Religions

[Jonnas]

I believe I've covered my stance on belief in supernatural stuff. As for philosophy, I don't like following rigid sets of dictated ideas. I recognise the good stuff in plenty of religions and philosophies, but I'm not afraid to criticise or reject the parts of them that I don't agree with.

 

Thank you. Talking about the supernatural, fictional aspects of religion (like creationism, miracles, God controls all, etc.) is a bit like stressing the small stuff.

To me, religion is more like a philosophy, a morality guideline, more than anything else.

[Diageo]

Reviving this because I've been watching a lot of stuff on the topic.

 

I wouldn't say the supernatural stuff of religion is small stuff. People who genuinely believe in any of the supernatural claims either create a cognitive dissonance in their head where they actively try not to think about the topic, distort their view of the laws of the universe, reject explanations and understanding of actual causes and lose the curiosity of the topic. All things that I would consider "large". Also, any morality invented by people in completely different cultures, several thousand years ago, with very basic knowledge of human psychology and biology, are probably lacking in scope and content. Saying you agree with a religion because you see good parts of its teachings, is like saying you agree with a certain political affiliation because they have some nice views among their terrible ones. Just like political views, it should be taken as a whole.

 

 

I read the thread over again to make sure I'm not repeating any topic that's already been discussed. Luckily it's mostly semantic.

 

So I think this discussion ended prematurely and there's things I would like to talk about (if people would like to join me). I'm interested in the psychology of religion, why people believe in certain things from neurochemical, biological, cultural, sociological, circumstantial point of view. What it can teach us about human behaviour and thought, and even how it can be a clue into changing it. Another topic of interest is it's effect on our lives and scientific progress. What people think life on earth would be like without religion, for better or for worse. Would you be highly affected? Do people think that religion hinders science? Do people think people can be both good scientists and highly religious.

 

The last topic I want to talk about is about trying to disprove religion. The scientific method involves falsification. It starts with the null hypothesis and compares that to the test condition. As such, you begin with an observation or belief, hypothesise on a rational observable effect of such a belief and then test it against the null hypothesis. If there is a significant statistical difference, the null hypothesis is falsified. If there is no difference then the effect is falsified. Of course it is dependent on sample sizes and the chosen alpha level, as it is statistical analysis, especially in psychology.

 

So if we consider rational effects of absolute truths claimed by religion, if we are able to falsify the effects, we are in a sense disproving religion. Not in the technical sense of the word, but in the sense of the word used in science when analysing any non-superstitious-based behaviour.

 

I will give examples from the catholic faith because it is the easiest. World created within the last 10,000 years, disproven. Noah's ark, disproven. Universe created in seven days, disproven. Shroud of turin, disproven. The birth story of Jesus, disproven. Effect of prayer, disproven. Wafer and wine literally transforming into flesh and wine, disproven. Soul holding personality, disproven. Soul holding memory, disproven.

 

Then there are things that can be explained, and are effectively disproven. Religious visions, simple partial seizures. Possession, seizures. Miraculous healing, placebo. Feeling of tranquillity when dying, neurotransmitter release.

 

If the bible holds absolute truths and these are changed, then they are no longer absolute, and discredited.

 

I could go on and include other religions but you get the picture. So basically, any concrete claims religion has made that actually affects a person's life have been mostly "disproven" in the scientific sense. Would you agree then that it disproves religion?

 

 

On another note. As quantum physics moves ever increasingly into the realm that is unintuitive, and shows something like that matter can be created from nothing, will that reduce belief in god or increase it? How will religion evolve in the future.

 

On the arrogance of atheists. Assuming that these atheists are actually rational and understanding of the empirical scientific method, they admit that they don't have all the answers, have a curiosity to find the answers, and is willing to admit they are wrong with proper evidence. This is humble. Claiming you know the answers, that there are absolute truths, that you will not change your opinion in the face of evidence (since you have faith). This is arrogant.

 

Let's also look at spirituality that is so often mentioned.

 

spir·it·u·al

adjective /ˈspiriCHo͞oəl/ 

 

Of, relating to, or affecting the human spirit or soul as opposed to material or physical things

- I'm responsible for his spiritual welfare

- the spiritual values of life

Implies belief in a soul. Superstition.

 

(of a person) Not concerned with material values or pursuits

Everyone is concerned with material values and pursuits or they wouldn't be alive.

 

Of or relating to religion or religious belief

- the tribe's spiritual leader

Intrinsically linked to religion.

