The debate "Religion is invalid from God's perspective. Nemiroff vs Safalcon7. 3 arguments each." was started by
June 4, 2020, 2:51 pm.
By the way, safalcon7 is disagreeing with this statement.
38 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 22 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
Nemiroff posted 12 arguments to the agreers part.
safalcon7 posted 8 arguments to the disagreers part.
jrardin12, PL, Indra_Sharma, AerichJ and 34 visitors agree.
Nemiroff, Darshil, safalcon7 and 19 visitors disagree.
assuming i was areligious out of a lazy/rebellious desire to not follow the rules can be seen as insulting, but what was upsetting was not what you assumed, but the act of confident assuming while being, imo, wrong. if i wanted to be lazy and ignore most of the rule i could become Christian, go to temple one a week, no fasting, no diet or clothing restriction, and confess my way into heaven. im not saying its wrong, im just saying its modern practice is casual. and stricter doesnt necessarily mean right either. the act of invalidating your opponents position by dismissing their character as lazy is a classic superiority trait i often see in theists of all backgrounds.
i would be happy to compare the religions, or to forget the religions altogether and have an apriori discussion of a good god. do you have any comments about my proposed definitions?
however i dont think there needs to be a unity of message. i was greatly influenced by some concepts of the Baha'I faith where god sends not a singular message, but the needed message. the pre-jews were told law and structure, pre-christians were taught tolerance and love, and i believe the overall message of the Quran was unity, please correct me if im wrong. just because the message, and messengers, were different, doesnt mean they contradict. different time, different people, different message, different need.
god didn't predict the afterlife, he created it! the question of reveal is whether he would tell us about it or not. i also never said there is one. but *if* there is, and this life is a test, he probably wouldnt tell us about it.
then there is the question of criteria. what would be the different outcome for someone who frequently puts himself in danger to save lives, and donates large amounts of money to charity with no expectation of reward. forgetting religion, how would a good diety view such a man, and how would he compare to a person who did not do such things, but instead constantly sought to win your praise through persistent prewritten flattery?
no i dont know if there is an afterlife, but the carrot and stick mechanism driven by fear or desire has corrupt humans written all over it. there is one faith that is different: judaism. it does not describe an afterlife at all. it is focused entirely on deeds in this world, and is the only language i know with a dedicated word for good deed: mitzvah.
again I agree with you since now youre being a lot clearer with your views. That's what I've been talking about since the beginning.
I'm glad you?ve brought out the diet paradox. You talked about muslims prohibiting one thing and the hindus permitting the same. That's what I was talking about in the beginning. That if God is one and only, there shouldn?t be so many contradiction in faiths. There should be one singular system laid out in front of our eyes. There should be one singular pathway towards God. Differences in scriptures lead us to the platform of disharmony in faith that we notice but at the same time, isn?t it obvious that the similarities in those texts should stand for something remarkable too? Why don?t we explore those similarities together brother and try to find that original system? Forget religions.
your view of Afterlife though doesnt make sense. God didnt reveal afterlife. He predicted afterlife. Thats a similarity in almost all the scriptures. There is a good place and a bad one. If He didnt predict this what would a simple human mind make out of it? Since you say you believe in or probably are skeptical about afterlife now, you must admit that science certainly cant get hold of it yet. Even if it figures afterlife out by a candles chance in a cyclone in the next hundred years, it still seems unfair to the mankind of the bygone eras to not have known anything about it while they're alive. So, thats where the God's words come in that have informed everyone of that inevitable part of eternity to warn of the deeds they carry out in this part. Simple.
Also, I believe I haven?t offended you in any way brother. But if you feel somehow offended by any of my words, I'm sorry.
let's settle the atheism question since you clearly unable to focus without bringing up this cliche and irrelevant point.
i have faith in the banks, does that make banking a religion?
i have faith the sun will rise, does that make me a sun worshiper?
i have faith in medicine, does that mean medicine is a religion?
clearly, faith in the most general sense by itself is not a religion. meaning that you're definition of religion is incomplete. What are you missing?
please, define religion for me in your own words.
im glad you returned to the conversation, but please, try to read honestly and do not assume my intentions. although it is my experience theists love claiming superiority while at the same time playing victim.
where did i say there are rules "I DID NOT WANT TO FOLLOW". The only rules i brought up were diet restrictions. and when god tells muslims "eat beef, not pork", while telling Hindus "eat pork, not beef", is that a queation of what i want, or what it is god wants? and the explanation for why god banned pork is because it is unhealthy for the heart.... is pork the only thing unhealthy? why did he not ban salt? one of the main contributers to high blood pressure and heart disease? and why exactly does health advice warrant damnation?
this is not about a liberal mindset, its about this not being the word of god, or not the word of a good god.
furthermore, clarifying definitions is not moving away from the point. these definitions are central to the point (except for your atheism tangent, which is not relevan, but you insist). please acknowledge my defintions or offer alternatives that we may both agree on.
and finally, i said a good god would not REVEAL AN AFTERLIFE to us, i never said he would not create an afterlife for punishment/reward. please, read properly, and don't let your perceived superiority cloud your reading comprehension.
Brother Nemiroff, you certainly have shifted away from the point. On one hand I dont have to remind you how things work. Your problems or disagreements with religion lie within the specific rules you dont want to follow. fine, Thats a liberal mindset I've seen in many. So, you live by the idea that God wouldnt punish or award anyone for what he/she does on this planet. Then I believe the purpose of God and creation of us both go void. Why would God create something He doesn?t have anything to do with? Just to oversee how they play? The concept of afterlife is to promote peace in this life so the believers may refrain from those that are prohibited, and keep the good things flowing in their lives. Now you can say, this peace may be maintained anyway with an objective standpoint set up by the governors. What problem can one have by regarding that governor to be God Himself?
Another point you mentioned is that prohibition on stuff doesn?t make sense. So ban on alcohol, drugs, pork is insensible to you. We go to schools, we aren?t allowed to behave recklessly, gotta maintain the dress code, refrain from any violence, some schools ban cell phones. We go to the office that has certain rules and regulations to itself. We cant show up half naked in there, nor drunken; not that anythings wrong with it according to you because I shouldnt be punished for something thats written but I dont believe. Everything is controlled within a disciplined system. Only when it comes to God, liberals and modernists try to figure out senses behind such a ruling. God's rules are rules whether you like it or not. He asks you to avoid, you avoid. Isn't it what submission to God means? Isn't it what God stands for?
i would also like to settle on a definition of god, as it is central to this debate. i thought my definition would be very acceptable, but it appears you disagree.
let me make some propositions and definitions and let us see if we can agree. these will not be from a dictionary with many options, but a singular specific definition both me and you will agree on.
science: an empirical process of objective attaining knowledge
religion: a set of beliefs and rules based on faith
theism: belief in god
atheism: no belief in god.
i will argue that:
1. faith is not religion
2. science is not religion
1. i shall agree both atheism and theism require faith. heck trusting the bank with my money requires faith. banking is not a religion.
a religion is not faith, a religion is a set of rules and beliefs that are based on faith. atheism does not have a set of rules or beliefs. im assuming by atheists you mean science believers, but not all atheists believe/trust science, and many theists believe in science.
