The Big Big Thread of Religious Discussion

[ZAKtheGeek]

Whats the difference of someone saying you can't argue something because it's "Divine Law" and someone arguing something because "boatloads of super smart people say so"? Sometimes we all take ourselves entirely too seriously.

There's a big difference. Pretty much all modern mainstream religion is based on texts that were written at least a couple centuries ago and called holy. Scientific theories, which "smart people" create, are often based on actual real-world evidence which you can thoroughly study and sometimes even try to verify for yourself. Plus, the conclusions of the latter are arrived at logically, whereas the former relies almost exclusively on empty claims. There's really a world of difference.

[Loki, The Fallen]

Zak, there are also smart people these days from the religious side who offer clarifications to religious texts, who try to interprate some of the really abstract contents. There are even more books with added life lessons and affermations that help those in thier respective religion. And there are some mainstream religions that have no 'Holy Book', just an ideaology. Sure, there are base beliefs and laws that are never violated, but I'm sure many scientists start research relying on thier own predetermined set of rules.

...and empty claims? A point of view for sure, for many have 'seen' the works of their respective diety. Same as the whole Logic thing, as I've encountered enough people in my travels that have no understanding of logic. Sure, it's taught in the Indoctrination Centers, but if you don't use it regularly, you lose it. Kinda like anything. I'm not advocating against logic. I even use logic myself more often then I probibly should. But Logic does not work in every facet of life.

[42PETUNIAS]

Originally Posted by Loki

Logic does not work in every facet of life.

Other than spiritual matters, I don't see what you mean. Can you name some of these facets, rather than declaring a rather difficult to believe statement.

[Loki, The Fallen]

Oh, I'm sure theres some. Usually they involve human interaction. Like what would be an appropriate gift for one's stepmother, or what is the best answer to certain questions. Mostly anytime you involve a human.

But then again, I've had times when, Logically, a machine was supposed to work a certain way. It was built correctly, it followed spec, but for some reason, you would always have to restart the computer after each run. They think it's a coding problem, but they arn't sure, because they checked it and found no mistakes.

I don't think it's that difficult to believe. There are definatly more difficult things to believe.

[ZAKtheGeek]

Zak, there are also smart people these days from the religious side who offer clarifications to religious texts, who try to interprate some of the really abstract contents.

The smart people are hardly the point. It's the proof and the reasoning. Basically, the very components of "making sense" and "being convincing?"

...and empty claims? A point of view for sure, for many have 'seen' the works of their respective diety.

Okay. And those visions only apply to those that have actually seen them. So yes, it's a point of view, but the point of view of the population of the entire planet, minus one, for any particular piece of "proof."

Same as the whole Logic thing, as I've encountered enough people in my travels that have no understanding of logic.

Everyone has a basic intuitive understanding of how logic works. It didn't take a genius to lay down the basic laws, because it's really just an objective model of how people think and reason. That's why it's so baffling when people decide to make illogical decisions only in certain areas of their lives, particularly when, according to the claims of most religions, those areas are arguably the most important.

I even use logic myself more often then I probibly should.

You're killing me here!

But Logic does not work in every facet of life.

The only inherently illogical things I can think of are people, and even then, it's not a lack of logic, but such a complexity that most simple models end up failing.

Here's a completely different idea though: be specific, and connect this thought of illogical facets to religion. Where does religion help where logic can't? Science has been slaying great mysteries of life through reason for millennia, continuously darting into religion's (now former) realm, usually met with resistance. You can even make vague ethical codes based on logic, although they'd be quite vague (which is for the best, I think) and you'd have to begin by stating a goal, which in itself would likely be arbitrary as opposed to logically derived from anything. Again, the only place logic won't really help you is relating with people, but that hasn't a thing to do with deities, an afterlife, or any other common outlandish religious claims.

[Loki, The Fallen]

You're killing me here!

I try.

Again, the only place logic won't really help you is relating with people, but that hasn't a thing to do with deities, an afterlife, or any other common outlandish religious claims.

Outlandish? Weird, you know once the thought that we would travel to the moon was 'outlandish'. Even now, traveling faster then light is 'outlandish'. Even time travel and nano machines were once considered 'outlandish'. Even now, humans are figuring out ways to 'live forever' and can anyone say 20 years ago that was even made sense?

You can even make vague ethical codes based on logic, although they'd be quite vague (which is for the best, I think) and you'd have to begin by stating a goal, which in itself would likely be arbitrary as opposed to logically derived from anything.

People have used 'logic' to find reason for all kinds of ethical codes. How about this, what isn't logical about survival of the fittest? The strongest and smartest recreate, while the weak are discarded. Wouldn't that create a stronger group of people? Or what isn't logical about those who create more and invent more get more stuff? Perhaps they may make better things with the more stuff.

Even using logic, people have advocated that 'free will' does not exist. Where is personal responsibility, if we are all just moist robots?

I stated before perhaps we'll find an answer that is quite simple and logical. Until then, everyone can have fun with thier theories, even following the Purple Unicorn (blessed be her hovves).

(which is false, cause everyone knows unicorns are white! Oh noes! War time!)

[ZAKtheGeek]

Okay, look. First of all. The unicorn is pink. Got it?

Outlandish? Weird, you know once the thought that we would travel to the moon was 'outlandish'. Even now, traveling faster then light is 'outlandish'. Even time travel and nano machines were once considered 'outlandish'. Even now, humans are figuring out ways to 'live forever' and can anyone say 20 years ago that was even made sense?

Those things are/were outlandish because there was no reason to think they were possible. Which is exactly what I'm getting at: what reason have you to believe the claims of any religion?

People have used 'logic' to find reason for all kinds of ethical codes. How about this, what isn't logical about survival of the fittest? The strongest and smartest recreate, while the weak are discarded. Wouldn't that create a stronger group of people? Or what isn't logical about those who create more and invent more get more stuff? Perhaps they may make better things with the more stuff.

Number of counterpoints. First of all, those eugenics deplete the gene pool, so it would actually weaken the species in the event of a catastrophe. Second, try getting those "inferiors" to comply, and try even defining inferiority without having a biased definer. You're basically guaranteed to embroil the world in war. Third, and least, even weak/dumb/skill-less people have uses.

Even using logic, people have advocated that 'free will' does not exist. Where is personal responsibility, if we are all just moist robots?

I myself am an advocate of this. Though I can't prove it. That's my faith, though I don't hold it to be infallible. Basically, I think that all events are strictly governed and can be explained by mathematically definable laws of physics. Therefore, it could in theory be possible to actually predict what a person will think and decide, but extremely difficult and impractical, given the very complicated nature of the human brain. By the time you figure it out, basically, they'll have already done the damn thing two hours ago.

I stated before perhaps we'll find an answer that is quite simple and logical. Until then, everyone can have fun with thier theories, even following the Purple Unicorn (blessed be her hovves).

That's fine, really. Until you get "guess" theories (and theorists) that disagree with "scientific and backed by evidence" theories. And also until people start taking their theories more seriously than they should, like they're absolute truths when they're mere guesses. The acceptance of the fact that you could be wrong is very important.

[Bob The Mercenary]

Originally Posted by ZAKtheGeek

The acceptance of the fact that you could be wrong is very important.

And there's the rub. With Christianity, you can't afford to accept the fact that you could be wrong. To my understanding, you have to have a 100% trust or you go to Hell. That's why so many Christians won't budge from their faith. And sorry to keep referring back to Christianity, but it's the religion I know most about.

[Darth SS]

Actually, there's only one thing I feel the need to reply to...

Originally Posted by B_real_shadows

But my scenario is exactly the same. Because, in this case, just like with God, you can't see, feel, smell, taste, or hear the rock. I did not say where the rock was, in correlation to you. As far as you're concerned your 5 senses don't sense the rock. Can you prove to me that the rock exists? This goes exactly with God. I can't prove him to you, but I beleive he exists, just as you can't prove the rock to me, just as you beleive the rock exists.

You're dodging my response and your own question.

No matter how you phrase it, here is the fundamental difference:

I can find the rock, and objectively prove it exists, through multiple means. It is within the realm of possibilities.

You will have a good 'ol time trying to find God, and then taste, touch, smell, see, or hear him. Personally, I think taste would the definitive one.

[Lockeownzj00]

Jesus (no irony intended). You blink, and you miss everything.

This is kinda poorly organized, but I did my best to kind of delineate shit in the timeframe I had.

On Religion and Charity

I'd like to say a few things. Krylo touched on this nicely for a bit, but besides the ability to be, err, charitable as an entirely secular pursuit, I think we must realize the harm religious "charity" has done in the past, as well. For example: Mother Theresa actually killing "patients" by having them heal in "houses of God," where they were not tended to, but simply told to pray. They died.

Christianity is also almost entirely responsible for the continuing spread of AIDS in Africa. The preaching of the evils of contraception have laid waste to the African landscape in this sense. And I dare you to disagree on anything but a gut feeling you have.

Originally Posted by I_Like_Swordchucks

If all they want is food and shelter, all they get is food and shelter, and they'll go away with a bit of kindness in there lives.

There isn't a complete lack of influence. The dangerous part of religious charity is exactly the same as what just happened in Mogadishu: The Islamic Courts Union moved in, and suddenly there was peace. For a brief period of time, there was order and fluidity to the daily functions of society--with a touch of Islam, of course. But the point is that what brought this was organization, not Islam, yet many, many Somali youths have become enchanted with the idea of an Islamic holy war, and they use the "positive" effects of the ICUs occupation (before they were pushed out) as evidence.

What I'm saying is, even if all the poor people of (x) do is shuffle in and out of the church getting food, what's disingenuous is that the church knows that they're creating these good associations with faith and for this reason it is at least partially selfish. If you really wanted to have "no" influence, you'd hide the fact that you had any denomination.

Originally Posted by I_Like_Swordchucks

Second of all, you just compared giving homeless people food and shelter with molesting children. I can't even imagine how you rationalize that in your head.

Please don't invalidate analogies when it suits you. Read about Godwin's Law. The idea is to not make comparisons to Nazis and Hitler hackneyed, because there are actual situations where the analogy is appropriate. While there may have been better examples, Darth's analogy was logical, and your reply entirely emotional.

Differences Between Religious Beliefs (The Bible/The Koran)

Originally Posted by B_real_shadows

The bible says alot of things, and many things that can directly contradict eachother. You just have to learn how to work out a way that both statements can work out. This too is one of the things that was explained to me. And its how I accept it.

Are you serious? Are religious people so far gone that they actually accept "it doesn't make sense, so make it make sense by making shit up" as a legitimate defense of their holy book?

How can there ever be a real dialogue on this with nonsense like that being spouted?

Krylo also touched on the translations of the Bible. I'd like to point out that the passage in the Koran which claims that through martyrdom one will be greeted by seventy virgins might actually be a mistranslation of the word "white pea," which is quite similar to virgin--white peas were coveted as regal delights in the ancient world.

Originally Posted by Nique

Explain to me what you mean by 'inneffectual'. It seems contrary to your opinion that religion has it's strong iron grip on the lives of anyone who belives any form of it to any end? I mean, yes that's not good, but effectiveness has nothing to do with morality, depending on the goal.

I don't mean effectiveness necessarily based on morality, though it is clearly useless in that regard.

My point is that because even within religion there is no agreement, there is no possible way to take any of it seriously. Each person you talk to assures you that they are not "like them." From evangelical Christians to once-a-year-church-goers to Wiccans, every single one absolutely assures you that the rest have got the wrong idea and they're just misinterpreting God, or the Bible, or faith, or what have you.

My point is it shows how stupidly selfish religious concepts and ideas are, and how contradictory they are even from person to person of the same faith. They will never get us anywhere, and even if they served as some comfort in the past, they will no longer do anyhting for us as a civilization.

Originally Posted by Nique

This may be hard to swallow, but try to think of religious differances like differances between scientific theory.

Except scientists usually come to consensus. Scientists usually concede, and scientists understand the idea of proof and logic, and so these disagreements are always settled at some point in time. Religious disagreements are entirely emotional and irreconcilable (sp?).

Originally Posted by I_Like_Sword_Chucks

And when getting into heaven is so ridiculously easy, people still blame God/religion for everything bad. Well guess what? It's not God or religion... its people that cause bad things, and there's only people to blame.

Again you make the mistake that believing in God or heaven is something "easy" to accept. It is only easy to accept when you phrase it in so many words. I spoke of this many posts back. I feel like I've been typing empty words, or something:

Originally Posted by Lockeownzj00

You don't seem to understand the argument I keep making: you are raping Occam like it's your job. It's a simple enough statement to make, but you're making far too many assumptions in your statement. I could just as easily say "isn't that a good argument for becoming a bowl of jello after I die?" and it would be equally unfounded. It's not a good argument for the after-life at all; you've made many leaps in logic.

1: When we die, despite our brain being shut down, somehow, our consciousness is retained in something.
2: This something is an essence which no one has ever seen, no one can point out on a cross-section of the human body, no one has ever studied in any real sense in any way, but everyone is sure exists.
3: Not only do you remain sentient in some sense after death, but you are transported to another world.
4: You may be transported to different worlds depending on your terrestrial behavior, which is all--
5: --judged by a supreme, invisible being, which no one has ever seen, no one can point out in the sky or on a map, no one has ever proven to converse with, but everyone is sure exists.

