Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

If Religion is so AWESOME tell me WHY?


soulpowertothenthdegree

Recommended Posts

I think faith-based charities are the way to go; and often they need government help. State aid is cold and unsympathetic and bureaucratic and rule-bound and demeaning. The problem is to keep the faith and the charity parts separated, and some churches do this well while of course others are not to be trusted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Religion is a tool to comfort the weak sick and dying. Its no longer needed but still has a purpose that take to it for those very reasons.

First people say that religion is an oppressive tool then they say its a tool for comforting the oppressive. Whatever.

Edited by Bluefinger
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact that homelessness and other ills exist does not prove religion is a farse.... it proves we have more work to do. Just because religious institutions are set up all over the world it doesnt mean each of those institutions are on their job OR that they have a means to supply every demand that would make religion appear more legitimate to you. There is a much greater picture at hand here and you must look at it. Religion can be used as a tool to manipulate people, but manipulation is not a principle of true religion. Other organizations use other means to manipulate people. We cannot blame religion, for in its truest sence it is a spiritual walk. Some take advantage of it while others use it wisely. I agree with you that a person can know right from wrong without religion but I also think that some people need to be taught certain virtues, they would never understand them or practice them without hearing about them first. Religion has a lot to do with spiritual teaching. I just wish it was done better to a larger degree but that is not to say there arent many good teachers out there.. im sure there are.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm in the agnostic group, too, but not for a lack of openness to possibilities. Instead of waiting for someone to produce evidence for me, I shakily (and badly) try to figure things out inside. I think I'm realizing a big part of religion is understanding and utilizing a trait called faith. Many people have given up on it, but I have a feeling that they're missing out on something very human. Whether you find it better or worse than 'credible evidence', I feel it is a part of the human existence I very much would like to explore more. But that's just my story.

:)

Very nice -

_only

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm an atheist but I think religions are necessary. Life is a dark, scary place. Some people have it within themselves to find their path, while others need a lighthouse. Religion is that lighthouse.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think so

So those people who believe in multiple gods are doing religion all wrong?

I think so

Because they didn't find the god you believe in?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

First people say that religion is an oppressive tool then they say its a tool for comforting the oppressive. Whatever.

Comforting the oppressed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe religion was only created to explain the things that couldn't be explained. Once we figured out what thunder was and why volcanoes erupt we don't need an invisible man in the sky to blame when the mountain on the island over there explodes

Science does not deal with fundamental questions that are central to mankind. Also there are men of science who are believers as well as those who are atheist. People can use science to back up both positions, in the end to be an atheist or a theist is a choice. After the choice is made, perhaps on a subconscious level, then science can be used to bolster whatever side is taken.

From my experience atheist are no more moral, intelligent nor rational than those who believe in God...and by that I mean is some underlying intelligence that is the necessary existence for a contingent, unnecessary, finite universe.

peace

mark

Edited by markdohle
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Science does not deal with fundamental questions that are central to mankind. Also there are men of science who are believers as well as those who are atheist. People can use science to back up both positions, in the end to be an atheist or a theist is a choice. After the choice is made, perhaps on a subconscious level, then science can be used to bolster whatever side is taken.

From my experience atheist are no more moral, intelligent nor rational than those who believe in God...and by that I mean is some underlying intelligence that is the necessary existence for a contingent, unnecessary, finite universe.

peace

mark

Sorry, but the scientific method is used to find out one thing; the facts. Testable and repeatable facts. It is true that assumptions must be used often, but if something shows the assumption is wrong, it's back to the drawing board for the researcher. They don't cling to it and try and champion 'faith' as a credible reason.

You'll also find that in the scientific community, the vast majority are atheist/agnostic.

Also thought people might want to take a look at this http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/14/religious-people-less-intelligent-atheists_n_3750096.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some people that say they don't believe in any religion actually turn to Aliens, or Faeries, instead. The fixate on some other idol for thier lives devotion. Some even become worshippers of Science, claiming science is perfect and predicts everything. People have an in-born need to have something to turn to for answers and to have Faith that their something is True.

Edited by DieChecker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some people that say they don't believe in any religion actually turn to Aliens, or Faeries, instead. The fixate on some other idol for thier lives devotion. Some even become worshippers of Science, claiming science is perfect and predicts everything. People have an in-born need to have something to turn to for answers and to have Faith that their something is True.

Actually, 'faith' isn't involved in the scientific method. I do agree that it is in pursuit of truths, but faith isn't necessary. Something is only universally accepted in the scientific community when the results can be repeated. Then, the results are subjected to peer review for others to find flaws. Nothing 'faith' based will make it through this process.

Also to differentiate, there's a difference between believing extraterrestrials are visiting earth (this would be 'faith' based), and another to recognize the high probability that there is some type of life outside of earth. The former proclaim 'yes' with hard convictions, the latter just see the fact that there is a lot of space and matter out there and the odds of life spontaneously arising only on earth is very small.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, but the scientific method is used to find out one thing; the facts. Testable and repeatable facts. It is true that assumptions must be used often, but if something shows the assumption is wrong, it's back to the drawing board for the researcher. They don't cling to it and try and champion 'faith' as a credible reason.

You'll also find that in the scientific community, the vast majority are atheist/agnostic.

Also thought people might want to take a look at this http://www.huffingto..._n_3750096.html

Again science has nothing to say about God, only about what can be repeated. There are lots of things science can't touch. Our inner lives, our desire for justice, for love, for meaning, for peace. If you wish to believe that science has all the answers, or that God is some thing that should be seen and weighed, OK. It is one opinion among many. Even if every man of science was an atheist, it would not mean anything, for again it is outside their field. In the matter of religion, philosophy and psychology they are simple laymen.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe religion was only created to explain the things that couldn't be explained. Once we figured out what thunder was and why volcanoes erupt we don't need an invisible man in the sky to blame when the mountain on the island over there explodes

Science does a dandy job of explaining the HOW but falls seriously short on the WHY and as humans our greatest challenges and troubles seem to arise from the WHY's of this existence.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

First people say that religion is an oppressive tool then they say its a tool for comforting the oppressive. Whatever.

Some people seem to believe that comforting people is oppressing them, and that only the dirty, gritty truth of materialism is needed to survive our experience on earth.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, but the scientific method is used to find out one thing; the facts. Testable and repeatable facts. It is true that assumptions must be used often, but if something shows the assumption is wrong, it's back to the drawing board for the researcher. They don't cling to it and try and champion 'faith' as a credible reason.

You'll also find that in the scientific community, the vast majority are atheist/agnostic.

Also thought people might want to take a look at this http://www.huffingto..._n_3750096.html

Science deals with knowledge. Belief deals with what tis unknown, and currently unknowable by science (so up until this year I could have believed in the existence of the higgs boson particle or disbelieved in its existence Now that it has been found scientifically and proven to exist,I can no longer have/hold a belief or disbelief position about its existence.)

Both knowledge and belief are critical to individual and racial human existence. Of course science cannot do much with that which is currently unknowable, and generally has no real motivation to try.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Religion should be replaced with ones own spiritual fulfilment. Following a path made by someone else to pursue your own path wont help.

Edited by Orcseeker
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, but the scientific method is used to find out one thing; the facts. Testable and repeatable facts. It is true that assumptions must be used often, but if something shows the assumption is wrong, it's back to the drawing board for the researcher. They don't cling to it and try and champion 'faith' as a credible reason.

You'll also find that in the scientific community, the vast majority are atheist/agnostic.

Also thought people might want to take a look at this http://www.huffingto..._n_3750096.html

Actually, in America about 60% of scientists "expressed "disbelief or doubt in the existence of God" (defined as a personal God which interacts directly with human beings). " That doesn't mean they do not have faith in some form of god. In America christianity and creationism are strongly linked and very few if any scientists would accept a creationist world view. In other countries this is less so, and hence in australia the more educated you are them more religious you are, because here religion is seen as an important social role player in society in social and economic terms. Children from the richest and most highly educated parents are much more likely to go to schools run by churches.

There is a clear difference between religion and belief .Around the world only about 2% of people declare themselves as atheist ie do not believe in any form of god, but about 20 % say they have no religious affiliation

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, in America about 60% of scientists "expressed "disbelief or doubt in the existence of God" (defined as a personal God which interacts directly with human beings). " That doesn't mean they do not have faith in some form of god. In America christianity and creationism are strongly linked and very few if any scientists would accept a creationist world view. In other countries this is less so, and hence in australia the more educated you are them more religious you are, because here religion is seen as an important social role player in society in social and economic terms. Children from the richest and most highly educated parents are much more likely to go to schools run by churches.

There is a clear difference between religion and belief .Around the world only about 2% of people declare themselves as atheist ie do not believe in any form of god, but about 20 % say they have no religious affiliation

Your comments on this thread are spot on my friend...thank you :tu:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again science has nothing to say about God, only about what can be repeated. There are lots of things science can't touch. Our inner lives, our desire for justice, for love, for meaning, for peace. If you wish to believe that science has all the answers, or that God is some thing that should be seen and weighed, OK. It is one opinion among many. Even if every man of science was an atheist, it would not mean anything, for again it is outside their field. In the matter of religion, philosophy and psychology they are simple laymen.

Science deals with knowledge. Belief deals with what tis unknown, and currently unknowable by science (so up until this year I could have believed in the existence of the higgs boson particle or disbelieved in its existence Now that it has been found scientifically and proven to exist,I can no longer have/hold a belief or disbelief position about its existence.)

Both knowledge and belief are critical to individual and racial human existence. Of course science cannot do much with that which is currently unknowable, and generally has no real motivation to try.

Actually, in America about 60% of scientists "expressed "disbelief or doubt in the existence of God" (defined as a personal God which interacts directly with human beings). " That doesn't mean they do not have faith in some form of god. In America christianity and creationism are strongly linked and very few if any scientists would accept a creationist world view. In other countries this is less so, and hence in australia the more educated you are them more religious you are, because here religion is seen as an important social role player in society in social and economic terms. Children from the richest and most highly educated parents are much more likely to go to schools run by churches.

There is a clear difference between religion and belief .Around the world only about 2% of people declare themselves as atheist ie do not believe in any form of god, but about 20 % say they have no religious affiliation

My posts were simply to dissuade from the idea that science is a form a religion, it isn't. You're both correct, science doesn't have anything to say on a god(s), because there isn't evidence. The two posts I quoted I gave direct answers to, and still maintain no faith is necessary for the scientific method.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again science has nothing to say about God, only about what can be repeated. There are lots of things science can't touch. Our inner lives, our desire for justice, for love, for meaning, for peace. If you wish to believe that science has all the answers, or that God is some thing that should be seen and weighed, OK. It is one opinion among many. Even if every man of science was an atheist, it would not mean anything, for again it is outside their field. In the matter of religion, philosophy and psychology they are simple laymen.

I agree with your statement for the most-part, but science is making inroads into some of those areas you mentioned: love, for example, is being investigated from a physiological perspective - it is associated with two chemical reactions. The experience of "God" can be reproduced with a helmet rigged to input electrical signals to the brain - at least in this respect, God IS all in your head.

As one of those scientists you're talking about, I can guarantee that science doesn't have all the answers. If it did, it would have no reason to exist. Science, after all, is a way of thinking, not any given set of findings. Scientists often come up with things that are incomplete, that lack the nuances of the real world. I would guess that most papers do not give complete accounts of their subjects. There are a guesstimated 200 levels of cause and effect; at most, we have investigated four or five. There are still a lot of levels where the God-of-the-gaps can hide.

Scientists would investigate the metaphysical if there was a way to get a handle on it. There have been a few attempts to study the effects of prayer on the seriously ill, for example. And you can find all sorts of "studies" that purport to show how something happened more times than expected from a statistical point of view. Most of them turn out to be poorly done and say more about the author's understanding of statistics than they do about anything supernatural.

Science and religion operate in two different dimensions; they really don't have anything to say about each other. The "conflict" only occurs when people try to use religion back up wild ideas of what is physically true - evolution and climate change, for example, or when, occasionally, some scientist thinks that being an expert in one field makes him an expert in everything. Becoming an expert in anything takes an awful lot of study - you have to pay your dues first.

Philosophy is a required course in some scientific disciplines. But science and philosophy have diverged over the years, so philosophy is becoming less-relevant to science; it is being replaced by subjects like huristic - how we know that what we think is true actually is true.

Psychology is a scientific field - sort of. It's considered a "soft" science. Back in the 1950s there was an attempt to make it an experimental "hard" science, but there were too many variables that could not be controlled. Same thing happened to sociology. The problem is compounded by the fact that psychologists and sociologists are not oriented toward the math/statistics/experimental design methodologies of the hard sciences.

A few years ago I was asked to review some sociology papers. The authors had done a survey to find out what common elements occurred in interviews with drug-addicts. They produced an impressive list. And that's where the paper ended. The "hard" scientist asks questions like: how are these variables related? Can you build a mathematical model from them that explains something? The sociologists made no attempt to investigate those questions; they stopped at the point where "hard" science begins.

Doug

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some people seem to believe that comforting people is oppressing them, and that only the dirty, gritty truth of materialism is needed to survive our experience on earth.

I question your take on comfort and oppression as I see some useing oppresion and disguising it as compastion or comfort. A lie is a lie no matter how many sprinkels you put on it.

Edited by The Silver Thong
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fundamental reason of religion is to find the truth about God. The truth about God is that He is both righteous and merciful.

But lacking any way to test the truth of what you find, even if you discover the truth, you have no way to know that you have discovered it. That is the fundamental flaw in religious thinking: there is no way to separate speculation and fantasy from reality. Thus, religion has become a hopeless jumble of the truth, partial-truth, what might be and the outright fraudulent. Religion really needs to do better.

Doug

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think faith-based charities are the way to go; and often they need government help. State aid is cold and unsympathetic and bureaucratic and rule-bound and demeaning. The problem is to keep the faith and the charity parts separated, and some churches do this well while of course others are not to be trusted.

I take it you have never went to a church charity for food. Last time I went all fresh fruit and veggies were so spoiled they end up in the trash. The rest was loaded with white flour, white rice, potatoes, ground corn and sugar all of which will keep you alive in the short run, but kill you in the long run. Here in the States the government help gives you stamps and you pick your food at the store.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Religion should be replaced with ones own spiritual fulfilment. Following a path made by someone else to pursue your own path wont help.

-------

That's good advice but what about when you find others who are following a similar path and you would like to join with them out of common interest or for support/ shared understandings etc. ? Then you basically have a religion, in that religion is merely the way people join together to follow a common spiritual understanding, with common practices and beliefs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.