Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Question for Athiests and church bashers
Options
Comments
-
Irreligious is not the same as atheist. Just because the Nazi party didn't promote a religion does not make them atheists. Its like saying that all Irish political parties are atheist because they don't promote a religion and don't bring religion into politics.
But Nazi politics became a religion, a way of life, a worship.
But I take your point. You are more right then I am0 -
Hi there, I dont think a persons beliefs have a lot to do with their inteligence we are brought up in the faith our Parents adhered to. At some point in the course of life we question our beliefs for many reasons. I did and I belive in a higher being or god, the reason, there was so much I could not explain with science and medicine over years, that I drew my own conclusion. I would not expect anyone to agree or disagree with me as I dont think there is a right or wrong there just Is.Its says that they are human and as such are open to be used as sheep to be herded by those that have an ulterior motive.
Be it religious nuts, politicians, business people or more - they are prone to those that would look to prey upon them.
Why does it have to say anything about intelligence? That's presumptuous.
The most intelligent in the world can still be fooled or blind walked into something that they know little about when its not in their field of expertise!0 -
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
Which makes me wonder how many people who say they think there is a god actually do think there is one. If they think there is one and a single book is the key to understanding it and what it wants..... how come hardly any of them ever seem to even read it, let alone study it?
Well, we mustn't talk about that....someone might get 'offended', and you know what happens when certain people become offended.
0 -
Irreligious is not the same as atheist. Just because the Nazi party didn't promote a religion does not make them atheists. Its like saying that all Irish political parties are atheist because they don't promote a religion and don't bring religion into politics.
They may not have promoted a 'religion' as such, but they did promote a devotion to a system of belief (persuasion based on lack of evidence or reasoned calculation) and worship (reverence or respect). Hitler considered himself to be doing God's work by punishing the Jews. The following is an extract: "I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator." - Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1 Chapter 2
The terms 'religion' and 'belief' can be tricky ones to clearly define, but it is true to say that all religions are based on a belief of some sort, and that all belief systems are based on acceptance of ideas or concepts without the benefit of evidence or proof. Religion is specifically a system of mental persuasion under the authority of a deity or deities.
As regards Irish politicians not promoting religion, this is not as clear cut as might be thought. They serve under the Constitution, the opening lines of which read as follows:
"In the Name of the Most Holy Trinity, from Whom is all authority and to Whom, as our final end, all actions both of men and States must be referred,We, the people of Éire, Humbly acknowledging all our obligations to our Divine Lord, Jesus Christ, Who sustained our fathers through centuries of trial,....."
Like the bible, the imagined contents of the Constitution appear to be more ignored than paid attention to. Artile 44.1 states: "The State acknowledges that the homage of public worship is due to Almighty God. It shall hold His Name in reverence, and shall respect and honour religion."
Therefore it clearly states that the State of Ireland is overseen by the Christian god, and none other, thus nullifying any alternative ideology, which is not surprising as drafts of the Constitution were sent to the Vatican on two occasions for review and comment before being presented to the electorate.
Even the Jewish religion would be left out in adopting such a definition as the "Most Holy Trinity", as that religion never had a trinitarian deity, but a single godhead, as does Islam. It does not state that it respects the non-honouring of religion, so it implicitly only protects those citizens who do accept the idea of a deity called 'God'.
Furthermore, this prayer is said at the commencement of each day's business in the Dáil by the Ceann Comhairle, and in the Seanad by the Clerk of the Seanad, "Direct, we beseech Thee, O Lord, our actions by Thy holy inspirations and carry them on by Thy gracious assistance; that every word and work of ours may always begin from Thee, and by Thee be happily ended; through Christ our Lord. Amen."
So much of the quality of 'direction' to date.
Any politician who even tacitly accepts such an invocation is lending their approval and the authority that their office affords them, as paid for by the public purse, to the worship of the Christian god, and none other, so we are in fact ruled by a theocratic system of governance, and not a true and autonomous republic. Makes you wonder, doesn't it?0 -
Monty Burnz wrote: »You're probably not wrong about the dearth of radical Irish thought, but I'm sure you'd be the first to acknowledge that a belief can be both widespread and correct.
If it is correct it can't be a belief, but a fact. It can only be a belief if it is not supported by evidence. Facts are sure while beliefs are unsure, which means that they are actually opposites, no?0 -
Advertisement
-
I think it all depends on the person's upbringing and personality (the way they view things) as opposed to intelligence.
I'm an Atheist, raised in a Catholic family but it was never staunch. I never went to mass often, but still was brought up to believe in God, Jesus etc.....it was loose enough that I could form my own opinion.
I look at the bare facts because I'm the type of person that looks at things logically, and I, to a degree, feel there must be some sort of proof for something to exist. That's just me. I never even believed in God as a child; I did up to about four years old, but I never bought the Adam and Eve and Genesis story....I was always a Darwin-babe myself. :P Another person may just be spiritual, and believe in things like that because they can put unquestionable faith into something. I can't - I don't find it so easy to trust.
I think there are many factors that make people Atheists, but intelligence is something that I don't believe is one of them.0 -
It can, but the more I know the more I cannot be sure of things. I reject the certainty of religious belief and atheist belief with equal measure. I don't know what's out there, if anything is, and I think it would be a waste to concern myself with thinking about something I could never be certain of.
Religion means a great deal to many people. I respect that. Religion means nothing to many people. I respect that. I don't respect when either of them like to claim a monopoly on "the truth" and proceed to look down on people who don't share their certainty.
Admirable, but I doubt you're so unsure of the existance of most of the gods that have been discarded throughout history... Thor, Zeus, Ba'al, Poseidon... Just keeping that soft spot for the popular contemporary gods.0 -
Admirable, but I doubt you're so unsure of the existance of most of the gods that have been discarded throughout history... Thor, Zeus, Ba'al, Poseidon... Just keeping that soft spot for the popular contemporary gods.
I would love to see the look on your face when Thor crushes your hopes and dreams with his mighty hammer.0 -
If it correct it can't be a belief, but a fact.
This is incorrect. A belief can be without foundation and subsequently be proved as being true. Much of science falls into this category... the belief came first, then followed the methodical experimentation and search for evidence.
Furthermore some things are inherently beyond proof, such as the existence or not of a God.
Don't mean to be pedantic,
Z0 -
-
Advertisement
-
Nic Neptune wrote: »I think it all depends on the person's upbringing and personality (the way they view things) as opposed to intelligence.
I'm an Atheist, raised in a Catholic family but it was never staunch. I never went to mass often, but still was brought up to believe in God, Jesus etc.....it was loose enough that I could form my own opinion.
I look at the bare facts because I'm the type of person that looks at things logically, and I, to a degree, feel there must be some sort of proof for something to exist. That's just me. I never even believed in God as a child; I did up to about four years old, but I never bought the Adam and Eve and Genesis story....I was always a Darwin-babe myself. :P Another person may just be spiritual, and believe in things like that because they can put unquestionable faith into something. I can't - I don't find it so easy to trust.
I think there are many factors that make people Atheists, but intelligence is something that I don't believe is one of them.
So would I be correct in thinking that you do in fact trust in what you do know for sure i.e. facts, and that you recognise that you can know more as you progress your thinking along reasoning lines (evidence-based thinking)? In other words, do you look at both sides of a situation before evaluation? Even then, do you consider that you may not in fact have all the facts, though you have a good understanding? Is this not intelligence, which is the ability or aptitude in grasping truths, facts, relationships?
Do you not think that 'believers', those who choose to accept ideas without reasoning or evidence, do not think in this way, as they only look to whatever makes them feel right or look right, rather than being actually correct, and relying on lack of evidence to support their ideas?
As regards spirituality and all that might entail, do you not think that spirit, as a form of energy, does exist, as it can be observed because of its active force? If this is the case, then you are not in fact 'believing' in it so much as looking at it with the aim of knowing more about it, even if you know that you don't fully understand it, rather than making up or accepting unfounded ideas about it and treating those ideas as facts?
If so, then is it not right to say that you are simply more discriminating in what you place your trust in, rather than throwing your hat at it and saying something like "God did it"?
As regards "Atheism', there would appear to be mixed ideas as to what the term means, even amongst people who might think of themselves as such. To try to label someone by the non-acceptance of an supposed popular consensus or attitude of deistic acceptance would appear to be a strange way to describe someone. Lumping all non-deists into a category is much the same as doing likewise with deists, as there is a huge variation within such a context.0 -
This is incorrect. A belief can be without foundation and subsequently be proved as being true. Much of science falls into this category... the belief came first, then followed the methodical experimentation and search for evidence.
Furthermore some things are inherently beyond proof, such as the existence or not of a God.
Don't mean to be pedantic,
Z
I accept your contribution, so I don't think of what you say as being pedantic or not pedantic, though I would like to expand a little further on my understanding of what beliefs are and are not.
If something is found to be true (factually correct), then it must have a foundation to begin with. Would you not agree that there cannot be an effect without a cause? Don't you think that evidence leads to the finding of truths, and that lack of evidence leads to finding a lack of truths?
As I would understand it, the fact that a truth was not previously known or recognised has no bearing on the reality of its existence. Otherwise, we could never uncover things we don't yet know. Once truths become known we call them known facts i.e. knowledge. You can then work your way towards further knowledge by using reason to extend to the examination of possibilities.
Some people think of truth as simply being the things they think they know, as though their acceptance of them makes them true from that point on. However this is obviously not the case, as there are obviously millions of things outside my field of experience or knowledge that exist even in the absence of my awareness of them.
Methodological experimentation can only work on an initial truth, or at least some workable, evidential, starting point. In other words, there must be some initial trigger to begin the process. If there is no logic or reason behind the experiment, then the results can only lead to failure. To advance to further understanding, which is supposed to be the aim of learning and experimentation, and as yet possibly not known information, belief will only cause time wasting and wrong direction, due to lack of of evidence. Or maybe you might not agree, and think that I am wrong in thinking this way?
A belief, of any sort, is just the mental acceptance or the placing of confidence in, an alleged fact or body of facts as true or right without positive knowledge or proof. LINK An allegation is only a claim or expressed supposition that something is so, therefore it has no value beyond it being an idea based on lack of proof, so yet again it is a belief. An allegation that a belief is true is merely the compounding of an allegation. Would you not think that when we make mistakes they are always based on a belief that something is a certain way but in fact is not, and the only way to correct that misconception is to take account of the facts?
As regards the existence or non-existence of 'God' being beyond proof, I would also not agree, as anything that is beyond proof is incapable of being evidenced, though it may be alleged i.e. believed in (accepted mentally). If someone asserts that something exists then the onus is on them to explain their method of thinking and the process used to arrive that the particular conclusion, using evidence, and not speculation, to support their position.
The ability to prove the non-existence of something that doesn't in fact exist is impossible, as its lack of existence will not be borne out by fact, as no fact exists in the first place. In the case of 'God' (as popularly accepted) it is possible, by way of logical and reasoned argument, to demonstrate the impossibility for the existence of such a being.
Regards,
C0 -
I think some of these revelations about Hitler beg a huge question:
Would Hitler have killed Jesus? Jesus was a Jew, after all.0 -
I think some of these revelations about Hitler beg a huge question:
Would Hitler have killed Jesus? Jesus was a Jew, after all.
Well, as Father Jack might say, "That would be a euchemenical matter!"
For the most part Christians don't really think of Jesus as being a 'Jew' in the strict religious sense. They tend to ignore the fact that he wasn't Christian either, as Jesus' following was not called 'Christian' until towards the end of the first century. Most of what is called 'Christianity' was invented by Saul, who changed his name to Saul because of his involvement in the murder of Stephen, one of Jesus' followers.
The Jews in Europe were blamed for killing Jesus, though in fact the bible says it was the Romans who did the deed, but when it comes to religion, who pays heed to the facts? Even the bible says on a number of occasions that Jesus was 'hanged on a tree', but that is ignored even if it was said by Peter, who just might have known something about it. Go figure.0 -
The one thing that gets me about religion is that, despite the fact that around 400+ writers were alive during the time of Jesus, not one wrote about him. Adding to that fact, it seems nobody ever wrote about an encounter with Jesus, only the disciples etc. Also, was there ever a physical description of Jesus ever written? No (at least not to my knowledge). It was little things like that when I was younger that started me asking questions about his existence.0
-
Adding to that, why is Jesus always painted as white? If he was born where they say he was, would he not have had rather tanned, if not black skin? Seems a huge flaw in the depiction of Jesus imo.0
-
Nic Neptune wrote: »Adding to that, why is Jesus always painted as white? If he was born where they say he was, would he not have had rather tanned, if not black skin? Seems a huge flaw in the depiction of Jesus imo.
He wouldn't have been black. Most likely he would resemble an arab.0 -
-
Nic Neptune wrote: »Adding to that, why is Jesus always painted as white? If he was born where they say he was, would he not have had rather tanned, if not black skin? Seems a huge flaw in the depiction of Jesus imo.
It's called syncretism, the habit or process of absorbing traditions into a local or mainstream culture to make it fit in with popular settings.
Jesus would have been at least as dark skinned as Barack Obama, probably have simitic features, though that's not a given, as the area he lived in was a melting pot for Greek, Roman and other cultural groups.
