When people ask me what my problem with religion is, one answer is not enough

[slothpomba]

I don't really think you can provide a scientific argument for or against the idea of a general God, the god of the philosophers. A being that is just maximally powerful. Science is meant to be secular, not atheistic afterall. It doesn't really make a say in religion either way, it just establishes naturalistic facts. So, i think it would be hard for either side to prove or disprove god using a scientific argument.

You could say that evolution proves to you that god didnt create life or something. I study biology and im a big supporter of evolution but for one thing, evolution does not speak about the origin of life, only change. A lot of religious organisations such as the church of england and even the vatican support evolution by in large. For two, this only disproves a particular conception of God that particular people hold. Same with the big bang, as far as i know, it describes the evolution of the early universe and beyond but not the actual origin.

So, just based on these things i mentioned, i think it would be hard for either side.

[Special At Specialist]

Whilst you make a good point, kingpomba, I do think that it is often unnecessary to require 100% proof before accepting something.

For example, you could even go as far as to say that we don't know if planets even exist. Have you specifically been to space? If the answer is yes, I could claim you're hallucinating. If the answer is no, I could then ask how you know that we live on a round planet. Did someone tell you that? Did you believe them? What if they were lying? What if every picture of the earth you ever saw was photoshopped? What if you're not a human being but a robot that has been programmed to think you're a human being?

There are so many things we can question and it is almost impossible to 100% prove things. How do you prove you have a brain inside your head, rather than a chip of metal? You could indeed be a robot and you wouldn't even know it.

But sometimes, you just have to accept things. You just have to accept that you are a human, even if there is a chance you're not. You have to accept that we live on a round planet, even if you've never seen the earth as a whole for yourself.

I can't prove that god doesn't exist, but I accept it, since, at least in my opinion, most evidence goes against the existence of a god or deity.

[Planck's constant]

I can't prove that god doesn't exist

There's no way you'll get 50 in Specialist Maths if you cant do simple proofs like this

[Special At Specialist]

There's no way you'll get 50 in Specialist Maths if you cant do simple proofs like this

Well a mathematical proof needs only be sufficient enough to convince other mathematicians, so I guess this shouldn't be too hard...

[Truck]

Same shit different thread.

Zero tolerance policies

ATAR Notes (AN) will always be a safe community environment for all denominations of society. This means no racism, homophobia, or discrimination of any kind. Any comments making mass generalisations on the basis of sex, race, religion, or sexual preference must be supported by citable empirical evidence.

A truly dangerous weapon that makes good people do evil things, and allows evil people a vehicle to exponentially grow the damage of their wicked actions.

Mass generalisation.

Without fail, whenever you have a religious community. Bad shit happens.

Real mature. This is the third time I've had to quote the forum rules. I have no problem with your beliefs. However I find it disrespectful that you insult and ridicule my religion. The rules are there for a reason. If they won't be enforced in future, it will become obvious that you don't give a damn about anyone but yourself.

It amazes me that an administrator would post such a topic considering the various religious faiths and beliefs held by members on this board. Seriously enwiabe, go and search for some other purpose in your life. The whole "I'm trying to help humanity" crap is getting old. You sound like a basement dweller who needs to confirm his non-religious beliefs.

And you sound like someone who is so insecure about his beliefs that he cannot stand them being opened up for debate. FYI, the evidence I have for religion being a bad thing is, well, all of history...

You're still breaking the rules that you wrote...

[Special At Specialist]

You're still breaking the rules that you wrote...

He's an admin. The rules don't apply to him.

[enwiabe]

I didn't break any rules. I backed up everything I asserted with evidence. I attacked the ideology of religion.

I know many people get het up about that, but replace "religion" with "marxism" or some other ideology you don't hold near and dear to your heart in the thread title and I guarantee nobody has a problem with it.

Ideas that don't stand up to challenge aren't worth anything, and MJRomeo has done nothing but demonstrate that with his bizarre rants about religion somehow being a taboo topic to discuss. Those who are in the weakest position of a debate will often be the ones who try to stifle it as best as possible.

[Camo]

My favourite quote from the bible to describe the present day. We know the truth, science can prove that religion no longer need exist. I know people might attack this statement but to me, certain religion authority such as the Catholic Church used their rules to discriminate and get their own way.

[Mech]

Interesting, Camo. I am an antitheist, and yet I hold the bible in esteem as a literary text (despite the fact I called it the "addled incantations of nomads before; it is, but it does not make it any less interesting). There are some good principles, but you have to cherry pick them. The metaphor and passion of some verses are what stirred writers and poets alike (William Blake comes to mine) which I cannot imagine the world without. Like Stephen Fry, I am thankful to religion for its artistic contributions. I am not as iconoclastic as to deny them that their fiction has born some beautiful things in the arts.

[nubs]

Menang, if you were convinced god had spoken to you and told you to kill me because that is what he wanted, would you do it?

That's the thing, I'd never be convinced that God asked me to kill someone, because it directly contradicts what the Bible says.

There's some things we non-militant Christians learn at church about living as a Christian, and one of them is to check what you're being told against what the Bible says.

Not sure if this has already been responded to, but wasn't Abraham told to kill his son, Isaac, by God?

That's in the bible

EDIT: Never mind I just saw Enwiabe's post

[slothpomba]

Not sure if this has already been responded to, but wasn't Abraham told to kill his son, Isaac, by God?

That's in the bible

See, the unique thing about the bible and the Torah is that they're considered to be authored by humans inspired by God or recounting divine occurrences brought by God onto this world. Contrast this with Islam which holds the belief the quran is the direct word of god, that God IS the author and it was merely passed down through Muhammad as the messenger. This is why if you read the Quran, in most parts, it is like God is speaking.

Due to the nature of the bible and Torah and its authors, humans a unique nature results. Human beings are fallible and error prone but the fundamental basics, not the accessory details are the most important things. This was long ago in history and since it is produced by humans, it could be a mistaken myth or an allegory.

For instance, you can no more prove that this isn't an allegory or a parable than i can prove that it is.

It could be an allegory or a parable about Abraham's unwaivering faith and submission to god for example.

So, i dont think you can necessarily indict them on an event that no one can prove happened or did not happen, if you're so big on proof and logic after-all.

---------------------------------------

(Since philosophy can be thought of as almost mental chess i have anticipated the retort that will go along the lines of this: "But kingpomba, even if it is an allegory or parable, people still might or will take it literally".

For one, i doubt people will go around killing their children.

For two, Abraham had prior communication with God according to the story and the story tells us it was God. You could dispute the fact that abraham even existed so we'll just take the facts of the story as they present themselves. So, he had good reason to believe in a God and had prior communication with him. People in the modern day, haven't. If you thought you started hearing God out of the blue and he told you to kill your son, most people wouldn't. For one, they had no prior communication with God or proof that it is actually God talking to them. He had seen (according to the story) God carry out many miraculous and powerful events, he had good reason to believe God existed. In the chronology of abrahams life, the sacrafice of his son actually comes in quite late, by this point he had seen the destruction of Sodom, the bible makes the destruction out to be immense, on the level of a missle or something like that. Obviously, according to the story, naturalistic events like this dont really come around. You dont look one day see sodom, look again and theres a smoking crater.

He had made his convenant with God too by this point. So, it comes realtively late, after ample time which abraham had good reason to believe in God.

This kind of retort is based on the kind of black and white thinking i was talking about earlier. That all christians and jews are monolithic bloc and they all hold EXACTLY the same views, which is obviously an incorrect assumption. You have many, upon many, that takes things non-literally. The are very few that take everything in the bible as literal. As someone mentioned above, the mixing of linen and wool. Its in the old testment but almost all christians and a lot of jews dont pay much attention to it.

Another portion people almost everyone forgets is the prohibition against charging usury (interest) on money. Think about everything you have that has some baring in interest, credit cards, even regular bank accounts pay interest, let alone savings accounts that pay something like 6.2%. Home loans carry interest. This is often ignored by many many believers and yet the bible is quiet clear on it:

“‘If any of your fellow Israelites become poor and are unable to support themselves among you, help them as you would a foreigner and stranger, so they can continue to live among you.  Do not take interest or any profit from them, but fear your God, so that they may continue to live among you.  You must not lend them money at interest or sell them food at a profit.  I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt to give you the land of Canaan and to be your God. "

Leviticus 25:35

In numerous other verses as well. The influential early catholic theologian, thomas aquinas was also against ursury and yet many believers today seem to prefer the non-literal or deviant interpretation here.

