richard dawkins wants to arrest the pope

[emanhattan]

I dont think there is a "correct" religion

how is that possible

let's say that atheism is NOT religion because i don't want to go down that road again, but let's GROUP IT with all other religions just for the sake of this argument. they all offer answers to the question "where did we come from". not all of these answers can be correct, because most of them conflict. other religions also conflict on other aspects, such as which morals are the most important, what is ok to eat and what is not ok to eat, etc. with all of these answers that conflict with each other, they can't all be true. they're either all wrong, or one is right. religious pluralism is a stupid relativistic notion

dude im sorry but atheism is not a religion and i think you probably should given up on that argument earlier and recognize it as a small mistake instead of letting others build it up like this...It became kinda distracting and slowed you down to prove potentially valid arguments later on. that being said...

well, i just think the idea of a "true god" or a true religion is puerile. I believe 2 oposing facts can exist and be true at the same time and that 2 different religions can still lead into a healthy, happy life. its just a matter of perception.

I think all believers believe in the same god.

Religion is mostly about learning not to break your own vows with yourself and with god, or jesus, or gaia or whatever entity you choose to pray to etc

i wrote a looot of shit here but i erased a lot of it because I realized that it didnt explain anything and reminded myself the religion arument is going around in circles

[trent bortknob]

I dont think there is a "correct" religion

how is that possible

let's say that atheism is NOT religion because i don't want to go down that road again, but let's GROUP IT with all other religions just for the sake of this argument. they all offer answers to the question "where did we come from". not all of these answers can be correct, because most of them conflict. other religions also conflict on other aspects, such as which morals are the most important, what is ok to eat and what is not ok to eat, etc. with all of these answers that conflict with each other, they can't all be true. they're either all wrong, or one is right. religious pluralism is a stupid relativistic notion

dude im sorry but atheism is not a religion and i think you probably should given up on that argument earlier and recognize it as a small mistake instead of letting others build it up like this...It became kinda distracting and slowed you down to prove potentially valid arguments later on. that being said...

well, i just think the idea of a "true god" or a true religion is puerile. I believe 2 oposing facts can exist and be true at the same time and that 2 different religions can still lead into a healthy, happy life. its just a matter of perception.

I think all believers believe in the same god.

Religion is mostly about learning not to break your own vows with yourself and with god, or jesus, or gaia or whatever entity you choose to pray to etc

i wrote a looot of shit here but i erased a lot of it because I realized that it didnt explain anything and reminded myself the religion arument is going around in circles

1. i avoided bringing back the atheism/religion issue in the very first part of my paragraph, so i dont know what you're talking about
2. if two opposing facts can be true simultaneously then truth doesn't exst. that's obviously not true, therefore you're wrong
3. not all believers believe in the same god. some religions are monotheistic and some are polytheistic. the gods are all called different things and have different traits. it's pretty much impoassible that they're all the same thing
4. if you have to choose which entity you pray to then they are not the same person, therefore further proving that your thrid argument isn't true

[rtil]

well, i just think the idea of a "true god" or a true religion is puerile. I believe 2 oposing facts can exist and be true at the same time and that 2 different religions can still lead into a healthy, happy life. its just a matter of perception.

I think all believers believe in the same god.

you may think that, but your catholic doctrine and the bible clearly state that following, believing in and submitting to the god of the christians is the only path to salvation, and pretty much everyone else is going to hell.

[emanhattan]

sorry i didnt put a lot of tought into all that im pretty much just brainstorming stuff

as a matter of fact im not a very "catholic" or "religious" person i mean i used to be a lot more religious when I was like 13, 14.

And a pretty great part of the reasons i became slowly more distant to my own church was all the bullshit like the presumed existance of "limbo" to explain what happens to abortioned kids, and the fact that even if youre not a good person you cant enter heaven if you do not believe in god.

as I believe i said before, i dont think that the church truly represents what I feel about god because i intelectually differ with some of its ideas.

Also i have learned over the years that some priests make stupid claims about delicate subjects like the 2 ones i mentioned above because they dont know what to respond to people who demand answers. Limbo was made up by these people to satisfy their hunger for security. Like i mentioned before, an answer, wether is right or wrong, can suffice peoples desires to know it all. But, theres nothing in the bible about it as far as I know. And they cant explain why should you be forced to believe in order to enter heaven even if you were a good person.

My interpretation of this is that they obviously dont know the truth about the god they pray to. when i die i simply hope god be cool and let all the nice people enter heaven without making distinctions about beliefs.

I believe in god. I dont "believe" in the church. And I dont believe everything i read in the bible blindly, but I try to see past that, and focus on the intentions and concepts i read. its true,I want to believe. my desire to believe in something is probably a lot greater than my actual faith. I dont even go to church as often as I should, or as I feel i should. But when I do, I feel reliefed. Maybe its just my own mind, maybe its god, maybe its both?

I believe in god and I believe in the power of my own mind to decide how i act and how i react to things. I dont need god to appear before me to know hes real, i just feel it. i know it. Its sort of a combination between being monotheist and using the law of attraction to my own contempt.

if that makes any sense. again im just letting my toughts out here

btw i feel like you two guys thinks im a fucken idiot right now but its true this is more less what i feel.

[rtil]

Maybe its just my own mind

you might be onto something there

[Mew_User]

I don't exist.

[Wasim]

arresting the pope could work

[trent bortknob]

eman as a side note, you keep saying the word "thought" and spelling it like "tought" at first i thought it was a typo but since you've said it like 5 times i wanted to clear up that it's spelled "thought"

and a lot of this religion stuff really does come down to a gut reaction really. neither positions can answer the questions sufficiently enough to satisfy everyone. i just think atheism is the one that makes the most sense at the moment

[jebxz]

I can't watch the video because I'm at school, but I'm for anything that helps eliminate an organization that places idols as figureheads over it's "people" because they're "closer to god." I'm not a fan of any kind of organized religion to be honest, but as long as they don't have a fucking hierarchy built into them, I'm not really bothered. Catholicism is a primitive religious denomination that's stuck around way too long.  It shouldn't exist in the modern world.

[creamcorn]

by the way, there was no "beginning" or anything before the big bang. scientists don\\\'t know everything about the universe, but they do know that matter as it exists in the universe is seperate from the concept of time

matter was never created

would this be a legitimate explanation of how scientists \\\'discovered\\\' that?

its like coming across a house and saying, ignoring the fact that its nearly impossible for this house to be created on its own because its so complex and stuff, you say you dont believe a man made it because you never saw or heard him, or because you cant prove that there has been a time when this house wasnt there, so you cant prove that anyone created it, so as far as youre concerned this house has been here forever.

i mean how did they discover it? did they say well we cant prove that matter was created, therefore it has never been created, meaning matter is seperate from the concept of time? if thats the case then its just an example of how we simply cant scientifically prove that god doesnt exist

or did they first discover that matter is seperate from the concept of time, which means that matter was never created? if that were the case, then maybe matter wasnt created in a way were accustomed to (one time it wasnt there, then one time it was), maybe we cant discover how it was created because we dont have the knowledge, our cup isnt big enough for that ocean. im not saying that weve already discovered how big our cup is, but were getting there

I can\\\'t wait for the LHC to finally work at its intended energy level, it might shed a bit more light on the properties of early universe. I don\\\'t think we could ever know what comes before the universe, before this concept of time began. I just like to think it\\\'s a tiny, but super-massively dense particle that is so unstable that quantum mechanics dictates that it has to decay into what we now know as the universe. The only problem with it though, is working out why the expansion of the early universe, when mapped out, has a bottleneck shape.

the way i see it, there was no chance this universe could not have been created, and if you look at evolution, there was no chance we would not have become the way we are now: it was all predestined

[creamcorn]

i think its all about wether you think youre just flesh and bones, or if theres more, something you cant grasp.
but correct me if im wrong, if we are just flesh and bones, why do we die? doesnt a dead body have the same amount of particles as a living body?

[Kött]

Ok, screw this... that's way too much actual thinking and philosophing for this place. Let's reduce the level of intellectuality a little and get back to our dumb and primitive roots instead of repeating over and over what has already been said a douzen times without being noticed for noone has read every single post in this thread anyway.

Here are my thoughts:

[Kött]

Bad thing: ^This could actually be counted as an intelligent post if you took the picture's content as a metaphor, so don't even think of making a comment on this previous post, acknowledging it as a valuable contrubution to the discussion and explaining why.

[creamcorn]

either you choose to comfort yourself with thinking that you have no responsibility and noone to answer to and that this life is just it, or you comfort yourself with thinking that there is a reason why youre living, a reason greater than living for the sake of life itself

[Shida]

i mean how did they discover it? did they say well we cant prove that matter was created, therefore it has never been created, meaning matter is seperate from the concept of time? if thats the case then its just an example of how we simply cant scientifically prove that god doesnt exist

the way i see it, there was no chance this universe could not have been created, and if you look at evolution, there was no chance we would not have become the way we are now: it was all predestined

Actually, there was a chance that the universe was not created, it's just that we can't be aware of such a condition because we wouldn't exist and experience a universe that didn't exist! It's like when you play russian roulette, there is a chance that you'll fire a bullet, or you won't, and you won't be aware of the other chance because there can only be one outcome per round. For all we know, and it has been suggested, that there could be millions of universes out there with different factors, and probabilities associated with existence because of inital conditions. However, since the universe is the scope of our existence, its like living your entire like in a room with no windows or doors, and trying to guess whats out there. Science doesn't say it can prove or disprove the existence of God - the problem science has is when religious people try to make science prove that god doesn't exist, when the onus is on religion to prove indefinitely.

i think its all about wether you think youre just flesh and bones, or if theres more, something you cant grasp.
but correct me if im wrong, if we are just flesh and bones, why do we die? doesnt a dead body have the same amount of particles as a living body?

Nope. A dead body begins to decay, losing particles to the air and the ground. A living body replenishes its dead cells and pretty much maintains the number of particles. We die though, because like everything else, we're made up of limited resources. Once you've lost enough to sustain the stresses of living its pretty much the end of your life. Just think of all the problems that old people face - the chemicals responsible for hair colour run out - leading to grey hair, the skin looses the chemicals that give it elasticity, leading to wrinkles and creases and saggy skin. The bones become more brittle and likely to break. All because we're born with a set amount of resources.

either you choose to comfort yourself with thinking that you have no responsibility and noone to answer to and that this life is just it, or you comfort yourself with thinking that there is a reason why youre living, a reason greater than living for the sake of life itself

Having no one to answer to doesn't mean you don't have responsibility. It's a long stretch to suggest that because we'll always have ourselves and our own morals and conscience to answer to. Only people with mental problems lack the ability to feel guilt when they've done something wrong.

[Jeinu]

well first what if i say that the universe and all living things are made out of molecules, like a watch is made out of cogs, those are both inanimate right?
and scientists may eventually discover how the universe was created (what happened before the big bang, or how was that other universe with the different set of laws created etc.) but i dont know if theyll discover who created it or if there was someone behind it

and lastly, why wouldnt the humans be the caretakers of the world? we know how to get along with eachother better than animals with our morals as you said, were smarter than them and more intelligent as you said. in fact were already the caretakers of the world, we are the greater species. the world is in our hands now and we decide whatll happen to it and we can either fuck it up or keep it clean and our intelligence and morals has led to that responsibility of being the caretakers

the cogs and molecules analogy are still making a comparison between two different things. Cogs would not interact with one another unless due to human intervention. Molecules are constantly reacting and responding to one another (due to the forces of strong, weak, electromagnetic.. etc), and science has slowly begun to understand more and more of things on a molecular level.

i don't think humans should announce themselves caretakers of the world because we don't even know how to take care of ourselves. scientists have estimated that if all humans disappeared off the face of the earth, every living species would FLOURISH within the next 50 years. in contast, they estimate if all insects disappeared off the face of the earth, all life would end within 50 years. turns out, we're not actually that important. sure, our technology could be used to conserve the earth for future generations, but it seems those in charge would rather use technology for constantly out-doing rival nations militarily.

IF this were true, then we would have to give animals the same rights as people. that would mean we couldn't kill insects, cows, chickens, etc. killing a cow would be comparable to killing an adult human because there would be no difference between them on a moral standpoint

if you do the reverse of that, where we CAN kill cows, that means we can kill humans and eat them and it doesnt matter because nobody has any rights and i dont believe that either

animals ARE less than us in my opinion. animals don't have consciousness (when i say that, i mean that they aren't conscious of their existence. an animal doesn't ask what the meaning of life is. an animal can't even grasp the concept of being alive), they also don't have morals. an animal makes decisions purely on pain and pleasure it feels because of an action. animals don't have free will and they don't have any substantial cognitive abilities

it's not ok to be inhumane to animals but it is ok to kill them and eat them in my opinion

humans DO have morals, and i believe that morals are specific to humans because of our cognitive ability. we have emotional reactions to actions and occurences, just like any animal (except our emotions are more developed too), BUT THEN we can analyze our emotional reactions with our rational thought. since we're all the same species, i would argue we all have the same emotional reactions, but some people aren't rational/well-educated so they don't have good morals. i think this explains what happens in the congo with people who rape tons of women with no remorse; they're just not educated or intelligent people so they can't rationalize they responses. they see a woman they want to fuck and they'll rape them without thinking about the fact that they're hurting another person.

that's how it seems to me at least

i actually do hold the first assertion to be true. i believe all life is valuable. perhaps more so than people who believe in an afterlife, because this is all i've got. because of this belief, i've slowly been workin my way to vegetarianism (stuck on the pescatarian level... just can't stop eatin fish it's so delish). and i think you'd be surprised to see that animals do commonly exhibit what humans would call "morals" in their lives. for example,  there are several types of squirrels, lemmings, and prarie dogs that will let out a warning cry if they see a predator, which 99% of the time will result in the predator eating them. essentially they sacrifice themselves for their families, it's something most scientists refer to as "kin selection". if you were to replace this example with humans, you could say that the sacrificer would be someone truly altruistic, who thought of the community first. and what of those stories you hear about occasionaly when a loyal pet saves their owner from death? are these animals acting morally? no? they just saved their owner's lives so they can get fed later on? yet animals cannot have a sense of time as we do, and cannot plan for the future. why would they act to save anyone? kin selection. why do humans act to save each other? i believe it's also kin selection. albeit, a very complex version.

i do agree with you on your closing remark though, that higher intelligence leads to a far more complex morality due to rationalized thought.

[creamcorn]

i mean how did they discover it? did they say well we cant prove that matter was created, therefore it has never been created, meaning matter is seperate from the concept of time? if thats the case then its just an example of how we simply cant scientifically prove that god doesnt exist

the way i see it, there was no chance this universe could not have been created, and if you look at evolution, there was no chance we would not have become the way we are now: it was all predestined

Actually, there was a chance that the universe was not created, it's just that we can't be aware of such a condition because we wouldn't exist and experience a universe that didn't exist! It's like when you play russian roulette, there is a chance that you'll fire a bullet, or you won't, and you won't be aware of the other chance because there can only be one outcome per round. For all we know, and it has been suggested, that there could be millions of universes out there with different factors, and probabilities associated with existence because of inital conditions. However, since the universe is the scope of our existence, its like living your entire like in a room with no windows or doors, and trying to guess whats out there. Science doesn't say it can prove or disprove the existence of God - the problem science has is when religious people try to make science prove that god doesn't exist, when the onus is on religion to prove indefinitely.

im not saying that science says that it can prove that god exists or not,  i know its not their intention to prove that, what im saying is that it cant, simply because of that room situation you described or the cup/ocean situation i described

i think its all about wether you think youre just flesh and bones, or if theres more, something you cant grasp.
but correct me if im wrong, if we are just flesh and bones, why do we die? doesnt a dead body have the same amount of particles as a living body?

Nope. A dead body begins to decay, losing particles to the air and the ground. A living body replenishes its dead cells and pretty much maintains the number of particles. We die though, because like everything else, we're made up of limited resources. Once you've lost enough to sustain the stresses of living its pretty much the end of your life. Just think of all the problems that old people face - the chemicals responsible for hair colour run out - leading to grey hair, the skin looses the chemicals that give it elasticity, leading to wrinkles and creases and saggy skin. The bones become more brittle and likely to break. All because we're born with a set amount of resources.

ok in that prospect youre right i suppose. i guess what the soul is something we simply cant grasp

either you choose to comfort yourself with thinking that you have no responsibility and noone to answer to and that this life is just it, or you comfort yourself with thinking that there is a reason why youre living, a reason greater than living for the sake of life itself

Having no one to answer to doesn't mean you don't have responsibility. It's a long stretch to suggest that because we'll always have ourselves and our own morals and conscience to answer to. Only people with mental problems lack the ability to feel guilt when they've done something wrong.

so youre saying that a mob boss, a ruthless and corruptious leader, or someone in a simular position, someone who can do what he wants to other people and their possesions without being punished (in this life) is mentally unstable?

living in a world with a god makes more sense to me (now more than ever) because then there is justice, there is a purpose and there is someone to whom i can be thankful for for my fortunately easy and happy life, and thankfulness leads to even more happyness

[Jeinu]

I dont even go to church as often as I should, or as I feel i should. But when I do, I feel reliefed. Maybe its just my own mind, maybe its god, maybe its both?

i think if you ask most churchgoers about if they feel beneficial after going to church, they will answer 'of course!'. there have been many studies done showing that people are happier when they're around.... more people. we're communal creatures. so of course we'll be happier around our fellow man. if you ask a lot of people about their happiest memories, i bet you that most of those memories will involve people in a group. religions know this, they use it to their advantage and get everyone together as often as possible.

however, this is a downside to this. a community of faith will pressure those straying into staying faithful, which leads to the individual's anxiety and often unhealthy relationships with peers. to let it go on long enough, it can lead to bitterness, severed ties with life-long peers, loss of communication, even mental problems.  

im not saying that science says that it can prove that god exists or not,  i know its not their intention to prove that, what im saying is that it cant, simply because of that room situation you described or the cup/ocean situation i described

well of course science can't prove god does not exist. it's logically impossible to prove a negative. the burden of proof is on those who assert it to be true. seeing as the only proof religion often has to offer is something circular in their texts like, "god wrote the bible. the bible says god's real. god doesn't lie. therefore god is real".

[creamcorn]

well first what if i say that the universe and all living things are made out of molecules, like a watch is made out of cogs, those are both inanimate right?
and scientists may eventually discover how the universe was created (what happened before the big bang, or how was that other universe with the different set of laws created etc.) but i dont know if theyll discover who created it or if there was someone behind it

and lastly, why wouldnt the humans be the caretakers of the world? we know how to get along with eachother better than animals with our morals as you said, were smarter than them and more intelligent as you said. in fact were already the caretakers of the world, we are the greater species. the world is in our hands now and we decide whatll happen to it and we can either fuck it up or keep it clean and our intelligence and morals has led to that responsibility of being the caretakers

the cogs and molecules analogy are still making a comparison between two different things. Cogs would not interact with one another unless due to human intervention. Molecules are constantly reacting and responding to one another (due to the forces of strong, weak, electromagnetic.. etc), and science has slowly begun to understand more and more of things on a molecular level.

i don\\\'t think humans should announce themselves caretakers of the world because we don\\\'t even know how to take care of ourselves. scientists have estimated that if all humans disappeared off the face of the earth, every living species would FLOURISH within the next 50 years. in contast, they estimate if all insects disappeared off the face of the earth, all life would end within 50 years. turns out, we\\\'re not actually that important. sure, our technology could be used to conserve the earth for future generations, but it seems those in charge would rather use technology for constantly out-doing rival nations militarily.

IF this were true, then we would have to give animals the same rights as people. that would mean we couldn\\\'t kill insects, cows, chickens, etc. killing a cow would be comparable to killing an adult human because there would be no difference between them on a moral standpoint

if you do the reverse of that, where we CAN kill cows, that means we can kill humans and eat them and it doesnt matter because nobody has any rights and i dont believe that either

animals ARE less than us in my opinion. animals don\\\'t have consciousness (when i say that, i mean that they aren\\\'t conscious of their existence. an animal doesn\\\'t ask what the meaning of life is. an animal can\\\'t even grasp the concept of being alive), they also don\\\'t have morals. an animal makes decisions purely on pain and pleasure it feels because of an action. animals don\\\'t have free will and they don\\\'t have any substantial cognitive abilities

it\\\'s not ok to be inhumane to animals but it is ok to kill them and eat them in my opinion

humans DO have morals, and i believe that morals are specific to humans because of our cognitive ability. we have emotional reactions to actions and occurences, just like any animal (except our emotions are more developed too), BUT THEN we can analyze our emotional reactions with our rational thought. since we\\\'re all the same species, i would argue we all have the same emotional reactions, but some people aren\\\'t rational/well-educated so they don\\\'t have good morals. i think this explains what happens in the congo with people who rape tons of women with no remorse; they\\\'re just not educated or intelligent people so they can\\\'t rationalize they responses. they see a woman they want to fuck and they\\\'ll rape them without thinking about the fact that they\\\'re hurting another person.

that\\\'s how it seems to me at least

i actually do hold the first assertion to be true. i believe all life is valuable. perhaps more so than people who believe in an afterlife, because this is all i\\\'ve got. because of this belief, i\\\'ve slowly been workin my way to vegetarianism (stuck on the pescatarian level... just can\\\'t stop eatin fish it\\\'s so delish). and i think you\\\'d be surprised to see that animals do commonly exhibit what humans would call "morals" in their lives. for example,  there are several types of squirrels, lemmings, and prarie dogs that will let out a warning cry if they see a predator, which 99% of the time will result in the predator eating them. essentially they sacrifice themselves for their families, it\\\'s something most scientists refer to as "kin selection". if you were to replace this example with humans, you could say that the sacrificer would be someone truly altruistic, who thought of the community first. and what of those stories you hear about occasionaly when a loyal pet saves their owner from death? are these animals acting morally? no? they just saved their owner\\\'s lives so they can get fed later on? yet animals cannot have a sense of time as we do, and cannot plan for the future. why would they act to save anyone? kin selection. why do humans act to save each other? i believe it\\\'s also kin selection. albeit, a very complex version.

i do agree with you on your closing remark though, that higher intelligence leads to a far more complex morality due to rationalized thought.

cogs react to eachother just like molecules do, but on a far more complex level. because god is far more intelligent than a simple human watch-maker, he can make something more complex. so its really the same, the ratio is just really large on one side

and yeah if we continued living like this we would end all life, but we cant just all kill ourselves, we are on this planet too and we may not be that important but we need it to live. so we have the power and the choice(which came with our intelligence) to destroy or save this planet, respect other living beings and be selfless. that power makes us the responsible care-takers

im not saying that science says that it can prove that god exists or not,  i know its not their intention to prove that, what im saying is that it cant, simply because of that room situation you described or the cup/ocean situation i described

well of course science can\\\'t prove god does not exist. it\\\'s logically impossible to prove a negative. the burden of proof is on those who assert it to be true. seeing as the only proof religion often has to offer is something circular in their texts like, "god wrote the bible. the bible says god\\\'s real. god doesn\\\'t lie. therefore god is real".

nope, my proof is this universe we live in

[Shida]

Yup, I believe a ruthless/corrupt leader who does act on his untouchable position, and feels no guilt or remorse for what they have done, has issues. They might not be mentally unstable, but something definitely isn't wired up right. However not all leaders are ruthless and corrupt, and you don't have to be a leader to be selfish.  

The world we live in now only keeps making me think there isn't a god out there. At least, not a god that many of the monotheistic religions describe. There are many innocent people out there who are given a bad hand. People born into poverty-stricken lands through no fault but chance. Volcanos and tsunamis that destroy homes and lives. I can't believe that a god who deals in justice would be so unfair to so many people. The point of justice is that people who deserve to be punished get punished, and those who are good remain free. All I can do is appreciate how fortunate I am to be alive now.