Thread: God

I think it's just a matter of opinion. No one really knows what's logical. People can believe in whatever they want to. I could beleive that my god is a slice of cheese, and there would be nothing wrong with that (other than the fact that it's a slice of cheese, and i'd have to be pretty psychotic). I just think it should be dropped. Who really cares? Just let people believe what they believe.

Religion is not what causes schisms in this world. What causes schisms are people like you Clyde who believe they are 100% correct and that everyone else's beliefs should be wiped out.

Half of your arguments are based on the "Well I did it, why can't anyone else do it?" belief. Lets see here, you are obviously well educated, quite likely well to-do, that puts you in the upper echelon in one of the best off countries in the world. You had thousands of opportunities that billions of the people in this world do not have nor ever will have. If the world suddenly lost religion tomorrow, do you plan on being the one going to everyone in this world teaching about humanism and how suddenly now even though they are poor, hungry, uneducated and worthless to society, they also now are insignificant and meaningless in the universe as well, and that this is a good thing? If not, then where will they learn it? Society sure as hell won't do it!

I agree one doesn't need religion to be ethical or moral, especially when they are as well off as you or me. Do you honestly think you would be just as moral and ethical if you had grown up in a crime-laden slum district with no education, no money, and the belief that you are insignificant to this universe? Probably not. Add religion into the picture - not just that your parents are religious, but that you are religious and truly believe in your religion - and your odds would increase dramatically.

If you want to argue that in a perfect world religion is not needed, fine. But this is not a perfect world, and besides you are going way beyond that here. You are trying to force people into your beliefs through ridicule and guilt and if somebody doesn't see science as THE TRUTH (or technically only THE most likely TRUTH) as you do, then they are illogical, wrong, and should be stripped of what is in most cases the most important thing in their lives - their faith. You assume that simply because you are happier without religion than everyone else would be as well - an assumption with no basis! Where is your proof that the world would be better off without it above and beyond that you are happier without it?

You cannot have science without ethics because it kills, like Hitler did

Science didn't kill, Hitler and other people did, using technology derived from science. Science is about a rational method of gaining knowledge and understanding it. Technology is about using it. Technology needs ethics, because we create technology. We don't create science; science discovers knowledge. Use of the knowledge is where ethics/morality comes in.

A society's ethics and it's laws are intricately interwoven. Many of a nations laws come from religion, even today.

While it's true that many laws and social customs are derived from religious roots, the advancement of freedom and knowledge has generally come from shedding those roots. Look at western society, which has become more secular over time. Not that secularism guarantees freedom, progress, but it's track record is better.
Another issue is that many religious tenets came from secular social issues of the time, and were codified into religion, with no religious merit, except social control at the time.

Clyde does get kinda dogmatic insisting there can't be a god, or the probablity of one is exceedingly small. The (near) universal human perception that there is some kind of greater force is at least as valid a hypothesis as Democritus' atom. The hypothesis may be wrong, it may be socio-genetically programmed into us, etc, but virtually every human culture has it. That gives the idea at least some merit, although no proof. It also implies that the various permutations of religion, while maybe picking up grains of validity, are also encumbered by huge amounts of socio-political crap.

Although this would make almost every major religion, possible exception Buddhism, wrong. I'm more in this camp.
Ultimately, neither science nor religion can explain the Ultimate Cause - why is the Universe here? Both eventually come up up against the idea of what started it all? what started that? ad infinitum. Religion says God always is/was, etc. What does that mean? Zip. Science (currently*) says there was no time before the Universe began, so the question is meaningless, or the answer doesn't conform to known laws.
Religion's answer is just dumb. It could be applied to any theory. The universe just was, or was just created.
Science can't say much either. The "Time didn't exist" argument may be true, making cause and effect irrelevant, but this seems sophistic. It's perfectly reasonable to ask what caused the Big Bang, even if we may never know the answer.
Religion has been a solace to many individuals in time of sorrow, grief, etc. But as a social force beyond primitive societies, it's done far more harm than good.
Believe what you want, but recognize that your belief, your faith, is not necessarily fact. That's sort of the definition of faith. You have no proof it's true, but you believe it anyway.

Who is much less likely to commit crime, an atheist or religious person? [...] Who is less likely to do drugs or become alcoholic? Who is less likely to be depressed or suicidal, especially after the loss of a loved one?

Ooh, I couldnt disagree with you more on these points. You dont appear to know that many religious people (Assumed. Apologies if I am wrong). From my experiences with people inside a close-knit religious community, it is the emotionally dependant that tend to gravitate towards religion to help sustain their emotional needs. I find that children in deeply religious families are _highly_ likely to "rebel" secretly by doing all kinds of drugs, excessive drinking, and yes, crime. They also tend to be very emotionally unstable (suicidal, depressed, etc), underneath their venear of religious zeal. And I speak from a broad experience, not just a few isolated events. Compare this to my relativly rowdy (), yet rather responsible, atheist friends, and I would have to reach the exact opposite conclusion to you.

And to PJ, and Kermi and any others who argue religions usefulness: I cant argue that good hasnt come from religion; It has. But when scaled against all the bad I cant see why one would support it. Theres also the moral issues involved: Just because ignorance is bliss, does this mean we should never enlighten our future generations of the troubles of the world? We cant go around thinking wrong things, simply because they make us happy. It will (and does) only lead to troubles in the future.

I think of religion as a crutch. A lot of people lean on it. Without crutches, there would be people who couldnt walk. But whats better? To give someone a crutch, or to mend their leg? As long as people keep leaning on religion, they're never going to have the motivation to fix whats wrong with their life (and the lives of those around them).

Ooh, I couldnt disagree with you more on these points. You dont appear to know that many religious people (Assumed. Apologies if I am wrong). From my experiences with people inside a close-knit religious community, it is the emotionally dependant that tend to gravitate towards religion to help sustain their emotional needs. I find that children in deeply religious families are _highly_ likely to "rebel" secretly by doing all kinds of drugs, excessive drinking, and yes, crime. They also tend to be very emotionally unstable (suicidal, depressed, etc), underneath their venear of religious zeal. And I speak from a broad experience, not just a few isolated events. Compare this to my relativly rowdy (), yet rather responsible, atheist friends, and I would have to reach the exact opposite conclusion to you.

To be religious and to call your self religous are diffent things.

ok...first of all....

You cannot have science without ethics because it kills, like Hitler did

Science didn't kill, Hitler and other people did, using technology derived from science. Science is about a rational method of gaining knowledge and understanding it. Technology is about using it. Technology needs ethics, because we create technology. We don't create science; science discovers knowledge. Use of the knowledge is where ethics/morality comes in.

A society's ethics and it's laws are intricately interwoven. Many of a nations laws come from religion, even today.

While it's true that many laws and social customs are derived from religious roots, the advancement of freedom and knowledge has generally come from shedding those roots. Look at western society, which has become more secular over time. Not that secularism guarantees freedom, progress, but it's track record is better.

Umm you basically just repeated my argument. Try reading what I said around those statements...

I cant argue that good hasnt come from religion; It has. But when scaled against all the bad I cant see why one would support it. Theres also the moral issues involved: Just because ignorance is bliss, does this mean we should never enlighten our future generations of the troubles of the world? We cant go around thinking wrong things, simply because they make us happy. It will (and does) only lead to troubles in the future.

I absolutely agree. I am not a very religious person at all. However, I do believe it has value, particuarlly in the ethics and morals sence. I absolutely don't agree with ignorence, my personal fundamental value is people should be educated. I'm not a fan of blind faith and such. But I believe there can be value in religion, and I don't like the idea of pitching it out of the window wholesale. Perhaps it isn't for everyone, not for me for example, but I think that it can promote values and ethics, and that's important. Am I making sense? Lemme know L@D?

I'm not going to touch the children rebellious issue, but, I will say that it isn't kids with religious families that tend to be more rebellious, it's kids with "authoritative" (psyc term) parents,

"Religion is not what causes schisms in this world. What causes schisms are people like you Clyde who believe they are 100% correct and that everyone else's beliefs should be wiped out."

Agreed, but that of course goes both ways, if you believe your religion is right period and no other view has merit you're in trouble too.

Anybody can believe whatever they want. But what guides goverments, societies, cultures, etc, is important. If your religion says red lights are evil, an the way to destroy that evil is to ignore them, that's fine - until you run one and kill or injure someone. Religiously you're ok.
Don't like that example? Substitute suicide bombers or homes of suspected terrorists.

