Re-Evaluation

[Rohkaze]

ProjectOmicron88

Rohkaze

ProjectOmicron88

Basically, religion has been the pillar of any community for thousands of years. But I'm not saying it merits the archaic practices that go with it. I want nothing more than to see that sense of community and unrequited friendship placed onto another aspect of modern society, the problem is that as long as people still believe in supernatural concepts, religion will always bring people together (and divide them equally as well) better than most other groups.

Oh really? Did you address the example groups I provided? I mean, for strength of community, soccer hooligans are pretty damn impressive. I know members of an aviation enthusiast group I belong to who would risk their lives to help a fellow aviator in trouble. Heck, they often volunteer their time to do training and such, all as part of a group.

I am not saying that religious groups don't have a strong sense of community, but your claim that they have obviously the strongest sense of community ("bring people together better than most other groups") is such a bold statement, you had probably better spend some more time explaining and supporting that claim.

I would argue that humans are social animals and will find any number of equally effective ways to form complex social bonds, religious identity only being one of many equally convenient ways to do so. And, considering the impact geographic, cultural, and linguistic differences of on religious expression, I would argue those are three examples of social group distinction that actually supercede religion as a means of group identity, whether said members are aware of it or not.

All true, and I'm not denying that other social concepts have done wonders for community relations (I was on a soccer team myself for a couple years). The thing is, religion has done it for millenia. I think the reason it has is because religion provides a mandate for being fair, kind, and warm to other people (unless, in Lord Carlin's words, "they pray to a different invisible man from the one you pray to"). It's stood the test of time as the pillar of a community, and when I looked critically at where a lot of people would be without religion, it's a bit scary. Sure, they'd adapt. Everyone does. But my point is that even if you're being kind to others to avoid going to hell, the reason doesn't matter to the person who's being helped. The Richard Dawkins quote about being kind only in response to a divine ultimatum being a despicable reason to be kind comes naturally to mind, but if someone's being helped anyway, it ultimately makes little difference.

I guess my point is...there may be some people who could use an ultimatum if it means they keep from being pricks.

It makes every difference, because as soon as some p***k finds out they were duped into being nice, they will not only revert to being a p***k, but do so with a vengeance.

And the communal need for food, security, and sex has been around long before we evolved the cognitive ability to invent religion.

I do understand what you are trying to say about religion being a tool for communal harmony and such. But, it is a severely flawed tool, and one that is doomed to having severely flawed results. Your sense of religious community barely holds true for members of the same religious sect, and completely breaks down for humanity at large. This is why I am so strongly disagreeing with you.  

[ProjectOmicron88]

Rohkaze

Your sense of religious community barely holds true for members of the same religious sect, and completely breaks down for humanity at large. This is why I am so strongly disagreeing with you.

I'm not referring to the large scale, though. I never was. On a personal basis, religion can help people through tough times. But it's precisely because of the fact that most people do ignore the large scale that it hurts more than helps, but my point is that it CAN help. If, at some point in the future, we can extract the small-scale helpful qualities religion has and ultimately separate it from the large-scale mess it creates, that would be the ultimate resolution.  

[Rohkaze]

ProjectOmicron88

Rohkaze

Your sense of religious community barely holds true for members of the same religious sect, and completely breaks down for humanity at large. This is why I am so strongly disagreeing with you.

I'm not referring to the large scale, though. I never was. On a personal basis, religion can help people through tough times. But it's precisely because of the fact that most people do ignore the large scale that it hurts more than helps, but my point is that it CAN help. If, at some point in the future, we can extract the small-scale helpful qualities religion has and ultimately separate it from the large-scale mess it creates, that would be the ultimate resolution.

The point I am making is that it is NOT religion that is helping, but other coping mechanisms available to any human that have been co-opted by religions and falsely claimed as their own which are helpful. We can separate out these helpful coping mechanisms from religion, but people choose not to.

Community is not inherently religious. Counseling is not inherently religious. Hope against odds is not inherently religious. Morals are not inherently religious. Cooperation is not inherently religious. Pleasure is not inherently religious. Laws are not inherently religious.

What I am saying is the the basis of your argument is wrong. I hear, I understand what you are saying, and I utterly disagree with it. Just as I would disagree with you if you said war was inherently a trait of religion.

In actuality, religion is the most superfluous cultural construct modern humans have ever devised, and serves only to show that people proclaiming utter BS are able to get other people to do what they want simply because they are willing to buy into the BS versus challenging it. It is an awfully harsh condemnation of religion, and religion deserves every bit of it.

However, this should not be confused with the idea that people who are religious never do good things. Far from it. That would be like saying all atheists are nice people (if only this were true).

If however, you want to try and assert that religious people are somehow granted an extra ability to cope or be helpful above and beyond the non-religious, then you are absolutely buying into superstitions, and I would demand further evidentiary support for your arguments.  

[ProjectOmicron88]

Rohkaze

The point I am making is that it is NOT religion that is helping, but other coping mechanisms available to any human that have been co-opted by religions and falsely claimed as their own which are helpful. We can separate out these helpful coping mechanisms from religion, but people choose not to.

This is exactly what I'm trying to say. The more we move to better coping mechanisms, the better, but for now, religion does help make people feel emotionally secure.

Rohkaze

Community is not inherently religious. Counseling is not inherently religious. Hope against odds is not inherently religious. Morals are not inherently religious. Cooperation is not inherently religious. Pleasure is not inherently religious. Laws are not inherently religious.

I'm not saying these things. I'm saying religion is inherently community-building, so you had that backwards. I never linked counseling to religion. I never linked hope against all odds to religion, nor morality, nor cooperation, nor pleasure, nor laws.

Rohkaze

What I am saying is the the basis of your argument is wrong. I hear, I understand what you are saying, and I utterly disagree with it. Just as I would disagree with you if you said war was inherently a trait of religion.

You don't seem to understand, because most of what you're saying is not in the least a reflection of the point I'm trying to make.

Rohkaze

In actuality, religion is the most superfluous cultural construct modern humans have ever devised, and serves only to show that people proclaiming utter BS are able to get other people to do what they want simply because they are willing to buy into the BS versus challenging it. It is an awfully harsh condemnation of religion, and religion deserves every bit of it.

I don't disagree on that. My point, however, is that other people do. People who do still believe in God. Just because you disagree with them is no reason to ignore the fact that destroying a person's foundation for belief leaves them emotionally distraught. It's archaic, and it does need to be done away with, but it won't happen in a brief flash of light, and suddenly everyone forgets about God. It's something ingrained into society like soap scum in shower tiles...it takes a while to get everything, and it's unlikely to happen in our lifetime.

Rohkaze

However, this should not be confused with the idea that people who are religious never do good things. Far from it. That would be like saying all atheists are nice people (if only this were true).

This seems to be the only part that accurately responds to the point I'm trying to make. There are good people who do good things because of religious conviction, but have good moral fiber anyway. The fact of the matter is that religion is just the reason. If they didn't have religious influence, they'd find another reason to be good people. My point is that, if religion gives good people a reason to be good, so much the better.

Rohkaze

If however, you want to try and assert that religious people are somehow granted an extra ability to cope or be helpful above and beyond the non-religious, then you are absolutely buying into superstitions, and I would demand further evidentiary support for your arguments.

Again, you're completely missing my point. They're not granted additional abilities, but additional opportunities. As long as people treat their pastors like family, the religious will have another place to go if therapy doesn't help, or if the comforting words of a family fall on deaf ears. This is not to say religion always works, and of course, atheists have communities themselves to fall back on. But theists don't see religion as another aspect of community, they see it as a community unto itself, something bigger than any other aspect of human society. It's something that gives their lives purpose, whereas atheists don't feel as though a legitimate supernatural purpose in life exists. As long as more people think their lives have a purpose beyond enjoying the time we have, the more religion will continue to be a strong emotional pillar for a lot of people. Ripping that out from under them sends it all crashing down.

I don't believe in God, Allah, or Yaweh, and I believe that the Bible, Quran, and the Torah are collections of fables and stories designed to indoctrinate a primitive form of morality into people. My stance hasn't changed on that. But if it makes someone feel more emotionally secure to worship or pray or seek council in a religious figure, then nobody has the right to take that happienss and emotional security away.  

[ProjectOmicron88]

I don't know if I'll be able to articulate the point exactly how I want to say it, but suffice it to say, it makes sense to me.

A good debate only strengthens the mind anyway. 3nodding  

[Theophrastus]

ProjectOmicron88

This is exactly what I'm trying to say. The more we move to better coping mechanisms, the better, but for now, religion does help make people feel emotionally secure.

I disagree, here. The coping mechanisms exist outside of religion, though often religious groups use them. As Rohkaze said, the fact that they're casually associated with religion has no bearing on their effectiveness.

ProjectOmicron88

This seems to be the only part that accurately responds to the point I'm trying to make. There are good people who do good things because of religious conviction, but have good moral fiber anyway. The fact of the matter is that religion is just the reason. If they didn't have religious influence, they'd find another reason to be good people. My point is that, if religion gives good people a reason to be good, so much the better.

So why should religion get the credit when it's the people who are good?

