Is there anything we lose from not being religious?

[EnlightenmentHK]

Fine, be insulted if you want. It just proves my point even more.

If you say something insulting, yes...that sometimes leads to people feeling insulted. This ain't rocket science here. Doesn't mean we're hypersensitive or easily irritated, it just means you said something insulting. Period.

 

[DJ Bonebraker]

Nihilistic:

One does NOT engage in civil debate by accusing random people of being delusional, calling them irrational and posting offensive Youtube^tm videos... Nor is such considered polite or respectful. Your inability to grasp that, coupled with the inability to notice that my post count is higher than yours, and that I've been a member of these forums nearly as long as yourself and come to the logical conclusion that I am not, in fact, "new here" would tend to indicate that you, also, might be a candidate for the ignore list. Fort the time being, however I'll give you the benefit of a doubt.

Furthermore, all of his assertions, except the accusation of irrationality can be dismissed out-of-hand (mainly because no human is actually rational, although we're good at rationalizing things): First of all, in order to make sure that they weren't putting a whack-job in charge of a missile launcher, M-60 Machine gun or on a watch station that involved carrying loaded weapons (all of which were part of my duties, BTW), the US Navy subjected me to regular psychological evaluations over my 6-year enlistment, and found no delusional or other conditions that would disqualify me from serving.

Secondly, that Youtube^tm video was just plain offensive, especially since I never said that I subscribed to creationism: I subscribe to the theory of Intelligent Design, which accepts all the SCIENTIFIC theories, but only asserts that everything is NOT, in fact, a mere product of time, matter and chance. Trying to lump me with such whack-jobs is just plain childish.

I disagree that "interpretation" of information is up to one's own beliefs. An individual will always see the world in the context of his/her own experiences, but that is no excuse to reject reality, to reject truth. For example, should science conflict with an individual's belief system, I do not think that he or she should reject science.

Fair enough: I don't reject science... Like I said, I'm majoring in a field of scientific study (electronic engineering, which, thankfully, doesn't have all the religious controversy and argumentation surrounding it that biology does). The thing is, science is not, nor will it ever be the end-all, be-all explanation for life, the universe and everything.... To me, science is merely a tool to get the job done; it is not my "god" like it seems to be for many people.... As Sir Peter Medawar once wrote, "The existence of a limit to science is, however, made clear by its inability to answer childlike elementary questions having to do with first and last things--questions such as: 'How did everything begin?'; 'What are we all here for?'; 'What is the point of living?'"

Anyone claiming that science CAN explain such things is abusing the scientific method, and dropping straight into the arena of religion and philosophy.

Darwin rejected social Darwinism, if I recall correctly. What, specifically, do you mean by "philosophy of Darwinism?" Natural Selection is a scientific theory, and Darwin was a scientist, so in that sense it is philosophy, but it is a logical one, which does not imply eugenics or anything like that.

I'm sorry, I should have been clearer... What I was referring to is properly called Naturalistic Humanism (which DOES smuggle in some of the precepts of Social Darwinism from time to time, but I digress), which basically states, to quote Dr. Dawkins, "The universe is nothing but a collection of atoms in motion, human beings simply machines for propagating DNA, and the propagation of DNA a self-sustaining process. It is ever living object's sole reason for living."

As much as the consequences of such garbage constantly being shoved down everyone's throats in all levels of school sickens me, I actually feel sorry for the man... His life must be truly pathetic if that's all he thinks there is to it, while missing out on the grand adventure of discovery it truly is!

THAT is one of the key reasons I reject atheism, especially after they keep telling everyone that they're nothing but another animal, then the sociologists get all shocked and dismayed when people start ACTING like animals.... The Self-Fufilling Prophecy, that is, if you keep telling someone that they are something long enough, they'll act that part, is one of the MOST basic tenets of sociology, and one that's been repeatedly proven!

Anecdotal evidence isn't reliable evidence to generalize the behavior of an entire group of people like that. I should certainly hope that you do not believe atheists are by nature inclined towards being immoral simply due to a couple bad experiences with people who just happened to be atheists, as that would be prejudiced.

Fair enough, however I must say this:

It was more than just "a couple" of bad experiences: Some of the harassment lasted for over 6 months in one case, and one of my college professors in another! (the man threatened to fail me for the whole semester just because I wanted to do a term paper on Intelligent Design!) However, you are right in saying that still does not give me the right to get on all atheists' cases.

