Religion, what's the point?

[Eyepopper]

See Pope JP II is being fast tracked into sainthood.

Apparently 2 women prayed for him and were cured of some ailments, so the church is sure he's up there, at the right hand of god, doing saintly stuff, and are happy to canonise him.

Of course a more cynical man would say the reason he's being pushed through like a greasy lightning bolt has far more to do with internal Vatican politics and a desperate need for the church to modernise and appeal to younger people, so give them a saint they know. Modern celebrity culture hits the church sort of thing.

I reckon he actually is a saint though.

 

[Moonwalker]

Well it's only fitting, as he himself fast tracked more people into saints than anyone before him.

He was better than most 'vicars', but hardly unblemished. It's pretty much incompatible with being Catholic anyway.

 

[Ubik]

Nope, you're wrong. That's not the point I'm making.

I'm talking about "a cause" for everything, not a "purpose".

Well for one thing, a dice roll is more chaotic than random. The point that an atom decays though? That's random, and I don't see anyone rolling that dice.

 

[Wibble]

This thread is supposed to be about religion and why it's pointless, not whether or not there is/was a creator of the universe. The two things don't have to be connected to eachother.

Apart from the two things being inextricably linked.

 

[Jimy_Hills_Chin]

I reckon he actually is a saint though.

Yes. I am quite sure that he did cure that woman of Parkinsons Disease. Sounds totally legit to me.

 

[ciderman9000000]

Because nothing happens without a reason, according to the laws of our universe. Only something outside our universe can explain where our universe and its laws came from.

It's actually not a "possibility". It's a necessity.

I get that, I get that there has to have have been some catalyst for creation and that science doesn't yet fully understand what that was. What I don't get though is how you've become convinced that that catalyst must have been your God. Just because there has to have been a catalyst doesn't mean God was the catalyst. There's a necessity for an answer, there's no necessity for that answer to be God.

But something inside our universe and follows its laws can't be the reason why the universe exist. The only possible answer is that something outside our universe (I'm not talking spatially here, I mean it doesn't follow its laws) was the reason behind its existence. One of those laws that he can't follow is having a reason to exist.

If you stand by this argument then what about all the other laws God can't have followed? If God can't possibly follow the laws of the universe then how can he have had any characteristics at all? How can he have been intelligent for example? Intelligence is a trait present in the known universe, so how can God have possessed intelligence? If it's impossible for God to have had a reason to exist because reason is a law of the materialistic universe and it's impossible for God to have followed any laws of the materialistic universe, then how could God possibly have any traits at all, traits such as intelligence, motivation, compassion, energy, desire? These are all things present in the known universe, but you say that God cannot possibly have possessed such traits since he existed entirely outside the trappings of the materialistic universe, hence, you say, he cannot possibly have a reason to exist.

 

[Goooose]

Apart from the two things being inextricably linked.

You could have a God without religion, just as there are a shitload of religions without any gods.

 

[Moonwalker]

If you stand by this argument then what about all the other laws God can't have followed? If God can't possibly follow the laws of the universe then how can he have had any characteristics at all? How can he have been intelligent for example? Intelligence is a trait present in the known universe, so how can God have possessed intelligence? If it's impossible for God to have had a reason to exist because reason is a law of the materialistic universe and it's impossible for God to have followed any laws of the materialistic universe, then how could God possibly have any traits at all, traits such as intelligence, motivation, compassion, energy, desire? These are all things present in the known universe, but you say that God cannot possibly have possessed such traits since he existed entirely outside the trappings of the materialistic universe, hence, you say, he cannot possibly have a reason to exist.

You'll just get the usual response to this. Which is just infantile piffle. God is outside of space and time no rules apply to him, and he possesses all the traits that he needs to in order for this fable of false consolation to work.

At no point will the thought of how convenient this all is penetrate his mind.

 

[Wibble]

You could have a God without religion, just as there are a shitload of religions without any gods.

If that is the case why are there no gods that don't have a religion attached? Apart from ones like Thor and Zeus where nobody actually believes in them. I suppose there is the spirituality type god but that is just stupidity so it doesn't count any more than belief in angels or unicorns or alien abduction counts. And alleged religions like Scientology do have a god no matter what they think Zenu is and in any case that is just a fraud dressed up as a cult.

 

[Stick]

You'll just get the usual response to this. Which is just infantile piffle. God is outside of space and time no rules apply to him, and he possesses all the traits that he needs to in order for this fable of false consolation to work.

At no point will the thought of how convenient this all is penetrate his mind.

