Forums → WEPR → Is religion bad?

they balance a liberal scientific mind with helping others understand the world through their own religion and science.

Religion isn't understanding or knowing.. it's perception -- and a faulty one at that.

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

But if they're Christian they do believe in it.

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

A bad act made in the name of the religion is automatically under the religion as their God has not determined otherwise -- the two examples have not been declared by God as a sinful action and thus being as he has never spoken for himself with all the other things under his name, those shall follow as well.

religious people are getting more flexible in their thoughts as well.

Because they've had to. If they begin questioning their religion or changing it - it stops becoming that religion and then becomes a new one, in which case, that's not what the discussion is about.

Don't take my sentence negatively and twist it.

The reason I had the question mark -- I wasn't entirely sure how to construe what you said ^^

It was a neutral comment that science is increasingly coming forth as people get more educated.

And that should not be stopped.
I've already pointed out the pro's of science, I'm not saying you're against it but why would a Christian want to prevent it?

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

No, I just missed it since I am half-idiot.

Morality stands above truth -- yes, but without the truth how difficult is it to interpret what is right and wrong when simply put you lack all the viable information (or are given false information that corrupts it)? Truth is one of the primary traits to establish a correct moral decision.

Religion provided a higher state of morality at the time, but it was still a lie, and its moral standards now are below that of many people -- including those who may still follow it.

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

As do I ^^

How many times must I actually drum in the fact that the vast majority of Christians don't follow the Bible word for word?

If they believe that Jesus is their savior, God their creator and the Devil their punisher if they are sinful how are they not religious?
Thus, they follow a lie.

And of course, they may not follow it word for word -- I'll read on to what you have to say to link what I'm thinking now

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.

Not really - especially those indoctrinated into their religion, there's not attempt to break out of what they're in and as far as they're concerned their religion is the truth.
What I was going to say was that those who don't follow it word for word either only have a belief in the religious figures or take morals from the good book -- in either case they shouldn't... blindly, in any case.

That is your way of coping with stress.

It wasn't stress so much as seeing a lot of negativity -- I learnt to relax easily as well.

That is not the only way of doing so, some people require the assurance of a ''supernatural'' being.

So in their time of weakness they weaken themselves permanently... makes sense.

The assurance of a supernatural being is not a courageous act, nor does it contribute to ones own good being -- or that of whoever they could be mourning. It could illustrate how hurt they are but it does illustrate the weakness in their resolve of logical thinking... if they ever adopted that idea.

Also, your stoicism might be admirable, but there are problems in life that simply can't be brushed away as such.

I would love you to provide an example that proves insurmountable by my method.

If someone dies -- I lose a, what is essentially, good thing in my life. I will not see darkness in what happened unless it was due to the negative act of another person (negligence, murder, etc). The person who died is now at peace. Those who do not want to die or cannot accept it are people I would pity in a way, but I would not allow their personality in that sense to diminsh my perspective.

So long as they derive confidence from it, I see no reason why it should be discounted, however artificial it is.

Because it is not them who have "the power". Only be as confident as your will to do it, and if someone is reliant on a supernatural being then their capabilities is actually very little. It is, simply put, a lie.

If you want confidence, gain it through either having the right attitude or the actual capabilities, because then YOU did it, and there is no question.

And how many people actually study that?

No idea -- I don't, but through the study of neuroscience from others I have learnt a great deal about myself that is very beneficial.

Hard science as we learn it in school or books doesn't help per se.

Yeah... it kind of does. And I say that "kind" word sarcastically, incase this is the internet and indicating expression is kind of difficult ^^

Your understanding grows and thus your accuracy or decision making is further enhanced. Weight training? Biology helps. Growing plants? Eutrophication, Carbon / Nitrogen cycle and botany helps. And etc?

I know that a red blood cell does this, or a platelet does that. So?

You know how genes / alleles work with each gamete, and as such you can figure the chances of someone carrying or being a sufferer of something like Cystic Fibrosis.

Does logic and critical thinking actually make something more superior? No it doesn't, since it means different things to different people.

Err yes it makes it superior. If you don't have logic, then you're at liberty to say whatever you want and let it be / mean whatever.
It doesn't matter if it's not logical -- because you don't follow that mindset in the slightest.

Logic is superior because it is what can help explain something or give reason to it. Logic and reason are pretty much indisputeable, ironically using that logic.

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

One of the best ways to cope is to know how to see things and instead of bothering feeling sorry for yourself you rather act upon the situation. Can you honestly dispute that?

Must I also repeat the point about Bible literalists here?

Why would a Bible Non-literalist follow the Bible?
The two reasons previously provided.
Both are a lie. Thus it is a negative.

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.

Monarchy was created with the King being the messenger of God.
It is closely religiously associated.

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

As previously mentioned Science is a tool -- the people who developed those weapons / items with the scientific method are genuinely those to blame, and even then there are hugely mitigating circumstances.

That, and casualties of war would've been fought over in any case. There's no denial that scientific furthering has led wars to be fought, over gas and etc, but that is not the intention of it and never has been.

Religion may say the same -- but the scientific community is not represented as one. Neither are atheists.
Christians however all follow one single deity and Christians have represented said deity in the previously mentioned events like the Crusades, where God has not made any effort to deter people from thinking those were his intentions -- just like any other action under his name.

As a result, you could say Hitler was an atheist (which I don't think he was) and that his lack of a religion led him to wanting to exterminate the Jews. but this form of ad hominum is not applicable to any other atheist.

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

The world as it is? So learning how it was made, how its atmosphere is, why the Amazon Rainforest is in Brazil and etc is not related to Science?

How people interact? Neuroscience, being a big one. Previously the philosophy of "Survival of the Fittest" would also have been applicable -- not so much anymore.
Personal relationships? Also related to neuroscience, but there are other sciences that can help in how people interact -- you only need to look for it (and the proof of course).

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

Can you prove that was a religion's goal? I genuinely think that it is to explain the unexplainable, whereas the moral "benefits" were more of a bonus.
It is fundamentally a LIE. If you want to propagate morals you can do so with logic and reason and thus much more effectively.

Fundamentally bad? I disagree.

Lieing is only a worthy action when the person being lied to would likely do something wrong in reaction to knowing the truth. People did not know the truth and thus religion was probably born -- instead of adopting a curious mindset and finding out.

To sum up, I don't think anyone should force their beliefs onto others.

It wouldn't really be a belief of someone if they were forced into it.

Being an atheist who uses logic and critical thinking might make one feel superior to someone who blindly follows religion,

Make one feel? Probably more.

but that doesn't mean we should shoot down all religion as nonsense and fundamentally bad.

They're all fundamentally a lie, I just explained that.
Nonsense? Not entirely, but there are several parts that are contradictory and immoral.

Religion when applied properly teaches people morals,

Something that could be done without the use of a lie.
Or tool -- however you want to put it.

yes which they can learn by themselves....so?

So why apply a lie to when someone could discover something on their own as they should?? Where they are more than welcome to question what they've been told -- where they can expand that knowledge.

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.

Hope is the wanting of something to happen. The confidence in one self of being able to do something can further enhance their ability to actually do it. Hope converts to confidence as a result.

If you do so under false pretenses or false information, then you are going deeper into a situation that you may not be equipped to handle. You are also following a lie.

Following a religion is not solace. Taking solace in the hypothetical situation that someone grew out of religion as a moral man is much better.

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.

Genuinely I would rather elaborate on a state of a logical mindset and critical thinking, as the person who believes in say, a religion, can see for themselves the mistakes they may have done. Whilst it can easily be said "You're wrong, and this is why" all it is is logic and proof vs X. It provides no furthering of the persons personality usually, unless guided to a better method.

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.

Devoted, dedicated or just altruistic. Zealous is a trait that is dependant on the actions involved. One is zealous in his fight against married people is clearly not a good thing. One zealous in trying to help others by providing a better means of thinking and possibly illuminate them away from the lie they've adopted so much gives massive confidence to one who is no longer reliant on a supernatural being.

Why doesn't it allow one to grow?

It fundamentally requires blind faith and if I remember correctly requires a rather stubborn or strict perspective on what is defined as the "truth".

Isn't that growing as well?

If I have my door taken from me and need to earn it back by appeasing my father in some way, is that actually growing or just understanding that which in your scenario, is a lie?

Depends on the context, honestly. It would not be the work of religion but to someone who believes in what I will refer to as the Lie (no intention of referring to Mein Kampf, incase someone gets that idea) it could prove as good motivation for them to resolve the situation as best they can.

But, that kind of personal forwarding is not true yet again if it is under the pressure of eternal hell or to please a superior being. I do what I do because I want to help others -- straight up.

Also AgathaB your last comment on page 23 is... very well done

First post -- I've messed up previously so I do apologize for double posts but I do believe these will be of sufficient size to... well be split up

- H

Using Him as a role model.

I guess that works to a degree, but you need not role models to develop a moral understanding or basic behaviour.
I did -- I looked at different characteristics of different people and determined the useful ones, and when they're useful.

Similarly does science actually encourage critical thinking to the masses?

The scientific method does. The requirements to prove a scientific theory does. If you do not understand science in this way (not saying you don't by the way), then you might know something, but you don't know how and thus it does become useless.

There are different types of learners -- and sadly the way things are taught is to answer the exam, this enables the less able learners to get higher grades but lowers the maximum cap of intelligence to be shown. I learn in the way of understanding it and being able to link it with other things -- the way it becomes most useful. This may not be useful to someone with less time or just someone who "does not get it", who may just revise and learn the actual stuff. I think I learn better being able to use everything I need to know for different things, and by helping others by finding ways to articulate something, and etc. Others may not be like that (I admittedly taught myself to do that) and thus just find ways to remember the essential information, not how, not why since they may not be on the paper.

I believe it was on this thread I mentioned that the critical thinking style has not been taught in schools, neither has two other things... which I forgot right about now.

It may not appeal to the masses because that may not be the way they wish to learn it (which is more of a problem for them than for science) or becuase they are not directly taught it.

what the vast majority of us do is to swallow almost whole what our textbooks or teachers tell us.

And that's not the learners' faults. They should need to know and / or explain how it comes about, with what they've been taught. It is, let's be fair, a lower standard of learning -- are you even truely learning it? Being as you may not be capable of putting it into a situation properly, not really.

Jesus can be a role model without having to necessarily believe he existed as the son of God.

But then it isn't Christianity :P

Although it should be noted that I have taken fictional characters to great extent, looked at their actions / charactertisitics and judged on them...
The difference I feel is that in Christianity God / Jesus is the end-all, be-all and thus us inherently unquestionable. I had no such restriction.

In the same way various literary characters can be role models without anyone actually believing they exist in a spiritual sense or have ever physically existed.

... I just said what you said straight after ^^

That's... quite an awesome coincidence :P

Then yes, but most of us over here who profess to using logical thinking and rationality because of science aren't using it per se.

It uses it but that INTEGRAL aspect is not taught -- stupid really... but not necessarily science to blame.

Basically, what I just said that lacking God would take away the idea of it being Christianity is the same way taking out the scientific method / process for how the facts came about is the exact same thing.

Therefore it's much more pertinent to discuss sciences which study the human condition and their methods in regards to religion.

This is mentioned in the Neuroscientific video I saw. Interacting with people and personal relationships also indirectly regarded in this (because I learnt from the video and knew it could be applied -- oorah), but for the most part you should try and take notice of however religion may have been brought up -- it's been a while since I've seen this video.

Because face it, most of what people do when they claim they use science is to read their chemistry textbook and learn up formulas. That's not science.

A problem with how it is taught and how exams are brought out.
I'm victim of this as well - I had to explain the Carbon Cycle but barely how it came about. In that sense though I am learning how Carbon Dioxide slowly dissipated prior to Photosynthesis being around.

Still though - my exam didn't ask for that.

the educational system should provide the means for improving upon aforementioned theories by teaching the scientific method

The scientific method is taught but not really related to the exam. There are times where you are asked how you would conduct an experiment and etc but that rarely asks WHY. :<

considering that science deals in facts which until disproved, are truth.

It does depend how much proof / evidence supports the idea however. In the case of the Big Bang or Evolution, I would say there is more than sufficient information supporting those two theories. If it's something else without as much supporting factors then it would be more of a "find out" thing -- which isn't really that bad. :P

Now if only it wasn't just the two of us, we could get a really rocking discussion going.

Sorry about that ^^

That's where the meat of the debate lies - how to determine whether religion is a negative influence on the social and cultural settings of the human race.

It would be a bigger subject of debate -- I'm convinced that it is bad but its affects on some people / factions have shown promise.
I still think it isn't justified, but still

I'm pulling out to deal with my tonsillitis.

Get better soon. :<

Well, it's good for making people behave themselves if they think that they are gonna go to heaven if they don't kill nobody,

But not for the right reasons. Doing it because of fear of punishment or under the bribe of eternal paradise is not the same as not doing it because it's wrong.

So I guess u gotta accept that some people are gonna beleive in religion and others aren't so that's what it is.

I don't accept something that isn't fact and can change.

One could argue that because of this, war is good. But we know it isn't, right?

It's subjective. There's no proof saying war is bad, there is information from war and not from war that could be used in wars' favor or opposition.

Which is the same thing we're doing here. Religion is bad to me because it is fundamentally a negative thing -- a lie. The affects of it may be positive but they are not exclusive to religion. Taking out the negative whilst keeping in the positives and possibly gaining more as a result of self-development and etc is why I think religion is not required, and why I would prefer it deteriorate.

Just looked at the size of my first post -- I think it's big enough ^^

- H

But then it isn't Christianity :P

Which, if I recall correctly was precisely my point. People need role models - fair enough. They just don't have to believe that all of them exist.

This is mentioned in the Neuroscientific video I saw. Interacting with people and personal relationships also indirectly regarded in this (because I learnt from the video and knew it could be applied -- oorah), but for the most part you should try and take notice of however religion may have been brought up -- it's been a while since I've seen this video.

I'll make sure to watch it. It looks to be interesting.

It does depend how much proof / evidence supports the idea however. In the case of the Big Bang or Evolution, I would say there is more than sufficient information supporting those two theories. If it's something else without as much supporting factors then it would be more of a "find out" thing -- which isn't really that bad. :P

Okay, quick clarification here. We're talking about scientific theories. A theory in scientific terms is an explanation of observed phenomena and empirical evidence which has not yet been disproved. It is considered the truth until the event in which it's disproved. The Theory of Gravity is not merely a 'theory' in the way we often use the word, for example. It is scientific knowledge accurate at an established level of precision and based on consistent, empirical evidence. A theory can never be proved, only disproved.

So your "more of a find out thing" wouldn't be a theory in the first place and wouldn't formally belong in the realm of science.

Sorry about that ^^

I actually meant for someone else to get involved.

It's subjective. There's no proof saying war is bad, there is information from war and not from war that could be used in wars' favor or opposition.

There's a tiny bit of sarcasm in my statement, which is that - if we say that religion is good simply because sometimes good things come out of it, it could be argued that war is a good thing as well. Which is not a generally agreed upon opinion, unlike that of religion's influence. (I hesitated in pointing this out because it's not a very good argument against religion. But you misunderstood my statement, so I had to explain.)

I suppose if you could follow him as a role model without considering him God, or part of God, etc. you could probably be a Christian.

Jesus is supposed to be the son of God however - one of the trinity.

People need role models - fair enough. They just don't have to believe that all of them exist.

Indeed.
One thing though that is probably my pickiness as opposed to your opinion:

People need role models

Need? :P

I'll make sure to watch it. It looks to be interesting.

Good hope you enjoy it!

So your "more of a find out thing" wouldn't be a theory in the first place and wouldn't formally belong in the realm of science.

... Yes... I messed up big time ^^
If you replace my saying "theory" with "hypothesis", would that not be a viable piece of information?

I actually meant for someone else to get involved.

I know, I was simply saying sorry for taking so long :P

There's a tiny bit of sarcasm in my statement, which is that - if we say that religion is good simply because sometimes good things come out of it, it could be argued that war is a good thing as well.

I saw what you was trying to say -- I was pointing out how it is difficult to argue either situation though :P

I hesitated in pointing this out because it's not a very good argument against religion.

It is relevant though if it has been referred to with a direct answer in viable Biblical Texts. Or even if those who used Religion as a fuel for manpower in the Crusades said as as I said God has not said otherwise.
You do however have contradictory ideas as a result -- Biblical Texts would be a straight up reference whereas Gods intentions derived from human actions on his behalf and etc is much more controversial and not needed :P

I didn't misunderstand but rather gave a different perspective to the debate and why it has so much complications
My bad though -- looking back at my post it didn't really pay reference to what you intended it to mean.

- H

.. Yes... I messed up big time ^^
If you replace my saying "theory" with "hypothesis", would that not be a viable piece of information?

I understood what you were getting at; my clarification of scientific theories and what they mean was meant more for the benefit of others who might have made erroneous conclusions.

I know, I was simply saying sorry for taking so long :P

Well alright then.

You do however have contradictory ideas as a result -- Biblical Texts would be a straight up reference whereas Gods intentions derived from human actions on his behalf and etc is much more controversial and not needed

"Human actions on His behalf" is exactly what I was getting at with my previous conclusion that the question of religion is fundamentally social and cultural. Not just in the context of war, but more so in the context of every day life.

War is an extreme. The influence which interests me is more directly related to social mores and everyday living.

I understood what you were getting at; my clarification of scientific theories and what they mean was meant more for the benefit of others who might have made erroneous conclusions.

I would have been at fault at this misleading :/

"Human actions on His behalf" is exactly what I was getting at with my previous conclusion that the question of religion is fundamentally social and cultural. Not just in the context of war, but more so in the context of every day life.

I agree, I think one of its primary foundations is the meaning of life but I can see how other fundamentals involve social and cultural influences and influencing.

Ironically the idea that it took cultural / social influencing is often taken by non-Bible Literalists that want to see the Bible more "up-to-date". :P

- H

You're trying to justify hurting yourself with two other examples of people hurting themselves -- neither of which honestly apply. The main one you could say is cigarettes, with the nicotine making it addictive... yet it still isn't justified to hurt yourself in that way really.
Religion is not addictive, and if you're reliant on it that shouldn't prevent you from trying to break out of it -- just like how you shouldn't "accept" that you're hooked on cigarettes.

Okay. So what would be a good example then?

Religion is not addictive, and if you're reliant on it that shouldn't prevent you from trying to break out of it -- just like how you shouldn't "accept" that you're hooked on cigarettes.

I'm not so sure about it not being addicting. Maybe not in the way as a drug works, but there are people who develop a feeling of dependence on it.

I'm not so sure about it not being addicting. Maybe not in the way as a drug works, but there are people who develop a feeling of dependence on it.

Not necessarily to the point of addiction. There may be some who derive a behaviour addiction but I think that would be very rare at best.

Okay. So what would be a good example then?

School -- but that is to gain an overall benefit that is not fundamentally flawed.

- H

School

How do they relate? Why don't we use the example of a knife. It can be used for good, and it can be used for bad. But whenever its used for bad do we blame the knife or the person controling it? What if a knife had the word "DEATH" carved onto the handel by the maker. Would we then blame the knife for killing someone? The knife can be used for good or bad. It's up to the person to decide what it will be used for. So just like a knife isn't a good or bad thing, niether is religion.

How do they relate?

School is seen as painful by a lot of people, I personally don't but one who would persist in learning in order to gain a better standard of life in the future is not the same as someone adopting a Lie and relying on it in false hope.

But whenever its used for bad do we blame the knife or the person controling it?

The person controlling it -- and this stands for science as well.

What if a knife had the word "DEATH" carved onto the handel by the maker. Would we then blame the knife for killing someone?

I'm struggling to see your point... no pun intended.

It's up to the person to decide what it will be used for. So just like a knife isn't a good or bad thing, niether is religion.

Religion is represented by the religious people following it -- when one of them does an action "on behalf of their God" that is wrong to the eyes of anyone outside, or even inside that religion, it is also the actions of their God as they have not made any attempt to say that do not support this - just like with everything else.

- H

I'm struggling to see your point... no pun intended

I think a better example would be: If someone was playing Russian Roulette with a Colt revolver and died, would Colt be at fault for making the gun? No, because that person was misusing it and didn't follow the instruction manual.