What does religion do for you?

June 26, 2015

God help me when I need it, whenever I will be in a bad situation i'll just have to pray and it will resolve by itself. And it also prevent me from doing immoral things that would conduct me to Hell or get me into a lot of trouble in this world. God is protecting me and that's why I feel very good from having a religion.

And I can understand that Atheists will say that what I'm saying is false but it's not totally a person's fault if they are'nt religious, it's mostly their parents. If atheists had good religious parents and family they would be religious and If I had'nt had religious parents and family and I would most likely be atheist. It's works like that. But I'm extremly glad I'm not atheist.

June 27, 2015

> (I think I may have said 'entire life' before, and that would be a bit misleading.)

Firstly, a bit misleading ???

"If you're wrong, your entire life has been wasted and is meaningless."

Please, enlighten me, and tell me how there's an alternative way to interprete that?

Secondly, Pascals wager talks about THE SAME RELIGION as MLK has. You can't argue

"if you're wrong, ~~your entire~~ part of your life has been wasted & is meaninless"

Without that ALSO applying to MKL.

What you also fail to spot, is the following: Suppose someone spends 10% of his time praying to a faudulent god (he believes something that's proven to be impossible), and the rest of his time he spends 20% better (for example, instead of sitting in from of the TV in the evening, he goes out to help people - as dictated by his fraudulent religion). Because of the false religion, in comparison, the non-believer wasted his time.

So ...

"if you're wrong, you'll waiste part of your life, but it's possible you lead a more meaningfull life in total"

... can you understand now, why your argument is a poor one?

>"If you're wrong, your entire life has been wasted and is meaningless."

>Please, enlighten me, and tell me how there's an alternative way to interprete that?

Wasted their entire life related to X (where X is what I was talking about [false religions, following false rules, etc]).

>Secondly, Pascals wager talks about THE SAME RELIGION as MLK has. You can't argue

>"if you're wrong, ~~your entire~~ part of your life has been wasted & is meaninless"

>Without that ALSO applying to MKL.

What....? It does apply, I never stated it doesn't. I would have thought that what I'm saying should make you assume that I would also apply it to MLK. Because it does, and it should.

I stated "MLK's religion has not been proven to be false. Therefore I can't say he's wasted his life." So, regarding the opposite:

If his religion has been proven false, then he would have wasted his life*. (*And even then, the only parts of his life he would have wasted would be worship/arguments/religious activism/recruitment/etc related to his religion.) Of course I would believe that.

>What you also fail to spot, is the following: Suppose someone spends 10% of his time praying to a faudulent god (he believes something that's proven to be impossible), and the rest of his time he spends 20% better (for example, instead of sitting in from of the TV in the evening, he goes out to help people - as dictated by his fraudulent religion). Because of the false religion, in comparison, the non-believer wasted his time.

This is not a valid counter argument. Just because a non-believer could potentially "waste" their life, doesn't mean a believer who devoted their life to a fraudulent religion, has their belief any more validated, or their waste, any less wasteful. (I phrased that weirdly, but, let's say there's a non-believer who "wastes" their life. And then there's a person who devoted their life to a fraudulent cause. The 10% time spent "praying" is waste. It does not matter if someone who is a non-believer also appears to "waste" their time. The non-believer "wasting" their time, does not give validity to the waste of time by a believer. It's still a waste of time.) Saying "Well, Z is a waste of time too, so don't criticize X!" is not a counter-argument, it's a deferral. I'm not talking about everything that's a waste of time, just the devotion of one's life to a fraudulent cause, as that's the discussion at hand.

Even if a non-believer wasted 100% of their life on something else, and a believer was 80% non-wasted(or whatever you want to call it) and 20% wasted on a fraudulent religion, that doesn't make the 20% wasted by the believer on their religion any more valid or less wasted. It's still a waste. They both wasted time. Just because the religious person wasted less time doesn't mean that the religious person didn't waste time.

-

Watching TV and devoting one's life to a fraudulent cause are two very different things.

It'd be more accurate to to compare devoting oneself to a fraudulent religion to devoting oneself to a fraudulent relationship (catfishing)

religion: I pray(communicate) to god, and god listens. God loves me

relationship: I talk(communicate) to my Significant Other, and my SO listens. My SO loves me.

When/if you find out the religion is fraudulent: So God isn't real? God never cared? God wasn't ever listening? God doesn't love me?

When/if you find out you were catfished: So Brittany isn't real? Brittany never cared? Brittany wasn't ever listening? Brittany doesn't love me?

Both of those were wastes of time. They were both fraudulent causes.

If a believer spends 10% of their life devoted to a fraudulent religion, then it's a waste.

If a non-believer wastes 10% of their life devoted to a false relationship, then it's a waste.

You can't validly claim "Well my devotion was for a more noble cause, so I didn't waste as much!" They're both wastes of time, devoted to fraudulent causes.

>can you understand now, why your argument is a poor one?

I'm still waiting for a legitimate counter-argument, so no. Please supply a valid counter-argument.

here are some counter-arguments I've suggested to myself and then thought about..

What if someone was suicidal, but then, solely through (a fraudulent)religion, they decided not to kill themselves? Wouldn't this be an example of a life being un-wasted/saved by religion? It would mean that the remaining time of their life wouldn't be wasted, whereas, without the religion, they would have wasted their life? Wouldn't this mean that their life related solely to religious activities is not a waste?

I would attribute this to doing something right for the wrong reason (influenced by religion). I believe that this would not technically be a "religious activity," although it could be influenced by one.

If a religious activity positively influences or affects you, then is it truly a waste of time?

Well, it depends on your definition of a waste of time. Since you referred to "sitting in front of the TV" as a waste of time, then I could answer yes. Because, watching TV can positively influence people, but it can still be a waste of time(according to you).

If a person finds out their religion is wrong, (when they die and the god/afterlife is of a different one) then they would harbor regret for said being lied to. (they might not find out if they're wrong though, because, if there is no god or afterlife, then they would not be proven wrong, as they could not have gained that knowledge).

Compare this to: "I can't believe I used to believe that my ex loved me. People said he was only using me, but I defended him with all my heart. He actually was. What a waste of time." This person would most likely harbor regret for being lied to, and would realize that, because the relationship was going to go nowhere, and it was based upon lies, that, it was a waste of time. But, at the same time, the relationship made her happy, and influenced her positively while it was going on. This isn't to say that every event that happened during her relationship was a waste though.

So, if someone lives through their life following a fraudulent religion, then they find out that it was all a sham, would they think "oh whatever" or would they be outraged that they were lied to for their whole life? I know that, if I was being lied to, and based all of my decisions upon those lies, and then found out that they were lies later, I would be upset. I know that I would feel as if I would have devoted part of my life to lies, and as a result, wasted a lot of time.

Another way for me to define "waste of time" would be to follow fake rules. If you were to follow the rules of a city or organization: "Work 10 years in this position, while abiding by these rules: No sex before marriage, no divorice, no tattoos, (insert other rules in the bible here) and then you will get infinite wealth" Then once you complete the 10 years, you find out that there is no infinite wealth, you just get kicked out of the city/organization. Wasted time is wasted opportunity, and wasted opportunity is also wasted time. If you were to not work at that place/not follow it's rules, then you could have done such things.

For example, if you were in a bad marriage that can't be fixed (trying to solve problems won't work), why waste your time with the marriage? Just get a divorice. Oh, but you can't, because of your religion. So you then waste your life in the marriage because of your religion.

That's just another way you could waste your life by having it devoted to a false religion. You have to dictate your life by the religion's rules. If you weren't devoted to a false religion, then you wouldn't have such restrictions on your life. You could have done things that were restricted. But you didn't, because you devoted your life to lies. Therefore, you wasted opportunity. You wasted your opportunity to do things that are restricted by a false religion, whereas, they might not actually have any negative impact on your afterlife (if there is one).

June 29, 2015

> This is not a valid counter argument. Just because a non-believer could potentially "waste" their life, doesn't mean a believer who devoted their life to a fraudulent religion, has their belief any more validated, or their waste, any less wasteful.

his belief more validated? since when are we taking about belief getting validated? we're talking about waisting your life.

> I'm still waiting for a legitimate counter-argument, so no. Please supply a valid counter-argument.

