Religion: what is it good for? Absolutely nothing! Huah!

[KaptKRool]

Hah, well I tend to think why not believe in God.
If you're right then you live an everlasting afterlife, and if you wrong well theres really nothing.
Now if the people who dont believe are right, well nothing happens.
But if they're wrong then they spend an eternity of suffering in hell.

So why not?

That is one belief I can not stand, and I think it's possibly the utmost in arrogant, selfish, and self-proving beliefs that religious people hold.





Think with me for a minute. Lets say there is a god, and he's just as described; he's omniscient, so he knows EVERYTHING and has limitless wisdom.

Now, granted this god is so wise and smart, surely, he'd be able to understand that there is no actual evidence or proof of his existence, the only thing that gains belief in him is faith (and faith in this case is defined as belief based on virtually no evidence).

Now, what kind of an all-knowing and all-wise being wouldn't be able to understand that a lot of people need actual evidence of something to believe it? Well, simply, he would be able to understand, because he's all-knowing, so he can understand.

And going a little further, what kind of an all-knowing and all-wise being would find it wrong and worthy-of-punishment to require some form of evidence and proof in order to believe in something? I think this god of yours would understand our plight, that we have no proof of god, and therefore don't believe in him. If we did have proof beyond simple faith, I could understand why it would be viewed as being wrong to deny god's existence. But I'm pretty sure if god exists, he realizes that most atheists are that way because of a lack of evidence, and that he can accept this honest and innocent mistake.

So basically, if god exists, I'm 100% convinced he doesn't care what, if any, religion you decide to follow, because he could understand that there are reasons for believing in any of the many religions and sets of beliefs. All god would care about is whether you're a good person or not, and if you are, he'd allow you into his eternal paradise regardless of if you blindly chose the right religion to follow.

I think it's very arrogant, closed-minded, selfish, and just all around stupid and lacking any form of common sense and logic to think that an all-knowing and all-wise god would punish people who blindly chose the wrong religion to follow, regardless of whether they're a good or bad person.



But of course, good and bad is really culturally defined. Though a lot of cultures base their views of good and bad on religious beliefs, there is no absolute truth in what is right or wrong. Its a little something called sophism, and I completely agree with it. There is no absolute right or wrong, its all personal beliefs. You could argue for years on how something is the right thing and is good for all of humanity, but in the end, its all because you believe it's the right thing that makes it the right thing. There is no other force making it the the right or wrong thing than your own beliefs.

 

[Not A Naruto Wannabe]

Well, I pray I'll win battles in Smash Bros.


So far, it doesn't seem to make much of a difference, considering I still lose to the people that have always been able to beat me, and I still beat the people I've always been able to.




But seriously, I'm Atheist, specifically a Darwinist, and I don't see much point in prayer. It's just about the most useless thing I could think of. Instead of doing something effective, you just sit there and ask a "higher power" for something to happen.
However, I've heard tons of contradictory statements from Christians, as some say that God already has a plan of what will happen, so prayer is actually pointless, because god isn't going to change his plans for every little person who prays for something.



But I've written numerous essays, been involved in dozens of debates, and joined and began many discussions regarding the validity, helpfulness, harm, and philosophy of religion, and I just don't feel like doing it on a god ****ed Smash Bros forum, so I'll hold my tongue and stop.

Really many people claim to be Christians who do not know the truth. Take for example the split between Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy or the Council of Nicea. Both were schisms between groups that called themselves Christians, but can two denominations with differing and conflicting doctrine both be correct? (hint: they cant) God doesnt change His plans for prayer, because He knows everything and that prayer fits into His plan

 

[Red Exodus]

Trust in science? why? science is limited. Religion is defined as tradition. What can be gotten from tradition? little or nothing. What can be gotten from a relationship with God? Everything.

Prove it.

If I don't believe in that stuff it won't affect me at all. I don't believe in 'relationships with God' I think it's just a way people comfort themselves.

I hate when people go about trying to base everything on religion. Those some people [mainly Christians] bash gay PEOPLE [emphasis on people], jus because they're gay. I know this Christian guy that said he'd go to jail for killing a bunch of gay people if he had a choice to go to jail from something.

This is what Christians teach their kids? Governments are wasting their time with gay people's affair. Gay people want to get married and the government decides they're going to fight that notion instead of focusing on the War on terrorism and more important things.

I'm sorry but if being a christian means telling people to tell people they are going to go to hell for not believing in God and telling people treat gay people like **** then I don't want to be a part of it.

 

[Not A Naruto Wannabe]

If you do not believe something will not affect you it wont? you can believe that jumping off a cliff will not kill you, but I am not sure whether or not gravity and impact agree with you. in any case we believe homosexuality is wrong. That by no means justifies killing gays, for we believe murder to be wrong as well. Leviticus describes homosexuality as "it is an abomination to Him(God)"

Killing gays is not the answer, but I will do as much as I can to prevent homosexuality

 

[Tryptomine]

Killing gays is not the answer, but I will do as much as I can to prevent homosexuality

And how do you plan to do that?

 

[Not A Naruto Wannabe]

Think with me for a minute. Lets say there is a god, and he's just as described; he's omniscient, so he knows EVERYTHING and has limitless wisdom.

Now, granted this god is so wise and smart, surely, he'd be able to understand that there is no actual evidence or proof of his existence, the only thing that gains belief in him is faith (and faith in this case is defined as belief based on virtually no evidence).

Now, what kind of an all-knowing and all-wise being wouldn't be able to understand that a lot of people need actual evidence of something to believe it? Well, simply, he would be able to understand, because he's all-knowing, so he can understand.

And going a little further, what kind of an all-knowing and all-wise being would find it wrong and worthy-of-punishment to require some form of evidence and proof in order to believe in something? I think this god of yours would understand our plight, that we have no proof of god, and therefore don't believe in him. If we did have proof beyond simple faith, I could understand why it would be viewed as being wrong to deny god's existence. But I'm pretty sure if god exists, he realizes that most atheists are that way because of a lack of evidence, and that he can accept this honest and innocent mistake.

So basically, if god exists, I'm 100% convinced he doesn't care what, if any, religion you decide to follow, because he could understand that there are reasons for believing in any of the many religions and sets of beliefs. All god would care about is whether you're a good person or not, and if you are, he'd allow you into his eternal paradise regardless of if you blindly chose the right religion to follow.

I think it's very arrogant, closed-minded, selfish, and just all around stupid and lacking any form of common sense and logic to think that an all-knowing and all-wise god would punish people who blindly chose the wrong religion to follow, regardless of whether they're a good or bad person.



But of course, good and bad is really culturally defined. Though a lot of cultures base their views of good and bad on religious beliefs, there is no absolute truth in what is right or wrong. Its a little something called sophism, and I completely agree with it. There is no absolute right or wrong, its all personal beliefs. You could argue for years on how something is the right thing and is good for all of humanity, but in the end, its all because you believe it's the right thing that makes it the right thing. There is no other force making it the the right or wrong thing than your own beliefs.

(excuse my double post)
Why does God not provide evidence? Well, actually, He does it is called the Bible and every word was breathed by Him. There is enough proof for me to prove 99% to you that the Bible is true but i couldnt prove it. that is why it takes faith. It takes faith for you to believe
that there isnt a God and in evolution simply because you were not there when the world was created. There is absolute truth and it is found in the Bible. To determine truth requires that your words are truth; if there is no absolute truth, how can you then determine your own truth? If you are convinced that the sky is green, does that make it green?

 

[Tryptomine]

There is enough proof for me to prove 99% to you that the Bible is true but i couldnt prove it.

...What?

that there isnt a God and in evolution simply because you were not there when the world was created.

There is a way to know, its called observable evidence and logic. Whoa, de ja vu.

 

[Zink]

creationism vs evolution is the dumbestargument either, seriously. who really cares.
Jammer, sorry, I can only make a few posts per day, in the evening, so I miss a lot of what goes on here. Anyway, my earlier point vis-a-vis onanism was a false memory: there was a specific verse I want, and I got it mixed up in the wrong story. So it might take me a while to find it.
However, I had an idea; these doctrinal debates are pretty far from the main topic, correct? So here's what you can do: Ask a Franciscan. Instead of waiting a long time for me to post an answer to your doctrinal questions that might well be wrong, ask these guys, who are basically apologists. They KNOW this stuff. I'm not saying I don't want to debate this, but you will probably get far better answers from someone who knows exactly what they're doing. Sorry.

 

[Not A Naruto Wannabe]

There is a way to know, its called observable evidence and logic. Whoa, de ja vu.

Such as?

The last "evidence and logic" i heard on this subject was
evidence: seashell on top of a mountain
logic: the area was covered in water

the logic part is theory only, but was cited as fact. Is this what you believe?

 

[Jammer]

creationism vs evolution is the dumbestargument either, seriously. who really cares.

Thank you! Everybody thinks it's a big deal, but it is really just tangential to the main question: Is there a God?

And it is easily answered by "God can make the world look like anything, including an evolved world." So, Tryptomine's "observable evidence and logic" doesn't prove either way whether God exists.

And I'll go ask a Franciscan. Way are they called Franciscans, by the way?

EDIT: This is what I asked them:

I know very little about Catholicism, but there are some things which I feel are just wrong about it, because they are not found or, especially, are contradicted in the Bible. I'd like to hear why Catholics do certain things (my take on the issue is in the parentheses):

Having the Vatican and Pope (no central authority in the Church).

The whole saint system (every Christian is a saint, and none is better than another).

Praying through saints to God (only pray through Jesus).

Papal infallibility (we all know many Popes have made mistakes, and that no human is perfect, even when proclaiming special things [I think it's called promulgation]).

Sexual abstention by clerics (the Bible says elders need to have children).

Bishops, Archbishops, and the rest of that system (the only members of the Church set apart were the elders, who performed a very different function and were decided upon differently).

No sex for pleasure (God knows that sex is great fun; it's one of His gifts to us, probably to make marriage nicer).

No use of contraceptives (I have no idea way the Catholic Church has this stance).

That's pretty much it, I guess. I don't want to think the Catholic Church is wrong on these issues without hearing its side of things first. I guess your job is to show me what basis the Church has for those practices, which I have not found in the Bible.

Thanks.

 

[PukeTShirt]

Such as?

The last "evidence and logic" i heard on this subject was
evidence: seashell on top of a mountain
logic: the area was covered in water

the logic part is theory only, but was cited as fact. Is this what you believe?

I am getting really tired of seeing this argument, that the theory of evolution is not to be trusted because it's a THEORY. No intelligent person who knows the difference between the definitions of scientific theory and a standard, day to day theory will ever make this argument. A scientific theory doesn't mean some guy just came up with it and decided it was correct. A SCIENTIFIC theory is a statement that was written up that attempts to describe accurately a set of data. The scientific method doesn't really allow for a "absolute" truth, because then we would stop investigating, and therefore stop learning. If science allowed for absolute, permanent truths, then a scientific theory would be the equivalent of a scientific truth.

Stop making this argument, it let's your ignorance show too much.

 

[RDK]

(excuse my double post)
Why does God not provide evidence? Well, actually, He does it is called the Bible and every word was breathed by Him. There is enough proof for me to prove 99% to you that the Bible is true but i couldnt prove it. that is why it takes faith. It takes faith for you to believe
that there isnt a God and in evolution simply because you were not there when the world was created. There is absolute truth and it is found in the Bible. To determine truth requires that your words are truth; if there is no absolute truth, how can you then determine your own truth? If you are convinced that the sky is green, does that make it green?

They're not saying they know everything. But putting absolute faith into something that's not even proven is competely idiotic. You're just a mindless sheep.

 

[cultofrubik]

You're just a mindless sheep.

RDK, that really is out of place, but I guess I see the point you're trying to make.

Fellow Christians who are debating in this topic:

1. The more you call Atheists ignorant, the more you are going to be seen as ignorant. The foundation is also logical, because calling someone else ignorant without ever being able to understand their whole viewpoints is narrow minded. If you're going to discuss Religion, then you need to have your arguments appeal to the opposition. When I say this, I mean that you need to truly reason your way into proving the validity of Religion instead of saying something like, "ZMG God exists. end of story!!11" You won't be able to prove Faith to someone who doesn't have any because, as was above mentioned by somebody, Faith is a belief that relies on no facts.

