How religious are you?

[Danielos]

I think you have a good point, Winner. All religious people consider all other religions to be delusions. That is, when judging all other religions they think like atheists, but for some reason the same skeptical process is lacking for their own religion. If I talked with a Christian and said that I believed in Poseidon, he would laugh and ridicule me. And still, we would both believe in something that is of similar improbability.

 

[Moss]

Yes, but any actual application of reason does.

If you think it's rational, then tell me what evidence leads to such a belief.

My ignorance? I'm ignorant because I don't believe something is logical just because some long-dead theologians believed it to be? That's not ignorance, it's simply a refusal to believe something just because two other people in history believed it. You idiot.

I called you ignorant due to your views that "even religious people don't believe faith is rational." It had nothing to do with your beliefs.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Not to defend Winner's strange views or anything, but the fact remain that there is no evidence at all, nor has there ever been. There is absolutely nothing substantial that might lead one to believe that the God of the Bible exists, other than the Bible itself.

Nor is there any evidence that the god in the Bible doesn't exist, just the opinions of disbelievers that he can't possibly exist because they say so. I'd hardly either opinion overwhelmingly compelling.

 

[El_Machinae]

I'm decently religious in my unprovable foundations.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

edit: well that was fast.

 

[Lillefix]

Yet you don't seem to do so.

Observant, are we?

I generally don't like to mock people's meanings, unless they mock mine first. I'm trying to act not arrogant you know.

 

[Moss]

A statement of the week Yes, after thousands of years of looking, we still haven't found the evidence - damn Oh, it also sucks that we've found plenty of evidence which disproved about 90% of religious dogma. It looks like that the longer a religion exists, the less evidence there is to support it - how's that possible?

In any case, my faith in the Unicorn is relatively new, so you have to be patient - I am sure we'll find evidence in the future

So we should just stop trying to learn things? The earth has been around for millions of years, we should have figured everything out by now using your logic. And I think many people would dispute the fact that there is NO evidence that religions are true, or based in truth.

This is wrong on so many levels - in the past, before modern science was created, people turned to supernatural powers to explain natural phenomenons - why planets move, what causes solar eclipse, what causes diseases, why two dark-haired people can have a blond child etc. etc. etc.

Today, we have science - if somebody comes up with a theory which is logically coherent (no present-day religion is logically coherent), he also needs to come up with evidence supporting it in order for the theory to be accepted by other scientists.

Religions simply appear and say: this, this and this is true. Prove us wrong. How immensely pathetic is that?

I don't get how this disproves my point that we now know things today that we didn't even know existed thousands of years ago?

Occam's razor, my friend. If there's no evidence and if many other things suggest that religion is a VERY implausible concept, then it's a logical conclusion to refuse it.

Doesn't make it right. Again we see that what is logical is not always right.

No. Religious people constantly try to relativize this matter - "you can't prove us wrong, ergo our view is just as good as yours". Absolutely not my deluded friends, you believe in a veeeery implausible thing, you have offered no evidence and just because there is no way how to 100% disprove your "theory" doesn't mean it is comparable with modern science and its rational explanations of the Universe. In other words, you believe in a fringe theory and given that your claims are so contradictory to all rational explanations, you're most likely just crazy

Belief in the divine is not contradictory to anything in science. Sure, certain religious beliefs by fringe lunatics are, but that doesn't mean you can't believe in the divine (religion) and be logical at the same time.

Oh, and it seems that you even think that there could be a God, so I rest my case:

It is theoretically possible that a God-creator as an intelligent entity which somehow created this universe and then left it to its own devices exists (or existed), though I find that idea excessive and useless, since even if such entity existed, there would be no way how to observe it from within this universe.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=8226309&postcount=143

And just to clarify, I'm only defending belief in the divine or spiritual, I'm not defending the doctrines of any specific religion, because many of those are indeed illogical.

 

[Winner]

So we should just stop trying to learn things?

Religion doesn't want to learn new things - that's the problem! Religion thinks it has all the answers already (they've been reveeeaaaaled to us... : ).

The earth has been around for millions of years, we should have figured everything out by now using your logic. And I think many people would dispute the fact that there is NO evidence that religions are true, or based in truth.

Many believers would, sure, but they'd not come up with a new evidence - they'd just repeat the old dogma in somewhat different form and perhaps they'd point out some problem in present-day scientific theories in order to make themselves look good.

But in the end, it would be the same old, same old. Religion has nothing but dogma, a set of fairy-tales first told by their venerated prophets who had lived centuries or even millenia before modern science was born. Why on Earth should I trust Jesus or Mohamed, who didn't even know how to write, on issues concerning the whole universe?

I don't get how this disproves my point that we now know things today that we didn't even know existed thousands of years ago?

Guess why we know them - because science has discovered them, usually against the judgment of religious authorities, who were afraid that science would reveal that their beliefs were false (which is what usually happened).

Doesn't make it right. Again we see that what is logical is not always right.

Belief in the divine is not contradictory to anything in science. Sure, certain religious beliefs by fringe lunatics are, but that doesn't mean you can't believe in the divine (religion) and be logical at the same time.

Oh please - look at any of the major religions, their many assertions and tell me they don't contradict science.

The Flood killed all humans and animals except those who survived on a gigantic ship - is that a fact? Funny, no genetic research supports this story - but I guess God must have covered his tracks, right?

This is just one thing of millions of baseless assertions made by world religions.

 

[Moss]

You keep confusing me for a Christian apologist...

...until you understand that I'm only defending that the belief in a divine being is not illogical or necessarily delusional, I'm done arguing with you.

 

[Winner]

You keep confusing me for a Christian apologist...

...until you understand that I'm only defending that the belief in a divine being is not illogical or necessarily delusional, I'm done arguing with you.

Yes, that will be better for everyone

 

[Fr8monkey]

Nor is there any evidence that the god in the Bible doesn't exist, just the opinions of disbelievers that he can't possibly exist because they say so. I'd hardly either opinion overwhelmingly compelling.

One must prove something exists, not have the un-believers prove it doesn't... Basic scientific theory.

 

[Naphthous]

I called you ignorant due to your views that "even religious people don't believe faith is rational." It had nothing to do with your beliefs.

I didn't say that, so don't attribute it to me.

The Bible says "faith is the evidence of things not seen"—that is not rationality.

You don't listen—you just spew forth all the crap you've indiscriminately swallowed over the years. You don't address others' statements, you just change them to suit your argument. I shouldn't be surprised that this has been a waste of time.

If you opened your brain for a second to consider new information, you would be a lot more respectable.

Anyway, I'm done with this inanity.

 

[Moss]

I didn't say that, so don't attribute it to me.

The Bible says "faith is the evidence of things not seen"—that is not rationality.

You don't listen—you just spew forth all the crap you've indiscriminately swallowed over the years. You don't address others' statements, you just change them to suit your argument. I shouldn't be surprised that this has been a waste of time.

If you opened your brain for a second to consider new information, you would be a lot more respectable.

Anyway, I'm done with this inanity.

I'm NOT a Christian (or a part of any other religion for that matter).



Edit:

And YES you did say that... http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=8225880&postcount=28

 

[Winner]

An important part of a good theory is its capacity to predict what's happening in real world.

For example, if I drop a glass of water, it falls down.

Theory #1
It's because of gravity.

Theory #2
There are invisible etheric birds all around us who constantly move solid objects in direction of their choosing.

(well, both are in fact hypotheses, but let's ignore that for the sake of simplicity...)

Which theory is better able to predict movement of solid objects? Theory of gravity evolved and it was soon able to predict the movement of celestial objects, their relative speed etc. etc.

The theory of invisible etheric birds may at the first glance look good, but it has practically zero capacity to predict. You can't make simple and elegant equations, you can't create models which would correspond with reality.

In the end, the theory of invisible etheric birds is proven useless, EVEN DESPITE NOBODY HAS DISPROVED THEIR EXISTENCE.

---

This has happened to religion - it can't be fully disproved, but it is useless and lame compared to modern science.

 

[Fr8monkey]

Still you must prove they exist not prove they don't exist.

 

[Winner]

Still you must prove they exist not prove they don't exist.

I wasn't responding to you in a negative way. I simply added that a theory must make sense and be useful, otherwise it can't be taken seriously.

 

[Fr8monkey]

I wasn't responding to you in a negative way. I simply added that a theory must make sense and be useful, otherwise it can't be taken seriously.

Electricity was soomething that made no sence in the past... SO you cant take it seriously?

I wasn't on you, just a general comment.

 

[Naphthous]

I'm NOT a Christian (or a part of any other religion for that matter).



Edit:

And YES you did say that... http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=8225880&postcount=28

I said "Even most religious people I know will admit that it requires "faith." You placed quotation marks around a different sentence and attributed it to me. You slime.

And I never said you were a Christian, nor do I give a crap.

And yes, I hate myself for letting you waste my time.

For the record, you never did provide even one piece of evidence to suggest that religious belief could be logical—which was ostensibly what this conversation was originally about, although you have since made it abundantly clear that you are just going to embark on a series of tangents, probably because you haven't got a leg to stand on.

 

[Moss]

I said "Even most religious people I know will admit that it requires "faith." You placed quotation marks around a different sentence and attributed it to me. You slime.

And I never said you were a Christian, nor do I give a crap.

And yes, I hate myself for letting you waste my time.

For the record, you never did provide even one piece of evidence to suggest that religious belief could be logical—which was ostensibly what this conversation was originally about, although you have since made it abundantly clear that you are just going to embark on a series of tangents, probably because you haven't got a leg to stand on.

No, you're right, you didn't explicitly say I was a Christian, but you did say, and I'll use the direct quote now instead of paraphrasing (and yes, quotations marks are used in paraphrasing someone as well in case you didn't know)...

You don't listen—you just spew forth all the crap you've indiscriminately swallowed over the years. You don't address others' statements, you just change them to suit your argument. I shouldn't be surprised that this has been a waste of time.

If you opened your brain for a second to consider new information, you would be a lot more respectable.

So tell me, how have I been indoctrinated? And it seems that you are the one that is not listening, considering I have answered Winner's questions.

 

[Winner]

Electricity was soomething that made no sence in the past... SO you cant take it seriously?

I wasn't on you, just a general comment.

It made no sense because there was no coherent theory explaining what electricity is and what it does. Once such a theory was created, it became very useful.

On the other hand, the God-theory has never really been useful in any practical sense. Sometimes I wonder why God revealed us only crappy information like the 10 commandments or that gory stories contained in the Old Testament. Why didn't he reveal how genetics works? Or how to create antibiotics?



The so-called revealed truths and scripture are just man-made sham, nothing more, nothing less. The fact that people are willing to kill because of some stupid texts written by primitive barbarians is a sad proof that humans are everything but divine-made.