That's not a fair comment in my view. Whilst I agree with Cider in that I struggle to understand how a god can exist in our universe with it's constraints but we still dont understand what created our universe. Folk do believe that god created it so in theory god could exist outside our universe and not be bound by it's constraints and he just chose to create our universe. To call people's faith infantile piffle is a bit arrogant when it is not known how the universe was created yet and it's unfair to discount any theory no matter how unusual.

 

[Red-Indian]

That's not a fair comment in my view. Whilst I agree with Cider in that I struggle to understand how a god can exist in our universe with it's constraints but we still dont understand what created our universe. Folk do believe that god created it so in theory god could exist outside our universe and not be bound by it's constraints and he just chose to create our universe. To call people's faith infantile piffle is a bit arrogant when it is not known how the universe was created yet and it's unfair to discount any theory no matter how unusual.

I suppose the issue most of us atheists have is that we're prepared to apply this criteria to almost everything else except God. We have no (clear) idea how the ancient belief in unicorns or the tooth fairy came about. We are however prepared to dismiss current belief in them as infantile. When it comes to the universe though, children are expected to believe that some weird, inexplicable creature not bound by the laws of the universe created it for some unfathomable purpose. It's very difficult for us atheists to distinguish between the two beliefs and laugh at one but not the other.

 

[ciderman9000000]

That's not a fair comment in my view. Whilst I agree with Cider in that I struggle to understand how a god can exist in our universe with it's constraints but we still dont understand what created our universe. Folk do believe that god created it so in theory god could exist outside our universe and not be bound by it's constraints and he just chose to create our universe. To call people's faith infantile piffle is a bit arrogant when it is not known how the universe was created yet and it's unfair to discount any theory no matter how unusual.

That's not what I said at all.

 

[Moonwalker]

That's not a fair comment in my view. Whilst I agree with Cider in that I struggle to understand how a god can exist in our universe with it's constraints but we still dont understand what created our universe. Folk do believe that god created it so in theory god could exist outside our universe and not be bound by it's constraints and he just chose to create our universe.To call people's faith infantile piffle is a bit arrogant when it is not known how the universe was created yet and it's unfair to discount any theory no matter how unusual.

I wasn't calling people's faith infantile, just the usual response to that particular question. But since you mention it, I do also think that believing in things you couldn't possibly know anything about, without evidence is very child like.

And not every theory is respect worthy. What a fatuous thing to say.

 

[Stick]

I wasn't calling people's faith infantile, just the usual response to that particular question. But since you mention it, I do also think that believing in things you couldn't possibly know anything about, without evidence is very child like.

And not every theory is respect worthy. What a fatuous thing to say.

Yeah I should have qualified the last sentence to say any theory that is not disproven in relation to the creation of the universe. Still the god theory hasn't been disproven and is a possibility for those with faith.

 

[Abbsta]

That's not a fair comment in my view. Whilst I agree with Cider in that I struggle to understand how a god can exist in our universe with it's constraints but we still dont understand what created our universe. Folk do believe that god created it so in theory god could exist outside our universe and not be bound by it's constraints and he just chose to create our universe. To call people's faith infantile piffle is a bit arrogant when it is not known how the universe was created yet and it's unfair to discount any theory no matter how unusual.

Good post.

Until someone can disprove it, the 'theory' remains. Baffling how some are championing science and they are using the same 'dismissal attitude' of some religious folk. It is the same arrogant atitude one gets from 'I'm right by virtue'.

 

[ciderman9000000]

I was responding to Danny's existential contradiction. He's cherry picking when God can and cannot follow the laws of the material universe to suit his own beliefs.

On the question of how God came into existence he says:

I'm not talking about design here. I'm talking about the simple logic we use in our science, on which the laws of the universe are built..

We all believe that there must be a reason for everything.. Nothing happens without a reason. As much as this simple law help us know a lot about the universe, it proves that we'll never know where the universe came from, and the reason for it has to be something that falls outside this universe, and doesn't follow its laws, thus doesn't need a reason to exist.

So that conveniently solves the riddle of 'Where did God come from then?' The solution is that God didn't come from anywhere, he just WAS, since only things from the material universe need a reason to be in existence; God exists outside the material universe and as such cannot possibly follow its laws such as cause and effect.

Yet, God conveniently follows other laws present in the material universe; he conveniently seems able to harness energy for example - a whole lot of it too by the looks of things. He also rather conveniently manages to hold very human characteristics and emotions such as intelligence and desire; notions too governed by the laws of cause and effect and reason, the laws of the material universe which God was apparently previously and quite conveniently incapable of following.

Danny changes that characteristics of his God to suit whichever contradiction he might at the time be attempting to justify. On the one hand Danny's God by very definition cannot possibly follow the laws of the material universe, whilst on the other hand God seems in possession of intelligence, desire and the ability to harness enormous amounts of energy.

