[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 156 KB, 600x800, 1292025707956.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3369270 No.3369270 [Reply] [Original]

So i'm trying to convince a friend that there's no reason to assume a god exists, anyone here up for a good religion debate?

Tell me if these things are not allowed on this board i'll delete the thread.

>> No.3369306

>>3369270
Mod is tasting our believe in his existence.

>> No.3369314

BRING IT !!!

I fully agree with You, There simply isn't ANY evidence, scientific discovery, concept, number, star, or anything at all that should lead anyone to ASSUME the existence of a god.

Plus... When You assume You make and ASS of U and ME :P

>> No.3369329

no. This is not science.
Go away.

flood detected from saging so many shitty threads.

>> No.3369344

>>3369329

science deals with all concepts related to the observable universe

If god affected the universe his existence would fall within the purview of science

the phenomena of religion falls within the purview of science

>you do not know what science is

@OP

The simplest way to win any debate with a theist is this:

1) prove god exists
2) provide significant evidence that makes his existence seem to be more likely than not

>> No.3369353

PS: An assumption can be made to simplify an otherwise complicated concept. As human beings we have grown to understand in quite a lot of detail how the universe works. We don't know everything of course but, the look at our species a 1000 years ago and look how far have we come and how many "GREAT MYSTERIES" have we solved (mostly in the past 200 - 250 years) and now consider to be so simple that don't even bother to appriciate how important they are to our life. Now we can assume that the humanities "intellectuall evolution" will progress at the same rate for another 500 years.

I can't even try to image what might be, if we don't all die in 2012 :P :P

>> No.3369359

yeah the whole ASSUMING thing forces me to have your back. i don't really care much.

>> No.3369367

sage

>> No.3369368

>>3369344

she comes up with

>yes but what about miracles

I counter with, yeah but those existed pre-christian god.

>the other religions were false and all just actually worshipped "god" (as in god-god)

I don't believe, but I do not deny that there isn't a tiny chance something god-like exists.

not god as in christianity or any other religion. but something more powerful and technologically advanced than we are most likely exists. somewhere. probably.

>> No.3369373

>>3369344
by that definition, everything falls under science. /sci/ might as well be /b/.

>>3369353
>2012 :P :P
Since when have namefags been worse than tripfags?

>> No.3369376

>>3369368

this girl is also very hot, she looks like the pic i posted.

and she's a gamer, a musician and an awesome person to be around.

now if only I could undo the brainwashing..

>> No.3369381

>>3369368

>miracles

a temporary suspension of the natural order - hume

Prove one has happened ever.

>not god as in christianity or any other religion. but something more powerful and technologically advanced than we are most likely exists. somewhere. probably.

If you broaden the definition of a god to the point where it is pointless, then yes of course it exists, but what have you just done? found god? no, you've changed the definition till something has been able to fit within its parameters.pointless.

Are we talking about a specific religion? if so tell me so i can zoom in on the flaws. are we assuming a deist god or an interventionist?

>> No.3369386

>>3369373

>by that definition, everything falls under science. /sci/ might as well be /b/.

>yfw you realize EVERYTHING falls under science

its the spirit that differentiates it. the objective inquiry, disinterested research, ect.

>> No.3369396

>>3369381

yeah, we're assuming christianity stuff here.

All I'm concerned and baffled about is her belief it's real and everything else is false. even though she's an overall awesome person.

Would make for great fights though.

>> No.3369406

Bro... You got a tough job ahead of You... I have faith in You. If you really wanna shake her faith show her the first part of "Zeitgeist"... It rips christianity to shreds.

With the god thing, way You can play it, is the following:

- Humans are egocentric being by nature
eg. 1000 years ago you'd get accused of heresy for saying that the earth is not the centre of the universe

- Taking from any holly book "God made man in his image", henceforth: We are like god henceforth: we are gods, henceforth: we are better than anything else in the universe henceforth: we are what created the universe.

Top that with some of Freud's theories (all actions are controlled by the subconcious due to "urges") and You should have an atheist :)

>> No.3369416

>>3369396

OP, dont bother. she has been indoctrinated since she was a child into this BS belief structure. her entire family and most of her friends share this delusion. She think she will literally burn in hell for all eternity if she so much as questions this bullshit. If you cant get over the fact that she is crazy/delusional (what else would you call it?) then stop talking to her. Dont bother trying to change her it will just drive you apart.

The christian religion as a matter of fact is pretty much demonstrably false. Most of the historical accounts it gives are false. Jesus does not mesh with the jewish messiah predictions. There has never been any proof substantiated for any of it.

>dinosaurs

i rest my case

>> No.3369423

>pascal's wager

>> No.3369433

>>3369406
>>3369406

I think she'd counter the god made us in his image with

>But that just means we look like him, not are exactly like him

and she also still doesn't believe in evolution either.

Ugh, if only we would find an actual walking and talking alien. somewhere. anywhere.

Highly unlikely but still, it would put an end to all of this nonsense.

>> No.3369445

>>3369423

>irrelevant

First, that does not help you with WHAT religion to randomly worship. If you go from that assumption, then it makes sense to follow the one that is most historically accurate or at least is not dis proven with even a cursory understanding of history.

