quite easy, from a historical perspective, to provide an answer because religion, as the main source of our traditions and customs, is the principal foundation upon which the kind of civic societies we have today were built. I suppose the current day utility of religion is to provide adherents with a channel for their particular faith and, probably of equal significance, with a sense of communal belonging.

Regarding the existence of/belief in God - well that's thee ineradicable debate. Nobody knows if there is a God or not; it's a question of belief. But...it's a question of belief either way in my view, as I've come to regard atheism itself as a belief. Everyone should respect the agnostic position of course since it's the logical default.
 
Last edited:
I've never been particularly impressed with the equating of religious faith and atheism as "beliefs". Atheism is a belief on the same level as not believing in the tooth fairy is a belief, or not believing in santa claus is a belief. Agnosticism is the logical default at about the same level as political centrism is the logical default. Which is to say, it isn't, really.
 
niMic said:
I've never been particularly impressed with the equating of religious faith and atheism as "beliefs". Atheism is a belief on the same level as not believing in the tooth fairy is a belief, or not believing in santa claus is a belief. Agnosticism is the logical default at about the same level as political centrism is the logical default. Which is to say, it isn't, really.
Click to expand...

It manifests as a belief, and increasingly so nowadays imo. I've yet to come across anyone for example who uses their knowledge about Santa Claus or the tooth fairy as a descriptor for themselves.
 
Kinsella said:
It manifests as a belief. I've yet to come across anyone for example who uses their knowledge about Santa Claus or the tooth fairy as a descriptor for themselves.
Click to expand...
Perhaps they might do so in societies where significant proportions of the population lived their lives by the perceived tenets of Santa.
Athiesm is literally the opposite of a belief surely? It is in contrast to beliefs.
Also, most athiests are technically agnostic by the strictest definition in my experience.
I do not believe in any god but I do not know for sure that a god of some description does not exist, but I have no reason to believe any such entity exists. That is strictly agnostic, but to call my position so seems needlessly disingenuous. Athiest is a clearer description. I do not however define myself as an athiest and I'm occasionally required to describe myself as so but only in contrast to theists.
 
Kinsella said:
It manifests as a belief, and increasingly so nowadays imo. I've yet to come across anyone for example who uses their knowledge about Santa Claus or the tooth fairy as a descriptor for themselves.
Click to expand...

If the default position for the entirety of human existence had been the existence of Santa Clause or the tooth fairy, and there were laws and customs being made and enforced to conform to beliefs about the true will of Santa Clause or the tooth fairy, you would.
 
niMic said:
If the default position for the entirety of human existence had been the existence of Santa Clause or the tooth fairy, and there were laws and customs being made and enforced to conform to beliefs about the true will of Santa Clause or the tooth fairy, you would.
Click to expand...

Santa Claus and the tooth fairy are both made out of straw here. ;)
 
niMic said:
Ah, my favourite fallacy. The fallacy fallacy. Truly the last refuge of those without real arguments.

I don't think you know what a straw man is, because that argument certainly wasn't one.
Click to expand...

You shouldn't have introduced it then.
 
Kinsella said:
It manifests as a belief, and increasingly so nowadays imo. I've yet to come across anyone for example who uses their knowledge about Santa Claus or the tooth fairy as a descriptor for themselves.
Click to expand...
Ha... reminds me of this
thumb_ricky-gervais-imagine-if-you-carried-on-believing-in-santa-10076510.png
 
Carolina Red said:
Sir, a war was won so that I don’t have to type that extra letter. Show some respect.
Click to expand...

Potayto, potahto.

(We had a conflict too. No spelling changes came about, we just maintained some differences in pronunciation. We do have our own language though, so there's that.)
 
Last edited:
niMic said:
I've never been particularly impressed with the equating of religious faith and atheism as "beliefs". Atheism is a belief on the same level as not believing in the tooth fairy is a belief, or not believing in santa claus is a belief. Agnosticism is the logical default at about the same level as political centrism is the logical default. Which is to say, it isn't, really.
Click to expand...
If we accept that the existence or non-existence of god(s) cannot actually be proved, then surely believing that there is no god (atheism) is as much an article of faith as believing in any specific god. Agnosticism is simply an acceptance that neither theism or atheism is based on certifiable fact (and is therefore the only logical choice).

I'm an agnostic with a very strong leaning towards atheism.
 
Kinsella said:
It manifests as a belief, and increasingly so nowadays imo. I've yet to come across anyone for example who uses their knowledge about Santa Claus or the tooth fairy as a descriptor for themselves.
Click to expand...

Atheism is a rejection of the claim that there is a god, until proven otherwise. It's that simple. The explanation doesn't change, it will always be the same.

Ideally we shouldn't have to call ourselves anything, as it's the more reasonable and logical position to hold, once again until proven otherwise.
 
cesc's_mullet said:
Atheism is a rejection of the claim that there is a god, until proven otherwise. It's that simple. The explanation doesn't change, it will always be the same.

Ideally we shouldn't have to call ourselves anything, as it's the more reasonable and logical position to hold, once again until proven otherwise.
Click to expand...

No, atheism is the positive claim that there is no God. It is not the absence of the belief that there is a God. The latter would simply equate atheism to mental states, shared by cats, dogs, lizards, and babies.
 
McUnited said:
No, atheism is the positive claim that there is no God. It is not the absence of the belief that there is a God. The latter would simply equate atheism to mental states, shared by cats, dogs, lizards, and babies.
Click to expand...

You are both wrong. There is no strict definition for atheism. It is generally accepted that we could categorise atheists into four main areas:
  1. Those who lack belief
  2. Those who don't know if God exists
  3. Those who doubt that God exists
  4. Those who believe God does not exist
All the above are atheists, just of various degrees. Then there’s the anti-theists...
 