Secondly, I don't believe atheists are inclined towards being immoral; I believe that HUMANITY, as a whole, is inclined towards being immoral... I mean, even babies, who are supposed to be innocent, are the very embodiment of selfishness, and based on my experience, nobody is capable of more base cruelty than a child! (except for childish adults who never really grew up).

Thirdly, I'd like to say the same thing about religious people: Just because you've had some bad experiences with fundamentalists, doesn't mean all religious people, or even theists, are prone to fanaticism....

I'd be willing to bet money that, percentage-wise, the number of religious fanatics is equal to that of fanatical atheists (such as Dr. Dawkins and Phillip Pullman). In addition, I have very little tolerance for Bible Thumpers who, it may come as no surprise at all, are too busy thumping their Bibles to actually read them (since, it does state clearly in the Bible that one should "Judge not, unless you also be judged, and the measure by which you judge shall be the measure by which you are judged").

The only reason I'm saying this is due to the comments of some earlier in this thread (you know who you are!). Like I said, I am VERY tolerant of others' beliefs, and self-righteous hypocrites are just as irritating to me, no doubt, as "hedonistic pieces of [filth] who only use atheism as an excuse for their decadent lifestyles" (as my one nihilistic friend once put it) are irritating to you.

Frekk: While I disagree with your tone, I DO agree that religious debate has no place in science (I mean think how much more we could accomplish if there wasn't all this constant bickering going on), and ESPECIALLY no place in government: The 30 years war, the Crusades, and the current crop of Islamo-fascist states should provide ample proof of what happens when THAT particular can of worms is opened up.

That is also one of the chief reasons the line, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" was added to the US constitution.

 

[warpus]

Secondly, that Youtubetm video was just plain offensive, especially since I never said that I subscribed to creationism: I subscribe to the theory of Intelligent Design

There is no such scientific theory.

 

[nihilistic]

Nihilistic:

One does NOT engage in civil debate by accusing random people of being delusional, calling them irrational and posting offensive Youtube^tm videos... Nor is such considered polite or respectful. Your inability to grasp that, coupled with the inability to notice that my post count is higher than yours, and that I've been a member of these forums nearly as long as yourself and come to the logical conclusion that I am not, in fact, "new here" would tend to indicate that you, also, might be a candidate for the ignore list. Fort the time being, however I'll give you the benefit of a doubt.

Furthermore, all of his assertions, except the accusation of irrationality can be dismissed out-of-hand (mainly because no human is actually rational, although we're good at rationalizing things): First of all, in order to make sure that they weren't putting a whack-job in charge of a missile launcher, M-60 Machine gun or on a watch station that involved carrying loaded weapons (all of which were part of my duties, BTW), the US Navy subjected me to regular psychological evaluations over my 6-year enlistment, and found no delusional or other conditions that would disqualify me from serving.

Secondly, that Youtube^tm video was just plain offensive, especially since I never said that I subscribed to creationism: I subscribe to the theory of Intelligent Design, which accepts all the SCIENTIFIC theories, but only asserts that everything is NOT, in fact, a mere product of time, matter and chance. Trying to lump me with such whack-jobs is just plain childish.

Well, you are delusional, because I haven't used the word "delusion" or any of its derivatives in any of my previous posts in this thread. I also don't think I've used the word "irrational" in this thread before this post either, though I can imagine many scenarios where it may be useful. Though if comparing post counts or join dates or other forms of navel-gazing suits your view of superiority, I'm not so sure if your military mental health inspectors may have missed something.

Secondly, I don't think I've posted any youtube videos on this thread at all. I also haven't either mentioned creationism or accused anyone of being a creationist anywhere in any previous reply of this thread. Since you mentioned it, I'd have to ask now: are you sure you've taken your medications today? If it is indeed PTSD I'd understand.

Thirdly, since you mentioned it, Intelligent Design is not a scientific hypothesis. The reason is that it has zero predictive power. There is no experiment that one can perform and no future evidence that can be gathered whose results can either support or refute it. It is unscientific because it is "not even false"; it is useless.

Also, threatening to ignore people won't get you far. You should have known that given how proud you evidently are of your postcount and join date.

 

[nihilistic]

Hey, polygamy jokes never go out of style. But, in fact, we do take our monogmay pretty seriously these days.

