Should We Respect Religion?

Since religion has dominated 99% of human history, how can we come to the conclusion that Non-Religion and Atheism is synonomous with Dark Ages and Social Chaos?

Do we have an example of a society that cherished humanity and intellectual discourse over religious dogma? Hmm... Let's think...
 
baumgarten said:
Actually, most Americans probably can't read history better than Europeans. Our public education system is an embarrassment. But what I think Leo was getting at is not knowledge of history but cultural memory. Europe's first civilizations came millenia before the United States were even born. Current Western civilization was born in Europe, and there it is still much older than America. Our country is still in the process of maturation; were society to collapse, we would lack the strong customs and traditions that would allow us to hold on for long.

The entire civilization is beginning its decline, anyway. The religion and traditional family values being abandoned today in the name of progress are signs of a strong civilization. Western culture has always been individualistic, but recently that individualism has become so prominent as to tear away at the foundations of society. The ritual aspects of religion and the state bind citizens together in an immersive common culture; the basic unit of society has always been the family. When we put ourselves first and our families and countries and churches second, they all lose their power and thus their effect. We will eventually be too self-centered and materialistic, disconnected from each other, to function properly when climate change or some other extenuating circumstance leads to a complete collapse of society. Famine, mass migration, and war will affect the world's centers of population and food production if it's climate change, for example, and that there -- the abandonment of cities -- can be taken
as a signal that civilization is in its death throes.
Click to expand...
While I generally agree with this, I have a question. Do you live in a city or a rural town or the country? I think this could make a very big difference in your perception of the strength of customs and traditions.
 
(Q) said:
If you had gone to school and studied science, you'd know that to be complete bs based simply on the fact that students conduct experiments themselves.
Click to expand...

On the big bang theory? or spontaneous generation, err....I mean...abiogenesis rather?
 
audible said:
then it would be appreciated if you kept it to yourself, why bother others with your fantasies.
Click to expand...

He died for you.
dont we teach our children facts not fiction, if god creating the universe had some factual base then I would agree whole heartedly.
Click to expand...

What do you mean 'factual base'? I could show you a stalk of corn, would that help?
sticks and stones, turn the other cheek, come to mind.
has'nt god and religion got strong shoulders, are they that weak.
Click to expand...

Well, the World's most lethal superpower ever known to exist is at war with an Islamic nation. Yeah, they should probably just shrug that off too and go back to sweeping up broken glass.
 
He died for you. [/quote]he who, it is extremely unlikely that a jesus person ever li

rjr6 said:
He died for you.
Click to expand...
he who, it is extremely unlikely that a jesus person ever lived, so are you saying a fictious he died for me, how does that work.
as I said if you believe that, keep it to yourself.
rjr6 said:
What do you mean 'factual base'? I could show you a stalk of corn, would that help?
Click to expand...
irrelevant, how would that prove a god did it, was factual, please dont be silly.
rjr6 said:
Well, the World's most lethal superpower ever known to exist is at war with an Islamic nation. Yeah, they should probably just shrug that off too and go back to sweeping up broken glass.
Click to expand...
your missing the point religion and religious people have been lampooned and ridiculed in the media from day one, they dont blow people up for it.
a little humour said:
Two priests were going to Hawaii on vacation and decided that they would make this a real vacation by not wearing anything that would identify them as clergy.

As soon as the plane landed, they headed for a store and bought some really outrageous shorts, shirts, sandals, sunglasses, and etc.

The next morning they went to the beach, dressed in their "tourist" garb and were sitting on beach chairs, enjoying a drink, the sunshine and the scenery when a "drop dead gorgeous" blonde in a tiny bikini came walking straight towards them. They couldn't help but stare and when she passed them, she smiled and said, "Good morning, Father" - "Good morning, Father," nodding and addressing each of them individually, then passed on by.

They were both stunned. How in the world did she recognize them as priests?

The next day they went back to the store, bought even more outrageous outfits-these were so loud, you could hear them before you even saw them-and again settled on the beach in their chairs to enjoy the sunshine, etc.

After a while, the same gorgeous blonde, wearing a string bikini this time, came walking toward them again. (They were glad they had sunglasses, because their eyes were about to pop out of their heads.)

Again, she approached them and greeted them individually: "Good morning, Father," "Good morning Father," and started to walk away.

One of the priests couldn't stand it and said. "Just a minute, young lady. Yes, we are priests, and proud of it, but I have to know, how in the world did YOU know?"

"Oh, Father, don't you recognize me? I'm Sister Angela!"
Click to expand...
http://www.poddys.com/jokes/reliindex.htm

religion has always been the a cause of war, but thats not relevant in this instant.
 
Last edited:
rjr6

No one can prove or dispprove whether or not Jesus was the son of God, that is probably why you should fear it. According to the pascalian wager, it is always better to be safe than to be sorry. Thats just my own little take
 
Pascal's Wager also dictates that you must accept his Noodley Appendage. Do bow down before the Flying Spaghetti Monster so as to be safe rather than sorry?
 
Sure, you know why? Because I am smart. Einstein said "God does not play with dice". The smartest man of the last century did not believe in coincidences, so do I.
 
A lot of people view religion as old traditions that conform to the time, that is the problem with unbelievers. How else can you explain all the things going on in the world?
 
Pascals wager also means that we should not believe in god to be on the safe side, because god punishes belivers and praises nonbelievers for passing the 'test'.
 
Listen, the bottom line is that no one can ever prove or disprove God's actions, much less his existence. Many people before us have basked on this topic since this forum has been up, and many people will also do the same when some of us retire from this forum. Maybe prayer is not the way to God, maybe technological advance is, maybe its not. One thing is for us, as best said by Einstein "we are like a child in a library, we know the books are in some form of order, but we are not sure who or how". Personally I don't dwell over topics like this, but its best to follow the crowd and keep the open mind
 
Chatha said:
Listen, the bottom line is that no one can ever prove or disprove God's actions, much less his existence. Many people before us have basked on this topic since this forum has been up, and many people will also do the same when some of us retire from this forum. Maybe prayer is not the way to God, maybe technological advance is, maybe its not. One thing is for us, as best said by Einstein "we are like a child in a library, we know the books are in some form of order, but we are not sure who or how".
Click to expand...


Einstein represents the pinnacle of empiricism

Whether empiricism is the best method to perceive god is questionable
 
As a side note, I was re-reading my first post and noticed a point of ambiguity which I've attempted to clarify in that post. I added the following: "we" in the sentence above refers to society, not SciForums or the moderators at SF. "Moderate" in this context has nothing to do with the word "moderator." The definition I'm using is "to tone down/make less intense."

I can see how that would have been unintentionally misleading with my choice of words.

So, the original question is: should we, as a society, restrict (moderate) free speech with respect for religion? Should religion be a taboo subject compared with, say, politics?

In February 2006, the European Parliament had this to say:

Freedom of expression and independence of the press are "universal rights" but ones which must be "exercised with responsibility", "within the limits of the law" and with "respect for religious feelings and beliefs".​
​

Isn't this saying that freedom of speech should be moderated with respect for religion?
 
Last edited:
Chatha said:
Listen, the bottom line is that no one can ever prove or disprove God's actions,
Click to expand...

There are a lot of things that can neither be proved or disproved, gods included. It doesn't follow that they should be believed in because of this.

Chatha said:
Personally I don't dwell over topics like this, but its best to follow the crowd and keep the open mind
Click to expand...

Like sheeple, eh? Your mind isn't all that open if it thinks the best thing to do is follow the crowd and believe just in case.

The real bottom line is, there simply is no reason to believe in fairy tales, regardless of how appealing they are or what authorities you appeal to. People like LightG. go on and on about "ways of knowing" other than empiricism when trying to discover the universe, but the fact remains that empiricism is the only way to explore the universe. Anything else is untestable and should be discarded as such. Postmodernist blabbering and double-speak about ontologies simply doesn't wash except perhaps in the minds of those who are already believers looking for new ways to justify their beliefs that they can't think their way out of.
 
superluminal said:
While I generally agree with this, I have a question. Do you live in a city or a rural town or the country? I think this could make a very big difference in your perception of the strength of customs and traditions.
Click to expand...

I live in New Jersey, about an hour from Manhattan and around a half hour from Trenton. There is a rural area south of here, but where I am it's cars, houses, and strip malls as far as the eye can see.
 
SkinWalker said:
The real bottom line is, there simply is no reason to believe in fairy tales, regardless of how appealing they are or what authorities you appeal to. People like LightG. go on and on about "ways of knowing" other than empiricism when trying to discover the universe, but the fact remains that empiricism is the only way to explore the universe. Anything else is untestable and should be discarded as such. Postmodernist blabbering and double-speak about ontologies simply doesn't wash except perhaps in the minds of those who are already believers looking for new ways to justify their beliefs that they can't think their way out of.
Click to expand...

Einstein came to the point of seeing an indication of god by dint of examination of the cosmic manifestation (the undeniable aspect or order) - this is the extent one can venture to by empricism - further than that requires submission to the processes offerred by god for perceiving him - actually this is not hyped up speculation, it is common sense - if you come to the point of conceiving that the president actually exists and want to come to the stage of directly perceiving him it requires that one becomes submissive to the needs interests and concerns of the president - if you try to perceive him by force you will not get past the first of his 10 000 secretaries and body guards.

Failing this, if you want to advoctet empiricism as the be all and end all of knowledge and evidence you have to be prepared to renounce your mind, since it doesn't officially exist by the codes of empiricism either
;)
 
lg,

Einstein came to the point of seeing an indication of god by dint of examination of the cosmic manifestation (the undeniable aspect or order)
Click to expand...
Not quite. He saw the beauty of the laws of physics and considered it a spiritual experience and compared it to pantheism. He in no way came close to suggesting a god as you perceive a god.
 
Cris said:
lg,

Not quite. He saw the beauty of the laws of physics and considered it a spiritual experience and compared it to pantheism. He in no way came close to suggesting a god as you perceive a god.
Click to expand...

Pantheism is seeing an indication of god

.... at the very least you don't find pantheism defined in the tomes of atheism ....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top