Total Posts:80|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Arguments for God

Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2011 4:37:31 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
As far as I can summarize, these are the reasons why people believe in religion.

1. Parents believe in it, so child does too and then stops thinking about it.
2. A book says so
3. Easy to be integrated into society (majority being believers)
4. Personal experience
5. Heck, it's just easy to not worry one's brain too much about existential stuff, and have a ready-made philosophy to work with, especially one that arguably works quite well (or in simple words, don't fix what ain't broke)

Am I missing any other points?

PS - This is in addition to Rogue's thread trying to get into why believers believe so much that they are beyond arguments and evidence :)
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
nonentity
Posts: 5,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2011 5:05:45 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
There's a difference between believing in God and believing in religion... Religion has more to do with tradition than belief in God does.
Jarjar3000
Posts: 273
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2011 5:30:20 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Agreed Nonentity
Ohh Lord How you love me, you change my heart and soul, renewing my mind into something I could never imagine, You make me strong when I am weak, you encourage me when I'm despaired, You stick by me when everyone deserts me, You are my Lord You are my God.

Charles: I'm not a Christian because I'm afraid of hell, I'm a Christian because I love Jesus.

Geolaureate: The Pope
He looks like a Sith lord, I don't trust him.

Charles0103: Just like my God, my faith won't change.
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2011 5:40:34 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/7/2011 5:05:45 PM, nonentity wrote:
There's a difference between believing in God and believing in religion... Religion has more to do with tradition than belief in God does.

True.

I meant to change the topic name as Arguments for religion, but I submitted without making that correction....
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
vardas0antras
Posts: 983
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2011 11:39:28 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/7/2011 4:37:31 PM, Indophile wrote:
As far as I can summarize, these are the reasons why people believe in religion.

1. Parents believe in it, so child does too and then stops thinking about it.
2. A book says so
3. Easy to be integrated into society (majority being believers)
4. Personal experience
5. Heck, it's just easy to not worry one's brain too much about existential stuff, and have a ready-made philosophy to work with, especially one that arguably works quite well (or in simple words, don't fix what ain't broke)

Am I missing any other points?

PS - This is in addition to Rogue's thread trying to get into why believers believe so much that they are beyond arguments and evidence :)

ummm you forgot logic.
"When he awoke in a tomb three days later he would actually have believed that he rose from the dead" FREEDO about the resurrection of Jesus Christ
nonentity
Posts: 5,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2011 12:12:59 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
What are some examples of logical reasons for believing in religion? Other than Pascal's Wager or whatever it's called (which, in my humble opinion, isn't good enough)
vardas0antras
Posts: 983
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2011 1:14:00 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/8/2011 12:12:59 PM, nonentity wrote:
What are some examples of logical reasons for believing in religion? Other than Pascal's Wager or whatever it's called (which, in my humble opinion, isn't good enough)

I don't like Pascals wager argument when used on its own but it's a good argument for a cumulative case.
"When he awoke in a tomb three days later he would actually have believed that he rose from the dead" FREEDO about the resurrection of Jesus Christ
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2011 1:18:15 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/8/2011 1:14:00 PM, vardas0antras wrote:
At 2/8/2011 12:12:59 PM, nonentity wrote:
What are some examples of logical reasons for believing in religion? Other than Pascal's Wager or whatever it's called (which, in my humble opinion, isn't good enough)

I don't like Pascals wager argument when used on its own but it's a good argument for a cumulative case.

Pascal's wager is absolutely worthless.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
vardas0antras
Posts: 983
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2011 1:25:26 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/8/2011 1:18:15 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 2/8/2011 1:14:00 PM, vardas0antras wrote:
At 2/8/2011 12:12:59 PM, nonentity wrote:
What are some examples of logical reasons for believing in religion? Other than Pascal's Wager or whatever it's called (which, in my humble opinion, isn't good enough)

I don't like Pascals wager argument when used on its own but it's a good argument for a cumulative case.

Pascal's wager is absolutely worthless.

Hmm, can you expand. We may end up debating this.
"When he awoke in a tomb three days later he would actually have believed that he rose from the dead" FREEDO about the resurrection of Jesus Christ
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2011 1:26:07 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/8/2011 12:12:59 PM, nonentity wrote:
What are some examples of logical reasons for believing in religion? Other than Pascal's Wager or whatever it's called (which, in my humble opinion, isn't good enough)

Pascals Wager is actually not a logical reason (neither weak nor strong), it is merely a threat designed to get you to believe in God. It's what is called an ad baculum fallacy (i.e. My position is true because I'll kick your fvckin a$s if you disagree.).
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
brian_eggleston
Posts: 3,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2011 1:37:26 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/7/2011 4:37:31 PM, Indophile wrote:
As far as I can summarize, these are the reasons why people believe in religion.

