Explain to me the cons of basing our culture off religion.

[Sabonea_Masukippa]

Everything came from something.

Except God, right?

Nothing can come from nothing.

Except when God conjured the universe, right?

Christianity believes that we were born into sin

That God let happen.

and are leading ourselves further into destruction until we reach the big bang. The world believes everything started with the big bang and we get smarter until we reach the ultimate perfection and utopia.

This ... I have no idea what you're on about.

 

[GhostAnime]

I'm still confused on why all religions are man-made except Christianity. If you're trying to come off as some neutral person and then lay cross your bias later on, at least do it right..

 

[AndyBananny]

Christianity is faith. Catholocism, Methodist, Lutheran, Shinto, Buddism and everything else is a religion. (Well Mormonisn is a joke, but anyone could tell you that.) Christianity at its core is believing that Christ died for our sins. Faith and religion are not the same thing. I'm not nutruel about this topic at all. I believe in God 100% but this topic was clearly about religion. I apologize for getting side tracked.

 

[ebilly99]

Christianity is faith. Catholocism, Methodist, Lutheran, Shinto, Buddism and everything else is a religion. (Well Mormonisn is a joke, but anyone could tell you that.) Christianity at its core is believing that Christ died for our sins. Faith and religion are not the same thing. I'm not nutruel about this topic at all. I believe in God 100% but this topic was clearly about religion. I apologize for getting side tracked.

Faith is belief without evidence. Christianity at its core is saying that people are filth that deserve hell and only by joining gods fanclub can we see heaven, That faith above action is neceasary.

 

[GhostAnime]

Christianity is a religion by definition I'm afraid. You can't really redefine it to your personal tastes.

 

[silver wing 22]

i want people to have enough hope and love so that they wont need a imaginry friend (god)


p.s.this is the problem

 

[Tim the turtle]

Fair enough, but I do not see naturalistic biology explaining the formation of irreducibly complex structures.

I'm not aware of any macroscopic sctructures that are actually considered Irreducibly Complex by the vast majority of evolutionary biologists. I know Behe and some others have posited some, such as the eye and the bacterial flagella, but as far as I'm aware there have been numerous explanations as to how those structures could have evolved under the evolutionary method (which is why evolution is such a good and robust method.

There are still gaps in scientific thought as to the genesis of DNA as a self-replicating device, if this is more what you're talking about, but for this I would suggest that the jury should be considered as 'out'.

Obviously naturalistic biology cannot, by definition, explain irreducibly complex structures (in biology, presumably in physics we deal with irreducible particles all the time), the problem is whether or not such structures exist. Most evolutionary biologists seem to think that they don't.

 

[PokeJustice]

Then you could just say "I don't know" rather that "it must be designed!" because that would be intellectually dishonest, wouldn't it?

No declarations so bold, only an acceptance of the notion that the design proposal seems to cohere.

Even if we never find explanations for everything, how do you explain the designer? You don't necessarily answer the question by bringing up something else unexplainable.

Is God unexplainable?

I'm not aware of any macroscopic sctructures that are actually considered Irreducibly Complex by the vast majority of evolutionary biologists. I know Behe and some others have posited some, such as the eye and the bacterial flagella, but as far as I'm aware there have been numerous explanations as to how those structures could have evolved under the evolutionary method (which is why evolution is such a good and robust method.)

I can accept this.

There are still gaps in scientific thought as to the genesis of DNA as a self-replicating device, if this is more what you're talking about, but for this I would suggest that the jury should be considered as 'out'.

Equally fair.

Obviously naturalistic biology cannot, by definition, explain irreducibly complex structures (in biology, presumably in physics we deal with irreducible particles all the time), the problem is whether or not such structures exist. Most evolutionary biologists seem to think that they don't.

I can appreciate your candor.

 

[GhostAnime]

No declarations so bold, only an acceptance of the notion that the design proposal seems to cohere.

How is it not bold to claim that something was designed?

Is God unexplainable?

Try to explain this "designer" with evidence that we can put into measurable terms.

 

[ebilly99]

Also god is imposible Perfection can never create imperfection, All knowing can have no free will.

 

[PokeJustice]

How is it not bold to claim that something was designed?

It is. I never claimed such a thing. I am merely stating that such would make sense, and it would. Complexity is better explained by design than by the processes of nature--even the more honest of the naturalistic camp admit this, they merely argue that the processes of nature are sufficient.

Try to explain this "designer"...

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]“God exists, and there it lies.” -- Thomas Paine[/SIZE][/FONT]​

 

[GhostAnime]

Complexity is better explained by design than by the processes of nature

“God exists, and there it lies.” -- Thomas Paine

And still leaves questions to ask.

You can't use more complexity to explain complexity.

 

[ebilly99]

It is. I never claimed such a thing. I am merely stating that such would make sense, and it would. Complexity is better explained by design than by the processes of nature--even the more honest of the naturalistic camp admit this, they merely argue that the processes of nature are sufficient.

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]“God exists, and there it lies.” -- Thomas Paine[/SIZE][/FONT]​

I hope you are not trying to bring thomas pain into this well here are a few additional claims
to argue with a man who has renouced his reason is like giving medicine to the dead. [Thomas Paine, The Crisis, quoted in Ingersoll's Works, Vol. 1, p.127]

48.The Christian system of religion is an outrage on common sense

61.Any system of religion that has anything in it that shocks the mind of a child, cannot be true.

 

[Tim the turtle]

Paine was a deist. Pokejustice is a deist. You might want to put two and two together here.

 

[PokeJustice]

You can't use more complexity to explain complexity.

If an answer is complex, is it necessarily wrong? Suppose a complex answer is in this instance to be preferred.

 

[GhostAnime]

Why would it be preferred if it doesn't offer anything? It doesn't even offer a lead. It's just an argument from ignorance.

 

[Vermehlo_Steele]

Christianity is faith. Catholocism, Methodist, Lutheran, Shinto, Buddism and everything else is a religion. (Well Mormonisn is a joke, but anyone could tell you that.) Christianity at its core is believing that Christ died for our sins. Faith and religion are not the same thing. I'm not nutruel about this topic at all. I believe in God 100% but this topic was clearly about religion. I apologize for getting side tracked.

Son, you do know Christianity is the religion? Catholicism, Protestenism and Orthodox are the denominations of X'anity. Religion is the belief system for faith.

Atheism is actually pretty old as a concept.

It hasn't had the opportunity

The underline was what I was trying to say.

, but religion doesn't just have the "majority" factor: it STILL has the added factor that people do whatever it takes to get a decent afterlife or obey some religious authority.

At the risk of sounding mentally absent, I'm not sure what the point of this post is? Are you saying that atheism merely is a minority because the human mind is scared about death, ergo religion has something that atheism will never have? (a promised afterlife and all that)

Sounds credible. People believe for various reasons, it wouldn't surprise me if a fear of death was a main or the reason numerous people believed.

But there is a difference between the two groups. For example, if you identify as a Roman Catholic (which I am certain you do not), but say you did. I could, in theory, call you out on the words of the Pope on say, condoms in Africa, because if you were a Roman Catholic he is your 'head' of Church and vessel of God on Earth (Papal infallibility and all that). Therefore, a Roman Catholic must in theory believe and accept the words of the Pope.

Whereas someone who identifies as an Atheist is not bound by or obliged to listen to any other people's opinions or beliefs as a basis for their own. Atheists do routinely believe all kinds of crazy things (the string hypothesis, reincarnation, astrology), but that (usually) doesn't relate to their lack of a belief in any god.

Actually son, the Pope isn't infallible, he needs criteria to become infallible, Catholics can accept he is human and that he has weird opinions on various crap like everyone does.

but wow, put more words in my mouth please. I didn't say a lack of belief leads to nutcase stuff, I didn't argue atheists have obligations to an authority. Your post was regurgitating what I said or making up some lies about Catholicism.

 

[PokeJustice]

It's just an argument from ignorance.

Your position is guilty of argumentum ad ignorantiam as well, leaping from "we have no evidence of it" (a spurious contention,) to "it does not exist," and somewhere between the two you've committed a logical fallacy.

 

[GhostAnime]

So if we have evidence of the designer, where is it? Saying we have no evidence of it isn't ignorance if there actually isn't any. If you have some evidence that clearly points to a designer and nothing more, yeah, I would be arguing from ignorance.

And no, I haven't stated that no designer existed. I advocated "I don't know."

At the risk of sounding mentally absent, I'm not sure what the point of this post is? Are you saying that atheism merely is a minority because the human mind is scared about death, ergo religion has something that atheism will never have? (a promised afterlife and all that)

I suppose you could say that. Being scared about death and the rewards people get from religion makes it more believable. It also makes a person more likely to do anything to achieve that award. No matter how you look at it, there truly is no reward for being atheist even if it was the majority. It'd be like saying non-tooth fairyism can potentially lead to corruption.

 

[Byzantine]

Having no evidence cannot prove something does not exist, but at the same time you cannot say that something exists to explain the existence of everything else, its an argument that is based on the idea that nothing can come from nothing... except in that argument God had to come from something, which renders it useless.

I personally hope there is not a God, simply because something that cruel terrifies me more than I can believe. (and any "God" that made this world and let it go on the way it does is very cruel indeed, I don't care how much you argue a greater good, how can there be a greater good than saving countless people and animals from horrible fates across the world every day?)