Skepticism

[Nacho]

I might not know much of debate, but at least I know about physics... And I know that Bible is full of impossible things... and I know that believing in something without having more evidence that "believe it because I say so!" is not the correct way to procede (It opens the door to "Black people are infra humans! Why? Because I say it!" or "Women are less intelligent! Why??? Because I say it")

Do you believe in something? Prove it to me.

Your "evidences" are the experiences you had with God? Okay. I can testify that there is people who had experiences with things that you wouldn't consider as divine, and the result on them is indistinguishable from a "relgious experience". You don' t believe my word? Okay... I don't believe yours.

[Misj']

<sigh>





Ps. I know enough about Quantum Physics to know that nothing is impossible (with the exception of objectivity).

Pps. When we're done bashing each other we should all sit down in a circle, hold hands, and sing 'blowing in the wind' together...I think that's a safe non-religious/non-non-religious song. Oh, and don't forget the flowers. We need flowers. Lot's of flowers.

Ppps. I wanted to be part of this thrilling discussion as well.

[SSH]

Your "evidences" are the experiences you had with God? Okay. I can testify that there is people who had experiences with things that you wouldn't consider as divine, and the result on them is indistinguishable from a "relgious experience". You don' t believe my word? Okay... I don't believe yours.

But, I do believe that people in other religions have had such experiences. I don't deny that there is also evidence against the Christian god and evidence for other gods. I am persuaded most by the evidence for a Christian god and so that's what I believe. You are persuaded most by atheist evidence and so that's what you believe.

You still haven't answered the point about the validity of your extrapolation. Its this avoidance of yours that makes your assertions look suspicious, not the fact that they differ from my experience.  Oh, and while we're on silly extrapolations:

You want me to accept your beliefs giving me the same level of evidences you would consider insufficient if coming from me.

THAT, is RELIGION.

So you've extrapolated from your debate with me to billions of people of every religion. Hmmm.

[Montague]

There's a lot of stuff in the world that we believe in without hard evidence. Does Coca Cola exist? What is it? A man? A building? A piece of paper? Whatever it is, it's certainly not a soft-drink. Coca Cola has good days and bad days, it hires and fires, it has a massive impact on many people's lives far beyond what a bottle of sugar-water can possibly have. It's basically just an ongoing tale, or collection of stories, told and kept alive in the business section of newspapers. How about me, the "I"? Does the word "I" point to something? In many cases it points to a body, but "my" in "my body" suggests the body is a property that belongs to someone, just like I am not my hand (it's "my hand"), I am not my brain (it's "my brain") and so on and so forth. "I" might also "just" be a collection of stories that binds together a number of factors, my physical body, my actions, my experiences, my influence on other people, etc. Some will say "I can't see it, so it can't possibly exist," others "it's the basis against which other experiences are even possible." Religious debates always fail because we act as though the religious question at its core concerns *how* the world is (which would put it in direct competition with natural science), when it is actually *that* the world is (which no science comes close to addressing). Why not nothing at all? That's the one irrefutably proven miracle, if you subscribe to that point of view.

[Nacho]

@SSH. I was not talking of "people in other religions having such experiences"

(I don 't know from where you took that, since I wrote: "There is people who had experiences with things that you wouldn't consider as divine, and the result on them is indistinguishable from a "relgious experience", but it' s okay)

I was talking of people who had important experiences based on friendship, people who has been touched by movies, books, by love... Yes, even experiences based in following a football team.

Those experiences, from outside (I can' t tell since I never had a religious experience) look indistinguishable from religious ones I've witnessed. I can't tell which ones were "more vivid", since I was not "inside of that person" to know what he/she was really experiencing, but, from outside, they look equal.

And if in "experiences B" I know there is not "divine intervention" (Unless you tell me that you really believe there is something divine on crying after seeing Darth Vader dying for the zillionth time or seeing how your football team wins the Champion's League), then, with "experiences A" (The religious ones) there' s nothing telling me that there actually is a divine intervention. If the divine experiences are different from the "normal" ones I could say "Hey, it' s true, there is something unexplained there, it must be God".

But they are not.

Unless you say "My experiences are better than yours". Well... You can' t, because you can' t know what I feel. If, even with that, you go on saying "I can't  feel what you feel, but, even with that, I know that my experiences are more valid than yours", then, you should feeling superior to me (Because you would be assumimg that you can do something I can' t and because you would be assuming that something we described in simillar words is "better" when "felt by you", and not "when felt by me").

And that' s another thing religion is. Feeling superior to the ones who do not believe the same things you do.

[Khris]

I've already addressed why I think that religion in itself, i.e. the notion of believing in something without evidence, let alone proof, is bad. Sort of the theoretical side.

Now for the practical side, i.e. why religion is bad for people:
One main argument constantly brought forth by the random religious person off the street as well as high-ranking clerics on TV is that a life without God is bound to be sad and pointless. They even go so far as to say, if there's no God, why would anybody feel motivated to do good at all? Implying that all hell'd break loose if there were no Judgment Day eventually.
Apart from this argument being BS in my opinion, it's very revealing: it implies that many Christians are only doing good because they fear consequences.
Or let me put it this way: if an atheist does a good deed, you can be certain he does so because he wants to, not because he wants to make sure he doesn't go to hell.

Another often used argument is this: the church engages itself in charity work, helping starving people in Africa, etc.
This argument implies that religious belief is needed to help other people, or that there aren't any non-religious organizations doing charity work, too. Of course, that's BS, too.

An example of why religion is explicitly bad for people: it's used to oppress people and to control people. A popular example: Muslims use religion to oppress women.
And of course, the equally popular counter-argument is just around the corner: just because a knife can be used to kill somebody doesn't make the knife a bad thing itself, the knife is neutral, it's the person who's using it to kill that's bad.
The thing is: if somebody murders someone using a knife, he's regarded as a bad person and locked away. But if someone uses religion to oppress people, you have to respect his belief.

An even better example: raising a child religiously is child abuse. Nobody would label their child as being liberal or conservative, or as being pro-life or pro-abortion. The general public acknowledges that pushing those ideas onto a child is an unnecessary burden and every responsible  parent will agree that their kid has to make up their own mind once they're old enough. Somehow though, this isn't the case with religion. It's somehow perfectly acceptable to label a three-year-old a Christian or Muslim or Hindu or whatever. And somehow, it's perfectly acceptable to raise a child accordingly, pushing ideas onto them they can't and won't possibly question objectively.
A child can't distinguish between "Don't bathe in the river, it's full of crocodiles" and "Don't have premarital sex, it'll end you down in hell".

[Tuomas]

No

I mean, this conversation is hilarious. It got all 6 pages in 2 days, and I read through it all while I was supposed to be studying for my linguistic exams. Oh well.

Nacho, my man... Your atheism is starting to sound like a fundamental religion, though not believeing in a deity but an ideology. I think a lot of people have the right to believe in God's existance if they wish to, or they can belive otherwise, but it's hard to exclude yourself from a belief at all. especially as long as you have an ideology or a belief that is contrary to yours. I'd call it "believing that there is no god", if the opposite is still called "believing in God". You could as well call them believing the negative and the positive point of view about the existance of this said deity. Doesn't make you more or less a believer in that sense. Also, your last statement here. Do you not feel superior to everyone else, that believes? Because earlier on this thread you said the bible is full of lies and that's just because they are lies and stupid because they are stupid, and there's no denying that.

Also, I used to call myself an atheist before I realised, that the group of atheists that have organised around here are doing the same work as the christians, going around, converting religious people to follow their views. I thought about it and realised I didn't want to have anything to do with such a division between people who really have no need to argue. I emphasize those words because that's the reason I left church. I don't believe in God, but I don't believe in preaching his inexistense either, and that's what you seem to be doing.

As far as evidence goes, I myself decided I'd rather listen to evidence that say something isn't true than ones that say something is true. That's being a sceptic in some sense, isn't it? OK, I might stray from my path if the evidence is obvious. But I remain sceptic towards something that hasn't been proven. I take medicine called Deprakine, and on the brochure it says it helps here and here, but the reason why it does so isn't known. Funny, huh?

[InCreator]

The main problem with religious debates on internet going to stick quickly is because many do not realize that it is internet.

To stay normal, one should make a clear difference between stating a fact/call to arms and expressing personal opinion... and realize how (un)important that statement or opinion really is. This is where those threads fail. And usually, it starts from a believer who is obsessed with an idea that his almighty God, whatever its name is, really needs a protection from this particular moron in an internet forum.

For example, my personal opinion is that religion - any kind - in our time - IS kinda stupid, and people who go around hating and trying to change the non-believers are total idiots.
However, if religion helps one to be a better person or find confidence in life, I find it really positive and instead of stupid, a clever psychological choice to enforce yourself doing something good and ensure willpower all the time do keep on doing it. Religion is a free choice, after all. If you chose to believe, you had a reason for it.

So I find stupid stuff not about religion itself really, but people who practice religion. If they're stupid, there's nothing to do unless you play same game and try to change THEM in exchange. Ok, maybe religion too. God in a form of burning bush? Come on...

Now surely, some of you agree, some of you call me ignorant, and so on. Isn't that the whole point?

That's why I see no problems with religious debate threads. It's a free world.
And problems/hate are natural part of those threads, till mentioned group of believing people does exist and participate in those threads. I choose to ignore it.

[Nacho]

Tuomas, what I repeteadly said is that religion has to be taken out of any official institution. I don' t care what people believes indoors. It's a pitty they tech their kids something irrational, but that' s their problem.

I never said anyone "Don't  believe". What I say is that there is no evidence, that it' s irrational, and that you must not try to convince me.

If you think I am saying something else... Read the posts again.

[Nikolas]

I just wanted to repost in order to say thank you to Bicolli for the MOST SUCCESSFUL post of this thread ever! YAY! My signature is IN this debate! How excellent!

huge thanks to emerald as well for making this lovely reply of his!

Now, Nacho, I would suggest the following: Relax, talk about other things and then come back to read what you say. There is a weird bichotomy, but your passion AGAINST religion is giving some extra strength to your posts! You keep saying that you don't mind what other people believe, etc, etc, but it can hardly be seen through your posts.

[auriond]

(posted in reply to KrisMUC's post, but it seems by the time I'm hitting post my post has become obsolete. But since it's taken me so long... I'm posting it anyway )

I think that to really have a fruitful discourse on religious beliefs or any other kind of belief/opinion-based issue, you have to try to understand the opposite side's point of view, not set forth to assert your own. That's not really happening in this thread. If you tell somebody, "I don't agree with you. Make me agree with you", it will never happen. You have to go find out about his point of view yourself, and keep your mind open enough.

That said, regarding Nacho's original question - if you have read the Bible, you'd know that Jesus himself never took the Bible literally. It says in the Old Testament to stone adulterers. Jesus said, "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her." So yes, it's pretty fair to say Bible literalism is stupid. Agreement all round.

On the other hand, it's indeed true that many, many many MANY things in Christianity are contradictory. It's the nature of man to be contradictory and in some cases, irrational. And anyone who says that religion today is not corrupted in some way by man hasn't been following history very closely. So, make of that what you will.

Now for the latest points discussed in this thread:

Religion as a catch-all concept is very confusing. Many so-called major religions are more like a philosophy, for example Confucianism and Buddhism. I realise that you guys are all coming from a Western-centric view of religion, which usually has a single God as its focus, but I just wanted to straighten that out. Because, saying something like "all religion is bad" is simply showing ignorance of the many different kinds of religion in the world.

I do agree with KrisMUC that many Christians give the impression that they do good things out of a fear of consequences. Very sad. It's the kind of thinking that leads to the hellfire and brimstones kind of sermons. On the other hand, let's look at whether this is really what Christianity teaches. Anybody remember the parable of the good Samaritan? The Jews hated Samaritans because they believed in different things. And yet it was the Samaritan who did the good deed. So, if you come across Christians who think people have no morality if they have no religion - point them to the good Samaritan and tell them to think about it. (There are no examples in the Bible of people with no religion doing good deeds, probably because of the times then - this was the closest I could find.)

Again, I agree too that it's not only the church that does charity work. In fact I think quite the opposite - churches nowadays seem far more interested in filling their own pockets and expanding their power. It's quite scary to think about sometimes. But since religious and non-religious organisations alike do good deeds, this is not a good point to argue on.

The thing is: if somebody murders someone using a knife, he's regarded as a bad person and locked away. But if someone uses religion to oppress people, you have to respect his belief.

If a religious person murders someone, he's locked away too. This is the case in Singapore, where I live, and where there is a large number of religious people. I assume this is the case in the US, UK and many of the Western countries. The only time his belief is "respected" is if those who write the law are of the same beliefs as the murderer. Whether that is religion's fault depends on whether you are willing to paint a whole religion with the same brush, or whether you're willing to allow that even within a religion there are many different ways to interpret its laws.

The children thing is rather complicated. Let's say we have a father who is a lawyer. His father has been a lawyer, and his father's father, and his father's father's father etc. He can't imagine that his son would want to be anything other than a lawyer, and raises him as such, drilling him in debating skills since childhood, sending him to law school and everything. The kid may or may not want to be a lawyer when he grows up, but the damage is done - the training to be a lawyer in his youth has shaped his personality. This does happen often, and so it happens with religion, and everything else. Parents naturally bring up their children in the best way that they know how. I don't think it's fair to blame the parents for this, unless they were willfully negligent or abusive. Ignorant parents, well, there's a dime a dozen of these, religious or otherwise.

Unless you say "My experiences are better than yours". Well... You can' t, because you can' t know what I feel. If, even with that, you go on saying "I can't  feel what you feel, but, even with that, I know that my experiences are more valid than yours", then, you should feeling superior to me (Because you would be assumimg that you can do something I can' t and because you would be assuming that something we described in simillar words is "better" when "felt by you", and not "when felt by me").

Damn straight. No one can establish that something exists just because "I've experienced it". Otherwise ghosts, Bigfoot, fairies and all the rest would be cold hard fact.
On the other hand, SSH has a point too. You would normally believe a person even though he/she can't prove something. If you ask someone "Were you at the concert the other day?" and they said "Yes", you'd take their word for it. Take that a step further, and if that person said "I was at the concert, and I heard the singer insult the audience!" then that person's word would be a piece of firsthand evidence. You can only correlate it by asking some other concertgoers. If they all said "yes" you would generally believe it, wouldn't you? It's not DEFINITE proof until someone produces a recording of the concert (and even then, how far would you take your skepticism? "The recording might be doctored"? Heck, why not ask if the concert really existed - if the whole thing wasn't some kind of mass hallucination?).
So it is that until facts are provided to prove/disprove the existence of God, you'll just have to believe some people when they say they have religious experiences, and some other people agree.

I noticed that what atheists are most aggrieved about are the evangelists. Let me tell you that hardcore evangelists are probably disliked by many, many many people, including other Christians. I once met a bunch of people who were trying to convince me to attend their church. I asked them "so why should I attend your church if I already attend one?" They said "oh, but there are false prophets..." I gave up on them immediately. Calling other churches "false prophets" (actually, they said "fake goods" - eurgh) is so far from what I understand of Christianity that I still have trouble wrapping my head around the concept.

As for miracles... there are big miracles, and then there are the little everyday ones. Some people believe in the big miracles, like faith healing and whatever. I believe in the little ones, like being alive, aware and breathing. These are the things I thank God for. Some people believe that this is the result of randomness and chaos, and not some intelligent superbeing - that's all right. The world does truly seem to be randomness and chaos at times.

[SSH]

And that' s another thing religion is. Feeling superior to the ones who do not believe the same things you do.

You must be religious, then, Nacho. Or at least very bad at conveying that you don't feel superior to people who believe things you call stupid.

An even better example: raising a child religiously is child abuse. Nobody would label their child as being liberal or conservative, or as being pro-life or pro-abortion.

Funnily enough, I bet most fetuses are anti-abortion. Perhaps they change their mind when they pass through a cervix.

I do not abuse my kids, KhrisMUC. I find it offensive that you say I do. I raise them, telling them what I believe to be true. Funny how you were complaining about double standards: if I tell my 4 year old to turn off lights to save the planet is that child abuse even though many people don't believe in global warming? If I tell them not to watch too much TV because I believe its bad even though studies are ambiguous on this, is that child abuse? You have your own double standards.

