5 ms·

Your arguments are a bit unsatisfying to me, though. > what makes sense for example is the positive impact a religion has on the world. which religion is doing

Your arguments are a bit unsatisfying to me, though. > what makes sense for example is the positive impact a religion has on the world. which religion is doing the most good? I try to have a positive impact on the world by being vegan and donating to (secular) humanitarian organizations. I struggle to see how believing in a religion would improve on this (although I’m open to a good rebuttal!). > which religion has the better answers to explain the world in which we live in today? I think that the secular scientific tradition does better here than religion (even if it isn’t perfect, of course). > take the issues and questions that matter to you, and then look at the answers and see if they are satisfactory. keep searching until you find the answers you seek. I did that, and it doesn’t look good for religion, as explained above. And yet, here we are with one of the parent commenters telling us that we should believe in the Bible, lest we burn in hell. Hence my comment above: what evidence shows this, and if there is no evidence, why should I believe it (or any other religious scripture) over my current ideals?

em-bee 1y ago
I struggle to see how believing in a religion would improve on this that's not what i am asking. if you believe that religions are "wrong", then it's on you to verify that. what evidence shows this, and if there is no evidence, why should I believe it i can't tell you that. you need to look at each religion yourself and decide. as i asked in another comment, have you looked at all the major religions (as listed on eg wikipedia), and can you say with confidence that none of them do better than secular scientific tradition?
- Tijdreiziger 1y ago
  The burden of proof is on the claimant. If you want to convince me to change my beliefs, you should provide a compelling argument. If you believe that religions are ‘right’ and/or have better answers than the scientific tradition, it should be trivial to defend your claims. (Your other comment [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44130369 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44130369] is more agreeable.)
  - em-bee 1y ago
    first of all, i am not making the claim that religions are ‘right’ and/or have better answers. i am making the argument that if you want to find out if they are giving better answers or any answers for that matter, then you need to research them. i can tell you what i believe but i am not here to represent any particular religion, and i can't speak for all the religions. you will get better results and answers if you look at each religion yourself, and come to your own conclusion.
    - Tijdreiziger 1y ago
      Ah, but the original claim (not by you) that I replied to and that spawned this subthread was: > I strongly encourage you all read this book(the bible) and take it to heart. This seems to be somewhat different from what you’re arguing now, though. For what it’s worth, I shared my beliefs (veganism, humanitarianism, and the scientific method), and I still think that if you believe that your beliefs (religious or not) hold more truth and/or usefulness than mine, you should be able to (at the very least) provide some pointers to relevant literature.
      - em-bee 1y ago
        again, i don't want to make the claim that my beliefs are in some way better. that would be hubris, and that's a big reason why i want you to do your own research. but here are a few points that relate to the current discussion: science and religion must be in harmony. that is, they should not contradict each other. if there is a contradiction (in any specific point) then one of them is probably wrong. to resolve that difference science needs to do more research and religion needs to get a better understanding of the claim. perhaps there is an interpretation that can explain the discrepancy. religion must be the cause of unity, harmony and agreement. if it is the cause of discord and hostility, if it leads to separation and creates conflict, the absence of religion would be preferable. there will be a time when humanity will learn to live without meat. but today is not the time yet. that doesn't mean i'd believe that being a vegan today would be wrong, but rather that not everyone lives in a position where they can afford to give up meat because they have nothing to replace it with. most religions are ill-equipped to deal with the problems we are facing today. religions need to adapt and renew themselves to be able to address the questions we are having today. the return of jesus plays a critical role here. independent investigation of the truth. everyone should do their own research and study of religion. we can't leave that to priests or other studied leaders. those played a role in times when people where illiterate and depended on others to do the studying for them. this is why i am hesitant to tell you what i believe, or what you should read, because in discussions like this it easily comes across as telling you what you should believe, as the example you are quoting shows. but that is precisely what i don't want to do, because that would be wrong. you need to find your own answers. that doesn't mean that i think reading the bible would be wrong. it's just not enough. you should also read about all the other religions, at least the major ones, if only to get a better understanding about the different beliefs that the people in this world today are holding. it is probably not necessary to read all the holy writings of each religion, at least not unless one of them piques your interest and you want to learn more.

em-bee 1y ago

I struggle to see how believing in a religion would improve on this that's not what i am asking. if you believe that religions are "wrong", then it's on you to verify that. what evidence shows this, and if there is no evidence, why should I believe it i can't tell you that. you need to look at each religion yourself and decide. as i asked in another comment, have you looked at all the major religions (as listed on eg wikipedia), and can you say with confidence that none of them do better than secular scientific tradition?

Tijdreiziger 1y ago
The burden of proof is on the claimant. If you want to convince me to change my beliefs, you should provide a compelling argument. If you believe that religions are ‘right’ and/or have better answers than the scientific tradition, it should be trivial to defend your claims. (Your other comment [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44130369 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44130369] is more agreeable.)
- em-bee 1y ago
  first of all, i am not making the claim that religions are ‘right’ and/or have better answers. i am making the argument that if you want to find out if they are giving better answers or any answers for that matter, then you need to research them. i can tell you what i believe but i am not here to represent any particular religion, and i can't speak for all the religions. you will get better results and answers if you look at each religion yourself, and come to your own conclusion.
  - Tijdreiziger 1y ago
    Ah, but the original claim (not by you) that I replied to and that spawned this subthread was: > I strongly encourage you all read this book(the bible) and take it to heart. This seems to be somewhat different from what you’re arguing now, though. For what it’s worth, I shared my beliefs (veganism, humanitarianism, and the scientific method), and I still think that if you believe that your beliefs (religious or not) hold more truth and/or usefulness than mine, you should be able to (at the very least) provide some pointers to relevant literature.
    - em-bee 1y ago
      again, i don't want to make the claim that my beliefs are in some way better. that would be hubris, and that's a big reason why i want you to do your own research. but here are a few points that relate to the current discussion: science and religion must be in harmony. that is, they should not contradict each other. if there is a contradiction (in any specific point) then one of them is probably wrong. to resolve that difference science needs to do more research and religion needs to get a better understanding of the claim. perhaps there is an interpretation that can explain the discrepancy. religion must be the cause of unity, harmony and agreement. if it is the cause of discord and hostility, if it leads to separation and creates conflict, the absence of religion would be preferable. there will be a time when humanity will learn to live without meat. but today is not the time yet. that doesn't mean i'd believe that being a vegan today would be wrong, but rather that not everyone lives in a position where they can afford to give up meat because they have nothing to replace it with. most religions are ill-equipped to deal with the problems we are facing today. religions need to adapt and renew themselves to be able to address the questions we are having today. the return of jesus plays a critical role here. independent investigation of the truth. everyone should do their own research and study of religion. we can't leave that to priests or other studied leaders. those played a role in times when people where illiterate and depended on others to do the studying for them. this is why i am hesitant to tell you what i believe, or what you should read, because in discussions like this it easily comes across as telling you what you should believe, as the example you are quoting shows. but that is precisely what i don't want to do, because that would be wrong. you need to find your own answers. that doesn't mean that i think reading the bible would be wrong. it's just not enough. you should also read about all the other religions, at least the major ones, if only to get a better understanding about the different beliefs that the people in this world today are holding. it is probably not necessary to read all the holy writings of each religion, at least not unless one of them piques your interest and you want to learn more.