Religion – your views

[Hunchman801]

Not entirely true, if you look into the subject. While the more fanatist kind, or the one that would like to stay as the most knowledgable ARE against science and stuff, many religious people aren't. Just off the top of my head, there's Mendel, who pretty much got the basics of genetics to work. Even evolution isn't unbelievable, as -though I don't remember his name right now- there was a priest, who pretty much managed to tie the Bible and evolution together perfectly, making both very much comfortable next to each other.

What you said is true, but the flaw in your reasoning is that it doesn't make me wrong at all. In fact, there will be fanatics as long as there will be religions, and considering how harmful their ideas are to science and knowledge, it is indisputable that religion cannot be dissociated from this wrong side.

Again, atrocities are comitted by humanity, not God. In earlier times, people saw the Pope and such high-ranking priests as closest to God as possible, thus listened to their every word, like puppies. However, once people become educated and grow smarter, they'll always as the question: Why?, which makes this method pretty hard to continue. Fanatism usually thrives from overwhelming fear of the deity and consequences, and not faith. Anyone who has a healthy belief would never go along with such things that happened in the past.

Once again, I mostly agree with you, but your interpretation is totally false. In short, atrocities committed in the name of God would never have happened if religion had not existed. Therefore, religion has undeniably brought a lot of trouble and pain to the world. Whether religion can actually be held responsible for that is a totally different question.

Also, I talked about religion for more than one hour with a Christian friend of mine, who is actually quite conservative, but he thinks that the theories of big bang and evolution are entirely compatible with the Bible from an ontological point of view, and that the Genesis is not to be understood literally. He also called creationists a bunch of old thinking Lutheran morons who do not understand anything to Christian values, and I totally agree with him.

[Zay-el]

In the 10 commandments, the correct translation of the 6th commandment (or whatever, you know which one I mean) is: You shall not murder. The implied meaning of this is: You shall not kill a fellow (innocent) Jew. Pretty limited, eh? Apparently god doesn't mind killing infidels, as he commands his chosen people to do on numerous occasions.

Forgive me for doubting you, but have you actually read the second part of what I've written? Or in any case, have you ever read the Bible, as a whole? Even if some of the measures in the Old Testament were extreme, they're put almost non-existant in the New. And if you really wanna know, even Jews aren't fanatical infidel-killers, like you think. Most of them are people like you and me, and just like in every country, they have their own radical parts as well, which every normal people despises, and does NOT listen to.

*sigh* At least open a textbook on evolution before you make a fool of yourself. All proper studies of this has shown that morality came before religion, and not the other way around.

What, we suddenly got it programmed into us that we should not kill one another? Sorry for saying this, but you're really naive then. Just tell me for instance, why are there assassins in existance then? Why are there any wars? Why will you kill a person, if they tell you to? Humans are the only creatures capable of sin, BECAUSE of free will! It's not evolution that gives us morals about not killing, it's our own free will! Animals have it in them that under normal conditions, they don't kill one another, but there's none of that in us!

Religions were good for that, in the sense that some people realized this, and decided that others should follow this as well. Laws were written, punishments were given, and now, modern society does not even like the idea of killing.

Oh and Tobbe, I got a neat little thing for you to think about. X3 Anything can become a religion, if you believe enough in it. From God, to Buddha, to the Flying Spaghetti Monster, literally anything can become a religion, if people become attached to it. They'll being to devote their time to 'worship' it, in some way. For instance, most obsessions are a little bit like that too. The only way you can completely eradicate religion, is to destroy human thinking as a whole. I believe one of the most fundamental laws of modern society, is that we are all entitled to our opinions AND beliefs.

What you said is true, but the flaw in your reasoning is that it doesn't make me wrong at all. In fact, there will be fanatics as long as there will be religions, and considering how harmful their ideas are to science and knowledge, it is indisputable that religion cannot be dissociated from this wrong side.

You can't avoid fanatics in any way though. Just by taking a look at political parties, or anything of the sort, people can become zealous over them in a second. It's in our nature to stop thinking and just do as we're told, or what we believe is right, we just can't shed that. Still, fanatics are usually damaged people from the start. Normal people don't turn out like that, unless there's a deep flaw in them. Most just try to hide it, by becoming tools to whatever they're so attached to. This isn't religions problem on its own, since taking example like...dunno...Buddist monks, with their way of thinking, it's unlikely they'd become so violent. It's the person who is the fault...religion can only be a catalyst, and only if it's used the wrong way, and not explained as it should be.

Once again, I mostly agree with you, but your interpretation is totally false. In short, atrocities committed in the name of God would never have happened if religion had not existed. Therefore, religion has undeniably brought a lot of trouble and pain to the world. Whether religion can actually be held responsible for that is a totally different question.

If it wasn't God, we'd commit atrocities for another reason. Religion, like anything, can be degenerated into a simple tool. It's just in us that we exterminate each other, for whatever reason we can find. I guess we're just a self-killing species. XD; This is kinda like stating that Nacism never would have happened without Hitler, which also can't be said for sure. It's the flow of history, we make mistakes one way or another.

[Joshua822]

It's quite wrong to only use religion as an excuse to do good. We should do good as humans, not because God tells us to do good. And if God exists he would certainly want that too.

If religion is to be taken away in society ( which i don't see, and wouldn't like seeing ) there will be people that will do good. Not because God commands them. No, because they let there heart speak. And that's real humanity.

Although, religion shouldn't be taken away at all. We have the right to belief what we want. And that right should never be lost. If i chose to belief that Rayman is my god and he created everything that should be fine.

Although extremists will always be there. You can even drive evolution to far. Hitler is a good example of an extreme atheist.

[Tobbe]

*sigh* At least open a textbook on evolution before you make a fool of yourself. All proper studies of this has shown that morality came before religion, and not the other way around.

What, we suddenly got it programmed into us that we should not kill one another? Sorry for saying this, but you're really naive then. Just tell me for instance, why are there assassins in existance then? Why are there any wars? Why will you kill a person, if they tell you to? Humans are the only creatures capable of sin, BECAUSE of free will! It's not evolution that gives us morals about not killing, it's our own free will! Animals have it in them that under normal conditions, they don't kill one another, but there's none of that in us!

Stop ranting. This appears to be something you or someone else has concluded with without leaving your armchair to actually study the subject. Hercule Poirot would be proud. This doesn't make you right, though. It's completely logical that humans have been equipped with morality by natural selection. Next to no biologist or someone educated in social studies and group mentality would give you a different answer. I suggest you read some articles or books on the subject. Educate yourself a little instead of turning hostile on people who have different opinions than you, especially ones who might well be right (as I almost certainly am in this case). I've found an article for you, I strongly suggest you read and digest it before making any further comments on this matter: Here

And just fyi: I have read the Bible.

It's quite wrong to only use religion as an excuse to do good. We should do good as humans, not because God tells us to do good. And if God exists he would certainly want that too.

Smartest thing you've said in a long while.

Although, religion shouldn't be taken away at all. We have the right to belief what we want. And that right should never be lost. If i chose to belief that Rayman is my god and he created everything that should be fine.

That's also quite right. You have a right to believe anything you want, and I have never denied anyone that right. Belief isn't a really bad thing in itself, but the religion that comes with it is.

Although extremists will always be there. You can even drive evolution to far. Hitler is a good example of an extreme atheist.

And there you ruined the good impression...

[Matyuv]

I have read the Bible.

Was it your own decision or someone made you read it? Just wondering.

[spiraldoor]

You can't avoid fanatics in any way though. Just by taking a look at political parties, or anything of the sort, people can become zealous over them in a second. It's in our nature to stop thinking and just do as we're told, or what we believe is right, we just can't shed that. Still, fanatics are usually damaged people from the start. Normal people don't turn out like that, unless there's a deep flaw in them. Most just try to hide it, by becoming tools to whatever they're so attached to. This isn't religions problem on its own, since taking example like...dunno...Buddist monks, with their way of thinking, it's unlikely they'd become so violent. It's the person who is the fault...religion can only be a catalyst, and only if it's used the wrong way, and not explained as it should be.

You're disproving your own point; you say that religion is a catalyst for violence, yet you say Buddhist monks are unlikely to be violent. Are you suggesting that Christianity, Islam, and other religions known to cause violence should be treated differently to, say, Buddhism?

If it wasn't God, we'd commit atrocities for another reason. Religion, like anything, can be degenerated into a simple tool. It's just in us that we exterminate each other, for whatever reason we can find. I guess we're just a self-killing species. XD; This is kinda like stating that Nacism never would have happened without Hitler, which also can't be said for sure. It's the flow of history, we make mistakes one way or another.

If bin Laden wasn't a Muslim, do you really think he would he have organised the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center for some other reason? If so, what reason would this be? I can't think of anything that inspires the same irrational ideas as religion.

Hitler wasn't the founder of the Nazi Party btw. But I doubt they would suddenly have killed six million Jews and started WWII without him ordering them to do so.

[Hunchman801]

Still, fanatics are usually damaged people from the start. Normal people don't turn out like that, unless there's a deep flaw in them.

I'm afraid you're totally wrong: in fact, an overwhelming majority of people raised in an extremist environment are to become fanatics, for the mere reason that very few people are endowed with enough self-questioning to call their own beliefs and motives into question.

If it wasn't God, we'd commit atrocities for another reason. Religion, like anything, can be degenerated into a simple tool. It's just in us that we exterminate each other, for whatever reason we can find. I guess we're just a self-killing species. XD; This is kinda like stating that Nacism never would have happened without Hitler, which also can't be said for sure. It's the flow of history, we make mistakes one way or another.

What you said is nothing more than the characterisation of fatalism, the belief that all events are subjugated to an inevitable predetermination, which is not compatible with determinism, as far as I know. Even though universal determinism may not be compatible with quantum physics, local determinism is still widely accepted as an evidence nowadays. Therefore, I cannot agree with your reasoning.

[spiraldoor]

What you said is nothing more than the characterisation of fatalism, the belief that all events are subjugated to an inevitable predetermination, which is not compatible with determinism, as far as I know. Even though universal determinism may not be compatible with quantum physics, local determinism is still widely accepted as an evidence nowadays. Therefore, I cannot agree with your reasoning.

I actually understand what you're talking about.

[Xenon]

I don't really think Osama bin Laden's ideologies are reflections of Islamic principles. The attacks were carried out to protest against American imperialism - or in other words, carried out to demonstrate "injustices" the Americans apparently perpetrated against Islam. And I ask you, what does that have to do with the roles of religion? That doesn't represent Muslim culture whatsoever, as it has nothing to do with beliefs that lie within this religion. The 'if religion didn't exist, would 9/11 have happened?' argument is becoming increasingly tiring. The attacks were horrific acts of human stupidity/recklessness and don't represent religion on any level. Islam may have been involved, but it is certainly not responsible for the outcome of these tragic events. Anyone who asserts 'religion should be removed' fails to consider the actual function of it... it's stupid to disregard the underlying principles of religion, basing an argument on something that is remotely associated to the matter.

[Zay-el]

@Tobbe: Look, I wasn't attempting to bite you or anything, all that might have caught me, was the heat of the debate. I got excited, sue me. X3

In any case though I've read the article, and honestly found it interesting. However, I still have doubts about it being the very single reasons why morality came to be. If what the article says is completely true, then religion had barely any use at all, which I very much doubt. In any case, I think the instict of aggression is, and forever will be in humanity. It's just in us that we put our own lives ahead of everyone's at times. In any case though, while evolution can dictace certain things, it just can't block anger and frustration, which lead to aggression, most of the times. What religion was good for, if we wanna achieve a base, is perhaps to enhance the natural flow of this part of evolution of mentality, by providing laws and restrictions. Just check the seven sins, for instance. Each of them correspond to things that can provoke even murder, if taken to an extreme. I think that even if this is all true, and morality comes solely from evolution, it would have taken MUCH longer to fully show an effect, without religion.

@spiraldoor: Please check again what I meant there. I never said religion inevitably catalyses aggression, but at the right time, it can become a tool on one's hand to do so. A decent person would never listen to any call for extreme measures, unless if perhaps provided by something he/she believes in, let it be God, Allah, Communism, etc, etc.

And spiral, just think of something that can be even more powerful of a motivation, than religion, which it can use as a cover? X3 I'll give you a hint, you buy stuff with it. ;3

@Hunchman801: They sadly can't help it if they're brought up that way...if they only have a single person who understands things a religion stands for, that can only rarely lead to fanatics. In order for that not to happen though, the method cannot be the eradication of religion. If you just try to eterminate it, people merely flood to it, since it stands against what they know, and that always attracts a crowd. Fanatics appear in anything though, from religion, to gaming, through politics. You just can't avoid them, as long as people do not see the need to explain things correctly. Proper education rarely brings such a result.

Okay, so I may have a had a little bit of Soul Reaver rub off on me there. XD;; In any case though, I rather say that you can't hold it guilty, just because people interpret it wrong, or used it for a wrong reason. It's like fully blaming every death of Communism on the belief itself, while the real deal was never as severe as it happened in history. Sadly, in terms of power, people will use anything, especially what we might have our faith tied to. Just compare the Popes of the middle ages, to John Paul II, and you can see the difference.

Gawd, it's a real doozey to try and defend religion, especially without being a believer. XD;; I really enjoy it though, you people have very good points at times. You're not going easy on me. ;3

[Joshua822]

And there you ruined the good impression...

Define extremists. I define extremists as persons who don't agree with something and then kill to prove their point. Does that have anything to do with religion ? No. If i find it wrong that i got a parking ticket and fly a plane into the world trade center to prove my point. To give you a ( ridiculous ) example.

[spiraldoor]

We're talking about religious extremists.

[Hunchman801]

I actually understand what you're talking about.

I suggest you read articles about determinism and and fatalism.

The 'if religion didn't exist, would 9/11 have happened?' argument is becoming increasingly tiring. The attacks were horrific acts of human stupidity/recklessness and don't represent religion on any level. Islam may have been involved, but it is certainly not responsible for the outcome of these tragic events.

Islam may not be responsible, but without islam, it would never have happened. It sounds like you're confusing causality and responsibility. You cannot deny it unless you believe in fatalism, as I wrote above. Thus, spiral still has a point.

[MLII]

Hunch, why's your username now green? It was red before.

[Jona]

Because he has decided to quit as administrator at PC, and decided to hand over the control of the forum to his trustworthy friend Matyuv.

[Matyuv]

That's what Hunch told you my friend, but actually I took the admin powers by force.

[Joshua822]

We're talking about religious extremists.

Actually, the discussion is whether extremists would still exists when religions where taken away.

[Matyuv]

Did you hack the forums ? Why would you ban Hunch, i thought you where good mates ?

Please don't discuss this in any topics apart from the "Attention" announcement in Members forum (link in sig and a few posts above). I want my forum to be clean so you guys should stay on topic, thanks.

[Tobbe]

I have read the Bible.

Was it your own decision or someone made you read it? Just wondering.

I read some of it purely out of interest, and some of it because some moron theists dared me to. I have to admit that I haven't read it in it's entirety, though. I estimate that I've read about 70-80% of it over the years. Anyway, it was my own decision.

[Xenon]

Islam may not be responsible, but without islam, it would never have happened. It sounds like you're confusing causality and responsibility. You cannot deny it unless you believe in fatalism, as I wrote above. Thus, spiral still has a point.

Aye, but fatalism is an association, not a factor. I could say that without mass weaponry, the attacks would never have occurred - which is of course true - but human recklessness is the underlying cause we are searching for here. I agree that without religion, the attacks would never have happened, but that doesn't mean it should be eliminated, neither gradually nor instantaneously.