I enjoy all these off topic debates, so thought I would start one that has a lot of potential for diverse conversation. Feel free to post anything here that may answer questions like:
'Is Religion relevant in the 21st Century?'
'What does Religion mean to you?'
'Do Religions need to reform?'
'What counts as Religion?'
'What's Scientology and all those other obscure Religions past and present?'
Etc. Etc.
Well I might as well try to start the ball rolling in some way. I don't see myself as very Religious at all, technically I was born a Christian and on my death bed I will die a Christian, but that doesn't mean I agree with or follow the Bible's teachings. I wouldn't say I am an atheist either because there must be a point to life and death. What started it is debatable and what happens after death even more so. Whatever the reasons something must have started life and whatever happens after life I hope will only be good things for me be that an after life, reincarnation or whatever. I still like to believe there will be some form of judgement after death to keep us on the right path, in particular for those who do horrible acts in life.
I would be interested in anyone's else's views of what happens in life and death, where you think we are now and will be and how Religion all boils down to things in our modern world.
*sound of crickets in background*
Look, I am sure there are sensible people out there, I don't set out for anything to be insta-locked. Religion and Ethics could be a good topic to talk about and hopefully anyone seeking to just be a troll wouldn't be bothered to comment in a boring topic such as this. None the less I would be interested to hear your opinions on life and death etc if you have one.
Yeah, based on experience that thread is totally going to get locked, and people are going to get warning and temporary bans.
Sentinel1 wrote: 'Is Religion relevant in the 21st Century?' 'What does Religion mean to you?' 'Do Religions need to reform?' 'What counts as Religion?' 'What's Scientology and all those other obscure Religions past and present?'
My opinions are likely going to be considered quite controversial so I'm spoilering them. Don't read if you don't want to read very negative opinions on religion.
Spoiler:
Religion is very relevant in the 21st century, as a force for stagnation (or even regression) and war and other similarly negative things. With Trump in the US we will likely see much religiously-motivated attacks on science, for instance, and I don't think I even need to mention Islamism… Religiously-motivated evil is quite on the rise. Religion can't really reform because they are linked to some old “revelation” and any sincere reform must pretend to “go back to the root”, which too often means “read terrible texts again and base your morals on them”. Religion means giving up the “I don't know and I can't know but I am looking for the best consistent hypothesis that works with as many facts as I can gather” for “I know with certainty and will go to great length to ignore any fact showing I am wrong”. Any kind of cult count as religion, the main difference between a cult and a more mainstream religion being the lack of a guru who has a real, near complete emprise over the cult. I mean, sure, there can still be a kind of central leader like the Pope, but he is very far from all-powerful. That, or maybe how deep is the emprise of the cult leaders upon the followers? I am not sure there is an obvious definition here. I am less worried about scientology and more worried about more mainstream religions like Islam or Christianity, that are doing way more evil. But I wouldn't be surprised if they managed to keep existing as a small religion for centuries, just like many already do.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: Yeah, based on experience that thread is totally going to get locked, and people are going to get warning and temporary bans.
Sentinel1 wrote: 'Is Religion relevant in the 21st Century?'
'What does Religion mean to you?'
'Do Religions need to reform?'
'What counts as Religion?'
'What's Scientology and all those other obscure Religions past and present?'
My opinions are likely going to be considered quite controversial so I'm spoilering them.
Don't read if you don't want to read very negative opinions on religion.
Spoiler:
Religion is very relevant in the 21st century, as a force for stagnation (or even regression) and war and other similarly negative things. With Trump in the US we will likely see much religiously-motivated attacks on science, for instance, and I don't think I even need to mention Islamism…
Religiously-motivated evil is quite on the rise.
Religion can't really reform because they are linked to some old “revelation” and any sincere reform must pretend to “go back to the root”, which too often means “read terrible texts again and base your morals on them”.
Religion means giving up the “I don't know and I can't know but I am looking for the best consistent hypothesis that works with as many facts as I can gather” for “I know with certainty and will go to great length to ignore any fact showing I am wrong”.
Any kind of cult count as religion, the main difference between a cult and a more mainstream religion being the lack of a guru who has a real, near complete emprise over the cult. I mean, sure, there can still be a kind of central leader like the Pope, but he is very far from all-powerful. That, or maybe how deep is the emprise of the cult leaders upon the followers? I am not sure there is an obvious definition here.
I am less worried about scientology and more worried about more mainstream religions like Islam or Christianity, that are doing way more evil. But I wouldn't be surprised if they managed to keep existing as a small religion for centuries, just like many already do.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: Yeah, based on experience that thread is totally going to get locked, and people are going to get warning and temporary bans.
Sentinel1 wrote: 'Is Religion relevant in the 21st Century?'
'What does Religion mean to you?'
'Do Religions need to reform?'
'What counts as Religion?'
'What's Scientology and all those other obscure Religions past and present?'
My opinions are likely going to be considered quite controversial so I'm spoilering them.
Don't read if you don't want to read very negative opinions on religion.
Spoiler:
Religion is very relevant in the 21st century, as a force for stagnation (or even regression) and war and other similarly negative things. With Trump in the US we will likely see much religiously-motivated attacks on science, for instance, and I don't think I even need to mention Islamism…
Religiously-motivated evil is quite on the rise.
Religion can't really reform because they are linked to some old “revelation” and any sincere reform must pretend to “go back to the root”, which too often means “read terrible texts again and base your morals on them”.
Religion means giving up the “I don't know and I can't know but I am looking for the best consistent hypothesis that works with as many facts as I can gather” for “I know with certainty and will go to great length to ignore any fact showing I am wrong”.
Any kind of cult count as religion, the main difference between a cult and a more mainstream religion being the lack of a guru who has a real, near complete emprise over the cult. I mean, sure, there can still be a kind of central leader like the Pope, but he is very far from all-powerful. That, or maybe how deep is the emprise of the cult leaders upon the followers? I am not sure there is an obvious definition here.
I am less worried about scientology and more worried about more mainstream religions like Islam or Christianity, that are doing way more evil. But I wouldn't be surprised if they managed to keep existing as a small religion for centuries, just like many already do.
I don't know quite what to say, you have wrapped up my entire examples in a nutshell! I don't think you need worry about being branded 'extremist' because your view seems concise and to be honest I agree with pretty much all of it in a way. Thanks for sensibly replying.
I'm inclined to agree with Hybrid (especially after we discussed the subject via PM a while back). I will however stress that not everyone who follows a religion will use it to justify acts of evil; a lot will use it to better themselves or guide themselves forward. I think it's just sad that the actions of [typically] a minority are being forced on the majority to take responsibility for.
General Annoyance wrote: I'm inclined to agree with Hybrid (especially after we discussed the subject via PM a while back). I will however stress that not everyone who follows a religion will use it to justify acts of evil; a lot will use it to better themselves or guide themselves forward. I think it's just sad that the actions of [typically] a minority are being forced on the majority to take responsibility for.
Evil is a subjective matter. In my opinion forbidding abortion IS an act of evil. The actions of a minority can be considered extreme and blamed by the majority but always take origin from something that everyone in that culture agrees about. Not every muslim is a terrorist but almost every muslim is very strict about their way of living, and people that grows up in an enviroment that considers religion most important than the laws actually are the reason of the existence of religious terrorism and fanatism.
General Annoyance wrote: I'm inclined to agree with Hybrid (especially after we discussed the subject via PM a while back). I will however stress that not everyone who follows a religion will use it to justify acts of evil; a lot will use it to better themselves or guide themselves forward. I think it's just sad that the actions of [typically] a minority are being forced on the majority to take responsibility for.
Yes, I forgot to mention this, thanks. For the record I am expressing my opinion on religion, NOT on people with faith. Fellow dakkanaut reading this, if you are religious, please don't mistake my message for saying that you personally are evil and want to do evil things, because this is not what I wanted to say.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Blackie wrote: Not every muslim is a terrorist but almost every muslim is very strict about their way of living
I'd be wary about “almost every Muslim” or “almost every Christian” stuff because we are talking about highly heterogeneous groups, that are comprised of much more homogeneous groups. “Almost every Albanian Muslims”, for instance, or “almost every Polish Christians”, seems like generalization that works better because those group are still heterogeneous, sure, but in ways where considering them as a group makes more sense imo. They all live in similar sociol-cultural backgrounds and all. (Muslims in Albania are very relaxed about their way of living, the country is likely more secular than the US)
My theory is to let anyone worship what they want as long as their faith/belief leads them on a path that doesn't negatively affect others- especially those who believe different from them.
Type of religion is not a decider in who's a good person.
Why is it necessary for this same topic to keep being discussed? ...Don't people have other sites they can go create threads like this other than a wargaming board? Wait, no, this is the ideal place to post this.
Wyrmalla wrote: Why is it necessary for this same topic to keep being discussed? ...Don't people have other sites they can go create threads like this other than a wargaming board? Wait, no, this is the ideal place to post this.
Convenience is what I'd say.
Besides, this topic would be fine to discuss if people weren't so eager to jab people/be so inflammatory.
I've met a lot of people who were motivated by their religion to do great, beneficial things for society. I've met a lot of people who have deep-seated hat reds, grudges or toxic ideologies and use their religion to justify acting in ways harmful to others, often to those others' faces. Sometimes both groups are the same people regarding different issues. It becomes very difficult to condemn religion, and outside of more modern religious movements, it is impossible to separate the one element from the other and leave a purely beneficent force of belief.
I've also met many loving and giving atheists, as well as some very angry atheists.
I guess what it boils down to is people are complex, and most of them can be real jerks sometimes.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: I've met a lot of people who were motivated by their religion to do great, beneficial things for society. I've met a lot of people who have deep-seated hat reds, grudges or toxic ideologies and use their religion to justify acting in ways harmful to others, often to those others' faces. Sometimes both groups are the same people regarding different issues. It becomes very difficult to condemn religion, and outside of more modern religious movements, it is impossible to separate the one element from the other and leave a purely beneficent force of belief.
I've also met many loving and giving atheists, as well as some very angry atheists.
I guess what it boils down to is people are complex, and most of them can be real jerks sometimes.
But with a logic like that, it would require that you treat people as complex individuals and you can't just make a sweeping statement about entire groups! Madness!
I think that it's important to always remember the following: Religion isn't any more good or evil than law, tradition or anything else people use to guide their life choices. It's the people who are good or evil.
People use the law to do evil all the time, but seldom do we say "Is it time to abandon law and order?". Bottom line, society needs its social constructs to function. Law is one of them, religion is another, customs/traditions are a third. People will abuse all of them, however.
John Prins wrote: Religion isn't any more good or evil than law, tradition or anything else people use to guide their life choices.
Some laws and traditions are just evil. For instance the laws on slavery. We did remove those laws. Easy, because those are officially man-made and man-decided. Religion isn't supposed to be man-made (it is though, but you got to hush about it and pretend it isn't if you want people to keep believing), so it ain't that easy. You can't see “Let's change the Bible/the Hadith because actually being gay is okay and not a crime”.
John Prins wrote: Religion isn't any more good or evil than law, tradition or anything else people use to guide their life choices.
Some laws and traditions are just evil.
Sort of proves my point, doesn't it? Religion is no better or worse than law or custom - they are rules that govern how we live our lives - and how we think other people should live their lives.
Note it took the Civil War to change those slavery laws in the USA - it wasn't 'easy' by any means. Many legal changes have caused social upheaval on large scales.
This seemingly simple question has two distincively different meanings:
1. "Does any particular system of religious beliefs offers any reliable truth about the nature of surrounding reality?"
My answer is: to the extent measurable by scientific method, no, not really. Some psychological truths are imprinted into religious beliefs because religions are constructs of human societies, but religions are notoriously lacking in actual knowledge about how any mechanisms of nature work, including human brains.
2. "Does religion has any meanigfull impact on XXI century?"
My answer: this one is obviously true, to the extent that anyone hoping, that we can somehow get rid of religion or regious people from any stable society is naive. People need religious beliefs (including parareligious movements like Buddhism or "fanatic religious-like atheism/liberal belief systems" (sidenote: not every atheist is religious-like person, but they do exist in quite large number)) as a way of "sorting out" reality, keeping sanity, keeping motivation etc... This "inner need" of a "higher order of things" is a part of human species psychology and it has deep and broad influence on how social reality works, so in order to understand surrounding reality that includes large number of individuals driven by religious beliefs, one has to know how belief systems work.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: I've met a lot of people who were motivated by their religion to do great, beneficial things for society. I've met a lot of people who have deep-seated hat reds, grudges or toxic ideologies and use their religion to justify acting in ways harmful to others, often to those others' faces. Sometimes both groups are the same people regarding different issues. It becomes very difficult to condemn religion, and outside of more modern religious movements, it is impossible to separate the one element from the other and leave a purely beneficent force of belief.
I've also met many loving and giving atheists, as well as some very angry atheists.
I guess what it boils down to is people are complex, and most of them can be real jerks sometimes.
But with a logic like that, it would require that you treat people as complex individuals and you can't just make a sweeping statement about entire groups! Madness!
If your point is “Christianity and Islam are bad things and it would be good to have nobody believing in them any more, but Jainism is definitely not as bad”, then yeah!
If your point is “Christianity and Islam are bad things and it would be good to have nobody believing in them any more, but Jainism is definitely not as bad”, then yeah!
That's not the point. Reading comprehension isn't a religion, so you are save to give it a try and still maintain your atheist title
Religion SHOULD be a thing to give people hope, enlightenment and make their lives more enjoyable. It should offer guidance on how to be a better person. Problem is that people want to force THEIR views on others. I'm a Christian and I have multiple friends who are aethiests. My best friend is a Jew. You know how many religious arguments (different from discussions) we've had? Zero. Nada. People use religion as a weapon. And that's wrong.
And it's worth saying that others use Atheism as a weapon as well, and it's just as wrong.
