Thread: What is wrong Western Religion?

You're right, but I think atheists use examples like that to justify being condescending. In fact, everytime I attack an atheist (not on their belief but on their behavior because I have nothing against their beliefs) they always cite examples like that. Christians enable the atheists to be douche bags, and the atheists then enable Christians to further act like douchebags.

I guess I'm trying to say atheists typically seem less interested in figuring out what's right and more interested in telling theists that they're wrong.

You're not going to change someone's ideas by treating them like shit, even if they treated you like shit. In my opinion, if someone is treating people like shit, then someone with a different perspective has a responsibilty to show them grace and understanding (two characteristics I have forgotten in my arguments here, I'll admit) because they have no defense against understanding. They've trained their whole lives in how to piss you off if you're outspoken about an opposing belief, but they have no idea how to act when you say, "Okay, that's a good idea, but what about this?" and perhaps bring up some of the same questions that caused you to evolve the beliefs you have in a non threatening way.

And that is a strategy I offer to theists, atheists and autopoets

Originally Posted by Omnius Deus

You're right, but I think atheists use examples like that to justify being condescending. In fact, everytime I attack an atheist (not on their belief but on their behavior because I have nothing against their beliefs) they always cite examples like that. Christians enable the atheists to be douche bags, and the atheists then enable Christians to further act like douchebags.

I guess I'm trying to say atheists typically seem less interested in figuring out what's right and more interested in telling theists that they're wrong.

You're not going to change someone's ideas by treating them like shit, even if they treated you like shit. In my opinion, if someone is treating people like shit, then someone with a different perspective has a responsibilty to show them grace and understanding (two characteristics I have forgotten in my arguments here, I'll admit) because they have no defense against understanding. They've trained their whole lives in how to piss you off if you're outspoken about an opposing belief, but they have no idea how to act when you say, "Okay, that's a good idea, but what about this?" and perhaps bring up some of the same questions that caused you to evolve the beliefs you have in a non threatening way.

And that is a strategy I offer to theists, atheists and autopoets

Not being condescending, I'm just pointing out how on the whole, I don't see atheists going out and spreading hateful views. Of course, if you look hard enough, you'll probably be able to find a hateful individual who happens to be an atheist, but it takes religion to make decent people do bad things.

I'm less interested in finding out what's right? You have things crooked right there. If anything, I am more interested in finding out what's right, however, in order to do so, I have to be very sceptical of everything. I wish to know and believe in as many true things as possible and get rid of as many false beliefs as possible. Because of this criteria, I have to apply scepticism in such a way that if a claim or belief cannot be shown not to be false (not falsifiable), then most likely it is bullshit.

You want to pose interesting questions? Then be sure to have something to substantiate the idea. I can disregard things quite easily if one has no evidence to back it up. I can't simply accept a new idea if it is nothing but meaningless speculation. As a sceptic, that just does not fly with me.

Also, if you wish to accuse people of being condescending, just drop this whole topic of trying to apply a blanket term for Christians/Atheists/whatever. Really, it's not doing you any favours.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

Not being condescending, I'm just pointing out how on the whole, I don't see atheists going out and spreading hateful views. Of course, if you look hard enough, you'll probably be able to find a hateful individual who happens to be an atheist, but it takes religion to make decent people do bad things.

In my experience it's 50/50. It's not that they just happen to be atheist, they hold their beliefs over theistic people. It's snobbish.

I'm less interested in finding out what's right? You have things crooked right there. If anything, I am more interested in finding out what's right, however, in order to do so, I have to be very sceptical of everything. I wish to know and believe in as many true things as possible and get rid of as many false beliefs as possible. Because of this criteria, I have to apply scepticism in such a way that if a claim or belief cannot be shown not to be false (not falsifiable), then most likely it is bullshit.

Good for you, you are in a minority.

You want to pose interesting questions? Then be sure to have something to substantiate the idea. I can disregard things quite easily if one has no evidence to back it up. I can't simply accept a new idea if it is nothing but meaningless speculation. As a sceptic, that just does not fly with me.

Why do you have to accept an idea in order to humor it? Why are things forced to either be true or false? Plus you alreadu subconsciously hold lot's of ideas that can't substantiated such as the idea that there is no God and yet we live in an alopathic universe...

Also, if you wish to accuse people of being condescending, just drop this whole topic of trying to apply a blanket term for Christians/Atheists/whatever. Really, it's not doing you any favours.

I am not, I am merely claiming that atheists behave exactly like Christians and are capable of just as much horrendous prejudice. The world would not be a better place without religion, it would be the same place.

Originally Posted by Omnius Deus

In my experience it's 50/50. It's not that they just happen to be atheist, they hold their beliefs over theistic people. It's snobbish.

As this is anecdotal evidence, can you provide any citation to back that up?

Originally Posted by Omnius Deus

Good for you, you are in a minority.

Should it matter whether I am in a minority or not?

Originally Posted by Omnius Deus

Why do you have to accept an idea in order to humor it? Why are things forced to either be true or false? Plus you alreadu subconsciously hold lot's of ideas that can't substantiated such as the idea that there is no God and yet we live in an alopathic universe...

I don't make claims against the existence of deities, I simply hold no reason to believe. If someone wants to convince me to believe, they need to provide the evidence to show that their deity/deities are not fantasies and are real. This can be applied to any new idea I come across. It's called scepticism.

Also, allopathic universe? Citation please.

Originally Posted by Omnius Deus

I am not, I am merely claiming that atheists behave exactly like Christians and are capable of just as much horrendous prejudice. The world would not be a better place without religion, it would be the same place.

There are assholes everywhere, but refer to them under terminology that is relevant, and not redefine terms to suit your narrow viewpoint on the issue.

"Oh, they are acting all high and mighty, like christians... therefore, they are christians/etc".

If that is not condescending, then I don't know what is.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

As this is anecdotal evidence, can you provide any citation to back that up?

Not when I don't give a shit. Most of what I know is based on personal anecdotes.

I don't make claims against the existence of deities, I simply hold no reason to believe. If someone wants to convince me to believe, they need to provide the evidence to show that their deity/deities are not fantasies and are real. This can be applied to any new idea I come across. It's called scepticism.

You are redefining the word sceptic. Not only that, but not one is trying to convince you of one god damned thing, you are attacking our opinions and we are defending them.

Let me ask you this, do you believe in black holes? They have about as much evidence for them as God does.

Do you believe the sun consumes itself over a finite period of time, expands and then explodes? That theory has as much evidence as God does.

why is it every time some one on this forum says "in my PERSONAL experience" some one else thinks evidence needs to be presented. seriously people. can we read a little slower?

Originally Posted by juroara

why is it every time some one on this forum says "in my PERSONAL experience" some one else thinks evidence needs to be presented. seriously people. can we read a little slower?

Personal experience doesn't make something true, right or justified.

Apart from that, you're the only one who ever said "in my personal experience" so what's your point?

Originally Posted by Omnius Deus

Not when I don't give a shit. Most of what I know is based on personal anecdotes.

So, most of what you know could potentially be wrong? Don't you find that a bit worrying?

Originally Posted by Omnius Deus

You are redefining the word sceptic. Not only that, but not one is trying to convince you of one god damned thing, you are attacking our opinions and we are defending them.

Let me ask you this, do you believe in black holes? They have about as much evidence for them as God does.

Do you believe the sun consumes itself over a finite period of time, expands and then explodes? That theory has as much evidence as God does.

skep·tic also scep·tic (skptk)n.1. One who instinctively or habitually doubts, questions, or disagrees with assertions or generally accepted conclusions.
2. One inclined to skepticism in religious matters.
3. Philosophy a. often Skeptic An adherent of a school of skepticism.
b. Skeptic A member of an ancient Greek school of skepticism, especially that of Pyrrho of Elis (360?-272? b.c.).


[Latin Scepticus, disciple of Pyrrho of Elis, from Greek Skeptikos, from skeptesthai, to examine; see spek- in Indo-European roots.]

Referenced from thefreedictionary.com. Now how am I redefining the word sceptic?

Black holes (or gravitional wells of massive proportions) have been observed, though the exact nature and whether they are black holes in the sense that they are singularities remains to be seen. However, the phenomenon exist and have been observed by astronomers, so a fail there for you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Holes

Novae and Supernovae have been observed as well, and considering the amount of energy the Sun loses per day, means that it is fusing hydrogen at the core at a certain rate. This rate gives us an estimate on how long the Sun has before it runs of out hydrogen, and begins the process of swelling up before a nova collapse. Again, observed by astronomers. Another fail. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun

So... where's the observational evidence for God? You made a claim that certain phenomena had as much evidence for as God, so now it's your turn to meet that burden of proof.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

So, most of what you know could potentially be wrong? Don't you find that a bit worrying?




skep·tic also scep·tic (skptk)n.1. One who instinctively or habitually doubts, questions, or disagrees with assertions or generally accepted conclusions.
2. One inclined to skepticism in religious matters.
3. Philosophy a. often Skeptic An adherent of a school of skepticism.
b. Skeptic A member of an ancient Greek school of skepticism, especially that of Pyrrho of Elis (360?-272? b.c.).


[Latin Scepticus, disciple of Pyrrho of Elis, from Greek Skeptikos, from skeptesthai, to examine; see spek- in Indo-European roots.]

Referenced from thefreedictionary.com. Now how am I redefining the word sceptic?

Black holes (or gravitional wells of massive proportions) have been observed, though the exact nature and whether they are black holes in the sense that they are singularities remains to be seen. However, the phenomenon exist and have been observed by astronomers, so a fail there for you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Holes

Novae and Supernovae have been observed as well, and considering the amount of energy the Sun loses per day, means that it is fusing hydrogen at the core at a certain rate. This rate gives us an estimate on how long the Sun has before it runs of out hydrogen, and begins the process of swelling up before a nova collapse. Again, observed by astronomers. Another fail. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun

So... where's the observational evidence for God? You made a claim that certain phenomena had as much evidence for as God, so now it's your turn to meet that burden of proof.

No, quesars have been observed. Cosmologists invented black holes to explain them, and they can't think of any other explanation. However, they don't have a single bit of evidence to prove that black holes cause quesars. It's just an idea, completely untested with no evidence. There is a phenomena that they explain using black holes.

A nuclear fusion sun model has not been observed. It is an explanation that there is a lot of evidence going against, actually. In fact, a nuclear fusion sun is technically impossible given certain observations about the sun, of course cosmologists just assume these little problems like solar flares will work themselves out. They think they will "eventually" find an explanation as to why the sun surface is 6,000 degrees but a few miles outside the sun and it jumps to 2,000,000 degrees. This does not compute in a nuclear fusion model, but they don't care.

We have observed the universe working like a code. I won't say it's perfect to sustain life, but the slightest changes in the mathematical laws the run the universe, and it could not possibly sustain life. God is an explanation for what we have observed. Not THE explanation, just one, and there's a lot about the God theory that does not compute. It's the same way with nuclear fusion, we observe a sun giving us energy and created an explanation, who cares if it's not possible? That'll just work itself out.

And I DO NOT find it worrying that most of what I know could be wrong because I don't KNOW it. I use intelligent guesses to make the best decisions I possibly can in any given moment, but I'm not going to stubbornly cling to ideas if presented with a situation that requires a bit more creativity. I go with the flow, and I've learned a lot of useful info to help me get through the flow, but it's just info.

I don't think you'll ever understand me until you get out of this right/wrong dichotomoty. Something does have to either be true or false, it can exist as an idea and be changed with more information arrives.