Views on Religion

[Heated Bread]

And they they go out and believe that there is no god. Differences in definitions caused this misunderstanding, sorry. If you consider those who say, as Heated put it, "I don't know" as atheists, then I don't consider them to be delusional.

 

I think I must point out that someone who believes there is no god (even though that can't really be known for sure) isn't nearly as bad as someone who not only believes in a god (again, even though that can't really be known), but believes in a specific god, and then goes on not only to build their life around that belief and tons of other beliefs about what that god wants them to do, but also goes on to have an imaginary relationship with that god in their head while failing to realize that they are essentially having a conversation with themselves.  Then perhaps they also believe that this god is causing things to happen in their lives even though there's no way to prove it.  So you see, the two kinds of people are not even in the same ballpark.  Trying to equate them is kind of silly.

 

Here are a couple of interesting brain studies:

 

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=101617951

 

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18216-dear-god-please-confirm-what-i-already-believe.html

 

The part I find most interesting is that the 2nd study found that people were using their own values to fill in the blanks of what they thought god's values were, and that when their values changed, so did their beliefs about what god's values are.

 

Now of course, neither study proves that there is no god.  It just shows that people's imaginations about god are rooted in completely mundane processes and areas of the brain, and are therefore just as fallible and subject to change as anything else they can think about.

 

The follow-up study I would love to see is a comparison of brain scans from people who have imaginary friends vs those who believe that they have a relationship with god.  Of course, most people who have imaginary friends that are not god would be children, and I think their brains scans would be a bit different from fully grown adults, so it would probably be a difficult study.  Adults with imaginary friends who are not god would most likely be considered crazy... but it would be interesting to see how their brains scans may or may not be different.

[Seminal Inhalation]

I think I must point out that someone who believes there is no god (even though that can't really be known for sure) isn't nearly as bad as someone who not only believes in a god (again, even though that can't really be known), but believes in a specific god, and then goes on not only to build their life around that belief and tons of other beliefs about what that god wants them to do, but also goes on to have an imaginary relationship with that god in their head while failing to realize that they are essentially having a conversation with themselves.  Then perhaps they also believe that this god is causing things to happen in their lives even though there's no way to prove it.  So you see, the two kinds of people are not even in the same ballpark.  Trying to equate them is kind of silly.

 

Here are a couple of interesting brain studies:

 

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=101617951

 

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18216-dear-god-please-confirm-what-i-already-believe.html

 

The part I find most interesting is that the 2nd study found that people were using their own values to fill in the blanks of what they thought god's values were, and that when their values changed, so did their beliefs about what god's values are.

 

Now of course, neither study proves that there is no god.  It just shows that people's imaginations about god are rooted in completely mundane processes and areas of the brain, and are therefore just as fallible and subject to change as anything else they can think about.

 

The follow-up study I would love to see is a comparison of brain scans from people who have imaginary friends vs those who believe that they have a relationship with god.  Of course, most people who have imaginary friends that are not god would be children, and I think their brains scans would be a bit different from fully grown adults, so it would probably be a difficult study.  Adults with imaginary friends who are not god would most likely be considered crazy... but it would be interesting to see how their brains scans may or may not be different.

Actually, grown men and sometimes even teenagers have sort of 'imaginary friends' known as "Tulpas" that they can actually interact with with all 5 senses.

[Heated Bread]

Actually, grown men and sometimes even teenagers have sort of 'imaginary friends' known as "Tulpas" that they can actually interact with with all 5 senses.

 

So I just googled tulpas.  Sounds like a bunch of bullshit, but considering people do have hallucinations, I suppose it's possible given the right kind of brain.  I think I've seen lonely people on /x/ talking about trying to make them.

 

I feel like watching Fight Club now.  I think I will. 

 

[Seminal Inhalation]

So I just googled tulpas.  Sounds like a bunch of bullshit, but considering people do have hallucinations, I suppose it's possible given the right kind of brain.  I think I've seen lonely people on /x/ talking about trying to make them.

