Philosophically speaking, religion is a hoax
- Thread starter lieexpsr
- Start date
- Status
My pleasure.
My view is that anti-atheists like to call atheism a religion just to piss atheists off.
Um, definition again:
Atheism doesn't apply.
Note, before it says 'especially', this gives one definition of religion as "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe." Atheism (scientism as I believe it was GC put it) would fit. And, it's not just to try to annoy you Gilbert. lol. It's more of an observance of the way religions (belief sets if you prefer), have taken root and grown throughout history. Rarely is it a simple case of one popping up into a void where there was no belief before. Typically, their evolutions overlap and there is inevitable headbutting, wars, etc. which occur as there is a struggle over who is 'right'. I know that you are most gentlemanly and kind to all people, never insulting them or ridiculing them for not having 'found the truth', but many many many atheists are not. The behavior is VERY reminicent of any religious person criticising the heathens who have yet to realize their 'flying spaghetti monster' is real.
re·li·gion
/rɪˈlɪdʒ
–noun 1.a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs. 2.a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion. 3.the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions. 4.the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion. 5.the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith. 6.something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice. 7.religions, Archaic. religious rites. 8.Archaic. strict faithfulness; devotion: a religion to one's vow. —Idiom 9.get religion, Informal. a.to acquire a deep conviction of the validity of religious beliefs and practices. b.to resolve to mend one's errant ways: The company got religion and stopped making dangerous products.
That's fine to a certain point, but the more you change your beliefs to fit with science, the more science is shaping your beliefs than faith is. Let me ask both of you a question: If, hypothetically speaking, science could prove that there is no God, and religious people changed their beliefs to fit with that proof (i.e. they start believing there is no God), would you still call that religion? Or at that point would it just be science?
As far as I'm concerned, placing all of your faith in science is a religion, especially since, much like God, not all science is observable or provable.
re·li·gion
/rɪˈlɪdʒ
–noun 1.a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
As far as I'm concerned, placing all of your faith in science is a religion, especially since, much like God, not all science is observable or provable.
re·li·gionən/Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ri-lij-uhn]Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1.a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
The big difference, in my opinion, is that science is based on evidence, whereas religion is not.
Also, from your definition "esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies" does not describe science.
I'd be interested in hearing evidence for God (the kind of God sitting up in heaven and judging us), evidence that God created man, evidence for heaven/hell etc...
What makes you say that? So quick to judge how I will respond?
Of course I will accept it, if there is good evidence which can stand up to examination. So far, no one has been able to present me with such evidence. Perhaps you can be the first?
[FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica][FONT=verdana,Arial, Helvetica] If a person opposes even the possibility of there being a God, then any evidence can be rationalized or explained away. It is like if someone refuses to believe that people have walked on the moon, then no amount of information is going to change their thinking. Photographs of astronauts walking on the moon, interviews with the astronauts, moon rocks...all the evidence would be worthless, because the person has already concluded that people cannot go to the moon.[/FONT][/FONT]
So sanctus, if you are a catholic then I can understand why you wouldn't want to tell me. It could have something to do with the uncomfortable fact that catholic priests don't have a very good reputation when it comes to little boys, and especially first nations little boys. Not that I find it a mystery because I understand that these people need an outlet too. It's really just human nature isn't it and if biological needs are not met in a heterosexual relationship then god doesn't fill the bill.
And of course I could be wrong with my guess and you may be a southern baptist who is a literal believer. That would also be a good reason to keep your demonination a secret from me.
I'm going to go with catholic. I'll get back to you when I have more time.
And of course I could be wrong with my guess and you may be a southern baptist who is a literal believer. That would also be a good reason to keep your demonination a secret from me.
I'm going to go with catholic. I'll get back to you when I have more time.
No, I'm not dogmatic in my views. I am a scientist, my views change as new evidence presents itself. I am not saying that there is no God...what I am saying is that I have yet to see evidence for the existance of God, and so I won't believe in God until I see such evidence.It is religion that can at times be dogmatic, ie "the bible is correct, end of story" and no amount of evidence will change that person's belief.
Still waiting to see the evidence...
Insults are not the fodder of discussion. In fact, you were already told I am Catholic so you are being faceteous. As to your assertations on priests and boys, please don't be so assinine. The majority of priests are not child molestors and reference to same has nothing to do with the topic of this thread.
what difference would sanctus' affiliation make exactly? And, you've been told by others within this thread who and what sanctus is. Perhaps you should read your thread more closely.
Thanks anyways, I'm sure we will have some discussion in the future (in the proper thread of course) :wave:
The argument goes something like this: "I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
"But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED"
"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.
[SIZE=-1]-- Douglas Adams, The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy (book one of the Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy series), p. 50[/SIZE]
- Status