No, his words have been rewritten and retranslated and reviewed for understanding for as long as the religion has been around. Every time they do they change his words to mean what they want it to mean. His words and morals are quite fluid.
-
Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
Religion: what is it good for? Absolutely nothing! Huah!
- Thread starter PukeTShirt
- Start date
Then the definition of fact needs to be changed. Ever heard of ignorance? Any fact can be disputed when your ignorant about it. Smoking bad for your health no way, I don't believe you! It relaxes your nerves, it's good for you.
Years later... smoking is bad for you, cancer, it'll kill ya.
Years later... smoking is bad for you, cancer, it'll kill ya.
Wikipedia
Smash Lord
But in the context of debate you have nullified your grounds by making that statement at the end.
Who ever said I was trying to debate about it? I was just saying my two cents and giving people some education on certain subjects. I'm not going to argue about it (which is pretty much what a debate is). I'm not one for that, debates don't bring a discussion anywhere. Education and bringing light on certain subjects does.
Not everything about religion and origins of life has to be turned into an argument. Why not tell a person your views in a rational well thought out way instead? Forcing opinions on others just brings trouble. Quit looking for a fight.
Not everything about religion and origins of life has to be turned into an argument. Why not tell a person your views in a rational well thought out way instead? Forcing opinions on others just brings trouble. Quit looking for a fight.
arrowhead
Smash Ace
this sounds like an accusation. why would it support the big bang theory? they're two unrelated theories. nor should it explain how life began on earth, although it explains everything after that
all the substantial amount of evidence we have says it works. nothing we have so far says it doesn't. you make it sound like the theory is just a hypothesis. i guess you're right when you say you're biased
or maybe we created god in our own image
espio87
Smash Ace
OK, from what I can see the arguments that attack religion don't attack religion in general. they're only concentrated towards one and its derivates. I think it would be safer to call the god we are all talking about by its real name because it seems like people are calling all religions intolerant, just to mention one of the critics.
All the arguments against religion I see are directed towards Jehova and the Vatican so it wouldn't be correct to adress it as religion in general. there are (or better said: used to be) religions that were very tolerant and if they were here today they wouldn't have minded the big bang or the theory of evolution.
One good example is the Ancient Greece religion. the main reason it was very tolerant and accepted the existence of other gods is because it was politeist. that means it had a lot of gods and goddesses. each city in Greece had its own guardian diety, for Athens it was Athena, for Sparta it was Ares and so on. religion was the least of reasons Greece went to war (and to my understanding they never went to war because of it).
Now, from what I can see here is that the people who hold a grudge against the Vatican and people who just want to tell other how wrong catholicism is are posting arguments against religion in general while they are truly addressing the Vatican. I, personally, dislike with the enterity of my soul the Vatican and hope that they will get punished by Justice for sinking Europe into the Dark Age and other countless crimes against humanity, but I won't let my feelings taint this topic.
If there's still people who want to criticize the vatican or other christian religion use the christian god's name: Jehova. I know also that Jehova is the name of the Jewish god and if you want to criticize him just write Jewish Jehova.
Remember all, god is not a name, just a concept.
All the arguments against religion I see are directed towards Jehova and the Vatican so it wouldn't be correct to adress it as religion in general. there are (or better said: used to be) religions that were very tolerant and if they were here today they wouldn't have minded the big bang or the theory of evolution.
One good example is the Ancient Greece religion. the main reason it was very tolerant and accepted the existence of other gods is because it was politeist. that means it had a lot of gods and goddesses. each city in Greece had its own guardian diety, for Athens it was Athena, for Sparta it was Ares and so on. religion was the least of reasons Greece went to war (and to my understanding they never went to war because of it).
Now, from what I can see here is that the people who hold a grudge against the Vatican and people who just want to tell other how wrong catholicism is are posting arguments against religion in general while they are truly addressing the Vatican. I, personally, dislike with the enterity of my soul the Vatican and hope that they will get punished by Justice for sinking Europe into the Dark Age and other countless crimes against humanity, but I won't let my feelings taint this topic.