Ok... wow where to start.... I won't finish off my former thread since I got a fair amount of my points across. I'll start with Kermi's post.

"You point out, quite correctly, that you do not need religion to have ethics, and that religion has been the cause of many wars. This is quite true, however there are some things about this statement that I think you may be overlooking"

Ok.

"A society's ethics and it's laws are intricately interwoven."

Ok.

"Many of a nations laws come from religion, even today"

Hrrm i think not. Which laws do you think come from religion? Laws against murder? thieving?

Completely and utterly independant of religion, they are basic laws required for societ to exist, given that society evolved these laws evolved with them. Religion simply took on laws that already existed.

"Even today, religion is such an intregral part of such a large portion of our nation that it has great influence in what we consider right and wrong. "

It has influence, religion stood up against transplant research during the victorian era, and it is the guiding star for the letter bombs that get sent to doctors who perform abortions.

I will grant you that religion does influence religious people's morals, but as far as i can make out mostly in a bad way: In Africa, where in some countries over 50% of the population has AIDS, there are catholic missionaries who tell the local populations that contraception is morally wrong....

"I realize I'm not pointing anything out yet, because you would just say that your values are not from religion, however, they are from society's, who got them from religion"

No society did NOT get its morals from religion, religion got its morals from society. Society came first religion second.

"Even when a society has moved on and intermixed as much as the US has, to the point where one religion isn't the main powerhouse behind all laws and morals and such, the laws of that nation can almost become a religion of itself. "

I'll let you flow with this a bt more, but objections are welling up inside me

"In our nation we are so crazed with our Bill of Rights, it has practically become a religion of it's own. Not in the sense that people worship it. But people study and interrupt it, and we would die to defend it.....ok now I'll move on to what I'm sure most will see as firmer ground."

It is an interesting analogy, but there are differences as you say people do not worship your Bill of Rights per say, however the ferver and feelings of absolute certainty based on essential irrational arguments are similar, AND i would say in many ways just as dangerous. I'm not exactly fond of nationism either. But nationalism is a direct product of the way our world is currently structured, and won't go away for a long while because of that.

"It is true that religion has been the cause of many wars. However, it was not the sole cause of most of those wars, and it shalt'nt nessicarily do it again."

I agree its not always the sole cause, but it has had a role to play. Whilst it might not do it again, as the old saying goes "those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it"

"I know I know it is now, however, in societies with freedom of the religion, like the US, you don't see it starting wars, in fact the US is one of the largest and most diverse nations on earth, yet there are no wars over religion"

Well this is true, but then the US is a western country with a reasonably good education system, good education means religion has been pushed back, there are less fundamentalists and more liberals. Religious beliefs are made more vague, less concrete less people go to church, religion becomes less and less of a force, so naturally its power to do negative things to human society decreases.

There might be no wars within the US over religion, and the US has very strong patriotism binding it together so that would be expected. But tell me do you not think atleast part of the Sept. 11th is Islam vs. Christianity? If the US was a muslim country governed by muslim laws, do you think Sept 11th would have ever occured?

"Religion isn't all bad, some people won't have the same chances you have Clyde to get ethics, and religion, which in many ways is just a group of people who believe in a certain set of values, is not a bad thing"

Values is fine, absolute irrational beliefs are generally not. And values have always existed and will always exist on a society level, religion or not.

"You cannot have science without ethics "

You cannot have society without ethics, which is why homosapiens have always had ethics, Neandathals had ethics, Homo Erectus would have had ethics, even apes today, have social rules, there own version of ethics.

Ok........... and now on to PJYelton......

"What causes schisms are people like you Clyde who believe they are 100% correct and that everyone else's beliefs should be wiped out."

Beliefs..... hmmmm, where to start, I would wipe out religion not because i think everyone should have the same opinions as me - but because i truly believe the world, and humanity SUFFERS a great deal because of religion.

"Half of your arguments are based on the "Well I did it, why can't anyone else do it?" belief"

None of my beliefs are based on the "Well I did it, why can't anyone else do it?" belief"

You claim some people "need" religion, well give me examples of people and explain how you can conclude that they "need" it. It just makes no sense from an evolutioanry point of view that mankind would "need" religion in order to function socially, furthermore i have seen no evidence to suggest this is the case. If you think it is, then show me WHY you believe that to be the case. Why is it that my objections to your argument has provoked such a foul response? All i did was point out that your conclusions were based on supositions.

