Fair play for not mentioning the extremely young sexual partners under the guise of marriage.
Religion, what's the point?
- Thread starter TheRedFlag
- Start date
Fair play for not mentioning the extremely young sexual partners under the guise of marriage.
The sheer amount of em is such a clear indication it all just stems from explaining away the scary unknown and lack of reaon we're here.
I'm convinced there's no reason we're here and no being, divine or otherwise gives a feck.
Oh, I know quite a bit of the topic as it has interested me for years. So if you have any concrete objections on that I wrote, please don't be shy. Where did I step on your feet? Calling Islam a war religion, perhaps? Just making a guess here.
It's more the fact that people feel the need to go on the attack from the off.
Then use arguments straight out of the edl/answering Islam text books.
It gets old and only deserves a
René Descartes saw the idea of god itself as a proof of god's existence, but it's rather like you say - or maybe simply a necessary consequence of our consciousness - meaning, not only knowing something, but also knowing that we know something, and at the same time, knowing that there is something we don't know. And that's where the story telling begins. But yeah, people are religious out of need - and the more you need it - the more religious you are. Many Buddhists, e.g. pray to Buddha for help, although there is no incentive in the religion itself to do so, as Buddha is not a god, only a guide. But it shows the need people have to seek help from a higher force. In Thailand, many people even pray to former kings.
Go on attack? I don't see any arguments from your side, and I have no idea what books or sites you are constantly referring to. Why can't you be more specific instead, so we can have a conversation. What exactly do we disagree about?It's more the fact that people feel the need to go on the attack from the off.
Then use arguments straight out of the edl/answering Islam text books.
It gets old and only deserves a
Yes, go on the attack. You made a general statement based on Christianity and applied it to "religions" when I said you can't say religions but focus on one your next response was about war and virgins. Both concepts that, in that post, showed your a)lack of knowledge and b) a straight from the off aggressive approach.
That approach is tiresome and as I said right from the EDL and Sam Shamoun school of thought. Based on not very much. That isn't how discussions ensue.
What's my side?
Edit: oh and the flat earther comment and the poster from America about dinosaurs is just hilarious and the common MO
My comment on religions were general, and I made an assessment on the probability of gods existence. I do agree though, that bringing war religions to the table, was a sidestep, but if you have any specific religion you want to discuss, with the perspective of it being a conspiracy theory or not, it would be easier for me if you let me know what religion you feel the urge to defend, as you seem to have no rejections on Christianity being a conspiracy theory.
Edit: You laughing at science is a bit more hilarious, imo, as you driving around in your car, drinking cold milk from your fridge, or having light in your room, is a result of it.
Edit 2: And if you disagree that all religions are conspiracy theories, you would at least have to agree that all of them are, bar one, right?
Last edited:
It's good you accepted the war bit. As I say it's tiresome.
Nowhere have I said Christianity is a conspiracy theory. And I don't need to defend any religion per se. The fact you think I do kind of proves my point about aggression and lack of understanding.
I didn't laugh at science inlaugh at the notion being put forwarded using science, especially as a catch all term same as inlaugh at the catch all term of "religions". Yes it amuses me.
I don't have to agree with any of your notions to be fair. And generally that isn't how discussions work, as in you can't assume a person's stance or put words in a person's mouth.
Religion like certain sciences has had an "evolution". So I like to try and apply the same principles. (Don't read into the word evolution I can't think of a better word Currently)
So just like the notion of Gravity can change from (arguably) Aristotle to (definitely)Newton to Einstein, why not religions?
PS. As I mentioned it's Ramadhan which brings about certain obligations. So hence the scattered responses, which will continue
You have just echoed what almost all of the greatest scientific minds have been saying.
Proof?
It is a fact that the universe is expanding.
It is therefore a fact that yesterday the universe must have been smaller.
So wind the clock backwards... and you have exactly what you have quoted.
No CT.
What is not yet understood is why.
'Matter cannot come from nothing'
'Well then how did your God come to be?'
'Errrrrr he was just like, always there'
'Well then how did your God come to be?'
'Errrrrr he was just like, always there'
Last edited:
Using the same logic people who do not believe in a god can also stumble. You cannot get to the origin of everything. Even if you believe the world came into existence by coincidence, or by chance, there has to have been somewhere that those particles, whatever created this world, came from. And it goes on and on. Everything has to come from something, and eventually you reach a point where you're not sure where a thing originated from.
Thats the point where you're faced with a choice. You either choose to believe to worship a God and believe everything originated from one God, or you choose to worship your own desires, and thought, and go by that.
Or you could just choose to accept that we cannot explain everything yet and keep it at that.
Religious people can use the same logic and say we cannot explain everything about the origins of God, as our brain cannot possibly comprehending every single thing or even store every bit of information.
How comes there is an issue and dislike for when a religious person uses the same logic?
Because they can't prove anything, let alone everything.
Why? because we know about the expansion of the universe due to science, we can land rovers on a fecking astroid using science from the 1600's, it's that good. We can theorise on an eternal multiverse and don't require a "start point".
What we can't do, is send a fecking rocket into space and trust God will land it somewhere safe, it's nonsensical. Or use a religious book to rid the World of smallpox. Science can keep digging, and will, the idea you hit a brick wall for a few hundred years and decide, "can't explain it yet, must be a fairy" is absolutely absurd.
It’s not the same logic
It’s adding an (in the case of the Abrahamic religions) omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent catch-all to explain what’s left. It makes way more sense to stop one step before that and go "we don’t know"
You're talking as if I said science is a huge no no within religion
Why would that make more sense?It’s not the same logic
It’s adding an (in the case of the Abrahamic religions) omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent catch-all to explain what’s left. It makes way more sense to stop one step before that and go "we don’t know"
No I'm not.