So, deism then.

Secondly, that assumes you can just choose to believe in something. You cant. I can not just choose to believe there is a bear in my back yard. all evidence points to there not being a bear.

And what a dumb god that would be! who was satisfied with professed belief rather than actual belief.

I honestly dont think most people are religious. i mean, they indicate when asked what religion they were raised up in, but do they really believe in god? do they believe in god every day? every second of every day? do they give thanks to god as the ultimate cause of all their good fortunes every day?

>> No.3369451

>>3369433

>still doesn't believe in evolution either.

She is retarded. You have lost. Insert another quarter to play again. Not accepting the fact of evolution at this point indicates a serious mental illness.

>> No.3369454

>>3369451

still only 15 though. More then enough time to change her mind.

I'm the only non-religious person she knows too, i think.

>> No.3369461

>>3369416

That's another thing to bring up:

Eternal life after death

Ridiculous concept however You cut it.

Humans measure time, Why?
Loads of resons but I think it boils down to the fact that we want to reasonably divide our time before we die and to measure how we are changing as the moons are passing (eg. How old are You?). Animals do the same thing (much simpler of course but still). When You consider being able to retain conciousness without change for an eternity the entire concept of time and how we percieve it is no longer nessesary. In that case we hit a paradox... If there is no way to percive the passage time, how would we even expierence any lenght of it?

>> No.3369479

>>3369461
Wait so if I can't measure 'change' at all, i'm not experiencing anything?

>> No.3369484

>>3369270

These things are not allowed on this board, please delete the thread.

>> No.3369488

>>3369433

If someone doesn't belive in evolution they are just stupid.

No if's no but's... Just a retard...

I do understand You wanna tap that, but it's not worth it man, her daddy's gonna find out and he's gonna make You marry her. And to be perfectly honest, if it was me and I was married to a very religous girl... I'd probably end up being the worst person under the sun just to "Stick it to the man".

Stay friends and don't talk bout religon...

Been there done that

>> No.3369502

>>3369488

my grandfather's an atheist, my grandmother's christian.

they still get along very well and have for over 45 years.

>> No.3369511

>God is perfect?
>Then why aren't we. For if he is truly 'perfect' so should all of his creations.
/convo

>> No.3369516

>>3369479

I meant the change of Yourself or Your enviroment as the time passes. But You do have a good point. The entire concept of heaven is so nice and hell so bad because of the word "eternal", all I'm trying to say, how can You try to comprehend something that is infinite using mesures that are finite?

eg. I'm a science freak, doing a degree in chemical engineering and have interest in almost all field of science and I'm not even pretending that I can comprehend infinity. I know what it is and where it comes in handy but other than that... It blows my mind...

>> No.3369533

>>3369502

I mean the REALLY religous ones, like the girl You mention

A lot of respect for your grandparents, I wouldn't be able to do it. especially with a person that rejects most of the concepts I hold most dear as a lie even though the logical mind suggests otherwise.

>> No.3369537
File: 22 KB, 320x400, velma.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3369537

>>3369454

>>15

Well, first off, jailbait or underage banned.

Secondly, at age 15 we tend to still be greatly influenced by our parents and origins whether we realize it or not.

There is really only one question here than is important. What does she believe? You need to find out all the things that she believes, zero in on one of them which she "knows" to be true, and use that to disprove all her other beliefs. Most people do not have internally consistent belief structures, and will not realize this until it is pointed out to them.

If, for example, she believes in Evolution and that Genesis was actually a metaphorical tale, then how does she reconcile that fact with Jesus, who was sent specifically to die to invalidate Original Sin, which was caused by Eve in Genesis? If Genesis is allegory, there was no Original Sin, and no reason for Jesus.

Force her to rethink WHY she believes in things rather than WHAT she believes in. Make her think critically and rationally about her own beliefs. This is the only correct way to change belief. They have to feel that they came by it themselves, or else they will fight every step of the way.

They still might, but they may be less obstinate.

Good luck.

>> No.3369550

>>3369537
I don't get why if she's religious that's a problem. As long as she doesn't bring it up all the time. What happens is, you keep 'arguing' with her about her beliefs. And she starts to get frustrated and you end up losing her. Just leave it be and do other things together, that she'd rather do and enjoy.

>> No.3369556

>>3369550

Well yes, but OP seems desperate to change her so I just gave my take on the best way to do that.

Which is basically "be subtle about it."

>> No.3369558

>>3369537

jailbait.

she believes in genesis and not in evolution.

which makes it all a lot harder.

>> No.3369566

>>3369550

I like discussing stuff, but when she told me she was going to bible camp I actually used a facepalm for the first time in my life.

>> No.3369570

>>3369558

Why does she deny evolution? Is it specifically because she was raised not to believe in it?

In which case, does she always do everything her parents tell her? Teenage rebellion is an almost universal aspect of human psychology. This may be the mental wedge you need to at least get her to start thinking about why she believes what she believes.

Is she interested in learning of any kind? What does she like to do? I can't give you advice without knowing the exact situation.

>> No.3369600
File: 158 KB, 700x700, 1297040151811.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3369600

Is god real? Of course not.

Is the Bible even remotely accurate? Not even close.

Are believers deluded and crazy? Absolutely.

But these things don't change the fact that berating Christians about how dumb they are makes you a complete asshole. They are bigger assholes, but two assholes don't make a unicorn.

It sounds like you have a serious crush on this girl. Either learn to be her friend without agreeing with her on this or, alternatively, give up. You aren't going to change her mind. This has been going on for almost 2,000 years, they are VERY good at indoctrinating people.

>> No.3369613

>>3369570

yeah she usually does everything her parents tell her to.

mostly interested in sports, though she's been getting A's in almost every subject since first grade as well.

We're talking canada here.


she believes in genesis because she believes the bible to be the truth and everything else to be false "just because"

I'm still hoping she'll eventually turn away from christianity.

>> No.3369619

>>3369613

listen to this person

>>3369600

>> No.3369625

>>3369600

I'd prefer the "subtle" nudges someone else here suggested.

there must be a way to have her question her religion right?

>> No.3369634

i think there is a god or some sort of divine force out there that has it's own 'conscious'. however, it is too much for us humans to comprehend with our minds.

i think whatever these religious books say are bullshit and made up. i think they were just stories used by grandparents for grandchildren years ago so they'd live a good, honest life.

but i do believe there is a divine force out there.

>> No.3369642

>>3369625

I'm not saying that it's impossible, I'm saying that it makes you an asshole.

She's 15? So I'll assume you're 15 or around that age. You're still in your angry atheist phase, the one we all went through. The time when you are frustrated that so much of the world operates on these archaic traditions and feel the need to 'correct' people's worldviews.

So you seek out the religious and engage them in debates, and when you can't win the debate you default onto the conclusion that these people are stubborn and brainwashed. You never consider that maybe you just aren't particularly good at articulating your points in a non-threatening manner.

This goes on for a while, you lose a bunch of your friends, and then eventually you grow up and realize that trying to force others to change their beliefs makes you every bit as big of an asshole as the fundamentalists.

I've been much happier living as an atheist when I grew out of the angry phase. All that comes from it is frustration and social ostracism.

Btw, nice to meet another canadabro!

>> No.3369651

>>3369642

I'm actually not from canada, and i'm not 15, i'm 20.

I've already moved on from my "angry" atheist phase, if I've ever been in one. Canada just confronted me with a majority of christians, here in the netherlands the only REALLY religious people are the elderly and the muslims.
>inb4 pedo, it's ephebo. /sci/ needs to know stuff like this.

Still, where in canada are you at?

>> No.3369660
File: 26 KB, 565x546, Not Science.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3369660

>> No.3369664

>>3369642

Lol shit. This guy is right, OP. I did that in middle school.

Although, people thought I was some super-arguerman or some shit and a few of the kids that hated on me for my atheism later became atheist or skeptical themselves.

But god damn was I an asshole. Glad that's over.

>> No.3369670

>>3369613

I'm Canadian as well.

And I think I know a girl very similar to what you are describing. In her case, she is 23 or so now and still believes so you may have a lost cause on your hands. People without reasons to question their own beliefs rarely do.

So, wait, if she believes in Genesis, what about the age of the planet?

Your options are limited. The only think I can think of is to somehow make her ashamed of her ignorance, either by implying that it is silly to ignore the science that modern society operates on yet making use of it's products such as computers and cellphones, or by pointing out contradictions in scripture. Be prepared for the inevitable "God works in mysterious ways" argument however.

And >>3369642 has a point as well. We all went through that phase, and you may not be at thing point a good enough debater to win this argument, if it is winnable at all. Trying to make people change is difficult at the best of times, if you come off as hostile you can make them clam up and shut down to your points entirely. This is why angry militant athiesm is as idiotic as fundamentalism.

If anything you need to either be subtle or calm and rational. And as the man said "You gotta know when to hold em, know when to fold em, know when to walk away, know when to run."

>> No.3369675
File: 177 KB, 463x463, 1303867205496.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3369675

Maybe you should convert her to a more tolerable , harmless religion.

Perhaps what she needs is a Sun god.

>>3369600
Wouldn't you agree, pink one?

>> No.3369685
File: 15 KB, 231x264, Zarus.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3369685

>>3369675

Sun God, eh?

>> No.3369700

>>3369651

A nice little suburb outside of Toronto.

Look, I have successfully deconverted friends, so here's the best approach:

First off, you need to be her friend. Be nice, comforting, hang out with her. Do the stuff that friends do for other friends. She needs to see you as somebody she trusts.

Second, she needs to see you as somebody who knows their shit. Have smart sounding anecdotes prepared and muse about them as you're hanging out. Something like, "so I read this article in [source of article] about [scientific interest] and I found it really interesting that [factoids]." Subtle prods that aren't confrontational, just interesting.

You need to lay that groundwork for weeks or even months before you even start talking about religion. After you're confident that she trusts you and thinks you're smart, you need to VERY VERY VERY carefully segway into the discussion.

The important thing here is that you aren't supposed to debate her. You two are friends and friends DISCUSS things. Even if you don't respect her opinion, pretend that you do. If you disagree, do so polightly, and if she gets offended, apologize and assert that you didn't mean to hurt her feelings.

You can't just contest her faith on logical grounds. You need to give her EMOTIONAL reasons that a universe without a god is much cooler than what she things. Give her an impression of the scale of the cosmos, the amazing variety of life, and infer that these things coming about via unguided process is much more beautiful than them coming about by design. Mention moderates- Christians who support evolution- so that she might feel more comfortable to those more controversial ideas.

Religions are great for emotional support, you need to show that your side isn't just logically superior, but also emotionally fulfilling. Most people operate on 90% emotion 10% logic, so you can't expect superior logic to win.

kk?

>> No.3369702

>>3369685

hmm...

>>3369670

any comeback for that "god works in mysterious ways" ?

>> No.3369728

>>3369700
>deception and emotional manipulation are valid tools to use in converting someone to your relig- er, I mean "superior logic"

>> No.3369736

>>3369700

so many doubles in this thread..

also, i like this approach.

>> No.3369743

>>3369702
>any comeback for that "god works in mysterious ways" ?

I always ask how they tell the difference between simple luck and gods mysterious action.

If there is a way to tell, it is usually that those actions that are fortuitous or righteous in the believers eyes are gods actions. If people can't see the problem with gods actions always syncing up with their prejudices, then I don't even. It's not possible to discuss it any further if they really think this.

If there isn't a way to tell, then any individual case of gods possible action must be dismissed, until we have at least one confirmed case to draw a baseline from.

>> No.3369771

>>3369728

Everybody emotionally manipulates everybody else simply by existing and operating. It's merely the scale and concious intent that you seem to have a problem with.

Also, some people are just better at it.

>>3369743

This, but some theists actually do not believe in luck at all, stating that every single minuscule permutation is an extension of God's will.

>> No.3369778

>>3369771

which in turn would take away free will.

>> No.3369782

>>3369771
Sure, if you ignore all distinguishing characteristics, everything looks like manipulation. To a sociopath. Such as yourself.

>> No.3369796

There's plenty of reason to believe..or not believe. You cannot use science to disprove god however, its impossible. Likewise, science cannot prove god exists either. It's a personal journey. One person may reach different conclusions then another. I must urge though, that blind followers are just that blind. If you put no education into your faith, then you are no better off then people that fight non-existence without looking in a book first.

>> No.3369798

>>3369771

>This, but some theists actually do not believe in luck at all, stating that every single minuscule permutation is an extension of God's will.

Rare. If there was an utter absence of luck, and everything is gods whim, then you are in a real hole in the argument. Remember that this kind of philosophy is used to justify all kinds of atrocities on the grounds that 'if god didn't want me to do it, I wouldn't have been able to do it in the first place'. It's an odd kind of universal solipsism that is difficult to pin down.

If they believe in free will, I would maybe try to contrast free will with this fixed system. If they don't believe in free will, I would ask how anybody can be morally responsible in gods eyes without it.

I would ask if there was any action that I could perform which was not justified by gods inaction to stop it. I would then point out that we have civil law to regulate human actions that god does not find necessary to stop, and that gods law would only then apply, and we could only be certain of it's particulars, at judgement. So at the least we must try to figure out our own laws to the best of our abilities.

>> No.3369803

>>3369270
I warn you. This is rage material:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTSbfs32yCU

>> No.3369810
File: 21 KB, 368x329, 1295281915425.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3369810

>>3369778

See: Contradictions inherent in their philosophies.

>>3369782

See, this is an example of reasoning not to use. "I disagree with you, therefore you must be mentally ill." I prefer a more pic related approach.

>>3369798

The problem with arguing with a viewpoint that is not logically consistent is that you have to get them to see that it isn't first. Unless they accept that logic is important, you basically cannot argue from a logical perspective.

That said, I think your arguments are sound and very similar to what I would use. You do have to make sure they are "primed" first, and the method you mentioned before is a good example.

>> No.3369812
File: 183 KB, 800x910, Feel the wrath of a the only true Sun God.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3369812

>>3369685
HHIIIIISSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS

>> No.3369824

>>3369796

If you can't prove it, and you can't confirm any traits about it, or any of its commandments, then anyone who says they know anything about it is not right. We don't know, I don't know, you don't know, and nobody knows. Absolute agnosticism.

But, we can disprove some gods. They are said to do things, and they don't, they say the world is a certain way, and it isn't. So we move them into the category of 'the people who said they knew about these gods were incorrect, and it seems nobody knows about these gods'. So you don't know, I don't know, nobody knows. Such as they are described, though, one can be an absolute atheist.

And, as always, if one thinks they know about these gods that we must be agnostic towards, THEY MUST SHOW THEIR WORK. Once they do this, everybody will accept it.

>> No.3369828

Same thing with IQ tests. It depends if you think that your score is good or bad. Is it bad you will tend to dislike the test or say that the scores aren't really representable at all. If you had a score that you consider to be good, you will trust the test and think it's accurate.

It totally leads to the question about mods on this board.

I swear.

>> No.3369832

>>3369803

Works as advertised. I fucking raged.

>> No.3369837

>>3369810
>See, this is an example of reasoning not to use. "I disagree with you, therefore you must be mentally ill."

