cant stand religion bashers
Scroll to see replies
Original post by Good bloke
That has been shown to be untrue by physicists. There are particles that "just appear".
I assume you are talking about quantum vacuum? I don't think you can make that argument, I mean, that's clearly not what he was talking about.
Scientists have not used science to work out how existence began, that's not possible. It's also not possible for science to discern why existence began. These are unscientific questions (unfalsifiable, unobservable, unreproducible etc.)
Original post by the terminator
I dont intend to have a debate as i dont intend to change anybodys mind regarding this. I was brought up religiously and I will always be religious and I hope that my children can also follow on.
I was stating my belief if anything, something that will never change, no matter what evidence people may have.
I was stating my belief if anything, something that will never change, no matter what evidence people may have.
I feel quite sorry for you and your children. Brainwashing one's children is possibly one of the worst things a parent can do (other than actual physical harm).
Original post by Pride
I assume you are talking about quantum vacuum? I don't think you can make that argument, I mean, that's clearly not what he was talking about.
Scientists have not used science to work out how existence began, that's not possible. It's also not possible for science to discern why existence began. These are unscientific questions (unfalsifiable, unobservable, unreproducible etc.)
Scientists have not used science to work out how existence began, that's not possible. It's also not possible for science to discern why existence began. These are unscientific questions (unfalsifiable, unobservable, unreproducible etc.)
How do you know that that's not possible?
As for 'why' existence began -- that's a question with a hidden premise. First you'd have to prove that there is a purpose to existence; then you can go around claiming that 'why existence began' is a serious question worth anybody's bother.
Original post by Hydeman
I feel quite sorry for you and your children. Brainwashing one's children is possibly one of the worst things a parent can do (other than actual physical harm).
Without any disrespect, I dont remember asking for your sympathy? I grew up with that frame of mind and believe me when I say that it has made the person who I am today. Religion is everything to me, it gives me all the answers to life alongside what happens after too. This will be the last of any replies that I make on this thread, I did know however that I was going to open up a whole can of worms by expressing my views, but I do and always will stand by them.
Original post by the terminator
Without any disrespect, I dont remember asking for your sympathy?
Without any disrespect, I don't remember needing your permission before I feel sorry for someone.
I grew up with that frame of mind and believe me when I say that it has made the person who I am today. Religion is everything to me, it gives me all the answers to life alongside what happens after too. This will be the last of any replies that I make on this thread, I did know however that I was going to open up a whole can of worms by expressing my views, but I do and always will stand by them.
Good luck living in a world that is increasingly weary and dismissive of people like you.
I do still feel sorry for your future children though. Much bullying lies in store for them, simply because their parent decided that religion is more important than their child's welfare. Hopefully you're infertile and won't be allowed to adopt.
Original post by Treblebee
I'm v sorry if what I said is insulting to some people, but that is really what I believe, and I feel an obligation to God to stand up for him
God needs people to stand up for him?
Original post by Plantagenet Crown
God needs people to stand up for him?
Obviously, his god is omniscient and all-powerful but needs little old him to protect him in the playground. That isn't contradictory at all.
Original post by Plantagenet Crown
God needs people to stand up for him?
he doesn't NEED it, but it's like how you would stand up for a friend, to show that you love them.
Original post by Hydeman
Without any disrespect, I don't remember needing your permission before I feel sorry for someone.
Good luck living in a world that is increasingly weary and dismissive of people like you.
I do still feel sorry for your future children though. Much bullying lies in store for them, simply because their parent decided that religion is more important than their child's welfare. Hopefully you're infertile and won't be allowed to adopt.
Good luck living in a world that is increasingly weary and dismissive of people like you.
I do still feel sorry for your future children though. Much bullying lies in store for them, simply because their parent decided that religion is more important than their child's welfare. Hopefully you're infertile and won't be allowed to adopt.
I can see who's descendants will be the ringleaders...
But seriously... NOT NICE
Original post by Treblebee
I can see who's descendants will be the ringleaders...
But seriously... NOT NICE
But seriously... NOT NICE
I consider the brainwashing of children and the forced closing of their minds by their parents to be nothing short of child abuse. I don't care about being nice to child abusers and, if it were up to me whether that sorry excuse of a potential parent gets to adopt a child, I'd decide against it and put him on an adoption blacklist for good measure. You can guilt-trip me about it when I say something of that kind about somebody who isn't morally contemptible.
Original post by Hydeman
How do you know that that's not possible?
Science of course, cannot discern reasons why things are. Science discerns mechanisms - how things are. Science also deals in reproducible, experimental evidence. That's unattainable where the origin of the universe is concerned. You would have to venture into other sources of knowledge, like philosophy and theology, to have any chance of answering this question.
As for 'why' existence began -- that's a question with a hidden premise. First you'd have to prove that there is a purpose to existence; then you can go around claiming that 'why existence began' is a serious question worth anybody's bother.
I'm just pointing out that the two questions are linked. You say, you'd have to prove that it had a purpose in the first place. Discerning whether it does or does not have a purpose is not possible through science. My point stands. He obviously wasn't talking about quantum mechanics.
Good luck living in a world that is increasingly weary and dismissive of people like you.
I do still feel sorry for your future children though. Much bullying lies in store for them, simply because their parent decided that religion is more important than their child's welfare. Hopefully you're infertile and won't be allowed to adopt.
I do still feel sorry for your future children though. Much bullying lies in store for them, simply because their parent decided that religion is more important than their child's welfare. Hopefully you're infertile and won't be allowed to adopt.
Ok. What I would recommend is that you go and stand outside for a bit, and just get some fresh air. Then come back and read this quote from you. Why would you be so disrespectful to someone, especially someone you have never met? Over a topic like this as well...
Another problem with your reasoning is this assumption that you are not brainwashed. What does brainwashing mean? Does it mean indoctrination? Are you not indoctrinated? Are you impartial? Is everybody that believes in God indoctrinated, and those that don't not indoctrinated? If we are all indoctrinated, and that's why we believe what we believe, then how do you know who is right? What is the probability that your beliefs are right?
Other questions. You seem to be a naturalist. So you must then accept that we have no free will - we are simply the result of the laws of physics and chemistry, and our environment. If that's the case, why not be consistent with your views, and recognise that you cannot complain at anybody else for their decisions on how to raise their child. They are just a bunch of cells, carrying out what they are programmed to do in that environment.
I also ask you on what basis can you trust your morality, the validity of your reasoning, your senses, the uniformity of nature, and your sense of worth? I could go on with the long list of flaws with your ideas. If you're interested, we can discuss them one by one.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by Hydeman
I consider the brainwashing of children and the forced closing of their minds by their parents to be nothing short of child abuse. I don't care about being nice to child abusers and, if it were up to me whether that sorry excuse of a potential parent gets to adopt a child, I'd decide against it and put him on an adoption blacklist for good measure. You can guilt-trip me about it when I say something of that kind about somebody who isn't morally contemptible.
So you're saying that anyone in a religion who intends to have children is committing child abuse?! I'd call that a fairly extreme view! What does that say about atheism, eh? Not a good example...
Caring about the social consequences of the negative aspects of religion is good, but people who come out with the same arguments about how DAE GOD DOESN'T REAL FUNDIES, is boring.
Original post by Pride
Science of course, cannot discern reasons why things are. Science discerns mechanisms - how things are. Science also deals in reproducible, experimental evidence. That's unattainable where the origin of the universe is concerned. You would have to venture into other sources of knowledge, like philosophy and theology, to have any chance of answering this question.
I'm just pointing out that the two questions are linked. You say, you'd have to prove that it had a purpose in the first place. Discerning whether it does or does not have a purpose is not possible through science. My point stands. He obviously wasn't talking about quantum mechanics.
I'm just pointing out that the two questions are linked. You say, you'd have to prove that it had a purpose in the first place. Discerning whether it does or does not have a purpose is not possible through science. My point stands. He obviously wasn't talking about quantum mechanics.
And what's the proof of that? Your point doesn't stand; it is your burden, as somebody who's made the claim that science can't explain the purpose of something, to first prove that that something necessarily has a purpose in the sense that you mean it. Don't try to dodge that by throwing the question back to me with the same idiotic certainty that you were called out for in the original statement.
You don't seem to understand the kinds of experiments from which deductions about the origins of the universe are made, hence your incorrect comment about evidence for the origin of the universe being unattainable. New theories rely and build on existing knowledge and you seem to be under the impression that, because it's not possible to go back in time (when, in a metaphorical sense, it is possible to do so when it comes to observing light from distant parts of the universe) and actually look at what happened, it's not possible to obtain evidence. If you don't understand the basics of how science looks into the origin of the universe, then I'd advise staying off this subject.
Philosophy and theology are not sources of knowledge (especially the latter). Philosophy, at best, simply provides a framework in which one can ask questions about reality. It does not have any mechanism or process by which it arrives at objective truth.
Ok. What I would recommend is that you go and stand outside for a bit, and just get some fresh air. Then come back and read this quote from you. Why would you be so disrespectful to someone, especially someone you have never met? Over a topic like this as well...
