Religon

razer-wire · Post by **razer-wire** » Sun Jul 16, 2006 4:16 pm

I dont belive in it and I havent got a problem with it......
it just all posabillitys of how the earth could have been creatid
and why is their so many gods if religon is reall
it might of been peple in the middle ages coverin stuff up becouse theay
didnt wont us 2 know whots really out their and whots happaning

WE WILL NEVER KNOW

whots your views?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ifp · Post by **ifp** » Sun Jul 16, 2006 4:19 pm

my 2ps worth:

i'm an athiest, i have no problem with people havin religiou views but i don't think religious views should interfere with politics - call me naive but i reckon secularism works best for everyone involved

adruu · Post by **adruu** » Sun Jul 16, 2006 4:29 pm

ive guess taken the long road, raised christian -> agnostic -> to atheist after 9/11 with some lingering secular buddhist psychology and aesthetic respect for religious symbolism...

if you need an afterlife and silly stories about miracles to be a good person, you are never going to be one. like this bumper sticker i saw once -- "only jesus bring peace" i'm thinking this type of real world pessismism based on religious optimism is a problem.

re: secularism - the founding members of the u.s. were not the most experienced people in the world, they didn't have 80% of the comforts that we did, and they STILL KNEW ENOUGH about religion to see how it didnt belong in government. you think we would trust the opinions of people that actually experienced what they are trying to avoid.

ramadanman · Post by **ramadanman** » Sun Jul 16, 2006 4:53 pm

I think a lot of religion is based on things that are impossible to prove / disprove, for example life after death. From a cynical point of view, it plays on the fear of the unknown, and perhaps offers reassurance to those who fear what comes next.

spaceboy · Post by **spaceboy** » Sun Jul 16, 2006 4:56 pm

Religion is a great thing, except when it interferes with politics.

digital · Post by **digital** » Sun Jul 16, 2006 11:35 pm

From a cynical point of view, it plays on the fear of the unknown, and perhaps offers reassurance to those who fear what comes next.

Well said. Perhaps if people realised the things they dont want to think about, the world would see a mass depression.

subzer · Post by **subzer** » Mon Jul 17, 2006 8:52 am

religion is something of an individual... that's the starting point IMO. nothing more, nothing less. its ok tho to gather with people who have the same thoughts!

its some kind of weakness wen people point in the direction of a god or something for a solution. thats one of the problems of the most common religions in de west.

every individual is the centre of its own life and therefor capable of making changes in there own little wolds... suppose that makes me some kind of a buddist

shonky · Post by **shonky** » Mon Jul 17, 2006 11:36 am

I think that if you can't prove or substantiate the existence of a divinity, then you shouldn't live your life by it. I'm not going to go out and murder someone due to non-belief in some superstitious drivel - people make their own choices, and the idea of god(s) stops people realising their own path and responsibilities.

Seems to me that the further that science goes to provide explanations for the working of the universe, the more reactionary and delusional religions have to get to defend their territory - Creationism and retreats into fundamentalism being the most obvious examples.

I was chatting to two friends the other day, who in their own unorthodox way believe in god - I asked them what proof they had of his existence, and was told that if they really wanted something they would find that often that thing occurred. I then asked what happened if what they requested didn't happen, and they said that it must be god's will. This seems like more of a comfort zone than a logically realised conclusion - when I put this to them, they said that I just believed in a different logic to them - the only problem being here that their "logic" is based entirely on belief rather than any evidence. It annoys me even more when religious types try to argue that atheism is a "belief" when logically it is a rejection of superstitious fantasy, based on the realisation that there is nothing to substantiate a divine being.

You could check this out, which I found quite enlightening - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_Pink_Unicorn

I'm starting to think that with all of this increase in the friction between the various religions of this world, that a Militant Evangelical Atheist League would be a damn good idea, just so that the Age of Reason doesn't disappear without a struggle.

Someone wrote a few weeks ago that Religion was heroin for the intellect - it provides comfort and escape but explains nothing and stops exploration, and I think I tend to agree with them.

Rant rant rant.....

metalboxproducts · Post by **metalboxproducts** » Mon Jul 17, 2006 1:21 pm

Shonky wrote:I think that if you can't prove or substantiate the existence of a divinity, then you shouldn't live your life by it. I'm not going to go out and murder someone due to non-belief in some superstitious drivel - people make their own choices, and the idea of god(s) stops people realising their own path and responsibilities.

Seems to me that the further that science goes to provide explanations for the working of the universe, the more reactionary and delusional religions have to get to defend their territory - Creationism and retreats into fundamentalism being the most obvious examples.

I was chatting to two friends the other day, who in their own unorthodox way believe in god - I asked them what proof they had of his existence, and was told that if they really wanted something they would find that often that thing occurred. I then asked what happened if what they requested didn't happen, and they said that it must be god's will. This seems like more of a comfort zone than a logically realised conclusion - when I put this to them, they said that I just believed in a different logic to them - the only problem being here that their "logic" is based entirely on belief rather than any evidence. It annoys me even more when religious types try to argue that atheism is a "belief" when logically it is a rejection of superstitious fantasy, based on the realisation that there is nothing to substantiate a divine being.

You could check this out, which I found quite enlightening - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_Pink_Unicorn

I'm starting to think that with all of this increase in the friction between the various religions of this world, that a Militant Evangelical Atheist League would be a damn good idea, just so that the Age of Reason doesn't disappear without a struggle.

Someone wrote a few weeks ago that Religion was heroin for the intellect - it provides comfort and escape but explains nothing and stops exploration, and I think I tend to agree with them.

Rant rant rant.....

Do you believe in alians. A lot of people who claim to not be religious say they believe in alians. This is also unproven. Yes science states that given space/time/infinity the liklyhood is yes there are intelegent life forms out there somewhere. But as its not observable how can sciance state this. its a licklthood not a provable fact. Just thinking about the confort thing. There must be something else. The really scary thing is there probably isn't.

subzer · Post by **subzer** » Mon Jul 17, 2006 1:30 pm

metalboxproducts wrote:Do you believe in alians.

heaven isn't on earth...

think about that one

narcossist · Post by **narcossist** » Mon Jul 17, 2006 2:42 pm

Read something in New Scientist a bit back about how they think the first traces of religion appeared at the point where apes' communities grew to a size beyond which the chief could go about grooming the rest of the crew.

Apperrently attention cultivated respect and without it the apes became violent and dissorganised etc. How or what form this religion took i can't remember, but if they [NS] are right i guess it shows that religion simply provides assurance [just as most people have said in this thread] for those who need it and those who's family's have a tradition of following a certain book.

Always think its interesting that if one person has far out ideas they'll prob get locked up, yet if they can convince enough people they're right before being straight jacketed their beliefs become protected by law.

Also think its worth mentioning the motives of the many who propogate certain beleifs, not neccesarily always the founders of a religion, but those who happily exploit the repected platform for manipulation religion's sedatory conventions bring. Love it when people talk about Evangelists exploiting religion like they are the first to have abused peoples gullible faith for profit.

As for the whole "fear of god" thing, isn't there enough shit to be scared about [like getting banged up for eight years for a having a quarter in your pocket, or the fact fascisms ridden in on the trojan horse of the war against diversity etc] to worry about?

Hope that isn't offensive to anyone, just my thoughts which are nay better than anyone else's.

shonky · Post by **shonky** » Mon Jul 17, 2006 2:58 pm

SubZer wrote:
metalboxproducts wrote:Do you believe in alians.
heaven isn't on earth...

think about that one

I think Belinda Carlisle might think otherwise.

Also heaven isn't on earth, but is it anywhere? Can you prove it?

Nope, didn't think so

metalboxproducts · Post by **metalboxproducts** » Mon Jul 17, 2006 2:59 pm

narcossist wrote:Read something in New Scientist a bit back about how they think the first traces of religion appeared at the point where apes' communities grew to a size beyond which the chief could go about grooming the rest of the crew.

Apperrently attention cultivated respect and without it the apes became violent and dissorganised etc. How or what form this religion took i can't remember, but if they [NS] are right i guess it shows that religion simply provides assurance [just as most people have said in this thread] for those who need it and those who's family's have a tradition of following a certain book.

Always think its interesting that if one person has far out ideas they'll prob get locked up, yet if they can convince enough people they're right before being straight jacketed their beliefs become protected by law.