2. Evolution versus Creationism. As Zink said, it doesn't really matter. In fact, certain aspects of Evolution can be seen in our lifetime. Look at bacteria and how they adapt to penicillin and other antibiotics. MRCA is an evolved bacteria, a "super" bacterial infection that tends to appear in hospitals due to all of the anti-bacterial substances. We cannot prove that we came from monkeys, save that we're all classified as Primates for reasons you can go look up.

EDIT: I don't even see why these two are compared to each other. The comparison should be between Creationism and the Big Bang theory.

3. Wording. This is a huge issue when it comes to making points that have less "evidence" than your opposition. You have to reason God's existence in a sense. And then you have to say the right things for others to understand your meaning, even though they don't have to accept it. It's the best result from a debating discussion on this subject, as we should all understand that it is highly unlikely that anyone here will actually change their opinion. So the idea here is to let them understand your opinions and maybe even appreciate them in a way, because then we're all on the same footing, and we can tolerate each other. [Hopefully? Please? :D]

4. Don't be an idiot. If you find yourself having trouble making your position, then write it out in a word document, and see if you can make it as clear cut as possible. Otherwise you might end up making a fool of yourself - which wouldn't be so awesome.

5. Others do have opinions. You should have been taught acceptance and toleration in your Church, so prove to us that your learning of God and Religion have left you with these morals. K? Heck I'm Catholic, and you could be Baptist or Methodist, and I don't really care that we have differences. Understand that we won't be getting anywhere if we can't accept everyone [who is morally proper] into society. Likewise, your toleration might allow others to be fine with your beliefs, too. Golden rule? Do unto others as you would do to yourself. Be kind, receive kindness. Accept, and be accepted.

Unless of course you think this video isn't awesome:
Watch dis.
^^ Then we'll have to shun you! ;D


Colino, I don't understand how you disagree that 'Religion can = Morality'. Out of all of the things we've discussed, you said yourself that you find the Bible to be a center of Morality and ethics. Thus you're being hypocritical? Or is there something specific that you don't agree with?

~For all intensive purposes, I'm going to price gouge. This post is worth more than two cents. ;D
cult

 

[Zink]

Franciscans are basically named in honor of St. Francis.
I like the look of that email. My only worry is that it might take a while to get it answered. Either way, please post any reponse you get.
wanna hear something that'll sound REALLY wierd? Animals have souls. However, theirs are mortal, so they die when the animals die. In fact, all living things have souls: human souls are immortal. Relatedly, here's a cool chart my chaplain made:
God- omnipotent
Angels- spirit but no body
Humans- body and spirit- can move and have a conscience
Animals- body and mortal spirits- can move
Plants- body and mortal spirits
Rocks- lump of matter
that's your wierd thing of the day.

 

[RDK]

Sorry if my post was offensive to you, Blank. I didn't mean it that way.

2. Evolution versus Creationism. As Zink said, it doesn't really matter. In fact, certain aspects of Evolution can be seen in our lifetime. Look at bacteria and how they adapt to penicillin and other antibiotics. MRCA is an evolved bacteria, a "super" bacterial infection that tends to appear in hospitals due to all of the anti-bacterial substances. We cannot prove that we came from monkeys, save that we're all classified as Primates for reasons you can go look up.

^ And as for this--that really can't be considered evolution. It's been proven that it's really just strains of "superbacteria" that are immune to most antibiotics due to mutations. More are created from mutated bacteriums passing on genetic information to un-mutated bacteriums.

 

[cultofrubik]

Sorry if my post was offensive to you, Blank. I didn't mean it that way.

It doesn't offend me because I know I'm not mindless. I've spent a lot of time formulating my views, and it took a lot of self-argument to decide that God has to exist. I just thought the statement was a little too hostile.

^^ And as for this--that really can't be considered evolution. It's been proven that it's really just strains of "superbacteria" that are immune to most antibiotics due to mutations. More are created from mutated bacteriums passing on genetic information to un-mutated bacteriums.

Mutations that lead to more adept organisms is evolution. Point mutations occur all the time when copying DNA, and when those with exhibit better traits for their environment, they are fitter for their environment. So, I have no idea why you said this. It's still evolution... Unless you're saying that it's not macroevolution, which you're right. As I mentioned about the connection to primates, we can only try and guess that it occurs with as much evidence as possible, and assume the gaps in between new species was due because of several series of microevolutions [like the bacteria].

 

[Eor]

I haven't read the thread recently, but remember seeing Blankuser repsonding something about morality and the afterlife.

Thing is, it's a lie that fear of hell stops being from committing crime. Well, to be more correct, it's a lie for the majority of the population. There are few people who don't murder just because they're scared of being sent to hell and not for any other reason but that, but in general people don't because morals don't just arise from self-interest. We're pack animals, we have a pack mentality, and that includes helping the pack.

Imagine this. If **** was all of a sudden not a sin, and there was no laws against it, would you really go **** someone? Stab them? If you would, then you have problems.

I feel no different in my morals now then before I was an atheist. A few things are different, in that I'm not longer afraid of annoying God by not praying, or by not standing attention during the pledge, or by breaking a necklace with a cross on it because it looks fun to shatter, but besides those things that aren't common, there is nothing else.

You also seem to have the idea that Atheist thing life is meaningless. You're confusing us with Nihilists, and while I think they have to be Atheist by definition (not that I've actually looked this up), not all Atheists believe in Nihilism. Instead, I think life is beautiful. We only have one, and so we need to live it to the fullest. I don't believe I'm getting anything after this, so I need to make sure I use this one.

 

[cultofrubik]

We're pack animals, we have a pack mentality, and that includes helping the pack.

Interestingly enough, the idea of morality doesn't alwaysy come up pack animals because there is also a violent fight to be at the top.

Instead, I think life is beautiful. We only have one, and so we need to live it to the fullest. I don't believe I'm getting anything after this, so I need to make sure I use this one.

Nice way to look at it. Though I feel that most Atheists aren't like this sadly enough. You stand don't up during the pledge? That's kind of unpatriotic.


I have been realizing something as the discussion drags on. Generalization is pretty much the basis to "prove the other side wrong." Catholics get attacked a lot, apparently Nihilists are attacked a lot. We have the need to distinguish ourselves from others like us that are "less correct."

Thing is, it's a lie that fear of hell stops being from committing crime. Well, to be more correct, it's a lie for the majority of the population. There are few people who don't murder just because they're scared of being sent to hell and not for any other reason but that, but in general people don't because morals don't just arise from self-interest. We're pack animals, we have a pack mentality, and that includes helping the pack.

