The Role of Religion in Government

[LuckyKBoxer]

Yes, I often refer to it that way so people can see it for what it is and to stop 'tip toeing' around peoples' beliefs in fear of offending them.


There is no evidence that suggests 'a hereafter' exists or that everything was 'designed'. A 'lack of belief' is the only reasonable conclusion one can come to.

I would like to see a superstitious person like yourself prove there is no god.
you are going on faith just as those of faith are.
you have no proof but your own arrogance.

 

[bushidomartialarts]

Rare that I agree with Lucky, but...

Anybody who's knowledgable about the history of scientific inquiry knows that the basic theme of that history is we now know that everything we though was true 100 years ago was ridiculous.

Further, the relationship most people have with science is indistinguishable from the relationship most people have with religion. We read books written by our priests, who interpret the laws of our world based on....something. We don't do our own testing and inquiry -- with much of modern science, we couldn't if we wanted to. We just accept as writ what we choose to believe.

Granted, science is based on a rigorous system of logic and peer review, but it's better at proving itself wrong than at proving itself right. It was designed that way.

Where I disagree with you Lucky, is your own arrogant assumption that your set of beliefs is somehow superior to that of the athiest. It's certainly no worse, but there's nothing to demonstrate that it's better.

Better for you, perhaps, if it serves you and improves your life. But that's not the same thing.

 

[Carol]

Wait...where did LuckyKBoxer say his set of beliefs are superior? He doesn't even mention what they are, let alone whether his are better than someone else's.

 

[Twin Fist]

anyone that says "there is NOTHING" is just as much of an asshat as the one that claims to know exactly IS there

we dont know, and we cant know

but thats the point, we cant know if there is, and we cant know if there isnt, so the only fair thing to say is "we dont know"

in reality, the agnostic is the best possible viewpoint

 

[fangjian]

I would like to see a superstitious person like yourself prove there is no god.
you are going on faith just as those of faith are.
you have no proof but your own arrogance.

I never claimed there are no gods. What I have is not faith. It's different.

like i said, a lack of vision and or humility

the arrogance of the unbeliever is sad and disturbing

I study the cosmos on a regular basis. It gives me quite a deep sense of humility.

If an anthropologist puts out a claim that 'pegasus' exists, and we question why, is that rude? Should we tiptoe around him as not to offend? This anthropologist says he has no evidence but he just believes anyway. Is it arrogant to call him irrational?

 

[fangjian]

anyone that says "there is NOTHING" is just as much of an asshat as the one that claims to know exactly IS there

we dont know, and we cant know

but thats the point, we cant know if there is, and we cant know if there isnt, so the only fair thing to say is "we dont know"

in reality, the agnostic is the best possible viewpoint

You are exactly correct TF.

We are all agnostic in the sense that we all do not 'know' with reasonable certainty. Just like we don't 'know' 100% if a pegasus exists. But we just have a lack of belief in it. You are an agnostic theist (if you believe in gods but don't claim to 'know'). I am an agnostic atheist ( since I have a lack of belief in gods but of course don't claim to 'know'). The terms are different and refer to two separate things. Hope that helps.
The video below is great, but if you have time check out his entire de conversion from Christianity process. It's really interesting.
[yt]S-BQVmvulmQ[/yt]

 

[bushidomartialarts]

I never claimed there are no gods. What I have is not faith. It's different.

I would respectfully submit that any personal policy on the absence/presence of gods and the afterlife is definitionally a faith. You can't prove things one way or the other. Ultimately, you're making a choice and sticking to it.

 

[fangjian]

I would respectfully submit that any personal policy on the absence/presence of gods and the afterlife is definitionally a faith. You can't prove things one way or the other. Ultimately, you're making a choice and sticking to it.

Poseidon, The God of The Sea. I can't prove that Poseidon doesn't exist. Does that make my lack of belief and a Poseidon believer's positions equal? I also can't prove that 'UFO abductees' weren't abducted by aliens. I have a lack of belief. Some people truly believe these claims. But our positions aren't equal.

 

[bushidomartialarts]

Poseidon, The God of The Sea. I can't prove that Poseidon doesn't exist. Does that make my lack of belief and a Poseidon believer's positions equal? I also can't prove that 'UFO abductees' weren't abducted by aliens. I have a lack of belief. Some people truly believe these claims. But our positions aren't equal.

I'd disagree. There is as much proof of the existence of Poseidon as there is proof that he doesn't exist. Emphasize proof here. There's plenty of logical analysis and reasonably framed hypotheses against Poseidon, but no proof. And even much of the "proof" that supports that logic is based on trusting the word of others, which is another form of belief.

Now, if you want to talk about...for example...evolution. There's a lot of proof that much of the Old Testament is allegorical, politically compromised and riddled with translation errors. And there's stacks of evidence that evolution happened. But that's not the same as choosing whether or not to believe in a god or afterlife.

Ultimately, belief and lack of belief are irrational.

 

[fangjian]

I'd disagree. There is as much proof of the existence of Poseidon as there is proof that he doesn't exist. Emphasize proof here. There's plenty of logical analysis and reasonably framed hypotheses against Poseidon, but no proof. And even much of the "proof" that supports that logic is based on trusting the word of others, which is another form of belief.

Ultimately, belief and lack of belief are irrational.

I claim that there is a little pink panda in the center of the Earth riding a unicycle. This makes the mechanics of all existence function.

You can not prove me wrong. Therefore, believing in my claim or not believing it, are equal?

Now, if you want to talk about...for example...evolution. There's a lot of proof that much of the Old Testament is allegorical, politically compromised and riddled with translation errors. And there's stacks of evidence that evolution happened. But that's not the same as choosing whether or not to believe in a god or afterlife.

There's a lot of stuff here. Evolution, gods, afterlife, and the bible. I'm not reading it right or something. What's your point here?

 

[bushidomartialarts]

I claim that there is a little pink panda in the center of the Earth riding a unicycle. This makes the mechanics of all existence function.

You can not prove me wrong. Therefore, believing in my claim or not believing it, are equal?

Actually, we have imaging that disproves the theory, and mathematical proofs that show it's pretty darn unlikely. We don't have proof that there are no divine powers or consciousness past physical death.

There's a lot of stuff here. Evolution, gods, afterlife, and the bible. I'm not reading it right or something. What's your point here?

My only point here was that there are aspects associated with common beliefs that can be objectively disproven. One of the frustrating things about some religious folks is that they go on believing them. One of the frustrating things about some atheists is they generalize and lump all of faith in with crackpot "the world is only 5,000 years old" theories.

 

[fangjian]

I would respectfully submit that any personal policy on the absence/presence of gods and the afterlife is definitionally a faith. You can't prove things one way or the other. Ultimately, you're making a choice and sticking to it.

You are implying, I think, that either stance is ok and 50/50. I don't agree. Just because our knowledge of the existence of the universe stops a billionth of a second after the big bang, doesn't mean you can just assert that 'gods and goddesses must have done it'. It's fine to entertain an idea, but not ok to pass it off as truth.

One of the frustrating things about some atheists is they generalize and lump all of faith in with crackpot "the world is only 5,000 years old" theories.

I pretty much lump it all together. Christianity, Islam, Mormonism, Hinduism, Psychics, UFO abduction, Astrology.............. It's all superstition to me.

The bottom line is, all of them are scientific ( in the realms of cosmology, biology, geology.....) claims that lack evidence, so I dismiss them all.

I am asked to take them seriously. Why should I? Why should I take Astrology seriously?

 

[Twin Fist]

because you might just be wrong................

 

[fangjian]

because you might just be wrong................

Yeah. Maybe John Edward DOES communicate with the dead and faith healers CAN cure you of lung cancer. We can't know with certainty, so to not believe in those two claims, is just as rational as believing. That makes a lot of sense. lolz

Oh and don't criticize those crooks, because we don't want to offend.

 

[fangjian]

This thread is about religion in government. Not about if religion is cool or not cool, which is where it went.

So.

TF, you mentioned that you would never vote for someone that wasn't religious. Could you elaborate if you have time? You mentioned Buddhists. But many Buddhists are also atheists. ( is the important part) just that someone believes there is an intelligence that created our universe? And why is belief in that one claim so important to you?

 

[Twin Fist]

as i said before, about 90% of the planet believes in some form of afterlife.

I have a hard relating to someone so arrogant as to think that 95% of us are just stupid or delusional

so I would never vote for anyone like that

also, in regards to presidents, I would never trust a man to control nuclear weapons if he didnt have some sort of religious beliefs. If this is all there is, then why not nuke everyone?

nope, no thanks, i cant trust someone who doesnt have that inborn moral code.

Also, I dislike arrogance, and the arrogance of saying "there is nothing else" makes me want to vomit, frankly.

Someone wants to think that "there is something else, i just dont know what it is" i am fine with.

I hope that helps you understand my point of view

 

[fangjian]

as i said before, about 90% of the planet believes in some form of afterlife.

This doesn't matter

I have a hard relating to someone so arrogant as to think that 95% of us are just stupid or delusional

NO. NOT STUPID. We just think it is irrational.

also, in regards to presidents, I would never trust a man to control nuclear weapons if he didnt have some sort of religious beliefs. If this is all there is, then why not nuke everyone?

nope, no thanks, i cant trust someone who doesnt have that inborn moral code.

Morals are are a part of the evolution of the human brain. So many of our morals are inborn. I just have no reason to believe there is a supernatural cause for them.

Also, I dislike arrogance, and the arrogance of saying "there is nothing else" makes me want to vomit, frankly.

'There is nothing else'.
Who says that? What does that mean?

There's nothing arrogant about saying 'I don't believe in gods because I have no way to test and examine that claim.

 

[Twin Fist]

look at a baby

if you cant see God in a baby's eyes, no scientific test would matter to you.

 

[fangjian]

look at a baby

if you cant see God in a baby's eyes, no scientific test would matter to you.

Nah. That's not how you solve questions in Cosmology.

 

[Twin Fist]

just sayin man