posted
In another thread King of Men said that the one thing he would want to do is "Eliminate religion."
KoM, I hope you don't mind if I comment on this, but this is something I've been thinking about alot recently and I want to try to put my thoughts into words.
I don't believe in a God anymore. I think God is a concept made by man to make people feel like there is something more important to live for and that their life isn't useless, etc. I think it's important that people can hold on to that belief because it keeps people happy, and if there is no God, what more is there to life than being happy? I was an observant Jew for a little while a couple years ago when I stayed at a 100% Orthodox Chasidic Jewish home for an entire summer (they're my cousins). Even though I always felt a little uncomfortable there for fear that I'd do or say something that would offend their beliefs, it was such a happy place to be. They were always smiling and always making sure I was happy as well. Their life had so much meaning to them.
I've thoroughly convinced myself that there is no God, it just seems too unlikely to me that there is a higher power, and when I make decisions I always want them to be as rational and logical as possible. But I still think religion is so important for this world because it makes people like my cousins better people. If the entire world followed a religion 100%, I think we'd have a much happier world. Religion forbids crime against people and promotes love and taking care of others (at least most of them). How could you want to eliminate that? I know people often pervert religion into doing things like suicide bombings, but religion at its core is a positive thing, IMO.
Like I said, I just wanted to try putting this into words and seeing what people thought of it and I apologize if this has been discussed a million times already. If there is any flaws in my logic or if anyone has anything to add, please say so. Thanks.
Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:If the entire world followed a religion 100%, I think we'd have a much happier world.
I think this is your hangup. In particular, the "if." The entire world will never follow a religion, set of religions, philosophy, or set of philosophies completely. There will always be people who do bad things and/or are bad people.
I think the trick is not to focus on spreading a specific philosophy but rather educate everyone in multiple schools of thought as best as possible. An educated, informed, and engaged populace is much healthier than an indoctrinated one, regardless of the virtues of the philosophy with which you choose to indoctrinate people.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd say religion right now is necessary, for all the reasons you mentioned above and more. However, I don't think it's too controversial to asert that we are *slowly* moving towards a more secular society, in terms of organized religion. Spirituality, on the other hand, will never go away, and IMO wil always be necessary for humanity. Faith is required for many other things other than religion (like science), and the unknown will always cause humans to believe in things we can't explain or even understand.
I guess that what I'm trying to say is that religion in itself is not necessary, but faith is. And right now eliminating religion would effectively destroy most people's sense of faith, so it won't happen for a long time.
Posts: 441 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"However, I don't think it's too controversial to asert that we are *slowly* moving towards a more secular society, in terms of organized religion."
Who is we? Because from all world wide indications that is not true. That might be true for the Europe and the West, but its not for a vast majority of world population.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Religion is not necessary. Not at all, IMO. Faith is, as Angio said. One of the most brilliant quotes I've ever heard actually. I too would eliminate religion, but it could never be done. I am in a way atheist, and see no meaning or use of a deity, as the one described by the bible, is a vain, vengful, and hurtful one. The idea of a deity to me, is completely illogical. The only thing that even makes me wonder is... "What created the Big Bang?" That is what I will be pondering for the rest of my life.
Posts: 2121 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I find religion to be frustrating. I wish there was more focus on spirituality and looking out for humanity instead of so many rules that confuse me.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Reticulum, consider what would happen if you answered that question. "What created whatever created the Big Bang?" Turtles all the way down, you see?
As for keeping religion because it 'makes people happy', that is a really patronising sort of attitude. What, theists are not smart enough to be happy on their own? It's not as though atheists are particularly discontented with their lives. And really, I think there is a lot more dignity in loving humanity for its own sake, and not because some outside force tells you to. You never know when it might change its mind.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
And, by the way, science does not require faith, ok? Because you can damn well test it. Next time you turn on a light switch, try having faith that there won't be light, and see how much difference it makes.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think you're confusing faith with hope. Hope is necessary, faith is not. I see it thusly: Faith is the never-dying belief that [insert something meaningful here] will improve. Hope is the logical belief that [same meaningful thing] *could*.
Faith is childish, hope is realist but also reassuring.
edit: this to Angiomorphism [cool usernam btw- change of heart?], not KoM.
