Religion, what's the point?

Science isn't materialistic, the language of science (for the most part) is maths. You can have both physical proof and logic based proof. Religion passes neither of those tests.

Exactly. So you can't reject my belief just because I don't have a physical, materialistic, factual evidence/proof. We can debate logically, without materialistic evidences, to try and draw certain conclusions, based on logic.

And religion actually does make logical arguments. If you agree with me that I don't necessarily need materialistic evidences to have a debate about religion, then we can discuss those logical arguments.
 
If god didn't exist, would you kill a 5 year old?

Do you think I'm trying to prove that God is actually the reason why you don't want to kill a 5 years old kid? Because that's not where I'm going at all. I totally believe that you choose to kill him or not, God has nothing to do with that.

I'm only trying to understand your thought process, and the factual evidences that you have to support your belief that killing a 5 years old is wrong.
 
Exactly. So you can't reject my belief just because I don't have a physical, materialistic, factual evidence/proof. We can debate logically, without materialistic evidences, to try and draw certain conclusions, based on logic.

And religion actually does make logical arguments. If you agree with me that I don't necessarily need materialistic evidences to have a debate about religion, then we can discuss those logical arguments.

Do you think I'm trying to prove that God is actually the reason why you don't want to kill a 5 years old kid? Because that's not where I'm going at all. I totally believe that you choose to kill him or not, God has nothing to do with that.

I'm only trying to understand your thought process, and the factual evidences that you have to support your belief that killing a 5 years old is wrong.

Then what are you arguing? Why are you on this tangent? If god isn't the reason for what you do and feel (and god isn't) then what's the point of this tangent?

Feel free to give a logical argument as to why Allah is real. We're open to you giving it a go.

And again, what? Why do you want scientific evidence that killing a 5 year old child is wrong? That doesn't have anything to do with science. Morality and ethics is a field of its own.
 
The impression some are trying to give here is that we're getting closer to knowing everything.
I haven't seen anyone imply that at all.

In truth we're moving further away actually, even though we keep knowing more everyday
Nonsense. There is a finite amount of possible knowledge in the world, and however near infinitely far away we are from complete knowledge, we are moving forward. Again, knowing that there are more things we don't know doesn't count as losing knowledge. On the contrary, it is in itself another piece of valuable knowledge.

and we're still limited by our materialistic laws which help us everyday discover new things in the materialistic world, but will never help us answer questions outside it's materialistic territory like "where did the matter originally come from", because it destroys the basis of its laws.
Science would quite possibly explain "where did the matter originally come from". Why wouldn't it? A few hundred years ago they thought we would never be able to explain bacteria, a few thousand years ago they though we would never be able to explain lightning or earthquakes. The origins of the Universe is a matter a fair bit more advanced than that, but there's no reason to assume we will never be able to know it. Or, to put it better, it would be possible to know it. Whether humanity will exist for long enough to get that far is another question entirely.
 
Oh god, Danny's been arguing about science again.
 
May I intervene here and ask you: based on what factual evidence?

You asked my opinion. I don't need to provide you with evidence of my own moral intuitions. I'm not making a factual claim, and I'm not pretending to. As I said I don't think there are any moral absolutes in any real sense, but if you're looking for a foundation for my moral values, I'd say that I think all morality ultimately relates to human and animal well-being, and it's obvious that killing children is not a good way of maximizing it.
 
but will never help us answer questions outside it's materialistic territory like "where did the matter originally come from", because it destroys the basis of its laws.

Actually a physicist named Lawrence Krauss has just released a book dealing with that very subject.

a-universe-from-nothing1.jpg
 
Are you under the impression that I'm saying that science is bad and you should stop pursuing science? Or that religion is saying that? If so you're wrong on both accounts.

Yes. We can say whatever we want but religion is anti-science. No need to quote the Ikra verse of Quran, I know it. I also know the non-sense all holy books have when they start speaking about science. And I know the war that is going on between religious views and proper science. Evolution, a think as clear as something can be in science is repeatedly denied by religion.

Science does make you know more, and does help you make progress, though only in the things it specializes in, materialism.
Almost everything we know is materialist. The other part is energy. And of course, if we want to go a little bit more advanced then it comes th dark matter and dark energy. While I don't know if they technically can be defined as matter, they surely are nothing spiritual. So, if the science defines only the material part of universe, well, that is all the part that does matter, because, you know that is the only thing that exists.

It's like asking somebody living in a one dimensional universe to explain what a cube is.
It is possible to know. The mathematics in the last hundred years has advanced in more than three dimensions. The M-Theory is based on 11 dimensions.

All science does is explain the transformation of matter from one form to another, and the laws that regulate that, because it is based on the belief that something can't come from nothing.
Err, Big Bang (although it isn't a good term) came from nothing. And the science does much more than only explaining the transformation of matter.

You can go all day long explaining how the "something" was a "smaller something" which in turn was an "even smaller thing", ..., but you're not getting there. There have to be a point where you start, according to science. That's the main rule. Why doesn't it apply to "God" according to religion? Because God isn't materialistic, so it doesn't follow the materialistic rules.

So, you change the rules of the game, say that God is not materialistic (something that doesn't make much sense anyway) and make him exempt from the rules. And then we have to believe a non-sense that he send to us some time ago which contradicts both itself and proper science (all Abraham religions here).

Religion doesn't give you knowledge about the things that science can discover. What do you think of religion? Like a physics book? It would be pointless if it would tell me materialistic facts, because we don't need them, we can figure out those on our own if we try to figure it out. The point of religion is to help you figure out things that science can't really discover.
We don't need materialistic facts, eh? Cool.

Let's go to things the religion help us to discover, things that Science can never do

If you're thinking how can I drive a better car and live in a better home, then you have to pursue science, which religion also urges you to do, but if you're trying to look for answers about questions that science can't really tell you anything about (like who made the universe, what's going to happen after death, why are we here on Earth...etc.) then that's what religion and the religious books are for.

who made the universe - early to know, but we are going into that direction. The string theory and the multiverse thing are far more advanced than what we thought only 50 years ago. Like someone said, only some time ago we didn't understand the basic things like lightning. Only 400 years ago, we thought that the Earth is at center of universe. And only a century ago Einstein made the special theory of relativity. On the other side, the precious religion only says that the God made the universe. A great explanation? Not really. It is the most basic explanation and doesn't solve anything, while it creates the answer 'Who created the God?' which of course religion doesn't like that much.

what's going to happen after death - game over mate. Feel lucky that from millions of spermatozoa you were 'the chosen one'. Of course religion comes with the explanation of heaven/hell which again is such a ridiculous and as basic as it can be explanation.

why are we here - we are product of evolution. We learn it at school, but now thanks to religion in many places kids have the choice to learn it, or learn the better explanation of intelligent design. Islam of course go even further. We are here to adore the God. Bloody hell, what an egocentric maniac the God is.

Product of, but it, in itself, isn't materialistic. They're subjective, not objective. Can you tell me for sure if a plant suffers from pain or not? Can you tell me for sure if a plant is happy or not? We can only tell because we compare their reactions to our reactions. If a dog is designed to smile when he feels the pain you'd never know he's in pain. You're only comparing his reactions to the human ones and concluding that he's suffering. What if pain had other mechanisms that stimulates it? Will you be able to detect it then? Unless the object itself can communicate with you (one way or another) and tell you about it, or give you a signal about it?

To be fair, I really don't understand what you are trying to say in this last paragraph. Anyway, pain is materialistic, and the perception of pain is because of the electric signals.
 
You asked my opinion. I don't need to provide you with evidence of my own moral intuitions. I'm not making a factual claim, and I'm not pretending to. As I said I don't think there are any moral absolutes in any real sense, but if you're looking for a foundation for my moral values, I'd say that I think all morality ultimately relates to human and animal well-being, and it's obvious that killing children is not a good way of maximizing it.

Of course that the moral thing doesn't really exist, and is more an artificial term.

My moral is very simple - 'Don't do to others things that I wouldn't want others to do me'.
 
Aren't morals/ethics based on secular humanist principles? The stuff like not killing, committing adultery, being nice to people is pretty universal and not something that any one religion can claim to have invented. Religion probably wrote it all down first but I expect our ancestors always knew there were expectations on how to behave in a communal society.
 
We'd have had well established notions of "good" and "bad" actions well before a god came around to the idea of putting some in tablet form for us, yeah.

And let's not get into the morality of creating us sinners, so that we may be saved (or else burn in hell, forever).
 
So are there any people in here that are purely Atheist? Or are most of the people 'against' religion Agnostics like myself?
 
Religion doesn't give you knowledge about the things that science can discover. What do you think of religion? Like a physics book? It would be pointless if it would tell me materialistic facts, because we don't need them, we can figure out those on our own if we try to figure it out. The point of religion is to help you figure out things that science can't really discover. If you're thinking how can I drive a better car and live in a better home, then you have to pursue science, which religion also urges you to do, but if you're trying to look for answers about questions that science can't really tell you anything about (like who made the universe, what's going to happen after death, why are we here on Earth...etc.) then that's what religion and the religious books are for.

You can't have your cake and eat it. A question like "How were we created ?" is not something that science can't answer and in fact it did. For centuries, religious people perpetuated the absolutely false version described by the religious texts. Generations of religious experts agreed on the creationist version of our origins. And now when science has finally found out the truth about our origins with solid proofs and proper scientific methodology, suddenly religion isn't anymore about materialistic facts ? No, instead of telling yourself : "Well, this God who pretends to have created us and to be the origin of everything got something as fundamental pretty wrong...Hum...Something is definitely fishy here...This might be 7th century human work after all" you say "Oooh ! But this is all a metaphor ! This is a test to truly distinguish between those worthy of heaven and those who use their minds and follow logic instead of blindly accepting what 7th century people used to believe !".
Religions' biggest mistake is their poor attempt at answering some questions reserved to science. If a perfect God is behind those books, they should be absolutely void of any factual mistake. The fact is they aren't and the reason is that it is the work of 7th century (for Islam at least) humans whose view of the world and knowledge was ridiculously poor.
 
So are there any people in here that are purely Atheist? Or are most of the people 'against' religion Agnostics like myself?

I don't believe in a god, no.
 
So are there any people in here that are purely Atheist? Or are most of the people 'against' religion Agnostics like myself?

I don't believe in Abraham god. I don't believe in any other form of deities that humanity know, though my knowledge is not that good at other religions outside of Abraham views.

So, I am pretty much atheist and don't believe in a personal God. Of course, I don't rule out the possibility of it, but if he/she/it really exist, it is definitely completely different to the known God.

PS: I believe in flying Spaghetti Monster though.
 
I'm almost completely agnostic, swaying on the side that I think they're may be something.

I do think that pretty much all of organised religion is complete and utter nonsense, and I'm pretty sure the older I get the more skeptical I'm going to become.
 
Synonyms do indeed exist but their goal is to provide a different syntax for the same semantics. Head and neck are not synonyms but they do not alter the meaning of the verse. It does not make any difference whether the verse uses necks or heads, we are fundamentally talking about a call for violence against non muslims. The verse is clear, the context is clear and the generalization that follows is clear too. The historical context of the apparition of the sourate in which the verse appears also has its importance. We are talking about Islam's first steps towards imperialism, the desire of a man to impose his views upon others by force if necessary. There are verses in the Quran which are up to interpretation but not this one. No matter how Quran defenders would like to twist the verses to accomodate modern day values and advances, the truth is that it is a 7th century book full of factual errors and calls to violence which did not bother people at the time because they were simply ignorant.

The context of the passage in question requires further analysis - but a quick analysis is that its concerning actions within a battle or during a battle - where swords were the weapon of choice?

As long as people want to force their view, opinion, morals, ideology onto others there will be conflict - imperialism doesn't require the succor of religous text to prosper.
 
The context of the passage in question requires further analysis - but a quick analysis is that its concerning actions within a battle or during a battle - where swords were the weapon of choice?

As long as people want to force their view, opinion, morals, ideology onto others there will be conflict - imperialism doesn't require the succor of religous text to prosper.

I feel we are not talking about the same issue here. I already posted in a previous post the context of the verse (Badr's battle) and I stressed on the fact that it contains a generalization which states God's punishment in this life and the after-life for the non-believers (in general, not only in the context of a battle !). The Quran is full of such verses (I was obliged to learn many of them by heart so I know what I am talking about). The objection made by some is that the punishment is to be carried by God and not by humans. Leaving aside the hypocrisy of such an objection, I say that it does not matter who carries the punishment since the principle behind is horrible. Why should those that have a different religion than you be punished ? Is this the act of a caring God ? And I further said that this can be understood by the emergence of Islam's imperialism and desire to spread.

As for your second point, this is a reasoning that is frequent in this thread. Just because imperialism can arise outside the bounds of religion does not mean that we should not point it out when it is expressed in a religious context. We happen to be in a thread about religion so we are discussing it in this context. Religion has always be instrumentalized in order to serve the interests of a few and Islam is not an exception. Those who try to make it appear as a peaceful religion are kidding themselves. Violence is there for all to see from Quran's content to Muhammad's speech and acts and Islam's imperialist quest. This does not mean however that you can't be a muslim and be peaceful, the vast majority are so. However, their Islam has nothing to do with the original one. It has become modulated by modern day values and such.
 
This thread :lol:

People do not have the same personal relation with religion. Some had the chance to be born in secular societies with religious freedom while some of us had a particular religion shoved down our throat from an early age and having a different religious opinion means being in danger (From where I come from, one of the first things that is done to a new born is whisper Quran verses to his/her ears. Pretty symbolic). What may seem as a pointless discussion to some may not be the case for others.
 


If this is mainstream Islam, it's difficult to see a way forward. Not very conciliatory is it.
 
what's going to happen after death - game over mate. Feel lucky that from millions of spermatozoa you were 'the chosen one'. Of course religion comes with the explanation of heaven/hell which again is such a ridiculous and as basic as it can be explanation.

If we are simply energy we go somewhere. Absorbed into Earth? The atmosphere? Reincarnate?
 
If we reincarnate we wouldn't know about it anyway, so it's kind of moot :P
 
Danny's approach to arguing religion is really quite entertaining. He's stuck in an epistemological vortex that nearly guarantees he won't ever escape.
 
Danny's approach to arguing religion is really quite entertaining. He's stuck in an epistemological vortex that nearly guarantees he won't ever escape.

He is only using 'God's not materialist', 'all materialist things suck' all the time.
 
I can remember being religious about ten, eleven years ago and trying to argue for religion on the CAF by using the bible codes, or whatever nonsense it was called. Sigh.
 
One thing I don't understand is the fact that Genesis states The Earth is about 6,000 years old, which we know is absolutely false. So how can anyone take The Bible as the book of truths, when the whole basis on which it was created is now proven to be false? And it can't be said that Genesis shouldn't be taken literally, because it's not even out by a couple of centuries, but over 14 billion years. It makes no sense whatsoever, I don't get how this doesn't disprove Christianity and Judaism.
 
Yes. We can say whatever we want but religion is anti-science. No need to quote the Ikra verse of Quran, I know it. I also know the non-sense all holy books have when they start speaking about science. And I know the war that is going on between religious views and proper science. Evolution, a think as clear as something can be in science is repeatedly denied by religion.

I think this may be restricted to Islam and that too currently being made outdated. THe number of Islamic scholars and scientists who support the theory of evolution are growing. They are coming up with proof that Quran and Darwin's theory may not be at loggerheads as some preachings.

And, what is this war you claim to know about? Apart from Dan Brown novels, I cannot think of any war between religion & science. There are disbelievers in both camps, but what war?

Almost everything we know is materialist. The other part is energy. And of course, if we want to go a little bit more advanced then it comes th dark matter and dark energy. While I don't know if they technically can be defined as matter, they surely are nothing spiritual. So, if the science defines only the material part of universe, well, that is all the part that does matter, because, you know that is the only thing that exists.

There is material and then there are some clled spiritual or moral. Events which science cannot expalin are easily labelled as miracles and classified as spiritual. On top of that there are moral principles which should overrule science. Science should be pursued but not at the cost of human experimentation and such. Moreover the concept of "greater good" this though locially cold and accurate not morally acceptable by all. Science has not explained "all" and probably never will. As long as there are mysteries, there will be need for both the spiritual and the moral.

Err, Big Bang (although it isn't a good term) came from nothing. And the science does much more than only explaining the transformation of matter.

On the other side, the precious religion only says that the God made the universe. A great explanation? Not really. It is the most basic explanation and doesn't solve anything, while it creates the answer 'Who created the God?' which of course religion doesn't like that much.

It's not. This link is a lecture by Stephen Hawking title "The Beginning of Time". Let me extract some quotes...

Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences, one may as well cut them out of the theory, and say that time began at the Big Bang. Events before the Big Bang, are simply not defined, because there's no way one could measure what happened at them.

Although the laws of science seemed to predict the universe had a beginning, they also seemed to predict that they could not determine how the universe would have begun. This was obviously very unsatisfactory. So there were a number of attempts to get round the conclusion, that there was a singularity of infinite density in the past......This is that the classical theory, does not enable one to calculate what would come out of a singularity, because all the Laws of Physics would break down there.

Science has just assumed the Big Bang as a point of origin because that was the extent Science could reach out to. Science assumes that "Singularity" exists before and in that state even Laws of Physics would break. My belief is that religion just named this Singularity as "God". What you mention above is not a drawback of religion, but a place where both science and religion come together in principle, just not in name.
 
Sorry but you are the one being hypocrit here, here are the verses in arabic :

١١﴾إِذْ يُوحِى رَبُّكَ إِلَى ٱلْمَلَٰٓئِكَةِ أَنِّى مَعَكُمْ فَثَبِّتُوا۟ ٱلَّذِينَ ءَامَنُوا۟ ۚ سَأُلْقِى فِى قُلُوبِ ٱلَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا۟ ٱلرُّعْبَ فَٱضْرِبُوا۟ فَوْقَ ٱلْأَعْنَاقِ وَٱضْرِبُوا۟ مِنْهُمْ كُلَّ بَنَانٍۢ ﴿١٢﴾ذَٰلِكَ بِأَنَّهُمْ شَآقُّوا۟ ٱللَّهَ وَرَسُولَهُۥ ۚ وَمَن يُشَاقِقِ ٱللَّهَ وَرَسُولَهُۥ فَإِنَّ ٱللَّهَ شَدِيدُ ٱلْعِقَابِ ﴿١٣﴾ذَٰلِكُمْ فَذُوقُوهُ وَأَنَّ
لِلْكَٰفِرِينَ عَذَابَ ٱلنَّارِ ﴿١٤

There is absolutely no mention of a sword or a bow. The word شَآقُّوا۟ means "contradict" and no necessarily fight. My initial translation is correct.

http://www.almaany.com/home.php?language=arabic&lang_name=عربي&category=كلمات القران&word=شاقوا

The thing I will never understand, is why many feel that they can automatically transform themselves into experts of the Qur'an and the Arabic language. The thinking, too, is baffling. Many years have passed, I wonder why many before us do not say, "The Qur'an says kill non-believers, so it's not a religion of peace and this causes terrorism". Such a simplistic way of looking at things, that people tend to forget, more often than not, that context is pivotal. Before I continue, can we learn what the word context means? It's easy to copy and paste a verse, neglecting context entirely. You have done a simple job of removing the context and manipulated this to suit your agenda and belief, which I find to be perplexing.

The international translation of the verse:

[Remember] when your Lord inspired to the angels, "I am with you, so strengthen those who have believed. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieved, so strike [them] upon the necks and strike from them every fingertip."

These verses were revealed in reference to the Battle of Badr, which was the first major battle between Muslims and Meccan pagans. After the Prophet (PBUH) and his followers were expelled from Mecca and migrated to Medina (which was known as Yathrib), the Meccans seized all the property of the Muslims that was left in Mecca. And then, history was made. Now, when you're on the battlefield, what would you say to your troops? Would you say, "make love with them because they're going to kill you"? Or will you say: "kill them wherever you find them"? Obviously the latter and I find it a bit insulting that you would class yourself (it seems to be like this) as an expert, when you have been exposed to be nothing but someone who has an agenda and will use anything to manipulate texts to suit his need. There are scholars: Christian, Muslims, etc. who have studied these texts and have, fortunately, provided us with information regarding these verses. If you read the rest of the Surah (I am unsure if you can read Arabic, I sure hope you can), it says:

8.61. And if they (the enemies) incline to peace, incline to it also, and put your trust in God. Surely He is the All-Hearing, the All-Knowing.

That is the mercy of Islam. Make no mistake about it, Islam isn't a pacifist religion - we are allowed to retaliate. However, the religion of the peace arrives from the rules. So if you follow these rules, there will be peace and the world will be better. Whether you agree with that or not is entirely your decision, but please do not make the mistake of Al-Qaeda and Christian websites trying to take advantage of a verse without providing us with any form of context. It's inconsiderate, puerile, and shows that you don't know the history behind these verses.

Final point; there are many verses asking Muslims to kill the non-believers, but behind each one is a story, and the fact of the matter is, it doesn't tell any Muslim to kill them now - it all relates back to the time of the Prophets where they had to deal with non-Muslims showing a lack of respect, acting cowardly by killing them, and showing a lack of compassion. I'd also like to say: there is no compulsion in this religion. Judging a religion based on its followers is the wrong way to go - you judge a religion predominantly by what's been written and then you can see how the majority react and act.
 
One thing I don't understand is the fact that Genesis states The Earth is about 6,000 years old, which we know is absolutely false. So how can anyone take The Bible as the book of truths, when the whole basis on which it was created is now proven to be false? And it can't be said that Genesis shouldn't be taken literally, because it's not even out by a couple of centuries, but over 14 billion years. It makes no sense whatsoever, I don't get how this doesn't disprove Christianity and Judaism.

Where does Genesis state that the Earth is 6000 year old? How would that disprove Christianity and Judaism in entirety?