Religious Stupidity

[m1k3y4e7]

The problem even with the most liberal of religions is that they still make assumptions about the nature of reality and assumptions are anti-scientific.

And you're not the majority of religious people. Most are at least somewhat fundamentalists, and deny a lot of facts.

how is an omnipotent deity "unscientific"? heck, it would explain a lot. makes the big bang easier to understand.

[Ad Bot]

[m1k3y4e7]

sorry for multi-post, but this bugs me.

Again, you're not seeing what Pascal's wager even says. It tells you to believe in God so you won't go to hell and go to heaven. If that's your only reason for 'believing' in God, won't he see through it? And are you really saying I don't break laws because it's illegal? You really think I don't go stealing and killing people on the street because it's illegal? Lame.

I am going to ignore the rest of this post, and focus on this. Like I already said, most of our ethics today find their roots in religion. there would be very little in the way of the sanctity of life if not for religion. Like I said also, laws are based off of ethics, ergo, laws are based on religion. I never said that the law was the only thing keeping you from murdering people. I am saying that you thinking murder is wrong comes from religion.

[Rughugger]

how is an omnipotent deity "unscientific"? heck, it would explain a lot. makes the big bang easier to understand.

Because it doesn't offer enough proof for his or other scientific tastes. They thinks that an explosion the size of a universe can come from a point about the size of an electron. If that was the case, as I overheard the history channel claim on regards to how the universe began, why the hell are we smashing atoms? Aren't we afraid of causing another one of these gigantic explosions? We don't know if each atom we smash contains an electron with a multitude of matter inside of it. How would we measure something of that magnitude or even know it's effect on us when we can't even know where subatomic particles exist according to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle?

[Kalphiter]

Did I hear "stupid" and "religion" in the same sentence?

[m1k3y4e7]

Did I hear "stupid" and "religion" in the same sentence?

your avatar is freaking me out.

[Amade]

you, sir are pulling at straws. also, if religion is right, god is probably nicer to people who just picked the wrong church than people who oppose churches in general.

Any intelligent, benevolent, omnipotent god that provides no solid evidence of its existence wouldn't let someone suffer in eternity for not believing in it. At the very least the christian god could be described as malevolent or non-omnipotent.

how is an omnipotent deity "unscientific"? heck, it would explain a lot. makes the big bang easier to understand.

If you can't understand the big bang you probably shouldn't be trying to argue the validity of christianity. The very concept of the big bang violates core beliefs of christianity such as the "In the beginning, God created the heavens and earth". The earth didn't form until 11 billion years after the big bang (the beginning).

Quit thinking the only reason people don't go around commiting Flash Mobs is because of religion. I'm an atheist and I do believe that killing, stealing, and just about everything illegal is something that people shouldn't be doing. The idea that murder is wrong does not come from religion because that's a basic instinct. I have never seen any animal kill a member of its own species other than as a desperate measure to obtain food, and I'm fairly certain you will agree that there are no animals that practice a religion. And funfact: the Satanistic ritualistic killing of a baby during a Black Mass is indeed caused by religion. In the bible, there are multiple instances of ritualistic human sacrifice ordered by god.

Aren't we afraid of causing another one of these gigantic explosions?

That's exactly what scientists are trying to do with the LHC and they could very possibly destroy the entire planet in the process.

[Inv3rted]

"I may have missed your point, however I believe in God, but I don't fear any smiting on his behalf because I know how to be moral in my actions at school, at work, with friends or social gatherings and at my home. I was raised by a family that promoted good behavior instead of just letting the TV be my ruling guide on the world. I choose to behave because I enjoy doing so, not because I fear punishment."

You started arguing with my rebuttal of Pascal's wager, which you now agree is flawed? Cool story.

"I never stated I believed in Pascal's wager, I just said it was your opinion that you don't. Secondly, you missed my point. All religions stem from one singular one that has been changed and retold so many times in so many different ways over the last 5000-6000 years, the only confusion is who remembers how it originally started and who is most qualified to represent that view. Things I find equally pointless as far as wars between religions go."

