Religion IS crazy!

[Julia]

Yet religion exists. Therefore, we as a species created religion and wage war in its name.

That sums up what I believe fwiw.

Given the widespread nature of religion and the notion that it springs up in physically separate areas in different guises, this argues that we have a tendency/behavior that lends itself to doing this in one way or another. To VC's point, we are born atheist. However, we may be predispositioned as a society to shed it in favour of belief, at least in part. Removing religion from the agenda will simply move this practice from one form to another. You cannot destroy energy, you just change its form. Religion gives way to nationalism etc.

Why? I , like millions of others, don't believe in a god, feel no need to subscribe to any type of religion, but am not as a result nationalistic or anything else in particular.

You seem to be ascribing to all human beings some need to be part of some organised entity or belief system.
Why can the individual not simply be content to live his/her life enjoying what is, making the best of the hard bits, and doing what they can to behave in a morally and ethically justifiable way? (such morals being derived from a societal consensus of what is required to keep any group of people behaving in a way which is acceptable to one another, not at all derived from any sort of dictate in the Bible or other religious tome.)

Perhaps some of us are just boringly prosaic, lack the intellectual compulsion to look for some esoteric meaning of life other than that which we experience day to day, and are content enough to believe in ourselves without dependence on some institution or so called higher power.

Doesn't this imply that an effort to irradicate religion is pointless if God does not exist, and against His will if he does? Either way, we will/should have religion?

Having not accepted your initial premise, no.
I, for one, would be very happy if religion were to be eradicated.

I do not, however, hold out any hope for any such outcome.

But we yearn for knowledge of our place and purpose. There is no real reason we have to find smaller sub-molecules than we can harness or spend a fortune on super-colliders or satellites to peel back another 0.5 secs into the Big Bang. We just need to know. This need to know fills up the days of a lot of people trying to find out.

Sure, but by no means everyone.
That's not to downplay the interest of such a discussion as this, even though it will inevitably go round in circles.

 

[Value Collector]

1. It is accidental if so. Do we journey out on a massive venture with a specific purpose in mind that does not make sense on its own justified only on the basis of accidentally discovering something useful along the way? How will pushing the n-th degree on the view to the Big Bang, which cannot be looked beyond because physics changes before time began, supposed to help?

yes they are accidental, But no less valuable, Eg. the software they created to make hubble produce clearer images is also now used to make cancer screening scans clearer.

the technology advances made during the space race now helps put satellites in orbit etc, there is literally thousands of benefits, and they are unpredictable.

2. Regarding the video...Why do you exist VC?
"That question doesn't deserve an answer".

I agree it's a nonsense question if your wanting some one to give a philosophical "the universe has a purpose for you" type answer, But if you want a description of the processes that lead to you being here it is not a nonsense question

Are you a good man VC?
"That question doesn't deserve an answer".

That could be answered,

Was it important to you to serve the nation, with its gratitude, with valour?
"That question doesn't deserve an answer".

that can be answered

Do I love my wife more than life itself?
"That question doesn't deserve an answer".

that can be answered.

not all questions are invalid

How about the paragraph that was missed in the quote of my post? I'm interested in your view.

I find it hard to conceive of the notion that a multi-verse or cosmos was always there and will ever be. That has very religious tones to it in the garb of theoretical physics (I know it's out there, but I can't see it and definitely prove to you it exists). Given that it is such an important part of science to find out...what is the evidence? In the absence of the ability to prove an always-been-around-universe, we must acknowledge the possibility of one which had a beginning. There is no where else to go - except to deny that we are real at all. So what caused a beginning? If you seek to place the burden of proof on those who value religion, ought the weight of evidence now also be shared equally by those who eliminate the need for God/beginning via the construct of a perpetual universe? Such evidence is necessary to regard the presence of some superior being as factually incorrect

I am happy to say I don't know, my personal belief is that the universe may be eternal and that it may be impossible for nothing to exist, But I don't know, and would change my opinion if scientific evidence became available.

I certainly don't spend to much time thinking about what made the hydrogen and helium, My understanding of how they were fused into the elements of the periodic table, and how these elements formed the planets, and how we later evolved is certainly enough for my monkey brain to process and think about for now, and it answers pretty much most of the basic questions.

But I support people searching for the answers.

 

[noco]

That sums up what I believe fwiw.

Why? I , like millions of others, don't believe in a god, feel no need to subscribe to any type of religion, but am not as a result nationalistic or anything else in particular.

You seem to be ascribing to all human beings some need to be part of some organised entity or belief system.
Why can the individual not simply be content to live his/her life enjoying what is, making the best of the hard bits, and doing what they can to behave in a morally and ethically justifiable way? (such morals being derived from a societal consensus of what is required to keep any group of people behaving in a way which is acceptable to one another, not at all derived from any sort of dictate in the Bible or other religious tome.)

Perhaps some of us are just boringly prosaic, lack the intellectual compulsion to look for some esoteric meaning of life other than that which we experience day to day, and are content enough to believe in ourselves without dependence on some institution or so called higher power.


Having not accepted your initial premise, no.
I, for one, would be very happy if religion were to be eradicated.

I do not, however, hold out any hope for any such outcome.


Sure, but by no means everyone.
That's not to downplay the interest of such a discussion as this, even though it will inevitably go round in circles.

Julia, I agree with you 100%.

I am agnostic....my wife is a Catholic and attends church every weekend.

We do not badger each other as to why she goes to church and I don't.

We live in harmony about our beliefs and disbelief's and that is the way it should be in my home and around the world. We do not have to pray together to stay together.

It has always been beyond me as to why some sects have to ram their religious doctrines down other peoples throats because they believe they are right......It is all about religious domination........Islam is a classical example of domination by fear.

 

[DeepState]

1. That sums up what I believe fwiw.


2. Why? I , like millions of others, don't believe in a god, feel no need to subscribe to any type of religion, but am not as a result nationalistic or anything else in particular.


3. You seem to be ascribing to all human beings some need to be part of some organised entity or belief system.
Why can the individual not simply be content to live his/her life enjoying what is, making the best of the hard bits, and doing what they can to behave in a morally and ethically justifiable way? (such morals being derived from a societal consensus of what is required to keep any group of people behaving in a way which is acceptable to one another, not at all derived from any sort of dictate in the Bible or other religious tome.)

4. Perhaps some of us are just boringly prosaic, lack the intellectual compulsion to look for some esoteric meaning of life other than that which we experience day to day, and are content enough to believe in ourselves without dependence on some institution or so called higher power.


5. Having not accepted your initial premise, no.
I, for one, would be very happy if religion were to be eradicated.

I do not, however, hold out any hope for any such outcome.


6. Sure, but by no means everyone.
That's not to downplay the interest of such a discussion as this, even though it will inevitably go round in circles.

1. My personal view is that this is probably closer to the truth than not. But I want my views tested (not saying you should or need to). They have been. I still can't call the arm wrestle over...so I have this fuzzy region of belief that I cannot close. This belief set does not involve any of the organized religions for me. It doesn't enter my head 360 days a year. The last five have used up the 2014/15 credit.

2. The context may not have been clear. I mean that, even in the absence of religion, war would be waged in some other name. It doesn't have to be nationalism pe se. But when societies cleave, they take on very strong identities on some basis that is meaningful to them. This helps create a strong us/them that is necessary for violence to be sustained en masse. We have argued that religion is one basis on which this occurs. Yes. I am arguing that something else would just pop up in the absence of religion. Given 1. It is more likely that war arises because the society desires/requires it and religion is used as rationale in some cases. Nationalism in others...and so on.

