The Religion Thread

[Dr Mantis Toboggan]

Erm. That was kind of my point. Just because one person can't explain the physics behind it perfectly, doesn't mean that no one can.

Oh ffs you are thick. U don't understand something, u have faith that someone out there does and can explain it, even though u have no knowledge not understanding of it yourself. And your second point is a dumb one. You've consistently argued against faith in itself, rather than the institution of religion or the various depravities committed by organised faith. Don't 180 your position

 

[blade1889]

. I ain't religious but believe in what u want to believe in. life is hard if Allah helps u through it great. If u believe your toothbrush is a god also great. If u don't believe in anything also great. Just don't be a twat. Should be the first commandment that

I'd go with that and tend to avoid religious debates as religion helps so many 'people of faith'.

Until someone starts on about homosexuality, evolution being a lie and that we evolved from a chimpanzee and then I'm like 'this is fair game'.

And I know what you're saying in the faith in a light bulb working argument...but there is a big difference between having faith in a science that is falsifiable, tested and re-tested by many experts than faith in an ancient manuscript that cant be tested. Science will get things wrong from time to time and we'll hold our hands up and rewrite the textbooks, religion never will because we cant test its accuracy to distinguish fact from fiction.

 

[KevinMcallister]

god works in mysterious ways, people say (sorry Catholic nutjobs) he only punishes those of sin, well imagine my surprise during the tsunami, when aload of Christian toddlers were wiped out in an instant

he/she (if infact does exist) is a sadistic evil madman!

 

[Christian Slater]

Received a free copy of The Book of Mormon earlier today, as well as a pamphlet of the American prophet Joseph Smith. There is a beautiful illustration of Jesus visiting the Americas in the book.Then I learned there's a large Mormon church less than a mile away from where I live.

Of course I'm checking it out.

 

[Dr Mantis Toboggan]

the mormon church's reinventing of history is funny. never read through it too thoroughly but it's kinda the belief that before the native americans there was a civilization of good white christian folk to inhabit the americas. they occasionally dig up aztec ruins to prove this. pretty similar to a few neo-nazis beliefs tbh. salt lake city is a real chill city at least, pretty good beer culture too considering. lots of microbreweries and craft beer.

 

[Christian Slater]

They're also a notoriously racist organisation and they believe God is a man that lives on another planet. The magical temple garments are of keen interest to me though, as well as tea & cake.

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

The best thing about the Book of Mormon is that it's a 19th century book written in 16th century English. Could not be more obviously fake.

 

[Christian Slater]

To be fair, that's because it's a translation. Unless Smith just made it all up, of course.

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

To be fair, that's because it's a translation. Unless Smith just made it all up, of course.

The texts he claimed to have translated were meant to have been from between 2200 BC to AD 421.

 

[Christian Slater]

That's because he's familiar with the King James Bible, so that's how he knows scripture to be presented.

All religious texts have been translated.

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

That's because he's familiar with the King James Bible, so that's how he knows scripture to be presented.

Well yeah, exactly. He just wrote it that way to make it sound all Bibley and shit.

 

[The Paranoid Pineapple]

I liked Max (in his latter day incarnation) and would welcome a return but why do you suppose this to be a "balanced" perspective? Is it a more balanced perspective than mine - as an irreligious gayer that holds that religion has generally exerted a malign influence on society? Totally respect people's right to practice their faith but don't really see why non-believers ought to give it any credence.

Just to expand on this...

I think the idea that I'm trying to convey, albeit rather clumsily, is that we seem to apply a different standard when it comes to religious belief. Do we need to have embraced and rejected certain political philosophies before we can opine on them (to stand against facism do you need to have once been a fascist)? Why do we appear to be less comfortable when it comes to subjecting religious belief to the same kind of scrunity that we have no trouble applying to other ideas and concepts? Religious institutions still enjoy a privileged position in society, still wield a great deal of power and influence, still propagate some thoroughly unpleasant views which adversely affect the lives of those that are irreligious. Wanting to challenge the source of those views doesn't, to my mind, seem at all churlish or unreasonable. Nor does concluding that blind faith in an omniscient deity is a pretty irrational and intellectually weak position to assume. Sort of fear you can't really say that without being regarded as being some sort of smug New Atheist wanker though (meaning it may be time for me to give this thread a wide berth)...

 

[Dave-Vale]

When I said science disproves religion I meant that that I can see science everywhere. I can't see god so I have no rational reason to believe there is one. If there was, surely he/she would just show up and prove it.

Disproves was probably the wrong word.

There's significantly more chance that we are some weird alien experiment and they 'played god' and had a hand in our evolution than there is that some invisible man lives in the sky and watches over us; he rewards you if you behave and sends you to hell if you are bad. I mean, come on, really?

I worship the sun. Why? Because I can actually see it.

 

[silkyman]

Oh ffs you are thick. U don't understand something, u have faith that someone out there does and can explain it, even though u have no knowledge not understanding of it yourself. And your second point is a dumb one. You've consistently argued against faith in itself, rather than the institution of religion or the various depravities committed by organised faith. Don't 180 your position

That first sentence is a hell of an oxymoron.

And yes, as I think I've already said in this thread, you have to have some level of faith that experts and scientists do know what they are on about. But when it comes to the basics. Such as your example of how you can out dead dinosaurs in one end of a system and have electric lights at the other, yeah, we've pretty much been taught that at school.

I have only the faintest of understandings as to how my iPhone works. I wouldn't be able to build you a car (but know roughly how an internal combustion engine works) but that doesn't mean it's some sort of leap of faith that I can make a phone call or drive to the shops.

Faith is inherently something that can not be proven. I might have (misguided) faith in the idea that Bony will come good for City. If he's scored a bucketload of goals and won some trophies in three years time, that won't be faith, it'll be proven.

I think 'faith' has a dual meaning here. 'Faith' in a religious sense is a totally different level meaning to having faith (which would be a very odd way of putting it) that Steven Hawking has t just made it all up for shits and giggles.

The idea that the bible, or any other religious text is as valid a source of proven, evidence based information as a peer reviewed scientific research paper (or even a school textbook on science) simply because 100% of the population are not experts in that subject and therefore have to put some trust in the scientific method and systems is pretty laughable.

 

[Meadow]

I was raised in a nominal Christian household but us all starting to attend a church lead to myself, parents and brother committing to Christianity when I was a teenager. For the best part of forty years, I attended church and regarded myself as a Christian. It was only when my daughter came out as a lesbian, and the negative reaction towards her lifestyle that I began to question my faith.

My father, brother and husband all still practise their faith, and whilst I still respect Christianity, I'm comfortable not attending church and having doubts about the whole thing. I also respect those of other faiths, providing they don't force their beliefs and rules on others.

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

It's interesting how quickly (PC brah) progressives turned on atheists the moment they applied the same standards to Islam that they had been to Christianity for years prior. It's almost as if for them, the narrative and the target is more important than what's true.

 

[sl1k]

Wanting to challenge the source of those views doesn't, to my mind, seem at all churlish or unreasonable.

It isn't, and anyone that takes issue with it has problems. Most probable reason (why they'd be uncomfortable) being they've not challenged it themselves and therefore cannot answer. The sheep.

Nor does concluding that blind faith in an omniscient deity is a pretty irrational and intellectually weak position to assume.

This is conjecture. Just sayin.

 

[Dave-Vale]

I was raised in a nominal Christian household but us all starting to attend a church lead to myself, parents and brother committing to Christianity when I was a teenager. For the best part of forty years, I attended church and regarded myself as a Christian. It was only when my daughter came out as a lesbian, and the negative reaction towards her lifestyle that I began to question my faith.

My father, brother and husband all still practise their faith, and whilst I still respect Christianity, I'm comfortable not attending church and having doubts about the whole thing. I also respect those of other faiths, providing they don't force their beliefs and rules on others.

I cannot stand the conservative Christian attitude towards homosexuality. Totally contradicts their

The idea of going to church for 40 years and having to sing hymns and worship something you don't know exists is truly horrifying. That's more than 2,000 masses.

"They don't ask you to think just, repeat after me".

 

[Aber gas]

I find it disapointing that the debate on this thread is so polarised. To be an atheist and not consider people of faith ignorant and stupid is part of being a reasonable human being. On the flip side having faith shouldn't mean that you consider atheists " godless barbarians" . I know believers of all faiths that respect science and reason. I also know atheists( me included ) that respect people's faith. Using creationism and sharia to highlight religious shortcomings and stupidity is ignorant and narrow minded imvho.

 

[Dr Mantis Toboggan]

It's interesting how quickly (PC brah) progressives turned on atheists the moment they applied the same standards to Islam that they had been to Christianity for years prior. It's almost as if for them, the narrative and the target is more important than what's true.

is that me am i your brah

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

I find it disapointing that the debate on this thread is so polarised. To be an atheist and not consider people of faith ignorant and stupid is part of being a reasonable human being. On the flip side having faith shouldn't mean that you consider atheists " godless barbarians" . I know believers of all faiths that respect science and reason.

But only up to a certain point, otherwise they wouldn't be religious in the first place. You can respect a person and their right to believe whatever they like without the intellectual sin of respecting the beliefs themselves, which deserve little more than ridicule and contempt. I've never understood how anyone can stand against fascist doctrine, even the mostly dubiously adjudged fascist doctrine, and then turn around and apply a completely different standard to religion.

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

is that me am i your brah

 

[Dr Mantis Toboggan]

fuck islam

now let's be friends mr goode

 

[Aber gas]

But only up to a certain point, otherwise they wouldn't be religious in the first place. You can respect a person and their right to believe whatever they like without the intellectual sin of respecting the beliefs themselves, which deserve little more than ridicule and contempt. I've never understood how anyone can stand against fascist doctrine, even the mostly dubiously adjudged fascist doctrine, and then turn around and apply a completely different standard to religion.

Which bit of religion are you talking about? My experience with people of faith is benign and I have very little experience of the extremes of faith although I'm not ignorant of them. I know full well what fascists are about though.

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

It's probably not wise to make sweeping generalizations about people based on anecdotal evidence, though I suppose we're all guilty of it to a point. The scripture and the texts though are always fair game though, and those are fucking deplorable. The prosperous theists of the West might be relatively amicable today, but it wouldn't take much for us to slip into a situation where they had cosmic approval for their sexism, homophobia and racism. The Bible and the Qur'an are far more dangerous than any fascist material out there, and their respective religions have caused far more damage in the past (and today) too.

 

[JimJams]

Old MacDonald was positively fucking livid.

 

[slaphead]

 

[monksy345]

Really not religious in any way shape or form. Brought up by atheist parents but went to a christian school and had a brief spell when I was younger where I did believe...although I'm not entirely sure that wasn't just because Christian Union played fun games and gave out sweets.

And I'm with Silkyman on the peer reviewed scientific material. It does change with new evidence but at the same time is falsifiable. Just because some great religious folk were also religious isn't a reason for religion to be true (if I've understood the debate properly).

My main reason for not believing in religion comes from not finding one yet that will tie in with biology. Specifically around evolution and how long animals have been on this planet for. But also I wholeheartedly disagree with some of the teachings and find it hard to believe in the denouncing of homosexuality for example.

That being said I'm not about to say I dont have to have faith to be an atheist. There are plenty of things we don't understand and never will and to not believe a higher-being caused these things requires faith. The main thing being the starting of the universe. The most common theory being the big bang...but what caused the big bang? Two particles colliding? Well how did those two particles get there? How did time start? Science answers this by saying (apologies for the sloppy paraphrasing here) that before time there was nothing and therefore there has always been time or two particles. But that has never been a satisfactory answer. And at the end of the day whether you chase the big bang theory or religion back to the universes earliest beginnings something is happening out of nothing. A 'higher being' or a particle is appearing out of nothing and that does my head in...regardless of where you put your betting chips it requires some faith.

In my head it makes more sense if time was not a linear continuum but rather a circle of repeating events. Such that the 'end' of this stage results in a crunch and explosion of a new, identical, stage thus there never being a true start or finish and therefore no point at which something came from nothing.

That's exactly the same conclusion I get to and you're the first person I've come across who I have found agree with me. I generally identify as atheist, mainly because I see 10 weaknesses in organised religion for every 1 strength (I won't go into these as I think this thread does a decent job of that).

Whilst I really enjoy learning about and discovering the scientific history of the universe, and from what I see, the big bang theory is the closest to the truth (ever expanding universe etc).. I still have the problem that there was a beginning, what was before that, and what was before that etc. Where did the first particle come from? I reach the conclusion that there must have been some sort of 'creation'. And that scares me a little. The unknown.

I see how religion served a purpose in the past - to give reason to the things we don't know or understand. To organise society in the earliest days to make people believe there would be the ultimate, perennial punishment of going to hell forever as a consequence of immoral behaviour.

In the present day, I can see why people take comfort from the idea that when a person has died, their spirit lives on, and that holy vigils bring people together in harmony in these situations (see the aftermath of the Aberdeen schoolboy tragedy as a recent example).

That's all great, but why still insist on all the rest of the bullshit that we now know isn't true? We continue to find genuine understandable answers to previously unknown questions about the world around us based on rock solid evidence, yet religions stubbornly deny the undeniable, even where it makes no difference to anybody.

Ultimately, whether someone believes in fairytales and voodoo is really up to them and I respect that. What I cannot respect however, is that far too often, irrational behaviour driven by a religious belief affects other people in society. This covers all sorts of things from acts of terrorism to discrimination of homosexuals.

Ultimately, there are still missing pieces to the jigsaw and therefore whatever you believe requires an element of faith in an unknown. But why we can't just accept that and get on with one another is really the question I'm most interested in

 

[Jockney]

Why does some scientists having faith prove that God exists?

It doesn't, but then that wasn't what I was saying.

You simply can't claim that because 'this or that person' was religious, then religion is accurate.

Accurate is the wrong answer to the wrong question. I've never argued that organised religion isn't harmful. All for separation of church and state, think the Vatican oppresses people, think Wahabism and Salafism have no place in the 21st Century, etc. I just don't necessarily believe that faith or religion are inimical to human progress.

1) It's indoctrinated into people from an early age.
2.) It's only, in the history of humanity, incredibly recent that atheism has become an accepted position in many countries (FFS, in the USA, it's illegal for an atheist to run for public office in places).
Religion was ubiquitous, so it stands to reason that many great thinkers had religion. Throw in that the Church was pretty much the only place where a layman could get even the basic semblance of an education, and science and religion being intertwined is understandable.
And what about the great thinkers of antiquity. Pre Christian philosophers. Muslim scientists of the Islamic Golden Age. Geniuses from Ancient China, Rome, and Hindu traditions. Are they all 'right' in their religious beliefs too?

1.) Sometimes but not always. This is a bit of broad generalisation. For most people, religion is a cultural experience. This sort of indoctrination is not exclusive to religious communities either.
2.) This question of 'right' and 'wrong' isn't what I'm getting at at all. That various belief systems are rooted in credible morality and/or epistemology is almost irrelevant to the question of religion's impact on cultural and scientific progression since the dawn of civilisation. But the impact is tangible and it definitely is relevant. Religion is more than just a guiding belief system, it's inspiration, it's a muse, it's an aesthetic; and true, it's also oppressive, often backwards, it necessitated an alternative to itself and eventually gave way to a dialectical process. So it definitely does have a place, in any society. What it needs is checks and balances, not to be phased out.

I agree that religion and science both have roots in the same place in the human psyche. Curiosity.

'Why the fuck did that earthquake just kill everyone I know'

And we're back to my basic reason for being such a godless heathen. When we didn't know how plate tectonics worked, we blamed The Big Man and the village else man would demand sacrifice to appease him, or prayers to make sure it didn't happen again. Now, we know that it doesn't need a God to make a fault line go crunch or a hurricane, or a volcano. You can be the most pious geologist or meteorologist in the world and your religious belief will have as much influence on your findings as what football team you support.

When the only way to explain the world around you is 'God' then it's logical to believe in a god. Or gods. When we know why things happen without a God (or gods) then it becomes less and less logical to add in a layer of complexity to the universe. Thousands of years of human intelligence has disproved the requirement for a god time and again. There's not many places left for him to hide (God of the gaps concept) you can pretty clearly extrapolate forward.

Does gravity work? Yes, for the entirety of history, something falling off a tree has hit the floor, but what if next time, it doesn't? You can't PROVE gravity, therefore gravity isn't real.

It's about as logically accurate as just hoping that the human race will never quite suss out that last tenth of a billionth of a second after the Big Bang, just so you can pretend that that's where God lives.

This argument is predicated on a really simplistic understanding of what monotheism is in a practical sense. I'm sure for some people the questions about the nature of our existence begin and end with the belief that there is some white-bearded bloke watching over us THE END, but applying that broadly to how the Abrahamic religions are practised and how they guide their respective believers in their philosophical and scientific approach to the world just doesn't work. I'm not going to belabour this example too much longer, but some of the most important figures in Western philosophy started from a position of faith to explore the most perplexing and mysterious questions about the nature of existence and their ideas were and are invaluable to other philosophers and scientists, religious and non-religious alike.

 

[Jockney]

And on being 'lucky'... Unless we have any real 'young earth' creationists on...

What was god doing in the billions and billions of years between creating the universe and actually creating the earth. Or the billions of years between that and creating life. Or again until humans arrived. And the 10s of thousands before actually showing up to start issuing rules and regulations.

Isn't it absolute arrogance to believe that the supreme creator who made everything, only cares about this one species which only inhabits a vanishingly small sliver of the history of time and and infinitely small dot in the universe? All on the say so of a handful of people.

These questions have been explored for centuries in an analytical and measured fashion and are really interesting. You should give 'em a read sometime.