2. science has 2 elements that are based on faith. 1. the assumption that the rules dont change in different parts of space, time, or the whim of some divine being. 2. i cannot recreate every experiment in every field, but since i can have my choice of what speciality/experiment to test/challenge gives me faith in the collection.
beyond that, science has no dogma, is always subject to change, and even though it can tell me pork is bad for me (and why), it will not threaten to punish me for making choices that affect only me.
conclusion: do you disagree with either of my 2 definitions or my 2 distinctions?
i didnt say anything about god wanting "to be found." i said our consciousness is preprogrammed with a near universal agreement of right and wrong that does not include silly dietary suggestions within the scope of morality.
my friend, a faith is not the same as a system of belief based on faith. i have faith the sun will rise tomorrow, that doesnt make me a sun worshiper.
i want to drop the structured format you are seeking. let us simply talk. we have too many technical disagreement to have a focused discussion, and i dont currently have the energy to devote to carefully curated responses. also the long format lends to dropped points such as what i feel is the important question of whether a good god would even want to be worshiped.
i understand responding to everything is difficult, which is why im not sure why we must argue everything simultaneously. it doesnt seem effective.
let us agree on the broader issues of what is religion and god, and other loose ends, and perhaps we can try to tackle the actual issue.
Please proceed with your argument 2 and 3 and mark them so I know when I need to restart with my third argument.
And lack of belief is a faith as well that doesnt subscribe to God but a certain unity in all the atheists- that people are free from the shackles of religions or God and are free in Their choices.
It is relevant because you claim to have found God without scriptures solely by your conscience, it remains to be seen how you would respond to someone who doesn?t find God by his conscience.
i will pause to see if you wish to engage in this what is an atheist tangent before continuing. it is completely irrelevant to the subject at hand, but i would gladly settle this matter in a self contained exchange id you like.
i will add your diet statement in my response to your 1-3 as it is relevant.
a lack of belief is not a belief.
what do atheists believe in?
i was not done with my second round.... i did not address your round 1 part 3 that was actually relevant.
please be patient.
I don?t regard my points to be counterproductive for the sake of arguments. Yes, you?re in a religion whether atheism/agnosticism, yet in later points I proposed how you might be wrong for there should be only one religion/system, others are just some diverted and innovated forms of the true one. You agree to the necessity of the religion but not the God oriented religion which I went on to question you by in next two parts.
You sailed for the same target again by saying that your perception of God is automatic and your conscience is enough to distinguish between right and wrong with no message needed from God. So, according to you most of the nomads and aborigines who have been devoid of civilization are right in what they do even though they're wrong according to your moral codes. If scriptures hadn?t been descended, no one would have the idea of objective morality and thus fall into an eternal chaos. Like eating pork and drinking alcohol are forbidden according to the Abrahamic faiths because of their negative sides overriding their positive sides. If scriptures didn?t announce that, people would resort to subjectivity and continue consuming these items in large quantity.
Additionally, the image of an all prevading God would also be unavailable without a scripture. If you believe in one God because your conscience says so, I wonder how you would fare in a debate against an atheist whose conscience doesnt inform him of a God at all.
Religion is a fixed yet flexible form of a system. Now, when you say there's no need of it in this context you?re arguing that God has created us with no purpose whatsoever. Again, it takes me to point out that you?re defining a God on your own terms whereas He is more knowledgable than we are and more powerful than we conceive Him to be according to you also. So, why should we be the one to test if He's good or bad? Shouldnt it be the other way around? He sent upon His creations to have a 60-years life and for what? Religion basically combines a set of rules authorized by God Himself. Why would you subscribe to any government or social system but not to a religious system? Because it?s governor is unseen? Then your concept of God is failing because to you, being unseen means no authority at all.
Thus, I sum up my second argument in defense of a religion by stating that
Religion enforces objective morality through divine texts which eases the day-to-day maintenance of human life as God, the invincible wills.
there were many irrelevant parts to your response. for example, even if you prove atheism (a lack of belief) is a religion (a system of belief), all you proven is religion can easily be man made and completely seperate from god.I think we should enforce the 1 post rule to encourage concise and only the strongest of points be presented. a small follow up to finish a point is ok, but this was too much and not all relevant.
I shall take this opportunity to tie up a few more tangents before making an official rebuttal.
Benefits of religion:
yes religion was benefitial to man as a system of control and order before accepted government and civil society, but that is a likely outcome of human activity. i wish to explore this from the perspective of benefit to God rather than to man. a heiarchy of power is one similarity of all religions, and that doesnt seem particularly godly.
the properties of God:
religious texts do not claim god to be unimaginably powerful and knowledgeable, they claim him to be infinity and perfect. i did not go that far. although to primitive man, or even us today, would we be able to tell the difference? let us simply the definition a bit.
1. he is the creator. if not, we are back to a natural explanation, and with that i agree. if he is the creator of us and all, then by default, relative to us, he is unimaginably powerful and knowledgeable.
2. he is good. because if he is not, then all logic is mute, all evidence is corrupt, we came to existence with memories 2 seconds ago and will die in 5 minutes. an evil god can be an intentionally deceptive god, and all possibilities are on the table. for the sake of reason, let him be at least moderately good.
thus we return to a being of unimaginable knowledge and power, who is the creator and is good. an apriori conclusion that references no religious texts. shall we agree? or will we continue to knitpick details that are actually counterproductive to your defense of religion?
Argument 1 Part 3
Now to the most important turning point of yours- the necessity/validity of scriptures. You are leaning towards the idea that all religious scriptures are man made or man interpreted with no spiritual basis whatsoever. It is true that the scriptures do disagree on certain sectors. But it seems to me that if these disagreements were lifted, you would concentrate on the messages for their uniformity. For that purpose, shouldn?t we look at the other part of the coin? Shouldn?t we then look for the similarities between the scriptures? So, if disagreements among scriptures accounted for invalidity of a religion, shouldn?t the agreements stand for something remarkably genuine as well? I will rejoin on such similarities of religious scriptures and texts in my next arguments.
So, here I rest my first argument on necessity and validity of religion from God's perspective. I have presented that-
1. Everyone is in a religion whether he acknowledges it or not even by not following God.
2. Religion is necessary from a social and personal standpoint.
3. Religions in plural may have no point of validity but from God's perspective, there should be one singular system available.
4. God is omnifarious and so He doesn?t have to answer to our questions but we have to follow his lead and thus a religious structure is born.
5. Texts and scriptures must have a common route to trace back to the one singularity mentioned above.
*Pardon me for my elongated discussion mainly owing to needed rebuttals*
Argument 1 Part 2
Now, lets talk the validity of a religion. As far as Im concerned, I don?t think of you as an athiest; rather you might be a glorified agnostic (pardon my assumptions) in which case it will be easier for me to connect with you. Because you walk with me on the validity of religions in plural. If there was one singular system from the alpha of time and space, I dont think you would have a problem. For the most part here I agree with you. For me, religions in plural are useless whereas there should be only one universal system for one universal God. So, I'll argue with that part.
Let's strike your points. First, you said that God is an unimaginable, powerful and good being. Yet on your third point, you argued that all those supernatural stories in religious scriptures are only for the sake of stories to keep people glued. It's rather contradictory because you believe God to be supernatural but dont believe God can do those supernatural stuff and he's actually lying to keep people overwhelmed. I admit that some of the narrations in the Bible and in Hinduism are pretty mythical and out of touch; so happens when polytheism is being discussed with fantasized insertion. But not all of them can be ruled out. God means a faith and if you dont have it, you cant claim that He is God. You are defining Him to be incomprehensible and accusing Him of the same which is not expected at all.
Coming to your fourth point where you stick in the term "Good God". Yet again you have contradicted yourself with your own concept of God. If God is a super being in control, why does He have to be put in a test of Good/Bad by His own creation? You are indicating that since God in all the faiths asks Himself to be worshipped, He can't be the God you believe He should be. So, you?re calling him unimaginable and at the same time are binding him with your laws and your self-appeases. Why He should be worshipped begs for an elaborate discussion which I will come to in my later arguments. But to sum up, He is who He is and we have to understand that we are clocked by Him; not He by us.
