I used to be super religious and conservative myself, until I was shown GIANT cracks in the logic, and then one day, just like that, I literally threw out my religious beliefs. It's really amazing how it works, how you can just discard them like that. I put two and two together, and realized it was four, not whatever god says.
Noone has to, or should respect religion, religion makes a universal claim that us non believers are going to hell. I dont know how many times I can repeat this. I have every right to attack any religious zealot anytime they bring up their beliefs, because it affects me.
1. God exists. (premise) 2. God is omnipotent and omniscient. (premise — or true by definition of the word "God") 3. God is all-benevolent. (premise — or true by definition) 4. All-benevolent beings are opposed to all evil. (premise — or true by definition) 5. All-benevolent beings who can eliminate evil will do so immediately when they become aware of it. (premise) 6. God is opposed to all evil. (conclusion from 3 and 4) 7. God can eliminate evil completely and immediately. (conclusion from 2) 1. Whatever the end result of suffering is, God can bring it about by ways that do not include suffering. (conclusion from 2) 2. God has no reason not to eliminate evil. (conclusion from 7.1) 3. God has no reason not to act immediately. (conclusion from 5) 8. God will eliminate evil completely and immediately. (conclusion from 6, 7.2 and 7.3) 9. Evil exists, has existed, and probably will always exist. (premise) 10. Items 8 and 9 are contradictory; therefore, one or more of the premises is false: either God does not exist, evil does not exist, God is not simultaneously omnipotent, omniscient and all-benevolent, or all-benevolent beings who can eliminate evil will not necessarily do so immediately when they become aware of it.
I look forward to your detailed and cogent rebuttal.
1. God exists. 2. God is omniscient (let alone omnipotent). 3. Humans are not omniscient (we are bound to what our senses understand) 4. Humans cannot understand everything .
stating all those premises assumes that we understand God or know His will. The truth is, we don't know His will, so how can someone say "Oh there's suffering, so there is no God"? The whole point is that we can't see the big picture, so we can't assume to know God's will. I will tell you this though: yesterday at church a woman testified that she was cured of a heart condition that lasted 9 years. apperently the doctor was completely stumped. Think about that. I'll end with this quote: "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth."
The truth is, we don't know His will, so how can someone say "Oh there's suffering, so there is no God"? The whole point is that we can't see the big picture, so we can't assume to know God's will.
So what do you know about god then, and how do you know it? I'm happy to admit that humans aren't omniscient, but if god is so mysterious then why should we assume that he's omniscient? And if our knowledge is so incomplete, why are you comfortable presuming to have a detailed knowledge of his moral standards and metaphysical nature (the trinity for instance). If god is so unknowable why assume that he's responsible for your fellow churchgoer's sudden recovery instead of simply saying you don't know?
Again, please explain what exactly you do know about god and how you know it.
Edit:
1. God exists. 2. God is omniscient (let alone omnipotent). 3. Humans are not omniscient (we are bound to what our senses understand) 4. Humans cannot understand everything .
yesterday at church a woman testified that she was cured of a heart condition that lasted 9 years. apperently the doctor was completely stumped. Think about that.
Lol...you believe in divine healing? What about people who miraculously recover who are non-believers? I'm sorry but this is just comical now.
Yeah, god cured a woman who was suffering of heart disease for nine years and let 50,000 innocent children die of disease and starvation the same day. He is just testing the childrens will and devotion.
Ferrous we shouldn't even bother because apparently their answer is...blind faith. It's more fun debating theists who claim to have some sort of proof.
So what do you know about god then, and how do you know it? And if our knowledge is so incomplete, why are you comfortable presuming to have a detailed knowledge of his moral standards and metaphysical nature (the trinity for instance)
I'm sorry but I don't remember claiming to know god at all. Didn't I just present an argument that concludes humans cannot know and understand everything? What got you thinking that I, nor any other people here, can explain it for you?
Premises 1 and 2 are just that - premises. They are open for arguments. I am aware that the popular god that we know of has contradicting characteristics. That an omnipotent and benevolent god isn't so benevolent with all the evil existing around us, or that an omniscient god makes free-will just an illusion.
FerrousWheel;48212 said:
Again, please explain what exactly you do know about god and how you know it.
What exactly do you know, Ferrous, that science does not? and how do you know it?
Science has its limitations too. Science can explain emotions (love, fear...), and all those virtues (generosity, helping the sick...) in a language that it understands - hormones, state of the brain, connectedness or w/e. Science can only explain a da Vinci painting by telling about its objective characteristics such as color, shapes, depth etc, but can't explain why it is a work of art (neither can logic, I believe). So, just for emphasis, science has its limitations too.
