Value of Religion

[Alphicans]

This topic is going to have some philosophical implications, but does not require any extensive knowledge in contemporary philosophy. I want to hear what people think about religion, and if it has any unique property that can only be given by it. Lets think about what religion does, how it helps people and its role in society. Also keep in mind this has nothing to do with god, although lots of religions assume there is a god. I do not intend this to be a debate about proving god.

I'll state my opinion on the subject. I understand that religion makes it easy for people to acquire a solid moral code, gives people meaning to their life, allows people to be comforted that there is some form of afterlife and plenty of other things (sense of community for example). I respect what it does on those fronts, but I don't respect the negative aspects of religion, such as prejudices it can make towards certain groups, the violence it has shown to create etc. Now as much as I respect the positives, I do not believe you can only get these things from religion; you can get all of these things just by thinking and being critical of the world.

Can someone show me that I am wrong? Am I missing something in religion? I also understand that I have not defined religion, and that is going to be very hard to do. Perhaps this is where we should start and continue from there.

 

[MuraRengan]

I don't necessarily think that you're wrong, but I don't see a link between religion and the vices which you say religion causes. More often than not, negative things associated with a religion stem from unqualified doctrinization of religious rules and people's habit of using a religion to justify their own personal beliefs.

For example, hatred of gays is heavily associated with Christianity as a whole; however, what is often neglected is the fact that the beliefs of Christianity are split into many, many different sects. The Catholic Church does not advocate hatred of gays and does not say that gays will go to hell. This differs from another "Christian" group like the Westboro Baptist Church who advocate hate.

It's very easy to misuse a religion, however, this is more often the fault of the religious person and not the religion itself. Very few religions actually advocate hate or violence against other people. From what I've learned "jihad" in Islam was meant as a spiritual struggle and not the excuse for violence that it has become today.

Therefore, I think it's inaccurate to list religion as the cause of prejudice and violence, because, on the whole, the religions themselves don't advocate such things. It would be the same as saying "Water causes tidal waves," which is not true. Water is merely the medium of a tidal wave, and the wave itself is caused by something else. In that same way, religion is the medium which people manipulate to make bad things happen. You could say that then, logically, without religion these things would stop happening, but there's no guarantee that absence of religion would make people stop being stupid. There have been instances where there has been unwarranted hatred of/ violence toward a group of people that has had nothing to do with religion. Racism and the Red Scare come to mind.

 

[theeboredone]

A lot of avenues to look at. I'm just gonna state two key ones.

1. First off, the majority of those who believe in a religion should not be considered a part of that religion. Many people today and yesterday are born into the religion, and in a sense...it's more of a cultural belonging than a spiritual belonging. One can say there are not many people left today in this world that truly study or practice their religion. Even if it's under the premise of getting better everyday.

So for all those girls you see at the club, drinking it up, wearing that cross around that neck, then going home and having sex...well can you really say she's a "Christian"? Especially if it's done day after day, and she refuses to improve her life or even consider it?

Edit: To go off of Mura's example. The Westboro Baptist Church is another example. Are they really "Christian" for what they do? At what point should they not even be considered Christian at all? I've read some of the verses they use to hate on gays, and those same verses include punishments for various other "sins" including adultery, drinking, children talking bad to their parents...are those rules just as enforced? Or do they feel to neglect them for their own comfort?

2. For what it's worth, I'm guessing by prejudice, you mainly mean homosexuals, which the Abrahamic (Islam, Christianity, and Judaism) are against. It should be noted that being "gay" has been proven to be a genetic cause. It has been proven that there maybe a genetic underlying tone to possibly make you gay...similar to how one might be predisposition to becoming an alcoholic or drug addict. So it then boils down to the philosophy of if one is "sick" if one is gay. Or maybe even if one just needs to fight those urges and get away from that life. If a community is able to adhere to the rules of a religion, then peace and morals should be consistent.

However, we are all human, and we are prone to making mistakes. If one does follow a religion, their goal should be to come close to their faith and follow the path that is set for them.

 

[Alphicans]

I suppose I was a little ambiguous, but at the same time I do not directly claim religion causes these things. Ultimately the people practicing whatever religion they are in are responsible, and they cause these things. However as you noted there are some doctrines that do in fact advocate hate against certain groups of people.

In regards to your tidal wave example. It is true water doesn't cause tidal waves, but without water there would be no tidal waves. To continue with this, it might be the case that without water there would be something else that could cause something similar to tidal waves, which is what you've pointed out. Yes sometimes religion can be attributed to the existence of hate crimes, but it is not the only medium where that can happen, but it's hard to deny that without the words of the bible, that may or may not suggest that being gay is a sin, the hatred towards homosexuality would have a much weaker foothold in the minds of people. But perhaps I am wrong, as it is very common for humanity to hate that which is different.

Anyways lets not focus too much on this aspect. I only bring up those negatives because I can see them coming directly from religious people. It may be the case they'd be just as intolerant without their religion, and I could not prove otherwise, but my point about realizing the same positive features still stand. I don't think the proposition of being able to derive any positive feature of religion is possible without religion, but let's think about a world where there is no religion. Would the difficulty of deriving these, for example, moral codes be too much that humanity would start to spiral out of control into an immoral mess? Maybe this is the case. Some people just don't want to listen to any logical theories about morality, but they will listen to a moral code that is attached to a being that supposedly created the universe, and demands that you follow it. I do not deny this to be the case, so in that sense I see the value in religion... It helps lazy/irrational people function well in society (sorry if this offends people, but if you are not a lazy/irrational person why do you have a religion? You can believe in God without it). To me this is a negative aspect. I think slowly eliminating religion will force new generations to find value in life on their own without an outside source, meaning there will be freer and more diverse thought in the world. OR it could go the opposite way and end in a terrible world. Or I guess nothing could change.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

The value of religion is grounded in that it inspires things in us. As you say, and Christopher Hitchens commonly points out, that the good things that the religious do can be done by a non-religious person. However, there are negative things that a non-religious individual couldn't do, such as see value in putting religion on others or sacrifice themselves for their God (or otherwise break the law by doing so). One may argue that religion is not to blame when people use it evilly or for their own benefit, but the thing is, it is the nature of religion to be capable of this and to tempt the individual, the individual either being evil already and having access to yet another tool or simply a weak-willed individual who is nonetheless tempted to evil. We already have things that can do this, I don't think adding a unique addition to the list of things can be justified by saying that it too has value to inspire good, so we take the good with the bad. I can understand taking the good with the bad with politics, a necessity, or something of a necessary nature, but religion is not one of these things, so swallowing the bad with the good comes off as a bit unnecessary.

At any rate, religion is on its way out, it has no place in our future. Where reason ends, faith begins, and soon reason will fill up our society as much as it can. Statistically we are producing more and more atheists, the younger generations are not suffering the burden of tradition and years of religious doctrine inculcation, and the young and the old are rapidly having access to knowledge on the internet and other mediums (statistically, the educated is more likely to be atheist, so the more educated our populace comes = the more atheist it will likely be). Ultimately, it will be gone, so it is best to start learning how we can make do without it and accept that's an okay thing to be without it.

 

[Alphicans]

Good post, but lets keep atheism out of this. Atheism is a position against God, which is obviously going to be against (most) religions, but a theist can also be against religion. I just want to be careful with how this discussion goes, as I know this can go sour really quickly.

 

[theeboredone]

Anyways lets not focus too much on this aspect. I only bring up those negatives because I can see them coming directly from religious people. It may be the case they'd be just as intolerant without their religion, and I could not prove otherwise, but my point about realizing the same positive features still stand. I don't think the proposition of being able to derive any positive feature of religion is possible without religion, but let's think about a world where there is no religion. Would the difficulty of deriving these, for example, moral codes be too much that humanity would start to spiral out of control into an immoral mess? Maybe this is the case. Some people just don't want to listen to any logical theories about morality, but they will listen to a moral code that is attached to a being that supposedly created the universe, and demands that you follow it. I do not deny this to be the case, so in that sense I see the value in religion... It helps lazy/irrational people function well in society (sorry if this offends people, but if you are not a lazy/irrational person why do you have a religion? You can believe in God without it). To me this is a negative aspect. I think slowly eliminating religion will force new generations to find value in life on their own without an outside source, meaning there will be freer and more diverse thought in the world. OR it could go the opposite way and end in a terrible world. Or I guess nothing could change.

You are so disrespectful. People are lazy or irrational for using religion as a moral code? Should we call people lazy for using "how to" guides on the various subjects we learn? Math? Art? Science? Those that would be equivalent to a holy book? Or for those that listen to a pastor (teacher), should those who learn in school be called lazy for taking lessons from their teacher? You are essentially saying that we should just go out and learn for ourselves, which sort of takes away the whole, "pass on what you learn" from generation to generation.

