# The Illogicality of Jehovah's Witnesses



## Marc_LFD (Jan 12, 2022)

I'd just like to post this thread as my parents and sisters (no, I don't have a brother) are JWs and what they do and what they stand for doesn't make much sense.

Here's a documentary of JW:



Now, what do I mean by "illogical," you may ask?

- "All men are evil" but the ones in charge of JW are men

- "Jehovah will kill all nonbelievers" the "God" they made up isn't very loving (but think he is)

- "Jehovah" they use His name in almost every sentence and think of Him as a "friend" or an imaginary friend

- "Homosexuality is bad" but they still pretend they welcome everyone

- They tend to use insulting terms for non-JW followers which shows they don't respect others if they're not part of JW

- They don't celebrate Christmas despite being a Christian religion

- They don't celebrate Birthdays, but they celebrate New Year (until they ban this too)

- They've said Armageddon was coming in 1914 and 1918, yet here we are

- They see their sect/cult/religion as the "true" one and all others are fake

- If the Armageddon is coming then why do they have billions of dollars?

- If a JW person is in a relationship with a non-JW, then they're "doomed" to this world

...

This could go on and on. My point is, I believe there's a God / Superior Being who created the world, but it ain't how the JWs describe it as. Furthermore, no one alive truly knows and the closest "evidence" are Bibles which I wouldn't trust to be the truth.


----------



## subcon959 (Jan 12, 2022)

This isn't specific to JW, majority of religions are the same basic meme of control.


----------



## Marc_LFD (Jan 12, 2022)

subcon959 said:


> This isn't specific to JW, majority of religions are the same basic meme of control.


It still makes me wonder how JW women think "all men are bad" and yet they trust the ones running JW. Doesn't add up.


----------



## Jayro (Jan 12, 2022)

All religions are trash, and just setup to control those who are easily manipulated. The sooner people swallow that pill, the better off the world will be.


----------



## ital (Jan 12, 2022)

at people finally seeing the old mind viruses for what they are whilst simultaneously championing those in the grip of the latest updated version. Ambivalent, much?

Ain't ish changed, cept the number after the dot on the Range.


----------



## AkiraKurusu (Jan 12, 2022)

How can anyone be a Jehovah's Witness, when no-one witnessed jack-shit? Their very _name_ is illogical!
I mean, it's like a fiftieth-hand account or something, which is better known as hearsay and should be rightfully doubted, scrutinised, and tossed out like the nonsensical garbage it is.


----------



## AkiraKurusu (Jan 12, 2022)

Marc_78065 said:


> They've said Armageddon was coming in 1914 and 1918, yet here we are


Well, 1914 was kinda the beginning of the second-worst war we've had, so...sorta? 1918 though...yeah, shit was wrapping up then.


Marc_78065 said:


> It still makes me wonder how JW women think "all men are bad" and yet they trust the ones running JW. Doesn't add up.


It makes me wonder why it's more acceptable to say "all men are bad" than "all women are bad", no matter who says it. Saying the latter is almost guaranteed to get you labelled as a 'misogynist', 'having the wrong opinion', and 'sexist'; saying the former doesn't get nearly as negative a response, if not even tacit approval.
Weird double standard.


----------



## ital (Jan 12, 2022)




----------



## AmandaRose (Jan 12, 2022)

As I know fuck all about this so called religion I decided to look at their rules and this one simply baffles me. They are not allowed to take yoga classes or practice the discipline of yoga. But they are allowed to do pretty much any other fitness exercises. Wtf is wrong with yoga? lol


----------



## Dr_Faustus (Jan 12, 2022)

The same can be said with most "modern" religions that were created within the last 100-200 years that they tend to lean on the cult-like or just batshit insane. 

Other notable examples would include Mormonism and one that if I said out loud I would probably be sued.  Praise Xenu


----------



## lamb-duh (Jan 12, 2022)

AkiraKurusu said:


> It makes me wonder why it's more acceptable to say "all men are bad" than "all women are bad", no matter who says it. Saying the latter is almost guaranteed to get you labelled as a 'misogynist', 'having the wrong opinion', and 'sexist'; saying the former doesn't get nearly as negative a response, if not even tacit approval.
> Weird double standard.


In the context of this thread, "all men" means all human. That's why it's not sexist. People get called sexist all the time for saying that men (as in male humans) suck.


----------



## The Real Jdbye (Jan 12, 2022)

Dr_Faustus said:


> The same can be said with most "modern" religions that were created within the last 100-200 years that they tend to lean on the cult-like or just batshit insane.
> 
> Other notable examples would include Mormonism and one that if I said out loud I would probably be sued.  Praise Xenu


I'm not afraid to say it. Scientology is a scam. 


Marc_78065 said:


> I'd just like to post this thread as my parents and sisters (no, I don't have a brother) are JWs and what they do and what they stand for doesn't make much sense.
> 
> Here's a documentary of JW:
> 
> ...



A lot of these points apply to Christianity in general. All religions have their fair share of nonsense, and people interpret religious texts however it pleases them to suit their own beliefs.


----------



## JuanBaNaNa (Jan 13, 2022)

I once tried to date a girl that was a Jehovah Witness.

First thing she said was: Did you know I'm Jehovah Witness? And she brought someone else onto our date.
Never saw her again after that.


Edit: Not gonna lie, she was cute. Wonder how's she nowadays?


----------



## Marc_LFD (Jan 13, 2022)

JuanMena said:


> I once tried to date a girl that was a Jehovah Witness.
> 
> First thing she said was: Did you know I'm Jehovah Witness? And she brought someone else onto our date.
> Never saw her again after that.
> ...


She went on a date with a "worldy" / "unpure" person? That's surprising, but you say she brought someone along. lol


----------



## tabzer (Jan 13, 2022)

A cult proselytizes, educates  ("guides" your way of thinking), and recruits.  A family does not.  Join my family or you are an asshole.  It's science.  I'll show you the way.


----------



## JuanBaNaNa (Jan 13, 2022)

Marc_78065 said:


> She went on a date with a "worldy" / "unpure" person? That's surprising, but you say she brought someone along. lol


Yeah, not kidding. She brought someone else with her. Was really uncomfortable.


----------



## urherenow (Jan 13, 2022)

To be fair, those who celebrate Christmas as the birthday of Jesus, are ignorant anyway. IF the dude was real, he wasn't born in December.


----------



## FAST6191 (Jan 13, 2022)

Nobody mentioned the blood transfusion thing yet? If you want term the second then go look up love bombing.


----------



## g00s3y (Jan 13, 2022)

fuck all religions


----------



## Dr_Faustus (Jan 13, 2022)

JuanMena said:


> I once tried to date a girl that was a Jehovah Witness.
> 
> First thing she said was: Did you know I'm Jehovah Witness? And she brought someone else onto our date.
> Never saw her again after that.
> ...


If you think that is bad, Mormons have to deal with the concept of "Soaking" to get around their problems. I am not even going to go into detail about what it means.



urherenow said:


> To be fair, those who celebrate Christmas as the birthday of Jesus, are ignorant anyway. IF the dude was real, he wasn't born in December.


I enjoy the holiday for a multitude of reasons, but if we are going into historical accounts its more about shafting pagan holidays and rewriting the meanings of the holidays. Same thing with April Fools day as well, and maybe Easter if I am able to remember correctly.


----------



## JuanBaNaNa (Jan 13, 2022)

Dr_Faustus said:


> If you think that is bad, Mormons have to deal with the concept of "Soaking" to get around their problems. I am not even going to go into detail about what it means


You got me curious 

*EDIT: Googles "Mormon Soaking Definition"
5 seconds later
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





It's like Christians saying things like: "Oral is not a sin if you do it on your knees and think of Jesus while doing it"

*


----------



## urherenow (Jan 14, 2022)

Dr_Faustus said:


> if we are going into historical accounts its more about shafting pagan holidays and rewriting the meanings of the holidays. Same thing with April Fools day as well, and maybe Easter if I am able to remember correctly.


True on all counts.


JuanMena said:


> *It's like Christians saying things like: "Oral is not a sin if you do it on your knees and think of Jesus while doing it"*


What "Christian" has ever said that? I find it hard to believe, considering that the vast majority of "Christians" think that the passage about some dude "spilling his seed on the ground" was the bible being against masturbation. That was NOT the point of the story.


----------



## WoodrowLives (Jan 14, 2022)

Opinions like Faustus arrogantly and ignorantly espouses are just that, opinions. To make statements as if he has actual knowledge is laughable, especially when he exposes his obvious lack of research and knowledge. The loudest and most ignorant voices are the ones being listened to in our day and age.


----------



## Dr_Faustus (Jan 14, 2022)

WoodrowLives said:


> Opinions like Faustus arrogantly and ignorantly espouses are just that, opinions. To make statements as if he has actual knowledge is laughable, especially when he exposes his obvious lack of research and knowledge. The loudest and most ignorant voices are the ones being listened to in our day and age.



Well Hello to you too new member, welcome to the community! Also for future reference if you want to mention someone feel free to use the "@" feature in the beginning of someone's handle so they can know you wanted to mention them! Just like so @WoodrowLives 

Now with that out of the way.. Care explain to me why I am wrong or care to back up your beliefs on anything I have stated thus far? Was it about Mormons, JW's or a majority of Christian/Catholic based holidays being originally pagan based? Please I would like to know so at least I could go into detail more on the matter, if not just myself perhaps someone else here would like to chime in as well? But please, if you are going to make a counter argument for why I might be wrong please do so in a constructive way and not just make a statement lampooning me without any counter to the argument. That just wastes everyone's time. That is unless I somehow offended you and you are a Mormon/JW or hell a Scientologist. In which case, well..



That's just not my problem mate, but I feel for you. I really do.


----------



## Deleted member 568892 (Jan 15, 2022)

Jayro said:


> All religions are trash, and just setup to control those who are easily manipulated. The sooner people swallow that pill, the better off the world will be.


I don't understand your strongly negative feelings towards religion. I don't believe in it myself but don't feel the need to express bitterness towards it either.


----------



## tabzer (Jan 15, 2022)

Mike_Hunt said:


> I don't understand your strongly negative feelings towards religion. I don't believe in it myself but don't feel the need to express bitterness towards it either.


Ignore him.  He is in a different kind of cult that preaches being above religion--ironically.


----------



## Jayro (Jan 15, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Ignore him.  He is in a different kind of cult that preaches being above religion--ironically.


Nah, I just don't need to believe in some kind of higher power to teach me right from wrong. Or that some narcissistic sky fairy is going to burn me for eternity if I don't do what he says.


----------



## Deleted member 568892 (Jan 15, 2022)

Jayro said:


> Nah, I just don't need to believe in some kind of higher power to teach me right from wrong. Or that some narcissistic sky fairy is going to burn me for eternity if I don't do what he says.


That doesn't explain your bitterness. Did you lose a loved one to a cult in the past?


----------



## Jayro (Jan 15, 2022)

Mike_Hunt said:


> That doesn't explain your bitterness. Did you lose a loved one to a cult in the past?


Nah, I was just raised in a Christian/conservative household, and I never really fed into the bullshit. Now that I'm grown and 38 years old as an adult, I see religion is used to start wars and conflict. It really brings out the absolute worst in people, and just needs abolished altogether.


----------



## tabzer (Jan 15, 2022)

Jayro said:


> Nah, I was just raised in a Christian/conservative household, and I never really fed into the bullshit. Now that I'm grown and 38 years old as an adult, I see religion is used to start wars and conflict. It really brings out the absolute worst in people, and just needs abolished altogether.


Oh guys, I found out why people suck.  It's because religion exists.

Lol.  Let's end religion so that humanity can return to its natural peace loving state.

Also, I'm 38 years old.  I am an adult.


----------



## DinohScene (Jan 15, 2022)

People and religion both suck.


----------



## Lacius (Jan 15, 2022)

Religion is unsubstantiated nonsense, and I think JW's are as illogical about their religious beliefs as any other religious person.



tabzer said:


> Oh guys, I found out why people suck.  It's because religion exists.
> 
> Lol.  Let's end religion so that humanity can return to its natural peace loving state.
> 
> Also, I'm 38 years old.  I am an adult.


Religion is one of the few things in the world that can cause otherwise good people to do terrible things. Religion requires a person to abandon critical thought and skepticism, and if a person can believe in something for illogical reasons, they can believe in a whole bunch of things about science, mortality, etc. for illogical reasons. It's why we often see a correlation between religiosity and unscientific beliefs, for example. As another example, a person who has religious beliefs, despite having zero evidence for those beliefs, could also believe the election was stolen with zero evidence.

Humanity would be far better off without religion.


----------



## AlexMCS (Jan 15, 2022)

This topic really enlightens me on the opinion of some posters.
I sincerely hope you all eventually find the true God in your lives.



Lacius said:


> Religion is one of the few things in the world that can cause otherwise good people to do terrible things


The opposite is also true, Lacius.
It can be a deterrent, stopping evil inclined people from doing evil deeds.



Lacius said:


> Religion requires a person to abandon critical thought and skepticism, and if a person can believe in something for illogical reasons, they can believe in a whole bunch of things about science, mortality, etc. for illogical reasons


A religion is a belief system. A way for humans to get in touch with their spiritual side/divinity.
An attempt to explain what the human knowledge will never be able to.

1 - religions must not be contradictory. Any system that contradicts itself can assert any statement as truth, since logically "P -> Q = Truth" for any Q if P is false.

2 - religions must always establish themselves as the only right one. So you should never be surprised when every religion says it's THE religion. Truth state is binary: you are either right or wrong (include here incomplete truths).

3 - religions should have a positive impact on the world. Also, people should not confuse religion with the religious people, specially the hypocrites. They should never force non believers to adhere to their precepts. It's a free choice.

4- religions do not require humans to abandon though or logical thinking. Those are cults.

5- religions are about getting in touch with 'the unseen', the world beyond. If it's only about earthly matters, it's an organization or an institution, not a religion.

If you can find the religion which fits these 3 criteria, congratulations, you have found the truth.

As a final notice to Lacius in particular: if you need evidence for every single thing, you should discredit science, particularly science related to non repeatable experiments, like the one who "proved" the existence of gravitational waves. I also hope no one competent enough to delete all evidences of their deeds frames you for anything in your life.

Humanity would be far better off with more intution and non-blind faith.


----------



## Lacius (Jan 15, 2022)

AlexMCS said:


> The opposite is also true, Lacius.
> It can be a deterrent, stopping evil inclined people from doing evil deeds.


There's no real evidence of religion acting as a significant deterrent against "evil deeds," but we have more than enough evidence of religion causing a significant number of otherwise good people to do bad things.



AlexMCS said:


> A religion is a belief system. A way for humans to get in touch with their spiritual side/divinity.
> An attempt to explain what the human knowledge will never be able to.
> 
> 1 - religions must not be contradictory. Any system that contradicts itself can assert any statement as truth, since logically "P -> Q = Truth" for any Q if P is false.
> ...


One should not believe a claim unless there's evidence supporting that claim. Anything else is irrational, by definition. If people feel emboldened to believe something despite it being irrational, then there's nothing stopping them from being irrational when it comes to other things.

As for your numbered points:

A lot of religions, including the big ones, are self-contradicting. In addition, just because something isn't contradictory doesn't mean there's any reason to think it's true.
A claim that something is true is irrelevant if there's no evidence that it's true.
Religiosity does not have a positive effect on the world. Not even getting into the weeds regarding all of the immoral things churches and adherents do, religion promotes irrational thought and condemns critical thinking, and that alone makes it negative. Also, many of the big religions take a "believe or else" approach to religiosity. According to most forms of Christianity, for example, you get eternal damnation for not believing. That doesn't sound very free to me.
All religions I'm aware of require the suspension of skepticism and critical thinking in order to believe the religious claims. Many of the big religions, like Christianity, also promote belief without evidence; look at any passage in the Bible regarding faith and not leaning on one's own understanding.
I don't disagree with you here. The problem is there's no reason to believe what you describe as "the world beyond" exists.



AlexMCS said:


> If you can find the religion which fits these 3 criteria, congratulations, you have found the truth.


I could make up something ridiculous right now that isn't contradictory, claims it's the right belief, has positive effects on the world (aside from being irrational), and claims to describe the "world beyond." That doesn't mean it's true. I could also make up multiple things that fit your criteria and contradict one another.  What you described isn't a pathway to truth, since your criteria would require you to believe unsubstantiated, contradictory, and openly untrue things.

What you listed reads like an ex post facto defense of one's religious beliefs, but it doesn't work.



AlexMCS said:


> As a final notice to Lacius in particular: if you need evidence for every single thing, you should discredit science, particularly science related to non repeatable experiments, like the one who "proved" the existence of gravitational waves. I also hope no one competent enough to delete all evidences of their deeds frames you for anything in your life.


A person who embraces logic and skepticism should require evidence for their beliefs, without exception.

Science is all about experimentation and evidence, so a person who requires evidence for their beliefs should absolutely embrace science. I'm not sure what you have against gravitational waves specifically (I definitely didn't bring them up), but it's a confusing hill you've chosen to die on. They were demonstrated to exist in 2015, and those who detected them won Nobel prizes for it. If you're sincerely interested, you can find more information about the detection of gravitational waves here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_wave
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational-wave_astronomy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_gravitational_wave_observations



AlexMCS said:


> Humanity would be far better off with more intution and non-blind faith.


"Faith" is a detriment to humanity, since it means "irrational belief" in this context (some people define "faith" to just mean "belief," but that's not how I'm using it, and it's not what it means in the context of either of our posts). Also, "non-blind faith" is an oxymoron. By definition, faith is blind if we're using it to mean the excuse one gives for belief in the absence of evidence.


----------



## MikaDubbz (Jan 15, 2022)

subcon959 said:


> This isn't specific to JW, majority of religions are the same basic meme of control.


While you aren't wrong, JW are especially dangerous with what they do.  There are levels to this kind of shit.  At the top with the most cultish and most dangerous major 'religion' or whatever, is Scientology, below that are Jehovah's Witnesses, below that are Mormons, and it keeps getting less and less egregious the more you go down.

This guy who grew up as a JW has great videos dissecting how bad being raised within the religion is, I highly recommend his stuff if the topic is of interest to you:


Growing up being raised Catholic, I can tell you that we never suffered such forms of separation, isolation, or control that they experience being raised as a JW.


----------



## CoolMe (Jan 15, 2022)

I would stay away from any belief system that comes off as a "cult", that inhibit any form of separation, isolation, prejudice and control.


----------



## AlexMCS (Jan 15, 2022)

Lacius said:


> There's no real evidence of religion acting as a significant deterrent against "evil deeds," but we have more than enough evidence of religion causing a significant number of otherwise good people to do bad things.



There is PLENTY of evidence that many people avoid having bad behavior in fear of _post-mortem _damnation.
And it's just common sense really.


Lacius said:


> One should not believe a claim unless there's evidence supporting that claim.





Lacius said:


> They were demonstrated to exist in 2015


I chose gravitational waves since faith was required to believe in them when they first popped up as "proven" since there was currently no way to repeat the experiment in a short time frame.

Science works on repeatable experiments. You are believing the claims of of someone without having the means to confirm it yourself. In such occasions, this is more faith than science.

When you believe on a scientific discovery that requires a unique equipment or a unique event, you are even more faithful than some religious people.



Lacius said:


> just because something isn't contradictory doesn't mean there's any reason to think it's true.


This is what science is. It's a non-contradictory logic circle. Yet you accept it as valid/true at any point in time without question, other than the 'caveat' that it's open to review, or, in other words, it might not be true after all.



Lacius said:


> (some people define "faith" to just mean "belief," but that's not how I'm using it, and it's not what it means in the context of either of our posts)


Faith is belief without understanding. Blind faith is belief without reason/logic. There is a huge difference.



Lacius said:


> As for your numbered points:
> 
> A lot of religions, including the big ones, are self-contradicting. In addition, just because something isn't contradictory doesn't mean there's any reason to think it's true.
> A claim that something is true is irrelevant if there's no evidence that it's true.
> ...



1. Catholicism is not self-contradicting, for one. Buddhism isn't either IIRC.
2. Addressed above. That is what a postulate is in science. Yet no scientist thinks postulates are bogus.
3. Addressed above, first point. Specially in religions that promote charity and science. As for the "believe it or else", there are plenty of caveats in some of them regarding this. Most religions require you to be what is considered a good person by common sense.
4. Not really. You only to suspend skepticism and critical thinking if said religion is contradictory. You seem to be confused about "contradiction" and "lack of knowledge/understanding". (Actual) Religions require you to believe without understanding, not to believe what is blatantly false. The same way we may never get some answers, because there will always be an underlying question. An example of such a simple question: "Why do positive charges attract negative ones?" This, if answered, will always bring an answer and another question.
5. There is no scientific evidence, but plenty of empirical evidence.


----------



## Lacius (Jan 15, 2022)

AlexMCS said:


> There is PLENTY of evidence that many people avoid having bad behavior in fear of _post-mortem _damnation.
> And it's just common sense really.


I'd like to see the evidence.

In reality, there doesn't seem to be any significant difference when you compare religious vs. secular communities when it comes to things like crime. In fact, if we looked really hard for differences, you're going to find the secular communities typically doing better according to just about every metric that matters. That being said, there's a significant difference when you compare those communities with regard to things like voting to strip away LGBT rights, etc. Entire wars have also been fought over religion.



AlexMCS said:


> I chose gravitational waves since faith was required to believe in them when they first popped up as "proven" since there was currently no way to repeat the experiment in a short time frame.


Believing in gravitational waves doesn't require faith. There is evidence for their existence, and the evidence is repeatable. You seem to be misinformed. I suggest you do some more research. Here's a list of observations of gravitational waves:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_gravitational_wave_observations



AlexMCS said:


> Science works on repeatable experiments. You are believing the claims of of someone without having the means to confirm it yourself. In such occasions, this is more faith than science.


I don't have to confirm something in a laboratory myself to have evidence for justified belief. The evidence still exists, and the belief is rational.



AlexMCS said:


> When you believe on a scientific discovery that requires a unique equipment or a unique event, you are even more faithful than some religious people.


That's not even close to true. I require evidence for each of my beliefs; religious people do not.



AlexMCS said:


> This is what science is. It's a non-contradictory logic circle. Yet you accept it as valid/true at any point in time without question, other than the 'caveat' that it's open to review, or, in other words, it might not be true after all.


I only accept science as true if there's evidence supporting that particular science. The sciences are the best (and only) methods we have at determining what's likely true.

If you want to argue against science and rationality, great. However, that's another topic, since my argument is religion is irrational. If you're just going to put your hands up and say "yeah, but who cares about science and rationality?" I'm not particularly interested in that conversation. It reads to me like a white flag of surrender, because in actuality, most people care whether or not something is rational. You care about what is/isn't rational when you're driving down the highway. You care what is/isn't rational when you're paying for groceries. If you didn't, you'd swerve into oncoming traffic, and you'd give the cashier $10,000 for a loaf of bread.

As for the topic about something being contradictory, I can totally make up a story that isn't contradictory. Plenty of fictional books and movies are without contradiction. That doesn't mean they are real. You seem to have missed my point, so there it is.



AlexMCS said:


> Faith is belief without understanding. Blind faith is belief without reason/logic. There is a huge difference.


You can't be rationally justified in a belief unless you have at least some sort of understanding about the claim. If you're arguing that you can be rationally justified in believing something that you have so little understanding about that you don't even know what evidence for the claim would look like, then you would be mistaken. Rational belief in a claim requires evidence, by definition. "Faith" might as well be synonymous with "blind," because it's the excuse a person gives when they don't have good evidence for believing the claim. If you have evidence for a claim, then provide that, and don't waste anybody's time talking about "faith" or "non-blind faith."

I'm unaware of any case in which there would be a distinction between "faith" and "blind faith." Feel free to give me a specific example if you want, but I doubt the conversation is worthy of our time.



AlexMCS said:


> 1. Catholicism is not self-contradicting, for one. Buddhism isn't either IIRC.


There are plenty of contradictions in the Bible.



AlexMCS said:


> 2. Addressed above. That is what a postulate is in science. Yet no scientist thinks postulates are bogus.


There is no reason to treat religiosity as a "postulate," "axiom," or anything like it.



AlexMCS said:


> 3. Addressed above, first point. Specially in religions that promote charity and science. As for the "believe it or else", there are plenty of caveats in some of them regarding this. Most religions require you to be what is considered a good person by common sense.


Anybody can promote charity and science. Just because a church might do something good like a charity food drive, for example, doesn't mean religion is good. Religion still has the aforementioned baggage of promoting irrational thought, causing otherwise good people to do bad things, etc. If you're so fond of the charity and science a church might promote, let's cut out the religious cancer and leave the good parts.

The Bible is clear that nonbelievers go to Hell, for example, and plenty of people believe it.



AlexMCS said:


> 4. Not really. You only to suspend skepticism and critical thinking if said religion is contradictory. You seem to be confused about "contradiction" and "lack of knowledge/understanding". (Actual) Religions require you to believe without understanding, not to believe what is blatantly false. The same way we may never get some answers, because there will always be an underlying question. An example of such a simple question: "Why do positive charges attract negative ones?" This, if answered, will always bring an answer and another question.


You have to suspend skepticism and critical thinking if you believe something despite there being no evidence of that thing being true. It doesn't matter that the claim isn't contradictory. In order to be rational, you have to require evidence for your beliefs. If you care if your beliefs are true, you must attempt to be rational.

You seem to be confused about the difference between "lack of evidence" and "blatantly false." A belief can be irrational even if the claim hasn't be disproved. A belief is irrational if it is unsupported by evidence.



AlexMCS said:


> 5. There is no scientific evidence, but plenty of empirical evidence.


There is no empirical evidence for the religious beliefs we are discussing. That's my whole point. If there were, I'd be religious.


----------



## AlexMCS (Jan 15, 2022)

Lacius said:


> I'd like to see the evidence.


Ask any true believer what they'd do if there was no God. Try thinking about it a bit.
Religion is the moral compass for many of the world's population.



Lacius said:


> there doesn't seem to be any significant difference when you compare religious vs. secular communities when it comes to things like crime.


Crime is a measure of law, not ethics. Try looking further (suicides, relationships etc.).
Also, most people who claim to belong to a religion are actually so shallow on it they might as well not be counted.
Actual religious people are less than 1% of the 1%.



Lacius said:


> I'm unaware of any case in which there would be a distinction between "faith" and "blind faith." Feel free to give me a specific example if you want, but I doubt the conversation is worthy of our time.


Faith: "I believe, since my instincts tell me, and there is enough anecdotal evidence, that there exists a spiritual world".
Blind Faith: "I believe (religious) leader X when he says red haired people are possessed by the demon and should all die".



Lacius said:


> , let's cut out the religious cancer and leave the good parts.


For atheists, since you are fated to nihility after death, what is the point of living?
The answer will always be: for oneself, one's personal will.
The method will usually be either to indulge in any self-advantageous behavior or to try and leave a legacy, good or bad.



Lacius said:


> There is evidence for their existence, and the evidence is repeatable.


I said "when they first popped up".



Lacius said:


> There are plenty of contradictions in the Bible.


The Bible was created by the religion. It does not dictate the religion, it is not above the tradition (correct interpretation and what actually defined "what is a bible") and it does not contradict it. It's not open to free interpretation - that is what gave rise to thousands and thousands of protestant cults.

Once again: there is no contradiction when correctly interpreted by those who actually defined that the Bible is the Bible.



Lacius said:


> The Bible is clear that nonbelievers go to Hell, for example.


And the religion, which is above a random bible citation, is clear on stating that good people will not, regardless of belief. It's also clear that the safest way to reach Heaven is through such religion, which is why it exists.



Lacius said:


> A belief can be irrational even if the claim hasn't be disproved. A belief is irrational if it is unsupported by evidence.


I get your point.
Even the "pastafarian" postulate that the universe is rewritten every thursday, as absurd as it sounds, could be true since it's not contradictory, but there is not an ounce of evidence it is, which is why we tend to dismiss it.
Since there is no evidence, we claim it to be irrational.




Lacius said:


> There is no empirical evidence for the religious beliefs we are discussing.


Now tell me, how are the 10 commandments, for instance, a bad thing for humanity?

You, Lacius, are a bona-fide skeptic. In my opinion, that's great. Critical thinking is essential to humans.
You only believe what has been proven with strong evidence.
You'd need something strong to shake that world view.
If you ever find the spiritual path, you will be a great religious person.

That said, believing with no evidence is indeed stupid. But there is evidence for the spiritual world.
Just not based on the scientific method. It's almost always an individual experience. I can't explain why to you.

As a final tidbit of thought: If religion was completely irrational, it would have died out already, don't you think?


----------



## Hanafuda (Jan 15, 2022)

Even the word Jehovah is an error. Ancient Hebrew didn't use vowels, and the consonant letters don't align to English perfectly, so when they wrote YHWH, i.e. Yahweh, it could also be JHVH. Throw the right vowels in there and you get Yahweh. Throw the wrong vowels in there and you get Jehovah. Or so I was told by a linguistics professor many years ago.


----------



## CoolMe (Jan 15, 2022)

Hanafuda said:


> Even the word Jehovah is an error. Ancient Hebrew didn't use vowels, and the consonant letters don't align to English perfectly, so when they wrote YHWH, i.e. Yahweh, it could also be JHVH. Throw the right vowels in there and you get Yahweh. Throw the wrong vowels in there and you get Jehovah. Or so I was told by a linguistics professor many years ago.


I can understand about Jehovah (And/ or YHWH).. it's the "witnesses" part that i don't understand, like what did they "witness" exactly?


----------



## Lacius (Jan 15, 2022)

AlexMCS said:


> Ask any true believer what they'd do if there was no God. Try thinking about it a bit.
> Religion is the moral compass for many of the world's population.


What a "true believer" says they would do if there was no God isn't necessarily what they would actually do. It doesn't take a god to be a humanist. I also used to be religious, and now I'm not. I'm not committing crimes. See my previous point on how religion doesn't appear to do anything to help society in general. In fact, it hurts things.



AlexMCS said:


> Crime is a measure of law, not ethics. Try looking further (suicides, relationships etc.).
> Also, most people who claim to belong to a religion are actually so shallow on it they might as well not be counted.
> Actual religious people are less than 1% of the 1%.


There's no evidence that nonreligious people have a harder time with relationships, etc. If anything, it's the opposite. For example, many LGBT people are told my religions that they can't or shouldn't be in healthy relationships, and let's not even discuss the amount of LGBT suicides caused by religion.

As for your point about "1% of 1%," I suggest you look up the No true Scotsman fallacy.



AlexMCS said:


> Faith: "I believe, since my instincts tell me, and there is enough anecdotal evidence, that there exists a spiritual world".
> Blind Faith: "I believe (religious) leader X when he says red haired people are possessed by the demon and should all die".


Instincts aren't real evidence, and anecdotal evidence isn't real evidence. Both are examples of what we would call "blind faith." If it's belief without evidence, it's faith.



AlexMCS said:


> For atheists, since you are fated to nihility after death, what is the point of living?
> The answer will always be: for oneself, one's personal will.
> The method will usually be either to indulge in any self-advantageous behavior or to try and leave a legacy, good or bad.


First, how I feel emotionally about a claim is not reason to believe or not believe it, so the question is pointless with regard to the topic of whether or not it's rational to believe a god exists, and the question is disingenuous. Second, the fact that my life is finite makes it even more valuable, and it's all the more reason for me to live my life to the fullest while I'm here: to maximize the happiness of myself and others around me. The idea that an atheist who accepts the finality of death will inherently be selfish, etc. says a lot more about you than it does about me. I'm still a humanist who cares about other people.

Not that it demonstrates a god does or doesn't exist, but If there's an infinite perfect afterlife after this, you tell me what the point of living is.



AlexMCS said:


> I said "when they first popped up".


You said that in order to believe in gravitational waves, I have to have faith. You were utterly and demonstrably mistaken. It is reasonable to accept a claim as true or likely true without having repeated the experiment so long as evidence exists for the claim. It was reasonable to believe in gravitational waves when they were first detected, and it's reasonable to believe in them now. In fact, based on all of the other evidence we had, it was reasonable to believe they likely existed even before we detected them. I'll take your post as a concession.



AlexMCS said:


> The Bible was created by the religion. It does not dictate the religion, it is not above the tradition (correct interpretation and what actually defined "what is a bible") and it does not contradict it. It's not open to free interpretation - that is what gave rise to thousands and thousands of protestant cults.


It sounds like you're saying the Bible is a cesspool of contradictions, with very little true meaning or value, if it's up to interpretation.



AlexMCS said:


> Once again: there is no contradiction when correctly interpreted by those who actually defined that the Bible is the Bible.


https://lmgtfy.app/?q=contradictions+in+the+bible



AlexMCS said:


> And the religion, which is above a random bible citation, is clear on stating that good people will not, regardless of belief. It's also clear that the safest way to reach Heaven is through such religion, which is why it exists.


It's interesting how you pick and choose passages in the Bible. There are very clear statements that it's, for example, impossible to go to Heaven without accepting Jesus.

I'm actually not super interested in how you try to rationalize away the evil in the Bible. I'm more interested in what evidence there is that any religious belief is true or likely true.



