Someone explain religion to me

Gymnotide

8377 | Scorpaeniform
  • 3,596
    Posts
    17
    Years
    ITT: If someone could enlighten me, I'd be grateful.
    I used to be agnostic, but I'm leaning more toward the atheist side nowadays.

    IMPORTANT. PLEASE READ:

    This is probably the most risque thread I have ever made, so if you are easily offended, I would prefer it if you left yourself out of this discussion.

    First off, I'd like to state my views. Also note that what I say is not intended to change the views of others in any way, nor do I view my argument as the great truth. In addition, what I say about religion does not embody the entire spirit, nor the norm of religious people. Finally, I am not singling out any single religion, though it seems that Christianity / Catholicism finds itself on the top of the roster because of how undeniably influential it is, as well as how "outspoken" its followers tend to be; a lot of my points apply to other religions too.


    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

    • Religion causes problems. Just having religion exist causes problems because it makes people have conflicting views. I understand that people may believe what they will, but in many cases, it causes a rift between religious groups, other religious groups, and non-religious groups. Even in olden times it caused many struggles and birth many discriminatory sentiments within nations. I wouldn't be an atheist if religion didn't exist.
    • It's simpler without religion. This picture embodies my views perfectly: https://www.myconfinedspace.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/occams-razor-on-religion-500x379.jpg
    • Religion was great back in the day... Not so much now. Back when people were confused and separated, they found a means to both explain the world and unite it. Nowadays, there isn't much point to it as far as I can tell. Now, we have a better understanding of the world and we have much larger societies.
    • Religious fallacies aren't unheard of. There are a lot of things that are wrong in religious scriptures. Incorrect assumptions are made here and there, so how do people know that their religion is absolute in respect to other things?
    • Why don't gods "speak" to us now? If gods can speak to prophets / oracles, etc., why don't they speak to people nowadays? What proof do we have that anything written down is the truth?
    • Religious people can do bad things too. It's true. The concept of "salvation" is flawed if even people who believe can still commit atrocities.
    • Militant religious individuals are disruptive. I understand that there are also militant atheists, protesters, and the like. However, it's really unnerving to have a line of people in your train station with stern faces, staring into your soul, telling you to convert or else you will die on a supposed "judgment day." Yes, this happened to me. One of them even had the nerve to hand out one of their fanatical flyers to a small child too. Again, I'm not saying all religious people are like this, but it's hell annoying. In addition, religion tends to force itself on to the next generation. If the next generation doesn't comply, then the parent generation will sometimes scorn the children, which makes no sense to me anyway.
    • Religion impedes human development. A lot of religious ideas revolve around tradition, not merely in a familial sense, but in a societal sense. A lot of things imply the need to stay the same and halt all developments, such as in superficial debates like marriage, and things with more gravitas, such as biological research. Often, religion brings back ideas from the dark ages too, such as xenophobia towards those who don't share your views. This point is disadvantageous to everyone.
    • Religion is a form of self-denial. Religion relinquishes oneself to a "higher power" that is not even known to exist 100%. I don't get it. From what I understand, religion is merely a way to cope with the fear of the world, just like it was in more archaic religions, such as in Ancient Greece or Egypt.
    • You can have morals and hope without religion. I don't think this point needs much explaining. Sure, religion has compelled many to pursue "better" paths, according to societal standards, but people could have easily been well-doers without religion.
    • A "spiritual" world probably doesn't exist. What I mean here is that we do not know there is a "higher plane" that embodies more than what we can perceive with our eyes alone. From what we know, there is a physical world, but we aren't sure there's a spiritual world. Why do people believe in it?
    • "God" is manmade. From all we know, some guy had a thought and wrote down some random stories, and other people believed him. I understand the idea that "God" can also be a sentiment, rather than an actual being and that is basically the only idea I can respect without questioning it. However, what if someone came up to you and said "I am God"? Do you believe him? What if he came up to you with a dozen followers, who all agree that he is God? Does he have to prove himself? I feel that this is exactly how Christianity and the like work -- people who do not believe ask "Who is God?" and they get the response "An omnipotent being who we owe our lives to." which leads to "How do we know he exists? Can he prove that he exists?" which leads to "He doesn't need to prove himself. All we know is that he exists." This idea makes very little sense to me.
    • What about older religions, such as the belief in the Greek Pantheon or the Norse Mythos? They carry many ideas that are completely and 100% true, as well as ideas that convey a general sense of "goodness." Why are they wrong? We owe a lot to Greek philosophers, even if we now know that some of their ideas were wrong. If you think of their beliefs in a similar way to that of other religions (of deities as "concepts," rather than actual beings), then a lot of it isn't very far-fetched. Yes, Aphrodite is married to Ares because love and beauty ARE related to war (look at the Trojans!).
    • A lot is based on over-analyzing. A prime example is numerology. Just because you can go from one number to another and that number has a manmade significance doesn't mean there's a connection. A lot of talk in religion is based on over-analyzing texts and skewing them to make meaning -- just like a lot of tyrannical regimes in the past, but let's not name them.
     
    Last edited:
    You're right in your warning to this being a VERY risky thread, and you're going to divide the PCommunity A LOT! , but I must say, I agree to all your points.

    I'm a complete Atheist here. :3

    I have a friend who used to be Christian until she (and I quote, so don't hold ME to this!) "realised how much of it was just lies and fairy tales, and the rest was people over-analysing a book written by some random people who thought they could hear voices, thousands of years ago".
    I congratulated her. :3
     
    I've been thinking on this a lot recently. I was raised a Roman Catholic, and still believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ and the Apocalypse and all that, but I've become rather jaded at organized religion. It's served its purpose and it is now more or less obsolete, but I like to emphasize that some sort of spirituality is necessary for human existence.

    For those who ask, religion and spirituality aren't the same. Once can be spiritual and not be religious, and one can be religious but not be spiritual. Being spiritual means accepting that there are forces in this world that we will never fully understand and that they may have the ability to alter our fortunes if we just know where to look. In most religions, this manifests itself as their god(s). A spiritual person will take time during the day to pray and/or meditate in an attempt to channel these forces.

    Religion is when human pervert spirituality for the personal gain of the clergy. While Catholicism, at least its modern-day variant, isn't that bad in this regard, it was much worse during the middle ages and renaissance. The most corrupt modern-day religions would be non-denominational Christians. They take the spirituality out of religion and replace it with "do this, this, this, and this, and your immortal soul will be saved. By the way, did you know you have to pay to be a member of this congregation?"

    Personally, coming from a Catholic background. I believe in many of the facets of the religion itself, the divinity of Jesus Christ and the inevitability of the second coming being among them, but I don't think following a bunch of man-made dogma will help your chances of getting into Heaven very much. There is a rumor among biblical scholars that Jesus himself wrote a gospel. In it, he declared that the only place one needs to look to find God is within oneself. Take three wild guesses as to why early leaders of the church happened to omit that bit when they were compiling the Bible. >_>
     
    Last edited:
    Take three wild guesses as to why early leaders of the church happened to omit that bit when they were compiling the Bible. >_>

    Let's see... to make sure people actually come to their churches and give them money and such? >.<

    The same reason they tacked the "birth of Christ" onto an existing Roman festival based around sacrifice, rape and human-shaped cookies.

    I kid not.
     
    Let's see... to make sure people actually come to their churches and give them money and such? >.<

    The same reason they tacked the "birth of Christ" onto an existing Roman festival based around sacrifice, rape and human-shaped cookies.

    I kid not.

    I didn't literally mean for you to take a guess. I thought it was obvious enough, as evidenced by my sarcastic tone. XD

    Yeah, don't get me started on how every pagan festival now has a Christian counterpart...I actually don't mind that as much. Without that, we wouldn't have some awesome holidays like Christmas, Holloween, and Valentine's Day. XD
     
    My, I thought you'd never ask. ;)

    I'd like to state now that I was born and raised Roman Catholic. I was confirmed, went through 12 years of Sunday school, and even wanted to be a priest... until I reached the age of reason. Now, I'm a rather vigilant atheist and outspoken anti-religionist.

    I agree with all of your points, Gymnotide. I'd like to state that in my personal opinion organized religion is the single most dangerous entity to humankind that exists today. It has spawned bigotry, elitism, torture, terrorism and genocide. Think about it... almost all terrorism is founded on religion. "They hate us for our freedom" was the famous Bushism. Incorrect: the Muslim extremists hate us for purely religious reasons. Some of the most monstrous acts were founded on religion, including, but not limited to: the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Salem Witch Trials, the Holocaust, and even 9/11. There's an endless list.

    As a scientist, I'll always be fore technological and intellectual advancements. I mentioned on another thread that if the Vatican truly had its way, all us scientists would be burned at the stake. And that's not funny, because it's basically true. History shows it.

    See, religion spawns difference. But it's an illogical difference, not founded in race or color or heritage, and is therefor a difference that can have no "middle point" of understanding. It's a difference that inherently has a dangerous elitism attached. If someone is against your religion, or if they do not believe in it, or do something that is opposed by your religion, what? They go to Hell, they are sinners, they are below you. It's in the more extreme cases, such as Muslim extremists, that they view opposing their religion as punishable by death. That, to me, is absurd beyond comprehension.

    I often say that I believe [most] of the teachings of Jesus are wonderful. He's a great role model. I think everyone needs philosophy; but its the religious side that is dangerous. Get a lot of people together who believe in the same cause, and things will happen.

    I don't deny my attitude that the world would be a much better place without religion. I can accept Christian or Muslim or Jewish ideology (it's no different, philosophically, than someone who believes in Existentialism or Rationalism), but that's where it must end: a personal philosophy without a figurehead or promises of eternal life.

    For anyone who hasn't seen it, I highly suggest the documentary Religulous, with Bill Maher. It takes things and people to the absurd extreme (and Maher really isn't too too kind to these people), but it does show some of the absurdities that are encased in the religious showcase.

    Again, these are just my opinions!
     
    Why do I disagree with your argument?

    Because it stereotypes people and beliefs like crazy. Like, unless you change what you say you're fighting against (ie: organized religion instead of religion) you're stereotyping people and beliefs straight to the moon.

    From the point of view of an agnostic I can see exactly why I should be insulted. None of these opinions are justified for this particular religion! That's like walking up to an Italian man and accusing them of having a cult revolving around pipes and animal cruelty. Flat out ridiculous to the point of being hilarious, except it's not because you're serious.

    Tolerance, and happiness.
    You can't have only one.
     
    • Religion causes problems. Just having religion exist causes problems because it makes people have conflicting views. I understand that people may believe what they will, but in many cases, it causes a rift between religious groups, other religious groups, and non-religious groups. Even in olden times it caused many struggles and birth many discriminatory sentiments within nations. I wouldn't be an atheist if religion didn't exist.
    Correct me if I'm misinterpreting, but here's how I read your statement. "Because differences in opinion can cause conflict, nobody should have their own opinion." That's the single most horrifying thing I've ever heard.
    ...so? I don't really get how this is an argument against religion.
    • Religion was great back in the day... Not so much now. Back when people were confused and separated, they found a means to both explain the world and unite it. Nowadays, there isn't much point to it as far as I can tell. Now, we have a better understanding of the world and we have much larger societies.
    It gives some people a purpose, and better yet, hope that their actions actually mean something in the greater scheme of things. I fail to see how that's a bad thing. If you can find your own meaning, that's great. If you see meaning in your actions simply because of their value to others, splendid. However, some people find this through religion, and I see no reason to stop that.
    • Religious fallacies aren't unheard of. There are a lot of things that are wrong in religious scriptures. Incorrect assumptions are made here and there, so how do people know that their religion is absolute in respect to other things?
    • Why don't gods "speak" to us now? If gods can speak to prophets / oracles, etc., why don't they speak to people nowadays? What proof do we have that anything written down is the truth?
    Why does it matter? It really isn't about being right; if the answer was already known, it wouldn't really be faith, would it?
    • Religious people can do bad things too. It's true. The concept of "salvation" is flawed if even people who believe can still commit atrocities.
    • Militant religious individuals are disruptive. I understand that there are also militant atheists, protesters, and the like. However, it's really unnerving to have a line of people in your train station with stern faces, staring into your soul, telling you to convert or else you will die on a supposed "judgment day." Yes, this happened to me. One of them even had the nerve to hand out one of their fanatical flyers to a small child too. Again, I'm not saying all religious people are like this, but it's hell annoying. In addition, religion tends to force itself on to the next generation. If the next generation doesn't comply, then the parent generation will sometimes scorn the children, which makes no sense to me anyway.
    That's not an argument against religion, it's an argument against bad people. Some people only adhere to a moral code because of their belief in a higher power. Whether this is "more right" or not doesn't matter, it certainly prevents others from coming to harm, which I think is an inherently good thing.
    • Religion impedes human development. A lot of religious ideas revolve around tradition, not merely in a familial sense, but in a societal sense. A lot of things imply the need to stay the same and halt all developments, such as in superficial debates like marriage, and things with more gravitas, such as biological research. Often, religion brings back ideas from the dark ages too, such as xenophobia towards those who don't share your views. This point is disadvantageous to everyone.
    Forcing people to adhere to your moral code and traditions impedes human development, sure. Some religious people do this, granted, but can you really tell me that only religious people do that? North Korea is almost an entirely atheist nation (though they claim to have various religious denominations, as well), and yet their entire way of life revolves around tradition.
    • Religion is a form of self-denial. Religion relinquishes oneself to a "higher power" that is not even known to exist 100%. I don't get it. From what I understand, religion is merely a way to cope with the fear of the world, just like it was in more archaic religions, such as in Ancient Greece or Egypt.
    People find their own meaning in religion. I don't see how it's "self-denial," and if it's a way to cope with "fear of the world" or whatever, I fail to see how that's a bad thing.
    • You can have morals and hope without religion. I don't think this point needs much explaining. Sure, religion has compelled many to pursue "better" paths, according to societal standards, but people could have easily been well-doers without religion.
    Certainly you can, but some people find those things in religion.
    • A "spiritual" world probably doesn't exist. What I mean here is that we do not know there is a "higher plane" that embodies more than what we can perceive with our eyes alone. From what we know, there is a physical world, but we aren't sure there's a spiritual world. Why do people believe in it?
    For reasons mentioned earlier. People find their own reasons to believe in religion; it's a major part of the lives of many people.
    • "God" is manmade. From all we know, some guy had a thought and wrote down some random stories, and other people believed him. I understand the idea that "God" can also be a sentiment, rather than an actual being and that is basically the only idea I can respect without questioning it. However, what if someone came up to you and said "I am God"? Do you believe him? What if he came up to you with a dozen followers, who all agree that he is God? Does he have to prove himself? I feel that this is exactly how Christianity and the like work -- people who do not believe ask "Who is God?" and they get the response "An omnipotent being who we owe our lives to." which leads to "How do we know he exists? Can he prove that he exists?" which leads to "He doesn't need to prove himself. All we know is that he exists." This idea makes very little sense to me.
    I think a fair number of religious people would disagree with your assertion that God is "man-made."
    • What about older religions, such as the belief in the Greek Pantheon or the Norse Mythos? They carry many ideas that are completely and 100% true, as well as ideas that convey a general sense of "goodness." Why are they wrong? We owe a lot to Greek philosophers, even if we now know that some of their ideas were wrong. If you think of their beliefs in a similar way to that of other religions (of deities as "concepts," rather than actual beings), then a lot of it isn't very far-fetched. Yes, Aphrodite is married to Ares because love and beauty ARE related to war (look at the Trojans!).
    Again, I don't think it's a matter of correct vs incorrect. It's more an issue of what matters to people, and older religions just aren't really practiced anymore.
    • A lot is based on over-analyzing. A prime example is numerology. Just because you can go from one number to another and that number has a manmade significance doesn't mean there's a connection. A lot of talk in religion is based on over-analyzing texts and skewing them to make meaning -- just like a lot of tyrannical regimes in the past, but let's not name them.
    "Over-analyzing" implies that there's a correct amount of analyzation somewhere. If people find something, I don't see how "over-analyzation" has any relevance.
     
    Well I'm bored and am always up to debate religion, so here I go.

    Correct me if I'm misinterpreting, but here's how I read your statement. "Because differences in opinion can cause conflict, nobody should have their own opinion." That's the single most horrifying thing I've ever heard.

    Sounds like a generalization in the worst way one could think about it. More like saying like you don't like people arguing over which videogame console they like the most because it leads to fights, so you refrain from buying any of them. Then again, aren't most religions, *cough* Christianity *cough*, have their answer to solving problems is that everyone be their religion? Sounds like the

    ...so? I don't really get how this is an argument against religion.

    Religion is so spread out like the picture shows, its unnecessarily complex?

    It gives some people a purpose, and better yet, hope that their actions actually mean something in the greater scheme of things. I fail to see how that's a bad thing. If you can find your own meaning, that's great. If you see meaning in your actions simply because of their value to others, splendid. However, some people find this through religion, and I see no reason to stop that.

    A person shouldn't need those in my opinion. It looks like a crutch to someone like me. People don't need it. Back when we didn't have throughout, self-checking ways to find answers to why, it helped a lot more.

    Why does it matter? It really isn't about being right; if the answer was already known, it wouldn't really be faith, would it?

    Then why does almost every single religion tell you that everything in it is an absolute fact?

    That's not an argument against religion, it's an argument against bad people. Some people only adhere to a moral code because of their belief in a higher power. Whether this is "more right" or not doesn't matter, it certainly prevents others from coming to harm, which I think is an inherently good thing.

    I thinks that more addresses the idea that many religions demonize and call out anyone not belonging to their religion as immoral.

    Forcing people to adhere to your moral code and traditions impedes human development, sure. Some religious people do this, granted, but can you really tell me that only religious people do that? North Korea is almost an entirely atheist nation (though they claim to have various religious denominations, as well), and yet their entire way of life revolves around tradition.

    North Korea is a religion of sorts, they treat their leader (can't remember name) like a God and truly believe he is a being of that sorts. Their isolation let them do this. It allows for strict obedience and such. So all in all, that's a terrible example to support your point.

    People find their own meaning in religion. I don't see how it's "self-denial," and if it's a way to cope with "fear of the world" or whatever, I fail to see how that's a bad thing.

    I think he means that people are often only religious because the world isn't perfect and the idea of there being a place like that somewhere, and waiting for them, is the main reason anyone would do it in the first place. I personally can't think of any other major reasons someone would legitimately join one otherwise, but if you can, be my guest.

    Certainly you can, but some people find those things in religion.

    Applies to something I said ealier

    For reasons mentioned earlier. People find their own reasons to believe in religion; it's a major part of the lives of many people.

    Right...

    I think a fair number of religious people would disagree with your assertion that God is "man-made."

    After that they'd be incapable of backing up their statement any more than his was. So, your point?

    Again, I don't think it's a matter of correct vs incorrect. It's more an issue of what matters to people, and older religions just aren't really practiced anymore.

    It really is. Would religion even exist without that being its main goal? No, it wouldn't.

    "Over-analyzing" implies that there's a correct amount of analyzation somewhere. If people find something, I don't see how "over-analyzation" has any relevance.

    You can analyze to the point that you find something thats not there. Its like one argument I've heard that the world is too complex to be random. Its illogical, because they have no way of knowing how complex is too complex to be random.
     
    Now I argue with you purely with the reasons that most of your arguments here tend to revolve around Christianity. I have no qualms personally against Christianity, but you cannot associate the actions or beliefs of a single religion (or extremist/deviant faction) with other world religions since. For instance, disregarding conspiracy theories, you cannot say that 9/11 proves that religion in general is a cause of violence nor can you say that the dark ages of scientific repression prove that every single religion oppose technological advances. Before I go any further, I'm making it clear that I am a Sunni Muslim and that I use the 9/11 example and the dark ages example purely because I want to avoid bias in my opening statements since that's counter to your arguments. My arguments from here on, however, are based on Islam since that's what I was raised with, that's what I was educated in, and that's the religion I believe in.

    Religion causes problems. Just having religion exist causes problems because it makes people have conflicting views. I understand that people may believe what they will, but in many cases, it causes a rift between religious groups, other religious groups, and non-religious groups. Even in olden times it caused many struggles and birth many discriminatory sentiments within nations. I wouldn't be an atheist if religion didn't exist.
    I don't deny this. However, you may also argue that the converse of what you're saying can be applied here too. If everybody in the world had a similar religion, problems wouldn't be as rampant as they are now. Religion isn't the problem, the people who first deviated from the true religion are. I'm being very liberal here not naming one religion because I'm avoiding bias as I've mentioned.

    It's simpler without religion. This picture embodies my views perfectly: https://www.myconfinedspace.com/wp-co...on-500x379.jpg
    This is purely based on a religious understanding of the Christian system. In Islam, while we do have two distinct schools of thought when it comes to religion, I look at it as more political than religious. The rift in religious practices between the Sunni and Shia happened because of politics. Kind of like liberals and conservatives.

    Religion was great back in the day... Not so much now. Back when people were confused and separated, they found a means to both explain the world and unite it. Nowadays, there isn't much point to it as far as I can tell. Now, we have a better understanding of the world and we have much larger societies.
    There is a saying that goes,
    "We've been to the moon and back and traversed vast distances to reach distant lands on this earth. And yet, we cannot even take a few steps towards our neighbor's house?"
    I don't know who said this, it may only be circulated in Malaysia, but it holds a lot of truth. People aren't as close as they were hundreds of years ago due to rapid modernization and the solitary lifestyles created from it. Among other things, religion brings people together as a community. Friday afternoons at the mosque, Sunday mornings at church, synagogues, temples, they all bring people together as a community. Religion gives meaning to life, religion sets a definite moral guideline, religion keeps us together, and so much more. This is a Muslim's view and it may be true for Christianity and Judaism too. Incidentally, the meaning of life in Islam, besides prayers and the like, is to learn and marvel at the wonders of nature and the world in which we live.

    Religious fallacies aren't unheard of. There are a lot of things that are wrong in religious scriptures. Incorrect assumptions are made here and there, so how do people know that their religion is absolute in respect to other things?
    Again, unless I'm mistaken in that you've done your research, show me where in the Quran do you find these fallacies. And unbiased view that hasn't been taken out of context in somebody's blog. I am in no position to argue for Christians here and that is why I ask you for mistakes in the Quran.

    Why don't gods "speak" to us now? If gods can speak to prophets / oracles, etc., why don't they speak to people nowadays? What proof do we have that anything written down is the truth?
    Again from an Islamic perspective, Muhammad was considered the seal of the prophets and the final prophet till Judgment Day. In Islam, the birth of Muhammad is a minor sign of Judgment Day and from then till now, God has remained silent except to a select few to test our faith. Now, a good counter-argument I've seen many atheists –and Christians—give is, 'Why would God want to test us?' or, and this one only from atheists, "Why would God even want us here?" The only counter I can come up to that is, 'Who are we to know the plan of the divine?" This is a weak argument, I know, but it serves to show that the whole concept of religion is also based on the assumption that God has a reason for creating the universe and telling us how to behave. Assuming of course, that God does indeed exist and God lies outside of our universe and thus is not subject to our universal rules of logic, it is safe to assume that there are certain things that we cannot, unless give the will to by God, understand.

    Religious people can do bad things too. It's true. The concept of "salvation" is flawed if even people who believe can still commit atrocities.
    Whoever said they couldn't? The whole idea of religion is to set a behavioral guideline that humans are tasked with upholding. Without religion, the only thing stopping people from committing crimes is a vague sense of conscience that varies from person to person. You can't very well tell a psychopath that killing people is wrong because you feel it is. Religion provides a somewhat definite guide to this.

    Militant religious individuals are disruptive. I understand that there are also militant atheists, protesters, and the like. However, it's really unnerving to have a line of people in your train station with stern faces, staring into your soul, telling you to convert or else you will die on a supposed "judgment day." Yes, this happened to me. One of them even had the nerve to hand out one of their fanatical flyers to a small child too. Again, I'm not saying all religious people are like this, but it's hell annoying. In addition, religion tends to force itself on to the next generation. If the next generation doesn't comply, then the parent generation will sometimes scorn the children, which makes no sense to me anyway.
    Allow me to rephrase that. Certain militant religious individuals are disruptive. The keyword here is certain. In proper Islam, you preach (Da'wa) the smart way. You don't make people see that this religion is the right path, you allow them to understand that by themselves.
    Religion impedes human development. A lot of religious ideas revolve around tradition, not merely in a familial sense, but in a societal sense. A lot of things imply the need to stay the same and halt all developments, such as in superficial debates like marriage, and things with more gravitas, such as biological research. Often, religion brings back ideas from the dark ages too, such as xenophobia towards those who don't share your views. This point is disadvantageous to everyone.
    This is mostly based on human interpretation of religious scriptures which is oftentimes flawed. Islam was a major driving force for scientific development because to strive for knowledge is seen as a righteous thing to do in Islam. The only thing in Islam that needs to stay the same is observance of the religion. In no way can I see that it impedes human development except for where it conflicts with the safety of humanity.

    Religion is a form of self-denial. Religion relinquishes oneself to a "higher power" that is not even known to exist 100%. I don't get it. From what I understand, religion is merely a way to cope with the fear of the world, just like it was in more archaic religions, such as in Ancient Greece or Egypt.
    Though the basis for believing is there since you cannot prove that it doesn't exist.
    You can have morals and hope without religion.I don't think this point needs much explaining. Sure, religion has compelled many to pursue "better" paths, according to societal standards, but people could have easily been well-doers without religion.
    This is, again, based on humanity's vague notion of righteousness. Who can say what's right or wrong? English laws state that you can't die in the house of parliament. How many people agree with that?
    A "spiritual" world probably doesn't exist. What I mean here is that we do not know there is a "higher plane" that embodies more than what we can perceive with our eyes alone. From what we know, there is a physical world, but we aren't sure there's a spiritual world. Why do people believe in it?
    The key word here, again, is probably. Quantum physics dictates that there are more dimensions that we cannot comprehend. If you disagree with even that statement, you cannot disprove the existence of such worlds either.

    "God" is manmade.From all we know, some guy had a thought and wrote down some random stories, and other people believed him. I understand the idea that "God" can also be a sentient, rather than an actual being and that is basically the only idea I can respect without questioning it. However, what if someone came up to you and said "I am God"? Do you believe him? What if he came up to you with a dozen followers, who all agree that he is God? Does he have to prove himself? I feel that this is exactly how Christianity and the like work -- people who do not believe ask "Who is God?" and they get the response "An omnipotent being who we owe our lives to." which leads to "How do we know he exists? Can he prove that he exists?" which leads to "He doesn't need to prove himself. All we know is that he exists." This idea makes very little sense to me.
    But you cannot disprove it either.

    I'm not going to bother with your final two points. They're a tad irrelevant to me at least.
     
    Is religion really what you have a problem with, or just the form in which you notice those problems? I'm going to replace instances of religion you make with 'government' or something similar.

    • Government causes problems.
    • It's simpler without government.
    • Government was great back in the day... Not so much now.
    • Government fallacies aren't unheard of.
    • Why don't politicians "speak" to us now?
    • Government people can do bad things too.
    • Militant governments are disruptive.
    • Government impedes human development.
    • Government is a form of self-denial.
    • You can have morals and hope without government.
    • A good government probably doesn't exist.
    • Government is man made.
    See what I'm getting at? You can look at those questions and statements and they don't seem so unreasonable at face value. You could go into depth on many of them, too. After all, look at the problems government has caused the people or North Korea, for example.

    Now, I'm not anti-government by a long shot (Nor am I religious, just for the record). I see plenty of reasons to keep government around despite what many have done in the past and many still do today. I could rail against government if that were my target of choice and talk about how in theory we wouldn't need government, but that's more of a if-we-lived-in-a-perfect-world kind of idea.

    Now I'm loosing my train of thought so I'll just leave with what I said in the beginning: is religion what you have a problem with or just where you see those problems?
     
    [*] Religion causes problems. Just having religion exist causes problems because it makes people have conflicting views. I understand that people may believe what they will, but in many cases, it causes a rift between religious groups, other religious groups, and non-religious groups. Even in olden times it caused many struggles and birth many discriminatory sentiments within nations. I wouldn't be an atheist if religion didn't exist.
    Everything causes problems. There are differing opinions and beliefs on all kinds of things outside of religion. Politics, race, sexuality, disability, gender, economics, language, heritage. People simply just don't like each other very much. I would fault individuals here not the religion.

    [*] It's simpler without religion. This picture embodies my views perfectly: https://www.myconfinedspace.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/occams-razor-on-religion-500x379.jpg
    What's the "it" that's simpler? Your life? Everyone's life? I'm not following the chart. Most people don't fall into multiple denominations. So how is their life any more complicated believing their one thing than the atheists who believes their one thing? And it'd be boring if the entire world was all the same thing, be it atheism or any specific denomination of any specific religion. What a horrible lack of culture and diversity there would be in society. And all those divisions among denominations? All they really boil down to are technicalities and matters of authority. Not so much religious belief, but rather the nature of organized religion.

    And there are varying degrees of non-belief as well.

    [*] Religion was great back in the day... Not so much now. Back when people were confused and separated, they found a means to both explain the world and unite it. Nowadays, there isn't much point to it as far as I can tell. Now, we have a better understanding of the world and we have much larger societies.
    I'm religious, but I don't look to religion for answers (about the world or history, which is what I'm assuming you're referring to). For me, science is factual and history is wonderful. I merely believe that there is a higher power beyond me (as well Jesus his son, the Messiah). Doesn't change what is known through science or history for me at all. Nothing that's true or known to have happened is overwritten by it. So, what's the issue?

    If you look at religion for answers, then what should be examined or seeked is what cannot yet be explained. Sort of like temporary knowledge. It gives you an answer until actual answers are provided. We used to think that the world was flat, now we don't. If people still believe otherwise, that's their problem. Ignorance is independent of religion. Since you're adamant on Christianity (specifically Catholicism)... The Church defers to science on certain things. The Church feels that its teachings and evolutionary fact/theory are not in conflict. The Church is fine with the Big Bang Theory. And in fact the theory was first proposed by a Roman Catholic priest. In reference to global warming, the Church has stated that our world leaders must make efforts to save the planet. So....the Church adapts. Ignorance and failure to do adapt by follows is their own fault.

    [*] Religious fallacies aren't unheard of. There are a lot of things that are wrong in religious scriptures. Incorrect assumptions are made here and there, so how do people know that their religion is absolute in respect to other things?
    Dunno. But again...that's an individual thing. I'm religious and I don't believe all of what is written. Faith and blind faith are different. Religion and organized religion are different. And different religions believe different things and to varying degrees. So, to lump it all together as if we're all ignorant, as if we're all believing things blindly, and if we all follow incorrect assumptions, or believe that religion is absolute is, well.... an incorrect assumption on your part isn't it?

    [*] Why don't gods "speak" to us now? If gods can speak to prophets / oracles, etc., why don't they speak to people nowadays? What proof do we have that anything written down is the truth?
    We don't have proof. Which is why its religion. Faith. Belief. What have you. It's belief. That's the nature of it. But if you want an "actual" answer, even if I don't necessarily subscribe to it... It looks like God speaks to a lot of people in the Bible because its all concentrated. Think of how many people he actually talks to versus not for all the many years that the Bible covers. It's minute. It's not as if God was just striking up conversations every which way and now isn't. Long gaps. Also, the New Covenant kinda takes away the point of God contacting anyone for we all now, apparently, inherently know him. Doesn't need to prove stuff to specific individuals anymore.

    [*] Religious people can do bad things too. It's true. The concept of "salvation" is flawed if even people who believe can still commit atrocities.
    Non-religious people can do bad things too. It's true.

    Salvation is supposed to be a "gift". Anyone *can* get it, but that doesn't mean that they will. There is nothing one can do to merit it (in the sense that you can't earn fake brownie points). So...I'm not following you. People, religious or not, can still commit atrocities, and they face the consequences in a number of ways be it socially, historically, legally, etc. In this argument, you may be saved, you may not. You're not guaranteed anything because you claim to believe.

    [*] Militant religious individuals are disruptive. I understand that there are also militant atheists, protesters, and the like. However, it's really unnerving to have a line of people in your train station with stern faces, staring into your soul, telling you to convert or else you will die on a supposed "judgment day." Yes, this happened to me. One of them even had the nerve to hand out one of their fanatical flyers to a small child too. Again, I'm not saying all religious people are like this, but it's hell annoying. In addition, religion tends to force itself on to the next generation. If the next generation doesn't comply, then the parent generation will sometimes scorn the children, which makes no sense to me anyway.
    Yeah, that is annoying. But so are, perhaps not you, atheists who try to convince you that you're wrong as well. So, it goes all around.

    As for the generation stuff, part organized religion and part tradition. I was baptized. I certainly didn't have a choice in the matter. Understandable though I think. First off it was a sacrament. Second, at the time, the idea was that should the baby unfortunately pass on, that they could go to heaven rather than be stuck in limbo. (This has since changed). And coming from a Mediterranean family, I think it was more of a celebration than anything. A big dinner with family. Kinda like how the party has become the focal point of weddings. A big, fun, celebratory tradition with friends and family. If I defected or converted later on, I don't feel that my family would scorn me, or shun me, exile me, or anything of the sort. Why would they? Why should they? We're not against any other religions (or lack of religion). Just be who you want to be. If I converted to Judaism. We'd probably still have big celebrations for whatever Jewish traditions I'd be undertaking.

    If you have unloving, unaccepting parents or parents without understanding, well sucks for you. But like all your other examples, I blame the individuals. A lot of it is culture, yes; but you're not bound to it. Jesus was all about love and forgiveness and treating others how you would want to be treated, so how religion would teach you to scorn someone is beyond me. The extremes of anything, be it religion, politics, or anything else, on either end, does not define everybody else involved. People interpret things differently. People believe different things. People have different traditions. I know of horrible cases. Does that make it the norm or the same situation for everyone? No, not at all.

    [*] Religion impedes human development. A lot of religious ideas revolve around tradition, not merely in a familial sense, but in a societal sense. A lot of things imply the need to stay the same and halt all developments, such as in superficial debates like marriage, and things with more gravitas, such as biological research. Often, religion brings back ideas from the dark ages too, such as xenophobia towards those who don't share your views. This point is disadvantageous to everyone.
    I know this exists. Its unfortunately. But, again, I don't feel that the norm or the point of religion. And even if it were, this is why we have the notion of separation of church and state.

    I'll bring up Catholicism again, since that's my faith and you centred it out in your introduction. Vatican II put for that the Church and the world of politics should be independent of one another. The Pope recently stressed the importance (and somehow attributed it specifically to Christianity, which I don't quite understand) of separation of church and state.

    [*] Religion is a form of self-denial. Religion relinquishes oneself to a "higher power" that is not even known to exist 100%. I don't get it. From what I understand, religion is merely a way to cope with the fear of the world, just like it was in more archaic religions, such as in Ancient Greece or Egypt.
    Nor is it known to not exist 100%. Which is why it is a belief.

    I have free will. I have autonomy. I make my own decisions. I live my own life. I believe in God. I'm not relinquishing myself to anyone. Fate is not a Catholic (or Christian too in general, I'm assuming) concept. The idea is that God, being the creator, knows everything that will happen through the knowledge of all eternity, but does not determine it. Sort of like how we have technology that predicts the weather and natural disasters based on past data and information. We know its going to rain because it will rain, but it won't rain because we know it will rain. God permits us to do whatever we want, even sin, and we do.

    To an extent, its a comfort thing, yes. I agree with that. I addressed that early with the idea of getting "answers" to what is not yet known. Humans are afraid of the unknown. They'll inherently tend to take any answer they can get.

    [*] You can have morals and hope without religion. I don't think this point needs much explaining. Sure, religion has compelled many to pursue "better" paths, according to societal standards, but people could have easily been well-doers without religion.
    Yep. I agree. No problems here.

    [*] A "spiritual" world probably doesn't exist. What I mean here is that we do not know there is a "higher plane" that embodies more than what we can perceive with our eyes alone. From what we know, there is a physical world, but we aren't sure there's a spiritual world. Why do people believe in it?
    Because that's the nature of belief. We don't know that it doesn't exist either. As much as we hang on to the idea of "innocent until to proven guilty", I would wager that people watching from home feel that the individual is guilty until proven innocent. So, for those who believe in heaven or similar, they want to proof that it doesn't exist, not the reverse. Like Santa Claus.

    The idea of the spiritual world - the after-life, is an ancient concept. It is deeply rooted in various manifestation throughout history. The idea won't go away so easily without some reason to.

    [*] "God" is manmade. From all we know, some guy had a thought and wrote down some random stories, and other people believed him. I understand the idea that "God" can also be a sentiment, rather than an actual being and that is basically the only idea I can respect without questioning it. However, what if someone came up to you and said "I am God"? Do you believe him? What if he came up to you with a dozen followers, who all agree that he is God? Does he have to prove himself? I feel that this is exactly how Christianity and the like work -- people who do not believe ask "Who is God?" and they get the response "An omnipotent being who we owe our lives to." which leads to "How do we know he exists? Can he prove that he exists?" which leads to "He doesn't need to prove himself. All we know is that he exists." This idea makes very little sense to me.
    I don't "know" that he exists. I "believe" that he exists. Look at the Apostle's Creed or the Nicene Creed. They don't start off with "I know", they begin with "I believe". This is religion. It is all based on belief. The definition of God is an omnipotent creator. So...I don't know what to you if you don't like the definition. I'm not fond of Orcas commonly being called whales when they're actually related to dolphins. So, whatever floats your boat I guess.

    [*] What about older religions, such as the belief in the Greek Pantheon or the Norse Mythos? They carry many ideas that are completely and 100% true, as well as ideas that convey a general sense of "goodness." Why are they wrong? We owe a lot to Greek philosophers, even if we now know that some of their ideas were wrong. If you think of their beliefs in a similar way to that of other religions (of deities as "concepts," rather than actual beings), then a lot of it isn't very far-fetched. Yes, Aphrodite is married to Ares because love and beauty ARE related to war (look at the Trojans!).
    I don't see philosophy as religion, but okay. Philosophy is philosophy. And I don't have a problem with it.

    Ancient religions, the Pantheon, Norse mythology, etc. Don't know what to tell ya. Religions "go out of style" so to speak after while I guess. I wouldn't necessarily call them or any other religion, or lack of religion wrong. Just that I believe something else instead. I don't tout one religion over another. Organized religion may. And that, I guess, is so that they don't end up like Norse mythology. Keep the interest going.

    [*] A lot is based on over-analyzing. A prime example is numerology. Just because you can go from one number to another and that number has a manmade significance doesn't mean there's a connection. A lot of talk in religion is based on over-analyzing texts and skewing them to make meaning -- just like a lot of tyrannical regimes in the past, but let's not name them.
    I don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about. Wouldn't overanalyzing and numbers and what not go more in the conspiracy theory da Vinci Code camp?
     
    Last edited:
    N

    But you cannot disprove it either.

    Okay, this is actually something that has perplexed me for a long time with religion. The whole idea of shaking arguments against off because it can't being proven false is just weird to me. Why believe something that can't be proven true to you? Fear? Greed? Desperation? Indoctrination? And its not just believing it in the first place, its the idea that yours is more valid than others. Why? Because your parents believed in it or something? How would that make it any more valid than the many other religions out there? A person's religion who compel people to take the stance that you can't disprove it just means that they have no way of proving their's is more likely than others.
     
    Gymnotide, I want to answer your questions but I haven't come to a satisfactory way of expressing them to you as of yet. It's be easier for me to speak in person, but that more than likely will not happen. I'll attempt to provide some input later (I'm not a flake, really!). Your phrasing seems kind of odd to me, though. It doesn't seem general enough to apply to "religion", as much as "certain religions". Christianity primarily, with elements of the other Abrahamic religions.
     
    Well I'm bored and am always up to debate religion, so here I go.
    You didn't exactly make it easy for me to respond to you by nesting that quote, so I'll just generalize. The things that weren't really arguments to begin with, like complexity, still aren't arguments. It doesn't really matter how complex it is, that's not good or bad, it's more just irrelevant. I don't see why you or anyone should decide what people need to get by; I'm pretty sure people figure that out themselves, and if they're satisfied with it, that's hardly a bad thing. And religion has always been around, ever since man has, regardless of what perspective you take; assuming the evolutionist approach that I assume you take, early on man speculated as to why some things happened and invented religion as an answer. You say that many religious people and religions are intolerant of others, but you fail to recognize that probably more are not this way at all. I'm an atheist, and I volunteer at a local church sometimes to help out; I've never had someone pressure me or make me feel uncomfortable at all. And religion would not have existed initially without the goal of explaining how things work, but these days it means a lot more to people than just how everything came to be.

    As for arguments about the validity of various religions, there are plenty of people who study creation science, among other things, who could probably explain quite well how their version of events is completely logical far better than I could; try Googling around and seeing what you find.
     
    You didn't exactly make it easy for me to respond to you by nesting that quote, so I'll just generalize. The things that weren't really arguments to begin with, like complexity, still aren't arguments. It doesn't really matter how complex it is, that's not good or bad, it's more just irrelevant. I don't see why you or anyone should decide what people need to get by; I'm pretty sure people figure that out themselves, and if they're satisfied with it, that's hardly a bad thing. And religion has always been around, ever since man has, regardless of what perspective you take; assuming the evolutionist approach that I assume you take, early on man speculated as to why some things happened and invented religion as an answer. You say that many religious people and religions are intolerant of others, but you fail to recognize that probably more are not this way at all. I'm an atheist, and I volunteer at a local church sometimes to help out; I've never had someone pressure me or make me feel uncomfortable at all. And religion would not have existed initially without the goal of explaining how things work, but these days it means a lot more to people than just how everything came to be.

    As for arguments about the validity of various religions, there are plenty of people who study creation science, among other things, who could probably explain quite well how their version of events is completely logical far better than I could; try Googling around and seeing what you find.

    What is needed is what is basic requirements happen to be to acheive the goal, in this case: satisfaction with their life. Do these people need religion to find satisfaction with their life? In most cases, no, they just are using one of the most common fallback options that gives a false sense of satisfaction (Many of the things like the morality and charities can easily be done without), though I do admit you could probably find a few outside that spectrum. A person can have a preference, but what is needed is never a choice.

    When did I say that I thought they were intolerant? I looked back, and I can't find it... I know a good number of religious people who are like the ones you implied. That's all fine, though then you'll have the deep-rooted believers who's voice always seems to be a bit louder. They will cause conflict. That's how it always has been.

    As for that it means a lot more, I honestly have no idea what there is that wouldn't directly link to explaining how things work.

    I've looked. I've seen stuff on creation science, which in my opinion is just a ridiculous attempt to try and combine modern science and religion, with the ladder having no right to be there in the first place. Though yes, I'd prefer another person to answer that. I just wonder what the thought process could be on those. I doubt every single religious person would be well informed of their creation science or whichever.
     
    Okay, this is actually something that has perplexed me for a long time with religion. The whole idea of shaking arguments against off because it can't being proven false is just weird to me.
    Because most of us here live with "innocent until proven guilty". ie. you're the one's saying it doesn't exist, prove that it doesn't.

    Why believe something that can't be proven true to you?
    That's why it's called "belief". We can believe in anything that we want to, because belief is a personal thing. I'm willing to bet you believe in something that hasn't been proven true. :D

    And its not just believing it in the first place, its the idea that yours is more valid than others. Why? Because your parents believed in it or something? How would that make it any more valid than the many other religions out there? A person's religion who compel people to take the stance that you can't disprove it just means that they have no way of proving their's is more likely than others.
    This is just a nasty generalisation. I don't believe my [Christianity] is any better than Buddhism or any other religion. There's no proof that any religion is more likely than another; all people have equal right to believe in whatever they want.

    @Gymnotide, unfortunately, most of those are true. Yes, religion causes problems, yes, life is simpler without it, but it is there. The core elements of all religions are simply belief in your chosen god(s). People have found a way to mess with this to make religion important. It doesn't need to be, but it is. It has power, even though no religion deserves it.
     
    I will defend my point a little later but here is the abridged form for now:

    Religion, despite all it's faults gives something for people to believe in.
     
    Back
    Top