Society Religious Discussion and Q&A Thread

[Imperium]

It's quite ignorant and false but that's the internet. It's not really a haven of critical thinking.

---------- Post added at 04:53 AM ---------- Previous post was at 04:51 AM ----------

One could argue that nearly all religions haven't contributed anything either.

That is only if one limits what contribution means. Giving people a belief system that helps them cope with the rigours of life, I think is a valuable and important contribution to humanity.

 

[M3J]

I'm trying to say that you can't say Islam hasn't contributed and act like other religions have. I think all of them contributed in their own way. I'm not sure on this, but wasn't Islam the root of Christianity? It's close minded people like these that cause problems, not religions themselves.

 

[Imperium]

Christianity was many centuries before Islam.

 

[M3J]

Interesting... few people have said otherwise. But Islam has contributed as much to the world as Christianity or Hinduism has.

 

[benelori]

This kinda shit frankly disgusts me. One could argue that nearly all religions haven't contributed anything either.

Perhaps in the US....but in Europe it has been the main driver of society's evolution for a long long time

 

[xi0]

No, the first settlements and even colonies were founded for the sake of religious freedom. Not necessarily the same kind of contribution, but yeah.

I think Milly is thinking in terms of recent times.

 

[benelori]

Whatever the argument, it's as hard to prove god doesn't exist, as it is to prove god does exist. It's a circular debate, no matter what side you take. Reason and logic do not apply.

I think one can argue that proving that the biblical god doesn't exist can be done though...it's funny how it's said that God created humans in his own image, when it's pretty much the other way around

---------- Post added at 10:09 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:54 AM ----------

My main gripe with him beyond that is this seeming obsession with literalism being the only facet of religious belief, and that religious belief sans literalism is not religious belief at all. It's does a great disservice to theology. It ignores both the history and necessity of interpretation.

But yea, god doesn't exist because there are fossils. /s

I don't like Dawkins either, he is indeed an ass, but I always interpreted his problems with religion in this way: people use the literal facet of religion when it suits them, and they ignore it when it doesn't suit them...I think that's his main issue, and I think it's a relevant one, when he's trying to get his message out to the masses of people, whom by the way have little to no knowledge of theology, and they mix up spirituality with superstition, and their religious beliefs come from priests who have their own interpretation of what religious life means

And if he's making money at the same time, then it's good for him I guess...

 

[M3J]

Perhaps in the US....but in Europe it has been the main driver of society's evolution for a long long time

I know that, although it's been the main driver of society's devolution, to be honest. At least in America it has been.

But I'm talking about overall contribution, and how Islam contributed as much as Christianity and Catholicism.

No, the first settlements and even colonies were founded for the sake of religious freedom. Not necessarily the same kind of contribution, but yeah.

I think Milly is thinking in terms of recent times.

No, I'm talking about since hte dawn of religion. Or at least, the last 1400 years or something.

 

[benelori]

I know that, although it's been the main driver of society's devolution, to be honest. At least in America it has been.

But I'm talking about overall contribution, and how Islam contributed as much as Christianity and Catholicism.

To talk about devolution, then you have to know a bit of European history, and I'm assuming you don't, since you thought Islam was the root for Chistianity...to be honest I have no idea about Islam's contributions to scientific discovery or law, but I know it contributed greatly to art for example...

No, I'm talking about since hte dawn of religion. Or at least, the last 1400 years or something.

The dawn of institutionalized religion you mean...which I think it can be argued that it began in 325, in Nicaea....unless someone else has knowledge of earlier date(s)

PS: you should look up Jesuits I think, and read about them a bit...they have been around in the last 1500 years, so within your timeframe, and they are specialized in education...

 

[M3J]

From what I've read though, Europeans aren't assholes about science and religion like Americans are and have agreed that both can go hand in hand and cooperate. In America, it tends to be science vs. religion.

Religion as whole though - from the start of belief in higher power. Which I assume began when ancestors long ago had no idea how things happened and made up stories of deities and spirits to explain, which created god, allah, and etc.

 

[Imperium]

Interesting... few people have said otherwise. But Islam has contributed as much to the world as Christianity or Hinduism has.

I am hesitant to ascribe religious characteristics to people, you don't hear Da vinci being described as a christian scientist nevertheless I think I will be doing that a bit, for simplicity.

I think you may be conflating Christianity with modern Western Civilization. The first Islamic empires lied at the crossroads of the hindustan and byzantine civilizations while simultaneously amalgamating the persian civilization into its structure (post Umayyad caliphate). It benefited from a huge resource of intellectual thought, scripture and teachings which it then began to develop and progress even further. This intellectual legacy carried on and led to more modern developments especially during the middle ages when Europe was in intellectual demise. Many of the intellectual underpinnings of modern western civilization, i.e. Greek philosophy and sciences would later be translated from Arabic back into Latin (by men like Thomas Aquinas) and would be the seeds of the european renaissance. Most of what we know about philosophy and science would have been lost during the middle ages and our modern world would not have existed as we know it today.

An example of this that you might be familiar with is Hindu-Arabic numerals. The basic number system. It was invented and developed in the subcontinent and those teachings were used by islamic mathematicians (like Al-kindi, Khwarzimi) and further developed. This work was then translated into Latin (by men like Fibonacci), afterwards the false assumption was made that the numeric system was originally arabic and began calling it arabic numerals even though the Arabs/Persians themselves did explicitly call it hindu. This is only recently being rectified.

I don't like Dawkins either, he is indeed an ass, but I always interpreted his problems with religion in this way: people use the literal facet of religion when it suits them, and they ignore it when it doesn't suit them...I think that's his main issue, and I think it's a relevant one, when he's trying to get his message out to the masses of people, whom by the way have little to no knowledge of theology, and they mix up spirituality with superstition, and their religious beliefs come from priests who have their own interpretation of what religious life means

And if he's making money at the same time, then it's good for him I guess...

I understand but I still think it doesn't matter about those who pick and chose. That is the point of interpretation, you use your critical faculties to decide what is allegory or metaphorical and what is literal. And most of the picking and choosing has structured reasoning behind it. He simply fights against literalism (which is a worthy goal) and conflates that into fighting against all religious thought, which is silly imo.

The dawn of institutionalized religion you mean...which I think it can be argued that it began in 325, in Nicaea....unless someone else has knowledge of earlier date(s)

That would be the dawn of institutionalised christianity but not of institutionalised religion which stretches into the earliest times of recorded history. To give you some examples, the Zoroastrian church of ancient persia, the ancient egyptian and greek polytheistic religions, the ancient babylonian religions and the ancient sumerian religions. There were places of worship, governmental funding and all sorts of rituals that extended from these, and many of them have lasted longer than modern religions like Christianity and Islam (so far of course). The epic of Gilgamesh for example gives a great insight into very early religions.

 

[danzouismadara]

Atheism vs other religions

Why is atheism so small in numbers, when clearly many people disagree with religious beliefs that worship a higher being? Especially, when science is factual and rational, which has been very useful and progressive for the world, yet people still put hopes in a fallacy that does not depend on rational argument or factual evidence? Why do people enjoy belonging to something or become so hypnotized by the notion that a miracle will save their unfortunate lives, rather then just doing something about it, in order to make change for themselves? Anyways, I hope I did not offend anyone.

 

[Drmke]

Re: Atheism vs other religions

The last sentence of your post made me laugh lol

But I mean, whether you are religious or not, religion as a human practice has been around so long and in so many different societies, it is probably safe to say it is almost biological. It will be a very difficult practice to give up as a species.

 

[MiyamotoMusashi]

Re: Atheism vs other religions

The last sentence of your post made me laugh lol

But I mean, whether you are religious or not, religion as a human practice has been around so long and in so many different societies, it is probably safe to say it is almost biological. It will be a very difficult practice to give up as a species.

That´s quite a statement

 

[M3J]

Re: Atheism vs other religions

I don't think religion is as biological as the idea of society/group is. Given the argument of some people, it feels as if they're in a religion due to the community or family they were raised in or due to fear of going to Hell.

I don't believe in that sort of riff raff though. There's no deity, Jesus, or whatnot. Sadly, it's not just atheism vs. religions, it's science vs. religions.

 

[Kaiten]

Re: Atheism vs other religions

Sadly, it's not just atheism vs. religions, it's science vs. religions.

That is ignorant. Science and religion are not mutually exclusive. Acceptance of one is not denial of the other.

Most of us are not "atheists" because we don't have the fucks to give. Religion does not play a major part in my life. I still don't care enough to deny the existence of god, let alone align myself in opposition to religion. I celebrate a few major holidays with family, in a strictly secular fashion. No prayers, no temple, no ceremony. I don't give enough fucks to formulate some pseudo-intellectual argument against religion. There is nothing more annoying than a proselytizing atheist. Just as pushy, narrow minded, and long winded as a religious missionary, but twice as sanctimonious. The only thing more annoying than a proselytizing atheist is a proselytizing who invokes science, without any real working scientific knowledge.

 

[M3J]

Re: Atheism vs other religions

I have always said science and religion can coexist like they used to. Religious people whose only source of information is biased towards god and against science are just as annoying because they don't have close to accurate information. I personally find "so we evolved from monkeys" to be very ignorant, as it shows no research or knowledge at all.

 

[Josef]

Re: Atheism vs other religions

Why is atheism so small in numbers, when clearly many people disagree with religious beliefs that worship a higher being? Especially, when science is factual and rational, which has been very useful and progressive for the world, yet people still put hopes in a fallacy that does not depend on rational argument or factual evidence? Why do people enjoy belonging to something or become so hypnotized by the notion that a miracle will save their unfortunate lives, rather then just doing something about it, in order to make change for themselves? Anyways, I hope I did not offend anyone.

Religious thinkers have long used reason and logic as a means to prove God, it's not only science that uses them. Summa Theologica by Thomas Aquinas provides 5 rational ways in terms of proving God, of course not as evident, but the point remains hat religion uses logic as well, at least tries to prove it's point through it.

That is ignorant. Science and religion are not mutually exclusive. Acceptance of one is not denial of the other.

Most of us are not "atheists" because we don't have the fucks to give. Religion does not play a major part in my life. I still don't care enough to deny the existence of god, let alone align myself in opposition to religion. I celebrate a few major holidays with family, in a strictly secular fashion. No prayers, no temple, no ceremony. I don't give enough fucks to formulate some pseudo-intellectual argument against religion. There is nothing more annoying than a proselytizing atheist. Just as pushy, narrow minded, and long winded as a religious missionary, but twice as sanctimonious. The only thing more annoying than a proselytizing atheist is a proselytizing who invokes science, without any real working scientific knowledge.

If someone is to criticize religion they have to know of it and be informed, they have to know the thing they are attacking and not just blindly go with "science" and forming a religion itself. If atheism strives to not take religion at face value, they also must try not to become religion. Everything becomes what it wanted to get rid of. Both atheism and religion can be beneficial to human culture if both are not narrow minded and use a herd mentality against the other.

I have always said science and religion can coexist like they used to. Religious people whose only source of information is biased towards god and against science are just as annoying because they don't have close to accurate information. I personally find "so we evolved from monkeys" to be very ignorant, as it shows no research or knowledge at all.

Ignorace is bliss. As I am typing these words I feel I am not as competent to take either side, yet both sides are brazen to take on each other with the most ridiculous statements. My main problem with the science/atheist movement is not to oppose religion but get rid of it, in which it dives deep into the freedom of human choice and denial of people to be who they want to be. "Getting rid of" religion is a hard proposition to make.

 

[M3J]

Re: Atheism vs other religions

I don't think religions should be ridden of, but the mindset of many people need to change. Rather than be diehard religious, they need to be more open minded and consider different views.

 

[kkck]

Re: Atheism vs other religions

Open mindness is an issue of perspective. From what I have experienced people with whom we do not agree are perceived as close and narrow minded while people with whom we agree are perceived as open minded and all that stuff. People's perception of us as open or close minded ends up depending on how much they agree with me to begin with.... Its rare to see someone who perceives himself or people who agree with him as close minded. At least I have never seen that so far. Perhaps that is the part that makes the issue so complicated.... Someone who takes a scientific/logical approach to problems will be invariably seen as close and narrow minded by someone who takes a religious/spiritual approach to the same thing (my point here is not about who is correct, its about the perspective). Maybe to some extent the issue is not of open mindness but rather of simple and basic tolerance.

As was already said, religion and science are not mutually exclusive. The issue here is to keep them separated so as to do both right. The issue here is that when you mix them you are doing both wrong. Nothing properly religious can ever be proven or rejected by science. Nothing properly scientific can ever have religious implications because science does not attempt to answer spiritual questions. You can't proof religion with science because things that are properly religious are not things upon which you can make testable predictions on. Leave things on which you can do proper science to to the scientists and the rest leave it to people's whims. Believing in the afterlife or god and other things which fall in the spiritual area are ultimately unrelated to science and you ability to do science right. What we should take a stance against is against doing religion wrong, against using religion to reject science (you know, stuff like creationism, homeopathy and other stuff which rejects actual objective and scientific knowledge). In the same manner we should take a stance against people who use science to disprove religion (stuff like saying evolution disproves god or the afterlife and such things, its just plain irrational and poor science; unless the religious/spiritual/esoteric point in question is being somehow based on on something measurable or scientific sounding in which case just disprove away....).