Losing my religion

[spud_meister]

well, we shall have to see if they are still here in 2,000 years.

so Judaism is the best religion, or perhaps we should go Ancient Egyptian?

 

[Civil1z@tion]

so Judaism is the best religion, or perhaps we should go Ancient Egyptian?

On a random side-note, Machiavelli actually thought Moses was the greatest political leader of all time because his rules and laws had survived thousands of years and countless persecutions. Side-note over, you may now continue with your regularly schedule debate.

 

[cpwill]

If they weren't around in 2000 years would that make them unsuccessful?

in the context of something that claims to be universalistically applicable to all humanity in all times? yeah.

First you should define what you mean by "faith". It seems every theist has their own unique, sometimes conflicting, definition.

fair enough; it's hard enough to try to put this sort of thing into language (almost enough to make me sympathize with the post modernists). I would say that faith in this context is active. I believe in God - that's not 'faith' any more than i have 'faith' because I believe in the existance of this keyboard i am now typing on. however, I try to live my actions in accordance with what I can percieve of Gods' will, and I move my fingers about pressing down and lifting up as though both God and the keyboard were there; that is me exhibiting faith.

 

[Space Goat]

Hoaxes require Hoaxers. For religion to be a 'hoax', it's leadership would have to be deliberately fooling it's followers; and furthermore, it would have been doing tihs for centuries...

I'd agree the idea of a centuries-long hoax involving thousands of people defies credulity.

I don't, however, think "hoax" is necessarily the right way to characterize religion, such as Christianity. Rather, a religion's origins might lie partly in fables that were never intended to be taken literally, but came to be interpreted that way after countless retellings. Think of how stories often spread on the Internet: They start out as jests or parables, but after they begin to spread, and their sources get lost through the information decay endemic to human communication, a lot of people start thinking the stories are true, even though nobody actually lied during the process. Many religious tenets probably began this way.

Also, consider that the ancients didn't have the prism of modern science through which to interpret their world, and that quite a few people today still either won't or can't use that prism. Without it, crediting demons, witches, gods, and other mystical creatures with the world's events can seem like the only alternative. So, the forefathers of most of our planet's religions, and many of those religions' followers since, likely honestly believed many of the things they saw were supernatural.

And then consider religions such as Scientology or Mormonism. Because these religions arose relatively recently, we have a plethora of historical evidence demonstrating how they began: as either cons from cynical operators or delusions from feverish madmen (or both). But even though these religions might have begun as "hoaxes," they gained followers who believed in their truth, and who have perpetuated them to this day. Ergo, the hoaxes have been sustained without deliberate effort, except perhaps by small groups of people, to perpetuate a hoax.

1. if Christianity is now devoid of a "threat" (the only thing someone who leaves the faith nowadays has to worry about is a hell they no longer believe in) then why is it growing

In addition to what Civil1z@tion posted, I'd proffer physical threats aren't the only pressure religions can exert. One must also consider social penalties such as disapproval from friends and family, popular revulsion, professional discrimination, and reduced access to mates.

 

[Space Goat]

I believe in God - that's not 'faith' any more than i have 'faith' because I believe in the existance of this keyboard i am now typing on.

Actually, because "faith" describes belief in the absence of evidence, belief in God would be evidence of faith even though belief in your keyboard's existence would not.

 

[scourge99]

in the context of something that claims to be universalistically applicable to all humanity in all times? yeah.

Your original statement: I"ve always wondered that; if Religion is a hoax, how is it so successful?
I replied by listing several things that are succesful despite being hoaxes. This demonstrates that even if something is a hoax it does not mean it cannot be succesfull.

Now you bring up some extra criteria for success not originally stated. That the hoax must be "universalistically applicable to all humanity in all times". This is know as moving the goal posts.

Before we move on to this extra criteria, do you deny that concepts, ideas, religions or products can and sometimes are successful even if they are a hoax?

fair enough; it's hard enough to try to put this sort of thing into language (almost enough to make me sympathize with the post modernists).

I know many theists who have no such problem directly and unambiguously defining "faith".

I would say that faith in this context is active.

???
Faith is active...?

however, I try to live my actions in accordance with what I can percieve of Gods' will, and I move my fingers about pressing down and lifting up as though both God and the keyboard were there; that is me exhibiting faith.