Same with countless other theologians:

"St. Ambrose was the father of  Christian Economics, and when he declared ‘ pecumia non parit pecumiam’, money does not breed money, he laid a sound foundation on which Christian Thinkers were to build for over a millennium. The Council of Elva passed a decree against usury. "

"St. Hilary and St. Augustine maintained that it was a  Sin against Charity ; St. Augustine demanded  Restitution.  St. Chrysostom called it the  Sin of Faithlessness. Indeed, thus early appear the arguments based on  Reason , Experience and  Revelation, which we shall see again and again under varied forms.   "

How many Christians do you know with interest bearing home-loans, compared to those without? It's obvious almost all the christians and most of the jews out there don't take everything highly literally.

So, its quiet obviously flawed to assume everyone will suddenly take everything literally)

[Russ]

Same shit different thread.

Zero tolerance policies

ATAR Notes (AN) will always be a safe community environment for all denominations of society. This means no racism, homophobia, or discrimination of any kind. Any comments making mass generalisations on the basis of sex, race, religion, or sexual preference must be supported by citable empirical evidence.

A truly dangerous weapon that makes good people do evil things, and allows evil people a vehicle to exponentially grow the damage of their wicked actions.

Mass generalisation.

Without fail, whenever you have a religious community. Bad shit happens.

Real mature. This is the third time I've had to quote the forum rules.

And it's the third time you've been wrong. Whilst enwiabe has obviously never heard the phrase "you'll catch more flies with honey", he's not being racist, homophobic or discriminatory. He's not making negative generalizations without evidence. You could perhaps accuse him of being hyperbolic, but if we're going to ban people for that then it'll be a pretty empty forum.

[Special At Specialist]

I don't like how philosophy has turned from a logical, thinking subject like mathematics to a poetic, rhetoric subject like English/literature.

Philosophy is supposed to be about making simple, logical and coherent arguments, starting at a list of premises and deducing an answer step-by-step. This is how mathematical problems are solved and most scientific problems as well. But most philosophers nowadays do not do that...

Most philosophers nowadays care more about poetry and rhetoric than they do about actually making their point. This isn't a debate. The aim isn't to use the fanciest words in your argument so that the opposition has no idea what you're trying to say. The aim is to keep your explanations short, simple, succinct and precise so that everyone can understand what your point is. That is how mathematics works and that it how philosophy should work.

So many theistic philosophers try to use the argument of an "infinite regression" to their advantage, yet they don't even know what infinity is! I try to explain in mathematical terms how I disagree with them, and they come up with arguments like "I don't like maths. Please explain this using other terms." If you don't like mathematics, a subject which praises logic and deductive reasoning as its most precious enterprise, then you shouldn't be a philosopher. It's as simple as that.

[EvangelionZeta]

^^that's actually hilariously untrue - if anything, it's the opposite. Analytic philosophy (dominated my mathematical thinking and, indeed, people with strong Maths backgrounds) dominates most university philosophy departments.

You'll also notice nobody in this thread has claimed a dislike for mathematics...

[Mech]

I don't like how philosophy has turned from a logical, thinking subject like mathematics to a poetic, rhetoric subject like English/literature.

Prose have nothing to do with it. Stop being silly.

Philosophy is supposed to be about making simple, logical and coherent arguments, starting at a list of premises and deducing an answer step-by-step. This is how mathematical problems are solved and most scientific problems as well. But most philosophers nowadays do not do that...

Got any proof to back that one up? Also, try and provide a "simple" argument to explaining consciousness inclusive of intentionality, qualia, free will etc. As EvangelionZeta has said, most philosophy departments have a large amount of mathematics students who focus on the analytical side of philosophy.

Most philosophers nowadays care more about poetry and rhetoric than they do about actually making their point. This isn't a debate. The aim isn't to use the fanciest words in your argument so that the opposition has no idea what you're trying to say. The aim is to keep your explanations short, simple, succinct and precise so that everyone can understand what your point is. That is how mathematics works and that it how philosophy should work.

Philosophers have a longstanding dislike of sophism, trust me. Your argument was not succinct or accessible.

So many theistic philosophers try to use the argument of an "infinite regression" to their advantage, yet they don't even know what infinity is! I try to explain in mathematical terms how I disagree with them, and they come up with arguments like "I don't like maths. Please explain this using other terms." If you don't like mathematics, a subject which praises logic and deductive reasoning as its most precious enterprise, then you shouldn't be a philosopher. It's as simple as that.

There is a distinction to be made about a mathematical infinity and a superlative infinity (i.e. the zenith of all attributes). Nobody here is stating their dislike of mathematics; nobody actually understands the argument you made as it was not accessible and not even a well-structured syllogism.

Shush.