Print

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

[Sowelu]

Sorry for the venomous arguing, btw, guys.  Trying to kill time at work while running slow, boring, yet somehow stressful scripted tests.  Shouldn't be taking it out here.

[Vector]

But does religion necessarily always say something is true and end it there?

Not in my experience.  You take some series of tenets as "true" and then extrapolate outwards into various implications.  There's a reason why we have Bible Studies classes.  You take the source material, interpret it, and move onwards.

Well... I've never had a Bible Studies class in any meaningful sense of the term.  I'm kindof curious, now, since I don't think I've ever seen religion used in an axiometric manner.

I haven't either, but my grandfather on one side of the family was a Lutheran minister (Missouri Synod =/), on the other side I have a Catholic nun great-grandmother, and way back my family was in with the founding of Quakerism.  Oh, and my father is Buddhist, while my mother is basically Deist with a Catholic twist... and my mother's side of the family is now a combination of Episcopalian, Unitarian, Buddhist, and Catholic.

So, uh, I grew up fairly steeped in religion, I guess... even used to read a kid's version of the Torah >_> <_<  And yeah, you definitely don't just take the Bible and go "okay, we're done here."  The entire Catholic-Lutheran split was due to differing interpretations of the Bible.  If we were taking that book as truth in and of itself, why on earth would we have different sects and beliefs in all of these different religions based on one little book?

In the end, it's definitely about interpretations of certain things, and you end up taking some parts of the book and neglecting others, taking some portions literally, taking other portions as metaphor.  You have to interpret, and at the end you say "Well, I guess this is true.  I hope."

[Leafsnail]

Trying to point out that peer review fails much of the time.  It's useful, it's important, but science is far from perfect and not always trustworthy in some areas.  Some people put way more faith in it than it deserves, and that's just as dangerous as putting too much faith in Space Jesus.

Not trying to come across as anti-science.  Was just trying to argue against people who seemed to say that science is zomg perfect 100% of the time, and the scientific method means it will never be wrong for more than five seconds.

It won't always be right first time.  Science is fundamentally not a perfect process.  But in order to fix it... well, the best way is to continue to examine the issue scientifically.

I dunno.  I'm defining it as people who complain loudly about how all religion is evil.  Fair?  Accurate?  I think so, and I think it's a label they would accept.  There's no shortage of people who claim that religion is the root of all evil on this board; ask them if they consider themselves militant atheists and I bet you'll get a 'yes'.

I don't have a problem with the label so much as "All of them are misinformed" (your category for "informed" militant atheists is still clearly quite misinformed...).

I haven't either, but my grandfather on one side of the family was a Lutheran minister (Missouri Synod =/), on the other side I have a Catholic nun great-grandmother, and way back my family was in with the founding of Quakerism.  Oh, and my father is Buddhist, while my mother is basically Deist with a Catholic twist... and my mother's side of the family is now a combination of Episcopalian, Unitarian, Buddhist, and Catholic.

So, uh, I grew up fairly steeped in religion, I guess... even used to read a kid's version of the Torah >_> <_<  And yeah, you definitely don't just take the Bible and go "okay, we're done here."  The entire Catholic-Lutheran split was due to differing interpretations of the Bible.  If we were taking that book as truth in and of itself, why on earth would we have different sects and beliefs in all of these different religions based on one little book?

In the end, it's definitely about interpretations of certain things, and you end up taking some parts of the book and neglecting others, taking some portions literally, taking other portions as metaphor.  You have to interpret, and at the end you say "Well, I guess this is true.  I hope."

That doesn't feel so much like belief to me.  That's more like... using religious texts as feedstock to help you think about your own world view?  I guess this could be useful in some cases, although I generally prefer other sources.

Really... I don't think I would've ended up with very different beliefs if I'd taken the Bible (or any other sufficiently large religious text) and interpreted it rather than coming to my own conclusions.  After all, I feel like you can find support for almost any world view in most religious texts if you're allowed to choose which passages you believe, which are metaphors and which you can disregard altogether.

[Criptfeind]

That doesn't feel so much like belief to me.  That's more like... using religious texts as feedstock to help you think about your own world view?

Yup. Many people think of that as the point of religion.

Edit: Maybe not a good idea. I changed it.

[Vector]

That doesn't feel so much like belief to me.  That's more like... using religious texts as feedstock to help you think about your own world view?  I guess this could be useful in some cases, although I generally prefer other sources.

Your own worldview, aka "what you believe to be true about the world."

There you have it.  Religious groups are, fundamentally, groups that have decided they're a group that believes similar things about the world.  Those who don't do their own interpretation generally choose to believe the interpretations of other people, but basically: Yes, this is how most religion works.

[Sowelu]

Well, part of it is choosing a common worldview.  Part of it is also just choosing the rituals you like to follow.  Some people really dig Catholic ritual.  I'm sure that followers of Aphrodite in olden times also really appreciated their religions' choice of rituals.

[Leafsnail]

Your own worldview, aka "what you believe to be true about the world."

For me... not really.  I'd say a worldview isn't limited to beliefs.  Mine feels more like "How to deal with the world, and the uncertainties in it".

There you have it.  Religious groups are, fundamentally, groups that have decided they're a group that believes similar things about the world.  Those who don't do their own interpretation generally choose to believe the interpretations of other people, but basically: Yes, this is how most religion works.

Hmm... really?  Some people definitely do use it that way, but a lot of the time, you'll be told someone elses interpretation of a religion.

Well, part of it is choosing a common worldview.  Part of it is also just choosing the rituals you like to follow.  Some people really dig Catholic ritual.  I'm sure that followers of Aphrodite in olden times also really appreciated their religions' choice of rituals.

...Actually, I'd really like it if we could return to more synchretic religions less dependant on a central text.  There was something nice and tolerant about it (Romans, for instance, would believe in gods from a whole variety of different places, and allow local beliefs to coexist with theirs), which "Thou shalt not believe in any God but me" stamps out (I guess this may be a form of evolution - an idea like this propagates better and is more likely to survive intact).

[Sowelu]

...Actually, I'd really like it if we could return to more synchretic religions less dependant on a central text.  There was something nice and tolerant about it (Romans, for instance, would believe in gods from a whole variety of different places, and allow local beliefs to coexist with theirs) [...]

Just for the record...Nothing's stopping you.  :3c

[Leafsnail]

I don't have any interest or inclination towards conscious faith/belief (I don't think I really can... doubt tends to creep in fast).  I was just saying I feel it'd be better for society as a whole.

[chaoticag]

...Actually, I'd really like it if we could return to more synchretic religions less dependant on a central text.  There was something nice and tolerant about it (Romans, for instance, would believe in gods from a whole variety of different places, and allow local beliefs to coexist with theirs) [...]

Just for the record...Nothing's stopping you.  :3c

Actually, a comment on the Romans. The law was that you can believe in whatever you wanted to, so long as you worship the Roman Pantheon as well. The escape clause was if you could demonstrate a long tradition that justifies your disbelief. This kinda led to the perseccution of the Christians, and the Christian persecution of Jews (simply put, they both needed to show their tradition justified their belief otherwise they'd be outside the law).

So yeah, Roman times were not that great for religions.

[sonerohi]

The concept of religion is great - inspiration, happiness, acceptance, and hope. The execution usually is a bunch of bigoted dick bags meddling around, starting wars and doing stupid things. When I get suitable opportunities, I try to convince people that it is completely cool to not be a defined, organized faith. I was raised in a very Catholic home, but now I'm a sort of pragmatic agnostic.

[Realmfighter]

The concept of Humanity is great - inspiration, happiness, acceptance, and hope. The execution usually is a bunch of bigoted dick bags meddling around, starting wars and doing stupid things.

Fixed for you.

Religion doesn't hurt people. People hurt people. Its like blaming a gun, if the gun was an ill-defined philosophical concept.

[Sowelu]

Plus, remember, you only see the noisy ones.

[Urist is dead tome]

Plus, remember, you only see the noisy ones.

Hear, hear!

[Knight of Fools]

Too true.

A lot of times people take the anti-thesis to everything and slap that on everything else - An atheist saying that all people who believe in God to be close-minded and stupid, while people who get a little too defensive about their religion view anyone who has the slightest doubt God exists to be damned and foolish.  It doesn't really work like that, and I think there are a far greater number of neutrally minded people out there than we're lead to believe by the media.  It doesn't help that people swing left, right, up, down, and sideways all the time at the slightest inclination or mood.

Really, I don't see any reason that "Science", the desire to understand the universe and how it works, is opposed to "Religion", the desire to believe in something beyond what you can sense with your body.  Either one can be cold and ruthless, but at the same time you can find strong emotions on both sides.  Science tends to explain physical elements, while Religion tends to explain spiritual or quasi-physical elements - And they can interact seamlessly, because they need to, out of necessity.  One does not dominate the other, they simply coexist, and things are the way they are.

Sure, there are certain things we can prove, but that doesn't mean that the things that haven't been proven wrong are wrong.  Just because I can't prove that there's something smaller than an electron doesn't mean that there isn't.



Where the big problem comes in, I think, is when you get extremists on both sides - Die hard Bible-goers who think that anything outside of the Bible is heresy and Until-I-Die Darwinists that say that evolution is the only explanation for life.  The reality is that both of their arguments are bunk, because you can't prove either one to a shadow of a doubt.

Who says that God only said what he said in the Bible?  Couldn't he have said more, to more people?  Couldn't there have been people who were inspired to write something good, even though they weren't prophets?  Could some of those people have been non-Religious folk who unknowingly furthered God's will in some way?  Can't God use the natural laws that scientists are discovering to further his goals?

And, inversely, who says that just because there are means for things to exist naturally that God didn't have a part in that?  Evolution is a powerful method of saying that life exists on earth, but beyond explaining variety how can you explain creating life out of lifelessness?  Scientists, for all their knowledge and tools, haven't been able to create life in any circumstance, and we suddenly need to think that the only way life could exist is purely by accident or coincidence?

If that's the case, I'd hate for us to discover life on another planet, because even Earth alone is an insurmountable amount of coincidences piled up on top of each other.



So, basically, blind adherence to a law or belief is what causes this big debates and problems.  Haters gonna hate, and all that, but so long as they don't try to force their beliefs over me or insult me because of what I think or believe, I'm okay with that.  From where I'm sitting, neither view debunks the other.

The only debunking going on seems to be coming from people, not ideas.