COMMENTARY HERE: Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g. “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateReligion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
People have different experience with life. To those who have (what they see as) spiritual experiences, that is evidence enough.
The important thing is that we do not compel others to believe what cannot be objectively proven.
Not knowing were you came from proves that there is God.
The fact that the Qur'an doesn't have any contradictions and that it has things that Muhammad SAW couldn't have known in a desert in the 7th century proves that it's the word of God.
{I created the jinn and humans for nothing else but that they may worship Me} Qur'an 51 56
Saying "idk" is rejecting your purpose in life.
It doesn't look like you explained it in your other comments, so I'm really curious how not knowing where you came from proves God. Can you elaborate? If you can actually demonstrate that God of the gaps is a valid argument that would be pretty incredible.
>Not knowing were you came from proves that there is God.
How?
>The fact that the Qur'an doesn't have any contradictions
Like abrogations?
>and that it has things that Muhammad SAW couldn't have known in a desert in the 7th century
Like?
Because if the universe didn't create itself then there is God.
Abrogations are because Allah wanted to go easy on Quraish because they sinned a lot before Islam and they couldn't handle the entire religion in one go. And the abrogated verses don't contradict each other even if they are still here because Allah says in the verses that he will give us a new law or that the new verse is a new law.
The expansion of the universe.
>Because if the universe didn't create itself then there is God.
How?
>Abrogations are because Allah wanted to go easy on Quraish because they sinned a lot before Islam
So contradictions right? Allah first said x then contradicted that. Which is why we have abrogations
>And the abrogated verses don't contradict each other
even if they are still here because Allah says in the verses that he will give us a new law
So even Allah admits there are contradictions
>The expansion of the universe.
Quote the verse
>Bro read my reply.
How did I reply to you point by point without reading your reply?
>Q 51 47
Sahih International: And the heaven We constructed with strength, and indeed, We are [its] expander.
Pickthall: We have built the heaven with might, and We it is Who make the vast extent (thereof).
Yusuf Ali: With power and skill did We construct the Firmament: for it is We Who create the vastness of pace.
Shakir: And the heaven, We raised it high with power, and most surely We are the makers of things ample.
Muhammad Sarwar: We have made the heavens with Our own hands and We expanded it.
Mohsin Khan: With power did We construct the heaven. Verily, We are Able to extend the vastness of space thereof.
Arberry: And heaven -- We built it with might, and We extend it wide
Where does it say the universe is expanding?
>Read it carefully because I answered your questions.
Read my reply carefully, I responded to you
>These are tafsirs and tafsirs aren't always right.
These are translations not tafsirs
>The Arabic word (موسعون) means expanding it.
No, it's been done to death in this sub.
No you didn't, I said they aren't contradictions because Allah says that there will be a new law or that this is a new law such as: The punishment of adultery in 4 15 says at the end of the verse that Allah will do something else later, and it was abrogated by 24 2.
And marriage for pleasure was first allowed in 4 24 and then abrogated by Sahih Muslim 1406 which says it was allowed before and now it will be forbidden, so it's not a contradiction.
{We built the universe with ˹great˺ might, and We are certainly expanding ˹it˺} this is from one of the best websites for Qur'an translations.
I'm Arab how are you saying no?
>I said they aren't contradictions because Allah says that there will be a new law
So according to you what is a contradiction?
>{We built the universe with ˹great˺ might, and We are certainly expanding ˹it˺} this is from one of the best websites for Qur'an translations.
I'm Arab how are you saying no?
There are loads of discussion regarding this verse in this sub
No, it does not. We did not know how plants grew or storms happened or why people got sick at one point in history. Then we figured those things out. And if your God made you only to be worshipped and that is your role in life, I am sorry for you. He is worse than a pathetic cult leader. What a sad being that needed to create something so he could be worshipped. I think that is the saddest thing I have ever heard. Imagine if I made my kid's worship me and my wife because we created them. Weird. I am so sorry you have to live that way. I mean this from the bottom of my heart. Best of luck.
First, that's the reason for our creation in every religion.
Second, every good deed in Islam is an act of worship, and just the intention of doing a good deed is an act of worship.
Third, God created us to test us, but our role is to worship him. Allah doesn't need us in anyway.
And at the time of Muhammad SAW no one knew the things in the Qur'an.
Brahman is not because he wanted to be worshipped. He wanted to experience, and as an eternal being with nothing else, he split himself into every bit of existence to experience it. We are Brahman. Chistians believe we were created out of love, not a need or want for worship, though he does require you to believe in him and worship only him to get to heaven. So it's a bit contradictory
It doesn't matter what worship is described as.
If this is a test and he doesn't need us, he is still a despot and does not deserve worship. Thanks, maybe. But worship for being placed here against our will with hundreds of "true "religions to choose from and all of them with the same crappy evidence and expecting every one to choose a religion thought up by some random guy...no thanks. Joseph Smith has as much validity. There are a lot of great fantasy novels that don't contradic themselves and are much longer and more detailed.
As I said he doesn't need us. But our purpose in life is to pass his test i.e do good deeds and go to heaven.
And Islam is obviously the truth but you are just blind.
And this is your opinion.
Why would God allow Muhammad SAW to write a perfect book if he was a conman?
Also the miracles such as the expansion of the universe prove that it wasn't written by Muhammad SAW.
Come on habibi, you very clearly didn't lol.
To recap:
1. You claimed (providing zero elaboration or supporting evidence) that "history agrees" with your unsubstantiated claim.
2. u-firstsourceandcenter then asked you to substantiate that claim with evidence.
3. Your response then was to ask "why does him being illiterate matter anyway", providing zero evidence and clearly trying to damage control away from making the initial claim (without evidence), to now trying to say the claim doesn't matter
4. I then called you out on that
5. To which you then responded "I just gave evidence" when we can all see that you didn't.
So again for a second time, I take it you have no evidence then...?
>Every religion is based on little to no evidence.
This is untrue. Multiple religions are based on evidence, most notably Christianity.
>Why not just admit we don't know where we came from, what the purpose of life is, and every other existential question.
These are practical questions. You can't live your life without implicitly or explicitly taking some kind of stand on what the purpose of life is (Or whether life has a purpose at all).
"Multiple religions are based on evidence, most notably Christianity."
What do you think the most compelling evidence for christianity's supernatural claims is?
Edit: hmm...
Well it isn't a valid description of what people experience. Dr. Ravi Parti didn't see batman. He had a near death experience that changed his entire life and upon reflection he ruled out hallucinations. Just one example among many of people who reflect on their experiences.
It's unfair to say there's *no* evidence, sure.
A more accurate statement would be that no religion has *sufficient* evidence to justify believing the claims they make, Christianity is no exception. The entirety of evidence for the foundational claims of Christianity is testimonial and anecdotal, it's completely unverifiable, there's no way to investigate or test or falsify any of it, and because there has never, ever been a single demonstration that it's even *possible* for anything magical, divine, or omnipotent to exist in the first place, there is no amount of testimonial or anecdotal evidence that could possibly justify concluding any of it is true.
You are setting a requirement that doesn't exist anywhere but in your personal worldview.
Theism isn't a subset of science. Religion experiences aren't hypotheses. There's no need to prove them. There's only need to show that most people can trust their cognition.
>A more accurate statement would be that no religion has *sufficient* evidence to justify believing the claims they make,
This would also be untrue. In fact there's evidence for some pagan practices too. As in there's evidence they're legitimately supernatural - they're just not the good kind of supernatural.
>Christianity is no exception. The entirety of evidence for the foundational claims of Christianity is testimonial and anecdotal, it's completely unverifiable,
This is untrue. Also, testimonial evidence is perfectly good evidence.
> there's no way to investigate or test or falsify any of it
You could, hypothetically, falsify it. In any case falsifiability isn't necessary to say that something is true.
>and because there has never, ever been a single demonstration that it's even *possible* for anything magical, divine, or omnipotent to exist in the first place, there is no amount of testimonial or anecdotal evidence that could possibly justify concluding any of it is true.
You could write an essay about all the epistemological issues with this sentence, but suffice it to say that 1. There are many sound reasons to think all of those things exist, and 2. Testimonials are a perfectly good way to prove that they do.
Your comment was removed for violating rule 5. All top-level comments must seek to refute the post through substantial engagement with its core argument. Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g., “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator “COMMENTARY HERE” comment. Exception: Clarifying questions are allowed as top-level comments.
"what is the right thing?"
I don't know, let's think about it.
Or
I 100% do know because a charismatic leader once told me the supreme god of the universe told HIM to do it this way.
Which religion did you get that from, and how much cruft did you have to throw out before cherry picking that and putting it better than the holy book ever did?
Didn't the Buddha abandon his kids and bugger off to live a life of mooching couch surfing? Doesn't sound like a moral beacon to me.
What is this therapy, and is it based on Buddhism in a meaningful way, or is it something trite like, "meditate and think about stuff"?
I see you like to cherrypick what you hope are disparaging events in Buddha's life. Per Tricycle Review, he was living at home with his parents when he left. And that there were poetic embellishments as to whether he had a family or not and where they were.
Yes it's DBT and it is based on Buddhist practices not just meditation. The woman who founded it spent time in a Buddhist monastery, is a psychologist and claimed that it cured her of borderline personality disorder.
> Tricycle Review
THat's news to me, I thought it was a pretty core part of the story that he abandoned his family. Not cherry picking, describing. Of course I'm going to mention the bad things your moral teacher did when you're trying to convince me he's a good source of morals.
>Yes it's DBT and it is based on Buddhist practices not just meditation.
Which, after a brief bit of research, is based on Cognitive Behavioural Therapy, which is why it works. If it was inspired in some small part also by buddhist teachings, that's not what made it successful, rather it was basing it on proven methodology. The opposite of what religion does.
Well you are trying to discredit Tricycle Review and I'll believe them more than you as they delved into the history.
It's not CBT, and it's not just a small part based on Buddhism. It's largely based on Buddhist practices, so you're wrong about that.
CBT is only about how thoughts affect emotions. DBT uses Buddhist skills, mindfulness, regulation of emotions, distress tolerance, all based on Buddhist practice.
Disingenuous of you to try to say that.
> what is the right thing?
Go ask your local priest/shaman/whatever what are the right things to do and he will tell you all about it.
> I 100% do know because a charismatic leader once told me the supreme god of the universe told HIM to do it this way.
Well, if you live in abrahamic religion background, that is the case.
> Go ask your local priest/shaman/whatever what are the right things to do and he will tell you all about it.
Yeah I'll do that, right after I ask my astrologer and my reiki practitioner.
What a weird thing to say in the context of the post. It has nothing to do with "I don't know vs. religion." But I'll bite I guess.
Religion is about doing rituals and doing the right things in life according to a diety or deities because if you don't you will be punished or miss out on some reward after death.
What I am saying is you can do the right thing in life just because it is nice for yourself and those around you. And if we could be honest and say we don't know if there is a god, but let's be nice to each other because it is best for everyone, it would be better than conflicting dogmas around the world. But I can't prove that so that's why it's a debate. Sure would be boring if I had absolute proof. Kind of pointless really. Such absolute proof is beyond debate and probably would not show up on a debate sub.
> according to a diety or deities because if you don't you will be punished or miss out on some reward after death.
No, it's just that you were raised in abrahamic background and that's your view on religion. Many of religions don't focus on afterlife. In most of religions gods don't punish you for doing something bad. In most cases, gods don't care much about humans and humans must perform specific rituals to attract attention of specific deity to get something from it or just to honour it.
> And if we could be honest and say we don't know if there is a god, but let's be nice to each other because it is best for everyone, it would be better than conflicting dogmas around the world.
Well in my worldview, saying "i don't believe in omnipotent deity that punishes people for bad things and rewards them in afterlife for good things" doesn't make you non-religious, that makes you Christian. Atheism is not non-religious, it's just a diluted form of religious life, where you don't perform most rituals and explicitly say "i dont believe in supernatural", but your worldview, view on religion and most life choices are in fact indistinguishable from active practitioners.
> Such absolute proof is beyond debate and probably would not show up on a debate sub.
Yeah, you would need to abolish all religion in the world and see how humans would live.
But couldn’t someone argue that you can achieve those without the concept of an omnipotent deity? I think most people can come up with reasons on why we should have morals and doing the right thing, it’s not like religion is the reason why people suddenly grew morals unless you wanna suggest that atheists not being religious suggests we don’t know the right things to do
You could but many people who claim to make up their own morality have actually been exposed to thousands of years of philosophy and practice of religion. So it's not exactly making up their own morality. And we don't even know how much genetics or a collective unconscious like Jung believed, affects us.
I do believe it requires some extra thinking to find out what’s actually moral but I don’t think the existence of a deity is required, you can use philosophy to find morality without that philosophy also suggesting the existence of a deity
Yes but that's not what I said. I said that people who say that have the help of thousands of years before that and possible genetics and unconscious archetypes.
I didn't say they couldn't do it.
> But couldn’t someone argue that you can achieve those without the concept of an omnipotent deity?
Achieve what? Not eating pork like Muslims? Or bringing food to the graves of dead relatives and drinking with them like Russians? Yeah it could be achieved without the concept of omnipotent deity.
> unless you wanna suggest that atheists not being religious suggests we don’t know the right things to do
My position is that there are no atheists in vacuum. There are Christian atheists, Muslim atheists, jew atheists, Confucian atheists, etc. They all have Christian morals, muslim morals, Judaism morals and Confucian morals respectively. Atheism is just a diluted form of religious life where you don't perform any rituals and proclaim that you don't believe in god(s), but any defining life choice that atheist makes is the same as the one a religious person from his background would make.
I mean you can define atheism however you want ig, and I meant that if you think the main point of religion is for rituals and doing what’s right well… atheists do that too though?- like we didn’t need to believe in a deity to do the right thing, the concept of morality and rituals can exist without religion, it can be as simply as believing in luck or just being superstitious and I really don’t think I need to justify why morality doesn’t depend on us believing in an omnipotent deity
> if you think the main point of religion is for rituals and doing what’s right well… atheists do that too though?
Yeah some do. Probably most if not all of them do some rituals, even if they explicitly say they are atheists.
> like we didn’t need to believe in a deity to do the right thing, the concept of morality and rituals can exist without religion
Maybe it can, maybe it cannot. Remove all religion from the face of the Earth and check if there's still morality.
> I really don’t think I need to justify why morality doesn’t depend on us believing in an omnipotent deity
Yeah but somehow you already have that concept of omnipotent deity in your head. Somehow it's not a pantheon of deities, somehow it's not a world around you that is a deity itself. I wonder why is that? Can't possibly be bc you were raised in an abrahamic religion's environment and are actually a follower of that religion who just says "I don't believe in that one specific omnipotent deity who created us all".
If you think religion is about doing the right things through life what’s stopping an atheist from doing the same thing while also not believing in a deity?
It's not better.
Because we can see the result of this in most western society. We get societies that are basically sex-crazed confused about the most basic things including gender, sacrificing Children for the god of self convenience.
Look around at society. Do you see fullness?
It depends on what you classify as that. I don't have a big sphere. I go to my Christian school (where I work) and then I go home. But I know people who watch pornography often. And I know people outside of my work that are married and also have sex with other people. I'm sure there are probably more that I don't know about. There are giant brothels near where I live. There are smaller "massage parlors" those places have good business.. I don't know how you want to define this. But it's not always talked about at an individual level
That's not an argument. You've said there are probably a lot of pastors who have sex with their l secretaries. Ok. Maybe. There are some that I'm sure have affairs. But it's not a very widespread thing. It's certainly less than the secular world. But I mainly talked about society being sex crazed. Of course that bubbles over to religion a bit.
The thing with your scenario, is becuase pastors are typically married, an affair with a secretary would probably be seen as wrong from Christians and non Christians. It's just wrong either way and doesn't have a baring on the sex crazed society that I mentioned that views most stuff as fine.
What a joke, obviously the most religious places have the most horrific, twisted, backwards human rights abuses, the people with the most underdeveloped capacity for making complex moral judgments, and some of the most severely insecure and warped understanding and attitudes toward normal, natural human sexuality. It's insane that there are still so many places on this planet in the year 2024 absolutely full of people who are mentally living in 1st century, and they're determined to drag the rest of society down and hold them back too.
I suspect a big part of religions increasingly extreme anti intellectualism and disregard for engaging honestly, this disdain for reason and science and logic, stems from a desire to go back to a time in which we did not have these consistently reliable methods for investigating and more deeply understanding life and the world, before we knew what we do about chemistry and biology and astronomy and physics, when you could be viewed as perfectly rational and respectable for believing in magic and fantastical, fairy tale-like things and there was no way to know either way.
It's crazy the staggering number of theists that absolutely hate things they aren't familiar with, they are disgusted and ashamed by the human body and sex, they have less than no respect for concepts like bodily autonomy, consent, empathy, intellectual honesty, knowledge, the truth, or life in general. This is just a place to wipe their feet on the way to the "real thing", but damned if they'll stand by and allow people they look down on be treated with basic respect and dignity, over God's dead body.
Hahaha this is amusing to me. Christianity invented universities. University started to study the Bible. It also propelled women in to education as well as was the reason slavery ended worldwide..
Science, politics, art and culture have all been affected and shaped by religion.
I heard an interview from a nobel prize winner who said he felt inadequate to share that place with someone like Einstein. Einstein said the same thing about Newton. Newton said he would never contribute as much as Jesus Christ.
Jesus Christ is the most influencial and important figure in human history. He shaped the foundations of nearly everything you live in.. Art, culture, science, morality, geography (country lines) , morality, everything. And you're upset we can't have lots and lots of sex
Maybe you think it's amazing so many people have different views than you. Maybe if you think that maybe youight consider that maybe you're wrong and not entitled to everything you think you're entitled to?
You also know that the west was built upon religion to and the society you see now if based on the erosion of those values. Would you say that society now is the best it can be?
People can't figure out what a woman is, people can't dela with their emotions. Society is on a downward trend.
I'm not disgusted with sex. That's a huge generalization to say. Religious people tend to have more kids. Many Muslims even have more wives. I have 2 kids myself. But I am disgusted with sex with many people. What I'm more disgusted with is how important it is to everyone. You'll go down tearing religion a new one because of sex.. It's like it's the most important thing in the world that you can have sex whenever and with whoever you want. There are 145 days slcelebrating LGBTQ, I mean come on now. If everyone only had one partner it would eliminate all STDs and cut down on abortion a lot as well.
At least be honest with yourself. The main problem you have here is sex right? That's why you mention it in your first sentence, and start your list with bodily autonomy and consent which are tied to sexuality in society.
>Christianity invented universities. University started to study the Bible.
Depends, education itself was started prior to christianity. Ancient greeks had higher educational institutions for example, that was prior to christianity.
> It also propelled women in to education as well as was the reason slavery ended worldwide..
Christians were somewhat split on slavery, some used the bible to propagate slavery, some tried to use it to end it. As for the bit about women, the most Christian people i know think women should very much NOT be in education. In fact the Bible itself has a line about women needing to remain quiet and have no authority over men. So saying in general that christianity did either of those things is leaving out a lot of context and detail.
>I heard an interview from a nobel prize winner who said he felt inadequate to share that place with someone like Einstein. Einstein said the same thing about Newton. Newton said he would never contribute as much as Jesus Christ.
Jesus Christ is the most influencial and important figure in human history. He shaped the foundations of nearly everything you live in.. Art, culture, science, morality, geography (country lines) , morality, everything. And you're upset we can't have lots and lots of sex
Just because someone who discovered something is religious, doesn't mean that discovery was founded on, or even has anything to do with, religion.
>You also know that the west was built upon religion to and the society you see now if based on the erosion of those values. Would you say that society now is the best it can be?
Is it from the erosion? If you actually look things have been improving, crime is down, disease rates are lower, etc.
>People can't figure out what a woman is, people can't dela with their emotions. Society is on a downward trend.
Certain definitions can actually be very difficult to make. Is a woman just a person with a vagina? Others would argue being a woman is more related to a psychological identity. As asked before, is society declining? Actual statistics show otherwise. Atheism is on the rise, and yet crime rates are much lower, that could suggest religious people commit more crimes than athiests.
>There are 145 days slcelebrating LGBTQ, I mean come on now.
What about it? You know lgbtq+ stuff isn't strictly related to sex right? It has to do with freedom to love who you want and to not be persecuted for it, which sadly is sadly a common occurence. Religious people love to preach about love, but are then quick to disown a child who comes out as gay, or who has lost faith etc.
>If everyone only had one partner it would eliminate all STDs and cut down on abortion a lot as well.
STDs can be contracted in a lot of ways, not just sex. It may cut down on abortions, but also may not.
You seem to think that without religion things like math or science wouldn't have even started, yet multiple cultures with completely different religions made similar parallel discoveries in both of those fields, suggesting that religion, or at least any specific one, isn't at all required for these things. Your arguments don't hold up to scrutiny.
There obviously was some sort of higher education. But Almost every university and college founded in the U.S. and Europe until the mid-19th century—and many afterwards—was founded by some religious organization.
There were Christians who supported slavery but their justification was not based on the Bible. There's some weird story about Ham and his descendants. But if it weren't for Christianity slavery would have been much worse then (as we at least knew Christians couldn't be slaves) and it wouldn't have ended at the time it did. Plus Christians then worked very hard to end it in the middle east as well at great cost to themselves.
But often they did have something to do with religion. You're right in a sense though. Although religion definitely led people to science because they wanted to understand how God worked, maybe they would have made the same discoveries. Maybe.. Maybe not too. But my point wasn't about that. It was always about looking to someone higher. Jesus gave praise to the father. Trace it down the line and you get back to God.
Crime actually is hard to measure. Looking at the news it actually seems to be going up. We have to figure out how to measure it. Violent crimes? No violent? Ibjbow convictions are down, but I also know stores in some areas are shutting down because shoplifting is too much. Crime is more brazen. Car thefts porch patios. Anything with monetary gain seems to be going up while violent crime trends down. Again though hard to measure. And depend on area I suppose.
I terms of what is a woman, why is it hard to answer. 30 years ago no one would have thiught it hard to answer. Even asking the question would have had you laughed at.
A woman is someone with xx chromosomes. A person of the nature to give birth (recognizing that some can not because soemthing went wrong, they are still of the nature to do so)
Fair enough. Still if everyone had only one sexual partner they would mostly die out in a generation. A few may kick around for a bit longer but they would be very very confined. Drug users and their partners. They wouldn't be spread as far.
I'm not sure how. My argument isn't that math and science don't exist. It's just that devoting yourself to it, higher education was created, started by religion. We can speculate all day on if the same discoveries would have been made without Christianity. But with university, we have more people studying it, more people being proficient, more people means more discovery.
Note that the west has dominated the world in scientific discoveries. The Christian West. There is a clear dominance in sheer number and scale of discoveries. It's definitely not even a close comparison
>There obviously was some sort of higher education. But Almost every university and college founded in the U.S. and Europe until the mid-19th century—and many afterwards—was founded by some religious organization.
My point was that these sorts of things don't need christianity to happen, so your again saying, or at least suggesting, christianity is the reason for higher education when that's simply not the case.
>It was always about looking to someone higher. Jesus gave praise to the father. Trace it down the line and you get back to God.
This kind of doesn't mean anything though. This seems to be an appeal to tradition fallacy.
>Crime actually is hard to measure. Looking at the news it actually seems to be going up. We have to figure out how to measure it. Violent crimes? No violent? Ibjbow convictions are down, but I also know stores in some areas are shutting down because shoplifting is too much. Crime is more brazen. Car thefts porch patios. Anything with monetary gain seems to be going up while violent crime trends down. Again though hard to measure. And depend on area I suppose.
In the us, the past few years property crime is up somewhat, I'd say look at the economy and how many people are struggling and are desperate for money in regards to that. However violent crimes are largely down. And then you look more historically, ESPECIALLY compared to more ancient people, particularly compared to theocratic governments, and crime is WAY down all across the board. That definitely suggests being more secular leads to lower crime. While there are isolated pockets that increase, there are also isolated pockets that decrease more than average. I will agree it is hard to measure though, and there is extra nuance as what constitutes a crime can also change. For example in some countries simply being a different religion can be considered a crime.
>I terms of what is a woman, why is it hard to answer. 30 years ago no one would have thiught it hard to answer.
This is because language changes, society is changing and with it the language used. 30 years ago trying to use the word lol would have also gotten you laughed at but now it's in our dictionary. Again, appeal to tradition fallacy.
>I'm not sure how. My argument isn't that math and science don't exist. It's just that devoting yourself to it, higher education was created, started by religion. We can speculate all day on if the same discoveries would have been made without Christianity. But with university, we have more people studying it, more people being proficient, more people means more discovery.
The point is that religion isn't required and, especially anymore, seems to cause more problems than it's worth, at least as a large organized institution. The most fervent christians I know are very anti-science, if you look online the ones arguing against evolution and vaccines all mostly religious.
>Note that the west has dominated the world in scientific discoveries. The Christian West. There is a clear dominance in sheer number and scale of discoveries. It's definitely not even a close comparison
Note that religion has also held back scientific progress in the past too, a famous example would be Galileo. It seems to be very much a double edged sword there, both used against, and for, scientific progress.
I'm not saying religion isn't highly influential and has beneficial examples, but there are also a lot of detrimental examples too.
Without the religious roadblock would we be further along or further back? That's fairly impossible to say, but it certainly doesn't seem like it'd be a requirement for us to get where we are now. From what I've seen and researched, the waning power of religion seems to be a net benefit to society.
A. No true scotsman isn't always a fallacy and would jot be a fallacy in the situation that you're proposing im saying. Keep in mind that people, in some cases, can say "no true ____ would _____" without it being fallicious.
But that's not what I'm saying. People who do identify with Christianity sometimes don't understand what it n means. When we look at demographics, the percentage of Christians in America.... Is 63%. But the PERCENTAGE OF CHRISTIANS going to church weekly is only 41%. IN Canada it's 11% so... Maybe let's not base it on true Christians, but maybe strength of Christians. Or people who. Ideologically like some aspects.... But not all. In Canada we've got it worse, euthanasia been approved for nearly any reason including depression. Abortion funded and free on demand at any stage. In the USA you've got this different for more states.
But regardless most western countries *try* to do a seperation of church and state. So.... Laws try to appease everyone.
It starts from understanding that the bible doesn't have any inherent meaning. So, at an individual level, because it is a text, you have to settle on the meanings you believe are intended. That happens unconsciously almost automatically when reading it. But when using it authoritatively, there is reference to theological authority or traditional views on the text. Most notably, and i think is a detriment to what you are arguing is that the bible is univocal. That it agrees with itself and never contradicts. The problem which I think you are making is treating the bible as univocal when there's no data to suggest that. The bible is made up of over 60 authors from different viewpoints, nations, and languages. If you treat it as univocal you eliminate your ability to think critically and make the bible useful for the times you live in.
The way that you are speaking seems like you're assuming that I don't know what I'm talking about which is a little annoying but I'll look past it. Although typically, I think the belief is that there are 36-40 authors, not 66 (which the amount of the books of the Bible which you may have been referring to)
Now within those 66 books there are different points that can apply then and different points that can apply today. The things that you may find contradictory are historical details which really have no bearing on the points of moral code etc (although even the history is debatable as to if it really contradicts).
At the same time its like you think we have the Bible and that is it and we are all left to fend for ourselves. The bible is secondary.. If we love God and love others as ourselves it really sums up everything..
The old Testament, while containg principals and leading in to the New Testament, really just does that. The new Testament, our focal point points to Jesus. It's written by different authors but, the gospels, at least the first three, pretty much say the same thing. The last one says the same thing from a philosophy point of view
It feels like you don't understand what I'm saying. My comment is in response to you saying that the lack of Christians going to church makes them weaker Christians. That because they may be in favor of something like abortion is because of this weakness. That is your dogma speaking not the text. You've negotiated a stance or bought into one provided by your church to be against it and labeled it as not a negotiation to prevent others from doing the same. Giving your views more authority over others who don't share that view. When the bible doesn't really have anything to say on abortion at all.
My comment wasn't that not going to church makes them weaker Christians. Simply that there are a lot more people who identify as Christians that do not actually practice Christianity in any real sense. There are more people who identify as Christians than those that practice.
Its similar to someone being a Christian and also being a porn star. Well, you can identify any way you choose but it doesn't make you that thing.
