Religious & Philosophical Discussion | The Big Questions

My main argument against religion is that we've had 40k or more faiths, but they've all managed to reflect the then current philosophical beliefs of some while offering no scientific predictions.

A mildly loving God would care enough about humans to tell us about Germ Theory so that we could live long enough lives and avoid suffering enough to gain wisdom, but no faith discovered Germ Theory this. This argument doesn't rule out indifferent or mean-spirited Gods, but I don't really care about God(s) if they're indifferent or mean-spirited.

And Gondo is right that religion fills in human psychological belief in superstition, but religion also fulfills desires of rationalization. Islam and Christianity in particular took the persecution and suffering that people felt and made that persecution and suffering a feature that would lead them to be rewarded in the next life. Some religions have just been seemingly created just to justify the horrors of the world and why they should be endured with the "and then you'll be happy forever!" reward at the end.

By VahagnWith all due respect, this is mostly nonsense. You're giving me your explanations for why you're an atheist, not proof.

The burden of proof isn't on believers at all. The burden of proof is on unbelievers because it's the far more difficult viewpoint to hold.

Replace God with aliens. Everything we know about aliens or believe about aliens is a human invention. A figment of our imaginations. In literature and movies.

Does that mean that we've PROVEN that aliens don't exist? Of course not. Because the only way to PROVE that they don't exist is to inspect every land mass in the universe simultaneously. And even then, you're talking about this snapshot in time. It's an impossible thing to prove.

Atheism is the same way. You can give me explanations and rationalizations but none of that is proof. Proof would be, again, refuting every single religious experience in the pantheon of human history individually as invalid. Not making broad strokes generalizations.

I get why people are atheists, but to suggest that atheism is a proven fact, or can ever be a proven fact, is abandoning the very scientific principles people hold dear.

Reposting Vahagn's response for the new thread. I'll respond when I get the chance.

I would say that I'm not certain on whether or not any God exists or not as the existence of an indifferent or angry God can't be disproven certainly. I just think it's more likely than not that God does not exist due to religions reflecting human psychological needs so well.

Discussing religion in broad strokes condescending generalizations aside, the argument for the existence or non existence of God is not synonymous with the argument for the infallibility of any religion.

To be an atheist, means, in the final account, to believe that every religious experience in the pantheon of man is full of shit. While I understand why people might believe that, there's no way to actually PROVE that.

One can argue that God isn't necessary, or that this or that component of a theological teaching doesn't square away with science. Those are fine arguments. One can even argue that God's a dickhead. But to argue that he/she/it doesn't exist is a leap of blind faith I'm not willing to make.

I don't think you need to be able to 100% certain that there isn't a God to be an atheist. I think just being >50% sure that there isn't a God is good enough to designate you as an atheist.

By Vahagn Go To PostTo be an atheist, means, in the final account, to believe that every religious experience in the pantheon of man is full of shit. While I understand why people might believe that, there's no way to actually PROVE that.

That's not how I view it at all. We risk getting into an argument of semantics here, but I define atheism as simply the *lack* of belief in a supreme being. That's all. I'm not definitively saying there isn't a supreme being, because I think that's impossible to know.

I live my life as though there isn't a god, and I almost never think of god or religion except in debates such as these. That's why I consider myself an atheist. You can make every argument you want to convince me, but short of Jesus himself descending onto the floor of Chesapeake Energy Arena to help the Thunder celebrate the 2016 NBA title, it isn't gonna happen.

Religious experiences happen. I 100% believe that. I just don't think they're evidence of much other than synapses firing a particular way in our brains.

The only thing I ask of this thread, given the subject matter, is that you try and be more respectful and congenial than ever.

By Vahagn Go To PostThe burden of proof isn't on believers at all. The burden of proof is on unbelievers because it's the far more difficult viewpoint to hold.

Pure illogical nonsense. The believer is the one who constantly falls back on, "God works in mysterious ways" because the believer has to explain logical inconsistencies within their belief. Unless you're the first person who can answer if God can create a car so fast even he couldn't outrun it.

Furthermore, the burden of proof lies with the claim. I don't claim shit and you've offered no proof. At least the atheist tries to use physical evidence to provide ways in which a first mover isn't needed. Which, for me is more compelling. All the believer has is old text that's been interpreted in a multitude of ways to fall back on. In other words jack squat.

Atheism is the same way. You can give me explanations and rationalizations but none of that is proof. Proof would be, again, refuting every single religious experience in the pantheon of human history individually as invalid. Not making broad strokes generalizations.

Ok ... prove any one of those experiences were authentic. I'll wait.

I get why people are atheists, but to suggest that atheism is a proven fact, or can ever be a proven fact, is abandoning the very scientific principles people hold dear.

Also bullshit. We can't yet physically test for a multiverse, but there are physical theories out there that could prove a lack of a need for a first mover in the future.

By Vahagn Go To PostOne can argue that God isn't necessary, or that this or that component of a theological teaching doesn't square away with science. Those are fine arguments. One can even argue that God's a dickhead. But to argue that he/she/it doesn't exist is a leap of blind faith I'm not willing to make.

Which is all good. I don't think any conversation in here is going to shape anyone's spiritual beliefs. Like I said, I've not made a leap of faith either way. I'm just not sure why you think one leap of faith is anymore of a crap shoot than the other. They're both crap shoots.

Also, please try, as much as you can, not to gang up on any particular user because their views differ from yours. In this instance, especially since this forum is still small, Vahagn is clearly outnumbered, so try not to all jump on his neck if you disagree.

By KingGondo Go To PostThat's not how I view it at all. We risk getting into an argument of semantics here, but I define atheism as simply the *lack* of belief in a supreme being. That's all. I'm not definitively saying there isn't a supreme being, because I think that's impossible to know.

I live my life as though there isn't a god, and I almost never think of god or religion except in debates such as these. That's why I consider myself an atheist. You can make every argument you want to convince me, but short of Jesus himself descending onto the floor of Chesapeake Energy Arena to help the Thunder celebrate the 2016 NBA title, it isn't gonna happen.

Religious experiences happen. I 100% believe that. I just don't think they're evidence of much other than synapses firing a particular way in our brains.

Bingo. Hence the leap of faith comment and my entire argument. Atheism as a rejection of religion or a willingness to live as if God doesn't exist is fine. No ones trying to convert you. The question was whether or not we believe God exists - and I'm not ready to assume every religious experience in the history of humanity was utter bullshit. So I'm not willing to believe God doesn't exist.


This is purely a scientific "the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" position.

People used to believe in Dragons. Other's believed in multiple gods. We see as much physical evidence for both God, multiple Gods and Dragons. Why do you not believe in Dragons or polytheism?

By reilo Go To PostAlso, please try, as much as you can, not to gang up on any particular user because their views differ from yours. In this instance, especially since this forum is still small, Vahagn is clearly outnumbered, so try not to all jump on his neck if you disagree.

I'll try not to. He's the only voice for the opposition currently, though

By KingGondo Go To PostThat's not how I view it at all. We risk getting into an argument of semantics here, but I define atheism as simply the *lack* of belief in a supreme being. That's all. I'm not definitively saying there isn't a supreme being, because I think that's impossible to know.

Isn't this agnosticism?

I didn't say I don't believe in polytheism. As for dragons, the Easter bunny, Santa Claus etc, those are strictly physical beings residing here on earth and of which we haven't found any.

This is why my aliens comparison was more apt. We don't have the capability to verify every religious or metaphysical claim or experience any more than we do the ability to travel to every object in the universe. But we can go to the North Pole, we can excavate fossils, we can admit what are strictly creations of literature and explore this planet.

Maybe dragons exist somewhere else in the universe as aliens, but on this planet with centuries of scientific excavation I feel confident that the belief in them isn't logical. Although again, we haven't proven it, either. It's just highly unlikely.

