On disproving religion.

Post Reply New Topic

I try to do this sometimes, to no avail. It is impossible to disprove religion when the fundamental premise is based on "Because I think..."

The real purpose of we non-theists though, is not to disprove religion. Our purpose is to do our part to stop the religious delusion the masses are under, soul by soul. Religion is a hinderance to scientific acheivement and encourages mass killings and war. It also provides mind control, as a service: telling you what to say when you get up in the morning, when you go to bed; telling you what to do and what not to do - regardless of your personal feelings. I mean c'mon, obviously someone in a religious institution, or perhaps a few guys 2,000 years ago, know more about morality than you do, right?

The real point of my thread here is, as an Agnostic Atheist, to point out that it is not possible to disprove religion because of religion's very nature. What is possible though, is to disprove the validity of the symptoms of religion.

Non-theists: Do you agree?
Theists: Go ahead, say it

Im all for a more better society and
I look closely at a snowflake sometimes
and I think.. "o ok so thats how ice works."

You are right, it is impossible to disprove religion in many cases. Many believers are not only that, but fideists, at their deepest levels, "my faith is true" is upheld above all other things.

Non-theists don't have a purpose. Purposes are made by individuals or given by faiths, to claim that non-theists, as a group, have a purpose is about the same to claiming that non-theists are a religion.

"regardless of your personal feelings"

Most groups have things that should or should not be done regardless of personal feelings. In fact, a code of morality, no matter the source, IS something to be done regardless of personal feelings(unless it is some egoism or hedonism, which many non-theists don't necessarily support either). Not only that, but the only way to develop a moral code that may have truth value is through revelation anyway, as morality is not something that can be derived from empirical data about the world as argued by David Hume.

Honestly though, I don't care what the heck you do. No matter what you aim for, you aim for your own desires as do the theists.

Yeah, I see where you're coming from for sure.

To clarify, when I said "purpose", what I meant was non-theists' purpose in engaging in philosophical debate with theists, not their life purpose (though in re-reading it, it does kinda seem like I meant it that way)

In regards to feelings, let's take eliminating the gentile or infidel as an example. One could feel that religious genocide was wrong, but their religion demands it. One could choose to interpret the teaching differently - perhaps as peaceful conversion, but that requires founding a new sect and risk being deemed not true to the religion yourself, such change takes a long time.

I don't really care if others are religious. When KRIZA88 asked for non Believers to leave her thread alone I did so.

Isn't it a fact that America is gradually secularizing? There's been a study recently, and the results were that more people are either switching religions or just dropping religion entirely.

Eh, I have no problem with philosophical discussions, but your objective sounds like atheistic proselytizing. It is not true that all religions encourages mass killings nor hinder science. I'm pretty sure much of the advances in science came from religious men and women themselves.

You must also look at the religion, then you must look at the people. Will a Christian from the bible belt practice the same as a Christan from, i dunno...California? I doubt it. Religion is religion but culture and tradition is separate and will often times outweigh religious value.

Religion is not logical. All spirituality is like taste in music - it is based on personal experience, emotion, intuition, and some things that are even harder to quantify! There is no objective evidence for the existence of a deity. However, there is evidence that religious/spiritual experiences are beneficial to people in many different ways.

I think that to attempt to disprove religion is a waste of time because it misses the point. Religious belief is not based on something that can be proved or disproved. It is based on something very personal and subjective.

Because of the inherently personal nature of such belief systems, there is no reason to use them to interfere with other people's lives. Informal proselytizing is basically harmless, but laws should not be passed based on religious doctrines not shared by all who are expected to abide by the laws. If one is concerned about religious ideology, they might work to support separation of church and state.

Of course all human organizations have a tendency towards corruption. I think that this corruption should be addressed by the members of each organization because they are the most familiar with the situation and the most directly affected by it. If someone who is not religious is concerned about corruption in religious organizations, they could try to educate the public about this common problem, how to recognize it, and how to respond.

Here is a good gateway argument for anti-theism.

There is an interesting scene in the Bible where the prophet Elijah and the priests of Baal have a showdown on Mount Carmel. Basically what happened is this, Elijah stacked up a pile of wood and challenged the priests that whoever could light the fire by prayer alone would be the official religion in Israel. According to the story, the priests of Baal worked themselves into a frenzy but the fire did not light, whereupon Elijah prayed and the wood went up in flames. However, since he then ordered all the priests slaughtered (why?) it's basically his word what happened on that mountain.

I wonder what would happen if Elijah's test were to be performed today, stack a big pile of wood up in a public place and have all the different religions compete to see which one could light it simply by praying to their deity or deities. If the atheists and agnostics are right, absolutely nothing would happen. But if not . . . I think it would be an interesting experiment. I don't know about anyone else, but if God is real and present, why do people discuss Him/Her/Whatever in the third person, even those who claim to believe? Why not shut up and let God speak for Godself? Surely a deity is capable of doing that.

Science is religion, since we're all just looking for answers and decide to do it more efficiently than theists.

I label myself as atheist these days but frankly I’m tired of arguing against religion. The vast majority of arguments between atheists and Christians are unendurably painful. It always goes almost the exact same way….

Atheist: I don’t believe in your god for the same reason you don’t believe the flying spaghetti monster.

Christian: Just look at the world around you and tell me all that came from nothing. I think you’re the one that needs to justify your faith. You really believe that you’re nothing but pond slime?

Atheist: But that has nothing to do anything. You’re the one making the claim that there’s a magical man living in the sky. I need evidence to believe such a claim.

Christian: But it says in the bible that we must have faith. I think your heart has been hardened, otherwise you wouldn’t deny your creator.

Atheist: How rude and presumptuous of you! I don’t deny your silly deity. I merely lack a belief in his existence.

Christian: But it says right here that “the fool hath said in his heart ‘there is no god’”.

Atheist: Prove that your bible is actually the word of god. Circular reasoning isn’t acceptable.

Christian: I don’t need proof. I have faith.

Atheist: That’s delusional thinking.

Christian: No more delusional than your belief that everything happened by mere chance.

Atheist: Quit avoiding the point and talking about things you know nothing about.

Christian: Please explain how complex life could come about by chance.

Atheist: Stop changing the subject and provide some evidence for your beliefs.

Christian: I have faith and that’s all there is to it. If you can’t accept that then we’ll just have to wait and see. I know where I’m going when I die, do you?

Atheist: I’m not going to bother refuting Pascal’s wager for you since you’re obviously incredibly dense.

Christian: No need to be rude. I’m only telling you the truth. I’m sorry if you don’t like it.

Atheist: You accuse me of being rude when you’re the one judging me because I don’t believe in your stupid fairy tale. If you can’t see how much of an *ss you’re being I think we’re done.

Christian: No need for ad hominems. You just prove that atheists are a bunch of hardened souls who simply hate god and religion because they have rejected their lord and savior.

Atheist: Whatever.

Christian: I’ll be praying for you.

Isn’t that how it always goes? Tell me it isn’t nauseating to hear that kind of thing over and over and over?

To be fair people on this forum seem to be a little better than that. But most places that's the kind of argument you get when atheism or religion comes up.