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!
And if we were able to prove this then the world would be a much worse place. Same for a world without religion, mass hysteria, people not abiding to law, it would be chaosit is not the christian morality that causes the problems, it is everything else. creationism stands in the way of scientific advances. islamic fanatics stand in the way of new york skyscraper constructions. palestinians and jews stand in the way of a peaceful middle east. protestants and catholics stand in the way of a peaceful northern ireland. the list goes on and on. these are the side-effects of religion that are not applicable to modern society. if all of these people stopped fearing what they cant even prove to exist the world would be a much happier place.
Because I am adhering to my religion.what causes you to believe you are doing right?
No, there is no logical concrete 100% proof, thus you don't believe. I had a personal experience earlier in my life (my family should ALL [immediate and most of the extended] be dead), ergo i believe.there is no convincing evidence that would cause a rational belief in god
Yes because I am exactly like you...Superbus you ARE afraid.
Once again, this is absolute bull ****. Religious people still comit crimes, the fear has failed to stop bad people from doing bad things. People do the right or wrong things for other reasons, not because of their religion. And the law already has its own threats in place so the fear doesn't dissappear, who wants to go to prison and get ***** every day?Same for a world without religion, mass hysteria, people not abiding to law, it would be chaos
I agree completely. Now, I'll be happy if no one says that religion has caused wars etc, as the people probably would have made war anyway, due to their nature. Got it? GoodThis argument pisses me off so much, I ******* hate anyone who decides that they are morally superior because of their religion. Good people would not do these acts because they have a conscience, if you need fear to motivate you to do right then you're not as moral as you'd like to think.
**** straight. Convinced me.As a final note, it can be safely said that God does exist, in one form or another. Billions of believers is a pretty strong argument (think about it, atheists).
such a good post and then you went and ruined it with this. billions of believers is no argument at all, especially considering the reasons for belief. there is absolutely no reason to assume that god exists, in any form. just because billions of people like to make silly assumptions does not make it a strong argument.As a final note, it can be safely said that God does exist, in one form or another. Billions of believers is a pretty strong argument (think about it, atheists).
The primary differences between religion and science: the religious is necessarily unverifiable, irreproducible, unjustifiable, and incomprehensible, while the scientific is necessarily verifiable, reproducible, justifiable, and comprehensible. From these differences arise the others, such as that religion can put forth answers when science cannot. Science draws its conclusions from reality via logic, while religion needs not justify, since religion and (blind/unjustified/irrational) faith are practically synonymous.The difference between religion and science is that religion has all the answers and science doesn't. What this means is that when a new concept is discovered in science, it is accepted and the scientific community at large will adapt to its new discovery (yes, I know scientists can be amazingly stubborn, but this is the general idea). But because religion has all the answers, it is resistant to change. Yet we see that religion does change, although, with some exceptions, it is resistant to it. This supports Marx's view of religion causing the stagnation of society - we can see through history that religion does legitimize socity. Saying that it legitimates social inequalities alone is a bit cynical, but it does put weight behind society's morals.
I think you're confusing Karl Marx with Mark Twain, though I'm not sure, and I believe the quote is opiate, not opium, just to nitpick.Marx is known for two statements about religion. The first is that religion is the "opium of the people."
I disagree. I would change these to "most religions claim to have all the answers." It seems awfully silly to try to say that religion can answer questions when the answers are meaningless. I can answer any question too...the implied thing in the statement is that it can answer all questions with validity, which it can not do. This has always bothered me about "God of the Gaps" style theology. People will say "science can't answer everything, and that's where religion comes in". But how is it helpful to answer a question when you're just making up the answer? How is science's "I don't know" any different from religion's "(I don't know, but I'll pretend I know and say anyway) God did it"? In essence, they're both I don't knows, one of them just pretends to know.The difference between religion and science is that religion has all the answers and science doesn't.
...
But because religion has all the answers, it is resistant to change.
Actually, he got it exactly right.I think you're confusing Karl Marx with Mark Twain, though I'm not sure, and I believe the quote is opiate, not opium, just to nitpick.
Of course. This is why you don't question me. I'm always right.Actually, he got it exactly right.
What I meant was that within the religion's faithful, the answer is there, and, to them, it is correct. Within the scientific community, many answers are still unknown. One could say that science "claims" have the answers. We've disproved some scientific "truths" from a few thousand years ago; maybe in a few thousand years, some things we accept as truth will be found false. Science is based on a series of postulates that are only theories; a single irregularity could topple centuries of scientific advancement. Postulate, by definition, are assumed true. If scientists had to start from the beginning each time, nothing would ever be accomplished; therefor scientists base their research on what has been researched before, and that was based on research before that. I don't have to prove the Briot-Savant law, or Newton's universal law of gravity--I assume they are true and work from there. Isn't that a form of faith? (Being a bit of a devil's advocate here, as I probably agree with your views in general).I disagree. I would change these to "most religions claim to have all the answers."
This argument is flawed. Those people who say that "God did it" actually do believe that God did it; it's not a coverup for a recognized lapse of knowledge, as you make it appear to be.religion's "(I don't know, but I'll pretend I know and say anyway) God did it"?
Only using fallacious equivocation. What I mean is, yes, it's faith, but it's not the same "faith" as religious faith. In the dictionary, this scientific faith might fall under definition 2b, whereas religious faith might fall under 1a. The fact that the same word is used to represent scientific "faith" and religious "faith" does not make them the same thing. The fallacy of getting someone to agree with you while you use one definition, then using a different definition and claiming your opponent now agrees with you is known as the fallacy of equivocation.Originally posted by expletivedeleted
I assume they are true and work from there. Isn't that a form of faith? (Being a bit of a devil's advocate here, as I probably agree with your views in general).
Yes, they believe that God did it. But they don't know it. At least not in any useful sense of the word. If I know something via science, it is based on some form of reasoning. It can still be wrong, but there is a large degree reason to believe it is right, hence we "know" it. For "know" to have any meaning, it must mean "To find probable to a very high degree" or something of the like. I hold that while a thiest may SAY they know the answer, they do not in any meaningful sense. And I believe it IS a coverup for a recognized lack of knowledge. Even using the biblical definition of faith, faith is meant to jump the gap from I don't know to I'll act like I know. Theists can recognize that they don't actually know that God exists, but through faith they believe it. If I were a little better with the Bible I could cite the definition of faith from John or whatever but hopefully I don't need to.This argument is flawed. Those people who say that "God did it" actually do believe that God did it; it's not a coverup for a recognized lapse of knowledge, as you make it appear to be.
Hooray for semantics!In the dictionary, this scientific faith might fall under definition 2b, whereas religious faith might fall under 1a.
Again, semantics, I say.But they don't know it. At least not in any useful sense of the word.
It seems that we're both looking from a non-religious perspective. Are there any religious nuts (no offense intended) here who could respond to this?And I believe it IS a coverup for a recognized lack of knowledge.
No. "opium of the people" is so much sexier than "opiate of the masses."I believe this is because opiate/masses sounds better
You have caught on to my evil plan to rule the world...now I must destroy you. Mufufufufu.it's only semantic trickery that could allow you to say that religion let's you know the answers.
If someone is religious for that reason, they deserve to go to ****."what if I'm wrong and I go to ****?"
Yeah, that sounds about right.So basically you go to **** unless you have no critical thinking skills ~_~
Is luring people into it (using notions of nirvana/lots of virgins) any less wrong?...that fear "what if I'm wrong and I go to ****?". This is perhaps the one reason why I dislike Christianity more than any other religion, if people want to believe what you believe then fine...but scaring them into it is wrong.
prove this.-Everything that physically exists has a cause that is independent of its own effects (i.e. something cannot be the cause of itself).
prove this.-The physical universe exists, therefore the physical universe must have a cause.
prove this.-Since the physical universe comprises matter and space (time is dependent on matter) it must have a cause which is independent of matter and space.
prove this.-Matter and space are the essence of all physical things, so the cause of physical existence cannot be something physical, since that would imply that the physical universe can be simultaneously the cause and the effect of itself.
prove this.-The only conceivable, and the simplest probable cause which is independent of space, matter (and consequently time) is God.