Is there any religious argument that actually stands when scrutinized with reason?

[Mackerni]

Out of interest, have you ever looked into transhumanism? Some aspects of your post suggest you might find it an interesting area to explore.

Everybody says this. Transhumanism is a much more immediate form of my beliefs. Perhaps the most radical belief transhumanists believe is biological immortality. My most radical belief is the belief that everything will obtain the attributes placed on a divine being. That's some form of post-post-post-humanism nobody but me believes.

 

[Erebus]

Everybody says this. Transhumanism is a much more immediate form of my beliefs. Perhaps the most radical belief transhumanists believe is biological immortality. My most radical belief is the belief that everything will obtain the attributes placed on a divine being. That's some form of post-post-post-humanism nobody but me believes.

Fair enough. Looks like I maybe got the wrong end of the stick with your last post then.

 

[Thief]

In all these years debating with religious people I ve never been faced with an argument that I ended up to find challenging or hard to dismantle. They go from the clever ones to nonsense one ( like "cause I feel it in my heart" ) to the most stupid and elementary ones ( like the classic "what if you're wrong" ) but in the end they always can be rejected by use of reason and logic (even if they usually find unsatisfactory those answers cause they dont praise reason and logic ). Maybe I ve been unlucky and found only weak debaters. So my question is both to religious and not religious people

To non believers I ask, Have you ever faced an argument that really represented a challenge for you or that you weren't able to dismantle?

To believers I ask, is there an argument that you think you can present and that no unbeliever has ever been able to provide a good answer to? ( assuming it wasn't only because you would reject every possible explanation going against your faith, like for example creationists rejecting all the arguments against Noah s ark )

science can not say anything about the existence God......
and maybe you have seen the thread of such title?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

So far, no atheist has managed to convince me that theism isn't worth my time. Theism being worth my time is probably the strongest argument there is for me to be a theist. Your mileage may vary. The arguments against theism tend to be centered on either theism being unreasonable (and also presumably, reason being somehow objective and inherently desirable) or some semi-mystical bull about atheists having "the truth." I've seen very few practical arguments in favour of atheism and, so far, none that could convince me that my own theism is no longer worth it.

I've never once ever heard any atheist state "semi-mystical bull about having the truth". Also, what does "being worth my time" mean? Is belief in unicorns worth your time? If not, why not?

I maintain an agnostic approach. To me, the truth of god/s existence is inherently unknowable. I hold this position for a few reasons:
1. Humans are imperfect and so their perception of the universe is also likely to be imperfect.

This doesn't mean you can't know of the existence of a God. What's more, if your perception is imperfect (or, at least, imperfect enough to support your claim that God's existence is unknowable), then how can you possibly make any claim whatsoever about God - including the claim that their existence is unknowable?

2. The universe is so vast and so little has been explored that it strikes me as arrogant for our species to assume we've arrived at some great truth about it.

And yet you claim that God's existence is true. Atheists don't necessarily make any truth claim, and by this standard you are being more arrogant than they are. Also, I find it incredibly ironic that you're calling people arrogant for assuming they've arrived at "some great truth" , when you yourself are asserting the truth of the claim that God's existence is inherently unknowable. That is a truth claim, and an extremely baseless one at that.

3. I consider doubt to be a more intellectually honest position than certainty.

Belief and disbelief are separate from doubt and certainty. You can believe something and still be uncertain, just as you can disbelieve something and be uncertain. None of these three arguments support your claim that God's existence in "inherently unknowable", and in fact seem to contradict the actual premise of your argument rather than support it.

So, the truth of god/s is unknowable. More than that, truth itself is likely unknowable. Whether you lean towards theism or atheism at this point is pretty much entirely down to personal taste. I've always been fascinated by mythology and folklore, so I decided to incorporate various pagan gods into my worldview. For the most part, this is largely expressed through a sort of nature worship. Thor literally is thunder, Poseidon is the sea, Erebus is darkness and so on. Incorporating these archetypes into the way I view the world enriches my life, it adds an extra hint of poignancy to the natural world. Theism suits me fine.

How? How does applying labels improve your understanding in any way? What does referring to Thor as "lightning" do to enrich or improve your understanding of either lightning or the concept of Thor? How is your definition of Thor any different to my definition of "lightning" and why is it meaningful to arbitrarily designate that particular label to something that already has a perfectly suitable definition?

Atheism on the other hand is ... well it's just boring.

Sure, it's much better to just make up whatever you want to believe and claim it enriches your life. If your only barometer for what you believe whether or not it personally entertains you, then you're welcome to indulge in whatever beliefs you want (while hypocritically criticising people for asserting any kind of truth value in any claim you happen to find personally "boring").

It's certainly preferable to some forms of zealous theism, but for somebody like myself? I've honestly never seen a good reason to drop my theism.

How about its utter lack of support?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

For example, I can ask and receive pretty decent answers as to why Catholicism is the true faith or why Mormonism Is the true faith or why the JW's have the truth of it. And yet I don't accept any of those beliefs.

I've maintained for quite a while now that if the claims that a person accepts are no better supported than mutually exclusive claims that the person doesn't accept, then their standard for acceptance of a claim is demonstrably too low.

 

[Thief]

like claiming there is no God?......

 

[Erebus]

I've never once ever heard any atheist state ...

Nope.

I've been on this roundabout before. Find somebody else to vent your frustrations on.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

There's a third thing going on, which is probably the most severe problem at all when it comes to dialogues about religions in my culture. That's people generally missing the point of religion in the first place such that they think "arguments" grounded on reason and logic are what matters.

No, reality is what matters. Religions (generally) make objective claims about the nature, makeup and/or origin of reality which are largely determining factors in the tenets and practices they espouse. Objective claims about reality may be either true or false, and as such are open to investigation on their individual merits. Also, I think the idea of "missing the point of religion" is little more than a red herring, since you cannot honestly tell me that there is a singular, objective point to all religious beliefs and claims. Please demonstrate exactly what "the point" of religion is and how you came to this conclusion.

Some people have this bizarre notion that it is appropriate to analyze religions as if they were hard science.

Science is a methodology used to ascertain as best we can an objective understanding of the how the world we live in operates. Religions (generally) make claims about how the world we live in operates. Sometimes, religions make claims that we can actually test or rationalize to conclude that they are most likely false or true. In the exact same way that politics isn't "hard science", if a politician wants to stand on a policy of pumping asbestos into nurseries because he believes it will make babies super-humanly intelligent, a reasonable response to criticism of that claim is not that it is somehow exempt from the investigation that contradicts it because "Some people have this bizarre notion that it is appropriate to analyze politics as if they were hard science". As long as any ideology makes objective claims about reality, they should be subject to analysis, investigation and reasoning.

This is quite frankly befuddling. The arts - of which religions have much more in common with - are not and never have been about enshrining Enlightenment-era values that our culture seems to love putting on a pedestal nowadays.

"The arts" makes no claims about objective reality that can be subject to investigation. The claim that the earth is flat is a claim that can, and should, be investigated, be it a claim on religious grounds or otherwise. There is no "claim" being made by the Mona Lisa that can be investigated for truth value. Religions can and do make such claims, and these claims deserve to be investigated.

It has

never been about Enlightenment-style "reason" as much as experience and emotion and storytelling and community. That we don't see the emotional, personal, artistic, and social benefits of religion to be reason enough for them, I think that speaks very poorly of our society and we need to bring back the Romantics.

I don't doubt that religion has these benefits, but I fail to see why the tangible benefits of a false belief justify that believe when you can establish a cause that is distinct from the belief itself. If the belief is false, then surely the cause of that benefit must lie elsewhere in something other than that which is believed, and would it not advance all of these causes immeasurably to seek out THAT cause rather than cling to the false belief itself?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Nope.

I've been on this roundabout before. Find somebody else to vent your frustrations on.

If you can't or won't support your claims, don't make them.

 

[Theunis]

Okay this isn't really an argument but a wisdom found in the Old Testament - As you believe so it will be unto you -. Who is going to try to refute this statement?

Who can refute the Golden Rule as found in the sermon on the mount?

