tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7205024316992238631.post6606451482194735297..comments2023-05-18T21:21:49.194+10:00Comments on Life, and why it sucks.: Imaginary Friends - Part 1: Religion and Science.Infidelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05643796687597598713noreply@blogger.comBlogger33125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7205024316992238631.post-40805008598310086982011-07-30T13:12:15.139+10:002011-07-30T13:12:15.139+10:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7205024316992238631.post-39522563165962448322011-07-15T01:58:44.907+10:002011-07-15T01:58:44.907+10:00You already know my opinion on this, I think - I s...You already know my opinion on this, I think - I strictly disregard anything remotely supernatural, even going so far as claiming that there's no such thing as luck and karma (much to the chagrin of anyone who thinks that some metaphysical thing will reward do-gooders and punish wrong-doers). <br /><br />Santa Clause, unicorns, flying spaghetti monsters...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7205024316992238631.post-44397767230600446802011-07-13T08:27:00.587+10:002011-07-13T08:27:00.587+10:00Personally, I think that believing in God(s), or a...Personally, I think that believing in God(s), or any religion, is a way to delude ourselves from reality. I'm not even saying that it's a bad thing though, because I can understand why people would want that. In some cases, religion may be the only stable part of a persons life, and so without it they may feel lost.<br /><br />On another note,(maybe irrelevant) it seems that the only people who decide to convert to a religion later in life, after growing up as an atheist, are those who have gone through a particularly difficult time - death, for instance - death is a lot easier to deal with when you believe there is something better waiting for us on the other side. Otherwise, you have been conditioned at birth to believe in a specific religion. Those who have grown up without religion feel no need for it.<br /><br /> However, it seems almost impossible to live in todays society without the use of science. So which is more important? We do not need ancient books to help us determine what is right and wrong. In fact, isn't that our parents job? <br /><br />There are so many different religions out there, that being religious makes less sense than not being so. It just makes me wonder where all of these ideas came from in the first place. <br /><br />You probably shouldn't take anything I'm writing seriously, since I don't know even half as much about religion as everyone else who has commented, but isn't religion completely biased in every sense of the word? Weren't the 'holy books' written by only those who could read and write? If so, Then they would have been similar to aristocrats - holding very specific views. Maybe they also had extremely creative imaginations.Sarahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15291784107069937495noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7205024316992238631.post-48500734601609538492011-07-10T00:40:58.508+10:002011-07-10T00:40:58.508+10:00Of course I get that, I am just trying to explain ...Of course I get that, I am just trying to explain the rational of the father's thinking of that time/culture (which was explained to me by 2 different theologians, which in a way does make a rational sense, if you consider the time/culture). Time/culture does excuse, not just culture, but we know now that this is wrong, we know now many things, they didn't not, and behaved totally different, and knew very little. This is/was just to put things in perspective; not that I totally agree or anything (or would offer my daughter(s) or anything).<br />Again, in perspective, when looking back even 5-10 years ago, we ask, both of humanity and ourselves, "what were we thinking?" In a 100 years from now, our decedents will have trouble understanding our rational, why, because it was our rational at that time/culture, not their's. Same is true with our ancestors. Is this an excuse to do what they did now, no, absolutely no. I hope we have 'evolved' from then.<br />Of course Abraham's god has condone it, never said he/she didn't, which is the why he/she stops the depravity.<br />I'll stop there, I don't we're just going in circles. Thank you for the debate and your time. Still like what most of what you say ;)caffeinatedsophisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06446433632595131155noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7205024316992238631.post-49587312863289715762011-07-09T14:52:07.827+10:002011-07-09T14:52:07.827+10:00Er, even back then, I'm sure it WAS appalling,...Er, even back then, I'm sure it WAS appalling, to his daughters. Unless you thing gangrape was something women enjoyed back in the day..?<br /><br />It was a sacrifice to the extent that it is a sacrifice to give up one's belongings to another. When the 'belonging' is a person, that's not a fucking sacrifice at all. Is it "sacrificial" in any way, if I were to tell a mob that they should feel free to rape my friend? No, a personal sacrifice is when you sacrifice YOURSELF. I can't believe you don't get that.<br /><br />You say "in many cases stops th depravity", but in many cases he condones it. Have you actually *read* the bible? Deuteronomy? "Go and take all the virgin women for your own"?! <br /><br />Again, that is YOUR definition. There IS no objective definition, because there IS no objective authority. You have been saying all along that scripture is open to personal interpretation, so how can you be sure that YOURS is the right one, and the suicide bombers have the wrong one? You can't. <br /><br />I have not said that I fault a religious person a brief mishap and blame it on the religion. I fault religious people *ideologies* that *they tell me* is born of their religion. You have no divine knowledge that can trump their opinion, which is exactly why I say there is no way of separating a "true believer" from a "false" believer.<br /><br />The fact of the matter is, when people cling to ideologies out of blind faith, bad shit happens. ESPECIALLY when these ideologies come from texts that are thousands of years old, written by goatherds.Infidelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05643796687597598713noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7205024316992238631.post-60159827206498698962011-07-09T14:35:23.280+10:002011-07-09T14:35:23.280+10:00Again, it was a different time/culture; now yes it...Again, it was a different time/culture; now yes it would be something that would be appalling. But to the father (of that time/culture), giving one/two of his own (daughter/son/servant/slave)was a sacrifice; the father was trying to protect something he thought to be more 'holy'/'sacred' than he or his family. Furthermore, it was the action of the father (not of god), the angel didn't allow the girls to get hurt, nor did god allow Abraham's son to be killed, though Abraham's god asked Abraham to kill his son, but prevented it, testing Abraham's faith. Which means, that god set up guidelines/laws for the followers to believe, but the followers practice these laws within their time/culture; in perspective, god would only notice the action within their heart, such as the 'sacrifice' of the father based on his time/culture, not the depravity of what would come of the act, which was stopped by god (in many cases god stops the depravity). This is again of the scriptures of the Abrahamic trio.<br /><br />My definition of a 'true' believer is that one that act's rightly based on what the scriptures state. Yes, there is room of interpretation, but, there are very strict explicit instructions/guidelines/laws that these scriptures also state to follow. So, if you look it at certain point of view, when learning you learn explicitly and implicitly, same with religion; the religious are learning about their faith explicit in the laws, and implicit within the scriptures, but as well through personal experiences in their lives. Those that take the moral and ethical explicit laws in the scriptures and act as prime 'good' examples of their faith, is what a 'true' believer is. A 'false' believer, is just part of the faith 'just because' or is totally ignorant of their (because they don't learn it or strive to learn it) faith and/or completely neglects what the faith says and do something different. However, again, the religious are human, they fail, stubble, sin, because they're not perfect, but that is part of their faith as well, which teaches to get back on the 'right path.' You can't fault anyone a brief mishap and just state it was their religion (because it was their fault not the religion).caffeinatedsophisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06446433632595131155noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7205024316992238631.post-62551832124483833872011-07-08T19:09:46.229+10:002011-07-08T19:09:46.229+10:00Victoria; I think that's true, to an extent. T...Victoria; I think that's true, to an extent. To a larger extent, however, what people believe influence their behaviours in fundamental ways. If you believe that homosexuals are sinning against god, you're going to behave as such, as we've seen. I could give many other examples, but I think that gets the main point across. Truth is important precisely because it informs peoples' behaviours.<br /><br />Cricket; Thankyou! :D <br />That, too, is my view. The problem being that religious belief (especially religions that practise proselytizing) is rarely kept private.<br /><br />Sophist; You have just said that religious texts are open to personal interpretation, because there is no authority that can objectively interpret them (unless you accept the authority of the vatican, here.. in which case we have bigger problems). If it's all personal interpretation, how can there be 'true' and 'false' believers when they ALL believe they are true believers? Who is authorised to make that distinction?<br /><br />The fact that you think giving one's daughters up to be gangraped is moral in any sense of the word astounds me. In what sense is giving your DAUGHTERS up to be gangraped a PERSONAL sacrifice? A PERSONAL sacrifice is giving YOURSELF up to be raped. Unless you agree with the prevailing biblical assumption that women are not be treated as persons, but as property of men.<br /><br />There is no question of "in our time" or "in theiur time". These are religious scriptures, revealing the apparent intentions and morals of GOD. If god goes by morals as relative to time period, then in what sense can he be the objective harbinger of morality?!Infidelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05643796687597598713noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7205024316992238631.post-15123666370411986882011-07-08T09:23:26.085+10:002011-07-08T09:23:26.085+10:00Firstly, I'm an atheist and have been for all ...Firstly, I'm an atheist and have been for all my life, because I've never found enough logic behind the core claims of any religion. That said, I hold that, in daily life, it doesn't matter much what one believes. Sure, some of us have information that is closer to the truth, but that applies to many areas to which we pay less attention. As for actions, I have a relative secular morality. I try to do the best possible thing in every separate situation. That's true about many of my friends who define themselves as religious, too. Even though our core beliefs are different, we'd make similar decisions most of the time. Just as there are religious sociopaths and atheistic sociopaths. My point is, it's much more a matter of interpretation, than source material. Still, I do feel much better about my sanity, believing in evolution rather than creation.Victoriahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13945909975814560670noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7205024316992238631.post-85455593713268748502011-07-06T21:30:00.473+10:002011-07-06T21:30:00.473+10:00You really write very well :) I am a Hindu and I b...You really write very well :) I am a Hindu and I believe in a Supreme Power. Hinduism is one of the most confusing religions to be a part of as there are so many gods and they all turn out to be the same in the end! I don't have a problem with religion - only when people use religion to defend their senseless views, or when they try to force their views on others.cricketfreakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15510046186283865517noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7205024316992238631.post-82012373035995422802011-07-06T17:26:17.640+10:002011-07-06T17:26:17.640+10:00oh there are true believers. You are thinking abou...oh there are true believers. You are thinking about a true religion. Every religion believes that the religion is the true religion, that is the point. And there are objective ways to judge between a true and a false, based on their actions.And religion is not something that should be twisted, it just is because of people, human error I believe the scientific term is called. It is in humanity that fails, many religion especially the Abrahamic trio, speak about self sacrifice, self conviction, and personal spiritual war within one-self. I'm not asking you to believe or not, I'm trying to put this in perspective. That religion is a personal conviction, not a group, though many scriptures state that they can find a stronger faith within others that share the same faith. It is within the self that they are suppose to work on, and share (only share) with others. But again, there are some bad apples in the lot. Let's take one of your examples on the scripture issue: "Personally, I fail to see how giving up one's daughters to be raped by a horde of angry men in the stead of a couple of 'angels' is a metaphor for anything but utmost misogyny. Why did Lot not give himself up to be raped and tortured," The thing is the girls (it was 2 daughters) didn't get hurt, before the could (the men didn't want them) the angel or god (depending on the interpretation) punished those evil men; but it was the sacrifice of the father giving his daughter away, an action proving his faith. Now in our time yeah that seems odd, harsh, and evil in it self. But even according to the Christian faith, Jesus is suppose to be the son of god is sacrificed for everyone, Abraham sacrificing his son before god intervened. Again the emphasis on personal sacrificing.caffeinatedsophisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06446433632595131155noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7205024316992238631.post-67081590943744011772011-07-06T16:40:50.719+10:002011-07-06T16:40:50.719+10:00But that is my point. There can be no such thing a...But that is my point. There can be no such thing as a "true believer", because every single believer thinks that THEY are a true believer. There is no objective mechanism by which to separate 'true believers' from false believers. <br /><br />I have read the koran, and I am astounded that you feel that there are no calls for hatred. ALL I saw in those scriptures is "behead the infidels" and variations of this, repeatedly. Now, I don't WANT to see "behead the infidels" in this text, but there it is, plain to see. <br /><br />A literal reading of all these books leaves one feeling sick at the amount of violence, sexism and bigotry they contain. Only if you WANT to spin it into something positive, can you then make allowances for "metaphors" and "symbolism" and "oh that text is no longer relevant", etc. <br /><br />Also, if your argument is that religion can be twisted into whatever the reader wants, then what, praytell, is its use in the first place, if it is simply something to be molded by the intentions of the reader? How, then, can it be a force for *anything*, whether good or evil? How, then, can one say that it is necessary in the world?Infidelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05643796687597598713noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7205024316992238631.post-51135072971340114792011-07-06T16:35:29.978+10:002011-07-06T16:35:29.978+10:00Ah but that is where you are wrong, yes the script...Ah but that is where you are wrong, yes the scripture does state on how to behave, but what, at least the Abrahamic scriptures talk about behaving rightly to "your brothers [& sisters]" "to go with Christ" is a statement of to go with peace. There are some scriptures, out of context that are frequently misinterpreted to cause violence or other bad acts. But most scriptures teaches wisdom, patience, and to be peaceful, and more importantly to letting go of control. Killing, raping, etc., people is against these books of these 3 major religions (it actually calls against them). There were times in the older texts that claim there are times to call for violence (the Beatles made a song of that passage), but most true believers actually see that those times are gone and to be peaceful. But again, it is up to the personal interpretations of the scriptures, that cause bad-actions of the ill-educated of these believers. Had a major talk with a Muslim that is ashamed of how her religion is viewed. The same true with many Christians I've talked to. Many true believers go about their lives living in harmony with their community, it is these outspoken uneducated bad-apples that ruin the image of the majority, which is true for any culture, society, group, etc.; that a stereotype and poor education towards against who and what they really are, causes hate, anger, and rejection. I actually have read all of the Torah, Talmud, the Gospels (the New Testament), much of the Quran (not all), some to a lot of the holy scriptures of both Hindu and Buddhism, as well as personal and school education on religions and cultures (not saying you haven't because I don't know you or your education). I didn't find anything that call for these unspeakable crimes against other people; when speaking to people who truly believe in these faiths, they also agree, that there is nothing that state to do harm to people. So again, it is in the interpretations, and what people 'want' to see and hear out of these interpretations. Therefore, it is the person, the person that acts, not the religion.caffeinatedsophisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06446433632595131155noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7205024316992238631.post-4132843723322960382011-07-06T15:52:56.088+10:002011-07-06T15:52:56.088+10:00Ah, but that's where you're wrong.
Relig...Ah, but that's where you're wrong. <br /><br />Religions (especially the religions I'm talking about) consist on scripture, which tell followers how to act, how to think, how to behave. <br /><br />Also, it's not a question of 'not knowing one's faith'. Often, it's the people who commit the worst atrocities that are sticking tightly to scripture. Moderate versions of the Abrahamic religions often *disregard* parts of scripture that are found to be offensive. Moderates often cherry-pick parts of their religion that they like. <br /><br />You can't say that these people are misled or have had their emotions provoked, because their actions are exactly in accordance with what their scriptures require them to do.<br /><br />I am aware that dogma can exist in various forms, however today, the most prevalent form is religion, and for that reason, it needs to go. If more forms emerge, we'll tackle them as they come.Infidelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05643796687597598713noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7205024316992238631.post-17343135562527887302011-07-06T15:47:38.098+10:002011-07-06T15:47:38.098+10:00Religion doesn't make anyone do anything, if a...Religion doesn't make anyone do anything, if a person believe, they believe and act on how they interpret how they should act. Therefore, it is still there actions. Religion is not an entity, especially if you believe in atheism (~_^), which means it is the actions of either idiots not knowing of their own faith, or people being mislead and having their emotions provoked. Which again, can happen to the religious or non.caffeinatedsophisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06446433632595131155noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7205024316992238631.post-5752319701142677032011-07-06T15:31:21.846+10:002011-07-06T15:31:21.846+10:00Oh that's quite alright, don't worry about...Oh that's quite alright, don't worry about it.<br /><br />I suppose it would depend on your definition of atheism. I see atheism as simply a lack of belief in god(s). Like I said, would you call your rejection of wicca a *belief* in itself? I doubt it.<br /><br />However, if you define atheism as a belief in *no god*, then you may have a point. However, I think the New Atheism movement defines atheism as the former, rather than the latter.<br /><br />What I am trying to say is that we should not be so tolerant that we tolerate intolerance. When religions seek to legislate based on their beliefs, that is not something we should tolerate. When religions cause harm to others, we should not tolerate that. <br /><br />I am aware that whether religious or not, people will continue to do bad things, but the fact remains that religion very often *makes people do bad things*. We know this, because every terrorist has said that they are doing what they are doing in the name of Allah, because they want to spread Islam and kill the infidels. They say it themselves, why should we not believe them?<br /><br />Christian fundies do the same thing. "So and so is against god", etc. <br /><br />If these people didn't believe that they would get 72 virgins in heaven, I doubt they would be blowing themselves up. They are informed by their religion, and they tell us so.Infidelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05643796687597598713noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7205024316992238631.post-30041863307327596272011-07-06T15:08:51.799+10:002011-07-06T15:08:51.799+10:00My apologies, I was angry about something entirely...My apologies, I was angry about something entirely different and was dead tired (also frustrated about so many religious intolerant posts, threads, blogs, sites, etc.,)when I wrote those two posts (as well as the post on your other thread). Western society keeps preaching about being tolerant of everyone, yet in action, they/we're not tolerant of other religions, cultures, and peoples. My statements were out of anger and notice you had nothing 'hateful' in your post. I still hold firm of what I said about how atheism is a belief, but unless you would like to continue that discussion, I'll stop there. What I was trying to say, that we do need to be tolerant of other people. People are people, no matter if they believe in a god or not; and that a person or people will behave inexcusable based on their actions. If we blame religion, or this or that; then they become excuses, instead of the action itself and the person responsible being targeted. Still tired, but had some sleep; and not as @#$% pissed off (hahaha) as I was when I wrote it, so if want you can delete those posts, (I'm a bit ashamed of them now). Sorry again.caffeinatedsophisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06446433632595131155noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7205024316992238631.post-27169957447532353072011-07-06T14:34:17.762+10:002011-07-06T14:34:17.762+10:00Of course they have to do with the nature of human...Of course they have to do with the nature of humanity. Human nature is what devised religion in my first place, in my view, so we are in agreement there.<br /><br />Religion is within human nature, or rather, it's a relic of what our nature used to be pre-Enlightenment. I'm of the opinion that we need to purge it from our collective system in order to be able to make some real progress. <br /><br />Which is happening already, LOTS of progress has been made by whittling down religion, by making it less a part of public life in the west, but there's still a way to go.Infidelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05643796687597598713noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7205024316992238631.post-15234860386765601672011-07-06T14:27:05.585+10:002011-07-06T14:27:05.585+10:00Yes, there is a whole lot that is wrong with the w...Yes, there is a whole lot that is wrong with the world - I would never argue that. Horrifying things happen every day and not near enough people rally to help, not as we should. I merely think these awful things have more to do with the nature of humanity and how people so often spin religion to their own agenda, rather than having to do with the nature of God (though you don't believe in Him) or religion itself. For me, I have to believe in a God to make sense of the world, because in God, I find hope for humanity. <br /><br />Anyways, if you haven't guessed, I am a wholehearted Christian. It's been nice speaking with you but I fear I could go on for ages so perhaps I ought to wrap things up pretty soon... :)Hannahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01779900062460174093noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7205024316992238631.post-7084515231626252352011-07-06T14:15:14.335+10:002011-07-06T14:15:14.335+10:00It does not 'upset' me per se, but it is a...It does not 'upset' me per se, but it is an annoyance. When people come up to you and ask you to believe in this or that, the natural reaction is to go "Why? What proof do you have that this is true?". Hence, the truth of the claim comes into play.<br /><br />I am, of course, referring to legislation relating to abortion (and all it entails vis-a-vis other contraceptive measures as well) and homosexuality (big, important issues), as well as things like churches being tax-exempt, religious schools receiving more federal funding than private schools due to the strong lobby.<br /><br />In addition, I'm talking about legislation in other countries; blasphemy laws, for example. Laws requiring women to be covered head to toe, laws saying women can't go out without a male escort, laws requiring the stoning of women for adultery. And it doesn't end at ridiculous legislation, either. What about the Pope telling his constituents that condoms make the AIDS problem worse? What about religiously motivated terror attacks? What about young girls having acid splashed in their faces by religious fanatics for daring to go outside without a burkha? What about the genital mutilation of little girls?<br /><br />The horrors are endless, and they can be traced to dogma. And religious dogma, in particular, exerts a very strong influence.Infidelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05643796687597598713noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7205024316992238631.post-29551819310985891112011-07-06T14:03:43.194+10:002011-07-06T14:03:43.194+10:00Just out of curiosity, I'd like to ask a coupl...Just out of curiosity, I'd like to ask a couple of questions, if that's alright(though I don't often participate in discussions of this nature, so again, I am a bit of a fish out of water but anyways, here goes) -- can you tell me why evangelism (referring to that which is not harassment) upsets you? And also, what legislation are you referring to, the hot button issues of abortion and homosexuality, or is there more? That's all! Looking forward to your answers.Hannahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01779900062460174093noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7205024316992238631.post-82502541988431143432011-07-06T13:41:41.484+10:002011-07-06T13:41:41.484+10:00Hannah; Thankyou for the response, and the complim...Hannah; Thankyou for the response, and the compliment.<br /><br />I have virtually no problem with people believing whatever it is they feel is right privately. Whether that be god, aliens, ghosts, whatever. <br /><br />The problem only arises when the religious seek to legitimise these claims by saying they are rational, or logical, and then seek to legislate based on these views. <br /><br />If people freely admitted that their religious belief is just something they feel personally, we wouldn't have a problem. The entire question of the truth of religion comes into play only when religious people seek to evangelise, or pass laws, or harass people based on their religious views.<br /><br />Which is pretty much why I very rarely take apart Buddhism, or Hinduism, or Jainism.Infidelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05643796687597598713noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7205024316992238631.post-46369004870977444912011-07-06T13:35:12.243+10:002011-07-06T13:35:12.243+10:00This comment has been removed by the author.Infidelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05643796687597598713noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7205024316992238631.post-86450143462927670772011-07-06T12:39:08.460+10:002011-07-06T12:39:08.460+10:00I feel sort of alone in my views as I comment here...I feel sort of alone in my views as I comment here, but I only wanted to say that outside of empirical evidence, I sense the presence of God in my daily life. I pray to him and I know He is there; I don't believe in Him because I claim no one can prove me wrong, as with your example of the baseball. It's not about holding steadfast to way I was raised at all costs. I just know God is there. I don't know how I know. I just know. I sense His creativity in creation, and at times, I think He speaks, quietly, but surely. And the presence of God in my life is an infinitely positive thing. <br /><br />Religion is deeply personal and intangible. It's just the nature of the thing. Anyways, I was not offended by your article or anything. Just every now and then I feel inclined to give my piece. You are a very good writer, by the way.Hannahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01779900062460174093noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7205024316992238631.post-38493765827469455662011-07-06T10:29:28.970+10:002011-07-06T10:29:28.970+10:00Too reconcile religion and science is somewhat lud...Too reconcile religion and science is somewhat ludicrous. Given the anti-science stance many religions have. We only have to look at the treatment given to Galileo way back when to ascertain that religion sees enlightenment and progress as a threat. The people, who have 'reconciled' between the two, have simply convinced themselves that the two can coexist. <br /><br />When in truth they are mortal enemies. Science represents progress and a better future for humankind. Religion seeks to bind humanity to their sins, too suffer for them, and to restrict progress whenever it has the chance. <br /><br />There is no way they could ever coexist harmoniously. <br /><br />If you think the best way to prevent the spread of aids is to not use condoms, you are obviously not of sound mind or are able to offer logical solutions to anything that threatens humanity. Religion will not save this world, science will.Poker Semi-Prohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00814482922138057309noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7205024316992238631.post-86521725020129388732011-07-06T09:45:26.531+10:002011-07-06T09:45:26.531+10:00Bad ideas; Like I said, this was a consolidation o...Bad ideas; Like I said, this was a consolidation of *my* thoughts. I never completed The God Delusion, and it was about 3 years ago anyway. In any case, there aren't a limitless number of arguments against religion.<br /><br />Chia; They may live without a working knowledge of science, but they benefit from science every day. Unless you're talking about developing/third-world countries.. in which case, it's arguable whether they're 'very happy'.<br /><br />I don't even know what you mean by 'addresses every expression of who you are'. Truly, I don't. Could you clarify? <br /><br />I think those people experience cognitive dissonance, and when they hold science and religion within the same mind, they have compartmentalised the two, not reconciled them. They do not apply the same rationality for the two concepts. And my point is that I don't think they *are* being intellectually honest.<br /><br />Sparrow; I'm glad! :D<br /><br />Sophist; I don't think they were stereotypical or prejudicial at all. I made efforts to encompass the whole range of religious belief, in fact. Also, I think it's ridiculous that a little mockery is dubbed an "attack". Please grow a thicker skin. Nobody accuses me of "attacking" Elvis believers when I treat their beliefs less-than-seriously. If one wants their beliefs taken seriously, they should be prepared to provide evidence for them, or take the mockery in good spirit.<br /><br />I'm curious as to which claims you think need support of any kind beyond common sense.<br /><br />No, atheism is not a belief. Atheism is the lack of belief, in the same way that 'not being wiccan' is not a belief in itself, but simply a lack of belief in wicca. The fact that there is a word for atheism shouldn't confuse you into thinking otherwise.<br /><br />I actually laughed out loud at the fact that you see ANY PART of what I posted as 'hateful'. THAT is self-righteous and paranoid in the extreme, truly. Please, quote me being hateful, if you would. <br /><br />And I'm sorry that your assumptions about me have met with such failure, but the fact is that I HAVE read what the 'other side' really talks about, I have been bombarded by what the other side thinks and talks about for my entire life. I know *exactly* what I am refuting, thanks. <br /><br />I have made no arguments saying that religion breeds hatred or anything of the sort, so your entire spiel about "realise that religion is about love and peace!" is entirely misplaced, and shows that instead of reading my post and comprehending it for what it is, you have ascribed all sorts of notions and agendas to it, based on, no doubt, your perception of the atheist argument in general. <br /><br />I wish you wouldn't do that.Infidelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05643796687597598713noreply@blogger.com