In addition, Science has been wrong numerous times before, the same way that some biblical claims nowadays are considered unacceptable. As an example, religions have become the reason for the death of numerous lives before the same way that a scientific advantage over other countries can threaten and have cost lives.
For all I know, science is still in pursuit of what is real and what is not. As of this point, science does not have the means to disprove the existence of anything supernatural, let alone the existence of any of the gods being worshiped by religions.
Like I said before, if you're going to live your life with strong faith on unproven scientific explanations that are proposed by scientists who make mistakes too (just because they have been right before), how are you different from the lot that puts a strong faith in a supernatural being from a book that teaches wisdom, morality, hope, virtues, etc?
Faith is the belief of something unproven, which is why faithful people are their own greatest weakness. They are so easy to argue against because what they have in their hands is unproven. Questioning is easy, but answering is not - which is why some people give up.
Like I said before, if you're going to live your life with strong faith on unproven scientific explanations that are proposed by scientists who make mistakes too (just because they have been right before), how are you different from the lot that puts a strong faith in a supernatural being from a book that teaches wisdom, morality, hope, virtues, etc?
You're not addressing me, but I'm responding to your response to him anyway. Why does anyone who is non-theist get thrown into the full embrace of positivism and the scientific method? I'm personally fully aware of the limits as humans-- I just don't think it takes scientific molecular experiments to have a strong suspicion religion is a sham.
It doesn't take qualitative research studies to have a good sense of what is right or wrong in the world either. It doesn't take studies to have a good sense of what is logical and illogical either.
I think the difference between those of faith and those without faith in religion is that they aren't so quick to blindly trust everything tossed to them. We can want some kind of inkling before we believe-- that inkling does not have to come from the scientific method.
Why does anyone who is non-theist get thrown into the full embrace of positivism and the scientific method?
I have to admit that I don't fully understand what non-theism is (definitionally, ha!), or atheism, or agnosticism, especially with how they are different from each other, but I do know that one does not have to fully embrace any religion or otherwise, because one is so capable of judging what is right and wrong to begin with. EDIT: because one is capable of judgment to begin with
randomuser;48243 said:
I'm personally fully aware of the limits as humans-- I just don't think it takes scientific molecular experiments to have a strong suspicion religion is a sham.
I agree with you. Sometimes, I do think that religion is a sham. But then again there's faith. Faith and religion are not the same. Religion divides, while faith is more personal so it's more like an opinion.
randomuser;48243 said:
I think the difference between those of faith and those without faith in religion is that they aren't so quick to blindly trust everything tossed to them.
Do not generalize to this idea that the faithful will believe anything thrown to them, although they do exist. From numerous talks with priests, pastors, friends (all sane) I realized that they all differ in how they believe in their god. One I remember believes in a supreme being - that created everything since time 0 - but not believe in the bible or think that this being may not even care about his creations at all. Some believe that scientific discoveries and the bible all tell the same story, only in different ways. There are many possibilities to this.
honestly... who the fuck cares if you go to heaven/hell.. or wherever you may think you're suppose to go.. the only place you're going is in a coffin buried six feet under the ground... and that is if you're lucky...
Ok, and what does that have to do with what I said? Or are you even addressing me? At least he elaborates or introduces his links.
Wikipedia, as far as I know, maintains a neutral position when it comes to these topics that are currently debatable. One may jump in and simply edit stuff, but they will eventually be neutral. Ferrous, however from my understanding, has stated his/her stance.
Do not generalize to this idea that the faithful will believe anything thrown to them, although they do exist. From numerous talks with priests, pastors, friends (all sane) I realized that they all differ in how they believe in their god. One I remember believes in a supreme being - that created everything since time 0 - but not believe in the bible or think that this being may not even care about his creations at all. Some believe that scientific discoveries and the bible all tell the same story, only in different ways. There are many possibilities to this.
You have me there, I'll concede that point, but as a whole, non-theists don't accept a lot of the premises religion expects you believe on blind faith-- like a god who's motives you aren't supposed to fully know, except for those duly revealed to you. It just scares me how *some* religious people interpret some things, and act on them.
I don't think all religion brings about the worst in everyone either, and I'll admit religion is different things to different people, at least their take on it : But the only question I'd pose to you is without religion, would those who are good under religion suddenly turn into raging assholes? What harm would there be without religion?
I know there are a million things other than religion that make people do bad things, but my question stands.
The link was to reinforce online_predator's post about how we have no reason to believe that the science of today is true.
Fair enough, but did you even read what I said?
How does trying to discredit positivism and science change the premise that you should not believe in religion, or any of the evils some of us say religion propogates? You don't need to conduct scientific experiments to qualify 'douche-baggery', or otherwise noted ill-behaviour.