I'm saying, that at the point we currently "don't know", invoking a "sky fairy must've done it" is absolutely absurd.
An individuals belief is both hugely personal and at the same time often binary.
Creation v evolution.
But the creation theory does not necessarily have to exclude the ongoing scientific discoveries.
I have a very close friend who just happens to be a vicar.
He has a much less ridgid belief. Far more Christian based than God must have created everything. And the church should be there to help the community and not exclude those with differing beliefs. And the congregations of that church are thriving as opposed to dwindling like so many.
I am afraid that religious fundamentalism is the source of far more conflicts than benefits.
Do I believe in a God the creator of everything.
Certainly not.
Do I believe that people should be free to believe in what they choose.
Of course.
Scientific discoveries are and will continue to provide mankind with the answers. But there will always be people who choose to believe in whichever God suits their minds.
EDIT. But do not try to impose your beliefs on anyone else.
Because it's one less step. The last step doesn't actually add any knowledge, and so has no real value. There's also the eternal problem for religions, in that the gap in knowledge grows smaller and smaller. We don't need Thor to explain thunder anymore.
In 20 years we'll know more about the Universe, in 200 years even more. At no point will saying "god did it" add anything, and it will always be discarded in time, as the God of the Gaps grows smaller.
Because it doesn't include an unproven, supernatural being.
How about being judged on being a cnut who enjoys being unkind to people?
Except 1 possibility (big bang/singularity) has lots of evidence to support it and the other (a supernatural creator) doesn't.
Just because science hasn't filled all the knowledge gaps doesn't mean that you get to fill those gaps with whatever evidenceless rubbish you choose to believe.
I’m as shocked as an old lady at a Benny Hinn revival.
All that is really going to happen is that science enters into more and more granular detail. The gap that may be impossible to address is probably the one that will always inspire people to look beyond the modern scientific method. We're always going to have a something that by our limited human conception needs to have come from something. That's no less an eternal problem for science.
About the age of 12 I started to doubt my religious upbringing. Most of what I was told began to sound a bit dodgy. After more thought it began to sound like fairy stories. Fairly soon I realised it was all fiction.
In all other parts of life we accept evidence as a reason for belief/understanding.
If you walk off a cliff you fall and often die. I accept that as evidence that gravity exists (if not yet fully explained).
A supernatural god, usually a white male with a big beard, is a widespread belief, yet despite an unbelievable amount of effort to find evidence for a God there is zero.
If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and is covered in feathers then we should (to.paraphrase DNA) at least consider the possibility that we may have a small aquatic bird of the family Anatidae on our hands. Or in this case the reverse.
If you look hard enough and find no evidence, eventually you have to accept what you are looking for doesn't exist, no matter how much you want it to.
In all other parts of life we accept evidence as a reason for belief/understanding.
If you walk off a cliff you fall and often die. I accept that as evidence that gravity exists (if not yet fully explained).
A supernatural god, usually a white male with a big beard, is a widespread belief, yet despite an unbelievable amount of effort to find evidence for a God there is zero.
If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and is covered in feathers then we should (to.paraphrase DNA) at least consider the possibility that we may have a small aquatic bird of the family Anatidae on our hands. Or in this case the reverse.
If you look hard enough and find no evidence, eventually you have to accept what you are looking for doesn't exist, no matter how much you want it to.
What religion did you deem yourself to be apart of? Christianity?
That said I'm all for religious freedom as long as it is kept out of government, especially education.
Christian, specifically Catholic.
Yes, that’s clearly ahead of various recorded accounts of ancient middle eastern schizophrenia cases being turned into “prophesies” and the folks suffering from them being turned into “patriarchs”, “prophets”, and the like.
Of course, that's true. Science can't explain a "why", and as human beings there's a very powerful desire for stuff to have meaning. Even if we gain as perfect knowledge as we can about the beginning of the Universe, and figure out exactly how life came to be (and perhaps manage to create it on our own), that motivation is going to be there for some.
It doesn't have to be filled with organized religion, though.
Have any of you listened to the talk on Youtube of Richard Dawkins and Ricky Gervais? They put forward some very good points on god not being real and their scepticism on religion.
It's hard to see how we'd ever have closure on the origin of the universe. Maybe I would sound like those in the middle ages that would not have conceived of electricity. But even if science finds that the origin of this universe is another universe...then what? If that universe got farted out of a black hole, then what? It's a never ending rabbit hole of interesting facts that are of very little consequence beyond the knowing of them.
I don't necessarily think organised religion fills that void, at least for me it does not, the fact it is organised makes me suspicious in and of itself because if we know anything about history then we have to ask for who's benefit?
But I also think there's a rather unhealthy relationship between the way that we look at science versus other philosophical/spiritual lines of enquiry in the West and some of the tones taken in this thread reflect that. There's a lot of shunning, looking down upon, failure to realise what science is setup to adequately address in its current guise and with its current belief systems, - it is reminiscent of the way religion has treated observers in the past. In some ways it is natural because we look around and see what science has done and will continue to do for us.
Whilst I agree that a bit more civility in discourse might be nice I think it's quite a stretch to describe science as a belief system in any sense comparable with how we'd use that expression regarding a religion. It's a methodology surely not a belief system?
Inherently, science is designed to have no certainties. There is no scientific tenet that cannot be overturned by evidence. This is not so of religion, where belief in at least certain aspects of a religious school of thought must be maintained (leaving aside that picking and choosing which bits of a religion to adhere to is a can of worms for any religious faith or evolution of religion argument).
I'm sure they make some good points but I couldn't listen to that pair of smug condescending gits.
This feels like a post from about twelve years ago.