McUnited said:
No, atheism is the positive claim that there is no God. It is not the absence of the belief that there is a God. The latter would simply equate atheism to mental states, shared by cats, dogs, lizards, and babies.
Click to expand...

No, for the very last time it is a rejection of your claim. We simply don't believe it. You posit that there is a god, we don't believe it. It's that simple, and no matter how many times you say otherwise you won't change the reality of the situation.
 
McUnited said:
No, atheism is the positive claim that there is no God. It is not the absence of the belief that there is a God. The latter would simply equate atheism to mental states, shared by cats, dogs, lizards, and babies.
Click to expand...

That's why I consider atheism the default position until indoctrinated or some enlightening experience. How would you classify someone who lacks belief? I consider myself an agnostic atheist. Atheist because I lack belief and agnostic because I don't claim to know or be certain about god's non existence. There are also positive or strong atheists who claim there is no god and most arguments are addressed to this group however it just represents a fraction of the atheistic position.
 
Last edited:
McUnited said:
No, atheism is the positive claim that there is no God. It is not the absence of the belief that there is a God. The latter would simply equate atheism to mental states, shared by cats, dogs, lizards, and babies.
Click to expand...

Just google it mate, you must have it mixed up with something else. This is the first sentence from wikipedia for example: "Atheism is, in the broadest sense, the absence of belief in the existence of deities."

The name also surely gives it away, atheism is the direct opposite of theism, i.e to not believe vs to believe. And saying "I do not believe the claim that god exists" is not the same as saying "I believe that god does not exist".
 
Zlaatan said:
Just google it mate, you must have it mixed up with something else. This is the first sentence from wikipedia for example: "Atheism is, in the broadest sense, the absence of belief in the existence of deities."

The name also surely gives it away, atheism is the direct opposite of theism, i.e to not believe vs to believe. And saying "I do not believe the claim that god exists" is not the same as saying "I believe that god does not exist".
Click to expand...

Nah, it's a tactic that the religious use in order to try and shift any sort of burden of proof back on the atheist. He is a cookie cutter Christian in terms of the arguments he's brought to the table so far.
 
cesc's_mullet said:
Nah, it's a tactic that the religious use in order to try and shift any sort of burden of proof back on the atheist. He is a cookie cutter Christian in terms of the arguments he's brought to the table so far.
Click to expand...

Correct. It’s such a silly argument from @McUnited and many more Christians and whatsmore, I reckon they know it’s a non argument.

Even breaking the word down fundamentally, a theist is someone who believes in a god. The prefix ‘a’ means not or without. So an atheist is someone who does not have a belief in a god or is without a belief in a god.

Either way, even if we took McUnited’s definition, to suggest that saying there isn’t a god requires the same leap of faith as saying there is is nonsense. One is saying, “there is absolutely no evidence of this, therefore I don’t believe it exists”. The other is saying “there is absolutely no evidence for this, but I believe it exists anyway.” If you are arguing that something exists or is real, the burden of proof is on you.
 
RexHamilton said:
Correct. It’s such a silly argument from @McUnited and many more Christians and whatsmore, I reckon they know it’s a non argument.

Even breaking the word down fundamentally, a theist is someone who believes in a god. The prefix ‘a’ means not or without. So an atheist is someone who does not have a belief in a god or is without a belief in a god.

Either way, even if we took McUnited’s definition, to suggest that saying there isn’t a god requires the same leap of faith as saying there is is nonsense. One is saying, “there is absolutely no evidence of this, therefore I don’t believe it exists”. The other is saying “there is absolutely no evidence for this, but I believe it exists anyway.” If you are arguing that something exists or is real, the burden of proof is on you.
Click to expand...

Who on earth says this? You do yourself no favours caricaturing opposing points of view.

You seem to speak with authority on the definition of atheism, yet I think your confidence is misplaced. May I commend to you The Presumption of Atheism by the late *********** Anthony Flew, who acknowledges that atheism is not traditionally defined the way you and other atheists on this forum would like it to be defined. Of course you would like it to be defined the way you (and Anthony Flew) define it since it shifts the burden of proof to the theist.

As a side note, it's interesting that the author of the paper mentioned above renounced his atheism later on in his life.
 
Last edited:
cesc's_mullet said:
No, for the very last time it is a rejection of your claim. We simply don't believe it. You posit that there is a god, we don't believe it. It's that simple, and no matter how many times you say otherwise you won't change the reality of the situation.
Click to expand...

Do you not posit that there is no God? If not, how do you distinguish yourself from an agnostic?
 
McUnited said:
Who on earth says this? You do yourself no favours caricaturing opposing points of view.

You seem to speak with authority on the definition of atheism, yet I think your confidence is misplaced. May I commend to you The Presumption of Atheism by the late *********** Anthony Flew, who acknowledges that atheism is not traditionally defined the way you and other atheists on this forum would like it to be defined. Of course you would like it to be defined the way you (and Anthony Flew) define it since it shifts the burden of proof to the theist.

As a side note, it's interesting that the author of the paper mentioned above renounced his atheism later on in his life.
Click to expand...

Look it doesn't matter how the word is defined as that doesn't change the actual position for any of us. I don't see anyone in here who has argued over the definition that has also said that god doesn't exist, I just see a bunch of people who says that they don't believe the claim that he does. There's also no shifting of the burden of proof as that is always on the person making the claim, and in this case that is you.
Even if there were 100 people in here who claimed that there was 0% chance that any god ever existed then that still wouldn't absolve you from the burden of proof of your claim that he does exist.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.