why we need religion?

Announcements Posted on
How helpful is our apprenticeship zone? Have your say with our short survey 02-12-2016
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mariachi)
    you are totally misrepresenting the issue. This is what I wrote

    this is stating a clear, obvious fact. It is real, and therefore has its own rationality.

    Now, if you claim that my belief is untenable, please go ahead. Prove it.

    Most certainly, I am not going to cut out your work for you.

    Best
    By saying something all you do is prove it's possible to say it. I could say that pigs can fly - does it make the belief that pigs can fly rational? By your logic it would, which is plainly ridiculous.

    Your belief is generally considered untenable by almost all prominent atheists because they realise they have no evidence which disproves God's existence. Fair enough, they redefine atheism to mean 'absence of belief'. What you are doing is flying in the face of the fact there are no arguments against God's existence. Given the complete lack of evidence for your position, in almost all intellectual circles, it is treated as untenable. Make of that what you will.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SunnysideSea)

    Your belief is generally considered untenable by almost all prominent atheists in almost all intellectual circles etc etc
    iit is treated as untenable. etc etc
    in other words, you claim that my position is untenable, but you cannot prove it. Understood.

    better watch your words, mate

    best
    Online

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SuperHuman98)
    A few days ago I was anti religion then I learnt to jump off the bandwagon and actually educated myself
    What bandwagon is that? The one where people don't need to believe a fairy tale in order to lead good lives and be comfortable with their existence?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SunnysideSea)
    What you are doing is flying in the face of the fact there are no arguments against God's existence
    No arguments against, eh?

    That would ignore the facts that (a) although billions of people have sought evidence that gods exist for thousands of years, none has been found, (b) many documents that "prove" their existence have been proved to be fakes, (c) not a single supposed miracle attributed to these gods has been evidenced as a genuine miracle while (d) pretty well all of those supposed miracles can be duplicated by stage magicians.

    I think we, the jury, are fully entitled to draw our own conclusions from the tediously weak arguments in favour of their existence, the total absence of supporting evidence, the countless attempts to fool us into believing they exist, to look at the motivations of those who sought to do so, and consign your gods to the same childish dustbin that Santa Claus, elves, gnomes, goblins and the tooth fairy inhabit.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Everybody has their own faiths and beliefs. Some more strongly than others (please look up extremists/terrorists). Most terrorists in the news are apparently Muslims, but that doesn't mean that all Muslims are like that.
    I believe in the Greek Gods, but I don't kill every living thing I see to please them. Why? Because every religion says exactly the same thing, just with different things, people, events etc etc.
    Let's face it: Religion is always going to be around us and we can't avoid it. No matter how hard we try.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mvine001)
    Because every religion says exactly the same thing.
    Go on then, I'll bite. Show me where Buddhism calls for human sacrifice like the meso-American religions. Show me where Islam tells Jesus was the son of god and not a prophet, like Christianity. Show me where Jainism calls for the eternal punishment of atheists, like Islam.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    this, in my view, is a decent introduction to the entire "existence of god/atheism" issue : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0tYm41hb48o

    about 2 1/2 hours... but hey, no one claimed that debating "god" is as simple as making tea

    the good news : you can skip the first 12 minutes or so

    best
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    No arguments against, eh?That would ignore the facts that (a) although billions of people have sought evidence that gods exist for thousands of years, none has been found, (b) many documents that "prove" their existence have been proved to be fakes, (c) not a single supposed miracle attributed to these gods has been evidenced as a genuine miracle while (d) pretty well all of those supposed miracles can be duplicated by stage magicians.

    I think we, the jury, are fully entitled to draw our own conclusions from the tediously weak arguments in favour of their existence, the total absence of supporting evidence, the countless attempts to fool us into believing they exist, to look at the motivations of those who sought to do so, and consign your gods to the same childish dustbin that Santa Claus, elves, gnomes, goblins and the tooth fairy inhabit.
    these are all very good arguments against the existence of God

    to these, I would add e) the total chaos and apparent randomness of the Universe, of mankind's appearance on Earth, the cruelty prevailing in nature, the waste implied by natural selection, and the entire problem of evil (theodicy)

    but this last argument of course refers only to the impossibility of a benevolent and logical God, not some creator entity in general

    in any case, religion is not an exact science, and there is no such thing as scientific "proof" in this area. We have to use everyday language, and this is ambiguous and tricky. For one thing, "belief" is different from "knowledge" : so, just like religious people have a belief that God exists, we atheists (with some finer distinctions) believe that God does not exist. And we can make our case at least just as well as the opposing camp.

    Best
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    No arguments against, eh?

    That would ignore the facts that (a) although billions of people have sought evidence that gods exist for thousands of years, none has been found, (b) many documents that "prove" their existence have been proved to be fakes, (c) not a single supposed miracle attributed to these gods has been evidenced as a genuine miracle while (d) pretty well all of those supposed miracles can be duplicated by stage magicians.
    Gosh, what wonderfully weak arguments! I was a little worried you might pull out something good, but alas, same old.

    a) Given the enormous number of people who will testify to having experienced God, the fact that every civilisation in history has believed in deities and the fact that a number of successful philosophical arguments do exist, it's fairly clear that humanity has had ample evidence to suggest the existence of a God. Indeed, every religion will testify to this - billions of people (your phrase) have found sufficient evidence of God to not only believe but even devote their lives to Him. Quite the opposite of not finding evidence. I would also question what kind of evidence you are after. God is not accessible via science, not being part of the material world, so the only evidence it's possible for us to have are from testimonies and from Philosophy, both of which we have.

    b) I have no idea what documents you're even referring to. I've never heard of any document being used to prove God's existence. The Bible presupposes his existence, it doesn't argue in favour of it. I suspect you're just confused on that one.

    c/d) There is a strong historical case for the Resurrection; that's one miracle right there. I would add that miracles by their very nature are rare and non-repeatable, hence not accessible via the scientific method. So, again, I ask what more evidence one could possibly provide for miracles beside personal testimony, and the testimony of others around them, both of which there are countless examples of. But miracles are frankly irrelevant as to God's existence, the Catholic Church doesn't even say you have to believe in any, aside those of Christ. I'm afraid that even if there were no miracles it would not logically follow that God doesn't exist.

    These 'arguments' disproving God are vague at best, and trivially weak at worst.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mariachi)

    to these, I would add e) the total chaos and apparent randomness of the Universe, of mankind's appearance on Earth, the cruelty prevailing in nature, the waste implied by natural selection, and the entire problem of evil (theodicy)

    Best
    These are genuinely some of the worst atheistic arguments I've heard in a while. Read some Bertrand Russell and be an intelligent atheist.

    e) 'total chaos of the universe'!!! The universe is the very opposite of chaos. Everything works and adheres to very precise laws, and in hugely complex biological, chemical and physical structures. If the universe were 'chaos' how would gravity always work, or the earth rotate around the sun at a constant speed? There are gazillions of examples of order in the universe. Science presupposes that the universe acts in a REGULAR way for crying out loud!

    As for the waste in nature, or how long it took for humanity to emerge, you seem to be assuming the mind of God. Remember God is eternal and omnipotent, and as such has no need for efficiency or speed. What good is speed when you're eternal? When humans talk of efficiency we mean to say that one thing acts with less waste than another. But God isn't bound by our human conception of waste or efficiency. He could make something perfectly efficient if He wanted. To know why he didn't we'd have to know the mind of God, like you are claiming to. If it's even possible for God to have a reason, your argument fails as there is no logical contradiction.

    As for the problem of evil. Firstly read some Alvin Plantinga, he essentially killed it.

    Secondly, on what objevtive basis are you asserting that there is 'evil' in the universe? If God doesn't exist what is evil to you may not be to me. For the problem of evil to work it relies upon an objective measure of morality. The only thing capable of providing this is God. In other words, for the problem of evil to even be a problem God has to exist.



    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SunnysideSea)
    These are genuinely some of the worst atheistic arguments I've heard in a whiles
    then, please feel free to disregard them - watch a good movie, instead

    oh, and send my greetings to Alvin Plantinga

    best
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SunnysideSea)
    There is a strong historical case for the Resurrection; that's one miracle right there.
    OK. Let's hear the independent historical evidence. Anything from an unbiased source would be a good start. Try not to get carried away and post something from the Bible.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    OK. Let's hear the independent historical evidence. Anything from an unbiased source would be a good start. Try not to get carried away and post something from the Bible.
    I take it from your response that you agree with the rest of my earlier post, so your other 'arguments' can now be safely ignored.

    As to your objection, it would be completely irrational to discard Biblical evidence. Do you know the reason why the four gospels are in the Bible? It's because they are the four oldest accounts, written closest to the time of the events described. To ignore them would be to ignore the very best historical evidence - in other words, completely nonsensical. Remember also that you can't call the Biblical writers 'biased'. At the time of writing, there wasn't anything to be 'biased' in favour of. They were Jewish, Christianity didn't exist. By writing what they did they risked persecution. Quite apart from this there are extensive writings by Roman historians and records of Roman executions - placing evidence of Jesus' life on the same level as almost any other figure from ancient history.

    I would add that God's existence in no way relies upon Biblical evidence anyway. Neither Jews nor Muslims think Jesus was the son of God, yet they still believe in God. So clearly your objection isn't very strong at all.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SunnysideSea)
    I take it from your response that you agree with the rest of my post, so your other 'arguments' can now be ignored.

    It would be completely irrational to discard Biblical evidence.
    I don't know why you would make that assumption. I merely picked out the most fatuous claim and an interesting point to follow up.

    It isn't rational to put forward, when asked for independent historical evidence you claimed to have, an account written by avowed followers of the claimed messiah. These accounts have no more claim to the truth than Russian Television's claim that the BBC engineered a gas attack in Syria to create good headlines. They are merely claims and cannot corroborate themselves.

    Surely you can see that using the Bible to prove its own claims is a tad circular, and rather unscientific, can't you?

    I had hoped you would be coming up with something useful after stating that

    There is a strong historical case for the Resurrection

    In fact, there is no historical case for the resurrection at all, just the unsubstantiated claims of obviously biased followers. Remember, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, yet you cannot even furnish reasonable and normal corroborative evidence, never mind extraordinary proof.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    Go on then, I'll bite. Show me where Buddhism calls for human sacrifice like the meso-American religions. Show me where Islam tells Jesus was the son of god and not a prophet, like Christianity. Show me where Jainism calls for the eternal punishment of atheists, like Islam.
    Buddhist human sacrifice is an unclear area. Nobody knows if that actually happened, whereas the Aztecs and other such groups around that time had no concept of human rights. We don;t know that happened because they didn't write anything. The Islams actually agree with Christianity that He was a messenger from God. Jainism states that everybody who says that the universe was created by something other than a God is wrong and is rejecting creator deity.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mvine001)
    Buddhist human sacrifice is an unclear area. Nobody knows if that actually happened, whereas the Aztecs and other such groups around that time had no concept of human rights. We don;t know that happened because they didn't write anything. The Islams actually agree with Christianity that He was a messenger from God. Jainism states that everybody who says that the universe was created by something other than a God is wrong and is rejecting creator deity.
    So, putting obfuscation aside and cutting to the chase, far from all religions having the same message, you agree that Buddhists do not perform human sacrifices, Moslems do not agree with Christians that Jesus was the son of God and Jainism doesn't agree with Islam that apostates and non-believers will be punished?

    The Aztecs left pictures and other evidence of their sacrificial practices, by the way, and the Spanish witnessed it, so we know it happened.
 
 
 
Write a reply… Reply
Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. Oops, you need to agree to our Ts&Cs to register
  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: October 20, 2016
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Today on TSR
Poll
Wake up and smell the...
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.