Well my judgment about you being a sociopath is really from multiple interactions across many threads in recent history.

But your absurdist reductionism of all things to emotional manipulation is both intellectually dishonest, and reflective of sociopathy. It's just like the "everything is selfish" argument. Bullshit and confirmation bias everywhere.

>> No.3369847

>>3369803

i raged as well.

>> No.3369857

>>3369445
>I honestly dont think most people are religious. i mean, they indicate when asked what religion they were raised up in, but do they really believe in god? do they believe in god every day? every second of every day? do they give thanks to god as the ultimate
cause of all their good fortunes every day?

Many are not. There are scores of people who only identify with a religion for social, cultural, or political reasons. It is my guess that most atheists were raised by parents who didn't really believe in their own religion.

>> No.3369863

>>3369837

I didn't say at any point that all things were emotionally manipulative, I said that everybody upon interacting with another person is having an effect on that person, which could be defined as emotional manipulation. I'm saying that the term "emotional manipulation" is not accurate, since it could apply to any interaction between two people.

I'm not seeing an intellectual dishonesty in it either. One of the theories as to how intelligence evolved in humans is by our learning to emotionally and socially manipulate others in order to secure mates or resources. As to the selfishness argument, it's what you get when you apply natural selection and evolution wholesale into morality. Again, not intellectually dishonest.

Making excuses not to argue against a point is not a valid rebuttal of a point. That was in another thread the other day as well.

>> No.3369905

so, make sure you're very good friends.

then introduce some doubt in their beliefs.

>> No.3369907

>>3369863
>which could be defined as emotional manipulation

Right, conformation bias.

>Making excuses not to argue against a point is not a valid rebuttal of a point. That was in another thread the other day as well.

Yeah, you didn't get it then either.

>> No.3369910

>>3369837

>everything is selfish

This is an incredibly naive argument. But it mads inside my head even more when used AGAINST the naturalistic position. Since it is, at worst, an admission of a lack of conscience on the part of the arguer, and at least only to be used as a plea to consequences in some other argument.

Humans are self-interested and kin-interested. We are smart enough to know that surrounding ourselves with a community to insulate us from the environment is in our best, rational, enlightened self-interest. We are also plastic enough in our nature given consciences to abstract out kin-favoritism to non-kin, and to abstract out our definitions of in-group and out-group in many ways.

People are selfish. So selfish we spend our time building fair and just societies just to protect ourselves from unforeseeable negative outcomes.

>> No.3369913

>>3369863
I've seen you on /sci/ frequently, and I just now realized H+ is the abbreviation for Transhumanism. Am I correct in the assumption that you are a transhumanist?

>> No.3369920
File: 137 KB, 550x600, feelsbadmetroid.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3369920

>decide to visit /sci/
>see three religion threads on the first page

>> No.3369921

>>3369406
Amateur psychologist here bro, Freud was a hack in case you didn't know. Well, not quite a hack, but it was really all theoretical with virtually no experimentation or scientific process; the entire psychodynamic perspective is looked upon by the other schools of psychology as a little bit clever observation surrounded by a wasteland of unscientific bullshit and sexist bias. Plus the patients that he made his observations of were all from the same upper-middle-class German housewife demographic. But the dip shit OP is trying to sway is unlikely to know any of this, so carry on.

>> No.3369926

>>3369913

Yes.

>> No.3369930

>>3369803
Holy shit. I think thunderf00t is an idiot and I raged, too.

>> No.3369931

>>3369743
>I always ask how they tell the difference between simple luck and gods mysterious action.

Based on my experience, it's not really something that can be explained easily. You just kind of know it when it happens.

>> No.3369932

>>3369910

That was basically my argument. I just went into more detail as to the morality of it. I'm not seeing why he's saying it's intellectually dishonest, if you do, please explain it to me.

>> No.3369963

>>3369445

>I honestly dont think most people are religious.

I think there is some fraction of people who are primed to find patterns in everything and anything. They are... spiritual... if you like. In much of society, the only outlet for this spiritual urge is to become involved in an existing religion, which they lap up. There's no need to be rid of these people, but they don't deserve to be at the mercy of any huckster who is selling prepackaged revelations.

And some other fraction of people who were convinced at an early age that religion equals community and family. And devotion to religion equals love of your community and family. So many religious people are simply very neighborly, but consider involvement in the local religion to be tantamount to that. And there is no need to be rid of these people, but they don't have to equate religion with family, and then let religions problems slide as they would a drunkard brothers.

>> No.3369978

In essence, if you wish to avoid being worn down by atheist arguments, you must be very well versed in history, theology, logic, and philosophy, and most sheeple are not.

I've heard every atheist argument before and demolished them all.

>> No.3369993

>>3369642
>Angry atheist phase we all went through
I jumped from Christian to David Hume in about the span of a month. No angry atheist phase here bro. While I do hate many of the Christians I know, it happens to be a hatred that is almost entirely exclusive to specific communities of Southern Baptists whom I have interacted with in the past, which I am surrounded by, because I live in Alabama. Perhaps it may have been the fact that my atheist friend, and later my homosexual friend, both got kicked out of our highschool (I promptly switched to a school where I might actually receive an education, it was high time for that anyway).