Imagine this. If **** was all of a sudden not a sin, and there was no laws against it, would you really go **** someone? Stab them? If you would, then you have problems.

I feel no different in my morals now then before I was an atheist. A few things are different, in that I'm not longer afraid of annoying God by not praying, or by not standing attention during the pledge, or by breaking a necklace with a cross on it because it looks fun to shatter, but besides those things that aren't common, there is nothing else.

Back in the day, when early civilizations formed, men ***** women all the time, because there was nothing all that "wrong" about it. Your situation model is flawed in a sense as well. You haven't always been Atheist, so I'm assuming you were religious. That being said, you probably heard a lot about morality in your religion and/or from your likely religious parents. So... it doesn't really work coming from you. Unless of course my assumptions are wrong, which they very well could be.


I'm going to edit this next statement later this weekend, because it's getting late and I want to make sure I'm getting this next position out into text as well as possible.

[[[[You make some good points, but you're also generalizing the viewpoints of religious people, as I am generalizing nonreligious people. ]]]]

I swear I have a point for the following questions:
Why would you not **** a person?
From what taught you that reasoning?

 

[Mediocre]

Interestingly enough, the idea of morality doesn't alwaysy come up pack animals because there is also a violent fight to be at the top.

We're not pack animals. Pack animals have much simpler relationships with each other, and tend to have much smaller groups and a definite leader for each group.

Humans are social animals, of a type that is rather unique. The closest you can get is probably the relationships between groups of monkeys and apes, but obviously human society exists on a much grander scale.

Nice way to look at it. Though I feel that most Atheists aren't like this sadly enough.

Really? I've found that most atheists do appreciate the beauty of life, although in a different way than religious people generally do.

Personally, I believe that each individual gives their own life meaning, and finds their own beauty in life. It's not God that makes life meaningful and beautiful. It's me, and all the other people who are living it.

You stand don't up during the pledge? That's kind of unpatriotic.

Blind patriotism isn't something I go for.

I don't recite the pledge, because I don't believe in pledging my absolute allegiance to any country. I support this country because I believe in most of the principles it represents, and because I'm living here so I might as well make it a better place to live, but I certainly don't think that this country can do no wrong.

I'm less concerned with the country, which is merely a political and geographic entity, and more concerned with what it stands for, as well as the lives of the people who live there.

I have been realizing something as the discussion drags on. Generalization is pretty much the basis to "prove the other side wrong." Catholics get attacked a lot, apparently Nihilists are attacked a lot. We have the need to distinguish ourselves from others like us that are "less correct."

Back in the day, when early civilizations formed, men ***** women all the time, because there was nothing all that "wrong" about it. Your situation model is flawed in a sense as well. You haven't always been Atheist, so I'm assuming you were religious. That being said, you probably heard a lot about morality in your religion and/or from your likely religious parents. So... it doesn't really work coming from you. Unless of course my assumptions are wrong, which they very well could be.

Well, I've been either atheistic or agnostic my entire life, so I assume it will "work" coming from me.

I'm not religious, and I never have been. I still have morals.

I swear I have a point for the following questions:
Why would you not **** a person?

Well, first of all (and this applies to everybody), because it's stupid, even on a purely selfish level. Even if you ignore any possible spiritual repercussions, the earthly ones aren't anything to look forward to.

Secondly, I have empathy for other people. I don't like causing other people pain, because it makes me feel bad. I don't need God to tell me what I should feel bad about. I can figure it out for myself, without His help.

From what taught you that reasoning?

My parents, my peers, and society as a whole. Plus, my personal compassion towards other people plays a role. I don't enjoy seeing people unhappy, or in pain.

 

[Eight Sage]

I swear I have a point for the following questions:
Why would you not **** a person?
From what taught you that reasoning?

But that's about morals, it has nothing to do with religion. (But maybe religion is a part of your morals)

 

[Not A Naruto Wannabe]

So if nothing is really wrong, why do we have all of these laws? if we are simply animals, why do we not act like them? (i.e. cannibalism, killing, ****, running around naked, etc.) Did our ancestors just decide one day "hey lets make some laws so we can have less fun!"? Where did emotions come from? just another lucky feature of a randomly evolved brain?

And enough of the flaming crap. If we were so unintelligent and ignorant, we would not be discussing this now would we?

 

[Colino]

@ blankuser:

But that's about morals, it has nothing to do with religion. (But maybe religion is a part of your morals)

That is what I meant. When I said religion is not equal to moral, I meant that you don't have to be religious to gain morals

I'm sad Straight8 hasn't replied to me yet.

 

[Mediocre]

So if nothing is really wrong, why do we have all of these laws? if we are simply animals, why do we not act like them? (i.e. cannibalism, killing, ****, running around naked, etc.) Did our ancestors just decide one day "hey lets make some laws so we can have less fun!"? Where did emotions come from? just another lucky feature of a randomly evolved brain?

Who are you responding to?

 

[Jammer]

So if nothing is really wrong, why do we have all of these laws? if we are simply animals, why do we not act like them? (i.e. cannibalism, killing, ****, running around naked, etc.) Did our ancestors just decide one day "hey lets make some laws so we can have less fun!"? Where did emotions come from? just another lucky feature of a randomly evolved brain?

Not all animals cannibalize, kill, and **** each other, you know. In fact, no social animals do that.

And the answers to your sarcastic rhetorical questions are, in fact, "Yes". While it wasn't really a decision, per se, our ancestors learned that they could increase their own chance of survival and lead happier lives themselves if they were nicer to others.

And emotions are definitely "lucky features of a randomly evolved brain." Your emotions help you act appropriately: when somebody hurts you, you become angry, and it shows. Same with sadness. We're hard-wired to feel uncomfortable around angry people and feel sorry for sad people. And we enjoy it when we say happy people. So, we try to make other people happy, and keep them from becoming angry or sad.

Our emotions are the main force behind the "morals" that we're talking about on this thread.

 

[RDK]

Mutations that lead to more adept organisms is evolution. Point mutations occur all the time when copying DNA, and when those with exhibit better traits for their environment, they are fitter for their environment. So, I have no idea why you said this. It's still evolution... Unless you're saying that it's not macroevolution, which you're right. As I mentioned about the connection to primates, we can only try and guess that it occurs with as much evidence as possible, and assume the gaps in between new species was due because of several series of microevolutions [like the bacteria].

I was thinking more along the lines of adaptation on a smaller scale, or "microevolution" as you put it.

But does evolution not require mutations in the DNA of organism in order to happen? A mutation is always a losing of information--never a gaining of one. And even organisms that survive their mutation usually suffer from physical or mental repurcussions, and generally don't live as long as organisms who did not mutate.

 

[Jammer]

Red Darkstar Kirby, I don't think you know how evolution works.

Okay: You've got a lifeform with DNA. It reproduces, and there are some mutations in the DNA of its offspring. 98% of the mutations do nothing, or have very little effect, because there is so much redundancy built into DNA. 1.99% of the mutations will mess it up, because just changing something randomly that already works normally results in breaking it. But, 0.01% of the mutations actually improves the organism.

It is that 0.01% of the mutations that mean everything evolves.

I don't know what you mean by "a mutation is always a losing of information--never a gaining of one." Mutations can add information, by duplicating a chromosome or adding in a nucleotide, or they can just replace a nucleotide, or they can delete a nucleotide or even large chunks of the DNA. When you're talking about DNA, it's not the amount of information, but the actual information itself that matters.

And, yes, generally mutations make the organism live a shorter life, or not be born at all. But there are exceptions, and that's why organisms improve over time.

 

[AltF4]

Even the catholic church has accepted evolution, people. And they only just accepted that the sun is in fact the center of the solar system, not the earth. If they can handle evolution, so can you.

 

[commonyoshi]

Yeah, but back to the point of my post: the concept of "love", including all of its aspects and implications, was created by God Himself. Why did he create something like that, instead of creating something superior? What I'm trying to say is that supposedly with the Christian God, he is all-powerful, correct? Then there is no need to create a free-will system like that, where the only alternative is a "robotic" love without any actions involved.

Does it really matter? God decided that free will was the ultimate way in which love can truely materialize. Any other "love" would have been obsolete.

After actually thinking for myself back in the days when I attended a Christian high school, I pondered a lot of stuff like that. Looking back, I really wished I would have thrown some of them at my Christian teachers.

I really wish you had. They may have provided answers you needed to know.

Hah, well I tend to think why not believe in God.
If you're right then you live an everlasting afterlife, and if you wrong well theres really nothing.
Now if the people who dont believe are right, well nothing happens.
But if they're wrong then they spend an eternity of suffering in hell.

So why not?

Then everyone would follow the "cool" religion. Why follow one religion which states that you get thirteen vigins in the afterlife if another promises twenty two? Want a whole planet after you die? Another religion offers ten for the same price!

No, I follow what I believe because I actually do believe it.

However, I've heard tons of contradictory statements from Christians, as some say that God already has a plan of what will happen, so prayer is actually pointless, because god isn't going to change his plans for every little person who prays for something.

God does have a grandplan, and prayer does work. (big emphasis on the bigger picture plan here) Examples of prayer that work according to the Bible: Hezikiah's (sp?) life was extended fifteen years because of his hope in God. Moses saved most of the Israelites from being whiped out when they started worshiping an idol at Mount Sinai.

An example of God's plan would be Jesus' ultimate death as a sacrifice for our sins. This was inevidible. However, what if Judas hadn't betrayed Jesus? Would Jesus still have been able to die as planned? Yes, it would have happened another way. This is an example of variations on what could have happened, and how it does follow the bigger picture.

Its ridiculously complex to mentally grasp, in fact, I think it might actually be impossible to understand what existence would be without the universe, because the universe IS existence.

There would be absolutely nothing, but specifically a lack of the two key components to existence, Time and Space. Energy and matter stem from space, and with space, there has to be time for that space to exist in. But what if there was no time and space? What would there be?

The universe contains only physical existence, not existence itself. It's rather hard to understand since we are physical beings and cant perceive anything other than what we physically are. God could very well have created the human race in another plain of existence altogether, and if He did, we'd never be able to imagine the physical universe because we would never understand it.

 

[cultofrubik]

So where did your friends, family, and society learn morals? They weren't always there - trace back in history and you'll find that. More than likely in the long run, those morals came up through religion at one point. In that sense, "Religion can = morals." One way or another, conscience should develop in those that people that have morals: being able to decide what to do in a situation. Our country and its principles are based off of freedoms. Specifically, freedom of religion: pilgrimages. Religious reasoning led those to search and explore the beyond, and with the beyond you find scientific discovery as well. Society learned its morals from religion. So, you learning morals from society is indirectly learning from religion. [LoL at our society, considering the "morals" displayed on television. They aren't always all that great a set of morals as time has gone by. The more you make a television "neutral" and less involved in religion, the more it seems the morality has a tendency to lose its decency.]

No one can really be too sure one way or another where morals really came from. Maybe we say they're human nature, but we really learn from our childhoods: which can go either way [learning from Religious backgrounds or Atheist backgrounds [or maybe just non-religious]. Yet, if your parents learned from their parents, and their parents learned from those parents, [and so on and so forth,] at one point somebody's parents had to have some source of morality, and in my opinion, that source very easily could be religion. Strange to ponder, I think.

And they only just accepted that the sun is in fact the center of the solar system, not the earth.

I believe that was in the news a few years back, right? LoLz at Religious time-stalling johns. I mean Jesus took three whole days to respawn; look at Halo - just a few seconds. So what is it, 300 years later for the Vatican to finally accept that doctrine?

Please remember guys [and ladies] that we all generalize from our own experiences, and because most Atheists I know don't really adore life - then again they could just be emo. ;D I only have my fair share of experiences [Including watching and loving the show "House"], and it's only expected that one tends to generalize, whether they mean to or not. I can only judge from my own understanding and my own experiences, just as only you can. Nobody here will be able to completely comprehend the thoughts on both sides, so opinion will always be a bit narrow-minded. We can only try so hard to let ourselves accept the opposing viewpoint without losing a bit of ourselves.

Meh. Opinion and perception will always be biased. Peace.

~cultofrubik

 

[Eor]

Considering how almost all religions have the same morals (don't kill, don't steal, don't ****, basic "don't be a jerk"), then it's pretty clear that those morals come from elsewhere. I see what you're saying, but there isn't a reason to believe that without religion, there wouldn't have been morals like that. Since so many of those Gods are seen by you as being make-believe (I think you said you Christian?), it doesn't make sense why so many would have morals with no God to give it to them. I'm aware being use to **** all the time, but that was a socially acceptable thing to do. No punishment for it on the corporal world, and it was encouraged. If I was born in those times, and I was a soldier, then yeah, I could see myself possibly ****** someone. Just as how I could see myself stoning a heathen to death, as it would have been encouraged by society. Our Society has progressed beyond that. I would say we're more moral then before, though I would say that everyone before us where "barbaric", what they did would be considered barbaric to today's standard, but maybe in the future we'll be considered barbaric because of something, so I wouldn't pass much judgment on them. I forgot what point I was trying to make, something about society deciding morals.

 

[cultofrubik]

I see what you're saying, but there isn't a reason to believe that without religion, there wouldn't have been morals like that.

That's like the same reasoning behind saying God has to exist because there are no reasons against it. It's undeniable that society developed the exact way it did because of Religion [and other factors]. If your reasoning was to be assumed, then you're saying Society will always be on a set path. That no matter what happens, Society will inevitably do as it does. If that's the case, then an individual life is purposeless, because there would always be a replacement. Hmm, I'm probably blowing your statement out of proportion to what it means. Sorry if I am.

Considering how almost all religions have the same morals (don't kill, don't steal, don't ****, basic "don't be a jerk"), then it's pretty clear that those morals come from elsewhere.

You're saying that society came up with the idea? Randomly? As if by convenience? I don't know, that doesn't seem to fit in so well with evidence. There are a lot of religions out there, and they didn't come into existence at the same time, because they take from other religions. Your reasoning doesn't prove that religion isn't a source of morals. In fact, in some forms, it can also add to religion being a source, because they follow past religions. It's not clear that those morals came from somewhere else.

"Socially acceptable" is based on society? Uh, k. If the Bible is a great place to find a lot of answers on morality and what actions are acceptable, then it's likely that the subsequent societies formed from that: Europe turning so religious for example between somewhere around the 900s-1600s. Unless of course the Bible formed from socially acceptable reasoning at the time, which you know, it didn't. Because we can both agree that back in the day there weren't many laws dictating against a lot of actions. It came from specific people - people who can be considered religious [supposedly by Divine direction - which I agree with - but I don't know about perfection. It does answer a lot of questions though]. Whether God exists or not, this collection of religious men really influenced moral choices in the world.

It's tough to formulate a decision on where morality really came from. But I do have a stance, and I hope it's logical.

 

[The Chuff]

Okay, I'm Agnostic. I don't care if that means I don't have balls, there is no proof either way, and I don't see how it totally affects me. If there is a god, I believe there would be purgatory, not just Heaven and Hell. There could be the Christian god, with Purgatory, Heaven and Hell. Allah (the Muslim god) could exist. There might be reincarnation, like in budhism. I'd rather not, because it creates a horrid caste system, but the truth could be Hindu. I have no idea.

To address the initial question, I'm not sure. In the past, religion was very important. It created structure, it gave answers and it helped create important morals. Nowadays, I'm not so sure. Structure is created by government, answers are provided by science, and the morals taken from the bible are an important part of any society. I don't have to be Christian to follow the basic Christian ideals; Love Your Neighbor. I think it all comes down to personal choice.

For the debates going on, I'll give my views. First of all, couldn't God have created evolution? I don't see why that is impossible. That's my view, if there is a god, they created evolution. If there isn't, evolution just exists anyways, because thats how the world works.

For the debates on homosexuality and protected sex, I think they are stupid. A gay person can not help being gay, and they can't be expected to have straight sex if they don't want to. For one thing, it wouldn't create babies anyways because they would not be aroused by a woman. For protected sex, I think it's better to have 2 healthy children and protected sex the rest of the time than 20 starving children.

As for suicide, I can see why it would be a sin. If there is a god, he gave you life (even if it was only by creating evolution millions of years earlier.) I can see why he would be mad if you didn't take it. It would be like if your friend gave you a present and you decided you didn't like it.

I think I've covered everything, tell me if I missed anything.

 

[Eor]

It's undeniable that society developed the exact way it did because of Religion [and other factors].

I'm not sure what you mean by "exact way", but I agree that Religion has a major impact on Society, I think it's both good and bad. Just to make clear, I have nothing against Religion, and I do think that it probably stops a few people from being immoral because they're scared of hell. I don't believe you need to be scared of hell in order to be moral, though. Non-religious people can be just as moral as anyone else.

If your reasoning was to be assumed, then you're saying Society will always be on a set path. That no matter what happens, Society will inevitably do as it does. If that's the case, then an individual life is purposeless, because there would always be a replacement. Hmm, I'm probably blowing your statement out of proportion to what it means. Sorry if I am.

I have no idea what you're trying to say there, or how you got that conclusion from either my post or the reasons you showed.

You're saying that society came up with the idea? Randomly? As if by convenience?

Nope, not at all what I said. If I was going to be a jerk, I could cut all the rest of your post out because you've already shown you don't understand what I said. And I am going to be a jerk by saying that I shouldn't have to spoon feed you the conclusion. No, not randomly. Everyone has morals. The same morals. Which is why people from opposite ends of the world, with no connection, had the same laws. Perhaps they thought a divine being gave them those morals, or that it was just spirits everywhere that would be displeased. Considering that lightning and disease was considered to be from Gods, it would make sense for them to think that morals and everything else came from gods as well. Everything came from gods then.

I don't know, that doesn't seem to fit in so well with evidence. There are a lot of religions out there, and they didn't come into existence at the same time, because they take from other religions.

False and a lie. Everyone had a religion, generally Animistic religions, and this was back when we where hunter and gatherers. As people began to form Chiefdoms and Kingdoms, religion evolved as well. When Agriculture became important, people began to worship harvest Gods, and then it expanded from there. Few religions where "stolen" from others. When Judaism was being formed, other religions where doing the same. There is no evidence to support the idea that when these religions where formed they where stolen from others. Now yes, when these societies came in contact with each other, many adopted several Gods or practices from them, or in a few cases just converted, but these where small, indifferent practices. Like to worship in a Church on a Saturday, or to worship only during the full moon. Nothing about a society having terrible morals, then adopting new ones. Even the Aztecs had laws against murder and ****.

Your reasoning doesn't prove that religion isn't a source of morals. In fact, in some forms, it can also add to religion being a source, because they follow past religions. It's not clear that those morals came from somewhere else.

Prove that it's not a source? Of course not, just like how I can't prove Gods don't exist. I'm saying that there is no proof that religion caused morals, not when Logic is applied. It'd be more "random" if people all made religions with the same values for no reason then to believe that we all have some basic morals inside of us from evolution then to think that, by chance, religions where created that gave the same morals to everyone. That wouldn't make sense.

If Religion created Morals, and since, despite your false claim, they did start at the same time, then that means that Religion could create any moral possible. But it didn't, the thousands or religions created all had just about the same basic morals. Chance of that happening? Just about zero.

"Socially acceptable" is based on society? Uh, k. If the Bible is a great place to find a lot of answers on morality and what actions are acceptable, then it's likely that the subsequent societies formed from that: Europe turning so religious for example between somewhere around the 900s-1600s.

Earlier then that, actually. I'm not saying the Bible hasn't greatly influenced Society, which is what you're trying to claim I am.

Unless of course the Bible formed from socially acceptable reasoning at the time, which you know, it didn't. Because we can both agree that back in the day there weren't many laws dictating against a lot of actions.

No, you can say that. I disagree. All evidence shows otherwise. Religion did create some laws, but I'm not discussing a few basic things like Blasphemy or Kosher food. I'm discussing the basic, like murder and stealing.

If you want to discuss ****, then lets. You can say that it's from the Bible that it's currently illegal. But the thing is, it's illegal everywhere. A long, long time ago, it was, at the time, "necessary". Evolutionary, a man wants to spread his genes to as many people as possible. Back when we lived in tribes, rival woman were stolen, *****, and turned into wive. This helped increase the gene pool, so inbreeding didn't occur. As society evolved, this stopped being "necessary". As the more advanced we became, the more **** became a crime, which is should be. Not that **** was "good", but I'm explaining why it was acceptable. And that was with Religion in place.

The same can be used for war and genocide. Back when we where just tribes or petty chiefdoms, we went to war constantly. For the men, this helped strengthen the gene pool. Life was hard, the weak wouldn't live. People had to keep in shape, and war helped strengthen the men into being able to protect their family. And goods where stolen, which helped the tribe itself, which was what people where looking for. The same thing happened when Kings went to war for land.

Slavery, at the time, was "acceptable" because the amount of people in a society. With so few men, it wasn't possible to be able to work all the land, build everything, and do everything needed while still defending everything they worked for.

The last three things are based on what I've seen and theorized. I haven't done research on it, but you haven't either, so I guess I might as well show my own opinions on why certain things like that evolved. Besides, the Bible has nothing against Slavery, so that alone is an example of a moral that was caused by society.

It came from specific people - people who can be considered religious [supposedly by Divine direction - which I agree with - but I don't know about perfection. It does answer a lot of questions though]. Whether God exists or not, this collection of religious men really influenced moral choices in the world.

I'll agree that philosophers, such as Aristotle and Plato, greatly influenced western society, while famous Eastern philosophers influenced their own society, but there is no evidence to support the idea that people like Moses or such actually existed.

 

[Mr.Lombardi34]

Why couldn't they have existed eor?

Why is it that whenever an aethiest wants to argue against a religion, they always have to try to dissprove christianity?

 

[Eor]

Because that's the only religion people seem to argue against. Notice how no one here is saying anything else. And as an Atheist/Agnostic, I don't believe Christianity exists, so if that's the topic brought up against me, then of course I'll argue against it.

Why couldn't they have existed? No reason they couldn't. But there is no reason to believe so outside of the Bible, and if you don't accept the Bible as true, then obviously you can't follow it. For example, Moses. He's a Hebrew slave in Egypt, and led them all away. Problem: We have a good history, archeology, writing and all others, of Egypt. They didn't have Hebrew slaves. Is it possible that we missed something? Possibly. Not likely. Something as big as the ten plagues and a mass exodus of slaves would probably have at least one piece of archeology to go along with it. Same with the forty year trek. We have found archaeological things in deserts like that, but we have found no evidence of this.

So there is about evidence to support this outside of the Bible. And so I have no reason to believe it exists, or do people who look at everything fairly.

 

[Pink Reaper]

Well, its late and Im bored so its time for some random philosophizing. I recently theorized on what life is but as per usual for my normal sarcastic self instead of actually examining life I simply referenced a random(yet classic) rap album, "Life Is... Too $hort". But now that I am unable to think in such random and sarcastic ways Im going to take a good look at my own statement and more thoroughly examine it.


When speaking on life it would of course be obvious to speak on the supposed meaning of life. The search for a meaning in life has always intrigued me as humanity in general seems to have no ability to find their own meanings but would rather take an already theorized meaning to life and latch onto it. The most common of these ideas is of course that of a monotheistic religion in which the believers state that a single, omni-powerful, omni-present being created all existence. The oddest thing about these ideas is that they do not offer any real answers to why it is humanity was created nor does it give a real meaning to life. It is stated that you were created by a God and that you are to do as he/she/it sees fit or else be condemned to eternal ****ation. In this idea humanity has been degraded to the status of lowly servant, or to some extent, a slave in which our lives have been forced upon us and we must live in slavery or be forever punished. The biggest problem I have with this idea however is not the idea that we are all the results of the hubris of an omni-potent creature, its the utter lack of any proof other than an ancient book/tome/story and a large group of people yelling at me about how Im wrong and they're right. It appears to me that most religions seek to prove they are right simply by being able to yell it louder. Even worse is the idea that so many people who have chosen religion as their path refuse to even think they may be right. This is the fundamental problem with the meaning of life, those who have come to a decision set it in stone despite the fact that their beliefs may not have been their own but rather those of their previous generation(read: their parents). The metaphor of a needle in haystack comes to mind but that doesn't seem to represent the scope of the situation. In the infinite amount of possibilities that is the universe, attempting to find the meaning of everything in one try is the same as looking for a grain of salt in an endless desert and you only get one chance to pick a grain.

But lets move on, from the idea that we are all God's creations to the idea that we are nothing but accidents in the grand pointlessness that is the universe. There are those who believe there is no meaning in life at all. They believe that humanity, and the universe in general is just an accident and that we only exist as sort of a random situation in the universe. A nihilist is one whom believes in nothing, sees life as the one chance we have at existence, nothing came before, nothing comes after. There is often the misconception that those who attempt to scientifically solve the riddles of life are nihilist, but this is more often than not untrue. A nihilist often claims that the universe was created in the Big Bang and that the Earth as well as the life upon it is just an accident as such it doesn't really matter what we do because we are eventually going to die and thats it. Thats the end. Here's my biggest problem with this, Im not even sure nihilists believe their own ideas. If in reality, life had no meaning, why are so many people living mundane, pointless lives? If you honestly believe this is all we get then why are you reading some random persons blag? Why aren't you out making love to the one person that means the most to you, why aren't you engorging yourself with the food that you love, why aren't you out enjoying the only time you get? Its because even you(assuming your a nihilist) dont actually believe in your own ideas. Technically it is just as possible for the nihilist to be correct as it is for the religious, the only real difference is that the nihilist doesn't actually want to be right and can see obvious flaws in his/her own ideals. The basic flaw with the idea that the universe was created from a massive supernova is the fact that all of the energy to create the universe would have to have existed for all eternity without having been created, which means in truth we dont actually exist because that scenario is impossible.

These are only two types of believes in the world and while they may be completely opposite in ideals they are essentially the same. One is made up of the stupidly faithful the other is faithfully stupid. While there are an infinite amount of possibilities for the meaning of life, Im not going to examine any more as it is now quite late in the night(or is it early in the morning?) and Ive gotten bloody tired. And if your wondering whether I fall into column A or B, the answer is neither. My ideas are my own and Im not going to take this time to explain them, maybe another night when im feeling tired and bored but not right now. But I will say that as far as Im concerned it doesnt really matter what the reason for existence is for everyone else because right now my meaning of life is all wrapped up in a kute little 5'6" package but thats just me .

this is something I did at 3 in the morning in between Guitar Hero 3 sessions so if there are some spelling errors or some incorrect information, I apologize.

 

[cultofrubik]

False and a lie.

Maybe it isn't correct, but don't attack my character. I'm not lying to you. I'm not saying something that I don't believe is true. Way to think you're all-knowing.

All religions did not come into existence at the same time. I'm not going to argue with you on this anymore. There isn't a purpose to. If you're going to act like I'm this completely ignorant person that doesn't formulate his own opinions with logic and thought, then I'm not going to suede you otherwise. I've spent years developing my own opinions on religion from the knowledge of World History in my head. Sure, I may not be on the dot, but it doesn't mean that you are.

You say I don't understand your viewpoint, which I already pointed out that I probably didn't. Then you turn around and say that I have no brain, and forget to try to think the way I'm thinking. You aren't even worth the discussion.

 

[Mr.Lombardi34]

Eor, how do you think archeologist found that there were no hebrew slaves in egypt?

"According to my hebrew scanner, this area has never had any hebrews". How can you trust in that so heavily? I really do want to know how arecheologists may have deduced that.

 

[Eor]

Maybe it isn't correct, but don't attack my character. I'm not lying to you. I'm not saying something that I don't believe is true. Way to think you're all-knowing.

All religions did not come into existence at the same time. I'm not going to argue with you on this anymore. There isn't a purpose to. If you're going to act like I'm this completely ignorant person that doesn't formulate his own opinions with logic and thought, then I'm not going to suede you otherwise. I've spent years developing my own opinions on religion from the knowledge of World History in my head. Sure, I may not be on the dot, but it doesn't mean that you are.

Sorry, after re-reading my post I see what I did. I didn't mean you were lying, but that instead the idea had no basis. I shouldn't use that anymore.

When all you do is assert with no evidence to back up, then you are being ignorant. I've just posted a huge thing on Animistic religions and tribes and how we've progressed, and your response is to respond with just a "No you're wrong".

Did all religions come into existence at the same time? No. Did religion itself, as a whole, come into existence at the same time across the entire world? Just about. Yes, Christianity was created after Hinduism and Judaism. But before, Christians where Jews, or something else. That is the point I'm making, that society has always had religions that have always had the same basic morals. I don't see how you can seriously refute it.

Eor, how do you think archeologist found that there were no hebrew slaves in egypt?

"According to my hebrew scanner, this area has never had any hebrews". How can you trust in that so heavily? I really do want to know how arecheologists may have deduced that.

Mr.Lombardi, that quote is showing that you have no idea about archeology. It's simple. We dig things up, we look at what they wrote. We find a city, we look at what it is. We know their language, we can read what they wrote. We can check their graves, we can see when people died by the artifacts they had with them when they where buried. We can see evidence of all these things. No Egyptian record, nothing, shows that there were Hebrews. They never mentioned it, ever. If you're going to claim that Archeologists have no idea what they're talking about, then I don't even know why you're trying to say there even was an Egypt, or Pharaohs, or that Stonehenge is old and that there were societies on the Euphrates river, or that Ancient Greece existed, or where old Sparta was, or anything of that sort. All of that is from Archeology and History.

So, specifically the Hebrews? We've read their records of the time. Nothing mentions plagues, nothing found supports plagues. Nothing mentions enslaving Hebrews. Nothing mentions a mass exodus, nothing mentions Mosses. If they have records of embarrassing Kings and losses in Wars, then why wouldn't they have some sort of record of thousands of slaves leaving in a massive exodus?

And just to clarify, I'm not exactly trying to attack your belief as much as I am trying to justify mine. As they hold different standards, it ends up the same, but this is more in response to what you said. If we where not in this thread, I wouldn't have mentioned any of this, because I do not care what religion people follow, that's none of my business. But here is a debate, and so I feel like I have to post.

 

[Colino]

Why couldn't they have existed eor?

Why is it that whenever an aethiest wants to argue against a religion, they always have to try to dissprove christianity?

Because I think that if a series of plagues destroyed their lives and killed there sons the egyptians would have written a couple of lines about it..

/ends sarcasm

Eor, how do you think archeologist found that there were no hebrew slaves in egypt?

"According to my hebrew scanner, this area has never had any hebrews". How can you trust in that so heavily? I really do want to know how arecheologists may have deduced that.

you should be thanking those hebrew radar people since they helped discover alot of the stuff you know about your religion.. AND some times they seem to be the only "scientists" that search for the truth and the proof you want.