Why are you religious/not religious?

Eh. It's hard to say really. But, I for one am not that religious. I don't see the need to be, but I see the need to do good things.

ToasterKing wrote:
And yes, the Catholic church is nowhere near as awful as it was in medieval times, but its past practices demonstrate the danger of a powerful religious institution.

Power and oppression will wear any mask that it sees fit to wear. Religion was the not the root cause of the Church's historical abuses, greed and ignorance was.

ToasterKing wrote:

Civ wrote:Science =/= alternative to religion
.

That all depends on how you define religion. If you define religion as a foundation for morale values, then yeah, science can't replace that. To be honest though, I strongly disagree with the idea that religion has anything to do with morals in modern times.

Sure, the bible tells you not to steal, and not to kill, and not to commit adultery... ect...

But those rules are not exclusive to the bible. Those are the rules of society. You can spew all the bullshit you want about how you think Judea-Christian values are the foundation of modern society... but I'm not gonna buy it.

Those simple rules are what's necessary to keep society together, and a stable society is what keeps us alive.

Refusal to listen to one's argument is ignorance. I would ask if you could remain open minded to my bullshit if at all possible for one so enlightened as yourself.

Religion can be better defined as a way of life inspired by one's beliefs than one's beliefs regarding the origin of the universe and it's inhabitants. As most believe that this way of life was given by a divine, all-powerful god, it's rules/guidelines are more strictly adhered to than a simple code of conduct established by the authority in a society ever could be. Most people know what is right and what is wrong, but generally the religious are the ones that follow these moral values.

I already know that "you aren't gonna buy it", but let's look at a historical example. Obviously the first thing that comes to mind is the early Catholic Church, and it demonstrates it well enough. As you know, in the late years of the Roman Empire the "germans" were pouring in the the north and the empire was losing power and influence in the region. These "germans" were near absolute barbarians and fit the description exactly. From what we know about these tribes they did, actually, officially hold values somewhat comparable to the 10 commandments. The Roman Empire fell and lost it's cultural influence in the region. The "germans" took over and barbarism returned to the states of Europe. It was not civilized Roman ideas that crept in during the several hundred year period between this fall and the start of the medieval ages, it was Christianity. Christianity and it's ideas was what conquered the barbarians. Christianity was what turned that mess into a (somewhat) moral society.

I believe that Christianity's diffusion of morals into society is still applicable to modern nations. Look at America for example, we see ourselves as a relatively moral society. Our nation was founded upon the morals promoted by the Bible, and 90% of our population claims adherence to Christianity. (According to the all-knowing AP Human Geography Textbook) While I hate to make this contrast, two examples of states which have more or less done away with religion in relatively modern times would be Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia. Both of these removed the Church from it's prevalent role in society and promoted atheism, both saw a huge decline in moral values, to the point where they became several of the top most infamous countries in history.

Allow me to clarify; I acknowledge that religion is not the sole cause of morals in society, it did not invent them nor did it distribute them to people which otherwise had none. I believe, instead, that Christianity (among other religions) is simply the cause of these morals to be widely lived by in society. I believe that as we drift away from the Church as a nation we also drift away from our moral foundation.

ToasterKing wrote:
If you consider a religion to be something that tells us how the universe was formed... well then science falls behind in that area too.

What about science? Atheism and agnosticism lie more under philosophy than science imo. If science can be defined by testable hypotheses, theories, laws, then atheism and agnosticism do not fit this definition as they are not testable. I would say this is one of the most common misconceptions in arguments such as this.

ToasterKing wrote:
Science does, however, promote principles like integrity, modesty, and it promotes discovery. It gives purpose in life just as any religion does.

It does, however why is it that scientists are generally more concerned with the scientific value of certain things as opposed to Christians who are generally more concerned with the ethics behind said things?

ToasterKing wrote:
Anyway, religion can't explain the origin of our world either. It just CLAIMS to.

Same goes for, "science"

Civ wrote: So, I'm just going to end this with: Atheism is completely stupid. I cannot come up with a single reason for you to be an Atheist instead of an Agnostic. There is absolutly no logical reason to be an Atheist (which was ironically founded on logic and reason).

ToasterKing wrote:
Perhaps, but the assumption that there is no god is nowhere near as illogical and stupid as the assumption that every single thing in the bible is absolutely true. You really have no room to talk Civ. Agnostics are the only ones who hold the right to look down at everyone else and laugh.

I mean really. I think full blown atheists are just as stupid as deists. Those who follow an organized religious doctrine are on a whole different level, and that's where it starts to bother me.

I agree that logic demands neutrality, however logic is only one of the abilities that we humans possess. Atheism and theism alike both require a degree of faith, something I do believe we agreed on after the last debate. What I disagree with you about is that believing in one particular religion is "on a whole different level" as you say. The belief that there is a God who bothered to create the universe and therefore, either directly or indirectly, us, would logically lead to the assumption that he bothered to make himself known to it's inhabitants. Clearly a being with such power would make no small impression on the Earth, and his followers would therefore be the most numerous on the planet. Christianity is by far the largest, and in my opinion, the most logical choice out of the world's vast array of religions.

ToasterKing wrote:
You tell me that you think there's a god, and I'm okay with that. You tell me you think you know exactly how the earth was formed, how life was created, and that you know what's going to happen in the future... then I'm sorry but I really can't take your beliefs seriously.

As I have said above, I do not think that the belief is as ridiculous as you claim.

ToasterKing wrote:
That said, I'm not a full blown atheist. I think that there is a possibility of there being a god. I am, personally, a little doubtful of that proposition, just as I'm doubtful of many theories for the origin of the universe, but I think it's a possibility.

Fair enough.

ToasterKing wrote:
My main reason for thinking that intelligent design should not be taught in school is not for disagreement with the idea, but for the baggage that the concept carries with it. Most of those who are fighting for it to be taught in schools have strong religious agendas, and that is NOT okay in a science class. We're simply not ready for that yet.

My problem is more with the utter dismissal of the possibility of creationism by both textbooks and teachers. My textbook actually talks about evolution as an absolute, in the context that we did in fact evolve from single celled organisms through the process of genetic evolution. While I do not completely dismiss this theory (as it does not directly contradict Christianity as is common belief) I find it rather ridiculous that it be taught in this manner with no reference to the fact that it is, again, an unproven theory.

Tell me though Dud, do you think that people follow the 'rules' of the Bible and adhere to the moral codes for their own ethical sake, or rather follow them in fear of being classed as a sinner and sent to hell after death?

Zaki90 wrote:

Rotaretilbo wrote:I would also point out to Ukurse that while both Islam and Catholicism believe that they are right, both also believe that the other will get into Heaven just fine (well, the Quran says something along those lines, but it probably isn't taught much in the Middle East).

Actually, we think that if you follow the Bible, you'll be just fine. But apparently, most Catholics have read and understood the Bible enough to take their own decisions. My main point is that priests don't eat pork. At all. I was shocked by this discovery back in freshman year at a Catholic highschool.

So, if you follow the Bible like it tells you to follow, then your fine.

CivBase wrote:

Zaki90 wrote:While I do believe in Islam and the Quran, I feel that the followers have opinionated the words of the Quran. They did not "change" the words, they manipulated them to make it support their ideals which inflects on every other people who are listening to them.

Maybe because the previous words invovled taking part in an apocalyptic war?

No, you see, for some reason all the people in America talk about is all about social crap. Don't listen to music and crap like don't do drugs. They find the itty-bitty little reasons that barely even make sense and incorporate it into their speech.

It is like if the minister at your church is talking about how Jesus was walking down the street and gave money to the poor. This poor man was wicked and listened to music. He spat at him, and Jesus cursed him. Then he tells your parents that music is prohibited in Christianity. And before you know it your parents are stripping every last song off Itunes.

I have one thing to say to that.

I NEVER SAID THAT QUOTE. Stop Conjuring words out of your ass I never said to support your argument.

What do you guys think of Genesis being a metaphor? A metaphor for what I am unsure of, but a metaphor nonetheless.

i follow science like a religion it helps me think clear about my actions

Ziggy wrote:What do you guys think of Genesis being a metaphor? A metaphor for what I am unsure of, but a metaphor nonetheless.

I am open to the possibility that pre-Abraham stories in the Bible could be metaphorical, although I don't necessarily believe that they are.

I do, however, also consider that these could have been written for the people of the time, explained in a way to make sense to these people while still getting basic ideas across. If it had explained science in ancient times people would have laughed at it and found it unbelievable. If it was to be rewritten now, I think that it would make much more sense while still following the same basic ideas.

Dud wrote:Power and oppression will wear any mask that it sees fit to wear. Religion was the not the root cause of the Church's historical abuses, greed and ignorance was.

Right, but the danger of the church becoming so destructive in the hands of greed should teach us something. Just as Enron teaches us that maybe full-scale capitalism isn't the best idea... the medieval catholic church teaches us that maybe organized religion isn't the most.... safe thing for society to invest itself in.

Dud wrote:Most people know what is right and what is wrong, but generally the religious are the ones that follow these moral values.

I really don't think religion is a large factor in strength of moral principle. I think that religion promotes moral values, and I will accept the idea that western culture has been influenced by that, but I think that, today, religion does not directly influence morals.

In other words, I don't think that religious people can really attribute their morality to the fear of divine punishment.

Dud wrote:While I hate to make this contrast, two examples of states which have more or less done away with religion in relatively modern times would be Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia. Both of these removed the Church from it's prevalent role in society and promoted atheism, both saw a huge decline in moral values, to the point where they became several of the top most infamous countries in history.

Right, but you're talking about state-enforcement of religion, which is going to cause trouble no matter what the religion is. The soviet union and the Nazis promoted the doing away of religion to serve specific motives, not for the well being of society.

I'm suggesting that we'd be fine if everybody collectively decided to stop bothering with religion, which will never happen. I'm not suggesting that we'd ever be fine in the case of government taking away religion.

Dud wrote:What about science? Atheism and agnosticism lie more under philosophy than science imo. If science can be defined by testable hypotheses, theories, laws, then atheism and agnosticism do not fit this definition as they are not testable. I would say this is one of the most common misconceptions in arguments such as this.

Well there's a difference between the ideals of science and the need for empirical evidence. Obviously, science will never be able to give us an irrefutable answer for the universe, but it gives us a way of thinking. Agnosticism follows that way of thinking.

Dud wrote:It does, however why is it that scientists are generally more concerned with the scientific value of certain things as opposed to Christians who are generally more concerned with the ethics behind said things?

It's not that they aren't as concerned about ethics, they just have DIFFERENT ETHICS. Religious folks just tend to focus on more arbitrary issues with very strict viewpoints. They often refuse to adjust their morals in light of new developments. They're very stubborn.

That said, technological progression does need something in place to... keep it humane.

Dud wrote:What I disagree with you about is that believing in one particular religion is "on a whole different level" as you say. The belief that there is a God who bothered to create the universe and therefore, either directly or indirectly, us, would logically lead to the assumption that he bothered to make himself known to it's inhabitants. Clearly a being with such power would make no small impression on the Earth, and his followers would therefore be the most numerous on the planet. Christianity is by far the largest, and in my opinion, the most logical choice out of the world's vast array of religions.

Maybe. I would say that the idea of a god NOT making himself known is just as plausible. The universe is fucking huge. We could be the creations of a god who does not even know that we exist.

Either way, the simple concept of dedicating yourself to one belief system is what bothers me to no end.

Dud wrote:My problem is more with the utter dismissal of the possibility of creationism by both textbooks and teachers. My textbook actually talks about evolution as an absolute, in the context that we did in fact evolve from single celled organisms through the process of genetic evolution. While I do not completely dismiss this theory (as it does not directly contradict Christianity as is common belief) I find it rather ridiculous that it be taught in this manner with no reference to the fact that it is, again, an unproven theory.

Well yeah, I agree that macro-evolution should be taught less... absolutely. As for creationism... well I really don't have a problem with the utter dismissal of creationism. I mean, it's not really appropriate in a school text book, but that doesn't bother me so much.

I suppose we shouldn't say that it can't be true, but rather, that we have no logical reason to believe that it might be true. It certainly doesn't belong there at all though.

Intelligent design is an entirely different issue. I'd be open to putting it in schools if it were not so obviously a tool of creationists.

Dud wrote:I am open to the possibility that pre-Abraham stories in the Bible could be metaphorical, although I don't necessarily believe that they are.

Are you suggesting that this might not have happened?



BLASPHEMER!

I was born a Lutheran (Missouri Synod) for those of you who aren't familiar with this branch of Christianity it is based off of a man in the 1500's who translated the bible (in Latin at the time) to many different languages allowing people to see what the Catholic church was doing wrong.

Anyways I've been baptised and confirmed in this faith and I do believe in God. As a child I of course did all the religious stuff, and as a teenager I still believe this faith for the most part. About when I turned 14 I decided I wanted to see what other religions were like so I did my research and looked through just about everything I could find. I did not find anything else that really set itself apart.

I believe in God, I believe in Jesus and what he's done. The bible however I'm not so sure, you can't base religion off of the bible. Why you ask? Because it was written by men who followed Jesus and every man good, evil, and inbetween will change whats said. This is where I lost faith for a while and did some terrible things that I really do wish I could take back. However I have since then rejoined into my religion still following my beliefs. I just feel the Lutheran translation of the bible is the most truthful. One main thing I don't like about it though is how much it bashes the other religions. I mean almost every church sermon has some form of anti-anti christian propaganda. Hell, it even downtalks alot of religions that believe in God. I have actually started an argument with my pastor in the middle of his church sermon infront of everyone as to what he was saying. I ended up getting kicked out for about a year because of the fiasco and left my house because of it too.

Now we have a new pastor who is more accepting, but still alittle intolerant. I now keep my arguments in private ;)

Civ wrote:Correct, but that's not really a problem in today's society. In fact, it's safe to say that it's non-existent after the Holocaust conspiracy problem the Church had a few months ago.

It's not relevant now, but it could be in the future. The Medieval Roman Catholic church taught us a lesson that we will hopefully put to good use.

civ wrote:Whether you think something is a factor has little effect on anything unless you have something to back it up.

kthanx? I'm just stating my opinion. I'm not trying to prove it. I might as well challenge you to prove that religion DOES directly affect ethics.

Civ wrote:You'd be surprised how little good religious people do out of fear of divine punishment.

I doubt I'd be surprised, seeing as that was exactly my point. I don't think religion directly affects morals, as when people do good things, they tend not to do it for reasons like "avoiding divine punishment."

People act in the way that they've been raised to act. That way might happen to be one of Christian values, but that doesn't mean that Christianity has an active part in how they behave. If someone were raised with the same moral principles, without religious involvement, they'd probably act the same way.

Can't find statistical evidence on that either, but from what you said in your post, you seem to agree.

Civ wrote:As are you.

Yeah but my point is that you should never talk to a girl who says she "just has a friend."

Civ wrote:Or... we could just leave it alone in text books. Just don't talk about any theories on the origin of the universe. The idea is so controversial, that it does more harm to talk about it than it does good.

Nah, it should be taught as a theory promoted by most of the scientific community. I mean hell, it wasn't until just recently that we managed to photograph an ATOM. We've been teaching that shit for decades!

We teach kids about stars, and the composition of the sun, and black holes, and dark matter. Do we really even know much about any of that stuff with great certainty?

It just needs to be taught in a different... tone. The point is that things like that demonstrate the scientific method of discovery. There is evidence that points toward an outward expansion from a central point in the universe. Students should know that.