Society Religious Discussion and Q&A Thread

[M3J]

What I don't get about religious people saying something had to have come from something, and not from nothing, is that you can apply the same to God, and yet they refuse to.

 

[ninjabot]

What I don't get about religious people saying something had to have come from something, and not from nothing, is that you can apply the same to God, and yet they refuse to.

I agree, but I was religious for the first 14 years of my life, so I understand the disconnect. I bent over backwards to convince myself it made sense, and once I came to the realization that it didn't, do you think I became an Atheist?

Nope.

I just avoided conversations about it because it made me mad that I didn't have answers for it (like how Sanity Check won't engage with the thread title and decided it was a respectable idea to shit up my thread with memes instead). I mean, I always had questions about Christianity since I was like 9 or 10... because as a kid when I would ask my parents questions about the genocides and God's justification for punishing all of humanity for the actions of Adam and Eve... and then the flood... I just felt worse and worse about identifying as a Christian because my empathetic nature couldn't stomach the stories in the bible.

And I skipped past the deistic phase that a lot of ex Christians go through on the way to atheism. Though I did call myself agnostic from like 15 to my mid to late 20's because of fear of the A word.

Only reason I'm telling this story is to point out that I've been there. I know what it feels like to FEEL like something is true... and for that to be enough to build a worldview off of.

 

[Sanity Check]

Sanity Check won't engage with the thread title

I've thought about it, in terms of politics.

To try to positively influence things, from the inside.

Like the naive Hector from the castlevania series.

I think that's the typical motive for many on the right, who become sympathetic.

"Atheists are conquering the world."

"Sign up to help it to be a more humane and clean transition from the inside."

Or it would be a scenario where people are setting aside their beliefs to avert world war 3 with russia.

...

But even if I pretended to be an atheist to try to accomplish good in the world, I would still be a believer in God.

Dishonesty in labels may be something I should never consider. Slippery slopes etc.

I tried for 10+ years to be an asset to the political right. Never did any good. There is a lot of good content and insight I've provided. Which no one ever had use for.

The only recognition I've gotten is from the political left. Its not be the type of recognition anyone wants to have. Negative attention. But at least they recognize the talent. Which is more than most can say.

 

[M3J]

I agree, but I was religious for the first 14 years of my life, so I understand the disconnect. I bent over backwards to convince myself it made sense, and once I came to the realization that it didn't, do you think I became an Atheist?

Nope.

I just avoided conversations about it because it made me mad that I didn't have answers for it (like how Sanity Check won't engage with the thread title and decided it was a respectable idea to shit up my thread with memes instead). I mean, I always had questions about Christianity since I was like 9 or 10... because as a kid when I would ask my parents questions about the genocides and God's justification for punishing all of humanity for the actions of Adam and Eve... and then the flood... I just felt worse and worse about identifying as a Christian because my empathetic nature couldn't stomach the stories in the bible.

And I skipped past the deistic phase that a lot of ex Christians go through on the way to atheism. Though I did call myself agnostic from like 15 to my mid to late 20's because of fear of the A word.

Only reason I'm telling this story is to point out that I've been there. I know what it feels like to FEEL like something is true... and for that to be enough to build a worldview off of.

it's so confusing and annoying though because of how hypocritical/double standard it is, especially in a discussion. At the very least, acknowledge that there might be something weird about claiming something must have started Big Bang but not thinking the same of God.

Honestly, Christianity and Islam's deities come across as evil/horrible. If we go by their believers, these deities are bigoted and full of hate. If we go by the books, they're egotistical and murderous.

I think that's the typical motive for many on the right, who become sympathetic.

Many right wing Christians aren't sympathetic, they're evil but pretend to be good. No sympathetic Christian/right would be homophobic, racist, misogynistic, or etc, otherwise. No one with a brain believes the bullshit that religious people love to peddle.

 

[Sanity Check]

Many right wing Christians aren't sympathetic, they're evil but pretend to be good. No sympathetic Christian/right would be homophobic, racist, misogynistic, or etc, otherwise. No one with a brain believes the bullshit that religious people love to peddle.

Many are closet sympathetics.

Like the pope, who didn't come out until recently.

 

[z.5]

Global Moderator Notice:
I rarely get the chance to use these nice blue boxes...

