Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Strife26]

Isn't that redundant? I mean, having faith in something kinda requires that it be unverifiable, no?

[Glowcat]

Isn't that redundant? I mean, having faith in something kinda requires that it be unverifiable, no?

I wish. There exists stubborn denial even in the face of reality at times because somebody just needs to believe in whatever so badly that they don't give a damn about the facts.

[Thecard]

Isn't that redundant? I mean, having faith in something kinda requires that it be unverifiable, no?

You'd think so, but I've met people who think otherwise.  One famous philosopher, whose name I've forgotten as well, said "Faith and reason cannot contradict" and I wholeheartedly agree with him.
Some people do disagree though.  For them, science is the opposite of religion.
And out of the people I've met who think that, none have been scientists or pastors.  And over half are atheist.  Not... At all sure how that part happened.  It is a very small percent of people I know overall though.

[Hiiri]

Science - Natural. Religion - Supernatural. Not opposites, see? See? Religion sticking it's nose into the natural world - opposing science. Do you see now?

[Helgoland]

I live in a pretty religious area, but I've never heard anti-atheist junk here. The absolute worst I've heard is people expressing that everyone should believe in something religious, because mumble mumble religion is just somehow inherently good or something.

My parents took my being agnostic easy. Waaaay better than taking my being bi.

Well, there's whatsisname, that famous philosopher or whatever?  I really should remember his name.
Anyways, he said in a utopian society you could believe in whatever religion you wanted, as long as you had a religion.  His reasoning was that people who believe they will be judged divinely will be much nicer than people who think this is all there is.

Sounds like Marx in pro-religion
"Religion is opium for the people. Everyone likes opium, right?"

Seriously though, that could be Plato. At least it would fit in with his idea of the state (totalitarian, before you ask, but meant to be nice), and the general attitude towards religion among intellectuals/the ruling class in ancient Greece.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

[alway]

I live in a pretty religious area, but I've never heard anti-atheist junk here. The absolute worst I've heard is people expressing that everyone should believe in something religious, because mumble mumble religion is just somehow inherently good or something.

My parents took my being agnostic easy. Waaaay better than taking my being bi.

Well, there's whatsisname, that famous philosopher or whatever?  I really should remember his name.
Anyways, he said in a utopian society you could believe in whatever religion you wanted, as long as you had a religion.  His reasoning was that people who believe they will be judged divinely will be much nicer than people who think this is all there is.

Basically, think of it like the real world and the virtual world.  Most of us can be dicks online because there's no real danger.  But in the real world, there are consequences.

But, this works the other way too.  If you think this life doesn't matter, you may be an asshole because meh, it's just prison. 

That's some religions.  In Christianity, this life does matter though.  No unrepentant asshats in Paradise.

So really, it doesn't do much.  Whatsisface was kinda wrong.  Just thought I'd bring up that point of view.  Some people do have trouble with understanding you don't believe in any god at all, but some actually have a logical reason.  Well, logical doesn't mean it's correct.

Except this is another case of vague, pseudo-intellectual, philosophical bullshit. Coming up with a hypothesis is all fine and dandy, but when you don't go beyond that point and then declare 'this is how it is,' you are wrong, regardless of whether your conclusion is correct or not. With an actual analysis of crime data, you will find it is more accurate to say that outside of any demographic differences (self-identifying atheists tend to be more well off than the general population, and so have lower associated crime rates, and similar correlations), the actual effect religion or non-religion has is nonexistent.

[Helgoland]

There's another argument for religion (or at least organized religion) that goes along similar lines though: Religion can be a tool for keeping people in a social context, especially in our industrialized/post-industrialization society, giving them some of that village/community feeling that is mostly absent in large cities. Opium for the masses, as it were, but in a good sort of way.

[Bdthemag]

There's another argumant for religion (or at least organized religion) that goes along similar lines though: Religion can be a tool for keeping people in a social context, especially in our industrialized/post-industrialization society, giving them some of that village/community feeling that is mostly absent in large cities. Opium for the masses, as it were, but in a good sort of way.

There are plenty of ways to get that overall "Community Feeling", and even then you can argue the need to be apart of some kind of large community is less important to most people in modern day life.

[Micro102]

Not to mention that it's only going to be effective if there are minorities as well. Studies show that religious people are happier but only when they live in the majority.

[fqllve]

There are plenty of ways to get that overall "Community Feeling", and even then you can argue the need to be apart of some kind of large community is less important to most people in modern day life.

I wouldn't argue that, if anything it's more important because we're so physically disconnected (and perhaps even surrounded by a buffer of anonymity) it can be hard or nearly impossible to empathize. And there aren't many things that create the feeling of a community better than a religion does.

If I had to argue against it, it'd be that it's a bit goofy to have to believe in something so anthropocentric and supernatural just to get a feeling of community.

[Thecard]

There's another argumant for religion (or at least organized religion) that goes along similar lines though: Religion can be a tool for keeping people in a social context, especially in our industrialized/post-industrialization society, giving them some of that village/community feeling that is mostly absent in large cities. Opium for the masses, as it were, but in a good sort of way.

That's a very Machiavellian approach.

There are plenty of ways to get that overall "Community Feeling", and even then you can argue the need to be apart of some kind of large community is less important to most people in modern day life.

There are other ways to do everything.  But I would argue that we need to feel like a part of a large community in modern life.  Sure, it can be in other ways than religion, but we don't like being alone.  Even loners have groups where they get together and feel sorry for themselves and each other.

[Helgoland]

There are plenty of ways to get that overall "Community Feeling", and even then you can argue the need to be apart of some kind of large community is less important to most people in modern day life.

There are other ways to do everything.  But I would argue that we need to feel like a part of a large community in modern life.  Sure, it can be in other ways than religion, but we don't like being alone.  Even loners have groups where they get together and feel sorry for themselves and each other.

Back in the 19th and early 20th century that role (at least in Germany) was assumed by various political organizations as well as by the church - in urban areas the unions and (left) parties (like the communists and also the SPD, the social democrats) had athletics groups (Turnvereine in german), youth organizations, even paramilitary groups. Those later came in handy during the Weimar Republic, when the Nazis too had the SA.
(We once had a caricature in school from the time. It read: "It has been decreed that from now on every demonstration will have to bring its own hearse.")

Wow, I did kind of a drift there

[Micro102]

I've found a new series of hundreds of videos to absorb myself in and deny all human contact for until I finish them. This one is my favorite so far.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7-sPB5dh_E&list=PL975FB7124770C03E&index=68

[Graknorke]

Despite what Dan Brown would have you think. women are not denigrated in the New Testament[.]

In fact, wasn't Pauline celibacy used as a form of proto-feminism?

Honestly, my oft-asked question is why does Christianity feel the need to retain the Old Testament when it is so vastly different from their main book? I think it only ends up hurting their positions.

Because disregarding them would be calling God fallible in that he wrote an incorrect book. And omniscient omnipotent gods don't make mistakes.

[fqllve]

But doesn't the existence of other Abrahamic traditions do the very same thing? After all, the fact that Christians don't recognize the Quran doesn't suggest the infallibility of God, despite the fact that's the very same god. Or is it just the fact that Jesus himself followed the OT that makes it so?

But Christians don't even follow the OT to the degree Jesus did. D: