Thread: Religion, is it true?

Religion is a load of bullsh*t, god doesnt exist. This is because, if he is so high and f***ing mighty. Why is there pain< suffering< diseaese< and imperfection. If he has the power to stand above and judge us all< then why in the hell wouldnt he fix all the wrongdoings in the world!?!?!?!?

Could be more eloquently worded, but it's an honest question. Even in a slightly old "If you were ruler of the world" thread we had here at AO, people said they'd attempt to do great things like feeding starving children in Africa. If a deity exists, surely they have that power. And yet they don't. Basically, it's the Problem of Evil. Either God doesn't exist, or God isn't good. When speaking about religion, I suppose we have to narrow the focus on just exactly what kind of deity figure we are speaking of.

Originally Posted by Luminous

Could be more eloquently worded, but it's an honest question. Even in a slightly old "If you were ruler of the world" thread we had here at AO, people said they'd attempt to do great things like feeding starving children in Africa. If a deity exists, surely they have that power. And yet they don't. Basically, it's the Problem of Evil. Either God doesn't exist, or God isn't good. When speaking about religion, I suppose we have to narrow the focus on just exactly what kind of deity figure we are speaking of.

Or better yet, seeing that we've been going in circles all this time without having reached anything substantial, we could start from the top. I believe we could reach some sort of closure that way. Whaddya say?

Or better yet, seeing that we've been going in circles all this time without having reached anything substantial, we could start from the top. I believe we could reach some sort of closure that way. Whaddya say?

I would be up for that, I've been trying to follow the arguements, but find myself quite confused at whats being argued. Having just jumped in though, perhaps I'll just throw in my thoughts on the matter.

I think as people that actively seek out truth, we instinctively are reluctant to leave an empty space blank on a test. When we are sick, we want to know what we have, and why. Such it is, that when faced with the concept of death, we want to know what lies beyond. But we can't ever really know while we're alive can we? But it's an empty space on the test, so I think we still feel the need to fill it in, I think it makes us feel better. It doesn't matter how true it is, as long as we think "Hmm...that's definately a possibility", we'll be less irked about that unknown area. Even most Atheists follow this I think with the line of thinking that after death, who cares, we won't exist anymore to think about it! Epicurus said it best with regards to that I think.

Death is nothing to us, since when we are, death has not come, and when death has come, we are not

Either way, the desired end result is the same. We stop worrying about death, and happily frollick about living our lives. While one could see some religious people as delusional, belief is one area where you're allowed to be naive, because there is no way to prove you wrong. It's an area where it ultimately doesn't matter. We still live the same way, we still die the same way, that is, happy, and reassured. Rinse, wash, repeat. The cycle continues.

I think the concept of Russel's Teapot adequatly shows that religions are for the most part guesswork that are equally possible of being right and being wrong. Again, that doesn't matter, as long as its true to you as a person, religion is serving its purpose of filling in that blank. Who knows, maybe one of us will end up being right someday.

And so ends my Atheistic pondering aloud, I apologize for the minor essay length, and hopefully I don't sound like a crazy person.

Originally Posted by Luminous

Could be more eloquently worded, but it's an honest question. Even in a slightly old "If you were ruler of the world" thread we had here at AO, people said they'd attempt to do great things like feeding starving children in Africa. If a deity exists, surely they have that power. And yet they don't. Basically, it's the Problem of Evil. Either God doesn't exist, or God isn't good. When speaking about religion, I suppose we have to narrow the focus on just exactly what kind of deity figure we are speaking of.

Or God is testing us ,after the humans doing all that evil you don't expect to live an easy and happy life ,now do you?

Originally Posted by basilisk888

wow... I was gone for about not even a day and this chat has gone beserk...
well the reason that you do not see evolution is because it only happnes after a long period of time! You in your short life can't see it in monkies! You will never see it in anything really big... And we are evolving after every generation. And (not happy to say this but...) well you can believe in both "god" and evolution. look at "romeo and juliet" well the holy man in that story puts into factor both science and "god"... In a respect he is more mature than anyone in this.
and azureflame plz stop with the foul words its anoying...

But long generations of humans have passed and no one said a word about this happening ,right?

Originally Posted by LichGRIFFIN

That's true and that's why we seek the most that we are convinced with and it leads to satisfaction rather than suffering and confusion in most cases ,what i mean i'm a muslim and both of us have different views on the religion but that doesn't mean you're suffering because i see you're following a false truth?! (no offence i mean as an example ,i do respect other religions but believe in mine more than any)

Ah, but if most religions contain truth and people live by those truths that it follows they will be happy doesn't it? The issue is whether they also live by any of the false truths in their religion. One of the most fascinating things I have learned about studying religion is just how similar certain "truths" are from religion to religion (if not outright identical). It shouldn't be to surprising when you consider that every main religion now days can be traced directly to Abraham, the religion he followed, and his influence (including the Vedic ones).

Originally Posted by Luminous

Could be more eloquently worded, but it's an honest question. Even in a slightly old "If you were ruler of the world" thread we had here at AO, people said they'd attempt to do great things like feeding starving children in Africa. If a deity exists, surely they have that power. And yet they don't. Basically, it's the Problem of Evil. Either God doesn't exist, or God isn't good.

An honest question and one there is a simple answer for if you follow through the consequences of the alternative. The answer is that the right to choose what you will do and who you will be is a God given right called "agency". We determine by our choices whether we will do good or evil. Because everyone has that choice and there are those who will choose evil consequently there will be those who cause pain and suffering for others. Now consider what it would take to prevent that....

The only way to prevent anyone from choosing to hurt someone else would to take away that right of choice. It would require not the punishment of someone's actions but their very thought before they could even act. We would live in a world where anyone who even thought of stepping out of line would be punished instantly thus condemning us to remain mentally as little children perpetually disciplined for all of existence. An eternity of enslavement to the whims of a single all powerful dictator.

Ironically in my religion it is believed that that is exactly what Lucifer wanted to do, the ultimate evil, destroying the agency of man. "Send me and I will force everyone to do good." Thank you no. I would rather be able to choose my own fate and accept the consequences of not only my own actions but others as well then live in that kind of slavery.

If God forces us to be "good" then "good" ceases to exist, if he feeds the hungry, clothes the poor, and succors the sick and wounded then we ourselves have no opportunity to do good. Even children have to learn sometime. God is good and so we can be.

Originally Posted by Luminous

I would be up for that, I've been trying to follow the arguements, but find myself quite confused at whats being argued. Having just jumped in though, perhaps I'll just throw in my thoughts on the matter.

I think as people that actively seek out truth, we instinctively are reluctant to leave an empty space blank on a test. When we are sick, we want to know what we have, and why. Such it is, that when faced with the concept of death, we want to know what lies beyond. But we can't ever really know while we're alive can we? But it's an empty space on the test, so I think we still feel the need to fill it in, I think it makes us feel better. It doesn't matter how true it is, as long as we think "Hmm...that's definately a possibility", we'll be less irked about that unknown area. Even most Atheists follow this I think with the line of thinking that after death, who cares, we won't exist anymore to think about it! Epicurus said it best with regards to that I think.


Either way, the desired end result is the same. We stop worrying about death, and happily frollick about living our lives. While one could see some religious people as delusional, belief is one area where you're allowed to be naive, because there is no way to prove you wrong. It's an area where it ultimately doesn't matter. We still live the same way, we still die the same way, that is, happy, and reassured. Rinse, wash, repeat. The cycle continues.

I think the concept of Russel's Teapot adequatly shows that religions are for the most part guesswork that are equally possible of being right and being wrong. Again, that doesn't matter, as long as its true to you as a person, religion is serving its purpose of filling in that blank. Who knows, maybe one of us will end up being right someday.

And so ends my Atheistic pondering aloud, I apologize for the minor essay length, and hopefully I don't sound like a crazy person.

It's good to hear that you're willing to stay awhile and sort this out. But let's start at the very beginning, shall we? This should make what we're to debate easier to understand.

OK, you've decided to take the atheistic stance, and I've decided to take the theistic stance. Here are our givens:

1) It is generally agreed upon that religion is a kind of belief, albeit a more organized, systematic one replete with doctrines and dogmas and practices -- but still a belief, nonetheless.

2) Also, a belief must be a belief in something. And in the case of religion, it's a higher being (or beings) whose name may vary from religion to religion. But to make our lives a bit easier, let's refer to that higher being as "God."

3) In addition, LichGRIFFIN and I learned after a private exchange that we believe in something because it is really true, or at least probably true. We do not believe in something because it is merely "convenient" to do so; neither do we hold to be true something that is "useful", yet false (lies can be useful, right?).

Therefore:
A) If God exists, then religion -- or at least the part of it that professes the existence of God -- must be true.
B) If God does not exist, then religion cannot be true.

So, Luminous -- if you could disprove the existence of God rationally or by presenting cold, hard evidence that immediately proves that premise, leaving no loopholes for religious types to argue out of, you and your fellow atheists will have single-handedly won the debate. So would you choose to hack at leaves and twigs -- that is, the relatively smaller issues, nowhere getting nearer to any conclusion, or would you rather hack at the problem's root instead -- that is, the existence of God?

So, Luminous -- if you could disprove the existence of God rationally or by presenting cold, hard evidence that immediately proves that premise, leaving no loopholes for religious types to argue out of, you and your fellow atheists will have single-handedly won the debate. So would you choose to hack at leaves and twigs -- that is, the relatively smaller issues, nowhere getting nearer to any conclusion, or would you rather hack at the problem's root instead -- that is, the existence of God?

Does hacking at the actual existance of God ever result in anything? There are religious people who believe in an omnipotent God. Omnipotence is a clear contradiction of itself. Do they care? Of course not, because its their faith, and they are sticking to it. People still argue Evolution isn't true, saying "Its just a theory", even though it's fairly likely. The reason I don't go with those arguements is that they don't work, people just don't care about the loopholes and theories. Once again, Russel's Teapot, despite these arguements that Atheists throw out, it isn't actually our job to disprove God, it is the job of theists to prove it, and such is why I don't enjoy loophole arguing. I don't think it leads anywhere, because we cannot obviously 100&#37; disprove the existance of a deity.

Originally Posted by Arriana

If God forces us to be "good" then "good" ceases to exist, if he feeds the hungry, clothes the poor, and succors the sick and wounded then we ourselves have no opportunity to do good. Even children have to learn sometime. God is good and so we can be

I understand the free will idea, but I still don't quite understand why a benevolent God would even create a system whereby we must consume other life to survive. If you take food out of the equation for life, do you really end up losing something out of the spirit of humanity? I allude to the case of starving children specifically, because that atrocity doesn't necesarrily happen because someone was evil due to free will. It just happens because there was no food to be found.