Whats so good about religion?

[PLAYER57832]

you are such an idiot.

man was created by the rainbow serpent.

your God is a relatively recent invention of people who had lost touch with the truth.

it has no such connection. that story comes from the aborigines of australia.

the stories of the Dreamtime itself are proof. i'm sure if people had a video camera back in those days they would have produced proof through video for you faithless wonders. since there wasn't, story telling and drawings were the only form of proof they had available.

I won't really dispute you Greenoaks. That is what the aborigines believe and, like my own faith ... is beyond proof.

BUT, I will say that the claim that it is the only religion and that it predates others is very much disputed by not just Christians, but Native American Tribes such as the Navaho... and even European pagans. AND, there is proof that each of these goes back about as far as the Austrailiens, which is not as far back as ANY of these tales go. This is a matter of belief, not proof ... at least for now.

As for Gregrios --

Anyways, God created man and earth to inhabit by man.

God has stepped up numerous times to claim his doings to many different people. The writings of the Bible are similar to a biography of a well known individual.

The Bible itself is proof. I'm sure if people had a video camera back in the day then God would have produced proof through video for you faithless wonders. Since there wasn't, writing was the only form of proof they had available.

Besides, the Bible has to be legit because nobody is as smart as the person who inspired the Bible. Only God is capable of knowing such things that the Bible produced and introduced. It really is as simple as that.

Sorry, but while I am a Christian and therefore share your belief that the Bible is valid history, guidance, etc. You are wrong on several points.

Although more recent events (those from a few thousand years before Christ) can be proven and, to a large extent are shown to be consistant with events in the Bible, if you don't believe the Bible, you cannot prove OR disprove earlier events. They are beyond proof, matters of belief and therefore not good debate evidence to anyone who doesn't accept the Bible. (visit Creationist thread if you want to get into this topic more).

That sounds like a REALLY bad interpetation from the Gnostic Scriptures. Yes I'm familiar with it.

A valiant effort though.

Apparently you are not that familiar. The aboriginal beliefs definitely predate that post-Christ sect called the Gnostics and the ideas have very. very little to do with Gnosticism. The Davinci code actually got a few things correct ... (and for you history afficianados, discrediting the Gnostics was a major reason for the Bible cannonization).

[joecoolfrog]

Is faith good? I call it the safety net over the pit to nihilism. That’s got to be good.

I can see your point. There are plenty of studies that point to the overall benefits of living a religious life. Everything from higher chances of surviving and quicker recovery from surgery to lesser instances of depression have been attributed to it. Surveys have even pointed to longer life among believers in some areas. From a purely pragmatic point of view, it's a pretty good deal. Aside from references to fairy tales and insistence that it's only the placebo effect, it works.

Would you care to debate numbers of religious adherents who have lived longer through faith v numbers of religious adherents who have slaughtered each other because of conflicting faiths. I would venture that religion, in common with so many other things, is good for one only in moderation.

[greenoaks]

you are such an idiot.

man was created by the rainbow serpent.

your God is a relatively recent invention of people who had lost touch with the truth.

it has no such connection. that story comes from the aborigines of australia.

the stories of the Dreamtime itself are proof. i'm sure if people had a video camera back in those days they would have produced proof through video for you faithless wonders. since there wasn't, story telling and drawings were the only form of proof they had available.

I won't really dispute you Greenoaks. That is what the aborigines believe and, like my own faith ... is beyond proof.

BUT, I will say that the claim that it is the only religion and that it predates others is very much disputed by not just Christians, but Native American Tribes such as the Navaho... and even European pagans. AND, there is proof that each of these goes back about as far as the Austrailiens, which is not as far back as ANY of these tales go. This is a matter of belief, not proof ... at least for now.

nice try but if you go back and read the prior posts you will see that i just cut and pasted his arguments regarding the bible & inserted dreamtime to give it an aboriginal feel.

and how about you provide links regarding native american's culture going back as far as aborigines. all i find is that it about a fifth to a tenth the age of aboriginal culture.

[PLAYER57832]

nice try but if you go back and read the prior posts you will see that i just cut and pasted his arguments regarding the bible & inserted dreamtime to give it an aboriginal feel.and how about you provide links regarding native american's culture going back as far as aborigines. all i find is that it about a fifth to a tenth the age of aboriginal culture.

Yes, I  know ... but you have mentioned them enough that even if you don't believe the aboriginal ideas, you certainly respect them highly.  Actually, I respect them, too ... I just don't agree.

Archeologically, you are correct, but that only deals with physical evidence. Lack of physical evidence proves little. Preservation of physical evidence is happenstance at best and is much more likely in the continually dry climate of Australia (compared to even the desert regions of the US, that is ... I do know Australien climate has changed, but not as much as recently as the North American climate).

 Much of this comes through oral histories. The Navaho say they were put where they are by the creator. (so do many Native American tribes) I cannot give interenet sources, because my sources were Navaho Elders (capitol E intentional) and students of theirs, but also my college archeology professors, old  National Geographic articles, books, even several recent  programs on the Discover/history channel.  

Also, I did not say I believe this (I believe the Bible), but they do.  

[Gregrios]

What is this training you guys are talking about?

Anyways, God created man and earth to inhabit by man.

God has stepped up numerous times to claim his doings to many different people. The writings of the Bible are similar to a biography of a well known individual.

The Bible itself is proof. I'm sure if people had a video camera back in the day then God would have produced proof through video for you faithless wonders. Since there wasn't, writing was the only form of proof they had available.

Besides, the Bible has to be legit because nobody is as smart as the person who inspired the Bible. Only God is capable of knowing such things that the Bible produced and introduced. It really is as simple as that.

you are such an idiot.

man was created by the rainbow serpent.

your God is a relatively recent invention of people who had lost touch with the truth.

That sounds like a REALLY bad interpetation from the Gnostic Scriptures. Yes I'm familiar with it.

A valiant effort though.

it has no such connection. that story comes from the aborigines of australia.

the stories of the Dreamtime itself are proof. i'm sure if people had a video camera back in those days they would have produced proof through video for you faithless wonders. since there wasn't, story telling and drawings were the only form of proof they had available.

In your attempt to mock me you've incidently came to agreement with me.

Otherwords you've just rebuted your own rebut. Good job Oaks and keep up the good work.

[tzor]

This is an ineresting discussion, but I really see a fallicy here. The argument apparently is "All religions are equal." (And in the argument of the anti-religion equally bad.)

Let's put the argument on the flip side. All sciences are equal? You think? I don't think so.

Older sciences are obviously better than newer ones. Greek medicine is older than modern medicine and therefore must be better. Humors are clearly older than all this germ nonsense.

But they can't all be right ... right? How do you determine who is right? It's not easy, even in science. People are still proving that medicinal concepts like acupuncture still works without fully knowing why. In fact we used asprin for decades before we had a clue why it worked or did what it did.

There is old science, bad science, wierd science, insane science ... etc.

The same is true for religion.

Trying to find examples of bad religion is like trying to discredit science by pointing out how stupid the study of the bumps on a person's head was.

[bloknayrb]

nice job you religious fanatics. So far rather than defend your ideologies, you decide to attack one person who is smart enough to know your apparent misguidance towards how you view life.

Defend themselves against what? Your name-calling? You didn't make any kind of attack for them to defend against, you just said you're glad you're an athiest.

[CrazyAnglican]

Is faith good? I call it the safety net over the pit to nihilism. That’s got to be good.

I can see your point. There are plenty of studies that point to the overall benefits of living a religious life. Everything from higher chances of surviving and quicker recovery from surgery to lesser instances of depression have been attributed to it. Surveys have even pointed to longer life among believers in some areas. From a purely pragmatic point of view, it's a pretty good deal. Aside from references to fairy tales and insistence that it's only the placebo effect, it works.

Would you care to debate numbers of religious adherents who have lived longer through faith v numbers of religious adherents who have slaughtered each other because of conflicting faiths. I would venture that religion, in common with so many other things, is good for one only in moderation.

Sure, while I have to agree that getting hit over the head is by no means conducive to overall health, religion isn't the only reason that people are violent towards one another. Nor does renouncing all religions make one perfectly non-violent.

There is also the problem even in religiously inspired wars that the perpetrators can be acting on motives that have nothing to do with their religious faith and in fact fly against their religion's doctrine. Moreover, taking World War II and World War I into consideration it seems quite a lot have died as a result of national citizenship. Could you truthfully say that being Christian is any more unhealthy than being a British citizen?

Barring violent death (which can pretty much happen, to anyone, at any time, for any reason) a great many studies do show that recovery from surgery etc. can be aided by religious belief. That could I suppose also mean recovery from an injury in case some infidel* from another faith brains me.

* Purely tongue in cheek, most of them I've met have been really nice folks.

