Official Religion Thread

[Dark]

Instead of commenting on multiple paragraphs in two posts, and reiterating myself, I'll quote what I need to say.

 

This is 100%. Religion comes from mans search to answer things they can't answer. However an answer no matter how illogical is better then no answer to me. This is why I do beleive in a god since I have no other way to satisfactorily answer the question "what caused the big bang." And even though I have this "answer" that won't stop me from looking for a better one.

 

This is the wrong way of thinking. You are pretty much saying, "The universe is the size of my thumb. And because you cannot prove me wrong and don't have a way to prove me wrong, my answer is correct."

 

And then you can subsequently create a theory of why the universe is the size of your thumb, et cetera, et cetera.

 

What I am saying is that using religion to answer questions will not get you to the right answer, and you will essentially be thinking the wrong thing for an eternity.

[~/Coolio Prime\~]

……

 

Yeah, you didn't listen to what I said. >_> Not every single religion was made to explain how something happened, that mainly applies to the Olympians and the polytheistic gods in general.

 

Let's say that one day a shooting star passes by and people begin worshiping said shooting star as a god. Perhaps they'll create stories about said star creating the universe, but they did not create the star's power as a means to explain anything.

[Luxlord]

The one thing I can't stand is a bigot. Try it, you wont win...

(This is perfectly on topic)

[Flame Dragon]

This is the wrong way of thinking. You are pretty much saying' date=' "The universe is the size of my thumb. And because you cannot prove me wrong and don't have a way to prove me wrong, my answer is correct."

[b']But my answer isn't correct. Their is no correct answer to the question, "what created the universe" because you can't prove it either way. As such you, or at least I, pick what answer you like best and from their look for a better answer[/b]

And then you can subsequently create a theory of why the universe is the size of your thumb, et cetera, et cetera.

 

What I am saying is that using religion to answer questions will not get you to the right answer, and you will essentially be thinking the wrong thing for an eternity.

I would only use religion to answer questions that have no right answer. Also you say I'll be wrong for all eternity, so that makes me think that I'll be happy with saying "ok god created the universe, case closed." I'm not. I want a better answer and as such even if I have this answer I will keep looking. If I can find an answer that can be proved I'll go with that. If I can't sure I will be wrong for all eternity, but that would also mean that no matter I choice I make I would be wrong.

[EocDragon]

Instead of commenting on multiple paragraphs in two posts' date=' and reiterating myself, I'll quote what I need to say.

 

[i']This is 100%. Religion comes from mans search to answer things they can't answer. However an answer no matter how illogical is better then no answer to me. This is why I do beleive in a god since I have no other way to satisfactorily answer the question "what caused the big bang." And even though I have this "answer" that won't stop me from looking for a better one.[/i]

 

This is the wrong way of thinking. You are pretty much saying, "The universe is the size of my thumb. And because you cannot prove me wrong and don't have a way to prove me wrong, my answer is correct."

 

And then you can subsequently create a theory of why the universe is the size of your thumb, et cetera, et cetera.

 

What I am saying is that using religion to answer questions will not get you to the right answer, and you will essentially be thinking the wrong thing for an eternity.

 

The problem with that statement is that you do the exact same thing. Except you say that nobody can prove a God exists. And since nobody can prove a God exists and they don't have a way to prove he exists, he must not exist and thus the Atheistic arguement is correct. It's called the Arguement from Ignorance

 

Since we're pointing out logical fallacies, let's point out another one that you often use. It's called The Straw Man Arguement.

 

I think your process goes a bit like this:

First you troll a bit, claiming a lot of things that are heavily opinionated and have very little or no supporting evidence. However, it doesn't matter if what you post is true or not,because what your really looking for is a poorly constructed retort comming from some poor kid who feels a little too strongly about their religion. You then proceed to deconstruct said retort, which is obviously more of an emotional response than an actual arguement, and then claim that your arguement is inherently stronger because you've disproved the other side's arguement. On the off chance that a member replies with a well thought out arguement that you don't have a rebuttal for, you generally ignore it or maybe even start a new trolling topic.

 

This might all be speculation, but the fact that you spend more time refuting other arguements than advancing your own, most of which are simple, unellaborated claims, makes me think that your arguing for the sake of arguing.

[Dark]

Some more tl;dr posts. Your speculation was off by a mile and more. But I did see something about proof. Let's try this exercise:

 

Assume I am claiming that I am an invisible man. But I only turn invisible when no one is watching. In fact, not even a camera can be around, otherwise I won't turn invisible. I obviously posess an amazing power. To recap, I can turn invisible when no one else is around.

 

This is obviously a logical fallacy. It's impossible. Not possible. No. So you tell me that I cannot be turning invisible, as it's impossible.

 

And my retort is that you have no proof. You cannot state that I do not turn invisible, because you have no proof and will never get proof due to the conditions set on my invisibility.

 

Therefore, since you have no proof, that automatically makes me right, correct?

 

No. I am making the claim in this situation. You are questioning my claim, not making your own. Therefore, I hold the burden of proof. And since I do not have proof, nor can I obtain it, it must be concluded that I am not invisible.

[~/Coolio Prime\~]

Is debating bringing up a topic, bringing up another topic then bringing back the previous topic without responding to replies? Because that's what way too many people on YCM have been doing. >_>

[Dark]

Is debating bringing up a topic' date=' bringing up another topic then bringing back the previous topic without responding to replies? Because that's what way too many people on YCM have been doing. >_>

[/quote']

 

Most of these replies are tl;dr, and usually reiterations of the same bland points. It's obviously that Christfags and religionfags don't want to listen to atheistfags views, and vice versa.

[~/Coolio Prime\~]

Then at least respond to me, agnostifags need love too. :[

[Dark]

Agnosticfags are like atheistfags, but agnosticfags agree that Christfags could be right, with a low possibility.

 

Anyways, I'd like to bring up a new topic:

 

Discuss the Bible in contradiction to the other religious books. Which is right?

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

People flame me all the time' date=' but because I am a minority (in a sense), no reprimands are given.

[/quote']

 

You're not a minority at all, a great number of us our Atheists, we just don't constantly try to impose our beliefs on others. THAT's the problem. THAT's "the fuel for your wars" even though that was usualy just to mask what they really wanted, money or something of the like, but for the sake of the argument, right?

 

You're really just as bad as a Christian who tries to convert others. Nothing can come of getting between people and their beliefs, especially when they aren't causing others harm. It's the "your beliefs are wrong, change or die" that's the problem. Intolerance, if you will.

 

You're part of the problem. Kindly shut the funk up.

[Dark]

I am obviously trying to turn people atheist, and I have obviously stated in one form or another that you must change your beliefs. Obviously.

[~/Coolio Prime\~]

Agnosticfags are like atheistfags' date=' but agnosticfags agree that Christfags could be right, with a low possibility.

[/quote']

That's a misinterpretation of our views, or at least mine. Agnosticism in general is pretty all over the place.

 

Discuss the Bible in contradiction to the other religious books. Which is right?

It looks like the three Judaic Books all follow the same events, only at different dates with slightly different levels of embellishment.

[Dark]

I guess my definition wasn't an exact one. It was more of an educated guess type thing.

 

I meant the Bible in relation to the Quaran (sp?) or something.

[~/Coolio Prime\~]

The Quran is one of the three Judaic books.

[Dark]

I just epic failed, didn't I?

 

How about the Hindu book?

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

I am obviously trying to turn people atheist' date=' and I have [i']obviously[/i] stated in one form or another that you must change your beliefs. Obviously.

 

They aren't even my beliefs. I'm only arguing because intolerance is wrong, not Atheism. Oh, and read your own funking posts? How many times have you said "religion/Christianity is wrong" in this thread, or said "religion/Christianity" and "wrong" together within a 5 word radius? The implications are obvious.

[Dark]

I am obviously trying to turn people atheist' date=' and I have [i']obviously[/i] stated in one form or another that you must change your beliefs. Obviously.

 

They aren't even my beliefs. I'm only arguing because intolerance is wrong, not Atheism. Oh, and read your own f***ing posts? How many times have you said "religion/Christianity is wrong" in this thread, or said "religion/Christianity" and "wrong" together within a 5 word radius? The implications are obvious.

 

Because obviously stating something is wrong multiple times implies that I want people to follow me in my beliefs. Obviously.

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

I am obviously trying to turn people atheist' date=' and I have [i']obviously[/i] stated in one form or another that you must change your beliefs. Obviously.

 

They aren't even my beliefs. I'm only arguing because intolerance is wrong, not Atheism. Oh, and read your own f***ing posts? How many times have you said "religion/Christianity is wrong" in this thread, or said "religion/Christianity" and "wrong" together within a 5 word radius? The implications are obvious.

 

Because obviously stating something is wrong multiple times implies that I want people to follow me in my beliefs. Obviously.

 

The only reason for arguing that anything is wrong is to make the audience you're addressing believe you're right. You lose.

[Dark]

I am obviously trying to turn people atheist' date=' and I have [i']obviously[/i] stated in one form or another that you must change your beliefs. Obviously.

 

They aren't even my beliefs. I'm only arguing because intolerance is wrong, not Atheism. Oh, and read your own f***ing posts? How many times have you said "religion/Christianity is wrong" in this thread, or said "religion/Christianity" and "wrong" together within a 5 word radius? The implications are obvious.

 

Because obviously stating something is wrong multiple times implies that I want people to follow me in my beliefs. Obviously.

 

The only reason for arguing that anything is wrong is to make the audience you're addressing believe you're right. You lose.

 

I am posting that God is wrong because I would like to take part in this debate. I have stated multiple times that I don't care if you become atheist or not. I know for a fact I am right, so it makes no difference to me what you believe. I lost because I did not use obviously in my post. Nope, just won again.

[The Dark One]

This thread has degenerated into a worthless trollfest and should be closed.

 

One last thing to throw out there though. I'm all for tolerance, certainly. But religious people seem to get all up-in-arms about not being given respect by athiests. Try looking at this from our point of view, just for a second. There's nothing necessarily wrong with religion as a practice (though certainly it does often overstep its bounds). It just that it seems completely ridiculous to us. What if I fervently placed my belief in the fact that I would be taken to the moon tomorrow night by a tribe of winged pigs? You'd laugh at me. This is much the same. You seem utterly and totally ridiculous to an athiest. And that's ok. You can't get everyone to respect you.

[Lemniscate]

There are plenty of atheists who get insulted by not being respected as well. That's a human trait, not a trait that only applies to religious people.

 

And also, if you told me that you were going to be taken to the moon by a tribe of winged pigs, I'd say "Good for you". It's not that big of a deal, why care about what someone else thinks?

[The Dark One]

There are plenty of atheists who get insulted by not being respected as well. That's a human trait' date=' not a trait that only applies to religious people.

 

And also, if you told me that you were going to be taken to the moon by a tribe of winged pigs, I'd say "Good for you". It's not that big of a deal, why care about what someone else thinks?

[/quote']

 

If you're trying to say that you'd respect (notice the distinction between respect of the belief and the taking of action to prevent the belief) my belief in that event, then you're lying. Plain and simple.

 

And certainly athiests do often get angry about not being respected. The difference is, we're the one's with the 'neutral position' per say. We don't have beliefs that would be considered laughable to others. We simply don't have beliefs.

 

You are, of course right that it really doesn't matter what other people think. Consider then, if I believed that the pigs wouldn't take me to the moon unless I forced two of my friends to come with me. Suddenly my beliefs start having an impact on others. Likewise, religion often extends beyond the personal beliefs of an individual. September 11 is one example of a small number of extremists having a large impact on a large group of people. Also, consider how religious lobbyists are doing a good job of preventing gay marriage (under the civil sense of marriage, obviously, a church shouldn't be forced to perform a ceremony for a gay couple. The thing is, they aren't being forced, and nobody wants them to be forced to.) There have been numerous court cases where people have been trying to force schools to teach Creationism. Obviously there is a huge debate over abortion, etc. The point is, it isn't fair to say that religion is a purely personally held belief. It DOES affect others.

[~/Coolio Prime\~]

While I agree that on a personal scale people shouldn't have their religion effect those that don't want anything to do with them, the democratic system allows people to have their opinions and wherever they get them from shouldn't matter.

[The Dark One]

While I agree that on a personal scale people shouldn't have their religion effect those that don't want anything to do with them' date=' the democratic system allows people to have their opinions and wherever they get them from shouldn't matter.

[/quote']

 

The democratic system also allows for reasoned debate in an attempt to change opinions. Thus, my saying that religion should not effect others is perfectly valid. ;)

 

Also, the separation of Church and State is in the constitution. The Constitution is what gives our democratic system meaning. It's not quite as simple as a bunch of senators just deciding that gays are evil. They have to first decide that the government should care whether or not gays are evil, and it's no easy matter to make amendments.