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

Aliens need to hurry up and pop out of no where to prove like 98% of religions to be ***.

Think the reason for so much conflict, is everyone takes religion so personally. An attack on one's faith is like an attack on one's ego. People don't take well to having it questioned or shown for what it is.

The key is to be open to other considerations of the perceptions of reality.

More like provide something for scientologists and other alien based cults/religeons to circle jerk on.

On topic, besides the obvious things like slowing down the evolution of mankind and rational thought, my only real gripe against religion are the friends I've lost to various stricter religions. I won't go into detail, but it is something that causes me grief, anger and despair.

Sigh, this thread has turned into fail. I'm no longer amused.

What are you on about?

Stop posting utter shite lol.

Your point isn't valid at all. Saying "Great, a Christianity versus Islam debate. Never seen that before." isn't even a point. It's just trolling.

Arguing with Muslims is a two-step process. You compare their religion to another religion while pointing out the broken logic in the Qu'ran or the history of Islam. Generally they'll end up attacking the said religion that you're using as a comparable, at which point you pull the rug out and say, "Well, you've proved my second point that all religion is asinine. And have managed to avoid defending your own religion, in the defense of attacking another."

It's a game of chess, and it's kind of sad if you can't see a simple two-step process, because of your own hatred of the other religion. Arguing people about religion is simply too difficult to do from a "godless" point of view. The moment you argue that position, they'll shutdown or just assume you're some heathen and have that be the end of discussion.

Aye, one would think religion would help people open up to be understanding and tolerant of others. Rather, it brings nothing but contrary teachings and gives epidemic levels of bigotry and hatred towards others.

I'll agree with this with a little spin. In developmental psychology, there is a stage in natural childhood development, before adolescence, in which a child develops empathy. This is actually independent of whether the parents were religious or not.

The problem is, BEFORE this stage of childhood development, children are taught about the fears of the parents. In a natural state, this makes sense. For instance, "The parents see a tiger and start running like hell" or "When a spider crawls in the room, the parents freak out and kill the spider." The child then develops a fear of these things. This can also apply to a fear of other people, especially when the parents verbally teach the child these things at all stages of development.

This stunts the profound empathy that the child learns in the later stages of development, and it no longer applies to those it sees as opposition to its own existence. Empathy is amazing, it's why many religions are based on the "Golden Rule". Treat others as you wish to be treated.

The problem is people feel religion/god should be respected. I say it hasn't earned any. People are to be respected not ideals that have no basis in facts or reality. I can respect somebody as a person and not respect the beliefs they have. Example, you are a hard worker and takes care of your family but believe 2+2=5. Because I don't respect that aspect and have no problem showing it you are upset? Sorry, there is an old saying the truth hurts. We will get nowhere placating people.

If you don't want to get upset, then don't make claims you can't prove and expect it not to be criticize and scrutinize. Religion/god is the only things that has got a pass on this kind of evaluation for a very long time. I would love to see how well religious people would act to a group of people claiming fairies are real. Not to hard to guess how some would react. Just look at how they act at present day events with things like stem cell research and evolution.

2+2 doesn't = 5
but 1+1 ='s 3 =P

I can't help but compare Muhammad to the child on "It's a Good Life" episode of "The Twilight Zone". And the society that he enslaved remains that way to this day.

^ thats the worst show i ever seen on youtube

Sorry so long... I promise I will go back into obscerity after this.

Danny Furgeson

Cosmological Argument
We’ll begin with the cosmological argument. The name comes from the Greek word cosmos, which means ’world, universe.’

This is an argument for God based on the fact that the universe even exists at all. Have you ever wondered why the universe is here? Why is there any universe instead of absolutely nothing? Let’s think this through. Either the universe was always here (is eternal) or the universe came into being at some point. Very few people now believe that the universe is eternal. This has to do somewhat with the Big Bang theory, which claims that the universe came into being several billion years ago. So even unbelievers now think the universe is not eternal. So if it came into being, then we have two choices. It was uncaused or it was caused. There’s no reason to think that anything would just pop into existence for no reason, so it makes the most sense to believe that the universe was caused. If it was caused then we have three more choices. 1) It was self-caused. This doesn’t make any more sense that saying the universe was uncaused. How can something that doesn’t exist cause itself to exist? 2) It was caused by something that was caused by something that was caused by something, etc. In other words, an infinite regress of contingent causes. Again, this doesn’t really explain anything. There must be something at some time that started it all, a first cause. And that’s the third alternative and the one that makes the most sense. 3)The universe was caused by and eternal, non-contingent being.

