A world with one religion
A world with several religions
A world with no religion
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.
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.
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.)
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.
However, religious education pales in comparison to activities such as scientific research because PROOF and JUSTIFICATION are always at the forefront of the latter.
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.
I don't see how me saying that has anything to do with you thinking I claimed what you said.Originally Posted by celticlord
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.
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.
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.
Religion isn't necessary, not to any competently rational and emotionally balanced 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.
Then again, science enlightened us about what lightning really is.
The Bible says "the whole earth" was covered.
Specifically, here's some bible nonsense for ya:
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.
Next thing you'll be telling us socialism isn't a religion.
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!'
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'.
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?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.
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.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 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.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.
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 :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.
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
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.Yes you do. It's called atheism.
As many religions as there can be: None of them organized.
"If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu
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