 

noun /ˈspiriCHo͞oəl/ 

spirituals, plural

 

A religious song of a kind associated with black Christians of the southern US, and thought to derive from the combination of European hymns and African musical elements by black slaves

 

So what exactly do people mean when they say they are spiritual or believe in spirituality? Is spirituality not either religious or superstitious (or both)?

[Frank]

*goes on N-E, sees thread "Religion", last post "Diageo"*

 

Here we go

[Diageo]

*goes on N-E, sees thread "Religion", last post "Diageo"*

 

Here we go

 

Please add something to the discussion.

 

A neuroscientist by the name of Michael Persinger claims that when humans became able to consider their own deaths, that this created massive anxiety, which developed another part of the brain. This part had to be everywhere, in all situations, and be bigger than themselves. A connection to this entity would allow the reduction of this anxiety, by creating a presence of "something" that unexplainable. He says this area is in the temporal lobes and has created a contraption to affect this area through electromagnetic stimulation. He was able to force participants to feel a strong presence of figures, entities, things of power, things around them. He was able to increase the feeling that there's something more. He was able to create repeatedly a strong religious experience. This experience, if occurring by any other stimuli, would make anyone believe in a higher power. It could explain why people claim to have powerful visions of words straight from god. Additionally, people with temporal lobe epilepsy, if suffering from a simple partial seizure, will feel a strong presence around them, and are likely to respond more positively to religious words.

 

There's also a very interesting documentary series about lots of interesting questions. One of which is, did we invent god.

 

 

In case your strapped for time. Children have evolved to be naive. Animals requires theory of mind to believe in god, thus apes cannot. Out of body experiences occur when there is a dissonance between the Kinesthetic sense and visual sense, which can be replicated in a lab. Minds are likely to try and create reasons for things when they feel they have no control. Talking to god or praying arouses the same parts of the brain in believers as when talking to actual people. Certain temporal lobes control the kinesthetic sense and stimulation of that part can create out of body experiences.

 

Lastly since reality is really subjective and dependent to what the brain tells us, belief in god makes god real for those who believe in it (it also means they are crazy).

 

I'm just going to talk to myself apparently then :p.

Edited August 11, 2013 by Diageo
Automerged Doublepost

[Iun]

 

He was able to create repeatedly a strong religious experience.

 

 

 

Yeah, big whoop.

 

I did that to a guy this morning. I had him by the throat with my collapsible police baton in the other hand, threatening to beat him for cutting in front of me in line then spitting on my shoes when I told him to wait in line like everybody else.

 

All he could say was "oh, god... oh god... oh god..."

 

It was obviously a relaxing religious experience as he pissed in his underwear as well. I did in a few seconds what this science guy probably took months to create. That clearly makes me more awesome than him and therefore King of the Atheists.

[Diageo]

Yeah, big whoop.

 

I did that to a guy this morning. I had him by the throat with my collapsible police baton in the other hand, threatening to beat him for cutting in front of me in line then spitting on my shoes when I told him to wait in line like everybody else.

 

All he could say was "oh, god... oh god... oh god..."

 

It was obviously a relaxing religious experience as he pissed in his underwear as well. I did in a few seconds what this science guy probably took months to create. That clearly makes me more awesome than him and therefore King of the Atheists.

 

I'm going to assume you didn't watch the video. Because the religious experiences they were able to create repeatedly is out of body experiences, feelings and visions of a presence of several figures around them, feelings and visions of warmth and fire, and feelings and visions of being watched over and protected. All of these things markedly different than someone saying "Oh god", out of a reflexive cultural conditioning.

 

I said "My god" when I got a fright from someone the other night, but that was not even close to a religious experience.

 

I'm glad after all the effort I put into what I looked up and read, that I would get a response so well thought out like this.

 

I sincerely hope you're joking.

Edited August 12, 2013 by Diageo

[Iun]

 

I sincerely hope you're joking.

 

Do you? Good for you.

[Diageo]

A new meta-analysis found that there is an inverted relationship between religiosity and intelligence. It's called: The Relation Between Intelligence and Religiosity: A Meta-Analysis and Some Proposed Explanations.

 

It says...

A meta-analysis of 63 studies showed a significant negative association between intelligence and religiosity. The association was stronger for college students and the general population than for participants younger than college age; it was also stronger for religious beliefs than religious behavior. For college students and the general population, means of weighted and unweighted correlations between intelligence and the strength of religious beliefs ranged from −.20 to −.25 (mean r = −.24). Three possible interpretations were discussed. First, intelligent people are less likely to conform and, thus, are more likely to resist religious dogma. Second, intelligent people tend to adopt an analytic (as opposed to intuitive) thinking style, which has been shown to undermine religious beliefs. Third, several functions of religiosity, including compensatory control, self-regulation, self-enhancement, and secure attachment, are also conferred by intelligence. Intelligent people may therefore have less need for religious beliefs and practices.

[Iun]

A new meta-analysis found that there is an inverted relationship between religiosity and intelligence. It's called: The Relation Between Intelligence and Religiosity: A Meta-Analysis and Some Proposed Explanations.

 

It says...

 

@Diageo

 

Haven't you adequately proven to yourself that religion is bad? Or are you still on the fence?

 

Who are you trying to convince? You must surely know that people ignore information that disagrees with their worldview - there have been numerous psychological studies in many areas of social interaction. So if you are trying to convince the religious nutjobs, it's not going to work. They are not going to give up on their beliefs.

 

If these psychologists and doctors put half the effort into curing serious physical illnesses as they did disproving god, surely there would be no need for religion? All that is effectively being done is attacking the faith of others... frankly, if it brings them comfort, let them have it. Has it ever occurred to them that people - real people- need the blinkers on? They need to be convinced that the suffering and pain of this world has to be worth it because they'll be given a reward. Instead they are giving them cold science. "All this pain you are suffering from the tumour? Meaningless. When you're dead, you're dead. No-one is waiting for you on the other side with outstretched arms, the moment to moment agony will only be taken from you when your heart stops beating and your brain dies. Then...oblivion."

 

There are more things in heaven and Earth, Diageo, that are dreamt of in your philosophy. And one of them is happiness. You can't measure it, but no-one has the right to take it away just for the sake of disproving religion.

[heroicjanitor]

^^ Wishy washy nonsense. Organised religion is, and has been for millenia, the number 1 cause of suffering in the world and the sooner people stop trying to straddle the fence about it the sooner we can get rid of the biggest fucking plague that has ever existed. /waits for people to tell him about the heavens and faith and shite in response. If the millions tortured, killed and abused in the name of religion could now turn in their graves, that would be great.

[Iun]

^^ Wishy washy nonsense. Organised religion is, and has been for millenia, the number 1 cause of suffering in the world and the sooner people stop trying to straddle the fence about it the sooner we can get rid of the biggest fucking plague that has ever existed. /waits for people to tell him about the heavens and faith and shite in response. If the millions tortured, killed and abused in the name of religion could now turn in their graves, that would be great.

 

1) What guaranteed benefit will humanity get from the elimination of religion?

 

2) How many people are dead because of causes linked directly to religion? I mean, literally some idiot says "I love the great and mighty Wumbadum and anyone who does not will be eliminated!" I'm not talking about those people who use religion as a pretext for violence. But those who are inspired by their "religion" to do violence because their god has told them to, for those whom violence is an act of faith.

 

3) And answer this - how do you bring comfort to the sick and the dying? The grieving and the aggrieved? How does your pseudo-religion of science make people feel better when they suffer? And again, not morphine or painkillers because that's just a mask. How do you truly take away the agony of human existence, and the coldness of the universe?

 

Honestly, how is it that atheism proposes to make the world a better place? Take away religion and magically everyone is happier? Remove the comfort of faith and suddenly we are no longer burdened by concerns of what happens when we die?

 

The thing is, I agree: the balance of evidence points against there being a supreme being or beings. But where I disagree is that people need to be robbed of their faith to satisfy your need for self-justification, in the way that some people use the blanket of the Sacrament to wrap themselves in the security of being surrounded by other people.

 

Come on, what are you giving! Because you are taking a LOT away.

[Ville]

Well like it or not, religions have bad effects, but also good ones. Like Iun said, people are not robots driven by cold, hard logic, but emotional, feeling creatures. The problem of atheism is that at this point in the history of mankind and science, we still cannot explain what the fuck this whole "life" thing is about. Is there a bigger picture, a meaning to life, does something happen after death, no answers. Also, atheism has no principles, and it's very disjointed as a group, a sort of anti-ideology in a way. Thus is it a surprise that some people are very reluctant to join, since it's basically just a negation of everything, a bunch of nothing. "Yes, there's no proof of anything, just uncertainty and constant depression in the abyss of the pitch black universe. Have a nice life." The only value of atheism is thus about freedom, being free of religions and ideologies distorting your view, but that's it. For many people, that's not enough.

 

Compare to religions, which get in touch with the emotional side of people. There are mythical stories, codes of conduct, levels of spiritual attainment, visions of hellish torture and heavenly pleasure etc. This is very good marketing, and touches, moves people. It makes them feel like they're progressing in life, aspiring to higher things, bettering themselves and so on. These groups also have a very exclusive nature, they're like members-only clubs where people get to know other people and exchange their ideas. This in turn then feeds the social needs of people. So it's not all negative, even if some of the basic premises are scientifically wrong.

 

Bottom line: There's a reason why religions and ideologies have and will persist in the world. They cater to people's social and emotional needs in a way that atheism can not do. In a way, this is pretty ironic, since the only reason why atheism does not do that is because it refuses turning into a full-fledged ideology with any kind of "code" set in stone. The only exception to this is the Atheism+ movement, which tries incorporating feminism and other "social justice" issues into it, and has already failed miserably due to constant ridiculing and censorship of those who do not agree with its tenets. Thus basically, it has turned into a religion itself.

 

Overall, it seems to be kind of an either or -situation, really. Objective "truth" with freedom but no meaning, or possibly false truth with meaning but reduced freedom. 0 or 1, your choice.

[Diageo]

@Diageo

 

Haven't you adequately proven to yourself that religion is bad? Or are you still on the fence?

 

I'm not on the fence.

 

Who are you trying to convince? You must surely know that people ignore information that disagrees with their worldview - there have been numerous psychological studies in many areas of social interaction. So if you are trying to convince the religious nutjobs, it's not going to work. They are not going to give up on their beliefs.

 

I'm not trying to convince anyone. This is the religion thread, I'm putting information regarding religion in it. I'm not trying to convert religious nutjobs. I'm putting all the information I can find for people to read, and then make their own minds. If they then have questions I give counterarguments, that is how conversation works. I am also giving my opinion, which is what Forums are for. And lastly, I'm aggregating information for myself because I want to make a youtube video about it. So I thought I would kill two (or more) birds with one stone, and do it here.

 

I don't understand why you become so angry with someone putting down information for everyone to see. And while nutjobs won't have their minds changed, doesn't mean people won't get something out of it. I was talking to Frank and he was enjoying my posts, just had nothing to add himself. So while you may have become severely irate at someone daring to put post scientific information about something you don't agree with, other's may enjoy it.

 

Lastly, if it bothers you so much, block me.

 

If these psychologists and doctors put half the effort into curing serious physical illnesses as they did disproving god, surely there would be no need for religion? All that is effectively being done is attacking the faith of others...

 

If religious people out half the effort into curing serious physical illnesses as they did praying and reading nonsense, surely there would be no need for Atheism. All that is effectively being done, is deluding people into believing false information, instead of dealing with their problems and questioning the world around them...

 

 

Frankly, if it brings them comfort, let them have it. Has it ever occurred to them that people - real people- need the blinkers on?

 

Firstly, just because it brings them comfort, doesn't make it true. Secondly, there are better ways of bringing them comfort than effectively making them believe in nonsense.

 

They need to be convinced that the suffering and pain of this world has to be worth it because they'll be given a reward. Instead they are giving them cold science. "All this pain you are suffering from the tumour? Meaningless. When you're dead, you're dead. No-one is waiting for you on the other side with outstretched arms, the moment to moment agony will only be taken from you when your heart stops beating and your brain dies. Then...oblivion."

 

Also, them? Not you? Are you so pedantically above them that you don't need this and they do. I respect people too much to believe they need to be told fake stories to be able to live their lives in peace. Science is only as cold as you want it to be.

 

And you don't need God for meaning. Meaning is subjective. Why do you need to be told a meaning? Make your own, live for yourself. There's no one there after you die, so enjoy the life you have now, and don't waste it. When you die, there's nothing there, and it is oblivion. What's wrong with that? It was oblivion before you were conceived, but no one lies in bed at night, worried about the traumatic experience that was the oblivion before conception. Pain and suffering from a brain tumour is horrible, but you can die knowing that death won't be pain, it won't be worry, it won't be suffering, it will be peace. It will be nothing. Then, there's also no worry of hell.