By Vahagn Go To PostThis is purely a scientific "the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" position.

What you're doing is called argumentum ad ignorantiam. Let's think about it:

Say you show up to a place with no knowledge of what happened the hour before.

The ground is very dry.

Absence of water = it's probable it didn't rain the hour before. That's what you can infer from it. Absence of water can be considered as positive evidence, a very high probability that it did not rain. The evidence is not absent.

But what you're doing here is akin to saying that there is no way to prove it did not rain.

By Fenderputty Go To PostIsn't this agnosticism?

I like to make distinctions between shades of atheism, with "strong atheism" being the affirmative belief that there is no god and "weak atheism" being what I described: merely the absence of belief in god.

From the Wikipedia article on atheism:

Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1][2] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[3][4][5] Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist.[4][5][6][7] Atheism is contrasted with theism,[8][9] which, in its most general form, is the belief that at least one deity exists.[9][10][11]

I personally find the existence of religious deities to be so unlikely that I choose to live as though they don't exist. It doesn't concern me much.

By KingGondo Go To PostI like to make distinctions between shades of atheism, with "strong atheism" being the affirmative belief that there is no god and "weak atheism" being what I described: merely the absence of belief in god.

You see a very dry ground, is the rain real? It's fair to say dryness is positive evidence of the absence of rain. It's not absence of evidence.

I'm an atheist, no adjective to it, no problem.

I'm LDS but miss my worldly days very badly. Life was so much simpler when everyone wasn't judgemental, petty, and catty about the littlest of shit. The counter point those people that use religion in politics is these individuals have stances and perspectives that make people cringe. Politicians exploit religion to gain votes. We saw this during the Bush era.

By Gabyskra Go To PostYou see a very dry ground, is the rain real? It's fair to say dryness is positive evidence of the absence of rain. It's not absence of evidence.

I'm an atheist, no adjective to it, no problem.

I told you we'd get into semantics quickly, lol.

I don't hesitate to call myself an atheist either. But if someone asks for my views in detail I can honestly say I don't think about it very often. Even when I attended church as a teenager I had strong doubts even if I went through the motions.

By Furyous Go To PostI'm LDS but miss my worldly days very badly. Life was so much simpler when everyone wasn't judgemental, petty, and catty about the littlest of shit.

Could you elaborate on this?

Also, the notion that religions haven't provided scientific information is flawed to say the least.

It tells me that people here aren't really well versed in theology.

The Hindu notions of Prana and Prakriti, (matter and energy) as being two sides of the same coin. The universe as manifesting itself through a figurative exhale of expanding matter and energy pretty damn well predicted e = mc squared. The expanding nature of the universe from a single point, and the belief that energy is neither created nor destroyed only transformed. And that matter and energy are different manifestations of each other.

Buddha explained the atom, the nucleus, and that the matter was primarily nothingness (empty space between atomic particles).

We can go on for ages, but yes, different theological teachings have ABSOLUTELY taught pretty alarmingly spot on metaphors for scientific discoveries thousands of years later.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tao_of_Physics

That's like arguing with a Gossip Girl fan who believes they always wanted Dan Humphrey to be the blogger and builds a retroactive narrative in hindsight.

(is that an okay rebuttal?)

(no i didn't just watch it all. okay maybe. don't tell people)

By Fenderputty Go To PostPeople used to believe in Dragons. Other's believed in multiple gods. We see as much physical evidence for both God, multiple Gods and Dragons. Why do you not believe in Dragons or polytheism?


I'll try not to. He's the only voice for the opposition currently, though


Isn't this agnosticism?

For me it's that dragons aren't necessary for a first cause whereas a supreme entity is.

God meets a strong psychological desire for connectedness to a universe that appears indifferent to suffering. The question of God can take many forms but I think we do it a disservice to simply refer to God as either a set of religious practices or a grand being as such. God lives with the inquiry into God.

