Religions - Your Opinion

[Zargabaath]

What I find amusing is how seriously athiests will oppose religion, even though they themselves can't disprove religion. Or can they? Someone show me the proof and I won't post here again.

This is like the agnostics's view of something: I can't prove that it is true but you can't prove that it is false so the only proper conclusion is: no one knows and no one can know one way or the other. There are a few problems with that logic.

1.) The user allows the arbitrary into the realm of human cognition; they treat arbitrary claims as ideas proper to consider, discuss, evaluate - then says "I don't know," instead of dismissing the arbitrary out of hand.

2.) The onus-of-proof issus: a person demands proof of a negative in a context where there is no evidence for the postive. "It is up to you," they say, "to prove that a higher power or the 12th moon of Saturn did not cause "x" ".

3.) The person would say, "Mabye these things will one day be proved." In other words, they assert possibilities or hypotheses without a jot of evidential basis.

This logic treats the arbitrary claims as meriting cognitive consideration and epistemological respect; the arbitrary on par with the rational and evidentially supported. This is the ultimate epistemological egalitarian: it equates the groundless and the proved.

Evolution is a "scientific theory"? Hahahahahahahahah.

Evolutionism (including "big bang"): Let's see ... cause? Check. Nature? Check. Purpose? Nope, not really, unless you count "continuing". Especially if the universe is considered as the creation of a superhuman agency? Well, let's see, both Evolutionism and the Big Bang would have had to break multiple laws of nature, so whatever made them happen had to have some supernatural abilities, so check. Moral code? Nah, not really. So yeah, Evolutionism fits the bill of a religion.

As Govinda said before, it is a theory not a scientific law which are different. Evolutionism is a hypothesis to how things happened; currently I would presume it is the most favored hyphotheis in the realm of science. They do not claim it to be factual but that there is proof, but not 100%, that it is factual - hence a theory.

Religion on the other hand, while a philosophical theory, tends to hold itself as 100% correct which is different from how a scientific theory is held - remember theory being the key word.

Those who believe Evolutionism are either ignorant or arrogant. Now, I'll give some a break -- a lot of people are ignorant, they don't really know the truth, only what public schools have forced down their throats their entire lives. But all too many others are just arrogant about it -- either they know better and refuse to believe it, or they don't know better and refuse to learn.

I found that first sentece ignorant and arrogant; you are dismissing a scientific theory for an arbitrary claim of a higher power or whatever substitue that cannot be proven. What is "the truth"? The school teaches them science. Evolutionsim is a scientific theory. Thus it is not unreasonable or irrational for schools to teach about evolutionsim. Religion or philosophy, as far as I know, tends not to be taught in lower level schooling.

Actually, if the two sides are "a higher power exists" and "no higher power exists", the burden would be on those who deny the existence of a higher power, seeing as a belief in a higher power has been held by more people since the beginning of time.

First off, just because more people have held that certain view since the beginning of time does not make the exempt from prooving their view. This is also a case where the negative nor the positive cannot be proven, yet you believe that an arbitrary claim - a belief - must be disproven. There is no evidence for the belief so how can your disprove that which does not have proof to begin with?

Actually, the "trend" would be Atheism.

I do find that atheism is becoming or is a trend. I think my biggest gripe is that those who follow this trend lack or really don't say what their moral code is; a moral code is not just limited to religion. If people, probably geared towards the younger atheists, would at the same time elaborate their moral code then I would not feel so discomforted.

And a note about athiests who try to shove their views down other people's throats: they are, in a word, hypocrites. They fall into the trap of believing in not believing in anything, which is a pile of shit. They follow pedagogues and ****wits like Richard Dawkins and always assume intellectual superiority. I don't like them.

A bit presumptuous don't you think. Since Richard Dawkins has been mentioned I have wanted to read his books, however, I don't look to him as an atheist leader if anything he gives atheists a bad name.

Because I'm already in a really bad mood, and don't have time to go through the last page of posts I'm gonna start with this little bit. There's many ways to interpret the Bible, or any other holy book, so why do you choose the most outlandish things possible? Do you not suppose that perhaps those stories could be meant to be taken as allegory? The same goes for the creation myth in Genesis, if taken as allegory, with the assumption that days could mean any amount of time (since this all occured before humans existed, and any god would exist on another plane of time/space, it's not all that far-fetched.

The bible is the word of God. God is infallible. The Word is God. The Word is infallible. I find it funny when christians try to change some of the teachings in the bible i.e., don't eat some seafood, pig (I forget which book listed what was considered vile or unclean), anyhuma what they are doing is going against God and saying that God is wrong. Good luck to those who do so.

I love it when Evolutionists get outraged at Creation because it doesn't explain exactly how something happened, but through supernatural powers of a supernatural being ... then sit back and relax in their belief in supernatural powers of nature.

Creationism is taken as factual to those who hold that view; Evolutionsim is taken as a theory - a hyphothesis. One claims "j" to be true while the other claims that "q" maybe true but that it is not definitive to say it is factual.

And if bad things are done because people turn away from God, that's God's fault? Is every bad person -- drug dealers, rapists, murderers, child molesters, etc. -- the fault of their parents? Surely, no parent would let their child grow up to be a child molester, right? So the bad guy had to, somewhere down the road, turn away from what his parents taught him. Whose fault is that?

I'm definitely for people taking responsibility in an era where people love to redirect blame or excuse blame (psychologizing), however, one thing that really grinds my gears is when christians say: when something bad happens it is the person's fault, but when something good happens it is due to God. The message that sends is that humanity can never do good without God's help but they sure can do evil - that humanity is inherintly evil (alla Original Sin which I have major problems with). If God is not blamed for when things go south so should he not be credited when things go well; though sometimes people say that God has a big plan as to why something bad happened to "you". All I have to say is from a non-personal stance: thanks God (who is an arbitrary figure) for having that one dude rape me, I appreciate it very much and the lesson I will learn will totally overshadow the pain and suffering I experienced during that horrendous experience and the time after.

Translation: Do not kill, do not rape, do not steal. These are principles which every man of every faith can embrace."

If only people of faith actually followed their faith's tennets and that all people followed those basic principles.






That's all for now. I probably forget some thought but that's ok, I'm sure I'll respond or add to this later. May peace favor your sword Mortals.