Religion

mindwalker_i

(4,407 posts)

47. That one does or does not have a tail can be checked

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 06:04 PM

Dec 2012

The fact that many people believe in a God doesn't help, since I can think of very good reasons why people would believe that regardless of whether it's true. In the end, I think it's very unlikely that any one religion is true. There are infinite possible ways for a god or gods to be, and I see no objective evidence for one scenario vs. another. I also see no reason to believe in god given that there is something rather than nothing - it just pushes the question back a step, since one has to ask why is there a god rather than none.

Here's the deal: people believe in god to explain what they don't understand, and that boundary between what is naturally there vs. what's god's fault keeps getting pushed further back as we - people - learn stuff. That indicates to me that the belief is not one that is factual.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

244 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Dawkins Is Wrong. Religion Is Rational [View all] cbayer Dec 2012 OP

Still trying to figure out here how rationalists can have anything rational to say about something patrice Dec 2012 #1

He makes this interesting point: cbayer Dec 2012 #4

Agnostics can be either theists or atheists at the same time as being agnostic Fumesucker Dec 2012 #13

Totally disagree with you here, though I know many share your opinion. cbayer Dec 2012 #16

I doubt you are claiming that no agnostic has an opinion on the existence of a god or gods Fumesucker Dec 2012 #32

No, I am claiming that there are many agnostics who have no opinion on the cbayer Dec 2012 #34

I got my Christmas visiting done over the weekend Fumesucker Dec 2012 #42

What a beautiful young girl! Is she your only grandchild? cbayer Dec 2012 #44

Two more but there were scheduling conflicts Fumesucker Dec 2012 #56

OMG, she sounds just like me at her age.. cbayer Dec 2012 #62

WOOT! I have a mini-dachshund daughter AldoLeopold Dec 2012 #230

Speaking of LGBT okasha Dec 2012 #124

That is exactly how I recall it as well and still have a handful of friends who cbayer Dec 2012 #134

I hear you. okasha Dec 2012 #143

And I hear you, too. cbayer Dec 2012 #146

That is not without the qualifiers of reason Shadowflash Dec 2012 #19

In terms of your first example, what you cite would render proof that Alberta exists. cbayer Dec 2012 #21

There were times when the majority of people thought Shadowflash Dec 2012 #24

There were times when scientists actually believed they had proven that the world cbayer Dec 2012 #27

All Hasan is saying is that there are no absolute atheists intaglio Dec 2012 #87

I disagree and have run into absolute atheists, just as I have run into absolute theists. cbayer Dec 2012 #95

It's funny how you bash Dawkins yet mimic him. trotsky Dec 2012 #98

You do realize that even Dawkins isn't an absolute atheist, as you define them. n/t Humanist_Activist Dec 2012 #103

I am aware that Dawkins has described himself as one step below an absolute atheist. cbayer Dec 2012 #104

The fact that you draw such a comparison is bigoted... Humanist_Activist Dec 2012 #114

^^^THIS^^^ cleanhippie Dec 2012 #168

Well, what do you expect? skepticscott Dec 2012 #173

"prominent atheists who call for the death or subjugation...evidence...religious fundamentalists... humblebum Dec 2012 #176

Try Dawkins who wants us to think religion is the root of all evil and the cause of most wars. Democratopia Dec 2012 #182

Could you provide the exact quotes where Dawkins has said those things? trotsky Dec 2012 #188

Here you go. rug Dec 2012 #203

In other words skepticscott Dec 2012 #204

I'm exhausted. It took me all of five minutes. rug Dec 2012 #207

Gee, since you were responding to a request for exact quotes skepticscott Dec 2012 #211

No, I was not responding to a request for exact quotes. rug Dec 2012 #212

Uh, lie...big fat obvious lie skepticscott Dec 2012 #217

Such bulllshit. rug Dec 2012 #218

For God's sake! He had a TV show called "The root of all evil" and the intention of that show was Democratopia Jan 2013 #236

Minor correction. deucemagnet Jan 2013 #237

Oh! So you think the question mark was meant to suggest the answer "no!" I saw that show, did you? Democratopia Jan 2013 #238

No, but I understand punctuation. deucemagnet Jan 2013 #239

Let's put it this way: The clue about the show's content was in the title. Democratopia Jan 2013 #240

Actually, I found it on YouTube and I'm watching it now. deucemagnet Jan 2013 #241

As an atheist, I find him to be beneath contempt. But thanks for watching his show! Democratopia Jan 2013 #242

BBC Channel 4 insisted on that title to create controversy Rob H. Jan 2013 #243

You should know better than to confuse ranters like our friend here skepticscott Jan 2013 #244

Am I just not seeing where the quote is in your post? Nowhere do I find it. cleanhippie Dec 2012 #206

I wonfer ehat he meant by this. rug Dec 2012 #208

That revealed faith is potentially very dangerous, its in the first sentence you quoted... Humanist_Activist Dec 2012 #209

So is intentional bigotry. rug Dec 2012 #213

What bigotry? n/t Humanist_Activist Dec 2012 #215

It seems self evident what he means, yet I'm not seeing where he said what you claim. cleanhippie Dec 2012 #210

Oh it is, it is completely self-evident. rug Dec 2012 #214

Great. Now where is the quote in the post you put up? I'm just not seeing it. cleanhippie Dec 2012 #216

Thanks for that. Sorry I am so late in replying! Democratopia Jan 2013 #235

Evidence? n/t Humanist_Activist Dec 2012 #198

But he doesn't assert either of those things. Humanist_Activist Jan 2013 #234

Decided? I don't think so. Rod Mollise Dec 2012 #51

So it's all in your imagination? AAO Dec 2012 #205

Sure it is, if you believe irrational belief is rational. cleanhippie Dec 2012 #2

Neither can exist without the negation of the other, so they both imply one another in that patrice Dec 2012 #8

Belief in the supernatural is irrational. cleanhippie Dec 2012 #68

"Those atheists who harangue us ..." A Richard Dawkins question is not a harangue. AnotherMcIntosh Dec 2012 #3

Lol! Haranguing is not such a bad thing and Dawkins is pretty darn good at it. cbayer Dec 2012 #5

The strong can stand-to haranguing and possibly become more authentic as a result of it . . . patrice Dec 2012 #9

That's why they refer to it as "faith."..n/t monmouth3 Dec 2012 #6

Do you think faith and rationality are mutually exclusive? cbayer Dec 2012 #7

E = MC squared. Set in a decidedly other format, of course. Theoretical physics. pinto Dec 2012 #20

Much as I loved my scientific education and training, physics was the one thing that cbayer Dec 2012 #23

In the first place skepticscott Dec 2012 #43

Relativity was tested in the real world. Evidence that Einstein was correct can be observed. Warren Stupidity Dec 2012 #54

Not really. I've never given this much thought..n/t monmouth3 Dec 2012 #28

"Faith" in the religious sense, yes. skepticscott Dec 2012 #35

One can build a rational framework around fundamentally irrational beliefs. Warren Stupidity Dec 2012 #52

The philosophers cited all precede "Origin of Species..." immoderate Dec 2012 #10

Apparently not, according to the author cbayer Dec 2012 #12

Evolution is not a new idea. "Origin of Species... immoderate Dec 2012 #22

Darwin struggled mightily with how his belief in god meshed with evolution. cbayer Dec 2012 #26

I see it differently. He didn't have a god in his evolution theory. immoderate Dec 2012 #41

Agree. There was no god in his theories, but there was god in his life at various points. cbayer Dec 2012 #45

Thanks for your kind wishes. It's always good when I talk to you! immoderate Dec 2012 #46

Evolution is an Aristotlean idea, and in this quotation, burnsei sensei Dec 2012 #112

Not surprisingly, early ideas on this were relatively primitive, but it cbayer Dec 2012 #117

Many Native American religions, okasha Dec 2012 #125

Very cool and new information for me. cbayer Dec 2012 #129

Uh, no it doesn't skepticscott Dec 2012 #149

? Prometheus_unbound Dec 2012 #11

'I can'�t prove God but you can�t disprove him. ' bowens43 Dec 2012 #14

The difference between the giant purple and pink flying zebras is the number of people cbayer Dec 2012 #18

