If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
Haha, true. Plenty of people worship fame, power and money though
As for the question, I'm not sure. Just trying to define it gives me a headache, it's interesting to hear people's views on it though! I'm definitely in agreement about it being the most prolific cause of conflict.
You could argue that one of the pillars of atheism is its rejection of the concept of faith. Couldn't be different from religious beliefs IMO.
No it's not the ony thing that manipulates us, but it's the only thing I can think of where people openly embrace it, and either can't see that side of religion or are just too stupid to realise. We don't have a lot of control over manipulation and how it's used against us by whoever, but we do with religion.
But couldn't you argue that athiests have the belief in the non-existance of God? I suppose it depends on your definition of faith (as it's bloody impossible to define religion in one fell swoop) but I have friends who put, I suppose a 'faith' or affirmation in the theory of Evolution and separation of Church and State, and believe in these things almost with the same passion that a Jewish friend of mine practices Judaism.
I suppose it all comes back to the definition of religion.
Well, I suppose it comes down to the individual. I try to be aware of my surroundings of what I consider manipulative, for instance, women's magazines, I find very manipulative, and my control of that is not to expose myself to them. Other influences are a little more difficult, but I'm at least aware. With religion, I think with the different interpretations of various things, it could possibly be argued that we can also manipulate the dogma, in turn, slowly changing religious belief for some, which is where other denominations come in, again though, it's pretty individual, and probably turns into a form of cultural relativity, which, as my tutor suggests, it's a bad way to look at things. And now my head hurts.
You are tarring all religions with the same brush.
You know of every religion and its beliefs then do you?
Most religions are not like the Major world religions. Major world religions seek to control the way people behave and manipulate them to do whatever they want. Just take Catholicism as an example, or Islam.
Most religions that are older than Christ do not seek to control everyone and everything.
You could argue that Judaism is an exception to this but they are not supposed to preach to try and convert people.
I understand faith to mean the ability to believe in something for which there is no evidence whatsoever and/or which seems highly improbable to rational thought.
There is overwhelming evidence, circumstancial or otherwise, to support the theory of evolution to a large extent so I wouldn't think one needs faith to believe in it.
I probably am, and no, I don't. I never said I did. My point still stands though, you can't choose to be manipulated by some things, but you can choose whether or not you are going to let any form of religion manipulate you by either subscibing to their belifs or not.
The belief there is no God is a irrational or rational as belief. Both are believing something for which they have no proof.
That's true.
Why do you think that the pews at churches are slowly beginning to empty? People are starting to see through its bullshit. And about bleeding time too.
I choose to be religious but there is no manipulation within my religion. You don't have to be manipulated to have good morals, or to believe in something.
You do have to be manipulated to kill in the name of it or condemn all those who are not of it. This is what most Major Religions do.
Exactly, but you can take that further. You don't need a religion to have good morals.
I don't need a set of rules to live my life or to be a good person. I know killing someone is wrong, but I didn't need a two-thousand year old book to tell me that.
A top class debate stopper that chapter is
I've been meaning to get me a copy of that. Just to put on the coffee table for when I invite the Jehovah's Witnesses in.
So is the belief that there is no Flying Spaghetti Monster then an irrational belief?
By your own admission you do live by a set of rules that govern how, in your opinion, you can be a good person.
You don't kill (I assume!) because you know it is wrong. That is your 'rule'. Many others share this rule, be it because a supreme being passed down this message via religious scriptures or because they simply 'know' it is wrong, like yourself.
???? Are you honestly suggesting that Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism and religous beliefs are comparable to the 'flying spaghetti monster'. if so I'm puting you in the irrational camp...
ETA: I do think I am irrational though, many of my beliefs are govened by illogical emotive responses to things over the purely logical.
No, some people do not need religion to have good morals. A lot of people make their own moral code in accordance with law.
Some people with religion have bad morals (some Priests and Cardinals for example).
I don't need the Old or New testsament of the bible telling me what to do either as they are not part of my faith.They were written by men about the nature and actions of an Omnipotent, Omniscient being. I do not believe in such a being as No one is perfect or all powerful. And besides, do you know a man that can make children on his own.
It doesn't really though does it? for example, outside the bible Flavius Joseph mentions someone called Jesus. Archelogical evidence also often (albeit not always) accords with the Bible. This doesn't show the existence of God, but it does reduce the suggestion that the Bible is pure fiction.
But my argument is that proving the existence of God is as impossible as disproving his existence as both are based on a belief. Short of dying there is no way to settle the argument.
and if you read the uncritical assessment of Dawkins book by many atheists I'm reminded in so many ways of fundamentalist Christians and their views on the sanctity of the bible. The proseltysing of many atheists is also just as bad as that of the happy clappers (with at least the Christians trying to save my soul as a defence) and the claims that religion is evil reminds me of medieval christianity and its attitudes to heretics.
The difference between atheism and Christianity seems to me, not one of any logic or rational thought, but between two unsubstantiated beliefs.
Given that I personally can neither show that od does or does not exist it seems to me that the only rational thing to be is agnostic...
Fair enough, that's being human...
It's not a rule really, it's more common sense. The thing is, I would kill if I was in a situation forced me to. I don't go around murdering people because it's common sense (to me at least) that it's wrong and that there's no need for it. I'm not too hot on what the Bible says, but would that be classed as wrong or a sin or something if you were forced to kill in, let's say, a self defence situation? For me it wouldn't, i would be breaking no 'rule' (and i'm not talking abut the law here, i'm talking about my own moral standards) and I would be commiting no sin, because I would simply judge the situation and act accordingly.
Well obviously in that example I was referring to Christianity. All religion boils down to is a core set of beliefs that are shared amongst people. Well I refuse to subscribe to anyone elses beliefs but my own, because these people will not lead the life I lead, or be in the same situations as me and they will never, ever think like me, so why should they have a say in how my life is run.
I don't have a problem with people holding religious beliefs, but to compare blind faith and scientific method as equal intellectual schools of though, is totally laughable.
Who's doing that? I've yet to see the existence of God scientifically disprooven. To suggest atheism equals scientific truth seems to me to be stretching the meaning of the word science to its limits (especially as various scientists have been religous and have seen no disparity between scientific thought and a belief in God).
Exactly. Rational and critical thought inherently leads to belief the chances are there is no God. Faith is a complete suspension of critical thought.
I completely agree with Richard Dawkins as far as his position on religion goes. He’s not an atheist, and to paraphrase him: On a scale of one to ten, one being absolutely 100% sure there is a God, and ten being the opposite, I am a nine. I cannot absolutely disprove the existence of God, but everything we know about the universe indicates there isn’t a God.
Evolution does not disprove the existence of God. It probably does suggest that Genesis is either incorrect or is a metaphor. That said most Churches don't believe in the literal truth of Genesis either.
Aren't you contradicting yourself. You start of by saying you don't have to completely reject the idea of God and then finish by saying you dismiss it as possibility. Do you reject (ie atheism) or not.
Also absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Where are these open minded atheists? I wouldn't mind a few of them posting on here. Most seem as open minded as the average Christian to their belief being prooved wrong (ie there is no possible proof which will satisfy them as the proof cannot exist until the moment we're capable of bringing people back from the dead).
Given that the evidence that God does or does not exist is not around, surely the only logical position is to be agnostic.
but atheism is just as mucgh faith. Can you proove (rather than infer) there is no God. Otherwise your belief is based on faith
That suggests he's an agnostic and given that as a scientist he must surely realise the current limitations of our knowledge of the Universe (ie next to nothing) probably a more intelligent view than I'd previously given him credit for.
I dismiss it as a possibilty until there is any scientific evidence to point to it. To say I dismiss it as a possibility absolutely entirely is inaccurate, but it's simply a term of phrase for something that I consider so inprobable, it doesn't merit me entertaining it at present, in the same way that the idea that we're really being held in an artificial reality for machines to use as batteries doesn't merit me entertaining it at present either. It's just a matter of semantics.
Really? So you've put some evidence before them to attempt to prove them wrong have you? I'm an open minded athiest. Show me any scientific evidence of God existing, and I'll gladly listen. It seems to me that people who don't believe in God are always open to being shown proof to the contrary.
Being agnostic is a logical position to take as well. But I can't see how it isn't logical to not believe in something that there is no evidence for. Not believing in something doesn't mean that you completely reject any possibility of anyone ever proving you wrong (which would be an illogical position to take), but it does mean that you think it's about as probable as the theory that Elvis was actually abducted by aliens. Belief in God isn't logical, because no-one that comes to that conclusion weighs up the scientific evidence in advance. Equally though, I don't think anyone who does believe in God claims to do so because they came to that conclusion logically and scientifically, rather than a matter of faith.
It's such a pain in the arse debate to have though. If such a thing as a God could be proven scientifically, then surely it would cease to be God, since it would by definition comply with the laws of science and the universe, and wouldn't adhere to the definition of an omnipotent being. If it can't be proven scientifically, then it doesn't truely exist as part of this universe. If it exists as part of the human mindset, in the same way as abstract ideas like government and language, then as soon as humans cease to exist, God ceases to exist, and therefore this isn't the definition of the omnipotent being or creator either. In my opinion, the only way it could work is if God = universe, and personally, I'd rather just refer to the universe as the universe. But this is really starting to sound like a discussion that should be occuring in a coffee shop in Amsterdam, so I'll leave it at that.