Religion

[waynew]

didn't say you did.  That was my way of pointing out that even though religion does not corner the market on that sort of thing, for some strange reason the only time I personally see it brought up is when referencing religion.

 

Well, religions do market themselves as an authority on morals and kindness, so of course people are going to bring stuff like that up. Although it is important to note that Catholicism isn't really a religion. It's a subset of Christianity.

[waynew]

Nightslyr, you should tell a group of people a joke about something to do with wheelchairs. They'll obviously laugh, either just to please you or because they genuinely find it funnier because somebody in a wheelchair told them the joke. Then wait until they're all laughing and pull a serious face, before saying "See. I knew you were all bigots." Then turn around and go about your business without saying anything else.

[KevinM1]

At least he didn't say some "God does everything for a reason!" crap.  I hate that answer to questions.

 

 

But seriously, I think 99.99999% of people would've been quite flustered.

 

True, but I like getting that look from people.  It's incredibly fun behaving in a way that goes against the stereotype.  My college career - aside from my studies and homework - was an exercise in trying to get a rise out of random people.  It was a damn funny portion of my life.

 

hmm...so if you are saying that your response is not the (stereo)typical response, what is the (stereo)typical response?

 

In regards to the Bible pusher, either a polite "No, thanks" or wordlessly taking the Bible and most likely tossing it away, or otherwise conveniently losing it somewhere (New England isn't the most religious area of the country).

 

For more general things, it's hard to say as it depends on the context of the situation.

[.josh]

didn't say you did.  That was my way of pointing out that even though religion does not corner the market on that sort of thing, for some strange reason the only time I personally see it brought up is when referencing religion.

 

Well, religions do market themselves as an authority on morals and kindness

 

and nobody else does?

[waynew]

didn't say you did.  That was my way of pointing out that even though religion does not corner the market on that sort of thing, for some strange reason the only time I personally see it brought up is when referencing religion.

 

Well, religions do market themselves as an authority on morals and kindness

 

and nobody else does?

 

The answer to that question would not negate my point.

[.josh]

...and your point is...what?  MY point remains the same:

 

didn't say you did.  That was my way of pointing out that even though religion does not corner the market on that sort of thing, for some strange reason the only time I personally see it brought up is when referencing religion.

 

Which the overall point is, if you acknowledge that religion is not the only institution that does this, why even use it as an argument? The only logical reason I can currently come up with is that you do single religion out for these things.  But I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, which is why I'm asking for your point and reasoning for pointing the finger at religion for these things, even though they clearly do not "corner the market" on these things.

[waynew]

So by that logic; we shouldn't comment on one single murderer? Because there are other murderers out there?

[waynew]

My point is that the Catholic church shouldn't be spending so much money on material things. If it's such a moral authority on kindness etc, it should donate. Also note that I said Catholicism isn't a religion, which means that I am not pointing my finger at religion. Instead, I'm addressing a sub-topic that arose in this thread about the Catholic Church™

[smerny]

I think it should be more about faith and the Word rather than religious practices. Catholic churches as well as increasingly more and more protestant churches seem to care more about traditional religious garbage that isn't even in the Bible, or was since abolished by the sacrifice of Christ. People here have said Catholic Churches is basically a denomination of Christianity or whatever... but I believe that the more religious "Christian" churches get, the further away from true Christianity they actually become... and the Catholic churches seem to be the most religious of all.

 

Some of this religious stuff is actually in opposition to the Word, such as priests of Catholic churches practicing celibacy (I believe this religious practice that goes against the Word (which says it's honorable for all to marry, and that it is better to marry than to burn in lust) is part of the reason there have been several Catholic priests who have molested children. There are more things against the Word, such as sprinkling water on babies and believing they are saved, or believing that you need to have water sprinkled on you and that saves you... dumb religious stuff like that. I also think the amount of power the Catholic church believes the Pope or bishops or whatever should have is just sickening, and creepy that they feel they need to dress so gaudy.

[.josh]

So by that logic; we shouldn't comment on one single murderer? Because there are other murderers out there?

 

No.  I agree that "the catholics" should be spending less money on material things and more money on helping out the needy.  But you are answering the proverbial "why is religion bad" argument by stating things that every other institution out there is also 'guilty' of, so at best, your arguments are weak, at worst, you're just being biased. 

 

And btw, yes, I do notice you saying catholicism isn't a religion...several times; I guess we could spend all day arguing back and forth on that, but that doesn't really matter for what either one of us are trying to say.

[proggR]

I'm on my phone so I haven't got to read the whole thread yet. I will tonight.

For me it goes like this:

 

I'm a Christian. I grew up Catholic and around the age of 14 decided it's all a bunch of fairy tales and stories and stopped going to church or believing in anything. Then around 17 or 18 I started thinking more about it more and after a lot of thinking and reasoning and reading I realized that (to me) God creating everything makes more sense. I started thinking of life as a written program. You see code in DNA, you live in the real life physics engine, you learn by building up an internal knowledge/belief database. When was the last time you randomly smashed the keyboard and made a program? It makes more sense to have such an incredibly complicated system come from something intelligent than something random.

With that said. No I'm not religious. I think religion is and always has been about rules. Being a Christian I believe that Jesus was a real person and was God incarnate. While he was on the earth he constantly reprimanded religious leaders for being religious and crooked. Rules are not supposed to be what makes you do or not do something. Is there things God doesn't want done? Yes. Does he give us the choice to do it or not? Obviously. I do dumb stuff all the time and I know I 'sin' on a daily basis. But I know that thats not what's important. Faith is what's important. Religion makes you do things because you think following the rules gets you to heaven. Faith makes you want to do what's right because you know it's right and you WANT to do it.

Anyway. That's my two cents. It's probably not even what I was trying to say. It's too hard to write long thoughtful things on my phone. 

[Daniel0]

You cannot be a Christian without being religious. Christianity is a religion, so if you're Christian you are per definition religious.

[448191]

It makes more sense to have such an incredibly complicated system come from something intelligent than something random.

 

I never got this argument, it's flawed. The more complex something is, the harder it is for "something intelligent" to create it. So how does that make more sense (not that I ever expect religion and "sense" to play nice)?

[proggR]

You cannot be a Christian without being religious. Christianity is a religion, so if you're Christian you are per definition religious.

Wrong. If you're up for a read, read The End of Religion by Bruxy Cavey. Christianity has become a religion, yes. But it was never meant to be religious. It was meant to be a worldview.

It makes more sense to have such an incredibly complicated system come from something intelligent than something random.

 

 

I never got this argument, it's flawed. The more complex something is, the harder it is for "something intelligent" to create it. So how does that make more sense (not that I ever expect religion and "sense" to play nice)?

Because the more complex something is the more impossible it is for mere chance

to create it. It may be harder for a human to create more complex things but a human didn't create the universe.

[smerny]

That depends on how you define religion. In our world of languages and especially the English language, often words are translated sometimes loosely from other languages and often transform over the years... there is an extreme richness and flexibility unlike programming language syntax.

 

By some definitions in modern dictionaries, any belief system practiced by a group of people is considered a religion. This would have to include those who believe that the intense order and complexity of our universe derived by random and unguided events.

 

The way the word translated to religious and religion in the Bible had a slightly different meaning, and in the Bible, the words generally had negative connotations to them.

 

As the Swiss theologian Karl Barth put it, "It is a feeble but defiant, an arrogant but hopeless, attempt to create something which man could do. In religion man bolts and bars himself against revelation by providing a substitute, by taking away in advance the very thing which has to be given by God. It is never the truth. It is a complete fiction, which has not only little but no relation to God."

[cags]

It makes more sense to have such an incredibly complicated system come from something intelligent than something random.

 

I never got this argument, it's flawed. The more complex something is, the harder it is for "something intelligent" to create it. So how does that make more sense (not that I ever expect religion and "sense" to play nice)?

 

Actually I think that's one of the better arguments I've heard. What does the fact that it would make it a harder task have to do with it being more likely that it was a random occurance. If you walk down the street and see a house, which statement is more likely...

a.) that a group of qualified builders built it.

b.) that the constituent parts all happened to randomly come together into the shape of a house?

 

Yes, life is obviously far more complex than a house, but that still doesn't make the arguement flawed. Don't get me wrong I'm not saying I agree with creationism over evoltion, I'm just saying I don't understand/agree with your description of why that argument is flawed.

 

Hmm.. we're getting into the territory of an infinate amount of monkeys typing on a typewriter producing a shakespeare play.

[smerny]

Hmm.. we're getting into the territory of an infinate amount of monkeys typing on a typewriter producing a shakespeare play.

 

ha, yea, try and permute that

[proggR]

I like that smerny.

I've always liked CS Lewis for is proofs of God's existance as well.

[nrg_alpha]

It makes more sense to have such an incredibly complicated system come from something intelligent than something random.

 

I never got this argument, it's flawed. The more complex something is, the harder it is for "something intelligent" to create it. So how does that make more sense (not that I ever expect religion and "sense" to play nice)?

 

Actually I think that's one of the better arguments I've heard. What does the fact that it would make it a harder task have to do with it being more likely that it was a random occurance. If you walk down the street and see a house, which statement is more likely...

a.) that a group of qualified builders built it.

b.) that the constituent parts all happened to randomly come together into the shape of a house?

 

Yes, life is obviously far more complex than a house, but that still doesn't make the arguement flawed. Don't get me wrong I'm not saying I agree with creationism over evoltion, I'm just saying I don't understand/agree with your description of why that argument is flawed.

 

Hmm.. we're getting into the territory of an infinate amount of monkeys typing on a typewriter producing a shakespeare play.

 

I hate taking sides (especially in religious discussions), but I concur with cags..

 

If (and it's a big if depending on who you talk to) there is in fact some 'celestial mastermind' powering creation (a.k.a God?), one could argue that this deity possibly trancends all knowledge and thus knows everything. End result being that this deity could conceive creations of degrees of complexity so extreme as to be out of 'understandable reach' to *anything other than itself.

 

*anything in this context represents any intelligent life forms across the universe?.

[smerny]

nrg, basically that is sort of like if we ever had the ability to create simulation within a computer that had AI's with near human reasoning capabilities... they would not be able to figure out how their world was created beyond whatever hints or messages we coded into their virtual world... whatever laws of physics or other 'scientific' laws they discovered would only mean that they are reading into and discovering the application which came from the mind of who created the code.

[Daniel0]

You cannot be a Christian without being religious. Christianity is a religion, so if you're Christian you are per definition religious.

Wrong. If you're up for a read, read The End of Religion by Bruxy Cavey. Christianity has become a religion, yes. But it was never meant to be religious. It was meant to be a worldview.

 

What it was meant to be by Jesus is irrelevant. You said yourself that it has become a religion, so anyone who identifies themselves as Christians are needlessly also identifying themselves as being religious. What an author of one book thinks cannot redefine that Christianity is universally considered a religion throughout the entire world.

 

Hmm.. we're getting into the territory of an infinate amount of monkeys typing on a typewriter producing a shakespeare play.

 

Well, a monkey typing on a typewriter will produce a Shakespeare play with infinite time. The problem is just that you cannot have infinite time, and even for ridiculously large amounts of times, the probability is still low. This is called the "infinite monkey theorem".

 

Actually I think that's one of the better arguments I've heard. What does the fact that it would make it a harder task have to do with it being more likely that it was a random occurance. If you walk down the street and see a house, which statement is more likely...

a.) that a group of qualified builders built it.

b.) that the constituent parts all happened to randomly come together into the shape of a house?

 

Yes, life is obviously far more complex than a house, but that still doesn't make the arguement flawed. Don't get me wrong I'm not saying I agree with creationism over evoltion, I'm just saying I don't understand/agree with your description of why that argument is flawed.

 

1) Evolution does not deal with the origin of life, it only deals with what happens when life exists.

2) Evolution is not based on randomness, but on natural selection and sexual selection.

 

Natural selection is essentially "survival of the fittest", i.e. whomever is most fit to live in a particular environment will have better chances of survival and thus better chances of giving these traits to the next generation.

 

Sexual selection is based on being selected for reproductive activities based on sexual preferences.

 

Take a peacock for instance. They've got a fancy looking tail, and so do the peahen think. Therefore, having a larger, more beautiful tail means better chances of reproduction (this is an example of sexual selection) because the peahens will think you're hot. It's just a shame that having a large tail makes you less agile and less able to flee from predators.

 

There is also some sort of fish whose name I don't remember. Anyways, the female fish think that particular kinds of marks on the male fish's fins look really hot. If you have cancer, these marks will become larger (and more beautiful in the eyes of the female fish). It's just a shame that cancer kills you and those who have greater chances of getting cancer get to pass on their genes.

 

There are numerous examples of non-sensible sexual preferences in nature. This would be a rather unintelligent design.

[nrg_alpha]

nrg, basically that is sort of like if we ever had the ability to create simulation within a computer that had AI's with near human reasoning capabilities... they would not be able to figure out how their world was created beyond whatever hints or messages we coded into their virtual world... whatever laws of physics or other 'scientific' laws they discovered would only mean that they are reading into and discovering the application which came from the mind of who created the code.

 

I suppose that's one way someone could look at it.

 

Either way, whatever is, is (be this all from randomness or from some deity). One thing's certain.. we have no control over the matter. I for one have my beliefs and don't try to bust me head over it. Life is too short.. I have much PHP (and programming in general) to learn before I die. Code on, brothers and sisters, code on!

[cags]

2) Evolution is not based on randomness, but on natural selection and sexual selection.

 

I respectfully disagree that they are mutually exclusive. Natural selection is a process whereby the 'creature' most able to cope with it's environment is the most likely to survive. Evolution is the introduction of genetic mutation into the natural selection process. Natural selection by itself cannot lead to true evolution without this genetic mutation, this genetic mutation must be at least partly random in nature (unless of course you subscribe to the belief that god wanted it to happen).

[.josh]

Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.

 

[448191]

Actually I think that's one of the better arguments I've heard. What does the fact that it would make it a harder task have to do with it being more likely that it was a random occurance. If you walk down the street and see a house, which statement is more likely...

a.) that a group of qualified builders built it.

b.) that the constituent parts all happened to randomly come together into the shape of a house?

 

Yes, life is obviously far more complex than a house, but that still doesn't make the arguement flawed.

 

It is more likely a group of qualified builders build it because it is a house. Not because it is something complex. More intelligence is needed to consciously create something more complex. That's why an ape can't build a house, but a human can. The amount of intelligence needed to consciously manipulate every atom in the universe is beyond measure.