I didn't ask you for an example of you exhibiting faith. I asked you what "faith" is by your definition.
Your example gets us no closer to a clear definition.

Perhaps I can provide some definitions others have given to spur your mind:
Faith:
1) Belief in something with or without evidence.
2) Strong certainty in a beliefs truth.
3) A belief that is held despite the inability to prove it as absolutely true.
4) A "feeling" in one's heart/bones/soul that their belief is true.
5) Belief that one's proposed god exists and/or religious beliefs are true

 

[Mell]

Most/all religions are outdated, so should be given up, if they cant move forward with civilization. Spirtuality on the otherhand is worth developing.

 

[Civil1z@tion]

Most/all religions are outdated, so should be given up, if they cant move forward with civilization. Spirtuality on the otherhand is worth developing.

Define spirituality. Does it have to do with some vague concept of self-improvement? Is it about some connection to a higher power? Does it mean having a lot of "school spirit" in support of the school you go to?

That's one big problem I have with the term "spirituality". Its really needs a good hard definition that it seems to be lacking. When people say they're religious you know what they're talking about. When people say they are spiritual who knows what they mean. So if you've got a definition of spirituality, maybe then we can talk about whether it is good or not.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Define spirituality. Does it have to do with some vague concept of self-improvement? Is it about some connection to a higher power? Does it mean having a lot of "school spirit" in support of the school you go to?

That's one big problem I have with the term "spirituality". Its really needs a good hard definition that it seems to be lacking. When people say they're religious you know what they're talking about. When people say they are spiritual who knows what they mean. So if you've got a definition of spirituality, maybe then we can talk about whether it is good or not.

Feels good, but is ultimately useless.

 

[Mell]

Its really needs a good hard definition that it seems to be lacking.

Our spiritual site is something that one senses and then gets in touch with. It has to do with harnessing the energy of the universe to work in our favour. Religions are based on spiritual concepts, but sadly they have been abused and used as tools of corruption. I dont think all religious people are actually spiritual. I think, insisting on over intellectualising it, as you seem to be trying to do, will stop you getting in touch with your spiritual side.

''Feels good, but is ultimately useless.''
You find feeling good, to be useless? Weird way to be, in my opinion.

 

[scourge99]

Our spiritual site is something that one senses

how or through what is it sensed, perceived, and distinguished?

How do you determine whether "spiritualism" is more than a psychological phenomenon only residing within one's mind/brain?

and then gets in touch with.

what does that mean "get in touch with" your spirituality?
Does it mean you make-up, invent, or become credulous to any explanation for what you sense or feel?

It has to do with harnessing the energy of the universe to work in our favour.

I'm not familiar with anybody who can demonstrate the ablity to "harness the universes energy.". Are you?

 

[Mell]

How do you determine whether "spiritualism" is more than a psychological phenomenon only residing within one's mind/brain?

Do or dont take an interest in it. Your choice. But, it isnt really something worth discussion in detail, since it is a personal experience, that you choose to have or not have. Arguing about the details of it wont change anything.

 

[Civil1z@tion]

Religions are based on spiritual concepts, but sadly they have been abused and used as tools of corruption. I dont think all religious people are actually spiritual.

What are the spiritual concepts religion is based on and how has religion corrupted them? Is this something inherent in religion or just something that corrupt people within the religion have done?

I think, insisting on over intellectualising it, as you seem to be trying to do, will stop you getting in touch with your spiritual side.

Forgive me but that sounds like intellectual laziness right there. Plus it brings up all sorts of problems. How am I to understand spirituality if I can't analyse it? If I can't understand spirituality how can I know that I'm experiencing it? If spirituality is a "you just know" type of thing, how do I get to that point? If I can't intellectually understand spirituality to some level before seeking it then how can I possibly know where to start my search for it? You need a starting point and the only way to get such a starting point is to understand some minimum amount about spirituality, which requires analyzing it. Furthermore, how do I even know whether I want to be spiritual if I can't analyse it beforehand?

''Feels good, but is ultimately useless.''
You find feeling good, to be useless? Weird way to be, in my opinion.

Fair enough, I understand where you're going with this. But lots of things make you feel good that seem a lot easier to do than spirituality. Escapism comes to mind in that regard. I feel good reading a good book with little effort on my part. Furthermore, feeling good is not the only thing to consider. As I stated before if we can't analyse spirituality beforehand then how do we know it doesn't produce major problems? Drugs make you feel good but once you analyse them you find that they have a lot of negative consequences. On what basis can we say spirituality isn't like that without understanding it from an objective perspective (rather than the subjective perspective of self-experience which can be deceptive)?

Do or dont take an interest in it. Your choice. But, it isnt really something worth discussion in detail, since it is a personal experience, that you choose to have or not have. Arguing about the details of it wont change anything.

I smell a cop out!

Any psychologist will tell you that personal experiences are definitely worth talking about, if for no other reason than it leads to self-understanding. Now the problem you run into is that you recommended that spirituality is worth developing to others. If you can't or won't defend that statement then that means we have no reason to follow your recommendation. I could suggest people jump off bridges and then say its a personal decision that can't be fought about, but that simply means I shouldn't have recommended the action in the first place. If the concept 's positives and negatives can't be discussed then there is absolutely no reason to recommend other people attach themselves to it.

 

[Mell]

I smell a cop out!

Indeed! I have no interest in discussing these points.

But, I will make one point. If those who are religious could connect with their spiritual side, they would experience that all religions are based on the same spiritual concepts, and would no longer feel a need to argue about the details of religion or about which religion is the right one.

 

[Civil1z@tion]

Indeed! I have no interest in discussing these points.

But, I will make one point. If those who are religious could connect with their spiritual side, they would experience that all religions are based on the same spiritual concepts, and would no longer feel a need to argue about the details of religion or about which religion is the right one.

You do realize that if all religions are basically the same and have about the same truth levels, you've actually dis-proven a bunch of religions who, as a fundamental point, say that their faith is the only correct one, right?

 

[cpwill]

I would like to start off by saying I hate the fact that the new format erases your reply if you accidentally hit ‘backspace’ :lol:

Okay, again (and I suppose more briefly)

Let me stop you right there. A religion could have been started as a hoax without current leadership realizing it. All it takes is the first generation to make stuff up and then for everyone else they can sincerely believe. That's not to say you don't have modern manipulators and people who don't believe but use belief to their advantage, but religion can still be a hoax as long as the original leaders were being deceptive. Everyone else can be considered a kind of victim.

hmm, if this were a mythology, or a religion that was based solely upon something that happened in a provincial backwater 2,000 years ago, then I would say you are correct. However, that’s not what we are dealing wit here. The church leadership does not preach nor claim that they are guided only by records of ancient events; they claim to be interacting with the Divine today; and not only that, but their followers claim it as well. I, megapropman, digsbe, the entire church leadership, and what – millions – hundreds of millions – billions (?) of people are all lying to you?

Well first off that assumes all the matyrdom tales are true and they were written by Christians for Christians so that can send up a red flag right there.

well, not really. We actually have quite a bit of non-Christian first and second century accounts that independently confirm the early church history. Along with not a little bit of archaeology.

But assuming that they are true, there are still other reasons why Christianity as a religion could be a hoax. For instance, the religious trappings of Christianity could have be designed to sell people on a different moral code. After all, in Hebrew tradition up to this point the only way to get a change in the moral code is to have it sanctioned by God. A moral code is a lot easier to sell if its got divine backing than if its only backing is the words of some random dude. However, if the Founders cracked and admitted the religious stuff surrounding the code was bs, then that would discredit their work on people's morality. Things like love thy enemy and turn the other cheek might be tossed out with the messiah idea. Thus this religion is still a hoax, but a very well meaning one.

no, this doesn’t hold water either.

Firstly, the notion that the early Christians ‘made it up’ isn’t supported by any of the three main lines of evidence used to ascertain the historicity of ancient documents: we have a large number of exceedingly early extant texts, the external evidence is strongly supportive of the claims within the texts, and the texts internally give every indication of being written accurately and honestly. They include embarrassing details about their own leadership (and even Jesus), even some of their most incredible claims (that Jesus performed miracles) are backed up by non-Christian (and even enemy) accounts, and the amount of time between the events and when they began to be written down was exceedingly short; as is the time period between when they began to be written down and the earliest copies we have; and the number of early extant texts we have is almost embarrassing: 5,700.

Secondly, the early Church’s narrative was exceedingly falsifiable. The Apostles didn’t claim ‘oh yes, this guy who said all these wonderful things was also God, and proved that to us in private by performing miracles that only we were blessed to see’; they claimed that Jesus performed specific miracles in specific locations at specific times, and in front of thousands upon thousands of witnesses. To disprove Christianity (and plenty of people had that as their goal in the first century), all one had to do was go to such-and-such a town and ask the people “hey, did Jesus come through here and do X”? Yet, the early Church’s foes appear to never have tried to publish any contradicting accounts; to the contrary, they admitted that – yes – Jesus had performed these miracles, but claimed that he was secretly a sorcerer. On top of that, the early Christians had the stones to put members of the leadership into their narratives. Kings, Prelates, Religious leaders, magistrates, all come into the New Testament, and not a few of them come off rather badly for it. These are people with something to lose, and plenty of motivation to put out contradictory accounts that deny the stories told about them by a new cult under official censure. Such accounts would have been a heavy (if not death) blow to a church built upon fabrication…. But instead the accounts we get from this time period (again) seem to confirm the New Testament accounts. Everyone (Christian, Jew, and Pagan alike) in first Century Palestine appears to have been in general agreement that the events described in the New Testament occurred; they just differed on how they interpreted them.

In most cases its a combination of group psychology and the production of a certain set of brain signals (which any religion can produce which is a real problem for any religion claiming exclusive truth like Christianity) which can be reproduced by machines hooked up to the brain. Its possible to not make up the experience you define as contact with God, but to still misunderstand what is actually happening.

um. Did you read that article? It doesn’t seem to be saying what you seem to be insinuating.

Two further points: Firstly, we’re not talking about mere “feeling” here, either (although simple presence is part of it, true), we are talking about interaction; two way communication. Consistently verified. Secondly, the notion that there is a portion of our brains that seems specifically hardwired to spirituality rather reinforces the theist argument. We have a need and a drive for hunger because there is such a thing as food. We have a need and a drive for thirst because there is such a thing as water. We have a need and a drive for love and interaction because there is such a thing as socialization. You can simulate all these feelings just as well as the article describes, because we are already hardwired to feel those things. And then we find out we have a need, a drive, and are hardwired for interaction with the Divine because…… ?

That's what most people say they do and what a few actually do do

More than that; it is what the faith teaches, what the religious leaders constantly reinforce. Again sticking to Christianity, the central claim of the faith is based around it (Father if its’ possible I don’t want to drink from this cup, but not my will but thine be done). Now, in some of the older and pagan faiths you would have a strong argument – sacrifice a goat to Poseidon and he will ensure that your ship has a safe voyage. Know the secret dance and words and you can call a god and have them bless you. But the Abrahamic religions turn this concept on its’ head. Instead of the deity performing your will, you are called upon to perform His (a teaching, it is worth noting, that presumes the possibility of receiving that will). Given that those three faiths appear to be fairly successful and even dominant, your claim that religion is successful because it tells people they can control their own lives is simply incorrect.

But look at how everyday religious people act.

given that (again) one of the central tenets of Christianity is “we are going to screw this up” (we are all sinners), I’m not sure that the behavior of Christians is going to be much of a disproving point.

They ask god to do X for them or Y for them. They pray to get what they want.

interesting claim. What do you base it on?

Mind you, it wouldn’t surprise me too much; we humans are a famously selfish breed (and, again, one of the central tenets of Christianity is that we are going to fall short of the standard in our deeds). But I’d like to see some backing.

A select few actually give themselves over to their conception of what god wants but the key words here are "their conception". This means that while what they do is often difficult its still what they want to feel like a good or pure person.

well you are true that God has never told me (or anyone I know) to perform an immoral act; but there have been many, many times where He has had told me (and people I know) to do things we truly did not want to do. Sometimes I followed (and inevitably it turned out beyond my expectations) and sometimes I did not (and watched events to the worse). I don’t want to do things that will be embarrassing, but God tells me to publicly share my faith, which will open me to public ridicule, and push me into conflict with persons like yourself. What if I screw up and someone makes a belief decision based on your superior knowledge/logic/whatever? Far more comfortable never to take the risk. I frankly feel safer the more I am saving, and yet I like to eat out and spoil my wife. But it’s pretty clear that I need to give 10% of my income back to God; which severely cuts into my ability to do those things. I frankly didn’t want to go to Boot Camp, but again, prayer made it clear that that was what I was supposed to do. I don’t want to go to OCS; but every time I spend time in prayer on the issue, I get back a clear answer, one I don’t want to hear and (I hope, I hope not?) might end up seeking to evade. I hope I have the faith when the time comes. And the issues I waver on are hardly serious ones; I want to avoid discomfort. Plenty of Christians have headed into far worse situations, or even into certain death, not because they wanted to suffer or even lose their lives, but because that is where God led them, and they went obedient to His will.

