The non-thinking that is Religion.

[Rebelius]

you know that quote in your signature totally scrolls the wrong way?

[humndislocation]

Originally Posted by Rebelius

but they only need to convince themselves - why does it matter to you what someone else believes?

not all christians believe every word in the bible. I know you're going to come back with something along the lines of "BUT THAT'S WHERE THEIR RELIGION CAME FROM, IT'S THE SOURCE OF THEIR RELIGION THEY THINK IT'S THE WORD OF GOD - THE MUST DO EVERYTHING IT SAYS" - which seems pretty ignorant to me.

I think one of the problems is that religion lacks a normalising force that corrects errors in the doctrine. In science you have the concept of peer review, where other scientists will try their hardest to falsify your research, whereas in religion, if there's a major disagreement about doctrine, then that group will just go off and form another sect that supports their extreme views.

Originally Posted by Thebigyin04

i was assuming that everyone agrees that religion is socially acceptable , where as paedophilia and murder are not ..

That's not a good basis for saying something is right or wrong either if you think about it.

What if you were living in a society where everyone thought it was OK to murder ethnic minorities? Does that make it right?

[Thebigyin04]

Originally Posted by Rebelius

you know that quote in your signature totally scrolls the wrong way?

so it does !! i will sort that

[Thee Alex]

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." - Even Einstein got it wrong from time to time.

C'mon Mr. 'Yin04, I've asked you to explain to me how religion can be seen as 'right'. Get to it! BTW, have you ever read the Bible from cover to cover?

And Alien_Syndm, where are your rebuttals to the points raised? Still waiting for those....

[Thee Alex]

Originally Posted by Thebigyin04

interpretation maybe , but i think Alex has gone further than a simple interp of the evidence , he has heavily structured it with his own anti religious agenda as well as the words of Richard dawkins ,and has been done in my opinion without any kind of balance in the slightest.. a poor conclusion

i have seen alot of this style of comment right the way through :

which seem to omit any kind of balance what so ever...so why cant i pull him up on his "interpretation" if i think it is unbalanced - interpretation is never word for word ..

These people are basing their lives on something that DIRECTLY contradicts the overwhelming evidence of reality, it may be extreme to describe them as idiots but, ultimately, that's what they are.

[Hecate]

Some of the worst atrocities of recent times were committed by atheists, so you can't blame religion for all the horrors of the world, atheists are at it too.

Thee Alex, you have spent a lot of this thread ripping into me too, yet I don't follow a religion. You use religion as a reason to call their followers idiots for causing wars and conflict, so how can you justify calling me, a pantheist, an idiot?

It seems to me you are blinded by your attitude, and are just rolling out the same patter continuously without due thought to what you are saying.

[LesMts]

Originally Posted by freakonaleash

Some of the worst atrocities of recent times were committed by atheists, so you can't blame religion for all the horrors of the world, atheists are at it too.

By and large atheists don't commit atrocities in the name of atheism, which is a crucial difference.
Are we pawls again or do you still think I'm a cunt? I was honestly never trying to be a prick to you.

[Thee Alex]

Originally Posted by freakonaleash

Some of the worst atrocities of recent times were committed by atheists, so you can't blame religion for all the horrors of the world, atheists are at it too.

I'm not, but religious believers are responsible for an awful lot of the shit that we have to put up with on a day to day basis. Trying to change the focus to 'Oh, but look at what YOU LOT have done!' doesn't alter the outright cock that religion presents as fact.

Originally Posted by freakonaleash

Thee Alex, you have spent a lot of this thread ripping into me too, yet I don't follow a religion.

Yes, because your posts have varied from vague, hippy-ish, nonsense, via completely wrong assertions, to unsupported claims about memory cells in the heart and other such guff. In short you've not really said one sensible thing that hasn't made you look deeply stupid at any point. Then you've got your boyfriend to wade in.....which just made things worse and showed him up to be almost as entirely clueless as you are.

Sorry, but you did ask.

Originally Posted by freakonaleash

You use religion as a reason to call their followers idiots for causing wars and conflict, so how can you justify calling me, a pantheist, an idiot?

No, I use that fact people are idiots for believing such credulous bullshit to call people idiots. And pantheism is just another sub-religious, spiritual standpoint that doesn't even have a holy book to provide guidance. A vague 'feeling' about the universe is even more witless IMO.

Originally Posted by freakonaleash

It seems to me you are blinded by your attitude, and are just rolling out the same patter continuously without due thought to what you are saying.

Oh, I'm thinking VERY hard about what I'm saying, I don't want to be misunderstood. And what you see as the 'same patter' I would argue is 'consistency'.

My arguments have been entirely logical and based on reality, science, facts and observable phenomena. Yours have been seemingly based on some pagan version of Wikipedia (Wikkapedia perhaps? ) edited by tree worshipping reality deniers who have a nebulous feeling that there 'must be something else' whilst not presenting any reason to believe this that doesn't make them look like New Age fuckwits.

[Thebigyin04]

im confused , i take it by the "have you ever read the bible cover to cover" , you have? ..and no i haven't i am not from a religious upbrining , my family in the past were Quaker : quite an unintrusive religios sect

so i will ask have you ever read the Qu'ran for that matter or maybe the Veda ? or maybe the scripts of the Jedi ? (j/k) ...but i dont see how that matters in the slightest ... i didnt know this was a thread about a religion , and more about religion in the wholistic sense? (obviously examples are used)

but you are taking Dawkins views and degenerating them into thoughtless attacks on people who follow religion aswell as the religion as a whole .. damning everone and anything that does not follow your set of views/lifestyle (which tbh is much like a religion in itself).It doesnt help the scope of this thread , instead it riles people, and admitedly me, into discussions about proving right or wrong , when you cant do either.

My friend and I , had a chat about this thread and came to a conclusion ( i can't take credit ) that religion is not "wrong ", but slightly redundant in this day and age , as many of the religious based morals are imbedded into what we call "laws" and therefore alot of the good that religion ( granted this is highly aimed at christianity) has brought has been used and adapted to modern morals- enforced by laws- derived from religion: we see this in every country.

Here comes the " we would have morals regardless of religion" from TheeAlex , yeah we would but they wouldnt be the same necessarily , studies exist which try to understand if morals are innate or not:like this

It is intersting in this case, that although he doesnt support that religion directly controls morals , he does identify that morals are not innate and are developed around the inputs of our environment, which i agree with, but I do think that religion was a way someone chose to control how morals are formed, a way to stop those who were in group (a): the murdering ravenous community , from murdering and stealing , although it would still occur it allowed the idea of punishment for your sins/lawbreaking and possibly make you think twice about it with the impending punishment but if group (a) had no religion/laws and in fact if group (b) didnt have them either then you would have to murder and steal to survive as there is no controlling factor , particularly as Morals are not innate, so if they are not innate they are controlled by your environment , but wheres the starting point.

i am going to stop here because i am tired i am actually not even sure if this example makes any sense anymore .. it does to me , but then i know where i am coming from

enjoy.

[Thee Alex]

Originally Posted by Thebigyin04

im confused , i take it by the have you ever read the bible cover to cover , you have?

Yes I have.

Originally Posted by Thebigyin04

so i will ask have you ever read the Qu'ran for that matter or maybe the Veda ? or maybe the scripts of the Jedi ?

I've read some pretty big chunks of the Koran, not the Veda...And scripts of the Jedi?? Are you actually taking the piss or are you one of those tools who thought by putting 'Jedi' on a census form it would become a recognised religion?

Originally Posted by Thebigyin04

my guess is no ...

Guess again.

Originally Posted by Thebigyin04

you are taking dawkins views and degenerating them into thoughtless attacks on people who follow religion aswell as the religion as a whole ..

Wrong again. I am stating MY views, not Dawkins', not Hitchens', not Shermer's, not Miller's....MINE. That they happen to intersect in several places with the views of others is entirely coincidental. As for being 'thoughtless', my 'attacks' are anything but. These things really MATTER to me, because I feel that people are wasting their lives on a load of Dark Ages bullshit that should have been dumped centuries ago.

Originally Posted by Thebigyin04

damning everone and anything that does not follow your set of views/lifestyle doesnt help the scope of this thread , instead it riles people, and admitedly me, into discussions about proving right or wrong , when you cant do either.

What I am doing is stating my views, backing up those views with sound reasons and logical arguments, and then asking the 'faithful' to come up with a convincing counter argument. So far all they've managed is some vague waffle about 'not taking it all literally' (successfully gunned down as a standpoint) and some pantheist knobrot. Then they've mostly fucked off, leaving the questions asked of them hanging...

As for proving whether religion is 'right' or 'wrong' - it IS something that can be done. In every single one of us posting here's lifetime we will find out for CERTAIN. I've got (if I'm lucky) about 60 or 70 years before I find out, you've probably got about 70 or 80. I'm willing to bet my 'eternal soul' on there being no 'god' and no life after death, I'm that confident in the inherent flaws in religious doctrine and belief.

Originally Posted by Thebigyin04

My friend and I , had a chat about this thread and came to a conclusion ( i can't take credit ) that religion is not "wrong ", but slightly redundant in this day and age

Utterly redundant I would say....

Originally Posted by Thebigyin04

as many of the religious based morals are imbedded into what we call "laws" and therefore alot of the good that religion ( granted this is highly aimed at christianity) has brought has been used and adapted to modern morals- enforced by laws- derived from religion: we see this in every country.

Oh that is SO much guff! 'Laws derived from religion'???

Originally Posted by Thebigyin04

Here comes the " we would have morals regardless of religion" from TheeAlex , yeah we would but they wouldnt be the same necessarily

First correct guess of the whole post! They would be the 'same necessarily' because, like it or not, that's how we got them!! Religion DID NOT develop before our species had worked out the benefits of understanding basic 'right' and 'wrong' behaviours, rather as a result of it.

Originally Posted by Thebigyin04

studies exist which try to understand if morals are innate or not:http://www.unc.edu/~prinz/MoralityInnatePrinz.pdf

From a quick scan through that document it seems that they're actually saying pretty much the same as I when it comes to the development of a basic 'moral' framework in species. Not sure why you've posted that, if you're trying to argue the opposite.

Originally Posted by Thebigyin04

It is intersting in this case, that although he doesnt support that religion directly controls morals , he does identify that morals are not innate and are developed around the inputs of our environment, which i agree with,

'Morals' are a direct, naturally selected, result of evolution (see the previous 'two tribes' explanation). Of course the environment affects this.... Again, your point seems to be entirely muddled.

Originally Posted by Thebigyin04

but I do think that religion was a way someone chose to control how morals are formed,

So this pre-cognitive ancestor of ours invented religion first?

Originally Posted by Thebigyin04

a way to stop those who were in group (a): the murdering ravenous community , from murdering and stealing , although it would still occur it allowed the idea of punishment for your sins/lawbreaking and possibly make you think twice about it with the impending punishment but if group (a) had no religion/laws and in fact if group (b) didnt have them either then you would have to murder and steal to survive as there is no controlling factor ,

Nonsense. You are using the typical pro-religious argument that morals only exist because of religion. By your argument I should be utterly immoral, as I have no imperative to act in any other way. But I know that murder is wrong, not because I've been taught that, but because the idea disgusts me to the core of my being. If I only thought it was bad because I thought I might be punished for it then I wouldn't feel any sadness when I hear someone has died or been murdered. As I do, I would counter that we have a basic sense of 'right' and 'wrong' that has developed via evolution.

Originally Posted by Thebigyin04

particularly as Morals are not innate, so if they are not innate they are controlled by your environment , but wheres the starting point.

Only they ARE innate, in a very basic form. The starting point is simply survival of the fittest. The concept is startlingly easy and I don't understand why you're having so much trouble with it.

Originally Posted by Thebigyin04

i am going to stop here because i am tired i am actually not even sure if this example makes any sense anymore .. it does to me , but then i know where i am coming from

Well, I'm glad you know where you're coming from, cos after that I haven't a clue if you even understand the basic concepts.