[st0rmforce]

So with all that in mind, are we too hard on religion?
Hasn't this really gone off of the subject of the thread?

Or are you saying that because it's unprovable, all religion is a completely free target?

[cccritical]

The reason so many different churches exist is because of different viewpoints on things like this. Roman Catholics believe that every human being goes to purgatory first thing when they're dead because no matter how good or bad a person they were they have to agonize over their sins before they're accepted into heaven. Some denominations don't believe in purgatory. Personally, I like to think of afterlife the way C.S. Lewis put it in the Great Divorce.

Edited:

We have gotten off topic but I don't think there's any going back now. We're too far in.

[The_J_Hat]

Noble posted:

Again this doesn't address why god allows a place as horrible as Hell to exist given that he's all powerful. On top of that, it doesn't explain evils of the natural world, like earthquakes and hurricanes. It's also saying that god allows evil (like murder), which is going to "test" a person's actions at an innocent person's expense (their life in the case of murder).

God allows Hell to exist for Satan, his demons, and his human followers. There, they will endure endless punishment. Hell exists for a practical reason. Would you want to share your house with murderers and rapists, no matter how charming they are?

Satan controls the evil of the world. While he still is trapped in hell, he can send out his will unto the world and wreak his own havoc.

God doesn't outright destroy hell because He has essentially done away with it. He won't destroy what he created. I equate it to the scientific law that states that matter cannot be destroyed. God didn't create evil, Satan did. Hell is the container. If there was no hell, the evil could move freely into Heaven, its ultimate prize.

[Sickle]

cccritical posted:

What do you think of circumstantial evidence in law?

Some credible evidence
Preponderance of the evidence
Clear and convincing evidence
Evidence beyond reasonable doubt


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_b...ncing_evidence

That's what it'd take a actually prove it in 'law'.

[cccritical]

Sickle posted:

Some credible evidence
Preponderance of the evidence
Clear and convincing evidence
Evidence beyond reasonable doubt


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_b...ncing_evidence

That's what it'd take a actually prove it in 'law'.

I'm not asking what it takes to close a case, what do you think of circumstantial evidence? Should it ever be brought up in court? If you're given enough circumstantial evidence, would it influence your personal opinion on the case?

Edited:

What did you think of the Casey Anthony trial?

[The_J_Hat]

st0rmforce posted:

So with all that in mind, are we too hard on religion?
Hasn't this really gone off of the subject of the thread?

Or are you saying that because it's unprovable, all religion is a completely free target?

I'd say that this thread has gotten off track considerably.

That being said, I think some people are rather hard on religion. In the end, everybody should just respect eachother's beliefs. If someone doesn't want to be preached to, don't preach to them. If somebody doesn't believe what you believe, don't act all high and mighty and rub their face in the mud because of it.

[Sickle]

cccritical posted:

I'm not asking what it takes to close a case, what do you think of circumstantial evidence? Should it ever be brought up in court? If you're given enough circumstantial evidence, would it influence your personal opinion on the case?

Yes it would, now I'm assuming you're going to give me circumstantial evidence that a god exists.

[Noble]

The_J_Hat posted:

God allows Hell to exist for Satan, his demons, and his human followers. There, they will endure endless punishment. Hell exists for a practical reason. Would you want to share your house with murderers and rapists, no matter how charming they are?

Satan controls the evil of the world. While he still is trapped in hell, he can send out his will unto the world and wreak his own havoc.

God doesn't outright destroy hell because He has essentially done away with it. He won't destroy what he created. I equate it to the scientific law that states that matter cannot be destroyed. God didn't create evil, Satan did. Hell is the container. If there was no hell, the evil could move freely into Heaven, its ultimate prize.

Why was Satan created in the first place? And why were the murderers and rapists created with the ability to murder and rape?.. that's kind of the main issue I'm getting at here.

The law is that matter cannot be created or destroyed. If god is subject to this rule then how did he create the universe...lol.

And even if this were the case you could argue that god could just blast hell and Satan into dust.

Evil clearly isn't contained within hell because we see it in our own world. Also it seems to be assuming that god is somehow incapable of preventing evil from "moving freely into heaven".

[Sickle]

The_J_Hat posted:

God allows Hell to exist for Satan, his demons, and his human followers. There, they will endure endless punishment. Hell exists for a practical reason. Would you want to share your house with murderers and rapists, no matter how charming they are?

Satan controls the evil of the world. While he still is trapped in hell, he can send out his will unto the world and wreak his own havoc.

God doesn't outright destroy hell because He has essentially done away with it. He won't destroy what he created. I equate it to the scientific law that states that matter cannot be destroyed. God didn't create evil, Satan did. Hell is the container. If there was no hell, the evil could move freely into Heaven, its ultimate prize.