It's not my 'opinion' when something is a logical fallacy. Logical fallacies are concrete and not subjective. Saying what we have defined as 2 added to itself equals what we have defined as 4 is not opinion. And all religions stem from one? There is no evidence of this, and religions are waaaaaaaay older than 6000 years.

"I get that, but as I stated, you just assume that's something I believed in when that's not the case. I'm glad you ask about these things before you just assume. As for your reason, you tell me. Plenty of people your age disregard the law on several occasions simply because they think it's cute, funny, because they don't like the order given them, or the best way to attract women. And yes, some people kill because it is illegal for them to do. Because it gives them some kind of sick thrill. However, you once again I assume that when I refer to laws, that it's always the most extreme ones written. I'm glad you ask to clarify my points before making your retorts."

People do these things regardless of their religion or lack thereof. And when people break the law they either are responding to incentives to do so or are have had abnormal development socially. Impressing women is one of the most hardwired male instincts. Stealing is done because of poverty. Both are incentives. The sick thrill comes from being abnormal, usually a form of autism or sociopathic urges.

"And your reply is nothing but falsified assumptions based on what you think I was implying when all you had to do was ask for clarification on some points before typing the load of now useless counter-arguments to begin with."

lol, you're one to talk. You started arguing with me when you agreed that Pascal's wager was flawed.

you, sir are pulling at straws. also, if religion is right, god is probably nicer to people who just picked the wrong church than people who oppose churches in general.

lol, pulling at straws. Do you have any idea what you're talking about? Your brown townogy doesn't even make sense.

"no, but you can go to church, listen to sermons, etc. maybe it'll catch on, and, if not, going thru the motions is better than nothing."

Uh, if this is the only life I have, why would I waste it doing things that have no use? Considering there is no evidence for a God (no, you can't use the Bible as evidence because you only say the Bible is fact because it's supposedly the 'word of God') it's fairly likely one doesn't exist.

And God is nicer to people who are not more moral, but to people who are more religious? Way to paint your god as a bigot.

And I don't oppose churches. It's your freedom to do whatever you want. I am merely stating the problems with what you believe in order to make you actually think about it. Why is that insulting? Does disagreeing with conservative ideology mean you are against the existence of the opposing view?

Because it doesn't offer enough proof for his or other scientific tastes. They thinks that an explosion the size of a universe can come from a point about the size of an electron. If that was the case, as I overheard the history channel claim on regards to how the universe began, why the hell are we smashing atoms? Aren't we afraid of causing another one of these gigantic explosions? We don't know if each atom we smash contains an electron with a multitude of matter inside of it. How would we measure something of that magnitude or even know it's effect on us when we can't even know where subatomic particles exist according to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle?

You don't even know a THING about the Big Bang, and yet you speak like you do? Have you actually read anything about it or are you just basing your opinions on a history channel documentary on the subject?

Seriously, what the forget. It is an observed fact the Universe has expanded rapidly from a smaller point. Light moves at a finite speed. By looking at light that's come from far enough away we can see billions of years into the past.

And all atoms have electrons, unless they are ionized, and even the vast majority of ions have electrons. NO ONE KNOWS, I repeat, NO ONE KNOWS what caused the big bang. If you've heard claims to the contrary, you've been mislead. Atoms cannot smash eachother and cause a big bang because atoms exist within the universe, and the singularity before the big bang was the entire universe.

That's exactly what scientists are trying to do with the LHC and they could very possibly destroy the entire planet in the process.

WTF? There is no valid reason to fear anything from the LHC, and all you're doing is spreading misinformation and fear mongering.

[Rughugger]

That's exactly what scientists are trying to do with the LHC and they could very possibly destroy the entire planet in the process.

That's with black holes, not making a big bang. But even so, given that that is a possibility of happening and we indeed destroy the earth creating y creating another cosmic big bang, then how unreasonable that some mythical being isn't the cause of the last Big Bang when we as mortal, living breathing humans are capable of repeating the same thing even if unintentionally? Surely if we can do it, so can a deity.

