The logic of religion (no spam)

Loki[D.d.G] · Post by **Loki[D.d.G]** » Mon Dec 10, 2007 2:29 am

One of the Roman Catholic Church biggest disgraces was the the Great Schism.

imawindowlickr · Post by **imawindowlickr** » Mon Dec 10, 2007 9:22 am

Cool. Galileo Galilei a devout catholic, held that science and religion were allies not enemies. He wrote that looking through his telescope at the spinning planets that he could hear God's voice in the music of the spheres. He was viewed as a threat to the Church's place as the sole vessel through which man could understand God. Galileo was charged and convicted of being a heretic and placed under permanent house arrest. Lest we forget the Inquisition. That the church kept birth control a secret for a number of years (where the hell are my notes when I need them?) If you can get a hold of the book An Underground Education by Richard Zacks, do it. It is a very informative book. I will post some more facts to back it (where the hell are my notes????aaaaaaauuuuggghhhhhh) as soon as I find my notes.

DesR85 · Post by **DesR85** » Mon Dec 10, 2007 10:16 am

It's so easy to point fingers at religion for every wrong thing that happened. Blame the church for the Crusades, the division, yada, yada, yada. So easy, yet these people never fault themselves for the wrongdoing they have committed.

As the saying goes: "You point out a speck in his eye. Yet, there is a log in yours". So, since being judgemental is the norm here, let me start off with this: One of atheism's biggest disgrace is intolerance.

Yes, we've seen this since the days of the Roman Empire, where they send people they don't like (Christians, dissidents, rebels, etc.) to the Colosseum to die by animals or gladiators. Then, we have the Krauts (Nazis, to be precise) who persecuted the Jews and East Europeans during Hitler's reign. Eventually, millions of them perished in the concentration camps and gas chambers. Next, its the Commies. They outlawed religion, persecuted (and even killed) those who are part of a religion, jailed dissenters and send them to labour camps (and eventually, killed) and cause untold hardship to their own people.

So, it all comes down to this. Who are they to criticise when they themselves have committed all this, huh? Are they any better than those who wronged others in the name of religion?

fable · Post by **fable** » Mon Dec 10, 2007 12:39 pm

imawindowlickr wrote:Cool. Galileo Galilei a devout catholic, held that science and religion were allies not enemies. He wrote that looking through his telescope at the spinning planets that he could hear God's voice in the music of the spheres. He was viewed as a threat to the Church's place as the sole vessel through which man could understand God.

I wish I had my copy of Arthur Koestler's The Sleepwalkers handy to quote directly from it, instead of buried in our last move. But if I recall correctly, the facts were a little different than those you state. Galileo maintained that only the Copernican system accounted for the various movements of the planets. The pope at the time, Maffeo Barberini, was an advocate of Galileo's, who was willing to allow this idea to be discussed as long as it was held to be a theory. The RCC had embraced the older Ptolomaic one that required plenty of crystal spheres to account for the same motions, and Barberini suggested the Copernican and Ptolomaic theories could be reconciled.

Galileo had a history of sneering and ridiculing his opponents very loudly in print, presenting (as was the style of the day) his opponents and himself (or representations thereof) in papers engaged in debates where, of course, Galileo controlled who said what. His superiority at logic was considerable, but his sarcasm was, as well--and he chose to engage both again in publishing a paper that deliberately ridiculed this idea of Borromeo's about a reconciliation of Copernicus and Ptolomy. The worst part was that in the paper he wrote, the figure of the fool, Simplicius, was literally given the words to speak that Barberini had written, concerning the possibility of reconciling opposing theories of universal construction.

It was an incredibly stupid move on Galileo's part, but he was used to treating people he disagreed with in that fashion, provided they all lived in other republics or kingdoms, and he was well and truly protected. Now, he'd gone after his best and strongest protector, considering himself invincible and smarter than everyone else. He was quickly shown just how smart and invincible he was.

imawindowlickr · Post by **imawindowlickr** » Mon Dec 10, 2007 10:22 pm

See what happens when I shoot from the hip sans-notes!. Yes you are absolutely correct.

Maharlika · Post by **Maharlika** » Mon Dec 10, 2007 11:49 pm

Here's my take on religion...

... yes, I'm Roman Catholic but I don't do blind obedience to priests. I'm answerable to MY God and not some organized group of men who are just as fallible as any other mortal person.

The problem is, a number of people equate religion with organized religion, that is, a group of mortals leading a group of people in the name of religion.

Now, to be sure that I don't go off topic, here's my take on the logic of religion as a Roman Catholic:

My system of beliefs anchored on the Word of God, is basically summed up as my PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP with my Maker. Just because a bishop would tell me to jump a cliff just to be saved, I wouldn't necessarily do it (of course, this is an exaggeration but you catch my drift.

). I have issues too, when it comes to contraceptives and the act of love-making. Other Christians would see it only as an act of procreating, others like me, see it as a continued and reinforced expression of love to one's partner.

If I can't afford to raise 10 kids, then my spouse and I need to use contraceptives to avoid having more kids than we can raise.

The essence of Faith simply means that you don't need absolute facts to prove the existence of your God. For us Christians, we give importance to what Jesus Christ said when he stated that blessed are those who still believe in Him despite not seeing Him nor meeting Him in person. Sure, call it blind obedience or faith as you will. The logic there is that ONE IS GIVEN A CHOICE to believe or not. No coercion whatsoever. My God wants us to believe in Him because WE WANT TO, not because WE HAVE TO.

My personal logic is this:

If it's true that there is no such things as a God, then I don't have anything to lose in the end, right?

But what IF there is indeed a God?

Claudius · Post by **Claudius** » Tue Dec 11, 2007 1:48 am

And what are we left with without any ASSUMPTIONS

just this moment as it is and ungraspable...

Siberys · Post by **Siberys** » Tue Dec 11, 2007 2:26 am

[QUOTE=fable-kaima]"quote from a book" why does the sun go around the sky? i dont know, so i will attribute it to the efforts of a sun god with a golden chariot.[/QUOTE]

Granted most of your reasoning for not believing in religions are your own business, but how is this a basis for not believing? To believe or not to believe is to determine for yourself what is right and what is wrong, but Apollo was proven to be untrue as well as most (or all, I'm not a religion major) Olympian mythology.

No human has the ability to disprove god (at least not in our current state), and yet no human has the ability to prove god. But the fact that the earth rotates and revolves around the sun, and not the other way around, is fact, and thus using that as your reason to find most religions hard to believe seems rather pointless.

Personally I think the idea of monotheism is a little unrealistic due to the Yes, No, Maybe infallibility argument. In many monotheistic religions, it is believed that if you pray to your god for something to happen, the answer will either be yes this will happen, no this will not happen, or wait and see if it does happen, which proves god infallible, but is a dogma so simplistic that I believe it to be as much man made as the bible. Another point that makes monotheism unrealistic is a lot of those religions believe that gods voice is so powerful man cannot withstand it's awesomeness, and thus god has to have a speaker, and that speaker is not perfect and yet he or she is given so many privileges, and since man cannot understand god how do we know we can trust someone imperfect who claims to be an angel or gods right hand man. It'd be like me talking to a translator of a Spanish person and the Spanish person might demand something of me, and the translator might make the demand whatever it was much higher for his own benefit or amusement. It may seem pessimistic, but I view the glass half empty, on a maybe question, or a yes or no answer, I will choose no until proven yes. Whether with Religion or Science, I'm a person who demands proof before I believe anything, but that doesn't mean I'm not open to concepts.

*Whew*, that was a lot.

QuenGalad · Post by **QuenGalad** » Tue Dec 11, 2007 3:04 am

In my oppinion, every religion, and I mean every, is created by humans, who are always either overwhelmed by the vastness of the world, or feel better for having someone guarding them. There are spiritual needs as well as physical ones, and a religion and performing of rites satisfies those. It is also easier to cope with everyday difficulties if you have faith in some bigger plan. You can say, "well, granted, all those kids were killed in that car crash, but who are we to judge The Great Plan?". And I'm not making fun of it, I can very well understand that point of view. That's why people will clench their beliefs tightly, and get angry at anything that they think might make a crack in them. And when you're set out to defend something dear to you, being logical will be secondary to winning. I don't blame them, to tell you the truth. It's just that I can't seem to adopt that attitude, and I did try. And there are so many things one can see as menacing the integrity of your beliefs.

I'd just like to add that Poland is full of people who say "I believe in god but not in the church". And I always wondered, how do they know what to believe in? Even the bible, seen as the utlimate and true source of information has been changed and manipulated by the church over the years, so how do them guys know? They might all be firm believers in the church, and not even know that.

imawindowlickr · Post by **imawindowlickr** » Tue Dec 11, 2007 9:38 pm

Maharlika, I agree there is definitely a God. I believe in one God, he goes by many names. All religions teach the same fundamentals, I believe that we take or give too much in our breakdowns of those teachings. I wish there were more people (not just Roman Catholics) who had your views and constitution. I truly think that this world would be a better place for it. My hat is off to you.Of course I would expect only rational intelligence from a damn fine moderator such as yourself.

( I'm a bouncer... I lack appropriate, pleasant social skills....work with me here

)

Queen_Articuno · Post by **Queen_Articuno** » Wed Dec 19, 2007 4:17 pm

Curdis, what you fail to realize is that the so-called "missing links" will NEVER be found, because they are just that, MISSING! Also, I will openly and proudly state that I am a fundamentalist Lutheran. Yes, the same Lutherans that carry the name of Martin Luther. In my opinion, evolution is a fallible, humanistic, God-denying empty philosophy of hopelessness. I am not ashamed to stand up for the God you so routinely deny exists. I am also not proud of your twisting Scripture for your own dark methods. As the Bible says in Revelation chapter 22, verses 18 and 19: "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book." (KJV) You, my friend, are doing what is described in vs. 19. And when the Day of Judgement comes, I know three People who will not be happy with you at all!

fable · Post by **fable** » Wed Dec 19, 2007 5:18 pm

I am also not proud of your twisting Scripture for your own dark methods.

Please watch this kind of thing. You can ask him questions about his viewpoint if you wish, but don't attempt to tell him, or us, the moral state of his intentions. You aren't privy to that, and it's considered flaming here at GamenBanshee.

Siberys · Post by **Siberys** » Thu Dec 20, 2007 3:34 am

"Missing-Link" is indeed impossible, not because it's impossible to find the missing link, but rather the missing-link is an impossible feature to evolution. It implies that there's a single type of fossil out there that shows us how apes evolved into humans, and yet considering how slow a process such as evolution is, identifying such a set of bones and relating it to human evolution is impossible.

The thing is though, there is substantial evidence in terms of fossils that point towards the evolutionary theory, and one such fossil Australopithecus, is an example of the media named "missing-link." But, it's a mere snapshot of evolution compared to the extensive change in physiology from Ape to Man, and therefore the term "missing-link" has no merit.

Now, Radiometric Dating has shown us that there were species here long before humans, even though most versions of the bible would say that humans were created shortly after earth's creation. I have never actually read any bible, so if there is indeed a gap between Earth's creation and Man's creation, please correct me. But even if there is, how can one expect that a fully matured human was created by an omnipotent figure, and this omnipotent figure gave them language when the figure has no use for language to begin with, and then commands the human to do it's bidding for a while before the omnipotent figure stops paying attention to the whole project itself. That's not a miracle, that's not a gift or blessing, it's a game of civilization.

I am not saying that Creation is impossible, cloning has already disproved that, but what I am saying is that it is more improbable that we were created than any outcome in the improbability drive on Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy. Every week we gain some new piece of evidence, some new bit of proof that Evolution exists and its how we came to be, and there has only been one piece of evidence for creation and there will only ever be one piece of evidence, a book translated more than twenty times in more than twenty different interpretations. For me, it is simply impossible to believe that we were ever created out of thin air or earth or whatever popped us into existence, and the reasons listed above aren't even the half of it.

lythium · Post by **lythium** » Fri Dec 28, 2007 9:09 pm

On the topic of the logic of religion, there are a few things. Firstly, I want to say that the bible has great inspirational potential, but sadly, just as Darwin's theory of Evolution that lead to the theory of Eugenics, it also opens to progressing certain questionable agendas.

Queen_Articuno wrote: And when the Day of Judgement comes, I know three People who will not be happy with you at all!

I personally never found it easy to come to terms with the apparent paradox of this God of Love and Forgiveness that I hear about to become all vengeful in the end.
Also, if his creation was indeed so perfect, then why did he create the fallible human, represented by the apple in the story with the snake.
Reading the bible very litterally leads to a lot of paradoxes and I don't like it because it opens up to an arbitrary interpretation, where an agenda can be backed by clever quoting of any biblical fragment. For instance the Crusades, obviously to capture the holy land, which happened to be the exact same land of the most essential trade routes at that time. But this is bound to happen with any respected multi-interpretable or complex writing/theory and I do not think the Bible itself is to blame.

On the "logic of religion"; I find it proof of a lack of faith in the world and in mankind if you think there cannot be hope and joy without the existance of a God figure.
I do not need any form of God-based religion to give me a logical framework or explanation for the way we live on Earth, which is what the bible seems to do and that is nice if it inspires people or if it helps them progress and focus on other things that are important to them.
But I do not like it at all if someone threatens me to live my life in dedication of their belief, or else I will be severely punished for ever and ever at the day of Reckoning. I don't see the point of trying to sell religion to others through this kind of manipulation.
God gave me a mind with a consciousness so I prefer to use the capacity of that very mysterious thing, rather than relying on translated translations of distant translations of a selection of scriptures or the words of some big bellied bald fellow though I do not mind being inspired in my own way by the wisdom that is collected by them.

I guess I could say, confirming I am an atheist by saying it that way, that my own logic is my religion and I am confident enough in my capacity to think to be able to justify my independent forming of a general idea of what is good and what is evil and how the world works.

I guess that is arrogant, but I do not see how that is more arrogant than saying that you have the privilege to belong to the group that has all the right answers for you. Proclaiming your book or faith to be the (only) correct one requires some kind of devine knowledge or it is no more than an assumption that feels good to you. I do nothing more than making assumptions that feel good to me, but there are two differences, one is that I don't base my assumptions on anything that they call religion, the second is that I can't be absolutely sure about a lot of things because I realize that I am responsible for my paradigm, my set of assumptions, and I will need to adjust them when they are proven false.

Maharlika · Post by **Maharlika** » Fri Dec 28, 2007 9:56 pm

@lythium: I hear you, and I DO know and recognize where you and other non-believers are coming from.

And by that alone, who am I to condemn you guys for not being members of my religious Faith? It's precisely my personal belief that my God has given everyone the Gift of Choice.

It's never me or any man's decision to decide the outcome of one's way of life on this Earth.

Curdis · Post by **Curdis** » Thu Jan 10, 2008 1:20 am

Queen_Articuno wrote:Curdis, what you fail to realize is that the so-called "missing links" will NEVER be found, because they are just that, MISSING! <SNIP>I am not ashamed to stand up for the God you so routinely deny exists. I am also not proud of your twisting Scripture for your own dark methods.<SNIP> You, my friend, are doing what is described in vs. 19. And when the Day of Judgement comes, I know three People who will not be happy with you at all!

Please do me the service of actually reading my previous posts. In them I give carefully referenced examples that new missing links are (or at least have been) continuously found. If you wish to refute specific examples and details please do, otherwise your blanket refusal to accept the evidence can carry no logical weight.

I have also not ever denied the existence of god (as a concept) my spiritual beliefs are reasonably well known on this forum, but they are after all just beliefs.

Please show me where I have 'twisted' scripture. - Curdis !

Goldry Bluszco · Post by **Goldry Bluszco** » Mon Feb 11, 2008 11:01 pm

I grant you this much...Jehova's Witnesses wear some pretty cool hats.
Aside from that, the gods remain unknowable. I continue to view blind adherence to a religion or atheism as weakness.
It's not so bad not knowing once you get used to the notion (or lack of).

Viva agnosticism!

GB

I take this bait like a first year bass.
The most plausible scenario for the introduction of life on Earth that I have come across in my paltry 40 years was put forth in Clarke's 2001: A Space Odyssey (good movie, great book). The seeding of life across the stars by an intelligent race is the concept. The mental leap (conceptually) between a god and an alien is a baby step.