 

With life being meaningless, you don't have to deal with feelings like wasting your life. When your dying, you won't have any regrets, you won't have any worries that you didn't complete what your duty was to do. You will know you were able to do what you wanted and now it's over. No more negative feelings. No more positive feelings. No more feelings whatsoever.

 

There are more things in heaven and Earth, Diageo, that are dreamt of in your philosophy. And one of them is happiness. You can't measure it, but no-one has the right to take it away just for the sake of disproving religion.

 

There are more things on earth than I know, yes. But believing in make-believe won't find out the rest. Happiness? You can measure it. It's the effect of neurotransmitters in your brain. It's the release of chemicals in response to events that have helped keep you alive throughout evolution. It's the body's way of saying, do more of that. And really, you can have happiness without religion. Just like you can have happiness without Zeus, and Buddha, and Yahweh, and Spongebob. And it's not just the sake of disproving religion. It's the sake of progress. Advancing human understanding through evidence and truth. Without Science, life expectancy was below 30 years of age. People had religion then. People have religion and science now, some just science. Life expectancy in countries were that science can be applied is over 70. Science works. And people can live happily without religion, as millions do today.

 

1) What guaranteed benefit will humanity get from the elimination of religion?

No more decisions based on books written thousands of years ago by people who knew nothing of the world now.

 

2) How many people are dead because of causes linked directly to religion? I mean, literally some idiot says "I love the great and mighty Wumbadum and anyone who does not will be eliminated!" I'm not talking about those people who use religion as a pretext for violence. But those who are inspired by their "religion" to do violence because their god has told them to, for those whom violence is an act of faith.

 

Well off the top of my head. The crusades, jihad, the war in palestine. I know people were tortured and killed for reading the bible in English. That's explicitly and directly linked to religion. I know over 40% in Egypt believe that anyone that does not believe in their religion should be killed. You can be killed for saying you are an atheist in Egypt, Iraq, Iran. In England and America in the past. People were imprisoned for saying the earth was round. Homosexuals are killed in certain countries because God said so IN THE BIBLE.

 

3) And answer this - how do you bring comfort to the sick and the dying? The grieving and the aggrieved? How does your pseudo-religion of science make people feel better when they suffer? And again, not morphine or painkillers because that's just a mask. How do you truly take away the agony of human existence, and the coldness of the universe?

 

By not lying to them. For helping them accept the truth. By all the ways I explained higher up in this post. And painkillers are just a mask? Why don't you go maskless during an operation then? They combat physical pain. There is no agony of human existence. Existing is not agony.

 

The universe may be literally cold, but it is a fantastic place. Full of clues to the beginning of the universe, to the forces amongst us, to world of science. And of course, just because it's comforting, doesn't make it true. And many atheists have died in peace, many atheist have suffered and been able to live their lives without religion.

 

Honestly, how is it that atheism proposes to make the world a better place? Take away religion and magically everyone is happier? Remove the comfort of faith and suddenly we are no longer burdened by concerns of what happens when we die?

 

By allowing scientific progress to occur unhampered by ridiculous notions from people who know nothing about what they are letting fall out of their mouths. People can still be burdened, but they can be comforted with truths, and not meaningless drivel.

 

The thing is, I agree: the balance of evidence points against there being a supreme being or beings. But where I disagree is that people need to be robbed of their faith to satisfy your need for self-justification, in the way that some people use the blanket of the Sacrament to wrap themselves in the security of being surrounded by other people.

 

No one is robbing you or anyone else of their faith. They are being given information, and talked to in a rational matter about rational things. And even if they were, faith is wrong. It's belief in something without evidence, contrary to logic and contrary to every other decision process made by humans worldwide.

 

Come on, what are you giving! Because you are taking a LOT away.

 

You may think it's a lot. I think it's not.

 

Well like it or not, religions have bad effects, but also good ones. Like Iun said, people are not robots driven by cold, hard logic, but emotional, feeling creatures. The problem of atheism is that at this point in the history of mankind and science, we still cannot explain what the fuck this whole "life" thing is about. Is there a bigger picture, a meaning to life, does something happen after death, no answers. Also, atheism has no principles, and it's very disjointed as a group, a sort of anti-ideology in a way. Thus is it a surprise that some people are very reluctant to join, since it's basically just a negation of everything, a bunch of nothing. "Yes, there's no proof of anything, just uncertainty and constant depression in the abyss of the pitch black universe. Have a nice life." The only value of atheism is thus about freedom, being free of religions and ideologies distorting your view, but that's it. For many people, that's not enough.

 

Compare to religions, which get in touch with the emotional side of people. There are mythical stories, codes of conduct, levels of spiritual attainment, visions of hellish torture and heavenly pleasure etc. This is very good marketing, and touches, moves people. It makes them feel like they're progressing in life, aspiring to higher things, bettering themselves and so on. These groups also have a very exclusive nature, they're like members-only clubs where people get to know other people and exchange their ideas. This in turn then feeds the social needs of people. So it's not all negative, even if some of the basic premises are scientifically wrong.

 

Bottom line: There's a reason why religions and ideologies have and will persist in the world. They cater to people's social and emotional needs in a way that atheism can not do. In a way, this is pretty ironic, since the only reason why atheism does not do that is because it refuses turning into a full-fledged ideology with any kind of "code" set in stone. The only exception to this is the Atheism+ movement, which tries incorporating feminism and other "social justice" issues into it, and has already failed miserably due to constant ridiculing and censorship of those who do not agree with its tenets. Thus basically, it has turned into a religion itself.

 

Overall, it seems to be kind of an either or -situation, really. Objective "truth" with freedom but no meaning, or possibly false truth with meaning but reduced freedom. 0 or 1, your choice.

 

Religion does have good effects and bad. But the good effects are things that do not need religion to sustain them. We can explain what life is about, you're just not happy with it. Your questions are vague and probably unanswerable because of their vagueness. Is there a bigger picture? What does that even mean? Nothing happens after death, just like before conception. You are either ignoring answers that already exist, or looking for ones that mean nothing.

 

Atheism has some principles. Such as not believing in things that have no evidence to support them. Atheism doesn't need more principles than that. And it's not constant depression. That is solely your opinion. You want principles? Get them from something else. Social research, psychology, communism, whatever it is. There are enough principles out there, you don't need atheism to have it all. And it can be enough, you just need aversion therapy towards ingrained psychological aversions you have developed from others around you.

 

Are you saying that everything that has good marketing is a good thing? Because if not, then that point is irrelevant. Yes I understand why people believe in religion. But I also understand that it is detrimental to the progress and well-being of society, and to myself. Codes of conduct can and have existed without religion, so has pleasure and torture. Life progress as well, aspiring to higher things, bettering themselves. These things are all attainable without religion. Exclusive member groups can also exist, places to exchange ideas, social interactions. Make one yourself. Meet with people who want to talk about certain things, talk about how you want to better yourselves and how, do it all without superstitious drivel. If you can do all that without religion then all that's left is either neutral or negative. Religion never had a monopoly on morality.

 

There is a reason why religion exists, but it's not a reason to maintain it. There's a reason why obesity exists, it's still unhealthy. People's social and emotional needs can be catered to without lies. Atheism doesn't need an ideology. You want to talk to people? Make a discussion group, join a club. You don't need atheism to tell you what to do just like you don't need religion to tell you what to do. I don't know what Atheism+ is, but that is irrelevant.

 

I have meaning in my life. Many other atheists do. I have freedom from belief in baseless lies as well. I have both meaning and freedom. You claim that atheism is depression, hollowness and meaningless. But it's not. You just see it that way.

 

I'll finish with a quote from George Bernard Shaw:

"The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one."

 

 

And if you have noticed, I have replied to Iun inline, and to Ville after his quote.

 

Here's an example right here. In this forum, we can agree on some sets of morals, not because they are written in scripture, but because they are the right thing to do. We fulfil a social need by talking to others, by telling them our woes and sharing our pleasures. We get validation for our accomplishments and get told off for our trespasses. We are an exclusive group. We have everything good about religion without the bad (mostly).

Edited August 14, 2013 by Diageo
Automerged Doublepost

[Iun]

We're coming at this from absolutely different angles, Diageo. I cannot proceed any further without making remarks about your own beliefs that will be less than rude to you on a personal level. I don't think I'm willing to do that as it's offensive.

 

However, I propose a two, three or four point debate, with my usual twist: take the opposing side.

 

One of us begins with an opening point, then the other responds. The responder then make a point and the beginner of the debate responds and so on. up to a maximum of four individual points to respond to per person. I'd prefer two-point as it'll be easier on my workload.

 

The motion is "Religion is unnecessary in modern society." I will take the pro side, as I would, as you can see, traditionally oppose the motion. You can oppose it as it's obvious that you would be for it.

 

Why take a side contrary to your traditional standpoint? Because it opens the mind to the other side of the question, it truly puts your own position on trial as someone else has to make the point you would normally make for you. We could argue our own default positions all day and get nowhere. Let's make this interesting.

 

Are you game @Diageo?

[Diageo]

That's very interesting. I'm game.

 

But firstly I would like you to make those comments on my beliefs, because opinions on beliefs should never be taken on a personal level. And even if you plan to make it personal, do it anyway. I'm curious.

[Iun]

That's very interesting. I'm game.

 

But firstly I would like you to make those comments on my beliefs, because opinions on beliefs should never be taken on a personal level. And even if you plan to make it personal, do it anyway. I'm curious.

 

I kinda have time for one or the other, not both :/ sorry. And I'd be uncomfortable writing "Utterly heartless bastard" so many time :P

 

Shall we ask someone to moderate?

[Diageo]

Well you don't need to do it all now. This is a thread we can all come back to when we want. Also, I want the "heartless bastards" comments to come out first.

[Iun]

Well you don't need to do it all now. This is a thread we can all come back to when we want. Also, I want the "heartless bastards" comments to come out first.

 

To be honest, my response can be summed up as "You utterly heartless bastard, you're just as bad as the god-botherers except you're only offering the comfort of cold, hard truth instead of the cheering lies."

 

That'll have to do

[Diageo]

That's a disappointing personal attack.

 

I would suggest Jonnas to moderate because he seems to have an opinion that is different to both yours and mine.

[Iun]

That's a disappointing personal attack.

 

I would suggest Jonnas to moderate because he seems to have an opinion that is different to both yours and mine.

 

Fair enough. @Jonnas?

[Diageo]

Also, I'll humbly allow you to go first.

[Iun]

Also, I'll humbly allow you to go first.

 

Er... thanks! I'd better be doing some research then I suppose... You're alright if we wait until Christmas for this, yeah?

[Diageo]

Well as long as anything else can be posted in this thread in the meantime.

[heroicjanitor]

How exactly do fairy stories have meaning? If I read the three little pigs to children and convince them that it is true and the pigs DID IN FACT SURVIVE then it is fine for kids and then adults to believe that it happened? And also I ask them for money every week and gain tax exempt status.

 

Also, atheism has no principles, and it's very disjointed as a group, a sort of anti-ideology in a way.

 

Umm why would atheism have any principles? In the ideal situation it shouldn't even be a group, it would be the default position. It's like if everyone collected stamps and we had a small group of aphilatelists who did not collect stamps. Everyone asking who they think they are and their life has no meaning without the stamps. Religion should just be seen as myths and supernatural stuff that has no merit. Like how everyone who is religious is atheist against 99.9% of religions, just happens to believe their own one, usually because they were taught it at a young age.

 

1) What guaranteed benefit will humanity get from the elimination of religion?

 

Trying harder to think of something that would be better with religion... But ok here goes.

 

Missionaries in Africa teaching them that condoms are against god. This forces them into an endless cycle of poverty from too many kids and causes the AIDS epidemic. (Empowerment of women is the only proven way to stop poverty in a country). OH and another thing I hate is that these missionaries turn up with their food and technology and general well-being and act like it is their belief in god that gives them these things. Without science they wouldn't get to Africa, and it is science that is trying to cure AIDS rather than spread it. Anyway.

 

Because of religion gay marriage, abortion and stem cell research are the biggest issues of our time, and they are absolutely non-issues. We should be looking at climate change and nuclear proliferation.

 

Because of religion (almost) the entire middle east beats and rapes women as a matter of course. They kill people who don't believe in their religion, and they come over here trying to spread this poison, with suicide bombings seen as a great act of faith. They have arranged marriages between 40-50 year old men and 11 year old girls. This stuff is not allowed in a rational society where our morals are based on discussion and reason rather than an ancient book written pedophiles and desert tribes.

 

Then there is scientology and etc, taking people from their families and brainwashing them.

 

Stuff to do so not going to continue right now but if you need more then by all means...

 

2) How many people are dead because of causes linked directly to religion? I mean, literally some idiot says "I love the great and mighty Wumbadum and anyone who does not will be eliminated!" I'm not talking about those people who use religion as a pretext for violence. But those who are inspired by their "religion" to do violence because their god has told them to, for those whom violence is an act of faith.

 

See 9/11, Spain bombings, Boston marathon, London bombings, etc etc. See crusades, see almost every war for the past two thousand years. See the Spanish inquisition and the torture of hundreds of thousands of people if they didn't believe in it. See the entire dark ages period where science was not allowed because it went against god. Galileo imprisoned for daring tosay the earth went around the sun. See right now when stem cell research is not allowed, the attacks on abortion clinics and more. See honor-killings and how apostasy is dealt with in the muslim faith.

 

3) And answer this - how do you bring comfort to the sick and the dying? The grieving and the aggrieved? How does your pseudo-religion of science make people feel better when they suffer? And again, not morphine or painkillers because that's just a mask. How do you truly take away the agony of human existence, and the coldness of the universe?

 

Religion of science? You don't teach them to rely on the supernatural in the first place. They are going to die, they can accept it. Don't say they can't because they are too weak minded, what makes you so special that you think you can say the poor ignorant people can't accept what you can? And even if they couldn't accept it, too bad. Their passive support of religions is what gives religions such power.

 

Honestly, how is it that atheism proposes to make the world a better place? Take away religion and magically everyone is happier? Remove the comfort of faith and suddenly we are no longer burdened by concerns of what happens when we die?

 

The whole crux of your arguments seems to be that people would be depressed if they weren't taught this nonsense. You put religion on a pedestal and argue at it from there instead of discussing it like any other issue. And I'd say ok it is fine if adults want to go out and believe this stuff (though even then these books are so dangerous I'm not pleased with it. If religion ever takes control of government in the west again we're fucked, and it's most of the way there in America...) but teaching it to kids is not ok. You are teaching them dependence on fairy tales just to be live. Not just dependence but worship and do-what-I-say-unquestioningly. That is not sustainable.

Edited August 15, 2013 by heroicjanitor

[Jonnas]

I'm game for moderating the debate. I think this is a great idea, truth be told.

 

^^ Wishy washy nonsense. Organised religion is, and has been for millenia, the number 1 cause of suffering in the world and the sooner people stop trying to straddle the fence about it the sooner we can get rid of the biggest fucking plague that has ever existed. /waits for people to tell him about the heavens and faith and shite in response. If the millions tortured, killed and abused in the name of religion could now turn in their graves, that would be great.

 

I still feel like this is a weak point. Religion is a huge cause of suffering in the world, but so is a bunch of non-religious happenings. Mongol conquests, the Holocaust, the World Wars, too many dictators to count... Even the crusades were more a result of a cultural clash than what the Holy Books said.

 

And even though Africa is fucked in several ways, it was centuries of slavery and colonization that put it in that position in the first place, and religion wasn't the main motivator behind this (I would even say that they were a result of a selective ignoring of religious teachings)

 

See the entire dark ages period where science was not allowed because it went against god.

 

Define "Science". This is a period in history in which Alchemy was pursued and engineers still existed and worked on new machines. It's so easy to say religion stifled scientific progress based on that one incident with Galileo (which apparently had more to do with politics than actual religious beliefs), but I would love to hear something more concrete.

 

Religion of science? You don't teach them to rely on the supernatural in the first place. They are going to die, they can accept it. Don't say they can't because they are too weak minded, what makes you so special that you think you can say the poor ignorant people can't accept what you can? And even if they couldn't accept it, too bad. Their passive support of religions is what gives religions such power.

 

The whole crux of your arguments seems to be that people would be depressed if they weren't taught this nonsense. You put religion on a pedestal and argue at it from there instead of discussing it like any other issue. And I'd say ok it is fine if adults want to go out and believe this stuff (though even then these books are so dangerous I'm not pleased with it. If religion ever takes control of government in the west again we're fucked, and it's most of the way there in America...) but teaching it to kids is not ok. You are teaching them dependence on fairy tales just to be live. Not just dependence but worship and do-what-I-say-unquestioningly. That is not sustainable.

 

The crux of his point is that faith* helps many, many people deal with the issues he brought up. If you can deal with it on your own, good for you, but many people need to find solace in something else.

 

And what I feel has been ignored here, is that accepting reality and believing in a higher power are not mutually exclusive beliefs. You can accept that life ends when your brain stops working, and at the same time believe that the afterlife isn't pure oblivion and loss of self.

 

*Making the distinction between faith and religion is important, because Iun is talking about faith, and you're dragging the discussion into the role of organized religion into a political context. When discussing religion, it's really easy to stray, so try not to.