there is none

11/11/2005 11:38:37 AM

I think what you really mean to say is, "the difference between faith and delusion... there is none."

11/11/2005 12:29:13 PM

OMGZ COMMIE

11/11/2005 12:30:03 PM

Religion is shared delusion.

Don't get mad, though. So is statehood.

11/11/2005 2:25:06 PM

haha, i'm gonna be laughin at you burnin in hell one day

11/11/2005 3:12:10 PM

Quote :

"haha, i'm gonna be laughin at you burnin in hell one day"

Won't you be in hell to for laughing at other peoples suffering? Or is that tolerable by your god?

11/11/2005 3:15:06 PM

Visions are hallucinations.

11/11/2005 3:18:28 PM

It doesnt matter

11/11/2005 3:38:00 PM

isnt there no real historic data that jesus even existed....and the new testament doesnt count as a historic source.

11/11/2005 10:16:49 PM

since you want to say religion is like delusion....


thinking you came from a pool of algae which came from nothing is just plain dumb/ignorant.... admit it, you want the easy way out.

11/11/2005 10:57:49 PM

we can see plants and animal life change/evolve. things magically popping into thin air is a little different.

11/11/2005 11:20:14 PM

Hey Kris, remind me again of the difference between communism and delusion again?

Still waiting for the worker's revolution, champ?

11/12/2005 10:50:04 AM

Thing that sucks about the idiots that actually believe everything religion tells them is that when they die they don’t really have a chance to realize there is no afterlife as their consciousness just stops.

11/12/2005 10:57:48 AM

i don't think it bothers me too much if religion is fantasy

that would almost encourage me to participate in it

though it might make me question some of the harsher teachings

11/12/2005 11:01:12 AM

In essence, you are saying that your beliefs are right and that everyone else is wrong. Therefore I would like to proclaim that the difference between your beliefs and delusion is that there is none.

And any arguement that you dream up to counter this claim could also be used to disprove the idea that "the difference between religion and delusion is there is none".

Quote :

"isnt there no real historic data that jesus even existed....and the new testament doesnt count as a historic source."

avoiding the double negative, there are many documents that mention Jesus.

11/12/2005 11:10:45 AM

Ahh, another one of those 'Religions are stupid, I'm cool and non-conformist' threads.

I will certainly admit that there is no evidence I can give you to prove my religions validity, aside from the fulfillment I derive from it. However, even if you are right and my religion is merely collective lunacy, what difference would it make?

In either event, I'm going through life with a clearly set moral compass, a positive role model, and a source of moral support. And I have the belief of even better things to come. Where's the harm in this?

So, to put it another way, even if you could somehow prove to me with 100% certainty that there is no God and never was (incidentally, you can't for the same reason I can't 100% prove to you there is one), why should it matter to me?

11/12/2005 12:18:52 PM

ugh

more stupid shit


STOP PUSHING YOUR NONRELIGION ON ME, YOU DAMN NONBELIEVERS

11/12/2005 12:39:00 PM

Quote :

"However, even if you are right and my religion is merely collective lunacy, what difference would it make? In either event, I'm going through life with a clearly set moral compass, a positive role model, and a source of moral support. And I have the belief of even better things to come. Where's the harm in this?"

Some people are going to think that lunacy isn't going to make the world a better place. I guess that's just how it is. We're just not gona think that worshiping air is going to help things more than having a positive moral outlook for the sake of having a positive moral outlook.

11/12/2005 12:52:43 PM

Quote :

" Some people are going to think that lunacy isn't going to make the world a better place. I guess that's just how it is. We're just not gona think that worshiping air is going to help things more than having a positive moral outlook for the sake of having a positive moral outlook."

I'd mostly agree with you, though I'd say the whole worshipping air comment is off mark. The sole difference between a believer and a non-believer is that one chooses to believe in something they can't prove and the other does not. Both sides have their extremists, their more rational-minded, and both can do a great deal for mankind.

That's why these sort of threads strike me as ridiculous, right up there with Gary's performances in the Brickyard. We're all, so to speak, stuck in the same boat. Why rock it any more than necessary?

11/12/2005 1:45:19 PM

Hey, if i'm able to have a great ethical compass without being led by my nipples with the threat of eternal hellfire, isn't that better? Being good to my fellow man without a cosmic carrot?

11/12/2005 3:05:54 PM

what would chairman mao say?

11/12/2005 3:06:48 PM

i cannot fathom the lives that some of you lead, and the motivations that drive you to do whatever it is you do.

additionally, i really empathized with the trauma, whatever it may be, that led you to think like this. no doubt your hermeneutic circle includes a few stops in hell on the way to today.

11/12/2005 3:16:12 PM

One usually happens in a group.

11/12/2005 3:24:42 PM

An utopianist really shoudnt be in the business of trying to point out other people's delusions.

And as far as delusions go, religon usually isnt all that bad of one and is probably good for the majority of people to hold.



[Edited on November 12, 2005 at 3:47 PM. Reason : ]

11/12/2005 3:45:18 PM

Quote :

"we can see plants and animal life change/evolve. things magically popping into thin air is a little different."

For the record, could you tell us where you think the first item to evolve came from?

11/12/2005 4:46:36 PM

From a test tube back in my chemistry class.

It isn't much of a big deal to produce simple life-like "stuff" from decidedly inanimate chemicals.

11/12/2005 5:49:05 PM

And the inanimate chemicals came from.....?

11/12/2005 5:50:26 PM

ah, the inevitable retreating religious argument. Just a guess, but if i tell you where that came from, your probably gona ask where the thing before it came from...

you know, at a time, people used that same argument for things like lightning and now clearly explained phenomena. in fact, i think that “was unexplained but is now fully explained stuff” was a very pivotal point in the creation of your 2 millennium old religion, and just about every other of the like.

Every side of this has been argued 1e6 times by each side, but where did God come from? It just honestly… helps nothing.

11/12/2005 6:36:24 PM

The point is, laughing because someone believes things just "popped" into existance without having any other explination yourself is rather stupid. The difference between religion and atheism is the point in time at which the universe popped.

11/12/2005 6:53:13 PM

i misread the original post, thinking he was simply comparing evolution to faith, which would be dumb. either way im all for deism if you wanna be religious.

[Edited on November 12, 2005 at 7:25 PM. Reason : d]

11/12/2005 7:24:51 PM

^^Difference between Creationism and Evolution... not religion and atheism....atheism is a religion, you have to "believe" (and have faith that) there is no God...

[Edited on November 12, 2005 at 7:43 PM. Reason : ]

11/12/2005 7:43:16 PM

Quote :

"For the record, could you tell us where you think the first item to evolve came from? "

It was a result of the "big bang".

11/12/2005 8:08:19 PM

Quote :

"I will certainly admit that there is no evidence I can give you to prove my religions validity, aside from the fulfillment I derive from it. However, even if you are right and my religion is merely collective lunacy, what difference would it make? "

It depends... as long as you aren't like that psycho woman from trading spouses, or those nutjobs trying to get creationism taught in the science classroom, or support people like Pat Robertson who calls for assassinations in the name of God, or those people who vote for Bush because he "talks to God", then it wouldn't make any difference.

When people bash religion, they aren't bashing the typical buffet-Christian who goes to church to please his wife, only to speed home to watch football and drink beer, and cuss with his friends from work during the week. Those types of Christians are pretty inconsequential. The type of Christian though to actually think that everyone else is going to Hell for not thinking like them, and who make dumb decisions as a result, are the ones everyone hates and that society can do without.

[Edited on November 12, 2005 at 8:12 PM. Reason : 3]

11/12/2005 8:10:51 PM

Quote :

"Thing that sucks about the idiots that actually believe everything religion tells them is that when they die they don’t really have a chance to realize there is no afterlife as their consciousness just stops."

11/12/2005 8:56:24 PM

Quote :

"Difference between Creationism and Evolution... not religion and atheism....atheism is a religion, you have to "believe" (and have faith that) there is no God..."

sorry if i'm beating a bunch of dead horses, but maybe it's page setting. There are true atheists out there, but i think they aren't even all that many. I know way WAY more unfaithfuls. Could be a God, could be a lot of things, can't really say. Then we have the apathists, their stance takes no explaining.

I'm an unfaithful. My deductions are poor at best, but no worse than any of yours. I find it near appropriate to say there is no god, but if asked I would probably assign a probability of like 1e-6 (or some equally ridiculous number) of there being some being or civilization that created or derived the evolution of our universe or ourselves. In regards of the Christian God, my evaluation of the likelihood of its existence isn't worth discussion.

In my opinion, anyone who believes something without that little piece of "it might not be true" is mostly crazy. Believing such a thing for the security of believing it is by all means cool, but if it were me, it would feel like nothing more than story time. Anything that demands such "faith" is probably dangerous.

[Edited on November 13, 2005 at 12:08 AM. Reason : ]

11/13/2005 12:06:19 AM

Quote :

""Thing that sucks about the idiots that actually believe everything religion tells them is that when they die they don’t really have a chance to realize there is no afterlife as their consciousness just stops.""

Yep, better they should die in fear and despair. Whats the point in living happily up until the very end if you're wrong about something that really doesnt matter?

11/13/2005 1:38:36 PM

^I think its great that their faith makes them happy. I wish I could dupe myself into believing in some fantasy with an afterlife in heaven and all that other bullshit.

The problem is when religion causes wars and bloodshed. Millions of people wage war every year fighting over whose imaginary friend is better. Its pathetic, and its a scourge on humanity.

11/13/2005 1:54:15 PM

Quote :

"atheism is a religion, you have to "believe" (and have faith that) there is no God... "

An atheist would only have to lack sufficient evidence to believe in god, not be certain there is no god. To require certainty of the falsehood & disprovability of an opposite position to be able to commit to a position would make everyone agnostic when it comes to ghosts, or any other non-falsifiable idea.

11/13/2005 2:33:45 PM

religion does a whole lot more good in this world than it does bad

of course, the ones who abuse it and use it for evil purposes are the most noticeable, and of course get the most recognition.

one could look at it as while the non-believers mock and scorn, the religious pray for their salvation. which is worse? the cynicism and assault upon a person for their belief? or the silent hope that the forked tongue ne'erdowell will have a happy life?

11/13/2005 3:23:20 PM

^

wtf kinda hypocrisy is it to say that most religious ppl arent crazy hateful zealots (and the bad apples are always cited) but most atheists/agnostics are hateful and mock religion.

[Edited on November 13, 2005 at 3:34 PM. Reason : .]

11/13/2005 3:33:50 PM

i only report what i see right here, on the wolfweb

[Edited on November 13, 2005 at 6:33 PM. Reason : ps, its not hypocrisy]

[Edited on November 13, 2005 at 6:37 PM. Reason : tryin somethin]

11/13/2005 6:30:03 PM

Quote :

"Thing that sucks about the idiots that actually believe everything religion tells them is that when they die they don’t really have a chance to realize there is no afterlife as their consciousness just stops."

Pascal's wager? If you believe, and God exists, you gain everything. If you disbelieve, and God exists, you lose everything.

&

Quote :

"For the record, could you tell us where you think the first item to evolve came from? It was a result of the "big bang"."

Quote :

"Scientists come to God and say, "You know, we can do everything You did. You created life; we can create life as well." God says, "Okay, show me." The scientists say, "Okay, we are going to go into our lab now, and we are going to take some of this dust, and we are going to start working with it." Then God says, "Hey, wait a second. Get your own dust!" "

BEST SOLUTION

If you don't believe in God be tolerant of people that do. If you believe in God be tolerant of people that don't.

[Edited on November 13, 2005 at 9:48 PM. Reason : -]

11/13/2005 9:44:16 PM

^oh wow, you make it soooo simple, i wish i had thought of that earlier

11/13/2005 9:51:38 PM

this has got to be the dumbest thread I've seen in a while.

11/13/2005 10:01:45 PM

^^So simple, yet no one seems to be able to do it.

11/13/2005 10:07:03 PM

Quote :

"Pascal's wager?"

Pascal's wager could be used to justify any number of other stupid ideas.

So let me ask you this question, do you believe in unicorns? because if you do the unicorns will give you lost of happiness when you die the unicorns will spear you for eternity. According to Pascal's wager you should, and I have an infinate amount of other religions you should subscribe to.
And I've got another question, do you really think god has such loopholes? Do you really think heaven is a beauracracy?

11/13/2005 10:51:21 PM

Quote :

"According to Pascal's wager you should"

That is why it is called Pascal's wager. I'll take the gamble on the unicorns.

Quote :

"and I have an infinate amount of other religions you should subscribe to."

True. But I guess partial credit for showing your work is better than nothing

Quote :

"And I've got another question, do you really think god has such loopholes? Do you really think heaven is a beauracracy?"

What does the atheist have to worry about? There isn't a heaven, right?

[Edited on November 14, 2005 at 7:27 AM. Reason : -]

11/14/2005 7:26:36 AM

Quote :

"i only report what i see right here, on the wolfweb [Edited on November 13, 2005 at 6:33 PM. Reason : ps, its not hypocrisy] [Edited on November 13, 2005 at 6:37 PM. Reason : tryin somethin]"

your point is lost on me i guess, i cant see how it isnt hypocrisy or what you are trying. if you've got some ace up your sleeve or sarcasm tag that needs throwing out, please do so now.

"it is bad that we characterize christians by the zealots but perfectly acceptible to characterize nonbeleivers as those who mock and scorn religion because."

at least you have anecdotal evidence to prove it 100%

11/14/2005 9:56:50 AM

because hypocrisy is the practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess. i don't profess anything i don't actually hold as a belief.

its just the word choice you were wrong on. hypocrisy gets thrown around so much in arguments of religion that the meaning of the word is lost.

and i wasn't being as sarcastic as i was hyperbolic. there was definite irony to my post, which you pointed out, so i reneg on that aspect of it. as someone who considers himself a Christian, i get pretty tired of headcases, cynics, and kids with an ax to grind being blatantly discriminatory towards my faith. aside from this sordid little hellhole we call the wolfweb, the majority of the nonchristians i meet are for the most part alright people... and i'll be the first to admit i've met more christians who i didnt like than i can possibly count.

so i dont necessarily characterize all nonbelievers as debaucherous sinners, just the ones who are loud, obnoxious, and hold what are ultimately oppressive points of view. just as i am concerned with how my fellow christians represent themselves (i hate bible beaters), i think the vast majority of the agnostic community should be concerned with their own "anti-bible beaters." even the most harsh critic of religion, the science community, has those among them that respect and even observe religion, and those that openly criticize, and question the intelligence of anyone that's the least bit spiritual... and the same can be said vice versa.

i do admit i'm backpedalling, but only because you're right, i did make a hasty generalization back there.

11/14/2005 10:11:20 AM