Some cool looks at religion =)

[Nestharus]

Excellent discussion

http://www.rationalinquiry.org.uk/f...igion-a-delusion?p=56670&viewfull=1#post56670
http://www.rationalinquiry.org.uk/f...igion-a-delusion?p=56656&viewfull=1#post56656
http://www.rationalinquiry.org.uk/f...igion-a-delusion?p=76694&viewfull=1#post76694

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_delusion
http://godisimaginary.com/index.htm (look at proof 7, it's very good. This isn't meant to offend anyone, it is only meant to show some logic that I'll be using in future posts. Feel free to look at the others =), there are a lot though >.<, 53).

Thoughts?

edit
something interesting that was on Science Friday, NPR

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/26/science/26evolve.html?pagewanted=all

It shows genetic changes in mice as they adapt to New York City over many years.

edit
a discussion on Christianity -> http://christianity.net.au/questions/why_is_christianity_the_true_religion

Please compare the differences between discussions : ). That was sadly the only article I could find. The others were all about "why you believe that your religion is true" or "is religion true?". If anyone can find other texts, please let me know : ).

 

[ap0calypse]

Now I'm not a big fan of religion, but aren't you forcing non-belief on believers?
The very reason I'm against religion, is because it's something that is usually spread because it is forced on people by overzealous believers.
You seem to be doing the same thing, but then with atheism.

I've seen plenty of lectures and debates concerning religion, and it was only when both sides pondered opposing arguments, that it resulted in something intelligent.
Shouting "I have the right of ways because (link here)" is like the modern atheist way of saying "I have the right of ways because (line from Bible here)". Can't say I've ever seen that give any good results.
Of course, there's also logic and reasoning behind your post. While I cannot deny that, I still feel that this method of shouting out how right you are is not the correct thing to do.

I would prefer to have no explanation for something than a fantasy one myself ; ). I actually have experienced some stuff that people would classify as supernatural and to this day have no explanation for those things : o. I would prefer to classify them simply as phenomena due to unknown factors =).

Same thing counts for me. While I have experienced something that I could not possibly explain, I never felt the need to explain such things through religion.
Other people may not feel the same way though, and seek for an instant explanation (an explanation that, for some, raises more questions than it gives answers).


Ahh, now you've changed your initial post too much and I don't know if I'm still being relevant with this .
I guess I'll still post it, because of the time I spent going through all of this.

 

[Nestharus]

Yea, I'm trying to make it non provocative. I thought about it and realized how provocative it was, so I changed stuff around. I'd rather not have it be a big war, but rather an intriguing discussion like that thread I found that discussed whether religion was delusion or not.

I could use some sophistry like I did before, but that was linking stuff together in a rather poor manner. We also discussed in chatroom about not being able to disprove religion, and I stated that you can't disprove Snow White either, and that you shouldn't believe in something without a touch of skepticism. It's much better to say that you have to prove something than disprove something. To disprove something states that it was already previously proven, which is most certainly not the case with religion or spirituality =).


Anyways, if we examine how there are either full believers or non-believers, we come to realize that full believers, as proof #7 states in the link (a statement that I agree with) will override their rational mind with a "religious mind." This is not due to stupidity or any such thing. It is due to being fed these beliefs from a very young impressionable age, more than likely by close family. Due to social pressure, family, and the fear of death, religion becomes a mainstay without-a-doubt belief. Really, I think it is most due to the fact that it is taught to children at such a young age =).

Rather than looking at it as true or false, let us examine why people believe or don't believe in religion or spirituality. From what I've seen, people will believe in these things for the reasons stated above. Why don't they believe in Santa, or stop believe in Santa as they grow up? They look at the possibility of it (unlikely) or observe something that disproves their belief. A child will believe in Santa with all their heart until it is disproven. It is never actually proven, only observed, and the child subscribes to the story of Santa, due to it being taught at a young age. That to them is the most viable theory.