This absolute perversion of the idea of "belief" transforms it from a rational act to an entirely different verb. Not faith, because that has been used and abused by the religious to apologize for this form of thinking. Let's go Orwell on its ass and call this verb:to unthink.

Rather than believing things based on observable and confirmable information, the religious choose to unthink, and actually tout their beliefs more the less proof there is. They have successful unthought the idea of belief, in the public arena, into something "easy" and facile, when in reality, it is an act that requires much more cogitation than they would have you believe.

Mr. Harris in da hizouse!

Originally Posted by Sam Harris

Jesus Christ--who, as it turns out, was born of a virgin, cheated death, and rose bodily into the heavens--can now be eaten in the form of a cracker. A few Latin words spoken over your favorite Burgundy, and you can drink his blood as well. Is there any doubt that a lone subscriber to these beliefs would be considered mad? Rather, is there any doubt that he would be mad? The danger of religious faith is that it allows otherwise normal human beings to reap the fruits of madness and consider them holy. Because each new generation of children is taught that religious propositions need not be justified in the way that all others must, civilization is still besieged by the armies of the preposterous. We are, even now, killing ourselves over ancient literature. Who would have thought something so tragically absurd could be possible?

Tell a devout Christian...that frozen yogurt can make a man invisible, and he is likely to require as much evidence as anyone else, and to be persuaded only to the extent that you give it. Tell him that the book he keeps by his bed was written by an invisible deity who will punish him with fire for eternity if he fails to accept its every incredible claim about the universe, and he seems to require no evidence whatsoever.

Originally Posted by Loki, the Fallen

You know, I got nothin'. I can't explain why members of a religion people currently follow might do evil things to each other, especially when it is written against in their respective books.

Whoo boy. Remember 80 bazallion years ago when I threatened to type up those 5 pages of direct quotes from the Koran which explicitly endorse violence and what we would commonly agree as "evil" acts?

Yeah. I'll totally do it if need be.

On Evolution

Originally Posted by Nikose

Something about Evolution didn't sit quite right with me.

There are portions of this debate which I can keep my head, and others which I can't. When I read this statement, quite frankly, I burst out laughing.

I don't understand how people think they know better than the most hard, studied, tested, and fleshed out theory science has right now. "Something didn't sit right with me?" So despite literally mountains of proof and clear evidence for evolution, it "didn't sit right with you," and you chose an invisible pupeteer instead? What kind of laborious techniques are you using to deduce your claims?

Originally Posted by POS Industries

Question: Are we allowed to believe in a god and the concept of evolution?

That is a modern canard. The people who created your religion didn't believe in evolution. The people who created your religion thought thousands of untrue things about the world, from its shape to the basic functions of the human body. Are you telling me that these people seriously had the perspective to allow their religion, which clearly makes sweeping absolute statements about the way the world is, to have the flexibility to co-exist along with all new scientific theories which slowly chip away at any legs religion has ever had to stand on? Please read this:

Originally Posted by Sam Harris

Which beliefs one takes to be foundational will dictate what seems reasonable at any given moment. When the members of the "Heaven's gate" cult failed to spot the spacecrft they knew must be trailing the comet Hale-Bopp, they returned the $4,000 telescope they had bought for this purpose, believing it to be defective.

Originally Posted by Bob the Mercenary

In the old testament days, everyone who existed knew who God was.

Wait...is this indierctly implying the age of the Earth? Because, if you're taking it as literal word that would mean you think the Earth is 6000-ish years old?

Nature of Religion

Originally Posted by Nique

This argument fails to take into consideration people who pick a religion based on what they honestly belive makes sense, rather than being indoctrinated and then following blindly.

I haven't really even mentioned or been thinking about systematic indoctrination this entire time. My point is that precisely because religion is constantly apologized for in the public forum, otherwise sensible people are allowed to consider God a reasonable prospect. Because it is socially acceptable, they don't think twice about it. And for every Christian who assures me they've only arrived at their faith through the most diligent and time-consuming scrutiny, there are 10,000 who are doing it just because they think they should, or just because they don't really think about it on any level that isn't superficial.

Originally Posted by I_Like_Swordchucks

Religion might be an excuse, but you can't prove that its the reason.