Posts: 866 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
KoM: If I may ask, what is the purpose of science? I'll say "the pursuit of knowledge" as a loose definition. Correct me if I'm horribly off. If you are pursuing knowledge, you must acknowledge that there is unknown stuff out there. Obviously. Now, I suppose this depends greatly on the way you define faith, but I have always defined it as "belief in something unseen" or maybe "trust in something unseen". Science believes or trusts that the answers to the questions are out there, al beit in a verifiable, tangible form. But still, I see that as faith. Faith that there is something worth pursuing. And with that definition, religion isn't so far fetched. Religion simply replaces "knowledge" with "God". And I can understand how that may be repulsive to someone like you, who appears to have this insatiable thirst for knowledge, but then, not everyone can be perfect .
Posts: 2827 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think this thread should be renamed God-Bashers. Gaal's original thought is getting lost in all this other garbage. I happen to appreciate your comments, Gaal, that while you personally don't need God in your life, you don't knock other people for needing or wanting to believe in a higher power.
Posts: 1319 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmmm. I do hope what I said is not considered bashing God, because I happen to have a very strong belief in God. I am a bit leery of religion, though I attend church regularly. The point I was trying to make was that while I put my faith, my hope, my trust in a Supreme Being, others put their faith, their hope, their trust in rationality and knowledge. That's cool. I respect that, though I reserve the right to not agree with it. I think "The Sea Wolf", by Jack London, should be required reading everywhere. It has some wonderfully interesting musings on the immortal soul. If we do not have immortal souls, then religion can be eliminated. Something else can take the place of what we today consider religion, and quite possibly do a better job. But I am of the opinion that we do have immortal souls, and that there is something worth striving for which is not a part of this earth. And that is where religion comes in. If you want my blunt opinion, I would say that I think that the fact religion has stuck around so long indicates that there has to be something out there to back it up.
Posts: 2827 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Disclaimer: Take in mind that all of these things are how I see them, and not how they may be, or how you see them. Don't have to believe this, just respect it.
Completely illogical. It (religion) serves no other purpose then to make others act the way one particular group of people see fit. The Pope is a prime example. The man is good of course, but the office was created soley so that one person could hold power and sway over millions, and be more powerful then Nations. Once again, it only makes people act the way others see fit.
Many use stories from the Bible to try to convince others to join their religions. Some stories, which are claimed to be true, are completely stupid. Noah's ark is also a prime example. How could the populations of all species regenerate from 2? It wouldn't work. You would have stagnation by the third generation. The species would have to use incest to survive. Noah's children would have to mate with each other to save their species. The children would have uneven gene sharings and would develope mental disabilities and almost certaintly by the third generation, would be deformed in one or another.
God: An absolutely illogical invention of mankind. Something that is so farfetched above everything else, that there is no way it could possibly exist. The God portrayed in the Bible, was in no way the God, people try to describe. This God punished and killed those who did not follow him, and even punished those who did, to test their faith. Killing masses, and ordering millions to follow you, or else risking death, is in no way, how a deity should act. Secondly, how did this deity come to exist? Everything has a beginning. The universe, 13.7 Billion years, and one trillionth of a second ago. Man, roughly 200,000. There isn't a way, that something could always have been.
Also, to much emphasis on Heaven and Hell. I don't care. Why would and all forgiving Deity send you to a place of fire and brimstone for not following ten laws? Would this all patient being simply forgive you? Where would it draw the line? Next, other species. Most religions tend to stress that we are alone. This is simply unconcieveable. The Universe is so massiv;e extensive, that there is no way that another form of intelligent life could not exist.
There it is in a nutshell. PLease ignore Grammatical errors, as this was typed quite fast.
Posts: 2121 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think anybody should discuss *any* view about religion. It's just a waste of time to say anything at all, because it's impossible to convince anyone with blanket statements. If we could stop people from even *having* religious views -- or, for that matter, any views on value, value judgements -- the world would be a much better place.
posted
I really wish I had two hands to type with to respond to you Reticulum, but unfortunately I'm one short, so my response will have to wait. I do have one though, if you'll be so kind as to wait a week or so until I'm able to type more than 3 words a minute and not be in large amounts of pain. Posts: 2827 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dr Strangelove: If you want my blunt opinion, I would say that I think that the fact religion has stuck around so long indicates that there has to be something out there to back it up.
Disclaimer: Take in mind that all of these things are how I see them, and not how they may be, or how you see them. Don't have to believe this, just respect it.