Positivism and science are not the only things that discredit religion, or give you a reason beyond a doubt-- to doubt religion.
But the only question I'd pose to you is without religion, would those who are good under religion suddenly turn into raging assholes? What harm would there be without religion?
I know there are a million things other than religion that make people do bad things, but my question stands.
You know, honestly, I wouldn't know either. But your question definitely stands.
MAYBE we feel that way at this point in time, seeing as some religions are causing more trouble than they are helpful in enlightening some hope for people to live righteously. That if we can erase religion from the face of the earth and from everybody's minds just like that flash pen from men in black, maybe the world would be a better place now.
Or maybe not, as the bible and quran (or other books) have been referenced to many times in history in shaping the world we know of today by putting to shame any evil doings.
What happens if the ten commandments remain unheard of? What would have influenced leaders to stop slavery and see everybody else as their equal? etc etc....
I wouldn't know what will have happened if we were all to think the same and believe in the same thing. Would the human race have reached this far? Or have our survival instincts taken us to our extinction?
My point is I don't know whether that's good or bad.
My point is I don't know whether that's good or bad.
All we have to go on is that we've lived in a world with religion, and some religious people still do bad shit, and some non-religious people do good.
Whether we attribute this to human free will does not matter, because it means:
A) That "god" created morals, yet people choose to still disobey them or obey them.
and as a logical consequence
B) Thus, god could have not created morals when he created everything, because god doesn't exist, and people could still be moral or immoral.
The supposition would be that without god, we wouldn't know what is right or wrong and we would be brooding savages. The reality is that there would still be propensity to be both.
In conclusion, what harm would there be in a world without religion? I'm implying that religion has been used to justify harm that has been done, and that without religion, another justification would be needed (although it's probable someone could find another justification, maybe they couldn't, and it would be one less justification, thus, a net gain for the side without religion).
(I think my logic was sound there, if there are any invalid assumptions point them out)
In conclusion, what harm would there be in a world without religion?
Random, I'm not being stubborn or anything but honestly, I don't know. Maybe try suggesting a hypotheses of what you think will happen. Do you see a better world several generations from now?
EDIT ( added in fairness to my asking randomuser of a hypothesis ): I THINK without religion or faith, or any higher being, humans would be more of a danger to themselves.
Comments
1. God exists. (premise)
2. God is omnipotent and omniscient. (premise — or true by definition of the word "God")
3. God is all-benevolent. (premise — or true by definition)
4. All-benevolent beings are opposed to all evil. (premise — or true by definition)
5. All-benevolent beings who can eliminate evil will do so immediately when they become aware of it. (premise)
6. God is opposed to all evil. (conclusion from 3 and 4)
7. God can eliminate evil completely and immediately. (conclusion from 2)
1. Whatever the end result of suffering is, God can bring it about by ways that do not include suffering. (conclusion from 2)
2. God has no reason not to eliminate evil. (conclusion from 7.1)
3. God has no reason not to act immediately. (conclusion from 5)
8. God will eliminate evil completely and immediately. (conclusion from 6, 7.2 and 7.3)
9. Evil exists, has existed, and probably will always exist. (premise)
10. Items 8 and 9 are contradictory; therefore, one or more of the premises is false: either God does not exist, evil does not exist, God is not simultaneously omnipotent, omniscient and all-benevolent, or all-benevolent beings who can eliminate evil will not necessarily do so immediately when they become aware of it.
I look forward to your detailed and cogent rebuttal.
2. God is omniscient (let alone omnipotent).
3. Humans are not omniscient (we are bound to what our senses understand)
4. Humans cannot understand everything .
The whole point is that we can't see the big picture, so we can't assume to know God's will.
I will tell you this though:
yesterday at church a woman testified that she was cured of a heart condition that lasted 9 years. apperently the doctor was completely stumped.
Think about that. I'll end with this quote:
"Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth."
The traditional God is omnipotent, omni-benevolent, and omniscient, yet evil exists.
And we don't even need to know anything. Just that statement alone poses a logical contradiction.
Again, please explain what exactly you do know about god and how you know it.
Edit:
1. God exists.
2. God is omniscient (let alone omnipotent).
3. Humans are not omniscient (we are bound to what our senses understand)
4. Humans cannot understand everything .
3 and 4 render 1 and 2 irrelevant, see above.
Yeah, god cured a woman who was suffering of heart disease for nine years and let 50,000 innocent children die of disease and starvation the same day. He is just testing the childrens will and devotion.
Ferrous we shouldn't even bother because apparently their answer is...blind faith. It's more fun debating theists who claim to have some sort of proof.
Premises 1 and 2 are just that - premises. They are open for arguments. I am aware that the popular god that we know of has contradicting characteristics. That an omnipotent and benevolent god isn't so benevolent with all the evil existing around us, or that an omniscient god makes free-will just an illusion. What exactly do you know, Ferrous, that science does not? and how do you know it?
Science has its limitations too. Science can explain emotions (love, fear...), and all those virtues (generosity, helping the sick...) in a language that it understands - hormones, state of the brain, connectedness or w/e. Science can only explain a da Vinci painting by telling about its objective characteristics such as color, shapes, depth etc, but can't explain why it is a work of art (neither can logic, I believe). So, just for emphasis, science has its limitations too.
In addition, Science has been wrong numerous times before, the same way that some biblical claims nowadays are considered unacceptable. As an example, religions have become the reason for the death of numerous lives before the same way that a scientific advantage over other countries can threaten and have cost lives.
For all I know, science is still in pursuit of what is real and what is not. As of this point, science does not have the means to disprove the existence of anything supernatural, let alone the existence of any of the gods being worshiped by religions.
Like I said before, if you're going to live your life with strong faith on unproven scientific explanations that are proposed by scientists who make mistakes too (just because they have been right before), how are you different from the lot that puts a strong faith in a supernatural being from a book that teaches wisdom, morality, hope, virtues, etc?
Faith is the belief of something unproven, which is why faithful people are their own greatest weakness. They are so easy to argue against because what they have in their hands is unproven. Questioning is easy, but answering is not - which is why some people give up.
It doesn't take qualitative research studies to have a good sense of what is right or wrong in the world either. It doesn't take studies to have a good sense of what is logical and illogical either.
I think the difference between those of faith and those without faith in religion is that they aren't so quick to blindly trust everything tossed to them. We can want some kind of inkling before we believe-- that inkling does not have to come from the scientific method.
I will do that since he may be asleep. Link
I agree with you. Sometimes, I do think that religion is a sham. But then again there's faith. Faith and religion are not the same. Religion divides, while faith is more personal so it's more like an opinion.
Do not generalize to this idea that the faithful will believe anything thrown to them, although they do exist. From numerous talks with priests, pastors, friends (all sane) I realized that they all differ in how they believe in their god. One I remember believes in a supreme being - that created everything since time 0 - but not believe in the bible or think that this being may not even care about his creations at all. Some believe that scientific discoveries and the bible all tell the same story, only in different ways. There are many possibilities to this.
I don't think all religion brings about the worst in everyone either, and I'll admit religion is different things to different people, at least their take on it : But the only question I'd pose to you is without religion, would those who are good under religion suddenly turn into raging assholes? What harm would there be without religion?
I know there are a million things other than religion that make people do bad things, but my question stands.
How does trying to discredit positivism and science change the premise that you should not believe in religion, or any of the evils some of us say religion propogates? You don't need to conduct scientific experiments to qualify 'douche-baggery', or otherwise noted ill-behaviour.
Positivism and science are not the only things that discredit religion, or give you a reason beyond a doubt-- to doubt religion.
MAYBE we feel that way at this point in time, seeing as some religions are causing more trouble than they are helpful in enlightening some hope for people to live righteously. That if we can erase religion from the face of the earth and from everybody's minds just like that flash pen from men in black, maybe the world would be a better place now.
Or maybe not, as the bible and quran (or other books) have been referenced to many times in history in shaping the world we know of today by putting to shame any evil doings.
What happens if the ten commandments remain unheard of? What would have influenced leaders to stop slavery and see everybody else as their equal? etc etc....
I wouldn't know what will have happened if we were all to think the same and believe in the same thing. Would the human race have reached this far? Or have our survival instincts taken us to our extinction?
My point is I don't know whether that's good or bad.
Whether we attribute this to human free will does not matter, because it means:
A) That "god" created morals, yet people choose to still disobey them or obey them.
and as a logical consequence
B) Thus, god could have not created morals when he created everything, because god doesn't exist, and people could still be moral or immoral.
The supposition would be that without god, we wouldn't know what is right or wrong and we would be brooding savages. The reality is that there would still be propensity to be both.
In conclusion, what harm would there be in a world without religion? I'm implying that religion has been used to justify harm that has been done, and that without religion, another justification would be needed (although it's probable someone could find another justification, maybe they couldn't, and it would be one less justification, thus, a net gain for the side without religion).
(I think my logic was sound there, if there are any invalid assumptions point them out)
EDIT ( added in fairness to my asking randomuser of a hypothesis ): I THINK without religion or faith, or any higher being, humans would be more of a danger to themselves.