Is Religion Good for the World?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
12-08-2012, 01:01 PM (This post was last modified: 12-08-2012 01:06 PM by Vosur.)
RE: Is Religion Good for the World?
(12-08-2012 12:29 PM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  I know you guys think it's cool to insist me to do something, and then if I don't right away, you call that avoiding, and then you cry victory. Whatever your method of getting euphoria, have fun with that Thumbsup

I'm going to answer loaded questions in whatever manner I choose to answer them.
If I don't feel like answering a question that deserves it's own Thread on a Thread about something else, then I'm not going to. You can wave the flag of victory all you want, I'll just enjoy some of that coffee you're on Drinking Beverage
And this is exactly why debating with theists is so tiresome. Is it too much to ask that you avoid using strawman arguments? It becomes old very quickly. At no point did I claim victory. At no point did I claim that you're avoiding my question. All I did was reminding you that the question I asked you earlier in this thread has yet to be answered.

Furthermore, you have no excuse for not having answered yet, because you replied to the post of Logica Humano in which he also asked you to name a religion that is based on compelling evidence. You replied to the second part of his posts, but ignored the first one containing the request. Do you want to claim that this was not intentional?

(12-08-2012 12:29 PM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  In the meantime, that question is not a sniper-one-sentence-answer question.
You know that - so you really don't care what my answer is. You're just flaunting a point around without wanting a real answer.
And here's the next logical fallacy, an ad hominem argument. Your accusations have no basis whatsoever. If I wasn't interested in the answer, I wouldn't have wasted the time and effort to ask you the question. My question still stands. You chose to reply to it by only saying "Yes" without being able to name an example.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-08-2012, 01:14 PM (This post was last modified: 12-08-2012 01:31 PM by fstratzero.)
RE: Is Religion Good for the World?
(12-08-2012 12:14 PM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  
(12-08-2012 06:23 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  Vosur is right. Name a religion that is founded on compelling evidence.

Additionally, we haven't proven religion wrong. Science has. That is why it is a delusion when people believe it.

Science has proven that God does not exist?
Show me this interesting exhaustive evidence! Shocking

Why do people continue to insist that we can prove that something without empirical qualities does not exist by empirical means?

Come on guys Dodgy

It cannot be disproven empirically but can be logically disproven.
SUMMARIES OF THE SIX ARGUMENTS

Argument 1: The Aggregate of Qualities Argument
1. If God exists, God must necessarily possess all of several remarkable qualities (including supreme goodness, omnipotence, immortality, omniscience, ultimate creator, purpose giver).
2. Every one of these qualities may not exist in any one entity and if any such quality does exist it exists in few entities or in some cases (e.g. omnipotence, ultimate creator) in at most one entity.
3. Therefore it is highly unlikely any entity would possess even one of these qualities.
4. There is an infinitesimal chance that any one entity (given the almost infinite number of entities in the Universe) might possess the combination of even some two of these qualities, let alone all of them.
5. In statistical analysis a merely hypothetical infinitesimal chance can in effect be treated as the no chance to which it approximates so very closely.
6. Therefore as there is statistically such an infinitesimal chance of any entity possessing, as God would have to do, all God's essential qualities in combination it can be said for all practical and statistical purposes that God just does not exist.

Argument 2: The Man And God Comprehension Gulf Argument
1. Man is finite (in time, space and power etc).
2. God if he exists is infinite (in time, space and power etc).
3. Therefore mankind cannot possibly recognise God or even know that God exists.

Argument 3: The ‘God Has No Explanatory Value' Argument
1. God if he exists must be the ultimate being and provide the answer to all our ultimate questions - otherwise he is not really God.
2. Yet even supposing as a hypothesis that God exists the questions that God was supposed to finally answer still remain (though in some cases God is substituted in the question for the Universe).
3. Therefore hypothesising God's existence is only unnecessarily adding an extra stage to such problems and has no real explanatory value.
4. Therefore according to Logic (Occam's Razor Law - ‘that entities are not to be multiplied beyond necessity') we should not postulate God's existence and there is no adequate reason to suppose that God exists.
5. Therefore we should suppose that God does not exist.

Argument 4: The ‘This Is Not The Best Possible World' Argument
1. God if he exists must be omnipotent, supremely good and our ultimate creator.
2. Therefore an existent God (being supremely good and competent) would have created the best possible world (if he created anything).
3. As the world is inconsistent (between ages and people) it cannot all be the best possible world.
4. Therefore as the world is not the best possible world, God cannot exist.

Argument 5: The Universal Uncertainty Argument
1. An uncertain God is a contradiction in terms.
2. Everything in the Universe must be fundamentally uncertain about its own relationship to the Universe as a whole because there is no way of attaining such certainty.
3. Therefore even an entity with all God's other qualities cannot have the final quality of certain knowledge concerning its own relationship to the Universe as a whole.
4. Therefore God cannot exist because even any potential God cannot know for sure that it is God.
Note: Stated as a logical paradox this argument is ‘God cannot exist because God cannot know for sure that it is God'.

Argument 6: The ‘Some Of God's Defining Qualities Cannot Exist' Argument
1. God must have certain characteristic qualities (such as providing purpose to life), otherwise he would not be God.
2. But it is impossible for any entity to possess some of these qualities (such as providing purpose to life since we can find no real purpose and therefore we in practice have no ultimate purpose to our lives) that are essential to God.
3. Therefore since some of God's essential qualities (such as being the purpose provider to life) cannot possibly exist in any entity, God cannot exist.

Also the benefits of knowledge with out invoking God includes...

Physics: the study of matter, energy, space and time.

Botany: the study of plants.

Chemistry: the study of reactions, creations, and binding of matter.

Mineralogy: The study of minerals such as their identification, and properties.

Biology: the study of living things.

Astronomy: the study of space.

Geology: the study of Earth and its components, e.g. soils, rocks, etc.

Microbiology: the study of microorganisms, e.g. bacteria and their effects on other living organisms.

Palaeontology: the study of prehistoric life through evidence provided by fossils.

Medicine: Diagnosis and treatment of disease and damage to the body.

Pathology: the study of diseases and their causes, processes, development, and consequences.

Linguistics: The study of language, its structure and phonetics.

Entomology: the study of insects.

Seismology: the study of earthquakes, their causes and measurement.

Forestry: The science of cultivating, maintaining, and developing forests.

Ichthyology: The study of fish

All of which has lead to the modern era. All of the discoveries made with out god. Not once has god randomly reviled a piece of scientific information that has benefited man kind. If you were a father wouldn't you want to show your children the best way to survive?

What has God done, other than have an obsession human behavior and acknowledgement of his existence, to determine who burns in hell forever or gets to go to heaven to be his personal worship slaves.

I can provide more evidence if you please.

Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes fstratzero's post
12-08-2012, 01:31 PM
RE: Is Religion Good for the World?
The problem of evil, the omnipotence paradox, natural disasters, evolution, and Biblical contradictions.

[Image: Untitled-2.png?_subject_uid=322943157&am...Y7Dzq4lJog]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Logica Humano's post
12-08-2012, 01:46 PM
RE: Is Religion Good for the World?
(12-08-2012 12:29 PM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  
(12-08-2012 12:18 PM)Vosur Wrote:  Really? Such a big strawman? Drinking Beverage

"Additionally, we haven't proven religion wrong. Science has."

Furthermore, I'm still waiting for you to answer my question. You claim that there is a religion that is based on compelling evidence, we're all waiting for you to name it.

I know you guys think it's cool to insist me to do something, and then if I don't right away, you call that avoiding, and then you cry victory. Whatever your method of getting euphoria, have fun with that Thumbsup

I'm going to answer loaded questions in whatever manner I choose to answer them.
If I don't feel like answering a question that deserves it's own Thread on a Thread about something else, then I'm not going to. You can wave the flag of victory all you want, I'll just enjoy some of that coffee you're on Drinking Beverage
In the meantime, that question is not a sniper-one-sentence-answer question.
You know that - so you really don't care what my answer is. You're just flaunting a point around without wanting a real answer.

Actually I'd be interested in the real answer. It's not about waving a banner.

Let us then endeavour to disperse those clouds of ignorance, those mists of darkness, which impede man on his journey, which obscure his progress, which prevent his marching through life with a firm steady grip. Let us try to inspire him with courage - with respect for his reason - with an inextinguishable love for truth - with a remembrance of Galileo Galilei - to the end that he may learn to know himself - to know his legitimate rights - that he may learn to consult his experience, and no longer be the dupe of an imagination led astray by authority - that he may renounce the prejudices of his childhood - that he may learn to found his morals on his nature, on his wants, on the real advantage of society - that he may dare to love himself - that he may learn to pursue his true happiness by promoting the happiness of others - in short, that he may no longer occupy himself with reveries either useless or dangerous - that he may become a virtuous, a rational being, in which case he cannot fail to become happy.

This is what we are trying to give you.

Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes fstratzero's post
12-08-2012, 01:50 PM
RE: Is Religion Good for the World?
(12-08-2012 01:01 PM)Vosur Wrote:  And this is exactly why debating with theists is so tiresome. Is it too much to ask that you avoid using strawman arguments? It becomes old very quickly. At no point did I claim victory. At no point did I claim that you're avoiding my question. All I did was reminding you that the question I asked you earlier in this thread has yet to be answered.

Furthermore, you have no excuse for not having answered yet, because you replied to the post of Logica Humano in which he also asked you to name a religion that is based on compelling evidence. You replied to the second part of his posts, but ignored the first one containing the request. Do you want to claim that this was not intentional?

"the question I asked you earlier in this thread has yet to be answered."

Yes, it has yet to be answered, and I gave you a reason why.
The fact that you continually asked the question shows that you were persistent for me to answer you regardless of my reason.
The question is, do you know how loaded the question is?
Of course there's going to be strawman in this thread from me regarding that question. I want that question to have it's own special attention. I want it to be regarded in it's own thread. So yes, I strawman away at it trying to prove the point that I am not going to satisfy your answer here when all your trying to do is link the question with the OP posed question of "Is religion good for the world?".
I choose not to go into a loaded question on this thread because I believe it will set me up for failure because the intent of your question is probably to shut what I'm saying down instead of allowing me to give the appropriate answer to the question you're asking me.

"Furthermore, you have no excuse for not having answered yet, because you replied to the post of Logica Humano"

So because I'm choosing to answer a different question, I now have no excuse for not answering yours?
So the conclusion is - if I answer one question, I must answer all.
If that's not what you mean, please explain what you do mean because on the onset, it just sounds like another attempt to make me feel obligated to answer your question here and now.


(12-08-2012 01:01 PM)Vosur Wrote:  And here's the next logical fallacy, an ad hominem argument. Your accusations have no basis whatsoever. If I wasn't interested in the answer, I wouldn't have wasted the time and effort to ask you the question. My question still stands. You chose to reply to it by only saying "Yes" without being able to name an example.

I believe Christianity is set in a way that allows much of it to be evidentially examined.
I believe that's why Christianity is widely the most debated religion. Almost all of it's claims can be proven or disproven by using Science, Philosophy, Logic and reason.
So to answer your question in the most simplistic unjust way I can - Christianity.

To discuss the question further in much deeper detail, in which it certainly deserves, I believe we should create a thread focused directly on this.

“What you believe to be true will control you, whether it’s true or not.”

—Jeremy LaBorde
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-08-2012, 02:04 PM
RE: Is Religion Good for the World?
(12-08-2012 01:50 PM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  
(12-08-2012 01:01 PM)Vosur Wrote:  And this is exactly why debating with theists is so tiresome. Is it too much to ask that you avoid using strawman arguments? It becomes old very quickly. At no point did I claim victory. At no point did I claim that you're avoiding my question. All I did was reminding you that the question I asked you earlier in this thread has yet to be answered.

Furthermore, you have no excuse for not having answered yet, because you replied to the post of Logica Humano in which he also asked you to name a religion that is based on compelling evidence. You replied to the second part of his posts, but ignored the first one containing the request. Do you want to claim that this was not intentional?

"the question I asked you earlier in this thread has yet to be answered."

Yes, it has yet to be answered, and I gave you a reason why.
The fact that you continually asked the question shows that you were persistent for me to answer you regardless of my reason.
The question is, do you know how loaded the question is?
Of course there's going to be strawman in this thread from me regarding that question. I want that question to have it's own special attention. I want it to be regarded in it's own thread. So yes, I strawman away at it trying to prove the point that I am not going to satisfy your answer here when all your trying to do is link the question with the OP posed question of "Is religion good for the world?".
I choose not to go into a loaded question on this thread because I believe it will set me up for failure because the intent of your question is probably to shut what I'm saying down instead of allowing me to give the appropriate answer to the question you're asking me.

"Furthermore, you have no excuse for not having answered yet, because you replied to the post of Logica Humano"

So because I'm choosing to answer a different question, I now have no excuse for not answering yours?
So the conclusion is - if I answer one question, I must answer all.
If that's not what you mean, please explain what you do mean because on the onset, it just sounds like another attempt to make me feel obligated to answer your question here and now.


(12-08-2012 01:01 PM)Vosur Wrote:  And here's the next logical fallacy, an ad hominem argument. Your accusations have no basis whatsoever. If I wasn't interested in the answer, I wouldn't have wasted the time and effort to ask you the question. My question still stands. You chose to reply to it by only saying "Yes" without being able to name an example.

I believe Christianity is set in a way that allows much of it to be evidentially examined.
I believe that's why Christianity is widely the most debated religion. Almost all of it's claims can be proven or disproven by using Science, Philosophy, Logic and reason.
So to answer your question in the most simplistic unjust way I can - Christianity.

To discuss the question further in much deeper detail, in which it certainly deserves, I believe we should create a thread focused directly on this.
Let's continue the debate in this thread then.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: