Religion: Real or Fake

[giblets]

There isn't a god.
Yes there is.
No there isn't.
Yes there is.
No there isn't.
Yes there is.
No there isn't.
Yes there is.
No there isn't.
Yes there is.
No there isn't.
Yes there is.
No there isn't.
Yes there is.
No there isn't.
Yes there is.
No there isn't.
Yes there is.
No there isn't.
Yes there is.
No there isn't.
Yes there is.
No there isn't.
Yes there is.
No there isn't.
Yes there is.
No there isn't.
Yes there is.
No there isn't.
Yes there is.
No there isn't.
Yes there is.
No there isn't.
Yes there is.
No there isn't.
Yes there is.
No there isn't.
Yes there is.
No there isn't.
Yes there is.
No there isn't.
Yes there is.
No there isn't.
Yes there is.
No there isn't.
Yes there is.
No there isn't.
Yes there is.
No there isn't.
Yes there is.
No there isn't.
Yes there is.
No there isn't.
Yes there is.
No there isn't.
Yes there is.
No there isn't.
Yes there is.
No there isn't.
Yes there is.
No there isn't.
Yes there is.
No there isn't.
Yes there is.
No there isn't.
Yes there is.
No there isn't.
Yes there is.
No there isn't.
Yes there is.
No there isn't.
Yes there is.
No there isn't.
Yes there is.
No there isn't.
Yes there is.
No there isn't.
Yes there is.
No there isn't.
Yes there is.
No there isn't.
Yes there is.
No there isn't.
Yes there is.
No there isn't.
Yes there is.
No there isn't.
Yes there is.
No there isn't.
Yes there is.
No there isn't.
Yes there is.
No there isn't.
Yes there is.
No there isn't.
Yes there is.
No there isn't.
Yes there is.
No there isn't.
Yes there is.
No there isn't.
Yes there is.
No there isn't.
Yes there is.
No there isn't.
Yes there is.
No there isn't.
Yes there is.
No there isn't.
Yes there is.
No there isn't.
Yes there is.
No there isn't.
Yes there is.
No there isn't.
Yes there is.
No there isn't.

thanks for spoilering that

[MOBIUS]

At least the sceptics have provided plenty of well thought out arguments as to why they believe religion is a crock.

All the religious people have come up with is faith, which, conveniently, can't be explained. But if you don't have it - you don't understand!

[Docfeelgood]

At least the sceptics have provided plenty of well thought out arguments as to why they believe religion is a crock.

All the religious people have come up with is faith, which, conveniently, can't be explained. But if you don't have it - you don't understand!

True

[Nikolai]

And so long as there is no evidence to support it is remains a fairy tale.

Hopefully, some day, you will get that.

There is plenty you can't prove that you know/believe in your heart to be true you know. Faith is not science. It was never meant to. Still doesn't mean it can't be true. Anyone can get that if they try to think it through.

Anyway, why do you care? Does it concern you that I believe something you don't? These discussions can't be done with facts alone. Doesn't mean they aren't fruitful, but conversion either way is not very likely.

[Wezil]

I don't care. My libertarian tendencies would permit individuals to do and believe what they want. It doesn't mean that I should be prohibited from pointing and laughing at people that choose to believe absurd things because they have "faith" these things are true.

I do care when these unfounded beliefs are brought into public policy.

[Nikolai]

A person's beliefs is brought into public policy the minute a person enters the public. Every person who have ever lived have had parts of their world view influenced by unproven beliefs. Some beliefs turn into something good, like social consciousness, some turn into something not so good, like social darwinism(totally random example of course ). The point is, humans are not 100% logical or driven by proof, but they can and should participate in the public nevertheless.

[rah]

I don't care what people believe because of their faith. But lacking proof, those that have faith in god are no different than those that believe in little green spacemen. And when those same believers say that believing in little green spacemen is absurd, it always amuses me. The same with santa claus. As long as they admit that they have no proof and it's all blind faith, FINE. When they say their's is true while others are false, I laugh again. If they try to convert me, then I reserve the right to say, thank you but leave me alone.
Religious beliefs are personal and should stay that way.