3. No. I probably come across that way though. Perhaps it is because I am arguing both sides of the debate. For me, this is an exploration rather than attempting to stake a winning flag down somewhere. I do not believe all humans need a formal religion. That is totally against my general observations. It would also be a violation of my own personal situation. In an increasingly secular society, it is clear this is not the case. Nonetheless, I do respect the right of others to believe as they wish...subject to not harming others. I do not think they are wrong to believe in a higher being of some sort. I think the application of science to the debate has limitations, whilst acknowledging its validity in many fields including this one. When religion is twisted into despicable acts, it saddens me. But is that human nature or religion? Which is the cause? Would things really be better if we replaced one institution with another? We can eradicate one institution or we can aim to repair it in the knowledge that bringing down one edifice will only see another spring up to fill the vacuum which will eventually be corrupted. I do not know. We will never have the counterfactual in my lifetime. Knowing that, we can debate ferociously because none of us can definitively be proven wrong. Welcome to the cauldron!

Morality is a difficult question. We know what we mean. I'll just use something I picked up along the way. Acceptable norms of behavior within the context of a society as self-identified (how's that for total BS? ). But how do you get it? I think something like a democratic, secular, system has the best chance. But that's in total ignorance of what other social systems might be superior that have yet to come to light. Least worst..blah.

4. You are fortunate indeed. I hope you enjoyed the warmth of the sun and the wind around you today. You will live a long long time. Me, I spent all day on this thread and couldn't put it down. I saw no sun and felt no wind. If this keeps up, I won't need to defer consumption from capital for a future period.

5. Just mucking about. But if you do not believe in the core aspects of religion, then the choice to tear down the edifice of religion should ultimately create something else that is essentially religion in a different name given our propensity to self generate this type of institution. After all, if we take your position in 1. we generated it in the first place and have created other institutions capable of despicable acts too.

6. Just enough voters or benefactors that want these answers to get funding! The debate will certainly go around in circles, but perhaps a little slower than particles in the Large Haldron Super-collider. There is no answer. My point here was mainly to highlight that there are very real limits to science's ability to disprove the existence of a higher being. If one is asked to justify the existence of one, then it seems reasonable to that the onus is placed on the opposing position too if they want to claim the superior vantage point. In terms of the scientific apologists, this question is not in the same class as Dawkin's orbital teacup as it is a fundamental purpose behind highly funded physics and astronomical research. In the absence of a knock out blow...believe what you will...but don't harm anyone. I have not witnessed the knock out blow, but I have witnessed people who think they have it.

 

[Value Collector]

You know as well as I that neither of us will find the answer to this definitively. But, as science looks to push the boundaries of physics, what they find is ever less likely to be useful to us on a day to day basis either. But we yearn for knowledge of our place and purpose. There is no real reason we have to find smaller sub-molecules than we can harness .

[video]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VjY0vqgDMnE[/video]

 

[Duckman#72]

As always, Duckman, I’m interested in your comments even when I don’t agree with them. I’ll resist the temptation to respond by pointing out a number of your views and attitudes that I find weak and immature.

I never see comments, viewpoints or attitudes as weak and immature if they’re based on honesty and reality. And the reality is that prayers, however sincere and well-intentioned, would have been useless in lessening the grief and sorrow of the poor people who lost loved ones in the Malaysian Airlines tragedy.
Such prayers don’t offend me, as you’ve suggested – I simply question their value and wonder why people would waste their time praying in this sort of situation.

The sort of attitudes and views that I find weak and immature are those that are not based on honesty and reality, such as many of the views and attitudes of Muslims, Christians, and the Catholic Church in particular.

Hi Bunyip

There is more crossfire going on in this thread than the Gaza Strip. The last thing it needs is the two of us adding to it.

Prayers can/might provide comfort for those who are religious (and even those whom I suspect are ambivalent to God) but they won't mean a thing for those who are anti religious. We should both agree with this.

Duckman

 

[Julia]

I shall probably regret any involvement in this thread.
That said, RY I appreciate that you are musing this whole question in a largely objective fashion. That, in itself, is a refreshing alternative to the aggressively argued "I am right and you are wrong" approach.

Most of your comments, at least those to which I've addressed some limited response, seem to be your observations of societal trends. In that, you may likely be entirely correct. I don't know.

My own comments are purely personal because I simply don't know what would happen if religion were not to exist, whether there would be some other quasi institutionalised response to take its place. Given humanity's apparent compulsion to create some power in which to believe, you are likely quite correct.

But if enough of us were to say "we don't know absolutely how human beings were created, as far as we know we have but one life, that life is what we make it, without any need to refer or defer to any creator," then would we not be building a force of humanity with the will to work together for the common good?

This, as distinct from "my god is more real than your god" which is either a driving fundamental force, or, as you suggest, an idealistic front for the ever present apparent need in some people/some societies to gain power over others.

The old question of competition or collaboration, I suppose.

If we were to take the current situation re Israel v Palestinians, is this a religious conflict? Or is it rather a territorial conflict?

(I have no wish to turn this interesting thread into a focus on what is happening in the ME at present: it just seems like the most current example of the hatred demonstrated by both sides.)

 

[DeepState]

But if enough of us were to say "we don't know absolutely how human beings were created, as far as we know we have but one life, that life is what we make it, without any need to refer or defer to any creator," then would we not be building a force of humanity with the will to work together for the common good?

I don't know. But I like "Imagine" by John Lennon very much and wish it would become real in terms of the picture he paints. What I observe is that we naturally cleave as a people unless faced with a common enemy. I wish it were not so. I have my theories and observations of why it happens and has happened for as long as I can tell, but they offend even my own sensibilities.

I just listened to the song again. Thank you for your comment which has brought me to this again. Here it is:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XLgYAHHkPFs

If it means anything, despite flare ups geopolitically at this time, we are actually becoming less violent as a species on a long scale. There is hope. And I am a dreamer too.

 

[Tink]

I suspect that some (not all) members may have been targetting that particular poster on account of her glowing support for my participation in this thread.

If my suspicions prove to be correct those posters can anticipate my continued disclosure of controversial (and therefore uncomfortable) perspectives on reality, theology, philosophy and contemporary science.

I think you may be right, cynic.
Never once have I been questioned why I agree with someone, which took me by surprise, and I replied, nice of them to pick and choose who I should be agreeing with.
I have agreed with many.

How immature playing games, with no interest in religion, except to put it down.
Pull up a chair, and good to see you in this thread

 

[cynic]

I'm never quite sure whether I envy or admire people that are able to believe in accidental causation coupled with the perception that our consciousness/life only spans one conception and death and is thereafter extinguished for all eternity.

I could think of no philosophy/belief more liberating and would happily have embraced it if it were not for my deep convictions to the contrary.

No deed could truly be deemed good or evil because everything came about accidentally and hence is of no importance.
Every able bodied person could happily stop reproducing and euthenase themselves to spare future generations from life's rollercoaster ride of pleasure and suffering.

Pure bliss.

Think about it!

Are we sure that such an idealistic notion of existence being purely accidental is a truly logical, reasonable and safe philosophy to pursue!

I'd love it to be true!

Truly I would!

However, it sounds too fantastic for me to believe that my lives and deaths could be so easy!

P.S. Also, I was delivered a sign via a winged messenger within seconds of asking a higher being for guidance on the possibility of my permanent exit from this existence!

I am still undecided whether to be thankful or resentful. I got the answer that I had to have! It just wasn't the answer that I'd have preferred. Non existence would be so much easier!!

 

[SirRumpole]

If we were to take the current situation re Israel v Palestinians, is this a religious conflict? Or is it rather a territorial conflict?

More territorial than religious imo, although there are elements of both. The fact that there are distinct tribes on this planet will always tend to lead to conflict, whether there are religious components or not, although the fact that some believe that land was given to them by God doesn't help the situation. It's a human trait to believe that one's own tribe deserves more than others. Leave the religious component out though and there would still be conflict in the M.E. , over living space and fertile land resources, water supplies, systems of government, you name it.

 

[dutchie]

All you can do is sigh in disbelief...

