- Does science work?
- Will religion ever disappear?
- WYD - The world of youth today: who are they and what do they seek?
- Site Search Navigation
They missed their ancestors and wanted to believe that they would see them again. Life was hard and unfair and they craved those comfort and justice so much that had to believe that there was a place where it could all exist.
Since this could not be observed in this world, it must be in the next. I don't believe morals came from religion. Morals, or more accurately rules to live by, were simply needed in order to build a community.
- Snowy Fate?
- Own Ukrainian business guide (in Russian).
- Purpose, Meaning, and Morality Without God | Psychology Today;
- Be Transformed (John 13-21): Christs Triumph Means Your Transformation (The BE Series Commentary)?
Everyone living together and depending on one another is a simple matter of survival. It only says that with a stable social safety-net, people feel more secure, and have less need for religion. And it's true, Western European countries have better healthcare systems and social security makes it easier for people to get out of poverty, compared to the USA. They mixed in the few good concepts from socialism, while still being liberal democracies.
The dip in organized religion has not affected belief in God, plus since the s there's been open warfare by intolerant atheists to remove all mentions of religion from the public sphere unless its islam which may contribute to the illusion that people are less religious. Ah yes, the obligatory, "We atheists are smarter", yet there has never been a modern, functional atheist society built on reason alone, just like there will never be a modern, functional matriarchy.
The now dying Euro countries, despite insistence they've "outgrown" religion, were built and based on religious beliefs, be they Wotan or Christ. These same countries are now being taken over by muslims. Belief trumps non-belief, every time. In monocultural countries with low religiosity like Japan, rigid codes of conduct take the place of religion, so it's an illusion that the Japanese are simply freethinking individualists with no need of religion.
The US has spent 22 trillion on a failed "war on poverty", so the idea that dying Europe and Japan are more benevolent because they have "free" health care is absurd. We also spent astronomical sums rebuilding Europe and Japan post-war, and in return received a NATO which shirked paying its fair share until Trump. The muslim orcs presently overrunning Europe are proof you want a society that believes in itself, even by way of faith. That is just about the worst informed comment I have ever heard. You do realize that what atheists do actually try and remove something religious from the public sphere is because it is either offensive of unnecessary.
Also you do realize that atheist means they don't believe in any religion right? I don't know if you know this but Islam is in fact a religion. Which just makes me think that you're just like every other brainless Muslim hater out there. Look at the facts before you speak and maybe, just maybe, you might grow a brain someday. A small town park bench dedicated to veterans, donated by a religious group "constituted the establishment of a religion" and was removed because one anonymous dickhead complained.
That's how dumb and obnoxious atheists are in Unable to stand outside linear time nor see the beginning of the universe means the atheist has incomplete information regarding the existence of a deity or deities. Agnostics are more honest.
You are the ignorant one, I'm afraid. But there's a cure: go to thereligionofpeace d0t c0m and learn the truth about islam. TLDR: Any "religion" which hates beer, dogs and womens' rights is shite and doesn't belong in the West. I'm not here to offend anybody but your comments have really disappointed me. Your thoughts on Islam reflect generalisation of false beliefs and a component of inbon hatred. If you think Islam hates dogs or women's right, then you clearly don't know anything about Islam.
Beer or any other alcoholic drink is made of things that are allowed to consume in Islam. However, when it is in a form that intoxicates you, then it is not allowed. Islam doesn't hate dogs. Islam doesn't hate women. If you want to know the truth, then please ask those who know about it instead of going through false online resources.
As long as muslims stay in their lands, I couldn't care less if they kill each other. Other religions combined for perhaps a dozen or so. This included women. Muhammad inspired his men to war with the basest of motives, using captured loot, sex and a gluttonous paradise as incentives. He beheaded captives, enslaved children and raped women captured in battle. Again, Muslims are told to emulate the example of Muhammad. Fatima, Muhammad's favorite daughter, survived the early years among the unbelievers at Mecca safe and sound, yet died of stress from the persecution of fellow Muslims only six months after her father died.
She even miscarried Muhammad's grandchild after having her ribs broken by the man who became the second caliph. It was this same caliph, Umar, who ordered the death of the first convert to Islam at Medina, an elderly leader who became a close companion to Muhammad and proved his worth in battle. Sa'd ibn Ubadah was killed after a failed bid to be caliph. Fatima's husband Ali, who was the second convert to Islam and was raised like a son to Muhammad, fought a civil war against an army raised by Aisha, Muhammad's favorite wife - and one whom he had said was a "perfect woman.
Three of the first four Muslim rulers caliphs were murdered. All of them were among Muhammad's closest companions. The third caliph was killed by allies of the son of the first who was murdered by the fifth caliph a few years later, then wrapped in the skin of a dead donkey and burned. The fourth caliph Ali was stabbed to death after a bitter dispute with the fifth. The fifth caliph went on to poison one of Muhammad's two favorite grandsons.
The other grandson was later beheaded by the sixth caliph. The infighting and power struggles between Muhammad's family members, closest companions and their children only intensified with time. Within 50 short years of Muhammad's death, even the Kaaba, which had stood for centuries under pagan religion, lay in ruins from internal Muslim war Within the first few decades following his death, his Arabian companions invaded and conquered Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist and Zoroastrian lands.
A mere 25 years after Muhammad's death, Muslim armies had captured land and people within the modern borders of over 28 countries outside of Saudi Arabia. To this day, not a week goes by that Islamic fundamentalists do not attempt to kill Christians, Jews, Hindus and Buddhists explicitly in the name of Allah.
This is according to the example set by Muhammad. Muhammad said that Muslims can be put to death for murder, but that a Muslim could never be put to death for killing a non-Muslim. Allahu Akbar! I must appreciate your effort to have searched a little bit about Islam. I Should say that who should you be asking about Islam? Either those who are practicing it or the ones who are inherently born to oppose and hate it.
You will never get this point, or any point in life, if you don't have a neutral perspective about such controversies. I assert that your source of Knowledge is biased and false. Most of the points you have mentioned above are totally wrong and opposite of the truth. I'm not here to prove anything to anyone and I can't do so unless the other person comes with a unbiased and disinterested mentality.
I wish you ask the right person about islam. Well Kashif, I don't rule out the possibility there are Muslims who have little understanding of the Quran, simply claim to be Muslim and try to live by the Golden Rule. Unfortunately, the Quran offers only 3 options for dealing with infidels non-muslims : kill them, convert them or make them pay a tax jizya. Some are quite graphic, with commands to chop off heads and fingers and kill infidels wherever they may be hiding.
Muslims who do not join the fight are called 'hypocrites' and warned that Allah will send them to Hell if they do not join the slaughter. I also question why Muslim lands don't accept Muslim refugees but instead the stupid West takes them in.
Does science work?
Every Ayah of Quran has a background and a specific context which the reader must be aware of in order to understand the true concept. Plus, each English translation or any other translation of Quran is subject to too many errors that's why the reader easily gets confused. I have read Quran with both English and native langage. And I can understand why people easily get confused about it. No one is to blame for this. It is just that Arabic Language is so different and unique that it can not be translated perfectly. Additionally, talking about specific context, if you miss the context and take few verses using them as per your desire, then this happens.
Just for example you've mentioned about the Islam commanding killing non muslims. This is true, it is mentioned more than once. But you clearly miss the background context which is actually killing of those non muslims that used to spread chaos and ruthlessly fought muslims and other non muslim tribes. Islam doesn't allow anyone to spread disruption on land and doesn't allow chaos either it be against muslims or non muslims.
And FYI you might've never head of those ayah which order muslims to be in peace with those and not fight those who don't spread such chaos. True Islam, not the one you know, doesn't even allow cutting down tress and smashing herbs on the way to battlefield let alone innocent humans. And killing of women, children and elderly people during war is strongly condemnable and prohibited in islam.
I'm citing this for you if you shall know. Do not kill any old man, infant, child or woman… spread goodness and do good, for Allaah loves those who do good. Allaah does not forbid you to deal justly and kindly with those who fought not against you on account of religion nor drove you out of your homes. I hope you're wise enough to accept the truth and give up on your false assumptions after I have mentioned clear references. This would appear to be self-evident, but it seems that the moral bar is set fairly low in the Quran.
Most likely, this is because they kept the verse in context. Verse 55 says it is the unbelievers, who are lower than animals: "Verily, The worst of moving living creatures before Allah are those who disbelieve". The verses between tell Muslims that they cannot trust unbelievers and to punish them "severely" in war. If treachery is suspected at any point after non-Muslims are subjugated, Muslims are to break the covenant and attack the "enemies of Allah" and somewhat chillingly "others whom you may not know". As a whole, the passage declares that non-Muslims are, by nature, an inferior group on par with animals.
They cannot be trusted and should be viewed with suspicion. Muslims can break any covenant merely on the basis of this suspicion and punish the unbelievers "severely," because that's what Allah wants Once more, Kashif, I don't know you personally, you could very well be a tolerant person who would never harm anyone except in self-defense, but when Muslim numbers grow large enough in an area, the demands for sharia law begin.
Sharia is incompatible and unacceptable in Western countries with free speech and womens' rights. I would take an example and I hope you won' mind it. Let's consider Sikon Pardon me if that's not how you are known that someone kidnaps you and locks you up. Now this person, the kidnapper, uses you Name Sikon and your ID and implies that He is actaully the Sikon that he has locked up somewhere. Now this person using your name and Identity commits crimes, kills people and transgress in every possible manner. Now you're ruined. You're labelled to be the transgressor. People think you are a bad person.
While, in fact, you're there locked up in a room. You just wanna get out and tell everyone that the SIKON who has done all these tansgressions is not me. But people won't believe you very easily. Unless they are receptive and open to acceptance. Same is true for Islam. Example of true Islam is like the locked up Sikon and False identity of Islam is being used to spread hatred and chaos. You might've never met or talked to a true practicing muslim.
And that's why I don't blame you for it. About the Sharia, it is true that Sharia has boundries and limitations and it doesn't allow everyone to utter whatever they want to and however they spread disruption. Shari' punishments are strict and all of this is explainable with the one and only true objective of making a peaceful social environment for everyone to live. Islam is inevitably a horrible religion. And, as it turns out the only people that support Islam, are Muslim's and people that have not read the Quran.
Islam, like Christianity, has a lot of hypocrisy bad dogma's and deserves criticism as much. Only socially far-left atheists are afraid to criticize Islam because they fear not looking "inclusive". Also, I don't know the context of the bench, but it doesn't seem like something that should be removed. It is however, totally legit for atheists and agnostics to be mad at religion in politics, the "one nation under God" statements of USA presidents and God being on dollar bills I'm assuming you're American, I'm not though.http://qarcservises.com/profiles/xirymozuh/gyjo-meilleur-logiciel-espion.html
Will religion ever disappear?
That's because The constitution clearly states separation of church and state. They think more in the following way "I don't believe in anything. If you don't have proof I do not believe your claim" They don't know if any God exists but see it as unlikely because there's no proof. If I claimed that there was a spaghetti-monster in space, but provided no proof, would you tend to be agnostic about it or unbelieving? If you want people to read thereligionofpeace I would also urge you to read skepticsannotatedbible especially the "highlights" section.
Whatever we don't understand, we place God and voila. Thus the more science the less the need to believe in God. Unfortunately that is only a partial truth because there is no one single belief in God, it is all over the place, from the most childlike to the most sophisticated. From the point of view of the average Christian, there is hell, heaven, judgement, Christ who died for our sins, creation, etc From the point of view of the mystic, there is no belief, only direct personal experience of oneness that transcends thinking and our senses.
For the spiritually mature person there is no heaven, hell, judgement, creation. There is no problem with evolution, there is no conflict between science and spirituality. There is no fill in the gaps either because that approach to spirituality opens more doors than closes them, removes more certainty about anything than offers ready made answers.
Mature spirituality requires of us to let go of certainties not seek new ones or reinforce old ones. The problem with atheists is not that they believe nothing, it's that they will believe anything. Most people have a basic need for faith and something fills the void. It is simply not possible to go through life not making decisions based partly on faith.
There is not enough information to rely solely on evidence. You really don't know when you get married that your spouse won't leave you or that a move to a new city will work out for sure. My experience is that hard core atheists have a number of superstitious beliefs or embrace Rousseauist humanism or Big Government that does not really stand up to basic observation or experience. I suspect you are referring to an outspoken atheist. Because not believing in Gods doesn't come in degrees. How can one atheist be more hard core than another?
I suppose that I'm a mild atheist because most people don't know that I'm a skeptic. I have no superstitious beliefs. I don't mind people that are religious. I think it's cute. I just wish they would stop giving their hard earned money to churches. People need to save more for retirement. Atheism is defined as not theistic. This is a concept that seems to be hard for theists to comprehend.
Making decisions without faith is easy. You take the information you have and make the best decision you can. Hoping some deity will grace you with his devine guidance is commonly thought of as faith and I can assure you that atheists don't do that. As for the void you referred to, atheists, to an overwhelming degree don't have a void that requires magical thinking to fill. Because the random nature of the universe and human unpredictability combined with false beliefs, selfish and selfless motives, mental health and the range of human emotions all twisted up and interacting accounts for the occurrence of all things.
You are mistaking hope for faith. Hoping for something doesn't require faith in a higher power. One thing that never gets mentioned is that you can be fairly certain that atheists have faith that there is no omnipotent god watching and judging us humans.
WYD - The world of youth today: who are they and what do they seek?
Aside from that, Christianity is no real world guard against immoral behavior because as long as you truly repent and ask for forgiveness, a man endowed with no special powers or access to anything devine, tells you how to please that same god One more example of man claiming to express God's will, not much has changed since men were writing the Bible itself, man's opinions presented as God's own words. The state? Who punishes agents of the state when they cheat? If we guard all the guardians, then everyone is a cop, prosecutor, or judge, and no one is a grocer or doctor.
Who said anything about rights? But they don't necessarily go together. You can ground cheating and the punishment thereof in inclusive fitness itself without needing to establish that we have rights. By implying that only God can have the "potestas" of looking over us. So we aren't all cops, judges and such.
Also known as Natural rights. As though post industrial revolution division of labour was the only way of calling yours a society A cop or prosecutor can theoretically be fired when they screw up. You cannot fire someone who isn't getting paid in the first place. Look at twitter mobs, granted, they tend to enforce social norms more so than actual laws. But the same problem applies. I agree with you here, I believe in freedom and at least on paper , so called, free markets.. Just think about how much we could lose by giving our rights up to the "State", worse still if governed by God.
I thought you meant to say that God would be better than the State, but who on Earth decides who god is or isn't? Certainly not your beloved philosopher kings. You don't need to establish natural rights to justify punishment. You can justify it with consequentialist considerations. For the record, I didn't establish God. I just took it as a given that the author was right about belief in God serving to incentivize pro-social behavior. Maybe that conclusion is wrong. But if you think that it is right, then a secular society where most people don't know each other does force you to ask who guards the guardians?
And that's right.
Site Search Navigation
Now society holds the power of nowadays' State, to justify their own secular motives. I think Nietzsche and many others talked about this already. Sartre says it in his "Nausea", that there is no such things as rights. We are born as we are, and that's it. It's all a social constructs. Just like god whether there is one or not, it's probably not what we can imagine.
Then again, atheists can be just as 'in-tune' with one another, from a sinful flesh point of view, as any other religious society. Know thy Neighbour Maybe I'm talking more about anarchism than about atheism. Any hints? And also I did not get that your "In an anonymous, atheistic society" was actually referring to the comment on socialist-atheist truth holding society above I Don't Have much to say.
But, you basically said religious beliefs are often caused by the lack of civilization and low levels of intelligence. But weren't the Greeks some of the most intelligent philosophers and yet believed in gods?. With all due respect to the author of this post and all the like minded savants who have commented above, I believe that if you take time to carefully consider the constancy of nature e. I encourage you to put your faith and trust in him.
And I don't believe in him just because I have evidential support, because you can't rationally perceive a being who is spiritual and does not dwell within the natural domain I believe in him by faith and I would encourage you to consider doing the same.
- What Does God Expect of Me?.
- All THE GANG (Bens world).
- The Purple Frog.
- Travels with Barley: A Journey Through Beer Culture in America.
- Is intelligent life special?;
God bless you. That's adorable. You mention the massive complexity and detail in the universe and then suggest that only a magical power could create it. Nice touch! Hi Anonymous.
- Ich dachte, es wäre leichter: Adoption - eine unendliche Herausforderung (German Edition)!
- Recover From a Breakup Using Hooponopono;
- A complex God: why science and religion can co-exist?
- Site Navigation.
- Master of Ceremonies (MCs) or Chairpersons Guide.
- Das Marketing-Geheimnis für Juweliere (German Edition).
It confirms there is only one true God and also explains his name from the Bible. Also there is further information regarding his Son, Jesus Christ. You are right, and I agree with you on that about the Greek philosophers and how it is unnecessary to call believers intellectually inferior. Yet, everything else you said has no base.
Not because you cannot understand the cosmos does it mean there is this God, as portrayed by your most accessible religion. A typical example is how chimpanzees console distressed parties, hugging and kissing them, which behavior is so predictable that scientists have analyzed thousands of cases.
The whole reason people fill their homes with furry carnivores and not with, say, iguanas and turtles, is because mammals offer something no reptile ever will. They give affection, they want affection, and respond to our emotions the way we do to theirs. Mammals may derive pleasure from helping others in the same way that humans feel good doing good. One study found that pleasure centers in the human brain light up when we give to charity. A selfish individual has no trouble walking away from another in need. Someone is drowning: let him drown. Someone cries: let her cry. These are truly selfish reactions, which are quite different from empathic ones.
A few years ago Sarah Brosnan and I demonstrated that primates will happily perform a task for cucumber slices until they see others getting grapes, which taste so much better. The cucumber-eaters become agitated, throw down their measly veggies and go on strike. A perfectly fine food has become unpalatable as a result of seeing a companion with something better.
We called it inequity aversion, a topic since investigated in other animals, including dogs. A dog will repeatedly perform a trick without rewards, but refuse as soon as another dog gets pieces of sausage for the same trick. Recently, Sarah reported an unexpected twist to the inequity issue, however. While testing pairs of chimps, she found that also the one who gets the better deal occasionally refuses. It is as if they are satisfied only if both get the same. We seem to be getting close to a sense of fairness. Such findings have implications for human morality.
According to most philosophers, we reason ourselves towards a moral position. Even if we do not invoke God, it is still a top-down process of us formulating the principles and then imposing those on human conduct. But would it be realistic to ask people to be considerate of others if we had not already a natural inclination to be so? Would it make sense to appeal to fairness and justice in the absence of powerful reactions to their absence?
Imagine the cognitive burden if every decision we took needed to be vetted against handed-down principles. Instead, I am a firm believer in the Humean position that reason is the slave of the passions. We started out with moral sentiments and intuitions, which is also where we find the greatest continuity with other primates. Rather than having developed morality from scratch, we received a huge helping hand from our background as social animals.
We strive for a logically coherent system, and have debates about how the death penalty fits arguments for the sanctity of life, or whether an unchosen sexual orientation can be wrong. These debates are uniquely human. We have no evidence that other animals judge the appropriateness of actions that do not affect themselves. At this point, religion comes in.
Humans are so sensitive to public opinion that we only need to see a picture of two eyes glued to the wall to respond with good behavior, which explains the image in some religions of an all-seeing eye to symbolize an omniscient God. Over the past few years, we have gotten used to a strident atheism arguing that God is not great Christopher Hitchens or a delusion Richard Dawkins. They urge trust in science, and want to root ethics in a naturalistic worldview. While I do consider religious institutions and their representatives — popes, bishops, mega-preachers, ayatollahs, and rabbis — fair game for criticism, what good could come from insulting individuals who find value in religion?
And more pertinently, what alternative does science have to offer? Science is not in the business of spelling out the meaning of life and even less in telling us how to live our lives. We, scientists, are good at finding out why things are the way they are, or how things work, and I do believe that biology can help us understand what kind of animals we are and why our morality looks the way it does. But to go from there to offering moral guidance seems a stretch. Even the staunchest atheist growing up in Western society cannot avoid having absorbed the basic tenets of Christian morality.
Our societies are steeped in it: everything we have accomplished over the centuries, even science, developed either hand in hand with or in opposition to religion, but never separately. It is impossible to know what morality would look like without religion. It would require a visit to a human culture that is not now and never was religious. That such cultures do not exist should give us pause. The little figures in his paintings with inverted funnels on their heads or the buildings in the form of flasks, distillation bottles, and furnaces reference chemical equipment.
Alchemy turned into science when it liberated itself from these influences and developed self-correcting procedures to deal with flawed or fabricated data. Other primates have of course none of these problems, but even they strive for a certain kind of society. For example, female chimpanzees have been seen to drag reluctant males towards each other to make up after a fight, removing weapons from their hands, and high-ranking males regularly act as impartial arbiters to settle disputes in the community. I take these hints of community concern as yet another sign that the building blocks of morality are older than humanity, and that we do not need God to explain how we got where we are today.
On the other hand, what would happen if we were able to excise religion from society? I doubt that science and the naturalistic worldview could fill the void and become an inspiration for the good. Any framework we develop to advocate a certain moral outlook is bound to produce its own list of principles, its own prophets, and attract its own devoted followers, so that it will soon look like any old religion.
Also, view an excerpt from a Bloggingheads. Or watch the entire discussion at Bloggingheads. Bosch lived from circa until The human brain in numbers: A linearly scaled-up primate brain. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 3: The Economy of Nature and the Evolution of Sex. London: Phaidon. Frans B.