[QUOTE=fiddy]Zero tolerance for stupid (religious) people.[/QUOTE]
Hold on. Religious people that are stupid? Or are all religious people stupid?
Printable View
[QUOTE=fiddy]Zero tolerance for stupid (religious) people.[/QUOTE]
Hold on. Religious people that are stupid? Or are all religious people stupid?
[QUOTE=JEFFERSON MONEY]"Their" God?
Prove you have even a rudimentary understanding of the God of Abraham, Moses, Jacob, Isaac, Muhammad. In 500 words or less. Go.[/QUOTE]
Why do I need to provide a rudimentary understanding of any God? If I was to do so for Yahweh or Allah, then it would only make sense that I need to acquire an understanding of Brahman, Ahura Mazda, Xolotl, Zeus, and however many Gods that have been posited to exist. Just because some of these belief systems are no longer in fashion does not necessarily make them any less 'true' considering the God of Abraham and Muhammad does not provide verifiable evidence for His existence.
The onus is on the side asserting the positive claim: that X God exists. [I]Provide me convincing evidence that your God exists and I will evaluate it, and come to a conclusion.[/I] Ideally something that is less subjective than faith, or even morality.
As it stands, I was born and raised as Muslim before I realised it was a pile of shit, so I have a good understanding of Islam and Christianity. Unfortunately I didn't really look that far into Judaism as I didn't want to invest any more of my life in these fantasies, but I assume I have the general gist from its successors.
[QUOTE=97 bulls]And here in lies the problem. The reason that most people are atheists is because following god would mean they should and are prohibited from a lifestyle they don't want to change. Atheism helps them justify their actions.[/QUOTE]
No, I assure you most atheists do not follow God because there is a lack of convincing evidence for its existence. If you need an imaginary being to help you differentiate between moral and immoral actions, then fair enough, but to assume that humans don't have that capacity in themselves is ignorance.
[QUOTE=fiddy]Religious people are cowards and retarded. There's no god as described in religion teachings.[/QUOTE]
I'm neither cowardly nor retarded. Please apologize.
[QUOTE=K Xerxes]Why do I need to provide a rudimentary understanding of any God? If I was to do so for Yahweh or Allah, then it would only make sense that I need to acquire an understanding of Brahman, Ahura Mazda, Xolotl, Zeus, and however many Gods that have been posited to exist. Just because some of these belief systems are no longer in fashion does not necessarily make them any less 'true' considering the God of Abraham and Muhammad does not provide verifiable evidence for His existence.
The onus is on the side asserting the positive claim: that X God exists. [I]Provide me convincing evidence that your God exists and I will evaluate it, and come to a conclusion.[/I] Ideally something that is less subjective than faith, or even morality.
As it stands, I was born and raised as Muslim before I realised it was a pile of shit, so I have a good understanding of Islam and Christianity. Unfortunately I didn't really look that far into Judaism as I didn't want to invest any more of my life in these fantasies, but I assume I have the general gist from its successors.
No, I assure you most atheists do not follow God because there is a lack of convincing evidence for its existence. If you need an imaginary being to help you differentiate between moral and immoral actions, then fair enough, but to assume that humans don't have that capacity in themselves is ignorance.[/QUOTE]
I nevery said that humans don't have the capacity to be be moral. And besides, you alluded to sex. Not overall morals. But as far as morals and atheism, here's my ultimate rebuttal that atheists have no response for, who makes the decision on what's moral? And whoever does, wouldn't that be imposing their will on others? It's hypocritical. But then again, since atheists have no morals, maybe that's ok.
[IMG]http://philosophy.blogs.com/mc_philosophy/images/locke_god.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://philosophy.blogs.com/mc_philosophy/images/spinoza_proof_1.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/ed/bc/e2/edbce28af7b1cba0029784e32e184ab3.jpg[/IMG]
[QUOTE=K Xerxes]Why do I need to provide a rudimentary understanding of any God? If I was to do so for Yahweh or Allah, then it would only make sense that I need to acquire an understanding of Brahman, Ahura Mazda, Xolotl, Zeus, and however many Gods that have been posited to exist. Just because some of these belief systems are no longer in fashion does not necessarily [B]make them any less 'true' considering the God of Abraham and Muhammad [U]does not provide verifiable evidence for His existence[/U]. [/B]
The onus is on the side asserting the positive claim: that X God exists. [I]Provide me convincing evidence that your God exists and I will evaluate it, and come to a conclusion.[/I] Ideally something that is less subjective than faith, or even morality.
As it stands, I[B] was born and raised as Muslim before I realised it was a pile of shit, so I have a [U]good understanding[/U] of Islam and Christianity.[/B] Unfortunately I didn't really look that far into Judaism as I didn't want to invest any more of my life in these fantasies, but I assume I have the general gist from its successors.
No, I assure you most atheists do not follow God because there is a lack of convincing evidence for its existence. If you need an imaginary being to help you differentiate between moral and immoral actions, then fair enough, but to assume that humans don't have that capacity in themselves is ignorance.[/QUOTE]
The bolded do not add up, in the slightest. The underline are very incorrect.
You have not comprehended the Qu'ran.
[QUOTE=K Xerxes]If you need to suggest an alternative reality to explain the existence of your higher power, you may as well cut out the superfluous higher power all together,. Why can't the universe come from such an alternate reality without the need for divine mediator, for which there exists absolutely no empirical evidence for?
The problem with theists is that none of their commonly used onto/cosmo/teleo -logical arguments are convincing for [I]their[/I] god. At their best, they support a deistic or pantheistic model, which can deal with the god of gaps far better than a God who cares when you have sex and who with... That is unless we go in the completely arbitrary field of faith and, even worse, claims of divine scripture.[/QUOTE]
An alternate reality/other dimensions/etc has to exist to explain God...A God can not exist in this reality, this universe...The laws of science here won't allow for it.
I agree the most religions here are not convincing and are probably false...that doesn't mean the big bang happened out of no where. To me it is far more probable that it was designed. How lucky are we that this reality just happened to come equipped with gravity and light and time.
[QUOTE=97 bulls]I nevery said that humans don't have the capacity to be be moral. And besides, you alluded to sex. Not overall morals. [/QUOTE]
Sex is an example. Other examples include what we eat or drink and what clothes we wear.
[QUOTE=97 bulls]But as far as morals and atheism, here's my ultimate rebuttal that atheists have no response for, who makes the decision on what's moral? And whoever does, wouldn't that be imposing their will on others? It's hypocritical. But then again, since atheists have no morals, maybe that's ok.[/QUOTE]
It's your 'ultimate rebuttal' because you think that we require objective morality to govern us, hence it's fine to fabricate and worship an imaginary moral arbiter.
The bottom line is that there is no objective morality, and [B]that's fine[/B]. We implement laws and customs in societies that are designed (or meant to be) for the common good, whether it be for a small tribe or globally. Incidentally, these values change as we progress or develop from other societies. For example, it was morally acceptable, and even convention, to marry young girls when the Abrahamic religions took off, regardless of their ability to provide mature consent. That has changed in many places. Because [I]we[/I] - humans - realised it was wrong. It doesn't mean it is objectively wrong
Also I am not denying that religion has made a large and incredibly important contribution to our morals. One of the main reasons I believe religion has been so successful is the somewhat innate desire for an objective moral compass to live by. But that does not make it any more true. What does morality have to do with the veracity of God's existence? Nothing. It can be explained as a primitive man-made concept to cope with the solitude our ancestors struggled with in a world they did not understand.
[QUOTE=JEFFERSON MONEY]The bolded do not add up, in the slightest. The underline are very incorrect.
You have not comprehended the Qu'ran.[/QUOTE]
Of course you will say that. Muslims such as yourself cannot comprehend an objective account of the Qur'an that leads to the conclusion that it is most likely nonsense.