[Wezil]

A person's beliefs is brought into public policy the minute a person enters the public. Every person who have ever lived have had parts of their world view influenced by unproven beliefs. Some beliefs turn into something good, like social consciousness, some turn into something not so good, like social darwinism(totally random example of course ). The point is, humans are not 100% logical or driven by proof, but they can and should participate in the public nevertheless.

I have no problem with "beliefs". It is unfounded belief that concerns me.

If it turns out a pol has an unfounded belief I at least deserve the right to call them on it. If they advocate for no Sunday shopping because god wants them to take a day off they deserve to be called on their BS but unfortunately, as we are talking about their "faith", there would be no way they would ever change their mind. See the problem?

[Elok]

Isn't Santa Claus effectively a religion to children, after all?

Then one day the nasty parents say "He's not real - HARR HARR HARR!"

Well, in this thread, we're the nasty parents...

Moby, any kid you raised would have much more serious problems than merely believing in Santa too long...

[Lonestar]

See, that would be a perfect example of what I'm talking of, from the sceptic side.

How dare I insist upon evidence before committing myself to who is basically the biggest ******* in the universe.

[Nikolai]

How dare I insist upon evidence before committing myself to who is basically the biggest ******* in the universe.

Rage, swearing and no arguments in the face of a claim that you act childish? Fine.

[Nikolai]

I don't care what people believe because of their faith. But lacking proof, those that have faith in god are no different than those that believe in little green spacemen. And when those same believers say that believing in little green spacemen is absurd, it always amuses me. The same with santa claus. As long as they admit that they have no proof and it's all blind faith, FINE. When they say their's is true while others are false, I laugh again. If they try to convert me, then I reserve the right to say, thank you but leave me alone.
Religious beliefs are personal and should stay that way.

I admit I have no proof. So must anyone with a faith. It is a faith after all, not an empirical proven statement of any kind. However, I object to the use of blind as an adjective. That sounds like it's totally negative and stubbornness. It's not. Or rather, it isn't necessarily so. I also admit I believe my faith is the only way to God. I do. It's part of most religious packages anyway. I do believe faith matters for the afterlife. Which I believe in. I do believe other religions have got some of it right when it comes to details, but I believe in one way to God. Period. I don't believe I've got it all right, neither that anyone else has.

But one can be a Christian and a child of God even if one doesn't agree on every detail. Jesus as your Lord and Saviour is a definite though. BUT: This is my life. I can do nothing to force anything on others. I have the right to believe that you are wrong and going in the wrong direction. You have the right to get my respectful treatment beyond that. I firmly believe no good Christian should force anything on anyone. But he should be able to advocate his beliefs. Beliefs are personal, but the public person will always have his personal faith with him when he acts in the public sphere.

As for Wezils sunday shopping example: Advocating a day where society slows down and breath is totally okay. The reasons can be God's commandment. But the debate has to be along the line of "it's good for everyone to slow down and breathe from time to time and society should make arrangements for that to happen". But the arguments need to be rational.

[MOBIUS]

Moby, any kid you raised would have much more serious problems than merely believing in Santa too long...

Just as well we don't intend on raising any!

[Lonestar]

Rage, swearing and no arguments in the face of a claim that you act childish? Fine.

So your argument is that typing "@rsehole" and insisting upon extraordinary evidence to meet the extraordinary claim that there is a supreme being is "acting childish", but it's okay for you to go "uh well there is a invisible supreme being of which there is no evidence of exists, and it is perfectly okay for me to bob my head and accept that existence, much the way a child will believe in Santa or the Easter Bunny."?



Is that your argument distilled down?


Fine, I'm going to make an argument(in fact I'm going to quote verbatim from someone else) and I would like you to respond to it:

Either God wants to abolish evil, and cannot; or he can, but does not want to... If he wants to, but cannot, he is impotent. If he can, but does not want to, he is wicked... If, as they say, God can abolish evil, and God really wants to do it, why is there evil in the world?... If he is unable to do either, then why call him 'God'?

[Nikolai]

I don't accept the premise of the quote. It doesn't take into account God love for us, a love so great he risked everything by giving us the choice to do good and to do evil. Here I could do a long essay on free will and God voluntarily limiting himself, but it has been done countless times before and wouldn't change the base fact; you get very angry because someone believes something you find stupid. Don't I have the same right to follow my beliefs as you do?