Religion Thread

[Skieski]

The most common problem for believers to stumble upon is the "Problem of Evil", found some examples of it online:

   1. If an all-powerful and perfectly good god exists, then evil does not.
   2. There is evil in the world.
   3. Therefore, a perfectly good god does not exist.

Or:

   1. God exists.
   2. God is omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good.
   3. A perfectly good being would want to prevent all evils.
   4. An omniscient being knows every way in which evils can come into existence.
   5. An omnipotent being, who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence, has the power to prevent that evil from coming into existence.
   6. A being who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence, who is able to prevent that evil from coming into existence, and who wants to do so, would prevent the existence of that evil.
   7. If there exists an omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good being, then no evil exists.
   8. Evil exists (logical contradiction)

I just want to say, that kind of conclusion didn't match for me. There is no point where it will say that your perfectly good being WILL prevent the evil, it is only assuming that the deity will follow those circumstances.

And, if an all powerful 'good' god does exist, then wouldn't you assume than an evil god does not? Rather than evil itself, for the matter.

It´s only logical Simplex. If a good God exists, then it wants to prevent evil. If it wants to prevent evil, and knows how, then this being would indeed prevent it. God does not prevent evil, because evil exists, therefore, he must lack one of the following characteristics, if he exists:
*Omniscient
*Omnipotent
*Perfectly Good

And no, I do not see why an Evil God should exist as the counterpart of the Good God. Why? Because the GOOD GOD created the Universe, not Satan. So, theoretically, if he had known of another Evil God that would inflict pain and misery in our lives, he wouldn´t have created us in the first place.

And also, science has killed, maimed, tortured, ruined, hampered many more lives than religion could ever hope to do.

I completely disagree. Please try to support this statement with evidence.

[Jorgen]

skieski he is refering to science creating shit as the atom bomb...
which is simple to say no to though, because science did not choose to use the atom bomb for evil, people did.... as for dynamite several religious extremeist are behind many of the deaths caused by what you call science =)
that's it, i'm out

[Pillz]

That kind of modern science has only been around for a few hundred years. Religion has been around for thousands upon thousands of years. I think the killing done by Religion over time may just be greater. But that's just speculation.

I just wish religion was dropped around the world altogether. People could spend more time trying to progress forwards instead of dwelling upon this illogical nonsense. I don't think there would be a drastic change if people did so, but I think things may be better. Then again they may not. Without people thinking they need to be good to get into heaven, there may be an uprising of "evil" and crime. Like there has been over the years.

Hmm.

[Jorgen]

Only thing i'd wish to see is a world without the stupid phrase, who cares about school or science, none of that will matter when you are in heaven or hell anyways.

[AlphaWeeaboo]

Ah, yes. People try so hard to prove things that don't matter. Let people live their lives how they want. In Heaven or Hell it won't matter as Jorgen said. Religion helps bring people together and can comfort others. At the moment in my life I really am starting to look towards Religion more than I ever have. I have lied and faked many things for the past couple months. Within those months I have had my life come crashing down due to things turning around on me. Now, I am working on making things better. Well I guess I'm going a little off topic here. Anyways point is, let people believe what they want for help. Beliefs and strong will is what makes people who they are.

[Skieski]

But it all goes down when beliefs interfere with our lives...Which tends to happen an awfully lot.

[Jorgen]

i think you guys have a lot to learn from a certain song, that i don't know if i should post.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovMN-eGUn_A


not to be taken racist

[Holy]

I love debating religion!! yay!

*ahem*

The one thing I cannot stand is when people say "religion." It is NOT all the same. Thus it cannot all be grouped together. If you are going to talk about religion, talk about a specific religion. That is like grouping monkeys and catapillars, sure they both are living beings but they are completely differant. Also, don't use a "monkey" example to argue against "catapillars."  (For those who are slow, you cannot make a valid point against Christianity causing misery by saying some Muslims kill people for their religion)

With that cleared up,

Well since Atheists are allowed to try to argue against religion, it is only fair that I, as a Non-Denom Christian, may do the same to Atheist. If you are going to say I am going off topic, then I will logically justify myself right now.

Just like Buddhist, Atheist lack a god/creator and follow a common belief (No, Buddha isn't a diety, he was a man named Siddhartha Gautama who founded the idea of Buddism.) Buddhism is still grouped as religion, so atheism can be too.

As far as atheism is concerned, I've seen nothing but negativity from the belief. The word "atheist" used to be an insult in the mid 17th century. I really think that meaning should come back. Atheist are easily comparable to modern day racists. They have nothing better to do than offend religious beliefs all around the world. I've seen atheist tear up bibles and other christian symbols. I think atheism should be considered a hate crime. In Sweden and Norway atheists burned down churches. I do no see where they have the right to try to talk about religion being violent when they have commited such offensive and violents acts. They are a bunch of hypocrites. At least Christianity and other religions help people more than hurt them.

[FearlessThor]

lol ill debate on anything HOLY  and i bet ill WIN!!!! LMAO

[AlphaWeeaboo]

Hmmm, I see what Holy is getting at.
Saying Atheism isn't hateful towards other religions is like racism almost?
I dunno, I thought I had it for a second there.

[Global_Meltdown]

Dude im not an atheist nor an agnostic I just live my life and let all the jihad holy rollers kill each other . ENJOY!

[Blood]

/End Trolling

[crypto]

Welcome to the forum, Holy. That was one of the worst informed posts I've seen in this thread.

Just like Buddhist, Atheist lack a god/creator and follow a common belief (No, Buddha isn't a diety, he was a man named Siddhartha Gautama who founded the idea of Buddism.) Buddhism is still grouped as religion, so atheism can be too.

Religion is worship of a deity. Atheism is defined as rejecting worship of a deity. Atheism is not a religion.

As far as atheism is concerned, I've seen nothing but negativity from the belief. The word "atheist" used to be an insult in the mid 17th century.

Autocracy, rigid social hierarchies, slavery and slave trade, preindustrial squalor, colonial atrocities, innumerable scientific misconceptions, and plenty of other super awesome things also existed in the seventeenth century. I might also say that Christians were thought to be total clown heads and were crucified and fed to the lions in the first, second, third, and fourth centuries. That doesn't make those actions correct.

I really think that meaning should come back. Atheist are easily comparable to modern day racists.

Lol, no.

They have nothing better to do than offend religious beliefs all around the world.

You're right. Benjamin Franklin, Steven Pinker, Julius Axelrod, William Bateson, Francis Crick, Richard Dawkins, Richard Feynman, Sigmund Freud, Stephen Jay Gould, Julian Huxley, Ivan Pavlov, Carl Sagan, Joseph Weber, James D. Watson—those guys have done nothing other than offend religious beliefs all around the world.

I've seen atheist tear up bibles and other christian symbols.

Christians have waged holy wars, orchestrated lynchings, resisted scientific and social progress, etc. On the other hand, the Catholic Church is also the top charity organization in the world. Don't generalize.

I think atheism should be considered a hate crime.

There's nothing hateful about not believing in God.

In Sweden and Norway atheists burned down churches.

How many atheists were involved in that? What percentage of the global population of atheists do they make up? Crusades, religion's vital role in modern terrorism, mumble, mumble, mumble.

At least Christianity and other religions help people more than hurt them.

That may or may not be true. Regardless, I challenge you to visit the Vatican, look at the gilded churches, shrines, etc., and ask yourself whether or not all the money spent on pretty buildings like that might've been better off going to feed some starving African villages.

[Pillz]

I love you Crypto. I completely skipped Holy's post but ended up reading it anyway when I read your post. Good job! For that post, I'll make you two sandwiches!

[Holy]

Thank you for the welcome, I look forward to debating with you.. Now this is where you're wrong. ^_^

Religion is worship of a deity. Atheism is defined as rejecting worship of a deity. Atheism is not a religion.

Buddhist do not worship a diety either. If you read in my post, Buddha is not considered a diety. Yet people consider buddhism a religion when all it is is a common practice of beliefs, just like atheism. Atheism believes such things as that government and religion should be seperate.