If we examine religion, it is the exact same way. It describes things and can't be disproved except by the source. It also starts out not proven. It follows the exact same pattern. When people examine other religions and call them wtf fairy tales, this is due to those religions not being a part of that person's culture. It is foreign to them, thus it looks like a fairy tale would, and people that believe in that religion look crazy, like how can they believe in that stuff.

The difference between Santa and religion is that the source that is Santa is physical and can thus be observed and disproved. The source of religion is an entity that by all accounts might as well not exist as it doesn't come into contact with anything and can't be observed in any way. As there is no way to show that the source was an impersonation or that the source exists or doesn't exist, there is no way to disprove or prove religion. I suppose that religion could be proven if the source exists, but it can never be disproved. At this point, religion would appear to be quite dangerous as it could continue to get followers without ever being overthrown. Consider a maniacal army that believes that when they die they will go to paradise and that is under the absolute command of some figure. Would this army not be incredibly dangerous?

Of course, this impenetrable stronghold can also be used to aid others. People can be threatened by punishment unless they subscribe to the values of said belief. Furthermore, those same punishments can be used to scare others into believing.

So we have now identified a few different entry points into religion and no exit points:
1. young and impressionable
2. gullible
3. fear
4. escape from reality
5. pressure from family, friends, and society

As for exit points... the only real way to get away is to detach yourself from religion (requiring you to already have doubts) and then to analyze it objectively. Essentially, very few people can ever get out of it once in it .



That is my current analysis =). Thoughts?

Once again, I'm not trying to paint anything as evil, I am just analyzing this all from my current understanding. At this point could religion be called delusion? Could it be called a con? It all depends on the individual involved.

Yes, I am taking a tone that there is no truth in the manner. I invite others to share their own analysis of religion from both sides and from multiple religions ; ). Maybe we can all gain a clearer view of what exactly religion is and how it is used.

And please do check out that thread I linked, it is very excellent.

 

[ap0calypse]

Hah, yeah. My entire previous post was dedicated to the provocative nature of your initial post, I'm quite glad you changed that .


Check the link with the 50 (actualy 53, counting the 3 bonuses) proofs? Yeah, I've bookmarked it. Already checked out #7 for the sake of your post, I'll review the others when I have the time .

Little note: I completely forgot a word that would describe what I want to say quite nicely, so I'll have to do without .
I do agree with your statement: religion is taught, not found. If you've never heard of any religion before, you won't suddenly start believing in one.
But are those 'fairy tales' (Mary being a virgin mother and all that) really the cause for belief?

My nephew would be an example where this is not the case: despite being a pretty good pianist, he's also won several math olympiads in my country and got second in the BeNeLux math olympiad.
After getting his master's in mathematics, he decided to join a monestary (somewhere this year he's going to leave everything behind and move).
Why? I don't really know. I do know that the entire family is religious, so he's got this religious background.
But he also has an entire background of rational thinking, problem solving via logic and all that. I can't imagine him being persuaded by those tales, even just a little.
Which of those 5 entry points does he fit in? Number 5 would be the most likely. Even though the entire family was kind-of shocked with his announcement, he still got his religious background from them.

This is just the case of a single person. While I have no idea what the basis is for his belief, I can ask him (though I don't have much contact with my family).
Then you've got the entire other end of the spectrum: people who actually believe everything their holy book says, word per word. Which is pretty awkward, since there are often translation issues and nobody really knows what the actual, literal phrase was in the first place.
Maybe number 2 (gullible) suits them best? Though they also seem to strive for power (forcing schools to treat Creationism as an equal to evolution), and of course: money (as we all know what the founder of Scientology had to say about that).


So let's wrap this rather incoherent post up a little.
For people to exit religion is indeed rather rare.
I think religion dies with those who believe, as I've never heard a story of a pious someone who actually converted to atheism.
The longer you remain religious, the more it seems to grow on you. Maybe indeed for fear of death?
Whatever the case, it requires some heavy thinking for an already clouded mind to be able to release religion.


Edit: "indoctrination". That's the word I was looking for. It sums it up quite nicely I think.

 

[Nuclear]

Why censor opinions and hold back the ridicule just to please some group of people afraid of challenging their beliefs? Open fire!

 

[Zakamutt]

I think if any post deserves a tl;dr this is probably it...

 

[BlackEnvyX]

I honestly never viewed religion important enough to be worth researching or believing. It's just not my thing, no offense to anyone religious here.

 

[Maestros]

Only people with a high brain usage can have dellusions, the others are just deceived.
Hope it answers you!

 

[Crazed_seal2]

Got a bunch of Youtube Channels dedicated that might be useful.

http://www.youtube.com/user/QualiaSoup
http://www.youtube.com/user/DarkMatter2525
http://www.youtube.com/user/Thunderf00t
http://www.youtube.com/user/AronRa
http://www.youtube.com/user/GrapplingIgnorance
http://www.youtube.com/user/TheThinkingAtheist


Also, a nice TV show
http://www.atheist-experience.com/

 

[Talavaj]

Religions are false beliefs without discussion, not by facts but by mere common sense alone.
However they are still beliefs, I do not think you have the right to force people into abandoning their beliefs, especially if those beliefs make those people happy.

Beliefs can be dangerous however and that is unfortunately the case with many religions, fortunately people became sane over time and publicly burning people because "witchcraft" is no longer kosher neither does Christianity have the power it once had.
To be brutally honest, I believe religions were either made up because people could not comprehend certain phenomena or (in the worse case) were designed to control the masses, grant power to certain parties or amass large amounts of wealth by said parties.

That being said, if a person is living fulfilling and happy life because of said religion or belief then it isn't my interest to change their mind even if there is major amount of scumbagery behind it.

 

[Nestharus]

@Crazed_seal2

I meant articles etc from the religious viewpoint, not the atheist viewpoint ; \.


The best way to have a good mature discussion is to analyze both sides, not to just bring up one side and then relentlessly attack the other =).

 

[Gilles]

Yes, I am taking a tone that there is no truth in the manner.

I don't understand what you mean here. I'm assuming you didn't mean manner, and meant to say matter.

What are you asserting here? That there is no truth?

 

[Boris_Spider]

I'm curious, who do you plan to be discussing religion? I've never seen a case where the discussion included both the pro and anti minded participants.

Religion, from what I've observed, requires its members to keep blind faith (The only REAL difference between faith and blind-faith is semantics). Faith/blind-faith, by definition, prevents believers from observing their beliefs objectively. Non-believers, by definition, refuse to practice THAT PARTICULAR blind faith and will disregard the believers' subjective arguments...

Where's the common ground for the discussion between these opposing viewpoints (which in my experience have always been extreme)? This disconnect is why every religious thread on this forum has ended in a flame-war or witnessed one of the viewpoints abandon the thread.

Without a variety of viewpoints, the discussion will be little more than a circle jerk.

//\\==//\\

 

[Nestharus]

I'm trying to lead the discussion into something that is logical.

There are people that believe in religion using more than blind faith. Consider intelligent design, or when people discover patterns that can't be explained. These things are used as evidence to support, at the bare minimum, spirituality. However, my argument would be that phenomena and the beliefs a person holds are unrelated until proven. Phenomena could easily be the result of something completely different. Religion and spirituality to me are stabs in the dark, or guesses, at what might actually be =). What are the chances of a random guess actually being true? Sure, if one were to make enough of them, one of those countless guesses are sure to be true, but that's only if you make those countless guesses in the first place.

People say that a religious person can't be debated with due to blind faith. However, I invite such people to bring in their beliefs with basis for those beliefs (substantiating their beliefs), excluding personal experience as the mind can be mischievous. It wouldn't necessarily be outright proof, but rather theory and conjecture: an intelligent conversation =). Simply spouting what you hold to be true, whether an atheist or a believer, does nobody any good >.>.