 

I feel like watching Fight Club now.  I think I will. 

 

 

It's making your mind into seeing and interacting with an artificial being that is controlled by your sub-concious through months of meditation.

[Professional Map Painter]

It might be a delusion and everything.. but in the end it gives better results than people who believe in science only.

 

these people believe in no god.. no punishment.. nothing prevent them from drugs.. crimes.. rape.. while in the religious side.. they're told not to corrupt the earth with this stuff.. even if who listen to that are few.. but they're still better than nothing.

 

also people aren't like machines.. their beliefs are changeable.. if someone's religion is wrong and he's defending it.. know that there is a thing that deterring him.. parents.. benefits.. the surrounded community.. etc 

Morals are independent of religion. History as repeatedly shown this.

[Splat]

Morals are independent of religion. History as repeatedly shown this.

Wrong. History has repeatedly shown us that morals are indeed influenced by religion.

 

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad

[Professional Map Painter]

Wrong. History has repeatedly shown us that morals are indeed influenced by religion.

 

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad

How are those events morally ethical? What I meant was that Atheists can have morals, without requiring a religion to provide them.

[Geel]

Because athiests think and go "Well how can I believe in something that can't be proven?"

You CAN'T and SHOULDN'T!

[Zcrab]

I seriously have no idea on how you guys made this thread so long, everything could be answered in 1 post.

Is it real? No one knows, there is no actual evidence of it being real

Is it fake? There is no proof that makes it 100% fake

Is it beneficial (towards economies, social groups etc.)? Yes, alot of countries pay money to the main religion in the country. It also make social groups, some religions even restrict you to only go with other people in same religion. Every religion has it's own benefits.

Is it >insert opposite of beneficial here<?  For example, here in Denmark we pay money to the church via taxes. This makes sure that you can also go there, if you are homeless, you can sleep inside the church (a rather cold experience but it's better than the streets). The social part also makes sure you can be together with other humans, and make new friends. For every benefit, there is something against it.

 

Discuss. Please no flame wars. I'm just rather interested on this subject

[Seminal Inhalation]

they are believing in something that can't be proven

So they're believing in something that a random person just said out of the blue? That's like watching Star Wars and Star Trek and believing their real just by watching one movie or a book of them. It's just like "Oh, I believe this."

[Ward - MvM Anyone?]

Religion is just a shield that people hide behind because they're scared of death.

[Splat]

How are those events morally ethical? What I meant was that Atheists can have morals, without requiring a religion to provide them.

I was pointing out that in most cases that religion uses its followers as tools, negating and nullifying their morals.

[Gone]

What I think is that we have no proof that a god doesn't exist or does exist so might as well believe in one. There is nothing to lose by believing in one.

[Heated Bread]

What I think is that we have no proof that a god doesn't exist or does exist so might as well believe in one. There is nothing to lose by believing in one.

 

Wrong.  You can lose pride and confidence in yourself by believing that you are subordinate to some supernatural order, an order which you can know nothing about except by some supposedly divine proxy who may or may not be lying to you for his/her own personal gain.  You can become paranoid that some invisible god is watching you all the time and judging your actions.  You can lose your perspective on reality by feeding god into unanswered questions or questions which have been answered but that you are deliberately ignorant of because those answers contradict your beliefs about god.  You can lose your ability to reason about the natural world by habitually assuming some imaginary supernatural cause behind everything like some crazy invisible conspiracy.  You can feel confident about things which no person has any business feeling confident about, which can cause you to do things which an outsider would consider irrational or even dangerous and harmful to yourself and others.

 

The only reason I can think of that anyone would defend faith is if they are so used to it that they would fear the thought of not having it.  This also goes for the charlatans who use faith to exploit others.

[Seminal Inhalation]

What I think is that we have no proof that a god doesn't exist or does exist so might as well believe in one. There is nothing to lose by believing in one.

Proving one doesn't exist doesn't make any sense.

