Official Religious Debate Thread

[Smegma]

Reason 1. Religion: You believe in an afterlife, or heaven, where life will not be misery. Life will be peace, tranquility. Happiness. You even get to see deceased loved ones. It's... heaven. BUT you can only get in if you're good in life, meaning, don't kill someone, don't steal, hurt, or cheat. If you do, you get sent to hell, where the devil pokes you with a pitchfork for all eternity. And you can't take the easy route and blow your brains out, 'cause that's against the rules. You've gotta tough it out like everyone else. So, you get up in the morning, and live your life, believing when you die, if you were good, you go to heaven. When life get's especially difficult, you pray to God, and ask for his support as you get through it. You have no one else to turn to, and need some sort of comfort.

Then why don't certain sects have these qualities in their dogma?

[VijchtiDoodah]

I don't need religion, I wake up today because I was hungry.

That's the only reason I ever wake up. The bottomless pit beckons...

[ValiS]

So basically, I may be a bad person really, but when i follow the rules and be "good" and pray etc, I get to heaven. When in heaven, am I then cured of my bad nature, because how else would I be able to enjoy my stay in heaven and get along with other people there? Or am I allowed to go around doing bad shit because thats the way I really am and I have earned my pass to heaven?
I would be thinking: fu god, why did you create me to be such a person, and now you put me here like a kid in a candystore, i want to punch someones face in, but im in heaven, what will happen if I do that? But if god cures that person of his bad nature, then why are some people born nice and some really bad? Where´s the justice in that? Why do some people have to work that much harder to get to heaven?

On the other hand, when I am a nice person but dont believe in god (which I think I am or try to be) or live somewhere where there is no notion of god, then i go to hell? Just because I didnt live "the right way", but lived a great and warm life (for those around me too) nonetheless.

I said i try to be a good person and nice to others. I dont do it because otherwise i get spanked in heaven or hell eventually, but because it feels good. It feels fucking good to help your friend or family with something they need help with or just being considerate of their needs and feelings. Is that really that bad and deserves hell, just because at the same time I happen to think god is a business project mostly, and see no reason to believe in it (how can I believe in something that I dont believe in really.. I dont see why would it be good to FORCE yourself to believe, thus living a life of denial of your true nature, even if there is a god, would he not like a natural me more than a deceitful but a religious one).

I have had a thought that when you do good to others because it feels good to yourself, then strictly and logically thinking, its selfishness.. but hey whatever, at least I know what I am doing and take responsibility, not say that god let it happen or god did this or that and that theres nothing we can do about it.

edit:
Talking about being good, I expect others to respect me as well, and if they dont I say to them FU, not turn the other cheek. People need to be notified if they act like shit, so they get a chance to think about it and maybe improve their behaviour. But "turn the other cheek" and let an asshole be an asshole... yeah, thats very mature.

Sorry if I sound offending to someone, not meant. Just debating.

[{LAW} Gamer_2k4]

There's some things I'd like to say, but I don't have time for them right now, unfortunately.  Rather, I'll leave you with this:
http://www.lib.ru/LEWISCL/mere_engl.txt

I know that a lot of you will balk at the "Mere Christianity" title.  "He's trying to convert me!" Yeah, whatever.  All I ask is that you scroll down to the table of contents and take a look at the first two books listed there.  It's (in my opinion) a very reasonable defense of an absolute morality, as well as a monotheistic God that rules according to that morality.  If nothing else, it's interesting food for thought.  Can't hurt to take a look, right?

[MadDog]

@ Thinkto:

Okay, why is everyone so concrete here? Honestly, 100% concrete. This should be concreteteensforum.com. I don't literally mean why do you get up in the morning. I mean, why do you want to exist. I know it isn't me. I know it isn't me. People I interact with in real life aren't this concrete.

I'm gonna just hope that was a joke...

[Mangled*]

People need to face the facts and believe in what is plainly true.

Everyone can believe what they want to believe but they need a valid reason for believing it. Something beyond that it was what they were told to believe, or that it's a belief that simply eases their mind when they think of mortality or makes them feel better.

If there is no evidence then doubt it. Lack of evidence suggests nothing.

[Smegma]

The strength of evidence varies from person to person.

[Farah]

People need to face the facts and believe in what is plainly true.

Everyone can believe what they want to believe but they need a valid reason for believing it. Something beyond that it was what they were told to believe, or that it's a belief that simply eases their mind when they think of mortality or makes them feel better.

If there is no evidence then doubt it. Lack of evidence suggests nothing.

this is why we use philosophical reasoning for these sort of things. honestly, if you want to be a person based on PURE REASONING it'd be more acceptable to be an agnostic because the denial of what religious people identify to be "god" is a leap of faith in itself because you cannot conclusively falsify its existence.

[Mangled*]

this is why we use philosophical reasoning for these sort of things. honestly, if you want to be a person based on PURE REASONING it'd be more acceptable to be an agnostic because the denial of what religious people identify to be "god" is a leap of faith in itself because you cannot conclusively falsify its existence.

By the same standards I would have to treat ghosts, vampires, fairys, unicorns and dragons like that too as nobody can falsify their existence either. They are a product of human imagination.

God has all the attributes of something that does not exist and should be treated accordingly.

[Smegma]

God has all the attributes of something that does not exist and should be treated accordingly.

Its nice that something that doesn't exist can have attributes.

[excruciator]

God has all the attributes of something that does not exist and should be treated accordingly.

Its nice that something that doesn't exist can have attributes.

I think what he's trying to say is that God has a lot in common with nothingness, at least when comes to describe it.

I think you know that already. You just had to poke fun at him.

[Smegma]

God has all the attributes of something that does not exist and should be treated accordingly.

Its nice that something that doesn't exist can have attributes.

I think what he's trying to say is that God has a lot in common with nothingness, at least when comes to describe it.

I think you know that already. You just had to poke fun at him.

Actually, the Gods you attack have hardly anything in common with nothingness.

[excruciator]

Actually, the Gods you attack have hardly anything in common with nothingness.

Keyword here is hardly.

Not being able to physically grasp, see, sense or directly interfere or change anything. That's what this God has in common with nothingness.

If you consider the above to be nothing, then God does have hardly anything in common with nothingness.

[Smegma]

Unfortunately, you've had a specific assumption that cannot be wrapped up in a keyword. While some could argue you COULD sense/see "God", the others all depend on your metaphysical ideology.

Certainly, one could easily argue God's direct impact and change, and possible if we accept the former assumptions above, a physical grasp may be inherent to sensing God.

[excruciator]

While some could argue you COULD sense/see "God", the others all depend on your metaphysical ideology.

Something that truly exists(at least matters) will not care whether the observer believes it or not.

There is a word for it..

something evidence. Tell me if it rings any bells.

Certainly, one could easily argue God's direct impact and change, and possible if we accept the former assumptions above, a physical grasp may be inherent to sensing God.

Samething, the evidence in question is not rock solid.

[Smegma]

Indeed, but in this sense the counter evidence is neither as rock solid, and at least in some cases we are dealing with a priori knowledge.

Something that truly exists(at least matters) will not care whether the observer believes it or not.

And yet, you've yet to define anything that truly exists without the aid of a belief.

[excruciator]

And yet, you've yet to define anything that truly exists without the aid of a belief.

Obviously belief is necessary in acknowledging anything.

However the evidence is indirect if you have to believe in the matter itself for it to be called evidence.


I have no idea what do you mean by that first point you wrote.Much like most stuff you write.

[Smegma]

Obviously belief is necessary in acknowledging anything.

I dont think this is obvious at all.

However the evidence is indirect if you have to believe in the matter itself for it to be called evidence.

Then all evidence is indirect with reference to your first statement.

[excruciator]

Then all evidence is indirect with reference to your first statement.

You are confusing me.

So..let me guess.. you are saying that I don't believe in God, therefore my statement about God cannot be grasp is indirect evidence? Because of my belief?
What If I said I was agnostic?

Or, what I said my statement is based on material evidence, not belief?

[Smegma]

You say all acknowledgments require a belief
and
All evidence which require a belief are indirect.

So all evidence is indirect evidence.