Vahagn, that's the Texas sharpshooter fallacy:

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

If a religion had scientific insight, its followers would immediately start moving towards utilizing that scientific knowledge before its discovery by other men and women. But Hindus didn't discover that e=mc^2, a German Jew did. Most religions are VERY specific regarding a great deal of philosophy, but only have incredibly vague declarations about science. If their Gods had scientific insight that would save the lives of men and women, it would be beneficial to be just as specific with science as they are with philosophy.

OK Vahagn. Even supposing that the Buddha nailed the structure of the atom, that isn't the same thing as science. Call it supernatural insight, call it instinct, call it luck. It's interesting to think about, but ultimately not very useful to explain how the world works in a meaningful way.

By KingGondo Go To PostOK Vahagn. Even supposing that the Buddha nailed the structure of the atom, that isn't the same thing as science. Call it supernatural insight, call it instinct, call it luck. It's interesting to think about, but ultimately not very useful to explain how the world works in a meaningful way.

The criticism is on the method? Or on the conclusion. Yea he didn't invent microscopes and the scientific method.

But the theology has within it tons of different beliefs that line up pretty damn accurately with modern understanding of the physical world. So if the only form of knowledge you find valuable is that acquired by the scientific method. Cool.

Doesn't change the fact that they made scientific predictions with the vernacular and forms of communication of their time, does it?

The concept of the law of karma is the idea that every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Another law of thermodynamics.

There are plenty of these things, they can be ignored by preference, but they're there and they're documented.

By Vahagn Go To PostI didn't say I don't believe in polytheism. As for dragons, the Easter bunny, Santa Claus etc, those are strictly physical beings residing here on earth and of which we haven't found any.

Per your words: the absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. So which is it?

By Fenderputty Go To PostPer your words: the absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. So which is it?

Those aren't my words, they're a basic concept. I answered it succinctly. Re read the full answer

By Vahagn Go To PostThere are plenty of these things, they can be ignored by preference, but they're there and they're documented.

You're ignoring the many, many things said by religious figures and printed in religious texts that simply aren't true (or were later disproven) to focus on the ones that supposedly predicted later scientific discoveries.

By KingGondo Go To PostYou're ignoring the many, many things said by religious figures and printed in religious texts that simply aren't true (or were later disproven) to focus on the ones that supposedly predicted later scientific discoveries.

Not at all. I acknowledge full well that those things exist. The earth was not made in 6 days, it is not 4 thousand years old, etc etc.

"My main argument against religion is that we've had 40k or more faiths, but they've all managed to reflect the then current philosophical beliefs of some while offering no scientific predictions."

I read that to mean that 40K religions existed and NONE offered scientific predictions. I refuted that notion as many physicists and theologians in the past have.

By IWMTB19 Go To PostVahagn, that's the Texas sharpshooter fallacy:

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

If a religion had scientific insight, its followers would immediately start moving towards utilizing that scientific knowledge before its discovery by other men and women. But Hindus didn't discover that e=mc^2, a German Jew did. Most religions are VERY specific regarding a great deal of philosophy, but only have incredibly vague declarations about science. If their Gods had scientific insight that would save the lives of men and women, it would be beneficial to be just as specific with science as they are with philosophy.

Said from a point of view of 21st century person. Science wasn't nearly developed or important thousands of years ago and no religions were concerned with scientific understanding of the physical world above and beyond everything else.

Hindus believed in the the laws of karma, reincarnation, and the paths toward eventual liberation of the soul. Within this context, it would be clear to be more concerned with how to liberate the soul than how to build a microscope or care for the body. The actual metaphor to describe a human body is a worn out shirt that's discarded when no longer useful. In this context, spending tons of time developing bleach and laundry detergent would seem useless.

You don't believe in God, reincarnation or karma so germ theory seems more pressing and important to you than the actual steps to achieve liberation from the wheel of life and death and exist in a union with the divine.