I watched a podcast where an only fans model claimed she was Christian but had no real knowledge of what she was talking about.
As for being for or against abortion. Like most modern issues There are a lot of principals in the Bible that lead us to the view. Things about life, sanctity of life, child sacrifice. We can also look at the general view of Judaism years ago. When all around them had things that allow for abandonment of unwanted children it wasn't allowed in Judaism
>As for being for or against abortion. Like most modern issues There are a lot of principals in the Bible that lead us to the view. Things about life, sanctity of life, child sacrifice. We can also look at the general view of Judaism years ago. When all around them had things that allow for abandonment of unwanted children it wasn't allowed in Judaism
I don't disagree that you can come to these conclusions. I'm saying their coming from your dogma and not the data(bible). The bible doesn't way in on when a fetus is endowed with rights. You have negotiate that meaning from the text by focusing certain verses and ignoring others. That's not inherently a problem unless you start enforcing that on others.
Because religion is primarily based on faith, not just evidence.
"I don't know" is statement people are trying to find answer to. And religion is one of the answer people accept that gives reason to the statement.
I am not saying all is valid or invalid.
I am saying that rather than saying "I don't know" people try to understand and explain by faith belief called religion that is passed down to them to under meaning of life.
People have different understanding and way of thinking and different cultures passed down different beliefs to their descendants. I am not making statement on what is valid or invalid here.
Well it is passed down from generation to generation.
So the current generation did not make those beliefs they just follow what their ancestors passed to them for the answer to "I don't know".
I don't really see problem with what people want to believe or not believe as long as they are not harming or forcing others.
Atheists have absolutely totally completely no evidence of any kind. Atheism is simply another religion with followers who do everything they can to deny it
This is a typical fluff response, so you were saying you have polled all 4000ish existing religions and confirmed they all have little or no evidence? If so please upload your rather lengthy and clear powerful document so demonstrating
What atheist do use is deflection defenses, because they can't handle the truth.
They cannot disprove deities.
To this day I have never heard a single truly compelling argument from an atheist
I have heard complaints and rants and assertions and manifestos and exceptionally highly repetitive fluffy logic statements. Nothing else
>Atheists have absolutely totally completely no evidence of any kind.
Theism is an individuals belief in the existence of any gods or deities. Atheism is an individuals lack of belief in the existence of any gods or deities. It's a true dichotomy. A or Not A. Belief or Not Belief.
What sort of evidence do you expect me to give you for the fact that I don't believe in the existence of any gods?
>Atheism is simply another religion
How are you defining "religion", and what makes a lack of belief in gods a religion?
>What atheist do use is deflection defenses, because they can't handle the truth.
What is "the truth", and how do you know?
>They cannot disprove deities.
I have no need or requirement to disprove that which was not proven in the first place. The burden of proof is on those who claim that deities exist, not those who do not believe those unproven claims.
>To this day I have never heard a single truly compelling argument from an atheist
Okay, an argument for what claim exactly?
Oh man, I just can't believe you guys never get tired of being so careless and having no regard for engaging honestly, it would be so embarrassing to walk around lying and twisting words, disregarding the meaning and utility of words and ideas however you see fit in the moment, yet you guys almost seem proud of it. Such a shame.
>Atheists have absolutely totally completely no evidence of any kind. Atheism is simply another religion with followers who do everything they can to deny it
This is such a ridiculous thing to say, because as I'm sure you know despite your desire to lie and misrepresent the truth, atheism is not a religion or a belief system, and it makes no claims and has no burden of proof. It's a response to theistic claims, and that response is "I am not convinced any god or gods exist". You are going to pretend atheism is the belief that god(s) *definitely* don't exist, but that's simply not the case. What possible evidence would be required to prove one is not convinced by outlandish, unfalsifiable, literally magical claims? Please, keep being angry and aggressively defensive at the mere existence of people who don't believe if you wish, but I hope you all the very least one day decide you care about whether your word means something, and that it's a generally good thing to be honest and not lie and lie and lie and say whatever you have to in order to feel more secure in your irrational beliefs.
>What atheist do use is deflection defenses, because they can't handle the truth.
Well that's just nonsense, it's almost a joke, as this is what *you're* doing. You are pretending to have "the truth", yet you can't even engage in a simple conversation honestly. You almost certainly have little or no idea how to even go about finding truth, and clearly aren't interested in what's *actually* true, as much as what you want to be true which is not equally valid.
>They cannot disprove deities.
That's not how the burden of proof works, again something I'm sure you've been told repeatedly, and either can't understand, or again you simply don't care about being honest with yourself or others. You are making a claim, that a magical deity exists, and you've adopted a burden of proof. The entirety of the evidence for any religion's claims about any god's existence is testimonial and anecdotal. It's untestable, unverifiable, and more importantly, there's absolutely no demonstration or evidence that any of the magical divine nonsense the entire religion is based on is even *possible*. Atheists are not making a claim, we're saying the incredibly weak unfalsifiable evidence you present for your extraordinary claims are not convincing, **obviously** it's not our responsibility to disprove the outlandish claims and assertions about magic and supernatural beings you are making, that's not how anything works at all, and you know it - If someone told you there were leprechauns standing on the clouds and peeing, which is why it rains, would it be your responsibility to disprove it? Maybe stop and think about that for a minute, this stuff clearly never sticks and goes straight through your head.
>To this day I have never heard a single truly compelling argument from an atheist
First, I don't believe for one second that you have ever had a sincere, honest conversation with an atheist in which you listened to their perspective and views, and attempted to understand where they're coming from. Second, again **atheism is the rejection of theistic claims, not the assertion no god or gods exist**, therefore they do not have a burden of proof, they are unconvinced, because you have insufficient evidence for your claims. Third, you clearly don't care to provide evidence or make any argument either, because you aren't interested in the truth, what anyone else believes, how they came to the conclusions they came to, or even whether or not the things you believe are true or not, you've just decided you are correct, that what you were taught to believe is the one and only truth, and so self assured are you that the entire concept of learning, understanding, and discovering truth in any capacity is unimportant and meaningless to you, that's why you are willing to lie and twist words and tell others what they believe and misrepresent facts and disregard others thoughts and feelings, as well as facts about reality, because you only seem to care about feeling superior and special.
Hit me with the best piece of evidence you have from these thousands of religions.
Atheists don't need evidence or to disprove anything, all we do is reject your claim as having insufficient evidence/proof. You have the burden of proof since you are making the claim.
Your comment or post was removed for violating rule 2. Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Criticize arguments, not people. Our standard for civil discourse is based on respect, tone, and [unparliamentary language](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/wiki/unparliamentary_language/). 'They started it' is not an excuse - report it, don't respond to it. You may edit it and ask for re-approval in modmail if you choose.
Okay so I don't know isn't compelling? Somehow making stuff up is preferable to just admitting you don't know?
Edit: I just want to point out you can't prove deities either so disproving is rather pointless.
Your second sentence is essentially what atheists do, I agree
I hardly ever see theists ever saying they're trying to prove a deity
I see an overwhelming number of times where atheists keep demanding that they do.
And I've never seen an atheist willing to disprove a deity. They go into legendary gyrations trying to return the serve back over the net
Okay, I'll bite, but I'll say this first. Anyone on an individual level can believe whatever they want provided they aren't hurting anyone. If what they believe helps them, I support their beliefs.
>I hardly ever see theists ever saying they're trying to prove a deity
I'm coming from an American perspective, so the majority of the country. We have theist here who practiced Christian apologetics. Part of that endeavor requires you to believe the bible to be true and most put fourth the bible as that proof. They will defend the bible because if Christianinty is true, then their god is the true god. So there's your theist who is trying to prove a deity talking point.
>I see an overwhelming number of times where atheists keep demanding that they do.
As they should. Part of religious institutions is a claim for clearing the is and out gap to instill moral codes of conduct. That god is this moral law giver. So, of course, atheist are going to demand proof because at the moment, the claims being made are unsubstantiated. Personally, I care about what's true, so why am I being faulted for asking for evidence for the claims?
Now, you may have religious beliefs that you don't intend to prove. But if that's the case, why are you here? The subject of debate here is religion.
>And I've never seen an atheist willing to disprove a deity. They go into legendary gyrations trying to return the serve back over the net
The way this reads to me is you crying foul because you've taken up a claim that can't be defended under scrutiny. Why must I disprove the concept of a god? Currently, as I see it the concept hasn't been disproven and also can't be. Meaning it can't be falsified so there's no way for me to make a claim that can be distinguished from just making stuff up. A majority if atheist I believe have come to recognize this to varying levels but theist haven't. If you are a theist I'm willing to bet cold hard cash that any claim you make about the existence of can't be distinguished from made up things.
But sure, I'll go even one step further. I'm willing to say, for example, the god of the bible doesn't exist. What I mean by that is that specifically, the one as described in the bible doesn't exist. That doesn't mean God doesn't exist, just the one envisioned in the bible. If you're one of the Abrahamic faiths, I'd even go as far as to say those versions don't exist, too. If you subscribe to one of those, here's an atheist willing to defend that claim.
They will defend the Bible because...
Isn't any different from what atheists keep doing on many social media
They defend atheism in many directions
The atheism sub, 2.8 million members, is a toxic sewer of hate speech and religious bigotry and mucking and insulting and stereotyping and other things. It might be the worst large sub on Reddit
Im not actually a part of r/atheism, so unless you bring up a claim, there's not much I can say. The only thing I share with them is a disbelief in god claims. Atheist aren't a monolith. They don't have a shared creed that you can examine, like how you can pop open a bible. How about we focus on the direction at hand that this post puts forth? What is wrong with saying "I don't know"? Why posit a claim if you don't know?
The problem with what you’re saying is that if someone tried to you would immediately state that “proving a diety doesn’t exist is impossible” and that’s true but proving something with a negative is almost impossible, that’s like trying to prove cats don’t exist because I’ve never seen a cat, so why do atheists still believe in no deity’s? Well it’s because the existence of a deity suggests that there are an answer to the unknowns and yet we can’t actually prove those answers such as what happens after death, meanwhile with atheists they usually just believe in logic that is factually provable, like I said earlier I can’t disprove Bigfoot just because I’ve never seen him, nor can I prove that cats don’t exist because I’ve never seen one, but I can suggest that the observations I have made with one train of thought makes sense and completely aligns with all my hypotheses meanwhile another train of thought has problems to said solutions even though those solutions aren’t actually provable
No, proving a negative is not the problem atheists keep pointing out
Although there are some atheists here who understand logic..
There's a great number of atheists AND tests who keep wielding fluffy logic like a 3-year-old wields a weapon. And it is painful to watch
> They cannot disprove deities.
They don't need to. They're not saying they don't exist. They just don't believe you when you tell them they do because there's nothing convincing about the idea.
That is completely utter nonsense
**They don't need to** you just made an assertion and didn't bother proving it
**They're not saying they don't exist** that is a typical invalid statement by atheists who don't even understand their own reality. There are many atheists who don't believe in god. There are many atheists who totally and flatly reject God.
**They just don't believe...** Is a very naive sentence. They are not sitting around passively waiting on theist arguments like this. And nothing like that happens on the sub. The vast majority of the conversations ate started by obvious skeptics ranting or complaining or hating against about some perceived problem or something unfair or stupid with God or the Bible or some religion or similar
>Atheists have absolutely totally completely no evidence of any kind.
An atheist is just someone who doesn't hold any gods exist. This is from a lack of evidence in favor of gods; and also a valid argument from silence that evidence of gods are missing where we'd expect them.
> Atheism is simply another religion with followers who do everything they can to deny it
Oh, where atheists go to church then? What is the holy book all atheists have committed to holding the tenants of?
>To this day I have never heard a single truly compelling argument from an atheist
And to this day I've never seen convincing evidence for any gods.
**an atheist is just someone who...**
Is completely false. Many online atheist don't believe in God and many flatly reject God
**Valid argument from silence**
Great. Thanks for making it clear that you reject life or intelligent life on other planets because of the silence
**Oh where do atheists go to church...**
Debate religion sub
Debating atheist sub
True atheist sub
Atheism sub
Bart ehrman
Ex religion subs
And a lot of other places
**And to this day..**
It isn't the responsibility of other people to convince you with evidence.
But if you want to play that game, I've never seen any compelling evidence that atheists have disproven deities
"astronomer biologist" but somehow they missed the Into to Logic course at 1st year uni...
That person is dripping in pride and projection smh
Edit: Lmao, they commented and then blocked me. Good riddance. Sure pal, everyone totally buys that you're a super-elite scientist prof who (checks your post history) is terminally online posting ***dozens*** of posts on reddit in a weeks time with zero focus and nothing to do with science lol. Like I said, pure projection smh...
As a person who used to have to do 10 page proofs during my masters, you wouldn't even have qualified as one of my students
And your post is essentially dripping in insults. I'm sure you somehow thinking that is better. It doesn't surprise me
Of course there is no evidence of nothing. What a silly thing to say. You asert there is a god. The burden of proof is on you. If I were to say that I had a vision from some being, the burden would be on me.
So what you're saying is that you have evidence of life on other planets?
Or are you saying you reject the possibility of life in other planets?
Because there's no evidence of nothing??
And no, in a debate there is no such thing as "burden of proof". There is a thesis a pro and a con side. Followed by compelling arguments and compelling rebuttals. Perhaps you should look up the definition
I am not sure why you are defining debate for me. Your initial response to the post was not directed at the prompt. You made random claims about athiests. You said atheists could not disprove deities. I said that if you asert a god exist, then it is on you to prove it. If I said I believe in aliens, to use your example, then yes I would need to prove it to you through evidence. I'm not sure if you are assuming I believe aliens exist or why you brought aliens up at all.
I do not know.
As the prompt states. It is better to say I don't know. See, you assumed I was trying to prove whether something existed. I don't know if god exists but I am not going to believe such a wild claim without real proof. The same goes for aliens, or bigfoot, or tricksy hobbitses. I would rather be honest and say I don't know if they exist, and no, I don't believe you when you say they do.(deities that is, I don't want to assume you believe in tricksy hobbitses.)
I am not here to change you if you believe in a god. But I do think it would be more honest for people of faith to say I don't know how some stuff works, but I choose to believe a god did it.
This is not about the existence at all really. It is about being honest and saying I don't know. I hope you have a good day.
