Forums → WEPR → [dup]Re-gurgitated religion and why Iv given up.

Im genuinly not an atheist!

Basically do you believe there is any sort of god or not? Unless your saying "yes I believe this" your an atheist regardless of if it's because you simply don't know if one is out there.

Iv given up arguing against religion because its quite clear that whatever the truth, humans genuinley dont know. So why do we keep on pretending these stories are real?

I think it's important to keep asking questions and searching for what we don't know so that we can expand our knowledge. I think a better question is why do we keep pretending these stories are true when we have reasonably shown them to be false.

I think a better question is why do we keep pretending these stories are true when we have reasonably shown them to be false.

I would say it amounts to the same thing in the end. I dont need to show them to be false because its certainly hes never been shown to be true.

Someone comes along and says "there is a man flying a chariot and he hurls lightning from his hands". I would not say this is not possible, but I would urge no-one believe him without proof, as this is quite out of the ordinary and seriously deviates from normal reality, especially with media, social networking and video never showing a darn thing. The same is said for aliens. Regardless of what I believe a certain possibility is, I dont act as if its the truth until I see the evidence.

As a rational person, I cannot completely discount gods existence. Im not an athiest and I really dislike the name to be used as a label, although some labels are good, I would tend to say my beliefs are that reality is, in fact, atheist i.e. without deity.

It probably flies in the face of language syntax or academic logic somewhere, for that I apologise

It works for me because if I were to say "Aliens exist" and someone says "no they dont" we wouldnt attach so strong a label on the "un-believer!" (burn him! lol). What would I say? Im not sure what you call people who dont believe in aliens! un-alienist?

Now you may ask... what if I said, you have never seen an atom?

How can you prove it exists?

Well, the way I would explain my feelings on the matter is that, I think, If i was taught and had interest in and spent my every waking moment researching quantam physics and into understanding the fundemental nature of all things to the best of our current knowledge, that I would agree there are atoms.

No matter how much I think that I could research the bible, koran or any other holy book, no matter how much mythology or history I look at, no matter how much I meditate (maybe), no matter how much I hypothosise (because I could be wrong)...

...I dont think I could even create a shred of a case without sounding bats**t crazy!

The scientific community to me, is almost like the P2P, illegal downloading community, it cleans its self of rotten eggs. If someone has something that just plain stinks, is bad quality or full of viruses, people get told.
Religion stinks so much its become a joke.

Im not really telling people not to believe in something, more just pointing out the insanity of believing in what flies in the face of rational thought. Its not just obvious, its just painful. Its like a widow who lost her husband in the war and keeps checking for letters to say when he is coming back (50 years after the war!)

I would say it amounts to the same thing in the end. I dont need to show them to be false because its certainly hes never been shown to be true.

Good point. This goes back to the old argument of "you can't prove god doesn't exist". Unless there is good reason to think there is, don't need to.

As a rational person, I cannot completely discount gods existence. Im not an athiest and I really dislike the name to be used as a label, although some labels are good, I would tend to say my beliefs are that reality is, in fact, atheist i.e. without deity.

Don't need to completely discount god's existence. It's a simple question of belief, you either do or not. If not atheist. If you do theist. Far to often people try to make it into something more than that.
Atheist/Theist at Their Most Basic

Unless there is good reason to think there is, don't need to.

Exactly. I also think we can go further by saying there is, right now, a need NOT to believe.

Don't need to completely discount god's existence. It's a simple question of belief, you either do or not. If not atheist. If you do theist.

Fair enough. I think Im just sick of being a label to theistic beliefs.

Fair enough. I think Im just sick of being a label to theistic beliefs.

It is not something to be upset about if you display such and such characteristics to be called one. A label is just a thing, people who believe the stereotypical connotations attached to a label are ridiculous. Be not ashamed or sick of what you believe and accept that your beliefs are merely called so and so.

Why, when its obvious that ideas are passed from one religion to another, does each religion or even different denominations within a religion make the continually violent or sometimes unsaid claim of their deity/messiah/Trinity/pantheon being the one they (and usually everyone else, or else!) should worship?

Why can they not do so? Why must rationality and logic be according to scientific observation and atheism (Or whatever you call it?)? Why can they not believe in and make such claims? Or, even why must rationality and cool logic be held to be the ultimate yardsticks to judge the sensibility of truths? To each his own.

No matter how much I think that I could research the bible, koran or any other holy book, no matter how much mythology or history I look at, no matter how much I meditate (maybe), no matter how much I hypothosise (because I could be wrong)...

...I dont think I could even create a shred of a case without sounding bats**t crazy!

All religious texts have been translated, corrupted, mixed and matched so much that it's impossible to derive a fair hypothesis. I do know a fair number of people who are religious yet reject reading such books at face value. It is still up to the individuals to see how they would accept and interpret these texts, whether they take them as allegorical or literal.

Why, when its obvious that ideas are passed from one religion to another, does each religion or even different denominations within a religion make the continually violent or sometimes unsaid claim of their deity/messiah/Trinity/pantheon being the one they (and usually everyone else, or else!) should worship?

this actually goes to human nature. human's will always have wars, but the only thing more abundant than that is reasons to justify it. they have wants and desires, and this could cause problems for people who happen to be in their way.

All religious texts have been translated, corrupted, mixed and matched so much that it's impossible to derive a fair hypothesis. I do know a fair number of people who are religious yet reject reading such books at face value. It is still up to the individuals to see how they would accept and interpret these texts, whether they take them as allegorical or literal.

well, you just stumbled upon why every little religion seems to contradict eachother. we all have our materials, but it isn't straight forward like a lesson plan. it's our job to find a way to clarify what it means so we can end the disunity. religion isn't helping it's case by being so divided.

look man, I'm not the one who will judge you, but you seem to be obsessed with the label. I can personally tell you from my experience working a grocerystore that not all labels are correct. don't be the label, be the person behind the label. be your own person, be (insert name here)!

Why, when its obvious that ideas are passed from one religion to another

I am atheist, but thinking with a theist's point of view, that could be explained considering different religions not as crazy theories made up by evil sorcerers to gain the worshipment of the people, but as misinterpretations or partial interpretations of God's words. Maybe those "fake" messiahs who created the thousands of "fake" religions around the world were more spiritual and &quotrophetic" individuals than the rest of the population, so they either guessed some parts of the world's divine order, or they somehow reached little bits of God's message before Jesus' great revelation.
(In this theory I considered Christianity as the true religion and the others as the misinterpretations because it's the one people know better, but it can work for any other one.)

Of course this theory doesn't explain why do we have to consider as true the existence of God while we don't have any proof for it and the odds are ridiculously low, so there is no real reason to believe in it... but as you said before, it's fun to think about it

I can personally tell you from my experience working a grocerystore that not all labels are correct

Lol, that gave me a good chuckle
I just dont like being boxed in to a neat, plastic package :P

Why can they not do so? Why must rationality and logic be according to scientific observation and atheism (Or whatever you call it?)? Why can they not believe in and make such claims? Or, even why must rationality and cool logic be held to be the ultimate yardsticks to judge the sensibility of truths? To each his own.

I would never tell people what to believe, however its just morally bad to impose violence on others for a pure belief that goes directly against the fundemental truth of reality and evidence. So yes, they can do so, but how dare it be used as a barefaced lie to raise hell on earth for those you dislike the views of.

that could be explained considering different religions not as crazy theories made up by evil sorcerers to gain the worshipment of the people, but as misinterpretations or partial interpretations of God's words.

I cannot humour this any longer though, like I said, its past the point of being ridiculous and its plain insulting now that theists are even allowed to use this as any part of basis for argument. There are clearly no squabbles of mis-interpretations. Its clearly self imposed and self driven interpretations based on what certain individuals decided to take from it. Its their right to interpret the world how they wish. It is not right, within rational thought, to allow these individual interpretations to cause violence.

Label or no label (which is actually my least concern here)
Im not even entertaining the thought of religion. Im not closing my mind by refusing to come up with arguments as to why religions are not correct or to find all loopholes, contradictions, glaring mistakes etc.

Its painfully obvious that noone knows and there is not a shred of evidence to suggest otherwise.

So... science wins, because it has tangiable evidence.

I cannot humour this any longer though, like I said, its past the point of being ridiculous and its plain insulting now that theists are even allowed to use this as any part of basis for argument. There are clearly no squabbles of mis-interpretations. Its clearly self imposed and self driven interpretations based on what certain individuals decided to take from it. Its their right to interpret the world how they wish. It is not right, within rational thought, to allow these individual interpretations to cause violence.

if you go back to what I said earlier, I told you human nature causes these problems, and then uses religion to justify. that's why there is the taliban and al-quaeda, because of self-beneficial interpretation. another prime example of this was when henry VIII made a church to justify divorce (now known as the anglican church).

Human nature causes these problems, and then uses religion to justify. that's why there is the taliban and al-quaeda

I agree, its got nothing to do with "enlightenment" and always seems to serve a particular groups motives. Usually for more power.

I think its about time our nature changed
Especially when its so obvious now that religion has no proof and that we have worldwide communication which has allowed us to see this and also enabled us to see that all these fragmented ideas have no basis in truth.

Why can they not do so? Why must rationality and logic be according to scientific observation and atheism (Or whatever you call it?)?

Religion isn't based on rationality and logic, it's based on faith. It's about just accepting a claim without regard to the validity of that claim. Science functions in a completely opposite way to this. it requires rational thought and logic. Atheism doesn't have to be connected with rationality and logic but by using it people often get lead to such a conclusion when they apply it to religious concepts.

well, you just stumbled upon why every little religion seems to contradict eachother. we all have our materials, but it isn't straight forward like a lesson plan. it's our job to find a way to clarify what it means so we can end the disunity. religion isn't helping it's case by being so divided.

I tried unifying the various religions, you just get something that is as much nonsense as any one religion.

I would never tell people what to believe, however its just morally bad to impose violence on others for a pure belief that goes directly against the fundemental truth of reality and evidence. So yes, they can do so, but how dare it be used as a barefaced lie to raise hell on earth for those you dislike the views of.

Yes, but bear in mind a large majority of religions are peaceful and keep to their own groups. Yes, they might try to convert you, but they don't actively use violence. At least, most of them.

Religion isn't based on rationality and logic, it's based on faith. It's about just accepting a claim without regard to the validity of that claim. Science functions in a completely opposite way to this. it requires rational thought and logic. Atheism doesn't have to be connected with rationality and logic but by using it people often get lead to such a conclusion when they apply it to religious concepts.

Well the first sentence you said is pretty much obvious. I'm not challenging the fact that science relies on logic and observation and religion on faith. What I am challenging is the fact people keep bringing up the fact that since atheism and science are rational and logical, they are somehow ''superior''.

What I am challenging is the fact people keep bringing up the fact that since atheism and science are rational and logical, they are somehow ''superior''.

Thats a fair challenge. Its not superior, its just a much more truthful way to live. And Im not talking about how people can twist things round because Im sure we all agree that this happens no matter the choice of belief or walk of life followed. People can be decietful, its not "our nature" its our choice as a weapon to get ahead. What if the need to be decietful was gone? Theres always gonna be some bad eggs, but I am certain you would find 99 percent of people deciding that crime, death, hate are just plain counter-productive and all these "morals" that society has (which we have, regardless of the current religion in fashion) would become more open to dicussion. It wouldnt matter the persons belief, because it would be understood that each person has the right to believe of the unknown in whatever way they want.

So religion should not be allowed to run around saying something IS the truth and getting decisions made based on these assumptions with no backup.

Especially when its obvious that rampent plagiarism has created all the stories we know of today

I tried unifying the various religions, you just get something that is as much nonsense as any one religion.

The sad thing is, Im sure there are people that are doing this and gathering a following.

So religion should not be allowed to run around saying something IS the truth and getting decisions made based on these assumptions with no backup.

They can do what they want, and the people have to decide whether or not they want to or not. The thing about religion is that many of its adherents sincerely and genuinely believe whatever their priests or texts tell them is real, and I'm not going to dispute it.

And Im not talking about how people can twist things round because Im sure we all agree that this happens no matter the choice of belief or walk of life followed. People can be decietful, its not "our nature" its our choice as a weapon to get ahead. What if the need to be decietful was gone? Theres always gonna be some bad eggs, but I am certain you would find 99 percent of people deciding that crime, death, hate are just plain counter-productive and all these "morals" that society has (which we have, regardless of the current religion in fashion) would become more open to dicussion. It wouldnt matter the persons belief, because it would be understood that each person has the right to believe of the unknown in whatever way they want.

Tbh, I really didn't catch what you meant here, clarification is needed.

What I am challenging is the fact people keep bringing up the fact that since atheism and science are rational and logical, they are somehow ''superior''.

Using a rational logical approach allows one to gauge reality more accurately. In this sense it is superior. It's the difference between just believing that stranger can sell you a bridge and checking to see if he really has the ownership and right to sell. But as I said atheism doesn't necessarily have to be linked to this. Atheism is just a lack of belief and that lack of belief can be attributed to irrational reasons even though there are completely rational ones.

I cannot humour this any longer though, like I said, its past the point of being ridiculous and its plain insulting now that theists are even allowed to use this as any part of basis for argument.

One more thing about this. If you don't think they should be allowed to use that as an argument then don't let them.