Religion is Unfounded.

[Greater Phenia]

You cannot say that religion is unfounded when the alternative scientific reasoning requires just as much faith in the unknown.

Scientific is not "the alternative" to religion.

"Scientific reasoning" does not require "faith in the unknown."

Everything needs a beggining and at least the various religions provide some explanation for the beggining of the universe by means of a supreme being.

A completely illogical explanation. If everything needs a beginning, that includes your supreme being too. And if your supreme being requires no beginning, then "everything needs a beginning" is a demonstratively false statement.

Science on the other hand talks of 'the Big Bang', which goes some way into explaining the beginning but leaves more things left unanswered and is infact not actually a satisfactory explanation at all.

That it doesn't "satisfy" you is totally irrelevant. Science is not there to make you feel warm and fuzzy.

[Farchealion]

this arguement well go on forever! people will believe naturally that what was instilled in them in their youth is correct. in times of fear and sickness, people turn to a deity. people believe what they want to and tell others what they want to, but nobody knows until the day they die, and unfortunately the dead can't communicate.....

the point is, believe what makes you happy.

[Staenwald]

I don't see the point of all these Religion threads.
We all live in Democratic Nations, with Democratic upbringings. Why do we need to interfere with other peoples lives?
If i want to believe in God, then i shall do so, and anyone one else can take a hike. I understand that with Democracy comes the freedom of speech and argument, but come on! This must be the 50th "Religion is Bad" (Generalization) thread that i have seen. So i say again: Let those who want to believe do their thing, and vice verse to the Non-Believers.
What's more annoying is that people take scientific fact and then try to apply it to faith. If you want to know how faith and science are similar, think of it in this sense:
Science founds out why something occurs.
Faith respects the fact that it happens.
So for f*ck's sake, people, let those who want to believe believe and let the non-believers not believe. No one can tell you don't do it, and if someone does, tell them to take a hike, and put this thought in your head:"So he said".

A domocratic nation is one is which the majority of people are legally permitted to have rule over the minority- on all areas of society. Since there is no evidence that god exists- and since it hasn't been proven the a god doesnt exist (even thought it's more than likely there isn't), it means that we should leave the risk of belief in religion solely up to the individual. this means that religion- or atheism should be separate from the state and it should have no involvement in that sphere whatsoever. However this idea is only possible in a republic- in which a written constitution containing the rights of ALL people on equal terms, (theoretically at least) limit the function of government regardless on the views of the voters. A larger groups of oeople should not be able vote to impose it's beliefs on others, steal their earned property, determine what is the good and the bad and then force it upon others- if it is not in accordance with individual rights.

[Arkinesia]

How do we know we are real?

"Cogito ergo sum" - René Descartes

Already told you why that doesn't work, Descartes was a deist and said that assuming that men had souls.

Try again.

[Muravyets]

But still nonsensical.

Not really. You can't just point to a lack of evidence against something to create it as a possibility. There has to be something to go on. We can't just grant the benefit of the doubt to every notion someone farts out. If there is no reason other than dogged insistence and a 'lack of evidence against' there isn't any reason to give the idea the time of day. If there is to be a grand 'creator' of the universe who is or was vested in the activities of our lives there should be some manner of footprint that should be noticeable. As Free Soviets pointed out, 'god' was all about showing himself, sending messengers, turning fools to salt, and now he's coy? The fact of the matter is that the inability to find something other than an old book and a guy with a goofy hat that insists its all true is enough to dismiss the idea out of hand as you would my oft mentioned rabbit or Russel's lost china.

No, that specific statement from that specific writer WAS nonsensical, and here's why:

He used the words "should" and "good." There "should be" "good evidence." Bingo!

An unknown factor is replaced by a personal and arbitrary preference. His entire argument has been based on insisting on an objective standard by which to judge the validity of other people's personal experiences. Yet what is that standard? It consists exclusively of what he thinks should be, what he would accept as "good evidence," which in the case of religion is nothing. He can show us no existing standard of objective testing that is at all applicable or ever applied to religious or spiritual claims that is generally accepted by either science or philosophy. He has nothing. Everything he says about what he calls "objectivity" always comes down to what he thinks should be, and nothing else.

All we are dealing with here is FS's personal opinions and preferences regarding belief, and how is his opinion more valid than anyone else's in the world? News flash: It isn't.

He can present his opinion about what qualifies as rational or valid as if it is established fact all he likes, but that only transforms an opinion that he's entitled to have into bullshit. In fact, it makes the exact same kind of bullshit he accuses religion of.

The fact that he had to qualify his statement with that "where there should be evidence" remark proves that he has no foundation of fact for his denunciations of religion.

EDIT: Oh, and by the way, your defense of his self-serving nonsense is invalidated by its first two sentences:

"Not really. You can't just point to a lack of evidence against something to create it as a possibility. "

And you can't use it declare it impossible, either. This was followed by:

"There has to be something to go on. "

Why? That statement is nothing but an a priori assumption that is not universally accepted, thus it cannot serve as a basis on which to prove the point that is in contention. You can't invalidate one viewpoint simply by declaring another viewpoint you like better as a starting point.

Two invalid statements at the start render the rest of the paragraph moot.

[Muravyets]

- God does not exist until proven otherwise

That's a logical fallacy.

Has anyone noticed that?

Existence is not linked to proof. A murderer is 'innocent until proven guilty', regardless of whether they actually committed a crime.

Yes, that has been noticed. The people who declare themselves the rational and logical ones for "knowing" there is no such thing as a god despite not being able to prove it respond to that by declaring it to be untrue on the grounds that their argument is the logical one, which apparently is supposed to guarantee that it can't be illogical. So any observation that it contains logical fallacies must be definitionally wrong. Because those who argue for the possibility of gods are the only ones depending on arbitrary, unfounded declarations. Supposedly.

[Muravyets]

Surprisingly few people try to tell me how I should live my life based on a Dali painting, or a Broadway show, or a Frost poem.

Clearly, you don't hang out with artists or writers. Trust me, they all have very strong opinions about how you should be living and will be very happy to tell you about them, if you're paying for the beer.

And you may debate the meaning of art, but its existence is well established.
The same can be said of religion but not god.
The absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence, but shouldn't it give you pause before trying to sell it to or force it on strangers?

Absolutely. But of course, the arguments herein against religion are not saying that evangelism is wrongheaded. No, they are arguing that religious belief itself is wrong (and describing that wrongness with a whole catalogue of insults against people who disagree), and the basis of their argument is one of the most obvious logical fallacies I've ever seen.

[Esternial]

This debate is an endless game of football with no commentator to give you the facts.

[Marffyland]

You cannot say that religion is unfounded when the alternative scientific reasoning requires just as much faith in the unknown.

Scientific is not "the alternative" to religion.

"Scientific reasoning" does not require "faith in the unknown."

Everything needs a beggining and at least the various religions provide some explanation for the beggining of the universe by means of a supreme being.

A completely illogical explanation. If everything needs a beginning, that includes your supreme being too. And if your supreme being requires no beginning, then "everything needs a beginning" is a demonstratively false statement.

Science on the other hand talks of 'the Big Bang', which goes some way into explaining the beginning but leaves more things left unanswered and is infact not actually a satisfactory explanation at all.

That it doesn't "satisfy" you is totally irrelevant. Science is not there to make you feel warm and fuzzy.

At the moment, scientific reasoning does require faith in the unknown, many of the 'laws' that govern everyday life have anomalies that have yet to be explained. Until those things are explained then we cannot know for sure wether what we know is actually true or just happens to apply a lot of the time. I believe that scientific reasoning can be used for a lot of what we know, but for where it starts to become inadequate to explain things then religion should take over. I agree that religion is not the alternative to science, I think that science governs the laws of everything we see and that religion governs the laws of science.

Religion says that the supreme being was there since the beginning, the moment it came into being was the beginning. It therefore had a beginning. Science says that there must have been a beginning but cant provide one. If the big bang happened what caused it? If something caused it where did that come from? Im not saying that science is wrong, I am just pointing out that until science has further proof then it is just as unfounded as religion.

[Free Soviets]

The fact that he had to qualify his statement with that "where there should be evidence" remark proves that he has no foundation of fact for his denunciations of religion.

there should be evidence. the vast majority of all religions ever claim so. likewise for alleged revelations from the divine. the 'should' here is a logical necessity, not a wish. if x were true, y would be the case.

i know this is uncomfortable, since the y's are so manifestly not the case, but thems the fucking breaks.

[Cannot think of a name]

Not really. You can't just point to a lack of evidence against something to create it as a possibility. There has to be something to go on. We can't just grant the benefit of the doubt to every notion someone farts out. If there is no reason other than dogged insistence and a 'lack of evidence against' there isn't any reason to give the idea the time of day. If there is to be a grand 'creator' of the universe who is or was vested in the activities of our lives there should be some manner of footprint that should be noticeable. As Free Soviets pointed out, 'god' was all about showing himself, sending messengers, turning fools to salt, and now he's coy? The fact of the matter is that the inability to find something other than an old book and a guy with a goofy hat that insists its all true is enough to dismiss the idea out of hand as you would my oft mentioned rabbit or Russel's lost china.

No, that specific statement from that specific writer WAS nonsensical, and here's why:

He used the words "should" and "good." There "should be" "good evidence." Bingo!

An unknown factor is replaced by a personal and arbitrary preference. His entire argument has been based on insisting on an objective standard by which to judge the validity of other people's personal experiences. Yet what is that standard? It consists exclusively of what he thinks should be, what he would accept as "good evidence," which in the case of religion is nothing. He can show us no existing standard of objective testing that is at all applicable or ever applied to religious or spiritual claims that is generally accepted by either science or philosophy. He has nothing. Everything he says about what he calls "objectivity" always comes down to what he thinks should be, and nothing else.

All we are dealing with here is FS's personal opinions and preferences regarding belief, and how is his opinion more valid than anyone else's in the world? News flash: It isn't.

He can present his opinion about what qualifies as rational or valid as if it is established fact all he likes, but that only transforms an opinion that he's entitled to have into bullshit. In fact, it makes the exact same kind of bullshit he accuses religion of.

The fact that he had to qualify his statement with that "where there should be evidence" remark proves that he has no foundation of fact for his denunciations of religion.

EDIT: Oh, and by the way, your defense of his self-serving nonsense is invalidated by its first two sentences:

"Not really. You can't just point to a lack of evidence against something to create it as a possibility. "

And you can't use it declare it impossible, either. This was followed by:

"There has to be something to go on. "

Why? That statement is nothing but an a priori assumption that is not universally accepted, thus it cannot serve as a basis on which to prove the point that is in contention. You can't invalidate one viewpoint simply by declaring another viewpoint you like better as a starting point.

Two invalid statements at the start render the rest of the paragraph moot.

What unmitigated horseshit. I mean seriously. Stretch Armstrong would walk away from that.

Evidence is not a matter of opinion. I'm sorry, but if we wash out definitions to the level you've had to in order to make this make the remotest amount of sense then nothing is anything. It's not 'arbitrary' as you like to paint it and there is a universally acceptable standard--observable and repeatable. You know, scientific method and all that nonsense?

What is arbitrary is just taking every gibbering nut job at his word that there is some sky ghost micromanaging our lives or shoving around molecules and 'testing' us or whatever other crap people want to believe without founding it on something other than the voices in their head.

Here's the deal--in the long, long, long history of shit we didn't know how they worked and later found out, 'magic' hasn't been the answer once. Not once.* In the interim we have made massive inroads on how the human brain works, that in order to process the amount of information our senses pour in at a regular basis our brain makes quick and sometimes massive assumptions, and we have even learned to fuck with that with optical and aural illusions. And that this shit is a delicate balance that if fucked up can convince us of some shit is not there.

Now, we can ignore all of that and pretend that somehow, after all this time, magic is due. And that guy who thinks he's Abe Lincoln is coo coo for Coco Puffs but that other guy that things 'God is telling him to convert the heathens' should be given the 'benefit of the doubt.' Or even a more one to one comparison, the Son of Sam is crazy for hearing god's voice from his neighbor's dog telling him to kill is crazy, but the Pope telling an already over-populated poverty stricken Latin American community that condoms are bad, well we can't prove he didn't hear the voice so I guess we give him the same credence we'd give someone who can show, explain, and repeat his results? Bull-fucking-shit.

