Why Religion is Not for Intelligent, Logical, People.

[zeitgeist057]

Listen up, sheep!

Pretty simple.

There are thousands of religions, and many philosophical explanations for who we are and why we are here. Some are similar, others diametrically opposed. One thing they have in common is none of them are certain, and if one believes in any of them, it requires faith.

Faith, defined: "strong belief...based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof."

Right there in the definition of faith, we see it requires a lack of proof. If there is proof, it's not faith, it's just observation. Here we have reason #1. No proof. The rebuttal to anyone saying there IS proof: If there is proof, then it is not faith. If it's not faith, then it's not a religion. If you are trying to say your religion has proof, then by the very definition of religion and faith, you are delusional.

Next reason: Improbability.

Out of these thousands of options with their creative explanations of life, it's very unlikely that any one you choose or that appeals to you is the right one.

So many, and they all say they are the "true truth" lol

Even if hundreds of millions of others believe the same thing. Example: Hinduism vs. Judaism. "1,200,000,000 people can't be wrong", is the argument I've heard. Well, yes, actually, they can. Either that, or over 2,000,000,000 people who believe those people are wrong, are wrong. Having numbers doesn't make you right, and is listed as one of the logical fallacies. See "Argumentum ad pupolum" : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

Given this information, the only logical solution is to just admit you don't know. It's not that hard, it doesn't hurt (unless you are really egotistical/narcissistic, etc). It's just the truth. You don't know. No one does. There are those who think or believe they know, for whatever reasons (fear of the unknown, false confidence, upbringing, lack of intelligence, inability to accept reality, etc), but simply by accepting that you don't know, you put yourself a step ahead of the fools.

Just those two logical foundations alone are enough to dissuade anyone of sufficient cognitive ability to fully understand them from subscribing to or continuing to participate in any current world religion. Not that everyone has that level of cognition, or ability to extricate themselves from their subjective reality enough to observe the information with an unbiased and logical mind.

[Kaazsz]

I’m an atheist but I think most atheists are more scared to think about religion and spirituality and hide behind a guise of “rationality.”


The interesting thing about spirituality and religion is what I would call “revelation.” And not only in terms of Christianity.


It’s basically profound concepts which are expressed through symbolism and cannot be explained through logical means.


I think this is why people believe in religions and such. And it’s very interesting. Of course I’m an extreme skeptic and critic and despite learning a lot I’m still an atheist.


But I’m not so ignorant to think that I’m somehow more intelligent or “rational” than people who are religious. I think it’s nonsense to say that shit. It’s pure ignorance if you ask me.


It’s fun to learn the concepts and ideas that religion has. You won’t find the profound concepts you can learn anywhere else. It doesn’t mean they were passed down from god. If you ask me, god is similar to the concept of infinity. Human beings are interested in exploring ideas, and things such as infinity or god, where you attempt to integrate a logic based on the integration of all that exists into a single concept is very interesting.


And the same way there is a logic to infinity, so is there a logic to spirituality.


And science does the same shit. Ever heard of a boltzman brain? It’s the same thing. You could say the entirety of existence as well is one massive conscious brain. If our human brains are conscious and capable of rational thought due to the transfer of information, who is to say that all of existence is not merely a singular information machine, and said machine is not conscious of what goes on inside?


See, it is fun to think about stuff like that. Doesn’t make it true. But there’s merit to it. And you aren’t special for being an atheist and you aren’t smarter than other people for being an atheist, and you aren’t more rational either.


If you’re going to talk about philosophy, the world of philosophy debates god quite a bit. And there are good arguments on both sides, from people probably way smarter than anyone on this website lol.

[zeitgeist057]

Thanks for a very intelligent and insightful reply. You are right, I was wrong to say "not for intelligent or logical people..".

Also, I'm not an atheist, or think I'm "more special" than anyone. I realize for most religious people the reason for their religion is just by chance the place where they were born and who they were born to.

[Kaazsz]

That’s definitely true as well. But it applies to everyone. The majority of people aren’t exactly “thinkers.” They’re more like animals, doing whatever their body tells them to do lol. But we all have that potential to think more and be more than that in my opinion.

[goaded]

[zeitgeist057]

@goaded XD nice I love it

[goaded]

He's usually good. http://smbc-comics.com

[Kaazsz]

Someone call all the philosophers, neuroscientists, and anyone else who thinks they are smart. Humanity solved in one comic. All of the debates are settled now.

[Not_Average]

@goaded I know you’re not fond of my ideology in general, but I’m not offended. I can take a joke. You’re polar opposite on the political spectrum, but I do actually invite you’re feedback as it forces me to think at times. I think progressives are generally good people. I just don’t like the politicians. I got no beef with you.

[Not_Average]

Yeah it is interesting how culture influenced a particular belief and that was one of my concerns when I first started learning. It takes away the legitimacy if faith is influenced by varying cultures rather than a higher power. What stood out about Christianity and say Catholicism is that Christians refer everything back to the Bible where as Catholics use idols such as priests and don’t exactly follow the Bible. There’s more solidity in that. If you ever choose to read it, just know that the Old Testament is meant to be shown to you as lessons and not taken literally. It says this later on. It’s meant to be taken spiritually. So if a woman is stoned to death for sleeping outside a marriage, her spirituality is to be stoned to death. When I first read parts of the Old Testament I was really off put by reading and taking it literally.