[whopz]

What I think is that we have no proof that this provably unfair, sadistic sky cunt doesn't exist or does exist, so might as well believe he exists. There's nothing to lose by believing a magical angry sky cunt is all powerful and will fuck you up. - the book of whopz 3:10

[whopz]

What I think is that we have no proof that a god doesn't exist or does exist so might as well believe in one. There is nothing to lose by believing in one.

What I think is that we have no proof that a tooth fairy doesn't exist or does exist, so might as well believe in one. There is nothing to lose by growing up as an adult and having child like fantasies about things that are obviously not real.

[Gone]

What I think is that we have no proof that a tooth fairy doesn't exist or does exist, so might as well believe in one. There is nothing to lose by growing up as an adult and having child like fantasies about things that are obviously not real.

Since we know everything that goes on in the universe... Ok wise guy, prove there is no god.

[Gone]

Wrong.  You can lose pride and confidence in yourself by believing that you are subordinate to some supernatural order, an order which you can know nothing about except by some supposedly divine proxy who may or may not be lying to you for his/her own personal gain.  You can become paranoid that some invisible god is watching you all the time and judging your actions.  You can lose your perspective on reality by feeding god into unanswered questions or questions which have been answered but that you are deliberately ignorant of because those answers contradict your beliefs about god.  You can lose your ability to reason about the natural world by habitually assuming some imaginary supernatural cause behind everything like some crazy invisible conspiracy.  You can feel confident about things which no person has any business feeling confident about, which can cause you to do things which an outsider would consider irrational or even dangerous and harmful to yourself and others.

 

The only reason I can think of that anyone would defend faith is if they are so used to it that they would fear the thought of not having it.  This also goes for the charlatans who use faith to exploit others.

People that are atheists are considered strange. Most people believe they are abnormal.

^His is actually true

[Heated Bread]

Since we know everything that goes on in the universe... Ok wise guy, prove there is no god.

 

Prove there is no race of invisible undetectable squirrel ghosts orbiting the outer edge of the galaxy faster than the speed of light.  Go ahead, do it.  If you can't, it means they must be real.  Checkmate.  Guess you better start believing in them, huh?  Or maybe it's  a waste of time to consider every bullshit claim someone makes, and the burden of proof falls upon the person advancing the claim in the first place.  Maybe it's actually incredibly stupid to make shit up and then ask people to disprove it, and then just constantly redefine whatever it is when people find problems with it.  If you can come up with any serious objections to the invisible squirrel ghosts, I can easily explain them away by making up more shit about them.  Same thing goes for god.  Funny that, huh?

 

So yeah, if you want to play pretend, let's play.  I challenge you to disprove the existence of the squirrel ghosts.

[Gone]

Prove there is no race of invisible undetectable squirrel ghosts orbiting the outer edge of the galaxy faster than the speed of light.  Go ahead, do it.  If you can't, it means they must be real.  Checkmate.  Guess you better start believing in them, huh?  Or maybe it's  a waste of time to consider every bullshit claim someone makes, and the burden of proof falls upon the person advancing the claim in the first place.  Maybe it's actually incredibly stupid to make shit up and then ask people to disprove it, and then just constantly redefine whatever it is when people find problems with it.  If you can come up with any serious objections to the invisible squirrel ghosts, I can easily explain them away by making up more shit about them.  Same thing goes for god.  Funny that, huh?

 

So yeah, if you want to play pretend, let's play.  I challenge you to disprove the existence of the squirrel ghosts.

But there is a difference. This is what people be

Ieved in for thousands of years. You know what they call people like you in the real world? Phonies. Those are people that think that they know everything. Here is the proof god exists. Life and how everything is balanced perfectly to support life. Feelings. And how the whole universe was created. There is always a start to everything.

[Heated Bread]

But there is a difference. This is what people be

Ieved in for thousands of years. You know what they call people like you in the real world? Phonies. Those are people that think that they know everything.

 

The revelation of the invisible squirrel ghosts has been passed down through my lineage for thousands of years.  It pre-dates judaism.  Since my belief is older than yours, it must have more validity, right?