You point out that a fake relition is waisting life. F being the religious funtion, W being the stuff one waiste time on

F(X) = X - W

Then, It's NOT an invalid argument to point you don't look at the entire picture, that this in't the entire function. A the actions of a religion can be waistefull (W), but they can also be productive (P)

F(X) = X - W + P

Arguing that X > F(X), just because there's a minus operation involved, is non-sensical

June 30, 2015

> This is not a valid counter argument. Just because a non-believer could potentially "waste" their life, doesn't mean a believer who devoted their life to a fraudulent religion, has their belief any more validated, or their waste, any less wasteful.

his belief more validated? since when are we taking about belief getting validated? we're talking about waisting your life.

> I'm still waiting for a legitimate counter-argument, so no. Please supply a valid counter-argument.

You point out that a fake relition is waisting life. F being the religious funtion, W being the stuff one waiste time on

F(X) = X - W

Then, It's NOT an invalid argument to point you don't look at the entire picture, that this in't the entire function. A the actions of a religion can be waistefull (W), but they can also be productive (P)

F(X) = X - W + P

Arguing that X > F(X), just because there's a minus operation involved, is non-sensical

Thanks for completely ignoring my point, again. I was pointing out how you completely ignored my point and went off topic.

>his belief more validated? since when are we taking about belief getting validated? we're talking about waisting your life.

Sigh. Again, not a valid counter argument.Earlier you stated:

>What you also fail to spot, is the following: Suppose someone spends 10% of his time praying to a faudulent god (he believes something that's proven to be impossible), and the rest of his time he spends 20% better (for example, instead of sitting in from of the TV in the evening, he goes out to help people - as dictated by his fraudulent religion). Because of the false religion, in comparison, the non-believer wasted his time.

Who cares? That's off topic. My response was not off topic. IT WAS A RESPONSE TO YOU BEING OFF-TOPIC, "it's not a valid counter agrument." It's really not a valid counter-argument.

IT DOESN'T MATTER if a non-believer could potentially waste their time, as it has nothing to do with my argument. But I responded to your off-topic argument anyways, and explained how your counter-argument was shit.

_____

A person who believes in a false religion, wastes time.

"wow that must imply that non-believers can never waste time! you're so wrong! non-believers can waste time too!"

It doesn't matter if a non-believer can waste time or not. That's not my point. If they do waste time, then it has no bearing on my argument, so why even bring this up? It doesn't validate the waste of time by a believer, and it doesn't make their waste any less wrong. There is no reason to bring this up. The believer still wasted time devoted to a fraudulent religion. The non-believer didn't waste time by devoting it to a fraudulent religion. Devoting your life to a fraudulent religion is a waste. This is not to say though, that a non-believer can never waste their time. They just don't do it with a fraudulent religion.

"wow way to be off topc! we're not talking about validation!"

Ugh. You completely missed my point.

_____

Nice cherry picking there. You completely ignored the point I was trying to make and accused my response of being off topic ("since when are we taking about....") Well, we're talking about that since you brought it up. You stated that I failed to realize that non-believers could waste their time too. (I don't know where you got that from.) That has nothing to do with my point. Just because someone else "could" waste their time, doesn't mean that the believer's time is any less wasted.

You point out that a fake relition is waisting life. F being the religious funtion, W being the stuff one waiste time on

F(X) = X - W

Then, It's NOT an invalid argument to point you don't look at the entire picture, that this in't the entire function. A the actions of a religion can be waistefull (W), but they can also be productive (P)

F(X) = X - W + P

Arguing that X > F(X), just because there's a minus operation involved, is non-sensical

You're not looking at my argument correctly.

The basis of my argument is that if the person who devoted their life to a religion is wrong, they suffer a negative[loss of freedom, waste of time]. (If they're right then they get a positive[heaven].)

If the non-religious person is "right" then they get a positive[the ability to live their life how they desire on earth, without needing to follow false rules], if they're "wrong" then they get a negative[hell, or whatever]. (if the nonreligious person is an agnostic atheist, then they wouldn't be "right" or "wrong" as they hadn't made a decision)

Pascal's Wager ~~implies~~ says that there's no downside to believing in god, and that there's no upside to being a non-believer.

If you don't devote your life to a religion, you don't need to live by it's rules. Therefore, you're free to live your life how you want. That's a freedom that the religious person does not have. That's an upside.

Therefore, Pascal's wager is irrelevant and wrong..

Respond to this: (Better yet, respond to my entire argument instead of cherry picking and taking things out of context.)

Another way for me to define "waste of time" would be to follow fake rules. If you were to follow the rules of a city or organization: "Work 10 years in this position, while abiding by these rules: No sex before marriage, no divorice, no tattoos, (insert other rules in the bible here) and then you will get infinite wealth" Then once you complete the 10 years, you find out that there is no infinite wealth, you just get kicked out of the city/organization. Wasted time is wasted opportunity, and wasted opportunity is also wasted time. If you were to not work at that place/not follow it's rules, then you could have done such things.

For example, if you were in a bad marriage that can't be fixed (trying to solve problems won't work), why waste your time with the marriage? Just get a divorice. Oh, but you can't, because of your religion. So you then waste your life in the marriage because of your religion.

That's just another way you could waste your life by having it devoted to a false religion. You have to dictate your life by the religion's rules. If you weren't devoted to a false religion, then you wouldn't have such restrictions on your life. You could have done things that were restricted. But you didn't, because you devoted your life to lies. Therefore, you wasted opportunity. You wasted your opportunity to do things that are restricted by a false religion, whereas, they might not actually have any negative impact on your afterlife (if there is one).

If you follow the rules of a religion, and then realize you didn't need to.... and you wished to do things restricted by your religion while you were alive... you have wasted your time.

If you disagree, tell me how it's not a waste of time to devote your life to false rules.

Don't reply with "well non-believers can waste time too!!1!i" as you did before. That's not a valid counter-argument.

Again, still waiting on that valid counter-argument.

still waiting for a response that doesn't cherry pick its argument to make a strawman

June 30, 2015

Studies have shown that religious people are in general more happy.

True, and that studies has shown religious people are also less likely to get mental illness and recover from them faster, but studies have also shown that religious people are less logical and more likely to be overweight (for some reason), so it is more like a trade off

June 30, 2015

> You're not looking at my argument correctly.

> The basis of my argument is that if the person who devoted their life to a religion is wrong,

> they suffer a negative[loss of freedom, waste of time]. (If they're right then they get a positive[heaven].)

Yes a negatve. and buying a castle for $1 also suffers a negative: you have to spend that dollar.

F(X) = X - W + P

The fact that something comes with a negative doesn't make the overall thing negative.

> If the non-religious person is "right" then they get a positive[the ability to live their life

> how they desire on earth, without needing to follow false rules], if they're "wrong" then

> they get a negative[hell, or whatever]. (if the nonreligious person is an agnostic

> atheist, then they wouldn't be "right" or "wrong" as they hadn't made a decision)

> Pascal's Wager ~~implies~~ says that there's no downside to believing in god, and that there's no upside to being a non-believer.

Pascals wager doesn't doesn't claim there's no downside. It points out that a 100(?) year mortal life is nothing compared to the infinity of afterlife, and prersents the (false) dictomy

R(X) = X - W + P + (chance of being right * infinite positive afterlife)

he doesn't claim there's no downside - that W = 0. But as P & W are limited to our lifespan, they are finite numbers. Meaning that, as long as the chance of being right is larger then 0, (even it t's only, like 0.000001%), as it's multiplied by an inifinite bonus, R(X) > X

> If you don't devote your life to a religion, you don't need to live by it's rules. Therefore,

> you're free to live your life how you want. That's a freedom that the religious person

> does not have. That's an upside.

Yeah ... if you're an anarchist. Because you can just replace religion with cultural or social norms in your quote. Does anarchy have some upsides? sure. But is it a good, heck, a viable way of living? no.

Which shows, that pointing out that option B as an upside over option A while refusing to look at the entire picture - is in fact, a poor argument.

> If you disagree, tell me how it's not a waste of time to devote your life to false rules.

F(X) = X - W + P

F(X) isn't inherently lower then X.

Or, by your own words: "wasted opportunity is also wasted time". Ergo, a set of rules (be it religion, or anthing else) that forces one to seize opportunity would inherently be better then no rules, which allows one to waste opportunity.

> Don't reply with "well non-believers can waste time too!!1!i" as you did before

Why not? Is it not an Inherent part of the freedom to decide if you want to waste your time or not ... that it's possibly you waste your time?

freedom =/= people doing what you happened to be best for your argument.

