Well, that's very nice isn't it!
Religion, what's the point?
- Thread starter TheRedFlag
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik and Imran are here to talk about a frustrating 2 points dropped at Crystal Palace. They then discuss the regeneration of Old Trafford. Finally, Nik is joined by special guest Michael Statham from the Football Oranje podcast - who gives us a more in depth look at our EL opposition FC Twente, and then runs through the (many) Dutch connections currently at United.
Unless you happen to be of a different religion or of no religion and still have to sit through some religious cnut giving a sermon at fecking assemblies and over the sound system.
Always with the negatives bro.
The problem isn't religion itself, it's the fact that it can exert control over people who want nothing to do with it by influencing the laws/behaviours of a society.
But that's not religion problem though as you say. Humans (the bad ones anyway) would always find tools to exert such control. Be it religion, economy, technology etc.
It wouldn't be possible to control people with religion, political ideologies or other dogmas if people weren't credulous morons, which is our point; stop being credulous, and stop pretending to know things you don't.
Ah, so you admit religion is a tool for exerting control......
I'm not religious. My personal opinion is that religion is completely manmade construct designed to suit the political agendas of the ages it was created in. With that said, I don't dismiss religion as being without value. It would be easy to focus on the many wars, murders and atrocities performed in its' various names; as well as the other crimes which are a result of what I believe to me unnatural practices, such as celibacy (sexual abuse). But there are also many, many excellent relief and charitable programs which go on in the name of religion; and that doesn't even bring into the equation the tremendous amount of relief and security and belief system bestows on so many people. Everyone should be allowed to believe whatever they want, however ridiculous, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone.
My problem with religion almost always relates to the individuals that practice it, rather than the religion itself. Such as:
- It's fine to discount evolution and believe in creationism. It's not fine when you insist on teaching that nonsense in schools. Schools should be secular.
- It's fine to live by the principles your religion tells you. It's not fine to try and make other people do so to. i.e. stopping gay marriage etc.
- It's not fine to use fear to coerce people into certain modals of behavior (you'll go to hell etc).
Keep your religion to yourself and we'll get along just fine.
My problem with religion almost always relates to the individuals that practice it, rather than the religion itself. Such as:
- It's fine to discount evolution and believe in creationism. It's not fine when you insist on teaching that nonsense in schools. Schools should be secular.
- It's fine to live by the principles your religion tells you. It's not fine to try and make other people do so to. i.e. stopping gay marriage etc.
- It's not fine to use fear to coerce people into certain modals of behavior (you'll go to hell etc).
Keep your religion to yourself and we'll get along just fine.
You are in denial. What's different is perspective only.
Exactly my view. Government & religion should be separate entities, even more so in a multi faith society.
In denial of what, exactly?
1. Your post seems to indicate that credulity exists in religion only.
2. Your perspective is also based on lack of evidence and therefore your stance is an emotional one and not a rational one.
- No it doesn't. Quite the opposite, actually. I suggest you re-read it.
- What the hell are you talking about? Do you even know?
What I'm saying is credulity is a human trait (yes not all but many have it) regardless of the product. You want people to stop what they are inclined to do naturally.
Religion can not rationalise or prove the existence of a god through intellect. Just like what you are trying to do for the other side of the argument, I think.
Ah, the "I can't prove anything, but I believe it, so it must be true" defence of religion raises its head.
Abbsta states that one cannot prove the existence of God through intellect. You desire such a proof. What, exactly is required to "prove" the existence of God, aside from, perhaps meeting a corporeal entity who performs "miracles" for you?
Typical religious comment I see on social media (see numerous daily)..
"God really works in strange and mysterious ways. He's always right on time. True statement."
Unless you're a starving child in Africa... Logic. Religious persons seem to miss logic when speaking of their witchcraft, err religion.
"God really works in strange and mysterious ways. He's always right on time. True statement."
Unless you're a starving child in Africa... Logic. Religious persons seem to miss logic when speaking of their witchcraft, err religion.
I have problems with the theology of people who thing of their God as some officious intermeddler who worries about whether you get up on time for work, win the lottery, ace the exam, or your favorite team wins.
On the other hand, Marcello, I also have questions about people who think that the aforementioned deity is supposed to create heaven on earth in my lifetime. I'm not sure where people, either the holy book thumpers or the skeptics, got the idea that was supposed to happen.
You introduced three things: lack of proof, leads to belief therefore the Truth.