If there is no basis for a belief, then by inductive reasoning I must assert wholly that the belief is an inane topic only held true or in faith by those that have lost touch with reality.

 

[Zakamutt]

Since this is a pretty pointless thread... How the hell can you be watching 72 anime series, Nestharus?

 

[trolman]

@ OP you really seem to fall to other's opinions easily. Somewhat I doubt anyone in this thread has even given a real chance to religion. Most of you just fall victim to those atheists sites because you really need proof not to belive something, which is something really funny to me. You already dont belive but need to read all that literature so you dont belive.

Also you've got lots of things wrong like your Santa part. The people who invented santa wont die for him. Your five points for entry in religions are wrong too, i mean one of them might be a factor for somebody but for me neither one of them applied.

But oh well, I cant stop the rain.

 

[ap0calypse]

Somewhat I doubt anyone in this thread has even given a real chance to religion. Most of you just fall victim to those atheists sites because you really need proof not to belive something, which is something really funny to me. You already dont belive but need to read all that literature so you dont belive.

I've grown up in a catholic family, I've seen many debates concerning religion and I have not just dismissed it as some fancy fairy tale.
I did give it some thought, but it never got through to me. In the end, I couldn't just accept something like that.

Your five points for entry in religions are wrong too, i mean one of them might be a factor for somebody but for me neither one of them applied.

Those 5 entry points are 'possible' entry points, it doesn't mean it applies to everyone.
It just means that the large majority of people have converted through 1 (or more) of those 5 points.
Being incomplete isn't the same as being wrong (that's also how science works: filling in the missing gaps, instead of dismissing the entire idea).

The people who invented santa wont die for him.

I think that dying for a religion is a silly idea anyway.

 

[trolman]

I've grown up in a catholic family, I've seen many debates concerning religion and I have not just dismissed it as some fancy fairy tale.
I did give it some thought, but it never got through to me. In the end, I couldn't just accept something like that.

Maybe its just not your time yet, I mean its never too late to head back on the right track.

Those 5 entry points are 'possible' entry points, it doesn't mean it applies to everyone.
It just means that the large majority of people have converted through 1 (or more) of those 5 points.
Being incomplete isn't the same as being wrong (that's also how science works: filling in the missing gaps, instead of dismissing the entire idea).

But the thing about them is that they all imply a sort of persuaison, giving the image that beeing a part of a religion is the same beeing in a street gang.

I think that dying for a religion is a silly idea anyway.

Exactly because you dont belive in religion, the same would happen to the Coca Cola agents, they would drop santa the first moment things got intense. So comparing Santa to Jesus is not quite fair.

 

[ap0calypse]

Maybe its just not your time yet, I mean its never too late to head back on the right track.

"The right track" is the path you wish to follow, not the path that others tell you to follow.
There's no point in calling converting to whatever religion "heading back to the right track". A person from another religion would beg to differ, and there is no reason to say that your religion is the "correct" one (or have I misunderstood something, perhaps?)

But the thing about them is that they all imply a sort of persuaison, giving the image that beeing a part of a religion is the same beeing in a street gang.

How did you get into religion?
I've received a Bible for my 10th birthday, had some kind of prayer dice to use before eating any meal (you'd have to roll the dice and say the prayer that you rolled), I had to go to church for quite a long time.
All those things seem like indoctrination and pressure from adults who "know better".

Exactly because you dont belive in religion

If there truly is a God who cares about humans, then why would he want those humans to die for him?
In case God does not want people to die for him, then however great the honor it would be for us humans, it would go against his will.
If, however, he does want people to die for him, then he doesn't seem like a righteous being.

 

[trolman]

"The right track" is the path you wish to follow, not the path that others tell you to follow.
There's no point in calling converting to whatever religion "heading back to the right track". A person from another religion would beg to differ, and there is no reason to say that your religion is the "correct" one (or have I misunderstood something, perhaps?)

But what if you're like Ted Bundy and all you want to do is murder women?
Also, atheism is not a religion.

How did you get into religion?
I've received a Bible for my 10th birthday, had some kind of prayer dice to use before eating any meal (you'd have to roll the dice and say the prayer that you rolled), I had to go to church for quite a long time.
All those things seem like indoctrination and pressure from adults who "know better".

Well it was entierly on my own part trough study of scriptures and lots of tought and a certain degree of critique.
For your case, I think, you werent ready for religion and the fact that your parents made you do it, left you with a distaste towards the subgect. You can forcefully take something from someone, but you cant forcefully give. (I hope you understand that saying, well theres a language barrier, it sounds better on bulgarian)

If there truly is a God who cares about humans, then why would he want those humans to die for him?
In case God does not want people to die for him, then however great the honor it would be for us humans, it would go against his will.
If, however, he does want people to die for him, then he doesn't seem like a righteous being.

I was refering to how the apostles died for their beliefs, thus prooving Jesus did ressurect. Because if there was anyone who would know weather Christ really returned from the grave, it was them. And as we know liers make bad matyrs.Theres tons of evidence of how they were persecuted and brutaly executed just to spread the holy word and that is the essense of martyrs.

Now i know someone in the thread will try to link those first martyrs to the ones who blow themselves up for a higher purpose. However there is a big differance. The modern matyrs are doing it because they belive they're right.The event happened a long time ago and it might or might not have happened but these suicide matyrs belive it did.Now lets look at the first apostles, the event happened right before their eyes. They knew if it was truth or lie.

 

[ap0calypse]

But what if you're like Ted Bundy and all you want to do is murder women?

Perhaps Bundy did not choose this path himself, but it was laid out before him by the people that mistreated him his entire youth.
If he had a normal youth, things might have turned out to be completely different.

And if you still want to murder and rape while having a normal youth, then you're a psychopath, whether you're religious or not.
Religion does not stop someone from murdering.

Also, atheism is not a religion.

I don't think I've ever implied that.
On a related note: while I'm an atheist, I don't like being classified as such because too many people think that I am therefore actively against all religion.
I'm not against religion, I simply don't believe. I'm against people that abuse religion, yes, but atheism can also be abused and I hate that just as much.

Well it was entierly on my own part trough study of scriptures and lots of tought and a certain degree of critique.

And your parents/grandparents are not religious (or have a different religion)? That doesn't seem to happen very often. Well, I'm more a fan of that than blindly following a religion.
My father has also studied scriptures (comparing the many religions with each other). He also got some books on all kinds of sciences. He's an atheist, but knows more about religion than many theists (the blind theists, who believe because they were told to believe - not ones like you, who actually did their research).

For your case, I think, you werent ready for religion and the fact that your parents made you do it, left you with a distaste towards the subgect. You can forcefully take something from someone, but you cant forcefully give. (I hope you understand that saying, well theres a language barrier, it sounds better on bulgarian)

It wasn't really my parents, but my grandparents. My parents raised me liberally and don't mind me being an atheist (my mother is agnostic and my father is, as said before, atheist).
Still, some of my nephews are catholic and I do blame indoctrination (at least partially, their parents are religious). If my parents were christian, then maybe I would be defending Christianity right now.

 

[trolman]

And if you still want to murder and rape while having a normal youth, then you're a psychopath, whether you're religious or not.
Religion does not stop someone from murdering.

I agree, Stalin was at one point going to become a priest but then he whent "Nah" and killed 50 milion people.

And your parents/grandparents are not religious (or have a different religion)? That doesn't seem to happen very often. Well, I'm more a fan of that than blindly following a religion.
My father has also studied scriptures (comparing the many religions with each other). He also got some books on all kinds of sciences. He's an atheist, but knows more about religion than many theists (the blind theists, who believe because they were told to believe - not ones like you, who actually did their research).

