Total Posts:216|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Religion is Now Useless

Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2012 11:12:29 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Dismissing all of this petty nonsense about the malevolent concepts that religion preaches to be real- which clearly any rational person who bases their knowledge of evidence automatically dismisses- it begs the question of why did religion come to use in the first place?

The one major reason is that people were in ultimate oblivion about the natural world and its processes. Before Ancient Greece, the study of the natural world was definitely not a prevalent field and individuals neither had the time nor resources to attempt these endeavours. Instead of study what was there, they merely assumed their lack of knowledge to be concrete and devised Beings, which were responsible for the effective actions of these processes. A great example from Nordic Mythology is the creation of the God Thor, who was responsible for lightning. In contrast, the monotheistic religions created one single entity- probably because it takes less time to say "Heil Yahweh" instead of "Heil Aegir, Aesir, Alaisiagae, Alako, Alcis, Alfar, Alfadir, Alfrodul, Alp, Alruna, etc..."

The other main reason is the fear of death and the desire for there to be something beyond it. If anything, this says more about the character of the people who are religious, instead of the actual religion. The individuals who are afraid that we are just a temporary bag of chemicals with no other destiny than the sheer sceptre of death are simply cowardly. Everybody dies; it's irrational to believe in a evidence-less being who if you don't devote your whole life to (and hence waste your only life on) will punish you for eternity.

Ultimately, humanity has passed the main reasons for why religion was invented in the first place. We have discovered nearly all the natural processes and within at least a century, we will have a clear explanation of the explanation of the universe. The time for childish fairytales about how women were invented from Adam's ribs have passed. The fear of death is a valid conclusion- but the process forces you to be a servant of an imaginary creature to whom you dedicate your only life to. It's fine to be afraid of death, but makes sure that you don't spend your entire life tantamount to being afraid. Your move, authoritarian malevolent fascist theists.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2012 11:15:26 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
... or, God actually exists.

What's the point of presenting a 'Religion is useless' argument that assumes the axiom 'God doesn't exist'?
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2012 11:16:38 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/2/2012 11:15:26 AM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
... or, God actually exists.

What's the point of presenting a 'Religion is useless' argument that assumes the axiom 'God doesn't exist'?

It's irrational and there is no evidence for it. Thanks, but I'd like to discuss things which actually have empirical evidence going for them- instead of blind faith.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2012 11:26:58 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/2/2012 11:16:38 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/2/2012 11:15:26 AM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
... or, God actually exists.

What's the point of presenting a 'Religion is useless' argument that assumes the axiom 'God doesn't exist'?

It's irrational and there is no evidence for it. Thanks, but I'd like to discuss things which actually have empirical evidence going for them- instead of blind faith.

Is it irrational if someone has personal experience that supports it?
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2012 11:31:47 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/2/2012 11:15:26 AM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
What's the point of presenting a 'Religion is useless' argument that assumes the axiom 'God doesn't exist'?
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2012 11:35:10 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/2/2012 11:26:58 AM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 8/2/2012 11:16:38 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/2/2012 11:15:26 AM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
... or, God actually exists.

What's the point of presenting a 'Religion is useless' argument that assumes the axiom 'God doesn't exist'?

It's irrational and there is no evidence for it. Thanks, but I'd like to discuss things which actually have empirical evidence going for them- instead of blind faith.

Is it irrational if someone has personal experience that supports it?

That means nothing. If you were born in India, you would believe in Hinduism through personal experience. If you were born in the Middle East, you would believe in Allah through personal experience. These so called personal experiences are just delusions of the brains (hallucinations) that are influenced by the culture. Also, if you can't prove that the experience existed in an outside world, then it is irrational.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2012 11:35:45 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/2/2012 11:31:47 AM, stubs wrote:
At 8/2/2012 11:15:26 AM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
What's the point of presenting a 'Religion is useless' argument that assumes the axiom 'God doesn't exist'?

What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
baggins
Posts: 855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2012 11:36:45 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/2/2012 11:16:38 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/2/2012 11:15:26 AM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
... or, God actually exists.

What's the point of presenting a 'Religion is useless' argument that assumes the axiom 'God doesn't exist'?

It's irrational and there is no evidence for it. Thanks, but I'd like to discuss things which actually have empirical evidence going for them- instead of blind faith.

If God was subject to empirical evidence, what kind of God would be that! Demanding empirical evidence for God is equivalent to a presumption 'God does not exist'.
The Holy Quran 29:19-20

See they not how Allah originates creation, then repeats it: truly that is easy for Allah.

