Religions - Your Opinion

[Locke4God]

It's funny that I'm a political, financial, moral, and social conservative, because fundamentally I have one big difference that sets me apart from the vast majority of those place themselves in that category.

I'm a complete and utter athiest.

Am I evil? No I'm a really good guy, and I actually I love religion and think we need more of it, because I fully believe that the moral lessons and social structure it provides are deeply important to the fabric of any society. Without it, things have a habit of falling into chaos.

But that being said, religion merely serves several base needs.

• It provides us answer to the desperate human question of what happens when you die, and it provide a comfy answer that there is a glorious heaven of which you truly belong. Nice.
• Most important to me, and the reason that I love it, is that it provides moral boundaries. It says don't cheat on your spouse, don't abuse your body, don't lie, don't kill, and on an on. Those are good qualities and need to be promoted as much as possible.
• In ancient times esspecially it answered the questions of the universe. What is the sun? Why does it rain? These were things that previous to ancient Greek society could never have been understood, and religions provided grossly inaccurate guesses.

There are other functions of a religion, but these are the main ones, and if you just look for a moment with Athiest eyes at these, you'll see that were there no god, these pretty simple tools of a social institution. If you choose to believe they're rules of a higher power, then more power to you, but there's nothing inhuman about these goals.

My main take on Religion is that it's bound in a perfect little self fulfilling bow. It's completely impervious to denial by those who believe. I could create life in front you and it would simply be gods will, or perhaps more often a perversion of his will. And forget simple commodities as proving that evolution is real, or that alien life exists. Those foundation shakers are easily incorporated or dismissed outright.

Consider if you will though that through the course of time, god has continuously moved. He began on a hill top or in the weather, but in later centuries, once it was better understood what natural phenonmenon actually were, god moved the clouds or into space. But then we reached those as well and it became necessary for god to simply exist everywhere, within us, around us, and yet inperceptible to us. Again impervious to denial.

If you ask me and you apply Hakim's Razor to the issue (the idea that the simplest solution is correct) then the concept of residual energy in the void of space that emits plaza balls that went on to form stars & consequently planets and life, is way easier to accept than the idea that a great and magical being decided to flash us into existance.

Perhaps the most troubling part to me though is that religous people assume that god actually likes or pays attention to the them. Why would you think that?

We already know that the Earth isn't even the center of our own Solar System, much less the universe, which was of course a founding concept of a lot of religions. That we were so special that god placed us at the center and cared for us. But we are of course not at the center, and yet gods devotion to us was never questioned along with that revelation.

Supposing we were created by some higher power, why would we be any more than pets to him, or a biological experiment just to see what would happen. Why couldn't god be an uncaring observer. Why this image that he's some nurturing do-gooder who wants nothing more than for you to prove your worth to him so that you might join his angels in heaven and suckle on his nurturing teet for all enternity.

Or what if he's just a cold bastard who kicked you out of heaven, wiped your memory of the place and has subjugated you to the terrors and torment of mortal life? I mean really, what do you know. Hell, he could have founded your religion just to fool you into thinking you had a purpose when in fact your just floundering around wasting time. How would you know any different?

You couldn't. And what's more is that there are hundred's of religions. Each one of them is completely devout and commited, fully certain that they are correct, and yet by simple logic, at most only one of them would be. That means the majority of you out there are in fact wrong right off the top, even if any type of god exists.

So the question would be, why in the world I trust any of you? Why would I accept any religion over another when the vast majority of them clearly must be incorrect?

The only logical thing to do is be an athiest. Again I support the moral value of faith, and I don't seek it's end, but in the end, it's petty, weak, and devoid of critical thought. And so I'll commit myself to being the best person I can be, and live my life honorably. But that's all there is to it folks.

[Jeordam]

last night, but I didn't have enough time to adequately express the thoughts that came to mind. Hopefully I'll be able to articulate my thoughts today. And hopefully this multi-quote thing works....

It's funny that I'm a political, financial, moral, and social conservative, because fundamentally I have one big difference that sets me apart from the vast majority of those place themselves in that category.

