Religion, what's the point?

[MrMojo]

'All religion is bollocks' - in no way aggressive or combative.

Calling something bollocks is militant behaviour now is it?

 

[Eyepopper]

Adopting a position which asserts your infallibility while at the same time I insulting alternative beliefs and insinuating that those that hold it are somehow stupid, playing catch up or naive is pretty combative and militant i'd say yeah.

 

[MrMojo]

Adopting a position which asserts your infallibility while at the same time I insulting alternative beliefs and insinuating that those that hold it are somehow stupid, playing catch up or naive I'd say is pretty combative and militant i'd say yeah.

Let me get this straight. Militant behaviour in religion would normally include holy wars, inciting violence, doctrine based justice. Yet on the atheist side it's something like calling religion bollocks on an Internet forum. Seems a trifle unfair to me.

How havw some of us become so precious, you must be constantly offended by everything you see if you regard the title of this thread as militant behaviour.

 

[kiristao]

I'm an athiest who happens to think religion is nonsense. But I don't obsess about it or waste my time getting into long arguments with the religious trying to convince them they're wrong, because that would put me in good stead with hardcore over-zealous religious types who are sure they are right and I am wrong.

I'm convinced that human beings, particularly in the internet/social media age where more people have access to information, are gradually deprogramming from religious mysticism and examining ideas more critically, including existencial ones that serve as the basis of many religious doctrines. As more and more information becomes available through technology, particularly in the developing world, I can easily see a world that is dominated by critical thought & reason at the expense of religion within the next 50 years.

I hope your true. And this coming from a religious guy. And when i say religious, I mean I only follow the bits in my religion that I believe are good for me and are practical. Stuff that help me stay diciplined, honest & generally nice.
I will never try and impose it on anyone though and I will definately not try to prove how my religion, or more importantly, my interpretation of the religion is better than someone else.
To be honest though, looking at the way the world is going right now, it seems to me there will be more influence of religion and religious leaders in 50 years rather than lesser.

 

[Zarlak]

He hasn't, militant atheism is just a new buzz word, it's completely fatuous. A few atheists might phrase things a bit strongly but to suggest it's aggressive or combative, do me a favour.

Calling something bollocks is militant behaviour now is it?

Let me get this straight. Militant behaviour in religion would normally include holy wars, inciting violence, doctrine based justice. Yet on the atheist side it's something like calling religion bollocks on an Internet forum. Seems a trifle unfair to me.

How havw some of us become so precious, you must be constantly offended by everything you see if you regard the title of this thread as militant behaviour.

It sounds like you misunderstand the definition of militant.

 

[Eyepopper]

Let me get this straight. Militant behaviour in religion would normally include holy wars, inciting violence, doctrine based justice. Yet on the atheist side it's something like calling religion bollocks on an Internet forum. Seems a trifle unfair to me.

How havw some of us become so precious, you must be constantly offended by everything you see if you regard the title of this thread as militant behaviour.

Whose offended? I'm an atheist myself.

I didn't realise you can only call something militant in comparison to something else. I guess black supremacists are really militant, you know seeing as white supremacists have done far worse.

 

[MrMojo]

It sounds like you misunderstand the definition of militant.

I haven't, I just don't live my life by dictionary definitions, I throw some common sense in as well. When the dictionary refers to militancy as aggression it seems clear to me it means a high level of aggression. Not just a bit of name calling.

Whose offended? I'm an atheist myself.

I didn't realise you can only call something militant in comparison to something else. I guess black supremacists are really militant, you know seeing as white supremacists have done far worse.

I don't know what to say, this is a whole new level of sensitivity.

If I claimed Elvis was still alive, that I knew this just because I felt it and it brought comfort to me. If you called it bollocks would that make you militant?

 

[Eyepopper]

Do you not think equating belief in religion and elvis still being alive is in itself combative and insensitive?

How about someone tells you they feel their dead mother somehow watches over them and it gives them great comfort? Would you feel compelled to tell them they were talking bollocks?

 

[MrMojo]

Do you not think equating belief in religion and elvis still being alive is in itself combative and insensitive?

How about someone tells you they feel their dead mother somehow watches over them and it gives them great comfort? Would you feel compelled to tell them they were talking bollocks?

What's the difference?

 

[Eyepopper]

If you have to ask then the debate is entirely pointless.

If you don't know then I fully understand why you'd stand over the statement that all religion is bollocks, although with such a fundamental lack of understanding I'm not sure how valid any opinion you hold on religion is.

Ignorance is a huge problem when it comes to things like respect or tolerance.

 

[MrMojo]

If you have to ask then the debate is entirely pointless.

If you don't know then I fully understand why you'd stand over the statement that all religion is bollocks, although with such a fundamental lack of understanding I'm not sure how valid any opinion you hold on religion is.

Ignorance is a huge problem when it comes to things like respect or tolerance.

I thought that would be the answer because to actually offer an explanation is impossible. Seriously, have a go.

Calling religion bollocks is now militant. Yet not respecting my belief that Elvis is alive is ok? Suggesting I'm ignorant of respect, tolerance and lacking in understanding is also seemingly ok. As it happens, I don't as a result of those words think you're militant.

This is the entire crux of the argument, when it comes to religion there is an increased sensitivity, a forbidden way of discussing it that doesn't exist in any other area of life. You've just demonstrated it perfectly and you're an atheist.

 

[Eyepopper]

I'm not suggesting anything. If you honestly don't understand the difference between religion and thinking Elvis is still alive then you are ignorant of the role and influence of religion and the best advice I could give you would be to go do a bit of reading.

If you still don't get it I'd give up trying to learn, get on with your life and stop frustrating yourself.

By the way, if much of your moral existence was rooted in the idea that Elvis was still alive I'm not sure my default reaction would be to rubbish your beliefs, what would the point be?

 

[Care_de_Bobo]

I think that atheists are justified in being smug. We're right, after all.

I don't feel smug at all, I just feel a great sense of anger and sadness that something with no hard evidence can cause such division and suffering throughout the world. The worst thing about it is no one religion will ever be proved to be right so the arguments could potentially go on forever.

All the potential for good that religion has is rendered almost meaningless in the grand scheme of things when you take into account all the killing and abuse that has taken place in the name of religion.

Regardless of the fact I despise religion(well the harmful side-effects anyway) I still don't have any ill feelings toward the people who follow it, though I'm pretty sure the feeling isn't always mutual.

If I have to go to hell then so be it, I'd rather that than blindly believe something for which there is no empirical evidence. A God who values the blind faith of his followers over taking the time to provide hard evidence is no God of mine.

 

[MrMojo]

I'm not suggesting anything. If you honestly don't understand the difference between religion and thinking Elvis is still alive then you are ignorant of the role and influence of religion and the best advice I could give you would be to go do a bit of reading.

If you still don't get it I'd give up trying to learn, get on with your life and stop frustrating yourself.

By the way, if much of your moral existence was rooted in the idea that Elvis was still alive I'm not sure my default reaction would be to rubbish your beliefs, what would the point be?

We have irrefutable evidence that Elvis existed, we have irrefutable evidence that people fake their own deaths. Elvis means more to some people than God.We have no irrefutable evidence that God exists, none whatsoever. Yet in your opinion it's militant to call Religion bollocks but not so to say the same about Elvis being alive.

It's ok to say i lack understanding, i lack tolerance, that i show ignorance but not to say religion is bollocks.

You can't be an atheist and not see the massive level of double standards you're putting out there.

 

[moses]

'All religion is bollocks' - in no way aggressive or combative.

While there are defo some pretty relentless atheists in the thread calling something bollocks is pretty much the standard way we disagree on the forum?

As an atheist yourself, you agree with that it's 'bollocks', just more politely?

I'm honestly asking, as mostly I don't engage with my family on religion at all, there is no language for deep conversations without some sort of insult. It's the new IRA for me in a way, and a discussion I mainly have with people I agree with, especially since I've moved from Dublin and all my close friends, and are thus quite brief conversations. The only time I did engage was the time over having to baptize the kids, and it wasn't pretty.

 

[MrMarcello]

What's up with all the Christianmingle commercials?

They're on like every fecking commercial break on ESPN.

 

[moses]

By the way, if much of your moral existence was rooted in the idea that Elvis was still alive I'm not sure my default reaction would be to rubbish your beliefs, what would the point be?

If that was the only effect of religion on our society then yes, it would be best ignored, but as someone living in Ireland you have to see the wider effects? Abortion for one. Then there's contraception. The police came into UCD when I was there in the 90's and used crowbars to take a condom machine off the wall. And state funded catholic education. It's not a neutral force.

 

[moses]

Militant was a phrase given to feminists in the 70's because they wouldn't shut up about it, despite them being right to not shut up about it.

I can also see in an era where religious fundamentalism has us on the verge of many wars that talking is called militant; while correct by definition I can see why it grates.

 

[Eyepopper]

If that was the only effect of religion on our society then yes, it would be best ignored, but as someone living in Ireland you have to see the wider effects? Abortion for one. Then there's contraception. The police came into UCD when I was there in the 90's and used crowbars to take a condom machine off the wall. And state funded catholic education. It's not a neutral force.

Of course I see the specifics but this thread says 'all religion is bollocks' which is, bollocks.

We have people saying it who don't understand why religious beliefs are any different to someone insisting Elvis is still alive.

If someone cant see beyond the 'supreme super being' aspect of religion and at least even acknowledge that there are other aspects which possibly have the potential to play a positive role in society, then I don't think they're best positioned to be making sweeping statements.

 

[Alock1]

Religion has had such importance and influence on the world today that whether or not God truely exists doesn't really matter anymore, as essentially he's been living through us anyway.

Religion has had a huge effect on our ethic and moral codes and standards.. It's easy for people to say that religion held science back and that was a bad thing (medicine) - however; you could say that due to science we are much closer to the self-destruction and the world's end than we were before, than the years that passed. My view is that both are tools, like garden tools.. mostly used for good, but put in the hands of the wrong people, and you have a hedge-trimmer wielding maniac on your hands. It's not religion or science that is bad or good - it's how people use and manipulate them.

I was raised in a Christian family, confirmed through my own choice at the age of 11. I remember taking 'lessons' for it (sad, right?) - I remember asking questions which I was told were too 'deep' or 'complex' for her to explain; I went through with it anyway - accepting that I didn't need to know all the answers.
Although I moved away from the faith, I still hold to that today, technically though I have no religion - I do not worship, I don't pray, I never consider God or any religious teachings when considering or reflecting on my own conduct. I'm an agnostic. I don't need to pretend to know all the answers, I find there is far more rational in believing that God's cannot currently be proven rather than they never can be proven - I also accept that one doesn't and shouldn't need proof of God to believe in him. For some, they have a gut feeling, it's an instinct - it's a belief; there is no need for proof or evidence, because life can be more than that. It's hard for atheists to understand this willingness to believe in something without hard evidence, but that's expected since they have not experienced such a belief.

Religion can be seen as a science - you have a theory/belief, you want to test that theory and find the truth - whether or not you get the answer isn't what is important here. Science hasn't been built upon mistakes (apples falling from trees) but people wanting to find answers, and committing themselves to finding such answers. Sure, people will claim that science as a 'knowledge' doesn't leave room for guesses and speculations without reasonable proof behind them - but the process and quest to find knowledge does leave room for it.

I personally find people who try to push a belief on me incredibly annoying. Atheism annoys me in particular, there is a lot of hypocrisy from a lot of atheists (not all, obviously). They criticize religions for thinking that they have superior knowledge, yet you a lot of atheists are incredibly smug that they aren't religious, lording it that their lack of belief and able to exist and live happily without one makes them somewhat superior or better.

 

[Silva]

Name one bit of religion which isn't bollocks though.

And the positive role religion plays is also replicated by non-religious sectors, so that's rather moot.

 

[Saliph]

Of course I see the specifics but this thread says 'all religion is bollocks' which is, bollocks.

We have people saying it who don't understand why religious beliefs are any different to someone insisting Elvis is still alive.

If someone cant see beyond the 'supreme super being' aspect of religion and at least even acknowledge that there are other aspects which possibly have the potential to play a positive role in society, then I don't think they're best positioned to be making sweeping statements.

I can't think of one thing in religion that plays a positive role in society that necessitates believing something on bad evidence. All the good stuff in religion you can have without pretending to know stuff you don't know, and without pretending that you're under divine orders to do so.

 

[Eyepopper]

Much of the interpretation and application of religion by the Catholic Church in Ireland has been negative, obviously. And I've very little time for any organised religion I've ever seen, but that's not to say religion is bollocks or still actually quite important in society now, or more to the point that the void left by the absence of religion has removed has been replaced by something which has removed all ills from the world.

 

[Saliph]

Religion has had a huge effect on our ethic and moral codes and standards.. It's easy for people to say that religion held science back and that was a bad thing (medicine) - however; you could say that due to science we are much closer to the self-destruction and the world's end than we were before, than the years that passed. My view is that both are tools, like garden tools.. mostly used for good, but put in the hands of the wrong people, and you have a hedge-trimmer wielding maniac on your hands. It's not religion or science that is bad or good - it's how people use and manipulate them.

- No, excuse me, science is not a belief, or a moral position of any kind. It's a method. Religion is an affirmation of faith, including moral positions as dictated by the holy books. They're not analogous.

Religion can be seen as a science - you have a theory/belief, you want to test that theory and find the truth - whether or not you get the answer isn't what is important here. Science hasn't been built upon mistakes (apples falling from trees) but people wanting to find answers, and committing themselves to finding such answers. Sure, people will claim that science as a 'knowledge' doesn't leave room for guesses and speculations without reasonable proof behind them - but the process and quest to find knowledge does leave room for it.

- No, religion is not a science. It has none of the mechanisms that allow science to make discoveries and improve upon knowledge. Religion is not about developing theories, it's about positing hypotheses, and believing those hypotheses without bothering to test them.

 

[Alock1]

I can't think of one thing in religion that plays a positive role in society that necessitates believing something on bad evidence. All the good stuff in religion you can have without pretending to know stuff you don't know, and without pretending that you're under divine orders to do so.

That's easy to say now that our ethic codes have been influenced and based upon religious values and beliefs. We don't know where we would be without them. I think the move from cave man towards the modern day man was largely influenced by religion and personally I would say in a good way.

Your problem in understanding is that you believe is always a CHOICE that people come to logically, rather than just believing because they do. That's not to say they are forced or couldn't move away, but it is possible to believe in something just for believing in it.

You could argue that that is a result of people who chose to believe it centuries ago, and that they have passed it down and people are often taught it as fact or that they were 'brainwashed' while young to believing in a God/religion. But even if true, the end result is always that some people just 'believe' without choosing to believe.

 

[Eyepopper]

I can't think of one thing in religion that plays a positive role in society that necessitates believing something on bad evidence. All the good stuff in religion you can have without pretending to know stuff you don't know.

Of course but right now that's a parallel universe somewhere isn't it?

My view is that religion is a reaction to the wonder brought about by human consciousness, and to a large extent the arrogance of not wanting to believe that we are the fundamentally the same as every other living thing.

People came up with theories as to what it was all about and tried to give people rules by which to live by. Some of these were good and some bad, lots of people listened and were so happy to have someone give them the answers they sought that they got carried away and insisted these people were themselves somehow above the rest of us.

Over time religions became organised, diluted, biased and corrupted which leads us to the modern day.

But those basic first questions, why are we here? What's it all about are still there and for many people religion is simply about those first answers.

 

[Eyepopper]

Science can tell us how we're here but what it can't tell us is why.

There may be no diffinitive answer to that, personally I don't think there is, but it's a question that has been and will be asked until we go the route of the dinosaurs.

 

[Silva]

I don't see how anything you're saying prove that religion isn't bollocks popper.

 

[Alock1]

- No, excuse me, science is not a belief, or a moral position of any kind. It's a method. Religion is an affirmation of faith, including moral positions as dictated by the holy books. They're not analogous.



- No, religion is not a science. It has none of the mechanisms that allow science to make discoveries and improve upon knowledge. Religion is not about developing theories, it's about positing hypotheses, and believing those hypotheses without bothering to test them.

People live their lives out in the name of a religion with a result in sight - to me, that's them testing them. Anybody who makes sacrifices and alters their life due to their belief is testing them. I don't believe that Science is a Religion, which I think is what you are confusing me with saying. I was simply considering that religion has some similarities to Science in terms of the quest for knowledge and discovery. You cannot claim that Scientists theories or beliefs are always originally based upon factual evidence because that's clearly not true.

Can you tell me where I said that science is a belief? In the bit you quoted, I simply said that both religion and science could be held responsible for undesirable things in the world, but that I blamed the humans for how they manipulate them. Humans being able to manipulate science doesn't equate to me saying that science is a belief.

 

[Silva]

Living according to a religious book doesn't count as testing it, it counts as sheepish behavior. If you were to buy a book about nutrition and test that, then yeah, that kind of counts. Religion on the other hand is just entirely bollocks.

 

[rednev]

Of course I see the specifics but this thread says 'all religion is bollocks' which is, bollocks.

We have people saying it who don't understand why religious beliefs are any different to someone insisting Elvis is still alive.

If someone cant see beyond the 'supreme super being' aspect of religion and at least even acknowledge that there are other aspects which possibly have the potential to play a positive role in society, then I don't think they're best positioned to be making sweeping statements.

Whether religion plays a positive role or not is irrelevant. It's a question of what is true and what isn't. And the 'truths' of religion are without foundation - that's what we mean when we say it's bollocks.

Science can tell us how we're here but what it can't tell us is why.

There may be no diffinitive answer to that, personally I don't think there is, but it's a question that has been and will be asked until we go the route of the dinosaurs.

The question of why we are here assumes that there is some creative intent behind our existence. And even if you do want to start from that viewpoint, I don't see how it can possibly be answered through religion. It can only be answered through the evaluation of evidence.

 

[rednev]

Has Popper gone soft on us and atheism?

An unbeliever...Persecute! persecute!

 

[Saliph]

People live their lives out in the name of a religion with a result in sight - to me, that's them testing them. Anybody who makes sacrifices and alters their life due to their belief is testing them. I don't believe that Science is a Religion, which I think is what you are confusing me with saying. I was simply considering that religion has some similarities to Science in terms of the quest for knowledge and discovery. You cannot claim that Scientists theories or beliefs are always originally based upon factual evidence because that's clearly not true.

- I haven't said that. I've said that science is a pursuit of knowledge. Because that pursuit is being conducted by human beings, mistakes are obviously bound to happen.

Religion isn't, it's about claiming to already know.

Can you tell me where I said that science is a belief? In the bit you quoted, I simply said that both religion and science could be held responsible for undesirable things in the world, but that I blamed the humans for how they manipulate them. Humans being able to manipulate science doesn't equate to me saying that science is a belief.

It's literally meaningless to say that science can be "held responsible" for anything. It's a method - a tool, if you will - and as such it can be used for whatever the person wielding it desires. If someone shoots another person, you don't jail the gun. Guns don't have morals.

My problem with (Abrahamic) religion isn't that it's being "used" for anything, it's that it is intrinsically divisive, and that the principles and holy books it's founded on are fundamentally immoral, hateful and destructive. People like the London murderer aren't committing evil acts "in the name of" religion, they're doing it because of the belief in religion. It's not a neutral tool like science, it's a value system.

If the Abrahamic religions really were all about peace and love and all that stuff, then you could rightly say that it was being manipulated and misrepresented.

 

[rednev]

Religion has had such importance and influence on the world today that whether or not God truely exists doesn't really matter anymore, as essentially he's been living through us anyway.

Religion has had a huge effect on our ethic and moral codes and standards.. It's easy for people to say that religion held science back and that was a bad thing (medicine) - however; you could say that due to science we are much closer to the self-destruction and the world's end than we were before, than the years that passed. My view is that both are tools, like garden tools.. mostly used for good, but put in the hands of the wrong people, and you have a hedge-trimmer wielding maniac on your hands. It's not religion or science that is bad or good - it's how people use and manipulate them.

I was raised in a Christian family, confirmed through my own choice at the age of 11. I remember taking 'lessons' for it (sad, right?) - I remember asking questions which I was told were too 'deep' or 'complex' for her to explain; I went through with it anyway - accepting that I didn't need to know all the answers.
Although I moved away from the faith, I still hold to that today, technically though I have no religion - I do not worship, I don't pray, I never consider God or any religious teachings when considering or reflecting on my own conduct. I'm an agnostic. I don't need to pretend to know all the answers, I find there is far more rational in believing that God's cannot currently be proven rather than they never can be proven - I also accept that one doesn't and shouldn't need proof of God to believe in him. For some, they have a gut feeling, it's an instinct - it's a belief; there is no need for proof or evidence, because life can be more than that. It's hard for atheists to understand this willingness to believe in something without hard evidence, but that's expected since they have not experienced such a belief.

Religion can be seen as a science - you have a theory/belief, you want to test that theory and find the truth - whether or not you get the answer isn't what is important here. Science hasn't been built upon mistakes (apples falling from trees) but people wanting to find answers, and committing themselves to finding such answers. Sure, people will claim that science as a 'knowledge' doesn't leave room for guesses and speculations without reasonable proof behind them - but the process and quest to find knowledge does leave room for it.

I personally find people who try to push a belief on me incredibly annoying. Atheism annoys me in particular, there is a lot of hypocrisy from a lot of atheists (not all, obviously). They criticize religions for thinking that they have superior knowledge, yet you a lot of atheists are incredibly smug that they aren't religious, lording it that their lack of belief and able to exist and live happily without one makes them somewhat superior or better.

Religion is not a science. It operates in contradiction to what science is all about - being open to being proved wrong. Religion takes a position and sticks with it, and teaches that part of the religion is 'faith' in these positions - i.e. the rejection of evidence that challenges them.

It is the anti-science.

 

[Alock1]

I guess I was considering my own personal experience of religion rather than as an official institution.

Church of England Church, Primary School and High School - we were never taught that religion was an absolute, that the Bible literally held all the answers, that there were no questions we couldn't answer.

It was always about the life style, the main principles were good natured. There was nothing forceful about it, and there was no emphasis on it being completely correct and wrong to challenge.

What I'm trying to say was that I was always taught that Christianity wasn't knowledge to counter Science, an alternative history - but was simply a way of living.

The analogy was more of a Scientific experiment. It was like, Christianity was a working hypothesis - the life was the experiment, further research (death) was needed before you could conclude it. Of course, you could make any thing a working hypothesis - I understand that.

As I said earlier, I'm not religious.. But for those who can find answers within religion: that's perfectly fine by me. Our brains are limited in what we can understand, for those who can find their answers away from logic and evidence - I see no problem.
I couldn't, my reasoned thoughts and feelings wouldn't allow me to live religiously, but I've never felt that that made me superior in any way though.

 

[Eyepopper]

Whether religion plays a positive role or not is irrelevant.

But all the negative stuff associated with it is fair game? Seems a little unbalanced to me.

As for truth and evidence well that goes back to doubting there's a big man in the sky really doesn't it? Personally I don't think there is bit it doesn't stop me seeing a huge amount of common sense, wise words and truth in religion.

Therefore while I'm not religious and have no real time for organised religion I think generalising that 'all religion' is bollocks is a little one dimensional.

I don't need to believe the characters in a book or film are actually real to learn something from the story.

 

[Eyepopper]

Has Popper gone soft on us and atheism?

An unbeliever...Persecute! persecute!

I'm certainly the last person you would have thought you'd find defending religion.

People shouldn't mix up the church (regardless of brand) and the core messages or most religions. The fact that those have been lost to such an extent when one thinks of religion is a damming enditement of organised religions

 

[Silva]

The core message of the religious books is "this is the truth, and if you don't listen, you're going to be eternally damned". That's not a good message.

And you forget who publishes these books, the organised religions.

 

[Saliph]

But all the negative stuff associated with it is fair game? Seems a little unbalanced to me.

As for truth and evidence well that goes back to doubting there's a big man in the sky really doesn't it? Personally I don't think there is bit it doesn't stop me seeing a huge amount of common sense, wise words and truth in religion.

Therefore while I'm not religious and have no real time for organised religion I think generalising that 'all religion' is bollocks is a little one dimensional.

I don't need to believe the characters in a book or film are actually real to learn something from the story.

Well, we're not criticizing the philosophical parts of religious texts (or even certain principles) though. We're (I am, anyway) criticizing it for its bad ideas, which are held for bad reasons, and leading to bad behavior. You don't have to believe anything on insufficient evidence to see wisdom in the golden rule, for example.

 

[Zarlak]

Well, we're not criticizing the philosophical parts of religious texts (or even certain principles) though. We're (I am, anyway) criticizing it for its bad ideas, which are held for bad reasons, and leading to bad behavior. You don't have to believe anything on insufficient evidence to see wisdom in the golden rule, for example.

Then simply put, all religion is not after all, bollocks. Just the bits you don't agree with.