View Poll Results: Which would you prefer?

Voters
51. You may not vote on this poll
  • A world with one religion

    1 1.96%
  • A world with several religions

    23 45.10%
  • A world with no religion

    27 52.94%
Page 9 of 10 FirstFirst ... 78910 LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 98

Thread: Which religious situation would you prefer?

  1. #81
    Conservative Independent
    DarkWizard12's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Tyler TX
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    7,341

    Re: Which religious situation would you prefer?

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    Don't worry yourself any about helping those poor people who have that horrid disease, religion, just call the people who recognize their need for help "Nazis", and you'll feel all better about yourself.
    How about I just say religion isn't a disease. mmk? I have yet to see any proof that it is from you.

  2. #82
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Last Seen
    01-03-16 @ 01:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,761

    Re: Which religious situation would you prefer?

    A world with 1 religion would have the benefit that everyone would believe in either the same fiction, or have discovered Truth. However, with billions of people, and one religion, there are so many viewpoints, interpretations, and spiritual understandings that inevitbaly, different sects of this religion would eventually spring up.... and given enough time this would likely change enough that you could ultimately call them many religions...

    Now, a one world STATE SPONSORED religion... that would be a catastrophe in the making.

    A world with NO religion would be an ideal... but just like how you can go to AA to stop drinking booze and walk out chugging a coffee every hour to compensate.... people would fnd something to have faith in, if nothing else to fill the void.

  3. #83
    Sage
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    08-27-09 @ 06:41 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,344

    Re: Which religious situation would you prefer?

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    You people always like to say that. It makes you feel good, but then you don't admit there's not one shred of evidence for any religion whatsoever.
    A great many people I have met assure me there are multiple proofs of the Divine, and have stated their proofs with specificity. Are their interpretations of certain phenomena necessarily accurate or correct? I do not know.

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    Frankly, I'm not required to prove there isn't a god. It's not logically possible. However, since nothing observed requires a Magic Sky Pixie to explain it's existence, God is not necessary, and thus by Occam's Razor, a superfluous hindrance to intellectual progress.
    The irony of this is that William of Occam articulated his principle as means of evaluating and critiquing the theological debates of his time (11th Century). William himself was an English monastic.

    However, if you assert there is no God, then yes, you are required to prove your thesis if it is to be accepted as logical argument. Given your admission above that such proof is impossible, your insistent denial of the possibility of a deity (or deities) is irrational on its face.

    Yet the debate of the moment is not the reality or unreality of the deity, but of the necessity of religiosity that impels the assertion of the one or the other. The fervor and anger of your commentary speaks of a most passionate faith in the rightness of your position--of a religious conviction in this regard. The anger of your refutation merely demonstrates the necessity of religion that has been my thesis throughout.

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    You people's failure to provide the least bit of evidence to support your claim is your problem. You people are making positive assertions of the existence of something and don't have any evidence whatsoever to back it up. The logical failure is evident there. Also, religion has been a HUGE millstone around the collective neck of humanity, repeatedly interfering and inhibiting progress towards more enlightened existence.
    I have not made a positive assertion of a deity. I have made a positive assertion of the necessity of religion, and of the inevitability of religion.

    Further, while religious authorities have often impeded scientific research, claiming that religion itself is a "millstone" is paradoxically yet another example of a religiously inclined position. As for scientific progress leading to "enlightenment"--also a claim lacking in substantiation. (you should take note of the difference between pointing out the unproved nature of your assertions and a disputing of them.)

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    No. Modern religious belief, as practiced by the Jews, the Christians, and the Muslims, demand not faith in the absence of evidence, but faith to reject evidence. It takes an enormous amount of "faith" to pretend that the religion promoted by the internally inconsistent Bible, for example, has anything to do with any possible "real" god. The stories conflict logically, the stories frequently simply don't fit reality (Noah's Flood being the easiest to dispell, but not the only one), and its simply not possible for a healthy rational mind to accept the document, and hence the religion it advertises, as anything except the rantings of dead ignorant savages.
    I will only say that the clergy I have known explicitly reject the notion that faith must reject evidence.

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    A-hah. The usual "it's all a metaphor, not meant to be taken literally argument, except for those places where it can't be checked, and then by golly! it's absolutely inerrantly true!" argument.
    This is a rather pathetic straw man argument. Nowhere have I asserted, claimed, or implied the inerrancy of any sacred text.

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    If the bible is lying about the Flood, and it is, then there's absolutely no reason - that means NONE - to accept the magical hymen of Mary or any of the other circus acts in the first century that form the basis of "evidence" for Christianity. Jesus, if he existed, was the son of a human sperm donor, just like everyone else.
    Your argument is its own refutation. There is considerable evidence of a catastrophic flood some 6,000 years ago covering at least a significant portion of the Tigris-Euphrates valley. Additionally, one should not lose sight of the fact that the last Ice Age ended a mere 14,000 years ago; the Flood myth may merely be the murky remembrance of the ending of that period of glaciation. Thus, the statement the Bible "lies" about the Flood is simply not proven. If the Bible is not lying about the Flood, reversing your logic, the divine origin of Jesus is quite reasonable.

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    I've never denied anyone their freedom to be wrong. I seek to avoid exercising that freedom in myself, however. That's why I don't have a religion.
    Yes you do. It's called atheism.

  4. #84
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 02:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: Which religious situation would you prefer?

    Quote Originally Posted by DarkWizard12 View Post
    How about I just say religion isn't a disease. mmk? I have yet to see any proof that it is from you.
    Can't help you there. I don't lie to make other people happy.

    Don't want to call it a disease? Fine. Call it an exhibition of the ignorance of the human mind, then.

    At one time, people thought thunder and lightning were the violent expressions of an angry god. Now we know lighting is just electricity and thunder is a harmless loud noise.

    Our society has the maturity to recognize religion for what it is, an interaction between the conscious and subconscious minds without any magical outside interference. We need to shed the ignorance of our heritage and move forward towards a more enlightened age.

  5. #85
    Sage
    scourge99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    The Wild West
    Last Seen
    01-27-12 @ 01:50 AM
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    6,233

    Re: Which religious situation would you prefer?

    Quote Originally Posted by celticlord View Post
    But is that "blind" faith? Or is it merely misinformed?
    Could be one or the other or both. The point is that very few religions stress teaching WHY their followers should do things and instead focus on WHAT the followers should do. This is understandable because many religions tend to be highly complex and NOT intuitive.

    However, religious education pales in comparison to activities such as scientific research because PROOF and JUSTIFICATION are always at the forefront of the latter.

    Quote Originally Posted by celticlord View Post
    Sunday schools and Bible study groups seem to me to contradict you on this. People do spend time at least attempting to become educated, and to educate others--with no doubt varying degrees of success.
    I agree but most of these learning institutions are pathetic compared to how university classes are taught.


    Quote Originally Posted by celticlord View Post
    You never made the explicit claim. However, your sole example pertained to the afterlife, thus implying the predicate. The significance of the predicate is that it inaccurately narrows the scope of religious belief and its significance to the individual.
    Well i didn't make the claim. I can understand why you thought so but I wasn't making such a claim.

    Quote Originally Posted by celticlord View Post
    While what comes after death is of great importance to many, how one lives until death is for many a religious question of equal or greater importance.
    Obviously.


    Quote Originally Posted by celticlord View Post
    "Ignorance is bliss". I will leave a judgment of the intelligence and rationality of the debaters to you.
    Assuming ignorance is Bliss is assuming that the probability of being ignorant allows a greater chance of favorable outcomes than knowledge.

    1) You can't know for certain what things will allow greater probability of positive outcomes until you already remove your ignorance. And you can't forcefully "forget".

    2) How one would even calculate probability for increased positive outcomes is beyond me.

    There is not a definitive conclusion that knowledge is superior to ignorance. However, using inductive reasoning we can easily see that knowledge has had an extremely positive impact on the lives of countless people.


    Quote Originally Posted by celticlord
    Quote Originally Posted by scourge99
    Isn't that a good thing thus tipping the scales ever so slightly toward "no religion".
    "No religion" is attainable within the human psyche:
    I don't see how me saying that has anything to do with you thinking I claimed what you said.

    Quote Originally Posted by celticlord View Post
    How can the scales be tipped towards something not even feasible? My assertion has always been that religious belief of some form is intrinsic to the human condition. Religion--whether celebrated as moral guide or derided as voodoo and superstition--is one of the oldest and enduring aspects of human society and civilization; do we dismiss this as coincidence?
    So its an argument to popularity you wish to propose?

    Quote Originally Posted by celticlord View Post
    Yet there are also innumerable examples of beliefs working to alleviate human suffering: Mother Teresa, Damien de Veuster, Albert Schweitzer, Siddartha Gautama, Francis of Assissi, Mohandas "Mahatma" Ghandi, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., just to name a few. Is removing these definitive goods a worthy price to eradicate the putative evils?
    Considering that all these do-gooders could have done the same without a belief in God and the fact that atheists and agnostics do such virtuous things as well, then yes I can argue that religion can be removed without fear of losing such positive things.
    If you believe in the Supernatural then you can become a millionaire!

    Questioning or criticizing another's core beliefs is inadvertently perceived as offensive and rude.

  6. #86
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 02:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: Which religious situation would you prefer?

    Quote Originally Posted by celticlord View Post
    A great many people I have met assure me there are multiple proofs of the Divine, and have stated their proofs with specificity. Are their interpretations of certain phenomena necessarily accurate or correct? I do not know.
    They're wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by celticlord View Post
    The irony of this is that William of Occam articulated his principle as means of evaluating and critiquing the theological debates of his time (11th Century). William himself was an English monastic.
    Yep. Don't ever discount the value of serendipity.

    Quote Originally Posted by celticlord View Post
    However, if you assert there is no God, then yes, you are required to prove your thesis if it is to be accepted as logical argument.
    Then, no, I'm not. I'm required to review the evidence, note that it can all be explained without recourse to the magical, explain the flaws of assuming the magical as an explanation, and then stop.

    That's been done repeatedly. The religious people assert their god is real. The religious people provide no evidence. Their job has not been done.

    Quote Originally Posted by celticlord View Post
    Given your admission above that such proof is impossible, your insistent denial of the possibility of a deity (or deities) is irrational on its face.
    Wrong.

    It's a valid working theory consistent with the format of scientific theories. It addresses the observed facts, it makes predictions, ie, that God doesn't exist so She's not showing up anytime in the near future...by which I mean never, and it's falsifiable, ie, if She does show up, the theory is false.

    The "theory" religion operates under doesn't address observed fact, doesn't make sustainable predictions, and cannot be falsified. It's not a rational view of the universe, and therefore is not scientific in the least.

    Quote Originally Posted by celticlord View Post
    Yet the debate of the moment is not the reality or unreality of the deity, but of the necessity of religiosity that impels the assertion of the one or the other. The fervor and anger of your commentary speaks of a most passionate faith in the rightness of your position--of a religious conviction in this regard. The anger of your refutation merely demonstrates the necessity of religion that has been my thesis throughout.
    What anger? Oh, you mean the reflections of the emotions you're feeling when you read a rational refutation of the silliness of religion? That's internal to you? I'm posting words here, you're not capturing any of my emotions from mere unadorned text.

    Religion isn't necessary, not to any competently rational and emotionally balanced mind.

    Quote Originally Posted by celticlord View Post
    I have not made a positive assertion of a deity. I have made a positive assertion of the necessity of religion, and of the inevitability of religion.
    Sure religion is inevitable. It's a manifestation of human instinct and all such manifestations have to be educated out of the individual, who needs to be trained to recognize the symptoms and who needs to be trained how to respond to those symptoms to minimize the onslaught of the emotional overload religion imposes to overthrow the rational mind.

    Just like children have to learn to control their little temper tantrums, children should be taught to use their minds and not be deceived by adults using religion to cover their own ignorance and possible embarassment, depending on what the topic is.

    Quote Originally Posted by celticlord View Post
    Further, while religious authorities have often impeded scientific research, claiming that religion itself is a "millstone" is paradoxically yet another example of a religiously inclined position.
    No it's not. It's an assessment of the damage religous behavior has done to human societies.

    Quote Originally Posted by celticlord View Post
    As for scientific progress leading to "enlightenment"--also a claim lacking in substantiation. (you should take note of the difference between pointing out the unproved nature of your assertions and a disputing of them.)
    Right. Everyone I know runs to cower under their beds when the gods hurl their thunderbolts at the sinful and evil. Frankly, it's surprising, isn't it, how flawed the gods really are? They cast hundreds of thousands of those angry thunderbolts at America every year, and only very few people are actually hit. You think the gods are mad at the trees and the grass?

    Then again, science enlightened us about what lightning really is.

    Quote Originally Posted by celticlord View Post
    I will only say that the clergy I have known explicitly reject the notion that faith must reject evidence.
    They can't reject it. The evidence is that the clergy have it all wrong. And once they start babbling about metaphorical this and parable that in their bibles....they've taken away any reason to support the weird notion that Mary was a virgin.