I've read the arguments. The scientific miracle (the egg shaped earth, the big bang, the clot fetus, mountain movements and whatever else) which I was inundated with when I was a young and dumb Zakir Naik stan. The literary miracle that nothing can be produced in the poetry and prose of the Qur'an. I admit it is a gorgeous piece of arabic, but that does not make it true.
Sorry to say there's no convincing evidence.
On a more scientific level, there is 'evidence' (not proof) that our consciousness is separate from our brain/body.
-The phenom of children that can recall past lives is very real, there are literally hundreds of examples of them, which is very strong evidence for reincarnation IMO. [URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnXxC-nVsJY"]HERE is one of the more famed examples[/URL]
-There are enough out of body experiences for many doctors to come to the conclusion that we can in fact leave our bodies. Many documented cases of people in hospitals being able to tell others what they were doing in other rooms or areas that their body was not located. [URL="http://www.ebenalexander.com/books/proof-of-heaven/"]HERE is a book written by a neurosurgeon who used to be atheist on the subject, all proceeds from the book are donated to research on it, he makes nothing.[/URL]
-Several documented cases of the blind having NDEs and being able to see for the first time ever. Without eyes. There are also several NDE cases where there are no recorded brain waves, meaning it could not have been a 'brain trip'. [URL="http://www.near-death.com/science/evidence/people-have-ndes-while-brain-dead.html"]Pam Reynolds had an NDE while brain dead[/URL]
[I]Chalk up another hit thread for Im Still Ballin. Leave my check at the door Jeff.[/I]
[QUOTE=K Xerxes]Why do I need to provide a rudimentary understanding of any God? If I was to do so for Yahweh or Allah, then it would only make sense that I need to acquire an understanding of Brahman, Ahura Mazda, Xolotl, Zeus, and however many Gods that have been posited to exist. Just because some of these belief systems are no longer in fashion does not necessarily make them any less 'true' considering the God of Abraham and Muhammad does not provide verifiable evidence for His existence.
The onus is on the side asserting the positive claim: that X God exists. [I]Provide me convincing evidence that your God exists and I will evaluate it, and come to a conclusion.[/I] Ideally something that is less subjective than faith, or even morality.
As it stands, I was born and raised as Muslim before I realised it was a pile of shit, so I have a good understanding of Islam and Christianity. Unfortunately I didn't really look that far into Judaism as I didn't want to invest any more of my life in these fantasies, but I assume I have the general gist from its successors.
No, I assure you most atheists do not follow God because there is a lack of convincing evidence for its existence. [B]If you need an imaginary being to help you differentiate between moral and immoral actions, then fair enough, but to assume that humans don't have that capacity in themselves is ignorance.[/B][/QUOTE]You aren't even attempting to give the religious argument a fair hearing, a sure sign of a closed mind; I really don't have time for people who are so scathing when it comes to religion, yet they don't even know or understand what the religious argument is. It doesn't exactly take a genius to recognise that "because I feel that way" is not an objective basis for morality.
Morality (i.e. [I]what[/I] we consider good and bad) is a product of culture and thus fundamentally, of religion; our moral-sense (i.e. [I]that[/I] we intrinsically discriminate between good and bad) is innate, a part of being a member of the human species. You have provided no reason as to why you have the moral beliefs you do, nor on what foundation they rest--nor have you explained why what is good and what is bad differs from culture to culture, civilisation to civilisation, all throughout human history.
[QUOTE=~primetime~]On a more scientific level, there is 'evidence' (not proof) that our consciousness is separate from our brain/body.
-The phenom of children that can recall past lives is very real, there are literally hundreds of examples of them, which is very strong evidence for reincarnation IMO. [URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnXxC-nVsJY"]HERE is one of the more famed examples[/URL]
-There are enough out of body experiences for many doctors to come to the conclusion that we can in fact leave our bodies. Many documented cases of people in hospitals being able to tell others what they were doing in other rooms or areas that their body was not located. [URL="http://www.ebenalexander.com/books/proof-of-heaven/"]HERE is a book written by a neurosurgeon who used to be atheist on the subject, all proceeds from the book are donated to research on it, he makes nothing.[/URL]
-Several documented cases of the blind having NDEs and being able to see for the first time ever. Without eyes. There are also several NDE cases where there are no recorded brain waves, meaning it could not have been a 'brain trip'. [URL="http://www.near-death.com/science/evidence/people-have-ndes-while-brain-dead.html"]Pam Reynolds had an NDE while brain dead[/URL][/QUOTE]
You're better off bringing up quantum mechanics here. There is no way someone with a scientistic habit of mind would even consider the slightest possibility that those things have any merit or possible truth to them. But physicists have increasingly found the need to reintroduce the notion of "consciousness" as separate from matter, into their equations. Some of this stuff is very counter-intuitive and even calls the concept of causality into question (which would support the religious thesis).
Hume had already proven how causality cannot be validated by experience or logic 250+ years ago:
[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-tZ6L7QNFws[/url]
Perhaps it is our brains that need causality and not the universe? A mechanistic interpretation is not the only interpretation of the universe, and it certainly has its own internal inconsistencies.
[QUOTE=Dresta]You're better off bringing up quantum mechanics here. There is no way someone with a scientistic habit of mind would even consider the slightest possibility that those things have any merit or possible truth to them. But physicists have increasingly found the need to reintroduce the notion of "consciousness" as separate from matter, into their equations. Some of this stuff is very counter-intuitive and even calls the concept of causality into question (which would support the religious thesis).
Hume had already proven how causality cannot be validated by experience or logic 250+ years ago:
[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-tZ6L7QNFws[/url]
Perhaps it is our brains that need causality and not the universe? A mechanistic interpretation is not the only interpretation of the universe, and it certainly has its own internal inconsistencies.[/QUOTE]
You're right, I tried to make it clear it wasn't actual scientific proof...I'm just saying that there is in fact -evidence- out there for those (like myself) that need more than just blind faith.
[QUOTE=Dresta]Morality (i.e. [I]what[/I] we consider good and bad) is a product of culture and thus fundamentally, of religion[/QUOTE]
See:
[QUOTE]Also I am not denying that religion has made a large and incredibly important contribution to our morals.[/QUOTE]
The contribution of religion to morality does not make it any more or less true. Whether it was devoted to a higher being or not, it's still very likely man made. I care far more about the veracity of the claims, of which the most reliable way to ascertain the truth is through empirical evidence.
[QUOTE]our moral-sense (i.e. [I]that[/I] we intrinsically discriminate between good and bad) is innate, a part of being a member of the human species.[/QUOTE]
Innate =/= objective. It is innate as far as it is evolutionary, such as not to kill your kin who harbour most of your genome. Whether evolutionary instincts are right or wrong is a completely different matter, and, of course, humans have evolved to instill customs that are clearly counterproductive to the evolutionary goal of propagating our genome. Why that is the case is both extremely interesting and unknown. See The Selfish Gene.
Unfortunately, it is not [B]objectively[/B] immoral to rape someone. We perceive it as wrong because we have developed moral notions such as consent and non-maleficence, which we deem to be conducive to our existence in a society. It is thus immoral, but subjectively so. There's nothing wrong with that. It's how it is, and people need to accept that, so we can cut out the unnecessary moral arbiter.
[QUOTE=Dresta]You have provided no reason as to why you have the moral beliefs you do, nor on what foundation they rest--nor have you explained why what is good and what is bad differs from culture to culture, civilisation to civilisation, all throughout human history.[/QUOTE]
The is incredibly difficult, and bordering on impossible. At most I can say it is a combination of an innate sense formed and reformed by evolution, combined with conditioning from the society I live in.
My justification is irrelevant to the topic of whether to [I]believe[/I] in a divine being though, which is what I'm far more interested in.