Hi

[elunico13]

Hi, I am in an awkward situation. I have had my fill of religion and wish to, for want of a better term, 'leave Christianity.' I have lost my faith but am finding that last step of 'dechristianizing'(is that a word?) to be difficult. I have still got a bible on my bookcase and a statue of jesus on my locker. Why? I don't know what to do with them. I hope you all don't think i'm a jerk! lol

Bienvenidos!
Why do you want to leave Christianity?

[Minimalist]

Because he has figured out that its bullshit.

[Jesus Pipes]

Right, which I choose to use higher power instead of God, because most people will automatically connect what I say to the Christian God.

I'm not sure what you mean here - what I said applies to the Christian god, higher powers, angels, ghosts, goblins, etc. No evidence against something is not a reason to believe it. Your justification seems to be mainly a pragmatic one, which I can understand. In certain circumstances, belief in something unsubstantiated may be beneficial, such as a someone having confidence in a job interview even though they're up against a lot of equally qualified competition and statistically unlikely to get the job.

Most atheists believe in the big bang, but it can't be proven; just a theory. << look up the scientific definition of 'theory'

I think grouping acceptance of the big bang by belief or lack of belief in a god is not quite as meaningful as grouping it by education level / field of expertise. From what I understand, most people educated in the areas of cosmology / astronomy / astrophysics accept the big bang because their findings and predictions are consistent with it - regardless of whether they're theistic / deistic / atheistic.

As for "just a theory", although the following quotation is being used in the context of evolution, it's applicable here:

In scientific terms, "theory" does not mean "guess" or "hunch" as it does in everyday usage. Scientific theories are explanations of natural phenomena built up logically from testable observations and hypotheses. (National Research Council. "Appendix: Frequently Asked Questions." Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, Second Edition. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 1999. 1. Print.)

You can't disprove or prove what happened in the beginning so why is it so idiotic to just believe in something that makes sense to you?

You can't prove or disprove something therefore it's fair game to just make something up that you like? Is that what you're suggesting? I don't think that sounds like a very good idea. How about reserving judgement until finding some evidence? If no evidence surfaces all that's needed is to acknowledge that we don't know. Your position, while technically not being an argument from ignorance is close to it.

I'll just add that I'm reasonably certain that at least some things about the big bang are known. What caused the big bang, what happened before it (if there can be a 'before' without time as we know it) - these are the things that aren't known because conventional physics don't apply in these scenarios.

Also, I don't think it's "idiotic", I just think it's an ignorant sentiment that comes from poor reasoning which can be remedied by looking at the flaws in people's arguments used to reach such conclusions.

Believing in Karma isn't such a bad thing either. If it's keeping you from being a shitty person to others, then I think it benefits society.

Karma can also serve as a justification for suffering. If person X is having a rough time and we believe in karma, I think we're more likely to treat their hard times as their own fault. Clearly if person X has fallen on hard times they must have done something wrong to deserve it. This is known 'blaming the victim' - a judgement is passed on this person's misfortunes before we even know the circumstances. If we lived in a society where people believed that everyone deserved what they got, do you think that would result in a more caring, empathetic attitude toward its members? Still, I acknowledge the idea of karma can be formulated with enough caveats to adequately apply to reality as we perceive it - just like with a religious belief. Oh, what, Adam & Eve didn't really exist? Well, that was a metaphor to illustrate humanities sinful ways (it's also curious that we should inherit original sin from a metaphorical couple, but I digress). Likewise, one can formulate karma as balancing out only after death, outside of perception or awareness, being retribution from past lives, etc.

But that isn't even my real problem with such ideas. My actual problem is that if decisions about what to believe are made from such poor arguments as "you can't disprove it, therefore it's true" (which I will emphasise I realise you're not saying) that's going to lead to larger societal problems. Imagine that attitude applied to global warming, AIDs, racism, etc. Good reasoning skills are critical to making informed decisions. I think it's a mistake to assume people's poor reasoning in one area will not spill over into another.

Finally, if someone spots any errors in my brief science mentions please inform me - it's not an area I'm entirely familiar with.

Science was my subject in school, but it's been a bit so I have forgotten much of what I learned and could use a refresher. The majority of the scientific community believes in the big bang for the creation of the universe, because you can measure how the universe is expanding. There may be other measurable reasons why, I just don't remember. Same with evolution; I don't know if any scientist would tell you that macro evolution does not exist, but there are missing links all over the place. I do believe in both of these by the way.

