Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

This is why whenever my friends make any statements I say to them " you, I only listen to scientists", then walk away.

It would be interesting to do a study to see how this idea and Gestalt psychology (may) connect. A study may be a bit much, maybe just a few unfounded accusations will do.

I'm sensing heresy in this thread. A signal has been sent out and an Inquisitor will arrive soon to help with this problem. Forcefully.

I like how all religions are ham-pressed together as if they all think alike and act alike.

Science doesn't give us "TRUTH", it gives us observations. Very useful observations, but observations nonetheless. Science can't tell me what really happened in the forest in Rashamon.

Of course the tricky thing is what is truth? If you think you have the solid answer you aren't thinking enough as it has been a fundamental question for a few thousand years.

Greebynog wrote:@Akira: My knowledge of religion is largely based on my degree, and a great deal of independent study. I, of course, was making a sweeping generalisation, as I said earlier, religion can be a powerful tool for good in some individual cases, but on a meta-scale, religion has a hugely negative impact on lives.

And that degree would be in? Certainly not in Religious Studies. I find it interesting, perhaps a Freudian slip of sorts, that the only three religions you mention all come from the same place and are all connected. It doesn't seem so much that you dislike Religion, but that you dislike the ones that are most familiar to you and your culture, and thus put the onus of your grief upon all religion. I have to second my esteemed colleague akira5665. You seem to be speaking way above your experience and knowledge. It's funny that you want to be totally open to science, but totally dismiss the human experience.

Sociology looking at religion is like blind men feeling an elephant and describing the animal. If it gave a full, reasoned description, there wouldn't be a whole separate department devoted to Religious Studies.

While London does has many different people of different cultures living there, I don't think it's a stretch to say that the dominant British theology is Christianity. See any 800 year old Buddhist Temples around there?

For each story of gay panicking inn keepers you will fond more of Jesus telling people to love one another and to treat each other with kindness and compassion. Cherry picking verses doesn't really work well as an argument as it is essentially what you are arguing people do to pervert it. They cherry pick and pervert to create hate et al, and you do it to show how wrong it is. If anything it shows that the problem is more in a fundemental lack of understanding and the problem (also in science) of starting with your conclusion then making the data fit it.

Greebynog wrote:Sociologoy looks at the over-arching effects of religon though, and that's where I'm coming from.

Sociology isn't designed to purely study religion. It isn't the main academic field in which to dig into the history, place, and nuances of human spirituality and expression. Sociology isn't really a field that judges like that either, it's more about human trends and the expression of the trends. It's also a social science, which most hard sciences tend to look down on. Sociology is useful and has a place, but you are giving it much more authority over things it isn't involved in then it has.

Greebynog wrote:You are correct in your assumption about a huge christian majority, yes. There is a Budhist community, it's age is irrelevant as far as I see.

Then you seem to have trouble seeing the "over-arching" effects of things. Look closer at your day to day life and the things you never think about and things you see but don't consider.

Greebynog wrote:The problem with your cherry picking argument is that the bible is the supposed word of God, and therefore should it not be perfect? If it isn't, how can it be the word of God? If it is not the word of God, what is Christianity based on?

There you go again, talking above your experience. If you had taken any Religious Studies courses you would understand the problem with making such an uninformed statement. Is the Christian Bible (version not important at the moment):

1. The literal word of god and every part absolutely true?
2. The word of god channeled through imperfect humans that needs to be studied?
3. Parables and metaphors that are easier that are meant to teach lessons and help us understand what god wants and not literal

Now these are but three possibilities and there are others. Trying to argue against Christianity (which sect not important at the moment) by saying that it can't possibly be the word of god because you find it flawed. I find your arguments flawed but I'm not arguing that you aren't you.

Greebynog wrote:The idea of religion creates more problems than it solves, if you reason that life was created by a higher being, then who created the higher being?

Golly, can god make a rock so heavy even god can't move it? Deep thinking. Again, you are obsessed with The Religions of The Books perspective. Many religions don't believe in a creator in this sense, or at all.

It also shows a flaw in human perception. We apply our experience to everything. We have to make things so we see things as having to be made, thus the only way God can exist is if something made God, but our perspective is so limited. My finite existence and knowledge can't judge something that is infinite and omnipotent. You think an your blood cells have any concept of you?

Greebynog wrote:
Religious thinking is dangerous because it encourages unreason as a positive virtue, which has grave potential, as we all have seen.

No, dangerous people are dangerous. Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot were not religious men and they slaughtered millions of people in extraordinarily heinous ways and they were not religious. Fervent belief in your own absolute rightness tends to lead to this danger, be it either that absolute knowledge that Allah wants you to take over the world and slaughter all the infidels or that religion is an absolute danger to humanity and must be marginalized, if not eliminated.

Religion is a part of the human life. It goes back further then Judiasm, Christianity, and Islam. It covers the world, not just the Middle East. There is no need present a false choice fallacy. You can be spiritual and scientific, you don't have to pick one or the other.

If it makes you feel better, I am not a Christian, Jew, or Muslim. You can't dismiss these arguments as those of an unreasoned believer.

How do you know your blood cells don't know anything have you talked to them? Is it their fault you don't know how to understand them?

It's also not my fault you don't understand metaphor and analogy even though you supposedly have a university education.

Greebynog wrote:@Akira: My knowledge of religion is largely based on my degree,

Greebynog wrote:I never mentioned that I studied the field until it was demanded of me, I don't believe academic education gives my viewpoints any more validity than anyone elses.

You brought up your education as an appeal to authority, we didn't. It's only fair of us to then ask you what that is. My academic background gives me more validity.

There is nothing wrong with an appeal to authority if you have the ability to back it up.

If you are talking about History and the person has a PhD in History it lends more weight to their opinion, much as trained Lawyer has more say on the law then a layman.

You also seem to be remembering this thread incorrectly. You were not goaded into saying anything you didn't want to and certainly no one asked if you had a degree. Even knowing you do hasn't really changed the earlier assessment of naiveté. You brought up your education as an argument on your own, do not try to put it on others.