You may as well ask why didn't Buddha develop an iPhone with swarsky crystals. Not essential in the context of their belief system.

But those "vague" scientific descriptors are still pretty shockingly insightful when discussing large scale physics questions, I would argue.

By IWMTB19 Go To PostVahagn, that's the Texas sharpshooter fallacy:

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

If a religion had scientific insight, its followers would immediately start moving towards utilizing that scientific knowledge before its discovery by other men and women. But Hindus didn't discover that e=mc^2, a German Jew did. Most religions are VERY specific regarding a great deal of philosophy, but only have incredibly vague declarations about science. If their Gods had scientific insight that would save the lives of men and women, it would be beneficial to be just as specific with science as they are with philosophy.

Well the issue with this is that many a society did in fact make strides but then you had various other civilizations squashing them under their bootheel, the burning and pillaging of libraries, geological catastrophes and that whole Dark Ages thing.

By Vahagn Go To PostThose aren't my words, they're a basic concept. I answered it succinctly. Re read the full answer

That statement was the start and basis for your entire argument. If I'm not understanding you, then maybe your succinct response wasn't actually very succinct. I could be completely missing something, but if I was, I would ask you to show me where and not give some "please re-read" as if that's going to help. (it didn't). If the basis of your argument holds for God then it also has to hold for Dragons for which we have no evidence of either way. Our parents let us in on the secrets of Santa etc so there's evidence for their lack of existence.

There's many vast interpretations on what might be spiritual about our reality. Some believed in human sacrifice. Others that mummification would end up with the soul finding the body again. Some polytheistic. Other's monotheistic but with a different god and profit. Some reincarnation. So all these experiences differ and don't really converge. Meaning most of what we've perceived spiritually over time is bunk, even if one is actually true. So why give a shit about all the past experiences then? We know most are bunk. If every spiritual interpretation of reality is bunk but one, how am I supposed to figure out which one?

Your leap of faith that a God exists based on past human experience is just as large a leap as the atheist who says a first mover / spiritual being is absolutely 100% not true. It might even be larger depending on which version of spiritual reality you believe in.

I didn't say I don't believe in polytheism. As for dragons, the Easter bunny, Santa Claus etc, those are strictly physical beings residing here on earth and of which we haven't found any.

This is why my aliens comparison was more apt. We don't have the capability to verify every religious or metaphysical claim or experience any more than we do the ability to travel to every object in the universe. But we can go to the North Pole, we can excavate fossils, we can admit what are strictly creations of literature and explore this planet.

Maybe dragons exist somewhere else in the universe as aliens, but on this planet with centuries of scientific excavation I feel confident that the belief in them isn't logical. Although again, we haven't proven it, either. It's just highly unlikely.

I acknowledged that the same principle applies. But explained the difference in my own belief system. We haven't proven that dragons don't exist, but the specificity and the knowledge we have of this planet makes it far more unlikely to exist than aliens in general or God. So I feel comfortable saying I believe that Dragons don't exist.

I indicate though that I recognize that this is a conclusion based on logic, and not irrefutable proof. I'm consistent.

In other words, saying aliens exist or God exists is far more probable than saying dragons exist or a blue God with exactly 7 hands and 9 feet and 12 teeth exists. The more specific You get, the more unlikely it becomes. I believe in aliens, but I don't believe with the same confidence in 19 foot human look a likes with telekinetic power and blonde uniform hair exactly 120 million light years away.

Now let's flip this on you. Do you believe aliens exist? And how could you believe aliens exist (I'm assuming you haven't interacted with one) and be assured that God doesn't?

Lastly, I'm a religious studies major. Categorically rejecting all religions as one and the same bunk because they confuse me or because some stuff is wrong, isn't what we do.

My belief that alien life exists somewhere is based on purely probability and sheer size and amount of stuff out there.

The probability of a first mover is less likely and not any more likely than a different matrix like scenario.

By Fenderputty Go To PostMy belief that alien life exists somewhere is based on purely probability and sheer size and amount of stuff out there.

The probability of a first mover is less likely and not any more likely than a different matrix like scenario.

For the sake of argument let's remove the strict definition of "first mover" and ask you a different question. Of all of the billions upon billions of human beings alive today and in the past who have claimed to experience at least one metaphysical or religious experience, are you prepared to suggest that every one of them was fraudulent (a makeup of their own imagination, what have you)?

man what did I just start

I do think that every single UFO and ghost sighting ever has been fraudulent and I think everyone else does also.

It's not at all unprecedented that millions of people had experiences they misinterpreted.

I think my only counter-argument to the fraudulent debate is to question that with all of our scientific and engineering improvements that allow us to travel space and capture imagery of planets billions of years away, then why have the sightings and recordings of discussions with a deity disappeared or outright dismissed? We have more people living on this earth than ever before, yet religious sightings are going down. What was so different 2,000 years ago that a sighting of God was more plausible then than today?

By Vahagn Go To PostFor the sake of argument let's remove the strict definition of "first mover" and ask you a different question. Of all of the billions upon billions of human beings alive today and in the past who have claimed to experience at least one metaphysical or religious experience, are you prepared to suggest that every one of them was fraudulent (a makeup of their own imagination, what have you)?

I clarified this. Of those vast experiences throughout human past, they've all differed from one another. All those different beliefs I laid out stemmed from different spiritual experiences. They can't all be accurate. If the person who believes in polytheistic spiritual reality had a spiritual experience it would differ from a person who believes in a monotheistic reality. Same with a person who believes in human sacrifice compared to a a Christian. Or an ancient Egyptian. They can't all be right therefore most are bunk even if one is true. So right off the top I can safely say most all are fraudulent. Though I think that word implies purpose. I don't believe these experiences are purposefully fraudulent.


FYI, I was a deist for the longest time.

By reilo Go To PostI think my only counter-argument to the fraudulent debate is to question that with all of our scientific and engineering improvements that allow us to travel space and capture imagery of planets billions of years away, then why have the sightings and recordings of discussions with a deity disappeared or outright dismissed? We have more people living on this earth than ever before, yet religious sightings are going down. What was so different 2,000 years ago that a sighting of God was more plausible then than today?

They didn't have smartphones 2000 years ago. If you ain't posting it on Instagram, nobody believes you. Rainbows and sunsets don't count.

Miracles are something that are usually described within a physical manifestation: curing ailments, walking on water, turning water into wine, and so forth. My entire point is, if something like that is possible, why isn't it being captured with our technological and scientific advancements? It should be quantifiable.

Btw, I don't presume to know "why", just curious how a believer might answer it and explain it.

This might be a bit too meta or derailing but I'm never convinced by either side of a metaphysical debate over the existence/nonexistence of a greater creator being, spirits, etc (or whatever terminology you prefer) and more just like "who fucking cares..."

By db Go To PostThis might be a bit too meta or derailing but I'm never convinced by either side of a metaphysical debate over the existence/nonexistence of a greater creator being, spirits, etc (or whatever terminology you prefer) and more just like "who fucking cares…"

That's called being a cynic :P

I thought it was more indifference than cynicism but fair enough. It's never had an impact on my moral framework so.

I'm not ready to take the leap of faith that dragons don't exist. I mean, we know it is people who wrote about them, but I'm just not ready to say that it is not a Grand Ol' Dragon who inspired the people who wrote that story.

By IWMTB19 Go To PostMy main argument against religion is that we've had 40k or more faiths, but they've all managed to reflect the then current philosophical beliefs of some while offering no scientific predictions.

A mildly loving God would care enough about humans to tell us about Germ Theory so that we could live long enough lives and avoid suffering enough to gain wisdom, but no faith discovered Germ Theory this. This argument doesn't rule out indifferent or mean-spirited Gods, but I don't really care about God(s) if they're indifferent or mean-spirited.

