Religion, what's the point?

[nimic]

Wibble, it's not worth it.

 

[Silva]

You realize that there's a branch of physics which deals precisely with the notion of there being a universe from nothing?

 

[Danny1982]

I was applying arbitrary characteristics to the unknown; I don't know how nuclear reactors work and the first thing I thought of was a powerful cheese being whose earthly conduits reside in our fridges and power nuclear reactors. Likewise you don't know how the universe was created so you invented the term God and arbitrarily gave that term characteristics such as sentience, intelligence and compassion. What's the difference between what I've done and what religion has done? In both cases something unknown has been artificially made known without any scientific basis whatsoever.

I invented a term/word for it. You didn't invent a word, you used an already existent word to describe something else. That's the difference..

You're basically just trying to call "God" by another name.. As long as it carries the characterics of God, then you're not making any point really, you're just basically referring to the same God, albeit by another name. However, using a word that already exists to describe something else doesn't make any sense.

I'm not going to go on here because I can't make my point any clearer.. When you come back with a real reason why you called it "cheese" while giving it completely different properties to the actual "cheese" then we might have something to talk about.

 

[ciderman9000000]

First of all, the laws of probability, and the laws that regulate the universe which made the probability became close to 1 (if we assume that this claim is actually correct), didn't come from nothing, and can't come from nothing.

There is an important thing you should realize here. Science is not explaining where things come from. They only explain the mechanisms through which things happen, and the properties of the things that exist in the universe.

Science is like analyzing a really complicated program. You can discover a lot of things about the program. You can discover how pushing this button does this. And how pushing that button does that. And what the mechanism is through which these events happen, but what you have to realize is that you're merely discovering the details of an already written program, which is why you're always going to be tied to the laws according to which the program runs. And that logically means that you'll never, no matter how much you discover, be able to eventually reach the conclusion that the program simply "wrote itself". Because you have to start somewhere, and you have to have laws to depend on to be able to build a theory in the first place. That's the limits of our science, which is why all what science can do is really just "prolong the chain".

I agree with much of this in principle, but nevertheless there's zero indication of god in anything you've said here; quite the opposite in fact.

All you're basically saying is that we will never know; if that's the case then how can you be claiming to know about god?

 

[Moonwalker]

Wibble, it's not worth it.

It's possible for smart religious people to refine their arguments, if not 'convert'. Dinesh D'souza finally grasped who the burden of proof lies with, fairly recently. Unfortunately danny still seems confused by the abc of it.

 

[Danny1982]

You realize that there's a branch of physics which deals precisely with the notion of there being a universe from nothing?

However, in reality, what it does is actually choose its own "nothing" to start with, which is far from the real nothing, where there are no powers, no energy, and no laws that regulate anything..

They simply prolonged the chain, and are trying to call the farthest point they got to (in theory) "nothing".

 

[ciderman9000000]

I invented a term/word for it. You didn't invent a word, you used an already existent word to describe something else. That's the difference..

You're basically just trying to call "God" by another name.. As long as it carries the characterics of God, then you're not making any point really, you're just basically referring to the same God, albeit by another name. However, using a word that already exists to describe something else doesn't make any sense.

I'm not going to go on here because I can't make my point any clearer.. When you come back with a real reason why you called it "cheese" while giving it completely different properties to the actual "cheese" then we might have something to talk about.

Your ignorance to the point leaves me somewhat lost for words.

I explained that The Cheese is not God; though they do share many characteristics, they have many differences also.

The Cheese is an evil being for example, whereas God is benevolent. The Cheese didn't create the universe, God did that (with the exception of nuclear reactions which were created by The Cheese). The Cheese is only concerned with the maintenance of nuclear reactions - it is not God nor God by another name, it's an entirely different being. The Cheese is similar to God in the same way that a horse is similar to a donkey; each have similar characteristics, but that doesn't mean that a horse is just a donkey by another name.

What are you not understanding here?

