Yeah, there's really no point to being religious just because someone told you "this is the way to go!" Most people just claim to be that way because it's what their family or friends told them, or just because that's what they're used to. Those aren't good reasons :oP
| |
This discussion has been had here before but I'll mention it again anyway...science has improved life immeasurably for this century. Starting with dentistry. That's true, the quality of life for some people may have improved, by science still isn't solving any global problems, and tends to make them worse as often as it does make them better. When science stops, for example, war, earthquakes, starvation, and above all death - then I'd be impressed. | |
When science stops, for example, war, earthquakes, starvation, and above all death - then I'd be impressed. The world's food distribution is steadily improving, third-world countries are being modernised and are showing drastic improvements in health and life expectancy, the nations of the U.N. are almost assured never to engage in armed conflict with each other, and science has allowed us to make predictions on earthquakes when even but 100 years ago people could only guess. Death is something that science never can and never will circumvent, though. But neither will religion -- you can be the most devout follower of God and still die. Whether that's eternal death or just a phase before the afterlife is irrelevant... | |
Foomer wrote:
When science stops, for example, war, earthquakes, starvation, and above all death - then I'd be impressed. Just a couple of decades ago, we were told that by now most people would be starving on the planet. Why didn't it happen? Because science came up with ways to improve wheat yields, most importantly, along with many other food efficiency improvements. Millions and millions and millions of people are alive today that would not be otherwise. We may not solve the death one, but we've doubled life expectancy in many areas in just over 100 years. Given the span of human history, that's incredible progress in a very short time, and it hasn't stopped yet. They are learning huge amounts about the aging process now. In many cases they don't know if they can extend maximum life span much, but they are getting really good at ways to ensure that the life people have is lived maximally. For example, artificial hips and knees...these have dramatically improved life for seniors. Now people who just years ago would be bed-wridden or stuck in a wheelchair are walking on their own power and leading full lives. Often this sort of thing triples or quadruples the enjoyable time a person can have after typical retirement age. I'm always amused at "science has been a failure" type arguments. I hear them all the time...and I wonder what people coming from 100, 200, and 300 years in the past would think of this argument if they got to see how things are now. | |
Foomer wrote:
Yeah, there's really no point to being religious just because someone told you "this is the way to go!" Most people just claim to be that way because it's what their family or friends told them, or just because that's what they're used to. Those aren't good reasons :oP But what else is there to go on? Faith? If your religion is right because it "feels right" to you, then either you're very special, or everyone who "feels right" about their take on religion is equally right... including the people who feel that there is no active supernatural force in their lives. We all know what the not good reasons are. What are the good reasons? | |
(Yes, I'm aware that Catholics and Protestants are both Christian) Try getting many Catholics and Protestants to agree to this! | |
But what else is there to go on? Faith? There are plenty of ways to actually study things which most religions are based off. It's funny to find out how much they've goofed up their original intent; Christianity for example has pretty much screwed up everything related to being Christian, and I'm sure the Muslim religion wasn't intended for blowing people up. Faith is all well and good, but actual knowledge is the best way to go. | |
So you determine what the original intent of Christianity or Islam or Buddhism is... now, what's your reason for following it? If you have knowledge of a lot of religions, how do you determine which one to follow? What's your basis for determining whether the "original" form of a religion is better to follow than the modern incarnation?
What it comes down to is: regardless of what you're going on, it's you making the determination of what is the absolute moral truth and what isn't. Whether the "moral compass" you use to tell the Truth from falsehood is God-given, or God doesn't enter into the equation, in the end, you're no more or less rudderless than anyone else... | |
Lesbian Assassin wrote:
(Yes, I'm aware that Catholics and Protestants are both Christian) Im a Catholic and I agree with it. =P. Of course you said many, I am only one. Oh well. I am not even a strict Catholic. | |
Gughunter wrote:
At any rate, many people can function and live fulfilled, productive lives while believing that the Earth and its residents are a happy, if meaningless, accident resulting from a completely unguided process. That would include me... Basically sums up my entire belief on the matter... Just thought I'd share...lol | |
Lesbian Assassin wrote:
(Yes, I'm aware that Catholics and Protestants are both Christian) My favorite quote from the Gulf War was an "on the street" interview session in the US, with the reporter getting reactions to whether we should go to war. One woman said, "Well, we don't worship the same God, so it seems reasonable." Logic aside, her theology was also rather questionable... | |
My favorite quote from the Gulf War was an "on the street" interview session in the US, with the reporter getting reactions to whether we should go to war. One woman said, "Well, we don't worship the same God, so it seems reasonable." Heh. It is somewhat amusing that almost all of the modern-day religions -- organised, once more to qualify -- of the Earth are monotheistic. If such a deity really does exist, it's pretty darned likely that they're all just worshipping the same one in different ways. =P Polytheism is definitely the way to go! Then you can be guaranteed that you're original. ;-) | |
I don't think the light at the end of the tunnel really came from any religion. No religious book or teaching that I know of says you will walk/float/whatever down a dark tunnel towards light. People may see it as the basis for support of some sort of afterlife but it really isn't closely connected to a religion.
