Is religion bad? - Armor Games Community

296	64148

offline

nichodemus

14,991 posts

Grand Duke

Posted November 11, '11 4:28pm UTC

I come from a small coastal town in Croatia, although I've been living in the capital for the past 4 and a half years. So there you go.

Ah Croatia Is it a deeply religious place? Yes from the little I know about it, through history books.

offline

AgathaB

154 posts

Nomad

Posted November 11, '11 4:33pm UTC

Ah Croatia Is it a deeply religious place? Yes from the little I know about it, through history books.

Yes, although things have been changing for the better lately. At least nowadays you don't get bullied in school for not attending catechism, unlike the way it was back when I was in elementary.

offline

MageGrayWolf

9,462 posts

Farmer

Posted November 11, '11 8:05pm UTC

And this is bad because...

So your saying you don't find a problem with gullibility?
Also I don't see how one could care about the true and accept such claims.

Okay, so science works better. That doesn't mean I should abandon my religion. You can still do both, and be fine. I like having my religion, so why should I abandon it?

That wasn't really the point I was making there. Yes one can compartmentalize and hold both, though as I stated I don't see how one can hold religious views and care about the truth, such views are at odd with this.

offline

dair5

3,371 posts

Shepherd

Posted November 12, '11 12:18am UTC

So your saying you don't find a problem with gullibility?
Also I don't see how one could care about the true and accept such claims.

Who exactly does my gullibility hurt? If I'm not hurting anyone with it, then why is it bad?

offline

Highfire

3,025 posts

Nomad

Posted November 12, '11 1:00am UTC

Who exactly does my gullibility hurt? If I'm not hurting anyone with it, then why is it bad?

It's a bad trait for yourself and thus an indirect bad trait to one whom may attempt to abuse it.

That, and those raised by a religious family at risk of gullibility are raised at disadvantage. That is a poor and unacceptable standard to raise a child, needless to say.

That, and you're well aware that gullibility is not a good trait -- it can only be a negative one, so don't try and protect it where I could just as easily say you're lazy for not trying to be a better person -- I gave you a straight up answer that is applicable in reality.

Is religion bad? Yes... it deters the truth -- which is more important than the supposedly more easily obtainable moral paths granted by religion, which I say "more easily" being as I've developed a moral complex from the age of 6 from the ground up -- no religion was involved... it is not required.

It also takes away from the trait of critical thinking and a logical mindset... If you don't have that, then you could explain anything with nothing being as it's not reasonable - in that sense, it's indisputedly a good trait... to the extent you put it at could be a whole different thing.

But to directly answer why it's better -- you understand things and you can properly -- confidently -- balance something out and know you've made the right decision and / or be proud of that probability.

Of course this brings in conflicting views from different people but the same form of mindset and the same balances should tip into one favor. :P

- H

[quote]Who exactly does my gullibility hurt? If I'm not hurting anyone with it, then why is it bad?[/quote]\r\nIt's a bad trait for yourself and thus an indirect bad trait to one whom may attempt to abuse it. \r\n\r\nThat, and those raised by a religious family at risk of gullibility are raised at disadvantage. That is a poor and unacceptable standard to raise a child, needless to say.\r\n\r\nThat, and you're well aware that gullibility is not a good trait -- it can only be a negative one, so don't try and protect it where I could just as easily say you're lazy for not trying to be a better person -- I gave you a straight up answer that is applicable in reality.\r\n\r\nIs religion bad? Yes... it deters the truth -- which is more important than the supposedly more easily obtainable moral paths granted by religion, which I say "more easily" being as I've developed a moral complex from the age of 6 from the ground up -- no religion was involved... it is not required.\r\n\r\nIt also takes away from the trait of critical thinking and a logical mindset... If you don't have that, then you could explain anything with nothing being as it's not reasonable - in that sense, it's indisputedly a good trait... to the extent you put it at could be a whole different thing. \r\n\r\nBut to directly answer why it's better -- you understand things and you can properly -- confidently -- balance something out and know you've made the right decision and / or be proud of that probability.\r\n\r\nOf course this brings in conflicting views from different people but the same form of mindset and the same balances should tip into one favor. :P\r\n\r\n - H

offline

MageGrayWolf

9,462 posts

Farmer

Posted November 12, '11 1:16am UTC

Oh and don't get my stance that even on a personal level religion is bad mixed up with thinking it shouldn't be part of one's person life if they so desire. I think prohibition should also be completely eliminated and all drugs should legal to take if the person wishes, but that does not mean I ignore that even used responsibly many of them will have negative effects on the person.

offline

nichodemus

14,991 posts

Grand Duke

Posted November 12, '11 1:19am UTC

Is religion bad? Yes... it deters the truth -- which is more important than the supposedly more easily obtainable moral paths granted by religion, which I say "more easily" being as I've developed a moral complex from the age of 6 from the ground up -- no religion was involved... it is not required.

It also takes away from the trait of critical thinking and a logical mindset... If you don't have that, then you could explain anything with nothing being as it's not reasonable - in that sense, it's indisputedly a good trait... to the extent you put it at could be a whole different thing.

In that case, perhaps explain how much of the Enlightenment/Renaissance age scientists made their discoveries since a good chunk of them were highly religious.

That, and those raised by a religious family at risk of gullibility are raised at disadvantage. That is a poor and unacceptable standard to raise a child, needless to say.

They might be ''gullible'', but then one must also commend on their unshakeable spirit of faith. That in itself shows fortitude in character. Ultimately, the portion of people who literally take the Bible is rather minute. It doesn't subsume one's logical thinking or critical mindset; furthermore a religious person is constantly bombarded by science in today's world, and I believe most people are of sound mind to make a choice in believing whichever they wish in the end.

Is religion bad? Yes... it deters the truth -- which is more important than the supposedly more easily obtainable moral paths granted by religion, which I say "more easily" being as I've developed a moral complex from the age of 6 from the ground up -- no religion was involved... it is not required.

Different people value different things, I for one value morals more.I would rather have a pair of morally upright parents who are shoddy on the intellectual side rather than parents who are so crooked but smart.

And yes you can develop morals without religion as I have done as well, but that doesn't mean one must abandon religion.

I find that most religious people believe in it mainly not for referring to it as the answer to anything, but to have something to cling onto in their darkness. Yes it is gullible, but it boosts their morale and spirits.

But to directly answer why it's better -- you understand things and you can properly -- confidently -- balance something out and know you've made the right decision and / or be proud of that probability.

Science in itself is constantly changing and sometimes hinders, not help people understand. Also, it is not science itself that helps you understand things better. For example, it doesn't matter if I happen to master Le Chatalier's Principle of Equilibrium. It merely helps mean answer my final year chemistry paper; it doesn't in one bit make me more ''confident'' or ''balanced''.

On the other hand if religion fortitudes one's spirits then that's a good thing. As more and more of science is discovered and published people who are exposed to both sides of the coin will make their own choices and what they choose in the end will probably be what they deem best for themselves.

[quote]Is religion bad? Yes... it deters the truth -- which is more important than the supposedly more easily obtainable moral paths granted by religion, which I say "more easily" being as I've developed a moral complex from the age of 6 from the ground up -- no religion was involved... it is not required.\r\n\r\nIt also takes away from the trait of critical thinking and a logical mindset... If you don't have that, then you could explain anything with nothing being as it's not reasonable - in that sense, it's indisputedly a good trait... to the extent you put it at could be a whole different thing.[/quote]\r\n\r\nIn that case, perhaps explain how much of the Enlightenment/Renaissance age scientists made their discoveries since a good chunk of them were highly religious. \r\n\r\n[quote]That, and those raised by a religious family at risk of gullibility are raised at disadvantage. That is a poor and unacceptable standard to raise a child, needless to say.[/quote]\r\n\r\nThey might be ''gullible'', but then one must also commend on their unshakeable spirit of faith. That in itself shows fortitude in character. Ultimately, the portion of people who literally take the Bible is rather minute. It doesn't subsume one's logical thinking or critical mindset; furthermore a religious person is constantly bombarded by science in today's world, and I believe most people are of sound mind to make a choice in believing whichever they wish in the end. \r\n\r\n[quote]Is religion bad? Yes... it deters the truth -- which is more important than the supposedly more easily obtainable moral paths granted by religion, which I say "more easily" being as I've developed a moral complex from the age of 6 from the ground up -- no religion was involved... it is not required.[/quote]\r\n\r\nDifferent people value different things, I for one value morals more.I would rather have a pair of morally upright parents who are shoddy on the intellectual side rather than parents who are so crooked but smart.\r\n\r\n And yes you can develop morals without religion as I have done as well, but that doesn't mean one must abandon religion. \r\n\r\nI find that most religious people believe in it mainly not for referring to it as the answer to anything, but to have something to cling onto in their darkness. Yes it is gullible, but it boosts their morale and spirits.\r\n\r\n[quote]But to directly answer why it's better -- you understand things and you can properly -- confidently -- balance something out and know you've made the right decision and / or be proud of that probability.[/quote]\r\n\r\nScience in itself is constantly changing and sometimes hinders, not help people understand. Also, it is not science itself that helps you understand things better. For example, it doesn't matter if I happen to master Le Chatalier's Principle of Equilibrium. It merely helps mean answer my final year chemistry paper; it doesn't in one bit make me more ''confident'' or ''balanced''. \r\n\r\nOn the other hand if religion fortitudes one's spirits then that's a good thing. As more and more of science is discovered and published people who are exposed to both sides of the coin will make their own choices and what they choose in the end will probably be what they deem best for themselves.

offline

MageGrayWolf

9,462 posts

Farmer

Posted November 12, '11 2:48am UTC

In that case, perhaps explain how much of the Enlightenment/Renaissance age scientists made their discoveries since a good chunk of them were highly religious.

I don't see him saying that it completely eliminate such traits, only that it detracts from them.

They might be ''gullible'', but then one must also commend on their unshakeable spirit of faith. That in itself shows fortitude in character.

Being unshakable in an unfounded belief isn't a quality to be commended. It shows more a reluctance to accept that you might be wrong.

Ultimately, the portion of people who literally take the Bible is rather minute.

not necessary for the statements to be applicable.

Different people value different things, I for one value morals more.I would rather have a pair of morally upright parents who are shoddy on the intellectual side rather than parents who are so crooked but smart.

And yes you can develop morals without religion as I have done as well, but that doesn't mean one must abandon religion.

This perception that religion grants morality is a false one, particularly in the moderate believer. We often see a wide spectrum of morals in religion leaving it to the individual to pick and choose what they follow and what they don't. This leaves the person projecting their own morals onto the religion rather then gaining their morals from it.

I find that most religious people believe in it mainly not for referring to it as the answer to anything, but to have something to cling onto in their darkness. Yes it is gullible, but it boosts their morale and spirits.

This is irrelevant to whether religion is bad or not. As the quote goes "The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than a drunken man is happier than a sober one."-George Bernard Shaw.

Science in itself is constantly changing and sometimes hinders, not help people understand. Also, it is not science itself that helps you understand things better. For example, it doesn't matter if I happen to master Le Chatalier's Principle of Equilibrium. It merely helps mean answer my final year chemistry paper; it doesn't in one bit make me more ''confident'' or ''balanced''.

The changes in science is because we develop a better understanding of the natural world. You can be confident in your answer to such questions as you can demonstrate their validity. I think it's this sort of balance between facts and claims he is talking about.

On the other hand if religion fortitudes one's spirits then that's a good thing.

Which is built on a poor foundation since we are dealing with things that having to be just believed in for no reason.

[quote]In that case, perhaps explain how much of the Enlightenment/Renaissance age scientists made their discoveries since a good chunk of them were highly religious.[/quote]\r\n\r\nI don't see him saying that it completely eliminate such traits, only that it detracts from them.\r\n\r\n[quote]They might be ''gullible'', but then one must also commend on their unshakeable spirit of faith. That in itself shows fortitude in character.[/quote]\r\n\r\nBeing unshakable in an unfounded belief isn't a quality to be commended. It shows more a reluctance to accept that you might be wrong.\r\n\r\n[quote]Ultimately, the portion of people who literally take the Bible is rather minute.[/quote]\r\n\r\nnot necessary for the statements to be applicable.\r\n\r\n[quote]Different people value different things, I for one value morals more.I would rather have a pair of morally upright parents who are shoddy on the intellectual side rather than parents who are so crooked but smart.\r\n\r\nAnd yes you can develop morals without religion as I have done as well, but that doesn't mean one must abandon religion.[/quote]\r\n\r\nThis perception that religion grants morality is a false one, particularly in the moderate believer. We often see a wide spectrum of morals in religion leaving it to the individual to pick and choose what they follow and what they don't. This leaves the person projecting their own morals onto the religion rather then gaining their morals from it.\r\n\r\n[quote]I find that most religious people believe in it mainly not for referring to it as the answer to anything, but to have something to cling onto in their darkness. Yes it is gullible, but it boosts their morale and spirits.[/quote]\r\n\r\nThis is irrelevant to whether religion is bad or not. As the quote goes "The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than a drunken man is happier than a sober one."-George Bernard Shaw.\r\n\r\n[quote]Science in itself is constantly changing and sometimes hinders, not help people understand. Also, it is not science itself that helps you understand things better. For example, it doesn't matter if I happen to master Le Chatalier's Principle of Equilibrium. It merely helps mean answer my final year chemistry paper; it doesn't in one bit make me more ''confident'' or ''balanced''.[/quote]\r\n\r\nThe changes in science is because we develop a better understanding of the natural world. You can be confident in your answer to such questions as you can demonstrate their validity. I think it's this sort of balance between facts and claims he is talking about.\r\n\r\n[quote]On the other hand if religion fortitudes one's spirits then that's a good thing.[/quote]\r\n\r\nWhich is built on a poor foundation since we are dealing with things that having to be just believed in for no reason.

offline

nichodemus

14,991 posts

Grand Duke

Posted November 12, '11 2:55am UTC

This perception that religion grants morality is a false one, particularly in the moderate believer. We often see a wide spectrum of morals in religion leaving it to the individual to pick and choose what they follow and what they don't. This leaves the person projecting their own morals onto the religion rather then gaining their morals from it.

Similarly one can also say that the perception that science makes us logical thinkers is stretched and varies from person to person.

not necessary for the statements to be applicable.

It was meant as a counter to an over-sweeping statement.

Being unshakable in an unfounded belief isn't a quality to be commended. It shows more a reluctance to accept that you might be wrong.

Again, this is something that people value differently.

This is irrelevant to whether religion is bad or not. As the quote goes "The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than a drunken man is happier than a sober one."-George Bernard Shaw.

Ah, so are we discussing whether religion is inherently bad, or if the effects of religion are bad? Because my point just shows how the effects of religion can be admirable, whether in essence it is bad, I haven't made an exact statement.

You can be confident in your answer to such questions as you can demonstrate their validity.

I can prove that when X molecules mixes with Y molecules we get this and increasing heat or pressure changes so and so. It doesn't exactly help me understand the natural world.

The Christians I interact with are virtually all of the same kind, they take the Bible not literally but just for morals and they read it with digression. I guess that's where our differences come about because I'm more used to moderates.

[quote]This perception that religion grants morality is a false one, particularly in the moderate believer. We often see a wide spectrum of morals in religion leaving it to the individual to pick and choose what they follow and what they don't. This leaves the person projecting their own morals onto the religion rather then gaining their morals from it.[/quote]\r\n\r\nSimilarly one can also say that the perception that science makes us logical thinkers is stretched and varies from person to person.\r\n\r\n[quote]not necessary for the statements to be applicable.[/quote]\r\n\r\nIt was meant as a counter to an over-sweeping statement. \r\n\r\n[quote]Being unshakable in an unfounded belief isn't a quality to be commended. It shows more a reluctance to accept that you might be wrong.[/quote]\r\n\r\nAgain, this is something that people value differently. \r\n\r\n[quote]This is irrelevant to whether religion is bad or not. As the quote goes "The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than a drunken man is happier than a sober one."-George Bernard Shaw.[/quote]\r\n\r\nAh, so are we discussing whether religion is inherently bad, or if the effects of religion are bad? Because my point just shows how the effects of religion can be admirable, whether in essence it is bad, I haven't made an exact statement. \r\n\r\n[quote]You can be confident in your answer to such questions as you can demonstrate their validity.[/quote]\r\n\r\nI can prove that when X molecules mixes with Y molecules we get this and increasing heat or pressure changes so and so. It doesn't exactly help me understand the natural world.\r\n\r\nThe Christians I interact with are virtually all of the same kind, they take the Bible not literally but just for morals and they read it with digression. I guess that's where our differences come about because I'm more used to moderates.

offline

EmperorPalpatine

9,439 posts

Jester

Posted November 12, '11 3:38am UTC

The only one I can think of that isn't bad is Buddhism, because the main focus is on bettering yourself and being peaceful. I just searched for the word 'war' in the History of Buddhism wiki. It showed up 4 times: One result was about a war in the 7th century in which monestaries were destroyed during Muslim expansion; Two were about the king of what is now India converting to Buddhism in about 250BC after realizing the shamed of war; The last was about how it had spread through the Russian Empire during the Napoleonic Wars and it became popular in Kalmykia.

offline

Moe

1,714 posts

Blacksmith

Posted November 12, '11 3:39am UTC

The only one I can think of that isn't bad is Buddhism, because the main focus is on bettering yourself and being peaceful.

Buddhism also promotes learning and the ability to think for yourself. It also has no problem changing over time as new ideas show up.

offline

nichodemus

14,991 posts

Grand Duke

Posted November 12, '11 3:42am UTC

The only one I can think of that isn't bad is Buddhism, because the main focus is on bettering yourself and being peaceful. I just searched for the word 'war' in the History of Buddhism wiki. It showed up 4 times: One result was about a war in the 7th century in which monestaries were destroyed during Muslim expansion; Two were about the king of what is now India converting to Buddhism in about 250BC after realizing the shamed of war; The last was about how it had spread through the Russian Empire during the Napoleonic Wars and it became popular in Kalmykia.

I think there were a couple more in the petty northern kingdoms of the Himalayas.

The thing about Buddhism is that in many of the areas it flourished it merged with the local religions, so I guess it doesn't hold total domination as a doctrine that's as strict as say Christianity. For example in China, it got mixed up with Confucianism, Taoism and folk legend. The Buddhism I practice is a mixture of all, we pray to gods that Buddha would never have heard of before, but is still part of our unique tract of Buddhism.

That said, Buddhism originally was more a philosophical thought in that it doesn't preach a supreme natural being, rather one must look more inward for meaning. Anyone can become a Buddha if they choose to be.

[quote]The only one I can think of that isn't bad is Buddhism, because the main focus is on bettering yourself and being peaceful. I just searched for the word 'war' in the History of Buddhism wiki. It showed up 4 times: One result was about a war in the 7th century in which monestaries were destroyed during Muslim expansion; Two were about the king of what is now India converting to Buddhism in about 250BC after realizing the shamed of war; The last was about how it had spread through the Russian Empire during the Napoleonic Wars and it became popular in Kalmykia.[/quote]\r\n\r\nI think there were a couple more in the petty northern kingdoms of the Himalayas.\r\n\r\nThe thing about Buddhism is that in many of the areas it flourished it merged with the local religions, so I guess it doesn't hold total domination as a doctrine that's as strict as say Christianity. For example in China, it got mixed up with Confucianism, Taoism and folk legend. The Buddhism I practice is a mixture of all, we pray to gods that Buddha would never have heard of before, but is still part of our unique tract of Buddhism. \r\n\r\nThat said, Buddhism originally was more a philosophical thought in that it doesn't preach a supreme natural being, rather one must look more inward for meaning. Anyone can become a Buddha if they choose to be.

offline

Highfire

3,025 posts

Nomad

Posted November 12, '11 4:29am UTC

In that case, perhaps explain how much of the Enlightenment/Renaissance age scientists made their discoveries since a good chunk of them were highly religious.

I don't see him saying that it completely eliminate such traits, only that it detracts from them.

That. It is a deterrance but not a flat out denial. There are people today who study science or geography that contradicts their beliefs and yet they're capable of doing it -- do they follow that same mindset?

but then one must also commend on their unshakeable spirit of faith.

Perhaps you should commend others' passion and efforts towards trying to help others so much -- not those who accept what has been pointed out as the lazy way out and adopting a close-minded thought pattern.

That in itself shows fortitude in character.

For... backing under the pressure of eternal hell? Make no mistake - that is the case for some people.

Ultimately, the portion of people who literally take the Bible is rather minute.

Those who call themselves Christians automatically represent God, and being as he hasn't spoken for himself, I'd rather not give him the benefit of the doubt, given his supposed previous actions.

It doesn't subsume one's logical thinking or critical mindset;

So... There's this unicorn... and it has this chest -- that is filled with 5,011 pages concerning lifestyles of humans.
Would you believe me?

You have no reason to believe me -- the same stands for religion.

furthermore a religious person is constantly bombarded by science in today's world,

Oh noes, they're so oppressed?

and I believe most people are of sound mind to make a choice in believing whichever they wish in the end.

Indoctrination, a poor moral basis for the majority of people and the lack of teaching of the critical thinking style make me doubt that hugely.

Different people value different things,

Yeah -- I didn't quite know that.

I for one value morals more.

Morals more than what?

I would rather have a pair of morally upright parents who are shoddy on the intellectual side rather than parents who are so crooked but smart.

As would I. But it's not even to do with parents -- I taught myself... myself. I did use examples, either historic ones or ones generated regarding my parents since that had some moral implications involved.
Very interesting to grow from that.

And yes you can develop morals without religion as I have done as well, but that doesn't mean one must abandon religion.

Must? No. Should? Yeah, honestly. As said -- it's not the truth, and it promotes the lack of a logical mindset or critical thinking. How can you deny that being a bad thing?

The FUNDAMENTALS of religion relies on promoting the lack of those -- faith.

Can you deny that?

but to have something to cling onto in their darkness.

False darkness. People underestimate their own positions and what they have -- I wasn't in the best position of anyone I knew, a few years back, but I was and still am immensely grateful for what I had / have. There is no reason for me to expect more and it would be literally bad of me to feel negativity for wanting a positive thing when I already have all that I need (unless of course I sacrificed something under certain conditions etc... but that's not necessarily the point).

Darkness is rarely darkness, but the lack of light -- and with a logical mindset it would be much easier to illuminate the line of what is bad, neutral and good.

Yes it is gullible, but it boosts their morale and spirits.

It does so falsely. I used to have false confidence but now I don't and I can visibly see the difference - it boosts my ability in all aspects, it makes me socialize better, I think much better under any circumstance and hell -- I've rarely felt poorly since I've just been "Hell yeah!" about anything.
You know what the best thing is though? The effect it has on other people. Happily trancing around helping people in revision before the Science exam, spreading a happy atmosphere -- it makes you feel so good not just because of your actions but (and this is my selfishness :P ) because of the feeling of power you have as a result

You cannot do that when it is not YOU that does it. :/

Science in itself is constantly changing and sometimes hinders, not help people understand.

Which in itself is progress. -- One step closer?

Plus, it actually gives a viable "meaning of life" to people -- why look for one when you could make one? Morality and in this case the meaning of life (a philosophy) are not something that can be proven with a scientific formula -- they are subjective and as such are much more controversial and much less smooth. In the scenario of the meaning of life there is no true determining of one... so make one (and that does not include religion).

Also, it is not science itself that helps you understand things better.

Neuroscience begs to differ. :/

It merely helps mean answer my final year chemistry paper; it doesn't in one bit make me more ''confident'' or ''balanced''.

Woah woah woah hold on there -- what I was talking about in that quote was not scientifically related -- it was philosophically related.
With a logical mindset and / or critical thinking you can more easily establish measurements for items of interest in subjective debates. I could argue killing is the right thing to do in the case of saving energy -- the majority of people would disagree with that argument and so would I, but you literally cannot prove that it is wrong.

On the other hand if religion fortitudes one's spirits then that's a good thing.

Not if it's false. A lie is not good, because I didn't run away. If I had a problem I'd find the way to fix it, and if I couldn't fix it, I'd find the way to make myself capable. If I am mentally / physically incapable of doing something that need be done (which is generally philosophical and thus mental) but I know it's literally possible for me to do it I made sure I could because I regarded it that highly.

If a theist turned atheist cannot manage to be responsible for their actions and furthermore their honest intentions then it only goes further to show of how reliant they are on religion. For the record -- I am not saying atheists are as a result more responsible, what I'm saying is that they're well aware that they're on their own, and that is a great thing as well (not needing to rely on someone = great).

As more and more of science is discovered and published people who are exposed to both sides of the coin will make their own choices and what they choose in the end will probably be what they deem best for themselves.

What they deem may not be all that reliable though. Again - the three previous problems stated (indoctrination, lack of a proper moral complex in culture -- and don't say the law, that's less than a minimalist system of punishment and protection. The third then is the lack of teaching critical thinking or a logical mindset) show vulnerability in a lot of people.

"The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than a drunken man is happier than a sober one."-George Bernard Shaw.

Oh I love your profile page, MageGray

- H

[quote]In that case, perhaps explain how much of the Enlightenment/Renaissance age scientists made their discoveries since a good chunk of them were highly religious. [/quote]\r\n[quote]I don't see him saying that it completely eliminate such traits, only that it detracts from them.[/quote]\r\nThat. It is a deterrance but not a flat out denial. There are people today who study science or geography that contradicts their beliefs and yet they're capable of doing it -- do they follow that same mindset?\r\n[quote]\r\nbut then one must also commend on their unshakeable spirit of faith.[/quote]\r\nPerhaps you should commend others' passion and efforts towards trying to help others so much -- not those who accept what has been pointed out as the lazy way out and adopting a close-minded thought pattern.\r\n\r\n[quote]That in itself shows fortitude in character.[/quote]\r\nFor... backing under the pressure of eternal hell? Make no mistake - that is the case for some people. \r\n\r\n[quote]Ultimately, the portion of people who literally take the Bible is rather minute.[/quote]\r\nThose who call themselves Christians automatically represent God, and being as he hasn't spoken for himself, I'd rather not give him the benefit of the doubt, given his supposed previous actions.\r\n[quote]\r\nIt doesn't subsume one's logical thinking or critical mindset;[/quote]\r\nSo... There's this unicorn... and it has this chest -- that is filled with 5,011 pages concerning lifestyles of humans.\r\nWould you believe me?\r\n\r\nYou have no reason to believe me -- the same stands for religion.\r\n\r\n[quote]furthermore a religious person is constantly bombarded by science in today's world,[/quote]\r\nOh noes, they're so oppressed?\r\n\r\n[quote]and I believe most people are of sound mind to make a choice in believing whichever they wish in the end. [/quote]\r\nIndoctrination, a poor moral basis for the majority of people and the lack of teaching of the critical thinking style make me doubt that hugely.\r\n\r\n[quote]Different people value different things,[/quote]\r\nYeah -- I didn't quite know that. :)\r\n\r\n[quote]I for one value morals more.[/quote]\r\nMorals more than what?\r\n\r\n[quote]I would rather have a pair of morally upright parents who are shoddy on the intellectual side rather than parents who are so crooked but smart.[/quote]\r\nAs would I. But it's not even to do with parents -- I taught myself... myself. I did use examples, either historic ones or ones generated regarding my parents since that had some moral implications involved.\r\nVery interesting to grow from that.\r\n\r\n[quote]And yes you can develop morals without religion as I have done as well, but that doesn't mean one must abandon religion. [/quote]\r\nMust? No. Should? Yeah, honestly. As said -- it's not the truth, and it promotes the lack of a logical mindset or critical thinking. How can you deny that being a bad thing?\r\n\r\nThe FUNDAMENTALS of religion relies on promoting the lack of those -- faith.\r\n\r\nCan you deny that?\r\n\r\n[quote]but to have something to cling onto in their darkness.[/quote]\r\nFalse darkness. People underestimate their own positions and what they have -- I wasn't in the best position of anyone I knew, a few years back, but I was and still am immensely grateful for what I had / have. There is no reason for me to expect more and it would be literally bad of me to feel negativity for wanting a positive thing when I already have all that I need (unless of course I sacrificed something under certain conditions etc... but that's not necessarily the point).\r\n\r\nDarkness is rarely darkness, but the lack of light -- and with a logical mindset it would be much easier to illuminate the line of what is bad, neutral and good.\r\n\r\n[quote]Yes it is gullible, but it boosts their morale and spirits.[/quote]\r\nIt does so falsely. I used to have false confidence but now I don't and I can visibly see the difference - it boosts my ability in all aspects, it makes me socialize better, I think much better under any circumstance and hell -- I've rarely felt poorly since I've just been "Hell yeah!" about anything.\r\nYou know what the best thing is though? The effect it has on other people. Happily trancing around helping people in revision before the Science exam, spreading a happy atmosphere -- it makes you feel so good not just because of your actions but (and this is my selfishness :P ) because of the feeling of power you have as a result :D\r\n\r\nYou cannot do that when it is not YOU that does it. :/\r\n\r\n[quote]Science in itself is constantly changing and sometimes hinders, not help people understand.[/quote]\r\nWhich in itself is progress. -- One step closer?\r\n\r\nPlus, it actually gives a viable "meaning of life" to people -- why look for one when you could make one? Morality and in this case the meaning of life (a philosophy) are not something that can be proven with a scientific formula -- they are subjective and as such are much more controversial and much less smooth. In the scenario of the meaning of life there is no true determining of one... so make one (and that does not include religion).\r\n\r\n[quote]Also, it is not science itself that helps you understand things better.[/quote]\r\nNeuroscience begs to differ. :/\r\n\r\n[quote]It merely helps mean answer my final year chemistry paper; it doesn't in one bit make me more ''confident'' or ''balanced''.[/quote]\r\nWoah woah woah hold on there -- what I was talking about in that quote was not scientifically related -- it was philosophically related.\r\nWith a logical mindset and / or critical thinking you can more easily establish measurements for items of interest in subjective debates. I could argue killing is the right thing to do in the case of saving energy -- the majority of people would disagree with that argument and so would I, but you literally cannot prove that it is wrong. \r\n\r\n[quote] On the other hand if religion fortitudes one's spirits then that's a good thing.[/quote]\r\nNot if it's false. A lie is not good, because I didn't run away. If I had a problem I'd find the way to fix it, and if I couldn't fix it, I'd find the way to make myself capable. If I am mentally / physically incapable of doing something that need be done (which is generally philosophical and thus mental) but I know it's literally possible for me to do it I made sure I could because I regarded it that highly.\r\n\r\nIf a theist turned atheist cannot manage to be responsible for their actions and furthermore their honest intentions then it only goes further to show of how reliant they are on religion. For the record -- I am [i]not[/i] saying atheists are as a result more responsible, what I'm saying is that they're well aware that they're on their own, and that is a great thing as well (not needing to rely on someone = great).\r\n[quote]\r\nAs more and more of science is discovered and published people who are exposed to both sides of the coin will make their own choices and what they choose in the end will probably be what they deem best for themselves.[/quote]\r\nWhat they deem may not be all that reliable though. Again - the three previous problems stated (indoctrination, lack of a proper moral complex in culture -- and don't say the law, that's less than a minimalist system of punishment and protection. The third then is the lack of teaching critical thinking or a logical mindset) show vulnerability in a lot of people.\r\n\r\n[quote]"The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than a drunken man is happier than a sober one."-George Bernard Shaw.[/quote]\r\nOh I love your profile page, MageGray :)\r\n\r\n - H

offline

Highfire

3,025 posts

Nomad

Posted November 12, '11 4:40am UTC

Similarly one can also say that the perception that science makes us logical thinkers is stretched and varies from person to person.

Misconception? The way a theory is proven requires evidence / proof, and genuinely the hypothesis is started with some form of logic. The Scientific METHOD is a good way to look at something -- people who adapt it to suit their own work, even if it is subjective are likewise logical in their actions.

Again, this is something that people value differently.

Stubborness is never highly regarded. And the subjective measurements for being unable to accept you're wrong -- especially given the evidence handed out saying otherwise are far outweighed by someone who is happy to go with the most reasonable theory and fight for that until a better / more reliable one is found.

Loyal only to the truth.

Ah, so are we discussing whether religion is inherently bad, or if the effects of religion are bad?

We can argue both, if you want.
As I said - the fundamentals of religion is bad. The effects of religion furthermore are worse.
Crusades - politically motivated military forwarding, using religion as a tool to fuel manpower.
Hundred Years War - That many years of fighting over monarchy which is based on King -- supposed messenger of God.

Because my point just shows how the effects of religion can be admirable,

Hardly?

It doesn't exactly help me understand the natural world.

If you can apply it to a real life situation... yeah it does. The Carbon Cycle, Nitrogen Cycle, Eutrophication, the Life Cycle, the Trophic levels - these all enhance your knowledge of what is happening if used in proper context.

I guess that's where our differences come about because I'm more used to moderates.

That does not stop the argument of Religion being fundamentally bad and furthermore the probability of it being wrong?

And secondly -- experience is a bad thing in that respect, as you haven't developed yourself for consideration of different situations. I know I did -- I do quite often. Right now I do not see how the measure of ones beliefs are applicable to this debate being as its based on the same thing, and quite frankly isn't needed ammunition even if I could use it.
Is there any way you could use it to help your point?

Buddhism also promotes learning and the ability to think for yourself. It also has no problem changing over time as new ideas show up.

I've never really been a fan or knew much of Buddhism but the more I hear about it the more I feel like becoming one ^^

Apologies for double post -- but previously I have clicked the thumb mouse button accidentally and... well yeah :P

- H

[quote]Similarly one can also say that the perception that science makes us logical thinkers is stretched and varies from person to person.[/quote]\r\nMisconception? The way a theory is proven requires evidence / proof, and genuinely the hypothesis is started with some form of logic. The Scientific METHOD is a good way to look at something -- people who adapt it to suit their own work, even if it is subjective are likewise logical in their actions.\r\n\r\n[quote]Again, this is something that people value differently. [/quote]\r\nStubborness is never highly regarded. And the subjective measurements for being unable to accept you're wrong -- especially given the evidence handed out saying otherwise are far outweighed by someone who is happy to go with the most reasonable theory and fight for that until a better / more reliable one is found.\r\n\r\nLoyal only to the truth.\r\n\r\n[quote]Ah, so are we discussing whether religion is inherently bad, or if the effects of religion are bad?[/quote]\r\nWe can argue both, if you want.\r\nAs I said - the fundamentals of religion is bad. The effects of religion furthermore are worse.\r\nCrusades - politically motivated military forwarding, using religion as a tool to fuel manpower.\r\nHundred Years War - That many years of fighting over monarchy which is based on King -- supposed messenger of God.\r\n\r\n[quote]Because my point just shows how the effects of religion can be admirable,[/quote]\r\nHardly?\r\n\r\n[quote]It doesn't exactly help me understand the natural world.[/quote]\r\nIf you can apply it to a real life situation... yeah it does. The Carbon Cycle, Nitrogen Cycle, Eutrophication, the Life Cycle, the Trophic levels - these all enhance your knowledge of what is happening if used in proper context.\r\n[quote]\r\nI guess that's where our differences come about because I'm more used to moderates.[/quote]\r\nThat does not stop the argument of Religion being fundamentally bad and furthermore the probability of it being wrong?\r\n\r\nAnd secondly -- experience is a bad thing in that respect, as you haven't developed yourself for consideration of different situations. I know I did -- I do quite often. Right now I do not see how the measure of ones beliefs are applicable to this debate being as its based on the same thing, and quite frankly isn't needed ammunition even if I could use it.\r\nIs there any way you could use it to help your point?\r\n\r\n[quote]Buddhism also promotes learning and the ability to think for yourself.  It also has no problem changing over time as new ideas show up.[/quote]\r\nI've never really been a fan or knew much of Buddhism but the more I hear about it the more I feel like becoming one ^^\r\n\r\nApologies for double post -- but previously I have clicked the thumb mouse button accidentally and... well yeah :P\r\n \r\n - H

offline

nichodemus

14,991 posts

Grand Duke

Posted November 12, '11 5:23am UTC

Perhaps you should commend others' passion and efforts towards trying to help others so much -- not those who accept what has been pointed out as the lazy way out and adopting a close-minded thought pattern.

Many Christians I know do the same, they balance a liberal scientific mind with helping others understand the world through their own religion and science.

As stated earlier the type of Christian I interact with doesn't come filled with zeal and preaching about hell.

Those who call themselves Christians automatically represent God, and being as he hasn't spoken for himself, I'd rather not give him the benefit of the doubt, given his supposed previous actions.

Represent God? I don't actually understand how your point relates to mine here.

So... There's this unicorn... and it has this chest -- that is filled with 5,011 pages concerning lifestyles of humans.
Would you believe me?

No, and so? If you bothered reading my point, I clearly stated that in this modern world as science becomes more and more entrenched in our lives, religious people are getting more flexible in their thoughts as well. At least those I interact with; I have no interest or experience to jduge those outside my sphere.

Oh noes, they're so oppressed?

Don't take my sentence negatively and twist it. It was a neutral comment that science is increasingly coming forth as people get more educated.

Morals more than what?

Truth. Was it so hard to comprehend when I was putting both of them together?

As would I. But it's not even to do with parents -- I taught myself... myself. I did use examples, either historic ones or ones generated regarding my parents since that had some moral implications involved.
Very interesting to grow from that.

It was merely a comparision of what I value, moral over truth.

How can you deny that being a bad thing?

Yes I can. How many times must I actually drum in the fact that the vast majority of Christians don't follow the Bible word for word? It might have blatantly followed in the past, but today with so much more information around them,it is almost safe to say that people think and compare all sources.

False darkness. People underestimate their own positions and what they have -- I wasn't in the best position of anyone I knew, a few years back, but I was and still am immensely grateful for what I had / have. There is no reason for me to expect more and it would be literally bad of me to feel negativity for wanting a positive thing when I already have all that I need (unless of course I sacrificed something under certain conditions etc... but that's not necessarily the point).

That is your way of coping with stress. That is not the only way of doing so, some people require the assurance of a ''supernatural'' being. I see no problem in that. Also, your stoicism might be admirable, but there are problems in life that simply can't be brushed away as such.

It does so falsely. I used to have false confidence but now I don't and I can visibly see the difference - it boosts my ability in all aspects, it makes me socialize better, I think much better under any circumstance and hell -- I've rarely felt poorly since I've just been "Hell yeah!" about anything.

And the problem with falsely is? So long as they derive confidence from it, I see no reason why it should be discounted, however artificial it is.

Neuroscience begs to differ. :/

And how many people actually study that? Hard science as we learn it in school or books doesn't help per se. I know that a red blood cell does this, or a platelet does that. So?

With a logical mindset and / or critical thinking you can more easily establish measurements for items of interest in subjective debates. I could argue killing is the right thing to do in the case of saving energy -- the majority of people would disagree with that argument and so would I, but you literally cannot prove that it is wrong.

Some people value logic over following one's faith and heart. Does logic and critical thinking actually make something more superior? No it doesn't, since it means different things to different people.

Not if it's false. A lie is not good, because I didn't run away. If I had a problem I'd find the way to fix it, and if I couldn't fix it, I'd find the way to make myself capable. If I am mentally / physically incapable of doing something that need be done (which is generally philosophical and thus mental) but I know it's literally possible for me to do it I made sure I could because I regarded it that highly.

That's you. Now let's move on to how other people cope.

Stubborness is never highly regarded. And the subjective measurements for being unable to accept you're wrong -- especially given the evidence handed out saying otherwise are far outweighed by someone who is happy to go with the most reasonable theory and fight for that until a better / more reliable one is found.

Must I also repeat the point about Bible literalists here?

Crusades - politically motivated military forwarding, using religion as a tool to fuel manpower.
Hundred Years War - That many years of fighting over monarchy which is based on King -- supposed messenger of God.

Pedant here. Edward III was a pious man no doubt, but he also went to war mostly to claim his inheritance and to assert control over a shattered realm. Religion wasn't a main driving factor.

Similarly, science has caused horrific casualties of war. Nuclear bombs, guns, planes, all results of science.

If you can apply it to a real life situation... yeah it does. The Carbon Cycle, Nitrogen Cycle, Eutrophication, the Life Cycle, the Trophic levels - these all enhance your knowledge of what is happening if used in proper context.

Clarification. The world as it is, how people interact, and personal relationships. Understanding science doesn't help me here.

That does not stop the argument of Religion being fundamentally bad and furthermore the probability of it being wrong?

Most religions start of with good intentions, to help people in times where science did not explain everything and to propagate morals. Fundamentally bad? I disagree.

To sum up, I don't think anyone should force their beliefs onto others. Being an atheist who uses logic and critical thinking might make one feel superior to someone who blindly follows religion, but that doesn't mean we should shoot down all religion as nonsense and fundamentally bad. Religion when applied properly teaches people morals, yes which they can learn by themselves....so?, it gives people confidence, and to be honest, hope no matter derived from religious sources or not is a leap of faith, and provides solace.

One thing I have against posting in the WERP is the fact that some atheists here seem to have the notion that it is their mission to undermine and shoot down thoroughly someone's faith. It is rather hypocritical to call another zealous, when one is also as zealous in trying to put forth and thrust one's somehow more superior and logical ideas on another. In case you're wondering, that comment wasn't directed to anyone in particular, it's just a general sensation.

[quote]Perhaps you should commend others' passion and efforts towards trying to help others so much -- not those who accept what has been pointed out as the lazy way out and adopting a close-minded thought pattern.[/quote]\r\n\r\n\r\nMany Christians I know do the same, they balance a liberal scientific mind with helping others understand the world through their own religion and science. \r\n\r\nAs stated earlier the type of Christian I interact with doesn't come filled with zeal and preaching about hell. \r\n\r\n\r\n[quote]Those who call themselves Christians automatically represent God, and being as he hasn't spoken for himself, I'd rather not give him the benefit of the doubt, given his supposed previous actions.\r\n[/quote]\r\n\r\nRepresent God? I don't actually understand how your point relates to mine here.\r\n\r\n\r\n[quote]So... There's this unicorn... and it has this chest -- that is filled with 5,011 pages concerning lifestyles of humans.\r\nWould you believe me?[/quote]\r\n\r\nNo, and so? If you bothered reading my point, I clearly stated that in this modern world as science becomes more and more entrenched in our lives, religious people are getting more flexible in their thoughts as well. At least those I interact with; I have no interest or experience to jduge those outside my sphere.\r\n\r\n\r\n[quote]Oh noes, they're so oppressed?[/quote]\r\n\r\nDon't take my sentence negatively and twist it. It was a neutral comment that science is increasingly coming forth as people get more educated.\r\n\r\n[quote]Morals more than what?[/quote]\r\n\r\nTruth. Was it so hard to comprehend when I was putting both of them together?\r\n\r\n[quote]As would I. But it's not even to do with parents -- I taught myself... myself. I did use examples, either historic ones or ones generated regarding my parents since that had some moral implications involved.\r\nVery interesting to grow from that.[/quote]\r\n\r\nIt was merely a comparision of what I value, moral over truth.\r\n\r\n[quote]How can you deny that being a bad thing?[/quote]\r\n\r\nYes I can. How many times must I actually drum in the fact that the vast majority of Christians don't follow the Bible word for word? It might have blatantly followed in the past, but today with so much more information around them,it is almost safe to say that people think and compare all sources.\r\n\r\n\r\n[quote]False darkness. People underestimate their own positions and what they have -- I wasn't in the best position of anyone I knew, a few years back, but I was and still am immensely grateful for what I had / have. There is no reason for me to expect more and it would be literally bad of me to feel negativity for wanting a positive thing when I already have all that I need (unless of course I sacrificed something under certain conditions etc... but that's not necessarily the point).[/quote]\r\n\r\nThat is your way of coping with stress. That is not the only way of doing so, some people require the assurance of a ''supernatural'' being. I see no problem in that. Also, your stoicism might be admirable, but there are problems in life that simply can't be brushed away as such.\r\n\r\n\r\n[quote]It does so falsely. I used to have false confidence but now I don't and I can visibly see the difference - it boosts my ability in all aspects, it makes me socialize better, I think much better under any circumstance and hell -- I've rarely felt poorly since I've just been "Hell yeah!" about anything.[/quote]\r\n\r\n\r\nAnd the problem with falsely is? So long as they derive confidence from it, I see no reason why it should be discounted, however artificial it is. \r\n\r\n[quote]Neuroscience begs to differ. :/[/quote]\r\n\r\nAnd how many people actually study that? Hard science as we learn it in school or books doesn't help per se. I know that a red blood cell does this, or a platelet does that. So? \r\n\r\n[quote]With a logical mindset and / or critical thinking you can more easily establish measurements for items of interest in subjective debates. I could argue killing is the right thing to do in the case of saving energy -- the majority of people would disagree with that argument and so would I, but you literally cannot prove that it is wrong.[/quote]\r\n\r\nSome people value logic over following one's faith and heart. Does logic and critical thinking actually make something more superior? No it doesn't, since it means different things to different people.\r\n\r\n[quote]Not if it's false. A lie is not good, because I didn't run away. If I had a problem I'd find the way to fix it, and if I couldn't fix it, I'd find the way to make myself capable. If I am mentally / physically incapable of doing something that need be done (which is generally philosophical and thus mental) but I know it's literally possible for me to do it I made sure I could because I regarded it that highly.\r\n[/quote]\r\nThat's you. Now let's move on to how other people cope.\r\n\r\n[quote]Stubborness is never highly regarded. And the subjective measurements for being unable to accept you're wrong -- especially given the evidence handed out saying otherwise are far outweighed by someone who is happy to go with the most reasonable theory and fight for that until a better / more reliable one is found.[/quote]\r\n\r\nMust I also repeat the point about Bible literalists here?\r\n\r\n\r\n[quote]Crusades - politically motivated military forwarding, using religion as a tool to fuel manpower.\r\nHundred Years War - That many years of fighting over monarchy which is based on King -- supposed messenger of God.[/quote]\r\n\r\nPedant here. Edward III was a pious man no doubt, but he also went to war mostly to claim his inheritance and to assert control over a shattered realm. Religion wasn't a main driving factor.\r\n\r\nSimilarly, science has caused horrific casualties of war. Nuclear bombs, guns, planes, all results of science.\r\n\r\n[quote]If you can apply it to a real life situation... yeah it does. The Carbon Cycle, Nitrogen Cycle, Eutrophication, the Life Cycle, the Trophic levels - these all enhance your knowledge of what is happening if used in proper context.[/quote]\r\n\r\nClarification. The world as it is, how people interact, and personal relationships. Understanding science doesn't help me here. \r\n\r\n[quote]That does not stop the argument of Religion being fundamentally bad and furthermore the probability of it being wrong?[/quote]\r\n\r\nMost religions start of with good intentions, to help people in times where science did not explain everything and to propagate morals. Fundamentally bad? I disagree.\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\nTo sum up, I don't think anyone should force their beliefs onto others. Being an atheist who uses logic and critical thinking might make one feel superior to someone who blindly follows religion, but that doesn't mean we should shoot down all religion as nonsense and fundamentally bad. Religion when applied properly teaches people morals, yes which they can learn by themselves....so?, it gives people confidence, and to be honest, hope no matter derived from religious sources or not is a leap of faith, and provides solace. \r\n\r\nOne thing I have against posting in the WERP is the fact that some atheists here seem to have the notion that it is their mission to undermine and shoot down thoroughly someone's faith. It is rather hypocritical to call another zealous, when one is also as zealous in trying to put forth and thrust one's somehow more superior and logical ideas on another. In case you're wondering, that comment wasn't directed to anyone in particular, it's just a general sensation.

Categories

Quests

Community

Forums → WEPR → Is religion bad?