Yes, it was fear. Fear. Fear of not having something else when you die. People wish to believe in something so that they don't have to worry about not going on.
Posts: 2121 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Will: I tried to tell people that before, more specifically about politics, but no one listens. If ya can't beat em, join em.
Posts: 2827 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The world would be a much better place if everyone thought like me.
In all seriousness, the suicide bombings may make the news, but living in a religious community I have seen far too much good come of it to ever believe it is a *bad* thing.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dr. Strangelove, I didn't mean everyone was writing garbage.
Reticulum forgive me for saying so, but since you have stated in another thread that you are still a child, you just don't have enough life experience or a firm grasp of Biblical concepts to be making these kind of blanket statements about religion. You know some basic Bible stories but it is pretty obvious that you have not studied the Bible and its teachings at all. You keep asking for us to respect your beliefs but then you tell me that the way I live my life is illogical. You can denounce religion for yourself (which is no skin off my nose) but you imply that the rest of us who believe in a higher power are a bunch of morons. Read some more. Get out there and see the world some more. Then make a more informed decision on what you believe but either way, leave my beliefs alone. They are mine. Just respect it.
Posts: 1319 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:How could the populations of all species regenerate from 2? It wouldn't work. You would have stagnation by the third generation. The species would have to use incest to survive. Noah's children would have to mate with each other to save their species. The children would have uneven gene sharings and would develope mental disabilities and almost certaintly by the third generation, would be deformed in one or another.
Um, what? "Uneven gene sharing"? Noah's grandchildren would all have mental disabilities?
Posts: 1658 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mandy, I do not think people who believe in God are Morons. If I said that, I am sorry to you. And as for the child remark, that may be true, but I have based my judgements on the universe quite sternly. For me, science is the way to go. Also notice the disclaimer.
Posts: 2121 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan: What are uneven gene sharings?
When two people "mate", as you know, they share I believe 23 genes to form the child. When two people of certain relation mate, their genes are too similar, and eventually get tangled up, and start to cause mutations, and other such horrible results. Hence why most governments ban marriage between relatives.
Posts: 2121 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, I noticed. I also noticed the horrible misinterpretations of the Bible and middle school science that you are basing your arguments on. You can certainly pick science as your personal belief system but you are basically telling those who believe in the Bible that we are cross-bred, brain-washed people terrified of going to Hell if we don't follow a hateful, vengful God who might just smite us anyway. And you are telling us that our horrible, illogical religion just shouldn't exist but you are allowed to believe whatever you want and we should just respect that. Boy, if you could just hear yourself!
Posts: 1319 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. Don't have to agree or like it. Just respect it. All I ask.
Posts: 2121 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan: What are uneven gene sharings?
When two people "mate", as you know, they share I believe 23 genes to form the child. When two people of certain relation mate, their genes are too similar, and eventually get tangled up, and start to cause mutations, and other such horrible results. Hence why most governments ban marriage between relatives.
Hmm... I really don't know where to start here. I guess I'll with your post not having anything to do with "uneven". In my mind "uneven gene sharing" would mean one of the people didn't have the same number of genes as the other. Second, the genes don't get "tangled up". Inbreeding can cause detrimental recessive traits to surface, which are what cause the deformities and diseases that can come with inbreeding. You need to read up on genetics.
Posts: 1658 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Alright, "tangled up" wasn't a very good term, but in essence, it was right. As for uneven gene sharing, the child can and often will end up having less genes then normal, caused by genetic mutation. How this happens, I do not know.
BTW, you just read Wikipedia didn't you?
Posts: 2121 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
LOL! No Ronnie is probably just older and more knowledgable than you. (and here I was trying not to type a reponse telling Ronnie that he was using too many big words there)
For Heaven's sake! Why am I wasting my time arguing with you. Oh wait! You don't believe in Heaven and I should just respect that! Posts: 1319 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reticulum: Alright, "tangled up" wasn't a very good term, but in essence, it was right. As for uneven gene sharing, the child can and often will end up having less genes then normal, caused by genetic mutation. How this happens, I do not know.
Inbreeding doesn't cause mutation. It causes a greater chance of inheriting recessive traits. Cite your claim that the child will often have less genes than normal.
quote:Originally posted by Reticulum: BTW, you just read Wikipedia didn't you?
No, I think that's your job. I've taken classes involving genetics.
