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 -
XenoFish

Pointlessness of Religion

2,605 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

StarMountainKid
Is this a way of excluding the Maker of it?

In case it is, I compare it to someone turning up at a wedding because they think it is a giant cake eating ceremony.

But religion, I agree has no place in nature, I have never seen an animal light up a candle and start mumbling things.

I like the giant cake eating ceremony part. Anyway, adding a Maker to the universe is like thinking someone is making the grass grow, and then creating a personality to that someone.

I'm not excluding a Maker, I just don't know. If I don't know something, I don't create a scenario about that which I have no knwledge of. It seems to me the universe evolves intrinsically by itself, and I haven't noticed evidence that an external hand is manipulating it.

Maybe the universe was made and maybe the universe just happened. Does either make any difference to our experience of it?

We can speculate 'till the cows come home, but does this speculation bring us any nearer to some actual ultimate truth? I think the truth is, the grass grows, the flowers bloom, we are alive and aware within all this happening as we happen with it.

If this is all we know or can know, at least we can gain some feeling of this inexpressable mystery by deeply experiencing it, and this deep and profound feeling we gain can have a more real and true meaning for our lives than all the empty speculations the mind can invent.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker

You can probably see where I am coming from - but I think the point I am trying to make is valid. Religion IS corrupt (therefore pointless), whereas personal Faith is not because it is a truer expression of your belief.

The problem here is MANKIND is corrupt. While individual HUMANS may not be. Religion holds no monopoly on any of the things you listed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker

When something is unnecessary, why is there any point to it? They are essentially the same thing.

Doesn't matter. If I want to eat eggs, I can boil them, or fry them, or scramble them. Each method does not make the others unnecessary, or pointless.

That the things religion does do that is positive can be done in other ways doesn't make religion pointless. It only means there are other methods.

No, I did not. I made it very clear that faith is worthwhile. Religion is not.

I can understand your sentiment, but the social benefits of religion DOES mean it is not pointless, just not necessary.

A person could make the argument that religion is useful for a person afraid to look outside that which is familiar to them for support and/or succor.

Personally having been a "apethest" (did I spell that right?), till I was 29/30 years old, I would have to disagree. Including religion into your toolbox of ways to try to deal with issues actually expands your options.

I do agree however that folks who cling Only to religion are limiting themselves irrationally. Those Christians who only use prayer to heal are limiting themselves from all the learning and training that God created us to find. It is kind of like only using a fire to cook things, when God also provided man with the ability to invent ovens and microwaves that work so much better.

My counter to that is "Why is something that is limiting to a person's perspective, considered 'useful'?"

I'd say that Christianity is not limiting... That it should be only a part of each persons perspective on the world and life.

Edited by DieChecker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paranoid Android

I didn't say "learning Shakespeare is not pointless, but learning the bible is." If you want to consider the bible a study into the human condition, that's fine - but that ain't religion.

Then what is religion, then? The only meaningful definition you've provided so far is that of ritual within a hierarchical context. And you've included "reading the Bible" as part of that ritual, but if I read it for insight into "God", it's meaningless, but if I read it about insight into humanity not only is it not meaningless it is also not "religion". Perhaps you can clarify?

All of which I already stated in my first post on the thread. Post #34 if you can't find it, on page 3 of this thread. I have further clarified why I believe religion to be pointless in other posts on this thread - including the one just prior to this.

And I will re-read that post tomorrow when I'm awake and not rambling about things. But at the moment all I see is a mass of contradiction surrounding your views. Until tomorrow ignore me, I'm probably not the best conversation partner right about now :P Apologies for any negativity I may send your way....

Ok, I re-read your post on page 3. I'm still confused. I explained initially why I don't agree with your definition, largely because the dictionary disputes your particular definition. But if you wish to stop this debate on account of it being a semantics issue only (whether we call belief in God "religion" or brushing our teeth precisely three hundred strokes every morning at 7am to be "religious behaviour", you obviously have chosen a very narrow definition of "religion" that includes a hierarchical structure in which ritual plays a part. But then tell me that informing my views based on such a structure, even if I don't agree with everything they say, simply being informed by such a group, makes me (at least in part) influenced by religion.

