I Like Religion Because - I Dislike Religion Because. . . . . . . .

[Thief]

I think it's fair to demand that the religious defend their beliefs as not being mere superstitions. If they can't, that is a clear indication that they should question said beliefs and get to the bottom of what made them start believing in the first place and whether that reasoning is sound. That is ALWAYS beneficial for EVERYONE.

Luis has made claim to recusing people from their superstitions....
that is inappropriate attitude and intention.....here at the forum.

further comment could be reported.

 

[LuisDantas]

@Thief : What are you complaining about exactly?

 

[Thief]

@Thief : What are you complaining about exactly?

do you proof read your postings.....
shall we have other staff do so?

 

[LuisDantas]

If you feel like reporting any post from me, go ahead. It is your prerogative.

Don't however expect me to have some mystical guess of what bothers you. You will have to actually say it, and even then I may very well simply disagree.

That is how things happen, you know.

As it turns out, I fail to see any reason to encourage people to be superstitious, regardless of what their religious beliefs may be.

I see no reason to feel ashamed or out of place for that. It is really that simple.

 

[Thief]

I then suggest.....by your own volition.....
close this thread for staff review

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I came to the realization tonight that I dislike people who crave power, because pretty much just about always where you find things getting messed - and very often for the people who aren't even really doing anything and those messing things up - you find someone lusting for power.

Luis has made claim to recusing people from their superstitions....

He didn't say people need rescuing, he stated that he feels religion is what needs rescuing from superstitions. And, really, we all need saving from superstitions. It leads to witch hunts, bad decisions, irrationality, ignorance, and so many more problems than it's worth. Believing in god isn't a superstition. However, believing god said someone must suffer and those who are suffering must have done something bad is, or that god gave you the right to rule, and such thinking has got to go.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

What I declare as fact is of course my opinion.

No, an opinion is a subjective personal viewpoint that is not an objective claim about reality. For example, "That is a lovely hat" is an opinion, whereas "That hat is made out of dragon's whiskers" is an objective claim about reality. One is a personal viewpoint that need not be demonstrated, the other is a claim which can be tested for.

I can explain why I believe it and how I came to my conclusions. But it's not possible for me to empirically prove that matters of faith are indeed fact.

Then why do you believe them?

This should come as no surprise. Can I prove that there is a God, or more specifically, that Jehovah of the Bible is God? Of course not.

I didn't ask you to prove anything. I said that a person usually supports their position with reference to relevant and supporting facts - i.e, evidence. If you're going to make a claim and support it with nothing but faith, then you have already declared yourself to be in a position where your argument can be automatically dismissed, since faith is not sufficient justification for anything.

Nevertheless, on this site and in other places, I will continue to refer to God as a fact.

You may if you like, but don't expect others to adopt your position.

It gets really old to be asked to prove that God is real. I would think atheists would tire of asking for proof.

I don't see why we should when evidence has still yet to be presented. I would think theists would have tired of being asked and stopped claiming God as fact by now.

If I'm asked to explain why I believe in God and why I'm so personally convinced, I'll be happy to do so. In fact, I enjoy it. But if you require that believers prove that everything that they believe is true, the believers might as well drop off the website and the atheists can have fun talking to each other alone.

When you make a claim of fact, you are required logically to support that claim with evidence in order for anyone else to take your claim seriously. Do you really think that's unfair?

 

[Demonslayer]

"That hat is made out of dragon's whiskers"

Where can I get one of these dragon whisker hats? I need one last Christmas gift for my wife and this would be perfect.

 

[Demonslayer]

Nevertheless, on this site and in other places, I will continue to refer to God as a fact.

Which God? Biblical Yahweh/Jehovah?

It gets really old to be asked to prove that God is real.

Do you accept that Shiva the Destroyer is real? If you were in a conversation with someone who presented Shiva as factually real, would you just roll through the conversation allowing for the reality of Shiva or would you question it?

A year later if you had the same conversation, or 10 years later, would your reaction be any different? Would you eventually allow for the reality of Shiva, simply because you knew your Hindu friends were tiring of your doubt?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

rescuing others from their superstitions?

I think you need to re-read the post you took this from in it's full context. I traced back the messages in the thread that caused this unfortunate and childish drama, and this WAS NEVER SAID. He stated that religion was worth saving from superstition for it's more positive qualities of wisdom, offering connections between people etc. In other words, your high-horse is actually a donkey friend. There... now you can report me.

 

[Demonslayer]

I think you need to re-read the post you took this from in it's full context. I traced back the messages in the thread that caused this unfortunate and childish drama, and this WAS NEVER SAID. He stated that religion was worth saving from superstition for it's more positive qualities of wisdom, offering connections between people etc. In other words, your high-horse is actually a donkey friend. There... now you can report me.

I don't even see how it's so bad to say people need rescuing from their superstitions. I realize that wasn't said, but if it was, so what? Take the example of Christian Scientists. Their superstition is that God will cure the ailments of their children. Of course that's not true, so what happens is Christian Scientists leave their children at home dying of preventable diseases.

Google "religion based medical neglect" and look at all the stories of dead children. Did they not need rescuing from superstition? I say they did.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I don't even see how it's so bad to say people need rescuing from their superstitions. I realize that wasn't said, but if it was, so what? Take the example of Christian Scientists. Their superstition is that God will cure the ailments of their children. Of course that's not true, so what happens is Christian Scientists leave their children at home dying of preventable diseases.

Google "religion based medical neglect" and look at all the stories of dead children. Did they not need rescuing from superstition? I say they did.

I agree wholeheartedly that even saying, explicitly, that "people need saved from their superstitions" is no "sin" by any stretch of the imagination. And your example is a perfect illustration of how someone could be saved (as in literally saved - their life prevented from ending) if the superstitions of others were not employed against the situation. So yeah, I am not even sure why the original hubbub started in the first place. Somebody thought somebody else was saying they needed "saved" from their religious beliefs.

I find it hilarious though that the non-religious are told all the time - whether explicitly or implicitly - that they need saved from their non-religion. That's apparently completely acceptable.

 

[LuisDantas]

Weird, isn't it?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Weird, isn't it?

'Tis that.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

I abhor religion for many reasons; but my top reason would hvaae to be that religion offers "false hope". When false hope enters the equation, the end result is more destructive than "no hope"; because even if we acknowledge "no hope", we are at least empowered to clearly define the obstacle in front of us and cope with it in a rational and proactive manner. False hope prevents Scientologists from offering their children real psychiatric treatment. False hope prevents faith healers from administering their diabetic children medication. False hope teaches us that religion will correct our shortcomings and empower us to resist our temptations (harmful impulses). IN so doing, false hope also removes the responsibility of our actions from ourselves. It's not, "I made a bad choice"; it's, "The devil made me do it. I was weak in the spirit. I was demonically oppressed. My faith was weak". I think of all the reasons why I deplore most religions; this is it.

 

[Demonslayer]

I abhor religion for many reasons; but my top reason would hvaae to be that religion offers "false hope". When false hope enters the equation, the end result is more destructive than "no hope"; because even if we acknowledge "no hope", we are at least empowered to clearly define the obstacle in front of us and cope with it in a rational and proactive manner. False hope prevents Scientologists from offering their children real psychiatric treatment. False hope prevents faith healers from administering their diabetic children medication. False hope teaches us that religion will correct our shortcomings and empower us to resist our temptations (harmful impulses). IN so doing, false hope also removes the responsibility of our actions from ourselves. It's not, "I made a bad choice"; it's, "The devil made me do it. I was weak in the spirit. I was demonically oppressed. My faith was weak". I think of all the reasons why I deplore most religions; this is it.

I'm not sure which I like more, this post, or your Stormtrooper avatar.

 

[Scott C.]

I think it's fair to demand that the religious defend their beliefs as not being mere superstitions. If they can't, that is a clear indication that they should question said beliefs and get to the bottom of what made them start believing in the first place and whether that reasoning is sound. That is ALWAYS beneficial for EVERYONE.

When you make a claim of fact, you are required logically to support that claim with evidence in order for anyone else to take your claim seriously. Do you really think that's unfair?

Yes, it's fair to ask me to defend my position on God. Yes, it's fair for you to challenge any beliefs of mine which are based on my belief in God, Christ, the Bible, the Book of Mormon, etc. However, let me try to explain my point of frustration.

We may have a thread called: "Prove that God exists" or "Prove Christianity" or "Prove Mormonism". If I engage on such a thread I would:

- Explain why I believe in God. I'd use the argument of intelligent design. I'd discuss the validity of witnesses. I'd discuss my own personal experiences which I consider to be personal revelations. I'd discuss answers to prayers and on and on. But, in the end, the non-believer would explain it all away. I'd state that I can't prove God to anyone, but he has proven himself to me. The debate would end. This has repeated itself thousands of times.

- Explain why I believe in Christ. I'd reason on why the Bible is accurate history. I'd discuss the validity of eye witnesses. I'd discuss my personal spiritual experiences and reflections on Christ and how I came to have a "spiritual witness". Non-believers would challenge my points and in the end it would remain as a matter of personal conviction, personal witness, and faith. I would not have satisfied those who want infallible scientific proof using the scientific method.

- Explain why I believe that Jesus appeared in modern times to direct the restoration of his church and to bring forth the Book of Mormon. Arguments would be similar with similar results and conclusions.

I've done the above many times on this site. And I may do so again in response to threads that specifically ask for those points of view and reasoning. But, I don't want to do go through all of the above arguments on every thread that deals with a religious viewpoint.

For example, suppose we have a thread that says "prove that premarital sex is bad". The main reason that I believe it's wrong, is because it's prohibited by scripture, the Bible, and the Book or Mormon. I can argue that sex is sacred and ordained by God to be used in certain circumstances only. I can formulate a logical argument, but that argument will be based on assumptions about the existence of God and his character and divine will. Inevitably, I will be asked to first prove there is a God, then prove the God of Abraham, then more specifically prove the Christian God, and then the Bible. And so, a discussion on the right or wrong of premarital sex turns into a thread on "Prove that God exists."

Take another example. Someone starts a thread and says that the Christian notion of human sacrifice is absurd. Well, I believe it's not absurd that God sent his Son to die for our sins. But most of my insights into the subject are based on what the scriptures have to say about it. I find those scriptures to be logically consistent, profound, and spiritually satisfying. But, in the end, if the atheist discredits those scriptures as unproven, then we can go nowhere in demonstrating the need for a Savior. And I'm dragged into "Here we go again... another debate on the existence of God."

Perhaps if a thread read like this: "To Christians: can you make a case against premarital sex using secular arguments only?" I would then make the case without reference to God or the Bible. I could discuss statistics etc, on the negative results of premarital sex. But for me, those arguments would not reflect the depth of my feelings on the subject, since I would be ignoring my faith for debate purposes only.

Suppose a thread asks if religion generally is good or bad. It's impossible for me to respond and to include my reasons without my referencing my faith. In that case, I don't plan to prove my faith is true, rather I'm simply answering the question and explaining why I believe so. I might also quote scriptures to explain. If the reader is not interested in my reasoning from a religious perspective, then my response is of no value to that person. If the reader wants to take me back to "Prove that God exists", I'm not interested, at least not in that thread.

So, how do folks expect me to interact with atheists on almost any religious subject, without it going back to the same demand that I prove the existence of God? (And my questions and points don't necessarily apply only to atheists).

 

[Mycroft]

I dislike Religion because it's generally centred around male entitlement.

 

[Deathbydefault]

.

Talking about religion in general, not any religion in particular.



So, what are your deepest, most heartfelt feelings about religion?............................................................................................Just kidding, only looking for your thoughts, sober or otherwise.


.

Anything can have a meaning if you give it one.
I haven't given a meaning to religion so it's utterly pointless to me.

Anything I need emotionally I can get myself.
If I can't then that's just too bad for me, it's reality.

Spirituality doesn't cut it for me, logically or otherwise, so I don't follow in with that either.
And anything that can't stand on it's own two feet evidence wise is pointless in every discussion that isn't philosophy based.

Faith is not something I practice, and would be disgusted with myself if I did practice.
But hey, everyone has their own way to live life... i guess.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Yes, it's fair to ask me to defend my position on God. Yes, it's fair for you to challenge any beliefs of mine which are based on my belief in God, Christ, the Bible, the Book of Mormon, etc. However, let me try to explain my point of frustration.

We may have a thread called: "Prove that God exists" or "Prove Christianity" or "Prove Mormonism". If I engage on such a thread I would:

- Explain why I believe in God. I'd use the argument of intelligent design. I'd discuss the validity of witnesses. I'd discuss my own personal experiences which I consider to be personal revelations. I'd discuss answers to prayers and on and on. But, in the end, the non-believer would explain it all away. I'd state that I can't prove God to anyone, but he has proven himself to me. The debate would end. This has repeated itself thousands of times.

- Explain why I believe in Christ. I'd reason on why the Bible is accurate history. I'd discuss the validity of eye witnesses. I'd discuss my personal spiritual experiences and reflections on Christ and how I came to have a "spiritual witness". Non-believers would challenge my points and in the end it would remain as a matter of personal conviction, personal witness, and faith. I would not have satisfied those who want infallible scientific proof using the scientific method.

- Explain why I believe that Jesus appeared in modern times to direct the restoration of his church and to bring forth the Book of Mormon. Arguments would be similar with similar results and conclusions.

I've done the above many times on this site. And I may do so again in response to threads that specifically ask for those points of view and reasoning. But, I don't want to do go through all of the above arguments on every thread that deals with a religious viewpoint.

For example, suppose we have a thread that says "prove that premarital sex is bad". The main reason that I believe it's wrong, is because it's prohibited by scripture, the Bible, and the Book or Mormon. I can argue that sex is sacred and ordained by God to be used in certain circumstances only. I can formulate a logical argument, but that argument will be based on assumptions about the existence of God and his character and divine will. Inevitably, I will be asked to first prove there is a God, then prove the God of Abraham, then more specifically prove the Christian God, and then the Bible. And so, a discussion on the right or wrong of premarital sex turns into a thread on "Prove that God exists."

Take another example. Someone starts a thread and says that the Christian notion of human sacrifice is absurd. Well, I believe it's not absurd that God sent his Son to die for our sins. But most of my insights into the subject are based on what the scriptures have to say about it. I find those scriptures to be logically consistent, profound, and spiritually satisfying. But, in the end, if the atheist discredits those scriptures as unproven, then we can go nowhere in demonstrating the need for a Savior. And I'm dragged into "Here we go again... another debate on the existence of God."

Perhaps if a thread read like this: "To Christians: can you make a case against premarital sex using secular arguments only?" I would then make the case without reference to God or the Bible. I could discuss statistics etc, on the negative results of premarital sex. But for me, those arguments would not reflect the depth of my feelings on the subject, since I would be ignoring my faith for debate purposes only.

Suppose a thread asks if religion generally is good or bad. It's impossible for me to respond and to include my reasons without my referencing my faith. In that case, I don't plan to prove my faith is true, rather I'm simply answering the question and explaining why I believe so. I might also quote scriptures to explain. If the reader is not interested in my reasoning from a religious perspective, then my response is of no value to that person. If the reader wants to take me back to "Prove that God exists", I'm not interested, at least not in that thread.

So, how do folks expect me to interact with atheists on almost any religious subject, without it going back to the same demand that I prove the existence of God? (And my questions and points don't necessarily apply only to atheists).

Nice rebuttal. Read this in full.

The last question, if I may, is because for atheist to understand where a Christian comes from, we must come to the foundations; the basics. That basic/foundation is god. If we cannot proove not just by religious concrete proof (for example, the Bible flat out says "I exist") but secular concrete proof as well, the debates will flop as your post mentions beautifully.

Unfortunately, some religions arent based on secular facts. Acheologists and other people try to compare them, but in my spiritual view, there is more evidence of the Buddha existing and his 2,000 scriptures and its truth than that of the Bible. One reason is the Buddha plainly states he talks in metaphors; so, the atheist doesnt need to jump hoops in finding out if Christians actually believe Moses parted the read sea or if it's metaphor.

It's not just Christianity, of course. Just many atheist have Christian bias good or bad and that (not just religious claims) can influence why the debate doesnt go anywhere but to "does god exist".

Nice reubuttal.