I'm a complete and utter athiest.

Am I evil? No I'm a really good guy, and I actually I love religion and think we need more of it, because I fully believe that the moral lessons and social structure it provides are deeply important to the fabric of any society. Without it, things have a habit of falling into chaos.

Ok...you're an athiest, but you're a political, financial, moral, and social concervative. Right on....like you, I have many of the same view points (concervative) as you do, but unlike you, I'm a Christian. And not just a Christian, but one of those hard-core types. However, my viewpoints on "worldly" matters do not originate completely from my belief system, but instead are rooted in other ways (much akin to your situation).

But that being said, religion merely serves several base needs.

• It provides us answer to the desperate human question of what happens when you die, and it provide a comfy answer that there is a glorious heaven of which you truly belong. Nice.
• Most important to me, and the reason that I love it, is that it provides moral boundaries. It says don't cheat on your spouse, don't abuse your body, don't lie, don't kill, and on an on. Those are good qualities and need to be promoted as much as possible.
• In ancient times esspecially it answered the questions of the universe. What is the sun? Why does it rain? These were things that previous to ancient Greek society could never have been understood, and religions provided grossly inaccurate guesses.

In regards to your first point, religion does provide an answer to the question of what happens after you die...however that is not necessarily a comforting answer to receive. Not everyone goes to heaven after all. All have the opportunity, but not everyone decides to. Besides which, no matter which side of the debate one resides upon, after death comes the judgement. Most feel uncomfortable with that notion...

As per your second point, I agree....religion does provide moral boundaries and codes of conduct (both do this & don't do this examples).

As per your third point, I agree...to a point. In ancient times, god/gods were used to explain things about the natural world which they had no knowledge of or couldn't understand. Do you think much has changed in the thousand of years since? In many cases, we have exchanged one God with a belief which necessiates as much faith.

There are other functions of a religion, but these are the main ones, and if you just look for a moment with Athiest eyes at these, you'll see that were there no god, these pretty simple tools of a social institution. If you choose to believe they're rules of a higher power, then more power to you, but there's nothing inhuman about these goals.

You are right....there are other functions of religion, but I wouldn't necessarily label these as the main ones. From your point of view, they very well may be, but also understand that you are looking at the situation from the outside. It may seem that you are the impartial observer, but lacking an internal perspective, I believe that you are overlooking some aspects.

My main take on Religion is that it's bound in a perfect little self fulfilling bow. It's completely impervious to denial by those who believe. I could create life in front you and it would simply be gods will, or perhaps more often a perversion of his will. And forget simple commodities as proving that evolution is real, or that alien life exists. Those foundation shakers are easily incorporated or dismissed outright.

Ok...This was the part that I wanted to get around to. Let me state some background on myself. I am a scientist by trade & education. I've been in the scientific field for better than 15 years now. I've got degrees in biology & chemistry, and I even have my Masters in Business. My professional career has been dominated by working within the scientific community. But in addition to all this, I also have a minor in Biblical Theology. One would think that these two worlds are incompatable, however I can personally state that they are not. You mentioned three "foundation shakers" that I would like to speak on.

The first was creating life. I'm going to assume that what you had in mind would be creating life from non-life. After all, we see the creation of life all the time in the combination of sperm/egg. Although its often regarded as the miracle of life, it is in fact the "oldest trick in the book". Instead, life from non-life is something that we have never been able to duplicate. Some may say that it is a matter of time until it happens, but as a scientist, I'm not so sure.

We can duplicate protein systhesis, or combine DNA sequences. We can even clone cells and make duplicates. However we have never been able to actually create life from non-life. We have never been able to create a cell from the "raw materials". We have never been able to get even the simplist of life forms to "spring out" of our laboratories. But lets say that some day, some brilliant scientist manages it. What then? Foundation shaker...? I would still say no. Why? Because it didn't happen randomly. Some scientist planned it out...it wasn't a random convergance of fate/chance/whatever which produced life. Someone in their wisdom created....

The second "foundation shaker" which you mentioned is evolution. Ok...without getting hung up on semantics and for any Christians reading this don't get all twisted. Evolution is a real and true event. However let me qualify that by saying micro-evolution is a real and true event. Animals adapt to their environment and over time begin to specialize. Survival of the fittest does occur. However macro-evolution has not been seen or evidenced. We do not see the gradual change in one species to another. A bird may adapt its beak over time to get the little insects on an island, but ultimately, its still a bird. And then just to complicate matters, the entire Life-Origin theory rests upon abiogenesis. As mentioned in the first "foundation shaker"...that is the weakness of the theory, and ultimately its death blow.

And the last "foundation shaker" mentioned was alien life. Scripture does not mention either way that there is life on other planets. Am I open to the possibility? Sure. Whatever...its neither here nor there to me. Do I think that they are visiting earth & taking off and anal probing people? No. Do I think that alien life may just be bacteria floating around some pool of whatever on some random planet? Maybe...who's to say. Either way, it doesn't really shake anything. In centuries past, humans thought that the earth was the center of the universe, and everything revolved around it. I'm not so foolish as to think that this would be the case in this instance either.

Consider if you will though that through the course of time, god has continuously moved. He began on a hill top or in the weather, but in later centuries, once it was better understood what natural phenonmenon actually were, god moved the clouds or into space. But then we reached those as well and it became necessary for god to simply exist everywhere, within us, around us, and yet inperceptible to us. Again impervious to denial.

I find this....odd. Did God move...or was it simply our understanding of God which moved? Much like a child which at first doesn't understand a situation and just makes things up as they go...and then a child which does understand the situation. The event itself is fact, but mearly the understanding which has evolved.

If you ask me and you apply Hakim's Razor to the issue (the idea that the simplest solution is correct) then the concept of residual energy in the void of space that emits plaza balls that went on to form stars & consequently planets and life, is way easier to accept than the idea that a great and magical being decided to flash us into existance.

Hmmm...I think that you may have painted yourself into a corner. Hakim's Razor actually supports a God. Why? Because the random conflux of events to happen in a universe which just happen to produce the right environment which just happened to produce life....all by chance, is far more complex a solution than a God who created life.

Perhaps the most troubling part to me though is that religous people assume that god actually likes or pays attention to the them. Why would you think that?

So just to point out, you have crossed over into a theological realm here. Before, we were speaking about the nature and existance of the intangible in a universe which is tangible. Now, we are actually speaking of the nature of God....and God as perceived by Christians. The long and short of it is this. Love. We could explore this concept further if you want.

We already know that the Earth isn't even the center of our own Solar System, much less the universe, which was of course a founding concept of a lot of religions. That we were so special that god placed us at the center and cared for us. But we are of course not at the center, and yet gods devotion to us was never questioned along with that revelation.

Who says that it was never questioned? I, myself, have thought through this very thing. But two concepts have floated to the surface multiple times. The first was that when Earth and everyone on it was created, God spoke it into creation. God was pleased, but it was just so much construct. However when God created humanity, Adam was breathed to life by God. There's something far more intimate about that. The same goes for when Eve was created...God specifically made her. Right there says special to me....humanity was more than just a construct that was spoken into existance. Humanity was created intimately and specifically by God...to such a degree that the Bible records that God actually came down to earth & walked with humans "in the cool of the day".

It should be noted that was the first time that God came to earth to walk with humans. Much later, the same occured under different circumstances. The overall goal was the same, but it was demonstrated much differently. You mentioned devotion...would you not agree that a good example of devotion is sacrificing something of value for someone else's gain?

Supposing we were created by some higher power, why would we be any more than pets to him, or a biological experiment just to see what would happen. Why couldn't god be an uncaring observer. Why this image that he's some nurturing do-gooder who wants nothing more than for you to prove your worth to him so that you might join his angels in heaven and suckle on his nurturing teet for all enternity.

Again, we are well into the theological realm, but let's keep going....

Do people regard their children as pets? Do scientists who do experiments/studies with humans regard them as simply animals? No, they do not. Why? Because there is something more happening. Humanity is not just animalistic in nature. Instead, there is something else going on. Humans are self-aware. We are capable of abstract thought that can be expressed either through advancements in technology or the creation of art, music, or literature.

You mentioned the image that "he's some nurturing do-gooder who wants nothing more than for you to prove your worth to him..." Actually, in the case of Christianity, you have it backwards. Its not me having to prove my worth to God. I don't have to do good works, unlike what the other faith systems of the world require. Instead for Christianity, Jesus already proved my worth by dying for me.

Or what if he's just a cold bastard who kicked you out of heaven, wiped your memory of the place and has subjugated you to the terrors and torment of mortal life? I mean really, what do you know. Hell, he could have founded your religion just to fool you into thinking you had a purpose when in fact your just floundering around wasting time. How would you know any different?

The answer that first comes to mind is probably one which would make you toss your hands into the air and roll your eyes with a "oh, that same old answer" thought on your lips. I don't believe the above to be the case because of my faith. This is why the Bible is so important, because it spells out the circumstances of "how" and "why" and doesn't leave me floundering around wasting my time. I know that this doesn't really hold any water for you, but its kind of the best that I can do. That and to reitterate the fact that God loves me...so the cold bastard characterization doesn't really come into play.

You couldn't. And what's more is that there are hundred's of religions. Each one of them is completely devout and commited, fully certain that they are correct, and yet by simple logic, at most only one of them would be. That means the majority of you out there are in fact wrong right off the top, even if any type of god exists.

Ok, now you've traveled into the "which one is right" area of faith systems. I would challenge you to not look at the depth of the devout or even the sheer numbers of believers, but instead upon the faith system itself. Without getting down to every single one of them, there is one faith system in the entire world which says that God scrificed for humanity, and not humanity sacrificing for God. In all instances, it is humans who are seperated from God (for various reasons), and it is humanities responsibility to overcome that seperation...whether that is through good works & deeds...having plenty of children....overcoming the unwanted through a series of good lives...whatever. In all the cases except for one, its humanity who is doing the work. In Christianities case, it is God who has done the work, and its up to humanity to choose to accept it.

That, right there, is the differentiating factor between all the faith systems of the world.

So the question would be, why in the world I trust any of you? Why would I accept any religion over another when the vast majority of them clearly must be incorrect?

Its not me that you have to trust.

The only logical thing to do is be an athiest. Again I support the moral value of faith, and I don't seek it's end, but in the end, it's petty, weak, and devoid of critical thought. And so I'll commit myself to being the best person I can be, and live my life honorably. But that's all there is to it folks.

But here's a question for you...is the logical decision always the right decision? Even logic must give way eventually. It is illogical to love someone, yet we as humans do. Just to say it, I take exception to the characterization that in the end, the moral value of faith is petty, weak, and devoid of critical thought. The reason being is that faith is neither petty or weak. This is evidenced by the fact that people die for their faith. Whether its some Christian missionary in the jungle who gets killed for preaching (this would be a martyr), or someone who blows themselves up (not an example of a martyr, but a fool), their faith is neither petty nor weak. As for devoid of critical thought, I would say that it isn't the faith itself that is lacking critical thought, but instead the individual who has that faith.

I've been taught over a very long time to critically think through what I believe...either in the scientific realm or that of the theological. The Bible even supports this by saying that we (Christians) are supposed to study our faith so that we can give an account as to *why* we believe. That study smacks of critical thought. Many see faith as a crutch holding up a person. I would challenge this thought. Instead, see faith as the mortar in a wall. It fills in the gaps between the bricks...it strengthens and supports where the bricks cannot go. Furthering that analogy, which wall is stronger? The one of bricks alone, or the one with both the bricks and mortar? Is it so logical to assume that I can live my life honorably on my own, basing my actions/decisions on my own worldview which I know to be flawed (since we can safely assume that we all acknowledge that we make mistakes)?

Or is it far more logical to base our actions/decisions upon something which hasn't changed over time?

This has been a really good post, and I'm thinking that this reply is *way* too long...but well, its a big topic. I hope that someone has read it, but I know that for me, typing it out reitterated some concepts for me.

~Jeordam