Why Religion Must Remain A Part Of The World...

callen

Collin wrote:

Even though the morals most of us have are rooted in religion, I do not think it's necessary for religion to remain a part of the world.

good existed before religion.....they just picked up on it and added it to their repertoire...

cornnifer

Ahnimus wrote:

Sure it does, I'm proving that an infinite thing is less likely to exist than a finite thing.

Your not PROVING anything. You're trying to make a philosophical point, and, to be honest, not doing a very good job of it. You are attempting to assign a "level of omnipotence" which is, by definition, impossible. just as there can be no 1-10 "level" of infinity. There can be no "level" placed on omnipotence. It doesn't work.

Ahnimus

cornnifer wrote:

Your not PROVING anything. You're trying to make a philosophical point, and, to be honest, not doing a very good job of it. You are attempting to assign a "level of omnipotence" which is, by definition, impossible. just as there can be no 1-10 "level" of infinity. There can be no "level" placed on omnipotence. It doesn't work.

Exactly, it just doesn't work!

Aliens however, do work, they exist within the borders of reality.

Pearl Jam and toast

Take a look at pagan religions that pre-date Christianity and tell me how pure your's is. It's mostly rehashed beliefs that society has already founded itself in in one way or another.

Here's one of the best known ones..

Gilgamesh V. Noah - The Flood.

To say that any religion is "right" is ridiculous. That idea has caused humanity an enormous amount of harm.

lucylespian

danika_bookworm wrote:

religion is necessary to create some kind of order... even though some wars have been caused (indirectly or directly) by particular religions, at least the need for order & organization and regulation of rites, beliefs & culture was the first agenda in creating a system of belief...

plus, it adds color to a culture...

on the question concerning existensialism, i've never really explored whether i believe in an afterlife or not. not yet, because i'm busy trying to extract WORLDLY wisdom (not life-after-death wisdom) from various religios writings (by reading them in the right way, and not using these writings in forwarding my selfish needs, as some people do). This is why i believe religion gives us a sense of order in this WORLD...

Adds colour alright, the colour of people's insides usually!! and pretty much every war I know of has had a religious cause, or justification, including the next cycle of ridiculous worldwars we are in teh process sof entering at present.
And I always just love this, "reading the right way", argument. Remeber Forrest Gump, stupid is as stupid does, well religion is hwat is does, so prating that you are really one thing while doing another is pure shite.
And I see that you know the "right "way!!

Emmett

decides2dream wrote:

or maybe its simply that intellect blinds some to this idea of grandeuer and self-importance...to think we are better than other animals, etc...who are we in the grand design? how can we even know? i don't see the intellect as making anything *obvious*...nor the fact that the alternative makes no sense to you a compelling arguement either. what appears as us being superior, can merely all be a masquerade, and our own self-delusions. animals DO have the capacity to learn, many are higly intelligent, such as ourselves who ARE a part of the animal kingdom...but who is to say that human intelligence is the 'best' intelligence? if it's a god, well then, it's all circular logic at best, and bottomline....we just don't know b/c we are using our own highly subjective methods/opinions/ideas...in making that assessment.


i think it's great if some find meaning/serenity/happiness in religion...and i think it's great if others find the same without. i do not find 'belief' necessary.......but i am all for choice, and individual happiness. it's also clear one does not 'need' religion to lead a good life, a moral life, a life that cares for life, etc.

so no matter what.....i think we should all simply respect each other's belief systems, or lack there of, and the validity of all....b/c NO one knows with any certainty WHAT happens after this life, so why waste your time here arguing over it? seems ridiculous at best.


btw - i hardly find cosmo's post 'ignorant'...but more like, asking questions....perhaps simplistic, but maybe that's where this whole debate should lie. i think the biggest issue of religion, is the whole idea that one feels compelled to push their agenda on others, there is only one right way, one god/allah/supreme being, only one correct way to live/worship, etc. if all those of a religious nature would take a live and let live attitude, not try to force their belief systems on others, the world would be a better, more peaceful, place. let's worry about our own 'souls'...and let's make the focus of the global community to make THIS life peaceful and harmonious....and we can all worry/prepare/hope for our afterlife, or not, of our own free will. makes sense to me.


