Forum menu
Religion isn’t one organisation, it’s a concept. Or are you conflating religion with say, the Catholic Church?
No. It doesn’t matter which religion you mention, or even which flavour of the same one, they all go to war in the belief that their sky fairy is better and more important than anyone else. Just look round the world today and you have wars going on based on my sky fairy is better than yours and that’s before we start looking back through the history books. Look at the USA and the number of groups based on a fundamental view of religion and their desire to force everyone to comply with it from the KKK to the tea party movements. Whole countries have been created to separate warring factions trying to prove their religion is better than someone else’s, such as the creation of ****stan.
THe problem is that the concept of religion is completely flawed hence its need for faith, because there is no evidence to support it.
Agree with lots of the above re religion bieng toxic. I've seen on here numerous times people saying they don't indetify as being british because of the shit the empire has done in the past and they would rather call themselves european. I wonder how many of those people support the likes of the catholic church.....
No. It doesn’t matter which religion you mention, or even which flavour of the same one, they all go to war in the belief that their sky fairy is better and more important than anyone else.
This is only mostly true 😉 . See also politics, ethno-nationalism, greed, glory, ‘rationalism’ (Genocides have been planned and executed in the most ‘rational’ and cold-blooded of ways, even using science to justify)
From Wikipedia:
According to the Encyclopedia of Wars, out of all 1,763 known/recorded historical conflicts, 121, or 6.87%, had religion as their primary cause.[6] Matthew White's The Great Big Book of Horrible Things gives religion as the primary cause of 11 of the world's 100 deadliest atrocities
Discuss if those figures are surprising/correct/incorrect/unsurprising?
This is an interesting (short) read:
Lots of bad things have been done by people on drugs or because of drugs therefore all drugs are bad.
Yeah, but the difference there is that we recognise the potential harm from drugs so we regulate them. Religion is the opposite, it often gets to do what it pleases because religion is exempt from normal rules.
Eg, in the UK as an atheist I can't carry a useful penknife containing a locking blade (endangering my fingers), but if I were a Sikh I could stroll about with a half-metre sword on my belt.
If we dress it up in an acadmeic way and call it “raceology” it sounds legit and we can carry on pushing our bullshit aims.
Can we not investigate the KKK, try to understand how they came about, without implicitly supporting their 'cause'?
But my point is that many bad things are done in general and the ideal of faith itself is not the cause of this.
Perhaps, perhaps not. But it's a bloody powerful enabler.
Hmm. People who don't need faith arguing that no-one needs faith. Seems like you have this all figured out....
It doesn’t matter which religion you mention, or even which flavour of the same one, they all go to war
No this is a gross mis-reading of history. Countries and leaders go to war. They may cite religion, but that's largely because everyone in the past cited religion for everything. It was just a by-word for claiming to be right. In the same way that now people say 'I believe it is the right thing to do' people would say 'God is on our side'.
For every day a religious person started a war, there are billions of religions people on days that didn't start them. Let's take Islam as an example. Yes, there are Islamists trying to start wars (and in some cases succeeding) but there are Muslims the world over pleading with them not to and trying to stop them taking Koran verses out of context.
What really causes war is testosterone. Religion has little to do with it.
Re that article, how on earth can you say religion didn't prevent a war when that war didn't happen? History doesn't tend to record things that didn't happen.
What really causes war is testosterone.
Well, that's bollocks.
your statement is just whataboutery.
how? You agree that it’s a condition of being human. Like all the other things that humans do that are irrational (getting high on drugs for instance) religion is right up there.
Humans have always done this, even in this age of reason they continue to do this. Belief in the unknowable seems here to stay
You agree that it’s a condition of being human
No we do not - thats the point. It only ;looks like that from a religionists point of view. its not something inherent
No we do not
You don't agree that humans can be irrational?
Do you know any?
TJ. Exactly.
No - we do not agree that the need for faith in the devine is an inherent part of the human condition. Infact givben most educated folk are atheists i would say its the opposite.
the need for faith in the devine is an inherent part of the human condition
The need, no. The desire, perhaps.
givben most educated folk are atheists i would say its the opposite
That's a bold claim and I rather suspect is one which is incorrect.
No we do not – thats the point. It only ;looks like that from a religionists point of view. its not something inherent
I think it's inherent to *some* people. Like lots of other things.
Nope - its a learned response. Inherent in some is meaningless. Earlier you were trying to say its an inherent part of being human
Re that article, how on earth can you say religion didn’t prevent a war when that war didn’t happen? History doesn’t tend to record things that didn’t happen.
Unless I missed it they don’t specify/ which wars weren’t prevented by religion, but my assumption was opposite to yours- in that I assumed the author means wars that have arose in/between religious nations weren’t prevented from happening?
ie in countries or (continents?) which are largely religious - wars were not prevented by the religious/religion i.e. The Great War happened in a Christian Europe And between largely Christian countries/nations.
