Religion? Forced on you, You want it, You dont care

[crowTrobot]

You still haven't answered this thread question though. It was a bit derailed...

The OP question was a little incoherent and I think the derailment is part of answering the question.

I was raised fundamentalist Christian, started questioning it as soon as I knew how (age 10 or so), by age 17 realized it was a mythology-based cult perpetuated by anti-intellectual emotionalism.

 

[Denny Crane]

The OP question was a little incoherent and I think the derailment is part of answering the question.

I was raised fundamentalist Christian, started questioning it as soon as I knew how (age 10 or so), by age 17 realized it was a mythology-based cult perpetuated by anti-intellectual emotionalism.

Ouch.

 

[crowTrobot]

We cannot use science to either prove or disprove the existence of God.

that is only true if you intentionally leave your definition of god so vague or generic enough as to be inaccessible to observation.

on the other hand you CAN use science to make deductions about the probability of Yahweh being mythological in the same way you can with Ra, Zeus, Thor etc.

 

[GriLtCheeZ]

...mythology-based cult perpetuated by anti-intellectual emotionalism.

Boom.

 

[magnifier661]

The OP question was a little incoherent and I think the derailment is part of answering the question.

Hmmmm

Hello every one im just wondering was religion forced on you since you were young you actually enjoy your religion or you honestly can give 2 fucks about it?

What was incoherent about this question? He asked if religion was force or you enjoyed it or you don't give a fuck because you don't believe. Everyone else answered without confusion but you.

 

[GrandpaBlaze]

that is only true if you intentionally leave your definition of god so vague or generic enough as to be inaccessible to observation.

on the other hand you CAN use science to make deductions about the probability of Yahweh being mythological in the same way you can with Ra, Zeus, Thor etc.

To me God is not ambiguous. He is our creator.

Using science to make deductions on the probability of God being mythological neither proves nor disproves, it merely provides intellectual fodder than be neither proven nor disproven as it is merely a probability.

Essentially the two schools of thought are looking at Schrodinger's cat from different perspectives - rather than dead vs. alive, it is exists vs. doesn't exist. Until it can be proven either way, all science can definitively say is that it is possible that God does exist, but it is also possible that God does not exist.

Actually, the way most science leaning people would put it is more along the lines of it is highly probable that God does not exist, but it is also possible that He does exist.

Gramps...

 

[Eastoff]

What if the pollution or unhealthy foods could have cause complications? So with high technology; comes a price. PVC manufacturers in china have polluted the environment so badly; that people in those areas have high health concerns.

So you thank science; while the Chinese mother in Beijing thanks science for an environment that is uninhabitable.

You said "What if" Those are caused by men misusing technology. Are you an advocate for banning guns? They are a technology clearly designed for killing.

 

[Rastapopoulos]

Not raised religious, not religious now.

It was a long time ago that I was a kid, and not being religious was not as socially acceptable as it is now, so my parents told me to say, if anyone asked, that we were X denomination. I no longer remember what X was, though (and I don't think anyone ever did ask). Lutheran? Baptist? Orthodox Jew?

I suppose that's pretty non-religious, not even being able to remember what my fake religion was?

barfo

I knew a guy from Northern Ireland in college (so this was "troubles" era) who said that when he was a kid you would routinely be approached by gangs of kids who would demand: "Catholic or Protestant?" to which he, honestly, replied "Atheist." Their response was: "yeah, sure, but Catholic or Protestant atheist?"

 

[Rastapopoulos]

I suppose that's pretty non-religious, not even being able to remember what my fake religion was?

Or mad cow.

THAT'S the religion! He remembers now. Actually, that might be all religions.

 

[Eastoff]

Johnathan Livingston Seagull and Reluctant Messiah. JLS was about a Seagull that leaned the lessons of life on earth faster than the other "sheep" seagulls, so he quickly advanced to higher plains of consciousness.

I read this book in a day when I was about 14. Could you talk about the allegory a little more?

 

[magnifier661]

You said "What if" Those are caused by men misusing technology. Are you an advocate for banning guns? They are a technology clearly designed for killing.

As long as there is evil in the world; guns are a necessary evil to protect yourself from the criminals that will still used "banned guns" to have an upper hand on the innocent.

"What if" is 100% science. Are you saying that you don't put credit on the "what ifs"?

 

[magnifier661]

To me God is not ambiguous. He is our creator.

Using science to make deductions on the probability of God being mythological neither proves nor disproves, it merely provides intellectual fodder than be neither proven nor disproven as it is merely a probability.

Essentially the two schools of thought are looking at Schrodinger's cat from different perspectives - rather than dead vs. alive, it is exists vs. doesn't exist. Until it can be proven either way, all science can definitively say is that it is possible that God does exist, but it is also possible that God does not exist.

Actually, the way most science leaning people would put it is more along the lines of it is highly probable that God does not exist, but it is also possible that He does exist.

Gramps...

Yes most scientists are agnostic. The atheists are as anti-intellectual as the theists in his definition.

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

Just some people swear up and down there is no creator just science

I'm afraid you've stumbled into a clusterfuck here. I could clarify all day what I believe, but it's easier to just say yes. I think there is no creator. Science works.

 

[magnifier661]

I'm afraid you've stumbled into a clusterfuck here. I could clarify all day what I believe, but it's easier to just say yes. I think there is no creator. Science works.

This debate always has the "usual suspects" that argue until they are blue in the face. They usually get nowhere. I am one that is just as guilty.

 

[VanillaGorilla]

My family tried being Mormon when I was 2 years old. Didn't take cause my dad didn't wanna give them 10% of his income or whatever. Went to several different Christian churches after that until I was about 13 and decided it was bullshit. A year or so later, I realized I didn't believe there was a god, and started identifying as an atheist.

My parents believe, but they never cared much what I believed.

 

[VanillaGorilla]

This debate always has the "usual suspects" that argue until they are blue in the face. They usually get nowhere. I am one that is just as guilty.

Ya think?

This is you, right?

 

[crowTrobot]

He asked if religion was force or you enjoyed it or you don't give a fuck because you don't believe. Everyone else answered without confusion but you.

the OP sounds more like he's asking what people think about the benefits of religion as a social club. he said nothing at all about belief. he could be asking the same thing about being a member of boy scouts.

everyone is responding with reasons for or against belief. that may be derailment, but I'm just following along.

 

[magnifier661]

Ya think?

This is you, right?

Hahahahah! Close. ASIANS cannot grow mustaches.

 

[magnifier661]

the OP sounds more like he's asking what people think about the benefits of religion as a social club. he said nothing at all about belief. he could be asking the same thing about being a member of boy scouts.

everyone is responding with reasons for or against belief. that may be derailment, but I'm just following along.

That was only your interpretation. You blatantly suggesting that everyone else (agnostic, atheist or theist) that answered like I mentioned misunderstood and you totally got it is pretty damn arrogant.

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

So much to say in this thread. I'm going to do it like this:

Dear crowTrobot: You and mags have this weird love/hate relationship and it's kind of amusing. I agree with most of your points, but as I tend to do, I would hedge a little bit on a lot of things. Such as, science vs. religion. Perhaps they do represent differing approaches to knowledge, but in modern day practice I don't think this is the case. Perhaps you made this point and I missed it, but I would argue that many religious people only use the "religious" way of thinking when it comes to the (as yet) unknowable aspects of existence. The "God of the gaps" argument, so to speak. Not many people (like, nobody) use religion as their only approach to knowledge.

Also, describing your parents religion as a "mythology-based cult perpetuated by anti-intellectual emotionalism" may be accurate, but perhaps not for all religions. Sure, whether a religion is a "mythology-based cult" or not is just a matter of semantics, but I would argue that not all religions are perpetuated by anti-intellectualism or emotionalism. There are many religions with varying degrees of beliefs.

Dear Mags: I want to show your forum posts to my students so that they know there is at least one wealthy and successful person out there that doesn't have a clue about how to use semi-colons properly.

I agree with your overall point that science and belief are compatible. I just don't know why you're focusing on something like "Well, if Einstein believed it, then..." I don't think that's going to convince crow of anything. Neither is trying to convince him of a "spirit" or "consciousness," because, well, science. There is just nothing within empirical scientific reasoning to suggest such a thing. And, as I think we know by now, if science can't prove it to be true, crow isn't going to believe it.

And I know it's old news by now, but I think what crow was saying about technology is true. For 99% of our history, we lived in cold, pain and fear. It is technology (fire, agriculture, carpentry, medicine) that has made our lives as easy as they are today.

Dear Nikolokjslsoksoshus: I love that your dad actually told you that. I honestly thought that was a Bill Hicks joke and no one could actually think that.

 

[magnifier661]

So much to say in this thread. I'm going to do it like this:Dear Mags: I want to show your forum posts to my students so that they know there is at least one wealthy and successful person out there that doesn't have a clue about how to use semi-colons properly.

I agree with your overall point that science and belief are compatible. I just don't know why you're focusing on something like "Well, if Einstein believed it, then..." I don't think that's going to convince crow of anything. Neither is trying to convince him of a "spirit" or "consciousness," because, well, science. There is just nothing within empirical scientific reasoning to suggest such a thing. And, as I think we know by now, if science can't prove it to be true, crow isn't going to believe it.

And I know it's old news by now, but I think what crow was saying about technology is true. For 99% of our history, we lived in cold, pain and fear. It is technology (fire, agriculture, carpentry, medicine) that has made our lives as easy as they are today.

LMAO! I totally agree that English and Grammar is obviously not my strong suit.

I only used Einstein because crow said that no logical thinking man would buy into science (at least advertised in many other threads). I also believe the "compatibility" issue he adamantly preaches is false because geniuses like Einstein actually believed in a conscious universe. And the concept of "conscious" cannot realistically be proven empirically; yet he still believed it.

Mainly, I knew Crow puts a lot of weight on men like Einstein; so I went "strawman" on him.

 

[crowTrobot]

To me God is not ambiguous. He is our creator.

entirely ambiguous as far as science is concerned. "our creator" could be absolutely anything.

Using science to make deductions on the probability of God being mythological neither proves nor disproves

science IS making deductions about probability based on observation. the definition of "proof" in science is reaching a certain probability threshold. that is how humans determine what constitutes knowledge in most facets of their lives.

Essentially the two schools of thought are looking at Schrodinger's cat from different perspectives - rather than dead vs. alive, it is exists vs. doesn't exist.

not really relevant to the discussion but I don't think your metaphor fits here. the point of the Schrodinger's cat mental experiment is that according to some interpretations of QM the cat ends up actually dead and alive at the same time.

Until it can be proven either way, all science can definitively say is that it is possible that God does exist, but it is also possible that God does not exist.

again, this type of statement necessarily avoids being specific about what you mean by god.

are you, or are you not talking specifically about Yahweh here? If you are, why do you think Yahweh is any different than Thor in terms of accessibility to science? would you say it's a matter of perspective whether Thor exists or not?

 

[magnifier661]

entirely ambiguous as far as science is concerned. "our creator" could be absolutely anything.

Or everything, including yourself…

science IS making deductions about probability based on observation. the definition of "proof" in science is reaching a certain probability threshold. that is how humans determine what constitutes knowledge in most facets of their lives.

That is udder bullshit! Man can obtain knowledge without science.

again, this type of statement necessarily avoids being specific about what you mean by god.

are you, or are you not talking specifically about Yahweh here? If you are, why do you think Yahweh is any different than Thor in terms of accessibility to science? would you say it's a matter of perspective whether Thor exists or not?

The topic is about religion vs. science eh? So what does it matter if it's Thor or the spaghetti monster; the topic is faith vs. non-science.

 

[crowTrobot]

That was only your interpretation. You blatantly suggesting that everyone else (agnostic, atheist or theist) that answered like I mentioned misunderstood and you totally got it is pretty damn arrogant.

Hu? Quite the opposite. I was saying I DON'T get the OP question & was just following along with the discussion.

 

[MarAzul]

Nothing personal but I'm gonna call you on this anti-intellectual line of reasoning every time I see you post it. The problem you are describing is simply beakdown of the family due to poverty and lack of education, and there is zero evidence it has anything at all to do with atheism or lack of accountability to "god". Many gang members believe in god. Also obviously the un-neighborly Muslims you describe feel the way they do BECAUSE of their accountability to their idea of god, not because of lack of belief in god. And many Christians in America in fact ARE intolerant of people who don't share their belief - as much as they can get away with in a society restrained by the moral principals you are shooting for, which are in fact secular. As previously noted in other threads some European countries with the lowest level of religious belief have the highest standards of living and lowest crime levels.

In my wide experience atheists are just as moral as theists if not more so on average, precisely because they feel accountable to their neighbors and their society and their species *instead* of to "god".

I can tell you don't agree with me but to call the break down of the family simple is mind boggling. You cast aside the value of and the loss of religion as if it has no bearing. There certainly seems to be a lack of wisdom to end up with that conclusion.

But never mind that I do not agree, I am sure that a former UN ambassador and minister do not agree with you either.

"My hope for my children must be that they respond to the still, small voice of God in their own hearts." Andrew Young

And this former student of Hindu patience , non violence , and Baptist Minister would disagree
with most everything you say.

“Science investigates; religion interprets. Science gives man knowledge, which is power; religion gives man wisdom, which is control. Science deals mainly with facts; religion deals mainly with values. The two are not rivals.”
Martin Luther King Jr.


By the way, I did not come to suspect the Muslim for his believe in God, but for the teaching in his Holy book. The use of God to bolster Teaching intolerance in supposedly holy scripture sets that religion apart from all others. It teaches todays reader how to (mis)treat the non believer.

 

[magnifier661]

Hu? Quite the opposite. I was saying I DON'T get the OP question & was just following along with the discussion.

No actually; this is what you said

The OP question was a little incoherent and I think the derailment is part of answering the question.

I got the interpretation that you didn't feel the need to answer the question because you thought the OP didn't explain it well. I gave examples of everyone else responding to it fine. This gives me an idea that you didn't feel the need to answer because you were above the question. And when confronted, you backpedaled and gave some lame excuse that the OP didn't give you the proper format to answer. Arrogance…

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

Mainly, I knew Crow puts a lot of weight on men like Einstein; so I went "strawman" on him.

I love how you then use a semi colon correctly.

 

[crowTrobot]

I can tell you don't agree with me but to call the break down of the family simple is mind boggling. You cast aside the value of and the loss of religion as if it has no bearing. There certainly seems to be a lack of wisdom to end up with that conclusion.

I gave at least 4 points of evidence that contradict your claim that there's a strong correlation - low crime rate in non-religious European countries etc.

By the way, I did not come to suspect the Muslim for his believe in God, but for the teaching in his Holy book. The use of God to bolster Teaching intolerance in supposedly holy scripture sets that religion apart from all others. It teaches todays reader how to (mis)treat the non believer.

Christians have historically been no less intolerant of non-believers than Muslims. Any general differences you can cite are of historically very recent origin.

Also comparing radical Muslims to progressive Christians is apples to oranges. The majority of Muslims worldwide are actually progressive and tolerant, and there certainly exists a minority faction of extremely intolerant Christians in the USA.

Also this can be used to illustrates my main point. Obviously God and holy scriptures can be used to teach anything based on "interpretation". The moral standard used to best interpret holy books for social harmony HAS to come from elsewhere. It has to exist INDEPENDENT of any specific religious belief. In fact it is necessarily secular.

 

[magnifier661]

I love how you then use a semi colon correctly.

I paid more attention this time.

 

[magnifier661]

I gave at least 4 points of evidence that contradict your claim that there's a strong correlation - low crime rate in non-religious European countries etc.

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Crime_trends_in_detail

The UK is a generally "Atheistic" society; which has more crime than Italy; which is predominately theist.