Also think its worth mentioning the motives of the many who propogate certain beleifs, not neccesarily always the founders of a religion, but those who happily exploit the repected platform for manipulation religion's sedatory conventions bring. Love it when people talk about Evangelists exploiting religion like they are the first to have abused peoples gullible faith for profit.

As for the whole "fear of god" thing, isn't there enough shit to be scared about [like getting banged up for eight years for a having a quarter in your pocket, or the fact fascisms ridden in on the trojan horse of the war against diversity etc] to worry about?

Hope that isn't offensive to anyone, just my thoughts which are nay better than anyone else's.

Yeah i read a very similar article stating religion is basicly a natural part of evolution. Ie its just a symptom of the advanced brains desire for survival. With out it, it seems pretty futile for the mass/culture to continue.

techmouse · Post by **techmouse** » Mon Jul 17, 2006 3:06 pm

Kevin Smith said it best in Dogma:

Rufus: He still digs humanity, but it bothers Him to see the shit that gets carried out in His name - wars, bigotry, but especially the factioning of all the religions. He said humanity took a good idea and, like always, built a belief structure on it.
Bethany: Having beliefs isn't good?
Rufus: I think it's better to have ideas. You can change an idea. Changing a belief is trickier. Life should be malleable and progressive; working from idea to idea permits that. Beliefs anchor you to certain points and limit growth; new ideas can't generate. Life becomes stagnant.

ifp · Post by **ifp** » Mon Jul 17, 2006 3:09 pm

Shonky wrote:Someone wrote a few weeks ago that Religion was heroin for the intellect - it provides comfort and escape but explains nothing and stops exploration, and I think I tend to agree with them.

karl marx, i believe...

metalboxproducts · Post by **metalboxproducts** » Mon Jul 17, 2006 3:10 pm

Oh, its gettin right bleedin interestin this init. For some really interesting views on religion/sciance check what a lot of scientists and bhuddist thinkers say about quantam physics. They are in agreement. Think the new scientist is a good place to start. Be prepared to have you brain and you assumptions walked all over. Sciance and spirituality at one

There are many paths to the same truth. ya get mi though blood. Isit

techmouse · Post by **techmouse** » Mon Jul 17, 2006 3:12 pm

metalboxproducts wrote:Do you believe in alians. A lot of people who claim to not be religious say they believe in alians. This is also unproven. Yes science states that given space/time/infinity the liklyhood is yes there are intelegent life forms out there somewhere. But as its not observable how can sciance state this. its a licklthood not a provable fact. Just thinking about the confort thing. There must be something else. The really scary thing is there probably isn't.

Not only is it a likelihood, it's a near certainty according to current thinking.

The probability of life evolving multiplied out across the size of the known universe tells us that it's practically impossible that there is no other life in the universe.

We cannot make such speculation about "the almighty", because any such entity is implicitally outside of the universe (or, indeed, is the actual fabric of the universe). So by definition you cannot prove or disprove it's existence or make any kind of statement about it's nature. Which is a pretty shaky standpoint to start living your life around, IMHO - but there you go. Some people are weird.

narcossist · Post by **narcossist** » Mon Jul 17, 2006 3:16 pm

ifp wrote:
Shonky wrote:Someone wrote a few weeks ago that Religion was heroin for the intellect - it provides comfort and escape but explains nothing and stops exploration, and I think I tend to agree with them.
karl marx, i believe...

Isn't he dead yet?

Good to see a serious heavyweight on the forum anyhow.

Re science and religion: Isn't a lot of science based on approximations anyhow? Physics in particular as a model which happens to work in a lot of instances, but a lot of which is unprovavble and thus reamins theory rather than fact?

metalboxproducts · Post by **metalboxproducts** » Mon Jul 17, 2006 3:19 pm

You can hear the radioactive remains of the bigbang at the very edges of an ever increasing universe. you cant hear ET.

shonky · Post by **shonky** » Mon Jul 17, 2006 3:33 pm

Science is mostly based on theory and is there to be disputed if someone acquires more insight or a more cohesive theory of how something works. However this will be based on observations, cross-referencing, analysis of results, etc and so at least can be seen to have used some logical framework for its conclusions. Where there are gaps in the theories, people are at least looking into why that doesn't hold together and trying to understand why this does not apply in this instance.

Whereas religion will usually point and say "it's god's way"

Religon

Religon

Who is online