[Gregrios]

you are such an idiot.

man was created by the rainbow serpent.

your God is a relatively recent invention of people who had lost touch with the truth.

it has no such connection. that story comes from the aborigines of australia.

the stories of the Dreamtime itself are proof. i'm sure if people had a video camera back in those days they would have produced proof through video for you faithless wonders. since there wasn't, story telling and drawings were the only form of proof they had available.

I won't really dispute you Greenoaks. That is what the aborigines believe and, like my own faith ... is beyond proof.

BUT, I will say that the claim that it is the only religion and that it predates others is very much disputed by not just Christians, but Native American Tribes such as the Navaho... and even European pagans. AND, there is proof that each of these goes back about as far as the Austrailiens, which is not as far back as ANY of these tales go. This is a matter of belief, not proof ... at least for now.

As for Gregrios --

Anyways, God created man and earth to inhabit by man.

God has stepped up numerous times to claim his doings to many different people. The writings of the Bible are similar to a biography of a well known individual.

The Bible itself is proof. I'm sure if people had a video camera back in the day then God would have produced proof through video for you faithless wonders. Since there wasn't, writing was the only form of proof they had available.

Besides, the Bible has to be legit because nobody is as smart as the person who inspired the Bible. Only God is capable of knowing such things that the Bible produced and introduced. It really is as simple as that.

Sorry, but while I am a Christian and therefore share your belief that the Bible is valid history, guidance, etc. You are wrong on several points.

Although more recent events (those from a few thousand years before Christ) can be proven and, to a large extent are shown to be consistant with events in the Bible, if you don't believe the Bible, you cannot prove OR disprove earlier events. They are beyond proof, matters of belief and therefore not good debate evidence to anyone who doesn't accept the Bible. (visit Creationist thread if you want to get into this topic more).

That sounds like a REALLY bad interpetation from the Gnostic Scriptures. Yes I'm familiar with it.

A valiant effort though.

Apparently you are not that familiar. The aboriginal beliefs definitely predate that post-Christ sect called the Gnostics and the ideas have very. very little to do with Gnosticism. The Davinci code actually got a few things correct ... (and for you history afficianados, discrediting the Gnostics was a major reason for the Bible cannonization).

Your missing the point completely. I'm saying that the Bible's writings and more importantly the existence of Jesus Christ were partly intended to prove God's existence along with teaching people.

As for being wrong on several points. Holy crow man, I only made the two points. Not to mention that their fairly obvious points.

Yes I am familiar with the Gnostic Scriptures. Did it occur to you that I'm just not familiar with the whole rainbow serpent thing. Hmm. That would explain it eh?

[got tonkaed]

i havent really followed the thread, but i guess as it appears to have grown past 10 pages im a little confused. As a nonbeliever im surprised that there such an argument or discussion about whether or not there are positives to having religion. I would think if religion did nothing else, the fact that it has helped people to live a life they feel is better should be justification enough for their being good about religion.

Does religion have all the answers to everything and is impervious to criticism? No, but few things do.

I think for plenty of people religion, faith, spirituality throughout history (probably more than could ever be counted with all of the counters in the world - to jokingly paraphrase from the NT Gospels) that there has been plenty of good and will be good going forward from religion.

Really there should be a /thread as i cant see how this thread can be going on without being somewhat trolling to a lot of people who are very decent on here.

[greenoaks]

In your attempt to mock me you've incidently came to agreement with me.

Otherwords you've just rebuted your own rebut. Good job Oaks and keep up the good work.

i have no idea what you think i have agreed with.

all i have done is point out that the arguments you have used to validate your beliefs could equally be used to validate the beliefs of others, which surprisingly invalidate your beliefs.

[Gregrios]

In your attempt to mock me you've incidently came to agreement with me.

Otherwords you've just rebuted your own rebut. Good job Oaks and keep up the good work.

i have no idea what you think i have agreed with.

all i have done is point out that the arguments you have used to validate your beliefs could equally be used to validate the beliefs of others, which surprisingly invalidate your beliefs.

Is that why when you quoted you left out your previous statements? Go figure eh.

[Neoteny]

i havent really followed the thread, but i guess as it appears to have grown past 10 pages im a little confused. As a nonbeliever im surprised that there such an argument or discussion about whether or not there are positives to having religion. I would think if religion did nothing else, the fact that it has helped people to live a life they feel is better should be justification enough for their being good about religion.

Does religion have all the answers to everything and is impervious to criticism? No, but few things do.

I think for plenty of people religion, faith, spirituality throughout history (probably more than could ever be counted with all of the counters in the world - to jokingly paraphrase from the NT Gospels) that there has been plenty of good and will be good going forward from religion.