[Not_Average]

Yikes I thought these responses were on my opinion when I woke up and read them. Disregard 😂

[goaded]

@Not_Average No worries. I did wonder why you distinguish between Christianity and Catholicism, considering the Catholics came first.

[purplepoppy]

Rational arguments don't work on religious people if they did there'd be no religious people.

[Pete671]

if you're religious you are not rational,,,

[bigbang101]

Says she who hasn't understood the esoterics of religious teachings!

[Милашка]

@bigbang101 says the woman who is a slut. What would you expect from a slut? To believe that they will burn in hell. Of course sluts CHOOSE not to believe in going to hell.

[Greendruid]

Your question is very intrestings, i find a pattern here, i observed that before monoethism was popular,

The polytheistic society of the people were more logical, resonable and practical, like in ancient assyria, rome, greeks, persians, babylone egypt, mesopotemia , india, etc,

infact many mathmatical and scientific discoveries took place there, some examples are

concept of decimal number system and zero, pythagoras theorem, algerba , trigonometry , geometey etc are ancient branches of maths, in fact they knew about the round earth and planetry system and heliocentric solar system model , even calculated years and radius of earth, the existence of atoms, gunpowder, archimedes principal, gravity (yeah they knew it already, newton gave law and equation)
Not just that, they even knew some very intresring things like plastic surgery and brain surgery. If i start counting all the things discovdred in ancient times then you will notice most of the education we get now is derived from mathmatical and physcial concepts of ancient and pre medival era

and all the scholars and researcher of that time devoted themselves to their patron deities,

infact i think its very shameful and diagraceful when i think that just some 4 century ago , mankind became foolish enough to to belive in flat earth, while people in BCE's were making ground breaking advancement in their time

When the galeleo again tried to prove that earth is round and we live in heliocentric system, he was arrested , trialed for blashpemy and was blindfolded

so my conclusion is that as long as people keep religion personal matter (like in ancient times) and dont try to impose it on humanity, humans will always proper and keep doing wonders, and thats why religions just doesn't fit with logic and they not practical.

Science is always great, and it will be greatest forever, people might feel offended (and m not sorry for that ) but science is far superior and above religion.

[zeitgeist057]

To add to what you’re saying, I wonder exactly how much Romans and Greeks believed in their gods completely, and how much they realized he was just missed in order to explain the world, but not real.

Tunnel away some of us look at astrology, as sort of a fun thing to do, but not really something you want to lay your life down for. I feel like people are so serious about religion these days they’re ready to kill themselves or other people, which is going a bit too bit far if you ask me

[Greendruid]

I think roman and greeks belived in their gods, thought not to be on par with today's religious extremist, but indian and egyptian were more firm in their beliefs, though egyptians god belivers are not there anymore, but indians in ancient times firmly belived their gods and had many theocratic kingdoms and republics (*mahajanpad). But true, its ohk as long as they follow peacefully,

[Greendruid]

Also, alexander and his subjects used to think that he was grandson of god, shame that he didn't wrote any holy book or we might have one more prophet as alexender the great prophet , the messenger of god XD

[DJB72]

You're confused. It's understandable.

You insist on using a definition that's secular to define something that isn't. You use an English definition for an English language translation of an ancient Greek word.

Your confusion is understood.

So to use the English translation of the ancient Greek definition: Faith is the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things as yet unseen.

Every human on earth uses faith with that definition. You use faith that the chair will hold your weight. That you can tie the waistband of your pants round your middle. To say intelligent, logical people don't need faith is actually illogical. A fallacy of the highest order. And a demonstration of the sheer ignorance 21st Century "intellect" wants to claim as superior.

You quote numbers. Billions of believers. There may be billions of members of organised denominations such as Catholic, Anglican, Baptist. But sitting in a denominational church for an hour or two a week doesn't make someone a Christian - I assume as most individuals who write the kind of message you write here are most interested in - any more than sitting in a stable makes you a horse. The number of people walking this planet at this time who might actually qualify as Christians at this point would be millions fewer. Hundreds of millions fewer. There's a massive difference between religion and Faith.

I'm not a religious man. But I'm a man af deep Faith. My Faith is based on seeing God move in my life over 48 years. More answered prayers than I can count. I have Faith because of the evidence I have seen in my life. That doesn't mean that I know what's coming next. This year I almost died of covid and had to have my right foot amputated. I didn't know that was coming. But I have Faith that despite the issues I've faced this year, God is a good God. I have Faith that God didn't give me Covid. I also have Faith that God is the reason I'm still alive today.

Medicine says I should be dead. My heart stopped. Total flatline. That means you can't use the paddles because they only work if the heart is in atrial fibrillation - hence the name "defibrillators".

Medical science says I should be dead. I'm not. That's evidence. Even my doctor keeps telling me my being alive is a miracle. And you don't get much more intelligent or logical than a doctor.

[zeitgeist057]

If there's something more logical than a doctor, it's math. Sometimes referred to as an exercise in pure logic. You being alive is math. Statistics, to be more precise. Standard deviation from the norm is expected and accounted for. You survived, and the majority in a similar situation did not.

[DJB72]

While I concur that my survival comes into the category of being in the "survival" column on a spreadsheet, *why* I survived remains a mystery, not just to me but also to the pulmonologist and covid specialist who treated me in intensive care for 12 weeks through the events I mentioned before. Yes, I'm a statistic, a "standard deviation" as you put it. That doesn't answer the question of WHY. Maths/statistics never can answer an issue of Faith. Faith often defies logic on the surface. And until you follow the logic through to the ultimate conclusion you can't see how Faith works

[zeitgeist057]

Yes, I see how "Faith (sic) works": if you don't know how something happened and it's not explained by science or some logical process, just make something up with your imagination and pretend like it's truth. Faith does often defy logic, I absolutely agree. Much like filth defies cleanliness.

[DJB72]

Filth is always filth, no matter how deep you scratch. Faith only defies logic on the surface. Scratch deeper and the Truth emerges as a logical progression.

Read "Who Moved the Stone" by Frank Morison and "The Case for Christ" by Lee Strobel. Both authors started their projects with the aim of disproving Christianity. Both became Christians as a result of what they uncovered through logical progression.

It's not about making something up and pretending. There's plenty of writings from the first century AD that record how Christians were prepared to die rather than abandon their faith. Especially the original 11 disciples (not including Judas). If - as the Pharisees and High Priest wanted them to say - they had stolen Christ's body, why be prepared to die for a lie? That's not logical.

Faith has a highly logical foundation or it collapses.

[zeitgeist057]

The "truth" you speak of at the core of faith, is actually delusion brought about by complete belief in the fantasy.

A schizophrenic actually sees and hears the hallucinations they have, but no one else does. Therefore, for the schizophrenic, "truth" and "reality" are a concrete foundation, but they don't align with the reality experienced by everyone else.

Your argument about people dying for their religion doesn't hold water. As I stated in the OP, millions or billions people believing in (or going to jihad for, or strapping bombs to themselves, etc, etc) does not validate a faith logically. That's just delusion on a grander scale.

If your argument were true, you would by necessity of logic be required to believe in all faiths that anyone has ever died for. Including Christianity, Islam, paganism, polytheism, Heaven's Gate, etc. Which I hope you can see is a contradiction since many of them have oppositional beliefs so to believe them all would be even more illogical than religion normally is.

[nightdrot]

Your definition of religion is simplistic and anti-historical. Better not tell Aquinas, Augustine, Chesterton, and Jastrow, among others, that religion is the absence of evidence and not for intelligent and logical people. No offense, but it would be grand good fun to see you in a match up with these men, all of whom - especially the first two - helped in their writings and reasoning to lay the foundations of Western civilization. Not bad for unintelligent and illogical people.

Indeed, assuming, as your description seems to, the equivalence of science and religion, they are not unrelated. In general, the truth is that each in its way compliments the other and that the dichotomy between the two is of fairly recent vintage. In fact, it is a premise of the Roman Catholic Church that faith and reason are ultimately compatible. That if man's reason were perfect and uncorrupted, faith and science would affirm each other.

Thus, to this day, Vatican City has one of the world's foremost astronomical observatories. A place engaged in understanding the way the universe works as a way to grasp more fully the complex nature of the God's creation.

To be sure, the RCC has had its bad moments with science. See also Galileo. However, believe it or not, that was because the Church believed that he was contradicting science. The mistake the Church made was a tool literal understanding of the compatibility of faith and reason.

The Church reasoned that because man was the center of God's creation that therefore - literally - the sun, the stars and the planets must ultimately as a PHYSICAL reality revolve around the Earth. Thus Galileo fell afoul of the Church to his great price, but ultimate vindication.

Ironically, the real split between faith and science came from an excess on the scientific side. The birth of the age of Reason - coming from the discoveries of the physical laws by Newton among others - seemed to refute the Biblical understanding of man and free will.

Science reasoned that if there are physical laws that these must also be binding on human conduct. In effect, there is no free will. The flaws in human society were the result of man mistakenly producing laws that contradicted natural rights and therefore created disharmony. Religion, it was reasoned, was among the sources of these mistaken laws - superstition divorced from abstract reason and disharmony and conflict follow.

Here then where the serious split between science and religion. Some in religion turned to fundamentalism. That the Bible was literally - word for word - true. That the discoveries of science were the product of a reason corrupted by Original Sin and thus not to be relied upon and were wrong.

From the science side, the most conspicuous example was Marxism. Science stripped man of the particularities that give man his identity - his culture, his ethnicity, his religion. Marx squared the circle by identifying "scientific principles rooted in economics and the imagined dialectic of History" that squared the circle. Hence the phrase "scientific socialism."

Of course, both sides have their problems. Fundamentalism can give you the Salem Witch Trials. Socialism gives you the Gulag.

Still, overall, the history of the West - and I did not even get into Islam and other religions that have their own stories to tell - has been to understand the way the universe works to give sense to something that transcends the material world. In that, the West has been the story, not always peaceful to be sure as man is not perfect, of the co-existence of science and religion and on the whole, man has benefited from that not always easy relationship.

[zeitgeist057]

Perhaps the dictionary is "simplistic and anti-historical", but it at least is a base reference most people can understand and allow as a common ground.

re·li·gion
/rəˈlijən/ : noun, the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.

No offense taken; I would love to introduce your ancient wise men to the vast amounts of information we have access to today that they were blundering about in the dark ages for.