 

[ciderman9000000]

However, in reality, what it does is actually choose its own "nothing" to start with, which is far from the real nothing, where there are no powers, no energy, and no laws that regulate anything...

Come on then, let's hear religion explain it better...

No powers, no energy and no laws that regulate anything. Fair enough. What's God then? If God explains it then go ahead and explain it...

 

[Danny1982]

I agree with much of this in principle, but nevertheless there's zero indication of god in anything you've said here; quite the opposite in fact.

All you're basically saying is that we will never know; if that's the case then how can you be claiming to know about god?

I want to establish here what atheists really believe in.. In reality what they believe in is: "We don't know if God exists". The picture they're trying to give to other people though is that: "God doesn't exist".

There are some logical reasons that lead some people to think that there must be a God who created everything. If those reasons don't convince you then fine, you can say: I'm still not convinced. However, on the other hand, there is zero evidence that God doesn't exist, so atheists don't have any evidence to present in that regard, which is why they should not try to convince other people that God doesn't exist, because in reality, they don't really know. All they can say is "I'm not convinced, but I don't really know".

 

[ciderman9000000]

Where's the logic in the existence of an powerful being of creation at a time whereby –as you point out, Danny– no powers, no energy and no laws that regulate anything can possibly be in existence?

It isn't at all logical that anything of immense power and energy existed at a time of no power and no energy.

 

[ciderman9000000]

I want to establish here what atheists really believe in.. In reality what they believe in is: "We don't know if God exists". The picture they're trying to give to other people though is that: "God doesn't exist".

There are some logical reasons that lead some people to think that there must be a God who created everything. If those reasons don't convince you then fine, you can say: I'm still not convinced. However, on the other hand, there is zero evidence that God doesn't exist, so atheists don't have any evidence to present in that regard, which is why they should not try to convince other people that God doesn't exist, because in reality, they don't really know. All they can say is "I'm not convinced, but I don't really know".

I'm an athiest, I'm not convinced and I don't really know.

Don't try to tell me what I think or believe in, please. You're talking to an atheist, I don't need you to establish what I believe in.

 

[Saliph]

I want to establish here what atheists really believe in.. In reality what they believe in is: "We don't know if God exists". The picture they're trying to give to other people though is that: "God doesn't exist".

There are some logical reasons that lead some people to think that there must be a God who created everything. If those reasons don't convince you then fine, you can say: I'm still not convinced. However, on the other hand, there is zero evidence that God doesn't exist, so atheists don't have any evidence to present in that regard, which is why they should not try to convince other people that God doesn't exist, because in reality, they don't really know. All they can say is "I'm not convinced, but I don't really know".

Evidence.

(1) Absence of evidence is evidence of absence.
(2) What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
(3) Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Pretty much sums up my position anyway. I can't speak for other atheists obviously.

 

[Danny1982]

Come on then, let's hear religion explain it better...

No powers, no energy and no laws that regulate anything. Fair enough. What's God then? If God explains it then go ahead and explain it...

Yes, God explains that he can't explain it to us, because we're part of this universe, and we ourselves belong to it and follow its laws, which is why we will never understand it. But he does mention a few of his characteristics, and try to describe life outside the universe, in a way we can understand (through using metaphors).

 

[Danny1982]

I'm an athiest, I'm not convinced and I don't really know.

Don't try to tell me what I think or believe in, please. You're talking to an atheist, I don't need you to establish what I believe in.

I wish every atheist admit this. I have absolutely no problem with this.

 

[Silva]

However, in reality, what it does is actually choose its own "nothing" to start with, which is far from the real nothing, where there are no powers, no energy, and no laws that regulate anything..

They simply prolonged the chain, and are trying to call the farthest point they got to (in theory) "nothing".

If you say so.

 

[ciderman9000000]

Yes, God explains that he can't explain it to us, because we're part of this universe, and we ourselves belong to it and follow its laws, which is why we will never understand it. But he does mention a few of his characteristics, and try to describe life outside the universe, in a way we can understand (through using metaphors).

That sounds very much to me like a human trying to explain something he cannot explain rather than the other way around.

When did God supposedly explain all this to you? Why is he so bad at explaining?

If there were indeed this explanation from god then surely he'd have explained it so well that we'd all believe it! How can you explain the Almighty God who created the universe and everything being so shit at putting things into layman's terms for us lowly humans? He can create the entire universe but he genuinely struggles to convince a bunch of monkeys of his existence?!

I know the standard riposte is that God can make you believe in him if he so chooses, but he likes to leave that decision up to the individual. Well then why all the blackmailing with the heaven and hell stuff? I've said it before and I'll say it again; if the Christian God does indeed exist then the guy's an absolute cnut.

On the one hand God gives us the intelligence to go out and explore the science of the universe, at every turn, under every atomic nook and galactic cranny finding nothing whatsoever that suggests that existence of He; whilst on the other he sets up heaven and hell and only allows those deemed 'worthy' enough by believing in him to enter the eternal life of the former. God's an egotistical, power-crazed feckcunt of an arsehole if he does indeed exist; he's a proper bastard of bloke. On the one hand he teaches compassion and love for all creatures great and small, whilst on the other hand demands that we worship him or else face an eternity in the fiery pits if hell. He's a thug and he's a prick, he's a hypocritical twat who doesn't deserve the time of day from anybody. We're all, every one of us better than that nobhead, and if believing in him means we get to go up there when we die and sit around with all the other smug, religious dead gits of the world then bollocks to that I'd rather not bother.

Therein lies my evidence for the nonexistence of God; because if he does exist then he's a fecking arsehole.

 

[Moonwalker]

I want to establish here what atheists really believe in.. In reality what they believe in is: "We don't know if God exists". The picture they're trying to give to other people though is that: "God doesn't exist".

Trying to establish what atheists believe in is a fools errand, because atheism isn't a belief system. It's simply absence of belief in a deity. Any other generalization beyond that, you wish to establish will be otiose. It's an incredible failure of imagination of the religious mind, to be constantly perplexed by this.

Furthermore, the distinction you are trying to make is a distinction without a difference. For all practical purposes, absence of a belief in something and knowing that the said thing doesn't exist come down to the same exact thing. It's of no difference to your life whether you don't believe in unicorns or you know that they don't exist. Which is why people who are technically agnostic prefer the term atheism.

As with anything else, the burden of proof lies with those who claim to 'know'.

I'm absolutely amazed that a person can discuss this topic for months on end, and still find understanding of it's basics so strenuous.

 

[Danny1982]

Trying to establish what atheists believe in is a fools errand, because atheism isn't a belief system. It's simply absence of belief in a deity. Any other generalization beyond that, you wish to establish will be otiose. It's an incredible failure of imagination of the religious mind, to be constantly perplexed by this.

Furthermore, the distinction you are trying to make is a distinction without a difference. For all practical purposes, absence of a belief in something and knowing that the said thing doesn't exist come down to the same exact thing. It's of no difference to your life whether you don't believe in unicorns or you know that they don't exist. Which is why people who are technically agnostic prefer the term atheism.

As with anything else, the burden of proof lies with those who claim to 'know'.

I'm absolutely amazed that a person can discuss this topic for months on end, and still find understanding of it's basics so strenuous.

Do you agree with what Cider said? (The part I bolded)

Religious people do claim to have logical arguments to support their beliefs. Atheists on the other hand don't even claim to have any evidence. Which is why, as an atheist, you can reject the arguments of the religious people, but you can't ask other people to believe that there is no God. All you can say is "I'm still not convinced, but I don't really know".

 

[Saliph]

How do you still not get this?

 

[Silva]

Why would you require evidence from someone who doesn't claim anything?

 

[Abbsta]

I hate to break this to you, but there's no evidence to support the existence of a unicorn. Outside of fiction and fantasy that is. In other words exactly like god.

And of course neither is an imperative in explaining anything, despite dannybarcelona's best efforts to argue otherwise.

Maybe in its appearance but I don't think the two are comparable. In the fantasy world one would immagine anything one would like but in this world, for example, I know I need Oxygen. The two worlds produce different sensations.

For example, the movie Aliens. I would be scared to death if I was in that space ship but ultimately I would forget about it. But consider the movie Jaws. Now this has a stronger effect because of its connection/proposal to the 'real' world.

Now we can debate 'this connection to realty' but to equate the two, I think it is an oversimplification of an idea that almost every civilisation had a version of.

 

[Moonwalker]

Do you agree with what Cider said? (The part I bolded)

Religious people do claim to have logical arguments to support their beliefs. Atheists on the other hand don't even claim to have any evidence. Which is why, as an atheist, you can reject the arguments of the religious people, but you can't ask other people to believe that there is no God. All you can say is "I'm still not convinced, but I don't really know".

It's not a level playing field. There's no symmetry here. This is the first thing you need to learn about this argument. Demanding evidence for non existence is fatuous.

I can say that I don't know, a religious person simply doesn't have that luxury.

 

[Moonwalker]

Maybe in its appearance but I don't think the two are comparable. In the fantasy world one would immagine anything one would like but in this world, for example, I know I need Oxygen. The two worlds produce different sensations.

For example, the movie Aliens. I would be scared to death if I was in that space ship but ultimately I would forget about it. But consider the movie Jaws. Now this has a stronger effect because of its connection/proposal to the 'real' world.

Now we can debate 'this connection to realty' but to equate the two, I think it is an oversimplification of an idea that almost every civilisation had a version of.

I'm sorry, if there's a point somewhere in there it's opaque to me.

 

[Mockney]

I wish every atheist admit this. I have absolutely no problem with this.

Every atheist does admit this. Even Dawkins created a scale of Atheism, with 6 being a concrete certainty there is no possible God of any conception, and put himself at 5. You should probably learn more about atheists and what they believe than waffle on about how we don't know anything about theists.

As for "There's zero evidence that God doesn't exist" that's nonsense. There are countless pieces of evidence, in archeology, biology, paleontology, history, astronomy, chemistry even flipping sociology and anthropology that concretely disprove all manner of claims from all manner of religious texts, not to mention ontological arguments.

All that's happened is theists move the goalposts, re-positioning claims as metaphors, and the argument as a Diest one rather than for their specific, fragile sect.

Do you believe there's zero evidence that Poseidon doesn't exist? He's a God. And one just as widely believed as your God once upon a time. Presumably you accept that evidence. We're just one step beyond you in accepting the stuff that rules out your God too.

Yes, there's no real evidence that A God of some sort, a creator and non-interventionalist being of some unknowable form may exist. But that's not remotely close to the same argument religions are making.

 

[Danny1982]

That sounds very much to me like a human trying to explain something he cannot explain rather than the other way around.

When did God supposedly explain all this to you? Why is he so bad at explaining?

If there were indeed this explanation from god then surely he'd have explained it so well that we'd all believe it! How can you explain the Almighty God who created the universe and everything being so shit at putting things into layman's terms for us lowly humans? He can create the entire universe but he genuinely struggles to convince a bunch of monkeys of his existence?!

I know the standard riposte is that God can make you believe in him if he so chooses, but he likes to leave that decision up to the individual. Well then why all the blackmailing with the heaven and hell stuff? I've said it before and I'll say it again; if the Christian God does indeed exist then the guy's an absolute cnut.

It's all mentioned in the Quran.

Because otherwise, the point of punishment/reward will be pointless wouldn't it? You make your decisions in life, and you live with them. We all know that we're going to die. If you don't care about what will happen after that, then you shouldn't complain if it turns out that there is indeed another life after this one.

 

[Mockney]

Why is there a point? Why is God testing us? Why give us life on earth and then, by either accident of birth or triumph of logic (the logic he gave us) punish us with an eternity of suffering for not abiding by the things he vaguely encouraged us to do 2,000 years ago?