    Quote Originally Posted by celticlord View Post
    This is a rather pathetic straw man argument. Nowhere have I asserted, claimed, or implied the inerrancy of any sacred text.
    I don't care about you. Christianity at its heart has to insist on the inerrancy of it's ancient texts...and so does every other religion. If you want to pretend the logical inconsistencies you have to follow to be a christian while avoiding the logical inconsistencies you'd have to follow to be a gen-u-ine bible thumper, fine. You're still not being logically consistent, and thus deceiving yourself.

    Quote Originally Posted by celticlord View Post
    Your argument is its own refutation. There is considerable evidence of a catastrophic flood some 6,000 years ago covering at least a significant portion of the Tigris-Euphrates valley.
    See what I mean?

    The Bible says "the whole earth" was covered.

    Specifically, here's some bible nonsense for ya:

    Genesis 7:19-20
    19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.

    20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.

    So first we have all the high hilss under the whole heaven were drowned....but then again, those high hills were less than thirty feet all, since a cubit is roughly a foot and a half.

    Then again, if the water was only thirty feet deep....that's not much of a flood....I mean if it rained for 960 hours straight....that's only 3/8 of an inch of rain per hour. Not very impressive, is it?....but if the water was only thirty feet deep, ain't no way it was a global flood, and ain't no way any thing resembling a species saving ark was required.

    And that's just two sentences out of the whole bible. There's a thousand websited dedicated to showing the inconsistencies and irrationalities of the bible, I'm not going to chase them for you. If you want to see, find'em yourself.

    But you don't want to see them, do you?

    Also, the geological evidence today says that first off, no global flood EVER happened. Period. Didn't happen. Large local floods happen here, later large local floods happen there. Inbetween times some people here and there survive a disastrous flood that makes them feel their entire world is almost destroyed, and they start legends about them, not to mention the human psychological urge to invest in stories of catastrophic destruction and miraculous re-birth. The cult of Mithra promoted such a religion...when were they popular...oh yes...just before, during, and after the jesus mythology became so popular.

    Quote Originally Posted by celticlord View Post
    Additionally, one should not lose sight of the fact that the last Ice Age ended a mere 14,000 years ago; the Flood myth may merely be the murky remembrance of the ending of that period of glaciation.
    The middle-eastern flood mythology is almost certainly both a cultural echo of the vast flood that filled the Black Sea and the reinforcement those legends had by the flood that washed "gilgamesh" out to the Red Sea from Mesopotamia. It's practically certain that the tale of Noah is blatant plagiarism from the Gilgamesh tale.

    Quote Originally Posted by celticlord View Post
    Thus, the statement the Bible "lies" about the Flood is simply not proven. If the Bible is not lying about the Flood, reversing your logic, the divine origin of Jesus is quite reasonable.
    Nice song and dance. Doesn't work on anyone that's studied the matter with an open mind.

    Quote Originally Posted by celticlord View Post
    Yes you do. It's called atheism.
    Atheism ain't a religion.

    Next thing you'll be telling us socialism isn't a religion.

  7. #87
    Frankernaut peepnklown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    10-16-15 @ 02:01 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    607

    Re: Which religious situation would you prefer?

    I’d prefer a world without religion.
    If you follow Jesus then follow him personally.
    If you follow Allah then follow him personally.
    If you follow…
    'The whole universe is going to die!'

  8. #88
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Last Seen
    01-03-16 @ 01:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,761

    Re: Which religious situation would you prefer?

    Quote Originally Posted by celticlord View Post
    A great many people I have met assure me there are multiple proofs of the Divine, and have stated their proofs with specificity. Are their interpretations of certain phenomena necessarily accurate or correct? I do not know.
    What would count as 'proof' of the divine??

    Even though, I've heard that many scientists that study genes through electron microscopes and all start seeing a certain validity to some sort of 'intelligent design' since the structures are SOO intricately complex that it would almost require a 'designer'. Keep in mind that most scientists have an aversion to 'religion' since in scientific terms, god cannot be 'proven'.

    However, if you assert there is no God, then yes, you are required to prove your thesis if it is to be accepted as logical argument. Given your admission above that such proof is impossible, your insistent denial of the possibility of a deity (or deities) is irrational on its face.
    My big issue is that if there is a true, natural all loving knowing, seeing, and powerful... wouldn't I be naturally drawn to this god rather than having to have it sold to me through religion?