It is sociologically preposterous to propose that religion has simply been "used" to terrible ends over and over again. The terrorists who crashed their planes into the world tradecenter did not have "political" motives. Their actions had political effects, and indeed, they may have revelled in these, but their sole motivation for committing this act was unwavering, perfect faith and nothing else. Unless you can start listing the "socio-economic and political factors" which people make allusions to but never clarify, then your opposition to this argument is once again not founded in truth but in what you wish to be truth.

Originally Posted by I_Like_Swordchucks

But hey, lets ignore all the violence against homosexuals and racism and crap that exists from non-religious people...

Krylo's point was that the origin of homosexual loathing and prejudice in Judeo-Christian society can be traced back to the Bible, which is not an inaccurate statement. Societies all over the world have more or less functioned with rampant bisexual-ism before Judeo-Christian values (re: Ancient Greece). The dominance of Western Culture as derived from the Bible and religion is responsible for this homophobia.

Originally Posted by I_Like_Swordchucks

And its sad when that happens. But again its not the standard, and these things happen without religion being present as well.

The point Krylo's making goes something like this. Here, Harris responds to common reader replies to his book:

Originally Posted by Sam Harris

1. Yes, religion occasionally casuses violence, but the greatest crimes of the twentieth century were perpetrated by atheists. Godlessness--as witnessed by the regimes of Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and Kim Jong-Il--is the most dangerous condition of all.

This is one of the most common criticisms I encounter. It is also the most depressing...while some of the most despicable political movements in human history have been explicitly irreligious, they were not especially rational. The public pronouncement of these regimes have been mere litanies of delusion--about race, economics, national identity, the march of history, or the moral dangers of intellectualism. Auschwitz, the gulag, and the killing fields are not examples of what happens when people become too critical of unjustified beliefs; to the contrary, these horrors testify to the dangers of not thinking critically enough about specific secular ideologies. Needless to say, my argument against religious fiath is not an argument for the blind embrace of atheism as dogma. The problem I raise in the book is none other than the problem of dogma itself--of which every religion has more than its fair share. I know of no society in human history that ever suffered because its people became too reasonable.

As I argue throughout the book, certainty without evidence is necessarily divisive and dehumanizing. In fact, respect for evidence and rational argument is what makes peaceful cooperation possible. As human beings, we live in a perpetual choice between converstion and violence; what, apart form a fundamental willingness to be reasonable, can guarantee that we will keep talking to one another?

These crimes have never been done in the name of secularism. However, on the flip-side, all of these crimes have and are being done in the name of religion. As I said at the very beginning of this thread: it doesn't matter if it's direct or indirect, religion is still the source; these people can still accomplish these things because they have legions of people to believe them, and even if they are "using" religion, it is still the only thing that could be used to such an astounding degree and effect, and thus it is still to blame.

Originally Posted by I_Like_Swordchucks

But a few hiccups in something doesn't invalidate that something, especially when human influence tends to make hiccups in most things.

How long will you maintain this? Every time you concede on a point, will you say "a few hiccups?" In these various debates, I'm sure no one will agree that there been a clear "winner" on either side, necessarily. But we again must judge which arguments have the most weight, and so far, the religious have arguments have had their legs again and again knocked out from underneath them, only to be met with "...but that still won't change my opinion," or, "even so, I still..."

Which means from the very beginning you've brainwashed yourself: the concept of "faith" is so engrained in your mind that you are unable to even conceive of even the most blatant errors in this human-made sociological phenomenon. You will always apologise for every error--you will "return the telescope," as it were--and thus aren't really in any kind of position to be thinking critically about this. Because, yes, I maintain that thinking religiously is not thinking critically.

Ultimately, I see you have left the thread, and this is the greatest shame of all. I understand your frustration and the worst that could happen is that you would think we are painting you as a bad person. But you must understand our perspective; if my best friend were an alchemist, I would still love him, but there would come a day where he would have to face the facts. The fact that you simply threw up your arms and walked away is just disappointing, for me. It is the failure of communication, it seems.

Originally Posted by Loki, the Fallen

Regarding your 5 points, yes, it is a leap of faith. Many people had to take such leaps to make any of their points, I mean, try proving the world was round to the church in the good ol' days? We couldn't actually see for ourselves until we left the ground and actually saw for ourselves.

So you're admitting, too, that historically, religion has an absolutely terrible, track record with these things. In modern terms, it would be a big, fat F. I just want to make that clear.

(continued)