Autocracy, rigid social hierarchies, slavery and slave trade, preindustrial squalor, colonial atrocities, innumerable scientific misconceptions, and plenty of other super awesome things also existed in the seventeenth century. I might also say that Christians were thought to be total clown heads and were crucified and fed to the lions in the first, second, third, and fourth centuries. That doesn't make those actions correct.

If you are saying those actions were 'incorrect' as a person looking at them from the present. What's to say that, theoretically, a person from the future wouldn't look back at what you are saying now is incorrect too? Time has nothing to do if an action is correct or not. Popular belief does that. Even then, popular belief doesn't make something right or wrong either. In reality, there cannot be a human made right or wrong, because humans are ignorant and flawed. That's why only God's definition is acceptable. That is one reason why religion is very well needed in the lives of people, including government.

Lol, no.

That, hands down, is the worst counter-arguement I have ever seen. If it is a crime to discriminate against someone for race, it should be a crime to discriminate against anything, including religion.

You're right. Benjamin Franklin, Steven Pinker, Julius Axelrod, William Bateson, Francis Crick, Richard Dawkins, Richard Feynman, Sigmund Freud, Stephen Jay Gould, Julian Huxley, Ivan Pavlov, Carl Sagan, Joseph Weber, James D. Watson—those guys have done nothing other than offend religious beliefs all around the world.

You have a point in that they accomplished something, there is no denying that. Hell, even I can pull out some great Christians who contributed to humanity. Naming popular people doesn't help your arguement at all. Also, you've named a lot of, to my knowledge, dead people. I believe you said a comment disreguarding the past.. yet you argue with the past. I find that to be a hypocritical arguement. To clear things up, my statement was directed to the average modern day atheists.

Christians have waged holy wars, orchestrated lynchings, resisted scientific and social progress, etc. On the other hand, the Catholic Church is also the top charity organization in the world. Don't generalize.

Don't generalize? Is that a joke. That is what a majority of atheists do. They general all religions by grouping together and then blame them all for one's mistake. Besides, what I said was not a generalization, 'I've seen atheists' was not written as 'All atheists.' I did not say every atheist does that, however there are a hand full that do. I am simply turning the tables on how atheists commonly argue against religion and redirecting it to atheism to mabye open their eyes in that most of atheist arguements are horribly composed.

There's nothing hateful about not believing in God.

There is, however, hatefulness in how most atheist slander and disrespect religion.

How many atheists were involved in that? What percentage of the global population of atheists do they make up? Crusades, religion's vital role in modern terrorism, mumble, mumble, mumble.

If you do your research, around 80% of Sweden is atheist. Crusades were Catholics, not all religions. "Don't generalize."

That may or may not be true. Regardless, I challenge you to visit the Vatican, look at the gilded churches, shrines, etc., and ask yourself whether or not all the money spent on pretty buildings like that might've been better off going to feed some starving African villages.

1) Starving children in Africa was not a trendy issue back when most of those buildings were made. Now if that were a proper arguement which addressed the present church with the present issues instead of the past churche with the present issues. Then I would tell you that there are plenty of mission trips to Africa as well as around the world that feed those kids, build them shelter and churches (for the people,) give them clean water and clothing.
2) Look at all the money the government takes from people just to go to war and hurt people when it could be used to 'feed some starving African villages.' Corruption (which is what I believe you were aiming at with the arguement, disreguard this if I am wrong) is everywhere, not just the Catholic church. When you give an decietful and untrustworthy person power, they will abuse it.
3) To say that spending money on a church is a waste of money (if you implying that) is an insult. It just goes to show the discrimination atheists display. You can build a skyscrapper in New York which costs more than churches, that isn't a problem. When you make a church for worship, then the problem begins?
4) I honestly don't blame people for wanting a nice church to worship in. Churches are for the public. I believe they should be nice and should be a tribute to God. If you were of a faith, would you not want to worship in a nice looking place instead of a torn down shack? I'd say making nice looking churches isn't selfish at all, the church should be able to treat itself to be more appealing for the people who follow it.