Religion: If You Don't Believe In It Why Does It Bother You?

Here's some philosophy leaders to bring some lols to an otherwise srs bsns thread:

I was really hoping Mabrook would show up for this. :/

Well, technically YOU called you illogical along with calling ME illogical. I just said not to count me in on that.Do you not even remember the things you say? Yeesh.

Anyway:YES!! Yes, that is exactly what happened. Scientists postulate that most of the heavier elements in the universe were formed by supernovas, whereas the Big Bang mostly formed hydrogen and helium and a few other lighter elements. They form combinations and recombinations all the damn time. Polymers, the kind we find associated with life, occur constantly in nature.
/sigh
Micro- and macro-evolution is a fake distinction made by people who don't know what evolution is. Minor changes occur, you grant, but somehow you don't get that these changes accumulate to the point where a species is genetically different enough to not be the same species. They are the same damn thing.

I repeat: macro- and micro-evolution are false distinctions. There is only evolution. Period.
Same thing.
Well, new ones pop up just as easily, and we've found life in some of the most extreme environments on earth. Not quite sure what your point is.
Do I claim to know exactly how either amino acids or the universe were first formed, 100%? No. But there are reasonable explanations for the formations of both of them, especially amino acids (elements form compounds, compounds form sequences, sequences form amino acid chains, amino acids form proteins; all of these are generally known). So I'm not assuming anything.

As for evolution, you still didn't present any evidence that contradicts it. Old species vanish from the fossil record, new ones appear, therefore we assume that new ones came from old ones. It's simple. Again, not up for debate unless you have evidence. You don't.

Anyway, this is getting long, I'll try to wrap it up.

You go into this long rant about other planets and such and how we seem to be the only planet that has life on it. In other words, it's such a rare event that it couldn't be an accident.

I should point out that most astronomers think it is extremely likely that there are hundreds of millions of planets out there with life on them in the universe. The size and vast range of possibilities is so huge that it's almost impossible for that to not be the case. But these other planets might well have species that may be amazed and happy that they live in a methane atmosphere at a nice cozy 150 degrees with lakes of liquid cobalt fresh for the drinkin'!

We think of the earth as being miraculously accomodating because we EVOLVED to adapt to it. For any one of those hypothetical aliens, our planet would seem ridiculously hostile.

Stop thinking from a human-biased point of view, and you can see how chance is totally acceptable. As for a creator, I'm still waiting to see evidence of that.

You are totally my hero. :D

And I'm still waiting for proof that there isn't one. Oh wait, you can't prove that there isn't a God! And I can't prove that there IS one. What he said.

Nope, but there sure is a lot of other proof out there showing that the majority of the Bible is pure ***.

Actually, I think you'd be surprised how widely accepted some of the claims in the Bible are among historians. First of all, Jesus' crucifixion is not denied by any educated historian. It is actually one of the best established facts of ancient history. Not only do we have multiple early independent reports about the death of Jesus in the documents that make up the New Testament of the Bible, we have 5 ancient sources outside the Bible that confirm it, like Josephus, a first century Jewish historian who worked for the Romans, and Tacitus, another early Roman historian. Even the Jewish Talmud admits that Jesus was killed by crucifixion. One would be laughed out of the academic world if he did not believe that Jesus was crucified. You would literally have to deny Roman and Jewish history to deny Jesus’ crucifixion.

Second, we have early reports about His resurrection. Most atheists would say the resurrection is just a legend. But legends take a while to develop. We have preserved for us a creed of the earliest church. This creed contains the essence of Christianity and mentions the names of eye-witnesses and skeptical opponents. The key point is that this creed has been dated back by scholars from a wide range of theological belief to as early as 2-4 years after the crucifixion. Therefore, the beliefs that make up that creed go back even earlier, virtually to the cross itself. So there is hardly a time gap between crucifixion and the accounts we are given of it. This is no legend. In fact, one of the greatest classical historians who ever lived was A.N. Sherwin-White of Oxford University. He studied the rate at which legend would develop in the ancient world, and he determined that the passage of two generations of time was not even enough for legend to form and wipe out a solid core of a historical truth. It would be unprecedented in the history of the world for a legend to grow that fast.

Third, the tomb was empty. The historical records say Jesus' body was in a tomb which belonged to Joseph of Arimathea and was sealed, guarded by Roman soldiers, and discovered empty. There was nobody in the first century who was claiming that the tomb of Jesus was anything but empty. Even the opponents of Jesus admitted that the tomb was empty. How do we know? Because they bribed the guards to make up the story that they had fallen asleep and that Jesus' disciples had stolen the body. Nobody believed that story then, nobody believes it now. So what happened to the body? The disciples didn't have the motives, the means, or the opportunity. What were they to do? Steal the body and then willingly die for a lie? I don't think so. Here's the point: why make up a cover story? 'Cause you're covering something up. Implicit to making up a cover story is admitting the tomb is empty, now you have to make something up to account for it. Even Jesus' opponents admitted the tomb was empty. The question of history has never been "was the tomb empty?". Everybody admitted it was. The question of history has always been "how did it get empty?" Go down the usual list of suspects. The Romans wouldn't steal the body. They wanted Jesus dead. The religious authorities wouldn't steal the body. They wanted Jesus to stay dead. The disciples wouldn't steal the body. Why? So they could knowingly and willingly be tortured to death for a lie? No. The best explanation for the tomb being empty is, well, the resurrection.

Fourth, not only was the tomb empty, but over a period of time, Jesus appeared alive in a dozen different instances, to more than 515 individuals--to skeptics and to opponents, as well as to believers. Think about it. 515 eye-witnesses. If you were to create a witness stand and call to the stand every individual who encountered the resurrected Jesus, and sit there and allow them to testify and be cross-examined for just 15 minutes each, you'd be sitting there for 5 straight days. Would you, after hearing 128 straight hours of eye-witness testimonies, walk away going, "meh, I don't believe it." Where's your loophole out of that? Hallucinations? Over 500 people having the same hallucination? Hallucinations are like dreams. They don't spread like the swine flu. 500+ people having the same hallucination would be a bigger miracle than the resurrection itself. And if they were hallucinations, the body would still be in the tomb. But it's not. Yes, there have been religious crackpots throughout history who have been willing to die for their faith. But the difference with the disciples is this: they didn't just believe Jesus returned from the dead, they didn't have faith, they weren't taught. They were there, and thus, willing to die for the truth they had witnessed.

Wow, I went "tl;dr" to my own post. Think it's time to take a break. xD

tl;dr version:

First paragraph, logical.

Rest of it: "Now that you've heard my logical statement, I hope you consider the rest of what I say in that same category. So from now on, I'll just speak utter-nonsense."

Is an actual response from you too much to ask for, Trebold? Wait, nevermind, doesn't matter because I'm going to sleep.

Nobody could possibly prove you wrong on that but... do you honestly think it makes sense trying to prove that a negative is true? Where does it end? For example, if a crime occurs in some distant city and there's no evidence that you were ANYWHERE around the scene of that crime, why on Earth would you need to prove that you weren't there when it happened? Would the entire country need to come and testify in order to make sure none of them is guilty?

Why then would anyone need to prove that God doesn't exist if there's no demonstrable evidence to prove that he/she does? I'm hoping you see the point I'm trying to make because it's the very basis of Atheism... If you believe something, I'M allowed to say "prove it" but if you answer "prove that I'm wrong otherwise it means I'm right", I'm not going to feel that it's a very honest reply, sorry... :x

If anyone comes to you and tells you he can prove there's no creator or that evolution (as we understand it so far) is an indisputable fact, he's certainly not smarter than the scientists who are admitting that it's still only a theory, therefore he's just talking ***. Just because someone claims to be an Atheist doesn't mean he knows why. If you can afford it though, thinking it through is not an option, it must be done.

Sorry, I'll give an actual response.

"The tomb was empty."

I figured aliens took it, until I reread over. Now it's cyborgs. Then I realized cyborgs don't exist, that's when I came to the conclusion it's gotta be time-traveling dinosaurs.

That is your view on atheism, but that does not mean what it actually stands for. You can view it plenty of different ways, not just one. You are speaking from your own point of view.

Wrong, there is no problem with her/she said prove that I am wrong, it would not mean that. No one would need to go and grab someone and ask them if they were at a crime or not if they were not... oh wait they could have still been involved, made a call on the phone to commit a crime, or better yet have an alibi for being where they were, if they got questioned (this does happen).


it is pointless in your argument also, if you say no prove, then she has the right to say what she said. It is pretty much a stalemate. You does not mean she is agreeing with you on it, and you win no points. The point of such a debate between people is pointless, this is where the fighting goes on back and forth and does not end.

evolution as we call it is shown in the several living beings of the planet, yup. But this is, we do not know what started all of this and this evolution chain. It could have been designed like this or not, poof out of no where evolution and the universe was just created, as the law of physics states, something can come from nothing no?

Yeah and the knowledge to be a scientist and question how you were created, because you think you are an intelligent being and there is something even more complex to your creation, besides something setting this all up for you.

My point usually is to stay neutral in debates like this, science is knowledge. Why is it you question why you exist and how you came into being, and how things were created or just are? something or someone obviously allowed for you to question such a thing no?

more to come later.

You very well knew what I meant by this, do not get cheeky.

Religion, is not the reason there is bad in the world. If a human does not want to be civilized and kills someone or does serial killings, you going to blame Christianity?

Does your ignorant *** not get it yet, you are attacking Christianity. What is your problem with christians, it has to be a good reason as I said many times before. Do not speak about past events or people who used it for what ever purpose to get ahead or damn others or in vain for what ever killings. there were killings in all of humanity for a while, genocide was not only something that happened during WW2. it has been happening for thousands of years, aztecs scraficed people to a sun god yet, I do not see you damning them for believing in what god it was that forced them to capture people and maryter them to a eclipse.


You keep saying christianity, christianity, chrsitinity! Yet fail to see how vain, sophomoric, and HELP I AM TRAPPED IN 2006 PLEASE SEND A TIME MACHINE you actually look.