    Yet the debate of the moment is not the reality or unreality of the deity, but of the necessity of religiosity that impels the assertion of the one or the other. The fervor and anger of your commentary speaks of a most passionate faith in the rightness of your position--of a religious conviction in this regard. The anger of your refutation merely demonstrates the necessity of religion that has been my thesis throughout.
    I'm not quite certain WHY humans have a need to have 'faith' and believe in an afterlife.... The problems don't stem so much from the religions themselves, but rather this 'religious conviction' that one persons beliefs are right and anothers ultimately wrong.


    I have not made a positive assertion of a deity. I have made a positive assertion of the necessity of religion, and of the inevitability of religion.
    I agree... even in a lack of a religion is still a 'religious' belief. I oppose most all religion, but believe in the truth contained within the texts... the ancient writings contain truths, but each religion (consider, how many different religions have sprouted from 'the bible'?) is ultimately used as a means of social control... sometimes extreme, like German preachers being urged to use Romans 13 in their sermons (with the message to bow down to the will of 'god'... essentially ... even though Jesus (much like the founding fathers I digress) in this day and age would have been viewed as some sort of renegade or terrorist.

    Your argument is its own refutation. There is considerable evidence of a catastrophic flood some 6,000 years ago covering at least a significant portion of the Tigris-Euphrates valley. Additionally, one should not lose sight of the fact that the last Ice Age ended a mere 14,000 years ago; the Flood myth may merely be the murky remembrance of the ending of that period of glaciation. Thus, the statement the Bible "lies" about the Flood is simply not proven. If the Bible is not lying about the Flood, reversing your logic, the divine origin of Jesus is quite reasonable.
    Don't forget that EVERY culture around the world has a myth involving a great deluge, divine intervention/instruction, that eradicated all the low-lands. For that to be the case there are a few possibiliities :
    a) This story is an elaborate fiction deemed worthy of maintaining over the centuries
    b) There was a massive deluge of global scale that wiped out all those living in low lands (where did the water come from?? This really is the most intriguing possibility... because IF the deluge can be shown to be accurate.... where does the 'truth' in these stories end?? Soddom and Gomorrah? Lots wife being turned into a pillar of 'salt' ??)
    c) There really was a 'deluge' in the time of the first cultures BEFORE humanity spread out to the four corners


    Yes you do. It's called atheism.
    Atheism... the sad thing about atheism, is that as an idea it was pushed and 'promoted' (so to speak) because we are about to enter a 'new world' and in this 'new world' it is wrong to have people being driven by a 'god' when it is the STATE that the people should be listening to.

  9. #89
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 10:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    Re: Which religious situation would you prefer?

    Four option:

    As many religions as there can be: None of them organized.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  10. #90
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 10:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    Re: Which religious situation would you prefer?

    Quote Originally Posted by BmanMcfly View Post
    Don't forget that EVERY culture around the world has a myth involving a great deluge, divine intervenhtion/instruction, that eradicated all the low-lands. For that to be the case there are a few possibiliities :
    a) This story is an elaborate fiction deemed worthy of maintaining over the centuries
    b) There was a massive deluge of global scale that wiped out all those living in low lands (where did the water come from?? This really is the most intriguing possibility... because IF the deluge can be shown to be accurate.... where does the 'truth' in these stories end?? Soddom and Gomorrah? Lots wife being turned into a pillar of 'salt' ??)
    c) There really was a 'deluge' in the time of the first cultures BEFORE humanity spread out to the four corners
    None of those. While every major culture does have a major flood story, virtually none of them have more than a few details in common. The Chinese flood stories involve flooding from various rivers and many people survived not to mention why the Gods did it was vastly different. Historically, we know that the area around the black sea did have a massive flood and the earliest flood story of note, the Epic of Gilgamesh is believed to have mutated into the Enuma Elish and eventually got into the Torah as traders from the north moved down into what is now Israel.

    The actual evidence for a global flood is absolutely nil. Furthermore, every push to prove a global flood comes up short and often results in even more problems. Walleye tried to argue it by citing a theory that its own creator states requires a miracle to deal with the extraordinary heat. The problem with compacting a global flood into 6,000~4,000 years ago is primarily the resulting heat. The Bible itself kills all life by stating the waters came from within the Earth. Releasing trillions of cubic meters of superheated water instantly will poach virtually all life.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

Page 9 of 10 FirstFirst ... 78910 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •