If Religions never existed....

Fighting Irish

...what would the world be like now?

Serious replies please

apoch632

People would have found a different arbitrary ways of dividing themselves

Rowley Birkin QC

I would never have gotten any Confirmation/Communion money.

brianthebard

I don't think thats possible op, if there wasn't religion then at the very least there would be philosophies of what life means.

PDN

Galileo wouldn't have had to retract his theories.

Then again, Copernicus wouldn't have enjoyed the leisure time as a clergyman to make his observations - so Galileo wouldn't have had any theories anyway.

jayzusb.christ

Hard to say. I think before people began to understand how things actually work, there wasn't really an alternative to religion for an inquisitive creature like a human. Nowadays i think we could get by fine without religion - though i believe that there would be other excuses for wars and violence

Dades

Fighting Irish wrote: »

If Religions never existed what would the world be like now?

Sweden? :pac:

No, seriously, religiosity is so ingrained in humans it would be like nothing we could imagine. It's just too big a part of history to envisage what the world would have evolved to be without it.

Red Hand

I'd agree with Dades-most humans are hardwired for some sort of "spirituality".

PDN

Dades wrote: »

Sweden? :pac:

No, seriously, religiosity is so ingrained in humans it would be like nothing we could imagine. It's just too big a part of history to envisage what the world would have evolved to be without it.

Agreed. With counterfactual history (such as the 'What If?' books) you can go back one remove from actual history. However, once you go back more than one remove things turn out to be so interwoven that we don't have a clue how things would be - which was kind of the point I was making about Galileo and Copernicus.

I like the bit in The God Delusion where Richard Dawkins blames religion for the destruction of the Bamyan Buddha statues in Afghanistan. Which is entirely true - but without religion the statues wouldn't have existed in the first place.

To quote Ezekiel - "Wheels within wheels, and a wheel within a wheel".

Red Hand

PDN wrote: »

To quote Ezekiel - "Wheels within wheels, and a wheel within a wheel".

-Part of Ezekiel's specifications for the internal gears of the Power Take Off mechanism for a typical Massey Fergusen tractor.:pac:

Zombrex

Fighting Irish wrote: »

...what would the world be like now?

Serious replies please

As others have pointed out religion is a by product of the way the human mind tends to view the world around it, so it is hard to imagine what the world would be like without religion ever existing because humans wouldn't be like humans.

philologos

Question though, purely out of curiosity. If religion is always going to exist, why do people try to destroy it (anti-theists, militant atheists etc)?

PDN

Jakkass wrote: »

Question though, purely out of curiosity. If religion is always going to exist, why do people try to destroy it (anti-theists, militant atheists etc)?

To be fair you could ask the same question of poverty given that we Christians believe that Jesus said "The poor will always be with you." We can attempt to reduce something or mitigate its influence without believing that thing can be entirely eradicated.

Dades

Jakkass wrote: »

Question though, purely out of curiosity. If religion is always going to exist, why do people try to destroy it (anti-theists, militant atheists etc)?

It appears that you have come to the conclusion that always existing = beneficial !

Many people don't see religion as beneficial, and therefore worth keeping. In fact, would you not wish to see all other religions superseded by your own? Take that one religion further!

philologos

I didn't say that always existing is beneficial. My question was more on a why bother, kind of scale.

I don't have any problem with other faiths, I would like Christianity to be more widely spread, but I don't have any inherent problem with Islam etc.

"Take that one religion further" - That just reminds me of the ridiculous assertion that atheists often make, that I'm just atheist about one more God than you.

Well considering that atheism is the lack of theism, I wouldn't be atheist about any faith at all. I still have theism.

MatthewVII

Jakkass wrote: »

Question though, purely out of curiosity. If religion is always going to exist, why do people try to destroy it (anti-theists, militant atheists etc)?

Because religion as we know it is a flawed system, and as society marches on it realises this more and more, hence the increasing numbers of atheists over time. If we take the view that it'll always exist (which I doubt) then it'll never be gone.

That's like saying "Sexism has always existed, why try to get rid of it"

philologos

MatthewVII wrote: »

Because religion as we know it is a flawed system, and as society marches on it realises this more and more, hence the increasing numbers of atheists over time. If we take the view that it'll always exist (which I doubt) then it'll never be gone.

That's like saying "Sexism has always existed, why try to get rid of it"

How is religion as we know it flawed? Do we know it to be flawed?

As society marches on, actually society has reviewed and reviewed again, it has reconsidered it's view time and time again. There has been times of secularism and doubt, and there has been times of reconsideration of faith, and no doubt the same will happen again.

As for comparing religion to sexism, that's just you invoking that religion is in anyway akin to sexism. That's your own personal bias, just don't expect me to agree with it without a reason.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

Question though, purely out of curiosity. If religion is always going to exist, why do people try to destroy it (anti-theists, militant atheists etc)?

You mean why bother if religion if the mental systems that produce religion are so entwined in our own heads.

Well throughout history there are examples where humanity has risen above the more basic instincts we have about how the universe is and functions. Modern science is an example of this. We no longer accept the idea that primary elements (fire, water, earth, air) are in all matter, though if you explain this to someone it still makes more intuitive sense than the ideas of say atoms or molecules. There are reasons why it makes more intuitive sense to someone, but that doesn't mean it has to be accepted over what is actually happening.

We don't have to accept that the world is how we instinctively feel it should be. We often do, but we don't have to.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

How is religion as we know it flawed? Do we know it to be flawed?

Is it possible to have this discussion without the retreat to "Not if God actually exists..." argument.

The reason religion is a flawed system is that it is a call to higher authority as a infallible source of information and ethics. The most often justification for this is that humans are flawed and can't figure stuff out properly on their own. The paradox of a flawed fallible creature determining that another creature is perfect and infallible is some what lost on your guys.

It is flawed because you (or any believer) can't argue something that you have already been told by your higher authority is correct, and you cannot accept that the higher authority is wrong or flawed without rejecting the idea entirely. It stifles any proper debate because you have already decide you can't be wrong. Not that you aren't wrong, but that you can't be wrong, which is a fundamental difference. To argue you aren't wrong you are expected to put forward a case. To argue you can't be wrong is simply a matter of saying "God says so"

The homosexuality thread is an example of this.

philologos

Wicknight wrote: »

The reason religion is a flawed system is that it is a call to higher authority as a infallible source of information and ethics. The most often justification for this is that humans are flawed and can't figure stuff out properly on their own. The paradox of a flawed fallible creature determining that another creature is perfect and infallible is some what lost on your guys.

It's a question of whether or not the information is true or not. I feel I have enough indication to accept that the Bible is most likely true, and you feel the contrary. That's the height of what this discussion comes down to.

What do you mean that we cannot figure out stuff properly on our own? Of course we can, however just because you appeal to that argument doesn't mean that there isn't anything else out there. It doesn't nullify what has been received to us through divine revelation. We can of course, because we have intelligences, but it's irrelevant that whole argument is ridiculous. Just because you think that "we can't figure stuff out on our own" due to God existing, which is laughable in itself, but that argument doesn't even make God's existence less probable!

Wicknight wrote: »

It is flawed because you (or any believer) can't argue something that you have already been told by your higher authority is correct, and you cannot accept that the higher authority is wrong or flawed without rejecting the idea entirely.

What are we doing now Wicknight? As for arguing something that has been revealed. Of course I can argue it, if I really want to. However, I am of the opinion and of the belief that what has been revealed is accurate. I can quite easily, the question is do I genuinely have an objection? I could conjure up several objections, but where would that leave me if I don't actually have one. I can accept the authority to be wrong, but I don't believe it to be.

Wicknight wrote: »

It stifles any proper debate because you have already decide you can't be wrong. Not that you aren't wrong, but that you can't be wrong, which is a fundamental difference. To argue you aren't wrong you are expected to put forward a case. To argue you can't be wrong is simply a matter of saying "God says so"

It stifles a debate because I don't agree with you? That's the height of what you are arguing. Actually I think it stifles debate for you to expect that of us, to just accept your opinion. I think the debate is actually more rich when we have people who contest your view, and people who contest my view. That is what real debate is.

Proper debate to you is that myself, PDN, Fanny Craddock and so on, just say "Ah Wicknight, I agree with you totally about God and religion". That isn't real debate!

As for simply being a matter of "God says so", I agree that does stifle debate, but I think it's incredibly patronising and unfair to suggest that after all the discussion that we've gone through on the Christianity forum and here in A&A that that is all it has ever come down to. You know that isn't true, so at least come and be honest about it.

Wicknight wrote: »

The homosexuality thread is an example of this.

The homosexuality debate is an example of stifled debate why? Our argument never has come down to merely "God says so", infact there are numerous threads in the Christianity forum and elsewhere on Boards, in which the Christian position has been outlined, and reasoning has been given on the subject. It has never been just "God says so".

brianthebard

Jakkass wrote: »

Question though, purely out of curiosity. If religion is always going to exist, why do people try to destroy it (anti-theists, militant atheists etc)?

Firstly, religion has not always existed, it was created at some point, and became more sophisticated as time went on.
Secondly, I think your question is in relation to the atheists and agnostics above you that religion or religion like construct would always have existed in history. There was no claim that religion will always exist, even though it may be possible to think that.
Thirdly, I would ask you, if religions are always going to exist, why do people of other faiths seek to destroy them?

Dades

Jakkass wrote: »

Well considering that atheism is the lack of theism, I wouldn't be atheist about any faith at all. I still have theism.

That's just semantics.

If I said I simply believed in one less god than you - out of thousands - what would be ridiculous about that?

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

It's a question of whether or not the information is true or not.

No actually its not. It is a question of how you can go about determining the accuracy of the position that something is true, and the quality of the method you use.

Jakkass wrote: »

I feel I have enough indication to accept that the Bible is most likely true, and you feel the contrary. That's the height of what this discussion comes down to.

Yes but we are back to the idea that both positions are some how just as valid and rational because you hold one and I hold the other.

You could believe the world is flat. I could believe the world is round.

I could say your position is flawed and silly and you could say that you have seen enough to know that the world is flat and you don't really care that I don't agree, that me calling your position flawed and silly is just my opinion, it's not true just because I say it, and you have never seen any evidence or argument to convince you otherwise.

The idea that because you believe God exists that some how in of itself means something is in itself flawed.

Jakkass wrote: »

What do you mean that we cannot figure out stuff properly on our own?

That is what is so often said on the Christianity forum. We need God. We don't do very well without him. We have no purpose without him telling us which one we have. We have no way to determine morality without him etc etc

Jakkass wrote: »

It doesn't nullify what has been received to us through divine revelation.

The idea of divine revelation is, again, flawed.

I could list you off all the reasons it is flawed, but I'm not entirely sure you care that much.

Jakkass wrote: »

We can of course, because we have intelligences, but it's irrelevant that whole argument is ridiculous. Just because you think that "we can't figure stuff out on our own" due to God existing, which is laughable in itself, but that argument doesn't even make God's existence less probable!

Yes but again you are focusing on the probability God exists, when in fact you should be focusing on the probability you can determine he exists.

I have no idea the probability of God existing, such a thing is impossible to determine. Likewise it is impossible for you to know that the God you want to be real actually is real.

The idea that you have seen enough to determine this is utterly silly. It is so flawed it is hard to call it anything other than stupid.

Jakkass wrote: »

However, I am of the opinion and of the belief that what has been revealed is accurate. I can quite easily, the question is do I genuinely have an objection?

You certainly should do. The fact that you don't is the worrying bit.

Jakkass wrote: »

I could conjure up several objections, but where would that leave me if I don't actually have one. I can accept the authority to be wrong, but I don't believe it to be.

But that is ridiculous. You don't believe it to be? How could you possibly know that.

This is the difference between knowledge and faith. I have faith that my brother isn't going to commit a crime. That doesn't mean I know he won't. The faith I have is not rational, it comes from the emotional side of my brain. He is my brother, I trust him. That is nothing to do with knowledge or understanding. I have no possibly way to determine that he isn't ever going to commit a crime.

Jakkass wrote: »

It stifles a debate because I don't agree with you?

It stifles debate because you have already decide that you can't agree with me.

I have asked many times on both forums what evidence would be required to convince you guys that God doesn't exist, or can be wrong. Needless to say the answers aren't fast coming, beyond "None" or "You can't convince me of that"

You are arguing from an emotional rather than rational position.

Jakkass wrote: »

As for simply being a matter of "God says so", I agree that does stifle debate, but I think it's incredibly patronising and unfair to suggest that after all the discussion that we've gone through on the Christianity forum and here in A&A that that is all it has ever come down to. You know that isn't true, so at least come and be honest about it.

That is exactly what the arguments boil down to.

What else is there?

Jakkass wrote: »

It has never been just "God says so".

Don't be ridiculous, that was exactly what the argument was. God says so and I know God is always right. Can you point out anyone who made an argument other than that?

None of you had any non-Biblical reason why homosexuality is immoral, no reason other than it has been "revealed" to be true, apart from Wolfsbane, who in fairness to him seems incapable of thinking about biology independent to his Creationist/Biblical view point.

In fact a lot went out of your way to stress this point less they themselves be attacked for personal anti-homosexual views.

philologos

Wicknight wrote: »

No actually its not. It is a question of how you can go about determining the accuracy of the position that something is true, and the quality of the method you use.

This is exactly what discourse between Christians and atheists is about. We are trying to discern which one is more true, and if Christianity or atheism is worthy of our adoption. So of course it is. Accuracy implies truth, I think we can both realise that.

Wicknight wrote: »

Yes but we are back to the idea that both positions are some how just as valid and rational because you hold one and I hold the other.

I definitely don't hold that view that both are as valid and rational as the other, one loses out for me and it's atheism, but it's the only objective standpoint we have to start from, and I think you would agree.

Wicknight wrote: »

You could believe the world is flat. I could believe the world is round.

This is just absurd, really. Mind you it is a reductio ad absurdum argument so what was I expecting. The difference between the Biblical hypothesis and the shape of the world, is that it has been objectively proven to us through explorers, and through other things that the world is definitely not flat. We don't have that kind of certainty in the God question, and you know that is true as much as I do.

Wicknight wrote: »

I could say your position is flawed and silly and you could say that you have seen enough to know that the world is flat and you don't really care that I don't agree, that me calling your position flawed and silly is just my opinion, it's not true just because I say it, and you have never seen any evidence or argument to convince you otherwise.

Again this assumes that the God hypothesis is the same as one of a flat world, we know this is truly and utterly false.

Wicknight wrote: »

The idea that because you believe God exists that some how in of itself means something is in itself flawed.

Actually, this is where I concede that I don't know where God came from, as it isn't dealt with in divine revelation. I however have reason to suggest given my adoption of the view of John Sadowsky on the inability of an infinite regress that it isn't very likely that God was created by another, however I don't know, and I'm willing to say I have doubt on that issue.

Wicknight wrote: »

That is what is so often said on the Christianity forum. We need God. We don't do very well without him. We have no purpose without him telling us which one we have. We have no way to determine morality without him etc etc

Well, theres no point discussing our reasoning behind your need of God if you aren't willing to accept that there is a possibility that a higher power exists. Infact all discourse in relation to God falls flat on deaf ears to you. You've already elaborated that it isn't actually debate if we aren't on the same page as you.

Wicknight wrote: »

The idea of divine revelation is, again, flawed.

The idea of divine revelation isn't flawed at all, if all your objection amounts to is that you have difficulty adopting it. Having an intellectual difficulty (although I'm not sure that this is all an intellectual difficulty, more atheists than not also have emotional difficulties not based on reason with faith) isn't the same as something being flawed. Just because you have difficulty believing in something doesn't mean that it is any more flawed just because you don't believe.

Wicknight wrote: »

Yes but again you are focusing on the probability God exists, when in fact you should be focusing on the probability you can determine he exists.

The probability of God existing has to be considered in the God question. We can't blur him out.

See the issue is you want me and others to start from the position that God doesn't exist, so we should wipe out religion. I'm not satisfied with the first clause of that statement. We have the God question to deal with before the second half of the statement becomes in any meaning of the word viable. You know that and I know that so there is no need to try and avoid it.

Wicknight wrote: »

I have no idea the probability of God existing, such a thing is impossible to determine. Likewise it is impossible for you to know that the God you want to be real actually is real.

Sure it is, the more indications you can find of God existing, and there are many to be found, the more likely it is that God exists. If you start looking for indications that x murdered someone, the more items and DNA that they leave near the corpse the more likely that the hypothesis is true. That's how we can assess God's probability and the probability of the Biblical text being true in reality.

Wicknight wrote: »

The idea that you have seen enough to determine this is utterly silly. It is so flawed it is hard to call it anything other than stupid.

How is it utterly silly to assess the world around us and to make an honest conclusion? You've done the exact same with atheism. By definition you should be an agnostic if you aren't determining anything from the objective standpoint.

Wicknight wrote: »

You certainly should do. The fact that you don't is the worrying bit.

I should have an objection, because? You say so? That's rather similar to the charge that you claim that Christians have made for God, and now you are suggesting that I should just adopt your viewpoint because you say so? That's rather poor indeed.

Wicknight wrote: »

But that is ridiculous. You don't believe it to be? How could you possibly know that.

How is it ridiculous that I don't accept your position on this issue? You don't actually deal with the issue at hand at all. I don't believe it to be wrong, and I've seen the Bible prove accurate in terms of my life again and again. You seem to think that this is because I fit in to the demographic of the Biblical authors. Of course I am Jewish, married, yet single, also middle aged, old, and young aged :pac:. I've also seen how archaeology, the historical record and so on are correlated with the Biblical text.

Wicknight wrote: »

This is the difference between knowledge and faith. I have faith that my brother isn't going to commit a crime. That doesn't mean I know he won't. The faith I have is not rational, it comes from the emotional side of my brain. He is my brother, I trust him. That is nothing to do with knowledge or understanding. I have no possibly way to determine that he isn't ever going to commit a crime.

I never claimed I knew 100% about God. The God hypothesis is very probable of being true, but I cannot be certain. Nobody on this forum can, and nobody in the Christianity forum can.

Yes, and Wicknight, this rambling about your brother is only familiar in one way to God. You trust your brother, I trust God. Looks like me and the majority of Americans might have something in common after all :P

Infact the word faith comes from fide which is trust in Latin. An extreme acceptance of God in philosophy taken up by Soren Kirkegaard and others is known as fideism. Such as the "leap of faith". I personally believe that God can be explained a lot by reason and empiricism though.

Wicknight wrote: »

It stifles debate because you have already decide that you can't agree with me.

People disagree all the time! I can argue the exact same about you! Wicknight the debate is going on right now, savour it, try to show me why God is absurd.

Wicknight wrote: »

I have asked many times on both forums what evidence would be required to convince you guys that God doesn't exist, or can be wrong. Needless to say the answers aren't fast coming, beyond "None" or "You can't convince me of that"

You don't have evidence that God doesn't exist currently, if there was I would reconsider my position. The question is would you? I've heard atheist say time and time again say that if God existed, they would not believe in Him. How seriously stubborn is that?

I don't know what evidence could disprove God, but if you had some there wouldn't be a debate to be had. It would be stopped in it's tracks. I'd probably even thank you in that case. However, I'm also very thankful for my faith and my worldview right now.

Wicknight wrote: »

You are arguing from an emotional rather than rational position.

Interesting, but that fails because guess what. There is no 100% rational person on this planet, reason is only one faculty in argument. Infact most things reasoned upon come from empirical knowledge not from rational knowledge which comes from thinking and considering over these things.

Anyhow. My entire consideration of God has involved thought, and involved what this means for me. I've infact doubted, reconsidered some of my positions throughout my faith process. I've deeply thought about what this means for me, and how faith correlates with science and the facts. The so called religion vs science dillemma doesn't exist, it's something conjured up between militant atheists, and creationists. Faith is compatible with what we know of the world, that's why it exists. If there was consistent proof against God we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Wicknight wrote: »

That is exactly what the arguments boil down to.

What else is there?

If that is all you have gleaned from all the discussions we have had on homosexuality in the Christianity forum, I really despair for you. If you have any more issues take it up in the newer thread. Theres literally been dozens of threads on the subject, and that is all you have gleaned.

Wicknight wrote: »

Don't be ridiculous, that was exactly what the argument was. God says so and I know God is always right. Can you point out anyone who made an argument other than that?

No it isn't. Go research.

Wicknight wrote: »

None of you had any non-Biblical reason why homosexuality is immoral, no reason other than it has been "revealed" to be true, apart from Wolfsbane, who in fairness to him seems incapable of thinking about biology independent to his Creationist/Biblical view point.

If you look up all those threads. Yes you will find non-Biblical reasons for it.

Dades wrote: »

That's just semantics.

If I said I simply believed in one less god than you - out of thousands - what would be ridiculous about that?

The number of faiths doesn't diminish the need to search for what is true. Christianity to be seemed the most probable out of the faiths I had consulted, and Christianity certainly seems the more probable outcome when looked at with atheism. It's irrelevant how many viewpoints there are.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

This is exactly what discourse between Christians and atheists is about. We are trying to discern which one is more true, and if Christianity or atheism is worthy of our adoption. So of course it is. Accuracy implies truth, I think we can both realise that.

Yes but the point is that you guys stand back and go that you have personally assessed that such and such is true (the infallibility of the Bible say) and the rest of us are for some reason supposed to stand back and go Wonderful, ignoring the flawed and silly process that you arrived at that conclusion by.

We are for some reason supposed to view all processes to a conclusion of "truth" as the same, so if you claim you have seen enough evidence or what ever to determine for yourself that God exists and is totally infallible we are supposed to not call that utter nonsense.

Jakkass wrote: »

The difference between the Biblical hypothesis and the shape of the world, is that it has been objectively proven to us through explorers, and through other things that the world is definitely not flat. We don't have that kind of certainty in the God question, and you know that is true as much as I do.

You missed my point some what.

It certainly has not be "objectively proven" to you that God exists, God is good, God never lies, God is never wrong, has it? So why do you hold such beliefs with such strong conviction?

You can claim that you have personally determined that God is never wrong, but that is as meaningless as someone saying "I have personally determined that the world is flat"

The idea that someone would sit down and decide that the world is flat is not completely valid and to be respected right up to the point where it is demonstrated that the world is round.

We didn't know anything about the shape of the Earth and then we knew it was round. It wasn't a case that we knew it was flat and then we knew it was round.

This is the nonsense of saying that until someone proves to me that God doesn't exist, or God does lie, or God can be wrong, I'm going to choose that he does exist, doesn't lie and is never wrong.

Jakkass wrote: »

Well, theres no point discussing our reasoning behind your need of God if you aren't willing to accept that there is a possibility that a higher power exists.

I do accept that there is a possibility that a "higher power" (I assume you mean an extra-terrestrial entity possibly responsible for the creation of the universe) exists.

I've always accepted that that is possible. Heck anything is possible. What I reject is the idea that you guys some how know to a impressive degree of accuracy that it does and is the entity described in your holy books is accurate and real.

You guys lack the ability to determine this. That certainly doesn't stop you believing it is true, and that is the issue.

Jakkass wrote: »

The idea of divine revelation isn't flawed at all, if all your objection amounts to is that you have difficulty adopting it.

The idea of divine revelation is completely flawed.

It is the very definition of cyclical reasoning. You cannot determine that the book or speaker is divinely inspired externally to the work itself. You use the "truth" of the book as justification for the existence of the deity and then the existence of the deity as justification for the "truth" of the book. The most glaring example of this is the resurrection of Jesus, something you claim is historically accurate because you introduce God to demonstrate that people can be resurrected, and then use the resurrection as evidence for God.

It is hard to think of worse reasoning.

Jakkass wrote: »

Having an intellectual difficulty isn't the same as something being flawed.

Reasoning being flawed is what I mean Jakkass. If you say "well we know X Y and Z" and I say that is flawed reasoning because of A, B and C, problems which call into question the accuracy of your claim to know X Y and Z, then that is flawed reasoning.

Jakkass wrote: »

Sure it is, the more indications you can find of God existing, and there are many to be found, the more likely it is that God exists.

Only if you rule out that theses "indications" cannot be explained otherwise. Falsifiability. Which you don't do.

The biggest problem you have is the supernatural. You cannot determine that something is or is not caused by God. You can determine that DNA is produced by a human and a human deposits DNA around them.

So you fall at the first hurdle because you have no way of determining if something is or is not an indication of God.

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't believe it to be wrong, and I've seen the Bible prove accurate in terms of my life again and again.

And .. ?

This is the crux of the matter. Such an assertion is flawed. It doesn't mean anything because the Bible could "prove accurate" in terms of your life again and again and still be made up completely by humans.

You are taking an emotional conclusion rather than a rational one.

You know you are because you can see every other religion and its followers doing the exact same thing. The argument that just because they are doesn't mean I am doesn't hold water in this case because the flaw is with the assertion, not whether or not it is true.

Jakkass wrote: »

I personally believe that God can be explained a lot by reason and empiricism though.

I'm sure you do, but you seem very hostel to this "reason and empiricism" being picked apart. So I would question the limits you yourself are prepared to take your faith.

You can claim all you like that you have given it really good consideration, but that rings hollow because I'm sitting here and I can point out about 20 flaws in practically every thing you have said about how you know God exists.

And I'm not even that bright.

Jakkass wrote: »

You don't have evidence that God doesn't exist currently

Of course not.

You know perfectly well that by the very definition of God given by your religion that it is impossible to present you with empirical evidence God doesn't exist.

God is defined, by believers such as yourself, as a supernatural being that cannot be measured or tested. I would be fascinated how anyone things they can get empirical evidence that he doesn't exist.

The flip side of that, a problem you simply ignore, is that you cannot determine, in any meaningful fashion, that he exists either.

Jakkass wrote: »

The question is would you?

I would be trilled beyond belief if you or anyone could come up with a way to test God's existence in a scientific fashion.

Jakkass wrote: »

I've heard atheist say time and time again say that if God existed, they would not believe in Him. How seriously stubborn is that?

Er, no. What we say is that if God existed we wouldn't worship him. Big difference.

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't know what evidence could disprove God, but if you had some there wouldn't be a debate to be had. It would be stopped in it's tracks.

Yes but that is the point. You have retreated into the warm bosom of a position that can never be "disproved" to you.

If you don't know what could falsify your own position then there is a problem with your position. And it makes the assertion that you have considered your position properly sound even more hollow.

Jakkass wrote: »

Anyhow. My entire consideration of God has involved thought, and involved what this means for me. I've infact doubted, reconsidered some of my positions throughout my faith process. I've deeply thought about what this means for me, and how faith correlates with science and the facts.

No offence Jakkass but I find that all very hard to believe, particularly given how hostel you seem to be to your faith being picked apart.

You have not demonstrated any well thought out arguments for the existence of God so far (ie none that any one of the atheists here couldn't rip to part in about 5 mintues), and you have accepted apparently as is some very flawed ones.

You can keep claiming over and over that you have rationally considered all this in a serious fashion, but until you actually come up with rational arguments for God that is just grand standing.

philologos

Wicknight wrote: »

Yes but the point is that you guys stand back and go that you have personally assessed that such and such is true (the infallibility of the Bible say) and the rest of us are for some reason supposed to stand back and go Wonderful, ignoring the flawed and silly process that you arrived at that conclusion by.

This is just getting ridiculous Wicknight, what flawed process is to be ignored, and why is it flawed? You make an assertion, and then just reassert it again and again. Some of your points are somewhat useful, but I don't see how what you are doing now is productive.

Wicknight wrote: »

We are for some reason supposed to view all processes to a conclusion of "truth" as the same, so if you claim you have seen enough evidence or what ever to determine for yourself that God exists and is totally infallible we are supposed to not call that utter nonsense.

No they aren't the same, I'd never be content with the explanation that atheists give for how things are the way they are, and most importantly why things are the way they are. I find that illogical. How can we emerge out of nothing?

As for what you are "supposed" to do, quite frankly, if you want to live your live rejecting God, that's your perogative. I would like you to see that there is more, but you have a hardened heart. You can call it "utter nonsense" if you wish, and I can call what you have to say "utter nonsense". However, the discussion doesn't progress at all that way, nor is it even worth having to be honest.

Wicknight wrote: »

You missed my point some what.

It certainly has not be "objectively proven" to you that God exists, God is good, God never lies, God is never wrong, has it? So why do you hold such beliefs with such strong conviction?

It has certainly not been objectively proven that God does not exist, I'm pretty doubtful that it will ever be. However, this is irrelevant. I've been through why I hold such beliefs with such conviction several times, probably in this thread alone.

Simply put the indications hold up, both empirically and rationally.

1. The universe, and the cause of life given it's probability is more likely a supernatural process rather than a naturalistic one. (i.e that God was probably behind evolutionary biology to bring us to the point where we are today). Most atheists I have ever discussed with about cosmology, and the way the world has come into existence, ignore several steps of how it even began and skip to Darwinian evolution which I find acceptable. However, when I prompt them to how possibly given the probabilities of all the events that happened before that point let alone how the evolutionary cycle began could this have happened of it's own accord. I've never had a satisfactory answer to that question without attributing it to some form of higher power, or designer. Again, if I do ever get a satisfactory answer, I will consider it. Most of the answers I have gotten, are poor though.

2. If we look to several Biblical events, we can show that they are true in history, such as the Assyrian provocation of King Hezekiah in Jerusalem, or the reign of many of the Jewish monarchs in the Biblical text. Likewise, the reigns of Alexander the Great and other figures are discussed in the Christian Apocrypha which are included in Anglican, Orthodox, and Catholic Bibles at the start of 1 Maccabees. Time and time again, the Bible proves itself to be valid on the historical record of it's time. Even in respect to the life of Jesus in various historical texts, most of those in the historical community have now come to accept that Jesus indeed existed, prompting Christology to emerge. Trying to find the historical Jesus, as opposed to the Jesus of the Bible.

3. The Archaeology of the State of Israel, again we can source to all the sites where the Biblical events even happened, and we can look to structures such as Zedekiahs cave underneath Jerusalem, King Davids Tower, The Wailing Wall, and there have been numerous finds of late that prove the Bible to be correct about locations, and this holds as proof that indeed Solomons Temple did exist, it wasn't just a myth. Likewise for all the rest of these sites. Capernaum, Caesarea, and so on. The archaeology also brings up Biblical accuracy, if we look to the findings of Qumran in 1948 and so on.

4. How do we know that the Bible is accurate? Well this is what theologians deal with, and yes they actually do something in the long run. How do we know that the Bible hasn't been corrupted? Well quite simply, when the Isaiah scroll was found at Qumran in 1948, they compared it to a previous copy, and the current one they used for translation at the time. The Hebrew found at Qumran was dated to roughly 100AD, yet it perfectly matched the Hebrew that was used in our Bibles today. How is this, considering that us malicious Christians must have corrupted the Bible to make it into some convenient fairy tale over the years? Carrying on, how do we know that our texts are accurate. Well they are dated in the correct time, they are backed up by other independent texts (before they were compiled in the Bible, for example the Gospel of Mark evidently backs up / or is backed up by the Gospel of Matthew) that were released at roughly the same date as the other ones. Then the language is important, it was in Koine Greek the typical language of the period in terms of the New Testament, or Biblical Hebrew in other cases. There were criteria at the Council of Nicea in selecting the texts, it wasn't just a wonderful pick and mix of convenience.

5. Personal faith experiences. This is where the atheists generally choke up, but really it is an irrelevant choke up as empirical knowledge is just as pertinent as rational knowledge. Most rational knowledge actually emerges from reasoning upon empirical knowledge. For example experiments in the labs in terms of science would be tried and it would be experienced and witnessed to that certain results would be acheived. However upon receiving this empirical knowledge one might apply it in cause and effect relationships and so on. Religion too is based on experiences, although it seeks metaphysical answers to the world, not scientific ones. For example, if I can witness to certain experiences in my life that are consistent in my life, and have profound spiritual feelings when reading the Bible, praying, discussing about faith, and so on, and if these feelings have occurred time and time again ever since, am I merely to discount this as mere coincidence? Likewise if I can relate to certain things in my faith walk with other people, several other people that would also be Christians, how does this work? Why do they have to experience Christianity in such a similar way to the way I experience it? Again, this really can't be a coincidence. These are the questions I will raise to an atheist and be scoffed at, but they are serious questions, that need a serious answer.

6. Correlations between the Bible and reality, Biblical prophesy coming true. Again you will say coincidences happen and so on. However, if there arae thousands of prophesies in the Bible, many have come true about Christ when he was alive (although this could be discounted as twisting to suit the situation), but what of the prophesies that are consistent concerning modern Christianity?

For example when Jesus is speaking to the centurion in the Gospels -
Matthew 8:10-11 "When Jesus heard him, He was amazed and said to those who followed him, 'Truly I tell you, in no one in Israel have I found such faith. I tell you, many will come from east and west and will eat with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven, while the heirs of the kingdom will be thrown into the outer darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.'"

This is one of many prophesies, and please if I could have a serious answer, not just one discounting all of these (there is a lot more than one), about Christianity as we see it in the world today). Is it not true that this text is true that there is many from the east and the west (Gentiles) in Christianity today?

Wicknight wrote: »

You can claim that you have personally determined that God is never wrong, but that is as meaningless as someone saying "I have personally determined that the world is flat"

I've already explained this. This is ridiculous as the world has been objectively proven to be round. You can go look at it for yourself. The God hypothesis isn't like that. You know that, I know that. Bringing this around ring a ring a rosey isn't going to help anyone. I think given that I have dealt with this previously you can just review the answer I gave before if you are still confused.

Wicknight wrote: »

I do accept that there is a possibility that a "higher power" (I assume you mean an extra-terrestrial entity possibly responsible for the creation of the universe) exists.

I've always accepted that that is possible. Heck anything is possible. What I reject is the idea that you guys some how know to a impressive degree of accuracy that it does and is the entity described in your holy books is accurate and real.

There is a difference between belief and knowledge. We have discussed this. You have a belief that God doesn't exist. You don't know, no matter how much we may both like to know. However I can say confidently that there are many indications of God's existence in our world today.

Wicknight wrote: »

You guys lack the ability to determine this. That certainly doesn't stop you believing it is true, and that is the issue.

I don't think this is true. Based on the amount of indications that there are for Christianity and it being true, we can assess it's probability. I don't claim to know for a fact. However I will tell you it is very probable that God exists.

Wicknight wrote: »

The idea of divine revelation is completely flawed.

It is the very definition of cyclical reasoning. You cannot determine that the book or speaker is divinely inspired externally to the work itself. You use the "truth" of the book as justification for the existence of the deity and then the existence of the deity as justification for the "truth" of the book. The most glaring example of this is the resurrection of Jesus, something you claim is historically accurate because you introduce God to demonstrate that people can be resurrected, and then use the resurrection as evidence for God.

It is hard to think of worse reasoning.

Well that depends on how much the revelation pertains to reality. We could however argue about this all night. I've dealt with this in relation to prophesies further up. It's up to us to look to reality to find God as well as just digging your head in the Bible. I think I am right to say that it is up to Christians to do this.

Wicknight wrote: »

Reasoning being flawed is what I mean Jakkass. If you say "well we know X Y and Z" and I say that is flawed reasoning because of A, B and C, problems which call into question the accuracy of your claim to know X Y and Z, then that is flawed reasoning.

Well for a start I never claimed I absolutely knew. It's very probable yes. I believe in it, I don't know. If I knew, we wouldn't be having this discussion, as you would probably know too. Knowledge suggests that it is objectively proven.

Wicknight wrote: »

Only if you rule out that theses "indications" cannot be explained otherwise. Falsifiability. Which you don't do.

Well, the more and more that there are, the more likely that it is.

Wicknight wrote: »

The biggest problem you have is the supernatural. You cannot determine that something is or is not caused by God. You can determine that DNA is produced by a human and a human deposits DNA around them.

Well, if say there was just one artefact of your clothing left beside the corpse. Is it evidence that you killed the individual? Most certainly yes. However is it proof? No, definitely not.

Wicknight wrote: »

So you fall at the first hurdle because you have no way of determining if something is or is not an indication of God.

No not really, if we can show that the Bible pertains to reality through intelligence in life, and various other things, the 6 points I provided earlier are a lot of food for thought and consideration most of these do not have answers to falsify them yet they are very much in reality.

Wicknight wrote: »

And .. ?

See above. It's actually a rather pertinent question that you have to deal with.

Wicknight wrote: »

You are taking an emotional conclusion rather than a rational one.

No it isn't emotional entirely. Empirical evidence is also up for discussion however little you may like to discuss it.

Wicknight wrote: »

You know you are because you can see every other religion and its followers doing the exact same thing. The argument that just because they are doesn't mean I am doesn't hold water in this case because the flaw is with the assertion, not whether or not it is true.

I'll let the Muslims, the Jews and the rest defend themselves before atheists. It is the role of interfaith debate and dialogue to assert how one faith may prevail over another in accuracy.

Wicknight wrote: »

I'm sure you do, but you seem very hostel to this "reason and empiricism" being picked apart. So I would question the limits you yourself are prepared to take your faith.

I'm not really hostile Wicknight, any guy would get frustrated at your assertion and your reassertion. I'm not hostile, I genuinely want proper answers from you, but you keep moving us further back into points that I have already dealt with.

Wicknight wrote: »

You can claim all you like that you have given it really good consideration, but that rings hollow because I'm sitting here and I can point out about 20 flaws in practically every thing you have said about how you know God exists.

I know that I have given it very serious consideration, otherwise I wouldn't be living it right now. You haven't raised a reasonable good point against the existence of God either may I add

Wicknight wrote: »

And I'm not even that bright.

I would really prefer it if we could leave negative implications about the others intelligence out of this discussion. I think you are a rather intelligent individual actually from previous discussions we have had, and I will graciously say that. However if we could stick to the points at hand that would be appreciated.

Wicknight wrote: »

The flip side of that, a problem you simply ignore, is that you cannot determine, in any meaningful fashion, that he exists either.

I have full reason as I've explained already, to accept that God's existence is very probable.

Wicknight wrote: »

I would be trilled beyond belief if you or anyone could come up with a way to test God's existence in a scientific fashion.

Rather simple Wicknight.

