Is religion a good thing?

[AquaEyes11010]

I wonder if Mormons supporting blacks being ordained faced similar threats -- until, of course, the church changed its mind about that.

 

[AlteredEgo]

What kind d of self-hating black people want to be Mormons?! Do they honestly believe themselves to be accursed mud people?

 

[rbkwp]

ha
little story re Mormonisim
best mate of the time 30 years ago was a budding fully fledged Mormon elder,even at his young age
he returned from the US where they all went at the time doing there o'seas religio stint, took a Maori lady Mormon also, they got married at the Mormon Temple in Hamilton NZ with myself being best man
i am Maori/Chinese coloured Brown i suppose
anyway i was 'not allowed' to go down to the inner depths of that temple, because i was not a Mormon, laughed a little when i realised they never knew i was Gay as well?
deep down at the time i was suspicious it was because i was coloured .. but put that aside as his wife is Maori ... suppose??? who knows??
'10% tithes maketh the Church' colour dont matter !

 

[Jason]

His point was that "atheism is a belief because critics of atheism say it is." My point was that if that's all one needs for something to "be so", then examine what some critics of theism say and let that carry the same weight.

This is not my point.

My point is that there are critics of atheism who say atheism is a belief. At some previous point in this debate the view was expressed that I was inventing this idea, that somehow it was my idea and my idea alone. Instead I was putting forward what I take to be a verifiable fact - verifiable in that it is easy to find written statements by critics of atheism who say that atheism is a belief.

I have also made the point that these critics of atheism include some people widely accepted as among the very greatest thinkers of humanity (for example Locke, Voltaire, Pascal). My point could be expressed in the form that some of the very greatest thinkers of humanity have criticise atheism specifically on the grounds that it is a belief.

Now of course it may be that these very great thinkers are wrong. Atheists who want to argue their case have to make a decision: do they engage with the great thinkers, or do they opt out?

My personal view is that Atheists who want to be taken seriously have to engage with these critics of Atheism and explain where they are wrong. I've seen from this thread the assertion that the existence of God cannot be proved, so why should they bother arguing? Well fine, but it still leaves the verifiable fact that there are critics of Atheism who say Atheism is wrong.

My personal view is that Atheists need to take on board that theists have produced four or five proofs of the existence of God: ontological, cosmological, teleological and revelatory (personal and reported). While there are possible counters to each argument they nonetheless stand as valid academic arguments, and Atheists need to indicate why they regard all of these proofs as wrong. By contrast I know of no argument which claims to prove the existence of Bertrand Russell's orbiting tea-pot so I see no reason to argue against this.

 

[Bardox]

This is a pretty offensive post.

Defenders of religion often get "offended" when they run out of arguments for their fallacies.

Faith is accepting something when their is no proof to support it as being true. Essentially it's wishful thinking dependent on circular reasoning absent of logic. That in itself is not a bad thing. It's not good either. You can have faith in something/someone and not have it negatively effect you or those around you. It's when faith begins to take over parts of you life and you insist that your way is the only way, and those who deny you should be punished, that your faith turns into a religion.

Religion dictates how you should live, who you should love, and who you should condemn. If you accept the baseless assertions that religion puts forward then when you die and no one will ever hear from you again, you will be rewarded by the divine. If you deny any of the "truths" from that religion then you will burn forever. What your religion tells you about the world is good and any who question these "truths" are evil.

Most religions have rules against murder, but in various other points in their holy texts they make exceptions for when beheading someone is a morally good thing. Christians had their bout with this multiple times through out their history. The crusades, witch trials, and Inquisition. Jews have a rich history of killing on mass people who believed in different gods. Islam is having that fight today. The holy warriors cannot be reasoned with. They believe that they are fighting for god and that he is on their side no matter how monstrous their actions because one religion or another says it's what god wants them to do. More people have died in the name of god than for any other reason through out history.

Faith, to a point, is fine. Something you can't prove but want to believe in it anyway go ahead. As long as you don't hold your belief up as a fact and insist others believe it too, it's fine. Religion is when it all goes wrong. Religion has reasons for rape and mutilation being a good thing. Religion excuses murder and destruction on all scales for no other reason than someone doesn't pray to the god specified or live in the manor described in said religions texts. Religion depends on the indoctrination of young developing minds to propagate itself. It's bad for you.

 

[798686]

Defenders of religion often get "offended" when they run out of arguments for their fallacies.

They probably also get offended if the post actually is offensive.

Anyway - at least he's not gna shoot you for it. Just maybe draw a few cartoons... :tongue:

 

[Jason]

Faith is accepting something when their is no proof to support it as being true.

But this isn't what faith is. It's about things like complete trust and a strong belief. The trust and the belief are usually based on evidence.

 

[AquaEyes11010]

This is not my point.

My point is that there are critics of atheism who say atheism is a belief. At some previous point in this debate the view was expressed that I was inventing this idea, that somehow it was my idea and my idea alone. Instead I was putting forward what I take to be a verifiable fact - verifiable in that it is easy to find written statements by critics of atheism who say that atheism is a belief.

I have also made the point that these critics of atheism include some people widely accepted as among the very greatest thinkers of humanity (for example Locke, Voltaire, Pascal). My point could be expressed in the form that some of the very greatest thinkers of humanity have criticise atheism specifically on the grounds that it is a belief.

Now of course it may be that these very great thinkers are wrong. Atheists who want to argue their case have to make a decision: do they engage with the great thinkers, or do they opt out?

My personal view is that Atheists who want to be taken seriously have to engage with these critics of Atheism and explain where they are wrong. I've seen from this thread the assertion that the existence of God cannot be proved, so why should they bother arguing? Well fine, but it still leaves the verifiable fact that there are critics of Atheism who say Atheism is wrong.

My personal view is that Atheists need to take on board that theists have produced four or five proofs of the existence of God: ontological, cosmological, teleological and revelatory (personal and reported). While there are possible counters to each argument they nonetheless stand as valid academic arguments, and Atheists need to indicate why they regard all of these proofs as wrong. By contrast I know of no argument which claims to prove the existence of Bertrand Russell's orbiting tea-pot so I see no reason to argue against this.

First of all, you have said that atheism is a faith, not just that other people say so. For something to be so requires more than that other people say so. It is not a "verifiable fact" that atheism is a belief merely because it is a "verifiable fact" that others have said it is. If that's your measure of something being a "verifiable fact", then I suggest you read what some rather vocal antitheists have said about theism. After all, if it is a "verifiable fact" that some great minds have said it, according to you that makes what they say similarly a "verifiable fact."

Secondly, everything you say about "critics of atheism" also applies to "critics of theism" with the exception that the "great minds" have different names. You seem to imply that only theism has had "great minds" on its side over the centuries of philosophical debate and discourse, and that we "mere mortals" must acknowledge that. Well, to this I reply that for you to continue with your theism (and be "taken seriously" as you say about atheists), you should begin to "engage with these critics" of theism "and explain where they are wrong." You can get started with the Wikipedia listing of atheists.

Ironic that someone who cries "that's offensive" will have the gall to say that for people who don't share his beliefs to "be taken seriously" we must read all the works written by those who espouse his own beliefs and counter each and every argument -- especially since it becomes ever more obvious that you have shielded yourself from the many refutations to all of your absurd claims. Perhaps to be "taken seriously" and understand how your beliefs "are so" rather than just opinion I could employ a shortcut -- and give myself a traumatic brain injury.

 

[Calboner]

Ironic that someone who cries "that's offensive" will have the gall to say that for people who don't share his beliefs to "be taken seriously" we must read all the works written by those who espouse his own beliefs and counter each and every argument -- especially since it becomes ever more obvious that you have shielded yourself from the many refutations to all of your absurd claims.

:biggthumpup:

 

[Calboner]

Shocking news: boy named Malarkey was not telling the truth.

Boy Says He Didn't Go To Heaven; Publisher Says It Will Pull Book : The Two-Way : NPR

Nearly five years after it hit best-seller lists, a book that purported to be a 6-year-old boy's story of visiting angels and heaven after being injured in a bad car crash is being pulled from shelves. The young man at the center of The Boy Who Came Back from Heaven, Alex Malarkey, said this week that the story was all made up.

 

[craig_uk]

Jason I know you really want atheism to be some sort of faith or religion but it really isn’t.

We use language to define things. It makes it easier to have a conversation about something as simple as a chair if we have already agreed what a chair is. Naming, categorising and labelling allows us to communicate effectively. We agree a definition. Simple as that.

I lack a belief in any god or gods. This is not to say that I am certain there are no gods but simply based on the lack of any evidence whatsoever I do not believe in the existence of any god. I call myself an atheist because I think that word defines my attitude towards the existence of god.

I think you will find most atheists makes the same or a very similar claim.
Do you think changing the definition of a word somehow changes what these people think? Or do you think we secretly believe something that we don’t admit to?

Can you just accept that when people tell you what they believe or don’t believe rather than tell people they actually believe something else.

 

[conntom]

Religion is a good thing.

Sometimes people use it to do bad things like is done with guns, knives, bats, sugar, penises, social media, positions of authority, etc.

 

[bravesoldier]

If you believe in God and a standard of absolute truth it is the best thing that can happen for anyone. If you don't believe such don't waste your time.

 

[rbkwp]

smile

the lenghts we go to to convince ourselves ..
always been known with Sex Politics and Religion ..

aahhh much like the swalk'

 

[_antialias_]

Not sure if this is the appropriate forum for this discussion. Lol

" I don't try to imagine a God; it suffices to stand in awe of the structure of the world, insofar as it allows our inadequate senses to appreciate it."
Einstein

I fucking love this quote, thank you.

 

[Drifterwood]

I think I'll be an ametaphysicist if that makes it easier, Amet for short.

 

[_antialias_]

This is the sticking point and where we disagree. Not having belief specifically in God is active disbelief.

Wait, do you mean to say 'you are either with us, or against us?' That there is no middle ground?? No "I've never heard of god," no "I have no idea what you're talking about"...???

You can have a passive disbelief in Bertrand Russell's orbiting kettle. No one has seriously suggested that this exists.

Wait, do you mean to say that the existence of a thing is contingent upon the seriousness with which an individual professes belief in the existence of the thing..?? Or merely that your consideration of such thing is dependent on the seriousness with which the individual professes such thing??

But you cannot have passive disbelief in the existence of the moon. Such disbelief would be an active disbelief. The overwhelming majority of human beings in all ages have believed that the moon exists.

Wait, does this not imply that, like the moon, god is self-evident -- that your god is self-evident?? Does it not trouble you that the majority of the world does not think that your god is not self-evident??

To be an atheist is an active belief system.

Wait, could you please define your concept of 'belief system' and how you'd justify classifying 'atheism' as such?? Does this just break down into an "whatever it is, were against it" routine -- where the only thing that the atheist is positively stating is that everyone else is positively wrong??

 

[Bardox]

A less sever example of why religion is not good:

So there is this book, sold over a million copies, called "The boy who came back from heaven". In 2004, Kevin Malarkey and his six-year-old son, Alex, suffered an horrific car accident. The impact from the crash paralyzed Alex—and medically speaking, it was unlikely that he could survive. “I think that Alex has gone to be with Jesus,” a friend told the stricken dad. But two months later, Alex awoke from a coma with an incredible story to share. Of events at the accident scene and in the hospital while he was unconscious. Of the angels who took him through the gates of heaven itself. Of the unearthly music that sounded just terrible to a six-year-old. And most amazing of all . . . of meeting and talking to Jesus. There's even been a movie made based off this best seller.

Alex Malarkey, 'The Boy Who Came Back From Heaven' says he made it all up; publisher will pull book - News - TODAY.com

https://www.yahoo.com/parenting/boy-who-claimed-he-went-to-heaven-recants-108278459057.html

‘Boy Who Came Back From Heaven’ actually didn’t; books recalled - The Washington Post

Surprise surprise the boy recants the story. “I did not die. I did not go to heaven. I said I went to heaven because I thought it would get me attention." When he told a pastor the book was wrong and needed to be stopped, he was told that the book was "blessing people.“

When it comes to religion, truth is unimportant. As long as the lie supports the religion, it will be feed to the faithful... at least until the brat goes public with his objections to "people profiting from lies." My own grandmother bought this book for me as "proof" God and heaven exist. I read the book and say that Alex had some powerful painkillers after his accident and had a really groovy dream.

Now Alex Malarkey, gotta love that name, still holds that the bible is infallible because it was written by god. But... it wasn't. Each individual book was written by men and it was Roman men who voted on which books would and would not be included in his bible that tells him what heaven is what god expects of him, and "thou shalt not kill" is really a conditional thing and not so much of a "commandment" exactly. He still has a problem with truth telling, but this was a good step.

 

[185248]

A less sever example of why religion is not good:

So there is this book, sold over a million copies, called "The boy who came back from heaven". In 2004, Kevin Malarkey and his six-year-old son, Alex, suffered an horrific car accident. The impact from the crash paralyzed Alex—and medically speaking, it was unlikely that he could survive. “I think that Alex has gone to be with Jesus,” a friend told the stricken dad. But two months later, Alex awoke from a coma with an incredible story to share. Of events at the accident scene and in the hospital while he was unconscious. Of the angels who took him through the gates of heaven itself. Of the unearthly music that sounded just terrible to a six-year-old. And most amazing of all . . . of meeting and talking to Jesus. There's even been a movie made based off this best seller.

Alex Malarkey, 'The Boy Who Came Back From Heaven' says he made it all up; publisher will pull book - News - TODAY.com

https://www.yahoo.com/parenting/boy-who-claimed-he-went-to-heaven-recants-108278459057.html

‘Boy Who Came Back From Heaven’ actually didn’t; books recalled - The Washington Post

Surprise surprise the boy recants the story. “I did not die. I did not go to heaven. I said I went to heaven because I thought it would get me attention." When he told a pastor the book was wrong and needed to be stopped, he was told that the book was "blessing people.“

When it comes to religion, truth is unimportant. As long as the lie supports the religion, it will be feed to the faithful... at least until the brat goes public with his objections to "people profiting from lies." My own grandmother bought this book for me as "proof" God and heaven exist. I read the book and say that Alex had some powerful painkillers after his accident and had a really groovy dream.

Now Alex Malarkey, gotta love that name, still holds that the bible is infallible because it was written by god. But... it wasn't. Each individual book was written by men and it was Roman men who voted on which books would and would not be included in his bible that tells him what heaven is what god expects of him, and "thou shalt not kill" is really a conditional thing and not so much of a "commandment" exactly. He still has a problem with truth telling, but this was a good step.

So, if you had not read a book in your life, what would you do? Try take yourself back before religion, before science. Use your imagination.

 

[Bardox]

Religion is a good thing.

Sometimes people use it to do bad things like is done with guns, knives, bats, sugar, penises, social media, positions of authority, etc.

A gun, knife, etc doesn't have a professed will for you to follow if you wish to be right and righteous or do horrible things to innocent people. Religion tells you that it's good to carve off the head of the heretic. They don't have to actually be guilty of any wrong doing. Just as long as they are not living by the will of your god. Convert them if you can. Kill them if you can't. Leaving them be is not an option religion puts forward. Spiritualists, which is just a nice word for cookie cutter religious heretics, have a live and let live policy. That's not what their religions teach. Religions have ugly parts in them that Spiritualists just ignore saying "focus on this part", but for the devote it's one or them other.

If following scripture is how you are suppose to determine what is good and what is bad then you should support the Islamic State. What they are doing is exactly what their religion tells them they should be doing. Establish a Caliphate and eradicate the infidel. Fundamentalist and extremist are words used to describe people who actually believe what the book says, even the ugly parts, and live their life that way.

So, if you had not read a book in your life, what would you do? Try take yourself back before religion, before science. Use your imagination.

If I had not read a book in my life then I would be dependent on the truthfulness of those around me. It's when they start lying to explain shit they don't understand to promote their position in primitive culture and the faithful just nodding along with the crap he/she keeps puling out of their ass that we get religions. "I know this is so because I read it on golden plates inscribed by god... See them? No no. God will take them away if you see them. Only I can read them. His Angel Moroni said so."