3. Easy to be integrated into society (majority being believers)

Not here in Britain - the vast majority of people do not practice a religion; indeed bible-bashers are held in contempt and are ridiculed: just ask my fellow Englishman and DDO member DATCMOTO!
Visit the burglars' bulletin board: http://www.break-in-news.com...
nonentity
Posts: 5,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2011 2:00:38 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/8/2011 1:26:07 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 2/8/2011 12:12:59 PM, nonentity wrote:
What are some examples of logical reasons for believing in religion? Other than Pascal's Wager or whatever it's called (which, in my humble opinion, isn't good enough)

Pascals Wager is actually not a logical reason (neither weak nor strong), it is merely a threat designed to get you to believe in God. It's what is called an ad baculum fallacy (i.e. My position is true because I'll kick your fvckin a$s if you disagree.).

lol But what are the logical reasons for believing in religion? I can't think of one...
badger
Posts: 11,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2011 2:03:09 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/8/2011 2:00:38 PM, nonentity wrote:
At 2/8/2011 1:26:07 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 2/8/2011 12:12:59 PM, nonentity wrote:
What are some examples of logical reasons for believing in religion? Other than Pascal's Wager or whatever it's called (which, in my humble opinion, isn't good enough)

Pascals Wager is actually not a logical reason (neither weak nor strong), it is merely a threat designed to get you to believe in God. It's what is called an ad baculum fallacy (i.e. My position is true because I'll kick your fvckin a$s if you disagree.).

lol But what are the logical reasons for believing in religion? I can't think of one...

the rapture is coming!
signature
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2011 2:12:29 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/8/2011 2:00:38 PM, nonentity wrote:
At 2/8/2011 1:26:07 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 2/8/2011 12:12:59 PM, nonentity wrote:
What are some examples of logical reasons for believing in religion? Other than Pascal's Wager or whatever it's called (which, in my humble opinion, isn't good enough)

Pascals Wager is actually not a logical reason (neither weak nor strong), it is merely a threat designed to get you to believe in God. It's what is called an ad baculum fallacy (i.e. My position is true because I'll kick your fvckin a$s if you disagree.).

lol But what are the logical reasons for believing in religion? I can't think of one...

The Ontological Argument, the Argument from Non-Contingency, Transcendental Argument for God, the Cosmological Argument, etc.

The above are arguments based entirely on logic, but there are others that are evidence-based as well such as the Teleological Argument.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
badger
Posts: 11,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2011 2:30:25 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/8/2011 2:12:29 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 2/8/2011 2:00:38 PM, nonentity wrote:
At 2/8/2011 1:26:07 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 2/8/2011 12:12:59 PM, nonentity wrote:
What are some examples of logical reasons for believing in religion? Other than Pascal's Wager or whatever it's called (which, in my humble opinion, isn't good enough)

Pascals Wager is actually not a logical reason (neither weak nor strong), it is merely a threat designed to get you to believe in God. It's what is called an ad baculum fallacy (i.e. My position is true because I'll kick your fvckin a$s if you disagree.).

lol But what are the logical reasons for believing in religion? I can't think of one...

The Ontological Argument, the Argument from Non-Contingency, Transcendental Argument for God, the Cosmological Argument, etc.

The above are arguments based entirely on logic, but there are others that are evidence-based as well such as the Teleological Argument.

the ontological argument is retarded.. never heard of the rest of them.. well i've heard of them... dunno what they're about though..
signature
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2011 2:41:09 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/8/2011 2:30:25 PM, badger wrote:
At 2/8/2011 2:12:29 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 2/8/2011 2:00:38 PM, nonentity wrote:
At 2/8/2011 1:26:07 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 2/8/2011 12:12:59 PM, nonentity wrote:
What are some examples of logical reasons for believing in religion? Other than Pascal's Wager or whatever it's called (which, in my humble opinion, isn't good enough)

Pascals Wager is actually not a logical reason (neither weak nor strong), it is merely a threat designed to get you to believe in God. It's what is called an ad baculum fallacy (i.e. My position is true because I'll kick your fvckin a$s if you disagree.).

lol But what are the logical reasons for believing in religion? I can't think of one...

The Ontological Argument, the Argument from Non-Contingency, Transcendental Argument for God, the Cosmological Argument, etc.

The above are arguments based entirely on logic, but there are others that are evidence-based as well such as the Teleological Argument.

the ontological argument is retarded..

Not the revised, more sophisticated versions of it. Also, that's besides the points whether it's weak or strong, it's still an argument that relies on logic only.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2011 2:52:56 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/8/2011 1:26:07 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 2/8/2011 12:12:59 PM, nonentity wrote:ad baculum fallacy
What are some examples of logical reasons for believing in religion? Other than Pascal's Wager or whatever it's called (which, in my humble opinion, isn't good enough)

Pascals Wager is actually not a logical reason (neither weak nor strong), it is merely a threat designed to get you to believe in God. It's what is called an (i.e. My position is true because I'll kick your fvckin a$s if you disagree.).

