• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Religion - Coping Mechanism

Paleocon said:
Really what matters is not what beliefs make one happy but which beliefs are true. Thus why people should not be atheists since that requires going against all logic and evidence.
Click to expand...

The religious require going against all logic and evidence. Here for example: There is no actual empirical evidence of "God's" existence. Yet they believe in it in blind faith (i.e., go against logic and evidence).
 
DDD said:
To the contrary,

There is no actual empirical evidence for an "afterlife." Thereby there is no such thing.
Click to expand...

The fact that humans are intelligent can be used to reason to the conclusion that the human soul continues after death, of course I know atheists shun reason cause they're not intelligent enough to understand it.

(yes, I'm intentionally imitating the obnoxious style of debate commonly used by atheists here)
 
CrabCake said:
No one has stated that.

No one said that either. What is blown out of the water is your claim that religion "adds suffering". Research shows it increases happiness, the exact opposite of adding suffering.
Click to expand...

See details about "added suffering" in post 11.
 
DDD said:
The religious require going against all logic and evidence. Here for example: There is no actual empirical evidence of "God's" existence. Yet they believe in it in blind faith (i.e., go against logic and evidence).
Click to expand...

LOL

Atheists just can't understand reason cause they're not intelligent enough to, here's a hint, not everything can be empirically detected, like there's no physical proof of 2^4 being 16 but it still is. But of course the atheists just have their blind faith in empiricism.
 
Paleocon said:
The fact that humans are intelligent can be used to reason to the conclusion that the human soul continues after death,...
Click to expand...

What does human intelligence has to do with "afterlife?"

But let's just entertain the notion. If intelligence is the key for an afterlife then what of the ones below an intelligent level?
 
CLAX1911 said:
Of course it is. I wouldn't think any Christian on this planet would say faith wasn't a coping mechanism. ................
Religion is little more than a social club. Faith is a coping mechanism.
Click to expand...
Religion (e.g. Christianity) is very much like the placebo effect.
 
DDD said:
What does human intelligence has to do with "afterlife?"

But let's just entertain the notion. If intelligence is the key for an afterlife then what of the ones below an intelligent level?
Click to expand...

The human intellect is able to consider universals. Universals are by definition not material things. The lesser cannot contain the greater. Therefore, the human intellect is immaterial. Since it is immaterial, it would not die with the body but rather continue.

Animals, being unable to consider immaterial things, do not continue after death.
 
Paleocon said:
LOL

Atheists just can't understand reason cause they're not intelligent enough to, here's a hint, not everything can be empirically detected, like there's no physical proof of 2^4 being 16 but it still is. But of course the atheists just have their blind faith in empiricism.
Click to expand...

This is precious. Anyone interested to have this post as a signature? ;)

Atheists are accused of low intelligence, yet that 2^4 = 16 has nothing to do with logic, but just "is." Then there is a confusion between actual empirical evidence with "physical proof." Physical proof would be factual evidence while an actual empirical one was required.

Lastly, searching, demanding, and critically evaluating empirical evidence also constitutes as "blind faith!"

The way the religious project their dogma on reason never seizes to amaze me.
 
Paleocon said:
The human intellect is able to consider universals. Universals are by definition not material things. The lesser cannot contain the greater. Therefore, the human intellect is immaterial. Since it is immaterial, it would not die with the body but rather continue.
Click to expand...

How is intelligence immaterial when there is research about genetic basis of intelligence?

Paleocon said:
Animals, being unable to consider immaterial things, do not continue after death.
Click to expand...

Okay,

What of humans that are not intelligent?
 
DDD said:
This is precious. Anyone interested to have this post as a signature? ;)

Atheists are accused of low intelligence, yet that 2^4 = 16 has nothing to do with logic, but just "is." Then there is a confusion between actual empirical evidence with "physical proof." Physical proof would be factual evidence while an actual empirical one was required.

Lastly, searching, demanding, and critically evaluating empirical evidence also constitutes as "blind faith!"

The way the religious project their dogma on reason never seizes to amaze me.
Click to expand...

2^4=16 is based on mathematical logic, but it isn't based on physical evidence, but of course atheists are too stupid to even understand the difference between logic and evidence because they think logic is physical which is stupid lol

The atheists are just too stupid and unintelligent to question their blind faith dogma belief that everything is physical did I mention that atheists are stupid
 
DDD said:
How is intelligence immaterial when there is research about genetic basis of intelligence?
Click to expand...

The human ability to comprehend universals is not genetically based. The IQ of any given person is affected by genetics, because the intellect processes information through the brain, that is, the intellect cannot function in this state of being without sensory input.

Okay,

What of humans that are not intelligent?
Click to expand...

The general human nature is to be intelligent. That certain humans are not intelligent does not affect that they have a human nature, and thus the potentiality for intelligence.
 
Paleocon said:
The human ability to comprehend universals is not genetically based. The IQ of any given person is affected by genetics, because the intellect processes information through the brain, that is, the intellect cannot function in this state of being without sensory input.
Click to expand...

How can one comprehend universals without the sensory input from the beginning then?

Paleocon said:
The general human nature is to be intelligent. That certain humans are not intelligent does not affect that they have a human nature, and thus the potentiality for intelligence.
Click to expand...

Well, you have imbeciles, retards, idiots, that will never be intelligent. No potentiality of intelligence there whatsoever. So will they have an afterlife?
 
DDD said:
How can one comprehend universals without the sensory input from the beginning then?
Click to expand...

I didn't say one could, I said that one could comprehend universals. While this comprehension requires sensory input, it goes beyond that to immaterial principles.

Well, you have imbeciles, retards, idiots, that will never be intelligent. No potentiality of intelligence there whatsoever. So will they have an afterlife?[/QUOTE]

By virtue of being human, they have the ontological potentiality for intelligence, so yes.
 
Paleocon said:
2^4=16 is based on mathematical logic, but it isn't based on physical evidence, but of course atheists are too stupid to even understand the difference between logic and evidence because they think logic is physical which is stupid lol

The atheists are just too stupid and unintelligent to question their blind faith dogma belief that everything is physical did I mention that atheists are stupid
Click to expand...

Moderator's Warning:
Did I mention that you need to stop the baiting or you will get infracted? Oh, I guess I didn't... well I did NOW.
 
Paleocon said:
I didn't say one could, I said that one could comprehend universals. While this comprehension requires sensory input, it goes beyond that to immaterial principles.
Click to expand...

Both sensory input and intelligence has genetic basis. What is so immaterial about them?

Paleocon said:
By virtue of being human, they have the ontological potentiality for intelligence, so yes.
Click to expand...

How will the virtue of a human being make a genius out of an idiot?
 
DDD said:
Not to mention the added suffering that the religious must endure just for the false promise of the afterlife.
Click to expand...

There's been zero evidence from you folks that the afterlife is false.
 
DDD said:
See details about "added suffering" in post 11.
Click to expand...

Right, that's what was blown out of the water. It was a nice theory but when we actually look for evidence to back up the claim, the evidence shows the opposite. Instead of religious laws adding suffering like you thought they would, they seem to increase happiness (at least in combination of all other facets of religion). More detailed explanations of what you meant won't suddenly make te fact that the idea that religion adds suffering has been disproven go away.
 
Logicman said:
There's been zero evidence from you folks that the afterlife is false.
Click to expand...

There is zero evidence that green unicorns live in the core of Saturns moons neither. Why should the logical fallacy of appealing to the unknown apply for the "afterlife" concept and not for the green unicorns then?
 
DDD said:
There is zero evidence that green unicorns live in the core of Saturns moons neither. Why should the logical fallacy of appealing to the unknown apply for the "afterlife" concept and not for the green unicorns then?
Click to expand...

Schrödinger's cat.

Unless science can disprove green unicorns live in the core of Saturns moon, there is a chance, however small, that they may be there. Given there may be an infinite number of universes where the probability of green unicorns living in Saturns moon may actually be probable - how can one pragmatically view such a statement?
 
CrabCake said:
Right, that's what was blown out of the water.
Click to expand...

Nope,

You just have a research that shows the religious people in Europe being somewhat happier than the non religious. The difference is not even significant.

So not only that research lacks to show convincingly that the religious are happier to a significant degree (at least not in the research provided) but there is no research to "blow out of the water" that the religious are less happier because they abide by a set of religious limitations. Limitations such as sexual abstinence and alcohol drinking must be sacrificed and thus added suffering included in one's life in the name of religious lies.
 
Ockham said:
Schrödinger's cat.

Unless science can disprove green unicorns live in the core of Saturns moon, there is a chance, however small, that they may be there. Given there may be an infinite number of universes where the probability of green unicorns living in Saturns moon may actually be probable - how can one pragmatically view such a statement?
Click to expand...

In the infinite probability of universes the magical concepts of "green unicorns that live in Saturn moons," "God," and "afterlife" may be real to such a small degree. But either way it does not works like that in this universe. You got to support what you claim with actual empirical evidence.
 
DDD said:
In the infinite probability of universes the magical concepts of "green unicorns that live in Saturn moons," "God," and "afterlife" may be real to such a small degree. But either way it does not works like that in this universe. You got to support what you claim with actual empirical evidence.
Click to expand...

why do you insist on arguing this? People are going to believe in the afterlife, nothing will change that. With no proof even. They likely don't feel they need proof. If you do than don't believe in it. At the endof the day we all die and it's lights out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom