Religion, what's the point?
- Thread starter TheRedFlag
- Start date
My view is that religion is here to provide hope that there is something better than this earth we live on. Also, it can be a way to make the world a better place.
Clearly, it does not always have this effect. I remember watching a documentary a while back about a Pastor in South Africa who was clearly using religion as a way to make money. He was a millionaire with his many followers (a lot of them poor) giving him a substantial amount of money.
Religion can very easily be manipulated to produce negative things, however I believe much good comes from it too. The negative effects are more likely to be brought forward in the media (I have no issue with that btw) but I don't think this is necessarily a true reflection of many religions.
Clearly, it does not always have this effect. I remember watching a documentary a while back about a Pastor in South Africa who was clearly using religion as a way to make money. He was a millionaire with his many followers (a lot of them poor) giving him a substantial amount of money.
Religion can very easily be manipulated to produce negative things, however I believe much good comes from it too. The negative effects are more likely to be brought forward in the media (I have no issue with that btw) but I don't think this is necessarily a true reflection of many religions.
How's it going bhai?
You are right we can freely practice our faith in all countries of the world, and the status quo is fine.
I find that hard to believe in this day and age to be honest. My daughter is starting primary school next year and nowhere in the application process did they ask what her religion was. And it's a Catholic school.
I was in the same school as a child and back then it was like that. We used to be made take visits to the church for confession, and the priest would visit us in class and ask whether we went to mass last weekend or not. I'm only 27 now so this wasn't an age ago, but it's nothing like that in the school anymore.
The majority of young families in Ireland now are far from religious, so if there are still schools doing this, it won't last much longer.
I'll try and answer some of the questions.
No. The common Muslim just wants to live their life in peace in the country they reside. But this works both ways, the country shouldn't ban the Islamic dress for example..
I'm not going to go in depth with the intricacies of Sharia law in this post, but it has been grossly misrepresented not just by the media, but by people such as Anjem Choudhry himself. What I will say, Sharia law is a form of governance, not a manual on punishment. I'll send you a PM later with a little more depth if you'd like.
I'm not sure Handanovic is Muslim, so I'm not sure on his level of knowledge on the Qu'ran etc. I personally believe that there is very little that is vague about the Qu'ran. Generally, if there is something I'd like more information on, there are other avenues of information, such as the hadith and Sunnah. Following that there is something called the tafsir of the Qu'ran which is a unanimous type of commentary or interpretation. Following that there are even further other sources of information, like the 4 schools of thought/jurisprudence. My point is, you'd be hard pressed to find something in Islam which hasn't been talked about in depth, specifically the Qu'ran, by people with the required level of knowledge etc.
I hope that helps.
No. The common Muslim just wants to live their life in peace in the country they reside. But this works both ways, the country shouldn't ban the Islamic dress for example..
I'm not going to go in depth with the intricacies of Sharia law in this post, but it has been grossly misrepresented not just by the media, but by people such as Anjem Choudhry himself. What I will say, Sharia law is a form of governance, not a manual on punishment. I'll send you a PM later with a little more depth if you'd like.
I'm not sure Handanovic is Muslim, so I'm not sure on his level of knowledge on the Qu'ran etc. I personally believe that there is very little that is vague about the Qu'ran. Generally, if there is something I'd like more information on, there are other avenues of information, such as the hadith and Sunnah. Following that there is something called the tafsir of the Qu'ran which is a unanimous type of commentary or interpretation. Following that there are even further other sources of information, like the 4 schools of thought/jurisprudence. My point is, you'd be hard pressed to find something in Islam which hasn't been talked about in depth, specifically the Qu'ran, by people with the required level of knowledge etc.
I hope that helps.
I only found out about the string theory a few months back, and it absolutely blew my mind. It really does make you think that for all the knowledge and scientific breakthroughs we've had, we probably know feck all about anything in the grand scheme of things.
I drive myself insane thinking of this stuff at night when I try to go asleep
Edit: I was actually thinking of the double-slit experiment. But it still ties in to that.
Last edited:
I havent heard a Muslim say out loud that the Europeans should be subject to sharia law, I dont think the common man that but paradoxically they dont want things such as the cartoons to be drawn even if its in other countries. I know its weird but it is what it is.
Regarding the Quran, yes some parts are vague and can be interpreted in any number of ways but it also states clearly that the Quran is the infallible word of God and must be always be obeyed. Muslims cant simply say "oh well we're going to disregard this part of the Quran because its stupid" they'll say something like "oh I dont believe in that strict interpretation" even when somethings are clear cut.
The majority of Muslims have not reached a stage where they can ignore some tenants of their religion openly.
I went to a secondary Catholic school and they were selective. Firstly, the preferred children from feeder primary school's which were also Catholic. Also if you were 'confirmed' you were given priority. My family is not Catholic and older brother got rejected from the school initially however after my mother wrote to them, they let him in. Once you had a sibling in the school, you were pretty much guaranteed a place.
My brother is 22 so it's not exactly an age ago.
Also, if you were a Catholic student at the school, you were eligible for a free school bus pass, whereas if you were not Catholic, you would have a normal bus pass where you pay the child fare on the school bus.
I think you're avoiding the point I'm trying to make on purpose. What I'm saying is that every theory requires some degree of faith, or to put it even more simply, to join a couple of dots without the necessary evidence to be able to make that connection.
Gravity requires faith?
Sorry, I wasn't questioning whether it actually happened or not. I just think it's a joke if it does still happen in some schools.
Church of England lays claim to 1 in 4 primary schools in England. I was under the impression a child has to be baptized and the parents church goers to get into these?
edit: surprisingly hard to find solid info on it but in the Government School Admissions Code it does state schools with a religious character are allowed to prioritise allocations according to faith.
UK needs to start setting some examples...
edit: surprisingly hard to find solid info on it but in the Government School Admissions Code it does state schools with a religious character are allowed to prioritise allocations according to faith.
UK needs to start setting some examples...
Last edited:
Yeah, just highlighting that it's not rare.
Its Hamadovich mate come on its right there! :P
Anyways actually im a formerly devout Muslim (now an an Atheist, yikes!) of Arab origin so I do know quite a bit about the Quran, its teachings and the way many Muslims lead their lives. Even if I wasnt all the information one would need is at the click of a button.
There are definitely things about the Quran that no one really knows what they mean like the Muqatta'at for example or vague things such as whether or not its possible for Jews/Christians to go to heaven.
I'm not trying to antagonize you mind just clarifying a couple of things since you mentioned me.
I appreciate that that's a well intended analogy, but it's truly an unfair, and quite frankly, awful one.
A human being can be perfectly rational and free of mind and conclude, like Thomas Jefferson, that there may be a first cause of some kind of divine origin. One can even be a Catholic, such as John F. Kennedy, and be free of mind, a slave to no one.
The slave you mentioned was in a completely different situation from that of Jefferson, about whom Kennedy made one of the famous statements ever made by one president about a former president:
At a dinner honoring American Nobel Prize winners, April 29, 1962:
"I think that this is the most extraordinary collection of talent, of human knowledge, that has ever been gathered together at the White House, with the possible exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone."
The image of the gentleman Jefferson dining alone is not one that evokes the slavery of the mind. It evokes the image of an enlightened man, for more enlightened than you or are, despite our skepticism of a divine first cause...or in your case perhaps, certainty in the knowledge that no divine first cause ever existed.
Your slave had no choice but to accept whatever circumstances he was forced to accept to put food on the table and sleep under shelter. Whether he was legally "free" or not he was not free in the sense that you and I are referring to in this discussion.
What makes a man free is most definitely not certainty of belief in the nonexistence of a divine first cause. What makes a man free is a healthy skepticism of the mind, knowing that definitive answers to the questions of the highest things are always elusive, and the ability to vu the enlightened wheat from the bigoted chaff. The joy of the life of the mind is not in knowing you are absolutely right about the highest questions and condemning those who disagree with you to being less free, but in being able to formulate and work through those questions.
When the gentleman Jefferson dined alone, it is inconceivable that he basked in the firm belief that there is no divine first cause. A man who does bask in such a belief is no more free, and arguably less free, of mind than the man who is open to ideas which contradict conventional wisdom. In short, it is in the asking of questions that makes us free of mind, not in the insistence of a particular answer to those questions. It is not a reach to suggest that Socrates and Nietzche taught exactly this.
I see your point. Not every theory as I mentioned.
Apologies! I was typing that on my phone and couldn't remember properly.
And I didn't mean to be condescending when talking about your level of knowledge etc, I genuinely didn't know how in depth you read.
I'm going to PM you privately about the things you mentioned.
Religion clearly does have a point. It gives billions of people around the world - if not meaning or a sense of community - some satisfaction which is more than enough to validate its existence. Some of us post on a football forum, others go to church - both could be deemed irrational, but who cares? It's human nature to desire an explanation for our, often miserable, existence and for many religion can provide the best explanation and solace. If religion were restricted to this personal relationship - between believer and God - and holy texts were read primarily for their spiritual message (almost identical across religions) rather than their prescriptions on human behaviour we'd be alright and religion would serve its purpose of making a lot of people happy.
For a good portion of those, they are indoctrinated at birth and terrified to stray from the teachings of their religion for fear of what might happen to them now or in their afterlife. The idea that their god isn't real isn't something that ever crosses their mind. How many of those billions of people took up their in adulthood of their own choice and I'd imagine (but I'm just guessing) that it is a tiny minority. The idea of giving satisfaction doesn't hold up in cases of indoctrination in my opinion because they could have just as much satisfaction in their lives without religion were they free to do so.
Some gift.
No I'm not. You're misrepresenting the scientific method.
I've said my piece and these discussions never go anywhere due to playing by a different set of 'rules'.
This came across quite condescending. I'm sure you didn't mean it as such.
Equally there are a lot of people who are not satisfied with their lives who don't have a religion. I understand this is a religion bashing thread, but there are too many assumptions being made and a whole brigade of anti religious people on their high horses not willing to acknowledge that people genuinely believe in their religions and are genuinely content and happy with their lives. This is the problem with most athiests they are so arrogant they would never comprehend how people can believe in a god so resort to insults and sarcatic digs, just look at the responses to sky1981.
Whats the point? It seems the point of religion is to excuse murder at this point.
How can you possibly know that? There are lots of atheists on this board for example raised in religious families that no longer believe, I'd imagine a lot of them have a perfectly good understanding of why people believe in God and what being a committed Christian/Muslim/Jew etc. is all about.
Equally there are a lot of people who are not satisfied with their lives who are influenced by their religion.
Exactly. Being satisfied has nothing to do whether you are religious or not.
That was RexHamilton's original argument against the "religion brings happiness" argument, though. And I find it ridiculous to call a group of people arrogant just because someone from that group disagreed with the statement "religion brings happiness." (or maybe it's the "indoctrinated" part that offends you, but he does have a point.)
I'm going by my own discussions and observations regarding the majority of athiests, i could compile of quotes just from this thread highlighting it but i'm not going to waste my time, and I've already explained why i label them as arrogant - the fact that athiests are unable to acknowledge and understand that people believe in a religion, instead of this they ridicule the religion with petty insults and sarcastic narratives and how the world would be all sunshine and rainbows if there was no religion.
How did I screw that up? (forehead slap emoticon!)
I don't know where you were going with all this talk of Jefferson, but it's funny you said that, because slavery was exactly what I thought of when you mentioned him. Yesterday I posted the following in a completely separate discussion:
So you can see, this is quite a coincidence. If I was religious I would say that this is a sign from God that I'm right and you wrong - make of it what you will, it is in your field of expertise - looking for meaning in coincidences is a superstition in which all religions specialize in.Momochiru said:
But back to your claim - that Jefferson was far more enlightened than me. Now, I don't want to tout my own horn and Jefferson was definitely a very intelligent and progressive man at the time, but no one who was a slave owner should be given as an example for enlightenment. He bought and sold hundreds of slaves during his life and only freed 5 after his death in his will. He also had sex with his slaves and DNA studies have proven he has fathered several children with at least one of his female slaves. So yes, he was a progressive man for his day and age, but if you judge him according today's standards, he will come up as a very backward, racist, misogynistic man. Society evolves and now normal, average people are more enlightened than even the pillars of the community from hundreds of years ago. This is one of the problems with religion - maybe 2000 years ago Christianity was progressive, or maybe 1300 years ago Islam was progressive, or any other religion at the time might have been progressive, because usually it was replacing a far more barbaric one that existed before it; however nowadays those religions are just a collection of backward, racist, misogynistic, homophobic, hate-mongering heap of drivel, written by some ignorant members of some desert tribe.
I agree with this - always asking questions, not being satisfied with the common knowledge and trying to find the truth is exactly what makes us free of mind and that's exactly the opposite of religion, which discourages free thinking, wants you to be satisfied with all the answers it has for you already written in an ancient book and labels anyone looking for more knowledge as "vain" and "proud".
In fact I'm surprised you can't see how religion is always asking us to bow and pray in front of god and recognize him as our "Lord" - these are not actions of a free person, these are actions of servitude from a slave to their master and although the master is made-up and non-existent the slave is real - it's the person's own mind.
Last edited:
I did. My point was that religion is generally pretty low down on the list of things that make people happy/unhappy. Family life, financial situation, job satisfaction and a whole host of other things would have a bigger effect on people's lives than their faith or lack thereof. The point about religion bringing happiness to billions annoyed me as to most of those billions, their religion is irrelevant to their happiness in general.
Of course. My whole point was in relation to the point that religion brings satisfaction when in general, a person's religion has very little bearing on their happiness. The reason for this, I feel, is because it is rarely their religion. It is a religion they inherited and as such is just something that's a part of their lives, often a burden (from my experience) and not something they are particularly enthusiastic about.
As for not understanding why people genuinely believe, I'm from Ireland, one of the most Catholic countries in the world (although religion is dying rather speedily here). Almost everyone I know, from family to friends, are Catholic. Very few are devout because it's not something they chose. It was something bestowed upon them. They were baptised, went to a catholic school where they got a half hour of indoctrination every day, got their communion and confirmation and went to Mass every week because their mother told them to. Ask most of them what their beliefs are and despite all of that religious education and indoctrination the common answer is "Ah, I think there is something to it. There's something after we die, I just don't know what."
As for those that are devout and firmly believe, I would say the ratio of those that are happy to those that are unhappy is strikingly similar to the ratio of people in similar circumstances but who are not devout. I know many, many religious people who's religion has very little bearing on their happiness.
You said it yourself.
Exactly.
It's after nearly 3. I was just going to leave this... but I won't.
Atheists, most that I know can acknowledge and understand that people believe in a religion. Most of us know more people of faith than we do other atheists. My religious friends are still my friends despite the fact that we have differing beliefs on how we got here and where we'll go after we die. Religion is so far down on any agenda we have that it's pretty much irrelevant to our daily lives.
The reason it's being ridiculed, particularly over the last few days is because religion is the reason 16 innocent people are dead. People can argue all they want that these people are not men of faith. They were. They are extremists, no doubt and do not represent the general muslim population but they still acted in defence of their prophet and their religion. Charlie Hebdo magazine poked fun at their religion and these men saw this as a grievous act (which it is, in their religion) and killed for it.
And I do ridicule religion on other occasions too. I do poke fun at religion and the religious. If that makes me arrogant, then fine. But think about all the arrogant people who have over the years poked fun at Tom Cruise and Scientologists, Joseph Smith and Mormonism and any other religion which is not a regular Abrahamic religion. Think of all the people that have poked fun and ridiculed horoscopes and astrology. Think of all the people that have poked fun at and ridiculed faith healers, witch doctors, voodoo and any other belief that is considered a bit wacky.
If you can honestly say you've never poked fun at, mocked or ridiculed any of these ideas, then fair play to you. If you have then you're a hypocrite because to an atheist, all of these beliefs are as crazy as each other. All are open to ridicule.
I no plenty of otherwise intelligent people who would be sceptical of everything. Everything that is, except their religious beliefs. They have their faith and that's all that's important. Well faith is a quality we should not be teaching our children. Believing something in the absence of evidence is not something to be commended.
And one last point on arrogance. Christians, Jews and Muslims believe that god created this world for us. Of course 2000 years ago, this world meant the earth, which was the centre of the little we knew of the cosmos. However, now we know the Cosmos is far, far greater and we are not at the centre, as well, there is really no centre.
There are billions upon billions of stars in billions of galaxies. There are an innumerable amount of planets orbiting these stars. And all of this was done, so we could live out a little soap opera for the bearded man in heaven on one fleck of dust in the cosmos.
Yeah, we're the arrogant ones.
Very good post! Religious people believe that there is a god with absolutely enormous power who created the whole vast universe, however he personally listens to each of their silly, insignificant prayers and gives them signs, yet somehow the atheists are the arrogant ones.
I don't know where you were going with all this talk of Jefferson, but it's funny you said that, because slavery was exactly what I thought of when you mentioned him. Yesterday I posted the following in a completely separate discussion:
So you can see, this is quite a coincidence. If I was religious I would say that this is a sign from God that I'm right and you wrong - make of it what you will, it is in your field of expertise - looking for meaning in coincidences is a superstition in which all religions specialize in.
But back to your claim - that Jefferson was far more enlightened than me. Now, I don't want to tout my own horn and Jefferson was definitely a very intelligent and progressive man at the time, but no one who was a slave owner should be given as an example for enlightenment. He bought and sold hundreds of slaves during his life and only freed 5 after his death in his will. He also had sex with his slaves and DNA studies have proven he has fathered several children with at least one of his female slaves. So yes, he was a progressive man for his day and age, but if you judge him according today's standards, he will come up as a very backward, racist, misogynistic man. Society evolves and now normal, average people are more enlightened than even the pillars of the community from hundreds of years ago. This is one of the problems with religion - maybe 2000 years ago Christianity was progressive, or maybe 1300 years ago Islam was progressive, or any other religion at the time might have been progressive, because usually it was replacing a far more barbaric one that existed before it; however nowadays those religions are just a collection of backward, racist, misogynistic, homophobic, hate-mongering heap of drivel, written by some ignorant members of some desert tribe.
I agree with this - always asking questions, not being satisfied with the common knowledge and trying to find the truth is exactly what makes us free of mind and that's exactly the opposite of religion, which discourages free thinking, wants you to be satisfied with all the answers it has for you already written in an ancient book and labels anyone looking for more knowledge as "vain" and "proud".
In fact I'm surprised you can't see how religion is always asking us to bow and pray in front of god and recognize him as our "Lord" - these are not actions of a free person, these are actions of servitude from a slave to their master and although the master is made-up and non-existent the slave is real - it's the person's own mind.
In response to the last point (on an iPad and it's not letting me cut out text) I hope you understand that I'm not defending religion itself. That's another point for another day, your point right here being very well taken. Yet I personally know, and have known, priests, particularly of the Jesuit order, who only ask that you believe freely in the truth of the teachings of Jesus Christ. If you choose not to believe, fine. Everyone goes about their business. But the priests who demand blind fealty, who abuse their flock and feast at banquet while the people starve? Such people are useless. The events of Paris this week is a useful reminder of the evil purposes to which religion is often put.
What I'm defending is the notion that a man can rationally embrace religious beliefs and still be deemed a free man. A man can also rationally reject all religions and still be deemed a free man. Neither the religious man nor the atheist can know the ultimate truth in the same way that we know that gravity keeps the planets in their orbits, but if both arrive at their convictions upon contemplation they're both free of mind in my book. Provided, of course, that these convictions resoect the rights of other human beings.
As for Jefferson, I should not have suggested that he was better than us. That was rude and I apologize. It's true he was a slave owner, but few men in the history of the world did more to advance the cause of universal freedom than Tommy. He really did. Like you and I today, he was a captive of his times, but I think we can agree he labored to change his times far more than most of us before, during and since his time. We can say much the same fir Lincoln and Churchill, captives of the prejudices and commonly accepted vices of their day but who labored to advance the cause of human freedom. Job well done, I say!
Very good post! Religious people believe that there is a god with absolutely enormous power who created the whole vast universe, however he personally listens to each of their silly, insignificant prayers and gives them signs, yet somehow the atheists are the arrogant ones.
You might enjoy reading a book titled The Swerve: How the World Became Modern by Stephen Greenblatt as much as I did.
The wiki page on the book is easily found, but I'm not able to paste the link to it here. However, I really do recommend investing the time to read the book itself.
@RexHamilton has already addressed most of my arguments rather well, but I have few additional questions. Why should religion be free from ridicule? Wouldn't you be flabbergasted if the country you lived in suddenly started believing in Cthulhu and made laws that affect your life based on that, despite your non-believing in Cthulhu?
As for world being better place if there was no religion... that I will not get into because it's merely a hypothetical situation. What I will say is this: I believe that it is human nature to find answers to unanswered questions and use that knowledge to improve our lives. Long time ago we were scientifically ignorant, so for us to explain away the back-then unexplainable phenomenon we invented the concept of God. So I believe that some form of religion was going to appear one way or the other.
But now we are living in the 21st century where such a wealth of scientific information are out there that directly contradict the stories of Christianity and Islam (and many other religions, for that matter) and people are still, bafflingly enough, holding onto their faith (this is where "indoctrination" comes in to play but that's another entirely different argument). Religion was once useful as a gap filler to appease our curiosity, but with the scientific knowledge we have today I believe it's best for the human kind now to abandon religion. I believe this is where all the "world would be better without religion" argument comes from, anyways.
Last edited:
Its a tradition. Religion is merely tradition in many people's lives.
I don't get this shit either. If he was insulting Christianity he wouldn't be punished. If he was insulting Judaism he'd probably be punished too and of course be tagged as anti-Semitic.
I know I'm an atheist, but even if I were an agnostic at the very least I would not have my child christened. Just what is the point? If you aren't christian anyway what is the benefit? Tradition doesn't make it make any more sense. I'm not trying to judge, just can't see any basis for it. Its not the same as celebrating Christmas, at least with Christmas you don't have to celebrate the religious aspect of it, or even partake in that side, also its an originally pagan festival anyway.