Religion and scuba

[agilis]

Considering the vast infinity of the universe, it seems to me that expecting our personal existence to have any more meaning than that of an ant or a blade of grass is amusing and ridiculous. There is absolutely no 'meaning' to our existence beyond our own momentary flash of analog perception, the limited and flawed organic interpretation of external phenomena that evolved in our even more primitive ancestors as survival mechanisms.

Expecting more is childish and completely inconsistent with any rational, objective analysis of reality.

 

[dfx]

It would take a lot longer to explain this than I feel this thread deserves. Suffice it to say that if the law of physics that describes how fast my cup of coffee gets cold were to change by an iota then we may still be here. Other forces of nature have a lot bigger impact.

Maybe so, but we still couldn't tell what the end result would look like. We have no example and have no way of testing it.

I wouldn't say that at all. It's track record in dreaming up plausible sounding theories for mass consumption is actually very good. I think if you lived 1700 years ago that God creating night and day would sound equally plausible -- perhaps even more so -- to the idea that we're all stuck to a spinning stone that is just floating around in a vast empty vacuum in space.... Science does essentially the same thing all the time. Theory spinning is nothing new. However, in science if a theory is disproved then it is abandoned. That's what we're missing in the religious arguments.

There's a huge difference. Science bases its theories on evidence. New evidence is discovered and the theories change (because they must change). OK. Does religion base any of its ideas on evidence? No. It bases its ideas on ancient stories, which in turn are based on other ancient stories, which nobody knows who originally told or wrote down. At the same time it claims that these stories correspond to some absolute truth.

If someone sees a star that's moving in erratic patterns among the other stars and has no explanation for that, then that person has no right to invent an explanation. Science doesn't do this. If science doesn't have an answer for some phenomenon, then science freely admits that. "I don't know" is one of the most important answers a rational person can give.

Sure, scientists come up with all kinds of wild hypotheses all the time. But they're just that, hypotheses. Some may even be wild guesses. But they're recognized as such and aren't taken as valid explanations until there's some evidence which corroborates them. A hypothesis is only recognized as probably true after serious scrutiny.

Religion doesn't adhere to these rules at all. Religious ideas are simply declared to be true. And, depending on where or when you live, anyone who openly disagrees is incarcerated or tortured or killed (or a combination thereof).

We know now what we did not know then. Our understanding of the physical universe was very limited until well into the Renaissance. For the rest of human history, other theories were the best they had. My feeling about it is "who cares". Who cares if someone thought God made the sun come up. It didn't hurt anyone to believe that... to have "faith" in the fact that it was going to happen again tomorrow because God wanted it to.... If it helped people lead happy lives, there really is no issue.

It does hurt people if the same procedure is used to create the idea that god hates homosexuality. Just to give one of many examples. This idea is created the same way that the idea that god makes the sun go up was created. It's completely made up and was simply declared to be true. And even worse, some people still believe that it's true.

I'm not so sure about that. Science really doesn't get into WHY we are here, although I don't doubt that we will someday understand that there is no WHY... in a scientific sense. That doesn't change the fact that people need a way to give meaning to their lives. There may be exceptions, but most people need this. If they band together and decide to believe the same things because someone offers up a good story..... then why the hell not?

Because that story might be a horrible one. What if the story they come up with involved a certain people living among them, say Jews, killing innocent toddlers and use their blood in evil rituals. What if the meaning of life derived from that story involved the extermination of said people? These ideas were created the same way: based on nothing, completely made up and simply declared to be true. And you seriously ask why the hell not?

Again... who cares? Meditation never killed anyone and neither did thinking that you might come back again in a new body after you die. If it's true or not isn't the issue. It doesn't need to be true for people to draw strength from it. I think this is some of what certain people have been trying to say on this thread. Personally I would advise letting that sink in a bit instead of just dismissing it because it isn't what you believe.

I finally have a glimmer of hope with you. You're right. The point I was just making is that it doesn't need to be true for people to draw strength from it. If you or anyone else can only draw strength from facts, then that's great. But there are a lot of people on on this planet and not everyone can do that. My advice, once again, would be to take some time and let that sink in.

See above. Believe me if I assure you that I've let it sink in quite a lot. Have you done the same? People don't only "draw strength" from religion. They draw all kinds of other stuff from it as well. And they don't draw good stuff from it. If you don't recognize this, then you need to open your eyes and turn on the news. And I'm not just talking about extreme acts of violence. I could give you pages of examples of insane things that people do only because of what they believe in. Which is things that have no basis in reality.

 

[Diver0001]

If it only could be left at that, many of us would walk away happily. Unfortunately with many organized religions that is not the case. You are taught to be "fishers of men." Many organized religions are designed to propagate, sometimes via consent, sometimes not (legislation, peer pressure, war etc. etc.). And that propagation can be couched in the most humane fashion..."I'm just worried about your soul." There in lies a big rub. It's not the only issue, but it's a big one, and it's one of the toughest for those of us who would dearly love to let bygones be bygones and let everyone just believe what they want and get on with life...

Countries lacking a separation of church and state are obviously vulnerable as you suggest but I would suggest that this is an issue of politics and not religion. It's about power, it's about money, but it's not about religion in its base form, which is essentially a personal relationship with the intricacies of your own life. The issue of politics is sometimes hard to see separately but I would suggest trying to do so.

That said, I wouldn't like to live in some countries for the reasons you describe. However, if someone would "like" you to convert and even if they're pushy about it then you live in a country where you have freedom of religion (as so many other countries). You can say, "no thanks" and just move along. There is really nothing to see here. In a modern democracy it's much more a clustering of sub cultures than anything else. If you find it uncomfortable, then choose your friends to avoid it.

R..

 

[dfx]

Countries lacking a separation of church and state are obviously vulnerable as you suggest but I would suggest that this is an issue of politics and not religion. It's about power, it's about money, but it's not about religion in its base form, which is essentially a personal relationship with the intricacies of your own life. The issue of politics is sometimes hard to see separately but I would suggest trying to do so.

That said, I wouldn't like to live in some countries for the reasons you describe. However, if someone would "like" you to convert and even if they're pushy about it then you live in a country where you have freedom of religion (as so many other countries). You can say, "no thanks" and just move along. There is really nothing to see here. In a modern democracy it's much more a clustering of sub cultures than anything else. If you find it uncomfortable, then choose your friends to avoid it.

R..

This isn't just about governments. People do insane things even if their government or their laws don't sanction it. Parents withhold crucial medication for their children because of the insane things they believe in. Again, just one example of many. And they do this even after their government made it quite clear that they can't do that.

 

[Diver0001]

Sure, scientists come up with all kinds of wild hypotheses all the time. But they're just that, hypotheses. Some may even be wild guesses. But they're recognized as such and aren't taken as valid explanations until there's some evidence which corroborates them. A hypothesis is only recognized as probably true after serious scrutiny.

Religion doesn't adhere to these rules at all. Religious ideas are simply declared to be true. And, depending on where or when you live, anyone who openly disagrees is incarcerated or tortured or killed (or a combination thereof).

Maybe it's unfortunate for our development as a species that religions emerged before scientific method. But it did. We won't know what the end result would look like if it were reversed. We have no example and have no way of testing it.

It does hurt people if the same procedure is used to create the idea that god hates homosexuality. Just to give one of many examples. This idea is created the same way that the idea that god makes the sun go up was created. It's completely made up and was simply declared to be true. And even worse, some people still believe that it's true.

I actually knew you were going to respond to the rest as you did. I don't think I need to spend any time picking it apart. It won't help. The fact of the matter here, if you really just cut the crap and get to the core is that you think religion is somehow designed to hurt people. Your mistrust is deep and no amount of debate is likely to change that.

This is the point where we agree to disagree and move on.

See how easy that was?

R..

 

[dfx]

The fact of the matter here, if you really just cut the crap and get to the core is that you think religion is somehow designed to hurt people. Your mistrust is deep and no amount of debate is likely to change that.

This is the point where we agree to disagree and move on.

See how easy that was?

R..

Sorry, straw man. I don't claim that religion was designed to hurt people. Only that it does hurt people. And it hurts people more than it helps people.

 

[Diver0001]

Well...

Let met rephrase it then in your words so we don't end on a sour note.

Rephrased using your words, I should have ended with this:

I actually knew you were going to respond to the rest as you did. I don't think I need to spend any time picking it apart. It won't help. The fact of the matter here, if you really just cut the crap and get to the core is that you think religion hurts people. And it hurts people more than it helps people. Your mistrust is deep and no amount of debate is likely to change that.

This is the point where we agree to disagree and move on.

See how easy that was?


.... and now we really do need to move on. There's really nothing more to be gained from further debate. I guess people will have to read it all and decide for themselves what they think.

 

[redacted]

Sorry, straw man. I don't claim that religion was designed to hurt people. Only that it does hurt people. And it hurts people more than it helps people.

I think that is going a too far. I believe the pluses far outweigh the minuses, but there have been some major minuses. But why do the minuses continue to pop up? Are there similar minuses associated with Santa, the Easter bunny, and the tooth fairy?

 

[dfx]

I think that is going a too far. I believe the pluses far outweigh the minuses, but there have been some major minuses. But why do the minuses continue to pop up? Are there similar minuses associated with Santa, the Easter bunny, and the tooth fairy?

I haven't seen any evidence of religion causing people to live better lives. Quite the contrary seems to the case actually. Of course correlation doesn't mean causation, but there it is.

 

[NAM001]

Interesting statement however it still falls into the contest flaw. IE in the 50's basics of life was shelter and food. to day it is cell phones and sat tv. Likewise you statement could be reworded to say that science has not made life better. science made the bomb. Science created the vehicles for greed and its decendants. The science of law has perverted society. The new generation does not see this cause this is what they are growing up with and are calling normal. The difference lies somewhere in the realm of getting a new car. did the car make the buyer perverted or was the buyer perverted already and because of this the need for the new car was borne or became the logical progression? Ask a group of people and the answers will differ depending on combinations of whether the buyers believe they were perverted or not before they bought the car , whether they believe the cars had influence over them, whether they are looking at the question from a pre buy or post buy perspective. To prove this I can ask the question.

If you and I both had cars and mine was 10 years old and yours was 2 years old. I chose to continuing driving my car and you decided you needed to get anew one. My motives are it works fine now why change from what works. That is the easy one. The tough one is explain the motives of your decision. Is it greed, hneed to impress others, has a better stereo system, its a chic magnet. Of course not you will say its a financial decision based on trade in value and car value retention. In the end I go through one car in 10 years and you go through 5. You spend 100k on cars and I spend 10. Yet its all about the retained value of the car and sound financial decisions. Any argument can stand soundly once you define what is and what is not to be considered in the discussion.

Like faith and religion, those with faith are fishers of men in that the information is provided for all to make their personal decision of what is right. If it is rejected it is done so by an informed process by those that reject the idea. Those of non faith put their information out and if rejected continue to push and push till finally it comes down to there is something wrong with one that does not accept the science position. Science by structure is a system that believes nothing unless it can be proved in a test tube. Science believes there is no other possible position than what is proven by science. Yet the world was flat. science said till they changed their position. Turned out that our world was not the center of the universe. One can not blame science in its youth for believing that. From their limited perspective it was a logical conclusion. Ship sails off and sinks on the horizon... Not factual but an understandable conclusion. What can be blamed on science is the closed mind position taken every time science is challenged or perceived threatened. I am still waiting for science to tell me where the FIRST matter came from and what comes after the absolute end of space. The day science admits that there are some things that are just not meant to be known will be the day when science makes the largest move in their position on religion. BTW what did we believe in before science found/ explained how the world had gravity? The world sucked??

I haven't seen any evidence of religion causing people to live better lives. Quite the contrary seems to the case actually. Of course correlation doesn't mean causation, but there it is.

View attachment 213049

View attachment 213050