How can an entity with no connection whatsoever to the laws of cause and effect or reason ever possess any degree of motivation to create anything? Surely the entire concept of creation would be impossible for any such entity to want for, for how could a being which cannot possibly follow the laws of reason and cause and effect ever reason that it wants to cause the universe to come into existence with immediate effect?

 

[Saliph]

Good post.

Until someone can disprove it, the 'theory' remains. Baffling how some are championing science and they are using the same 'dismissal attitude' of some religious folk. It is the same arrogant atitude one gets from 'I'm right by virtue'.

We are dismissing them because they have no evidence for their hypothesis. We (and science) are open to whatever in fact is true. This is not arrogance at all, it's common sense.

It's beyond moronic that you expect people to 'disprove' rectum-derived 'theories' of this sort. If I said to you that I think a flying spaghetti monster created the universe, does that 'theory' remain until you have disproved it? Do we have to take it seriously because it can't be disproved? Does it deserve to be respected as a serious proposition?

 

[ciderman9000000]

Good post.

Until someone can disprove it, the 'theory' remains. Baffling how some are championing science and they are using the same 'dismissal attitude' of some religious folk. It is the same arrogant atitude one gets from 'I'm right by virtue'.

It's a shit theory though; full of holes. Why do you find it so baffling that a group of people can dismiss an poorly constructed theory as being entirely unfeasible? Are we expected to treat every theory with equal respect, no matter how bonkers or poorly conceived it may be? Shall we believe every theory to be accurate?

 

[Stick]

That's not what I said at all.

Grand. I dont agree with you so.

 

[ciderman9000000]

Grand. I dont agree with you so.

What?

You misinterpreted what I was saying so how can you know that you don't agree with me?

I've made my point clearer for you in post #2976.

 

[Stick]

It's a shit theory though; full of holes. Why do you find it so baffling that a group of people can dismiss an poorly constructed theory as being entirely unfeasible? Are we expected to treat every theory with equal respect, no matter how bonkers or poorly conceived it may be?

Who decides whether a theory is bonkers though?

 

[Saliph]

Who decides whether a theory is bonkers though?

We do, by applying our intelligence and common sense, and examining the evidence, logical consistency etc.

 

[ciderman9000000]

Who decides whether a theory is bonkers though?

Well, a non-bonkers theory would be substantiated with evidence and experimentation and founded in prior, verifiable knowledge. Anything else would be classified as bonkers.

Would you disagree with that?

 

[Stick]

We do, by applying our intelligence and common sense, and examining the evidence, logical consistency etc.

Ok so by applying all these you can then discount theories that you think are bonkers but what if you're not as intelligent as you think you are or if your common sense is warped or your logical consistency is slightly inconsistent? Is it conceivable that you could be wrong and that a theory that you believe is bonkers may still have a chance of being accurate?

 

[Saliph]

Ok so by applying all these you can then discount theories that you think are bonkers but what if you're not as intelligent as you think you are or if your common sense is warped or your logical consistency is slightly inconsistent? Is it conceivable that you could be wrong and that a theory that you believe is bonkers may still have a chance of being accurate?

I'm certainly open to being wrong. As I said, if convincing evidence emerges that supports this nonsense, I'm going to have to take it seriously. If convincing evidence emerges in support of the existence of fairies, I'm also going to have to take it seriously. But until that happens I'm not going to.

 

[Stick]

Well, a non-bonkers theory would be substantiated with evidence and experimentation and founded in prior, verifiable knowledge. Anything else would be classified as bonkers.

Would you disagree with that?

I agree. I need to see evidence or proof of something before I believe hence my own beliefs but in the same way I have to accept that some folk want to believe in a god created universe until they can be shown otherwise.

 

[Stick]

I'm certainly open to being wrong. As I said, if convincing evidence emerges that supports this nonsense, I'm going to have to take it seriously. If convincing evidence emerges in support of the existence of fairies, I'm also going to have to take it seriously. But until that happens I'm not going to.

Grand then you have to accept that people who believe in god will continue to until convincing evidence shows them otherwise yes?

 

[ciderman9000000]

Ok so by applying all these you can then discount theories that you think are bonkers but what if you're not as intelligent as you think you are or if your common sense is warped or your logical consistency is slightly inconsistent? Is it conceivable that you could be wrong and that a theory that you believe is bonkers may still have a chance of being accurate?

May I present to you a theory?

"Nuclear Reactors are powered by Cheese."

In your estimation, do you find that theory as being bonkers?

I'll preempt your answer of yes, it is a bonkers theory. Well, what if you're not as intelligent as you think you are or if your common sense is warped or your logical consistency is slightly inconsistent? Is it conceivable that you could be wrong and that the above theory that you believe is bonkers may still have a chance of being accurate?