That one does or does not have a tail can be checked mindwalker_i Dec 2012 #47

I can also think of reasons why people might believe, even though they have no hard proof. cbayer Dec 2012 #49

Nor to me either... Rod Mollise Dec 2012 #53

Which is why it is important to keep religion out of public schools, except as an cbayer Dec 2012 #64

"That something has not been proven mindwalker_i Dec 2012 #65

Are they? tama Dec 2012 #150

Now that is good Ligyron Dec 2012 #80

You got it Ligyron Dec 2012 #81

No deal tama Dec 2012 #151

*yawn* Argumentun ad Populum cleanhippie Dec 2012 #69

That is simply ridiculous. Zoeisright Dec 2012 #78

Of course it does. cbayer Dec 2012 #97

Holy fucking shit, that's stupid, most people believed in astrology, and in the past.... Humanist_Activist Dec 2012 #100

Holy fucking shit, you are really rude. cbayer Dec 2012 #101

But popularity doesn't make something more likely to be true, because it isn't evidence... Humanist_Activist Dec 2012 #106

The problem when it comes to religion, as you know, is that there is no evidence cbayer Dec 2012 #108

Its still a fallacy, besides that, once you get beyond the general concept of theism... Humanist_Activist Dec 2012 #111

Here: Zoeisright Dec 2012 #138

Thanks! What would I do without people like you around to learn me. cbayer Dec 2012 #140

Your "argument" is the very definition of illogic. Zoeisright Dec 2012 #137

OMG, again I can't thank you enough for teaching me here. cbayer Dec 2012 #141

There is. okasha Dec 2012 #145

It does generally indicate lack of a valid counter-argument, IMHO. cbayer Dec 2012 #148

You mean kinda like you label certain atheists "fundamenalists" because they disagree with you? trotsky Dec 2012 #152

By that logic, all the people told that they were inferior because of.... Moonwalk Dec 2012 #119

I agree with much of what you say and support those that challenge widely held cbayer Dec 2012 #120

Interesting article, but I think the author makes some mistakes. ZombieHorde Dec 2012 #15

Glad you liked it. It is a rather unique take that I haven't heard much. cbayer Dec 2012 #17

Obejctivity is subjective tama Dec 2012 #153

I agree to some extent. ZombieHorde Dec 2012 #170

Shit happens tama Dec 2012 #184

Dawkins had another gem in that interview. rug Dec 2012 #25

Merry Christmas, rug! cbayer Dec 2012 #29

Same to you and your family! rug Dec 2012 #30

We are going to dinner at our Italian friends house. He is Jewish and we are having cbayer Dec 2012 #37

Nice loving and peaceful Xmas message skepticscott Dec 2012 #40

Turning into a bird? okasha Dec 2012 #195

Yeah, right...that's what she meant skepticscott Dec 2012 #197

So do you support or condemn skepticscott Dec 2012 #229

Ladies and gentlemen, Christian Love in all its glory! 2ndAmForComputers Dec 2012 #224

What the hell is wrong with you? cbayer Dec 2012 #225

Please elaborate. 2ndAmForComputers Dec 2012 #227

And once again, she runs and hides skepticscott Dec 2012 #231

She doesn't even get it skepticscott Dec 2012 #228

There is an undeniable pattern in nature which underthematrix Dec 2012 #31

Then who designed skepticscott Dec 2012 #38

Which pattern is that? Warren Stupidity Dec 2012 #55

No, there is not. cleanhippie Dec 2012 #70

No, it doesn't suggest design, intelligent or otherwise. Zoeisright Dec 2012 #79

Discipline of Physics tama Dec 2012 #154

Since when is it "haranguing" to question an assertion? BlueStreak Dec 2012 #33

Dawkins can harangue with the best of them. cbayer Dec 2012 #36

So you think truth is a function of how many people believe something? BlueStreak Dec 2012 #59

No, I think that the possibility that something is true may be correlated with the cbayer Dec 2012 #60

The scientific method does not consider disproven hypotheses as "faulty" BlueStreak Dec 2012 #67

Thousands of years of indoctrinating people into that belief caused those numbers. cleanhippie Dec 2012 #71

Sorry to say skepticscott Dec 2012 #73

I guess what bothers me the most is that it seems wilfull. cleanhippie Dec 2012 #74

Religion is not necessarily irrational BlueStreak Dec 2012 #75

" Everybody is happy. Nobody gets hurt" cleanhippie Dec 2012 #82

people don't get hurt by the theology. BlueStreak Dec 2012 #83

"...But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." cleanhippie Dec 2012 #93

And religion provides a safe hideout for evil and sick people BlueStreak Dec 2012 #94

His appeal to "evidence" requires the question skepticscott Dec 2012 #39

"A Flying Horse" is rational? A flying unicorn, maybe. But a horse? no way. nt Speck Tater Dec 2012 #48

How many people on this planet believe in flying horses or flying unicorns? cbayer Dec 2012 #50

How many people on this planet were indoctrinated into flying horse belief? cleanhippie Dec 2012 #72

"rational" should be based on "reality" Speck Tater Dec 2012 #84

I don't have an exact number, but the author of the article claims ZombieHorde Dec 2012 #178

Lots of room for discussion in this op... Flabbergasted Dec 2012 #57

Let's hear your definition of "rational" skepticscott Dec 2012 #58

He actually makes the case that both theism and atheism are based on faith and that cbayer Dec 2012 #61

Hard to take all this gobbledygook seriously skepticscott Dec 2012 #89

No. It's irrational. It just has a rational explanation. /nt TheMadMonk Dec 2012 #63

I love to see the crazed whiny flailing Dawkins elicits. 2ndAmForComputers Dec 2012 #66

Well, Medhi Hasan appears to be the idiot here. intaglio Dec 2012 #76

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Zoeisright Dec 2012 #77

Yet another clueless Huffpo article... gcomeau Dec 2012 #85

I think I get the drift. At least in the western world, there were far more Jews than Christians dimbear Dec 2012 #86

No, religion is not rational. Demo_Chris Dec 2012 #88

Hasan's best argument just kicks the can down the road. eomer Dec 2012 #90

You are misunderstanding the Kalam cosmological argument. Jim__ Dec 2012 #127

How is the argument different for God than for the universe? eomer Dec 2012 #130

The critical point is whatever "begins to exist" has a cause. Jim__ Dec 2012 #132

And which would you say already existed, and what's your basis? n/t eomer Dec 2012 #159

I'm not saying anything already existed. Jim__ Dec 2012 #165

So if God didn't always exist then it is something that began to exist and therefore has a cause. eomer Dec 2012 #171

Read the argument. Jim__ Dec 2012 #174

Did already, thanks. Going back to a post where you actually said something... eomer Dec 2012 #183

If you read the argument, why do you keep bringing up god? Jim__ Dec 2012 #190

Because it is part of the argument; why do you want to strip off the conclusion? eomer Dec 2012 #192

It is not the conclusion of the given argument. Jim__ Dec 2012 #194

I think we agree, actually, to a point. eomer Dec 2012 #200

Just noting tama Dec 2012 #219

You need to understand this about Mr. Jim________ trotsky Dec 2012 #199

HuffPo apparently has an ample and continuing supply... Silent3 Dec 2012 #91

Just FTR, this is no lightweight writer. cbayer Dec 2012 #96

You have to be joking... gcomeau Dec 2012 #133

Agree with you on Deepak Chopra, that is for sure. cbayer Dec 2012 #136

He may not be a lightweight writer... Silent3 Dec 2012 #169

Mehdi Hasan, meet Russell's Teapot. trotsky Dec 2012 #92

"put forth ideas that STILL demolish theistic arguments." If you are referring humblebum Dec 2012 #220

Do any theists even bother listening to atheists, most of us(including Dawkins) are agnostic! Humanist_Activist Dec 2012 #99

Jesus fucking Christ nailed to two popsicle sticks? Could you be any more rude? cbayer Dec 2012 #102

So you concede that faith is belief without evidence? Humanist_Activist Dec 2012 #105

