Religion, what's the point?

[neverdie]

It really doesn't. Atheists are more likely to maintain group contact? How so? How does this negation create bonds? How does one identify another atheist? Do you think we wear badges and congregate in specially constructed expensive buildings? What aspects of a group culture precisely?

Oh, and we're all born athiests.

we're all born athiests into religious societies. unless you're born into a highly athiestic society, like the soviet union or china, you will find yourself having to negate group belief from an early age. that amounts to social distinction. it creates ideological bonds, yes, but also other kinds like habitual bonds. you're more likely to be friends with people who aren't fundamentalist, right? i am, anyway.

edit: that's what i was getting at in terms of biological tendency. religion is universal in its traits, even when you make allowance for evolutionary isolation. like the concept of dreaming in indigenous societies or animism in pacific islands which were remote from all other societies for thousands of years in some cases, maybe even tens of thousands.

 

[neverdie]

Look, I get what your saying but this concept of militant athiests wandering around harassing religious people is...well, not true is it?

anyone who mocks someone for mild religious belief, is, in my book, a militant atheist. the term "militant" is probably not right in this place. would be better using a different term, like confrontationalist, or superior, but you get my point so seems ok.

 

[Moby]

Of course people are far more concerned about atheists arguing on the internet than actual crimes and murder stemming from religious organisations. And then they expect not to be confronted. And that the people confronting them are being 'militants'. All of this while being the 'good guys'.

 

[harshad]

we didn't begin as atheists and come to believe in religion.

Can you expand on this please

 

[Fingeredmouse]

we're all born athiests into religious societies. unless you're born into a highly athiestic society, like the soviet union or china, you will find yourself having to negate group belief from an early age. that amounts to social distinction. it creates ideological bonds, yes, but also other kinds like habitual bonds. you're more likely to be friends with people who aren't fundamentalist, right? i am, anyway.

I get your general point but no, I never had to negate as I never formed the idea. It was never implanted.

But, yes, I am a Uni level educated UK national from a large inner city. That alone would mean most people I was in the circle of would be irreligious.

I think, however, you going too far with your "soft cult"concept because it is not atheism that predicates these groups in the example given, simply that it is true that atheism is more probable to exist in certain conditions.

 

[neverdie]

Of course people are far more concerned about atheists arguing on the internet than actual crimes and murder stemming from religious organisations. And then they expect not to be confronted. And that the people confronting them are being 'militants'. All of this while being the 'good guys'.

i'm not religious and don't have any concept of god that doesn't mirror someting like that which einstein might talk about. i'd say i'm atheist. this kind of reaction is what i mean by "militant atheist" though, even if the word is poorly chosen.

 

[neverdie]

I get your general point but no, I never had to negate as I never formed the idea. It was never implanted.

But, yes, I am a Uni level educated UK national from a large inner city. That alone would mean most people I was in the circle if would be irreligious.

I think, however, you going to far with your "soft cult"concept because it is not atheism that predicates these groups in the example given, simply that it is true that atheism is more probable to exist in certain conditions.

if you're from Glasgow then surely you had to negate? if only to understand what sectarianism was about? and from an early age, too, i'd guess.

 

[Moby]

i'm not religious and don't have any concept of god that doesn't mirror someting like that which einstein might talk about. i'd say i'm atheist. this kind of reaction is what i mean by "militant atheist" though, even if the word is poorly chosen.

Except when you choose to comment on current affairs, you'd rather focus on the so called problem of religious people getting confronted over their inaction/negligence/turning a blind eye/direct support/active participation/flat out terrorism than the actual problems caused due to religion. Sorry, but no one who falls in that category has a case of arguing for the betterment of society.

 

[Wibble]

only because atheism is the negation of belief. that's not the fault of atheists but simply the way the world works. we didn't begin as atheists and come to believe in religion. at least the data wouldn't suggest that is how we got to the state of secularism. and when you form principles based in negation, surely that acts as a means of attraction? aren't atheists more likely to maintain common groups than otherwise? it becomes a kind of soft cult. don't mean that in a bad way, but not sure how else to put it. it maintains all the aspects of a group culture.

It isn't the negation of belief, it is the absence of belief as a way of deciding what exists. A big difference.

And I'm not part of any atheism related group and I certainly wouldn't seem out religious people to ridicule or try to get them to change their minds. Probably why this place is great as you can discuss such things.

It is a subject I tend to avoid in a social context as either people will agree with me or if not there is a large chance of it not ending well. I guess I tend to have more atheist friends than average because I know a lot of scientists but that is just a side effect of formerly being a biologist. I would avoid overtly religious people if they couldn't help trying to push it on me. My best mate is an Anglican priest but he never talks religion to me and I never try to tell him why his god doesn't exist. Works well.

 

[neverdie]

Except when you choose to comment on current affairs, you'd rather focus on the so called problem of religious people getting confronted over their inaction/negligence/turning a blind eye/direct support/active participation/flat out terrorism than the actual problems caused due to religion. Sorry, but no one who falls in that category has a case of arguing for the betterment of society.

i make a distinction beween religious people and fundamental religious groups. if others can't see that distinction then i suppose it's a personal thing.

 

[Fingeredmouse]

if you're from Glasgow then surely you had to negate? if only to understand what sectarianism was about? and from an early age, too, i'd guess.

Why would I have to negate to understand all of that bigoted nonsense? Yes, I needed to have "Fenian" and "Hun" and other such joys explained to me but other people believing weird things does not define me.

Also, as an aside, Glasgow is a very atheist city, just like most of urban uk.

 

[Moby]

i make a distinction beween religious people and fundamental religious groups. if others can't see that distinction then i suppose it's a personal thing.

Both those categories are actively attached to the same central organisation which wouldn't exist if the so called overwhelming majority which is harmless, mild believers or whatever made a motion to reform it. They don't. And they don't give a feck about the consequences either.

 

[neverdie]

It isn't the negation of belief, it is the absence of belief as a way of deciding what exists. A big difference.

And I'm not part of any atheism related group. It is a subject I tend to avoid in a social context as either people will agree with me or if not there is a large chance of it not ending well. I guess I tend to have more atheist friends than average because I know a lot of scientists but that is just a side effect of formerly being a biologist.

i think atheism has to be considered active. it isn't just the absence of, but the active negation of. or at least, there has to be a distinction between the kind of atheism which never encounters religion and that kind which understands itself as a rejection of religious belief. i don't know any which hasn't encountered religion, even in the soviet union or china you see how strong religion lingers despite generational crackdowns. or you don't passively arrive at atheism, or at least i don't think most people do. you get there by active rejection.

would you be a biologist if you weren't atheist? i know there's no way to answer that but just a kind of hypothetical. i too know far more atheists than religious people.

 

[neverdie]

Why would I have to negate to understand all of that bigoted nonsense? Yes, I needed to have "Fenian" and "Hun" and other such joys explained to me but other people believing weird things does not define me.

the post above probably explains it better. i think the negation of is an active form of reasoning, not the absence of belief as such. unless you never encounter the belief, or religion, which you stand in opposition to. or only encounter it very late in life, maybe. but you get religion second hand, or embedded, even if you aren't religious. that's true of most societies on the planet, anyway. and it's from here that you have to negate if only to comprehend.

 

[neverdie]

I would avoid overtly religious people if they couldn't help trying to push it on me. My best mate is an Anglican priest but he never talks religion to me and I never try to tell him why his god doesn't exist. Works well.

bit like natural selection. in a very general, non biological way, at least. and that was my point. i couldn't tolerate someone who pushed religion on me either. which is why i think atheism, or moderation/secularism, is its own active force despite being characterised as the absence of or lack of something. in reality it is an active force because it must deal with, or against, that which it negates.

(i'm speaking in the general sense here. you probably have deductive method and rationality in mind over belief or non-empiricism. but even that, as rational action, is "active" to some degree). anyway this is probably for a thread that isn't about current events.

 

[Moby]

i couldn't tolerate someone who pushed religion on me either

But that happens constantly both on personal and political level, so you obviously need a counter-force to not let that happen. Unless you are ok to allow open radicalization and more religious states being formed. Not sure why you have such a huge issue with people being asked to stop imposing religion onto others or into political matters. It doesn't make anyone a militant it's what people need to do in order to keep any sense of neutrality in the society.

I mean in this country I went to a school where I was taught only Hindu mythological scriptures as literally a part of my education (like I had to learn them and answer questions in an exam). And literally not a single person from anyone I know ever (and we are talking about the crowd of the capital of the country) ever had a single word to say about it. No one asked why other religions had no mention, or why should I have to memorise what Krishna did in a fictional war or whatever. That's not even anywhere near the worst cases of religious oppression yet it seems people will have an issue with someone raising a voice against that (and precisely why no one does it). Keep focussing on calling out people trying to stand up against oppressive beliefs and then act as if they aren't being a huge part of the problem.

 

[neverdie]

ot sure why you have such a huge issue with people being asked to stop imposing religion onto others or into political matters.

i don't. i'm pro secularism. what I had in mind was the kind of atheism Hitchens engaged in post-9/11. he was always an atheist but prior to that he didn't seem to take so much pleasure in riling muslims up.

 

[Wibble]

bit like natural selection. in a very general, non biological way, at least. and that was my point. i couldn't tolerate someone who pushed religion on me either. which is why i think atheism, or moderation/secularism, is its own active force despite being characterised as the absence of or lack of something. in reality it is an active force because it must deal with, or against, that which it negates.

I would never avoid a discussion on natural selection as it is just straightforward evidence based science. I wouldn't seek out people to proselytse it to in order to try to change their religious views but I wouldn't pretend it didn't exist in conversation. I apply the same logic to everything as do we all in most circumstances. I believe in nothing. That can't be a belief system. I don't know what an active force is in this context unless you are talking about soviet era style forced atheism.

 

[Wibble]

i don't. i'm pro secularism. what I had in mind was the kind of atheism Hitchens engaged in post-9/11. he was always an atheist but prior to that he didn't seem to take so much pleasure in riling muslims up.

I think Hitchens was an equal opportunity anti-religious voice.

 

[neverdie]

I would never avoid a discussion on natural selection as it is just straightforward evidence based science. I wouldn't seek out people to proselytse it to in order to try to change their religious views but I wouldn't pretend it didn't exist in conversation. I apply the same logic to everything as do we all in most circumstances. I believe in nothing. That can't be a belief system. I don't know what an active force is in this context unless you are talking about soviet era style forced atheism.

i mean it's an active force because we simply can't define something which doesn't stand in relation to some social or natural force.

do you believe that your right foot will hit firm ground following your left? it's that order of "belief" i'm talking about here. small "b" belief. it's ubiquitous. then you have scholars who argue religion has nothing to do with belief. that seems incredible, but many people will tell you that "religion" is a western construct retrofitted as a universal category. it's the diffusionist angle.

I think Hitchens was an equal opportunity anti-religious voice.

I agree except he underwent a notable change after 9/11. his politics became less intelligent and so did his discourse more broadly.

i basically understand your position and it's about logic over belief and the difference between the two. my point is that atheism is active because you have to assert non-belief. if that position of non-belief is reasoned out immaculately, it doesn't alter the fact that negation takes on the character of assertion, which is an active claim.

 

[Wibble]

do you believe that your right foot will hit firm ground following your left?

No I don't believe it at all. I understand it based on the evidence that this usually (but not always) happens when walking.

To me belief is merely something you want to be true but there is no evidence for (and often lots of evidence to the contrary). To paraphrase DNA once said the only thing he believes (or not) is when his young daughter tells him that she didn't eat the chocolate in the fridge. Belief is a tricky word.

i basically understand your position and it's about logic over belief and the difference between the two. my point is that atheism is active because you have to assert non-belief. if that position of non-belief is reasoned out immaculately, it doesn't alter the fact that negation takes on the character of assertion, which is an active claim.

Non-belief can't be active because it isn't an action. I don't actively not believe, I don't believe that there is not a god but simply apply the same reasoning I do to other things for which there is no evidence. I just don't believe in anything at all. And while absolute proof of non-existence is logically impossible we can and do frequently assume things don't exists if we look/experiment very hard and they can't be found. Or we design better experiments/models.

 

[Karel Podolsky]

I get it, sure. However, if the above is so, the "test" as you put it, is set by this god in order to judge then this is a perverse god, happy to cause great suffering to facilitate this test even for those who pass.

Such a being is certainly not kind not moral or good to my mind.

Believe me, I also have the same question and still haven't got an answer. But I still keep it open
(while you seem to have got a conclusion).

*Maybe not a good analogy; why Should we go to school/uni (very boring), and have some tests/exams. Would be very happy if the government gave me diplomas straight away and a few million dollars.

 

[calodo2003]

Anyone with a decent knowledge of history could have a field day with that claim.

Religion can both be good & bad, those two things can be true at the same time. It’s not a zero sum exercise.

You actually believe that religion has no negatives to it? If so, .

 

[Denis79]

Two observations I've taken from this thread, or least the last number of pages, is that those most vehement against religion/God tend to be American posters railing (or rebelling perhaps) against a particularly protestant and evangelical conception of religion/God.

The other is more general and more of a feeling perhaps. And it's that many people on the anti-religion side seem to proceed on the premise that religious belief has either held humanity back or indeed perverted the course of human development. An interesting notion to say the least!

That's where I stand.

 

[GlastonSpur]

Because if it’s all knowing and all powerful then free will doesn’t make sense, unless it’s also content with watching humans feck everything up despite knowing that they’re going to and having the power to stop it.

The alternative to free will is to imagine humans as a type of pre-programmed robot, but from a spiritual perspective (which we assume that a presumed God has) that would have no value and be pointless.

An all-knowing God would know that the only meaningful "goodness" is that which is freely arrived at and chosen. And God has all of eternity to see how things work out - including two steps forward and one step back and all that.

 

[Fanatic 00237]

Ah yes, the cozy security blanket of “mysterious ways”. I don’t have to ask how it feels or wonder, “must be nice”… I remember those days. It’s absolutely nice to just tell yourself “well, mysterious ways / god’s divine plan / we aren’t meant to understand” when awful things happen and you find yourself asking questions of god that you’re not supposed to ask. Psychology would call that a defense mechanism, but what do they know?

No the Bible doesn’t say that. It’s people trying to explain to folks why they shouldn’t ask questions about the book of Job who say it. The closest you’ll probably find to a verse saying “mysterious ways” is Isaiah 55:8-9

"For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways," declares the LORD. As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts”

I know psychology and science in general has an explanation to most of the things believers attribute to their faith (I haven't yet found an acceptable explanation to miracles though) and good on those who believe in that explanation instead.
The quoted verse and many others in the Bible as well as my personal life experience and walk of faith have brought me to the point of accepting that I don't need to understand everything. I feel complete and fulfilled with my understanding and knowledge of God.

I think we can agree to disagree on differing views about life without the life views of believers being ridiculed. It's absolutely not easy to believe in God and be religious, on the contrary I think living without God to honour and live for sounds like a much easier way to go about life.

 

[Fanatic 00237]

That's funny the first sentence is why I have no truck with, or a need for, Religion and swap the word God with Universe in the second sentence and it's pretty much why I'm an Atheist.

Whether God exists or not is immaterial to me as it doesn't impact my life one way or the other and it wouldn't change anything about how I behave or treat others.

Interesting how we both arrived to two absolutely opposite final positions from the exact same ideological standpoint. I wonder whether this can be explained by our different life experiences.

 

[Fanatic 00237]

Following this reasoning to it's logical conclusion: why would the concept of a god, in of itself, not be a clumsy anthropomorphising of nature in exactly the same way these other fallacies of human perception and reason manifest? What aspect of this reasoning leads to affirmation of a "superior and supreme being"?

Well, I think the affirmation of a Superior and Supreme God hasn't come (in my casse anyway) from intellectual reasoning but rather from life experience and encounter with God.

 

[Fanatic 00237]

So can you explain what you know about god's love and why this divine intervention is so inconsistent? And where can we find daily evidence of god's power at work?

I have thought about gods quite a lot in my life, about what I would do if I had that kind of power etc and it's actually one of the biggest reasons why I'm so bitter about it. For example with the Christian god, why did he not simply create paradise and fill it with sane, happy people right from the start? You'd think that was a no-brainer but instead he supposedly created an enormous universe of which 99.∞% is inhospitable to humans and then put us on a little planet made up of 70% water, filled with natural disasters, diseases, oh and a devil and a bunch of dinosaur bones as well because why not, all as a "test" just to decide whether he should torture us forever or make us his bff's..
Imagine having a completely blank sheet and the ability to do anything you wanted and then landing on that idea...twice. I then realize that most of the people on the planet believe that stories like these represents actual reality and it genuinely makes me sad to think about how many people throughout time has had their entire lives ruined or taken from them because of it, especially since we know for a fact that we don't need religion to have a happy, functioning society.

As for your 2nd question, I would never want a personal relationship with the god of the bible even if he disowned Jesus and adopted me in his place as he's a fecking monster. To be perfectly honest with you I'll never be able to understand how anyone could think otherwise, I mean he supposedly once murdered pretty much everyone on the entire planet. That should be top of the list of the "coincidences" you were talking about that match what we know about god's love.

As far as I know (and I could be wrong, just my very humble point of view), it seems inconsistent to us simply because we have only the limited view of what is in front of us in the present, the present of one being a speck on the scale of time and the world. God being Spirit and Omniscient sees the bigger picture and acts accordingly for the greater good. Once again, as a believer, I don't claim to have all the answers. God alone does

I believe that we have evidence of God's power at work every single day. What a non-believer considers as coincidence or serendipity, a believer interprets as God's power at work.

About the bolded, He actually did that but His creation was corrupted by sin. He plans to make all things right once more and restore a perfect world for eternity.

 

[Fanatic 00237]

Yeah fair enough. It didn't come across as that to me on first reading it.

Don't know if you saw my posts about the chuff chuff guy earlier? Yeah some loons exist. Loons gonna be loons and religion isn't the issue for me.

I agree with this. I find that many (even in the examples quoted in this particular thread) tend to use the minority of religious lunatics (which can be found in every segment of society) to justify their anti-religion stance.

 

[nimic]

About the bolded, He actually did that but His creation was corrupted by sin. He plans to make all things right once more and restore a perfect world for eternity.

But he created sin. And the sinners. And the vehicle of the sin (the snake and the apple). And he's omnipotent, so he knew that they would sin. So it's hard to call it a genuine attempt to create paradise. More like an ancient WUM.

 

[Carolina Red]

The alternative to free will is to imagine humans as a type of pre-programmed robot, but from a spiritual perspective (which we assume that a presumed God has) that would have no value and be pointless.

An all-knowing God would know that the only meaningful "goodness" is that which is freely arrived at and chosen. And God has all of eternity to see how things work out - including two steps forward and one step back and all that.

If you’re referring to predestination, then yes, that is the alternative… it’s also the position actually supported by the Bible.

As I said previously some pages ago, neither the free will nor the predestination theories paint this god in a good light.

have brought me to the point of accepting that I don't need to understand everything. I feel complete and fulfilled with my understanding and knowledge of God.

Which is exactly what I’m saying about the cozy security blanket.

 

[Kinsella]

Religion can both be good & bad, those two things can be true at the same time. It’s not a zero sum exercise.

I never claimed it was.

You actually believe that religion has no negatives to it? If so, .

I never said that either, as you know.

To go back to the original point - you claimed that religion 'most certainly has perverted the course of human development' but in which areas of human development do you believe this to be the case?

 

[Kinsella]

You should know the justification he gave for slaughtering the Catholics. At least I do… it’s why my family fled here.

He's probably the most hated person in Irish history, so I'm well aware of him. But I'm still not sure why you mentioned him in the context you did.

It's interesting to hear your background though. Have you researched your family tree well?

 

[Carolina Red]

He's probably the most hated person in Irish history, so I'm well aware of him. I'm not sure why you mentioned him in the context you did though.

It's interesting to hear your background though. Have you researched your family tree well?

1) because Cromwell saw his invasion as a crusade against heresy and because prior Protestant vs Catholic violence in Ulster was used as justification for the order of no quarter.

2) yes

 

[Kinsella]

1) because Cromwell saw his invasion as a crusade against heresy

If Cromwell himself had been Irish, then your mention of him would've been more valid.

2) yes

When did your ancestors leave Ireland then? (I always get a little bit jealous of people with interesting family tree stories )

 

[Carolina Red]

If Cromwell himself had been Irish, then your mention of him would've been more valid.



When did your ancestors leave Ireland then? (I always get a little bit jealous of people with interesting family tree stories )

Cromwell is part of the history of Protestant / Catholic violence on that island.

The first of us to come here left in 1651.

 

[Kinsella]

Cromwell is part of the history of Protestant / Catholic violence on that island.

Yes but Cromwell was an English military ruler, or dictator in modern terms.

And the sectarian violence in Ireland stems from colonisation.

The first of us to come here left in 1651.

Have you ever been 'back'?

& Whereabouts in Ireland btw?

 

[Carolina Red]

Yes but Cromwell was an English military ruler, or dictator in modern terms.

And the sectarian violence in Ireland stems from colonisation.



Have you ever been 'back'?

I’m aware. What I said was: “Religion has been a great unifying force there for sure.”

Yes, I have. Beautiful country.

 

[Kinsella]

I’m aware. What I said was: “Religion has been a great unifying force there for sure.”

Yes but I think your mention of Cromwell in that context was in serious error for obvious reasons.

Yes, I have. Beautiful country.

Whereabouts in Ireland were they from btw?