The Dedicated Argument Thread

Religion is an obsolete fragment of our primitive past, used more as an explanation for how things happen in lieu of knowing the machinations behind them. You see that in the ancient Pantheons - the Greeks, the Romans (who ripped off the greeks), the Egyptians...all of them do more or less the same thing, it's only that the Jews were really good at storytelling and not quite as fantastical with their fables. Stuff in the Bible having real life connections? Yeah, so did most Greek epics, see the Battle of Troy - the writers take actual events and then add references to their respective deities where it makes sense. Jesus likely did exist, but history has oft overblown significant figures to godlike-proportions. And what of God? Generally the debate goes as follows: "Well, there's no proof god exists!" and then, "There's no proof god doesn't exist!".

Naturally the burden of proof falls on the accuser, but yet look at from an objective perspective. Does it truly sound plausible that there's some mystic hand out there guiding anyone? Is there any way to differentiate acts of the divine from the humble placebo effect? You end up in a situation where the only explanation is that the deity must be inexplicably cruel in watching his creations suffer while not lifting a finger, and thus hardly warrants devotion (the alternative explanation is that he's too weak, in which case why is he worth worshiping in the first place?). One particular reason vouched is that God/Allah/Siddha/asdfasfasf wants 'true' followers that don't rely on pre-existing knowledge of their existence to make the choice to believe in them, but, again, think - what kind of celestial entity would escalate people based on the amount of naivete and blind faith they possess? Perhaps fall back to the 'cruel' example - God must be an eccentric sadist with a British accent sitting upon his lavender throne among the heavens.

The final point to argue is that 'religion is just something to believe in'. Certainly - faith is something to keep one going, something to strive towards in a world where questioning the purpose of life is commonplace. Though look at where we are now. Religion spawns all manner of extremism movements from the Westboro Baptist Church to the Taliban. And this isn't something new, either. The well-known Crusades were, of course, founded entirely upon on faith, and were but one of many conflicts in that day and age to possess that sole driving force. Worshiping some sky-guy is all fine and dandy, but common social rules still apply - your right to throw your fist around ends at someone else's face. As long as religion in general continues on its current path it can only be a burden on society.

Also,

Tiel+ wrote:

Pantheism is an obsolete fragment of our primitive past

ftfy

Tiel+ wrote:

The well-known Crusades were, of course, founded entirely upon on faith

Tiel+ wrote:

entirely on faith

Lolololol

Laibach wrote:

Tiel+ wrote:

Pantheism is an obsolete fragment of our primitive past

ftfy

He was talking about Christianity too, CMA.

People ask me what religion I am, I tell them that I am an apathist and couldn't give a shit.

Laibach wrote:

Tiel+ wrote:

Pantheism is an obsolete fragment of our primitive past

ftfy

Tiel+ wrote:

The well-known Crusades were, of course, founded entirely upon on faith

Tiel+ wrote:

entirely on faith

Lolololol

Wait, are you saying that

a) you think any argument against religion is automatically invalid because it is against religion

and

b) you think the crusades were a good idea

???

Ivan2006 wrote:

Laibach wrote:

Tiel+ wrote:

Pantheism is an obsolete fragment of our primitive past

ftfy

Tiel+ wrote:

The well-known Crusades were, of course, founded entirely upon on faith

Tiel+ wrote:

entirely on faith

Lolololol

Wait, are you saying that

a) you think any argument against religion is automatically invalid because it is against religion

and

b) you think the crusades were a good idea

???

You are aware of the fortune the templars made with them, right?

Ivan2006 wrote:

Laibach wrote:

Tiel+ wrote:

Pantheism is an obsolete fragment of our primitive past

ftfy

Tiel+ wrote:

The well-known Crusades were, of course, founded entirely upon on faith

Tiel+ wrote:

entirely on faith

Lolololol

Wait, are you saying that

a) you think any argument against religion is automatically invalid because it is against religion

and

b) you think the crusades were a good idea

???

The Crusades were a defensive war that got hijacked along the way by corrupt Templars, more or less. And I do think they were a good idea(so sue me, I live in MURRIKA). I have no idea where you got a) from, but no, I wasn't saying that, although I know for a fact that God exists and that the Catholic church is the only completely true church.

Last_Jedi_Standing wrote:

Laibach wrote:

Tiel+ wrote:

Pantheism is an obsolete fragment of our primitive past

ftfy

He was talking about Christianity too, CMA.

I know that, but it's incorrect, so I was helping him.

I respect your loyalty to the catholic church.
A lot.
But please use the right vocabulary.
'I know' is not really fitting, it´s called 'believes' for a reason...

Desdenova wrote:

Laibach wrote:

know

???

Ivan2006 wrote:

I respect your loyalty to the catholic church.
A lot.
But please use the right vocabulary.
'I know' is not really fitting, it´s called 'believes' for a reason...

No, in this case I know it, I know it as surely as a man inside a house knows that the sky still exists. I don't mean to antagonize anyone, though.

Laibach wrote:

Desdenova wrote:

Laibach wrote:

know

???

He means what I said.

Laibach wrote:

Desdenova wrote:

Laibach wrote:

know

???

Ivan2006 wrote:

I respect your loyalty to the catholic church.
A lot.
But please use the right vocabulary.
'I know' is not really fitting, it´s called 'believes' for a reason...

No, in this case I know it, I know it as surely as a man inside a house knows that the sky still exists. I don't mean to antagonize anyone, though.

In the grim darkness of the future, there is no sky, only war.

Though to be honest conquering other countries for the sake of religion is not exactly defensive war hijacked ...

Iv121 wrote:

Though to be honest conquering other countries for the sake of religion is not exactly defensive war hijacked ...

Uh, no comment.

Desdenova wrote:

Laibach wrote:

Desdenova wrote:

Laibach wrote:

know

???

Ivan2006 wrote:

I respect your loyalty to the catholic church.
A lot.
But please use the right vocabulary.
'I know' is not really fitting, it´s called 'believes' for a reason...

No, in this case I know it, I know it as surely as a man inside a house knows that the sky still exists. I don't mean to antagonize anyone, though.

In the grim darkness of the future, there is no sky, only war.

FUR THE EMPRAH.

Hey man rly you don't go to the other side of the world looting anything on your path as a defensive war .

Although I don't think there is any evidence for or against god; I do think there is significant evidence against either a benevolent; sensible, or all powerful god. Or just one that lived after the events of the garden of eden. I cannot believe that and benevolent being would allow the amount of cruelty, hate and unjust events that have occurred in Earths history; the slave trade; mass persecution and slaughter of Jews and Gypsys in WW2 and murder are all examples of this. I also cannot believe and sensible deity would give a race like ours free will; we are cruel, vicious and intolerant in our nature; and if a deity exists. and all the events that have happened in Earths history are part of gods plan; then I would imagine him to be more like satan. Sorry if that came of as offending; it wasn't meant to; its just my honest opinion.


On another note; I agree with Iv about the crusades. I don't think conquering and slaughtering for the sake of your own personal beliefs can ever be correct. I would also argue that war can only ever cause more suffering; and diplomacy should be the only option for changing events in other countries. Although I think defending your own borders is acceptable; this view does not extend to retaliation; especially for non governmental terrorist attacks.

I'm pretty sure any textbook you look into is going to assert the whole point of the Crusades for the European was to reclaim Jerusalem and, to a lesser extent, gain favor with the Pope. They were "Expeditions undertaken, in fulfilment of a solemn vow, to deliver the Holy Places from Mohammedan tyranny" by Catholic Europe. Hence  why the very name is synonymous with committing all-out to an endeavor.

Also, CMA, if you're just going to demonstrate why everyone thinks 4chan is full of intellectual geniuses in your responses I'm going to find it difficult to take what you're saying seriously. I'd really like to see this take off as a place for mature discussion, or, if Ivan's motion passes, a place for anything other than smiling and nodding in agreement with everything.

Laibach wrote:

No, in this case I know it, I know it as surely as a man inside a house knows that the sky still exists. I don't mean to antagonize anyone, though.

I know equally surely that he doesn't, so I guess we'll just have to fight to the death.

I bet two bucks on the big one.

Last_Jedi_Standing wrote:

Laibach wrote:

No, in this case I know it, I know it as surely as a man inside a house knows that the sky still exists. I don't mean to antagonize anyone, though.

I know equally surely that he doesn't, so I guess we'll just have to fight to the death.

Really? I'm not being sarcastic here, how/why do you know that?

Laibach wrote:

Last_Jedi_Standing wrote:

Laibach wrote:

No, in this case I know it, I know it as surely as a man inside a house knows that the sky still exists. I don't mean to antagonize anyone, though.

I know equally surely that he doesn't, so I guess we'll just have to fight to the death.

Really? I'm not being sarcastic here, why do you know that?

Probably the same way someone knows he's gay. The same way knowing one is straight.

Laibach wrote:

Last_Jedi_Standing wrote:

Laibach wrote:

No, in this case I know it, I know it as surely as a man inside a house knows that the sky still exists. I don't mean to antagonize anyone, though.

I know equally surely that he doesn't, so I guess we'll just have to fight to the death.

Really? I'm not being sarcastic here, why do you know that?

No one wants or needs your attempts at sarcasm. It would absolutely nothing to to the discussion even if we were privy to any visual cues that you aren't serious.

Tiel+ wrote:

I'm pretty sure any textbook you look into is going to assert the whole point of the Crusades for the European was to reclaim Jerusalem and, to a lesser extent, gain favor with the Pope. They were "Expeditions undertaken, in fulfilment of a solemn vow, to deliver the Holy Places from Mohammedan tyranny" by Catholic Europe. Hence  why the very name is synonymous with committing all-out to an endeavor.

Also, CMA,  if you're just going to demonstrate why everyone thinks 4chan is full of intellectual geniuses in your responses I'm going to find it difficult to take what you're saying seriously. I'd really like to see this take off as a place for mature discussion, or, if Ivan's motion passes, a place for anything other than smiling and nodding in agreement with everything.

The Muslims were invading Europe, the Crusades pushed them out, and reclaimed Jerusalem, which, as far as I know, the muslims didn't have any more right to than the Crusaders. Later on they became immensely corrupt, and the entire purpose was basically lost in Greed, the last decent king of Jerusalem was Baldwin the IVth, I think. He lived around the time of the 3rd or 4th Crusade. I don't see why everyone thinks the conquest of Palestine was so evil, anyway. If it was, then the modern day 'opression' of Palestine by Israel is evil, the US war for independence was evil, the French revolution was evil, and pretty much any way in the middle east that's happened in the last 40 years was evil. As for my beliefs on what constitutes an evil/good war, see here. Again, I don't mean to be antagonistic etc. etc.

@Saravanth: But he's saying that he's sure that something doesn't exist, it's sort of impossible to say that.
@Tiel: I'm just trying to be clear, I have a bad enough reputation as it is.

Laibach wrote:

Last_Jedi_Standing wrote:

Laibach wrote:

No, in this case I know it, I know it as surely as a man inside a house knows that the sky still exists. I don't mean to antagonize anyone, though.

I know equally surely that he doesn't, so I guess we'll just have to fight to the death.

Really? I'm not being sarcastic here, why do you know that?

Sorry, I was mocking your conviction there. What I know is that everything I've ever seen held up as a proof of the existence of a deity can be trivially torn down by basic logic, and that no-one in all the thousands of years that this question has been asked has ever come up with a proof that actually works is pretty telling. Every religion I've ever seen asks you to accept as truth things that can be proven not to be true. I've got other stuff to say, but I'm struggling with how to phrase it in a way that makes sense, so we'll go with those first two for now because they're easily stated.

Last_Jedi_Standing wrote:

Laibach wrote:

Last_Jedi_Standing wrote:

Laibach wrote:

No, in this case I know it, I know it as surely as a man inside a house knows that the sky still exists. I don't mean to antagonize anyone, though.

I know equally surely that he doesn't, so I guess we'll just have to fight to the death.

Really? I'm not being sarcastic here, why do you know that?

Sorry, I was mocking your conviction there. What I know is that everything I've ever seen held up as a proof of the existence of a deity can be trivially torn down by basic logic, and that no-one in all the thousands of years that this question has been asked has ever come up with a proof that actually works is pretty telling. Every religion I've ever seen asks you to accept as truth things that can be proven not to be true. I've got other stuff to say, but I'm struggling with how to phrase it in a way that makes sense, so we'll go with those first two for now because they're easily stated.

Like what, miracles?* I can't see how you can disprove the arguments for a 'first mover' without falling back on a variation of the 'infinite stack of things holding up the world' argument.


*There's some proof for fairly recent eucharistic miracles, and most objections are just "HURR BURDEN OF PROOF" and completely reject any research or account that didn't come from a 'neutral' source.

Edit: Well, I found this:
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/mexico-archdiocese-investigating-possible-eucharistic-miracle/
Apparently the 'voice' is in favour of any and all scientific investigations, it'll be interesting to see how this turns out.