9 ms·

Religion, in my opinion, is not really about believing in a dude in sandals up in the clouds somewhere. And some large part of it is in fact junk and even somet

Religion, in my opinion, is not really about believing in a dude in sandals up in the clouds somewhere. And some large part of it is in fact junk and even sometimes dangerous. But it has value in exploring questions and aspects of humanity that we are not able to understand with reason. Human beings are really bad at reason. Just in my opinion. Atheism is an affirmative answer to a question about your faith in the unknown. So I agree with him, again just personally.

acqq 8y ago
> Religion, in my opinion, is not really about believing in a dude in sandals up in the clouds somewhere. If you take a honest look in what religions are "really about" you'd come to: hell. Deities providing a place to torture human souls. Even Buddhism (as a developed religion, not as an idea on which it was established) has its hell. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naraka_(Buddhism) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naraka_(Buddhism) The proof that all of these stories are actually produced by humans and even have one origin is that the concept of hell effectively didn't exist around 3000 years ago but then appeared in all the cultures which mutually exchanged goods through the trade routes around 2500 years ago. The timing also doesn't fit with any of the religions claiming they have "the truth": the concept of hell was surely unknown to early Judaism but was provably spread across the cultures centuries before the Christianity appeared. > But it has value in exploring questions and aspects of humanity that we are not able to understand with reason. Like, we can imagine hell really good, and obviously successfully spread the invented stories about it. Heaven on another side is either non-existence, or profoundly uninteresting or obviously produced for a mind of sex-obsessed hormone pushed teenagers who will therefore be motivated to die for their "religion" (virgins always ready for sex). > Human beings are really bad at reason. Should we then prevent them from trying to reason about their religions? Or shouldn't we support them exactly to do so? The problem is, raising people to "not do something" because they will be "punished" in the afterlife provably doesn't work, otherwise we wouldn't be where we are now -- the human civilization constantly being near to complete annihilation. By pure nature of how probability works, there will be sooner or later some false alarm that will indeed trigger the actual detonation of the nuclear weapons. The only sane action by humanity would be to reduce their amount to the scale which makes humanity's annihilation impossible. We are very far from that at the moment. Because it's so profitable making these weapons. Yes, human beings are really bad at reason. https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/john-f-kennedys-vision-of-peace-109020/ https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/john-f-k... "military and intelligence leaders responded by unveiling their proposal for a pre-emptive thermonuclear attack on the Soviet Union, to be launched sometime in late 1963. JFK stormed away from the meeting in disgust, remarking scathingly to Secretary of State Dean Rusk, “And we call ourselves the human race.”"
louisswiss 8y ago
> But it has value in exploring questions and aspects of humanity that we are not able to understand with reason. I don't think this claim stands up to much scrutiny. Sure - religion is interesting from a historical perspective. "Why do we think the way we do" for example. Or "how did we grapple with problem X before we discovered Y..." But religion doesn't offer some unique perspective or insight we don't otherwise have access to. In fact, it stops us exploring questions we don't yet understand. Because (organised) religion claims to have the answers. That's what makes it so dangerous. And, as Christopher Hitchens used to say, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence to support them"...
- wallace_f 8y ago
  I think a good example is human rights. Remember, these started out as natural, or god-given rights. We all know what the world looks like without them. All the ultra-rational, anti-religious political economies of the first half of 20th century were hells on earth. You cant come to reasonable arguments for human rights without faith in some belief in natural good, dignity or humanity.
  - louisswiss 8y ago
    > You cant come to reasonable arguments for human rights without faith in some belief in natural good, dignity or humanity. We can, and we did. The US constitution for example, is explicitly secular. In fact I'd say there's a convincing case to be made that - as soon as faith (in some form) enters the equation - you can no longer have a reasonable argument about human rights, because by definition, a person who believes something 'on faith' cannot be persuaded by logical argument, reason, or evidence. They simply 'know it to be true'. > I think a good example is human rights. Remember, these started out as natural, or god-given rights. The teachings of the most common major religions included some human rights. But also a lot of incitement to commit atrocious acts completely counter to our human rights (for example the death penalty for adultery and homosexuality, the command to commit genocide in several cases, genital mutilation and so on). Sure, you can cherry pick just the 'good' parts of your chosen religion, but if you're doing that, why bother with religion in the first place? If you (or anyone else reading this) genuinely agree with the comment I'm replying to, please, please, please watch this debate with an open mind --> (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJCZKZomtXQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJCZKZomtXQ).

acqq 8y ago

> Religion, in my opinion, is not really about believing in a dude in sandals up in the clouds somewhere. If you take a honest look in what religions are "really about" you'd come to: hell. Deities providing a place to torture human souls. Even Buddhism (as a developed religion, not as an idea on which it was established) has its hell. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naraka_(Buddhism) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naraka_(Buddhism) The proof that all of these stories are actually produced by humans and even have one origin is that the concept of hell effectively didn't exist around 3000 years ago but then appeared in all the cultures which mutually exchanged goods through the trade routes around 2500 years ago. The timing also doesn't fit with any of the religions claiming they have "the truth": the concept of hell was surely unknown to early Judaism but was provably spread across the cultures centuries before the Christianity appeared. > But it has value in exploring questions and aspects of humanity that we are not able to understand with reason. Like, we can imagine hell really good, and obviously successfully spread the invented stories about it. Heaven on another side is either non-existence, or profoundly uninteresting or obviously produced for a mind of sex-obsessed hormone pushed teenagers who will therefore be motivated to die for their "religion" (virgins always ready for sex). > Human beings are really bad at reason. Should we then prevent them from trying to reason about their religions? Or shouldn't we support them exactly to do so? The problem is, raising people to "not do something" because they will be "punished" in the afterlife provably doesn't work, otherwise we wouldn't be where we are now -- the human civilization constantly being near to complete annihilation. By pure nature of how probability works, there will be sooner or later some false alarm that will indeed trigger the actual detonation of the nuclear weapons. The only sane action by humanity would be to reduce their amount to the scale which makes humanity's annihilation impossible. We are very far from that at the moment. Because it's so profitable making these weapons. Yes, human beings are really bad at reason. https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/john-f-kennedys-vision-of-peace-109020/ https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/john-f-k... "military and intelligence leaders responded by unveiling their proposal for a pre-emptive thermonuclear attack on the Soviet Union, to be launched sometime in late 1963. JFK stormed away from the meeting in disgust, remarking scathingly to Secretary of State Dean Rusk, “And we call ourselves the human race.”"

louisswiss 8y ago

> But it has value in exploring questions and aspects of humanity that we are not able to understand with reason. I don't think this claim stands up to much scrutiny. Sure - religion is interesting from a historical perspective. "Why do we think the way we do" for example. Or "how did we grapple with problem X before we discovered Y..." But religion doesn't offer some unique perspective or insight we don't otherwise have access to. In fact, it stops us exploring questions we don't yet understand. Because (organised) religion claims to have the answers. That's what makes it so dangerous. And, as Christopher Hitchens used to say, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence to support them"...

wallace_f 8y ago
I think a good example is human rights. Remember, these started out as natural, or god-given rights. We all know what the world looks like without them. All the ultra-rational, anti-religious political economies of the first half of 20th century were hells on earth. You cant come to reasonable arguments for human rights without faith in some belief in natural good, dignity or humanity.
- louisswiss 8y ago
  > You cant come to reasonable arguments for human rights without faith in some belief in natural good, dignity or humanity. We can, and we did. The US constitution for example, is explicitly secular. In fact I'd say there's a convincing case to be made that - as soon as faith (in some form) enters the equation - you can no longer have a reasonable argument about human rights, because by definition, a person who believes something 'on faith' cannot be persuaded by logical argument, reason, or evidence. They simply 'know it to be true'. > I think a good example is human rights. Remember, these started out as natural, or god-given rights. The teachings of the most common major religions included some human rights. But also a lot of incitement to commit atrocious acts completely counter to our human rights (for example the death penalty for adultery and homosexuality, the command to commit genocide in several cases, genital mutilation and so on). Sure, you can cherry pick just the 'good' parts of your chosen religion, but if you're doing that, why bother with religion in the first place? If you (or anyone else reading this) genuinely agree with the comment I'm replying to, please, please, please watch this debate with an open mind --> (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJCZKZomtXQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJCZKZomtXQ).