[Merged]All religions are idiocy

neltana said:
You expressed that you felt religions offered nothing of value to their believers. I showed two examples of teachings that I think most people would feel would have value.

Now, you say that the teaching is secular and not exclusively religious. Well, certainly it relates to the temporal world and is thus "secular." I think you will find most of the Jesus teachings to be secular in that way.

So, are the only religious beliefs you have a problem with those that have no secular component?
Click to expand...

I'm guessing that when thaiboxer says something is "secular" he means that it has practical value. Anything "religious" in nature lacks this value. It would appear that in his mind a religion with practical value is oxymoronic. Show him an example of a religion with practical contributions and he just sees a religion with secular components included in it.
 
Neltana,
These tales are of practical value, rules to make life easier. The first also includes some racial slures, because the Samaritans were hated by the Jews. So, it says in effect 'Look, even a Samaritan would do this" (I have also seen this interpreted as a tale of Samaritan redemption)
The second is a tale of tolerance, also useful in forming a cohesive society.
The Muslim religion stresses giving succor to strangers. A support network to allow pilgrimages to Mecca.
The word of god is introduced add emphasis, and fear of punishment. The 'religious' component adds nothing for me.
 
cj.23 said:
http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/religion/blrel_theism_irrational.htm
cj x
Click to expand...
I don't agree that theists are idiots, but the author over eggs it a bit.

"There are still many atheists who assume without question that theism is inherently irrational and atheism is inherently rational. Such an assumption is understandable when we consider that all of the theistic belief systems they have encountered have probably been genuinely irrational - but being understandable is not the same as being correct.

So who decides which theist belief systems are 'probably irrational' and those that are rational?

"The truth of the matter is, however, that none of us are superior over others by dint of some magically rational belief."
Who is equating rational with superior? Magically rational is oxymoronic.
 
Theism is inherently irrational. Atheism is neither rational or irrational, it's just a lack of believe in a god, which can come from rational or irrational thinking.

I've still yet to see an example of a rational reason to believe in a god.
 
Last edited:
thaiboxerken said:
Theism is inherently irrational. Atheism is neither rational or irrational, it's just a lack of believe in a god, which can come from rational or irrational thinking.

I've still yet to see an example of a rational reason to believe in a god.
Click to expand...

Have a look at the article I linked?

cj x
 
God of First Cause

thaiboxerken said:
Theism is inherently irrational. Atheism is neither rational or irrational, it's just a lack of believe in a god, which can come from rational or irrational thinking.

I've still yet to see an example of a rational reason to believe in a god.
Click to expand...

I think the proof cj.23 posted in post #319 (pg. 8 I think) was a good example of a good, rational reason to believe in a God of first cause.

If you feel this is irrational, I would be really interested to see where you see the failing (the axioms, the logic, etc.).
 
humber said:
Neltana,
These tales are of practical value, rules to make life easier.
<snip>
The word of god is introduced add emphasis, and fear of punishment. The 'religious' component adds nothing for me.
Click to expand...

Then I would encourage you not to use the religious component. I think the parables still have important things to teach and, for some, the religious components do add.

Mythology and symbolism are powerful and evocative means of communicating ideas...and many of these ideas are important and worth communicating. But if they bother you, fine. Come up with effective, strictly secular means of communicating them. But let's not lose the good ideas...they are worthy of respect.
 
neltana said:
I think the proof cj.23 posted in post #319 (pg. 8 I think) was a good example of a good, rational reason to believe in a God of first cause.

If you feel this is irrational, I would be really interested to see where you see the failing (the axioms, the logic, etc.).
Click to expand...


"Whoa Neddy", lets back the hay cart up. Somebody mentioned PROOF.

What proof. It is all made up. Somebody sat down, goes through something in their head, decides it is a great answer to their ponderous religious questions and without an ounce of fact, 'shazaam', people are using this person's assumed logic and axioms, as proof positive.

Lets see some facts before we start using words such as PROOF.
 
AkuManiMani said:
Religions in general have, historically, provided strong systems of social cohesion and were probably quite instrumental in the initial formation of large societies. Many religions have contributed some worthwhile ethical systems [one simple example would be the whole "do unto others" bit] and Eastern religions have provided some robust philosophies and meditative practices.
Click to expand...

Please don't give religion kudos for something that is standard animal behaviour. You poke a snake, a gorilla, a tiger or even a human being with a stick and you will get a reaction. Don't do it and you won't.

ie. You be nice to them and they will be nice to you.
 
Proof - it's a technical term

PBTree said:
"Whoa Neddy", lets back the hay cart up. Somebody mentioned PROOF.

What proof. It is all made up. Somebody sat down, goes through something in their head, decides it is a great answer to their ponderous religious questions and without an ounce of fact, 'shazaam', people are using this person's assumed logic and axioms, as proof positive.

Lets see some facts before we start using words such as PROOF.
Click to expand...

No, no...not PROOF as in "Doctor Eddings is the killer and I have PROOF!"

A PROOF is a series of logical statements that are used to derive a conclusion from one or more axioms. If you every take geometry or a class in logic, you will certainly encounter them.

If a conclusion derives from a sound chain of logic from a set of axioms, the conclusion is said to be "proved" within any logical system that contains those axioms.
 
neltana said:
I'm not a christian, but I'm going to use christian references because I'm lazy (they are readily available).

Do you honestly not see anything of value in the following piece of teaching?