Yes I would define faith as belief without absolute evidence. cbayer Dec 2012 #107

But you don't criticize Dawkins, you(and the authors you link to) erect straw versions of him to... Humanist_Activist Dec 2012 #109

We are done. I am not a bigot. cbayer Dec 2012 #110

H_A didn't call you a bigot. trotsky Dec 2012 #121

"there is no such thing as "absolute evidence" you are trying to redefine..." - It humblebum Dec 2012 #221

I'm saying that using the word "absolute" as an adjective usable with the word... Humanist_Activist Dec 2012 #222

It seems to be a matter of wording to you then. I believe that by the phrase "absolute evidence" humblebum Dec 2012 #223

Subjective "evidence" can only be observed by the individual who observes it... Humanist_Activist Dec 2012 #232

Yes, that is why it is called "subjective" evidence. And yes it is experience also, or observation, humblebum Dec 2012 #233

Thread title is wrong. Kalidurga Dec 2012 #113

I must ask, what is a pegacorn, because it sounds awesomer than a unicorn. n/t Humanist_Activist Dec 2012 #115

Pegasus + Unicorn Kalidurga Dec 2012 #180

How about believing there is no god or gods without any evidence? cbayer Dec 2012 #116

Are you really comparing proof that there is no god with proof that there is no cancer? Moonwalk Dec 2012 #122

Exactly my point. There is no way to compare scientific facts with religious beliefs. cbayer Dec 2012 #123

Wow, consistency just isn't one of your strong points. trotsky Dec 2012 #126

Unfalsifiable hypotheses are rejected as lacking any utility. gcomeau Dec 2012 #135

Agree. God(s) are not testable hypothesis and probably never will be. cbayer Dec 2012 #139

No. gcomeau Dec 2012 #142

It may have been *explained* to me, but I continue to disagree. cbayer Dec 2012 #147

For cripes sake... gcomeau Dec 2012 #156

I defend religionists, but I don't offer factual support for specific religious beliefs. cbayer Dec 2012 #160

Didn't ask you to. gcomeau Dec 2012 #161

I consider great art, great music, great literature, philosophical inquiry, cbayer Dec 2012 #162

Fascinating, now if you don't mind... gcomeau Dec 2012 #163

My goodness. Settle down. cbayer Dec 2012 #164

People who interact dishonestly irritate me. gcomeau Dec 2012 #166

People that are argumentative irritate me. cbayer Dec 2012 #167

Run along... don't trip over that tail between your legs.-eom gcomeau Dec 2012 #179

I'm glad that you got to see for yourself the total dishonesty and denial... cleanhippie Dec 2012 #186

Oh I've seen it before. gcomeau Dec 2012 #191

Was the name-calling really necessary? n/t trotsky Dec 2012 #189

Not worth wasting your time on skepticscott Dec 2012 #172

It never ceases to amaze me. The pure hypocrisy and wilfull ignorance displayed is stupefying. cleanhippie Dec 2012 #187

Is it rational to be absolutely, 100% certain skepticscott Dec 2012 #157

You don't need evidence for things that don't exist. Kalidurga Dec 2012 #181

By all accounts, religion is not rational. DrewFlorida Dec 2012 #118

I think your definition may be too narrow. cbayer Dec 2012 #131

I'm not sure why you need to rationalize feelings or beliefs. DrewFlorida Dec 2012 #175

Control and religion/spirituality tama Dec 2012 #185

When a person is arrogant enough to think they can possibly know everything, DrewFlorida Dec 2012 #196

So? tama Dec 2012 #202

Religion is based on faith. still_one Dec 2012 #128

Other choice bigoted drippings from Mehdi Hasan's brain: trotsky Dec 2012 #144

Well, we all know skepticscott Dec 2012 #158

Saying that a belief is justifiable and rational skepticscott Dec 2012 #155

. Steele1762 Dec 2012 #177

If Mehdi Hasan's religion is rational, then so is Fred Phelps'. trotsky Dec 2012 #193

Wrong. Deep13 Dec 2012 #201

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz Skittles Dec 2012 #226