Richard Dawkins sums up religion

[glenimp617]

I was thinking the other day about my primary school. It was just a normal school, actually one of the better ones in the area.

The way they presented religious doctrine as fact was terrible. It is no wonder people become 'believers' because at 7 years of age you are very impressionable.

It's disgusting, I'm bring my kids up to have an open mind. They need to question what rubbish is coming out the teachers mouths.
If they believe it, then I'm totally ok with it, but I want them to have a solid basis for their beliefs

 

[Frightful Boar]

What if those beliefs are used to justify homophobic or sexist attitudes?, the mutilation of the genitals of children or other abuses of innocents?.

While cultural reasons also exist for these, the religious tradition also plays a part - not to mention in many nations the religious institutions are the main defenders of these 'cultural traditions'.

If a belief is challenged or not most certainly should be conditional, with some beliefs causing more or less social problems than others.

I'm sure you'd cause an argument in an empty room.

I'm unconcerned with homophobia and sexism as those are opinions. Not mine, I might add, but if someone doesn't like gays or women they can go suck a bag of dicks but it's their right to like whomever they so desire.

As for the rest of it, you may as well bring any extreme example to the table. "What if a serial killer opines that it's ok to kill women with a hatchet? Should I not be allowed to sneer at that?"

My opinion is that you're being silly.

 

[Skunkworks]

Absolutely, but i was more interested in why religion gets an exemption. I'm sure some of the Christians on this forum would happily jump on a conspiracy theorist.

Exactly.

There are people on here that will jump on any kind of irrational thinking like conspiracy theories, holocaust denial, UFOs, bigfoot etc, and rightly so. But the very same people will leap to the defence of the same irrational thinking when its origins are religious.

That’s one of my biggest annoyances with religion, the free pass it expects, and often still gets. It’s easy to be nonchalant in 2013 UK where religion is weak and dying, but just take a look through history, or countries today where religion is strong and in power.

 

[Gilly]

I've said it before and I'll say it again

Mary was cheating on Joseph. She had an affair and told Joseph she was a virgin and that a star in space magically gave her a baby

Not sure if Joseph was a bit simple, or drunk, but he went with it. Unless he found out Mary was cheating and was too embarrassed to tell his friends. What kind of friends would believe that story though?

To be honest, I don't know why Mary even came up with that story, why didn't she just tell Joseph he was the father. God knows! eh, haha....pun not intended. Unless in those days having a magic baby gets you frankeinstein, gold and merrrrrrr

I really don't know how a Virgin gets pregnant....HOW? magic? really?

The only thing...and I mean the only thing where all this could make sense is Aliens. They may have the technology to beam sperm into a woman (not much fun though). That would make sense, as the star could be the light on the spaceship. Aliens could have set the entire thing up from the start. Think about it. If jesus came from alien sperm, he may have had the ability to turn water into wine, and feed 5,000 people on a single loaf of bread. I thought about the whole crouton thing, and I don't think a loaf of bread could even make enough croutons for 5,000 people

It's not aliens, it's a problem with language.

She wasn't a virgin. She never said she was.

 

[elmarko]

I'm sure you'd cause an argument in an empty room.

I'm unconcerned with homophobia and sexism as those are opinions. Not mine, I might add, but if someone doesn't like gays or women they can go suck a bag of dicks but it's their right to like whomever they so desire.

As for the rest of it, you may as well bring any extreme example to the table. "What if a serial killer opines that it's ok to kill women with a hatchet? Should I not be allowed to sneer at that?"

My opinion is that you're being silly.

I'm not talking about simple opinions on other groups, I'm talking about when these views justify actions against these people.

Simply disliking homosexuals or women isn't the core problem, it's actual mistreatment & oppression (partly under the guise of religion) of these groups.

Exactly.

There are people on here that will jump on any kind of irrational thinking like conspiracy theories, holocaust denial, UFOs, bigfoot etc, and rightly so. But the very same people will leap to the defence of the same irrational thinking when its origins are religious.

That’s one of my biggest annoyances with religion, the free pass it expects, and often still gets. It’s easy to be nonchalant in 2013 UK where religion is weak and dying, but just take a look through history, or countries today where religion is strong and in power.

Indeed, that's the thing which irks me the most.

The expectation to be immune from criticism & the double standard many followers have when they look down at the beliefs of other concepts to which no evidence exists.

 

[413x]

It isn't coincidence that religions appearedwhen they did. Record keeping wasn't really and verification wasn't really around. Look at any religions started recently and they are laughed upon. There is enough interconnection in the world to pretty much discount them instantly.

