A Civil discussion about Religion

[Glitch]

I think religious people and atheists are playing different games. Atheists scream that there's no evidence, whilst religious individuals scream that it's not about evidence. I think these views are entirely inconsolable and it is nearly impossible to break someone from their point of view using those arguments.

I imagine that every atheist has had a point where they sat and examined thoroughly the facts and the ideas behind the concepts and then made a value judgement on how important blind faith is. To be an atheist is to find blind faith to be something negative. Whereas a religious person will likely see blind faith as a positive attribute.

I am reminded of a story about a biochemical scientist; this individual was brought up in a deeply religious household, and while training to be a biochemist and earning his PhD he picked up a large number of contradictions that bothered him deeply. One day this man sat down in his living room and proceeded to cut out everything in the bible that he know from his education was plainly not true. At the end of this task he was left with a very thin book that was nothing but here say and short stories. At this point he had a decision to make; he was too intelligent to brush this under the rug and go on like normal, he had to choose, abandon his career and all of the knowledge he has learnt as part of his PhD, or abandon religion.

He chose religion.

Now, as an person (not an atheist) I find that very depressing; the man abandoned his dream, his livelihood, and essentially, a huge portion of his education, simply because he'd been born to a religious family. I imagine a religious individual would find this a positive outcome for different reasons, although I cannot imagine them myself.

What does religion provide to people? I personally do not accept that consolation for the death of a loved one, or even fear of death, is an acceptable answer. For me to claim that as such would be like saying "Well, I don't need it, but I'm sure some people do" and that is nothing short of arrogance.

I am afraid of death. I am afraid that one day I will cease. I'm also slightly saddened by the idea that one day everything will end, the entire universe will die in a heat death that no one can prevent. However, it is a fear that I use to drive me forward, one that keeps me moving and working so that one day, many years after I shuffle off my mortal coil, some one will say my name and it will cause a smile.

And I think that idea beats anything religion has offered me so far.

[STM]

Religion means we're where we are today at a literary and mathematical level. Without monasteries, churches, abbeys and Islamic temples, we would simply be at least 300 years behind where we are today in the fields of reading, writing and arithmetic. In the dark ages, religious institutions were the only place in the Islamic and European world where such fields were maintained and researched.

There's one positive outcome, I'm too busy write down the countless others right now.

[OANST]

Religion means we're where we are today at a literary and mathematical level. Without monasteries, churches, abbeys and Islamic temples, we would simply be at least 300 years behind where we are today in the fields of reading, writing and arithmetic. In the dark ages, religious institutions were the only place in the Islamic and European world where such fields were maintained and researched.

There's one positive outcome, I'm too busy write down the countless others right now.

I think that's probably not true. If it wasn't for religious institutions persecuting academics since the dawn of time, it's possible we would be much more advanced than we currently are.

[STM]

Well...it is true, of course there are both sides to the argument, as there are with every argument, but I'm going to be honest, I didn't have the time nor inclination to write them out, I figured other people would be able to find them perfectly well by themselves nevertheless.

Other arguments for religion is the sense of togetherness someone feels when they are in an institution, this can be said for secular organisations as well, and yes, you can say oh but what about the religious terrorists in Ireland and Islamic countries...but those are the 1% that the majority disown. Never forget that again, there are secular terrorists as well.

I just feel that, with a world population that is around 90% religious, there has to be something beyond death, something more than the cosmic collision of atoms. 6 billion people+ can't be wrong.

[Glitch]

I just feel that, with a world population that is around 90% religious, there has to be something beyond death, something more than the cosmic collision of atoms. 6 billion people+ can't be wrong.

Being in the majority doesn't increase the likely hood of being right. In fact, as stint of being the majority view, it is much harder to change people's minds even if it does turn out to be false.

6 Billion people can be wrong. Any number of people can be wrong about any number of things. It's entirely possible that every single person on this planet is wrong about the nature of matter for example.

The whole of the Nazi regime was clearly wrong, but the majority of Germany supported it. (please do not think I am suggesting Nazi Germany has anything to do with religion, I am merely pointing out that something as wrong as the Nazi movement had a huge amount of support)

Sorry for going a bit Godwin there but I couldn't think of a better example.

[OANST]

The entire planet thought the Earth was flat at one time. Of course, that's completely different, as they were right.

[STM]

Touché.

[Jordan]

Nobody knows what lies beyond death other than those who have died and have no ability to return to life. Everybody has a different take on what will happen after death, and those who believe what they do are comfortable with that and I think that's great. It doesn't have to be proven, as long as the person is happy with their belief. Sometimes, life after death doesn't have to be a religious thought. I've spoken to a few people about the issue, and different ideas, such as reincarnation, Heaven etc. have been suggested, and they didn't follow a particular religion.

[STM]

Truthfully, at the core of religion. At the very heart, not the Pope sitting on a golden throne, but the community, at a communal level, religion is all the good of the World it encourages us to give to each other, to help one another to be gentle to your fellow man or woman. And you simply cannot dispute this. Because what credible religion truly promotes violence, destruction and war?

[OANST]

Truthfully, at the core of religion. At the very heart, not the Pope sitting on a golden throne, but the community, at a communal level, religion is all the good of the World it encourages us to give to each other, to help one another to be gentle to your fellow man or woman. And you simply cannot dispute this. Because what credible religion truly promotes violence, destruction and war?

Almost all of them? Yup. Almost all of them.

[LDG519]

here's an interesting question to ponder, what if god exists but is a bold face liar with a sick sense of humor and no morales what so ever.

[Ridg3]

That must mean George Bush is god.

[OANST]

I don't think that sounds like Bush. Bush was just stupid and self righteous. Actually, that sounds a lot like the Christian god....

[Wings of Fire]

here's an interesting question to ponder, what if god exists but is a bold face liar with a sick sense of humor and no morales what so ever.

I believe the philosophical answer to that question is 'Oh well.'

[Glitch]

Truthfully, at the core of religion. At the very heart, not the Pope sitting on a golden throne, but the community, at a communal level, religion is all the good of the World it encourages us to give to each other, to help one another to be gentle to your fellow man or woman. And you simply cannot dispute this. Because what credible religion truly promotes violence, destruction and war?

It seems to be a common theme that religion holds the monopoly on morality. That's just not true. I give to charity and very rarely do I treat anyone badly, and if I do, it is with good reason; usually because they've screwed up or were treating me badly in the first place.

[Jordan]

Another reason why I don't follow religion is because I like to think my motives are driven by my own mind instead of what a religion entails. I'd rather build my character on my own, make my own decisions and decide what's right and wrong. In my opinion, sometimes a religion may be too restricting.

[STM]

Well, that's certainly an interesting perspective Jordan, and it's certainly a good one, of course I don't have to tell you that. But Catholicism has moulded me into who I am today, that's had positive effects, for example, I try to better myself as a person by being nice to others, although it doesn't always work. It's had negatives, I used to be very against homosexuality as I've admitted to. It's not something I'm proud of.

Religion is a double edged sword, at its base, it is a good and just thing I'm certain, but there are so many instances where bad people have hijacked it for their own values.

[Nate]

In regards to the "Atheism is a belief" mini-argument: I would suggest that the word belief implies faith, and Atheism isn't based of faith or even a lack of it. Atheism is based of the garnering of evidence and the willingness to interpret such evidence to the full extent possible, even if such an extent leads to places you would rather not go.

True, but that doesn't conflict with the concept of belief. You can garner as much evidence as you like, but you'll never fully understand how the universe works. Even theoretical physicists don't know everything. If you start asking 'Why?' questions - Why is the sky blue? Why does light scatter? Why do photons have properties of both particles and waves? etc - eventually you'll get to the point where the answer is currently unknown. More research will probably answer those questions, but that will simply raise more.

Also, there seems to be a strange trend in this thread of people suggesting that religion only exists because people are brainwashed as kids. Given the number of people who are 'Born again' - and not just in to Christianity - that's simply not true. I've known quite a few intelligent, educated people who asked themselves difficult 'Why?' questions and found answers in religion. Whilst I don't particularl agree with them, I respect their decisions.

But saying that atheism is a religious belief just kinda offends me, because I have no interest in religion in terms of beliefs x__x Its non-existant in that regard.

Okay, but I think we're disagreeing over definitions rather than philosophy here. I'm not saying that atheism being a religious belief means that atheism is a religion. Personally, I'd suggest that the concept of religion goes well beyond the belief (or lack of belief) in a God. It's more to do with the rituals, ethics and lifestyle of its practicers. In that sense, many people who believe in Jesus as a God are not actually religious, because they don't actually live their lives in any sort of Christian way. On the other hand, Bhuddists don't believe in a God but are definitely religious.

So, basically, I'm saying that atheism is a belief but not a religion.

I'd quite like to be Jewish, minus the God part. Beards, hats, witty banter on tap, good music and a hundred different rolled dough products.

Right, I'll call the mohel and we'll get you circumsized immediately.

I suppose the culture is intertwined with the religion, must be hard to be Jewish but not believe in God which is fundamental to well, being a member of a religion. ;D

Not really, it's surprisingly common. Being Jewish is technically a religious thing, but there's a culture that has built up around it. There's lots of different levels/streams of Judaism and there's a fair few cultural/non-practicing/atheist (like me) Jews out there.

[STM]

Bhuddists don't believe in a God but are definitely religious.

It's not that they don't believe in God, they simply don't profess to understand whether or not he exists, and they aren't inclined to find out either.

[Nate]

Same difference. And doesn't particularly change my point.

[JennyGenesis]

I try to better myself as a person by being nice to others.

I do that,

I don't think it's really religion, but more of just not being an asshole.

[scrabface]

I think science share so many similarities with the nature of religion that we could assume science is a religion.

let me explain what I mean.

the clear difference between science and religion are logic and dogma. but if I follow scientific explanations, I need to believe what I learned from others. I never saw that the earth is spheric, but I can't take someone serious who believes that the earth's flat. you can only prove those things with words. but there is the reality of language.
my complete pattern of thought is linked with my language and I cannot break off this.

now me personally I don't believe in a religion, but my whole family (maternal) does, two of my uncles are priests (one is even a bishop). but my bishop uncle is kinda cool as he believes in science, but thinks that the nature of god is his personal way of seeing and experiencing life.
but I remember that the transition from a religious kid to a agnostic one was kinda "painful", because I felt betraying my family. I feel completely different about this today.

[Havoc]

Religion means we're where we are today at a literary and mathematical level. Without monasteries, churches, abbeys and Islamic temples, we would simply be at least 300 years behind where we are today in the fields of reading, writing and arithmetic. In the dark ages, religious institutions were the only place in the Islamic and European world where such fields were maintained and researched.

There's one positive outcome, I'm too busy write down the countless others right now.

Wow, so much ignorance in one post. The dark ages were dark because any kind of scientific advancement was blocked by the church. If it wasn't for religion we'd be 300 years ahead of where we are now.

[Wings of Fire]

Wow, so much ignorance in one post. The dark ages were dark because any kind of scientific advancement was blocked by the church. If it wasn't for religion we'd be 300 years ahead of where we are now.

Nonsense. That picture is stupid nonsense.

Firstly, the reason we lost the knowledge of the Classics wasn't the fault of Christianity.

Secondly, while it was lost to us, the Islam world was busy forwarding it by themselves. Notice that the Rennaisance isn't Ancient Rome for a reason.

Hell, thirdly, that chart is just stupid because it assumes no advancement between the fall of Rome and the Rennaisance. You only have to look at the difference in economy, warfare and architecture between the Normandy Invasion and Agincourt to realize how stupid that is.

[Glitch]

Also, it doesn't take into account the theory that the dark ages didn't actually happen and are down to a mistake that occurred when changing to a counting year system.

http://www.damninteresting.com/the-p...me-hypothesis/

[MA]

No need for sarcasm like that, I was simply sharing a story I think Glitch would be interested in since it relates to my childhood.

because Glitch loves children.

yes, folks. yes.

[Wings of Fire]

Also, it doesn't take into account the theory that the dark ages didn't actually happen and are down to a mistake that occurred when changing to a counting year system.

http://www.damninteresting.com/the-p...me-hypothesis/

My flatmate, who is a historian, punches me every time I use the term 'Dark Ages', I ignored that aspect because I was waiting for someone who could explain it better than I could.

[STM]

Certainly an interesting hypothesis. I don't know how much truth there is in it because it sounds a little 9/11 conspiracy style, nevertheless, I always thought the 'Dark Ages' was merely an alternative term for the pre-Feudal Age era where Rome collapsed/ integrated into Gaelic communities.

In other news I'm pretty sure the Bible on my bedside table just moved of its own accord...I suppose it's time to go on a pilgrimage.

[MeechMunchie]

Right, I'll call the mohel and we'll get you circumsized immediately.

What? "Circus-sized"? Dude, I'm flattered an' all, but I think that's just wishful thinking.

Not really, it's surprisingly common. Being Jewish is technically a religious thing, but there's a culture that has built up around it. There's lots of different levels/streams of Judaism and there's a fair few cultural/non-practicing/atheist (like me) Jews out there.

A rather cynical explanation goes that the Jews have gotten so smart that they're all realising the whole God shabang is a load of toot.

Because graphs make you clever, folks! Especially ones with inconsistent scales!

[Manco]

I especially love the notion that “scientific advancement” is an empiric measurement.

the clear difference between science and religion are logic and dogma. but if I follow scientific explanations, I need to believe what I learned from others. I never saw that the earth is spheric, but I can't take someone serious who believes that the earth's flat. you can only prove those things with words. but there is the reality of language.
my complete pattern of thought is linked with my language and I cannot break off this.

The problem with this theory is that all scientific theories or explanations can be independently verified. It’s all well and good saying “I have to believe what others have told me”, but you can test and observe a lot of the fundamentals (mathematics and physics) yourself.

Science is based on experimentation, objectivity and analysis. Professional scientific studies are peer-reviewed, and mountains of documentation (photographs, video, notes, sketches etc.) are generated.

You worried the world is flat? No problem, hop in a plane or glider, or just watch video from someone else who already did.