Is religion a bad thing?

[ImpyTimpy]

Alright, let's have a clean debate people. Is religion a bad thing? I don't want to turn this into a moral debate or "us athiests" vs. "them christians" debate. I'd like to see arguments for and against religous beliefs (preferably of equal magnitude).

I personally do not think religion is a bad thing. Yes, there are downright dangerous religous beliefs but there are also productive religous beliefs. Should we however lump all religous beliefs together and declare religion of any kind a bad thing? I say no. I say we should distinguish the dangerous and safe religions and label them appropriately. That means religion itself is not a bad thing but the way it's practiced or the way it is interpreted can be.

For example, some people might believe that there is someone watching over them. They live their lives as anybody else but they have the additional comfort of their belief. Some may say the belief itself is irrational since no proof exists that there really is something watching over the said invidual. However, we can neither admit that there really is nothing watching over the said person since we have no proof for that either.
Is that person somehow deficient or different to others? I say they're not. Religion in their case only enhances their life quality.

Therefore religion itself is not a bad thing. What do the rest of you think?

[Lord Kenneth]

No more dangerous then believing in psychic power, alternative medicines, or government conspiracies.

[asherah]

Originally posted by ImpyTimpy
Alright, let's have a clean debate people. Is religion a bad thing? I don't want to turn this into a moral debate or "us athiests" vs. "them christians" debate. I'd like to see arguments for and against religous beliefs (preferably of equal magnitude).

I personally do not think religion is a bad thing. Yes, there are downright dangerous religous beliefs but there are also productive religous beliefs. Should we however lump all religous beliefs together and declare religion of any kind a bad thing? I say no. I say we should distinguish the dangerous and safe religions and label them appropriately. That means religion itself is not a bad thing but the way it's practiced or the way it is interpreted can be.

For example, some people might believe that there is someone watching over them. They live their lives as anybody else but they have the additional comfort of their belief. Some may say the belief itself is irrational since no proof exists that there really is something watching over the said invidual. However, we can neither admit that there really is nothing watching over the said person since we have no proof for that either.
Is that person somehow deficient or different to others? I say they're not. Religion in their case only enhances their life quality.

Therefore religion itself is not a bad thing. What do the rest of you think?

The examples of Christian snake handlers/poison drinkers; those that believe in faith healing; those that believe prayer works; those who refuse medical treatment based on the belief that god will watch out for them, all come to mind. In these cases a certain degree of proof could be determined, unless of course one were to rationalize that god did not endorse such things and is therefore silent - which would conflict with much of Christian belief. However, there is little difference, it would seem, between a silent and unresponsive god and no god at all.

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

Yes it is.

To arrive to a conclusive answer, you have to define a framework and a metodology to isolate the positives and negatives due JUST to religion, not human nature in general.
Care to specify your framework?

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

Yes it is.

To arrive to a conclusive answer, you have to define a framework and a metodology to isolate the positives and negatives due JUST to religion, not human nature in general.
Care to specify your framework?

[ImpyTimpy]

We're not discussing psychic abilities or alternative medicines or government conspiracies. Those could have a debate of their own.

Originally posted by Dark Cobra
No more dangerous then believing in psychic power, alternative medicines, or government conspiracies.

[ImpyTimpy]

Those are indeed negative examples of religous behaviour. However, as I state we shouldn't lump the dangerous acts together into one mold, rather distinguish between them and treat them on individual basis.

Originally posted by asherah


The examples of Christian snake handlers/poison drinkers; those that believe in faith healing; those that believe prayer works; those who refuse medical treatment based on the belief that god will watch out for them, all come to mind. In these cases a certain degree of proof could be determined, unless of course one were to rationalize that god did not endorse such things and is therefore silent - which would conflict with much of Christian belief. However, there is little difference, it would seem, between a silent and unresponsive god and no god at all.

[Lord Kenneth]

Murder can be defended in the same manner, ImpyTimpy, by arguing that killing people might "help us get rid of bad people".

[ImpyTimpy]

A good point actually. I don't wish to arrive at a conclusive answer, rather promote a discussion - if I begin by forming methodologies to test the theory, I no longer provide a ground for a general debate :)

Also can you give more information as to why you think religion is a bad thing?

Originally posted by Lucifuge Rofocale
Yes it is.

To arrive to a conclusive answer, you have to define a framework and a metodology to isolate the positives and negatives due JUST to religion, not human nature in general.
Care to specify your framework?

[ImpyTimpy]

How so? I don't mean how you can argue what you just said but how does it fit into the debate?

Originally posted by Dark Cobra
Murder can be defended in the same manner, ImpyTimpy, by arguing that killing people might "help us get rid of bad people".

[fishbob]

For example, some people might believe that there is someone watching over them. From Dictionary.com we have:

paranoia \Par`a*noi"a\, n. (Med.) A chronic form of insanity characterized by very gradual impairment of the intellect, systematized delusion, and usually by delusious of persecution or mandatory delusions producing homicidal tendency. In its mild form paranoia may consist in the well-marked crotchetiness exhibited in persons commonly called ``cranks.'' Paranoiacs usually show evidences of bodily and nervous degeneration, and many have hallucinations, esp. of sight and hearing.

I guess it depends on whether you like having someone watching over you.

[ImpyTimpy]

Somehow I don't think watching over someone is the same as watching them ;)

Originally posted by fishbob
From Dictionary.com we have:

paranoia \Par`a*noi"a\, n. (Med.) A chronic form of insanity characterized by very gradual impairment of the intellect, systematized delusion, and usually by delusious of persecution or mandatory delusions producing homicidal tendency. In its mild form paranoia may consist in the well-marked crotchetiness exhibited in persons commonly called ``cranks.'' Paranoiacs usually show evidences of bodily and nervous degeneration, and many have hallucinations, esp. of sight and hearing.

I guess it depends on whether you like having someone watching over you.

[Lord Kenneth]

Religion, belief in psychic powers, alternative medicine, etc etc, are bad-- this is more easily explained by demonstrating what train of thought they follow.

They are based on irrationality and faith. These both are dangerous concepts, because irrationality, basically, is lack of critical thinking. I hope I don't have to go into depth and explain why lack of critical thinking is bad...

Faith is believing in something without evidence. Faith is usually coupled with some form of fallacy-- "So many people can't be wrong", etc.

Religion inherits its evil from the line of thinking it stems from.

It is not intellectually honest-- religion is basically a fantasy people believe in. It holds people back from the truth-- and not just those who follow it, it affects those because of the actions of people who are religious-- and promotes further irrational thinking (irrational thinking, apparently, tends to snowball, because "if X can happen mysteriously, that means Y might be able to, also!").

[Lord Kenneth]

Originally posted by ImpyTimpy
How so? I don't mean how you can argue what you just said but how does it fit into the debate?



When citing why religion isn't bad, you mention how some people use it as a "crutch", etc etc...

You could very well say people use murder as a crutch for the bad things in their life, IE Charlie Manson

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

Originally posted by ImpyTimpy
A good point actually. I don't wish to arrive at a conclusive answer, rather promote a discussion - if I begin by forming methodologies to test the theory, I no longer provide a ground for a general debate :)

Also can you give more information as to why you think religion is a bad thing?



Because I have a framework ;)

To summarize:

The big picture of my framework is as follows:

Lets suppose a society that got rid of religion 5000 years ago. The individuals investigate the misteries of nature without using any supernatural element. And they didn't have moral absolutes other than the ones that genetics and natural selection put into them. My theory is that, in such society, the sum of all human happinness is FAR greather than the current sum of human happiness.

[ImpyTimpy]

Originally posted by Dark Cobra
Religion, belief in psychic powers, alternative medicine, etc etc, are bad-- this is more easily explained by demonstrating what train of thought they follow.
Let's debate one thing at a time shall we? Like I said the other beliefs can have their own seperate debates. Let's stick to religion.

They are based on irrationality and faith. These both are dangerous concepts, because irrationality, basically, is lack of critical thinking. I hope I don't have to go into depth and explain why lack of critical thinking is bad...
Depends. Some religions can be based on pure emotions. However this is an interesting argument in itself and actually a pretty valid one. I'll address it in a second.

Faith is believing in something without evidence. Faith is usually coupled with some form of fallacy-- "So many people can't be wrong", etc.

Exactly.

Religion inherits its evil from the line of thinking it stems from.

It is not intellectually honest-- religion is basically a fantasy people believe in.
It holds people back from the truth-- and not just those who follow it, it affects those because of the actions of people who are religious-- and promotes further irrational thinking (irrational thinking, apparently, tends to snowball, because "if X can happen mysteriously, that means Y might be able to, also!").
This is where I disagree (and am coming back to the irrationality argument too)...

We would have to assume everyone who is religous or follows a religion is incapable of rational thought. This would mean anyone who follows any religion can not be a doctor or a scientist. This simply is NOT the case.

[ImpyTimpy]

That's a seperate discussion. :D

Also I hardly see how you could say murder is the same as religion in terms of crutches.

Originally posted by Dark Cobra


When citing why religion isn't bad, you mention how some people use it as a "crutch", etc etc...

You could very well say people use murder as a crutch for the bad things in their life, IE Charlie Manson

[ImpyTimpy]

That is assuming religion acts as a draw back to human development. This is a pretty valid assumption when faced with Christianity/Catholicism religion which happily kept the humanity in the dark ages. However, this falls into the example of bad religion. Let's say that for the 5,000 years the only religion was something's watching out for us and if we do good things we'll have good things come to us (remove the dogma). This kind of a society would seem to benefit from having that kind of a religion, would it not?

Originally posted by Lucifuge Rofocale


Because I have a framework ;)

To summarize:

The big picture of my framework is as follows:

Lets suppose a society that got rid of religion 5000 years ago. The individuals investigate the misteries of nature without using any supernatural element. And they didn't have moral absolutes other than the ones that genetics and natural selection put into them. My theory is that, in such society, the sum of all human happinness is FAR greather than the current sum of human happiness.

[asherah]

Originally posted by ImpyTimpy

For example, some people might believe that there is someone watching over them. They live their lives as anybody else but they have the additional comfort of their belief. Some may say the belief itself is irrational since no proof exists that there really is something watching over the said invidual. However, we can neither admit that there really is nothing watching over the said person since we have no proof for that either.
Is that person somehow deficient or different to others? I say they're not. Religion in their case only enhances their life quality.

Therefore religion itself is not a bad thing. What do the rest of you think?

Impy, I was just trying to use your example of someone watching over (protecting) them to make a point. Let me try again. If the groups that I mentioned ( the faith healers, snake handlers, prayer askers, ect) believe as they do, then there is definitely a way (i.e. testing prayer for effectiveness) to obtain some proof for or against such a statement.

I claim that Chistianity as a whole says that prayer works; and this hypothesis would logically imply the 'watch over' concept you mentioned. Referring to my previous statement then if god does not respond to prayer then one might very well say, "Well yes, but that doesn't prove he isn't there, just that we don't understand his silence." There again I would say that the difference between the silent god who does not respond to prayer but is still there and no god at all is the same. Since prayer doesn't seem to work but Christians still persist in believing it does ... then all the other dangers associated with associated with medical treatment or just feeling that things will work out because god wouldn't let bad things happen to a good Christian would be physically dangerous as well as instilling a sense of complacency. As far as the problems associated with irrational thinking and it's effects, I agree with and defer to dark cobra.

[asherah]

Impy, maybe it would help if you just went ahead and told us what religion you think is the good one. I mean there are an awful lot of bad ones to go though, or at least divide them for us as you see fit so we can take them catagorically. Thanks :)

[ImpyTimpy]

Originally posted by asherah


Impy, I was just trying to use your example of someone watching over (protecting) them to make a point. Let me try again. If the groups that I mentioned ( the faith healers, snake handlers, prayer askers, ect) believe as they do, then there is definitely a way (i.e. testing prayer for effectiveness) to obtain some proof for or against such a statement.

This is a big problem actually. We get into areas of coincidence and "It works in mysterious ways". It also adds the whole question of Omnipotence / Omnibenevolence (which we covered here once). I don't think the claim could be successfully tested either for or against.

I claim that Chistianity as a whole says that prayer works; and this hypothesis would logically imply the 'watch over' concept you mentioned.

Not necessarily. Prayer does not mean that whatever is "watching over" you is automatically obliged to answer prayers if it even can communicate with you... There are many possible religous beliefs here. Christianity is just one of them.
Referring to my previous statement then if god does not respond to prayer then one might very well say, "Well yes, but that doesn't prove he isn't there, just that we don't understand his silence." There again I would say that the difference between the silent god who does not respond to prayer but is still there and no god at all is the same. Since prayer doesn't seem to work but Christians still persist in believing it does ... then all the other dangers associated with associated with medical treatment or just feeling that things will work out because god wouldn't let bad things happen to a good Christian would be physically dangerous as well as instilling a sense of complacency. As far as the problems associated with irrational thinking and it's effects, I agree with and defer to dark cobra.
Here you make two fallacies. One - the good christians only seek help from God and expect prayers to substitute medical treatment. Two - religion is christianity and nothing else :)

Like I said, there can in fact be bad religions, where a believer is so convinced that some deity will heal him/her that they no longer need medical treatment. Does that mean that we should label religion as a whole a bad thing or should we instead point out the bad case and treat it as such.