"Lets see here, you are obviously well educated, quite likely well to-do, that puts you in the upper echelon in one of the best off countries in the world. You had thousands of opportunities that billions of the people in this world do not have nor ever will have."

Ok, i'll agree with that.

" If the world suddenly lost religion tomorrow, do you plan on being the one going to everyone in this world teaching about humanism and how suddenly now even though they are poor, hungry, uneducated and worthless to society, they also now are insignificant and meaningless in the universe as well, and that this is a good thing?"

....... Look long term, what do you see? Religion vanishes tommorow, will their be upheaval? Will there be added misery? pain? Does it hurt to push a dislocated shoulder back into its socket? I have no doubt that an entire generation of people would suffer, but then what? What about the generations to come? What about the children who aren't killed by the suicide bombers? What about the women who aren't stoned to death for sleeping with their boyfriends? The countless lives that won't be ruined? It would hurt one generations but EVERY generation to come would benefit from it. Thats why I say i would remove it.

Don't take that aggressive tone with me untill you have thought about these ideas for as long as I have.

"If not, then where will they learn it? Society sure as hell won't do it!"

This entire line of thought is completely irrelevant, I do not have the power to snap my fingers and make religion vanish. I would if i could because i firmly believe that I would be doing the future a favour.

"Do you honestly think you would be just as moral and ethical if you had grown up in a crime-laden slum district with no education, no money, and the belief that you are insignificant to this universe? Probably not"

Areas with high poverty have higher levels of crime, its a social factor, they also have higher levels of religious belief (I believe that is unrelated but it doesn't exactly square with your reasoning now does it). Now please tell me why it is you believe that "belief that you are insignificant to this universe" has anything whatsoever to do with ethics.

"Add religion into the picture - not just that your parents are religious, but that you are religious and truly believe in your religion - and your odds would increase dramatically"

Evidence? Data? Or perhaps.......... supposition. High poverty areas DO have more religion. Yet, they are still high crime. Religion does not enforce morals people merely interpret it to SUIT the morals they wish to follow, how else do you think the many muslims around the world condone Sept 11th? How is it that religious fundamentalists will happily chop each other to bits? Where is their religious morality? Their religiously enforced ethics?

"If you want to argue that in a perfect world religion is not needed, fine. But this is not a perfect world, and besides you are going way beyond that here. "

In THIS world, religion is not needed, not needed AND damaging, it cements divisions, it holds back medicine, science, education, and it greatly reduces the quality of life for millions and millions of people in strongly religious countries.

"are trying to force people into your beliefs through ridicule and guilt and if somebody doesn't see science as THE TRUTH (or technically only THE most likely TRUTH) as you do, then they are illogical, wrong, and should be stripped of what is in most cases the most important thing in their lives - their faith"

You have no idea what you are talking about, I HAVE stripped people of their faith, and they THANK ME FOR IT, thats right, ALL of the people who i have "converted" THANK me for it, did you hear? THANK ME. They LIKE their lives more without the suffocating control that religion had on them.

The world would be a better place without religion, so i fight religion, its that simple.

"You assume that simply because you are happier without religion than everyone else would be as well - an assumption with no basis! "

On the contrary, i do have basis, the people i have known in real life, however as I said, i fight religion because it is a horrible thing. Because of people like me religion is being pushed back, education is winning, over generations fundamentalist turn into reformists, reformists turn into liberals, liberals get more and more liberal untill they are religious only in name, and then they become agnostic, and then atheists.

"Where is your proof that the world would be better off without it above and beyond that you are happier without it"

My proof, is all the horrible things it does to the people, to society, and that I have yet to see anything that comes close to compensating those things.

Ok...... and now Salvelinus

"Clyde does get kinda dogmatic insisting there can't be a god, or the probablity of one is exceedingly small. The (near) universal human perception that there is some kind of greater force is at least as valid a hypothesis as Democritus' atom"

When people are certain about anything there is always a possiblity they are wrong, there might not be a keyboard under my fingers, and there really might be a pack of voracious wolves about to devour me but, i'd still say i was certain that there is a keyboard under my fingers, that i'm not about to be devoured by a pack of wolves and that there is no God.