(Part 3 in next post)
First let's see what religion is. I believe you prefer Merriam-Webster's dictionary. So here's a link:
Here b(2) is a bit messy because it already refers to religious before defining religion. Other definitions are quite on spot I think. According to #4, your belief in God and not in other aspects also indicates towards a religion of your own like atheism is a religion (faith) as well. So, here you actually are in a religion, yet are debating against its validity.
Now when you mentioned religion to be unnecessary, you?re resorting to subjectivity while the debate is on validity of it where you have to resort to facts. But I'm going to cover both to make everyone understand my points.
As far as the necessity goes I'd like to reflect on the functionalist perspective of religion based on the work of Emile Durkheim on religion. Mr. Durkheim although wasn?t the most religious man, he pointed out only the beneficiary aspects of religion in a society. For him, religion is what binds people in harmony in a society, promotes social control by enforcing moral codes and ethics and answers existential questions from an objective standpoint. So, to ensure social cohesion, religion is a powerful tool according to him regardless of whichever faith it may be. He also proposed that religion is a form of collective intelligence of the mass in a society to solve problems together. So, socially, religion defends its believers from internal conflict by being celebrated within and from external attacks as well.
Now, let's narrow down to individual experience. Hundreds of studies and statistics have already proven that people with belief in and devotion to God are less stressed ans depressed than the disbelievers. The Legatum Prosperity Index shows that people following a religion are more satisfied with their lives than their counterparts. Psychologists have always leaned on to the importance of religion to achieve self-actualization which according to Kurt Goldstein is the full potential of a human being and according to Abraham Maslow's hierarchy the highest level of psychological development in a person. Makes sense.
This is my first part of first argument. Don't reply yet. I have presented a subjective necessity of religion in this part. In the next part I will try to present the validity of religion from factual and spiritual point of view also by putting up some rebuttal against your doubts. Thanks.
you copied too long of a text. if you must quote alot, try going to the website instead of the app.
great. let me clarify my position.
first let us define god. varying religions give god different qualities and personalities, but in general there are some agreed upon characteristics. he is a being of unimaginable power, knowledge, and lifespan; possibly infinite. he is the creator of the universe. and he is good.
beyond that, the religions all disagree. how he created the world, the message he sent, who delivered his message, and how he is to be celebrated. thus, i want to put the texts aside, and do an apriori examination of this good being who can do anything.
first, i will argue that religion is unnecessary. that god, who created us from the most fundamental level, can build in a sense of what is good and what is bad. there is no need for books and priests to tell you this, once the brain matures, you already know. you have the will to deny it, but your conscience is there. it already exists, in every human across cultures. mission accomplished.
second i will argue that god spoke to early civilization man, just learning walls and wars. informing these savages of powerful knowledge could result in an increase of destruction and suffering. the poetic descriptions of miraculous deeds in religious texts (especially genesis in the old testament) are clearly a short stories to satisfy human curiosity and maintain their interest for the important subject: how to not treat one another. everything beyond that is more than likely storytelling.
thirdly is an extension of #2, but religion is not the direct word of god, but man's interpretation of the word of god. not only do we have the problems of copies and translations, but even the original just transcription is likely just as faulty. a simple suggestion to eat less pork because its bad for you turned pork into a sin equivalent to theft and greed (hypothetical example).
and finally. would a good god even want to be worshipped? i understand the moral guide, but the ceremonies and prayers seem less like a good god, and more like vain humans seeking to maintain power over their flock.
thus i hope i made strong arguments in favor of a) a good god would not create religion, and b) religion is clearly not made by a good god. inspired, maybe, but deeply misguided.
I'm here! I'm not entirely sure what this debate is about as the topic seems to be begging the question in favour of religion, but as long as you're both on board I have no issues.
Welcome ladies and gentleman to this debate on
Religion is Invalid from God's Perspective
Nemiroff (For) vs Safalcon7 (Against)
3 Arguments Each
Nemiroff will start off with opening statement.
Allirix (If youre there, feel free to moderate)