[ImpyTimpy]

I'm not in favour of any religions since I'm an athiest. Besides, that's not the point of this debate. The point is to generate a meaningful discussion (hopefully) as to whether religion itself is a bad thing or not.

Originally posted by asherah
Impy, maybe it would help if you just went ahead and told us what religion you think is the good one. I mean there are an awful lot of bad ones to go though, or at least divide them for us as you see fit so we can take them catagorically. Thanks :)

[asherah]

Originally posted by ImpyTimpy

This is a big problem actually. We get into areas of coincidence and "It works in mysterious ways". It also adds the whole question of Omnipotence / Omnibenevolence (which we covered here once). I don't think the claim could be successfully tested either for or against.


[/B]
Not necessarily. Prayer does not mean that whatever is "watching over" you is automatically obliged to answer prayers if it even can communicate with you... There are many possible religous beliefs here. Christianity is just one of them.


Here you make two fallacies. One - the good christians only seek help from God and expect prayers to substitute medical treatment. Two - religion is christianity and nothing else :)

Like I said, there can in fact be bad religions, where a believer is so convinced that some deity will heal him/her that they no longer need medical treatment. Does that mean that we should label religion as a whole a bad thing or should we instead point out the bad case and treat it as such.

[/B];)

As to the question of the testing of prayer, no it could not be successfully presented to a believer, but I feel it could be successfully tested and has, can I get some site on this from you other wonderful posters please?

Now wait a minute you ask that we try to form catagories and statements on "bad religions" and then get on me about trying to put that label on Christianity as a starting point.

As to my two "fallacies" I bet that a "bad christian" wouldn't really expect his prayers to be answered (incidentally when I say good christian please read sarcasm) and I don't think I said religion = christianity, only used that as a reference point, as a starting point.

I agree Christianity and the prayer associated with it is bogus and we should label it a bad religion ... next case.

I think the badness of a thing is hard to pin down. It is much easier to see the goodness of a thing, because that encourages people to look for it.

However, in religion while it has been used for bad, it has been used for a tremendous amount of good. Are there substitutes for it? Yes, but that doesn't change the fact that a lot of good has been done.


----
They live their lives as anybody else but they have the additional comfort of their belief.
----


To the majority of skeptics that scoff at this, I simply love referring them to Martin Gardner. :)

Personally, while I wouldn't refer to myself as religious, more spiritual (whatever that means - admittingly vague and hard to pin down, but then again, this isn't science), I wouldn't be offended if someone called me religious for what I believe (which is in the gooey one-ness of all things in the universe that were, are, or ever will be).

----
They are based on irrationality and faith. These both are dangerous concepts,
----


I believe they both CAN be dangerous concepts, but are not necessarily dangerous. Same thing with ultra-rationality. That CAN be dangerous.

----
Lets suppose a society that got rid of religion 5000 years ago. The individuals investigate the misteries of nature without using any supernatural element. And they didn't have moral absolutes other than the ones that genetics and natural selection put into them. My theory is that, in such society, the sum of all human happinness is FAR greather than the current sum of human happiness.
----


Those are all quite interesting beliefs.

Oops, can't escape beliefs, can you?

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

Originally posted by ImpyTimpy
That is assuming religion acts as a draw back to human development. This is a pretty valid assumption when faced with Christianity/Catholicism religion which happily kept the humanity in the dark ages. However, this falls into the example of bad religion. Let's say that for the 5,000 years the only religion was something's watching out for us and if we do good things we'll have good things come to us (remove the dogma). This kind of a society would seem to benefit from having that kind of a religion, would it not?



Well, if you want to debate about imaginary religions I can't be of much help :(

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

Originally posted by Whodini
----
Lets suppose a society that got rid of religion 5000 years ago. The individuals investigate the misteries of nature without using any supernatural element. And they didn't have moral absolutes other than the ones that genetics and natural selection put into them. My theory is that, in such society, the sum of all human happinness is FAR greather than the current sum of human happiness.
----


Those are all quite interesting beliefs.

Oops, can't escape beliefs, can you?

Let's say we can simulate such society......then it is not a belief anymore, is it?

It is a simple job...take off religion of humakind as a whole and compare the results.

I said it is a theory.....and I haven't developed it in this thread.

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

Originally posted by Lucifuge Rofocale


Well, if you want to debate about imaginary religions I can't be of much help :(

I just noticed the oximoron :D

[c4ts]

Originally posted by Whodini
----
They are based on irrationality and faith. These both are dangerous concepts,
----


I believe they both CAN be dangerous concepts, but are not necessarily dangerous. Same thing with ultra-rationality. That CAN be dangerous.

Explain how ultra-rationalty is dangerous.

[Ladyhawk]

Impy...let me see if I can respond to what I believe your question is...

No, I do not believe religion, in and of itself, to be a bad thing. Allowing that most of us would probably agree that there are unquestionably detrimental beliefs and religions practiced on a regular basis, I'll confine my response to address the more common faiths which were not intended to do harm. Most commonly practiced religions advocate a sense of responsibility, caring for each other, and deferring to a higher power.

Religion, in its strictest definition, is one's personal faith. It is what one embraces and believes in. For example, as an atheist, I tend to place my faith in humanity and man's ability to learn from his mistakes, rather than a deity. I take comfort in knowing that when I die, that's it. Some choose to believe in a reward or burn-in-hell-forever system. Those who believe in the latter could never be happy assuming my beliefs any more than I could be assuming theirs.

Some people find comfort in religion, as well as ritual. It gives them strength to carry on day to day. But, I think we need to be careful to make a distinction between religion and religious leaders . There are those who distort the teachings of different faiths to make themselves more powerful. There are also people who are weak and forlorn and, as a result, will embrace any teaching that guarantees them that there is a better world a'waiting.

Yes, there are religions that promote animal sacrifice, snake handling, and the like. But, I think we would agree that John and Jane Doe typically follow more mainstream types of religions such as Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism. I don't think that the Bible, for example, is any more harmful than Aesop's Fables. The Bible is just a collection of myths and stories, meant to teach people a valuable lesson. But, when those stories are twisted around to instill fear into people, that is when the harm is done.

Would our lives be better off without religion? I'm not entirely sure they would. Let's remember that a lot of humanitarian efforts and acts can be attributed to people who are motivated by their faith. Faith, when taken to extremes, can also be more harmful than good. But, I don't think that religion itself is such a bad thing. We all believe in something....even if it's only ourselves...;)

----
Let's say we can simulate such society......then it is not a belief anymore, is it?
----


You are assuming (belief) that you can simulate (belief) such a society (belief).


You say it is a simple job (belief) to remove religion (belief).

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

Originally posted by Whodini
----
Let's say we can simulate such society......then it is not a belief anymore, is it?
----


You are assuming (belief) that you can simulate (belief) such a society (belief).


You say it is a simple job (belief) to remove religion (belief).

For you, everything is a belief. When a boeing engineer tests a theoretical windshield, his test is the same category as a the creationists.

[ImpyTimpy]

Excellently put! I think that is the heart of the problem when we think of religion itself a bad thing, we tend to look at the people behind it or their actions done under the banner of religion.

You've put together some excellent points and I hope further discussion will be generated by those who read them. :)

Originally posted by Ladyhawk
Impy...let me see if I can respond to what I believe your question is...

No, I do not believe religion, in and of itself, to be a bad thing. Allowing that most of us would probably agree that there are unquestionably detrimental beliefs and religions practiced on a regular basis, I'll confine my response to address the more common faiths which were not intended to do harm. Most commonly practiced religions advocate a sense of responsibility, caring for each other, and deferring to a higher power.

Religion, in its strictest definition, is one's personal faith. It is what one embraces and believes in. For example, as an atheist, I tend to place my faith in humanity and man's ability to learn from his mistakes, rather than a deity. I take comfort in knowing that when I die, that's it. Some choose to believe in a reward or burn-in-hell-forever system. Those who believe in the latter could never be happy assuming my beliefs any more than I could be assuming theirs.

Some people find comfort in religion, as well as ritual. It gives them strength to carry on day to day. But, I think we need to be careful to make a distinction between religion and religious leaders . There are those who distort the teachings of different faiths to make themselves more powerful. There are also people who are weak and forlorn and, as a result, will embrace any teaching that guarantees them that there is a better world a'waiting.

Yes, there are religions that promote animal sacrifice, snake handling, and the like. But, I think we would agree that John and Jane Doe typically follow more mainstream types of religions such as Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism. I don't think that the Bible, for example, is any more harmful than Aesop's Fables. The Bible is just a collection of myths and stories, meant to teach people a valuable lesson. But, when those stories are twisted around to instill fear into people, that is when the harm is done.

Would our lives be better off without religion? I'm not entirely sure they would. Let's remember that a lot of humanitarian efforts and acts can be attributed to people who are motivated by their faith. Faith, when taken to extremes, can also be more harmful than good. But, I don't think that religion itself is such a bad thing. We all believe in something....even if it's only ourselves...;)

Originally posted by c4ts


Explain how ultra-rationalty is dangerous.


One ignores human spirit, something acknowledged by the majority of people from every culture in history.

I can imagine situations where it would be more logical and cost effective to save one group of people over another.

----
When a boeing engineer tests a theoretical windshield, his test is the same category as a the creationists.
----


No, because the engineer has a windshield in front of him and is doing a test.

You, on the other hand, are simply saying "what if..." and believing things as you go along.

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

Originally posted by Whodini
----
When a boeing engineer tests a theoretical windshield, his test is the same category as a the creationists.
----


No, because the engineer has a windshield in front of him and is doing a test.

You, on the other hand, are simply saying "what if..." and believing things as you go along. theoretical windshield

Originally posted by Lucifuge Rofocale
theoretical windshield


If one has to make assumptions, you are making a statement of belief of the parameters.

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

Originally posted by Whodini



If one has to make assumptions, you are making a statement of belief of the parameters.

Do you know something about modeling? simulation? economics?

[evildave]

In general, religion is "mostly harmless".

My primary "bitch" about religion is when it becomes a deciding factor in national policy.

If the "Faith Based Initiative" goes through, how much of my taxes would be confiscated under threat of arrest and imprisonment to be be given to churches to do their "good works" with?

If "school vouchers" legislation goes through, how much of my taxes (similar to above) would be taken from public schools and given to churches that run schools?

What exactly should they be teaching in biology and science class in school? Apparently, nothing. 1/6th of all science textbooks in the U.S. that mention biology make no mention of evolution.

If, for instance, the U.S. had attacked Iraq because of "Christian Ideals", would that make the attack better or worse than "The Crusades"?

How fine a line between religion and national policy do we need? Some seem to think we need all the "God" in national policy we can get. Too bad it won't necessarily be your God(s) they represent.

When the Southern Baptists reign absolutely supreme, what will your church be? Illegal, probably. As bad as us "atheists".

[c4ts]

Originally posted by Whodini



One ignores human spirit, something acknowledged by the majority of people from every culture in history.

I can imagine situations where it would be more logical and cost effective to save one group of people over another.

But ultra-rationalism means you can rationalize anything, including the human spirit, including morality, and ultimately finding the optimum solution that includes the other groups where it would look like only one can be saved.

Originally posted by Lucifuge Rofocale

Do you know something about modeling? simulation? economics?


Yes I do. What is your point exactly?

----
My primary "bitch" about religion is when it becomes a deciding factor in national policy.
----


Science, on the other hand, has drawbacks like being used for some unethical medical tests (Tuskeegee), developing and dropping bombs, manufacturing and deploying weapons in wars, medical errors, making bacteria more resistant, and a whole host of other things. And atheism is the main engine in communism.


----
If the "Faith Based Initiative" goes through, how much of my taxes would be confiscated under threat of arrest and imprisonment to be be given to churches to do their "good works" with?
----


So it is more of a financial issue with you?


----
If "school vouchers" legislation goes through, how much of my taxes (similar to above) would be taken from public schools and given to churches that run schools?
----


Ditto.

[c4ts]

It takes two things to create an attrocity- religion and science. Science to invent the bomb, and religion to get a psycho to strap the bomb to his chest and blow up a cafe full of innocent bystanders.

Originally posted by c4ts
It takes two things to create an attrocity- religion and science. Science to invent the bomb, and religion to get a psycho to strap the bomb to his chest and blow up a cafe full of innocent bystanders.


Ah, not just religious psychos, but people working for governments drop bombs.

Perhaps they are psycho too...

[Tony]

Religion, like a lot of things, can be bad or good, it all depends on what is done with it. For example, if religion inspires you to strap a bomb to your chest and blow people up, its bad. If religion helps a homeless crack addict clean up his/her life, its good.

