Is it time to return to religion?

[stringvest]

I went to a humanist wedding. The bride and groom both wore gold slippers with curly toes. The man who delivered the service was a gay actor from Eastenders. Everyone got drunk. And it was held in King's College on the Strand. What is not to like?

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

Well I agree with your last sentence wholeheartedly and hope I'm in a similar boat. I've made no definite claims about what is and isn't true about god. I'm an atheist who would change his mind if evidence could be provided that I was wrong. Agnostic isn't a valid position to me, for the simple reason the two sides are not equally valid.

 

I think we'd need to define what the two sides are? I'm Ignostic, because I don't know. I only know I don't know because I've been on a long search for some sort of answer.

 

I think the reason I'm an Ignostic is because of my curiosity, and growing understanding of quantum mechanics and particle physics. The mysteries and the lack of knowledge here is mind blowing.

 

For a start, mathematics is the language we need to speak in order to understand more than we already do. Maths was here before man. Languages are from man. Is God maths? Is reality mathematical? Is a God, or creator, something mathematical that we've no idea about? Who knows? I'm certainly not willing to rule it out based on SD saying 'do you think Jesus walked on water'. It's so narrow.

 

All the matter we can see and detect makes up 4.6% of the universe, give or take a few gnats cocks. another 0.4% is neutrinos. The rest is made up from stuff we've invented. 23% is 'dark matter', and the remaining 72% is 'dark energy'. How can we be 99% (or any other number we decide to pull from our arsehole) sure there's no God - yet to be defined - if we don't know things like that. We're now saying that dark energy is made up of particles carrying a 'new' force that's outside of the four forces we know about.

 

Jesus, that's just surface scratching. We don't know. Random percentages and calling people deluded isn't going to convince me of anything. This is the most fascinating, most unknown subject, it's no wonder that people want to narrow it down.

 

Does the first sentence mean that you don't believe religion has anything valid to offer us, as an explanation to describe the beginning of the universe? I don't think that's what you meant to say, but that's how it reads to me.

 

Which religion are you talking about? The major religions are based on very old ignorance, and also utter brilliance. Written by different people, but telling stories to portray ethics. I don't think we can learn anything from religion that we don't already know. That's not true of maths and science. Religion could add in science and religion if it wanted to. Some people do. Religion is personal.

[Strontium]

There's a difference between assigning a non-specific likelihood to one 'claim' from the Bible, as you have, and assigning a percentage to the existence of a God, which is what has been done in this thread. You're trying to frame an argument by looking at a very narrow set of criteria.

 

 

How is it a narrow set of criteria? These are the foundations of religion. Either Jesus walked on water, or Christianity is false. Either Eve ate a fruit from a tree, or Christianity is false.

 

Saying that Jesus couldn't possibly have walked on water doesn't instantly mean that there's a specific value we can assign to the likelihood of a God, whatever a God is.

 

 

If people can't walk on water, then Christianity is false, and the Christian God does not exist. That's the God that more than 2 billion people believe in, disproven right away.

 

"Whatever a God is"? It's pretty clear what a God is, just read a holy text, the parameters are very clearly defined. He listens to prayers. He rains down fire and brimstone on his enemies. He makes magic babies. That kind of thing.

 

That might be what religion is to you, but it's certainly not what religion is for a great many. Even for me, as somebody who isn't religious, religion isn't about a few crazies believing that a man walked on water. It's a shame you can't seem to look at the wider picture of religion, rather than focusing on a small part of one religious book that you've chosen to take literally.

 

 

I think it's a shame you can't understand that these kinds of wild claims are the very foundation of religions the world over.

 

Why are you equating a few cherry-picked things from the bible with religion as a whole, and the wider issue of a God? Is it because the only way to make your hurtful insults look less nasty is to make the argument solely about a purposely narrow view of things.

 

 

What the hell are you talking about? Firstly, these "cherry-picked things" are anything but. There are thousands of such things in the Bible, I just picked a few that people are more likely to have heard of.

 

And why I equate them with the wider issue of a God? Er, because the existence of a Christian God or Muslim God or Jewish God or Hindu God(s) depends entirely on these things being true.

 

How can you not get this?

 

 

Atheists seem to fucking hate being questioned. As if everything is so obvious, and they're so fucking clever that they're beyond it.

 

 

I'm sorry, it really is obvious. People don't rise from the dead. And if people don't rise from the dead, Christianity is bunk, and hence Christian God doesn't exist. It's logic a child could parse (and I did, when I was about 4 years old).

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

I can't even reply to that, such is the broken logic, ignorance, arrogance, belittlement and damned right idiocy of it. However, just to end on a point of agreement. It's certainly the logic of a 4 year old child.

 

I normally enjoy debating these issues, but the dismissive tone and illogical approach in that post just makes me want to walk awake and shake my head. What a load of shit.

[Strontium]

I can't even reply to that, such is the broken logic, ignorance, arrogance, belittlement and damned right idiocy of it. However, just to end on a point of agreement. It's certainly the logic of a 4 year old child.

 

I normally enjoy debating these issues, but the dismissive tone and illogical approach in that post just makes me want to walk awake and shake my head. What a load of shit.

 

 

What... the fuck?

 

If people can't rise from the dead, Christianity is false, because Christianity depends on someone rising from the dead. Where is the broken logic there? Show me.

 

The dismissiveness and arrogance is coming from you. I think because you know very well that religion is demonstrable bullshit, but for reasons I can only guess at, you're reluctant to intellectually commit to it.

[Antynwa]

 

 

I'm sorry, it really is obvious. People don't rise from the dead. And if people don't rise from the dead, Christianity is bunk, and hence Christian God doesn't exist. It's logic a child could parse (and I did, when I was about 4 years old).

 

People don't rise from the dead in this world, in this reality. What we see, is what we see. Not what we don't see. Evidence suggests that we don't rise from the dead.

 

But you're approaching the argument in such an extreme angle it's almost imposible to reason with you. You're bringing up religion, when religion and life and atheism isn't as interlaced as you think it is. Yeah evidence suggests there is no God, and evidence suggests Mary wasn't spontaneously impregnated. But when it comes to life and death. Atheism isn't an answer, it's a belief. That's all atheism is.

 

Take religion away from the equation.

 

Do you KNOW that life is life, and death is death. When we die, nothing, nothing for existence, no self awareness, just darkness for eternity, for a length of time with no end? I'm not talking about a God, a saviour, a heaven or hell. I'm simply asking the question. Is that it, life and death?

 

Because that's what atheism seems to suggest, and personally I think that view too far too simplistic for it to be true.

[Strontium]

But you're approaching the argument in such an extreme angle it's almost imposible to reason with you.

 

 

What's extreme about suggesting that people don't rise from the dead?

 

Yeah evidence suggests there is no God, and evidence suggests Mary wasn't spontaneously impregnated.

 

 

Right, and? Is there any good reason why we shouldn't use evidence, and evidence alone, as the basis for formulating theories?

 

But when it comes to life and death. Atheism isn't an answer, it's a belief. That's all atheism is.

 

 

Atheism is not a belief. It is the absence of belief.

 

Is that it, life and death?

 

 

I don't claim to have all the answers. I'll leave that to religion. What I do know is that people don't rise from the dead.

[Antynwa]

Do you KNOW that life is life, and death is death. When we die, nothing, nothing for existence, no self awareness, just darkness for eternity, for a length of time with no end? I'm not talking about a God, a saviour, a heaven or hell. I'm simply asking the question. Is that it, life and death?

 

 

I notice you didn't answer the key part of the post. Which renders atheism ultimately flawed.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

There's no life or death, not really. You'd be best not engaging when he's in this self-righteous mode. He just believes he's smarter than you because you've got a different opinion. Don't get me wrong, he is smarter than you, but not because of this.

[Strontium]

Do you KNOW that life is life, and death is death.

 

 

Insofar as anything can be known, yes. Outside of masturbatory philosophical musing, I think that's all that matters. If you're going to reject all of our empirical experiences as potentially unreal, then there's not a lot of debate to be had - about anything. Personally I think you are better off if you treat the universe as reality. It makes more sense that way.

 

Of course, this is all somewhat off the topic of the thread, which is religion, with its prayer-granting gods and magic zombies who are their own fathers.

[Thants]

What's the point in asking where the big bang comes from if you can't answer where this 'creator' came from to begin with. Surely it's better to believe in compelling evidence, using the laws of science that humans have formed over 100s of years, and not using the scriptures of different supernatural fiction authors, all of who disagree with each other.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

What's the point in asking where the big bang comes from if you can't answer where this 'creator' came from to begin with.

 

The surest way to fail is not to try to answer these questions. We still don't understand time very well, and even then we only understand it under the current laws of physics. We understand that quantum physics works, we can predict how it will work, but we have no idea why it works. Us humans like to ask questions, rather than just settle for not knowing.

 

Surely it's better to believe in compelling evidence, using the laws of science that humans have formed over 100s of years

 

Humans didn't form the 'laws of science', the laws of physics and nature formed humans. They exist with or without us. There is no evidence, real or compelling, which tells us how these laws came into being or why they are like they are. Hell, we don't even understand them fully. What we've done over 100s of years is try to discover and understand them.

 

The current best guess is that before the big bang, there was nothing. Not the type of nothing that contains the fabric of space time either. The real nothing, the sort we can't comprehend. The there was everything. Which was nice.

 

So, to recap on the creation of everything: this incredibly complex, stunningly beautiful, mathematic wonderland just happened to appear out of nothingness. Hmn. I reckon it might take some more explaining than that. It's just a hunch.

[Stu Monty]

These debates really do frustrate me, and NV's stance probably more than anyone's. It's the reverence to organised religion that they won't give to other people's individual thoughts on the subject that really pisses me off. The way that if I mention the FSM or Keith the almighty Gibbon I'm the one who isn't respecting people's rights to believe something which goes against all rational thought.

 

They love to have a laugh at the Scientologists because, you know, it's not a proper religion. That was one that was man-made, the big loonies. They'd also, no doubt, be fine with people being rescued from cults, because, again, unless you've got the years under your belt or the numbers to go with it you aren't a proper religion. You're just dangerously indoctrinating people.

 

I also wonder why atheists are often targeted for their opinion that there is no god, to the point where the factor for error is tiny, but that they only disbelive in one more god than most religious people do. Your average Christian is absolutely definite that the four thousand other suggested gods do not exist yet I get shit for thinking that 4001 don't.

 

It's funny, humans have come so far but we still cannot accept that we have no greater importance than bacteria in the wider scheme of things; nor that they'll outlive us. We think that because some clerics wrote a story about ten rules that we are morally and societally superior to other animals, who also have moral codes. Even when, as of yet, no Meerkat has nuked a whole city.

 

Religion isn't a force for good or evil, just a tool. It's just an easy answer to a hard question. A fairy story for people who are afraid of the dark, if you will.

[stringvest]

indeed. That was the point I was making about having a couple of thousand years of aggressive global marketing behind you before becoming your version of the truth being socially acceptable. I feel sorry for the Unification Church et al; what chance to they have to establish their version of events against the tsunami of righteous opprobrium? They might as well be howling at the moon(ie). I find religion fascinating only from a sociological viewpoint.

[George Costanza]

a festivus for the rest of us

[Stu Monty]

Also, the idea that there is a being that sophisticated that it can create a universe, but that completely shit that it makes it such a shambles when you look at it in a design perspective, doesn't make any sense. And how do people who think "This is all to amazing to not have a creator" thensquare the idea that the creator would have to be even more amazing?