Metaphysical questions != Scientific questions

Science doesn't even disprove Christianity anyway.

Wicknight wrote: »

Er, no. What we say is that if God existed we wouldn't worship him. Big difference.

You aren't all atheists. I've spoken to atheists who have said, if God existed, they still wouldn't follow Him. You must admit, that would definitely be willful ignorance.

Wicknight wrote: »

Yes but that is the point. You have retreated into the warm bosom of a position that can never be "disproved" to you.

Faith isn't easy, nor will it ever be for any Christian who wants to stay true to their faith.

Wicknight wrote: »

If you don't know what could falsify your own position then there is a problem with your position. And it makes the assertion that you have considered your position properly sound even more hollow.

Nothing has falsified Christianity in 2000 years. I have thought about Christianity, and initially I did have doubts. I came to Christianity after being an agnostic for several years.

Wicknight, you are expecting that I will falsify my own faith even when there is no reason to. There isn't genuinely. This is the useless claim that I am stifling the debate by not believing the same things as you do.

Wicknight wrote: »

You have not demonstrated any well thought out arguments for the existence of God so far (ie none that any one of the atheists here couldn't rip to part in about 5 mintues), and you have accepted apparently as is some very flawed ones.

Why haven't they ripped apart Christianity entirely yet? Don't be so arrogant when you don't even have reason to be. The God question is wide open. I know that you know that, that's why we're discussing it.

Wicknight wrote: »

You can keep claiming over and over that you have rationally considered all this in a serious fashion, but until you actually come up with rational arguments for God that is just grand standing.

That's exactly what you have done, with the flat earth nonsense. You know it isn't an accurate representation of the situation either.

DapperGent

Jakkass wrote: »

For example when Jesus is speaking to the centurion in the Gospels -
Matthew 8:10-11 "When Jesus heard him, He was amazed and said to those who followed him, 'Truly I tell you, in no one in Israel have I found such faith. I tell you, many will come from east and west and will eat with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven, while the heirs of the kingdom will be thrown into the outer darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.'"

This is one of many prophesies, and please if I could have a serious answer, not just one discounting all of these (there is a lot more than one), about Christianity as we see it in the world today). Is it not true that this text is true that there is many from the east and the west (Gentiles) in Christianity today?

Wow. That's pathetic.

philologos

DapperGent wrote: »

Wow. That's pathetic.

I said it was one of many examples.

Still it is a question to be dealt with irrespective of how "pathetic" you think it is.

Húrin

brianthebard wrote: »

I don't think thats possible op, if there wasn't religion then at the very least there would be philosophies of what life means.

Which would be the same really, just without a God. The equivalent of atheists would still appear to deny that life has a meaning!

Húrin

MatthewVII wrote: »

Because religion as we know it is a flawed system, and as society marches on it realises this more and more....

The idea of progress is a religious one in the first place. Besides, what man made systems are not flawed?

Atheists wouldn't have anyone to feel intellectually superior to? (Yes, this is a joke, and I am an atheist).

brianthebard

Húrin wrote: »

Which would be the same really, just without a God. The equivalent of atheists would still appear to deny that life has a meaning!

That was my point.

Phototoxin

I would be a happier less confused person. But the world would probably be at war.

Galvasean

If there were no religions we'd still argue about things like abortion, gun control and the death penalty. We'd still fight wars over land and resources.We'd still hold prejudices against each other over silly things like skin colour.
About the only thing that'd be much different would be people who reject the theory of evolution. I can't imagine there would be many of them.

oshead

There would be no need for this forum and indeed, for this thread.

Dave OS

Dades

DapperGent wrote: »

Wow. That's pathetic.

Posts like the above only inflame a thread.

If you disagree with what has been stated, elaborate.

pH

I'm not willing to concede this so easily, much of the pro-religion points here seem to be a form of the Broken window fallacy.

Throughout history there have always been the rich, and these men regularly supported their pet scientists and artists through a system of patronage. The fact that one or two monks over the millennia did something useful with their times seems poor recompense for the thousands which society supported over that time. Couple with that the general desire for religion to maintain the status quo, and the observation that how once universities moved out of direct religious control there was an explosion of enlightenment it's very hard to take a pro-religion argument seriously in the scientific area.

We've been through the "where does morality come from before" and the answer seems to be "certainly not from an ancient book".

Also statistical evidence seems to show that fear of hell and a desire to get to heaven doesn't seem to make people behave better (this is a real shock to me, I feel that if I believed I'd certainly behave a lot better!)

I think you can explain religion by looking at how people want status and power within a society, how people like to band together around a totem and support it (be it a faith, soccer team or pop band) and also the human mind's desire for an explanation resulting in a bad explanation being far preferable to no explanation (See point 1 in jakkass' post above).

I suppose some argument could be made for "good works" but once again we find religion lacking. Redistribution of wealth (either purely financial or in terms of time and effort) has been provided by religions but rarely (if ever?) has it produced real societal change (in that for most of the last 2,000 years with say Christianity the rich have been living alongside the very poor with the religions making token efforts mainly for their own benefit). Strangely Islam seems to have a much better track record here than Christianity.

Real change, has come through secular political efforts, and it's interesting that it's the US (probably the most religious western democratic state) who is the most resistant to the welfare state and free health care.

philologos

pH wrote: »

Also statistical evidence seems to show that fear of hell and a desire to get to heaven doesn't seem to make people behave better (this is a real shock to me, I feel that if I believed I'd certainly behave a lot better!)

That isn't anywhere near what Christianity amounts to, and I don't think that it should be the 100% motivation to follow God, and to try and serve your fellow man. These things should be capable of existing without these two situations being in your mind constantly.

However, I do think that Christianity does give a very strong moral guideline for life, which I haven't seen of any secular philosophy really. The answer that atheists give says "Not from a holy book", because they already have other issues with faith and as I say before, you'd be surprised at how little of them are actually intellectual issues in many cases.

pH wrote: »

I think you can explain religion by looking at how people want status and power within a society, how people like to band together around a totem and support it (be it a faith, soccer team or pop band) and also the human mind's desire for an explanation resulting in a bad explanation being far preferable to no explanation (See point 1 in jakkass' post above).

See this is my problem with Christian - Atheist discourse. Why can't you try to give me some form of an answer to the questions I have instead of dismissing them as "bad"?

Goduznt Xzst

Húrin wrote: »

The idea of progress is a religious one in the first place.

Please elaborate on this point

Húrin wrote: »

Besides, what man made systems are not flawed?

How is this any form of argument? So you are saying that because secular systems are flawed that we should just accept religious systems as at least they give the masses the opiate of immortality and an omnipotent sky spirit to watch them day and night (would take a helluvalot of CCTV cameras to have the same secular effect)

Firstly, what you are failing to admit is that religions are man made systems. I know you will be more than happy to accept that every present and past religion and God that you do not believe in are man made, but the one you have personal faith in was "clearly" ordained by your "God" and not man.

Secondly what separates a religious system to a secular one is that its believers imagine that God has instituted the rules for life, not man, and in such must be followed until he changes them. As this God doesn't exist, these rules will stagnate to the point where society has changed sufficiently enough that a group from this religion will schism to reunderstand what God really meant.

Imagine how chaotic this world would be if people believed the constitution that governs our base rights was tied to the will of some non existent God? You only have to look at the caste system of India to see how hazardous religious rulership is to human rights.

Imagine if, instead of a schism, a new republic would form each time people disagreed with the ruling religious system. Religions are inherently resistant to revolution so we'd see a world ruled by religions becoming increasingly more and more fragmented and segregated.

brianthebard

Húrin wrote: »

The idea of progress is a religious one in the first place. Besides, what man made systems are not flawed?

What sort of progress are you referring to? Modern ideas of linear progress date from the nineteenth century and the industrial revolution I would say.

Húrin

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

How is this any form of argument?

In pointing out how religion is an inherently flawed system, which I agree with, and giving this as a reason to abandon it, he implies that there are flawless human systems.

So you are saying that because secular systems are flawed that we should just accept religious systems as at least they give the masses the opiate of immortality and an omnipotent sky spirit to watch them day and night (would take a helluvalot of CCTV cameras to have the same secular effect)

I am absolutely not saying that! For the purposes of this thread I am presupposing atheism.

Firstly, what you are failing to admit is that religions are man made systems. I know you will be more than happy to accept that every present and past religion and God that you do not believe in are man made, but the one you have personal faith in was "clearly" ordained by your "God" and not man.

Well you don't actually know what my opinions are, and I think you've read far too much into my one sentence.

Húrin

brianthebard wrote: »

What sort of progress are you referring to? Modern ideas of linear progress date from the nineteenth century and the industrial revolution I would say.

It goes back much further than that. The ideologies of the 19th century did not come from nowhere. They came out of the Age of Reason. That came from the reformation and that came from medieval Christianity.

Unlike the Romans and Greeks who saw time as cyclical, Jews had a linear notion of time, beginning at creation and ending with judgement. The fact that our system is based on the notion of perpetual progress is rooted in Judeo-Christian teleology. It is so deeply rooted that it is shared by nearly every western ideology, from Islam to Communism.

pH

Jakkass wrote: »

See this is my problem with Christian - Atheist discourse. Why can't you try to give me some form of an answer to the questions I have instead of dismissing them as "bad"?

Because there are plenty of other threads discussing why "we can't quite explain the first couple of nano-seconds of the universe .... THEREFORE GOD DID IT!!!!!!!!!!!" is a bad explanation (or indeed the "I'm too stupid to understand it and too lazy to check for myself ... therefore GOD DID IT" one). Therefore I see no need to do it again in this thread.

It goes back much further than that. The ideologies of the 19th century did not come from nowhere. They came out of the Age of Reason. That came from the reformation and that came from medieval Christianity.

It's certainly debatable that they "came out" in much the same way that communism "came out" of Imperialist Russia. Anyway that is to miss the point, they certainly weren't driven by religion, I don't remember God contributing anything to these ideologies (and I'd go so far as to say you'd probably dismiss those who claim much later revelations say Mormons and Scientology for example). I think it would be fair to say that most of religions would have been on the conservative side of all these debates/philosophies and fought against each change.

brianthebard

Húrin wrote: »

It goes back much further than that. The ideologies of the 19th century did not come from nowhere. They came out of the Age of Reason. That came from the reformation and that came from medieval Christianity.

Unlike the Romans and Greeks who saw time as cyclical, Jews had a linear notion of time, beginning at creation and ending with judgement. The fact that our system is based on the notion of perpetual progress is rooted in Judeo-Christian teleology. It is so deeply rooted that it is shared by nearly every western ideology, from Islam to Communism.

I agree on most points you have there, I just wanted you to clarify. Thanks for that. I would slightly disagree on the Communism part but I guess that depends on who you are reading, Marx saw communism as the next step in linear progress, others who build on his work look at more cyclical systems.

Dades

Húrin wrote: »

The fact that our system is based on the notion of perpetual progress is rooted in Judeo-Christian teleology.

How does the notion of perpetual progress fit in with the promises of Revelations? Doesn't Christianity envisage a preordained end to everything? It hardly encourages scientific progress when the End is Nigh!

brianthebard

That sounds very nihilistic Dades, almost like those arguments about atheists having no meaning to their life if there is no afterlife?

Dades

brianthebard wrote: »

That sounds very nihilistic Dades, almost like those arguments about atheists having no meaning to their life if there is no afterlife?

It more like having less meaning to this life in anticipation of an afterlife.

Besides, I wasn't being totally serious. It was just a comment on the use of the word "perpetual" in that context. That said those crackpots who celebrate the 'imminent' arrival of Judgment Day do nothing to promote the supposed "Christian" idea of perpetual progress.

Turncoat

If religions didn't exist, countless conflicts and terrorist activities could have just been attributed to the bloodthirsty nature of people and not "we'll bomb your country because you are from another religion or doing so will get me my 72 virgins". I don't mean to offend anyone but this is just a personal opinion.

Goduznt Xzst

Húrin wrote: »

In pointing out how religion is an inherently flawed system, which I agree with, and giving this as a reason to abandon it, he implies that there are flawless human systems.

Ok forgive me if I'm wrong, but your previous postings have led me to believe you are a theist. Are you not?

Húrin wrote: »

I am absolutely not saying that! For the purposes of this thread I am presupposing atheism.

presupposing in what sense?

Húrin wrote: »

Well you don't actually know what my opinions are, and I think you've read far too much into my one sentence.

Then please elaborate. What was the purpose in asking the rhetorical question as to which man made systems are not flawed?

brianthebard

Sharad wrote: »

If religions didn't exist, countless conflicts and terrorist activities could have just been attributed to the bloodthirsty nature of people and not "we'll bomb your country because you are from another religion or doing so will get me my 72 virgins". I don't mean to offend anyone but this is just a personal opinion.

Most wars that are supposedly about religion are usually more about race, economics, resources, nationalism, or a combination.