Science does require faith to a degree obviously. Most people believe what they are told is the truth but it can be replicated with the know how. It isn't really the same as blind faith

 

[semi-pro waster]

My cousin once asked me why me and my good lady were not getting married.

I said, because we're not religious. Neither am I she replied lol

I'm not sure if you're trying to be humorous but you don't have to be married in a religious ceremony - someone may want to correct me on the timeframes but civil marriage predates the religious variant by millenia.

The analogy has probably already been noted but I sometimes think there's a comparison to be drawn between atheists and vegans - as the sarcastic observation goes
Q: "How can you tell if someone is a vegan?"
A: "Don't worry, they'll tell you."

Most of the time I don't much care about what someone believes or disbelieves - it's when people start trying to tell others that their beliefs are wrong that I find it irritating. Preaching about any subject is rarely welcomed and even more rarely does it actually affect change for the better - it's usually just a pretext for an intrusion into another persons way of life. Beliefs matter to many people, you may not understand them or even like them but if the belief isn't harming you or others directly then perhaps the best option is to just let it slide.

 

[Skunkworks]

Most of the time I don't much care about what someone believes or disbelieves - it's when people start trying to tell others that their beliefs are wrong that I find it irritating.

What about the belief that one race is superior to others? Or the belief that the holocaust is a Jewish conspiracy? Or the belief that some people deserve less rights than others?

Should we all just shrug and say oh well, mustn't question beliefs?

 

[elmarko]

I'm not sure if you're trying to be humorous but you don't have to be married in a religious ceremony - someone may want to correct me on the timeframes but civil marriage predates the religious variant by millenia.

The analogy has probably already been noted but I sometimes think there's a comparison to be drawn between atheists and vegans - as the sarcastic observation goes
Q: "How can you tell if someone is a vegan?"
A: "Don't worry, they'll tell you."

Most of the time I don't much care about what someone believes or disbelieves - it's when people start trying to tell others that their beliefs are wrong that I find it irritating. Preaching about any subject is rarely welcomed and even more rarely does it actually affect change for the better - it's usually just a pretext for an intrusion into another persons way of life. Beliefs matter to many people, you may not understand them or even like them but if the belief isn't harming you or others directly then perhaps the best option is to just let it slide.

Which in part is fine if these beliefs are benign.

The problem is beliefs form our world views & do impact upon behaviour, almost all religious beliefs rely heavily on concepts such as good & evil.

But as our understanding of the human condition progresses, these labels become increasingly unreconcilable with the reality of the world.

I mean for example, if we identified a series of genetic markers, epigenetic links or chemical make-ups, or developmental triggers during early childhood which results in violence or criminality.

Do our existing & religious concepts of good & evil still have value in today's society? - while a person may indeed hold beliefs which are in isolation benign, those beliefs are not as compartmentalised as people like to think.

To have these important discussions about society, human behaviour, the concepts of good & evil - if we do or not have free will or not - having a section of society who believes they already have an answer to these question isn't helpful or constructive (as much progress can or has already been made in these fields which already undermine in part these assumptions).

These are not just matters for philosophy or people with too much time on their hands, these questions really do matter on how we structure our society - our entire criminal justice system specifically is founded upon certain concepts which are not supported by empirical evidence.

Accepting a stance as a matter of fact without evidence isn't a good trait to posses - as it ignores the very real problem of human fallibility, to progress & advance in this world we need to know our limitations & failings at an individual level.

 

[Zethor]

It isn't coincidence that religions appearedwhen they did. Record keeping wasn't really and verification wasn't really around. Look at any religions started recently and they are laughed upon. There is enough interconnection in the world to pretty much discount them instantly.

Science does require faith to a degree obviously. Most people believe what they are told is the truth but it can be replicated with the know how. It isn't really the same as blind faith

I beg to differ, science does not require faith. It does require trust which, unlike faith, has to be earned. When I get in my car and go to work, I trust the science behind the car parts and I expect to get there in one piece. On the other hand, faith guarantees nothing, promises a lot but provides returns similar to those given by a flip of a coin.

 

[dirtychinchilla]

Q: "How can you tell if someone is a vegan?"
A: "Don't worry, they'll tell you."

Haha that is fantastic!!

 

[Schlong&Stable]

Well yeah - the more we come to understand the universe the less we can attribute to magic, gods any other stories humans choose to make up & cling to as some form of explanation of an area we don't fully understand. The fact that people do still cling to these beliefs is a bit silly these days....

Cargo cults are a funny one - pacific islanders in WW2 observed US supply planes and then formed a religion around them...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult#Pacific_cults_of_World_War_II

there is even a religion where people worship Prince Phillip

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Philip_Movement

its no more or less laughable than primitive people in the middle east following the likes of Jesus or Mohammed back in the day... the fact that people in developed countries still believe in that nonsense today is a bit sad though. Attributing magic explanations to things we don't yet sufficiently understand is just applying the same primitive and flawed thinking we humans have done countless times before....

