Are We Wrong To Hate Religions?

[doG]

I don't believe you can categorically hate religions. Many good productive people have their moral foundation based in their religion. Hate the intolerance and the hatred that are taught by some religious people but not the religion itself. Religion is a tool, much like a gun, that can be wielded for good or evil. Hate those that wield it for evil.

[foodchain]

I don't believe you can categorically hate religions. Many good productive people have their moral foundation based in their religion. Hate the intolerance and the hatred that are taught by some religious people but not the religion itself. Religion is a tool, much like a gun, that can be wielded for good or evil. Hate those that wield it for evil.

 

 

That’s part of the problem though. This moral foundation requires a certain degree of separation of people. I don’t want to think that I could be doing good at a company, be found out not to be religious and then subsequently not be able to have as many options for advancement as I once held, and sorry to say such is a reality. So would that person who decided against me be a good productive person rooted in religion and using it for evil? Its all completely so subjective and it does indeed segregate people amongst many other things. Its also sort of like saying people cant be "good" and "productive" while not being religious, again all my thought on the issue only lends itself to the idea that organized religion is "evil". I mean we have enough issues that lead to things like war that I think we hardly need another one. Medical science, which has no jargon on who you should be has saved far more lives then religion, religions history is a giant track record of severe violence actually, I mean witch hunts anyone? You do realize the horror millions of people had to experience as they died from the hands of organized religion right, yet at the same time the people that would induce such acts are looked upon by so many as “good” and “productive”.

 

I mean what’s the latest thing really with the spree of child molestation. Why was law used differently in that regard then on “normal” people? Just from the reality that war could occur over something like that should be enough to get rid of it. I mean there is a test in which four people get showed from various traits, the most moral looking person in this list of anonymous people is Hitler… Hitler also had plenty of religious convictions. In fact I don’t know where you look at religion and find anything “good” or “productive” from my “moral” standpoint. IN that I think is the biggest problem it inflicts, as long as the banner or religion is toted how do you ever actually work to understanding human nature and or nurture, I would hope more then myself see the gravity on why such a question is so vitally important to have an answer.

[Mr Skeptic]

[...]

So after making the entire class feel like fools, he asked us to give our reasons of why God doesn't exist. Your typical answers "it's too farfetched", "my sister died in a car accident when she was little", "the world is too evil", "there's no science in any of it", "I need proof of supernatural occurances" and all that. Then he asked us to give reasons why God does exist. A silent room. Then he asked us "What is it about the world that could of led a room full of kids who's completely nurtured thirteen years on this planet to the conclusion of whether or not a God exists? What knowledge have you gained? What experiences have you had?." Those questions seem like they fell into the mind of everyone. I asked myself those questions and after fighting the truth I accepted the fact that what inspired me to reject the idea of a God was doubt. Nothing more, just doubt, aroused by nothing but the sake of the very emotion that is doubt. It's almost a fad isn't it?

[...]

 

Very good. It is not often that you would find a teacher willing to devote so much class time to teaching critical thinking skills. And not afraid to piss off both the religious and atheists. I hope he doesn't get in trouble for that.

 

BTW, isn't the correct scientific opinion supposed to be agnosticism (mild/weak agnosticism), rather than atheism? That is, "We don't know whether or not there is a god, but we are willing to look at evidence," rather than "There is no god."

[doG]

This moral foundation requires a certain degree of separation of people.

 

Not really. People should treat others as they would like to be treated.

[Reaper]

BTW, isn't the correct scientific opinion supposed to be agnosticism (mild/weak agnosticism), rather than atheism? That is, "We don't know whether or not there is a god, but we are willing to look at evidence," rather than "There is no god."

 

No, not really. Officially, science doesn't have an opinion on it.

[JaKiri]

No, not really. Officially, science doesn't have an opinion on it.

 

That's only for convenience, though. We don't have any evidence of a god, and indeed the church itself (depending on your church) points to faith not requiring evidence, so scientifically there is no god.

 

This is, of course, subject to change if we do find evidence.

 

And I agree with you. Though for the sake of brevity in my reply I would have to think such may be a product of being human possibly? I mean how many people can with 100% accuracy explain why they even used the words they chose in a sentence? Or the thoughts used for the matter?

 

The point is that believing that evolution exists because someone tells you is about as good as believing that god exists, because someone tells you.

[carol]

is religion here synonymous to the church or sect that deals with people's spirituality? I understand it in other ways.

 

Anyway, I can't imagine what the world would be like without people belonging to a certain religion. I can't say it would be more peaceful since conflicts don't usually arise from clash of beliefs and faith but rather of political interests. so i'd say it is pointless to hate religion.

 

and belonging to one is just a matter of choice. some people become more productive when they are motivated that good things will come to them in the afterlife if they are good.

[ydoaPs]

Very good. It is not often that you would find a teacher willing to devote so much class time to teaching critical thinking skills. And not afraid to piss off both the religious and atheists. I hope he doesn't get in trouble for that.

 

BTW, isn't the correct scientific opinion supposed to be agnosticism (mild/weak agnosticism), rather than atheism? That is, "We don't know whether or not there is a god, but we are willing to look at evidence," rather than "There is no god."

Science is atheistic. It does not contain one or more deities. It doesn't exclude them either, so it is not Strong Atheistic. Strong Atheism isn't the only kind; in fact, it's a bit of a special case.

[doG]

The point is that believing that evolution exists because someone tells you is about as good as believing that god exists, because someone tells you.

 

Not really. The theory of evolution can be tested in the laboratory with predictions, observations and scientific tests. There is no physical evidence to support the God theory...

[JaKiri]

Not really. The theory of evolution can be tested in the laboratory with predictions, observations and scientific tests. There is no physical evidence to support the God theory...

 

If you gather evidence, you're hardly beleving it because someone tells you it's true, are you?

[ParanoiA]

That's only for convenience' date=' though. We don't have any evidence of a god, and indeed the church itself (depending on your church) points to faith not requiring evidence, so scientifically there is no god.

 

This is, of course, subject to change if we do find evidence[/quote']

 

Actually, I thought that god was a null hypothesis. Since science consists of hypotheses and evidence, then god is at best a hypothesis that can't be tested. Wouldn't that make science agnostic about god?

[Phi for All]

Actually, I thought that god was a null hypothesis. Since science consists of hypotheses and evidence, then god is at best a hypothesis that can't be tested. Wouldn't that make science agnostic about god?

This is exactly the way I look at it. God can't be observed, by His own definition, and requires His followers to simply have faith that He exists. That puts Him outside of any type of scientific methodology. The very best science can say is that there remains a minuscule possibility that a higher power exists that we haven't yet seen evidence of. Skepticism rules. Flat out denial seems to be a very extravagant conclusion.

[JaKiri]

The very best science can say is that there remains a minuscule possibility that a higher power exists that we haven't yet seen evidence of.

 

That's what I said, though?

 

The lack of evidence for a god makes it empirically, and thus scientifically, true that there isn't a god, just as is the case for everything else (I wouldn't classify god as a null hypothesis by any definition).

 

It's not absolutely true, but science doesn't deal in absolute truths so I see no contradiction.

[doG]

The lack of evidence for a god makes it empirically, and thus scientifically, true that there isn't a god....

 

I disagree. The lack of evidence supports no conclusions. Just think of the elements we have yet to discover, if any. The lack of evidence for undiscovered elements does not imply that there are no undiscovered elements and science draws no such conclusion. Science simply says, "we don't know".

[iNow]

That's what I said, though?

 

The lack of evidence for a god makes it empirically, and thus scientifically, true that there isn't a god, just as is the case for everything else (I wouldn't classify god as a null hypothesis by any definition).

 

It's not absolutely true, but science doesn't deal in absolute truths so I see no contradiction.

 

Does the fact that we currently don't have evidence of a Higg's boson mean it does not exist? No, it means we have no information one way or the other (except for our calculations currently under test prep). Since we have no information one way or the other on God, no conclusions (either confirming or denying) regarding existence can be made.

 

Hence, if one were to use the methodology of science to address this question, science CANNOT say that god does not exist, but it can say no evidence exists either way. This seems to speak more to the accepted definition of agnosticism than antheism.

 

 

My take is that god(s) only exist as a creation of the mind, and that our attempts to explain the universe when so little was known resulted in god as an answer. I see it as an out growth of our hierachical (parent/child) biology. When we were first born, everything about the world we attributed to "our parents did it." They were the magical controller from beyond that brought food and smiled at us.

 

We all evolved from life which came before, so this is how we understand things on a very intrinsic level. My suggestion is that this concept of god is our own version of the very first parent. I have my own parents though, so I'm not a believer in an unprovable one. Unprovable parents are remnants of the ancients lack of knowledge and information, but desire to understand. It must have been scary thousands of years ago to experience the world and not understand what was happening and how it happened. So, to calm us, we described things as happening "due to god." Now, we know better, but many still have similar anxieties so continue to use "god" as their crutch. I find this childish, and know I've just upset many people. Too bad. That's my opinion, so grow up.

[Phi for All]

That's what I said, though?

More or less, but ParanoiA said it more like I would have said it and my ego was thus sated.

The lack of evidence for a god makes it empirically, and thus scientifically, true that there isn't a god, just as is the case for everything else (I wouldn't classify god as a null hypothesis by any definition).

The lack of evidence doesn't mean evidence of lack. It just means a god that chooses not to be observed can't be measured properly by the scientific method. At best a skeptical "maybe" can be applied.

 

However, I was mistaken in my definition of "null hypothesis", thinking that it meant God as a concept was unclassifiable and therefore outside of science. I see that it really means that it makes no difference or has no effect on any conclusions and I agree that God doesn't fit into *that* classification.

[JaKiri]

The concept of the null hypothesis is generally got wrong by everyone (including me at points). It's not helped that it's misused more than it should be by people who should know better.

 

The lack of evidence doesn't mean evidence of lack. It just means a god that chooses not to be observed can't be measured properly by the scientific method. At best a skeptical "maybe" can be applied.

 

You're perfectly correct in saying that absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence, but that's not the end of the story.

 

If you would prefer, how's the statement "the existance of god is neither required nor suggested by any predictive model we have yet been able to produce that fits with the evidence we have gathered, within the bounds of experimental error"? Me saying "science says god doesn't exist" (or whatever words I used) is just shorthand for that. Remember that Occam's Razor still applies.

 

(I must point out at this point that I'm a fairly hard-line empiricist, you'll probably get more agreement from one of those wishy-washy string theorists)

[Phi for All]

If you would prefer, how's the statement "the existance of god is neither required nor suggested by any predictive model we have yet been able to produce that fits with the evidence we have gathered, within the bounds of experimental error"? Me saying "science says god doesn't exist" (or whatever words I used) is just shorthand for that. Remember that Occam's Razor still applies.

I like the first sentence, I like it a lot. The shorthand, however, is what gives most religious types the impression that science hates religion.

 

Occam's Razor usually doesn't work for me in discussions with religious people since they insist that *their* God is necessary. This is where I separate religion from spirituality. I can believe there is a possibility of some higher power in the universe (one that works within the boundaries of physics instead of being simply omnipotent) but I can't believe in a supposedly loving God who will suddenly make Himself known to the world, praising the *one* religion that got it right and laughing at all the rest as He sends them to oblivion for believing in what they were taught.

[YT2095]

it would be wrong to "hate" Anything other than the Actions performed by people (and of course some foods).

 

simple answer to the OP really

[JaKiri]

Occam's Razor usually doesn't work for me in discussions with religious people since they insist that *their* God is necessary.

 

That's just misunderstanding how it works, though. It's like the futility of bringing up Special Relativity against that nuclear hoaxer from the other day.

[Phi for All]

That's just misunderstanding how it works, though. It's like the futility of bringing up Special Relativity against that nuclear hoaxer from the other day.

"And the man thus threw up his hands in frustration, crying, 'Bingo!'" Fallacians 12:23

[JaKiri]

"And the man thus threw up his hands in frustration, crying, 'Bingo!'" Fallacians 12:23

 

I don't have that in my bible, is it in the apocrypha?

[waitforufo]

I find it ironic that Occam's Razor would be used to challenge the existence of god. William of Ockham (also Occam) was an English Franciscan friar who believed that all Christian clergy should own no property and live by begging and accepting only necessities as gifts of others. In fact he got into quite a bit of trouble with the Pope (John XXII) for advocating this belief. I’m sure he would be surprised that his “"entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem" would be one day interpreted to mean “god is not necessary.”

[iNow]

Are we wrong to hate religions?

Ad homs and character attacks against the speaker aside, here's a pretty strong presentation of one perspective on the issue:

 

[gcol]

No, not really. Officially, science doesn't have an opinion on it.

 

That is surely because many "official" scientists are religious, and they steer clear of arguing about things which are not scientifically provable. Personally, I am suspicious of the scientifc reasoning of religious scientists. I wonder if they have the courage of their scientific convictions.