Religion, what's the point?

[Carolina Red]

It makes me smile because of this kind of post.

When speaking of science people post quotes from Einstein, Newton etc but when it comes to religion it's the local pastor/priest or the average Joe on an internet forum.

Or even worse some picture from a lunatic fringe is displayed as if it's representative of all religion.

"Having faith" is not something you would see religious scholars hiding behind. The "scientists" of religion if you will.

I wonder if you have heard of the term "taqleed". And no I don't mean the wiki definition (even though that maybe a good place to start). In short it means blind following. Which is what you have a lot today in religious communities. Church on Sunday or mosque on Friday and all's good the other 6 days. It's the equivalent of taking science advice off a kid who once bought a chemistry set from Argos.

Majority of folk, and I mean this with the greatest of respect, on here se to have arguments based on these "taqlidis" when it comes to religion but go into detail when looking at scientific arguments, as in researching actual scientists. Peer reviewed papers etc.

Kinda think you’re barking up the wrong tree on this… I’m more than happy to dig through the weeds of scripture. I’ve made more than a few folks upset by pointing out what their holy book actually says in comparison to what the common “believer” thinks.

 

[Flying high]

This argument makes me smile. Taking gravity as the example

You had newtons books on gravity. It was accepted but found to be ultimately wrong by Einstein.

You had Einstein books on gravity. Accepted but now known to have holes.

Yet ultimately accepted as a phenomenon, and it's a scientific theory so basically a work in progress until we have all the evidences.

When it comes to religion we religious folk have to provide definitive answers to all the questions.

You're right, we've all been too harsh on religions and set the bar too high.

Maybe just start with all the evidence you have and we'll go from there.

 

[shamans]

I was gonna ask a question on the universe and then deleted it because it legit gives me headaches.

Without passing judgement, non God believing folks how do you all cope with questions such as what was there beyond the big bang and so on? How can we ever get an answer.

 

[Moby]

The man's a clown obviously, but I don't see what a pic of some fringe American loon adds to the debate tbh.

Again with this bullshit fringe excuse.

 

[Carolina Red]

I was gonna ask a question on the universe and then deleted it because it legit gives me headaches.

Without passing judgement, non God believing folks how do you all cope with questions such as what was there beyond the big bang and so on? How can we ever get an answer.

How do you cope with what existed before you were born?

 

[shamans]

How do you cope with what existed before you were born?

I have a logical explanation of it. My parents, memories. I see other kids who are born into the universe so I understand the process.

If I think about what was there before the big bang my brain literally hurts.

 

[Moby]

This argument makes me smile. Taking gravity as the example

You had newtons books on gravity. It was accepted but found to be ultimately wrong by Einstein.

You had Einstein books on gravity. Accepted but now known to have holes.

Yet ultimately accepted as a phenomenon, and it's a scientific theory so basically a work in progress until we have all the evidences.

When it comes to religion we religious folk have to provide definitive answers to all the questions.

Exactly. When a scientific book is proven to be wrong people stop referring to it. Religion meanwhile is still fecking about with texts written centuries ago with zero allowance for any discussion on it let alone scrutiny or discontinuation. Spend entire lives without being able to overcome one mental block.

 

[Roane]

Kinda think you’re barking up the wrong tree on this… I’m more than happy to dig through the weeds of scripture. I’ve made more than a few folks upset by pointing out what their holy book actually says in comparison to what the common “believer” thinks.

I certainly won't be upset, I would have thought it was clear what I think about the institutions of religion. I've written them off often enough in various threads.

 

[nimic]

I have a logical explanation of it. My parents, memories. I see other kids who are born into the universe so I understand the process.

If I think about what was there before the big bang my brain literally hurts.

That's because we didn't evolve to understand the big bang. We evolved to understand lion hiding in that bush. In any case, I wouldn't worry too much about that particular part of it. Understanding everything after the big bang is difficult enough, trying to understand what comes before isn't necessary. It's possible that it is quite literally unknowable.

 

[nimic]

You're right, we've all been too harsh on religions and set the bar too high.

