Religion, or the lack thereof

[AtmaWeapon]

Beldaran the only appropriate response to your bandwagon is to ignore it because your beliefs themselves are somewhat irrational and the evidence you use is, ignoring tact, stupid.

You wave the Galileo flag at every opportunity but are we to believe that religion has not changed in the past two centuries? Dare you commit the fallacy of division and infer that since the Catholic church took a stance that it is indicative of the beliefs of every follower of every religion? Furthermore, your facts do not check out and since you cite no sources I can't cross-check to see if perhaps mine are wrong. After hearing you bring this up several times you motivated me to do some cursory research and I was pretty satisfied with what I found. Allow me to provide enlightenment:

Galileo was reburied on sacred ground at Santa Croce in 1737. He was formally rehabilitated in 1741, when Pope Benedict XIV authorized the publication of Galileo's complete scientific works (a censored edition had been published in 1718), and in 1758 the general prohibition against heliocentrism was removed from the Index Librorum Prohibitorum. On 31 October 1992, Pope John Paul II expressed regret for how the Galileo affair was handled, as the result of a study conducted by the Pontifical Council for Culture.

Oops you got your dates wrong by a century but a clever rebuttal would incidate that the mistake doesn't weaken your point because the church's decision still came a century after Galileo's death. But wait!

Modern science considers Galileo's views on heliocentricity to be no fundamental advance; most of his discoveries were only further advances of Copernicus' views. The heliocentric model that Galileo presented was no better at predicting planetary positions than the Tychonic system model, the main competing theory at the time. Stellar parallax, the first evidence from outside the solar system that the Earth does indeed move, would not be observed until 1838 (Consolmagno 150–152).

So, at the time, there was no compelling scientific evidence to show that Galileo was more right than any of the current accepted models. In fact, the first proof that Galileo was correct came nearly a century after the Catholic church accepted Galileo's teachings.

Unless you can cite a more scholarly source than Wikipedia (which honestly doesn't take much) that disagrees with these statements, I do believe you just lost your favorite example.

In short, the Galileo example you use is wrong on two counts:

• The dates and facts you use do not agree with the facts I have found.
• The actions of the Catholic church centuries ago do not provide reasonable insight into the actions of religious people as a whole today.

I hope that in the future when you are seeking evidence to indicate the total backwards behavior of religion you are careful to make sure you are correct and not just seeing what you want to see. I understand you think blind faith in religion is irrational but realize you are exhibiting characteristics of blind faith yourself: you read a fact in a book somewhere and took it as truth without seeking evidence yourself. I am reminded of something Carl Sagan said once:

You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe.

The wrong kind of belief in science's ability to explain the unknown can be just as dangerous as the wrong kind of belief in religion.

I cannot understand why you have never acknowledged the crucial argument I make. The basis of my conclusion is this:

• Belief in science can become a religion itself.
• Science provides no answers for some questions.
• The best scientific thought is sometimes wrong and this is only discovered much later.

My first conclusion is that blind faith in science is foolish. This conclusion leads me to the ultimate conclusion: unquestioning faith in anything is the most dangerous form of fanaticism.

I strongly believe you believe in atheism a little bit too much to be as rational as you believe you are.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pineconn I believe if you thought a bit about the word "reverent" the Scout Laws would make a bit more sense to you.

feeling, exhibiting, or characterized by reverence; deeply respectful

That particular portion of the Scout Law does not necessarily indicate respect towards a diety but that at all times a Scout should be respectful to all beings.

The Boy Scouts in general are actually a very fine example of a religion-neutral organization in my opinion. I did a little bit of research to cover myself and I find that the BSA is disturbingly against how I have always interpreted the spirit of scouting. The requirements for a scout are actually trivial for an athiest or agnostic to accomplish; in most cases you can replace "God" with "your ethical beliefs" and it fits perfectly well. I have a particular problem with the First Class requirement "lead your patrol in saying grace at the meals" but honestly I had never heard of it. In my troop we ignored that requirement even though the bulk of the members were devout Mormons.

The "duty to God" part of the Scout Law is also being misinterpreted in the cases of those who oppose them. The portion as I remember (Tenderfoot requirement, right?) goes (with emphasis added):
On my honor,
I will do my best
To do my duty
To my god and my country
...
For the athiest/agnostic, god may simply be a code of ethics, but there is no one that truly believes in nothing.

[Beldaran]

If disagreeing with scientific thought helps you sleep better at night, then have at it.

I am correct. You believe in magic. End of story.

[The_Amaster]

Well, I missed a lot because I was gone for a few hours, but the third agnostic is here to post. I almost always disagree with anyone who sees anything as black and white, or holds only one view, because everything has a deeper level. I believe that religion is good because it gives many people morals and guidelines to follow, and I believe that science is good because it helps us understand the world around us and make our lives better. Do I wholheartedly believe in one or the other? No. Do I see good and bad in both? Yes. Both sides are capable of being incredibly close minded. Beldaran, you say that religion causes harm to society. How? Do the majority of people who follow it behave differently in a negative way. By negative, I don't mean your whole "belief in faries idea", but in an actual, "harming the world around them" way.

[AtmaWeapon]

If disagreeing with scientific thought helps you sleep better at night, then have at it.

I am correct. You believe in magic. End of story.

If failing to use logic or even acknowledge my questions helps you sleep better at night, have at it.

I am enlightened. You refuse to question yourself and therefore cannot understand yourself or the world around you. };

Actually seriously, provide evidence that I believe in magic. I realize this is a situation where you have to guess the proper question to ask but seriously try me I think you will be surprised that I don't like very many supernatural concepts.

[rock_nog]

If disagreeing with scientific thought helps you sleep better at night, then have at it.

I am correct. You believe in magic. End of story.

Okay, how does believing in magic contradict science? Maybe it's not scientific, but it's not against science. If I say you go to heaven when you die, it's not scientific because it can't be tested, but it's not anti-science. That in itself seems irrational, saying we can't speculate about what we can never know. Why not? It doesn't hurt anything. The business with Galileo was wrong because his work was verifiable. My problem is just that you treat science like it's a religion itself. If it can't be proven scientifically, it must necessarily not exist. From a pragmatic viewpoint, there's no point in worrying about things that can't be tested, but on the other hand, because it doesn't contradict science, it's harmless speculation.

I just feel it's only when religion blatantly contracts science that it's a problem, whereas you keep saying that even when it doesn't, it's still a problem. I just want to know how it's hurting anything. I'm very much a firm believer that so long as nobody is hurt, anyone should be allowed to do whatever the heck they want. And yes, I know religion has the potential to cause harm, but it's not a given.

[Mitsukara]

>_> Uhh...does that make me an agnostican christian, or what? A lot of what you just said reminds me of how I function.

Well, you say you're not sure about the existence of the afterlife and follow a theoretical interpretation of the creation of humanity (rather than just saying "the book of genesis is 100% right and not metaphoric at all!"), so in that sense, you seem to be somewhat agnostic. On the other hand you believe in God and have certain tentative beliefs about things.

So "agnostican Christian" might be right. Another way of putting it, though, if my terminology correct, is that you might be more "spirtualistic" than "religious". The way I understand the two terms, religious means you stick to a certain set of rules and laws and stories and say they are 100% right and that you need to have faith in them, which typically (though not necessarily) goes hand in hand with what a lot of people don't like in Christianity today.

Spiritualism, on the other hand, is a bit more open and general. It means you believe there IS something, be it a/some god/ess/e/s, the tao, just something in general, or what have you. But it also tends to mean you don't assume you know much about it for certain, or that you MUST follow overly complicated, especially strict rules and views, and it almost never goes hand in hand with forcing your views on others. Basically, it is a relaxed sort of belief where you do believe or at least practice something, and try to respect what you think is right and follow a few morals or ideals, but are generally pretty open. As I understand it, wicca is almost always practiced this way. I have also seen certain christians who practice their belief in a similar manner (PrrKitty and Glenn being two pretty good examples of what I mean by this- I think).

I've yet to see any nasty behavior connected to spiritualism; none based on it and none justified using it. It's a very passive kind of belief system, and I rather like what I know of it. In fact, I kind of envy it ^^

Also, I try not to be evangelical or absolute about anything. I just tend to state my opinions and views a lot. Sorry if that comes off the wrong way at times >.>

[ctrl-alt-delete]

http://www.amazon.com/Dont-Have-Enou.../dp/1581345615

:)

[Mitsukara]

Your link saddens me. For a moment, I thought it was about agnosticism.

Apparently it's propeganda trying to claim atheism makes less sense than christianity/requires some kind of "blind faith" to believe in, in an attempt to convert/retrieve atheists. Glorified reverse psychology. Ugh.

[Darth Marsden]

Wow, I kicked off a sensitive issue. Good thing?

The reason my initial post had a few contradictions is because I believe I'm at an awkward point at my life where I'm in between two points of view - the scientist and the believer. When I was young, I was taught to believe that God was good, He/She was the divine being and that we should never question His/Her love for us. I suspect a fair number of you were taught the same.

As I got older, I stopped being taught - we never really went to church, and so on, and I guess my parents wanted me to make my own mind up as to whether or not I wanted to take religion more seriously. In some ways they're to blame for how I feel, and in others I should thank them for not forcing a way of life on to me that I probably wouldn't have wanted, had I known what was going on.

Nowadays I sit and think about things like the bible and wonder 'Who wrote this?'. Because that's pretty much what the bible is, if you think about it. One guy, or girl, writing down their beliefs in a book which has become the foundation of an entire collective of faiths. But just because people believe it doesn't make it cold, hard fact. It could well be completely made up.

Science these days has come an awful long way and has disproved a number of ideas mentioned in the bible. And not only does science sound much more logical, it can offer proof. Religion can't. It can only offer stories about how a mystical being created us all, how we're all related if we go back to the very first man and woman, how a man died on the cross and was resurrected three days later, and so on.

But the thing is, science doesn't disprove everything. It can't tell us there is no immortal being watching over us. It can't tell us there is no afterlife. And so forth. Whether you believe in something or not is a matter of choice. And while I respect other people's choices, I don't know what to make of my own.

The point I was trying to make (I think) is that when I went to the wedding renewal and the communion, I personally disagreed with a lot of what was going on. It's like my mind is split in two on the issue. On the one hand, I almost felt revolted at some of the things they were saying - 'We believe God made us', 'His gentle hand he stretches over me', 'Lord you are the Saviour of the world', etc - because, to me, it's rubbish and I cannot believe that people would give their lives to believing it.

But on the other hand, I'm thinking 'Did I ever believe things like that?' And the truth is, I probably did, though not to such an appallingly heavy degree. Now of course I don't, and I'm really not sure where I am, but a part of me used to. And now the two parts are conflicting and I'm not really sure of where I am or what I really believe.

As I said, I really want to believe that there is an afterlife of some sort. That when I die, I'll go to a mystical place where all my loved ones are waiting for me and I can finally meet the grandfather who died before I ever knew him. I really want to believe that. But I don't think I can.

[mikeron]

I am correct. You believe in magic. End of story.

I saw this on The Simpsons, only it went a little differently:

Scientist 1 - "Why did you think a giant bubble would stop him?"
Scientist 2 - "Shut up, that's why!"