Quote:
One day an expert on Moses' laws came to test Jesus' orthodoxy by asking him this question: "Teacher, what does a man need to do to live forever in heaven?" Jesus replied, "What does Moses' law say about it?" "It says," he replied, "that you must love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind. And you must love your neighbor just as much as you love yourself." "Right!" Jesus told him. "Do this and you shall live!" The man wanted to justify (his lack of love for some kinds of people), so he asked, "Which neighbors?" Jesus replied with an illustration: "A Jew going on a trip from Jerusalem to Jericho was attacked by bandits. They stripped him of his clothes and money, and beat him up and left him lying half dead beside the road. "By chance a Jewish priest came along; and when he saw the man lying there, he crossed to the other side of the road and passed him by. A Jewish Temple-assistant walked over and looked at him lying there, but then went on. "But a despised Samaritan came along, and when he saw him, he felt deep pity. Kneeling beside him the Samaritan soothed his wounds with medicine and bandaged them. Then he put the man on his donkey and walked along beside him till they came to an inn, where he nursed him through the night. The next day he handed the innkeeper two twenty-dollar bills and told him to take care of the man. 'If his bill runs higher than that,' he said, 'I'll pay the difference the next time I am here.' "Now which of these three would you say was a neighbor to the bandits' victim?" The man replied, "The one who showed him some pity." Then Jesus said, "Yes, now go and do the same." (TLB, Luke 10:25-37)
or this one:


Quote:
"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye. (NIV, Matthew 7:1-5)
Truly, you see no value here? Zero??
Click to expand...

Of course there is value in the first quote and I am sure the samaritan was a great chap. But where does religion come into it. Those figures (1 out of 3) would probably be correct for any event where someone was hurt. Religion just tends to take things that happen regularly in life and use them as though it was it's discovery. Really it is all just so much human nature.

Would you stop neltana?


As for the second one: what was Mathew smoking when he wrote that. sheesh. It must have been a bad crop.
 
Last edited:
Am I being asked to leave?

PBTree said:
Would you stop neltana?

As for the second one: what was Mathew smoking when he wrote that. sheesh. It must have been a bad crop.
Click to expand...
Well, I guess I'll have to ask the gallery here...should I really stop trying to explain my position? There has been several calls earlier in the thread for participation from folks who did not agree with the assertion made in the OP.

Is discussion of this topic unwelcome in this thread?

The examples I provided are examples of Jesus teachings...which are, I think you will except, religious beliefs. I accept and have never ever maintained that these beliefs are exclusive to religion. But I do maintain that they are important teachings that should be propagated.

Matt was saying that you shouldn't hold others to a higher standard than you do yourself. It seemed apropos to this thread somehow.
 
PBTree said:
Please don't give religion kudos for something that is standard animal behaviour. You poke a snake, a gorilla, a tiger or even a human being with a stick and you will get a reaction. Don't do it and you won't.

ie. You be nice to them and they will be nice to you.
Click to expand...

You'd be surprised by how many humans that that doesn't come naturally to.

Anyway, the whole point of the Christian "do unto others" doctrine isn't simply quid pro quo -- its a direct appeal to treat others with compassion regardless of whether or not they reciprocate.
 
Last edited:
cj.23 said:
OK, let's start with a rational argument for God. The classic is the Kalam Cosmological argument.

Premise 1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
Premise 2: The universe began to exist.
Conclusion 1: Therefore, the universe must have a cause.
Click to expand...

Not rational, not logical and doesn't even attempt to say that there is a god.
 
neltana said:
Well, I guess I'll have to ask the gallery here...should I really stop trying to explain my position? There has been several calls earlier in the thread for participation from folks who did not agree with the assertion made in the OP.

Is discussion of this topic unwelcome in this thread?

The examples I provided are examples of Jesus teachings...which are, I think you will except, religious beliefs. I accept and have never ever maintained that these beliefs are exclusive to religion. But I do maintain that they are important teachings that should be propagated.

Matt was saying that you shouldn't hold others to a higher standard than you do yourself. It seemed apropos to this thread somehow.
Click to expand...

I could be wrong, but I read PBTree's post as: "would you stop and help the injured person".
 
thaiboxerken said:
Not rational, not logical and doesn't even attempt to say that there is a god.
Click to expand...

Well, is your problem with the premises or in how the conclusion was derived from the premises? If it is not logical, please explain how the chain of reasoning fails. This proof was selected because it is so very, very short...thus making it easier for us to discuss.

The conclusion is that there is a force outside of our universe that "set everything in motion" in our universe. That is the God of First Cause, by definition.

Remember, this is a theistic proof, not a judeo-christian one. It does not attempt to prove any super-natural force in our universe.
 
I posted a very short form of the Kalam Cosmological Argument

Premise 1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
Premise 2: The universe began to exist.
Conclusion 1: Therefore, the universe must have a cause.

thaiboxerken said:
Not rational, not logical and doesn't even attempt to say that there is a god.
Click to expand...


OK, let's ignore the God bit for now. Where is this logic broken? And how is this not a rational argument? The conclusion follows from the premise. It is completely rational and logical, and i fail to see how you can possibly deny this?

cj x
 
cj.23 said:
I posted a very short form of the Kalam Cosmological Argument

Premise 1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
Premise 2: The universe began to exist.
Conclusion 1: Therefore, the universe must have a cause.




OK, let's ignore the God bit for now. Where is this logic broken? And how is this not a rational argument? The conclusion follows from the premise. It is completely rational and logical, and i fail to see how you can possibly deny this?

cj x
Click to expand...

Your second premise implies linearity of time. If god exists and is omnipotent then one would have to assume that time manipulation would be within its powers. So it could create the universe in a perpetual loop, with no beginning,

This would invalidate your second premise.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom