The Pope

[vx220]

My old CO had a slightly different view of things, we got chatting one night in the officers mess and after some serious russian vodka got onto the topic of religion etc and his view was that there was a higher "god" as it were but we were all reincarnated, so once we died we were then judged on what we did in the previous life and was reincarnated into another creature, it could be human, dog, cat anything!

He was totally 101% convinced of this and his "faith" was rock solid!

A different perspective as he didnt prayer or worship anyone or anything but believed he had to live his life the right way as he would be judged once he died!

[Stumpy Nugget]

My old CO had a slightly different view of things, we got chatting one night in the officers mess and after some serious russian vodka got onto the topic of religion etc and his view was that there was a higher "god" as it were but we were all reincarnated, so once we died we were then judged on what we did in the previous life and was reincarnated into another creature, it could be human, dog, cat anything!

He was totally 101% convinced of this and his "faith" was rock solid!

A different perspective as he didnt prayer or worship anyone or anything but believed he had to live his life the right way as he would be judged once he died!

Sounds like buddism... My name is Earl sort of religion.

What about this... We are all energy and energy cannot be destroyed. It can be transformed but not destroyed.. so when we die where does the energy go...

I believe in the fact that we dont know anything about anything and I live my life in the fact that nothing matters other than the morals and virtues that I place on myself and my way of life... 2+2 = 4 because some old dead dude wrote it down and it seemed like a good idea at the time. BAH!!! Life is too short...

[graeme]

How do I equate the demonstrable good the Chuch does with the misguided (I'm being nice) belief structure I believe to be at its core?
I don't. It's a dichotomy I struggle to rationalise.

OK, this might sound a bit atheist preachy/converty, so please just bear with me. I'm not saying that churchgoers are bad here, and that should be clear by then end of this page.

The church does not do good. People do good, and the church takes the credit. It has been proven time and again that religious people do not get their moral guidance from their religion (although many *think* they do, because that's what they've been taught). It's a very good thing too, as the Bible (and the other monotheistic texts) is full of horrible, sickening moral guidance, and Yahweh is nasty piece of work indeed!

We think of the church as doing good because the church steals credit for the good that churchgoers do. Everything is done "in God's name" and any act of kindness is described as "a Christian act". It's all nonsense. There's no such thing as a Christian act (except for praying and churchgoing). Think about it, if the only reason churchgoers have for doing good is because their religion tells them to, then they're not very nice people are they? How come the non-churchgoers manage to do good without a church to tell them what to do? Doesn't that make the non-religious good-doers better people than the religious ones?

The most interesting experiment I've read of (I can probably dig out some references if you like) is to ask the same list of increasingly tricky moral questions to different groups of people. It was found that you get the same answers to those questions whether you ask Christians, Muslims, atheists, agnostics or any number of Amazonian tribes who've never even heard of the concept of religion. Basically, we as humans do not get our moral guidance from religion. We're already genetically programmed with it, and every moral decision we make has an evolutionary reason. Removing the church from the equation would not change a thing. In fact, it might help things if our natural instincts were not used by those with agenda...for example Haiti, which was at the time struggling for logistical bandwidth in the form of ATC, runways, hangers, storage, distribution, received a large shipment of solar-powered audio bibles. How is that supposed to help anything? The urge to help was there, but the church screwed it up for its own means. Also, a number of atheist organisations contributed aid too. I know, because I donated through them so that I knew my donation would not end up paying for bibles or sermons or a mission.

As for the belief structure, most theists don't actually believe it. So few have a clue what is actually written in their text of choice, and when confronted with all the nasty stuff, they just say, "Oh, well, we don't take it literally..." Religions evolve into tiny little denominations, a bit like latin becoming French and Italian, and then a thousand local language dialects. People change them to suit their own needs, and everyone thinks theirs is normal until they hear somebody far away speaking differently. So, if things can change as people and locality influence them, maybe someday those same people will realise that it all comes from within, and the weekly book club actually isn't necessary.

The denominations who allow things to flex and change and localise and modernise are the sane ones. The absolutists and literalists are the ignorant, dangerous ones. "My Bible is definitive!" Well, did you know that actually there are many versions of your Bible and most of them are full of mistranslations and contradictions, which would make yours the least likely to contain any literal truth? "Doesn't matter... mine's the definitive one, and that slightly different denomination down the road are all going to burn in hell!"