Maybe just start with all the evidence you have and we'll go from there.

Right, pretty much. I rather think claiming to be the bearer of ultimate truth is what made people so expectant to begin with.

 

[Kinsella]

Hardly fringe.

You seem to not know what thread you are in.

Well then that goes back to my original observation regarding the most vehement proponents on the anti-religion side of the thread being American posters, who use particular examples from their own country and culture as arguments against religion/theism as a whole, but seem to forget that those examples are very particular indeed to their own country.

 

[Roane]

Exactly. When a scientific book is proven to be wrong people stop referring to it. Religion meanwhile is still fecking about with texts written centuries ago with zero allowance for any discussion on it let alone scrutiny or discontinuation. Spend entire lives without being able to overcome one mental block.

Who is stopping people from having discussions? Or scrutiny?

Go for your life and I'll back your right to discussion and scrutiny all day every day. My religion, for example, has questioning as a core principle

 

[nimic]

Well then that goes back to my original observation regarding the most vehement proponents on the anti-religion side of the thread being American posters, who use particular examples from their own country and culture as arguments against religion/theism as a whole, but seem to forget that those examples are very particular indeed to their own country.

It's not like anyone can refer to the whole history of Christendom when discussing religion, though. People are always going to discuss it in terms of what effects them. The US is also easily the largest Christian country, so what happens there matters. The same way it matters if the Pope says or does something hypocritical, despite many Christians not being Catholics.

 

[Roane]

You're right, we've all been too harsh on religions and set the bar too high.

Maybe just start with all the evidence you have and we'll go from there.

Let's keep it in context shall we. The point was about using a lunatic fringe sect or individual as a way of attacking all religions and people who are religious.

The initial post was a bloke wearing a shirt with "Jesus was American". What does that add to any discussion?

And Jesus was born in Palestine so wasn't American.

 

[Denis79]

I was gonna ask a question on the universe and then deleted it because it legit gives me headaches.

Without passing judgement, non God believing folks how do you all cope with questions such as what was there beyond the big bang and so on? How can we ever get an answer.

We don't understand all that came after either. It's the search for answers that has taken us to where we are today. Most of anything we have achieved as a spieces started as a question.

 

[Moby]

Who is stopping people from having discussions? Or scrutiny?

Go for your life and I'll back your right to discussion and scrutiny all day every day. My religion, for example, has questioning as a core principle

Mate. You belong from the subcontinent as do I. Literally right now. Right fecking now the biggest communal tension across the entire country is happening because of comments made on religious texts of both Hindus and Muslims. Let's be real here and call out what actually goes on.

 

[Amarsdd]

I was gonna ask a question on the universe and then deleted it because it legit gives me headaches.

Without passing judgement, non God believing folks how do you all cope with questions such as what was there beyond the big bang and so on? How can we ever get an answer.

to take it as the answers come along with evidence. I don't need there to be anything before or beyond the big bang nor do I need there to be anything beyond death (another similar question). And also I do not need those questions to be answered to live a fulfilling life. If in the next day, week, month or years someone comes with good evidence that there was a God beyond the big bang or there is heaven and hell beyond death, I'll take those in stride in the same way if it is proven beyond doubt there there was/is nothing beyond them. Don't think either of those answers will change how I'll go through my life really.

 

[rcoobc]

I was gonna ask a question on the universe and then deleted it because it legit gives me headaches.

Without passing judgement, non God believing folks how do you all cope with questions such as what was there beyond the big bang and so on? How can we ever get an answer.

I think about it every day, occasionally it also keeps my up and night and sometimes it gives me the odd existential crisis.

What was before the big bang?

Why does anything exist?

Why is the default something, other than nothing?

I'm far more at peace with my own eventual death, that there being a universe to begin with.

 

[Roane]

Mate. You belong from the subcontinent as do I. Literally right now. Right fecking now the biggest communal tension across the entire country is happening because of comments made on religious texts of both Hindus and Muslims. Let's be real here and call out what actually goes on.

I don't have an issue or problem with calling out what actually goes on.

You're from India and I'm from Pakistan (Azad Kashmir ways). I don't hesitate in calling situations for what they are.

Here is the thing though. I don't believe Pakistan is an Islamic Republic. I don't believe the leadership Islamic, I don't believe the "founder" Jinnah was even Muslim. Why? Because what Islam says. Not Pakistan, not the politicians, not even the sell out mullahs.

 

[calodo2003]

Well then that goes back to my original observation regarding the most vehement proponents on the anti-religion side of the thread being American posters, who use particular examples from their own country and culture as arguments against religion/theism as a whole, but seem to forget that those examples are very particular indeed to their own country.

That’s fine & dandy. That’s what we know. I don’t particularly care if you take umbrage against a post in a thread that highlights the ridiculousness of religion.

 

[calodo2003]

I was gonna ask a question on the universe and then deleted it because it legit gives me headaches.

Without passing judgement, non God believing folks how do you all cope with questions such as what was there beyond the big bang and so on? How can we ever get an answer.

We keep searching for such, but the answer isn’t a sky fairy.

 

[Moby]

I don't have an issue or problem with calling out what actually goes on.

You're from India and I'm from Pakistan (Azad Kashmir ways). I don't hesitate in calling situations for what they are.

Here is the thing though. I don't believe Pakistan is an Islamic Republic. I don't believe the leadership Islamic, I don't believe the "founder" Jinnah was even Muslim. Why? Because what Islam says. Not Pakistan, not the politicians, not even the sell out mullahs.

Which is why I am happy to say you are being intentionally delusional to protect the people of your faith despite knowing what they're like at their core. I don't find any motivation in doing that.

 

[Kinsella]

It's not like anyone can refer to the whole history of Christendom when discussing religion, though. People are always going to discuss it in terms of what effects them.

Indeed that's true. But if you don't go much beyond that and remain wedded to it, then there's little depth or wisdom to be gained. And In respect of a debate on the issue, ultimately...it's superficial.

The US is also easily the largest Christian country, so what happens there matters. The same way it matters if the Pope says or does something hypocritical, despite many Christians not being Catholics.

And what proportion of the American population do these so-called fundamentalist Christians take up, given that they already comprise a very small number of nominal Christians globally?

 

[Roane]

Which is why I am happy to say you are being intentionally delusional to protect the people of your faith despite knowing what they're like at their core. I don't find any motivation in doing that.

Really that's what you took from my post?

I'm the guy who posted chuf chuf pir, I'm also the guy who just called Jinnah non Muslim and disagree with people "of my faith" exactly because I know what they are like at their core.

Don't know what else to say to you except that regardless of what I say or write you've made a decision and are sticking with it. I find this a little sad but it is what it is I guess.

 

[Kinsella]

That’s fine & dandy. That’s what we know. I don’t particularly care if you take umbrage against a post in a thread that highlights the ridiculousness of religion.

I'm not taking umbrage against a post attempting to highlight the ridiculousness of religion. The point I'm making relates to the standard of the debate.

For example, I asked you a question previously which you never replied to but I'll ask it again now and add to it -

You claimed that religion 'most certainly has perverted the course of human development' but in which areas of human development do you believe this to be the case? And what hard evidence do you have for the claim?

 

[calodo2003]

Indeed that's true. But if you don't go much beyond that and remain wedded to it, then there's little depth or wisdom to be gained. And In respect of a debate on the issue, ultimately...it's superficial.



And what proportion of the American population do these so-called fundamentalist Christians take up, given that they already comprise a very small number of nominal Christians globally?

It’s not so much the population % (roughly a third of adults), it’s the inordinate power they wield.

 

[Moby]

Really that's what you took from my post?

I'm the guy who posted chuf chuf pir, I'm also the guy who just called Jinnah non Muslim and disagree with people "of my faith" exactly because I know what they are like at their core.

Don't know what else to say to you except that regardless of what I say or write you've made a decision and are sticking with it. I find this a little sad but it is what it is I guess.