I don't believe that as a premise. Knowledge just given isn't the same as knowledge learned. Give a man a fish etc...

I do believe that most religions get too caught up in ceremony, tradition and literalism than keeping themselves relevant and modern. I also believe that for many, religion is a way to exploit people and not help them. The fact that many republicans want to distance themselves from the pope because he believes wealth inequality is reaching a critical point is a clear example.

I also believe that religion is a way to exploit the un or under educated. With most learning you are taught to start questioning, and stop taking everything at face value. Something many people abuse.

Also, Vahg's stance on the burden belonging to athiests isn't true either. It's a deflection that relies on the premise that all religious experience being pure and actual. Which certainly isn't true.

There's an infinite amount of knowledge available for man to discover, giving out some crucial knowledge to save billions of lives seems like a fair comprise in the "should I reveal knowledge or not to man?" God thought process.

The other problem with the "knowledge gained is not knowledge earned!" is something I mention in my post, that many Gods are very willing to give out knowledge if the knowledge is philosophical and philosophy is still knowledge to be explored by man.

By db Go To PostWell the issue with this is that many a society did in fact make strides but then you had various other civilizations squashing them under their bootheel, the burning and pillaging of libraries, geological catastrophes and that whole Dark Ages thing.

Many of these things were done in the name of political or territorial conquest with the facade of religion in front of them. It's not like religious beliefs motivated the extreme Mongolian rape fest in the 1200s. They were in fact tolerant of all religious beliefs because the military and political leadership understood that a more inclusive army meant a larger, happier army. There was inner strife between some factions but it wasn't a religious fire that burned through most of China.

The two world wars were fought without any regard for religion unless you want to call the worship of industry and technology a religious principle.

I'll grant that true fanaticism has also led to MANY violent conflicts. When you get a cult of desperate people with a charismatic leader you're going to run into problems like Münster during the reformation.

By db Go To PostThis might be a bit too meta or derailing but I'm never convinced by either side of a metaphysical debate over the existence/nonexistence of a greater creator being, spirits, etc (or whatever terminology you prefer) and more just like "who fucking cares…"

This encapsulates my transition from a deist to an agnostic. Once I separated religion from my spirituality / faith I stopped seeing a need to hold onto that spirituality / faith. I figured I would find out in the end and that it's better to start living my life with my own purpose

Re Butt: Eh I wasn't really going in that direction. My point was more there were societies discovering things, scientific things, about this realm and a lot of it got lost.

By IWMTB19 Go To PostThere's an infinite amount of knowledge available for man to discover, giving out some crucial knowledge to save billions of lives seems like a fair comprise in the "should I reveal knowledge or not to man?" God thought process.

The other problem with the "knowledge gained is not knowledge earned!" is something I mention in my post, that many Gods are very willing to give out knowledge if the knowledge is philosophical and philosophy is still knowledge to be explored by man.

Sure But the line then becomes the question on where you draw the line, yours just lays in a different spot to mine.

By db Go To PostThis might be a bit too meta or derailing but I'm never convinced by either side of a metaphysical debate over the existence/nonexistence of a greater creator being, spirits, etc (or whatever terminology you prefer) and more just like "who fucking cares…"

Let's get more meta: I'm never fully convinced by an ontological debate over existence/nonexistence. Full stop. They're such incredibly vague, slippery terms, that to see them employed so definitively in the service of arguments over equally vague, slippery terms like "deity" is just giddying. I mean, when you can have a perfectly honest and sincere theist argue that God is nonexistence, you've reached a realm where chiseling your way through, using scientistic nostrums, becomes utterly quixotic. Moreover, when an internet scientizer, who has never directly encountered a quark, neutron star, or Adenine-Thymine-Base-pair, immediately dismisses so many other complex encounters, I can't help but be a bit amused by so many demarcations of belief and faith.