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

Originally posted by Whodini



Yes I do. What is your point exactly?

Then you should be able to diferentiate between a simple belief and trust in the results of a simulations. Thje fact that you are unable to do so implies that you don't know about the subject.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by Lucifuge Rofocale


Then you should be able to diferentiate between a simple belief and trust in the results of a simulations. Thje fact that you are unable to do so implies that you don't know about the subject.

The problem is that your theory, at least here, appears to be nothing more than a wild-ass guess. How does one "simulate" 5000 years of human development without religion? All that you have are your guesses and assumptions, which can broadly be described as your beliefs.

Originally posted by evildave

What exactly should they be teaching in biology and science class in school? Apparently, nothing. 1/6th of all science textbooks in the U.S. that mention biology make no mention of evolution.

What are you getting at here? I question the value of such a statistic. Biology is a much broader subject than evolution and I can imagine that there are lots of good biology texts that do not mention evolution simply because they focus on other topics within biology.

If your point is that those 1/6th of science textbooks that don't mention evolution instead mention creationism as scientific fact, then I would see that you have a point. But as I see it lack of evolution means nothing in and of itself.

[Christian]

Luc wrote:
Then you should be able to diferentiate between a simple belief and trust in the results of a simulations. Thje fact that you are unable to do so implies that you don't know about the subject.

Yea right, and mentioning economics is really terrible.

Economic modeling is worthless at predicting anything.

Question: How many times has the US Federal Reserve Board's forecast on GDP been right from 1980 to 1994?

Not once.

And you want to predict the outcome of humanity without religion after 5,000 years...

Can I say WOW.

[marxist2]

UCE said:
REPENT SINNERS, follow the truth of the HOLY monkies as expressed by the Holy Order of Lenin.


The Holy Order of Lenin is the true faith! All other faiths have missed the marks, but only those who follow the Devil Spencer, the tofu-eaters, or all the other anti-MONKIES are truly evil and have relieved thier souls. Those who have not relieved thier souls are simply misguided and must learn to follow the Divine Truth of the HOLY monkies.

[Akots]

The idea that religion encourages violence or harm is no more ridiculous than saying that science encourages violence or harm.

Science is a critical solution to a physical end; it can have a tremendous impact on society, and can cause massive upheaval to how we judge morality. Religion should NEVER overtake politics, or personal freedom. It is nothing more than a way to unite the human race, and to promote moral standards; standards like equality, tolerance, and compassion.

Science and religion have been, and will continue to be tools of intimidation and control employed by corrupt or hateful individuals. The consequences of these individuals affect the entire population of the world.

I do find it terrifying that religion is so universally seen as somethig nthat must be accepted blindl, on threat fo damnation... and even more terrifying is how easily many people accept the narrow-mindedness of their religion.

Religeon and spirituality have their places. They are not in politics or individual infringments of law. Religion and science can both be abused, but up until now, Religion has caused far more harm. And the harm it has caused is far more subtle.

Is religion a bad thing? No. It's intended to be beneficial.

Are current forms of religion dangerous? Goodness yes... :(

Thanz,


----
How does one "simulate" 5000 years of human development without religion?
----


Good point my friend.

Perhaps the original poster has access to a really powerful computer. ;)


----
If your point is that those 1/6th of science textbooks that don't mention evolution instead mention creationism as scientific fact, then I would see that you have a point. But as I see it lack of evolution means nothing in and of itself.
----


Another good point. I'd also add that most science books for children in school do mention the basics of looking at bones, adaptations, DNA, the similarity between animals, how things change, how environments and nature shape animals and food sources, etc. They do cover the basics somewhat, but naturally they leave out things like RT6 protein expressed on the surface of T lymphocytes in other mammals, for example, for obvious reasons.

[A_Feeble_Mind]

Originally posted by Ladyhawk
...I take comfort in knowing that when I die, that's it....


As someone who was raised Catholic and now has doubts, this very thought is less than comforting. In fact, it weighs heavily upon me, almost constantly. Obviously, going through life worrying about ceasing to exist is worthless. Perhaps you'd be willing to share how this comforts you so I may, too, find peace.

[asherah]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ladyhawk
Impy...let me see if I can respond to what I believe your question is...

No, I do not believe religion, in and of itself, to be a bad thing. Allowing that most of us would probably agree that there are unquestionably detrimental beliefs and religions practiced on a regular basis, I'll confine my response to address the more common faiths which were not intended to do harm. Most commonly practiced religions advocate a sense of responsibility, caring for each other, and deferring to a higher power.

Religion, in its strictest definition, is one's personal faith. It is what one embraces and believes in.

For example, as an atheist, I tend to place my faith in humanity and man's ability to learn from his mistakes, rather than a deity. I take comfort in knowing that when I die, that's it. Some choose to believe in a reward or burn-in-hell-forever system. Those who believe in the latter could never be happy assuming my beliefs any more than I could be assuming theirs.

Some people find comfort in religion, as well as ritual. It gives them strength to carry on day to day. But, I think we need to be careful to make a distinction between religion and [B]religious leaders . There are those who distort the teachings of different faiths to make themselves more powerful.[QUOTE]

There are also people who are weak and forlorn and, as a result, will embrace any teaching that guarantees them that there is a better world a'waiting.

Yes, there are religions that promote animal sacrifice, snake handling, and the like. But, I think we would agree that John and Jane Doe typically follow more mainstream types of religions such as Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism.

I don't think that the Bible, for example, is any more harmful than Aesop's Fables.

The Bible is just a collection of myths and stories, meant to teach people a valuable lesson.


But, when those stories are twisted around to instill fear into people, [I]that is when the harm is done.[QUOTE][i]

For some reason, I can't get the insert thing to work right in separating my responses from your quotes as they appear, if anyone has any suggestions please help :confused:

So, given that I will respond this way although it is awkward.

First, the definition that you give religion seems to be the loosest rather than the strictest, making religion into almost anything we think.

As far as switching beliefs, I for one was once a believer and now I am much happier as a non-believer. I think it's quite possible to, over time adopt different views and become content with them.

I would argue that religion, the leaders who pervert it, and the beliefs extracted, are inexorably tied together. How can one speak of Buddhism without mentioning Buddha, or Christianity without Jesus. The beliefs extracted are always tied to the leaders even if one considers those as being on the more local scale as preachers, and going back to those who originally compiled the texts and gave us the written forms of religious texts. We are in effect at their mercy.

I'm sorry I brought up the extreme case of snake handling, however it does fall under the heading of Christianity in that the Bible does say that one with enough faith can handle serpents and drink poison without fear, and we all know that the old testament is filled with animal sacrifices of all sorts.

The Bible has been the source of infinitely more harm than Aesop's Fables. So far as the Bible not becoming animate and chasing people around konking them on the head, yes I would agree it's not more harmful than Aesop, but once we get past the fact that both have pages and words and tell stories they become decidedly different.

[ImpyTimpy]

Originally posted by asherah
<snipped>
For some reason, I can't get the insert thing to work right in separating my responses from your quotes as they appear, if anyone has any suggestions please help :confused:

So, given that I will respond this way although it is awkward.

First, the definition that you give religion seems to be the loosest rather than the strictest, making religion into almost anything we think.

I think that's the whole point though. Religion in it's purest form is in fact a personal belief in something is it not?

As far as switching beliefs, I for one was once a believer and now I am much happier as a non-believer. I think it's quite possible to, over time adopt different views and become content with them.

I was never a believer so I can't argue there.

I would argue that religion, the leaders who pervert it, and the beliefs extracted, are inexorably tied together. How can one speak of Buddhism without mentioning Buddha, or Christianity without Jesus. The beliefs extracted are always tied to the leaders even if one considers those as being on the more local scale as preachers, and going back to those who originally compiled the texts and gave us the written forms of religious texts. We are in effect at their mercy.

Indeed leaders are tied into their religions. However a religion doesn't necessarily need a leader if we look at it in it's purest form, that is a personal belief in something. Also we can't put say Jesus or Buddha amongst the likes of Osama Bin Laden. Jesus or Buddha should be seeing as religous icons or ideas of perfection to which a believer should strive for. Corrupt religous leaders are the ones who distort the icons and ideals to suit their own moral /political grounds. They are the ones who dictate whether or not we should take certain religous texts as law.

I'm sorry I brought up the extreme case of snake handling, however it does fall under the heading of Christianity in that the Bible does say that one with enough faith can handle serpents and drink poison without fear, and we all know that the old testament is filled with animal sacrifices of all sorts.

Yes but then we get into the question of interpretation and whether someone would actually believe that the bible (in case of Christianity) is to be taken as law, or as something else.

The Bible has been the source of infinitely more harm than Aesop's Fables. So far as the Bible not becoming animate and chasing people around konking them on the head, yes I would agree it's not more harmful than Aesop, but once we get past the fact that both have pages and words and tell stories they become decidedly different.

That argument holds well if we assume all religion(s) require their followers to have a holy text which then must be taken as law. This further breaks down into religous leaders telling the believers that they need to use the said texts as law or as a symbolic story.

So in fact the blame falls on religous leaders, not the religion itself or it's associated writings :)

[asherah]

Originally posted by ImpyTimpy

I think that's the whole point though. Religion in it's purest form is in fact a personal belief in something is it not?
[/B]

Well, she actually said the strictest definition of religion, not it's purest form, but be that as it may, it still follows that personal belief comes from some source whether it be from a text or from dialogue or from a sermon and these are the tools with which one forms personal beliefs. Taken to the extreme then one could say that there is a particular religious belief for every person alive which would make this forum a difficult one since we would have to deal with each religion individually and discard the bad. Therefore, we have to make some generalizations in order to get anywhere. To do this we must look at what is being taught and the validity of the texts. As to it being law, well I would say not so much law as duty.

[/B]
Indeed leaders are tied into their religions. However a religion doesn't necessarily need a leader if we look at it in it's purest form, that is a personal belief in something. Also we can't put say Jesus or Buddha amongst the likes of Osama Bin Laden. Jesus or Buddha should be seeing as religous icons or ideas of perfection to which a believer should strive for. Corrupt religous leaders are the ones who distort the icons and ideals to suit their own moral /political grounds. They are the ones who dictate whether or not we should take certain religous texts as law.
[/B]

Yes but then we get into the question of interpretation and whether someone would actually believe that the bible (in case of Christianity) is to be taken as law, or as something else.

That argument holds well if we assume all religion(s) require their followers to have a holy text which then must be taken as law. This further breaks down into religous leaders telling the believers that they need to use the said texts as law or as a symbolic story.

So in fact the blame falls on religous leaders, not the religion itself or it's associated writings :) [/B]

But how would one be able to define a religion without such texts and leaders showing us the way? To try to say religion is this or that without some point of reference seems futile, unless of course we make religion into anything at all that we think or do, with seems to defeat the purpose of this forum.

[asherah]

Impy,

please note that there is a response within the text of your quote but it was not sorted out, I can't figure out why though. Just FYI.

:)

[ImpyTimpy]

Originally posted by asherah
Well, she actually said the strictest definition of religion, not it's purest form, but be that as it may, it still follows that personal belief comes from some source whether it be from a text or from dialogue or from a sermon and these are the tools with which one forms personal beliefs. Taken to the extreme then one could say that there is a particular religious belief for every person alive which would make this forum a difficult one since we would have to deal with each religion individually and discard the bad. Therefore, we have to make some generalizations in order to get anywhere. To do this we must look at what is being taught and the validity of the texts. As to it being law, well I would say not so much law as duty.
That can be true. I would also like to add that perhaps religous beliefs can be self formed through simple emotional needs. As to the question of duty I think that falls under religous leader category, which I'm about to address.

But how would one be able to define a religion without such texts and leaders showing us the way? To try to say religion is this or that without some point of reference seems futile, unless of course we make religion into anything at all that we think or do, with seems to defeat the purpose of this forum.
That's the whole problem. What makes or defines a given religion. Is it the icons or ideas behind the religion? Is it the people who proclaim themselves to be spiritual leaders? Or is it some old writings put together for our reading pleasure?

I say neither, I agree with the point that religion is something we ourselves believe and create because of a need.

The leaders come into the play after the religion is established, and can either be good or bad. They may use the created religous texts for example to command their followers to kill others, or they may use the religion to try and get their followers to help people in need.

Now as for religion being anything we want it to be. I think that is exactly what religion tends to be. Like I just said, we are the ones who create the religions in the first place. :)

[c4ts]

Why does there seem to be a connection between tyrrany and the religious mindset? Even in a Communist dictatorship, where there is no religion, peculiar standards exist that encourage a True Believer mentality.

[evildave]

Originally posted by Whodini
----
My primary "bitch" about religion is when it becomes a deciding factor in national policy.
----


Science, on the other hand, has drawbacks like being used for some unethical medical tests (Tuskeegee), developing and dropping bombs, manufacturing and deploying weapons in wars, medical errors, making bacteria more resistant, and a whole host of other things. And atheism is the main engine in communism.