Oh yes what about Genesis 1:26 where creation and evolution walk hand in hand.

 

[Augustus]

I don't doubt that religion has these benefits, but I fail to see why the tangible benefits of a false belief justify that believe when you can establish a cause that is distinct from the belief itself. If the belief is false, then surely the cause of that benefit must lie elsewhere in something other than that which is believed, and would it not advance all of these causes immeasurably to seek out THAT cause rather than cling to the false belief itself?

Can you give an example of an objectively 'true' belief system that provides all of the benefits of religions?

 

[leibowde84]

Atheists have a belief about God. You answet the question "is there a God or gods?" With no. You dont say "I cant answer"

Many atheists would, in fact, answer "I don't have sufficient evidence to believe in the existence of God. My mind is open to the possibility, but I am withholding belief until the evidence presents itself".

 

[leibowde84]

science can not say anything about the existence God......
and maybe you have seen the thread of such title?

Then why do you constantly use the notion of "cause and effect" to substantiate your belief in God rationally?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Can you give an example of an objectively true belief system that provides all of the benefits of religions?

A single belief system? No. But that doesn't change one iota of my argument. Science has provided all of the supposed benefits of religions in a far more direct, tangible, measurable way and on a far greater scale, so to eschew science in favour of religious adherence because religion has those benefits is utterly absurd. It's like saying you'd rather be made happy by getting drunk rather than being made happy by being cured of your terminal illness.

 

[Augustus]

Science has provided all of the supposed benefits of religions in a far more direct, tangible, measurable way

Any actual evidence for this?

I'd love to read it.

 

[MMarcoe]

To believers I ask, is there an argument that you think you can present and that no unbeliever has ever been able to provide a good answer to? ( assuming it wasn't only because you would reject every possible explanation going against your faith, like for example creationists rejecting all the arguments against Noah s ark )

Yes. In Buddhism, we are asked to use empirical investigation to determine whether the Buddha's teachings actually work. We are also asked to use observation to learn how the mental faculties work and to see whether there is an abiding self in all of that.

Buddhism is a religion, by the way. It is considered a non-theistic one by most, although many Buddhists believe in a god. Some Buddhists equate nirvana with God.

This is my first post here, and I expect civil dialogue on all sides. After writing 25,000+ posts on Beliefnet.com before it closed its forums this fall, I am hoping to find a good forum to replace it. Facebook has been a bit of a letdown in that regard.

 

[LuisDantas]

Welcome to RF, MMarcoe!

 

[viole]

In all these years debating with religious people I ve never been faced with an argument that I ended up to find challenging or hard to dismantle. They go from the clever ones to nonsense one ( like "cause I feel it in my heart" ) to the most stupid and elementary ones ( like the classic "what if you're wrong" ) but in the end they always can be rejected by use of reason and logic (even if they usually find unsatisfactory those answers cause they dont praise reason and logic ). Maybe I ve been unlucky and found only weak debaters. So my question is both to religious and not religious people

To non believers I ask, Have you ever faced an argument that really represented a challenge for you or that you weren't able to dismantle?

To believers I ask, is there an argument that you think you can present and that no unbeliever has ever been able to provide a good answer to? ( assuming it wasn't only because you would reject every possible explanation going against your faith, like for example creationists rejecting all the arguments against Noah s ark )

No. None whatsoever. I think I can dismantle all of them.

Belief in God It is a matter of faith and hope, not proof. And I am being biblical correct here.

Ciao

- viole

 

[leibowde84]

Any actual evidence for this?

I'd love to read it.

It seems unreasonable to request evidence for EVERY single benefit, but can you provide a benefit from religion that cannot be fulfilled using the scientific method?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Any actual evidence for this?

I'd love to read it.

Medicine, agriculture, electricity, biology, sociology, psychology, nutrition, lasers, microprocessors, mass production, communication technology, sanitation and photographic imaging.

There you go. A small list of tangible benefits that have come from science that have vastly improved global understanding, happiness, storytelling and community, as well as saved and improved countless lives.

Now, do you have any actual evidence for the benefits of religion?