[Gothos]

Please Roldom don't put it into the same sack as religions.

And while science can't disprove a creator just yet, logic doesn't allow for an omnipotent being. Omnipotence is a logical fallacy. Rationality would dictate that if a god exists, it's not the christian God, nor any other one described in Earth's myriad religions.

I'd actually hazard a guess that holding to versions of god thousands of years old without revision could be insulting, if such a creator even gave a damn about anything we do (which I doubt).

[Shadow of Shadowthrone]

highly offensive means that not only did it bug me, it was annoying enough for me to make a comment.

Am I kicking in a hornet's nest?

its one thing to argue with someone constructivly, and another to say, "come on, your acting like an idiot, Its stupidly obvious how wrong you are"

True, I am probably banding about words harshly. I have no respect for (organized) religion, and it is hard to keep away (though I respect and like religious people, a few at any rate). But sometimes when something is stupidly obvious it is hard not to comment in such a manner.

Im going out on a lymb here and assuming youve never been deeply regious.

I have never been forcefully raised/indoctrinated. I have worked three years in a church, though lolz. But I remember the religion lessons in school and how they made me feel bad when I, as an example, discovered Iron Maiden's The Number of the Beast (up the irons!1!); listening to them made me feel that I was, basically, doing something wrong. It was ingrained - not much, fortunately. So, you are correct. I have never been "deeply" religious. Though my heart soars as if I were a deeply religious person at a particularly good sermon whenever I listen to great music, or read a great story or what have you.

Look at the material, arrive at your own conclusions. Just because one thing makes sense to you, doesnt mean it makes sense to everybody.


True; but in the physical world some things can be concluded with great certainty, even though it does not have to make sense to everybody. I mean, we live on a small pea in an endless ocean of darkness, supported by a fiery ball of, er, fire. Doesn't really make sense, but there it is.

Im pretty sure science has got it right about the creation of the universe so far, or at least is on the right track. but i fail to see where anything science has proved excludes the exsistence of a creator.


Science may not have disproved the existence of a creator, but more importantly, religion hasn't been able to prove said existence. However, where science re-applies previous knowledge to new findings in other to continually improve our understanding of the universe, religion just says "this is how it is" without any logic, reason or, you know, arguments based in fact.

I assume when you mention a 2000 thousand year old book your talking about the bible, which again is limiting your argument to christians, not religions as a whole.


It is an example, but the bible is far from the only ancient script that a religion is based on. I have read parts of the Quran, I have read many of the Hindu scriptures, peaked at Buddhism, have some knowledge of ancient religions (Norse, Greek, Celtic, Roman mythologies), and of course the source for all these, the Sumerian mythologies. So no I am not limiting myself to christianity, I use them as an example to illustrate the point. It doesn't matter whether we talk about Jehova or Zeus or Odin.

I dont need to rationalise my faith, there is no dogma, or set out belief system for me to follow. I choose how i wish to participate, and I look at the evidence and i can say with certainty that something beyond our ability to comprehend exists. Why cant that be divine?

What evidence? Why must it be divine? There is always something beyond our ability to comprehend. Once upon a time, the earth was flat. Once upon a time, there was a man in the moon.

[Roldom]

athiesm is a relgious viewpoint, even if its one of denial,

My personal beliefs dont accept the idea of an omnipotnet or omnipresent god either, but I dont call those people who think that there deity is all powerful wrong just because I dont agree

Science cant prove everything, theres allways going to be something that goes behond the empirical world.

now just to be argumentative, you say " in the physical world some things can be concluded with great certainty" only if you accept empirical evidence, without going all matrix on you, theres nothing to say that what you can physicaly touch is anything more than a delusion.

I'm not arguing against athiesm, It raises some good questions, but what i do disapprove of is people who have no tolerence for others beliefs, which is why i felt i needed to comment

[Silencer]

FastBen, on 04 April 2011 - 11:04 PM, said:

Clockwork Apt, on 04 April 2011 - 07:44 PM, said:

Shadow of Shadowthrone, on 04 April 2011 - 11:01 AM, said:

- only there are people who actually buy this biblical stuff - it's amazes me continually that religion has been allowed to stay rooted.

Just because there are bad sides of the religion doesn't mean that it is all bad. People need faith. When they lose their loved ones. When they lose their social footing. When life sucks. It helps to have something to believe in. To believe that things happen for a reason and the world isn't really as fucked up as it is.

I respectfully disagree. Believing that you will see your loved ones again in another life is not really moving on. Also, I might have a delusional belief that I I am the messiah, that I have superpowers, or that I have 100 dollars in my wallet - these would make me feel better about my existence and my place in the world - but they are all false.

I've heard religious types argue that we should not pay attention to certain global issues because we should "leave it in God's hands." I think you have a responsibility as a human being to at least try to believe in true things with evidence so that we can somehow come to arrive at rational decisions.

Not to mention, religions are full of arbitrary beliefs that cause people lots of pain. I have a homosexual friend for example, who grew up tormented by his local church and his parents for who he was. The christian tendency of "pitying" people that don't live up to certain Christian expectations (most of which are full of hypocrisy anyways) is downright sickening.

I understand that religion helps people curb their fear of death, helps them stick dogmatically to certain moral codes (that are highly dubious and questionable) - but there are other ways to pursue these human goods. Religion is obviously a way that societies have used throughout history to make people be subservient and behave in a uniform manner - think - local tribal chief or budding king claims that he has special access and communicate with this divine being who holds certain transcendental truths who the people must follow under the threat of eternal damnation. This is just plain obvious.

This is away from the topic of the discussion. I just think that Lucifer, as a fictional character, is admirable for his ability to question authority. There is nothing admirable, IMO, about being a blind follower (all faith is is asking you to believe without evidence) - really the rebel figure in these fictional myths is the one I can empathize with most. Any God who would wish me to believe in him without evidence, and worship him because he happens to be divine, isn't a good worth worshiping, IMO. So, even the fact of the matter of his supposed existence is irrelevant.

FastBen, on 04 April 2011 - 11:50 PM, said:

Roldom, on 11 March 2011 - 01:59 AM, said:

theres a quote i just read in DoD on my re read, with the girl mage from the snake badelle or something and shes talking about gods and why they dont answer prayers.

ill hunt the quote down later but basicly its saying that gods dont act to show there omniscient. If they answer a prayer than that means something needs correcting, so something is wrong, which means its not all down to some ineffible plan and that the gods are victims of chance just like the rest of us so the true power of gods is to do nothing

Yeah - this is called "The Problem of Evil" in philosophy of religion. If God is omniscient, all-good (omnibenevolent), and all-powerful (omnipotent) - then why do they not try to repair the suffering in an imperfect world? Well if God is all powerful but he doesn't help, then his omnibenevolence in question. However, if he is all-good, but doesn't help that suggests he is not actually omnipotent, or he doesn't have the power to do anything about it.

Critics of religion have used this as a way to suggest that the the concept of the Abrahamic monotheistic god is internally contradictory - but usually apologists for religion claim that is has something to do with human free will and that's what causes the "evil" in the world.

However, then, - you can ask - well if God created human beings than he is responsible for their actions since he created them with the power to do evil and knew that they would. You can also question whether or not human beings have free will at all (this is called the Problem of Free Will) because if God knows everything that is going to happen, then all human action is already fixed, and their ultimately are no human choices.

good fun finding this stuff in Erikson

I like you. It is always nice to see someone other than yourself put forward the Problem of Evil and the Problem of Free Will objections to religion in a well-worded and reasonable manner.

I mean, it's also very easy get pedantic. Such as on the issue of suicide - is that deliberately ending your own life? If so, does that including choosing to stop life-sustaining treatment? Does it include signing a DNR? Modern medicine makes a lot of questions arise on that kind of line of thinking.

I'm also one of those people who gets really interested whenever someone claims that a family member has died and gone to Heaven and..."is an angel now". Uhm. What? So, seeing as Angels have no free will (by definition, as they are not humans), you think it's a GOOD THING that your dead relative has had God's greatest gift stripped from them? Yeah...and it crops up far too frequently for me to ignore it these days. I have to wonder if it comes down to how much Biblical literature people have read, which parts, what interpretations, etc, etc. Like the commonly accepted notion of 'purgatory' - something that didn't exist as a concept until relatively recently (think middle ages-renaissance).

Then of course I take issue with the whole 'taking things on faith', 'religion gives you morals'/'people without religion have no morals', and "It's all part of God's plan"/"God gave us Free Will" aspects.



@Roldom, RE: lumping everything together as Christianity - good point, however Christianity as a single entity (which is itself inaccurate) tends to become the focus of these debates due to its prevalence in modern perception. It's the major player in the West, and certainly in America, statistically speaking. Again, generalising, but that's how it seems to go.

"Oh, and atheism isn't a belief system, it's applying science, logic and reason to find out things,"

Actually, atheism is not science. It doesn't even require logic. It is merely an absence of belief in a deity.

[Gothos]

No, Roldom. Atheism isn't a religious viewpoint. It's like saying that not having a car is a type of car.
At most, you could say it's a viewpoint towards religions, but in itself it's not a religious view. And not an 'absence of belief in a diety', Silencer, but an absence of belief in dieties. The wording both of you use suggests atheists take a standpoint within the religious, which in itself is contradictory.
You don't play World of Warcraft: does that make you some sort of 'third' faction beside the Alliance and Horde? No. You're outside.



Now, intolerance for the beliefs of others, especially as specific as bashing christianity at every occasion, rings to me of false, or purely demonstrational, 'atheism' that betrays it's most basic principle. As far as I understand the frustration one can feel when someone - perhaps someone you know, someone intelligent, someone you respect - holds to a belief that is unreasonable to you, for no explainable or rational reason - but it's just a set of beliefs built on an abstract construct, like numerous other things - such as ethics, scepticism or what have you.
It does have, however, the added frustration of not being discussable.

[Silencer]

Gothos, on 05 April 2011 - 09:49 AM, said:

No, Roldom. Atheism isn't a religious viewpoint. It's like saying that not having a car is a type of car.
At most, you could say it's a viewpoint towards religions, but in itself it's not a religious view. And not an 'absence of belief in a diety', Silencer, but an absence of belief in dieties. The wording both of you use suggests atheists take a standpoint within the religious, which in itself is contradictory.
You don't play World of Warcraft: does that make you some sort of 'third' faction beside the Alliance and Horde? No. You're outside.



Now, intolerance for the beliefs of others, especially as specific as bashing christianity at every occasion, rings to me of false, or purely demonstrational, 'atheism' that betrays it's most basic principle. As far as I understand the frustration one can feel when someone - perhaps someone you know, someone intelligent, someone you respect - holds to a belief that is unreasonable to you, for no explainable or rational reason - but it's just a set of beliefs built on an abstract construct, like numerous other things - such as ethics, scepticism or what have you.
It does have, however, the added frustration of not being discussable.

Meh, I've had a long day. +rep for the correction. (And the post in general, as my definition of atheism was kinda more to point out that it doesn't require science, and is not embodied by science...hence religious folk who are scientists, for example, and atheists who are unscientific) You could almost go so far as to say "specific bashing of Christianity" goes to anti-theism, I guess. Though that would imply you don't just set yourself against one from of theism, I guess...

Anyway, brain too tired for this. Stupid mid-terms.

[SpectreofEschaton]

@the message of Christianity being fundamentally good: please don't say that like it's objective. I'd argue that 1.) any "good" points to the Christian philosophy require no supernatural provenance for someone to come to the same conclusion (as evidenced by many secular or pre-Christian philosophies) and 2.) there is an element of self-abjection to the belief system that only, only ends up being good if there is a benevolent creator to reward it. From the (very reasonable) point of view that this is the only life you get, living in a Christ-like manner produces a life that has been squandered in pursuit of a world that does not exist. I believe it was C. S. Lewis who had the sense to say that Jesus' message was only good if his claims were true, and if the world was very shortly coming to an end. Following his ideals in a secular world is... not healthy, from a humanistic standpoint.

@tolerance: why should religion have any special privileges over, say, political beliefs or support of a particular sports team? In fact, the opposite is true; all (or at least, most serious) such disparities of opinion are over two reasonable, real things, each just as valid and logical (in some sense) as the other. Religion on the other hand, specifically a belief in a super-natural world, is a rejection of observable reality in favor of something imaginary (in the sense that all "proof" of it exists only in the mind). Atheism (and it's honestly a concession I'd rather not make. using that word. See a-unicornism, a-toothfairyism, etc) is not in any way a religious belief. In a world without God that never imagined there was one, everyone would still be an atheist, by definition, but religion as a concept wouldn't even exist. My parrot fish is an atheist; does that give him a religious leaning? To be frank, anyone making a claim to religious enlightenment is putting forth a belief that flies in the face of logic and reason. It is an extra-ordinary challenge; it is not the natural state of the human condition. When you (generic you) assert such things, you should be prepared to deal with the consequences of doing so. Clinging to such things does not give a special insurance against offense.

@whether religion should be "allowed": I can't speak for every atheist, here, but I'd be surprised if I hold a fringe view on this subject. Whatever you (generic you) believe, that's fine, I couldn't care less. As long as you keep it to yourself. The minute I have to hear about Truth (and the consequences of rejecting it), the minute I have to see your beliefs in my newspaper, or hear them from a political representative of mine; the minute I have your beliefs become a part of life that I never accepted into it, I have a problem. For instance, I don't care if you (generic you) worship Mael (I live by a river). But the minute you drag your daughter down to the river as a blood-sacrifice to appease the Elder God, I have a problem. As long as religion stays in the realm of the imaginary (as defined above), it's fine. It's when it starts manifesting in the physical world that it becomes a problem. Organized religion plays to people's worst fears, and breeds an "inner circle" mentality and arrogance that can lead people to unreasonable, and oftentimes, unacceptable behavior. I don't like living in a world where a vast majority of people think they have some sort of secret knowledge about the nature of existence that I don't, and therefore they're superior to me. That offends me.


Lastly, for the whole "science can't disprove God" argument, I recommend a look not into astronomy but into neurology. It's starting to disprove a whole lot more than just God. I highly recommend Owen Flannagan's "The Problem of the Soul" for a philosophical view on the subject.

Ans so as not to be completely off-topic, a point about Satanism: I lump it in with the other "theisms" that have origins within the last 100-200 years. Either reactionary, tongue-in-cheek, publicity stunts, money-making scams, or anti-social/societal cults. Even harder to take seriously than most "theisms". (Though that's probably illogical; something about the human brain wants to attribute the weight of wisdom to our ancestors over our contemporaries. In reality, they're all equally ridiculous.)

[worry]

Shadow of Shadowthrone, on 05 April 2011 - 07:01 AM, said:

The joke is lost on me, since hellfire and punishment eternal is an invention, heheh.

So is the computer, but mine's still sitting here.

[Roldom]

I hate it when some one trys to force there beliefs on me, for example when I walk down the street and some random charges up to me to spread the word of jesus christ and save me ETC. really annoys me when people go out of there way to disparage what i believe. I dont try to convert people, I dont need other people around me to conform to my beliefs just so i feel better.

Sadly and maybe this is just in my view with past experiences, but just like jehovah witnesses knocking on the door, many athiests do there best to "convert" (for lack of a better word) me to athiesm. Why bother? either your right and it doesnt matter, or im right and in my view, doesnt particularly matter either. so why not let me enjoy my delusion? its not harming anyone and it helps me personaly be a better person.

[SpectreofEschaton]

Roldom, on 06 April 2011 - 12:50 AM, said:

I hate it when some one trys to force there beliefs on me, for example when I walk down the street and some random charges up to me to spread the word of jesus christ and save me ETC. really annoys me when people go out of there way to disparage what i believe. I dont try to convert people, I dont need other people around me to conform to my beliefs just so i feel better.

Sadly and maybe this is just in my view with past experiences, but just like jehovah witnesses knocking on the door, many athiests do there best to "convert" (for lack of a better word) me to athiesm. Why bother? either your right and it doesnt matter, or im right and in my view, doesnt particularly matter either. so why not let me enjoy my delusion? its not harming anyone and it helps me personaly be a better person.

Well, again, I can't speak for anyone but myself, but I don't have an interest in converting anyone. I do, however, find the topic rather interesting and enjoy discussing/debating it. The way the human brain works, it's nearly impossible to convert someone to anything, let alone away from something as deeply ingrained as religious beliefs. Proselytizing (be it religious or secular) isn't what changes people's hearts. Change comes from within, and all that.

Also, the way you describe your beliefs, Roldom, they don't seem to be anywhere near as problematic as the... pardon me if I borrow a phrase from Hitchens here, but... the pestilence of organized religion. I don't agree with them, but in the same way I don't agree with anyone who doesn't think that Steven Erikson wrote the most moving piece of literature in the entire canon of human writing. A difference of opinion, one which harms no one.

I might go so far as to contend that the definition of an extreme atheist would be one who a stance of aggressive opposition toward any belief in the supernatural, rather than just the social institution of religions and their influence on politics, science, education, and law. Secular things should stay secular, and spiritual things spiritual. One applies to everyone, the other should only to those who choose it for themselves. Gould's idea of non-overlapping magisteria is good in theory, but it isn't the state of our society at the moment, unfortunately, and hasn't been anywhere where a theistic institution is allowed to wield power. Interventionist and revelatory religions can't help getting their fingers in the above-mentioned pies.

(And this is getting very off-topic. Perhaps a new one should be made?)

[Beezulbubba]

Charlie Rose: The Brain Series

Link = http://www.charliero...ollection/10702

[worry]

Nothing is off topic here since Satanism is about fulfilling your whims, interests, and fancies without restraint.

[SpectreofEschaton]

worrywort, on 06 April 2011 - 02:52 AM, said:

Nothing is off topic here since Satanism is about fulfilling your whims, interests, and fancies without restraint.

And if God is dead, nothing is forbidden. I see how it is.

[FastBen]

Gothos, on 05 April 2011 - 07:43 AM, said:

Omnipotence is a logical fallacy.

Just wanted to point out, as someone who teaches logic at a University:

Omnipotence is a concept. It makes no sense to say a concept is or has a logical fallacy. You might mean its internally inconsistent, but its not clear that it is. Arguments contain logical fallacies, not concepts. This is mainly because a fallacy is requires you making a move from one proposition to another (as we do in arguments).

Not trying to be nitpicky, it just doesn't make any sense...

[worry]

So is saying "Omnipotence is a logical fallacy" a logical fallacy?

[FastBen]

worrywort, on 15 April 2011 - 01:46 AM, said:

So is saying "Omnipotence is a logical fallacy" a logical fallacy?

Hehehe no. "Omnipotence is a logical fallacy" is only one proposition (a proposition is the content of a sentence). Its a false proposition. Its false because there's no reasoning or argumentation in one statement by itself, and fallacies occur in reasoning and arguments.

Logical fallacies occur in arguments. Arguments are sets of propositions.

Here is the example of an argument containing a logical fallacy:

All Greeks are men.
Samuel L. Jackson is a man
Therefore Samuel L. Jackson is Greek.

That is an argument and it contains a logical fallacy.

Or:

Fastben says that all Religions are make-believe.
Fastben is a dickhead.
Therefore, all religions are not make believe.

okay sorry about this boring and unnecessary tangent - I wanna argue about Satan!

[Gothos]

Allright, so what do you call the fact that an 'omnipotent' being cannot exist in a logical universe (you know, creating a rock so big he can't lift it and other kid arguments like that) in logic?

[Silencer]

Gothos, on 15 April 2011 - 06:30 AM, said:

Allright, so what do you call the fact that an 'omnipotent' being cannot exist in a logical universe (you know, creating a rock so big he can't lift it and other kid arguments like that) in logic?

A paradox? A physical/metaphysical impossibility/contradiction?

Or, in logic, I guess it would be an implausible premise (if you're using it to support an argument...otherwise it's just a random proposition, I think).