Why religious people should renounce their faith

[Pixelated Porn]

It means that what Tacitus claims is well withing the productive capacity of nature, or the powers of nature as we know them. It isn't a violation of the laws of nature, as it was said in the old days. Which means that a priori the natural event or explanation is more probable than the supernatural or miraculous event or explanation.



Of course it doesn't make them true. All I meant was that it is more probable than the supernatural.

So you are fucking agreeing with exactly what I said. You believe things only if they have a naturalistic explanation. This is a philosophy...or a religion with scientists as God.


Your thread is about why we should give up our religion and it is an abortion at this point.

YOU GIVE ME ONE-----JUST ONE---REASON for us to give up our religion. Just one for me to beat the shit out of. This is a fair request is it not since you made this thread???

I will even give you my reason for someone to give up their religion: IF IT IS NOT TRUE AND COMPLETE
This is the only reason.

But lets hear your most potent reason, duder.

 

[Lodbrok]

@Lead am bored bud

 

[Voodoo_Child906]

Do they?

Yes

Do they prove space is eternal?

Their models require it to be

And what space exactly?

The fabric which allows things to exist

Not the space in our universe as we know our universe came from the big bang and expanded out.

Are you talking about the 3D space we humans experience? Also with Quantum Mechanics, Physicists are now starting to see what happened before the big bang.

Also, M-theory needs is it 11 dimensions plus a plasma dimension?

I'm not sure about the plasma dimension, I've never read about that.

Have we proved there is a 5th dimension yet????

Proved? Mathematically it's required in their theories.

 

[Deleted member 159002]

Or you could have typed out god. We understand that god is defined traditionally, among other things, as the self existent ground of reality. And nature just denies that there is such being. You could have defined it once and that it is it.

But this is irrelevant to the topic being discussed which is the rational position to take given some undercutting defeater.

Wow, you're whiny.

 

[lilelvis]

If you believe in a religion because you were born into it, because you accept the testimony of the those who claim to have witnessed the miracles for said religion, because it makes sense to you, because you feel something in your heart that assures you of the truth of your religion, etc, then, if there are reasons that undercut the evidence on which you base your belief, you should thus renounce your faith and become agnostic.

The reasons are these: given the diversity of religions in the world today, the fact that the majority of people are born into their religion; their claims that they have miracles witnessed by people of such and such character which validates them; that it makes sense to their followers, who experience something spiritual which assures them of their religion, and so on, then it follows that all of them cannot be true. These religions, at least the major ones, are exclusivist. Either all are false, or only one is true and the rest false.

Since all the believers of this kind base their belief on the same or similar grounds and the fact that their beliefs are mutually inconsistent, then it follows that there is no reason for them to rationally accept their religion as true. All these religions claim to have the truth on their side on the same or similar grounds; on these grounds alone we cannot determine the truth of any of these religions. This is like 20 witnesses in a courtroom each of whom was denounced as a liar by the other 19; so who do we trust?

Furthermore, each of these religions has the same a priori intrinsic probability, neither has an a priori advantage over the other and the reasons mentioned as ground for the belief do not increase the intrinsic probability of any of these religion. Therefore the only rational position in this case is one of agnosticism.

Until you have other reasons apart from the ones mentioned above you should remain agnostic and suspend judgement, that is until you acquire evidence to make up your mind rationally for the position the evidence point to.

I'm already Agnostic, but you should mind your own fucking business.

 

[Voodoo_Child906]

I'm already Agnostic, but you should mind your own fucking business.

You understand how the War Room works don't you? Maybe you'd be more comfortable in Mayberry.

 

[Pixelated Porn]

Yes



Their models require it to be



The fabric which allows things to exist



Are you talking about the 3D space we humans experience? Also with Quantum Mechanics, Physicists are now starting to see what happened before the big bang.



I'm not sure about the plasma dimension, I've never read about that.



Proved? Mathematically it's required in their theories.

"Proved? Mathematically it's required in their theories."
- so no it has not been proved got it

"Physicists are now starting to see what happened before the big bang."
- and what might that be? pretty sure according to science we can only see what happened after the big bang and not before it
- PS see and GUESS are very different things. I doubt they are "seeing" as in "observing" anything before the big bang

"Their models require it to be"
- but their models are not known to be true, maybe to not be proven false, but not proven true


"The fabric which allows things to exist"
- all of the space/time in our universe, where was it before the big bang???


I read a lot of science shit from hawking to kiku and etc and a lot on M-theory a few years ago. I am thinking you are placing way to many things in your argument that are not true. I guess this is your spaghetti monster.

 

[Based and White Pilled]

Nobody cares about your opinion, TS. Your post will cause a grand total of zero people to give up their faith.

 

[lilelvis]

You understand how the War Room works don't you? Maybe you'd be more comfortable in Mayberry.

Like, like, literally, cuck, commie, basically, like nazi, fascist.... CUCK!

Whew! that feels better....

 

[Voodoo_Child906]

"Proved? Mathematically it's required in their theories."
- so no it has not been proved got it

True, they have a model without confirmation. Still more than what they have for god though

"Physicists are now starting to see what happened before the big bang."
- and what might that be? pretty sure according to science we can only see what happened after the big bang and not before it
- PS see and GUESS are very different things. I doubt they are "seeing" as in "observing" anything before the big bang

Big Bang Cosmology was born out of General Relativity which was severely lacking when it came to analysis at the subatomic level as all their equations produced infinities. Now that Cosmologists are utilizing the equations from Quantum Mechanics they are starting to see that there was something before the Big Bang.

"Their models require it to be"
- but their models are not known to be true, maybe to not be proven false, but not proven true

Agreed, still more confirmation than god though.

"The fabric which allows things to exist"
- all of the space/time in our universe, where was it before the big bang???

Still there, in a different form

I read a lot of science shit from hawking to kiku and etc and a lot on M-theory a few years ago. I am thinking you are placing way to many things in your argument that are not true. I guess this is your spaghetti monster.

No, I've never said anything is confirmed, we have unconfirmed mathematical models that provide a theory of everything. More than what we have for god.

 

[Denter]

Their fundamental creeds being true. If it is true that there is a god, that it is allah, that he created all and sent mohammed, etc, then it follows that Islam is true. If there is a god, that it is 3 in 1, that it sent its son, jesus, to die for us and was resurrected, etc., then christianity is true. And so on.

You mean the literal physical truth of each point of dogma then. ok

 

[peytonlucy]

I can't calculate high order Nobel Prize level astrophysics equations. My understanding is that Einstein employed a mathematician, at times, because he couldn't either. But I was born into it.

I was an atheist for about half of my life. I moved away from it.

 

[dontsnitch]

"From Mythology" you don't see how others view your god as mythology as well? What about multiple revelations, what would it take for a belief in Zeus to be justified?

The fact that there is more evidence for Christ than Zeus is part of the equation in forming beliefs, even when revelations are involved. If you can show me good evidence that Zeus existed, spoke about salvation and morality, and I strongly felt that he was involved in my life through revelations, I would be open to the idea.

 

[dontsnitch]

Actually, I didn't make that claim, pixelatedporn made it. I merely quoted it. He was talking about good and bad and I explained I was talking about true and false propositions. There is a distinction here, refered to as de re and de dicto. I didn't mean that god isn't about good and bad, I meant that the proposition at hand, there is not about good and bad but rather about truth or falsity.

That's why I think there is semantics involved, because one can argue that democracy is a better proposition than communism. This is a truth claim. There are better examples, but the theory stands. Just because you are more likely to accept democracy (or whatever) if you are born in the West in the current era doesn't reflect the truth of the proposition.

Your understanding is commendable and your honesty and integrity exemplary. I think of you much more than anyone here so far for a reason. I agree, it doesn't refute the existence of god. And this wasn't my intention. My intention was to show that given undercutting defeaters one should revise his beliefs. And I think that what I put forth is such undercutting defeater.

Yeah, there is a lot of truth to your general objection, but it applies more to those who have not truly examined his beliefs. Also, thanks for the kind words, you've been a gentleman with me every time we've spoken.

Then you would have to lay out what democracy and Christ have in common such that if one is correct then the other is correct too.

I'm not saying one hinges on the other, only that I am justified in believing in both despite the fact that I'm more likely to believe in these given when and where I was born.

Neither is more probable than the other a priori. We need a posteriori considerations to tilt the balance one way. And I think the evidence tilts it in favour of naturalism.



Catch you later bro.

It makes sense for you to believe this, since you are an atheist. If you didn't, you would be a theist. I think the evidence depends on the observer. I'll add that I do believe there are atheists and theists who may not be justified in their beliefs, and these include those who believe whatever is popular and dictated by society.

 

[mrbaapt]

God is not a person or persons, the entire point of using the idea of God in the embodiment of a person is to try and rationalize what God is. That doesn't mean God is anything like people, God simply is.

The god you postulated can't be questioned or tested.

 

[bufetadanacara]

I've never understood what it means to renounce ones faith. Just stop believing? How would that work?

 

[Tycho- Taylor's Version]

I've never understood what it means to renounce ones faith. Just stop believing? How would that work?

The renunciation is often the culmination of a long period of doubt and experimenting with the idea of living without belief.

It's not really that hard to imagine, just compare it to any issues of importance you've changed your own mind about.

 

[Voodoo_Child906]

The fact that there is more evidence for Christ than Zeus is part of the equation in forming beliefs, even when revelations are involved. If you can show me good evidence that Zeus existed, spoke about salvation and morality, and I strongly felt that he was involved in my life through revelations, I would be open to the idea.

Zeus is an immaterial god, what evidence would you need? He had many followers that venerated him and many temples and statues built for him. He also had a historical figure, Alexander of Macedon that he birthed through immaculate conception. Not sure what morality and salvation have to do with revelation as it's defined:

In religion and theology, revelation is the revealing or disclosing of some form of truth or knowledge through communication with a deity or other supernatural entity or entities.

So if a person had a revelation from Zeus they would be equally as justified as you to believe it.

 

[dontsnitch]

Zeus is an immaterial god, what evidence would you need? He had many followers that venerated him and many temples and statues built for him. He also had a historical figure, Alexander of Macedon that he birthed through immaculate conception. Not sure what morality and salvation have to do with revelation as it's defined:

In religion and theology, revelation is the revealing or disclosing of some form of truth or knowledge through communication with a deity or other supernatural entity or entities.

So if a person had a revelation from Zeus they would be equally as justified as you to believe it.

That seems like a strange conclusion because there is less evidence for Zeus, which means there is less justification to believe. It's why Scientology is more dubious than Christianity.

Though I agree that personal revelation is acceptable evidence, but obviously this varies from revelation to revelation.

 

[Voodoo_Child906]

That seems like a strange conclusion because there is less evidence for Zeus, which means there is less justification to believe. It's why Scientology is more dubious than Christianity.

Though I agree that personal revelation is acceptable evidence, but obviously this varies from revelation to revelation.

Comparing Zeus to Jesus would be incorrect, Zeus would be similar to God the Father. Alexander the Great who called himself the son of Zeus and birthed through an immaculate conception would be equivalent to Jesus. Alexander had much more physical evidence like coins, epigraphy and dynasties (Ptolemaic in Egypt) than did Jesus. So let's make it a personal revelation from Zeus through Alexander then, would a person be justified in believing it to be true?