If there's still people who want to criticize the vatican or other christian religion use the christian god's name: Jehova. I know also that Jehova is the name of the Jewish god and if you want to criticize him just write Jewish Jehova.
Remember all, god is not a name, just a concept.
Believe it or not, i've come across a lot of people who mix scientific theories together like evolution and the big bang, that's why I put that in there.
As for the substantial amount of evidence, you can believe what you want. I've decided for myself after doing research on it, that it just isn't enough to bet my whole life on.
All in all, go back to my previous posts on this topic and read those, I hate repeating myself.
arrowhead
Smash Ace
then try researching any evidence on the existence of god. you won't find any
Cubemario:
I know this thread moves quickly and all, but just last page I made the distinction between Evolution and Natural Selection. Evolution is NOT a theory. Evolution is the OBSERVATION that species change over time. that is a fact, it happens.
Furthermore, it is insulting to have you parade around calling things "theories and nothing more". You clearly don't understand the scientific meaning of the word theory. I thought they covered that in everyone's 8th grade class, but apparently not. Please refrain from making any further absurd commentaries about things being "only theory" while attempting to sound like you're an informed person who's "done research". You haven't.
I know this thread moves quickly and all, but just last page I made the distinction between Evolution and Natural Selection. Evolution is NOT a theory. Evolution is the OBSERVATION that species change over time. that is a fact, it happens.
Furthermore, it is insulting to have you parade around calling things "theories and nothing more". You clearly don't understand the scientific meaning of the word theory. I thought they covered that in everyone's 8th grade class, but apparently not. Please refrain from making any further absurd commentaries about things being "only theory" while attempting to sound like you're an informed person who's "done research". You haven't.
Please parse your posts so they don't jumble together into a giant alphabet soup. All I got out of your ramblings was that we should contest against Jenova specifically because Sephiroth is going to send a comet to destroy the Earth. Mostly because I wasn't reading very thoroughly because it is a huge mess.
darkatma
Smash Hero
Yay most sensible statement in this thread.
Crom
Smash Journeyman
Hmm, this argument isn't going anywhere... we must ask the highest source... QUEEEN SPIIIDER!
All joking aside though, if anyone is interested, here's a debate on this same topic between 2 people that are actually educated about each subject (science / religion)
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/audio_video/podcasts/books/article1570989.ece
Both are Oxford professors, one is Richard Dawkins, author of "The God Delusion", and the other is Alister McGrath, author of "The Dawkins Delusion."
Thoughts?
All joking aside though, if anyone is interested, here's a debate on this same topic between 2 people that are actually educated about each subject (science / religion)
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/audio_video/podcasts/books/article1570989.ece
Both are Oxford professors, one is Richard Dawkins, author of "The God Delusion", and the other is Alister McGrath, author of "The Dawkins Delusion."
Thoughts?
KingJiggyWiggy
Smash Lord
The sad thing is in reality, the only reason 90 percent of the people click on these kind of topics is to argue their opinion in the first place. Nobody actually tries to have a rational discussion. If I recall the topic was asking what religion is good for.
My answer: Religion is a matter of opinion, I don't see what I believe in as religion, because I see it as truth and a way of life, I don't see it as being religious. As a result of that, I see everything else as a religion. So religion, what's it good for? Nothing.
Says the man who just ignored every post against him
My original answer to that question is buried somewhere in the many pages of this topic. But I did answer it!
Druidan
Smash Rookie
hm, I think there's a broken link here.....
What you're saying is basically...
Religion causes many issues and hate in the world.
Any good people in Religion are not good because of Religion.
Without Religion, we'd be left with only good people and a lot less issues and hate.
To me, there's a basic fallacy in your idea of cause and effect: There is Religion, thus there is more hate and issues in the world.
I would assert this instead: There is a lot of hate and issues in the world. Hate and issues corrupt all things. Religion is a thing in this world. Thus Religion is corrupted.