This myTake is absolutely simplistic; I don't believe most people would take the time to read anything much longer (and it's probably too long by a paragraph or so for many), and there's really not much need. But I do concede there are many more elements to belief than I address above. Some shortcomings are the failure to address the power of culture and the psychological need for answers.

I did not mean to imply a science vs. religion stance. Science is not a belief system, and gives no "hard" answers claiming objective, definitive knowledge. It simply says, "This is what seems to be, until it is shown otherwise, which is possible and perhaps even probable."

[nightdrot]

Yours is the arrogance of the modern age. The presumption that knowledge equals wisdom.

In any case, where science was left to run its course, we go the Gulag and the atomic bomb. The logic of the latter being, if unencumbered by the morals of religion, that it is to be used.

In any case, as far as science goes the words of Chesterton are appropriate, “It is absurd for the Evolutionist to complain that it is unthinkable for an admittedly unthinkable God to make everything out of nothing, and then pretend that it is more thinkable that nothing should turn itself into everything.”

The problem being that science can explain everything - except why science exists.

[zeitgeist057]

Putting words in my mouth, then showing them to be false doesn't really move the discussion forward. It moves backwards, as I point out I said nothing about knowledge being synonymous with wisdom.

What I said and will repeat, is that I would enjoy taking "wise men" and exposing them to new information. (Because it would be interesting to see what how they took it in and processed it, and what they would do with it.)

"Science cannot explain why science exists" <- because science exists for subjective reasons according to the person practicing the principles of science. So it is mutable and therefore "undefinable", at least in an objective manner.

Can religion explain why religion exists?

As for Chesterton, the quote you chose is appropriate as it is another paper tiger. I and many others do not "complain that it is unthinkable... to make everything out of nothing...". On the contrary, as a former Christian, I find it incredibly easy and simple to imagine a superbeing creating everything out of nothing. In fact, it is so simple and easy, humans have been doing it throughout our history with many various names given to their easily imagined deities. A child could do it, and children do. It's easy for creationist children to argue with evolutionist adults, because the child has anything they can imagine on their side of the argument. It's the old playground imagination game: "I've got a gun!," "Ok, then I have a shield that can block bullets.", "ok, then I have a laser than can cut through your sheild!" Sky's the limit when you have omnipotence and omniscience in your lineup.

[nightdrot]

At this point, then you don't seem to be saying much of anything. If you can imagine a "superbeing" and find it plausible - at least so far as I can tell you seem to be saying - then you have just opened the door to religion. Religion being man's attempt to grasp the nature of that "superbeing".

Yes indeed, religion can explain why religion exists. Theologically, it is God's message to man. Anthropologically, it is man's attempt to grapple with the existence of God and understand the Supreme Being's nature. Thus, in fact, religion explains not only itself, but science as well. (See again the Roman Catholic Church's view on the faith/reason dichotomy.)

My other point being that reason absent wisdom is not reason. It is reason masquerading as wisdom - which as I say gets you the Gulag. Thus if you accept the equivalence of wisdom and reason you are back at an irreducible level to religion.

You end up chasing your intellectual tail. Relying on a useful, but ultimately unsatisfactory, dictionary definition to understand something far more complex.

[nightdrot]

P. S. Totally unrelated. For some reason, your question - and my initial answer to it - does not appear on my list of "Opinions." Not sure why and you may wish to check with the moderators of this site. It is a good - if, in my view, flawed - question and it deserves to get a wider viewing if it is not.

Paradoxically, though, as you can tell, I am getting your messages.

[zeitgeist057]

@nightdrot to admit something is possible, is not the same as accepting it as truth. I can say "yes, it's possible there are intangible pegasi flying around ejaculating on everyone, and that's what gives people good ideas.", but that doesn't mean I'm making it my religion and basing real world decisions on that belief. No one can prove there AREN'T these intangible pegasi any more than they can prove there is no Wankan Tanka, but that is insufficient fuel for what I am defining as "intelligent, logical, people."

Your explanation for how religion explains religion precisely illustrates my point about subjectivity. Many other religious people would also say they have the answer to that question, and it would be different than yours. Not to say it's not a good answer, simply that it is your own.

[nightdrot]

At this point I cannot follow you. Could religion be wrong or a religion be wrong? Yup.

Could science be wrong? Yup.

Neither science nor religion has a definitive monopoly on truth. The problem with your approach is that it affects to a sort of skepticism that only simplifies reality. Not for nothing did the Bard say, "There are more things in heaven and earth..."

Religion, properly understood, examines reality and seeks out the transcendent. Science lacks that capacity and therefore glimpses only one facet of reality. Hence, Chesterton's remark above.

You then fall back into a sort of intellectual laziness. You, in effect, put what is laid before you and accept it without question. Then adding the besmirching of those who have the effrontery to believe that there is more to reality than the material world.

Are there buffoons in religion? Yup. Are there fundamentalists in religion who oversimplify things and fail to probe more deeply? Yup.

The irony being that you are as guilty as they are. Your perception of reality is defined by a simplistic vision and an incapacity to see beyond the limited realm of the material world. Thus, my point in noting Chesterton's remark.

You are as subjective in your way as the religious fundamentalist is in his. Sure, you'll admit something is possible - so long as it is not the faith espoused by those religious buffoons who are illogical and unintelligent.

