Religion and belief

[Wucked]

This is about religion and belief, so the below seems applicable to me.

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18338562

Try not to make any assumptions about my beliefs.

I'm curious... Some people here consider religion and belief as interchangeable, and with negative connotations.

Isn't there a distinction between religion and belief?
Why is one or the other negative?
Why is one of the other positive?
What makes atheism more rational than agnosticism?

Big broad questions, lots of potential for quality debate. If its been posted here before, sorry (not really), but I'm doing it again. I'd like to be involved in a new debate.

 

[Pawnless Endgame]

This is an over-clocking forum. No religion system belong here.

 

[Spektor]

If its been posted here before

Just once or twice if I recall, those threads went really really well, 5 stars.

 

[Kamwah]

Hi you must be new here.

Expecting quality debate in GD lol XD

 

[kwerk]

This is about religion and belief, so the below seems applicable to me.

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18338562

Try not to make any assumptions about my beliefs.

I'm curious... Some people here consider religion and belief as interchangeable, and with negative connotations.

Isn't there a distinction between religion and belief?
Why is one or the other negative?
Why is one of the other positive?
What makes atheism more rational than agnosticism?

Religion is a belief system. If it was an evidence system, it would be science.

Let's look at it deeper though...

Who decides what is "negative" or why a religion is "negative"?
The rational answer: Because it interferes with science.
Well so what?
Science is the most rational method of finding "truth".

OK but WHY should we be seeking truth? Who decides that truth is a positive?

Think about it... what's the point of seeking truth and doing science anyway? It's all just a human whim. There's no science underlying science. There is no reason to seek truth beyond the BELIEF that we should seek truth. What founds that BELEIF? NOTHING

So the ultimate question is WHY do humans seek truth?

It's all completely arbitrary! There's no meaning to anything. We might as well all just kill ourselves!

and that is why I am a nihilist.

Good day sir.

 

[wannabedamned]

When you were younger and you believed in father Christmas, Did you feel better and happier? because magic was still real?

I used to go to church, believed in God as a child. Again, I felt happier as I felt there was a spirit, soul and afterlife.

Not sure why, but now I have no idea. I believe God does not exist. But I wish he did, and I want to be proven wrong, I just dont think I ever will be.

But I do miss the parts of my life where magic existed to me.

 

[Wucked]

This is an over-clocking forum. No religion system belong here.

Afaik its allowed as a topic of discussion in this sub-forum.

 

[Wucked]

So for kwerk nothing has any meaning?

And for wannabedamned religion and belief are merely an emotional crutch used as a coping mechanism. So again, nothing has any meaning?

 

[Spektor]

Afaik its allowed as a topic of discussion in this sub-forum.

What do you want to happen? I can tell you how it usually goes.

Most of the membership would identify as atheist/agnostic so early on you get a lot of snap "religion sux, science 4ev0r" posts. Religious people by in large will stay away, as who signs up to a forum based upon a computing enthusiast shop to be told everything they believe is nonsense and they're wasting their lives. So it just wittles down to a group of people posting walls of texts that essentially are splitting hairs on the definitions between atheism/agnosticism.

You can describe it how you like, that atheists are as much faith based as any religious person - that agnostics are fence sitters or just someone trying to be a little bit clever again over atheists and pulling the 'you can never be 100% sure card' but you have to take with that they aren't 100% sure Santa doesn't live with the Easter Bunny on Venus... so agnosticism as an attempt of one upping atheists is ultimately a spiral of you admitting you can't comprehend reality at a basic level... or you genuinely can't make your mind up by it's more true definition, in which fair play to you.

But it will ultimately just descend into 100 variants of that being stubbornly thrown around with the usual e-expert certainty of people who once half watched a documentary so are now happy to have extremely heated discussions on religion/science/economics/politics/philosophy armed with something they've heard and a gut feeling.

 

[kwerk]

Question everything
Trust (believe) nothing

 

[Wucked]

What do you want to happen?

Want? A debate I suppose.

I can tell you how it usually goes.

Most of the membership would identify as atheist/agnostic so early on you get a lot of snap "religion sux, science 4ev0r" posts. Religious people by in large will stay away, as who signs up to a forum based upon a computing enthusiast shop to be told everything they believe is nonsense and they're wasting their lives. So it just wittles down to a group of people posting walls of texts that essentially are splitting hairs on the definitions between atheism/agnosticism.

You can describe it how you like, that atheists are as much faith based as any religious person - that agnostics are fence sitters or just someone trying to be a little bit clever again over atheists and pulling the 'you can never be 100% sure card' but you have to take with that they aren't 100% sure Santa doesn't live with the Easter Bunny on Venus... so agnosticism as an attempt of one upping atheists is ultimately a spiral of you admitting you can't comprehend reality at a basic level... or you genuinely can't make your mind up by it's more true definition, in which fair play to you.

But it will ultimately just descend into 100 variants of that being stubbornly thrown around with the usual e-expert certainty of people who once half watched a documentary so are now happily to have extremely heated discussions on religion/science/economics/politics/philosophy armed with something they've heard and a gut feeling.

So its your assertion that atheism and religion are fundamentally the same. And that most discussions of this type on ocuk conform to a fixed pattern.