 

 

Here is the proof god exists. Life and how everything is balanced perfectly to support life. Feelings. And how the whole universe was created. There is always a start to everything.

 

"Feelings"?  I'm calling troll on this guy.

 

So, to the issue of fine tuning: 99.999999whatever % of the universe is apparently totally inhospitable to life.  That is what I would expect to see if there was no designer at all.  Seems to me that the universe is finely tuned against life, while you amusingly assert that it is perfectly balanced for it.  Even most of the earth is inhospitable to life, and we only live in the tiny sliver at the outer edge of the planet where life can exist.  Try to go living in a volcano, or in space with no atmosphere.

 

To the issue of a beginning: your first mistake is special pleading.  Who created god?  Everything must have a beginning, right?  So who created the creator?  Your second mistake is assuming that the universe had a beginning, and then assuming that this beginning must be caused by an intelligent creator, and then assuming that this must be the god you believe in instead of some other god.  There is no justification for any of these irrational leaps of faith.  "Beginning" is also a temporal concept, and temporal concepts only make sense within time, and time is a property of the observable universe.  So to say that time had a beginning actually doesn't make sense because you'd need time prior to that in order for there to be a beginning to time.  Try wrapping your head around that!

 

Finally, the whole thing is one big argument from ignorance fallacy.  You are basically saying that since you don't know X, god must therefore be the explanation.

 

[Gone]

The revelation of the invisible squirrel ghosts has been passed down through my lineage for thousands of years. It pre-dates judaism. Since my belief is older than yours, it must have more validity, right?

 

 

 

 

"Feelings"? I'm calling troll on this guy.

 

So, to the issue of fine tuning: 99.999999whatever % of the universe is apparently totally inhospitable to life. That is what I would expect to see if there was no designer at all. Seems to me that the universe is finely tuned against life, while you amusingly assert that it is perfectly balanced for it. Even most of the earth is inhospitable to life, and we only live in the tiny sliver at the outer edge of the planet where life can exist. Try to go living in a volcano, or in space with no atmosphere.

 

To the issue of a beginning: your first mistake is special pleading. Who created god? Everything must have a beginning, right? So who created the creator? Your second mistake is assuming that the universe had a beginning, and then assuming that this beginning must be caused by an intelligent creator, and then assuming that this must be the god you believe in instead of some other god. There is no justification for any of these irrational leaps of faith. "Beginning" is also a temporal concept, and temporal concepts only make sense within time, and time is a property of the observable universe. So to say that time had a beginning actually doesn't make sense because you'd need time prior to that in order for there to be a beginning to time. Try wrapping your head around that!

 

Finally, the whole thing is one big argument from ignorance fallacy. You are basically saying that since you don't know X, god must therefore be the explanation.

 

Let's agree to disagree. Since whatever we say, we won't agree with the others point. Even one place that is balanced for life to exist is good enough. So the universe by accident created life? It made feelings, it created the body in perfect harmony that if one small thing to make a mistake your life will end but it doesn't. All this was by accident? Nope

But one last thing to say. Einstein and most of the top scientists today believed in god

[Heated Bread]

Let's agree to disagree. Since whatever we say, we won't agree with the others point. Even one place that is balanced for life to exist is good enough. So the universe by accident created life? It made feelings, it created the body in perfect harmony that if one small thing to make a mistake your life will end but it doesn't. All this was by accident? Nope

But one last thing to say. Einstein and most of the top scientists today believed in god

 

Einstein's views are not entirely clear.  He claimed to believe that the universe itself was god, but also self-identified as an agnostic.  Also, the vast majority of the scientific community is atheist.  But that doesn't prove or disprove a god.

 

Anyway, given the vastness of the universe, life in some form is arguably an inevitable outcome.  So, yeah.  Chance/probability would seem to be an important factor, or "accident" as you seem to prefer to call it.

[There]

New question: Could the creator create the creator? Eg. could a god create itself? 

 

This question interests me, and earlier in the thread, I believe the idea of a creator creating itself was dismissed very quickly. But I fail to see why this is "impossible".