AlexMCS said:


> I get your point.
> Even the "pastafarian" postulate that the universe is rewritten every thursday, as absurd as it sounds, could be true since it's not contradictory, but there is not an ounce of evidence it is, which is why we tend to dismiss it.
> Since there is no evidence, we claim it to be irrational.


That's correct. And since there's no evidence for any religious claim, religious beliefs are equally irrational. If one cares if their beliefs are true, they require evidence for their beliefs. If you accept a claim as true or likely true despite there being no evidence for that claim, then you care more about the claim being true than whether or not it's actually true, and that's intellectually dishonest.



AlexMCS said:


> Now tell me, how are the 10 commandments, for instance, a bad thing for humanity?


I like the Ten Commandments, because they're a pretty good demonstration of how, if the God of the Bible exists, he's feckless and idiotic. Most people I know could do a better job coming up with a list of Ten Commandments that include the ten most important rules/commandments they should know. Children do a better job.

Using Catholicism for this, just so I don't have to type them all:

Commandments 1-2 show a conceited and needy god underserving of worship. These also exist nowhere in American law. These Commandments are also bad for the same reason religion is bad: They promote irrationality by literally commanding you to believe in something that you have no reason to think is true.
Commandment 3 is pointless and can arguably be grouped with 1-2. It also doesn't exist in American law.
Commandment 4 isn't absolutely true even if it's generally true; some parents should not be honored. It also shows just how much religion is very much a system for managing children similar to the Santa Claus story. This also doesn't exist in American law.
Commandment 5 is a good rule. It's the first one that should be on this list. However, laws and morality regarding murder significantly predate the Ten Commandments.
Commandment 6, while good as a general rule, shouldn't be a commandment, and it isn't absolutely true. It also exists nowhere in American law.
Commandment 7 is good and is the second one deserving of being on this list. However, once again, laws and morality regarding theft predate this commandment.
Commandment 8 is a good rule of thumb, but it is far from always true. It arguably shouldn't be among the top ten most important rules people should generally follow. And, other than issues regarding perjury, this commandment doesn't exist in American law.
Commandments 9-10 are just stupid. There's nothing wrong with coveting something or someone. Not only is this not in American law, but the American economy depends on people not following this rule.
And, most importantly, the Ten Commandments are infamously missing very important rules, such as not raping people, not molesting children, not owning slaves, etc.



AlexMCS said:


> You, Lacius, are a bona-fide skeptic. In my opinion, that's great. Critical thinking is essential to humans.
> You only believe what has been proven with strong evidence.
> You'd need something strong to shake that world view.


I generally agree with this. However, the requirements for evidence are going to be proportional to the weight of the claim. If it's a minor claim, like "Chris owns a cat," I'm not going to demand to see the cat before I tentatively accept the claim as likely true. I have enough evidence of humans as cat-owners, Chris as trustworthy, etc. to be rational in accepting the claim as probably true. However, I'm not going to believe the claim "Chris owns a dragon" without extraordinary evidence, since it's an extraordinary claim.

But, I'm being pedantic. Yes, I require evidence for my beliefs, and you should too. When you make an exception for religion, there's nothing stopping you and others from making exceptions or anything they want.



AlexMCS said:


> If you ever find the spiritual path, you will be a great religious person.


It's nearly impossible for me to "find the spiritual path" in the absence of evidence for what you would describe as the "spiritual."



AlexMCS said:


> That said, believing with no evidence is indeed stupid. But there is evidence for the spiritual world.
> Just not based on the scientific method. It's almost always an individual experience. I can't explain why to you.


We can probably nix every other topic of conversation we're having and focus on this point: What evidence is there that demonstrates the truthfulness of any religious claim? If you cannot articulate that evidence, or if the evidence doesn't actually demonstrate the truthfulness of the claim, then the religious belief cannot be rational.

I expect that you care if your beliefs are true. If/when you realize you have no real evidence that religious claims are true, I and the other nonbelievers will welcome you with open arms. The world is a much easier place to navigate when you get to be logically consistent.



AlexMCS said:


> As a final tidbit of thought: If religion was completely irrational, it would have died out already, don't you think?


Humans are irrational all the time. They fear death, they grieve lost loved ones, they've been indoctrinated to believe something since early childhood, etc.

Religion is clearly irrational, but I never said moving past it was easy. Cancer is clearly bad, but that doesn't mean it's easy to remove either.


----------



## AlexMCS (Jan 15, 2022)

I'll rest my case here for now, since this is clearly going nowhere, but this was as great insight in your mindset.

We'll talk again in a few months, and I'm sure you will be singing quite a different song XD


----------



## Lacius (Jan 15, 2022)

AlexMCS said:


> I'll rest my case here for now, since this is clearly going nowhere, but this was as great insight in your mindset.


I distilled the conversation to a single question: "What evidence is there that demonstrates the truthfulness of any religious claim?" I can't say I'm surprised you want to end the conversation there and don't want to answer the question. You and I are in agreement that trying to answer this question will probably "go nowhere." Thank you for dropping the pretense.



AlexMCS said:


> We'll talk again in a few months, and I'm sure you will be singing quite a different song XD


You can't expect me to "sing a different song" when you won't/can't articulate any evidence for religious claims.


----------



## CloudStrife1901 (Jan 15, 2022)

I know somebody who was a jw. When she left the fellowship her own mother disowned her. Made her out to be a outcast and didn't want to know. 

My aunty was also one and she ended up in a looney house because it made her mentally unstable with how much BS was brainwashed into her


----------



## tabzer (Jan 15, 2022)

People who think they are above religion repeat the same mistakes with belief systems that they can't identify as religion.  It's history that identifies ways of thinking and belief systems as religion after the fact.  Maybe in 200 years the current colloquialism will be called a religion with something better to take it's place.  How many people say "science" to rationalize actions and then ignore evidence when it suits them?  You don't need religion to be hypocritical or a scumbag.  People who blame religion for bad action aren't going to be accountable when they do the bad action themselves.  Maybe, they are trying to convince themselves that whatever they do is automatically better.  Talk about privilege.


----------



## ZeroT21 (Jan 15, 2022)

How do I compare who's imaginary friend is better?


----------



## Lacius (Jan 15, 2022)

tabzer said:


> People who think they are above religion repeat the same mistakes with belief systems that they can't identify as religion.  It's history that identifies ways of thinking and belief systems as religion after the fact.  Maybe in 200 years the current colloquialism will be called a religion with something better to take it's place.  How many people say "science" to rationalize actions and then ignore evidence when it suits them?  You don't need religion to be hypocritical or a scumbag.  People who blame religion for bad action aren't going to be accountable when they do the bad action themselves.  Maybe, they are trying to convince themselves that whatever they do is automatically better.  Talk about privilege.


I'm a skeptic before I'm an atheist. I'm an atheist because I'm a skeptic. I'm not here saying only religion is bad: All irrational thought is bad. If a person actually embraces skepticism and critical thinking, your concerns are unfounded.

Responding to criticisms of religion by acknowledging that other bad things exist is like responding to cancer by acknowledging viral and bacterial infections exist. The cancer is still cancer, and the religion is still irrational and bad.


----------



## tabzer (Jan 15, 2022)

Lacius said:


> I'm a skeptic before I'm an atheist. I'm an atheist because I'm a skeptic. I'm not here saying only religion is bad: All irrational thought is bad. If a person actually embraces skepticism and critical thinking, your concerns are unfounded.



Religions exist.  That's a fact.  Conflating whatever you think they are with the actions of people is illogical.  Choosing a personalized interpretation of god only to use it as the foundation of disproving the existence of "god" is also irrational.

You are metaphorically eating your own crap.

If god is simply "the unknown" or a method of personifying the universe, then there is no point claiming the existence or lack of.  You are on a crusade.


----------



## AlexMCS (Jan 15, 2022)

Lacius said:


> "What evidence is there that demonstrates the truthfulness of any religious claim?


People. Individual experiences. Witnesses. Miracles. Possessions. In time you will get there.
I'm saying you will be singing a different song because I have a way to ensure you will change.
Wait for it.


----------



## Lacius (Jan 15, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Religions exist.  That's a fact.  Conflating whatever you think they are with the actions of people is illogical.  Choosing a personalized interpretation of god only to use it as the foundation of disproving the existence of "god" is also irrational.
> 
> You are metaphorically eating your own crap.
> 
> If god is simply "the unknown" or a method of personifying the universe, then there is no point claiming the existence or lack of.  You are on a crusade.


Yes, religions exist, and a lot of other bad ideas exist too. I'm saying all irrational beliefs are bad.

I never once said anything about "disproving the existence of a god," nor did I claim I even could. Religion is irrational because it's unsupported by evidence. That's it.

Redefining god to be synonymous with "the unknown," and saying it's rational to believe in the unknown, is pretty pointless. You might as well be saying, "God is this stapler, and this stapler exists, so therefore belief in a god is rational, hurr hurr hurr." That's not what we mean when we talk about religious beliefs. The god claim has baggage, particularly when we're specifically talking about religions.

Unless you can articulate any evidence for religious beliefs, I'm not sure why you're responding to me. Until that can be done, you should agree with me that religious belief is irrational.



AlexMCS said:


> People. Individual experiences. Witnesses. Miracles. Possessions. In time you will get there.
> I'm saying you will be singing a different song because I have a way to ensure you will change.
> Wait for it.


Listing nouns isn't an articulation of evidence. Please be specific with your evidence if you want to be taken seriously. What about any of these things demonstrates that a god exists?

What is the way you have to ensure I will change my mind? Because I already know the answer: Make me aware of some evidence. Until I am aware of evidence that a god exists, I cannot believe a god exists. I care if my beliefs are true.

I'd like to make your claim that I will change my mind a little more falsifiable. How long do I have to wait? It only takes a few seconds to add it to my Google Calendar.

Edit: I think you said in "a few months." What's going to happen in a few months? Is that three months? Five months? I'll probably forget about this conversation soon, but I can add a date to my calendar and then get back to you after I get an alert that the time has passed. Then we can see if this claim of yours that I'll definitely change my mind in a few months was rational.


----------



## tabzer (Jan 16, 2022)

It's a failure of your understanding to conclude that things that exist are irrational @Lacius 



Lacius said:


> God is this stapler, and this stapler exists, so therefore belief in a god is rational, hurr hurr hurr



This sounds like baggage.


----------



## JuanBaNaNa (Jan 16, 2022)

DinohScene said:


> People and religion both suck.


Amongst everyone in this thread, you must be the one that sucks the most 
And @godreborn  too!


----------



## Xzi (Jan 16, 2022)

Yeah Jehova's Witnesses are fuckin' nutter butters.  Evangelicals too, though not to quite the same extent.  Of course, you'll find extremists and fundamentalists within all religions, it's just that my experience is almost entirely with Christianity here in the US.  IMO individual spirituality and/or faith is fine, but you introduce the social (tribal) aspect of religion and things can get pretty cult-like pretty quickly.



CoolMe said:


> I can understand about Jehovah (And/ or YHWH).. it's the "witnesses" part that i don't understand, like what did they "witness" exactly?


IIRC it has something to do with witnessing the sabbath on Saturday or something.  I could be wrong.


----------



## Lacius (Jan 16, 2022)

tabzer said:


> It's a failure of your understanding to conclude that things that exist are irrational @Lacius


If you are going to argue that something exists, and that it is rational to believe it exists, then you need to demonstrate that. Until then, the only logically sound position is to reject the claim that a god exists.


----------



## tabzer (Jan 16, 2022)

Lacius said:


> If you are going to argue that something exists, and that it is rational to believe it exists, then you need to demonstrate that. Until then, the only logically sound position is to reject the claim that a god exists.


I am not making the argument that god exists or that you should believe so.  I am pointing out that you think things are irrational.


----------



## EdwardD (Jan 16, 2022)

CoolMe said:


> I can understand about Jehovah (And/ or YHWH).. it's the "witnesses" part that i don't understand, like what did they "witness" exactly?


----------



## Lacius (Jan 16, 2022)

tabzer said:


> I am not making the argument that god exists or that you should believe so.  I am pointing out that you think things are irrational.


You're arguing that something is rational when it isn't. If you are going to do that, you must show how it's rational, and that's going to require you to provide evidence that a god exists (if we're talking about theistic religious beliefs). It isn't rocket science.

Until you can do that, I'm justified in saying religions are irrational.


----------



## ChibiMofo (Jan 16, 2022)

Marc_78065 said:


> I'd just like to post this thread as my parents and sisters (no, I don't have a brother) are JWs and what they do and what they stand for doesn't make much sense.



In fairness, that can be said about every single religious cult on the face of the planet. Especially the biggest ones. They are the scourge of the Earth and are the biggest barrier to peace, prosperity and happiness. I am not defending JW's. But imagine continuing to give money to the largest child molestation cult in human history that systematically moved child-rapers around to ensure they'd be able to find new victims in new communities. Any other organization that did that would be shut down and its "leaders" imprisoned for life, and of course no self-respecting parent would have anything to do with them. And yet the biggest cult of them all continues unabated and is not subject to the same kind of scrutiny that non-religious institutions are because their nutcase followers impose a kind of censorship wherever they go. Which is why I am not mentioning them by name. Unbelievable that I live in a world where a group like that that has systematically terrorized, tortured and murdered the rest of us for nearly two millennia gets that kind of support!


----------



## smf (Jan 16, 2022)

JuanMena said:


> I once tried to date a girl that was a Jehovah Witness.
> 
> First thing she said was: Did you know I'm Jehovah Witness? And she brought someone else onto our date.
> Never saw her again after that.
> ...



Me too, we went to the cinema. I'm pretty sure there were three of us.

Shortly after I was texting her and I got a text that I think was meant for someone else. It all got a bit odd and I never heard from her. A few months later she turned up in places she thought I'd be and asked around for me, said she'd lost my number when her phone changed. I wasn't able to get hold of her and she didn't leave a number.

It was all kinda odd. Not cute enough to worry about though.



tabzer said:


> I am not making the argument that god exists or that you should believe so.  I am pointing out that you think things are irrational.


It is irrational, because it's faith. Isn't that the whole point?


----------



## smf (Jan 16, 2022)

tabzer said:


> I am not making the argument that god exists or that you should believe so.  I am pointing out that you think things are irrational.


It is irrational, because it's faith. Isn't that the whole point?


----------



## JuanBaNaNa (Jan 16, 2022)

smf said:


> Me too, we went to the cinema. I'm pretty sure there were three of us


Did she mentioned something like: "I didn't wanted to be all alone with a guy" 

If she did... then we probably dated the same chick!



smf said:


> Not cute enough to worry about though.


Ah... no...


----------



## smf (Jan 16, 2022)

JuanMena said:


> Did she mentioned something like: "I didn't wanted to be all alone with a guy"
> 
> If she did... then we probably dated the same chick!
> 
> ...


I might have higher standards ;-)

I can't actually remember, 2 fast 2 furious was the movie we went to. So 19 years ago...


----------



## tabzer (Jan 17, 2022)

smf said:


> It is irrational, because it's faith. Isn't that the whole point?



I'm sure that people don't say,"hey, I am going to place my faith into something because it is irrational."  Even if they do, it's probably for the sense of euphoria that comes with not giving a fuck.  Even then, there is a cause.



Lacius said:


> You're arguing that something is rational when it isn't. If you are going to do that, you must show how it's rational, and that's going to require you to provide evidence that a god exists (if we're talking about theistic religious beliefs). It isn't rocket science.
> 
> Until you can do that, I'm justified in saying religions are irrational.



No I'm not.  I'm saying irrational things don't actually exist.  Religions exist.  Ideas exist.  People don't do things for no reason.  For some people, believing in "a higher power" is a form of rationalization.  Since you are larping as a robot, it's impossible for you to be in that situation or even empathize with it.


----------



## Lacius (Jan 17, 2022)

tabzer said:


> I'm sure that people don't say,"hey, I am going to place my faith into something because it is irrational."  Even if they do, it's probably for the sense of euphoria that comes with not giving a fuck.  Even then, there is a cause.


People generally claim their beliefs are rational, even when they aren't. What matters is whether or not a belief is rational, not whether or not they claim it's rational.



tabzer said:


> No I'm not.  I'm saying irrational things don't actually exist.  Religions exist.  Ideas exist.  People don't do things for no reason.  For some people, believing in "a higher power" is a form of rationalization.


Religions exist. Lots of irrational beliefs exist. That doesn't make them rational. Believing in a "higher power" is not rational if there's no evidence for that higher power's existence.


----------



## smf (Jan 17, 2022)

tabzer said:


> I'm sure that people don't say,"hey, I am going to place my faith into something because it is irrational."  Even if they do, it's probably for the sense of euphoria that comes with not giving a fuck.  Even then, there is a cause.


How would someone know they were experiencing irrational thoughts?

Justifying something to yourself doesn't make it rational


----------



## elpepeetesech (Jan 17, 2022)

bro this is a fucking videogame forum stfu with your personal issues


----------



## elpepeetesech (Jan 17, 2022)

bro this is a fucking videogame forum stfu with your personal issues


----------



## tabzer (Jan 17, 2022)

smf said:


> How would someone know they were experiencing irrational thoughts?
> 
> Justifying something to yourself doesn't make it rational


Thinking is the act of rationalization.  Justifying something is synonymous to rationalizing.


----------



## Viri (Jan 17, 2022)

When ever I see or hear about a Jehovah's Witness, I think of this.



Spoiler








Also, the person who was at Al Bundy's door was Homer Simpson.


----------



## Lacius (Jan 17, 2022)

elpepeetesech said:


> bro this is a fucking videogame forum stfu with your personal issues


There are subforums here for things that aren't about video games, including the one you currently find yourself in. If you don't want to pay attention to it, you don't have to. You can even remove it from your feed.

If we want to talk about things you shouldn't be doing on a forum, we could talk about how your post doesn't contribute anything meaningful to the conversation, or we could talk about your double posting. 



tabzer said:


> Thinking is the act of rationalization.  Justifying something is synonymous to rationalizing.


To be clear, when we talk about something being rational, we don't just mean someone has thought about it. We mean it's logically sound. For something to be logically sound, the conclusions must logically follow the premises, and the premises must be demonstrably true.

Religious beliefs are irrational, meaning they are not logically sound. If a person cares more about the truthfulness of a claim than the claim itself, then that person cannot believe those arguments if they are not logically sound.


----------



## GeekyGuy (Jan 17, 2022)

Marc_78065 said:


> I'd just like to post this thread as my parents and sisters (no, I don't have a brother) are JWs and what they do and what they stand for doesn't make much sense.
> 
> Here's a documentary of JW:
> 
> ...



Not gonna watch the "documentary," and if it is the source of the information you've presented, then I recommend going to the actual source -- The Jehovah's Witnesses.

As someone who grew up as a Jehovah's Witness (though no longer one for decades now), I will try to offer my understanding of the Jehovah's Witness organization:


I remember them using the term "imperfect" for all men (except Adam, Eve, and Jesus), not "evil," and the use of the term "men" as a generalization for mankind.
No, that is not my understanding. Non-believers will not be resurrected, nor will they be saved during "the last days."
Okay.
They see homosexuality as sinful, and yes, they do welcome everyone to find "the Truth."
Incorrect.
They don't celebrate Christmas for two reasons: it is based on a pagan holiday, and based on the description given in the Bible of the locale and animals out in the fields and such, they believe Jesus was born in a warmer time of the year.
They don't celebrate birthdays, correct. They don't celebrate New Years, so that is incorrect.
No. They believe that 1914 was the cut-off year for "the Annointed Ones," those believers who will live in heaven. Other believers will live again on earth as perfect human beings.
Others as fake? No, I would say they see those other religions as flawed.
Billions of dollars? I have no idea.
No, they don't teach or profess that. They discourage witnesses from entering into new, intimate relationships with non-believers, but encourage witnesses to always strive to make their existing relationships fruitful and healthy.
Lastly, I would like to add my personal opinion. Logical? Belief, in many ways, seems to defy logic. In any faith.

Hope this helps.


----------



## lafleche (Jan 17, 2022)

Why believe in a God or some other almighty being who takes care of you, when it let's things like cancer, ms, dementia exists.... War, hunger, extinction of animals... Yes I know the last ones are men made but as a good father or mother of his/her children and being onmipotent some intervention is expected. 

So no: God is a fairy tale created by men who wants to rule and take control over the masses. Luckily I can not get burned anymore.


----------



## tabzer (Jan 17, 2022)

Lacius said:


> There are subforums here for things that aren't about video games, including the one you currently find yourself in. If you don't want to pay attention to it, you don't have to. You can even remove it from your feed.
> 
> If we want to talk about things you shouldn't be doing on a forum, we could talk about how your post doesn't contribute anything meaningful to the conversation, or we could talk about your double posting.
> 
> ...


Religions don't exist in vacuum.  The conclusion that religions aren't logically sound isn't logically sound.  You pretty much see what you want, and if you think that all religions have a centralized authority that perpetuates an immutable belief, then it could be said that you are "closer to god" than most.


----------



## september796 (Jan 17, 2022)

I know some close people who are JWs that have tried to convert me in the past.. and failed, but I'm very politely so I have listened to them patiently and even have taken the time to read A LOT of their stuff in their website. But in fairness I can say that most of what's in the OP is wrong. Morally speaking, I think their doctrine is not illogical but actually quite logical and similar to other religions, only somewhat more rigorous. But I wouldnt classify them as Christian though and here is my biggest disagreement with them: they have changed some of the lore, for instance by saying Jesus is not god only Jehovah is and things like that.


CoolMe said:


> I can understand about Jehovah (And/ or YHWH).. it's the "witnesses" part that i don't understand, like what did they "witness" exactly?


the name "witnesses" is taken from a psalm.


----------



## smf (Jan 17, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Thinking is the act of rationalization.  Justifying something is synonymous to rationalizing.


Just because you can rationalize something, doesn't make it rational.

Otherwise it would be impossible to be irrational.

In fact rationalizing is more often than not the opposite of rational, as you are having to attempt to construct reasons to justify your thought to make it appear rational when it is very likely not. Usually, if something is rational, then you don't need to rationalize it.

_rationalize: attempt to explain or justify (behaviour or an attitude) with logical reasons, even if these are not appropriate._



tabzer said:


> The conclusion that religions aren't logically sound isn't logically sound.


Your conclusion isn't logically sound, you've based it on emotion & not logic.

What I don't get is why you need religion to be logical, god moves in mysterious ways after all. Which human logic is unable to comprehend. As religions were made up to cope with the unknown, then why can't the great unknown be why you believe?

Being rational isn't a guarantee of success either. That doesn't mean that it's rational to be irrational, but it can be beneficial.


----------



## Lacius (Jan 17, 2022)

tabzer said:


> The conclusion that religions aren't logically sound isn't logically sound.


Yes, it is. Rejection of a religious claim that isn't supported by evidence is literally the only sound and reasonable position to take.

When someone makes a claim, it has a burden of proof. If that burden of proof hasn't been met, the claim must be rejected if one cares if their beliefs are true.



tabzer said:


> You pretty much see what you want


No, my beliefs are based on whether or not there's evidence, not whether or not it's what I "want." If my beliefs were based on what I "what," I'd believe all sorts of untrue things.



tabzer said:


> if you think that all religions have a centralized authority that perpetuates an immutable belief


I didn't make this claim.



lafleche said:


> Why believe in a God or some other almighty being who takes care of you, when it let's things like cancer, ms, dementia exists.... War, hunger, extinction of animals... Yes I know the last ones are men made but as a good father or mother of his/her children and being onmipotent some intervention is expected.
> 
> So no: God is a fairy tale created by men who wants to rule and take control over the masses. Luckily I can not get burned anymore.


A lot of bad things exist in our world. That means that a god either doesn't want to help, or can't. Either one makes the god undeserving of worship if it exists.


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Jan 17, 2022)

Marc_78065 said:


> This could go on and on. My point is, I believe there's a God / Superior Being who created the world, but it ain't how the JWs describe it as. Furthermore, no one alive truly knows and the closest "evidence" are Bibles which I wouldn't trust to be the truth.


I am not a JW, but I can play devil´s advocate and defend them. I suspect a colleague of mine is a JW, but I have never asked him.

- "All men are evil" but the ones in charge of JW are men
I think men here refers to men and women (after all: WOmen are also MEN) and human nature.
- "Jehovah will kill all nonbelievers" the "God" they made up isn't very loving (but think he is)
Same as in all Abrahamic religions, loving in the sense of forgiving if you follow them. A marketing trick.
- "Jehovah" they use His name in almost every sentence and think of Him as a "friend" or an imaginary friend
Same in all Abrahamic religions; assuming there is a mind behind everything is an evolutionary adaption. Those who thought the noise they just heard was just the wind, were eaten by tigers. The extreme version is schizophrenia.
- "Homosexuality is bad" but they still pretend they welcome everyone
They assume it is not an identity but a chose lifestyle. So they welcome homosexuals as long as they do not practice their inclinations
- They don't celebrate Christmas despite being a Christian religion
Due to its pagan origins.
- They've said Armageddon was coming in 1914 and 1918, yet here we are
Jesus was expecting to live in the end times, so did his followers. Here we are 2000 years later.
-They see their sect/cult/religion as the "true" one and all others are fake
Monotheism
- If a JW person is in a relationship with a non-JW, then they're "doomed" to this world
None of the Abrahamic religions welcome it. Jews and JW might be the strictest in this regard. Islam allows Muslim men to marry women of the people of the book (Jews/Christians).


----------



## Dr_Faustus (Jan 17, 2022)

lafleche said:


> Why believe in a God or some other almighty being who takes care of you, when it let's things like cancer, ms, dementia exists.... War, hunger, extinction of animals... Yes I know the last ones are men made but as a good father or mother of his/her children and being onmipotent some intervention is expected.
> 
> So no: God is a fairy tale created by men who wants to rule and take control over the masses. Luckily I can not get burned anymore.


In the same way that one could denounce all religions based on their atheism I can basically do the same to denounce their system of belief only based on the fact that their truth is no absolute greater than other (older) religions. 

Honestly I find atheism to exist on the same coin as most religions. Absence of proof of God or the afterlife is still a belief that you want to preach and argue about. Its the same concept of self satisfactory ego stroking you get regardless of which system of belief you fall into. 

The path of clarity has no determinate on truth. Because the ultimate truth is we simply do not know of the existence of these things beyond our limited corporeal state of being. Those who claim to are only acting in their beliefs, in what they find themselves in or are brought into believing. The structure of faith is manipulated, originally meant for a peace of mind that is nigh-obtainable but now is used as a form of transaction between peace and duty in the form of following. The older faiths are harder to despite given their age and formation but the newer faiths of recent can easily be tracked to their origins and be broken down as the falsehood that they pretend to operate as a religion. These newer structures only shine light on how problematic the older faiths have been as these newer faiths take the original concept and take it into cult like directions. 


With that said, and dismissing the newer faiths. I personally exist seeing both sides of the coin and coming to the conclusion that there is no whole truth that we will ever reach with absolute fact. Probably never in our lifetimes at least. With that there is a peace in being open minded about interpretations of faith but not letting it control your life or deciding factors for things. After all religion should not have that much personal rule over one's life. It should be about how one lives their best life doing the right things for themselves and for others. Once that deviates into control, or screwing over others because its fine to believe so, then that all falls apart.


----------



## Lacius (Jan 17, 2022)

Dr_Faustus said:


> In the same way that one could denounce all religions based on their atheism I can basically do the same to denounce their system of belief only based on the fact that their truth is no absolute greater than other (older) religions.
> 
> Honestly I find atheism to exist on the same coin as most religions. Absence of proof of God or the afterlife is still a belief that you want to preach and argue about. Its the same concept of self satisfactory ego stroking you get regardless of which system of belief you fall into.
> 
> ...


Most atheists reject religious claims because those claims have not met their burdens of proof. Atheism is not a positive claim, and it isn't a "belief."

I don't believe in magical pixies that live in my computer case and cause every typo I seemingly make, and the reason why is because there's no evidence for the existence of those pixies. I have a feeling you also don't believe those pixies exist, and I have a feeling that it's also because there's no evidence demonstrating the existence of those pixies. Believing in the pixies and not believing in the pixies are not comparable positions: One is rational, and the other is not.

Atheism is the same way.


----------



## Dr_Faustus (Jan 17, 2022)

Lacius said:


> Most atheists reject religious claims because those claims have not met their burdens of proof. Atheism is not a positive claim, and it isn't a "belief."
> 
> I don't believe in magical pixies that live in my computer case and cause every typo I seemingly make, and the reason why is because there's no evidence for the existence of those pixies. I have a feeling you also don't believe those pixies exist, and I have a feeling that it's also because there's no evidence demonstrating the existence of those pixies. Believing in the pixies and not believing in the pixies are not comparable positions: One is rational, and the other is not.
> 
> Atheism is the same way.


Except that is fundamentally wrong, and your example is also wrong as well. We all know what makes up inside of a computer, (if you don't that's your choice not to but the information is freely anywhere on the net and you can take one apart yourself to figure out the details.) But there is a big difference between belief in abstraction and nigh-tangible and what is tangible. I can take apart a computer and show you how it works, there are those out there even greater than I which can show you how the basis of how electricity flows through a circuit board and how the flipping of bits creates mathematical processes. Its all right there in front of you. You or I cannot explain the fundamentals for our reality however, the basis of it or how it came to be. Yes the big bang is a tangible theory but it also does not answer how that happened prior to its existence or how it all came to be to create us in the here and now. Whether you believe in the traditional sense of God or a general Creator theory the fact is either way you look at it, there is no truth to be better explained when the truth has not been proven yet. 

In short, if you cannot for a matter of a fact prove your position to be true on fact alone, then it is a belief stated only in theory, which makes atheism no different, or better than any other traditional religion out there. When there is no factual answer for the big questions in life and insist your theories are correct, you are doing no different than any other overly religious person would do and push your beliefs onto others because you are right in your belief. When there is no proven fact one way or another, it is a belief, a theory, whatever you want to call it. Its not substantial enough to separate you from them as it still falls on the structure of belief. You believe its rational, just as those believing in God are rational to themselves.

Atheism is a religion just the same.


----------



## Lacius (Jan 17, 2022)

Dr_Faustus said:


> Except that is fundamentally wrong, and your example is also wrong as well. We all know what makes up inside of a computer, (if you don't that's your choice not to but the information is freely anywhere on the net and you can take one apart yourself to figure out the details.) But there is a big difference between belief in abstraction and nigh-tangible and what is tangible. I can take apart a computer and show you how it works, there are those out there even greater than I which can show you how the basis of how electricity flows through a circuit board and how the flipping of bits creates mathematical processes. Its all right there in front of you.


When the claim is they're invisible, magical pixies, then the claim becomes unfalsifiable, and it becomes the same as a god claim. It hasn't met its burden of proof, and it should not be believed.



Dr_Faustus said:


> You or I cannot explain the fundamentals for our reality however, the basis of it or how it came to be. Yes the big bang is a tangible theory but it also does not answer how that happened prior to its existence or how it all came to be to create us in the here and now. Whether you believe in the traditional sense of God or a general Creator theory the fact is either way you look at it, there is no truth to be better explained when the truth has not been proven yet.


Absence of an explanation for something is never a reason to believe a claim that hasn't met its burden of proof. If you and I find a dead body in the woods, and no amount of science and investigation can determine a cause of death, that doesn't mean we're rationally justified in believing the claim that the man was killed by malicious forest pixies. It means we don't know how he died, and that's it.



Dr_Faustus said:


> In short, if you cannot for a matter of a fact prove your position to be true on fact alone, then it is a belief stated only in theory, which makes atheism no different, or better than any other traditional religion out there.


My position is that the god claim has not met its burden of proof, and therefore it should be rejected until such a time it has met its burden of proof. That isn't the same thing as claiming that a god certainly doesn't exist; it's the rejection of the claim that a god does exist. My position isn't one that requires evidence, since I'm not making a positive claim.

You don't believe the claim that the man was killed by malicious forest pixies, and it's because the claim hasn't met its burden of proof. That doesn't mean you are making the positive claim that he certainly wasn't killed by malicious forest pixies. It's important for you to understand the difference between these two things, or you're going to continue to commit a shifting of the burden of proof logical fallacy. Claims have a burden of proof, and it's only reasonable to reject the ones that haven't met their burdens of proof.

Religious claims haven't met their burdens of proof, so they should be rejected. Anything else is irrational.



Dr_Faustus said:


> When there is no factual answer for the big questions in life and insist your theories are correct, you are doing no different than any other overly religious person would do and push your beliefs onto others because you are right in your belief.


The only beliefs I hold are supported by evidence, so they're wholly different from religious beliefs.



Dr_Faustus said:


> When there is no proven fact one way or another, it is a belief, a theory, whatever you want to call it.


No.

A "belief" is the acceptance of a claim as true or likely true. People can have beliefs for good reason (having scientific evidence, for example), and they can have beliefs for bad reasons (religious claims, for example). A belief that is supported by evidence is rational and sound, but a belief that is not supported by evidence is irrational and unsound.
In science, a "theory" is a hypothesis that has been well-tested and demonstrated to be true or likely true. In other words, it's a hypothesis that has graduated. In colloquial English, some use "theory" to mean a guess or hypothesis.



Dr_Faustus said:


> Its not substantial enough to separate you from them as it still falls on the structure of belief. You believe its rational, just as those believing in God are rational to themselves.


"Rational" is not a subjective term. Something either is or isn't logically sound, objectively. Since religious claims have not met their burdens of proof, they are objectively irrational. By definition, they must meet their burdens of proof in order to be considered rational.



Dr_Faustus said:


> Atheism is a religion just the same.


If a person were to say "There are definitely no gods whatsoever," that may be considered a positive claim that is unsubstantiated and comparable to a religious claim. However, atheism that is merely the rejection of god claims because they haven't met their burdens of proof is not even close to a religious claim. It is the rejection of a foolish claim due to lack of evidence.

Atheism is not a religion. It has no tenants and no dogma. It doesn't even include any positive claims about anything. Failure to believe a claim is not the same thing as accepting a claim. If you flip a coin and hide the result, I would reject the claim that it's tails. That doesn't mean I accept the claim that it's heads.

With respect, it sounds like you haven't given these issues a lot of thought. Please let me know if you have any questions.


----------



## Noctosphere (Jan 17, 2022)

If a jehovah witness comes at my home, trust me, I'll make them flee... hehehe
I'll act like a crazy mad man and hug them, kiss them, etc..
I'll tell them about how happy I am to see them
I'm even ready to make my Zelda rape their leg like a dog, hehe


----------



## tabzer (Jan 17, 2022)

Lacius said:


> I didn't make this claim.


Religion as a system, is logical, even if the outcome is evaluated as negative.  Religion as a personal belief system is individually subjective and not wholly accountable on your part.  The conclusion that something is illogical is based on a lack of information.  The claim that you "did not make" is a necessary prerequisite for your conclusion about "religions" to be true.

For someone who suggests that they aren't the one making a claim, you are the one visiting a thread about religion espousing your "non-evidence".  That's baggage.  Self-righteous zealots come in all kinds of shapes and sizes.


----------



## Lacius (Jan 17, 2022)

tabzer said:


> The conclusion that something is illogical is based on a lack of information.


I've reached the conclusion that religious claims are irrational because of a lack of information, yes. I am unaware of any evidence that these religious claims are true. If you're going to argue that religious beliefs are reasonable, please provide evidence for religious claims.



tabzer said:


> The claim that you "did not make" is a necessary prerequisite for your conclusion about "religions" to be true.


I haven't made any positive claims. I've only acknowledged that religious claims haven't met their burdens of proof.


----------



## tabzer (Jan 17, 2022)

Lacius said:


> If you're going to argue that religious beliefs are reasonable, please provide evidence for religious claims.



People are actively rationalizing their beliefs ie. the pursuit of rationale, so it isn't a terminated process on which to draw a conclusion.  If you have rejected such a pursuit, then you have opted yourself out of the process and are not in an a position to be objective about it.



Lacius said:


> I haven't made any positive claims. I've only acknowledged that religious claims haven't met their burdens of proof.



You are making claims.  I am too.  My claim is that it isn't possible to conclude that religions are irrational, and your claim is that it is.  Your argument is established on making a strawman of non-contained, unquantified, social phenomena and saying there is no good reason for it to exist.


----------



## Lacius (Jan 17, 2022)

tabzer said:


> People are actively rationalizing their beliefs ie. the pursuit of rationale, so it isn't a terminated process on which to draw a conclusion.  If you have rejected such a pursuit, then you have opted yourself out of the process and are not in an a position to be objective about it.


You can't start with a belief and then try to rationalize it later. That isn't how the pursuit of truth works. You can start with a claim and try to rationalize belief in it, but the time to believe a claim is after you have found evidence for it, and not a moment sooner.



tabzer said:


> You are making claims.  I am too.  My claim is that it isn't possible to conclude that religions are irrational, and your claim is that it is.  Your argument is established on making a strawman of non-contained, unquantified, social phenomena and saying there is no good reason for it to exist.


If a claim hasn't met its burden of proof, it's irrational by definition. That's not my opinion; it's a fact. If your argument is that religious claims have met their burdens of proof, please provide the evidence for those claims. Anything else is a waste of time.

Edit: There isn't anything you've said in this thread that couldn't also be applied to the claim that malevolent forest pixies exist. Claims require evidence in order to have a rational basis for accepting those claims as true. Put up or shut up.


----------



## tabzer (Jan 17, 2022)

Lacius said:


> You can't start with a belief and then try to rationalize it later. That isn't how the pursuit of truth works.



While people definitely do that, regardless of being religious or not, that is not the argument I made.  I can't substantiate why people believe what they believe.  The act of continually revisiting why someone believes what they believe is not a claim that the initial adoption of a belief was rational or irrational.  I would also argue that it would be impossible for someone to grow up and live life without experiencing false concepts.  If this a philosophical discussion on why someone believes in things, then I'm curious how you'd start.



Lacius said:


> If a claim hasn't met its burden of proof, it's irrational by definition. That's not my opinion; it's a fact. If your argument is that religious claims have met their burdens of proof, please provide the evidence for those claims. Anything else is a waste of time.



I don't think anybody came here asking anybody to believe in any religion.  I know that didn't happen to me, and I'm pretty sure I didn't ask that of anyone.  There is no burden of proof, unless you are trying to make me accept a claim that religions are irrational.  I don't have reason to think irrational things actually exist.  I think you have unresolved issues and are taking them to the wrong place.


----------



## Lacius (Jan 17, 2022)

tabzer said:


> While people definitely do that, regardless of being religious or not, that is not the argument I made.  I can't substantiate why people believe what they believe.  The act of continually revisiting why someone believes what they believe is not a claim that the initial adoption of a belief was rational or irrational.  I would also argue that it would be impossible for someone to grow up and live life without experiencing false concepts.  If this a philosophical discussion on why someone believes in things, then I'm curious how you'd start.


I don't really care why someone initially believed something or why people believe things in general; I care if a particular claim is supported by evidence. If it isn't, it's irrational.



tabzer said:


> I don't think anybody came here asking anybody to believe in any religion.  I know that didn't happen to me, and I'm pretty sure I didn't ask that of anyone.  There is no burden of proof, unless you are trying to make me accept a claim that religions are irrational.  I don't have reason to think irrational things actually exist.  I think you have unresolved issues and are taking them to the wrong place.


No, but this is a thread with the topic of how JW as a religion irrational, and I responded by acknowledging that all major religions are irrational since they don't meet their burdens of proof. Some people didn't like that and responded to me claiming religious beliefs were in fact rational, but they failed at demonstrating this, and then you chimed in.

I understand if you are wishing to check out of the conversation because you can't or won't demonstrate the truthfulness of religious claims, but shamelessly trying to gaslight people into thinking my posts are somehow off-topic isn't the way to do it. You can just stop posting.


----------



## Marc_LFD (Jan 18, 2022)

I tried talking to my sister about how it brainwashes them, but she can't take any criticism especially about her religion.

That being said, she has cancer and they're doing everything possible so that she makes it thru. The side effects make her seem like a completely different person (hostile, rude, jealous), but she was already a bit like that, those drugs "unlocked" that part.

The important part is, don't let a person get to your nerves. It's not worth it.


----------



## Dr_Faustus (Jan 18, 2022)

Lacius said:


> "Rational" is not a subjective term. Something either is or isn't logically sound, objectively. Since religious claims have not met their burdens of proof, they are objectively irrational. By definition, they must meet their burdens of proof in order to be considered rational.
> 
> 
> If a person were to say "There are definitely no gods whatsoever," that may be considered a positive claim that is unsubstantiated and comparable to a religious claim. However, atheism that is merely the rejection of god claims because they haven't met their burdens of proof is not even close to a religious claim. It is the rejection of a foolish claim due to lack of evidence.
> ...


For one, being rational is a subjective nature in people trying to defend themselves or their beliefs to a higher standard, regardless if its true in any nature or not. Whether it would be someone taking a life in the name of god or someone bitching about a public christmas display on public property, in the minds of those people they are rational in their ways. Does this make them right? Not at all, but to them its a form of being rational. Religion and belief structures all have these traits. 

And again, when it comes to Atheism its a structure of belief, a belief of an absence of God is still a belief all the same. You speak about the burden of proof when it comes to other religions when it comes to their beliefs and of God/Gods but the same can ultimately be said about Atheism as well being a burden of proof because an absence of God is not a proof of God not existing. I mean hell, if a kid grew up with only one parent for all their life and never met their other biological parent does that mean they simply do not exist? Perhaps in some religions there's some talk as to how that can be done but in real life the absence of something does not mean it does not exist without proof dictating absolute fact of the matter. 

The rejection of one belief is a belief for another. Its no different no matter how you look at it. This is coming from someone who is more or less Agnostic. Atheists make me laugh because they think they are superior than other religious people because they have all the answers and think their belief is the right one because of facts and logic, but when the core of their belief has not been proven right or wrong its still a core that is a structure of belief, until such time as it is without any doubt that God does or does not exist then the Atheist mindset is no different in being absolute in their truth than any other religion out there. 

At least with Agnosticism the concept of the truth being far larger than anything we could ever know for sure and as a result is unknowable, I can live life happy without being burdened with having to prove anything. Because as far as I see it, everyone has their own interpretation and as long as it does not harm others or mess with others lives then live your best life believing whatever the hell you want. Just do not get into other people's faces about it or make a cult out of it.


----------



## september796 (Jan 18, 2022)

Are really men both physical and spiritual beings as the religions claim? The former is kinda obvious but the latter, can be even proven? I think we are but how can you explain a spiritual experience? I'm completely lost in this regard. You can't measure it or anything, let alone prove it to others. Religion say it is a mystery, that is, it doesn't have explanation... and that's it. 
I've read the discussion here and I see a dead end because you're trying to rationalize the spiritual or even god with a human mind and these are not the same category. Just thinking of someone who is immaterial and exist before time is an overwhelming thought. What is rationalism next to God with such characteristics, that is beyond these rules? I think it's logical to be a believer rather than an atheist/agnostic for other reasons though.


----------



## Lacius (Jan 18, 2022)

Dr_Faustus said:


> For one, being rational is a subjective nature in people trying to defend themselves or their beliefs to a higher standard, regardless if its true in any nature or not. Whether it would be someone taking a life in the name of god or someone bitching about a public christmas display on public property, in the minds of those people they are rational in their ways. Does this make them right? Not at all, but to them its a form of being rational. Religion and belief structures all have these traits.
> 
> And again, when it comes to Atheism its a structure of belief, a belief of an absence of God is still a belief all the same. You speak about the burden of proof when it comes to other religions when it comes to their beliefs and of God/Gods but the same can ultimately be said about Atheism as well being a burden of proof because an absence of God is not a proof of God not existing. I mean hell, if a kid grew up with only one parent for all their life and never met their other biological parent does that mean they simply do not exist? Perhaps in some religions there's some talk as to how that can be done but in real life the absence of something does not mean it does not exist without proof dictating absolute fact of the matter.
> 
> ...


The rejection of a claim is not the acceptance of another claim, and the rejection of a claim does not have a burden of proof.

If you flip a coin and hide the result from me, I'm going to reject the claim that the coin is heads. That doesn't mean I accept the claim that it's tails; I also reject the claim that it's tails.

Religious claims are unsupported by evidence, which is what it means for something to be unsound, illogical, unreasonable, irrational, or whatever colloquial word you want to use. Whether or not a claim is supported by evidence is objective, not subjective. Atheism, on the other hand, is merely the rejection of a claim because it has not met its burden of proof. If you run into an atheist who says "Not only do I reject the claim that a god exists, but I also actively believe that a god does not exist," then that atheist would have a burden of proof.

We believe claims when there's evidence to support those claims. If there's a claim that has neither been supported by evidence nor disproven, that doesn't mean it's rational to believe the claim is true. Whether or not a claim has been disproven is not justification for belief in the claim. If the criteria for belief is it just hasn't been disproven, then you would have to believe me when I made the claim that malevolent forest pixies exist, since they haven't been disproven. You would have to believe me when I say the coin landed on heads despite not looking at it, since it hasn't been disproven. If you care if your beliefs are true, you require evidence for those beliefs. That's it.

Agnosticism is a separate issue from atheism. The former deals with knowledge, and the latter deals with belief. They are not mutually exclusive concepts. If someone believed in a god, and they claim to know it, they're a gnostic theist. If someone believed in a god, but didn't know for sure, that's an agnostic theist. If someone doesn't believe in a god but claims to know it, that's a gnostic atheist. If someone doesn't believe in a god but doesn't know for sure, that's an agnostic atheist. If you ask someone if they believe in a god, and they say they're an agnostic, that doesn't actually answer the question that's being asked. One either accepts the claim is true or they don't. There is no third option.



september796 said:


> Are really men both physical and spiritual beings as the religions claim? The former is kinda obvious but the latter, can be even proven? I think we are but how can you explain a spiritual experience? I'm completely lost in this regard. You can't measure it or anything, let alone prove it to others. Religion say it is a mystery, that is, it doesn't have explanation... and that's it.
> I've read the discussion here and I see a dead end because you're trying to rationalize the spiritual or even god with a human mind and these are not the same category. Just thinking of someone who is immaterial and exist before time is an overwhelming thought. What is rationalism next to God with such characteristics, that is beyond these rules? I think it's logical to be a believer rather than an atheist/agnostic for other reasons though.


All beliefs require evidence, if we care about being rational and if our beliefs are true. It isn't an atheist's fault if a god is unverifiable. Making a claim that something exists and defining it as "beyond our understanding" with the inability to be supported by evidence means you've made a claim about something that you have no rational basis to believe exists.

Despite the lousy points being made in this thread, I'm glad they're being made because it is allowing for people to realize that they have beliefs for bad reasons.


----------



## MrsCByTheSea (Jan 19, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Religion as a system, is logical, even if the outcome is evaluated as negative.  Religion as a personal belief system is individually subjective and not wholly accountable on your part.  The conclusion that something is illogical is based on a lack of information.  The claim that you "did not make" is a necessary prerequisite for your conclusion about "religions" to be true.
> 
> For someone who suggests that they aren't the one making a claim, you are the one visiting a thread about religion espousing your "non-evidence".  That's baggage.  Self-righteous zealots come in all kinds of shapes and sizes.


This is the most important decision you will ever make. If you're wrong, you lose out for eternity.  (Mom hugs.)  jw.org/en/library/magazines/g201503/is-there-a-god-exist/


----------



## tabzer (Jan 19, 2022)

Lacius said:


> I don't really care why someone initially believed something or why people believe things in general; I care if a particular claim is supported by evidence. If it isn't, it's irrational.
> 
> 
> No, but this is a thread with the topic of how JW as a religion irrational, and I responded by acknowledging that all major religions are irrational since they don't meet their burdens of proof. Some people didn't like that and responded to me claiming religious beliefs were in fact rational, but they failed at demonstrating this, and then you chimed in.
> ...


You came to me with a claim.  You want to pretend that religions irrationally exist independently of people and are at fault for people behave badly.


----------



## september796 (Jan 19, 2022)

Lacius said:


> All beliefs require evidence, if we care about being rational and if our beliefs are true. It isn't an atheist's fault if a god is unverifiable. Making a claim that something exists and defining it as "beyond our understanding" with the inability to be supported by evidence means you've made a claim about something that you have no rational basis to believe exists.
> 
> Despite the lousy points being made in this thread, I'm glad they're being made because it is allowing for people to realize that they have beliefs for bad reasons.


What I say is that you won't find a satisfactory answer by expecting what is not material to be proven through a scientific method (that is not perfect btw). This has more to do with metaphysics and I suspect an answer from a philosophical perspective would not satisfy you either. To begin with, it's impossible to demonstrate that there is no god, however you can use logic to at least demonstrate that it's a possibility that there is one. That would be a rational basis, just not a tangible evidence, which is what you're actually looking for, I think. Besides, the word irrational is a bit imprecise here, we're all giving some thoughts. I understand it as of 'lack of reasoning' rather than 'bad reasoning' (which I assume is the colloquial meaning) and it has little to do with being right or wrong, specially on a complex subject like this. I would consider a very very drunk person to be temporarily irrational, for instance.


----------



## Lacius (Jan 19, 2022)

tabzer said:


> You came to me with a claim.  You want to pretend that religions irrationally exist independently of people and are at fault for people behave badly.


I never said religions exist independently of people. I said religious claims haven't met their burdens of proof. If you want to argue there's evidence that demonstrates the truthfulness of religious claims, please provide it. If you can't, then I will take that as a concession that religious claims are unsupported by evidence and shouldn't be believed by any rational person.

Religion is the reason some people do some bad things, yes. More importantly, believing religious beliefs for bad reasons means one can believe all sorts of bad things for bad reasons.



MrsCByTheSea said:


> This is the most important decision you will ever make. If you're wrong, you lose out for eternity.  (Mom hugs.)


This argument is called Psacal's Wager. Unfortunately for anyone making the argument, it doesn't actually demonstrate the truthfulness of the claim, and it suggests that a god can be easily fooled. In addition, believing something because there are potentially negative consequences for not believing means you have to believe all sorts of irrational and contradictory claims. If a person cares if their beliefs are true, they can't believe something just because someone said they would be punished if they didn't. Not only is it irrational, but it would make the one doing the punishing (God, in this case) immoral. It's a wholly unconvincing argument.



september796 said:


> What I say is that you won't find a satisfactory answer by expecting what is not material to be proven through a scientific method (that is not perfect btw). This has more to do with metaphysics and I suspect an answer from a philosophical perspective would not satisfy you either. To begin with, it's impossible to demonstrate that there is no god, however you can use logic to at least demonstrate that it's a possibility that there is one. That would be a rational basis, just not a tangible evidence, which is what you're actually looking for, I think. Besides, the word irrational is a bit imprecise here, we're all giving some thoughts. I understand it as of 'lack of reasoning' rather than 'bad reasoning' (which I assume is the colloquial meaning) and it has little to do with being right or wrong, specially on a complex subject like this. I would consider a very very drunk person to be temporarily irrational, for instance.


It's possible to demonstrate that some specific definitions of "god" don't exist, but that's not what I'm talking about. Even if a god claim has not been disproven and is unfalsifiable, that isn't a reasonable justification for believing the claim. You can't demonstrate that forest pixies definitely don't exist, but that doesn't mean we should believe in them.

I'm not explicitly asking for physical evidence; any evidence that demonstrates the truthfulness of a claim is good enough. When I talk about science, I'm talking about the natural sciences, the social sciences, and the formal sciences. The formal sciences include logic and mathematics. Unfortunately for theists, no evidence has been presented that supports the claim that a god exists, physical or otherwise.

There is a philosophical possibility that a god exists, just like there's the philosophical possibility that forest pixies exist. I'm not refuting that. However, that doesn't mean we have any reason to think a god actually exists, and it doesn't mean we've demonstrated that there's an actual physical possibility that a god exists. There's a difference between the two. We don't actually know if a god's existence is possible, and it hasn't been demonstrated that a god is actually possible.


----------



## EatsCookies (Jan 19, 2022)

Damn I thought this post was going to have some good insights, thread is just cringe-low-iq edgelords who cant make a rational argument against religion. 
(You cant attack what you dont understand) 
My brother is JW, and full of inconsistencies. Ill be the first to attack JW, but I would never use any of the 'points' made by some of you. Yikes.


----------



## Lacius (Jan 19, 2022)

EatsCookies said:


> Damn I thought this post was going to have some good insights, thread is just cringe-low-iq edgelords who cant make a rational argument against religion.
> (You cant attack what you dont understand)
> My brother is JW, and full of inconsistencies. Ill be the first to attack JW, but I would never use any of the 'points' made by some of you. Yikes.


The only argument that matters is that religious claims have not met their burden of proof. A person who cares if their beliefs are true requires evidence for their beliefs.


----------



## smf (Jan 19, 2022)

Dr_Faustus said:


> Honestly I find atheism to exist on the same coin as most religions. Absence of proof of God or the afterlife is still a belief that you want to preach and argue about.


If you said there was am invisible elephant in the room and I said you had no evidence of that, then we'd both be arguing and only one of us would be correct.


----------



## 1NOOB (Jan 19, 2022)




----------



## tabzer (Jan 20, 2022)

Lacius said:


> I said religious claims haven't met their burdens of proof



Whoever is doing the proselytizing has the burden of proof.


----------



## SG854 (Jan 20, 2022)

It's not Jehova it's Yahweh


----------



## Lacius (Jan 20, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Whoever is doing the proselytizing has the burden of proof.


It's the person making the positive claim who has the burden of proof. What you're doing is called the shifting of the burden of proof, and it's a logical fallacy.

I'm not proselytizing. I'm acknowledging that religious claims haven't met their burden of proof, and I've posted a few explanations on how epistemology works. That's it.

If you wish to argue that religious claims have met their burden of proof, you need to demonstrate this. If you are not arguing that religious claims have met their burden of proof, then you and I are in agreement.


----------



## september796 (Jan 20, 2022)

Lacius said:


> It's possible to demonstrate that some specific definitions of "god" don't exist, but that's not what I'm talking about. Even if a god claim has not been disproven and is unfalsifiable, that isn't a reasonable justification for believing the claim. You can't demonstrate that forest pixies definitely don't exist, but that doesn't mean we should believe in them.
> 
> I'm not explicitly asking for physical evidence; any evidence that demonstrates the truthfulness of a claim is good enough. When I talk about science, I'm talking about the natural sciences, the social sciences, and the formal sciences. The formal sciences include logic and mathematics. Unfortunately for theists, no evidence has been presented that supports the claim that a god exists, physical or otherwise.
> 
> There is a philosophical possibility that a god exists, just like there's the philosophical possibility that forest pixies exist. I'm not refuting that. However, that doesn't mean we have any reason to think a god actually exists, and it doesn't mean we've demonstrated that there's an actual physical possibility that a god exists. There's a difference between the two. We don't actually know if a god's existence is possible, and it hasn't been demonstrated that a god is actually possible.


Well that philosophical demonstration that a god may exist and the impossibility to prove the opposite IS a reason to think a god may actually exist, just not a sound evidence. That alone is rational and that's the point. I'm not talking about the lore, doctrine nor eveything else -aka religions- that's build around god, this is just about his existance. Although I'm sure not a single religious person believe in god because of this rational basis; as I said, that is more of a spiritual matter and faith is there.
But now I'm intrigued on how could we demonstrate that pixies -specifically pixies- may exist...
The approach on demonstrating the possibility for a pixy to exist and God (defined as the creator of everything there is) should be different. These two can't be compared. A pixy would be just another form of an imperfect living being. To this day they're still discovering new living beings anyway. Who knows if anytime soon they discover some weird animal with never seen before characteristics deep down the ocean or wherever. God is a different story and it can be demonstrated logically with the argument of first cause among a few others.


----------



## Lacius (Jan 20, 2022)

september796 said:


> Well that philosophical demonstration that a god may exist and the impossibility to prove the opposite IS a reason to think a god may actually exist, just not a sound evidence.


No, and there are two issues to unpack here.

First, there is a difference between something being philosophically possible and something being actually physically possible. It is philosophically possible that a ham sandwich will spontaneously appear in front of my face within the next few seconds, but that doesn't mean it's actually physically possible. If I flip this coin, it could land on tails. That's something that has been demonstrated to be actually physically possible.

Second, just because a claim is unfalsifiable is not justification for thinking it may actually be true, let alone justification for thinking it is actually true. In order to believe a claim is true, there needs to be evidence for the truthfulness of that claim. In order to believe a claim is physically possible, there must also be evidence for the physical possibility of the truthfulness of the claim. I can't disprove fire-breathing dragons, but that doesn't mean I have any justification for believing fire-breathing dragons exist, and it doesn't mean I have any justification for believing fire-breathing dragons are actually physically possible. I can't disprove a god's existence, but it has yet to be demonstrated that a god actually exists, and it has yet to be demonstrated it is even physically possible that a god exists.



september796 said:


> That alone is rational and that's the point.


Belief in a god is irrational since there is no evidence for a god's existence. Shifting the burden of proof doesn't change that.



september796 said:


> I'm not talking about the lore, doctrine nor eveything else -aka religions- that's build around god, this is just about his existance.


The basic theistic claim that a god exists has not met its burden of proof, like any other more specific religious claim.



september796 said:


> Although I'm sure not a single religious person believe in god because of this rational basis; as I said, that is more of a spiritual matter and faith is there.


Faith is the excuse one gives when they don't actually have any good reason or evidence for their beliefs. If a person actually had good reasons or evidence for the belief, they wouldn't say "faith." They would just provide the evidence.



september796 said:


> But now I'm intrigued on how could we demonstrate that pixies -specifically pixies- may exist...


There has been no demonstrate that pixies exist or are even physically possible. My point was the unfalsifiability of pixies doesn't change that.



september796 said:


> The approach on demonstrating the possibility for a pixy to exist and God (defined as the creator of everything there is) should be different.


It isn't different, and it shouldn't be different. You don't get to make exceptions for some claims but not others. If you care if your beliefs are true, you require good reason and evidence for those claims. Period.



september796 said:


> These two can't be compared.


Yes they can. They are perfectly analogous. Neither has met its burden of proof, both are unfalsifiable, and neither has been demonstrated to be even physically possible.



september796 said:


> A pixy would be just another form of an imperfect living being.


That is irrelevant to whether or not the claims are comparable. Neither has met its burden of proof, both are unfalsifiable, and neither has been demonstrated to be even physically possible.



september796 said:


> A pixy would be just another form of an imperfect living being. To this day they're still discovering new living beings anyway. Who knows if anytime soon they discover some weird animal with never seen before characteristics deep down the ocean or wherever.


It sounds like you're saying that if we take God and pixies, the pixies are more like things that we already know exist, making them less absurd than the God claim. In other words, we know "imperfect" living beings exist, but it hasn't been demonstrated that "perfect" beings exist or that it's even physically possible for perfect beings to exist.

I agree. Depending on our definition of "pixies," there's more evidence for the physical possibility that they could exist vs. a god.



september796 said:


> God is a different story and it can be demonstrated logically with the argument of first cause among a few others.


It has not been "demonstrated logically" that a god exists, and it has not been demonstrated logically that it is even physically possible for a god to exist. The "first-cause" argument is unsound, and depending on the argument, it isn't even valid. Most first-cause arguments argue that there was a first cause to the universe, but a.) There's no part of the argument that says a god has to be the first cause, b.) The argument fails at demonstrating that there has to be a first cause, and c.) The arguments that claim God has to be the first cause fail at demonstrating this.


----------



## tabzer (Jan 20, 2022)

Lacius said:


> It's the person making the positive claim who has the burden of proof. What you're doing is called the shifting of the burden of proof, and it's a logical fallacy.
> 
> I'm not proselytizing. I'm acknowledging that religious claims haven't met their burden of proof, and I've posted a few explanations on how epistemology works. That's it.
> 
> If you wish to argue that religious claims have met their burden of proof, you need to demonstrate this. If you are not arguing that religious claims have met their burden of proof, then you and I are in agreement.


You claim to know what religions are, what they claim, and that they are illogical.  I haven't presented any "religious claims", you are doing that.  My addition to the thread is that people don't need religion to be crappy, while others use it as an excuse.  Thanks for supporting my point.


----------



## nWo (Jan 20, 2022)

Well, that certainly sounds kinda weird, but you must look back on your life, experiences and believe in what you think is the right choice. I'm catholic and, as a child / teenager had some serious doubts, but after living some life changing things and looking around, researching and just living every day with a peaceful mind, I came to terms to the existence of God. (There are so many things so wonderful to just think they where made out of nothing) Also, catholicism says basically that God is a very jealous supreme being, he destroys and curses who He sees fit, and, us human beings? we are trash and take decisions that have consequences. Still we got the choice to be better or to just let shit drown you. When you see things this way, it makes a bit more sense.

Not starting a debate about what to believe and what not; just telling, be a fair person, live and let die, love the ones close to you, but more than anything, be happy and have peace on your soul. And don't forget to do the things you love, without doing harm to others.


----------



## Lacius (Jan 20, 2022)

tabzer said:


> You claim to know what religions are, what they claim, and that they are illogical.


My initial point was that JW and the other major religions haven't met their burden of proof, and I am correct. If you want to argue otherwise, you need to present evidence.



tabzer said:


> I haven't presented any "religious claims"


I never said you did. I said if you want to, or if you are going to, you need to provide evidence.



tabzer said:


> you are doing that [presenting religious claims]


I haven't made a single positive claim, let alone a religious one.



tabzer said:


> My addition to the thread is that people don't need religion to be crappy, while others use it as an excuse.


You've also suggested that religious beliefs are reasonable. They aren't.

People don't need religion to be crappy, but a lot of people are crappy who otherwise wouldn't be because of religion.



nWo said:


> Well, that certainly sounds kinda weird, but you must look back on your life, experiences and believe in what you think is the right choice. I'm catholic and, as a child / teenager have some serious doubts, but after living some life changing things and looking around, researching and just living every day with a peaceful mind, I came to terms to the existence of God. (There are so many things so wonderful to just think they where made out of nothing) Also, catholicism says basically that God is a very jealous supreme being, he destroys and curses who He sees fit, and, us human beings? we are trash and take decisions that have consequences. Still we got the choice to be better or to just let shit drown you. When you see things this way, it makes a bit more sense.
> 
> Not starting a debate about what to believe and what not; just telling, be a fair person, live and let die, love the ones close to you, but more than anything, be happy and have peace on your soul. And don't forget to do the things you love, without doing harm to others.


If the topic is about how JW is illogical, then it should be acknowledged that theism broadly is illogical.

Whether or not you find something wonderful is irrelevant to whether or not you have good reason to believe a religious claim is true.

You described humans as trash, but the jealous Catholic God you described is the one who sounds like trash.


----------



## nWo (Jan 20, 2022)

Well,  no one is trying to "convert" anyone, and you should do the same. You sound like if you desperately want everybody to be an atheist. If you are, it's cool bro. Really. But don't go everywhere saying things to doubt religions. 

My message was, just be a better person, no matter what religion / belief we follow. That's it.


----------



## SG854 (Jan 20, 2022)

nWo said:


> Well,  no one is trying to "convert" anyone, and you should do the same. You sound like if you desperately want everybody to be an atheist. If you are, it's cool bro. Really. But don't go everywhere saying things to doubt religions.
> 
> My message was, just be a better person, no matter what religion / belief we follow. That's it.


The sooner we de-convert people the better


----------



## Lacius (Jan 20, 2022)

nWo said:


> Well,  no one is trying to "convert" anyone, and you should do the same. You sound like if you desperately want everybody to be an atheist. If you are, it's cool bro. Really. But don't go everywhere saying things to doubt religions.


On a personal level, I don't care what anybody's religious beliefs are. I am rightfully acknowledging that anyone with religious beliefs who criticizes a religion like JW for being illogical is hypocritical.

I'm not knocking on people's doors and asking, "Have you given up God yet?" I'm responding appropriately in this thread in a way that is on topic and polite. Would I rather people have up silly superstitions and fantasy beliefs? Yes, the world would be a better place if humans embraced reason and skepticism. However, I wouldn't force that conversation on anyone, and I wouldn't forcibly end religion either. People need to embrace skeptical thought and logic on their own. Just because you don't like what I'm saying doesn't mean what I'm saying isn't true, and it doesn't mean what I'm saying here is at all inappropriate.

The primary reason JW is "illogical" is because it has failed to meet its burden of proof, and the same goes for all other religious and theistic claims. If you want to argue otherwise, you will need to provide evidence. If you can't or don't want to discuss this, nobody asked you to.



nWo said:


> My message was, just be a better person, no matter what religion / belief we follow. That's it.


Your message was a little more loaded than that. You suggested Catholicism is reasonable, but it isn't.


----------



## nWo (Jan 21, 2022)

Lacius said:


> My initial point was that JW and the other major religions haven't met their burden of proof, and I am correct. If you want to argue otherwise, you need to present evidence.
> 
> 
> I never said you did. I said if you want to, or if you are going to, you need to provide evidence.
> ...





Lacius said:


> On a personal level, I don't care what anybody's religious beliefs are. I am rightfully acknowledging that anyone with religious beliefs who criticizes a religion like JW for being illogical is hypocritical.
> 
> I'm not knocking on people's doors and asking, "Have you given up God yet?" I'm responding appropriately in this thread in a way that is on topic and polite. Would I rather people have up silly superstitions and fantasy beliefs? Yes, the world would be a better place if humans embraced reason and skepticism. However, I wouldn't force that conversation on anyone, and I wouldn't forcibly end religion either. People need to embrace skeptical thought and logic on their own. Just because you don't like what I'm saying doesn't mean what I'm saying isn't true, and it doesn't mean what I'm saying here is at all inappropriate.
> 
> ...


HOLY damn, dude, you sound itchy AF. Cool down a bit.


----------



## tabzer (Jan 21, 2022)

Lacius said:


> My initial point was that JW and the other major religions haven't met their burden of proof, and I am correct.



Even if the claim was specifically about the JWs, contextually, you don't matter.  The burden of proof is only of the interest of social contract.  They would go separate ways from you once you made it clear that you aren't interested.  Do you talk to them?  I can't represent JW, so it's your loss to try to talk to me about them.