*have arisen!
*have arisen!
Is it Easter again already?
Nope – its a learned response. Inherent in some is meaningless. Earlier you were trying to say its an inherent part of being human
Alright I'll clarify. Belief and faith in something is inherent.
I don't have faith in your assertions though. I mean, you can't have evidence that faith is a learned trait, so you must simply believe that. You have faith in the idea 🙂
Belief and faith in something is inherent.
if you mean "in something divine" then its clearly not. Its not an essential quality of what makes us human. If you mean my faith that Einsteins sums are right then that is simply not comparable because there is proof for them.
Belief and faith in something is inherent
As with many of these things it's quite hard to carry out the necessary experiments to prove or disprove this statement. Even harder to carry them out ethically. In particular, it's very difficult to tell what is inherent and what is simply imposed. It's pretty unusual for someone in a Christian community to to grow up Jewish, or Zoroastrian, for instance, which you might expect to happen if it was inherent. But people seem to end up believing in the god that was popular where they grew up - funny that.
But people seem to end up believing in the god that was popular where they grew up – funny that.
No, it's obvious that people who want to believe in *something* will believe in what they are presented with.
As with many of these things it’s quite hard to carry out the necessary experiments to prove or disprove this statement.
Exactly, that's why I said waaay back there that it's prosaic. The argument always boils down to it being unprovable, and it ends up being a dick waving contest where militant atheists try and show how much cleverer they are than believers and get all cocky.
I have not read all threads (trying to solve a life long problem at the moment) but in my experience as Buddhist (not a good one) is to understand the teaching of the Buddha but walk the path your/myself. Buddha taught us to walk the path ourselves and rely on ourselves. Be brave and have courage to walk the path ourselves. Take responsibility of own decision and actions and whatever consequences good or bad that associated with your decision/actions. i.e. DO NOT rely on anyone else NOT even deities or whatever fairies or unicorns. Rely on yourself and the teaching i.e. the ones that make sense to you.
Make your own decision. Separate respect from logic. You can respect someone but if their logic does not fit you just reject them. Whatever consequences is bear by yourself. At least you know what you have done and learn from the mistake. If your decision is made by someone else because you respect them then you are a fool ... just like me. As a result I have suffered for many years because I respected someone else decision without questioning. I learned a very hard lesson. Don't be a fool like me.
Question ALL of them. If they cannot provide you a logical answer they are NOT worth listening to. Walk away and experience it yourself. There are simply too much bullc**p in the world.
and it ends up being a dick waving contest where militant atheists try and show how much cleverer they are than believers and get all cocky.
And yet you are the one making very clear statements up until the point you are challenged and have to walk them back.
Odd how the others are the cocky ones eh?
The argument always boils down to it being unprovable, and it ends up being a dick waving contest where militant atheists try and show how much cleverer they are than believers and get all cocky.
The burdon of proof is those who claim the existence of gods. You cannot prove the absence of a god
Just as you cannot prove the existence of a god. Not everything has to be proved though does it.
The burdon of proof is those who claim the existence of gods. You cannot prove the absence of a god
Yeah, you can't really prove or disprove it, which is what I said pages back, so it's a bit pointless arguing about it isn't it?
so it’s a bit pointless arguing about it isn’t it?
Depends if the people are wanting to say that this god which cant be proven has been handing out instructions.
Sure a noninterventionist god cant be disproved but also doesnt give a lot for religions to work with. Although admittedly Christian Deism, for example, tries but even there ends up being more of a philosophy.
Yeah, you can’t really prove or disprove it, which is what I said pages back, so it’s a bit pointless arguing about it isn’t it?
EDIT _ You cannot disprove anything, and in fact proving stuff is also quite hard. But we can go with the preponderence of evidence.
No because that means you can just postulate anything that cannot be proven and using your logic just say well you can't disprove it so it is pointelss arguing, lets pretend its true, cos it might be true. But you cannot disprove anything, so you can propose anything and say well it cannot be disproven so I believe in it.
The foundation of science (well logic and philosphy which are foundations of science) is that a proposal must be falsifiable.
What this means is that you can test the argument and propose what results would make it unproven.
EG F=ma (force = mass x accleration)>
If we measure force on an accelerating mass and find that it strays outside of that argument, then all scientist would agree (with lots of checking etc) that F=ma is not valid.
So far, in the newtonian world it is valid, and all scientists agree in the quantumn world things work differently. But it is falsifable in that we accept if a result is found outside of this arument that is valid then we must remodel our argument.
The God argument deliberatly excludes this logic in the guise of faith. I wonder why?
