Topic: The function of religion ? - page 28. (Read 18646 times)

Heres something to cheer you buggers up

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHPOzQzk9Qo

This may shed a lil light on our dreadfully importantly serious topic..

How about if I told you your senses were in on it too 

I think you've fooled yourself quite well there 

You haven't read my quote above of Daniel Dennet comparing religion to the common cold, have you?

Religion has an evolutionary advantage...  for religion.   Same as a common cuckoo has an "evolutionary advantage" other a reed warbler:



Parasitism does exist.  And it does not give any evolutionary advantage to the host.


You know, slavery also has been common for thousands of years.  Does that make it a good thing?

+1

watch and educate yourself  

http://www.youtube.com/user/twcjr44/videos?flow=grid&view=0

There is no need to believe in them. In fact, I really can't even understand what it would mean to believe in one's senses.


Then my senses would be accurately reporting the true fact that this big game in fact existed.

I kind of lost you here. But if in fact there was such a game, my senses would be giving me precisely the information I needed to figure that out. If the game caused me to sense X, then to figure this out, I need to sense X. If the game in fact exists, then X is what I will sense. So my senses accurately report on this game, which is exactly what I need them to do.

If there were some game that made my senses detect X when the truth was Y, then if I did sense Y regardless, I would be forever unable to detect the existence of this game. That I sense X when Y is the case when there is such a game is precisely what I need so that I am *not* fooled by this game.

You mean a conspiracy theory, right?  Like in Truman show?  Do you know that there is a psychiatric term for this?



Then I guess he'll have to talk to you about Occam's razor and how conspiracy theories can not reasonably explain anything since it is always possible to imagine one.

Ahh, so you admit that you believe in your senses, and that you also believe everyone else.

So what if I told you that, this was a big game designed to trick you to believe that you exist and that everyone and everything was in on it.
And even I knew this but knew you would carry on believing you existed even if I told you that you didn't. Would you call it utter and complete nonsense, heresy perhaps Or maybe stupid and deluded..?

 

"Beliefs" does not mean "knowledge" or "understanding of facts." As for atheism, it is a LACK of belief and practices, so it goes directly opposite your definition. Regardless, I'm not going to argue religion based on specific dictionary definitions.


Reality and facts, which are based on observable, reproducible tests. I can test for things and phenomenon in our world, and when I test them again, I, and everyone else, will get the same results. I can't test for angels, souls, deities, or life after death, thus those things are accepted on faith, not facts.


Anyone who wishes to live in a rational world. Any human sentient being who wishes for his species to continue to survive and improve, basically.


Those were not Galileo's beliefs, they were his factual, provable, and reproducible observations. Galileo is an example of what happens when someone's observation of reality clashes with someone else's faith-based "beliefs" about their reality. When people see a belief pattern that is based on provable facts, they do often attack it by calling it stupid (e.g. look at SA and Slash-Dot's comments about Bitcoin), but that is often because of their own faith-based ignorant beliefs clashing with what is actually true, not the other way around. In the end, the beliefs that are based on facts win over those based on faith.


You are less right than I am, because I can prove my being right by actual evidence, and all you have your beliefs.

No, I chose my word very deliberately. There's a big difference between the two. I would probably class myself as antitheismist. But also antismist generally*. I would not class myself as antitheist or atheist. "Post-spiritual" perhaps. Do words even mean anything when it comes to this stuff?

* Intentional paradox.

[/quote]

I'm not aware of any -ismist endings. Moreover, "antitheismist" isn't a defined word. Antitheist is someone who is against theism, or against religion, which I believe is what you are going for. Please explain what you mean by "antitheismist"

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion
a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects.

"Atheism, as you say you are, has an -ism on the end! Which also implies it is a religion"
implies
3rd person singular present of im·ply
Verb:   
Strongly suggest the truth or existence of.

Google.com

"If that were true, then we have to consider the following as religion as well:
Fascism, racism, consumerism, nationalism, colonialism, alcoholism, militarism, surrealism, cannibalism..."

You could do, if you wanted to!

" religion, meaning a belief in something g to be true based only on faith."

What else do we have, other than faith?

"we would hope that their beliefs are based on reality"

Who's we? Whom do you speak for? Who's reality? What reality?

"because if they are not, they are stupid and/or deluded beliefs."

I have noticed that when people tend to see a belief pattern that questions theirs they attack it by calling it stupid and deluded instead of different or possible. One of the most famous being Galileo, they called it a heresy when he announced his belief that the Earth rotated around the Sun.

I am no more right than you are wrong and vice versa. Thank you for your thoughts.

This of course should be also a reason why religions are so appretiated worldwide.
"because everybody arround me does it it must be a good thing"

Mistaken in what way?


No, I chose my word very deliberately. There's a big difference between the two. I would probably class myself as antitheismist. But also antismist generally*. I would not class myself as antitheist or atheist. "Post-spiritual" perhaps. Do words even mean anything when it comes to this stuff?

* Intentional paradox.

If that were true, then we have to consider the following as religion as well:
Fascism, racism, consumerism, nationalism, colonialism, alcoholism, militarism, surrealism, cannibalism...

When you redefine a word "religion" to mean any "belief system," you make your arguments in regards to "belief systems," not in regards to the generally accepted definition of religion. And in this case, you are arguing for/against your own position and ideas, not for/against what this topic is actually about, which is religion, meaning a belief in something g to be true based only on faith.
So, sure everyone has a right to believe what they want,and we would hope that their beliefs are based on reality, because if they are not, they are stupid and/or deluded beliefs.

I agree with this. If I die from cancer/whatever and it makes others feel bad I do no want them praying for my soul. It gives them a false sense of doing something about a problem. It is much better for people to focus their energies on finding practical solutions. If you feel bad that someone died from something, well, then do what you can to work towards preventing similar situations from occurring in the future.

If you are claiming that Einstein was a "religious scientist," I believe you are mistaken. Also, the word is "antitheist."
Regarding the rest, first we must be sure to separate "religion" from "stories." Things like Star Wars, Dune, or the collections of Greek myths, may be fantastical and inspiring, but we understand them as stories: untruths with a moral message meant to entertain, teach, and inspire. What separates religion from those is that religion is believed to be the truth, not just an inspiring story. What's worse is that religious truths are based on faith, not facts, but are believed to be the truth nonetheless (if it was factual, it would be called history, geology, geography, anthropology, or science, not faith/religion).
Due to this, I believe that even those religions that are not vocal or aggressive are still dangerous. They seek to give reasons and explanations for various events based on absolutely nothing, and therefore make people feel content with unreasonable explanations of events instead of inspiring them to search for the real truths. In short, religion, regardless of how aggressive it is, teaches us to be content with remaining ignorant.

It was mainly hypothetical to avoid arguments relating to the specifics of any given religion. Personally, I'm not religious, agnostic or atheist - I merely borrow from everywhere, as it were. Some things inspire me or explain things more than others, but for me labelling that process also restricts it. I think we're agreeing, as you go on to say:


This is precisely what I was getting at - "religion" is everything and nothing. There are "messages", "cores", "followers", and "actions", plus a whole range of other things going on under the banner of "religion". A concise critique of "religion" needs to untie all of these if it wants to make "progress" - but in the process, one will probably find that each element exists ubiquitously in society under many other banners. (Each) "Religion" is just a certain configuration with a particular set of symbols and brandnames.

Wiccans do not proselytize, advertise their religious services (at least, not outside their social circles), or even, usually, make a big deal of being Wiccan. Most other nature religions (collectively known as "Neo-paganism") are similar.

Perhaps that is why you thought such a religion was hypothetical.

Religion itself is neutral, and most have positive messages at their cores. It's what the followers do with (and to) that message that defines whether a religion is acceptable or dangerous.

Most people who claim to be "atheist" are actually "antitheismist", basing their view not on any particular argument for or against anything "spiritual", but on the balances of power and social forces that act upon them (and vice versa) in their daily lives. Most "atheists" who prefer to raise "science" as their herald would actually make pretty lousy scientists. (Sidenote: This is also why Einstein is a paradox to most: the idea of a "religious scientist" doesn't fit into a truncated world view.)

If a religion existed that was non-vocal, or non-aggressive, e.g. let's say a hypothetical religion which only exists if you're willing to look for it, would that make that religion "acceptable" (because it does not force itself), or "dangerous" (in that you have to choose to accept it)?

In other words, does a religion come from a function, or does a function come from a religion? And is it better or worse to criticise the function, or the religion?