Posts: 1658 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beverly: Even an atheist is far more than just trust in science. If science is all you've got, you're a cold, cold human being.
Just becayse it's true, doesn't mean it should be said. Posts: 2121 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
What exactly do you mean by "religion" when you say we should get rid of it? Do you mean churches? Do you mean sets of rules and dogma? Do you mean belief in supernatural things? Do you mean beliefs about the fundamental Truth of the universe?
There is no way to avoid having beliefs about the fundamental Truth of the universe. It is necessary to guide the decisions you make every day. What is right and what is wrong? Who am I, where do I come from, and what should I be doing? What is meaningful? What is the nature of the world around us? Even atheists have answers for these questions - that is their "religion", so to speak. I fail to see how one could live without having some sort of beliefs, whether well-thought-out or not, about the answers to these questions. And I certainly fail to see why the world would be better without such beliefs.
Now, if by "religion" you are referring to only supernatural answers to these questions, I think the claim that we should eliminate "religion" would be nothing more than atheists suggesting that the world would be much better if everyone thought like them. After all, one person's supernatural is another person's natural. If God existed, he would be as natural as everything else that exists. Nature is simply that which exists around us. And while black holes would sound like supernatural sorts of things if you simply described their properties to someone, the fact that we have observed their existence makes them natural too. Atheists often consider their beliefs about Truth to be objectively right, and other beliefs to be unbelievable and irrational. Thus it is no surprise they'd prefer if everyone followed those same beliefrs. But it should be noted that religious groups typically feel similarly - many would love to eliminate all religions except their own.
However, if by "religion" you mean churches and the dogma associated with them, I think the goal to eliminate religion is misguided for an entirely different reason. Churches and dogma exist to guide and teach people about how to answer the fundamental questions of Truth, and to help them live their lives well. Seriously consider what would happen if we got rid of those guides. We would be essentially telling everybody to come up with answers on their own. We'd be telling everyone to think up their own beliefs. I'm sure some people feel this is exactly how it should be, but I find that a bit overidealistic. I don't think people are wise enough to come up with the correct answers to subtle but fundamentally important questions like "What is right and what is wrong?" all by themselves. You'd have a bunch of fanatics following their own personal dogmatic rules on one hand, and a bunch of hedonists believing whatever satisfied their most current desires on the other hand. You may believe otherwise, but right now I have serious doubts about mankind in general being able to all come up with good answers to the most important questions on their own without help.
Asking to eliminate churches and dogma is a bit like complaining that teachers and textbooks are biased and thus suggesting that everybody should homeschool their kid instead of sending them to school. While it is a nice idea in theory, I'd guess the reality is that most kids would end up very poorly educated.
quote:And, by the way, science does not require faith, ok? Because you can damn well test it. Next time you turn on a light switch, try having faith that there won't be light, and see how much difference it makes.
This is incorrect. Science can be tested but it can't be proven, meaning you know for sure when it is false, but you need faith to believe it will always hold true.
For instance, I believe that when I flip the light switch, the light will turn on. But every once in a while, it will be burned out and not turn on. Thus my belief turns out to be faith rather than anything proven, no matter how many times I "test" the switch and see that it turns on the light.
quote:I think you're confusing faith with hope. Hope is necessary, faith is not. I see it thusly: Faith is the never-dying belief that [insert something meaningful here] will improve. Hope is the logical belief that [same meaningful thing] *could*.
I don't think this is correct either. Faith is based more in logic than hope is. For instance, I hope that the Wizards will win the NBA Championship, but I don't have faith that they will - because my reasoning/logic dictates that it is unlikely.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reticulum: Alright, "tangled up" wasn't a very good term, but in essence, it was right. As for uneven gene sharing, the child can and often will end up having less genes then normal, caused by genetic mutation. How this happens, I do not know.
Inbreeding doesn't cause mutation. It causes a greater chance of inheriting recessive traits. Cite your claim that the child will often have less genes than normal.
quote:Originally posted by Reticulum: BTW, you just read Wikipedia didn't you?
No, I think that's your job. I've taken classes involving genetics.
Wow, you just schooled me. I don't think i have any decent response to this. I don't.
Wait! I have got one. As for the genetics and genes, I have the fact, that yes, inbreeding does quite often cause mutationsof the genes. I don't specifically know about the less genes thing, but I thought I should have posted it. Incest causes a lot more then just adopting recessive genes. Since you have taken classes, you should know this.
BTW, if you knew all of that, why did you ask me, one with middle school education to explain it?
And Mandy, why such the harshness?
Posts: 2121 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reticulum: Wait! I have got one. As for the genetics and genes, I have the fact, that yes, inbreeding does quite often cause mutationsof the genes.
Repeating a false statement with more intensity will not make it true.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: For instance, I hope that the Wizards will win the NBA Championship
At least they have a chance. Now I, I hope that the Magic will win it all ...
...
Riiiigghhhttt.
Ret, my hand prohibits me from typing quick intelligent replies tonight (whereas every other night its my brain ), but perhaps if I email you. As I said, it may take a while, but mayhap it will prove more conducive to discussion about your post.
EDIT: Oh, and I like the rest of what you said too Tres.
Posts: 2827 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reticulum: Wait! I have got one. As for the genetics and genes, I have the fact, that yes, inbreeding does quite often cause mutationsof the genes.
Repeating a false statement with more intensity will not make it true.
But perhaps saying in different context and after other statements, will reiterate its meaning.
Posts: 2121 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dr Strangelove: If you want my blunt opinion, I would say that I think that the fact religion has stuck around so long indicates that there has to be something out there to back it up.
Well, that's rather remarkably interesting. Would you say the same of racism and slavery, with their equally long pedigrees?
quote: I'll say "the pursuit of knowledge" as a loose definition. Correct me if I'm horribly off. If you are pursuing knowledge, you must acknowledge that there is unknown stuff out there. Obviously. Now, I suppose this depends greatly on the way you define faith, but I have always defined it as "belief in something unseen" or maybe "trust in something unseen". Science believes or trusts that the answers to the questions are out there, al beit in a verifiable, tangible form. But still, I see that as faith. Faith that there is something worth pursuing.
But that is, if I might coin a phrase, a faith justified by works. We can see science working around us, all day - what, computers are the result of divine intervention? And this isn't a matter of 'God's beauty is in everything, if only you had eyes to see', either : The influence of science and technology on our lives is a testable, objective fact. I defy you to find anyone who disagrees that science has made vast changes in human lives.
You can call it 'faith', if you like, but I do think you are rather twisting the meaning of the word. There's a difference between the faith of a gambler that his next roll will be a seven, and the belief of a scientist that a mix of charcoal, saltpetre, and sulfur will ignite rather powerfully.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reticulum: Wait! I have got one. As for the genetics and genes, I have the fact, that yes, inbreeding does quite often cause mutationsof the genes. I don't specifically know about the less genes thing, but I thought I should have posted it. Incest causes a lot more then just adopting recessive genes. Since you have taken classes, you should know this.
BTW, if you knew all of that, why did you ask me, one with middle school education to explain it?
It doesn't cause mutations. It causes recessive mutations/traits to show up more often. My first two posts were written the way they were because I was unsure what you meant and wanted to clarify it. I also had no idea what you meant by "uneven gene sharings".
quote:But perhaps saying in different context and after other statements, will reiterate its meaning.
Reticulum, let me say this simply: The rate of genetic mutations is completely independent of inbreeding. Existing mutations are more likely to cause fatal problems within inbred groups (because of the increased likelihood of any one individual getting a copy from each parent), but the actual rate of mutations is not affected.
This means that if you had two individuals with completely flawless genes, the possibility of their grandchildren all being healthy is quite high.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well yes, that is what I meant de facto. I thought that the part that incest causes genetic mutations to appear in the offspring part made sense.
The offspring of incest have a very high chance of having genetic problems. Perhaps now it is clear, because we established what everyone is thinking and understanding. My main core point, was that a species could not save itself with one mating pair. Absolutely impossible.
Posts: 2121 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Noah thing is pretty absurd, but I don't think it's a very useful argument on this forum; with the possible exception of Farmgirl, I don't think there's anyone here who takes it literally.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
And, incidentally, I think there's some evidence that cheetahs went through a genetic bottleneck some twenty thousand years ago, where they were reduced to two brothers and a sister. So 'impossible' might be a little strong. Come to think of it, aren't there some dog and horse breeds that all have one or two common ancestors?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Topic Closed
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
Why am I wasting my time arguing with you. ![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
Oh wait! You don't believe in Heaven and I should just respect that! ![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
