Shii, your godlove is much appreciated and all but a bit of a derail.

The god or not issue has been debated in other threads. Plenty of scientists like to use god as the black box until they get finer tools, and then put god as the new black box at the new edge of measurability.

Again, the heart of this discussion is organized religion in general. Their methods of operation, depending on the particular church, range from simple high pressure coersion to flat out terrorism (both foreign and domestic). Hell, Rajneespuram managed to convince PhDs and other intellectuals to become gun-toting martyrdom-ready guardsmen as Rajneesh reaped in millions through donations and hostile takeover of the local town.

Smaller cults, the kinds that make the news, get mocked because they tend to be small and fleeting. However, I’d posit that a hundred Jonestowns would be FAR better for society than the tiniest fragment of catholicism, simply because of the volumes of falsified histories and ancestral ties people have to the church, because it’s just one more reason for idiots to turn off their brains and blindly follow the whims of the reigning regressive guy in the funny hat.

DOPE-HARDCORE-0 Posted:

Shii, your godlove is much appreciated and all but a bit of a derail.

The god or not issue has been debated in other threads. Plenty of scientists like to use god as the black box until they get finer tools, and then put god as the new black box at the new edge of measurability.

Again, the heart of this discussion is organized religion in general. Their methods of operation, depending on the particular church, range from simple high pressure coersion to flat out terrorism (both foreign and domestic). Hell, Rajneespuram managed to convince PhDs and other intellectuals to become gun-toting martyrdom-ready guardsmen as Rajneesh reaped in millions through donations and hostile takeover of the local town.

Smaller cults, the kinds that make the news, get mocked because they tend to be small and fleeting. However, I’d posit that a hundred Jonestowns would be FAR better for society than the tiniest fragment of catholicism, simply because of the volumes of falsified histories and ancestral ties people have to the church, because it’s just one more reason for idiots to turn off their brains and blindly follow the whims of the reigning regressive guy in the funny hat.

I thought the point of this thread was debating why a rational person can believe in God, which, in fact, you stated in the first post.

What I want to understand is how a fundamentally rational human being can ever continue to be part of a religion.

That was in your very first paragraph. Don’t get on my case because you decided to switch topics.

Forgive me for giving you the exact reasons why someone would and evidence to support said beliefs.

As far as organized religion goes, throughout history we’ve seen that power corrupts. The church would be a lot better off if the members just read the Scriptures, with proper hermeneutics and exegesis, and took away what really mattered from them, rather than sitting and obeying the commands of the higher-ups.

As far as the “terrorism” thing goes, extremists exist in every religion. They’re by no means indicative of the whole. The teachings of these religions generally contradict the extremist sects’ practices anyway.

I think you’re making some pretty enormous generalizations, here.

DOPE-HARDCORE-0 Posted:

Studies in cog psych have shown that the hierarchical power structures of all corporations (a term which, obviously, encompbumes all religions as organizations) lead inevitably to corruption.

do you have a source for this?

DOPE-HARDCORE-0 Posted:

any university in the midwest

Just want to point out that your bumumption is wrong here, as I’m in the Midwest and I have never been taught religion in a public school, and especially a university. My college was very liberal and science-based. It’s actually the “Southern” Midwest that introduces bills to teach Intelligent Design in schools and things (Kansas, Missouri). Central to northern Iowa and Illinois up through Minnesota and Wisconsin aren’t really part of the Bible Belt. It may be related that we’re also not part of “Tornado Alley.”

Honestly I have a hard time believing any university would teach anything besides science to their students.

I lived in a smaller town where pretty much everyone is religious and my high school (freshman general) science teacher told us before we started the evolution unit, “We’re going to be starting evolution on Monday and you may choose to believe differently about the origin of life, but this is a science clbum and religion has no place here.”

Anyway, I don’t know how anyone can believe either. Just thought I’d point out that sweeping generalizations like that are basically the same as believing in a religion. Log in to see images!

DOPE-HARDCORE-0 Posted:

The cog psych perspective

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/pal/14708914/2007/00000006/00000001/art0000

Thanks for the articles. I only skimmed through the above one though. Basically my view of that paper is:

1. there are a few well-supported empirical studies in cog psych about basic human behaviour

2. the paper takes those results and makes an argument for how hierarchy leads to, or supports corruption

I think (1) is well-substantiated, but (2) is more exploratory. The reason I asked is because I study quite abit of cog psych and my impression is that these people are more empirical. Saying hierarchy inevitably = corruption is quite a big claim.

Of course, there are other major points of discussion against religion…

I’ll admit most people around here remain religious even after a decent (by US standards Log in to see images!

Touche’ on the southern comment. University of Louisville and Western Kentucky University are renown nationwide for Music and Journalism respectively, and I plan on attending both.

JUST SAYIN.

Anyway, I asked myself a similar question not too long ago. When you really stop to think about it, very few people will change what they believe to their religion. Rather, they will do the vice-versa; that is, they will change their religion to what best suits their beliefs. Obviously, as you pointed out, young people are an exception. But anybody with a self-sustaining intellect and some degree of integrity in their values will not likely force themselves to do or believe things that are too far out in their relative left field.

If, for example, the Catholic Church were to outlaw the imbibing of alcohol for all of its members, there would probably be a great deal of more Protestants in the world. That’s not meant as an insult, either. It’s simply the truth. I know I would convert!

I imagine most educated people in today’s world come upon their religion of choice in this manner. I, for one, came upon my religion for that very reason. I am a Laveyan Satanist. Anton Lavey actually encourages this. He points out in the preface to The Satanic Bible that if, while reading this book, you find yourself nodding or agreeing with most everything inside, you are already a Satanist. I find that to apply to everyone of all faiths and creeds, not just my own.

Religions, to me, are just labels. It is up to us to find which label suits us the best, not which religion is correct for everyone. If atheism/agnosticism/nihilism suits you best, more power to you!

Before we go into “religion” as a whole, being that “religion” is an awfully broad term, would you (DHC, that is) mind clarifying a few things for us?

-What, exactly, are you referring to by the term “religion”?

-Are there any significant differences (in your mind) between “religion”, “organized religion”, “self delusion/mbum hypnosis”, “faith”, “belief”, “idealism”, “philosophy”, and/or “spirituality”?

-If so, what are they, and how do you arrive at the conclusion that they are there?

-If not, how do you arrive at the conclusion that all these terms refer to a single phenomenon?

-Does “religion” require belief in a deity?

-If so, why?

-If not, why not?

-From an observer’s point of view, your initial post (and subsequent posts as well) have all come off as quite hostile towards the idea of dualistic & monotheistic faith-based belief systems, but almost entirely ignored monistic, polytheistic, nontheistic, rational, and/or skeptical belief systems. Was this deliberate, or are you including all non-empirical belief systems in your generalizations?

-How do you personally self-identify in the realm of religion, and why?

-Do you feel that this self-identification fits comfortably within the scope of this thread?

-If so, why?

-If not, why not?

...And just for the record, in order to clear up any possible biases, I self-identify as a non-religious agnostic skeptic.

In addition, based on my beliefs and their external manifestations, an objective observer could reasonably make any of the following bumumptions:

-that I am an extremely liberal Christian with universalist leanings.

-that I subscribe to a westernized form of Buddhism with strong Taoist influences.

-that I am agnostic and/or apathetic.

-that I am a deist.

Strictly speaking, they’d be incorrect in making any of the above bumumptions, but they all hit close to the mark.

I would like to raise the point, however, that given a monistic & materialistic understanding of existence, one cannot actually empirically disprove the existence of an intelligence sufficiently advanced beyond humanity to qualify as “divine” by current standards at this point in time (and that likewise, one cannot actually empirically prove the existence of such a being, either).

who created god?

i mean seriously?

some say atheist guys are totally weird because they think the world came out of nowhere but at the same time religious people will not explain where god came from

^^ I agree.

To me, saying that a God exists that created the universe and everything in it is simply adding an extra step to the existential equation.

People are okay with believing that God/a set of gods “are, always were, and always will be” but simply cannot fathom the idea that the universe (or life itself O.O ) has simply existed forever.

It could very well be that the universe (or life) has a creator. But I think it’s funny whenever theists try to use god as an end-all response by claiming “gawd did ut.”

The Ferv Posted:

I would like to raise the point, however, that given a monistic & materialistic understanding of existence, one cannot actually empirically disprove the existence of an intelligence sufficiently advanced beyond humanity to qualify as “divine” by current standards at this point in time (and that likewise, one cannot actually empirically prove the existence of such a being, either).

Nope. But isn’t it fun trying to? Log in to see images!