The War on Religion

[tttppp]

You mean people like Ron Paul. The man whose name is at the top of these forums?



Ok, guys, what is wrong with you? Do you not even realize that Ron Paul is a devout Christian?

No one cares if you are not, but please have some decorum and stop insulting people who are.

Religion is one thing I disagree with Ron Paul on. Just because he's Ron Paul, doesn't mean he's right on this topic.

 

[Humanae Libertas]

RP unlike some other nutjobs, doesn't try to ram God and religion when it comes to politics.

 

[VIDEODROME]

Okay relating a little more to the topic, is there a way the religious and secular communities can co-exist and tolerate each other?

It seems like there is unavoidable friction between these different groups. Using religious holidays like Christmas for example, I'm not sure the secularists have anything against it as a celebration. However, there comes a point where it feels like it pushed on the whole population.

It might be interesting to discuss where Atheists are fine with Christmas and at one point it bothers them and seems to go to far.

I tend to think publicly funded displays of the Christmas trees are fine because that is more of general winter festivity symbol that doesn't seem directly linked to Christianity. It may have vague pagan roots but I'm not sure anyone really cares other then if there are presents under it for them.

Otherwise, if it goes beyond that to using public property and funding to display a Nativity scene I can imagine Atheists/Secularists being very annoyed.

I would have concerns about that. I might think it's fine if an organization paid for a display permit and paid for the space. Also, also long as any other religion can do the same. But I think using tax money to pay for it would be wrong.

 

[sailingaway]

OK, there is a REASON there is a religious forum. We SHOULD be able to discuss these things in a civilized fashion, but it doesn't always work out that way.

 

[Elfshadow]

Are you being deliberately obtuse? He never said a word about "every god that everyone has ever thought up".

Matt gave you the answer: the name of God is "I AM".

But his reasoning applies to all religions. There for it would mean they all exist. Which is possible because we can not even prove that the world or universe really exists. Some of the stranger theories lead to the idea that we are all just projections from the outer rim of an event horizon. Theoretical physics are fun stuff.

 

[Elfshadow]

That's not true. The universe is demonstrably finite by nature. God is not.

really? At this point in time the universe being finite is just a hypotheses. We have some evidence that supports it but there are theories. To be blunt. God is not finite by nature only because we have no evidence to suggest anything about what a being would be like. Here is a thought. this universe is simply an experiment being run in another universe to see where their own came from. If some of the theories suggested such as the big bang being the result of a black hole in another universe hold any water it is a possablity. So many things to think about when we have these sorts of discussions.

 

[Elfshadow]

By definition, there can only be one infinite, omnipotent and omnipresent being.

Why? What is your reasoning to back that up?

 

[Elfshadow]

God is not shackled by the material universe. He is outside of space, time, matter and energy. These things are finite. In order to exist, God does not need to be of a finite, material nature like we experience in this world. Evidence of His being is supported by the idea that the universe itself is finite and had to come from somewhere. We must presuppose the laws of being because there is simply no other way we can remain consistent. Atheism must presuppose the non-compliance of the universe with the laws of natural being, and must also answer the question of what triggered the first event if not an infinite intelligent source.

We do not know the true nature of the universe. We could all be simulations running in the matrix and never know it. Of course that gives credence to the idea of a creator. A great programmer maybe. No one knows the true nature of the universe, because we can only observe it with our physical senses, which can be fooled.

 

[tttppp]

RP unlike some other nutjobs, doesn't try to ram God and religion when it comes to politics.

But most politicians do. Most of them pimp their family and religion and expect us to vote for them simply because they have a family and go to church.

 

[tttppp]

By definition, there can only be one infinite, omnipotent and omnipresent being.

Technically in infinity there are an infinite amount of Gods, none of which created the universe.

 

[tttppp]

God is not shackled by the material universe. He is outside of space, time, matter and energy. These things are finite. In order to exist, God does not need to be of a finite, material nature like we experience in this world. Evidence of His being is supported by the idea that the universe itself is finite and had to come from somewhere. We must presuppose the laws of being because there is simply no other way we can remain consistent. Atheism must presuppose the non-compliance of the universe with the laws of natural being, and must also answer the question of what triggered the first event if not an infinite intelligent source.

If the universe is infinite, there was no event that created the universe, the universe always existed.

Additionally, if God is infinite, then our universe is part of infinity.

 

[July]

Okay relating a little more to the topic, is there a way the religious and secular communities can co-exist and tolerate each other?

There is... by decentralizing govt, and returning sovereignty back to the individual states and local communities. The larger and more centralized the state, the more flattening out of diversity there will ultimately be, as a matter of necessity for the state to maintain its size.

 

[1stAmendguy]

He is the very fabric of existence of the universe, not some finite bearded "man in the sky" as many atheists so foolishly try to portray Him.

Who was He? Why did He create us? What does He want us to do?

It seems you're also anthropomorphizing your God. Do you not see your own contradiction here?

 

[Toxic]

I don't like religion being torn down by anyone, but I also don't like people forcing it down anyone's throats either. Too many politicians mix religion and politics and that's what often accelerates this "war." I like religion, but I don't want my politicians acting like preachers.

 

[KingNothing]

Technically in infinity there are an infinite amount of Gods, none of which created the universe.

"only one infinite" doesnt even make sense.

 

[KingNothing]

It seems you're also anthropomorphizing your God. Do you not see your own contradiction here?

Of course he doesn't. He managed to string one logical fallacy together after another - there is no way that he notices the irrationality that you pointed out.

 

[Southron]

I don't like religion being torn down by anyone, but I also don't like people forcing it down anyone's throats either. Too many politicians mix religion and politics and that's what often accelerates this "war." I like religion, but I don't want my politicians acting like preachers.

Your religion is part of your worldview. Even non-believers can't approach the world from a neutral position. And asking them to do that would be asking them to be hypocrites.

Personally, I like to know where politicians get the basis for their morals, political thought etc. I think the problem is hypocrisy and I have no problem with anyone calling it out when it rears its head.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

I appreciate that you've adopted a dark ages style of reasoning. "Oh this cant be explained now, and therefore can never be explained. QED, God did it."

That's not what I said and you know it. Also, you can't justify explaining something now by saying it could possibly be explained sometime in the future. That's fine, but you really shouldn't try to explain it until that time in the future when you can explain it comes. It is presumptive to say that if something might be explained in the future, then it can or should be believed now.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Special pleading does not win you this debate.

I was simply pointing out the logical fallacy in assuming that God is material and therefore must be limited in the same ways the material universe is. Still nobody has answered how the first event came to be without a cause.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

It gives you a pretty good idea of how the universe came into existence. If it is finite, there is a good chance of God. If its infinite, there is most likely no God. Additionally, infinity would explain explain everything since infinity would imply that all scenarios exist. That would tell you a lot more than reading some history books, which we all know are completly biased. You won't get any real history from them.

I didn't say anything about history books. I said science cannot deal with history. Also, you must define what you mean by "finite" and "infinite". The very existence of natural laws implies that the universe, as far as we know and experience it, is finite.

Secondly, I would argue that the universe cannot be infinite. If you wanted to believe it was infinite, you would still have to explain how the first event came to be that brought all this into existence. It is a logical axiom and a philosophical truth that everything that begins to exist must have a cause. Therefore, there had to have been an original cause.