I couldn't gives a rat's arse about the psychology of religion - just don't put a scientific explanation for life the universe and everything on the same level of complexity as as 'god dunnit'.
Religion, what's the point?
- Thread starter TheRedFlag
- Start date
On this point in particular, as (ahem) Sam Harris has raised before there is a particular problem with jihadist groups if they obtain nuclear weapons. The concept of Mutually Assured Destruction is at the core of every country's nuclear arms pile. No-one dare use one because anyone who does will also get wiped out. They are, in essence, defensive not offensive weapons.
The reason its a problem for, say, North Korea to have nuclear weapons is because they can't be threatened with nuclear attack not because they're particularly likely to attack others in the foreseeable future.
However the difference with an ideology where one's death in war is not only irrelevant but actually desirable is that it chucks the concept of MAD out the window. Now nuclear weapons become a tool of attack not defence. If the opposition wipes you out its fine, as long as you wipe them out at the same time. So as soon as you get one you use one.
fwiw I suspect these groups are a long way from getting nuclear weapons at the moment. But is a genuine point.
Many of their talking points with regards to what drives fundamentalism, causality etc. Sweeping statements are often made when discussing religion. Richard Dawkins for example in an interview with Mehdi Hasan said he's only interested in what's true. Yet anybody who tries to bring in a bit of nuance with geopolitics is brushed aside as an apologist. I was making a general point sorry for the confusion. Shouldn't have said it under a subquote.
It is imperative that we do criticise ideologies and bad ideas. But keep it proportional. Don't make things worse, like we did under the Iraq War which was backed by Hitchens. It's this we're better than those medieval savages over there mantra that I take issue with. I take issue with portraying the effects of those ideologies in a hyperbolic manner and using it to justify wars, stripping civil liberties unnecessarily and not tackling the issue properly.
Our government in the UK for example was trying to fight extremism under the conveyor belt theory of picking out factors that lead to one being radicalised which was based upon crude caricatures and was not evidence based at all. And it hasn't failed at all. Calling for something to be understood better and kept in context is not apologising for it.
What I take issue with is that Harris and Dawkins do not give enough credence to those factors which are in many instances more significant than religion. And in many cases of course religion can be beneficial in that sense. And also if anybody points out those factors as more significant they are apologists. Atheists who do it are called cowardly liberals. Social scientists are ignored or said to be wrong. Counter-terrorist experts, pollsters are not listened to. Anybody who disagree with new atheist dogma gets a blog post and an angry twitter feed telling them they are obfuscating and their motives are called into question.
Like I said, I'm not a fan of religion, I think it sucks. Its backwards, not true scientifically. But as a scientist, as a believer in rationalism I want to understand to what extent it is pernicious and not exacerbate that threat so as to not empower fascists or neocons. And also because I want to know the best way of tackling it in a manner which is consistent with secular, democratic values.
The problem I have is that a bigger case can be made for global warming (threatens the entire fecking planet), and yet we are doing nothing about it because of our devotion to capitalism and belief in conspiracy theories. In South Africa, hundreds of thousands died because of HIV denialism becoming official policy of the government there. Millions die because of a lack of access to vaccines/basic health supplies because of income/resource inequality and the way capitalism is set up. Exacerbated by wars, poverty, corruption.
Does this excuse terrorism, does this downplay the other ones? No it doesn't. But to say that Islam is the motherlode of bad ideas. And they said "Islamic faith" by the way, not Islamic extremism, fundamentalism. That is nonsense as I said. The Islamic faith, as practised by majority of Muslims, is incredibly diverse and most of it is a world away from the head choppers of ISIS. I cannot believe I'm having to even say that.
Western society has a lot of blame to share for our planet being fecked up. So cultural relativism I don't believe in, because criticise ideas and no idea is above that. But cultural supremacy, yeah we can have gays, free thinkers, democracy and we should propagate those ideas but how about being introspective and working for self betterment as well. And just because our actions (in terms of foreign policy) and felt by brown people abroad doesn't mean that we should let ourselves off the hook.
Not at all, religion can be terrible. Culture can be terrible. I just happen to think religion isn't the major cause of every think wrong with the world. And that it's fine for most people. But we shouldn't generalise. I think you let our foreign policy off the hook.
http://www.thebureauinvestigates.co...ictims-in-pakistan-named-as-al-qaeda-members/
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/nov/24/-sp-us-drone-strikes-kill-1147
So only 4% definitively identified as part of al qaeda. And of course we had the Obama administration redefining what an enemy combatant would be.
"Mr. Obama embraced a disputed method for counting civilian casualties that did little to box him in. It in effect counts all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants, according to several administration officials, unless there is explicit intelligence posthumously proving them innocent"
That is scary. Because it is done with little oversight, and they are redefining what it means to be a civilian and enemy combatant which lets them off the hook most of the time. Guilty unless proven innocent. And most of them simply can't be proven innocent in those tribal areas. And drone attack victims' families despite their protests are not given mainstream coverage. And the fact that majority support this policy scares me. I am not doubting that it might be effective or whether its a better strategy than the collateral damage that might be occured with boots on the ground but the fact that its morality and effectiveness is virtually unquestioned scares me.
When Nabila Rehman, a girl who lost her family from drone strikes came to the States to speak, only 1 congressperson showed up. World away from Malala Yousafzai.
And of course not to mention our support for Israel, despots in Saudi (who we buy oil from regardless) and the shady private military contractors (e.g. Blackwater) we hire to carry out our dirty work in these wars.
Again sectarianism and violence produces the majority of our casualties in the muslim world and I have no problem speaking out against that. But to deny that the Iraq War (and our interventionism and wider foreign policy) set in motion a lot of what happened afterwards in terms of violence, mortality and instability is wrong. And the people who want to continue those policies, their ideas should be as vociferously challenged as we would for those who want more religion extremism in society. They are equally pernicious, if not more so.
Thats the key disconnect I feel we have, and indeed my gripes with new atheists. Very illiberal in their worldwide, and no wonder why they find themselves on the same side as the Robert Spencers of the world when talking about foreign policy.
On the studies I agree they're not great. But my point was that there clearly is a barrage of criticism of Islam in the press and in discourse.
I posted an MI5 report from their behavioural science unit which challenged the basic assertions many have with regards to a link between radicalism and religion which was not agenda journalism. This was the MI5, not Amnesty international.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2008/aug/20/uksecurity.terrorism1
Despite what some commentators say about being struck down by the PC police if they do. Its almost universal in the west. And a lot of it is lazy and perpetuates stereotypes, and this is reflected in the negative view many have of Muslims in general, and many who say they "do not trust" Muslims. And hate crimes against Muslims on the rise too, along with arson attacks on mosques etc. And Bill Maher saying it doesn't go far enough.
Like I said though if people made the distinction as Muslim groups make (distancing themselves from terrorist attacks), and recognising that while many Muslims are backwards on many things, we have nothing to do with "Islamic inspired violence" in foreign countries. We're always told we don't condemn it enough despite an unprecedented and unequivocal condemnathon on social media, by community groups etc. Its just never going to be enough for people. Nicely catalogued here
http://muslimscondemningthings.tumblr.com/
And regarding the last part of course I am not saying it is equivalent to what it means to be any of those things you mentioned above, but of course I could have been one of the 96% of those who would have been killed in a drone strike if I was still living in Pakistan or been shipped off to Guantanamo and never tried (and many who continue to advocate for both). And constantly being told that me, my friends and family members who had no problem with me getting into science, being an atheist are all part of or are cultural enablers of a death cult. I like being a British muslim, its a relatively open and tolerant society but thats because a substantial amount of people despite all they hear about Muslims in real life are closer to "naive" Ben Afflecks as opposed to the BNP/far right types. And thank goodness for that. I'm glad there is some pushback at least against new atheist talking points with regards to Islam. But this was still the country that introduced Control Orders and we might see something even more reactionary should another major incident happen.
Edit: Apologies for deleting your quotes, exceeded the word limit.
Agreed re: ISIS and a lot of the other groups are genuine death cults and scary people and we must do everything in our power to stop them getting nukes. But for example I don't think you could say the same for say, Iran who would have a self preservationist streak. Stopping proliferation of nuclear weapons in these countries I am all for. Not sure I'd be too keen on a Sarah Palin having the nuclear launch codes either, mind. But bit of a separate issue this, though no less interesting.
Education was always accessible only to the ones who could afford it and had the ability and desire to pursue it - that's a completely different issue. Don't try to change the subject - I'm talking about the ones who got the "education" - countless children hungry for knowledge were made to read over and over and memorize meaningless religious text instead of being thought anything substantial.
This is more accurate: Just because now education is largely free of the religious oppression for most in the west doesn't mean it always was. Here are just a few examples from the past:
- Muhammad ibn Zakariyā Rāzī (865-925) - One of his books was a collection of everything known about medicine, it offended a Muslim priest who ordered the doctor to be beaten over the head with his own manuscript, which caused him to go blind, preventing him from future practice.
- Michael Servetus (1511-1553) - His book, which outlined the discovery of pulmonary circulation was deemed to be heretical. The Inquisition arrested, tortured and burned him at the stake together with copies of his book.
- Giordano Bruno (1548 – 1600) - His idea of infinite universe was deemed to be heretical. The Inquisition arrested, tortured and burned him at the stake. On the 400th anniversary of Bruno's death, in 2000, Cardinal Angelo Sodano declared Bruno's death to be a "sad episode" but, despite his regret, he defended Bruno's prosecutors, maintaining that the Inquisitors "had the desire to serve freedom and promote the common good and did everything possible to save his life."
- Galileo Galilei (1564-1642) - Was found "vehemently suspect of heresy" for his heliocentric views and was required to "abjure, curse and detest" his theory. He was sentenced to house arrest, where he remained for the rest of his life and his offending texts were banned.
- Saudi Arabia - The 12th-grade textbook mentions evolution by name only where it claims that Charles Darwin has "denied Allah's creation of humanity". The rest of the textbook focuses on descriptions of the taxonomic ranks: it makes no further mention of evolution, only quoting Qur'an verses as relevant to certain groups of animals.
- United States - The states of Texas, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Missouri, South Carolina, Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama require in their science standards that students "critically analyze key aspects of evolutionary theory."
- United Kingdom - An organisation called Truth in Science has distributed teaching packs of creationist information to schools, and claims that fifty-nine schools are using the packs as "a useful classroom resource."
- Turkey - In 1985 the Minister of National Education, Youth and Sports Vehbi Dinçerler had scientific creationism added to high school texts, and also had the discredited Lamarckism presented alongside Darwinism.
- Brazil - In 2004 teachers of religious education classes in schools of the education department of Rio de Janeiro began to present creationism in their classes as scientific fact. The practice was directly initiated by politicians in power who were promoting their personal religious views. For example, a Brazilian senator, Marcelo Crivella, the former Minister of Fishing and Aquiculture, publicly declared his religiously founded antagonism to evolution.
All those examples are totally irrelevant. I make no claim that religion has no adverse effect on education whatsoever.
Rather I'm refuting your claim that 'billions' of children would have been learning maths and science, and probably nailing a cure for cancer or producing clean energy right now, but for religion. Unless you can show that those 'countless' children could have gotten a degree level education or equivalent if it weren't for religion then your claim is just hot air.
I don't see how it's irrelevant. I'm glad you are admitting that religion has an adverse effect on education and scientific research, but you are still missing the point. You are arguing that only a small portion of the religiously indoctrinated people would've had a degree level education or equivalent, which is true, but it doesn't lead to you conclusion that without the proper degree they would've amount to nothing. I completely disagree - education is important of course, but it's not everything - here is a very quick list from the top of my head of people with very limited education, who made major contributions:
- Michael Faraday - electricity and magnetism
- Thomas Edison - telephone, light bulb and over 1000 other inventions
- William Herschel - astronomy, physics and biology
- Wright Brothers - airplane
- Mary Anning - paleontology
There are two ways in which religion is suppressing progress:
- Suppressing knowledge when it doesn't agree with the religious teachings
- Suffocating any inquisitiveness and skepticism from an early age, by teaching that the answer for every question is God
Last edited:
Tbh that's so ludicrous I can't even be bothered to respond fully. Believe what you will. You can't wag the other dogs tail and all that.
Though I would point out that every name in your list apart from Edison was a Christian...
Your refutes are getting weaker and weaker. So what if they were Christian? Darwin was Christian too, Einstein was a Jew, Giordano Bruno was a Christian, Galileo Galilei was a Christian, Newton was a Christian, I can name hundreds of scientists who belonged to one religion, or another - it doesn't mean anything. In the past you didn't have much choice - you get baptized at birth and you had to follow the main religion of the society, or you'd get ostracized and persecuted. However these people were lucky that religion didn't completely poison their mind, like it did to billions of other not so fortunate people. Or you could say they were unlucky, because many of them paid dearly for their discoveries that opposed the religious views.
Going to grab some popcorn. This thread is getting entertaining.So, every religious scientist in history was successful despite being religious?
Prove it.
Here it is:
"God made all the scientists. In order to discover the secrets of the universe he made them to ignore the teachings of God. Then God looked over all he had made, and he saw that it was good! And then God said 'DON'T QUESTION MY WORK, BISHBLAZE, CAUSE I AM MYSTERIOUS!'"
I know this is the only prove that can completely convince a religious person, so I hope you are happy...
On a serious note - there is a lot of evidence that many of the so called 'religious' scientists were either not practicing to begin with it, or at some point of their life became disillusioned with their religion.
I didn't. I think all religion is bunk. It's just that I also think that Richard Dawkins is a thundercnut.
Dawkins may be a bit overexposed but he is asking the important questions on religion. If it weren't for him and the others (Harris/Hitchens et al), this wouldn't be front and center in the public discussion as its become in recent years.
I will give them that. Dawkin's work on passionately arguing for acceptance of evolution is great too. It's criminal that the theory, possibly one of the most well supported and greatest idea/hypothesis in terms of scope is not understood and/or not accepted.
Also I can't imagine the personal risk a lot of these guys take when talking about these things in terms of a extremist nutter going after them. Just wished they all had a tad more Owen Jones in them.
The best thing about people like Hitchens and Dawkins is their commitment to intellectual honesty. The trouble with people like Owen Jones is that when producing an analysis of a religion or a particular part of a religion, it is crosschecked against the figurative handbook on how to be a good modern liberal, socialist, feminist or whatever it is they choose to label themselves as. The left is riddled with these people and it's because of people like Hitchens and Dawkins that the discussion is at least reasonably free and open.
No they're not. Only people who incessantly play down the obvious religious aspect of it are brushed aside as apologists. I've never seen Dawkins (who probably doesn't know much about it anyway) or Harris (and certainly not Hitchens) say that geopolitics don't matter.
Hitchens backed it, Dawkins and Harris didn't to my knowledge. You seem to think that Dawkins and Harris are a lot more hawkish than they are, and take issue with positions that they don't actually hold or advocate.
Just a stream of claims. You'll need to be more specific. And there's nothing wrong with questioning social scientists or terrorism experts if you think they're wrong about something. You seem to think we should all uncritically accept everything they say.
Global warming is a different topic. If you want to discuss that, there's probably a thread for it (unless you want to specifically discuss the religious opposition to preventing global warming, which obviously belongs here).
Create a thread about it, I might even join in. But stop changing the subject. This thread is about religion and its effects on society and the world.
I can't believe it either, since nobody has claimed that the majority of Muslims are akin to the head choppers of ISIS, or anything of the sort.
Look who's suddenly comfortable generalizing. And I have no idea why you're bringing skin color into this.
"Our"? And I don't let Western foreign policy off the hook. The Iraq war was a complete disaster orchestrated by some of the most incompetent men ever to have held high office in the US, and that failure certainly played a major role in the creation of ISIS. But it does not account for the thousands of foreign fighters who have joined their ranks, to take one example.
Your problem with the "new atheists" is clearly that you don't know much about them. You just know that Hitchens supported the Iraq war, and automatically you conclude that therefore all "new atheists" must have.
Are you really saying that Bill Maher thinks arson attacks and hate crimes against Muslims "doesn't go far enough"? That's ridiculous.
Hate crimes against Muslims is hardly a big problem. In comparison, Jews are fleeing many countries in Europe because of the increase in hate crimes and harassment coming mainly from the Muslim population, and there are far more hate crimes against Jews in the West than there are hate crimes against Muslims, despite Jews being a much smaller and more vulnerable minority.
Do you have sources for that last paragraph? Very concerning if true.
It's been widely reported in countries like France, Germany, UK, Sweden and Belgium. Just google "Jews fleeing Europe". Concerning indeed.
They use the word apologist quite a bit. Reza Aslan, Keith Ellison have been called that. The former doesn't downplay religion as much as up-play geopolitics. Scott Atran and Robert Pape are also called that on the blogopshere.
That's probably true. They blog a lot and their positions have changed too. Certainly Dawkins is the least hawkish. They both align themselves with Ayaan Hirsi who has said some outrageous things. Sam Harris of course said that fascists have it right about Islam in terms of the threat Islam poses to europe. And spoke of his opposition to 9/11 (not on legal grounds, but on what is 'desirable'). Certainly finds himself on the same side as neocons on loads of issues when I've read what he's had to say. Just usually says it in a billion words and pretty articulately but with a position/conclusion thats still wrong I feel. But again everything I have pointed out about Sam Harris we don't agree on so maybe you're more familiar with his work (and therefore have a better gauge of his politics) so I'll concede that.
I have been pretty specific, cited that massive Gallup poll, cited works by Robert Pape and Scott Atran, the MI5 report leaked by the guardian. And of course we should question it. The way to do that primarily and scientifically is carry our research of your own and publish. Which curiously none of the new atheists, despite their books and polemics have done on this topic.
The context of this was to say that Islam (i.e. the religion of Islam) being the motherlode of bad ideas, a uniquely destructive force, and the greatest force for evil or an existential threat is not true and I gave examples as to how other things are as much or, in my opinion, more damaging to our civilisation as threats/potential threats. Radical islam can be up there, especially if they get nukes. But not the islam (the faith as an aggregate as practiced by vast majority of people) in general, certainly not more so than the examples I cited.
I was being glib regarding skin colour. Perhaps to make a point that there is a tendency for many to view collateral damage as minor inconveniences to our talking points rather than genuine tragedies which we should do everything we can to avoid. Like the point I made about our drone policy.
And reg conflating ISIS to muslims in general. Read anything by Robert Spencer, Brigitte Gabriel, Pam Geller or other right wingers on the internet who occasionally get mainstream coverage. Debbie Schlussel in her blogs listed one of my friends name down who signed a petition once calling for peace in the middle east. He's now listed in a post permanently as a "pro-Hamas" doctor along with many others in America. There's a pretty scary world on the internet and organisations like SION (stop islamisation of nations). Pam Geller managed to run ads in the city on buses such as the moderate of today is the headline of tomorrow along with saying moderate muslims are a myth.
This kind of craziness and rhetoric is what inspired anders breivek along with the "Eurabia" conspiracy theories.
No it doesn't because a lot of things may explain foreign fighters. Glory-seeking, religion, radicalisation, identity crisis, social isolation, poverty, politics, history/predilection towards violence, perceived injustice. To what extent each of those things are responsible is hard to say when there's little data, but of course people will jump to whichever conclusion they find fits the narrative of their world view. I would certainly hope a scientists/rationalist would want studies or data and be open minded.
Maybe thats true, whats true is that many such Nathan Lean and loads of others go after them too. Including many of their fellow atheists. So I'm not the only one in this regard. I've certainly more on them on social commentary than I have for most others (mainly because they write loads) but I'll admit to have not read their written work a lot nor do i follow them as much as many others do.
No my point on Maher is that he thinks criticism of Muslims doesn't go far enough, of course he opposes all forms of violence etc. He's a bit of a conundrum.
Post-911 its a big problem at a societal level in terms of racial abuse. Certainly I don't know a single hijabi girl in Britain who hasn't experienced some form of it (even the mildest forms pretty scary like spitting, swearing). But there's loads of evidence to suggest that it's a massive problem in actual terms as well and getting worse.
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/fe...slim-hate-crime-rising-20147512135922796.html
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/hate-crime-uk-statistics-muslims-2963050
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-29424165
http://www.gallup.com/poll/157082/islamophobia-understanding-anti-muslim-sentiment-west.aspx
I don't know the figures or incidents reg Jews but that would be horrible too, there's a terrible strain of mainstream antisemitism thats normalised among Muslims. Indeed its still there in far right Europe movements. But yeah French burkha ban, Minaret ban in switzerland and many far right parties (BNP, National Front, Golden Dawn, the dutch Party for Freedom, Die Freiheit) co-opting opposition to Islam/Islamism as their raison d'etre suggests its a big enough problem.
The European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (mainly set up in Vienna to monitor antisemistism) reports
http://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra_uploads/156-Manifestations_EN.pdf
Greece is experiencing Islamophobia at a massive scale as well with Golden Dawn threatening the building of a mosque in Athens (currently there are only makeshift ones that are not safe and attacked/vandalised despite 300,000 muslims there)
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-20820349
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/greece-mus...utside-athens-arab-hellenic-institute-1470584
Belfast has had a bit of it too, made the news a few times
http://www.commdiginews.com/world-n...-ireland-to-escape-anti-islam-violence-18836/
Last edited:
Here's an interesting interview with Brian Whitaker on atheism in the Arab world (he has a new book out on the subject), it covers some of the ideas under discussion here:
https://newhumanist.org.uk/articles/4784/what-does-it-mean-to-be-an-arab-atheist
https://newhumanist.org.uk/articles/4784/what-does-it-mean-to-be-an-arab-atheist
Are you linking Maher's polemics with the above post 9/11 anti-Islam trends in Europe and the US ? Personally, I think the above issues are related to 9/11 and are completely separate from the new atheist questioning of religion. This is where I feel the likes of Greenwald and Aslan miss the mark. We should be able to vigorously question bad ideas without being branded as discriminatory.
I'm one of the fortunate ones that finally broke free of the brainwashing.
I've been told by a few science professors, and an astronaut, that had religion not closed up shop on the world for centuries, man would visited the moon and space by the 1700s, and we'd probably have already colonized Mars, and possibly have explored beyond our solar system by today. Such was the stunted progression of science and technology that religious oppression caused.
No not directly (or even indirectly actually) but more the general climate of islamophobia which I think is more prevalent than people think. The problem isn't calling ISIS out or radical fundamentalists (who exist in Islam) but differentiating between them and moderate muslims. Your average Joe Islam doesn't have much a voice in the media, more and more are speaking out recently though via social media. Although there are others who find the mere fact that we are asked to differentiate ourselves from violent thugs pretty offensive. And also despite the fact that clearly many speak out, it is always said that they aren't speaking out enough.
So for example, Maher started going on about implying Muslim moderates aren't in fact moderates because certain percentages (in countries like Egypt, Pakistan) believe in stoning for apostates etc which is all appalling but to extrapolate from that to make a general point about Muslims (worldwide) being dangerous (to the level of jihadis) I thought was unfair. But I think Maher does it to all religions, so calling him discriminatory is wrong. And especially because he acknowledges the role our politicians play in creating political environments overseas that are myopic and self serving but dangerous in the long run.
Old post I know but... Oh the ironing..
This cartoon was presumably prompted by the shootings in Paris but is probably more at home in this thread.
How to suck at your religion.
How to suck at your religion.
Yeah, great comic
It's been around for a couple of years that comic. Good non-the less.
It's funny, but I don't like the last part - there is absolutely no reason to encourage religion - nothing good has come out of it.
I'm pretty sure there would've been other maybe even better art in its place, but I get your point - the Egyptian and Mayan pyramids wouldn't have been built, not to mention all the cathedrals.
My mate started a Pokemon religion when we were younger and when we called over for the service on a Sunday evening he had plenty of biscuits and cake there. That was nice. So I wouldn't say "no good" has come from it.
Einstein was an agonstic.
The point of religion ?
Initially ? It was just mass control, the intellectuals who where able to read and write created stories, who will allowed them to create a strong hierarchy among the population, a spiritual order was the best option because it was impossible to prove that the stories were lies.
Initially ? It was just mass control, the intellectuals who where able to read and write created stories, who will allowed them to create a strong hierarchy among the population, a spiritual order was the best option because it was impossible to prove that the stories were lies.
@The Man Himself
Right, I guess this is the right thread. Where were we? Oh.. yeah...
Now.. don't shoot me down here, what I'm writing is pure my opinion, experience and journey, don't ask me to back it up with science.
Religion for me is a spiritual experience, it's a spiritual journey. There are reasons why millions of people are a devout "insert religion here", it's more than a simple "they have been brainwashed into giving their hard earned cash".
I don't expect a non-religious people to understand the feeling, it's kinda like explaining orgasm to someone who hasn't experienced it. The way it happens in my life, I have been experiencing spiritual events in my life, it probably nothing in the scale of Budha or Muhammad, but there are experiences that no words can describe. I've been strengthened by my religion in my darkest hour, there are times when those words from the bible give me strength to carry on, there are times when it inspires me, there are times when it saved me from doing stupid things which... looking bad would be pretty precarious if I have chosen. There are times when my prayers are answered in a miraculous way. And no, I wasn't talking about the congregation, it's purely the verses that delivers the guidance.
I have been changed by my religion, I was able to restrain my emotion better, I was able to restore my conflicts with my loved ones, I see my problems in a different way (although to be fair, having a religion doesn't mean all your problems goes away), and I see life in a different way. In short, religion make me a better person, and I've seen many people touched by religion (again, whatever their religion is) and transformed into a better person.
So... in response to the Original post I made in the Hebdo thread, I do believe that religion makes the world a better place and the positive far outweight the bad
If everyone loved their neighbour, no war would have happened.
Right, I guess this is the right thread. Where were we? Oh.. yeah...
Now.. don't shoot me down here, what I'm writing is pure my opinion, experience and journey, don't ask me to back it up with science.
Religion for me is a spiritual experience, it's a spiritual journey. There are reasons why millions of people are a devout "insert religion here", it's more than a simple "they have been brainwashed into giving their hard earned cash".
I don't expect a non-religious people to understand the feeling, it's kinda like explaining orgasm to someone who hasn't experienced it. The way it happens in my life, I have been experiencing spiritual events in my life, it probably nothing in the scale of Budha or Muhammad, but there are experiences that no words can describe. I've been strengthened by my religion in my darkest hour, there are times when those words from the bible give me strength to carry on, there are times when it inspires me, there are times when it saved me from doing stupid things which... looking bad would be pretty precarious if I have chosen. There are times when my prayers are answered in a miraculous way. And no, I wasn't talking about the congregation, it's purely the verses that delivers the guidance.
I have been changed by my religion, I was able to restrain my emotion better, I was able to restore my conflicts with my loved ones, I see my problems in a different way (although to be fair, having a religion doesn't mean all your problems goes away), and I see life in a different way. In short, religion make me a better person, and I've seen many people touched by religion (again, whatever their religion is) and transformed into a better person.
So... in response to the Original post I made in the Hebdo thread, I do believe that religion makes the world a better place and the positive far outweight the bad
If everyone loved their neighbour, no war would have happened.
I don't think a mere mortal could have written a Bible, that bible remains relevant from the ages of stick and stones to the age of nuclear missiles. You probably think it's just a fiction, but if it indeed is a fiction, the one who wrote it must have been a super intelligent person out of this world.
None of the verses in the bible are related to kings and commoners only, there are verses which would have contradicted one another if its made with the purpose of creating a strong hierarchy in one government : I'm your God and only God, there's no one else but me? I don't think that's a very good story to make a nation love their king
Religion is holding the Free Man and World hostage. And too many of us show signs of Stockholm Syndrome.
Religion needs to be combatted, it serves no good it only fosters tension, divide and anger.
Religion needs to be combatted, it serves no good it only fosters tension, divide and anger.