Anyway, There's little fun to be had arguing with literalists and absolutists, and very few theists are literalists anyway. Most chuchgoers don't follow the bible word for word, but see it as a guide. They dismiss the bits they don't like (such as offering up your daughter to gang rape, or burning her as an offering). It's much more interesting to find our why they insist on clinging to the bits that they do like. It's a massive catch 22 that most theists I've spoken to don't even realise.

1) The bible is a moral compass.
2) The bible contains some good moral lessons and a lot of bad ones.
3) When reading it, we have to decide which ones to follow and which not to.
4) That requires a moral compass. Goto 1.

If we didn't have a moral compass already programmed into us we'd all be out stoning homosexuals to death. If we already have one, why bother with the Bible? We're agreed it's not factual or historically accurate, and most are agreed it's not to be taken literally in any way, and we've shown we don't need a moral compass because we already have one of those. What's left?

The only thing left is the explaination of why we are here and where we go when we die. Even if there is a creator (it's my view that there is not), the Bible does a very poor job of describing him. There are some who believe in a creator because the bible says so, but many just have that "feeling" that there must be. I have that feeling too, but science does a lot more to make me understand what that feeling is than the bible does. The bible offers no explainations of anything to do with creation, unless you want to believe genesis, and very few Christians I've talked to take Genesis literally.
So, science can answer why we're here far more elegantly (to the point of absolute pure wondrous awe-inspiring beauty), but can it answer where we go when we die? Well, yes, but the answer is not satisfying. As far as science can determine, we go nowhere. I've been unconscious on the operating table, and it's very nothing. It's not like sleep... sleep is something, unconscious is void, null, nothing. I think that's what death is like, and I'm cool with that. I can understand why for some people that's not a very comforting view.

So, why are we here? Ask science.
How should I live my life? Ask your inner moral compass - we all have one.
What happened a couple of thousand years ago? Ask a historian or archeologist, not a theologist.
How was the earth created? Ask science.
Where did life come from? Ask science, then ask Darwin. The answer is so awe-inspiringly simple and beautiful that it makes the Bible's creation story look like a crayon scribble in the middle of The Louvre. If it's the answer to that nagging feeling in your gut that you seek, I assure you natural selection is the light.


So, the only reason I see which I can reasonably understand why somebody might want to be religious is that they want to believe there is life after death. Science has an answer, but it doesn't suit our elevated view of our own importance in the universe. If anyone tells me they are religious for any other reason (excluding ones which I've never thought of or haven't come up in conversations), then it pretty much boils down to lack of research. God is a poor moral compass, a pathetic explanation for why we are here, the bible is useless as a historical document. More people would realise that if they were not threatened weekly not to question what they are being told, or forever burn in hell. So, exactly what good does the church do again?

[Shug]

You're suggesting that a simplistic salve to people's worries (however false) isn't a good thing for the general masses who won't think further than what they're told? It exists, human nature is overlaid on it's teachings, so that one and the other cross over (when we all know it's just human nature) If there are those who need this view of the world to function, so be it. Destroy it and there'd only be another overridding story that excuses and directs the evils (and goods) of the world.

Human nature is just that, natural.

[roadboy]

Well there's the logic. Just waiting for the "blind faith" answer now.

As Robin said in the other thread. This debate will never go anywhere as you can't apply logic to faith so it simply comes down to "I believe and you don't".

Dan

[BigD]

I thought of putting this in a PM but,

Big D

I talk about this stuff with friends and it's become a sport. They are trying to convert me, I am trying to get them to see the truth.

If you find me genuinely offensive the accepted reply is something along the ines of "You are going to burn in hell you atheist c-nt. And I'm not gonna plead for you."

Or in other words if I offend you, tell me to f-ck off.

It's not personal for me, it might be for you. And it's not for me to judge if that is appropriate.

I don't see it as a sport and I am not trying to convert anyone. I don't find you offensive at all, you are entitled to think how you like. I am by no means the most religious person in the world however I have seen the good the Church does for people. Whether that is support in times of need, just somewhere to go and meet friends, have a sing along and a bit of fun or whatever it does help people. I have not read the whole bible and so cannot and would not preach that to anyone. I've always seen religion as a guide. Do unto others......... The problem is that there are many who think they are Christian (or whatever) and do not act that way at all, maybe they think they will be forgiven. And then try and preach to others as if they are better. That part of religion I can't be doing with, which is why I have no time for some sects of Christianity.

How do I equate the demonstrable good the Chuch does with the misguided (I'm being nice) belief structure I believe to be at its core?
I don't. It's a dichotomy I struggle to rationalise.

Demonsrable: dichotomy: too many big words for me there can you keep it in plain english for me please?

You have still not answered my original query though which was to try and get what you were saying in your original post. Are you saying that all believers in God (not extremists) should not hold a position of authority and have the ability at any point to kill themselves and innocent people because of a whisper in their ear. I would call them mental patients not religious.

But ask yourself this. Forget about your faith and look at it from the point of view of someone who doesn't have faith.
Now be interviewing for a job and have a candidate who explains to you they believe in magic, that there is a book they use to guide their life which features incest, rape, misogeny, human sacrifice, slavery, (all from the good guys) and then moves on to a day when the world will end and people will be bodily taken into heaven. That in this book people hear voices and those voices are the voice of god and they must be obeyed.

You gonna give him a job?

Again you have taken an extreme example of someone who believes the bible (or book of magic in your example) is going to tell them to blow someone up. Most Christians I know are not like that and the Bible generally helps them do good or help them get through a difficult time in their life. Who am I/you to tell them that it’s rubbish. Surely they are entitled to their views/beliefs too?

We do practice and attempt to further equality.

Unless the people you are working for are religious, in which case you do not want them there as they may blow you up at any moment. A touch hypocritical I think.

When it comes down to what bothers me - well, there it's slightly more confused. You see, I believe this factionism is an integral part of human nature, like breathing or the desire to breed. So, if there was no religion in the world, we'd be killing and persecuting each other in the names of other things. There is a chunk of religion that is positive - the ground level teachings of basic morality and care - lets be honest, whilst these would initially have been invented to control a barbaric population, how far is society really away from that barbarism today? Just witness race riots and mob action to see that there is still a huge proportion of the populace that needs to be told not to kill each other...

Very well put Shug.

It was found that you get the same answers to those questions whether you ask Christians, Muslims, atheists, agnostics or any number of Amazonian tribes who've never even heard of the concept of religion. Basically, we as humans do not get our moral guidance from religion. We're already genetically programmed with it, and every moral decision we make has an evolutionary reason. Removing the church from the equation would not change a thing. In fact, it might help things if our natural instincts were not used by those with agenda...for example Haiti, which was at the time struggling for logistical bandwidth in the form of ATC, runways, hangers, storage, distribution, received a large shipment of solar-powered audio bibles.

But if you believe that we are all made in God’s image then that would explain where instinct came from would it not?

[graeme]

...

The Human race is a tribal culture - evolution has seen to it that, so survive, we've had to band together to live alongside individually more powerful creatures. This tribalism inevitably leads to factions developing - it's just a larger view of natural selection, instead of the strongest individual, it's the strongest group.

...

With countless generations indoctrinated from birth into 'Faith', it becomes part of the fabric of humankind. Through it all, tribalism is maintained. Were it not a "God" it'd be something else we'd be fighting over.

...

When it comes down to what bothers me - well, there it's slightly more confused. You see, I believe this factionism is an integral part of human nature, like breathing or the desire to breed. So, if there was no religion in the world, we'd be killing and persecuting each other in the names of other things. There is a chunk of religion that is positive - the ground level teachings of basic morality and care - lets be honest, whilst these would initially have been invented to control a barbaric population, how far is society really away from that barbarism today? Just witness race riots and mob action to see that there is still a huge proportion of the populace that needs to be told not to kill each other...

So basically, the problem isn't religion - it's Human Nature. Religion is just the formalisation of it.

Shug,

Nice one on separating why religion exists from why it persists. Two different topics and two different reasons.

I think you're probably right on why it exists... it was just trying to explain stuff we couldn't explain yet. This has been proven experimentally by watching modern religions spring up at the first sign of something inexplicable to those observing it. The best example I can think of is the cargo cults which sprang up all over any island (independently of each other) that was visited by white man in a cargo ship. The natives who had never seen ships or white men before witnessed those ships depart with broken goods, and return with fixed goods and lots of food and supplies. The natives immediately assumed that the ships were transport from God (because they had no other explanation of who else might be repairing broken things or sending plentiful supplies). This has been observed relatively recently, sort of 50 years ago. David Attenborough did a documentary on it which was awesome. Basically, you can turn up at a previously uncontacted island with some modern technology (Clarke's 3rd law: any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic) and literally watch a religion form from nowhere and watch how it spreads and persists. Amazing.

Why religion should persist is definitely an evolutionary misfiring, but your take on it doesn't quite match what I've read (and what I believe is generally accepted). I don't think religion is the mechanism by which we choose to continue our inter-tribal fighting. It's a wee bit more than that.

In our early days, we wandered not even as tribes, but as family packs. Everyone in our group would be genetically close enough to us for us to have a vested evolutionary interest in their survival (or rather the survival of their genes - see Dawkins' The Selfish Gene). It was in those early days we developed a lot of our instincts to look out for our fellow humans, because really we were looking out for our own genes, which is what we're here for. The lessons we learned to apply universally to everyone we see still apply now that we live in big cities with other families who carry none of our genes. It's a genetic misfiring. Consider the instinct to adopt a helpless child. In modern times, this cannot possible help us replicate the genes we carry, because the child isn't ours. We still feel the strong need to help it because of those early days in family packs where every child we saw was carrying our genes in some way. Fascinating...

So, basically the point is that we can't distinguish any more between instincts learned in a family unit which should only apply to a family unit, because when we learned them there wasn't really anything but the family unit. The key instinct is that of trusting what we are taught.

Back in our family pack days, we learned that what the people around us tell us is fact. Those people are all invested in our survival, without exception. We don't question it, because questioning it could get you killed. If mummy teaches us "red berries bad sick death", we don't question that (or those who do are quickly removed from the gene pool). Carry that on to modern times and we don't question what we were brought up to believe whether it comes from our direct family group or not. Religion plays on this. We can't distinguish between what mummy says and what that man in the pulpit says. We're not programmed to reailse that the man in the pulpit has no evolutionary reason to tell them the truth for their own good because we don't carry his genes.

Waring between religions sort of fits with defending our tribe, but not really. We wouldn't attack another tribe unless they attacked us first. The game theory just doesn't work for me. I clearly don't have a very good understanding of why religions fight each other, but I don't think it's just to persist our tribal instincts. You have definitely highlighted something I want to look deeper into...

[vx220]

Surely religion was just introduced by man as a control mechanism over those around him. The more intelligent trying to control the mob, stands to logic!

[graeme]

It was found that you get the same answers to those questions whether you ask Christians, Muslims, atheists, agnostics or any number of Amazonian tribes who've never even heard of the concept of religion. Basically, we as humans do not get our moral guidance from religion. We're already genetically programmed with it, and every moral decision we make has an evolutionary reason. Removing the church from the equation would not change a thing. In fact, it might help things if our natural instincts were not used by those with agenda...for example Haiti, which was at the time struggling for logistical bandwidth in the form of ATC, runways, hangers, storage, distribution, received a large shipment of solar-powered audio bibles.

But if you believe that we are all made in God’s image then that would explain where instinct came from would it not?

Wow, they zapped you good and proper at Sunday School, didn't they?

OK, if we're all created in God's image, presumably that includes you, a Christian, and me, an atheist. So, God's image both believes in himself, and doesn't, ergo God both believes in himself and doesn't. If you want to go further, God both exists and doesn't. That's one confused deity you got there! I don't mind though... it's my "get out of jail free card". I don't have to explain my atheism at the pearly gates, because I was created with a lack of faith. God's mistake, not mine. I'll just waltz up and say, "Hey, not my fault dude... you made me that way!" and in I go to collect my toga, grapes and a few harp lessons.

[Shug]

Waring between religions sort of fits with defending our tribe, but not really. We wouldn't attack another tribe unless they attacked us first. The game theory just doesn't work for me. I clearly don't have a very good understanding of why religions fight each other, but I don't think it's just to persist our tribal instincts. You have definitely highlighted something I want to look deeper into...

Where you run into the old issue of Religion clouding history. To investigate the 'real' reason for inter-religious fighting, you have to try and decipher history - impossible when history is written by the winner ( (c) Modern Warfare 2 ) My take is simply the most convenient in my mind as a universal root cause - even though its much more complex.

An interesting debate, but (as Robin and others point out) it's stuck in it's own feedback loop, so I'm not sure where continued discussions could go on it.

[graeme]

Surely religion was just introduced by man as a control mechanism over those around him. The more intelligent trying to control the mob, stands to logic!

Well, that's partly it, but not the full story. The cargo cults do indeed show that the guy who claims to be able to talk to the ship god and bringer of cargo does hold authority in the community, but I'm not sure how that translates into control. Need to follow that up. Does he use his position of religious leader to manipulate? I can't recall...

[graeme]

Waring between religions sort of fits with defending our tribe, but not really. We wouldn't attack another tribe unless they attacked us first. The game theory just doesn't work for me. I clearly don't have a very good understanding of why religions fight each other, but I don't think it's just to persist our tribal instincts. You have definitely highlighted something I want to look deeper into...

Where you run into the old issue of Religion clouding history. To investigate the 'real' reason for inter-religious fighting, you have to try and decipher history - impossible when history is written by the winner ( (c) Modern Warfare 2 ) My take is simply the most convenient in my mind as a universal root cause - even though its much more complex.

An interesting debate, but (as Robin and others point out) it's stuck in it's own feedback loop, so I'm not sure where continued discussions could go on it.

I've already had value from it... I need to read up on why religions fight with each other (in terms of natural selection) and whether there is scientific evidence of religious leaders using their position to manipulate and control their followers (and I mean proper evidence).

Again, I cannot understand this natural disposition towards labeling the whole thing "logic vs faith" and forgetting about it. I agree there's no value to be had from shouting across the fence until one side or the other gives up... you get that kind of chat everywhere and for me it just gets filtered out as noise. Similarly, there's no value to be had from the approach of avoiding the topic just because it's a bit noisy. Understanding faith (especially when you have none) is far more interesting than just ignoring it.

[BigD]

It was found that you get the same answers to those questions whether you ask Christians, Muslims, atheists, agnostics or any number of Amazonian tribes who've never even heard of the concept of religion. Basically, we as humans do not get our moral guidance from religion. We're already genetically programmed with it, and every moral decision we make has an evolutionary reason. Removing the church from the equation would not change a thing. In fact, it might help things if our natural instincts were not used by those with agenda...for example Haiti, which was at the time struggling for logistical bandwidth in the form of ATC, runways, hangers, storage, distribution, received a large shipment of solar-powered audio bibles.

But if you believe that we are all made in God’s image then that would explain where instinct came from would it not?

Wow, they zapped you good and proper at Sunday School, didn't they?

OK, if we're all created in God's image, presumably that includes you, a Christian, and me, an atheist. So, God's image both believes in himself, and doesn't, ergo God both believes in himself and doesn't. If you want to go further, God both exists and doesn't. That's one confused deity you got there! I don't mind though... it's my "get out of jail free card". I don't have to explain my atheism at the pearly gates, because I was created with a lack of faith. God's mistake, not mine. I'll just waltz up and say, "Hey, not my fault dude... you made me that way!" and in I go to collect my toga, grapes and a few harp lessons.

Nope never went to Sunday School and I have never actually said whether or not I believe in God. It’s amazing what people assume isn’t it? You have me pigeonholed already. Amazing how intolerant you atheists are!

I merely stated that if you believe then that would explain where instinct came from.

[graeme]

I have never actually said whether or not I believe in God. It’s amazing what people assume isn’t it? You have me pigeonholed already. Amazing how intolerant you atheists are!

I merely stated that if you believe then that would explain where instinct came from.

And as a regular churchgoer I find what you say, Pete, as downright insulting.

Apologies for pigeonholing chuchgoers as believers. It is of course entirely possible that you only go for research purposes or to take an elderly relative or something... If you go to church for yourself but don't believe in God, you get a brand new pigeonhole all to yourself with my compliments.

[BigD]

I have never actually said whether or not I believe in God. It’s amazing what people assume isn’t it? You have me pigeonholed already. Amazing how intolerant you atheists are!

I merely stated that if you believe then that would explain where instinct came from.

And as a regular churchgoer I find what you say, Pete, as downright insulting.

Apologies for pigeonholing chuchgoers as believers. It is of course entirely possible that you only go for research purposes or to take an elderly relative or something... If you go to church for yourself but don't believe in God, you get a brand new pigeonhole all to yourself with my compliments.

I don't know why you needed to turn it personal. It matters not what my beliefs are. The discussion is about religion not my beliefs!

It seem the Athiests are out to try and convert me to atheism. Am I trying to convert you to my beliefs whatever they may be? It seems to me that atheism is highly intolerant of others beliefs. Why would that be?