No it's not. Pascal wager in it's original form has a conclusion that is a moral assertion: If you wish to live in eternal paradise then you ought to adhere to religious doctrine. It doesn't threaten that God will smite thee if you do otherwise.
'sup DDO -- july 2013
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2011 2:53:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/8/2011 2:12:29 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
The Ontological Argument, the Argument from Non-Contingency, Transcendental Argument for God, the Cosmological Argument, etc.

The above are arguments based entirely on logic, but there are others that are evidence-based as well such as the Teleological Argument.

Swinburne has an evidential cosmological argument. IMO, all versions of the ontological argument are retarded, but in all fairness, I can't understand Maydole's modal perfection argument to save my life.
badger
Posts: 11,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2011 2:53:41 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/8/2011 2:41:09 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 2/8/2011 2:30:25 PM, badger wrote:
At 2/8/2011 2:12:29 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 2/8/2011 2:00:38 PM, nonentity wrote:
At 2/8/2011 1:26:07 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 2/8/2011 12:12:59 PM, nonentity wrote:
What are some examples of logical reasons for believing in religion? Other than Pascal's Wager or whatever it's called (which, in my humble opinion, isn't good enough)

Pascals Wager is actually not a logical reason (neither weak nor strong), it is merely a threat designed to get you to believe in God. It's what is called an ad baculum fallacy (i.e. My position is true because I'll kick your fvckin a$s if you disagree.).

lol But what are the logical reasons for believing in religion? I can't think of one...

The Ontological Argument, the Argument from Non-Contingency, Transcendental Argument for God, the Cosmological Argument, etc.

The above are arguments based entirely on logic, but there are others that are evidence-based as well such as the Teleological Argument.

the ontological argument is retarded..

Not the revised, more sophisticated versions of it. Also, that's besides the points whether it's weak or strong, it's still an argument that relies on logic only.

i believe she was looking for a logical reason to believe in god.. not silly logic..
signature
badger
Posts: 11,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2011 2:55:03 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/8/2011 2:53:36 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 2/8/2011 2:12:29 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
The Ontological Argument, the Argument from Non-Contingency, Transcendental Argument for God, the Cosmological Argument, etc.

The above are arguments based entirely on logic, but there are others that are evidence-based as well such as the Teleological Argument.

Swinburne has an evidential cosmological argument. IMO, all versions of the ontological argument are retarded, but in all fairness, I can't understand Maydole's modal perfection argument to save my life.

i was gonna ask for a look at a few of them.. but i'll take your word for it :)
signature
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2011 2:55:03 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Pascals Wager is actually not a logical reason (neither weak nor strong), it is merely a threat designed to get you to believe in God. It's what is called an (i.e. My position is true because I'll kick your fvckin a$s if you disagree.).

No it's not. Pascal wager in it's original form has a conclusion that is a moral assertion: If you wish to live in eternal paradise then you ought to adhere to religious doctrine. It doesn't threaten that God will smite thee if you do otherwise.

um.......

hell?
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
badger
Posts: 11,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2011 2:57:10 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/8/2011 2:53:41 PM, badger wrote:
At 2/8/2011 2:41:09 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 2/8/2011 2:30:25 PM, badger wrote:
At 2/8/2011 2:12:29 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 2/8/2011 2:00:38 PM, nonentity wrote:
At 2/8/2011 1:26:07 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 2/8/2011 12:12:59 PM, nonentity wrote:
What are some examples of logical reasons for believing in religion? Other than Pascal's Wager or whatever it's called (which, in my humble opinion, isn't good enough)

Pascals Wager is actually not a logical reason (neither weak nor strong), it is merely a threat designed to get you to believe in God. It's what is called an ad baculum fallacy (i.e. My position is true because I'll kick your fvckin a$s if you disagree.).

lol But what are the logical reasons for believing in religion? I can't think of one...

The Ontological Argument, the Argument from Non-Contingency, Transcendental Argument for God, the Cosmological Argument, etc.

The above are arguments based entirely on logic, but there are others that are evidence-based as well such as the Teleological Argument.

the ontological argument is retarded..

Not the revised, more sophisticated versions of it. Also, that's besides the points whether it's weak or strong, it's still an argument that relies on logic only.

i believe she was looking for a logical reason to believe in god.. not silly logic..

nah, i refuse to believe it's even logic actually.. define logic for me please someone.. the ontological argument is hardly an example.. it makes no sense!
signature
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2011 2:57:31 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/8/2011 2:55:03 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
Pascals Wager is actually not a logical reason (neither weak nor strong), it is merely a threat designed to get you to believe in God. It's what is called an (i.e. My position is true because I'll kick your fvckin a$s if you disagree.).