I have not mentioned anything of the like. All I am saying is that religion attempts to show how coherent the explanation is (of our existence). An element of faith is required after the initial courting with the intellect. There must a happy marriage between intellect and spirituality to find the right God, IMHumbleO.
But the explanations provided by religion aren't the least bit coherent; they're contrary, whimsical and insubstantial.
You only believe it because you're brainwashed.
You only believe it because you're brainwashed.
Substitute 'political parties' for 'religion" and you could say the same thing about voters.
Or you are ignoring it because you are angry.
I don't doubt it, in certain circumstances at least. I've never voted.
The democratic process is a worthy one though; I just choose to take no part in it on account of my never yet seeing a party worth voting for.
I don't see how this is relevant.
The stupidity here is overwhelming sometimes.
If I were ignoring it I wouldn't be posting here.
But are you posting for the right reasons? I think you are under estimating the emotional baggage you carry from your previous experience/s. Objectively speaking, you should know how anger can cloud one's judgement. One cannot substitute emotion with rationale because both are part of our make up.
This is a video from an American guy with a PHD in Mathematics who embraced Islam from Atheism. The first 15+ mins describes the emotional trauma he went through as a child which echoes some of the sentiments on here. It does get interesting once he starts describing the dialogue he was having with the Quran with all his anger. Each one of us has their own personal journey which highlights the importance for one to READ. I am not saying what worked for him would work for everyone but it depends on the state of one's heart and its intentions.
Have you ever seen or met a candidate worth voting for, or are they only mindless functionaries incapable of transcending the party's manifesto (US--platform)? Or in your fair land are you only allowed to vote for a party? It seems to me you limit your concept of politics and the value of voting. Perhaps the same goes for religion.
And, to ask directly that which noted previously: What elements are necessary to you to "prove" the existence of God? (Abbsta did say he couldn't do so through intellect--he probably meant by intellect alone).
My politics have nothing to do with this.
In regards to the question in your second paragraph: such is his apparent ethereal nature, proving the existence of god would likely be just as impossible as proving his nonexistence. I've no interest in pinpointing the criteria for impossible eventualities either one way or another.
As mentioned before though it's quite possible to have an abundance of evidence in lieu of absolute proof, and the evidence in support of god's existence (ex: apparitions, miracles, the holy texts etc.) is weak and very easily rebuffed through the contrasting findings of compelling sciences such as psychology, biology and anthropology.
Congratulations to the brainwashed American guy.
If you wish to talk about how emotion can cloud one's judgement then you've bitten off more than you can chew, I'm afraid. The brainwashing process under which religion thrives relies so heavily upon the concept of emotion clouding judgment that it's entirely laughable that you'd use this notion as a point of argument.
What you're basically saying that because I'm angry at the church for applying a code of systematic indoctrination through the manipulation of the emotions of children causing their judgement to become oftentimes irreparably damaged, I must then be suffering from clouded judgement myself and so should return to the church for recalibration.
Forgive me, but you can feck right off.
No. I was referring to cleansing of the heart first. Similar to grieving for a lost family member in order to find peace.
Manipulation of the emotions? Isn't that what you said that you might attempt to do should your child chooses a 'religious' path. You want to do the same thing you are moaning about.
Now I'm not about to embark on a defence of religion on the grounds that some things must believed without evidence therefore religion can be too. However the mantra, only believe in things that have evidence, is almost a refrain of faith for modern times. It is not even one upheld consistently. Appeals to science simply assume that the inductive method is sound, that the external world exists, that knowledge is possible, etc. Morality is not evidence based, a belief in free will likewise. As I have said it is not my intention to argue that given these examples believing in anything without evidence is fine. It is just worth pointing out that the mantra must itself be based upon a structure of faith based assumptions and therefore using it as a tool to bludgeon non-evidence based belief systems, whilst rhetorically effective, is logically inconsistent.
It isn't logically inconsistent at all. You're simply confusing evidence with proof.
Your point about morality not being evidence based is fine, but you're talking about belief there in a different context. The word 'believe' in terms of morality merely means 'support':
"I believe in same sex marriages."
"I support same sex marriages."
It's a completely different meaning to the religious context of the word which would translate:
"I believe in same sex marriages."
"Same sex marriages exist."
If one wishes to cleanse something they wouldn't use bullshit as a detergent.
It requires no emotion to not believe in god.
And the opposite is true.
And in your own words; emotion clouds judgement.
The toxic ones that you are ignoring.