Quote from Whyrainfalls;323090:
Please. Science is very far from not being flawed. Science is very limited in its dependence on observation. Science, which is emotionless, must be interpreted by humans, who are full of emotion. Two scientists can look at the same thing, and come to very widely divergent conclusions, and, with the current system of establishing agreement, both be considered to be correct.
This would be a flaw if things that can't be observed exist. Science accepts that things can't be observed now but could be once the proper tools are invented to do so. But if something is 100% impossible to observe, then it doesn't exist. There is no flaw here.
Quote from Whyrainfalls;323090:
Religions have long been the propagators of thought. Many deeply profound thinkers have come to light, only because of religion. Someone had to think of the precepts of religions first, one could say that religion is the birth of solely thought. In many middle eastern religions, philosophical debate is considered a staple for a healthy soul and mind.
Creation of a religion may involve some thought in and of itself, but following a religion less so. Debating the philosophies of your religion involves someone in the debate taking the side that the religion is, at least in part, wrong.
As for middle-eastern religions I am posting under the assumption that was suggested by a previous poster, that this is focused on western religions.
Quote from Whyrainfalls;323090:
That may be what faith is to you. But to so many others, faith is the questioning of the teachings of a religion, and finding them to be true, or at least acceptable.
This questioning comes from a process that can be described as(I apologize if this seem derogatory) “sitting around and thinking about it, then arbitrarily deciding to agree with it.†Talking into the air and/or listening to the voices in your head don't make faith any more rational or reasonable.
If there is actual rational questioning and testing going on of those teachings, congratulations, you're performing science. I hope it goes well.
Quote from Whyrainfalls;323090:
I'm not going to pretend that this doesn't happen. But it's people who do this. Not religion. People train people, and people teach that questioning their faith is wrong. But these practices are, of course, wrong. The strongest kind of faith is the kind that comes from a person who questions their faith, questions whether or not the teachings are valid, and finds the answer to be "Yes".
Religion is a construct created by people for this purpose. You're basically agreeing with me here that this practice is a bad thing.
Quote from Whyrainfalls;323090:
Meditation, something that has very little meaning outside of religious practice, also requires concentration and effort. Many eastern religions require the religious leaders to be in a constant state of meditation.
Meditation involves the clearing of your mind and -not thinking-. I've yet to hear a satisfactory answer of what this actually accomplishes.
Quote from Whyrainfalls;323090:
And the way you speak makes it sound like science is full of free-minded rebels who reject the idea of acknowledging a truth just because the words came from an "authority" and that religion is full of hive-minded slaves to this authority, who reject the idea of questioning, even for a moment, the word of an authority.
In reality, there are people of both types, in both groups.
Those among the science group that follow the academic dogma are not really scientists. Just as a lot of people claim Mr. Phelps isn't really a Christian, even though he self-identifies as one. Those free-thinking individuals who question the authority of their religious leaders and think for themselves are quite possibly actually scientists. If they're trying to apply the scientific method to their religious teachings then they are indeed scientists (not to be confused with the ones that make a mockery of the scientific method and try to pass off their religious propaganda as “science†like the Intelligent Design people).
Quote from Whyrainfalls;323090:
If this is the case, it is not because of the teachings of religion. "Love yourself as you love your neighbor." Someone offering thanks to their god is something they do with pride. They are proud to have been able to do well, and so they thank their god for being with them. What they're really saying by doing this is, "I overcame this hardship for you." Just like a champion who is the subject of a king would thank his lord after a conquest or other display.
People are quick to shift faults away from them even without religion. "It was a faulty instrument!" "It was the lab assistant's fault!"
The teachings of a particular religion have very little to do with how the people in that religion actually act, or what the religion/religious group does. “Love yourself as you love your neighbor†was around and part of the relgion when the Crusades and Inquisition were happening. So was “thou shalt not kill†but they still killed a lot of people.
Teachings of that sort act as great ways to market the religion though. It is pretty hard for most sane and rational people to argue that “don't kill people†is a bad rule. Get someone to agree to that, and you can show them some other rules in the holy book that equally make sense, and you can get someone to agree that the religion must be good because of all these good rules in it, so they join. Then they make the fatal mistake: just because the rule “don't kill people†is a good rule, and in the same book as “homosexuals are evil†people then go on to believe that the rule against homosexuals is good too.
I will say though, that I have immense respect for someone who is Christlike, while I am highly suspicious and wary of someone who is Christian.
If someone is an open-minded free thinking person who has discarded the authority of the religion and just follows those parts that are good of a religion, then I find that person to be a good person. But those sorts of people are bloody rare!
Quote from Whyrainfalls;323090:
I don't how drinking and driving is similar to the mindset of a religious person, but you should be telling them they can't do it. Whether you're an authority or not. You shouldn't probably be motivated to keep people out of accidents. That should be a definite motivation.
The focus is more on the reaction of the person for me telling them they shouldn't be drinking and driving. It is the mentality that I need to be some kind of authority over them in order to get them to do something they don't want, not the fact that what I am trying to get them to do is better for them.
Quote from Whyrainfalls;323090:
I strongly believe Christianity evolved to be used as a subjugating tool in monarchist europe. But what about religions like Buddhism, where each individual is supposed to pursue their own path? How can that religion be used to control anyone?
Buddha was a human, and in no way supernatural. He was just really wise. Buddhism is not considered a religion by some definitions, and many call it a philosophy.
Along those lines, there is also a Christian philosophy.
It is the human-made institution, the organized religion that is the subjugating and mind-numbing evil. A philosophy that does not have an organized religion would, as you imply, be impossible to really use as a tool of subjugation.
This is why I get a little irked whenever I contemplate the ramifications of Asian culture being invaded by Christianity. When I read about the act in history, or watch an anime and a character in it is christian... something hard to really describe enters my thoughts... basically it bothers me.
Quote from Whyrainfalls;323090:
If you truly see the effects of religion as being damaging, then you've done an unfair accounting of the positive and negative effects of religion. I'll tell you right now that the red cross wasn't founded by atheists.
The red cross, in the absence of organized religion, would still have been invented/founded. It would obviously have some other name, but the concept of charity is not Christian original invention by any stretch of the imagination, nor is charity something only religions do. Giving aid to those in need is one of the many basic human things that some people do.
There are also plenty of attrocities done by secular powers, such as Stalin's regime in the USSR and Mao's regime in China. Religion doesn't hold the monopoly on commiting attrocities either.
What I am referring to is something far more subtle. The human mind is caged. People are conditioned to try to take the easy route. I don't think this is an unavoidable part of human nature, but I think it is heavily ingrained from thousands of years of cultural poisoning.
Most people would rather not question “authority†such as God or the Bible. Someone with a token bit of perceived authority says “this is how it is†and people are quick to assume that “it is so.â€
Look here on Mabi: people still spout off the teachings of the church of Winrefine, even though the advice to “train windmill first†hasn't been true for generations. But because nobody thinks for themselves, people parrot that advice off without even understanding why it was ever true to begin with or realizing how untrue it is now.
Look at people who support gun control laws. Can you actually fathom the mindset of the person who is completely against law-abiding citizens owning firearms to protect themselves, and the ludicrous idea that people should let the police protect them? These people actually think if they take guns away from people by making them ilegal, that somehow
criminals won't break that law and posess a gun to commit other crimes with.
There are countless examples of this authoritarian mentality that pervades nearly all aspects of society, culture, and life. That is the damage I am referring to. Not the damage of one religious group starting a fight with another and killing happening. Though that is bad too.
Quote from Whyrainfalls;323090:
Under what? Each person is a unique instance in the universe. Every single person on this earth can accomplish amazing things no matter what. Religion or not.
Can accomplish amazing things and will accomplish amazing things are completely different stories.
You obviously believe that every person is fundamentally equal. I don't.
Human society has to allow for the possibility that any given person may be great, by trying to offer equal opportunities to all. But some people are just plain inferior to others. Some people are smarter than others, some people are physically stronger than others, some people more creative, some people more charismatic. Some people are greater in many categories than others, and have a multitude of talents. Some people just plain suck at everything.
I think that with the chains of religions thrown off, without the damage of that poison in place, that apathy would not be so prevalent. I think if people didn't have this crutch of a convenient “answer†for things, more people would seek answers, and in that seeking actually find things.
Some people are greater than others, but that greatness is hidden behind the cloud of faith, and chained down by the authoritarian mindset. I believe only a few break free of it, but even they are often drowned in the sea of their peers. If the chains were not in place, everyone would be free to express their potential, and so much more amazing advancements would take place.
Rather than trying to achieve some sort of paradise in heaven or nirvana, people could work to making this place, this life into paradise. It is within our grasp today to solve world hunger, disease, wars, and all of the worst problems that make living on earth such a drag. At the route of all those problems we find religion.