Post Any Evidence For God Here

[crispybits]

They threaten my eternal soul every time they preach. If they are wrong then they are deluded. If they are right then they are threatening me. Either way it doesn't convince me to join them.

[Neoteny]

Christians threaten harm to homosexuals and pregnant women all the damn time.

[Metsfanmax]

They threaten my eternal soul every time they preach. If they are wrong then they are deluded. If they are right then they are threatening me. Either way it doesn't convince me to join them.

So they are evil because they are trying to save you from going to hell?

[crispybits]

No, read my posts again, I never said religious people are evil.

Religion is evil. Religious people are brainwashing victims.

[Metsfanmax]

No, read my posts again, I never said religious people are evil.

Religion is evil. Religious people are brainwashing victims.

How can "religion" be "evil?" What does it mean for a non-sentient idea to be "evil?" How is that even a meaningful thing to say?

[crispybits]

Murdering defenceless and innocent people is fun and everyone should do it.

That's an idea - is that good or evil?

Are you picking up theist tricks by the way? You've managed to completely avoid actually answering my questions yet you seem to be firing off a barrage of them yourself.

Just to remind you:

If you can't do that about a football team without being immoral, why can you do it about God? What is it about reading from the Bible that makes it demonstrably and qualatively different from reading from a sports results almanack? In fact the sports results almanack is likely to have a hell of a lot more literal and verifiable truth in it.

[puppydog85]

Christians threaten harm to homosexuals and pregnant women all the damn time.

???

Lovely statement that. I can understand the first part (homosexuals) but where on earth did you dig up the 2nd? Or is your idea of harm not the normal one?

[Neoteny]

Similar theme. Restricting abortion access and even just routine medical procedures through legislation, intimidation, shame... you know, the standard Christian methods. Happens every day at many clinics.

[Metsfanmax]

Murdering defenceless and innocent people is fun and everyone should do it.

That's an idea - is that good or evil?

It is neither. People can be evil; actions can be evil; ideas cannot be. An idea cannot be prescribed a sense of morality. It is just a meaningless thing to say. Maybe a better way to point this out is: what exactly do you mean when you say that religion is evil? What statement are you trying to express? Are you trying to say something about religious people? Then say it. Because people are the only things that give ideas meaning. They are meaningless without people to believe in them.

Similar theme. Restricting abortion access and even just routine medical procedures through legislation, intimidation, shame... you know, the standard Christian methods. Happens every day at many clinics.

Indeed. Ardent anti-abortion folk actually have committed violence in the name of their beliefs, like bombing abortion clinics. Also, who could forget about this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassinat ... rge_Tiller

I was mainly asking if crispybits has suffered personal harm from a Christian, which I think would make the animosity more understandable to me.

[puppydog85]

I see what you are saying there. Christians would just not call it "harm". Just as you would call killing a child "not harm".
Two points different points of view.

[crispybits]

I don't hold any animosity towards the people (forgive them father, for they know not what they do). I despise the idea. I despise the message.

So you say murder of defenceless and innocent people isn't evil unless it's actually committed? That the concept itself cannot be evil, it only becomes evil when someone actually gets killed?

Still avoiding my questions too I see....

[Neoteny]

Murdering defenceless and innocent people is fun and everyone should do it.

That's an idea - is that good or evil?

It is neither. People can be evil; actions can be evil; ideas cannot be. An idea cannot be prescribed a sense of morality. It is just a meaningless thing to say. Maybe a better way to point this out is: what exactly do you mean when you say that religion is evil? What statement are you trying to express? Are you trying to say something about religious people? Then say it. Because people are the only things that give ideas meaning. They are meaningless without people to believe in them.

Similar theme. Restricting abortion access and even just routine medical procedures through legislation, intimidation, shame... you know, the standard Christian methods. Happens every day at many clinics.

Indeed. Ardent anti-abortion folk actually have committed violence in the name of their beliefs, like bombing abortion clinics. Also, who could forget about this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassinat ... rge_Tiller

I was mainly asking if crispybits has suffered personal harm from a Christian, which I think would make the animosity more understandable to me.

Fortunately, I can't say I've suffered much personal harm. But I still get pretty up in arms when I think about harm to others. I don't see how that might be more or less understandable.

I see what you are saying there. Christians would just not call it "harm". Just as you would call killing a child "not harm".
Two points different points of view.

It is a matter of perspective. Some of us are just above the intimidation.

[Metsfanmax]

I don't hold any animosity towards the people (forgive them father, for they know not what they do). I despise the idea. I despise the message.

So if all Christian people cannot be blamed for what they do, is it ok for them to commit murder? Why not, we can just arrest religion and put in jail right? Your "brainwashing" argument is absurd because it completely abdicates people from responsibility for their own actions. If we cannot view people as autonomous agents, there is no reason to treat them as moral persons.

So you say murder of defenceless and innocent people isn't evil unless it's actually committed?

How can something that never happens, be evil? Evil is a judgment about the morality of an action, and only actions can be moral. It is literally meaningless to ascribe morality to an idea, in the sense that the words don't form a logically complete idea.

Fortunately, I can't say I've suffered much personal harm. But I still get pretty up in arms when I think about harm to others. I don't see how that might be more or less understandable.

Because the people who do harm to others are the type of people who will do harm anyway. The fact that it is in the name of religion in particular is not relevant. It is generally a bad idea to commit violence against people (except in very extreme circumstances) regardless of your reason for doing so. If you want to be upset about "harm to others," so be it; but don't cherry pick harm based on the motivation. Violence is violence.

[crispybits]

I'll respond to that when you actually answer my questions instead of consistently avoiding them

[Metsfanmax]

I'll respond to that when you actually answer my questions instead of consistently avoiding them

This is an answer to your question. The whole premise of your sports analogy is that the idea is inherently evil, and so spreading it is a bad thing. I'm challenging the assumption behind the analogy, not the analogy itself, which is valid.

[crispybits]

OK then

So if all Christian people cannot be blamed for what they do, is it ok for them to commit murder? Why not, we can just arrest religion and put in jail right? Your "brainwashing" argument is absurd because it completely abdicates people from responsibility for their own actions. If we cannot view people as autonomous agents, there is no reason to treat them as moral persons.

No, the whole point is that it's NOT OK for them to do it. But they genuinely believe they are doing good, and so I can empathise and forgive them for it. Just like if my housemate floods the flat and damages some of my stuff, if they say "Haha I did that deliberately in order to damage your stuff" then I would blame them for destroyying the stuff, but if they said "the flat downstairs was on fire so I had to flood this place to try and save all our stuff", and the flat downstairs had never been on fire, but I can see that they honestly and understandably believed it was, I would empathise and forgive them (I might still be annoyed at the result, but I wouldn't blame them for it)

That's not removing accountability, it's called being a reasonable human being and taking into account all of the factors that led to the consequences.

How can something that never happens, be evil? Evil is a judgment about the morality of an action, and only actions can be moral. It is literally meaningless to ascribe morality to an idea, in the sense that the words don't form a logically complete idea.

How can people be put in jail for "conspiracy to murder" if nobody ever gets killed? Would you prefer if I said "morally wrong"? An idea can give people a false sense of entitlement to perpetrate evil. If I raise a baby from birth, separated from the rest of the world, and teach it that "all chinese people are food", and then lock it in a room with an unconcious chinese person, is the (now adult) baby evil for eating them? Maybe in that example you could say that I am evil for teaching it, but then in the religious case I was taught the same thing by whoever raised me, and them by their parents, etc etc etc. The person who started the idea is long dead and gone. So what do we do? Say "nothing evil exists here" or do we say that the idea we have been brought up with is itself evil?

Maybe evil is semantically the wrong word. There must be a word to describe it. So in the absence of knowledge I'll invent a new word. Lom. Defined as "an idea which has evil consequences if enacted". Religion is Lom. Happy now?

[Metsfanmax]

No, the whole point is that it's NOT OK for them to do it. But they genuinely believe they are doing good, and so I can empathise and forgive them for it. Just like if my housemate floods the flat and damages some of my stuff, if they say "Haha I did that deliberately in order to damage your stuff" then I would blame them for destroyying the stuff, but if they said "the flat downstairs was on fire so I had to flood this place to try and save all our stuff", and the flat downstairs had never been on fire, but I can see that they honestly and understandably believed it was, I would empathise and forgive them (I might still be annoyed at the result, but I wouldn't blame them for it)

This whole argument is predicated on the assumption that religious people do net harm to society. What is the harm that they collectively perpetrate? It's circular reasoning to say that just the fact that they try to convert people is harmful; that's only true if you can show that it's objectively bad to be a Christian. That's all I'm really asking you to show. What is it that Christians really do that make it, on balance, worse to be a Christian?* You haven't really given any concrete examples, you've just made vague insinuations that religion is evil. Only Neoteny really made any argument that describes something evil that some religious people do today; but as I pointed out, violence against innocent people is generally to be regarded as bad independent of the motive. You need to show that Christianity itself calls people to commit violence against others as a core tenet of its religion in order to make this point. I just don't think that's the case. Most of the official church doctrines deal with stuff like loving your neighbor and giving charity to the poor. I think it's fine to believe that the Christian theology is senseless; I don't see the basis for the belief that the Christian ethics is evil.

(*Note: I think that people who deny the teachings of science are bad for society, but that just has to do with being ignorant.)

[MeDeFe]

No, the whole point is that it's NOT OK for them to do it. But they genuinely believe they are doing good, and so I can empathise and forgive them for it. Just like if my housemate floods the flat and damages some of my stuff, if they say "Haha I did that deliberately in order to damage your stuff" then I would blame them for destroyying the stuff, but if they said "the flat downstairs was on fire so I had to flood this place to try and save all our stuff", and the flat downstairs had never been on fire, but I can see that they honestly and understandably believed it was, I would empathise and forgive them (I might still be annoyed at the result, but I wouldn't blame them for it)

This whole argument is predicated on the assumption that religious people do net harm to society. What is the harm that they collectively perpetrate? It's circular reasoning to say that just the fact that they try to convert people is harmful; that's only true if you can show that it's objectively bad to be a Christian. That's all I'm really asking you to show. What is it that Christians really do that make it, on balance, worse to be a Christian?

This is only true if you're an adherent of utilitarian consequentialist ethics (and even then there are positions from which you can argue that a particular belief can be bad). From a Kantian or other position of virtue ethics one can demonstrate that adherence to nearly any religion can be a bad thing, even if none of the adherents of said religion ever cause any harm.

I'm just saying that your implied premise is limiting you.

[Metsfanmax]

No, the whole point is that it's NOT OK for them to do it. But they genuinely believe they are doing good, and so I can empathise and forgive them for it. Just like if my housemate floods the flat and damages some of my stuff, if they say "Haha I did that deliberately in order to damage your stuff" then I would blame them for destroyying the stuff, but if they said "the flat downstairs was on fire so I had to flood this place to try and save all our stuff", and the flat downstairs had never been on fire, but I can see that they honestly and understandably believed it was, I would empathise and forgive them (I might still be annoyed at the result, but I wouldn't blame them for it)

This whole argument is predicated on the assumption that religious people do net harm to society. What is the harm that they collectively perpetrate? It's circular reasoning to say that just the fact that they try to convert people is harmful; that's only true if you can show that it's objectively bad to be a Christian. That's all I'm really asking you to show. What is it that Christians really do that make it, on balance, worse to be a Christian?

This is only true if you're an adherent of utilitarian consequentialist ethics (and even then there are positions from which you can argue that a particular belief can be bad). From a Kantian or other position of virtue ethics one can demonstrate that adherence to nearly any religion can be a bad thing, even if none of the adherents of said religion ever cause any harm.

I'm just saying that your implied premise is limiting you.

I am an adherent of consequentialist ethics, and therefore obviously I am going to evaluate things based on that framework. I don't consider that a limitation, because consequentialism is the form of ethics that makes the least number of arbitrary assumptions about the way things should work (and so, if we really believe what crispybits is saying about not making unnecessary assumptions, crispybits should be a consequentialist too).

[MeDeFe]

consequentialism is the form of ethics that makes the least number of arbitrary assumptions about the way things should work

*snicker*

Only until someone starts asking questions about what constitutes a good life. You're very quickly left with unpalatable options that you have to call ethical or moral, or you have to introduce a fair number of arbitrary restrictions to make the theory work out.

[oVo]

This isn't evidence, just another POV though. Falling Plates
with a nice video

[PLAYER57832]

They threaten my eternal soul every time they preach. If they are wrong then they are deluded. If they are right then they are threatening me. Either way it doesn't convince me to join them.

Ah, well, thanks for again proving that you are even more of a closed minded bigot than those you condemn...

[MeDeFe]

They threaten my eternal soul every time they preach. If they are wrong then they are deluded. If they are right then they are threatening me. Either way it doesn't convince me to join them.

Ah, well, thanks for again proving that you are even more of a closed minded bigot than those you condemn...

So what was that about noone finding god except through jesus and the sinners not getting into paradise? I think there are a few passages like that in the bible. I hear the revelation according to John is particularly juicy.

[PLAYER57832]

I don't mind debating, am happy to do it. I am not offended by people who disagree. However, for someone to come out and talk about evidence and proof and then outright condemn a whole realm of ideas simply because he doesn't agree... is showing a serious limitation in thinking. You can claim many things, but to make statements like that and claim high intelligence.. is well, you are mirroring the thing you claim to reject. That is you are taking an idea and utterly rejecting those who disagree, claiming effectively that they lack sense and intelligence, just as many with firm beliefs will do to you.

I simply say you are a complete hypocrite.

I agree with this, but only to a limited extent. crispybits was right to criticize the religious people like Viceroy who claim that they can justify their views in the realm of science and logic, when that is patently absurd (just as I assume the "faith" that crispybits has is not grounded in any sort of logical reasoning).

Nope, no dice. He might have launched into the line of debate due to a particular person, but when it goes into a general attack on all religion... then it is not a specific attack on a specific person, it is a condemnation of anyone who believes or who even respects people who believe.

I absolutely accept science and am among the first to criticize folks claiming that religion provides proof that contradicts science, etc...

However, above you make assumptions that are false. You cannot disprove my ideas, you cannot disprove my beliefs. It is as logical to believe as I do as to believe I am wrong.

Also, logic is not limited to scientifically producable and replicable proof. Logic is based upon a consecutive set of ideas, built upon others. All things are possible until proven false is a core of logic. You forget that.. that while it is true that what is proven is fact, it is also true that what is not disproven might well be true. The converse is always true also.

By their own construction, religious folk believe in something that is on a totally different intellectual plane. When one comes across someone who refuses to engage their beliefs in the framework of science or rationality*, it is absurd to try to use rationality to convince them of the falsehood of their beliefs. So the mistake occurs on both sides; the religious folk err, in assuming that they can use logic to convince non-believers of their position, and the atheist folk, in assuming that because religious folk attempt to use logic to prove their position, that logic can be used to dissuade them of their beliefs.

This is flat out wrong and is exactly why you will be met with disdain by people who actually do believe. Having different ideast than your own is not the judge of whether something is logical. Nor, as I noted above is whether something is absolutely provable or not.

The problem is that at some level, EVERYONE has beliefs. Crispybits has declared essentially that it is his belief that all things are subject to tangible proof. That's fine, except when he pronounces that this belief is logical and others are not. You are making a similar error.

You cannot prove anything about our origins, about what happens to our spiritual selfs after death. Trying to claim that my ideas about such is somehow deficient , not as good as your ideas is just arrogance, not logic or intelligence.

The only position that logic and rationality* supports is that we live a life without externally defined purpose, floating in a cosmic ocean without being told how to live. That may be depressing to some people, who feel the need to have a greater purpose. But it's never been about logic.

Really? Show your proof.

*To be precise, one rational defense of religion is that for some reason it innately makes you more satisfied to believe. But there are lots of natural things that are also often bad, like our inclination to be violent, so it's not really a response in the realm of the rational.

You are simply describing your own beliefs. That is fine, but it doesn't express any greater understanding of the universe or how it works than anything I could provide.

Nor are you addressing anything real about my beliefs.

[PLAYER57832]

They threaten my eternal soul every time they preach. If they are wrong then they are deluded. If they are right then they are threatening me. Either way it doesn't convince me to join them.

Ah, well, thanks for again proving that you are even more of a closed minded bigot than those you condemn...

So what was that about noone finding god except through jesus and the sinners not getting into paradise? I think there are a few passages like that in the bible. I hear the revelation according to John is particularly juicy.

Does it say that no one is capable of having other ideas or that people who disagree are utterly illogical or is it just saying that this is the belief, the religion?

Do I believe Christianity is the one, true religion? Yes. However, I have never said it is anything but belief. Neither does the Bible. In fact, Crhist himself stated that not everyone would believe his words or listen to him.

I am not objecting to crispybits beliefs. I object to the pronouncement that his ideas are logical versus religious brainwash beliefs. The bit about evil is something else, but its too complex for me to want to get into right now.

(the short answer is that humans are imperfect, and therefore are drawn to evil and can use virtually any tool for evil.. or good.)