| |
Spuzzum wrote:
My favorite quote from the Gulf War was an "on the street" interview session in the US, with the reporter getting reactions to whether we should go to war. One woman said, "Well, we don't worship the same God, so it seems reasonable." The point in this case being that the Muslims and Christians do worship the same god. The Muslims just keep the story going after Jesus bows out. | |
I'll probably be hated for, and I might regret, what I say next, but I'll be blunt. Almost every murder that occurs on this planet is religious in origin. In the animal kingdom, you'll see dominant males killing the babies of the female that birthed a litter of a weaker male, but never do you see mass slaughter of another species/genus, or large-scale intraspecies warfare. Well, if you really did know anything about religions, other cultures, and how societies function you'd know that is false. Your just spouting dogma that agnostics have been spinning for as long as I can remember. When they yell, "Stroke! Stroke! Stroke!" your mindlessly obeying and following their teachings which is no better than blindly following any religion. 90-95% of all religious people have never actually read the religious texts themselves either due to laziness, illiteracy, or trusting their religious leaders to tell them what they need to know. Whenever some wacko bombs an abortion clinic in the name of Christianity I can say with 99.9% certainty that they have never read or spent the time to understand the Bible. If he had then he wouldn't have done it because the Bible does not say go blow up whatever you don't like. It's the same thing with the suicide bombers from Palestine (not necessary Palestinians, just attack from Palestine). Do you think they've actually read the Khoran? I highly doubt it. They just hate Israel and the success that it represents which would be the case with or without the Khoran. Their leaders tell them that the Khoran demands they destory Israel so they do it. One distinction needs to be made. Just because someone does something in the name of a religion does not mean it was religious in origin. It is just a scapegoat that they use to convince themselves that their actions are justified. If I say, "I'm an Agnostic and in the name of Agnostics everywhere am going to set off this nuke in the middle of San Francisco." Does that mean that that blood is on Agnostics hands? No, it doesn't. Almost all killings are over land, money, and power. The Islamic world wanted more power and land so they expanded. The Catholic Church (which was more of a gov't than a religion) wanted the land back so they launched the Crusades. If they really wanted to murder all muslims they would have kept going. It was about land and principle, not religion. As was said, a list of atrocities can also be pinned on agnostics and athiests. In Australia a group of people were declared to be sub human (Aberigenese?) by evolutionary scientists and exterminated like pests. Much of the slave labor conditions of the Industrialization era in the US were justified by "Survival of the Fitest." If they aren't on the top then we can just use them or kill them, it helps strengthen us as a species. | |
Actually, Methusala (sp?) didn't die according to the Bible. Of course that is not proof but according to that religion it has overcome physical death and will overcome eternal spiritual death. So there :p
| |
As for immortality... I'll take science's "If you do this and this and avoid this, you might end up living a longer, healthier life." over religion's "promise" of eternal life. Science can demonstrate its claims, and more importantly, admits its own fallibility. If there's an afterlife, I'll find out about it when I get there. If a supreme being has made belief and acknowledgement in itself as a prerequisite for entering the "good" aspect of this afterlife, above and beyond any considerations of actual moral worth, then frankly, I'd rather pass on that being's idea of heaven. You were assuming that what is said about Heaven, God, ect. is true for the sake of that argument. It also says that God is all knowing and perfect. Are you saying that you know better and more than an all knowing and perfect being? Wow, that seems like a bad case of arrogance to me. Then you say that you wouldn't want to participate in his heaven because you would have chosen different preresiquites? Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face. As for the idea that we have no way of judging right from wrong without a supreme being's stamp of authority... I'll show you two books. One is a copy of the Bible. One simply says, "To whom it should concern: this passage is the divinely authored word of the Lord God Almighty. Do what you will is the whole of the law, but you get bonus points if you can hurt anyone while doing it. Sincerely Yours, He Who Is Called I Am." Do you even know anything about the Bible or are you just spouting what some other person who also knows nothing about the Bible said? Why would you believe the first book when it claims to be authored by the supreme being and not the second one? Both claims rest solely on the word of the book itself. Oh, I suppose you'll say the first one is more likely to be true because it's the most read/published book in the history of the world and we have archaelogical records that show the first one has been around for thousands of years? Well, it's great to know that absolute moral truth can be discovered through a popularity contest here on earth... does this mean that N'Sync is a morally superior band if it makes it to the top of Total Request Live six weeks in a row? Wow, that's one of the worst cases of the Straw Man fallacy that I've ever seen. You create a false opponent that has similarities to the tru opponent then beat up the false opponent and claim victory over the true one. If you can find one religious person that believes in a religious text because it's the most popular then I'll eat a steaming pile of what you're saying. Your mixing up discussions here. Archeological evidence that says the Bible existed thousands of years ago was used to disprove the charge that the Catholic church had changed the Bible for its own purposes. They ended up being virtually identical which disproved that theory. It was NOT used to prove the Bible is right or the better religious text. However, I can also say (and, more to the point, prove) that no supreme being is doing any such thing, or if one is, it's got nothing to do with any holy texts that are widely known. I can demonstrate this conclusively in a matter of hours, given a pile of all the world's holy texts and a Sharpie pen. Perhaps with some religious texts but not with the Bible. I've seen people try to do this sort of thing and I (and many others) easily point out their careless mistakes. I can gaurantee that you cannot disprove the Bible's continuing accuracy dispite your claims. List a few of your examples and I'll prove you wrong. | |
Nope, even if you're wrong you're still given a direction and a path to follow. It may lead you into more ocean but you wouldn't be wandering aimlessly.
| |
English wrote:
Nope, even if you're wrong you're still given a direction and a path to follow. It may lead you into more ocean but you wouldn't be wandering aimlessly. What is the deal with thinking a non-religious person must wander aimlessly? Seriously, I don't get it. A non-religious person has much direction in life, in my personal experience. | |
Uh, yeah, that's what Foomer was saying. =P
Another arrogant stab towards religion, but "teaching people to be kind towards each other" seems hypocritical when faced with the countless religious slaughters throughout the globe -- Hindi versus Muslim, Muslim versus Christian, Catholic versus Protestant, Christian versus Jewish...
(Yes, I'm aware that Catholics and Protestants are both Christian, but believe in different tenets. I am, however, lumping them in the Christian bag when it comes to religious conflicts between Christianity and others.)