Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

I am religious and believe in free will

70 (27.6%)

I am religious and do not believe in free will

10 (3.9%)

I am not religious and believe in free will

113 (44.5%)

I am not religious and do not believe in free will

61 (24%)

Total Members Voted: 249

[TD1]

Which is kind of the point. It's the only way it can be believed ergo it must be so. Evolution, baby. Or evolving memes.

[Loud Whispers]

Dank is in a word: Memes

[Rolepgeek]

Well, yes, because if they made claims that could be disproven, and they were disproven, they wouldn't be held (by reasonable individuals). The claims they make that can be proven are just considered common sense or science or etc., so you don't consider them integral to the religion.

It's not faith if it's obviously true, after all. But really, saying 'I cannot as of yet prove you wrong' is kindof a useless statement. It doesn't actually show that they're wrong.

The core idea of 'god exists' is impossible to prove wrong. The core idea of 'god is an X' can be disproven, however, if they are taking the bible to give the correct description of that God. Again, the stuff that could be disproven isn't usually held long (or rather, not when challenged; motte and bailey is something everyone does, often accidentally). But God being an Omnimax deity that we simply don't understand is internally self-consistent. So is God being an insecure dick who needs the verification of his children and throws tantrums when he doesn't get it, despite being super powerful. Which to me is the more interesting interpretation, because A. it makes Jesus into God's form of self-flagellation and apology for his Old Testament bullshit and B. explains things perfectly fine, including why he doesn't appear to work miracles anymore; he kept doing horrible shit when he allowed himself to work miracles, so he decided to stop.

Actually makes me more sympathetic to him, even if I'm fairly certain it's impossible.

[TD1]

Nothing is impossible. Some things are just as near to it as makes no difference. For example, Santa Clause, the Tayto Man, elves, Dwarves, Thor, a leach inside my head with a set of controls that makes me do as it demands, Augustus Caesar as a deified being, and (for me )God. The "for me" is because others don't agree with me placing God in such company, but I don't really see why I shouldn't. Harry Potter is in there too, I forgot to say

[Rolepgeek]

I would disagree as to them being in the same category. Most of those things are falsifiable (dwarfism exists ). God existing is either a fundamental fact about the universe, or it isn't. In many ways, it's not a discrete specific structured thing we can study. People usually have some basis for believing in God. '2 billion people can't be wrong' is a terrible way to argue, since it could be said of every other religion, with differing numbers, but 'two billion people currently believe in the modern age in this thing' is still an argument for not dismissing it as on the level of fairy tales and fictional literary characters. Many of them are very intelligent people. Most of them have arguments that they believe are strong enough to justify belief in the existence of God.

[Graknorke]

Hey, give it a couple thousand years and people are probably going to think at least one of those things is or was real.

[Frumple]

Couple thousand years, apocalypses deferred, and several of them will probably have been made.

[Bohandas]

I would disagree as to them being in the same category. Most of those things are falsifiable (dwarfism exists ). God existing is either a fundamental fact about the universe, or it isn't. In many ways, it's not a discrete specific structured thing we can study. People usually have some basis for believing in God. '2 billion people can't be wrong' is a terrible way to argue, since it could be said of every other religion, with differing numbers, but 'two billion people currently believe in the modern age in this thing' is still an argument for not dismissing it as on the level of fairy tales and fictional literary characters. Many of them are very intelligent people. Most of them have arguments that they believe are strong enough to justify belief in the existence of God.

How many children are there out there who believe in Santa Claus?

[MonkeyHead]

I would disagree as to them being in the same category. Most of those things are falsifiable (dwarfism exists ). God existing is either a fundamental fact about the universe, or it isn't. In many ways, it's not a discrete specific structured thing we can study. People usually have some basis for believing in God. '2 billion people can't be wrong' is a terrible way to argue, since it could be said of every other religion, with differing numbers, but 'two billion people currently believe in the modern age in this thing' is still an argument for not dismissing it as on the level of fairy tales and fictional literary characters. Many of them are very intelligent people. Most of them have arguments that they believe are strong enough to justify belief in the existence of God.