Don't equate science into this feeble bullshit, especially when the existence of a god breaks multiple laws.

[cccritical]

Sickle posted:

Yes it would, now I'm assuming you're going to give me circumstantial evidence that a god exists.

the part where jesus was a threat enough to be crucified and for the next 300 years people believed strongly enough that he was god in human form to risk their lives to teach others about him

when the punishment for accepting jesus as the messiah 2000 years ago was death I'd imagine it took something dear to convince so many to face it

[Noble]

cccritical posted:

the part where jesus was a threat enough to be crucified and for the next 300 years people believed strongly enough that he was god in human form to risk their lives to teach others about him

when the punishment for accepting jesus as the messiah 2000 years ago was death I'd imagine it took something dear to convince so many to face it

Many people have died in the name of various gods. That is in no way a positive argument for the existence of those gods.

Anyway this debate has been interesting but I need to get going

[matsta]

Noble posted:

Haven't we already established here in this thread that no one is born with a belief in god? No one came into the world with their religion already programmed into them. Just because they didn't arrive here with the concept of Christianity programmed in their head doesn't mean that they made an active rejection of the concept in the womb.

Never said that. What I actually said is that for a grown man to not-believe in god he has to actively reject the concept, because, in this society he will very probably be exposed to the idea of god somewhere in his childhood or adolescence.

And actually, I think it's in the nature of human beings to develop the concept of a 'higher deity' or a 'higher order'. And the proof is that religion is present in almost every society known.

[Sickle]

cccritical posted:

the part where jesus was a threat enough to be crucified and for the next 300 years people believed strongly enough that he was god in human form to risk their lives to teach others about him

when the punishment for accepting jesus as the messiah 2000 years ago was death I'd imagine it took something dear to convince so many to face it

That does not equate to circumstantial evidence, more like stupidity among a large group of people.

[Slowbro]

I'm an atheist myself, but I do think a lot of the hate religion gets in places like Facepunch is unwarranted.

That said, some religious people can be pretty dumb.

[JohnnyMo1]

Pepin posted:

A = B
B = C
C = A

uh

I get your point but I'd just like to mention that you should consider using a symbol that's not = for that because that's not faulty at all.

[EurofanBMW]

Levithan posted:

Fuck all, that's it everyone go home show's over.

Rational thought as been debunked go to bed already.

Do you have anything positive to add to the thread or are you continue being a sarcastic prick?

[Bat-shit]

Get it to your heads people: God would only hope the best for you, if anything.

So indeed there has been times where God face-palmed like never before.

[Sickle]

EurofanBMW posted:

Do you have anything positive to add to the thread or are you continue being a sarcastic prick?

EurofanBMW posted:

Atheism basically is a religion anyway.

[Mon]

Sickle posted:

Haha, okay.



I like to argue with debaters, not idiots.

stop being so hostile when people disagree with you

[The_J_Hat]

Noble posted:

Why was Satan created in the first place? And why were the murderers and rapists created with the ability to murder and rape?.. that's kind of the main issue I'm getting at here.

The law is that matter cannot be created or destroyed. If god is subject to this rule then how did he create the universe...lol.

And even if this were the case you could argue that god could just blast hell and Satan into dust.

Evil clearly isn't contained within hell because we see it in our own world. Also it seems to be assuming that god is somehow incapable of preventing evil from "moving freely into heaven".

Satan was created not to be evil, but instead became evil and challenged God, thus creating a schism in Heaven and in the end, Satan and his followers were sent to Hell.

Murderers and rapists weren't created by God, they became evil over time through Satan.

Why God doesn't smash Satan and his throngs into bits is a bit more puzzling. I think it would be like a father killing his child. Sure the child in question is evil incarnate, but does a father want to kill his own flesh and blood?

Perhaps God still thinks of Satan as a "child" in a manner of speaking. He doesn't want to kill him or kill those souls allied with him. He's a merciful God, even though the Bible does reference Him smiting unruly followers, but in the end their souls are still around.

Maybe it's more like God can create and destroy anything He wants, but out of the love of His creation, He won't end their existence wholesale soul and all.

Edited:

Sickle posted:

Don't equate science into this feeble bullshit, especially when the existence of a god breaks multiple laws.

It's supposed to be an example, dumbass. I'm not stating that laws of science apply to God, I'm using it to describe so that you might understand.

[Sickle]

The_J_Hat posted:

Satan was created not to be evil, but instead became evil and challenged God, thus creating a schism in Heaven and in the end, Satan and his followers were sent to Hell.

Murderers and rapists weren't created by God, they became evil over time through Satan.

Why God doesn't smash Satan and his throngs into bits is a bit more puzzling. I think it would be like a father killing his child. Sure the child in question is evil incarnate, but does a father want to kill his own flesh and blood?

Perhaps God still thinks of Satan as a "child" in a manner of speaking. He doesn't want to kill him or kill those souls allied with him. He's a merciful God, even though the Bible does reference Him smiting unruly followers, but in the end their souls are still around.

Maybe it's more like God can create and destroy anything He wants, but out of the love of His creation, He won't end their existence wholesale soul and all.

Edited:




It's supposed to be an example, dumbass. I'm not stating that laws of science apply to God, I'm using it to describe so that you might understand.

It's a scientific law floating in a sea of bullshit. And you pretty much are.

[The_J_Hat]

Sickle posted:

It's a scientific law floating in a sea of bullshit. And you pretty much are.

It's not a scientific law applying to God, it was an example put in place to help people understand my meaning. Get it into your head.

[Sickle]

The_J_Hat posted:

It's not a scientific law applying to God, it was an example put in place to help people understand my meaning. Get it into your head.

The meaning was putrid shit to begin with.

[The_J_Hat]

Sickle posted:

The meaning was putrid shit to begin with.

You're just getting up in everyone's face because they disagree with you, aren't you? Science and religion can coexist. Deal with it. Religion is always going to be around, whether you like it or not. Atheism is always going to be around, whether I like it or not. In the end, nobody is going to come out of this debate a winner.

[Sickle]

The_J_Hat posted:

You're just getting up in everyone's face because they disagree with you, aren't you? Science and religion can coexist. Deal with it. Religion is always going to be around, whether you like it or not. Atheism is always going to be around, whether I like it or not. In the end, nobody is going to come out of this debate a winner.

You're taking that from the guy who just mentioned those words a few posts up. With the advance of society and science, religion will no longer be needed by the masses. Humanity moves on from things that provide no benefit.

[Mon]

Sickle posted:

You're taking that from the guy who just mentioned those words a few posts up. With the advance of society and science, religion will no longer be needed by the masses. Humanity moves on from things that provide no benefit.

what are you trying to accomplish by posting like this?

[The_J_Hat]

Sickle posted:

You're taking that from the guy who just mentioned those words a few posts up. With the advance of society and science, religion will no longer be needed by the masses. Humanity moves on from things that provide no benefit.

It may seem that I'm only taking this stance from reading Mon's post, but that's not the case. The point is, we've argued for the past week. You try to argue a point and in the end you resort to childish name calling and insults. You cannot prove that religion will no longer be relevant in the future. And don't post that Will Durant crap, 'cause you're preaching to those who don't give a flying fuck.

[Sickle]

The_J_Hat posted:

It may seem that I'm only taking this stance from reading Mon's post, but that's not the case. The point is, we've argued for the past week. You try to argue a point and in the end you resort to childish name calling and insults. You cannot prove that religion will no longer be relevant in the future. And don't post that Will Durant crap, 'cause you're preaching to those who don't give a flying fuck.

Will Durant isn't 'crap'. And I was arguing properly for a long time before I got tired of not getting a proper cited rebute.

On the topic of Will Durant, before you cast him out as crap;

Religious Theism is Not Universal

Well, not quite. There are two fundamental problems with this position. First, even if true, the popularity of an idea, belief, or ideology has no bearing on whether it's true or reasonable. The primary burden of proof always lies with those making the affirmative claim, no matter how popular that claim is now or has been through history. Anyone who feels comforted by the popularity of their ideology is effectively admitting that the ideology itself isn't very strong.

Second, there are good reasons to doubt that this position is even true in the first place. Most societies through history have indeed had supernatural religions of one sort or another, but this doesn't mean that all of them have. This will probably come as a surprise to people who have simple assumed, without question, that religion and supernatural beliefs have been a universal feature of human society.

Will Durant has done a great service by preserving information about skeptical attitudes towards religion and theism from so-called "primitive," non-European cultures. I have not been able to find this information elsewhere and it runs contrary to common assumptions. If religion can be defined as the worship of supernatural forces — an inadequate definition, but one which serves for most purposes — then it must be admitted that some cultures have little or no religion at all.


Atheism & Skepticism in Africa

As Durant explains, certain Pygmy tribes found in Africa were observed to have no identifiable cults or rites. There were no totems, no gods, no spirits. Their dead were buried without special ceremonies or accompanying items and received no further attention. They even appeared to lack simple superstitions, according to travelers' reports.

Tribes in Cameroon only believed in malicious gods and so made no efforts to placate or please them. According to them, it was useless to even bother trying and more important to deal with whatever problems were placed in their path. Another group, the Vedahs of Ceylon, only admitted the possibility that gods might exist, but went no further. Neither prayers nor sacrifices were suggested in any way.

When specifically asked a god, Durant reports that they answered in a very puzzled manner:

"Is he on a rock? On a white-ant hill? On a tree? I never saw a god!"