A CHILD bride allegedly married off at 12 was told sharia law “overrides” Australian law, court documents revealed.

http://www.news.com.au/national/nsw...ria-law-override/story-fnii5s3x-1226996078122

 

[FxTrader]

I'm never quite sure whether I envy or admire people that are able to believe in accidental causation coupled with the perception that our consciousness/life only spans one conception and death and is thereafter extinguished for all eternity. I could think of no philosophy/belief more liberating and would happily have embraced it if it were not for my deep convictions to the contrary.

Yet another thinly veiled attack on evolution theory and abiogenesis in the guise of "accidental causation" in an attempt to justify belief in the supernatural. Presuming to know anything certain about cosmic origins, God(s), spirit worlds etc. is at best self-delusion and at worst supreme arrogance. "Belief" in such things is really faith based and not evidenced based belief. Your "deep convictions to the contrary" no doubt fall into the blind faith category.

No deed could truly be deemed good or evil because everything came about accidentally and hence is of no importance. Every able bodied person could happily stop reproducing and euthenase themselves to spare future generations from life's rollercoaster ride of pleasure and suffering. Pure bliss.

Here we go again, there's no reason to be moral or have a sense of good and evil if you don't believe in a sky God or cosmic architect. The religious have a claim to moral superiority because their imagined celestial dictator tells them what is right or wrong via scribble in iron-age scrolls, no moral grey areas in those stone tablets. Just more unsubstantiated rhetorical garbage that's contiually wheeled out by the religious to justify belief. Once again, religion and religious beliefs are not true because their presumed to be useful in controlling the behaviour of the flock.

Are we sure that such an idealistic notion of existence being purely accidental is a truly logical, reasonable and safe philosophy to pursue!

A rhetorical argument intended yet again to be critical of anyone who does not pursue mystical, magical explanations for existence and purpose. It's hardly "idealistic" to pursue rational explanations for origins.

P.S. Also, I was delivered a sign via a winged messenger within seconds of asking a higher being for guidance on the possibility of my permanent exit from this existence!

I am still undecided whether to be thankful or resentful. I got the answer that I had to have! It just wasn't the answer that I'd have preferred. Non existence would be so much easier!!

While I would normally ignore such comment as whimsical digression, given your past account of conversations with the dead you could actually be serious. If so, you're really struggling with that fine line between reality and unreality here.

 

[SirRumpole]

All you can do is sigh in disbelief...

A CHILD bride allegedly married off at 12 was told sharia law “overrides” Australian law, court documents revealed.

http://www.news.com.au/national/nsw...ria-law-override/story-fnii5s3x-1226996078122

All the governments that allowed and still do allow large middle east immigration numbers into Australia have a lot to answer for imo.

 

[artist]

I think you may be right, cynic.
Never once have I been questioned why I agree with someone, which took me by surprise, and I replied, nice of them to pick and choose who I should be agreeing with.
I have agreed with many.

How immature playing games, with no interest in religion, except to put it down.
Pull up a chair, and good to see you in this thread

Tink, it was cynic, not I, who said
"I suspect that some (not all) members may have been targetting that particular poster on account of her glowing support for my participation in this thread."

and it was VC, not I, who said
"Guilty, I wanted tink to learn something,... not because of the glowing reviews, but simply because i suspect she takes things at face value, rather than taking a sceptical approach. I wanted her to at least examine this one claim for herself. "

I on the other hand simply asked you politely and sincerely if you would explain to me in your own words how you understand the link between verses in Genesis and chromosomes because you said you understand it. I don't understand it. No-one else apart from you has been able to understand it. I think it would be wonderful to establish such a connection, but I find cynic's style of communication impenetrable and frustrating.

If you include me in your put-down of people being " . . . immature playing games, with no interest in religion, except to put it down" then I find that presumptuous, erroneous and offensive.

 

[Value Collector]

More territorial than religious imo, although there are elements of both. The fact that there are distinct tribes on this planet will always tend to lead to conflict, whether there are religious components or not, although the fact that some believe that land was given to them by God doesn't help the situation. It's a human trait to believe that one's own tribe deserves more than others. Leave the religious component out though and there would still be conflict in the M.E. , over living space and fertile land resources, water supplies, systems of government, you name it.

