Your views on religion?
Posts: 125
Visited by: 158 users
Original post
Posted by Zealot644, 24.01.2012 - 06:03
I'm young, so maybe I dont know shit. Either way, here's a stupid kids thoughts ^^
I am interested in opinions on having a religion, not having a religion, detesting religions, etc from metal listeners points of view.
To keep it brief:
Things I like about religions:
-Set of rules or philosophies to live by which we adapted into modern society.
This can give people rules to live by that are generally enjoyed by people.
-Amazing historical works and definitely amazing stories.
Not much to say here besides the obvious. I would like to say they are great works of "fiction" but that would mean I would have to openly deny any gods or the likes. Take in what you would like from that.
-Can help people feel like they have a purpose during and after life.
Live your life and die? Or live your life and then go to a so called dream world? Which sounds more appealing ^^? Not to mention we are afraid of death as it is one of our great 'unknowns'
Things I dislike about religions:
-Fanaticism (Including trying to force religions upon others)
Brainwashing, obsession, whatever. I feel the number of people who take it too seriously is far too high - I consider those in this category to be weak minded.
-Wars (Directly related to fanaticism)
Same as above. Weak mindedness.
-Intolerance (Related to the previous two. Basically, the nonacceptance of any religions but one's own)
-Hypocritical at times
-Ignorance of modern day science.
Many years ago when religion and god was 'law' we were okay with that. Our knowledge of the universe was relatively limited and there were many great wonders to us, very much like today. Back then we decided "I dont understand this. I shall call it god." but with today's knowledge of many different things I dont think it is entirely acceptable to stand behind that same shroud of "Oh, it must be god" when we have scientists who are working very hard at making the universe around us make sense and to unlock its true potential for the human race (As destructive and stupid as we can be).
-People still thinking that without books such as the Bible or the Koran we wouldnt have society today in relation to morales, values, laws, etc
To me, saying that humanity is incapable of doing anything on our own without dusty old books written by nomadic desert tribes thousands of years ago is quite simply insulting.
My viewpoints on the matter?
I will try and keep this as unbiased as possible, but that is prettymuch impossible with an opinion. Anyways, I feel that religion is good and bad in many ways I have already described. My personal view on whether a person should or shouldnt believe in religion comes down to a couple of considerations which I feel are of utmost importance.
-There has been absolutely zero legitimate proof that an all mighty being(s) exists that created the world and universe as we know it.
-Scientists are finding some absolutely amazing secrets within the universe around us. Despite this, we haven't even scratched the surface of everything out there nor have we been able to prove that there wasn't some sort of being that created everything as we know it.
-As we have learned, intricate things REQUIRE intelligent design.
-If we were intelligently designed by something, what made it, and it, and it...
-The concept of suddenly 'existing' or even the concept of 'existence' is still far beyond us.
-We still cannot describe the 'human condition' of conciousness with any clarity.
TL;DR - Personally I think that you are a fool to either:
A)Believe entirely in religion without ever questioning the existence of a celestial being who nobody has ever been able to prove exists.
B)Believe entirely against religion when it has not been disproven by any legitimate means.
IMO a person should be:
C) Undecided, In between, both, etc. You may enjoy aspects of religion and believing in the purpose that it gives you for various things in life, pray to god, etc, but you do not mindlessly follow. And, as a modern and intelligent human, you should question an age old belief that has no completely legitimate proof of its existence but keep in mind that there is no legitimate proof of its non-existence.
Anyways, this has been on my mind a lot recently and I figured here might be an okay spot to discuss it and put out my thoughts on the internet. I'm sure with what I wrote I stepped on a few toes (apologies) and I hope if I did, you come in and debate it. The dawn of the internet is one of mankind's greatest triumphs and should be used to its full potential to advance the human race through the absolute complete sharing of knowledge and opinions. Things that are discussed now could lead to all that much of a better future for your children and mankind.
| Alecbirds Posts: 16  |
Written by Edmund Fogg on 27.01.2012 at 05:31 You don't honestly think that there would be as much conflict as with religion though, do you? Science is based on facts that are accepted because of supporting evidence. Religion is based on faith with no evidence, and can be twisted to meet the demand of anyone using it. You can't argue that gravity doesn't exist, but religions could argue endlessly about Jesus being devine or not.
Loading...
|
| R'Vannith ghedengi Elite Posts: 3099  |
Written by Alecbirds on 27.01.2012 at 23:13 Perhaps not conflict over established fact, but over theories and new ideas. Competing schools may find that an idea posed by another threatens their validity or status within the scientific community. Humanity will always find something with which to define differences. I agree, it does seem a strange idea, scientific schools violently oppressing others. But a world without religion would be a strange place would it not?
Loading...
|
| SelfXPlanetOrE Posts: 108  |
I was raised on the belief that there is such a thing as God. But as I grew up, my thoughts changed. Now, I believe that there can't really be a God, yet I go to church anyway, not just cause my mom and dad want me to, but I think that in order to have the best outcome in the afterlife, you should go to some kind of religious service, confess your sins, and do good things.
Loading...
|
| Edmund Fogg Posts: 1752  |
Written by Alecbirds on 27.01.2012 at 23:13 Yes I do. WE already know that corporate warfare exist and scientific warfare is already growing more and more. I'm not saying it's gonna be all out war, but I think it's gonna be there, more subtle. Kind'of a behind the scene battle to figure out wich research to fund and wich researcher to discredit his whole life of work because he questions theory a or b. I'm not taking about well established facts like gravity, but other theories that will sur come out in the futur. Of course it's all speculation, but one has to blind to think that with out religion conflicts will stop. In the end I think that with Science or Religion, People will fight to defend what is their interpretation of the world we live in.
---- You cannot sedate all the things you hate - MM The Observer is the source of reality - Bloom God damn it!! What did Diddy didn't do? - Satan
Loading...
|
| Fredd Account deleted |
|
| R'Vannith ghedengi Elite Posts: 3099 |
Written by Guest on 28.01.2012 at 05:06 Exactly my point, if science were to in some way replace religion entirely we would probably see scientific opponents resorting to violence. This is because, as you say, it is in human nature to do so, not in religion itself. But still, you don't think a world without religion would be a strange place? I think it would be and though violence, hate and discrimination would remain it would be very different from what we see in the news or experience around us today.
Loading...
|
| Andreas Posts: 330 |
|
| Ernis 狼獾 Posts: 6807  |
Written by R'Vannith on 28.01.2012 at 12:44 I share this view. I don't think it's that hard to imagine a place without religion. After all, I live in a country which has been labelled the least religious state, if not in the world, then at least in Europe. There are some old people who still go to church because of the tradition but the rest probably haven't even seen a Bible in their life. In Italy it's completely different. In Italy you go to mass on Sunday morning and you meet the blokes you had some beer with in the pub Saturday evening. Not to mention the chicks you partied with the night before... And they say "Yep, I'm religious. But that's a normal part of life, innit?" In Estonia, the word "religious" sounds to many people like "homosexual" or "mentally challenged" or some sort of "-maniac" or "-phile". Example of a dialogue between youngsters "You know what? I heard those religious people want to bring back the religion class to schools. I mean WTF? I mean, please, would someone put them into a mental house, jail or send them abroad or just execute them or something so that we don't have to hear from them any more!" Or... "Omg... those religious. You know what, I heard that the religious people put curses on people who drink and smoke." Once I heard girls speaking at the university... it was something like that: "Omg... I met this guy. He's quite hot but then he told me one day that "No, I won't make it tomorrow evening at 7. I'm going to the church." And I was like WTF?! I mean... he goes to CHURCH?! And he looked so NORMAL at first!" People have said about me "You know, this bloke is actually quite normal, even if he's religious." A co-worker spoke in the smoking room: "I met a priest at the BAR. I was shocked. But then he said that he's Lutheran. Lutherans are allowed to drink and smoke." Yeah... and catholics can't drink, smoke, have sex, watch the TV nor eat tomatoes. Seriously... I have a feeling sometimes that in Estonia many people do consider religious people "handicapped"... If you're a Christian, it means you molest little kids. If you're a muslim, it makes you a terrorist by default. If you're a buddhist, it means you're either a poof or some sort of desperate housewife who's been reading too many stupid self-help books. People usually don't even know about the differences of branches of Christianity, proved by this "Protestants are more normal, they can at least go to bars and drink alcohol." Meaning of holidays is completely ignored. Valentine's Day, Christmas, St. John's Day etc are strictly commercial. People just know that "It's a day off, so I'm gonna go to the store, spend lots of money and eat and drink until I vomit... and I don't know why I'm doing it..." A girl strikes a pose next to St. Paul's image on the wall of a church and posts the photo on social network and the comments go like "OMG. You posing next to Jesus!" Because you see... any bloke with a beard and a yellow circle above the head is Jesus by default. And finally... "Hey. Forgive me if I'm hurting you by asking this but... I heard someone say that you were religious. Is it true? I just... I never have thought that YOU could be a... a... oh, I'm so sorry..." Yeah, really... I wonder if we should organise a religious parade in Estonia (because, religious parades during holidays that are so common in countries such as Italy) don't exist in Estonia. And yep... in the USSR it was best to stay in the "closet". "Coming out" as a religious person could shatter your career opportunities. Here you have it... a world where religion is viewed as a flaw of historical civilisations that has finally been eliminated, save for those few unhappy fools who still live in the 18th century...
Loading...
|
| Fredd Account deleted |
|
| Edmund Fogg Posts: 1752 |
Written by Guest on 28.01.2012 at 21:17 Yeppe. Reminds of The South Park Episodes where Cartman wakes up in the futur where Atheits rules the world. Taking beavers are in large war against one another for different scientific approaches. Don't remember wich season it was.
---- You cannot sedate all the things you hate - MM The Observer is the source of reality - Bloom God damn it!! What did Diddy didn't do? - Satan
Loading...
|
| I_Die_Often Posts: 697  |
Some people need religion to feel complete, some just to feel better/superior over the rest. Many are bigger sinners than non-churchies, and only a few truly live by the word IMO All I know is, live your life, don't push your God on me. I live a life of treating others with respect that deserve my respect. I don't need a doctrine to live by, I'll use my common sense.
---- Old enough to be your Daddy... speaking of which... you look familiar... do I know your mother???
Loading...
|
| Alecbirds Posts: 16 |
Loading...
|
| Bulletdodger Posts: 463  |
Religion was (and still is) a necessary component of modern society which should not be abandoned, of course the separation of church and state is necessary, and people should believe what they want as long as the human rights of the believers, and especially non-believers aren't in danger. Contrary to popular belief, the church wasn't the reason behind the dark ages, but Pytharoga's and Plato's views on knowledge bordering with mysticism and barbarian invasions that destroyed cultural centers ( among the barbarians I count the late Roman empire and Sparta); while most of ancient philosophy has been preserved by Islamic philosophers who improved it, and the Catholic church who accidentally allowed the first rigorous examinations ( even the Christian dogma was more scientific then it's predecessors) of all existing knowledge through scolastics, and the first renaissance "scientists" were religious people ( let us not forget the great thinkers Newton, Leibniz, Euler, Pascal, Hegel and Godel who were very religious). About the prosecution of scientist, artists and thinkers, it was happening since the dawn of time ( Socrates beeing the best example), thorought history new ideas were met with hatred and prosecution by leaders of the time, and at that time that was the church. To keep it short, because of religion humanity suffered, but saw even more gain through it.
---- Aus dem Paradies, das Cantor uns geschaffen, soll uns niemand vertreiben können. David Hilbert
Loading...
|
| Edmund Fogg Posts: 1752 |
Written by Alecbirds on 29.01.2012 at 00:46 As I stated before. It's only speculations based on what we all know about human nature. I don't think it's gonna be all out war, but a more subtle behind the scene fight. Take for example Social Psychology, wich is a relatively new scientific domain. I would have to look back at my books for precise dates, but I think during around 30 years or more no research were done in that domain because they would automattically get critycize and discredited by the profesors of "true science". No funds were put in those research and claiming you were a social psychology reasercher basicly meant professional suicide. So that is one example out of many. Take Pharmaceutical research and you have already a more aggressive war. But I guess that would count more in corporate warfare then scientific. All out war is a plausible worst case scenario.
---- You cannot sedate all the things you hate - MM The Observer is the source of reality - Bloom God damn it!! What did Diddy didn't do? - Satan
Loading...
|
| Alecbirds Posts: 16 |
Written by Edmund Fogg on 30.01.2012 at 03:00 "All out war" is not a plausible outcome to differing scientific ideas. It has never happened, so why would it ever happen if religion ceased to exist? If you're aguing that humans need war, then I would point you in the direction of religion, politics, and land. If you have a scientific idea that is outside the norm of what is currently known, the burden is on you to provide evidence so that you are taken seriously. Obviously the evidence for social psychology was strong enough that it was able to overcome the low funding problem. Nobody was killed or needed to be killed. If someone came up to you and told you that their toes could talk, would you fund their "research"? It would take a great amount of evidence for you to be persuaded that it was worth pursuing.
Loading...
|
| Edmund Fogg Posts: 1752 |
Written by Alecbirds on 30.01.2012 at 21:52 Nikola Tesla and and Thomas Edison is a good example of how greed and human nature can come to bite back at you even in the domain of science. Nobody was murdered in that example either, but if you take the scenario and expand it, you can easily see a pattern of backstabbing after backstabbing. I'm an author mind you, so I tend to see things out of proportions. And no need to prove your point with a ridiculous argument like that. Would you fund a research that risk discreditting your own discovery, your whole proffessional life thus becoming a waste of precious time and effort?
---- You cannot sedate all the things you hate - MM The Observer is the source of reality - Bloom God damn it!! What did Diddy didn't do? - Satan
Loading...
|
| Alecbirds Posts: 16 |
Written by Edmund Fogg on 31.01.2012 at 01:56 The Tesla and Edison example is a bit different than what's being discussed. The facts of producing light were already known. They weren't arguing over a scientific theory, they were just at odds over production and efficiency. You gain respect in the scientific community if you build upon, or discredit the work of others. You gain even more respect if you refute your own theory. Science works because of how competitive it is. Religion has nothing of the sort to keep it in check. The idea is that if you have enough evidence to back up your claim, then it should be solid enough to stand up to whomever decides to speak up at it.
Loading...
|
| R'Vannith ghedengi Elite Posts: 3099 |
Written by Alecbirds on 30.01.2012 at 21:52 Supposing that it is possible that religion is eventually replaced by science, you have to consider just what this 'replacement' might involve. If conflict does in no way lead from scientific concerns which are the dominant view (keeping in mind that religion, as you claim, is contributory to conflict) then logically the world would be a more peaceful place? A scientific utopia perhaps? Let's say religion does lead to conflict within the world, and a shift towards science diminishes it. Does science therefore make humanity more peaceful? Personally I doubt it, as much as scientific endeavors may look purely innocent of any inciting of violence today, can we really say whether that would be the case when religion is just history? Would science simply play the role of bystander as conflict plays out on political terms? I don't think so, science would be caught as well as cause the crossfire. Humans have a tendency for violence, and it can spring up even from the most unlikely of circumstances. Scientific research, I dare say, would be no exception. Say a group of individuals, scientists, were working on a theory which would make or break their careers. An opposing theory is announced which is backed by some political entity (perhaps funded in some way, made a policy etc). Now you can't tell me there isn't any opportunity for resentment to arise from this situation. Is it totally impossible for violence to be a consequence?
Loading...
|
| Alecbirds Posts: 16 |
It appears that the basic idea I'm getting from the other side is that religion is somehow "keeping science in check" lest it get out of hand and cause havok. Science is not a form of power. it's not used to manipulate people. It's used to reveal truths about the world around us using evidence. If religion were gone science would work the same way it always has.
Loading...
|
| Edmund Fogg Posts: 1752 |
Written by Alecbirds on 01.02.2012 at 03:13 You're right about what science is suppose to be, but it's the humans above the research or the field that can generate problems. Results can easily be manipulated or divulged in a different light. Anyway I think i'll stop there before shifting into paranoia. But that was a really nice discussion. Gave me a great ammount of writting material and made me realise I might be a bit misanthropic.
---- You cannot sedate all the things you hate - MM The Observer is the source of reality - Bloom God damn it!! What did Diddy didn't do? - Satan
Loading...
|
| Leonidas Posts: 44  |
Written by Edmund Fogg on 01.02.2012 at 03:33 You're absolutely right about that. Scientific research and results can and ARE BEING manipulated and it's all about money. Pharmaceutical companies, multinational agricultural biotechnology corporations, weapon industries, Oil companies etc. they exploit science for their own benefit but in a bad way. I mean people can travel to the moon and shoot a single box of matches from space but they can't save people dying from "strange kinds" of flue....Who are we kidding here. Everything can be corrupted today. And that has nothing to do with religion or science. It has to do with us, with everyday common people. We became immoral. We envy everyday, we curse, we swear, we despise, we increase our materialistic needs, we destroy the world we live in and take cares of us and we don't seem to care about it. Some of us wittingly and some unwittingly. But the result is the same. And then we say "it's a shitty world we live in". So maybe after all we deserve what we get nowdays. The war around the world, the unjust, the diseases, global warming, financial crisis, and all the shitty things that go on today.
Loading...
|
| R'Vannith ghedengi Elite Posts: 3099 |
Written by Leonidas on 05.02.2012 at 12:34 As we sow so shall we reap 
Loading...
|
| Leonidas Posts: 44 |
Written by R'Vannith on 05.02.2012 at 15:27 Exactly my point my friend!
Loading...
|
| Oaken Hipster Posts: 1322  |
Written by Guest on 28.01.2012 at 05:06 
---- In that case, man is only air as well.
Loading...
|
| Fredd Account deleted |
Fredd
Account deleted Written by Oaken on 05.02.2012 at 23:13 My thoughts exactly when the shit happened. 
Loading...
|
| Oaken Hipster Posts: 1322 |
Written by Guest on 05.02.2012 at 23:27 Shit's happening a lot these days, isn't it?
---- In that case, man is only air as well.
Loading...
|
| Fredd Account deleted |
|
| Oaken Hipster Posts: 1322 |
Written by Guest on 06.02.2012 at 00:08 Problem is, shit is invincible. We can't kill it. On topic: IMO the existence of God (The creator) is not a subject to discuss. Many things out there point out to God's existence. Religions are just the methods we use to contact God. And about religion causing war, I disagree. It's the greedy nature of man that is behind war.
---- In that case, man is only air as well.
Loading...
|
| Alecbirds Posts: 16 |
Written by Leonidas on 05.02.2012 at 12:34 Science isn't the problem here, greedy people are. The results of scientific experimentation are in no way the cause to any of the problems that you're listing here.
Loading...
|
| Alecbirds Posts: 16 |
Excuse my double post here, but let me try to simplify this a little bit. Maybe I can help you understand a bit where I'm coming from. Consider: Science makes no claims about what is "good" and what is "bad". Science simply makes claims based on evidence as to why things are the way they are. Science isn't choosing sides on the subject of good and evil. Religions on the other hand do just the opposite. Religion makes very clear-cut claims about what is good and evil. Many times it's taboo to challenge these claims despite how outdated or archaic they may be. If there weren't secular and scientific reasoning opposing religious beliefs, we would have no understanding of Darwinian evolution by natural selection. Vaccines would never have seen the light of day, and slavery would still be an acceptable practice. To say that science is just as corrosive to morality and world understanding as religion is outright fallacy.
Loading...
|