Calling them non Muslim is your attempt in not letting any criticism fall on the source texts which is literally what my earlier post was about. We've been here before. You will blame every single thing in the world before ever being able to call out that what's written in those texts should not exist at this point. The fact that people who have lived their lives based on those texts continue to commit horrible acts does not matter. It's just them not understanding what's written. Despite it being fecking millions upon millions who apparently have a problem in reading a book. Head in sand.

 

[calodo2003]

I'm not taking umbrage against a post attempting to highlight the ridiculousness of religion. The point I'm making relates to the standard of the debate.

For example, I asked you a question previously which you never replied to but I'll ask it again now and add to it -

You claimed that religion 'most certainly has perverted the course of human development' but in which areas of human development do you believe this to be the case? And what hard evidence do you have for the claim?

Never saw your question, sorry.

You have to be taking the piss if you don’t see how religion has affected history negatively. From subjugation & virtual eradication of entire cultures through sexual assaults in recent times, history is replete with instances.

You seem to take a zero sum perspective regarding religion. Religion can both be good and bad, both things can exist at the same time & has throughout history. It’s akin to capitalism which has been simultaneously good & bad over the past couple hundred years.

 

[Roane]

Calling them non Muslim is your attempt in not letting any criticism fall on the source texts which is literally what my earlier post was about. We've been here before. You will blame every single thing in the world before ever being able to call out that what's written in those texts should not exist at this point. The fact that people who have lived their lives based on those texts continue to commit horrible acts does not matter. It's just them not understanding what's written. Despite it being fecking millions upon millions who apparently have a problem in reading a book. Head in sand.

Sorry but you seem to be hung up on the phrase "source texts". Something I haven't really gone into depth with as yet in my discussions with you. Because basically I don't need to imo.

I posted the chuf chuf pir posts and said sadly people are making that guy rich and are following him. Do I need to turn to source texts to show that this guy is a clown and that I find it hard to get my head around his existence? And that people buy into it?

That said source texts are important. If you don't know what they say then how can you judge if peoples actions are what they claim to be? Would you call a guy eating a hamburger a vegetarian because he claims he is vegetarian?

Taking chuf chuf as an example again. If I was to speak to his followers and they claim to be Muslim would I not at some point need to use the source texts as evidence that what they are doing is against the principles of Islam?

Truth is any discussion to be had would need to look at a variety of angles/arguments. History would be a big one but ultimately source text would be involved at some point too.

I mean even the guy posted with his Jesus is American shirt would have to be given historical and source text evidence to show he wasn't. You can't really get away from it

 

[Carolina Red]

I have a logical explanation of it. My parents, memories. I see other kids who are born into the universe so I understand the process.

If I think about what was there before the big bang my brain literally hurts.

Ah gotcha… I just misunderstood what you meant by “coping”

 

[Carolina Red]

Well then that goes back to my original observation regarding the most vehement proponents on the anti-religion side of the thread being American posters, who use particular examples from their own country and culture as arguments against religion/theism as a whole, but seem to forget that those examples are very particular indeed to their own country.

Something tells me religious fundamentalism isn’t solely an American concept.

 

[Kinsella]

Never saw your question, sorry.

You have to be taking the piss if you don’t see how religion has affected history negatively. From subjugation & virtual eradication of entire cultures through sexual assaults in recent times, history is replete with instances.

No worries on the first part.

On the second, I've never made that claim. For the record though, I'm well aware of the negative effects of organised religion.

But you made a very specific claim (and a bold one at that) and I asked you a specific question in response which you didn't and still haven't answered.

You seem to take a zero sum perspective regarding religion. Religion can both be good and bad, both things can exist at the same time & has throughout history. It’s akin to capitalism which has been simultaneously good & bad over the past couple hundred years.

I haven't made the claim that religion is all good though.

I'll not touch the capitalism part. I don't want the thread to veer off in that direction.

 

[Carolina Red]

And Jesus was born in Palestine so wasn't American.

You clearly missed the humor there

 

[Kinsella]

Something tells me religious fundamentalism isn’t solely an American concept.

And water is wet too.

 

[Roane]

You clearly missed the humor there

Hah no. I found it funny and have nicked the picture and posted it on a couple of WhatsApp groups I'm on.

It's hard to get across on a forum but I have a great sense of humour. Honest

 

[Moby]

Sorry but you seem to be hung up on the phrase "source texts". Something I haven't really gone into depth with as yet in my discussions with you. Because basically I don't need to imo.

I posted the chuf chuf pir posts and said sadly people are making that guy rich and are following him. Do I need to turn to source texts to show that this guy is a clown and that I find it hard to get my head around his existence? And that people buy into it?

That said source texts are important. If you don't know what they say then how can you judge if peoples actions are what they claim to be? Would you call a guy eating a hamburger a vegetarian because he claims he is vegetarian?

Taking chuf chuf as an example again. If I was to speak to his followers and they claim to be Muslim would I not at some point need to use the source texts as evidence that what they are doing is against the principles of Islam?

Truth is any discussion to be had would need to look at a variety of angles/arguments. History would be a big one but ultimately source text would be involved at some point too.

I mean even the guy posted with his Jesus is American shirt would have to be given historical and source text evidence to show he wasn't. You can't really get away from it

I'm not sure why this is difficult. I started the discussion by saying the religious texts are not allowed to be criticized. You then said we can all do that. But literally 5 minutes later you are back to "why should we blame the texts!". That was enough for me to point out the mental block that is ingrained in you when it comes your books as opposed to scientific books where people have zero problem in disqualifying something when it stops making sense. That was the original point and it's been proven within a matter of minutes.

 

[Carolina Red]

And water is wet too.

No it isn’t. But that’s for a different thread.

 

[shamans]

That's because we didn't evolve to understand the big bang. We evolved to understand lion hiding in that bush. In any case, I wouldn't worry too much about that particular part of it. Understanding everything after the big bang is difficult enough, trying to understand what comes before isn't necessary. It's possible that it is quite literally unknowable.

without a God how does one explain this. How and why are we so intelligent and self aware and nothing else even comes close.

 

[Roane]

I'm not sure why this is difficult. I started the discussion by saying the religious texts are not allowed to be criticized. You then said we can all do that. But literally 5 minutes later you are back to "why should we blame the texts!". That was enough for me to point out the mental block that is ingrained in you when it comes your books as opposed to scientific books where people have zero problem in disqualifying something when it stops making sense. That was the original point and it's been proven within a matter of minutes.

By all means criticise text but it has to make sense and have a link. You can't just make stuff up.

Look we know from history that the partition happened and Pakistan and India were formed. Later on we had another separation and Bangladesh became a reality. Don't think there will be disagreement on that.

Now I don't want to write an essay and want to keep it simple but religious belief/freedom etc are often cited as reasons for certainly the partition.

But if you have a knowledge of the source texts then you would find that this separation wouldn't go ahead. Certainly not the way it happened with more Muslims in India than Pakistan and definitely no on the Bangladesh split.

That's not go say splits don't happen or can't happen. But to say source text was why they happened is showing a real lack of knowledge on source text.

The middle East becoming small separate entities is so far against source text that one source says if Muslim lands have two leaders jostling for position kill the latter. Of course this has conditions and I've put it simply to highlight a point without writing an essay. But hopefully you get the point.

 

[nimic]

without a God how does one explain this. How and why are we so intelligent and self aware and nothing else even comes close.

Why does it need a God to be explained? It's unknowable because it's beyond the (possibly current) Universe. It's kinda like how it's impossible to know exactly what goes on inside a black hole, because no information can escape it. We can make theories, but we can't observe inside a black hole to know if we're correct. Or how we'll never be able to know about anything* beyond the Observable Universe, since everything beyond that is currently moving away from us faster than the speed of light. It doesn't satisfy our desire to know everything, we might just have to live with it. The laws of physics are the laws of physics.

*technically some stuff is still entering our "vision", but pretty soon (on a cosmic scale) that's going to be it.

I'm not sure what you mean with the second part there. We're intelligent because we evolved like it. There's almost certainly more intelligent stuff out there, and we may or may not ever find them. Probably won't, but hey.