Total Posts:24|Showing Posts:1-24
Jump to topic:

The main argument against following religion.

AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2013 1:30:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The main arguments against following religion, for me, aren't that a transcendent force or consciousness are definitely not real, but that I highly doubt that they are real, and even if they are real , it's pure speculation at best, to have any idea about the nature of such transcendent things. They may or may not be real, but the rituals and beliefs about such things are often very poorly founded, far more poorly founded than the concepts of the possibilities of such things.

This is a very strong argument for secularism, if not for not following a religion.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
Fruitytree
Posts: 2,176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2013 3:10:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
what if you are a theist, or monotheist, would you still reject religion ? if you accepted the evidence presented by theists to be sound, which is to say you understand there is a God, what would you then do about it ?
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2013 3:22:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/9/2013 3:10:18 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
what if you are a theist, or monotheist, would you still reject religion ? if you accepted the evidence presented by theists to be sound, which is to say you understand there is a God, what would you then do about it ?

I guess I'd be a deist, whether it was one deity or more. Saying there is a "God" is different from saying there is a god. What I argued above explicitly argued against believing in a specific god such as "God". I would do nothing, as I would probably know very little about the nature of such deities.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
Fruitytree
Posts: 2,176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2013 3:42:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/9/2013 3:22:07 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 6/9/2013 3:10:18 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
what if you are a theist, or monotheist, would you still reject religion ? if you accepted the evidence presented by theists to be sound, which is to say you understand there is a God, what would you then do about it ?

I guess I'd be a deist, whether it was one deity or more. Saying there is a "God" is different from saying there is a god. What I argued above explicitly argued against believing in a specific god such as "God". I would do nothing, as I would probably know very little about the nature of such deities.

Once you KNOW there is a creator, you'll just stop there ?! you wouldn't want to KNOW who he is , how can you know you wouldn't find out trough religions ?
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2013 4:04:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/9/2013 3:42:23 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
At 6/9/2013 3:22:07 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 6/9/2013 3:10:18 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
what if you are a theist, or monotheist, would you still reject religion ? if you accepted the evidence presented by theists to be sound, which is to say you understand there is a God, what would you then do about it ?

I guess I'd be a deist, whether it was one deity or more. Saying there is a "God" is different from saying there is a god. What I argued above explicitly argued against believing in a specific god such as "God". I would do nothing, as I would probably know very little about the nature of such deities.

Once you KNOW there is a creator, you'll just stop there ?! you wouldn't want to KNOW who he is , how can you know you wouldn't find out trough religions ?

It wouldn't necessarily be a creator. The universe could have come about naturally, or supernaturally, without a god or gods, and there could still be a god or gods. Or a god could have created the universe, and there could be others that didn't, which also exist. I wouldn't just "stop", but I wouldn't create a religion, either. The point is, I'd have to find out through reason and observation, not revelation or authority.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
Fruitytree
Posts: 2,176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2013 4:43:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/9/2013 4:04:12 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 6/9/2013 3:42:23 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
At 6/9/2013 3:22:07 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 6/9/2013 3:10:18 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
what if you are a theist, or monotheist, would you still reject religion ? if you accepted the evidence presented by theists to be sound, which is to say you understand there is a God, what would you then do about it ?

I guess I'd be a deist, whether it was one deity or more. Saying there is a "God" is different from saying there is a god. What I argued above explicitly argued against believing in a specific god such as "God". I would do nothing, as I would probably know very little about the nature of such deities.

Once you KNOW there is a creator, you'll just stop there ?! you wouldn't want to KNOW who he is , how can you know you wouldn't find out trough religions ?

It wouldn't necessarily be a creator. The universe could have come about naturally, or supernaturally, without a god or gods, and there could still be a god or gods. Or a god could have created the universe, and there could be others that didn't, which also exist. I wouldn't just "stop", but I wouldn't create a religion, either. The point is, I'd have to find out through reason and observation, not revelation or authority.

Ok, I said creator, cause then he has authority, if a "God" doesn't create but has supernatural power well he doesn't have real authority! and if there is the creator, and sub-gods, then what can those sub-gods do except what the creator allows them! but still you may not find any concluding information if you do not investigate revelations, once you're a deist of course.

It would be ridiculous to try to find out something that cannot be guessed and that could be written already right under your bunny nose.
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2013 4:53:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/9/2013 4:43:23 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
At 6/9/2013 4:04:12 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 6/9/2013 3:42:23 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
At 6/9/2013 3:22:07 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 6/9/2013 3:10:18 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
what if you are a theist, or monotheist, would you still reject religion ? if you accepted the evidence presented by theists to be sound, which is to say you understand there is a God, what would you then do about it ?

I guess I'd be a deist, whether it was one deity or more. Saying there is a "God" is different from saying there is a god. What I argued above explicitly argued against believing in a specific god such as "God". I would do nothing, as I would probably know very little about the nature of such deities.

Once you KNOW there is a creator, you'll just stop there ?! you wouldn't want to KNOW who he is , how can you know you wouldn't find out trough religions ?

It wouldn't necessarily be a creator. The universe could have come about naturally, or supernaturally, without a god or gods, and there could still be a god or gods. Or a god could have created the universe, and there could be others that didn't, which also exist. I wouldn't just "stop", but I wouldn't create a religion, either. The point is, I'd have to find out through reason and observation, not revelation or authority.

Ok, I said creator, cause then he has authority,

Maybe that's intrinsic for you, but not for me.

if a "God" doesn't create but has supernatural power well he doesn't have real authority!

What is "real" authority? And why do you need to be a creator to have it?

and if there is the creator, and sub-gods, then what can those sub-gods do except what the creator allows them!

The creator may not have created them. If the creator did, that doesn't mean that it has full control over them. If we created a super-powered robot, and gave it a will, would it be impossible for it to destroy us? I doubt it. A robot army could kill us all, and we could have created every single one of them. They can do more than what we allow them to.

but still you may not find any concluding information if you do not investigate revelations, once you're a deist of course.

"revelations". They're man's word, to me, unless they can be shown through reason or observation otherwise. That would be a hard task. Even if they aren't man's word, that doesn't mean they are a deity's word.


It would be ridiculous to try to find out something that cannot be guessed and that could be written already right under your bunny nose.

Read Harry Potter.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
joel.burgers
Posts: 50
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2013 6:05:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/9/2013 1:30:40 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
The main arguments against following religion, for me, aren't that a transcendent force or consciousness are definitely not real, but that I highly doubt that they are real,

This is not an argument against religion. This is your opinion. As a matter of curiosity, what would you take as evidence for a deity?

and even if they are real , it's pure speculation at best, to have any idea about the nature of such transcendent things.

This is somewhat true. But what do you even mean by 'transcendant'? Surely the concept itself entails that we won't fully understand everything about it.

They may or may not be real, but the rituals and beliefs about such things are often very poorly founded, far more poorly founded than the concepts of the possibilities of such things.

Again your opinion. What do you mean by 'poorly founded'? If you mean bread and wine actually becoming body and blood then I'm kind of with you. But there are other approaches to ritual and dogma. Such as the esoteric traditions which look at these 'unfounded rituals' as crude attempts to link up with the transcendant. They are not meant to be the real thing, only something to get us into the motions. Sort of like spiritual gym training. This might seem ambiguous, but this is only because you have to investigate it for yourself.

This is a very strong argument for secularism, if not for not following a religion.

I'm sorry but you haven't made a single argument in favour of secularism. Besides, western secularism grew up out of Christianity. The first secular humanists were Christians (John Calvin called himself a humanist). So there doesn't have to be this conflict. But I'm sure this hasn't convinced you.
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2013 6:19:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/9/2013 6:05:49 PM, joel.burgers wrote:
At 6/9/2013 1:30:40 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
The main arguments against following religion, for me, aren't that a transcendent force or consciousness are definitely not real, but that I highly doubt that they are real,

This is not an argument against religion. This is your opinion. As a matter of curiosity, what would you take as evidence for a deity?

It was including the "and" bit after, this and that, not this or that.

and even if they are real , it's pure speculation at best, to have any idea about the nature of such transcendent things.

This is somewhat true. But what do you even mean by 'transcendant'? Surely the concept itself entails that we won't fully understand everything about it.

Maybe supernatural. We may be able to fully understand everything about it somehow, but probably not.


They may or may not be real, but the rituals and beliefs about such things are often very poorly founded, far more poorly founded than the concepts of the possibilities of such things.

Again your opinion. What do you mean by 'poorly founded'?

They are based on the nature of the transcendence (being or force) being known.

If you mean bread and wine actually becoming body and blood then I'm kind of with you. But there are other approaches to ritual and dogma. Such as the esoteric traditions which look at these 'unfounded rituals' as crude attempts to link up with the transcendant. They are not meant to be the real thing, only something to get us into the motions. Sort of like spiritual gym training. This might seem ambiguous, but this is only because you have to investigate it for yourself.

They claim that the rituals have something to do with a higher power. Do they?


This is a very strong argument for secularism, if not for not following a religion.

I'm sorry but you haven't made a single argument in favour of secularism. Besides, western secularism grew up out of Christianity. The first secular humanists were Christians (John Calvin called himself a humanist). So there doesn't have to be this conflict. But I'm sure this hasn't convinced you.

The fact that we don't even know if any higher powers exist, and if we did, we probably would know nothing about the nature of them, is a strong argument for secularism. How isn't it? What reasonable reason do we have to use religion with our government? Even if certain rituals may have certain (probably stress revealing) benefits, that doesn't mean we should use them to make laws.

You can be religious and secular, but that doesn't mean my argument hasn't supported secularism.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
joel.burgers
Posts: 50
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2013 6:47:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/9/2013 6:19:02 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:

It was including the "and" bit after, this and that, not this or that.

The whole paragraph is your opinion. And you haven't answered my question. What would you accept as evidence for a deity?

Maybe supernatural. We may be able to fully understand everything about it somehow, but probably not.

I don't understand your point. We don't understand everything about anything, why would we about this?

They are based on the nature of the transcendence (being or force) being known.

No they are based on exploring the transcendent.


If you mean bread and wine actually becoming body and blood then I'm kind of with you. But there are other approaches to ritual and dogma. Such as the esoteric traditions which look at these 'unfounded rituals' as crude attempts to link up with the transcendant. They are not meant to be the real thing, only something to get us into the motions. Sort of like spiritual gym training. This might seem ambiguous, but this is only because you have to investigate it for yourself.

They claim that the rituals have something to do with a higher power. Do they?

Usually. But I can see you already saying 'God isn't a ritual.' or something like that. You will have noticed however that I've already said that.



The fact that we don't even know if any higher powers exist, and if we did, we probably would know nothing about the nature of them, is a strong argument for secularism.

Its not a strong argument for anything. Its not an argument at all.

How isn't it? What reasonable reason do we have to use religion with our government?

'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and inalienable Rights;' Thomas Jefferson.

'When God created humankind, he made them in the likeness of God.' Gen 5:1

Even if certain rituals may have certain (probably stress revealing) benefits, that doesn't mean we should use them to make laws.

I never said they should.

You can be religious and secular, but that doesn't mean my argument hasn't supported secularism.

It isn't an argument. Its your opinion. And if you agree that you can be religious and secular, then what is your point?
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2013 7:00:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/9/2013 6:47:44 PM, joel.burgers wrote:
At 6/9/2013 6:19:02 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:

It was including the "and" bit after, this and that, not this or that.

The whole paragraph is your opinion. And you haven't answered my question. What would you accept as evidence for a deity?

So show I'm wrong? I don't know.


Maybe supernatural. We may be able to fully understand everything about it somehow, but probably not.

I don't understand your point. We don't understand everything about anything, why would we about this?

It may be quite a simple and straight-forward thing, except for the transcendence ofc.


They are based on the nature of the transcendence (being or force) being known.

No they are based on exploring the transcendent.

What are, I can't see what you said prior?



If you mean bread and wine actually becoming body and blood then I'm kind of with you. But there are other approaches to ritual and dogma. Such as the esoteric traditions which look at these 'unfounded rituals' as crude attempts to link up with the transcendant. They are not meant to be the real thing, only something to get us into the motions. Sort of like spiritual gym training. This might seem ambiguous, but this is only because you have to investigate it for yourself.

They claim that the rituals have something to do with a higher power. Do they?

Usually. But I can see you already saying 'God isn't a ritual.' or something like that. You will have noticed however that I've already said that.

No, I say that they practice those rituals based on the nature of a god. They don't know the nature. The only evidence anyone provides for that nature are scriptures. Very poor evidence.




The fact that we don't even know if any higher powers exist, and if we did, we probably would know nothing about the nature of them, is a strong argument for secularism.

Its not a strong argument for anything. Its not an argument at all.

Do you know what secularism is? Basically the separation of religion from the State. If religion can't be shown to be sound, then it is obvious that it shouldn't be a part of the State. So what I say supports secularism. Are you being obtuse on purpose?


How isn't it? What reasonable reason do we have to use religion with our government?

'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and inalienable Rights;' Thomas Jefferson.

And we couldn't use that without the "creator part"?


'When God created humankind, he made them in the likeness of God.' Gen 5:1

Unsupported.


Even if certain rituals may have certain (probably stress revealing) benefits, that doesn't mean we should use them to make laws.

I never said they should.

Did I say you did?


You can be religious and secular, but that doesn't mean my argument hasn't supported secularism.

It isn't an argument. Its your opinion. And if you agree that you can be religious and secular, then what is your point?

It shows that where you need to provide strong reasonable evidence for why we should have a law, religion doesn't cut it.

If you're just going to say "opinion" or "no argument" just to be obtuse, don't bother. I've provided an argument, a demonstrable one.

If you think that religion and the State should mix, then you'd have to show a good reason to have religion first, which I've argued against. If you disagree with what I've said, provide real arguments.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
joel.burgers
Posts: 50
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2013 8:07:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/9/2013 7:00:52 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:

So show I'm wrong? I don't know.
I highly doubt that they are real

This has no bearing on the ontology of transcendence.

even if they are real , it's pure speculation at best, to have any idea about the nature of such transcendent things

Transcedence entails mystery. But one thing we can know about it is it is transcendent. Meaning it is an obejct (or an attribute of an object) that is comparatively beyond other objects. In this case, our conditioned view of reality.

They may or may not be real, but the rituals and beliefs about such things are often very poorly founded

Rituals are only a part of religion. They are definately not where you should start if revelation is something you dismiss out of hand because you have begun by begging the question.

far more poorly founded than the concepts of the possibilities of such things

How so?
It may be quite a simple and straight-forward thing, except for the transcendence ofc.

It may be, but it may not.

They are based on the nature of the transcendence (being or force) being known.

No they are based on exploring the transcendent.

What are, I can't see what you said prior?

Rituals.

No, I say that they practice those rituals based on the nature of a god. They don't know the nature. The only evidence anyone provides for that nature are scriptures. Very poor evidence.

How do you know how they regard their rituals? Can you read minds? 'They don't know the nature'. Seems a bit presumptuous to me. You can't say its poor evidence if you don't even know what evidence you'd accept.

Do you know what secularism is? Basically the separation of religion from the State. If religion can't be shown to be sound, then it is obvious that it shouldn't be a part of the State. So what I say supports secularism. Are you being obtuse on purpose?

The 'state' was founded on Judaeo-Christian principles. The whole Enlightenment was motivated by a goal to draw from the religious traditions. "In fact, very few enlightened intellectuals, even when they were vocal critics of Christianity, were true atheists. Rather, they were critics of orthodox belief, wedded rather to skepticism, deism, vitalism, or perhaps pantheism." Wilson and Reill (2004). Encyclopedia Of The Enlightenment.



How isn't it? What reasonable reason do we have to use religion with our government?

Relgious thought helped build the government.


'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and inalienable Rights;' Thomas Jefferson.

And we couldn't use that without the "creator part"?

The point is that Jefferson, pointed to the Creator for our inalienable rights, not anything else.



'When God created humankind, he made them in the likeness of God.' Gen 5:1

Unsupported.

That's not why I mentioned that. The point is Jefferson got his idea of the equality people from that biblical idea.


You can be religious and secular, but that doesn't mean my argument hasn't supported secularism.

It isn't an argument. Its your opinion. And if you agree that you can be religious and secular, then what is your point?

It shows that where you need to provide strong reasonable evidence for why we should have a law, religion doesn't cut it.

If you're just going to say "opinion" or "no argument" just to be obtuse, don't bother. I've provided an argument, a demonstrable one.

If you think that religion and the State should mix, then you'd have to show a good reason to have religion first, which I've argued against. If you disagree with what I've said, provide real arguments.

Religion and state are inextricably linked. The ideas which have formed the modern world came from the Enlightenment thinkers. These people were deep religious believers (Spinoza, Pierre Bayle , Paine, Jefferson, John Locke), not orthodox, but deep believers none the less. Moreover, their ideas were informed by their belief and spirituality. This has led to Democracy, capitalism, and secularism.
Its not as simplistic as many people seem to think.
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2013 8:32:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/9/2013 8:07:36 PM, joel.burgers wrote:
At 6/9/2013 7:00:52 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:

So show I'm wrong? I don't know.
I highly doubt that they are real

This has no bearing on the ontology of transcendence.

I was just stating my position.


even if they are real , it's pure speculation at best, to have any idea about the nature of such transcendent things

Transcedence entails mystery. But one thing we can know about it is it is transcendent. Meaning it is an obejct (or an attribute of an object) that is comparatively beyond other objects. In this case, our conditioned view of reality.

Right.


They may or may not be real, but the rituals and beliefs about such things are often very poorly founded

Rituals are only a part of religion. They are definately not where you should start if revelation is something you dismiss out of hand because you have begun by begging the question.

Begging the question in what way?


far more poorly founded than the concepts of the possibilities of such things

How so?

Because there are plenty of proposed arguments for higher beings, but almost none for their "personalities" which a lot of theistic religions claim they have.

It may be quite a simple and straight-forward thing, except for the transcendence ofc.

It may be, but it may not.

So we may be able to fully understand it.


They are based on the nature of the transcendence (being or force) being known.

No they are based on exploring the transcendent.

What are, I can't see what you said prior?

Rituals.

And if they can't properly show at least some of the nature of the transcendence, how are they supposed to do anything in relation to it?


No, I say that they practice those rituals based on the nature of a god. They don't know the nature. The only evidence anyone provides for that nature are scriptures. Very poor evidence.

How do you know how they regard their rituals? Can you read minds? 'They don't know the nature'. Seems a bit presumptuous to me. You can't say its poor evidence if you don't even know what evidence you'd accept.

Why else would they do religious rituals, if not for the higher powers? I can say it's poor evidence if I don't know what evidence I'd accept. I don't know what evidence I'd except for complex scientific theories, but if that doesn't mean I can't dismiss such things as: "the stars are made of hydrogen because hydrogen floats and the stars are in the sky".


Do you know what secularism is? Basically the separation of religion from the State. If religion can't be shown to be sound, then it is obvious that it shouldn't be a part of the State. So what I say supports secularism. Are you being obtuse on purpose?

The 'state' was founded on Judaeo-Christian principles. The whole Enlightenment was motivated by a goal to draw from the religious traditions. "In fact, very few enlightened intellectuals, even when they were vocal critics of Christianity, were true atheists. Rather, they were critics of orthodox belief, wedded rather to skepticism, deism, vitalism, or perhaps pantheism." Wilson and Reill (2004). Encyclopedia Of The Enlightenment.

Don't live in the past.




How isn't it? What reasonable reason do we have to use religion with our government?

Relgious thought helped build the government.

That's not a reason to use religion now.



'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and inalienable Rights;' Thomas Jefferson.

And we couldn't use that without the "creator part"?

The point is that Jefferson, pointed to the Creator for our inalienable rights, not anything else.

And that means what to me?




'When God created humankind, he made them in the likeness of God.' Gen 5:1

Unsupported.

That's not why I mentioned that. The point is Jefferson got his idea of the equality people from that biblical idea.

It's a shame he couldn't have come up with it himself.



You can be religious and secular, but that doesn't mean my argument hasn't supported secularism.

It isn't an argument. Its your opinion. And if you agree that you can be religious and secular, then what is your point?

It shows that where you need to provide strong reasonable evidence for why we should have a law, religion doesn't cut it.

If you're just going to say "opinion" or "no argument" just to be obtuse, don't bother. I've provided an argument, a demonstrable one.

If you think that religion and the State should mix, then you'd have to show a good reason to have religion first, which I've argued against. If you disagree with what I've said, provide real arguments.

Religion and state are inextricably linked. The ideas which have formed the modern world came from the Enlightenment thinkers. These people were deep religious believers (Spinoza, Pierre Bayle , Paine, Jefferson, John Locke), not orthodox, but deep believers none the less. Moreover, their ideas were informed by their belief and spirituality. This has led to Democracy, capitalism, and secularism.
Its not as simplistic as many people seem to think.

Everything is linked with ideas of the past in some way, that doesn't mean we should live by every idea of the past.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
joel.burgers
Posts: 50
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2013 11:24:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/9/2013 8:32:12 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
Begging the question in what way?

Why rule out revelation? If you say because it"s irrational, I would have to ask you, how you came to regard reason as primary. Now do not get this wrong, I"m not dissing reason. That would be self-defeating. But it could be said that reason is revealed to you through introspection or intuition? You certainly didn"t come to it through pure logic. You accepted it, on faith.

There are many kinds of faith. I would suggest you learn about what different people mean by "faith". Each person decides which kind is acceptable and which isn"t. But reflecting on scripture isn"t irrational. Any more than our faith in reason and empiricism is, of course don"t believe everything you read. That"s goes for everything though.

Because there are plenty of proposed arguments for higher beings, but almost none for their "personalities" which a lot of theistic religions claim they have.

Philosophical argumentation is good as a mental exercise, but it is not a fruitful spiritual practice.

So we may be able to fully understand it.

Maybe one day. But for me, it"s more about experience of the numinous itself. Comprehension is only a part of the whole process.

And if they can't properly show at least some of the nature of the transcendence, how are they supposed to do anything in relation to it?

Like I said, I view it as a sort of spiritual gym; you build up routines so you don"t slack off. The actual experiencing of the transcendent can happen at any time. You could be drinking a glass of cool water, taking huge dump, thinking about the nature of consciousness etc.
I didn"t say we can"t know something about it. I said we can"t know everything about it.

How do you know how they regard their rituals?:
Why else would they do religious rituals, if not for the higher powers? I can say it's poor evidence if I don't know what evidence I'd accept. I don't know what evidence I'd except for complex scientific theories, but if that doesn't mean I can't dismiss such things as: "the stars are made of hydrogen because hydrogen floats and the stars are in the sky".

The point is if you don"t you what evidence you"d accept, the evidence could have passed you buy already. You can"t judge something as "poor evidence" if you don"t have some benchmark as to what is "good evidence".

The 'state' was founded on Judaeo-Christian principles. The whole Enlightenment was motivated by a goal to draw from the religious traditions. "In fact, very few enlightened intellectuals, even when they were vocal critics of Christianity, were true atheists. Rather, they were critics of orthodox belief, wedded rather to skepticism, deism, vitalism, or perhaps pantheism." Wilson and Reill (2004). Encyclopedia Of The Enlightenment.

Don't live in the past.

Relgious thought helped build the government.

That's not a reason to use religion now.

Why not? What is the evidence that religion is irrelevant or negative except your opinion?

The point is that Jefferson, pointed to the Creator for our inalienable rights, not anything else.

And that means what to me?

Oh nothing, it"s just the foundation of your secular state. It"s clear you are not interested in history or sociology, if you were, you"d provide some form of evidence for your "argument".

That's not why I mentioned that. The point is Jefferson got his idea of the equality people from that biblical idea.

It's a shame he couldn't have come up with it himself.

Why is it a shame? He saw in human beings something which reflected the wisdom and love of the Creator. That"s a beautiful view of humanity. Whether or not you think it"s true.

Religion and state are inextricably linked. The ideas which have formed the modern world came from the Enlightenment thinkers. These people were deep religious believers (Spinoza, Pierre Bayle , Paine, Jefferson, John Locke), not orthodox, but deep believers none the less. Moreover, their ideas were informed by their belief and spirituality. This has led to Democracy, capitalism, and secularism.
Its not as simplistic as many people seem to think.

Everything is linked with ideas of the past in some way, that doesn't mean we should live by every idea of the past.

The point is you have not provided a positive reason why religion should have nothing to do with the state. I gave a reference to a new book (2004) by two reputable scholars supporting my case, you spurned it. Religion has been a powerful force in social change, why exclude it now? Furthermore, because you don"t know what evidence you would accept, I see no way of having a rational discussion with you. Your argument against religion and what you call god is an argument from incredulity, full stop. Produce your evidence.
IslamAhmadiyya
Posts: 65
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2013 1:27:44 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
There can be no such thing as 'anything' without a cause for its existence.

Therefore, the only logical explanation for the existence for this universe, is an uncreated creator, creator of everything, starting from this universe, and everything in it, as we speak, including time and space.

This creator must be smarter and more intelligent than anything in this universe, because it has created it. This creator must be omnipresent and omnipotent, and it must be an infinite entity, as well as an eternal entity, as time is not subject to this infinite and eternal creator. This creator has power over every corner of this universe, its power is present, at every corner of this universe.

Because this creator is infinite, its power is infinite, its presence is infinite and eternal, and scientists have agreed that this universe is finite, therefore, it HAD to have a cause, and the only explanation for its cause, has to be the uncreated creator.

The creator cannot be created, as if it were, then it would just be a part of the process of the development of this universe, the creator would not be considered a creator, but a step towards the creation of this universe, a part of the process of what exists today.

Another rational reason, the events to create this universe, could not possibly have been infinite events, because time started first, at the precise moment of the Big Bang. And number two, if the past went on forever, time would never ever get to 'now'. We wouldn't exist, nothing we know right now would exist.

Time had a beginning, this universe had a beginning. The creator has no beginning.

This is all science, and this is all undeniable scientific, logical, and rational evidences of the Creator's existence. In religious terms, we call this Creator, simply, God.

The only way to refute what I have just said is if you go against logical science and rational reasoning.
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2013 6:43:44 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/9/2013 11:24:13 PM, joel.burgers wrote:
At 6/9/2013 8:32:12 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
Begging the question in what way?

Why rule out revelation?

It isn't reliable evidence. Historical evidence is shaky enough as it is in the documented human form. When you bring an ideology into it, and loads of untruths, con-man tactics such as prophesies etc.

This method should not then be used, reason and observation should, amount other things if they can be shown to be reliable.

If you say because it"s irrational, I would have to ask you, how you came to regard reason as primary. Now do not get this wrong, I"m not dissing reason. That would be self-defeating. But it could be said that reason is revealed to you through introspection or intuition? You certainly didn"t come to it through pure logic. You accepted it, on faith.

But the "faith" is far more reliable, and isn't shown to be incorrect yet. It is far more likely to be right.


There are many kinds of faith. I would suggest you learn about what different people mean by "faith". Each person decides which kind is acceptable and which isn"t. But reflecting on scripture isn"t irrational. Any more than our faith in reason and empiricism is, of course don"t believe everything you read. That"s goes for everything though.

Which scripture should we reflect on? There are many. To say Christianity or Islam would most likely use Argumentum ad populum, an appeal to the people. So if you want to suggest studying, reflecting on, debating, and understanding scripture, to be intellectually honest, you'd have to study all of it.

Strangely enough, a lot of it seems to contradict, so can it all be right? Well maybe you want to abandon reason, we only have faith that things shouldn't contradict, right? The thing is, it can't be shown that these things weren't written in their entirety, by people driven by their ideologies. Historical evidence isn't the strongest, primary is the best, secondary isn't great at all, and there are things such as bias, human error etc. to account for.

Scripture is awful evidence.


Because there are plenty of proposed arguments for higher beings, but almost none for their "personalities" which a lot of theistic religions claim they have.

Philosophical argumentation is good as a mental exercise, but it is not a fruitful spiritual practice.

And it may be the best way to discover the true nature of a transcendent thing, and if such things even exist at all.


So we may be able to fully understand it.

Maybe one day. But for me, it"s more about experience of the numinous itself. Comprehension is only a part of the whole process.

And "experience" is the other part? Experience of what? A belief and a ritual?


And if they can't properly show at least some of the nature of the transcendence, how are they supposed to do anything in relation to it?

Like I said, I view it as a sort of spiritual gym; you build up routines so you don"t slack off.

Pointless routines?

The actual experiencing of the transcendent can happen at any time.

Your evidence for this is?

You could be drinking a glass of cool water, taking huge dump, thinking about the nature of consciousness etc.

And could even think you're experiencing the transcendent, and it's just a natural human experience. Personal revelation isn't good evidence.

I didn"t say we can"t know something about it. I said we can"t know everything about it.

You don't know that.


How do you know how they regard their rituals?:
Why else would they do religious rituals, if not for the higher powers? I can say it's poor evidence if I don't know what evidence I'd accept. I don't know what evidence I'd except for complex scientific theories, but if that doesn't mean I can't dismiss such things as: "the stars are made of hydrogen because hydrogen floats and the stars are in the sky".

The point is if you don"t you what evidence you"d accept, the evidence could have passed you buy already. You can"t judge something as "poor evidence" if you don"t have some benchmark as to what is "good evidence".

Yes, you can. Didn't you see the scientific theories bit? A reason I can know that's poor evidence, is because I can see planets. I could not know what would be good evidence to show stars are made of hydrogen, but I can definitely know what bad evidence is.


The 'state' was founded on Judaeo-Christian principles. The whole Enlightenment was motivated by a goal to draw from the religious traditions. "In fact, very few enlightened intellectuals, even when they were vocal critics of Christianity, were true atheists. Rather, they were critics of orthodox belief, wedded rather to skepticism, deism, vitalism, or perhaps pantheism." Wilson and Reill (2004). Encyclopedia Of The Enlightenment.

Don't live in the past.

Relgious thought helped build the government.

That's not a reason to use religion now.

Why not? What is the evidence that religion is irrelevant or negative except your opinion?

I've shown why we can't live by it. How can you live in accord to the nature of a transcendent thing, if you don't know it's nature? Then it becomes negative because it promotes non-development (we already know the answers, in religion) and because it promotes group conflict (firstly, people are separate, then in a lot of religions, the other people become "bad" because of that, you even see many inter-religion conflicts, even different denominations of Christianity conflict).

So yes, it's been shown to be irrelevant and negative.


The point is that Jefferson, pointed to the Creator for our inalienable rights, not anything else.

And that means what to me?

Oh nothing, it"s just the foundation of your secular state. It"s clear you are not interested in history or sociology, if you were, you"d provide some form of evidence for your "argument".

I appreciate that such a thing led to the ideas of a secular State, if it did. But that doesn't mean we should include religion in the State, or that we should even follow religion.


That's not why I mentioned that. The point is Jefferson got his idea of the equality people from that biblical idea.

It's a shame he couldn't have come up with it himself.

Why is it a shame? He saw in human beings something which reflected the wisdom and love of the Creator. That"s a beautiful view of humanity. Whether or not you think it"s true.

That bit isn't a shame, it's just a shame he had to reference his specific beliefs of higher powers in relation to secularism.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2013 6:57:08 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/9/2013 11:24:13 PM, joel.burgers wrote:
At 6/9/2013 8:32:12 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:

Religion and state are inextricably linked. The ideas which have formed the modern world came from the Enlightenment thinkers. These people were deep religious believers (Spinoza, Pierre Bayle , Paine, Jefferson, John Locke), not orthodox, but deep believers none the less. Moreover, their ideas were informed by their belief and spirituality. This has led to Democracy, capitalism, and secularism.
Its not as simplistic as many people seem to think.

Everything is linked with ideas of the past in some way, that doesn't mean we should live by every idea of the past.

The point is you have not provided a positive reason why religion should have nothing to do with the state.

Which religion should be involved with the State? Why should that religion, and not others, be involved?

I gave a reference to a new book (2004) by two reputable scholars supporting my case, you spurned it.

"The 'state' was founded on Judaeo-Christian principles. The whole Enlightenment was motivated by a goal to draw from the religious traditions. "In fact, very few enlightened intellectuals, even when they were vocal critics of Christianity, were true atheists. Rather, they were critics of orthodox belief, wedded rather to skepticism, deism, vitalism, or perhaps pantheism." Wilson and Reill (2004). Encyclopedia Of The Enlightenment."

The idea was founded by Judaeo-Christian principles. So you're arguing, that because something started with religion, it should stay that way? Argumentum ad antiquitatem? Appealing to the way things were often done in the past, and saying they should be done like that now.

Religion has been a powerful force in social change, why exclude it now?

Because it can't be shown to have a true basis in reality, it can be used to stunt political and scientific change, and it places people in opposing groups. Not everyone believes in a religion, and definitely not the same ones, so there is no reason to run the State of them.

Furthermore, because you don"t know what evidence you would accept, I see no way of having a rational discussion with you.

I need evidence based in reason or observation, not authority or scripture. I've explained why. I've also shown that I can dismiss evidence without needing to know what evidence would be sufficient to convince me. Your argument is a weak one.

Your argument against religion and what you call god is an argument from incredulity, full stop. Produce your evidence.

I'm not arguing that no evidence shows that the thing with now evidence is proven to be true. I'm saying we have many many claims, each without sufficient evidence, so how do you choose which is true? If something has no evidence, and there are many many other opposing positions, each as likely, then why should we believe it?

Lack of evidence may not be strong evidence against a thing when no evidence is expected, but I'd argue it's a very strong reason to not believe that such a thing is true. It is definitely a strong reason not to create a lifestyle and morality out of such a thing, a strong reason not to follow a religion. If there's a strong reason to not follow a religion, there's an even stronger reason not to include it in the modern State. Not I said modern, I'm not living in the past, with nostalgia about how such secular States may have been created. This is about now.

If you think a specific religion should be believed, provide sufficient evidence demonstrating the reality of the transcendent thing, and it's nature. If you can't do that, you can't even begin to argue why a religion should have anything to do with the State.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2013 7:08:44 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/10/2013 1:27:44 AM, IslamAhmadiyya wrote:
There can be no such thing as 'anything' without a cause for its existence.

Maybe. According to the natural laws we see.


Therefore, the only logical explanation for the existence for this universe, is an uncreated creator,

A single one?

creator of everything,

It only needs to create the first domino.

starting from this universe, and everything in it, as we speak, including time and space.

It doesn't need to directly create such things.


This creator must be smarter and more intelligent than anything in this universe,

No. Why does it even need consciousness?

because it has created it.

Maybe not directly.

This creator must be omnipresent

Not necessarily.

and omnipotent,

Not necessarily.

and it must be an infinite entity,

Not necessarily...

as well as an eternal entity,

Yawn, ditto above.

as time is not subject to this infinite and eternal creator.

What?

This creator has power over every corner of this universe,

Nowhere near necessary.

its power is present, at every corner of this universe.

Show that that is the case.


Because this creator is infinite, its power is infinite,

I can solve 100 Maths problems an hour, so I must also be able to create 100W for an hour?

its presence is infinite and eternal,

According to you.

and scientists have agreed that this universe is finite,

Ok.

therefore, it HAD to have a cause,

Just a cause.

and the only explanation for its cause, has to be the uncreated creator.

Not with your derivatives.


The creator cannot be created, as if it were, then it would just be a part of the process of the development of this universe, the creator would not be considered a creator, but a step towards the creation of this universe, a part of the process of what exists today.

Creator sounds very conscious. Any evidence for that?


