NationStates Jolt Archive

I have been thinking lately, that indeed religion, in the form of literalist dogmatic religions, is quite possibly a very dangerous thing. Dogmatic religion in the truest sense encourages a suspension of rational and logical thought in favor of adopting 'faith' that discourages independent thought in favor of a simple black and white 'truth' which cannot be logically or rationally proven.

Religion in it's fundamental form is a mob mentality of identity, if for example I thought I was an octopus, it wouldn't be a very encouraging delusion because I would be the only one who believed it, but if I can identify with and share a delusion with many others who also share it, it increases my enforcement of self-worth, and lessens the notion that my idea is somehow ludicrous. If so many people believe it, how can it be wrong? The same is true of tradition that enforces a kind of legitimacy into the institutions of religion. If for example someone believed that tennis ball orbited the sun, we couldn't prove them wrong because it would be too hard to see with our telescopes. So because he couldn't prove it the idea that this tennis ball did orbit the sun persists, over time because people through the generations have been taught that the tennis ball exists, they may even see somehow who disagrees as a bit eccentric, or even insane.

I have been thinking lately, that indeed religion, in the form of literalist dogmatic religions, is quite possibly a very dangerous thing. Dogmatic religion in the truest sense encourages a suspension of rational and logical thought in favor of adopting 'faith' that discourages independent thought in favor of a simple black and white 'truth' which cannot be logically or rationally proven.

Religion in it's fundamental form is a mob mentality of identity, if for example I thought I was an octopus, it wouldn't be a very encouraging delusion because I would be the only one who believed it, but if I can identify with and share a delusion with many others who also share it, it increases my enforcement of self-worth, and lessens the notion that my idea is somehow ludicrous. If so many people believe it, how can it be wrong? The same is true of tradition that enforces a kind of legitimacy into the institutions of religion. If for example someone believed that tennis ball orbited the sun, we couldn't prove them wrong because it would be too hard to see with our telescopes. So because he couldn't prove it the idea that this tennis ball did orbit the sun persists, over time because people through the generations have been taught that the tennis ball exists, they may even see somehow who disagrees as a bit eccentric, or even insane.

yes

I have been thinking lately, that indeed religion, in the form of literalist dogmatic religions, is quite possibly a very dangerous thing. Dogmatic religion in the truest sense encourages a suspension of rational and logical thought in favor of adopting 'faith' that discourages independent thought in favor of a simple black and white 'truth' which cannot be logically or rationally proven.

Religion in it's fundamental form is a mob mentality of identity, if for example I thought I was an octopus, it wouldn't be a very encouraging delusion because I would be the only one who believed it, but if I can identify with and share a delusion with many others who also share it, it increases my enforcement of self-worth, and lessens the notion that my idea is somehow ludicrous. If so many people believe it, how can it be wrong? The same is true of tradition that enforces a kind of legitimacy into the institutions of religion. If for example someone believed that tennis ball orbited the sun, we couldn't prove them wrong because it would be too hard to see with our telescopes. So because he couldn't prove it the idea that this tennis ball did orbit the sun persists, over time because people through the generations have been taught that the tennis ball exists, they may even see somehow who disagrees as a bit eccentric, or even insane.

In other news, scientists have affirmed that the substance called water is indeed wet.

Also affirmed is the fact that fire is hot, that liquid nitrogen is cold, and that 15 gallons of nitroglycerin can blow the s**t out of your apartment if set on fire.

i think you are blaming religion for the way people are naturally.

religion didnt start irrational thought. religion ISNT irrational thought, it tends to be very rational inside its own belief-world.

Is it just me, or was the modern era supposed to be about the progress of scientific truth and reason through the enlightenment, and prevailing over old dogmatic and superstitious ideas.

Religion always starts as a horror vacui, a way to rid fear and stop the unbearable doubts and fears that are the condition humaine. In that way, even postmodernism is a way of ridding fear - admitting to the enstrangement of the world is another way of coping with it.

How someone deals with the inherent fear that everyone has, is their own matter. The only problem is, because there are so many takes on how to best rid of those fears, people start enforcing their own belief, phylosophical take or religion onto other people. If everyone would just cope with the fact that their own religion isn't universal, religion wouldn't be a problem.

i think you are blaming religion for the way people are naturally.

religion didnt start irrational thought. religion ISNT irrational thought, it tends to be very rational inside its own belief-world.

IMO, the real problem is that too many people will follow charismatic leaders like sheep, and those leaders will use whatever tools work to manipulate the sheeple. Religion is one of the most powerful tools for such manipulations. Without it, they would use nationalism, racism, or whatever other ism worked best.

i think you are blaming religion for the way people are naturally.

religion didnt start irrational thought. religion ISNT irrational thought, it tends to be very rational inside its own belief-world.

I actully could not agree with you more.

Is it just me, or was the modern era supposed to be about the progress of scientific truth and reason through the enlightenment, and prevailing over old dogmatic and superstitious ideas.

'Supposed to be' according to whom?

IMO, the real problem is that too many people will follow charismatic leaders like sheep, and those leaders will use whatever tools work to manipulate the sheeple. Religion is one of the most powerful tools for such manipulations. Without it, they would use nationalism, racism, or whatever other ism worked best.

There is that as well. And when the Anti-Christ comes to power, he will come to power through peaceful means and people will follow him like sheep as well.

Is it just me, or was the modern era supposed to be about the progress of scientific truth and reason through the enlightenment, and prevailing over old dogmatic and superstitious ideas.

i dont know how it was supposed to be about anything but that is what it has done. those dogmatic and superstitious ideas that can be shown to be false are all but gone from western thought. no more "god doesnt want us to use forks" or "disease is caused by sin" or "the earth is the center of the universe". at least not enough to stop science from curing disease and improving our lives in thousands of ways.

except for a few fanatical hold-outs science prevails over religion.

IMO, the real problem is that too many people will follow charismatic leaders like sheep, and those leaders will use whatever tools work to manipulate the sheeple. Religion is one of the most powerful tools for such manipulations. Without it, they would use nationalism, racism, or whatever other ism worked best.

ya ya that would have been my second point if i had remembered to make it. (i think i decided that the OP wasnt enough about that to go on). religion is USED to manipulate people and to divide us from one another but that is not something that religion started. its a natural aspect of human thought. us vs them. religion is just another way that we make that division.

its a natural aspect of human thought. us vs them. religion is just another way that we make that division.


It's nice to see someone make a well-thought statement about religion :) religion isn't the problem, narrowmindedness generally is.

Nah, religion isn't necessarily any worse than any other organizing force in the human experience. People close their minds or accept ridiculous notions for a variety of reasons, and religion doesn't have a monopoly on that.

I have been thinking lately, that indeed religion, in the form of literalist dogmatic religions, is quite possibly a very dangerous thing. Dogmatic religion in the truest sense encourages a suspension of rational and logical thought in favor of adopting 'faith' that discourages independent thought in favor of a simple black and white 'truth' which cannot be logically or rationally proven.

Religion in it's fundamental form is a mob mentality of identity, if for example I thought I was an octopus, it wouldn't be a very encouraging delusion because I would be the only one who believed it, but if I can identify with and share a delusion with many others who also share it, it increases my enforcement of self-worth, and lessens the notion that my idea is somehow ludicrous. If so many people believe it, how can it be wrong? The same is true of tradition that enforces a kind of legitimacy into the institutions of religion. If for example someone believed that tennis ball orbited the sun, we couldn't prove them wrong because it would be too hard to see with our telescopes. So because he couldn't prove it the idea that this tennis ball did orbit the sun persists, over time because people through the generations have been taught that the tennis ball exists, they may even see somehow who disagrees as a bit eccentric, or even insane.

I agree. The mentality of religion must be abandoned. Merely abolishing the institution of religion would accomplish nothing.

i dont know how it was supposed to be about anything but that is what it has done. those dogmatic and superstitious ideas that can be shown to be false are all but gone from western thought. no more "god doesnt want us to use forks" or "disease is caused by sin" or "the earth is the center of the universe". at least not enough to stop science from curing disease and improving our lives in thousands of ways.

except for a few fanatical hold-outs science prevails over religion.

In my opinion, science frees us from the dogma in order to find religon. Religion is not commandments to be followed; if you follow the dictates of your own heart, it will lead you to the same place as the commandments (respect for others, respect for god and the world, and respect for yourself). Religion is the spirital persepctive that allows one to view the world with their heart as subject to it.

In my opinion, science frees us from the dogma in order to find religon. Religion is not commandments to be followed; if you follow the dictates of your own heart, it will lead you to the same place as the commandments (respect for others, respect for god and the world, and respect for yourself). Religion is the spirital persepctive that allows one to view the world with their heart as subject to it.
Respect for which god exactly?

I agree. The mentality of religion must be abandoned. Merely abolishing the institution of religion would accomplish nothing.

Go read the following books

http://www.irr.org/Dawkin's-God-review.html

http://www.amazon.com/Twilight-Atheism-Disbelief-Modern-World/dp/0385500610

http://www.amazon.com/Gods-Politics-Right-Wrong-Doesnt/dp/0060558288

And then get back to me

Respect for which god exactly?

My gut insticts says whatever God h/she follows.

i dont know how it was supposed to be about anything but that is what it has done. those dogmatic and superstitious ideas that can be shown to be false are all but gone from western thought. no more "god doesnt want us to use forks" or "disease is caused by sin" or "the earth is the center of the universe". at least not enough to stop science from curing disease and improving our lives in thousands of ways.

except for a few fanatical hold-outs science prevails over religion.

Science does not prevail over religion. Science can never prove religion to be wrong for this simple reason. Science is about examining the natural, religion is about the supernatural. Try as you might no matter how much you know about this universe, it does not disprove God's existance.

In my opinion, science frees us from the dogma in order to find religon. Religion is not commandments to be followed; if you follow the dictates of your own heart, it will lead you to the same place as the commandments (respect for others, respect for god and the world, and respect for yourself). Religion is the spirital persepctive that allows one to view the world with their heart as subject to it.

interesting point of view. i dont know how i feel about it but i do tend to agree that using science to weed out superstition and impossibilities has to help clarify religious beliefs.

when you see something in the bible (for example) that cannot possibly be literally true you have to wonder why it is there and what it really means. to shut your mind and say "no its literally true no matter how absurd" may mean missing a more important non-literal truth.

Here's (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=527446) a thread I just made on the topic. It's quite relevant in some ways.

Respect for which god exactly?

The one god.

Science does not prevail over religion. Science can never prove religion to be wrong for this simple reason. Science is about examining the natural, religion is about the supernatural. Try as you might no matter how much you know about this universe, it does not disprove God's existance.

She didn't say science would ever disprove God, she said that science prevails in places where religious belief previously gave answers about the natural world such as creation/place of earth in the universe/origin of disease etc.

Science does not prevail over religion. Science can never prove religion to be wrong for this simple reason. Science is about examining the natural, religion is about the supernatural. Try as you might no matter how much you know about this universe, it does not disprove God's existance.

what i meant was that science prevails over religion where the 2 come into conflict.

so ....gallileo says that the earth is not in the center of the universe and he gets excommunicated. in the modern era, he is recommunicated (de-excommunicated?) because the pope recognizes that science shows that gallileo was right (mostly).

today no matter how many people claim that AIDS is god's punishment for homosexuality we still work hard to find a cure and to save the lives of those who have this terrible disease.

the vast majority of believers in the west accept the idea of evolution even though their holy books clearly state how the world was created. they move their religious belief out of the way of science by believing that god runs evolution--something that is outside the realm of science to prove of disprove.

there are still some groups who prefer faith healing to modern medicine or who insist on a literal 6 day creation of the universe, bending science to their religious beliefs but they are a small minority in the west.

Here's (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?f=1227) a thread I just made on the topic. It's quite relevant in some ways.

A Night with Ann Coulter?

A Night with Ann Coulter?
Ugh! No. This (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=527446) one. I'll amend the first.

Religion in it's fundamental form is a mob mentality of identity, if for example I thought I was an octopus, it wouldn't be a very encouraging delusion because I would be the only one who believed it, but if I can identify with and share a delusion with many others who also share it, it increases my enforcement of self-worth, and lessens the notion that my idea is somehow ludicrous. If so many people believe it, how can it be wrong? The same is true of tradition that enforces a kind of legitimacy into the institutions of religion.
That is a faulty analogy. An octopus is not like God in the sense that it proven wrong. There are many ways to show people that they are not in fact octopuses, whether they believe it or not is a matter if they are crazy or not. God, on the other hand, can not be proven or proven false. There is not enough scientific evidence to say "Hey, God can't exist because of this and that," and not enough religious or spiritually evidence that can say "God does exist because of this and that."

Do you get my point?

Atheists who are preoccupied with how stupid and illogical religious people are usually are just as annoying as religious people who think atheists are all going to burn. Religious fundamentalism is, as was stated earlier, slowy dying (in western thought). It seems really illogical to group some fanatical religious crusader together with someone who is religious because it helps them to structure their life in a positive way.

Unfortunately, secularists who could attempt to sound intelligent screw it up because they keep doing exactly that.

ya ya that would have been my second point if i had remembered to make it. (i think i decided that the OP wasnt enough about that to go on). religion is USED to manipulate people and to divide us from one another but that is not something that religion started. its a natural aspect of human thought. us vs them. religion is just another way that we make that division.

Alas we humans be aggressive creatures :(

Go read the following books

http://www.irr.org/Dawkin's-God-review.html

http://www.amazon.com/Twilight-Atheism-Disbelief-Modern-World/dp/0385500610

http://www.amazon.com/Gods-Politics-Right-Wrong-Doesnt/dp/0060558288

And then get back to me

Citing a variety of books, two of which written by an idiot like McGrath, is not a good way of countering an argument on an internet forum. Try responding to their point in your own words or summarising the relevant arguments made by the books; I doubt anyone's going to rush out and spend £30+ on books without good reason.

The one god.What's that one god's name? Or by what name is he known or referred to? ;)

Atheists who are preoccupied with how stupid and illogical religious people are usually are just as annoying as religious people who think atheists are all going to burn. Religious fundamentalism is, as was stated earlier, slowy dying (in western thought). It seems really illogical to group some fanatical religious crusader together with someone who is religious because it helps them to structure their life in a positive way.

Actually we're seeing a rise in fundamentalism paralleled by a rise in atheism and a fall in moderate religion. In the UK, it's only the fundamentalist churches which are growing, all the others are shrinking rapidly.

Unfortunately, secularists who could attempt to sound intelligent screw it up because they keep doing exactly that.

Here's a tip: if you want to sound like you know what you're talking about, don't use 'secularist' as a synonym for 'atheist'. A secularist is one who believes that religion and government should be kept separate, and there are plenty of religious secularists.

Science does not prevail over religion. Science can never prove religion to be wrong for this simple reason. Science is about examining the natural, religion is about the supernatural. Try as you might no matter how much you know about this universe, it does not disprove God's existance.

Science cannot prove religion wrong, but it has certainly furnished us with abundant evidence against it. To give just two examples:

1. The history of science is full of examples of religious/supernatural explanations being replaced by naturalistic explanations: we no longer believe that an enormous scarab beetle pushes the Sun across the sky, that life was poofed into existence over the course of six days, or that angels are responsible for the orbit of the planets. There is not even one example of a religious/supernatural explanation replacing a naturalistic one. This is evidence for naturalism

2. Every religion has a creation myth of some sort (with the possible exception of Jainism) and they have all turned out to be wrong. As a rule, they were taken literally until proven wrong (and in many cases are still taken literally even after being proven wrong. This is also evidence for naturalism.

Science does not prevail over religion. Science can never prove religion to be wrong for this simple reason. Science is about examining the natural, religion is about the supernatural. Try as you might no matter how much you know about this universe, it does not disprove God's existance.However, religion does not only say things about the supernatural, but also things about interactions of the supernatural with the natural, so that the alleged interactions are then very much issues for scientific™ research. So although science™ cannot disprove any god's existence, it can very profoundly say something about the alleged influences any god has on humans or everything else in the world. So if religions claims that a god did something in the real world, religion must bring forward evidence on how such divide acts in fact work.

™=real science, not the popular understanding of it

Go read the following books

http://www.irr.org/Dawkin's-God-review.html

http://www.amazon.com/Twilight-Atheism-Disbelief-Modern-World/dp/0385500610

http://www.amazon.com/Gods-Politics-Right-Wrong-Doesnt/dp/0060558288

And then get back to me

No.

Science does not prevail over religion. Science can never prove religion to be wrong for this simple reason. Science is about examining the natural, religion is about the supernatural. Try as you might no matter how much you know about this universe, it does not disprove God's existance.

"Supernatural" is a nonsensical concept. Oh and the only reason such a thing cannot be disproved is because it has not been defined usefully. A useful definition would include something along the lines of "The existence of God, should it be true, would cause X", where X is something that can be observed as either occurring or not occuring. Should it occur, God exists. Should it not occur, God does not exist.

There's also the issue of proof vs. evidence, but I don't want to further confuse already confused people.

Citing a variety of books, two of which written by an idiot like McGrath, is not a good way of countering an argument on an internet forum.

Its a good way of pointing out that the argument has more than one side to it and is not so simple. And care to flesh out why you think McGrath is an idiot or are you just going to offer sweeping insults.

No.


Well then, you won't develop much understanding if you're not even going to try and use a libary to learn something about what you claim to have knowledge in

"Supernatural" is a nonsensical concept.

In you're opinion. The vast majority of the world would disagree with you. I only take this out because you are making a judgement without supporting it.


Oh and the only reason such a thing cannot be disproved is because it has not been defined usefully. A useful definition would include something along the lines of "The existence of God, should it be true, would cause X", where X is something that can be observed as either occurring or not occuring. Should it occur, God exists. Should it not occur, God does not exist.

Quite right, there is no scientific method that can either prove or disprove God.

Its a good way of pointing out that the argument has more than one side to it and is not so simple. And care to flesh out why you think McGrath is an idiot or are you just going to offer sweeping insults.

Because McGrath attacks strawmen of his opponents' positions rather than engaging with what they actually say. He's an apologist, and a poor one at that.

In you're opinion. The vast majority of the world would disagree with you. I only take this out because you are making a judgement without supporting it.
Surely you can do better than an argumentum ad populum?

What's that one god's name?

It's Brian Cohen.

Because McGrath attacks strawmen of his opponents' positions rather than engaging with what they actually say. He's an apologist, and a poor one at that.

Right, now give some examples if you're going to defend that view.

Surely you can do better than an argumentum ad populum?

Its not an argumentm ad populum, that point is made just for emphasis. I bring it up because you are being very generalising about a widely held belief without any supporting argument. I feel that while the fact that large numbers of people believing it gives it no more reliablilty or validity it does give it a requirement that if you're going to make derogatary comments about it you should back them up.

Surely you can do better than an argumentum ad populum?

Its not an argumentm ad populum, that point is made just for emphasis. I bring it up because you are being very generalising about a widely held belief without any supporting argument. I feel that while the fact that large numbers of people believing it gives it no more reliablilty or validity it does give it a requirement that if you're going to make derogatary comments about it you should back them up.

What's that one god's name? Or by what name is he known or referred to? ;)

Attaching a name to god would create not-god.

I have been thinking lately, that indeed religion, in the form of literalist dogmatic religions, is quite possibly a very dangerous thing. Dogmatic religion in the truest sense encourages a suspension of rational and logical thought in favor of adopting 'faith' that discourages independent thought in favor of a simple black and white 'truth' which cannot be logically or rationally proven.

Religion in it's fundamental form is a mob mentality of identity, if for example I thought I was an octopus, it wouldn't be a very encouraging delusion because I would be the only one who believed it, but if I can identify with and share a delusion with many others who also share it, it increases my enforcement of self-worth, and lessens the notion that my idea is somehow ludicrous. If so many people believe it, how can it be wrong? The same is true of tradition that enforces a kind of legitimacy into the institutions of religion. If for example someone believed that tennis ball orbited the sun, we couldn't prove them wrong because it would be too hard to see with our telescopes. So because he couldn't prove it the idea that this tennis ball did orbit the sun persists, over time because people through the generations have been taught that the tennis ball exists, they may even see somehow who disagrees as a bit eccentric, or even insane.


A socialist against religion. Who woulda thunk it.

Attaching a name to god would create not-god.

And yet...no no. I will not say it.

It's Brian Cohen.

I knew it!,
May Brian Cohen be with you...

Actually we're seeing a rise in fundamentalism paralleled by a rise in atheism and a fall in moderate religion. In the UK, it's only the fundamentalist churches which are growing, all the others are shrinking rapidly.

According to Hegel, it'll all work out for the good. ;)

And yet...no no. I will not say it.

Well, we necessarily need a word for "that which has no name, no characteristics, and is unknowable, yet still necessarily there." Otherwise, how could we talk about it?

Right, now give some examples if you're going to defend that view.

I can think of two of the top of my head:

1. A public debate with Daniel Dennett. McGrath repeatedly rubbished Dennett's book, Breaking the Spell, on the grounds that it failed to contain conclusive evidence for a natural origin of religion. This is in spite of the fact that Dennett made it very clear in his book that it was intended as a framework for future research, and that what he presented was merely a hypothesis to be tested. Dennett explained this again in the debate and McGrath completely ignored it.

2. The very title of his latest book, The Dawkins Delusion: Atheist Fundamentalism and the Denial of the Divine, is a strawman. Dawkins cannot be classed as a fundamentalist under any reasonable use of the phrase, his views can be summarised as:

-I don't think religion is true.
-I don't see religious beliefs as being any more inherently deserving of respect than political beliefs.
-The government shouldn't be using public money to push religious beliefs.
-Religious beliefs shouldn't exempt you from the law.
-Creationism isn't science, it's nonsense.

Are any of these 'fundamentalist'?

According to Hegel, it'll all work out for the good. ;)

Marx ftw! :p

Well, we necessarily need a word for "that which has no name, no characteristics, and is unknowable, yet still necessarily there." Otherwise, how could we talk about it?

http://www.ldolphin.org/Names.html

Marx ftw! :p

Had his day... had his day... :)

http://www.ldolphin.org/Names.html

http://www.escapefromwatchtower.com/jehovah.html

http://www.escapefromwatchtower.com/jehovah.html

http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Names_of_G-d/names_of_g-d.html

I have been thinking lately, that indeed religion, in the form of literalist dogmatic religions, is quite possibly a very dangerous thing. Dogmatic religion in the truest sense encourages a suspension of rational and logical thought in favor of adopting 'faith' that discourages independent thought in favor of a simple black and white 'truth' which cannot be logically or rationally proven.

Religion in it's fundamental form is a mob mentality of identity, if for example I thought I was an octopus, it wouldn't be a very encouraging delusion because I would be the only one who believed it, but if I can identify with and share a delusion with many others who also share it, it increases my enforcement of self-worth, and lessens the notion that my idea is somehow ludicrous. If so many people believe it, how can it be wrong? The same is true of tradition that enforces a kind of legitimacy into the institutions of religion. If for example someone believed that tennis ball orbited the sun, we couldn't prove them wrong because it would be too hard to see with our telescopes. So because he couldn't prove it the idea that this tennis ball did orbit the sun persists, over time because people through the generations have been taught that the tennis ball exists, they may even see somehow who disagrees as a bit eccentric, or even insane.
Your idea of religion is simply wrong.

Had his day... had his day... :)

True, but he's still better than Hegel. ;)

Your idea of religion is simply wrong.

Shh...let us not confuse him :D

http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Names_of_G-d/names_of_g-d.html

http://www.vedicbooks.net/god-men-con-men-p-49.html

http://www.vedicbooks.net/god-men-con-men-p-49.html

Let us just call this a draw? You and I can go back and forth all day with links but why fight?

Quit the damn link-war already.

Let us just call this a draw? You and I can go back and forth all day with links but why fight?

LOL!!

Your idea of religion is simply wrong.

And now you're going to elaborate on why...yes?

Attaching a name to god would create not-god.wtf?

LOL!!

Yeah, I saw that and deleted my post. *slaps self repeatedly* :D

Yeah, I saw that and deleted my post. *slaps self repeatedly* :D

*hands you a cookie*

Let us just call this a draw? You and I can go back and forth all day with links but why fight?

Deal.

The thing is that within the context of a mythology, god is given a name in a story to distinguish characteristics and features about which the story will grow, and about which we can learn about god.

God itself can have no name, because to name a thing is to say, "I know what you are."

*hands you a cookie*

*seizes cookie and flees to dark corner, there to devour it*

God itself can have no name, because to name a thing is to say, "I know what you are."Since when does naming something mean knowing what it is?

And now you're going to elaborate on why...yes?

Practiced correctly religion is something beautiful and perfect(Islam at least). The notion that religion forces people to suspend rational thought is foolish. For intance with the Qur'an you have a book speaking about the earth round and revolving, life coming from water and created in stages and many other things that science has only confirmed 1400 years after it was revealed to man. It is not irrational to believe in that, no more than say believing all matter and life just *poof* appeared without a cause. Both sides are taken on faith.

And people say 'well religion brainwashes people and makes them do bad things". So does Fascism and communism. Atheist ideologies that have killed far more than religion.

Since when does naming something mean knowing what it is?

Since at least Aristotle.

Since at least Aristotle.Then why did the gods of Aristotle's time all have names?

For intance with the Qur'an you have a book speaking about the earth round and revolving

Which we've known about since the Ancient Greeks discovered it. Your book is about 1100 years late.

life coming from water and created in stages and many other things that science has only confirmed 1400 years after it was revealed to man.

Citations?

It is not irrational to believe in that, no more than say believing all matter and life just *poof* appeared without a cause. Both sides are taken on faith.

Science has studied the origins of life and matter, and has made great progress on both. Following the evidence is not 'faith'.

And people say 'well religion brainwashes people and makes them do bad things". So does Fascism and communism. Atheist ideologies that have killed far more than religion.

Communism and Fascism were not motivated by atheism (indeed, Mussolini's fascist regime was on very good terms with the Vatican and the Pope was instrumental in his rise to power). Just because Communists were atheists that doesn't mean that their actions were inspired by atheism, they were inspired by Communism. On the other hand, there are thousands of examples of people who have been motivated to do terrible things by religion.

Since when does naming something mean knowing what it is?

That is because no one can know God himself.

Then why did the gods of Aristotle's time all have names?

Because nobody asked Aristotle what his thoughts were on the subject when they got out the baby name book.

That is because no one can know God himself.

This is idiotic. Naming something doesn't mean you understand it. Oh look, I can name an AIDS virus - I MUST BE A VIROLOGIST! Hmm, look at that mountain - NOW I'M A GEOLOGIST! Do you want to know my name? Then you'll KNOW ME UTTERLY AND COMPLETELY!

Besides, God has a name, and you just used it.

...
Besides, God has a name, and you just used it.He did?

This is idiotic. Naming something doesn't mean you understand it. Oh look, I can name an AIDS virus - I MUST BE A VIROLOGIST! Hmm, look at that mountain - NOW I'M A GEOLOGIST! Do you want to know my name? Then you'll KNOW ME UTTERLY AND COMPLETELY!

Besides, God has a name, and you just used it.

I did? Where?

I have been thinking lately, that indeed religion, in the form of literalist dogmatic religions, is quite possibly a very dangerous thing. Dogmatic religion in the truest sense encourages a suspension of rational and logical thought in favor of adopting 'faith' that discourages independent thought in favor of a simple black and white 'truth' which cannot be logically or rationally proven.

Religion in it's fundamental form is a mob mentality of identity, if for example I thought I was an octopus, it wouldn't be a very encouraging delusion because I would be the only one who believed it, but if I can identify with and share a delusion with many others who also share it, it increases my enforcement of self-worth, and lessens the notion that my idea is somehow ludicrous. If so many people believe it, how can it be wrong? The same is true of tradition that enforces a kind of legitimacy into the institutions of religion. If for example someone believed that tennis ball orbited the sun, we couldn't prove them wrong because it would be too hard to see with our telescopes. So because he couldn't prove it the idea that this tennis ball did orbit the sun persists, over time because people through the generations have been taught that the tennis ball exists, they may even see somehow who disagrees as a bit eccentric, or even insane.

Ain't that the truth.

2. The very title of his latest book, The Dawkins Delusion: Atheist Fundamentalism and the Denial of the Divine, is a strawman. Dawkins cannot be classed as a fundamentalist under any reasonable use of the phrase, his views can be summarised as:

-I don't think religion is true.
-I don't see religious beliefs as being any more inherently deserving of respect than political beliefs.
-The government shouldn't be using public money to push religious beliefs.
-Religious beliefs shouldn't exempt you from the law.
-Creationism isn't science, it's nonsense.

Are any of these 'fundamentalist'?

Those are not Dawkin's views. Dawkins has made it very plain on a number of occasions that he believes that religion is a force for evil in the world and that the world should be purged of it. He has also often branded religious people as being inherently stupid for being religious because he claims that they ignore evidence. He used a strawman to define faith and thus knocks down the strawman further branding religious people as stupid.

Those are not Dawkin's views. Dawkins has made it very plain on a number of occasions that he believes that religion is a force for evil in the world and that the world should be purged of it. He has also often branded religious people as being inherently stupid for being religious because he claims that they ignore evidence. He used a strawman to define faith and thus knocks down the strawman further branding religious people as stupid.

What would be a greater force for evil than religion?

What would be a greater force for evil than religion?

Religion is not evil in nature. It is men themselves that turn religion into evil. So in answer to your question, the greater force for evil than religion is mankind itself.

Religion is not evil in nature. It is men themselves that turn religion into evil. So in answer to your question, the greater force for evil than religion is mankind itself.

Err...

Yeah. So, you agree or something? Maybe a better question would be what is a greater tool for evil than religion?

Err...

Yeah. So, you agree or something? Maybe a better question would be what is a greater tool for evil than religion?

That is precisely the question you should have asked. And the answer to that one is a host of things. Religion among them.

Those are not Dawkin's views. Dawkins has made it very plain on a number of occasions that he believes that religion is a force for evil in the world and that the world should be purged of it. He has also often branded religious people as being inherently stupid for being religious because he claims that they ignore evidence. He used a strawman to define faith and thus knocks down the strawman further branding religious people as stupid.

Yes, he's said that religion can be (and often is) a force for evil in the world; that still doesn't make him a fundamentalist. He doesn't deny that good things can come from religion, and he's never to my knowledge advocated forcing anyone to give up their religion unless they're harming others. I might say that Capitalism/Communism/Conservatism is a force for evil in the world and should be defeated, but that doesn't make me a fundamentalist.

I don't believe he's ever said that all religious people are stupid, and I'd like to see a citation for that statement.

McGrath can moan all he likes about 'faith means belief after seeing evidence', but that doesn't change the fact that a large number of believers do believe based on blind faith. Several times when I've asked friends why they believe something which there's no evidence for, they've replied that it's due to 'faith'. Google the leading Creationist organisations and you'll see that most of them have Statements of Faith which declare "The Bible is infallible, any evidence to the contrary is false".

I notice you didn't respond to my example of McGrath's strawmanning of Dennett. Can I take it that you accept that as a legitimate example?

That is precisely the question you should have asked. And the answer to that one is a host of things. Religion among them.

I just can't think of a greater one than religion. I'm not being my normal anti-religion self... I'm trying to think of one. Nothing seems to come close in my mind.

I just can't think of a greater one than religion. I'm not being my normal anti-religion self... I'm trying to think of one. Nothing seems to come close in my mind.

race can be used as a greater tool than religion.

race can be used as a greater tool than religion.

Ah. Good one. I'll be thinking about this all day now.

Ah. Good one. I'll be thinking about this all day now.

He's right, you know. There are plenty of things that are easily twisted into effective tools for manipulation and destruction.

Marxism, for instance. Utilitarian "greatest good" thought. Religion of course.

Then why did the gods of Aristotle's time all have names?

For the same reason I described above: so that things about god can be communicated in the context of a mythological story or a mythological image.

He's right, you know. There are plenty of things that are easily twisted into effective tools for manipulation and destruction.

Marxism, for instance. Utilitarian "greatest good" thought. Religion of course.

I just wonder if those are greater than religion, though. Race seems to be a clear winner. I'm also trying to take all of history into account but it is very hard because I am not very bright. Um... I mean I'm not a historian.

Those are not Dawkin's views. Dawkins has made it very plain on a number of occasions that he believes that religion is a force for evil in the world and that the world should be purged of it. He has also often branded religious people as being inherently stupid for being religious because he claims that they ignore evidence. He used a strawman to define faith and thus knocks down the strawman further branding religious people as stupid.

Paints a hilarious picture of straw atheists waving arms, bobbing around, knocking at straw religious folk, who are also waving and knocking. Punch and Judy.

This is idiotic. Naming something doesn't mean you understand it. Oh look, I can name an AIDS virus - I MUST BE A VIROLOGIST! Hmm, look at that mountain - NOW I'M A GEOLOGIST! Do you want to know my name? Then you'll KNOW ME UTTERLY AND COMPLETELY!

Besides, God has a name, and you just used it.

But you've named AIDS "Virus" --why did you do that? Why did you name AIDS a "virus"? Could it be that you know something of AIDS, even if just a little?

Edit: I don't have to know your given name, I already have a few names for you: 'Excitable', for one; 'Passionate', and 'Caring'; and your Indian name, 'Apt to Jump to Conclusions'.

But you've named AIDS "Virus" --why did you do that? Why did you name AIDS a "virus"? Could it be that you know something of AIDS, even if just a little?

Edit: I don't have to know your given name, I already have a few names for you: 'Excitable', for one; 'Passionate', and 'Caring'; and your Indian name, 'Apt to Jump to Conclusions'.

Native American name *smack*. His Indian name would be considerably harder to pronounce.

He's right, you know. There are plenty of things that are easily twisted into effective tools for manipulation and destruction.

Coathangers are best, especially if you've got some papier mache.

*nods*

Native American name *smack*. His Indian name would be considerably harder to pronounce.

Haha. This is how my discussions today have gone:
http://www.dilbert.com/comics/dilbert/archive/images/dilbert2007052209480.jpg

This is how my discussions today have gone:
http://www.dilbert.com/comics/dilbert/archive/images/dilbert2007052209480.jpg

With the exception of this one.

More properly, any well organized, large scale, dogmatic belief structure, whether mystical or mundane, can be extremely dangerous if it is permitted to reign unchecked. Only encouraging individual beliefs and philosophies can overcome these risks and dangers of communal beliefs.

More properly, any well organized, large scale, dogmatic belief structure, whether mystical or mundane, can be extremely dangerous if it is permitted to reign unchecked. Only encouraging individual beliefs and philosophies can overcome these risks and dangers of communal beliefs.well organized, large scale, dogmatic are not the attributes that make a belief system dangerous. it's the belief that does that already. adhering to positions that are beyond reason makes all decisions and actions based on belief arbitrary and ultimately substanceless.

More properly, any well organized, large scale, dogmatic belief structure, whether mystical or mundane, can be extremely dangerous if it is permitted to reign unchecked. Only encouraging individual beliefs and philosophies can overcome these risks and dangers of communal beliefs.

I think it's practically impossible to be mystic and 'well organized, large scale, and dogmatic' at the same time.

well organized, large scale, dogmatic are not the attributes that make a belief system dangerous. it's the belief that does that already. adhering to positions that are beyond reason makes all decisions and actions based on belief arbitrary and ultimately substanceless.

I couldn't agree more.

I think it's practically impossible to be mystic and 'well organized, large scale, and dogmatic' at the same time.

He meant it in the spiritual sense, rather than the "pursuing consciousness of the divine through direct experience" sense.

well organized, large scale, dogmatic are not the attributes that make a belief system dangerous. it's the belief that does that already. adhering to positions that are beyond reason makes all decisions and actions based on belief arbitrary and ultimately substanceless.

I fully disagree. It's the sociological effects that make belief sets dangerous, rather than what those beliefs actually are.

In the twentieth century we witnessed the rise and fall of, what it's adherents called, scientific socialism. Adhering to Marxist-Leninist belief sets, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the Peoples Republic of China were responsible for the deaths of countless millions, with virtually no internal dissent: Simply because their leaders told them it was necessary for their beliefs.

He meant it in the spiritual sense, rather than the "pursuing consciousness of the divine through direct experience" sense.

What is the difference?

What is the difference?

If I'm not mistaken, he meant mysticism as spirituality and/or the faith aspects we typically associate with religion.

Mysticism on the other hand tends to be antithetical to organized religion, as it stressed private, direct experience of the divine, rather than group or organized experience. It's nowhere near impossible to be a mystic and still part of a religion, but being mystical isn't a necessary qualifier for being a religion.

If I'm not mistaken, he meant mysticism as spirituality and/or the faith aspects we typically associate with religion.

Mysticism on the other hand tends to be antithetical to organized religion, as it stressed private, direct experience of the divine, rather than group or organized experience. It's nowhere near impossible to be a mystic and still part of a religion, but being mystical isn't a necessary qualifier for being a religion.

I'm still not clear on the difference, but okay.

Native American name *smack*. His Indian name would be considerably harder to pronounce.

I see you find that annoying too.....

I see you find that annoying too.....

I wish endless torture and suffering on Christopher Columbus.

I wish endless torture and suffering on Christopher Columbus.

Well it wasn't ENTIRELY his fault....I'm sure that other European settlers could have started calling them Native Americans after realizing that they couldn't find any silk or spices in "India"........

I see you find that annoying too.....

Count me in. I too am annoyed when it goes...

stupid person: Where are you from?

me: India

sp: You mean from India India?

me: well... :headbang:

I am sure the native Americans also don't particularly like to be called Indian.

Well it wasn't ENTIRELY his fault....I'm sure that other European settlers could have started calling them Native Americans after realizing that they couldn't find any silk or spices in "India"........

I paraphrase Russel Peters on this one. He was just embarassed they got lost, so he decided to call them Indians and pretend they'd really found India.

Meanwhile for the first time in history, Indians were waiting on the shores of India bitching about someone else being late for a change.

Count me in. I too am annoyed when it goes...

stupid person: Where are you from?

me: India

sp: You mean from India India?

me: well... :headbang:

I am sure the native Americans also don't particularly like to be called Indian.

You know, for some reason, that doesn't piss me off nearly as much as idiots asking me if I speak "Indian."

Meanwhile for the first time in history, Indians were waiting on the shores of India bitching about someone else being late for a change.

lol...IST (Indian Standard Time) a.k.a Indian Stretchable Time.

I have been thinking lately, that indeed religion, in the form of literalist dogmatic religions, is quite possibly a very dangerous thing. Dogmatic religion in the truest sense encourages a suspension of rational and logical thought in favor of adopting 'faith' that discourages independent thought in favor of a simple black and white 'truth' which cannot be logically or rationally proven.

Religion in it's fundamental form is a mob mentality of identity, if for example I thought I was an octopus, it wouldn't be a very encouraging delusion because I would be the only one who believed it, but if I can identify with and share a delusion with many others who also share it, it increases my enforcement of self-worth, and lessens the notion that my idea is somehow ludicrous. If so many people believe it, how can it be wrong? The same is true of tradition that enforces a kind of legitimacy into the institutions of religion. If for example someone believed that tennis ball orbited the sun, we couldn't prove them wrong because it would be too hard to see with our telescopes. So because he couldn't prove it the idea that this tennis ball did orbit the sun persists, over time because people through the generations have been taught that the tennis ball exists, they may even see somehow who disagrees as a bit eccentric, or even insane.

Agreed.

Agreed.

Based on what?

lol...IST (Indian Standard Time) a.k.a Indian Stretchable Time.

My parents learned long ago to tell everyone to come an hour earlier than we wanted them to for parties and such.

My parents learned long ago to tell everyone to come an hour earlier than we wanted them to for parties and such.

and your guests know that too. That's why they turn up an hour after the official start time. :p

Which we've known about since the Ancient Greeks discovered it. Your book is about 1100 years late.


nevermind the fact the greeks pre-dated the Romans, who were around in 300 ce

Citations?
What does Allah tell us? He says;
"made from water every living thing" (21:30)

"Allah has created every animal from water. Of them are some that creep on their bellies, some that walk on two legs, and some that walk on four. Allah creates what He wills, for truly Allah has power over all things" (24:45)

further he says;

"What is the matter with you, that you are not conscious of Allah's majesty, seeing that it is He Who has created you in diverse stages? See you not how Allah has created the seven heavens one above another, and made the moon a light in their midst, and made the sun as a (glorious) lamp? And Allah has produced you from the earth, growing (gradually)" (71:13-17).

Science has studied the origins of life and matter, and has made great progress on both. Following the evidence is not 'faith'.


following the evidence leads to the acceptance of Islam.

Communism and Fascism were not motivated by atheism (indeed, Mussolini's fascist regime was on very good terms with the Vatican and the Pope was instrumental in his rise to power). Just because Communists were atheists that doesn't mean that their actions were inspired by atheism, they were inspired by Communism. On the other hand, there are thousands of examples of people who have been motivated to do terrible things by religion.
And many people who claim to do things in the name of religion aren't motivated by religion at all. They simply use religious language to further political goals.

*snip*

And how do you know what Allah is saying is indeed correct?

following the evidence leads to the acceptance of Islam.

Following the evidence leads to the acceptance of Christ.

And many people who claim to do things in the name of religion aren't motivated by religion at all. They simply use religious language to further political goals.

Amen.

And how do you know what Allah is saying is indeed correct?
More to the point, the fact that Allah created man in stages is very much similar to the Old Testament creation which occured within 6 days (the 7th being for rest.) Each day was a stage.

following the evidence leads to the acceptance of Islam.

Following the evidence leads to the acceptance of Christ.

Following the evidence leads to the acceptance of Athe. :p

Following the evidence leads to the acceptance of Athe. :p

Following the evidence leads to the acceptance of Panthe!

nevermind the fact the greeks pre-dated the Romans, who were around in 300 ce

Erm... yes?

What does Allah tell us? He says;
"made from water every living thing" (21:30)

"Allah has created every animal from water. Of them are some that creep on their bellies, some that walk on two legs, and some that walk on four. Allah creates what He wills, for truly Allah has power over all things" (24:45)

And we're also told that man was created from a clot (96:1-2), clay or mud ( 15:26, 32:7, 38:71, and 55:14), and dust (30:20, 35:11). I guess if you make enough guesses then one of them is bound to be right.

further he says;

"What is the matter with you, that you are not conscious of Allah's majesty, seeing that it is He Who has created you in diverse stages? See you not how Allah has created the seven heavens one above another, and made the moon a light in their midst, and made the sun as a (glorious) lamp? And Allah has produced you from the earth, growing (gradually)" (71:13-17).

Diverse stages sounds like a reference to the Six Days of Creation, which most certainly isn't confirmed by science.

And many people who claim to do things in the name of religion aren't motivated by religion at all. They simply use religious language to further political goals.

Agreed, but there are still plenty of examples of atrocities inspired entirely by religion, such as the muder of Theo van Gogh or the thousands who were burnt for 'Host Desecration'.

I have been thinking lately, that indeed religion, in the form of literalist dogmatic religions, is quite possibly a very dangerous thing. Dogmatic religion in the truest sense encourages a suspension of rational and logical thought in favor of adopting 'faith' that discourages independent thought in favor of a simple black and white 'truth' which cannot be logically or rationally proven.

Religion in it's fundamental form is a mob mentality of identity, if for example I thought I was an octopus, it wouldn't be a very encouraging delusion because I would be the only one who believed it, but if I can identify with and share a delusion with many others who also share it, it increases my enforcement of self-worth, and lessens the notion that my idea is somehow ludicrous. If so many people believe it, how can it be wrong? The same is true of tradition that enforces a kind of legitimacy into the institutions of religion. If for example someone believed that tennis ball orbited the sun, we couldn't prove them wrong because it would be too hard to see with our telescopes. So because he couldn't prove it the idea that this tennis ball did orbit the sun persists, over time because people through the generations have been taught that the tennis ball exists, they may even see somehow who disagrees as a bit eccentric, or even insane.

Actually, that tennis ball fits in with my philosophy that everything exists until proven otherwise.

Actually, that tennis ball fits in with my philosophy that everything exists until proven otherwise.

I've got an IOU, signed by you, promising to pay me £1000. Please put the money is a plastic bag and leave it in the bus shelter near Hydes Park.

Communism and Fascism were not motivated by atheism (indeed, Mussolini's fascist regime was on very good terms with the Vatican and the Pope was instrumental in his rise to power). Just because Communists were atheists that doesn't mean that their actions were inspired by atheism, they were inspired by Communism. On the other hand, there are thousands of examples of people who have been motivated to do terrible things by religion.

What was dangerous about communism and fascism were their dogmatic belief structures, and their construction of in-group identities in keeping with those belief structures. Very much like so many organized religious groups, these factors are why I often include communism and fascism as their types of religions.

Diverse stages sounds like a reference to the Six Days of Creation, which most certainly isn't confirmed by science.

Nor disproved depending on your definition of a Day.

Such atrocities exist with or without religion.

Such atrocities exist with or without religion.The easiest justification for any atrocities is however the famous "deus lo vult"... god wills it.

The easiest justification for any atrocities is however the famous "deus lo vult"... god wills it.

Race also plays a major factor in justifying atrocities.

Race also plays a major factor in justifying atrocities.

as does nationalism.

in the modern world i would say that nationalism is a much bigger culprit than religion.

as does nationalism.

in the modern world i would say that nationalism is a much bigger culprit than religion.

I tend to agree.

as does nationalism.

in the modern world i would say that nationalism is a much bigger culprit than religion.

Aye. Caused WWI. Caused, along with racism, WWII. Probably caused a whole bunch of other things that I'm too uneducated in history to know about...

Aye. Caused WWI. Caused, along with racism, WWII. Probably caused a whole bunch of other things that I'm too uneducated in history to know about...

In an abstract, and I think a case can be made, the American War for Independence.

In an abstract, and I think a case can be made, the American War for Independence.

You know, I can see that, but you'd also have to add in Independence movements in a number of other nations.

You could also argue that the American Civil War was also the cause of nationalism, in its relation to federalism.

...I think.

You know, I can see that, but you'd also have to add in Independence movements in a number of other nations.

You could also argue that the American Civil War was also the cause of nationalism, in its relation to federalism.

...I think.

Yes I believe that you can chalk up all the independence movements to nationalism.

As to the American Civil War, it is possible.

Killer whales are the Enemy. (http://www.pbfcomics.com/?cid=0PBF50020BC-Penguin_Enemy.jpg#52)

No, I don't know why I posted that.

Is it just me, or was the modern era supposed to be about the progress of scientific truth and reason through the enlightenment, and prevailing over old dogmatic and superstitious ideas.

I note the lack of tolerance in your list of ideals.

You feel based soley on your opinion of yourself...much like the octopus example...you are somehow more enlightened then the billions of believers...so they are wrong and you are right. There is no room in your "enlightenment" and modern progress for conflicting opinions and world veiws.

You are no more enlightened then some sot spitting over his shoulder in the Dark Ages...you simply have computer in front of you from which you may anonymously point a crooked finger at your neighbor and cry "Heretic" to the what you feel the "Right" way of thinking should be.

Where is your pluralism?

Or is it not a difference of cultures and truly you believe some are savages, simply for how they believe.

I note the lack of tolerance in your list of ideals.

You feel based soley on your opinion of yourself...much like the octopus example...you are somehow more enlightened then the billions of believers...so they are wrong and you are right. There is no room in your "enlightenment" and modern progress for conflicting opinions and world veiws.

You are no more enlightened then some sot spitting over his shoulder in the Dark Ages...you simply have computer in front of you from which you may anonymously point a crooked finger at your neighbor and cry "Heretic" to the what you feel the "Right" way of thinking should be.

Where is your pluralism?

Or is it not a difference of cultures and truly you believe some are savages, simply for how they believe.

Not just that but he is giving the popular figures of the Enlightenment a bad name.

I have been thinking lately, that indeed religion, in the form of literalist dogmatic religions, is quite possibly a very dangerous thing. Dogmatic religion in the truest sense encourages a suspension of rational and logical thought in favor of adopting 'faith' that discourages independent thought in favor of a simple black and white 'truth' which cannot be logically or rationally proven.

Religion in it's fundamental form is a mob mentality of identity, if for example I thought I was an octopus, it wouldn't be a very encouraging delusion because I would be the only one who believed it, but if I can identify with and share a delusion with many others who also share it, it increases my enforcement of self-worth, and lessens the notion that my idea is somehow ludicrous. If so many people believe it, how can it be wrong? The same is true of tradition that enforces a kind of legitimacy into the institutions of religion. If for example someone believed that tennis ball orbited the sun, we couldn't prove them wrong because it would be too hard to see with our telescopes. So because he couldn't prove it the idea that this tennis ball did orbit the sun persists, over time because people through the generations have been taught that the tennis ball exists, they may even see somehow who disagrees as a bit eccentric, or even insane.

Religion is part of us, it is in our blood and genetics. Getting rid of it is like removing a vital organ. Its the brainwashy and intellectually imperialistic religions that are bad. Like the ones that think EVERYONE must be like them and the likes of the kind that produce a mob mentality as stated in the first post. Not ALL religion is like that, just a few are like Islam and Baptism. Hindu, Judaism don't force their views on everyone or else there'd be missionaries of those religions everywhere.

And we're also told that man was created from a clot (96:1-2), clay or mud ( 15:26, 32:7, 38:71, and 55:14), and dust (30:20, 35:11). I guess if you make enough guesses then one of them is bound to be right.

Those things aren't mutually exclusive.

Diverse stages sounds like a reference to the Six Days of Creation, which most certainly isn't confirmed by science.
To me diverse stages sounds like a reference to evolution. Something confirmed by science.


Agreed, but there are still plenty of examples of atrocities inspired entirely by religion, such as the muder of Theo van Gogh or the thousands who were burnt for 'Host Desecration'.

And there have been atrocities entirely inspired to persecute those who practice religion. Take the Roman treatment of early Christians or the Chinese treatment of the Tibetian buddhists.

The easiest justification for any atrocities is however the famous "deus lo vult"... god wills it.

you'd think so. But people just do this sort of shit easily anyway, it doesn't really matter how easy it is to justify it.

you'd think so. But people just do this sort of shit easily anyway, it doesn't really matter how easy it is to justify it.But religiously/divinely motivated folks never experience remorse about what they do, and thus go on and on until they are stopped or die or both.

But religiously/divinely motivated folks never experience remorse about what they do

How do you know?


and thus go on and on until they are stopped or die or both.

How is this different from any other greedy radicalised group. If you are convinced that you should be the ones in power then it's not uncommon to get there by any means nessecerry. Look at the Russian civil war for example, the different groups committed all sorts of atrocities to try and gain control of Russia. Religion barely had much to do with it, if anything.

The easiest justification for any atrocities is however the famous "deus lo vult"... god wills it.

Whilst my latin is weak, I'd argue that the easiest justification for an atrocity is rather because "the cause" whatever that may be, wills it.

"The cause" can easily include God, the Revolution, the Pancakes, the People, the Race or pretty much anything else people like to fight for.

If an individual believes he is in the right, whatever that right may be, it is very easy to absolve himself of any responsibility.

Not all religions require blind faith. Judaism emphasizes rational inquiry. To some of the rabbis I know, anyone advocating 'blind faith' is a heretic.

Not all religions require blind faith. Judaism emphasizes rational inquiry. To some of the rabbis I know, anyone advocating 'blind faith' is a heretic.

I've always found Judaism to be the most interesting religion. Well... maybe a tie with Buddhism.

I've always found Judaism to be the most interesting religion.What are its interesting aspects for you? And Judaism as such or that of any particular time period in history?

Judaism emphasizes rational inquiry.Of what?

Saluton,
Hello,

Your statements make sense to me. I am wondering now how you see Paganism; or earth-based, polytheistic religions.

Gxis Revido,
Rafe

I have been thinking lately, that indeed religion, in the form of literalist dogmatic religions, is quite possibly a very dangerous thing. Dogmatic religion in the truest sense encourages a suspension of rational and logical thought in favor of adopting 'faith' that discourages independent thought in favor of a simple black and white 'truth' which cannot be logically or rationally proven.

Religion in it's fundamental form is a mob mentality of identity, if for example I thought I was an octopus, it wouldn't be a very encouraging delusion because I would be the only one who believed it, but if I can identify with and share a delusion with many others who also share it, it increases my enforcement of self-worth, and lessens the notion that my idea is somehow ludicrous. If so many people believe it, how can it be wrong? The same is true of tradition that enforces a kind of legitimacy into the institutions of religion. If for example someone believed that tennis ball orbited the sun, we couldn't prove them wrong because it would be too hard to see with our telescopes. So because he couldn't prove it the idea that this tennis ball did orbit the sun persists, over time because people through the generations have been taught that the tennis ball exists, they may even see somehow who disagrees as a bit eccentric, or even insane.

What are its interesting aspects for you? And Judaism as such or that of any particular time period in history?

I remember watching a film called A Life Apart about Hasidic Jews in NY. It made me interested about their culture. I also have a soft spot for Fiddler on the Roof but I'm not about to admit that to anybody. I suppose just the things I hear about them interest me. Their use of numbers with letters... I can't remember what it is called but - interesting. The fact that they lead such a strict and, supposedly, moral life in big cities such as NY - interesting. I never really followed through on my interest as I did with Buddhism.

Nor disproved depending on your definition of a Day.

Even if you want to use the Hebrew definition of Yom as 'an indeterminate length of time', that still doesn't change the fact that the order of Creation (as reported in the Bible) is completely screwed up.

Those things aren't mutually exclusive.

Well, modern science certainly doesn't confirm that life is formed from a mixture of clots, mud, clay, dust, and water (although there is an interesting theory that life originated from clay rather than water).

To me diverse stages sounds like a reference to evolution. Something confirmed by science.

You can interpret it that way if you like, but it doesn't look that way to me. If it really predicted Evolution, why didn't hundreds of Islamic scholars proclaim the evolutionary origins of life centuries before Darwin? Why are 'scientific discoveries in the Koran/Bible' only ever discovered with hindsight?

And there have been atrocities entirely inspired to persecute those who practice religion. Take the Roman treatment of early Christians or the Chinese treatment of the Tibetian buddhists.

IIRC the Romans were motivated by the Christians' refusal to take part in the worship of the Roman emperors (the Jews were given a special dispensation at one point but the Christians didn't have the same protection). Religious persecution in China is carried out by Atheists, but it is inspired and motivated by Maoism ideology.

But religiously/divinely motivated folks never experience remorse about what they do, and thus go on and on until they are stopped or die or both.

Nice try but we already went down that road and proven it false. It even occured in this thread.

Of what?

Pretty much anything, especially religious matters.

There are certain subjects the study of which by ordinary people is discouraged. Mysticism is a good example - it requires a thorough grounding in Jewish philosophy to understand, just as understanding the intricacies of string theory requires a knowledge of basic physics and mathematics. There is no outright ban, merely a strong recommendation.

If you have any specific questions, fire away.

The 'use of numbers with letters' is called gematriya. Since every Hebrew letter has a numerical value, every Hebrew word also has a value, and some use it to gain mystical understanding.

"Dogmatism is a disease of the mind"
- Pyrrho