Religion is human nature

[Ratt Mhule]

What a silly debate that would be. Atheism, by definition, is not a religion. True fact. It's not up for debate.

 

Why?

Because they don't try hard enough to control their congregation?

 

 

Court rules atheism a religion

 

Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair colour

Like I said, by it's very definition atheism isn't a religion. That court ruling doesn't change that. Everyone on earth is born atheist until someone convinces them there's a magical, invisible sky fairy.

 

How about that big explosion from nothingness? That is just as ridiculous to believe. Or that we evolved from monkeys. How come we aren't evolving now? Or how come there are still gorillas in the zoo? How come they don't become human. You don't know til you die, so stop insulting billions of people. Thanks!

There is actual evidence that suggests we evolved, and are still evolving. There's absolutely zero evidence a magic sky fairy exists. Fact. I wasn't insulting anyone. Why would gorillas become human? They've made it this far with the evolutionary advantages they've adapted. Much like humans. It's not like we evolved from modern day gorillas or chimps. We just share a common ancestor. Evolution isn't a straight line. There's tons of literature about evolution at your finger tips, but if you're happy remaining ignorant to the subject then you're just insulting yourself.

 

Believe what you want. You and I will find out one day, but unfortunately neither of us will be able to tell the other I told you so. If you don't believe in God, leave it at that. Don't insult people by calling God a magical, invisible sky fairy bc God is important to a lot of people. Maybe even some people you care about.

[knapplc]

I've never understood the need to insult people who believe differently than you. If you're an Atheist, why do you care enough about the subject to go about making fun of someone else's beliefs? I think that's weird.

[bennychico11]

How about that big explosion from nothingness? That is just as ridiculous to believe. Or that we evolved from monkeys. How come we aren't evolving now? Or how come there are still gorillas in the zoo? How come they don't become human. You don't know til you die, so stop insulting billions of people. Thanks!

 

To start, the big bang and evolution have nothing to do with each other (also note, the big bang wasn't an explosion but rather an expansion). That being said, evolution never states anything about humans coming from apes. It's quite a huge misconception. Like The Dude explained, evolution states that humans and apes happen to share common ancestors way in the past. And every animal is STILL evolving today. Evolution has tons and tons of evidence for it. So much so that the scientific community has accepted evolution as fact.

A 'very' simplified example of evolution I heard awhile back that made sense to me had to do with spoken languages. Take the German language for example. Some of the Amish community adopted German in the 17/18th century. Because of their reclusive and separated nature with society, their language has not evolved the same as its country of origin. Since they don't have contact with real Germans nor have internet, TV, etc...their language has formed differently over all these years. Now expand that over billions and billions of years and the two would be considered two different languages completely. You wouldn't even consider them similar.

 

As humans it's just almost incomprehensible for us to understand large expanses of time. We just can't seem to understand what a billion years means.

[Ratt Mhule]

How about that big explosion from nothingness? That is just as ridiculous to believe. Or that we evolved from monkeys. How come we aren't evolving now? Or how come there are still gorillas in the zoo? How come they don't become human. You don't know til you die, so stop insulting billions of people. Thanks!

 

To start, the big bang and evolution have nothing to do with each other (also note, the big bang wasn't an explosion but rather an expansion). That being said, evolution never states anything about humans coming from apes. It's quite a huge misconception. Like The Dude explained, evolution states that humans and apes happen to share common ancestors way in the past. And every animal is STILL evolving today. Evolution has tons and tons of evidence for it. So much so that the scientific community has accepted evolution as fact.

A 'very' simplified example of evolution I heard awhile back that made sense to me had to do with spoken languages. Take the German language for example. Some of the Amish community adopted German in the 17/18th century. Because of their reclusive and separated nature with society, their language has not evolved the same as its country of origin. Since they don't have contact with real Germans nor have internet, TV, etc...their language has formed differently over all these years. Now expand that over billions and billions of years and the two would be considered two different languages completely. You wouldn't even consider them similar.

 

As humans it's just almost incomprehensible for us to understand large expanses of time. We just can't seem to understand what a billion years means.

 

And some people who believe in God have also accepted evolution. Evolution does not disprove the existence of God. The only reason I answered him is bc of the fact he called God a magical, invisible sky fairy which upsets me bc I believe in God, as you know. If he would have just said I don't believe God exists, I wouldn't have said a thing, bc like I said in other threads, its pointless to debate religion. You will ask me where my evidence is, I will say I believe God is guiding my life for personal reasons, you will say that is not evidence, I will say its enough evidence for me, you will say I cannot think for myself and Im ignorant, etc. It happens in every religion thread we have.

[bennychico11]

I've never understood the need to insult people who believe differently than you. If you're an Atheist, why do you care enough about the subject to go about making fun of someone else's beliefs? I think that's weird.

 

I guess to some of us, it's not much of an insult but rather a disbelief that someone can believe it. It's kind of like someone insists on believing that the earth was flat. It's just hard to believe that such an ancient concept is still accepted.

 

We don't see it as insulting Christians...much like you don't think you're insulting atheists by saying you'll pray for us or that we're destined for hell (I'm not saying any of you are doing that, but you know as well as I do there are Christians that do).

I personally think it's disturbing that many theists believe what they do, but I try hard not to insult them. You have as much right to believe what you do as I do. And I will support your right. If it makes you feel good and be a better person, then I'll support you. That being said, the reason we "care enough about the subject", is because how much control theists have in this country. Not only socially but politically also.

[zoogs]

What a silly debate that would be. Atheism, by definition, is not a religion. True fact. It's not up for debate.

 

Why?

Because they don't try hard enough to control their congregation?

 

 

Court rules atheism a religion

 

“Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair colour”

Like I said, by it's very definition atheism isn't a religion. That court ruling doesn't change that. Everyone on earth is born atheist until someone convinces them there's a magical, invisible sky fairy.

 

How about that big explosion from nothingness? That is just as ridiculous to believe. Or that we evolved from monkeys. How come we aren't evolving now? Or how come there are still gorillas in the zoo? How come they don't become human. You don't know til you die, so stop insulting billions of people. Thanks!

 

I know I'm rehashing here, but it's really not as ridiculous to believe.

 

Because there exists a lot of theory and evidence to back up these claims. Indeed, it's where these claims came from in the first place. Could it be wrong? Highly unlikely. Could there be better explanations? Yes - just like the idea that we were made up of little itty bitty spheres circling around each other, or the original plum soup model of atoms, became the quantum model eventually. It's full of crazy, hard-to-believe ideas whereby particles can magically tunnel through physical barriers forbidden by classical mechanics. Very hard to believe stuff, but it's the foundation of so much of the computer technology that exists today.

 

It isn't like we evolved from monkeys either. Just that we are reasonably close cousins with a shared common ancestor at some point. We are a special species, but not that special. Plenty of Homos (hardy har har). Neanderthals. Homo Erectus (more har har). Homo habilis. Completely different species from us, from a time when there were likely several competing homo species coexisting the same habitats.

 

And as far as evolution, it is the central dogma upon which modern biology is based. If it were simply untrue, the world of biology and medicine comes crashing down in a heap of lies. There is a wealth of evidence for this, and yes, it is hard to grasp even thousand of years of time. Never mind tens of thousands, or tens of tens of tens of thousands, which only gets us to the order of 1 million. And a thousand of those just gets us to one billion. It's as if I told you that water boils when exposed to heat, and you put a pot on the stove for a half second, note that it isn't boiling, and consider my claims laughable. It also sort of reminds me of the guy who questioned the idea of life springing from nothingness by asking why life doesn't emerge from a jar of peanut butter. I'm unsure if he was being serious.

 

There is no need to insult anyone here, but it is risible if you dismiss vast fields of study like this based on sheer close-mindedness. I respect whatever beliefs you may hold, but it's up to you to figure out how to reconcile them where needed with the evidence and the study that exists in front of us. These are not mere 'beliefs', and the only serious way to dispute any of them is with counter-study that overturns it, of which there exists nothing legitimate. I have no problem with people who believe in God, because it does not prevent them from having the same kind of (forever limited; we are only human) knowledge about the way life works and the way we came to be that is accessible to everyone. Not say that is you by the way. Speaking generally now.

 

I do take a bit of an issue with people who dismiss that for whatever reason. Not that it personally hurts me or offends me, but I just shake my head and wonder why. Religion & science are not incompatible, but it's up to you to figure out how to make that works. Where religion is a personal choice, science really isn't. Science can only be overturned and updated by itself.

 

Also, if atheism is a religion, I want my tax breaks

[bennychico11]

And some people who believe in God have also accepted evolution. Evolution does not disprove the existence of God.

 

No it doesn't. And evolution has never set out to do so. It was purely hypothesized to explain the diverseness of nature and how we got to where we are now.

 

The only reason I answered him is bc of the fact he called God a magical, invisible sky fairy which upsets me bc I believe in God, as you know. If he would have just said I don't believe God exists, I wouldn't have said a thing, bc like I said in other threads, its pointless to debate religion.

 

Which I think brings us full circle to the originally discussion. Is religion human nature? ie., we're born with it.

I actually disagree. As discussed earlier, religion is:

1) a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

2) a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects

 

So is that human nature. Are we born with morals, laws/tenants/commandments engrained in us when we're born? No. I think that's taught to us. Otherwise, we'd all believe the same thing. I think the question rather should be is the belief in a supernatural being human nature. Yes. I think as humans we're constantly wanting answers for everything. And when we can't find the answer (or for many can't accept it), we substitute god as the answer.

[zoogs]

I think The Dude said it best. Everything is human nature.

 

Or rather - imagination, thinking, the desire to figure out, the desire to make sense of things - these things are all human nature at its most basic level, and religion, like everything else, is but one product of what we are.

 

Also, because pictures are better than words:

 

 

Crazy, right?

[The Dude]

What a silly debate that would be. Atheism, by definition, is not a religion. True fact. It's not up for debate.

 

Why?

Because they don't try hard enough to control their congregation?

 

 

Court rules atheism a religion

 

“Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair colour”

Like I said, by it's very definition atheism isn't a religion. That court ruling doesn't change that. Everyone on earth is born atheist until someone convinces them there's a magical, invisible sky fairy.

 

How about that big explosion from nothingness? That is just as ridiculous to believe. Or that we evolved from monkeys. How come we aren't evolving now? Or how come there are still gorillas in the zoo? How come they don't become human. You don't know til you die, so stop insulting billions of people. Thanks!

There is actual evidence that suggests we evolved, and are still evolving. There's absolutely zero evidence a magic sky fairy exists. Fact. I wasn't insulting anyone. Why would gorillas become human? They've made it this far with the evolutionary advantages they've adapted. Much like humans. It's not like we evolved from modern day gorillas or chimps. We just share a common ancestor. Evolution isn't a straight line. There's tons of literature about evolution at your finger tips, but if you're happy remaining ignorant to the subject then you're just insulting yourself.

 

Believe what you want. You and I will find out one day, but unfortunately neither of us will be able to tell the other I told you so. If you don't believe in God, leave it at that. Don't insult people by calling God a magical, invisible sky fairy bc God is important to a lot of people. Maybe even some people you care about.

I didn't insult anyone. I just stated a fact. If that insults you that has much more to do with you than me. By the Cristian description of him, he is a magical, invisible sky fairy. If you want to believe in God, that's your prerogative. Just as it's my prerogative to dismiss it as a silly fairy tale. I didn't intend to insult anyone, sorry if it does. Like I said that has more to do with you than me.

[The Dude]

I've never understood the need to insult people who believe differently than you. If you're an Atheist, why do you care enough about the subject to go about making fun of someone else's beliefs? I think that's weird.

 

I guess to some of us, it's not much of an insult but rather a disbelief that someone can believe it. It's kind of like someone insists on believing that the earth was flat. It's just hard to believe that such an ancient concept is still accepted.

 

We don't see it as insulting Christians...much like you don't think you're insulting atheists by saying you'll pray for us or that we're destined for hell (I'm not saying any of you are doing that, but you know as well as I do there are Christians that do).

I personally think it's disturbing that many theists believe what they do, but I try hard not to insult them. You have as much right to believe what you do as I do. And I will support your right. If it makes you feel good and be a better person, then I'll support you. That being said, the reason we "care enough about the subject", is because how much control theists have in this country. Not only socially but politically also.

This. It really gets my goat that they try their damnedest to hold back scientific research and education. If you want to believe in God, you 100% have my support. If you want to hold back science and education in the name of God, you better damn well prove God is real.

[knapplc]

I've never understood the need to insult people who believe differently than you. If you're an Atheist, why do you care enough about the subject to go about making fun of someone else's beliefs? I think that's weird.

 

I guess to some of us, it's not much of an insult but rather a disbelief that someone can believe it. It's kind of like someone insists on believing that the earth was flat. It's just hard to believe that such an ancient concept is still accepted.

 

We don't see it as insulting Christians...much like you don't think you're insulting atheists by saying you'll pray for us or that we're destined for hell (I'm not saying any of you are doing that, but you know as well as I do there are Christians that do).

I personally think it's disturbing that many theists believe what they do, but I try hard not to insult them. You have as much right to believe what you do as I do. And I will support your right. If it makes you feel good and be a better person, then I'll support you. That being said, the reason we "care enough about the subject", is because how much control theists have in this country. Not only socially but politically also.

 

I think it's important to note that I am most probably defined as "Agnostic with Atheist leanings" at this point. Haven't been a Theist for a while now.

 

My earlier statement derives from my background in discrimination law, I guess. There are many points of view in the world to which I do not ascribe. Some I find silly, some offensive, some just plain crazy. But no matter the point of view, I've never felt I had much of a chance of insulting someone into believing what I believe. I think that would fall along the lines of trying to catch flies with vinegar.

[Husker_x]

I've never understood the need to insult people who believe differently than you. If you're an Atheist, why do you care enough about the subject to go about making fun of someone else's beliefs? I think that's weird.

 

I guess to some of us, it's not much of an insult but rather a disbelief that someone can believe it. It's kind of like someone insists on believing that the earth was flat. It's just hard to believe that such an ancient concept is still accepted.

 

We don't see it as insulting Christians...much like you don't think you're insulting atheists by saying you'll pray for us or that we're destined for hell (I'm not saying any of you are doing that, but you know as well as I do there are Christians that do).

I personally think it's disturbing that many theists believe what they do, but I try hard not to insult them. You have as much right to believe what you do as I do. And I will support your right. If it makes you feel good and be a better person, then I'll support you. That being said, the reason we "care enough about the subject", is because how much control theists have in this country. Not only socially but politically also.

 

I think it's important to note that I am most probably defined as "Agnostic with Atheist leanings" at this point. Haven't been a Theist for a while now.

 

My earlier statement derives from my background in discrimination law, I guess. There are many points of view in the world to which I do not ascribe. Some I find silly, some offensive, some just plain crazy. But no matter the point of view, I've never felt I had much of a chance of insulting someone into believing what I believe. I think that would fall along the lines of trying to catch flies with vinegar.

 

You like John Stewart? I don't think we're exactly comparing apples with apples, but ridicule/mockery/satire/whatever you want to call it is actually pretty effective at making entire arguments crumble. Stewart is a master of that, penetrating absurdity with what could often be interpreted as 'insulting rhetoric'. I'll just go ahead and speak for myself, but I was brought up in an environment where Christianity wasn't scrutinized at all, much less criticized. One of the biggest shocks to the system was the day that I found there was someone who not just thought differently than me, but who thought the things I believed were ludicrous. Was it pleasant to hear someone spouting off against my religion? No. But it got me thinking.

 

For me it comes down to how it's done. My ideal is to attack the idea not the person. Problem with religion is the two are so intermingled on a personal an nonobjective level a lot of the time that any attack against a belief is considered an attack against a person. Right or wrong, it complicates things.

 

My two cents. Could be wrong.

[knapplc]

You like John Stewart? I don't think we're exactly comparing apples with apples, but ridicule/mockery/satire/whatever you want to call it is actually pretty effective at making entire arguments crumble. Stewart is a master of that, penetrating absurdity with what could often be interpreted as 'insulting rhetoric'. I'll just go ahead and speak for myself, but I was brought up in an environment where Christianity wasn't scrutinized at all, much less criticized. One of the biggest shocks to the system was the day that I found there was someone who not just thought differently than me, but who thought the things I believed were ludicrous. Was it pleasant to hear someone spouting off against my religion? No. But it got me thinking.

 

For me it comes down to how it's done. My ideal is to attack the idea not the person. Problem with religion is the two are so intermingled on a personal an nonobjective level a lot of the time that any attack against a belief is considered an attack against a person. Right or wrong, it complicates things.

 

My two cents. Could be wrong.

 

I love John Stewart. But John Stewart is a professional comedian, and his writers are among the best satirists in the business. Joe Schmoe on the internet can't compare, and frankly shouldn't try any more than I should try tight-rope walking from skyscraper to skyscraper because I saw it on TV. Satire by amateurs typically ends in disaster.

 

The key phrase you used was "got me thinking." Do you really think trying to back someone in a corner on their beliefs is the best method to make them think about your words? What's more likely - that the person in "trapped animal" mode will calmly and rationally think about what you're saying, or that they'll devolve into "fight or flight?" There's a thread around here talking about this, and in my experience it's true that for 99.999% of Internet conversations and arguments, the more belligerent the conversation the more entrenched the discussion, and the less likely people are to consider another point of view.

[bennychico11]

For me it comes down to how it's done. My ideal is to attack the idea not the person.

 

precisely! I like to equate it to talking about politics. For some reason it's okay for people to "criticize" (tastefully) other people about their political ideals. But when it comes to theistic/religious beliefs it's hands off. I don't think it should be. Like you said, criticize the idea, not the person. We should all be open to discussion.

 

and in my experience it's true that for 99.999% of Internet conversations and arguments, the more belligerent the conversation the more entrenched the discussion, and the less likely people are to consider another point of view.

 

the issue with that is it's the internet. People seem to be more bitchy when it comes to how they are on the internet. They don't have to be accountable for what they say to strangers. And so no one backs down...everyone tries to win the conversation. Backing someone into the corner isn't the way to do it. However when it comes to religion, for some, they've never considered life without it. Many just assume that belief in a supreme being is fact. They've never been questioned about their belief in a god. I think that's what Husker_X was talking about. He didn't say how that one person brought criticism to his beliefs...just that they criticized them. It didn't make him feel great at the time. But looking back, it got him thinking. I'm sure he asked himself...how/why could someone not accept his belief as fact? And I think that's what gets a lot of former Christians (now turned atheists) thinking. Trying to view their beliefs from the outside. I know that's what got me thinking.

[Ratt Mhule]

For me it comes down to how it's done. My ideal is to attack the idea not the person.

 

precisely! I like to equate it to talking about politics. For some reason it's okay for people to "criticize" (tastefully) other people about their political ideals. But when it comes to theistic/religious beliefs it's hands off. I don't think it should be. Like you said, criticize the idea, not the person. We should all be open to discussion.

 

and in my experience it's true that for 99.999% of Internet conversations and arguments, the more belligerent the conversation the more entrenched the discussion, and the less likely people are to consider another point of view.

 

the issue with that is it's the internet. People seem to be more bitchy when it comes to how they are on the internet. They don't have to be accountable for what they say to strangers. And so no one backs down...everyone tries to win the conversation. Backing someone into the corner isn't the way to do it. However when it comes to religion, for some, they've never considered life without it. Many just assume that belief in a supreme being is fact. They've never been questioned about their belief in a god. I think that's what Husker_X was talking about. He didn't say how that one person brought criticism to his beliefs...just that they criticized them. It didn't make him feel great at the time. But looking back, it got him thinking. I'm sure he asked himself...how/why could someone not accept his belief as fact? And I think that's what gets a lot of former Christians (now turned atheists) thinking. Trying to view their beliefs from the outside. I know that's what got me thinking.

 

6 years without it for me, actually probably more because I despised going to church in grade school. Went to a Catholic school K-8 and hated it and during hs and college, I didn't give two craps about God or anything that had to do with him. All I did was smoke illegal stuff and drink. So that statement most definately doesn't apply to me. I explained what made me fall back into it in another thread.