Say: "Travel through the earth and see how Allah did originate creation; so will Allah produce a later creation: for Allah has power over all things.
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2012 11:39:27 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/2/2012 11:35:45 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/2/2012 11:31:47 AM, stubs wrote:
At 8/2/2012 11:15:26 AM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
What's the point of presenting a 'Religion is useless' argument that assumes the axiom 'God doesn't exist'?

What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Oh whats up Christopher Hitchens
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2012 11:45:23 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/2/2012 11:36:45 AM, baggins wrote:
At 8/2/2012 11:16:38 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/2/2012 11:15:26 AM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
... or, God actually exists.

What's the point of presenting a 'Religion is useless' argument that assumes the axiom 'God doesn't exist'?

It's irrational and there is no evidence for it. Thanks, but I'd like to discuss things which actually have empirical evidence going for them- instead of blind faith.

If God was subject to empirical evidence, what kind of God would be that! Demanding empirical evidence for God is equivalent to a presumption 'God does not exist'.

That's simply a cop-out. If you don't believe that god can be proven by anything of this world, then you are immune to all criticism. As a person who believes in logic and rationality, that for which there is no evidence likely does not exist. I assume you believe in logic and evidence too?
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Axiom
Posts: 241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2012 11:47:59 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/2/2012 11:45:23 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/2/2012 11:36:45 AM, baggins wrote:
At 8/2/2012 11:16:38 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/2/2012 11:15:26 AM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
... or, God actually exists.

What's the point of presenting a 'Religion is useless' argument that assumes the axiom 'God doesn't exist'?

It's irrational and there is no evidence for it. Thanks, but I'd like to discuss things which actually have empirical evidence going for them- instead of blind faith.

If God was subject to empirical evidence, what kind of God would be that! Demanding empirical evidence for God is equivalent to a presumption 'God does not exist'.

That's simply a cop-out. If you don't believe that god can be proven by anything of this world, then you are immune to all criticism. As a person who believes in logic and rationality, that for which there is no evidence likely does not exist. I assume you believe in logic and evidence too?

Religion has a great many uses. Off the top of my head: Charity, community, providing a moral code. And besides, who assumes that religion has to be one that invokes 'God?' Taoism... Voodoo... Technically, secular humanists and postmodernists also adhere to a set of beliefs.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2012 11:53:18 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/2/2012 11:47:59 AM, Axiom wrote:
At 8/2/2012 11:45:23 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/2/2012 11:36:45 AM, baggins wrote:
At 8/2/2012 11:16:38 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/2/2012 11:15:26 AM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
... or, God actually exists.

What's the point of presenting a 'Religion is useless' argument that assumes the axiom 'God doesn't exist'?

It's irrational and there is no evidence for it. Thanks, but I'd like to discuss things which actually have empirical evidence going for them- instead of blind faith.

If God was subject to empirical evidence, what kind of God would be that! Demanding empirical evidence for God is equivalent to a presumption 'God does not exist'.

That's simply a cop-out. If you don't believe that god can be proven by anything of this world, then you are immune to all criticism. As a person who believes in logic and rationality, that for which there is no evidence likely does not exist. I assume you believe in logic and evidence too?

Religion has a great many uses. Off the top of my head: Charity, community, providing a moral code.

Neither of them is a strictly religious-only endeavour. The providing a moral code is nonsense. If you derive your morals from the holy books, then you would be viewed as a barbaric and medieval psychopath. If by your logic a single uniting thing provides community, then that thing can be anything. The charity part as religious only is nonsense.

And besides, who assumes that religion has to be one that invokes 'God?' Taoism... Voodoo... Technically, secular humanists and postmodernists also adhere to a set of beliefs.

The traditional definition of religion invokes a God:

The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
baggins
Posts: 855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2012 11:54:55 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/2/2012 11:45:23 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/2/2012 11:36:45 AM, baggins wrote:
At 8/2/2012 11:16:38 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/2/2012 11:15:26 AM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
... or, God actually exists.

What's the point of presenting a 'Religion is useless' argument that assumes the axiom 'God doesn't exist'?

It's irrational and there is no evidence for it. Thanks, but I'd like to discuss things which actually have empirical evidence going for them- instead of blind faith.

If God was subject to empirical evidence, what kind of God would be that! Demanding empirical evidence for God is equivalent to a presumption 'God does not exist'.

That's simply a cop-out. If you don't believe that god can be proven by anything of this world, then you are immune to all criticism. As a person who believes in logic and rationality, that for which there is no evidence likely does not exist. I assume you believe in logic and evidence too?

