The worst thing about religion

Post Reply New Topic

Going on a murder spree and killing yourself to avoid the law is what sounds like the perfect hustle to me... After all, assuming your arguments, that would mean there is no punishment waiting after your life is over, and therefore you are truly getting off scot-free...

You know, I didn't really get that reaction just by seeing the thread title. After all, it could conceivably have been a legitimate criticism of a failing in some institutional or cultural aspect of religion. Being called a caveman, however, did produce roughly those thoughts for me.

Well, it's because we want to destroy it!! !!

The worst thing about religion... ...Is that we have to go through exactly the same topic over and over again. Bleh, and this incarnation of the topic is quite lame. Dude, if you weren't so freakingly afraid of my invisible friend, you wouldn't be so persistent and obsessed in proving it wrong. You would just let go... oh gosh.

Why is this foolish? Science is the only legitimate way to understand and interact with our world. To say otherwise reeks of foolishness. Science is not art and neither is religion. Science is a system for understanding reality. Faith is non-existent. It is an abuse of abstraction and a frankly absurd, irrational concept.

Pray tell what "limits" has science?

No, science is not the only legitimate way to understand the world. And mind you, I've a strong bias towards science myself, but to claim that it is the only way to seek knowledge is just outright silly. Why then do fields such as philosophy even exist? "Science is a system for understanding reality" well, not quite. Science is a method by which we attempt to understand some aspects of the world around us. What limits does science have? I will simply say that science has no system of morality, or means of devising one. I could list others shortcomings as well. And "faith is non-existent?!" What?

Whichever of the 8 definitions you choose, faith exists. Definitions 2 and 3 seem most like what I think you were referring to. For definition 3, there exist people who believe in God, therefore faith exists. QED. For definition 2, the same proof. And then, after claiming that faith does not exist, you go on to criticize it as an "abuse of abstraction." And you want to claim to be the student of rationality in this discussion.

Philosophy is the science of the mind and all abstract issues including ethics. Atheists are not innately immoral.

I have no doubt that faith exists but I find the concept of blindly accepting something without proof or reason to be frankly insane. If you have any proof to offer about the existence of your God, I would be happen to read it but otherwise there is no argument to be made. This is not a rational concept as it is not open to reason and debate. That is why "religion" is so repellent to me. Buddhism is different however, I quite like the Buddhist philosophy.

Philosophy is not a science, and I said nothing about atheists being immoral. I simply said that science as a mode of thought does not include a moral code. You seem to be one of those that confuses atheism with science. It is perfectly possible for an atheist to have a moral code, often one of their own construction. But if you have science as your only path to any knowledge, there is not moral code. If you have a moral code not produced by science, then by your definitions it must be by faith. Why is it wrong to murder people? Well, we believe it to be wrong. We don't have any "proof" that it is wrong to murder people, but we accept that premise on faith.


So, continuing in the vein of what I wrote above, tell me from where you derive your moral code. What proof or reason do we have guiding any of society's commonly accepted moral norms?


Right, well, lots of people say this and usually it's people who know nothing about Buddhism at all. I am certain that you would be disgusted at least with Mahayana Buddhism, which is the largest sect.

Science and religion. after all, like all philosophical attempts at understanding the universe, start with the same basic processes. They posit a structure to the way things are and react to it. It is the reaction that marks the difference, and that difference is crucial. Religion examines its propositions and does its best to fortify its claims and actively does its best to suppress any attempts to question the original set of propositions since religions in general build their social structure on the effectiveness of their claims and acquire, through time, both power and wealth based on those original claims. Science does something different. It also proposes structures, but then does its best to destroy the validity of those structures. Doubt, which is treated as something almost criminal (or actually criminal in some social contexts) in religions is part of the most valued structural elements of science since it is by doubting its original assumptions that science acquires new and valuable and most useful ways of viewing structures. Thus science grows in understanding and religion grows in social power and wealth. Science solves problems (and of course creates quite a few new ones) whereas religion, in general, becomes acceptable by suppressing problems with ephemeral solutions that solve nothing and have little or no basis in observable phenomena (and, of course, create equally difficult problems in that area).

Are you suggesting that all moral codes are derived from religion? I think this is false.

My moral code is based on harm. I try minimize harm done to others and harm done to myself. This is a logical concept. I do not wish to be murder, therefore I should not murder others. This is not faith, this is argument and reason. I seek the good of the greatest number of people including myself.

Religion is not argument or reason and has no validity as a form of thought. You have done nothing to suggest otherwise. I am not invested in my ideas, I have no emotional attachment to my "ideas", my mental processes mean little to me. Results are everything. Religion has no results or benefits.

Sand makes a better point than myself.

No, certainly not, I don't think I ever claimed that. I simply stated that no moral code is derived from science. The world, contrary to what you seem to believe, is not divided into "science" and "religion."

Anyways, I see little point in continuing this discussion. Neither of us will be able to convince the other, and I certainly can not force you to expand beyond your simple black-and-white views.

The way I see this is that the system for understanding reality was atribuited to philosophy, and partly of why other fields of philosophy exist is because they are older than science.

Now, someone that claims that 'the only way to know is science' to be silly, well, we should question why is it necessarily silly? you disagree with it I can see, but are they actually incorrect, must they be necessarily incorrect and why? After all, as you stated, there are different fields, scientific empiricism or empirical skepticism, as an example, accepting things and ideas as real only when they are testable and have had succesfully passed the scientific method. Doesn't seem silly if one chooses to not go accepting something as factual or real until gaining substantial result, scientific evidence.

On the other hand, I assume there are different levels of skepticism, some that take things lightly and some that are stronger I suppose. However, I disagree with debunkers, when they take a position which is so oppositional on some matters, and that position becomes questionable when they take a negative position instead of taking an agnostic one, which that is what real empirical skepticism is, I would say, pseudoskeptics.

Another thing, I agree that science has nothing to do with God, who is God, if he exists or not, or the nature of God, that is a field outside science and it belongs to philosophy and religion, science cannot give an answer to that, however, science can and have disproved claims made related to paranormal activity.


well, technically yes, however some scientific results are somehow influenced by cultural, ethical and legal grounds, to give an example, Psychiatry, although some probably would argue that psychatry is not real science, but anyway, there is something uncertain here, when it comes to mental disorders, for example, lack of empathy, sociopathy, narcisisistic personality, those are called disoders, but I can say that part of the criteria would be influenced by cultural, ethical and legal norms. The DSM manual is quite uncertain in some aspects, especially when it comes to sexual related issues.

Interesting points.

I am a skeptic about most everything and I usually need evidence before I'll accept an idea as worthwhile. Unfortunately the cognition of others is a problem for me as I have no proof that others think in the same way as I do. I accept that they do or life would be odd but I have no proof for the existence of minds outside of my own.

-1 for massively generalising religion and being blind to its benefits and the hope it brings.

Aaaaaaaaaargh whats going on I am actually agreeing with Orwell on this one. Orwell please go back to being subjective about the bible so that I can attack you. Please put it right, I cant cope with this.

haha, when science does prove the theory wrong, they will be f****d.