Yes, it's conceivable, it's plausible, it's not impossible. But it's not very fecking likely, is it?

 

[Stick]

I'm certainly open to being wrong. As I said, if convincing evidence emerges that supports this nonsense, I'm going to have to take it seriously. If convincing evidence emerges in support of the existence of fairies, I'm also going to have to take it seriously. But until that happens I'm not going to.

In your opinion it's nonsense. It's not nonsense to everyone and it's arogant to portray it that way.

 

[Saliph]

Grand then you have to accept that people who believe in god will continue to until convincing evidence shows them otherwise yes?

Erm, no, you've turned everything on its head. They are believing in something without evidence, that's the core issue here, and that's not what I'm doing.

 

[Moonwalker]

I agree. I need to see evidence or proof of something before I believe hence my own beliefs but in the same way I have to accept that some folk want to believe in a god created universe until they can be shown otherwise.

I accept that too. I just reject the contention that those beliefs require mandatory respect.

 

[Stick]

May I present to you a theory?

"Nuclear Reactors are powered by Cheese."

In your estimation, do you find that theory as being bonkers?

I'll preempt your answer of yes, it is a bonkers theory. Well, what if you're not as intelligent as you think you are or if your common sense is warped or your logical consistency is slightly inconsistent? Is it conceivable that you could be wrong and that the above theory that you believe is bonkers may still have a chance of being accurate?

Yes, it's conceivable, it's plausible, it's not impossible. But it's not very fecking likely, is it?

Not a great example because you already know what powers nuclear reactors. You don't know what catalyst created the universe.

A theory for you. it's Christmas 1991 and I've just put money on Denmark to win the 1992 Euros despite the fact that they were knocked out of the competition in November. Do you think I'm bonkers?

 

[ciderman9000000]

In your opinion it's nonsense. It's not nonsense to everyone and it's arogant to portray it that way.

This is a feeble attitude.

If something has all the hallmarks of being absolute nonsense then it isn't arrogant to call it nonsense.

 

[Saliph]

Not a great example because you already know what powers nuclear reactors. You don't know what catalyst created the universe.

A theory for you. it's Christmas 1991 and I've just put money on Denmark to win the 1992 Euros despite the fact that they were knocked out of the competition in November. Do you think I'm bonkers?

Exactly right, so let's stop pretending to, which is our point to begin with.

 

[Abbsta]

We are dismissing them because they have no evidence for their hypothesis. We (and science) are open to whatever in fact is true. This is not arrogance at all, it's common sense.

It's beyond moronic that you expect people to 'disprove' rectum-derived 'theories' of this sort. If I said to you that I think a flying spaghetti monster created the universe, does that 'theory' remain until you have disproved it?

Common sense? They are plenty of events in our history that shows how some ideas become 'common' years after they have been dismissed. If one doesn't like a theory that doesn't mean it's false. It's this very point that I'm referring to.

You could immagine any form you like - spaghetti, cheese etc. but that's not the actual proposal is it ? and considering what's being used as examples, who is really being 'rectum-driven' ?

 

[ciderman9000000]

Not a great example because you already know what powers nuclear reactors. You don't know what catalyst created the universe.

A theory for you. it's Christmas 1991 and I've just put money on Denmark to win the 1992 Euros despite the fact that they were knocked out of the competition in November. Do you think I'm bonkers?

Not a good example because I already know who won the 1992 Euros.

You're avoiding the point.

 

[Woodzy]

This thread is supposed to be about religion and why it's pointless, not whether or not there is/was a creator of the universe. The two things don't have to be connected to eachother.

I agree with this. I believe there is much more to universe than 'something out of nothing,' and there is something there in a spiritual sense, but I think spending a lifetime worshiping and following guidelines of that which cannot be proved is just a massive waste of time.

 

[ciderman9000000]

You don't know what catalyst created the universe.

Quite right, I don't. That's the point.

So why do the religious claim to know that which they clearly don't know?

 

[Stick]

Erm, no, you've turned everything on its head. They are believing in something without evidence, that's the core issue here, and that's not what I'm doing.

What I see is that they believe strongly in something until they can be shown it's wrong with definity? I see you believing the opposite until you too can be shown otherwise. Is that not correct? I don't know how I have turned anything on it's head. You are saying the burden of proof lies with believers in a god and I agree with that but I wouldn't call their beliefs nonsense just because I think it's unlikely that a god exists just because that is my belief.

 

[Stick]

Quite right, I don't. That's the point.

So why do the religious claim to know that which they clearly don't know?

They believe they do though. They believe god was the catalyst. In the same way you believe he wasn't and yet we can't show he wasn't the catalyst yet.