ProjectOmicron88

Again, you're completely missing my point. They're not granted additional abilities, but additional opportunities. As long as people treat their pastors like family, the religious will have another place to go if therapy doesn't help, or if the comforting words of a family fall on deaf ears.

Again, should we really give religion the credit for what any decent human could do? Sure, religion could be their conduit but that's really insulting the character of the good person doing it to say that religion should be praised for what came from a good individual.

ProjectOmicron88

This is not to say religion always works, and of course, atheists have communities themselves to fall back on. But theists don't see religion as another aspect of community, they see it as a community unto itself, something bigger than any other aspect of human society. It's something that gives their lives purpose, whereas atheists don't feel as though a need for legitimate supernatural purpose in life exists.

Fixed.

ProjectOmicron88

As long as more people think their lives have a purpose beyond enjoying the time we have, the more religion will continue to be a strong emotional pillar for a lot of people. Ripping that out from under them sends it all crashing down.

If a person chooses to believe that there is no reason you should feel bad for pulling the wool away from their eyes. It sucks, don't think I'm unsympathetic to that, but to the original question there's no reason you should feel any worse for that than the surgeon does for cutting into someone to save them from cancer.

I'm not really arguing with you, good friend, I just want to let you know that I see where Rohkaze is coming from and agree. While I know damn well it'll be a long minute before religion is dethroned, I think that a big part of the successful defeat of religion's stranglehold on human consciousness will come when we show that without the good thoughts and good people (which exist well on their own without religion) that superstition is the disease that we have survived through, not anything that's helped our progress. That will help society move more quickly away from it.  

[ProjectOmicron88]

Theophrastus

ProjectOmicron88

This is exactly what I'm trying to say. The more we move to better coping mechanisms, the better, but for now, religion does help make people feel emotionally secure.

I disagree, here. The coping mechanisms exist outside of religion, though often religious groups use them. As Rohkaze said, the fact that they're casually associated with religion has no bearing on their effectiveness.

ProjectOmicron88

This seems to be the only part that accurately responds to the point I'm trying to make. There are good people who do good things because of religious conviction, but have good moral fiber anyway. The fact of the matter is that religion is just the reason. If they didn't have religious influence, they'd find another reason to be good people. My point is that, if religion gives good people a reason to be good, so much the better.

So why should religion get the credit when it's the people who are good?

ProjectOmicron88

Again, you're completely missing my point. They're not granted additional abilities, but additional opportunities. As long as people treat their pastors like family, the religious will have another place to go if therapy doesn't help, or if the comforting words of a family fall on deaf ears.

Again, should we really give religion the credit for what any decent human could do? Sure, religion could be their conduit but that's really insulting the character of the good person doing it to say that religion should be praised for what came from a good individual.

ProjectOmicron88

This is not to say religion always works, and of course, atheists have communities themselves to fall back on. But theists don't see religion as another aspect of community, they see it as a community unto itself, something bigger than any other aspect of human society. It's something that gives their lives purpose, whereas atheists don't feel as though a need for legitimate supernatural purpose in life exists.

Fixed.

ProjectOmicron88

As long as more people think their lives have a purpose beyond enjoying the time we have, the more religion will continue to be a strong emotional pillar for a lot of people. Ripping that out from under them sends it all crashing down.

If a person chooses to believe that there is no reason you should feel bad for pulling the wool away from their eyes. It sucks, don't think I'm unsympathetic to that, but to the original question there's no reason you should feel any worse for that than the surgeon does for cutting into someone to save them from cancer.

I'm not really arguing with you, good friend, I just want to let you know that I see where Rohkaze is coming from and agree. While I know damn well it'll be a long minute before religion is dethroned, I think that a big part of the successful defeat of religion's stranglehold on human consciousness will come when we show that without the good thoughts and good people (which exist well on their own without religion) that superstition is the disease that we have survived through, not anything that's helped our progress. That will help society move more quickly away from it.

That's a more reasonable way of putting it, I think. I see where Rohkaze is coming from too, but I don't think there's much reason to be as militant about it as he was (at least, that's how it seemed to me sweatdrop ).  

[Theophrastus]

He does get very serious about this and I attribute his ardor to his lack of familiarity with the guild members.

He's good people, though. I would happily have his man-babies.  

[ElenaMason]

if you really.....TRULY think about it, although science has facts and evidence, it has a limit like everything else and it can only prove to a specific point before it has no other explanation for etc this or etc that.

just like religion, religion comes to a point, the rest is up to us. science could be considered a "religion" because its a set of "beliefs". evidential belief. we "believe" that we are made up of particles someone decided to call atoms, and its proven "fact". we "believe" that without oxygen we would die, and its proven "fact".

both are a set of ideas, theories, or philosophy, and both have limitations of where they can go. we also have "faith" that he science we "believe" in is exactly how we see things. thus also making science, metaphorically speaking, a point of view because we "believe" thats how everything works and most of it can be proven.

so either way, science and religion have been here since the dawn of man and i don't see either being eradicated or SHOULD be eradicated any time soon. either way i think mankind needs both, believer or non believer.  

[Theophrastus]

You're confusing philosophy and science. I don't "think," "hope" or "believe" that oxygen exists. And whether whether or not I did it remains true that I continue to breathe successfully. What's more, the case that oxygen exists has been strongly supported and, as of yet, no information has come to disprove this. If you want to talk about what is real versus what is imagined, perceived or spiritually felt you need to make it clear you're discussing philosophy, not testable facts and valid claims.

You're also confusing the meaning of the word "theory" as science applies it. To a scientific mind a hypothesis is a presumption which one tests to prove or disprove. Once evidence has been lined up and tests made that support the original claim, it moves from hypothesis to theory.

A scientific theory must be falsifiable, that is, it must be able to be proven wrong if other evidence makes a good case - otherwise it's a useless claim and invalid to research or believe. Religion never has a theory because it does not allow its presumption to be questioned. If you want an example look no further than the poor argument, "Prove God doesn't exist!" This is not a theory (the theory that God does exist) but instead a presumption and cannot be considered as a scientific claim since it's no more easy to prove God doesn't exist than it is to prove what number I'm thinking of right now. Nothing about it can be scrutinized and it makes the assumption of the question its own answer.

Religion has a hypothesis. In example, "God made the universe."

Science has a hypothesis. In example, "The present universe exists because of a massive expansion from an singular point."

Religion stops there.

Science goes on to test its hypothesis and question the validity of the claim, critique it and welcome attacks on it. If the idea stands true and is supported by the evidence then it is considered an established theory. This theory may be proven wrong or need corrections and adjustments but already it has moved far, far beyond the claims of religion and into the scope of reality.

I'll finish with a quote from a writer for the Leakey foundation regarding new fossil evidence regarding Homo-Habilis. Susan Anton said, "This is not questioning the idea at all of evolution; it is refining some of the specific points," Anton said. "This is a great example of what science does and religion doesn't do. It's a continuous self-testing process."  

[ElenaMason]

Theophrastus

You're confusing philosophy and science. I don't "think," "hope" or "believe" that oxygen exists. And whether whether or not I did it remains true that I continue to breathe successfully. What's more, the case that oxygen exists has been strongly supported and, as of yet, no information has come to disprove this. If you want to talk about what is real versus what is imagined, perceived or spiritually felt you need to make it clear you're discussing philosophy, not testable facts and valid claims.

You're also confusing the meaning of the word "theory" as science applies it. To a scientific mind a hypothesis is a presumption which one tests to prove or disprove. Once evidence has been lined up and tests made that support the original claim, it moves from hypothesis to theory.

A scientific theory must be falsifiable, that is, it must be able to be proven wrong if other evidence makes a good case - otherwise it's a useless claim and invalid to research or believe. Religion never has a theory because it does not allow its presumption to be questioned. If you want an example look no further than the poor argument, "Prove God doesn't exist!" This is not a theory (the theory that God does exist) but instead a presumption and cannot be considered as a scientific claim since it's no more easy to prove God doesn't exist than it is to prove what number I'm thinking of right now. Nothing about it can be scrutinized and it makes the assumption of the question its own answer.

Religion has a hypothesis. In example, "God made the universe."

Science has a hypothesis. In example, "The present universe exists because of a massive expansion from an singular point."

Religion stops there.

Science goes on to test its hypothesis and question the validity of the claim, critique it and welcome attacks on it. If the idea stands true and is supported by the evidence then it is considered an established theory. This theory may be proven wrong or need corrections and adjustments but already it has moved far, far beyond the claims of religion and into the scope of reality.

I'll finish with a quote from a writer for the Leakey foundation regarding new fossil evidence regarding Homo-Habilis. Susan Anton said, "This is not questioning the idea at all of evolution; it is refining some of the specific points," Anton said. "This is a great example of what science does and religion doesn't do. It's a continuous self-testing process."

*sighs* the main point of what i was saying is that i don't think life can live without religion or science, religion being the basis of us wanting to reach out to something to help guide us or understand why life is the way it is, science being similar but to be evidence as to why things are the way they are and proving it.

i still consider science of away of belief and a point of view, whether its based on facts or not. thats how I see it.