 

I have very little issue with people who believe in some mighty force that sparked the universe into life, I'm just not going to sit here and entertain daft ideas about some interventionist power who answers prayers about you mum's chemo and then sends down tsunamis to drown babies.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

These debates really do frustrate me, and NV's stance probably more than anyone's. It's the reverence to organised religion that they won't give to other people's individual thoughts on the subject that really pisses me off.

 

Hold up, I don't give any reverence to religion. Nor do I have any problem with anybody's individual thoughts. I treat religion and atheism (and we should never think that's a synonym for scientific knowledge, btw) exactly the same. One is a belief and one is a rejection of that belief. I believe that you should take individuals on their own belief. The religious differ massively in their understanding of the Bible. For example, my friend has a Doctorate in Theology. His understanding of the Bible is pretty significant. Now, he's religious, but is he the same sort of person as a brainwashed hick from Alabama? Does he have a mental delusion, just because SD - who understands the Bible far less I'd wager - says he does?

 

The same is true for Atheists. Some atheists just have a lack of belief, but are more than accepting of people having different views. Especially considering, despite what some might like to say, they don't actually have a fucking clue. Other Atheists don't just have a lack of belief. They actively disbelieve in any God, go out of their way to insult, belittle, and upset people. That's fine, if they want to do that. Doesn't make them any less of a prick though. It's funny, because for people so enlightened, those types lack any social grace.

 

The way that if I mention the FSM or Keith the almighty Gibbon I'm the one who isn't respecting people's rights to believe something which goes against all rational thought.

 

They love to have a laugh at the Scientologists because, you know, it's not a proper religion. That was one that was man-made, the big loonies. They'd also, no doubt, be fine with people being rescued from cults, because, again, unless you've got the years under your belt or the numbers to go with it you aren't a proper religion. You're just dangerously indoctrinating people.

 

All religions are man made. I don't really want to get into the rest, as it doesn't really have anything to do with anything I've said.

 

I also wonder why atheists are often targeted for their opinion that there is no god, to the point where the factor for error is tiny, but that they only disbelive in one more god than most religious people do. Your average Christian is absolutely definite that the four thousand other suggested gods do not exist yet I get shit for thinking that 4001 don't.

 

It's funny, humans have come so far but we still cannot accept that we have no greater importance than bacteria in the wider scheme of things; nor that they'll outlive us. We think that because some clerics wrote a story about ten rules that we are morally and societally superior to other animals, who also have moral codes. Even when, as of yet, no Meerkat has nuked a whole city.

 

Religion isn't a force for good or evil, just a tool. It's just an easy answer to a hard question. A fairy story for people who are afraid of the dark, if you will.

 

That blanket statement is as frustrating to me as my opinion is to you. Religion is much more than that to so many people.

[Anny Road]

Also, the idea that there is a being that sophisticated that it can create a universe, but that completely shit that it makes it such a shambles when you look at it in a design perspective, doesn't make any sense. And how do people who think "This is all to amazing to not have a creator" thensquare the idea that the creator would have to be even more amazing?

 

I have very little issue with people who believe in some mighty force that sparked the universe into life, I'm just not going to sit here and entertain daft ideas about some interventionist power who answers prayers about you mum's chemo and then sends down tsunamis to drown babies.

 

Good post Stu. If the almighty was designing a perfect universe then he is fucking shit at it. We live permanently of the brink of destruction. Ask the dinosaurs.

 

Earthquakes, floods, impending asteroids. It is absolute chaos and not the product of design.

 

We live on the outskirts of the debris of a colossal explosion and we are no more than clever monkeys. To suggest that one of us designed all this is only feasible in the fact that it is so utterly shit.

[Stu Monty]

I don't really want to get into the rest, as it doesn't really have anything to do with anything I've said.

 

It does mate, very much so. You can swerve it as many times as you like but the fact will still remain that you'll not accuse someone of the same things if the subject is scientology or some other mental cult than a belief in a more mainstream god. You have decided on a scale of what is acceptable, and deserves respecting, and what isn't. I invent a mighty ape and I'm put at the far end, as we move through we pass David Koresh and other "nutters" until we finally arrive at safe viewpoints, about sensible gods.

 

Lots of people do it, and claim they respect people's rights to religion, when what they really mean is they respect established religions, and if for instance someone wants to spend their sunday telling kids that if they're naughty a bad man will kill them in their sleep, which they may genuinely believe, then they'll have him locked up for being mentally ill. As opposed to telling kids they'll burn for eternity and be tortured that is, which is acceptable.

 

It's double standards, even if it is motivated by not wanting to upset people.

[Stu Monty]

Good post Stu. If the almighty was designing a perfect universe then he is fucking shit at it. We live permanently of the brink of destruction. Ask the dinosaurs.

Earthquakes, floods, impending asteroids. It is absolute chaos and not the product of design.

 

We live on the outskirts of the debris of a colossal explosion and we are no more than clever monkeys. To suggest that one of us designed all this is only feasible in the fact that it is so utterly shit.

 

It's not even as epic as that. Trees spend masses of resources pushing their leaves as high in the air as possible because of natural selection. Trunks are a monument to inefficiency. You could design them to all be one foot off the ground and they'd all catch the same rays. Cheetahs and Antelope both spending masses of resource on enhancing speed, to both stand still. Even energy itself and the laws of thermodynamics; inefficient.

 

I also wonder how people who belive in an interventionist god square the idea that our presence here is but a millisecond of the time the universe has existed, so what the fuck does he do in the downtime? Do they think he'll be answering prayers of bacteria in a couple million years when we are long gone?

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

Nope, I absolutely respect Scientologists right to religion. You're making guesses about what I believe in.

[Guest Jon Snow]

Way i see it if there is life after death awesome if there ain't we are all fucked.

But end of day its the same for every one , don't matter if you got all the money in world or you can find a meal , death is the game breaker its what balances the universe its what I call karma.

 

Believe what you want to Believe but keep it to your self , because people who don't shout about it have a deeper confidence about there faith.

 

Also on a personal level I fell religion on a global scale is just a money making scheme I heard priest other day talking about the church of England selling there 8 million pounds worth of bskyb shares.Just don't sit right with me that.

 

Don't get me wrong if you Believe in something that's awesome whatever gets you from day to day has got to be a good thing ! But just don't shout it at me and expect to get a positive response.

[Stu Monty]

Nope, I absolutely respect Scientologists right to religion. You're making guesses about what I believe in.

 

And the guy who has decided his god has told him to lecture little kids that a man will come and murder them in the night? Or a bloke who wants to wear a traffic cone on his head at work? Or a bloke who keeps cutting himself because of the voices?

 

You say that Stronts is out of order for saying that religion might come up on a radar of mental illness but I don't believe for one second that you believe that anyone is allowed to believe anything they want without being stopped/locked up for everyone's (including their own) good.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

And the guy who has decided his god has told him to lecture little kids that a man will come and murder them in the night? Or a bloke who wants to wear a traffic cone on his head at work? Or a bloke who keeps cutting himself because of the voices?

 

You say that Stronts is out of order for saying that religion might come up on a radar of mental illness but I don't believe for one second that you believe that anyone is allowed to believe anything they want without being stopped/locked up for everyone's (including their own) good.

 

I do believe that anybody is allowed to believe anything they want. Belief doesn't make anything right or real. Going to extreme, with people who likely do have a genuine mental illness, isn't the best argument for the billions of other people who are quite clearly not mental ill. It's offensive blather that makes people look like tossers. To me anyway.

[Antynwa]

Why is it so important to some atheists and seemingly you SD that people don't believe in religion or have faith in something?

 

I know some perfectly reasonable religious people and I don't see the harm in people having something to believe in.