What an absolutely insane & sadistic thing to do!

 

[ciderman9000000]

It's all mentioned in the Quran.

Because otherwise, the point of punishment/reward will be pointless wouldn't it? You make your decisions in life, and you live with them. We all know that we're going to die. If you don't care about what will happen after that, then you shouldn't complain if it turns out that there is indeed another life after this one.

Why should I be punished for not believing in God? Where's the justice in that being a punishable offence?

If God is supposed to be just then he cannot exist, because punishing those who don't believe in him is not an act of justice. If God does indeed exist then he's a cruel being; self centered, unfair, contrary and deceitful. If he exists then I despise everything he stands for.

 

[Mockney]

I love the "there's nothing to disprove God" argument. There are fecking hundreds of things to disprove the Abrahamic God. Scientific things, philosophical things, loads of things. You just don't believe them. It doesn't mean they're not there.

Even very simple common sense things like the unfathomable size of the Universe disprove the idea of a human centric loving God. It's like building a huge mansion for your dog, with 10 billion rooms and courtyards and football pitches and pools and helicopter pads and all sorts, and then putting your dog in a kennel, in a cupboard, in one of the smaller rooms, switching the light on an off every couple of hours and going "Here, I made this all for you. Remember, I love you."

 

[ciderman9000000]

Even very simple common sense things like the unfathomable size of the Universe disprove the idea of a human centric loving God. It's like building a huge mansion for your dog, with 10 billion rooms and courtyards and football pitches and pools and helicopter pads and all sorts, and then putting your dog in a kennel, in a cupboard, in one of the smaller rooms, switching the light on an off every couple of hours and going "Here, I made this all for you. Remember, I love you."

Evidence only of God's insanity.

If God is insane then how are we to believe that heaven is anything like what it's cracked up to be? It would be folly to believe the ramblings of a madman even if that man happened to be the most powerful being in existence. If Simon Cowell approached you, clearly off his head on hallucinogens and demonstrating increasingly sadistic tendencies, would you go with him if he promised you a seat at his table in his mansion? Would you bollocks. Why? Because he'd fecking eat you, that's why.

 

[Mockney]

feck yeah. The Devil's clearly way better. I mean, he's supposed to be down there ruling hell and punishing the wicked as his own punishment. So he's supposedly doing what God wants him to do. But why would he do that? If he's really the enemy of God, what's in it for him? He's blatantly down there having a big party just to feck God off. Hell will be awesome!

Or you know, he could just be a tacked on invention to excuse the character of God from seeming evil enough to actually do bad things or punish people for eternity himself. You know, or that. That seems rational. But I reckon it's just as rational to believe he's real, and just kind of awesome.

 

[Silva]

Wasn't the devil kicked out of heaven because he thought he could do better? It would be somewhat judgmental us of to take it at face value that he can't, he probably has much better drugs than god too. So yeah, what do you want? A sterile white massive room with boring moralistic wankers telling you to respect everyone or to take acid with Nietzsche and Karl Marx?

 

[ciderman9000000]

Considering the clearly sadistic nature of God, wouldn't it be fair to assume that he that we call God was in fact the Devil? The Devil is the Prince of Lies and Corruption; well wouldn't it just be the most satisfying lie if he convinced the world that heaven was hell and vice versa, that living a devout life and believing in God would grant one an eternal afterlife of happiness in heaven, when actually heaven turned out as being what we think of as hell whilst the real heaven was down below, the true destiny of those who refused to believe in GodDevil?

 

[Arruda]

That would be priceless. I'd love to see their face.

 

[ciderman9000000]

As far as I can tell then, logically speaking one should always side with whichever entity calls itself The Devil.

Situation A:
God is the true God, but he's sadistic and cruel as evidenced by his unjustly punishing people for not believing in him. In this case Heaven is likely to be hellish; you're better off taking your chances downstairs with he who rebelled against God than go to Heaven and be doomed to an eternal life alongside the evil God.

Situation B:
God is in fact the Devil and vice versa, he's just lying to us and calling himself God. In this case, again, Heaven is likely to be hellish; you're better off going downstairs to live a life of happiness in Hell with the true God.

 

[Don't Kill Bill]

I want to establish here what atheists really believe in.. In reality what they believe in is: "We don't know if God exists". The picture they're trying to give to other people though is that: "God doesn't exist".

There are some logical reasons that lead some people to think that there must be a God who created everything. If those reasons don't convince you then fine, you can say: I'm still not convinced. However, on the other hand, there is zero evidence that God doesn't exist, so atheists don't have any evidence to present in that regard, which is why they should not try to convince other people that God doesn't exist, because in reality, they don't really know. All they can say is "I'm not convinced, but I don't really know".

No there aren't any logical reasons, that’s why they call it faith and that’s why you are wrong in your entire line of argument.

The sum of your criticism of science was that it prolongs the chain which in fairness it does through logic and evidence. Whereas your self creation of god is also prolonging the chain it just doesn't do it with anything remotely logical or testable. It also does it with an add on which if you stop to think about it for a minute doesn't even make sense. If god created the universe then what is god made of and who made him?

So yes I'm an atheist and I have proven god can't exist and I'm not going to stop telling religious people that he doesn't exist until they stop trying to tell me he does.

 

[alastair]

It is clear that, to all intents and purposes, it is possible to disprove large swathes of religious texts according to the world in which we now live. We know that we can't walk on water, and we can at least deem it incredibly unlikely that it was possible 2,000 years ago as well.

There are issues, however, with the way in which these type of debates take place. There seems to be an assumption that if you can disprove religious texts, you can disprove the existence of God as a whole.

I personally feel that the reality is that you can all but rule out - at least in terms of the current realms of human thought - the image of a God as portrayed in religious texts, but you can't disprove the existence of some kind of entity in some other sphere that is unknown to us. Therefore, in my view, the dismissal of religious texts, no matter how reasonable, is not always relevant to disproving God in general.

 

[Silva]

Why is the idea of a god in a different sphere less stupid than the idea of a nuclear cheese in a different sphere?

Different spheres are completely beyond our understanding, any assertion as to what exists there is nothing but arrogant.

 

[ciderman9000000]

It is clear that, to all intents and purposes, it is possible to disprove large swathes of religious texts according to the world in which we now live. We know that we can't walk on water, and we can at least deem it incredibly unlikely that it was possible 2,000 years ago as well.

There are issues, however, with the way in which these type of debates take place. There seems to be an assumption that if you can disprove religious texts, you can disprove the existence of God as a whole.

I personally feel that the reality is that you can all but rule out - at least in terms of the current realms of human thought - the image of a God as portrayed in religious texts, but you can't disprove the existence of some kind of entity in some other sphere that is unknown to us. Therefore, in my view, the dismissal of religious texts, no matter how reasonable, is not always relevant to disproving God in general.

Agreed.

 

[alastair]

Why is the idea of a god in a different sphere less stupid than the idea of a nuclear cheese in a different sphere?

Different spheres are completely beyond our understanding, any assertion as to what exists there is nothing but arrogant.

The idea of a God is clearly different. It's not more or less stupid, but the idea of a God is far more interesting and pertinent to the kind of questions humans ask such as 'why are we here?' Nuclear cheese is pretty boring by comparison.

PS - Do you ever agree with me?

 

[Mockney]

Yes, al. I agree entirely with your speil. The concept of God is an unknown. This type of un-disprovable God though, is as far from the Christian, Islamic or Jewish conception of God, as Thor, Zeus & Ra are from it. Even further in fact. So when arguing with a Christian, or a Muslim, who says "you can't disprove God" you're invariably arguing with them about THEIR God, or their idea of God.

The Deist interpretation of God is completely sound as far as I'm concerned. As is the Pantheist one.