Serious question. I'm assuming you are asking this question due to the major religions. Have you gone with an open mind and studied these religions? Whether it's talking to pastors, scholars, and what not? Or are you simply inferring from your own personal beliefs?

As Mura alluded too, religion does not cause violence. PEOPLE do. We interpret religion in our own ways, so we can satisfy our own personal beliefs. How many of us try searching for that truth with open eyes? If you say if religion did not exist, and people cannot interpret it to their own beliefs, guess what? People will find other reasons to satisfy their beliefs.

A man was arrested last year for throwing a baby out of his car. The baby lived thankfully, but when asked by a reporter why he did it? "It's a dirty game...it's a dirty game." Okay, tell me where or how religion has influenced this man?

I was on Reddit the other day, and one thread somehow went from berating a Psychic to bashing Muslims. So these "atheists" who do not follow any sort of religious guideline find it appropriate to insult those who do? What gave them that right? Why are they so disrespectful? Clearly it's not because religion told them. It's because that's how they get off justifying their reason to insult and laugh.

It doesn't matter if religion exists or not. People are flawed, and they will always find something to hold onto in order to justify their actions. The Encyclopedia of War says that religion only accounts for 7% of wars started throughout history. The rest is due to economics, greed, lust, or any other human emotion you can think of.

 

[Alphicans]

My claim is there should be no "how to" book on finding meaning in the after life, or if your life has meaning. Religion spoon feeds this to people, and people readily accept this information because they want a world view that makes death less scary, and comforts them to know they have a purpose in life.

I differentiate this from math and science, because the information available in these fields are so vast it would be impossible to the majority of the information on your own. There was a point in time however, where these fields were regarded as things people should figure out for themselves, back when it was considered philosophy only. Religion is largely unchanged. They study the same book and hold much of the same values as their predecessors.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

Ah, my apologies Alphicans.

One thing I'd like to expand on that I said that religion is a unique case of this good and bad inspiration, its type of value. Theeboredone says that without religion people would (a percentage of these people, I'd doubt all of them) find something else. This, I'll grant. But, are any of these methods as subtle, as sheep-mentality thriving as religion? Religion's influence is incredibly subtle, which means it is far more deadlier than any other influence when it comes to power. It has the words good, justice, eternity, God, all on its side. People follow these ideas and will support evil things that they'd otherwise dismiss or scrutinize more because religion adequately creates this sheep mentality. Proof of this is how religious America is, its politics and policies, despite this being a religiously free nation. The cognitive dissonance is astounding to anyone of a secular understanding, and this can only be explained by the powerful, subtle influence that religion is capable of. Other motives and forces can do this, yes, but I doubt none would be so skilled. Though that isn't particularly the point, that could even be wrong, but it would still be true that we'd be better off not swallowing the bad with any good we get.

 

[theeboredone]

My claim is there should be no "how to" book on finding meaning in the after life, or if your life has meaning. Religion spoon feeds this to people, and people readily accept this information because they want a world view that makes death less scary, and comforts them to know they have a purpose in life.

I don't know why you are so inclined to call people being lazy, irrational, or "spoon fed", because they want to believe in something? It's not like science has disproved if heaven exists or not. It's one thing to say that religion can bring the negative out of people when they choose to use it for their own gain, but to sit here and say that something that is entirely "faith" based, they are lazy for that?

How would you prefer things to happen then? As I have made my case, people day by day choose to make decisions that are against society with no regards to thinking about religion. At the same time, people make good decisions as well.

If religion can be used as a tool to raise a good person, then I don't see nothing wrong with it. If a person chooses to use it for evil, then that's their problem. Absolving religion from this world will not change that. I will stick to that point.

 

[MuraRengan]

From what I've researched, more educated people are more likely to be classified as "non-religious" which is not the same as atheist. Education is very important, but, Holder, your implication that atheism is the penultimate result of education gives atheism too much credit as a belief system. In all honesty, I think deism is the most logical belief system

Spoiler

(given that the person is not educated in/convinced by Catholic history).

 

[theeboredone]

Ah, my apologies Alphicans.

But, are any of these methods as subtle, as sheep-mentality thriving as religion? Religion's influence is incredibly subtle, which means it is far more deadlier than any other influence when it comes to power. It has the words good, justice, eternity, God, all on its side. People follow these ideas and will support evil things that they'd otherwise dismiss or scrutinize more because religion adequately creates this sheep mentality. Proof of this is how religious America is, its politics and policies, despite this being a religiously free nation. The cognitive dissonance is astounding to anyone of a secular understanding, and this can only be explained by the powerful, subtle influence that religion is capable of. Other motives and forces can do this, yes, but I doubt none would be so skilled. Though that isn't particularly the point, that could even be wrong, but it would still be true that we'd be better off not swallowing the bad with any good we get.

Group think and cognitive dissonance exist in so many realms. I think you're really being naive to anything outside of religion. It's just so prevalent, because in today's society, religion is still the dominating/popular factor, so we are inclined to believe it's to that extreme.

Apple is commonly associated with FoxConn and child labor. Yet companies like Sony, HTC, Nintendo also use FoxConn for their manufacturing needs. Due to media, we are inclined to think FoxConn = Child Labor = Apple.

If religion did not exist, there would be some other medium that would grab all the attention. I know a good one, and it's called the internet. Have you seen the obnoxious behavior that goes on? I alluded to one in an earlier post about Reddit. And what about those threads on Reddit with creep shots? Jail bait threads? What about Anonymous using their hacking skills to inflict harm on the innocent? Where is the moral compass if we are to believe these people to be non-believers?

I have alluded this to other debates, but the internet brings out the worst in us. We might not show it in society, but from both religious and non-religious people tend to berate one another like no other. If religion were not to exist, the attention paid to in regards to cyber bullying, trolling, etc would be magnified.

In the real world, well...I will just go back to my statement on how many of us can be truly identified under a "religion" when everyday, we go against the guidelines placed on it.

 

[Ussi]

Religion makes people lazy? If you try to even follow half of an Abrahamic religion to the letter, you'd be sacrificing so much and let me note that sacrifice is not easy for lazy people.

The reason most intelligent people are non-religious sotospeak is because Christianity has so many contradictions in it and when you read the bible like a book, it doesn't make sense. Smart people need rationality in what they believe, so they need to find a religion that is rational and doesn't make sense. But some of these guys give up on religion on a whole instead of trying to find a rational religion.

Furthering the misconception of Religion is culture. People mix up culture and religion and make it out to be the same thing but culture is not a static thing and is ever changing but religion isn't something people can change the rules of. This leads to frustration and misconception not only among the very people who follow it, but it also misleads anyone using these guys as an example (as theboredone stated earlier)

I see the problem of religion stems from this issue as just stated. The people who don't know their own religion are being used to represent the religion. When you hear about Islam, you may think of the riots caused in countries because of politic cartoons. You'd think man these guys are crazy going so far as destruction of property over this. This is an incorrect behavior when there are plenty of examples in Islam on how to deal with this very issue just they all don't have knowledge on it! The worst part is the guys who didn't riot aren't being shown in this picture. But this is what sells in the media so is what people see.

The last point i will make is that, i believe is an innate feeling to believe in God or a supreme being. This itself is the driving force for people to search for religion i would say. I follow a belief that if you want to find God sincerely, he will guide you to him.

 

[~ Gheb ~]

I think a lot of your questions will be easier to answer if you keep in mind that religions in fact are nothing but ideologies. Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Bhuddism, Hinduism ... those are all different ways to look at life and the world. They are attitudes to life and the world and serve to give an explanation to those who can't come up with said explanation themselves ... just like Plato's Allegory of the Cave or Nihilism attempt to do.

The real question - to me at least - is why people are willing to cling to some of those ideologies that have proven outdated or plain wrong in the face of science's track record of success. This is an alltogether different matter thoguh. The values and the purpose of religion is the same as that of any other ideology. Personally, I completely agree that religion caused much more harm than it caused good - just look at the amount of people murdered in the name of Christianity or Islam over the course of history. This is not excuseable or can be justified in a reasonable manner. I could go into more detail here but I personally am tired of this discussion. It's more than clear to me that the world will be a better place once the last trace of religion has vanished. Before that, the world will not be a peaceful place.

You are so disrespectful. People are lazy or irrational for using religion as a moral code? Should we call people lazy for using "how to" guides on the various subjects we learn? Math? Art? Science? Those that would be equivalent to a holy book?

You aren't exactly respectful yourself either when you talk about these girls that "drink up every night and then go home to have sex" but postulate that the way they live their lives should be "improved", which they choose to not do.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

theeboredone, I didn't say that it was the only source of cognitive dissonance, I'm just saying it is an excellent example of it. Have no idea how I'm being naive. Also, I reject the idea that if religion didn't exist, the internet would somehow absorb the negative causes of religion and take its place, and somehow that would even validate the value of religion.

I also reject the idea that religion is static. Christianity, in particular, is extremely amorphous. The religion springing from the Bible has never been the same thing for long, and has always multiple forms at the same time. Old Testament is a different from New, New is different from how we understand it today. In between these periods there have been changes. Science and moral discovery has pushed it back more and more because it is in fact a cultural construct. Anthropology too accepts this and studies it as such, it is not a mistake to understand it as a cultural aspect. The Bible is static, yes, but its interpretation and practice is most certainly not.

@MuraRengan, no I don't mean non-religious. And atheism isn't some intelligent belief, my point is that with knowledge we realize how silly theism is. I do not agree with the notion that you think because deism is best people will then be more inclined to think that way, despite the studies that don't say non-religious but atheist. Also, I think we've discussed your view of deism in the past in that blog you made, and your concept didn't please a single individual here.

 

[Jon Farron]

I think I'll just copy & paste an essay I did a while back... This was for my Worldview class last year for the subject on religion and why we believe what we believe.



I was born into a very conservative Christian family. I was basically raised to believe in God, and I haven't really had a chance to discover Him for myself. I'm always told what to do, what not to do, what to believe, and what not to believe. Sometimes I feel like I don't even have my own mind...
My mom only wants me to have a good life, and not go through what she did.

My mother was born into a very unchristian family. Her mother was very deep into witchcraft and the occult, and her father and his brothers were part of the Hispanic/Italian Mob (Mafia). (Don't worry, they're all in jail or dead now, except her Dad which later became a Christian and left) Both parents were heavily connected to the Illuminati. (Yes, it exists people, I'm not just making this up) Her life was hectic, crazy, and often life threatening. My mom was taken to many Occult rituals as a child, and used in many as well. She always had to carry a gun and pepper spray for fear of being attacked by her father's enemies. My mom and her mother used to have telekinetic wars, launching objects at each other when they didn't get along. I didn't believe it at first, buy my Aunts and Uncles all confirmed it was true. You would be shocked at everything that went on, but I don't wanna reveal too much information.

When my mom was in her teens, a friend of hers brought her to Church. It was the first time she ever felt safe, happy, free from her fears. She became a Christian a few weeks later and she said she had never felt safer, the gun and pepper spray felt useless compared to the protection she felt from God.

When her mother found out that her daughter had become a Christian, she went psycho. She started screaming at her, slapping her, going practically insane. The brothers and sisters were screaming for their mom to stop but she wouldn't. My mother tried to fight back how she normally would (telekinetically launching stuff) but she couldn't, nothing would pick up when she tried. She immediately prayed for protection and for God to save her, out loud for everyone to hear. Her mother went into an outrage and started launching glasses, plates, lamps anything you can think of. The room went completely silent as the objects just shattered in front of her and fell to the ground without touching her. Everyone was shocked and frozen with disbelief, my mom ran out of there and never returned.

I know it sounds crazy, farfetched, and like something from out of a movie, but it's 100% true. If you ask anyone from my mother's side of the family about this, they would probably immediately change the subject. I don't expect you to believe it, I didn't believe it at first either. I asked my Grandfather (my mother's Dad) about it a couple years ago, his face went completely pale and gave my mom a look that said "Why did you tell him!?". That was proof enough.


After hearing her story only a thousand times at Church, at home, and her talking to her friends, I know God is real. There's no way she would've made it out of there alive if it wasn't for Him. If you were to see her today, you would've never imagined the trauma she went through when she was a child. people always tell her she should write a book, but she doesn't want all the media attention. She's perfectly happy with her normal life. (After that childhood, who wouldn't be? lol)


Today, people use religion as just a guide to being a good person. It's not just about being a good person. It's really about having a personal relationship with God and recognizing that He created you and trying to do your best to live by His standards. Now they can be extremely high, but nobody is perfect and He knows that.



Lol when I read that essay to my class, their jaws were practically on the floor. xD

To relate more to this subject, God has more value in our family than religion. When we do something, we don't think "is it ok for a Christian to do this?" Instead, we think "Would God want me to do this?". The difference is one is going by the religious guide book, and the other is going by what God says. I guess you could say we're more spiritual than religious.

 

[Ussi]

@gheb Islam and science go hand in hand. There is no proven scientific fact that goes against Islam

When I said religion is static, i meant it should remain static. My mistake. Islam has remained static which is why i made this mistake.

 

[~ Gheb ~]

I find that hard to believe. And even if that was true I don't see how it makes any of my points less valid.

 

[MuraRengan]

@MuraRengan, no I don't mean non-religious. And atheism isn't some intelligent belief, my point is that with knowledge we realize how silly theism is. I do not agree with the notion that you think because deism is best people will then be more inclined to think that way, despite the studies that don't say non-religious but atheist. Also, I think we've discussed your view of deism in the past in that blog you made, and your concept didn't please a single individual here.

Well then I'll, in turn, give you my personal view on the subject. With knowledge people begin to think they know something, but more often than not, that knowledge will influenced by personal desires. For religious people, it's the promise of heaven, for atheists it's a freedom from religious responsibility. Both are fine as ideologies, but both incense an irrational position on a truth. I was very pleased with the outcome of the thread I made awhile ago. While deism didn't please anyone, I got numerous "atheists" to admit that their disbelief in god is ultimately faith based, I got several atheists to admit that the supernatural is highly probable, and I got several atheists to admit that the are several things critical to the understanding of reality that science will never know. Whether they like deism or not, that thread was successful in showing how far away from the truth atheism is.

 

[Ussi]

@Gheb I was arguing your "religion is outdated by science" statement.

 

[~ Gheb ~]

I'm saying that many ideologies are outdated due to science or proven wrong by it.

 

[Ussi]

I'm saying that many ideologies are outdated due to science or proven wrong by it.

I'm going to ask for some examples of science outdating Islam

I will go do some research on science and Islam and be back with some examples of Islam and science going hand and hand.

 

[~ Gheb ~]

What would that accomplish? My point would still remain exactly the same.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

Well then I'll, in turn, give you my personal view on the subject. With knowledge people begin to think they know something, but more often than not, that knowledge will influenced by personal desires. For religious people, it's the promise of heaven, for atheists it's a freedom from religious responsibility. Both are fine as ideologies, but both incense an irrational position on a truth. I was very pleased with the outcome of the thread I made awhile ago. While deism didn't please anyone, I got numerous "atheists" to admit that their disbelief in god is ultimately faith based, I got several atheists to admit that the supernatural is highly probable, and I got several atheists to admit that the are several things critical to the understanding of reality that science will never know. Whether they like deism or not, that thread was successful in showing how far away from the truth atheism is.

I don't see how atheism was shown to be far from truth when no one said that deism or theism was correct. Anyone who said that the supernatural is probable I did not see, and they'd at any rate be incorrect. In the discussions I participated in, no sufficient ground for anything like that was given, even you said it was illogical, by definition, at the start, and at the end of that blog's life, you admitted that your idea was less probable but then said you believed atheism was incorrect for reasons you were not willing to disclose. So no, that was not a success on any level.

Also, it is the nature of an atheist to say that his belief implies faith, because induction always implies a sense of "faith". The atheist doesn't refrain from calling himself an atheist at that juncture, nor calls himself an agnostic, but instead calls himself an agnostic atheist. Meaning: there is no physical evidence for a God yet and there has yet to be a metaphysical demand to believe in a god-like entity, but there is no certain knowledge of the origin of things. It is a mere acknowledgement that there is a principle of uncertainty as to the creation of things, the mere acknowledgement of no absolute knowledge at the moment. This is no success to get someone to say this, in fact, every sensible atheist must admit this at the very beginning.

 

[MuraRengan]

I don't see how atheism was shown to be far from truth when no one said that deism or theism was correct. Anyone who said that the supernatural is probable I did not see, and they'd at any rate be incorrect. In the discussions I participated in, no sufficient ground for anything like that was given, even you said it was illogical, by definition, at the start, and at the end of that blog's life, you admitted that your idea was less probable but then said you believed atheism was incorrect for reasons you were not willing to disclose. So no, that was not a success on any level.

Yes, I recall you specifically being the only one not able to comprehend my argument for the supernatural. Lots of other people got it, but in then end I was stuck repeating the same argument with you because you kept missing the point. Perhaps you'll get it now.

In short, the argument was that all avenues of exploring the universe lead to an illogical conclusion if the supernatural is not interposed. The supernatural is illogical to us because we cannot understand it, but that doesn't make it any less evident. That was the point I was making, you can go back and read the thread and it will say the exact same thing. However, this is not the place to argue this. If you want to go into it more, perhaps another thread is necessary; however, I feel I made my point clear enough there.

Also, it is the nature of an atheist to say that his belief implies faith, because induction always implies a sense of "faith". The atheist doesn't refrain from calling himself an atheist at that juncture, nor calls himself an agnostic, but instead calls himself an agnostic atheist. Meaning: there is no physical evidence for a God yet and there has yet to be a metaphysical demand to believe in a god-like entity, but there is no certain knowledge of the origin of things. It is a mere acknowledgement that there is a principle of uncertainty as to the creation of things, the mere acknowledgement of no absolute knowledge at the moment. This is no success to get someone to say this, in fact, every sensible atheist must admit this at the very beginning.

It's funny how atheists only become sensible atheists once you confront their beliefs. Any atheist with that background would know better than to go around saying empirically that god doesn't exist, yet so many still do. This leads me to believe that either there are many non-sensible atheists, or that sensible atheists want to have their cake and eat it too.

 

[Ussi]

What would that accomplish? My point would still remain exactly the same.

I'm asking you to prove Islam is outdated. To not make it onesided, i said i would go get evidence to prove otherwise.

 

[~ Gheb ~]

I don't care if Islam is outdated or not.

 

[Ussi]

Then your argument doesn't hold weight to me

 

[Holder of the Heel]

Yes, I recall you specifically being the only one not able to comprehend my argument for the supernatural. Lots of other people got it, but in then end I was stuck repeating the same argument with you because you kept missing the point. Perhaps you'll get it now.

Actually, I know I wasn't the only one who didn't what you were saying. I was just one of the few that actually tried to argue with you about it, most didn't at all seem interested, probably because they saw it as futile.

In short, the argument was that all avenues of exploring the universe lead to an illogical conclusion if the supernatural is not interposed. The supernatural is illogical to us because we cannot understand it, but that doesn't make it any less evident. That was the point I was making, you can go back and read the thread and it will say the exact same thing. However, this is not the place to argue this. If you want to go into it more, perhaps another thread is necessary; however, I feel I made my point clear enough there.

There were people who even said they'd rather say they didn't know then say that. That is not an argument for deism, it's an argument for "we don't know the origin of things". You yourself said that the success was not in deism but in showing that there was a bit of uncertainty to the subject, and we can all grant that, that wasn't the topic then nor is it now. I'll also say what I said back then, you can't add an illogical element to something if you want to make it logical, that collapses on itself immediately. In fact, we get out logic from reality, to say that an illogical piece of reality exists is absolutely contradictory. You will please no one who is actually looking for an answer, and that is why you ultimately pleased no one in that thread.

It's funny how atheists only become sensible atheists once you confront their beliefs. Any atheist with that background would know better than to go around saying empirically that god doesn't exist, yet so many still do. This leads me to believe that either there are many non-sensible atheists, or that sensible atheists want to have their cake and eat it too.

I'm confused by this bit. All I'm saying is that anyone sensible will not say they know things absolutely when the nature of that subject is largely unknown. An atheist is a person who thinks there is no reason to believe in a God whatsoever. Therefore, a sensible atheist is a person who says from what they know that atheism is logically and empirically the best stance at the moment. The same applies to a deist (or any label signifying a stance on an uncertain subject), they too cannot speak absolutely if they wish to be sensible. The major problem is that metaphysically speaking a deist can't explain a God without doing what you do and basically giving up, saying "It makes sense because it doesn't make sense ". That is why it is best to say that we don't absolutely know everything about our origin, but there is no demand at all for a God at the moment. Enter, agnostic atheism.


@Ussi, what he is saying is that most ideologies are disproven by science, he doesn't care about Islam in particular. If Islam is proven to be "hand in hand" with science, that doesn't destroy his stance.

 

[_Keno_]

...but more often than not, that knowledge will influenced by personal desires. For religious people, it's the promise of heaven, for atheists it's a freedom from religious responsibility.

Eh, I dont like the way this is stated. Atheists are exempt from religious responsibility due to non-belief...it's not like people desire to avoid religious responsibility and become atheists as a result.

As for the rest, the people you describe don't sound like atheist, more like spiritual agnostics or something. While I agree science will never uncover everything, jumping onto something that offers ANY explanation shouldn't be considered the next best thing... I'd much rather have no opinion or belief on the matter until it's shown one way or the other.

Can you explain how the supernatural is likely to exist (in any form)? Or explain how atheism is faith-based? I'm certainly willing to listen.

If you could find this thread again, that'd be a good help too. Don't worry if you can't, some things just get buried.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

It's a blog of his called "Why I'm not an Atheist" I think.

 

[Jon Farron]

The major problem is that metaphysically speaking a deist can't explain a God without doing what you do and basically giving up, saying "It makes sense because it doesn't make sense ". That is why it is best to say that we don't absolutely know everything about our origin, but there is no demand at all for a God at the moment. Enter, agnostic atheism.

>.<

You can't explain God. He just is. There's no way for us to understand that. It's beyond our comprehension.

 

[Jam Stunna]

I was waiting for the bus on Monday morning to go to class. When the bus pulled up, a young woman approached. She had a stroller with her kid in it, he looked like he was just over a year old. One of her eyes was bloodshot red, and beneath it was black and swollen. It was pretty clear that she'd been punched. I let her board the bus before me, and she handed the bus driver a ripped transfer. He gave her some grief about it being ripped, but let her on anyway. When she sat down, she took out a copy of the Watchtower that a Jehova's Witness handed her before she got on the bus and began reading it intently.

I don't think one can understand the appeal that a belief system offers until one truly understands hopelessness. You must understand that for some people, the only love and kindness they experience in their lives is from their god. The nature of religion and philosophical musings about morality and science are luxuries for people who live with enough to eat, without physical violence darkening their lives, with the means to improve their own lot in life.

I'm not saying that every religious person falls into that category, but religion is also there for people who literally have nothing else.

 

[Jon Farron]

I was waiting for the bus on Monday morning to go to class. When the bus pulled up, a young woman approached. She had a stroller with her kid in it, he looked like he was just over a year old. One of her eyes was bloodshot red, and beneath it was black and swollen. It was pretty clear that she'd been punched. I let her board the bus before me, and she handed the bus driver a ripped transfer. He gave her some grief about it being ripped, but let her on anyway. When she sat down, she took out a copy of the Watchtower that a Jehova's Witness handed her before she got on the bus and began reading it intently.

I don't think one can understand the appeal that a belief system offers until one truly understands hopelessness. You must understand that for some people, the only love and kindness they experience in their lives is from their god. The nature of religion and philosophical musings about morality and science are luxuries for people who live with enough to eat, without physical violence darkening their lives, with the means to improve their own lot in life.

I'm not saying that every religious person falls into that category, but religion is also there for people who literally have nothing else.

This is a fantastic example on why people choose to believe in God, and is similar to how my mother came to know God as I said in my earlier post. It gives people hope, comfort, a feeling of protection when all else is lost.


Most people who are smart, successful, have money, and are living a great life have put faith in their own success to get by, rather than putting their faith in God.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

>.<

You can't explain God. He just is. There's no way for us to understand that. It's beyond our comprehension.

-5 Respect Points.

I'm not saying that every religious person falls into that category, but religion is also there for people who literally have nothing else.

Correction, people who are under the misconception that they have nothing else.

 

[Jam Stunna]

Nevermind.

 

[Jon Farron]

-5 Respect Points.

As if you had any respect for me to begin with? >.>

Correction, people who are under the misconception that they have nothing else.

Why are you so against believing in God?

 

[Holder of the Heel]

Think of it as going from zero to negative five. But seriously, White Mage, reflect on these things you are saying, and like a child, ask "Why?" to every feeling or notion you have. You clearly have an interest in discussing things, which is an important quality, and this I can most certainly respect. You're already leagues ahead of most!

As for the misconception part, what I mean is that when people feel a sense of dread or hopelessness that they feel only religion can fill, it is true in the sense that that's where their identity has led them, but it is their ignorance of the fact that from themselves as an individual these pockets where hope should be can be put in without religion. People who don't know something cannot understand it, and thus misconceptions are born from insufficient knowledge. Anyone who necessarily depends on religion to fill a void of hopelessness is ignorant of other avenues. I won't debate that these people exist, but it is a misconception nonetheless, and one that should and slowly is being dispelled.

My being against the belief in God is manifold, the list of causes would be egregiously long. Though one can gather a couple of these reasons purely from what has been said by me in this thread.

 

[Jon Farron]

But seriously, White Mage, reflect on these things you are saying, and like a child, ask "Why?" to every feeling or notion you have.

If I were to do that, things would eventually get down to "just because" or "it is what it is". Lol

Sometimes you just can't explain something.

 

[GwJ]

Before you guys go any further, take this to a blog or another thread. We've had too many threads derail into these kinds of discussions. Alphicans posed a serious question deserving of serious and dedicated discussion.