The things they do in the name of religion

[denoir 0]

Quote[/b] ]We get all our information from the world from our senses

With religion, it is commonly believed that there are more senses than are currently scientifically evaluatable.

Fair enough. Science certainly does not eliminate that possibility. It is however far from being the case that it is accepted as a scientific truth. It is a theory yet to be proven, meaning from a scientific point of view that you cannot build additional theories on it.

This is of course, assuming that you define those senses in a way that they do not contradict current scientific models. If they do, then you have some serious job ahead of you as you'll have to demolish most of physics to get them to fit. An example of that: IIRC the Quran states that god communicates with people through spirits that travel at the speed of light. I won't go into details but sufficient to say is that if you want to comply with existing principles in physics, such a god would not be very useful due to the lag in communications

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]The bible says that the earth is 6,000 years old

My understanding is that the material recorded post-eden starts from ~6000 years before now. The creation I believe was 7 phases / epochs of unknown duration.

Ok, let me put it like this: When I was in China a couple of years ago, I held in my hands a vase that is older than that. And sorry, there was no "Made in Eden" label on it

We have archeological findings, including human remains that are far older than 6,000 years.

The creationist usually counter this by saying that carbon dating is based on the flawed assumption that decay rates are constant over time. It only shows however that their knowledge of physics is very limited. Had decay rates not been constant, the universe would be looking a whole lot different than it looks today and it would produce some very observable and measurable effects.

The literal creationist theory is today only advocated by more or less fundamentalist christian groups. For instance the Catholic church has accepted evolution and said that it is fully reconcilable with the Bible. In short they use the "not to be read literally explanation. So they mean when the Bible says that he made Adam out of clay that it is just a metaphorical description. Kind of ironic coming from an organization that used to kill people for saying that the earth is round. But that only points to the good fact that religion is adapting to the changing perception of reality induced by science. It does however put a dent on the ambition of religion to be eternal and absolute.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]Saying that the religious text isn't supposed to be read literally and that it's impossible to exactly say what the text meant

The biggest block on this is the difficulties of translation and interprtation. I believe that you can only understand a passage if you have a measure of the same spirit in which it was given. Basiclly, if you believe God said it, but you don't understand it, ask Him and He'll explain it. That's only for personal application though...

Could you explain to me how that exactly works? How do you ask your question and how do you recieve your answer?

Ok, if we assume for a second that you are actually talking to another entity rather than psychologically going through a process of understanding yourself and your wishes Å• la Zen. How do you know that the entity is god? How do you know that there is only one entity? How do you know, without any external validation that the thing you are talking to is doing what is in your best interest?

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]the following of authority, without critical evaluation

Here, I view two types of 'authority': 1) is authorization to act for and on behalf of a religious organization in the authorized capacity, and 2) the self-manifest 'omnipotent' 'authority' assigned to God.

3) Religious texts. I think that they are your set of axioms. You are taught about god throgh those texts or interpretations of those texts. You have however no way of evaluating the accuracy of those texts or knowing the source. You have to take a leap of faith to accept the Bible/Quran/whatever as the ultimate truth, without having any possibility of determining if that is the case or not. While "leap of faith" might sound like a positve term, in the domain of science it's not. A leap of faith is required to believe that Earth is controlled by the Smurfs, but I don't think you would categorize such a leap as positive

Bottom line is that you have a plethora of religions to choose between - all of them claiming to have the ultimate truth and demand of you to believe in it without any feedback. Usually which religion you end up with depends on where you are born. If you are born in a muslim family, the chances of you becoming a hindu are slim indeed. This again puts the ambition of absoluteness into question. If there is an absolute god, a right religion etc, how come that religion is so dependant on geographical, social and historical context?

What science, as opposed to religion gives is a universality. Regardless where you are born and under which social conditions etc, you can easily verify existing physical models. So we have a christian following his dogma saying that earth is 6,000 years old. Then we have a Hindu who says that the earth is 4 million years old (I'm not sure what hinduism says; this is just an example). They both refer to their holy texts that are the absolute truth according to them. An agreement is hardly reachable. If they on the other hand both use radioctive dating, they'll get the same result. They can follow the deduction line to why it has to be correct. They don't need any advanced assumptions. So, tell me, which is more universal?

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]It requires 100% blind faith in the issuing authority

Again, I have a unique opinion of faith, that faith is not the blind belief in unsubstaniated theories, but rather the willingness to accept, believe, and act on what I have experienced. Now those experiences are not externally confirmable via known scientific methods, but that does not make those experiences any less real to me.

Experiences and self-introspection are all important, but they should not be confused with factual general reality. While you can draw the conclusions for yourself, you can't claim that they are valid for everybody just based on your experience. A collective model has to be built from collective experiences and observations. So you personally "talking to god" cannot be used as a validation for the claims made in the Bible etc

[Major Fubar 0]

As a point of interest, I notice that a lot of people seem to equate religion = Christianity.

I would just like to point out that Christianity is neither the most widely spread nor the oldest established religion in the world.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

dito, and the bible itself is not my personal base of belief! The funny thing is that science SO FAR is incapable to proof that there IS NO SUCH THING AS GOD. And I thought science is deductive!!!

[Veovis 0]

Thanks for the welcome, Albert. I've had OFP since 2001 but never came to these boards until a few months ago.

Quote[/b] ]As a point of interest, I notice that a lot of people seem to equate religion = Christianity.

My only experience with religion is Christianity, so I didn't want to use examples from other religions that I know very little about. It certainly does seem that people making religion = Christianity, but that's probably because (I would guess) that is the religion most of the members of this board know best. It is somewhat ironic, since this post started with a disagreement between Islam and atheism.

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

You are trying to help him, eh? Telling people they are delusional, have false beliefs, and have lost all touch with reality is usually not the best way to go about that.

How would you tell someone who is convinced his underpants are inhabited by gnomes that they are not?

Answer, please.

Quote[/b] ]

{Ad hominem Attacks: Snip}

whisperFF06, myself, and a few others here have tried to explain this to you. Religion is not there to prove anything. Saying it isn't sensible to fill a mental/spiritual hole in somebody's life is ridiculous.

No it isn't.

It is not sensible at all. There is absolutely no reason to do so = it is not sensible.

There is no reason to set your head on fire; doing so is not sensible.

Quote[/b] ]

Spirituality cannot possibly be explained scientifically, so according to you that is irrational?

According to reality it is delusional. And it can be explained scientifically: People delude themselves about what they would like to be true, long and short of it.

Quote[/b] ]

If you find evidence necessary to explain religion, you won't ever get it, because that's not what it is about.

How handy for it. One might suggest that is because it does not exist/ has false conclusions.

As I said before, give me an example of something you need religion to find out. Something that actually exists outside of people's heads.

Quote[/b] ]

If you are happy without it, good for you. That doesn't mean a religious person is an ignorant moron.

...In your opinion.... In my opinion, someone who believes something with so much evidence against it and no evidence for it is, at the very least, delusional.

Quote[/b] ]

There are things that are intangible, and not provable.

No there aren't. Name one.

Quote[/b] ]

If you want to argue proof and fact, find somebody who believes the bible is just that. It's a waste of everybody's time to put facts up against things intangible (souls, God, heaven, etc.) There are many of us who accept both science and religion.

Perhaps I wasn't taking exception to those who leave their wacky ideas behind when involved in science? Although there are not many who can do that...

[brgnorway 0]

Well, I for one thank God for easter time! Only one day more to work and then I have 4 days off!

Please tell me when science was to thank for hollidays

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

dito, and the bible itself is not my personal base of belief! The funny thing is that science SO FAR is incapable to proof that there IS NO SUCH THING AS GOD. And I thought science is deductive!!!

....For the 500th time.

It is not sciences job to disprove crazy assertions.

If you claim the moon is made of purple blancmange, YOU should prove it. NASA would not have to prove it wasn't because there is a better explanation.

[brgnorway 0]

We have a new FSPILOT - Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX!

[shinRaiden 0]

More clarifications. I think of "light" as RF-modulated photonic radiation in the visible spectrum, and "Light" as spiritual essence / energy / the force / whatever name you understand the same thing by. In that sense, "Light" came before the organization of the stars, and before "light" from those stars reached the earths.

Then again, as this earth is just a spek in eternity, it really doesn't work to fix a time period to a continuing process of creation. Via scientific telescopes we see light from stars 'born' bullions and bullions of years ago. That don't mean there aren't new ones today or tomorrow.

Furthermore, epochal processes of organization in a different stasis can change the flow process. If pre-fall Eden were in a state of suspended stasis, you could put stuff there in any order you want, after you have Eden first though.

As for delusional ramblings, you have not stated any qualifications to judge my experiences. Along with what Miles said elsewhere, there are real things that I have personally experienced that can not be evaluated via known scientific means, that are no less real. In one case, the scientific possiblity of an event was between march and mid-november of 2000. I was informed about it sometime between october and november of 1999. That is not possible according to your known and accepted toolset, but still happened.

You deliberately ignored what I said regarding my personal view of faith. How many people refused to believe Columbus when he argued for a round earth? How many people condemned Gaelieo for daring to say the world was not the physical center of the spatial universe, according to the accepted theory of the day?

While I believe that you are willfully ignorant of yourself and the 'whole' (as in complete) world around you, I can't compel you to do anything you don't want to. It's all up to you what you want to do.

[brgnorway 0]

Hmm.....I was just wondering - The title says "The things they do in the name of religion" . A rather common thing to claime is that various "crimes against humanity" has been done and legitimised by the above statement. True enough!

However, let's think about all of the crimes perpetrated in "the name of science" . There are quite a few of those and I'll start off with the medical science in german prison camps during WW2. Any other sugestions are welcome!

[Veovis 0]

Quote[/b] ]How would you tell someone who is convinced his underpants are inhabited by gnomes that they are not?

Are you suggesting shinRaiden has gnomes in his underpants? That would be a particularly disturbing development. I might even side with you.

Quote[/b] ]There is no reason to set your head on fire; doing so is not sensible.

I think comparing believing in God to setting my head on fire is a tad outrageous. Although it did provoke an amusing image.

Quote[/b] ]As I said before, give me an example of something you need religion to find out.

Hmm. I'm getting a bit concerned about you. I've mentioned multiple times that I'm not religious to prove or explain anything. 'Find out' is essentially the same thing. I don't care to repeat what I've posted three times already. How thick is your skull? Please be exact, I wouldn't want a number without at least five proven scientific theories supporting it.

Quote[/b] ]No there aren't.  Name one.

I believe that I named three examples. If anybody can prove or disprove any of them I would be amazed. The earlier attempts to disprove God in this thread were not in the least bit adequate. (I'm going to regret saying this, because somebody will try)

Quote[/b] ]Perhaps I wasn't taking exception to those who leave their wacky ideas behind when involved in science?  Although there are not many who can do that...

I think you'd be surprised. We just don't hear much of their opinion. Only extremists and extremely bored people post on these kind of topics.

[shinRaiden 0]

That was only a domestic issue, a liquidation of damaged property. If humans have no soul or other piece of external liability, and sub-humans are relegated to property assets, it's just a reduction of surplus inventory. From a logical rational point of view.

As for increased dating issues, the bible hints that for the first biblically recorded 2000 years, lifespans approaching 1000 years were not uncommon, perhaps the norm. If we take a more modern 100 year life span, you could adjust that 2000 years to 20000 years. Or, you have to account for a radically different environmental conditions to maintain a ~2000 year period. Either way, the bible, the gilgamesh legend, and the Veda's among others deal with that by implying that the evidence would have been washed away in the Flood epic.

But back to the general principle of foundational religious evaluation. The role of religion dogmatically is the study of the nature and purpose of the "Self" while science focuses on evaluating the world around us. These side trackings tend to add fuel to Baron's loose cannons.

I think where a lot of the trouble gets started is at the joiner "..because...". Everyone can agree that discussing things civily is 'good', but as soon as I interject "-Because-", that implies that that the action is only in reaction to a foundation, either of concious choice based on applied experience or imprinted instruction.

[brgnorway 0]

I believe the best would be if people had a more "culture relativistic" approach to the whole problem. What is true for me is true for me - and what is true for you is none of my business.

[shinRaiden 0]

I know no gnomes.

I'm still confused about how baron presumes that God is inside my feeble mind. If that were true, then all his works would be limited to within my mind, meaning that Baron is only a figment of my imagination. *That* makes my head spin.

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

Are you suggesting shinRaiden has gnomes in his underpants? That would be a particularly disturbing development. I might even side with you.

Just answer the question.

It's an analogy. Its an equally ludicrous belief that someone might have. What would you do with this person?

Quote[/b] ]

I think comparing believing in God to setting my head on fire is a tad outrageous. Although it did provoke an amusing image.

I don't.

Quote[/b] ]Hmm. I'm getting a bit concerned about you. I've mentioned multiple times that I'm not religious to prove or explain anything. 'Find out' is essentially the same thing. I don't care to repeat what I've posted three times already. How thick is your skull? Please be exact, I wouldn't want a number without at least five proven scientific theories supporting it.

Maybe you aren't getting the point. What use is religion then? What is the usefulness of it? That is what I am asking.

And don't come this 'It makes people feel better' -it doesn't.

Quote[/b] ]I believe that I named three examples. If anybody can prove or disprove any of them I would be amazed.

DId you miss this part?

Quote[/b] ] SOMETHING THAT ACTUALLY EXISTS

[GoOB 0]

Maybe you aren't getting the point.  What use is religion then?  What is the usefulness of it?  That is what I am asking.

And don't come this 'It makes people feel better'  -it doesn't.

A: It used to offer a structured scociety, without Christianity we Swedes and Norwegians would probably still be running about in leather armor and clobbering eachother with axes and clubs. It also gave use our modern languages, and the art of reading, writing and speaking in a proper manner.

B: Religion DOES make certain people feel better, unless you have conducted a world wide poll. Some find a purpose in life thanks to religion, it doesn't matter if god/gods exist. Faith is enough sometimes.

C: It gives you something to beleive in when you really need it, some people beleive and trust in "god" when there is seemingly no hope. Churches nowadays also offer very good services such as telephone hotlines, priests to converse with. All very good even if you are an atheist.

[Veovis 0]

Quote[/b] ]What would you do with this person?

I would probably point and laugh at them. But thats because they had gnomes inhabiting their pants, which is completely different and irrelevant from religion.

Quote[/b] ]And don't come this 'It makes people feel better'  -it doesn't.

It makes me feel better (there is a better way to explain it than this, I just don't know how) If it didn't, I wouldn't be religious. Are you denying I feel what I do? That would be odd, since you don't even know who I am.

Quote[/b] ]DId you miss this part?

No, I didn't. Nobody has ever proven or disproven any of my examples. Saying they don't exist isn't proof.

Baron, I do apologize for calling you sarcastic, as that was pretty hypocritical. Nothing spices up a discussion like a good bit of sarcasm. You just seemed to be attacking more than discussing at the time. I'm not going to post further in this thread, because it's getting repetative. It went off topic into an argument, and with those, it's very rare that anybody can convince anybody else of an opinion over a forum format. I'm sure this topic has come up and gone nowhere a bunch of times over the past three years.

[brgnorway 0]

Give it up - it's no use. You'r banging your heads against a wall. The more you argue the louder he screams.

Happy easter folks!

[Major Fubar 0]

Maybe you aren't getting the point.  What use is religion then?  What is the usefulness of it?  That is what I am asking.

And don't come this 'It makes people feel better'  -it doesn't.

Well, I'd have to say you're wrong there...I know plenty of people who get a lot of peace of mind and even enjoyment and a sense of wellbeing from their religious beliefs.

I know many people who have lost loved ones who take great solace in the fact they "have gone to a better place".

Even though I might personally believe that this is wrong, and they are actually just rotting in the ground, I can think of no reason why I should upset someone by denying their belief in an afterlife.

As I've said many times in the past, the only time I object to people's religious beliefs is when they try to shove them down my throat.

P.S. If religious belief is such a flawed idea, why does virtually every culture, from stoneage tribesmen to modern anglo saxons, practice some form of belief? If religion is such a crazy concept, why have so many cultures, the world over, developed some form of belief system idependatly of each other?

[Apollo 0]

While i would agree that when the Normans were christend around 1000ad that it brought more molarlity and humanity to that region ,if you want to make the point that christianity can be positive to the evolution of people ,i can make the point that it can also be negative to evolution.

Take the inquisition for example ,not exactly the nicest thing christianity produced (or catholicism rather) ,and then you had famous scientists around that era like copernicus or Galileo who made fundamental scientific progress for mankind that really were hassled by the religious fundementalism back then.

Around his age of 20 Leonardo da vinci was almost sentenced to death on charges of soddomie (a influential friend eventually saved his life) ,what a loss that would have been.Such example's are legio in the years between 1500-1700ad when relgios turmoil really leads to bloody wars and much fanatisicm ,Mostly at the times 1520-1560 when respectivly luther and Calvijn spread their theory's leading to protestantism and Reformism.

When the Spanniards under Cortez enterred Aztec lands they saw thing's that were unseen for them with their religious background.Not only were the Aztec's pagan's ,they were also engaged in really widespread soddomie and religious canabalism and much more nasty stuff.The Aztec's used to sacrifice people by the 100.000's at that time in religious rituals that really shocked the Spaniards.In fact ,at one point in the campaign the Spaniards themselfs were witness of a number of their companions who where religiosly sacrificed in a way i beter just don't try to describe.

In any case ,for every rightious Spaniard conquistador present with Cortez at that time Tenochtitlan must have been soddom and Gommora toghether and so they felt quite justified in killing off much of that civilization in the name of god. (though most of the Aztec's died from smallpoks)

So sure conquering heathen territorysometimes had it's positive effects if the heathen's really were a bad bunch.But when the Knight's of the first crusade practicly wiped out the population of prosperous muslim city's like Antioh and Jerusalem (christians included!) then i wouldn't see why "deus le vult" ,afterall most muslim's were a much more civilized (and religiously tollerant) people at that time then christians were. (Byzantine's not included) The christians of Jerusalem were a lot better treated innitionally by the Muslim's than the Crusaders ,Under Sunni overlordship they were 3rth class citizin's (you were still quite free,more than most christian peasents) ,the crusaders just killed all catholic inhabitants of Jerusalem 1099 toghether with the rest of the city ,and at the end of that massacre they were litteraly standing enkel high in blood.

[ozanzac 0]

Well, I for one thank God for easter time! Only one day more to work and then I have 4 days off!

Please tell me when science was to thank for hollidays    

I don't really observe religious holidays for what they're supposed to be, but...........Hooray for holidays.

Please, tell me Baron, what is your attitude to events such as Christmas and Easter.

How do you view them? Do you stand on the outside looking in, burning within as why any country would allow for a public holiday over something as in your view, as trivial as a religious event.

Do you participate in such events at all? If so, do you participate in them with a 'friendly' attitude, and do you try to restrain yourself from bursting out with 'religion is utter crap' statements from the risk of offending those that do celebrate such events.

Are there religious people in your life? How do you deal with them, without raising your complete opposition to religion? Do you tolerate others choices to observe a religion, or do you try to 'educate' them. If so, do you do it in a polite manner? If you do, what makes these forums so different?

In fact, do you enjoy the fact that you don't have to work on a Sunday because it is a day of Sabbath, or would you prefer the entire society that you live in work seven days a week in the name of accelerated scientific achievement?

Surely you make concessions that there are valuable aspects to religion. It wouldn't reflect highly upon you if you didn't.

[Acecombat 0]

Quote[/b] ]How do you view them? Do you stand on the outside looking in, burning within as why any country would allow for a public holiday over something as in your view, as trivial as a religious event.

LMAO

I somehow cant imagine someone standing in the middle with snow falling around with a scornful look on his face while looking at the Xmas tree

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

How do you view them? Do you stand on the outside looking in, burning within as why any country would allow for a public holiday over something as in your view, as trivial as a religious event.

Do you participate in such events at all? If so, do you participate in them with a 'friendly' attitude, and do you try to restrain yourself from bursting out with 'religion is utter crap' statements from the risk of offending those that do celebrate such events.

Are there religious people in your life? How do you deal with them, without raising your complete opposition to religion? Do you tolerate others choices to observe a religion, or do you try to 'educate' them. If so, do you do it in a polite manner? If you do, what makes these forums so different?

In fact, do you enjoy the fact that you don't have to work on a Sunday because it is a day of Sabbath, or would you prefer the entire society that you live in work seven days a week in the name of accelerated scientific achievement?

Surely you make concessions that there are valuable aspects to religion. It wouldn't reflect highly upon you if you didn't.

Both christmas and easter(Spring solstice) were originally pagan holidays or events. So its hardly a christian holiday. The habit of not working seven says a week was begun in the industrial age when a benevolent factory owner decided to give his workers a half day on saturday (AFAIR).

So its fuck all to do with religion.

And holidays and celebrations, including giving gifts for the winter solstice, are great fun without having to sit listening to some boring cunt preach at you.

[whisperFFW06 0]

Christ - mas ?

[Acecombat 0]

Dude if i were you i'd be a bit careful using such abusive for religious priests or scholars who people hold in high esteem is a very rash and retarded thing to do.

Why cant you lay off with the abuses a bit?