• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Existence is always 50/50

viole

Ontological Naturalist
Premium Member
Supposing God exists as the first cause, why does he exist? If he was not created and was always there, was it not just a 50/50 chance that he existed in order for the universe to exist? Either he would've existed or he wouldn't of. If you're to say that God had to exist, that there was no other way, could you explain why?

And the same applies for a universe without a creator. The fact that it exists was simply a flip of a coin. There just happens to be something over nothing.

Either way existence is 50/50.

Obviously not.

Consider the following claims:

1) the blue fairy exists
2) superman exists
3) mickey mouse exists

Theoretically, since we are not sure that they do not exist, the temptation is to attribute 50% chance to each of those points.

But that would provide a probability of more than 50% that at least one of them exists. How much is left as an exercise.

Actually, i could make the list arbitrarily long with total nonsense, that cannot be proven to be wrong, and show that the probability that at least one point in the list is true, is arbitrarily close to 100%. The same if we are more conservative and use, say, 10% chance.

But this is absurd. Therefore, agnosticism is forced to attribute arbitrarily low probabilities about positive claims without evidence, if it does not want to defeat itsself. Ergo, the logically coherent agnostic is equivalent to a strong atheist.

Ciao

- viole
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Neat! That means we can say that none of those killed by nations of other state religions were killed for religion either.
State religion? How can a lack of belief, with no doctrines, clergy, ceremonies or goals be considered either a religion or a motivating force?
These dictators were Right Wing Authoritarians/Social Dominants. The religion of power was their motivation, not atheism.
Right-wing authoritarianism - Wikipedia
Social dominance orientation - Wikipedia
 

Pete in Panama

Well-Known Member
...the history of religious wars is testament to that. The christian hatred....
killers.png

...none of those dictatorships killed anyone in the name of atheism. They did it for power....
Neat! That means we can say that none of those killed by nations of other state religions were killed for religion either...
State religion? ...
Let's look at nations with established State Atheism in order of their murderous viciousness:
First China (from State atheism - Wikipedia ):
...Xi Jinping, stated that members of the Communist Party of China must be "unyielding Marxist atheists" while in the same month, a government-sanctioned demolition work crew drove a bulldozer over two Chinese Christians who protested the demolition of their church by refusing to step aside...
Next, The Soviet Union:
State atheism, (gosateizm, a syllabic abbreviation of "state" (gosudarstvo) and "atheism" (ateizm)), was a major goal of the official Soviet ideology.[42] To that end, the regime expropriated church property, publication of information against religious beliefs and the official promotion of anti-religious materials in the education system.

After the Russian Civil War, the state used its resources to stop the implanting of religious beliefs in nonbelievers and remove "prerevolutionary remnants" that still existed.[42] The Bolsheviks were particularly hostile toward the Russian Orthodox Church (which supported the White Movement during the Russian Civil War) and saw it as a supporter of Tsarist autocracy.[43] During a process of collectivization of land, Orthodox priests distributed pamphlets declaring that the Soviet regime was the Antichrist coming to place "the Devil's mark" on the peasants, and encouraged them to resist the government.[43] Political repression was widespread in the Soviet Union, and while religious persecution was applied to most religions,[44] the regime's anti-religious campaigns were often directed against specific religions based on state interests, that varied over time. The attitude in the Soviet Union toward religion varied from a total ban on some religions to official support of others.

From the late 1920s to the late 1930s, such organizations as the League of Militant Atheists ridiculed all religions and harassed believers.[45] Anti-religious and atheistic propaganda was implemented into every portion of soviet life: in schools, communist organizations such as the Young Pioneer Organization, and the media. Though Lenin originally introduced the Gregorian calendar to the Soviets, subsequent efforts to reorganise the week to improve worker productivity saw the introduction of the Soviet calendar, which had the side-effect that a "holiday will seldom fall on Sunday".[46]

Within about a year of the revolution, the state expropriated all church property, including the churches themselves, and in the period from 1922 to 1926, 28 Russian Orthodox bishops and more than 1,200 priests were killed (a much greater number was subjected to persecution).[44] Most seminaries were closed, and publication of religious writing was banned.[44] The Russian Orthodox Church, which had 54,000 parishes before World War I, was reduced to 500 by 1940.[44] A meeting of the Antireligious Commission of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks) that occurred on 23 May 1929 estimated the portion of believers in the USSR at 80 percent, though this percentage may be understated to prove the successfulness of the struggle with religion.[47]

Despite the Soviet Union's attempts to eliminate religion,[42][48][49] other former USSR and anti-religious nations, such as Armenia,[50] Kazakhstan,[51] Uzbekistan,[52] Turkmenistan,[53] Kyrgyzstan,[54] Tajikistan,[55] Belarus,[56][57] Moldova,[58] and Georgia[59] have high religious populations.[60] Author Niels Christian Nielsen has written that the post-Soviet population in areas which were formerly predominantly Orthodox are now "nearly illiterate regarding religion", almost completely lacking the intellectual or philosophical aspects of their faith and having almost no knowledge of other faiths.[61] Nonetheless, their knowledge of their faith and the faith of others notwithstanding, many post-Soviet populations have a large presence of religious followers.
We could go on to say, Pol Pot but most readers here are aware of what we're looking at.


:
 

Attachments

  • upload_2019-4-8_13-27-5.png
    upload_2019-4-8_13-27-5.png
    27.1 KB · Views: 0

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
@Pete in Panama

Way to ignore facts, the confirmation bias is strong in you.

BTW, the USSR killed or transported more atheists than christians. Stalin was personally responsible for reopening the christian seminary, reinstating the priests and opening over 20,000 churches. He donated millions to thr church in russia and had not 1, not 2 but 3 archpriests officiate at his funeral. Because of his work restarting the church russia now has a christian percentage of population to match america

Hitler was a catholic with vatican backing who was in charge of a majority christian country. It takes many christians to wear all his jack boots. Gott mit uns
 

Pete in Panama

Well-Known Member
...Stalin was personally responsible for reopening the christian seminary, reinstating the priests and opening over 20,000 churches. He donated millions to thr church in russia and had not 1, not 2 but 3 archpriests officiate at his funeral...
Hey super! Maybe we can also prove MaoZedung and Pol Pot were fundamentalist Christians!!!

Seriously pse don't get the impression that I'm at war w/ atheists because there are so many good people who say their atheists. My thinking is simply that we need to also remember that generally most humans are religious (whether they believe in a Supreme Being or not) and my take is that humans are for the most part very good.

Then again, not everyone likes humanity and if that's your bent we can leave it at that and I'll back off:
To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason, and whose philosophy consists in holding humanity in contempt, is like administering medicine to the dead, or endeavoring to convert an atheist by scripture.”

― Thomas Paine, The American Crisis
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
Hey super! Maybe we can also prove MaoZedung and Pol Pot were fundamentalist Christians!!!

Seriously pse don't get the impression that I'm at war w/ atheists because there are so many good people who say their atheists. My thinking is simply that we need to also remember that generally most humans are religious (whether they believe in a Supreme Being or not) and my take is that humans are for the most part very good.

Then again, not everyone likes humanity and if that's your bent we can leave it at that and I'll back off:

Nope, pol pot was a Buddhist but was educated in a christian school. Zedong is the only one who renounce his faith.

Sheesh!!! Being one with humanity does not mean one has to lie to mollify religion. My facts are there to be checked.
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Let's look at nations with established State Atheism in order of their murderous viciousness:
First China (from State atheism - Wikipedia ):Next, The Soviet Union:
We could go on to say, Pol Pot but most readers here are aware of what we're looking at.
But it has nothing to do with religion.

It has everything to do with power.

So do many wars in which religion is actively proclaimed and involved.

You appear to wish to convey a message that religion is necessary for morality. Please correct me if that's wrong.

Meanwhile I'll make this point. Morality doesn't come from religion and religion isn't necessary for morality. If you've ever looked into the matter, you'll know that we've evolved moral tendencies appropriate to gregarious primates who benefit from cooperation ─ child nurture and protection; dislike of the one who harms; fairness and reciprocity; respect for authority; loyalty to the group; and a sense of self-worth / virtue through self-denial. The rest of our morals we get from our upbringing, culture, education and experience.