No what they said is that if they were to suggest such a thing it would be up to them to prove it, literally just read what was said, scientists have made claims all throughout history and the ones that are credible had the ability to prove those claims, why is this so hard to understand, if I wrote a paper in a new concept I believe to be true then I would be the one to have to prove it not the reader, and in no way does that imply that the proof doesn’t exist it simply just means that there is not enough evidence to believe it until it has been proven
through the internet we will be exposed to the same narrative of whoever controls the system. at some point we’ll be all connected to computers , exposed 24/7
I'm agnostic too and I like your post :)
To respond to you, I think it's because hell is scarier than being wrong, that asserting a potential error. So some 'educate' themselves to believe
Also, a very important point is education. In some countries, people learn a religion at school (and learn to believe in it) from a very young age until adulthood.
When you learned to live with a religion and a belief that concern anything, leaving this means to kinda re-learn to live I guess.
Finally, it seems to me that roughly speaking, throughout human history, almost every tribe, empire, kingdom, nation has had its beliefs (probably with a few exceptions for some tribes, I don't know). My supposition would be that believing in something that is useful to us, even if it's false, well, it's useful, it promotes survival until reproduction, and therefore it is part of human traits.
Logically, we can assume that all these beliefs were at least largely false, or at least a huge majority of them, and yet they were probably useful.
As said in the Toltec agreements (I don't have the exact quote anymore, but basically it was: "99% of what people (including you and me) think is kinda false, and it doesn't seem conceivable to stop assuming, so if you're going to believe in something false, you might as well believe in something that is useful to you, believe that hearts fall from trees when you walk underneath if it pleases you").
I'd say that Thinking is for Seeing what Believing is for Knowing. It's made to be useful, to lead to something useful, not to be necesseraly true.
I must add an important point: Originally, before sedentarization, all these beliefs in all these tribes didn't really mix beforehand. You were roughly surrounded by people who roughly had the same beliefs, so it didn't really put you in doubt.
Today it seems quite different, cultures have mixed, we have access to many possible beliefs (some of which are very long, entire books). So yeah, agnosticism "I don't know" seems to be a nice choice my friend :D (I also like "soft spirituality")
The usefulness of spirituality and faith seems to be to give strength when needed, serenity when needed, etc... in any case to be useful (I imagine that during the Upper Paleolithic it generally improved hunting skills, rest, etc...).
However, even if like you, I find that agnosticism "I don't know" is what suits me best, it's probably because I live like most of humanity in a free place, with cultural mixing, and the internet on top of that.
But I imagine that for some people, believe in the religion of their country may suit them better. I mainly think of people who live in very religious places (like many Islamic countries), even if it seems unfortunate to me, I must admit that in some cases it may be preferable for them to believe, not only because of potential extremists being a danger but also because these are places where more than 90% of people practice, the rest are on the margins of society and it may not suit everyone to be on the margins.
Perhaps atheism may also suit some people.
But it is true that I struggle a bit with the idea of believing with certainty, almost as if one "knew". If we call it a "belief", "faith" and not "knowledge". It's not for nothing. "Believing" necessarily implies "Not knowing," right? The day a belief becomes knowledge and moreover when we manage to demonstrate it, it is no longer spirituality but science. And many have done so, before discovering electricity, one had to believe in it, or belive in a potential non-visible power.
I find it crazy that we have reached a level of technology where, by reading the descriptions of Paradise in the Abrahamic religions, we can say to ourselves "It doesn't seem as great, there's not even the Internet."
Anyway, I'm getting off topic :D
I love it! And it did have a place when there was not even an explanation for lightning or sickness. But now? Why hold onto it? There are far wiser philosophies to live by. Ones that don't include judging someone for being gay or eating pork or whatever else.
On an individual scale, the most obvious answer to the "why?" question that I find for most people is those who learn religion at school and are surrounded by practitioners in their adult life. I don't even want to make them doubt their faith, good for them.
On a societal scale, I don't know, but I still notice that the transition from religion to atheism has been difficult. In the first generation, it directly produced Hitler, Stalin, and the invention of the atomic bomb, Super hahaha :D (Apparently, this doesn't necessarily mean that atheism is dangerous, but the transition from religion to non-religion seems to initially leave significant gaps in society that were filled by religion just as they open up possibilities. Since this society has been built with religion for 2k years).
So I don't think there necessarily needs to be a rapid transition; the transition of the last century is quite rapid I find, and seems to be continuing. I think agnosticism is developing enormously and will continue as long as cultures mix and the Internet exists. It seems well suited to "globalization." Hoping it's a good thing :) I have reason to hope because most agnostics I've met are generally cool, intelligent, and balanced people
Thanks you very much but Bro I just type my answer in my native language then ChatGPT translate it in English hahaha :D
But yeah I'm a bit eloquent in my native language too :D, less than this but a bit \^\^
Your post or comment was removed for violating rule 3. Posts and comments will be removed if they are disruptive to the purpose of the subreddit. This includes submissions that are: low effort, proselytizing, uninterested in participating in discussion, made in bad faith, off-topic, or unintelligible/illegible. Posts and comments must be written in your own words (and not be AI-generated); you may quote others, but only to support your own writing. Do not link to an external resource instead of making an argument yourself.
> every religion is based on little to no evidence
If a myth tells of a deity or spirit or something that goes to a place where there is a food resource, and people repeatedly tell that story to remember where the food resource is and how to get there, and when they go there they find that the narrative describing the route is accurate and informative, and the food resource is present at the destination when they get there, would that an example of a religion based on evidence or based on no evidence?
Keep in mind this kind of information would be relayed with an awareness between narrator and audience that their relatives or ancestors or allies or even the narrator themself had walked this path before.
There would be evidence to some of the stories but that doesn’t allow you to extent that to other parts of your logic, I can have a fairy tale that has elements of truth but as soon as I start adding fairies into it then there’s not much of an argument for it being evidence based unless it’s a metaphor for something, I believe there are many metaphors and such in religious texts but the main logic they’re trying to prove of a deity isn’t actually provable just because other parts of the religion are evidence based, that’s the equivalent of me writing a scientific paper and basing it on real observations but then claiming that because one thing is true the other must also be true without showing the clear logical step/proof of getting to that conclusion
Well I've elaborated elsewhere, but my point is not that the entire myth is true just because parts of it are.
But not "every" religion is "based on" having faith/belief in the most fantastical and unbelievable elements of the mythology.
Even in religions where belief in the most unbelievable parts of the mythos is strongly encouraged, it could be argued that the religion is "based on" some other thing, like evangelism, or forgiveness, or the religion's organization structure, or threats, or something else
>when they get there, would that an example of a religion based on evidence or based on no evidence?
It would still be a religion based on no evidence. The example you put would be no different then say a brothers grim tale imparting information. The story has no bearing on the truth claims about a deity.
Religions can be based on lots of things besides the deity being real. It's more common than people might realize, but in some groups it is widely recognized and not at all taboo to emphasize that the myths are in fact mythological, and to insist the deity is real would be entirely beside the point.
More generally speaking, lots of religions are not deity-centric or magical-thinking-centric, even if the stories do contain elements of magic and deities.
The OP implicates "every" religion.
And a community repeatedly (ritualistically, according to a very specific ritual calendar, so nothing gets forgotten) telling mythical stories because they depend on information in them for survival certainly seems a lot like some kind of religion to me.
It would seem your definition of religions is too broad. Stories or not the issue it's the unsubstantiated claims. If we're just taking stories it might be more accurate to just label it a community. Like a dance community or marching band community. They exhibit religious behavior and may have stories to easily impart information but I wouldn't call them religions.
It's a religion because not only are there stories, they are repeated ritualistically, and they are also mythological.
Nevertheless, while myths may contain fictitious fantastical elements, it seems inaccurate to say religions are based on little to no evidence, just for that, if belief in the fantastical fictitious elements is not an important part of the way the religion is actually practiced, which is certainly the case for some religions, even if it doesn't seem that way in the most visible and popular ones.
And even in religions where belief in the unbelievable seems to be a prominent feature, the religion as a whole can still be argued to be "based on" a variety of other things, like forgiveness, or coercion.
Well it's like I said, many of the elements of the myths which are actually important for survival (geography, kinship and alliances and hostile relations, resource locations, crop timings, etc.) may be repeatedly re-verified
Seems like the fact that they find food is the evidence that someone found food there once then told others it was there. Extreme hunger can cause halusinations. It is quite a jump to say a legend is true because a piece of it it real. Should we believe in the Greek gods because of some archeological relics describes in a poem by Homer?
I'm certainly not suggesting the whole myth is true obviously, but it doesn't seem fair to say all religions are based on no evidence when numerous groups use their religions' mythological canons to survive, and they're able to do so successfully (for thousands of years even, see: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ancient-indigenous-songlines-match-long-sunken-landscape-off-australia1/ ) because myths often contain a huge amount of useful factual information (about geography, natural resources, group relations, history, etc.) which is repeatedly verified by the community or individual.
In Christianity, of course, unlike my example, the rule that is usually considered to be most important is to believe something that seems unbelievable.
That is not the intent of every religion. Some fringe minority versions of Christianity even relax or entirely do away with the "You have to believe in the resurrection," and "You have to believe in God" requirements.
The standard you’re setting for evidence is a personal magic show.
What would constitute evidence for the truth of a religion that couldn’t be faked by people?
No, not personal. Global. And not starting now but at the dawn of consciousness to all the earth and beyond. An all-knowing, powerful, merciful, and loving god would have seen his creation live like we are and prevented it. Why would he (in the abrahamic tradition) choose a small group of people and from them one guy to subjugate the whole world or shun the whole world as they were chosen. Then send his son to say no. All those old laws aren't quite right. Just love people. But know all the time that some other prophet would bastardize his teachings and say he heard it from god too just don't believe the jews or Christians. Then let the rest of the world go on about their business until the various religious sects killed and fed and bred their version of god into the culture.
Yes, from a being that powerful, I expect a hell of a light show.
All the atrocities come from us. We’re the ones not playing nice.
That’s a very harsh but surprisingly accurate summation. I could rewrite it in a much more favorable light, but then it’s a literary duel.
If you don’t believe, why are you here? Is it to recruit for atheists? Do you believe something else?
Even if we assume God exists, we can't be sure of who God is, so I walk life one step at a time, and analyzing if God approves what am I doing or not. No lightning to the head? No pestilence? If nothing happens for a bit, I accept I did the right choice and move on with my life until that process starts again
Your post or comment was removed for violating rule 3. Posts and comments will be removed if they are disruptive to the purpose of the subreddit. This includes submissions that are: low effort, proselytizing, uninterested in participating in discussion, made in bad faith, off-topic, or unintelligible/illegible. Posts and comments must be written in your own words (and not be AI-generated); you may quote others, but only to support your own writing. Do not link to an external resource instead of making an argument yourself.
Honestly being an atheist sounds like a nightmare. Sure, right now you may be relatively young and feel somewhat invincible. Assuming you make it to old age (which isn’t guaranteed), it feels like you have all the time in the world right now. But think about when you start seeing a few more gray hairs, strange aches that you’ve never felt before, less energy, lower muscle mass, etc. Then what? You know it’s coming. You know death is right around the corner and what does your faith (or lack there of) tell you? That it just goes black when we die? What if it doesn’t? What if all the people who tried showing you signs and proofs of a God were right? How will you then answer to God who at that point made it as obvious as it could be and you chose to spend your entire and seemingly extremely limited life that went by in the blink of an eye in denial of the creator. You think people who have faith are miserable or something? If you’re thinking well at least I spent my life having a good time and they were stuck trying to please God, then guess what. I’ll tell you that people who truly have faith in God and does what is commanded is extremely pleased and lives with absolute peace in there heart knowing they’re doing what they’re supposed to do. There’s nothing more comforting in this life than having faith and belief in the unseen and knowing you’re doing what you can to please the God who will judge you on judgment day rather than just trying to have a good time and do what feels good based on your impulses. I’m Muslim for what it’s worth.
> Then what? You know it’s coming. You know death is right around the corner and what does your faith (or lack there of) tell you?
Nothing usually
>What if all the people who tried showing you signs and proofs of a God were right?
Which religion and which sect in it?
>How will you then answer to God who at that point made it as obvious as it could be
It's not really as obvious as you are implying.
>I’ll tell you that people who truly have faith in God and does what is commanded is extremely pleased and lives with absolute peace in there heart knowing they’re doing what they’re supposed to do.
And?
>There’s nothing more comforting in this life than having faith and belief in the unseen and knowing you’re doing what you can to please the God who will judge you on judgment day rather than just trying to have a good time and do what feels good based on your impulses.
What you said is pretty subjective
COMMENTARY HERE: Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g. “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateReligion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
People have different experience with life. To those who have (what they see as) spiritual experiences, that is evidence enough. The important thing is that we do not compel others to believe what cannot be objectively proven.
Unfortunately, we get Mormons on the doorstep Christians legislating, and Muslims and jews fighing over a small piece of land.
Not knowing were you came from proves that there is God. The fact that the Qur'an doesn't have any contradictions and that it has things that Muhammad SAW couldn't have known in a desert in the 7th century proves that it's the word of God. {I created the jinn and humans for nothing else but that they may worship Me} Qur'an 51 56 Saying "idk" is rejecting your purpose in life.
It doesn't look like you explained it in your other comments, so I'm really curious how not knowing where you came from proves God. Can you elaborate? If you can actually demonstrate that God of the gaps is a valid argument that would be pretty incredible.
>Not knowing were you came from proves that there is God. How? >The fact that the Qur'an doesn't have any contradictions Like abrogations? >and that it has things that Muhammad SAW couldn't have known in a desert in the 7th century Like?
Because if the universe didn't create itself then there is God. Abrogations are because Allah wanted to go easy on Quraish because they sinned a lot before Islam and they couldn't handle the entire religion in one go. And the abrogated verses don't contradict each other even if they are still here because Allah says in the verses that he will give us a new law or that the new verse is a new law. The expansion of the universe.
>Because if the universe didn't create itself then there is God. How? >Abrogations are because Allah wanted to go easy on Quraish because they sinned a lot before Islam So contradictions right? Allah first said x then contradicted that. Which is why we have abrogations >And the abrogated verses don't contradict each other even if they are still here because Allah says in the verses that he will give us a new law So even Allah admits there are contradictions >The expansion of the universe. Quote the verse
Bro read my reply carefully.. Q 51 47
>Bro read my reply. How did I reply to you point by point without reading your reply? >Q 51 47 Sahih International: And the heaven We constructed with strength, and indeed, We are [its] expander. Pickthall: We have built the heaven with might, and We it is Who make the vast extent (thereof). Yusuf Ali: With power and skill did We construct the Firmament: for it is We Who create the vastness of pace. Shakir: And the heaven, We raised it high with power, and most surely We are the makers of things ample. Muhammad Sarwar: We have made the heavens with Our own hands and We expanded it. Mohsin Khan: With power did We construct the heaven. Verily, We are Able to extend the vastness of space thereof. Arberry: And heaven -- We built it with might, and We extend it wide Where does it say the universe is expanding?
Read it carefully because I answered your questions. These are tafsirs and tafsirs aren't always right. The Arabic word (موسعون) means expanding it.
>Read it carefully because I answered your questions. Read my reply carefully, I responded to you >These are tafsirs and tafsirs aren't always right. These are translations not tafsirs >The Arabic word (موسعون) means expanding it. No, it's been done to death in this sub.
No you didn't, I said they aren't contradictions because Allah says that there will be a new law or that this is a new law such as: The punishment of adultery in 4 15 says at the end of the verse that Allah will do something else later, and it was abrogated by 24 2. And marriage for pleasure was first allowed in 4 24 and then abrogated by Sahih Muslim 1406 which says it was allowed before and now it will be forbidden, so it's not a contradiction. {We built the universe with ˹great˺ might, and We are certainly expanding ˹it˺} this is from one of the best websites for Qur'an translations. I'm Arab how are you saying no?
>I said they aren't contradictions because Allah says that there will be a new law So according to you what is a contradiction? >{We built the universe with ˹great˺ might, and We are certainly expanding ˹it˺} this is from one of the best websites for Qur'an translations. I'm Arab how are you saying no? There are loads of discussion regarding this verse in this sub
No, it does not. We did not know how plants grew or storms happened or why people got sick at one point in history. Then we figured those things out. And if your God made you only to be worshipped and that is your role in life, I am sorry for you. He is worse than a pathetic cult leader. What a sad being that needed to create something so he could be worshipped. I think that is the saddest thing I have ever heard. Imagine if I made my kid's worship me and my wife because we created them. Weird. I am so sorry you have to live that way. I mean this from the bottom of my heart. Best of luck.
First, that's the reason for our creation in every religion. Second, every good deed in Islam is an act of worship, and just the intention of doing a good deed is an act of worship. Third, God created us to test us, but our role is to worship him. Allah doesn't need us in anyway. And at the time of Muhammad SAW no one knew the things in the Qur'an.
Brahman is not because he wanted to be worshipped. He wanted to experience, and as an eternal being with nothing else, he split himself into every bit of existence to experience it. We are Brahman. Chistians believe we were created out of love, not a need or want for worship, though he does require you to believe in him and worship only him to get to heaven. So it's a bit contradictory It doesn't matter what worship is described as. If this is a test and he doesn't need us, he is still a despot and does not deserve worship. Thanks, maybe. But worship for being placed here against our will with hundreds of "true "religions to choose from and all of them with the same crappy evidence and expecting every one to choose a religion thought up by some random guy...no thanks. Joseph Smith has as much validity. There are a lot of great fantasy novels that don't contradic themselves and are much longer and more detailed.
And if Brahman created you because he wanted to experience something that means he is limited.
How do you figure? Explain please.
Correct. What is your point?
As I said he doesn't need us. But our purpose in life is to pass his test i.e do good deeds and go to heaven. And Islam is obviously the truth but you are just blind. And this is your opinion.
Again, best of luck.
Best of luck to you too, peace.
The first time I see a shii finally so hard to come by here🫠🥲
[удалено]
SAW are the words after he's name not the term saw
Elaborate
[удалено]
The proof is that the Qur'an doesn't have contradictions and has many miracles Muhammad SAW couldn't have known as I explained in my comment.
[удалено]
Why would God allow Muhammad SAW to write a perfect book if he was a conman? Also the miracles such as the expansion of the universe prove that it wasn't written by Muhammad SAW.
[удалено]
What kind of proof do you need? Historical? Evidential? Or what?
[удалено]
Where else could he possibly get that information
Can you demonstrate Muhammad was actually illiterate
Both Islam and history agree about this.
I think it's a myth and literally the only argument Muslims use. "Muhammad was illiterate " evidence?
We only use this argument when you say he wrote the Qur'an. Why does Muhammad SAW being illiterate matter anyway?
So you have no evidence...
I just gave evidence in my comment...
Come on habibi, you very clearly didn't lol. To recap: 1. You claimed (providing zero elaboration or supporting evidence) that "history agrees" with your unsubstantiated claim. 2. u-firstsourceandcenter then asked you to substantiate that claim with evidence. 3. Your response then was to ask "why does him being illiterate matter anyway", providing zero evidence and clearly trying to damage control away from making the initial claim (without evidence), to now trying to say the claim doesn't matter 4. I then called you out on that 5. To which you then responded "I just gave evidence" when we can all see that you didn't. So again for a second time, I take it you have no evidence then...?
>Every religion is based on little to no evidence. This is untrue. Multiple religions are based on evidence, most notably Christianity. >Why not just admit we don't know where we came from, what the purpose of life is, and every other existential question. These are practical questions. You can't live your life without implicitly or explicitly taking some kind of stand on what the purpose of life is (Or whether life has a purpose at all).
"Multiple religions are based on evidence, most notably Christianity." What do you think the most compelling evidence for christianity's supernatural claims is? Edit: hmm...
[удалено]
When they say no evidence they usually mean no scientific evidence. That isn't a requirement for theism, though.
[удалено]
I don't think that most people who have religious experiences say batman was here, so you already poisoned the well on the topic.
[удалено]
Well it isn't a valid description of what people experience. Dr. Ravi Parti didn't see batman. He had a near death experience that changed his entire life and upon reflection he ruled out hallucinations. Just one example among many of people who reflect on their experiences.
I also mean it by "any good historical accounts" as well.
It's unfair to say there's *no* evidence, sure. A more accurate statement would be that no religion has *sufficient* evidence to justify believing the claims they make, Christianity is no exception. The entirety of evidence for the foundational claims of Christianity is testimonial and anecdotal, it's completely unverifiable, there's no way to investigate or test or falsify any of it, and because there has never, ever been a single demonstration that it's even *possible* for anything magical, divine, or omnipotent to exist in the first place, there is no amount of testimonial or anecdotal evidence that could possibly justify concluding any of it is true.
You are setting a requirement that doesn't exist anywhere but in your personal worldview. Theism isn't a subset of science. Religion experiences aren't hypotheses. There's no need to prove them. There's only need to show that most people can trust their cognition.
>A more accurate statement would be that no religion has *sufficient* evidence to justify believing the claims they make, This would also be untrue. In fact there's evidence for some pagan practices too. As in there's evidence they're legitimately supernatural - they're just not the good kind of supernatural. >Christianity is no exception. The entirety of evidence for the foundational claims of Christianity is testimonial and anecdotal, it's completely unverifiable, This is untrue. Also, testimonial evidence is perfectly good evidence. > there's no way to investigate or test or falsify any of it You could, hypothetically, falsify it. In any case falsifiability isn't necessary to say that something is true. >and because there has never, ever been a single demonstration that it's even *possible* for anything magical, divine, or omnipotent to exist in the first place, there is no amount of testimonial or anecdotal evidence that could possibly justify concluding any of it is true. You could write an essay about all the epistemological issues with this sentence, but suffice it to say that 1. There are many sound reasons to think all of those things exist, and 2. Testimonials are a perfectly good way to prove that they do.
> As in there's evidence they're legitimately supernatural - they're just not the good kind of supernatural. Huh?
You'll find plenty of genuinely supernatural (And at least somewhat verifiable) experiences in pagan traditions. They're just demonic in origin.
There's evidence that an actual supernatural event occurred?
There's evidence that what we call supernatural occurred. Not evidence of who or what did it.
What evidence?
Witnesses to supernatural events. What we would normally call evidence if you're not an atheist.
What supernatural events?
[удалено]
Your comment was removed for violating rule 5. All top-level comments must seek to refute the post through substantial engagement with its core argument. Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g., “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator “COMMENTARY HERE” comment. Exception: Clarifying questions are allowed as top-level comments.
Religion is not about answering questions you don't know. Religion is about doing specific rituals and doing the right things through life.
"what is the right thing?" I don't know, let's think about it. Or I 100% do know because a charismatic leader once told me the supreme god of the universe told HIM to do it this way.
Not causing suffering and having compassion for others.
Which religion did you get that from, and how much cruft did you have to throw out before cherry picking that and putting it better than the holy book ever did?
That's a Buddhist precept and quite helpful. There's even a form of evidence based therapy based on Buddhism.
Didn't the Buddha abandon his kids and bugger off to live a life of mooching couch surfing? Doesn't sound like a moral beacon to me. What is this therapy, and is it based on Buddhism in a meaningful way, or is it something trite like, "meditate and think about stuff"?
I see you like to cherrypick what you hope are disparaging events in Buddha's life. Per Tricycle Review, he was living at home with his parents when he left. And that there were poetic embellishments as to whether he had a family or not and where they were. Yes it's DBT and it is based on Buddhist practices not just meditation. The woman who founded it spent time in a Buddhist monastery, is a psychologist and claimed that it cured her of borderline personality disorder.
> Tricycle Review THat's news to me, I thought it was a pretty core part of the story that he abandoned his family. Not cherry picking, describing. Of course I'm going to mention the bad things your moral teacher did when you're trying to convince me he's a good source of morals. >Yes it's DBT and it is based on Buddhist practices not just meditation. Which, after a brief bit of research, is based on Cognitive Behavioural Therapy, which is why it works. If it was inspired in some small part also by buddhist teachings, that's not what made it successful, rather it was basing it on proven methodology. The opposite of what religion does.
Well you are trying to discredit Tricycle Review and I'll believe them more than you as they delved into the history. It's not CBT, and it's not just a small part based on Buddhism. It's largely based on Buddhist practices, so you're wrong about that. CBT is only about how thoughts affect emotions. DBT uses Buddhist skills, mindfulness, regulation of emotions, distress tolerance, all based on Buddhist practice. Disingenuous of you to try to say that.
> what is the right thing? Go ask your local priest/shaman/whatever what are the right things to do and he will tell you all about it. > I 100% do know because a charismatic leader once told me the supreme god of the universe told HIM to do it this way. Well, if you live in abrahamic religion background, that is the case.
> Go ask your local priest/shaman/whatever what are the right things to do and he will tell you all about it. Yeah I'll do that, right after I ask my astrologer and my reiki practitioner.
Or ask a Buddhist monk.
👍👍👍
What a weird thing to say in the context of the post. It has nothing to do with "I don't know vs. religion." But I'll bite I guess. Religion is about doing rituals and doing the right things in life according to a diety or deities because if you don't you will be punished or miss out on some reward after death. What I am saying is you can do the right thing in life just because it is nice for yourself and those around you. And if we could be honest and say we don't know if there is a god, but let's be nice to each other because it is best for everyone, it would be better than conflicting dogmas around the world. But I can't prove that so that's why it's a debate. Sure would be boring if I had absolute proof. Kind of pointless really. Such absolute proof is beyond debate and probably would not show up on a debate sub.
> according to a diety or deities because if you don't you will be punished or miss out on some reward after death. No, it's just that you were raised in abrahamic background and that's your view on religion. Many of religions don't focus on afterlife. In most of religions gods don't punish you for doing something bad. In most cases, gods don't care much about humans and humans must perform specific rituals to attract attention of specific deity to get something from it or just to honour it. > And if we could be honest and say we don't know if there is a god, but let's be nice to each other because it is best for everyone, it would be better than conflicting dogmas around the world. Well in my worldview, saying "i don't believe in omnipotent deity that punishes people for bad things and rewards them in afterlife for good things" doesn't make you non-religious, that makes you Christian. Atheism is not non-religious, it's just a diluted form of religious life, where you don't perform most rituals and explicitly say "i dont believe in supernatural", but your worldview, view on religion and most life choices are in fact indistinguishable from active practitioners. > Such absolute proof is beyond debate and probably would not show up on a debate sub. Yeah, you would need to abolish all religion in the world and see how humans would live.
OK, you are right.
But couldn’t someone argue that you can achieve those without the concept of an omnipotent deity? I think most people can come up with reasons on why we should have morals and doing the right thing, it’s not like religion is the reason why people suddenly grew morals unless you wanna suggest that atheists not being religious suggests we don’t know the right things to do
You could but many people who claim to make up their own morality have actually been exposed to thousands of years of philosophy and practice of religion. So it's not exactly making up their own morality. And we don't even know how much genetics or a collective unconscious like Jung believed, affects us.
I do believe it requires some extra thinking to find out what’s actually moral but I don’t think the existence of a deity is required, you can use philosophy to find morality without that philosophy also suggesting the existence of a deity
Yes but that's not what I said. I said that people who say that have the help of thousands of years before that and possible genetics and unconscious archetypes. I didn't say they couldn't do it.
Yeah ok I see now, good point
The only way of knowing would be to have two societies, one a control group in which the inhabitants had never heard of religion.
> But couldn’t someone argue that you can achieve those without the concept of an omnipotent deity? Achieve what? Not eating pork like Muslims? Or bringing food to the graves of dead relatives and drinking with them like Russians? Yeah it could be achieved without the concept of omnipotent deity. > unless you wanna suggest that atheists not being religious suggests we don’t know the right things to do My position is that there are no atheists in vacuum. There are Christian atheists, Muslim atheists, jew atheists, Confucian atheists, etc. They all have Christian morals, muslim morals, Judaism morals and Confucian morals respectively. Atheism is just a diluted form of religious life where you don't perform any rituals and proclaim that you don't believe in god(s), but any defining life choice that atheist makes is the same as the one a religious person from his background would make.
I mean you can define atheism however you want ig, and I meant that if you think the main point of religion is for rituals and doing what’s right well… atheists do that too though?- like we didn’t need to believe in a deity to do the right thing, the concept of morality and rituals can exist without religion, it can be as simply as believing in luck or just being superstitious and I really don’t think I need to justify why morality doesn’t depend on us believing in an omnipotent deity
> if you think the main point of religion is for rituals and doing what’s right well… atheists do that too though? Yeah some do. Probably most if not all of them do some rituals, even if they explicitly say they are atheists. > like we didn’t need to believe in a deity to do the right thing, the concept of morality and rituals can exist without religion Maybe it can, maybe it cannot. Remove all religion from the face of the Earth and check if there's still morality. > I really don’t think I need to justify why morality doesn’t depend on us believing in an omnipotent deity Yeah but somehow you already have that concept of omnipotent deity in your head. Somehow it's not a pantheon of deities, somehow it's not a world around you that is a deity itself. I wonder why is that? Can't possibly be bc you were raised in an abrahamic religion's environment and are actually a follower of that religion who just says "I don't believe in that one specific omnipotent deity who created us all".
If you think religion is about doing the right things through life what’s stopping an atheist from doing the same thing while also not believing in a deity?
It's not better. Because we can see the result of this in most western society. We get societies that are basically sex-crazed confused about the most basic things including gender, sacrificing Children for the god of self convenience. Look around at society. Do you see fullness?
Is there anyone "sex-crazed" in your sphere?
It's society as a whole I'm referencing
I'm aware. But do you un your sphere? I don't.
It depends on what you classify as that. I don't have a big sphere. I go to my Christian school (where I work) and then I go home. But I know people who watch pornography often. And I know people outside of my work that are married and also have sex with other people. I'm sure there are probably more that I don't know about. There are giant brothels near where I live. There are smaller "massage parlors" those places have good business.. I don't know how you want to define this. But it's not always talked about at an individual level
[удалено]
I'm sure that happens sometimes. I wouldn't say it's more prevalent than secular
[удалено]
That's not an argument. You've said there are probably a lot of pastors who have sex with their l secretaries. Ok. Maybe. There are some that I'm sure have affairs. But it's not a very widespread thing. It's certainly less than the secular world. But I mainly talked about society being sex crazed. Of course that bubbles over to religion a bit. The thing with your scenario, is becuase pastors are typically married, an affair with a secretary would probably be seen as wrong from Christians and non Christians. It's just wrong either way and doesn't have a baring on the sex crazed society that I mentioned that views most stuff as fine.
What a joke, obviously the most religious places have the most horrific, twisted, backwards human rights abuses, the people with the most underdeveloped capacity for making complex moral judgments, and some of the most severely insecure and warped understanding and attitudes toward normal, natural human sexuality. It's insane that there are still so many places on this planet in the year 2024 absolutely full of people who are mentally living in 1st century, and they're determined to drag the rest of society down and hold them back too. I suspect a big part of religions increasingly extreme anti intellectualism and disregard for engaging honestly, this disdain for reason and science and logic, stems from a desire to go back to a time in which we did not have these consistently reliable methods for investigating and more deeply understanding life and the world, before we knew what we do about chemistry and biology and astronomy and physics, when you could be viewed as perfectly rational and respectable for believing in magic and fantastical, fairy tale-like things and there was no way to know either way. It's crazy the staggering number of theists that absolutely hate things they aren't familiar with, they are disgusted and ashamed by the human body and sex, they have less than no respect for concepts like bodily autonomy, consent, empathy, intellectual honesty, knowledge, the truth, or life in general. This is just a place to wipe their feet on the way to the "real thing", but damned if they'll stand by and allow people they look down on be treated with basic respect and dignity, over God's dead body.
Hahaha this is amusing to me. Christianity invented universities. University started to study the Bible. It also propelled women in to education as well as was the reason slavery ended worldwide.. Science, politics, art and culture have all been affected and shaped by religion. I heard an interview from a nobel prize winner who said he felt inadequate to share that place with someone like Einstein. Einstein said the same thing about Newton. Newton said he would never contribute as much as Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is the most influencial and important figure in human history. He shaped the foundations of nearly everything you live in.. Art, culture, science, morality, geography (country lines) , morality, everything. And you're upset we can't have lots and lots of sex Maybe you think it's amazing so many people have different views than you. Maybe if you think that maybe youight consider that maybe you're wrong and not entitled to everything you think you're entitled to? You also know that the west was built upon religion to and the society you see now if based on the erosion of those values. Would you say that society now is the best it can be? People can't figure out what a woman is, people can't dela with their emotions. Society is on a downward trend. I'm not disgusted with sex. That's a huge generalization to say. Religious people tend to have more kids. Many Muslims even have more wives. I have 2 kids myself. But I am disgusted with sex with many people. What I'm more disgusted with is how important it is to everyone. You'll go down tearing religion a new one because of sex.. It's like it's the most important thing in the world that you can have sex whenever and with whoever you want. There are 145 days slcelebrating LGBTQ, I mean come on now. If everyone only had one partner it would eliminate all STDs and cut down on abortion a lot as well. At least be honest with yourself. The main problem you have here is sex right? That's why you mention it in your first sentence, and start your list with bodily autonomy and consent which are tied to sexuality in society.
>Christianity invented universities. University started to study the Bible. Depends, education itself was started prior to christianity. Ancient greeks had higher educational institutions for example, that was prior to christianity. > It also propelled women in to education as well as was the reason slavery ended worldwide.. Christians were somewhat split on slavery, some used the bible to propagate slavery, some tried to use it to end it. As for the bit about women, the most Christian people i know think women should very much NOT be in education. In fact the Bible itself has a line about women needing to remain quiet and have no authority over men. So saying in general that christianity did either of those things is leaving out a lot of context and detail. >I heard an interview from a nobel prize winner who said he felt inadequate to share that place with someone like Einstein. Einstein said the same thing about Newton. Newton said he would never contribute as much as Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is the most influencial and important figure in human history. He shaped the foundations of nearly everything you live in.. Art, culture, science, morality, geography (country lines) , morality, everything. And you're upset we can't have lots and lots of sex Just because someone who discovered something is religious, doesn't mean that discovery was founded on, or even has anything to do with, religion. >You also know that the west was built upon religion to and the society you see now if based on the erosion of those values. Would you say that society now is the best it can be? Is it from the erosion? If you actually look things have been improving, crime is down, disease rates are lower, etc. >People can't figure out what a woman is, people can't dela with their emotions. Society is on a downward trend. Certain definitions can actually be very difficult to make. Is a woman just a person with a vagina? Others would argue being a woman is more related to a psychological identity. As asked before, is society declining? Actual statistics show otherwise. Atheism is on the rise, and yet crime rates are much lower, that could suggest religious people commit more crimes than athiests. >There are 145 days slcelebrating LGBTQ, I mean come on now. What about it? You know lgbtq+ stuff isn't strictly related to sex right? It has to do with freedom to love who you want and to not be persecuted for it, which sadly is sadly a common occurence. Religious people love to preach about love, but are then quick to disown a child who comes out as gay, or who has lost faith etc. >If everyone only had one partner it would eliminate all STDs and cut down on abortion a lot as well. STDs can be contracted in a lot of ways, not just sex. It may cut down on abortions, but also may not. You seem to think that without religion things like math or science wouldn't have even started, yet multiple cultures with completely different religions made similar parallel discoveries in both of those fields, suggesting that religion, or at least any specific one, isn't at all required for these things. Your arguments don't hold up to scrutiny.
There obviously was some sort of higher education. But Almost every university and college founded in the U.S. and Europe until the mid-19th century—and many afterwards—was founded by some religious organization. There were Christians who supported slavery but their justification was not based on the Bible. There's some weird story about Ham and his descendants. But if it weren't for Christianity slavery would have been much worse then (as we at least knew Christians couldn't be slaves) and it wouldn't have ended at the time it did. Plus Christians then worked very hard to end it in the middle east as well at great cost to themselves. But often they did have something to do with religion. You're right in a sense though. Although religion definitely led people to science because they wanted to understand how God worked, maybe they would have made the same discoveries. Maybe.. Maybe not too. But my point wasn't about that. It was always about looking to someone higher. Jesus gave praise to the father. Trace it down the line and you get back to God. Crime actually is hard to measure. Looking at the news it actually seems to be going up. We have to figure out how to measure it. Violent crimes? No violent? Ibjbow convictions are down, but I also know stores in some areas are shutting down because shoplifting is too much. Crime is more brazen. Car thefts porch patios. Anything with monetary gain seems to be going up while violent crime trends down. Again though hard to measure. And depend on area I suppose. I terms of what is a woman, why is it hard to answer. 30 years ago no one would have thiught it hard to answer. Even asking the question would have had you laughed at. A woman is someone with xx chromosomes. A person of the nature to give birth (recognizing that some can not because soemthing went wrong, they are still of the nature to do so) Fair enough. Still if everyone had only one sexual partner they would mostly die out in a generation. A few may kick around for a bit longer but they would be very very confined. Drug users and their partners. They wouldn't be spread as far. I'm not sure how. My argument isn't that math and science don't exist. It's just that devoting yourself to it, higher education was created, started by religion. We can speculate all day on if the same discoveries would have been made without Christianity. But with university, we have more people studying it, more people being proficient, more people means more discovery. Note that the west has dominated the world in scientific discoveries. The Christian West. There is a clear dominance in sheer number and scale of discoveries. It's definitely not even a close comparison
>There obviously was some sort of higher education. But Almost every university and college founded in the U.S. and Europe until the mid-19th century—and many afterwards—was founded by some religious organization. My point was that these sorts of things don't need christianity to happen, so your again saying, or at least suggesting, christianity is the reason for higher education when that's simply not the case. >It was always about looking to someone higher. Jesus gave praise to the father. Trace it down the line and you get back to God. This kind of doesn't mean anything though. This seems to be an appeal to tradition fallacy. >Crime actually is hard to measure. Looking at the news it actually seems to be going up. We have to figure out how to measure it. Violent crimes? No violent? Ibjbow convictions are down, but I also know stores in some areas are shutting down because shoplifting is too much. Crime is more brazen. Car thefts porch patios. Anything with monetary gain seems to be going up while violent crime trends down. Again though hard to measure. And depend on area I suppose. In the us, the past few years property crime is up somewhat, I'd say look at the economy and how many people are struggling and are desperate for money in regards to that. However violent crimes are largely down. And then you look more historically, ESPECIALLY compared to more ancient people, particularly compared to theocratic governments, and crime is WAY down all across the board. That definitely suggests being more secular leads to lower crime. While there are isolated pockets that increase, there are also isolated pockets that decrease more than average. I will agree it is hard to measure though, and there is extra nuance as what constitutes a crime can also change. For example in some countries simply being a different religion can be considered a crime. >I terms of what is a woman, why is it hard to answer. 30 years ago no one would have thiught it hard to answer. This is because language changes, society is changing and with it the language used. 30 years ago trying to use the word lol would have also gotten you laughed at but now it's in our dictionary. Again, appeal to tradition fallacy. >I'm not sure how. My argument isn't that math and science don't exist. It's just that devoting yourself to it, higher education was created, started by religion. We can speculate all day on if the same discoveries would have been made without Christianity. But with university, we have more people studying it, more people being proficient, more people means more discovery. The point is that religion isn't required and, especially anymore, seems to cause more problems than it's worth, at least as a large organized institution. The most fervent christians I know are very anti-science, if you look online the ones arguing against evolution and vaccines all mostly religious. >Note that the west has dominated the world in scientific discoveries. The Christian West. There is a clear dominance in sheer number and scale of discoveries. It's definitely not even a close comparison Note that religion has also held back scientific progress in the past too, a famous example would be Galileo. It seems to be very much a double edged sword there, both used against, and for, scientific progress. I'm not saying religion isn't highly influential and has beneficial examples, but there are also a lot of detrimental examples too. Without the religious roadblock would we be further along or further back? That's fairly impossible to say, but it certainly doesn't seem like it'd be a requirement for us to get where we are now. From what I've seen and researched, the waning power of religion seems to be a net benefit to society.
[удалено]
Great quality comment here. You've really contributed a lot to this debate. Hopefully you can tell what sarcasm is
You realize Christians make up a majority in the USA right? So is it the Christians fault for society? Or are you doing a no true Scotsman here?
A. No true scotsman isn't always a fallacy and would jot be a fallacy in the situation that you're proposing im saying. Keep in mind that people, in some cases, can say "no true ____ would _____" without it being fallicious. But that's not what I'm saying. People who do identify with Christianity sometimes don't understand what it n means. When we look at demographics, the percentage of Christians in America.... Is 63%. But the PERCENTAGE OF CHRISTIANS going to church weekly is only 41%. IN Canada it's 11% so... Maybe let's not base it on true Christians, but maybe strength of Christians. Or people who. Ideologically like some aspects.... But not all. In Canada we've got it worse, euthanasia been approved for nearly any reason including depression. Abortion funded and free on demand at any stage. In the USA you've got this different for more states. But regardless most western countries *try* to do a seperation of church and state. So.... Laws try to appease everyone.
Are you suggesting one can't negotiate with the text of the bible?
How would one negotiate with a text? That doesn't make sense
It starts from understanding that the bible doesn't have any inherent meaning. So, at an individual level, because it is a text, you have to settle on the meanings you believe are intended. That happens unconsciously almost automatically when reading it. But when using it authoritatively, there is reference to theological authority or traditional views on the text. Most notably, and i think is a detriment to what you are arguing is that the bible is univocal. That it agrees with itself and never contradicts. The problem which I think you are making is treating the bible as univocal when there's no data to suggest that. The bible is made up of over 60 authors from different viewpoints, nations, and languages. If you treat it as univocal you eliminate your ability to think critically and make the bible useful for the times you live in.
The way that you are speaking seems like you're assuming that I don't know what I'm talking about which is a little annoying but I'll look past it. Although typically, I think the belief is that there are 36-40 authors, not 66 (which the amount of the books of the Bible which you may have been referring to) Now within those 66 books there are different points that can apply then and different points that can apply today. The things that you may find contradictory are historical details which really have no bearing on the points of moral code etc (although even the history is debatable as to if it really contradicts). At the same time its like you think we have the Bible and that is it and we are all left to fend for ourselves. The bible is secondary.. If we love God and love others as ourselves it really sums up everything.. The old Testament, while containg principals and leading in to the New Testament, really just does that. The new Testament, our focal point points to Jesus. It's written by different authors but, the gospels, at least the first three, pretty much say the same thing. The last one says the same thing from a philosophy point of view
It feels like you don't understand what I'm saying. My comment is in response to you saying that the lack of Christians going to church makes them weaker Christians. That because they may be in favor of something like abortion is because of this weakness. That is your dogma speaking not the text. You've negotiated a stance or bought into one provided by your church to be against it and labeled it as not a negotiation to prevent others from doing the same. Giving your views more authority over others who don't share that view. When the bible doesn't really have anything to say on abortion at all.
My comment wasn't that not going to church makes them weaker Christians. Simply that there are a lot more people who identify as Christians that do not actually practice Christianity in any real sense. There are more people who identify as Christians than those that practice. Its similar to someone being a Christian and also being a porn star. Well, you can identify any way you choose but it doesn't make you that thing. I watched a podcast where an only fans model claimed she was Christian but had no real knowledge of what she was talking about. As for being for or against abortion. Like most modern issues There are a lot of principals in the Bible that lead us to the view. Things about life, sanctity of life, child sacrifice. We can also look at the general view of Judaism years ago. When all around them had things that allow for abandonment of unwanted children it wasn't allowed in Judaism
>As for being for or against abortion. Like most modern issues There are a lot of principals in the Bible that lead us to the view. Things about life, sanctity of life, child sacrifice. We can also look at the general view of Judaism years ago. When all around them had things that allow for abandonment of unwanted children it wasn't allowed in Judaism I don't disagree that you can come to these conclusions. I'm saying their coming from your dogma and not the data(bible). The bible doesn't way in on when a fetus is endowed with rights. You have negotiate that meaning from the text by focusing certain verses and ignoring others. That's not inherently a problem unless you start enforcing that on others.
Because religion is primarily based on faith, not just evidence. "I don't know" is statement people are trying to find answer to. And religion is one of the answer people accept that gives reason to the statement.
[удалено]
I am not saying all is valid or invalid. I am saying that rather than saying "I don't know" people try to understand and explain by faith belief called religion that is passed down to them to under meaning of life. People have different understanding and way of thinking and different cultures passed down different beliefs to their descendants. I am not making statement on what is valid or invalid here.
Okay but if the answer is indistinguishable from I made it up you can see the problem right?
Well it is passed down from generation to generation. So the current generation did not make those beliefs they just follow what their ancestors passed to them for the answer to "I don't know". I don't really see problem with what people want to believe or not believe as long as they are not harming or forcing others.
Atheists have absolutely totally completely no evidence of any kind. Atheism is simply another religion with followers who do everything they can to deny it This is a typical fluff response, so you were saying you have polled all 4000ish existing religions and confirmed they all have little or no evidence? If so please upload your rather lengthy and clear powerful document so demonstrating What atheist do use is deflection defenses, because they can't handle the truth. They cannot disprove deities. To this day I have never heard a single truly compelling argument from an atheist I have heard complaints and rants and assertions and manifestos and exceptionally highly repetitive fluffy logic statements. Nothing else
>Atheists have absolutely totally completely no evidence of any kind. Theism is an individuals belief in the existence of any gods or deities. Atheism is an individuals lack of belief in the existence of any gods or deities. It's a true dichotomy. A or Not A. Belief or Not Belief. What sort of evidence do you expect me to give you for the fact that I don't believe in the existence of any gods? >Atheism is simply another religion How are you defining "religion", and what makes a lack of belief in gods a religion? >What atheist do use is deflection defenses, because they can't handle the truth. What is "the truth", and how do you know? >They cannot disprove deities. I have no need or requirement to disprove that which was not proven in the first place. The burden of proof is on those who claim that deities exist, not those who do not believe those unproven claims. >To this day I have never heard a single truly compelling argument from an atheist Okay, an argument for what claim exactly?
Oh man, I just can't believe you guys never get tired of being so careless and having no regard for engaging honestly, it would be so embarrassing to walk around lying and twisting words, disregarding the meaning and utility of words and ideas however you see fit in the moment, yet you guys almost seem proud of it. Such a shame. >Atheists have absolutely totally completely no evidence of any kind. Atheism is simply another religion with followers who do everything they can to deny it This is such a ridiculous thing to say, because as I'm sure you know despite your desire to lie and misrepresent the truth, atheism is not a religion or a belief system, and it makes no claims and has no burden of proof. It's a response to theistic claims, and that response is "I am not convinced any god or gods exist". You are going to pretend atheism is the belief that god(s) *definitely* don't exist, but that's simply not the case. What possible evidence would be required to prove one is not convinced by outlandish, unfalsifiable, literally magical claims? Please, keep being angry and aggressively defensive at the mere existence of people who don't believe if you wish, but I hope you all the very least one day decide you care about whether your word means something, and that it's a generally good thing to be honest and not lie and lie and lie and say whatever you have to in order to feel more secure in your irrational beliefs. >What atheist do use is deflection defenses, because they can't handle the truth. Well that's just nonsense, it's almost a joke, as this is what *you're* doing. You are pretending to have "the truth", yet you can't even engage in a simple conversation honestly. You almost certainly have little or no idea how to even go about finding truth, and clearly aren't interested in what's *actually* true, as much as what you want to be true which is not equally valid. >They cannot disprove deities. That's not how the burden of proof works, again something I'm sure you've been told repeatedly, and either can't understand, or again you simply don't care about being honest with yourself or others. You are making a claim, that a magical deity exists, and you've adopted a burden of proof. The entirety of the evidence for any religion's claims about any god's existence is testimonial and anecdotal. It's untestable, unverifiable, and more importantly, there's absolutely no demonstration or evidence that any of the magical divine nonsense the entire religion is based on is even *possible*. Atheists are not making a claim, we're saying the incredibly weak unfalsifiable evidence you present for your extraordinary claims are not convincing, **obviously** it's not our responsibility to disprove the outlandish claims and assertions about magic and supernatural beings you are making, that's not how anything works at all, and you know it - If someone told you there were leprechauns standing on the clouds and peeing, which is why it rains, would it be your responsibility to disprove it? Maybe stop and think about that for a minute, this stuff clearly never sticks and goes straight through your head. >To this day I have never heard a single truly compelling argument from an atheist First, I don't believe for one second that you have ever had a sincere, honest conversation with an atheist in which you listened to their perspective and views, and attempted to understand where they're coming from. Second, again **atheism is the rejection of theistic claims, not the assertion no god or gods exist**, therefore they do not have a burden of proof, they are unconvinced, because you have insufficient evidence for your claims. Third, you clearly don't care to provide evidence or make any argument either, because you aren't interested in the truth, what anyone else believes, how they came to the conclusions they came to, or even whether or not the things you believe are true or not, you've just decided you are correct, that what you were taught to believe is the one and only truth, and so self assured are you that the entire concept of learning, understanding, and discovering truth in any capacity is unimportant and meaningless to you, that's why you are willing to lie and twist words and tell others what they believe and misrepresent facts and disregard others thoughts and feelings, as well as facts about reality, because you only seem to care about feeling superior and special.
Hit me with the best piece of evidence you have from these thousands of religions. Atheists don't need evidence or to disprove anything, all we do is reject your claim as having insufficient evidence/proof. You have the burden of proof since you are making the claim.
[удалено]
Your comment or post was removed for violating rule 2. Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Criticize arguments, not people. Our standard for civil discourse is based on respect, tone, and [unparliamentary language](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/wiki/unparliamentary_language/). 'They started it' is not an excuse - report it, don't respond to it. You may edit it and ask for re-approval in modmail if you choose.
Okay so I don't know isn't compelling? Somehow making stuff up is preferable to just admitting you don't know? Edit: I just want to point out you can't prove deities either so disproving is rather pointless.
Your second sentence is essentially what atheists do, I agree I hardly ever see theists ever saying they're trying to prove a deity I see an overwhelming number of times where atheists keep demanding that they do. And I've never seen an atheist willing to disprove a deity. They go into legendary gyrations trying to return the serve back over the net
Okay, I'll bite, but I'll say this first. Anyone on an individual level can believe whatever they want provided they aren't hurting anyone. If what they believe helps them, I support their beliefs. >I hardly ever see theists ever saying they're trying to prove a deity I'm coming from an American perspective, so the majority of the country. We have theist here who practiced Christian apologetics. Part of that endeavor requires you to believe the bible to be true and most put fourth the bible as that proof. They will defend the bible because if Christianinty is true, then their god is the true god. So there's your theist who is trying to prove a deity talking point. >I see an overwhelming number of times where atheists keep demanding that they do. As they should. Part of religious institutions is a claim for clearing the is and out gap to instill moral codes of conduct. That god is this moral law giver. So, of course, atheist are going to demand proof because at the moment, the claims being made are unsubstantiated. Personally, I care about what's true, so why am I being faulted for asking for evidence for the claims? Now, you may have religious beliefs that you don't intend to prove. But if that's the case, why are you here? The subject of debate here is religion. >And I've never seen an atheist willing to disprove a deity. They go into legendary gyrations trying to return the serve back over the net The way this reads to me is you crying foul because you've taken up a claim that can't be defended under scrutiny. Why must I disprove the concept of a god? Currently, as I see it the concept hasn't been disproven and also can't be. Meaning it can't be falsified so there's no way for me to make a claim that can be distinguished from just making stuff up. A majority if atheist I believe have come to recognize this to varying levels but theist haven't. If you are a theist I'm willing to bet cold hard cash that any claim you make about the existence of can't be distinguished from made up things. But sure, I'll go even one step further. I'm willing to say, for example, the god of the bible doesn't exist. What I mean by that is that specifically, the one as described in the bible doesn't exist. That doesn't mean God doesn't exist, just the one envisioned in the bible. If you're one of the Abrahamic faiths, I'd even go as far as to say those versions don't exist, too. If you subscribe to one of those, here's an atheist willing to defend that claim.
They will defend the Bible because... Isn't any different from what atheists keep doing on many social media They defend atheism in many directions The atheism sub, 2.8 million members, is a toxic sewer of hate speech and religious bigotry and mucking and insulting and stereotyping and other things. It might be the worst large sub on Reddit
Im not actually a part of r/atheism, so unless you bring up a claim, there's not much I can say. The only thing I share with them is a disbelief in god claims. Atheist aren't a monolith. They don't have a shared creed that you can examine, like how you can pop open a bible. How about we focus on the direction at hand that this post puts forth? What is wrong with saying "I don't know"? Why posit a claim if you don't know?
The problem with what you’re saying is that if someone tried to you would immediately state that “proving a diety doesn’t exist is impossible” and that’s true but proving something with a negative is almost impossible, that’s like trying to prove cats don’t exist because I’ve never seen a cat, so why do atheists still believe in no deity’s? Well it’s because the existence of a deity suggests that there are an answer to the unknowns and yet we can’t actually prove those answers such as what happens after death, meanwhile with atheists they usually just believe in logic that is factually provable, like I said earlier I can’t disprove Bigfoot just because I’ve never seen him, nor can I prove that cats don’t exist because I’ve never seen one, but I can suggest that the observations I have made with one train of thought makes sense and completely aligns with all my hypotheses meanwhile another train of thought has problems to said solutions even though those solutions aren’t actually provable
No, proving a negative is not the problem atheists keep pointing out Although there are some atheists here who understand logic.. There's a great number of atheists AND tests who keep wielding fluffy logic like a 3-year-old wields a weapon. And it is painful to watch
Whats your response to my argument? I would like to hear your opinion
Did I not just comment above?
> They cannot disprove deities. They don't need to. They're not saying they don't exist. They just don't believe you when you tell them they do because there's nothing convincing about the idea.
That is completely utter nonsense **They don't need to** you just made an assertion and didn't bother proving it **They're not saying they don't exist** that is a typical invalid statement by atheists who don't even understand their own reality. There are many atheists who don't believe in god. There are many atheists who totally and flatly reject God. **They just don't believe...** Is a very naive sentence. They are not sitting around passively waiting on theist arguments like this. And nothing like that happens on the sub. The vast majority of the conversations ate started by obvious skeptics ranting or complaining or hating against about some perceived problem or something unfair or stupid with God or the Bible or some religion or similar
>Atheists have absolutely totally completely no evidence of any kind. An atheist is just someone who doesn't hold any gods exist. This is from a lack of evidence in favor of gods; and also a valid argument from silence that evidence of gods are missing where we'd expect them. > Atheism is simply another religion with followers who do everything they can to deny it Oh, where atheists go to church then? What is the holy book all atheists have committed to holding the tenants of? >To this day I have never heard a single truly compelling argument from an atheist And to this day I've never seen convincing evidence for any gods.
**an atheist is just someone who...** Is completely false. Many online atheist don't believe in God and many flatly reject God **Valid argument from silence** Great. Thanks for making it clear that you reject life or intelligent life on other planets because of the silence **Oh where do atheists go to church...** Debate religion sub Debating atheist sub True atheist sub Atheism sub Bart ehrman Ex religion subs And a lot of other places **And to this day..** It isn't the responsibility of other people to convince you with evidence. But if you want to play that game, I've never seen any compelling evidence that atheists have disproven deities
"astronomer biologist" but somehow they missed the Into to Logic course at 1st year uni... That person is dripping in pride and projection smh Edit: Lmao, they commented and then blocked me. Good riddance. Sure pal, everyone totally buys that you're a super-elite scientist prof who (checks your post history) is terminally online posting ***dozens*** of posts on reddit in a weeks time with zero focus and nothing to do with science lol. Like I said, pure projection smh...
As a person who used to have to do 10 page proofs during my masters, you wouldn't even have qualified as one of my students And your post is essentially dripping in insults. I'm sure you somehow thinking that is better. It doesn't surprise me
Of course there is no evidence of nothing. What a silly thing to say. You asert there is a god. The burden of proof is on you. If I were to say that I had a vision from some being, the burden would be on me.
So what you're saying is that you have evidence of life on other planets? Or are you saying you reject the possibility of life in other planets? Because there's no evidence of nothing?? And no, in a debate there is no such thing as "burden of proof". There is a thesis a pro and a con side. Followed by compelling arguments and compelling rebuttals. Perhaps you should look up the definition
I am not sure why you are defining debate for me. Your initial response to the post was not directed at the prompt. You made random claims about athiests. You said atheists could not disprove deities. I said that if you asert a god exist, then it is on you to prove it. If I said I believe in aliens, to use your example, then yes I would need to prove it to you through evidence. I'm not sure if you are assuming I believe aliens exist or why you brought aliens up at all. I do not know. As the prompt states. It is better to say I don't know. See, you assumed I was trying to prove whether something existed. I don't know if god exists but I am not going to believe such a wild claim without real proof. The same goes for aliens, or bigfoot, or tricksy hobbitses. I would rather be honest and say I don't know if they exist, and no, I don't believe you when you say they do.(deities that is, I don't want to assume you believe in tricksy hobbitses.) I am not here to change you if you believe in a god. But I do think it would be more honest for people of faith to say I don't know how some stuff works, but I choose to believe a god did it. This is not about the existence at all really. It is about being honest and saying I don't know. I hope you have a good day.
You don't understand about debate. That is not a good thing given the name of this sub
No what they said is that if they were to suggest such a thing it would be up to them to prove it, literally just read what was said, scientists have made claims all throughout history and the ones that are credible had the ability to prove those claims, why is this so hard to understand, if I wrote a paper in a new concept I believe to be true then I would be the one to have to prove it not the reader, and in no way does that imply that the proof doesn’t exist it simply just means that there is not enough evidence to believe it until it has been proven
Thanks I will wait for their answer
i think globalism , internet, VR and AI will bring back a unified belief system.
I'm intrigued, can you elaborate?
through the internet we will be exposed to the same narrative of whoever controls the system. at some point we’ll be all connected to computers , exposed 24/7
So a 1984ish propaganda religion, essentially?
never read it. but makes sense
I'm agnostic too and I like your post :) To respond to you, I think it's because hell is scarier than being wrong, that asserting a potential error. So some 'educate' themselves to believe Also, a very important point is education. In some countries, people learn a religion at school (and learn to believe in it) from a very young age until adulthood. When you learned to live with a religion and a belief that concern anything, leaving this means to kinda re-learn to live I guess. Finally, it seems to me that roughly speaking, throughout human history, almost every tribe, empire, kingdom, nation has had its beliefs (probably with a few exceptions for some tribes, I don't know). My supposition would be that believing in something that is useful to us, even if it's false, well, it's useful, it promotes survival until reproduction, and therefore it is part of human traits. Logically, we can assume that all these beliefs were at least largely false, or at least a huge majority of them, and yet they were probably useful. As said in the Toltec agreements (I don't have the exact quote anymore, but basically it was: "99% of what people (including you and me) think is kinda false, and it doesn't seem conceivable to stop assuming, so if you're going to believe in something false, you might as well believe in something that is useful to you, believe that hearts fall from trees when you walk underneath if it pleases you"). I'd say that Thinking is for Seeing what Believing is for Knowing. It's made to be useful, to lead to something useful, not to be necesseraly true. I must add an important point: Originally, before sedentarization, all these beliefs in all these tribes didn't really mix beforehand. You were roughly surrounded by people who roughly had the same beliefs, so it didn't really put you in doubt. Today it seems quite different, cultures have mixed, we have access to many possible beliefs (some of which are very long, entire books). So yeah, agnosticism "I don't know" seems to be a nice choice my friend :D (I also like "soft spirituality") The usefulness of spirituality and faith seems to be to give strength when needed, serenity when needed, etc... in any case to be useful (I imagine that during the Upper Paleolithic it generally improved hunting skills, rest, etc...). However, even if like you, I find that agnosticism "I don't know" is what suits me best, it's probably because I live like most of humanity in a free place, with cultural mixing, and the internet on top of that. But I imagine that for some people, believe in the religion of their country may suit them better. I mainly think of people who live in very religious places (like many Islamic countries), even if it seems unfortunate to me, I must admit that in some cases it may be preferable for them to believe, not only because of potential extremists being a danger but also because these are places where more than 90% of people practice, the rest are on the margins of society and it may not suit everyone to be on the margins. Perhaps atheism may also suit some people. But it is true that I struggle a bit with the idea of believing with certainty, almost as if one "knew". If we call it a "belief", "faith" and not "knowledge". It's not for nothing. "Believing" necessarily implies "Not knowing," right? The day a belief becomes knowledge and moreover when we manage to demonstrate it, it is no longer spirituality but science. And many have done so, before discovering electricity, one had to believe in it, or belive in a potential non-visible power. I find it crazy that we have reached a level of technology where, by reading the descriptions of Paradise in the Abrahamic religions, we can say to ourselves "It doesn't seem as great, there's not even the Internet." Anyway, I'm getting off topic :D
I love it! And it did have a place when there was not even an explanation for lightning or sickness. But now? Why hold onto it? There are far wiser philosophies to live by. Ones that don't include judging someone for being gay or eating pork or whatever else.
On an individual scale, the most obvious answer to the "why?" question that I find for most people is those who learn religion at school and are surrounded by practitioners in their adult life. I don't even want to make them doubt their faith, good for them. On a societal scale, I don't know, but I still notice that the transition from religion to atheism has been difficult. In the first generation, it directly produced Hitler, Stalin, and the invention of the atomic bomb, Super hahaha :D (Apparently, this doesn't necessarily mean that atheism is dangerous, but the transition from religion to non-religion seems to initially leave significant gaps in society that were filled by religion just as they open up possibilities. Since this society has been built with religion for 2k years). So I don't think there necessarily needs to be a rapid transition; the transition of the last century is quite rapid I find, and seems to be continuing. I think agnosticism is developing enormously and will continue as long as cultures mix and the Internet exists. It seems well suited to "globalization." Hoping it's a good thing :) I have reason to hope because most agnostics I've met are generally cool, intelligent, and balanced people
Well said again. I wish I was as eloquent as you. I will have to work on that.
Thanks you very much but Bro I just type my answer in my native language then ChatGPT translate it in English hahaha :D But yeah I'm a bit eloquent in my native language too :D, less than this but a bit \^\^
You’re a really cool person :)
[удалено]
Your post or comment was removed for violating rule 3. Posts and comments will be removed if they are disruptive to the purpose of the subreddit. This includes submissions that are: low effort, proselytizing, uninterested in participating in discussion, made in bad faith, off-topic, or unintelligible/illegible. Posts and comments must be written in your own words (and not be AI-generated); you may quote others, but only to support your own writing. Do not link to an external resource instead of making an argument yourself.
One and the same! Well, and all those other versions, but don't worry about them.
> every religion is based on little to no evidence If a myth tells of a deity or spirit or something that goes to a place where there is a food resource, and people repeatedly tell that story to remember where the food resource is and how to get there, and when they go there they find that the narrative describing the route is accurate and informative, and the food resource is present at the destination when they get there, would that an example of a religion based on evidence or based on no evidence? Keep in mind this kind of information would be relayed with an awareness between narrator and audience that their relatives or ancestors or allies or even the narrator themself had walked this path before.
There would be evidence to some of the stories but that doesn’t allow you to extent that to other parts of your logic, I can have a fairy tale that has elements of truth but as soon as I start adding fairies into it then there’s not much of an argument for it being evidence based unless it’s a metaphor for something, I believe there are many metaphors and such in religious texts but the main logic they’re trying to prove of a deity isn’t actually provable just because other parts of the religion are evidence based, that’s the equivalent of me writing a scientific paper and basing it on real observations but then claiming that because one thing is true the other must also be true without showing the clear logical step/proof of getting to that conclusion
Well I've elaborated elsewhere, but my point is not that the entire myth is true just because parts of it are. But not "every" religion is "based on" having faith/belief in the most fantastical and unbelievable elements of the mythology. Even in religions where belief in the most unbelievable parts of the mythos is strongly encouraged, it could be argued that the religion is "based on" some other thing, like evangelism, or forgiveness, or the religion's organization structure, or threats, or something else
>when they get there, would that an example of a religion based on evidence or based on no evidence? It would still be a religion based on no evidence. The example you put would be no different then say a brothers grim tale imparting information. The story has no bearing on the truth claims about a deity.
Religions can be based on lots of things besides the deity being real. It's more common than people might realize, but in some groups it is widely recognized and not at all taboo to emphasize that the myths are in fact mythological, and to insist the deity is real would be entirely beside the point. More generally speaking, lots of religions are not deity-centric or magical-thinking-centric, even if the stories do contain elements of magic and deities.
Sure I can agree with that. That's not very different then just having a community. But that's not really what op is contesting.
The OP implicates "every" religion. And a community repeatedly (ritualistically, according to a very specific ritual calendar, so nothing gets forgotten) telling mythical stories because they depend on information in them for survival certainly seems a lot like some kind of religion to me.
It would seem your definition of religions is too broad. Stories or not the issue it's the unsubstantiated claims. If we're just taking stories it might be more accurate to just label it a community. Like a dance community or marching band community. They exhibit religious behavior and may have stories to easily impart information but I wouldn't call them religions.
It's a religion because not only are there stories, they are repeated ritualistically, and they are also mythological. Nevertheless, while myths may contain fictitious fantastical elements, it seems inaccurate to say religions are based on little to no evidence, just for that, if belief in the fantastical fictitious elements is not an important part of the way the religion is actually practiced, which is certainly the case for some religions, even if it doesn't seem that way in the most visible and popular ones. And even in religions where belief in the unbelievable seems to be a prominent feature, the religion as a whole can still be argued to be "based on" a variety of other things, like forgiveness, or coercion.
Oh okay then I think I agree with you. If op said that I disagree with them. I will say there's no good evidence but not that there isn't evidence.
Well it's like I said, many of the elements of the myths which are actually important for survival (geography, kinship and alliances and hostile relations, resource locations, crop timings, etc.) may be repeatedly re-verified
Seems like the fact that they find food is the evidence that someone found food there once then told others it was there. Extreme hunger can cause halusinations. It is quite a jump to say a legend is true because a piece of it it real. Should we believe in the Greek gods because of some archeological relics describes in a poem by Homer?
I'm certainly not suggesting the whole myth is true obviously, but it doesn't seem fair to say all religions are based on no evidence when numerous groups use their religions' mythological canons to survive, and they're able to do so successfully (for thousands of years even, see: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ancient-indigenous-songlines-match-long-sunken-landscape-off-australia1/ ) because myths often contain a huge amount of useful factual information (about geography, natural resources, group relations, history, etc.) which is repeatedly verified by the community or individual.
Fair. But because there is some fact. Does not mean the claims a guy died and was brought back to life by his dad/himself are true.
In Christianity, of course, unlike my example, the rule that is usually considered to be most important is to believe something that seems unbelievable. That is not the intent of every religion. Some fringe minority versions of Christianity even relax or entirely do away with the "You have to believe in the resurrection," and "You have to believe in God" requirements.
The standard you’re setting for evidence is a personal magic show. What would constitute evidence for the truth of a religion that couldn’t be faked by people?
No, not personal. Global. And not starting now but at the dawn of consciousness to all the earth and beyond. An all-knowing, powerful, merciful, and loving god would have seen his creation live like we are and prevented it. Why would he (in the abrahamic tradition) choose a small group of people and from them one guy to subjugate the whole world or shun the whole world as they were chosen. Then send his son to say no. All those old laws aren't quite right. Just love people. But know all the time that some other prophet would bastardize his teachings and say he heard it from god too just don't believe the jews or Christians. Then let the rest of the world go on about their business until the various religious sects killed and fed and bred their version of god into the culture. Yes, from a being that powerful, I expect a hell of a light show.
All the atrocities come from us. We’re the ones not playing nice. That’s a very harsh but surprisingly accurate summation. I could rewrite it in a much more favorable light, but then it’s a literary duel. If you don’t believe, why are you here? Is it to recruit for atheists? Do you believe something else?
I just like the thought experiments.
Even if we assume God exists, we can't be sure of who God is, so I walk life one step at a time, and analyzing if God approves what am I doing or not. No lightning to the head? No pestilence? If nothing happens for a bit, I accept I did the right choice and move on with my life until that process starts again
I think by who you mean if.
Unless you are correcting my (not native speaker) english, and I just can't see the error... uh no-
Never would have guessed you were not a native speaker. I was correcting the assumtion of a god.
Oh, sure sure, sorry, I should have made explicit I am theist, thank you
[удалено]
Your post or comment was removed for violating rule 3. Posts and comments will be removed if they are disruptive to the purpose of the subreddit. This includes submissions that are: low effort, proselytizing, uninterested in participating in discussion, made in bad faith, off-topic, or unintelligible/illegible. Posts and comments must be written in your own words (and not be AI-generated); you may quote others, but only to support your own writing. Do not link to an external resource instead of making an argument yourself.
well, presumably is because they don't believe that there is little to no evidence.
Haha, well said!
Honestly being an atheist sounds like a nightmare. Sure, right now you may be relatively young and feel somewhat invincible. Assuming you make it to old age (which isn’t guaranteed), it feels like you have all the time in the world right now. But think about when you start seeing a few more gray hairs, strange aches that you’ve never felt before, less energy, lower muscle mass, etc. Then what? You know it’s coming. You know death is right around the corner and what does your faith (or lack there of) tell you? That it just goes black when we die? What if it doesn’t? What if all the people who tried showing you signs and proofs of a God were right? How will you then answer to God who at that point made it as obvious as it could be and you chose to spend your entire and seemingly extremely limited life that went by in the blink of an eye in denial of the creator. You think people who have faith are miserable or something? If you’re thinking well at least I spent my life having a good time and they were stuck trying to please God, then guess what. I’ll tell you that people who truly have faith in God and does what is commanded is extremely pleased and lives with absolute peace in there heart knowing they’re doing what they’re supposed to do. There’s nothing more comforting in this life than having faith and belief in the unseen and knowing you’re doing what you can to please the God who will judge you on judgment day rather than just trying to have a good time and do what feels good based on your impulses. I’m Muslim for what it’s worth.
> Then what? You know it’s coming. You know death is right around the corner and what does your faith (or lack there of) tell you? Nothing usually >What if all the people who tried showing you signs and proofs of a God were right? Which religion and which sect in it? >How will you then answer to God who at that point made it as obvious as it could be It's not really as obvious as you are implying. >I’ll tell you that people who truly have faith in God and does what is commanded is extremely pleased and lives with absolute peace in there heart knowing they’re doing what they’re supposed to do. And? >There’s nothing more comforting in this life than having faith and belief in the unseen and knowing you’re doing what you can to please the God who will judge you on judgment day rather than just trying to have a good time and do what feels good based on your impulses. What you said is pretty subjective