Religion?

[KBecks2]

I just want to add that as a Catholic who was baptized as an adult in the post Vatican II church, That the Vatican II changes to Catholicism are interesting, and that the church has been evolving  -- our new Pope Francis has a very unique perspective that is exciting and refreshing.  (I am struggling to describe Pope Francis' style, but it will be very interesting to listen to him and see how he serves the world and inspires, encourages and leads Catholics.)  It may be interesting to follow his progress whether or not you are Catholic.

[PloddingInsight]

There's no logical reason to believe that the religion is true.  Russell's teapot.

Scientist Materialism states that everything that exists is subject to immutable laws that are themselves describable by mathematics.  Try finding evidence for that!

Look, all coherent world-views rest on self-evidently true assumptions  (as pointed out by Aristotle, among others).  Self-evidently true to the believer, that is.  To me, human consciousness is fully and undeniably proof that materialism is false.  If materialism is false, then there are things in human experience (beginning with consciousness) that science can't prove or disprove, since they can't be approached via repeatable experimentation.  This puts you in a position where you are reasoning about things for which you lack empirical evidence.  It's a hop, skip and a jump from there to being very seriously interested in the case of the man who said he was God, said he would rise from the dead, and then (by all available eye-witness accounts) did so.

This is all very logical, but it's not 100% empirical, which is as it must be.

[DoubleDown]

I think of the story of Noah's Ark more of a metaphor, because a world-scale flood could not have happened based on geological evidence.

Understandable confusion on this account comes from improper translation/interpretation of the Old Testament writings. We were all led through children's stories of Noah's Ark to believe there was a global, Earth-covering flood, but it's not the case at all as written in the original Old Testament. It's a shame that somehow things got twisted over the centuries to imply a global flood.

In ancient Hebrew, which the original books of the Old Testament were written in, the Bible doesn't say the flood covered the entire Earth or globe or world, but the entire "land." The ancient Hebrew word for "the entire land" does not reference the whole planet, only the local, regional area known at the time -- so, some part of the Middle East and/or Mediterranean. This is backed up by many other Hebrew references to "the land" elsewhere in the Old Testament, where the meaning of "land" clearly means local-only.

One should not be led to believe that the Old Testament or Christianity is false because of the flood story. You can consistently believe in science and Christianity and the (regional) flood story, as long as we correctly understand the translation/meaning of "the entire land" in the writings.

[Gin1984]

I would lose my job tomorrow if either my religious views or my politics were known by my employer. Tomorrow. And no, I'm not working for a political organization. And no, my employers are not Intolerant Religious Conservatives. And no, I'm not a neo-Nazi or anything else that is likely to make the organization look really awful.

You mean if they were simply known by your employer, or do you mean if you spoke about them inappropriately to clients or co workers?

Usually the people you work with closely get to know a little about your life outside work.  Some of my co-workers knew that I sing at church, that I'm Catholic, and a few who were conservative Republicans may have noticed that I was not an Obama cheerleader during the first election.  It was not a regular topic of conversation, but if asked what I did over the weekend, I might mention that I sang a solo at church or that I had choir practice on Thursday nights.  People are supposed to have lives, hopefully interesting ones, outside the office. 

I'm so curious about what kind of place you work at!

If your religion is one people have negative opinions of, that can color their view of you.  I know people at many different employers who got laid off because of their bosses being uncomfortable with their religion.

[DoubleDown]

: Pretty much every single religion conflicts with each other in some way (Different gods, prophets, beliefs, customs)
- If that is the case, would that mean that only one religion is correct, and that other religions are wrong? How can multiple all-powerful gods and individual prophets exist for EACH religion?

Some religions are, for lack of a better word, more inclusive -- their beliefs do not exclude the possibility of other religions being "true." For example, mainstream Buddhism and Hinduism accept the possibility of many gods, and many paths to enlightenment. To a Buddhist, a Christian can still gain enlightenment one day. So, those religions can largely coexist without conflicting with other worldviews (of course, in practice, there are still violent conflicts).

Judaism, Islam, and Christianity all share the Old Testament. They differ on the "extra" parts that have been added by Christians (New Testament) and the Koran (Islam).

Mainstream Christianity (my religion) is exclusive. In that religion, Christ is the only path to salvation, and other religions are seen as "false." By accepting Christ as one's personal savior, you have eternal life; without Him, you will die permanently once you die in this world. So, with Christianity, there is very much a "true" or "false" dichotomy that doesn't exist for Buddhists or Hindus or some other religions.

[V]

Religion is always a topic that people avoid because for most it is black or white, which is probably why he hasn't discussed it.  I personally have my own beliefs and respect what everyone else believes.  Who is to say that the "God" you believe is actually different than the one someone else believes in.  To me God and religion in general adjusts to what you need.  My husband and I actually joke that we have our own new religion.

[PloddingInsight]

: Pretty much every single religion conflicts with each other in some way (Different gods, prophets, beliefs, customs)
- If that is the case, would that mean that only one religion is correct, and that other religions are wrong? How can multiple all-powerful gods and individual prophets exist for EACH religion?

Some religions are, for lack of a better word, more inclusive -- their beliefs do not exclude the possibility of other religions being "true." For example, mainstream Buddhism and Hinduism accept the possibility of many gods, and many paths to enlightenment. To a Buddhist, a Christian can still gain enlightenment one day. So, those religions can largely coexist without conflicting with other worldviews (of course, in practice, there are still violent conflicts).

Judaism, Islam, and Christianity all share the Old Testament. They differ on the "extra" parts that have been added by Christians (New Testament) and the Koran (Islam).

Mainstream Christianity (my religion) is exclusive. In that religion, Christ is the only path to salvation, and other religions are seen as "false." By accepting Christ as one's personal savior, you have eternal life; without Him, you will die permanently once you die in this world. So, with Christianity, there is very much a "true" or "false" dichotomy that doesn't exist for Buddhists or Hindus or some other religions.

"Christ" isn't a religion.  It's worth pointing out that most Christian churches are less exclusive than they have been historically.  You'd be hard pressed to find a Lutheran who thinks Baptists are going to hell, for instance.  Most protestants would agree that it's at least possible for a Mormon or a Catholic to be saved through their faith in Christ, although they may also think that Mormonism and Catholicism are not "Christian".

I've even heard some Christians state that the Jewish Covenant with Yahweh is "salvific" for the Jews, although I personally think that's more an expression of being uncomfortable with exclusivity than a religious opinion founded in belief in a supernatural revelation.

[Runge]

I would lose my job tomorrow if either my religious views or my politics were known by my employer. Tomorrow. And no, I'm not working for a political organization. And no, my employers are not Intolerant Religious Conservatives. And no, I'm not a neo-Nazi or anything else that is likely to make the organization look really awful.

You mean if they were simply known by your employer, or do you mean if you spoke about them inappropriately to clients or co workers?

Usually the people you work with closely get to know a little about your life outside work.  Some of my co-workers knew that I sing at church, that I'm Catholic, and a few who were conservative Republicans may have noticed that I was not an Obama cheerleader during the first election.  It was not a regular topic of conversation, but if asked what I did over the weekend, I might mention that I sang a solo at church or that I had choir practice on Thursday nights.  People are supposed to have lives, hopefully interesting ones, outside the office. 

I'm so curious about what kind of place you work at!

If your religion is one people have negative opinions of, that can color their view of you.  I know people at many different employers who got laid off because of their bosses being uncomfortable with their religion.

Sadly this happens quite often. It may or may not end up in job termination, but it can easily, like you said, color their view of someone. This can lead to positives for some and negatives for others. I completely agree that it should not be the way. Unless the job has specific religious ties and requirements, the person in said job should not be favored or discriminated against because of their religion in said job. But people are imperfect and easily apply those colored glasses to certain people, myself included.

[Gin1984]

: Pretty much every single religion conflicts with each other in some way (Different gods, prophets, beliefs, customs)
- If that is the case, would that mean that only one religion is correct, and that other religions are wrong? How can multiple all-powerful gods and individual prophets exist for EACH religion?

Some religions are, for lack of a better word, more inclusive -- their beliefs do not exclude the possibility of other religions being "true." For example, mainstream Buddhism and Hinduism accept the possibility of many gods, and many paths to enlightenment. To a Buddhist, a Christian can still gain enlightenment one day. So, those religions can largely coexist without conflicting with other worldviews (of course, in practice, there are still violent conflicts).

Judaism, Islam, and Christianity all share the Old Testament. They differ on the "extra" parts that have been added by Christians (New Testament) and the Koran (Islam).

Mainstream Christianity (my religion) is exclusive. In that religion, Christ is the only path to salvation, and other religions are seen as "false." By accepting Christ as one's personal savior, you have eternal life; without Him, you will die permanently once you die in this world. So, with Christianity, there is very much a "true" or "false" dichotomy that doesn't exist for Buddhists or Hindus or some other religions.

Same for western pagan groups, as well as Native American tribes. 

[dandarc]

I am Unitarian-Universalist, which is a good choice for people who do not want dogma, value the use of reason, and want to benefit from community.

Also UU - sometimes our services feel more like an academic lecture (granted with more singing involved) than a more traditional christian church service.  I like it there - many many different perspectives around, and it does serve to open the eyes.

[GuitarStv]

To be religious is to hold a belief in the absence (and in many cases in spite of) of testable or provable fact.  There's no logical reason to support belief in the supernatural.  So, why do we choose to believe?

Humans are natural pattern-matchers.  It's how we look at the world and interpret data.  Given some white noise to study for long enough, most humans will start to see patterns in the noise.  I think that the widespread need to believe in something largely comes from trying to change the background noise of our lives into some kind of neat little pattern.  Studies have shown that religious people are better pattern matchers than non-believers, so at least some of the data appears to support this conclusion (http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0003679#pone.0003679-Erdelyi1).  Interestingly, the people who have the least control over their lives appear to be the most susceptible to try and force patterns from random data (http://www.rifters.com/real/articles/Science_LackingControlIncreasesIllusoryPatternPerception.pdf), which may account for the prevalence of religion in war torn or third world countries.

Religions tend to conflict with one another because they are attempting the same thing . . . forcing patterns from noise.  Even religions that are trying to force similar patterns (take your Abrahamic religions of Judaism, Islamic faith, and Christianity) all developed from different people and interpretations of static and thus came to wildly different conclusions on many issues.  None of them are more correct than the other, because they're all based on misinterpretation.  (That isn't to say that people who follow them aren't capable of being good, decent, logical people . . . it also isn't to say that people who believe are somehow less intelligent.  They just derive more pleasure from pattern matching than a focus on pure logic.)

That all makes sense if you assume the religion is false, but what if the religion is true?

There's no logical reason to believe that the religion is true.  Russell's teapot.

Not trying to be combative here, just posing a counter-argument.

That statement doesn't make logical sense considering that the definition of religion itself is simply a "set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe..." http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion

Therefore if you believe, have reasoned out, or come to a logical conclusion (however you want to word it) that all religion is not true, then isn't that the core foundation for your set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe? Doesn't this then self defeat the very statement you made?

To the people who believe in a particular religion, it's very true.  I was just trying to propose a biological reason for the existence of religion, and a reason why various religions keep cropping up throughout human history.

Whether or not you believe that a religion is false or true, it doesn't change the fact that people are natural pattern matchers or that religious people tend to try to fit noise into patterns more often.

FWIW, I haven't come to the conclusion that all religion isn't true.  I haven't found a defensible position that can prove one religion is more valid than another, or that any person has ever had contact with a god though.

There's no logical reason to believe that the religion is true.  Russell's teapot.

Scientist Materialism states that everything that exists is subject to immutable laws that are themselves describable by mathematics.  Try finding evidence for that!

Look, all coherent world-views rest on self-evidently true assumptions  (as pointed out by Aristotle, among others).  Self-evidently true to the believer, that is.  To me, human consciousness is fully and undeniably proof that materialism is false.  If materialism is false, then there are things in human experience (beginning with consciousness) that science can't prove or disprove, since they can't be approached via repeatable experimentation.  This puts you in a position where you are reasoning about things for which you lack empirical evidence.  It's a hop, skip and a jump from there to being very seriously interested in the case of the man who said he was God, said he would rise from the dead, and then (by all available eye-witness accounts) did so.

This is all very logical, but it's not 100% empirical, which is as it must be.

You have explained that you believe that there are things which cannot ever be measured or defined.  Throughout history similar beliefs have constantly been proven wrong as human understanding evolves.  Your logic fails where you equate our current lack of total understanding of the universe via science as somehow lending credibility to a belief in God.

[rocksinmyhead]

super interesting (and very civil) discussion. you guys are the best!!

I am Unitarian-Universalist, which is a good choice for people who do not want dogma, value the use of reason, and want to benefit from community.

I want to start going to church again when I have kids (because being exposed to a church community was really positive for me growing up, I made a lot of good friends and got involved in good volunteer activities) and it'll probably be a UU church. or Quaker.

MoneyCat,  your comment is interesting to me because my personal stereotypes (based on anecdotes, pretty much) are that a good number of very public/outspoken "Christians" actually tend to ascribe to more "selfish" philosophies and economic ideas (although obviously many do not, I know lots of very unselfish Christians as well, they just aren't usually the loud ones), and plenty of atheists or agnostics that I know have a more "humanist" outlook where the well-being of other humans (in this mortal life) is very important to them. basically I've seen zero correlation (positive or negative) between religious views (or lack thereof) and a selfish vs. altruistic(?) philosophy/outlook. but again, this is totally personal observation. if anything, what worries me about decreasing religious belief is that I think a lot of people are lacking a positive, support, local community. obviously that community doesn't have to be religious, but that was the default for a lot of people for a long time and for some it can be hard to know what to replace it with, resulting in people that are more isolated and disconnected from their community. I think we'll figure something out, though, there are plenty of non-religious alternatives.

[dadu007]

And can any religious person answer this

: Pretty much every single religion conflicts with each other in some way (Different gods, prophets, beliefs, customs)
- If that is the case, would that mean that only one religion is correct, and that other religions are wrong?

This a an excellent and VERY astute observation on your part. I am not being facetious.  This MAJOR point is lost on all moral relativists.
Yes, it DOES mean that only one religion is correct. And that religion is Catholicism.  As a well-catechised Catholic (convert), I have no problem stating this.  This does not mean I am intolerant or dismissive or disrespectful of other religions, however.  I try to only evangelize by example, or when directly asked about my faith. "Your shall love your neighbor as yourself."

Also, I don't confuse the body politic of the Catholic Church, a hospital for sinners run by sinners, with "The Church" (sacred scripture and sacred tradition).

[domustachesgrowinhouston]

And can any religious person answer this

: Pretty much every single religion conflicts with each other in some way (Different gods, prophets, beliefs, customs)
- If that is the case, would that mean that only one religion is correct, and that other religions are wrong? How can multiple all-powerful gods and individual prophets exist for EACH religion?

I tend to think the conflicts lie more with the practitioners than the religions.  Whether there is or isnt a god, whether god goes by the name of beth or george, my belief (as in the easter bunny) doesnt change anything except my perspectives. When i insist others believe (as in the easter bunny) as i do and judge those that dont, therein lies the conflict.

When i first started reading the mmm blog, i drew an immediate parallel between what he taught as well as what others taught, such was described of jesus in the gospels; namely that just because you are born, raised and taught to believe (as in have faith) in a system, doesnt mean its the only path available to you.

[Tetsuya Hondo]

My religion is the sweet lies of Bokonon.

[Daley]

I can quite appreciate the graph, the research and the conclusion. I love it, in fact.

I am a man with beliefs and convictions myself, and I have not exactly been shy about it when appropriate around here. I'm also probably one of the more outspoken critics of all stripes of Christianity you'll ever meet, which can be unusual for someone who believes in both HaShem and Yeshua (Jesus). There is a great deal of respect for me towards atheism, because atheists aren't stupid, and they have finely honed hypocrisy and B.S. detectors. The problem isn't in the disbelieving; the problem is in what man has done to His message, and the hypocritical, anti-intellectual and infantilizating movements from within Christianity itself.

If this statement wasn't true, why is it that a religion that believes in the same G-d as Abraham, Issac and Jacob, and that should be as peaceful and loving as Buddhism is so grossly disrespected by atheists, while those two other namechecked religions ping the highest in respect with them? Could it be that there's something fundamentally wrong with the teachings being expressed and adopted if this is happening?

Now, before I go further, please understand that I'm not taking issue with the individuals within the faith, I am taking issue with many of the sacred cow tenets taught within the faith itself. Hate the sin, love the sinner.

I do strive to be a logical man who embraces science, and it was that very science that brought me back into the fold when I started looking at the collected knowledge of mankind, because honestly, I was fed up with the lies and stonewalling Christianity was giving me to the answers I was seeking.

The beauty and elegance in the design of all facets of creation is breathtaking and downright mindblowing when considered in the collective whole to have happened just by chance. Enter Occam's Razor. Mathematically, we either beat all odds to the point of defining those odds with a nearly irrational number to even have this dialogue, or it's 1:1 that there's an architect. As existence is an absolute to either possibility, we have to look at the whole of creation and let the math lead us to the more probable. Of course, that raises the question: if there is a greater intelligence and power that created our existence, would it leave evidence of itself with any higher intelligence? I gave all the religions a look through the lens of who taught a belief structure that most accurately mirrored our modern scientific and philosophical understanding, and Judaism stuck out in neon lights. Look at what is taught about the nature of sin and what is sin, and how it's presented. Look at what we're now learning about the human genome and epigenetics, and how anger and hatred can actually negatively influence genetic expression not just within yourself, but your offspring for generations. Look at kosher law, and what was deemed safe to eat. Look at how it discusses and presents the human condition as being imperfect and flawed. Even the complexity and nature of the Hebrew language itself has that same hallmark architectural fingerprint. I could go on for an insufferable amount of time on this, but I won't. There is a demonstrated, intimate understanding of not only our universe and how it works, but an understanding of how man is that exceeds what should have been understood on our own at the time and foundation of this faith, and it has stood the test of time.

Of course, if you come back to the idea of HaShem and Judaism, you need to tackle the issues of Jesus and Mohammad as well. I will say with all honesty, the best thing I ever did was to re-approach the Yeshua subject through the lens of Judaism and without all the gentile, anti-semitic, polytheistic baggage that came out Constantine's "adoption" of the faith 1700 years ago. The New Covenant reads like a completely different book, and one realizes that Yeshua never established a new religion. What was established was a permanent redemptive sacrifice for the post-Temple era of Judaism that was inclusive to all the nations. Salvation and grace through faith in and a circumcision of the heart towards HaShem didn't change, there was no abolishment of sin or Torah, there was no supplanting of Israel as His chosen people, only the atonement and redemptive mechanisms changed.

The Tanakh and New Covenant should be treated as reasonably authoritative texts, but never with the fervent literalism and inerrancy of translations of scripture that has occurred through a game of literary telephone that modern Christianity has adopted. Newsflash, KJV primacy believers, even your translated scriptures came to you via Hebrew and Aramaic via Syrian, Greek, Latin, Spanish, French, Italian, and German, and then late-middle English which has considerably changed since in application and understanding. I don't say this to discount the miraculousness of how much of the core values still were preserved and survived through the process, but between the Western/Greek school of thought towards the scriptures and the translation issues with the possibility for bias or personal commentary coloring and twisting certain communicated ideas, it's a wonder the faith has survived as well as it has thus far, but the cracks are definitely showing.

The Torah, the first five books... in Hebrew, a person could spend a lifetime studying as it just unpacks... but at its most fundamental, the Genesis creation account is not intended to be a literal this is how the Universe was made story so much as an account of human nature and what the creator actually desires of us. Let us get back to that purpose in evangelism, shall we?

As to MMM and faith within the community proper... I'm not going to speculate on something that hasn't been directly stated by anyone. MMM's beliefs are his, and he hasn't deliberately shared and opened them up. Given what has been said and alluded to, however, I'm not inclined to trying to sublimate my belief structure onto him. That said, there is a great deal taught and discussed that dovetails nicely into Torah, the teachings of Yeshua, and the faith as a whole... but that doesn't dictate faith in a higher power. It just means there's common ground in immutable truths between us.

[RunHappy]

I always wondered what MMM's religious views were for some reason. does anyone know?

And can any religious person answer this

: Pretty much every single religion conflicts with each other in some way (Different gods, prophets, beliefs, customs)
- If that is the case, would that mean that only one religion is correct, and that other religions are wrong? How can multiple all-powerful gods and individual prophets exist for EACH religion?

It just seems to hard to believe every religion's beliefs can all be correct and exist simultaneously, with no physical evidence of anything over the past 2000 years (for the most part)

Is religion a set of ideas started by people long ago to explain things that science couldn't? Also, are all the creation stories, (for example Adam and Eve/Noah's Arc) metaphors for something else or literal? And if it is literal that would simply make no sense what so ever imo.

(I am not trying to offend or argue, and i am not atheist. just curious about this)

What does religion matter on a FIRE blog?

[Tetsuya Hondo]

I'm actually a little disturbed by the huge rise in atheism over the past decade or so, because I am seeing the concurrent rise of ultra-selfish philosophies like Objectivism (which is the philosophy of writer Ayn Rand.)  I honestly don't know if that is causation or correlation, but it really makes me wonder.

You're making some pretty big assumptions about atheists and who they are. While there's some that are Objectivists, it's just some.

Also, people often mistake atheists/agnostics, those that have come to a thoughtful conclusion about religion (not saying their conclusion is right, just that they've put thought into it), with people that are simply not religious for no reason at all.

[Elderwood17]

I think there's a lot of discouragement of revealing that you're religious.

In the United States? Not sure if serious.

I would lose my job tomorrow if either my religious views or my politics were known by my employer. Tomorrow. And no, I'm not working for a political organization. And no, my employers are not Intolerant Religious Conservatives. And no, I'm not a neo-Nazi or anything else that is likely to make the organization look really awful.

My work culture is extremely intolerant of anyone with religious views (other than atheism or humanism) or any political view that does not fit in.  I fit in fine, but am appalled at how vitriolic the criticism can be if someone has the "wrong" political bumper sticker on their car, for example.

I remember the days we would say " I disagree with your opinion but will fight for your right to express it".  All sides seem much more polarized than ever before, and that shuts down good open debate and an appreciation/respect for others.   I am glad this forum is generally so respectful of others.

[FIPurpose]

I work with a number of mormons. So it's nice to know that no matter what I believe, they realize their faith is far more out there than most. I've been open about my Christianity and have had no backlash from anyone in the group. I may get a hard time from an Atheist here or there, but not anything beyond a friendly banter.

[LalsConstant]

I always wondered what MMM's religious views were for some reason. does anyone know?

He's never explicitly stated it though it's implied he's strictly secular in various places.  I don't think he harps on it because it has little to do with the overall message of Mr. Money Mustache, whom he has admitted is a bombastic over the top writing persona or character he assumes when he writes the blog.

So we don't really know per se and honestly it doesn't matter, the topic and ideas are universal enough.

And can any religious person answer this

: Pretty much every single religion conflicts with each other in some way (Different gods, prophets, beliefs, customs)
- If that is the case, would that mean that only one religion is correct, and that other religions are wrong? How can multiple all-powerful gods and individual prophets exist for EACH religion??

While I personally think reality (which includes the universe and the abstract) is probably objective, or at least the reality we can perceive is, I accept that human beings all operate in a bounded rationality.  We have finite time, finite intelligence, finite resources, etc.

Thus, I believe one correct theology exists, but I don't think we're anywhere near perfecting it yet, because the correct theology would be perfectly persuasive and completely defensible.  To paraphrase Einstein we are as ants walking across a television screen.

I admit I used to waste time trying to argue other ideas I don't believe in were false, but that's a foolish approach.  For one, the complement of the things you don't believe is a huge, possibly infinite, set of possibilities and you simply don't have the time.

Instead I worry about what I believe, share it, and realize no one else is going to exactly believe the exact same things I do.  And I think that's okay.

Thus it doesn't particularly concern me, in and of itself, that I see the answers to the grand questions one way and somebody else another.

I figure it is most likely we're all ultimately "wrong" to a matter of degrees and in highly nuanced ways.  Or perhaps "less accurate than desired" "incomplete" or "ignorant" are better ways to phrase it than "wrong".

That said I am no nihilist, existenstialist or defeatist; I still believe it matters that you try and that he who seeks the truth may not find the truth but will move ever closer to it.

And I acknowledge we have to be very careful about how we defend our own views and see a need for tolerance.

It just seems to hard to believe every religion's beliefs can all be correct and exist simultaneously, with no physical evidence of anything over the past 2000 years (for the most part)

Is religion a set of ideas started by people long ago to explain things that science couldn't? Also, are all the creation stories, (for example Adam and Eve/Noah's Arc) metaphors for something else or literal?

I don't think so outside of some very nuanced instances perhaps.  I certainly think it's been used that way before, but I don't require a gap in scientific knowledge to pursue a religious belief and I'm sure many would agree with that assessment.

This is, essentially, the "God of the gaps" problem.  Certainly it's a concern that people try using religion to explain things unexplained, but how much a given religion depends on this phenomenon for its practice is again, in my view, highly nuanced.

I for one am baffled why we insist on there being some divide or dichotomy between the two (science and religion).  My undergrad degree is in a hard science and if anything it exposed me to more ideas about religious beliefs.  Kurt Gödel stated that all human knowledge is worth pursuit and included theology among that knowledge.

I think people get too wrapped up in reconciling everything without realizing that there are great gaps of things we simply don't know.  In other words, it's a question of epistemology, with some knowledge being evidence based, and other knowledge being properly basic (neofoundationalism, essentially).  How the two relate doesn't have to be apparent for either to be true.

And if it is literal that would simply make no sense what so ever imo.

(I am not trying to offend or argue, and i am not atheist. just curious about this)

Have you ever heard the sentence "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously."?

The idea of the sentence is to convey the notion that just because you can form something correctly into words that can be understood, words which even form a greater idea, language itself doesn't necessarily convey meaning.

In a nutshell I see that as the problem, the ideas and experiences concerning the questions religion tries to answer are too big for any communications medium we could ever have.  I shall provide an example.

One of the reasons I believe God, a god, or something equivalent to it (however you want to phrase it for your personal comfort) exists is I perceive it as existing, constantly.  I can't see it, feel it, smell it, etc. nor do I have to believe in it, it is simply there as an abstract object I am aware of.  I can no more deny it than I can deny a pencil I hold in my hand, even though I perceive it completely differently from the pencil.  It is simply there.

I used to think if I could just get that idea across to others, they too would believe in the existence of God as I do, but then I realized as noble as my intentions to educate were, they were futile.  In the first place how does one transmit such a perception in mere words, or even art?  No matter how good your words are, the rejoinder will be "Well I believe YOU BELIEVE that." or something similar, which is technically accurate but a useless tautology that misses the fundamental point that the thing exists independent of my belief in it.  Transmitting that key property using words seems to be impossible. 

And say I do transit my perceptions and experiences somehow, say with a tool that is superior to words and has no such limits, how will it be interpreted?  Same counter argument.  We're back to square one.  All that can be done is sharing of sincere beliefs and what other people choose to do with that information is beyond anyone's personal control.

Putting the rationale for faith and belief has been done and very elegantly by greater minds than mine, but even these geniuses don't quite transmit it all.  That is the fundamental problem, something about the knowledge we do have is forever chained inside our own minds. 

Though I wish them all well, everyone is on their own, which gets me back to the point I try to worry about what I believe and not so much what others believe.

[LibrarIan]

I'd guess MMM is atheist/agnostic based the vibe I get from his writing.

Nearly all religions do conflict with one another in terms of their holy writings and/or god(s). Using Christianity as an example since it's what is popular in the USA, all the denominations I can think of claim God to be the one, true god. Not to mention the 10 commandments stipulate that you shouldn't put any other god ahead of God. This means that no other religion is allowed to be correct. But then, there are or have been thousands of other religions. Which one do I choose?

I ascribe to the concept that religion is indeed a system created to explain things humans couldn't figure out. Things like lightning, tides, floods, death, war, disease, etc. Science has solved a lot of these mysteries, but obviously others remain. If this is indeed true, it would mean that all creation stories are metaphors or just plain made up.

I am an ex-Catholic, now atheist. I'm not angry at religion, I'm not hurt or broken and I certainly don't feel lost or somehow inadequate. In fact, the opposite. Religion made me an atheist, which is great! I feel more complete not relying on any invisible god(s) that don't readily make themselves known. Here are some beefs I have with religion (and I'm going to pick on Christianity since it's where I came from).

- Religious people often see something beautiful (a sunrise, etc.) and claim God is so good while at the same time ignoring all sorts of horrible things that are simultaneously occurring (war, famine, murder, rape, cancer, etc.). Often, this is followed up with "God works in mysterious ways" or something like that. Total cop-out.
- The Bible is often taken too literally, which causes countless contradictions with science. Or it's taken too loosely as a book of stories to help "guide you" and help with moral issues. But if you actually read the Bible, it is one of the least moral texts I've ever read. Seriously, read it cover to cover. WTF is going on in that thing?
- 2 Timothy 3:16 has been interpreted by some to mean that the Bible is the true account of history as guided by God. If this is true, then you can't say that the Bible is a collection of stories to help guide you. It's the real deal. God did drown innocent plants, animals and babies in the Great Flood. God did tell Abraham to kill his own son as a "test."
- The Bible is full of rules that are totally insane. See the OT. Some will say that Jesus invalidated a lot of the old laws from instances in the NT, but even Jesus denies this: "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets.  I have come not to abolish but to fulfill." This is from the book of Matthew. So why aren't modern Christians stoning people or subjugating women and non-Christians as is okay'd in the OT?

Sorry to rant a little, but I'm merely describing some reasons why I'm no longer Christian. The above is by no means an exhaustive list.

[domustachesgrowinhouston]

Putting the rationale for faith and belief has been done and very elegantly by greater minds than mine,

Id say you have quite a gift as well.  You managed to capture a great deal of information and imagery in your post.  Thank you.

[jordanread]

I can quite appreciate the graph, the research and the conclusion. I love it, in fact.

I am a man with beliefs and convictions myself, and I have not exactly been shy about it when appropriate around here. I'm also probably one of the more outspoken critics of all stripes of Christianity you'll ever meet, which can be unusual for someone who believes in both HaShem and Yeshua (Jesus). There is a great deal of respect for me towards atheism, because atheists aren't stupid, and they have finely honed hypocrisy and B.S. detectors. The problem isn't in the disbelieving; the problem is in what man has done to His message, and the hypocritical, anti-intellectual and infantilizating movements from within Christianity itself.

If this statement wasn't true, why is it that a religion that believes in the same G-d as Abraham, Issac and Jacob, and that should be as peaceful and loving as Buddhism is so grossly disrespected by atheists, while those two other namechecked religions ping the highest in respect with them? Could it be that there's something fundamentally wrong with the teachings being expressed and adopted if this is happening?

Now, before I go further, please understand that I'm not taking issue with the individuals within the faith, I am taking issue with many of the sacred cow tenets taught within the faith itself. Hate the sin, love the sinner.

I do strive to be a logical man who embraces science, and it was that very science that brought me back into the fold when I started looking at the collected knowledge of mankind, because honestly, I was fed up with the lies and stonewalling Christianity was giving me to the answers I was seeking.

The beauty and elegance in the design of all facets of creation is breathtaking and downright mindblowing when considered in the collective whole to have happened just by chance. Enter Occam's Razor. Mathematically, we either beat all odds to the point of defining those odds with a nearly irrational number to even have this dialogue, or it's 1:1 that there's an architect. As existence is an absolute to either possibility, we have to look at the whole of creation and let the math lead us to the more probable. Of course, that raises the question: if there is a greater intelligence and power that created our existence, would it leave evidence of itself with any higher intelligence? I gave all the religions a look through the lens of who taught a belief structure that most accurately mirrored our modern scientific and philosophical understanding, and Judaism stuck out in neon lights. Look at what is taught about the nature of sin and what is sin, and how it's presented. Look at what we're now learning about the human genome and epigenetics, and how anger and hatred can actually negatively influence genetic expression not just within yourself, but your offspring for generations. Look at kosher law, and what was deemed safe to eat. Look at how it discusses and presents the human condition as being imperfect and flawed. Even the complexity and nature of the Hebrew language itself has that same hallmark architectural fingerprint. I could go on for an insufferable amount of time on this, but I won't. There is a demonstrated, intimate understanding of not only our universe and how it works, but an understanding of how man is that exceeds what should have been understood on our own at the time and foundation of this faith, and it has stood the test of time.

Of course, if you come back to the idea of HaShem and Judaism, you need to tackle the issues of Jesus and Mohammad as well. I will say with all honesty, the best thing I ever did was to re-approach the Yeshua subject through the lens of Judaism and without all the gentile, anti-semitic, polytheistic baggage that came out Constantine's "adoption" of the faith 1700 years ago. The New Covenant reads like a completely different book, and one realizes that Yeshua never established a new religion. What was established was a permanent redemptive sacrifice for the post-Temple era of Judaism that was inclusive to all the nations. Salvation and grace through faith in and a circumcision of the heart towards HaShem didn't change, there was no abolishment of sin or Torah, there was no supplanting of Israel as His chosen people, only the atonement and redemptive mechanisms changed.

The Tanakh and New Covenant should be treated as reasonably authoritative texts, but never with the fervent literalism and inerrancy of translations of scripture that has occurred through a game of literary telephone that modern Christianity has adopted. Newsflash, KJV primacy believers, even your translated scriptures came to you via Hebrew and Aramaic via Syrian, Greek, Latin, Spanish, French, Italian, and German, and then late-middle English which has considerably changed since in application and understanding. I don't say this to discount the miraculousness of how much of the core values still were preserved and survived through the process, but between the Western/Greek school of thought towards the scriptures and the translation issues with the possibility for bias or personal commentary coloring and twisting certain communicated ideas, it's a wonder the faith has survived as well as it has thus far, but the cracks are definitely showing.

The Torah, the first five books... in Hebrew, a person could spend a lifetime studying as it just unpacks... but at its most fundamental, the Genesis creation account is not intended to be a literal this is how the Universe was made story so much as an account of human nature and what the creator actually desires of us. Let us get back to that purpose in evangelism, shall we?

As to MMM and faith within the community proper... I'm not going to speculate on something that hasn't been directly stated by anyone. MMM's beliefs are his, and he hasn't deliberately shared and opened them up. Given what has been said and alluded to, however, I'm not inclined to trying to sublimate my belief structure onto him. That said, there is a great deal taught and discussed that dovetails nicely into Torah, the teachings of Yeshua, and the faith as a whole... but that doesn't dictate faith in a higher power. It just means there's common ground in immutable truths between us.

I was wondering if you were going to jump in here, Daley. :-)

First off, I initially misread that chart. I saw mean thermometer, and thought higher numbers meant more mean (I know-dumb goof, but when I realized it I giggled, so thought I'd share). *smh*
The interesting thing about that chart is that people who would have answered the question, or the behind the scenes study providing the data, is that it pretty much would only be answered by people who judged a person based on the group that they are a part of. It would almost all be anecdotal evidence based on experiences they had by people who described themselves a certain way. Fun numbers, but it kind of points to a problem I see. When one judges a person based on a group they are a part of, it's not really logically thought out, and one ends up missing some pretty awesome experiences. I'm pretty much a humanist who doesn't like labels (see what I did there?). I also for the most part think people suck, although it always makes me happy when they turn out to be awesome.

Anecdotal bit here: after reading Daley's Statement of Faith on his website, I (years ago) would have dismissed it, not really interacted much with him, and moved on with my life. Nothing malicious, but not gonna go out of my way. Now, since everyone sucks and I didn't get why someone would be so...(proud, open, hopeful?) about their faith, I decided to do that one crazy and irresponsible thing that would make this issue go away for the most part: I asked him about it. Guess what? We've had some damn good conversations back and forth. So if I was one to judge people based on the group they are a part of, I'd have to say Jewish people are incredible tech-savvy, excellent speakers, hate Republic Wireless, and can have a logical discussion about things. But then, I remember some Jewish people who were douche bags...Damn. It would be so much easier if we could just judge a whole group instead of having to get out there and actually strip away our preconceptions. Divergent, anyone?

Anyway, just thought I'd throw in my anecdotal evidence, and my thoughts on why a person's religion is important at all when it comes to who they are. Not bashing the OP, this is just general morning musings when I should be working :-).

[PloddingInsight]

There's no logical reason to believe that the religion is true.  Russell's teapot.

Scientist Materialism states that everything that exists is subject to immutable laws that are themselves describable by mathematics.  Try finding evidence for that!

Look, all coherent world-views rest on self-evidently true assumptions  (as pointed out by Aristotle, among others).  Self-evidently true to the believer, that is.  To me, human consciousness is fully and undeniably proof that materialism is false.  If materialism is false, then there are things in human experience (beginning with consciousness) that science can't prove or disprove, since they can't be approached via repeatable experimentation.  This puts you in a position where you are reasoning about things for which you lack empirical evidence.  It's a hop, skip and a jump from there to being very seriously interested in the case of the man who said he was God, said he would rise from the dead, and then (by all available eye-witness accounts) did so.

This is all very logical, but it's not 100% empirical, which is as it must be.

You have explained that you believe that there are things which cannot ever be measured or defined.  Throughout history similar beliefs have constantly been proven wrong as human understanding evolves.  Your logic fails where you equate our current lack of total understanding of the universe via science as somehow lending credibility to a belief in God.

I'm sorry, but you haven't understood what I wrote.

You seem to believe that the scientific method can potentially explain everything that exists.  You should ask yourself, why do I believe this?  Science has a good track record explaining the behavior of matter and energy, but there isn't a repeatable experiment that demonstrates that matter and energy are the only things that exist.

Science is impossible without mathematics, right?  In order to demonstrate that scientific laws hold, we have to measure quantities and reason mathematically.  But what does mathematics rest on?  Mathematics rests on human intuition about truth and falsity.  Mathematics is simply an expression of logic, which rests on our gut intuition about truth.  Humans also have a widespread intuition that God exists!

You want to place the burden of proof on the believer to show that God exists.  But when you ask for evidence, you are asking for a repeatable, verifiable scientific experiment showing that God exists.  That's the kind of evidence required for a scientific law.  The only thing you can expect to demonstrate with repeatable, verifiable experiments is something which is subject to a physical law that determines an immutable rule of behavior.  For instance, gravity will work every single time.  If God does exist, there really isn't any physical law governing his behavior, so it would be impossible to routinely demonstrate his existence with a scientific experiment.  Since the kind of evidence you require is not possible anyway, the only part of Russell's Teapot that is left is a gut evaluation of how likely the belief is to be true.  In other words, it is unreasonable to believe in a supernatural entity that is unlikely to exist, while it may still be reasonable to believe in a supernatural entity that is likely to exist.  That is the same as saying, "We should believe what seems true."  Rather circular if you ask me.  And when you are twisting it to say, people should ignore their widespread intuition based on my evaluation of what is likely, that is really a bit much.

[FIPurpose]

1. Religious people often see something beautiful (a sunrise, etc.) and claim God is so good while at the same time ignoring all sorts of horrible things that are simultaneously occurring (war, famine, murder, rape, cancer, etc.). Often, this is followed up with "God works in mysterious ways" or something like that. Total cop-out.
2. The Bible is often taken too literally, which causes countless contradictions with science. Or it's taken too loosely as a book of stories to help "guide you" and help with moral issues. But if you actually read the Bible, it is one of the least moral texts I've ever read. Seriously, read it cover to cover. WTF is going on in that thing?
3. 2 Timothy 3:16 has been interpreted by some to mean that the Bible is the true account of history as guided by God. If this is true, then you can't say that the Bible is a collection of stories to help guide you. It's the real deal. God did drown innocent plants, animals and babies in the Great Flood. God did tell Abraham to kill his own son as a "test."
4. The Bible is full of rules that are totally insane. See the OT. Some will say that Jesus invalidated a lot of the old laws from instances in the NT, but even Jesus denies this: "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets.  I have come not to abolish but to fulfill." This is from the book of Matthew. So why aren't modern Christians stoning people or subjugating women and non-Christians as is okay'd in the OT?

Sorry to rant a little, but I'm merely describing some reasons why I'm no longer Christian. The above is by no means an exhaustive list.

I numbered your points to reference them easier.

1. Don't you see this as aligned with Mustachianism? MMM recommends a low information diet because most bad things in the world are out of your control. Appreciate the good things that happen, but is there a point to arguing about what war or famine is happening? It's not something that we control. Now some people have dedicated their lives to improving those situations, but personally beyond giving a little time or money personally, there's not much a Christian can do. Perhaps 'God works in mysterious ways' (I do not like the phrase either) is a cop-out, but it allows people to worry about every possible evil that is happening in the world and live a normal life.

2-4. You seem to have many questions about the morality or ethics of certain biblical situations. And items like #4 have very good explanations that make the meaning much more clear (it comes down to how to interpret the words 'abolish' and 'fulfill'.). But I think a lot of confusion comes from the fact that the OT was built around providing a structure for government (which would include rules like capital punishment). Whereas Christianity is focused on personal growth and relationships. Applying the ethics of government on a personal level does not make sense no matter what government you are talking about, and requiring a government to act with the ethics of a single person does not make sense either. 

I don't think I responded to everything in points 2-4, but I'm just speaking what your post made me think. Good luck in your journey.

[Gin1984]

I'd guess MMM is atheist/agnostic based the vibe I get from his writing.

Nearly all religions do conflict with one another in terms of their holy writings and/or god(s). Using Christianity as an example since it's what is popular in the USA, all the denominations I can think of claim God to be the one, true god. Not to mention the 10 commandments stipulate that you shouldn't put any other god ahead of God. This means that no other religion is allowed to be correct. But then, there are or have been thousands of other religions. Which one do I choose?

I ascribe to the concept that religion is indeed a system created to explain things humans couldn't figure out. Things like lightning, tides, floods, death, war, disease, etc. Science has solved a lot of these mysteries, but obviously others remain. If this is indeed true, it would mean that all creation stories are metaphors or just plain made up.

I am an ex-Catholic, now atheist. I'm not angry at religion, I'm not hurt or broken and I certainly don't feel lost or somehow inadequate. In fact, the opposite. Religion made me an atheist, which is great! I feel more complete not relying on any invisible god(s) that don't readily make themselves known. Here are some beefs I have with religion (and I'm going to pick on Christianity since it's where I came from).

- Religious people often see something beautiful (a sunrise, etc.) and claim God is so good while at the same time ignoring all sorts of horrible things that are simultaneously occurring (war, famine, murder, rape, cancer, etc.). Often, this is followed up with "God works in mysterious ways" or something like that. Total cop-out.
- The Bible is often taken too literally, which causes countless contradictions with science. Or it's taken too loosely as a book of stories to help "guide you" and help with moral issues. But if you actually read the Bible, it is one of the least moral texts I've ever read. Seriously, read it cover to cover. WTF is going on in that thing?
- 2 Timothy 3:16 has been interpreted by some to mean that the Bible is the true account of history as guided by God. If this is true, then you can't say that the Bible is a collection of stories to help guide you. It's the real deal. God did drown innocent plants, animals and babies in the Great Flood. God did tell Abraham to kill his own son as a "test."
- The Bible is full of rules that are totally insane. See the OT. Some will say that Jesus invalidated a lot of the old laws from instances in the NT, but even Jesus denies this: "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets.  I have come not to abolish but to fulfill." This is from the book of Matthew. So why aren't modern Christians stoning people or subjugating women and non-Christians as is okay'd in the OT?

Sorry to rant a little, but I'm merely describing some reasons why I'm no longer Christian. The above is by no means an exhaustive list.

That is not true for non-Abrahamic religions. 

[Beric01]

If God does exist, there really isn't any physical law governing his behavior, so it would be impossible to routinely demonstrate his existence with a scientific experiment.

Well said. This is why I am agnostic (not atheist), and why I have no problems with people being religious if it brings more meaning to their lives.

[LibrarIan]

I'd guess MMM is atheist/agnostic based the vibe I get from his writing.

Nearly all religions do conflict with one another in terms of their holy writings and/or god(s).

That is not true for non-Abrahamic religions.

Can you elaborate?

[Gin1984]

I'd guess MMM is atheist/agnostic based the vibe I get from his writing.

Nearly all religions do conflict with one another in terms of their holy writings and/or god(s).

That is not true for non-Abrahamic religions.

Can you elaborate?

I, and others, already have up thread.  But basically, for example, Hindus don't say that native Americans are wrong, their deities can co-exist.  Their creation myths are for their area or depending on the religion are understood to be explanations for creation/ history/ morality and not to be taken literally.  If you look at the ancient world for another example, often one tribe would steal another tribes' God figure to steal away the power of that God to protect the opposing tribe.  No one was saying the other God did not exist. 

[Cwadda]

I don't think so outside of some very nuanced instances perhaps.  I certainly think it's been used that way before, but I don't require a gap in scientific knowledge to pursue a religious belief and I'm sure many would agree with that assessment.

This is, essentially, the "God of the gaps" problem.  Certainly it's a concern that people try using religion to explain things unexplained, but how much a given religion depends on this phenomenon for its practice is again, in my view, highly nuanced.

I for one am baffled why we insist on there being some divide or dichotomy between the two (science and religion).  My undergrad degree is in a hard science and if anything it exposed me to more ideas about religious beliefs.  Kurt Gödel stated that all human knowledge is worth pursuit and included theology among that knowledge.

I think people get too wrapped up in reconciling everything without realizing that there are great gaps of things we simply don't know.  In other words, it's a question of epistemology, with some knowledge being evidence based, and other knowledge being properly basic (neofoundationalism, essentially).  How the two relate doesn't have to be apparent for either to be true.

Quote from: InvestFourMoreMMM on September 16, 2014, 04:27:59 PM
And if it is literal that would simply make no sense what so ever imo.

(I am not trying to offend or argue, and i am not atheist. just curious about this)

Have you ever heard the sentence "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously."?

The idea of the sentence is to convey the notion that just because you can form something correctly into words that can be understood, words which even form a greater idea, language itself doesn't necessarily convey meaning.

In a nutshell I see that as the problem, the ideas and experiences concerning the questions religion tries to answer are too big for any communications medium we could ever have.  I shall provide an example.

One of the reasons I believe God, a god, or something equivalent to it (however you want to phrase it for your personal comfort) exists is I perceive it as existing, constantly.  I can't see it, feel it, smell it, etc. nor do I have to believe in it, it is simply there as an abstract object I am aware of.  I can no more deny it than I can deny a pencil I hold in my hand, even though I perceive it completely differently from the pencil.  It is simply there.

I used to think if I could just get that idea across to others, they too would believe in the existence of God as I do, but then I realized as noble as my intentions to educate were, they were futile.  In the first place how does one transmit such a perception in mere words, or even art?  No matter how good your words are, the rejoinder will be "Well I believe YOU BELIEVE that." or something similar, which is technically accurate but a useless tautology that misses the fundamental point that the thing exists independent of my belief in it.  Transmitting that key property using words seems to be impossible. 

And say I do transit my perceptions and experiences somehow, say with a tool that is superior to words and has no such limits, how will it be interpreted?  Same counter argument.  We're back to square one.  All that can be done is sharing of sincere beliefs and what other people choose to do with that information is beyond anyone's personal control.

Putting the rationale for faith and belief has been done and very elegantly by greater minds than mine, but even these geniuses don't quite transmit it all.  That is the fundamental problem, something about the knowledge we do have is forever chained inside our own minds. 

Though I wish them all well, everyone is on their own, which gets me back to the point I try to worry about what I believe and not so much what others believe.

I found this fascinating. Thank you.

[LibrarIan]

1. Religious people often see something beautiful (a sunrise, etc.) and claim God is so good while at the same time ignoring all sorts of horrible things that are simultaneously occurring (war, famine, murder, rape, cancer, etc.). Often, this is followed up with "God works in mysterious ways" or something like that. Total cop-out.
2. The Bible is often taken too literally, which causes countless contradictions with science. Or it's taken too loosely as a book of stories to help "guide you" and help with moral issues. But if you actually read the Bible, it is one of the least moral texts I've ever read. Seriously, read it cover to cover. WTF is going on in that thing?
3. 2 Timothy 3:16 has been interpreted by some to mean that the Bible is the true account of history as guided by God. If this is true, then you can't say that the Bible is a collection of stories to help guide you. It's the real deal. God did drown innocent plants, animals and babies in the Great Flood. God did tell Abraham to kill his own son as a "test."
4. The Bible is full of rules that are totally insane. See the OT. Some will say that Jesus invalidated a lot of the old laws from instances in the NT, but even Jesus denies this: "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets.  I have come not to abolish but to fulfill." This is from the book of Matthew. So why aren't modern Christians stoning people or subjugating women and non-Christians as is okay'd in the OT?

Sorry to rant a little, but I'm merely describing some reasons why I'm no longer Christian. The above is by no means an exhaustive list.

I numbered your points to reference them easier.

1. Don't you see this as aligned with Mustachianism? MMM recommends a low information diet because most bad things in the world are out of your control. Appreciate the good things that happen, but is there a point to arguing about what war or famine is happening? It's not something that we control. Now some people have dedicated their lives to improving those situations, but personally beyond giving a little time or money personally, there's not much a Christian can do. Perhaps 'God works in mysterious ways' (I do not like the phrase either) is a cop-out, but it allows people to worry about every possible evil that is happening in the world and live a normal life.

2-4. You seem to have many questions about the morality or ethics of certain biblical situations. And items like #4 have very good explanations that make the meaning much more clear (it comes down to how to interpret the words 'abolish' and 'fulfill'.). But I think a lot of confusion comes from the fact that the OT was built around providing a structure for government (which would include rules like capital punishment). Whereas Christianity is focused on personal growth and relationships. Applying the ethics of government on a personal level does not make sense no matter what government you are talking about, and requiring a government to act with the ethics of a single person does not make sense either. 

I don't think I responded to everything in points 2-4, but I'm just speaking what your post made me think. Good luck in your journey.

Thanks for taking the time to reply to that. For point #1, I'd agree with you that this is very aligned with MMM. That's one of the things I really like about MMM. I enjoy focusing on the good and not the bad. However, my point with that blurb was to demonstrate how some religious people proclaim how great God is (thereby stating he exists and had something to do with xyz) when they see something beautiful, but they often do not do the same when something is not beautiful (natural disasters). It's just a separation I find pretty incredible.

For the latter part, this issue with the holy text(s) being interpreted by different people different ways is a sign to me that God didn't do a very good job of getting his word out. If heaven and hell are hanging in the balance and this deity really does love me and care about my fate, wouldn't he think to do a better job of getting me all the information in a clear fashion without relying on iron age peasants who thought their tiny spot on Earth was pretty much all there was? Being all powerful, he could clear this issue up immediately, but for some reason he opts to remain silent and allow countless individuals to follow false gods (whether or not they were even aware of Christianity) and commit sins, ultimately ending up in hell when he could have just been a bit clearer and let us know what's up.

[HappyRock]

Thanks for the great responses and i have found this incredibly informative.. and interesting

I'd guess MMM is atheist/agnostic based the vibe I get from his writing.

Nearly all religions do conflict with one another in terms of their holy writings and/or god(s). Using Christianity as an example since it's what is popular in the USA, all the denominations I can think of claim God to be the one, true god. Not to mention the 10 commandments stipulate that you shouldn't put any other god ahead of God. This means that no other religion is allowed to be correct. But then, there are or have been thousands of other religions. Which one do I choose?

I ascribe to the concept that religion is indeed a system created to explain things humans couldn't figure out. Things like lightning, tides, floods, death, war, disease, etc. Science has solved a lot of these mysteries, but obviously others remain. If this is indeed true, it would mean that all creation stories are metaphors or just plain made up.

I am an ex-Catholic, now atheist. I'm not angry at religion, I'm not hurt or broken and I certainly don't feel lost or somehow inadequate. In fact, the opposite. Religion made me an atheist, which is great! I feel more complete not relying on any invisible god(s) that don't readily make themselves known. Here are some beefs I have with religion (and I'm going to pick on Christianity since it's where I came from).

- Religious people often see something beautiful (a sunrise, etc.) and claim God is so good while at the same time ignoring all sorts of horrible things that are simultaneously occurring (war, famine, murder, rape, cancer, etc.). Often, this is followed up with "God works in mysterious ways" or something like that. Total cop-out.
- The Bible is often taken too literally, which causes countless contradictions with science. Or it's taken too loosely as a book of stories to help "guide you" and help with moral issues. But if you actually read the Bible, it is one of the least moral texts I've ever read. Seriously, read it cover to cover. WTF is going on in that thing?
- 2 Timothy 3:16 has been interpreted by some to mean that the Bible is the true account of history as guided by God. If this is true, then you can't say that the Bible is a collection of stories to help guide you. It's the real deal. God did drown innocent plants, animals and babies in the Great Flood. God did tell Abraham to kill his own son as a "test."
- The Bible is full of rules that are totally insane. See the OT. Some will say that Jesus invalidated a lot of the old laws from instances in the NT, but even Jesus denies this: "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets.  I have come not to abolish but to fulfill." This is from the book of Matthew. So why aren't modern Christians stoning people or subjugating women and non-Christians as is okay'd in the OT?

Sorry to rant a little, but I'm merely describing some reasons why I'm no longer Christian. The above is by no means an exhaustive list.

 +1, I also feel this way.

I always wondered what MMM's religious views were for some reason. does anyone know?

And can any religious person answer this

: Pretty much every single religion conflicts with each other in some way (Different gods, prophets, beliefs, customs)
- If that is the case, would that mean that only one religion is correct, and that other religions are wrong? How can multiple all-powerful gods and individual prophets exist for EACH religion?

It just seems to hard to believe every religion's beliefs can all be correct and exist simultaneously, with no physical evidence of anything over the past 2000 years (for the most part)

Is religion a set of ideas started by people long ago to explain things that science couldn't? Also, are all the creation stories, (for example Adam and Eve/Noah's Arc) metaphors for something else or literal? And if it is literal that would simply make no sense what so ever imo.

(I am not trying to offend or argue, and i am not atheist. just curious about this)

What does religion matter on a FIRE blog?

Haha, fair point. But in my opinion, this has grown to become FAR more than just a "FIRE blog". The community itself is unique, and I have enjoyed everyone's responses so far.
Personally I think this blog is great to talk about ANY topic. (Not just money)

This is under general discussion for a reason. If you are very religious and were offended in some way, simply don't read it.

Thanks for the incredible response IP, glad you jumped in

[Beric01]

For the latter part, this issue with the holy text(s) being interpreted by different people different ways is a sign to me that God didn't do a very good job of getting his word out. If heaven and hell are hanging in the balance and this deity really does love me and care about my fate, wouldn't he think to do a better job of getting me all the information in a clear fashion without relying on iron age peasants who thought their tiny spot on Earth was pretty much all there was? Being all powerful, he could clear this issue up immediately, but for some reason he opts to remain silent and allow countless individuals to follow false gods (whether or not they were even aware of Christianity) and commit sins, ultimately ending up in hell when he could have just been a bit clearer and let us know what's up.

I'm an agnostic, but the basic tenant here is having faith and free choice. Basically, humans already blew it, but they have been given a choice to redeem themselves rather than simply being forced to obey by a supernatural being. Unfortunately this requires having faith in a being that can't be proven to exist, but at least it's internally consistent.

[foobar]

What does religion matter on a FIRE blog?

well if your tithing, that is probably your 2nd biggest expense. Clearly you would need to optimize by picking a cheaper religion:)

[LibrarIan]

For the latter part, this issue with the holy text(s) being interpreted by different people different ways is a sign to me that God didn't do a very good job of getting his word out. If heaven and hell are hanging in the balance and this deity really does love me and care about my fate, wouldn't he think to do a better job of getting me all the information in a clear fashion without relying on iron age peasants who thought their tiny spot on Earth was pretty much all there was? Being all powerful, he could clear this issue up immediately, but for some reason he opts to remain silent and allow countless individuals to follow false gods (whether or not they were even aware of Christianity) and commit sins, ultimately ending up in hell when he could have just been a bit clearer and let us know what's up.

I'm an agnostic, but the basic tenant here is having faith and free choice. Basically, humans already blew it, but they have been given a choice to redeem themselves rather than simply being forced to obey by a supernatural being. Unfortunately this requires having faith in a being that can't be proven to exist, but at least it's internally consistent.

I understand that. But it is difficult to put faith into a religion when the followers of said religion can't agree on almost anything due to how differently the basis of their religion gets interpreted. For a source, see every denomination of every Abrahamic religion out there, to use them as an example again.

[rocksinmyhead]

Putting the rationale for faith and belief has been done and very elegantly by greater minds than mine,

Id say you have quite a gift as well.  You managed to capture a great deal of information and imagery in your post.  Thank you.

agreed. awesome post. I appreciated I. P. Daley's post as well.

[FIPurpose]

For the latter part, this issue with the holy text(s) being interpreted by different people different ways is a sign to me that God didn't do a very good job of getting his word out. If heaven and hell are hanging in the balance and this deity really does love me and care about my fate, wouldn't he think to do a better job of getting me all the information in a clear fashion without relying on iron age peasants who thought their tiny spot on Earth was pretty much all there was? Being all powerful, he could clear this issue up immediately, but for some reason he opts to remain silent and allow countless individuals to follow false gods (whether or not they were even aware of Christianity) and commit sins, ultimately ending up in hell when he could have just been a bit clearer and let us know what's up.

I'm an agnostic, but the basic tenant here is having faith and free choice. Basically, humans already blew it, but they have been given a choice to redeem themselves rather than simply being forced to obey by a supernatural being. Unfortunately this requires having faith in a being that can't be proven to exist, but at least it's internally consistent.

I understand that. But it is difficult to put faith into a religion when the followers of said religion can't agree on almost anything due to how differently the basis of their religion gets interpreted. For a source, see every denomination of every Abrahamic religion out there, to use them as an example again.

Even outside of a religious context, isn't this true for almost anything out there. I think the laws of the USA are pretty explicitly stated, but somehow we still ended up with multiple interpretations of how to apply that law. So instead of trying to create a law for every possible situation, most countries have created a constitution whereby generic rights are protected, but after attempting to put those platitudes into practice we find situations that create gray areas that then confuse the exact definition of our original platitudes. So we created a board of elders that spend their whole life evaluating and understanding the meaning of every word possible in the constitution and try to decipher its meaning, and they still can't always agree.

Unless a religion's text is willing to be as large as the entire history of case law in the United States, how can any moral or ethical stances be made absolute without dispute?

[LibrarIan]

For the latter part, this issue with the holy text(s) being interpreted by different people different ways is a sign to me that God didn't do a very good job of getting his word out. If heaven and hell are hanging in the balance and this deity really does love me and care about my fate, wouldn't he think to do a better job of getting me all the information in a clear fashion without relying on iron age peasants who thought their tiny spot on Earth was pretty much all there was? Being all powerful, he could clear this issue up immediately, but for some reason he opts to remain silent and allow countless individuals to follow false gods (whether or not they were even aware of Christianity) and commit sins, ultimately ending up in hell when he could have just been a bit clearer and let us know what's up.

I'm an agnostic, but the basic tenant here is having faith and free choice. Basically, humans already blew it, but they have been given a choice to redeem themselves rather than simply being forced to obey by a supernatural being. Unfortunately this requires having faith in a being that can't be proven to exist, but at least it's internally consistent.

I understand that. But it is difficult to put faith into a religion when the followers of said religion can't agree on almost anything due to how differently the basis of their religion gets interpreted. For a source, see every denomination of every Abrahamic religion out there, to use them as an example again.

Even outside of a religious context, isn't this true for almost anything out there. I think the laws of the USA are pretty explicitly stated, but somehow we still ended up with multiple interpretations of how to apply that law. So instead of trying to create a law for every possible situation, most countries have created a constitution whereby generic rights are protected, but after attempting to put those platitudes into practice we find situations that create gray areas that then confuse the exact definition of our original platitudes. So we created a board of elders that spend their whole life evaluating and understanding the meaning of every word possible in the constitution and try to decipher its meaning, and they still can't always agree.

Unless a religion's text is willing to be as large as the entire history of case law in the United States, how can any moral or ethical stances be made absolute without dispute?

An omniscient, omnipotent being could surely do better than human judicial systems, no?

[HappyRock]

If interested, please re-read first post i put for re-edited version and questions, and thanks so much to all who replied - i value all responses.

[Gin1984]

Yes that is true, but I often think about what exactly started traditional religions, (The easy answer is to explain things that we did not understand, like the roman gods did) but why hasn't modern, logical thinking disproved these beliefs even more than they have?
(Atheism and agnostic views have been growing over time, but for good reason)

I strongly believe in logic and reasoning. And i think i am smart enough to know the following things :

#1 Humans are greatly effected by their environment, and influenced by how they were raised. (This explains why most devoutly religious people were born into it)
#2 It is human nature for many people to want to follow leaders, and in today's world many people still feel they need to follow something. (I think part of this is because, sadly, people do lack intelligence and the ability to logically think for themselves)

I think another huge reason is simply because it is the way they were raised. Think about it for a second,

If you are a devout Christian, Mormon, Muslim, Jew, do you believe that your beliefs would be the same if you were born in a different culture? (Or family with different beliefs)
Would it be logical for you to push your beliefs, rights, ideas if you think about this?

Do you believe that god chose you, and that you are special and lucky to be born in the right beliefs? (This is to those who believe their religion is right) If so, how can you logically apply science to that statement?

(I am not trying to offend or push any beliefs in any way) I just enjoy this topic, specifically because of the group of people on these forums. Christianity is just easy to question which is why I used it as an example.

There simply has been no concrete proof of any religion being true in the past 2000 years, possibly even forever. I believe religion was started for many reasons, it offered ancient people simple answers to things we didn't understand or know at the time. It also provided a sense of community and control. (Specifically for government and religious leaders, which worked together in many cases)

Over time it grew to be something much more, and there are many terrible problems that resulted in it. (IP was right when he said it is the people, not the religion. But religion is what starts it in many cases) Many of these problems still exist today. From what I understand it sounds like every single prophet of every religion had one thing in common - they were innovative leaders and thinkers, with many great ideas. -This simple reason is why so many people followed their beliefs.


But the reality is the leaders of that time DID NOT want people speaking out, and conflicting with what they wanted. (This could have resulted in disorder of the people) I strongly believe THIS was the reason Jesus was killed, not to "atone" for our sins.

One major reason atheism is looked down on is because so many religions believe that if you are atheist - you will not go to heaven, you will be punished in some way. (In my eyes the reason for this belief is SIMPLE. - It was used to control religious peoples from straying away from what was wanted of them by their leaders.)

I am very fascinated by people who preach their beliefs, and most - if not all have no idea how to respond if i ask about it.

Personally, i wasn't raised by an agnostic or atheist family, but they were by no means religious. I think this has a huge impact on beliefs, which is why its unfair to say one is right or wrong.

I think someone said "Christianity is the right religion" somewhere.. but i honestly believe this is because of what i mentioned - they were raised that way, born in that culture, or refuse to use logical reasoning.

But I honestly feel life is 100% just as good with out religion, in my situation. (Being agnostic or atheist)

Edit : Also, so much is put on the writings of the old and new testaments. But so many things simply are not logical after modern science and reasoning.
 These writings are thousands of years old and so many things conflict with what we now know through science, space, evolution, etc.
While I believe it could possibly be "god's words" i think this is highly unlikely for many reasons.

What are your thoughts on all of this? And can any religious people help me to understand what they believe?

:Attached fixed version to first post so more people can read it and answers, thanks to all who respond

I am a scientist, and devout in my religion.  I was raised in Catholic schools with a family who had been going to Catholic school as long as we can remember, including my grandmother who was raised by nuns.   I am not Christian.  So, no not all devout people are raised in that religion.  My religion is not one of those that says, "our way is the one true way" so trying to convert or push people is not allowed.  However, the idea that being religious is not smart, educated or has no logical basis, I take great exception to.  There are many scientists who believe in a or multiple deities, and there is no evidence to the contrary.   

[Eric]

One major reason atheism is looked down on is because so many religions believe that if you are atheist - you will not go to heaven, you will be punished in some way. (In my eyes the reason for this belief is SIMPLE. - It was used to control religious peoples from straying away from what was wanted of them by their leaders.)

It's my understanding that the reason atheism is frowned upon by religious people has nothing to do with where non-believers will spend eternity and everything to do with the fact that religious followers derive their morals and ethics from their religion.  Because of that, they tend to view those without religion as having no reason to be moral or ethical, which makes them untrustworthy.

Which of course is silly, but that's the mindset from what I've gathered.

[HappyRock]

One major reason atheism is looked down on is because so many religions believe that if you are atheist - you will not go to heaven, you will be punished in some way. (In my eyes the reason for this belief is SIMPLE. - It was used to control religious peoples from straying away from what was wanted of them by their leaders.)

It's my understanding that the reason atheism is frowned upon by religious people has nothing to do with where non-believers will spend eternity and everything to do with the fact that religious followers derive their morals and ethics from their religion.  Because of that, they tend to view those without religion as having no reason to be moral or ethical, which makes them untrustworthy.

Which of course is silly, but that's the mindset from what I've gathered.

Perhaps, but it is even more illogical then to assume you have to follow a traditional religions beliefs just to be a fair, just, ethical person.

Personally, most, if not all atheists I have met are fair, logical, ethical, and smart people.

[HappyRock]

Yes that is true, but I often think about what exactly started traditional religions, (The easy answer is to explain things that we did not understand, like the roman gods did) but why hasn't modern, logical thinking disproved these beliefs even more than they have?
(Atheism and agnostic views have been growing over time, but for good reason)

I strongly believe in logic and reasoning. And i think i am smart enough to know the following things :

#1 Humans are greatly effected by their environment, and influenced by how they were raised. (This explains why most devoutly religious people were born into it)
#2 It is human nature for many people to want to follow leaders, and in today's world many people still feel they need to follow something. (I think part of this is because, sadly, people do lack intelligence and the ability to logically think for themselves)

I think another huge reason is simply because it is the way they were raised. Think about it for a second,

If you are a devout Christian, Mormon, Muslim, Jew, do you believe that your beliefs would be the same if you were born in a different culture? (Or family with different beliefs)
Would it be logical for you to push your beliefs, rights, ideas if you think about this?

Do you believe that god chose you, and that you are special and lucky to be born in the right beliefs? (This is to those who believe their religion is right) If so, how can you logically apply science to that statement?

(I am not trying to offend or push any beliefs in any way) I just enjoy this topic, specifically because of the group of people on these forums. Christianity is just easy to question which is why I used it as an example.

There simply has been no concrete proof of any religion being true in the past 2000 years, possibly even forever. I believe religion was started for many reasons, it offered ancient people simple answers to things we didn't understand or know at the time. It also provided a sense of community and control. (Specifically for government and religious leaders, which worked together in many cases)

Over time it grew to be something much more, and there are many terrible problems that resulted in it. (IP was right when he said it is the people, not the religion. But religion is what starts it in many cases) Many of these problems still exist today. From what I understand it sounds like every single prophet of every religion had one thing in common - they were innovative leaders and thinkers, with many great ideas. -This simple reason is why so many people followed their beliefs.


But the reality is the leaders of that time DID NOT want people speaking out, and conflicting with what they wanted. (This could have resulted in disorder of the people) I strongly believe THIS was the reason Jesus was killed, not to "atone" for our sins.

One major reason atheism is looked down on is because so many religions believe that if you are atheist - you will not go to heaven, you will be punished in some way. (In my eyes the reason for this belief is SIMPLE. - It was used to control religious peoples from straying away from what was wanted of them by their leaders.)

I am very fascinated by people who preach their beliefs, and most - if not all have no idea how to respond if i ask about it.

Personally, i wasn't raised by an agnostic or atheist family, but they were by no means religious. I think this has a huge impact on beliefs, which is why its unfair to say one is right or wrong.

I think someone said "Christianity is the right religion" somewhere.. but i honestly believe this is because of what i mentioned - they were raised that way, born in that culture, or refuse to use logical reasoning.

But I honestly feel life is 100% just as good with out religion, in my situation. (Being agnostic or atheist)

Edit : Also, so much is put on the writings of the old and new testaments. But so many things simply are not logical after modern science and reasoning.
 These writings are thousands of years old and so many things conflict with what we now know through science, space, evolution, etc.
While I believe it could possibly be "god's words" i think this is highly unlikely for many reasons.

What are your thoughts on all of this? And can any religious people help me to understand what they believe?

:Attached fixed version to first post so more people can read it and answers, thanks to all who respond

I am a scientist, and devout in my religion.  I was raised in Catholic schools with a family who had been going to Catholic school as long as we can remember, including my grandmother who was raised by nuns.   I am not Christian.  So, no not all devout people are raised in that religion.  My religion is not one of those that says, "our way is the one true way" so trying to convert or push people is not allowed.  However, the idea that being religious is not smart, educated or has no logical basis, I take great exception to.  There are many scientists who believe in a or multiple deities, and there is no evidence to the contrary.

" However, the idea that being religious is not smart, educated or has no logical basis, I take great exception to.  There are many scientists who believe in a or multiple deities, and there is no evidence to the contrary. "

That statement is definitely not true, and in no way was i trying to push that. Only that there are many new discoveries that can possibly discredit it to not be 100% true.

I know incredible amounts of religious people who are brilliant, and respect anyone who follows a religion - I agree that in many ways it is helpful.

[Eric]

One major reason atheism is looked down on is because so many religions believe that if you are atheist - you will not go to heaven, you will be punished in some way. (In my eyes the reason for this belief is SIMPLE. - It was used to control religious peoples from straying away from what was wanted of them by their leaders.)

It's my understanding that the reason atheism is frowned upon by religious people has nothing to do with where non-believers will spend eternity and everything to do with the fact that religious followers derive their morals and ethics from their religion.  Because of that, they tend to view those without religion as having no reason to be moral or ethical, which makes them untrustworthy.

Which of course is silly, but that's the mindset from what I've gathered.

Perhaps, but it is even more illogical then to assume you have to follow a traditional religions beliefs just to be a fair, just, ethical person.

Personally, most, if not all atheists I have met are fair, logical, ethical, and smart people.

As a non-believer, I also think it's illogical that morality/ethics and religion are linked.  But this is not the belief of the religious (those that would look down on atheists at least)  Your original statement was that religious people dislike atheists because they are going to hell, but I don't think that's why.  I'm saying they don't like atheists because they don't view them as trustworthy in this life.  I'm not trying to assign logic to that belief.  I've long given up trying to assign logical thought to religious beliefs.

[GuitarStv]

There's no logical reason to believe that the religion is true.  Russell's teapot.

Scientist Materialism states that everything that exists is subject to immutable laws that are themselves describable by mathematics.  Try finding evidence for that!

Look, all coherent world-views rest on self-evidently true assumptions  (as pointed out by Aristotle, among others).  Self-evidently true to the believer, that is.  To me, human consciousness is fully and undeniably proof that materialism is false.  If materialism is false, then there are things in human experience (beginning with consciousness) that science can't prove or disprove, since they can't be approached via repeatable experimentation.  This puts you in a position where you are reasoning about things for which you lack empirical evidence.  It's a hop, skip and a jump from there to being very seriously interested in the case of the man who said he was God, said he would rise from the dead, and then (by all available eye-witness accounts) did so.

This is all very logical, but it's not 100% empirical, which is as it must be.

You have explained that you believe that there are things which cannot ever be measured or defined.  Throughout history similar beliefs have constantly been proven wrong as human understanding evolves.  Your logic fails where you equate our current lack of total understanding of the universe via science as somehow lending credibility to a belief in God.

I'm sorry, but you haven't understood what I wrote.

You seem to believe that the scientific method can potentially explain everything that exists.  You should ask yourself, why do I believe this? 

Science is just a way of understanding the universe around us by observation.  It's the most systematic and least flawed way we've devised to do this so far.

Science has a good track record explaining the behavior of matter and energy, but there isn't a repeatable experiment that demonstrates that matter and energy are the only things that exist.[/quote]

I can't prove that matter or energy are the only things that exist, just that nothing else is observable.  This is where the extraordinary claims involved with religious belief come into play.  An absence of evidence, is not proof supporting your claim.

Science is impossible without mathematics, right?  In order to demonstrate that scientific laws hold, we have to measure quantities and reason mathematically.  But what does mathematics rest on? 

Science certainly isn't impossible without mathematics.  There are no immutable scientific laws.  Science is just a systematic way of understanding things.

Math rests on a solid foundation of observation, reproducibility, and evidence.

Mathematics rests on human intuition about truth and falsity.  Mathematics is simply an expression of logic, which rests on our gut intuition about truth.  Humans also have a widespread intuition that God exists!

No, it doesn't.  I'm not following how you are equating math to intuition at all.  When you have two cupcakes and eat one, you are left with one cupcake.  There's literally no intuitive jump to be made.  You can get two cupcakes and experiment if you are having a crisis of mathematical faith.

Logic is a branch of mathematics, and doesn't rely on intuition.

Unrelated to this tack of the conversation, but I already forwarded a theory as to why there is widespread belief in Gods.

You want to place the burden of proof on the believer to show that God exists.  But when you ask for evidence, you are asking for a repeatable, verifiable scientific experiment showing that God exists.  That's the kind of evidence required for a scientific law.  The only thing you can expect to demonstrate with repeatable, verifiable experiments is something which is subject to a physical law that determines an immutable rule of behavior.  For instance, gravity will work every single time.  If God does exist, there really isn't any physical law governing his behavior, so it would be impossible to routinely demonstrate his existence with a scientific experiment.  Since the kind of evidence you require is not possible anyway, the only part of Russell's Teapot that is left is a gut evaluation of how likely the belief is to be true.  In other words, it is unreasonable to believe in a supernatural entity that is unlikely to exist, while it may still be reasonable to believe in a supernatural entity that is likely to exist.  That is the same as saying, "We should believe what seems true."  Rather circular if you ask me.  And when you are twisting it to say, people should ignore their widespread intuition based on my evaluation of what is likely, that is really a bit much.

You're the one making the extraordinary claim.

Now I not only have to believe in a God, but also that he exists outside of all observable phenomenon related to the universe.

Without evidence, we're left only with faith. If you're willing to accept any of the many religions on faith, that's cool . . . like I brought up earlier you have a genetic predisposition to do so.  It's not  a logically defensible argument though.

[okashira]

Religion was born out of necessity for modern society.

Some people, many, in fact, are incapable of developing "reasonable" core ethics, morals and basis' for reasonable behavior without some kind of force.
Religion, to some extent normalizes human behavior on the whole.


I think the chart someone posted is awesome. I live how Agnostics think more highly of Buddhists then they do Atheists. :-D

[LibrarIan]

There are many scientists who believe in a or multiple deities, and there is no evidence to the contrary.

This is yet another reason why I don't buy religion. With this line of reasoning I could propose any belief system that you can't disprove, yet claim that it is true and do what I want while claiming religious freedom.

I believe there is a giant invisible monkey living at the core of Jupiter whom we must please, and if we don't please it then we are doomed. I must also convert as many people as possible to my way of thinking and collect money from them. There, I just created my own 'religion' out of something you can't prove does not exist. Now convert or I will declare war against you and take your money!

Maybe there is something to this whole religion thing after all...

[HappyRock]

There are many scientists who believe in a or multiple deities, and there is no evidence to the contrary.

This is yet another reason why I don't buy religion. With this line of reasoning I could propose any belief system that you can't disprove, yet claim that it is true and do what I want while claiming religious freedom.

I believe there is a giant invisible monkey living at the core of Jupiter whom we must please, and if we don't please it then we are doomed. I must also convert as many people as possible to my way of thinking and collect money from them. There, I just created my own 'religion' out of something you can't prove does not exist. Now convert or I will declare war against you and take your money!

Maybe there is something to this whole religion thing after all...

Amazing example, I agree 100%

[kite]

Religion was born out of necessity for modern society.

Some people, many, in fact, are incapable of developing "reasonable" core ethics, morals and basis' for reasonable behavior without some kind of force.
Religion, to some extent normalizes human behavior on the whole.


I think the chart someone posted is awesome. I live how Agnostics think more highly of Buddhists then they do Atheists. :-D

Well, ever since Christopher Hitchens died, the face of Athiesm is a real ass.