Religion, what's the point?

Redlambs said:
Well yes. Of course.

However that means you have to be sure a religion formed as the result of questions rather than a specific purpose. Like control.

Or it was formed from a god's word, in which case that changes the whole idea right?

Most religions don't answer much with any fact. They tell us negatives more than positives in a lot of ways too. But what we know as FACT is that the internet isn't here to talk to god, it's here because we have learned and created based on what we know and are ever learning.

Cue the "and god allows us to do that" stuff ;)
Click to expand...

Well, does it matter? Whether or not religions were formed because somebody wanted to control the populace (which I largely believe myself btw), that doesn't take away from the population the curiosity and imagination which made it happen. The point here is that mans makeup makes him capable of both good and evil (as a group), and that is the reason we see so much evil in the name of religion, democracy, freedom and what have you. There is a market for belief and direction, and it will be filled, whatever you call it. That's why I separate religion from organized religion. One is about individual belief (really just philosophy), the other is about power.

People need to learn that there isn't a man (or God) around the corner with all the answers. That's the only way to get rid of the mass hysteria. To me it doesn't really matter if we bomb someone for Jehova, democracy or money. It's still wrong.
 
Essaux said:
No, Atheism isn't another religion. It's anti-theistic and people can be anti theistic and these people be can very different from one another and adhering to very different ideologies (capitalist, socialist whatever).

They don't believe in anything, that doesn't mean they are certain about anything. They don't have to be certain about anything since they don't believe in anything per say.

An atheist doesn't have to be certain about what they don't believe in. We are uncertain about believing in things we can't prove. At the same time there isn't any certainty in not believing. We're simply anti-theistic.

It's really ridiculous to assume it is a belief, because it clearly isn't.
Click to expand...

Anti theist doesn't mean it's not a religion. Religion is defined as a common belief system. And I think we can all agree that what atheist have in common is the belief that there is no God. Absence of proof does not in any way make your position fact. Science doesn't work that way.

Being uncertain about things you can't prove is as rational as can be. But that doesn't make you an atheist. That's an agnostic, cause atheists are very certain about something they can not prove, the existence or non existence of God.
 
In my view once you actually know the "how" there is no need for a "why". There used to be a need to know why the sun shined, now we know how it actually shines we don't actually need a why. It just is that way. "Why" is a human construct because we want the closure of knowing there is a reason for things. It's really only necessary when talking about things that have a consciousness.

Having said that, I personally expect something similar to happen with the human mind and our understanding of it as our knowledge increases about how it works. The "why" will get less and less important as our knowledge increases. A sobering thought indeed, if true.
 
Lothar said:
Anti theist doesn't mean it's not a religion. Religion is defined as a common belief system. And I think we can all agree that what atheist have in common is the belief that there is no God. Absence of proof does not in any way make your position fact. Science doesn't work that way.

Being uncertain about things you can't prove is as rational as can be. But that doesn't make you an atheist. That's an agnostic, cause atheists are very certain about something they can not prove, the existence or non existence of God.
Click to expand...

No, agnosticism and atheism aren't mutually exclusive. Theism and atheism deal with belief, gnosticism and agnosticism deal with knowledge. I would say I'm an agnostic atheist because I don't accept the theist claim that a God exists and I also don't think God can be proven or disproven.

Just because you don't accept (x) doesn't mean you automatically have to accept (y).
 
Silent_Running said:
If you haven't discovered the fact that most people create their own purpose in life, that would be rather ironic, since you've crafted an elaborate bubble of religious fervour with which to contain yours.
Click to expand...

What others do or don't do in this regard doesn't influence my reasoning. I haven't created an elaborate bubble of anything; I stand or fall on the promises in Christ. I don't create a purpose for my existence, and neither do you, for you are incapable.
 
Herman Van Rompuy said:
What others do or don't do in this regard doesn't influence my reasoning. I haven't created an elaborate bubble of anything; I stand or fall on the promises in Christ. I don't create a purpose for my existence, and neither do you, for you are incapable.
Click to expand...
You have because every god is a human construct. Your god is no different.
 
Amethyst said:
No, agnosticism and atheism aren't mutually exclusive. Theism and atheism deal with belief, gnosticism and agnosticism deal with knowledge. I would say I'm an agnostic atheist because I don't accept the theist claim that a God exists and I also don't think God can be proven or disproven.

Just because you don't accept (x) doesn't mean you automatically have to accept (y).
Click to expand...

I don't like this whole "oh you're an atheist so because you're certain that God doesn't that means you are just as much a believer as any Christian! Gotcha there!".

I don't rule out the possibility of a god existing. I just think there's no evidence of it and therefore no reason to factor it into how I live my life. I class that as being atheist, even though I still accept there is the possibility of a god.
 
Herman Van Rompuy said:
What others do or don't do in this regard doesn't influence my reasoning. I haven't created an elaborate bubble of anything; I stand or fall on the promises in Christ. I don't create a purpose for my existence, and neither do you, for you are incapable.
Click to expand...

You chose which god to believe in. Surely that's your own construct.
 
Shamwow said:
I don't like this whole "oh you're an atheist so because you're certain that God doesn't that means you are just as much a believer as any Christian! Gotcha there!".

I don't rule out the possibility of a god existing. I just think there's no evidence of it and therefore no reason to factor it into how I live my life. I class that as being atheist, even though I still accept there is the possibility of a god.
Click to expand...

Yes, so you would also be an agnostic atheist then.

As far as I'm concerned any answer other than 'yes' to the question 'do you accept God exists?' is atheism. That includes 'don't know', 'unsure', 'can't be known' and 'no'. Then the question of knowledge comes in.
 
Amethyst said:
Yes, so you would also be an agnostic atheist then.

As far as I'm concerned any answer other than 'yes' to the question 'do you accept God exists?' is atheism. That includes 'don't know', 'unsure', 'can't be known' and 'no'. Then the question of knowledge comes in.
Click to expand...

Well said.

There are growing efforts out there to discredit the concept of atheism by portraying it as just as much a belief as Christianity or Islam is. This is often furthered by assigning a supposed "pontiff" of atheism in Richard Dawkins (one that most atheists, myself included, don't actually give a crap about).
 
Amethyst said:
No, agnosticism and atheism aren't mutually exclusive. Theism and atheism deal with belief, gnosticism and agnosticism deal with knowledge. I would say I'm an agnostic atheist because I don't accept the theist claim that a God exists and I also don't think God can be proven or disproven.

Just because you don't accept (x) doesn't mean you automatically have to accept (y).
Click to expand...
Thank you
 
Garethw said:
My Mum paid for me and my brother to have readings when she had hers.

I'm a huge fan of the unexplained/paranormal and consider myself a bit of an expert on the subject. I know most of the tricks that fraudsters use but couldn't explain how he knew what he knew.

When someone tells you specific information, like word for word conversations that you had with someone that know one else heard it's pretty mind blowing.
Click to expand...
Do you think he could have gotten information about you prior to the reading and used that information to gather more and more bits and pieces about you. These people are very talented but I don't think it's that they're psychic. They are just acquire information on people and can read people very quickly and accurately.

I don't want to seem insensitive here but do you think it's possible that you really want to still be able to communicate with someone who has passed away and are willing to connect a lot of circumstantial evidence into an accurate reading? These psychics tend to prey on folk at vunerable times.
 
Essaux said:
If they change the way they think, there wouldn't be religion.

Religion has done nothing but cause trouble, sectarian strife, imposing stupid and oppressive rules and laws upon people, fostering animosity and anger towards people who think differently from them, in some cases religion justifies the doing of horrendous things to those who are regarded as infidels and so forth.

Man doesn't need religion to be a good person.

I'm an atheist and I do not need religion to tell me that I shouldn't steal, kill or hurt anyone. Nor does religion need to tell me that I should love my family, be kind to strangers and help those in despair. These are universal elements and as such simply believing in Mankind should suffice to be a good person.

Without religion there is at least no avoiding responsibility for one's evil deeds, no excuses. Without religion an evil person is an evil person and a good person is a good person.
Click to expand...

To argue this point, I would like to pose a counterfactual. Imagine there was no religion, as John Lennon says. Then you would have to assume that trouble, sectarian strife, oppressive rules would not have been there, which of course would not be the case at all. In fact, history shows that organized religion has been as much a binding force as a decisive force. At times when sectarian wars were rife, issue of identity was missing, in the absence of general moral code of conduct, religion served to bring people under one umbrella, to share a common social identity, and to form a moral compass. Again, I can only argue this with the view point of subcontinent. The decline of any civilization brings with it upheavals, and war for control. That was rife in Indian subcontinent after the fall of Harappan or when Aryans came about. Hinduism was a major uniting force here. When Buddhism and Jainism arose as antithesis to Hinduism, it brought relief to hundreds of "untouchables" living in the society. If you notice carefully, here in lies the complete circle. A religion can oppress but a religion can liberate too. A religion can cause wars, but a religion can bring peace too. It can be decisive but it can unite too. Just like any other human value system, religion is not a cause or an end in itself, it moves as humans that control it move.

Of course Lambs is correct in that religion can be a major control mechanism in today's world. But who is to say that humans don't want to be controlled? After all Herman for instance sounds like a completely capable human. Yet he chooses to be identified as a Christian and to live like a Christian. Each and everyone of us is controlled by some ideological device. In today's society, mindless TV bullshit and internet is as much a control device. The idea of monetary success in capitalism is a control device. We know this yet we abide, why? Because perhaps, that is what humans arise. Finding comfort in values created by others instead of having to challenge them and live on our own terms.
 
Essaux said:
Man doesn't need religion to be a good person.
Click to expand...

As far as I can tell the overwhelming majority of people do not reflect on their life & try and make informed decisions about their actions. How many people do you know think carefully about how they're going to treat people in their life and what they're going to do, and sit there and review their decisions they made, decide whether they were right and wrong and adjust their future actions accordingly?

I'd say its the minority. Most people allow themselves to be carried along their whole lives, living within whatever parameters of behaviour they absorb from around them. They probably absorb more from TV than they come up with themselves.

Whatever you say about the big religions, in principle they tend to promote good living. You can correctly say that people misuse religions to do cruel things. However, read the teachings of christ and its pretty clear that the message is one of tolerance and kindness.

Following a religion is a way for many people to absorb messages about how we should treat each other, without the effort of personal reflection. They can do it without thinking, simply by following the routine of going to church and muttering the readings and the hymns. For me, that's better than nothing.

Should people figure it out for themselves? Absolutely. I believe that if every person reflected on their lives on a regular basis & set out to be the person they think they should be, the world would improve quickly. However it you take away religion, people wouldn't automatically revert to a life of considered action and personal responsibility. They would simply end up following whatever other currents there are in society.

I've done a lot of work in inner city areas in my life, working with kids at risk of getting into gangs amongst other things. I can say with certainty that the kids I worked with going to church or mosque are absorbing much better messages about how to live their lives than the ones who learn from other kids they hang around with. Are they at risk from closed minded fundamentalist views? Yep. But the ones who believe in the bible literally and think we will literally ascend up to the sky after death tend not to be the ones carrying knives or drugs on behalf of gang members. That for me is a step in the right direction. Not perfect. But as they say, perfect is the enemy of good.

Just to be clear I don't believe in god and am not a christian.
 
Does the bible really teach tolerance and kindness?

Of course there are good bits in that regard, but then there's also fiery death and plenty of punishment. Christianity also suggests you can be as good as you want, but if you don't follow them you won't get into heaven. That's not tolerance, that's join us or suffer.
 
Redlambs said:
Does the bible really teach tolerance and kindness?

Of course there are good bits in that regard, but then there's also fiery death and plenty of punishment. Christianity also suggests you can be as good as you want, but if you don't follow them you won't get into heaven. That's not tolerance, that's join us or suffer.
Click to expand...

My mums a priest and I've asked her this very question before. How can the old and new testaments differ so much, its like a different god altogether.

Her view is that the old testament bible is not a set of instructions, no-one should take it as such. After all the bible specifically precludes wearing a cotton and linen mix. Rather the bible stories are a reflection of the social evolution of humans. The reason that the old testament god was all fire and brimstone is simply because life in those days was so brutal and short. The average age was probably in the 30s. People died of famine, died in childbirth or randomly got killed by bandits/rival tribes/invaders. It was a cruel life and its no surprise that they believed their god was a character of anger and strength.

When god made his actual presence felt through jesus, it was to show them tolerance and kindness. Not only did jesus teach kindness, god demonstrated it by allowing his son to be tortured and killed to save our sins. I never quite understood how that worked tbh. Whatever, Jesus' teachings are clearly about kindness.

So it wasn't god that changed, it was the nature of human belief. (I take no responsibility for this answer)
 
I don't get why dying is such a big deal for the son of God.
 
bishblaize said:
My mums a priest and I've asked her this very question before. How can the old and new testaments differ so much, its like a different god altogether.

Her view is that the old testament bible is not a set of instructions, no-one should take it as such. After all the bible specifically precludes wearing a cotton and linen mix. Rather the bible stories are a reflection of the social evolution of humans. The reason that the old testament god was all fire and brimstone is simply because life in those days was so brutal and short. The average age was probably in the 30s. People died of famine, died in childbirth or randomly got killed by bandits/rival tribes/invaders. It was a cruel life and its no surprise that they believed their god was a character of anger and strength.

When god made his actual presence felt through jesus, it was to show them tolerance and kindness. Not only did jesus teach kindness, god demonstrated it by allowing his son to be tortured and killed to save our sins. I never quite understood how that worked tbh. Whatever, Jesus' teachings are clearly about kindness.

So it wasn't god that changed, it was the nature of human belief. (I take no responsibility for this answer)
Click to expand...

Well I wouldn't think and omnipotent and omnipresent God could ever actually change. Only the times and how the bible is viewed.

Which further leads away from it actually being the word of God in reality doesn't it?
 
Some Christians believe that the bible is the word of god, but not in the sense that God literally sent down the stories in the first place. Instead they believe that by considering the stories and meditating on the lessons it can stimulate spiritual & intellectual change in you.
 
bishblaize said:
Some Christians believe that the bible is the word of god, but not in the sense that God literally sent down the stories in the first place. Instead they believe that by considering the stories and meditating on the lessons it can stimulate spiritual & intellectual change in you.
Click to expand...

And some believe it is the word of god.

It shows how strange the whole thing is really ;)
 
bishblaize said:
As far as I can tell the overwhelming majority of people do not reflect on their life & try and make informed decisions about their actions. How many people do you know think carefully about how they're going to treat people in their life and what they're going to do, and sit there and review their decisions they made, decide whether they were right and wrong and adjust their future actions accordingly?

I'd say its the minority. Most people allow themselves to be carried along their whole lives, living within whatever parameters of behaviour they absorb from around them. They probably absorb more from TV than they come up with themselves.
Click to expand...
You have a very odd and very dismissive view of your fellows.
 
Redlambs said:
And some believe it is the word of god.

It shows how strange the whole thing is really ;)
Click to expand...

And that's the crux between Muslims and Christians. As a Muslim I'm obviously very drawn to Christianity but the fact their holy source cannot be deemed 100% kosher (mixed puns, sorry) means I can't put 100% of my faith into it. Not a criticism by the way, just giving some Muslim psyche and POV.

The Qur'an on the other hand challenges the common man to prove its correctness/incorrectness. And this is why I don't understand why people haven't gone out of their way to dedicate their lives to taking up this challenge and rididng Islam from the majority on this planet (obviously you can't reach the brainwashed ones, they'll believe regardless). Man can't prove/disprove the existence of God with 100% facts but can certainly cut the only thread holding Muslims on to their beliefs.
 
Dumbstar said:
And that's the crux between Muslims and Christians. As a Muslim I'm obviously very drawn to Christianity but the fact their holy source cannot be deemed 100% kosher (mixed puns, sorry) means I can't put 100% of my faith into it. Not a criticism by the way, just giving some Muslim psyche and POV.

The Qur'an on the other hand challenges the common man to prove its correctness/incorrectness. And this is why I don't understand why people haven't gone out of their way to dedicate their lives to taking up this challenge and rididng Islam from the majority on this planet (obviously you can't reach the brainwashed ones, they'll believe regardless). Man can't prove/disprove the existence of God with 100% facts but can certainly cut the only thread holding Muslims on to their beliefs.
Click to expand...
It's just a presentational point: no believers want to have their faith undermined (in fact they spend half their time praying that it won't be by doubt). I thought that the muslim position was that much of the OT/NT was the word of god but it had been corrupted by man (not an unreasonable position given the political adjustments to the canon).
 
peterstorey said:
It's just a presentational point: no believers want to have their faith undermined (in fact they spend half their time praying that it won't be by doubt). I thought that the muslim position was that much of the OT/NT was the word of god but it had been corrupted by man (not an unreasonable position given the political adjustments to the canon).
Click to expand...

You're correct, we believe the bible was the word of God but changed by man.

And yes everyone suffers doubt. Muslims just as much as others, religious or irreligious.
 
Dumbstar said:
The Qur'an on the other hand challenges the common man to prove its correctness/incorrectness. And this is why I don't understand why people haven't gone out of their way to dedicate their lives to taking up this challenge and rididng Islam from the majority on this planet.
Click to expand...

People do, but then you get to a sticking point, like say, evolution, and you just go "well I don't believe in that" (or at the very least "I believe in it only in a way that accomodates my beliefs")...so what's the point? It's proved. You're never actually willing or open to it being disproved, you're just comforting yourself with the semantic notion of this "challenge"
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.