Religion?

[Chapuunka]

But you can believe it. You are forgetting that religious views are a personal choice, not yours, not the government's (as far as the US is concerned). You don't have to tell people not to believe in what they believe. And you really don't have to argue about it. As long as a person means no harm(and sometimes that isn't the case) they can believe what they want.

But there's no point in arbitrarily believing in something that you don't think is true.

 

[ZamHalen]

But there's no point in arbitrarily believing in something that you don't think is true.

Exactly, my point is if you believe its true then you're free to believe that no one has authority to tell that what you believe in religion-wise is wrong.

 

[shelley]

Another off topic thing...

Why is Non-Christians celebrate Christmas?

Because I'm not going to complain when the state gives me time off from work. What we know as "Christmas" today has plenty of secular traditions to observe anyway. The birth of Christ is only one part of the holiday.

But you can believe it. You are forgetting that religious views are a personal choice, not yours, not the government's (as far as the US is concerned). You don't have to tell people not to believe in what they believe. And you really don't have to argue about it. As long as a person means no harm(and sometimes that isn't the case) they can believe what they want.

If it's just a personal choice for people I can respect that. What I have a problem with is when people make decisions as if that personal choice were absolute truth, especially when those decisions affect other people. The argument against marriage equality in the US, for example, is nothing but a religious one.

 

[ZamHalen]

^You know most questions like that are already answered just google them.

 

[Weston]

Its obviously the case that you "can" believe it. I'm not saying that you can't believe it. I'm saying that you shouldn't. It's unreasonable and arbitrary. By that logic you would have to believe in literally everything conceivable.

And what? I didn't start with "in my opinion."

 

[AgentKuo]

Its obviously the case that you "can" believe it. I'm not saying that you can't believe it. I'm saying that you shouldn't. It's unreasonable and arbitrary. By that logic you would have to believe in literally everything conceivable.

And what? I didn't start with "in my opinion."

But you might as well have. Your argument was based on your opinion. Opinion is subjective.

You should disbelieve a claim until you have compelling evidence to support it.

This is opinion. I agree with it, but it is still your opinion.

 

[JonnyWhoopes]

I feel this whole thread would move much more smoothly if both sides of this meaningless argument would stop attacking straw men.

 

[ZamHalen]

Its obviously the case that you "can" believe it. I'm not saying that you can't believe it. I'm saying that you shouldn't. It's unreasonable and arbitrary. By that logic you would have to believe in literally everything conceivable.

Why not?Is it truthfully harmful in most cases (most is the keyword)?If anything to some it's supportive. So, why not?

 

[Weston]

But you might as well have. Your argument was based on your opinion. Opinion is subjective.


This is opinion. I agree with it, but it is still your opinion.

What I essentially said was that it is more reasonable to believe something if you have evidence for it than to believe something if you don't have evidence. That's not an opinion.

Why not?Is it truthfully harmful in most cases (most is the keyword)?If anything to some it's supportive. So, why not?

Yes, believing in things that you have no evidence for is harmful in most cases.

Some people find alcohol supportive too. That doesn't mean its good to drink alcohol.

 

[zmikecuber]

Note that most atheists were once fully apart of a religion. Many atheists actually became atheists after learning more about their religion. One of my favorite atheists, Matt Dillahunty, was actually studying to become a minister when he became atheist.

religious people becoming atheists does not prove atheism. it may give it more credibility, but it doesnt prove atheism. just clarifying.

hence, people going from atheism to Christianity, Islam, etc. etc. does not prove that religion. it may give it more credibility, but it does not prove it.

its the reason WHY they changed their beliefs that is important.

Just to clarify, the entire questionnaire can be found here: http://pewforum.org/uploadedFiles/Topics/Belief_and_Practices/religious-knowledge-questionnaire.pdf.

those questions were very basic. perhaps atheists have a broader view of religions, but that individual survey did not go into any of the religions deeply at all. it was just general knowledge of some names of stuff etc. etc.

for example... that survey did not go into the reason WHY religions believe what they believe... I wonder how atheists would do on... say the Biblical and Traditional references as to why Catholics believe in the Eucharist. or about Jihad in Islam.

 

[Weston]

religious people becoming atheists does not prove atheism. it may give it more credibility, but it doesnt prove atheism. just clarifying.

hence, people going from atheism to Christianity, Islam, etc. etc. does not prove that religion. it may give it more credibility, but it does not prove it.



those questions were very basic. perhaps atheists have a broader view of religions, but that individual survey did not go into any of the religions deeply at all. it was just general knowledge of some names of stuff etc. etc.

for example... that survey did not go into the reason WHY religions believe what they believe... I wonder how atheists would do on... say the Biblical and Traditional references as to why Catholics believe in the Eucharist. or about Jihad in Islam.

Atheism doesn't need any proving.

I was a Christian for 14 years, so I have a pretty good understanding of Christianity.

 

[EnterPseudonym]

You atheists are gonna feel stupid when you end up in hell with the blacks and homosexuals.

What about the jews?

 

[zmikecuber]

Atheism doesn't need any proving..

thats why its so easy to be an atheist.

You atheists are gonna feel stupid when you end up in hell with the blacks and homosexuals.

Nobody said that. Least I sure didnt.

 

[ZamHalen]

Yes, believing in things that you have no evidence for is harmful in most cases.

Some people find alcohol supportive too. That doesn't mean its good to drink alcohol.

Explain how religion is 100% dangerous in the modern age (I'm not talking extremists I mean the every day guy from your school who sat next to you in physics). What are we going to do pray you to death (I honestly don't even think that's allowed)? Modern day, "real" religious leaders truthfully don't have access to actual armies (again, extremists in any religion have been misguided, therefore don't count) so what is there to worry about. If your referring to control over the followers then that's very vague as many that claim to follow don't follow as devoutly as others so there's no true threat in that. Or are you one of the *******s who claims religion creates *****s, because if that's so I must argue that a good majority of the atheists I've met IRL are in fact some of the dumbest and illogical people I know (I mean in terms of everything outside of religion as I don't judge based on philosophies NOTE:This is not a generalization just what I've personally seen). Now as far as your alcohol argument goes, the general consensus is that it is in fact harmful in large use just as anything else is.

 

[EnterPseudonym]

Assuming String theory is true, then could any atheist here stay an atheist?

What I'm getting at is that we're 3 dimensional beings. Wouldn't that imply that we have 3 dimensional logic? If that is true, and String theory is true, you have a incomplete logical process. So would you still be an atheist even with an incomplete logical process?

 

[Hershey]

Making people believe in things without evidence is harmful for us humans.
Making people close minded is harmful.
Telling young kids that they will burn in hell for all eternity if they don't follow Christianity is harmful.
Choosing faith (believing in something without evidence) over science and knowledge is harmful.

There are many more, a lot of examples are talked about in this 48 min long video.

Assuming String theory is true, then could any atheist here stay an atheist?

What I'm getting at is that we're 3 dimensional beings. Wouldn't that imply that we have 3 dimensional logic? If that is true, and String theory is true, you have a incomplete logical process. So would you still be an atheist even with an incomplete logical process?

Would you still be religious if you knew we had an incomplete logical process? Just because you don't know something, does not mean you can keep playing this stupid guessing game of all these religions around the world.

 

[zmikecuber]

Somebody please prove that God doesnt exist, and prove St. Thomas Aquinas wrong.

 

[Kirjava]

Nobody said that.

I'm pretty sure that I just said that.

 

[PatrickJameson]

religious people becoming atheists does not prove atheism. it may give it more credibility, but it doesnt prove atheism. just clarifying.

hence, people going from atheism to Christianity, Islam, etc. etc. does not prove that religion. it may give it more credibility, but it does not prove it.

its the reason WHY they changed their beliefs that is important.


those questions were very basic. perhaps atheists have a broader view of religions, but that individual survey did not go into any of the religions deeply at all. it was just general knowledge of some names of stuff etc. etc.

for example... that survey did not go into the reason WHY religions believe what they believe... I wonder how atheists would do on... say the Biblical and Traditional references as to why Catholics believe in the Eucharist. or about Jihad in Islam.

I agree that the reason why people changed their beliefs is important. And I also agree that this survey shows that atheists have a broader view of religions. But shouldn't everyone have a broad view of religions? Without a broad view, how do you know your religion is correct? (I'd like to know your personal answer to this).

One of the main reasons I stopped believing in a god was due to the extremely large number of religions out there. With this many religions, each of which have members who have a belief that is just as strong as members from other religions, how is it possible to know which is correct?

In fact, just about every religious person has adopted their current religion because they were brought up with that belief. If you were brought up in the middle east, you would most likely be Muslim. If you were brought up in Ancient Greece, you would be under Zeus. In China, you would most likely be Buddhist. Are you an exception? Why did you ultimately choose your religion?

 

[ZamHalen]

Choosing faith (believing in something without evidence) over science and knowledge is harmful.

You and others rely to much on this "choice" when you argue. What if there is no choice and both are used. Where does your argument over harm go now?