Religion

[Darkmoon]

I don't think being religious makes anyone an idiot per se. I just can't see how anybody could be religious and not be one (qualified below). Maybe idiot is too harsh a word, but I really think that if someone believes everything a religion says unquestioningly, then they can't be too bright. Religions need people to believe things without evidence, and even in the face of contradicting evidence. And in my opinion, then yes, anyone who follows this hook line and sinker isn't thinking for themselves, ergo, isn't thinking.

Now I know you're a clever man Darkmoon. I know you have a degree in Archaeology which is testament to your intelligence. And I suspect that you've evaluated the evidence for and against the core beliefs of your religion (I don't actually know which. I'd be curious to know. If I remember correctly you said it was a rather ancient branch of a standing religion. If you don't want to publicise your beliefs that's fine). If you've evaluated the evidence and come to the conclusion that it is the truth, then I'm in no better a position to say it's not after I've evaluated the same evidence. There's no way to resolve the two, but agree to disagree, and that we're each satisfied we've looked at the evidence. I know that alot of people are personally spiritual (and don't identify themselves with a major church), and they reach this point after something happens to them that changes how they evaluate evidence.

What I mostly have a problem with is when children are inculcated into religions. The heredity of belief is something that a whole lot of extant religions have in common, and I think that there's a very good reason for it. I think children should be taught to think freely and evaluate evidence, and then if they come to the conclusion that a divine being created the universe, then that's fine.

In writing all this, I realise that I've said that I can't understand how someone could be religious and not be one (an idiot), and yet above, said that if they were introduced to it as a child then they'd know nothing else, and so possibly couldn't help it. I guess that someone would have to know that they had the ability to think for themselves before they could make up their own mind. If this was denied them, then yes, they could be religious, and never even pondered the questions of life, the universe and everything. And ultimately I think situations like this are sad, though are entirely the product of a religion.

Well, I suppose I should point out that all I can really say is that I have a degree. Can't exactly prove it, but Alexia and Zombie Fred crash in the room with my degree, so they can back me up.

My religion is Noahide. Essentially it works on the idea that the 613 laws given to the Jews were for the Jews specifically, but the laws given to Noah after the Great Flood were for humanity as a whole. It's essentially what became Judaism eventually. And there are aspects I disagree with, such as the prohibition against sodomy.

And yeah, I essentially came to the conclusion that a God exists based on my own life and own experience and the evidence I could gather. The chances of life evolving anywhere, at random, are astronomically high given how much random chance is involved in the process, how difficult it is for somewhere to have the exact right levels of heat, gravity, radiation and chemical balances for life...and, of course, the idea that everything in existence came from nothing.

It also helped that I ran into some ghosts when I was younger. Since it was a personal experience it's no compelling proof on an internet argument, really, and it does make me sound slightly mad to those who don't believe in ghosts, but it was enough to make me believe that ghosts do exist. And if ghosts do exist then a soul exists. Which means we aren't simply a mobile bag of chemical processes and neural messages formed by a grab bag of instincts and experience. There's no place in hard science for the soul. Again, though, I know as compelling evidence goes this one doesn't work at all. It's simply a personal experience that is partially the reason for my faith.

Some would say that all religion is a form of brainwashing. Children are indoctrinated into a religion, and sometimes forced into believing things from an early age. That in itself can be a form of brainwashing.

The flaw with that argument is that, by that standard, raising a child equates to brain washing them. You influence a child with your personal opinions all the time. Sense of morality, work ethic, money handling...all things we teach our children. If someone lives a carefree life style and teaches there child that spend, spend, spend is the way to go then that child is hardly ready for life in general, are they? Unless you have the income to back that life style up you'll end up in a lot of trouble over spending without thought, and ruin a lot of your choices in life.

I am raising my children with my religious views, but I'm also teaching them those of other religions and of science as well. It's up to them to choose. That is how I personally feel it should be done, and how my parents raised me. I was raised a Church of England protestant, for the curious. I disagreed that Christ was the Messiah and with the editing of various religious texts, and changed to an Agnostic for several years before becoming a Noahide about seven years ago.

My mom sometimes blames other Religions for the problems the world faces now...But wouldn't that mean people of other Religions blame her religion for problems? Such as the war in the holy land and such? Very interesting view on things...humans have a need to point the finger at someone/thing...why not be other religions/races/countries

Religion doesn't always help, that's for sure. Saying that, it usually serves as an excuse. War's are fought over resources, often with, 'They have blasphemed against our one, true God/Several Gods/Millions of Gods/Earth Mother/Sacred Spirit/The Ancestors and now we must kill them, take there fertile land and there diamond mine!' It's relatively rare for a purely religious conflict to happen. Take the Israel/Palestine conflict. The areas that are being argued over tend to be lands that have been heavily irrigated to make them fertile, not large chunks of wasteland, but the conflict is certainly driven by religious and cultural problems between the two lands. The Palestinians large rockets or send suicide bombers on to school buses, the Israelis demolish there villages.

Speaking of religion, its about married couple. What if one of the two parties have different religion? Should one abandoned the other and go with the other party's religion? or just go their separate ways on that part. Also what of their children?

Depends entirely on the couple. My mother and step father are a Protestant and a Atheist. They get along fine. Others are unable to accept there life partner has a different view, maybe because they feel it will harm them in some way, maybe because they just aren't comfortable with someone like that.

[Member_of_STARS]

Darkmoon, theres a theory (not really even a theory) that there actually is nothing random in this world. A kind of cosmic fate, if you will.

In simple terms, everything that happens today, at this moment, can be backtraced to one single event- the Big Bang. Everything that happens is a result of previous events (on every scale, and on its own, its nothing new, right?), which by default proves that theres no such thing as "random".

So "life evolving randomly" is not really true by any stretch, and believing that the first signs of life formed through amino-acids isnt a far stretch. Theres basically a huge number of explanations on why people turn religious, but my personal favourite is this-

Science is subject to the postulate of objectivity and to the method adopted by the detached observer and not directly involved with the event observed. The postulate of objectivity dictates that we obtain data from a world external to us, the detached observers, and we store and process it in a strictly logical way. Thus, there is an iron principle of transitivity in force, or rather I - observe and describe - something (subject, predicate, object) and in such the observer must not be involved in what is observed.

This basically leads to the simple problem that a person cant "observe his/her own consciousness" without metaphorically "detatching his soul from his body" which in its own right is wrong as our consciousness is reactions and synapses in our brain.

As for seeing ghosts when you were younger. I thought I saw a UFO when I was 7. 3 flickering lights next to each other in the sky. Ive been awake and seen more nights compared to when I was younger, and I have seen no such things. If these things existed, the mere fact that every living person has a recording device these days, would mean we would have videos of this crap flooding our internet. We dont.

[Darkmoon]

Well, the idea that everything is predestined at the moment of the Big Bang is, I suppose, possible. But unlikely. Human beings are too chaotic for a simple chemical reaction to explain, and evolution itself is based heavily on the idea that a random mutation, such as a longer beak, gives a certain advantage and therefore more of those birds survive to breed, exacerbating the trait. And if this was would pre-destined in any way other than chemically that would certainly suggest a master plan of some kind...

As to ghosts, and UFO's, they're certainly a mystery. So many people claim to see them and yet there's not a shred of solid proof. I mean, you have things like the castle doors to the main hall of Dover Castle shaking terribly, with cameras on both sides showing no one was there (not that a single person could shake those doors) but as to what caused it...ghosts is only a theory. My personal belief is they exist, but it is based entirely on my experiences, so I certainly couldn't argue against the idea that some camera, somewhere should have got something. Especially in the UK with however many trillions of cameras there are 'for our protection.'

[Rose312]

As to ghosts, and UFO's, they're certainly a mystery. cameras there are 'for our protection.'

I don't really think UFOs have much to do with solving the "mystery" of religion...ghost help a little. Ghost give us a somewhat foreshadowing of a possible afterlife. Not quite the heaven we pray for though...

[Karui]

I believe in ghosts I have heard them speak to me. I do believe also in pre-destination. I believe God has made us a certain way, with a certain way of thinking, feeling etc, and that even the uncontrollable happens for a reason. We just don't have the mind capacity to fully comprehend it all.

[Lilith]

My religion is Noahide. Essentially it works on the idea that the 613 laws given to the Jews were for the Jews specifically, but the laws given to Noah after the Great Flood were for humanity as a whole. It's essentially what became Judaism eventually. And there are aspects I disagree with, such as the prohibition against sodomy.

The flaw with that argument is that, by that standard, raising a child equates to brain washing them. You influence a child with your personal opinions all the time. Sense of morality, work ethic, money handling...all things we teach our children. If someone lives a carefree life style and teaches there child that spend, spend, spend is the way to go then that child is hardly ready for life in general, are they? Unless you have the income to back that life style up you'll end up in a lot of trouble over spending without thought, and ruin a lot of your choices in life.

I am raising my children with my religious views, but I'm also teaching them those of other religions and of science as well. It's up to them to choose. That is how I personally feel it should be done, and how my parents raised me. I was raised a Church of England protestant, for the curious. I disagreed that Christ was the Messiah and with the editing of various religious texts, and changed to an Agnostic for several years before becoming a Noahide about seven years ago.

Religion doesn't always help, that's for sure. Saying that, it usually serves as an excuse. War's are fought over resources, often with, 'They have blasphemed against our one, true God/Several Gods/Millions of Gods/Earth Mother/Sacred Spirit/The Ancestors and now we must kill them, take there fertile land and there diamond mine!' It's relatively rare for a purely religious conflict to happen. Take the Israel/Palestine conflict. The areas that are being argued over tend to be lands that have been heavily irrigated to make them fertile, not large chunks of wasteland, but the conflict is certainly driven by religious and cultural problems between the two lands. The Palestinians large rockets or send suicide bombers on to school buses, the Israelis demolish there villages.

Depends entirely on the couple. My mother and step father are a Protestant and a Atheist. They get along fine. Others are unable to accept there life partner has a different view, maybe because they feel it will harm them in some way, maybe because they just aren't comfortable with someone like that.

I really like this entire post! Oh, and just to make it clear, I don't personally consider all religion to be a form of brainwashing, I just brought that up because I know those that do, and I have seen it used in that fashion at least once on a friend. I also agree that problems with a couple with religion is relative and differs from pair to pair. I also like the idea that even if you raise children with religious views you teach them about other options as well. It only tends to grate me the wrong way when parents 'force' their children into certain ideas. This happened to a friend of mine and made her miserable. They kept telling her everything else was evil and wrong constantly, and that all her evil friends who thought differently, (including me) were hurting her and going to suffer eternal damnation. If they had handled it differently with her, it would have saved her and all her friends much grief.

[Darkmoon]

I really like this entire post! Oh, and just to make it clear, I don't personally consider all religion to be a form of brainwashing, I just brought that up because I know those that do, and I have seen it used in that fashion at least once on a friend. I also agree that problems with a couple with religion is relative and differs from pair to pair. I also like the idea that even if you raise children with religious views you teach them about other options as well. It only tends to grate me the wrong way when parents 'force' their children into certain ideas. This happened to a friend of mine and made her miserable. They kept telling her everything else was evil and wrong constantly, and that all her evil friends who thought differently, (including me) were hurting her and going to suffer eternal damnation. If they had handled it differently with her, it would have saved her and all her friends much grief.

It does happen, yes. But it also happens in non-Religious house holds. Those other sorts of people who aren't the same skin tone as me are scum come to take our jobs. Women need to stay in the damned kitchen and get me my damned sandwhich. Etc. Your friend is certainly unfortunate though. I was lucky enough to have very...accepting parents.

[Member_of_STARS]

Well, the idea that everything is predestined at the moment of the Big Bang is, I suppose, possible. But unlikely.

Its not unlikely, it makes perfect sense. Im not talking about a piece of literature being written, describing which events will take place during the next 20 billion years. Thats religion, thats ignorant people trying to make sense of a situation they are (yet, or at all) unable to comprehend. Im talking about a simple concept, where pretty much every event today, can be seen as a direct consequence to events predating it (leading to it) and this chain pretty much goes on and on to the Big Bang. The theory isnt about events on macro-level (people, events, days, nights, whatever), but shit going on on subatomic levels. Its just the scale and ammount of these events is so vast, that its just better to call it "random". Heres your own example-

Human beings are too chaotic for a simple chemical reaction to explain

Human beings are EXTREMELY predictable on simple behavioural level. Utilization of body language to push people in certain subconscious ways directly proves just how simple people are (on macro level). Theres nothing chaotic about those chemical reactions either (micro level), every reaction has been/was/is started because certain reactions or events predated it (lead to it). Those reactions are directly influenced by what you eat and what youre doing, aswell as hormones, which are directly influenced by outside stimuli. Its basically an all-encompassing system of cause and effect.

and evolution itself is based heavily on the idea that a random mutation

Random is not the keyword, youre really ignoring the context here. There is nothing random about wildlife adapting to either changing/changed environment or to competition. Mutation isnt random, and thats what evolution can be seen. If evolution was truly random, we wouldnt be more advanced than our ancestors. We would merely be different.

such as a longer beak, gives a certain advantage and therefore more of those birds survive to breed, exacerbating the trait.

Which exactly why its not random. The flaws, lacks leading up to adaptation on macro-level is happening on micro-level aswell.

The theory of "cosmic destiny" has nothing to do with religion, or the ignorant concepts of deitys and whatnot. Its just a theory about nothing being random, everything to be able to be backtracked to one single event. Pretty much how causality governs our lives. Its quite difficult to accept that by the end of the day, while our choices may feel ours, they are an inescapable result of events leading up to them.

[Darkmoon]

Its not unlikely, it makes perfect sense. Im not talking about a piece of literature being written, describing which events will take place during the next 20 billion years. Thats religion, thats ignorant people trying to make sense of a situation they are (yet, or at all) unable to comprehend. Im talking about a simple concept, where pretty much every event today, can be seen as a direct consequence to events predating it (leading to it) and this chain pretty much goes on and on to the Big Bang. The theory isnt about events on macro-level (people, events, days, nights, whatever), but shit going on on subatomic levels. Its just the scale and ammount of these events is so vast, that its just better to call it "random". Heres your own example-

Mmm, I'd disagree. For a start, I do wish you'd stop refering to me as ignorant because of my beliefs. Simply put, though, I feel that a chemicle and physics explanation simply doesn't work. Not when it gets to people, as you yourself point out.

It is possible that in the moment of the Big Bang the life span of Stars and Galaxies were pre-determined, but people were not. However, I must point out, religious folks believe the same thing. They simply believe there was a guiding will to the event rather the ratios of chemicles and forces involved being in the correct ratios for this event and that

Human beings are EXTREMELY predictable on simple behavioural level. Utilization of body language to push people in certain subconscious ways directly proves just how simple people are (on macro level). Theres nothing chaotic about those chemical reactions either (micro level), every reaction has been/was/is started because certain reactions or events predated it (lead to it). Those reactions are directly influenced by what you eat and what youre doing, aswell as hormones, which are directly influenced by outside stimuli. Its basically an all-encompassing system of cause and effect.

We act too often against our own nature, against our own biology. It's a biological instinct to breed, for example, an inbuilt desire inherent in all humans. And yet many people decide to overide that for a variety of reasons. The chemicle desire is there, but human will has refused it. Equally, we feel lust but the saner among us don't act on it automatically. There are layers of social concepts that are an equal influence on our actions, along with our biology and our own personality.

Random is not the keyword, youre really ignoring the context here. There is nothing random about wildlife adapting to either changing/changed environment or to competition. Mutation isnt random, and thats what evolution can be seen. If evolution was truly random, we wouldnt be more advanced than our ancestors. We would merely be different.

Well, I'd certainly disagree with this. Evoloution is entirely trial and error. For everyone success story that improves a species a vast number of failed mutations result in an animal with less survival chances. One leg instead of two. Albinoism. Blindness. It's rare that one will achieve a positive result and go on to breed more succesfully than the standard members of it's species.

The theory of "cosmic destiny" has nothing to do with religion, or the ignorant concepts of deitys and whatnot. Its just a theory about nothing being random, everything to be able to be backtracked to one single event. Pretty much how causality governs our lives. Its quite difficult to accept that by the end of the day, while our choices may feel ours, they are an inescapable result of events leading up to them.

Honestly? I don't mean to be insulting, but the whole theory smacks to me of, well, God without God. That everything is a tightly controlled series of events, pre-destined from the moment time began in an unknown way. I certainly disagree with the idea that biology is the only reason for our choices. With animals, maybe. With people? As I've pointed out, we act against our own body too often.

[Vector]

"God is good. God is great. I am hungry. Let me stuff my face."
- 'G r a c e' at 2009 Thanksgiving dinner, spoken by yours truly. Now that's what I call religion.

[Member_of_STARS]

Mmm, I'd disagree. For a start, I do wish you'd stop refering to me as ignorant because of my beliefs. Simply put, though, I feel that a chemicle and physics explanation simply doesn't work. Not when it gets to people, as you yourself point out.

Im not calling you ignorant. However, if you believe that you fall into a category where you would rather follow blind faith and superstition than geniuine curiosity, then perhaps you are. But Id say thats very unlikely.

It is possible that in the moment of the Big Bang the life span of Stars and Galaxies were pre-determined, but people were not.

You dont understand the theory. Like I said, the theory doesnt state that everything is predetermined. The theory merely states that nothing is random. Theres noone or nothing writing down events which will unfold, you shouldnt compare the theory to religion.

We act too often against our own nature, against our own biology.

No we dont. You cant compare a human being to an animal, while claiming that on basic and biological level we are all destined and forced to breed and that every time we dont, we "act against our biology". Cows are not using MacBooks. Our breeding is influenced the same way others species are. The whole biological aspect, instincts and the whole shabang is completely different for humans, and as a matter of fact- we are acting completely inline with our instincts. Considering that it takes up to 13-15 years to raise an offspring, considerably smaller breeding frequency is perfectly normal. Social aspect of breeding is not going against ones nature.

It's a biological instinct to breed, for example, an inbuilt desire inherent in all humans. And yet many people decide to overide that for a variety of reasons. The chemicle desire is there, but human will has refused it.

Human will is exactly the same chemical/electrical impulse which compels us to breed and is actually natures own way to limit breeding when circumstances are not favouring the decision. You can use speculation to come to any conclusion, but instincts tend to regulate all species breeding habbits and its perfectly normal for humans to breed less. Its just more complicated.

Equally, we feel lust but the saner among us don't act on it automatically. There are layers of social concepts that are an equal influence on our actions, along with our biology and our own personality.

What are you trying to prove here? That our behaviour is influenced by social (macro) and biological (micro) factors? Youre merely proving the "cause->effect" theory. It doesnt really help your will/instinct separation argument either. Our social stimuli to breeding can easily be compared to food shortages being connected to wild hares reduced breeding. Its exactly the same thing, its just more complex.

Well, I'd certainly disagree with this. Evoloution is entirely trial and error.

Show me one species which developed in a way which killed them off entirely. Theres nothing random about evolution when its proven that species adapt to surrounding environment (or rather the changes the species goes through to adapt). Skin colour, eye colour- nothing random about it.

One leg instead of two. Albinoism. Blindness. It's rare that one will achieve a positive result and go on to breed more succesfully than the standard members of it's species.

You know, this is like saying that the children who were born after the Chernobyl accident are "a failure in evolution".

I certainly disagree with the idea that biology is the only reason for our choices. With animals, maybe. With people?

The problem here is that we are animals. Even your choice to believe in a soul has been perfectly explained as a phenomenon where an observer cannot observe himself so he separates himself (soul) from the observed event (body).

As I've pointed out, we act against our own body too often.

Thats not proof of our divine origin.

[EDIT] Hot damn, my English really sucks here, but somehow I find it difficult to formulate my thoughts. Youre having some outside help, Darkmoon...

[Lilith]

I'm so happy this thread hasn't erupted into giant outbursts yet!

As far as evolution goes, I do think its a legitimate idea and theory. To me science and evolution can go hand in hand with some aspects of religion. If one is religious, who's to say that how scientists say things happen isn't how God made it? Example of both going together to me is:

The Big Bang happened, but that's just how God started creating the universe. 'Days' in the bible in reality were actually billions of years and just described like that so earlier man could comprehend the story.

[REmaster]

"God is good. God is great. I am hungry. Let me stuff my face."
- 'G r a c e' at 2009 Thanksgiving dinner, spoken by yours truly. Now that's what I call religion.

Hmm, that strongly resembles my thankgiving lol.

[Darkmoon]

Im not calling you ignorant. However, if you believe that you fall into a category where you would rather follow blind faith and superstition than geniuine curiosity, then perhaps you are. But Id say thats very unlikely.

Fair enough. Obviously, I question things. A lot. It's how I was trained.

You dont understand the theory. Like I said, the theory doesnt state that everything is predetermined. The theory merely states that nothing is random. Theres noone or nothing writing down events which will unfold, you shouldnt compare the theory to religion.

I see, I seem to getting it slightly wrong. I would disagree with the idea though. Evolution itself still strikes me as intrinsically random.

No we dont. You cant compare a human being to an animal, while claiming that on basic and biological level we are all destined and forced to breed and that every time we dont, we "act against our biology". Cows are not using MacBooks. Our breeding is influenced the same way others species are. The whole biological aspect, instincts and the whole shabang is completely different for humans, and as a matter of fact- we are acting completely inline with our instincts. Considering that it takes up to 13-15 years to raise an offspring, considerably smaller breeding frequency is perfectly normal. Social aspect of breeding is not going against ones nature.

Well, the idea behind this argument is that we aren't controlled by our biology. It's a factor of our behavior, not the entire story. Humans have a fear of fire by instinct, after all, and yet people can and will go into a burning building given sufficient cause.

What are you trying to prove here? That our behaviour is influenced by social (macro) and biological (micro) factors? Youre merely proving the "cause->effect" theory. It doesnt really help your will/instinct separation argument either. Our social stimuli to breeding can easily be compared to food shortages being connected to wild hares reduced breeding. Its exactly the same thing, its just more complex.

Well, the idea is that an animal feels a desire to mate, it acts upon that feeling, either attempting to attract a mate or taking more direct action. Humans are different, in that we way up the various pros and cons and reach a decision based on those.

Show me one species which developed in a way which killed them off entirely. Theres nothing random about evolution when its proven that species adapt to surrounding environment (or rather the changes the species goes through to adapt). Skin colour, eye colour- nothing random about it.

Well, that would go completely against evolution, wouldn't it? The idea is that the beneficial mutations give them an edge that allows them to secure more food or survive and are more likely to breed, whereas a mutation that has a negative effect would make that member of a species less likely to survive to breed and pass on it's mutation. Saying that, I do believe several species adapted to such a specific extent that a small change in environment caused them drastic problems. I'm not sure if any of them have died or not though.

You know, this is like saying that the children who were born after the Chernobyl accident are "a failure in evolution".

No, I'm saying it's a non-beneficial mutation. Which is exactly the same as beneficial mutation which would lead to evolution, only horrible. And by the theory of evolution, those children are far less likely to reach adulthood and breed to pass on those mutations, right? Whereas if one of them was born to be seven foot superman with a sexual magnetism they would be more likely to breed and pass on those characteristics. Sadly, that didn't happen. Mutation is far too often horrible.

The problem here is that we are animals. Even your choice to believe in a soul has been perfectly explained as a phenomenon where an observer cannot observe himself so he separates himself (soul) from the observed event (body).

Possibly. I don't feel we would be classified as animals, since I feel humans can operate against there base biological instincts. No animal, for example, commits suicide as it reduces the species as a wholes chance to succeed. No, lemmings don't actually jump off cliffs. If the population gets too large, predators and starvation bring it back inline. No animal gets depressed and goes find a trap to stick it's head in. At least, I'm not aware of any of them.

But that's my personal opinion, rather than a hard act.

Thats not proof of our divine origin.

There's no proof, one way or the other. Just possibilities and arguments and theories. It wouldn't be faith if we knew.

[EDIT] Hot damn, my English really sucks here, but somehow I find it difficult to formulate my thoughts. Youre having some outside help, Darkmoon...

What can I say? I have help from above...a spell checker built into my browser. Also, the lord smaketh the unbeliever's spelling. Just for a laugh.

[Karui]

What exactly are you two arguing? Religion or validity of evolution?