All I am trying to say is religion gets a bad name because people project their own prejudices in the name of religion. Religion isn't evil, it's evil people doing evil acts and saying evil things justifying it with their religion. I truly believe if religion didn't exist evil people would be justifying evil acts through some other made up reason.

Religion (spirituality) should be a personal relationship between you and God. Religion isn't the most logical belief, but when you can't explain the unexplainable sometimes it just makes the most sense for people to believe that someone more than them designed it that way.

I won't tell the old lady sitting alone at her home that the only think keeping her company doesn't exist. If she preaches hate about it, I will tell her all the ways in which she is incorrect.

[Brian37]

Somebody on another board in response to an introduction posted the funniest photoshop pic.

It was of the first Die Hard movie where John Mclean was leaning out the broken window where he had just thrown the dead bad guy onto the cop car. The caption repeated the line from the movie "Welcome to the party pal!"

Welcome to the party pal.

[Tempus]

All I am trying to say is religion gets a bad name because people project their own prejudices in the name of religion. Religion isn't evil, it's evil people doing evil acts and saying evil things justifying it with their religion. I truly believe if religion didn't exist evil people would be justifying evil acts through some other made up reason.

I agree, in sense. It's similar to "guns don't kill people, people kill people", which I agree with. This doesn't mean religion should be immune to criticism. You can apply this argument to anything: Communism isn't evil, it's evil people doing evil acts and saying evil things justifying it with their communism. I truly believe if communism didn't exist evil people would be justifying evil acts through some other made up reason.

Well yeah, of course they would. Once more, this doesn't mean we shouldn't criticise the poor aspects of communism and religion. And not just the surface stuff like Person X believing their god wants them to donate to charity, but the implications of their poor reasoning. What if Person X truly believed their god wanted them to outlaw gay marriage? Or restrict Asian people's right to vote? Clearly if the same reasoning that convinced them to enhance happiness ("you can't disprove it") also applies to the case for causing suffering we have a problem. The fact that it lead Person X to donate to charity in this specific case isn't the point, the point is that they were lead there by poor reasoning.

Religion isn't the most logical belief, but when you can't explain the unexplainable sometimes it just makes the most sense for people to believe that someone more than them designed it that way.

It isn't logical at all. What makes the most sense is to reserve your judgement until there's a reason to believe something. To suggest you can explain something you've just called unexplainable is basically saying "I can't explain it... therefore I can explain it." It's fine to make educated guesses at what something might be (if no one ever ventured forth with hypotheses progress would slow right down) but these are guesses which should be acknowledged as such and be willingly relinquished when contradicted by the facts. It's also worth noting that one needn't believe in their own guess.

I won't tell the old lady sitting alone at her home that the only think keeping her company doesn't exist. If she preaches hate about it, I will tell her all the ways in which she is incorrect.

This is irrelevant.

If that old lady comes on a public forum, whether online or otherwise, claiming that "you can't disapprove [claim Y], therefore it's justified to believe in it" I will inform her she's incorrect. I don't go door knocking in old folks homes or wandering around cancer wards to inform people that their reasons for believing what they do are flawed. Nonetheless, having cancer or being old does not make you immune to criticism in the public arena which is where everyone on this forum currently resides.

As it stands this is really an emotional appeal which seems to amount to "if people believe something that's incorrect we shouldn't tell them if it will hurt their feelings, provided the belief doesn't harm anyone" - since we weren't talking about old ladies alone in their homes to begin with does this mean it's supposed to somehow apply to this scenario? Are we supposed to avoid informing people on this forum their beliefs are based on poor reasoning simply because they may get upset and the belief is innocuous? That, to me, is a contemptible view. It's tantamount to saying "you're too fragile to handle reality." Also, to reiterate the point I made in my previous post:

But that isn't even my real problem with such ideas. My actual problem is that if decisions about what to believe are made from such poor arguments as "you can't disprove it, therefore it's true" (which I will emphasise I realise you're not saying) that's going to lead to larger societal problems. Imagine that attitude applied to global warming, AIDs, racism, etc. Good reasoning skills are critical to making informed decisions. I think it's a mistake to assume people's poor reasoning in one area will not spill over into another.

It just occurred to me that my posts may read like I sound angry or confrontational - they're not supposed to, haha.

[Minimalist]

but when you can't explain the unexplainable sometimes it just makes the most sense for people to believe that someone more than them designed it that way.

Why does it make more sense than saying "I don't know?"