What is your religion?

submitted by Ponderer from self.debatealtright

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]JuliusCaesar225Nationalist + Socialist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

Religion can be non dogmatic.

A lot of what you think science has figured out about the origins of the universe will turn out to be wrong and it is unlikely that our current conceptions of science could ever give an answer to the origins of existence. They have to say it just happened and no one knows why or claim there is an infinite multiverse which is self defeating because in a truly infinite multiverse there would be universes with what we considered supernatural aspects including gods.

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

The scientific model was created to take contradicting evidence into account. Religion offers no similar safety nets.

It's no skin off my bones if the theory of gravity turned out to be wrong. Or how about when Pluto was no longer considered a planet? The changes were very simple but more importantly, innocent lives did not have their blood spilled to gain acceptance.

When it comes to religion, we literally have followers who claim the bible is the absolute word of god, and that god can never makes mistakes. That type of reasoning is far too dangerous for any civilized society, because any lunatic or mass murderer can justify their actions by holding up a holy book and saying god is ok with them.

Am I saying that every Christian or religious person is a lunatic? No, and there are in fact millions of normal people. But it's stands to reason that their entire belief system is built on denying evidence. And the fallout can be seen throughout history.

That's why I feel it's better to not make any positive claims of any gods existing. If he's real, let him reveal himself to us first. Turn off the invisibility mode and speak directly to us humans like he supposedly had done all the time in the past.

Edit: Or perhaps god is real but he never interacts with his creations because he wants us to enjoy life instead. I'm fine with that explanation and nothing about my life even changes. We're born, we eat, we reproduce, and then we die forever. Just like every other creature on this planet.

[–]NeoRail 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

I am only going to respond to a couple of the things you have said here, because addressing all of your points is too much effort.

The scientific model was created to take contradicting evidence into account. Religion offers no similar safety nets.

The "scientific model" studies material phenomena through experimentation. Its application is extremely narrow and can only assist us with understanding the properties of different forms of matter. It is completely useless for any other purpose. Any comparisons between "science" and religion, which today likewise has similarly limited but completely different horizons, is entirely inappropriate.

That's why I feel it's better to not make any positive claims of any gods existing. If he's real, let him reveal himself to us first. Turn off the invisibility mode and speak directly to us humans like he supposedly had done all the time in the past.

Why would any god need to reveal himself to you? He doesn't need you. What would it matter to a god if humans are making "positive claims" or "negative claims" about his existence?

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

The "scientific model" studies material phenomena through experimentation. Its application is extremely narrow and can only assist us with understanding the properties of different forms of matter. It is completely useless for any other purpose.

If I wanted to believe you're a real person, and not some highly advance forum A.I, how do you think I would do it? I would look for evidence that says your words were typed by a human, that the account "NeoRail" is tied to a person in real life. I would also try and confirm the post is tied to you sitting at a computer or mobile device and typing it at a certain time. There's a 99.9% chance that any of these outcomes will prove you are a human and not a machine. If there is a .1% chance that I was wrong, then I would still have a better explanation of who you actually are, instead of pretending that I'm talking to air.

It is completely useless for any other purpose. Any comparisons between "science" and religion, which today likewise has similarly limited but completely different horizons, is entirely inappropriate.

Religion takes the "no evidence required to believe" to the extreme, and expects its followers to not only believe a god exists, but also talking snakes are real, ripping out beating hearts from prisoners keeps the sun going, or crashing planes into buildings will send you to heaven. Yet I'm suppose to believe this type of behavior is either normal, rational, or even necessary for human beings?

I'm fine with having different cultures and ceremonies that serve a purpose of bringing humans together or forming unique communities, but we can do away with the supernatural shit that is basically a license to murder others.

Why would any god need to reveal himself to you? He doesn't need you.

You see what I find funny about this last statement? It means god is an asshole. If he doesn't even have the decency to actually show any kind of love or appreciation for his creations, it makes him look no different to some interstellar Stalin. And the resemblance is uncanny. He takes credit for everything, demands worship at all times, and he damns you to hell (gulag) if you dare question him. No thanks.

What would it matter to a god if humans are making "positive claims" or "negative claims" about his existence?