To back this up I'd like to bring forth the example of Soviet Russia. Communism rejects religion (opiate of the masses and all that), so Russia was an Atheist nation. And yet their lack of religion didn't save them from mass murders, racism, hate, issues, etc.
While Darwinism didn't create racism (goodness knows it was around long before then!) it gave "rationalist" people a good solid scientific reason for their hate. And yet I could not say that science has caused their hate, anymore than you could say that religion caused all the hate and issues you no doubt see in the world.
Let me sum up briefly: Religion is not the cause of hate and issues, but rather just another venue through which people, who are natural purveyors of hate and issues, can express it through.
Now I'll just quickly address another assertion I saw here: "Evolution is the OBSERVATION that species change over time. that is a fact, it happens."
You are, of course, correct. Evolution is observable and proven fact. However, this is evolution on a minute scale. there is no observed evidence of a dog's descendants changing into something that is not merely another kind of dog over a process of millions of years. The fossil record is a unique tool to look at the past, certainly. but its information is incredibly fragmented. for as many bones as we find there would have been billions upon billions of creatures living and dying in that span of time, and we only have a few thousand snapshots. (note: I say thousand based on complete specimen, not on number of discovered individual bones which no doubt would raise the number quite a bit)
But that ultimately has little bearing on his original question. Let me go back to it for a minute.
The main question: "I would like someone to tell me something good that has come out of religion that couldn't have been there anyway. I have been been thinking about this for a while and I can't think of any reason to believe in any kind of god, other than for weak minded people to latch onto something so that they won't feel like their life is out of control."
Now I'll address the rather obtuse commentary on a believer's state of mind in a bit, I'll address your main concern first.
The answer you will receive depends a lot on what you mean by Religion. If you mean the institution of organized hierarchical religion, I'll go over a couple of points.
1. Organized religion, being an institution made up of human beings, as I've stated before, can be a venue for people to express their hate and issues, just like science, politics, marriage, sports, etc., etc. The Dark Ages are an excellent example of Religion gone bad because of the greedy, power-hungry people running it.
2. As someone else on here once pointed out, "religion" could apply also to non-Christian Religions. (for the sake of immediate argument I'll continue to use Christianity as the example, because it is the on e I know most about)
3. Despite the inherent fallacy of any human run organization, organized religion has given us some pretty nice stuff.
a.) Some nifty art. I'm not saying religion gave us "Art" with a capital "A", but rather that much of the world's great art has had for inspiration, religious topics.
Rebuttal: We could have still had great art without Religon.
Rebuttal of Rebuttal: That may be the case, but without organized Religion it may have never reached the realms of prominence and artistic expression it did. The Vatican and other religious figures, or religiously minded politicians funded these great Artists who may have otherwise not have ever had an opportunity to express themselves.
b.) Mass Printing. Because of the fervor to spread the religious "Word of God", or Holy Bible, Gutenberg built his movable type printing press.
Rebuttal: firstly, we may have evidence of non-religious writings as early as the Sumerian period. Secondly, what does that have to do with Organized Religion? isn't that more of a personal religious inspiration type of thing?
Rebuttal of Rebuttal: Sure, we'd have probably invented a printing press without religious need, but it would have probably come much later and as those Sumerian documents lend to, we'd probably be knee deep in Governmental documents, rather than religion inspired and influenced poetry, novels, plays, etc. Literature is a great measure of intellectual thought in any time period, and if you study it at all, you'll notice that religion has had a profound positive influence on the liberalization of thought, proceeding from the stupidity of the Dark Ages, up through the Enlightenment.
c.) Science. Yeah, despite all of the badness over Religious oppression of certain scientific ideas they didn't like, if it hadn't been for Religious inquiry into the mysteries of God's design, there would have been little to no initial interest in Science. The Church sponsored scientists (not alchemists, who were seen largely as occultists) to progress the field of study of nature. Many of the scientists found textbooks when regarding the founding of science were profoundly religious people. They studied science for religious reasons. (so ironically, if you think highly of Evolution, you have the Vatican to thank for it.)
d.) The coolest looking buildings in Europe.
Rebuttal: okay, now you're fishing for answers.
Rebuttal of Rebuttal: True, but that's because the better answers lie outside of Organized religion which is notoriously corrupt. Besides, you have to admit, Cathedrals are freakin' sweet.
4. If you mean Religion as the principles upon which a person sets their beliefs, then once again, you have to understand that people are fallible, and can really believe some screwy things. Some people base prejudices, such as racism, sexism, and homophobia on Religious principles. It doesn't mean they're right. There are very good thorough studies that show how the "evidence" those people have to base their hate on do not mean what they think it means. Thus, many religious principles that are hate-based are really just misinterpretations, or a misuse of the principles. Those people don't seem to care about the example of love that Jesus showed. Contrary to religious home videos, circa 1960, Jesus was not a stuck up prig that looked down on all the wretched sinners he met. He chilled with 'em in their cribs man. Helped them with their problems as a friend would do.
5. Some of the things Personally convicted Religion has gotten us:
a.) The Reformation. The first step towards mass literacy and education. Not a giant leap for mankind perhaps, but the first necessary step. Thank Luther for his Religious conviction.
b.) Gutenberg. Here's my re-mentioning of the printing press.
c.) (See: the scientists mentioned above)
d.) The Founding Father's idea that mankind's rights are inalienable because God put them there. Here in the declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." I'm not saying that the FFs were all Christians, by no means, most of them were Deists. But the point is, their conviction that Humanities rights came from "A" god, whoever he is, creates a foundation for human rights that cannot be taken away. If one believes there is no god of any kind, then what rights do humans really have? They have whatever rights are given to them by stronger powers, and thus any king can take away another humans rights ("to live", for instance) and there's nothing to say he is wrong in doing so.
6. If one believes in the story of Religion, there is quite a great deal that it has given us.
a. Existence. Yay, creation!
b. actually, the above point kinda sums it all up.....
7. On a personal note Religion has given me a number of things I can not intellectually find anywhere else.
a.) Value. The world may give me a utilitarian sense of value fro an economic materialistic viewpoint, but that is hollow and pointless to me. Religion, or God, as I have a bit of a beef with most forms of organized religion, gives me value for simply existing.
b.) Purpose. As many reasons as one can find for existing (to make the company better, to make a new breakthrough, to screw a celebrity, to cause political upheaval, to gather the neighborhoods trash every week for that next paycheck to pay for the next videogame/movie/game-ticket/book/pornomag/vacation/etc.) To me, they are all pointless and don't mean anything after death. Death too becomes meaningless, who cares if anyone remembers you after you died. Who cares if you enjoyed your life? you're not around to enjoy the fact that you had a joyful life anymore. Existence is the only place value can be found, so death, non-existence, kinda sucks. my personal religious beliefs give me hope beyond that.
c.) Love for those I have no good reason to love. Why should I care that some babies are starving in Africa? the only reason I care is because I have my religious beliefs. Otherwise, screw them. poor *******s'll never know the luxuries I'll get to enjoy.
d.) Life. And no I'm not being facetious with this one. I'm a medical miracle. Ever heard of Reye's Syndrome? Wikipedia it and look at what happens to you. I had made it to "Stage V" and the only think that hadn't happened to me yet was Death, though the doctors didn't think I'd live through that night. Suddenly, with no discernible scientific explanation I made an immediate recovery and was fully healed by the next morning, though they kept me around or observation a while longer. It isn't just a miracle that I lived, it's also a miracle that I didn't suffer any brain damage, as the only other survivors of "Stage V" that are known are all Vegetables. From a personal perspective, no matter how convincing evolution ever looks, I have all the evidence I need to continue believing, even though it probably doesn't give the same assurance to others.
Now, as for your obtuse comment about weak minded people, I know a great many weak minded people who both believe and reject religion of any kind. i also know strong minded individuals who believe both sides of the spectrum. What someone believes does not make them weak or strong minded. Please take your prejudices elsewhere.
Good day.
espio87
Smash Ace
I said Jehova, not Jenova. with "h". that's the name of the Christian and Jewish god.
EDIT: I just edited my previous post to make it more understandable
What does this have to do with what I said? I'm not going to respond to everything anyone disputes me about, I thought I made it pretty clear I wasn't going to argue. If I recall I only ignored one post 'against' me. He said I didn't do research, fine, I could say the same thing about him. Does it make it true? No. Am I going to argue about it? No. He is allowed to have an opinion about me just as much as I am allowed to about him. I respect his opinion.
Which is something perhaps a moderator should appreciate?
Druidan:
Your essay is at worst very fair. Which is good for this topic. It nearly became a Wall of Text, but I think narrowly avoided that.
I'll respond to the one part that pertained to me:
It was I who said that Evolution is an observation. Then you said that's only microevolution, not large scale species alteration.
Well, once you accept microevolution, the macroevolution follows from it. My knowledge of biology is limited, and I'm not going to pretend to be an expert. But think of it this way: we can proceed inductively.
We have the base case: Humans did not exist at the time of the dinosaurs. But certain small rat-like creatures did.
Recursive case: Species change over time. (Microevolution)
Result: We know that humans exist today. Thus it is a reasonable abduction to conclude that they had macroevolved from a species that previously existed.
Your essay is at worst very fair. Which is good for this topic. It nearly became a Wall of Text, but I think narrowly avoided that.
I'll respond to the one part that pertained to me:
It was I who said that Evolution is an observation. Then you said that's only microevolution, not large scale species alteration.
Well, once you accept microevolution, the macroevolution follows from it. My knowledge of biology is limited, and I'm not going to pretend to be an expert. But think of it this way: we can proceed inductively.
We have the base case: Humans did not exist at the time of the dinosaurs. But certain small rat-like creatures did.
Recursive case: Species change over time. (Microevolution)
Result: We know that humans exist today. Thus it is a reasonable abduction to conclude that they had macroevolved from a species that previously existed.
Tryptomine
Smash Journeyman
Or you could look at it in another way. If you accept 'microevolution' (which is a silly non-word those arguing against evolution use to mean adaption) you have already accepted all evolution, because all it is is the build up of those small changes over a larger period of time.
Wikipedia
Smash Lord
The reason why this is disputable is because little adaptations do not change the number of chromosomes. So the question is how do humans have a different number of chromosomes than shrimp, for example. Shrimp have 254 and humans have 46, two of which are sex chromosomes. Just look at this list:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_number_of_chromosomes_of_various_organisms
Oh and one other interesting thing i'd like to add about this subject of evolution. Is that science is changing and growing all the time. An example I got from a website..
"Science discovered that water conducts electricity. Later it discovered that water does not conduct electricity. Impurities in the water had messed up previous experiments. Still later, science discovered that water conducts electricity. Previous experiments had failed to consider low conductivity."
Then it goes on to say later...
"Many biologists used to favor the theory of Continental Drift because it seemed to explain the known distribution of different species throughout the world. Most geologists, however, pooh-poohed the idea. They knew of no force massive enough to move entire continents vast distances. Gradually, biologists began to see that the distribution could be explained in terms of migration in the Northern Hemisphere and movement south along land bridges. The idea of Continental Drift was ridiculous. Except that geologists then discovered forces capable of causing Continental Drift.
In any field, scientists who mock are often themselves laughed at by the next generation of scientists when further discoveries are made. If the history of scientific discovery has taught us anything, it is the need for caution. As science progresses, the unexpected is always just around the corner. "
I thought it was kind of interesting. Some things that are so called 'fact' later are disproved by a new discovery.
"Science discovered that water conducts electricity. Later it discovered that water does not conduct electricity. Impurities in the water had messed up previous experiments. Still later, science discovered that water conducts electricity. Previous experiments had failed to consider low conductivity."
Then it goes on to say later...
"Many biologists used to favor the theory of Continental Drift because it seemed to explain the known distribution of different species throughout the world. Most geologists, however, pooh-poohed the idea. They knew of no force massive enough to move entire continents vast distances. Gradually, biologists began to see that the distribution could be explained in terms of migration in the Northern Hemisphere and movement south along land bridges. The idea of Continental Drift was ridiculous. Except that geologists then discovered forces capable of causing Continental Drift.
In any field, scientists who mock are often themselves laughed at by the next generation of scientists when further discoveries are made. If the history of scientific discovery has taught us anything, it is the need for caution. As science progresses, the unexpected is always just around the corner. "
I thought it was kind of interesting. Some things that are so called 'fact' later are disproved by a new discovery.
Aesir
Smash Master
Again with the evolution is "Only a theory" argument? Omg, this is the last time I'm gonna argue this and if people still don't get it I'm just gonna kill myself. >_>
Evolution is both theory and fact, now before we continue you have to know the difference between theory and hypothesis. Right now most of you are getting Hypothesis and Theory confused, stop it it doesn't make you smart it makes you look ignorant.
Now back to my previous statement
Evolution is both theory and fact:
Fact organism change over time, regardless your religion if you disagree with this you're just stupid, wanna know a prime example of this? Finches. They can go through many generations in a short time span, thus if their needs to be an adaptation they'll likely adapt if need be.
Now a Theory is an explanation of the evidence. We know organism change over time, what the theory of evolution provides is an explanation as to why they change.
This is the simplest explaination I can give.
Furthermore just to make sure we're on the same page, The theory of evolution has been around for about 100+ years I believe maybe more. Thats a pretty long time for a theory to go on without being proven wrong.
Just thought I'd add this too, if evolution was going to be proven wrong, I would imagine it would have by now. When the discovery of Dna/genetics rose this would have been the time it would be proven wrong. Since if we didn't have ape like ancestors then our genetic similarities should not have been apparent, but guess what? They were.
So i'm sorry to disappoint anyone who thinks we were "designed" is just living in a fairy land.
(I realize I might sound harsh, sorry if it is.)
Evolution is both theory and fact, now before we continue you have to know the difference between theory and hypothesis. Right now most of you are getting Hypothesis and Theory confused, stop it it doesn't make you smart it makes you look ignorant.
Now back to my previous statement
Evolution is both theory and fact:
Fact organism change over time, regardless your religion if you disagree with this you're just stupid, wanna know a prime example of this? Finches. They can go through many generations in a short time span, thus if their needs to be an adaptation they'll likely adapt if need be.
Now a Theory is an explanation of the evidence. We know organism change over time, what the theory of evolution provides is an explanation as to why they change.
This is the simplest explaination I can give.
Furthermore just to make sure we're on the same page, The theory of evolution has been around for about 100+ years I believe maybe more. Thats a pretty long time for a theory to go on without being proven wrong.
Just thought I'd add this too, if evolution was going to be proven wrong, I would imagine it would have by now. When the discovery of Dna/genetics rose this would have been the time it would be proven wrong. Since if we didn't have ape like ancestors then our genetic similarities should not have been apparent, but guess what? They were.
So i'm sorry to disappoint anyone who thinks we were "designed" is just living in a fairy land.
(I realize I might sound harsh, sorry if it is.)
No, "facts" are not disproved. The idea behind them can be, but even if tomorrow we find a whole bunch of new evidence about evolution, any new theory will still have to attest for what we already know. Your logic can be used to claim Gravity doesn't exist.
What you said about your quote was very easy to understand. You claimed people are just there to argue, and not have a rational discussion. You refused all forms of rational discussion in order to throw your own argument out there and then belittle everyone else in the thread. You can not have rational discussion by ignoring all counterclaims.
What you said about your quote was very easy to understand. You claimed people are just there to argue, and not have a rational discussion. You refused all forms of rational discussion in order to throw your own argument out there and then belittle everyone else in the thread. You can not have rational discussion by ignoring all counterclaims.
Well, either way i'm done with this topic, Eor. I have said what I wanted to say, I do not wish the debate it, or respond to every single little question or counter claim someone has. I just simply wanted to say my opinions and views on it. Is there something wrong with that? Am I required to argue with people to get my point across?
Seriously, this topic should be moved to the debate forum, it really belongs there.
Seriously, this topic should be moved to the debate forum, it really belongs there.
Aesir
Smash Master
I hope it doesn't then I wouldn't be able to post in the topic anymore =[
Also I couldn't be lazy anymore if that where the case =[
Also I couldn't be lazy anymore if that where the case =[
Hypa-Link
Smash Journeyman
Is their a name for someone who believes in both creationism and evolution? lol
espio87
Smash Ace
Person that can mix two theories.
Hypa-Link
Smash Journeyman
Well if I'm wrong about god, my life won't change. It'll be exactly the same, except I wouldn't be praying or thinking twice about watching porn.
However, if Athiests are wrong...well, you know. lol
However, if Athiests are wrong...well, you know. lol
Aesir
Smash Master
Lol Pascals wager is a load of crap..
Theistic evolutionist, someone who believes god made man through evolution.
Hypa-Link
Smash Journeyman
Wow, there actually IS a name for that?
That's extremely interesting.
That's extremely interesting.
arrowhead
Smash Ace
b) you see the purpose of living as preparation for the afterlife. atheists see their purpose of living as doing whatever to maintain happiness. both purposes are ok. religion doesn't create any better purpose than the lack of religion does.
c) there are lots of atheists that love people they don't know either. religion didn't necessarily create this love you have. it could just be something you give too much credit for. if you knew you wouldn't be rewarded by your religion if you helped out the kids in africa, would you still love those children? if the answer is yes, it supports my point. if it's no, then you're not the good person you appear to be and all religion did was "scare" you into doing things so you don't get punished, meaning you don't really love them.
d) there could be a scientific explanation for that. or it could be a miracle. whatever it is, it gives basically no evidence for the existence of god. there are an infinite number of things that could be imagined to make miracles happen. god is just one of them.
Crom
Smash Journeyman
No one? heh
I thought it was a very interesting debate but has no bearing on our current discussion because A) We aren't Oxford professors here and 2) I haven't listened to the debate yet.
arrowhead
Smash Ace
i listened to it. i thought it was interesting how the religious one wouldn't give a direct answer when he was asked "do you think christianity is the correct religion and all the other ones are wrong?"
it might be because i'm atheist, but i think dawkins won
it might be because i'm atheist, but i think dawkins won
DJLO
Smash Journeyman
3 words:
Ignorance is bliss
PukeTShirt, I've found there's no reason to try to bring this topic into the mainstream. As an avid atheist (and fan of alliteration) I've found the mere mention of this topic or any other concerning the existence of god will get you *****ed at by everyone; agnostic, religious atheist or otherwise.
Let people live their lives with their rituals, their superstitions, their schizophrenia. Placebos work, existential angst doesn't.
p.s. but if they ever push religion on you fire away.
Ignorance is bliss
PukeTShirt, I've found there's no reason to try to bring this topic into the mainstream. As an avid atheist (and fan of alliteration) I've found the mere mention of this topic or any other concerning the existence of god will get you *****ed at by everyone; agnostic, religious atheist or otherwise.
Let people live their lives with their rituals, their superstitions, their schizophrenia. Placebos work, existential angst doesn't.
p.s. but if they ever push religion on you fire away.
Hypa-Link
Smash Journeyman
Wow man. That's incredible.
The thing about blessings is, you can't necessarily, use that as a reason to believe, because another person could be in your same position, and not believe/hate god for what happened to him.
However, most atheists need something traumatic to happen to them before they "believe"
I keep forgetting that most of your households might have never even mentioned Jesus while you were growing up. Never went to church, never prayed, etc.
And I thought, what if I was born in one of those worldly households?
I'd have no power over whether I got morals or not later on... And I'd be on Smashboards, arguing with my current self.
Just something to ponder about.
DJLO
Smash Journeyman
17 years of church every sunday fyi. turned atheist last year.