The "universal human perception" of God is very well explained by anthropology, democitus' atom is not.

"Science can't say much either. The "Time didn't exist" argument may be true, making cause and effect irrelevant, but this seems sophistic. It's perfectly reasonable to ask what caused the Big Bang, even if we may never know the answer. "

Its not "Sophistic", Causality: Cause and effect, what is it? Is it a principle governing everything that can ever possibly be? Or is it a principle governing our universe? Our capability to reason has evolved to suit our universe. What exactly leads you to conclude that it is valid to apply it to the universe itself? Causality is a product of the laws that govern the universe, nothing more. (just think about it for a moment)

Just because we can ask a question does NOT make that question valid, what is the sound of red? what is the cause of creaiton?

Now that is NOT to say that it is definitely an invalid question, merely that at this point, given our current knowledge it might well be.

Sure i don't like that, i don't like that the universe might not have a cause, it doesn't feel right, it doesn't sound right....... why doesn't it? Because its completely contrary to everything my brain likes dealing with, my brain evolved to cope with problems pertaining to Earth, like catching antelope. I don't like bits of quantum mechanics either, they seem "intrinsically" wrong, and yet they aren't. Our concepts of how things "should" be, are redundant, we have to realise their limitations, and we have, we would never have progressed passed Newtonian mechanics if we hadn't realised that the universe is nothing like how we can ever imagine it to be.

>>they should be allowed to believe whatever they want without our interference.

Of course! I'm the first to stand up for peoples right to believe whatever they will. I'll stand behind any defence of freedom regardless of whether I, myself, enjoy or even agree with that freedom. That doesnt stop me from reasoning/debating with anyone that holds a different view than myself. Even though it is _legal_ and within my rights, to consider a certain race inferior to my own, do you seriously believe that nobody should contradict me?

>>leaving the other millions to squirm around on the floor in agony.

Possibly. But what doesnt kill you makes you stronger. I know first hand a couple of people who once held very serioius christian beliefs and were internally miserable and depressed. After years of asking these people individually to question their beliefs and seek to find the reasoning behind their actions, they "lost their crutch". The result? Both are much happier, more well-adjusted people, who are now able to become independatly stable, without the need to constant divine reassurance. So I know for a fact that some of the people walking around with crutches are just crippling themselves.

>>Anybody can believe whatever they want. But what guides goverments, societies, cultures, etc, is important.

Exactly. And I fully agree with the rest of what salvelinus sais as well. Some of the things that religion teaches, is very harmful to the community. Note his example of suicide bombers. Though the writtings of the religion itself dont directly advocate blowing people up (to my knowledge), it is a very bold subtext.

>>but I think that it can promote values and ethics, and that's important. Am I making sense? Lemme know L@D?

True, it can. But I consider myself to have values and ethics. I'm also rather non-religious. And more often than not, the values that are taught religiously are warped. Consider the areas of sexual interaction, for instance. Most religions teach sex as a dirty thing. This also enforces a sense of the body being unclean, which leads to all kinds of trauma and problems. So many people have issues when even talking about sexual matters. I couldnt even list the number of people I know who go throught boughts of severe depression over this type of thing. And it can all be avoided.

>>it isn't kids with religious families that tend to be more rebellious, it's kids with "authoritative" parents,

Yes, but religion is a severe form of authority. It adds an additional set of rules on top of your existing parental, and legal ones. And it seems that the kinds of things it tends to restrict, cause more children to 'rebel' as they reach the point where this naturally happens. Every child rebels against the most enforced rules at a certain point in their development. I find that children with strict religious codes find much worse trouble than those without. At least, thats what the numbers show from a mental poll of the people I've had experiences with.

>>To be religious and to call your self religous are diffent things.

And who makes the call? These people think they are religious. They go to church, they pray, they do all the little things you're supposed to do and none of the things you're not.

/* Edit */

Hmm. Posted at the same time as Clyde.

You have no idea what you are talking about, I HAVE stripped people of their faith, and they THANK ME FOR IT, thats right, ALL of the people who i have "converted" THANK me for it, did you hear? THANK ME. They LIKE their lives more without the suffocating control that religion had on them.

I have had exactly the same experience.

found this in someones signiture, thought it was relavent

"Atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark." - C.S. Lewis

I found that quote here: http://gci.gospelcom.net/dw/quotesall.html