If empiricists think that it can be applied in every field, then they are completely illogical.

Empirical evidence means evidence which can be touched and seen and observed. It is relevant in many (but not all) branches of science. There are lots of trivially true things which cannot be proved by empirical evidence. When you demand empirical evidence for God it makes no sense at all. You are talking about the creator of our sensory perceptions.

Existence of God is obvious from simple rational arguments.
The Holy Quran 29:19-20

See they not how Allah originates creation, then repeats it: truly that is easy for Allah.

Say: "Travel through the earth and see how Allah did originate creation; so will Allah produce a later creation: for Allah has power over all things.
inferno
Posts: 10,628
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2012 11:56:38 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/2/2012 11:54:55 AM, baggins wrote:
At 8/2/2012 11:45:23 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/2/2012 11:36:45 AM, baggins wrote:
At 8/2/2012 11:16:38 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/2/2012 11:15:26 AM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
... or, God actually exists.

What's the point of presenting a 'Religion is useless' argument that assumes the axiom 'God doesn't exist'?

It's irrational and there is no evidence for it. Thanks, but I'd like to discuss things which actually have empirical evidence going for them- instead of blind faith.

If God was subject to empirical evidence, what kind of God would be that! Demanding empirical evidence for God is equivalent to a presumption 'God does not exist'.

That's simply a cop-out. If you don't believe that god can be proven by anything of this world, then you are immune to all criticism. As a person who believes in logic and rationality, that for which there is no evidence likely does not exist. I assume you believe in logic and evidence too?

If empiricists think that it can be applied in every field, then they are completely illogical.

Empirical evidence means evidence which can be touched and seen and observed. It is relevant in many (but not all) branches of science. There are lots of trivially true things which cannot be proved by empirical evidence. When you demand empirical evidence for God it makes no sense at all. You are talking about the creator of our sensory perceptions.

Existence of God is obvious from simple rational arguments.

Religion in itself has no bearing or affect on ones personal relationship with Christ.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2012 11:59:13 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/2/2012 11:54:55 AM, baggins wrote:
At 8/2/2012 11:45:23 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/2/2012 11:36:45 AM, baggins wrote:
At 8/2/2012 11:16:38 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/2/2012 11:15:26 AM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
... or, God actually exists.

What's the point of presenting a 'Religion is useless' argument that assumes the axiom 'God doesn't exist'?

It's irrational and there is no evidence for it. Thanks, but I'd like to discuss things which actually have empirical evidence going for them- instead of blind faith.

If God was subject to empirical evidence, what kind of God would be that! Demanding empirical evidence for God is equivalent to a presumption 'God does not exist'.

That's simply a cop-out. If you don't believe that god can be proven by anything of this world, then you are immune to all criticism. As a person who believes in logic and rationality, that for which there is no evidence likely does not exist. I assume you believe in logic and evidence too?

If empiricists think that it can be applied in every field, then they are completely illogical.

Not at all. Recognizing evidence does not limit yourself to empiricism.

Empirical evidence means evidence which can be touched and seen and observed.

It is evidence that is derived through exact observation and experiment.

It is relevant in many (but not all) branches of science. There are lots of trivially true things which cannot be proved by empirical evidence.

Such as?

When you demand empirical evidence for God it makes no sense at all.

Believing in a god requires faith, which is completely irrational and cannot be proven to be true whether through rationalist or empiricist means.

You are talking about the creator of our sensory perceptions.

You are presupposing the existence of god without justifying it.

Existence of God is obvious from simple rational arguments.

Come at me bro.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2012 12:01:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/2/2012 11:35:45 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/2/2012 11:31:47 AM, stubs wrote:
At 8/2/2012 11:15:26 AM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
What's the point of presenting a 'Religion is useless' argument that assumes the axiom 'God doesn't exist'?

What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Can I see the evidence for that claim?
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2012 12:04:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/2/2012 12:01:19 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 8/2/2012 11:35:45 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/2/2012 11:31:47 AM, stubs wrote:
At 8/2/2012 11:15:26 AM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
What's the point of presenting a 'Religion is useless' argument that assumes the axiom 'God doesn't exist'?

What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Can I see the evidence for that claim?

Funny ad infinitum. That's an axiom.

Regardless, the principle makes sense. If something has no evidence backing it up, then there is no reason that I should accept it or acknowledge it.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
inferno
Posts: 10,628
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2012 12:05:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/2/2012 12:04:02 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/2/2012 12:01:19 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 8/2/2012 11:35:45 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/2/2012 11:31:47 AM, stubs wrote:
At 8/2/2012 11:15:26 AM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
What's the point of presenting a 'Religion is useless' argument that assumes the axiom 'God doesn't exist'?