Or as Russel put it (from wiki)
In an article titled "Is There a God?" commissioned, but never published, by Illustrated magazine in 1952, Russell wrote:
Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.[2]
In 1958, Russell elaborated on the analogy:
I ought to call myself an agnostic; but, for all practical purposes, I am an atheist. I do not think the existence of the Christian God any more probable than the existence of the Gods of Olympus or Valhalla. To take another illustration: nobody can prove that there is not between the Earth and Mars a china teapot revolving in an elliptical orbit, but nobody thinks this sufficiently likely to be taken into account in practice. I think the Christian God just as unlikely.[3]
In practise this means that gods are bunkem.
I refer you to this, this is the God argument:
And this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster
I believe there is life in the universe other than just on earth. Maybe not life we can recognise within the limits of what we know/can discover but I simply cannot see how there can't be some form of life somewhere due to the numbers.
I clearly have no evidence for it but that doesn't bother me.
See, I don't need proof to be able to believe something...
I believe there is life in the universe other than just on earth. Maybe not life we can recognise within the limits of what we know/can discover but I simply cannot see how there can’t be some form of life somewhere due to the numbers.
I clearly have no evidence for it but that doesn’t bother me.
See, I don’t need proof to be able to believe something…
Don't you mean you believe it is highly likley? I mean so do I, I would not be suprised if we discover Alien life.
Agreed there is no evidence so far, but our model of the universe, the limited view we have of that which we know and understand shows us that is probable, or possible. The best evidence is our own existence.
However none of our experience or understanding points towards a god or gods.
You are just acknowledging something that most scientists agree is probable.
Apols - I mistate - there is evidence for Aliens, that is our existence and the likelyhood of there being other planets like ours in the universe, based on our current model of the universe, which is based on the best available evidence.
Again, proving the existence of God may not actually be the point, for believers.
Science may not actually be important here.
Again, proving the existence of God may not actually be the point, for believers.
Science may not actually be important here.
This is a reactive argument that came from the inability to counter the lack of evidence and facts. New Theology or whatever its called. Nobody ever used this until about 50 years ago. Again I wonder why...
Science isn't really a thing. Its just a loose collection of human knowledge based around methods of ordered observation. It's not a thing you can say is or is not important. It just is.
If we started humanity again we would observe the same physical phenomena and create the same physical laws, they may be expressed dofferently but ypou could map one on to the other.
If you ignore science then you will get hurt, or die.
Proving the existence of god or not is very important otherwise people get scammed, and oh look, they do, all the bloody time. How can anyone be party to an untruth a false idea. It is really dangerous. And again that makes you an apologist. I know your intentions are good, but the system you are defending is bad, very bad.
Gosh I really hope someone comes out as a Tory MP and makes a similar proposal.
Yeah look what happened last time we got fed up with experts. Lets all ignore science and see where that gets us. The whole antiscience arguement is underpinned by this BS.
Listen to Sagan.
See, I don’t need proof to be able to believe something…
Does this belief impact your actions in anyway? Do you campaign against abortion, for example, since you know those aliens are opposed to it?
There is often some bait and switching going on using the deist style god as a "well you cant disprove it" but then switching to an interventionist god when it comes to specific positions.
Or to go back to your analogy. Its the difference between going "well its a big universe so reasonable chance other life is out there" (especially if you are flexible about what life is) and then going on to say "and some of that life abducted me last night and did some weird things to me".
Listen to Sagan.
Or Einstein?
"I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals himself in the harmony of all that exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and the doings of mankind.
Molgrips - you are still making false equivalence between the two concepts. This leads yo astray.
Yeah if you have read spinoza, its not a god.
anywya I refer to previous arguments where people of that time could not risk being outed as agnostic or atheist. This is a close as he Spinoza dared without being burned at the stake.
Yeah if you have read spinoza, its not a god.
Oh, He doesn't argue specifically that there isn't one though, but if we're going to trot out random Scientists to back up claims of pro or against the existence of God(s), the Atheist list is going to be much much shorter,than list saying "Can't be sure" innit
As Molly said three four pages ago, you/we just don't know, we can never know.
As I said up there, perhaps I'll make it explicit:
you/we just don’t know, we can never know.
this is not thought, its just meaningless woolly musing.
If we can never know, how did the "knowledge" of god come about? It was never known, therefore it was imagined, there was never, ever, any evidence. It starts and ends there. As I have been trying to explain, if we can never know, its not a thing. It has no meaning.
Secondly Sagan is not a random scientist.
Thirdly my appeal to listen to Sagan was not an appeal to authourity. It was just a reference to some incredibly well written and thought out words that describe the current thinking about religion and all the other anti science and wooly thinking going on around here.
It could have been written by molgrips and I'd still think it was powerful.
Secondly Sagan is not a random scientist.
Neither was Einstein, or Newton, or Galileo. what's your point?
its just meaningless woolly musing.
Mleh, get used to it. 'Tis the nature of the universe.