----
If the "Faith Based Initiative" goes through, how much of my taxes would be confiscated under threat of arrest and imprisonment to be be given to churches to do their "good works" with?
----


So it is more of a financial issue with you?


----
If "school vouchers" legislation goes through, how much of my taxes (similar to above) would be taken from public schools and given to churches that run schools?
----


Ditto.

Oh, I see, so "science" is the ultimate evil in the world. We should go back to having all those nice diseases, like leprosy and smallpox that science got rid of and make religion cure them?

One joker in a story "cures" a handfull of lepers and blind people. Science made leprosy vanish in a generation, and cures more blind, dead, etc. people than Jesus ever met, and science is "ALL BAD".

And it's not all financial. When Al Gore said:

I strongly believe in the separation of church and state. But freedom of religion does not mean freedom from religion, there is a better way.
-- Al Gore, speech at a Salvation Army drug rehabilitation center in Atlanta, Georgia, May, 1999, quoted from AANEWS #808 by American Atheists, August 28, 2000


... and this being from the "Godless Liberal" side, it makes you wonder about where our nation's leadership thinks they should be taking us.

Especially when we have "better ways" like the Taliban promotes for living to model a nice theocracy after.

The problem with putting "God" in charge is, nobody is accountable at all. If everything SUCKS, it is GOD'S DIVINE WILL, and who are you to dissent?

The reason theocracy seems to be such a good fit is that for thousands of years, it was pretty much all there was for government. The state was the state religion. After many centuries of turmoil and suffering based on giving religion power over people, it was finally abandoned in some places, and the quality of life under secular governments, accountable to the people shot up by leaps and bounds.

Every time a government has back-slid into the "good old ways", there has been war and calamity galore caused directly by the "geniuses" who decided they should be letting "God" run things, which essentially means that a bunch of unaccountable people start making BIG decisions for everyone behind closed doors.

I don't even really trust my local property owner's association to go long without screwing up, and we're supposed to let a bunch of "God's Representatives" decide what the world should operate like, acting under "God's" direction?

God can't even "direct" two churches of the "same" religion across the street from each other to believe the same thing.

Screw that. Government by "Magic 8-Ball" and a few disconnected and unaccountable jerk-offs is not the way I want the nation run.

[neutrino_cannon]

Originally posted by Thanz


are you getting at here? I question the value of such a statistic. Biology is a much broader subject than evolution and I can imagine that there are lots of good biology texts that do not mention evolution simply because they focus on other topics within biology.

If your point is that those 1/6th of science textbooks that don't mention evolution instead mention creationism as scientific fact, then I would see that you have a point. But as I see it lack of evolution means nothing in and of itself.

Evolution is a very important concept in biology. It wouldn't be easy to be a competative biologist if you reject evolution, or even more worryingly, you might never realize your potential as a biologist if you were never taught evolution.

I too, however question the relevance of the stat. Can we reasonably assume that it's creationist politcs keeping evolution out of textbooks? Maybe, but consider also the depth of the theory, what textbooks are we looking at? I certainly wouldn't put a complete rundown of evolution in a third grade biology book.

[evildave]

Originally posted by neutrino_cannon


Evolution is a very important concept in biology. It wouldn't be easy to be a competative biologist if you reject evolution, or even more worryingly, you might never realize your potential as a biologist if you were never taught evolution.

I too, however question the relevance of the stat. Can we reasonably assume that it's creationist politcs keeping evolution out of textbooks? Maybe, but consider also the depth of the theory, what textbooks are we looking at? I certainly wouldn't put a complete rundown of evolution in a third grade biology book.

But you'd write a textbook with even a chapter on biology and not even give it one paragraph?

That's curious.

I suppose if we were to compose a chapter on astronomy, we should neglect the idea of the Earth orbiting the sun?

[neutrino_cannon]

Originally posted by evildave


But you'd write a textbook with even a chapter on biology and not even give it one paragraph?

That's curious.

I suppose if we were to compose a chapter on astronomy, we should neglect the idea of the Earth orbiting the sun?

If there were idiots surrounding me, I might be tempted to. If it were a third grade astronamy book, I might be tempted to.

[evildave]

So, what would be appropriate to teach eight/nine year old children in a science book?

[neutrino_cannon]

Why, of course that if they need any further instuction on science, just look in the good book, it's full of that sort of thing.

I would put basic geophysics in there, volcanoes ocean currents and such, states of matter, classification of life, introduction to chemistry and maybe a primer on basic quark theory.

I don't know for sure though.

----
We should go back to having all those nice diseases, like leprosy and smallpox that science got rid of and make religion cure them?
----


A couple diseases are cured, and how many ones fill their places?


----
Science made leprosy vanish in a generation, and cures more blind, dead, etc. people than Jesus ever met, and science is "ALL BAD".
----


Scienec cures the dead, Dave? Care to show evidence of that one? (unless by "cure" you mean 'preserve').

Ahh, probably meant 'deaf'.

:)


----
Every time a government has back-slid into the "good old ways", there has been war and calamity galore caused directly by the "geniuses" who decided they should be letting "God" run things, which essentially means that a bunch of unaccountable people start making BIG decisions for everyone behind closed doors.
----


Well somehow all modern societies came directly out of those 'backwards' societies who believed in gods/etc. So apparently there wasn't that much calamity since people survived.


----
God can't even "direct" two churches of the "same" religion across the street from each other to believe the same thing.
----


Many religions share the same or similar views/goals.

[asherah]

Originally posted by Whodini
----
We should go back to having all those nice diseases, like leprosy and smallpox that science got rid of and make religion cure them?
----


A couple diseases are cured, and how many ones fill their places?


----
Science made leprosy vanish in a generation, and cures more blind, dead, etc. people than Jesus ever met, and science is "ALL BAD".
----


Scienec cures the dead, Dave? Care to show evidence of that one? (unless by "cure" you mean 'preserve').

Ahh, probably meant 'deaf'.

:)


----
Every time a government has back-slid into the "good old ways", there has been war and calamity galore caused directly by the "geniuses" who decided they should be letting "God" run things, which essentially means that a bunch of unaccountable people start making BIG decisions for everyone behind closed doors.
----


Well somehow all modern societies came directly out of those 'backwards' societies who believed in gods/etc. So apparently there wasn't that much calamity since people survived.


----
God can't even "direct" two churches of the "same" religion across the street from each other to believe the same thing.
----


Many religions share the same or similar views/goals.

Mr. Whoodini, it's seems that from your statement about diseases that you think it's not such a good idea to look for cures since, when one is found, two or more spring up to take it's place. Well, I would like to know where you got your data on that one or does it just feel like that to you.

I would also like to hear your views on science and life expectancy, since life expectancy has almost doubled in the last 200 years due to medical advances.

It seems you didn't really answer the statement about medical science healing more than Jesus but chose only to focus on a typo - dead/deaf - and ignore the point.

Yes, society did come from and still exists in a religious morass that clogs the workings of society, and it has survived, but has advanced more slowly than it would have otherwise because of religion and its superstitious baggage.

Yes, many religions share the same goals, while using the same evil means to achieve them. Many religions leach off the community through tithing and other money grabbing schemes. Many instill prejudice and elitism in their members. Others dilute ambitions with false promises of heavenly reward. Other, have their congregations spending time worshiping at the altar in fancy clothes and patting each other on the back for being "right and righteous" - showing off for the other Jesus club members - when they could be using that time to actually physically help people in the community. While most use a combination of these tactics.

Asking your forgiveness in advance for any typos or grammatical errors.
:)

[evildave]

Actually, dead/deaf was a typo, but a LOT of forms of "good as dead" have been cured by science. Once was, if they dragged an unconscious person out of the water that wasn't breathing, they were definitely dead. Now we know better. We can sometimes sesusitate someone who's been cold and stiff and under water for hours.

Many other previously "dead" conditions are survivable.

The "more diseases" that spring up only come from better discrimination of which disease is actually afflicting a person. Everything used to be a handfull of aflictions to beg and pray to the gods about, and have nothing usefully happen. Pox is pox, and it's God's judgment!

Now even many forms of cancer and blindness, even genetic conditions are falling to science.

We have REALLY GOOD prosthetic limbs, even ones that move on their own.

People without eyes at all can see.

People who were born deaf because their ears didn't form right can hear.

But hey, if any of you thinks religion can cure all of these, get busy with the Jehova's Witnesses and the Christian Scientists and the others who routinely deny their children simple life-saving medical treatment to demonstrate their faith.

Or to put it another way, the hippies wanted to go back to nature, but whenever somebody got sick or hurt, it was into the car and straight to a real hospital they went.

[Ladyhawk]

Originally posted by A_Feeble_Mind


As someone who was raised Catholic and now has doubts, this very thought is less than comforting. In fact, it weighs heavily upon me, almost constantly. Obviously, going through life worrying about ceasing to exist is worthless. Perhaps you'd be willing to share how this comforts you so I may, too, find peace.

Welcome, AFM! I'll try to elaborate on my comment. What I meant was that it comforts me to know that when I die there is no great reward nor any great punishment awaiting me. Frankly, the idea of serving a deity for all eternity hardly seems like a reward. To that end, the acts of my life are motivated by my own personal beliefs and ethics; not those motivated by fear of eternal punishment or some 'carrot on a stick' promise of paradise. True, some people may be disappointed over the idea that there is no great afterlife, that we're not going to see our long lost loved ones in the end. But, somehow, that doesn't bother me. I like knowing that, once I've finished this journey, it's done. The thought of coming back and doing it over (via reincarnation) is no more attractive to me than suffering in hell or serving in hell for an eternity.

Hope that clarifies it...:)

[Ladyhawk]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by asherah



First, the definition that you give religion seems to be the loosest rather than the strictest, making religion into almost anything we think.

[/I]Webster's definition o[/I] Webster defines religion as " blief in and reverence for a supernatural power accepted as the creator and governor of the universe" Also, I]"an objective pursued with fervor or conscientious devotion"[/I] so, I'll stand by my 'strictest definition' statement.

As far as switching beliefs, I for one was once a believer and now I am much happier as a non-believer. I think it's quite possible to, over time adopt different views and become content with them.

[Agreed

I would argue that religion, the leaders who pervert it, and the beliefs extracted, are inexorably tied together. How can one speak of Buddhism without mentioning Buddha, or Christianity without Jesus. The beliefs extracted are always tied to the leaders even if one considers those as being on the more local scale as preachers, and going back to those who originally compiled the texts and gave us the written forms of religious texts. We are in effect at their mercy.

I see the point you're trying to make but I don't think you understand mine. I don't think that anything in Christ's or Buddha's teachings is bad. It's the interpretation of those teachings that seems to be the problem.


I'm sorry I brought up the extreme case of snake handling, however it does fall under the heading of Christianity in that the Bible does say that one with enough faith can handle serpents and drink poison without fear, and we all know that the old testament is filled with animal sacrifices of all sorts.

Actually, I thought the reference to snake handling, etc., was a GOOD reference. I'm simply saying that these beliefs border on the more extreme religions, not the mainstream..

The Bible has been the source of infinitely more harm than Aesop's Fables. So far as the Bible not becoming animate and chasing people around konking them on the head, yes I would agree it's not more harmful than Aesop, but once we get past the fact that both have pages and words and tell stories they become decidedly different.

This is where I respectfully disagree. They are both fairy tale books. In terms of content, they are parables, meant to be a lesson. Granted, the Bible contains some vicious stories of murder, jealousy, incest. But, so do most of the novels we read today.

My point is that religion, as a belief system, is not a bad thing to have. But, any belief or action can be misdirected and I'm more concerned with people who lust for recognition and prey on the weakness and fear of others in order to promote their own welfare.

Hope I've cleared my view here....:)

asherah,


----
, it's seems that from your statement about diseases that you think it's not such a good idea to look for cures since, when one is found, two or more spring up to take it's place.
----


I should have been more careful. I think that it is a good idea to fight diseases, in a way, but just noticed that while controlling one disease usually makes it or another resistant to that method of controlling.


----
Well, I would like to know where you got your data on that one or does it just feel like that to you.
----


From some articles I read, and it does feel like that to me too.


----
I would also like to hear your views on science and life expectancy, since life expectancy has almost doubled in the last 200 years due to medical advances.
----


I'm all for it, although pure years to me is not entirely a good measure of the quality of life.


----
It seems you didn't really answer the statement about medical science healing more than Jesus but chose only to focus on a typo - dead/deaf - and ignore the point.
----


I'm not a Christian. I suppose a believer could say that Jesus created the doctors, so Jesus heals all.


----
Many religions leach off the community through tithing and other money grabbing schemes.
----


How is that leaching if the members of the community willingly donate money?


----
Others dilute ambitions with false promises of heavenly reward.
----


I guess one would have to first show that the promise is false for certain before saying it is a false promise.


----
- when they could be using that time to actually physically help people in the community.
----


I'd say just the opposite. I've never once seen an atheist/freethinking group active in any community I've ever lived in. I'm not saying they aren't, but that I've just never seen them. On the other hand, I've seen many religious groups do food drives, community work, blood donations (well, some of them), volunteering at hospitals and nursing homes, clothing drives, free car washes, and so on.

[asherah]

Originally posted by Ladyhawk
[QUOTE]Originally posted by asherah



First, the definition that you give religion seems to be the loosest rather than the strictest, making religion into almost anything we think.

[/I]Webster's definition o[/I] Webster defines religion as " blief in and reverence for a supernatural power accepted as the creator and governor of the universe" Also, I]"an objective pursued with fervor or conscientious devotion"[/I] so, I'll stand by my 'strictest definition' statement.

As far as switching beliefs, I for one was once a believer and now I am much happier as a non-believer. I think it's quite possible to, over time adopt different views and become content with them.

[Agreed

I would argue that religion, the leaders who pervert it, and the beliefs extracted, are inexorably tied together. How can one speak of Buddhism without mentioning Buddha, or Christianity without Jesus. The beliefs extracted are always tied to the leaders even if one considers those as being on the more local scale as preachers, and going back to those who originally compiled the texts and gave us the written forms of religious texts. We are in effect at their mercy.

I see the point you're trying to make but I don't think you understand mine. I don't think that anything in Christ's or Buddha's teachings is bad. It's the interpretation of those teachings that seems to be the problem.


I'm sorry I brought up the extreme case of snake handling, however it does fall under the heading of Christianity in that the Bible does say that one with enough faith can handle serpents and drink poison without fear, and we all know that the old testament is filled with animal sacrifices of all sorts.

Actually, I thought the reference to snake handling, etc., was a GOOD reference. I'm simply saying that these beliefs border on the more extreme religions, not the mainstream..

The Bible has been the source of infinitely more harm than Aesop's Fables. So far as the Bible not becoming animate and chasing people around konking them on the head, yes I would agree it's not more harmful than Aesop, but once we get past the fact that both have pages and words and tell stories they become decidedly different.

This is where I respectfully disagree. They are both fairy tale books. In terms of content, they are parables, meant to be a lesson. Granted, the Bible contains some vicious stories of murder, jealousy, incest. But, so do most of the novels we read today.

My point is that religion, as a belief system, is not a bad thing to have. But, any belief or action can be misdirected and I'm more concerned with people who lust for recognition and prey on the weakness and fear of others in order to promote their own welfare.

Hope I've cleared my view here....:)

Thanks for elaborating and clarifying ladyhawk. Maybe we are just having a problem with semantics and nothing else, and often times those type of arguments are difficult to overcome. So I feel a bit foolish even arguing over the idea of strictness or not of the definition you gave.

For me strictness indicates a narrowness of definition, not all encompassing. Even within the definition you gave is a contradiction (not that i'm questioning the definition itself) on the one had it gives a strict definition with the idea of a creator being an indispensible part, in the second it can be anything strived for. So, I agree that your definition is accurate, but I'm not so sure of strictness. If we stick to the creator model then I say it's strict, but if we add in addition things that it can be then I argue that it becomes less strict and more general. Again probably not important to dwell on, sorry.

As far as there not being anything in the teachings of Budda or Jesus that is bad. Well, I call on those more informed on the subject of Budda, but didn't Jesus bring this whole contingency of hell. The idea of this eternal punishment in what ammounts to torture if one doesn't follow Jesus, to me this seems like a problem in his teaching. I'm sure there are more problems if I research details but that is the first one that comes to mind.

I understand your point about Aesop and the Bible, but the Bible I think is more than just parables. No one has ever knocked on my door and tried to tell me about the glories of Aesop (maybe that would be nice!). Aesop doesn't demand tithing. Aesop doesn't promise eternal damnation for those who don't follow the morals of Aesop.

The Bible seems to have the addition of commentary about about itself as it goes. Not just telling a story to entertain or enlighten but presenting itself as law and truth. Not as a novel of fiction, or tale with a moral but as absolute truth.

Again thanks for the timely response!:)

[AmateurScientist]

Forgetting for a moment the scandalously large amount of evil perpetrated throughout history and indeed continuing every day in the name of one's own particular brand of God or gods, yes, religion is a bad thing.

From the perspective of one who finds himself in a bind or even in immediate peril, placing one's fate in faith in God to take care of one is not only utterly foolish, but also downright dangerous. I have heard far too many persons facing severe crises of all stripes merely look to God to take care of them. Instead of rationally approaching the problem and attempting to formulate some reasonable and plausible strategy for getting out of the jam, they simply look complacent and say, "I know God will take care of me."

NO NO NO! Stupid, foolish people. God will not save you from immediate or imminent harm. You have to do it, or at least enlist the help of competent human beings to get you out of the jam. God doesn't exist. People do.

Yeah, it's bad. No two ways about it.

AS

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

Originally posted by Thanz


The problem is that your theory, at least here, appears to be nothing more than a wild-ass guess. How does one "simulate" 5000 years of human development without religion? All that you have are your guesses and assumptions, which can broadly be described as your beliefs.




Stop here. With someting as complex as a society of human beings you can't have the same kind of certainity for ANY theory that you have in mathemathics or biology. BUT you can't equate a blind belief with the results of a simulation or the output of a model, specially a well constructed one. I don't know how do you arrive at the conclussion that my model is a simple belief, specially when I haven't presented it yet?

Anyway, my point in this response is that you can obtain some knowledge (wich is qualitatively different of the obtained by hard sciences) from social sciences, specially when you incorporate modern techniques of analisys like chaos and game theory.

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

Originally posted by Christian
Luc wrote:
Then you should be able to diferentiate between a simple belief and trust in the results of a simulations. Thje fact that you are unable to do so implies that you don't know about the subject.

Yea right, and mentioning economics is really terrible.

Economic modeling is worthless at predicting anything.

Question: How many times has the US Federal Reserve Board's forecast on GDP been right from 1980 to 1994?

Not once.

And you want to predict the outcome of humanity without religion after 5,000 years...

Can I say WOW.


Economics models have an story of lots of succeses and few (but catastrophic and pubicitized) failures. You can't take a few examples of model failures to invalidate all econometrics. And, the most pervasive cause of failure of those modeling is that they were used to modify the behavoir of economic agents that HAD access to the model!!!!!! The FED has been quite successful into controlling economic cycles in USA in the last years (not that I advocate economic regulation , thats another history). But modeling can be used to explain results in the past. And to project results that can be partially tested.

----
God doesn't exist.
----


Well, now that we've got that cleared up.
:rolleyes:

[Christian]

Luc wrote:
Economics models have an story of lots of succeses and few (but catastrophic and pubicitized) failures.

Successes at predicting? Maybe (and this is a big maybe) at only predicting the rise or fall of a trend. And even here economic modeling is lousy.

You can't take a few examples of model failures to invalidate all econometrics.

Econometric has value but not at predicting the future.

I'll even go as far as to say that there is no scientific method (yet) that can predict the future with any useful accuracy which involved the human collective behavior.

The FED has been quite successful into controlling economic cycles in USA in the last years (not that I advocate economic regulation , thats another history).

This is an idea you would have much resistance from experts to accept. Interest rates is one of many components to economics cycles (as you well know).

Many would argue that the sustained growth in the US was primarily do to expansion opportunity (productivity gap) in productivity (via primarily technological investment).

Others argue it was the baby boomer's effect.

Anyway, this is way off topic.

I think it is reasonable to conclude that you would have a hard time modeling 500 years of human history with and without religion in any meaningful way.

[aerosolben]

I'm abit late here, but I don't think anyone's touched on this point at all:

Obviously, if you are a believer, you consider religions to be a good thing. However, what does it mean to be a non-believer and consider a religion a good thing?

Essentially, if you are a non-believer, you think religions are, by and large, lies. Many of them contain decent philosophical morals, etc. but ultimately, they're based in a falsehood. Note I'm referring to divinely-based religions here specifically; certain flavors of Buddhism and other things will be referred to as philosophies to distinguish them. If you consider only those religions to be a good thing, then the following points do not apply to you.

Now, if the belief in God were to 'disappear' somehow (cultural revolution or whatever), this does not mean that the teachings of a given religion disappear as well. They merely become mundane philosophies, and the wheat can be seperated from the chaff.

Therefore, when you say 'religions are a good thing' (NB: this should be distinguished from 'religions have done good', which could occur just as easily in my little hypothetical scenario), you mean having the illusion of a divine power present is superior to just the teachings in and of themselves. The teachings are, after all, a creation of man (I'm addressing unbelievers here, remember), so they could have come about in the first place. There must be some reason for thinking the illusion of a divine power is better than truth and rational analysis of philosophy. When is a lie better than the truth?

This is a bit of a leap, so feel free to jump in with a different conclusion, but I think one potential conclusion to draw is that you think people are sheep, and that certain people simply cannot behave in a moral/ethical fashion without believing a super-being is waiting in the wings to crush them if the step out of line (forgive the hyperbole).

So answer me this: when and why is a lie (on the scope of a religion, not 'little white lies') better than the truth? This is not 'calling your bluff', I am actually interested in hearing answers.

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by aerosolben

So answer me this: when and why is a lie (on the scope of a religion, not 'little white lies') better than the truth? This is not 'calling your bluff', I am actually interested in hearing answers.

Never. The standard retort is, "If it makes people feel better, then what's the harm?"

The harm is that living a lie is living a lie, no matter how good it makes you feel or how much someone else thinks it might destroy your "innocence."

The truth is always superior to "innocence," if by innocence we mean naive belief.

Naive belief provides an insecure foundation upon which to grow and adapt to changing circumstances. When a naive person is removed from his secure, comfortable, "safe" surroundings, he's worthless and cannot adapt. He can even be horrified to learn that everything he knows is wrong, and thus he is as helpless as a newborn. Thanks for sheltering me, though, he might think.

A person who understands how things really are can draw upon his knowledge, his rational resources and his wits to adapt to change and to incorporate new knowledge or "truths" into his worldview. Knowledge of the truth as it is then-currently understood is always a proper foundation for building upon and obtaining new knowledge as it comes.

Ignorance is bliss? Only where 'tis folly to be wise.

Alex, I'll take "Wise" for $500.

AS

[aerosolben]

Originally posted by AmateurScientist


Never.

Thanks for the response. Now, to put you on the spot: Is religion a bad thing? Do you accept my line of reasoning?

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by aerosolben


Is religion a bad thing?


See my post above (not the one immediately above). Without a doubt. I do not accept any arguments which attempt to find any redeeming features in religion.


Do you accept my line of reasoning?

No. It is not necessary to attempt any separating the wheat from the chaff.

Devising a moral code and a system of ethics requires absolutely no religious underpinnings. One need not believe in sky fairies or divine reward or punishment in order to determine whether some behaviors are preferable to others.

Mankind would be far better off if no one had ever invented any religions.

AS

[aerosolben]

Originally posted by AmateurScientist

See my post above (not the one immediately above). Without a doubt. I do not accept any arguments which attempt to find any redeeming features in religion.

Whoops. That's what I get for being lazy and skimming the last few posts.



No. It is not necessary to attempt any separating the wheat from the chaff.

Devising a moral code and a system of ethics requires absolutely no religious underpinnings. One need not believe in sky fairies or divine reward or punishment in order to determine whether some behaviors are preferable to others.

The wheat-chaff bit was just to emphasize that the good bits present in certain religions (like the Golden Rule) would not also disappear, and could remain as part of a person's or society's ethical system (unless they are inextricably tied to a deity). Since they're no longer part of a "accept all these rules or burn!" system, you can seperate the wheat from the chaff. It was a pre-emptive counter to people who say, "Look at all the good religions have done." I think we agree on this point.

[Christian]

AS wrote:
The truth is always superior to "innocence," if by innocence we mean naive belief.

Yes, I agree with this. The problem here is that believing you know the truth does not make it so.

So then, it becomes:

My information is always superior to "innocence," if by innocence we mean naive belief.

And here, one can argue that, although it could be true, it is not necessarily so.

Maybe a flip of the coin is as good as the most educated guess.

A person who understands how things really are can draw upon his knowledge, his rational resources and his wits to adapt to change and to incorporate new knowledge or "truths" into his worldview. Knowledge of the truth as it is then-currently understood is always a proper foundation for building upon and obtaining new knowledge as it comes.

Do we understand how things really are? If this premise is correct, then yes, I can follow what you say.

But I don't think the premise is true. We might know how things really are in very few areas (and then only some of us in those areas) but for the most part, we know very little of how things are and thus our knowledge, rational resources and wits to adapt or change help us very little as well.

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by Christian
AS wrote:
The truth is always superior to "innocence," if by innocence we mean naive belief.

Yes, I agree with this. The problem here is that believing you know the truth does not make it so.



I can't argue with your statement as it reads. Nevertheless, I cannot help but feel an undercurrent common to so many Christian apologetics. The implication is that trust in science is delusional, if those who trust in it belief that science can provide insight into "truth."

One of the problems is that Christians so often have a different meaning for "truth" than the scientists. To devout Christians, "truth" often means the "truth" as revealed by God in His Word.

To scientists, that sort of "truth" is nonsense. It is merely myth and legend. As such, it tells us nothing about the world beyond its being some insight into beliefs commonly held among certain religious clerics at the time the various books of the Bible were written.

To scientists, the "truth" is that which is observed empicially and which can be used to formulate falsifiable hypotheses about the material world.

Thus, to suggest that scientists could somehow be mistaken about the earth revolving around the sun, or that the oxygen molecule contains eight protons is foolhardy and a misleading kind of epistemological relativism.

I find it ironic that anyone who places faith in the Bible as some source of "truth" would say something like "believing you know the truth does not make it so." I agree with that statement; I just find it ironic for a devout Christian to make it.


So then, it becomes:

My information is always superior to "innocence," if by innocence we mean naive belief.

And here, one can argue that, although it could be true, it is not necessarily so.

Maybe a flip of the coin is as good as the most educated guess.


Once again, this misrepresents the role of science and the degree of confidence scientists have in certain theories to explain the way the world works. The simple fact is that today no knowledgeable and sensible person has any doubt that the earth in fact revolves around the sun. It is a theory, but one in which there can be no doubt. It's hardly "an educated guess."

Suggesting a coin flip is just as good a way to find out about how the world works is silly. It is a renunciation of the scientific method and demonstrates a profound lack of appreciation for it, or perhaps even a distrust of it.


Do we understand how things really are? If this premise is correct, then yes, I can follow what you say.

But I don't think the premise is true. We might know how things really are in very few areas (and then only some of us in those areas) but for the most part, we know very little of how things are and thus our knowledge, rational resources and wits to adapt or change help us very little as well.

Again, this is little more than, "the world God made is so vast, and we are so humble compared to Him; we simply cannot understand His infinite wisdom in His plan for us, with our meager little finite minds." I must disagree. the world is indeed vast. Nevertheless, it is remarkably uniform in that the same laws of physics seem to apply throughout the entire universe. We do not live in a special case in our part. The world is apparently a profoundly logical place. This is a good thing; it allows us to learn about it with the scientific method. Science is distrusted by devout Christians precisely because it works so well. Apparently, the fear is that science presents a fundamental threat to the very basis of Christianity--that the Bible is the Word of God. If science amply demonstrates that the Bible is deeply flawed in so many physical facts that it gets terribly and indisputably wrong, then Christianity's survival is threatened. Thus, the only defense is to attack and discredit science itself. Of course, this is in fact how the church has so often struck back at science.

Sorry, but the universe doesn't change to conform to church orthodoxy. It is how it is. Only science is truly useful as a tool for learning how it is. Distrust it at the cost of your knowing the truth.

AS

[Mercutio]

As I type this, the local news is running a piece on how, in times of war, people "are returning to the church, and returning to their faith for reassurance in times of trouble." I am ambivalent about this. Growing up, we were members of 3 or 4 different churches, and I was a born-again christian before I made a long journey to atheism. I have seen, but only in one church, good people band together to do more together than any could do separately. I have seen, only in this one church, poor people give all the money in the church treasury to the victims of a tornado, knowing that the money would have to be replaced through hard work and personal sacrifice for some time. If all churches were like this one, I could never say that religion was a bad thing.

In another church, people went to be seen; one family alternated driving their lincoln continental, their mercedes, and their rolls-royce silver cloud. They went to church so they could tell everybody they were churchgoers (at the "right" church--social-ladder-wise). If these people were to "return to their church...in times of trouble" it would be so that they could spend a few moments in silence and leave feeling they had helped the troops somehow. All without the pesky part about actually doing anything. Is the religion of these people a bad thing? Not actively, but passively. It does not do bad, but takes the place of doing good.

(As an aside, I propose anytime someone suggests a "moment of silence," a counter-suggestion to just keep on with business and save that moment for the next time you'd help somebody but you just don't have the time. Imagine a whole congregation's worth of moments--a whole nation's worth! sigh....)

In another church, which I only attended because my daughter's friend was presenting something, I listened to a long diatribe attacking every world-view but their own. Science was near the top of the list. This religion, IMHO, is actively bad.

(now , on the news, a side discussion on whether a member of a religion that says "thou shall not kill" can support war)
Why change now?

[Christian]

AS wrote:
I can't argue with your statement as it reads. Nevertheless, I cannot help but feel an undercurrent common to so many Christian apologetics. The implication is that trust in science is delusional, if those who trust in it belief that science can provide insight into "truth."

Yes, AS, so many, but not me.

To scientists, the "truth" is that which is observed empicially and which can be used to formulate falsifiable hypotheses about the material world.

Actually, if I'm not mistaken, this is incorrect. Scientist do not consider themselves to hold the truth ever. If they did, they would not continue their research.

I believe the attitude is more of "as far as we know" or "at this particular stage we can say".

Thus, to suggest that scientists could somehow be mistaken about the earth revolving around the sun, or that the oxygen molecule contains eight protons is foolhardy and a misleading kind of epistemological relativism.

Yes, it is. Please tell it to the person who suggested it, that I agree with you.

I find it ironic that anyone who places faith in the Bible as some source of "truth" would say something like "believing you know the truth does not make it so." I agree with that statement; I just find it ironic for a devout Christian to make it.

What's important IMHO is that you agree with the statement.

Once again, this misrepresents the role of science and the degree of confidence scientists have in certain theories to explain the way the world works. The simple fact is that today no knowledgeable and sensible person has any doubt that the earth in fact revolves around the sun. It is a theory, but one in which there can be no doubt. It's hardly "an educated guess."

You are erecting strawmen here. The role of science and the degree of confidence scientists have in certain theories is not in question here. Or that is something not to argue with me.

Suggesting a coin flip is just as good a way to find out about how the world works is silly. It is a renunciation of the scientific method and demonstrates a profound lack of appreciation for it, or perhaps even a distrust of it.

Let me illustrate what I mean, because you have assumed a position I don't hold. Suppose both of us where given a challenge to pick the best mutual fund to invest in.

You use your knowledge, research, witts, etc. to pick your fund and I pray to choose mine. Who do you think used the superior method? If you believe you did, this is where I question your superiority.

Again, this is little more than, "the world God made is so vast, and we are so humble compared to Him; we simply cannot understand His infinite wisdom in His plan for us, with our meager little finite minds." I must disagree. the world is indeed vast. Nevertheless, it is remarkably uniform in that the same laws of physics seem to apply throughout the entire universe. We do not live in a special case in our part. The world is apparently a profoundly logical place. This is a good thing; it allows us to learn about it with the scientific method. Science is distrusted by devout Christians precisely because it works so well. Apparently, the fear is that science presents a fundamental threat to the very basis of Christianity--that the Bible is the Word of God. If science amply demonstrates that the Bible is deeply flawed in so many physical facts that it gets terribly and indisputably wrong, then Christianity's survival is threatened. Thus, the only defense is to attack and discredit science itself. Of course, this is in fact how the church has so often struck back at science.

Sorry, but the universe doesn't change to conform to church orthodoxy. It is how it is. Only science is truly useful as a tool for learning how it is. Distrust it at the cost of your knowing the truth.

You seem to be stuck in this *understanding the physical world* paradigm. I'm thinking more in terms of the choices we have to make for our future.

Is the scientific method or your knowledge superior in terms of choices like:

Who will I marry?
Should I change career or job?
Where should I live?
What school should me children go to?
What types of investments for the future should I make?

Reading, studying and learning physics or any other science is fine, but please consider that those are a very small part of most people's lives. Most humanity will not be a scientists, and even scientist have to make lots of choices using *their best guessess*

[Thanz]

Originally posted by Lucifuge Rofocale



Stop here. With someting as complex as a society of human beings you can't have the same kind of certainity for ANY theory that you have in mathemathics or biology. BUT you can't equate a blind belief with the results of a simulation or the output of a model, specially a well constructed one. I don't know how do you arrive at the conclussion that my model is a simple belief, specially when I haven't presented it yet?

Well, considering how incredibly complex this is, and how easy it would be to inject bias into the assumptions, until you present some sort of evidence regarding your model and assumptions, I am going to treat it as nothing more than a wild ass guess. Fiction. Nothing more than blind belief. Because if you are claiming that you are somehow able to simulate human development without religion - something that has always, in every culture, been present - that is one extraordinary claim.

And as you should know, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, right?

Anyway, my point in this response is that you can obtain some knowledge (wich is qualitatively different of the obtained by hard sciences) from social sciences, specially when you incorporate modern techniques of analisys like chaos and game theory.

I never said that you could not obtain some knowledge from social sciences. I just doubt that you have somehow constructed a model that would simulate human development without religion with any sort of accuracy above a wild-ass guess. Along with chaos and game theory, do you also do some sort of quantum analysis? Cause that would surely make you sound really smart. :rolleyes:

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

Originally posted by Thanz


Well, considering how incredibly complex this is, and how easy it would be to inject bias into the assumptions, until you present some sort of evidence regarding your model and assumptions, I am going to treat it as nothing more than a wild ass guess. Fiction. Nothing more than blind belief. Because if you are claiming that you are somehow able to simulate human development without religion - something that has always, in every culture, been present - that is one extraordinary claim.

And as you should know, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, right?

[B]

I never said that you could not obtain some knowledge from social sciences. I just doubt that you have somehow constructed a model that would simulate human development without religion with any sort of accuracy above a wild-ass guess. Along with chaos and game theory, do you also do some sort of quantum analysis? Cause that would surely make you sound really smart. :rolleyes:

Oh boy... I AM Smart :D.

Anyway... just to make it clear. We have something if you say that we can have knowledge from social sciences. But specifically for a non-religious world, your claim is that such a model can't be constructed in a way that convinces you? If that is not your claim, could you please tell me what are the requeriments of a model that can change the way you think?

[Thanz]

Originally posted by Lucifuge Rofocale

Anyway... just to make it clear. We have something if you say that we can have knowledge from social sciences. But specifically for a non-religious world, your claim is that such a model can't be constructed in a way that convinces you? If that is not your claim, could you please tell me what are the requeriments of a model that can change the way you think?

As it stands right now, no, I don't think that a convincing model can be constructed that would accurately simulate human development without religion.

I am, however, prepared to be convinced otherwise. I can't give you requirements of a model that would convince me in advance - I would need to be presented with a model and then evaluate it.

[aviator]

Religion, at least, gives believers a non-arbitrary moral benchmark. If you're a Christian then you shouldn't covet your neighbour's wife. End of argument. It's written in stone. Moses said so etc. etc. The problem with other ways of life that attempt to provide a moral or ethical framework is that they're ephemeral. What's considered morally unacceptable today might be considered ok tomorrow. All it takes is for a clever or manipulative person to come up with a logical sounding argument and the rules can be changed. Religious dogma is immutable - or should be. So it has its place, from a socioligical perspective anyway. It explains why the great religions have been so successful, humanity needs clearly defined boundaries. You get them in Christianity, Islam, Judaism and others.

Now, I do, of course, appreciate that many people pay lip service to their religion then go and covet their neighboursb wife the next day. But hey, we're human - right?

In fact I like religion so much I invented my own. Luckily, I'm allowed to covet my neighbours's wife. Neat.

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

Originally posted by aviator
Religion, at least, gives believers a non-arbitrary moral benchmark. If you're a Christian then you shouldn't covet your neighbour's wife. End of argument. It's written in stone. Moses said so etc. etc. The problem with other ways of life that attempt to provide a moral or ethical framework is that they're ephemeral. What's considered morally unacceptable today might be considered ok tomorrow. All it takes is for a clever or manipulative person to come up with a logical sounding argument and the rules can be changed. Religious dogma is immutable - or should be. So it has its place, from a socioligical perspective anyway. It explains why the great religions have been so successful, humanity needs clearly defined boundaries. You get them in Christianity, Islam, Judaism and others.

Now, I do, of course, appreciate that many people pay lip service to their religion then go and covet their neighboursb wife the next day. But hey, we're human - right?

In fact I like religion so much I invented my own. Luckily, I'm allowed to covet my neighbours's wife. Neat.

In no way religion provides a common moral framework. Please look at the different definitions of Sin by the 3,000 branches of christianity or look at your Falwel, Robertson and Chicks and compare their morality with your average liberal christian.

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

Originally posted by Thanz


As it stands right now, no, I don't think that a convincing model can be constructed that would accurately simulate human development without religion.

I am, however, prepared to be convinced otherwise. I can't give you requirements of a model that would convince me in advance - I would need to be presented with a model and then evaluate it.

I wouldn't work with you....but there are other ways to demostrate the inherent evil of religion. I'll elaborate later.

[Samus]

Originally posted by aviator
Religion, at least, gives believers a non-arbitrary moral benchmark. ...(snip)... Religious dogma is immutable - or should be. The problem with a religious dogma is that it was written by a human, and we've proven ourselves to be quite non-perfect. To make matters worse, it is humans enforcing the said dogma.

Religion, by its very nature, invites conflict. Because no two religions are the same, and many contradict each other, you create an environment where people will judge each other's worth by their religion, instead of by their actions. Look at all the wars that have been fought in the name of a particular religion (Crusades, Jihad, etc.)

To further that point, if there is only one God, he sure has trouble making up his mind. Each different flavor of religion will claim they have the true word of God; that they are right. How do I know who is speaking the truth? What makes one claim any more credible than another?

That said, I think religion will always exist. It has become an integral part of the world culture, it defines who we are. Good, bad, or otherwise, it's here to stay.

Edited to add: Dogma is very arbitrary. In fact, it's as arbitrary as they come. It sets rules based not on the consensus of the masses, but rather the dictation of the few.

[aerosolben]

Originally posted by Thanz

As it stands right now, no, I don't think that a convincing model can be constructed that would accurately simulate human development without religion.


Let's assume you're right. Does that make religion good?

I expressed my opinion earlier as to why religion, in a bubble, is a bad thing. However, here you come suggesting it stimulates human development, which is a good thing. So, do the ends justify the means?

A more extreme parallel would be if I did some historical research and discovered that every advanced society had a major genocidal event in their past, and that "I don't think that a convincing model can be constructed that would accurately simulate human development without [genocide]". Is genocide a good thing?

(NB: for the reading impaired, I am not saying religion = genocide)

Another thing to think about is, what happens when religion stops stimulating development, and starts trying to retard it?

[aviator]

Originally posted by Lucifuge Rofocale


In no way religion provides a common moral framework. Please look at the different definitions of Sin by the 3,000 branches of christianity or look at your Falwel, Robertson and Chicks and compare their morality with your average liberal christian.

Yes, but I didn't say religion provides a common moral framework I said it provided a non-arbitrary moral and/or ethical framework. Which is possibly what most people want - someone else to tell them what's right and wrong. Now, because most people don't like being told what to do by their peers they're actually a lot happier when some omnipotent, omnicient being tells them what they should and shouldn't do. They don't have to question it, they don't have to think about it. It's the will of Allah or whoever.

The irony, as you have already figured out, is that all the wisdom arrives through an intepreter. A priest, a mullah, a vicar, a parson, a guru, an author of sacred text. Whatever. The fact that there are 3000 strands of Christianity doesn't negate my argument which is essentially - humanity needs religion. As someone cleverer than me has already said 'If God didn't exist it would be necessary to invent him'.

As an intellectual exercise we should all invent our own religion and live with it for a while. It's more interesting than you might think. Mine is bitheistic. I have two Demi-Gods. One is a giant fish. How cool is that?

[aviator]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by dwb
The problem with a religious dogma is that it was written by a human, and we've proven ourselves to be quite non-perfect. To make matters worse, it is humans enforcing the said dogma. ...snip ...

That said, I think religion will always exist. It has become an integral part of the world culture, it defines who we are. Good, bad, or otherwise, it's here to stay.

I agree, religion is essentially a human rather than a devine or even a spiritual manifestation. It's a product of our collective human and flawed intellects. Even if there is a God (which is not necessarily a religious question) there's no evidence that she would be at all interested or desireous of religion.

Religion is a force for evil because people are a force for evil. Religion has done wonderful things because people are capable of doing wonderful things. It's as much a projection of humanity as Art or Literature or Music or War or the advancement of Science.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by aerosolben


Let's assume you're right. Does that make religion good?

I expressed my opinion earlier as to why religion, in a bubble, is a bad thing. However, here you come suggesting it stimulates human development, which is a good thing. So, do the ends justify the means?

A more extreme parallel would be if I did some historical research and discovered that every advanced society had a major genocidal event in their past, and that "I don't think that a convincing model can be constructed that would accurately simulate human development without [genocide]". Is genocide a good thing?

(NB: for the reading impaired, I am not saying religion = genocide)

Another thing to think about is, what happens when religion stops stimulating development, and starts trying to retard it?

You are misunderstanding the point of my posts. I never suggested that stimulates human development.

Lucifuge Rofocale posted this:
Because I have a framework

To summarize:

The big picture of my framework is as follows:

Lets suppose a society that got rid of religion 5000 years ago. The individuals investigate the misteries of nature without using any supernatural element. And they didn't have moral absolutes other than the ones that genetics and natural selection put into them. My theory is that, in such society, the sum of all human happinness is FAR greather than the current sum of human happiness.

I was merely disputing his ability to create such a model with any certainty above a wild ass guess.

That's all. Just being skeptical of his claim made above.

[Ladyhawk]

Originally posted by asherah


Thanks for elaborating and clarifying ladyhawk. Maybe we are just having a problem with semantics and nothing else, and often times those type of arguments are difficult to overcome. So I feel a bit foolish even arguing over the idea of strictness or not of the definition you gave.

Understood.

[B] So, I agree that your definition is accurate, but I'm not so sure of strictness. If we stick to the creator model then I say it's strict, but if we add in addition things that it can be then I argue that it becomes less strict and more general. Again probably not important to dwell on, sorry.

Agreed. No apology necessary

As far as there not being anything in the teachings of Budda or Jesus that is bad. Well, I call on those more informed on the subject of Budda, but didn't Jesus bring this whole contingency of hell.

Actually, hell is referred to back in the Old Testaament. Some scholars say that Jesus never made direct reference to hell in his teachings, but, it seems to me he certainly never disputed
it..


I understand your point about Aesop and the Bible, but the Bible I think is more than just parables. No one has ever knocked on my door and tried to tell me about the glories of Aesop (maybe that would be nice!). Aesop doesn't demand tithing. Aesop doesn't promise eternal damnation for those who don't follow the morals of Aesop.

The Bible seems to have the addition of commentary about about itself as it goes. Not just telling a story to entertain or enlighten but presenting itself as law and truth. Not as a novel of fiction, or tale with a moral but as absolute truth.

Ok...I never said the Bible was a GOOD story ;) As for absolute truth, doesn't the Koran do the same thing? I think we have to agree that none of the texts behind popular religions should be accepted as absolute truth.

Again thanks for the timely response!:)

[I] Thank you, too. This has been a good conversation. I've enjoyed it!

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by Christian
AS wrote:
[b]I can't argue with your statement as it reads. Nevertheless, I cannot help but feel an undercurrent common to so many Christian apologetics. The implication is that trust in science is delusional, if those who trust in it belief that science can provide insight into "truth."

Yes, AS, so many, but not me.


Sorry, Christian, I should't have lumped you in with them, which mistake caused me to build strawmen later in my post, as you correctly note.


To scientists, the "truth" is that which is observed empicially and which can be used to formulate falsifiable hypotheses about the material world.

Actually, if I'm not mistaken, this is incorrect. Scientist do not consider themselves to hold the truth ever. If they did, they would not continue their research.


I believe the attitude is more of "as far as we know" or "at this particular stage we can say".



You're right. It's nothing more than provisional truth.


You are erecting strawmen here. The role of science and the degree of confidence scientists have in certain theories is not in question here. Or that is something not to argue with me.


You're right--I was. Sorry. I'll try not to assume you feel that way next time.


Suggesting a coin flip is just as good a way to find out about how the world works is silly. It is a renunciation of the scientific method and demonstrates a profound lack of appreciation for it, or perhaps even a distrust of it.

Let me illustrate what I mean, because you have assumed a position I don't hold. Suppose both of us where given a challenge to pick the best mutual fund to invest in.

You use your knowledge, research, witts, etc. to pick your fund and I pray to choose mine. Who do you think used the superior method? If you believe you did, this is where I question your superiority.


I cannot argue with this. Science cannot help much with normative decisions or with predicting events whose causes are poorly understood, such as stock market fluctuations.


You seem to be stuck in this *understanding the physical world* paradigm. I'm thinking more in terms of the choices we have to make for our future.


Yes, I was stuck in that mode. Sorry that I didn't get your broader points.


Is the scientific method or your knowledge superior in terms of choices like:

Who will I marry?
Should I change career or job?
Where should I live?
What school should me children go to?
What types of investments for the future should I make?


Nope, science won't help much with those decisions.


Reading, studying and learning physics or any other science is fine, but please consider that those are a very small part of most people's lives. Most humanity will not be a scientists, and even scientist have to make lots of choices using *their best guessess*

I agree.

AS

[Christian]

AS wrote:
Sorry, Christian, I should't have lumped you in with them, which mistake caused me to build strawmen later in my post, as you correctly note.

Hey, don't go showing what an objective and mature guy you are, that makes me look bad :D

You're right. It's nothing more than provisional truth.

I like that phrase *provisional truth*.

You're right--I was. Sorry. I'll try not to assume you feel that way next time.

Stop it already, you are really making me look terrible here :(

I agree.

You are a cool customer, hats off to you sir. :)

[aerosolben]

Originally posted by Thanz

That's all. Just being skeptical of his claim made above.

Very well. In defense of myself, "I don't think that a convincing model can be constructed that would accurately simulate human development without religion" does suggest that you think "religion is fundamental to the history of human development." But it's your claim. No harm, no foul.

[calciumdeposit]

I personally wish religion didn't exist. i think it might cause more harm than good. But there is something to be said about someone watching when you're all alone and about to sneak a cookie.

[aviator]

Originally posted by calciumdeposit
I personally wish religion didn't exist. i think it might cause more harm than good. But there is something to be said about someone watching when you're all alone and about to sneak a cookie.
Indeed. But it's not so bad if you're being watched by a tolerant, loving, omnipotent, all-seeing Deity. Feel sorry for me, when I sneak a cookie I'm being watched by a giant fish. Ah well, it serves me right for inventing my own religion I suppose.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by aerosolben


Very well. In defense of myself, "I don't think that a convincing model can be constructed that would accurately simulate human development without religion" does suggest that you think "religion is fundamental to the history of human development." But it's your claim. No harm, no foul.

I guess it all depends on what you mean by "fundamental". I am not suggesting that without religion we'd all still be living in caves. However, when you look at human history, religion in one form or another has always been present - for good or ill. So, in that sense, it is "fundamental" in that it has always been involved in one way or another. So, "fundamental to the history", I'd say yes. Fundamental (as in a necessary precondition) to human development, no.

I don't think that anyone would dispute that religion in general (and in Europe anyway, the Catholic Church) has had a huge influence in the development of society as a whole. I reject the idea that this influence can be simulated away in a model with any degree of accuracy.

[aerosolben]

Originally posted by Thanz
Fundamental (as in a necessary precondition) to human development, no.

To a lesser degree, perhaps? It's more reasonable to assert that religion may have played an important role in early scientific development, as many early scientists were monks (or the equivalent in other religions).
I think my original question can easily be applied to any area where a religion has achieved positive, secular results.


I don't think that anyone would dispute that religion in general (and in Europe anyway, the Catholic Church) has had a huge influence in the development of society as a whole. I reject the idea that this influence can be simulated away in a model with any degree of accuracy.

I'd broaden that to say almost no major events/constructs that aren't very recent can be simulated away, for similar reasons as to why the stock market can't be predicted. The causes/effect structure of human history is just to complicated.

[Samus]

Originally posted by aviator
Even if there is a God (which is not necessarily a religious question) there's no evidence that she would be at all interested or desireous of religion. I like that statement, and I agree 100% In the movie Dogma, Ben Afflack's character makes reference to the fact that humans have this religion thing all messed up. It's funny, and most likely, quite true.

This goes back to the belief that someone can be "spiritual, but not religious." They can accept the existence of God without feeling the need to have structured worship. In my definition of what God should be, he would accept those types of people with open arms. The Jack Chicks of the world would say otherwise.

Originally posted by aviator
Religion is a force for evil because people are a force for evil. Religion has done wonderful things because people are capable of doing wonderful things. It's as much a projection of humanity as Art or Literature or Music or War or the advancement of Science. This is quite profound. The belief that any given religion is "right," that they're the ones that have it all figured out, is one of the things that leads to religion causing bad things. As soon as one accepts Catholicism (for example) as 100% A-OK, the immediate conclusion is that everyone else's belief are varying degrees of wrong.

aerosolben wrote:
To a lesser degree, perhaps? It's more reasonable to assert that religion may have played an important role in early scientific development, as many early scientists were monks (or the equivalent in other religions). Perhaps, but some of the most significant scientific developments over the years flew in the face of what the church was saying. Great minds were chastised by the church (back when church=state), effectively hindering scientific development. I would submit that when the church was the only source of "correct" information, that scientific development was at an all-time low.

I understand that the church did indeed have an important role with regards to science, especially when many early scientists were monks. I just don't think it was a good thing.

[aviator]

Originally posted by dwb
I like that statement, and I agree 100% In the movie Dogma, Ben Afflack's character makes reference to the fact that humans have this religion thing all messed up. It's funny, and most likely, quite true.
Wonderful movie.

This goes back to the belief that someone can be "spiritual, but not religious." They can accept the existence of God without feeling the need to have structured worship. In my definition of what God should be, he would accept those types of people with open arms. The Jack Chicks of the world would say otherwise.
Indeed. When people begin to accept that religion is an entirely human construct then they're starting out on the path to enlightenment. But this fact doesn't mean that there is no God. The two things aren't necessarily related. I was interested to read that you suggest a God that is either 'accepting or not accepting'. It's difficult not to conceive of God without imbuing her with a personality isn't it? I prefer not to, though you'll notice I use the feminine whenever I need to personalise her - that's just to remind me that the idea of God as a personality sits uncomfortably with me. Does God have hopes, desires, ideas, bad moods, pleasure, pain, boredom, joy, lust, intellectual stimulation? Or does God just 'exist'. I don't know, if God has a personality - or even an opinion about anything - then that makes her fallible, human-like. If we anthropomorphise God then we're really just saying she's a bigger, cleverer version of us. Which, I guess, is what the Bible says. Ah well. I still prefer the giant fish myself.

[BobK]

Is religion a bad thing?

Not if you don't put any faith in it.

[ntech]

Yes, It retards the social and scientific evolution of us all.

[c4ts]

Of course religion isn't a bad thing, if you use the words "bad" and "good" interchangeably until they eventually lose all meaning, making the thought that religion could somehow be pejorative to the human mind seem self-contradictory.

[Panther Queen]

Originally posted by ImpyTimpy
Alright, let's have a clean debate people. Is religion a bad thing? I don't want to turn this into a moral debate or "us athiests" vs. "them christians" debate. I'd like to see arguments for and against religous beliefs (preferably of equal magnitude).

I personally do not think religion is a bad thing. Yes, there are downright dangerous religous beliefs but there are also productive religous beliefs. Should we however lump all religous beliefs together and declare religion of any kind a bad thing? I say no. I say we should distinguish the dangerous and safe religions and label them appropriately. That means religion itself is not a bad thing but the way it's practiced or the way it is interpreted can be.

For example, some people might believe that there is someone watching over them. They live their lives as anybody else but they have the additional comfort of their belief. Some may say the belief itself is irrational since no proof exists that there really is something watching over the said invidual. However, we can neither admit that there really is nothing watching over the said person since we have no proof for that either.
Is that person somehow deficient or different to others? I say they're not. Religion in their case only enhances their life quality.

Therefore religion itself is not a bad thing. What do the rest of you think?

Damn, those are good questions. I guess religion is a good thing and a bad thing. Good if gives a person peace, joy, and fun in life. But it's bad if it controls, condemns, or turn good citizens into bible thumping robots.

[Dancing David]

What about the 'religion' that isn't really a religion IE buddhism. It is more a set of practises than anything else. So when there is talk of a society forming without religion then there are many that have formed in the precense of buddhism.

Religion like all human things reflects the fact that humans contain both good and evil. Therefore religion contains good and evil. i have always wondered why it draws the polar extremes of tolerance and hatred.

religion is what I am in, you are a devil worshiper

Peace
dancing david

[aviator]

Originally posted by Panther Queen


Damn, those are good questions. I guess religion is a good thing and a bad thing. Good if gives a person peace, joy, and fun in life. But it's bad if it controls, condemns, or turn good citizens into bible thumping robots.

Religion does none of these things. People do. People give other people peace, joy and fun in life. People control, condemn and turn themselves and each other into bible thumping robots. I challenge anyone to find me the bit in the Bible where Jesus tells anyone to form a religion. He didn't, he simply asked people to follow his example and live simply, kindly and with consideration for others.

Now, the giant fish, on the other hand, he wants us all to form a religion. Oh, yes indeedy he does. A giant fish-worshiping religion.

[NoZed Avenger]

Originally posted by aviator


Now, the giant fish, on the other hand, he wants us all to form a religion. Oh, yes indeedy he does. A giant fish-worshiping religion.

There is no Cod.

NA

[aviator]

Originally posted by NoZed Avenger


There is no Cod.

NA

It just doesn't get any better than that NoZed, sublime. Simply sublime.

[Panther Queen]

Originally posted by aviator


Religion does none of these things. People do. People give other people peace, joy and fun in life. People control, condemn and turn themselves and each other into bible thumping robots. I challenge anyone to find me the bit in the Bible where Jesus tells anyone to form a religion. He didn't, he simply asked people to follow his example and live simply, kindly and with consideration for others.

Now, the giant fish, on the other hand, he wants us all to form a religion. Oh, yes indeedy he does. A giant fish-worshiping religion.

BINGO!! You are SO right. It is all to do with the people within the religion.:D

[ntech]

Originally posted by aviator


Religion does none of these things. People do. People give other people peace, joy and fun in life. People control, condemn and turn themselves and each other into bible thumping robots. I challenge anyone to find me the bit in the Bible where Jesus tells anyone to form a religion. He didn't, he simply asked people to follow his example and live simply, kindly and with consideration for others.

Actually the mass was a call to form a religion and emulate the last supper. Most notably” Do this in memory of me".
I can still hear the priest saying it. The entire buy-bull is full of calls to honor and serve god. All of those who gather in my name etc………………………….

[asherah]

Originally posted by aviator


Religion does none of these things. People do. People give other people peace, joy and fun in life. People control, condemn and turn themselves and each other into bible thumping robots. I challenge anyone to find me the bit in the Bible where Jesus tells anyone to form a religion. He didn't, he simply asked people to follow his example and live simply, kindly and with consideration for others.

Now, the giant fish, on the other hand, he wants us all to form a religion. Oh, yes indeedy he does. A giant fish-worshiping religion.

It would seem to me that religion is often a catalyst for actions both good and bad, sometimes with both good and bad deeds coming from the same person or group. But I feel that it is impossible consider religion apart from the people it influences; and to think of it as an independent entity is like saying that a catalyst or any single element in a chemical reaction is responsible for the whole of the transformation.

[aviator]

Originally posted by ntech


Actually the mass was a call to form a religion and emulate the last supper. Most notably” Do this in memory of me".
I can still hear the priest saying it. The entire buy-bull is full of calls to honor and serve god. All of those who gather in my name etc………………………….

Well that's certainly the Roman Catholic interpretation. I had 15 years of that indoctrination too, before I discovered Critical Thinking. I would still argue that suggesting people remember you for what you did and follow your teachings is a way apart from saying 'amass great fortunes, build large opulent churches stuffed with gold and precious stones, chant mind-numbing rituals, torture thousands who don't agree with you, fight wars in my name, etc. etc.' I could go on but I won't 'cos I know you're in agreement. Do you worship a giant fish too?

[aviator]

Originally posted by Panther Queen


BINGO!! You are SO right. It is all to do with the people within the religion.:D
I do so enjoy being right. May I introduce you to the Giant Fish worshiping religion? Followers of the Giant Fish are always right. Oh yes indeed we are, always right.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by aviator

I do so enjoy being right. May I introduce you to the Giant Fish worshiping religion? Followers of the Giant Fish are always right. Oh yes indeed we are, always right.

...but I bet Jeff the god of biscuits could kick his fishy ass! :)

[aviator]

Originally posted by BillyTK


...but I bet Jeff the god of biscuits could kick his fishy *ss! :)
Fishy a#se.

You've been watching too much CNN.

Besides, how long do you think Jeff would survive in the sea? Have you ever dropped a digestive into a cup of tea? Know what happens? I think you do, oh yes, I think you know what would happen if God Jeff ever had a ruck with Giant Fish God. Blub blub blub.:mad:

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Thanz


I guess it all depends on what you mean by "fundamental". I am not suggesting that without religion we'd all still be living in caves. However, when you look at human history, religion in one form or another has always been present - for good or ill. So, in that sense, it is "fundamental" in that it has always been involved in one way or another. So, "fundamental to the history", I'd say yes. Fundamental (as in a necessary precondition) to human development, no.

I'm happy to make a number of grand, sweeping statements here. Firstly that religion (or perhaps belief system is a more accurate term, as religion is a recent concept, historically speaking, and carries with it a certain amount of baggage which can impede discussion) was integral to human development and was even inevitable. The human mind has got this facility for construing meaning out of everything it comes into contact with, so in order to understand, explain and attempt to manipulate the world it would be inevitable that supernatural entities would be envoked to fill in the gaps between human ability to manipulate, and to understand. I'd guess that without this facility we would still be living in caves, or even be an evolutionary dead end.

I don't think that anyone would dispute that religion in general (and in Europe anyway, the Catholic Church) has had a huge influence in the development of society as a whole. I reject the idea that this influence can be simulated away in a model with any degree of accuracy.

One of the claims against the catholic church is that it impeded the advent of the Enlightement. But we carnt say for certain whether this was the case, or whether other conditions which allowed the church to flourish prevented the advent of the Enlightenment age, or even that the Enlightenment was contingent on the rise of the church. For instance, whilst the church prohibited the study of Greek and Roman thought and even destroyed any material it came into contact with, by making latin the church's "official language" it preserved the skills required for later generations to translate preserved documents.

So whilst we can join in Luciforge's thought experiment to imagine a society which kicks out religion 5,000 years, we carnt really conceive how the conditions would arise which would enable this society to take such a path, or how those conditions would continue to affect such a society. My personal feeling would be that they'd get their butts kicked by the mongol hordes or similar :)

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by aviator

Fishy a#se.

You've been watching too much CNN.

Besides, how long do you think Jeff would survive in the sea? Have you ever dropped a digestive into a cup of tea? Know what happens? I think you do, oh yes, I think you know what would happen if God Jeff ever had a ruck with Giant Fish God. Blub blub blub.:mad:

I'm happy to provide translations for our trans-atlantic friends ;).

Anyway, Jeff is the god of biscuits, not the god made out of biscuits. That would be just plain daft! :p But with one sweep of his almighty ginger biscuit, he could soak up all the oceans of the world, which would leave the Giant Fish God in a bit of a state wouldn't it?

Btw, in the Fish God religion, is Captain Birdseye the devil? :D

[NoZed Avenger]

Originally posted by BillyTK


Btw, in the Fish God religion, is Captain Birdseye the devil? :D

Mrs. Paul is the anti-Christ.


NA

[aviator]

Originally posted by BillyTK

But with one sweep of his almighty ginger biscuit, he could soak up all the oceans of the world, which would leave the Giant Fish God in a bit of a state wouldn't it?

Btw, in the Fish God religion, is Captain Birdseye the devil? :D

:eek: Ginger biscuit? GINGER biscuit? You never mentioned anything before about there being Ginger biscuits. Consider this thread terminated. That was below the belt. And I think you know it. My belief system is in ruins, scattered all about me like discarded vinegar-soaked newspapers. You have no right to abuse the forum in this way.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by aviator


:eek: Ginger biscuit? GINGER biscuit? You never mentioned anything before about there being Ginger biscuits. Consider this thread terminated. That was below the belt. And I think you know it. My belief system is in ruins, scattered all about me like discarded vinegar-soaked newspapers. You have no right to abuse the forum in this way.

Well good grief, the clue was there all along; he is Jeff the god of biscuits, not Jeff the god of some biscuits! ;) :D From the lowliest arrowroot biscuit to the most glorious triple chocolate cookie he is god of 'em all! He's also forgiving of former fish worshippers too :)

[ntech]

Originally posted by aviator


Well that's certainly the Roman Catholic interpretation. I had 15 years of that indoctrination too, before I discovered Critical Thinking. I would still argue that suggesting people remember you for what you did and follow your teachings is a way apart from saying 'amass great fortunes, build large opulent churches stuffed with gold and precious stones, chant mind-numbing rituals, torture thousands who don't agree with you, fight wars in my name, etc. etc.' I could go on but I won't 'cos I know you're in agreement. Do you worship a giant fish too?


Why yes! Don't you know that all of us atheists worship the almighty flounder?

[Socrates]

Religions aren't as dangerous as Skeptic discussion groups. I broke a nail typing a post here today, and that was more damage than I ever suffered at Church.

:D

Love,
Socrates

[c4ts]

The last time I went to church I was bound, shackled, and placed before the wall of a cave by sophists pretending to have knowledge of the divine. Acutally, that was during a prayer meet at my school today. "Christians welcome," they said. "Jews welcome," they said. "Muselims welcome," they said. "Atheists welcome," they said. But it turned out the only people who were welcome at all were the Christians, and everybody else needed a tasty Jesus-flavored pastry.

[NoZed Avenger]

Originally posted by c4ts
The last time I went to church I was bound, shackled, and placed before the wall of a cave by sophists pretending to have knowledge of the divine.

Lutherans?


NA