Really there should be a /thread as i cant see how this thread can be going on without being somewhat trolling to a lot of people who are very decent on here.

I think I've been very good, with respect for this thread.

[Snorri1234]

This is an ineresting discussion, but I really see a fallicy here. The argument apparently is "All religions are equal." (And in the argument of the anti-religion equally bad.)

In a way they are, yes.

Let's put the argument on the flip side. All sciences are equal? You think? I don't think so.

Because religion and science are the same thing?

Trying to find examples of bad religion is like trying to discredit science by pointing out how stupid the study of the bumps on a person's head was.

Except noone is trying to point out examples of bad religion. What greenoaks is saying is that making the claim that you belief in with jesus and god and stuff is less ridiculous than a giant coloured serpent is faulty logic.

[CrazyAnglican]

Except noone is trying to point out examples of bad religion. What greenoaks is saying is that making the claim that you belief in with jesus and god and stuff is less ridiculous than a giant coloured serpent is faulty logic.

Sure, I'll accept that. However, it does appear from your paraphrase that you think (or at least you believe greenoaks is saying) that all religions are ridiculous. Do I have your stance right?

[PLAYER57832]

All sciences are equal? You think? I don't think so.

Older sciences are obviously better than newer ones. Greek medicine is older than modern medicine and therefore must be better. Humors are clearly older than all this germ nonsense.

But they can't all be right ... right? How do you determine who is right? It's not easy, even in science. People are still proving that medicinal concepts like acupuncture still works without fully knowing why. In fact we used asprin for decades before we had a clue why it worked or did what it did.

There is old science, bad science, wierd science, insane science ... etc.

.

Actually, no. Science is just a process. When that process is correct, it reveals truth. what you refer to as "old science" were older attempts at truth that were later proved wrong. They therefore no longer stand.

It is correct that there can be competing theories in existance at the same time ... and in a sense all can be considered "valid" until proven otherwise. However, though in the purest sense, no theory can be disgarded by true science, all theories are not necessarily equal, either. Some theories have more proof to support them than others. Some theories have so little proof that while they stand as a theory, they do not constitute science ... at least at this time.

Creationism is probably the best example so far presented. Evolution theory stands as science, not because it is necessarily 100% correct, but because it is backed by reams of real facts. Creationism does not because it is based upon religious belief, not scientific facts. Intelligent design could be a kind of compromise IF it is seen as the background "why" to the theory of "Evolution" (or whatever evolves as the final truth). It would still not be science, it would be philosphy behind science. However, too often it is used instead as a wedge into which so-called Creation Science is to be thrust. The fact that someone can come up with a competing idea to Evolution, does not mean those ideas are equally valid or equally scientific. Challanges to Evolution are welcome, when valid and real. Unfortunately, what is presented as "Creation science" does not do this. Again, I present this here as just an example, not to actually debate the Creationist topic here.

[tzor]

This is an ineresting discussion, but I really see a fallicy here. The argument apparently is "All religions are equal." (And in the argument of the anti-religion equally bad.)

In a way they are, yes.

Let's put the argument on the flip side. All sciences are equal? You think? I don't think so.

Because religion and science are the same thing?

The problem boils down to a simple argument; it's hard to prove all X is Y because most of the time they simply are not. All religions are not the same, just as all sciences are not the same. Some are more rigorious than others, some have certain problems, others have different problems.

Note what I have not argued so far. I have not claimed that any religion is "more correct" than another. I have simply claimed that the notion that they are either all correct or all incorrect is the equivalent of saying all the sciences are correct or they are all incorrect. While science is a process, many associate science with the set of laws and axioms that come from science which ironically they take as dogma because they either lack the time or the ability to derive them on their own.

Now there is the question of how you can determine whether one religion is "better" than the other. That's not easy and beyond the scope of this thread but the notion that all religions are simply pattently false is a strawman argument based on the notion that all are completely equal.

Trying to find examples of bad religion is like trying to discredit science by pointing out how stupid the study of the bumps on a person's head was.

Except noone is trying to point out examples of bad religion. What greenoaks is saying is that making the claim that you belief in with jesus and god and stuff is less ridiculous than a giant coloured serpent is faulty logic.

Once again this goes into comparing one religion with another. The logic isn't perse faulty, but generally speaking in threads like these it's completely missing. And that doesn't mean it's right.

[PLAYER57832]

In both cases, I disagree.

Science is "equal" because science is a process, not any particular idea.  Are some ideas, realms of thought easier to prove than others, yes.   This means that science cannot provide equal answers, not that science itself is unequal. Religion is a different story.  Everyone has an equal right to believe as they wish.  They do not have an equal right to act on those beliefs.   Nor do they have an equal right to expect the world to respect and teach their ideas.  (come again???) 
  Let me clarify --- You can believe that you have to sacrafice children to preserve the earth.   Society will NOT, however, allow you free reign to act on those beliefs.  Further, the idea is so repugnant to the vast majority, any discussion of that idea will be very, very quickly curtailed.  

A very different example is the belief that the earth is the back of a turtle.   Taken literally, this idea has been disproven.  It is no longer valid.   Taken sympbolically or as part of a concept of multiple universes and so forth, it cannot be disproven.  That evolution of this particular religion therefore can be considered "valid".

These are just 2 examples of how religions are not "equal".  Religions that drive us to do things that are bad for people, society are dismissed ... at least until society changes.   (eg the rise of Nazism, the rise of Pol Pot, human sacrafice, etc.)   Religions that put forward ideas that are proven false (Nazism on one hand, earth being the back of a turtle ... earth being only 4000 years old) either change or die.

[Snorri1234]

Except noone is trying to point out examples of bad religion. What greenoaks is saying is that making the claim that you belief in with jesus and god and stuff is less ridiculous than a giant coloured serpent is faulty logic.

Sure, I'll accept that. However, it does appear from your paraphrase that you think (or at least you believe greenoaks is saying) that all religions are ridiculous. Do I have your stance right?

Yes. But that is irrelevant to my point, which is that you can't logically proclaim one religion to be more right than the other. You can only use faith and feeling for that.

[CrazyAnglican]

Except noone is trying to point out examples of bad religion. What greenoaks is saying is that making the claim that you belief in with jesus and god and stuff is less ridiculous than a giant coloured serpent is faulty logic.

Sure, I'll accept that. However, it does appear from your paraphrase that you think (or at least you believe greenoaks is saying) that all religions are ridiculous. Do I have your stance right?

Yes. But that is irrelevant to my point, which is that you can't logically proclaim one religion to be more right than the other. You can only use faith and feeling for that.

I think you might be making more than one point here, an overt one and a covert one perhaps. So every religion is deserving of derision and ridicule?

[Snorri1234]

These are just 2 examples of how religions are not "equal".

They are equal in the sense that none of them can claim logical grounds for their beliefs. Sure, I think a religion which slaughters babies is abhorrent but it has the same justification for believing in it as other religions have for their beliefs.

I divide religions into "harmless" and "non-harmless", not in "ridiculous" and "logical".

[CrazyAnglican]

I divide religions into "harmless" and "non-harmless", not in "ridiculous" and "logical".

So at best at religion is inconsequential? No real good can come of them?

[Snorri1234]

I think you might be making more than one point here, an overt one and a covert one perhaps. So every religion is deserving of derision and ridicule?

In a sense, yes. I don't think Christianity is somehow less ridiculous than belief in the Greek Gods. The only reason to not ridicule Christianity for example is the fact that a large portion of western people wouldn't consider it funny.

I make fun of every religion, not just the ones you think are silly because you've grown up in a different culture.

[Snorri1234]

I divide religions into "harmless" and "non-harmless", not in "ridiculous" and "logical".

So at best at religion is inconsequential? No real good can come of them?

(I'd say the good from religion is due to the people and not the religion itself, but nevermind.) With harmless I mean that it won't cause any harm, which includes religions that are benificial ofcourse. Why would harmless mean it can't be good for people?

[CrazyAnglican]

I think you might be making more than one point here, an overt one and a covert one perhaps. So every religion is deserving of derision and ridicule?

In a sense, yes. I don't think Christianity is somehow less ridiculous than belief in the Greek Gods. The only reason to not ridicule Christianity for example is the fact that a large portion of western people wouldn't consider it funny.

I make fun of every religion, not just the ones you think are silly because you've grown up in a different culture.

Hmmm. Well I couldn't say that either system of beliefs was particularly ridiculous in that so much of Western thought, law, and culture in general were based on them. Historically some very good ideas have been carried, and still are, by religions. I can see no reason to summarily single them them all out for ridicule. What's your basis for this? Are philosophies thrown into the same bin?

Why would harmless mean it can't be good for people?

Harmless can be a dismissive term for "useless but not in the way", my mistake if you didn't mean that and see that religions are useful.