I have been party to many different denominations and sects and have spent a great deal of my adult life studying religion in my own time. This had led to me being agnostic.
I'm not trying to disprove your faith, I'm discounting your arguments, because they are flawed and you make connections where there are none.
The GeekOh-Two Crew, OmeganautRegistered User, ClubPAregular
edited March 2007
Hey Deacon, what's a good reason to believe in god(s)?
The Geek on
BLM - ACAB
0
Options
WeaverWho are you?What do you want?Registered Userregular
edited March 2007
Deacon sometimes I get sinus infections. Sometimes my immune system is able to kill off the infection, sometimes I have to take antibiotics.
That means my body is capable of fighting off certain strains of infection, not that a diety chooses to miraculously cure some of my infections and not others.
Goddamnit he's not online. I'd really like to see those two clash. Arguing with passive agressive intentionally inflammatory theist douchebags just tires me out.
Tossrock what is your story, do you hate religion and claim it's responsible for all wars and stuff or what.
No but I've seen plenty of dudes exactly like you and I am quite sure that nothing said here will make you change your views on anything, and that you are here to get your stupid jollies either trolling or spitting out arguments you heard on catholicanswers.net or what have you. The debate is intellectually bankrupt when one side is more focused on poking holes in the opposition than actually re-evaluating it's position based on solid evidence, so I see no reason to debate with you at all. But I would like to see you get yelled at by angrier men than I, because it's entertaining.
Edit: Although SA's answer was much better
Tossrock on
0
Options
WeaverWho are you?What do you want?Registered Userregular
Hey Deacon, what's a good reason to believe in god(s)?
Welp, I'd attempt a serious answer, but this is SE so...
boobs
DeaconBlues on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
0
Options
The GeekOh-Two Crew, OmeganautRegistered User, ClubPAregular
edited March 2007
For all of Deacon's wacky shennanigans, I will give him credit in that I've never seen him make the outrageous claim that being atheist or agnostic somehow makes you think that life is futile and that you have no morals.
geek the point of religion is not to try and prove that god exists
the point of religion in to form a spiritual connection through faith and love and if it's not your cup of tea then you don't have to drink it
I'll be the first to admit organized religion can and has fucked up some people, but it's not so much the religion as the people who deem themselves in charge of the religion who mess it all up
It shows that the "religious experience" chemical reaction does not rely upon the presence of a religious experience, or an experience with religious backing as an underpin. It shows, in my estimation at least, that the "religious experience" is nothing more than a chemical reaction which can be either self-induced or chemically induced and which does nothing to prove divinity of the experience at all.
Nah, if there was no change in brain activity during religious experinces you'd be all like "see? SEE?".
This is like when someone is cured of cancer without drugs and claims God did it, and you shrug and say "it's nothing more than a chemical reaction which can be drug induced but in this case was not." Uhhh, yeah, that's kind of a big deal.
I am quite a firm believer in self induced psychoactive responces, actually. There's quite a bit of evidence that ones external stimulus, along with internal motivation, can remap brain patters and cause psychochemical reactions (eg: endorphin rush of a runner after a run, or when an addict sees a fix, etc. etc.).
If someone was cured of cancer and claimed that God did it I would say "show the evidence." If someone was cured of cancer and claimed it was a chemical reaction I would say "what caused the chemical reaction?"
In the instance of religion I would claim that a foundation of atmosphere, coupled with reinforced social views, is topped off with internal motivation which finally results in a biochemical reaction which causes the "religious experience." This "experience" can be obtained without the use of religion (vis a vis the administration of psylocibin, in this study), which shows that the experience itself isn't rooted solely in religion, and therefor the experience should not be used to justify religious belief but only used to reinforce the ability for religious trapings and internal religion based motivations to cause this reaction. It's not god that causes it, it's tricking yourself into it.
Callius on
0
Options
Tossrocktoo weird to livetoo rare to dieRegistered Userregular
The debate is intellectually bankrupt when one side is more focused on poking holes in the opposition than actually re-evaluating it's position based on solid evidence
But all I'm saying is that some atheists are more evangelical about their belief system then religious people.
I mean I understand the desire to rubber stamp people who call unflattering truths to light "trolls", but since you seem to put such a high regard on intellectual honesty...
DeaconBlues on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
0
Options
The GeekOh-Two Crew, OmeganautRegistered User, ClubPAregular
geek the point of religion is not to try and prove that god exists
I don't think I said anything like that.
well that seems to be the basis of your arguments against it
but what do I know, I just got here
I know that religion isn't to prove that god exists. Religion is about faith and faith does not require proof and sometimes is in direct opposition to it.
The GeekOh-Two Crew, OmeganautRegistered User, ClubPAregular
edited March 2007
I've actually never thought of Deacon as a troll. He's expressing his views and that's fine. And although he's extremely set in his ways and fairly unlikely to change them no matter what, it's fun to go back and forth with him sometimes.
This "experience" can be obtained without the use of religion (vis a vis the administration of psylocibin, in this study), which shows that the experience itself isn't rooted solely in religion, and therefor the experience should not be used to justify religious belief but only used to reinforce the ability for religious trapings and internal religion based motivations to cause this reaction. It's not god that causes it, it's tricking yourself into it.
Yes, Callius, the entire range of human emotions can be caused by external stimulus rather than religious beliefs. That doesn't somehow intrinsically falsify the exerience itself, nor does it in any way prove "it's tricking yourself into it". That's applying your own bias to the issue.
DeaconBlues on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
0
Options
WeaverWho are you?What do you want?Registered Userregular
edited March 2007
I have no problem with Deacon being a man of faith I just can't stand the arguments he puts forth trying to connect things that don't connect.
Weaver on
0
Options
Tossrocktoo weird to livetoo rare to dieRegistered Userregular
The debate is intellectually bankrupt when one side is more focused on poking holes in the opposition than actually re-evaluating it's position based on solid evidence
But all I'm saying is that some atheists are more evangelical about their belief system then religious people.
I mean I understand the desire to rubber stamp people who call unflattering truths to light "trolls", but since you seem to put such a high regard on intellectual honesty...
Intentionally making inflamatory statements about atheists in a significantly atheist community is what I would call trolling. And what the hell is the point of your point anyway? Some fraction of people are bigger assholes than some other fraction? Stop the fucking presses. You made your statements to get a reaction, and if you say otherwise I am highly suspect of your veracity.
Yes, Callius, the entire range of human emotions can be caused by external stimulus rather than religious beliefs. That doesn't somehow intrinsically falsify the exerience itself, nor does it in any way prove "it's tricking yourself into it". That's applying your own bias to the issue.
I'm not falsifying the experience itself, but stating that the use of the experience to prove anything about divinity is a false road, as the experience can be acheived without resorting to divinity of any sort.
"I have this religious experience, therefor I have faith in God" is total bunk, according to the evidence I've seen. Since that religious experience can be created without the use of God, and it can also be created using various definitions of God, Gods, or no God at all (buddhism).
Your original point was that I should not dismiss the use of experience in regards to proving faith. I have shown, I feel, that since the experience itself is not predecated upon the belief in God (or in a god at all) that it shows that the experience neither requires god nor does anything to prove the existence of a god. In fact, I would state that the evidence points to the fact that the experience of Divinity is a missinterpretation of a biochemical reaction which does not need to be predicated upon the existence of said Divinity.
Callius on
0
Options
The GeekOh-Two Crew, OmeganautRegistered User, ClubPAregular
This "experience" can be obtained without the use of religion (vis a vis the administration of psylocibin, in this study), which shows that the experience itself isn't rooted solely in religion, and therefor the experience should not be used to justify religious belief but only used to reinforce the ability for religious trapings and internal religion based motivations to cause this reaction. It's not god that causes it, it's tricking yourself into it.
Yes, Callius, the entire range of human emotions can be caused by external stimulus rather than religious beliefs. That doesn't somehow intrinsically falsify the exerience itself, nor does it in any way prove "it's tricking yourself into it". That's applying your own bias to the issue.
It doesn't expressly "prove" it, but it tips the scales of evidence more in that direction.
It's like being in bed at night and seeing monster in the corner of the room. But then when you wake up in the morning, you see in the light that there's a coatrack or whatever in the corner where you saw the monster and it's suspiciously much like the same shape as the monster. Now, that doesn't "prove" that you didn't see a monster, but it makes it much more likely that's the case.
The Geek on
BLM - ACAB
0
Options
RankenphilePassersby were amazedby the unusually large amounts of blood.Registered User, Moderatormod
man, I know this, when you guys die, somebody's going to look stupid in this argument
Kuribo's Shoe on
0
Options
WeaverWho are you?What do you want?Registered Userregular
edited March 2007
man I'm just quote wiki
The most direct criticisms made against atheism are claims that a god exists and thus are considered arguments against atheism. However, many theists dismiss or object to atheism on other grounds.
Until recently, most theologians considered the existence of God so self-evident and universally-accepted that whether or not true atheism even existed was frequently questioned. This view is based on theistic innatism, the belief that all people believe in God from birth and that atheists are simply in denial.[99] It is also asserted that atheists are quick to believe in God in times of crisis—that atheists will readily make deathbed conversions or that "there are no atheists in foxholes". This view has fallen into disfavor among most philosophers of religion.[100]
When the existence of atheism is accepted, it is often criticized by agnostics, and some theists, on the grounds that atheism requires just as much faith as religious positions, making it no more likely to be true than theism. This is based on the view that because the existence of deities cannot be proved or disproved with certainty, it requires a leap of faith to conclude that deities do or do not exist. Common atheist responses to this argument include that it is equivocation to conflate religious faith with all unproven propositions; that weak atheism is not a positive claim, and thus requires no more faith than not accepting the existence of Santa Claus or an Invisible Pink Unicorn or Flying Spaghetti Monster;[101] and that the fact that God's existence cannot be proved or disproved with complete certainty does not make it equally likely that God does or doesn't exist.[102]
Lastly, it is commonly argued that the lack of belief in a deity who administers justice may lead to poor morals or ethics (cf. secular ethics).[101][103] It is also argued that atheism makes life meaningless and miserable; Blaise Pascal made this argument in 1669.[104] Atheists generally dismiss these arguments as appeals to consequences with no bearing on whether God actually exists, and many disagree that atheism leads to amorality or misery, or argue that in fact the opposite is the case.[105][106]
Intentionally making inflamatory statements about atheists in a significantly atheist community is what I would call trolling.
So now who's intellectually bankrupt? Oh, too bad this is a mostly <whatever> community or views expressed against <whatever> must by default be trolling!
I mean I singled you out because I thought you might honestly enjoy some debate. But I see you're just a closed minded bigot cloaking himself in the threads of intellectualism like Weaver. good day sir.
Posts
Get what?
I have been party to many different denominations and sects and have spent a great deal of my adult life studying religion in my own time. This had led to me being agnostic.
I'm not trying to disprove your faith, I'm discounting your arguments, because they are flawed and you make connections where there are none.
B-because anyone who's religious must be insane?
That means my body is capable of fighting off certain strains of infection, not that a diety chooses to miraculously cure some of my infections and not others.
:winky:
Guess thats what I get for being raised by a Geneticist.
3DS: 5241-1953-7031
No but I've seen plenty of dudes exactly like you and I am quite sure that nothing said here will make you change your views on anything, and that you are here to get your stupid jollies either trolling or spitting out arguments you heard on catholicanswers.net or what have you. The debate is intellectually bankrupt when one side is more focused on poking holes in the opposition than actually re-evaluating it's position based on solid evidence, so I see no reason to debate with you at all. But I would like to see you get yelled at by angrier men than I, because it's entertaining.
Edit: Although SA's answer was much better
Welp, I'd attempt a serious answer, but this is SE so...
boobs
People like that drive me up a wall.
the point of religion in to form a spiritual connection through faith and love and if it's not your cup of tea then you don't have to drink it
I'll be the first to admit organized religion can and has fucked up some people, but it's not so much the religion as the people who deem themselves in charge of the religion who mess it all up
That said, I worship the sun
But mammaries evolved so that mothers could nurture their young reliably from birth. Not much to do with God there.
3DS: 5241-1953-7031
I think you should know me well enough by know that I'd prefer a serious answer.
I am quite a firm believer in self induced psychoactive responces, actually. There's quite a bit of evidence that ones external stimulus, along with internal motivation, can remap brain patters and cause psychochemical reactions (eg: endorphin rush of a runner after a run, or when an addict sees a fix, etc. etc.).
If someone was cured of cancer and claimed that God did it I would say "show the evidence." If someone was cured of cancer and claimed it was a chemical reaction I would say "what caused the chemical reaction?"
In the instance of religion I would claim that a foundation of atmosphere, coupled with reinforced social views, is topped off with internal motivation which finally results in a biochemical reaction which causes the "religious experience." This "experience" can be obtained without the use of religion (vis a vis the administration of psylocibin, in this study), which shows that the experience itself isn't rooted solely in religion, and therefor the experience should not be used to justify religious belief but only used to reinforce the ability for religious trapings and internal religion based motivations to cause this reaction. It's not god that causes it, it's tricking yourself into it.
Please tell me he's a creationist and is now going to jump you for saying evolution
Oh man it's too much to ask
I don't think I said anything like that.
well that seems to be the basis of your arguments against it
but what do I know, I just got here
But all I'm saying is that some atheists are more evangelical about their belief system then religious people.
I mean I understand the desire to rubber stamp people who call unflattering truths to light "trolls", but since you seem to put such a high regard on intellectual honesty...
I know that religion isn't to prove that god exists. Religion is about faith and faith does not require proof and sometimes is in direct opposition to it.
Yes, Callius, the entire range of human emotions can be caused by external stimulus rather than religious beliefs. That doesn't somehow intrinsically falsify the exerience itself, nor does it in any way prove "it's tricking yourself into it". That's applying your own bias to the issue.
Intentionally making inflamatory statements about atheists in a significantly atheist community is what I would call trolling. And what the hell is the point of your point anyway? Some fraction of people are bigger assholes than some other fraction? Stop the fucking presses. You made your statements to get a reaction, and if you say otherwise I am highly suspect of your veracity.
I need 100% pure columbian
"I have this religious experience, therefor I have faith in God" is total bunk, according to the evidence I've seen. Since that religious experience can be created without the use of God, and it can also be created using various definitions of God, Gods, or no God at all (buddhism).
Your original point was that I should not dismiss the use of experience in regards to proving faith. I have shown, I feel, that since the experience itself is not predecated upon the belief in God (or in a god at all) that it shows that the experience neither requires god nor does anything to prove the existence of a god. In fact, I would state that the evidence points to the fact that the experience of Divinity is a missinterpretation of a biochemical reaction which does not need to be predicated upon the existence of said Divinity.
It doesn't expressly "prove" it, but it tips the scales of evidence more in that direction.
It's like being in bed at night and seeing monster in the corner of the room. But then when you wake up in the morning, you see in the light that there's a coatrack or whatever in the corner where you saw the monster and it's suspiciously much like the same shape as the monster. Now, that doesn't "prove" that you didn't see a monster, but it makes it much more likely that's the case.
hehe yeah
we're pretty rad like that
I love you.
No, because you are acting in a spectacularly illogical and retarded manner.
So now who's intellectually bankrupt? Oh, too bad this is a mostly <whatever> community or views expressed against <whatever> must by default be trolling!
I mean I singled you out because I thought you might honestly enjoy some debate. But I see you're just a closed minded bigot cloaking himself in the threads of intellectualism like Weaver. good day sir.
PS: I was right about Iraq.