Because these "tribes" are divided by religion, they tend to not mingle, this cause the disputes to become multi generational, any other land dispute would have long since been sorted out if you took away the "god gave us this land" and "we can't mingle with or marry them" then the two sides would have intermixed.

Same thing in Northern Ireland, catholic kids went to catholic schools, hung out with Catholics and married Catholics, Protestants did the same, religion tends to prolong fighting, I mean when you know you have god on your side, why negotiate.

 

[SirRumpole]

Because these "tribes" are divided by religion, they tend to not mingle, this cause the disputes to become multi generational, any other land dispute would have long since been sorted out if you took away the "god gave us this land" and "we can't mingle with or marry them" then the two sides would have intermixed.

Same thing in Northern Ireland, catholic kids went to catholic schools, hung out with Catholics and married Catholics, Protestants did the same, religion tends to prolong fighting, I mean when you know you have god on your side, why negotiate.

True in some cases not in others. Religious issues tend to get forgotten and others take over. Ireland is one example. What started out as a religious battle turned into a political one, separation of Ireland from Britain. I doubt if the IRA is any more religious than the mafia. Same in the ME. It's more a battle over land and resources now than religion, although there are religious extremists on both sides.

Native American tribes fought each other, Australian Aboriginal tribes fought each other, neither having much concept of religion. War will happen for reasons other than religion. Are you going to say that the two greatest wars in the last hundred years were fought over religion ?

 

[Tink]

No, that wasn't you artist, that was bellenuit and VC.

 

[bunyip]

Hi Bunyip

There is more crossfire going on in this thread than the Gaza Strip. The last thing it needs is the two of us adding to it.

Quite true, Duckman – but one sure way to draw crossfire is to use words such as ‘weak’ and ‘immature’ in relation to a comment that was made on the basis of honesty and reality.

Prayers can/might provide comfort for those who are religious (and even those whom I suspect are ambivalent to God) but they won't mean a thing for those who are anti religious. We should both agree with this.

Duckman

I certainly agree that prayers won’t mean anything to a person who isn’t religious. But in particularly traumatic situations, such as finding that your close friends or relatives have been killed in a plane blown apart by terrorists, I seriously doubt that anyone, religious or not, would receive any comfort whatsoever from having prayers said for them.
When I consider how my wife’s sister (who is extremely religious) would feel if my wife was one of the victims on that Malaysian plane, and I think about how I, a non-religious person would feel, I believe that both of us would be so absolutely consumed by grief that all the prayers in the world would give no comfort or relief to either of us.
If I think of my religious friends (and I still have quite a few from my days as a Christian), I honestly can’t see any of them taking any comfort from prayers if their loved ones had been on that Malaysian plane.

You and Pav seem to think I’m a cold-hearted bastard whose only reaction to the Malaysian airline tragedy has been to comment about how useless prayer will be to the friends and families of the victims. Believe me, my first reaction was to feel great sadness for the lives lost and for the sorrow of the families and friends of the victims. Three days later, my sadness is unabated every time I turn on the TV and see the devastation at the crash site, and hear the names of the victims.
At the same time, however, a bit of reality and clear thinking allows me to see the futility of praying for the victim’s families in the hope that it will somehow help them. In my opinion it will not.

 

[Value Collector]

True in some cases not in others. Religious issues tend to get forgotten and others take over. Ireland is one example. What started out as a religious battle turned into a political one, separation of Ireland from Britain. I doubt if the IRA is any more religious than the mafia. Same in the ME. It's more a battle over land and resources now than religion, although there are religious extremists on both sides.

Native American tribes fought each other, Australian Aboriginal tribes fought each other, neither having much concept of religion. War will happen for reasons other than religion. Are you going to say that the two greatest wars in the last hundred years were fought over religion ?

yes. but religion means the groups will never mingle or intermarry, religion is the wedge holding the divide open, with out the religion, conflicts get resolved, negotiated and traded away.