Religion, what's the point?

[Silva]

On a global basis, nobody gives more than the USA, and Europe though - both built on Judaic and Christian values.

Do you think they'd give more if they weren't?

I think they would give a very similar amount. And that the money would be far better spent, there's a myriad of research out there that tells us that religious institutions spend a lot of their resources on evangelical projects. The only religious group that donated more to non-religious activities were American Jews, I posted an article a few hours ago that breaks this down.

It's pretty obvious why this myth persists though, with religion being thoroughly debunked at every corner, the "but we're doing good for the community, and the world" is a last ditch attempt to justify the brainwashing of billions.

 

[Silva]

Aren't Christians giving to receive?

Yeah, they'll get a new bible if the track record is anything to go on.

 

[2ndTouch]

Thought I'd look on google scholar since your article didn't provide much in the way in the way of data, and this was the only abstract I could find that resembles your argument. Seems like it is mainly the result of environmental factors. It's not like those the twins did anything particularly different to what they were exposed to. Not only does go against your assertions, it indicates that article is selling half-truths.

This abstract refers to religious affiliation, i.e. which specific religion the subjects felt connected to. Of course that has to be an environmental factor, as there certainly is no Buddhist or whatever religion gene.
What Spector suggests however, is a certain genetic predisposition that influences your likelihood to turn over to some sort of belief, with the specific belief then determined by environmental factors. In contrast to Hamer's publication, who claimed to have identified a specific god gene, I couldn't find any noteworthy publication which outright dismissed his hypothesis.
And no, @Raoul, some guy on Amazon calling himself "GeneticsProf" doesn't count.

 

[Silva]

This abstract refers to religious affiliation, i.e. which specific religion the subjects felt connected to. Of course that has to be an environmental factor, as there certainly is no Buddhist or whatever religion gene.
What Spector suggests however, is a certain genetic predisposition that influences your likelihood to turn over to some sort of belief, with the specific belief then determined by environmental factors. In contrast to Hamer's publication, who claimed to have identified a specific god gene, I couldn't find any noteworthy publication which outright dismissed his hypothesis.
And no, @Raoul, some guy on Amazon calling himself "GeneticsProf" doesn't count.

This is a problem for you though. You can't claim something has been debunked when your article doesn't provide an academic source, the closest thing that has been published in an academic setting (that I can find, admittedly), is about female twins living apart. I think you need to read the article you posted again mate, because it's a proper shitshow of an argument. There's only one quoted (without reference) genetic study in there, the rest is just unrelated polling. Genetics is a booming academic field, so for the argument to be so vague (40 to 50% quoted in your article) is unsatisfying.

 

[2ndTouch]

On a global basis, nobody gives more than the USA, and Europe though - both built on Judaic and Christian values.

Do you think they'd give more if they weren't?

Our judaic and christian values certainly didn't prevent us from colonizing and exploiting around the globe with little mercy, which to to large part brought us the wealth we enjoy now.
It's easy to spare a few breadcrumbs if you're well fed.

 

[GiddyUp]

Yeah i've read a bunch of ... I dunno, spiritual ... stuff? I imagine I'll continue looking into bits and pieces every so often.

Debunking the speculations of thousand year old philosophers doesn't mean much to me though.

I still find the concept of eternity difficult to accept. Something about it that just doesn't ... compute (?) for me
We have a fairly solid idea of how this universe started but what was there before it is anyone's guess.
If the universe basically exploded into life from nothingness i'd consider that a god like event that warrants a degree of ... awe (?)

I'm not into the whole worship thing or the judgemental dude who smites stuff.
I think were too irrelevant to give a shit about
But i do believe in something 'bigger' than us i guess.

So do I, something we can't comprehend at this moment in time. It's most definately not someone who gave ten commandments and watches while millions of people every day break them, including himself.
The universe is a beautiful thing to behold and I am in awe of my place in it, I'm not even a speck on a grain of sand in relation to the wonderful sight above us. I believe in energy, energy can take many forms. I also wonder whether our consciousness is a form of energy. If this is the case we should not fear our death and we certainly shouldn't conform to a system of belief that incorporates a heaven and a hell. Live you're life, make people happy, love as many people as you can, enlighten everyone around you and you will have no problems.

 

[2ndTouch]

This is a problem for you though. You can't claim something has been debunked when your article doesn't provide an academic source, the closest thing that has been published in an academic setting (that I can find, admittedly), is about female twins living apart. I think you need to read the article you posted again mate, because it's a proper shitshow of an argument. There's only one quoted (without reference) genetic study in there, the rest is just unrelated polling. Genetics is a booming academic field, so for the argument to be so vague (40 to 50% quoted in your article) is unsatisfying.

As I said, your abstract deals with a different question, namely that of religious affiliation. Unfortunately I wasn't able to get access to the source index of Spectors' book. However, I did a search on his book in general, and adverse to other controversial publications I couldn't find one which put Spectors book into the realm of fairy tales.
So if you're frankly dismissing it as a shitshow until proven otherwise, I could ask you for some evidence supporting your dismissal.

 

[GiddyUp]

So, am I going to Heaven or Hell?

A few years ago I stopped a girl that was slashing her wrists and taking pills.
Years before that, I did a shit in Stockport multi-storey car park and then dropped it over the edge near some people.

If the people you threw poo at were gay or slaves you will have a nice villa on the shores of lake Heineken in heaven. If they were regular folks you have just reserved an empty refrigerator box next to the rotten sea of Budweiser in hell.
I imagine this is what heaven and hell is like as every person that tells me they speak for God or that Satan will take me smells like beer.

 

[GiddyUp]

Christianity in the US is definitely plummeted off a cliff. Just look at the social norms of today compared with 30 years ago.

Everyone claims to be good Christians yet church attendance around the country is about 20% occupancy. If church was a hotel group the Marriot would have gobbled it up years ago.

 

[Silva]

As I said, your abstract deals with a different question, namely that of religious affiliation. Unfortunately I wasn't able to get access to the source index of Spectors' book. However, I did a search on his book in general, and adverse to other controversial publications I couldn't find one which put Spectors book into the realm of fairy tales.
So if you're frankly dismissing it as a shitshow until proven otherwise, I could ask you for some evidence supporting your dismissal.

The problem here is lack of evidence. Even searching for Professor Spector largely comes up with a list of dietary advice, the more I look into it the more it looks like an aside argument that is either incorrect or is more likely half true.

 

[GiddyUp]

Silva. You are incapable of having a discussion. You attack.

There is no red flag. You Want to see a red flag.

Whatever charity I make I do in His name. I do not do it on condition they believe. I do not even mention Him. What Cross International does I am sure is to help the poor. They don't go there to preach.

How much does He/Him make a year as CEO of this charity?

 

[Edgar Allan Pillow]

Cross International's own website... If that's not a red flag I don't know what is.

Sometimes that is the only help people get. Whatever the intentions, as long as they do help...I think we should not criticise too much.

 

[Wibble]

I was raised Catholic and stayed with it thorugh fear of hell and parental disapporval until I was a teenager. By then I had serious doubst about the logic of anything I was being told. By the time I was 15 I had come to the realisation that the whole thing was utter rubbish and by 16 I was an atheist.

Religion

I agree with this.

I tried but it has been removed.

I haven't seen any research on this since about 2008 and up until then the scentific evdence was that there was a genetic component to belief in general, of which religious belief was a part, but that the gene in question explained 1% or less of belief in general, in effect debunking the idea of god gene. I can't find anything since that suggests otherwise.

 

[Wibble]

And you're blind. Their own website, the source that is supposed to make them sound amazing, says as much. You're not giving money to unicef mate, you've giving money to an evangelical organisation.

They in effect fake their % donation stats by donating to their own organistaions. All of their activities occur through churches in the donation regions. They also have a baptist/prod side and a catholic side so they can directly fundraise in both sets of churches. They may get funds to relief zones etc but it is obvious they are using this to mass reruit which is pretty despicble.

https://theblackcordelias.wordpress.com/2008/06/19/how-not-to-raise-funds-in-the-catholic-church/

 

[Silva]

Sometimes that is the only help people get. Whatever the intentions, as long as they do help...I think we should not criticise too much.

Yeah we should, people like @Red Dreams are being duped into giving money thinking it goes to help disadvantaged people when they could give to a charity that actually does help.

 

[caid]

So do I, something we can't comprehend at this moment in time. It's most definately not someone who gave ten commandments and watches while millions of people every day break them, including himself.
The universe is a beautiful thing to behold and I am in awe of my place in it, I'm not even a speck on a grain of sand in relation to the wonderful sight above us. I believe in energy, energy can take many forms. I also wonder whether our consciousness is a form of energy. If this is the case we should not fear our death and we certainly shouldn't conform to a system of belief that incorporates a heaven and a hell. Live you're life, make people happy, love as many people as you can, enlighten everyone around you and you will have no problems.

Yeah that sounds pretty close to my thoughts on the matter.
When asked what my religion is i'll quite often reply 'jedi' partly to take the piss but also because its not a bad explanation of my beliefs surrounding energy.
I dont know if consciousness is a form of energy, I was talking to someone about the technological singularity and how or if computers could become conscious (or if they already are) a couple of weeks back strangely enough (it didn't go far beyond 'i dunno' incidentally)
Its an interesting one that our understanding of is so limited.

 

[JASR]

If your religion has the following 'logic', then you have to ask wtf would it take to dissuade you from believing in it.

A person commits endless murders and rapes in dispicable circumstances, but repents on their deathbed, and is therefore allowed into 'heaven'.
An atheist child, raped and killed by the aforesaid , isn't.

The act of 'repention' is enough to carry the arguement...wtf.

What sort of sicko 'God' could be interpreted into believing that's 'good' and 'correct' way of going about an afterlife.

Religion - giving carte Blanche to lack of morals since mankind evolved a cognitive brain.

 

[hobbers]

If God exists there can be absolutely no debate on the fact that he is an absolute raging cnut of a guy, sort of guy who'd film someone on fire, screaming and writhing in agony, while giggling.

 

[JASR]

If God exists there can be absolutely no debate on the fact that he is an absolute raging cnut of a guy, sort of guy who'd film someone on fire, screaming and writhing in agony, while giggling.

Well, at least we agree on the stupidity of interpreted imagination. :-)

 

[PedroMendez]

When we look for role-models of charity, we shouldn´t look at the church. There are so many better people and movements who do a better job.

 

[MrMarcello]

Everyone claims to be good Christians yet church attendance around the country is about 20% occupancy. If church was a hotel group the Marriot would have gobbled it up years ago.

Something like 80% of incarcerated persons in the US claim to be religious. Around half the public believe in angels.

 

[Carolina Red]

Scientific research on the matter seems to suggest something different

http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-08/what-twins-reveal-about-god-gene

John Calvin would have loved that twin study. "Science proves predestination"!

 

[berbatrick]

When we look for role-models of charity, we shouldn´t look at the church. There are so many better people and movements who do a better job.

Peter Singer is our god now

That said EA goes to really disturbing/dark places if you follow the logic fully.

 

[PedroMendez]

Peter Singer is our god now

That said EA goes to really disturbing/dark places if you follow the logic fully.

i am my own god Don´t you also have the same feeling? I think almost everyone thinks this way, so we can all agree now that I am your god. feck Singer, praise Pedro, or something like that. (I am just kidding, the caf is our religion. all hail the mighty admins. Please don´t ban me for questioning your authority)

I don´t think that most of the criticism of EA is actually valid. Most examples that are used to discredit it, rely on dodgy logic. That said I am not a follower of EA, so it clearly can´t convince me. Still, when it comes to ethical and moral questions it is way better than the church.

To get back to the topic:
What I find quite remarkable about atheists (and I consider myself to be one) talking about religion is their lack of self-awareness about the fundamental psychological principles that makes religion possible.
To most atheists, the irrationality of religion is quite obvious. "Their" double standard of applying logic seems almost schizophrenic. How is it possible that someone who appears to use logical thinking most of the time, is accepting claims, that clearly contradict this rational approach? We can all follow this in this thread: Most religious people who try to argue in defence of their faith are all over the place and contradict themselves in almost every sentence. They get incredibly vague, make silly arguments or really just end the discussion. What is even more remarkable is, that religious people usually aren´t even aware of this process. Somehow the mind is able to meld/unify/marry these contradictions. When you uncover these discrepancies most people become emotional and refuse to acknowledge them.
It is quite mental, but the lesson of this is to ask yourself if you might have similar irrational/contradicting blind spots. If you pay attention you´ll see that almost everybody is irrational all the time without realizing it. Even people who claim to be extremely rational. Scientists, politicians, academics, journalists, the "intellectual elite"; all of them, including yourself. We need to become much more critical and aware of our own process of acting/thinking and ultimately of consciousness. That is really the crux of humanity and why things are so messed up in the world. Getting rid of the irrationality of religion is really just the first baby step towards a better future.

 

[berbatrick]

I don´t think that most of the criticism of EA is actually valid. Most examples that are used to discredit it, rely on dodgy logic. That said I am not a follower of EA, so it clearly can´t convince me. Still, when it comes to ethical and moral questions it is way better than the church.

It's not like I have any understanding of philosophical questions...the reason I know about utilitarianism is because of animal rights. And that's also where I read the criticism:
http://www.animal-rights-library.com/texts-m/regan03.htm

That utilitarianism is an aggregative theory — different individuals' satisfactions or frustrations are added, or summed, or totalled - is the key objection to this theory. My Aunt Bea is old, inactive, a cranky, sour person, though not physically ill. She prefers to go on living. She is also rather rich. I could make a fortune if I could get my hands on her money, money she intends to give me in any event, after she dies, but which she refuses to give me now. In order to avoid a huge tax bite, I plan to donate a handsome sum of my profits to a local children's hospital. Many, many children will benefit from my generosity, and much joy will be brought to their parents, relatives and friends. If I don't get the money rather soon, all these ambitions will come to naught. The once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to make a real killing will be gone. Why, then, not kill my Aunt Bea? Oh, of course I might get caught. But I'm no fool and, besides, her doctor can be counted on to co-operate (he has an eye for the same investment and I happen to know a good deal about his shady past). The deed can be done . . . professionally, shall we say. There is verylittle chance of getting caught. And as for my conscience being guilt-ridden, I am a resourceful sort of fellow and will take more than sufficient comfort - as I lie on the beach at Acapulco - in contemplating the joy and health I have brought to so many others. Suppose Aunt Bea is killed and the rest of the story comes out as told. Would I have done anything wrong? Anything immoral? One would have thought that I had. Not according to utilitarianism. Since what I have done has brought about the best balance between totalled satisfaction and frustration for all those affected by the outcome, my action is not wrong. Indeed, in killing Aunt Bea the physician and I did what duty required.

 

[PedroMendez]

It's not like I have any understanding of philosophical questions...the reason I know about utilitarianism is because of animal rights. And that's also where I read the criticism:
http://www.animal-rights-library.com/texts-m/regan03.htm

I expected something different. No, killing Bea is not morally right. Just think about all the consequences, not just those that he mentions.

 

[marukomu]

Heaven.
Christians- prayers, singing
Athiests - Girls, drugs, alcohol

Hell.
Christians - Girls, drugs, alcohol
Athiests - prayers, singing

 

[pierrethesnack]

You don't have to be educated or uneducated to believe that - you just have to be socialized into a construct where you are taught that this is the way the Universe works - a place where you were created and are destined to go to either heaven or hell where you will continue living forever. A bit like a divine North Korea.

Celestial North Korea, he really did like to make that point

 

[Zarlak]

Celestial North Korea, he really did like to make that point

But hey, at least you can die and get away from North Korea.

 

[LuisNaniencia]

Yeah they would. People would still feel a sense of sadness and urgency when they saw a starving child or a natural event decimate communities. Difference would be that more charity dollars would be spent on helpful resources rather than trying to convert them to the right religion.

Also people might be more inclined to help people regardless of their religion.

 

[Penna]

It's the same story with the majority of religious charities. They're evangelical outreach programs, not poverty relief. Hence my instinctive roll of the eyes when a religious person claims their churches are fighting the good fight.

Locally, our churches are very central to providing food to the homeless (without evangelising). If you could see for yourself the things that people do, out of the goodness of their hearts and for no personal recognition or reward, you might be surprised. I only volunteer at my church for one morning a week, but in that time we'll prepare food and feed nearly 50 people. Anyone who comes to the door and asks for food is treated with respect and kindness. The whole operation (5 days a week for the last 12 years) is completely funded by donations. We all contribute to buying the food and then preparing it. We even have some very elderly nuns (women in their 80s, in poor health themselves) who work with us.

During that morning, I often go to the door and find members of the parish there, with donations of money and bags of extra shopping for our supplies. It's charity at the sharp end. It actually makes a difference. We've been giving food to a family of 6 for a long time now. They rely on it and we are reliable. No-one who isn't involved with our particular project would even know about that family. The dad is the only one who speaks English, and he is desperate. It's heart-breaking to see small children who are hungry.

Personally, I think it's terrible that in this day and age, people have to go hungry in the UK. However, feeling terrible about it doesn't make them less hungry. Giving them food does that, and treating them as (non-paying) customers rather than "beggars" gives them a little self-respect for a short while.

 

[Silva]

Locally, our churches are very central to providing food to the homeless (without evangelising). If you could see for yourself the things that people do, out of the goodness of their hearts and for no personal recognition or reward, you might be surprised. I only volunteer at my church for one morning a week, but in that time we'll prepare food and feed nearly 50 people. Anyone who comes to the door and asks for food is treated with respect and kindness. The whole operation (5 days a week for the last 12 years) is completely funded by donations. We all contribute to buying the food and then preparing it. We even have some very elderly nuns (women in their 80s, in poor health themselves) who work with us.

During that morning, I often go to the door and find members of the parish there, with donations of money and bags of extra shopping for our supplies. It's charity at the sharp end. It actually makes a difference. We've been giving food to a family of 6 for a long time now. They rely on it and we are reliable. No-one who isn't involved with our particular project would even know about that family. The dad is the only one who speaks English, and he is desperate. It's heart-breaking to see small children who are hungry.

Personally, I think it's terrible that in this day and age, people have to go hungry in the UK. However, feeling terrible about it doesn't make them less hungry. Giving them food does that, and treating them as (non-paying) customers rather than "beggars" gives them a little self-respect for a short while.

I'm not trying to denigrate the good that some churches do, but history shows us again and again that these churches are in the minority. While you're feeding the homeless, there'll be another three churches across town town trying to fund their priest a new Bentley or something.

 

[caid]

I'm not trying to denigrate the good that some churches do, but history shows us again and again that these churches are in the minority. While you're feeding the homeless, there'll be another three churches across town town trying to fund their priest a new Bentley or something.

Secular charities aren't squeaky clean either.
Its hit and miss for both and they should be judged on their own merit, not what others are doing.

 

[Zarlak]

Secular charities aren't squeaky clean either.
Its hit and miss for both and they should be judged on their own merit, not what others are doing.

But the acts of churches are not based on their own merit by the religious, they're based almost entirely on 'see the church does good things therefore religion is good.'

 

[caid]

But the acts of churches are not based on their own merit by the religious, they're based almost entirely on 'see the church does good things therefore religion is good.'

*shrug*
its faulty logic

 

[PedroMendez]

I think its fair to say, that one of the richest institutions in the world, that builds pompous buildings, while paying a fortune for spreading a crazy message is not particularly charitable. Religious individuals can be just as charitable as atheists, but I havn´t seen any evidence, that religion makes you actually more charitable.
The church has the advantage, that it has a very visible and well established network of charities, because in the past almost everyone had to be a member.

 

[Penna]

I'm not trying to denigrate the good that some churches do, but history shows us again and again that these churches are in the minority. While you're feeding the homeless, there'll be another three churches across town town trying to fund their priest a new Bentley or something.

The priest at the particular church I mentioned is one of the most inspiring people I've ever met, in any walk of life. If you want to see someone living a life of total service to others with no reward to himself, he's a wonderful example.

 

[caid]

The priest at the particular church I mentioned is one of the most inspiring people I've ever met, in any walk of life. If you want to see someone living a life of total service to others with no reward to himself, he's a wonderful example.

I think its worth making that point that lots of priests on the ground level are genuinely good people.
Its an ugly institution but its ugly because corrupt, crappy human beings are involved more than because its a religious institution
You can blame religion for war and all sorts of horrible crap but really human beings dont need an excuse to be shitty and will manage just fine to find some other reason to kill stuff.

I wouldn't donate my time or money to a church because its a church and im under some weird delusion that its automatically going to do good / useful stuff with my time and money.
But i wouldn't dismiss it offhand either

 

[MrMarcello]

I'm not trying to denigrate the good that some churches do, but history shows us again and again that these churches are in the minority. While you're feeding the homeless, there'll be another three churches across town town trying to fund their priest a new Bentley or something.

I'm not calling Penna a liar as I don't know the poster and all that stuff, but I've never witnessed a church or clergy member not proselytize when doing/having done good deeds. There's always a catch 22 with religious persons/groups, especially Christians in the US and/or the churches.

 

[caid]

I'm not calling Penna a liar as I don't know the poster and all that stuff, but I've never witnessed a church or clergy member not proselytize when doing/having done good deeds. There's always a catch 22 with religious persons/groups, especially Christians in the US and/or the churches.

My uncle was a jesuit, in the 15 odd years i knew him i dont remember him so much as quoting a line or making a vague comment about christianity.
Fair enough I knew him in somewhat strange circumstances
(he was actually a great uncle now i think of it, we just called him uncle frank. My mothers dad died when she was very young and he took care of my grandmother (his sister) and kids,
basically taking on the role of a father)

My other granddad did as a matter of routine just because it was a fair chunk of his life.
He was probably a bit preachy but I think it'd be unfair to hold it against him or to say it diminished the good things he did in his life (or the bad things)

Judge the actions on their own merits. I think most would rather hear a bit of christian rhetoric and get a good meal than for their family to go hungry.