 

[Spektor]

So its your assertion that atheism and religion are fundamentally the same. And that most discussions of this type on ocuk conform to a fixed pattern.

Nope, just merely repeating what has been posted before in such threads. I identify myself as an atheist, as I reject theism. That gives no implication of what I actually do believe, just what I don't. There is no shared belief system here, no group meetings, no centralized structure - just a bunch of individuals who have their own crap going on but hear what theists say and say 'ummm, no.' As far as I'm concerned the commonality ends there, whether two atheists like pespi over coca cola is neither here nor there. It does make me sad that I even have to identify myself as not believing in one particular superstition, but so long as the society I inhabit is secular with freedom of speech/religion, whatevs.

Plus it's not that the discussion conforms but the posters, you get your odd random poster putting their 2 pence in, but mostly it will be a very small group of the usual suspects who have long ago established their views on this but still endlessly repeating it to the others in that same very small group. As I said that is pretty much just epic hair splitting on definitions of atheism/agnosticism. It's tiresome at best.

 

[Wucked]

I understand how this would become tiresome if someone was forced to participate in every thread. Its quite fortunate that we have a choice which threads we want to read and write in.

 

[Raz]

When you were younger and you believed in father Christmas, Did you feel better and happier? because magic was still real?

I used to go to church, believed in God as a child. Again, I felt happier as I felt there was a spirit, soul and afterlife.

Not sure why, but now I have no idea. I believe God does not exist. But I wish he did, and I want to be proven wrong, I just dont think I ever will be.

But I do miss the parts of my life where magic existed to me.

One of the reasons why these kind of threads don't last long (or end up pointless) is because of how 'non-believers' view 'believers'. It's easy to infer from above that believing in God is the same as say believing in Father Christmas and 'magical tales' that follow.

Sooner or later, the discussion becomes offensive, more often than not mainly towards those who believe in God. Most people then perfer to stay away.

 

[Angilion]

[..]

Isn't there a distinction between religion and belief?

Yes, there is. Religion is a specific and at least somewhat organised collection of beliefs. So belief is an absolutely essential part of religion, but religion is not an essential part of belief. For example, someone might believe that microwaves are made by elven artificer wizards and heat food with magic. That's a belief, but it might or might not be part of a religion.

Why is one or the other negative?

Because belief is anti-thought. It is an active attack on the very thing that makes humanity what it is - reasoning.

Religion is also almost always (if not always) a denial of morality. It replaces morality with obedience to the religion (and usually calls that morality). That's why religion can cause good people to do bad things, sometimes even if they know they are bad things.

Why is one of the other positive?

Religion can sometimes cause stability in a society without effective government and it can sometimes scare people into not doing bad things they might otherwise do. Maybe.

What makes atheism more rational than agnosticism?

What makes you think they're two different positions on the same subject?

Atheism and agnosticism are positions on different subjects, so your question doesn't work. I'm an agnostic atheist.

 

[Raz]

Given that there is no universal standard for morality, you could argue that religion does exactly that - provide us with a universal standard.

 

[Angilion]

One of the reasons why these kind of threads don't last long (or end up pointless) is because of how 'non-believers' view 'believers'. It's easy to infer from above that believing in God is the same as say believing in Father Christmas and 'magical tales' that follow.

Sooner or later, the discussion becomes offensive, more often than not mainly towards those who believe in God. Most people then perfer to stay away.

Which brings me to a tangential question...why should religion be treated differently from other beliefs?

For example, if someone believed that Twilight was the most important series of books ever written, believed the books were a true accounting of events and devoted a considerable part of their life to those beliefs, they would not get automatic respect of their beliefs and they would not be able to force people to pretend to respect them. Why not? Their Twilight beliefs may be just as important to them as a theist's religious beliefs.

 

[Angilion]

Given that there is no universal standard for morality, you could argue that religion does exactly that - provide us with a universal standard.

Except that it doesn't, as different religions (or the same religion in different times and places) have different "morality".

You could apply the same argument to any set of beliefs, e.g. people in racial supremacy groups probably consider it moral to exile, subjugate or kill (depending on how extreme they are) everyone who isn't of whatever they consider to be the superior race or the right race for that particular part of the world, or whatever their beliefs about race are.

 

[Raz]

Except that it doesn't, as different religions (or the same religion in different times and places) have different "morality".

You could apply the same argument to any set of beliefs, e.g. people in racial supremacy groups probably consider it moral to exile, subjugate or kill (depending on how extreme they are) everyone who isn't of whatever they consider to be the superior race or the right race for that particular part of the world, or whatever their beliefs about race are.

Of course. But it's also not a denial of morality either. It also depends how religion is viewed in the context of God's Word. Then there is the matter of Prophets, and their teachings. If religion is for humanity, then only one standard would exist for everyone.

 

[Raz]

Which brings me to a tangential question...why should religion be treated differently from other beliefs?

For example, if someone believed that Twilight was the most important series of books ever written, believed the books were a true accounting of events and devoted a considerable part of their life to those beliefs, they would not get automatic respect of their beliefs and they would not be able to force people to pretend to respect them. Why not? Their Twilight beliefs may be just as important to them as a theist's religious beliefs.

So why should atheists and agnostics be respected for their views? In any discussion there should be some consideration given to all views.