Do atheists who listen to theologians and then disagree with EVERYTHING they say get a pass mark on this? I mean, I listen to a theologian and agree with SOME of what they say, but an atheist who disagrees with everything, are they "influenced by religion"? As I said, maybe this is just semantics, but in trying to work out your views on religion and faith I am more confused than ever about your exact position on this.

Edited by Paranoid Android
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paranoid Android

@PA

You make some very interesting points, especially with reference to the Oracle of Delphi. She inhaled the gases of volcanic activity to reach a state of “connection” with the Gods, and was almost certainly psycotropically affected by them. Basically she got a “High” on these gasses so her pronouncements are probably no more accurate than an acidhead.

It's been a number of years since I've read Oedipus, so I don't recall HOW the Oracle came to a state of prophecy, I just remember that it happened. And while high on Acid MIGHT give one the perception that they can tell the future or commune with the gods, the Oracle at Delphi actually DID prophecy the future (within the story narrative, at least) and therefore I don't think comparing this situation to a drug-induced prophecy to be adequate (in saying that, drugs were historically associated with religious rituals at times, so it's not unfair to make the comment, I just feel making such a direct reference to this particular prophecy is unwarranted.

In reference to the exiles and murders at the first Nicea council we do only have the writings of Socrates Scolasticus to go on (there were 318 Bishops – but numbers are irrelevant, just for accuracy).

What is not debated is that several, previously considered religious texts were destroyed by order of Constantine. I fully agree that Constantine was NOT a Christian until he had a deathbed conversion.

Fair enough, I just find a lot of unsupported conspiracies about Nicaea all the time. Just wanted to be clear.

I do however believe that there is a very large difference to being informed by literary Advisors on language , content and literary devices(whose influence is only the interpretation of text with no additional context), to Religious advisors that may actually influence your beliefs and therefore the way you live your life and the way you live it.

I am grateful to my English Literature tutors because they gave me the tools to understand what was being written, but at no time did they inform me in terms of my own beliefs

This is not an attack by any means on your own perspective PA, you are as free to believe as you will and nowhere in my philosophy would I ever dream of trying to deny you this right.

I see your point, I'm just not sure I agree. I NEVER let any person tell me what to believe. I may listen to sermons and weigh the comments made by pastors, but I grant them absolutely zero authority over my life. Their words are fallible, just as mine are. I've come to respect a lot of them, in the same way as I came to respect my lecturers. They offered insights I may not have thought of by myself about the topic. But I don't let them tell me what to do or what to believe. I do that myself after weighing their arguments and then testing them against the texts.

I get that there are people who blindly listen and follow whatever pastor happens to be preaching. I'm just not one of them.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Leonardo

Then what is religion, then? The only meaningful definition you've provided so far is that of ritual within a hierarchical context. And you've included "reading the Bible" as part of that ritual, but if I read it for insight into "God", it's meaningless, but if I read it about insight into humanity not only is it not meaningless it is also not "religion". Perhaps you can clarify?

Again I'll ask - where did I say this "defines religion"? I have said, and repeated several times exactly for your clarification, that ritual is part of religious practice - and so part of 'religion'. I have never said religion is defined by ritual.

We exist and we exist as human beings. Learning about 'who' we are cannot be considered meaningless or pointless because it helps us understand not only ourselves, but others - and that is very socially useful. What is useful about learning about 'God'?

Ok, I re-read your post on page 3. I'm still confused. I explained initially why I don't agree with your definition, largely because the dictionary disputes your particular definition. But if you wish to stop this debate on account of it being a semantics issue only (whether we call belief in God "religion" or brushing our teeth precisely three hundred strokes every morning at 7am to be "religious behaviour", you obviously have chosen a very narrow definition of "religion" that includes a hierarchical structure in which ritual plays a part. But then tell me that informing my views based on such a structure, even if I don't agree with everything they say, simply being informed by such a group, makes me (at least in part) influenced by religion.

The terms "religious behaviour" and "ritual" can be used outside the theological context and still be meaningful. That is all I was stating when referring to such things as a person's "morning ritual" and the acceptance on faith of what another claims to be true - even within an academic setting.

However, I specifically provided in my first post a definition of religion to make it distinct from faith so as to make my argument as to why religion is pointless clear, and to emphasis I was not "ragging on faith". I will provide that definition again because it doesn't appear to have clarified anything...

Religion is the organisation of people of faith into a heirarchical structure where those with authority largely determine the 'pillars' of faith among the members of that organisation.

Religion is not religious behaviour, although religious behaviour is part of religion. Religion is not ritual, although ritual is part of religion and might be considered religious behaviour.

Do atheists who listen to theologians and then disagree with EVERYTHING they say get a pass mark on this? I mean, I listen to a theologian and agree with SOME of what they say, but an atheist who disagrees with everything, are they "influenced by religion"? As I said, maybe this is just semantics, but in trying to work out your views on religion and faith I am more confused than ever about your exact position on this.

What is their reason for disagreeing? Is it because they have carefully considered, for themselves, the reasonableness of what the theology proposes and then rejected it as unreasonable? In which case, no, they haven't been "influenced by religion". If their disagreement is simply a reaction to that religion, however - perhaps through some perceived 'secular power' wielded by it - then yes, the atheist has been "influenced by religion".

What I believe you mean when using "influenced by religion", however, is more along the lines of the first example. Perhaps with an added 'life perspective' of the recipient of the theologians words considering how those words resonate with their particular life circumstance?

So, my answer to you would be a general (but not absolute) "No". The atheist is generally not influenced by religion when advocating their atheism*.

*In expectation of some reply invoking the atheists reliance on the words of Dawkins, or some other notable atheist figure, I'll caveat this by stating I am taking your example as being an atheist who, in isolation, disagrees with a theologian's essay on the divine.

Edited by Leonardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stubbly_Dooright

My way isn't the perfect way, i'll be honest, I have been out of a bad relationship for over 2 years yet and I haven't forgiven him yet..okay, maybe forgiveness isn't even the right word, I still wish it never happened. I am not at the point where I am not appreciative of everything I learned, I still want to undo it, like I never met him. So that sort of behavior is in stark contrast to my previous beliefs. And yes, I think just being able to walk away and not have the pain qualifies as forgiveness. As I said previously, forgiveness isn't about reaching the status quo and having a normal relationship with that person, its just about not allowing yourself to be eaten alive by it.

I know, and I think the best thing is to find that healthy path for healing. Like I have said to you, resentment and bitterness, is not something you want from a situation, like from another person. It can be unhealthy for a person. I just hope you have found a path to healing. And that's not easy either. Although, I like the challenges in trying to find that path, if that makes sense. :)

Go for it Boogs!

Remember, forgiveness isn't about letting him off the hook. It is about letting that corrosive emotion out from inside you. You can do it and it will make you feel so much better.

I guess it's how it's done for each person. I guess for me to say, IMO ;), there are always a time to take care of you. :D

hm.. belief. unbelief. Which is more pointless than the other? Unbelief is a belief .

Usually I notice in a lot of others that disagree with this. In which I would agree with them. The un or the lack of something, would be to me a not something, a lack of, so it's not a something if it's a not something. There for, I believe unbelief is not the same of it being a belief. Yeah, I'm resorting to semantics here, but I think that is how it's looked upon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paranoid Android

Again I'll ask - where did I say this "defines religion"? I have said, and repeated several times exactly for your clarification, that ritual is part of religious practice - and so part of 'religion'. I have never said religion is defined by ritual.

We exist and we exist as human beings. Learning about 'who' we are cannot be considered meaningless or pointless because it helps us understand not only ourselves, but others - and that is very socially useful. What is useful about learning about 'God'?

Explicitly, I 100% agree you haven't said such. But I don't think it an unfair assessment that based on my follow-up comments that this is a reasonable interpretation of your views.

If I am wrong, you must show me where, since I feel this is a reasonable interpretation of what you have said.

The terms "religious behaviour" and "ritual" can be used outside the theological context and still be meaningful. That is all I was stating when referring to such things as a person's "morning ritual" and the acceptance on faith of what another claims to be true - even within an academic setting.

However, I specifically provided in my first post a definition of religion to make it distinct from faith so as to make my argument as to why religion is pointless clear, and to emphasis I was not "ragging on faith". I will provide that definition again because it doesn't appear to have clarified anything...

Religion is the organisation of people of faith into a heirarchical structure where those with authority largely determine the 'pillars' of faith among the members of that organisation.

Religion is not religious behaviour, although religious behaviour is part of religion. Religion is not ritual, although ritual is part of religion and might be considered religious behaviour.

So "religion" is being defined very narrowly and in contradiction to the view presented by the dictionary. Fair enough, as I said in my last post, if this boils down to a matter of semantics I won't fight the issue and therefore accept your narrow view.

What is their reason for disagreeing? Is it because they have carefully considered, for themselves, the reasonableness of what the theology proposes and then rejected it as unreasonable? In which case, no, they haven't been "influenced by religion". If their disagreement is simply a reaction to that religion, however - perhaps through some perceived 'secular power' wielded by it - then yes, the atheist has been "influenced by religion".

What I believe you mean when using "influenced by religion", however, is more along the lines of the first example. Perhaps with an added 'life perspective' of the recipient of the theologians words considering how those words resonate with their particular life circumstance?

So, my answer to you would be a general (but not absolute) "No". The atheist is generally not influenced by religion when advocating their atheism.

Hmm, so if I "carefully consider" religious views and reject them then I am non-religious. If I make a reactionary view against religious views then I am perhaps religious. If I "carefully consider" religious views and accept SOME of them, while rejecting others because they don't agree with my views, then I AM "religious", and if I make a reactionary view supporting religion then I am also "religious".

And yet, if I made the exact same "carefully considered" statement about the writings of Shakespeare or Sophocles, then I'm just exercising my humanity.

I may be intentionally reactionary in my responses to you, but until and unless you resolve the apparent contradiction here, I can't see your point of view, Leo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Leonardo

Hmm, so if I "carefully consider" religious views and reject them then I am non-religious. If I make a reactionary view against religious views then I am perhaps religious. If I "carefully consider" religious views and accept SOME of them, while rejecting others because they don't agree with my views, then I AM "religious", and if I make a reactionary view supporting religion then I am also "religious".

And yet, if I made the exact same "carefully considered" statement about the writings of Shakespeare or Sophocles, then I'm just exercising my humanity.

I may be intentionally reactionary in my responses to you, but until and unless you resolve the apparent contradiction here, I can't see your point of view, Leo.

Where did I say this?

I actually stated that taking what is learned - even in an academic setting - on faith is equivalent to 'religious behaviour'. I wouldn't necessarily go so far as to say this means people with literary degrees are following a religion, but that they are exhibiting some behaviour which is very similar to, if not identical to, that we associate with the religious. However, this is contingent on your description of what literary study entails.

I also stated that studying Shakespeare meant a person was exploring their humanity - not "exercising it".

You seem to be on a misquoting roll, PA. Perhaps that is why you are so confused as to the point I am making?

Edited by Leonardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paranoid Android

Where did I say this?

I actually stated that taking what is learned - even in an academic setting - on faith is equivalent to 'religious behaviour'. I wouldn't necessarily go so far as to say this means people with literary degrees are following a religion, but that they are exhibiting some behaviour which is very similar to, if not identical to, that we associate with the religious. However, this is contingent on your description of what literary study entails.

I also stated that studying Shakespeare meant a person was exploring their humanity - not "exercising it".

You seem to be on a misquoting roll, PA. Perhaps that is why you are so confused as to the point I am making?

And when have I stated that I take things only on faith, particularly in the sense of your earlier comment:

I suspect your beliefs have been shaped to some degree by the words of others within some religious authority (they having interpreted scripture and passed that interpretation on to you) and so you can't claim to be free of the influence of 'religion'.

on "faith"? True, I can think of some occasions where I do use "faith", but this is personal faith almost entirely, based on my own experiences. Yet you have cited explicitly the role of religious authorities in influencing things and therefore declared that I have been "influenced by religion". I assure you, the "influence" of these religious folk is the same quality of influence as my university lecturers. I respect both of them, I learn from both of them. I disagree with both of them.

Yet when it comes to defining "religion" you have made a distinction between careful consideration of university lecturers and careful consideration of pastors. I made no mention of blind belief. This is your own addition to the equation now! An addition I have only just learned about, I haven't read of it in any of your previous posts - is blind belief now a third criteria to your hierarchical structure and ritualistic approach to define "religion"?

I feel we are getting closer now, there are now three criteria you've used to describe "religion": 1- Hierarchical structure, 2- ritual, 3- blind belief.

Edited by Paranoid Android

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Leonardo

And when have I stated that I take things only on faith, particularly in the sense of your earlier comment:

When you were describing studying literature, you said...

"So what are your thoughts on literary analysis then? Does my assessment that I sent in to be marked several years ago about Twelfth Night become less a valid approach if I listen to my lecturers rather than never go to a lecture and then just tell them what I thought about it? Or should I listen to people who spent years studying the subject in order to make an informed decision on what to accept, what to reject, and what arguments and points of view are legitimate avenues of discussion and thought? Surely if I want to know how to properly understand a text like Twelfth Night I should take the time to listen to the experts."

...which is where I took my 'taking on faith' assessment of what is considered part of academic learning from. And I never qualified that assessment with "only". What you have conveyed here is that some of the learning within an academic context is 'faith-based'. Please point out where you disagree.

on "faith"? True, I can think of some occasions where I do use "faith", but this is personal faith almost entirely, based on my own experiences. Yet you have cited explicitly the role of religious authorities in influencing things and therefore declared that I have been "influenced by religion". I assure you, the "influence" of these religious folk is the same quality of influence as my university lecturers. I respect both of them, I learn from both of them. I disagree with both of them.

Yet when it comes to defining "religion" you have made a distinction between careful consideration of university lecturers and careful consideration of pastors. I made no mention of blind belief. This is your own addition to the equation now! An addition I have only just learned about, I haven't read of it in any of your previous posts - is blind belief now a third criteria to your hierarchical structure and ritualistic approach to define "religion"?

I feel we are getting closer now, there are now three criteria you've used to describe "religion": 1- Hierarchical structure, 2- ritual, 3- blind belief.

Holy carp, PA!

In all I have been posting it has been reasonably clear that I considered 'faith' part of religion. Now you suggest I am "suddenly introducing it" and also you are reinventing what I stated by referring to it as "blind belief" - perhaps to suggest I am being subtly derogatory?

Are you trolling me, PA?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paranoid Android

When you were describing studying literature, you said...

"So what are your thoughts on literary analysis then? Does my assessment that I sent in to be marked several years ago about Twelfth Night become less a valid approach if I listen to my lecturers rather than never go to a lecture and then just tell them what I thought about it? Or should I listen to people who spent years studying the subject in order to make an informed decision on what to accept, what to reject, and what arguments and points of view are legitimate avenues of discussion and thought? Surely if I want to know how to properly understand a text like Twelfth Night I should take the time to listen to the experts."

...which is where I took my 'taking on faith' assessment of what is considered part of academic learning from. And I never qualified that assessment with "only". What you have conveyed here is that some of the learning within an academic context is 'faith-based'. Please point out where you disagree.

Holy carp, PA!

In all I have been posting it has been reasonably clear that I considered 'faith' part of religion. Now you suggest I am "suddenly introducing it" and also you are reinventing what I stated by referring to it as "blind belief" - perhaps to suggest I am being subtly derogatory?

Are you trolling me, PA?

I never said you were being derogatory. You've even mentioned several times that the majority of humans on this planet utilise "religion" more than "faith". I'm just confused by your definitions thereof:

I am going to agree with you - there is no point to religion. But I am going to add a little explanation to that.

Many posting here seem to equate 'religion' and 'faith'. I do not.

'Faith' is the personal belief one holds regarding the existence, function and meaning of divinity. 'Religion' is when 'faith' becomes organised in a heirarchical system, with a few claiming the authority to dictate what the 'faith' of those members of that system is.

While I see the value in what you've written I find the content contradictory. As I said, if this is just a matter of semantics (religion as "belief in God" is a legitimate definition vs religion as "a highly structured set of beliefs that have been chosen without much critical thought" (the most recent definition I have fathomed from your particular views), yet both are, by dictionary standards, "religion". If you are using a very specific use of "religion", then so be it. I use the same when I use the term "faith", and equate it more with "trust" than "believing without proof", though etymologically Faith has nothing to do with belief without proof, but that's another argument for another day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Leonardo

While I see the value in what you've written I find the content contradictory. As I said, if this is just a matter of semantics (religion as "belief in God" is a legitimate definition vs religion as "a highly structured set of beliefs that have been chosen without much critical thought" (the most recent definition I have fathomed from your particular views), yet both are, by dictionary standards, "religion". If you are using a very specific use of "religion", then so be it. I use the same when I use the term "faith", and equate it more with "trust" than "believing without proof", though etymologically Faith has nothing to do with belief without proof, but that's another argument for another day.

If you accept that how I define religion in the context of this thread and my explanation of why I separate 'faith' from 'religion' is valid, then why the following several pages of near-accusation as to what I define religion as, and why you think I'm not making sense?

If anything, PA, I am the one confused by the early posts you made in response to mine seemingly indicating your understanding, but then you appearing to 'lose the plot' and starting to make it seem I had said or wrote things I never had.

Edited by Leonardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Blood_Sacrifice

Traditional religions are becoming increasingly meaningless as the world is moving forward. But it's a personal thing, I think. For many, the relevance of religion in their life will never diminish (some even grow more religious with time). But, as a whole, the number of atheists, agnostics, free-thinkers and skeptics are increasing, so my initial statement still stands. Actually, these traditional religions did have some point back in the day, but they are not worthy enough to govern us in the 21st century.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lightly

You raise an interesting question Xenofish,

i guess to a non believer, religion might be pointless, but a believer believes he receives, and can sometimes give, some benefit from his belief and it's associated rituals?

That's the point?, for him. Religion or any form of spiritual practice, including the giving or receiving of love, is an act of faith?

the flowers you buy for your wife are a ritual practice to physically demonstrate your belief/faith/love. She gives you a kiss to demonstrate hers.

the love cannot be seen, only the rituals. It's sort of like that with Religion?

*s

Edited by lightly
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stubbly_Dooright

You raise an interesting question Xenofish,

Indeed he did, I think. :yes:

i guess to a non believer, religion might be pointless, but a believer believes he receives, and can sometimes give, some benefit from his belief and it's associated rituals?

That's the point?, for him. Religion or any form of spiritual practice, including the giving or receiving of love, is an act of faith?

Well, for me, whether it's religion or just the spiritual aspect it depends really. For me, no religious practice, but I am guided by my spirituality, and I think that most of the time it is not pointless, because it helps me with my daily life most of the time. Sometimes, I often feel that life itself or my place in this life, is pointless, and my spirituality makes it the opposite of that. I wonder if XenoFish will see it differently if it's how you look at spirituality, as opposed to religion. I think it was Leonardo who responded to a post of mine about the difference of spirituality or faith, to religion. I felt that was a good point, since I don't follow ritualistic religion but practice a spirituality that helps and excites me. I wonder if that is one way of looking at it and seeing if it helps.

Then again, if someone, like Xenofish sees religion itself as pointless, there must be a reason to that.

the flowers you buy for your wife are a ritual practice to physically demonstrate your belief/faith/love. She gives you a kiss to demonstrate hers.

the love cannot be seen, only the rituals. It's sort of like that with Religion?

I don't, is it always ritual or can it be spontaneity? So, I don't know if that could be simply tied to ritual. I think this is all in the different point of views, I believe. *shrugs*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish

I don't like the idea of giving my time and energy into something that doesn't produce tangible results. I never found comfort in religion. Just conditioning. While I might believe there is more to life that meets the eye, I will not call it God and I will not worship it.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paranoid Android

If you accept that how I define religion in the context of this thread and my explanation of why I separate 'faith' from 'religion' is valid, then why the following several pages of near-accusation as to what I define religion as, and why you think I'm not making sense?

If anything, PA, I am the one confused by the early posts you made in response to mine seemingly indicating your understanding, but then you appearing to 'lose the plot' and starting to make it seem I had said or wrote things I never had.

I was simply confused by your bringing up pastors and being influenced by what they say therefore meaning I am "influenced by religion". I couldn't (and can't) see a difference between being influenced by a pastor and being influenced by a university lecturer. It wasn't until you clarified that one listens to a pastor with "blind faith" that I understood that you meant being influenced by a pastor was unquestioningly accepting what they say and adopting their words without critical thought.

Which, to answer your first question then, about listening to pastors and being influenced by religion - no, I do not blindly accept the word of a pastor, and therefore am not "influenced by religion" as you define the term. I am influenced by religion by other definitions of the term, but not as you do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Leonardo

I was simply confused by your bringing up pastors and being influenced by what they say therefore meaning I am "influenced by religion". I couldn't (and can't) see a difference between being influenced by a pastor and being influenced by a university lecturer. It wasn't until you clarified that one listens to a pastor with "blind faith" that I understood that you meant being influenced by a pastor was unquestioningly accepting what they say and adopting their words without critical thought.

Which, to answer your first question then, about listening to pastors and being influenced by religion - no, I do not blindly accept the word of a pastor, and therefore am not "influenced by religion" as you define the term. I am influenced by religion by other definitions of the term, but not as you do.

I don't recall ever writing that. Can you locate the post where I used the phrase "blind faith"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paranoid Android

I don't recall ever writing that. Can you locate the post where I used the phrase "blind faith"?

True, you didn't use the prefix "blind", but I will quote you:

taking what is learned - even in an academic setting - on faith is equivalent to 'religious behaviour'.

Perhaps it's just me, but the idea of taking something (whether an academic lecture, or church sermon) on "faith" to me suggests unquestioning acceptance, which by its very nature is "blind".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stubbly_Dooright

I don't like the idea of giving my time and energy into something that doesn't produce tangible results. I never found comfort in religion. Just conditioning. While I might believe there is more to life that meets the eye, I will not call it God and I will not worship it.

Ok :) I understand. :yes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Leonardo

True, you didn't use the prefix "blind", but I will quote you:

Perhaps it's just me, but the idea of taking something (whether an academic lecture, or church sermon) on "faith" to me suggests unquestioning acceptance, which by its very nature is "blind".

Why?

The comparison I used was science was it not? Which I stated used 'observation and experimentation' to derive knowledge. i.e. I was comparing something evidenced to something unevidenced. That does not mean "unquestioning acceptance", only that it is acceptance without evidence of its truth.

If you want to argue those are one and the same thing, and both equivalent to "blind faith", then I can't stop you doing so but then we are not debating from the same page.

Honestly, PA, rather than me confusing you I think you have confused yourself by making a lot of assumptions regarding what I've been posting. I had thought I had been reasonably clear, although I suppose there are always some points which might require additional clarification. Regardless, I suspect you've simply set your stall out to be "in opposition" and this has caused you to not consider more carefully what has actually been written.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Michelle

Perhaps it's just me, but the idea of taking something (whether an academic lecture, or church sermon) on "faith" to me suggests unquestioning acceptance, which by its very nature is "blind".

There are a lot of things us atheists take on blind faith. I'm not a scientist or a doctor and I have to take it as a fact they know much better than I. I know enough about some things to question what they recommend, but ultimately I go with their superior knowledge.

All in all, it's still blind faith.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paranoid Android

Why?

The comparison I used was science was it not? Which I stated used 'observation and experimentation' to derive knowledge. i.e. I was comparing something evidenced to something unevidenced. That does not mean "unquestioning acceptance", only that it is acceptance without evidence of its truth.

If you want to argue those are one and the same thing, and both equivalent to "blind faith", then I can't stop you doing so but then we are not debating from the same page.

Honestly, PA, rather than me confusing you I think you have confused yourself by making a lot of assumptions regarding what I've been posting. I had thought I had been reasonably clear, although I suppose there are always some points which might require additional clarification. Regardless, I suspect you've simply set your stall out to be "in opposition" and this has caused you to not consider more carefully what has actually been written.

And the comparison I used was Literary Studies, are you suggesting my essay on Oedipus Rex was based on faith? Edited by Paranoid Android
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Arpee

Just because God gave you free-will doesn't mean God doesn't love you.

Your destiny is in your hands, because of the gift of free-will. Celebrate and appreciate that gift.

Share this post


Link to post
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.