Yes, absolutely you can decide that you operate on your own, customized criteria. But don't start trying to pretend that we're all operating on that same level or expect to get the same consideration. Just philosophically declaring that 'spirituality' and 'religion' operate on their own level with their own criteria doesn't validate them. Rather does the opposite.


*Yes yes, we've all heard the quote that sufficiently enough advanced science would be indistinguishable from magic...it doesn't mean what you want it to mean. A computer would be indistinguishable from magic to a medieval peasant but we know that it's just a bunch of math and electricity. And I swear to god I'll cut the first computer nerd that wants to correct that characterization...

[Ashmoria]

The fact that he had to qualify his statement with that "where there should be evidence" remark proves that he has no foundation of fact for his denunciations of religion.

there should be evidence. the vast majority of all religions ever claim so. likewise for alleged revelations from the divine. the 'should' here is a logical necessity, not a wish. if x were true, y would be the case.

i know this is uncomfortable, since the y's are so manifestly not the case, but thems the fucking breaks.

in many ways the problem is not lack of proof, its lack of definition.

in times way past the proof of god was in the thunder and lightning he sent, the unwinnable battles that got won, the sicknesses cured.

today we know too much to find that as proof so the goalposts are constantly moved until proof of god would be proof of the nonexistence of god (douglas adams, eh?)

[Greater Phenia]

At the moment, scientific reasoning does require faith in the unknown, many of the 'laws' that govern everyday life have anomalies that have yet to be explained.

Unknown =/= faith required.

Science says that there must have been a beginning but cant provide one.

That is not what science "says." You're attributing an argument's origin to a concept. I mean does science have other qualities, besides being able to say things? Does it have a favorite breakfast cereal too?

If the big bang happened what caused it? If something caused it where did that come from? Im not saying that science is wrong, I am just pointing out that until science has further proof then it is just as unfounded as religion.

You're saying that, but you're still wrong. Science doesn't have all the answers. Big deal, that doesn't in any way mean it's "unfounded."

[Esternial]

there should be evidence. the vast majority of all religions ever claim so. likewise for alleged revelations from the divine. the 'should' here is a logical necessity, not a wish. if x were true, y would be the case.

i know this is uncomfortable, since the y's are so manifestly not the case, but thems the fucking breaks.

in many ways the problem is not lack of proof, its lack of definition.
in times way past the proof of god was in the thunder and lightning he sent, the unwinnable battles that got won, the sicknesses cured.
today we know too much to find that as proof so the goalposts are constantly moved until proof of god would be proof of the nonexistence of god (douglas adams, eh?)

The things we contribute to be divine are things we "cannot explain", God (or Gods) has always been a way to give meaning/definition to things we can't grasp or understand. We used to contribute a God to the sun, but now we know that there is no 'divine intervention' to make the sun rise. God in this day and age is a corpse, kept on his throne by religion so nobody finds out he actually died.

"Gods, too, decompose. God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him"
Friedrich Nietzsche

[Mad hatters in jeans]

This debate is an endless game of football with no commentator to give you the facts.

i can be commentator.

i see another post, oh look there's another post with more words.

hey did you see that one? had paragraphs and everything.

oh yep just as i expected another post.

I predict more posts, god damn i'm on a roll today!

[Muravyets]

No, that specific statement from that specific writer WAS nonsensical, and here's why:

He used the words "should" and "good." There "should be" "good evidence." Bingo!

An unknown factor is replaced by a personal and arbitrary preference. His entire argument has been based on insisting on an objective standard by which to judge the validity of other people's personal experiences. Yet what is that standard? It consists exclusively of what he thinks should be, what he would accept as "good evidence," which in the case of religion is nothing. He can show us no existing standard of objective testing that is at all applicable or ever applied to religious or spiritual claims that is generally accepted by either science or philosophy. He has nothing. Everything he says about what he calls "objectivity" always comes down to what he thinks should be, and nothing else.

All we are dealing with here is FS's personal opinions and preferences regarding belief, and how is his opinion more valid than anyone else's in the world? News flash: It isn't.

He can present his opinion about what qualifies as rational or valid as if it is established fact all he likes, but that only transforms an opinion that he's entitled to have into bullshit. In fact, it makes the exact same kind of bullshit he accuses religion of.

The fact that he had to qualify his statement with that "where there should be evidence" remark proves that he has no foundation of fact for his denunciations of religion.

EDIT: Oh, and by the way, your defense of his self-serving nonsense is invalidated by its first two sentences:

"Not really. You can't just point to a lack of evidence against something to create it as a possibility. "

And you can't use it declare it impossible, either. This was followed by:

"There has to be something to go on. "

Why? That statement is nothing but an a priori assumption that is not universally accepted, thus it cannot serve as a basis on which to prove the point that is in contention. You can't invalidate one viewpoint simply by declaring another viewpoint you like better as a starting point.

Two invalid statements at the start render the rest of the paragraph moot.

What unmitigated horseshit. I mean seriously. Stretch Armstrong would walk away from that.

Evidence is not a matter of opinion. <snip>

And once again you invalidate your own argument in your early words. As soon as you get some evidence for your claims of fact, or as soon as you stop making claims of fact about god(s), you can legitimately criticize religious people for doing the same. Until then, thanks for playing.

[New Heliopolis]

How exactly can one falsify something with an inability to call forth evidence that isn't questionable by virtue of the exact question being asked?

What?

All claims for or against perception are perceived.

Though now that I think about it, iin one of those instances (at least) perception is proven right. But we know from the fact that perceptions differ means this isn't always the case.

[Buffett and Colbert]

This should be a fount of profound, thoughtful, and insightful dialog filled with mutual respect and intellectual curiosity.

You have a twisted sense of humour.

[Meldaria]

Is there a shred of empirical evidence that proves there is no deity?

If religion is unfounded, so is atheism. You can't prove anything one way or the other.

Certainly, then, you accept without reservation that I have a six foot tall invisible bunny that follows me around and gives me advice and ridicule anyone who suggests that Harvey doesn't exist.

Well Donnie, I'm pretty sure the rabbit's name is Frank, and he's only invisible to others, not you.

[Mike the Progressive]

This should be a fount of profound, thoughtful, and insightful dialog filled with mutual respect and intellectual curiosity.

You're so silly!

[Arilando]

It is true, there is no evidence of religion being true.

[Bottle]

At the moment, scientific reasoning does require faith in the unknown, many of the 'laws' that govern everyday life have anomalies that have yet to be explained.

Science does not require faith in any such laws. Science actually REQUIRES that we test unknowns, or at least address them in the discussions of our papers.

I believe that scientific reasoning can be used for a lot of what we know, but for where it starts to become inadequate to explain things then religion should take over.

Like what? What can religion explain which science cannot?

Religion says that the supreme being was there since the beginning, the moment it came into being was the beginning. It therefore had a beginning. Science says that there must have been a beginning but cant provide one.

So religion makes a claim and provides no evidence to support it, while science proposes one possible answer among many and admits that the evidence is not yet complete enough for us to know the correct answer...and you think this is a mark in FAVOR of religion?

If the big bang happened what caused it? If something caused it where did that come from? Im not saying that science is wrong, I am just pointing out that until science has further proof then it is just as unfounded as religion.

What you're doing is demonstrating the woeful state of science education. You don't even seem to have a basic working understanding of what science is, yet you've been taught to treat it with contempt. Disgraceful.

[Rambhutan]

Never having been a part of any religion or raised with one, I am guessing from the frequency that certain lines like "what caused the Big Bang" turn up, that children with religious upbringings are coached with various pat lines to trot out when their faith is challenged? They certainly seem to be regurgitated whole without any sign of having been examined critically.

[North Suran]

Was there empirical evidence for the earth being round in the 1500's? Et. al through examples.

Yes. The earth didn't just become round one day.

Except we could not prove the Earth was round. Just as now, we cannot disprove or prove the existence of a deity.

In other words, you're arguing from ignorance.

[North Suran]

This should be a fount of profound, thoughtful, and insightful dialog filled with mutual respect and intellectual curiosity.

You have a twisted sense of humour.

What is the point of this thread, anyway?

We can pretty much split the response into two groups - atheists and theists - who will never, ever change their outlook, regardless of what the other group says. The opening statement itself isn't some profound new argument - it is blatant and trite. As such, this is essentially just masturbation.