*edits for my usual pathetic typos.

What do I believe? I believe I have no idea what to believe, but I know it should be my personal choice. Therefore, I have a severe distaste for all forms of organized religion that push the "belief in (insert your favorite omnipotent being here) = salvation/goodness/holiness/trip to (insert your favorite place here) after you die" idea. I loved this post..Thanks.

danika_bookworm

lucylespian wrote:

Adds colour alright, the colour of people's insides usually!! and pretty much every war I know of has had a religious cause, or justification, including the next cycle of ridiculous worldwars we are in teh process sof entering at present.
And I always just love this, "reading the right way", argument. Remeber Forrest Gump, stupid is as stupid does, well religion is hwat is does, so prating that you are really one thing while doing another is pure shite.
And I see that you know the "right "way!!

yeah well, the people who have caused all these wars must have thought that waving their religion & beliefs like a banner would make them look good. that's arrogance to me... i really think religion or belief systems are very personal, that you don't have to tell EVERYONE that you're a believer of CAtholism or ISlam or whatever, 'cause if a person does that, that means he/she is imposing his/her religious beliefs on other people... and it's very personal because a person believes in something because it works for him/her, and not necessarily for other people...

kenny olav

cornnifer wrote:

Point is, the belief that God exists, and the belief that God does not exist are both BELIEFS. No war of semantics about it. Atheism is just as much a BELIEF as is theism.

Depends on how you define atheism.


1. A person who does not have a belief that one or more deities or gods exist. (weak atheism)
2. A person who believes that no god exists (strong atheism)
3. A person who feels convinced that all references to gods are rooted in fiction and/or ancient superstition.


I identity myself with the first definition, but I prefer to indentify myself as an agnostic, as I agree with all three definitions and find them more useful:


1. The view that the existence of any god is unknown at present.
2. The view that any god's existence is unknowable.
3. The view that theism is incoherent (see ignosticism.)


These are the definitions found on Wikitionary, btw.

angelica

OutOfBreath wrote:

If you say peanuts can fly, and I say they don't, then it's on you to prove that they do. Absurd example perhaps, but that's the essence of it. (Besides, I like absurd examples as they are far more fun)

The one claiming something exists has the burden of proof. Hence belief in god and not believing in god are not equal beliefs. Belief in god requires proof if others are to be convinced. You can't prove something does not exist, only that something does exist. That's science.

So belief in god does not equate not believing in god. If you believe bacuase of proof you have experienced, ok. But unless you can share that proof, it takes more for others to believe something they have never seen exists, than believing that what they have never seen doesnt exist.

Peace
Dan

It looks like there is some backwards thinking in this thread. In science, itself, all possibilities stand until they have been disproven. That's right--until an idea, concept or theory has been disproven, it stands. Many science concepts have been "proven" only to be eventually disproven. By closing our minds and only looking at what is in the box of personal perspective, we will not be able to objectively see from outside the box. It is only by getting outside the box and being open to the fact that immense possibilties surround us that we will begin to have a glimmer of the truth of things.

Some people may consider that because they have not personally experienced something then it is proof of it not existing. The fact is, you can't prove a negative.

On the basis that one cannot prove a negative, it sounds like people are making decisions based on personal bias alone. That's fine--let's just recognize it's similar to cornnifer making his decisions based on personal experience. I say similar because truly, it is NOT the same thing. cornnifer has experienced something--his experience knows it to be true. That is quite different than experiencing a lack of something and questioning whether it exists.

Whether we can convince others or not has nothing at all to do with whether something is true. If we are thinking inside the box, our vision is impaired and we don't know which way is up or down. We need the support of others in order to feel that we are "correct" in what we find--there is safety in numbers. When we are not secure in our beliefs, we want to believe logic and science back us up, even when it is not the case. When we are using the compass of seeking truth, and owning our personal biases and blindspots by acknowledging them, we begin to differentiate between bias and truth. To exist freely amidst reality--among the vast potential surrounding us, without needing to box ourselves in...well, it's heaven, quite frankly.

angelica

Is anyone open to recognize that to close one's mind against the vast possibilites out there is living in the same close-minded box that so called religious close-minded people live in? Does anyone own that to blindly react to organized religion in a way that one remains in an equal but different box one is still in being controlled by the original powers that be who programmed us in the first place? Just because we've taken the opposing role in the drama doesn't mean we've escaped playing our part in the play. When we react from our programming and bias, we are parroting the acceptable words and phrases, while perched on our flawed premises. Reacting in biased blindess to something is a far cry from acting upon objective discernment. The biases throughout this thread are glaring.

All possibilities stand until proven otherwise.

Oh, I know. People see what they want to see. I'll hear the same biased blindness in the next religion/God thread and the one after that. That's the problem with the closed mind--it works very hard to justify itself. The fact remains: it doesn't work--you cannot justify the unjustifiable. And why try? You only fool yourself.

Ahnimus

Having an open-mind does not mean to blindly believe in something with no imperical proof.

The scientific method is a means of explaining phenomena with imperical replicable evidence. So when you are referring to science as open-minded, it is and it isn't. A simple hypothesis it's self is not a science.

wikipedia wrote:

The scientific method involves the following basic facets:
•Observation. A constant feature of scientific inquiry.

•Description. Information must be reliable, i.e., replicable (repeatable) as well as valid (relevant to the inquiry).

•Prediction. Information must be valid for observations past, present, and future of given phenomena, i.e., purported "one shot" phenomena do not give rise to the capability to predict, nor to the ability to repeat an experiment.

•Control. Actively and fairly sampling the range of possible occurrences, whenever possible and proper, as opposed to the passive acceptance of opportunistic data, is the best way to control or counterbalance the risk of empirical bias.

•Falsifiability, or the elimination of plausible alternatives. This is a gradual process that requires repeated experiments by multiple researchers who must be able to replicate results in order to corroborate them. This requirement, one of the most frequently contended, leads to the following: All hypotheses and theories are in principle subject to disproof. Thus, there is a point at which there might be a consensus about a particular hypothesis or theory, yet it must in principle remain tentative. As a body of knowledge grows and a particular hypothesis or theory repeatedly brings predictable results, confidence in the hypothesis or theory increases.

•Causal explanation. Many scientists and theorists on scientific method argue that concepts of causality are not obligatory to science, but are in fact well-defined only under particular, admittedly widespread conditions. Under these conditions the following requirements are generally regarded as important to scientific understanding:
•Identification of causes. Identification of the causes of aparticular phenomenon to the best achievable extent.
•Covariation of events. The hypothesized causes must correlate with observed effects.
•Time-order relationship. The hypothesized causes must precede the observed effects in time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

There is a lot more to scientific method than a simple hypothesis.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

Having an open-mind does not mean to blindly believe in something with no imperical proof.

The scientific method is a means of explaining phenomena with imperical replicable evidence. So when you are referring to science as open-minded, it is and it isn't. A simple hypothesis it's self is not a science.



There is a lot more to scientific method than a simple hypothesis.

Are you in any way saying that possibilities do not stand as potential unless proven otherwise, according to science?

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

Are you in any way saying that possibilities do not stand as potential unless proven otherwise, according to science?

No, I am saying, according to science, if you have a hypothesis you need to back it up.

You can't say a possibility exists within the realm of science but ignore any contradictory proof or your inability to prove it yourself.

As the wikipedia article states "All hypotheses and theories are in principle subject to disproof."

The religious "theory" doesn't allow for the scientific community to disprove it. The religious "theory" by no means conforms to the scrutiny of the scientific method.

hippiemom

angelica wrote:

The fact is, you can't prove a negative.

angelica wrote:

All possibilities stand until proven otherwise.

That's convenient. I can't prove a negative (such as the non-existance of god or garden fairies), but I have to allow for the possibility of them until "proven" otherwise, which as you've just said is impossible.

Damn, I'm getting some great ideas for science fair projects based on this line of reasoning.

Cosmo

God is a pretty good concept. Man creates God... so we can use Him as a crutch. Man created God in Man's images... to make sure one of those other damn critters couldn't. God is a good explanation and a rational justification for Man's action's and decisions.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

No, I am saying, according to science, if you have a hypothesis you need to back it up.

You can't say a possibility exists within the realm of science but ignore any contradictory proof or your inability to prove it yourself.

As the wikipedia article states "All hypotheses and theories are in principle subject to disproof."

The religious "theory" doesn't allow for the scientific community to disprove it. The religious "theory" by no means conforms to the scrutiny of the scientific method.

I completely agree that you need to back it up to PROVE it. Whether you prove it or not is irrelevent. What has been "proven" can be disproven. When we thought the world was flat, it remained irrelevent in the sense that it was not true. What is relevent is that God is as yet not disproven and therefore stands as a distinct possibility. Science knows that we cannot eliminate a possibility until we eliminate it. Therefore all possibilities remain....well, possibilities.

As far as contradictory proof....it all depends on the context. If I am saying God exists, and you are disputing me using a study that determines the validity of any stage of evolution, we are coming from completely different contexts. What is true in one, may not be true in another. A fact shown within a theory meant to prove one thing does not disprove another theory, necessarily. The relevence of our facts are a product of the theory we are using. Differences may indicate a need to widen our parameters. If we don't acknowledge this, we continue to feed blind bias and distortion into the "machine".

You are correct: religious theory is beyond the parameters of the science method. Science sprang from philosophy but did not replace it. They are entirely different disciplines, both relying heavily on logic. They are not the same. Same for religion--it is from beyond the parameters of science.

Beyond logic, we also have our intuitive and emotional intelligences, neither of which is logical. Both are alogical, which is NOT to be confused with being illogical. For such a reason, integrated whole-brain thought is required to truly discern truth. Logic relies on the premise for it's accuracy. The premise relies on having a glimpse of the big picture, whether by experience, or by insight. It is our other intelligences that give us in"sight" and "direct knowing". Yes, intuitive processes must be augmented by logic to be used effectively, and yet it come from the part of the brain that gives us the "big picture". Logic's fill-in-the-blanks is a complementary function.

If we rely on logic alone, we remain in the box, lacking a visionary compass.

angelica

hippiemom wrote:

That's convenient. I can't prove a negative (such as the non-existance of god or garden fairies), but I have to allow for the possibility of them until "proven" otherwise, which as you've just said is impossible.

Damn, I'm getting some great ideas for science fair projects based on this line of reasoning.

You cannot prove a negative. You can't prove God does not exist. If you have proven it to yourself, I call that personal bias rather than objective discernment. You can disprove an argument for something--a positive. As far as I've seen, no one in this thread, or any other for that matter, has disproven God.

Actually, it can be quite inconvenient to seek the truth. It is much easier to accept what our filters tell us, based on, largely, what we've been taught.

angelica

Ahnimus, you're a computer dude, aren't you? Do you understand the necessity for using abstract concepts or symbols to explain complex topics that cannot be explained using straight forward simple linear words? Maybe being 'math guy' might be enough for making my point.

Do you understand why in quantum physics, we need to theorize using complex figures to explain dimensions far beyond what our five senses perceive? If so, is it then possible for you to understand what a mystic might be be talking about--using a theoretical framework in order to bring such concepts to our understanding? You watched "What the Bleep". Remember how it was the shamans in cultures who perceived beyond the "norm". It was the shaman who first saw Columbus' ship, (so they said), and by his increased perception, he was able to understand and translate such a vision--of a ship on the horizon--to regular folk, in a digestible way. He was open to comprehend such a concept. Regular folk could not without a tranlated framework.

angelica

Cosmo wrote:

God is a pretty good concept. Man creates God... so we can use Him as a crutch. Man created God in Man's images... to make sure one of those other damn critters couldn't. God is a good explanation and a rational justification for Man's action's and decisions.

What if our creating God is meant to be the same as Michelangelo seeing the angel in the rock and setting it free (by creating a sculpture). What if it's the same as Plato's concept that everything exists as it's potential form first before we actualize or REALize it?

Now granted, unfortunately I agree that the vast majority create this "god" in their own image. As well as satan. In psychology, it's called the superego, and it's created in the image of our silly, small egos. Or the shadow--our rejected traits, our inner hidden devil that we project onto the other guy. We then proceed to walk around entirely oblivious that we are living vicariously through this external god and satan, all the while being completely disconnected from the truth of our inner goodness or ugliness. Same goes for the athiest who has their own projections for good and bad to make up for a lack of integrated inner wholeness. Sometimes I see from what athiests say that science is good and exalted and "true" while religious people are the evil of the world. All the while being disconnected from their own potential heights of greatness or depths of ugliness. We've all learned well from the stories we've been fed. Is it a wonder Jesus spoke in parables? Being out of touch with ourselves and an integrated potential, we can only understand the parables rather than live the truth. Times, they sure are a changing though.

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

Ahnimus, you're a computer dude, aren't you? Do you understand the necessity for using abstract concepts or symbols to explain complex topics that cannot be explained using straight forward simple linear words? Maybe being 'math guy' might be enough for making my point.

Do you understand why in quantum physics, we need to theorize using complex figures to explain dimensions far beyond what our five senses perceive? If so, is it then possible for you to understand what a mystic might be be talking about--using a theoretical framework in order to bring such concepts to our understanding? You watched "What the Bleep". Remember how it was the shamans in cultures who perceived beyond the "norm". It was the shaman who first saw Columbus' ship, (so they said), and by his increased perception, he was able to understand and translate such a vision--of a ship on the horizon--to regular folk, in a digestible way. He was open to comprehend such a concept. Regular folk could not without a tranlated framework.

I agree with you Angelica. My point is that theory alone isn't enough to be considered fact. Religion by it's nature is neither a provable or disprovable theory. As a society we shouldn't use this kind of theory as any basis for policy. Unless the theory can be replicated and proven, I don't consider it a fundamental to modern life.

Interestingly, people invest more belief in theism than they do actual science. A few examples are Wilhelm Reich's Orgone Energy, Nikola Tesla's theories and Mel Winfield's theory of gravity. All those theories are well grounded in science and can be replicated to a certain extent. However, the majority of people consider those scientists "nuts". I personally find their work more intriguing than a religious belief.

I recently watched a production called "Lies in the Textbooks" which attempts to prove Evolution wrong, it attempts to prove the Grand Canyon was created instantly. But what it fails to do is provide any solid replicable evidence. It's mostly conjecture and philosophical belief. That doesn't stand-up against the "lies" in the textbook. As an example, one of the arguements was that since the surface level at the river's entry point to the canyon is lower than the surface level of the exit point, it could not have been created by the river, because river's do not travel uphill. This theory omits a very critical observation, the surface heights surrounding the grand canyon may have changed over the millions of years suggested by the official scientific theory. This theological hypothesis assumes that the earth around the grand canyon has never changed in millions of years.

It's quite simple to prove or disprove anything if you fail to follow the scientific method that has been constructed to accurately explain phenomenon. If we fail to explain something with science, that doesn't exactly leave the door open for radical hypothesis, but the door is always open to hypothesis with significant scientific structure. You can't prove or disprove a religious belief with our current knowledge, that renders the hypothesis inadmissable.