Religion?

What are your views on religion?


  • Total voters
    225
Status
Not open for further replies.
BTW the rape punishment is an interesting idea, though it may cause polygamy which by most modern standards is bad.

You can't be serious... Think about what the woman is going through! I actually feel a bit sick now, so much for your apparently superior morality.

I seriously cannot take you or any of your points seriously now after that display of an utter lack of empathy.
 
Last edited:
Zam what are you talking about? He's referencing parts of the bible that are interpreted to mean that raping a virgin is akin to marrying them. How did you interpret it?

*I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here*
 
BTW the rape punishment is an interesting idea, though it may cause polygamy which by most modern standards is bad.

What the actual frak are you even saying? Have you considered the ramifications of that? Have you no decency?

I can't take you seriously as a debater or as a person anymore.
 
did anybody even read this?

Objection 1. It seems that God does not exist; because if one of two contraries be infinite, the other would be altogether destroyed. But the word "God" means that He is infinite goodness. If, therefore, God existed, there would be no evil discoverable; but there is evil in the world. Therefore God does not exist.

Objection 2. Further, it is superfluous to suppose that what can be accounted for by a few principles has been produced by many. But it seems that everything we see in the world can be accounted for by other principles, supposing God did not exist. For all natural things can be reduced to one principle which is nature; and all voluntary things can be reduced to one principle which is human reason, or will. Therefore there is no need to suppose God's existence.

On the contrary, It is said in the person of God: "I am Who am." (Exodus 3:14)

I answer that, The existence of God can be proved in five ways.

The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.

The second way is from the nature of the efficient cause. In the world of sense we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause, and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate cause, whether the intermediate cause be several, or only one. Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.

The third way is taken from possibility and necessity, and runs thus. We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, since they are found to be generated, and to corrupt, and consequently, they are possible to be and not to be. But it is impossible for these always to exist, for that which is possible not to be at some time is not. Therefore, if everything is possible not to be, then at one time there could have been nothing in existence. Now if this were true, even now there would be nothing in existence, because that which does not exist only begins to exist by something already existing. Therefore, if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist; and thus even now nothing would be in existence — which is absurd. Therefore, not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist something the existence of which is necessary. But every necessary thing either has its necessity caused by another, or not. Now it is impossible to go on to infinity in necessary things which have their necessity caused by another, as has been already proved in regard to efficient causes. Therefore we cannot but postulate the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God.

The fourth way is taken from the gradation to be found in things. Among beings there are some more and some less good, true, noble and the like. But "more" and "less" are predicated of different things, according as they resemble in their different ways something which is the maximum, as a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest; so that there is something which is truest, something best, something noblest and, consequently, something which is uttermost being; for those things that are greatest in truth are greatest in being, as it is written in Metaph. ii. Now the maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus; as fire, which is the maximum heat, is the cause of all hot things. Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God.

The fifth way is taken from the governance of the world. We see that things which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that not fortuitously, but designedly, do they achieve their end. Now whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.

Reply to Objection 1. As Augustine says (Enchiridion xi): "Since God is the highest good, He would not allow any evil to exist in His works, unless His omnipotence and goodness were such as to bring good even out of evil." This is part of the infinite goodness of God, that He should allow evil to exist, and out of it produce good.

Reply to Objection 2. Since nature works for a determinate end under the direction of a higher agent, whatever is done by nature must needs be traced back to God, as to its first cause. So also whatever is done voluntarily must also be traced back to some higher cause other than human reason or will, since these can change or fail; for all things that are changeable and capable of defect must be traced back to an immovable and self-necessary first principle, as was shown in the body of the Article.

I was hoping there was more to this text than what Weston said, but he was right. This is mostly, "we don't know so it must be god". I think we can both agree that this is not a good reason to believe in a god as throughout history, an extremely large number of natural events that were attributed to a god have been proven not to be.

Also, I linked to this video before, but it actually goes beyond what I meant it to be for and goes into what I've brought up before about how there are quite a few different religions.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Excellent video Patrick, thanks for sharing. That poor caller actually thought he was prepared to defend himself against a clearly superior opponent. :P
 
What the actual frak are you even saying? Have you considered the ramifications of that? Have you no decency?

I can't take you seriously as a debater or as a person anymore.


You can't be serious... Think about what the woman is going through! I actually feel a bit sick now, so much for your apparently superior morality.

I seriously cannot take you or any of your points seriously now after that display of an utter lack of empathy.
Who are you to make a criteria for empathy.


While I can disagree with his viewpoints on this matter, It shouldn't be an excuse to become closeminded about the other points that he brings up. Just because a person believes one thing about a unrelated subject (for the most part) doesn't make his previous, or future points on different topics useless. That should be determined on related evidence and arguments.

A bit curious as to what he would say on the "teapot in between earth and mars".


-Goodnight for now *tips hat and walks away*
 
Who are you to make a criteria for empathy.


While I can disagree with his viewpoints on this matter, It shouldn't be an excuse to become closeminded about the other points that he brings up. Just because a person believes one thing about a unrelated subject (for the most part) doesn't make his previous, or future points on different topics useless. That should be determined on related evidence and arguments.

A bit curious as to what he would say on the "teapot in between earth and mars".


-Goodnight for now *tips hat and walks away*

I don't need an excuse to disregard the other arguments he brings up, seeing as he has failed to present a single viable one.

*walks away from the explosion, doesn't look back*
 
Just so people know, the marry/rape law was written for a culture where if a woman was raped (or 'allowed' herself to be), she would be cast out as unclean and she would most likely starve to death and die on the streets. Having to marry the woman both dis-incentivised rapists and gave women some protection if they were raped.

See, the problem with the Bible is that it's very easy to take out of context. 'The Word of God' does not mean a collection of universalised laws, like so many people take it to be.
 
This seems like a fun topic to comment on. I don't have time to make a full comment right now, but maybe some other time, I'll totally comment on this. I hope my views on Christianity helps people understand Christianity a little bit better.

But let me at least get this out: I am a Christian. I belong to the Seventh-Day Adventist denomination.
 
BTW guys I was joking about the rape thing but got preoccupied.

Also can someone give me the verse we're referring to?

I like how you act like you've never seen it before. Deuteronomy 22:28-29

And yes, it was written for a culture very different from ours. Most of the Bible was written in a very different time, which means it's that much more irrelevant as a reference for our morals today.

Where do morals come from? Historically, a lot of it has been from religion, but that's just because religion is an easy way to impart morals to a population that isn't educated or literate. Where did religion come from? People. Say what you want about the Bible being the divine word of God, but humans wrote the Bible and all other holy works that dictate the morals of various religions. What does this mean? It means we made up our own morality: humans are inherently capable of morality without religion. Surely we've realized that by the 21st century.
 
Last edited:
I was hoping there was more to this text than what Weston said, but he was right. This is mostly, "we don't know so it must be god". I think we can both agree that this is not a good reason to believe in a god as throughout history, an extremely large number of natural events that were attributed to a god have been proven not to be.

Also, I linked to this video before, but it actually goes beyond what I meant it to be for and goes into what I've brought up before about how there are quite a few different religions.


sorry I forgot the link, Patrick... I posted it before. there is more to that text than what I copied and pasted. scroll down to article three, unless you want to read everything else. http://newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm

what else could it be? a thing? a self existent thing? O.o even if it is a self existent thing, or an energy, you should understand that THIS thing is what people worship and consider to be "God". (except some people who worship God have an idea of Him as being this man with a big long beard sitting in a cloud watching everybody on earth. *cough cough*)

what natural events which were attributed to God were proven not to be? can you give an example? say the parting of the red sea, they say it was a large wind. thats a big possibility, but what is the cause of that wind? ultimately everything goes back to cause.

unless you wanna deny that anything needs a cause. in that case, Im very afraid of turning on the faucet... I wonder what will come out. gee, that would be an interesting life...

the universe needs an ultimate cause. an uncaused cause. an unmoved mover. otherwise it could not be here. you get what I mean? maybe god was caused by a higher god, which was in turn caused by a higher god, et cetera. this could go on forever. its a logical and philosophical impossibility. it has to stop somewhere. just like this thread needs a cause for existence, or else it wouldnt be here. (ok maybe thats a bad analogy).

I didnt watch the video, because I dont have time at the moment, though I will watch it later.

Oh, and I give the most civilized, the most polite, and ultimately the most CONVINCING atheist award to Patrick Jameson! :) (if my opinion even means anything anymore...) haha

sorry for misquoting you. I wasnt thinking. I edited it though. ;)

and its... zmikecuber... not zmarkcuber. hehe ;)

any atheist interested in playing theist, and I will play atheist? heh heh.. Ive actually done that with friends before. its fun. xD

finally, I dont know how much I can post on this thread anymore. I kindof feel like we're going in circles at this point...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
If morals are subjective, who decides what they are?

Did you watch that video?
People decide their own morals... that should be obvious... some people think it's immoral to download music without paying for it... others have no problem with that. If there was a fixed set of morals there woudn't be such diversity. Sometimes moral groups are dictated by the society we are raised in... usually the laws are based off of these (note, laws in different countries are different). The few big ones, like you shouldn't kill people, you shouldn't hurt children... are kinda evolutionarily driven... if you kill your children, you're going to have a hard time passing your genes on. Some based on how you see society should work... if I don't steal from people, maybe they wont steal from me....
 
Godmill pretty much covered it, but I'm going to give my own personal response as well.
If morals are subjective, who decides what they are?
They're subjective because a single person doesn't decide what they are. It's usually a culture as a whole that comes up with a system of morals. (regardless, individuals within this culture will still probably differ in some of their morals.) There is not one set of morals that every culture (or every person) will agree with, because what we believe to be right or wrong is dependent on our own beliefs and upbringing.

TheraminTrees makes some excellent points about morals in his video series about the very subject:
(here is the first video in the series.)
[youtube]T7xt5LtgsxQ&feature=relmfu[/youtube]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top