>> No.3369996
File: 12 KB, 330x282, sminigo1..jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3369996

>>3369907

You keep using that word. I do no think it means what you think it means.

In order to confirm conformational bias you need to provide an alternative interpretation of the point, not just state "conformational bias" and walk away. If you were in that thread yesterday you might not have gotten the point.

Also, did it occur to you that your examinations of my psychology may also be subject to conformation bias?

>>3369978

That's generally a good idea in every argument. The more you know, the more you have to draw from for rebuttals.

>> No.3370003

>>3369932

If I'm following, he's spot on when it comes to emotional manipulation. I mean, we could sugarcoat it, but when you make emotional arguments that is what you are doing. And there is a place for them. I don't care for them myself, but then I'm not interested in discussing religion with people I know from real life.

As for intellectually dishonest? Perhaps he feels that presenting your side of the argument, AND using emotional arguments is by definition intellectually dishonest. Whether this is because emotional arguments are inherently dishonest, or whether it is because he thinks you are just wrong in your conclusions and so anything you say is dishonest, or it could be as simple and honest a statement as, using arguments to convince someone else of something when they were not the arguments that convinced you, or that would convince you, is dishonest.

>> No.3370009
File: 125 KB, 946x710, Crab Nebula.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3370009

Tell her there's a more beautiful explanation as to what created the cosmos rather than "God did it"

Tell her that she needs to stop focusing on God in just the beauty of Life and also ask what about God in the triumphs of life. Like the worms in an animal that eats it's brains out from the inside. Or the child in africa who's dying of bone cancer.

Tell her that she needs to stop being afraid of asking herself the what if's. She needs to stop assuming there's God and really question how all of this came to be

Tell her she needs to look at it from an Evolutionist's point of view and see truly how beautiful it is that we were created from the death of a star


Tell her she needs to understand that not only we are a part of the universe, but the universe is in us.

>> No.3370019

>>3369978

Atheist arguments?

>I'm not convinced you know anything about god.
Is the ur-atheist argument. How do you demolish that one?

>> No.3370021

>>3369996

anything else on getting her to doubt religion?

>> No.3370030

>>3370003

But that's the thing, everyone has a different mental balance of emotion and rationality, and some arguments that could convince one person would be ignored by others. As humans we are both rational and emotional beings, and excluding one or the other entirely is not I think the correct way. In the same way, I would not advocate removing emotion entirely even if we had the capacity. Also, Spock is a terrible rationalist.

>> No.3370042

>>3370019
Some atheist arguments are easy to challenge, others require a bit more effort. For example "How do you know who's speaking for God and who isn't?"

Well, think about it. If a guy says "God commands you to blow up Jewish children in a marketplace", it doesn't take a lot of effort to conclude that a just god would not look kindly on this.

>> No.3370050

>>3370042

but god commands you to go take jerusalem and slaughter children there is fine?

>> No.3370055
File: 40 KB, 300x391, NotThisShitAgain.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3370055

>Tell me if these things are not allowed on this board i'll delete the thread.
Depends. If you go "Herp derp there is no God" your thread will be bumped.
If you admit that you believe in our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, you will be banned for at least a week.

If you try to appeal the ban, the mods will email you with athiest dogma.

So as long as you stay on the athiest side of the debate, you're fine. Not much of a debate, in my opinion, but banning people is the only way athiests can win.

>> No.3370058

>>3370042

That would entirely depend on your own personal subjective view of "what god is". Obviously some people legitimately believe that God wants the to do this. And they are reading basically the same book as those arguing against it for theological reasons.

>> No.3370062

>>3370050
Given that that was 1000s of years ago, we don't really know the specifics of Biblical events, like how many people died in the capture of so and so city.

>> No.3370066

It'd be better if you could just accept her for who she is and what she believes. Her belief in God does not affect her everyday life in a way that is damaging to her or those around her. If you can't like her because of what she believes, maybe you need to stop being so self-centered and thinking that everyone must think what you think or they're stupid.

Atheist seem to be pissed when Christians try to convert others, but it's perfectly okay when atheist do it.

>> No.3370070

potholer54 Made easy series

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wg1fs6vp9Ok&feature=channel_video_title

This video series is simple and shows that big questions do not require god of the gaps explanations.

>> No.3370072

>>3370062

Actualy, the most recent crusade was in 1272. That was the Ninth one, 5 after the one where they send children.

>> No.3370073

>>3370055

i'm just trying to figure out how to turn a theist into an agnostic atheist or agnost. that would be fine too.

>> No.3370081
File: 99 KB, 1366x728, Untitled.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3370081

>>3370055
Butthurt mod is butthurt.

>> No.3370090

>>3370073


tell her to stop being a bitch and actually have her think deeply about what made life and what happens when we die.


when she gives you her whole explanation just say "Now think of what you just said. Does that really sound plausible?"


bam

>> No.3370092

>>3370042

That is the final question, right?

But if each man can judge what a just god would or wouldn't do, and so know what god did or didn't command by this reasoning, we end up in a position where gods will is identical, more or less, to each mans preferences.

So we get back to the problem. If a man of god orders you to do something you know without doubt a just god would not order, but that he knows without doubt a just god would order, which of you is right?

So we are back at the original atheist argument. That I am not convinced anybody knows anything about god.

Luckily, for the reasonable man, the more humanist philosophy and the final, secular iterations of the theist philosophies reach the same conclusion. Live by your conscience and common sense. For the atheist, you do this in the hope that it will be the right thing to do. For the theist, you do this in the hope that it is what god wants you to do.

>> No.3370099

>>3370066

I just want to at least make her less fanatical.

though she thinks i'm hot somehow and i'm pretty sure I can have her do stuff before marriage, so I think part of it is just indoctrination...

mother i have no idea, father believes in some things, not in others.

but they do go to church on sundays.

I can't even remember the last time I went. Probably a funeral or something.

>> No.3370102
File: 4 KB, 251x242, Tenacious.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3370102

>>3370081

>mfw

>> No.3370106

>>3370072
Ok, I thought you meant Biblical events. As for the Crusades, well, the early ones might have been religiously motivated, but by the 4th or so one, the church was just calling them for petty political reasons. People saw through it and interest in crusades quickly waned.

>> No.3370117

>>3370092
>and the final, secular iterations of the theist philosophies reach the same conclusion.

Yeah, but those philosophies always existed, it's just that the sheeple didn't have access to them until the event of universal education in the 19th century.

>> No.3370119
File: 78 KB, 400x600, imVsMS.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3370119

This is the best list I've found in order to combat thiest arguments. Good luck!

http://www.reddit.com/r/atheistgems/comments/egr7o/why_there_is_no_god_quick_responses_to_some/

>> No.3370120

>>3370106

This is definitely true. Many of these had political motivations. I actually prefer to discuss the Thirty Years War and most of English history throughout the Tudor-Stewart periods, with Cromwell and such, as better examples of violence caused by a difference of religious opinion.

Protestants and Catholics hated each other way more than Christians hated Muslims. It was an extra kick in the balls that the other side was coopting your own set of values. Protestants literally believed that the Pope was the anti-christ.

>> No.3370142

>>3370117

If you are saying that religions empower certain people to impose their will onto believers in that religion, you'll get no argument here.

But religion is also full of backdoors and loopholes that allow these people to say god wants pretty much anything and have it accepted by the masses, or even just by particular individuals.

>> No.3370143

>>3370120
The same was true for communists. As Solzhenitsyn wrote, "Stalin had nothing really against the western capitalists. After all, they had never been anything but enemies. But to claim that you offered a better way to socialism than him, that was a worse sin than anything imaginable."

>> No.3370152

>>3370142
Not really my point at all.

>> No.3370161

>>3370143

Yeah, it's a common theme.

>> No.3370178

>>3370161
And then in 1930s Germany, the communists there were so busy railing against the Social Democrats (who were broadly equivalent to the Democrat Party of FDR) that they totally ignored the Nazis until it was too late and they were all imprisoned.

>> No.3370183

>>3370099

>> No.3370190

>>3370106
>>3370120

Saying motivations are uniquely political or religious misses the point. It's some autocrat wielding his political power to get what he wants done, or some cleric wielding his religious power to get what he wants done. People go along with it because they really buy into the systems that invest political or religious power, or because the alternative to cooperation is punishment.

We have a process now to exert some measure of control over who gains political power, and how they are permitted to use it. In religion, we have had no such improvement in the winnowing process that tells authentic religious authority from counterfeit, just a gradual irrelevance in the face of secular philosophies and a gradual weakening in the face of civil authorities.

It's not politics or religion in and of themselves that are mostly to blame, the root of the problem lies in people abusing power and other people legitimising that power. Though we can and should analyse the organisations for weaknesses in each organisation that allow absolute authorities to arise.

>> No.3370207

>>3370152

I thought you were saying that people had no choice but to follow what someone else said god wanted until the 19th century, when they could then educate themselves in theology to such a degree that clerics were no longer needed?

>> No.3370217

>>3370207
No, I meant that more people could read and learn for themselves. Of course, sheeple are and will always be sheeple. but the overall situation since the 18th century is much better than it was before then.

>> No.3370237

>>3370190
>In religion, we have had no such improvement in the winnowing process that tells authentic religious authority from counterfeit, just a gradual irrelevance in the face of secular philosophies and a gradual weakening in the face of civil authorities.

Blinded by your own personal biases and belief in moral relativism.

>> No.3370240
File: 47 KB, 640x480, holy_shit1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3370240

>>3370099
Ohhhh, NOW you're clear.

You don't care if she believes in God or not. You just want to fuck her, and she won't let you before marriage.

Why didn't you state the real problem in the first place?

>> No.3370257

>>3370217

What of the 'sheeple', then? Were they not and still are laboring under the system I described? Where their moral compass can be spun by people who claim religious authority, simply because these 'sheeple' are devout?

Our system of ethics has advanced since the eighteenth century, but it is not so much a renaissance as an enlightenment. We are not rediscovering old truths long written down and long forgotten, we are inventing newer, better ways to live among one another.

>> No.3370259

>>3370240

she probably will let me before marriage, which is why I'm so confused.

