the slow death of religion
- Thread starter youngbiologist
- Start date
no but you could still answer the first one.
well.. u asked
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by spuriousmonkey
which special questions does religion raise then that aren't raised outside religion?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Who created universe..? - outside religion, atheists in particular, cannot raise this question.. ofcourse they don't trust creation theory. The question is peculiar to religion, in its question it covers (i) universe is created , (ii) someone did that.. who is it? science too cannot assume these without solid proof /evidence.
It is matter of faith. If faith is there, the cause of universe is logically attributed to god.. faith is the key to believe this or not.
If atheists raise that question of universe the question would be something like this "How universe came into existence?", if at all they ask ! Did they find their answer. Did u?
I'm open to any reasonable answer.
it is basically the same question.
how did the universe come into existence:
theist: god created it
atheist: natural event.
so maybe this was not such a good example of a special question that is only asked in religion. You just reformulated the question so that it appears to be different, by putting the answer in the question. The answer being that it was a 'who' and not a 'what' that created the universe
how did the universe come into existence:
theist: god created it
atheist: natural event.
so maybe this was not such a good example of a special question that is only asked in religion. You just reformulated the question so that it appears to be different, by putting the answer in the question. The answer being that it was a 'who' and not a 'what' that created the universe
natural event.. easy way out.. for everything.
"Universe works like precision watch. Would like to meet the watchmaker" something like that was commented by one of the best theoritical physicist (name need not be mentioned) of last century. May be he didn't know that is also a natural event..
does it make any difference ? anyway u r not goin to agree with 'what' created universe. as u told, it is a natural evernt for u. u have no intention to find out the cause.. it is not yr responsibility...u would like to say! what else u have to offer ?
for this reason i would like to get away from atheism.
It is quite possible for u to reformulate any question i list out in yr own terms and claim that it is also could be asked outside religion (however ridiculus, misleading it would appear in that new format) ... isn't it..
and god isn't a easy way out? By stating that event is a natural one is actually the difficult way out, because then you are forced to really look into the matter and find answers. If you say it was god and he acts in mysterious way which we not always understand the urge to seek out any further investigation will wither away.
it was just a man who said this. It doesn't have any intrinsic value on its own. Religious people are usually a sucker for authority, since it is build in into the fabric of religion. Anyway something can work like a precision watch without a clockmaker. Ever heard of the blind watchmaker?
not really. With this one it is possible with other ones it isn't. A typical religion only question could have been:
Do animals have souls.
how many atheists tried to probe...those who probed (majority of them were evidently having faith in god) consequently formulated science were not at all hindered by their belief.
i've no idea about what u r trying to say except that u r now trying to be more authoritative.
various religions have various answers. btw, is it not interesting to hear this question. according to u this question could not be raised outside religion.. funny..Why not atheists (faithful believers of C.Darwin, me too to some extent) ask this question. If man is an animal and has soul how come other animals could be exception!
He is saying you are:
1. Making an argument from questionable authority, which is a logical fallacy.
2. Making an argument from design which had been repeatedly dismissed and disproven.
Please do some research then come back to the boards with a little knowledge.
1. Questionable authority ? - the man who formulated General Theory of Relavity and Special Theory of Relativity ? because he is not an atheist ?
2. argument - design - dismmised - disproven : what the hell r u talking about.
Ofcourse, u have a little knowledge.. err.. little knowledge.
k, going back to the original points about how if there is no fear of death then religion would die off.....
not necessarily......a big part of at least christianity involves life now.....when you decide to follow Jesus your life does change dramatically...your priorities, conversations, friends, activities, etc, all change and you become a new person......religion affects the whole of your life, not just when you die.....its not just some "cosmic insurance policy" ~Phil Conn its about living a godly lifestyle and doing the right thing. Granted it would become a tiny fraction of the population, but it wouldnt die out
not necessarily......a big part of at least christianity involves life now.....when you decide to follow Jesus your life does change dramatically...your priorities, conversations, friends, activities, etc, all change and you become a new person......religion affects the whole of your life, not just when you die.....its not just some "cosmic insurance policy" ~Phil Conn its about living a godly lifestyle and doing the right thing. Granted it would become a tiny fraction of the population, but it wouldnt die out
Uh, you dont get it. The argument is questionable because you take the quote to imply eistein believed in a creator. As Cris has said, eistein was an atheist. Furthermore, any argument from authority is a weak debate device especially in areas as philosophical as the existance of god.
I am not gonna do a google search for you. It is easy. Look up the arguments for and against.
I have little knowledge, true. But perhaps a little more than you in this case.
new life,
I would agree there is a good probability that some would always hold out and I think that reflects the diverse nature of human thinking. However, at one time the Sun was worshipped as a god, how many now see that as a meaningful religion? There is likely to be a point where the support for a belief becomes so small that it can be effectively ignored for all practical purposes.
So in a real practical sense moral secular lifestyles are indistinguishable from a Christian lifestyle. When the issue of death is removed then the Christian beliefs have no meaning. If you never die then you will never meet your god or experience hell or heaven, in which case why be religious?
I would agree there is a good probability that some would always hold out and I think that reflects the diverse nature of human thinking. However, at one time the Sun was worshipped as a god, how many now see that as a meaningful religion? There is likely to be a point where the support for a belief becomes so small that it can be effectively ignored for all practical purposes.
Agreed, but unless there is a real benefit to holding a belief then that belief will at some point become irrelevant. For example I will assert that my lifestyle is as good and as moral as any Christian, if not an even higher standard. I work alongside Christians and those of other religions. For all practical purposes religion is transparent and is never raised in every day conversations. Now, say 4000 years from now, if I am told that because I don't believe in Jesus that I will go to hell then what would that mean if no human had died for the past 4000 years?
So in a real practical sense moral secular lifestyles are indistinguishable from a Christian lifestyle. When the issue of death is removed then the Christian beliefs have no meaning. If you never die then you will never meet your god or experience hell or heaven, in which case why be religious?
youngbiologist
Registered Senior Member
exactly
the greatest reason we have religion, is cause at some point in time we die. This strang phenominon had to be explained back when we were just creating culture, so obviously we say that person is going somewhere else. If purple aliens started abducting people randomly, and it continued for several hundred years and there was no way to stop it, we would naturally rationalize it. "Getting abducted is just part of gods great plans, and the abductor obviously is now in heaven with the creator." When anything horrible occurs that we have no control over, we immediately mark it as part of gods great design, and rationalize it to make it less scary. "Death isn't the end, death is the beginning" That kind of illogical stuff. Reality is too scary for 99% of the world population to accept.
Think, what happened during the black plague? People got religious, BIG TIME. Big time as in whipping themselves to appease their gods, etc, etc. The less often death occurs, the less humanity will require religion and the associated "happy thoughts".
the greatest reason we have religion, is cause at some point in time we die. This strang phenominon had to be explained back when we were just creating culture, so obviously we say that person is going somewhere else. If purple aliens started abducting people randomly, and it continued for several hundred years and there was no way to stop it, we would naturally rationalize it. "Getting abducted is just part of gods great plans, and the abductor obviously is now in heaven with the creator." When anything horrible occurs that we have no control over, we immediately mark it as part of gods great design, and rationalize it to make it less scary. "Death isn't the end, death is the beginning" That kind of illogical stuff. Reality is too scary for 99% of the world population to accept.
Think, what happened during the black plague? People got religious, BIG TIME. Big time as in whipping themselves to appease their gods, etc, etc. The less often death occurs, the less humanity will require religion and the associated "happy thoughts".
Cris,
Thanx for pointing out Einstein is an atheist.
Einstein's view of God too is not a classical / conventional one.
"In Jesuit point of view I'm an atheist" - probably this is only time he is talking about being an atheist. On several occasions he was referring to God not as proper atheist and in fact sounded theist.
God does not play dice. (On many occasions.)
God may be subtle, but he isn't plain mean.
Before God we are all equally wise - and equally foolish.
My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind.
Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.
There are only two ways to live your life. One is as though nothing is a miracle. The other is as though everything is a miracle.
In late forties he seemed to have his own version of God ! When answering to Rabbi Herbert Goldstein, who cabled him the question "Do You believe in God ?" . Einstein's return message was :
"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings"
In anycase, i think i have to leave Einstein alone. (anyway it is interesting to know about his view of God)
__________________________________________
Captain,
sorry for mutually shooting below the belt. I withdraw the controversial argument (as u would like to call paley's defeated, dismissed device of debate - argument from design).
__________________________________________
Spuriousmonkey,
u have so many guys, like Richard Dawkins, but i've to go with the discussion alone, it seems, Einstein could not be referred as theist and authority. I withdraw Einstein paragraph considering propriety of arugument. Still my other points stand.
Thanx for pointing out Einstein is an atheist.
Einstein's view of God too is not a classical / conventional one.
"In Jesuit point of view I'm an atheist" - probably this is only time he is talking about being an atheist. On several occasions he was referring to God not as proper atheist and in fact sounded theist.
God does not play dice. (On many occasions.)
God may be subtle, but he isn't plain mean.
Before God we are all equally wise - and equally foolish.
My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind.
Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.
There are only two ways to live your life. One is as though nothing is a miracle. The other is as though everything is a miracle.
In late forties he seemed to have his own version of God ! When answering to Rabbi Herbert Goldstein, who cabled him the question "Do You believe in God ?" . Einstein's return message was :
"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings"
In anycase, i think i have to leave Einstein alone. (anyway it is interesting to know about his view of God)
__________________________________________
Captain,
sorry for mutually shooting below the belt.
I withdraw the controversial argument (as u would like to call paley's defeated, dismissed device of debate - argument from design). __________________________________________
Spuriousmonkey,
u have so many guys, like Richard Dawkins, but i've to go with the discussion alone, it seems, Einstein could not be referred as theist and authority. I withdraw Einstein paragraph considering propriety of arugument. Still my other points stand.
ConsequentAtheist
Registered Senior Member
I've always liked that one. I often wondered if Einstein might not have been having a bit a fun by referencing an excommunicated Jew in his response to the good rabbi.
By the way, the referenced book by Goodenough is, in my opinion, rather exceptional.
everneo:
Another question that religion deals with that science gives little attention is: Free Will.
Religion is not dying. Marx, Lennin, and Mao said that religion was dead. Now they are dead and their statues are rubble yet religion continues to florish. The uneducated, the poor, the unfortunate people of the world will always flock to religion because it gives their lives meaning.
What does athieism have to offer those people?
Another question that religion deals with that science gives little attention is: Free Will.
Religion is not dying. Marx, Lennin, and Mao said that religion was dead. Now they are dead and their statues are rubble yet religion continues to florish. The uneducated, the poor, the unfortunate people of the world will always flock to religion because it gives their lives meaning.
What does athieism have to offer those people?
Originally posted by spookz
it is much more fun watching you puffing yourself up like a pigeon trying to pick up a mate on a shit covered rooftop!
flap those wings, dog! you might get lucky!
Haha, way to go Spookz, that'll make people think twice about asking others to back up their claims! Score one for ignorance!
i've heard you mention this a buncha times cris... how would this work? how can you possibly create something where you can transfer your intelligence? i get the image of those celebrity heads in glass cases from futurama...