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

You guys are aware that there were equally popular and competing versions of Christianity (such as gnosticism) for many centuries following the crucifixion, that all had wildly different takes on the Resurrection, up to and including fundamental disagreements about the divinity of Jesus himself, right?

You can't argue that historical evidence shows people believed in the modern Christian version of events, thus the modern version is correct. Because then you would have to argue that historical evidence of gnostic Christianity from precisely the same time period proves its equally true.

Sure you can. It's at the heart of religion to use one line of reasoning for one situation and a completely opposie one for something else cause it suits them.

Not the most eloquent way of stating it, but Trebold is actually correct here.

The "logic proof" given is invalid because it starts from a fallacy. "God exists unless it is the case that he doesn't" is not a valid starting state in any branch of logic or philosophy because the negation of a weak negative hypothesis does not imply a strong positive.

To say otherwise would cause a complete meltdown of the entire study of logic and philosophy. You would be able to conclusively prove anything by being unable to prove its negation.

And that's usually how it works. See, the reason the lower tier Philosophy classes teach you conventional logic is to keep you well grounded because when you start taking the higher level classes you get into things like metaphysics. Just because you've learned about metaphysics and other forms of unconventional logic, don't let that cloud the basics of logic which you learned in the low level classes.

The proof itself doesn't really 'prove' anything, but it is structurally valid. It proves the existence of God, but the kicker is that reversing it proves that God doesn't exist. Actually, insert anything in place of P and you can prove it's opposite. The law is reductio ad absurdum that allows you to infer the opposite of the antecedent if the consequent is a contradiction. So saying the following: If God doesn't exist (~P), then God exists and God doesn't exist (~P&P) results in ~~P by the law of RAA. Double negations result in positives, so you end up with P.

But you're correct it doesn't really prove anything, since you can prove the opposite of what you're trying to prove as well.

I think Jaerik was able to sum up in his last sentence what I needed two paragraphs to write. Good job :)

About bashing on Christians or Muslims, I'm against it... why do it? It's not like insulting these usually well-intentioned people can really help them learn to question their beliefs. It'll actually make them feel persecuted and seek God even more. Give them a break, by now the smartest ones are already trying to figure it out, I'm sure. Yes, we know just as well as the Catholics do, of the wrongs their religious leaders did in the past (and are doing now, on a smaller scale) but as we speak now, these so-called authorities have almost no power left over what's going on in the world. If they ordered a crusade against Islam, it wouldn't happen. Heck, they're telling you not to use condoms and seriously, are you going to care even if you're a fervent Catholic? No, because you're able to realize they're asking HELP I AM TRAPPED IN 2006 PLEASE SEND A TIME MACHINE things to you and you're getting a little more rational about it than your ancestors. There is hope. Religion as we know it could disappear, it just needs to be put on trial and judged, once and for all, for what it is: an abuse of our ability to believe.

Still trying to get my point across: -organized religion- is the problem, not the belief that there's a superior being out there. If you want to believe in something, you certainly don't need someone else to control your life by telling you how you should believe and what rituals you should observe in order to prove that you believe properly. If a god seriously wanted to make rules for you to follow, he wouldn't whisper them to one prophet and ask you to figure by yourself who the right guy is, among thousands who claim to be God's real messenger. How you could call a god doing that kind of random ***to you a　"loving father" is beyond me. That God is supposed to be smart, not HELP I AM TRAPPED IN 2006 PLEASE SEND A TIME MACHINE. You also shouldn't need others to convince you that God loves you, God should show it to you in a way that you, as a rational human that he created in his own image, can understand without having to pull off a guessing stunt. God loves everyone? Seeing how all the wrong people keep suffering all the time, good luck believing that while still retaining your sanity.

I wasn't criticizing your symbolic logic, which is arguably correct. (And interesting.) I was pointing out that the two starting states are not equally sound. The weak hypothesis does not cleanly invert like that.

"God does not exist unless it is the case that he does" is a valid starting state, but "God exists unless it is the case that he doesn't" is not.

If the weak hypothesis cleanly inverted, I should ban all of you right now because I can't prove you aren't trying to hack me.

He's on to our scheme!

Sadly the whole thing has honestly
Sadly the original statement "You can't prove he doesn't exist, and I can't prove he does" seems to have snowballed far beyond it's original intentions. That's a common saying used to "make peace" between two or more who disagree on this matter. You're right, completely, when you say that one of the starting states is not equal to the other. But what the original statement a page or two back is really supposed to mean is "I believe what I believe. And you believe what you believe. Until one of us can show something irrefutable to the other we'll agree to disagree."

WAY earlier in this thread I saw one of the most incorrect statements about science I've ever ever seen. Someone said something along the lines of "Science proves things true." This is a HUGE misconception. " No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong." — Albert Einstein. The simple truth of science is that "nothing" is 100% true. It's only what WE CURRENTLY KNOW to be true. And on another note, Science is not a belief system. It is a method of discovery and learning. It is a method, a tool, and nothing more. It tells us "this is what happens when you do this." If it has not been found to be, so far, 100% accurate every time then it's never moved from the "theory" box. And many things that were regarded as fact in later years are thrown back into said box.

Typing on the internet, is different than typing in a class room. There is no way anyone would not take a Philosophy class and not know how to get an A. The work is there and the debate will most likely happen in the class. Just because someone does not agree with a teacher in a philosophy class does not mean they will get a bad grade. You debate, do your work, understand what everyone is saying, pass your tests, get your attendance, give your presentation then done.

oh he made a large point here btw, J-man is correct.

I looked through my old notes and I see what you are saying now. My initial wording was poorly constructed, thanks for pointing that out. This is why I usually stick with "If, then" statements.

"God does not exist unless it is the case that he does"
should have been worded:
"If God does exist, then God doesn't exist." (If P, then ~P).

1) P -> ~P
2) P
3) ~P (modus ponens 1 & 2)
4) P&~P (combine 2 & 3)
5) (P -> (P&~P))
6) ~P
C) ~P

--------------

"God exists unless it is the case that he doesn't"
it should have been worded:
"If it is not the case that God exists, then God exists." (If ~P, then P).

1) ~P -> P
2) ~P
3) P (modus ponens 1 & 2)
4) ~P&P (combine 2 & 3)
5) (~P -> (~P&P))
6) ~~P
7) P
C) P

--------------

These allow you to prove for P and prove ~P as well. Basically it leads into a paradox of sorts. So you could logically prove that we are hacking, and then logically prove that we are not hacking, again, and again, and again... It doesn't really prove anything. I was just responding to someones statement about the difference between proving that God exists, and proving that God doesn't exist.

Okay, wow, an entire page of discussion about a philosophical construct that it admitted to be essentially worthless.So, "If god doesn't exist, then he does." Yeah, that's a contradiction, you can't start off with a premise like that and expect it to go anywhere.

Then there's this guy:I like how he starts off with admitting he didn't take the time to read any discussion of topics but he thinks he's got something to contribute towards the argument, calling reading it a "waste of time." This is off to a great start!
I wasn't aware that we were all somehow operating under varied ideas about what the word "god" meant. Well, I guess that's the major problem here, we just didn't follow whatever the hell definition Kodaijin wants to give.
Yes, let us join hands and declare that words don't mean what they mean anymore!
And yet you don't. Thanks for the confident, empty boast.
For the record, I don't say "God doesn't exist," I say "I don't beleive in god." Am I certain that there are absolutely no gods by any definition? No. But I also have no compelling reason to believe in one either. I don't need to narrow it down, I can say that I do not believe in any beings that may be described by what the word "god" means. If you want to start saying the Sun is god or TV is god or other figurative language like that, I couldn't argue that they don't exist, but I could easily argue that such things were not gods.

Yeesh, an empty post like this is worse than an ignorant post. At least tearing into someone saying something stupid furthers the discussion.

Actually, it's not a contradiction. P & ~P is a contradiction. P -> ~P or ~P -> P is nothing more than a statement. If the antecedent is proven, then the consequent follows. And it's not actually worthless, it just doesn't do much by itself unless it is coupled with other proofs.

But, you're entitled to have arbitrary beliefs, so go for it.

hehehe ... I couldn't help.

34 pages, and it pretty much looks like this =/



This also reflects the whole "exist/doesn't exist" argument.

Or, 2,000 years and it still looks like this. Also, I wasn't claiming anything with the "exist/doesn't exist" argument. I was only sharing logic that has been developed. I find it interesting, sorry if you don't.

@Anye

Sorry I'm late reading all the replies. I only recently realized that the thread had grown so much. I'm on page 18 now, I'll finish the rest this weekend probably... ^^ I was glad to read your input since you seem to believe in religion + seem pretty knowledgeable of it + are able to discuss and argue in a manner that is at the very least, civilized. So, if you happen to have time to read, I'll clarify some points for you to really understand what I dislike about religions, including Christianity.

My point is about organized religion, not about the people in them. It's easy to run away from the issue by saying "it's the people" but it doesn't work that way, unfortunately. When Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, the Americans didn't stop and think "wait, it's actually that particular soldier Mizuno Gurasu, let's not blame the whole country that would be ridiculous! instead lets blame that soldier and his colleagues for attacking a small part of our country!". People forming groups and represented by large entities are to be held accountable as a whole. It may not always be fair, but it's necessary for us to be able to make any sense out of it. Trying to remove guilt from a group who identify to a particular cause by blaming individuals among them is often not going to solve much. They might as well just all think for themselves, not join the *** army and obey destructive orders. Or stay in a political party that's tied to murdering and corruption, for example. When you know the group is doing the opposite of what you feel is right, you leave, not try to rationalize about how some of the people in it are okay. In fact, no war could happen if everyone questioned authorities instead of obeying them.

I do wish for religions demise, but I do not necessarily hope for a world without religious beliefs. You see, in a world where organized religion would have no power, people would be stuck believing things on their own, based on their interpretations, on the conclusions they're able to make by themselves. People would be basing their opinions on debates such as this one, or discussions with peers. Whatever people would chose to believe or think, it would lead to a healthier world because our opinions would not be the product of 4000 year-old books claiming to be the only way to betterment. The only way to achieve this is by dismissing all self-proclaimed religious authorities.

Now, about whether it's wrong to believe or not to believe. It seems most believers like to imagine that those who chose to question rather than accept beliefs (unproven ideas) as "facts" are in fact just believers of some new non-religion called Atheism. I don't know about all Atheists, but I encourage the rejection of beliefs, which includes the dismissal of God, since there is no empirical evidence to support God. How could this possibly be a belief in itself? As stated so many times, it is silly to say that because it cannot be demonstrated that God doesn't exist, there is a chance that he does. Something must be proven in the first place and then, there would be no point in denying it's existence anyway.

I have read most of the bible because my parents encouraged me to when I was young. Nowadays, I find myself pissing them off, especially my mother who's very religious, because I seem to know what's in the bible more than they do...

but here's what bothers me about my parent's religious views... they're stuck with that preconceived idea that if I don't believe in it, it's simply because I don't understand it well enough. You even said something similar, earlier even though I'm hoping you realize that even someone who perfectly understands the Bible, could still dismiss it as fairy tales and be an Atheist. Believing that if someone doesn't believe in a religious book, he just hasn't studied it enough is arrogant and even insulting to intelligence. It's why religions are dangerous and possibly one of the best reasons why religious intolerance has been one of the most gratuitous motives for starting wars, in history.

Now, there are people who believe that there is no God. These people are wasting their time trying to prove some thing wrong, while it's never been proven right anyway. They're missing the point and that's sad. We should encourage them to question their beliefs because otherwise there's a risk they'll easily become religious with a mind like that.

Avoiding beliefs is the only way for humankind to achieve something, science was never advanced by trying to prove that preconceived ideas were right. Right now, we have been discussing, brains have been functioning, people have been forced to reevaluate what their think in order to defend it. This is what we should seek, this is what cannot happen inside organized religions because it would lead to individual thinking.

As for me, I know I want to be right, just like you and everyone else. But I know I'll never be completely right. I know that no one was ever completely right and that the only way to stay coherent, is to be ready to change my mind. You will never find that kind of thinking in organized religion. And since organized religions came up with the concept of God... I don't see any good reason not to dismiss the idea of God's existence. If one day we find a good reason that doesn't involve having faith in tales written back when we didn't even know what a germ is, I'll be among the first people to reevaluate my opinions.

Awww so I'm late... Well maybe she'll come back. She probably went to church for a "tune-up" because she was starting to lose some of her faith... ;)

Hehehe yeah, maybe I should edit it ! Btw don't worry it's not the first time she does that, even ingame for no particular reasons, talks for an hour then disappears for months never ever replying I guess I can't blame her because I do that too lol xD Such a cutie when she does show up though :P

Logic isn't the best way to go about proving or disproving the existence of God. In-fact, as stated above it can do both, and easily I might add.

Logic isn't a badge of truth, all logic does is show us valid and invalid forms of argument.

I've been a Philosophy student for a long time, and am almost finished with it as my major.

To be honest, I'm bored with the discussion. I do not believe in God, but I'm too much of an apatheist to argue it with people anymore. I don't think life for people would change too drastically were they to find out there were no God. I remember when I stopped believing as a young teen. Life continued with little to no change. I would assume it be that way for most people.

Couldn't agree more. For the longest time I believed faith in one's line of beliefs or religion should really only be a self-empowering tool, as would doubt work for those who question those belief systems.

I simply see it as two sides of a coin, but a coin nevertheless. One gives a sense of understanding and absolution in a world that is seemingly cruel and gives no purpose to those who live in it. On the other hand, having doubt and questioning that which does not present itself in tangible forms gives open path to free thought and form, which in it's own right is a way of self-empowerment.

Faith and doubt. Both equally potent and neither "correct" or "wrong" per say, but merely opposite ends of the coin we all live on.

Either way, it should be something that reflects only yourself and should not be an excuse to alienate or harm other people, physically or verbally as seen so evidently on both sides; sadly one side more so than the other *ahem*.

I seriously doubt Matt Stone and Trey Parker would be getting death threats right now if everyone believed that there was no god.

IMO, Religion used to calm down society, [comfort in the death and all kind of world trouble]

if god exist or not isnt really important, by time you beleive in something.

Ppl should beleive more in theyself instead of listening a dictature of what is right and wrong, we all know inside us what is moral or not. Follow your inside feeling, nothing is wrong with that.

Only the EVIL visit church, that make him feel better to say sorry. I know ppl going to flame me for saying that, and its ok, beleive in what you think, i am not debating on that.

I live in peace, i respect ppl, i am by far not an angel, i have my bad side as everyone do, i just lern to respect everyone with they bad side as they accept mine.

I also 100% agree with Psyence post.

Damn I left this thread a long while back. It has really grown. I agree for the most part at least in most civilized persons, religion is calming. Only the extremists and news channels twist it for evil purposes. Most christians I know go around trying to help others and not start a holy war. Now some muslims probably do pull the jihad card but more or less the news makes most of that ***up. Its the 21st century not the crusades anymore.