Is religion to blame? Page 12

Quote: zooo @ June 22 2008, 3:28 PM BST

To debate the possibility of the existence of a god seems ridiculous. Genuinely feels the same as debating the existence of the tooth fairy.

View original

I'm just looking at it from both sides. If it was so clear cut that God was the equivalent of the Tooth Fairy then atheists would have won the intellectual debate millennia ago. They haven't. But neither have the people in the religious camp.

Although both sides of the debate would like to believe the other camp are pretty thick to believe in myths, it's clearly nothing to do with intellect (as implied) because some of the world's greatest minds have believed in a God. And conversely some haven't. If an overwhelming intellectual argument really existed, then one side would have collapsed but they haven't. Even Dawkins has to hide behind silly jokes and deceptive logic to avoid saying that he has no real answers to certain questions.

It's not our intellect (as we'd all like to believe) that makes informed decisions in this area; it all comes down to something as simple as personal choice. We prefer a world with / without a God therefore we're more inclined to the arguments of that particular school of thought.

That all sounds very sensible, but not quite right somehow.

There's something more that I want to express, I just can't vocalise it.

(I don't think I was implying it had anything to do with intellect, by the way. If that's even what you were saying.)

I know that. I was trying to be my usual self and drive straight down the middle without committing to either side.

Oh, good.

It's not like atheists get to a certain age and think, hmm, I think I'll choose not to believe in the bible. It's just not even an issue.
It's as screamingly obvious to me that there's no mystical being as it is that there is a sun in the sky and a tree outside my window. There just is no debate.

I do get a bit perplexed therefore when (some) people who are religious seem to think that all atheists must be depressed individuals with no hopes, or faith in anything. What could possibly keep you going if you don't believe in god?
Just a bizarre concept.
Also that if you're an atheist you have no real morals. As if the religious invented them, and that if you reject the idea of the bible you reject all the ideas that happen to have been put inside it.

(A couple of otherwise perfectly normal people have expressed these views to me.)

Not bad for someone who was finding it difficult to vocalise it

Unbeliever! Unbelieeeeveer!

Quote: zooo @ June 22 2008, 4:17 PM BST

Oh, good.

It's not like atheists get to a certain age and think, hmm, I think I'll choose not to believe in the bible. It's just not even an issue.
It's as screamingly obvious to me that there's no mystical being as it is that there is a sun in the sky and a tree outside my window. There just is no debate.

I do get a bit perplexed therefore when (some) people who are religious seem to think that all atheists must be depressed individuals with no hopes, or faith in anything. What could possibly keep you going if you don't believe in god?
Just a bizarre concept.
Also that if you're an atheist you have no real morals. As if the religious invented them, and that if you reject the idea of the bible you reject all the ideas that happen to have been put inside it.

(A couple of otherwise perfectly normal people have expressed these views to me.)

View original

The trouble is that by it's very nature (and description as better summarised by Mister Slagg) a deity is a metaphor. It's when a literal translation is looked at that things seem ludicrous and tooth fairy like. It's to do with what we don't know more than what we do. Take time for example - when did that start is an impossible question to answer in literal terms. And it is that realisation in essence that leads to belief systems forming.

Talking of time - if you shoot two photons a certain distance from a special gun and put a thin mirror in the way of one of them. The one with the mirror arrives earlier than the other - to the speed eqiuvalent of the depth of the mirror. That means that time didn't exist when it was traveling through the mirror. And what that means... who knows???

Thinking about where the universe ends and, if it does end, what's on the other side of it ... and all those questions that are way beyond our understanding at the moment ... Just being able to expand on them, to talk freely without worry of being called a blasphemer or being told you have committed a sin because you are an unbeliever... it should be the entitlement of every person on Earth. Freedom shouldn't just mean physical freedom it should be freedom to choose your own belief system without fear of repression.

Here here.

Or hear hear... !

Quote: SlagA @ June 22 2008, 3:59 PM BST

I'm just looking at it from both sides. If it was so clear cut that God was the equivalent of the Tooth Fairy then atheists would have won the intellectual debate millennia ago. They haven't. But neither have the people in the religious camp.

View original

No offence to the religion side but, this is down to not being able to debate with someone who's religious, it's impossible, I've tried... with a Jehovahs witness my friends aunt is a fanatic, it's quite literally like talking to a 5 year old and their invisable friend, there is no logic or grounding in their arguement.

I basically get the "How do you know the Big Bang happened?"

At which point I'm too pissed off to both anymore.

Actually I think that might've been what didn't feel right about Slag's post.

Excuse the expression but Slag's post was devil's advocate stuff - he wasn't siding with anybody?

Fence siiittttttterrrr!

Religions are as different, as the people they believe in. Jehovis Witness's do my head in, dying for want of a blood transfusion. Becuase some divvy misread the Judaic laws on food centuries ago. I know people with religious views, who are hide bound to the point of accidental hilarity. I also know people whose views make them sharp witted, thinking and open minded.

Peronally my hang up is the whole never goto Church, but get a 1000 pund debt at Xmas brigade.

Religion is like masturbation, and cookery something to do. Myabe it helps some people, maybe it does harm. Frankly who cares those loonies stoning women, and blowing thme selves up I suspect are juist rather angry, confused people, whove been given an outlest.

70 years ago they'd have been wearing a black unifrom, and burning books. 600 years ago they'd have burnt witches.

Usually when people claim they do evil religious reasons there's a rather more prosaic one.

Quote: zooo @ June 22 2008, 4:17 PM BST

It's not like atheists get to a certain age and think, I'll choose not to believe in the bible. It's obvious to me that there's no mystical being. There just is no debate.

View original

Yep, that was a point I was aiming at. Intellect is side-stepped in an intuitive choice. That is, the first time a concept occurs to a person, they make an instinctive choice, free from any intellectual arguments. That is, we can't tackle arguments for and against an idea without first comprehending that idea.

The first time we encounter an idea, I think personal predisposition is key to our 'gut' reaction in choosing to believe or not. Later, intellectual argument / peer pressure / etc can reinforce or weaken a person's view - there are always converts from each camp - but the arguments are not as one-sided as either side likes to present. That's why an appeal to intellect from either faction so often fails. The lines are already drawn.

That's why Paul encountered problems with a JW. You're battling an ideology that is also a defence mechanism. It protects the person within. BUT this applies to every ideology in existence. It's not restricted to religion. There are equally rabid atheists, communists, ufologists, and bacteriologists.

I guess I'm trying to question what we believe and why, because we often criticise blind faith in others but ignore the blind faith we exercise in our own lives. Anything accepted from outside personal experience is a step of faith. And we usually preselect sources (books / programmes) that confirm what we already hold true.

But most things presented as fact are often just interpretation of data, rather than the data itself. Even the most accepted facts can have valid counter explanations that get quashed because they don't gel with current fashions. For example, history gets rewritten, theories morph, what was once ridiculed is now accepted. And the pressure is to conform to something we've hardly had time or desire to examine for ourselves.

I think I've always been a fence-sitter. Although I have strong opinions and SlagB would argue a very strange world-view, I rarely bring them into a discussion, unless relevant.

Quote: sootyj @ June 22 2008, 5:40 PM BST

Usually when people claim they do evil religious reasons there's a rather more prosaic one.

View original

Yes. Usually it's the leadership's political goals that are being served rather than the religious goals.