• Welcome to The Cave of Dragonflies forums, where the smallest bugs live alongside the strongest dragons.

    Guests are not able to post messages or even read certain areas of the forums. Now, that's boring, don't you think? Registration, on the other hand, is simple, completely free of charge, and does not require you to give out any personal information at all. As soon as you register, you can take part in some of the happy fun things at the forums such as posting messages, voting in polls, sending private messages to people and being told that this is where we drink tea and eat cod.

    Of course I'm not forcing you to do anything if you don't want to, but seriously, what have you got to lose? Five seconds of your life?

Theism, Religion and Lack thereof

Re: The to-be short lived theism thread

Alruanne, you have to admit one thing about religion- it has always provided a moral compass for the world. Even people who disagree with Christianity typically pass Jesus off for being a "moral teacher". As far back as the world goes people have been religious, even the Greeks whom you mentioned somewhere. If people are making decisions with no greater power in mind than themselves, the world will fall into a ruin of immorality.

Nope. Fear of judgement by a higher power does not inspire morality. It inspires a false sense of morality, reinforced by one's own fears of burning in Hell. One does not need to actually believe in the things one is doing in order to do them.

A truly virtuous person would do good things for the sake of them being good, not in order to please something greater than it.

For the record, religion likely arose as a way to explain natural phenomena first, then became a means to control others second.
 
Re: The to-be short lived theism thread

Hold that thought Dezzuu because I have a response to it in th morning when I regain my thought capabilities.
 
Re: The to-be short lived theism thread

Sure, I should be heading to bed anyway.

I'm probably not being as coherent as I should be either, but I swear I know what I'm trying to say.
 
Re: The to-be short lived theism thread

Nope. Fear of judgement by a higher power does not inspire morality. It inspires a false sense of morality, reinforced by one's own fears of burning in Hell. One does not need to actually believe in the things one is doing in order to do them.

A truly virtuous person would do good things for the sake of them being good, not in order to please something greater than it.

For the record, religion likely arose as a way to explain natural phenomena first, then became a means to control others second.

Sorry to butt into a conversation that has little to do with me, but this post of yours actually sums up my basic views of theism in general. That's something I have never found anywhere in under 5 pages of ranting.

In my opinion, arguing about religion is more or less pointless. Most internet people who are theists are firmly rooted in their beliefs and will not stand for any other viewpoint, though some are willing to compromise if provided with sufficient evidence and reasoning. And then there are the few who are willing to completely and calmly listen to and think about the words of others, who I find the most respectable (Pwnemon happens to be in this category of my favorite theists). Many internet atheists will likewise refuse to accept any religious argument, though admittedly they have a far better argument against theism than theists do against them.

I am an atheist, though I guess I'm in the "religious closet." My family really couldn't care less about religion. I find that there are generally no cases where an argument for a religion can even compare to an atheist argument, let alone beat it.

Now, if you read ANY of this post, then read this:
Who are we to say that the Bible isn't just someone's bright idea, akin to the Harry Potter of ancient times? We do not know everything about the early history of Christianity as we sometimes imply.

Something else I'd like to point out is the "seven deadly sins." All seven (perhaps not extravagance/luxury, but purchase of items is mostly a human invention) of these "deadly" actions or emotions are felt by nearly ever animal species on earth with more brains than a gnat. All "deadly" sins are instinctual.

I am done ranting for now.

... And yes, I do realize that my writing is fragmented and mixed up. Yes, some sentences belong in other places. But hey, it's 1:00 AM where I am, I'm tired. Plus that's how I've always written aything.
 
Re: The to-be short lived theism thread

Just wanna point this out:
God created evil.
He didn't allow evil.
He didn't tolerate it.
It wasn't a punishment.
He created it.

The angels he created were given grace, but the ones who fell had less grace than the others. Satan was one of the greatest angels, but was given less grace than the others, and therefore he fell.
For someone to have the potential do to evil means that they were created with the potential to do evil.
If evil came into the world due to sin, then, if 'evil is the effect of or the punishment for sin', how were Adam/Eve/Satan able to sin, if sin is evil?
There you go. Proof of god's evility.

Also, I'm the one who implied that, if animals don't have souls, then women don't either.

Also, Pwnemon, you don't understand asexual reproduction. The whole point of it is that there can be no variance. Gender is decided by the XX/XY chromosome, so man would asex into man.
 
Re: The to-be short lived theism thread

What, exactly, about religion makes it a moral compass? Religion has been the cause of more suffering than any other single factor in the history of the world. Christianity said, once, that it was okay to torture to death people who weren't Christian. And you call that moral? I don't care if it's different now; the Bible still condones the subjugation of women. If you see religion as a source of morality, I don't want to know you.
 
Re: The to-be short lived theism thread

Is misfortune linked to evil and fortune linked to good, I gather? You can still have variety in life without having to have evil in it. Why does there have to be a good and an evil that a god introduced for us? Are people only comfortable if they have a more detailed explanation for the good and bad things that happen to them than "shit happens"? It doesn't even have to be a fight of good vs evil. You could just as easily call it a fight for a better world for everyone, without having to attribute it to some divine creator.

As to your first question, yes and no. Yes as in that evil brought misfortune into the world. No as in that good stuff can happen to bad people and bad stuff to good people. To your second, there doesn't have to be a good and evil that God introduced for us, but if you believe in God in the first place, it naturally falls into place.

Nope. Fear of judgement by a higher power does not inspire morality. It inspires a false sense of morality, reinforced by one's own fears of burning in Hell. One does not need to actually believe in the things one is doing in order to do them.

A truly virtuous person would do good things for the sake of them being good, not in order to please something greater than it.

For the record, religion likely arose as a way to explain natural phenomena first, then became a means to control others second.

The first paragraph I find a problem with. Christianity teaches work by salvation, not salvation by work. In other terms, you become saved by faith with absolutely no need for good works first, then, you feel inspired to do good works because the Lord resides within you. Nowhere does it say doing good works gets you in heaven and bad works dooms you to hell. I agree with the second paragraph, and I will never know why religion was created.

Hm. I'll have to sit on that one. I know of an answer to that one but I'm not sure how to put it at the moment. Here is a relevant video for when both of us have the time: http://blip.tv/file/3825518 (yeah I keep linking to this guy but sometimes he just makes so much sense to me- I saw this video already when it was first uploaded but I don't remember it well enough to like, reference it or whatever. I just remember I agreed with a lot of it.)

Man, don't you hate it when posting on a forum feels like talking on a phone and you have to answer right away? xP "Well, I'll let you go. I need to go do something or another." Sorry if you feel like I've got you caught or something, I need to go to sleep myself. Today was election day but I has the school tomorrow.

Snap, you have school already? Anyway, I watched that video. He brings up a lot of good points, I have to say. The only problem is a society without morals is impossible. If we could abandon our morals and live with kindness, altruism, and acceptance like he outlines, well, you need everyone to live that way unless you want this world to be a complete failure. In order to have this, you need people to keep those in line who want to make others suffer, and BAM! Instant morality. You may have a different moral code, sure, a looser moral code, maybe, but you can never free yourself of morals unless you are willing to also free yourselves of decency and kindness.

Sorry to butt into a conversation that has little to do with me, but this post of yours actually sums up my basic views of theism in general. That's something I have never found anywhere in under 5 pages of ranting.

In my opinion, arguing about religion is more or less pointless. Most internet people who are theists are firmly rooted in their beliefs and will not stand for any other viewpoint, though some are willing to compromise if provided with sufficient evidence and reasoning. And then there are the few who are willing to completely and calmly listen to and think about the words of others, who I find the most respectable (Pwnemon happens to be in this category of my favorite theists). Many internet atheists will likewise refuse to accept any religious argument, though admittedly they have a far better argument against theism than theists do against them.

I am an atheist, though I guess I'm in the "religious closet." My family really couldn't care less about religion. I find that there are generally no cases where an argument for a religion can even compare to an atheist argument, let alone beat it.

Now, if you read ANY of this post, then read this:
Who are we to say that the Bible isn't just someone's bright idea, akin to the Harry Potter of ancient times? We do not know everything about the early history of Christianity as we sometimes imply.

One thing we can do is compare the Bible to secular records and see if they match up. And while this can't obviously provide evidence for everything, we can check and see if it can even hold any salt. For one, there are records of a tax on the people of Rome a little over 2000 years ago.

Something else I'd like to point out is the "seven deadly sins." All seven (perhaps not extravagance/luxury, but purchase of items is mostly a human invention) of these "deadly" actions or emotions are felt by nearly ever animal species on earth with more brains than a gnat. All "deadly" sins are instinctual.

The seven deadly sins are nowhere in the Bible. That was something made by the Anglican? (I think it was Anglican, I can't remember which) church. However, you could probably find other things that you would call "instinctive human nature," and I will attempt to explain that. Of course sin would be instinctive human nature, as sin is part of our birth through Adam. When you're born, you have the instinct to sin. That's why God had to send Jesus to be our salvation.

I am done ranting for now.

... And yes, I do realize that my writing is fragmented and mixed up. Yes, some sentences belong in other places. But hey, it's 1:00 AM where I am, I'm tired. Plus that's how I've always written aything.

EDIT: Darn. Triple Ninja.
 
Last edited:
Re: The to-be short lived theism thread

Note to above: the so-called "Seven Deadly Sins" were made by the RC church.
And it's hard to say that in the beginning moment that Adam sinned. He didn't know right from wrong, so it was impossible to sin (there was no moral code at that time, the 'tree of life' (which may or may not be symbolic) gave him the power to make a choice, the discernment of sin, and free will).
I agree with most of the counters of Pwnemon. Except I couldn't watch the video because my computer's stupid.
 
Re: The to-be short lived theism thread

One thing we can do is compare the Bible to secular records and see if they match up. And while this can't obviously provide evidence for everything, we can check and see if it can even hold any salt. For one, there are records of a tax on the people of Rome a little over 2000 years ago.

I believe the point was aimed towards things like resurrection. Resurrection is clearly impossible; yet in the Bible it happens multiple times. Something is off!
 
Re: The to-be short lived theism thread

I'm still curious as to how new species of animals and plants have been discovered since "the great flood" if Noah got two of every animal on his ark and the rest of the world was wiped out.
 
Re: The to-be short lived theism thread

If we could abandon our morals and live with kindness, altruism, and acceptance like he outlines

Kindness, altruism and acceptance are morals, or part of morality at least. I skimmed some of the posts in this thread, so I might have things wrong, but I'm a bit confused as to how you would define morals.

Morals aren't what someone else (here the Christian god, according to the Bible) tells you to do to avoid something else, that's an order, or a threat.
 
Re: The to-be short lived theism thread

I believe the point was aimed towards things like resurrection. Resurrection is clearly impossible; yet in the Bible it happens multiple times. Something is off!
It happens because he is a God, who can do whatever the heck he wants if it has a strong purpose. Sorry for the hand-wave, but that's the way I view it.
I'm still curious as to how new species of animals and plants have been discovered since "the great flood" if Noah got two of every animal on his ark and the rest of the world was wiped out.
Aquatic animals, and other animals that can live in the water (or are in sort of air-bubbled areas) wouldn't need to be taken into the ark.
Genesis 6:20 said:
Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive
. Notice that it does not talk about aquatic life-forms.

Kindness, altruism and acceptance are morals, or part of morality at least. I skimmed some of the posts in this thread, so I might have things wrong, but I'm a bit confused as to how you would define morals.

Morals aren't what someone else (here the Christian god, according to the Bible) tells you to do to avoid something else, that's an order, or a threat.
Morals are being defined (I think) by set rules, not 'be kind to everyone, accept everyone, and help others out in times of need'. A set moral list would cause this to happen.

Woah, Multiquote feature is awesome.

Edit: skipped over opal's discussion:
opaltiger said:
What, exactly, about religion makes it a moral compass? Religion has been the cause of more suffering than any other single factor in the history of the world. Christianity said, once, that it was okay to torture to death people who weren't Christian. And you call that moral? I don't care if it's different now; the Bible still condones the subjugation of women. If you see religion as a source of morality, I don't want to know you.
Sure, I guess that religion does cause a bit of suffering. But that's only because of how stupid some people are. Where in the bible does it say to kill non-Christians? And on your second point: It's not really the subjugation of women that is being addressed, it's the differences in the way they think and act. Women and men do not think the same way.
 
Last edited:
Re: The to-be short lived theism thread

Kindness, altruism and acceptance are morals, or part of morality at least. I skimmed some of the posts in this thread, so I might have things wrong, but I'm a bit confused as to how you would define morals.

Morals aren't what someone else (here the Christian god, according to the Bible) tells you to do to avoid something else, that's an order, or a threat.

If you watch the video Alruanne linked, to which I was responding, you would find the definition of morals, etc.

I believe the point was aimed towards things like resurrection. Resurrection is clearly impossible; yet in the Bible it happens multiple times. Something is off!

Whaddaya mean resurrection is impossible? People have been dead for like two hours and brought back! Anyway, with God all things are possible.

I'm still curious as to how new species of animals and plants have been discovered since "the great flood" if Noah got two of every animal on his ark and the rest of the world was wiped out.

Obviously, those new animals adapted to their environment and evolved. I don't see why people think a belief in Christianity means absolutely all science has to be disregarded.
 
Re: The to-be short lived theism thread

It happens because he is a God, who can do whatever the heck he wants if it has a strong purpose. Sorry for the hand-wave, but that's the way I view it.

So, uh, where is your god now?

Aquatic animals, and other animals that can live in the water (or are in sort of air-bubbled areas) wouldn't need to be taken into the ark.
. Notice that it does not talk about aquatic life-forms.

Okay! Explain land animals/plants.
 
Re: The to-be short lived theism thread

It happens because he is a God, who can do whatever the heck he wants if it has a strong purpose. Sorry for the hand-wave, but that's the way I view it.

Hmm, and I'd nearly forgotten why I hate these threads.

Aquatic animals, and other animals that can live in the water (or are in sort of air-bubbled areas) wouldn't need to be taken into the ark.
. Notice that it does not talk about aquatic life-forms.

Nice dodge. So, how do you explain all the newly discovered species that AREN'T aquatic?

Morals are being defined (I think) by set rules, not 'be kind to everyone, accept everyone, and help others out in times of need'. A set moral list would cause this to happen.

What? Morals need not be defined by rules. I would argue that they cannot be.

edit:

Obviously, those new animals adapted to their environment and evolved. I don't see why people think a belief in Christianity means absolutely all science has to be disregarded.

Evolution is not that quick. There is no way it could explain all the new species discovered since the Bible was written; the Great Flood, after all, apparently occurred only a few thousand years ago. Speaking of, where did all the water for the flood come from?

Whaddaya mean resurrection is impossible? People have been dead for like two hours and brought back! Anyway, with God all things are possible.

Don't be deliberately obtuse. You know full well I meant resurrection after several days, as portrayed in the Bible.

I hate to bring this up, but how do you explain the omnipotence paradox? Or the omnipotence/omniscience paradox?
 
Re: The to-be short lived theism thread

I love how my replies go forgotten. )':
 
Re: The to-be short lived theism thread

Okay, I have a better idea.

Why do you believe in god? I'd like you to set aside all prejudice - ignore your upbringing, ignore what you've been told and have believed all your life - and tell me: why do you believe in god? What aspect of this world requires the existence of god?

edit: see the edit to my previous post, Pwnemon.
 
Re: The to-be short lived theism thread

I love how my replies go forgotten. )':

I feel your pain.

vixie said:
Sex not gender
Okay? I would ask for the difference, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't matter.
A man still can't asex into a woman. He can't asex anyway, but still.

Tries to prove bible's mediocre aspects. When asked to prove the miracles, you say that it has to be true because the bible is true.
It's circular logic.
 
Re: The to-be short lived theism thread

Why not believe in god? The image of God brings us hope, something to believe in.

And can you tell me specific examples when you say 'new species that have been discovered'? Noah just didn't feel the necessity to tell all of his decendents about every single animal he brought into the ark.
 
Back
Top Bottom