I love religion!

[lukec]

There’s also recent research that I need to look into that suggests that religious belief and experience could also be biological (certain centres in the brain are more active in the very religious). I can’t comment on this yet, but it will be a new thing for me to get into soon. If it is biological, then it’s a bit inescapable.

I think I read something on what you mean- it seems to me to fit very well with the idea that social evolution happened alongside biological evolution of the human brain. Idea being that as the religion "meme" was spreading it was probably upped the survival rate of communities in that groups which are "related" are more likely to aid each other. This comes back to the idea of altruism (or gene selfishness) which is actually helping others which have your gene survive. So groups with common belief systems may have tended to propagate better than those without. So perhaps that area of the brain which promotes or is involved with "being religious" became more potent over the generations since and redoubled the rate at which the religion "meme" spread. If this is the case, then religion should be something we can indeed "get away from" in that the meme is not biological- it's more like a program which is reaaally good at "occupying" a certain part of our brain hardware.

Also @ Zen Badger- I think that Buddhism actually does qualify as a religion, at least semantically. Supreme being not necessary.

[Zen Badger]

Also @ Zen Badger- I think that Buddhism actually does qualify as a religion, at least semantically. Supreme being not necessary.

In a broad sense it is practised like a religion but should be viewed more as a way

of living your life well.

If buddhism is a religion then the case could be made that Atheism is also a religion.



I wonder if we'll be able to claim tax exempt status then??

[lukec]

Let's go for it, a new tax is being brought in for BC and I'm not looking forward to it.

[Zen Badger]

First thing you’ve said that is interesting. You’re also wrong. Religion is an idea, a set of beliefs, a philosophy; it is not a thing that can do wrong in itself. People do bad things because they choose to do so – if they justify this due to religion, or their upbringing (religious or not), or anything else, it is them that is to blame, not the idea. Again, natural selection, via eugenics, did not cause the holocaust, regardless of whether someone claimed this to justify it.

Yes, and where do those beliefs live?

In people,no where else.

Take away the people and there is no religion.

Religion was created by people who use it to control other people.

And it is used as the ultimate get out of jail card, I did it in the name of God so it is ok.

And it is used repeatedly as an excuse not to think.

So yes I laugh at religion.

Yes I know, it is a strange thing to find on an atheist forum.

Someone who doesn't take religion seriously.

[Lilith_86]

Each ejaculation as a result of masturbation ends a potential 1,000,000 lives. All life is precious and should be valued, hence why abortion is a controversial issue. Deliberate masturbation, as opposed to a wet dream which cannot be helped, is denying those potential lives of a chance to live. When does life begin? When does a cell turn into a human, and when does it have the right to life?
Would you kill a 6 month old foetus?

I don't really think that the killing of a 6 month old foetus should have been used as a rhetorical question. The answer would depend on too many factors, and depending on what the situation and circumstances were, my personal answer would be 'yes.. i would kill a 6 month old foetus'.

I understand your point, but don't agree with the example used.

[Tiberius]

Suffice to say that people of all religions believe in a great big Santa Claus in the sky.

No they don't. Religion =/= Theism. To be technically accurate, no people of religions believe in a great big Santa Claus in the sky; they believe in some form of a deity who exists non-temporally (whereas Santa is a magical human from the North Pole).

A large majority take the Bible literally, except for the bits that are metaphorical(how this distinction is arrived at is a mystery).

A large majority do not take the Bible literally. Christians make up less than a third of the global population (2.1 billion according to: http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html ). Most of these (approx 50%) are Catholic, who take very little of the Bible as literal. Indeed, the Roman Catholic church has been one of the few churches to actively support the Theory of Evolution and the Theory of the Big Bang as the best explanations of how everything came to be.

And BTW Buddhisam is not a religion as it does not subscribe to the idea of a supreme being.

The definition of a religion is not the same as the definition of theism. Religions are collections of beliefs and philosophical ideas that are used to help an adherent find meaning in their life's experiences. This meaning can come from belief in some sort of God, but, like Buddhism, it can also come from some sort of "ultimate truth".

If buddhism is a religion then the case could be made that Atheism is also a religion.

No, since atheism doesn't contain a collection of beliefs that lead an atheist to some sort of meaning, nor does it contain any "ultimate truths". Atheism is a disbelief, a "rejection" of a belief. Disbelieving in X does not mean you automatically believe in ¬X (or Y, or Z, etc).

[Zen Badger]

No they don't. Religion =/= Theism. To be technically accurate, no people of religions believe in a great big Santa Claus in the sky; they believe in some form of a deity who exists non-temporally (whereas Santa is a magical human from the North Pole).

Please demonstrate the difference Between the two, they both give you presents if you've been good and they both live in a place you can't get to.

A large majority take the Bible literally, except for the bits that are metaphorical(how this distinction is arrived at is a mystery).

A large majority do not take the Bible literally. Christians make up less than a third of the global population (2.1 billion according to: http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html ). Most of these (approx 50%) are Catholic, who take very little of the Bible as literal. Indeed, the Roman Catholic church has been one of the few churches to actively support the Theory of Evolution and the Theory of the Big Bang as the best explanations of how everything came to be.

Sorry, mistake on my part, I meant to refer to fundamentalists.
[quote]
And BTW Buddhisam is not a religion as it does not subscribe to the idea of a supreme being.

The definition of a religion is not the same as the definition of theism. Religions are collections of beliefs and philosophical ideas that are used to help an adherent find meaning in their life's experiences. This meaning can come from belief in some sort of God, but, like Buddhism, it can also come from some sort of "ultimate truth".

I have made a similar point in a later post.

If buddhism is a religion then the case could be made that Atheism is also a religion.

No, since atheism doesn't contain a collection of beliefs that lead an atheist to some sort of meaning, nor does it contain any "ultimate truths". Atheism is a disbelief, a "rejection" of a belief. Disbelieving in X does not mean you automatically believe in ¬X (or Y, or Z, etc).

But as an atheist/agnostic I do believe that there is a meaning.

Namely that the point of Life is to be.

And the absence of a personal God can be treated as an "ultimate truth"

[Tiberius]

If your atheism denotes that "there is no god" is an absolute and "ultimate" truth, and that you get some form of meaning from that, then you are being religious.

I don't see how you can be agnostic and claim some ultimate truth about the existence of God though. The very point of being agnostic is to claim this knowledge is unknown or unknowable. If something is a truth, it is known by definition...

[LukeMC]

Each ejaculation as a result of masturbation ends a potential 1,000,000 lives. All life is precious and should be valued, hence why abortion is a controversial issue. Deliberate masturbation, as opposed to a wet dream which cannot be helped, is denying those potential lives of a chance to live.

Not getting laid has the same effect. I'm sure sperm cells only have a finite lifetime and will eventually die or be ejected naturally. You've heard it here first guys: poor skills with the ladies leads to the end of a potentally innumerable amount of lives. It's a sin to fuck and it's a sin to be lame. You can't win.

At least if you ejaculate on purpose, you're putting those doomed sperm cells to SOME use before they meet their demise.

[Zagreus]

I'm very annoyed. Accidentally hit refresh and lost my response.

I’ve done that many times too! Really frustrating. That’s why all mine on here, as they’ve been longer posts, have been done on word first.

No, I didn’t mean religious convictions, I meant just generally. I might have not been clear here, so I apologise. However, I will say that neither of us are clear of these shackles, and to give you a personal example, I am in England, which is technically a Christian country. I was educated in a state school, which all used to be run by the church. I had to do RE at school, 60% of which had to be Christian. Many people that I studied at school, and after, were religious, so their views have indirectly affected my learning. Some of the laws in my country are based on religious ideas; sanctity of life is the basis of our laws on euthanasia and abortion, for example. Tony Blair was a Christian, who after resigning became a Catholic, so someone who was religious was deciding laws and governing my country. Do you see? It’s inescapable, and I find it interesting.

Thanks for the elaboration on your point, I see exactly where you're coming from now. I too am in England and grew up singing hymns in primary school. My contention is that we could potentially as a society break from these influences as we become more secular as a whole. To make such a claim would be bold of me, but given sufficient time I'm sure it is in some way achievable. You seem only to be concered with our present day ties though, in which case I'm in full agreement with you.

I agree with you here. To be honest, I look at religion from a quite detached stance; as I said, I was raised an atheist. I don’t feel the need to break free from religion, I kind of observe it. Possibly our society will become more secular over time, but it’s not something I personally feel I want to push for. Stopping people belligerently ignoring facts would be an ideal, but if people want to believe in a deity of some sort, they can do so if they wish.

I think in the UK we are on our way to being more secular. Most of the kids I taught in state secondary schools were atheist or agnostic, and that’s partly due to their upbringings, so eventually this will become more common. As a country we are already, to an extent, separating religion and state, which is probably a good thing. Countries like the States or Iran, for example, could benefit from this, but here we’re getting into politics and sociology, which isn’t my strong point.

There’s also recent research that I need to look into that suggests that religious belief and experience could also be biological (certain centres in the brain are more active in the very religious). I can’t comment on this yet, but it will be a new thing for me to get into soon. If it is biological, then it’s a bit inescapable.

Such findings would be very profound. I'd be interested in the reactions of the religious. "We has better brains than u stupid atheists =p"

---

As I said, it’s something I’m going to look into soon. The guy that’s been suggested to me is Andrew Newburg M.D, who seems to be doing research on this subject. I was recommended one of his books, which I got for xmas, that’s called ‘Why God Won’t Go Away.’ If it does come down to being a biological phenomena, that’s going to cause a lot of controversy. Both sides will be claiming their brains are better!

Having said that, it is mostly religious history that interests me, as I think it has had an overwhelming impact on the development of our species. How can you not love something like that?!?

Ah, how the Dark Ages fill me with glee...

Haha! Good point. I more meant I love reading and learning about it. The Dark Ages is an interesting period of history though.

I’m also saying there is more to religion than is necessarily apparent to someone who dismisses the ideas as superstitions. I don’t want to escape it, I want to understand it. Tibetan Buddhist monks who spend years battling demons on the astral plane are not just idiots, they are, I think, exploring parts of the mind that western science does not know about yet. If they stopped doing this, we would lose that information. If you’re interested in this line of conversation I can go on, but that’s enough to illustrate my point for now.

You'll receive a PM shortly.

Read it. I’ll try to reply by end of the week.

2) People on the whole are not of the same intellectual capacity, but this does not lead to fundamentalism. I don’t think this is what you are saying, but I wanted to clarify anyway – people of less intelligence are not necessarily to be more fundamentalist in their beliefs. There are some very intelligent fundamentalists, and no doubt some very thick atheists.

I don't think I implied such. There are, however, a number of correlation studies regarding religiousity and IQ, religiosity and acceptance of science, etc. Of course, the findings wouldn't imply an absolute link between the two factors, and I agree that intellect and fundamentalism don't necessarily share a causal link.

---

I don’t think you implied that either, but your comment made me think of it. I would say possibly education, or lack of it, would also be a big part of it, rather than simply being to do with IQ. An interesting area of study no doubt.

Why people take on fundamentalist view is a complex issue, and one that I’m developing an interest in. On the other forum I participate on I have read whole threads where people are belligerently ignoring what is being said and persisting in saying that there is no evidence for evolution. Why do people do this? Is it psychological? It’s not the religious ideas that are to blame, as they are simply ideas, it is the people involved. Why do some people illogically (in my opinion) also act in a racist or homophobic manner?

If you haven't taken a degree in psychology yet, please do so immediately. We need you on the team

I find it interesting too, but only so much as to invoke speculation. It would be interesting to see more research findings and personal testimonies regarding these situations.

No, I haven’t. My degree was in philosophy, which is probably why I view religion in the way that I do. I don’t know a great deal about psychology, but again, it’s something I’d like to learn about.

Too true. What better way to break fundamentalist attitudes than to show respect and knowledge about their ideas, but to show them they are wrong and that their views are not those within their faith?

Fundamentalists can be quite stubborn. Perhaps this characteristic is how they got where they are. I recently made a new friend who turned out to be a Mormon fundamentalist. After much debate, she openly admitted that if she was presented all of the available evidence right in front of her eyes she still wouldn't accept it. To her "it doesn't make sense" that "we came from apes" and she can't come to grips with it. She also believes that homosexuality is "unnatural" and cannot cognitively process the fact that it occurs in nature and comes about by natural causes and hence is natural. The very concept of what is "natural" doesn't seem to click in her mind. She just regurgitates what her family and church friends have told her. As a case-study, I'd say she shows a huge lack of cognitive ability and a great deal of stubborn-ness. She literally cannot wrap her head around anything that doesn't confirm her worldview. She cannot "enterain an idea without accepting it", so to speak.

There's also the "I still believe it, even though you've proven it ridiculous and I have no argument to back up my assertion" wall that fundamentalists such as my friend put up.

This is one of the significant parts of what you said: ‘She just regurgitates what her family and church friends have told her.’ As I have commented, I’ve argued against people who don’t believe in evolution, and it’s incredible how they just ignore the evidence. I guess with some people, if that’s all you’ve ever known, then it could be a psychological defence to just deny the evidence being presented; almost like they can’t cope.

I find the fact that people just believe things interesting too. It’s a nice idea that we’re a highly evolved thinking ape, but the way some people just go along with the herd is almost evidence that we are just primates.

This extends even further with humans. All the people who worked in concentration camps can’t have all been thick, so why did they just get on with what they were doing without questioning?

Regarding your friend, there’s not much you can do is there? Personally I would do the same, discuss it and then you just have to drop it if they won’t take on the information. One of the most immoral things I heard a Jehovah’s Witness say was that if one of their children begins to question things, they isolate them and get them back on track. That’s pretty much brainwashing by punishment and reward.

In that circumstance, I find the Jehovah Witness ideas interesting, but the human behaviour immoral, and that’s why I draw a distinction between the idea and the actions of a person.

It’s funny what people think, isn’t it?

---

Zag, why don't you rewrite history as it pertains to religion and religious conflict. It would be more interesting than Marx who claimed economics was the driving force.

I'm not quite sure what you mean here. Sorry.

---

Not that it interests me much myself, just we've had discussions on AF.

Cheers, I'll have a look at some point.

Welcome aboard by the way. Very much enjoying your posts!

Thanks. Glad you're finding me amusing!

---

You presume much when you accuse me of being ill informed.

No, I'm going from the evidence you are presenting me.

But I'll let it pass.

Thanks.

Suffice to say that people of all religions believe in a great big Santa Claus in the sky.

No they don't. Some do, I agree, but I'm not as interested in their ideas. Mystics are not referring to a beardy man in the sky. You are simply doing a base level attack on something that is more complicated than you present yourself as realising.

Despite no supporting evidence at all.

Religious people might claim the complexity of the universe is evidence of a deity that created it. That's fair enough, it's their opinion. There is NO evidence that there definitely is no God either.

A large majority take the Bible literally, except for the bits that are metaphorical(how this

distinction is arrived at is a mystery).

This I agree on.

And BTW Buddhisam is not a religion as it does not subscribe to the idea of a supreme being.

You are wrong. It is. So is Taoism.