Aww, how cute? What if we go a bit more inclusive with this inquiry and ask about other areas of Mormonism's "big family" of prejudices? For example, have racist and homophobic jokes gone out of style yet? What do you think of the Mormon church's 1978 "revelation" that black people are afterall human? What do you think of the prospects of a future "revelation" that gay people are also human?

 

[Perfection]

You must be new here! One of the reasons I haven't visited the Off Topic forums here was constant harassment and belittling by SweedishGuy37, Perfection (a lot more so from SweedishGuy37, to be fair) and others.... The same whom, I might add never bothered the Buddhists or Muslims, yet felt the need to jump all over every Christian on the board. SweedishGuy even said, and I quote, "I want to rid the world of all narrow-minded fools, such as Christians." If that isn't a militant and arrogant (not to mention hypocritical) attack, then I don't know what is.

Wait, I thought I was a Good atheist

Perfection, I know I've said some bitter, mean things to you before, but I was wrong.... I was being rather proud myself, and from what I've been able to gather, you're one of the, for a lack of a better term Good atheists, or I guess what you'd call a humanist, and I can respect that.... At least you're trying to make the world a better place, as opposed to using the old "well, I'll be long dead and gone before everything goes ker-flooey, so why should I care as long as I get rich" spiel that I've come accross one time too many.

 

[Agent327]

Well, yes.

I noticed that the CFC-OT has a lot of atheist. Just out of curiosity, what's lost when a person chooses not to be religious or study religion? What could be gained by observing some religious practices like fasting or monogamy?

I don't think one can choose being religious; either one is or one isn't.

Fasting or monogamy aren't religious practices per se: they stem from spirituality, which to some may seem to have a wider range than religion, whereas they overlap without being identical. I think one has to discern between organized religion and being religious, though. Organized religion does not necessarily encompass spirituality, whereas being a religious person does.

So, in short: a person who isn't religious misses out on spirituality.

 

[Gustave5436]

THAT is one of the key reasons I reject atheism, especially after they keep telling everyone that they're nothing but another animal, then the sociologists get all shocked and dismayed when people start ACTING like animals.... The Self-Fufilling Prophecy, that is, if you keep telling someone that they are something long enough, they'll act that part, is one of the MOST basic tenets of sociology, and one that's been repeatedly proven!

I don't get the problem. Specifically, humans are not only animals, but amniotes, mammals, primates, and apes. I don't understand how the natural origin of our species, extensively proven by science, is a terrible thing, nor do I understand how morality completely collapses just because it arose through natural selection, rather than being designed by some creator.

I'm sorry, I should have been clearer... What I was referring to is properly called Naturalistic Humanism (which DOES smuggle in some of the precepts of Social Darwinism from time to time, but I digress), which basically states, to quote Dr. Dawkins, "The universe is nothing but a collection of atoms in motion, human beings simply machines for propagating DNA, and the propagation of DNA a self-sustaining process. It is ever living object's sole reason for living."

As much as the consequences of such garbage constantly being shoved down everyone's throats in all levels of school sickens me, I actually feel sorry for the man... His life must be truly pathetic if that's all he thinks there is to it, while missing out on the grand adventure of discovery it truly is!

I don't see a problem here either. Determinism is a valid view, since all it relies upon is the validity of causality, and from a purely biological standpoint, the only goal life has is to continue to exist; "meaning" and "purpose" are completely subjective and therefore cannot be addressed scientifically.

Neither do I see what's so pathetic about rejecting spirituality. It is nothing but a hindrance when seeking truth, when attaining greater knowledge about the universe and everything within it.

And on the intelligent design belief, it is scientifically invalid on two counts; firstly, it is unfalsifiable. Secondly, without any evidence for a creator whatsoever, it is redundant to add in a creator, as this only moves the question of how everything arose back; was this creator created by another creator, or did he originate naturally? You can keep creating older and older creators, but eventually you're going to need an original creator to come about through some natural process. Therefore, Occam's razor cuts the whole idea out entirely.

It was more than just "a couple" of bad experiences: Some of the harassment lasted for over 6 months in one case, and one of my college professors in another! (the man threatened to fail me for the whole semester just because I wanted to do a term paper on Intelligent Design!) However, you are right in saying that still does not give me the right to get on all atheists' cases.

And he was right to do so; if the term paper is an important part of the class, zero credit on it ought to also mean failing the class. This was not you being discriminated against for not being an atheist, this was you trying to write a paper on your religious beliefs for what I assume was a science class.

I'd be willing to bet money that, percentage-wise, the number of religious fanatics is equal to that of fanatical atheists (such as Dr. Dawkins and Phillip Pullman). In addition, I have very little tolerance for Bible Thumpers who, it may come as no surprise at all, are too busy thumping their Bibles to actually read them (since, it does state clearly in the Bible that one should "Judge not, unless you also be judged, and the measure by which you judge shall be the measure by which you are judged").

Just because someone strongly disagrees with religion does not make him a fanatic. What makes someone a fanatic is the willingness to take away other people's rights (including their right to live, in the case of terrorism) forcing them into a lifestyle he/she finds acceptable.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I noticed that the CFC-OT has a lot of atheist. Just out of curiosity, what's lost when a person chooses not to be religious

Certainty. In case of faith based religion. Often faith requires one to be sure without evidence.

or study religion?

This is different. There are many reasons and perks in studying religion.

What could be gained by observing some religious practices like fasting or monogamy?

Knowledge of social constructs.

Monogamy is not exclusively motivated by religion by the way.

Oh, and you gain irritation, but you already knew that.

 

[Lillefix]

I think some religious people are annoyed with atheists because they just can't figure out how it is possible to be moral without religion.

 

[thescaryworker]

I never said that I subscribed to creationism: I subscribe to the theory of Intelligent Design, which accepts all the SCIENTIFIC theories, but only asserts that everything is NOT, in fact, a mere product of time, matter and chance.

There is one key component that your list of the atheistic functions is missing: the laws of the universe. The universe, while appearing to be random on our macro-view of it, actually follows set rules. Not only is our macro-view deceiving, but we do not know the rules that the universe functions under, so events appear "random".

How is it scientifically acceptable to conclude a force [such as god] exists outside of our universe? The limits of science, by definition, are the universe. It cannot predict anything that exists or does not exist outside our universe. (depending on your definition of exists)

As Sir Peter Medawar once wrote, "The existence of a limit to science is, however, made clear by its inability to answer childlike elementary questions having to do with first and last things--questions such as: 'How did everything begin?'; 'What are we all here for?'; 'What is the point of living?'"

Anyone claiming that science CAN explain such things is abusing the scientific method, and dropping straight into the arena of religion and philosophy.

Dawkins answers the last two questions rather eloquently in The Selfish Gene.
Why can science NOT infringe on philosophy? Where does the jurisdiction of philosophy end and science begin? Why must we have an all-powerful being to answer these questions for us?

I would argue, even, that we shouldn't know the answer to the meaning of the universe & etc.. It is not the answers themselves that we need, but the journey to search for them.

This is why I chose science over religion: it does not pretend to have all the answers, it says "Go figure it out yourself". It forces you to learn about yourself and your surroundings before giving an answer. Then, once you have your answer, you begin to realize how small what you know, or what you ever could know, is. This awe of just ... everything ... is what I feel the greatest advantage that an atheist has.

to quote Dr. Dawkins, "The universe is nothing but a collection of atoms in motion, human beings simply machines for propagating DNA, and the propagation of DNA a self-sustaining process. It is ever living object's sole reason for living."

As much as the consequences of such garbage constantly being shoved down everyone's throats in all levels of school sickens me, I actually feel sorry for the man... His life must be truly pathetic if that's all he thinks there is to it, while missing out on the grand adventure of discovery it truly is!

What is NOT adventurous about Dawkins's assertion? It shows that we are a part of this grand scheme of the universe, that we are mechanisms of something so complex we cannot comprehend it.

The consequences of knowing fact over fiction is a truer, more complete and satisfying view of our world. People who take this and say "Nothing I do matters, so I'm going to kill people" are missing the point of what Dawkins said. They misunderstand that knowing where we came from and why we exist is one thing, but understanding what we should do with this knowledge and how we should work with the system is something completely different.

Secondly, I don't believe atheists are inclined towards being immoral; I believe that HUMANITY, as a whole, is inclined towards being immoral... I mean, even babies, who are supposed to be innocent, are the very embodiment of selfishness, and based on my experience, nobody is capable of more base cruelty than a child! (except for childish adults who never really grew up).

This is only if morality is separate from science. If it is not, then the entire system begins to make sense.

Babies cannot provide for themselves, so crying and "selfishness" is a survival mechanism. Evolution has lead us to despise rapists, murderers, etc. because they are detrimental to our species. Evolution shows how, over time, morality changes as to best fit our race at the moment.

 

[warpus]

So, in short: a person who isn't religious misses out on spirituality.

I disagree. You do not need religion for spirituality, IMO.

Also, everyone, read what thescaryworker wrote, because his post contains a lot of wisdom.

 

[DJ Bonebraker]

Wait, I thought I was a Good atheist

Good, in relative, human terms.... In terms of absolute good and evil, every human being tends to be more on the evil end of the sliding scale.

Comparing the differences between a good human, a bad human and God is like comparing a 100 watt light bulb, penlight and the sun... Yes, the 100 watt light bulb, in absence of anything else, appears to be much, much brighter than the penlight, however, they both are as nothing compared to the sun!

That, in essence, sums up one of the key points of Christian philosophy....

I would argue, even, that we shouldn't know the answer to the meaning of the universe & etc.. It is not the answers themselves that we need, but the journey to search for them.

I aggree with you 100%!

This is why I chose science over religion: it does not pretend to have all the answers, it says "Go figure it out yourself". It forces you to learn about yourself and your surroundings before giving an answer. Then, once you have your answer, you begin to realize how small what you know, or what you ever could know, is. This awe of just ... everything ... is what I feel the greatest advantage that an atheist has.

Ah, but you're making the old "science and religion are mutually exclusive" fallacy! Religion, at least Christianity, doesn't pretend to have all the answers either! It's a guide on how to live your life so as to get along with your fellow man with as little conflict as possible, as well as how to have a personal relationship with God... That's one of the reasons I also study science: I want to understand the marvelous universe God created better, particularly the rather difficult areas of Electricity and Magnetism (which science is still finding out new stuff about on a regular basis)

I have the same awe of everything, as well, and how little I know compared to God... As St. Paul even wrote in his first letter to the Corinthians, "For we know in part, and we prophesy in part, but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears." ....and later in the same chapter: "Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part, then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known."

As you can see, Christianity, is also about learning about yourself and your surroundings, as well as providing a guiding principle and perspective.... Which brings me to this:

The biggest thing I'd miss if I didn't trust God would have been a greater perspective... During the years I was constantly bullied in High School, the reminder in the Bible that this life is fleeting, and no hardship endures forever, and that there is hope of life after death gave me the perspective to endure the kind of torment that drove many others my age who didn't know God to commit horrific acts of violence (such as the Columbine massacre). My faith also keeps me humble in my pursuit of knowledge, and constantly reminds me that I seek the knowledge for God's glory, not my own, and for the benefit of my fellow man, and not just my own.

Besides, there is more to life than mere science.... Even back in the days when I was a militant Agnostic (If you didn't agree with what I believed, I'd stick a burning question mark in your yard. ), I still could sense that there was some greater mind or pattern to the universe, in the same way that I'd get gut feelings about other things (and I learned quickly not to ignore that gut feeling unless I wanted to end up in a world of hurt later on!), so I guess I was an agnostic theist (or would that be a theistic agnostic?), and I believed that all religions had a small amount of truth in them, but were ultimately corrupted by men seeking to abuse them for power, and full of mostly hypocrites who only paid lip-service to their god(s).

An incident that forced me to confront my own hypocrisy is what led me to find Christ, since, out of all the religions and philosophies out there, His was the only one that stacked up with what I knew (mostly from painful experience) about human nature, and I've seen nothing in my travels around the world (which have taken me to every continent except Africa, South America and Antarctica) have only reinforced this understanding: Humanity is lost in sin, and needs a savior.

As Dr. Ravi Zacharias related on his weekly radio show, "Let my People Think," that people are lost in different ways... He cited an example of Hindu pilgrims who carry great weights that are hooked through their skin in several places, and pierce their tongues, cheeks and lips with skewers as a sign of penance, and how someone from the west might wonder what kind of screwed-up society they came from to believe that is what it took to get prayers answered.

He then described an incident that occurred when his Swiss Air flight was delayed for a day in Thailand and he was staying at a hotel. When he looked out the window to gaze at the sunset, he was shocked to see some of the Swiss and French women on the flight laying around the pool completely topless! He said that if he'd have brought the Hindu pilgrims there, they probably would have wondered what kind of dark, heathen society those women came from that would impart such a complete lack of consideration or propriety.

Finally, he went on to describe one of the open forums he was speaking at where a militant atheist (one of Dawkins' followers, no doubt) stood up and declared that there was no such thing as morality. When Ravi said, "Well, then what would you say if I were to take a 1-day old baby up here and chop it to pieces in front of you?" To which the militant atheist replied, "I wouldn't be able to say that you did anything wrong, but I wouldn't like it." Ravi then stated that if one of the Hindu pilgrims and one of the topless women were in that forum with him, they probably would have wondered what kind of depraved background would lead that man to such an outlook on life! The point he finally made was that ALL of them were lost and in need of salvation, but in different ways.

Finally, I'd like to say this:

Dawkins answers the last two questions rather eloquently in The Selfish Gene.
Why can science NOT infringe on philosophy? Where does the jurisdiction of philosophy end and science begin? Why must we have an all-powerful being to answer these questions for us?

I've read some of The Selfish Gene, and I think that Dawkins completely misses the point... After all, if the purpose of human life is merely to "replicate DNA," then the lives of those who are sterile (whether born that way or as a result of disease and accident), are therefore meaningless, which is total bunk...

Again, Nietzsche, Marx, Voltaire, Dawkins, et al are reasons I'll never even CONSIDER pure atheism as a philosophical choice... If, by some sub-atomic sized chance, I were to have some reason to completely doubt the existence of God, I'd probably become a Buddhist because even though they are essentially atheist (they believe there is no gods, only nothingness and a stream of human conscious), they at least struggle for the noble goal of ending human suffering, and strive to achieve a higher level of consciousness!

As for the second part, why can philosophy NOT infringe on science? Why CAN'T we have an all-powerful being to answer these questions for us, or rather, provide guidance and perspective to us as we SEEK the answers?

My own response is based on my own personal experience, knowlege and understanding, and I can only assume that your answers are based on similar grounds. I won't even PRETEND that I know anything about your life experiences, and I'll thank you for not making any presumptions about mine.

 

[thescaryworker]

In terms of absolute good and evil, every human being tends to be more on the evil end of the sliding scale.

Says what? Even if we know where absolute Good and Evil are, we have to define a middle ground in order to make such an assertion. We need a system to actually measure this instead of making claims with no evidence.

Ah, but you're making the old "science and religion are mutually exclusive" fallacy!

I should have said "atheism". And, they can be mutually exclusive. For example, if a religion says that the world is flat, the religion is wrong. Religions do not get a special pass that exempts their claims from needing proof.

Religion, at least Christianity, doesn't pretend to have all the answers either!

It removes the need for searching for more answers. For example:

Q: Why are we here?
A: God made us. Period. End of story. Don't bother trying to research it because all your evidence is belong to us. (/jk)

It provides unfounded explanations for things, giving no evidence or proof, then says that we should accept its answers unquestioningly. This state of mind leads to biased science, where the researchers believe that no matter what they find, it has to point to what their holy book says.

A good example of an easily provable scientific discovery contradicting the bible is rainbows. According to the bible, God placed rainbows in the sky AFTER the Flood. This means that either there was no rain* over the entire world before the Flood or that the rule of index of refraction in the universe did not exist until after the Flood. As either of these would be absolutely ridiculous and require a universe much different from our own, we can safely assume that they are both false.

*Unless someone wishes to debate that the entire world was under -40C and had no forms of dust (pollen, dead bug parts, dead skin cells, etc), in which case clouds could not actually form.

However, when we actually look at rainbows under a sceptical eye, we see that light forms a rainbow because of the pattern of dispersal of different wavelengths of light in spherical water molecules towards a point a long distance away.

That's one of the reasons I also study science: I want to understand the marvelous universe God created better, particularly the rather difficult areas of Electricity and Magnetism (which science is still finding out new stuff about on a regular basis)

Then how can your stance of God existing not be biased, if you are going in to study the universe with the assumption that God exists?

While science is about discovering new aspects of the universe, religion is about preserving itself while giving no real benefit on its own.

The biggest thing I'd miss if I didn't trust God would have been a greater perspective... During the years I was constantly bullied in High School, the reminder in the Bible that this life is fleeting, and no hardship endures forever, and that there is hope of life after death gave me the perspective to endure the kind of torment that drove many others my age who didn't know God to commit horrific acts of violence (such as the Columbine massacre). My faith also keeps me humble in my pursuit of knowledge, and constantly reminds me that I seek the knowledge for God's glory, not my own, and for the benefit of my fellow man, and not just my own.

Not knowing God does not lead to violence. I may as well give examples of people who work at abortion places who have been murdered by Christians, or the crusades. However, your and my examples do not prove anything excepts that people are dumb and some will take advantage of anything they can get their hands on to get their way.

Religion does not remove or cause violence. A misunderstanding of the philosophy behind most religions leads to violence, just as a misunderstanding of the philosophy of atheism leads to violence.

Besides, there is more to life than mere science

BLASPHEMY!(/jk)

While there is more to life than science (culture, demographics, transportation, etc.), it can be applied towards these areas to improve them.

Also, just because we don't directly see science in certain aspects of the world doesn't mean it is not there. A simple conversation between people always involves chemical reactions taking place at a mind-bogglingly complex level. A human running down the street or lifting weights involves chemical mechanical systems that take years to even get a hint of understanding from.

I still could sense that there was some greater mind or pattern to the universe, in the same way that I'd get gut feelings about other things (and I learned quickly not to ignore that gut feeling unless I wanted to end up in a world of hurt later on!)

Gut feelings do not actually prove anything. Could not the "underlying pattern to the universe" be just the naturalistic laws?

An incident that forced me to confront my own hypocrisy is what led me to find Christ, since, out of all the religions and philosophies out there, His was the only one that stacked up with what I knew (mostly from painful experience) about human nature, and I've seen nothing in my travels around the world (which have taken me to every continent except Africa, South America and Antarctica) have only reinforced this understanding: Humanity is lost in sin, and needs a savior.

Even if humanity needs a Savior, that does not mean that there is one. Hoping and wishing for something, even if it is beneficial, does not prove the validity of the something's existence. (take money and the US government for example)

Also, personal experience is another invalid method of obtaining evidence. If I "felt" that humanity was so inherently evil that I had to kill the entire human race, that does not make me right.

When he looked out the window to gaze at the sunset, he was shocked to see some of the Swiss and French women on the flight laying around the pool completely topless! He said that if he'd have brought the Hindu pilgrims there, they probably would have wondered what kind of dark, heathen society those women came from that would impart such a complete lack of consideration or propriety.

(sorry)Erm ... have you been to a Hindu temple? Much worse than sculptures of topless women reside in many Hindu temples.(/sorry)

Finally, he went on to describe one of the open forums he was speaking at where a militant atheist (one of Dawkins' followers, no doubt) stood up and declared that there was no such thing as morality.

Dawkins never claims that there is no such thing as morality. The atheist who stood up lacked a comprehension of the fact that morality is one of the forces of evolution. Morality has been shown to not require religion many times (Ayn Rand and Dawkins have both written about this).

While me might need a god to tell us what is right and wrong, but we shouldn't need one. Even if we need a god, it does not prove God's existence.

I've read some of The Selfish Gene, and I think that Dawkins completely misses the point... After all, if the purpose of human life is merely to "replicate DNA," then the lives of those who are sterile (whether born that way or as a result of disease and accident), are therefore meaningless, which is total bunk...

The reason that the human race as a whole exists is because we are mechanisms for DNA to replicate itself with.

We must not make the mistake of confusing why we are here and what we should do, as they require two completely different explanations and give completely different answers. If we apply the answer of one to the other, we are denying ourselves a complete explanation of ourselves.

Take a male black slave in the 1850's for example. He exists solely to do work on his white owner's plantation. He does not exist to seek enjoyment, make friends, and think. However, he does those things regardless. He can even go against his own existence by escaping via the Underground Railroad. I would even argue that he should go against his existence because the reason for his existence is wrong.

The same goes with us: we do many things that have nothing to do with our existence, and some that even go against our existence.

[Buddhists] at least struggle for the noble goal of ending human suffering

Ending suffering does not mean "good". There are many cases in which it has been proven that pain is a good thing. Not to say that we should constantly be in pain, but rather that a balance should be achieved in order for humans to advance as a race.

As for the second part, why can philosophy NOT infringe on science? Why CAN'T we have an all-powerful being to answer these questions for us, or rather, provide guidance and perspective to us as we SEEK the answers?

Philosophy cannot infringe on science because, in most cases, philosophy is religion in disguise. (It is supposed to be objective, but rarely holds to this in real life.) If I have a philosophy that says "smashing mallets into peoples heads is healthy and will make them like you", it can be disproved using a very scientific method. Basically, we should not take the unfounded assumptions of philosophy and apply them to real life, especially if they contradict reality.

Where science and philosophy conflict, science always wins because it shows absolute, true, objective reasoning that cannot be denied by "feelings".

 

[thescaryworker]

I just came up with an excellent reason for why when philosophy and science conflict that science should win: Aristotelian philosphy.

Aristotle was so convinced in philosophy that the number zero did not exist, that he had people killed for speaking of it. He even had others killed for saying that not only did irrational numbers exist, but the golden ratio was one of them.

His beliefs that zero did not exist were a hindrance to advancement in mathematics and science for more than two millennia. Without zero, calculus was unable to form (a few Greek mathematicians were on the verge of inventing it, but because they believed in zero they were killed or in some other way hindered by Aristotle's followers). This prevented many scientific advancements, and pushed back human technological development 2000 years. His methods of dealing with those who opposed his beliefs grew into what we know of as the Inquisition and the Crusades.

That is why philosophy cannot infringe on science, but science CAN infringe on philosophy.

 

[Agent327]

@warpus: What I said was:

Organized religion does not necessarily encompass spirituality, whereas being a religious person does.

So, in short: a person who isn't religious misses out on spirituality.

Don't misquote me.

 

[DJ Bonebraker]

@Thescaryworker:

While I agree with much of what you say on the surface, I'm still not convinced that you're right in your assumptions.

One of them is the fact that personal experience and gut feelings are irrelevant... I happen to have talked to a man who is a semi-retired researcher for the NSA, and he said the exact opposite, based on his years of research for the government, and he was one of the few people who didn't treat me like I was crazy because I said that when I was working on a particularly difficult problem in my overly-complex radar system, I'd go sleep on it, and the solution would come to me in my sleep... Quite a bit of his research was investigating that exact phenomenon. The biggest mistake that MOST modern science makes is that it completely ignores and/or sneers at intuition.

Furthermore, if you can't trust your own experiences, then you're forced to rely solely on what "experts" say, and when you do that (especially since it is SO easy to manufacture credibility... if you don't believe me, then take a college level course on propaganda and persuasion), then what you have is a personality cult, which is what Stalin, Mussolini and Mao were...

...Besides, I have trouble taking anything Dr. Dawkins says seriously after he made his infamous "religion is a mental virus" statement. Oh, I know: "Atheism is the cogitive equivalent of HIV" There! I just made a statement equally based in science, equally "considerate" and equally provable as Dr. Dawkins. As I said before, he is atheism's Osama bin Ladin.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on the whole religion thing... If you want to be a mere "puppet dancing to the strings of your DNA" (as Dr. Dawkins put it), then go ahead; I, on the other hand, will continue to strive to overcome my most base nature and achieve the next level of consciousness and closeness to God.

Oh, and thanks for being civil and respectful.

 

[warpus]

@warpus: What I said was:

Don't misquote me.

You said that somebody who isn't religious misses out on spirituality.

This is not true.

 

[DJ Bonebraker]

Oh, and I missed this earlier:

Well, you are delusional, because I haven't used the word "delusion" or any of its derivatives in any of my previous posts in this thread. I also don't think I've used the word "irrational" in this thread before this post either, though I can imagine many scenarios where it may be useful. Though if comparing post counts or join dates or other forms of navel-gazing suits your view of superiority, I'm not so sure if your military mental health inspectors may have missed something.

Secondly, I don't think I've posted any youtube videos on this thread at all. I also haven't either mentioned creationism or accused anyone of being a creationist anywhere in any previous reply of this thread. Since you mentioned it, I'd have to ask now: are you sure you've taken your medications today? If it is indeed PTSD I'd understand.

No, YOU are the one being delusional in this case; I was pointing out the reasons why I put EnlightenmentHK on my ignore list for being a rude SOB, and itemizing what he was doing that I considered being rude. Obviously, to paraphrase that old song, "You're so vain you probably thought that post was about you."

Therefore, chill, man, I wasn't accusing you of anything.

Also, threatening to ignore people won't get you far. You should have known that given how proud you evidently are of your postcount and join date.

It seems to work quite well for Wyrmshadow.

 

[Agent327]

You said that somebody who isn't religious misses out on spirituality.

This is not true.

Just another misquote. I did not say that. Anywaym I'm done discussing here.