No it's not. Pascal wager in it's original form has a conclusion that is a moral assertion: If you wish to live in eternal paradise then you ought to adhere to religious doctrine. It doesn't threaten that God will smite thee if you do otherwise.

um.......

hell?
Pascal wager is not:
> Believe in God.
> or go to hell.
'sup DDO -- july 2013
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2011 3:04:21 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/8/2011 2:53:36 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 2/8/2011 2:12:29 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
The Ontological Argument, the Argument from Non-Contingency, Transcendental Argument for God, the Cosmological Argument, etc.

The above are arguments based entirely on logic, but there are others that are evidence-based as well such as the Teleological Argument.

Swinburne has an evidential cosmological argument.

That's interesting. How does that work?

IMO, all versions of the ontological argument are retarded, but in all fairness, I can't understand Maydole's modal perfection argument to save my life.

I would tend to agree actually because they all hinge on existence being a great-making characteristic which Hume pretty much made a mockery of and put such a notion to shame.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
nonentity
Posts: 5,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2011 3:07:43 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/8/2011 2:57:31 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
At 2/8/2011 2:55:03 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
Pascals Wager is actually not a logical reason (neither weak nor strong), it is merely a threat designed to get you to believe in God. It's what is called an (i.e. My position is true because I'll kick your fvckin a$s if you disagree.).

No it's not. Pascal wager in it's original form has a conclusion that is a moral assertion: If you wish to live in eternal paradise then you ought to adhere to religious doctrine. It doesn't threaten that God will smite thee if you do otherwise.

um.......

hell?
Pascal wager is not:
> Believe in God.
> or go to hell.

Yeah I thought it was more like... you have nothing to lose by believing in God (which isn't true, but I digress). The only one that seems fairly logical to me is the cosmological argument.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2011 3:28:38 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/8/2011 2:57:10 PM, badger wrote:
nah, i refuse to believe it's even logic actually.. define logic for me please someone.. the ontological argument is hardly an example.. it makes no sense!

That you don't understand it doesn't make it not logical. Most versions are logically valid meaning they follow sound rules of inference.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
vardas0antras
Posts: 983
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2011 3:31:33 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/8/2011 3:07:43 PM, nonentity wrote:
At 2/8/2011 2:57:31 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
At 2/8/2011 2:55:03 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
Pascals Wager is actually not a logical reason (neither weak nor strong), it is merely a threat designed to get you to believe in God. It's what is called an (i.e. My position is true because I'll kick your fvckin a$s if you disagree.).

No it's not. Pascal wager in it's original form has a conclusion that is a moral assertion: If you wish to live in eternal paradise then you ought to adhere to religious doctrine. It doesn't threaten that God will smite thee if you do otherwise.

um.......

hell?
Pascal wager is not:
> Believe in God.
> or go to hell.

Yeah I thought it was more like... you have nothing to lose by believing in God (which isn't true, but I digress). The only one that seems fairly logical to me is the cosmological argument.

Do you want to debate it ? Or, anyone else ?
"When he awoke in a tomb three days later he would actually have believed that he rose from the dead" FREEDO about the resurrection of Jesus Christ
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2011 3:32:25 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/8/2011 3:04:21 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 2/8/2011 2:53:36 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 2/8/2011 2:12:29 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
The Ontological Argument, the Argument from Non-Contingency, Transcendental Argument for God, the Cosmological Argument, etc.

The above are arguments based entirely on logic, but there are others that are evidence-based as well such as the Teleological Argument.

Swinburne has an evidential cosmological argument.

That's interesting. How does that work?

I believe it's what he calls a c-inductive argument. I forget exactly how it goes.

IMO, all versions of the ontological argument are retarded, but in all fairness, I can't understand Maydole's modal perfection argument to save my life.

I would tend to agree actually because they all hinge on existence being a great-making characteristic

No, they don't. They rely on necessary existence being a great-making property. There is a difference.

which Hume pretty much made a mockery of and put such a notion to shame.

No, he didn't.

For the record, I don't think most ontological arguments succeed (including the one I defended in my debate) and the few that look look promising I'm agnostic on.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
nonentity
Posts: 5,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2011 3:33:50 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/8/2011 3:28:38 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 2/8/2011 2:57:10 PM, badger wrote:
nah, i refuse to believe it's even logic actually.. define logic for me please someone.. the ontological argument is hardly an example.. it makes no sense!

That you don't understand it doesn't make it not logical. Most versions are logically valid meaning they follow sound rules of inference.

He didn't say he didn't understand it, just that it makes no sense. How does it make sense and what version of it?