Compare it to science. If an idea/theory is put forward it's then tested to see if it works. If it's tested for a few weeks by several different scientists and doesn't work the theory is discredited and abandoned. Not though religion, after thousands of years of testing by millions of intelligent human beings can we still be blamed for religion not working properly? How after such vigorous efforts can a religious person still blame the implementers and not even consider if the original theory is fundamentally flawed? It's lazy just to blame humans for religions failings.
Religion, what's the point?
- Thread starter TheRedFlag
- Start date
Compare it to science. If an idea/theory is put forward it's then tested to see if it works. If it's tested for a few weeks by several different scientists and doesn't work the theory is discredited and abandoned. Not though religion, after thousands of years of testing by millions of intelligent human beings can we still be blamed for religion not working properly? How after such vigorous efforts can a religious person still blame the implementers and not even consider if the original theory is fundamentally flawed? It's lazy just to blame humans for religions failings.
It's like comparing apples and oranges. Why do people keep doing this?
Science has rules. Religion has principles. The relation between a man and his god differs with ever human. Science cannot explain each and every question as it is still evolving. Despite all scientific advancements, we can't even create water artificially. Science either proves or disproves aspects of religion. Religion offers explanation where science is too young to reply. Think of t like hypothesis testing. You assume a stance then try to prove or disprove it. Religion is the hypothesis and science has both proven and invalidated different aspects.
I don't see why that would make religion necessarily bad though?
Now that you mention Science, science helped us invent light bulbs and atom bombs. Just because it made atom bombs, do we just stop all our scientific experiments?
Please, no offence intended.
Yes, there is. Look at your first sentence in this post, it implies that people who are not religious don't have any good reasons for behaving well. As if the delusion of divine reward or eternal punishment gives us anything that we'd otherwise be missing. It's flat-out absurd and ridiculous.
I'm not sure that is true, because this presupposes that they wouldn't be as happy if they didn't delude themselves with the wishful thinking of religion.
I just read it again. All it says is that religion offers a reason for being good. I never did claim it was the only reason or even ruled out other possibilities. The whole post was on religion as a concept and not on religious people or otherwise.
Religion is about pulling shit out of your arse. Religion has no principles, it's just about taking things on faith (i.e. without evidence). Nothing more, nothing less. Religion has never offered an adequate explanation for anything, and it never will.
Religion doesn't offer a reason to be good; it offers a delusion.
I don't think it does. Whether they are happy or unhappy without religion is immaterial to this argument because, the subject has been already brainwashed by your argument to believe that religion offers him bliss. What you call it as brainwashing, he calls it faith.
It's a simple premise, nutcase blows up a bomb, he must have been brainwashed by his religion, a peaceful religious man must have deluded himself into thinking that religion gives him peace.
Yes. its true.
It's like saying "I found this book useful for traveling" and you presuming no one can travel without that book. Your presumptions are as incorrect as that.
It was never meant to. If that's what you are looking for in a religion, no wonder you are disappointed.
Of course it does. If you say that religion has given millions of people a happy life, then that presupposes that they wouldn't be (as) happy without religion.
Edit: Poorly phrased: Unless you are presupposing that they wouldn't/couldn't be as happy without the delusion of religion, you've just admitted that religion is completely unnecessary.
It doesn't matter either way, because a person of faith attributes his well being to religion alone. Since you brand it as delusion, you'd have no right to comment on his/her beliefs then?
Now that you've edited your post, maybe I'll respond to this.
Some people are born with their religion, and some people convert. At least, in this argument, we'll take the converted cases. Since we are being rational and logical about this, wouldn't it be logical to assume that a convert who embraces a new faith/ideology doesn't let that go because he's more happy than he was previously?
I'm not an atheist because I choose to be one, I'm an atheist because there's no evidence for the existence of God. A convert either believes what he claims to believe regardless of whether it makes him more happy or not, or he doesn't believe it but merely professes to. If someone says, "I believe what I believe because it makes me happy", it seems to me that they've just admitted that they don't really believe it. There's often a gulf between what people profess to believe and what they actually believe. Some people actually believe that Jesus was the son of God, while others just claim to. Actually believing that the Bible or the Qur'an is the literal, perfect word of the creator of the universe will have some behavioral consequences that merely professing to believe it won't.
Perhaps religion does make some people happy, but so does alcohol and heroin, and that doesn't necessarily make it healthy or useful.
I shouldn't have used science, not because it's an unfair comparison but because it generates an automatic response and distracts from the point.
Ok then, pick any other system of thought from any other discipline, politics, philosophy, whatever. If after trying to implement the system for thousands of years with the efforts of millions of people included you found there were still major problems with it, can you rationally keep blaming the implementers whilst refusing to consider if the original theory is the reason for its own problems?
No offence taken, I take your point, it doesn't mean it's good or bad. That's not what I'm asking though, as above, I'm looking for an opinion on whose fault religions problem lie with, man or scripture?
I accept science is man made, I therefore accept that it has deep flaws that can be literally world endingly bad. I also don't think we could live without it. Would or could these sentences be said about religion by a religious person?
Religion is bad because it is innately irrational and divisive, and because the texts say what they say. If the three monotheisms (in particular) were all about peace and love we wouldn't have a problem, but they're not.
The science/A-bomb "argument" has been thoroughly discredited countless times. It doesn't make any sense, and by bringing it up you only demonstrate that you've not understood the argument against religion.
all the major religions talk about love and peace.
Its just that some followers don't practice any of the teachings.
Its just that some followers don't practice any of the teachings.
Occasionally. You know as well as I do that the so-called holy scriptures are filled with hatred of people outside the religion, incitements to murder for minor transgressions (or in some cases, things that isn't (and shouldn't be) considered a criminal offense in any modern, civilized country), and so on.
Whether or not religion is - as the title of this thread suggests - 'bollocks' has nothing to do with morality or its usefulness in making people feel good or in helping societies to run more smoothly, so I'm not quit sure why those who defend religion always base their arguments around these areas. It's surely a question of whether or not there is any truth to the key claims of religion. If there isn't any truth to these claims, then everything else is irrelevant, because knowingly believing in something that isn't true is intellectually dishonest and absurd, not to mention insulting to the human race.
So even if religion does do more good than harm (and I don't believe that to be the case), so what? Is anyone seriously suggesting that scientific and rational truth isn't important? And that the human race should turn a blind eye to what we know to be untrue and irrational?
I think it's time to dig up Bertrand Russell's message to the future.
"
So even if religion does do more good than harm (and I don't believe that to be the case), so what? Is anyone seriously suggesting that scientific and rational truth isn't important? And that the human race should turn a blind eye to what we know to be untrue and irrational?
I think it's time to dig up Bertrand Russell's message to the future.
"
When you are studying any matter, or considering any philosophy, ask yourself only what are the facts and what is the truth that the facts bare out. Never let yourself be diverted, either by what you wish to believe, or by what you think would have beneficial social effects if it were believed. Look only and solely at what are the facts.
"I know what you are saying.
From my personal experience of having lived among those of other faiths, It has always been about sharing the common teachings of treating each other with dignity and helping....especially the poor.
Personally I can say that my faith has helped me in my life...so often.
Unfortunately there are those who pervert the teachings to do harm.
The Boston bombers are a couple of those.
Out of interest, do you think that the kind of tolerance and respect given by religious people to others that you talk of is a product of religion, or is it just a product of general Western society?
My belief is it is the best of different cultures. I have found other cultures to be very welcoming of Westerners too.
Life is what you make of it.
You can choose to follow the best path..or the worst.
It is easy to retaliate or justify it through religious books.
Most people just want to get on...live in a community that respects all cultures and faiths.
Personally I have found it very enriching to learn about other cultures and faiths.
Yes, it is very enriching to learn about other cultures and faiths, and most people would agree. But there's a difference between learning about other faiths and tolerating them in their practice. Throughout the history of the Abrahahic faiths, tolerance of other religions (and indeed cultures or ways of life that don't fit in with the teachings of the dominant religion) has been limited. The history of how religions have treated other religions can be told with images of blood, torture and murder much more than it can with tales of tolerance and respect. It is only relatively recently that a tendency to attempt to be respectful and tolerant of those outside the religion in question has emerged. And even today this is limited to certain parts of the world. So my question would be, is this a product of modern secular society, or is it a product of the religions themselves? If it's a product of religion, why has it taken so long to come about? Why didn't it exist during the Crusades, or the Spanish Inquisition or whatever?
Think tolerance comes from understanding. There has been little effort to try and understand. The Crusades and the Inquisition were about politics. They used religion as a means to accomplish their goals. Nothing in Christianity supports what they did.
If you think about the Western colonization of the rest of the world, the existing cultures were more than often welcoming of the newcomers...until they proceeded to take what they wanted.
Have they perverted the teachings though? Or have they just paid attention to a few of the pages others ignore? This is the crucial point for me, religion and particularly Islam has to become more introspective, more self examining.
I understand what you are saying...same for those who refer to the old testament scriptures to justify intolerant acts.
On Islam, I would say someone like Sultan could explain the True teachings of Islam better than me. My good experiences come from working with those who were extremely respectful of other faiths as well. I still keep in touch with some of them. All I will say is that must be the True Faith...not what we sometimes see depicted on the media.
I think that blaming politics is a cop out. Religion is political by nature.
If we ignore individual examples, such as the Inquisition or the Crusades, I'm sure we can agree that Christianity in Europe prior to the 20th century (and certainly prior to the 18th century) was anything but tolerant and respectful of other religions or ways of life. It was, on the whole, violently intolerant.
If the modern day tolerance and respect between Christians and those of other faiths is a product of religion, why has it only recently come into existence? And why is it still limited to some parts of the world? Where was it during the time of Jesus or Mohammed, or in the many centuries that proceeded them?
Could it not be that it is a product of modern society as a whole? A secular product?
It is all politics though...even during the time of Jesus and the Prophet.
The current 'tolerance' if you like is a result of understanding. Education.
You fear what you do not understand. Which leads to intolerance and hatred. So you can argue it is a product of modern society. But that is only the first step. Once we see that we have more in common than what separates us...especially with regards to our core beliefs, the rest is easy.
But as we see from other posts...history...and not forgetting is the biggest obstacle. Things that were done that have nothing to do with people living now.
Whatever's in the book is true is it not?
This is the problem I have though, you've said the Boston Bombers are perverting the religion but you seem somewhat limited in how much you know about it. Blaming man and not the scripture seems to have become an automatic get out clause. You yourself have used it on behalf a religion other than your own, without full knowledge of the teachings. I'm not having a go but have you read the Quran?
I'm not sure what the 'true teachings' of a particular religion means as a concept when examined by somebody who isn't of that religion. True to who or what?
Take a non-religious ideology, Marxism for instance. A true interpretation of Classical Marxism I suppose simply means an accurate interpretation of what Marx put across, it's a question of what he meant in his writings. Whether someone is a Marxist or not, he or she can understand and accept that there is such a thing as the concept of the 'true teachings of Marxism'.
Where religion is concerned, the concept of the true teaching, meaning or interpretation of a scripture surely only applies if you believe that it is divinely inspired. So for example, a Christian cannot consider there to be a true interpretation of the Quran because for a true interpretation to exist, there must be something for it to be true to. And of course a Christian doesn't believe that the Quran is the work of god. So what is a true interpretation of the Quran/Islam true to for a Christian?
No. I have not read the Quran. But I have seen how a practicing Muslim reacts to me a Christian....
no. I don't take what you say as 'having a go'.
fair points rednev.
We can always find something to disagree about. I think we can find an awful lot to agree on.
No. I have not read the Quran. But I have seen how a practicing Muslim reacts to me a Christian....
no. I don't take what you say as 'having a go'.
There you go then, your first instinct was to claim the bombers are perverting the religion, irrespective if you know the holy book or not. It's this irrational defensiveness that I think causes most of the problems. Why not consider if the book could be at least partially responsible?
Religion is neither a method nor a system of thought. It's nothing more than a series of assertions, most of which have to be taken entirely on faith. That's why theology is the most ridiculous university subject ever.
Dortmund kicking ass at the moment, lovin' it.
Dortmund kicking ass at the moment, lovin' it.
class last line there Saliph.
This is a truly superb article by "atheist Muslim" Ali Rizvi, on the Boston bombings, Greenwald, Harris, Hitch etc. He uses many of Harris' arguments in the piece.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ali-a...-of-islamophobia_b_3159286.html?utm_hp_ref=tw
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ali-a...-of-islamophobia_b_3159286.html?utm_hp_ref=tw
It's only "superb" because you agree with him.. In reality there is a very clear and "fundamental" flaw. If the problem clearly lies in the Quran, then why is he citing the US ambassador from 200 years ago instead of the Quran itself??
"I also understand that extremism in any ideology isn't a distortion of that ideology. It is an informed, steadfast adherence to its fundamentals, hence the term "fundamentalism."
The fundamentals of religions (or Islam) is to kill?? That's as ignorant as saying that the fundamentals of the law is to hurt people (killing them/putting them in prison...etc.). Clearly he needs to read the Quran.