This gives us very basic, but very important, information about God. Namely, that he is eternal and uncaused.


So science and logic work together in the cosmological argument to give the same message that we find in Genesis 1:1 – God created the world. Colossians 1:15-17 shows us that his work continues, "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together." Jesus works in the world now to sustain creation."

We can see how God’s special revelation and his general revelation teach us the same things.

Teleological Argument
Next we have the teleological argument. This comes from the Greek word teleos, which means ’end, purpose.’

This argument points out complexity, purpose and design in the universe in general and especially in life forms. Where there’s design there must be a designer.

One of the most popular forms of this argument is the Watchmaker analogy, first used by William Paley. It says that if you are walking in a field and you find a stone, you can assume that it was formed by natural processes. If you find a pocket watch, however, you can assume that it was made by an intelligent designer. You make this assumption because the watch exhibits intelligent design. It has a spring to give it motion, gears and wheels to transmit the motion, the gears are made of brass so they won’t rust, the spring is made of steel (which is flexible enough for springs) and the front cover is made of glass so you can see the face. It’s obvious that thought and purpose went into the watch. Trillions of years of natural processes couldn’t have created it. Its complexity, purpose and design point to an intelligent designer. Then Paley pointed to the universe and the life within it. It’s much bigger and more complex than a watch and it’s unlikely that natural processes and chance could produce such a complex and purposeful universe.

This same type of argument for God’s existence is made in Scripture, too.

Romans 1.18-20 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

God says that even people who have never heard his name or read his word should know some things about him just by looking at what he has made. They should recognize that someone intelligent created the world and even their bodies.

David said in Psalm 139.14, "I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made."

William Paley came up with the Watchmaker analogy in 1794. Since that time there have been many discoveries in astrophysics, microbiology, genetics, etc., that strengthen the argument. When DNA was discovered everyone was amazed at how much complex information there is stored inside every living cell.

Some people think this argument is disproved by the theory of evolution, which replaces intelligence with mere chance. It’s possible that dumb luck could produce all the order that we see in the universe. The question is, how likely is it? Which makes more sense? When people thought the universe was eternal, the odds for evolution weren’t that bad. Given an infinite amount of time, chance could produce a lot. But now that no one believes the universe is eternal, evolution and chance don’t provide a very good explanation for the order we see in the universe. On top of that, there’s still no reason to think that completely natural processes could ever create even the simplest life-forms from non-living materials.

Summarize: The teleological argument says that the universe displays complexity, purpose and design that could only come from an intelligent designer.

Moral Argument
This argument moves from the existence of an objective moral law to the existence of a moral Lawgiver.

1. Objective moral law requires a Moral Law Giver
2. Objective moral law exists.
3. A Moral Law Giver must exist.

Objective moral law means that people all over the earth and all throughout history have had basically the same ideas about what is right and wrong (good and evil). The objective part means that it’s not just an idea in our head or a social custom, but an actual fact. Almost everyone agrees that if objective moral laws exist then there must be a supernatural explanation for it. There’s nothing in biology, psychology, genetics or anywhere in nature that can explain why we would all share concepts about what is right and wrong. It has to be something supernatural. A supernatural law from a supernatural Lawgiver.

Since no one has come up with a decent challenge to the first premise, the only thing unbelievers can do to refute this argument is to deny the second premise. And that’s just what atheist philosophers have done from Nietzsche to Skinner. They’ve denied that there is any such thing as objective moral values. There is no right or wrong. Yet in the last couple of years, it’s been hard for anyone to try and convince people that there’s no such thing as good and evil. Since a group of men hijacked four airplanes and crashed them into buildings, killing thousands of innocent people, you just haven’t heard anyone trying to say that good and evil don’t really exist. Everyone knew that what happened that day was the result of the evil intentions of some very disturbed and manipulated people. We don’t just feel like it was wrong. We don’t think it’s wrong because morality just a human invention or an adaptation to aid our survival. We don’t believe it’s wrong just because that’s what society tells us. What happened that day was really, objectively evil. And the firefighters and police who died trying to save as many people as possible with no regard for their own safety, they really were doing something morally good. Good and evil are not just ideas humanity has dreamed up. If that day taught the world anything, I hope it taught us that.

If an unbeliever still refuses to believe that morals are real in the face of historical evidence, then it’s not difficult to show him that deep down, he himself believes they are real. I could go hear an atheist philosopher give a speech on why there is no such thing as right and wrong, but if I walk out into the parking lot and smash his windshield with a sledgehammer, what will he say when he sees it? He’ll say “That was wrong! You should pay for that!” Wouldn’t that make a good episode of Judge Judy?