Another rational reason, the events to create this universe, could not possibly have been infinite events, because time started first, at the precise moment of the Big Bang. And number two, if the past went on forever, time would never ever get to 'now'. We wouldn't exist, nothing we know right now would exist.

The events could have been timeless, existing without the dimension of time.


Time had a beginning, this universe had a beginning. The creator has no beginning.

Ok.


This is all science, and this is all undeniable scientific, logical, and rational evidences of the Creator's existence. In religious terms, we call this Creator, simply, God.

No, not the "Creator's" existence. You've just said there needs to be an uncaused cause, and put your god in there, "God".


The only way to refute what I have just said is if you go against logical science and rational reasoning.

Nope.

How could such a complex thing, complex enough to use intelligence to create our universe, exist timelessly, eternally, necessarily? I would posit that such a thing would need to be more simple, than your god.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
joel.burgers
Posts: 50
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2013 9:25:37 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/10/2013 6:43:44 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 6/9/2013 11:24:13 PM, joel.burgers wrote:
At 6/9/2013 8:32:12 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:

Revelation isn't reliable evidence. Historical evidence is shaky enough as it is in the documented human form. When you bring an ideology into it, and loads of untruths, con-man tactics such as prophesies etc.

This is nothing but a string of assertions. Each individual decides what reliable evidence is.

This method should not then be used, reason and observation should, amount other things if they can be shown to be reliable.

You seem to be espousing a form of logical positivism which holds rationalism and empiricism as the only way to truth. You should know that this epistemology has been widely discredited since about the 1960s. The reason for this was among other things, the under determination of theory by evidence, where scientists came to radically different interpretations of the same evidence in areas such as Physics, Psychology and Sociology. It became evident that there were non-empirical factors that played a role in developing a scientist"s worldview. Another reason was something I mentioned in my previous post. You didn"t come to regard rationalism and empiricism as reliable through logic or evidence. We assume logic and science.

But the "faith" is far more reliable, and isn't shown to be incorrect yet. It is far more likely to be right.

I don"t hold them (Reason and Revelation) as mutually exclusive, for me, they inform each other. I know you think that"s just mad. But I could say the same to you. But I won"t do that.

Which scripture should we reflect on? There are many. To say Christianity or Islam would most likely use Argumentum ad populum, an appeal to the people. So if you want to suggest studying, reflecting on, debating, and understanding scripture, to be intellectually honest, you'd have to study all of it.

I do. I"m greatly interested in all the religious texts, from Hinduism all the way through to Baha"i".

Strangely enough, a lot of it seems to contradict, so can it all be right? Well maybe you want to abandon reason, we only have faith that things shouldn't contradict, right? The thing is, it can't be shown that these things weren't written in their entirety, by people driven by their ideologies. Historical evidence isn't the strongest, primary is the best, secondary isn't great at all, and there are things such as bias, human error etc. to account for.

These "contradictions", which you haven"t pointed out, are far less numerous than the similarities.


Scripture is awful evidence.

This once again is just your opinion. It is just a bare assertion that you keep coming back to.

And it may be the best way to discover the true nature of a transcendent thing, and if such things even exist at all.

Maybe, maybe not.

And "experience" is the other part? Experience of what? A belief and a ritual?

That"s what I"m trying to find out.

Pointless routines?

No not pointless.


The actual experiencing of the transcendent can happen at any time.

Your evidence for this is?

That would be my own experience as well as the vast majority of the human population attesting to it on a day to day basis. As they have done for hundreds of thousands of years.

And could even think you're experiencing the transcendent, and it's just a natural human experience. Personal revelation isn't good evidence.

And your personal incredulity is?


I didn"t say we can"t know something about it. I said we can"t know everything about it.

You don't know that.

You don"t know what I know.


Yes, you can. Didn't you see the scientific theories bit? A reason I can know that's poor evidence, is because I can see planets. I could not know what would be good evidence to show stars are made of hydrogen, but I can definitely know what bad evidence is.

You said you don"t know what kind of evidence you"d accept. If you don"t know what kind of evidence you"d accept then you"ve removed from yourself the very categories you"re using to make that judgement. There are ways of finding out whether stars are made out of hydrogen or not. Fred Hoyle and others have written extensively on this subject.

I've shown why we can't live by it. How can you live in accord to the nature of a transcendent thing, if you don't know it's nature? Then it becomes negative because it promotes non-development (we already know the answers, in religion) and because it promotes group conflict (firstly, people are separate, then in a lot of religions, the other people become "bad" because of that, you even see many inter-religion conflicts, even different denominations of Christianity conflict).

You haven"t "shown" anything. When did I say anything like "Live in accord to the nature""? You"re barking up the wrong tree. Read a little history mate. The religious conflict talk is worn out rhetoric.

So yes, it's been shown to be irrelevant and negative.

Where is the evidence?

I appreciate that such a thing led to the ideas of a secular State, if it did. But that doesn't mean we should include religion in the State, or that we should even follow religion.

I"m talking right past you aren"t I?

That bit isn't a shame, it's just a shame he had to reference his specific beliefs of higher powers in relation to secularism.

You"ve just repeated the same thing. Why is it a shame?

You have repeatedly failed to present a single shred of positive evidence in favour of your "main argument against following religion", only general statements and personal opinion. This is less than weak if I may say so.
joel.burgers
Posts: 50
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2013 9:42:21 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/10/2013 6:57:08 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:

Which religion should be involved with the State? Why should that religion, and not others, be involved?

The whole damn lot.


The idea was founded by Judaeo-Christian principles. So you're arguing, that because something started with religion, it should stay that way? Argumentum ad antiquitatem? Appealing to the way things were often done in the past, and saying they should be done like that now.

I think you"ve forgotten that it was you who had the argument against religion. You need to show why religion is irrelevant. And you need data to support it.


Religion has been a powerful force in social change, why exclude it now?

Because it can't be shown to have a true basis in reality, it can be used to stunt political and scientific change, and it places people in opposing groups. Not everyone believes in a religion, and definitely not the same ones, so there is no reason to run the State of them.

It also gave rise to modern science in the first place and continues to be a major motivator for people to get into the sciences today. I"m one of them. Who said religion should run the state? Your argument has deteriorated into a straw man.


I need evidence based in reason or observation, not authority or scripture. I've explained why. I've also shown that I can dismiss evidence without needing to know what evidence would be sufficient to convince me. Your argument is a weak one.

No you don"t know what evidence you'd accept, remember?


I'm not arguing that no evidence shows that the thing with now evidence is proven to be true. I'm saying we have many many claims, each without sufficient evidence, so how do you choose which is true? If something has no evidence, and there are many many other opposing positions, each as likely, then why should we believe it?

First I"d stop setting up false dilemmas and straw men. Look up the religious traditions, actually read their texts and find out what their scholars say.


Lack of evidence may not be strong evidence against a thing when no evidence is expected, but I'd argue it's a very strong reason to not believe that such a thing is true. It is definitely a strong reason not to create a lifestyle and morality out of such a thing, a strong reason not to follow a religion. If there's a strong reason to not follow a religion, there's an even stronger reason not to include it in the modern State. Not I said modern, I'm not living in the past, with nostalgia about how such secular States may have been created. This is about now.

Yes this is about now. But you have not given me any reason or evidence to think religion should not continue to play a significant role in society. You have the burden of proof my friend, it"s your "argument against..."


If you think a specific religion should be believed, provide sufficient evidence demonstrating the reality of the transcendent thing, and it's nature. If you can't do that, you can't even begin to argue why a religion should have anything to do with the State.

I"ve never made such a claim. Religion (all religions) already has lots to do with the State. You are arguing against it. You need to produce some kind evidence to support your proposition. If you don"t do so in your next post, your argument falls.
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2013 9:57:44 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/10/2013 9:25:37 AM, joel.burgers wrote:
At 6/10/2013 6:43:44 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 6/9/2013 11:24:13 PM, joel.burgers wrote:
At 6/9/2013 8:32:12 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:

Revelation isn't reliable evidence. Historical evidence is shaky enough as it is in the documented human form. When you bring an ideology into it, and loads of untruths, con-man tactics such as prophesies etc.

This is nothing but a string of assertions. Each individual decides what reliable evidence is.

There are a number of factors which show that historical evidence can be unreliable, which I have mentioned. If you disagree with them, state why. I've made assertions, and provided reasoning for them. You just know you can't counter them.


This method should not then be used, reason and observation should, amount other things if they can be shown to be reliable.

You seem to be espousing a form of logical positivism which holds rationalism and empiricism as the only way to truth. You should know that this epistemology has been widely discredited since about the 1960s. The reason for this was among other things, the under determination of theory by evidence, where scientists came to radically different interpretations of the same evidence in areas such as Physics, Psychology and Sociology. It became evident that there were non-empirical factors that played a role in developing a scientist"s worldview. Another reason was something I mentioned in my previous post. You didn"t come to regard rationalism and empiricism as reliable through logic or evidence. We assume logic and science.

So you're saying. Believe anything you want, make any law you want, we know nothing, we can reason nothing? I don't claim that everything other than logic, mathematics and science in nonsense. I don't claim historical documents are all wrong, I claim that the number of contradicting sacred documents, their obvious bias, the lack of primary evidence, the lack of other confirming documents, the lack of time-line continuity etc. makes these scriptures unreliable.



But the "faith" is far more reliable, and isn't shown to be incorrect yet. It is far more likely to be right.

I don"t hold them (Reason and Revelation) as mutually exclusive, for me, they inform each other. I know you think that"s just mad. But I could say the same to you. But I won"t do that.

And revelation contradicts each other and itself. It is heavily affected by what I wrote above. You can disregard reason if you want, it wouldn't surprise me.


Which scripture should we reflect on? There are many. To say Christianity or Islam would most likely use Argumentum ad populum, an appeal to the people. So if you want to suggest studying, reflecting on, debating, and understanding scripture, to be intellectually honest, you'd have to study all of it.

I do. I"m greatly interested in all the religious texts, from Hinduism all the way through to Baha"i".

I don't think you'd have time to study them to the depths you'd need too. What about the old religions, into them too? Ra, Zeus and Odin?


Strangely enough, a lot of it seems to contradict, so can it all be right? Well maybe you want to abandon reason, we only have faith that things shouldn't contradict, right? The thing is, it can't be shown that these things weren't written in their entirety, by people driven by their ideologies. Historical evidence isn't the strongest, primary is the best, secondary isn't great at all, and there are things such as bias, human error etc. to account for.

These "contradictions", which you haven"t pointed out, are far less numerous than the similarities.

The number of gods, for one thing. The nature of the gods, if there are even gods, if we have souls, what happens to the souls, morality etc etc.



Scripture is awful evidence.

This once again is just your opinion. It is just a bare assertion that you keep coming back to.

I've provided reasoning for it. You can't argue against it, so you just say "opinion" or "assertion". It seems everything is just an assertion to you, because nothing can prove it's own foundation is correct.

"You didn"t come to regard rationalism and empiricism as reliable through logic or evidence. We assume logic and science." Everything is assumption? Everything is assertion? Anything could be correct? So do what you want, reason is dead?

Nahh.



And it may be the best way to discover the true nature of a transcendent thing, and if such things even exist at all.

Maybe, maybe not.

No idea what this is about.



And "experience" is the other part? Experience of what? A belief and a ritual?

That"s what I"m trying to find out.

Through what? Reason is dead, remember.


Pointless routines?

No not pointless.

So their point is?



The actual experiencing of the transcendent can happen at any time.

Your evidence for this is?

That would be my own experience as well as the vast majority of the human population attesting to it on a day to day basis. As they have done for hundreds of thousands of years.

And there are plenty of psychological reasons why this could be. I had a transcendent event, this thing zapped me, and I realised religion is silly. Viva la transcendent event! It is obviously real and not just in my head.


And could even think you're experiencing the transcendent, and it's just a natural human experience. Personal revelation isn't good evidence.

And your personal incredulity is?

With good reason it is. Sorry you don't like what you're hearing.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
Fruitytree
Posts: 2,176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2013 9:57:46 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/9/2013 4:53:44 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 6/9/2013 4:43:23 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
Ok, I said creator, cause then he has authority,

Maybe that's intrinsic for you, but not for me.Well depending on what you'd believe exactly, but if you believe he is the cause of the existence of the universe, the universe is definitely is property.

if a "God" doesn't create but has supernatural power well he doesn't have real authority!

What is "real" authority? And why do you need to be a creator to have it?Legal ownership.

and if there is the creator, and sub-gods, then what can those sub-gods do except what the creator allows them!

The creator may not have created them. If the creator did, that doesn't mean that it has full control over them. If we created a super-powered robot, and gave it a will, would it be impossible for it to destroy us? I doubt it. A robot army could kill us all, and we could have created every single one of them. They can do more than what we allow them to.Well you imagine a weak creator, who may loose his owned creatures for there are other Gods that may claim it, and this is just a good way to break the polytheism theories.

but still you may not find any concluding information if you do not investigate revelations, once you're a deist of course.

"revelations". They're man's word, to me, unless they can be shown through reason or observation otherwise. That would be a hard task. Even if they aren't man's word, that doesn't mean they are a deity's word.
It isn't a hard task, there are prophecies, and scientific facts in revelations. the prophecies part of which are fulfilled , and scientific facts which none was proven false, ( except with unproven theories).

It would be ridiculous to try to find out something that cannot be guessed and that could be written already right under your bunny nose.

Read Harry Potter.

Sigh!
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2013 10:11:55 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/10/2013 9:25:37 AM, joel.burgers wrote:
At 6/10/2013 6:43:44 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 6/9/2013 11:24:13 PM, joel.burgers wrote:
At 6/9/2013 8:32:12 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:


I didn"t say we can"t know something about it. I said we can"t know everything about it.

You don't know that.

You don"t know what I know.

Then demonstrate your knowledge. Or I will claim you don't have it, and you will remain quiet on the knowledge which was requested.



Yes, you can. Didn't you see the scientific theories bit? A reason I can know that's poor evidence, is because I can see planets. I could not know what would be good evidence to show stars are made of hydrogen, but I can definitely know what bad evidence is.

You said you don"t know what kind of evidence you"d accept. If you don"t know what kind of evidence you"d accept then you"ve removed from yourself the very categories you"re using to make that judgement.

Just because I don't know the evidence I'd accept, doesn't mean someone can't produce evidence I'd accept, I just don't know what such evidence would be. Like I said with the scientific theories. It turns out that particular wavelengths of light can be used to work out what elements are in stars. Just because I may not have known that such evidence would persuade me, doesn't mean I can't disregard stupid evidence, evidence which I know doesn't convince me.

