Jmurph wrote:

Generally speaking, religion is probably inherent to human thought.

More than you might think. Interesting article in Newsweek last year on the emerging field of neurotheology: http://www.alchemind.org/neurotheo/neuronewswk.htm

Essentially, people having religious experiences (the feeling of being on a higher plane of existence, one with the universe, visions, talking to god, etc) show a marked decrease of activity in the area of the brain that connects the thinking mind with the real world. This has been found to be true across all varieties of religions and faiths. Now, does the religious experience cause this change in the brain, or does the change cause people to think they are having a religious experience? I don't know for sure, but I've got my theory.

Because the brain is ultimately how we perceive everything in the world, such an experience is every bit as real to the person having it as the keyboard is that I'm typing on. Thus one who has an experience like this is generally inclined to believe, with great conviction, that it was absolutely real. Hence, religion.

Yes... Religion really does seem to be the root of all evil...

And that is the ultimate irony in life...lol

I suppose... But when you get right down to it, nearly every single war in the history of mankind boils down to some religious beginnings... Or at the very least has some ties to some religion or other...

And that is no less prevalent right this very moment with current world events...

How bad is it that what is vastly considered to be the holiest place on the entire planet is also the site of brutal fighting and killing? Solely due to it's being a holy place... Each side wants it to be their holy place... So they'll murder each other in the worst ways possible for as long as it takes to claim their "holy" land as their own...

There's just something terribly wrong about that...

Spuzzum wrote:

I did mark the distinction. "I admit that I absolutely despise organised religion (or for a large part, religion itself)". In all of the latter part of the post, I was referring to organised religion, shortened simply to religion to save myself some seeming redundancy. Simply put, I generally lump "religion" and "organised religion" in the same bag, though I do make a slight distinction.

I apologize if I mischaracterized your statements. I simply wanted to point out that many of the vices of organized religion ar not inherent to religion per se. I think at this point I should note that I am using religion in its meaning as "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith" (Webster).

I don't want to make any rude or obnoxious gestures, but that analogy simply doesn't hold true, since I see it the other way around. I row and steer my boat as I choose, and other people just have to listen to the person who shouts, "Stroke! Stroke! Stroke!" Sure, mine is harder, but that's what makes it more satisfying when I succeed.

Indeed, your statement was anything but rude, friend! It represents a good example of argument by analogy. My point with the rudder analogy is that a belief system, whatever it is, is what guides a human's actions. Sans that, there is no meaningful direction. It's more a case of many never adjust their rudder; you have simply set yours to a different angle. But I would argue you still follow a religion, at least in its loosest sense (see above).

I don't really hold to the sciences either. I'm not someone who appreciates mathematics, nor physics, nor chemistry, nor biology. I normally make up my own mathematical formulas that seem to make sense (and I stink at math, mind you, but recent evidence suggests I'm not the worst...), rather than find any specific formula with which I make an actual reference to accepted beliefs.

An interesting point. I think it reinforces my point about your self-determinist "religion", however.

If "religion" is applied to mean something you believe strongly in, then my religion would be to get humanity and nature into a balance. But I still define the supercategory of "religion" as in believing in a supreme being or supreme beings. Specific subcategories of religion, like morals, ethics, and fatalist versus existentialist beliefs, I do accept and a few of them I even have in abundance or support. For example, I have a very strong moral belief system on what is right and wrong. And I adhere stronger to the ethics of my society than almost anyone I know.

Ah! Now we get to the gist of our disagreements- semantics:-) Seriously though, I think including a requiste belief in the seperdefinition of religion is inappropriate since that is actually a narrowing criteria IE all belief in supernatural guidance is religion, but the reverse is not true. If you are disputing *supernatural* religions, you will find no objection from me, other than I feel they do play important roles in society (I will pass on my opinions as to the truthfulness of their beliefs, however).

I have no doubt that one who follows such a ruggedly individualistic philosophy has a well defined sense of morality. Indeed, such characters generally are stronger in their beliefs and often, ironically, gather followers that create institutions in their name!

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.

While, I disagree with the assertion, I can safely say I do not hate you for it. I simply believe it wrong for a number of reasons.
1) The primary motivator for conflict in *any* species is competition for resources. Even in humans, wars in the name of God or country are generally *really* about land, oil, etc. Even the Crusades were more land aquisition cloaked in the name of religious faith. This is called an excuse or justification, not a cause.
2) Animals *do* in fact engage in senseless killing and intra-species warfare. Baboons are notorious for attacking monkeys and humans out of sheer agression, several species of gorilla prey on smaller primates even when not needing them for food, polar bears are known to stalk and slaughter other animals for no apparent reason.
3)Humans, as individuals, primarily murder for emotional reasons and generally under the influence of an intoxicant. This is a trend we have studied in my Criminal Law classes. Most murders have little or no planning and are often commited on friend or family. In fact, you are far more likely to be killed by someone you are close to than a stranger. Trace it back to plain old emotional outbursts and time honored resentment. Alcohol usually doesn't help things either.
4)The largest causes of human death are disease, starvation, and accident. Surprised? These factors have killed far more humans than wars ever have. Wars just tend to do it over a smaller time period (though the Black Plague, AIDS, and the Ebola virus have proiven that this is not always true). Number one cause of death today? Auto fatalities. Good old human error. Good to know stupidity kills more people than malice, eh?

-James

I don't want to make any rude or obnoxious gestures, but that analogy simply doesn't hold true, since I see it the other way around. I row and steer my boat as I choose, and other people just have to listen to the person who shouts, "Stroke! Stroke! Stroke!" Sure, mine is harder, but that's what makes it more satisfying when I succeed.

Focusing on this one little bit you said...

Suppose someone is out in the middle of the ocean, with no land in sight, and in nothing but a small boat. They can choose to row, paddle or sail in whatever direction they wish, whenever they want. That's great, but it won't get them anywhere, even if they feel better for having the control of it. If someone told them that there was land if they went in a specific direction, then they have something they can hope to see if they keep going in that specific direction. That's what religion is all about.

If someone believes in science, atheism, or whatever, they don't have any hope for anything. Science isn't going to make people immortal, and judging by the way things are now, it won't make the world a better place, at least not anytime in this century. But, before this century is over, they'll be dead anyway, so what difference does it make?

Most religions have some kind of afterlife or, "hope beyond death" so to speak, be it heaven, reincarnation or ressurection, which gives people something to hope for regardless of whether it's true or not.

So, people in their boats and float around whichever way they want and say, "I can do whatever I want!". Which is great, even if they'll die out there eventually. Or, they can head to where they feel they should to try and escape what will be their eventual fate if they stay out there.

SuperSaiyanGokuX wrote:

Good point...

But then there are those of us who don't mind floating around "aimlessly" drifting towards our deaths...

Those of us who aren't afraid of death...

That's up to them, if they want to make that decision.
Personally, I'd rather keep living, though.

Suppose someone is out in the middle of the ocean, with no land in sight, and in nothing but a small boat. They can choose to row, paddle or sail in whatever direction they wish, whenever they want. That's great, but it won't get them anywhere, even if they feel better for having the control of it. If someone told them that there was land if they went in a specific direction, then they have something they can hope to see if they keep going in that specific direction. That's what religion is all about.

If someone believes in science, atheism, or whatever, they don't have any hope for anything. Science isn't going to make people immortal, and judging by the way things are now, it won't make the world a better place, at least not anytime in this century. But, before this century is over, they'll be dead anyway, so what difference does it make?

I don't believe in either, at least not openly. I accept science, and I accept irreligion. I don't accept religion (organised, again to qualify) much. But that doesn't mean I'm a devout follower of either science or atheism. Sure, I can look at someone saying "Praise the Lord, this man was blind but now he can see!" and scoff, but never will I seek out those people to scoff at them. Typical atheists do otherwise.

Also, science has advanced medicine beyond the simple "take these herbs and let God do the rest", which has cured people of numerous diseases, has relieved some of the symptoms of cancer and prolonged the lives of the suffering patients, and has even wiped out the entire smallpox plague (except maybe in secret military bunkers, but they won't tell anyone about that). Surely that has made lives better for thousands, if not millions.

Besides that, when atheists are dead, so too are the devout people. Plus, I might be exaggerating this (since I don't remember, and I'm biased too) but if I recall, an article in Maclean's magazine showed a decline of 45% of regular church visitors over the last five decades.

Most religions have some kind of afterlife or, "hope beyond death" so to speak, be it heaven, reincarnation or ressurection, which gives people something to hope for regardless of whether it's true or not.

Yes, but then why start with an alive phase at all?

I'll be referring to Christianity right now, because that's the one I'm most familiar with... If these people are just trying to prove their righteousness in life, wouldn't it be easier to avoid the whole shenanigan of getting a physical body and just remain metaphysical and prove yourself before being granted entry into the Pearly Gates?

I'll make an arrogant claim -- mind you, I'm not speaking from current results of this debate, but years of observation, formulating my own opinion. It's just an opinion, nothing more, but if I have an opinion, I hold to it unless it is proven wrong; if God wants to prove me wrong, he can go right ahead... I'll be waiting. That'll be the only thing that'll work to convince me, since I don't trust anyone enough just to take their word for something. (Heck, even my Anglican grandparents are well aware of my irreligion, but they respect me enough not to impress their beliefs on me, and I respect them for it.)

Anyway, to the opinion. As far as my views are, organised religions for people who are too dependent to run their own lives. And to top it off, you openly pay an organisation and are told to believe in some superpowerful being. The only proof of his or her existence is The Bible, which, in my also arrogant opinion, was probably simply an epic novel that a few deity-worshippers interpretted the wrong way, and killed the author over it. And even that isn't substantial proof, since I could easily write a book proclaiming my own religion, and I'll bet you that I could get a few gullible people to believe me, too.


Anyway, after rereading this I suspect I might have been dodging the point, so I'll qualify that too. Why can't people make up something to hope for in the present? Right now, I hope to do well in my courses, I hope to get a good job, I hope to complete my games, I hope to find a special person with whom I want to live with for the rest of my life.

So, people in their boats and float around whichever way they want and say, "I can do whatever I want!". Which is great, even if they'll die out there eventually. Or, they can head to where they feel they should to try and escape what will be their eventual fate if they stay out there.

Yes, but that is somewhere that someone else said was safe. If I die going my own road, then I die; there's no afterlife where I'm going anyway.

The point is that if I let someone else decide for me, what's the point in being granted the ability to decide at all?


It's obvious that neither side of this debate will convince the other -- religion is simply too big of an issue to convert someone over without any measure of violence or proof -- but I'll carry it along as long as anyone wishes to continue, and it doesn't get to the brink of a flamewar or spam. =P

Foomer wrote:

That's up to them, if they want to make that decision.
Personally, I'd rather keep living, though.

Personally, so would I. However, I'm not going to believe in something just because it promises something I want.

Actually, religion promises a lot of things I want. Not just immortality, but peace and love. Hey, this religion thing is pretty good... it'll give me everything I ever wanted? And all I have to do is pledge to serve a supernatural being? Wow, great deal. Where do I sign?

Hey, wait... here's ANOTHER supernatural being. It's saying the same thing. It will give me true happiness and it wants me to pledge servitude, too!

Hey, now they're arguing! The first supernatural being is saying the second one is a liar! And now the second one is saying, no, the first one is a liar! I, being mortal and reliant on supernatural beings to reveal the truth to me, have absolutely no basis to judge which one is right! Gosh, I hope I'm picking the right one... I wish I was one of those rudderless atheists right about now.

Deadron wrote:

Foomer wrote:

If someone believes in science, atheism, or whatever, they don't have any hope for anything. Science isn't going to make people immortal, and judging by the way things are now, it won't make the world a better place, at least not anytime in this century.

This discussion has been had here before but I'll mention it again anyway...science has improved life immeasurably for this century.

That's true. (It offers the potential to make life immeasurably miserable, too, but so far, in the absence of nuclear and biological warfare, the net benefit has been tremendous.) And I'd say that while some form of immortality would be icing on the cake, it isn't the major benefit of religion -- it may be the most popular, but it isn't the most fundamental.

Spuzzum said "As far as my views are, organised religions for people who are too dependent to run their own lives." I think this creates a false dilemma. The notion of running one's own life implies attempting to understand the nature of the situation you're in. If you study that situation and reach one dead end after another on the questions that are most important, it's a recipe for despair.

Want to be a good person? Well, there is no objective good. Want to find your soul mate? Silly rabbit! Souls are for kids. Want to improve the world? What makes you so sure you have anything to offer the world?

Philosopher after philosopher has tried to derive the answers to the big questions from observable scientific fact. Whenever one came up with an answer, someone came along to knock it down, until the inevitable conclusion that they were all loaded questions to start with. But loaded questions or not, they're questions that must be addressed in the process of fully defining oneself (not that there's a point in life where you can stop and say "I'm fully defined now!").

I found a good H.P. Lovecraft quote about supernatural horror on the Internet:

that most terrible conception of the human brain -- a malign and particular suspension or defeat of those fixed laws of Nature which are our only safeguard against the assaults of chaos and the daemons of unplumbed space.

Now, if there is nothing truly supernatural in the Universe -- no malign suspensions of fixed laws of Nature -- then we don't have to worry about a horrid, horrid gug. Which is reassuring. And of course if we did run into one, we could always note clinically that we will just have to add a new order to the class Mammalia, and write off whatever paralyzing horror seized us as a simple biochemical fight-or-flight reaction. But what does "Bob" think? The Book of the Subgenius says "Science does not remove the terror of the gods", and while I split from the Church of the Subgenius long ago (in accordance with their doctrine of creating numerous schisms), I still firmly believe in that quote. Science can tell us that fear, love, lust, and even despair are all simply products of the brain's chemistry and the pattern of neural activity in various regions, but where the rubber hits the road, if you ever tell your dearest that "You're my favorite animated sack of chemicals in the whole world!" you're sleeping on the couch.

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. But some, like me, cannot. Am I too dependent to run my own life? Well, I have more credit card debt than I'd like, but in general things seem to be proceeding well.

Ahhh.. but there is more than one person on the watter.. and without religon peaple WILL be saying "I CAN DO WHATEVER I WANT" and wil start to kill eachother for money. The entire point of religon is not to have hope.. as much as it is to teach people to be kind tward each other.

as for science.. this somtines has the same benifits as religon. you dont see head scientists going out and shooting people for money(not as often as you see christians)

as for the afterlife thing.. thats all put there to give the person incentive for being good.