I am Christian and I have made quite a few number of posts talking about my faith in these threads, and I have no desire to repeat that here. In all my years on Dakka I have never called Atheists by any bad name. But in those same years I have watched a number of Atheists post on here about how Christians are stupid, ignorant, evil, a threat to the world, etc etc etc.
People who want to be dicks are going to be dicks, if they don't have religion to justify it they will find another way.
Some people are dicks because their religion makes them superior.
Some people are dicks because their nationality makes them superior.
Some people are dicks because their skin color makes them superior.
Some people are dicks because their sex makes them superior.
Some People are dicks because their wealth makes them superior.
Some people are from Texas.
I am an atheist. The older I get, the deeper and more entrenched my atheism gets, but only on a personal level. Some people have faith, and it gives them many great things. Other people dont, and do not lack any of these things. Do whatever works for you, put no one down for their belief or lack of belief and don't hurt anyone.
If religious and non religous people stuck to this then the world would certainly be a bit more pleasant!
Ace From Outer Space wrote: I am an atheist. The older I get, the deeper and more entrenched my atheism gets, but only on a personal level. Some people have faith, and it gives them many great things. Other people dont, and do not lack any of these things. Do whatever works for you, put no one down for their belief or lack of belief and don't hurt anyone.
If religious and non religous people stuck to this then the world would certainly be a bit more pleasant!
That is completely true, I think the wrong people will forever abuse Religion to control others for as long as it remains effect.
On a more personal not, please don't be offended, but as an atheist what do you believe will happen to you when you die? I read an article a while back (not sure if I could believe its findings) that said a fair proportion of atheists go back to praying to God on their deathbed. If such a being could be twaddle what do you think happens? - Apart from the obvious.
On a more personal not, please don't be offended, but as an atheist what do you believe will happen to you when you die? I read an article a while back (not sure if I could believe its findings) that said a fair proportion of atheists go back to praying to God on their deathbed. If such a being could be twaddle what do you think happens? - Apart from the obvious.
Atheist here.
Ever go in for any kind of operation that requires anesthesia? You know how it's kind of like shutting off a light - you're awake one moment, then awake the next, with absolutely nothing in between? That's what I think death is, sans the waking up part - just a cessation of any kind of awareness. Once the neurons that make up a person stop firing, that's it.
That article was indeed twattle(can we say that?). The cessation of consciousness is probably the simplest and easiest 'afterlife' to imagine or explain. Just imagine falling asleep, but never waking up and never dreaming, and you're not really there to know you're not dreaming. Just nothing. Fade to black. Poof. One minute you're alive, and the next-----
Sentinel1 wrote: On a more personal not, please don't be offended, but as an atheist what do you believe will happen to you when you die?
There is nothing even remotely offending about such a question asked in good faith!
And to answer it: I have no clue. What's described by the above posters seems the most likely thing though. But I definitely won't pretend that I know for a fact, or even that I have a strong conviction, that this is what happens.
Is Religion relevant in the 21st Century?'
'What does Religion mean to you?'
'Do Religions need to reform?'
'What counts as Religion?'
'What's Scientology and all those other obscure Religions past and present?'
Religion is based on one singular concept. And that is system of belief.
Science is based on concept of fact, logic, and rationality. But it is based on a similar concept to 'belief', that being someone had to start with a theory which is similar to belief but far from it, more of a gut feeling that something might be wrong. Either it be on the mysteries of life or how earth rotates around the sun, humans begin most discoveries with a theory and execute a way to test and prove.
Where religion is more stagnant in this structure and less about the proving and more just the idea of "I believe" and faith in something.
Whether there is a god or not, we don't know. There is no way to prove if there is a god in the universe or we are just biological monstrosities created from millions or even billions of years of micro-evolution.
What I've learned while studying philosophy and dealing with people in general, the most dangerous types of people are those who claim to 'know' with absolute resolution that something is real and they are absolutely sure, they speak the truth. Which is why religion can be dangerous, we see it through out history and we see it through out our own society today. We have seen people proclaim 'truth' and it deterioates into a cult. Either be commiting fraud or by making people believe something that doesn't exist.
Religion is dangerous, and it always will be. We can believe that god created the world or a giant wolf will devour the world, thats all well and great, anyone can believe in anything as long as it is not harming others or stamping on other people's rights or becoming hypocrites.
Religion does lead to a more conservative nature if not more bland look over how people and societies work together, the state of mind for many people who are in religion are : There is nothing left to learn. Though that maybe only anecdotal evidence. As most scientists I know are always in pursuit of more knowledge and understanding of the universe, while on the inverse a priest and pastor I know believe science is fake, and a charade or bring up how woman are 'meant' to serve men.
But that is not the question here, whether or not it is relevant? No, in a humane and rational society, we would be built upon values, morals, ideas, and innovation. No religion has no place in the future of this planet, it is divisive and used as a tool to push people into non-relevancy or into the idea they do not matter because they are such and such under what ever ruling some god put in place. I do not follow any one who says that someone is 'lesser' than they.
Religion needs a hard look at itself, and that is the followers, and the leaders, to ensure they are not sounding like a cult. I can't tell you the amount of times I've gone to church to hear about political statements. In the US it is politicized Religion, religion is used as a tool as a weapon for people to justify their actions.
What do I believe? I am uncertain as to what that means, I am neither a christian anymore or a follower of science, as I do not ascribe to the idea that I "believe in science", I don't believe in science. And thats fine you don't have to faith it is real, you only need to understand what type of belief you have.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: That article was indeed twattle(can we say that?). The cessation of consciousness is probably the simplest and easiest 'afterlife' to imagine or explain. Just imagine falling asleep, but never waking up and never dreaming, and you're not really there to know you're not dreaming. Just nothing. Fade to black. Poof. One minute you're alive, and the next-----
God this idea has given me countless sleepless nights. Maybe that's why I'm agnostic
BobtheInquisitor wrote: That article was indeed twattle(can we say that?). The cessation of consciousness is probably the simplest and easiest 'afterlife' to imagine or explain. Just imagine falling asleep, but never waking up and never dreaming, and you're not really there to know you're not dreaming. Just nothing. Fade to black. Poof. One minute you're alive, and the next-----
God this idea has given me countless sleepless nights. Maybe that's why I'm agnostic
Really? I've always found it comforting, compared to many of the most popular alternatives.
The best part is, if there's nothing after death, you'll never know. You might be looking forward to heaven and reuniting with your lost loved ones, but it's not like you'll be disappointed.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: The best part is, if there's nothing after death, you'll never know. You might be looking forward to heaven and reuniting with your lost loved ones, but it's not like you'll be disappointed.
The sweet embrace of the void, is not something many people find comfort in.
All of our lives we've been told the darkness or just nothing at all is bad. I would hardly blame anyone for being afraid of it.
On the flip side, inescapable infinity is terrifying in it's own way. In a sense, you'll be outliving your children, your grandchildren, your whole family tree, your nation, your species, your planet... while at the same time being a creature that had at best a century of mortal existence.
Ace From Outer Space wrote: I am an atheist. The older I get, the deeper and more entrenched my atheism gets, but only on a personal level. Some people have faith, and it gives them many great things. Other people dont, and do not lack any of these things. Do whatever works for you, put no one down for their belief or lack of belief and don't hurt anyone.
If religious and non religous people stuck to this then the world would certainly be a bit more pleasant!
That is completely true, I think the wrong people will forever abuse Religion to control others for as long as it remains effect.
On a more personal not, please don't be offended, but as an atheist what do you believe will happen to you when you die? I read an article a while back (not sure if I could believe its findings) that said a fair proportion of atheists go back to praying to God on their deathbed. If such a being could be twaddle what do you think happens? - Apart from the obvious.
I really do think that's it, My time is up, my tenure over, the end! I grew up in a Hindu household, went to the temple with the parents every week and was surrounded by people who got the hidden meanings and subtexts within the religious services they went to. I got nothing, well, I did get bored but that was it.
As far as the deathbed thing goes? When my dad died when I was 14, he got no solace from religion, and on his death bed he didn't ask for a priest but did ask to see his kids. When I was at uni, a lot of friends played around with the concept of atheism with some of them were doing it for show, and ended up replacing one belief system for another, or returning to their existing faith. Maybe some people need the concept of a structure beyond death, so they go back to the convenient comfort of faith as they reach the end? For me, the matter I am made of will return to the planet and another natural cycle will begin.
Try as I might, I just couldn't convince myself there was anything out there, and for me there just isn't! Anyway, hope this answer is useful Sentinel, thank you for asking!
At least with the thought of nothing after death, the only chance you get for physical and spiritual rewards from positively affecting the world would be during the time you are here, so you had better get to work.
But at the same time you spend your efforts screwing over others to help yourself, the eventual reward you get is people's low opinions of you, and then to be worm-food.
Ace From Outer Space wrote: I am an atheist. The older I get, the deeper and more entrenched my atheism gets, but only on a personal level. Some people have faith, and it gives them many great things. Other people dont, and do not lack any of these things. Do whatever works for you, put no one down for their belief or lack of belief and don't hurt anyone.
If religious and non religous people stuck to this then the world would certainly be a bit more pleasant!
That is completely true, I think the wrong people will forever abuse Religion to control others for as long as it remains effect.
On a more personal not, please don't be offended, but as an atheist what do you believe will happen to you when you die? I read an article a while back (not sure if I could believe its findings) that said a fair proportion of atheists go back to praying to God on their deathbed. If such a being could be twaddle what do you think happens? - Apart from the obvious.
I really do think that's it, My time is up, my tenure over, the end! I grew up in a Hindu household, went to the temple with the parents every week and was surrounded by people who got the hidden meanings and subtexts within the religious services they went to. I got nothing, well, I did get bored but that was it.
As far as the deathbed thing goes? When my dad died when I was 14, he got no solace from religion, and on his death bed he didn't ask for a priest but did ask to see his kids. When I was at uni, a lot of friends played around with the concept of atheism with some of them were doing it for show, and ended up replacing one belief system for another, or returning to their existing faith. Maybe some people need the concept of a structure beyond death, so they go back to the convenient comfort of faith as they reach the end? For me, the matter I am made of will return to the planet and another natural cycle will begin.
Try as I might, I just couldn't convince myself there was anything out there, and for me there just isn't! Anyway, hope this answer is useful Sentinel, thank you for asking!
My oldest daughter is currently dating a Hindu from Nepal. He's a damn good kid that has also stolen the hearts of my other two daughters and is learning to like watching Westerns when they come by. My daughter has warned me against teaching him 40k though, because she says he'd be with me all the time then instead of her!
AegisGrimm wrote: At least with the thought of nothing after death, the only chance you get for physical and spiritual rewards from positively affecting the world would be during the time you are here, so you had better get to work.
But at the same time you spend your efforts screwing over others to help yourself, the eventual reward you get is people's low opinions of you, and then to be worm-food.
I do try to make the world a better place as much as I can.I help people rebuild their lives after they have lost their sight. We only have a short time on the planet, it's only polite to leave it in a slightly better state than you found it!
Automatically Appended Next Post: Teach him 40k Relapse!
AegisGrimm wrote: At least with the thought of nothing after death, the only chance you get for physical and spiritual rewards from positively affecting the world would be during the time you are here, so you had better get to work.
But at the same time you spend your efforts screwing over others to help yourself, the eventual reward you get is people's low opinions of you, and then to be worm-food.
If there's nothing after death you're nothing more than worm food no matter what you do, so are all the people you helped/screwed over along the way. But then I'm not a great person to ask, I think most death/afterlife theories sound fething horrible.
'Is Religion relevant in the 21st Century?'
No, it is an antiquated form of control in an era where science and facts exist. It is only relevant now because of the way it uses their followers to push their own agenda. IE The Middle east and Christian Right.
'What does Religion mean to you?'
It was a way to control masses by putting "the fear of god" into people.
'Do Religions need to reform?'
They need to go away.
'What counts as Religion?'
Any sort of belief that goes out of the realm of science and fact that can not be proven and merely taken on faith.
'What's Scientology and all those other obscure Religions past and present?'
Pagan religions have been gobbled up by such religions as Christianity. They have taken a lot of their customs and holidays and made it their own which made it easier to coax them into christianity or convert when dominated as it has happened in the past.
Other religions are just as bad both new and old. It is all a form of control.
Would you mind expanding on this? I generally consider religion and philosophy to be opposites. We use philosophy to question ourselves, our perceptions, and our beliefs. But religion's stance (if simplified) is that all the answers needed come from an immutable source that can't be questioned.
Would you mind expanding on this? I generally consider religion and philosophy to be opposites. We use philosophy to question ourselves, our perceptions, and our beliefs. But religion's stance (if simplified) is that all the answers needed come from an immutable source that can't be questioned.
Pretty sure they used to persecute philosophers too
Would you mind expanding on this? I generally consider religion and philosophy to be opposites. We use philosophy to question ourselves, our perceptions, and our beliefs. But religion's stance (if simplified) is that all the answers needed come from an immutable source that can't be questioned.
Pretty sure they used to persecute philosophers too
And yet we have a slew of Catholic philosophers to include Thomas Aquinas, Thomas More, Blaise Pascal and many others. Other Christian philosophers include John Locke and Edmund Burke
Would you mind expanding on this? I generally consider religion and philosophy to be opposites. We use philosophy to question ourselves, our perceptions, and our beliefs. But religion's stance (if simplified) is that all the answers needed come from an immutable source that can't be questioned.
Pretty sure they used to persecute philosophers too
And yet we have a slew of Catholic philosophers to include Thomas Aquinas, Thomas More, Blaise Pascal and many others. Other Christian philosophers include John Locke and Edmund Burke
Would you mind expanding on this? I generally consider religion and philosophy to be opposites. We use philosophy to question ourselves, our perceptions, and our beliefs. But religion's stance (if simplified) is that all the answers needed come from an immutable source that can't be questioned.
