10 Reasons You Should Never Have a Religion

[jem]

stu you fool. it is not my quote at all.

1. I did not accept the burden of trying to prove a Creator. I stated that science currently can not prove or disprove the Creator. If you are trying to disprove a Creator, you have the burden of proof. I do not have to prove you can't prove it.

But, nevertheless

2. I will tell you that you can not prove there is no Creator. Because Science as we know does not understand what happened for the first fraction of a second after the big bang. Nor does it have any understanding of what happened prior to that first fraction of a second.

Your arguments show how emotional and illogical this subject makes you.

 

[stu]

Quote from jem:

stu you fool. it is not my quote at all.

It is your quote. Be careful who you call a fool.

Quote from jem:

those who deny the existence of God - keep making the same mental mistakes.

You do not defeat the possibility of a Creator of the universe by arguing against a religions particular view of God.
Prove there is no Creator. Science has not dog in that hunt.

• Green highlight is your assertion.
  Beside it is the negative proof fallacy you ask for.

Quote from stu:

I can prove there is no Creator.

Prove I can't.

• Green highlight is my assertion
  Beside it is the negative proof fallacy I asked for.

All that to illustrate more simply how your contorted argument is defunct in the first place. You probably still can't understand.

By trying to create an impression that a different separate argument is faulty (science can't prove no God), you may think your own is sound. That's the basis of religious brainwashing. All contrary argument = wrong therefore religion = right.
Talk about close mindedness

Quote from jem:

1. I did not accept the burden of trying to prove a Creator. I stated that science currently can not prove or disprove the Creator. If you are trying to disprove a Creator, you have the burden of proof. I do not have to prove you can't prove it.

No you didn't accept the burden and you don't accept the burden, even when you make a claim. So you try to throw the burden on to something that has in your own words... "no dog in the hunt". Lazy coward. Carry your own load and account for it !

You form an inconsistent comparison which attempts to turn the blame over to science, for the very thing your religious beliefs cannot do .

Denying the existence of God , is to keep making mental mistakes. That is your argument.
Because you cannot prove the existence of God, you erroneously conclude denying the existence of God as a "mental mistake". Put simply jem your argument as well as slothful is horribly deformed .

It goes like this
1. You cannot prove God exists , so you assert ....
2. others cannot prove It doesn't.
3. Therefore God exists
4. or God possibly exists .

2. 3. 4. are the "mental mistakes" you keep making based upon 1.
Non of them can be concluded from 1. Not even #4.

Quote from jem:

I stated that science currently can not prove or disprove the Creator

More to the point will you say religion cannot prove or disprove a Creator? After all , that is what religion is about and what science is not about. You already said science does not have a dog in the race.....so why include it as part of your argument..?!

Quote from jem:

2. I will tell you that you can not prove there is no Creator. Because Science as we know does not understand what happened for the first fraction of a second after the big bang. Nor does it have any understanding of what happened prior to that first fraction of a second.

14 billion years of Universe but because of Science, you constantly feel the need to sit God in a in a gap just the tiniest fraction of a second long. That's religious indoctrination for you.

Before you start on trying to understand what science can and cannot do, shouldn't you be leaving that separate argument away from what religion can and doesn't do? Considering the deficits in what religion is supposed to do and what it claims to do, dragging science in as a fall back scapegoat and whipping boy for all religion's defective shortcomings, is hardly reasonable argument let alone rational.

I won't call you a fool as you like to call anyone who argues against your "mental mistakes" . Far more fitting epithets come to mind.

 

[stu]

Quote from karol88:

why is that, explain please? What's delusional about my observations? All I do is I watch people, who they are, how they live, behave, and if I like what I see, I'm curious to find out what they do and believe in...I'm a good people reader (hence my Mom is a shrink, thought me some good stuff) most of the time I can tell the difference between the fake ones and the really happy ones, the ones with the "healthy" confidence....there aren't many out there.
Sure, my interpretation of "good and happy" may be different from yours....yet the end-result is what counts.
Most of my friends are non believers, many scientists among them, smart, knowledgeable, successful people who can do so well at work, yet fail at dealing with day to day problems, blame the world, the past, become secretly depressive, bitter etc....not that Christians don't, but it seems to me that without a belief in higher power it is much harder to overcome these things (there are many crazy christians out there...I'm not talking about those). It's just an observation, works for me, but chances are I will have a slightly different idea about this whole thing 10 years from now...I live and learn, think and analyze things all the time...sad to hear (in the earlier post) that my belief is equal to stupidity, a delusional fantasy....then I must be some lucky fool it's the 'fruits' that count...isn't it?