Durant also reports that a Zulu, when asked who made and governs things like the setting sun and the growing trees, answered:

"No, we see them, but cannot tell how they came; we suppose that they came by themselves."


Skepticism in North America

Moving away from outright skepticism of the existence of gods, some North American Indian tribes believed in a god, but did not actively worship it. Like Epicurus in ancient Greece, they considered this god to be too remote from human affairs to be concerned with them. According to Durant, an Abipone Indian stated their philosophy thus:

"Our grandfathers and our great-grandfathers were wont to contemplate the earth alone, solicitous only to see whether the plain afforded grass and water for their horses. They never troubled themselves about what went on in the heavens, and who was the creator and governor of the stars."

In all of the above we find, even among supposedly "primitive" cultures, many of the themes which persist today in people's overt skepticism about the validity and value of religion: the inability to actually see any of the claimed beings, reluctance to imagine that something unknown caused what is known, and the idea that even if a god exists, it is so far beyond us as to be irrelevant to our affairs.

Source

So there you go. An atheist society and an agnostic society at that.

[werrek]

-Snip-

[ECrownofFire]

Sickle posted:

You're taking that from the guy who just mentioned those words a few posts up. With the advance of society and science, religion will no longer be needed by the masses. Humanity moves on from things that provide no benefit.

You're a fucking idiot if you can't see how religion has benefited society. There are lots of charities organized under it, just for one example.

Stop being an anti-theistic asshole and maybe you'll see how religion is just another organization just like politics or any other thing out there.

[znk666]

ECrownofFire posted:

You're a fucking idiot if you can't see how religion has benefited society. There are lots of charities organized under it, just for one example.

Stop being an anti-theistic asshole and maybe you'll see how religion is just another organization just like politics or any other thing out there.

And you really think that the reason why these organizations were established because of religion?
Religion,has never benefited or helped society in any way.
It only disintegrated it,caused needless violence,wars,ignorance and hatred.
And no sir,he's not an idiot for thinking religion has never done any good for society,it is merely your ignorance.

[Patriarch]

ECrownofFire posted:

You're a fucking idiot if you can't see how religion has benefited society. There are lots of charities organized under it, just for one example.

Stop being an anti-theistic asshole and maybe you'll see how religion is just another organization just like politics or any other thing out there.

Since when does religion hold a monoply over charity?

[Noble]

The_J_Hat posted:

Satan was created not to be evil, but instead became evil and challenged God, thus creating a schism in Heaven and in the end, Satan and his followers were sent to Hell.

Yeah and I'm saying that if God would have forseen this happening, then the story makes no sense.

[MrJazzy]

Noble posted:

Yeah and I'm saying that if God would have forseen this happening, then the story makes no sense.

Well perhaps God did forsee it? What indicates that he didn't? I believe the point of the Satan story is all about free will and how you may be evil but will then be punished for it, if you see what I mean.

[Patriarch]

MrJazzy posted:

Well perhaps God did forsee it? What indicates that he didn't? I believe the point of the Satan story is all about free will and how you may be evil but will then be punished for it, if you see what I mean.

If God could see this, then why didn't he prevent it? Surely it would have been better if he did.

[MrJazzy]

Patriarch posted:

If God could see this, then why didn't he prevent it? Surely it would have been better if he did.

Yeah it's a good question, but then wouldn't he be restricting free will?

[Noble]

MrJazzy posted:

Well perhaps God did forsee it? What indicates that he didn't? I believe the point of the Satan story is all about free will and how you may be evil but will then be punished for it, if you see what I mean.

Well I'm not sure if you read my posts on the last page or not, but I've been arguing that free will can't possibly exist if god is all knowing.

If god exists outside of time and space then the concept of past, present, and future doesn't exist for him, all events are known to him simultaneously. If your future is known by god you can't act otherwise than what is already known by god and you don't have free will, just the illusion of it.

MrJazzy posted:

Yeah it's a good question, but then wouldn't he be restricting free will?

So why did he kill off the entire world's population in the flood? Didn't he restrict their supposed "free will"?

[Patriarch]

MrJazzy posted:

Yeah it's a good question, but then wouldn't he be restricting free will?

It wouldn't be restricting free will if he had been able to prevent it himself.

[MrJazzy]

Ah yeah I didn't read the last page. That's a very good point and I can't argue against it.

Edited:

Those are good points*

[Pierrewithahat]

matsta posted:

Never said that. What I actually said is that for a grown man to not-believe in god he has to actively reject the concept, because, in this society he will very probably be exposed to the idea of god somewhere in his childhood or adolescence.

And actually, I think it's in the nature of human beings to develop the concept of a 'higher deity' or a 'higher order'. And the proof is that religion is present in almost every society known.

It's not human nature to believe in a God, it's human nature to look for control in what is essentially a chaotic system, we impart order where there is none.