There are ways of finding out whether stars are made out of hydrogen or not. Fred Hoyle and others have written extensively on this subject.

Well ner ner. But when I was a child I didn't understand those methods. If you said, "I ate a piece of a star, it tasted like hydrogen, stars are made of hydrogen", I could disregard that as wrong and silly evidence. If you then said "what would be evidence for you?" Even if I couldn't think if something, that doesn't mean I'd have to accept your evidence, or had closed my mind on the subject. You could still hve found the evidence to convince me (wavelengths of light, ta da).


I've shown why we can't live by it. How can you live in accord to the nature of a transcendent thing, if you don't know it's nature? Then it becomes negative because it promotes non-development (we already know the answers, in religion) and because it promotes group conflict (firstly, people are separate, then in a lot of religions, the other people become "bad" because of that, you even see many inter-religion conflicts, even different denominations of Christianity conflict).

You haven"t "shown" anything. When did I say anything like "Live in accord to the nature""? You"re barking up the wrong tree. Read a little history mate. The religious conflict talk is worn out rhetoric.

A lot of religion (maybe even all of it) is living in accord to the nature of a transcendent thing, or a higher thing, a sacred purpose, etc. Religion creates laws to live in accord to the nature of such a thing. But funnily enough, we don't know the nature. Also, psychology has shown that if people are put into groups of "us" and "them", it can make the "us" group dehumanise the "them" group and commit atrocities towards them. This is even greater if you think "them" are people who are against the highest cause, are evil, and you are good. Conflicts sparked by ideology, enhanced by group theory. This is not just "religious conflict talk".



So yes, it's been shown to be irrelevant and negative.

Where is the evidence?

All above. Although evidence is probably non-existent to you? Evidence can't prove it is evidence, right?


I appreciate that such a thing led to the ideas of a secular State, if it did. But that doesn't mean we should include religion in the State, or that we should even follow religion.

I"m talking right past you aren"t I?

Are you?


That bit isn't a shame, it's just a shame he had to reference his specific beliefs of higher powers in relation to secularism.

You"ve just repeated the same thing. Why is it a shame?

It was unnecessary.


You have repeatedly failed to present a single shred of positive evidence in favour of your "main argument against following religion", only general statements and personal opinion. This is less than weak if I may say so.

Yawn. The reason you think I haven't provided evidence has become obvious. You are another who doesn't actually believe in evidence. "Everything to do with reasoning is assumption; assertion". At least, that's what I've gotten from it. I've provided an argument, and all you've replied is "opinion... assertion".

Your "evidence" for why States should have religion was a recent document saying, "religious people created the idea of the secular State". Good one. Not really sound logic though? But you don't believe in logic, it can't logic itself, after all.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2013 10:28:13 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/10/2013 9:42:21 AM, joel.burgers wrote:
At 6/10/2013 6:57:08 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:

Which religion should be involved with the State? Why should that religion, and not others, be involved?

The whole damn lot.

All of them should be? I'm sorry, I don't think they would be able to agree on laws if that was the case, you know religions are different, right?



The idea was founded by Judaeo-Christian principles. So you're arguing, that because something started with religion, it should stay that way? Argumentum ad antiquitatem? Appealing to the way things were often done in the past, and saying they should be done like that now.

I think you"ve forgotten that it was you who had the argument against religion. You need to show why religion is irrelevant. And you need data to support it.

I don't need "data". If you don't nature of the sacred thing which your religion is based around, and it is based around that thing because of it's very nature, then religion is just storytelling. There's no reason to follow one, it's all assumption. So what reason could there be to put it into the State? Now the balls in your court, unless you'd rather pretend it is still in mine, or that it doesn't even exist?



Religion has been a powerful force in social change, why exclude it now?

Because it can't be shown to have a true basis in reality, it can be used to stunt political and scientific change, and it places people in opposing groups. Not everyone believes in a religion, and definitely not the same ones, so there is no reason to run the State of them.

It also gave rise to modern science in the first place and continues to be a major motivator for people to get into the sciences today. I"m one of them. Who said religion should run the state? Your argument has deteriorated into a straw man.

It was the very start of the human mind starting to grapple with reality, so does that mean we should make computers with rows of lightbulbs? For lightbulbs were one of the first major inventions to do with electricity, and computers use electricity, so... ? If people need religion to motivate them, fine, but there's every reason to find another way to motivate themselves, instead of believing in a religion.

I said, religion shouldn't be involved with the State, and it seemed you disagreed, if you'd like to say you don't disagree, feel free. If you do disagree, provide an argument, for if you do disagree, then my argument is not a straw-man. So which is it? Do you even have an opinion?



I need evidence based in reason or observation, not authority or scripture. I've explained why. I've also shown that I can dismiss evidence without needing to know what evidence would be sufficient to convince me. Your argument is a weak one.

No you don"t know what evidence you'd accept, remember?

Just because I don't know what specific evidence I'd accept, doesn't mean I don't know what kind of evidence I'd accept, I believe that is a fallacy of some kind.



I'm not arguing that no evidence shows that the thing with now evidence is proven to be true. I'm saying we have many many claims, each without sufficient evidence, so how do you choose which is true? If something has no evidence, and there are many many other opposing positions, each as likely, then why should we believe it?

First I"d stop setting up false dilemmas and straw men. Look up the religious traditions, actually read their texts and find out what their scholars say.

State what false dilemma I created. State which strawman I created. Why should I look up religious traditions? Why should I read their texts? Why should I find out what their scholars say?



Lack of evidence may not be strong evidence against a thing when no evidence is expected, but I'd argue it's a very strong reason to not believe that such a thing is true. It is definitely a strong reason not to create a lifestyle and morality out of such a thing, a strong reason not to follow a religion. If there's a strong reason to not follow a religion, there's an even stronger reason not to include it in the modern State. Not I said modern, I'm not living in the past, with nostalgia about how such secular States may have been created. This is about now.

Yes this is about now. But you have not given me any reason or evidence to think religion should not continue to play a significant role in society. You have the burden of proof my friend, it"s your "argument against..."

No evidence... sure. Every single thing I've said is just, religion bad baddddd. Sure...



If you think a specific religion should be believed, provide sufficient evidence demonstrating the reality of the transcendent thing, and it's nature. If you can't do that, you can't even begin to argue why a religion should have anything to do with the State.

I"ve never made such a claim. Religion (all religions) already has lots to do with the State. You are arguing against it. You need to produce some kind evidence to support your proposition. If you don"t do so in your next post, your argument falls.

So you can't claim a specific religion should be believed. So how so we go about following religion, or implementing it? That's like saying we should agree with the whole of philosophy, and use it in the State.

This is the argument, you can't support any religion, you can't support them over each other. Explain to me them, how you should follow them, how you should implement them into the State?

That is the evidence. If you can't see that, then that's your failing. My argument hasn't failed. I've provided evidence via reasoning, and you have provided nothing except "religious people may have been motivated by religion to do stuff in the past". Just like dictators are motivated my ideologies today.

I've shown that religion is just an assertion, which can't support itself. It's now to you, to either show it can, or just simply disagree with me, without providing an argument against my position.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!