Atheism vs religion which bird is a better bird?

Shadow Wolf · Feb 21, 2017

Dinos said:
We are all human beings in the struggle of life. Religion has divided rather than united us. You'd think if God has several "Omni" characteristics He could have helped us to unite.

Dinos

Yup. And more often than not religion divides the adherents of the same religion to much greater extents than it does the adherents of that religion and the adherents of another religion.

siti · Feb 21, 2017

adrian009 said:
Religion is like a tree that bears fruit. As it grows old it no longer bears fruit.

If we were living at the pinnacle of a civilisation based on the one of the great religions we would be arguing in favour of the first quote and it would be much harder to consider the second.

However we are a critical cross over period in history. ALL the old religions are well past their prime as a new civilisation emerges. That's why the second quote appears accurate and the first irrelevant.

But that's just a matter of perspective - if I'd lived in the Holy Roman Empire (for example) during the Renaissance, or the Ottoman Empire under Suleiman the Great, I might be profoundly impressed by its cultural and literary prestige, but its militaristic savagery is never far beneath the surface and remains the real reason for the extensiveness of its influence. Pretending otherwise is, repeating the last few words of your first quote again "to ignore the evidence of history".

Dawnofhope · Feb 21, 2017

Shadow Wolf said:
Yup. And more often than not religion divides the adherents of the same religion to much greater extents than it does the adherents of that religion and the adherents of another religion.

That is certainly true of Christianity. The biggest challenge for Christians will be other Christians.

Shadow Wolf · Feb 21, 2017

adrian009 said:
That is certainly true of Christianity. The biggest challenge for Christians will be other Christians.

And Islam. And Jews. The ancient Egyptians had some falling outs over it. Setians split off from the Church of Satan. Whether they form a new denomination or go to war with each other, it's not unusual if two people of the same religion are each other's worst enemies.

Dawnofhope · Feb 21, 2017

siti said:
But that's just a matter of perspective - if I'd lived in the Holy Roman Empire (for example) during the Renaissance, or the Ottoman Empire under Suleiman the Great, I might be profoundly impressed by its cultural and literary prestige, but its militaristic savagery is never far beneath the surface and remains the real reason for the extensiveness of its influence. Pretending otherwise is, repeating the last few words of your first quote again "to ignore the evidence of history".

That is true about the military savagery and that has been human history. Religion has undeniably contributed. Its hard to realistically imagine how it could have been much different.

The current era must be characterised by a genuine peace. To continue on as we have done will lead to unimaginable suffering and horrors. We are being fused into a global civilisation whether we like it or not.

Dawnofhope · Feb 21, 2017

Shadow Wolf said:
And Islam. And Jews. The ancient Egyptians had some falling outs over it. Setians split off from the Church of Satan. Whether they form a new denomination or go to war with each other, it's not unusual if two people of the same religion are each other's worst enemies.

Of course. Its easy to see. What reasonable person can deny it. So what will be the foundation for peace in this age? Atheism and science?

Shadow Wolf · Feb 21, 2017

adrian009 said:
Of course. Its easy to see. What reasonable person can deny it. So what will be the foundation for peace in this age? Atheism and science?

Several Enlightenment-era philosophies have certainly gotten us far, but we must strive to do better. For peace we need fewer divisions, not more of them.

siti · Feb 21, 2017

adrian009 said:
That is true about the military savagery and that has been human history. Religion has undeniably contributed. Its hard to realistically imagine how it could have been much different.

The current era must be characterised by a genuine peace. To continue on as we have done will lead to unimaginable suffering and horrors. We are being fused into a global civilisation whether we like it or not.

Yes indeed. But I am struggling to see how a rehash of religious ideas that were, it seems, so incongruous to the reality of the general human way of thinking - even in their own time - that they could only become widely accepted at the point of a sword, is going to help us with that.

Don't get me wrong, I have a lot of respect for the ideas of some of the ancient sages, but their religious enforcement has been the cause of untold human misery. If there are common threads of truth in religious thought, they are, simultaneously, common threads of truth in human thought. Therefore, the most sensible approach to devising a human society based on peace is surely to examine our human condition using human reason. I actually think that this is probably what the 'prophets' (by and large) have often done - but the 'religiofication' (is that a word?) of their sayings leads us away from peace rather than towards it. Peace is not so much about the universal acceptance of religious ideas, surely it is more about the condition of being able to differ agreeably.

FunctionalAtheist · Feb 21, 2017

Saint Frankenstein said:
Quit being ignorant:

Evolutionary origin of religions - Wikipedia

About religion: why it started and how it evolved

The Origins of Religion: How Supernatural Beliefs Evolved

Evolution of Religion

So you having the ability to copy and and paste from the internet … makes me ignorant?

Why not articulate your own thoughts? Is this too difficult? Not what you’re used to? Don’t care to actually think?

With respect, I do not have the time, desire, or fortitude to debate the internet. Please present your own arguments, or at least have the decency to regurgitate!!!

Saint Frankenstein said:
Edit: Oh, no one said humans "need" to be religious, only that there's evolutionary reasons why humans are religious and why it's not going anywhere.

Saint Frankenstein said:
…There are biological and evolutionary reasons why humans have the need be religious. …

No one intelligent anyway! Or should I say no one that actually listens to what they say?

Saint Frankenstein said:
I said "part of" what makes us human. (There is evidence that non-human animals have what can be called spiritual experiences, as well.) Read more carefully next time before flying off at the handle in offense.

So I should not be offended that religion is ONLY PART OF WHAT MAKES A HUMAN BEING? Sorry, I’m still left in the realm of non-human according to you! I guess us sub-humans fly-off the handle like that? Is that it?

All else aside, make up you mind!!! Am I sub-human because I have no religion? If your answer is no, then how can you maintain that one's religion has anything to do with making them human?

David T · Feb 21, 2017

Shadow Wolf said:
No, I never made that claim.

No, it's not a political study but rather a model for a scientific study to examine any links between religiousness and IQ. There has never been such a correlation established. Yes, you could replace "religious beliefs" with "political views," but that would turn it into an entirely different study.

Your own exact claim:

We aren't robots without religion, and evolutionary purpose doesn't mean we need it (psychosomatic disorders evolved for a likely reason, but we don't need those to exist), and religion isn't what makes us human. If you ask some, such as Jane Goodall, we aren't even the only species to experience a concept of religion. If this were truly a need, it is doubtful we would see the widespread cross-generation even across multiple cultures increase in those not having any religious affiliation or beliefs

adrian009 said:
Yes, look at the Americans who want to run for the hills now.

adrian009 said:
Science is a relatively easy thing to consider. religion much more difficult. I think we are very much disconnected from understanding our religious roots.

I posted this earlier on another thread:

"Throughout history, the primary agents of spiritual development have been the great religions. For the majority of the earth’s people, the scriptures of each of these systems of belief have served, in Bahá’u’lláh’s words, as “the City of God”, a source of a knowledge that totally embraces consciousness, one so compelling as to endow the sincere with “a new eye, a new ear, a new heart, and a new mind”. A vast literature, to which all religious cultures have contributed, records the experience of transcendence reported by generations of seekers. Down the millennia, the lives of those who responded to intimations of the Divine have inspired breathtaking achievements in music, architecture, and the other arts, endlessly replicating the soul’s experience for millions of their fellow believers. No other force in existence has been able to elicit from people comparable qualities of heroism, self-sacrifice and self-discipline. At the social level, the resulting moral principles have repeatedly translated themselves into universal codes of law, regulating and elevating human relationships. Viewed in perspective, the major religions emerge as the primary driving forces of the civilizing process. To argue otherwise is surely to ignore the evidence of history."

One Common Faith

Obviously a positive view!

On the other hand if religion is the cause of hate and disunity:

"Religion should unite all hearts and cause wars and disputes to vanish from the face of the earth; it should give birth to spirituality, and bring light and life to every soul. If religion becomes a cause of dislike, hatred and division it would be better to be without it, and to withdraw from such a religion would be a truly religious act. For it is clear that the purpose of a remedy is to cure, but if the remedy only aggravates the complaint, it had better be left alone. Any religion which is not a cause of love and unity is no religion." Abdu'l-Baha

Nicely painted... The ancients knew how hard all this was today we think it's easy just read books!!!

There is a story we wrote a long time ago. The topic god is so difficult that God himself could come in the form of man walk on water raise people from the dead feed 10,000 with a single loaf of bread have devout followers follow him around for 4 years and none of them would have a clue as to what he was talking about at all".

And then he died and a church formed and Everyone today is an expert because apparently writing gives us magical insight more that those who walked with him directly did not have.!!! A kinda jokes on us Buddhist koan mind trick right there!!!

FunctionalAtheist · Feb 21, 2017

David T said:
So religion is just a political philosophy.

Anytime, anyplace religion is a philosophy. It's only political when it's adherents attempt to proselytize.

FunctionalAtheist · Feb 21, 2017

David T said:
Science is completelu shackled to the past the last I checked!!! The last I checked the dead past gives rise to the living present. I thought we do a spectacular job of pretending the present determines the past for some odd reason. Are you proposing a new detachment from the past to replace the old detachment from the past? And ovrr time wil your new detachment from the past just be seen as nonsense and replaced with more nonsense? One only has to look into religion to realize how disconnected it is from it's past. It has no sense of history except in its own internal reality separate from before it. The scientifically call it intelligent design or creationism. Is that what you are proposing a better intelligent design?

Care to speak in english? Or express cogent thoughts? Rambling is is rambling does? The most words doesn't make you the smartest person in the room!

siti · Feb 21, 2017

FunctionalAtheist said:
Rambling is is rambling does?

Quite so!

FunctionalAtheist · Feb 22, 2017

adrian009 said:
Science is a relatively easy thing to consider. religion much more difficult.

I really don't understand what you're trying to get across here. Perhaps it's just perspective. As someone who has been through seminary and has multiple advanced degrees in science, it is very difficult for me not to call BS on this!

Religion is exceedingly simplistic compared to the complexities of science! Now, when I say this I recognize that religious thought has no rhyme or reason, and in that sense it's pretty much independent of rational thought...in that sense yes..it is more difficult. You are told what to believe, you believe it, you are correct! End of discussion. The answered are given before the questions are asked! This is very difficult to understand!

Science is easy in the sense that if you consider the input, you should predict the output...and adjust your conceptions accordingly. I

Dawnofhope · Feb 22, 2017

FunctionalAtheist said:
I really don't understand what you're trying to get across here. Perhaps it's just perspective. As someone who has been through seminary and has multiple advanced degrees in science, it is very difficult for me not to call BS on this!

Religion is exceedingly simplistic compared to the complexities of science! Now, when I say this I recognize that religious thought has no rhyme or reason, and in that sense it's pretty much independent of rational thought...in that sense yes..it is more difficult. You are told what to believe, you believe it, you are correct! End of discussion. The answered are given before the questions are asked! This is very difficult to understand!

Science is easy in the sense that if you consider the input, you should predict the output...and adjust your conceptions accordingly. I

I have a science degree, a medical degree, and a medical fellowship. I'm a practicing medical doctor. I say these things so you know that you are not talking to someone who dropped out of school as soon as he could and decided that education is for idiots. That's not to say I don't have a name to be wise but am foolish.

We don't know each other but in my country science and education are valued. At this point in history we can clearly see the fruits of science in technology and how is has contributed to the advancement of civilisation materially. Because the lights of religion have dimmed and become a source of discord and confusion it is hard to see its value. Its easy to see the faults in religion and to dismiss it outright.

Dawnofhope · Feb 22, 2017

siti said:
Yes indeed. But I am struggling to see how a rehash of religious ideas that were, it seems, so incongruous to the reality of the general human way of thinking - even in their own time - that they could only become widely accepted at the point of a sword, is going to help us with that.

Don't get me wrong, I have a lot of respect for the ideas of some of the ancient sages, but their religious enforcement has been the cause of untold human misery. If there are common threads of truth in religious thought, they are, simultaneously, common threads of truth in human thought. Therefore, the most sensible approach to devising a human society based on peace is surely to examine our human condition using human reason. I actually think that this is probably what the 'prophets' (by and large) have often done - but the 'religiofication' (is that a word?) of their sayings leads us away from peace rather than towards it. Peace is not so much about the universal acceptance of religious ideas, surely it is more about the condition of being able to differ agreeably.

I do not propose a rehash of religions past. However it helps to see the Divine genius behind religion. How is it that a man 2,000 years ago who taught less than 4 years and died a criminals death created a revolution that utterly reshaped civilisation? The same question can be asked of Muhammad, Moses, Krishna and Buddha. Accepting that these religions have had their day could that same Creative force become manifest again to provide the solutions for this age?

siti · Feb 22, 2017

adrian009 said:
How is it that a man 2,000 years ago who taught less than 4 years and died a criminals death created a revolution that utterly reshaped civilisation?

Well of course he didn't - I mean, even if Jesus did and taught all the things that are recorded in the Gospels, that is not what re-shaped civilization. What re-shaped civilization was the adoption/adaptation of Christian mythology as the state religion of the Roman Empire. The establishment of Islam was achieved by centuries of warfare, the Judaism that Moses' teachings (reportedly) initiated was established as a national religion by the bloody conquest of Canaan...Krishna's (mythological) life was almost entirely characterized by warfare and set against the backdrop of a conflict which according to the mythology left about 4 million dead!...

You might have a point with Buddha - I don't know enough about that period of Indian history to comment - but that's only one of the great religions - and many Buddhists deny its even a religion anyway.

psychoslice · Feb 22, 2017

mmm, I don't mind the feathered-less two legged birds.

Shadow Wolf · Feb 22, 2017

FunctionalAtheist said:
Religion is exceedingly simplistic compared to the complexities of science! Now, when I say this I recognize that religious thought has no rhyme or reason, and in that sense it's pretty much independent of rational thought...in that sense yes..it is more difficult. You are told what to believe, you believe it, you are correct! End of discussion. The answered are given before the questions are asked! This is very difficult to understand!

To comment as a former believer, the difficulty is in trying to reconcile religious teachings with the world out there, and it gets harder and harder when you begin to realize that God isn't nearly as merciful, benevolent, and loving as your pastor keeps telling you.
But, at the same time, it can be said science is harder because you do have to think, you do have to admit when you don't know, you do have to become better at discerning among what you know, what you think you know, and what you assume to know, and to "do it right" you're position on many things are very likely to change several times. And then there is the very difficult part of trying to convince others what science reveals to us (I've recently discovered many people are fierce zealouts when it comes to AA and they absolutely do not want to hear or consider it actually isn't really that effective of an approach).

LuisDantas · Feb 22, 2017

adrian009 said:
Of course. Its easy to see. What reasonable person can deny it. So what will be the foundation for peace in this age? Atheism and science?

Atheism, correctly understood as the absence of theism, sure beats the alternative. But no, it is hardly the foundation for peace - or for anything really.

Science, however, is something else entirely. The findings of psychology, anthropology and sociology can go a long way towards facilitating the spread and effective application of solid ethics.

IMO, that is the only true answer to your question. The foundation for peace in this age, as in any other, comes from ethics, which is sometimes helped by religion and sometimes harmed by it.

In this age, specifically, applying and spreading ethics translates into denouncing the dangers of nationalism, spreading awareness of the need for bridging social and economic disparities, and accepting the dire need of keeping population levels manageable. We have reached the point where even attempting to have effective education and political representation has become quite the challenge.

Atheism vs religion which bird is a better bird?

Certified People sTabber

Well-Known Member

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i

Certified People sTabber

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i

Certified People sTabber

Well-Known Member

Hammer of Reason

Well-Known Member

Hammer of Reason

Hammer of Reason

Well-Known Member

Hammer of Reason

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i

Well-Known Member

Veteran Member

Certified People sTabber

Aura of atheification