Nov 5 2007, 4:19 pm
In response to Jamesburrow
|
|
Foomer
 |
Most religions today are so warped that they no longer have anything to do with what they're based on. Christians don't follow Christ's teachings in the Bible, Muslim's don't follow the Koran (however you'd like it spelled). So blame the people for being stupid, not the teachings they profess to but do not follow.
|
In more contemporary times, religion is becoming less and less valuable. That was the train of intellectual thought about seven years ago, I'd reccomend you go out and pick up The Economist's most recent issue. They do a special report on this. | |
Yeah. I'm with Gug. I don't think they ever claimed water to wine had a logical side. I'd go as far as to suggest I'd get a lot of angry responses if I tried to provide logical explanations for their miracles.
If I suggest that Jesus had planks just below the surface of the water I'm suggesting that Jesus was a con-man, and if you suggest the guy someone believes is the son of God was a con-man you're going to have a bad time. | |
Knifo wrote:
Well im in a college speech class. And im doing my persuasive speech on how religion is not logical. This should be very interesting. My teacher really likes the idea and it should be pretty easy. I could think of thousands of reasons of why religion is not logical, but not many to support religion. I understand freedom of speech, but I don't think it's right to attack religions because you don't belive in them. I am a Christian and highly religious, but one of the main causes for America was people wanted a freedom of religion and you are attacking that freedom. We will never agree but sometimes we should just keep our opinions or theories to ourselves. | |
Knifo wrote:
Thats not how a persuasive speech works. I defenetly would not earn extra points. Thats like me trying to persuade an audience that guns should be aloud in school, then at the end throw in a few points on how guns should not be aloud in school. I wouldnt have done a good job making the audience feel that guns should be in schools would I? You stick to your beleif, and you stick to your argument. I personaly belive every law is pointless. No Guns In School - Guns should be allowed, just phsycos that use them to kill people shouldn't be allowed to have them. No Killing - Killing is always done no matter what anyone tells you, no one follows this law anymore, I think killing should be allowed if it is done for a GOOD cause, such as self defence or protecting something of yours(Shooting a thief) or maybe killing someone who has killed out of no cause?(Eye for an eye?) Laws should not be written down, just logic in the mind will serve as a good law-book, but if you don't have that logic(And almost everyone does) or you choose not to follow it, then you should be removed from everyone else(Jail?). And some freedoms should have a limit, for example Freedom of Speech should be for expressing your opinions, yes, but if they hurt someone or something(Comercial products or people's opinions or ideas) that shouldn't be allowed. | |
Im not really attacking it, im merely just pointing out flaws in it. Hect, I still dont rule out the possibility that God exists, I just think its unlikely. And I dont mean to affend anyone when I make this speech. Also, how do you think I feel when mormans come knocking on my door?
| |
Seriously, there is a thing called morals. Just becuase one doesnt believe in God doesnt mean hes going to go wild like a mad man and be completly evil.
| |
Poal wrote:
Knifo wrote: Here I get kinda annoyed, when an atheist attacks religion, he's labeled a jerk by the religious, but when the religious Proselytize it's considered by them to be somehow different. All the atheist is doing by saying religion is illogical is proselytizing for his point of view, there is no way to approach atheism without taking into account the opposite of atheism which would be faith of one kind or another. Also proposing atheistic position is exactly an exercise of freedom of religion, and to suggest otherwise is another act of illogic, and the very same as suggesting that, say, Christians in China should keep their opinions and theories to themselves. Now if you'd like to propose that all concepts around the metaphysical be silenced in all but the most conducive of environments that I could respect, though I for one would disagree with it. Personally I believe that there is a great amount of good that can be fostered by religion, just as there can be from humanism. In some circumstances I think it is unproductive to attack religions, as they are elements of culture some people cherish a great deal, though that sort of celebration being only allowed for those that have some sort of faith, rather than lack of it is hypocrisy. I think it is better that the different metaphysical groups focus on the good they can do in the world, and when criticizing each other should focus on the elements with another group that encourage them to discriminate, tribalize, and carry out injustice. Injustice being what can be agreed to be injustice objectively, saying for example that teaching a child there is a God is injustice would be rather subjective, saying that supporting a lack of enforcement and funding that allows the child sex trade to continue we can all agree is injustice. mike | |
Heres a suggestion on one tack to take.
I was listening recently to this atheist and theist having it out on TV. The theist at one point tried to draw the comparison that believing something does not exist is just as far a leap as believing it does. This seems to be a pretty popular standpoint of theists that I think is on it's face incorrect. Atheist = I have no evidence that it's there so it's not there. Theist = I also have no evidence that it's there except this book so it's there. One might believe for example that invisible clowns are everywhere and that you might run into them at any time and if you do they'll bludgeon you to death. I'll write it down just to put it on par for evidence with one of those theistic books. (They could say but wait the book has been around for x amount of time with this many supporters ect, you can say that about many metaphysical texts, and also at one point they were new and had very few supporters) So the guy who goes through life believing in the clowns might walk about very carefully so that he can avoid bumping the clowns and being killed, the nonbeliever of the clowns will not walk around very carefully. Who has more strength to their position? Well since there is no evidence for the clowns but my prophetic writings on them the second guy. I could go on and on and on with things I could believe in that would effect my behavior, eventually I would be a pretty sorry example of humanity and not be getting much done with my worry of everything. We have senses and look at evidence of things because if we couldn't discriminate between what's real and what's not we wouldn't survive. Is it possible some theistic positions are true? = yes Should you change your behavior based on that possibility even if that position is yet to be proven? = no Can you even play it safe by picking one? = no, because there are nearly infinite metaphysical systems that have been proposed through human history, and infinite possibilities that could be proposed so your chance of being correct is as close to zero as any statistical probability that exists. (eg. much more likely that you are wrong on your particular theism than you would be to believe that the world is going to turn into ice cream tomorrow through a series of unlikely chemical reactions.) mike | |
Poal wrote:
I personaly belive every law is pointless. Yikes! I tend to forget that there are people like you who have this sort of understanding of the importance of law. In hopes that you are merely uneducated and not malicious, let me try to persuade you that laws have some value: If you just leave everything up to people to decide for themselves, then every person has to arbitrate disputes or agree on someone to arbitrate for them. This results in violence and martial law - he who has the sword makes the law. As to limits on free speech: who decides what the limits should be? If you assign a certain person or consortium to arbitrate the boundaries of free speech, inevitably that power will corrupt the rules and turn free speech into a tool. Already we are seeing this in the United States with "free speech zones": police are rounding up people who exercise their right to free speech by demonstrating and fence them off, blocks away from the object of their protestations. This removes them from the public eye and steals their thunder; it makes impotent their speech, and thus takes away their freedom. ALL basic human rights (speech, thoughts, privacy, protection, family, and so on) must be upheld to the greatest possible extend in order to keep them from being corrupted. Any small leak means that the ship is sinking. | |
With freedom of religion comes all the other freedoms Americans have. The fact is, we are a melting pot of all sorts of cultures, races and religions. If you can't handle someone observing your religion or culture in a possibly negative way, you need to get out.
It isn't like this guy is going out into a public place and yelling at people and burning bibles and stuff. He is in a purely academic environment, debating a religion. He isn't attacking anyone. | |
People are not good because religion tells them to. Do you honestly believe religion would have been accepted into the society if it didn't offer a humane view of the world? Surely, religion wouldn't be as popular if it supported evil and masochism!
Why do you think religious people have such a hard time converting into atheism? Because religion is easy. It offers all the answers in the world without you needing to break your head about it: "God". Surely that belief has flaws, but the idea of god not existing; the idea that no one actually watches your back when you feed the kitten, or that nobody punishes those evil people who broke your leg in school - that idea is why religion is so easy to believe in, and so hard not to believe in. (Ooh, I have that dramatic tone here, almost Holywood-like!) Or... were you being sarcastic? | |
Oh yeah, people were already there, but not the Muslims.
| |
Poal wrote:
but if they hurt someone or something(Comercial products or people's opinions or ideas) that shouldn't be allowed. If speech was censored just because someone disagreed with it, no one would ever say anything <_< | |
I was serious when I said that and I don't believe believe you are 100% right when you say that. A lot of families well "breed" religion into their own homes, which instills religion, morals and values into their offspring. Just as some Terrorists raised to believe that they would be rewarded for sacrificing themselves. The world is a big place, people are different, not everyone is going to follow the same path Peanut.
The fact is, when you get right down to it, you don't know, I don't know, the Christians don't know, the atheists don't know, no one knows. And we are going to have to follow our own personal beliefs until we find out on our own. And by then, it is too late to share the information with other people. For all we know, God does watch over us in every day life activities. I don't know what I believe in, I am agnostic and I will take that stance until there is a religion that is able to prove itself to me. Until then, I'll continue down my own path. | |
What is the difference between the religious child that fears the darkness and the atheist child that fears the darkness?
Perhaps, the atheist child fears what may be luring in the darkness. The religious child may fear that to, but is there more depth? Does the religious child fear something deeper, perhaps the spiritual presence of demons in the darkness? So, the atheist child turns the light to see what's there. He will feel comforted seeing that nothing is there, as he returns to sleep. The religious child does the same, but he does not feel safe. So, the atheist child lives his life fearing no spiritual beings or anything of the sort, while the religious child lives his life praying every night, attempting to keep the "demons" out of his house. But, let's say the atheist child has a nightmare. He speaks to his mother or father about it, and they tell him it happens to everyone and he goes back to bed without a worry. The same thing happens to the religious child, but when he speaks to his parents about it, they tell him a demon entered your dreams in order to make you fear it. He prays with his parents, and returns to bed. There are pros and cons to the atheist's and the religious. The atheist's live their life care-free of spiritual things and such, not caring what happens to them when they die, and not living their entire life trying to please something that may not even exist. The religious live their life trying to become "good" people, in order to follow their religion. Their only evidence of their god's existance is a book, or some other form of writing. They live their life beleiving they will enter a spiritual realm, a place where there is pure joy and peace, and where they spent their lifes for eternity. No one really knows what the hell is true or not. Science states the big bang caused existance, while religion states God created existence. No one will live to tell. | |