Aaaaanyway

Just to remind you lot:
The topic of this thread is religion - not American politics

I'd rather not have to delete/move too many posts, so it'd be good if you kept those kinds of topics (unless explicitly relevant) to other, more relevant, threads

Left-wing, right-wing, Democrats, Republicans... All this is very likely to be deemed as off-topic

~ zimbardo

 

[Sanity Check]

Global Moderator Notice:
I rarely get the chance to use these nice blue boxes...

Left-wing, right-wing, Democrats, Republicans... All this is very likely to be deemed as off-topic

~ zimbardo

Ok. I'll offer a setup for religious discussion.

This is the history of christianity.

1. A prophet who is close to God and the truth offers people good advice.

2. Noah warns of the flood, Samuel warns about kings, Moses encourages people to overcome their worst tendencies so they can be led to the promised land.

3. People turn their backs on the truth (and God), and make bad decisions based on trendiness, lies and ignorance.

4. They beg God to save them from themselves and their poor decision making.

5. God saves them.

6. Instead of learning, people return to doing the same negative things and choose not to learn from the experience.

...



One central pillar of christianity is encouraging people to embrace truth/fact.

This is where "you shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free" comes from.

Believers in God are supposed to seek truth and knowledge.

 

[z.5]

Surely all religions try to claim that they are encouraging their believers to embrace truth/fact - I can't think of many religions that will flat out state that they are lying to you

 

[ninjabot]

I've thought about it, in terms of politics.

To try to positively influence things, from the inside.

Like the naive Hector from the castlevania series.

I think that's the typical motive for many on the right, who become sympathetic.

"Atheists are conquering the world."

"Sign up to help it to be a more humane and clean transition from the inside."

Or it would be a scenario where people are setting aside their beliefs to avert world war 3 with russia.

...

But even if I pretended to be an atheist to try to accomplish good in the world, I would still be a believer in God.

Dishonesty in labels may be something I should never consider. Slippery slopes etc.

I tried for 10+ years to be an asset to the political right. Never did any good. There is a lot of good content and insight I've provided. Which no one ever had use for.

The only recognition I've gotten is from the political left. Its not be the type of recognition anyone wants to have. Negative attention. But at least they recognize the talent. Which is more than most can say.

The question was "what would it take to convince you that a God doesn't exist" for the theists, and vice versa for the atheists.

A simple "nothing could change my mind" would have sufficed. I would've even overlooked the memes and jokes as good fun as long as you could just play along and answer honestly. I'm not here to be antagonistic to anyone.

 

[Sanity Check]

I would've even overlooked the memes and jokes as good fun as long as you could just play along and answer honestly.

I wish I had someone knowledgeable to debate religion with. But there's nobody.

So apologies in advance if anyone who makes a thread like this might receive some overly long responses if they pursue it.

...

Memes you say?

Atheists always say they love science.

Surely they want to know what the greatest scientists in history say on the topic.

The same way that I would.

--- Double Post Merged, Mar 22, 2022, Original Post Date: Mar 22, 2022 ---

Surely all religions try to claim that they are encouraging their believers to embrace truth/fact - I can't think of many religions that will flat out state that they are lying to you

Many religions encourage blind faith.

Or complacency, where people are encouraged to know nothing, do nothing and simply meditate or pray about everything.

There aren't many which encourage people to learn and improve everyday. And the facets of christianity which encourage these positive trends are usually the ones which are most ignored by religious leaders that people look towards for guidance.

 

[M3J]

I wish I had someone knowledgeable to debate religion with. But there's nobody.

So apologies in advance if anyone who makes a thread like this might receive some overly long responses if they pursue it.

...

Memes you say?

Atheists always say they love science.

Surely they want to know what the greatest scientists in history say on the topic.

The same way that I would.

I mean, you seem to know almost nothing about religion, so I'm not sure why anyone would really want to bother "debating" with you when all you'll do is present false and biased statements.

Hmm, wonder how many scientists were religious and smart enough to know that religion and science did not necessarily need to clash. Also wonder how many religious figures were so scared of losing power and control over people that they made science heresy out of fear, no matter how accurate or proven science was. And as result of these religious figures, the world could not advance and evolve as it could have.

 

[z.5]

M3J - please
target the argument (if any are present) not the person

If you think him an arse, then please try to just think it (rather than outright saying it) - name calling will just lead to him returning the favour and this whole thread will rapidly descend into pointless name-calling and strawmanning, like often happens in other threads (such as the American Politics one)


I'm not really sure what the current debate is even meant to be, however (nor if I can even be bothered to jump into what I imagine will be a long and cyclical reply-chain)

• whether Christianity is the only true religion?
• whether only Christians are interested in knowing 'the truth' [about the existence, or non-existence, of a god(s)]?
• whether we need to accept everything that any scientist says/thinks on any specific matter - 'cause if someone is knowledgeable about one thing then surely they must be knowledgeable about everything else also?

tbh I'm not even sure which particular sect of Christianity is even the one that is being discussed - unless all are equally correct (which is a discussion in and of itself - and one that would likely cause equal amounts of anger/argument)

 

[Sanity Check]

I mean, you seem to know almost nothing about religion, so I'm not sure why anyone would really want to bother "debating" with you when all you'll do is present false and biased statements.

Hmm, wonder how many scientists were religious and smart enough to know that religion and science did not necessarily need to clash. Also wonder how many religious figures were so scared of losing power and control over people that they made science heresy out of fear, no matter how accurate or proven science was. And as result of these religious figures, the world could not advance and evolve as it could have.

I might have come up with a rough outline of how to prove God exists, using math and science. Back around 2005.

Should I publish it?

You can be my 1st reviewer and repeat everything you're saying here.

I can thank you and say I never would have done it, had you not provided me with the motivation.

--- Double Post Merged, Mar 23, 2022, Original Post Date: Mar 23, 2022 ---

name calling will just lead to him returning the favour and this whole thread will rapidly descend into pointless name-calling

I'll never call him names.

But maybe I will write a few books on religion/politics and sell them.

If I can't sell them, I might give them away for free.

 

[M3J]

I wish I had someone knowledgeable to debate religion with. But there's nobody.

M3J - please
target the argument (if any are present) not the person

If you think him an arse, then please try to just think it (rather than outright saying it) - name calling will just lead to him returning the favour and this whole thread will rapidly descend into pointless name-calling and strawmanning, like often happens in other threads (such as the American Politics one)


I'm not really sure what the current debate is even meant to be, however (nor if I can even be bothered to jump into what I imagine will be a long and cyclical reply-chain)

• whether Christianity is the only true religion?
• whether only Christians are interested in knowing 'the truth' [about the existence, or non-existence, of a god(s)]?
• whether we need to accept everything that any scientist says/thinks on any specific matter - 'cause if someone is knowledgeable about one thing then surely they must be knowledgeable about everything else also?

tbh I'm not even sure which particular sect of Christianity is even the one that is being discussed - unless all are equally correct (which is a discussion in and of itself - and one that would likely cause equal amounts of anger/argument)

The quote above is targeting people though. He's been calling people idiots or whatnot, not just one person. That aside, you can't get worse than random ramblings and memes, can you?


But to address your points, for discussion's sake:

There is no true religion. It seems majority of religions claim this, but if it was true, then why hasn't the deity/deities wiped out their competition and become the sole master or masters?

I don't think Christians are interested. Most religious people care more about getting into Heaven than they are in knowing the truth, and they seem to only care out of fear of the afterlife, as well as wanting to give life meaning. Christians, from my experience, are more obsessed with this, and many have said or implied it's why they're "nice" and "moralistic," because they expect to get something out of it, whether from others or from God after death.

I don't think we should. If a scientist says something but can't back it up or provide evidence, then what they say shouldn't be accepted, not easily. They can have expert knowledge in one thing, but if it can't be reasonably backed up, then it shouldn't necessarily be accepted.

 

[Sanity Check]

The quote above is targeting people though. He's been calling people idiots or whatnot, not just one person.

You definitely misunderstood what was said there.

There is no true religion. It seems majority of religions claim this, but if it was true, then why hasn't the deity/deities wiped out their competition and become the sole master or masters?

People desire freedom of choice.

Making choices, and living with the consequences, may be the closest to real freedom, any of us will ever have.

I don't think Christians are interested. Most religious people care more about getting into Heaven than they are in knowing the truth, and they seem to only care out of fear of the afterlife, as well as wanting to give life meaning. Christians, from my experience, are more obsessed with this, and many have said or implied it's why they're "nice" and "moralistic," because they expect to get something out of it, whether from others or from God after death.

Christianity says people reap what they sow. They're rewarded for good deeds and good choices. And those who do evil and make poor choices, inevitably are punished as they deserve.

There is a type of cosmic balance, where only God can pass Judgement. As only God has the knowledge and power to do so fairly and without bias.

Heaven as a concept is too counter intuitive and alien for most to comprehend what it means. Most avoid it. I haven't thought about heaven or hell in years. They're not topics that are important.

I don't think we should. If a scientist says something but can't back it up or provide evidence, then what they say shouldn't be accepted, not easily. They can have expert knowledge in one thing, but if it can't be reasonably backed up, then it shouldn't necessarily be accepted.

From a scientific perspective, what did you think about the quotations I posted from Nikola Tesla, Newton and Einstein?

 

[M3J]

You definitely misunderstood what was said there.




People desire freedom of choice.

Making choices, and living with the consequences, may be the closest to real freedom, any of us will ever have.



Christianity says people reap what they sow. They're rewarded for good deeds and good choices. And those who do evil and make poor choices, inevitably are punished as they deserve.

There is a type of cosmic balance, where only God can pass Judgement. As only God has the knowledge and power to do so fairly and without bias.

Heaven as a concept is too counter intuitive and alien for most to comprehend what it means. Most avoid it. I haven't thought about heaven or hell in years. They're not topics that are important.



From a scientific perspective, what did you think about the quotations I posted from Nikola Tesla, Newton and Einstein?

You said no one had knowledge enough to debate religion with. What was that based on? Your disagreeing with people?

Do they, though? No one seems to rebel at the idea of God determining where one ends up after death, and many seem to believe in God because they say God/religion gives them purpose in life, which doesn't sound like freedom. Also, majority of religious people do not seem to want to live with consequences of them doing shitty stuff or being shitty people.

And yet Christians will do shitty things and still go to the church or defend God as if that's enough to get them into Heaven. And the way the Bible says it, it doesn't matter how horrible you are as a person, as long as you satisfy God's ego. So there's bias there.

If they weren't important, then far fewer people would have been religious decades ago, if not centuries ago.


I dunno, I forgot about those memes.

 

[Sanity Check]

You said no one had knowledge enough to debate religion with. What was that based on? Your disagreeing with people?

I said I might spam excessively long replies.

Due to lacking knowledgeable people (in real life) to argue religion with.

Its not an insult. Many seem to believe they're better off not knowing things. I respect the choice but wish I had someone knowledgeable as I know that arguing with the type of person who invested time and energy in the topic, is a good way to learn more than what normally could be learned.

Do they, though? No one seems to rebel at the idea of God determining where one ends up after death,

What would be the motive behind rebelling?

If some people deserved to go heaven, and some deserved to go to hell. What's wrong with people getting what they worked hard for, with their own choices and decisions?

and many seem to believe in God because they say God/religion gives them purpose in life, which doesn't sound like freedom. Also, majority of religious people do not seem to want to live with consequences of them doing shitty stuff or being shitty people.

Having purpose, isn't freedom?

What is freedom then?

And yet Christians will do shitty things and still go to the church or defend God as if that's enough to get them into Heaven. And the way the Bible says it, it doesn't matter how horrible you are as a person, as long as you satisfy God's ego. So there's bias there.

If they weren't important, then far fewer people would have been religious decades ago, if not centuries ago.

"As long as you satisfy God's ego".

What does this mean?

 

[z.5]

I might have come up with a rough outline of how to prove God exists, using math and science. Back around 2005.

Should I publish it?

If you could prove it then you certainly should. That's a Nobel prize just waiting for you

Also, if you really could provide substantive proof, you'd have absolutely no difficulty whatsoever in selling the books (hell, loads of people sell plenty of books that don't provide such strong evidence/proof)

I'll never call him names

Then please stop being so passive aggressive and alluding at the stupidity and poor debating skills of users here (named or not)
It's not just unhelpful, it actively lowers the tone of the whole debate


I won't jump in for M3J, but, for me, true 'freedom' (for use of a better word) would certainly contain the ability to go against one's purpose
One can certainly be 'purposeless' and 'free'

 

[kkck]

Imagine being able to prove mathematically and/or empirically the existence of a presumably Christian god and by extension solve a significant portion of the metaphysical and philosophical questions that come with this and being all "meh, I'll get to it when I get to it".

 

[z.5]

Imagine being able to prove mathematically and/or empirically the existence of a presumably Christian god and by extension solve a significant portion of the metaphysical and philosophical questions that come with this and being all "meh, I'll get to it when I get to it"

Priorities

Why waste time solving/proving the small stuff?