So how are you different from them, exactly?

[zeitgeist057]

@nightdrot I admit any of it is possible, not limited. At least anything that makes sense, which is not too hard to come up with, as evidenced by my intangible ejaculating pegasi (or the Flying Spaghetti Monster).

What makes me different? I'm not actually attached to any specific belief. I do have the ability to see beyond the "limited realm of the material world" (which I would argue appears to be close to infinite, rather UNlimited), I refer to it as 'imagination" and "creativity", and I agree these things have an immense value. I believe it is dangerous to get too caught up and begin blurring the lines, getting confused about what is empirical and what is imaginative fiction.

[nightdrot]

In a nutshell, you say, "I'm a man of no convictions - at least I think I am."

The bottom line is that if you accept that there is a world beyond the mere material - and that you are not merely a fortuitous accident in the transmission of the genetic code and hence of no moral value - then you open the door to religion. It likely being that no religion is absolutely right anymore than any school of science is absolutely right. It being a hazardous duty to be the finite attempting to understand the infinite.

The irony in this case being that - to take it back to where we started - you are content to assume your greater intelligence, logic and wisdom against the like of Aquinas and Augustine merely because of the accident of the timeline of your birthdate. That seems a rather illogical and flimsy starting point to presume your own intellectual and logical superiority.

Indeed, forgive my saying so, but the line between your inherent superiority and mere bigotry seems to get somewhat blurry.

[zeitgeist057]

I admit I am wrong about the intelligence and logic bit and that the issue is more complex. I do not view myself, or any other human, as superior or inferior to another. Again, your words, not coming out of my mouth.

[zeitgeist057]

and yes, ""I'm a man of no convictions - at least I think I am.", that's perfect! I love it and cracked up reading that! :D

[nightdrot]

On the first, you are the one who presumed that religion is not for the intelligent and logical. Your words, not mine. Certainly it is arrogant presumption to say of the likes of - to repeat - Aquinas and Augustine. They helped found Western civilization.

What have you done, lately?

As to the latter, glad I could offer a chuckle.

[zeitgeist057]

I repeat. I was wrong to say that.

[zeitgeist057]

You could re-read that, I don't know how many times I need to repeat it. I was going to post an update retracting/amending but I think it is either to late or (haha) i'm not intelligent enough to figure out how to do that.

[nightdrot]

Well, that is nice that after it was pointed out to you, you see the error. However, the real issue is from where you began. Your presumptions speak louder than your actions - or in this case your inaction.

[nightdrot]

By the way, I highly recommend this book to you: The Decadent Society: How We Became the Victims of Our Own Success. By Ross Douthat. www.amazon.com/.../ref=sr_1_1

It is the cure for the current era's presumption of its own wisdom and superiority. It is no "woe is me, we are in the end times" jeremiad. Rather. it is a brutal analysis of the hubris of the current age - of which the original formulation of your question was, you'll forgive my saying, exemplary.

[ADFSDF1996]

Your whole argument is a false dichotomy. There is no logic behind the idea that being religious automatically makes you “stupid”.

Plenty of the brightest minds throughout history were religious. In fact many of the biggest contributors towards science like Galileo, Newton, Gauss, Von Braun, Walton and so on were all practitioners of Christian faiths.

Then there’s the fact that many biblical passages have been interpreted as referring to scientific facts such as evolution, atoms, hygiene, physics and Botany. Not to mention that science has actually confirmed many of those facts.
https://biblehub.com/genesis/3-14.htm

https://www.google.com/amp/s/api.nationalgeographic.com/distribution/public/amp/news/2016/10/snakes-grow-legs-evolution/snakes-grow-legs-evolution

Even Richard Dawkins made many atheists raise their eyebrows after he proposed the theory that Humans evolved from mud. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.express.co.uk/news/world/752936/Humans-evolved-from-MUD-says-Richard-Dawkins-bible-was-right-evolution-bible/amp

[Greendruid]

As far as i know, galileo was declared herectic by church for blasphemy when he
announced that our solar system is heliocentric

Giordano Bruno was scentenced to burned alive on stake pyre,
The list goes on with Michael Servetus, Hypatia and many more, its not m accusing any particular religion, m saying all almost all religion , can't tolerate somrthing which question their authority over people's mind

[ADFSDF1996]

@Greendruid Galileo’s conflict with the Church didn’t stop him from being a Catholic. A person simply having a difference in opinion with the church doesn’t make that person an “atheist”. And most of these Christian scientists I mentioned never had any conflict with their churches.

The Catholic Church may have persecuted dissidents in it’s early years but so did many Atheistic regimes like the Soviet Union. The difference is that the Christendom evolved out of it’s authoritarianism. While the Soviet Union remained authoritarian until it’s collapse.

[zeitgeist057]

Sorry, it wasn't meant to be "religious people are stupid". It was more meant to say "if you have some intelligence and logic, here is a simple explanation of why believing in a particular religion is illogical". I see that it was a bit inflammatory and apologize.

[ADFSDF1996]

@zeitgeist057 Thanks for the clarification, I respect your opinion even if I disagree with it.

[hellionthesagereborn]

I love how atheists who believe that the universe created itself (scientifically impossible) try to claim rationality is on their side while also not understanding the purpose of religion in any way shape or form. You try to treat religion as if it was science, and while science is derived from esoteric religious philosophies (alchemy to be precise), its function is wildly different then sciences.

I'd recommend first, stop trying to be an edgy teenager by repeating what your teachers have told you to think, second to actually study religion and listen to theologians i. e. religious scholars so you can have a better understanding of what its purpose is, and three consider the idea that you don't actually know everything (because you don't) and that you could be wrong (and yes, this goes for religious fanatics as well, they should also do all of these things) because you are more then likely, wrong (we don't have all the answers and when some one goes and claims that they do, especially about something that is as unknowable as to the creation of our universe and ourselves, you are almost certainly full of it).

Ego, self righteousness and ignorance never make for good arguments (and I wish atheists had the capacity to self reflect, if they did they would see that they are as fundamentalist as religious people and just as obnoxious).

[zeitgeist057]

Thanks, great points, along with many false assumptions, such as my teachers ) who were Christians when I went from Christian to agnostic), or that I am atheist, or a teenager, I think I know everything, etc. Or maybe you're not addressing me with these assumptions?

My whole stance presented in the My Take comes precisely from the point that I could be wrong and most likely am, and applying that same principle to every religion and belief system known to man.

[hellionthesagereborn]

99% of atheists were taught atheism (because again, it is not a rational stance (nor am I suggesting theism is either), hence the conclusion drawn (I also thought you were some one else when I wrote that (their is another G@G who constantly ridicules and insults religion and makes the same false claim that your title makes.).

I wasn't suggesting you were a teenager, I was suggesting the argument that you have to be stupid and irrational to be religious was an "edgy teenager" stance because it is. Its not a well thought out argument or idea, its simply something that is believed because it was taught, and that is designed to be counter culture and counter traditional.

[hellionthesagereborn]

Religion is not a science so trying to treat it as such is not a logical argument, that is called a strawman argument. It is about how to live your life, it is closer to philsophy then it is to science (again, despite science getting its start in religion). Second you do not consider that you could be wrong because you stated in your very first line that any one who does not think like you (atheist) is not intelligent nor are they logical. Thats like me saying "I'm not calling you a liar, I'm just saying everything you say is a lie" at that point it is functionally the same, that is essentially what your arguing, "I'm not saying I'm right, I'm just saying every one who disagrees with me is wrong", at that point, you are actively and functionally treating your stance as absolute and theirs as completely wrong.

The irony is that religion actually has a slightly better argument simply because it implicitly acknowledges the absurdity of existence, that is you cannot have a universe that is bound to causation without actively violating causation (either their was nothing then something which breaks causation, or its always existed which makes the universe an affect without a cause which in turn breaks causation), so believing that their was something that exists outside of causation that can act as the primary mover at least makes some sense (as much sense as one can make of such a thing) compared to "it created itself, don't question me" which is the usual atheist argument.

[hellionthesagereborn]

and if I seem irritated, that is because I've had this argument ad nauseum and you have managed to hit every cookie cutter remark and conclusion of every other atheist that tries to denounce religion without ever knowing anything about it (which I find strange that you could not know SOMETHING about religion if you were raised christian (it is about how to live your life, not about how things work and as such this makes it completely different to a science yet you wish to treat it as if it was one and apply the same rules to it you would science. Thats like trying to apply scientific principles to art, they are incongruous.). In short, if you don't want a curt reply, don't start your opening statement with the stating that every one who doesn't think like you is stupid (which is exactly what you did (not your exact words but the exact meaning of your statement whether or not you actually intended for it to be read that way).

As for admitting you don't know, yes I agree with that whole heartedly, I am agnostic because I cannot find any kind of evidence for theism as a cosmological theory nor can I find any evidence of self making universes as the atheists claim. I don't think our brains are capable of understanding everything, the fact that we can use our brains as we do is insane but it was never its initial purpose and I think this is a question that lies outside of our mental scope for the time being.

[hellionthesagereborn]

As for your generalization of all religion, I would also point out that religion and god are not one and the same. I would also state that their are thousands of religions out their being practiced and thousands more that have long since died and having been some one who tries studying these things I will say your many years behind in trying to "debunk" them, your not going to have enough life left to analyze them all (I've been studying them since I was eight, I still haven't gotten past the tip of the ice berg).

You then have to again, acknowledge that they are not a science and as such you cannot treat them as one. Philosophy and group psychology are the ways you have to approach religion. Also realize that most of it is a heuristic, so most people follow it without understanding why but its because they don't need to understand it in depth to gain value from it (like how you don't need to know about how our entire culture was created through christian ideals and the enlightenment in order to gain benefit from it), so that is why you get people who believe it but don't understand it, because just like how I don't need to know how a plane works in order to fly in one, they don't need to understand religion in order to reap its cultural and social benefits.

Unfortunately you take that and the fact that much of abhrahmic religion is political (their was no distinction between politics and religion and religion also for these people took on a historical role as well (as it has for many groups) this muddies the waters but also gets you fundamentalists and people who believe things that are not true and can be detrimental (helpful at the time of righting but two thousand or more years later and things have changed).

[Not_Average]

I mean I'm an engineer, I write code, and have an above average IQ. I believe in god. These are negative labels that wouldn't actually add up in fruition. Humans are very complex, and humans are compelled to believe certain things for a variety of different reasons. We all have different experiences. My uncle before he passed was one of the smartest men I've ever known. He had some traumatic experiences within his youth which drove him to believing in god. So it's not as simple as saying it's for stupid and illogical people. There are many different drivers which can change the trajectory of many decisions in our life. This is a very linear way to look at such a complex subject that has so much depth. It seems like you're being a provocateur just to be a provocateur. E. g. you say something so wildly insulting to someone, thus getting an emotional response out of them so that you can break down their points when they're in a weaker state of mind due to emotion clouding their ability articulate what they think.

I have a genuine question for you though, have you ever read the bible? I don't mean this to put you down or prove a point. I'm genuinely curious because I was an atheist for many years. I read the bible to dispel all of this talk of faith looking for confirmation that I was correct in my assertion as an atheist. I attempted to deconstruct it for years on and off. I ended up believing in god through my attempts to deconstruct. The bible has such a rich amount of depth in every verse. I'd really suggest you at least read it before coming up with any absolutes for your life. That seems like a logical solution in my opinion.

[zeitgeist057]

Yes, I read the Bible when I was a Christian, when I was a kid, between the ages of 8 and 14. I didn't read the whole thing because there were a lot of boring parts in it like "Sheb begat Asford, and Asford begat Noah, and Noah begat Marky Mark..." I remember one such section just kept going on and on. Just based on that I disagree with "rich amount of depth in every verse..."

So I read for content, to get anything valuable or interesting out of it. I really liked Psalms and Revelations. The Old Testament was more interesting than most of the New Testament.

This is an older question and I hope you will see in some of the discussions it raised I backed off a bit and it wasn't really my intent to be a provocateur. I just do see it as pretty simple: if something cannot be logically supported as being irrefutably true, then don't support it as being irrefutably true.

[Cozybcuz]

Perhaps subscribing to a religion such as Christianity could be considered less rational. But you can't limit your view of religion or more or less a belief in the divine or a god to such simplified beliefs. There are more then enough people who have much more interesting views on god, spirituality can be much more profound then what you seem to put through. I'm not religious my self but I find that you might have fallen in to a very dogmatic way of thinking. Try reading some interesting views on god, like Spinoza or maybe Immanuel Kant

[zeitgeist057]

It is precisely from reading a wide variety of perspectives, philosophies (Kant, Berkeley, Huxley, etc) , religions, etc, That I came to the conclusion I have come to, and I thought I illustrated that in the OP? When I talk about how there are thousands of different religions, and anyone of them could be right.

[OmNomaly]

Though I don't believe in gods. I do believe in religion.
This doesn't mean that I myself am religious.
Some folks needs a way to cope with existentialism.
If it is something that helps them cope with the loss of a loved one and helps take emotional burdens from them. More power to them.
I consider myself to be more in line with Buddhism and it's teachings.
It's important to have balance.

As far as religion goes for me. If they are not trying to shove it down my throat. Live and let live.
Though I do wish that religious ceremonies in 2020 would be under better guidelines for the outbreak. Instead of them trying to flock into congregation, ignoring warnings.

[zeitgeist057]

Thanks for an interesting answer

[OmNomaly]

No problem :)

[goaded]

To my mind, the killer argument is that there's no evidence of a supreme being (especially not if you take specifics of a particular religion into account), but abundant proof of people and other animals lying for their own advantage in nature. (Which is not to say that adherents of religion are lying, just the people who started them; and Scientology is a recent example of the phenomenon.)

[zeitgeist057]

Yeah, I agree. Like Moses saying to himself, “Dang, how can I get these people to wander around in the wilderness with me for 40 years? I know! I’ll tell them gods talking to me and wants them to do it.”

[Anonymous]

Publicly I'm a Christian but privately I am an atheist too!

I just claim to believe in the cult (politically correct!) to avoid unnecessary conflict But personally I don't really care.

Publicly I am very religious person but privately I know the truth.

In fact most of the educated people who still publicly claim to be very religious and defies logic. Even after knowing everything and being aware of the facts. They just do it to stay in power. Because it's very easy to manipulate religious people.

So in short, religions are political. They are not about right or wrong but strong and weak. Because "might is right!".



You can guess, why did I go anonymous.

[zeitgeist057]

I see. Yes, I know some of the faith healers in the Bible Belt have admitted or been discovered they don't believe at all but its so easy to take money from the gullible religious masses they went for it.

[jshm2]

You're confused, kid.

Nor are you as "intelligent" or "logical" as you've flattered yourself into believing. Plus you've used a lot of words to say nothing.

There are also hundreds of languages and many more languages that have died out. This doesn't mean only "one can be right!" that you've deluded yourself into believing is the case. Nor do you understand what belief and "proof" are about.

Also, if you're going down the "probability" path, then Bayesian theory gives a high probability of God. Which is the best it can do.

The rest of your conjecture is amateur gish galloping.

[zeitgeist057]

I see a lot of declarative statements and assumptions, with a lack of rationality.

I guess you’re right, and always will be.

[HungLikeAHorsefly]

Yeah, but... intelligent, logical people also realize that religion doesn't really even fall within the realm of logical thought. So they don't evaluate on logical terms.

It comes down to the idea of falsifiability: it is not possible, nor will it ever be possible, to definitively prove any religion true -or- false. Therefore, it lies outside the realm of science.

If, however, you insist on continuing to evaluate it on logical terms, then we can go over the logical problems with your argument ;)

[syskerully]

But... it is possible to disprove religion. Very easily actually. Every single religion is based on some wildly inaccurate premises. Those are easy to disprove.

[HungLikeAHorsefly]

@syskerully You can disprove specific claims of the various religious texts, but it's not possible to disprove the foundational principles of most of the religions on Earth today. Take Christianity for example - you can disprove some things in the Bible, but it's not possible to disprove the existence of God, or that Jesus is/isn't the Messiah, and a whole host of other things.

[syskerully]

Ok so I am God. You can't disprove it, so you have to accept it.

[HungLikeAHorsefly]

@syskerully Well you're partially right. I can't disprove it. I don't, however, have to accept it. I can simply not believe it. Again, we're not talking science here.

[syskerully]

Nope. Your disbelief is just wrong, because as God I always get to be on the right side of the argument.

[HungLikeAHorsefly]

@syskerully Eh, sure, whatevs.

[J2ohhhhh]

Your definition probably comes from the aithorian church. Believing in something doesn't require blindness. You can believe and still stay open minded. Taoism for example says that everything comes from the Tao. And that's it. Tao doesn't have a definition it defines itself. And it doesn't have a name it is just called Tao for simplicity of reference. So everyone comes from something indefinable. What is your very definition of intelligence. And if you believe in quantum mechanics. You believe that there are infinite universes with infinite possibilities. So somewhere we are all a big inbred family. Bible never said it set in our universe.

[zeitgeist057]

thank you for your answer. Is Taoism different than Buddhism?

[J2ohhhhh]

Your train of thoughts on faith was interesting and it actually applies for most of the western religions.

Taoism encoureges simplicity, and harmony with the least possible disturbance to nature's balance (taking no action) and it provides nothing to worship. While Buddhism is more focused on death, on the spiritual world and think life as a cycle. You accumulate good karma and bad karma and at the end the calculation is made wich realm you reborn at. I have very little experience with Buddhism, but I think both are encouraging to seek understanding rather than unquestioned faith.

[Yaaten]

This 'myTake' is just dripping with smug condescension, and takes a rather simplistic view of the situation. People generally do not believe in, for example, Christianity because they've found "proof" for the claims of said religion (although of course, some do), but because, all else being equal, they can connect to their religion of choice on a deep, intuitive level. It's not about weighing evidence, comparing different religions, and ticking off pros and cons: it's about finding answers that fulfil personal needs that help them navigate life's complex issues, and offering more to life than just what our five senses can reveal to us.

[zeitgeist057]

Thank you for an interesting answer. You are right, of course, that is isn't always about the facts but sometimes people just want what is fulfilling.

[bamesjond0069]

Maybe intelligent people realize it makes their life better to believe, maybe they had miraculous experiences, maybe they can accept just because its improbable doesn't make it not true and we know we don't know everything. These are why i believe in God.

[zeitgeist057]

This is probably the strongest argument I’ve heard for believing: “it makes their lives better to believe.”. I have personally considered attempting to delude myself into a fantasy world that would make me happier. It’s just a bit against my nature, but I agree it could be a pleasant option.

[bamesjond0069]

Yes. God gives me more direction in life and when i follow that direction it makes me happier and more fulfilled and confident. Then after making the motions for awhile I've actually felt God, almost like smoking weed high but just from praying. And those two things together make me say "hey i dont know everything" so no need to hold back

[Kaneki05]

Of course. Also another reason we have learnt to cope with death we don't need some afterlife or meaning to life cause were strong and not weak-minded to need something to cope with it. I do think you can be a bit smart as religious but 100% not strong enough to cope with the thought of life has no meaning.

[OlderAndWiser]

It is called faith because there is no "proof" in a scientific sense of the word. That does not mean that the truth of religion will disappear if proof is discovered. That is quite illogical reasoning.

If you don't believe, that's fine. You have the right to not believe. Using defective reasoning to tell everyone else they are wrong is worse than sophomoric.

[zeitgeist057]

thank you for your answer.

[PBandJ_Nerd]

But don't most people who follow a religion agree that we don't know what happens in the afterlife? Isn't that enough to show that we're unsure? I mean, it's just possibilities of what it could be like. Also atheists just don't follow a religion but they might still be spiritual at least.

[zeitgeist057]

Actually, my understanding is they propose that they know EXACTLY what happens after we die, down to the number of virgins they receive as a reward, or who lions and lambs hang out with.

[Xtcy2083]

Why should I accept your particular definition of faith? To me it means the acceptance of propositions not because we have evidence or "proof", but because it makes more sense to accept than reject them (ex. I accept the notion of objective reality, the existence of minds other than my own, and the reality of the past. I cannot "prove" that you are real, but I trust - that is, I have faith - that you are).

[TheorionMage]

The ONLY NON-homo sapien-centric 'religion' is expressed in contextual insightful observation of the interactions and morality demonstrated in Nature. Nominally modern neopaganism.

The Sentience who 'designed' our terrarium 'reality' perpetuates this divine 'day dream' for purposes unknown to man. The KJV of the Christian bible says it best in Isiah 45:7.