How many children are there out there who believe in Santa Claus?

Ah, but the difference there is that Santa, despite being based on known historical figures, is a known constructed lie made by adults who define Santa in terms of a set of claims, which will unravel with a little critical thinking. As pointed out by Roleplaygeek above, when a god is defined as a specific god claims about it can be tested, inevitably showing the claims to be flawed - the same as Santa. Olympus can be climbed, and Zeus and his gang were not up there. The result of this is that due to social Darwinism the faiths in god that remain extant in the world today are either non-theistic (like Buddhism and Taoism, so no god claims exist to unravel), or handily contain a god "claimed/defined" as so far outside the human experience one could never hope to interact with it regardless of claims in its holy text (Abrahamic faiths, Hinduism and so on). This in itself is to me a bizarre claim for a faith to make, as in said holy texts gods were dicking around with humanity all the time, which seems juxtaposed to the whole "out there but we can't get at them" reasoning. 1bn or so kids hold a belief in Santa, because they are told to. There is nothing to base that belief on save for the mythos they are fed. Does the same apply to those who hold a belief in god? I say yes, to a certain extent. For the most part, they are told in their youth of a particular god, and build up an argument around it while they have the knowledge in order to justify it. An almost statistically insignificant number of people end up switching faiths as a result of examining religious ideas and arguments about gods and their nature compared to those who simply reinforce what they already thought about gods, which to me suggests a certain amount of preclusion. 

If we defined Santa as some kind of pan-dimensional everywhere omni-gift giver instead of a fat guy in a suit, the myth may be more pervasive, perhaps

[Orange Wizard]

If we defined Santa as some kind of pan-dimensional everywhere omni-gift giver instead of a fat guy in a suit, the myth may be more pervasive, perhaps

No no no, Saint Nicholas is a spirit, but he isn't everywhere. He only visits rich families.

[TD1]

I would disagree as to them being in the same category. Most of those things are falsifiable (dwarfism exists ). God existing is either a fundamental fact about the universe, or it isn't. In many ways, it's not a discrete specific structured thing we can study. People usually have some basis for believing in God. '2 billion people can't be wrong' is a terrible way to argue, since it could be said of every other religion, with differing numbers, but 'two billion people currently believe in the modern age in this thing' is still an argument for not dismissing it as on the level of fairy tales and fictional literary characters. Many of them are very intelligent people. Most of them have arguments that they believe are strong enough to justify belief in the existence of God.

Dwarfism exists, but as a mutation (not that I know the genetics behind it) not as a separate race from ours with a known culture. As has been pointed out before, we don't believe that any more because we've been pretty much everywhere and not found any Mountainhomes. The people of the Old Norse religion believed in Dwarves, presumably because they had a limited knowledge of the world and little scholarly/scientific interaction with other cultures.

Despite this, I am sure there are today people who honestly believe in Dwarfs of either the Tolkien or Old Norse variety. That is rather ridiculous to me, but I put it on par with believing in God, even if it is easier to disprove. A faith designed around the basis of not being debunked is no less of a ridiculous faith. I hesitate to say "ridiculous" in case I'm being insulting, but that's what I honestly view it as.

[Rolepgeek]

I still find it funny whenever someone expands the P in my name. I mean, that is what it stands for, but it's still oddly amusing to me.

MonkeyHead went more into depth with it, but my objection to that claim, Bohandas, is twofold. A, Kids are dumb, and I say this as someone who just turned 18 this month. You can like/believe basically anything when you're a kid; less realistic beliefs are expected to be grown out of. B, if you were trying to equate theists/religious individuals with children on the basis of believing something you find ridiculous, I would point out that that is both dishonest and anti-contributory to the discussion.
Also, something pithy since I like making pithy sayings: Truth is hard to find.

The size, organization/scale, respectability, and intellectual accomplishments of those two groups of people, DwArfY, is radically different (though I admit I'm making assumptions on that last). Many/most apologists don't have merely a faith designed around 'it might be true'. That's Pascal's Wager. I take a bit of a different Wager, but in any case, that's not the point. Many of them have logical or evidence-dependent arguments for their beliefs. We may find them faulty, or believe the evidence should be interpreted differently. But you can't even get to that point in the debate, to that level of discussion which allows for everyone to come out more justified in the beliefs they now hold, and hopefully closer to the truth, if you just say it's ridiculous.

I mean, my real objection is that it's rude and people should respect each other's beliefs even while challenging them and their own, but nobody actually cares about that, in my experience.

[TD1]

Unfortunately it's not just kids that are dumb. Adults are more than capable of being complete morons, and can believe nearly anything. Less realistic beliefs that are frowned upon by surrounding society are often disposed of, but when they're supported by that society? "For Odin and country" or "for God and country." The only real difference is that the latter is the most accepted, the most pervasive, in society. It's not a case of the least realistic beliefs being cast off, and the remaining beliefs being somehow more believable. It is simply a case of the most supported belief, despite the fact of its errors (which have been smoothed over centuries), being the belief that peer pressure decrees succeeds. Given enough time, that could indeed become Santa Claus. Perhaps with some changes to make it more "adult" - to make it conform with the revelations of science a bit more, and so to make it more agreeable to society.

The size, organization/scale, respectability, and intellectual accomplishments of those two groups of people, DwArfY, is radically different (though I admit I'm making assumptions on that last). Many/most apologists don't have merely a faith designed around 'it might be true'. That's Pascal's Wager. I take a bit of a different Wager, but in any case, that's not the point. Many of them have logical or evidence-dependent arguments for their beliefs. We may find them faulty, or believe the evidence should be interpreted differently. But you can't even get to that point in the debate, to that level of discussion which allows for everyone to come out more justified in the beliefs they now hold, and hopefully closer to the truth, if you just say it's ridiculous.

Size doesn't matter. It just means it's the belief most people want. Organisation only means it's had time to organise. Respectability gets the same response as size and organisation - it's had time, and it's wanted - intellectual accomplishment is as a result of time and the surrounding culture, and could happen for any belief. The logic you speak of is an attempt to make either science or their beliefs conform with the other. Release that logic long enough on the Tayto Man, and it's obvious that the Tayto factory had had inspiration for its logo from the extra-dimensional potato being - it being extra dimensional, it is obviously unfalsifiable. Belief in God is not so very different, it's just the lucky religion that had all the factors it needed for growth. Given a different throw of the coin, and lightning is caused by the extra-dimensional Zeus, who obviously doesn't live on a mountain. That was all a metaphor for his transcendence.

To me it's just as ridiculous as a fairy tale, the only difference being it's accepted by the society, and thus perpetuated, and had thinkers think up ways of keeping it viable.

That may be rude, but it's unfortunately what I think - I daresay it does contribute to the discussion, though, rather than being counter to it.

[Arx]

Alright, so why is your rejection of God not caused by your desire to be contrary to your society? As far as I can tell, according to your argument, the only reason you could be atheist is because religion is the prevailing belief in society and you want to oppose it. It's like the ontological argument (I think? I don't keep track of the names, except for critical things like the problem of evil) - it assumes you're right.

[TD1]

The ontological argument states that God is real because he's all powerful, and to be all powerful and not real is illogical. So yes, you probably used the right one, heh.

And no. I don't oppose religion because it's the prevailing belief in society. In fact, I don't oppose religion at all - I just don't believe any of them. People have a right to believe in whatever they want, regardless of what I think.

Why I don't believe any of them is the same reason I don't believe in fairy tales. It has nothing to do with what other people do or don't believe. Religion is just a form of Little Red Riding Hood that's believed to me.