And that's not the reason why i'm asking anyways.

>facebookgirl
>I love jesus
>brb sucking my boyfriend's dick.

>> No.3370273

>>3370237
>Blinded by your own personal biases and belief in moral relativism.

Unless we came to a conclusion about how to tell who knows things about god and who doesn't, I think I made a fair statement.

Also, moral relativism? In the absence of a final word on objective morality from a suitable authority, we are all moral relativists.

>> No.3370276

>>3370257
>Were they not and still are laboring under the system I described? Where their moral compass can be spun by people who claim religious authority, simply because these 'sheeple' are devout?

Yes, but we have education and literacy in a way we didn't back then. In addition, separation of church and state so that the former cannot be used as a political weapon.

>We are not rediscovering old truths long written down and long forgotten, we are inventing newer, better ways to live among one another.

In some ways yes, in others no.

>> No.3370289

>>3370276
>In some ways yes, in others no.

I would say in most ways yes, in a few ways not.

>> No.3370296

>>3370273
I would argue that there are plenty of moral issues that everyone can agree on universally. You know, don't do the neighbor's wife, don't rob the corner gas station, don't look at Cheese Pizza. That sort of thing.

>> No.3370352

>>3370296

I'm afraid the one argument for moral absolutism that doesn't work is an appeal to majority. Would it be wrong to cheat on your wife if everyone agreed it was not wrong?

But the existence of a few universally agreed upon moral truths does not make them absolute, or objective. It means that the vagaries of our biological existence on Earth hold themselves to certain facts about how we should conduct ourselves.

We want to continue living, so we do not allow killing.

We want to maintain bodily integrity, so we do not allow assault or rape.

We want to keep our possessions, so we do not allow stealing.

We want to be able to trust one another, so we do not allow perjury, infidelity, excessive envy, slander, and so on.

And after this it gets a bit hazy, a bit more subject to fashions and whims. There are the four rules almost every society agrees on, and which have decent foundations in our nature as a social animal, and there are the countless exceptions and refinements and clarifications to these, which vary greatly between societies, as we try to find the right mix to allow the good, just, fair life.

>> No.3370384

>>3370352
>Would it be wrong to cheat on your wife if everyone agreed it was not wrong?

If you can give a reason why anyone would think it's wrong. As for the rest of your post, you're basically agreeing with me that there are some moral absolutes.

>> No.3370424

>>3370384

I do not say they are absolute. Being nearly universally agreed upon does not make them absolute.

And as for the example of cheating on the wife. If even one person can think it was wrong, this makes it an absolute moral statement of wrong?

Surely you see how if I can point out even one thing that was once held as a moral absolute in some society, but is now not seen to be a relevant or accurate moral statement, it calls into question all moral absolutism?

How can we know what is a moral absolute and what is not? And how can we tell who is right when two people claim two contradictory things as absolutely morally correct?

>> No.3370440

>>3370424
>How can we know what is a moral absolute and what is not?

Ask yourself the following. Does it result in anyone getting killed, maimed, raped, or losing their belongings?

Also ask yourself this: Are things wrong because people say they're wrong, or do people say things are wrong because they are wrong?

>> No.3370459

>>3370352
>And after this it gets a bit hazy, a bit more subject to fashions and whims.

This is true. For example, bombing Hiroshima. Was it morally justified because an invasion of Japan would have resulted in millions of deaths, or was it not justified because it killed thousands of innocent people?

I personally think it was necessary because the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

>> No.3370461

>>3370440

They are considered wrong because people don't like it when those things happen to them and to those close to them. In other words, within the context of human society at the present time they are wrong. But this is no moral absolute, it only has any potency within that context.

>> No.3370465

>>3370440

Things are wrong because they hurt people.

Besides, what about societies that though different things were absolutely morally correct, but we now do not? When the ancient peoples claimed it was moral to kill people for committing certain crimes, how come they could not tell this was not absolutely morally wrong?

Really, you are just saying that we develop an improving set of moral guidelines, just like I say. Except that you say our current version is absolutely correct, while all the previous ones were absolutely wrong. It's when you add absolute that the problem starts. I can tell right from wrong. But absolutely right from absolutely wrong? If there were some way to contact the source of this absolute morality and find out what it was, it's obvious that nobody who claims to have done this has actually done it.

>> No.3370482

>>3370465
I think the difference people have is not in the fundamental morals, but rather certain specifics of them and also how violators of them are to be punished.

For example: We all agree that doing the neighbor's wife is not cool. But is it unjust to stone the person like they do in Saudi Arabia?

>> No.3370484

Report submitted! This window will close in 5 seconds...

>> No.3370494

reported

>> No.3370549

>>3370482
Perhaps...

>> No.3370712

>>3370482

In the case of simple infidelity, the only appropriate punishment is dismissal as a spouse/partner.

But in cases of morality, we are all moral relativists until the arbiter of moral absolutes comments on the matter. Claiming to be in contact with this arbiter is where we part ways.

And, as always, we get back to the ur-atheist argument.
>I'm not convinced you know anything about god.

Until that is satisfied, any claims about moral absolutes or gods commandments are just idle speculation with delusions of grandeur.