Who or what created the universe

[Ahriman]

If God is a more complex hypothesis, then it has to shoulder an even greater burden in providing sufficient warrant for assent.  Occams razor lies in wait, otherwise.

How do you figure? Simple concepts are more easily falsifiable than more complex concepts. Let's say I told you, "I ate an apple yesterday", and let's assume you don't know what an apple is, and you asked, "What's an apple?", and I told you, "It's a fruit", but I didn't tell you anything else about what an apple is, and you went and did some research on all different kinds of fruits, trying to find out what an apple is, and you were doing your research based on what I had told you ("It's a fruit"), you wouldn't get very far, because there are all kinds of fruits, and an apple is just one type of fruit, so based on that information (that an apple is a fruit), you might erroneously assume an orange is an apple, or that a peach is an apple, or that a plum is an apple, etc. However, if I had told you that an apple is not only a fruit, but also crunchy, you would have more information to work with, and your list of fruits that might be an apple, would diminish. Vague, simple concepts are easier to falsify than more complex concepts, meaning the simple concepts demand more proof of their authenticity.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Which, as I've already pointed out in the same other thread, is not the same thing. I'm not interested in your sloppy thinking, or your recycled humbug.

You don't think religion's consistent guidelines for behavior and powerful messages that speak to the heart of many humans, both of which helped humanity survive for thousands of years, are beneficial for people? Or do you just not think they're beneficial, anymore?

This is a Pollyanna-ish view of religion which completely ignores its support for bigotries and atrocities, not to mention how religious faith is manipulated by unscrupulous leaders for vile ends.



So no, you still haven't demonstrated that religion is a net positive.

[Ahriman]

Bigotries and atrocities can contribute to a net positive. And some people taking advantage of religious belief for personal gain doesn't really mean anything. Anything can be corrupted for personal gain.

[LinuxGal]

Bigotries and atrocities can contribute to a net positive.

That's it, we're finished.

[Silver]

You ask what is wrong with having a belief in something that the imagination creates.

On the surface, nothing. The issue is when the person is a danger to himself, a psychotic who belongs in an asylum, or someone who is a danger to others, a delusional theist who wants to dictate the lives of others with subjectivity.

Most everyone agrees that children should outgrow childish things, and the same should apply to adults who should outgrow religious (supernatural) irrationality.

[Ahriman]

You ask what is wrong with having a belief in something that the imagination creates.

On the surface, nothing. The issue is when the person is a danger to himself, a psychotic who belongs in an asylum, or someone who is a danger to others,  a delusional theist who wants to dictate the lives of others with subjectivity.

Most everyone agrees that children should outgrow childish things, and the same should apply to adults who should outgrow religious irrationality.

Yeah, that's basically true, and in an optimistic way, no less. But even then, religion itself isn't the problem. It's the way the known world religions are taught. If people could be taught to embrace a religion that expressed absolutely no discrimination of any kind, was intellectually honest, and provided for their material needs (in a real way, not just wishful thinking), I don't see why such a religion should not be allowed to exist and prosper.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

You ask what is wrong with having a belief in something that the imagination creates.

On the surface, nothing. The issue is when the person is a danger to himself, a psychotic who belongs in an asylum, or someone who is a danger to others,  a delusional theist who wants to dictate the lives of others with subjectivity.

Most everyone agrees that children should outgrow childish things, and the same should apply to adults who should outgrow religious irrationality.

Yeah, that's basically true, and in an optimistic way, no less. But even then, religion itself isn't the problem. It's the way the known world religions are taught. If people could be taught to embrace a religion that expressed absolutely no discrimination of any kind, was intellectually honest, and provided for their material needs (in a real way, not just wishful thinking), I don't see why such a religion should not be allowed to exist and prosper.

A religion that was non-discriminatory, intellectually honest, and provided for its members’ needs wouldn’t be a ‘religion’ at all. What you’re wishing for is an idealized humanist state. Good luck with that.

Boru

[Thumpalumpacus]

Bigotries and atrocities can contribute to a net positive. And some people taking advantage of religious belief for personal gain doesn't really mean anything. Anything can be corrupted for personal gain.

[Mister Agenda]

If empowerment is the standard for what we should believe, metaphysical solipsism should get the win. I am the universe and the rest of you have no existence independent of me. Welcome to my world.

[Ahriman]

If empowerment is the standard for what we should believe, metaphysical solipsism should get the win. I am the universe and the rest of you have no existence independent of me. Welcome to my world.

It's an empowering belief, so it's acceptable.