See above. The problem of evil has been talked about for thousands of years, and it still holds true. We're expected to worship some invincible man who is watching us all suffer right now, but has no plans of even explaining to us why did even he let it happen? If I was a baby who was born with cancer, I sure as hell wouldn't want to worship god. Since it's considered more important the baby dies in pain, then know what's even going on.

[–]NeoRail 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

If I wanted to believe you're a real person, and not some highly advance forum A.I, how do you think I would do it?

Personally, I would just use my intuition. Strictly speaking, you can't actually obtain any evidence about this anyway.

Religion takes the "no evidence required to believe" to the extreme, and expects its followers to not only believe a god exists, but also talking snakes are real, ripping out beating hearts from prisoners keeps the sun going, or crashing planes into buildings will send you to heaven. Yet I'm suppose to believe this type of behavior is either normal, rational, or even necessary for human beings?

This is a blatant strawman. There are religions that are not even concerned with gods at all.

You see what I find funny about this last statement? It means god is an asshole. If he doesn't even have the decency to actually show any kind of love or appreciation for his creations, it makes him look no different to some interstellar Stalin. And the resemblance is uncanny. He takes credit for everything, demands worship at all times, and he damns you to hell (gulag) if you dare question him. No thanks.

If you are taking Christianity as your reference point, the rebuttal here is to point out that this is a matter of freedom of choice and you personally choosing what you want to grow closer to. If you want to grow closer to God, then you will experience his presence, his love and eventually heaven. If you want to go the opposite direction, then you will go to a place where you will never find god, this place being hell. Those who seek God seem to be able to find him fairly reliably - there is a whole genre of literature that revolves around the mystical experiences of Catholic and Orthodox saints and monks. Those people seek God and find him. You, on the other hand, demand that God should reach out to you personally and not just that, but that he should reach out to you on your terms too. That is a large difference in approach.

See above. The problem of evil has been talked about for thousands of years, and it still holds true. We're expected to worship some invincible man who is watching us all suffer right now, but has no plans of even explaining to us why did even he let it happen? If I was a baby who was born with cancer, I sure as hell wouldn't want to worship god. Since it's considered more important the baby dies in pain, then know what's even going on.

That is a completely different topic that I have little desire to get drawn into discussing, especially if we are going to be looking at this from a Christian perspective only. I will limit myself to pointing out that Christianity itself describes this world as full of suffering, all of which is the result of the fall of man.

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Personally, I would just use my intuition. Strictly speaking, you can't actually obtain any evidence about this anyway.

That's false.

The jobs of police officers or detectives rely on proving identities found on the internet. It would be a waste of everyone's time if we acted like none of this was real or there was no reason to believe humans could talk to each other online. Even in the event of A.I Bots, we already have technology that is meant to sniff these programs out. Like Captcha systems.

This is a blatant strawman. There are religions that are not even concerned with gods at all.

That's good for them, but it also defeats your point you made earlier on about infinite multiverses that include the supernatural. Science might not give us the answer to these questions (yet) but then neither should religion.

If you are taking Christianity as your reference point, the rebuttal here is to point out that this is a matter of freedom of choice and you personally choosing what you want to grow closer to. If you want to grow closer to God, then you will experience his presence, his love and eventually heaven. If you want to go the opposite direction, then you will go to a place where you will never find god, this place being hell.

I've never seen anyone who is close to god actually prove he is there. We need stronger evidence, or else I can claim I was attached to Santa yesterday and therefore, Santa is now real.

That is a completely different topic that I have little desire to get drawn into discussing, especially if we are going to be looking at this from a Christian perspective only. I will limit myself to pointing out that Christianity itself describes this world as full of suffering, all of which is the result of the fall of man.

And that type of story described in the bible only makes god look more villainous. An all powerful being creates 2 humans who have an infant's understanding of the world, while getting tricked by another superior being they were never told was actually evil, and the end result is all their future children are cursed for just existing. Actually, that type of guilt and blame sounds familiar....

https://i.imgur.com/5oCLHw1.jpg

Of course, I understand that relates to just Christianity, but then again, remember that even the Christian religion can't even agree with itself. We have different sects and offshoots like Catholic, Protestant, Mormon, Seventh Day, Baptist, Jehovahs Witness, Evangelical, Amish, Anglican etc the list goes on. They all claim to have talked or know god, but which of them is right? Or rather, they're just all wrong...

[–]NeoRail 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

That's false.

The jobs of police officers or detectives rely on proving identities found on the internet. It would be a waste of everyone's time if we acted like none of this was real or there was no reason to believe humans could talk to each other online. Even in the event of A.I Bots, we already have technology that is meant to sniff these programs out. Like Captcha systems.

I have no idea what you are talking about here. This has nothing to do with what I said. I told you that you have no way of obtaining any evidence on this matter and I am entirely correct. You can't obtain any evidence on it.

That's good for them, but it also defeats your point you made earlier on about infinite multiverses that include the supernatural. Science might not give us the answer to these questions (yet) but then neither should religion.

You are confusing me with another user, I have made no such points. Your response also has no logical connection with what I said. You are just writing whatever you feel like writing with zero regard to the actual points I raise and the context in which they are raised. You made a strawman about theistic religions and I pointed out that non-theistic religions also exist, which I thought was the fastest way to refute you. Now you are talking about science again and some "questions" which are to be addressed by it.

I've never seen anyone who is close to god actually prove he is there. We need stronger evidence, or else I can claim I was attached to Santa yesterday and therefore, Santa is now real.

Christian mystics get their own personal evidence and that seems to be enough for them. Why should you be entitled to more than the mystics are? Why should it be their job and their duty to "prove" anything to you? From a Christian perspective, the important part is to know that there is a path to reach God. "Proving" that he is there is quite irrelevant and in some ways even counter-productive, since it is faith and trials of faith that play the most important role in Christianity.

And that type of story described in the bible only makes god look more villainous. An all powerful being creates 2 humans who have an infant's understanding of the world, while getting tricked by another superior being they were never told was actually evil, and the end result is all their future children are cursed for just existing.

Humans rank above angels in Christianity, Satan was not a superior being at all. We are also talking about the Bible here, not some postmodernist existential novel - the world is pretty simple. You have Eden, you have God, you have humans and you have a rule that is not meant to be broken.

Of course, I understand that relates to just Christianity, but then again, remember that even the Christian religion can't even agree with itself. We have different sects and offshoots like Catholic, Protestant, Mormon, Seventh Day, Baptist, Jehovahs Witness, Evangelical, Amish, Anglican etc the list goes on. They all claim to have talked or know god, but which is them right? Or rather, perhaps they're just all wrong...

Or perhaps they are all correct. Or maybe they are all partially correct. Who knows?

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I have no idea what you are talking about here. This has nothing to do with what I said. I told you that you have no way of obtaining any evidence on this matter and I am entirely correct. You can't obtain any evidence on it.

That's a job for paid professionals to do. I'm not saying I would do it, but it's pure insanity to claim message boards exist in a vacuum and are either imaginary or untraceable.

You are confusing me with another user, I have made no such points. Your response also has no logical connection with what I said. You are just writing whatever you feel like writing with zero regard to the actual points I raise and the context in which they are raised. You made a strawman about theistic religions and I pointed out that non-theistic religions also exist, which I thought was the fastest way to refute you. Now you are talking about science again and some "questions" which are to be addressed by it.

This was your quote from last page:

They have to say it just happened and no one knows why or claim there is an infinite multiverse which is self defeating because in a truly infinite multiverse there would be universes with what we considered supernatural aspects including gods.

I had already said that science is open to new discoveries all the time, as long as there is proof. That's the safety net that makes the system extremely reliable. If religion wants the same reputation, it needs to ditch the absurd claims that god is real while having nothing to show for it. I already admitted if a religion does that, then it's cool.

Christian mystics get their own personal evidence and that seems to be enough for them. Why should you be entitled to more than the mystics are?

Well that's good for the mystics, but I just got off the phone with Santa Claus and he told me Christmas is coming earlier this year. Unfortunately, he said I'm not allowed to reveal his phone number, or record his voice, and we all just have to believe the conversation I had was 100% real.

What we now end up with is called "circumstantial" evidence, but that's not good enough for convincing anyone outside of hugboxes or echo chambers on how do we know your god is actually the right one.

From a Christian perspective, the important part is to know that there is a path to reach God. "Proving" that he is there is quite irrelevant and in some ways even counter-productive, since it is faith and trials of faith that play the most important role in Christianity.

And this ends up being a terrible weakness. Because someone like the baby having cancer I mentioned earlier, could have died on day one without ever having a chance of going down this path.

Humans rank above angels in Christianity, Satan was not a superior being at all. We are also talking about the Bible here, not some postmodernist existential novel - the world is pretty simple. You have Eden, you have God, you have humans and you have a rule that is not meant to be broken.

The humans literally had no concept of good or evil. When some talking snake comes along and says it's ok, who are you suppose to trust? And more importantly, why damn their entire children with it when none of them had nothing to do with the garden? That's why the bible makes god look sick if he's willing to punish innocent people for merely existing.

Or perhaps they are all correct. Or maybe they are all partially correct. Who knows?

If you ever talk to a Jehovahs Witness, it's literally in their religion to say every other Christian group are going to be blown up at Armageddon. They don't even care if you believe in Jesus. If you don't believe in their version ONLY, you are stll screwed.

Yet their reference material is all the same. They only claim to be right because they believed they got to talk to god. But ask any of these groups for proof and they have none...

So no, I rather say they're all wrong until they can give a more complex answer than "dude, trust me".

[–]NeoRail 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

That's a job for paid professionals to do. I'm not saying I would do it, but it's pure insanity to claim message boards exist in a vacuum and are either imaginary or untraceable.

I am not claiming any such thing. I am saying that the example you gave is ridiculous because you can't actually put it into practice at all. This means that it is a terrible example.

This was your quote from last page:

No, that is another user's quote.

I had already said that science is open to new discoveries all the time, as long as there is proof. That's the safety net that makes the system extremely reliable. If religion wants the same reputation, it needs to ditch the absurd claims that god is real while having nothing to show for it. I already admitted if a religion does that, then it's cool.

I have already pointed out that not only is a comparison between religion and science completely invalid, but also that scientific methodology has an extremely narrow, practical application, and is utterly useless for anything other than what it has been designed to do.

Well that's good for the mystics, but I just got off the phone with Santa Claus and he told me Christmas is coming earlier this year. Unfortunately, he said I'm not allowed to reveal his phone number, or record his voice, and we all just have to believe the conversation I had was 100% real.

What we now end up with is called "circumstantial" evidence, but that's not good enough for convincing anyone outside of hugboxes or echo chambers on how do we know your god is actually the right one.

Once again: from the theistic perspective, "getting convinced" is your problem, not that of god. You can demand as much evidence as you want, but in the end of the day that demand is not only completely ineffectual but also entirely besides the point.

And this ends up being a terrible weakness. Because someone like the baby having cancer I mentioned earlier, could have died on day one without ever having a chance of going down this path.

Do you propose that humans should be immortal instead? I suppose this would solve the problem here.

The humans literally had no concept of good or evil. When some talking snake comes along and says it's ok, who are you suppose to trust? And more importantly, why damn their entire children with it when none of them had nothing to do with the garden? That's why the bible makes god look sick.

The one who makes the rules. No one "punished the children", the children were simply born in circumstances created by the mistakes of their parents, which they were, after all, completely free to make.

If you ever talk to a Jehovahs Witness, it's literally in their religion to say every other Christian group are going to be blown up at Armageddon. They don't even care if you believe in Jesus. If you don't believe in their version ONLY, you are stll screwed.

Yet their reference material is all the same. They only claim to be right because they believed they got to talk to god. But ask any of these groups for proof and they have none...

So no, I rather say they're all wrong until they can give a more complex answer than "dude, trust me".

If you take the most literal and dogmatic interpretation of each faith as the "correct" one, then yes, obviously they are all mutually exclusive, but I don't see things that way at all.

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I am not claiming any such thing. I am saying that the example you gave is ridiculous because you can't actually put it into practice at all. This means that it is a terrible example.

Police officers and internet detectives whole careers are based on looking up online posts and connecting them with real life. Perfect example? They arrest child predators who post on chat rooms all the time.

Once again, I'm not saying I would go towards the same lengths they do to uncover this information. But it's not impossible for a connection to be made.

No, that is another user's quote.

Ok, my apologies. I didn't realize the user had exited the thread.

I have already pointed out that not only is a comparison between religion and science completely invalid, but also that scientific methodology has an extremely narrow, practical application, and is utterly useless for anything other than what it has been designed to do.

If you think science is narrow, religion does not even begin to open the gap. In fact, I would even go as far as to say that religion doesn't actually teach us anything new. If I wanted to learn the existence of atoms or lightning, religion doesn't actually say anything. Or it relies on outdated myths. Like lightning bolts are supposed to be made by Zeus. Or it only rains when you perform a certain dance.

Once again: from the theistic perspective, "getting convinced" is your problem, not that of god. You can demand as much evidence as you want, but in the end of the day that demand is not only completely ineffectual but also entirely besides the point.

It's impossible for me to take the concept of god seriously, if everyone can just imagine up their own interpretations of him. For example, I can say I talked to god, but he told me he plans on disappearing forever tomorrow. That would be my proof to say there isn't a god, or that there's no more reason to believe in one.

But I'm a pragmatic person, and I recognize it's a much bigger threat to tolerate people making up claims, because they might one day go back to heart ripping ceremonies, or suicide bomb tactics because of it. If you have no proof for either claims, then we absolutely need to hold these people responsible to prevent future tragedies.

Do you propose that humans should be immortal instead? I suppose this would solve the problem here.

Death remains a natural process, in which medical scientists are doing their best to cure as many diseases possible or extend life.

This all makes sense from a mortal human perspective, but since god (in the Christian sense) is all powerful, it's contradicting that some children are born without having a real chance at even learning about him.

The one who makes the rules. No one "punished the children", the children were simply born in circumstances created by the mistakes of their parents, which they were, after all, completely free to make.

Who created this punishment that said all their future children are cursed? God did.

And there's a moral problem as well that these two humans could not decipher the snake they were talking to was bad. Could the snake have been god? What if he changed his mind or was just joking that the fruit was wrong? Like a prank? It's the equivalent of a mentally disabled person going to a Teacher for help, but the teacher tricks him into robbing a bank. In our current justice system, we would be able to look at the circumstances and understand who was actually at fault.

If you take the most literal and dogmatic interpretation of each faith as the "correct" one, then yes, obviously they are all mutually exclusive, but I don't see things that way at all.

Well the ironic thing is these Christian branches see literal interpretations as being the most faithful. That's why we have a hundred different sects. Like the Seventh Day Adventist believe you can't be a good Christian without honoring the Sabbath. It all comes down to knit picking or even rewriting portions of the bible to create a new Christian schism that proclaims to have got it right. But the problems with doing this is obvious. It means every year or every century, there will always be a new version of Christianity whose followers claim if you don't convert, then you're still going to hell.

I would prefer to just use occam's razor and cut through the BS right away. The bible is a flawed book, and its claims of being able to talk to god are even more flawed. Maybe there are other religions that aren't as fanatical, but you want to know something really interesting? Abrahamic religions like Judaism, Christianity & Islam have no issue with saying only one god exists, and all the rest are fake. As an Atheist, I agree with 99% of their same message. The 1% is that I narrow it down and disagree with their holy book as well!

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Technically wouldn't a god be interacting through their creations? Like an unseen vibrational energy source that creates an inner connectedness of all creatures?

I genuinely cannot fathom atheism. I consider myself relatively blackpilled about the ultimate future of humanity, but to think that there's not something more when every process of each creature plays out like a miraculous little machine-- I don't get it.

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

In my last statement, my analogy of god is almost like a spectator watching a movie or playing a video game. The spectator knows the people exist, but the people in the movie or games have no idea who is watching them. Or if you've ever heard of the 1990s cartoon called "Reboot" it also has the same idea. It's a show about people who live inside a computer, and they play games against the humans controlling them, but they never actually see his face or know exactly what the human looks like.

I genuinely cannot fathom atheism. I consider myself relatively blackpilled about the ultimate future of humanity, but to think that there's not something more when every process of each creature plays out like a miraculous little machine-- I don't get it.

I rather entertain the idea that there are other intelligent species out there like Aliens, who either created us or had similar origins, than follow some Earth religion that was probably made up by some person who was high on drugs. Just imagine, tomorrow a UFO crashes into Earth and the first thing we ask the space traveler is "Do you guys have Jesus on your planet?" If they answer no, that's thousands of years of history being debunked in a second.