What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Can I see the evidence for that claim?

Funny ad infinitum. That's an axiom.

Regardless, the principle makes sense. If something has no evidence backing it up, then there is no reason that I should accept it or acknowledge it.

The evidence matters to those who hold a higher position of authority than you.
Another logic you Atheists seemed to not understand.
Your stance and ideology is irrelevent and uninfluential. I think that in itself is
self-explanatory.
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2012 12:08:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/2/2012 12:04:02 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/2/2012 12:01:19 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 8/2/2012 11:35:45 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/2/2012 11:31:47 AM, stubs wrote:
At 8/2/2012 11:15:26 AM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
What's the point of presenting a 'Religion is useless' argument that assumes the axiom 'God doesn't exist'?

What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Can I see the evidence for that claim?

Funny ad infinitum. That's an axiom.

Regardless, the principle makes sense. If something has no evidence backing it up, then there is no reason that I should accept it or acknowledge it.

I love Hitchens as much as the next guy but calling it an axiom doesn't do the statement any favors. The statement covers assertions in general. So great, you've thrown in with that statement - and I'd probably throw in with something similiar - but at least recognize the internal inconsistency.
caveat
Posts: 2,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2012 12:10:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/2/2012 11:54:55 AM, baggins wrote:
If empiricists think that it can be applied in every field, then they are completely illogical.

lol. The irony of that sentence is unmatched.

Empirical evidence means evidence which can be touched and seen and observed. It is relevant in many (but not all) branches of science. There are lots of trivially true things which cannot be proved by empirical evidence.

*grabs popcorn* I can't wait to hear these.

When you demand empirical evidence for God it makes no sense at all. You are talking about the creator of our sensory perceptions.

Existence of God is obvious from simple rational arguments.

Still waiting.
There is an art, it says, or rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss. " Clearly, it is this second part, the missing, which presents the difficulties.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2012 12:14:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/2/2012 12:08:26 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 8/2/2012 12:04:02 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/2/2012 12:01:19 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 8/2/2012 11:35:45 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/2/2012 11:31:47 AM, stubs wrote:
At 8/2/2012 11:15:26 AM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
What's the point of presenting a 'Religion is useless' argument that assumes the axiom 'God doesn't exist'?

What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Can I see the evidence for that claim?

Funny ad infinitum. That's an axiom.

Regardless, the principle makes sense. If something has no evidence backing it up, then there is no reason that I should accept it or acknowledge it.

I love Hitchens as much as the next guy but calling it an axiom doesn't do the statement any favors. The statement covers assertions in general. So great, you've thrown in with that statement - and I'd probably throw in with something similiar - but at least recognize the internal inconsistency.

Meh. If it's an axiom then it can't have any internal inconsistencies (?). Regardless: Noted.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2012 12:16:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/2/2012 11:35:10 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/2/2012 11:26:58 AM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 8/2/2012 11:16:38 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/2/2012 11:15:26 AM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
... or, God actually exists.

What's the point of presenting a 'Religion is useless' argument that assumes the axiom 'God doesn't exist'?

It's irrational and there is no evidence for it. Thanks, but I'd like to discuss things which actually have empirical evidence going for them- instead of blind faith.

Is it irrational if someone has personal experience that supports it?

That means nothing. If you were born in India, you would believe in Hinduism through personal experience. If you were born in the Middle East, you would believe in Allah through personal experience. These so called personal experiences are just delusions of the brains (hallucinations) that are influenced by the culture. Also, if you can't prove that the experience existed in an outside world, then it is irrational.

Well, that's weird...

Because I believe differently than I was raised... because of personal experience!

I guess it was all just hallucinations. Pretty cool though, because my hallucinations are psychic!
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2012 12:18:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/2/2012 11:45:23 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/2/2012 11:36:45 AM, baggins wrote:
At 8/2/2012 11:16:38 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/2/2012 11:15:26 AM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
... or, God actually exists.

What's the point of presenting a 'Religion is useless' argument that assumes the axiom 'God doesn't exist'?

It's irrational and there is no evidence for it. Thanks, but I'd like to discuss things which actually have empirical evidence going for them- instead of blind faith.

If God was subject to empirical evidence, what kind of God would be that! Demanding empirical evidence for God is equivalent to a presumption 'God does not exist'.

That's simply a cop-out. If you don't believe that god can be proven by anything of this world, then you are immune to all criticism. As a person who believes in logic and rationality, that for which there is no evidence likely does not exist. I assume you believe in logic and evidence too?

LK, there is a difference between stating belief and trying to objectively prove the existence of God. I don't try to objectively prove it, because there is no empirical evidence. I believe it, because of subjective evidence.

Trying to argue across the objective/subjective barrier is pointless, and causes problems where there don't need to be any.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2012 12:20:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/2/2012 12:18:25 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 8/2/2012 11:45:23 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/2/2012 11:36:45 AM, baggins wrote:
At 8/2/2012 11:16:38 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/2/2012 11:15:26 AM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
... or, God actually exists.

What's the point of presenting a 'Religion is useless' argument that assumes the axiom 'God doesn't exist'?

It's irrational and there is no evidence for it. Thanks, but I'd like to discuss things which actually have empirical evidence going for them- instead of blind faith.

If God was subject to empirical evidence, what kind of God would be that! Demanding empirical evidence for God is equivalent to a presumption 'God does not exist'.

That's simply a cop-out. If you don't believe that god can be proven by anything of this world, then you are immune to all criticism. As a person who believes in logic and rationality, that for which there is no evidence likely does not exist. I assume you believe in logic and evidence too?

LK, there is a difference between stating belief and trying to objectively prove the existence of God. I don't try to objectively prove it, because there is no empirical evidence. I believe it, because of subjective evidence.

Then your religion holds no truth and therefore should not be regarded as either being implemented in policies or shoved down other people's throats.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2012 12:21:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
You overestimate humanity. We remain largely scientifically uninformed, which fuels our continued belief in the supernatural, and we maintain our debilitating fear of death. We're still in our intellectual infancy and ignorance, tradition, and superstition aren't so easy to outgrow.
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
inferno
Posts: 10,628
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2012 12:22:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/2/2012 12:21:34 PM, Maikuru wrote:
You overestimate humanity. We remain largely scientifically uninformed, which fuels our continued belief in the supernatural, and we maintain our debilitating fear of death. We're still in our intellectual infancy and ignorance, tradition, and superstition aren't so easy to outgrow.

Realty defies all of the things you just named. It appears that the Atheists are sold to the delusions of things written only.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2012 12:24:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/2/2012 12:22:38 PM, inferno wrote:
At 8/2/2012 12:21:34 PM, Maikuru wrote:
You overestimate humanity. We remain largely scientifically uninformed, which fuels our continued belief in the supernatural, and we maintain our debilitating fear of death. We're still in our intellectual infancy and ignorance, tradition, and superstition aren't so easy to outgrow.

Realty defies all of the things you just named. It appears that the Atheists are sold to the delusions of things written only.

Atheists are sold to the delusions of things which can be objectively proven, replicated, witnesses, and recorded. I know...it's horrible.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
OllerupMand
Posts: 375
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2012 12:29:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/2/2012 11:35:45 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/2/2012 11:31:47 AM, stubs wrote:
At 8/2/2012 11:15:26 AM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
What's the point of presenting a 'Religion is useless' argument that assumes the axiom 'God doesn't exist'?

What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

So we could say the same about rationality?
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2012 12:30:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/2/2012 12:20:39 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/2/2012 12:18:25 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 8/2/2012 11:45:23 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/2/2012 11:36:45 AM, baggins wrote:
At 8/2/2012 11:16:38 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/2/2012 11:15:26 AM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
... or, God actually exists.

What's the point of presenting a 'Religion is useless' argument that assumes the axiom 'God doesn't exist'?

It's irrational and there is no evidence for it. Thanks, but I'd like to discuss things which actually have empirical evidence going for them- instead of blind faith.

If God was subject to empirical evidence, what kind of God would be that! Demanding empirical evidence for God is equivalent to a presumption 'God does not exist'.

That's simply a cop-out. If you don't believe that god can be proven by anything of this world, then you are immune to all criticism. As a person who believes in logic and rationality, that for which there is no evidence likely does not exist. I assume you believe in logic and evidence too?

LK, there is a difference between stating belief and trying to objectively prove the existence of God. I don't try to objectively prove it, because there is no empirical evidence. I believe it, because of subjective evidence.

Then your religion holds no truth and therefore should not be regarded as either being implemented in policies or shoved down other people's throats.

Have I ever presented my 'religion' as being implemented in policies or shoved down other people's throats?

Also, just because you don't have empirical evidence of something doesn't mean it isn't true. By that argument, nothing is true until it is discovered scientifically that it is true. Last time I checked, science didn't define reality.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13