what religion?

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 23 Jun 2006 18:16

carl winslow wrote: genisis is a metaphor, and a good one.

So true. If people understood this the world would be a better place.

Guest_2 · Post by **Guest_2** » 23 Jun 2006 19:02

carl winslow wrote:dont take the entire bible literaly.

The Jews figured this one out a loooong time ago

DaGoodSmoke · Post by **DaGoodSmoke** » 06 Dec 2006 20:07

All and none.

BainbridgeShred · Post by **BainbridgeShred** » 06 Dec 2006 23:06

i see you windin and grindin
up on that pole
you see me looking at you dancing
bitch you already know
i wanna fuck you
you already know
i wanna fuck you

gMoney · Post by **gMoney** » 17 Dec 2006 20:27

...um... ok... im a catholic, but every day i start to become more and more agnostic. i can't understand how god wants us to believe in him when there are generally no signs that he's around. some people say "look at nature and you'll see god" but how do you know god created it? and one other thing, does god create mankind or does mankind create god? religion has been around literally forever and there are so many kinds of religions; how are we supposed to know who's right? and what happens if you dont believe in god because you were raised in a different religion and you're still a good person anyways? do you go to hell for that? theres just so many loose ends that no one understands and theres about a million different religions and sects trying to convert us. i think i might look into confucianism because its more or less of being a good person and finding light than following a god that could very well not exist. i think that saying there isnt a god is just as ignorant as saying there is one. we wont know until the day we die, and thats just how it goes.

Moxie · Post by **Moxie** » 18 Dec 2006 00:52

gMoney wrote:i think that saying there isnt a god is just as ignorant as saying there is one. we wont know until the day we die, and thats just how it goes.

I think that saying unicorns don't exist is just as ignorant as believing in them.

james_dean · Post by **james_dean** » 18 Dec 2006 01:48

If you haven't seen any proof of God, then you haven't tried following him properly. I'm not hoping God exists, I know he does.

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 18 Dec 2006 05:32

That's interesting Jamie. You should read about the Cargo Cults.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cults

Essentially a religion which believes with the same conviction as any other religion that the spirits of the world give people cargo (as in goods off ships) and when the apocalypse comes, the righteous will all get the best cargo. Personally I'd prefer the 72 virgins, or even the 72 white sultanas. I think this quote from Mark Twain sums it up best. Mark Twain is a fucking legend, everybody should read all his work.

Mark Twain wrote:The easy confidence with which I know another man's religion is folly teaches me to suspect that my own is also.

Of course, if you start studying some science, in particular evolutionary biology, you'll see that there are some very good reasons, based on scientific experimentation which shows very clear evolutionary reasons why we believe in religion and the fact that these so called "religious experiences" are experienced by all people regardless of religious belief and can be explained neurologically without having to believe in any unbacked up superstitious claims.

Another really great Mark Twain quote is:

Mark Twain wrote: It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.

You may "know" that God exists, with the same surety that people "know" that the Cargo gods will deliver or that Allah will reward martyrs with 72 virgins, and I am sure you can not doubt that people who kill themselves for their religious beliefs have the same surety of knowledge that you have, but an atheist looks at the world and tries to see the reality and the likelihood of certain explanations and bases their opinion on the evidence at hand. If knew evidence came to hand, that would result in a change of opinion - just as it does in all science. Science is the quest of truth. Religion hides the truth and clouds peoples visions. It leads to a lack of truth.

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 18 Dec 2006 16:47

I was a little intoxicated when I made that post last night, so I just wanted to include some sources for my claim that religious belief can be explained in evolutionary terms.

The Extended Phenotype 1982- Richard Dawkins - BA, MA, Ph.D, Sc.D - all from Oxford University.

How the Mind Works 1997- Stephen Pinker - current professor of psychology at Harvard University.

How We Believe: The Search for God in an Age of Science 2001 - Michael Shermer - Masters in Experimental Psychology, Ph.D.

Darwin's Cathedral 2002 - David Sloan Wilson - BA, Ph.D

Why Gods Persist 1999 - Robert Hinde - CBE, FRS, FBA.

Religion Explained 2002 - Pascal Boyer - Professor at psychology at Washington University.

In Gods We Trust 2004 - Scott Atran - Professor at the University of Michigan.

Now that's a small selection of the growing library of books that put forward the evidence that scientists have gathered from years of studying religion, psychology and evolution. You can see that all those books are written by very educated people and they all put forward the argument, based on experimentation and observation (not how they feel) that religious belief is evolutionary. Everything we perceive is clouded by our own perceptions however science is the quest to find the fundamental truths of the world - to find the things that are true everywhere, all the time. Unlike religion, science doesn't claim to know everything, or even a significant portion of everything.

I know that some people on this forum, and in the world, think that while God doesn't exist, or are unsure that God exists, they think we should tolerate the belief in religion. Certainly, depending on how you word it, I could agree with that sentiment. I don't believe we should force people to not believe in religion, however I have grown to strongly believe that we need to aim for a society and world without religion. A world where people worship nature, science and reality. I see two main reasons to oppose all religion.

1. Religion divides people.

There are a lot of reasons why people are fighting in Israel, many of them are political and about things other than religion. However what one thing is it that divides the two sides? Would there be any conflict if that division did not exist? The same applies to many conflicts around the world and has for thousands of years. Yes there are wars that aren't between sides divided by religion and there are many reasons that wars occur. That doesn't change the fact that religion divides people.

2. Religion retards the pursuit of knowledge.

Imagine a debate on TV about stem cell research. A panel of experts debating the ethics of the research. Lets say you have a biologist, an ethicist, a politician and a priest. There is one person here who is clearly the odd one out. The biologist is basing her opinions on all the research and observations she has made in studying biology and how stem cell research could apply to those studies. The ethicist is basing her opinions on all the research and observations she has made in studying ethics and philosophy and how stem cell research could apply to those studies. The politician is a representative of the people and is the person in the position to change the laws to allow or disallow stem cell research. The priest has no qualifications for taking part in the debate - he has no observational evidence or educational qualifications to back up his opinions. How is his opinion any more relevant on this subject than that of any random person? Surely on such an important, potentially revolutionising debate we should be listening to the people who are experts in the fields relevant to the debate. Yet instead it seems that having a strong religious belief makes your opinion suddenly just as important as the opinion of an expert. Let me give another example. Two kids with no connection to each other look up at the sky and ask their mum; "Why is the sky blue?" The two mums give two different answers. The first mum says; "I don't know." The second mum says; "That's the way God made it." The second answer is a much easier answer to give. It leads to that child feeling good because he knows why the sky is blue and not asking the question again. The first answer does not seem so good, but it leads to that child asking that question again and eventually reading a science book and finding out a much deeper reason for the sky to be blue (even if God does exist) and finding an answer that asks a million more questions.

Now if you're an atheist or an agnostic, but you don't think we need to aim for a society without religion, think of those two children and how one has lost so much knowledge while the other has gained so much. I made that story up, but is it unbelievable or is it something that happens all the time. What happens when we die? Look at how far society has come because of science. Imagine how far we have to go because of science. Science gives us a world with no border or boundaries, a world with a million possibilities and the choice to pursue whatever dreams we have. Religion gives us a false surety that leads us to accept the world as it is and to stop asking questions.

Madalyn Murray O'Hair wrote:An Atheist believes that a hospital should be built instead of a church. An atheist believes that deed must be done instead of prayer said. An atheist strives for involvement in life and not escape into death. He wants disease conquered, poverty vanished, war eliminated.

dyalander · Post by **dyalander** » 18 Dec 2006 17:27

Where does someone like Mother Teresa fit in to your conception of religion - here's a deeply religious woman who most certainly felt a hospice would be better than a convent, taking someone in and actually looking after them would be better than simply praying for them. No doubt you can argue that if she had of been a qualified doctor and trained other nurses she would have done a better job for the sick she looked after, perhaps offering solutions for some rather than simply allowing a more dignified and less painful death. But I think to argue that religion is simply counter productive and science is simply productive is a unfair oversimplification. An untruth if you will.

Surely there is a place for religion in the sense that it has the potential to bring out the best in people to whom science is not inspiring.

Science does not only accept what it can prove but refuses to dismiss what it cannot disprove, and surely on that basis the existence of God cannot be discounted, and never could be. What science does dismiss are the out-dated traditions of most established religions, but I think it would be silly to dismis the posibility of the existence of a power beyond our understanding just because it has been exploided by others in the past and tied to conventions designed to deliver power to some individuals at the expense of others.

HighDemonslayer · Post by **HighDemonslayer** » 18 Dec 2006 18:05

Man, were you drinking when you made that post also?

There are a lot of reasons why people are fighting in Israel, many of them are political and about things other than religion. However what one thing is it that divides the two sides?(...)

Are there many things that divide the two sides, or one thing?

Israel is a bad example, especially when you can't use the M-word, when discussing that conflict, or a dozen other current conflicts, where many different religions are all at war with the M-word.

That point about the stem cell debate on TV is bad too.

Any panel that has a politician, and has a priest as the lone punching bag, is not going to advance any pursuit of knowledge.

And if the debate is supposed to be about ethics, then the biologist had no qualifications either.

"Stem cells", when used without describing the specific type of stem cell, funding, or regulations thereof , is nothing more than a political mantra, intended to conjure up images of Prez Bush, priests, and all Christians together injecting Michael J. Fox with Parkinsons.

I don't believe we should force people to not believe in religion, however I have grown to strongly believe that we need to aim for a society and world without religion.

Yeah, tolerance for religious people is a real pain. We should aim to rid the earth of them, like you said.

-n

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 19 Dec 2006 03:36

dyalander wrote:Where does someone like Mother Teresa fit in to your conception of religion - here's a deeply religious woman who most certainly felt a hospice would be better than a convent, taking someone in and actually looking after them would be better than simply praying for them. No doubt you can argue that if she had of been a qualified doctor and trained other nurses she would have done a better job for the sick she looked after, perhaps offering solutions for some rather than simply allowing a more dignified and less painful death. But I think to argue that religion is simply counter productive and science is simply productive is a unfair oversimplification. An untruth if you will.

I suggest you read "The Missionary Position" by Christopher Hitchens - who is one of my favourite journalists in the world. You might be surprised about the truth about this "saint".

Surely there is a place for religion in the sense that it has the potential to bring out the best in people to whom science is not inspiring.

People don't need science or religion to do good things. My aunt is an atheist, and has been for as long as I know. She's also spent her entire life working tirelessly as a social worker, feminist and disabled person's supporter. There is no actual relationship between religion and being nice to people. Show me a study that proves otherwise because I look at religious people and I see an intollerance of those with other religions, I see divide and I see attempts to stop the pursuit of knowledge based on the teachings of book of fables. It is simply not the case that there is any relationship between generosity and religious belief.

Science does not only accept what it can prove but refuses to dismiss what it cannot disprove, and surely on that basis the existence of God cannot be discounted, and never could be. What science does dismiss are the out-dated traditions of most established religions, but I think it would be silly to dismis the posibility of the existence of a power beyond our understanding just because it has been exploided by others in the past and tied to conventions designed to deliver power to some individuals at the expense of others.

This is another false argument. While it is true that science cannot disprove the existence of God, science can also not disprove the existence of invisible unicorns or a tea cup orbiting Saturn. What science can do is look at all the observations of the world and give you a probability that something is true. In the case of theism, there is no scientific evidence suggesting that this is the case, and an abundance of evidence that explains everything that theism attempts to explain, including why people believe it and why they have feelings of "religious experiences."

And Nathan, I will start responding to your posts when they're not so completely ridiculous.

dyalander · Post by **dyalander** » 19 Dec 2006 22:21

I have seen some doco's that question the general perception of Mother Teresa so I wouldn't be all that surprised.

Just because there are many people that don't need religion or science to do good things does not change the fact that there are people out there who need one or the other to inspire them.

The last point I made was tied in to the second one - while it may not be possible to disprove the existence of invisible unicorns, to do so is neither harmless or benificial until that belief in invisible unicorns starts become the basis for further beliefs and actions that can be objectively evaluated. If someone decides that the unicorns are telling them to kill, there is a problem - but the problem's not the unicorn, it's the killing part. It's at this point that science and ethics should be brought to bear on the belief - they can't disprove it's core but they can disprove the message.
This is not to say that religion should not be limited by the findings of science - it most definitly should - but these findings tend to disprove all the crap things that get tacked onto the belief in god but don't speak to the final question of whether a god exists or not. Science could potentialy be the best thing we have to reveal the true nature of god because it the most powerful tool we have to dispute all the bullshit that gets said in the name of one god or another. In the end we can never know what lies beyond our understanding/existence, but we can know that to act based upon what we belive about that beyond is irrational and dangerous.

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 20 Dec 2006 08:24

dyalander wrote:Just because there are many people that don't need religion or science to do good things does not change the fact that there are people out there who need one or the other to inspire them.

How can you possibly know that? Are you God? Surely you can't know how people would behave if they weren't religious. Maybe they would work much harder for social justice. I know that many people I know who work for social justice are atheists. I'd like to see a study about belief in human rights and religious belief.

The last point I made was tied in to the second one - while it may not be possible to disprove the existence of invisible unicorns, to do so is neither harmless or benificial until that belief in invisible unicorns starts become the basis for further beliefs and actions that can be objectively evaluated. If someone decides that the unicorns are telling them to kill, there is a problem - but the problem's not the unicorn, it's the killing part. It's at this point that science and ethics should be brought to bear on the belief - they can't disprove it's core but they can disprove the message.
This is not to say that religion should not be limited by the findings of science - it most definitly should - but these findings tend to disprove all the crap things that get tacked onto the belief in god but don't speak to the final question of whether a god exists or not. Science could potentialy be the best thing we have to reveal the true nature of god because it the most powerful tool we have to dispute all the bullshit that gets said in the name of one god or another. In the end we can never know what lies beyond our understanding/existence, but we can know that to act based upon what we belive about that beyond is irrational and dangerous.

The point about the ultimate question of the existence of some kind of supernatural being is that it's a question that science can only answer in terms of a likelihood. Science will never be able to give a definite negative answer about the existence of any general object that actually doesn't exist. Science can say with all surety that there is no diamond filled footbag in my room, but science could never say that no diamond filled footbags exist. It can only say that there is no reason to believe that there is such an existence. The existence of a God is even less likely than the existence of a diamond filled footbag, because we know that diamonds exist and we know that footbags exist. There is, in fact, no presence of God that can only be explained with the God theory. The greater meaning behind natural selection shows us so clearly that there is nothing to believe in any direction of the universe - that there is every reason to see how the universe came to be in the position that it is in today. Choosing to believe something when you have absolutely no genuine supporting evidence is delusional.

jay7 · Post by **jay7** » 20 Dec 2006 10:14

Athiest...

If any of you people have read "The Celestine Prophecy" (or society, I forget which) I sorta believe a few of the concepts in it...Just not that there is some guy/girl in the heavens who dictates what is and isn't.

I think it might be a movie too.

smokefree · Post by **smokefree** » 20 Dec 2006 13:48

I only believe in the creator and kicking ass. I find it hard to follow a book, especially when the christian lord and savior was a slave owner in it? Riiiight. Jesus im sure no doubt was a great man, a son of god as he put it, but the bible does not describe this man accurately the way I would picture Christ.

james_dean · Post by **james_dean** » 23 Dec 2006 05:12

I would have said science will never be able to prove or disprove God's existence because science operates in the natural realm, whilst God (if he exists) is a supernatural being.

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 23 Dec 2006 16:10

james_dean wrote:I would have said science will never be able to prove or disprove God's existence because science operates in the natural realm, whilst God (if he exists) is a supernatural being.

How convenient. Actually I think a more accurate assessment would be that science could prove that God existed, if God did exist but because God doesn't, science can instead only explain why people believe in God. You can't prove the non-existence of anything.

I also wanted to know what your evidence is that God exists but not in the supernatural theme. If you could stick to objective evidence that would be great. I suspect there is no evidence to back up that claim.

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 23 Dec 2006 16:12

Sorry that should have read:

"I also wanted to know what your evidence is that God exists but not in the natural realm. "

Scott · Post by **Scott** » 23 Dec 2006 19:05

I think the best evidence for the existence of god is the fact that individuals have some kind of desire to find meaning in life which implies a creater or some force greater than ourselves.

I don't think science has provided a better theory for that than religion.

There are also a number of documented instances of people with terminal illness being healed, a common feature of such occurances is a belief in god.

The comparison between god and invisible unicors isn't a good one. The existence of god provides an answer to that unanswerable question, why do we exist. Invisible unicors do not explain anything, have no relevance and are not worth consideration.

Certainly even if one could prove the existence of god, it wouldn't necessarily provide any basis for believing that a particular religion represented the truth or word of god.