As before, we can find this line of reasoning at work in the Bible, too. "Since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them. Romans 2:15"


Here’s an example from real life. I was exchanging some emails with an agnostic friend of mine and I was using a form of the moral argument to explain to him why I believe in God. Here’s what he said: “Any claim to objective morals leads to intolerance, injustice and tyranny.” What’s wrong with this statement? He makes the assumption that intolerance, injustice and tyranny are objectively wrong. If they are, then he does believe that objective morals exist. If they’re not objectively wrong, then why does he think they’re such bad things?

Have you ever heard this: “There’s too much suffering in the world for God to be real”? Many people have denied that God is real because of the cruelty, injustice and evil in the world. Ironically, when they do this, they’re making the claim that these things really are wrong, which can only be true if there is some supernatural source of moral values. That doesn’t mean that God created evil, but that he created us with a choice between good and evil, based on real moral laws. Since people have chosen evil, there are consequences. So one of the most common reasons given for not believing in God can be used as support for the Moral Argument. Do you see the opportunities here? If someone tells you they don’t believe because of how bad the world is, you can ask them why they think those things are bad. Find out where they get their notion of morality. You can show them that God is the only plausible source of objective moral values.

That’s the essence of the moral argument. Objective moral law requires a Lawgiver. Moral law exists, so there must be a supernatural source, who we know, of course, as God.

Conclusion

So let’s review what can be learned about God without even opening the Bible. The cosmological argument shows that God must be eternal and uncaused and very powerful if he created the entire universe. The teleological argument shows us that God is highly intelligent if he designed such a complicated and functional universe. It also shows us that he pays a lot of attention to details. Finally, the moral argument shows us that God is a moral being. He created morality and he himself is completely good. It also shows us that he wants us to be good.

And above all, these three arguments point to the fact that God exists, he is real. Knowing this makes us want to learn more about him, and to see if he has revealed himself more specifically at any point in history. It’s in the Bible where we find this special revelation. It’s in the Bible where we learn what the penalty is for not living within God’s moral law. And where we learn the only solution for that penalty, the death of God’s own son, which we receive through faith. Faith begins with the understanding that God exists, but then it grows into something more than abstract logic and philosophy. It becomes a relationship.

The same way you could argue the universe didn't pop out of thin air, anyone could argue that god did not, either. Everything has a beginning. Even if someone could live eternally, they have to enter existence to begin with.

That's a pretty big IF.
If you go by the bible, god can be loving and caring but if you piss him off he can be vengeful and strike you down with death. I wouldn't really call that "completely good"
The only thing here though is that all three arguments are baseless theories w/ no evidence to back them up. Definitely not a fact, even if someone would consider it to be a good or logical guess (which I personally don't). It's not a fact until you can prove it.


Even if god did exist, absolutely no basis that anything in the bible is true in it's regards. For all we know it could be some other religion that is correct.

I respect your opinion Tiger. Simply playing devil's advocate to what appears to be the popular belief in this thread. Errr... God's advocate xD. Enjoy the debate! It's been around for a long time lol.

Yea, I mean no disrespect with my posts, either. In the end it comes down to if you believe or not. Even if I were a believer, I'd still be lost on exactly what there is to believe.

Also, I agree, enjoyable debate.

I love telephone :)

You want everything after = and before & to go with your youtube tags.

"There's no reason to think that anything would pop into existence for no reason..."

Actually, that's the fundamental rule governing quantum mechanics. Without it, the rules of physics would break down.

Nothingness is not nothingness. A true vacuum is full of billions of particles and antiparticles springing from nothing and then instantly annihilating each other. They obey conservation laws, but something always does come from nothing.

This can be scientifically proven via experimentation, by demonstration of the vacuum polarization tensor. It's also the main reason, via Hawking Radiation, that any tiny black holes created from the LHC will evaporate before they have a chance to do anything bad.

Trying to base theological arguments on ignorance of physical laws is quite dangerous.

I'm back, kiddies, and this time with a positive attitude! :DAside from Samuraiking's trolling, Trelan, I should point out that many atheists like myself actually were religious for a long time. I actually went to church throughout my childhood and didn't become an actual atheist until I was about 19 (though I stopped being a Christian earlier than that). The experiences I had at that time felt quite real, but circumstances and evidence and my own need to question and understand and study made it all fall apart. If there is a god and he believes in me, well, great, that makes two of us. :)
But anyway, my point is that quite a few of us were not raised to be atheists, we are not ignorant of the concept of faith or even of the feelings of wonder that go along with it. Just food for thought. Anyway...
^This.

There's been some good debate too, however, which is nice, but I'm going to argue that religion itself is generally not dangerous.

At its most basic, religion is simply the belief in a higher power that is concerned with the state of things on our plane of existence. To a certain extent, this leads to people respecting the idea that all of us are "god's children," and that we are all equal. It encourages us to consider morality outside of consequences for only ourselves and urges us to try to be good. In the old days, concerns about hell were tempered with the idea of trying to be moral not out of fear, but out of a genuine desire to enact peace and good will onto the earth. None of these are particularly harmful ideas.

Now don't get me wrong, none of this changes the fact that I have no reason to believe in god. It also does not change the fact that people do some profoundly stupid things in the name of their god, and none of these should be tolerated or excused.

What I am saying is that the existence of god or not is a moot point compared to the presence or absense of skepticism. A skeptic can be religious, and I don't think that's a contradiction... everyone has little superstitions and cultural biases that they think of as "true" (I, for example, tend to think of certain things as "lucky," even though I rationally know that cannot be the case). And an atheist can still be closed-minded. In either case, I would urge anyone to think of logical justifications for their actions, especially when such actions have a direct impact on the peace, livelihoodd, and happiness of others.

So maybe Linkk is right that religion hasn't earned any respect, but every person deserves it. Calling every relgious person stupid or ignorant is counter-productive and possibly prejudiced. I may not agree with Anye's, Mabrook's, or Trelan's beliefs, but I can still respect them and value their ideas on morality, regardless of the basis of those ideas.

Peace. :)

What about true nothingness? That is, the absence of absence. 'Nothingness' as we know it may contain 'something'. Even though particles appear to come from no where, it may be the case that they actually come from 'somewhere'.

Sounds close to my story, I lost Faith alittle earlier than 19 and have since returned at around age 28. Fact is I didn't understand what was being preach to me by a man 50-60 years older than me. I am able to relate with my current church and it's message easily. I would never troll, or atleast I hope I haven't done anything that would constitute me being called a troll.

Nope no worries. Just gave your opinion rly. Trolling is much different, lol.

I'm in the same position. I was a Christian for a long time, always believed every word. At around 22 (I'm 24 now) I started looking closer and realized it wasn't for me. I'm not atheist now, I'm just agnostic. It's not that I haven't experienced the faith that Christians have, it's just that I've experienced it and could not keep with it.

About the same story here, but I prefer to call myself non religious.

'Born' in bold to highlight that the scripture he used refutes his claim on god being uncaused. But to basically parrot what Tiger sai: What's presented is the Chicken and the Egg argument, it's a logic loop and is proof of nothing.







I think Mr. Ferguson doesn't have a clear grasp on the size of the universe. He downplays that random chance could create life, based on the general theory that the universe isn't eternal. Granted the chance for life to happen based on what we know it to be (excluding the chance that life can exist in ways we have no knowledge of) is incredibly slim, the universe works with incalculable numbers. There are 8 planets surrounding our star, there are 200 billion stars in our galaxy, there are 30 billion trillion (actual number) stars in the universe that we can see based on our fallible human technology. I would go a step further and say even if life only can exist in the way that we know it, not only is life basically guaranteed, but that to think we're the only occurrence is a supreme example of naivete.


His argument here is just asinine, can you establish a list of objective moral laws? Of course you can, there's basic concepts to any creature that can reason that there are things that are wrong, and it doesn't need a supernatural explanation. If I were to hit you, it would hurt, if I were to hit a japanese person, it would hurt them. If I were to hit a roman 2000 years ago, it would hurt them. If I were to hit a dog, it would hurt the dog, see where I'm going with this, there's nothing supernatural about people coming together and saying, such and such action hurts, people shouldn't do it, let's make a law to try and prevent them from doing it.



I will not say that good an evil do not exist, but good and evil are subjective terms, they depend almost completely upon your position. You will find very few people who will honestly say that they are themselves, evil. I completely agree that events of September 11th were evil, and I can also see how people would say that the events at Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Dresden were evil, but they're generally not considered as such because we were the ones who perpetrated them. (This is not to equate any of the actions only to point out that mass amounts of civilians were murdered in each instance, and killing an unarmed non-combatant is one of those objective moral laws.)