And given that living such a lifestyle almost always put you above the control of the other members of your faith, its a great way to seize control of yourself from other humans.

I’m going to have to ask you to expound further on how serving others puts you in control over them. When someone offends or abuses me, and I forgive them for it, how am I coercing their actions? When I go out of my way to help someone I don’t know; how am I controlling anyone? When I endeavor to make sure that only that which is good for building others up rather than tearing them down come out of my mouth (yes I know I am not good at that), how am I controlling them? If anything, calls to turn the other cheek, walk another mile, and give up not only your cloak but your shirt puts you at the service of others.

Which, again, is something that Christianity constantly harps on, that its’ leadership harps on and that its’ Scriptures harp on. One of the best ways we can serve God is to serve others.

Odd that they focus on it so much since if its not that important to the survival of Christianity as a belief system is it not?

I don’t know if it’s the one thing that’s vital to the survival of Christianity; it’s not vital to the survival of my faith. It’s one of the great things about Christianity, that is true; not fearing death (though I and I think probably everyone naturally fears the process of dying) is a great boon. Certainly it was important to the early Church; the epistles are full of it. But Jesus appears not to have spent much time talking about it, and despite their emphasis on it, it’s worth noting that the early Church considered maintaining the accurate words of Jesus to the point where they were even willing to damage their appeal and growth.

 

[cpwill]

Christianity is growing in the already religious third world. Its replacing other local religions there. In the developed world Christianity is shrinking, even in the United States.

I think the ‘death of religion’ narrative in the States is way overhyped. I also strongly suspect that my generation, the millenials – already trending more socially conservative than our parents – will also be more religiously oriented than them. But we shall see. Certainly in Europe, where the State and Religion have been intertwined for centuries, Christianity is dying. But Islam is growing. So we shall see.

When the options are old religion vs. Christianity, Christianity does pretty well. When the options are Christianity vs. non-belief, it tends to falter.

hmmm…. I disagree on your analysis; I think the wealth and technological development of the West has a bit more to do with it, as does the fact that atheism tends to be over-represented by our elites.

As for your second point, threats to safety or social acceptance don't stop everyone. But they do stop most people. That's why matyrs are considered heroic. They do something the vast majority of people wouldn't do. So pointing out a few exceptional people is in fact the exception that proves the rule.

hmm, well, firstly, Islam in many area’s in Africa is being replaced by Christianity; that conflict is slowly replacing tribalism as the source for violence in the region.. but you still have two problems: 1. explaining where the martyrs come from and 2. explaining why they aren’t that few. Every year millions of muslims convert to Christianity; and every one of them is risking death by the laws of their old faith; it’s been estimated as much as 15% of Muslims in Western countries have converted. For three straight centuries, conversion to Christianity meant at best being ignored and derided and at worst being burned alive to provide lighting for night games. That’s a serious population that you have to explain, not a few law-of-large-number outliers that prove the rule by being exceptions.

You as a religious person have a baseline to go off of a a person you can supposedly ask for guidance. Your baseline is "is this what God wants me to do?" which provides a yardstick to measure your actions by.

yeah. Then the trick becomes; what does God want me to do.

Non-believers have to decide if they should do what they want to do, what society wants them to do, or whatever moral code they've got wants them to do.

no they don’t. they are free if they wish to kick all that aside and not worry about a thing. Develop a moral code? To what purpose? Do what society wants? Why? What do I want to do? I want to sit here on the couch. Hooray problem solved. Christians get an indefinite goal combined with sometimes vague direction on how to get there. It’s like growing up again, where the teacher wants to know how long the hypotenuse is, but demands that you figure out the answer (hated geometry).

So that's already giving you a leg up there. Then you have god to ask for guidance. If he's not answering you that's what your supposed to have priests/preachers for.

not really. My preacher has no idea what I’m supposed to do with my life. He could probably counsel and help me figure it out; and I am aware of more than a few cases where people have seen the end result in those not fully formed. I know a pastor who ended up there that way; multiple people whom he respected in his life told him he seemed to be meant for it.

If god has decided he has a plan for you but won't give you any guidance then that's kind of a dick move ("hey I've got a plan I want you to carry out." "sure God, I'm with you 100%, what is it?" "I don't feel like telling you good bye!").

:lol: I can’t tell you how many times I’ve thought that myself. I remember once having a conversation with my dad where I told him I’d really frankly just prefer a ‘burning bush’ experience where a voice comes out of nowhere and tells me “go here and do this for the rest of your life”. He pointed out that the people who get those kinds of experiences typically get them because their life is going to really suck, and they will need that to fall back on. As I’ve matured I’ve begun to realize where knowing where and how I would end up would have ruined so much of the growth that I got along the way, and I can see (looking back) some of God’s purpose in it. But yes, it is often also annoying.

If you are introspective then it is over whether you're interpreting god's sign correctly which again, is a step ahead of the non-believer who has the more fundamentally question what is even a good basis for deciding if my actions are good. At worst, the believer already has the basis to work off of and at best they've already got the plan provided for them.

:shrug: perhaps so. But also, given that personal fulfillment as a worthy goal is a rather late and fitful development in human society, and one that requires a basis of wealth and freedom to achieve, I’m still not sure that it counts as an explanation for the success of religion. Seems like your effect predates the cause.

 

[Anarcho-fascist]

The church leadership does not preach nor claim that they are guided only by records of ancient events; they claim to be interacting with the Divine today; and not only that, but their followers claim it as well. I, megapropman, digsbe, the entire church leadership, and what – millions – hundreds of millions – billions (?) of people are all lying to you?

That doesn't necessarily give Christianity an advantage when compared to other religions though.

even some of their most incredible claims (that Jesus performed miracles) are backed up by non-Christian (and even enemy) accounts

Such as?

Secondly, the early Church’s narrative was exceedingly falsifiable. The Apostles didn’t claim ‘oh yes, this guy who said all these wonderful things was also God, and proved that to us in private by performing miracles that only we were blessed to see’; they claimed that Jesus performed specific miracles in specific locations at specific times, and in front of thousands upon thousands of witnesses. To disprove Christianity (and plenty of people had that as their goal in the first century), all one had to do was go to such-and-such a town and ask the people “hey, did Jesus come through here and do X”? Yet, the early Church’s foes appear to never have tried to publish any contradicting accounts; to the contrary, they admitted that – yes – Jesus had performed these miracles, but claimed that he was secretly a sorcerer. On top of that, the early Christians had the stones to put members of the leadership into their narratives. Kings, Prelates, Religious leaders, magistrates, all come into the New Testament, and not a few of them come off rather badly for it. These are people with something to lose, and plenty of motivation to put out contradictory accounts that deny the stories told about them by a new cult under official censure. Such accounts would have been a heavy (if not death) blow to a church built upon fabrication…. But instead the accounts we get from this time period (again) seem to confirm the New Testament accounts. Everyone (Christian, Jew, and Pagan alike) in first Century Palestine appears to have been in general agreement that the events described in the New Testament occurred; they just differed on how they interpreted them.

That time period had it's share of supposed miracle workers and prophets with fanatical followers.

Two further points: Firstly, we’re not talking about mere “feeling” here, either (although simple presence is part of it, true), we are talking about interaction; two way communication. Consistently verified.

Verified? How and when?

 

[obvious Child]

Well, I am not young earth and I strongly believe in evolution (and have a lot of faith in science in general). I am curious about your conclusion that God must be a liar and deciever. My experiences don't lead me to that conclusion at all.

Simple. If you believe in a perfect God then you must accept such a God does not lie to us every moment of every day or has not lied in Christanity's holy book. There is absolutely no physical evidence at all in any way, shape or form to suggest that the Earth or the universe is young. Disgbe has failed time and time again (as have all YECs) to support their belief. To argue that the Earth is young when all evidence suggests otherwise requires God to either have planted the evidence suggesting the world is old, or is operating the world on very different physical laws as well as hiding all of the evidence of a young Earth. Either way, God is the supreme deciever as the natural world is not what is the real world. Creationists often make up insane arguments like the speed of light was different back then to counter hard evidence proofs that the Universe is old. The problem is no evidence suggests that the speed of light changed. Therefore, God must be hiding the evidence of either the change or the real speed of light. Creationists often claim that the flood is true, yet what we see in the fossil record does not support sorting by mass and shape. God must have deliberately suspended the laws of physics which dictate that smaller, more streamlined heavier objects sink faster or has replaced the physical laws with current laws. Either way, God is lying to us.

If you accept the Earth is young, you must accept logically that your God is the supreme deciever as all of the evidence suggests the physical world is very, very, very old.

 

[obvious Child]

You do realize that if all religions are basically the same and have about the same truth levels, you've actually dis-proven a bunch of religions who, as a fundamental point, say that their faith is the only correct one, right?

Which is why placed in the context of each other and not science, religions tend to fail in winning any argument, even the emotional ones.

 

[lizzie]

Which is why placed in the context of each other and not science, religions tend to fail in winning any argument, even the emotional ones.

It doesn't matter. Religion is a personal thing, and doesn't need to "win" arguments.

 

[Space Goat]

It doesn't matter. Religion is a personal thing, and doesn't need to "win" arguments.

I would disagree that religion is just a "personal" thing. It influences how people vote and how they treat other members of society, as well as how institutional and political actors behave. When considering advocacy for teaching creationism in public science classes, bans on gay marriage, efforts to overturn Roe v. Wade, wars launched by a president who thought that's what God wanted; terrorist attacks such as 9/11; religious tensions between nuclear states such as India and Pakistan... that religion isn't "personal" should become obvious.

Also, quite frequently, religion makes claims about how the world works. Therefore, the truth or falsity of these claims can be scientifically determined; they aren't just "personal" beliefs about which one can rationally think whatever he wants. One doesn't get to make statements about biology (let's say), get roundly trounced by biological scientists, and then say, "Oh, well, religion is personal, and this is what's true for me, and who are you to say otherwise?"

 

[Space Goat]

A great sarcastic comment from Sam Harris, offered in response to the idea religion is a "personal" thing that should be respected:

Patrick Bateson tells us that it is "staggeringly insensitive" to undermine the religious beliefs of people who find these beliefs consoling. I agree completely. For instance: it is now becoming a common practice in Afghanistan and Pakistan to blind and disfigure little girls with acid for the crime of going to school. When I was a neo-fundamentalist rational neo-atheist I used to criticize such behavior as an especially shameful sign of religious stupidity. I now realize—belatedly and to my great chagrin—that I knew nothing of the pain that a pious Muslim man might feel at the sight of young women learning to read. Who am I to criticize the public expression of his faith? Bateson is right. Clearly a belief in the inerrancy of the holy Qur'an is indispensable for these beleaguered people.

 

[lizzie]

I would disagree that religion is just a "personal" thing. It influences how people vote and how they treat other members of society, as well as how institutional and political actors behave.

As does any other system one uses for seeing the world. Even if you vote and act based on a set of morals and values arrived at by the majority in society, outside of religion, you are still acting based on your belief system.

When considering advocacy for teaching creationism in public science classes, bans on gay marriage, efforts to overturn Roe v. Wade, wars launched by a president who thought that's what God wanted; terrorist attacks such as 9/11; religious tensions between nuclear states such as India and Pakistan... that religion isn't "personal" should become obvious.

When you advocate for social programs, which require taking money from me, in the form of taxes, you are acting on your personal beliefs that it is moral to do so. It is my belief that it is immoral to do so. Theft is theft regardless of the justification.
------------

Also, quite frequently, religion makes claims about how the world works.

And it can refuted by science. Still, there are many scientists who are religious, because it’s a personal belief system and practice.

 

[Space Goat]

As does any other system one uses for seeing the world. Even if you vote and act based on a set of morals and values arrived at by the majority in society, outside of religion, you are still acting based on your belief system.

Indeed, and this is why many beliefs aren't purely personal affairs. They are rightly subject to public debate and criticism because they influence more than just ourselves.

Still, there are many scientists who are religious, because it’s a personal belief system and practice.

Red herring. Any religiosity among scientists has nothing to do with religion being "personal" or not.