You are right, there is not one single line in the bible describing Jesus' features, so the dozens of different depictions are all bogus, made to suit the needs of the new religion and its regional variations. It's quite surprising that people think that they know what he looked like. Not long ago, someone said to me that they thought that Jesus wrote the bible and that Adam and Eve were white because they saw a picture of them in the bible....:rolleyes:0 -
It's called syncretism, the habit or process of absorbing traditions into a local or mainstream culture to make it fit in with popular settings.
Jesus would have been at least as dark skinned as Barack Obama, probably have simitic features, though that's not a given, as the area he lived in was a melting pot for Greek, Roman and other cultural groups.
You are right, there is not one single line in the bible describing Jesus' features, so the dozens of different depictions are all bogus, made to suit the needs of the new religion and its regional variations. It's quite surprising that people think that they know what he looked like. Not long ago, someone said to me that they thought that Jesus wrote the bible and that Adam and Eve were white because they saw a picture of them in the bible....:rolleyes:
Very true. Thanks for the link btw.
LOL at the Adam and Eve comment!
The Adam and Eve story was always bogus to me though. The human race could not simply have expanded starting with merely two beings. Incest between brothers and sisters would've been a huge problem, and most likely would've caused deficiencies in much of the offspring and things simply could not have gone on like that. To believe in that would completely contradict evolution - which both hosts evidence and can be proved in humans. The appendix - used when humans ate cellulose, i.e. plants or similar things. Now it's an dormant organ. I'd like to see the bible explain that! 0 -
Advertisement
-
The Jews in Europe were blamed for killing Jesus, though in fact the bible says it was the Romans who did the deed, but when it comes to religion, who pays heed to the facts? Even the bible says on a number of occasions that Jesus was 'hanged on a tree', but that is ignored even if it was said by Peter, who just might have known something about it. Go figure.
I think a lot of problems stem from the fact that the letters included in the NT contained symbolism that would have been clearly understood by the readers at that time. A lot of the NT uses carefully chosen words and phrases specifically to allude to passages in the OT that would help decipher the meaning. I think the phrase "hung on a tree" is used in the OT when talking about killing people for a capital offense, punishment for sin. I think the point was to implicate Jesus with the OT, to create that link with the OT. There could be further symbolism than that. I think also some words and images are used to link Jesus from Adam. Adam ate from a tree, so Jesus was hung from it. Both figuratively speaking. Basically, it's just unwise to take it all literally.0 -
Nic Neptune wrote: »Also, was there ever a physical description of Jesus ever written? No (at least not to my knowledge). It was little things like that when I was younger that started me asking questions about his existence.
I think it's good that a physical description is not given, since it would not be necessary. If one of the Gospels mentioned "he was 5ft4 and kind of funny looking", would it make it anymore believable? It just isn't important what he would have looked like if he existed. It would just give people something else to get hung up on, and miss the point. It's like when people ask about his sexuality. I'm really glad nothing about his sexuality is mentioned. If it mentioned he was 100% straight, what a great big stick that would be to beat gays with. Similar to the physical description, it would just cause so much trouble.0 -
Whether or not religion is adaptive, we don't know.
I think we can safely say it is, as it has all the prerequisites to being subject to selection. For Evolution to occur one need really only have information, near but not always perfect replication of that information, mutation and modification of that information, and differential success amongst the reproduction of that information.
Religion has all those things and as such I see no reason not to think it subject to selection or to display adaptive qualities.I find the case that it is a lot more convincing because it helps survival and reproductive success.
Yes. Of itself. Not of us, which is the error I keep correcting for you. I shall not reply to the rest of this paragraph given we are entirely in agreement that religion is adaptive so no need to repeat what you have said. Of course as before you'll likely call points of agreement "concessions" to massage your ego, but I will leave that to you.One can make a lot of assumptions, whether it's religion is a delusion, or has had no benefits etc. But these are as unsubstantiated positions as any other.
I am sure there are some that assume these things. For me they are not assumptions however, but conclusions based on evidence and often based on a complete lack of evidence.... such as not being shown a single benefit of religion. So my positions on these things are far from unsubstantiated, especially in the case of the latter where the unsubstantiated nature of the claim being made IS the evidence for my position in that if you can not show a single benefit of religion then one is forgiven for concluding it likely has none.
As long as the claim there is a god, and the claim that religion is beneficial, remain unsubstantiated then I will keep pointing out they are unsubstantiated. If that bothers you on some level then so be it, but I have been shown no reason not to do this.The point of religion is to bind.
So you keep saying, but aside from your penchant for repeating it over and over I have seen no reason to think you correct. There are many "points" to religion. In many cases the "point" is to make money. In many cases the "point" is to control people. I see much difference between "control" and "bind" unless you mean "bind" in the sense of tying them up in a metaphorical sense. And it is not just Atheists claiming this. There are theists claiming it too such as one I was introduced to only this week and I think you will find this post very informative and maybe the entire talk by the Christian in question is worth watching for you too.Anything that binds one group is often separating itself from another, sadly.
Yes and I do include the divisiveness of religion among the many examples of the "harm" religion causes that I tend to list when asked. However again I think you are associating religion with things that happen anyway, and then falsely saying it is religion that causes them. Religion for example is geographic. Which one you are in is often tied firmly to where you were born. As such many of the people within a religion were already "bound" by many things, and then religion was appended to this as the people already "bound" were shuffled into whatever religion makes geographic sense to them.
So as with your errors with "dance" and ethics and... later in this same post that you just made government and law..... and more..... I think once again you have fallen into the trap of pointing to something that happens anyway and then falsely ascribing religion to be the cause of it. This is trap you appear willing to fall into consistently on any subject you think religion might benefit from association with. In fact this is an example of the adaptability we spoke of before. Religions that did not adapt by becoming associated with... and reaping the benefits of being seen to be associated with.... such things... those religions would likely be selected against given the importance such things ALREADY (before religion comes along) have to humans.As for the data relating to higher reproductivity rates, this evidence is not altogether new. Consider this review of Dawkins' book (2005/6?) by The New York Times:
Again however two things. I was looking for papers, not news paper articles. And again merely producing more off spring than someone else is not de facto to be "more successful" in evolutionary terms. An error you seem adamantly against repairing.
Also your news paper article (which I repeat is not a science paper) merely shows a correlation between the things. I asked for a causal link. You provide none. Correlation tells us nothing of use here, regardless of the positive spin you are so desperate to put on it.I never said it was de facto an advantage in every case. I'm saying better reproductive success is an evolutionary advantage.
Again not always as I keep saying and as you keep ignoring. Sometimes lower reproductive numbers is the advantage and we see cases where smaller families in one generation lead to larger surviving progeny in later generations. So simply sweepingly declaring that higher success in reproductive numbers is an advantage is false. It will stay false too regardless of how often you insist on repeating it or how often journalists repeat it in news papers that you link to.
And there are good reasons for this, usually tied to resources. If a resource or resources are limited then having a larger family to consume them would be a disadvantage not an advantage. So if, for example to give an economic example to highlight the fact that not only natural examples are required, jobs, money and education are limited and hard to obtain resources, then a secular family who use condoms and have 2 children may be at a major advantage over a catholic family, terrified of gods wrath related to condom use, who pump out 10 and then can barely afford to feed them let alone educate them. As we saw in the 19th century families with smaller numbers of children went on to have more surviving grandchildren.
So until you correct that error, the other errors that result cascade like in your words are unlikely to rectify themselves either.0 -
Logical Fallacy wrote: »lol, Atheism doesn't have spokespeople...it's not a club or corporation.
There are atheists, and people who do not call themselves atheists but align themselves with many of the same goals and ends (such as myself) who are perfectly happy to have such people as Dawkins and Hitchens and Harris be the media face of atheism. That is a fact, regardless of whether you label their function with the word "spokesperson" or not.
However there are "clubs" too such as Atheist Ireland, the vast majority of whom are perfeclty happy to have Micheal Nugent as the spokesperson for the association, especially given his success in the Irish Media, before the EU Leaders, and before the Forums on Education.0 -
I have an issue with what I see is a the modern cult, an atheist cult.
So would I if I thought there was such a thing, but aside from the fact that every movement has its extremists even in low numbers.... I see no reason to think there is any such thing as an "atheist cult" or "atheist religion".as if it will lead to a better more rational scientific humanist world of no religious wars or creedism, which is rubbish.
Who knows. Worth trying it to find out. I certainly see no reason at all to think that being rid of religion entirely would not at least help in this regard. Its presence certainly does not help.I am yet to be convinced that religion has been a major factor in wars.
I would be wary of claiming it has too so I am pretty sure I have never done so on this forum as such and I am more than aware of how land, tribalism, resources nationalism and more are more powerful factors.
However the fact that religion is both divisive, and a powerful conversation stopper at times, certainly can not help in terms of religion.
However I would be less worried about the wars it has been a factor in and worry more about the wars it potentially could be a factor in, especially with apocalyptic cults becoming more and more likely to obtain nuclear technologies.And you don't have to go to far back in history to see what happens in a promoted or imposed Atheist state. What you got was Stalin, Mao who became semi deities.
And you also do not have to go far to learn why calling such states "atheistic" is to miss the point entirely. Nothing about them bears much resemblance to anything an actual atheism promotes and they most certainly do not resemble anything promoted by secularism. Such states in essence had state religions, with demi gods in charge of them and inquisitions performed and miracles claimed. They bore many hall marks of religions themselves. Also remember most atheists simply want to point out that the claims of the religious are likely false and that they should be kept out of our halls of power. Few of them want to prevent people having religion in their own time or stop them practicing or enjoying it if they want… which such states as you list do.
I, like you, have no interest in evangalising my views per se. However given the views of theism are often used in discussions that actually are important.... such as science, education, ethics, morality, law, sexuality and more... I am more than compelled to point out that the base claim... that there is a god.... on which people base their views.... is bogus.
And I am not limited to "god" in this so it is not some anti god crusade I am on. I would act in exactly the same way if someone espoused ideas in such forums based on a page of entirely unsubstantiated statistics.
If you REALLY are interested in understanding what the atheist wants, thinks and feels then simply forget about god and imagine someone making an argument, and he keeps pointing to a page of numbers and statistics. However while doing so he avoids, dodges and even gets angry about any questions about where the stats came from, what they are based on, who did the study or whether the figures are sound.
Imagine how you would act, or feel, in such a scenario... and I guarantee you that the feelings and motivations of the atheist are in nearly all ways identical to what you imagine. Imagine then the despair you would feel if people then started to defend that page of statistics with canards like "Well Hitler and Stalin also did not accept my page of statistics and look where they ended up!".
If you really truely understand the last two paragraphs then you really understand the motivation I run on, and I feel most atheists run on too.0 -
Well, we mustn't talk about that....someone might get 'offended', and you know what happens when certain people become offended.
Well in my experience with people like Philologos on this forum, the answer to this is that they lie, pretend they have you on ignore, but continue to read every word you write.0 -
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
However I would be less worried about the wars it has been a factor in and worry more about the wars it potentially could be a factor in, especially with apocalyptic cults becoming more and more likely to obtain nuclear technologies.
And you also do not have to go far to learn why calling such states "atheistic" is to miss the point entirely. Nothing about them bears much resemblance to anything an actual atheism promotes and they most certainly do not resemble anything promoted by secularism. Such states in essence had state religions, with demi gods in charge of them and inquisitions performed and miracles claimed. They bore many hall marks of religions themselves. Also remember most atheists simply want to point out that the claims of the religious are likely false and that they should be kept out of our halls of power. Few of them want to prevent people having religion in their own time or stop them practicing or enjoying it if they want… which such states as you list do.
I, like you, have no interest in evangalising my views per se. However given the views of theism are often used in discussions that actually are important.... such as science, education, ethics, morality, law, sexuality and more... I am more than compelled to point out that the base claim... that there is a god.... on which people base their views.... is bogus.
And I am not limited to "god" in this so it is not some anti god crusade I am on. I would act in exactly the same way if someone espoused ideas in such forums based on a page of entirely unsubstantiated statistics.
If you REALLY are interested in understanding what the atheist wants, thinks and feels then simply forget about god and imagine someone making an argument, and he keeps pointing to a page of numbers and statistics. However while doing so he avoids, dodges and even gets angry about any questions about where the stats came from, what they are based on, who did the study or whether the figures are sound.
Imagine how you would act, or feel, in such a scenario... and I guarantee you that the feelings and motivations of the atheist are in nearly all ways identical to what you imagine. Imagine then the despair you would feel if people then started to defend that page of statistics with canards like "Well Hitler and Stalin also did not accept my page of statistics and look where they ended up!".
If you really truely understand the last two paragraphs then you really understand the motivation I run on, and I feel most atheists run on too.
As for apocalyptic religion acquiring atomic weapons, I could argue they already have them and were first to obtain them, America is no more secular then is was say 150 years ago. The Christian faith is more apocalyptic in its teaching then Islam. But I don't want to go there and speculate what will happen if extremists states acquire nuclear weapons, because in truth I don't know.
But it all comes back to is religion cultural or biological is religion in the human genome. I think it is. Dawkins attempted to make it cultural by his silly memes theory. Good ideas are retained in culture while the bad idea are lost, he tried to put it in an evolutionary context, but he is wrong.
Let us do a thought experiment, let us put some babies on a desert island away from the clatter of culture and imagine what will happen to them as they grow up alone.
You can assume they will be able to acquire all their biological programming. They will hunger and thirst and satisfy them with food and water. They will be able to communicate and have grammar. They will develop sexual urges uncoaxed and I believe they will develop a religion of some form.
Now just because religion has a human genetical base does not make it the right world view, but it does make it part of us. I am an unbeliever in anything religious or spiritual. I am the atheist in the foxhole. But I do identify with things beyond myself. I will irrationally be screaming at the tele next weekend when Dublin wins the all Ireland (OK that's a very irrational hope). I can feel a connection with things around me, that is a spirituality, spirituality is religion.
That feeling is human nature.
Now you can deny a cultural assumption they are only ideas, but a genetical one will just raise its urge in another form. There is a genetical base for religion, some people are born with a stronger sense of it. I firmly believe I am an unbeliever because I can be, I find it easy to be, you could not convince me there is a god while I could not convince a religious man there isn't. So I wouldn't bother trying.
As for science religion does manifest itself in science the whole quantum world is faith, the big bang is also faith based, although you will counter, these faiths are not absolute, and yes, but they just get replaced by other faiths or theories.
I like the story at the very end of science when the scientist finally climbs the last pedestal of all knowledge to get the answers to the universe only to be greeted by priests to be asked what kept you:D0 -
One might argue that the United States is less secular than it was 150 years ago. Most of the founders of the US were either atheist or otherwise uninterested in religion.As for apocalyptic religion acquiring atomic weapons, I could argue they already have them and were first to obtain them, America is no more secular then is was say 150 years ago.
The US constitution makes no reference to any God, and even the declaration of independence has a passing reference to a creator rather than any specific God.
The motto "In God we Trust" was adopted by the US in 1956, more than a decade after they first built and used an atomic weapon.
Tbh, if the United States is worried about the powers of religious extremists, it needs to look closer to home.0 -
One might argue that the United States is less secular than it was 150 years ago. Most of the founders of the US were either atheist or otherwise uninterested in religion.
The US constitution makes no reference to any God, and even the declaration of independence has a passing reference to a creator rather than any specific God.
The motto "In God we Trust" was adopted by the US in 1956, more than a decade after they first built and used an atomic weapon.
Tbh, if the United States is worried about the powers of religious extremists, it needs to look closer to home.
The tea party nuts scares me more then the Taliban. I just picked a 150 years for no real reason. Although the US is constitutionally secular, the society just doesn't behave so.
In any american political speech you will always hear God mentioned. If any European politician was to do that, to say the least eyes would be raised and I believe they would be laughed at.
But you can be religious without a god, in Europe, for now, its our liberalism which we hold sacred.0 -
Advertisement
-
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »Yes. Of itself. Not of us, which is the error I keep correcting for you.
You're not "correcting" anything. You don't have to correct me, you have to correct the evolutionary biologists I've read on the matter, because I find them very convincing. But you are completely entitled to believe what you like, and to defend your belief, just as we all do.As long as the claim there is a god, and the claim that religion is beneficial, remain unsubstantiated then I will keep pointing out they are unsubstantiated. If that bothers you on some level then so be it, but I have been shown no reason not to do this.
I never claim anything about whether God exists or not. It doesn't bother me if you are completely dyed in the wool on your position. It bugs me a little that there are atheists out there looking for self-affirming evidence and take what you say as fact, when it's mostly opinion. I've provided links to papers on these issues, people can study it for themselves. I'm not really bothered about the benefits argument, so I'll just quote a bit from a study entitled Who Benefits from Religion? (Daniel Mochon, Michael I. Norton, Dan Ariely).Religious involvement has been shown to provide a wide range of benefits at both the
individual and societal level. At the societal level, higher religious involvement is related
to increased levels of education (Gruber 2005), lower crime rates (Baier and Wright 2001;
Johnson et al. 2000), increases in civic involvement (Putnam 2000; Ruiter and De Graaf
2006), higher levels of cooperation (Norenzayan and Shariff 2008; Shariff and Norenzayan
2007), lower divorce rates, higher marital satisfaction and better child adjustment (Mahoney et al. 2001; for a review, see Sherkat and Ellison 1999).
At the individual level, many studies have shown that religion is linked to various
measures of physical health, such as lower rates of coronary disease, emphysema and
cirrhosis (Comstock and Partridge 1972), lower blood pressure (Larson et al. 1989), and
longer life expectancy (George et al. 2002; Hummer et al. 1999; Idler and Kasl 1997;
Koenig 1997; Larson et al. 1997; Litwin 2007; Plante and Sherman 2001; Seybold and Hill
2001) Researchers investigating a wide array of psychological disorders—such as
depression—have generally found religious involvement to be related to better mental
health as well (Hackney and Sanders 2003; Kendler et al. 2003; Larson et al. 1992; Smith
et al. 2003).
Finally, there is ample evidence that religion is positively related to higher levels of
subjective well-being. Myers (2000) reports data from a national sample showing that
those who are most involved with their religion are almost twice as likely to report being
‘‘very happy’’ than those with the least involvement (see also Ferris 2002), while Ellison
(1991) found that religious variables accounted for 5–7% of variance in life satisfaction
(see also Witter et al. 1985). It is likely that a number of factors underlie the link between
religiosity and well-being, from the social support and prosocial behaviors that religion
encourages (Barkan and Greenwood 2003; Cohen 2002; Taylor and Chatters 1988), to the
coherent framework that religion provides (Ellison et al. 1989; Pollner 1989), to the coping
mechanisms that alleviate stress and assuage loss (McIntosh et al. 1993; Pargament 1997;
Pargament et al. 1998; Strawbridge et al. 1998). One recent investigation traced the
benefits of religious involvement to the cumulative effect of the positive boosts in wellbeing that people receive each time they attend religious services (Mochon et al. 2008).
It's the benefits outlined by the evolutionary biologists that interest me, the benefits conferred that would lead to it being favored by natural selection. The papers I provided earlier discuss this. Also, I feel sad when people say "No benefits! Ever!" because I can't help but think of the countless millions who get wiped from history, who were motivated by religion to alleviate human suffering, work for peace, social justice etc. I just don't want anyone to think it's all one sided. The view that no single benefit ever flowed from religion is a priori improbable as it is empirically false.
Terry Eagleton makes a similar point about the Catholic Church in Ireland.
And I can see where he's coming from. It's just not all black and white.The cruelties and stupidities that the Irish church has perpetrated do not prevent me from recalling how, without it, generations of my own ancestors would have gone unschooled, unnursed, unconsoled and unburied.In many cases the "point" is to make money. In many cases the "point" is to control people. I see much difference between "control" and "bind" unless you mean "bind" in the sense of tying them up in a metaphorical sense.
But I was talking about the origins of religion. From when it binded primitive societies. I am fairly sure the point was not to make money, or control, since they were very egalitarian. There were no manipulative priests. I agree that religion is a bit fucked up now. But that doesn't mean it never had any benefits.As such many of the people within a religion were already "bound" by many things, and then religion was appended to this as the people already "bound" were shuffled into whatever religion makes geographic sense to them.
Yes, but religion binded people beyond kin, and beyond borders. Something that can bind people on such a strong emotional level, regardless of gender, race, status, geography, that instructs that we are all created equally etc, is pretty powerful and has amazing potential to be used as a force for good.Also your news paper article (which I repeat is not a science paper) merely shows a correlation between the things. I asked for a causal link. You provide none. Correlation tells us nothing of use here, regardless of the positive spin you are so desperate to put on it.
I am aware that a newspaper is not a science paper. I was just pointing out that even they can point out the obvious. Again, I never claimed causality. I said the correlation is extremely, extremely positive and very relevant to the discussion if you want to look at it and examine all the evidence in a clear and balanced way. What I wrote is what I wrote. I'm just desperate for some balance.And there are good reasons for this, usually tied to resources. If a resource or resources are limited then having a larger family to consume them would be a disadvantage not an advantage.
Religions have also been used to curtail fertility when needs be. Some Christian churches forbade intercourse on ritual occasions, such as Sundays or during Lent. In the Middle Ages, marital sex was forbidden for three 40 day periods of each year and other feast days. There were so many restrictions that sex could only happen on 160 days out of 365. Other churches can insist on sexual abstinence. Religious practices can also reduce fertility by raising the age of marriage, permitting abortion, even killing unwanted infants. Some really nasty stuff. But religion was useful to societies that needed to control population numbers, because religion has such sway over reproductive behavior. Religion is a strong demographic factor that can be used to adjust population size. Religion had many useful functions in the past. Now, I don't know.I like the story at the very end of science when the scientist finally climbs the last pedestal of all knowledge to get the answers to the universe only to be greeted by priests to be asked what kept you
Yes that's from the book God and the Astronomers by Robert Jastrow. A striking passage, very elegantly worded in the book. It always reminds me of atheists and theists arguing about the purpose of the universe, atheists insisting that there is no purpose etc, but then, isn't that the point? Didn't Aquinas also think that we had absolutely no reason to exist. I dunno. I was under the impression Christian theology explains it the same way, that our universe exists for no reason, that we are completely superfluous, to put it into theological terms: our world was created just for the hell of it.0
I'm slow tonight, I really should be in bed. 
Advertisement