"Religion: If you don't believe in it why does it bother you?"

I see Religion in there: THERE IS MORE THAN ONE RELIGION IN THE WORLD, YES SEVERAL OF THEM FOCUS ON THE GOD in christianity and similar religions. But there were others before that do not get practiced or are different. The greeks mythology is no different, africa and all they had, japanese and their deities and Buddah which came much later but japanese have formed the old japanese kami (aka deities) into some Buddah traditions. THESE ARE ALL RELIGIONS STOP ATTACKING JUST ONE, you got social problems. Pissed because your mom and dad sent you to church? Tough it was for your own good, get over it.


Religion: If you don't believe in it why does it bother you?

It should not the people who practice religion are not bothering you, so you should leave them alone.

On top of the the earth never said humanity was slowing it down from evolving with religion, I do not see it impeding science and advancement in any way, again blame humans for that, "not the religion said humans created in the name of the god who could have created us or "gods" mystic super nova force alien being, humaniod big bang super nova created from the bang etc." There that is all I have to say since you wanted to get technical I fixed what I should not have to say.

Dense, hard of reading, ignorant, oh wow.

Protip: Caps lock doesn't help get your point across any better.

There were only few, sam guy says the same thing :(. So I say the same back ; ;.

Cults are something else, they suck.

you're HELP I AM TRAPPED IN 2006 PLEASE SEND A TIME MACHINE, prove that im wrong

you win the internet, good sir.


Instead of typing the semi-tl;dr I did to his/her post.

Should have simply said flawed logic "is flawed".

It's early and I'm too groggy to form a prolonged response with regard to Biblical accuracy right now, but since there are some people who still don't get it, let's talk about proving there isn't a god.
The problem with this and with Stanflame's response (aside from the fact that it's poorly written and hard to read), is that proving something doesn't exist is going about it the wrong way. You prove things DO exist before we take such claims seriously.

For example, people in Europe in the 1700s were largely of the opinion that America was a boggy area that produced tiny, puny animals. The French naturalist George Louis Leclerc was known for such a claim. Thomas Jefferson (yes, that one) told him that there were large animals here, such as the American moose. Leclerc said "Prove it." The burden of proof was on Jefferson, so what did he do? He had a moose found and sent to France, which forced Leclerc to eat his words. What he did not do was say "Prove that such a large animal DOESN'T exist!" because that would have been stupid. Story here.

Now if you think saying "You can't prove that X does NOT exist," is a good argument, then you don't understand how burden of proof works. You're right, I can't prove that god does not exist, but that puts him on an even keel with unicorns, dragons, Bigfoot, Nessie, the Jersey Devil, my invisible friend Colonel Schwartz, Juju of the Mountain, pagan deities, and any other legendary made-up thing you care to name. Yet you don't feel that any of these are compelling, nor do you treat them with any reverence or argue vehemently that they absolutely do exist in a public forum.

Again, you want to believe in god, that's your business, but don't treat "prove god exists" and "prove god doesn't exist" as equally reasonable requests. They simply are not.

Actually you can prove that God exists by claiming that God doesn't exist using the propositional calculus (which is widely used by logicians). However, you can also prove that God doesn't exist by this method. But, that leads to a contradiction, and anything follows from a contradiction.

Let 'P' stand for God exists.

Sequent
God exists unless it's the case that God doesn't exist (~P -> P).
Therefore, God exists (P).

Proof:

1) God exists unless it's the case that God doesn't exist. (~P -> P)
2) Assume God doesn't exist. (~P)
3) Therefore, God exists. (P)

This is deduced by Modus Ponens on lines 1 & 2. If God doesn't exist (premise 2) then we logically attain that God exists by premise 1.

4) Combine (2) & (3), God exists & God doesn't exist (contradiction)(~P & P)
5) If God doesn't exist, then God doesn't exist & God exists. (~P -> (P & ~P))
6) Therefore, it's not the case that God doesn't exist. (~~P)
7) Thus, God exists. (P)

But you can do the same proof swapping the negation and prove that God doesn't exist.

Try taking Philosophy 101. You will get an F, I promise you.

Some of those videos in this one, are actually quite funny...

Orange one is good. LOL

You mean the countries you hear about?

'Cos the UK are going through an election process atm and not a singe candidate have said anything remotely religious or based on religion.

I didnt waste my time reading all of the 33 pages(mainly page 1 and then this last page)so I'll say my piece...

Anyone who says there is no God, without giving a definition of God, is a fool.

The majority of religions come from a time that was very primitive both Scientifically and philisophically. Therefore the religious interpretation of what a "God" would be is very primitive as well. I invite you to rethink what your idea of God is or what it could be if it does exist... and start from there.

There are plenty of Gods out there... and a lot of them I could physically show you.

Maybe you want to say something more definitive like "The god as described in ________" doesnt exist.

Try taking more than Philosophy 101. I'm a philosophy major. In symbolic logic this is one of the simplest proofs you will ever do.

Don't worry about Trebold. His only responses consist of "you fail because you disagree with me," only said in different ways.