In other words, aren't you saying , whether your friends have an Invisible Friend or not when they are supposed to have grown up , people are still pretty much the same.
Therefore your idea that it is easier to overcome those conditions which they all have anyway , by having an Invisible Friend, doesn't really stand up. Does it?

You sound like a kind and thoughtful person. If having that delusion makes you happy and does not directly harm others, then there can be nothing at all wrong with that. A means or reason and an expression for wanting to be happy and content especially when things don't go well .
Unfortunately the Invisible Friend many people have is the same one, and it's called God. It has a very nasty side to it which does cause harm to others. People become completely intolerant of any examination or disapproval of It. Like TraderZones for instance, who in doing so has done me the unintended honor of not tainting my posts with his dumbwittedness by putting them in ignore.

Those people indoctrinate their children with this Invisible Friend, past a benign delusion, oblige others to accommodate it when they do not want to. Press it into society , schools, government and law where it doesn't belong. Punctuate every thing they say and do with their Invisible Friend way past the point of ordinary delusion until it encroaches every form of activity.

Invisible Friends are generally accepted as delusional. In that way I say you are being delusional. A delusion which will cause all that though, I cannot agree is lucky or fruitful.

 

[jem]

You can change colors or my sentences all you want, my logic still stands and yours still fails.

Science does support atheism.
Science can not prove a Creator does not exist. Only an immature mind would even argue the point.

 

[stu]

Quote from jem:

....and you can change colors or my sentences all you want, my logic still stands and yours still fails.

Science does support atheism.
Science can not prove a Creator does not exist. Only an immature mind would even argue the point.

You can shy away from your own "mental mistakes" all you want but it won't change the fact that what you call your logic is a mess.
And now more of this so called logic of yours says "science does support atheism." because....
"Science can not prove a Creator does not exist."

Brilliant logic you've got standing there jem. Obviously you have no appreciation of the vertical to the horizontal.

 

[jem]

Your colored sentences only point out your mental mistakes.

Because you are so emotional you keep thinking I am arguing for a God of the Gaps. However, I am only arguing for the Gap. If you weren't such a wreck you would see that.

Ironically you prove my point about irrational atheists. Many if not almost all believers know there is a gap and they realize they fill the Gap in with FAITH.

When atheists argue there is no God. They deny the Gap.

Something science does not do. The atheists are the illogical emotional fools. Ironically they think they are smarter than people who have faith.

You are the poster child for the foolish atheist who does not understand that Science is not on his side.

Remember, I did not argue Science is on the side of the believer.

 

[karol88]

Quote from stu:

In other words, aren't you saying , whether your friends have an Invisible Friend or not when they are supposed to have grown up , people are still pretty much the same.
Therefore your idea that it is easier to overcome those conditions which they all have anyway , by having an Invisible Friend, doesn't really stand up. Does it?

You sound like a kind and thoughtful person. If having that delusion makes you happy and does not directly harm others, then there can be nothing at all wrong with that. A means or reason and an expression for wanting to be happy and content especially when things don't go well .
Unfortunately the Invisible Friend many people have is the same one, and it's called God. It has a very nasty side to it which does cause harm to others. People become completely intolerant of any examination or disapproval of It. Like TraderZones for instance, who in doing so has done me the unintended honor of not tainting my posts with his dumbwittedness by putting them in ignore.

Those people indoctrinate their children with this Invisible Friend, past a benign delusion, oblige others to accommodate it when they do not want to. Press it into society , schools, government and law where it doesn't belong. Punctuate every thing they say and do with their Invisible Friend way past the point of ordinary delusion until it encroaches every form of activity.

Invisible Friends are generally accepted as delusional. In that way I say you are being delusional. A delusion which will cause all that though, I cannot agree is lucky or fruitful.

stu, thanks for that one kind sentence , but regarding the topic, either I'm not following you, or you're missing the point.
It's your right to call me delusional because of my belief...but I don't think you should call my observation of that happy couple (from my example) delusional. Just because one can live a happy, successful and meaningful life with the help of God, doesn't mean they are delusional, and neither is my observation. Delusional is to think one is smart, successful if they are not. If others see them as smart and successful, and Christian...then how is that delusional? It's not how they describe themselves, it's how others see them. My observation would be only delusional if they came forward and said their life is good only because of xyz and not because of God (and that's not what they say).
If I see a very successful trader, I'm curious what his personality is like as well as his beliefs...if the pattern repeats itself over and over again (like being humble and disciplined for example) then there must be something in it.
Let's say there are 4 physics professors, 2 of them suffer from depression, no family, very hard to deal with, the other two believe in God, little depression, people love them...what does it tell me? it tells me that since we all have problems, it seems to me that people with beliefs can deal with the daily problems much better than people without beliefs...that's my observation, some things add up....but I'm sure I will learn much more along the way, I'm still fairly young.

The people you mention who try to force their beliefs...most of the time it's wrong...but that's another topic

 

[Free Thinker]

Quote from karol88:

Let's say there are 4 physics professors, 2 of them suffer from depression, no family, very hard to deal with, the other two believe in God, little depression, people love them...what does it tell me? it tells me that since we all have problems, it seems to me that people with beliefs can deal with the daily problems much better than people without beliefs...that's my observation, some things add up....but I'm sure I will learn much more along the way, I'm still fairly young.

you are making up conclusions based on preconcieved indoctrination. actual tests have been done. for instance marriage. the data shows that believers divorce at a higher rate than unbelievers. where is your evidence of a god?

"Barna released the results of their poll about divorce on 1999-DEC-21. 1 They had interviewed 3,854 adults from the 48 contiguous states. The margin of error is ±2 percentage points. The survey found:

11% of the adult population is currently divorced.
25% of adults have had at least one divorce during their lifetime.
Divorce rates among conservative Christians were significantly higher than for other faith groups, and much higher than Atheists and Agnostics experience. "

 

[karol88]

Quote from vhehn:

you are making up conclusions based on preconcieved indoctrination. actual tests have been done. for instance marriage. the data shows that believers divorce at a higher rate than unbelievers. where is your evidence of a god?

"Barna released the results of their poll about divorce on 1999-DEC-21. 1 They had interviewed 3,854 adults from the 48 contiguous states. The margin of error is �2 percentage points. The survey found:

11% of the adult population is currently divorced.
25% of adults have had at least one divorce during their lifetime.
Divorce rates among conservative Christians were significantly higher than for other faith groups, and much higher than Atheists and Agnostics experience. "

it's a sad study, but there are many atheists and agnostics don't get marry at all, unlike Christians (and I'm surprised to see Catholics in the group, as they can't be legally divorced by the church)

There are many crazy Christians in America belonging to various churches and groups, I'm aware of the fact that not all Christians are good....in fact there were/are many bad people claiming to be religious.

I'm not trying to show you any evidence, just my point of view, my observation, the reason why I believe. I find many 'hardcore' atheists to be very bitter, nothing that I admire, although we get along very well, they don't seem to handle daily problems easy, live most of their life in depression over stupid things. If one can live a good life without any psychological problems, do and feel well, inspire, create etc....all this without any belief, then there's a new field for me to explore

 

[stu]

Quote from jem:

Your colored sentences only point out your mental mistakes.

Because you are so emotional you keep thinking I am arguing for a God of the Gaps. However, I am only arguing for the Gap. If you weren't such a wreck you would see that.

Ironically you prove my point about irrational atheists. Many if not almost all believers know there is a gap and they realize they fill the Gap in with FAITH.

When atheists argue there is no God. They deny the Gap.

Something science does not do. The atheists are the illogical emotional fools. Ironically they think they are smarter than people who have faith.

You are the poster child for the foolish atheist who does not understand that Science is not on his side.

Remember, I did not argue Science is on the side of the believer.

It's ok jem, you lost the plot again. You were trying to make some obscure point and you cannot deal with the response. I understand.

"When atheists argue there is no God. They deny the Gap. "

No they don't.
There is no reason why there should or need be a God in the Gap. You tit.

You are upset, I can always tell. Your incoherence kicks in more than usual.
Instead of worrying so much about what science doesn't do, perhaps you should worry more about what religion can't but would do, were it anything like as useful as science is.