Philosophy and religion comes from one thing - people are trying to find their place in the Universe and to find meaning of their existance. Actually, messiah were sort of philosophers. Bible is ab ook of ancient philosophy. Problem is - people don't understeand the purpose of religion. Religion is a thing, that should answer their questions and make them happier. Make them free. Make them to not suffer the living without meaning of life. People think, god is some dude, that punishes and forgives, crusfix is a magic artefact and visiting Church and listenind pope is the only act of true believing. Jesus was a philosopher, not some superman sended by supersuperman. And old testament was an older philosophy. Pagans is a philosophy too and it's very different. That's why pagans were enemies to the Christians. Their philosophy was to hate and to kill nighborhoods, die fighting, be illiterate and superstitious and so on. Of course, Christians did a lot of destruction. That's because they were actually a pagans with cross and Jesus. People can do that without religion too - look what happened in 20 century, how many people died because of atheists.
And what we have now? No religion, just some obsolete traditions. No philosophy, just thoughtless consumption of the goods. What can make a person calm, build him inner core and make feeling himself as a part of the Universe? Drugs? No. Go to Tibet? You don't need for that. Just think. Remove garbage from your brains. Think about yourself. What do you need? You need a god. No matter what name you will use and what shape
I'm all for religion - it gives people comfort when they need it, and directs them towards being good people. They all cover similar teachings and revolve around being good, charitable people.
It's abused by a few people who use it for other means, and far too wrapped up in the state. But neither of those things are symptomatic of the religion itself; people will use anything as an excuse for power, money or just to be gakky to each other.
Herzlos wrote: It's abused by a few people who use it for other means, and far too wrapped up in the state. But neither of those things are symptomatic of the religion itself; people will use anything as an excuse for power, money or just to be gakky to each other.
But history has shown it is not an obtuse few...
As for morals and codes, they existed long before.
AegisGrimm wrote: At least with the thought of nothing after death, the only chance you get for physical and spiritual rewards from positively affecting the world would be during the time you are here, so you had better get to work.
But at the same time you spend your efforts screwing over others to help yourself, the eventual reward you get is people's low opinions of you, and then to be worm-food.
If there's nothing after death you're nothing more than worm food no matter what you do, so are all the people you helped/screwed over along the way. But then I'm not a great person to ask, I think most death/afterlife theories sound fething horrible.
Well, part of this belief requires taking pride in how you are remembered, knowing that if you are a horrible person, your name will be associated with failure or disgust. It does require a certain amount of a civic-based mind, as obviously sociopaths are too crazy to care what others think. But honestly, 99% of humans want to be respected.
AegisGrimm wrote: At least with the thought of nothing after death, the only chance you get for physical and spiritual rewards from positively affecting the world would be during the time you are here, so you had better get to work.
But at the same time you spend your efforts screwing over others to help yourself, the eventual reward you get is people's low opinions of you, and then to be worm-food.
If there's nothing after death you're nothing more than worm food no matter what you do, so are all the people you helped/screwed over along the way. But then I'm not a great person to ask, I think most death/afterlife theories sound fething horrible.
Well, part of this belief requires taking pride in how you are remembered, knowing that if you are a horrible person, your name will be associated with failure or disgust. It does require a certain amount of a civic-based mind, as obviously sociopaths are too crazy to care what others think. But honestly, 99% of humans want to be respected.
But what's the point in taking pride in how you're remembered if there's nothing after death? You're worm food either way and once you're gone you'll have no reward for it or concept that people are remembering you either for being good or for being evil.
I understand that in general people like to be liked, which could be an evolutionary hangover or some god imbued sense of self importance, but where one believes that feeling comes from it doesn't really seem to have a logical link to knowledge that there's nothing after death. Knowledge that there's nothing after death seems to me more like a reason to analytically investigate the futility of your feelings.
Although I'm a polytheist, not an atheist, I can understand the sentiment behind creating a legacy.
Temporal immortality, AllSeeing Skink. Who doesn't want an awesome building named after them? And you surely don't want to go down as the guy who ruined the name 'Adolf' for everyone? And if you donate organs to an organ donor- how long could your genetic material live on after death?
Most good from religions is meant to be derived from altruism anyways. It's also the actions people are most likely to be remembered favorably for. We don't remember Marie Curie for winning a Darwin award for carrying out experiments with radiation without adequate protection. We remember her for advancing that field of science for all of us.
In our own small way, most of us try to have a positive impact on some part of the world. My legacy will be my children.
Gitzbitah wrote: Although I'm a polytheist, not an atheist, I can understand the sentiment behind creating a legacy.
Temporal immortality, AllSeeing Skink. Who doesn't want an awesome building named after them? And you surely don't want to go down as the guy who ruined the name 'Adolf' for everyone? And if you donate organs to an organ donor- how long could your genetic material live on after death?
Most good from religions is meant to be derived from altruism anyways. It's also the actions people are most likely to be remembered favorably for. We don't remember Marie Curie for winning a Darwin award for carrying out experiments with radiation without adequate protection. We remember her for advancing that field of science for all of us.
In our own small way, most of us try to have a positive impact on some part of the world. My legacy will be my children.
Yeah I don't deny people have a desire to do those things.... I just don't see the logical link between a desire to have a lasting effect on the world and knowledge that death is final. I think the desire to be liked, the desire to be remembered and the desire to have your genetic material live on are simply hangovers from an evolutionary perspective (or if you're a theist, imbued by a god for whatever reason)... so of course I believe you can both have and understand those desires regardless of your world view, because they are innately human desires.
Every month, an amount is paid from my wage to Great Ormond Street Hospital.
Last Christmas, I did a Just Giving funding thing, and raised £400 to provide presents for sick and disadvantaged kids. £200 went to GOSH as a cash donation (they can do better work with cash than me delivering random toys), and the other £200 was spent on Footballs and Teddy Bear kits, which I donated to Tower Hamlets Foodbank (one of the most deprived areas in the UK).
So I do what I can to help out here and there. I absolutely could do more, and am always looking to do so. Ideally, I'd like to give back to my community by volunteering as a Scout or Cub Scout leader - but sadly my commute prevents that entirely.
You don't need Religion to be a good person. I feel that's a very dangerous fallacy often pedalled, that Atheists are inherently amoral.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: I understand that in general people like to be liked, which could be an evolutionary hangover or some god imbued sense of self importance, but where one believes that feeling comes from it doesn't really seem to have a logical link to knowledge that there's nothing after death. Knowledge that there's nothing after death seems to me more like a reason to analytically investigate the futility of your feelings.
Maybe because humans don't want mankind to die out just because you aren't there to enjoy continued life? Which means humans are generally more likely to ensure the future generation has better future than you had.
Especially handy as usually that gives direct benefit to you as well. You might not enjoy full fruits but better world is still better even if your lifetime in the better world is shorter than next generation.
Would you mind expanding on this? I generally consider religion and philosophy to be opposites. We use philosophy to question ourselves, our perceptions, and our beliefs. But religion's stance (if simplified) is that all the answers needed come from an immutable source that can't be questioned.
Pretty sure they used to persecute philosophers too
And yet we have a slew of Catholic philosophers to include Thomas Aquinas, Thomas More, Blaise Pascal and many others. Other Christian philosophers include John Locke and Edmund Burke
Tell that to the catholic inquisition.
Does that snarky comment somehow negate the fact that there are many Christian philosophers including many who were not persecuted by any church?
There can be no complex answers to difficult questions; there can only be simple, binary thoughts. This is why religion and science teach us that there is only one way to approach any situation and that we must dig our heels in when questioned.
Ahtman wrote: There can be no complex answers to difficult questions; there can only be simple, binary thoughts. This is why religion and science teach us that there is only one way to approach any situation and that we must dig our heels in when questioned.
The ghosts of ten thousand Jesuits would like to have a word with you and challenge you to a game of Rock Em Sock Em Robots.
Would you mind expanding on this? I generally consider religion and philosophy to be opposites. We use philosophy to question ourselves, our perceptions, and our beliefs. But religion's stance (if simplified) is that all the answers needed come from an immutable source that can't be questioned.
Pretty sure they used to persecute philosophers too
And yet we have a slew of Catholic philosophers to include Thomas Aquinas, Thomas More, Blaise Pascal and many others. Other Christian philosophers include John Locke and Edmund Burke
Tell that to the catholic inquisition.
Does that snarky comment somehow negate the fact that there are many Christian philosophers including many who were not persecuted by any church?
Ahh, so as long as they weren't christian philosophers it was ok then? Murder is murder, and this was the church silencing anything they didn't agree with or challenged their views.
As it became increasingly unacceptable for the Church to burn scientists and philosophers, the Catholic Church contented itself with forbidding and burning the written works of philosophers like John Locke.
Well lets not be dense. The Catholic Church didn't burn Jogn Locke's stuff cause he was a philosopher, they burned his stuff cause he was a Calvinist (see Heretic).
As to this;
Would you mind expanding on this? I generally consider religion and philosophy to be opposites. We use philosophy to question ourselves, our perceptions, and our beliefs. But religion's stance (if simplified) is that all the answers needed come from an immutable source that can't be questioned.
This would be a rather unnuanced view of religion. Way back in ye olden times, before science had emerged as a distinct field, philosophy (or natural philosophy) was seen as the exploration of God's creation by western Europeans. The first universities actually saw all fields of academics as tools to better understand the divine. The conflict between religion and science/philosophy today is a fairly modern thing.
Further, most religions are not fully based on a specific "source that cannot be questions." Even the ones that might seem to be (namely the Abrahamic faiths) have remarkable flexibility because the texts themselves are vague more often than not and open to interpretation. Nothing really prevents religion from being used introspectively.
Further there was no "Catholic Inquisition." The Catholic Church had no such overarching arm and we've largely blurred the realities of what the "Inquisition" was. These things were much more regionally based and locally focused, and on occasion in opposition to the Church proper. Aspects have been horribly exaggerated in the popular memory by Reformation propaganda. Properly, an Inquisition was a court procedure that the Church inherited from the Roman legal system and not an actual organization. Inquisitions were generally carried out by the Franciscans and Dominicans when sanctioned, and by basically anyone else who found such things possibly convenient. Later an actual administrative arm was formed to unify the divergent regional processes and was basically just a Catholic court of law and dealt with everything ranging from criminal procedures, to heresy, to witchcraft, to settling civil disputes (and this was properly called the Roman Inquisition, and never fully managed to reign in the Spanish or Holy Roman Empire).
I enjoy all these off topic debates, so thought I would start one that has a lot of potential for diverse conversation. Feel free to post anything here that may answer questions like:
'Is Religion relevant in the 21st Century?'
'What does Religion mean to you?'
'Do Religions need to reform?'
'What counts as Religion?'
'What's Scientology and all those other obscure Religions past and present?'
I saw this thread pop up and figured it'd be locked pretty quickly, I'm actually quite surprised that it's remained so civil.
I was baptised a protestant when I was born, because well that's what people did in northern Germany in the 1980s. Raised secular, considered myself atheist for a long time but now identify as Buddhist although definitely still a newbie.
Is religion relevant? Sure, historically religion has been a fantastic way of bringing people together. Obviously there's plenty of people who will post a real zinger of an argument like `muh Crusades` or `muh inquisition` but for the most part throughout history religion has bought people together far more than it's set them apart.
What does it mean to me? Personally, it's just a philosophy which I like to live by. It doesn't affect others, I don't advertise it - except obviously in an actual discussion about religion.
Do religions need to reform? Certain religions could use a little self-reflection yes.
What counts as religion? That's a really good question. Buddhism is more a philosophy, there is no god to worship, there is no sin, yet it counts as a religion. So, amount of time present? number of adherents? Like I said good question I really can't say for sure.
What are obscure religions? I'd say they're religions that are obscure. Not really sure what this question is really about.
You are welcome to have one.
You are welcome to be very attached to it.
-But don't wave it around in public and don't push it down the throat of small children.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
General Annoyance wrote: I don't like the idea of nothing after death. But then again, I'm young, and thus not likely to accept the inevitability of death anytime soon.
Compare it to your feelings in regards to what happened before you were born. Does the idea of nothing before birth affect you in the same way?
My general opinion on religion is that I love to hear about other people's faith, what they believe and why. It's always fascinating, and more often than not shows a great deal of thought and originality. But I got bored and annoyed very quickly when people start to talk about why other people's beliefs are wrong. Then it's almost always simplistic, mean spirited and rarely very accurate at all.
I have always been fascinated by the utility of faith and religion. Every culture has them and even today they are still common so there must be something useful about them.
I've been reading an interest book called "Homo Deus". In this book the author argues that a religion is any institution or concept that seeks to dictate specific morals and behavior which people will adhere to. With this definition you could call communism or capitalism a religion. Anyone who seeks to say "That's just the way things are". How many times has the western world acted in the name of liberty? H also argues that humans were able to dominate the planet because we can cooperate in much larger and more dynamic groups than other animals. One way we achieve this is with shared stories. Think of the phrase "for queen and country" where total strangers work together because of specific ideas, whether it's a god, a monarch or an idea.
So perhaps the god's of religion have merely been replaced with concepts and ideas instead of beings and we're as religious as we have ever been.
It's a stretch, I know, but I find it interesting.
Mr Nobody wrote: I have always been fascinated by the utility of faith and religion. Every culture has them and even today they are still common so there must be something useful about them.
I've been reading an interest book called "Homo Deus". In this book the author argues that a religion is any institution or concept that seeks to dictate specific morals and behavior which people will adhere to. With this definition you could call communism or capitalism a religion. Anyone who seeks to say "That's just the way things are". How many times has the western world acted in the name of liberty? H also argues that humans were able to dominate the planet because we can cooperate in much larger and more dynamic groups than other animals. One way we achieve this is with shared stories. Think of the phrase "for queen and country" where total strangers work together because of specific ideas, whether it's a god, a monarch or an idea.
So perhaps the god's of religion have merely been replaced with concepts and ideas instead of beings and we're as religious as we have ever been.
It's a stretch, I know, but I find it interesting.
It's not that much of a stretch
In classical conception "Civilization" was defined by; a system of writing, codified laws, monumental architecture, a division of labor, politics, trade, and religion
A more modern updated variation of this list is; language, codified laws, technology, division of labor, government, economics, and ideology. The later was changed because social scientists observed that while a distinction can be drawn between the metaphysics of religion and the physics of capitalism, the two worked in much the same way as a unifying and motivational force for society. Within those bounds, capitalism and Christianity can be treated as interchangeable/complimentary forces in providing social stability.
Mr Nobody wrote: Anyone who seeks to say "That's just the way things are". How many times has the western world acted in the name of liberty? … So perhaps the god's of religion have merely been replaced with concepts and ideas instead of beings and we're as religious as we have ever been.
It's a stretch, I know, but I find it interesting.
Lawrence Kohlberg's stages of moral development might be an interesting read. In short: It's about how and why we follow rules/laws and how one's perception of what's right/wrong and legal/moral can evolve.
Religion, to me, is a codified set of rules based on doctrine that is able to establish itself as something humanity is willing to call a religion and not something else.
I'm a former LaVeyan Satanist. My religion was basically based directly on Jesus' teachings in the Bible, and updated for the modern era when we had more science and understanding. The morals are the same as Jesus taught, but LaVeyan Satanism teaches them in a way that does not really tolerate superstition or bullgak. There aren't any lies offered. There aren't any tall tales used to teach by metaphor. There aren't any stories that could be confused for mythology.
Effectively, it's three major components.
1. Satan gets a hard rap but shouldn't.
2. This is WHY you benefit from these moral values Jesus taught.
3. Christianity is evil bullgak that twists Jesus' words to justify their own evils.
And to be honest, I stopped calling myself a LaVeyan Satanist not because my beliefs changed, but because I didn't see a purpose in adhering to the label. I still call myself a former LaVeyan Satanist when describing my religion, because it is the only religion I have ever seen merit in, and former is different from ex when it comes to connotation.
It's interesting to have a religion that denies the validity of altruism, then immediately goes on to explain why helping others and following the law and being a good person directly benefits YOU.
Steelmage99 wrote:In my opinion, religion are like a penis.
You are welcome to have one.
You are welcome to be very attached to it.
-But don't wave it around in public and don't push it down the throat of small children.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
General Annoyance wrote: I don't like the idea of nothing after death. But then again, I'm young, and thus not likely to accept the inevitability of death anytime soon.
Compare it to your feelings in regards to what happened before you were born. Does the idea of nothing before birth affect you in the same way?
Pouncey wrote:Religion, to me, is a codified set of rules based on doctrine that is able to establish itself as something humanity is willing to call a religion and not something else.
I'm a former LaVeyan Satanist. My religion was basically based directly on Jesus' teachings in the Bible, and updated for the modern era when we had more science and understanding. The morals are the same as Jesus taught, but LaVeyan Satanism teaches them in a way that does not really tolerate superstition or bullgak. There aren't any lies offered. There aren't any tall tales used to teach by metaphor. There aren't any stories that could be confused for mythology.
Effectively, it's three major components.
1. Satan gets a hard rap but shouldn't.
2. This is WHY you benefit from these moral values Jesus taught.
3. Christianity is evil bullgak that twists Jesus' words to justify their own evils.
And to be honest, I stopped calling myself a LaVeyan Satanist not because my beliefs changed, but because I didn't see a purpose in adhering to the label. I still call myself a former LaVeyan Satanist when describing my religion, because it is the only religion I have ever seen merit in, and former is different from ex when it comes to connotation.
It's interesting to have a religion that denies the validity of altruism, then immediately goes on to explain why helping others and following the law and being a good person directly benefits YOU.
Steele, that made my damn night. I will go to bed happy now.
I served with a Satanist. He really schooled me on what it meant, and the reason he called it Satanism had more to do with a jab at the church and less to do with Satan.
As for me, I'm an Athiest. I keep it to myself, because believe it or not, in the south thats the new person to discriminate against, not as bad as they discriminate against Homosexuals, but last person I told turned theri back on me and walked away as I was speaking.
religion has a place but not in modern society of rules and science
What does it mean to me? Look up Bacha Bazzi and that will answer the question. Its almost always a way to force your views on the mass and make them ok. Its for those who no longer want to find the answers but have them handed to them,
watch Bill Nye debates Kenn Hamm, and you can see a perfect example of someone who cant create a thought for themself without having to reference a horribly written book of stories.
redleger wrote: religion has a place but not in modern society of rules and science
Rules and science have always existed, just like religion. They all fill intrinsical needs of the human species. Why wouldn't there be a place for religion. It is quite a scary statement, actually. In a society where there is no place for religion, what is going to happen to all the religious people?
redleger wrote: What does it mean to me? Look up Bacha Bazzi and that will answer the question.
What does that have to do with religion?
redleger wrote: Its almost always a way to force your views on the mass and make them ok.
No, it is not. Religion can and will be abused in such ways, but that does not make it any different from many other things that can and will be abused in the same way.
redleger wrote: Its for those who no longer want to find the answers but have them handed to them
That is just not true. Searching for answers is a huge part of any religion. In fact, it is the reason religion exists in the first place.
Iron_Captain wrote: It is quite a scary statement, actually. In a society where there is no place for religion, what is going to happen to all the religious people?
Horoscopes? Homeopathy? Conspiracy theory seems like a good answer.
redleger wrote: religion has a place but not in modern society of rules and science
Rules and science have always existed, just like religion. They all fill intrinsical needs of the human species. Why wouldn't there be a place for religion.
It is quite a scary statement, actually. In a society where there is no place for religion, what is going to happen to all the religious people?
I am curious of what you believe will happen?
Religion has no place in this modern society as it pertains to politics, lawmaking, and education.
I also am from the south and keep the fact that I am a non-theist to myself and close friends due to persecution. It could even cost me a job in my right to work states. It has cost me friends and gained me the ire family members.
redleger wrote: religion has a place but not in modern society of rules and science
Rules and science have always existed, just like religion. They all fill intrinsical needs of the human species. Why wouldn't there be a place for religion. It is quite a scary statement, actually. In a society where there is no place for religion, what is going to happen to all the religious people?
redleger wrote: What does it mean to me? Look up Bacha Bazzi and that will answer the question.
What does that have to do with religion?
redleger wrote: Its almost always a way to force your views on the mass and make them ok.
No, it is not. Religion can and will be abused in such ways, but that does not make it any different from many other things that can and will be abused in the same way.
redleger wrote: Its for those who no longer want to find the answers but have them handed to them
That is just not true. Searching for answers is a huge part of any religion. In fact, it is the reason religion exists in the first place.
1. Lets look at how religion is impacting society today. Our new secretary of education and VP would love to see relgion make their way back into the school system. Once you start teaching creationism you begin skewing facts to fit a book full of stories instead of books based on scientific fact. This leads to science being seen as opposing of the great religions truth. That leads to book burnings, jailing and if we repeat the past, burning at the stake of "heretics" I am not saying that it would happen tomorrow, but its not a far off thought. Instead we should be satisfying that "truth" seaking with a desire to find facts in a real and positive way. Faith does not lead to the discovery of the next vaccine that cures a disease.
Religion separates more people than it brings together. I am not saying outlaw religion, I'm simply saying when religion is less important than advancement of the species, you may see many of the problems we currently face disappear. Nothing will happen to religious people, there simply wont be any.
2. Bacha Bazzi is based on the religious notion that women are for only one purpose. The abuse of these boys is tolerated at a religious level, this is not just organic to rural Afghanistan. It is a direct result of teachings making women worthless for anything other than making more babies.
3. Im not sure the last time there was a stabbing or bombing because we know the world is round, but just felt the need to destroy the flat earth society. Yes that is a thing. I have often had very hateful ideas towards Ken Hamm, but never had I thought it would be a good idea to launch an assault on his tax payer funded Ark of lies. Christian teachings have been growing more hate in this country that Islam has. Hate towards the scientific community and towards anything that disproves what they believe to be true.
4. Searching for answers in the religious community is not difficult. Open the (insert man made holy text here) find a passage that supports your claim, feel better about yourself. Or you go to a religious leader, ask the question, get quoted something from same said book and feel better about yourself. Instead why not conduct experiment, develop a theory and then see if its true? Why does the sun rise? Is it the Egyptian god pulling it across the sky on his chariot? wait no, its because of the rotation of the earth.
When we can believe our own actions are destroying the Earth instead of thinking global warming is a lie, when we all work towards better medicines instead of praying over a kid as it dies or neglecting to take them to get mental health instead of thinking there is a demon inside of them, then maybe just maybe we can move on to the next evolutionary step for mankind. Instead we are actually going backwards because we are not producing the scientists we should be.
Inshullah is the religious concept that whatever happens does not matter because it is god's will. I would prefer to think we can make a difference and that our destiny is not set in stone by the Abrahamic god.
Iron_Captain wrote: It is quite a scary statement, actually. In a society where there is no place for religion, what is going to happen to all the religious people?
They all look back and say "wow, that was a silly thing we believed". It's possible for religion to end without violent persecution and forcing religious people to give up their religions.
Jehan-reznor wrote: Religion will not go away it will take other forms, and there will always be people who need a god figure to be their moral compass.
The people who think that a god is the only thing keeping them from killing and raping are frightening.
Jehan-reznor wrote: Religion will not go away it will take other forms, and there will always be people who need a god figure to be their moral compass.
The people who think that a god is the only thing keeping them from killing and raping are frightening.
THIS 100%. If your personal moral compass is so broken that threat of burning in hell is all that is keeping that person in line, at some point the lack of moral compass will win over the religious view. Especially when you are in a religion that says see a priest, say some prayer and you are GTG. I am not saying murder would be forgiven by said deity according to church doctrine, but the psychological impact of that belief will allow many people to do some heinous things.
redleger wrote: religion has a place but not in modern society of rules and science
Rules and science have always existed, just like religion. They all fill intrinsical needs of the human species. Why wouldn't there be a place for religion.
It is quite a scary statement, actually. In a society where there is no place for religion, what is going to happen to all the religious people?
I am curious of what you believe will happen?
Religion has no place in this modern society as it pertains to politics, lawmaking, and education.
I also am from the south and keep the fact that I am a non-theist to myself and close friends due to persecution. It could even cost me a job in my right to work states. It has cost me friends and gained me the ire family members.
Politics and lawmaking? No. Mixing politics and religion is a really really bad idea. That is why virtually all western nations, including the US, have seperation of church and state. But religion definitely has a place in education. Religion is an important part of human society, and therefore children need to be educated on it same as on other elements of society. Doing otherwise would not properly prepare children for taking their place in society.
As to what I believe will happen in a society that declares that religion has no place within it anymore? Well, I am from Russia. You only need to look at Russian history (or that of any other nation that tried to put an end to religion, like China) to know what will happen. Hint: it includes massive bloodshed and the destruction of centuries worth of cultural heritage.
Crispy78 wrote:
Iron_Captain wrote: Searching for answers is a huge part of any religion. In fact, it is the reason religion exists in the first place.
Well, yeah, if you go back several thousand years, when people were looking for explanations for things like 'why does the sun come up every day'...
Ever since then though, science has been continuously explaining the things that were originally attributed to a god.
That is not why religion exists. Religion has been used to offer explanations to such questions, but even thousands of years ago people were already coming up with non-religious explanations for those things as well.
The questions that religion generally provides answer to are more existential in nature. Questions like: "Why am I here?", "What is the meaning of life?" or "What happens to me after I die?"
It will be never possible to answer those questions using the scientific method.
It is also impossible to prove. Because it can not be proven scientifically it's ok to not know. Does not mean I have to buy into a religion to hand me an answer.
Iron_Captain wrote: But religion definitely has a place in education. Religion is an important part of human society, and therefore children need to be educated on it same as on other elements of society. Doing otherwise would not properly prepare children for taking their place in society.
That's a self-perpetuating existence that offers no reason as to why children should learn about religion in schools.
As to what I believe will happen in a society that declares that religion has no place within it anymore? Well, I am from Russia. You only need to look at Russian history (or that of any other nation that tried to put an end to religion, like China) to know what will happen. Hint: it includes massive bloodshed and the destruction of centuries worth of cultural heritage.
You might have a point, if we didn't have thousands of years of massive bloodshed and the destruction of millennium's worth of cultural heritage in the name of religion.
The questions that religion generally provides answer to are more existential in nature. Questions like: "Why am I here?", "What is the meaning of life?" or "What happens to me after I die?"
It will be never possible to answer those questions using the scientific method.
All of those questions can be considered via philosophy and don't need to include religion.
The questions that religion generally provides answer to are more existential in nature. Questions like: "Why am I here?", "What is the meaning of life?" or "What happens to me after I die?"
You mean, those are the questions that religion pretends to provide answers to.
redleger wrote: religion has a place but not in modern society of rules and science
Rules and science have always existed, just like religion. They all fill intrinsical needs of the human species. Why wouldn't there be a place for religion.
It is quite a scary statement, actually. In a society where there is no place for religion, what is going to happen to all the religious people?
redleger wrote: What does it mean to me? Look up Bacha Bazzi and that will answer the question.
What does that have to do with religion?
redleger wrote: Its almost always a way to force your views on the mass and make them ok.
No, it is not. Religion can and will be abused in such ways, but that does not make it any different from many other things that can and will be abused in the same way.
redleger wrote: Its for those who no longer want to find the answers but have them handed to them
That is just not true. Searching for answers is a huge part of any religion. In fact, it is the reason religion exists in the first place.
1. Lets look at how religion is impacting society today. Our new secretary of education and VP would love to see relgion make their way back into the school system. Once you start teaching creationism you begin skewing facts to fit a book full of stories instead of books based on scientific fact. This leads to science being seen as opposing of the great religions truth. That leads to book burnings, jailing and if we repeat the past, burning at the stake of "heretics" I am not saying that it would happen tomorrow, but its not a far off thought. Instead we should be satisfying that "truth" seaking with a desire to find facts in a real and positive way. Faith does not lead to the discovery of the next vaccine that cures a disease.
Religion separates more people than it brings together. I am not saying outlaw religion, I'm simply saying when religion is less important than advancement of the species, you may see many of the problems we currently face disappear. Nothing will happen to religious people, there simply wont be any.
2. Bacha Bazzi is based on the religious notion that women are for only one purpose. The abuse of these boys is tolerated at a religious level, this is not just organic to rural Afghanistan. It is a direct result of teachings making women worthless for anything other than making more babies.
3. Im not sure the last time there was a stabbing or bombing because we know the world is round, but just felt the need to destroy the flat earth society. Yes that is a thing. I have often had very hateful ideas towards Ken Hamm, but never had I thought it would be a good idea to launch an assault on his tax payer funded Ark of lies. Christian teachings have been growing more hate in this country that Islam has. Hate towards the scientific community and towards anything that disproves what they believe to be true.
4. Searching for answers in the religious community is not difficult. Open the (insert man made holy text here) find a passage that supports your claim, feel better about yourself. Or you go to a religious leader, ask the question, get quoted something from same said book and feel better about yourself. Instead why not conduct experiment, develop a theory and then see if its true? Why does the sun rise? Is it the Egyptian god pulling it across the sky on his chariot? wait no, its because of the rotation of the earth.
When we can believe our own actions are destroying the Earth instead of thinking global warming is a lie, when we all work towards better medicines instead of praying over a kid as it dies or neglecting to take them to get mental health instead of thinking there is a demon inside of them, then maybe just maybe we can move on to the next evolutionary step for mankind. Instead we are actually going backwards because we are not producing the scientists we should be.
Inshullah is the religious concept that whatever happens does not matter because it is god's will. I would prefer to think we can make a difference and that our destiny is not set in stone by the Abrahamic god.
Edit for spelling.
1. Creationism is not the same thing as religion though. Creationism is a fundamentalistic christian ideology mostly limited to the United States. Equating that with all religion or even just christianity is like equating ISIS with all islam.
Religious extremism, like any kind of extremism, is very dangerous. That does not mean that all religion is bad and shouldn't have a place in society. Politics is also something that often gives rise to extremism. Do you also hope that politics dissapear? Be realistic. Religion and politics are two things that shall never go away. They are intrinsical to our species.
Also, what do you mean by 'advancement of the species'? Isn't that something advocated by literally every single religious or political ideology?
2. If bacha bazi is rooted in religion, then why did the devoutly religious Taliban attempt to root it out? Then why is it not found in other nations sharing the same religion? Bacha bazi is something rooted in Afghan culture, not in religion, altough religion may be used to justify it. Similarly, bad treatment of women is also not something inherent to islam, as evidenced by islamic cultures that do not treat women badly. Bad treatment of women is an issue with Middle-Eastern cultures, not necessarily with religion, which can and will always shift to accomodate differences or changes in culture.
3. Religious extremism can generate hate, violence and all kinds of nasty things. But how does that make it different from any kind of extremism? As for violent anti-religious extremism, maybe that has not happened in the US yet, but you only need to look a little beyond the borders of your own country to learn how nasty it can be. Again, there are many things that can generate extremism and hate and be used to justify violence. Religion is only one of those things. Why then single out religion as something that has no place in society? The issue here is not with religion, it is with the human species that is inherently violent and hateful. If religion were to somehow disappear, nothing would change. There would be just as much hate and violence as ever, people will just find other justifications. If there is anything people are good at it is coming up with justifications for behaviour they know is wrong.
4. If only it were so easy in reality. Unfortenately, religion and their assorted holy books and mythologies tend to be extremely cryptic, which makes getting answers (not to mention getting people to agree on those answers) extremely difficult.
If only every question could be answered with the scientific method religion would never even have existed. But alas, the knowledge of man is far too limited to ever be able to sate its curiousity. That is why we turn to the supernatural.
redleger wrote: "When we can believe our own actions are destroying the Earth instead of thinking global warming is a lie, when we all work towards better medicines instead of praying over a kid as it dies or neglecting to take them to get mental health instead of thinking there is a demon inside of them, then maybe just maybe we can move on to the next evolutionary step for mankind."
Now you sound just like the Bible. If only the wolf would lie down with the lamb...
Last but not least, if you want to believe you can determine your own destiny, you'd better turn away from science. Most scientists seem to come to the conclusion that the world is deterministic in nature. Not that it really matters. Whether our destiny is pre-determined or not, it will remain equally unpredictable to us. We can't predict it, so we can't change it. All we can do is hope for a bit of luck.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
redleger wrote:It is also impossible to prove. Because it can not be proven scientifically it's ok to not know. Does not mean I have to buy into a religion to hand me an answer.
Maybe you feel no need to know. Many others do.
infinite_array wrote:
Iron_Captain wrote: But religion definitely has a place in education. Religion is an important part of human society, and therefore children need to be educated on it same as on other elements of society. Doing otherwise would not properly prepare children for taking their place in society.
That's a self-perpetuating existence that offers no reason as to why children should learn about religion in schools.
It is not self-perpetuating since religion does not need education to form. Religion will be there regardless of whether you give lessons about in school.
infinite_array wrote:
As to what I believe will happen in a society that declares that religion has no place within it anymore? Well, I am from Russia. You only need to look at Russian history (or that of any other nation that tried to put an end to religion, like China) to know what will happen. Hint: it includes massive bloodshed and the destruction of centuries worth of cultural heritage.
You might have a point, if we didn't have thousands of years of massive bloodshed and the destruction of millennium's worth of cultural heritage in the name of religion.
Blood has been spilled in the name of anything.
infinite_array wrote:
The questions that religion generally provides answer to are more existential in nature. Questions like: "Why am I here?", "What is the meaning of life?" or "What happens to me after I die?"
It will be never possible to answer those questions using the scientific method.
All of those questions can be considered via philosophy and don't need to include religion.
I've yet to meet a philosopher who can provide an answer to that. Philosophy raises questions. It does not provide satisfying answers.
The questions that religion generally provides answer to are more existential in nature. Questions like: "Why am I here?", "What is the meaning of life?" or "What happens to me after I die?"
You mean, those are the questions that religion pretends to provide answers to.
Iron_Captain wrote: It is quite a scary statement, actually. In a society where there is no place for religion, what is going to happen to all the religious people?
They all look back and say "wow, that was a silly thing we believed". It's possible for religion to end without violent persecution and forcing religious people to give up their religions.
Oh come on mate, get back down to earth. That is no more possible than it is to peacefully convert the entire world to a single religion.
The questions that religion generally provides answer to are more existential in nature. Questions like: "Why am I here?", "What is the meaning of life?" or "What happens to me after I die?"
You mean, those are the questions that religion pretends to provide answers to.
Got anything better?
Completely irrelevant. Answers stand on their own merits.
There is not default position that "automatically wins" if no other answer is provided. Thinking like that is classically religious thinking.
Last but not least, if you want to believe you can determine your own destiny, you'd better turn away from science. Most scientists seem to come to the conclusion that the world is deterministic in nature.
Without wanting to get into the larger debate, while some things can be predicted with high degrees if certainty, reality is not deterministic, at least given current understandings. Reality is, at the most fundamental levels, a function of probability with inherent uncertainty. The entire field of quantum physics revolves around this fact.
Last but not least, if you want to believe you can determine your own destiny, you'd better turn away from science. Most scientists seem to come to the conclusion that the world is deterministic in nature.
Without wanting to get into the larger debate, while some things can be predicted with high degrees if certainty, reality is not deterministic, at least given current understandings. Reality is, at the most fundamental levels, a function of probability with inherent uncertainty. The entire field of quantum physics revolves around this fact.
Also without getting into the larger debate, I second what Vaktathi just said.
Iron_Captain wrote: It is quite a scary statement, actually. In a society where there is no place for religion, what is going to happen to all the religious people?
They all look back and say "wow, that was a silly thing we believed". It's possible for religion to end without violent persecution and forcing religious people to give up their religions.
Oh come on mate, get back down to earth. That is no more possible than it is to peacefully convert the entire world to a single religion.
AAAND that is the problem. Religions claim you will be given power in the next life, but it wants power in this one.
Religion wants to convert everyone that is one of the main points of it.
The questions that religion generally provides answer to are more existential in nature. Questions like: "Why am I here?", "What is the meaning of life?" or "What happens to me after I die?"
You mean, those are the questions that religion pretends to provide answers to.
Got anything better?
Completely irrelevant. Answers stand on their own merits. There is not default position that "automatically wins" if no other answer is provided. Thinking like that is classically religious thinking.
I respectfully disagree. Having something is always better than having nothing at all. Let's say you are at school, taking a test. All questions are multiple choice with 4 possible answers: A, B, C and D. Question 13 completely eludes you. You have no idea as to what the answer to it could be. However, underneath the question you see that instead of 4 there is only one possible option: A. Are you going to pick that option or are you going to leave the question empty?
Last but not least, if you want to believe you can determine your own destiny, you'd better turn away from science. Most scientists seem to come to the conclusion that the world is deterministic in nature.
Without wanting to get into the larger debate, while some things can be predicted with high degrees if certainty, reality is not deterministic, at least given current understandings. Reality is, at the most fundamental levels, a function of probability with inherent uncertainty. The entire field of quantum physics revolves around this fact.
Without wanting to turn this into a debate on determinism and quantum mechanics, it is not that simple. Scientists are not of one mind on it (nothing involving quantum mechanics is ). Renowned scientists in the field have a whole range of different opinions. Very interesting but also very off topic.
But religion makes the claim it does so by divine right.
So what? Communism makes the claim it does so for social equality. Anti-religious zealots make the claim they do so for the progress of the human species. What difference does the exact justification make, if the end result is always the same?
Iron_Captain wrote: It is quite a scary statement, actually. In a society where there is no place for religion, what is going to happen to all the religious people?
They all look back and say "wow, that was a silly thing we believed". It's possible for religion to end without violent persecution and forcing religious people to give up their religions.
Oh come on mate, get back down to earth. That is no more possible than it is to peacefully convert the entire world to a single religion.
AAAND that is the problem. Religions claim you will be given power in the next life, but it wants power in this one.
Religion wants to convert everyone that is one of the main points of it.
Not necessarily. Not all religions are big on converting. There are even religions in which it is forbidden. Meanwhile, there is plenty of non-religious ideologies that want to convert people to their point of view. Again, wanting people to see things your way is something inherent in humans, not a fault inherent to religion.
Iron_Captain wrote: It is quite a scary statement, actually. In a society where there is no place for religion, what is going to happen to all the religious people?
They all look back and say "wow, that was a silly thing we believed". It's possible for religion to end without violent persecution and forcing religious people to give up their religions.
Oh come on mate, get back down to earth. That is no more possible than it is to peacefully convert the entire world to a single religion.
Actually that's very possible and quite common. The reason the percentage of atheists in the world is rising (besides less persecution from religious extremists and fewer governments being tightly coupled with religions) is because people are often born into religious families or communities but as they learn about the world, science, and how things work they lose their religious believes. No need for violence, it's actually the absence of violence and lack of power from religious leaders that makes this much easier today than ever before.
It happened to me too. I was born into a christian family but during what would be equivalent to high school years I learned things and read books. At some point it just made no sense anymore to put such a big amount of trust in books that provide no proof of anything they assume to be the truth. To me the bible, the quran, and other religious texts are more like fiction novels that may, or may not, include historic elements. Religion as a phenomenon is interesting but it's not something I would want to or need to actively include in my life.
The situation may be different for people who live in heavily religious countries where one religion or another has actual power but as this power of religion decreases so does the number of followers. As we reduce inequality all over the world religion seems to shrink too and I don't see that trend reversing is things keep getting better.
I can understand what you are saying Mario, but there will still be people uneducated and highly educated people that need to fill the void in themselves with religion.
People seem to need to adore or idolize something may it be a godly figure, an artist, sports team, ideology political parties and so on.
Religion as we know it may disappear as the world becomes more educated and technological, but i believe it will just change its form.
The questions that religion generally provides answer to are more existential in nature. Questions like: "Why am I here?", "What is the meaning of life?" or "What happens to me after I die?"
You mean, those are the questions that religion pretends to provide answers to.
Got anything better?
Completely irrelevant. Answers stand on their own merits.
There is not default position that "automatically wins" if no other answer is provided. Thinking like that is classically religious thinking.
I respectfully disagree. Having something is always better than having nothing at all.
Let's say you are at school, taking a test. All questions are multiple choice with 4 possible answers: A, B, C and D. Question 13 completely eludes you. You have no idea as to what the answer to it could be. However, underneath the question you see that instead of 4 there is only one possible option: A. Are you going to pick that option or are you going to leave the question empty?
Invalid comparison.
In the case that you propose the number of possible answers would literally have to be infinite to cover all possible possibilities.
Here is a different test. All question have a blank field in which you write your answer and the justification for your answer. Next to every single question is also a little box marked "I don't know". Choose either.
That is the way to know as many true things and as few false things as possible.
The questions that religion generally provides answer to are more existential in nature. Questions like: "Why am I here?", "What is the meaning of life?" or "What happens to me after I die?"
You mean, those are the questions that religion pretends to provide answers to.
Got anything better?
Completely irrelevant. Answers stand on their own merits.
There is not default position that "automatically wins" if no other answer is provided. Thinking like that is classically religious thinking.
I respectfully disagree. Having something is always better than having nothing at all.
Let's say you are at school, taking a test. All questions are multiple choice with 4 possible answers: A, B, C and D. Question 13 completely eludes you. You have no idea as to what the answer to it could be. However, underneath the question you see that instead of 4 there is only one possible option: A. Are you going to pick that option or are you going to leave the question empty?
Invalid comparison.
In the case that you propose the number of possible answers would literally have to be infinite to cover all possible possibilities.
Here is a different test. All question have a blank field in which you write your answer and the justification for your answer. Next to every single question is also a little box marked "I don't know". Choose either.
That is the way to know as many true things and as few false things as possible.
Your analogy does not correspond to the situation.
The situation is that there is a question that religion do provide a possible answer for (as many answers as there are religions, but for the sake of simplicity, let us pretend there is only 1). Therefore, on the test in our analogy, one of the possible answers should already be filled in. Those disagreeing with the religious answer will have to leave the question blank or fill in "I don't know", since there are no alternatives and they can't know what the actual answer to the question is. Of course this means that they won't get points for the test. The people who did pick the religious answer meanwhile similarly have no idea what the actual answer to the question is. The answer they gave may very well be wrong and they also won't get any points. However, for them there is at least a chance that is correct and that they will receive points. This is pretty much the basics of how multiple choice questions work. If you don't know the answer you just pick something that seems reasonable and hope it is right and it will give you points. Leaving a question blank or answering 'I don't know' is never the correct answer and will never give you points.
Ergo, an answer is better than no answer at all, even if you do not know whether the answer you gave is true or not.
Of course, you could just write in your own answer instead of picking the one that is given, but seeing as that you have no idea at all as to what the correct answer is this would not be meaningfully different. It does not really matter whether the answer provided for you by those more knowledgeable about the subject (in our analogy, the makers of the test. In reality, religious scholars) seems right to you or whether you ponder the issue yourself to come up with an idea that seems right to you. The first option would be institutionalised religion, the second is personal religion. Whatever the way you get to your answer, you will have to resort to something supernatural since the answer to these existential questions can not be provided by our knowledge of the natural world. If you really want to avoid any supernatural explanation you will be forced to answer "I don't know". This may be good enough for you and others, but for most people it is not. Therefore they come up with supernatural explanations and therefore religion exists, has always existed and always will exist. It is quite simple.
Iron_Captain wrote: It is quite a scary statement, actually. In a society where there is no place for religion, what is going to happen to all the religious people?
They all look back and say "wow, that was a silly thing we believed". It's possible for religion to end without violent persecution and forcing religious people to give up their religions.
Oh come on mate, get back down to earth. That is no more possible than it is to peacefully convert the entire world to a single religion.
Actually that's very possible and quite common. The reason the percentage of atheists in the world is rising (besides less persecution from religious extremists and fewer governments being tightly coupled with religions) is because people are often born into religious families or communities but as they learn about the world, science, and how things work they lose their religious believes. No need for violence, it's actually the absence of violence and lack of power from religious leaders that makes this much easier today than ever before.
It happened to me too. I was born into a christian family but during what would be equivalent to high school years I learned things and read books. At some point it just made no sense anymore to put such a big amount of trust in books that provide no proof of anything they assume to be the truth. To me the bible, the quran, and other religious texts are more like fiction novels that may, or may not, include historic elements. Religion as a phenomenon is interesting but it's not something I would want to or need to actively include in my life.
The situation may be different for people who live in heavily religious countries where one religion or another has actual power but as this power of religion decreases so does the number of followers. As we reduce inequality all over the world religion seems to shrink too and I don't see that trend reversing is things keep getting better.
It is a common pattern for (institutionalised) religion to lose its importance and authority in affluent societies as the human needs filled by institutionalised religion can be filled by other means. In times of hardship however, people flock to the church like sheep. This pattern is common across history and cultures. The importance and authority of institutionalised religions may wax and wane, but religion, neither on personal nor institutional level will ever disappear. Not unless we could somehow reach a flawless utopian post-scarcity society. But a belief in the possibility of such a society could very well become a religion in itself *cough*communism*cough*.
Iron_Captain wrote: It is a common pattern for (institutionalised) religion to lose its importance and authority in affluent societies as the human needs filled by institutionalised religion can be filled by other means. In times of hardship however, people flock to the church like sheep. This pattern is common across history and cultures.
Is Albania affluent? They sure don't seem to flock churches or mosques like sheep.
Iron_Captain wrote: [
I respectfully disagree. Having something is always better than having nothing at all.
Let's say you are at school, taking a test. All questions are multiple choice with 4 possible answers: A, B, C and D. Question 13 completely eludes you. You have no idea as to what the answer to it could be. However, underneath the question you see that instead of 4 there is only one possible option: A. Are you going to pick that option or are you going to leave the question empty?
Having something is not better than nothing and religion does not inherently making people better people. Just look at history and the numerous deeds done in the name of religion. Belgrade, Pedophilia, Inquisition, Crusades, Suicide Bombing, Jihad, Genocide, War, Slavery...
In the pitch blackness of night a blind man is the best guide. But when the morning comes and the sun is out there is no need. Or, using the bible against itself: "When you are no longer a child it is time to put away childish things."
As far as your test example goes. That is why we have the ever changing reason of science. It is always updating to take new facts into account.
Once we thought the plague is sent down upon sinners now we know the truth of how it spread.
Natural disasters occur and you have many religious leaders crying out this was punishment from god. When you can clearly look at scientific evidence to see how they came about.
To such heights of evil are men driven by religion.
Iron_Captain wrote: [
I respectfully disagree. Having something is always better than having nothing at all.
Let's say you are at school, taking a test. All questions are multiple choice with 4 possible answers: A, B, C and D. Question 13 completely eludes you. You have no idea as to what the answer to it could be. However, underneath the question you see that instead of 4 there is only one possible option: A. Are you going to pick that option or are you going to leave the question empty?
Having something is not better than nothing and religion does not inherently making people better people. Just look at history and the numerous deeds done in the name of religion. Belgrade, Pedophilia, Inquisition, Crusades, Suicide Bombing, Jihad, Genocide, War, Slavery...
In the pitch blackness of night a blind man is the best guide. But when the morning comes and the sun is out there is no need. Or, using the bible against itself: "When you are no longer a child it is time to put away childish things."
As far as your test example goes. That is why we have the ever changing reason of science. It is always updating to take new facts into account.
Once we thought the plague is sent down upon sinners now we know the truth of how it spread.
Natural disasters occur and you have many religious leaders crying out this was punishment from god. When you can clearly look at scientific evidence to see how they came about.
To such heights of evil are men driven by religion.
I'm afraid the only thing you are 'proving' is your own personal bias. To say violence in history is predominantly attributed to religion is a myth. Socio-economic factors are usually much more prevalent in wars, attempted genocides, etc.
As for your scientific 'truths' about plagues and disasters, why do you think it's not possible for such matters to be BOTH scientific and supernatural? Can't a supernatural being cause an event through natural means? Saying it has to be one or the other seems awfully narrow to me.
As for your scientific 'truths' about plagues and disasters, why do you think it's not possible for such matters to be BOTH scientific and supernatural? Can't a supernatural being cause an event through natural means? Saying it has to be one or the other seems awfully narrow to me.
To say violence in history is predominantly attributed to religion is a myth. Socio-economic factors are usually much more prevalent in wars, attempted genocides, etc.
As far as religion is concerned theirs is excusable by divine right
amanita wrote: As for your scientific 'truths' about plagues and disasters, why do you think it's not possible for such matters to be BOTH scientific and supernatural? Can't a supernatural being cause an event through natural means? Saying it has to be one or the other seems awfully narrow to me.
There is no evidence for the involvement of a supernatural being, only the desire by religious people to believe in the stories of their religion. Therefore there is no justification for belief in the involvement, or even existence, of any supernatural being.
Jehan-reznor wrote:I can understand what you are saying Mario, but there will still be people uneducated and highly educated people that need to fill the void in themselves with religion.
People seem to need to adore or idolize something may it be a godly figure, an artist, sports team, ideology political parties and so on.
Religion as we know it may disappear as the world becomes more educated and technological, but i believe it will just change its form.
Hail the Omnisah!
Probably all true. My guess is that at some point religion will lose power and end up as like astrology. Something people dabble in or more of a personal believe thing instead of having actual power like big religious institutions have today, just look at extremist muslims/ISIS or how the catholic church accidentally/intentionally/ignorantly (a bit of all?) contributes to the spreading of AIDS in Africa.
Iron_Captain wrote:
It is a common pattern for (institutionalised) religion to lose its importance and authority in affluent societies as the human needs filled by institutionalised religion can be filled by other means. In times of hardship however, people flock to the church like sheep. This pattern is common across history and cultures. The importance and authority of institutionalised religions may wax and wane, but religion, neither on personal nor institutional level will ever disappear. Not unless we could somehow reach a flawless utopian post-scarcity society. But a belief in the possibility of such a society could very well become a religion in itself *cough*communism*cough*.
See above, I think with a better social and governmental support net the power of "big religion" could be greatly reduced. Some people are proposing and getting used to the idea of some sort of universal basic income. And an overall capitalistic society with UBI could be summarised as "socialism for the poor, capitalism for the rich" while making minimum wages and unions obsolete but also increasing the pressure on employers to offer fair wages and treat workers much better at the same time. If people don't have to work and can live comfortably without making extra money you have to actually offer something besides "this salary barely covers housing and food".
It would take a lot of stress out of people's lives and the church would stop being a very local safety net for a lot of people in communities that are otherwise barely supported (read an article about that phenomenon recently). Communism, like we historically know it, probably won't happen but the recent increase in wealth inequality has made people (even in the USA) receptive of more socialist government programs. And further automation won't help the situation because capital can just bypass the worker easier and faster than ever before.
amanita wrote: As for your scientific 'truths' about plagues and disasters, why do you think it's not possible for such matters to be BOTH scientific and supernatural? Can't a supernatural being cause an event through natural means? Saying it has to be one or the other seems awfully narrow to me.
There is no evidence for the involvement of a supernatural being, only the desire by religious people to believe in the stories of their religion. Therefore there is no justification for belief in the involvement, or even existence, of any supernatural being.
I hope the irony of your reference isn't lost on you.
amanita wrote: I hope the irony of your reference isn't lost on you.
What's your point, that Occam was a Christian? The fact that he didn't apply his own principle consistently doesn't reduce the value of it when applied to modern questions. Nor does your comment in any way offer a response to the substance of the criticism of your poor initial argument.
amanita wrote: As for your scientific 'truths' about plagues and disasters, why do you think it's not possible for such matters to be BOTH scientific and supernatural? Can't a supernatural being cause an event through natural means? Saying it has to be one or the other seems awfully narrow to me.
There is no evidence for the involvement of a supernatural being, only the desire by religious people to believe in the stories of their religion. Therefore there is no justification for belief in the involvement, or even existence, of any supernatural being.
You are abusing Occam's razor. Occam's razor is a heuristic to guide people to writing better theories. It doesn't prove or disprove anything. That is not what it was designed for.
It has been established time and time again that in reality, the most simple possible theory is often not correct. Things in the natural world are often more complex than they need to be.
Occam's razor does not tell us anything about what is right or wrong or about justifications for anything. It only tells us which competing hypothesis should be selected for testing first. It has nothing to do with the fact that the simplest answer is probably correct, but rather because simpler hypotheses are easier to eliminate (through the principle of falsifiability).
You are abusing Occam's razor. Occam's razor is a heuristic to guide people to writing better theories. It doesn't prove or disprove anything. That is not what it was designed for.
It has been established time and time again that in reality, the most simple possible theory is often not correct. Things in the natural world are often more complex than they need to be.
Occam's razor does not tell us anything about what is right or wrong or about justifications for anything. It only tells us which competing hypothesis should be selected for testing first. It has nothing to do with the fact that the simplest answer is probably correct, but rather because simpler hypotheses are easier to eliminate (through the principle of falsifiability).
That's to some degree true but when your options are "we don't understand this phenomenon 100% in scientific terms but it could be this, that, or it's just unexplainable at the moment" and "it could be some supernatural being that's sprinkling some pixie dust to create natural effects" then Occam's razor would point us away from the "supernatural pixie dust" explanation every time.
The Razor isn't about what hypotheses can be eliminated. It posits only that "among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected." It's not even really about falsifiability, it's about getting out of having to deal with nonsense. For example "God created the universe." Counter response: "the universe was created by a series of <insert maths here>." Counter counter response: "God made it happen." The counter counter response is an ad hoc assumption with no evidence. Occam's Razor exists as a principle to dismiss it because you can always produce another ad hoc assumption to explain any given gap in a data set (this was the original purpose of the Razor in natural philosophy).
By their very nature any supernatural explanation for something basically fails Occam's Razor as a default, because they are by their own merits ad hoc.
A more classic example is the fervent belief that Unicorn's exist. When asked for evidence you simply say "they are invisible." Someone proposes to test for the existence of Unicorns by air dropping paint from a helicoptor. You simply say "they absorb paint." The proposed test is modified to use baking soda. "Baking soda disintegrates them." Ad infinitum. Conversely I can just say "Occam's razor" and ignore the nonsense until evidence arises to support it, or I can just tell my little sister she's full of bull gak and needs to pay more attention in school (but that would be mean).
OK, i am all about schooling people on the scientific method and why it negates the need for religion to explain anything, or not explain it without the need to resort to the supernatural. Looks like we are headed in a different direction though. Please lets not get this one locked.
I leave you with this Christopher Hitchens quote:
What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.
I think that sentence is the core of what we are discussing. Asserting something exists, with no evidence VS asserting something does not exist due to lack of evidence.
You are abusing Occam's razor. Occam's razor is a heuristic to guide people to writing better theories. It doesn't prove or disprove anything. That is not what it was designed for.
It has been established time and time again that in reality, the most simple possible theory is often not correct. Things in the natural world are often more complex than they need to be.
Occam's razor does not tell us anything about what is right or wrong or about justifications for anything. It only tells us which competing hypothesis should be selected for testing first. It has nothing to do with the fact that the simplest answer is probably correct, but rather because simpler hypotheses are easier to eliminate (through the principle of falsifiability).
That's to some degree true but when your options are "we don't understand this phenomenon 100% in scientific terms but it could be this, that, or it's just unexplainable at the moment" and "it could be some supernatural being that's sprinkling some pixie dust to create natural effects" then Occam's razor would point us away from the "supernatural pixie dust" explanation every time.
You are missing a point. The idea that science and religion must be at odds with each other is unsubstantiated. Why can not science be the revelation of a divine work? Your 100% reference to understanding scientific terms also works for understanding religious ones...just because something isn't 100% clear doesn't mean you can't glean anything about it. And to ignore it completely is possibly an exercise in self-delusion. Saying there is no supernatural force without any proof is no different than saying there is a supernatural force without proof, correct? Just food for thought, that's all.
amanita wrote: Why can not science be the revelation of a divine work?
That is pretty much what science started out as. An honest attempt at understanding God's creation.
Unfortunately for the god-concept it seemed to be entirely superfluous when it comes to explaining the universe we exist in. We found that we simply didn't need gods to explain what we observed.
Every time a question has been answered or a mystery solved, the answer has so far always been "not-magic".
Are you trying to sound like a mean jerk on purpose?
And that's coming from someone who doesn't have any more respect for religions than you do.
redleger wrote: I leave you with this Christopher Hitchens quote:
What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.
That works 100% well… for someone who is trying to convince himself that he is right. However, that doesn't do anything to convince people that are not already convinced. Because literally anything can be dismissed without any evidence. Even reality (Trump is an expert at this ). What the method favored in science is, and what works super duper well, is to formulate a theory consistent with the existing facts you know (here is the part where you are encouraged to use Occam's razor), and one that allows you to make predictions! And then check if the predictions that you make are close enough to what's actually measured. If it works, then your theory is useful. Maybe it's false, but who cares, it predicts the right thing!!! And if sometime later the measurement improve and they don't match with your theory and a new theory is found, then it's okay, your theory still has been quite useful for some time.
That's basically how every science work. Yes, even evolution: the theories imply that we should be able to find this kind and that kind of fossils, and then we do or we don't, and we adjust the theories accordingly.
That's not how religions work though. They are pretty terrible at predicting stuff, and they are pretty terrible at adapting to new discoveries.
amanita wrote:
You are missing a point. The idea that science and religion must be at odds with each other is unsubstantiated. Why can not science be the revelation of a divine work?
It very well could be. And that is where belief comes in. We have no evidence to suggest that the universe is a divine work. Neither do we have any evidence to suggest the opposite. Therefore we are left with the choice to either accept the unknowability of the answer, or to belief that either the positive or negative answer is true. Of course both groups of believers will believe in the truth of their own answer, and come up with ways of justifying their belief, but given the untestability and unfalsifiability of either premise those attempts are doomed to fail.
redleger wrote:
I leave you with this Christopher Hitchens quote:
What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.
I think that sentence is the core of what we are discussing. Asserting something exists, with no evidence VS asserting something does not exist due to lack of evidence.
That is so true. And because it goes both ways, this discussion is something that is never going to end
What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.
I think that sentence is the core of what we are discussing. Asserting something exists, with no evidence VS asserting something does not exist due to lack of evidence.
???
That quote literally means that if I assert Unicorns are real and provide no evidence you can freely dismiss it without having to prove unicorns are not real. Literally it means that any claim made absent evidence does not need to be disproved because it has no basis. It has nothing to do with asserting something does not exist due to a lack of evidence. A lack of evidence where one should expect some to exist on the other hand is evidence of nonexistence.
This isn't even about religion. It's just bad science, which is why people should stop gauging religion as though it were an evidentiary exercise because it just doesn't work.
What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.
I think that sentence is the core of what we are discussing. Asserting something exists, with no evidence VS asserting something does not exist due to lack of evidence.
???
That quote literally means that if I assert Unicorns are real and provide no evidence you can freely dismiss it without having to prove unicorns are not real. Literally it means that any claim made absent evidence does not need to be disproved because it has no basis. It has nothing to do with asserting something does not exist due to a lack of evidence. A lack of evidence where one should expect some to exist on the other hand is evidence of nonexistence.
This isn't even about religion. It's just bad science, which is why people should stop gauging religion as though it were an evidentiary exercise because it just doesn't work.
That is correct actually, If you tell me unicorns are real, but the next sentence out of your mouth isnt and I have proof, please peer review it, then your statement that unicorns are real can easily be dismissed.
amanita wrote:You are missing a point. The idea that science and religion must be at odds with each other is unsubstantiated.
Nobody's saying that religion and science must be at odds with each other. The point is the scientific method doesn't care about religion or what it postulates. But some religious interpretations are at odds with science because scientific explanation take away from the magic or the unexplainable of religions. Science is about "how things work" and religions is about "why things are" (science can't explain that part).
Why can not science be the revelation of a divine work?
If something is assumed to be divine work but is explainable via the scientific method then it's not divine anymore, it's regular and mundane. If divine/supernatural intervention actually existed it would make scientific work quite hard (or impossible) because it would create inconsistencies that are not compatible with the scientific method all over the place. We wouldn't have consistently measurable evidence but chaos. If you can't explain it then it's just another scientific frontier to work on and explore. That's it for science, the divine or religious value of something is irrelevant when it comes to exploring something in the name of science. It's about "how" and can't answer "why". And if the counter-argument is that god(s) made all these scientific findings consistent to give humans something to do and explore (or whatever) then that, again, doesn't matter to science as it's just another convoluted version of "why". To paraphrase a wise man: "Science hears ya, Science don't care"
Your 100% reference to understanding scientific terms also works for understanding religious ones...just because something isn't 100% clear doesn't mean you can't glean anything about it. And to ignore it completely is possibly an exercise in self-delusion.
That wasn't even the point of that point. if you don't understand something via science then that's it. You get to explore it. But if you don't understand something and need something supernatural on top to "explain it" then the second option is by definition the one you can ignore because that "explanation" doesn't add anything to help resolve the unknown.
For example: If you lose your keys then you don't know where they. You might have an idea but you are not 100% sure so you keep looking. That would be the science part but if somebody comes along and explains to you that your keys were stolen by tiny invisible pigs then that's the supernatural "explanation" (why? they are little scamps and like to take your stuff to mess with you) but in the end it doesn't help you with finding your key or explaining how or where you lost them. You can just ignore that "explanation" and not be worse of than before. It's completely irrelevant to your search (be it science or your keys).
Saying there is no supernatural force without any proof is no different than saying there is a supernatural force without proof, correct? Just food for thought, that's all.
Actually wrong, if you don't have a falsifiable hypothesis then your statements have nothing to do with rigorous science. There is a difference between saying "there are no invisible tiny pigs because we haven't seen any" (and we have no proof that they don't exist) and "there are invisible tiny pigs" (but we can't ever provide evidence that they exist). If we can't find proof then the default assumption is that it doesn't exist until we find evidence. And yes, stuff that some hypothesis demands should exist but isn't verifiable gets the scientific method applied to it until it either shows up or is disproven. But if we don't care about proof then we could postulate the existence of anything: gods, goblins, talking bananas, anything. You might have lost your keys many times and actually investigate the possibility of tiny invisible thieving pigs but if you don't find actual proof of their existence you can't just assume that they have to exist because you feel like rationalising your clumsy or forgetful behaviour.
Russel's Teapot is a nice exploration why it's a bad science.
If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes.
But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense.
If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.
Mario wrote: It's about "how" and can't answer "why".
How and Why are both answered in science.
For example:
Q: How do the planets orbit the sun? A: In ellipses with the sun at one focus.
Q: Why do the planets orbit the sun? A: Because the pull of the suns gravity (or curvature of space time about the sun if you want to get General ) and their resultant momentum from their forming out of the dust cloud in which our sun was born causes them to.
Mario wrote: It's about "how" and can't answer "why".
How and Why are both answered in science.
For example:
Q: How do the planets orbit the sun?
A: In ellipses with the sun at one focus.
Q: Why do the planets orbit the sun?
A: Because the pull of the suns gravity (or curvature of space time about the sun if you want to get General ) and their resultant momentum from their forming out of the dust cloud in which our sun was born causes them to.
I agree with your little tongue-in-cheek answer.
Mario was clearly talking about How vs. Why in the sense of Mechanics vs. Motivation though.
Mario wrote: religions is about "why things are" (science can't explain that part).
There's quite a few problems with this way of thinking.
It presumes that religion can answer those questions. There's no evidence to suggest that religion can. There's no methodology, no consistency and most importantly no way of showing what answers it does provide to be false.
It also presumes those are valid questions. There's a possibility that those questions are less about how things are and more like a game of semantics. What if there are no answers yet religion presumes there are? How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
Finally, if those are valid questions why is there the presumption that science cannot answer them? Science has been told since its conception that there are things beyond its boundaries and yet science keeps expanding. The scientific method continues to provide answers to the most complex questions. We don't have all the answers yet but that's the joy of discovery.
Religions do not come close to answering the why questions and it is inappropriate to give them the undeserved respect that they might have answers.
amanita wrote:You are missing a point. The idea that science and religion must be at odds with each other is unsubstantiated.
Nobody's saying that religion and science must be at odds with each other. The point is the scientific method doesn't care about religion or what it postulates. But some religious interpretations are at odds with science because scientific explanation take away from the magic or the unexplainable of religions. Science is about "how things work" and religions is about "why things are" (science can't explain that part).
Why can not science be the revelation of a divine work?
If something is assumed to be divine work but is explainable via the scientific method then it's not divine anymore, it's regular and mundane. If divine/supernatural intervention actually existed it would make scientific work quite hard (or impossible) because it would create inconsistencies that are not compatible with the scientific method all over the place. We wouldn't have consistently measurable evidence but chaos.
This again is where you are having trouble. You believe what appears to be mundane can't be divine. But if a divine power was the force behind the creation of physical laws in the first place, then how do you separate science from its originator? The study or understanding of those laws doesn't divide reality, it only confirms it.
This again is where you are having trouble. You believe what appears to be mundane can't be divine. But if a divine power was the force behind the creation of physical laws in the first place, then how do you separate science from its originator? The study or understanding of those laws doesn't divide reality, it only confirms it.
If a divine power is only able to work through physical laws, which we are also able to manipulate and use, then how is it divine?
amanita wrote: You believe what appears to be mundane can't be divine. But if a divine power was the force behind the creation of physical laws in the first place, then how do you separate science from its originator? The study or understanding of those laws doesn't divide reality, it only confirms it.
You can't prove it 100% that the mundane can't be divine, but there is no reason to believe that it is divine. Your speculation here is about as relevant as talking about the possibility that Peregrine created all things and science is just the study of what Peregrine has given.
This again is where you are having trouble. You believe what appears to be mundane can't be divine. But if a divine power was the force behind the creation of physical laws in the first place, then how do you separate science from its originator? The study or understanding of those laws doesn't divide reality, it only confirms it.
If a divine power is only able to work through physical laws, which we are also able to manipulate and use, then how is it divine?
Through Karma?
The answer really is what is divine? And does one persons view assert its status or another negate it?
Mario wrote: religions is about "why things are" (science can't explain that part).
There's quite a few problems with this way of thinking.
It presumes that religion can answer those questions. There's no evidence to suggest that religion can. There's no methodology, no consistency and most importantly no way of showing what answers it does provide to be false.
It also presumes those are valid questions. There's a possibility that those questions are less about how things are and more like a game of semantics. What if there are no answers yet religion presumes there are? How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
Finally, if those are valid questions why is there the presumption that science cannot answer them? Science has been told since its conception that there are things beyond its boundaries and yet science keeps expanding. The scientific method continues to provide answers to the most complex questions. We don't have all the answers yet but that's the joy of discovery.
Religions do not come close to answering the why questions and it is inappropriate to give them the undeserved respect that they might have answers.
I support the rest of your excellent post though.
I was being generous to religion. For some people it's a motivation to live better and so on (the "why" like "why live?" ). Religion doesn't work for me but if it helps them with the "why" part of life then I'm okay with it (until they start pushing religious rules onto others or use religion to oppress people). When you fall in love you could get all science-y about it and go down the rabbit hole of psychology -> biology -> chemistry -> physics and so on but the "why" answer is because you like the person and want to be with them and that's usually a good enough answer for that question (otherwise you can end up with creepy PUA bs).
Some scientist may research attraction/companionship/cultural norms/who knows what but from a simply human "why did I fall in love with that person?" perspective science doesn't really provide a satisfying answer (it might be correct but that's another story). The same goes for religion. For some people it provides answers that science technically can (or cannot) provide but that wouldn't be sufficient anyways. My point was that science and religions are different topics. They may overlap in strange ways but they are used to address different types of questions.
amanita wrote:This again is where you are having trouble. You believe what appears to be mundane can't be divine. But if a divine power was the force behind the creation of physical laws in the first place, then how do you separate science from its originator? The study or understanding of those laws doesn't divide reality, it only confirms it.
Like in the example with the invisible thieving pigs. The divine meta-element doesn't matter for the science part. Remember what groundskeeper Willie said. Science explores physical laws and if you go deep enough into string theory then that could be an explanation for how physical laws came into existence. The book The Elegant Universe (I think they also made a TV show about it) explains that nicely for people like me who are not physicist but are curious and want to read about it. Apparently some parts of string theory look promising, others need to be crowbarred into shape until they fit, and the whole is rather heavy on mathematics and lacking in physical evidence (a bit like religion ) but — from what I have read — if they find proof it would be a promising solution to a few tricky and fundamental problems in physics.
Falsifiability (another explanation) matters to science, divinity doesn't. Scientists just keep exploring until they hit a wall and if they are at the very edge of the explainable they usually keep crashing their head against that wall until they die (if they don't switch to something else).
Side note: There is a phenomenon of old/famous scientists holding back science because they can't adapt to new findings and keep betting on what made them famous and make it harder for new scientific ideas to gain traction (they are human after all):
Max Planck — the Nobel Prize–winning physicist who pioneered quantum theory — once said the following about scientific progress:
A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.
Overall, these results suggest that outsiders are reluctant to challenge leadership within a field when the star is alive and that a number of barriers may constrain entry even after she is gone. Intellectual, social, and re- source barriers all impede entry, with outsiders only entering subfields that offer a less hostile landscape for the support and acceptance of “foreign” ideas.
Back to the divine: In the end as long as science can explore "stuff" it will be okay and keep growing and the god of the gaps will keep shrinking. If there is actually a god at the end of all these explorations and explanations then that god has always shifted a layer backwards when scientists worked out some problem. It's funny how it keeps happening each and every time. There might come a day in the future when some scientists find a message from god or some other being that could be perceived as being supernatural (like the Q) but we know that any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic and they will simply see it as the next challenge to confront. Why stop when it starts getting really interesting?
I just read your quote again (while previewing this post a few times) and I think you actually got it right without getting it's full essence with the "it only confirms it" part. Science explores, expands, and confirms what we know about the world around us and that's literary it. Science has neither a bigger nor a smaller ambition than that. It's hard enough work as it is.
amanita wrote: You believe what appears to be mundane can't be divine. But if a divine power was the force behind the creation of physical laws in the first place, then how do you separate science from its originator? The study or understanding of those laws doesn't divide reality, it only confirms it.
You can't prove it 100% that the mundane can't be divine, but there is no reason to believe that it is divine. Your speculation here is about as relevant as talking about the possibility that Peregrine created all things and science is just the study of what Peregrine has given.
Not at all. 'Peregrine created all things' is easily refuted. Just because something can't be proven 100% doesn't remove it from the discussion. Essentially what you are saying is that if one can't completely prove a thing, it has no value. Which happens to be most things.
Comparing any religion to pixie dust and invisible monkeys isn't particularly helpful either. It's a form of false equivalency. If a person doesn't believe in one thing it doesn't automatically make another thing in their perspective similar in nature equally untrue. It's like asking 'do you believe in conspiracy theories?' Yes? No? Which one or ones? I agree however if a religious perspective can be categorically be proven false, then it should be discarded as a source of truth.
amanita wrote: 'Peregrine created all things' is easily refuted.
Do it, then. I have a dozen different theories about how Peregrine created all things, I would love to see you try to refute them.
Let me give a few:
- Peregrine created all things 10 seconds ago but he created you with false memories of things that never actually happened.
- Peregrine created all things millions of years ago, but he just decided to stay hidden before.
- Peregrine programmed the matrix and created all things inside it, he like to visit sometime.
- Peregrine is the reincarnation of an ancient goddess that created all things.
How would you refute those?
amanita wrote: 'Peregrine created all things' is easily refuted.
Do it, then. I have a dozen different theories about how Peregrine created all things, I would love to see you try to refute them.
Let me give a few:
- Peregrine created all things 10 seconds ago but he created you with false memories of things that never actually happened.
- Peregrine created all things millions of years ago, but he just decided to stay hidden before.
- Peregrine programmed the matrix and created all things inside it, he like to visit sometime.
- Peregrine is the reincarnation of an ancient goddess that created all things.
How would you refute those?
amanita wrote: 'Peregrine created all things' is easily refuted.
Do it, then. I have a dozen different theories about how Peregrine created all things, I would love to see you try to refute them.
Let me give a few:
- Peregrine created all things 10 seconds ago but he created you with false memories of things that never actually happened.
- Peregrine created all things millions of years ago, but he just decided to stay hidden before.
- Peregrine programmed the matrix and created all things inside it, he like to visit sometime.
- Peregrine is the reincarnation of an ancient goddess that created all things.
How would you refute those?
The truth is I'm in a coma and everyone here is just a product of my imagination. None of you actually exist until I think of you, then you cease to exist again when I've moved on. So welcome to my dream world and I'll now allow you to post your denials about this truth, which will be further proof that I'm correct. You can't see that from your point of view, where as I've seen the rebuttals many times and they're always the same.
amanita wrote: 'Peregrine created all things' is easily refuted.
Do it, then. I have a dozen different theories about how Peregrine created all things, I would love to see you try to refute them.
Let me give a few:
- Peregrine created all things 10 seconds ago but he created you with false memories of things that never actually happened.
- Peregrine created all things millions of years ago, but he just decided to stay hidden before.
- Peregrine programmed the matrix and created all things inside it, he like to visit sometime.
- Peregrine is the reincarnation of an ancient goddess that created all things.
How would you refute those?
The truth is I'm in a coma and everyone here is just a product of my imagination. None of you actually exist until I think of you, then you cease to exist again when I've moved on. So welcome to my dream world and I'll now allow you to post your denials about this truth, which will be further proof that I'm correct. You can't see that from your point of view, where as I've seen the rebuttals many times and they're always the same.
But your imagination is just my hallucination from a huge dose of LSD
amanita wrote: 'Peregrine created all things' is easily refuted.
Do it, then. I have a dozen different theories about how Peregrine created all things, I would love to see you try to refute them.
Let me give a few:
- Peregrine created all things 10 seconds ago but he created you with false memories of things that never actually happened.
- Peregrine created all things millions of years ago, but he just decided to stay hidden before.
- Peregrine programmed the matrix and created all things inside it, he like to visit sometime.
- Peregrine is the reincarnation of an ancient goddess that created all things.
How would you refute those?
Yet ironically, with less evidence you refute a divine aspect to reality.
Yet ironically, with less evidence you refute a divine aspect to reality.
I'd be more likely to believe a divine aspect to the origins of the universe if any of the creation stories matched the observable evidence. Surely God could have avoided the whole heliocentrism kerfuffle by just telling people that the sun was the centre of the solar system right at the beginning? Or giving an accurate timescale for the universe?
Also why the heck would God build this enormous universe, with hundreds of billions of galaxies, each containing hundreds of billions of stars, just for little old us? It'd be like having a pet ant and putting it in a terrarium the size of the solar system...
And this is where the argument always falls apart. Science is playing Risk, and gods and goddesses are playing Monopoly. Somehow, no one can agree who is winning.
(Games were chosen at random, in no way were they intended to be metaphorical by the author)
The strongest evidence for gods and goddesses are miracles- events that break either the law of probabilities, or natural laws.
Science is affirmed by the predictable, and the dependable. Doing the same thing 1,000 times ought to get you the same result 999 times for it to be awesome science- or by god, you had better be able to explain the anomaly. (heh- that was intentional)
A scientist will not accept miraculous evidence. A theist, of most any persuasion, does not demand the evidence of their gods and goddesses to be scientifically sound.
amanita wrote: Yet ironically, with less evidence you refute a divine aspect to reality.
What, less evidence? If anything, there is more evidence than Peregrine created all things rather than the Christian God created all things. There's a great quote by everyone favorite racist science-fiction artist Howard Phillip Lovecraft that goes like this: “All I say is that I think it is damned unlikely that anything like a central cosmic will, a spirit world, or an eternal survival of personality exist. They are the most preposterous and unjustified of all the guesses which can be made about the universe, and I am not enough of a hair-splitter to pretend that I don't regard them as arrant and negligible moonshine. In theory I am an agnostic, but pending the appearance of radical evidence I must be classed, practically and provisionally, as an atheist. ” Emphasis mine. In other words, while I can't prove anything either way, if your claim is ridiculous, if I make it look ridiculous to you, that's how I'll convince you, and that's all I need.
Gitzbitah wrote: The strongest evidence for gods and goddesses are miracles- events that break either the law of probabilities, or natural laws.
And the evidence that such things happen at all is incredibly questionable, at best. If that's the strongest evidence for god(s) then it's safe to say that belief in them is not reasonable.
A scientist will not accept miraculous evidence. A theist, of most any persuasion, does not demand the evidence of their gods and goddesses to be scientifically sound.
That is why the scientist is reasonable, the theist is not. The scientist is open to evidence, including evidence of "miracles" if such evidence is ever provided (so far it hasn't been), but doesn't care about a bunch of believers saying "I really want this to be true". The theist decides what they're going to believe, and then stubbornly believes it whatever the evidence (or lack thereof) may be.
amanita wrote: Yet ironically, with less evidence you refute a divine aspect to reality.
What, less evidence? If anything, there is more evidence than Peregrine created all things rather than the Christian God created all things.
There's a great quote by everyone favorite racist science-fiction artist Howard Phillip Lovecraft that goes like this:
“All I say is that I think it is damned unlikely that anything like a central cosmic will, a spirit world, or an eternal survival of personality exist. They are the most preposterous and unjustified of all the guesses which can be made about the universe, and I am not enough of a hair-splitter to pretend that I don't regard them as arrant and negligible moonshine. In theory I am an agnostic, but pending the appearance of radical evidence I must be classed, practically and provisionally, as an atheist. ”
Emphasis mine.
In other words, while I can't prove anything either way, if your claim is ridiculous, if I make it look ridiculous to you, that's how I'll convince you, and that's all I need.
Why does every debate about religion involve Peregrine claiming to be God?
That is why the scientist is reasonable, the theist is not. The scientist is open to evidence, including evidence of "miracles" if such evidence is ever provided (so far it hasn't been), but doesn't care about a bunch of believers saying "I really want this to be true". The theist decides what they're going to believe, and then stubbornly believes it whatever the evidence (or lack thereof) may be.
I would only offer that unquestioning belief in either science or religion opens you up to being unreasonable. How many drug recalls are issued every year? How many scientific papers have been published proving that certain races are superior to others? Science is often wrong- and wrong about very large and serious things. It has been used to justify slavery and genocide, as well as nuke cities. After all, we have science, not religion, to thank for racism.
Science is also, of course, responsible for driving measles to the brink of extinction- and then unleashing outbreaks of it because a scientist said vaccines caused autism. I realize that they've since been proven wrong, but for the people affected by those vaccines- the damage was done because of their parents unquestioning faith in science.
I'm not saying science is bad, but I do think unthinking belief in science will at best lead to unintended consequences, and at worst outright disasters that could have been avoided. There is plenty of evidence to consider scientific advances with a grain of salt. There are other sources of reasonable thought, and not all thought produced by science is reasonable.
Tactical_Spam wrote: Why does every debate about religion involve Peregrine claiming to be God?
If you haven't build him a shrine made out of miniatures then you are going to hell my friend. So for your own sake, please go and build one asap. Else eternal torture for eternity and no noodles for you.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gitzbitah wrote: After all, we have science, not religion, to thank for racism.
That is why the scientist is reasonable, the theist is not. The scientist is open to evidence, including evidence of "miracles" if such evidence is ever provided (so far it hasn't been), but doesn't care about a bunch of believers saying "I really want this to be true". The theist decides what they're going to believe, and then stubbornly believes it whatever the evidence (or lack thereof) may be.
I would only offer that unquestioning belief in either science or religion opens you up to being unreasonable. How many drug recalls are issued every year? How many scientific papers have been published proving that certain races are superior to others? Science is often wrong- and wrong about very large and serious things. It has been used to justify slavery and genocide, as well as nuke cities. After all, we have science, not religion, to thank for racism.
That's not true, at all. Scientists can be wrong. Science as a whole cannot be as science is a method rather than a set of ideals or beliefs.
The "science" used to justify slavery and genocide was not science but rather the incorrect usage of science by non-scientists to justify their own ends and the scientists involved failed to follow the standards of scientific rigour. They wanted something to be true and so set about trying to twist things into supporting that hypothesis rather than actually test it. It is the same as the "science" that was used by tobacco companies to claim that smoking didn't cause cancer and that petroleum companies are currently using to claim that climate change is either not happening or not driven by human burning of fossil fuels. It is disinformation and propaganda masquerading as science for political power.
The fact that drugs are recalled supports the superiority of science. Find me a drug that took as long to be recalled after being found to be harmful and killing people than it took the Catholic Church to accept that condoms were more effective at stemming the spread of HIV in Africa than just telling people to not have sex (for the record that is close to thirty years).
Science is also, of course, responsible for driving measles to the brink of extinction- and then unleashing outbreaks of it because a scientist said vaccines caused autism. I realize that they've since been proven wrong, but for the people affected by those vaccines- the damage was done because of their parents unquestioning faith in science.
that's not the fault of science, it's the fault of one medical doctor and one movie actress, and the doctor of course is now in prison and no longer a doctor. Science is quick to correct itself when proven wrong, religions on the other hand never admit when they're wrong. the damage is being done by parents unquestioning faith in movie stars and a clueless president.
Science is also, of course, responsible for driving measles to the brink of extinction- and then unleashing outbreaks of it because a scientist said vaccines caused autism. I realize that they've since been proven wrong, but for the people affected by those vaccines- the damage was done because of their parents unquestioning faith in science.
that's not the fault of science, it's the fault of one medical doctor and one movie actress, and the doctor of course is now in prison and no longer a doctor. Science is quick to correct itself when proven wrong, religions on the other hand never admit when they're wrong. the damage is being done by parents unquestioning faith in movie stars and a clueless president.
At that point it's more about people with a poor understanding of science harming society, same as people with poor understanding of theology.
In this Trump era facts and the truth mean nothing when people want to believe, if even legislators dismiss the facts and reason.
You can hammer on all the time "but i have science behind me", but when the pitchforks come out and scientists will be
be burned at the stake (like the good old days ) for denying the true word, you will convert quick enough.
This may sound funny, but the internet access to all information seems to have the opposite effect on people.
Smart people research if the information is true while stupid people accept it at face value.
). Renowned scientists in the field have a whole range of different opinions. Very interesting but also very off topic.
