I'm fed up with religion. /rant

[Absinthe]

Without any reasoned evidence to support the idea of a religious afterlife, I find the likeliness of one existing to be exceedingly small. And that's not just some blinkered atheist stance. It simply applies the same standard of the burden of proof that we use on everything else. Claims that fail to live up to such standards are, for all practical intents and purposes, wrong. And while there's always the caveat of the unknown and the limitations of human knowledge, I think it's safe to say that if theists were proven correct, they would technically be right, albeit for all the wrong reasons.

I guess you can call that "bashing" if you really want to.

 

[Jintor]

It's 'bashing' because Religion has this magical thoughtshield around it that means that you can't offend it, because - GASP! - it's 'sacred'. SACRED! OH MY GOD, I'M SORRY, I HURT YOUR FEELINGS REGARDING YOUR PLACE IN THE WORLD.

See, every other idea must support its stance on sound, logical reasoning. Not so with religion - if you so much as question it, OH MAI GAWD, YOU'RE INSULTING MY BELIEFS.

Magical Thoughtshield. Bred into every human mind.

 

[Acepilotf14]

The fact that everything came form nothing is a little hard to believe.

Also, arguing on the internet, lol.

 

[Jintor]

The fact that everything came form nothing is a little hard to believe.

So is the idea of a big beard in the sky.

 

[Malfunction]

It's 'bashing' because Religion has this magical thoughtshield around it that means that you can't offend it, because - GASP! - it's 'sacred'. SACRED! OH MY GOD, I'M SORRY, I HURT YOUR FEELINGS REGARDING YOUR PLACE IN THE WORLD.

See, every other idea must support its stance on sound, logical reasoning. Not so with religion - if you so much as question it, OH MAI GAWD, YOU'RE INSULTING MY BELIEFS.

Magical Thoughtshield. Bred into every human mind.

****ING THANK YOU. Dawkins elaborates on this point so thoroughly in the book, and I've always realized it and it has always pissed me off.

If you want proof of this, try asking any close friend of yours about their beliefs. Chances are that they'll be reluctant to even discuss them. To me that shows that they're insecure with whether or not they really believe in anything.

Also, it's true that atheists are seen as "lower" than other social groups, which is ****ing hilarious on an epic scale. Oh, so the people who question things using logic and reasoning without diving right in and believing everything people tell them are the bad ones? Mmmk.

Finally, I'm not trying to convert people. I'm not going up into people's faces and screaming at them (though theists seem to love doing this to other people -- how ironic). I'm simply suggesting that people really examine their faith and try to reason it without relying on bullshit logic. Saying "I feel connected with God" is not a way to justify your faith. Explaining that you were "raised this way" isn't either. Neither is "HEY I DINK U SHUD RESPEKT MY BELEEFZ". I am respecting your beliefs. I'm just asking you to take a moment to see if your beliefs have any grounding whatsoever, as well as what benefits they've brought you.

I can't ****ing wait to see Religulous. It's Bill Maher's documentary/movie coming out where, to summarize the plot, he travels the world to religious hotspots with cameramen and interviews and questions tons of religious people. Maher is an outspoken atheist, and he often brutalizes religion (in general) in his stand-up comedy. Trailer:

http://www.apple.com/trailers/lions_gate/religulous/

Haha, I haven't watched that in while. He actually hits a lot of the same points we've discussed in this thread. My favorite was his Santa Claus comparison. Brilliant.

 

[Acepilotf14]

lol at people who think they're cool for calling Darwin 'Dawkins'.

 

[Jintor]

****ING THANK YOU. Dawkins elaborates on this point so thoroughly in the book, and I've always realized it and it has always pissed me off.

If you want proof of this, try asking any close friend of yours about their beliefs. Chances are that they'll be reluctant to even discuss them. To me that shows that they're insecure with whether or not they really believe in anything.

To me, that shows more that the thoughtshield in effect - but not that they're insecure about their beliefs, more that they are worried that they will offend others or somehow be offended themselves.

And Acepilot, we're talking about a different person. Richard Dawkins? Wrote the God Delusion? Ringing any bells for you, old chap?

 

[Malfunction]

lol at people who think they're cool for calling Darwin 'Dawkins'.

LOL what? I think you're confused.

Charles Darwin - guy who came up with natural selection on the Gal?pagos Islands

Richard Dawkins - English biologist famous for his books The Selfish Gene and The God Delusion

/facepalm



EDIT: I found a huge list of great anti-religion quotes. Some are extremely insightful, and others are just plain funny. Enjoy.

"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful." - Seneca the Younger

"The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one." - George Bernard Shaw

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? - Epicurus

"We must question the story logic of having an all-knowing all-powerful God, who creates faulty Humans, and then blames them for his own mistakes" - Gene Roddenberry

"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep-seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan

"With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." - Steve Wienberg

"Two hands working can do more than a thousand clasped in prayer" - Unknown

"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death" - Albert Einstein

"The church says the earth is flat, but I know that it is round, for I have seen the shadow on the moon, and I have more faith in a shadow than in the church" - Ferdinand Magellan

"It has served us well, this lie of Christ" - Pope Leo X

"George Bush says he speaks to god every day, and christians love him for it. If George Bush said he spoke to god through his hair dryer, they would think he was mad. I fail to see how the addition of a hair dryer makes it any more absurd." - Unknown

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" - Carl Sagan

"Those who believe absurdities will commit atrocities" - Voltaire

"I have examined all the known superstitions of the world, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology." - Thomas Jefferson

"The Government of the United States is in no sense founded on the Christian religion." - John Adams, 2nd President of the United States

"Religion does three things quite effectively: Divides people, Controls people, Deludes people." - Carlespie Mary Alice McKinney

"We must conduct research and then accept the results. If they don't stand up to experimentation, Buddha's own words must be rejected." - Tenzin Gyatso, 14th Dalai Lama, 1988

"History teaches us that no other cause has brought more death than the word of god." - Giulian Buzila

"An Atheist believes that a hospital should be built instead of a church. An Atheist believes that deed must be done instead of a prayer said. An Atheist strives for involvement in life and not escape into death. He wants disease conquered, poverty vaquished." - Justin Brown

"If the Bible is mistaken in telling us where we came from, how can we trust it to tell us where we're going?" - Justin Brown

"I would defend the liberty of consenting adult creationists to practice whatever intellectual perversions they like in the privacy of their own homes; but it is also necessary to protect the young and innocent." - Arthur C. Clarke

"It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan

"Believing in 'God' is just like believing Santa Claus. He is not there. The belief is just to cover up something. In God's case, it is to cover up the fear of death." - William Richtmyer

"Ask a Christian to write down the reasons why he doesnt believe in other peoples gods,then get him to apply those same reasons to his God." - Antony Saunders

 

[Qonfused]

I'll share that facepalm with you.

/facepalm

 

[Malfunction]

I'll share that facepalm with you.

/facepalm

Sorry fellow antichrist, but sharing a facepalm sounds awfully homosexual. I wouldn't want to burn in hell, now would I? We can still be friends though. :O

 

[Mr Stabby]

You seem to really hate religion, why? Do you hate everything you disagree with this much or just religion?

 

[Seagull]

i personally think that religion has wasted much human potential over the years, and is still today, and that really pisses me off tbh

 

[Malfunction]

@Mr Stabby: Why do I hate religion? Oh gee, let me just go repeat all of my posts in this thread. :/ Seriously?

No, I don't hate everything I disagree with this much. I suppose I might feel strongly about politics too. I am a very open-minded person, but you can't stay open-minded forever. I've examined the issue from all sorts of angles, and I've come to my conclusion.

Also, Seagull has the right idea.

 

[Mr Stabby]

So you hate religion because it's potentially harmful? Why make the special distinction for religion, there are non religious ideas that are harmful. Do you really believe all religion is harmful?

 

[Hellrider]

the Fact That Everything Came Form Nothing Is A Little Hard To Believe.

SO OBVIOUSLY GOD MADE IT LOLOL ITS ALL A TEST I TELL U



word.

 

[Jintor]

So you hate religion because it's potentially harmful? Why make the special distinction for religion, there are non religious ideas that are harmful. Do you really believe all religion is harmful?

He should hate everything. It's all harmful!

 

[jverne]

Acepilot, no one's trying to convert anyone, we're just trying to understand each other's beliefs.

I am a theist, Muslim to be exact, and I think it's the media's fault that everyone is screwed up about each other. I mean, Muslims are regularly labeled as bomb wielding terrorists, Christians are just being made fun of and people are starting to leave their religion, and Jews... Well, you know. In Islam, it states in the Qu'ran that it will only get worse for believers of God/Allah until it gets better. What I think is that it's just a test to see who really believes in God/Allah and will stay to their faith from the beginning to the end. Theists all believe in the same God, and seperating ourselves because of a small difference in our holy books is just stupid.

And yes, I think we shouldn't bash them and they shouldn't bash us because we'll see who's right when we die.

wait you think that you share the same god with other religions? wow...that could be a potentially awesome new religion, quick get high and write a holy book!

oh yeah...how can you be a muslim and believe you share a common god, isn't that like forbidden by islam? are you even a true muslim??






anyway...guys god damn it stop arguing if there is a god or not, but argue rather if it is necessary or practical. oh and stop arguing who was first, damn

So you hate religion because it's potentially harmful? Why make the special distinction for religion, there are non religious ideas that are harmful. Do you really believe all religion is harmful?

non religious beliefs don't usually have billions of supporters. and non religious beliefs have a core that can be destroyed, like Hitler for Nazism. religion on the other hand has a ThoughtShield(TM) which makes it impervious to all kinds of attack.

 

[Mr Stabby]

He should hate everything. It's all harmful!

No it isn't.

 

[Jintor]

I was just using a ridiculous argument, Stabby. No need to get all defensive. : /

 

[Farrowlesparrow]

Wait, wait... Lassie was a boy?
Good God, man.

 

[Malfunction]

So you hate religion because it's potentially harmful? Why make the special distinction for religion, there are non religious ideas that are harmful. Do you really believe all religion is harmful?

No, I hate religion because it is harmful.

There is no distinction, and I'm unaware that I ever made one. If you recall, this is a thread about religion, not a thread about every idea that I think is dangerous. :thumbs:

Oh, and I do believe all religion is harmful. I always hear people say "...yeah, well, at least religion gives people morals." Oh, really? So without religion everyone would be slinging shit at each other and slamming doors shut on little old ladies? It's not that certain parables that can be found in the Bible or other religious texts are worthless (see: The Good Samaritan, Jesus' Golden Rule), but they should be treated as any other [fictional] story, not some super duper totally true (swear to God! lolz) untouchable piece of literature.

Now if you'll all excuse me, I have to go perform my daily worship to the chocolate bunny rabbit in the sky. He told me I have to, otherwise I'll be forced to spend all of postmortem eternity in a chocolate-less world!

 

[Seagull]

"stop arguing if there is a god or not, but argue rather if it is necessary or practical."

if it's necessary or practical for what?

 

[Mr Stabby]

No, I hate religion because it is harmful.

There is no distinction, and I'm unaware that I ever made one. If you recall, this is a thread about religion, not a thread about every idea that I think is dangerous. :thumbs:

But all religion isn't harmful. Religion is just organized theism. Now list the inherent harm that believing in God causes universal to all religious groups.

Oh, and I do believe all religion is harmful. I always hear people say "...yeah, well, at least religion gives people morals." Oh, really? So without religion everyone would be slinging shit at each other and slamming doors shut on little old ladies? It's not that certain parables that can be found in the Bible or other religious texts are worthless, but they should be treated as any other [fictional] story, not some super duper totally true (swear to God! lolz) untouchable thing.

Now if you'll all excuse me, I have to go perform my daily worship to the chocolate bunny rabbit in the sky. He told me I have to, otherwise I'll be forced to spend all of postmortem eternity in a chocolate-less world!

So religion is irrelevant to morality, yet religion causes people to do bad things, what?

 

[Malfunction]

But all religion isn't harmful. Religion is just organized theism. Now list the inherent harm that believing in God causes universal to all religious groups.



So religion is irrelevant to morality, yet religion causes people to do bad things, what?

The "inherent harm" is believing in some magical deity that is the supreme being of the universe. That shit is detrimental to intelligence, and frankly I don't care if you disagree. It's just wonderful that we live in 2008 and believing in miracles and gods is still socially acceptable.

I didn't say religion is irrelevant to morality whatsoever. Shit, I even referenced two pieces from the Bible that shows it advocates good morals. My argument is that people fall back on the idea that without any religion we would be without good morals (hence the extravagant example of slinging shit and slamming doors on old ladies).

 

[Mr Stabby]

The "inherent harm" is believing in some magical deity that is the supreme being of the universe. That shit is detrimental to intelligence, and frankly I don't care if you disagree. It's just wonderful that we live in 2008 and believing in miracles and gods is still socially acceptable.

It's irrelevant to intelligence, there have been many theists far smarter than you. So please list some actuals reasons why all religion is harmful.

I didn't say religion is irrelevant to morality whatsoever. Shit, I even referenced two pieces from the Bible that shows it advocates good morals. My argument is that people fall back on the idea that without any religion we would be without good morals (hence the extravagant example of slinging shit and slamming doors on old ladies).

If an atheists morals are irrelevant to religious scripture why are theists' morals defined purely by religious scriptures?

It is ridiculous to say that without the bible people wouldn't have morals, but it's also ridiculous to say that religious people all have the same morality, so you can't blame the terrible things some religious people do on religious morality. Yes religion can affect some people to do bad things, but those people already had bad morals.

 

[Malfunction]

It's irrelevant to intelligence, there have been many theists far smarter than you. So please list some actuals reasons why all religion is harmful.



If an atheists morals are irrelevant to religious scripture why are theists' morals defined purely by religious scriptures?

It is ridiculous to say that without the bible people wouldn't have morals, but it's also ridiculous to say that religious people all have the same morality, so you can't blame the terrible things some religious people do on religious morality. Yes religion can affect some people to do bad things, but those people already had bad morals.

Eh, I literally just answered your question, but once again: it is my opinion (and many many other people's opinions) that believing in a deity is silly and no different than Santa Claus or any other imaginary superbeing. Believing in such a thing is hardly intelligent. That doesn't mean everyone who is religious is instantly mentally challenged, it simply means I think they're dumb. One reason I raise this point (this is getting really really repetitive) is that if I were to suddenly declare myself a follower of the Supreme Chocolate Bunny, and apply all of the same attributes of a god to him/her/it, I would be laughed at, mocked, and ridiculed, so how is that any different than believing in any other god? It's not, and that's why religion is dumb.

You missed the point, yet again. A theist's morals aren't defined purely by religious scriptures. I was merely bringing up that I've encountered the argument [many times] before that without religion humans would be without morals. You seem to agree that such a claim is retarded, so I don't see why we're arguing.

No, not every religious person is just waiting for the right moment to go on a murderous rampage. There are, however, clear connections between religions and violence, as seen throughout history. It just puts me off.

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

Eh, I literally just answered your question, but once again: it is my opinion (and many many other people's opinions) that believing in a deity is silly and no different than Santa Claus or any other imaginary superbeing. Believing in such a thing is hardly intelligent. That doesn't mean everyone who is religious is instantly mentally challenged, it simply means I think they're dumb.

So you think galileo, da vinci, newton and many many others are dumb?

 

[Mr Stabby]

Eh, I literally just answered your question, but once again: it is my opinion (and many many other people's opinions) that believing in a deity is silly and no different than Santa Claus or any other imaginary superbeing. Believing in such a thing is hardly intelligent. That doesn't mean everyone who is religious is instantly mentally challenged, it simply means I think they're dumb. One reason I raise this point (this is getting really really repetitive) is that if I were to suddenly declare myself a follower of the Supreme Chocolate Bunny, and apply all of the same attributes of a god to him/her/it, I would be laughed at, mocked, and ridiculed, so how is that any different than believing in any other god? It's not, and that's why religion is dumb.

Is believing in Santa or ghosts harmful? I don't care if it's stupid, I care if it's harmful.

You missed the point, yet again. A theist's morals aren't defined purely by religious scriptures. I was merely bringing up that I've encountered the argument [many times] before that without religion humans would be without morals. You seem to agree that such a claim is retarded, so I don't see why we're arguing.

It's a common argument when claiming religion is harmful, one Dawkins makes all the time, that religion causes good people to do bad things.

No, not every religious person is just waiting for the right moment to go on a murderous rampage. There are, however, clear connections between religions and violence, as seen throughout history. It just puts me off.

It isn't that clear cut that religion is violent. The causes of the Crusades, inquisitions and counter reformation are a lot more complicated than just religion.

non religious beliefs don't usually have billions of supporters. and non religious beliefs have a core that can be destroyed, like Hitler for Nazism. religion on the other hand has a ThoughtShield(TM) which makes it impervious to all kinds of attack.

Nazism no longer exist because Hitler is dead? Why is a supporter of religion any more irrational than a supported of communism or racism, when the evidence is against them?

 

[jverne]

"stop arguing if there is a god or not, but argue rather if it is necessary or practical."

if it's necessary or practical for what?

for a god to exist.

once humanity will solve the problem of short life, then religion will lose it's meaning.
and does god somehow prevent us from manipulating nature (god alone, not his stupid worshipers)? no he doesn't. so even if there is a god, he is just lying there watching us...so what.

seriously...today some people see a natural disaster as the wrath of god, once we can manipulate planet earth what then? explosion of our sun...yeah we'll conquer that eventually, then what galaxies colliding? probably solve that too. so what god just keeps raising the limit??

 

[PvtRyan]

Is believing in Santa or ghosts harmful? I don't care if it's stupid, I care if it's harmful.

Yes, it's harmful at it's very core. It teaches people that it's good to believe something unconditionally. It teaches that asking questions is wrong, that criticism is unwanted and that you should accept things as they are because "God wants it". It provides easy, but false, answers rather than motivate someone to seek out the real truth. In short: it rewards irrational thinking and punishes rational thought. I would say that's fairly harmful.

Where would we be if everyone had just sat back and saw God's hand in everything rather than try to truly understand the world itself? While scientists like Newton were religious, it wasn't because of religion that they achieved what they did, it's in spite of. As Neil deGrass explains in the video below, when Newton - one of the most brilliant people to have ever exist - got stuck in his research, he said "well, I can't figure it out, it must be God that did it". Newton, the smartest person to have ever lived, invoked intelligent design! Religion stumps the collection of knowledge.


While in practice it's not very often that harmful, that's not because religion isn't harmful, it's because people are not often as religious as the religion wants them to be. So essentially, the less religious you are, the better.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?d...365&q=neil+degrasse&ei=iSaLSOL-JpfcjQK82M3XCA

 

[Farrowlesparrow]

Yes, it's harmful at it's very core. It teaches people that it's good to believe something unconditionally. It teaches that asking questions is wrong, that criticism is unwanted and that you should accept things as they are because "God wants it". It provides easy, but false, answers rather than motivate someone to seek out the real truth. In short: it rewards irrational thinking and punishes rational thought. I would say that's fairly harmful.

Or is it?

AS CHRISTMAS DAY draws near, parents across the world set the stage for the arrival of Santa Claus. It is a time-honoured cultural conspiracy that most of us grew up with; a tradition that makes Christmas a magical time for youngsters. But is it really just harmless fun? Is it right to systematically deceive children, only to shatter the illusion later?

The deception may have been around for centuries, but these days it goes far beyond simple storytelling. There are still letters to Santa and visits to his grotto, but now kids can fly to Lapland for a private session with Santa, receive emails and personalised video messages from Santa's workshop, and use the internet to track his progress around the globe. Yet even as the Santa myth grows ever stronger, many modern parents are growing uncertain, says Dale McGowan, a "critical thinking" educator based in Atlanta, Georgia.

Tom Flynn, editor of the secular humanist magazine Free Inquiry, believes it is unfair to trick children with stories of a magical gift-giver, reinforced by "evidence", such as empty glasses of milk and half-eaten mince pies by the Christmas tree. "Adults often stage elaborate deceptions, laying traps for the children's developing intellect," Flynn says. Worse, parents may threaten youngsters with Santa's wrath if they misbehave, or punish them if they share their suspicions with their siblings. "It encourages lazy parenting and promotes unhealthy fear," he says.

To top it all, Flynn reckons the myth makes children more acquisitive and selfish and he cites a study of children's letters to Santa, which were filled with demands for material things. The only good thing, he concludes, is that unmasking Santa might help to inoculate kids against supernatural beliefs. In his best-seller, The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins makes a similar point. "Natural selection builds child brains with a tendency to believe whatever their parents tell them," he writes. Children should "toss God aside at about the same age that they toss Santa Claus aside".

The difference is, of course, that even children of religious parents are meant to figure out that Santa isn't real. So how should parents go about coming clean without scarring their offspring for life? "This culturally pervasive myth is designed with an expiration date," says McGowan, who edited a new self-help guide, Parenting Beyond Belief. When children start to ask questions about Santa, parents should encourage them to air their doubts and reason it out for themselves. McGowan isn't convinced that uncovering the lie does children any harm. "My son was relieved when he'd worked it out - the world made sense again."

In fact, while children may seem gullible, they actually have a better grip on the distinction between fantasy and reality than most people realise, says psychologist Jacqueline Woolley of the University of Texas, Austin. "We found that from the age of 4 children use many of the same cues adults use to distinguish fantasy from reality."

To give your eyes a rest, here is a morris dancer.

So if children are so smart, why do they believe in Santa Claus, almost universally, from the age of 3 until they are 7 or 8? Woolley believes it's because the adults they count on to provide reliable information about the world introduce them to Santa. Then friends, books, TV and movies shore up that belief, along with the "hard evidence" planted by their parents.

Only when the adults stop reinforcing the story does it crumble, she says. "Children do a great job of scientifically evaluating Santa, and adults do a great job of duping them," she says. "As we gradually withdraw our support for the myth, and children piece together the truth, their view of Santa aligns with ours," she argues. "Perhaps it is this kinship with the adult world that prevents children from feeling anger over having been misled."

Reassuringly, most children seem to cope with their disillusionment remarkably well, and may even experience a sense of achievement at having worked it out for themselves. It is the parents who feel sad when the truth is out, says Carl Anderson, an educational psychologist also at the University of Texas, Austin, who interviewed 52 children who no longer believed in Santa Claus. In his study, "parental encouragement for the child to believe was very strong, but children generally discovered the truth on their own at the age of 7".

It's when parents continue the deception for too long that trouble looms. "Children may be more ready to give up the Santa myth than their parents are," says Bruce Henderson, a child psychologist at Western Carolina University in Cullowhee, North Carolina. "Let the child provide the cues," he says.

Some researchers believe that this festive skulduggery could actually benefit children. "Maintaining nice fantasies is part of a long tradition, part of growing up," says Pat Doorbar, an independent child psychologist based in north Wales. "I don't think it is lying; it's making up a very pleasant story to help children enjoy an experience."

Belief in Santa can also be beneficial in helping children develop a healthy imagination, argues Cindy Dell Clark, a cultural psychologist at Penn State University at Brandywine. She has studied chronically ill children and finds that they use their capacity to suspend disbelief as a means of coping.

John Kremer, reader in psychology at Queen's University Belfast in the UK, agrees. "Santa Claus is part of the mythology of childhood, which is full of white lies," he says, and Santa may have a useful social role to play. Kremer cites the work of the American psychologist George Homans, who argued decades ago that all social relationships are based on reciprocity and the balancing of rewards and cost. This is starkly revealed at Christmas, says Kremer. Each gift must be carefully matched in value with another, each card must be met with a card, or you risk embarrassment or worse. "Children find themselves in this intricate web of exchange without the necessary social skills, nor indeed the resources, to become active participants."

Santa is the perfect solution. "Because Santa gives presents to children but expects nothing in return, he protects them from the minefield of social exchange known as Christmas," Kremer says. "This allows children to learn the ropes of gift-giving, without having to play an active role."

Of course, it is probably no coincidence that the Santa myth - what Kremer calls "this unique secular product of western capitalism" - lends itself so neatly to materialism. Believing in a nice man who brings you expensive gifts is a neat introduction to the materialistic culture you will grow into. This, Kremer says, explains "the massive popularity of the story of Santa Claus, and the perplexing question as to why we should encourage those in our care to believe, often despite whispered misgivings".

It may seem depressing to start children on the road to materialism at such a tender age, but consider the alternative. You could resist the tide of commercialism and limit Santa's gifts to the traditional orange and sweets in a stocking. Trouble is, it may not bring you much in the way of peace and goodwill.

Edit: Isaac Newton had a few truly wonderful ideas, but he was a crackpot too.

 

[Mr Stabby]

Where would we be if everyone had just sat back and saw God's hand in everything rather than try to truly understand the world itself? While scientists like Newton were religious, it wasn't because of religion that they achieved what they did, it's in spite of. As Neil deGrass explains in the video below, when Newton - one of the most brilliant people to have ever exist - got stuck in his research, he said "well, I can't figure it out, it must be God that did it". Newton, the smartest person to have ever lived, invoked intelligent design! Religion stumps the collection of knowledge.

If Newton didn't know the naturalistic explanation for something and invoked God to fill the gap, I don't see the harm in it. It's different had he seen evidence to support a naturalistic explanation and dismissed it because if contradicted his religious beliefs, then in that case religion would be harmful, but that isn't what happened. Galileo a devout catholic didn't ignore the planetary movements that contradicted the geocentric seven heavenly bodies concept, even though that's what the catholic church said was true.

To say that religious people would just accept that God did everything and not try and understand things is not true. Most scientists before the 20th century were religious.

If someone did ignore evidence due to their religious beliefs, I doubt they would have been much use as a scientist.

 

[Krynn72]

If Newton didn't know the naturalistic explanation for something and invoked God to fill the gap, I don't see the harm in it.

Really? You dont see the harm in a scientist who gives up looking for an explanation for something? If he'd kept on studying it, rather than saying "oh, I guess god just did it" then he might have come to a revelation about it, thus advancing our knowledge of the universe and pushing science further.

It's different had he seen evidence to support a naturalistic explanation and dismissed it because if contradicted his religious beliefs, then in that case religion would be harmful, but that isn't what happened. Galileo a devout catholic didn't ignore the planetary movements that contradicted the geocentric seven heavenly bodies concept, even though that's what the catholic church said was true.

To say that religious people would just accept that God did everything and not try and understand things is not true. Most scientists before the 20th century were religious.

If someone did ignore evidence due to their religious beliefs, I doubt they would have been much use as a scientist.

You should read things more slowly.

While scientists like Newton were religious, it wasn't because of religion that they achieved what they did, it's in spite of...


While in practice it's not very often that harmful, that's not because religion isn't harmful, it's because people are not often as religious as the religion wants them to be. So essentially, the less religious you are, the better.

 

[Mr Stabby]

Really? You dont see the harm in a scientist who gives up looking for an explanation for something? If he'd kept on studying it, rather than saying "oh, I guess god just did it" then he might have come to a revelation about it, thus advancing our knowledge of the universe and pushing science further.

Or he gave up because he couldn't explain it, which he could have done just as easily had he been and atheist, many scientists have given up on problems they couldn't explain. Your just speculating he might have worked it out had he been determined to do so, clutching at straws to show religion is inherently harmful.

Even if it is possible that theism may undermine a scientist's ability to find a naturalistic explanation to a problem by allowing them to invoke God. Is that a good reason to hate all religion?

You should read things more slowly.

I'm not following you, he said religion is harmful to scientific ability, I say it's irrelevant.

 

[Krynn72]

Or he gave up because he couldn't explain it, which he could have done just as easily had he been and atheist, many scientists have given up on problems they couldn't explain. Your just speculating he might have worked it out had he been determined to do so, clutching at straws to show religion is inherently harmful.

Even if it is possible that theism may undermine a scientist's ability to find a naturalistic explanation to a problem by allowing them to invoke God. Is that a good reason to hate all religion?

You're making assumptions now. I'd wager that very few scientists have given up on problems just because they couldnt explain it. Scientists strive their whole lives to understand the world, and they dont just give up when they cant figure something out.

And no, that alone is not a good reason, but it is one of many reasons to disapprove of all religions.

I'm not following you, he said religion is harmful to scientific ability, I say it's irrelevant.

He said that the reason those few scientists were exceptional in their progress in spite of their religion, and because they werent as devotedly religious as others.

 

[Malfunction]

Yeah, I call bullshit on that claim as well. Scientists enjoy investigating the unknown. It's their passion to make discoveries and learn things. Any scientist who just gives up and claims that a god must have taken care of it isn't much of a scientist at all.

 

[Mr Stabby]

You're making assumptions now. I'd wager that very few scientists have given up on problems just because they couldnt explain it. Scientists strive their whole lives to understand the world, and they dont just give up when they cant figure something out.

Then why do they give up? Most scientists don't work to the death to explain things that they can't. Scientists are like normal people, if they find something to difficult they eventually give up. IIRC the thing Laplace worked out that Newton couldn't required a new from of math that Newton didn't know about.

And no, that alone is not a good reason, but it is one of many reasons to disapprove of all religions.

Still quite a trivial reason. Considering all the anger religion invokes on this site.

He said that the reason those few scientists were exceptional in their progress in spite of their religion, and because they werent as devotedly religious as others.

I never claimed they were good scientists because they were religious, I said their religion was irrelevant to their ability to be scientists. Newton and Galileo were very religious. It makes no sense that Newton would challenge conventional religious views about God's role in the world some of the time, then not others purely due to his religion.

 

[Acepilotf14]

Entire thread in a nutshell:
'You suck.'
'No, you suck.'
'Here's why you suck: ....'
'That's not true.'
'Yes, it is.'
'Here's why it's not true.....'
'But Darwin sed....'
'Well he sucks.'
'No, you suck.'

 

[Eejit]

Your ability to follow a debate is poor.

 

[Acepilotf14]

I only read pages 1-6, 12, and a few sentences of this one.

Fine, here's a more accurate description:
tl;dr