ATAR Notes will always be a safe community environment for all denominations of society. This means no racism, homophobia, or discrimination of any kind. Any comments making mass generalisations on the basis of sex, race, religion, or sexual preference must be supported by citable empirical evidence.
Religion is a phenomenon that helps answer the big questions in life, indeed, it helps answer the big question in life. Why is there something rather than nothing? Against all odds and probability, there is something, rather than nothing. That is extraordinary, the probability of it boggles the mind.
Interrelated to that question is another question; why are we here? Not just how we got here (that's important too) but for what purpose? People ascribe almost a state of existential terror to the idea that the universe is inherently meaningless and indeed there is no meaning to our lives (some philosophers have said basically you either kill yourself or learn to deal with it by making your own meaning).
Also of important (but now mostly historical) interest is that most of the great religious traditions are also legal traditions. Religion is usually spoken of as lore but it is actually law as well. Islam and Judaism contain provisions for religious courts and indeed, a set of laws. Australian indigenous religion actually contains a legal tradition as well which way surprise many people. In this way, it functions as a glue that held together premodern societies (which explains why it was and still often is tied to ethnicity).
I think one flaw in your poll is missing the category of "spiritual but not religious". In polling about religious subject matters its quite a large emerging phenomenon and not many people can really pin down why. You would think most young people would tend towards atheism but we're seeing an explosion in this category which raises interesting questions in itself. I think i would put myself in this category but i am an atheist in the fact i think on the balance of probabilities, it is more likely than not that no Gods i've looked at exist.
> Bags religious law for being primitive and nonsensical
> Doesn't realise that plenty of religious law was very advanced for its time, and replaced far worse and at times 'secular' regimes
> Doesn't realise that the body of Jewish law is larger than the common law, is extremely philosophical in nature and, according to students of both, is far more demanding
(Though not all -- there are far more ethically pleasing aspects of religious law, especially in the way it provides a safety net for the poor, than many Western countries do.) But it's far more interesting than you've alluded to.
If you look at religion from a purely logical perspective - setting all emotions and traditions aside - you'll see how silly it really is.
There is something: the physical universe. We can't realistically dispute that (without going full Descartes) because we can detect it empirically: we can see it, feel it, hear it, touch it and taste it. But we cannot detect supernatural beings by our senses, nor does science suggest that supernatural beings exist, which is why many dispute the existence of such.
Scientism: Unlike the use of the scientific method as only one mode of reaching knowledge, scientism claims that science alone can render truth about the world and reality. Scientism's single-minded adherence to only the empirical, or testable, makes it a strictly scientifc worldview, in much the same way that a Protestant fundamentalism that rejects science can be seen as a strictly religious worldview. Scientism sees it necessary to do away with most, if not all, metaphysical, philosophical, and religious claims, as the truths they proclaim cannot be apprehended by the scientific method. In essence, scientism sees science as the absolute and only justifiable access to the truth.
Asking what the purpose of life without God is is like asking what purpose a slave has without a master. We are not robots. We were not built for a purpose. We are free.
This is irrelevant. The past is the past. The medieval concept of uniting a country under one religious banner so that they can fight together and conquer other nations is no longer useful to us. And I would argue that religion has held us back so much scientifically by teaching us not to question things. We would be far more advanced without it.How Anglo-centric.
I have heard this (it was briefly mentioned in my law subject at uni), although you must take into account that civil law is far less religious based than say, Shariah Law. Basically, the more secular the legal system, the more "philosophical" and fair it will be.There is absolutely no reason why secular legal systems will necessarily be fairer than religious-based ones. Of course, as I mentioned, all other things being equal, I'd prefer a secular system. But some religious law -- say, the hostility in the Old Testament to slavery -- was groundbreaking.
A safety net for the poor? Take a look at the way Christian Fundamentalists in the USA (who almost always vote Republican) treat poor people. In my experiences, the Atheists tend to be far more left wing and have far more sympathy for the poor than the right winged religious people.Yes, there's plenty of religious law out there requiring a safety net for the poor. Farmers were supposed to leave 10% of their growth for charity, for example. under Jewish law (which I am most familiar with). Show me one corporation that donates even close to 10% of its proceedings...
You have to justify why you do something like that. Setting aside all emotions and traditions, it might be indeed logical to steal your lunch if i really want a sandwich. But why should i or indeed why do i need to set aside all traditions and emotions? If you looked at everything from a purely logical basis, the entire fabric of our lives and society would break down. There is no real logical reason to prefer peppermint to strawberry or AFL to soccer but many do. This is not an illogical thing, it is not a silly thing.
Scientism is not the way forward. Scientism is the bastard perversion of science as much as the most fundamentalist religious people are. Not everything need to or ought to be subject to scientific inquiry as per my ice-cream example above. Furthermore, much like the philosophy of logical positivism, it is actually impossible to prove scientism is a valid idea using science.
There are many things we cannot detect empirically but they still exist. We cannot detect love in any empirical sense but it is very real. We also at one time or another lacked the understanding or capability to detect things. Pre-invention of the microscope by Hooke, people had no idea microorganisms like bacteria existed, they weren't detectable. Applying your idea, just because we couldn't see it or detect it at that time, microorganisms didnt exist.
It ties into a larger current in philosophical thought, "Why are we here", "What is the meaning of life". Your lack of philosophical knowledge is evident here but it is one of the largest fields of inquiry in philosophy, in literature and indeed in human existence as a whole. It is indisputable that religion does provide a meaning to peoples lives, that's all i was getting at.
How Anglo-centric.
There is absolutely no reason why secular legal systems will necessarily be fairer than religious-based ones.
Yes, there's plenty of religious law out there requiring a safety net for the poor. Farmers were supposed to leave 10% of their growth for charity, for example. under Jewish law (which I am most familiar with). Show me one corporation that donates even close to 10% of its proceedings...
You're assuming religious people are right-wing. You've begged the question. No one is arguing that atheists vote more towards the left than religious people. That doesn't prove anything about religion, however.
Religion is the spawn of evil. Try prove that wrong.
Not sure if trolling or looking for a legitimate response...Try respond
Religion is the spawn of evil. Try prove that wrong.
There was a time when there was no separation of Church and State: that was called the Dark Ages.
Having a secular government is essential for any fair, modern, democratic society.
Religion is far from a moral compass and should never be allowed to dictate law.
(NIV) So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.
So G-d created humankind in His own tzelem, in the tzelem Elohim (image of G-d) created He him; zachar (male) and nekevah (female) created He them.
Yes, just like it's more likely than not that the tooth fairy doesn't exist, or that it's more likely than not that Santa Claus doesn't exist. The probability of gods or supernatural beings existing is extremely low, almost negligible. Religion is just wishful thinking.
try proving yourself right first. if you can't back up what you're saying, you're a bigot.I assumed this would be the only response I would get. I asked for someone to prove me wrong and I was actually asking (could have come across as a smart ass) which doesn't make me intolerant. I made an outlandish statement to spark debate and I wanted to hear someone contest it … simple really. I personally do believe that religion does cause a lot more harm than good, hence my remark. Educate me on your Judaism ways, prove me wrong (once again could sound like a smart ass, seriously asking).
I assumed this would be the only response I would get. I asked for someone to prove me wrong and I was actually asking (could have come across as a smart ass) which doesn't make me intolerant. I made an outlandish statement to spark debate and I wanted to hear someone contest it … simple really. I personally do believe that religion does cause a lot more harm than good, hence my remark. Educate me on your Judaism ways, prove me wrong (once again could sound like a smart ass, seriously asking).
You're not seriously suggesting that the scientific method of questioning, experimenting and investigating is equally as preposterous as the religious method of "everything in this book is the ultimate truth and you are not allowed to question it", are you?
Actually, we can detect love. It's all in the chemicals and electric pulses in our brains. Maybe not with our current technology, but it is possible.
Bacteria was never invisible. We just didn't have the technology to see it. But "God" on the other hand is supposedly invisible...
Philosophy is about asking questions and thinking deeply. Religion is about dodging difficult questions by saying "goddidit". No reasonable, unbiased philosopher would follow a specific religion.
All religions are the same: Christianity, Islam, Judaism, etc. Each religion was fundamentally created as a way of controlling the masses,
which is why some countries are referred to as a "Christian nation" or "Islamic nation", rather than having a consistent proportion of all religions in all countries.
Religion is the spawn of evil. Try prove that wrong.
Just as a note if these two particular tangents come to consume the thread and become repetitive, i'll likely split them off and move them to rants and debate instead since it seems it wasn't what the original poster intended.
I dont think the thread was intended for heavy debate as much as saying (I believe X and Y, Here is why or I think this particular religion is interesting because of Z). Of course my experience in these threads for the long time ive been here (6-7+ years) is that they rapidly end up circular*.
No one of course will win and philosophers have argued over the existence of God and religion for centuries with no clear resolution, its extremely unlikely we'll have one. Discussion rather than debate seems the goal here. I'll wait for OP's feedback though.
Religion is the spawn of evil. Try prove that wrong.I believe that humans are the spawn of evil. Religion in itself I don't see as evil, however as very open to abuse; humans take it, and use it evil-ly (if that's a word). For instance, Judaism preached very strong social justice (leaving food in fields for the poor, slaves freed every 6 years and just letting them run away if they hated their masters, a societal 'reset' of debt and landowning every 50 years, welcoming of refugees, and far more), far above the other cultures of the era. If our society ran on some of those wheels, it would be far more just and equal.
Religion diverts generous impulses and good intentionsHow? I would have thought the whole 'love your neighbour as yourself', strong focus on social justice, 'suffer yourself to be defrauded' etc. aims to PROMOTE generous impulses and good intentions. Doesn't mean that the people PRACTISING (or failing to practise) the religion have any more generous impulses and good intentions than anyone else, unfortunately, though.
ISIL. Religion seeks power (i.e. catholic church).Don't mix up a group who theoretically acts in the name of religion with religion. The ISIL or Catholic Church I would not necessarily count as Islam/Christianity. They are humans who have twisted the religion, using it as a lever for their own power, money and interests, totally contrary to the religion itself. See this and many more verses:
'The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them... but not so with you; rather let the greatest among you become as the youngest, and the leader as one who serves.' Luke 22:25-6.Christians, and their abuse of Christianity, is not actually what the religion is.
Religion makes a virtue out of faith, and teaches helplessness.One comment about these is their assumption (perfectly reasonable if you don't believe in religion) that there ISN'T a God. Let us imagine that there really is a God ordering this universe. If so these are perfectly reasonable. (Though 'I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me', walking-on-water style faith, and standing up in the face of severe persecution, don't suggest helplessness to me).
Promotes tribalism rather than individualism, is based on a book, and anchors believers to the stone/iron age.Sounds truly evil indeed! :P
ATAR Notes did a survey about four weeks ago asking what could be improved about the website, and a very prevalent concern of the survey responders was the quality of religious debate (and the presence of blatant vitriol)... Personally, I dislike religion and its presence on this planet, and I think the debate on ATAR Notes can sometimes be enlightening and teach people things (I actually didn't know the word "fallacious" until I saw it used in an AN debate), and I'm wary of censoring people on this forums - but I will reiterate that it was a very significant concern (like, up there with "the website is so shit to navigate").
For this reason, this thread will be locked immediately as soon as someone makes a reply I don't appreciate. Seems okay so far but, just giving everyone a fair warning so people aren't surprised when it gets locked.