Please don't, I'll wear it with a badge of honor. Every time I make a mistake that just brings me one step closer to the truth. I'll happily make a fool myself now for all the world to see if it means I'll never make those mistakes again.

If I can offer a criticism that really doesn't have much to do with your beliefs; you write like we're stuck in a Shakespearean play. Like, dude, it's okay to just write down your thoughts as you'd say them normally. Your posts are so dramatic...

All I'm seeing is a really, really bad misinterpretation of normal atheist beliefs (Or lack thereof).

Good for you in following your heart, Door.

If that religion is one devoted to God then yes, in addition to the purpose of making people behave better, it also has the purpose of making them worship God. But if that religion is false then worshiping a false god is just another means to cement control.

You need to clarify what you mean by this. If that religion (say, Islam) is worshiping a false god, it's another means to control people. But if they're worshiping the 'true' God (like say, Christianity), it's more than a means to control people? How do you decide which religion is true and which is false?

A religion should be founded on humanity's innate sense of morality, and that innate sense is derived from god.

1. A religion should be founded on what your deity says is acceptable.
2. There isn't a single deity that hasn't sanctioned reprehensible things, so to say that morality is based on God's is kind of silly. How do we know God is morally perfect when he allows his name to be tied to texts that condone stoning of homosexuals or slavery?

A religion should make people act in accordance with that morality, but there can exist religions that do not, they are perversions.

Sounds like a No True Scotsman fallacy to me.

That's my point, you said science has disproved religion but that doesn't make sense since you can't disprove the existence of something that exists.

You misunderstood me. When I said "science has disproven religion", I meant, "science has disproven claims that religions make about the world", like the 7-day creation story, or the flood. Those things simply did not happen.

Conceding that something exists does not mean I approve of it's existence. I believe that those religions are flawed precisely because they lack an absolute morality to base everything on. The only way you could act morally without God is if your morality was logically equivalent to someone who was acting morally with God, which is a contradiction resulting from assuming you can have a morality without God.

You need to clarify this, also. How do we know which religion is 'true'? Additionally, we CAN act morally without God. 'God' doesn't influence my morality, and I'm the most moral person I know IRL.

Quote from: Cadenza on November 30, 2015, 06:21:10 PM

If that religion is one devoted to God then yes, in addition to the purpose of making people behave better, it also has the purpose of making them worship God. But if that religion is false then worshiping a false god is just another means to cement control.

You need to clarify what you mean by this. If that religion (say, Islam) is worshiping a false god, it's another means to control people. But if they're worshiping the 'true' God (like say, Christianity), it's more than a means to control people? How do you decide which religion is true and which is false?

It has to do with the moral justification for controlling people, if there is not a good justification behind the control then it should not take place. For a religion to be successful it must have some level of control over it's followers, or else it will loose those followers and cease to exist.
Suppose there exists a religion that is false, then for the people leading that religion there are two possibilities. The first is that they are unaware that it is a false religion, their actions may be well intentioned but they are ultimately leading their followers down the wrong path, so their actions are immoral even if they do not realize it. The second option is that they realize their religion is false but continue leading it anyway, in which case the leaders have no moral justification at all, and are being deceptive on purpose. Now if their purpose is to be deceptive then they would wish to succeed at deception, and so every immoral act of control is now available to them, as they do not care about the consequences.

In the first case people leading the religion can be forgiven provided they change their ways, but in the second case they are simply con artists acting to trick people. In both cases the religion has no justification for it's actions.

Now for determining the true religion, I do not believe my sense of morality is false, but I know that if I am not careful it can be corrupted however, so the true religion must be one that is consistent with this sense of morality and acknowledges it's potential to be corrupted. I find Islam and Judaism to be inconsistent with my morality, and Buddhism and Taoism to be more consistent, and Christianity to be both consistent and capable of explaining and dealing with the corruption of morality. I am not sure if any of that answered the question, and I feel that using process of elimination isn't enough to determine the truth, but it is the best I can do right now.

1. A religion should be founded on what your deity says is acceptable.
2. There isn't a single deity that hasn't sanctioned reprehensible things, so to say that morality is based on God's is kind of silly. How do we know God is morally perfect when he allows his name to be tied to texts that condone stoning of homosexuals or slavery?

In this case God says that morality is acceptable, which is why we all have a sense of it. Specifically I see morality as a natural part of being human, and religion to be, ideally, a means of facilitating that part of us.

I don't really know a damn thing about God, I haven't studied enough yet. All I know is that my sense of right and wrong doesn't stem from physical evolution, as immorality would be far more useful, so either immorality is the natural order of things and I am defective, or I have been granted morality and have the option of corrupting it.

Sounds like a No True Scotsman fallacy to me.

I would not approve of an immoral religion, and if that were the true religion then I'm fucked, but I would go against it.

You misunderstood me. When I said "science has disproven religion", I meant, "science has disproven claims that religions make about the world", like the 7-day creation story, or the flood. Those things simply did not happen.

Agreed. As far as I'm concerned God only needed to have started the big bang, everything afterwards is science.

You need to clarify this, also. How do we know which religion is 'true'? Additionally, we CAN act morally without God. 'God' doesn't influence my morality, and I'm the most moral person I know IRL.

I simply don't believe I'm mentally strong enough to be a good person without something to guide me. If you're capable of doing that then I have to ask how you're capable of doing so, what standard you hold yourself to and where it comes from.

It has to do with the moral justification for controlling people, if there is not a good justification behind the control then it should not take place. For a religion to be successful it must have some level of control over it's followers, or else it will loose those followers and cease to exist.
Suppose there exists a religion that is false, then for the people leading that religion there are two possibilities. The first is that they are unaware that it is a false religion, their actions may be well intentioned but they are ultimately leading their followers down the wrong path, so their actions are immoral even if they do not realize it. The second option is that they realize their religion is false but continue leading it anyway, in which case the leaders have no moral justification at all, and are being deceptive on purpose. Now if their purpose is to be deceptive then they would wish to succeed at deception, and so every immoral act of control is now available to them, as they do not care about the consequences.

In the first case people leading the religion can be forgiven provided they change their ways, but in the second case they are simply con artists acting to trick people. In both cases the religion has no justification for it's actions.

Mate, this is some really shady rationality.

Now for determining the true religion, I do not believe my sense of morality is false, but I know that if I am not careful it can be corrupted however, so the true religion must be one that is consistent with this sense of morality and acknowledges it's potential to be corrupted. I find Islam and Judaism to be inconsistent with my morality, and Buddhism and Taoism to be more consistent, and Christianity to be both consistent and capable of explaining and dealing with the corruption of morality. I am not sure if any of that answered the question, and I feel that using process of elimination isn't enough to determine the truth, but it is the best I can do right now.

So you're saying it's sort of a "find the best fit for you"? Meaning, that your "true religion" couldbe someone else's "false religion"? I believe there can only be one correct answer; either you're wrong or the other person is, y'know? This "up to interpretation" shit is just... no.

In this case God says that morality is acceptable, which is why we all have a sense of it. Specifically I see morality as a natural part of being human, and religion to be, ideally, a means of facilitating that part of us.

Okay, let me get this straight. Religion is what we use to worship god. It guides our life based on God's principles and values. We can gather these values from the book he inspired. In that book, there are morally reprehensible things that the religion should condone if it follows God's word literally (as it should). This means, that God is either immoral (as he *officially* condones morally reprehensible things), being misrepresented (in which case, we can never truly know his nature and we have even less proof of his existence), or he simply doesn't exist. Which one is it?

All I know is that my sense of right and wrong doesn't stem from physical evolution, as immorality would be far more useful.

Simply not true. Empathy -- the basis of morality -- would be useful in tribal scenarios where we have to take care of our fellow man. Humans have always been pack animals.

I would not approve of an immoral religion, and if that were the true religion then I'm fucked, but I would go against it.

But all religions are immoral if you take them literally (as you should).

I simply don't believe I'm mentally strong enough to be a good person without something to guide me. If you're capable of doing that then I have to ask how you're capable of doing so, what standard you hold yourself to and where it comes from.

Like I said, I'm capable of being moral because I have empathy. Do my actions cause a net-positive amount of suffering? If so, they're immoral. It's that simple.

I don't buy the "I need God to be moral" meme because God isn't moral.

I don't claim to understand the nature of god at all, but I don't feel that evolution or the big bang conflict with the idea of a creator god.

So how do you reconcile the creation story with evolution? They're incompatible.

I believe it does. Calvinism is fucking gay.

Did you believe that as an atheist?

Just because you share ideas with Christians doesn't mean you should or shouldn't get closer to Christianity.

Well, yeah. I wasn't getting closer to Christianity because I believe some of the same things. I have a different motive.

Just because they have the same result does not necessarily mean they are compatible.

Of course, yeah I know what you mean. I was just saying -- at a glance, I'm not so different from many Christians.

I think the biggest things for me is going to be the heaven/hell/afterlife bit... I just can't make sense of it. But thanks for taking the time to address my thoughts.

Just a heads up though. Be prepared to become the next Rocketman.

ayyy

Quote from: Ozymandias on November 30, 2015, 08:35:59 PM

Quote from: Cyrus on November 30, 2015, 08:16:03 PM

I don't claim to understand the nature of god at all, but I don't feel that evolution or the big bang conflict with the idea of a creator god.

So how do you reconcile the creation story with evolution? They're incompatible.

I don't see how, unless you're fixed on a strict literalist interpretation of the KJV. The Hebrew word used in Genesis can mean either "day" or "age". Even then, biblical creationism being wrong does not necessarily mean that the notion of a creator god is wrong. Evolution is driven by Natural Selection, which is driven by the natural force of competition. Competition is a kind of invisible hand that one could attribute to a supreme being.

Another explanation I've heard from Christians is that the first part of Genesis is actually a poem. It has an order in how it goes, and it ends with God creating mankind, his greatest creation. Personally my favorite take on it.