[bicilotti]

I just wanted to repost in order to say thank you to Bicolli [...]

Mhhh, Bicolli, I somewhat like it.  [grin]

[Tuomas]

Tuomas, what I repeteadly said is that religion has to be taken out of any official institution. I don' t care what people believes indoors.

If that's the case, I should really read through your posts again, because I saw almost no words referring to that. Basically what I thought you said was, that the bible is stupid and everyone who believes is stupid. Perhaps I was then mistaken... Don't see how though.

[Khris]

The thing is: if somebody murders someone using a knife, he's regarded as a bad person and locked away. But if someone uses religion to oppress people, you have to respect his belief.

If a religious person murders someone, he's locked away too.

Sure. But the parallel I wanted to draw is using a neutral tool in a bad way.

SSH: It's abuse in the sense that tales of hellfire instill a horrible, real fear in children, while tales of melting pole caps or the prospect of becoming stupid by watching to many cartoons doesn't.
I fail to see how that makes me have double standards.

[Misj']

I don' t care what people believes indoors. It's a pitty they tech their kids something irrational, but that' s their problem.

I never said anyone "Don't  believe". What I say is that there is no evidence, that it' s irrational, and that you must not try to convince me.

By using the term 'irrational' you imply that no one (in his or her right mind) can come to the conclusion that - after rationally weighing the 'data' - the existence of God as a creator of everything is more likely than no creator at all. While I believe that you with your knowledge and (preconceived) ideas might - by means of reason - come to the conclusion that there is no God, I also believe that other people with their knowledge and (preconceived) ideas can - by means of reason - come to the opposite conclusion. And no. I don't think these people lack knowledge.

By using the term 'irrational' you imply a judgement of value, where you say: "sure, you're allowed to believe that, but I know better". Personally I think that answers your original question 'why?' - Why do people think it's verbally punching, insulting, and aggressive? - Because you make people who do believe this feel you judge them, and consider yourself to be superior to them. Which - by the way - is the same thing you accuse religion of:

And that's another thing religion is. Feeling superior to the ones who do not believe the same things you do.

And since you frequently stated that you do not what to be treated like that...why should religious people want to be treated in that way?

It's a vicious circle.

Ps. But at least I got to answer the original question 'why'. Maybe not to anyones liking, but I answered it nontheless.

[SSH]

SSH: It's abuse in the sense that tales of hellfire instill a horrible, real fear in children, while tales of melting pole caps .... doesn't.

The thing is, global warming REALLY SHOULD SCARE YOU.

My kids aren't in fear of hellfire. They're believers, so why should they worry about that?

[kaputtnik]

SSH: It's abuse in the sense that tales of hellfire instill a horrible, real fear in children, while tales of melting pole caps .... doesn't.

The thing is, global warming REALLY SHOULD SCARE YOU.

My kids aren't in fear of hellfire. They're believers, so why should they worry about that?

Woah, sorry if I have to come in at a point where most of the discussion has already been laid out to a good extent - but I am rather shocked by your argument there, SSH. Are you really going so far as to say that non-believers should be in fear of hellfire?

[SSH]

Are you really going so far as to say that non-believers should be in fear of hellfire?

No, I said that believers don't. I have no idea what hell is like. Some say annihilation, some say separation from god, some say fire and brimstone, some say Milton Keynes. And I also believe that God is a god of mercy, but I also believe that believers don't need to worry about that.

[Ozzie]

The generalization in this thread is driving me nuts.
It may be a personal weakness to believe in god or to cling to a religion.
But then, many big questions are still not answered by science, so how should I answer myself things with that I don't have the faintest idea how they could work or could have happened without believing in god, maybe?

But even if at some point in time all those questions will be fully answered, people would still need to know, understand and accept them. They may choose simpler explanations, though.

Whatever, people are imperfect by definition, and I'm glad it's this way.

But how are you making things better by telling them that they are stupid for believing in a god?

Am I stupid because I am ridiculously bad in sport or can't think abstractly?
Because I'm incapable of good english or have a relatively short attention span?

Every person has its strength and weaknesses, and if people believe and pray to a higher spirit to make them feel better then you shouldn't have a fucking problem with that.