I suggest you read my response to Treblebee's complaint about this particular post. I am neither going to apologise for what is, in my view, a completely justified statement, nor explain my reason for making it more than once.
Another problem with your reasoning is this assumption that you are not brainwashed. What does brainwashing mean? Does it mean indoctrination?
Essentially, yes. Here's a simple definition of indoctrination from Google, just so we know we're talking about the same thing: 'teaching someone to accept doctrines uncritically.'
Are you not indoctrinated? Are you impartial?
I like to think so, yes. In any case, I do not see how my being indoctrinated or not affects the validity of what I said about 'the terminator.' To pretend that it does would be committing a tu quoque fallacy.
Is everybody that believes in God indoctrinated, and those that don't not indoctrinated?
No.
If we are all indoctrinated, and that's why we believe what we believe, then how do you know who is right?
These questions are redundant in light of my answer to the previous question.
What is the probability that your beliefs are right?
Quite high, I should think. Although I'd say it's less than 1.
Other questions. You seem to be a naturalist. So you must then accept that we have no free will - we are simply the result of the laws of physics and chemistry, and our environment. If that's the case, why not be consistent with your views, and recognise that you cannot complain at anybody else for their decisions on how to raise their child. They are just a bunch of cells, carrying out what they are programmed to do in that environment.
I can, and will, complain about the decisions of others regarding their children. My lack of belief in the supernatural does not mandate that I not have my own personal code of conduct which isn't dictated to me by any god. I don't make the claim that anything is objectively right or wrong -- I've no evidence for it. However, I have my own subjective ideas about what is acceptable and what isn't and, based on this, I'll criticise people all I like and exercise my right to vote to effect change that I want, without being lectured by you on what I can and can't say or do.
I also ask you on what basis can you trust your morality, the validity of your reasoning, your senses, the uniformity of nature, and your sense of worth?
Half of these questions are hogwash and you know it. What do you mean by 'the uniformity of nature', 'sense of worth' and having trust in my morality? If you mean what I think you mean by the latter that you can't see why I think my morality is right and not wrong, it's quite simple: I don't believe in an objective morality, so I don't have to compare notes with some ancient book on what's right and wrong. There's no trust involved.
You fail in much the same way that many other creationists fail in debates like this: because you think there are objective rights and objective wrongs, this must be universally true and you think that you are therefore justified in asking me a question of that kind. It's rather worrying that you keep asking questions with enormous, unproven premises and don't seem to notice that you've done so.
I could go on with the long list of flaws with your ideas. If you're interested, we can discuss them one by one.
By all means make a list.
I can't promise to keep replying regularly or forever but I do have plenty of time -- one of the many benefits of a gap year.(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by Treblebee
So you're saying that anyone in a religion who intends to have children is committing child abuse?! I'd call that a fairly extreme view! What does that say about atheism, eh? Not a good example...
Hopefully that we're not prone to straw man fallacies.
I did not claim that any religious person who intends to reproduce is committing child abuse -- that's just something you came up with to justify your phony outrage.
(edited 8 years ago)
Ok, so I have now read in multiple places the question of why God would allow suffering; here I offer a brief response to it:
Firstly, for the sake of the argument, suppose the following three statements to be true:
1. God is omnipotent and omniscient
2. God is completely good
3. There is suffering and evil in the world.
These three statements seem to contradict each other; if God is all-good and all-powerful, why would he allow suffering and evil? It seems to be a fatal logical flaw. But is it?
It always used to be the case where Christianity was discussed by bringing God into the equation. However, due to the influence of men such as Descartes, this view began to change. People began to debate about God by using the observable world as the foundation. This was moving away from how God should have been discussed an viewed, and suffering, instead of being seen as an issue we have to live with and deal with - God's challenge to us - we began to see it as a proof against the existence of God.
Now, I don't suppose any of you have read C. S. Lewis' "The Problem of Pain"? In it, he writes:
'If God were good, he would wish to make his creatures perfectly happy, and if God were almighty he would be able to do what he wished. But the creatures are not happy. Therefore God lacks either the goodness, or power, or both.' This is the problem of pain, in its simplest form."
However, Lewis then goes on to argue that: If you choose to say 'God can give a creature free-will and at the same time withhold free-will from it', you have not succeeded in saying anything about God: mean*ingless combinations of words do not suddenly acquire a meaning because we prefix to them the two other words: 'God can'. It remains true that all things are possible with God: the intrinsic impossibilities are not things but non-entities. It is no more possible for God than for the weakest of his creatures to carry out both of two mutually exclusive alternatives not because his power meets an obstacle, but because nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God.
Next, Lewis goes on to talk about how we define God's "goodness". It is in love, is it not? But God's love...
"... is not a senile benevolence that drowsily wishes you to be happy in your own way, not the cold philanthropy of a conscientious magistrate, nor the care of a host who feels himself responsible for the comfort of his guest, but the consuming fire itself, the love that made the worlds, persistent as the artist's love for his work and despotic as a man's love for a dog, provident and vener*able as a father's love for a child, jealous, inexorable, exacting as love between the sexes."
The love of God, then, is not some happy-go-lucky outlook on life, which makes hedonism its goal. It is a divine love, which proceeds from God and leads back to God, which embraces suffering as a consequence of the greater gifts of life and free*dom. Real life implies suffering. Were God to take suffering away from us, he would take away that precious gift of life itself. 'The problem of reconciling human suffering with the existence of a God who loves is insoluble only so long as we attach a trivial meaning to the word "love", and look on things as if man was the centre of them.’
So what is the importance of suffering? Firstly, we mustn't forget that God is not like some alleged hero with feet of clay, who demands that others suffer, while remaining aloof from the world of pain himself. He has passed through the shadow of suffering himself. The God in whom Christians believe and trust – is a God who himself suffered, and by doing so, transfigures the sufferings of his people.Some say that nothing could ever be adequate recompense for suffering in this world. But how do they know? Have they spoken to anyone who has suffered and subsequently been raised to glory? Have they been through this experience themselves? One of the greatest tragedies of much writing about human suffering this century has been its crude use of rhetoric. 'Nothing can ever compensate for suffering!' rolls off the tongue with the greatest of ease. It has a certain oratorical force, especially if delivered by a skilled speaker. It discourages argument. But how do they know that? Paul believed passionately that the sufferings of the present life – and he endured many – would be outweighed by the glory that is to come (Romans 8:18). How do they know that he is wrong, and that they are right?
I hope that answers your question, everybody!
Firstly, for the sake of the argument, suppose the following three statements to be true:
1. God is omnipotent and omniscient
2. God is completely good
3. There is suffering and evil in the world.
These three statements seem to contradict each other; if God is all-good and all-powerful, why would he allow suffering and evil? It seems to be a fatal logical flaw. But is it?
It always used to be the case where Christianity was discussed by bringing God into the equation. However, due to the influence of men such as Descartes, this view began to change. People began to debate about God by using the observable world as the foundation. This was moving away from how God should have been discussed an viewed, and suffering, instead of being seen as an issue we have to live with and deal with - God's challenge to us - we began to see it as a proof against the existence of God.
Now, I don't suppose any of you have read C. S. Lewis' "The Problem of Pain"? In it, he writes:
'If God were good, he would wish to make his creatures perfectly happy, and if God were almighty he would be able to do what he wished. But the creatures are not happy. Therefore God lacks either the goodness, or power, or both.' This is the problem of pain, in its simplest form."
However, Lewis then goes on to argue that: If you choose to say 'God can give a creature free-will and at the same time withhold free-will from it', you have not succeeded in saying anything about God: mean*ingless combinations of words do not suddenly acquire a meaning because we prefix to them the two other words: 'God can'. It remains true that all things are possible with God: the intrinsic impossibilities are not things but non-entities. It is no more possible for God than for the weakest of his creatures to carry out both of two mutually exclusive alternatives not because his power meets an obstacle, but because nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God.
Next, Lewis goes on to talk about how we define God's "goodness". It is in love, is it not? But God's love...
"... is not a senile benevolence that drowsily wishes you to be happy in your own way, not the cold philanthropy of a conscientious magistrate, nor the care of a host who feels himself responsible for the comfort of his guest, but the consuming fire itself, the love that made the worlds, persistent as the artist's love for his work and despotic as a man's love for a dog, provident and vener*able as a father's love for a child, jealous, inexorable, exacting as love between the sexes."
The love of God, then, is not some happy-go-lucky outlook on life, which makes hedonism its goal. It is a divine love, which proceeds from God and leads back to God, which embraces suffering as a consequence of the greater gifts of life and free*dom. Real life implies suffering. Were God to take suffering away from us, he would take away that precious gift of life itself. 'The problem of reconciling human suffering with the existence of a God who loves is insoluble only so long as we attach a trivial meaning to the word "love", and look on things as if man was the centre of them.’
So what is the importance of suffering? Firstly, we mustn't forget that God is not like some alleged hero with feet of clay, who demands that others suffer, while remaining aloof from the world of pain himself. He has passed through the shadow of suffering himself. The God in whom Christians believe and trust – is a God who himself suffered, and by doing so, transfigures the sufferings of his people.Some say that nothing could ever be adequate recompense for suffering in this world. But how do they know? Have they spoken to anyone who has suffered and subsequently been raised to glory? Have they been through this experience themselves? One of the greatest tragedies of much writing about human suffering this century has been its crude use of rhetoric. 'Nothing can ever compensate for suffering!' rolls off the tongue with the greatest of ease. It has a certain oratorical force, especially if delivered by a skilled speaker. It discourages argument. But how do they know that? Paul believed passionately that the sufferings of the present life – and he endured many – would be outweighed by the glory that is to come (Romans 8:18). How do they know that he is wrong, and that they are right?
I hope that answers your question, everybody!
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by Hydeman
Hopefully that we're not prone to straw man fallacies.
I did not claim that any religious person who intends to reproduce is committing child abuse -- that's just something you came up with to justify your phony outrage.
I did not claim that any religious person who intends to reproduce is committing child abuse -- that's just something you came up with to justify your phony outrage.
What are you saying, then? That someone is not allowed to tell their own child about something which, to them, is the most important thing in life? Can you explain your previous comment, then?
Original post by driftawaay
If I could eradicate one thing from this planet, it would be religion. It is the root of all evil.
PRSOM.
Original post by Treblebee
What are you saying, then? That someone is not allowed to tell their own child about something which, to them, is the most important thing in life? Can you explain your previous comment, then?
I don't care if it is the most important thing in their life -- perhaps the fact that their children are less important to them than views of which they cannot be certain should tell you something about the kind of person you're defending. You're also being rather naive if you think the 'passing on' of a religion from parent to child only ever amounts to 'telling them' something, as damaging as that is in itself.
My comment was directed specifically at that one individual -- 'the terminator.' I think my exchange with him makes it clear enough what I meant. Please go read that exchange before making baseless accusations designed to stoke hysteria and, if you still don't get it, quote me again and I'll explain it.
Original post by Hydeman
I don't care if it is the most important thing in their life -- perhaps the fact that their children are less important to them than views of which they cannot be certain should tell you something about the kind of person you're defending. You're also being rather naive if you think the 'passing on' of a religion from parent to child only ever amounts to 'telling them' something, as damaging as that is in itself.
I'm surprised that you get away with making such comments in a country which is run by a Christian
My comment was directed specifically at that one individual -- 'the terminator.' I think my exchange with him makes it clear enough what I meant. Please go read that exchange before making baseless accusations designed to stoke hysteria and, if you still don't get it, quote me again and I'll explain it.
I'm surprised that you get away with making such comments in a country which is run by a Christian
My comment was directed specifically at that one individual -- 'the terminator.' I think my exchange with him makes it clear enough what I meant. Please go read that exchange before making baseless accusations designed to stoke hysteria and, if you still don't get it, quote me again and I'll explain it.
It's not that I don't get it; it's that I do get it - and I don't think that The Terminator deserved the comments he received. Explain away
(edited 8 years ago)
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Being a muslim girl (is sometimes hard)
- Why do some people on this site hate Oxbridge for the sake of it?
- Islam - knowledge help
- Is it Haram to do this?
- Should I fill out my religion on the UCAS form?
- Breakup Advice
- a levels
- Muslim grouping OIC says measures needed to prevent Quran desecration
- What is the scope and future of RE in schools?
- Black girl and Pakistani guy
- A-Level History NEA on witchcraft
- What is your favourite font?
- I hate being religious and it's making me depressed
- Gay and Muslim
- Can't be bothered to revise, AMA
- 2023 Edexcel English Lit A Level - Predictions
- post your unpopular literature opinions?
- How to deal with a strictly religious friend?
- a level history coursework
- Should I include my experience working as an extra on my Personal Statement?
Latest
Trending
Last reply 4 days ago
My friend might be getting extra time and i hate it.Last reply 4 days ago
Just found out about UCL stat test but can't afford to sit itLast reply 2 weeks ago
Dad keeps criticising my university degree choiceLast reply 2 weeks ago
Is this pathetic or genuinely something to be upset aboutTrending
Last reply 4 days ago
My friend might be getting extra time and i hate it.Last reply 4 days ago
Just found out about UCL stat test but can't afford to sit itLast reply 2 weeks ago
Dad keeps criticising my university degree choiceLast reply 2 weeks ago
Is this pathetic or genuinely something to be upset about