[*Magick* Mage]

As I see it, Pascal's Wager is rather simple - Wager for God, as only good can come of such, and it will give you the incentive  to do good. - However, on the same grounds, I completely understand what Inv3rted is saying. One should not believe in a religion, or in God, merely because they fear the idea of entering a location similar to Hell. Or, in other words, do something merely because you fear if you don't, you'll be punished. This is perfectly acceptable, as I see it. A person should only believe what they want to. And I have faith that God would not even consider punishing one of his Children because they followed what they believed. Certainly, though, their are limits to this.

On the other hand, I also understand and agree with Rughugger's point. A person should do good because they want to, because they feel it right. If a person merely believes in a religion because of the fear of hell, they would quite clearly hold a guilty conscience, though one could say they are at least repenting. :o

Because it doesn't offer enough proof for his or other scientific tastes. They thinks that an explosion the size of a universe can come from a point about the size of an electron. If that was the case, as I overheard the history channel claim on regards to how the universe began, why the hell are we smashing atoms? Aren't we afraid of causing another one of these gigantic explosions? We don't know if each atom we smash contains an electron with a multitude of matter inside of it. How would we measure something of that magnitude or even know it's effect on us when we can't even know where subatomic particles exist according to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle?

"We may blow ourselves up. For science!"  

It's funny because science can be replaced with anything a person is dedicated to. :3

Any intelligent, benevolent, omnipotent god that provides no solid evidence of its existence wouldn't let someone suffer in eternity for not believing in it. At the very least the christian god could be described as malevolent or non-omnipotent.

Part of the reason I don't believe in hell. However one could argue that, as Dante said somewhere in his poem, the idea of hell is merely for those whom suffer there to be in pain until End Times - Judgment Day, specifically - Where they would live in a paradise, as they have learned their lesson. However, many people would argue with this, as with any point.

[Wizard]

That's with black holes, not making a big bang. But even so, given that that is a possibility of happening and we indeed destroy the earth creating y creating another cosmic big bang, then how unreasonable that some mythical being isn't the cause of the last Big Bang when we as mortal, living breathing humans are capable of repeating the same thing even if unintentionally? Surely if we can do it, so can a deity.

We can't recreate the big bang. End of story.

As I see it, Pascal's Wager is rather simple - Wager for God, as only good can come of such, and it will give you the incentive  to do good. - However, on the same grounds, I completely understand what Inv3rted is saying. One should not believe in a religion, or in God, merely because they fear the idea of entering a location similar to Hell. Or, in other words, do something merely because you fear if you don't, you'll be punished. This is perfectly acceptable, as I see it. A person should only believe what they want to. And I have faith that God would not even consider punishing one of his Children because they followed what they believed. Certainly, though, their are limits to this.

The problem with Pascal's Wager is that it assumes there's only one possible god. There isn't. There are a multitude of gods we've thought up and many more we haven't, so really the chances are equal. You'd be best go to with what makes sense but on the topic of wager's I'd think that if you're wrong, the god would be more pissed at you believing in the wrong god than no god.

And I'm glad most of the christians don't believe in hell. Infinite punishment is infinitely unjust.

[m1k3y4e7]

I am going to ignore most of that bucket of stupid and failed quote, and focus on these.

lol, pulling at straws. Do you have any idea what you're talking about? Your brown townogy doesn't even make sense.

it's a figure of speech, moron. I did mean "grasping at straws" though.

"no, but you can go to church, listen to sermons, etc. maybe it'll catch on, and, if not, going thru the motions is better than nothing."

Uh, if this is the only life I have, why would I waste it doing things that have no use? Considering there is no evidence for a God (no, you can't use the Bible as evidence because you only say the Bible is fact because it's supposedly the 'word of God') it's fairly likely one doesn't exist.

considering that you are arguing on the internet about religion, you have no issues with doing things that have no use. and, considering that there is none of what you would consider "solid evidence" either way, it's roughly 50/50.

And God is nicer to people who are not more moral, but to people who are more religious? Way to paint your god as a bigot.
fairly sure none of us said that. nice to religious people sure but not mean to non-religious people with morals. it's generally assumed that these two are additive. ideally you are both.

[A.R.C.]

Relevant?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mmskXXetcg&feature=player_embedded

[Wizard]

I am going to ignore most of that bucket of stupid and failed quote, and focus on these.

"fairly sure none of us said that. nice to religious people sure but not mean to non-religious people with morals. it's generally assumed that these two are additive. ideally you are both."

Ideally you are both means that less religious people cannot obtain the same level of goodness as a more religious person. That is bigotry.

[Inv3rted]

That's with black holes, not making a big bang. But even so, given that that is a possibility of happening and we indeed destroy the earth creating y creating another cosmic big bang, then how unreasonable that some mythical being isn't the cause of the last Big Bang when we as mortal, living breathing humans are capable of repeating the same thing even if unintentionally? Surely if we can do it, so can a deity.

Yeah, except we don't know if we can do it. There are hypotheses about how enough energy focused on one point could possibly create a universe which expands rapidly from its own big bang, but separates from ours almost instantly. Even if this is possible, there is nothing there stating that our universe was created by a God. And even if there was, there is nothing stating that it was a Christian God. You personally believe God influences things in the universe, which is not possible if you merely created a universe that you can have no contact with because it totally separates from your own.

"considering that you are arguing on the internet about religion, you have no issues with doing things that have no use. and, considering that there is none of what you would consider "solid evidence" either way, it's roughly 50/50."

No, there is nothing that says God exists. Some guy saying that prayer works or supposed eyewitnesses to miracles don't count. In science, eyewitness accounts are the least respected thing. They cannot be reproduced and they cannot be tested. If you rely on those for evidence, you will be laughed at. I'm choosing to argue with you. I'm doing it for mental exercise, and it has its uses.

"fairly sure none of us said that. nice to religious people sure but not mean to non-religious people with morals. it's generally assumed that these two are additive. ideally you are both."

Why is it 'ideal' that you have a religion when you already are moral?

[Amade]

WTF? There is no valid reason to fear anything from the LHC, and all you're doing is spreading misinformation and fear mongering.

Just checked and you're right, I need to be less trusting of things I read on cracked

But even so, given that that is a possibility of happening and we indeed destroy the earth creating y creating another cosmic big bang, then how unreasonable that some mythical being isn't the cause of the last Big Bang when we as mortal, living breathing humans are capable of repeating the same thing even if unintentionally? Surely if we can do it, so can a deity.

Note that the bible says "in the beginning" and "created the heavens and earth" in the same sentence besides the fact that these two events are 11 billion years apart and the bible presents no gap.

Part of the reason I don't believe in hell. However one could argue that, as Dante said somewhere in his poem, the idea of hell is merely for those whom suffer there to be in pain until End Times - Judgment Day, specifically - Where they would live in a paradise, as they have learned their lesson. However, many people would argue with this, as with any point.

I'm not sure whether it's mentioned in bible but in the last two easter church services I've been to the priest spends considerable amounts of time condemning non-christians to hell. I'm certain that the bible frequently mentions hell, so as a christian you can't just not believe in hell. You would instead be a deist.

I am going to ignore most of that bucket of stupid and failed quote, and focus on these.

How convenient for you to simply ignore the evidence presented.

"considering that you are arguing on the internet about religion, you have no issues with doing things that have no use. and, considering that there is none of what you would consider "solid evidence" either way, it's roughly 50/50."

This is grossly inaccurate. There is solid evidence in favor of the widely accepted scientific theories of the big bang, abiogenesis, and evolution (these theories wouldn't be widely accepted or even well-known if they weren't backed by substantial evidence); and there is solid evidence against christianity.

"fairly sure none of us said that. nice to religious people sure but not mean to non-religious people with morals. it's generally assumed that these two are additive. ideally you are both."

1. The BIBLE says that. 2. Ideally a god doesn't judge people based on whether or not people believe in them:

Any intelligent, benevolent, omnipotent god that provides no solid evidence of its existence wouldn't let someone suffer in eternity for not believing in it. At the very least the christian god could be described as malevolent or non-omnipotent.