And that's the case whether we're believers or non-believers.
 

Pete in Panama

Well-Known Member
...nothing to do with religion. It has everything to do with power. So do many wars in which religion is actively proclaimed and involved.

You appear to wish to convey a message that religion is necessary for morality....
Actually, my point is that if we say that bad things done by atheist governments have nothing to do w/ religion, then to be consistent we have to also say that bad things done by theist governments also have nothing to do w/ religion --but then again most folks seem to feel that consistency is highly overrated.

Maybe the problem's one of labels.

Isaac Asimov demanded that his peers meet a very exacting moral standard which he held to be universal and timeless. He did not concern himself w/ a personal God. Buddhism likewise can have a demanding standard of conduct and it's also not concerned w/ the idea of a personal God. Most people say Buddhism is a 'religion'. Not all Humanists are willing to call themselves 'religious'.

It's not a problem of belief, it's a problem of lables.

.
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Maybe the problem's one of labels.
Possibly. The Handmaid is cursed with a theocracy, but on the flip-side would she have felt better about things in One-Baby China? This is one of my concerns flipping through the brochures about Heaven: nowhere does it suggest you can vote the government out, or appeal the decisions of government. As in China, the decisions of government are deemed to be already perfect.
Isaac Asimov demanded that his peers meet a very exacting moral standard which he held to be universal and timeless. He did not concern himself w/ a personal God.
If I recall, he was a pretty driven individual, but I don't think I've read about his moral reasoning.
Buddhism likewise can have a demanding standard of conduct and it's also not concerned w/ the idea of a personal God.
I have lunch once a month or so with my wholly secular Buddhist friend. I find it odd (but he of course doesn't) that when traveling he takes a little meditation pad with him (he wouldn't call it a prayer altar but the psychological parallels are there) with ─ how to phrase it? ─ prompts to meditation?
Most people say Buddhism is a 'religion'. Not all Humanists are willing to call themselves 'religious'.
If humanism is defined as thinking humans are the source of human values, hence human bad and good, I'm a humanist. But these days 'humanism' is associated with values, no two lists of which are the same, so I tend to avoid that square and speak in terms of 'decency' ─ also loosely defined but involving tolerance, inclusion, generosity, kindness, fairness, plain dealing, honesty and reliability, and so on. (Also acceptance that this as a personal standard is aspirational and mishaps are going to occur.)
It's not a problem of belief, it's a problem of labels.
We can work on that. More things are kept snafu'd by imprecise understanding than this world dreams of.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
Supposing God exists as the first cause, why does he exist? If he was not created and was always there, was it not just a 50/50 chance that he existed in order for the universe to exist? Either he would've existed or he wouldn't of. If you're to say that God had to exist, that there was no other way, could you explain why?

And the same applies for a universe without a creator. The fact that it exists was simply a flip of a coin. There just happens to be something over nothing.

Either way existence is 50/50.

This blavk and white either / or binary thinking is so typical
of fundamentalists
 

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
My facts are there to be checked.
Just about every version of religion selfishly considers there faith to be correct to the exclusion of others

Hi Christine,

I hope I have demonstrated that I am not fundie, and that I am a reasonable person in spite of losing my cool from time to time.

I also appreciate and I am grateful that i am not persecuted for my beliefs or non-beliefs. I am aware that this lack of persecution is ever-present in my bias; however, I do appreciate the reminders.

Most respectfully: I think in review of the facts you have presented, the pattern of violence you presented in Post#38 ( link below ) has been perpetrated by fundamentalists.

hyperlink >>> Post#38

I think what you are observing about religion is correct. But I think you are not recognizing the grey area, the silent majority of religious people who are the combined total of moderates and liberals.

This is because the violent, dominant, fundamentalists have the loudest voices.
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
Hi Christine,

I hope I have demonstrated that I am not fundie, and that I am a reasonable person in spite of losing my cool from time to time.

I also appreciate and I am grateful that i am not persecuted for my beliefs or non-beliefs. I am aware that this lack of persecution is ever-present in my bias; however, I do appreciate the reminders.

Most respectfully: I think in review of the facts you have presented, the pattern of violence you presented in Post#38 ( link below ) has been perpetrated by fundamentalists.

hyperlink >>> Post#38

I think what you are observing about religion is correct. But I think you are not recognizing the grey area, the silent majority of religious people who are the combined total of moderates and liberals.

This is because the violent, dominant, fundamentalists have the loudest voices.

I consider you to be an honest individual who is usually willing to consider the others guys point. In my view, although this is not unique among religious it is quite rare.

That said, I see the silent "majority", i have friends among them.

But. And this is the big but, being silent doesnt curtail the murderer and genocide in the name of religion.

In that (incomplete) list of religious wars it can only be that the silent "majority" were there following the fundies and cheering them along.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
Wikipedia lists as the world's third largest religion something they call Secular/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheism. If we measure the value of a religion in terms of the bad conduct of nations where the religion is supported then we need to remember that nations that have made Atheism their state religion have ended up being the most murderous:

killers.png

On the flip site, when you look at today's least religious secular democracies, like Japan and Sweden, you see high societal indexes, very little crime, etc.

While the US, arguable the most religious secular democracy, is actually bordering "rogue state" statistics, has multiple gun deaths per day, 1 in 3 adolescent women being raped or otherwise sexually harassed, etc.


Maybe, just maybe, there is more to these numbers then just religiocity of the society.......

Ever heared the saying "correlation does not imply causation"?

And in this particular case, there isn't even a correlation at all.... since the most secular, irreligious democracies in the world are also among the very best countries to live in with the best stats and least crime.

So yeah.........


Stalin and Hitler also both had mustaches you know. Something to think about?
 

Pete in Panama

Well-Known Member
...look at today's least religious secular democracies, like Japan and Sweden, you see high societal indexes, very little crime, etc...
The state religion of Japan is Shinto and the Church of Sweden was the official state religion of Sweden until 2000 --it's now the only Scandinavian country w/o an established Christian church.

Just because a nation does not have an established church does not mean the people are atheist. Those wonderful always correct people at Wikipedia (/sarc) say that w/ Sweden in "2015, legally registered Christians comprised 69.9% of the total population." Likewise, some say the reason America is so religious (Pew says only 15.6% are 'no religion') is because there's no gov't run church, instead religion is privatized and consequently more successful, better at meeting consumer's needs.

It's easy to say most wars in history were waged by religious people because humans are more often than not religious ("84 percent of the world population has faith; a third are Christian"). In unusual cases when a nation officially declares itself atheist (like USSR, China, North Korea, Cuba) then far worse problems arise.
 

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
On the flip site, when you look at today's least religious secular democracies, like Japan and Sweden, you see high societal indexes, very little crime, etc.

While the US, arguable the most religious secular democracy, is actually bordering "rogue state" statistics, has multiple gun deaths per day,
What are the gun laws in Japan and Sweden?

I think the pattern you are observing is not religious.

Unless.... the "Right to keep and bear Arms" is a religion.
 

LIIA

Well-Known Member
yeah but.....are we not altogether .....here
100%
-We are altogether here 100%.

-We, everything around us and the entire universe is causally dependent 100%.

-The cause beyond the Big Bang is essentially of a nature beyond our knowledge/imagination 100%.

-Beyond space-time itself 100%.

-With no beginning, no cause, no limits %100.

- An absolute first existence.
 

Thief

Rogue Theologian
-We are altogether here 100%.

-We, everything around us and the entire universe is causally dependent 100%.

-The cause beyond the Big Bang is essentially of a nature beyond our knowledge/imagination 100%.

-Beyond space-time itself 100%.

-With no beginning, no cause, no limits %100.

- An absolute first existence.
can't say I agree.....because.....
science believes in cause and effect
to which I do agree

science believes the universe (one word) came from a common location
the primordial singularity
to which I do agree

and it all went 'bang'
quietly expanding
right after the pinch and snap of God's fingers
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
What are the gun laws in Japan and Sweden?

I think the pattern you are observing is not religious.

Unless.... the "Right to keep and bear Arms" is a religion.

Correlation does not imply causation and I never said it did.

But it does counter the ridiculous point I was responding.
 
Top