Lacius said:


> You've also suggested that religious beliefs are reasonable. They aren't.



I don't know if they are reasonable or what qualifies as a "religious belief".  People have unique reasons for believing what they believe in which we are not able to fully evaluate.  Words mean different things to different people, so to pretend that the language is static across the board is a clear error on your behalf.  I don't think things happen for irrational reasons.



Lacius said:


> People don't need religion to be crappy, but a lot of people are crappy who otherwise wouldn't be because of religion.



I don't think that's true.  I suppose it could be true.  But it's probably just as true to say that a lot of people are crappy who otherwise wouldn't be because of their ignorance of god.

lt doesn't seem like you are saying anything meaningful there.

Making claims about religions are religious claims.  You might not like your baggage, but everyone else can see it.  Pretending it's not there isn't doing anyone any favors.


----------



## Lacius (Jan 21, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Even if the claim was specifically about the JWs, contextually, you don't matter.  The burden of proof is only of the interest of social contract.  They would go separate ways from you once you made it clear that you aren't interested.  Do you talk to them?  I can't represent JW, so it's your loss to try to talk to me about them.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


My point about the burden of proof was not specific to JW. That was kind of my whole point.

Religious beliefs are irrational by definition, since people who accept religious claims as true do not have any sound reason or evidence for their beliefs. Religious claims have not met their burden of proof. It's the same for why belief in forest pixies is irrational.

If you want to argue that religious beliefs are rational, in that they are supported by sound reason and evidence, then you need to provide that evidence. I'm not particularly interested in attempts to redefine religious beliefs back into rationality. If what you say can be equally applied to pixie beliefs, then it probably isn't a substantive response.

I would argue the semantic dance you're doing is the kind of post that isn't really saying anything meaningful here.



nWo said:


> HOLY damn, dude, you sound itchy AF. Cool down a bit.


My posts have been calm, on topic, and to the point, so I'm not sure how they could be described as "itchy" by any reasonable means. I'm not the one who got riled  because I didn't like what someone was saying about religion.

I rightfully made the point that if we are going to call JW illogical, then we must also not forget to call the rest of the major religions illogical. Saying we should get along, etc. is good but irrelevant. As I already said, you also posted a lot more baggage than that.

When you decide to respond to my last post with something substantive, do be sure to respond to it directly or tag me.


----------



## september796 (Jan 21, 2022)

Lacius said:


> First, there is a difference between something being philosophically possible and something being actually physically possible.


The physical possibility does not apply. If God exists he can't be physical, otherwise he wouldn't be perfect -following the logical reasoning-. So that doesn't make sense. 



Lacius said:


> It is philosophically possible that a ham sandwich will spontaneously appear in front of my face within the next few seconds, but that doesn't mean it's actually physically possible. If I flip this coin, it could land on tails. That's something that has been demonstrated to be actually physically possible.


Because a coin is material. That's probability though, it's not the same philosophical argument. Although I think there are some mathematical arguments about creation that I'm not familiar with.



Lacius said:


> I can't disprove fire-breathing dragons, but that doesn't mean I have any justification for believing fire-breathing dragons exist, and it doesn't mean I have any justification for believing fire-breathing dragons are actually physically possible. I can't disprove a god's existence, but it has yet to be demonstrated that a god actually exists, and it has yet to be demonstrated it is even physically possible that a god exists.


I agree with the dragon thing and the same should apply to everything that happens physically in this world. What I said is that at least we can demonstrate the possibility of God's existance through simple logic. With our humble science we'll never find the absolute truth.



Lacius said:


> Faith is the excuse one gives when they don't actually have any good reason or evidence for their beliefs. If a person actually had good reasons or evidence for the belief, they wouldn't say "faith." They would just provide the evidence.


It's certainly not an excuse. It's more like hope. I don't know who came up with the concept first nor where it comes from but the biblie says it's conviction to believe on what can't be seen or something like that. So that only applies for spiritual beings and things related to them if you will. 



Lacius said:


> There has been no demonstrate that pixies exist or are even physically possible. My point was the unfalsifiability of pixies doesn't change that.


I said "may", and you said that it's philosophically demonstrable -not the negation-. I'd like to read about that, honestly, because I suspect it's not the same argument.



Lacius said:


> It sounds like you're saying that if we take God and pixies, the pixies are more like things that we already know exist, making them less absurd than the God claim. In other words, we know "imperfect" living beings exist, but it hasn't been demonstrated that "perfect" beings exist or that it's even physically possible for perfect beings to exist.


Since we know what imperfect is we can easily imagine all sorts of creatures, but I don't know how could we demonstrate logically their existence. And sure, we're not able to know the perfect since our own intellectuality is anything but perfect. Perfect and material don't mix.



Lacius said:


> It has not been "demonstrated logically" that a god exists, and it has not been demonstrated logically that it is even physically possible for a god to exist. The "first-cause" argument is unsound, and depending on the argument, it isn't even valid. Most first-cause arguments argue that there was a first cause to the universe, but a.) There's no part of the argument that says a god has to be the first cause, b.) The argument fails at demonstrating that there has to be a first cause, and c.) The arguments that claim God has to be the first cause fail at demonstrating this.


At this point, it sounds like you portrait God simply as a physical being with super powers. Anyway, the first cause argument is a logical demonstration of a possibility of god's existance, a) it doesn't mention God but the characteristics are of what we call God. b) It has to, otherwise it becomes a circular logic fallacy. c) Same as a.


----------



## Dr_Faustus (Jan 21, 2022)

Lacius said:


> The rejection of a claim is not the acceptance of another claim, and the rejection of a claim does not have a burden of proof.
> 
> If you flip a coin and hide the result from me, I'm going to reject the claim that the coin is heads. That doesn't mean I accept the claim that it's tails; I also reject the claim that it's tails.
> 
> ...



A rejection of a claim is still accepting of another claim all the same. If you want to reject all things that is more on the end of Nihilism than Atheism. When you cannot prove your belief with any larger matter of fact than any other religion it does not make you or your claims, rejections of claims or whatever you want to twist your words into a matter of fact any more so than others. You are still in the bandwagon of religious mindset of a following principal that you hold your beliefs to. Its not a matter of fact if it cannot be proven one way or another. Its a double edged sword masked as logic no matter how you hold it and want to point it at others. Its not an argument of burden of proof, its an argument from ignorance. 

Also I know of the levels of Agnosticism, but usually when I present myself as an Agnostic theist it brings nothing but confusion to a conversation. Also to better expand on that explanation its a concept of having a belief in the possibility of God but not having the knowledge or the claim to back up with a matter of fact that a God exists. Basically believing in the possibility of a creator without the means to know for sure if one exists and accepting the fact that it may be unknowable. Its still far more embracing of a concept because at the end of the day its something that may truly be unknowable to anyone, so with that its better to put the effort into making the world a better place for everyone than trying to answer questions that have no factual answers and only hinge on structures of belief and claims or absence of claims.




smf said:


> If you said there was am invisible elephant in the room and I said you had no evidence of that, then we'd both be arguing and only one of us would be correct.


Sure, go with that kind of grasping of straws of argument again. Except when the room can be the size of all known and unknown space and the elephant can be any size to the unobservable eye. When such concepts such as black holes are barely scratched upon, when we have only dipped our toes in the concept of quantum science and when we have not even gotten a human on another planet yet, but go on and claim to already have all the answers in our universe and how it works because that is somehow any different than how the basis of religious concepts are any different than your perception. 

Just let it go, when you drop your ego of belief/claims and just embrace the fact that the truth is unknowable to you, you live a better life focusing on better things. Claiming to know for a fact based squarely on claims or absence of claims is just ego stroking, something that seems common among atheists and very religious types.


----------



## Lacius (Jan 21, 2022)

september796 said:


> The physical possibility does not apply. If God exists he can't be physical, otherwise he wouldn't be perfect -following the logical reasoning-. So that doesn't make sense.


When we are talking about something being physically possible, we are saying it's actually possible. It doesn't matter if the god claim is one about something that is immaterial. Making that claim doesn't mean you have somehow demonstrated the actual possibility that it exists. I can't disprove an immaterial pink unicorn, but that doesn't mean we have any reason to think it exists, and it doesn't mean we have any reason to think it's actually possible.



september796 said:


> Because a coin is material. That's probability though, it's not the same philosophical argument. Although I think there are some mathematical arguments about creation that I'm not familiar with.


It is not a philosophical argument. That was my point: There is a difference between something being philosophically possible (since you can't be 100% certain of just about anything, many things are unfalsifiable, and there's no good solution to hard solipsism) and something being demonstrated to be actually possible. Pixies, God, and a tails coin flip are all philosophically possible. I can't disprove them, and for all I know, the reality I'm aware of isn't even the true reality. However, only the tail coin flip has been demonstrated to be actually possible.



september796 said:


> I agree with the dragon thing and the same should apply to everything that happens physically in this world. What I said is that at least we can demonstrate the possibility of God's existance through simple logic. With our humble science we'll never find the absolute truth.


No, our standards for having reason and evidence to think something exists or that it's actually possible something exists applies to everything. There is nothing that demonstrates the actual existence of God, let alone the actual possibility that a god exists. All you have with God is that we philosophically can't be 100% sure of just about anything's lack of existence, whether it's God or pixies. It doesn't matter that the God claim often includes things like "immaterial" or "beyond our universe" or "beyond our understanding." They're irrelevant points. I could say immaterial pixies, and that doesn't mean I've demonstrated their existence, and it doesn't mean we have any reason to think they're actually possible.

I never said science is an avenue to absolute truth. It can only tell us what's likely true, and it's limited by the evidence we have. As far as I'm aware, no one has successfully presented an avenue to absolute truth. The three sciences, broadly, are the best and only tools we have.



september796 said:


> It's certainly not an excuse. It's more like hope. I don't know who came up with the concept first nor where it comes from but the biblie says it's conviction to believe on what can't be seen or something like that. So that only applies for spiritual beings and things related to them if you will.


Faith certainly is an excuse people give when they don't have good reason or evidence. Otherwise, they'd just present the evidence instead of giving up and waving the white flag of surrender (faith). If you're using a definition of faith that means hope, then that's irrelevant. We know that whether or not we hope something is true is irrelevant to whether or not it is actually true. Hope is not an avenue to truth.

If you're using the definition of faith that just means belief, then it's wholly irrelevant to the conversation, because that would just be saying someone believed because they believe. It isn't a justification for the belief in that context; it is the belief.



september796 said:


> I said "may", and you said that it's philosophically demonstrable -not the negation-. I'd like to read about that, honestly, because I suspect it's not the same argument.


We don't know that a god could actually exist. No mote demonstration of this has been presented than has been presented for the possibility of pixies existing.

If you want to argue god is philosophically possible in the same way it's philosophically possible we're all living in the Matrix right now, sure. I agree with that, but it isn't particularly useful, it doesn't mean we have any reason to think a god is actually possible, and it doesn't mean belief in a god is reasonable.



september796 said:


> Since we know what imperfect is we can easily imagine all sorts of creatures, but I don't know how could we demonstrate logically their existence. And sure, we're not able to know the perfect since our own intellectuality is anything but perfect. Perfect and material don't mix.


I don't know for sure what it means for something to be described as "perfect," there has been no demonstration that anything perfect exists, and there has been no demonstration that perfection (depending on how it is defined) is actually even possible. Claiming something exists and tacking on the "perfect" adjective doesn't exclude it from having a burden of proof with regard to its existence or its actual possibility of existing.



september796 said:


> At this point, it sounds like you portrait God simply as a physical being with super powers. Anyway, the first cause argument is a logical demonstration of a possibility of god's existance, a) it doesn't mention God but the characteristics are of what we call God. b) It has to, otherwise it becomes a circular logic fallacy. c) Same as a.


I have never once imagined a physical being with superpowers when talking about gods, and it's your failure in understanding my points that has led you to this strawman. Hopefully this post clarifies things for you.

On principle, I generally don't like to present arguments and then argue against them. I'm doing all the work, and it might not even be the argument you're referencing (which makes it a double waste of my time). So, if you want to talk about the first cause argument more than what's in this post and my last one, you're going to need to present it.

There is no first cause argument I'm aware of that demonstrates a god's existence or the actual possibility that a god exists. A first cause to the universe hasn't been demonstrated, the need for a first cause to the universe hasn't been demonstrated, and even if we assume the universe has a first cause, there's no reason to think it's a god. All first cause arguments are unsound, and many of them are also invalid. "Everything has a chase" is a common first premise, but that hasn't been demonstrated, and it would also mean god has a cause (lol). "Everything that begins to exist has a cause" tries to fix that obvious blunder by religious zealots, but it still hasn't been demonstrated to be true and should be rejected. Even if we pretend that this premise is true, it doesn't lead to the conclusion that the first cause has to be a god or even god-like; there are lots of other possibilities.



Dr_Faustus said:


> A rejection of a claim is still accepting of another claim all the same. If you want to reject all things that is more on the end of Nihilism than Atheism. When you cannot prove your belief with any larger matter of fact than any other religion it does not make you or your claims, rejections of claims or whatever you want to twist your words into a matter of fact any more so than others. You are still in the bandwagon of religious mindset of a following principal that you hold your beliefs to. Its not a matter of fact if it cannot be proven one way or another. Its a double edged sword masked as logic no matter how you hold it and want to point it at others. Its not an argument of burden of proof, its an argument from ignorance.
> 
> Also I know of the levels of Agnosticism, but usually when I present myself as an Agnostic theist it brings nothing but confusion to a conversation. Also to better expand on that explanation its a concept of having a belief in the possibility of God but not having the knowledge or the claim to back up with a matter of fact that a God exists. Basically believing in the possibility of a creator without the means to know for sure if one exists and accepting the fact that it may be unknowable. Its still far more embracing of a concept because at the end of the day its something that may truly be unknowable to anyone, so with that its better to put the effort into making the world a better place for everyone than trying to answer questions that have no factual answers and only hinge on structures of belief and claims or absence of claims.
> 
> ...



No, rejecting a claim is not accepting another. If you flip a coin but don't show me or tell me the result, I reject the claim that the coin landed heads, but it doesn't mean I accept that it's tails. This is basic epistemology, and you're objectively wrong in what you're saying. I suggest you do some more reading on the topic.

I don't like talking about gnosticism/agnosticism either since they aren't what the topic of conversation is about. It's about whether or not the god claim has met its burden of proof. It hasn't, so it is unreasonable to believe a god exists. If you care if your beliefs are true, you cannot accept a claim is true if it's unreasonable.


----------



## tabzer (Jan 21, 2022)

Lacius said:


> Religious beliefs are irrational by definition, since people who accept religious claims as true do not have any sound reason or evidence for their beliefs. Religious claims have not met their burden of proof. It's the same



First, you've said that you don't care why people believe what they believe.  The why is the rationality.  If you reject the rationality, then that's on you.

Second, "religious beliefs" is broadly interpreted and can mean anything.  It can be applied to your pursuits.



Lacius said:


> I would argue the semantic dance you're doing is the kind of post that isn't really saying anything meaningful here.


Semantics are usually the difference between people, religions, cultures, and what the data implies in scientific research.  If you are bored of semantics, you can just keep repeating your dull mantras.


----------



## smf (Jan 21, 2022)

Dr_Faustus said:


> Sure, go with that kind of grasping of straws of argument again. Except when the room can be the size of all known and unknown space and the elephant can be any size to the unobservable eye.


Where is your evidence of elephants that are any size? Where is your evidence that the room is the size of all known and unknown space.

You seem well versed with clutching at straws.

What if your god doesn't exist and the reality we can all experience is all there is?



Dr_Faustus said:


> Just let it go, when you drop your ego of belief/claims and just embrace the fact that the truth is unknowable to you, you live a better life focusing on better things. Claiming to know for a fact based squarely on claims or absence of claims is just ego stroking, something that seems common among atheists and very religious types.


The truth is unknowable to you. Yet you seem to think you know the truth. Ego stroking for sure.

Anyone who believes in a religion is more arrogant than any atheist. Atheists look at all religions and dismiss them all, because none of them meet the threshold for proof. While someone who believes in a religion will arbitrarily, usually based on geography and their parents, choose to believe that one religion is true and all the other religions are not true.

Why don't you worship all the greek gods, all the hindu gods etc?

You would do better to accept that you can't know and therefore following a religion is a waste of time and effort. There are more fulfilling role playing games out there that you can immerse yourself in.


----------



## Lacius (Jan 21, 2022)

tabzer said:


> First, you've said that you don't care why people believe what they believe.  The why is the rationality.  If you reject the rationality, then that's on you.


I care why people believe what they believe. It's kind of the whole point. The problem is those who believe religious claims don't have good reason or evidence for their beliefs.



tabzer said:


> Second, "religious beliefs" is broadly interpreted and can mean anything.  It can be applied to your pursuits.


I've been clearer than that. I've mentioned the "major religions," and I've mentioned theism broadly. None of these things are reasonable, as they haven't met their burden of proof.

It would also be okay if I only talked about "religious beliefs," since the word "religious" does in fact carry meaning.



tabzer said:


> Semantics are usually the difference between people, religions, cultures, and what the data implies in scientific research.  If you are bored of semantics, you can just keep repeating your dull mantras.


I'm bored of you playing semantic games and trying redefine things into existence or rationality. I've been very specific about what I mean by what I say, but you've proceeded to ignore me and assert your own definitions as though they have any relevance to what I've said.

JW beliefs, like other religious and/or theistic beliefs, are without evidence demonstrating their truthfulness. This makes the beliefs equally "illogical," to use the word in the title of this thread. If you disagree, please provide evidence for the beliefs you're defending.

If your goal is to do a semantic dance and not address the topic at hand, I wouldn't bother.


----------



## tabzer (Jan 21, 2022)

Lacius said:


> I care why people believe what they believe. It's kind of the whole point. The problem is those who believe religious claims don't have good reason or evidence for their beliefs.



So you assume to know what people believe and why they believe, and that it's not good enough reason for the activity of them believing something.  I thought one has to be religious to be this kind of disregarding and condescending.  

Maybe some people know god and are talking to him/her on the regular and you are just being left out of the loop.

If I told you that the planets are the gods, and the sun is the one true god, would that make you a believer?   Or would you mock the sun?



Lacius said:


> JW beliefs, like other religious and/or theistic beliefs, are without evidence demonstrating their truthfulness. This makes the beliefs equally "illogical," to use the word in the title of this thread. If you disagree, please provide evidence for the beliefs you're defending.


Some JW beliefs are rational and based on evidence.  Which beliefs are you talking about?  Just the "religious" ones?  Are all JW beliefs religious or not?  All religious beliefs are equally "illogical"?  Be clear.  

It appears that you believe that you are the center of everyone's universe and that they should submit all evidence for your appraisal.  Even if people were capable of doing that, I think your false sense of entitlement would be a deterrent from that happening.


----------



## smf (Jan 21, 2022)

tabzer said:


> It appears that you believe that you are the center of everyone's universe and that they should submit all evidence for your appraisal.


No, but if people want to be rational then they can't think irrationally.

You can't have it both ways, no matter how hard you really really wish.

Redefining what it means to be rational to make yourself feel better doesn't help.

I literally don't care if you want to believe, but if you try to justify why you believe then you are submitting your evidence for appraisal.


----------



## nWo (Jan 21, 2022)

Damn, this escalated very quickly.


----------



## Lacius (Jan 21, 2022)

tabzer said:


> So you assume to know what people believe and why they believe,


I never said this. What I did say was that religious and theistic claims haven't met their burden of proof.



tabzer said:


> Maybe some people know god and are talking to him/her on the regular and you are just being left out of the loop.


This claim hasn't met its burden of proof. If you can't distinguish between talking to god and talking to a hallucination, even if you're the one doing the talking, the claim that you're talking to a god is still unreasonable when it hasn't met its burden of proof.



tabzer said:


> If I told you that the planets are the gods, and the sun is the one true god, would that make you a believer?   Or would you mock the sun?


The sun and the planets exist, but if you told me they're gods, I'd ask what you meant, and I'd ask you to demonstrate the claim.

If you claim they're gods as we normally use the word, that's definitely a claim that has a burden of proof. If you're just playing more semantic games to redefine god into existence, I'm wholly uninterested.



tabzer said:


> Some JW beliefs are rational and based on evidence.


Which ones?



tabzer said:


> It appears that you believe that you are the center of everyone's universe


Nope.



tabzer said:


> and that they should submit all evidence for your appraisal.


If they're going to argue to me that their beliefs are rational, you betcha, but it isn't about me. It's about meeting the claim's burden of proof so that it can be said the belief is reasonable.



tabzer said:


> Even if people were capable of doing that, I think your false sense of entitlement would be a deterrent from that happening.


I don't feel entitled to anything. If, however, someone is going to argue to me that a claim has met its burden of proof when it hasn't, evidence needs to be presented.


----------



## tabzer (Jan 21, 2022)

Lacius said:


> I never said this. What I did say was that religious and theistic claims haven't met their burden of proof.
> 
> 
> This claim hasn't met its burden of proof. If you can't distinguish between talking to god and talking to a hallucination, even if you're the one doing the talking, the claim that you're talking to a god is still unreasonable when it hasn't met its burden of proof.
> ...



Looks like you are the one dancing around, and fishing for someone to provide evidence for what YOU believe about something.  Drab. 



smf said:


> No, but if people want to be rational then they can't think irrationally.


Lol.  Stoooned.


----------



## Lacius (Jan 21, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Looks like you are the one dancing around, and fishing for someone to provide evidence for what YOU believe about something.  Drab.


I don't believe theistic claims are true, let alone reasonable, so I'm definitely not asking for someone to provide evidence for what I believe. Are you reading my posts?


----------



## tabzer (Jan 21, 2022)

Lacius said:


> I don't believe theistic claims are true, let alone reasonable, so I'm definitely not asking for someone to provide evidence for what I believe. Are you reading my posts?


This is a good post, despite the attempt to remain patronizing.  Find the religion who hurt you and confront it.  That's all I can really recommend.


----------



## Lacius (Jan 21, 2022)

tabzer said:


> This is a good post, despite the attempt to remain patronizing.  Find the religion who hurt you and confront it.  That's all I can really recommend.


When a person has to resort to personal attacks and unfounded assumptions about motives for posting, instead of actually addressing the point, it usually means their position is bad.

If you ever feel like sharing evidence for the truthfulness and reasonableness of theistic claims, do let me know.


----------



## tabzer (Jan 22, 2022)

Lacius said:


> When a person has to resort to personal attacks and unfounded assumptions about motives for posting, instead of actually addressing the point, it usually means their position is bad.
> 
> If you ever feel like sharing evidence for the truthfulness and reasonableness of theistic claims, do let me know.




If your position is this:



Lacius said:


> I don't believe theistic claims are true, let alone reasonable



Then I am in no position to disagree with you.

But through a lot of what you actually said, there appears to be trauma that should probably be addressed.


----------



## Lacius (Jan 22, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Then I am in no position to disagree with you.


This has been my position since the beginning.



tabzer said:


> But through a lot of what you actually said, there appears to be trauma that should probably be addressed.


By no reasonable measure could a person claim from my posts in this thread that I'm a victim of any sort of trauma. You're just being an asshole.


----------



## tabzer (Jan 22, 2022)

Lacius said:


> This has been my position since the beginning.
> 
> 
> By no reasonable measure could a person claim from my posts in this thread that I'm a victim of any sort of trauma. You're just being an asshole.



Denial is the first stage.  Even at risk of being called irrational, I have faith in you @Lacius.


----------



## Lacius (Jan 22, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Denial is the first stage.  Even at risk of being called irrational, I have faith in you @Lacius.


If you're going to reject skepticism and logic by making unsubstantiated claims, then you aren't much different from the JW and the other theists.


----------



## tabzer (Jan 22, 2022)

Lacius said:


> If you're going to reject skepticism and logic by making unsubstantiated claims, then you aren't much different from the JW and the other theists.


I noticed that you didn't actually accuse me of rejecting skepticism and are trying to change the subject.


----------



## Lacius (Jan 22, 2022)

tabzer said:


> I noticed that you didn't actually accuse me of rejecting skepticism and are trying to change the subject.


If you're making unsubstantiated claims, you're rejecting skepticism. I'm also not sure in what world I'm changing the subject. The point was always about skepticism and logical soundness.


----------



## tabzer (Jan 22, 2022)

Lacius said:


> If you're making unsubstantiated claims, you're rejecting skepticism. I'm also not sure in what world I'm changing the subject. The point was always about skepticism and logical soundness.


Whatever you believe, shifty.  I still think it is irrational to make definitive claims about people you don't know or understand, but you obviously think that you have it all figured out.

But I respect you not believing in a claim.


----------



## smf (Jan 22, 2022)

tabzer said:


> I still think it is irrational to make definitive claims about people you don't know or understand, but you obviously think that you have it all figured out.


All we can make a decision on, is how you conduct yourself here. 

You make definitive claims about people here all the time, so are you agreeing that you are irrational?


----------



## september796 (Jan 23, 2022)

Lacius said:


> It is not a philosophical argument. That was my point: There is a difference between something being philosophically possible (since you can't be 100% certain of just about anything, many things are unfalsifiable, and there's no good solution to hard solipsism) and something being demonstrated to be actually possible. Pixies, God, and a tails coin flip are all philosophically possible. I can't disprove them, and for all I know, the reality I'm aware of isn't even the true reality. However, only the tail coin flip has been demonstrated to be actually possible.


When I asked how a pixy is philosophically possible I'm wondering which characteristic you aretaking as a base and how you can demonstrate that specifically a pixy is possible. Because if the same argument can be use to demontrate basically everything that can come out of your mind then is hardly logical. God is a different story because what we're really pursuing is the possibility of one first cause aka one initiator/creator/whatever you wanna called it.



Lacius said:


> I never said science is an avenue to absolute truth. It can only tell us what's likely true, and it's limited by the evidence we have. As far as I'm aware, no one has successfully presented an avenue to absolute truth. The three sciences, broadly, are the best and only tools we have.


I never said you did. But yeah, I know science is not perfect ofc. Something that is based on constantly doubting the propositions that are made can't be perfect, and sadly it is the only tool we have, yes. Our beliefs based on scientific evidence need a bit of faith too after all; things that we repeat and do on a daily basis that we take for granted just because, or maybe with sound evidence that we carelessly ignore. I don't think that makes us irrational. This topic is way deeper than I'm able to comment anyway (the multiple psychological reasons why we repeat these sorts of 'rituals' everyday).



Lacius said:


> Faith certainly is an excuse people give when they don't have good reason or evidence. Otherwise, they'd just present the evidence instead of giving up and waving the white flag of surrender (faith). If you're using a definition of faith that means hope, then that's irrelevant. We know that whether or not we hope something is true is irrelevant to whether or not it is actually true. Hope is not an avenue to truth.


People may use faith -and whatever else- as an excuse/flag of surrender/etc, I guess. But faith really is kinda what I said in my previous post. Its profound meaning is way up high. Maybe down to earth it could mean as if it's a puzzle piece to supply our lack -or low level- of spiritual comprehension skill. I say that we as humans aren't capable of fully understand a thing, let alone the concept of god. That's why -I think- faith is a necessary piece for some religions concept of salvation.



Lacius said:


> I don't know for sure what it means for something to be described as "perfect," there has been no demonstration that anything perfect exists, and there has been no demonstration that perfection (depending on how it is defined) is actually even possible. Claiming something exists and tacking on the "perfect" adjective doesn't exclude it from having a burden of proof with regard to its existence or its actual possibility of existing.


I'm not even arguing about the burden of proof thing you keep asking. My point was that the god claim has its rational basis since you called that irrational for not having an evidence, but at this point I won't bother about the meaning of a word. We can sorta reach the meaning of perfect by our natural reasoning, that begins by understanding the first nearby things we have in sight in early age, things that were given to us: the tree, the river, etc. Our first approach is through our senses. Then we are able to analyse and think 'What's the cause of the tree?, what's the cause of fire?, what's the cause of heat, etc... All in all the world is ordered by causes and effects. But it would be logically absurd if we imagine that causes and effects track down infinitely. That is a circular logic. So there comes the first cause, and by force it has to be uncaused.
So, this uncaused thing has to be the most perfect, but given that we can't understand perfection since our own intellectuality is imperfect, the only resource we have is to first understand imperfection and then, by denial, get a glimpse of what perfection could be. 
If something is corruptable or dies or is damageable or transforms is imperfect. Then, by denial, perfect has to be the opposite: permanent and eternal, immutable. 
Now, one thing that we know that gets corrupted/changed/corroded/etc is matter. Perfection, therefore, has to be immaterial. 
And because things that are subject to change, to evolve, to transform, etc are naturally subject to time, by force the perfect has to be out of time. 
Everything that materially exist has a cause. There comes that God (what we call perfection) has to be cause uncaused. Whether it is a being or a thing is irrelevant here. BTW this also demonstrate that if god exist he is one and not many.
But still we could ask how does it exist... it must have a beginning, a creator, otherwise what is prior to god? Well that question wouldn't apply. There is no 'before' as that is a time concept and, according to this reasoning, he is out of time, he's pure eternity. The problem is that we are not able to think the world without the time. But all those characteristics (eternal, immutable, immaterial, timeless) are of what religions and people in general define as God. 



Lacius said:


> There is no first cause argument I'm aware of that demonstrates a god's existence or the actual possibility that a god exists. A first cause to the universe hasn't been demonstrated, the need for a first cause to the universe hasn't been demonstrated, and even if we assume the universe has a first cause, there's no reason to think it's a god. All first cause arguments are unsound, and many of them are also invalid. "Everything has a chase" is a common first premise, but that hasn't been demonstrated, and it would also mean god has a cause (lol). "Everything that begins to exist has a cause" tries to fix that obvious blunder by religious zealots, but it still hasn't been demonstrated to be true and should be rejected. Even if we pretend that this premise is true, it doesn't lead to the conclusion that the first cause has to be a god or even god-like; there are lots of other possibilities.


As I've said many times, this is just a logical thought on the possibility. Logic can only demonstrate a positive claim not a negative one and I'm not saying this is a proof or anything btw. Anyway, Idk exactly what you expect by demontration but I'm sure we'll be out of luck. Really, what demonstration would an atheist accept for the conclusion that there is a god? what sort of specific proof would an atheist accept for someone to be god? What would that being/thing have to be able to do? What would he have to show us or do to us in order to believe? I'm not even sure but in the meantime we may be filling that gap with nonsense.


----------



## Lacius (Jan 23, 2022)

tabzer said:


> I still think it is irrational to make definitive claims about people you don't know or understand


It isn't irrational to acknowledge that theistic claims have not met their burden of proof.



september796 said:


> When I asked how a pixy is philosophically possible I'm wondering which characteristic you aretaking as a base and how you can demonstrate that specifically a pixy is possible. Because if the same argument can be use to demontrate basically everything that can come out of your mind then is hardly logical.


Yes. That is my point. There are two kinds of "possible."

When something cannot be absolutely disproven. We can call this "philosophically possible." Just about every claim that could ever be made, even the false ones, fall in this category. That includes gods, pixies, unicorns, flying spaghetti monsters, etc., so it's fairly useless when talking about what is/isn't possible.
When the actual possibility of something has been demonstrated. Neither pixies nor gods fall in this category.



september796 said:


> God is a different story because what we're really pursuing is the possibility of one first cause aka one initiator/creator/whatever you wanna called it.


The existence of a god, let alone the actual possibility a god could exist, hasn't been demonstrated.



september796 said:


> Our beliefs based on scientific evidence need a bit of faith too after all


Faith is the belief in something without evidence, so no.



september796 said:


> People may use faith -and whatever else- as an excuse/flag of surrender/etc, I guess. But faith really is kinda what I said in my previous post. Its profound meaning is way up high. Maybe down to earth it could mean as if it's a puzzle piece to supply our lack -or low level- of spiritual comprehension skill. I say that we as humans aren't capable of fully understand a thing, let alone the concept of god. That's why -I think- faith is a necessary piece for some religions concept of salvation.


If you're using the word "faith" to be synonymous with a religious belief, then it can't be used to justify the belief; it is the belief.

If you're using "faith" to mean belief without sound reason or evidence, then I agree with you that faith is "necessary" for religious belief.

Adding terms like "spiritual," "religious," "salvation," etc. to a claim does not exclude the claim from having a burden of proof, and if the claim hasn't met its burden of proof, it's irrational to believe the claim is true.



september796 said:


> I'm not even arguing about the burden of proof thing you keep asking.


That's too bad, since it's literally the entire point, and nothing else matters. A claim always has a burden of proof, and if evidence hasn't been provided to believe a claim (whether it's physical evidence, a logically sound syllogism, etc.), it is irrational to accept that claim as true. If your goal is to argue that theism is rational, get to the point and provide the evidence.



september796 said:


> My point was that the god claim has its rational basis since you called that irrational for not having an evidence


Theistic claims have not met their burden of proof. If you want to argue otherwise, provide the rational basis for believing in god.



september796 said:


> We can sorta reach the meaning of perfect by our natural reasoning, that begins by understanding the first nearby things we have in sight in early age, things that were given to us: the tree, the river, etc. Our first approach is through our senses. Then we are able to analyse and think 'What's the cause of the tree?, what's the cause of fire?, what's the cause of heat, etc... All in all the world is ordered by causes and effects. But it would be logically absurd if we imagine that causes and effects track down infinitely. That is a circular logic. So there comes the first cause, and by force it has to be uncaused.



First, you did nothing here to define what it means for something to be "perfect," but I don't think we need to continue down that path. It's irrelevant.
If you are going to argue that there was a first cause to the universe, you need to provide evidence for it. Up until this point, you've just been asserting it without justification. How did you rule out the universe not having a beginning? How did you rule out the universe beginning to exist but not having a cause (causality is a property of the universe, so when you say the universe requires a cause, you're nonsensically saying causality requires a cause). Even if you ruled out all other possible explanations that we have (you didn't), the absence of alternative explanations is not evidence that another explanation is true. If you're going to assert the universe requires a "first cause," you need to provide evidence for this claim.
Even if you were to establish the universe had a cause (you haven't), where is your evidence that the cause is God? How did you rule out atemporal causes (e.g. How did you rule out the universe in the future causing itself in the past?)? How did you rule out naturalistic processes causing the universe? Again, even if you ruled out all other possible explanations that we have (you didn't), the absence of alternative explanations is not evidence that another explanation is true. If you're going to assert God is the "first cause" to the universe, you need to provide evidence for this claim.
In summary, there's no evidence that the universe requires a "first cause," and even if it did have a cause, there's no evidence that God was that first cause. Comically, any reason you have to exclude "God" from needing a first cause can potentially be applied to the universe itself or natural processes that hypothetically caused the universe. "God" has zero explanatory power and only serves to add a extra questions for no reason.



september796 said:


> So, this uncaused thing has to be the most perfect


You haven't come close to defining what it means for something to be "most perfect," and you haven't come close to providing evidence for the claim that an uncaused thing has to be "perfect," let alone exists.



september796 said:


> but given that we can't understand perfection since our own intellectuality is imperfect, the only resource we have is to first understand imperfection and then, by denial, get a glimpse of what perfection could be.


We can't talk about what perfection could be without defining what it even means. In addition, speculating about what perfection could look like doesn't demonstrate it exists.



september796 said:


> If something is corruptable or dies or is damageable or transforms is imperfect. Then, by denial, perfect has to be the opposite: permanent and eternal, immutable.


You haven't demonstrated that something "eternal"  exists or has to exist, and even if you did, you haven't demonstrated it's God.



september796 said:


> Everything that materially exist has a cause.


You haven't demonstrated this to be true. For example, while the formation of my computer had a cause (I built it), we are talking about "formation" as the rearranging of atoms and molecules to form my computer. When we are talking about the "cause to the universe," you don't actually have any examples of anything coming to exist when it didn't exist before, let alone coming to exist via a cause. You haven't demonstrated the need for a cause to the universe. See above.

Even if you did demonstrate that everything that materially exists has a cause, you haven't demonstrated that cause is a god.



september796 said:


> There comes that God (what we call perfection)


"Something perfect had to have created the universe."
"Perfect = God"
"Therefore, God exists."

I hope you can see this is a wholly uncompelling argument. It's just a blind assertion.



september796 said:


> There comes that God (what we call perfection) has to be cause uncaused.


Demonstrate this.



september796 said:


> Whether it is a being or a thing is irrelevant here.


The word "God" comes with baggage. Are you saying "God" can be unintelligent and indistinguishable from a natural process? Are you just using it synonymously with "first cause"? You haven't demonstrated that a first cause is required or exists, but that would at least get rid of one of the problems with your argument (that the first cause argument doesn't actually lead to the conclusion that an intelligent or personified god exists).

In other words, if the first half of the first cause argument were logically sound (it isn't), it would only demonstrate a first cause and nothing more. You seem to be agreeing with this.



september796 said:


> BTW this also demonstrate that if god exist he is one and not many.


The first cause argument is not a sound argument, but even if it were, you're just blindly asserting "there can only be one." Lol.



september796 said:


> But still we could ask how does it exist... it must have a beginning, a creator, otherwise what is prior to god? Well that question wouldn't apply. There is no 'before' as that is a time concept and, according to this reasoning, he is out of time, he's pure eternity. The problem is that we are not able to think the world without the time.


Any reason you can give for why God does not require a cause can potentially be applied to the universe or the natural processes that caused the universe. There is no rational basis for asserting that a god is required.



september796 said:


> But all those characteristics (eternal, immutable, immaterial, timeless) are of what religions and people in general define as God.


These might be characteristics that some religious ascribe to God, but they aren't synonymous with God. Every major religion I'm aware of ascribes a lot more characteristics than these to their gods.



september796 said:


> As I've said many times, this is just a logical thought on the possibility.


Nothing you've said demonstrates that a god is actually possible, let alone exists. Saying "maybe the universe has a cause and that cause is god" is an unsubstantiated claim.



september796 said:


> Logic can only demonstrate a positive claim not a negative one and I'm not saying this is a proof or anything btw.


If you're saying that your arguments don't demonstrate the existence of a god, then belief in that god is irrational, regardless of whether or not a god might exist.



september796 said:


> Anyway, Idk exactly what you expect by demontration but I'm sure we'll be out of luck. Really, what demonstration would an atheist accept for the conclusion that there is a god? what sort of specific proof would an atheist accept for someone to be god? What would that being/thing have to be able to do? What would he have to show us or do to us in order to believe? I'm not even sure but in the meantime we may be filling that gap with nonsense.


I don't know what would count as evidence that demonstrates a god's existence, but that's not my problem; it's the problem of the claim if it's as unverifiable as it is unfalsifiable.

However, if a god exists, if it's all-knowing, if it's all-powerful, and it wants me to believe in its existence, then that god knows the answer to the question of what it would take to convince any rational skeptic of that god's existence.

@september796, I've enjoyed our conversation, but unless we distill this conversation down to its main point(s), it's just too many things to respond to in any reasonable amount of time. Because you and I are so thorough, the conversation has ballooned with each of our responses.

I politely ask, if you respond to my post, that we reboot and focus on just the following question: *What can you say that demonstrates the existence of a god?* (we don't need to focus on whether or not it's possible). If the answer is "nothing," then we should be in agreement that belief in a god is irrational. If the answer is "the first cause argument," then I'd like a numbered syllogism with premises and conclusions so we can very quickly reject bad premises and irrelevant conclusions. The syllogism for what's probably the most common first cause argument looks like this:

Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
The universe began to exist.
Therefore, the universe has a cause, and that cause is God.
#1 is unsubstantiated and should be rejected, so the argument is already unsound.
#2 is unsubstantiated and should be rejected, which also makes the argument unsound.
We don't have to pay attention to #3 since the first two premises have been rejected. In addition, if we were to assume the truthfulness of the first two premises, the cause of the universe being God doesn't logically follow the first two premises, so the argument is invalid in addition to being unsound.


----------



## tabzer (Jan 23, 2022)

Lacius said:


> It isn't irrational to acknowledge that theistic claims have not met their burden of proof.


How do you _*acknowledge*_ that something didn't happen in the infinite space of existence?

Sounds pretty irrational.

"Hey, look!  There it isn't!"


----------



## Lacius (Jan 23, 2022)

tabzer said:


> How do you _*acknowledge*_ that something didn't happen in the infinite space of existence?


I didn't do that.


----------



## tabzer (Jan 23, 2022)

Lacius said:


> I didn't do that.





Lacius said:


> It isn't irrational to acknowledge that theistic claims have not met their burden of proof.


Then apply the limits/context of this claim.


----------



## Lacius (Jan 23, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Then apply the limits/context of this claim.


Neither of us is aware of any evidence accompanying the claim "god(s) exist," which means theistic claims haven't met their burden of proof.

Could we just be unaware of it? Yes, perhaps. If someone is going to argue that though, they need to demonstrate it.

Acknowledging something hasn't met its burden of proof isn't a proclamation that the claim is false or that evidence can't exist.


----------



## osm70 (Jan 23, 2022)

Lacius said:


> Neither of us is aware of any evidence accompanying the claim "god(s) exist," which means theistic claims haven't met their burden of proof.
> 
> Could we just be unaware of it? Yes, perhaps. If someone is going to argue that though, they need to demonstrate it.
> 
> Acknowledging something hasn't met its burden of proof isn't a proclamation that the claim is false or that evidence can't exist.


If I said that I am 100% certain that any sort of god *doesn't* exist, I would need to prove that, because the burden of proof would be on me. Do you agree?


----------



## Lacius (Jan 23, 2022)

osm70 said:


> If I said that I am 100% certain that any sort of god *doesn't* exist, I would need to prove that, because the burden of proof would be on me. Do you agree?


You would have a burden of proof, yes.


----------



## osm70 (Jan 23, 2022)

Lacius said:


> You would have a burden of proof, yes.


Sorry to hijack your thing like that. I just felt like this needs to be said because some people don't understand the difference between claiming something and refusing a claim.


----------



## tabzer (Jan 24, 2022)

Lacius said:


> Neither of us is aware of any evidence accompanying the claim


You should really learn to speak for yourself, regardless of what you think I have or don't have.


----------



## Lacius (Jan 24, 2022)

tabzer said:


> You should really learn to speak for yourself, regardless of what you think I have or don't have.


I wasn't speaking for you. I previously said I don't believe theistic claims are true, let alone reasonable, and you said you agreed with me.

Regardless, even if you hadn't said what you did, if you want to say you're aware of evidence that a god exists, you need to provide it.


----------



## Darth Meteos (Jan 24, 2022)

the battle between lacius and tabzer will continue until the heat death of the universe



Spoiler



inb4 lacius and/or tabzer responds with "this is hardly a battle, actually this is just a waste of time, i know i'm right and he's an idiot and in the news today there's a coastal low pressure system with 45 degree triangles in the ninth zone of the rumpus compartment


----------



## Lacius (Jan 24, 2022)

Darth Meteos said:


> the battle between lacius and tabzer will continue until the heat death of the universe
> 
> 
> 
> ...


But I'll always win.


----------



## tabzer (Jan 24, 2022)

Lacius said:


> you said you agreed with me.


I said,"I am in no position to disagree with you," in response to your statement of belief about theistic claims.  I cannot believe or disbelieve things for you. 


Lacius said:


> Regardless, even if you hadn't said what you did, if you want to say you're aware of evidence that a god exists, you need to provide it.


I'm sure if it was any intention of anybody to convince you of anything, that wouldn't even be enough.


----------



## september796 (Jan 24, 2022)

Lacius said:


> Faith is the belief in something without evidence, so no.


I'd say is partly needed, because most science laws are based on axioms, which are just pure reasoning abstraction, so science uses partially evidenced answers as base. And yet we accept them as truth or likely truth... until a new proposition refutes that and then we trust the new one and so on.



Lacius said:


> That's too bad, since it's literally the entire point, and nothing else matters. A claim always has a burden of proof, and if evidence hasn't been provided to believe a claim (whether it's physical evidence, a logically sound syllogism, etc.), it is irrational to accept that claim as true. If your goal is to argue that theism is rational, get to the point and provide the evidence.


Actually I quoted you because I thought the word irrational was been used unfairly here as it sounds to me as a lack of reasoning. And all I've been trying to say here is that there is reasoning behind the idea of God. Never said his existence had physical evidence, in fact I think the truth if ever can only be accesed by the most rational abstraction, which escapes all possibility for empirical demonstration. Because empirical demonstration is particular and contingent, while the definition of truth is universal and necessary (therefore, immutable, always the same). That's why all the first principles that we accept as the maximum truth are only accesible through a metaphysical reasoning (and they have God as objective, as long as he'd be the beginning of everything).



Lacius said:


> First, you did nothing here to define what it means for something to be "perfect," but I don't think we need to continue down that path. It's irrelevant.
> If you are going to argue that there was a first cause to the universe, you need to provide evidence for it. Up until this point, you've just been asserting it without justification. How did you rule out the universe not having a beginning? How did you rule out the universe beginning to exist but not having a cause (causality is a property of the universe, so when you say the universe requires a cause, you're nonsensically saying causality requires a cause). Even if you ruled out all other possible explanations that we have (you didn't), the absence of alternative explanations is not evidence that another explanation is true. If you're going to assert the universe requires a "first cause," you need to provide evidence for this claim.
> Even if you were to establish the universe had a cause (you haven't), where is your evidence that the cause is God? How did you rule out atemporal causes (e.g. How did you rule out the universe in the future causing itself in the past?)? How did you rule out naturalistic processes causing the universe? Again, even if you ruled out all other possible explanations that we have (you didn't), the absence of alternative explanations is not evidence that another explanation is true. If you're going to assert God is the "first cause" to the universe, you need to provide evidence for this claim.


1. Infact I said that we were not capable to truly describe perfection other than by negation, and even then it'd be only an approximation.
2. I always talked about the possibility. I didn't say the universe began to exist without a cause. According to the logical argument the universe must have had a cause since it's matter; in the same way the first cause must not be matter in order to be uncaused. I agree on "the absence of alternative explanations is not evidence that another explanation is true" statement and that's why I never said I had the truth. Just saying this has logical reasoning same as with simpler things we do and accept in our life without knowing explanations.
3. I can't establish that and no one could ever, I think. See, with the first cause argument you're reaching concepts that are way out of the scope of science. So inevitably you need to leave out big walls that otherwise would not let you any further reasoning. It would be great if all questions were answered but it's not like that. The reason why I associate the first cause to God is simply because they match on characteristics. I'm sure there must be a ton more on the topic but this is how far I understand it. Let's underline that these are _some_ characteristics, so I'm not even saying this has to be Zeus, Yahweh or Brahma.



Lacius said:


> In summary, there's no evidence that the universe requires a "first cause," and even if it did have a cause, there's no evidence that God was that first cause. Comically, any reason you have to exclude "God" from needing a first cause can potentially be applied to the universe itself or natural processes that hypothetically caused the universe. "God" has zero explanatory power and only serves to add a extra questions for no reason.


The universe is full of matter, so it has to be subject to time and therefore transforms, changes, etc. God is the only concept -part of it- that could fit in that argument.



Lacius said:


> You haven't demonstrated this to be true. For example, while the formation of my computer had a cause (I built it), we are talking about "formation" as the rearranging of atoms and molecules to form my computer. When we are talking about the "cause to the universe," you don't actually have any examples of anything coming to exist when it didn't exist before, let alone coming to exist via a cause. You haven't demonstrated the need for a cause to the universe. See above.


I get that you may be skeptical on the assertion "everything materially existing has a cause". I think it's at least logical even if we don't know the cause of every single thing there is. This is why the first cause is needed in the first place and why by force it must have all said characteristics, otherwise the argument goes against logic.



Lacius said:


> "Something perfect had to have created the universe."
> "Perfect = God"
> "Therefore, God exists."
> 
> I hope you can see this is a wholly uncompelling argument. It's just a blind assertion.


I see it but that's not exactly what I said.



Lacius said:


> The first cause argument is not a sound argument, but even if it were, you're just blindly asserting "there can only be one." Lol.


Yes, it's implied. Because there can't be two 'perfect' beings/things with the exact same characteristics. They would get mixed up. I don't know how to put this but it's kinda comparing infinite vs infinite+1. We can't see those variables. Because if there is an [infinite+1], then in fact it would become _more infinite_ than [infinite], and therefore it would be the real 'most perfect'. The only way to differentiate two Gods would be by saying one is perfect+1 and the other is "just perfect" so to speak, so in the end, only [perfect+1] would be perfect and [just perfect] would not.



Lacius said:


> I don't know what would count as evidence that demonstrates a god's existence, but that's not my problem; it's the problem of the claim if it's as unverifiable as it is unfalsifiable.


On the other hand I'm sure you know what would count as evidence on demonstrating pixies, dragons, and whatnot. This is what I've been saying, that the god claim -specifically the creator claim if you will- isn't the same as the claim of a creature that's subject to our natural laws.



Lacius said:


> I politely ask, if you respond to my post, that we reboot and focus on just the following question: *What can you say that demonstrates the existence of a god?* (we don't need to focus on whether or not it's possible). If the answer is "nothing," then we should be in agreement that belief in a god is irrational. If the answer is "the first cause argument," then I'd like a numbered syllogism with premises and conclusions so we can very quickly reject bad premises and irrelevant conclusions [...]


The answer is not nothing, more like not universally and certainly not through science. Anyway, we had to inevitably address other topics and this is why it becomes too much time consuming and why it's a dead end and a never-ending hodgepodge of topics. No one can scientifically prove the existence of God for sure if there's not the word 'possiblity' in-between. 
Yeah, the first cause argument I wrote here was poorly elaborated, very brief, squeezed and probably also flawed as I may have omitted something. It's not very fresh in my mind.


----------



## Lacius (Jan 24, 2022)

september796 said:


> Actually I quoted you because I thought the word irrational was been used unfairly here as it sounds to me as a lack of reasoning.


When most people use the word "irrational," then mean there's a lack of *sound* reasoning. There is no sound reason nor evidence for theistic claims, so those claims are irrational by definition.



september796 said:


> According to the logical argument the universe must have had a cause


Demonstrate this claim to be true.



september796 said:


> 3. I can't establish that and no one could ever


That's why it isn't a sound reason to believe a god exists.



september796 said:


> I get that you may be skeptical on the assertion "everything materially existing has a cause". I think it's at least logical even if we don't know the cause of every single thing there is


It isn't reasonable to believe that everything that materially exists has a cause, since it's a claim that hasn't been demonstrated to be true.



september796 said:


> This is why the first cause is needed in the first place and why by force it must have all said characteristics, otherwise the argument goes against logic.


The argument is unsound because its premises haven't been demonstrated, and it's invalid because the premises wouldn't get you to a god even if they were true.



september796 said:


> Yes, it's implied. Because there can't be two 'perfect' beings/things with the exact same characteristics. They would get mixed up. I don't know how to put this but it's kinda comparing infinite vs infinite+1. We can't see those variables. Because if there is an [infinite+1], then in fact it would become _more infinite_ than [infinite], and therefore it would be the real 'most perfect'. The only way to differentiate two Gods would be by saying one is perfect+1 and the other is "just perfect" so to speak, so in the end, only [perfect+1] would be perfect and [just perfect] would not.


Off topic, but "infinity" isn't the same as "encompassing everything." The number of odd numbers is infinite, but that group doesn't include the number 4.



september796 said:


> On the other hand I'm sure you know what would count as evidence on demonstrating pixies, dragons, and whatnot.


I'm not sure if that's true, but it doesn't matter.



september796 said:


> This is what I've been saying, that the god claim -specifically the creator claim if you will- isn't the same as the claim of a creature that's subject to our natural laws.


That doesn't exclude theistic claims, or any claim for that matter, from their burden of proof.



september796 said:


> The answer is not nothing, more like not universally and certainly not through science.


If it can't be demonstrated through science (which, when broadly defined, includes the formal sciences and logic/mathematics), then it's unreasonable or irrational to believe it. Pure and simple.



september796 said:


> No one can scientifically prove the existence of God


We are in agreement.



september796 said:


> No one can scientifically prove the existence of God for sure if there's not the word 'possiblity' in-between.


First, when I talk about theistic claims being irrational, I'm talking about claims that a god exists, not claims that a god possibly exists.

Second, it hasn't been demonstrate that a god could actually possibly exist.



september796 said:


> Yeah, the first cause argument I wrote here was poorly elaborated, very brief, squeezed and probably also flawed as I may have omitted something. It's not very fresh in my mind.


It isn't your fault or your presentation of the argument that was the problem. The first cause argument is utter nonsense. When skeptics point out the obvious flaws with the argument, theists always try to futilely redo it with the problems removed (without success).


----------



## smf (Jan 26, 2022)

tabzer said:


> How do you _*acknowledge*_ that something didn't happen in the infinite space of existence?
> 
> Sounds pretty irrational.
> 
> "Hey, look!  There it isn't!"


I acknowledge that you did not make a coherent point.


----------



## smf (Jan 26, 2022)

september796 said:


> I'd say is partly needed, because most science laws are based on axioms, which are just pure reasoning abstraction, so science uses partially evidenced answers as base. And yet we accept them as truth or likely truth... until a new proposition refutes that and then we trust the new one and so on.


There is faith in the process that scientists will try to gain new knowledge which will either build on previous work, or will make us realize that what we thought before was wrong.

Which is not like religion at all, where the faith is in a conclusion and all the facts are reinterpreted to satisfy that conclusion.


----------



## plasturion (Jan 30, 2022)

conclusion is based on a facts... they don't need to be reinterpreted, both of them are two-sided feedbacks. When conclusion is wrong, you need to verify facts. When facts are wrong conclusion have to be different. Religion should provide good explanation, if not, they'are not telling the Truth, in other words is not teaching about God which is the Truth. The problem is that religion is not for answaring the questions that some belivers are trying to get. Like Jehovah's witness are trying to answer for question when will be the end of times, or exaclty how many people will be saved, and who and what is more right, without provide any negations of facts that was made before, like why trinitary teaching is wrong.


----------



## caki883 (Jan 30, 2022)

Marc_78065 said:


> I'd just like to post this thread as my parents and sisters (no, I don't have a brother) are JWs and what they do and what they stand for doesn't make much sense.
> 
> Here's a documentary of JW:
> 
> ...



Every "god" is made up. It´s like mafia but legal


----------



## tabzer (Jan 30, 2022)

Honestly, I think Jesus was telling people that everything was sacred/divine.  Then Rome killed him, turned him into an idol, and killed dissenters while creating a state religion.  Anyone ever question why Catholicism's main symbol is the death of god, why they get to decide what's "canon", why all the original followers were murdered, and why its leaders turned into pedophiles?  

JW have a lot of insights in investigating etymology and historical evidence, but I think their emphasis on the institution misses the message.  "I am that I am," is an expression of self-awareness and self-advocacy.  This is a threat to every government that desires to be worshipped and followed unquestionably, which is inherent in the JW organization.  Even though modern religions tend to have a lot of distortion, they are still a threat to tyrannical governments at large because the target of worship departs from the institution and calls people to refer to their conscience, potentially questioning "authority".



Lacius said:


> It isn't reasonable to believe that everything that materially exists has a cause, since it's a claim that hasn't been demonstrated to be true.



This is the edgiest and pathetic I've seen you.  Grow up.


----------



## september796 (Jan 30, 2022)

Sorry for the late reply and if it is offtopic by now...



Lacius said:


> Demonstrate this claim to be true.


If I said the opposite then I would be basically saying that causes and effects could be traced down infinitely no matter how far you go back in time. That's unlikely even from science perspective.



Lacius said:


> That's why it isn't a sound reason to believe a god exists.


But it's simply beyond the scope of science, that's why I said that.



Lacius said:


> It isn't reasonable to believe that everything that materially exists has a cause, since it's a claim that hasn't been demonstrated to be true.


That was from a logical perspective. But kinda works the same as axioms for science. We take it as real because that's how things works as far as we know, even if we don't know for sure the cause for everything. But I kinda get why the discussion will never get anywhere. For me personally the conversation has to turn into metaphysical sooner or later, and I think that's precisely when it becomes rationally unsound for atheist, rationalists or whatever; 'unsound' for being abstraction but 'rationally' nonetheless.



Lacius said:


> Off topic, but "infinity" isn't the same as "encompassing everything." The number of odd numbers is infinite, but that group doesn't include the number 4.


I wasn't suggesting that at all. I used 'infinite'  because is an abstract concept meaning as of eternal, something endless, unmeasureable, and also because of its mathematical connotation. Adding +1 to it to evidentiate the paradox. That was just for the purpose of the example anyway.



Lacius said:


> If it can't be demonstrated through science (which, when broadly defined, includes the formal sciences and logic/mathematics), then it's unreasonable or irrational to believe it. Pure and simple.





Lacius said:


> We are in agreement.


I think we have some agreement but this is not one of them. I wasn't taking 'formal science' into account when using the word science throughout, my bad. I thought logic was not considered science [?] at least anymore as it was considered in the past. In the same way I don't think theology is considered science these days as it was in the past. So when I said 'scientifically' I was actually referring to the ones that are based on empirical evidence.



Lacius said:


> It isn't your fault or your presentation of the argument that was the problem. The first cause argument is utter nonsense. When skeptics point out the obvious flaws with the argument, theists always try to futilely redo it with the problems removed (without success).


I mean kind of, it's obvious that I ignore many considerations of the argument to make a good justice in one post, even then idk if it's utter nonsense haha Sure there are some reasonable answers against it as there are to any other argument. There it's one out of many. Skeptics could point ou flaws to any argument for that matter, and that's very good actually. The problem is that it's from a very restricted perspective and hardly comes up with proposals because of the tendency to be on just negations. I think it is important to abstract and philosophize on it rather than sit and wait till the science finds it out (I don't think it's capable though). My approach is evidently different than yours, as I'm not doing it for the pursuing of empirical evidence at all. After all I think in these religions claims there are personal subjective experiences, these includes rational thoughts as well as feelings and whatnot (not comparable to anything besides a God concept). We can't simply disdain them, in fact everyone should give these issues deep thoughts sometime. I don't think we could get there just by knowledge. 



smf said:


> There is faith in the process that scientists will try to gain new knowledge which will either build on previous work, or will make us realize that what we thought before was wrong.
> 
> Which is not like religion at all, where the faith is in a conclusion and all the facts are reinterpreted to satisfy that conclusion.


Yeah, that's like a synonym for hope or will. But there are more definitions of faith and that's what I was pointing out; one of them being the human faith that all of us even atheist put on practice when we learn things from others.



plasturion said:


> Religion should provide good explanation, if not, they'are not telling the Truth, in other words is not teaching about God which is the Truth. The problem is that religion is not for answaring the questions that some belivers are trying to get. Like Jehovah's witness are trying to answer for question when will be the end of times, or exaclty how many people will be saved, and who and what is more right, without provide any negations of facts that was made before, like why trinitary teaching is wrong.


I recall that in the book of revelation, John said that one angel from his visions told him to omit one figure when writing what he was seeing. The prophecies are full of symbolism for a reason, either it's not for everyone to know or it'll be completely understood in its due time. It's kinda funny because that's probably the book that has caused more confusions for religions. Catholicism -unlike protestants- at least has been doing a good job through the years explaining things in depth like why the external cult is important, the meaning of sacraments, god existence (from theology pov), etc. JWs to begin with reject the divinity of Jesus, reject the trinity doctrine (I haven't read their reasons) and if they're actually saying when will be the end of times and how many ppl will be saved, then they're going against their own guide book's precepts because even Jesus said that he doesn't know the exact day.


----------



## plasturion (Jan 30, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Anyone ever question why Catholicism's main symbol is the death of god, why they get to decide what's "canon", why all the original followers were murdered, and why its leaders turned into pedophiles?
> 
> JW have a lot of insights in investigating etymology and historical evidence, but I think their emphasis on the institution misses the message.  "I am that I am," is an expression of self-awareness and self-advocacy.  This is a threat to every government that desires to be worshipped and followed unquestionably, which is inherent in the JW organization.  Even though modern religions tend to have a lot of distortion, they are still a threat to tyrannical governments at large because the target of worship departs from the institution and calls people to refer to their conscience, potentially questioning "authority".


I thought that apostoles made that symbol most significant before. (1st Kor 1,22-23) "Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom,  but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles." But sure you can still ask why resurected Jesus King standing on a throne is not main symbol of Catholicism. Maybe because hard truth is more valuable than the soft one and speaks more about a reason. And what leaders are you trying to refer? Maybe they not belong to church anymore even if they have proper documents. Any respect for those who tried to bring something good inside... like St. Thomas the Aquinas. St. or charity organisations.


----------



## Lacius (Jan 30, 2022)

september796 said:


> If I said the opposite then I would be basically saying that causes and effects could be traced down infinitely no matter how far you go back in time.



This has been a good conversation so far, so please don't be disingenuous by ignoring the other possibilities I already listed. Infinite regress isn't the only option. How did you rule out the universe in the future causing itself in the past? How did you rule out the universe just not having or requiring a cause (by definition, we're talking about the formation of causality itself)?
You're talking about infinite regress "no matter how far you go back in time," but we are potentially talking about the formation of time itself. If causality is a temporal property (it is), then it's ridiculous to talk about causality needing a cause or there being a time before time.
Any reason you can give for why "God" doesn't require a first cause can also be applied to the universe or the natural processes that hypothetically caused the universe.



september796 said:


> even then idk if it's utter nonsense haha


It's utter nonsense, and I've shown you how. In summary, the "first cause" argument doesn't demonstrate anything, and it doesn't solve any problems either. It only creates extra questions and extra problems.



september796 said:


> Sure there are some reasonable answers against it as there are to any other argument. There it's one out of many. Skeptics could point ou flaws to any argument for that matter, and that's very good actually.


This isn't how logical reasoning works. An argument is either logically sound, or it isn't. An argument is either logically valid, or it isn't. There are plenty of arguments that are logically sound, and there are plenty of arguments that are logically valid. There's no such thing as a "first cause" argument I've heard that is logically sound or even logically valid. If you disagree with me, present a first cause argument that is logically sound.



september796 said:


> My approach is evidently different than yours


I agree. My approach is to believe as many true things and as few false things as possible, so I require reason/evidence for my beliefs. Assuming you're a theist (I don't remember if you said you are), you apparently don't care if your beliefs are true, and you've suspended the need for reason/evidence for your beliefs. If you disagree, please provide evidence that a god exists.



september796 said:


> as I'm not doing it for the pursuing of empirical evidence at all.


It isn't that you're just lacking empirical evidence for a god's existence. You are also lacking any sound reason to believe a god exists.



september796 said:


> After all I think in these religions claims there are personal subjective experiences, these includes rational thoughts as well as feelings and whatnot (not comparable to anything besides a God concept). We can't simply disdain them, in fact everyone should give these issues deep thoughts sometime. I don't think we could get there just by knowledge.


I'm only interested in what's objectively true, not what people subjectively feel like is true in their imaginations.


----------



## smf (Jan 30, 2022)

september796 said:


> Yeah, that's like a synonym for hope or will. But there are more definitions of faith and that's what I was pointing out; one of them being the human faith that all of us even atheist put on practice when we learn things from others.


Are you referring to laziness/uncaring/going along with the status quo?

Some people will argue with their boss if they tell them to do something dumb, some people will just do it.

Neither of them may have faith in what their boss told them.


----------



## smf (Jan 30, 2022)

Lacius said:


> You're talking about infinite regress "no matter how far you go back in time," but we are potentially talking about the formation of time itself. If causality is a temporal property (it is), then it's ridiculous to talk about causality needing a cause or there being a time before time.


Both theists and atheists have a problem with before the start of time.

Atheists keep looking to science to explain it, but so far there is nothing.

Theists say "god did it" and move on, but it doesn't explain how god can exist outside our universe without time.

So if theists can rely on something (i.e god) outside our knowledge of the universe to create it, then why can't atheists?
We just haven't given it a name yet.

If time is an experience, then before the big bang there may have been some experience of time in a different universe.


----------



## Lacius (Jan 30, 2022)

smf said:


> Both theists and atheists have a problem with before the start of time.
> 
> Atheists keep looking to science to explain it, but so far there is nothing.
> 
> Theists say "god did it" and move on, but it doesn't explain how god can exist outside our universe without time.


The difference is skeptics acknowledge what they don't know, and theists make things up and believe claims they have no reason to think are true. I know which position is the intellectually honest and rational one.



smf said:


> So if theists can rely on something (i.e god) outside our knowledge of the universe to create it, then why can't atheists?
> We just haven't given it a name yet.


Skeptics don't accept claims to be true without evidence. It would be irrational to do anything else.



smf said:


> If time is an experience, then before the big bang there may have been some experience of time in a different universe.


Maybe. Who knows?


----------



## smf (Jan 30, 2022)

Lacius said:


> Skeptics don't accept claims to be true without evidence. It would be irrational to do anything else.


I'm not sure it's rational to validate every piece of evidence for everything you believe, you'd not get anything done. Considering where time came from has no benefit for the majority of people & there are no consequences for believing whatever you want.

Scientists also have to have some confidence that their theory might be true to spend years looking for evidence to support it.

But in either case, I'm not sure how much benefit there is to argue where time came from either. Unless you're trying to get funding, or are conducting research.


----------



## Lacius (Jan 30, 2022)

smf said:


> I'm not sure it's rational to validate every piece of evidence for everything you believe, you'd not get anything done.


It's irrational to accept anything as true if you don't have sound reason or evidence to believe it's true, regardless of whether or not you've personally validated it.



smf said:


> & there are no consequences for believing whatever you want.


This is completely untrue. Even if a particular belief is inconsequential (theism isn't one that's inconsequential), allowing oneself to believe in something for bad reasons means you can believe anything for bad reasons, including consequential things.

People generally care if their beliefs are true, even if they don't admit it. People generally care, for example, if their belief about oncoming traffic is true before crossing the street. By making the criteria for belief "whatever you want to believe," you're contradicting the actual goal to believe true things and not false things.


----------



## smf (Jan 30, 2022)

Lacius said:


> People generally care, for example, if their belief about oncoming traffic is true before crossing the street. By making the criteria for belief "whatever you want to believe," you're contradicting the actual goal to believe true things and not false things.


People believe things like "it will rain tomorrow" with no proof.

The consequence of that might be they cancel plans, but if those plans would involve a financial outlay with no financial reward then re-arranging based on your belief can be rational.

I don't see what consequence there is from believing that god created the universe.


----------



## Lacius (Jan 30, 2022)

smf said:


> People believe things like "it will rain tomorrow" with no proof.


People accept claims of weather probability with ample evidence, regardless of whether or not it actually rains.



smf said:


> I don't see what consequence there is from believing that god created the universe.


There can be plenty. As I and others have said in this thread, religion is one of the few things, if anything, that can make otherwise good people do bad things. For example, an otherwise good person might vote against LGBT rights because their church says "God said so."  Wars have been fought over religion. Belief in an afterlife can cause people to treat people in ways they shouldn't or to not fix relationships with people because there's "always time to do that in the afterlife."

And, most importantly, irrational belief in anything (e.g. God) means you can believe anything irrationally.


----------



## smf (Jan 30, 2022)

Lacius said:


> People accept claims of weather probability with ample evidence, regardless of whether or not it actually rains.


No, I mean people literally decide for themselves what they think the weather will be tomorrow. Not based on weather reports etc.

There are all manner of cognitive biases that affect this (like you are more likely to remember when you get it right and the weather reports get it wrong).

It's not harmful to them though, if anything being obsessed about planning every detail based on evidence is more likely to cause you mental health problems.


----------



## Lacius (Jan 30, 2022)

smf said:


> No, I mean people literally decide for themselves what they think the weather will be tomorrow. Not based on weather reports etc.
> 
> There are all manner of cognitive biases that affect this (like you are more likely to remember when you get it right and the weather reports get it wrong).
> 
> It's not harmful to them though, if anything being obsessed about planning every detail based on evidence is more likely to cause you mental health problems.


It's irrational to accept any claim about the weather (or anything else) without evidence. Most people look at things like the weather forecast and make informed predictions.

If a person makes predictions about the weather without evidence, they are potentially inconveniencing themselves. In addition, if a person can believe something for bad reason, they can believe anything for bad reason.


----------



## smf (Jan 30, 2022)

Lacius said:


> It's irrational to accept any claim about the weather (or anything else) without evidence. Most people look at things like the weather forecast and make informed predictions.
> 
> If a person makes predictions about the weather without evidence, they are potentially inconveniencing themselves. In addition, if a person can believe something for bad reason, they can believe anything for bad reason.


It's irrational to listen to the weather report if you have a strong feeling that it's wrong.

What do you do when the two forecasts disagree?

A friend cancelled their party because one forecast said there would be a thunderstorm, but the other said it would be sunny. They now don't trust the weather forecasts & I think that is reasonably rational..


----------



## Lacius (Jan 30, 2022)

smf said:


> It's irrational to listen to the weather report if you have a strong feeling that it's wrong.


No it isn't.



smf said:


> What do you do when the two forecasts disagree?


Look at the evidence.



smf said:


> A friend cancelled their party because one forecast said there would be a thunderstorm, but the other said it would be sunny.


Okay?


----------



## smf (Jan 30, 2022)

Lacius said:


> Look at the evidence.


There is literally no evidence to go on. One weather report says one thing, one says another. You don't have time to investigate whether one weather forecaster is better than the other & that wouldn't help you anyway as they can both be wrong.

Being autistic doesn't help you in this circumstance. You have to make a decision.
It's rational to guess.


----------



## Xzi (Jan 30, 2022)

smf said:


> It's irrational to listen to the weather report if you have a strong feeling that it's wrong.
> 
> What do you do when the two forecasts disagree?
> 
> A friend cancelled their party because one forecast said there would be a thunderstorm, but the other said it would be sunny. They now don't trust the weather forecasts & I think that is reasonably rational..


Lol I think this thread about JW has probably run its course if people are now arguing about "doing their own meteorology."


----------



## smf (Jan 30, 2022)

Xzi said:


> Lol I think this thread about JW has probably run its course if people are now arguing about "doing their own meteorology."


It was just an example of things people do without evidence.

The majority of decisions that people make every day, are not based on strong evidence.

Religions are pretty benign, it's the people that are the problem. They would be a problem without the religion.


----------



## Lacius (Jan 30, 2022)

smf said:


> There is literally no evidence to go on.


That sucks then. It doesn't mean making a weather prediction, without any evidence, is rational.



smf said:


> You have to make a decision.
> It's rational to guess.


No, you don't have to make a decision, and it's often irrational to do so. If I flip a coin but hide the result, there is no situation in which you would be rational believing the coin landed on tails. It's fine to make a guess, and it's fine to acknowledge the 50-50 odds, but it's irrational to actually believe it's tails.



smf said:


> The majority of decisions that people make every day, are not based on strong evidence.


The vast majority of people's beliefs are evidence-based. In my case, and in the case of other skeptics, they're all evidence-based. There's a word for people who hold beliefs despite lack of evidence: irrational.



smf said:


> Religions are pretty benign, it's the people that are the problem.


For religion to exist, there have to be religious people. Gee, thanks.



smf said:


> They would be a problem without the religion.


I've cited numerous reasons why this often isn't the case. Religions are one of the few things, if any, to cause otherwise good people to do bad things. Rejecting skepticism also absolutely results in bad decision-making and other bad beliefs.

If a person has one belief with no evidence, then what's stopping them from accepting other beliefs like prejudicial beliefs, etc. with no evidence?


----------



## tabzer (Jan 31, 2022)

plasturion said:


> I thought that apostoles made that symbol most significant before. (1st Kor 1,22-23) "Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom,  but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles." But sure you can still ask why resurected Jesus King standing on a throne is not main symbol of Catholicism. Maybe because hard truth is more valuable than the soft one and speaks more about a reason. And what leaders are you trying to refer? Maybe they not belong to church anymore even if they have proper documents. Any respect for those who tried to bring something good inside... like St. Thomas the Aquinas. St. or charity organisations.


Preaching about Jesus being crucified is a lesson where the symbol becomes a form of an idol.  The latter didn't start to be observed untill two hundred years after Jesus was crucified, well into Rome's endeavor to take over the narrative.  I am not saying that good people cannot exist within an institution, but that the institution is based on corruption.


----------



## september796 (Jan 31, 2022)

Lacius said:


> This has been a good conversation so far, so please don't be disingenuous by ignoring the other possibilities I already listed. Infinite regress isn't the only option. How did you rule out the universe in the future causing itself in the past? How did you rule out the universe just not having or requiring a cause (by definition, we're talking about the formation of causality itself)?
> You're talking about infinite regress "no matter how far you go back in time," but we are potentially talking about the formation of time itself. If causality is a temporal property (it is), then it's ridiculous to talk about causality needing a cause or there being a time before time.


Particulary, infinite regress is one that sounds to me like it could be easily ruled out for sure. We'll find out soon I guess. Now, I don't think I have ruled out the one you mentioned about the universe in the future causing itself in the past. Sounds interesting but a priori I don't see how is that a logical possibility. Could you elaborate? 
And about the universe not having a cause could mean either the infinite regress thing again or that it created itself or simply poofing out of nothing, which are all unlikely and Im afraid there's not really a sound answer for that. I don't know... I should first need to assume a very illogical idea that time began later on and along with its causality these came to be after the beginning of the universe, which is already a mess since there is no before nor after without time, but only then we could reason that matter as we know it (corruptible, subject to change, subject to time...) may have existed without a cause at the very beginning [?].


Lacius said:


> Any reason you can give for why "God" doesn't require a first cause can also be applied to the universe or the natural processes that hypothetically caused the universe.


You mean a reason like God being immaterial and timeless, thus not being corruptable, mutable, etc, that is allegedly outside the laws that rule this dimension?  I dont see how the same reason could be applied to the universe or anything that materially exists and is subject to previously established laws. 
Are you even inclined to the possibility that the universe is eternal or has created itself?



Lacius said:


> This isn't how logical reasoning works. An argument is either logically sound, or it isn't. An argument is either logically valid, or it isn't. There are plenty of arguments that are logically sound, and there are plenty of arguments that are logically valid. There's no such thing as a "first cause" argument I've heard that is logically sound or even logically valid. If you disagree with me, present a first cause argument that is logically sound.


I dont think there is just one way of logical reasoning. Here there are more possibilities than you're seeing. The first cause argument is logical even though its premises are probable, thus making its conclusion also just probable. But I dare to say that there isn't such a way of a perfect reasoning and you could find flaws to any argument that tries to explain something that is not ridiculously simple even if they turn out to be true. Language itself is a limited tool when trying to portrait abstract thoughts; whenever it is done, the message leads to numerous conclusions.



Lacius said:


> I agree. My approach is to believe as many true things and as few false things as possible, so I require reason/evidence for my beliefs. Assuming you're a theist (I don't remember if you said you are), you apparently don't care if your beliefs are true, and you've suspended the need for reason/evidence for your beliefs. If you disagree, please provide evidence that a god exists.


First, I've said already that no one can say look that's god right there or something. Second, I'm not sure about those categories, but what I can say as of now is that I lean towards the possibility of one superior being/thing/mind/whatever. Certainly I'm not religious nor my family background is, I just happen to like the christian lore so I'm just a bible reader if you will, because it makes a lot of sense to me... morally at least. When it comes to things that are demonstrable I'm not crazy about finding and experimenting first hand that everything I believe in is true. Yes, not gonna lie, I rely a lot on human faith but not completely blind. I like to question things with a widest perspective. So I can't ignore that where there is technique there is intelligence behind it, where there is organization there is intelligence behind it and so on. Naturally that leads to a lot of questions when you observe what has been given to us. Things don't become real when we understand them. It can take a lifetime to make all the necessary observations.



smf said:


> Are you referring to laziness/uncaring/going along with the status quo?
> 
> Some people will argue with their boss if they tell them to do something dumb, some people will just do it.
> 
> Neither of them may have faith in what their boss told them.


I mean when we trust/believe by our own will in what someone is telling/teaching us just because we respect them or because they have some authority over the subject they are talking about.


----------



## Lacius (Jan 31, 2022)

september796 said:


> Particulary, infinite regress is one that sounds to me like it could be easily ruled out for sure.


You appear to be arguing for a god that existed infinitely long in the past, which has the same problems as infinite regress, lol. Whether or not you think infinite regress is a problem, a god doesn't solve it.



september796 said:


> Now, I don't think I have ruled out the one you mentioned about the universe in the future causing itself in the past. Sounds interesting but a priori I don't see how is that a logical possibility. Could you elaborate?


There is nothing that excludes the possibility of the expansion from the universe from a small point beginning with a point in spacetime in our own universe's future. Hypothetically, perhaps a supernova that resulted in a black hole is our own universe's big bang. For clarity, imagine a picture of a tree where one of its limbs loops down and grows into the trunk of the tree in place of a root system.

I'm not arguing this is the case. My point is you haven't excluded it. And, even if you did, that wouldn't be evidence of the need for a first cause, let alone a god.



september796 said:


> And about the universe not having a cause could mean either the infinite regress thing again


The universe not having or requiring a cause is not infinite regress.



september796 said:


> either the infinite regress thing again or that it created itself or simply poofing out of nothing, which are all unlikely and Im afraid there's not really a sound answer for that.


Demonstrate this. How did you exclude infinite regress? (Any answer you have for this excludes an infinite god). How did you exclude merely having no cause? A mistake you're making is applying laws of causality to the formation of causality itself.



september796 said:


> I should first need to assume a very illogical idea that time began later on and along with its causality these came to be after the beginning of the universe, which is already a mess since there is no before nor after without time, but only then we could reason that matter as we know it (corruptible, subject to change, subject to time...) may have existed without a cause at the very beginning [?].


This paragraph was a bit of a mess, but it's important to note that when we talk about the formation of the universe (if it even had a beginning), we are potentially talking about the beginning of time and causality. That throws any need for a cause or a "before the universe" out the window. Arguably, it's impossible for there to be a cause to causality or a time before time.



september796 said:


> You mean a reason like God being immaterial and timeless, thus not being corruptable, mutable, etc, that is allegedly outside the laws that rule this dimension?  I dont see how the same reason could be applied to the universe or anything that materially exists and is subject to previously established laws.


Describing god as "immaterial" or "timeless" doesn't change anything. The universe itself might be eternal. A hypothetical natural cause to the universe may be eternal. God doesn't solve any problems or answer any questions, and there's definitely no reason to think a god exists.



september796 said:


> Are you even inclined to the possibility that the universe is eternal or has created itself?


The universe, cosmos, or whatever we are talking about might be eternal. It might have began to exist without a cause. No evidence has been provided that debunks these options. Even if you were to disprove these options (you can't), that wouldn't demonstrate a god's existence.



september796 said:


> The first cause argument is logical even though its premises are probable, thus making its conclusion also just probable.


The premises of the first cause argument have not been demonstrated to be "probable," and anyone who wants to be reasonable has a duty to reject those premises. The first cause arguments are also illogical because the conclusions don't follow the premises. It's an absurdly bad argument all around, and since I've explained all this to you, you should stop defending it unless you have something new and significant to add.



september796 said:


> But I dare to say that there isn't such a way of a perfect reasoning and you could find flaws to any argument that tries to explain something that is not ridiculously simple even if they turn out to be true. Language itself is a limited tool when trying to portrait abstract thoughts; whenever it is done, the message leads to numerous conclusions.


Logical soundness is a definable thing. If the premises of an argument are demonstrably true, and if the conclusions necessarily follow the premises, it's a valid and sound argument. If not, then it's not. Whether or not an argument is sound is objective, not subjective.



september796 said:


> but what I can say as of now is that I lean towards the possibility of one superior being/thing/mind/whatever.


In the absence of sound reason and evidence, you're being absurdly irrational. If you care if your beliefs are true, you can't accept that a god exists or likely exists.

If you care more about believing in God than whether or not it's true, then fine, but let's not pretend that would be anything other than moronic.



september796 said:


> I just happen to like the christian lore so I'm just a bible reader if you will


I like Star Trek and Zelda lore. That doesn't mean I should believe they're true.



september796 said:


> so I'm just a bible reader if you will, because it makes a lot of sense to me... morally at least.


The Bible definitively rejects reason and skepticism, and it pretends that doing so is virtuous. This is the #1 worst thing about religions. The Bible also condones slavery, it's been used to oppress and marginalize various minority groups (LGBT, etc.), and it doesn't condemn some of the most basic immoralities. The idea that the Bible is any sort of humanistic morality is, pardon me, the fucking stupidest thing you've said in this entire thread.



september796 said:


> When it comes to things that are demonstrable I'm not crazy about finding and experimenting first hand that everything I believe in is true.


You don't have to do your own science experiments to have reasonable justification for your beliefs, but you do require good evidence.



september796 said:


> Yes, not gonna lie, I rely a lot on human faith but not completely blind.


Faith is blind and irrational by definition. As I've said numerous times, it's the excuse a person gives when they don't have good reasons or evidence.



september796 said:


> I like to question things with a widest perspective.


Questioning is good. Accepting claims as true without reason or evidence is bad.



september796 said:


> So I can't ignore that where there is technique there is intelligence behind it, where there is organization there is intelligence behind it and so on. Naturally that leads to a lot of questions when you observe what has been given to us. Things don't become real when we understand them. It can take a lifetime to make all the necessary observations.


There is no evidence that an intelligence is necessarily behind things that are organized. This sounds like an argument from complexity, which is another unsound argument for the existence of a god. By definition, a god would have to be insanely organized or complex, and yet the arguments omit him from the need for an intelligent creator, lol.



september796 said:


> I mean when we trust/believe by our own will in what someone is telling/teaching us just because we respect them or because they have some authority over the subject they are talking about.


You should accept something because someone in particular said it. You should accept something because of the sound reasoning and evidence that it's true.


----------



## AncientBoi (Jan 31, 2022)

I didn't see anything against masturbation in the list, so No Problem.


----------



## Lacius (Jan 31, 2022)

AncientBoi said:


> I didn't see anything against masturbation in the list, so No Problem.


You're a treasure.


----------



## AncientBoi (Jan 31, 2022)

[curtsies] Thank you. thank you.

And you as well.

@Lacius


----------



## plasturion (Jan 31, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Preaching about Jesus being crucified is a lesson where the symbol becomes a form of an idol.  The latter didn't start to be observed untill two hundred years after Jesus was crucified, well into Rome's endeavor to take over the narrative.  I am not saying that good people cannot exist within an institution, but that the institution is based on corruption.


The first letter to the Corinthians was written in Ephesus by Paul in his lifetime, before the year 57. I think it explains clearly and completes the teaching of the trinity in which Jesus becomes co-equal with God, st Peter was crucified as many first christians, so it become main symbol much more earlier.


----------



## Drewsalem (Feb 1, 2022)

plasturion said:


> The first letter to the Corinthians was written in Ephesus by Paul in his lifetime, before the year 57. I think it explains clearly and completes the teaching of the trinity in which Jesus becomes co-equal with God, st Peter was crucified as many first christians, so it become main symbol much more earlier.


Does 1 Corinthians teach the Trinity?
At 1 Cor 8:4 Paul said: “there is actually one God, the Father” (not three, the father son and Holy Spirit)
At 1 Cor 11:2 Paul said “the head of the church is Christ … and the head of the Christ is God.” (Not equal) 
The Bible doesn’t teach the Trinity. It didn’t appear until hundreds of years after Jesus and owes more to Plato and Constantine than to Jesus and his apostles.


----------



## omgcat (Feb 1, 2022)

my only issue with religions is when they try to use Roko's basilisk as a spreading mechanism. for example, if you never learned of Christ, had no chance to be saved by him, in the best case you're forgiven and in the worst case, you are condemned to hell for something you could never have known or fixed. either propositions are problematic as you could never have a loving god that would willingly condemn people (for example un-contacted tribes). it is literally impossible to have a just god and a loving god at the same time. telling people about Christ now requires them to accept him to be saved. it is a problem because they would have been better off without that knowledge, since learning it now endangers their immortal soul. in a nutshell lots of current religions (mostly christian, but there are others) are psychohazards. it is 100% possible to have a moral framework without religion, and as such spirituality should be a deeply personal thing you develop yourself.


----------



## CoolMe (Feb 1, 2022)

omgcat said:


> it is 100% possible to have a moral framework without religion, and as such spirituality should be a deeply personal thing you develop yourself.


Exactly! That's why morals/ethics/&values should be taught separate from (and without) the religious coating, of any kind (period). It's better to properly explain why it's immoral to steal/kill etc Because it hurts other people, and if you don't like something like that happening to you, then it's the same for them too, so it's a question of responsibility/thoughtfulness/ & dedication for the individual, and him alone at all times,(i could go deeper about the psychology of it). And it's hell of a lot better than saying "if you steal, you will go to hell"..
Part of the religious teachings, It always tries to separate and isolate people from other societies/ religions etc. Like why? Is it their fault being born in a different part of the world and raised believing in God "X" instead of "Y", it doesn't make any sense.


----------



## tabzer (Feb 1, 2022)

plasturion said:


> The first letter to the Corinthians was written in Ephesus by Paul in his lifetime, before the year 57. I think it explains clearly and completes the teaching of the trinity in which Jesus becomes co-equal with God, st Peter was crucified as many first christians, so it become main symbol much more earlier.


"Preaching Christ crucified" is not equivalent to making a symbol to be donned or put on display.  As far as I understand, there wasn't a point were Jesus wasn't god (or the son of god, but mankind are sons of god and the nuance gets tricky because of the gaps in transliteration).  I'm not sure to what theological rationalization you are referring to exactly.


----------



## plasturion (Feb 1, 2022)

Drewsalem said:


> Does 1 Corinthians teach the Trinity?
> At 1 Cor 8:4 Paul said: “there is actually one God, the Father” (not three, the father son and Holy Spirit)
> At 1 Cor 11:2 Paul said “the head of the church is Christ … and the head of the Christ is God.” (Not equal)
> The Bible doesn’t teach the Trinity. It didn’t appear until hundreds of years after Jesus and owes more to Plato and Constantine than to Jesus and his apostles.


As everyone know trinity was a dogma created by Constantine, that's right. So It just catch up and explain God's nature in the way as it was possible, where some thesis was made done before like in the letter. Also maybe Plato was an inspiration, so what? that's even better.
There's diagram about it that Son is not A Father, Christ is not a Holy Spirit, but every of them are the same God.
It's just radical right, knowing the sentece seem to be logicaly contradicted. That's expected.
So what does it mean are the same? Simply saying It describes the level of unity, having the same mind, the same will, every person is needed to show and explain more about each other, takes different function and alone it would say nothing, or not that much. So being God in each person meaning is also kind of something undefined and secret, unreachable in simple explanation, but very significant in relationship to each other at the same time.

At the letter to Corintian we just have description of each Person:
God as Love, Infinity and Justice 1 Cor 1 (27-29):
"27 But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. 28 God chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are, 29 so that no one may boast before him."
Jesus as Truth and Unity at 1 Cor 1 (10):
"10 I appeal to you, brothers and sisters, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another in what you say and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly united in mind and thought.
Spirit as Wisdom and Gifts at 1 Cor 2 (10-12):
"10 these are the things God has revealed to us by his Spirit. The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. 11 For who knows a person’s thoughts except their own spirit within them? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God."

Hypothicaly what if every person would like to achieve something different in its own will. There were some gnostic sects creating at very begining at christianity trying be more logical but speaks about something different in wosrt case leading to conlcusion that the God is bad, I wonder if this dogma is kind of counter-offensive to heresy at the times.

Even if you don't like this logic at the end we have at 2 Cor 13
"13 The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit be with all of you."
Was adapted by Constantine as the first catholic liturgy greetings, so nothing innovative by his side.



> "Preaching Christ crucified" is not equivalent to making a symbol to be donned or put on display.


But Isn't it a process of creating that symbol?  "Preaching Christ resurected" don't teach the "now".


----------



## tabzer (Feb 2, 2022)

plasturion said:


> But Isn't it a process of creating that symbol? "Preaching Christ resurected" don't teach the "now".


People love symbols and they are prone to create them.  You could say that it was going to happen.  You have to understand, too, that the timing of the teaching was in response to the current rule of the land and to the people's expectations.  I interpret that It was in response to their desire for symbols, signs, and wisdom that they were told about the heavy-hearted event, and through it, the implications about the law.


----------



## City (Feb 2, 2022)

I think of Jenovah's Witnesses the same thing I think of every other religion: as long as you don't hurt anyone, I don't care.


Haven't talked to one yet but I'll update you when that happens.


----------



## september796 (Feb 2, 2022)

Lacius said:


> You appear to be arguing for a god that existed infinitely long in the past, which has the same problems as infinite regress, lol. Whether or not you think infinite regress is a problem, a god doesn't solve it.


If we understand god as concept with the characteristics I've said a couple of times then it does solve it, the problems are (1) there would be no way to reach it by physical means, and (2) the assumption leads to more questions, but to be fair this will be the case to any other argument. Scientists have come up with all sorts of propositions to "solve it" as well. Some have been proven wrong, some are too bold to be refuted with today's knowledge. God may fit in the latter as well, I suppose. But infinite regress is a problem as long as we talk about matter.



Lacius said:


> There is nothing that excludes the possibility of the expansion from the universe from a small point beginning with a point in spacetime in our own universe's future. Hypothetically, perhaps a supernova that resulted in a black hole is our own universe's big bang. For clarity, imagine a picture of a tree where one of its limbs loops down and grows into the trunk of the tree in place of a root system.


Sounds like it's a complex one and leaves questions unanswered, which is okay. But I'm afraid the example of the tree didn't help much since it seems to be comparing apples and pears. But still, based only on it, it's an illogical reasoning. If the universe could have created itself, then it means that it had to have existed already in order to be able to perform all that, therefore we're not really talking about its beginning. Anyway does this proposition exclude every other argument in order to be accepted? or at the very least how does it exclude god?



Lacius said:


> A mistake you're making is applying laws of causality to the formation of causality itself.


It's all deductive though. How is that a mistake when we're dealing with assumptions and theories. No one knows, we're just figuring things here. Is something as the formation of causality, being an abstract idea, even demonstrable?



Lacius said:


> That throws any need for a cause or a "before the universe" out the window. Arguably, it's impossible for there to be a cause to causality or a time before time.


Perhaps if it were true, but we don't know. I still don't see the logic behind the formation of anything out of nothing.



Lacius said:


> The universe, cosmos, or whatever we are talking about might be eternal. It might have began to exist without a cause. No evidence has been provided that debunks these options. Even if you were to disprove these options (you can't), that wouldn't demonstrate a god's existence.


Is that now a reason to think something might be eternal? Actually, correct me if I'm wrong but it seems as if you are considering the possibility of the universe being eternal. I mean, otherwise you would have said something like "the universe being eternal has not been demonstrated, there's no sound evidence, it's irrational to think of its possibility, etc...".



Lacius said:


> The premises of the first cause argument have not been demonstrated to be "probable," and anyone who wants to be reasonable has a duty to reject those premises. The first cause arguments are also illogical because the conclusions don't follow the premises. It's an absurdly bad argument all around, and since I've explained all this to you, you should stop defending it unless you have something new and significant to add.


Fair enough, some of its premises are also abstractions, the point is that its conclusion can't be a sound one, sure, which doesn't necessarily mean it's illogical. They may be uncertain due to -for instance- a lack of evidence but at the same time can't be disproven. For example, saying 'everything we know in this world have a cause and effect': to begin with, we don't even know every single thing in this world so we couldn't have submit them all to scientific test naturally. However we admit it as evident without the need of demonstration in order to reach a conclusion. If these sorts of premises weren't allowed we'd be still in middle age. In science there are premises that are taken for granted without complete demonstration and yet have served the purpose of advancing new knowledge. If they had been rejected scientists would have been stuck from the beginning without advancing. I'm not even defending the first cause argument, it's just that I haven't seen it disproven with evidence, reason being how bold it is. 



Lacius said:


> In the absence of sound reason and evidence, you're being absurdly irrational. If you care if your beliefs are true, you can't accept that a god exists or likely exists.


It wouldn't be me saying "I don't think anything about our origin / my mind is completely blank on the subject until evidence comes out", etc... Like I said, I like to philosophize and this is like the biggest mystery there is, nothing less. I have some level of skepticism, but I keep it under control; I like to consider all sorts of things just to "experiment" what's behind and then come back to reflect on it better.



Lacius said:


> I like Star Trek and Zelda lore. That doesn't mean I should believe they're true.


I know this one's a joke, but really those are fantasy while the bible is a big part of human history. It's obvious that I wasn't implying that by liking something it becomes true, that would be absurd. 



Lacius said:


> The Bible definitively rejects reason and skepticism, and it pretends that doing so is virtuous. This is the #1 worst thing about religions. The Bible also condones slavery, it's been used to oppress and marginalize various minority groups (LGBT, etc.), and it doesn't condemn some of the most basic immoralities.


On some subjects maybe that first statement is true from a certain point of view, but generally it does give quite a lot of explanation and examples. Now, it's clear that it does not explain things like the 'beginning', for instance, other than by allegories and metaphors. 
I don't necessarily see slavery as a bad thing within its context, but in fact -and I quote you- "it has been used to opress and marginalize" (all kind of people) as well as a kitchen knife has been used to kill innocent ones. By the way, what are those basic immoralities that it doesn't condemn?



Lacius said:


> The idea that the Bible is any sort of humanistic morality is, pardon me, the fucking stupidest thing you've said in this entire thread.


Humanistic? No, in fact that sounds like todays morals. Bible morals are God-focused. 



Lacius said:


> There is no evidence that an intelligence is necessarily behind things that are organized.


What?



Lacius said:


> By definition, a god would have to be insanely organized or complex, and yet the arguments omit him from the need for an intelligent creator, lol.


Insanely organized, exactly. I don't know which argument you're talking about though, but the one that comes to mind is one by Leibniz, which I never read because it was quite heavy on mathematical concepts (which I ignore for the most part) from what I remember.


----------



## september796 (Feb 2, 2022)

CoolMe said:


> Exactly! That's why morals/ethics/&values should be taught separate from (and without) the religious coating, of any kind (period). It's better to properly explain why it's immoral to steal/kill etc Because it hurts other people, and if you don't like something like that happening to you, then it's the same for them too, so it's a question of responsibility/thoughtfulness/ & dedication for the individual, and him alone at all times,(i could go deeper about the psychology of it). And it's hell of a lot better than saying "if you steal, you will go to hell"..
> Part of the religious teachings, It always tries to separate and isolate people from other societies/ religions etc. Like why? Is it their fault being born in a different part of the world and raised believing in God "X" instead of "Y", it doesn't make any sense.


You mean we should based our morals on a consensus or something? Who would finally have the authority to establish them?


----------



## Lacius (Feb 3, 2022)

september796 said:


> If we understand god as concept with the characteristics I've said a couple of times then it does solve it, the problems are (1) there would be no way to reach it by physical means, and (2) the assumption leads to more questions, but to be fair this will be the case to any other argument. Scientists have come up with all sorts of propositions to "solve it" as well. Some have been proven wrong, some are too bold to be refuted with today's knowledge. God may fit in the latter as well, I suppose. But infinite regress is a problem as long as we talk about matter.


Any reason you have to exclude God from requiring a cause or a beginning can be applied to the universe or the natural processes that hypothetically caused the universe.

"God is infinite." Okay, what does that even mean? Does that mean he has existed for an infinite amount of time in the past? There has also been no demonstration that anything exists that has existed for an infinite amount of time in the past. That's also problematic in exactly the same way infinite regress is.

"God is timeless." What does that mean? As far as we understand it, existence is necessarily temporal. There has also been no demonstration that anything "timeless" can or does exist.



september796 said:


> Sounds like it's a complex one and leaves questions unanswered


Fuck yeah it is, and fuck yeah it does.



september796 said:


> But I'm afraid the example of the tree didn't help much since it seems to be comparing apples and pears.


It was a visual analogy, and it was far from perfect.



september796 said:


> But still, based only on it, it's an illogical reasoning. If the universe could have created itself, then it means that it had to have existed already in order to be able to perform all that, therefore we're not really talking about its beginning.


It isn't "illogical reasoning." For all we know, atemporal causation is possible, and it would be a causal loop. Pay very close attention, because I think you'll learn something:

If we imagine for a second that backwards time travel is possible, let's pretend that in the middle of our conversation, I get shot by a mystery assailant. You would obviously be wracked with grief, because I'm awesome, so you grab a gun and use your time machine to go back in time and save my life. You arrive in the past to kill my assailant before they kill me, but you stumble over a rock, and you accidentally fire your gun. The bullet hits and kills me, which is why you decide to go back in time with a gun in the first place. Your future self was my assailant the whole time.

Is this situation possible? I don't know. It's possibility hasn't been demonstrated yet. The point, however, is that it might be possible, even though it's very difficult to define what the cause of those events was, and the same could be said for an atemporal cause to the universe. This is one of many options you haven't eliminated, yet you're irrationally and (forgive me) stupidly jumping to the conclusion that a god must have done it. Even if you were to eliminate the possibility that the universe in the future caused itself in the past, and even if you eliminated every other possibility we could think of, that does not demonstrate that a god exists or did anything. We could find a dead body in the forest, and even if we eliminated literally every possible cause of death, that doesn't mean we're rational in believing magical pixies did it.

The first-cause argument consists of numerous premises that should be rejected, since they haven't been demonstrated to be true. Even if we assumed its premises were true, the conclusion that a god exists doesn't necessarily follow the argument's premises. It's a bad argument.



september796 said:


> Anyway does this proposition exclude every other argument in order to be accepted? or at the very least how does it exclude god?


My point was not that any proposition disproves God.



september796 said:


> It's all deductive though. How is that a mistake when we're dealing with assumptions and theories. No one knows, we're just figuring things here.


Sure, but the sentiments that "no one knows" and "we're all just figuring things out here" don't make believing in a god or accepting the unsound first-cause argument at all reasonable.



september796 said:


> Perhaps if it were true, but we don't know.


And that's the point, isn't it? If we don't know, then nobody is in any position to accept any of the premises commonly found in the first-cause arguments.



september796 said:


> I still don't see the logic behind the formation of anything out of nothing.


As I said earlier, you're making the mistake of applying laws of time and causality to the formation of those laws.



september796 said:


> Is that now a reason to think something might be eternal?


It might be the universe is eternal. It might be the universe isn't eternal, but it doesn't have a cause.



september796 said:


> Actually, correct me if I'm wrong but it seems as if you are considering the possibility of the universe being eternal.


The universe might be eternal without a beginning while the local presentation of the universe seems to have a beginning. I have no idea.



september796 said:


> I mean, otherwise you would have said something like "the universe being eternal has not been demonstrated, there's no sound evidence, it's irrational to think of its possibility, etc...".


The universe being eternal has not been demonstrated to be true. I don't even know if it's physically possible.



september796 said:


> the point is that its conclusion can't be a sound one, sure, which doesn't necessarily mean it's illogical.


It 100% means it's illogical. The word literally means "to lack sound reasoning."



september796 said:


> They may be uncertain due to -for instance- a lack of evidence but at the same time can't be disproven.


Something doesn't become logical or rational just because it hasn't been disproven.



september796 said:


> I'm not even defending the first cause argument


That's most of what you've been doing up until this point. I'm glad you've changed your mind.



september796 said:


> it's just that I haven't seen it disproven with evidence, reason being how bold it is.


We don't accept claims as true or likely true just because they haven't been disproven. If that's what we did, you would have to be believe all sorts of untrue and contradictory things.



september796 said:


> It wouldn't be me saying "I don't think anything about our origin / my mind is completely blank on the subject until evidence comes out", etc... Like I said, I like to philosophize and this is like the biggest mystery there is, nothing less. I have some level of skepticism, but I keep it under control; I like to consider all sorts of things just to "experiment" what's behind and then come back to reflect on it better.


It's fine to think about things, considering claims, and ask questions, but skepticism means rejecting claims that haven't met their burden of proof.



september796 said:


> On some subjects maybe that first statement is true from a certain point of view


The Bible is repeatedly clear that it should be believed blindly. It wholeheartedly rejects and even condemns skepticism.



september796 said:


> but generally it does give quite a lot of explanation and examples.


Explanation of what? Examples of what? But, most importantly, does it include evidence for why anything in the Bible should be believed or taken seriously?



september796 said:


> Now, it's clear that it does not explain things like the 'beginning', for instance, other than by allegories and metaphors.


Many would argue that what the Bible says is literally true.



september796 said:


> I don't necessarily see slavery as a bad thing within its context


Then you are a terrible and deplorable person.



september796 said:


> but in fact -and I quote you- "it has been used to opress and marginalize" (all kind of people) as well as a kitchen knife has been used to kill innocent ones.


The kitchen knife doesn't prescribe or command immoral actions. In fact, it doesn't say or prescribe anything. The knife is amoral, but the Bible is immoral. There's a big difference, and your analogy here is incredibly inapplicable.



september796 said:


> By the way, what are those basic immoralities that it doesn't condemn?


Slavery, for starters.



september796 said:


> Humanistic? No, in fact that sounds like todays morals. Bible morals are God-focused.


I completely 100% agree with you, but there's no evidence that a god exists, and even if there were, it wouldn't justify anti-humanistic behaviors.



september796 said:


> What?


You were apparently arguing that seemingly organized things must be caused by intelligent minds, but that hasn't been demonstrated to be true, and there's apparently plenty of evidence disproving it.


----------



## Lacius (Feb 3, 2022)

september796 said:


> You mean we should based our morals on a consensus or something? Who would finally have the authority to establish them?


Once we define what it means for something to be moral, then we can discern objectively right or wrong answers about whether or not something is moral. Consensus and authority have nothing to do with it. Morality based on a consensus and/or authority is purely subjective.

If we consider morality to be that which is conducive to well being, for example, then we can say objectively whether or not a particular action is conducive to well being.


----------



## Randall_Adams (Feb 3, 2022)

Marc_78065 said:


> ... I believe there's a God / Superior Being who created the world ...


To be fair, your belief in any god/superior being/soul/whatever else have you, is just as illogical. Something either is, or isn't logical, not both. If you think something is both, you just aren't breaking down the thought into it's smaller parts and recognizing those parts as logical or not.

And to go further, the fact that you illogically believe in a god-like-figure-thing, but can't understand how others could believe in illogical things, I think, shows a lack of applied critical thinking to your thoughts/beliefs. People who don't believe in any mumbojumbo feel the same way about your beliefs as you do your families'.

P.S.
You should probably watch a lot of The Athiest Experience videos on youtube, and then probably give them a call. Or if you are turned off by those videos, if you don't vibe with them, they have other programs with different hosts that tackle the same things but in quote unquote less harsh ways.


----------



## smf (Feb 3, 2022)

Lacius said:


> That sucks then. It doesn't mean making a weather prediction, without any evidence, is rational.


Kirk : Mr. Spock, have you accounted for the variable mass of whales and water in your time re-entry program?

Spock : Mr. Scott cannot give me exact figures, Admiral, so... I will make a guess.

Kirk : A guess? You, Spock? That's extraordinary.


Do you have evidence

Yes. Use evidence.
No. Guess

See that is logic right there.


----------



## Lacius (Feb 3, 2022)

smf said:


> Kirk : Mr. Spock, have you accounted for the variable mass of whales and water in your time re-entry program?
> 
> Spock : Mr. Scott cannot give me exact figures, Admiral, so... I will make a guess.
> 
> ...


That's a very poor analogy for a couple of reasons, and I sincerely expected better from you. I do appreciate the Star Trek reference though.

Scotty wasn't without evidence. He was without exact figures. His guess was still evidence-based, and he did the best he could with what he had. It isn't like he didn't have at least a general knowledge of the mass of water and whales. (One thing that always bugged me is he probably should have just been able to look at the transporter logs and found the approximate mass of the water/whales, but we can just blame that on shitty Klingon technology).
Scotty making a guess in a time of desperation is not necessarily the same thing as accepting a claim as true or even likely true. In this specific scenario from the One with the Whales, I think Scotty did accept his guess as at least "likely true," but that takes us back to the guess being evidence-based.
Accepting a claim as true or likely true when you have no evidence for it is irrational and illogical. If I were to throw a dart at a dartboard with a calendar on it, and say whatever day it landed on that I sincerely believed it was going to rain, that's irrational.


----------



## smf (Feb 3, 2022)

Lacius said:


> Accepting a claim as true or likely true when you have no evidence for it is irrational and illogical. If I were to throw a dart at a dartboard with a calendar on it, and say whatever day it landed on that I sincerely believed it was going to rain, that's irrational.



You have zero evidence ever what the weather will be tomorrow, you only have predictions. Those predictions can only ever be based on past events, but that is not evidence of what will happen. Without those predictions, we would not be able to make plans. Therefore it's rational to do the best with what you have.

People use their experience all the time to make decisions of what they think is true. That is human nature, if we didn't do that then we wouldn't do anything. The experience might be flawed for various reasons and it causes problems of course.

I never made a crazy claim about throwing a dart at a board, if you are going to try to win arguments with that kind of tactic then it is no longer rational for me to continue.


----------



## Lacius (Feb 3, 2022)

smf said:


> You have zero evidence ever what the weather will be tomorrow, you only have predictions. Those predictions can only ever be based on past events, that is not evidence of what will happen. Without those predictions, we would not be able to make plans. Therefore it's rational to do the best with what you have.


Weather forecasts are, in fact, based on science and evidence.



smf said:


> I never made a crazy claim about throwing a dart at a board, if you are going to try to win arguments with that kind of tactic then it is no longer rational for me to continue.


My point was that accepting claims without evidence is irrational. Making evidence-based predictions about the weather is rational as long as they're not misunderstood to be anything else. My point was also that you seem to be mistaking actual science like meteorology with something like the dartboard analogy, because you appear to be arguing that the former is like the latter.

If you're going to misrepresent my arguments or tactics when it gets hard for you to respond, then you are probably correct that it's no longer rational for you to continue.


----------



## Randall_Adams (Feb 3, 2022)

Lacius said:


> Once we define what it means for something to be moral,


Correct me if I'm wrong, but if we're defining what moral means, wouldn't that make it subjective? What we'd then define as moral would be subjective to our opinions when defining such a thing.

Also, evidence =/= proof.


----------



## Randall_Adams (Feb 3, 2022)

smf said:


> You have zero evidence ever what the weather will be tomorrow, you only have predictions. Those predictions can only ever be based on past events, but that is not evidence of what will happen.


You don't know what evidence is. That is evidence, but it's not proof. The snow storm going on right now is evidence that it will not be 100 degrees tomorrow. Or whatever degrees makes sense in celsius.


----------



## Lacius (Feb 3, 2022)

Randall_Adams said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, but if we're defining what moral means, wouldn't that make it subjective?


All words have to be defined. That's how language works.

You're right, however, that there's no objective reason to care about whatever it is we define morality as. That part is subjective. Once we decide morality is about well being though, whether or not something is moral is objective.



Randall_Adams said:


> Also, evidence =/= proof.


It doesn't always equal proof, but it can.


----------



## Randall_Adams (Feb 3, 2022)

Lacius said:


> All words have to be defined. That's how language works.
> 
> You're right, however, that there's no objective reason to care about whatever it is we define morality as. That part is subjective. Once we decide morality is about well being though, whether or not something is moral is objective.
> 
> It doesn't always equal proof, but it can.


All words have to be defined, sure, but that doesn't escape them from being subjective. Understanding what people mean when they use the word "moral" and understanding what actually is or isn't moral are two different things. I can understand what somebody means when they say somethng is or isn't moral even if neither of us have definitive ideas about what things are moral or not.

Is an objective thing based on a subjective thing not then ultimately subjective itself? It would be subjectively objective, so yeah in some sense it's objective, and in some sense it's not. -- I guess this line is just food for thought lol. I'm not trying to be semantic, so no need to reply to this statement I think.

You would still be subjectively deciding what is better for someone's well being though. That's what I'm saying.

Like the covid vaccine. Is it better for my well being to get it right now, or not?

Technically if it's proof,  it's not evidence.. it's proof. Calling it evidence would mean it doesn't hold the power to prove anything.


----------



## Lacius (Feb 3, 2022)

Randall_Adams said:


> All words have to be defined, sure, but that doesn't escape them from being subjective. Understanding what people mean when they use the word "moral" and understanding what actually is or isn't moral are two different things. I can understand what somebody means when they say somethng is or isn't moral even if neither of us have definitive ideas about what things are moral or not.
> 
> Is an objective thing based on a subjective thing not then ultimately subjective itself? It would be subjectively objective, so yeah in some sense it's objective, and in some sense it's not. -- I guess this line is just food for thought lol. I'm not trying to be semantic, so no need to reply to this statement I think.
> 
> You would still be subjectively deciding what is better for someone's well being though. That's what I'm saying.


Whether or not we care about well being is technically subjective, but if that's what we decide we care about (and just about everybody on the planet cares about well being), then we can make objective evidence-based assessments about what is or isn't conducive to well being.

Secular morality is superior to any other proclaimed moral system.



Randall_Adams said:


> You would still be subjectively deciding what is better for someone's well being though. That's what I'm saying.


I'm not saying the answers are always clear, but there is always an objective right or wrong answer about whether or not something is conducive to one's well being.

It's only whether or not we care about a person's well being that's technically subjective, but that isn't a problem. Just about everyone on Earth cares about their own well being. Even if they're an asshole who doesn't care about other humans, it is in the best interest of that asshole's well being to (for example) not murder people and to surround oneself with like-minded individuals who also aren't going to murder people.



Randall_Adams said:


> Like the covid vaccine. Is it better for my well being to get it right now, or not?


Assuming there isn't a medical reason for why one shouldn't be vaccinated, it's in the interest of that person's well being to get vaccinated. It's also in the interest of the well being of everyone around that person that they get vaccinated. That second part creates a moral imperative to get vaccinated, objectively.



Randall_Adams said:


> Technically if it's proof,  it's not evidence.. it's proof. Calling it evidence would mean it doesn't hold the power to prove anything.


Proof is a subsection of evidence. Not all evidence is proof, but all proof is evidence.


----------



## Randall_Adams (Feb 3, 2022)

It sounds like if we were talking in person we'd realize we feel the same way about this for the most part.



Lacius said:


> Assuming there isn't a medical reason for why one shouldn't be vaccinated, it's in the interest of that person's well being to get vaccinated. It's also in the interest of the well being of everyone around that person that they get vaccinated. That second part creates a moral imperative to get vaccinated, objectively.


Now that part I would have to argue is subjective, as some people are suffering strokes and heart attacks as a result of getting the vaccine. With that in mind, believing it is a moral imperative for one to take an action that puts them in danger in order to reduce the danger others might be put in, blatantly goes against the idea that morality is about well being. That would be hypocritical. My point is that at least in some cases there is no objectively moral decision.

Carrying on with the covid vaccine argument, younger and/or healthier people (and I don't mean babies lol, like young adults I guess?) are more likely to suffer no long term effects from covid, and while their risk of a heart attack or stroke from the vaccine is probably less too, having a heart attack or a stroke will likely be much more severe for them than getting covid. So for them it's more like risking death or serious injury in order to reduce, not even prevent, injury. More or less.

But yeah, not trying to make this a covid debate haha.

So really my opinion is if someone thinks there is always a moral choice for every predicament, then I disagree. I would think that people who agree that morality is about well being, but still disagree about a particular action being moral or not would mean that morality is subjective. Which is fine with me lol, even if morality being about well being is subjective, I'm still okay going with it being about well being.

And yes, I do agree that secular morality is the best system/form of morality we've yet to create.


----------



## Lacius (Feb 3, 2022)

Randall_Adams said:


> Now that part I would have to argue is subjective, as some people are suffering strokes and heart attacks as a result of getting the vaccine.


There is no evidence for this. This is just conspiracy theory bullshit.



Randall_Adams said:


> My point is that at least in some cases there is no objectively moral decision.


There's always an objectively right or wrong answer once we've made it about well being. I didn't say, however, that the answers were always easy. The good news though is the question of whether or not there's a moral imperative to get the COVID-19 vaccine is an easy one: There is one. The vaccine has been demonstrated to be safe and effective, and it protects yourself as well as others around you.



Randall_Adams said:


> Carrying on with the covid vaccine argument, younger and/or healthier people (and I don't mean babies lol, like young adults I guess?) are more likely to suffer no long term effects from covid, and while their risk of a heart attack or stroke from the vaccine is probably less too, having a heart attack or a stroke will likely be much more severe for them than getting covid. So for them it's more like risking death or serious injury in order to reduce, not even prevent, injury. More or less.


One's odds of suffering severe health effects or death related to COVID-19 are significantly higher when unvaccinated, regardless of whether or not they're "young and/or healthy," and there's no significant risk of serious side effects from the vaccine.



Randall_Adams said:


> But yeah, not trying to make this a covid debate haha.


It's too late for that.



Randall_Adams said:


> So really my opinion is if someone thinks there is always a moral choice for every predicament, then I disagree. I would think that people who agree that morality is about well being, but still disagree about a particular action being moral or not would mean that morality is subjective.


If two parties are in disagreement about whether or not X is conducive to well being, one of them is objectively wrong, and that is always the case. There is no way around that.


----------



## Randall_Adams (Feb 4, 2022)

Lacius said:


> stuff



eh, here



			
				https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/clinical-considerations/myocarditis.html said:
			
		

> Since April 2021, increased cases of myocarditis and pericarditis have been reported in the United States after mRNA COVID-19 vaccination (Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna), particularly in adolescents and young adults. There has not been a similar reporting pattern observed after receipt of the Janssen COVID-19 Vaccine (Johnson & Johnson).


https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/clinical-considerations/myocarditis.html



			
				https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/adverse-events.html said:
			
		

> CDC has also identified nine deaths that have been caused by or were directly attributed to TTS following J&J/Janssen COVID-19 vaccination.
> ...
> A review of reports indicates a causal relationship between the J&J/Janssen COVID-19 vaccine and TTS.
> ...
> Continued monitoring has identified nine deaths causally associated with J&J/Janssen COVID-19 vaccination.


https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/adverse-events.html

but yeah, fuck the cdc and all their crackpot conspiracy theories


----------



## Lacius (Feb 4, 2022)

Randall_Adams said:


> eh, here
> 
> 
> https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/clinical-considerations/myocarditis.html
> ...



Myocarditis is not "stroke and heart attack."
It's an exceedingly rare side effect, orders of magnitude more rare than the odds of contracting COVID-19 and suffering severe effects from it (even when young and healthy).
As far as I can tell, no one has died from it.


----------



## Randall_Adams (Feb 4, 2022)

Lacius said:


> 3. As far as I can tell, no one has died from it.





			
				The CDC said:
			
		

> Continued monitoring has identified nine deaths causally associated with J&J/Janssen COVID-19 vaccination.


----------



## Lacius (Feb 4, 2022)

@Randall_Adams The J&J deaths have nothing to do with the exceedingly rare myocarditis from mRNA vaccines that we're discussing. Are you disingenuous, or just stupid?

The J&J side effects and deaths are also exceedingly rare (far more rare than the risks associated with contracting COVID-19, regardless of age and health). The deaths were also predominantly from a time before there was monitoring for specific side effects, so they've been mitigated against.


----------



## september796 (Feb 4, 2022)

Lacius said:


> Any reason you have to exclude God from requiring a cause or a beginning can be applied to the universe or the natural processes that hypothetically caused the universe.


This is repetitive. The way the scriptures define God is not comparable to the universe nor to any physical process when talking about the laws that rule them. 



Lacius said:


> "God is infinite." Okay, what does that even mean? Does that mean he has existed for an infinite amount of time in the past? There has also been no demonstration that anything exists that has existed for an infinite amount of time in the past. That's also problematic in exactly the same way infinite regress is.


God is eternal, that means he has no beginning nor end. Furthermore, he is described as omnipresent, omniscient, etc; 'everything was made by him and nothing could have ever existed without him'. He is reason itself (the greek word _logos_ means a few more things, from which the word logic or the suffix -logy derives, by the way). I mean it's not problematic in the same way, because to begin with we don't have principles for whatever that happens beyond our physical dimension. Science (whose element of experimentation is matter) can't mess with the abstract: let's say how fortune-tellers do their trick, those rituals to contact the dead, that sort of things are not explainable in that way.



Lacius said:


> If we imagine for a second that backwards time travel is possible, let's pretend that in the middle of our conversation, I get shot by a mystery assailant. You would obviously be wracked with grief, because I'm awesome, so you grab a gun and use your time machine to go back in time and save my life. You arrive in the past to kill my assailant before they kill me, but you stumble over a rock, and you accidentally fire your gun. The bullet hits and kills me, which is why you decide to go back in time with a gun in the first place. Your future self was my assailant the whole time.


You would dissapear from your family picture haha... Still I've a question (maybe offtopic):

(1)Is the assailant from the past the same assailant from present, meaning that if I kill him he would just vanish from present?
(2)Why would I become your assailant in that case you narrated?



Lacius said:


> This is one of many options you haven't eliminated, yet you're irrationally and (forgive me) stupidly jumping to the conclusion that a god must have done it. Even if you were to eliminate the possibility that the universe in the future caused itself in the past, and even if you eliminated every other possibility we could think of, that does not demonstrate that a god exists or did anything.


I don't have to eliminate anything because my conclusion is just another possibility. Actually I may consider these theories too, as long as they're coherent, since they may be compatible with the existence of god after all.



Lacius said:


> We could find a dead body in the forest, and even if we eliminated literally every possible cause of death, that doesn't mean we're rational in believing magical pixies did it.


If we eliminated literally every possible cause of death, then it's not really a dead body. On the contrary, if it's really a dead body, then we didn't eliminate every possible cause of death.



Lacius said:


> And that's the point, isn't it? If we don't know, then nobody is in any position to accept any of the premises commonly found in the first-cause arguments.


That's perfectly understandable. My point is that this position or the other have a rational basis for accepting their possibilities. In the case of god there's a bit of a step further for all the ontological reasons, our spirituality, the way in which nature or the functioning of everything, all of that has brought us closer to this idea of god throughout our history, in anywhere and at any time, etc.



Lacius said:


> It might be the universe is eternal. It might be the universe isn't eternal, but it doesn't have a cause.


is it just me or are you making a claim here?



Lacius said:


> It 100% means it's illogical. The word literally means "to lack sound reasoning."


In context what I said was that possibilities aren't per se illogical.



Lacius said:


> That's most of what you've been doing up until this point. I'm glad you've changed your mind.


If any, I'm defending the reasoning that's behind it or any other. The first cause argument is just the one I happen to know the most, that's all. It's like you with the theories you like, that's how much I care defending it.



Lacius said:


> We don't accept claims as true or likely true just because they haven't been disproven. If that's what we did, you would have to be believe all sorts of untrue and contradictory things.


"Haven't been disproved" isn't the same as untrue or contradictory. Don't you accept claims as likely true just because they haven't been disproved? I thought you did.



Lacius said:


> The Bible is repeatedly clear that it should be believed blindly. It wholeheartedly rejects and even condemns skepticism.


It depends on what specific topic you're referring to. I get that you like just one definition of faith, it's okay. Jesus used that word but in fact he proved to the people around that he had authority over the laws of nature, that nature obeyed him, that he could perform miracles and things like that. 



Lacius said:


> Explanation of what? Examples of what? But, most importantly, does it include evidence for why anything in the Bible should be believed or taken seriously?


When Moses wrote the laws, they were explained in detail under different circumstances in his writings. e.g under what circumstances killing is condemned.
Now, evidence to believe what the bible says? Tradition aside, I think our only recourse is historical, but given how old the books are I'm afraid there are only bits of evidence here and there. I mean there are characters that were documented outside of religious writings that match the time period and stuff, archaeological discoveries, there are old prophecies whose predictions came true, there are some on Jesus himself as well, that sort of evidence.



Lacius said:


> The kitchen knife doesn't prescribe or command immoral actions. In fact, it doesn't say or prescribe anything. The knife is amoral, but the Bible is immoral. There's a big difference, and your analogy here is incredibly inapplicable.


The bible was out of the comparison though. That was not the point.



Lacius said:


> Slavery, for starters.


The term slavery is wide in the bible context, the original word is used to describe different things; the translation often just use the word slave. The teachings about slavery in our times are biased and have a burden of negative connotations because yeah it's been generally cruel, especially in 19th/20th centuries; the first things that we picture are shackles, chains, lashes and very oppresive lords. But in the past, slavery was kind of a "protection system" (please note the quotes) for the poor. 
I'll give some examples as I'm pretty sure this will continue to be misunderstood.
People who for whatever reason -a fire for instance- lose all their possessions, or people that otherwise were very miserable, for the most part such as orphans, widows, sick people, etc. could "sell themselves" as slaves. God established laws for slavery in that time. Particularly, the slave had to work for 7 years, then his lord had to free them and give them a 'payment' (animals and whatnot) so he could become independent. It gives details in case the slave had a family, etc. The bible condemns those lords who arbitrarily mistreated their slaves, and also the slaves who cunningly took advantage of and betrayed their lords.
A second case is when for whatever reasons you are guilty for the dispossession of somebody else. In the past there were not such a thing as credit, so you had to repay the exact thing, however if you could not repay, then you had to become his slave (work for him) until you could compensate the debt.
There were other forms of slavery. The point is that the bible is against the type of slavery that is universally understand as bad. In fact Yahweh itself freed the people from slavery (the oppresive type of slavery) in Egypt.



Lacius said:


> I completely 100% agree with you, but there's no evidence that a god exists, and even if there were, it wouldn't justify anti-humanistic behaviors.


If we take god out of the picture in the bible context, you get nothing. Everything would become subjective; if we replace him with a human (a captain, a king, etc) we would think that he's doing all he does for his own benefit. But given that God existence is canon then the anti-humanistic thing that you call is justified and explained.



Lacius said:


> You were apparently arguing that seemingly organized things must be caused by intelligent minds, but that hasn't been demonstrated to be true, and there's apparently plenty of evidence disproving it.


What's the evidence disproving it?




Lacius said:


> Once we define what it means for something to be moral, then we can discern objectively right or wrong answers about whether or not something is moral. Consensus and authority have nothing to do with it. Morality based on a consensus and/or authority is purely subjective.
> 
> If we consider morality to be that which is conducive to well being, for example, then we can say objectively whether or not a particular action is conducive to well being.


The key is 'we'. Who? 
Who is gonna define what it means for something to be moral?
If consensus leads to subjective morals, how can we establish objective morals for everyone?


----------



## Lacius (Feb 4, 2022)

september796 said:


> This is repetitive. The way the scriptures define God is not comparable to the universe nor to any physical process when talking about the laws that rule them.


You haven't said anything about God that excludes it from an alleged need for a first cause that couldn't also be applied to the universe or other natural processes.



september796 said:


> God is eternal, that means he has no beginning nor end.





september796 said:


> I mean it's not problematic in the same way,


A God who has existed forever (i.e. infinitely in the past) has the exact same "logical problems" you assert infinite regress has. You either have to exclude both or exclude neither.



september796 said:


> Furthermore, he is described as omnipresent, omniscient, etc; 'everything was made by him and nothing could have ever existed without him'. He is reason itself (the greek word _logos_ means a few more things, from which the word logic or the suffix -logy derives, by the way).


These are baseless claims. There's no evidence something like this exists or even could exist. And, more to the point, these claims don't change anything about what I said.



september796 said:


> we don't have principles for whatever that happens beyond our physical dimension.


Then you agree that we don't have enough information to say what must be true about the origins of the universe, making the first-cause argument moot.



september796 said:


> Science (whose element of experimentation is matter) can't mess with the abstract: let's say how fortune-tellers do their trick, those rituals to contact the dead, that sort of things are not explainable in that way.


The sciences are the only ways we have to discern what's true or likely true, regardless of its limitations. If a claim is beyond the scope of science, then there's no sound reason to believe the claim is true.

Science can absolutely demonstrate whether or not fortune tellers can reliably contact the dead (so far, this hasn't happened), but you are correct that a limitation of science is that it might not be able to explain how they do it. So what?



september796 said:


> You would dissapear from your family picture haha...


I know you were joking, but you didn't pay attention to my example, because in it, there was no change to the past.



september796 said:


> (1)Is the assailant from the past the same assailant from present, meaning that if I kill him he would just vanish from present?


Your future self was the assailant. You didn't kill anybody except me (albeit accidentally). There was no other assailant.



september796 said:


> (2)Why would I become your assailant in that case you narrated?


I only got shot because your future self stumbled over a rock and accidentally fired your gun at me. Your future self (accidentally) was my assailant all along.

The question then becomes: What caused the events leading to my death? There isn't an obvious answer.



september796 said:


> I don't have to eliminate anything because my conclusion is just another possibility.


Yes you do, because the entire premise of the first-cause argument is that something is true or likely true because "nothing else is possible." That's poor reasoning, and that's not even considering that the first-cause argument doesn't even eliminate other possibilities.



september796 said:


> Actually I may consider these theories too, as long as they're coherent


They're as coherent as any other proposed explanations.



september796 said:


> since they may be compatible with the existence of god after all.


This is probably the most intellectually dishonest thing you've said so far, and you should be embarrassed. You just admitted that you're only willing to entertain an idea if it's compatible with your preconceived notion that a god exists. That isn't how logical reasoning works.



september796 said:


> If we eliminated literally every possible cause of death, then it's not really a dead body. On the contrary, if it's really a dead body, then we didn't eliminate every possible cause of death.


I misspoke. I should have said "if we eliminated every possible cause of death we could think of." My point still stands however. If we eliminate every possible cause of death we can think of, that doesn't mean you're logically justified to accept another proposed explanation solely because we can't think of anything else.

That's what you've been trying to do with God this whole time. If you want to argue a god exists and caused the universe, you would have to demonstrate that. We could have zero other possible explanations for the origins of the universe, and that wouldn't make belief in God a rational belief.



september796 said:


> My point is that this position or the other have a rational basis for accepting their possibilities.


No rational basis for belief in God or belief in the actual possibility of God has been provided by you or anyone else. The first-cause doesn't get you close to either, for example.



september796 said:


> is it just me or are you making a claim here?


It's just you. I've made no claim.



september796 said:


> In context what I said was that possibilities aren't per se illogical.


Yes they are. The actual possibility of something must be demonstrated.



september796 said:


> If any, I'm defending the reasoning that's behind it or any other. The first cause argument is just the one I happen to know the most, that's all.


You're defending the indefensible.



september796 said:


> It's like you with the theories you like, that's how much I care defending it.


The first-cause argument doesn't come close to comparable with scientific theories. Scientific theories are supported by evidence, but the first-cause argument is unsound and invalid.

Every scientific theory I accept to be true is because of the evidence. If you take away that evidence, I don't have some sort of emotional reason for believing it. What I want to believe is irrelevant. In other words, I defend beliefs because they're supported by evidence, not because I'm emotionally invested in the claim being true. That's the difference between you and me. I care if my beliefs are true, but you care more about believing in God than whether or not the belief is true. My position is intellectually honest, and yours is not.



september796 said:


> "Haven't been disproved" isn't the same as untrue or contradictory.


Of course not.



september796 said:


> Don't you accept claims as likely true just because they haven't been disproved? I thought you did.


Of course not.



september796 said:


> It depends on what specific topic you're referring to. I get that you like just one definition of faith, it's okay.


That's because any other definition of "faith" is irrelevant to the conversation.



september796 said:


> Jesus used that word but in fact he proved to the people around that he had authority over the laws of nature, that nature obeyed him, that he could perform miracles and things like that.


This is an unsubstantiated claim that no rational person should believe is true.



september796 said:


> When Moses wrote the laws, they were explained in detail under different circumstances in his writings. e.g under what circumstances killing is condemned.
> Now, evidence to believe what the bible says? Tradition aside, I think our only recourse is historical, but given how old the books are I'm afraid there are only bits of evidence here and there. I mean there are characters that were documented outside of religious writings that match the time period and stuff, archaeological discoveries, there are old prophecies whose predictions came true, there are some on Jesus himself as well, that sort of evidence.


There's no evidence the Bible is true. The presence of historical people or places in the Bible does not to demonstrate the truthfulness of anything else in the Bible.

Abraham Lincoln existed, but that doesn't mean Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter is true. New York City exists, but that doesn't mean Spider-Man exists.



september796 said:


> The bible was out of the comparison though. That was not the point.


Replace "Bible" with "religion," and my point still stands.



september796 said:


> The term slavery is wide in the bible context, the original word is used to describe different things; the translation often just use the word slave. The teachings about slavery in our times are biased and have a burden of negative connotations because yeah it's been generally cruel, especially in 19th/20th centuries; the first things that we picture are shackles, chains, lashes and very oppresive lords. But in the past, slavery was kind of a "protection system" (please note the quotes) for the poor.
> I'll give some examples as I'm pretty sure this will continue to be misunderstood.
> People who for whatever reason -a fire for instance- lose all their possessions, or people that otherwise were very miserable, for the most part such as orphans, widows, sick people, etc. could "sell themselves" as slaves. God established laws for slavery in that time. Particularly, the slave had to work for 7 years, then his lord had to free them and give them a 'payment' (animals and whatnot) so he could become independent. It gives details in case the slave had a family, etc. The bible condemns those lords who arbitrarily mistreated their slaves, and also the slaves who cunningly took advantage of and betrayed their lords.
> A second case is when for whatever reasons you are guilty for the dispossession of somebody else. In the past there were not such a thing as credit, so you had to repay the exact thing, however if you could not repay, then you had to become his slave (work for him) until you could compensate the debt.
> There were other forms of slavery. The point is that the bible is against the type of slavery that is universally understand as bad. In fact Yahweh itself freed the people from slavery (the oppresive type of slavery) in Egypt.


The Bible promotes and even gives rules for ownership of another person. Ownership of another person as property is grossly immoral without exception. Beyond that, the Bible condones and promotes the kind of slavery where you're allowed to brutally beat a slave, and it can even be to death as long as the slave dies at least a day or two later. The Bible even gives instructions for tricking or coercing slaves into being your property forever instead of for a limited amount of time.

There is no excuse for this, and you've sold out your humanity all in defense of a ridiculous and unsubstantiated belief in a sky god who is immensely immoral. It's pathetic, it's sad, and it's why I entered this thread in the first place to say that religious beliefs are perhaps the only thing in the world that can make otherwise good people do terrible things. I think you are probably a good person, but you just posted a paragraph in defense of brutal slavery like a monster. You should be both embarrassed and ashamed. Nothing you said changes any of this.



september796 said:


> If we take god out of the picture in the bible context, you get nothing. Everything would become subjective; if we replace him with a human (a captain, a king, etc) we would think that he's doing all he does for his own benefit. But given that God existence is canon then the anti-humanistic thing that you call is justified and explained.


I don't care about a "Bible context." Nobody should.

I am not surprised you are trying to defend anti-humanism, given your pro-slavery shitpost above.



september796 said:


> What's the evidence disproving it?


The existence of anything naturally occurring that is organized.



september796 said:


> The key is 'we'. Who?
> Who is gonna define what it means for something to be moral?
> If consensus leads to subjective morals, how can we establish objective morals for everyone?


What we mean when we say "moral" is subjective. That's true of any word. However, if we decide that we mean "that which is conducive to well being," and we decide we care about that, we can make objective statements about what is or isn't immoral, not subjective ones. Nearly everybody cares about well-being, so there's no problem.

Subjective morality would be if you said something was moral/immoral because somebody said so, and that's the religious position. If your view of morality is that something is moral because God said so, then you believe something like murder or slavery becomes moral if God says so, and when it comes to the latter, that's apparently the case, which means you can go fuck yourself.


----------



## smf (Feb 5, 2022)

Randall_Adams said:


> You don't know what evidence is. That is evidence, but it's not proof. The snow storm going on right now is evidence that it will not be 100 degrees tomorrow. Or whatever degrees makes sense in celsius.


No, that is still not evidence. They are facts about the past, but not evidence for what will happen in the future.

https://www.boredpanda.com/before-a...oogle&utm_medium=organic&utm_campaign=organic

https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2018/2/27/17053284/arctic-heat-wave-north-pole-climate

If you're going to be that lax on evidence, then you have to accept "the sun rising in the morning is evidence that god exists"


----------



## tabzer (Feb 5, 2022)

Lacius said:


> If your view of morality is that something is moral because God said so, then you believe something like murder or slavery becomes moral if God says so, and when it comes to the latter, that's apparently the case, which means you can go fuck yourself.



That's right, us civil folk elect people to do the killings for us so our hands aren't dirty.  We follow the clear moral compass that is based on our favorite color.


----------



## Lacius (Feb 5, 2022)

smf said:


> No, that is still not evidence. They are facts about the past, but not evidence for what will happen in the future.
> 
> https://www.boredpanda.com/before-a...oogle&utm_medium=organic&utm_campaign=organic
> 
> ...


You should do some research on what meteorology actually is. Weather forecasts are, in fact, based on scientific evidence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meteorology


----------



## september796 (Feb 5, 2022)

Lacius said:


> These are baseless claims. There's no evidence something like this exists or even could exist. And, more to the point, these claims don't change anything about what I said.


Maybe the issue here is coz of this quoting format. You asked about the characteristic -followed by how it's different from the universe- then I answered according to how Yahweh is described (since it's like the most famous and universal description for a god), but since I have explained it so many times I thought of expanding a little, so I added more canon characteristics.



Lacius said:


> Then you agree that we don't have enough information to say what must be true about the origins of the universe, making the first-cause argument moot.


I agree, yes. Though I don't know the word moot, but by how it translates I'd say yeah as well. Obviously is debatable, and I tell you more, it has little weight in comparison to the scientific research. I'd say it's just complementary.



Lacius said:


> The sciences are the only ways we have to discern what's true or likely true, regardless of its limitations. If a claim is beyond the scope of science, then there's no sound reason to believe the claim is true.


In principle I also agree with this one, but science is not all ,there's just so many things that happen to us throughout our life that are inexplicable and has this kind of spiritual connection, in fact (not my case) but we can't ignore how many people have had good/bad actual supernatural experiences: demonic possessions, exorcisms, enlightenment (idk if the term is correct), among others. If science can't tell us how that happens or why, we can't simple reject its reality. If we do it, we may be losing something. And for the record, I'm not saying we should believe just because we saw it in the movies or in a documentary whatever without experiencing them, just that at least IMO we should't reject them for good.



Lacius said:


> Science can absolutely demonstrate whether or not fortune tellers can reliably contact the dead (so far, this hasn't happened), but you are correct that a limitation of science is that it might not be able to explain how they do it. So what?


I wouldn''t be so sure. It depends on how you think they perform the contact (the succesful ones ofc, since there must be a ton that are fake or use spectacular methods for other reasons).



Lacius said:


> I know you were joking, but you didn't pay attention to my example, because in it, there was no change to the past.


As short as it was it didn't make sense to me really. You said I went back in time and accidentally killed you... So therefore I thought I killed you in the past. [?]



Lacius said:


> Your future self was the assailant. You didn't kill anybody except me (albeit accidentally). There was no other assailant.


That means the 'mystery' assailant was an exact replica of me in the same time period? 



Lacius said:


> The question then becomes: What caused the events leading to my death? There isn't an obvious answer.


The obvious answer would be that I caused it, wouldn't it? But let's see your reply first.



Lacius said:


> Yes you do, because the entire premise of the first-cause argument is that something is true or likely true because "nothing else is possible." That's poor reasoning, and that's not even considering that the first-cause argument doesn't even eliminate other possibilities.


That's why I also asked if the 'universe creating itself in the future' proposition you exposed eliminated every other possibility in order to be accepted as one. I think if the firstcause arguement or any other argument eliminated every other possibility, then it would become like the definitve answer to this whole mystery and we wouldn't be discussing it.



Lacius said:


> This is probably the most intellectually dishonest thing you've said so far, and you should be embarrassed. You just admitted that you're only willing to entertain an idea if it's compatible with your preconceived notion that a god exists. That isn't how logical reasoning works.


I've actually said that way earlier, that I lean toward that possibility the most. I still can change my mind though, it's why I'm here reading more arguments, it's just that all of them seem to go along with it just fine. So by considering them I won't necessarily be moving from my position, which is good. But if tomorrow they really find out the definitive answer that disproves god, so be it, no need to be embarrased. That'll be bad-good, because god would be fake but the mystery would get solved once and for all.



Lacius said:


> I misspoke. I should have said "if we eliminated every possible cause of death we could think of." My point still stands however. If we eliminate every possible cause of death we can think of, that doesn't mean you're logically justified to accept another proposed explanation solely because we can't think of anything else.


I agree. But in that same scenario, suppose there are millennia-old traditions from all over the world that have been telling us from generation to generation that one day a magical pixie will give a strange death to a person in the forest. So, in my opinion, it's fine to accept that proposal even if we haven't discovered any living things like that yet. I can then further surmise that they are possibly not magical, or perhaps the descriptions given to them in the past were not that literal, etc. but accept the proposal nonetheless.



Lacius said:


> No rational basis for belief in God or belief in the actual possibility of God has been provided by you or anyone else. The first-cause doesn't get you close to either, for example.


We ran into the same problem once again. The subtlety of language. Depends of what we mean when we say rational. A philosophical argument even if it's just deductive is rational as a base to consider its possibility -not to accept it as absolute truth ofc- as long as it doesn't contradict itself or science finds out actual sound prove that debunks it, etc, although we don't know for sure its truthfulness. In this case in particular there is most likely nothing we can do as of now since there is no way to reach whatever spiritual by physical means let alone prove/disprove it, but I'm afraid not even that would allow us to conclude anything in the topic of creation. 



Lacius said:


> Yes they are. The actual possibility of something must be demonstrated.


This one states nothing less that one initiator may be possible or at least not an irrational idea. Wouldn't it become a fact if it's demonstrated?



Lacius said:


> You're defending the indefensible.


Not indefensible just very tough, same as trying to reason why we may be made out of luck without intention nor purpose. I think it can only go as far as a metaphysical argument which is by definition unsound.



Lacius said:


> Every scientific theory I accept to be true is because of the evidence. If you take away that evidence, I don't have some sort of emotional reason for believing it. What I want to believe is irrelevant. In other words, I defend beliefs because they're supported by evidence, not because I'm emotionally invested in the claim being true. That's the difference between you and me. I care if my beliefs are true, but you care more about believing in God than whether or not the belief is true. My position is intellectually honest, and yours is not.


As a skeptical how did you come to accept a theory like let-s say the time travel one? How come you accept the evidence they presented?



Lacius said:


> This is an unsubstantiated claim that no rational person should believe is true.


There's no evidence for the miracles of jesus, but there are some well documented most recent cases of miracles performed in his name I think. It's something (lol). I get it though that from a rationalist point of view a religious claim like this is irrational to believe if you've not seen it by yourself, because even if you did witness a miracle,that would lead you to believe others without proof that are most likely fake.



Lacius said:


> There's no evidence the Bible is true. The presence of historical people or places in the Bible does not to demonstrate the truthfulness of anything else in the Bible.


Like any historical book from ancient age in fact. I mean of course it's not evidence for what it is said in every single passage/book of the bible, maybe for some of its historical ones, but certainly not for let's say the book of revelation. You will hardly find evidence for supernatural things that the bible described like say the giants, demons, angels flying around, the flood myth, etc. For something like the truthfulness of its proverbs I'd say common sense is needed.



Lacius said:


> Abraham Lincoln existed, but that doesn't mean Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter is true. New York City exists, but that doesn't mean Spider-Man exists.


If there were a massive tradition and lore over it, who knows. If they are recent or contemporary events it'll make things way easier to rule out or to prove. It's comparable to aliens; there's like a big thing behind it, lots of testimonies describing creatures with big eyes and the like, but we've never seen one, although some people claim they did. I can't say for sure it's all fake.



Lacius said:


> Replace "Bible" with "religion," and my point still stands.


Actually the subject was slavery but whatever.



Lacius said:


> The Bible promotes and even gives rules for ownership of another person. Ownership of another person as property is grossly immoral without exception.


It certainly gives rules for slavery, no doubt, but promoting? It depends. You need to understand its context like it or not. But, like I said, that's not necessarily immoral. With a 21th century mindset it sure sounds awful because now in most places even the poorest person can survive on their own in one way or another. The laws in the bible take into account the time period in which they were. In the past mortality rate was high, the vast majority of the population was poor, hunger, sickness, etc. Slavery was a system in which both, lord and slave, benefited. It was very archaic sure.



Lacius said:


> Beyond that, the Bible condones and promotes the kind of slavery where you're allowed to brutally beat a slave, and it can even be to death as long as the slave dies at least a day or two later. The Bible even gives instructions for tricking or coercing slaves into being your property forever instead of for a limited amount of time.


Well I said I'm a bible reader, but I'm still more or less half though the thing, so I don't know for sure about that since I don't remember having read what you're saying here. If you could provide the verses I'd like to read them myself.



Lacius said:


> I think you are probably a good person, but you just posted a paragraph in defense of brutal slavery like a monster. You should be both embarrassed and ashamed. Nothing you said changes any of this.


lol I did not defend brutal slavery, wtf. You're overreacting. But I won't come back to that topic, I think what I said was clear enough.



Lacius said:


> I don't care about a "Bible context." Nobody should.
> 
> I am not surprised you are trying to defend anti-humanism, given your pro-slavery shitpost above.


But we need to know a little about the time in which those events took place, otherwise we would not be able to understand what's the real message behind it.



Lacius said:


> What we mean when we say "moral" is subjective. That's true of any word. However, if we decide that we mean "that which is conducive to well being," and we decide we care about that, we can make objective statements about what is or isn't immoral, not subjective ones. Nearly everybody cares about well-being, so there's no problem.


But again, when you say "we", who do you mean?



Lacius said:


> If your view of morality is that something is moral because God said so, then you believe something like murder or slavery becomes moral if God says so, and when it comes to the latter, that's apparently the case, which means you can go fuck yourself.


How dare you ... Murder is explicitly condemned in its most ancient written law: the 10 commandments; brutal slavery is also condemned as far as I know.


----------



## Lacius (Feb 6, 2022)

september796 said:


> but we can't ignore how many people have had good/bad actual supernatural experiences: demonic possessions, exorcisms, enlightenment (idk if the term is correct), among others. If science can't tell us how that happens or why, we can't simple reject its reality. If we do it, we may be losing something. And for the record, I'm not saying we should believe just because we saw it in the movies or in a documentary whatever without experiencing them, just that at least IMO we should't reject them for good.


Until there's evidence for these things, they should be rejected. Anything else is irrational.



september796 said:


> As short as it was it didn't make sense to me really. You said I went back in time and accidentally killed you... So therefore I thought I killed you in the past. [?]
> 
> That means the 'mystery' assailant was an exact replica of me in the same time period?
> 
> The obvious answer would be that I caused it, wouldn't it? But let's see your reply first.


You killed me in the past. That didn't change the past, since that's what happened in the past.

It's an issue of A causes B causes C causes A causes B.... It's called a causal loop, and there isn't a clear cause.



september796 said:


> But if tomorrow they really find out the definitive answer that disproves god, so be it, no need to be embarrased. That'll be bad-good, because god would be fake but the mystery would get solved once and for all.


We reject claims when they haven't met their burden of proof. We don't wait for a claim to be disproven before we reject it.



september796 said:


> This one states nothing less that one initiator may be possible or at least not an irrational idea. Wouldn't it become a fact if it's demonstrated?


The actual possibility must be demonstrated in order to be able to say it's possible.



september796 said:


> As a skeptical how did you come to accept a theory like let-s say the time travel one? How come you accept the evidence they presented?


I don't accept that backwards time travel is possible, and I don't accept that it's possible the universe in the future caused itself in the past. Evidence for these things hasn't been provided.



september796 said:


> There's no evidence for the miracles of jesus, but there are some well documented most recent cases of miracles performed in his name I think.


There is no evidence for "miracles performed in his name."



september796 said:


> If there were a massive tradition and lore over it, who knows. If they are recent or contemporary events it'll make things way easier to rule out or to prove. It's comparable to aliens; there's like a big thing behind it, lots of testimonies describing creatures with big eyes and the like, but we've never seen one, although some people claim they did. I can't say for sure it's all fake.


Again, we reject claims when they haven't met their burden of proof. We don't wait for a claim to be disproven before we reject it. We don't know for sure that alien abduction stories are fake, but we should reject them until there's evidence. The same goes for God.



september796 said:


> It certainly gives rules for slavery, no doubt, but promoting? It depends. You need to understand its context like it or not. But, like I said, that's not necessarily immoral. With a 21th century mindset it sure sounds awful because now in most places even the poorest person can survive on their own in one way or another. The laws in the bible take into account the time period in which they were. In the past mortality rate was high, the vast majority of the population was poor, hunger, sickness, etc. Slavery was a system in which both, lord and slave, benefited. It was very archaic sure.


I fully understand the historical context regarding slavery in the Bible. What you don't understand is that the Bible's passages on slavery are grossly immoral. Ownership of another human being as property is immoral, and that's even before we throw in the "you can savagely beat them (even to death) as long as they survive for at least a couple of days after the beating first" part.

As I said earlier, you've twisted and contorted your thoughts in an effort to defend the indefensible because it's your precious Bible. You've scarified your humanity for an idiotic idea, and you should be criticized as deplorable, as well as pitied.



september796 said:


> lol I did not defend brutal slavery, wtf. You're overreacting.


You did, I'm not overreacting, and you should be embarrassed.



september796 said:


> How dare you ... Murder is explicitly condemned in its most ancient written law: the 10 commandments


Right, because God commanded it. My point is that, in a religious moral framework, God could issue new commandments saying murder was fine or even encouraged, and you're saying that would make murder moral. That's absurd as well as dangerous.



september796 said:


> brutal slavery is also condemned as far as I know.


It isn't. "As far as you know" doesn't mean much apparently.


----------



## september796 (Feb 8, 2022)

Lacius said:


> There is no evidence for "miracles performed in his name."


There are cases that have been well documented. That is _some_ evidence; whether it's enough or not, whether it's actually within the scope of science, whether its cause is subject to experimentation, is another story.



Lacius said:


> Again, we reject claims when they haven't met their burden of proof. We don't wait for a claim to be disproven before we reject it. We don't know for sure that alien abduction stories are fake, but we should reject them until there's evidence. The same goes for God.


Well fine if you're 99,9% skeptical, I'm like 50%. I'm not completely negative about them. It's necessary to trust the evidence and all, but know that not everything that happens is evidenceable.



Lacius said:


> Ownership of another human being as property is immoral, and that's even before we throw in the "you can savagely beat them (even to death) as long as they survive for at least a couple of days after the beating first" part.


That 'ownership' part is also not necessarily immoral per se. The original word is a wide term in the bible. e.g. God and his church, husband and his wife, parents and their children, all work kinda in the same way. Just as children are under their parents' rules the slaves are under their lord's rules, but before that everyone of them is under God's rules, which are the only unbreakable ones. That's why I doubt that second assertion.



Lacius said:


> As I said earlier, you've twisted and contorted your thoughts in an effort to defend the indefensible because it's your precious Bible. You've scarified your humanity for an idiotic idea, and you should be criticized as deplorable, as well as pitied.


You know, I've never been an atheist actually I was always very indiferent to religions claims and the god idea. My 'precious bibles' are some PDFs I downloaded but ngl I wish I had a physical one properly translated. Thing is, at first I started reading it as some sort of epic. Blind reading some passages can be shocking especially in the first few books, but you soon realize it all makes sense in the end. If the thing is not inspired by god then it's some strange 'miracle' for it to be so consistent and 'perfect' despite being written by different people, in different places and at different times. If it's just a myth then it's the richest and flawless I could think of.



Lacius said:


> Right, because God commanded it. My point is that, in a religious moral framework, God could issue new commandments saying murder was fine or even encouraged, and you're saying that would make murder moral. That's absurd as well as dangerous.


God could issue new commandments and in fact has done so a few times but these follow the same nature. Since his nature is perfect, he can't go against it. Different laws were given through the history: first, the law for adam/eve, then the law given to Noah, then the law of Moses, etc. For example, since in the law of Moses he says fornicate is bad he could not then say 'now I say it is okay to fornicate'. God's own standard of morality is immutable. However, what he does not really require from men differs based on the situation of humanity. When God commands something different, it is because something in men changed, not because God changed.



Lacius said:


> It isn't. "As far as you know" doesn't mean much apparently.


I said "as far as I know" because you said otherwise and it got me thinking. What I said is that that's how I understand things until this point, but misinterpretation or out of context analysis is usually the case with that kind of assertions.


----------



## Lacius (Feb 8, 2022)

september796 said:


> There are cases that have been well documented. That is _some_ evidence; whether it's enough or not, whether it's actually within the scope of science, whether its cause is subject to experimentation, is another story.


If I pray for rain in Jesus' name, and it starts to rain, how do we distinguish between a miracle and coincidence?

In reality, the existence of miracles has not been demonstrated. Hell, prayer alone has been demonstrated to work only as well as random chance, which is what we would expect if prayer didn't work.



september796 said:


> Well fine if you're 99,9% skeptical, I'm like 50%. I'm not completely negative about them. It's necessary to trust the evidence and all, but know that not everything that happens is evidenceable.


It is idiotic to believe a claim that hasn't been demonstrated with evidence. Whether or not evidence for a claim is even possible is irrelevant.



september796 said:


> That 'ownership' part is also not necessarily immoral per se.


Ownership of another human being is always immoral, and you should be ashamed for arguing otherwise.



september796 said:


> The original word is a wide term in the bible. e.g. God and his church, husband and his wife, parents and their children, all work kinda in the same way. Just as children are under their parents' rules the slaves are under their lord's rules, but before that everyone of them is under God's rules, which are the only unbreakable ones. That's why I doubt that second assertion.


You're demonstrably wrong about what the Bible says.

"Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property."

Exodus 21:20-21



september796 said:


> Just as children are under their parents' rules the slaves are under their lord's rules


Children are not their parents' property.



september796 said:


> You know, I've never been an atheist actually I was always very indiferent to religions claims and the god idea. My 'precious bibles' are some PDFs I downloaded but ngl I wish I had a physical one properly translated. Thing is, at first I started reading it as some sort of epic. Blind reading some passages can be shocking especially in the first few books, but you soon realize it all makes sense in the end. If the thing is not inspired by god then it's some strange 'miracle' for it to be so consistent and 'perfect' despite being written by different people, in different places and at different times. If it's just a myth then it's the richest and flawless I could think of.


The Bible is a hot mess of contradictions, plot holes, and immorality.

Whether or not a book is consistent, well-written, and moral is also irrelevant to whether or not there's any reason to think its claims are true.



september796 said:


> God could issue new commandments and in fact has done so a few times but these follow the same nature. Since his nature is perfect, he can't go against it. Different laws were given through the history: first, the law for adam/eve, then the law given to Noah, then the law of Moses, etc. For example, since in the law of Moses he says fornicate is bad he could not then say 'now I say it is okay to fornicate'. God's own standard of morality is immutable. However, what he does not really require from men differs based on the situation of humanity. When God commands something different, it is because something in men changed, not because God changed.


The point is that God could change his mind and say murder is moral, whether or not he actually believes it, and you're saying that would make it moral. Hell, God did this in the Binding of Isaac, so it isn't even hypothetical.

This is also the same immoral god who endorses brutal slavery, genocide, stoning people, sending people to Hell, etc. You don't seem to be familiar with "God's nature."



september796 said:


> When God commands something different, it is because something in men changed, not because God changed.


If God is going to change his proclamations of what is/isn't moral based on how humans are acting in any given moment, then isn't that a worthless and feckless god who doesn't offer anything consistent or substantive? You seem to be making the case that God is a liar, and you can't trust any of his moral proclamations because he might be saving the truthful ones for later.


----------



## september796 (Feb 9, 2022)

Lacius said:


> If I pray for rain in Jesus' name, and it starts to rain, how do we distinguish between a miracle and coincidence?


I'd say the prayers are mostly for support purposes, but don't quote me on that, for all I know if you don't sincerely identify as a god's servant and go his way, then the prayer is probably useless. Now, if you learn the way, internalize it and practice it, then you won't pray for rain unless there is a situation where people are suffering from drought or something. What I mean is that you will not ask for selfish things, your prayer must go on the same path as the path of the saints so to speak.
Miracles, of which I have read, were not given by a prayer but because the beneficiary was very devoted to, say, a virgin or a saint, etc. The miracle of Calanda, to say something is very famous (among catholics) and is well documented.



Lacius said:


> You're demonstrably wrong about what the Bible says.
> 
> "Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property."
> 
> Exodus 21:20-21


Okay, I might be wrong but this is what I can say after reading the whole 21 chapter: First, it says that if a man arbitrarily kills another -out of rage, out of anger- he should be punished by death (12 & 14). Then it says that if two men engage in a fight and one beats the other but does not kill him, the perpetrator doesn't receive death punishment but instead must pay compensation for the days it took for the other to recover (18-19). What about if they're lord/slave? (this is the one you quoted) In case of killing the slave, the perpetrator is under the same law of vengeance, that is, death punishment (the slave had the same natural right as a free man, apparently). What if the slave didn't die? Same story as with any free man: the perpetrator doesn't receive death punishment. Though here's one difference: the perpetrator (lord) doesn't owe the slave any compensation for the days it took him to recover. Why? Because the lord payed for him -and in fact the slave is living under his lord's roof, eating from his fields, etc-.
It's quite clear to me. This law is not promoting any bad behavior, actually the bible talks about the proper way in which a lord/slave should behave towards each other in other passages (see Coloss 3:22- onwards for example). Also by reading exodus ch 21 it can be inferred that slavery in the Hebrew people (unlike that of Egypt) wasn't generally oppresive or cruel, since there were cases in which the slave by his own free will chose to renounce his freedom to stay with his lord, implying that he had a good relationship with him; there's a rule for that aswell.



Lacius said:


> Children are not their parents' property.


Sure, but the point of it was that the analogy works in terms of subordination. Children are compelled to follow the rules their parents give them, while parents are also compelled to make their rules agree with God's. It's a hierarchy.



Lacius said:


> The point is that God could change his mind and say murder is moral, whether or not he actually believes it, and you're saying that would make it moral. Hell, God did this in the Binding of Isaac, so it isn't even hypothetical.
> 
> This is also the same immoral god who endorses brutal slavery, genocide, stoning people, sending people to Hell, etc. You don't seem to be familiar with "God's nature."


Except God did not change his mind in the binding of isaac (I didn't know it was called like that), if that had been the case He would have let it happen. It was for abraham to take the mission God commanded him seriusly I think. Sure it is a sad story but afterwards it was actually God himself who gave his own son for sacrifice, go figure lol.



Lacius said:


> If God is going to change his proclamations of what is/isn't moral based on how humans are acting in any given moment, then isn't that a worthless and feckless god who doesn't offer anything consistent or substantive? You seem to be making the case that God is a liar, and you can't trust any of his moral proclamations because he might be saving the truthful ones for later.


This is the case when humans make laws though, they can be self-contradictory to the detriment of humans themselves. But what I said about god's law is that he can say something different but not morally different, if that makes sense. 
It is not that the later laws were the true ones and the previous ones were lies, the later ones added more things and were more detailed because men were degenerating for being idolaters. eg The commandments for Adam/Eve were simple: grow, reproduce and populate the earth, eat the fruits of the trees, etc. (no eating animals allowed, i think) While by the times of Noah it was allowed for them to eat anything, with a few exceptions. But there was nothing on killing or fornicate; it does not mean god was okay with that. 
When Moses was around, slavery was common in society -as I said- for better or worse, so God established laws for it for the hebrew people; there was a lot of idolaters around so he made very strict laws for that, and so on.


----------



## Lacius (Feb 9, 2022)

september796 said:


> I'd say the prayers are mostly for support purposes, but don't quote me on that, for all I know if you don't sincerely identify as a god's servant and go his way, then the prayer is probably useless. Now, if you learn the way, internalize it and practice it, then you won't pray for rain unless there is a situation where people are suffering from drought or something. What I mean is that you will not ask for selfish things, your prayer must go on the same path as the path of the saints so to speak.
> Miracles, of which I have read, were not given by a prayer but because the beneficiary was very devoted to, say, a virgin or a saint, etc. The miracle of Calanda, to say something is very famous (among catholics) and is well documented.


Thanks for completely ignoring my point, which was that there's no evidence that prayer has ever worked or that miracles have ever happened. Intercessory prayer, which isn't selfish, has been specifically shown to work no better than random chance. Even if one thinks a miracle has occurred, how can they distinguish between a miracle and a coincidence?

If you can't distinguish between a world with a god who performs miracles and a world without one, it isn't rational to believe that god exists.



september796 said:


> Okay, I might be wrong but this is what I can say after reading the whole 21 chapter: First, it says that if a man arbitrarily kills another -out of rage, out of anger- he should be punished by death (12 & 14). Then it says that if two men engage in a fight and one beats the other but does not kill him, the perpetrator doesn't receive death punishment but instead must pay compensation for the days it took for the other to recover (18-19). What about if they're lord/slave? (this is the one you quoted) In case of killing the slave, the perpetrator is under the same law of vengeance, that is, death punishment (the slave had the same natural right as a free man, apparently). What if the slave didn't die? Same story as with any free man: the perpetrator doesn't receive death punishment. Though here's one difference: the perpetrator (lord) doesn't owe the slave any compensation for the days it took him to recover. Why? Because the lord payed for him -and in fact the slave is living under his lord's roof, eating from his fields, etc-.
> It's quite clear to me. This law is not promoting any bad behavior, actually the bible talks about the proper way in which a lord/slave should behave towards each other in other passages (see Coloss 3:22- onwards for example). Also by reading exodus ch 21 it can be inferred that slavery in the Hebrew people (unlike that of Egypt) wasn't generally oppresive or cruel, since there were cases in which the slave by his own free will chose to renounce his freedom to stay with his lord, implying that he had a good relationship with him; there's a rule for that aswell.


It is never moral to own another person as property, and it is never moral beat a slave nearly to death. If you think this passage "isn't promoting any bad behavior," you are a fool, and you are foolishly trying to defend literal atrocities for the sake of your foolish and immoral religion.



september796 said:


> Sure, but the point of it was that the analogy works in terms of subordination. Children are compelled to follow the rules their parents give them, while parents are also compelled to make their rules agree with God's. It's a hierarchy.


Being a steward to your children isn't analogous to the ownership of another human being as property. The former is a moral imperative, and the latter is a moral atrocity.



september796 said:


> Except God did not change his mind in the binding of isaac (I didn't know it was called like that), if that had been the case He would have let it happen. It was for abraham to take the mission God commanded him seriusly I think. Sure it is a sad story but afterwards it was actually God himself who gave his own son for sacrifice, go figure lol.


"Kill your son."
"No don't, lol."

It doesn't matter if God actually changed his mind or intended to do this the whole time. The point of the story is that if God says to murder, it's moral, and you'd better do it. The "he would never do that" counterargument is both irrelevant and also provably incorrect, and this isn't limited to the Binding of Isaac.

The only subjective morality is religious morality, and that's why the Euthyphro dilemma exists.



september796 said:


> This is the case when humans make laws though, they can be self-contradictory to the detriment of humans themselves. But what I said about god's law is that he can say something different but not morally different, if that makes sense.
> It is not that the later laws were the true ones and the previous ones were lies, the later ones added more things and were more detailed because men were degenerating for being idolaters. eg The commandments for Adam/Eve were simple: grow, reproduce and populate the earth, eat the fruits of the trees, etc. (no eating animals allowed, i think) While by the times of Noah it was allowed for them to eat anything, with a few exceptions. But there was nothing on killing or fornicate; it does not mean god was okay with that.
> When Moses was around, slavery was common in society -as I said- for better or worse, so God established laws for it for the hebrew people; there was a lot of idolaters around so he made very strict laws for that, and so on.


In addition to being imaginary, your god is also feckless then. What reason should anyone have to follow the rules in the Bible if they are going to be based on what's "common in society" instead of what's actually moral? Lol.


----------



## plasturion (Feb 10, 2022)

Lacius said:


> Kill your son."
> "No don't, lol."
> 
> It doesn't matter if God actually changed his mind or intended to do this the whole time. The point of the story is that if God says to murder, it's moral, and you'd better do it. The "he would never do that" counterargument is both irrelevant and also provably incorrect, and this isn't limited to the Binding of Isaac.
> ...


In those days the burnt offering was only of animals and fruit. It was an act of thanksgiving to God. Consider that an angel stopped him and prevented it from happening, and there never happen again. There is no human sacrifice in the Old Testament except Himself (Jesus) in recompense to us and in basically at the same mountain - Calvary and the Moriah.


----------



## september796 (Feb 10, 2022)

Lacius said:


> Thanks for completely ignoring my point, which was that there's no evidence that prayer has ever worked or that miracles have ever happened. Intercessory prayer, which isn't selfish, has been specifically shown to work no better than random chance. Even if one thinks a miracle has occurred, how can they distinguish between a miracle and a coincidence?
> 
> If you can't distinguish between a world with a god who performs miracles and a world without one, it isn't rational to believe that god exists.


A miracle is a supernatural event with no explanation (resurrecting the dead/healing blindness/etc). No one will ever say that rain is a miracle because it is natural. I mentioned the miracle of Calanda but didn't say anything about that, my bad. In short, there was this man who was limp for like 2 years, one of his legs was amputed due to an accident. People saw him daily in devotional temples and gave him alms. It turns out that one night the man had a dream in which he saw an angel or something that brought him his amputated leg. When he woke up his leg was restored and healthy. That meets the characteristics to be recognized as a miracle because it is a supernatural event. Besides there was also a divine manifestation.



Lacius said:


> It is never moral to own another person as property, and it is never moral beat a slave nearly to death.


Why?



Lacius said:


> If you think this passage "isn't promoting any bad behavior," you are a fool, and you are foolishly trying to defend literal atrocities for the sake of your foolish and immoral religion.


The tone in which the rules are being explained in that chapter sound like "If an event like this happens, do this to solve it" and not like "I promote this behaviour so don't solve it and let them keep doing it". 



Lacius said:


> It doesn't matter if God actually changed his mind or intended to do this the whole time. The point of the story is that if God says to murder, it's moral, and you'd better do it. The "he would never do that" counterargument is both irrelevant and also provably incorrect, and this isn't limited to the Binding of Isaac.


That is a misleading point. The real moral behind the binding of Isaac is that Abraham considered God more valuable than anything he bound. The moral is similar to that of the Job story, which is also controversial; God letting Satan cast all sorts of curses on him to show that Job was loyal despite having a miserable life but at the end he was blessed with more. Things may look terrible but serve a greater purpose.



Lacius said:


> In addition to being imaginary, your god is also feckless then. What reason should anyone have to follow the rules in the Bible if they are going to be based on what's "common in society" instead of what's actually moral? Lol.


I said that the law had to include specific rules for things that were common in society (like slavery and idolatry) precisely to promote the good use of it and reject the bad.


----------



## Lacius (Feb 10, 2022)

september796 said:


> A miracle is a supernatural event with no explanation (resurrecting the dead/healing blindness/etc). No one will ever say that rain is a miracle because it is natural. I mentioned the miracle of Calanda but didn't say anything about that, my bad. In short, there was this man who was limp for like 2 years, one of his legs was amputed due to an accident. People saw him daily in devotional temples and gave him alms. It turns out that one night the man had a dream in which he saw an angel or something that brought him his amputated leg. When he woke up his leg was restored and healthy. That meets the characteristics to be recognized as a miracle because it is a supernatural event. Besides there was also a divine manifestation.



The kind of miracles you've described have never been demonstrated to have ever happened. For example, there is no real evidence that anyone has ever had a leg regrown.
An event "with no explanation" does not mean we get to call it "supernatural" or a "miracle." If we could verify that someone actually did wake up with a regrown leg, that doesn't mean we get to call it "supernatural" or say "God did it." It would, at best, be without explanation. How did you rule out it being a magic trick? How did you rule out it being time-travelers from the future with advanced technology? How did you rule out it being aliens from a distant star system with advanced technology? How did you rule out a naturally occurring (or genetically modified) trait for limb regeneration?



september796 said:


> Why?


For the same reason murder, for example, is immoral: It's inconducive to human well-being.



september796 said:


> The tone in which the rules are being explained in that chapter sound like "If an event like this happens, do this to solve it" and not like "I promote this behaviour so don't solve it and let them keep doing it".


Anything other than "do not own humans as property, and slaves should do everything they can to safety escape from their deplorable owners" is immoral.



september796 said:


> I said that the law had to include specific rules for things that were common in society (like slavery and idolatry) precisely to promote the good use of it and reject the bad.


Then, as I said previously, the laws in the Bible are not indicative of what's moral, and your god is feckless.

It's also incorrect to say the Bible promoted "good use" of slavery (pretending there is such a thing). It sanctioned beating your slave to death.


----------



## tabzer (Feb 10, 2022)

"Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property."

I'd imagine for the time, the clarity and defining of the rules was a relatively progressive reformation, considering they were all slaves, lol.


----------