There are several big holes in your argument -

Firstly, you are assuming that people "falsely" attributing God to phenomena which is subsequently explained, somehow disproves the existence of God. It does not, it just proves that people have "falsely" attributed the explainable to him.

Secondly, you also assume that the explainable cannot be attributed to God, but it can. Just because you know how an earthquake works, does not mean God did not create it. Just because you know tectonic plates shifting causes earthquakes to occur does not mean God has not caused it to occur based on a plan he created billions of years ago when he formed the earth. An inability to perceive the plan or the "hand" in action does not disprove God.

Thirdly, even if we assume that everything that occurs within our universe is directed by natural (not divine) laws of physics and so forth, that does not dispel the possibility of a creator.

What I find sad, is when people have such narrow-minded views of the big questions. The fact you have already signed up to Fedora Monthly and MLP Weekly is evidence that you lack an open mind. Your blind adherence to the notion that "science explains everything" is tantamount of post-modern fundamentalism.

 

[dirtychinchilla]

Science can explain everything. Whether it will or not is an entirely different matter.

His point is that your religion could be equally as ill founded as those that he has mentioned.

 

[Schlong&Stable]

What about the belief that one race is superior to others? Or the belief that the holocaust is a Jewish conspiracy? Or the belief that some people deserve less rights than others?

Should we all just shrug and say oh well, mustn't question beliefs?

100 years ago, all of these things were not only acceptable, they were the prevailing view of the world. In 100 years, they might be the prevailing world view again. Given the transitory nature of these things, it doesn't seem worthwhile expending too much energy on worrying about what people think, only about what they do.

I also question whether we can claim to be a "liberal" and "free" society when what you're actually supporting is the dictatorship of the cultural elite and Intelligentsia.

 

[Schlong&Stable]

Science can explain everything. Whether it will or not is an entirely different matter.

His point is that your religion could be equally as ill founded as those that he has mentioned.

I am not religious.

Science cannot explain what exists outside the realm of science. By it's very nature, the divine cannot be explained.

 

[Zethor]

100 years ago, all of these things were not only acceptable, they were the prevailing view of the world. In 100 years, they might be the prevailing world view again.

That's an interesting claim, can you provide a historical example?

I also question whether we can claim to be a "liberal" and "free" society when what you're actually supporting is the dictatorship of the cultural elite and Intelligentsia.

So if I mock you for your crack pot religious ideas, as well as those of your fellow believers, I'm some kind of elite Intelligentsia dictator? Do I also go by the name of Xenu, Galactic Ruler, by any chance?

 

[elmarko]

I am not religious.

Science cannot explain what exists outside the realm of science. By it's very nature, the divine cannot be explained.

The divine may not even exist.

Nothing may reside outside of the realm of what science may explain in the future (or exists within the material world).

 

[dirtychinchilla]

Exactly. How could we hope to explain something that's non-existent? This idea of something that exist outside the physical realm drives me nuts.

 

[aardvark]

'outside the realm of science' - a made up fantasy with no evidence to back it up then?

 

[elmarko]

Something may exist outside of our physical world, but a person can't claim to use reason to hold that belief (part of reason being the verification of facts) & accept it's a matter of faith & unsupported by evidence - as a by-product of this they should expect these beliefs to be challenged when they expect concessions or privileges based off them.

I'd also challenge them to explain exactly how they could know it exists (if it does outside of our physical world that is).

I mean, I could think of a theory which is unsupported by evidence - I could consider the theory that the universe was in-fact created by an advanced alien race from another dimension, I've got no evidence to prove this is the case, neither can I explain how I'd know this is true or not - but on the other hand, nobody could prove me wrong either.

With this kind of theory, it's just an interesting thought - I wouldn't structure my life around this idea & neither would it garner any further validity due to a large number of people accepting it as fact or it simply expanding over the next 5000 years.

The difference between the subjective human experience & the objective real world is that if the entire population of the earth was exterminated & intelligent life evolved again - science would be re-created the same, the laws of mavity exist outside of humanity - science isn't a human domain, it's simply the understanding of the actual universe & every single race across the universe (if they exist) would also develop the same laws of science.

Religion on the other hand will die along with the human race, the Christian god will dissipate along with the earth in 5 billion years time at most - but the universe understood by the mechanics of science may be rediscovered time & time again - long after our little terran playground is burnt to a crisp. (this may not be certain, but we have no justifiable reason to believe otherwise)