June 30, 2015

True, and that studies has shown religious people are also less likely to get mental illness and recover from them faster, but studies have also shown that religious people are less logical and more likely to be overweight (for some reason), so it is more like a trade off

Oh, yeas, absolutely (also, overall, IIRC religious people actually give less to charity then non-religious people do). I was just being on-topic

The OP asked "[...] I just don't get religion [...] For all of you religious people out there, what does religion do for you? How has it improved your life [...] ?"

while not religous myself, I thought it relevant to point that studie out.

(I think I had seen a youtube movie about these studies once, and I would have linked it, but I couldn't find it)

June 30, 2015

Religion is fiction that a lot of people decided to follow or was forced in to following.

That is how I see it.

July 1, 2015

> You're not looking at my argument correctly.

> The basis of my argument is that if the person who devoted their life to a religion is wrong,

> they suffer a negative[loss of freedom, waste of time]. (If they're right then they get a positive[heaven].)

Yes a negatve. and buying a castle for $1 also suffers a negative: you have to spend that dollar.

F(X) = X - W + P

The fact that something comes with a negative doesn't make the overall thing negative.

> If the non-religious person is "right" then they get a positive[the ability to live their life

> how they desire on earth, without needing to follow false rules], if they're "wrong" then

> they get a negative[hell, or whatever]. (if the nonreligious person is an agnostic

> atheist, then they wouldn't be "right" or "wrong" as they hadn't made a decision)

> Pascal's Wager ~~implies~~ says that there's no downside to believing in god, and that there's no upside to being a non-believer.

Pascals wager doesn't doesn't claim there's no downside. It points out that a 100(?) year mortal life is nothing compared to the infinity of afterlife, and prersents the (false) dictomy

R(X) = X - W + P + (chance of being right * infinite positive afterlife)

he doesn't claim there's no downside - that W = 0. But as P & W are limited to our lifespan, they are finite numbers. Meaning that, as long as the chance of being right is larger then 0, (even it t's only, like 0.000001%), as it's multiplied by an inifinite bonus, R(X) > X

> If you don't devote your life to a religion, you don't need to live by it's rules. Therefore,

> you're free to live your life how you want. That's a freedom that the religious person

> does not have. That's an upside.

Yeah ... if you're an anarchist. Because you can just replace religion with cultural or social norms in your quote. Does anarchy have some upsides? sure. But is it a good, heck, a viable way of living? no.

Which shows, that pointing out that option B as an upside over option A while refusing to look at the entire picture - is in fact, a poor argument.

> If you disagree, tell me how it's not a waste of time to devote your life to false rules.

F(X) = X - W + P

F(X) isn't inherently lower then X.

Or, by your own words: "wasted opportunity is also wasted time". Ergo, a set of rules (be it religion, or anthing else) that forces one to seize opportunity would inherently be better then no rules, which allows one to waste opportunity.

> Don't reply with "well non-believers can waste time too!!1!i" as you did before

Why not? Is it not an Inherent part of the freedom to decide if you want to waste your time or not ... that it's possibly you waste your time?

freedom =/= people doing what you happened to be best for your argument.

>Or, by your own words: "wasted opportunity is also wasted time". Ergo, a set of rules (be it religion, or anthing else)

>that forces one to seize opportunity would inherently be better then no rules, which allows one to waste opportunity.

Changing the topic again, eh? "Other people can waste time, so it's fine for people who follow false religions to!"

It's irrelevant. Not the discussion at hand.

False rules = bad.

Living a lie = bad.

Following those false rules is a waste of time.

I really don't care if it's possible for others to waste time in some other way.

I'm not talking about other people wanking off or some shit.

I'm talking about people who believe in false religions.

"but other people waste time!!!!!!!! so ur wrong! when I waste time I'm not wasting time!"

No. Let's say you waste time by following a false religion, and I waste time by wanking off (or whatever).

You wasted time. I wasted time.

Just because we both wasted time does not mean that you did not waste time.

That argument is fucking terrible.

"I didn't waste time because I wasted time while you wasted time, so the wastes cancel each other out."

You admit to wasting time in your argument stating that it's not a waste.

I'm not talking about rules or waste per se, but rules imposed upon you by a fraudulent cause. (I don't understand how you keep missing the word "false" I use to clarify what I'm talking about, ex: "If your religion is false...," etc.)

I think we may disagree on my point that following false rules is a waste of time? I believe it's akin to walking down the wrong path.

Let's say there's different paths, and one might lead you to your reward. The only catch is that you must walk the path til you find your reward (possibly for your whole life.) You could also stop walking down your path, or never choose one, but you may not get a reward.

A cynicist might say that a person who walked the wrong path wasted their time.

An optimist might say that the person, while they didn't take the right path (and, as a result, ultimately, failed), still accomplished something. That they learned what path they shouldn't have taken.

They may have also accomplished things along the way, but who's to say someone who didn't choose a path didn't help anyone?

>Why not? Is it not an Inherent part of the freedom to decide if you want to waste your time or not ... that it's possibly you waste your time?

And? Again, off topic. Who cares? That has nothing to do with my point. It doesn't matter if it's possible for others to waste time, it gives no validation to the waste of time from false religions.

>The fact that something comes with a negative doesn't make the overall thing negative.

Yes! And? Where did I claim otherwise?

If your religion is true, and as a result of your beliefs, you go to heaven, good. You didn't waste your time, because your "waste" was validated.

IF YOUR RELIGION IS FALSE, (which is what I'm talking about in my previous points[i stated it, many many times]) then you wasted time. (prove me wrong?)

lets look at your castle buying argument, as it's full of crap.

Religion's reward = castle

devotion = $1

Your argument assumes that the religion's reward actually exists, when in fact, it might not. Therefore, you're setting false pretenses.

Also, you're minimizing the negative. $1 =/= devoting your entire life to a religion. Devoting your entire life to something is much more serious than a dollar.

[if your religion is true]

"Give me $1 and you get a [toy] castle!"

ok cool here's a dollar

"You get a [toy] castle! My proposition was a valid one!"

[if your religion is false]

"give me $1 and you get a [toy] castle!"

ok cool here's a dollar

hey, where's my [toy] castle?

what's going on?

If your religion is wrong, you don't get the reward promised to you. You wasted time/effort/money on something that was false. The only upside here is that you learned about how to avoid a scam, which doesn't outweigh the negative. (Hey guys, I fell for this scam, and wasted my life believing in it, but at least I know not to fall for it in my next life.... Oh wait, there is none.)

>Yeah ... if you're an anarchist. Because you can just replace religion with cultural or social norms in your quote.

>Does anarchy have some upsides? sure. But is it a good, heck, a viable way of living? no.

If laws don't real then how can our eyes be real?

Again, off topic. There are plenty of things that are a "waste" of time.

Waiting in line at the DMV, going through legal bullshit... It's all a "waste" of time.

The thing is, that we're not doing these things based upon the belief of a "divine being" and the threat of an unproven "hell and damnation."

We do these things the legal way to avoid going to jail, or getting in legal trouble, which we KNOW happens/exists.

This DOES give validity to the "waste" of time, as we KNOW that these things happen. Prison is not false. There's no debate as to if our laws and/or prison systems axtually exist. Prison exists. Laws exist.

If your religion is FALSE, then it is automatically INVALID and a waste of time, as you did it because of a false cause.

(if your laws aren't real, then you wasted time too, but laws are real, so, irrelevant.)

inb4 "but if there was no prison/laws then you wouldn't need to waste time with laws"

Irrelevant, because prison and laws exist. It doesn't matter about "well what if it didn't?" because we know they, and their punishments exist.

We can't say the same about religion, as we don't know if their stories/punishments/rewards are true or fictional.

Your argument of plugging got'v/social norms/anarchy (or whatever) into mine, is complete bullshit.

"What if laws and prison are fake, and we actually live in a world without them, one in 'anarchy'?" (inb4 "thats not my argument"*)

vs

"What if God and heaven are fake, and we actually live in a world without them?"

(*if it's not your argument then your argument is irrelevant and off topic.)

(inb4 "you plugged it in wrong." No you'd be interpreting my argument wrong.)

We KNOW that there are laws and punishments for breaking them.

We DON'T KNOW if there are commandments, and punishments for breaking them.

If you make your decisions on the law, your "waste" of time is validated, because you're doing it to keep out of jail. (A valid reason)

We know laws and rules exist inside of societies.

If you make your decisions on the commandments of your religion, then your "waste" of time MIGHT be validated, depending on if you're right or wrong. (If you're right, you made your decision based upon a valid reason, if you're wrong, you based it upon an invalid reason)

We don't know if there's religious commandments, or a god.

IF YOU'RE WRONG: You have wasted time by following a fraudulent religion.

If you're right, then your religion is not a waste, because your "waste" was validated.

(let's try to apply gov't/anarchy to this, but it will look silly... because we can't interchange gov't/anarchy with religion/none)

[if you're right about no rules, then you didn't waste your life following all those laws. There is no such thing as jail or prison.]

[if you're wrong, you go to Jail.]

again, inb4 "but what if laws were never made, then following them would be a waste of time"

Irrelevant, if laws didn't exist, following them would be a complete waste of time. BUT THEY DO.

Following laws we know exist =/= Following laws that might exist.

Following laws that exist =/= Following false laws.

inb4 "but if laws and prison are a waste of time, why not get rid of them?"

Irrelevant and off topic. That has nothing to do with my point.

(if you try to plug that in here;

"False religion is a waste of time. Rid yourselves of it. True religion is not a waste, so don't rid yourselves of it. Unproven religions may or may not be a waste of time, so remove yourselves form them at your discretion."

vs

"False laws are is a waste/remove yourselves from false laws [wtf r even false laws], True laws are not [can laws even be true/false?] so don't rid yourselves of them. Unproven laws [wat] may or may not be a waste of time, so remove yourself from them at your discretion."

_____________________

Please, stop responding to my points wilth irrelevant, off topic nonsense.

Also stop with the arguments that contain manipulative and deceiving analogies and arguments.

If I could buy a castle for $1, then I would, as I'd like to own a castle. The castle exists, and I only lose a dollar.

There's the [guaranteed] positive (obtaining a caslte) with the [guaranteed] negative (losing a small sum of money.) vs the [guaranteed] negative (not owning a castle,) with the [guaranteed] positive (keeping your money)

VS.

In religion, there's the [non-guaranteed] positive (believing, heaven) with the [guaranteed] negative (losing the 'freedom' to "sin.") vs the [non-guaranteed] negative (non-believing, hell) with a [guaranteed] positive (gaining the 'freedom' to "sin.")

These two are very different.

Buying a castle is a guarantee.

Beliving in a religion is not a guarantee.

Comparing these things together by using the castle as an analogy to represent religion is extremely manipulative and decieving.

Comparing one's entire devotion to $1 is also decieving.

Believing in a religion comes with a guaranteed downside of required devotion, and maybe an upside of heaven.

Not believing in a religion comes with a guaranteed upside of not being required to devote your life to something, and maybe a downside of hell.

Buying a caslte comes with a guaranteed upside of a castle, and a guaranteed loss of $1[which is pretty insignificant compared to a guaranteed castle]

Not buying a castle comes with a guaranteed upside of not buying the castle because you were free to choose to do so, and another guaranteed upside of keeping your money.

Please note that my mentions of "law" refer to it in the legal sense, I don't want you taking me out of context and stating "well scientific laws like X have been proven wrong in the past so blah blah," or some bullshit like that.

Do you believe that following a false religion is/would be good?

I don't/wouldn't.

I'd think a false religion is a waste of devotion and time. If something is proven false, I won't believe it.

Do you believe following a true religion is/would be good?

I do/would.

If there's something that's proven true, why not believe it? If something is proven true I'll believe it.

If something is unproven I'll generally not take a stance, try to find the truth, and I would encourage others to try and find the truth.

Please, tell me how false religions and their false rules are a valid thing to waste time on. (NOTE: FALSE RELIGIONS =/= TRUE RELIGIONS, and FALSE RELIGIONS =/= UNPROVEN RELIGIONS)

If you can't, then you don't have a valid counterargument.

July 1, 2015

> >The fact that something comes with a negative doesn't make the overall thing negative.

> Yes! And? Where did I claim otherwise?
> If your religion is true, and as a result of your beliefs, you go to heaven, good. You didn't waste your time, because your "waste" was validated.

> IF YOUR RELIGION IS FALSE, (which is what I'm talking about in my previous points[i stated it, many many times]) then you wasted time. (prove me wrong?)

Where have you claimed otherwise? how bout at the bottom of that quote

"IF YOUR RELIGION IS FALSE, (which is what I'm talking about in my previous points[i stated it, many many times]) then you wasted time. (prove me wrong?)"

I can refer to the entire beginning of the discussion, where I pointed out

And a christian could, for instance, devote his life to helping the poor. And a Sikh could devote his life feeding the hungry, ...

That doesn't sound wasteful & meaningless either.

You can say false religions =/= unproven religions all you want: this I covered at the very start: dispite unproven, chritianity and sikhism can't both be right - so, at least one of them has a false religion. Or both, if, for instance, there is no god.

And yet, aside from the time they waste in spite of religion, they earn it back if their religion forces them to be a more productive person - a better person if you will.

Yes a person who who has the freedom to chose can also do those productive things (without the waste of time) - but the flip side of the freedom to choose is they can choose not to do them as well.

Fake religion = - [wasted time because of religion] + [productive time because of religion] + [anything else they do]

no religion = + [everything]

> Please, stop responding to my points wilth irrelevant, off topic nonsense.

Except - it's you who responding to my points wilth irrelevant, off topic nonsense: Time and time again, I've pointed out you don't look at the entire picture. I've done so by telling you, I've done so with examples, I've don so with mathematical formula ...

And yet you given zero justification why you don't.

> Do you believe that following a false religion is/would be good?

> I don't/wouldn't.

If that false religion makes you a better person, I would argue that it is a good thing.

And that's what makes your argument poor: it requires your bias/assumptions for it to make work. But you need to learn, that people who you converse with, don't necceccairy make the same assumptions you do, or have the same biasses you do.

July 1, 2015

it gives me someone to blame when i lose money gambling

July 1, 2015

> >The fact that something comes with a negative doesn't make the overall thing negative.

> Yes! And? Where did I claim otherwise?

> If your religion is true, and as a result of your beliefs, you go to heaven, good. You didn't waste your time, because your "waste" was validated.

> IF YOUR RELIGION IS FALSE, (which is what I'm talking about in my previous points[i stated it, many many times]) then you wasted time. (prove me wrong?)

Where have you claimed otherwise? how bout at the bottom of that quote

"IF YOUR RELIGION IS FALSE, (which is what I'm talking about in my previous points[i stated it, many many times]) then you wasted time. (prove me wrong?)"

I can refer to the entire beginning of the discussion, where I pointed out

And a christian could, for instance, devote his life to helping the poor. And a Sikh could devote his life feeding the hungry, ...

That doesn't sound wasteful & meaningless either.

You can say false religions =/= unproven religions all you want: this I covered at the very start: dispite unproven, chritianity and sikhism can't both be right - so, at least one of them has a false religion. Or both, if, for instance, there is no god.

And yet, aside from the time they waste in spite of religion, they earn it back if their religion forces them to be a more productive person - a better person if you will.

Yes a person who who has the freedom to chose can also do those productive things (without the waste of time) - but the flip side of the freedom to choose is they can choose not to do them as well.

Fake religion = - [wasted time because of religion] + [productive time because of religion] + [anything else they do]

no religion = + [everything]

> Please, stop responding to my points wilth irrelevant, off topic nonsense.

Except - it's you who responding to my points wilth irrelevant, off topic nonsense: Time and time again, I've pointed out you don't look at the entire picture. I've done so by telling you, I've done so with examples, I've don so with mathematical formula ...

And yet you given zero justification why you don't.

> Do you believe that following a false religion is/would be good?

> I don't/wouldn't.

If that false religion makes you a better person, I would argue that it is a good thing.

And that's what makes your argument poor: it requires your bias/assumptions for it to make work. But you need to learn, that people who you converse with, don't necceccairy make the same assumptions you do, or have the same biasses you do.

>> >The fact that something comes with a negative doesn't make the overall thing negative.

>> Yes! And? Where did I claim otherwise?

>> If your religion is true, and as a result of your beliefs, you go to heaven, good. You didn't waste your time, because your "waste" was validated.

>> IF YOUR RELIGION IS FALSE, (which is what I'm talking about in my previous points[i stated it, many many times]) then you wasted time. (prove me wrong?)

>Where have you claimed otherwise? how bout at the bottom of that quote

No. You're implying "wasted time" means "wasted all of your/my time," which it does not. I've clarified that for you before. If you have wasted 5 minutes, you've wasted time. If you've wasted 22 years, you've wasted time. The reason I don't specify a number, is that it can vary form person to person greatly, and is hard to gauge.

>You can say false religions =/= unproven religions all you want: this I covered at the very start: dispite unproven, chritianity and sikhism can't both be right

>so, at least one of them has a false religion. Or both, if, for instance, there is no god.

"false religions =/= unproven religions" Christianity is unproven, and it is not proven false, therefore I cannot say it is false. It is unproven. This doesn't change the validity of it at all though. It's unproven, so it is either A:True B:False, or C:a combination, or something else unknown.

Sikhism is unproven, and it is not proven false, therefore I cannot say it is false. It is unproven. This doesn't change the validity of it at all though. It's unproven, so it is either A:True B:False, or C:a combination, or something else unknown.

Most, if not all false religions are unproven, but not every unproven religion = a false religion.

Thing is, that we don't know which (if any) one (or both) of them is false, so we cannot claim that either of them is false. If you die and you find out that you picked the wrong god/afterlife then you're wrong, and you wasted time (since you died, you can't relay the message of a false religion). If you die and don't find out anything (no afterlife/god) then you still wasted time, because you were wrong, but were never conscious of it, so you won't ever harbor regret for it. If you can prove one of those wrong, then we'll be 1 step closer to finding out the true religion (if there is one). True religion is one that you factually know to be true. This can happen, either by dying and finding it (as a result, you can't tell the living the true religion), or, X? (where X is an undiscovered method)

If someone's religion is true, but not proven true, then they've not wasted their time on it. Their religion is just unproven, it is not false.

If someone's religion is false, but not proven false, then they've wasted their time on it (they just don't know it). Their religion is unproven, because it is not proven to be true or false (even though it actually is false).

>And yet, aside from the time they waste in spite of religion, they earn it back if their religion forces them to be a more productive person - a better person if you will.

You don't "earn back" wasted time. Once time is spent, it's gone. Show me how doing good deeds can rewind time.

Also, if you're forced to be a better person, then you're really not.

>Yes a person who who has the freedom to chose can also do those productive things (without the waste of time) - but the flip side of the freedom to choose is they can choose not to do them as well.

Irrelevant. The person who is not wasting time, has more free time, to spend either productively, or, they can waste time some other way. This is irrelevant because it does not change the matter that you lose opportunity and time with false religions, which is my point. If you're spending time on a fraudulent religion, it's time wasted that could be spent on the right religion, (or on something else, if there is no true religion.)

>Except - it's you who responding to my points wilth irrelevant, off topic nonsense: Time and time again, I've pointed out you don't look at the entire picture.

>I've done so by telling you, I've done so with examples, I've don so with mathematical formula ...

>And yet you given zero justification why you don't

Because your responses are irrelevant to my point. You must think I'm saying something else, because your counter-arguments do not contradict my arguments, yet you claim they do.Many of your "counter-arguments" I agree with, and coexist with my argument. Either that, or you use deceiving arguments such as the castle one.

I say "a believer who believes in a false religion has wasted time."

You say "a non believer who doesn't believe can waste time too."

This is irrelevant. What is your point? These two things do not contradict each other, therefore it's irrelevant, they can co-exist, it's not a counter argument. Yet, you've brought this up as a counter-argument more than once, and claimed it was valid. It's not. Please explain the reasoning on how a non-believer wasting time validates the waste of time by a believer.

>If that false religion makes you a better person, I would argue that it is a good thing.

Doing something right for the wrong reasons. It still brings waste.

If you waste your time in a bad relationship, you could miss potential opportunity for new ones that could be good.

If you're in the wrong religion, You may miss out on finding the true one.

If you're worshipping the wrong god, then you're wasting time that would be better spent worshipping the true god, no?

>And that's what makes your argument poor: it requires your bias/assumptions for it to make work. But you need to learn,

>that people who you converse with, don't necceccairy make the same assumptions you do, or have the same biasses you do.

Yes, my bias. I believe that people who devote their life to lies (be it religion or not), waste. Whether it's 10 months, 5 years, 50, whatever, any waste of time, is a waste of time. you could be living that life in the search of the truth, or maybe even knowing the truth.

Please, tell me how false religions and their false rules are a valid thing to waste time on.

If you're worshipping the wrong god, then you're wasting time that would be better spent worshipping (or finding) the true god, no?

If said person is worshipping the true god, then they were not wasting that time (as long as god is cool with it or whatever).

Just answer this:

Do you believe that time is wasted when one devotes their life to lies?

Do you believe that time is wasted when one devotes their life to a religion which is a lie?

I believe so. This is my argument.

July 1, 2015

Oh, yeas, absolutely (also, overall, IIRC religious people actually give less to charity then non-religious people do). I was just being on-topic

The OP asked "[...] I just don't get religion [...] For all of you religious people out there, what does religion do for you? How has it improved your life [...] ?"

while not religous myself, I thought it relevant to point that studie out.

(I think I had seen a youtube movie about these studies once, and I would have linked it, but I couldn't find it)

I think this is the video by Dnews:

It pointed out the good and bad of being religious

July 4, 2015

> No. You're implying "wasted time" means "wasted all of your/my time," which it does not. I've clarified that for you before. If you have wasted 5 minutes, you've wasted time.

sigh ... And I have clarified this to you before that I'm not.

and buying a castle for $1 also suffers a negative: you have to spend that dollar.

If that simple example doesn't explain to you that it's not because something has a cost, it's a bad deal, then I dunno what to say.

> > dispite unproven, chritianity and sikhism can't both be right

> Christianity is unproven, and it is not proven false, therefore I cannot say it is false

> Sikhism is unproven, and it is not proven false, therefore I cannot say it is false

> either A:True B:False, or C:a combination, or something else unknown.

sigh ... as an agnost, I'm EXTREMELY well aware of the difference between 'false' and 'not proven'.

HOWEVER, Christianity says your soul goes to a different plane (heavon or hell) - sikhism says you get reÃ¯ncarnated into this world.

Arguing that both are not proven false, that we don't know what happens when you die - doesn't chance the fact that they can't both be right. We might not know WHICH SPECIFC ONE - but at least one of them is false.

if you're not able to comprehend that, there's no need to continue this discussion.

> Just answer this:

> Do you believe that time is wasted when one devotes their life to lies?
> Do you believe that time is wasted when one devotes their life to a religion which is a lie?

> I believe so. This is my argument.

And what I'm saying is that if you argue from what YOU believe, instead of what the person you talk to believes, makes a poor argument.

As ultimately, an argument is made to convince.

> Do you believe that time is wasted when one devotes their life to lies / a religion which is a lie?

Either the Sikh humanitarian or the Christian humanitarian would have ~~wasted~~ spend time, in the sense that bying a castle for a $1 is ~~a waste of~~ spending money.

July 4, 2015

I think this is the video by Dnews:

It pointed out the good and bad of being religious

Yes ! thanks, that's the one indeed.

I found that pretty educational. (usually people always argue that 'my system of (non)belief is better'. this is just pro & cons based on actual studies instead of oppinions)

July 4, 2015

> No. You're implying "wasted time" means "wasted all of your/my time," which it does not. I've clarified that for you before. If you have wasted 5 minutes, you've wasted time.

sigh ... And I have clarified this to you before that I'm not.

and buying a castle for $1 also suffers a negative: you have to spend that dollar.

If that simple example doesn't explain to you that it's not because something has a cost, it's a bad deal, then I dunno what to say.

> > dispite unproven, chritianity and sikhism can't both be right

> Christianity is unproven, and it is not proven false, therefore I cannot say it is false

> Sikhism is unproven, and it is not proven false, therefore I cannot say it is false

> either A:True B:False, or C:a combination, or something else unknown.

sigh ... as an agnost, I'm EXTREMELY well aware of the difference between 'false' and 'not proven'.

HOWEVER, Christianity says your soul goes to a different plane (heavon or hell) - sikhism says you get reÃ¯ncarnated into this world.

Arguing that both are not proven false, that we don't know what happens when you die - doesn't chance the fact that they can't both be right. We might not know WHICH SPECIFC ONE - but at least one of them is false.

if you're not able to comprehend that, there's no need to continue this discussion.

> Just answer this:

> Do you believe that time is wasted when one devotes their life to lies?

> Do you believe that time is wasted when one devotes their life to a religion which is a lie?

> I believe so. This is my argument.

And what I'm saying is that if you argue from what YOU believe, instead of what the person you talk to believes, makes a poor argument.

As ultimately, an argument is made to convince.

> Do you believe that time is wasted when one devotes their life to lies / a religion which is a lie?

Either the Sikh humanitarian or the Christian humanitarian would have ~~wasted~~ spend time, in the sense that bying a castle for a $1 is ~~a waste of~~ spending money.

Ahh.. Yes I see.... Mhm.

Yes.

right:

*spends $1* - risk

*gets castle* - reward

wrong:

*spends $1* - risk

*no castle* - reward

right:

*devotes life* - risk

*gets heaven* - reward

wrong:

*devotes life* - risk

*no heaven* - reward

Yeah, "bying a castle for a $1 is ~~a waste of~~ spending money."

Yeah! Buying a castle is spending money! You get a castle because it's real!

Giving someone money for a castle, but getting scammed (the castle isn't real, you were lied to), is a waste of money!

Your argument of spending money on a castle implies that the castle (reward) is absolutely always rewarded. It's not.

It's a bad argument.

IF the religion is right, then, yes, the risk was worth/is validated by the reward. If the religion was not real, then the religion was a waste.

'Just because there's a downside doesn't mean the entire thing is a waste'

Correct.

But that can coexist with my argument.

IF the religion is true, and you get your "reward," you didn't waste. You had the downside for devoting your life to something, but the upside of it being correct. The devotion is validated by your truthful religion.

That fits with your argument. But it also fits with mine.

The other side of the argument, which you fail to mention, is that:

IF you're wrong, then you don't get your "reward." You get the downside of devoting your life to something, AND the downside of "living a lie."

"And what I'm saying is that if you argue from what YOU believe, instead of what the person you talk to believes, makes a poor argument.

As ultimately, an argument is made to convince."

Give me an argument I can't counter. Give me an argument that makes me think. Give me an argument with representation from different sides, different possibilities.

Don't use deceptive arguments like the "$1 for a castle" argument, that don't represent the situation we're discussing.

If you're going to use an example, give 'both' sides. Otherwise I'll have to give you the other side.

You keep failing to recognize the other side of your examples, even when I point them out.

"You think $1 for a castle is a waste"

That's a strawman argument. You assume that I'd think that.. And I've stated before;

If your cause is valid, then the downsides of getting there are validated by the validity of your cause.

If your case is invalid, then the downsides of getting there are not validated by your cause, which, I would percieve as wasteful.

You keep avoiding discussion and using the same fallacies over and over.

If you actually wish to have a serious discussion, then let's. Otherwise, this serves me no purpose. I argue to be proven wrong, I argue to learn.

If you bring up a deceptive example, I'll point out where you're being misleading. If you just misrepresent my 'side' while ignoring the opposing information that I've supplied to you, then there's nothing that can happen here. There's nothing for me to learn if you don't give valid responses.

At first you would respond to my 'other sides,' but now, you don't. You just keep bringing up old points, so I keep bringing up the old 'other sides.'

Tell me how my representation of the other side of the castle argument is wrong.

You only supply one side.Giving only one option. That implies that the option is correct, as it's the only option presented to us.

(you pay $1 for a castle that's real! it's not bad because of a downside! You are guaranteed a castle!)

You ask me how I don't understand that "it's not all bad because of a downside." It would be ridiculous for me to believe otherwise. If I truly thought "it's a waste because there's a downside," then I would believe that EVERYTHING is a waste.

I've stated many times: "If you're right, then your religion is not a waste, because your 'waste' was validated." The thing is, you're ignoring the other half of the argument! Your half is: "If you're right, whoopee, reward!" The other half of the argument is: "What if you're wrong? What then?"

What if you pay $1 for a castle that isn't real? Where's the upside there? To me, it seems that this situation is totally negative. You lose your money and don't get the reward.

July 4, 2015

Religion in my opinion is thoughts written on paper that guarantees something in the end.

Oh well.

July 4, 2015

to me religion is proof of how illogical some people can be.

July 5, 2015

> That's a strawman argument.

Ironicaly, I couldn't agree more:

you talk abou false religions
I respond to you about false religions
you wrongy assumly I'm talking about true relgions ("setting up a strawman")
and then retort that I should be talking about false religions. ("attacking a strawman")

So, allow me to bold, underline, and capslock it, so you're sure to get this: I AM TALKING ABOUT A FALSE RELIGION
The castle doesn't represent heaven - it represents the good things a person does with his life because of his (false) religion.

As apparently the castle for 1$ is too abstract for you, lets look at something more concrete:

Say we measure ones life in raw time. its possible a false religion requires you to spend 1% of time in prayer, but it igives you guideliness to eat more healthy, increasing the average lifespan of its followers with 2% over that of non-believers. And that's STILL a FALSE relgion.

Yet the false relgion, gives you a net result of 1% more time, not less.

same sentence, a bit more abstract (so you don't start complaining that raw time is not the correct way to measure one's life)

Say we measure ones life in by whateverr forumla. its possible a false religion requires you to spend a part of that, but it igives you more positives by that same measurement. And that's STILL a FALSE relgion.
Yet the false relgion, gives you more in the mesuerment, not less.

So, AGAIN, as you can HOPEFULLY see: You're jumping from "a cost" to "a waste" (a cost, but you give it a negative connotation). and that's where's you're in the wrong.

By only looking at the cost, not the benefits, basically everything will look like a waste.

Really, it's not rocket sience...

July 5, 2015

> That's a strawman argument.

Ironicaly, I couldn't agree more:

you talk abou false religions

I respond to you about false religions

you wrongy assumly I'm talking about true relgions ("setting up a strawman")
and then retort that I should be talking about false religions. ("attacking a strawman")

So, allow me to bold, underline, and capslock it, so you're sure to get this: I AM TALKING ABOUT A FALSE RELIGION

The castle doesn't represent heaven - it represents the good things a person does with his life because of his (false) religion.

As apparently the castle for 1$ is too abstract for you, lets look at something more concrete:

Say we measure ones life in raw time. its possible a false religion requires you to spend 1% of time in prayer, but it igives you guideliness to eat more healthy, increasing the average lifespan of its followers with 2% over that of non-believers. And that's STILL a FALSE relgion.

Yet the false relgion, gives you a net result of 1% more time, not less.

same sentence, a bit more abstract (so you don't start complaining that raw time is not the correct way to measure one's life)

Say we measure ones life in by whateverr forumla. its possible a false religion requires you to spend a part of that, but it igives you more positives by that same measurement. And that's STILL a FALSE relgion.

Yet the false relgion, gives you more in the mesuerment, not less.

So, AGAIN, as you can HOPEFULLY see: You're jumping from "a cost" to "a waste" (a cost, but you give it a negative connotation). and that's where's you're in the wrong.

By only looking at the cost, not the benefits, basically everything will look like a waste.

Really, it's not rocket sience...

Say we measure ones life in raw time. its possible a false religion requires you to spend 1% of time in prayer, but it igives you guideliness to eat more healthy, increasing the average lifespan of its followers with 2% over that of non-believers. And that's STILL a FALSE relgion.

Yet the false relgion, gives you a net result of 1% more time, not less.

And? Irrelevant.

It still causes waste that could be avoided, so, it's wasteful.

You really don't understand this here. Even if your religion causes you to waste 1 second, it's still causing waste, and therefore, it is wasteful.

If you spend your time devoted to a fraudulent religion, and, as a result you lose X% of your life because of false worship/whatever, and then "gain" (X+1)% because of healthy eating/whatever, you still waste time on a fraudulent religion, no? You still waste X%. Given the scenario that you gave me, I can't see how it could be a "no they would not waste any time at all."

A scenario for you:

Two charities.

One gives 100% of its donations to the cause, and the other one gives only 50%.

If you want to support the cause, which do you donate to?

If you know that the cause needs $100 to reach its goal, and you want to get them there, then which do you choose?

Do you donate $100 to the first one? Or would you donate $200 to the second one?

Either way you accomplish your goal, but with the second charity, you're essentially wasting money, as you didn't need to spend the extra $100.

Here's the thing though; The second charity shows us that you can be both productive(get things done) and wasteful at the same time(give away $100 to some random person that you don't need to).

If you do the "right" thing, but for the wrong reason, you can be "productive" and wasteful at the same time.

If you follow the wrong religion, but, still get something good out of it, then it's productive and wasteful at the same time.

Just because a religion is wasteful, does not mean that it has no productive elements at all.

If you're wrong, then you wasted time/devotion. If you're right then you didn't. However, just because you've wasted time/devotion doesn't mean you've wasted all time and devotion.

"If we wager that God exists and we are wrong, we lose nothing." - Blaise Pascal (Roman Catholic)

Wrong. If you wagered on the wrong God, then you wasted your devotion, that could have been directed at the true god. Therefore, you could miss out on whatever afterlife there would/could be from that god/religion. And, if there is no god, then you wasted the devotion which you did not need to give. You could have spent it on something else in your life, such as a hobby.

It's possible to be wasteful and productive. It's not black & white.

Just because you waste time, doesn't mean you're never productive.

My statement is that if you're devoting time to a fraudulent religion, then you're wasting time (as that time could be spent better doing other things, like, following the true religion[if there is one]).

Right/True = Productive

Wrong/False = Waste

I can't give you an example of what's "right" or "wrong," as I don't know what [if any] religion is true.

One religion might claim that Z is good, and aanother might claim that Z is bad. I don't know which is true, so I can't use anything as an example here for things that are/n't a waste of time.

(One religion might say that picking flowers is the only purpose of life, but another might say the purpose is to not pick flowers. To use either as an example would be biased.)

July 5, 2015

> as a result you lose X% of your life because of false worship/whatever,
> and then "gain" (X+1)% because of healthy eating/whatever, you still
> waste time on a fraudulent religion, no? You still waste X%.

wait ... you can't see how how it could be a "no they would not waste any time at all." ?

OK, I'm sorry but I can now only see three possible explenations

You're not native english, you have no clue what the word "waste" means. In which case,

I'm sorry, here's what the word means: waste: verb: to consume, spend, or employ uselessly or without adequate return; use to no avail or profit; squander:

By definition, if you spend something ($1, 1% of your time) and do get adequate return (a castle, 2% time), that's not waste.
You keep dgging a hole, and try to argue that if we don't look at the return, then there was spending without adequate return, which would be considered a waste. In that case,

I'm sorry, but that's like saying "paying $5 and getting $10 back is wasting $5". it's painfully obvious that that non-sensical. It's painfully obvious that that is not what the word means. And it's painfully obvious that there shouldn't be a negative connotatian to the synonmy of 'spend' - as objectively, by nature of the example, it's a good deal.
Stop digging that hole, you're being silly. You're wrong - and it's a bout time you accept that.
You're significantly younger then me, you don't grasp what I consider simple logical. In which case

I'm sorry, I tried to explain it, but apprently my teaching skills are insufficient

But all three senarios lead to one simple truth: When you say "Given the scenario that you gave me, I can't see how it could be a "no they would not waste any time at all."", your inability to see that, is your problem, not mine.

But, pretty much by definition, if the false religion gives adequate return, you don't waste life/... by joining it.

> My statement is that if you're devoting time to a fraudulent religion, then you're wasting time

> (as that time could be spent better doing other things, like, following the true

> religion[if there is one]).

Refer to the sentence betfor this quote, you're incorrect: in the senario when the false religion has an adequate return.

Two simple examples:

if the true religion[if any] has no afterlife, then the best religion[if any] wouldn't neccecairly be that true religion, but the religion which makes the best of the time when you are alife (dependant on what you use as measurement)

suppose atheism is true, and you measure life by raw time, a religion where you have a longer lifetime is a better then following the atheist way
if the true religion[if any] has a heaven/hell, then the best religion[if any] again wouldn't neccecairly be the true religion, but the religion which maximizes the chance of getting into heaven, and minimizes the chance of getting into hell

suppose you don't need to be a believer, but a good person, to get into heaven, the religion that helps you be the best person would be the better choice

July 6, 2015

>suppose atheism is true, and you measure life by raw time, a religion where you have a longer lifetime is a better then following the atheist way

>"following the atheist way"

Okay, you must not know what you're talking about.

Atheism is simply: "A lack of belief" (ex: I don't believe in that god, but I don't believe that he's false either) Atheism can also include disbelievers (ex: there is no god), but that's not the definition.

>"following the atheist way"

You mean: To make rich personal meaning despite the (potential) absence of beneficent gods and the indifference of the universe to human concerns?

>you measure life by raw time, a religion where you have a longer lifetime is a better then following the atheist way

This is insanely deceptive! Just because someone is an atheist means that they will die sooner? Atheists can eat healthy and exercise. In fact, Religious people are more likely to be fat(unhealthy) than nonreligious people!

It's better to be a non-believer, and not spend your time on false religions, if you can live just as long without them. The thing is, non-believers(atheists) can!

To discredit my argument here, show me something that extends your life that can only be done with a religion. (Afterlife does not count, as it is not an extension. Besides, if you're wrong, then there is no afterlife, so it couldn't be used.)

>if the true religion[if any] has a heaven/hell, then the best religion[if any] again wouldn't neccecairly be the true religion, but the religion which maximizes the chance of getting into heaven, and minimizes the chance of getting into hell

Bullshit. If the religion is true, then what it tells you to do, is what you should do. Following it to its full extent will give you the divine rewards(heaven/whatever).

>By definition, if you spend something ($1, 1% of your time) and do get adequate return (a castle, 2% time), that's not waste.

Earlier you said:

>The castle doesn't represent heaven - it represents the good things a person does with his life because of his (false) religion

Again..... Your argument is deceptive.

So here's the thing. You go and try to buy a super-mega castle(religion/religion's reward) with $1(devotion). Then, you figure out, after you've paid, all that you get is a small shitty castle(good things you did with your life). The shitty castle is something someone else was giving away for free. Therefore it's wasteful.

The argument that I've given here is the opposite of your argument. Your argument implies that you NEED devotion to a religion in order to get the worldly reward, when that's not true. You can do good things without religion. Does this mean that the good things done by a religious person are bad? No. The acts themselves are fine.. The thing is, that you DON'T NEED the religion to do said acts. Following that false religion is a waste of time, because you can get the same result while not devoting your time to a fraudulent cause.

>I'm sorry, but that's like saying "paying $5 and getting $10 back is wasting $5". it's painfully obvious that that non-sensical. It's painfully obvious that that is not what the

>word means. And it's painfully obvious that there shouldn't be a negative connotatian to the synonmy of 'spend' - as objectively, by nature of the example, it's a good deal.

>Stop digging that hole, you're being silly. You're wrong - and it's a bout time you accept that.

What is this I don't even.

Your argument implies that in order to get the "worldly rewards/longer time on earth" or whatever ($10) that you would NEED to devote your life to a religion ($5), when you don't.

If a religion says: "Eat healthy." It doesn't mean that an atheist, or someone of a different religion can't/wont.

Your argument, is, again, deceptive.

A better representation:

In the case of a religion being right:

5 theists, 4 atheists

each follows a different plan(religion/non-religion).

1st t sends $5(devotion) for $10(longer time on earth, because of eating healthily, etc) and also $100(afterlife)

2nd t sends $5(devotion) for $10(longer time on earth, because of eating healthily, etc) but does not recieve $100(afterlife) because they picked the wrong plan(religion).

3rd t sends $5(devotion) for $5(not as long of a time on earth because of less healthy eating, etc) but does not recieve $100(afterlife) because they picked the wrong plan(religion).

4th t sends $5(devotion) for $0(no longer time on earth, because of no healthy eating, etc) but does not recieve $100(afterlife) because they picked the wrong plan(religion).

5th t sends $5(devotion) for -$5(very unhealthy, will die sooner) but does not recieve $100(afterlife) because they picked the wrong plan(religion).

1st a sends $0(no devotion) for $10(longer time on earth because of healthy eating, etc) but does not recieve $100(afterlife) because they did not pick the right plan(religion).

2nd a sends $0(no devotion) for $5(not as long of a time on earth because of less healthy eating, etc) and does not recieve $100(afterlife) because they did not pick the right plan(religion).

3rd a sends $0(dev) for $0(no more, no less time), and doesn't get $100(heaven/afterlife)

4th a sends $0(dev) for -$5(less time), and doesn't get $100(heaven/afterlife)

In case of none being right:

5 theists, 4 atheists

each follows a different plan(religion/non-religion).

1st t sends $5(devotion) for $10(longer time on earth, because of eating healthily, etc) but no $100(afterlife) because it doesn't exist.

2nd t sends $5(devotion) for $10(longer time on earth, because of eating healthily, etc) but does not recieve $100(afterlife).because it doesn't exist.

3rd t sends $5(devotion) for $5(not as long of a time on earth because of less healthy eating, etc) but does not recieve $100(afterlife)because it doesn't exist.

4th t sends $5(devotion) for $0(no longer time on earth, because of no healthy eating, etc) but does not recieve $100(afterlife)because it doesn't exist.

5th t sends $5(devotion) for -$5(very unhealthy, will die sooner) but does not recieve $100(afterlife)because it doesn't exist.

1st a sends $0(no devotion) for $10(longer time on earth because of healthy eating, etc) but does not recieve $100(afterlife)because it doesn't exist.

2nd a sends $0(no devotion) for $5(not as long of a time on earth because of less healthy eating, etc) and does not recieve $100(afterlife)because it doesn't exist.

3rd a sends $0(dev) for $0(no more, no less time), and doesn't get $100(heaven/afterlife)because it doesn't exist.

4th a sends $0(dev) for -$5(less time), and doesn't get $100(heaven/afterlife)because it doesn't exist.

Did any of the religious people there, spend $5(devotion/time) that did not need to be spent?

If the answer is yes (which it is), then the religious person would have wasted time.

The only time that a theist would not waste time compared to an atheist, is if they're right.

BUT IF THEY'RE WRONG (which is what I'm talking about) then they spent time that did not need to be spent (waste of time).

To discredit my argument here, show me something that extends your life that can only be done while following a false religion.

protip: you won't because you can't

The theist, if wrong will always be losing their $5(devotion/time) for no reason.

The $10(worldly reward/extra time) does not require the $5(devotion), as you don't need to be religious in order to exercise or eat healthily.(in fact, religious people tend to be fatter than nonreligious people)

The $100 requires the devotion, but it also requires you to be right.

If you only have the devotion, but you're not right, then the devotion was a waste. You lost time because of a lie.

You can only devote your life to 1 religion, or choose to not devote it to one.

If you can get $10(worldly reward) for walking in to a store, and giving them $5(devotion) you'd take it, right?

What if the store gave you $10(worldly reward) for walking in, and giving them $0(no devotion) would you do that instead?

The first one is not a waste per se, but if you also consider the second one, choosing the first instead would be a waste of $5.

A non-religious person does not devote their life to religious activities, etc.

A religious person does.

If the religious person is wrong, then the person who did not devote their time to the false religion, did not waste time on that false religion.

The religious person did. That time could have been spent better.

If you can get the same output with less input, using more input than necessary is wasteful.

Nonreligious people do not waste their time on their religion, because they don't have one.

Religious people spend time on their religion. If the religion is wrong, then they would have wasted more time (in terms of religion).

Even if the nonreligious person wasted 100% of their life on something else, they wasted 0% of it on their own fraudulent religion. The thing is that they can't waste time on it, because they don't have one.

So, if the religious person wasted 1% of their life on fraudulent religious activities, etc, and spent the remaining 99% of their life being purely productive, then THEY STILL WASTED TIME ON RELIGION.

It does not matter that "the non-religious person could/can waste more time." The thing is that the religious person wasted 1% of their life on a religion, and the non-religious person did not.

I'm not saying that either group is more wasteful than the other in general. That's off topic and a completely different discussion to have.

Time spent following/devoted to a fraudulent religion = Q

If Q > 0, then Time was wasted on the fraudulent religion.

If Q = 0, then Time was not wasted on the fraudulent religion.

For a religious person that follows a false religion: Q > 0

For a nonreligious person (who has been nonreligious their whole life) Q = 0

For a nonreligious person who previously believed in the fraudulent religion, Q > 0

If you cannot comprehend these simple arguments, then there is nothing that you could teach me, besides all of your fallacies and deceptive arguments(which are of no value to me). Therefore, there would be no meaning for me to continue on in this discussion, as it would be only a waste of time. If you make a valid response, I'll respond. If not, I won't.

July 6, 2015

> >if the true religion[if any] has a heaven/hell, then the best religion[if any] again wouldn't neccecairly be

> the true religion, but the religion which maximizes the chance of getting into heaven, and minimizes the chance of getting into hell

> Bullshit. If the religion is true, then what it tells you to do, is what you should do. Following it to its full extent will give you the divine rewards(heaven/whatever).

sorry, but no. In fact I can point that out with a practical example:

according to pope Francis, an atheist who's a good person gets to heaven as well.
Suppose the roman catholic chrisitanity is the true religion, and a specific person is able to be a better person (by the One True Measurement) not following christianity (for example, he doesn't need a weekly reminder to be a good person, and instead spends that time helping the poor). For that person following the true religion would be sub-par. - which, by your interpretation - would mean he'd be wasting time following the true religion.

> Again..... Your argument is deceptive.

> So here's the thing. You go and try to buy a super-mega castle(religion/religion's reward) with $1(devotion).

> Then, you figure out, after you've paid, all that you get is a small shitty castle(good things you did with your life). The shitty castle is something someone else was giving away for free. Therefore it's wasteful.

err... no: Again, you're attacking a strawman you set up.

you can check that out waaay in the beginning: as example I used someone who would rather watch TV, but instead goes to help the poor because his religion says so.

I NEVER CLAIMED that, for instance, non-believers CAN'T help the poor.

The positives I consider are those when a person WOULD do something sub-par, but BECAUSE his (false) religion guides him, he does the more optimal thing.

PLEASE adress the points I make. Not the ones who're figment of your immagination

> Time spent following/devoted to a fraudulent religion = Q

> If Q > 0, then Time was wasted on the fraudulent religion.

> If Q = 0, then Time was not wasted on the fraudulent religion.

> For a religious person that follows a false religion: Q > 0

> For a nonreligious person (who has been nonreligious their whole life) Q = 0

> For a nonreligious person who previously believed in the fraudulent religion, Q > 0

This has already been adressed before spend =/= waste. waste is spend without adequate return.

Q > 0, then Time was wasted on the fraudulent religion if there's no adequate return

Q > 0, then Time was spend (but add positive connoctation) on the fraudulent religion if there's was adequate return

July 6, 2015

> >if the true religion[if any] has a heaven/hell, then the best religion[if any] again wouldn't neccecairly be

> the true religion, but the religion which maximizes the chance of getting into heaven, and minimizes the chance of getting into hell

> Bullshit. If the religion is true, then what it tells you to do, is what you should do. Following it to its full extent will give you the divine rewards(heaven/whatever).

sorry, but no. In fact I can point that out with a practical example:

according to pope Francis, an atheist who's a good person gets to heaven as well.

Suppose the roman catholic chrisitanity is the true religion, and a specific person is able to be a better person (by the One True Measurement) not following christianity (for example, he doesn't need a weekly reminder to be a good person, and instead spends that time helping the poor). For that person following the true religion would be sub-par. - which, by your interpretation - would mean he'd be wasting time following the true religion.

> Again..... Your argument is deceptive.

> So here's the thing. You go and try to buy a super-mega castle(religion/religion's reward) with $1(devotion).

> Then, you figure out, after you've paid, all that you get is a small shitty castle(good things you did with your life). The shitty castle is something someone else was giving away for free. Therefore it's wasteful.

err... no: Again, you're attacking a strawman you set up.

you can check that out waaay in the beginning: as example I used someone who would rather watch TV, but instead goes to help the poor because his religion says so.

I NEVER CLAIMED that, for instance, non-believers CAN'T help the poor.

The positives I consider are those when a person WOULD do something sub-par, but BECAUSE his (false) religion guides him, he does the more optimal thing.

PLEASE adress the points I make. Not the ones who're figment of your immagination

> Time spent following/devoted to a fraudulent religion = Q

> If Q > 0, then Time was wasted on the fraudulent religion.

> If Q = 0, then Time was not wasted on the fraudulent religion.

> For a religious person that follows a false religion: Q > 0

> For a nonreligious person (who has been nonreligious their whole life) Q = 0

> For a nonreligious person who previously believed in the fraudulent religion, Q > 0

This has already been adressed before spend =/= waste. waste is spend without adequate return.

Q > 0, then Time was wasted on the fraudulent religion if there's no adequate return

Q > 0, then Time was spend (but add positive connoctation) on the fraudulent religion if there's was adequate return

Why do it with a fraudulent religion when it can be done without?

To discredit my argument here, show me something that extends your life, or gives you some sort of return that can only be done while following a false religion.

July 6, 2015

"Religions rise and fall, empires crumble into dust, but the works of science are for all time" - Ulugh Beg (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulugh_Beg)

Sign In

What does religion do for you?

Recommended Posts

Scorchy

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Apo

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Hyperqube

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Apo

Link to comment

Share on other sites

oli.t678

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Hyperqube

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Hyperqube

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Hexlicious

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Apo

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Hyperqube

Link to comment

Share on other sites

TheVenomWith1n

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Apo

Link to comment

Share on other sites

oli.t678

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Hyperqube

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Hyperqube

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Apo

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Tanner the Original Scout™

Link to comment

Share on other sites

fluffyy

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Hyperqube

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Apo

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Hyperqube

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Apo

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Hyperqube

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Apo

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Professional Map Painter

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Archived

Recently Browsing 0 members