Well i was baptised as a child but it was more than a traditional thing, they took me to this dark building where two strange bearded men poured me with water and that was pritty much it. They never really talked to me. Because they werent religious (damn you communism!).A few years later (still a child) i stumbled upon a comic new testemony which left me quite impressed with this Jesus fellow, but after that for many years i was a not caring atheist.

 

[ap0calypse]

Seems like your post is more an anti-communism statement rather than anything having to do with religion.
I do find your remark about Stalin a bit sad, but alas.


I have no need for solace in religion, nor do I see the need for a creator.
After a lot of thinking, that is where I ended.
Some people are religious, some are not. It's a free world after all .

 

[trolman]

Seems like your post is more an anti-communism statement rather than anything having to do with religion.
I do find your remark about Stalin a bit sad, but alas.

Because their actions have such a negative effect on my life and because they destroying my country's church.

somewhat related

I have no need for solace in religion, nor do I see the need for a creator.
After a lot of thinking, that is where I ended.
Some people are religious, some are not. It's a free world after all .

 

[ap0calypse]

Because their actions have such a negative effect on my life and because they destroying my country's church.

I fear I won't be able to fully comprehend your situation, as they haven't left an imprint on my country and I do not have a church to defend.
Politics and religion should be separated, though it is often not the case. The two clearly cannot work together properly.

Yeah, dude.

 

[Nuclear]

There isn't really any discussion to be had. Under any critical viewing, religions appear to be false, and discussing the reasons why people belive will only cause accusations of scumbaggery.

 

[Nestharus]

Yea, what I am seeing here is that generally, people who follow or religion or are spiritual demand absolute blind faith with no reasoning behind that faith. The only proof is the stories from a book >.<.


I'm seeing that how under any logical light, religion is fallacy, thus it can't be argued with. The other side will only say, "believing in logic is for lamos."


I must now agree that this debate is pointless and go back to my earlier quote =).

If there is no basis for a belief, then by inductive reasoning I must assert wholly that the belief is an inane topic only held true or in faith by those that have lost touch with reality.

edit

OP you really seem to fall to other's opinions easily. Somewhat I doubt anyone in this thread has even given a real chance to religion. Most of you just fall victim to those atheists sites because you really need proof not to belive something, which is something really funny to me. You already dont belive but need to read all that literature so you dont belive.

Those sites were used as evidence on one side. I tried to find evidence for the other side, but could find 0 on google... very interesting : |. The only evidence found was the evidence of "absolute faith regardless," to which I found one. I only happened to agree with stuff on the sites I linked as those things were already my original beliefs. I also used those things in my argument as they were well constructed =). I invited the other side to also provide evidence, and once again, the only evidence provided was "blind faith."

This is just silly...

Sure, the evidence on the other side is pure logic and sophistry, but something should be proven to be at least highly likely before it is adopted. One is supposed to all but prove a theory, not the other way around. It is your job to prove it, not our job to disprove it. False until proven true, not true until proven false. That is science >.<.

Thus I end this debate as I do believe it is utterly pointless. No intelligent conversation can be had when one side has nothing other than "faith."


Getting thread closed before it turns into a flame war.

 

[Gilles]

You never answered my question. : (

If you want some good arguments for religion here is Fr. Robert Barren. He posts movie reviews and other videos. You can also get responses from him in the comments.

Youtube Heresies

As has been pointed out, it is difficult to discuss religion, and one of the problems is that a lot of people try and use a scientific approach. Science and philosophy/theology are not the same things, and cannot be explored in the same ways.

 

[Nestharus]

I used science with philosophy and logic : \, I believe that is very fair .

 

[Magtheridon96]

Thread Closed. (Requested by OP - I'm not going to say No )