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 →

[–]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!