|
Is religion beneficial? (pg. 8)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| hardcore trancer |
My quesion is if it is possible to have a future without religion?Iam talking at least a hundred years from now btw.
Also do you guys think thatthe human mind could ever evolve to the point that doesnt require religion? |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by hardcore trancer
My quesion is if it is possible to have a future without religion? |
There's always the possibility, however unlikely it is for religion to disappear.
| quote: | Originally posted by hardcore trancer
Also do you guys think that the human mind could ever evolve to the point that doesn't require religion? |
It could, but why would it? By "human mind", I take it you mean all that is involved in religious experience. |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
| quote: | | So, the question is thus: would humanity be better or worse off if religion had never been established? |
Hard to say.
Science may have come about partly because of the religious belief in a universe that ran according to "laws" set into place by a god.
A lot of great art has been inspired by religion or ideas of transcendence.
But I think religion may have outgrown its usefulness today. I can't think of any purely survival-oriented purpose it serves in the modern world, although I suppose it still gives comfort to a lot of people in the face of death, and a sense of "purpose" to keep on going. |
|
|
| hardcore trancer |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
It could, but why would it? By "human mind", I take it you mean all that is involved in religious experience. |
I guess my question goes more towards the whole idea of our current belief system, and weather will we be able to move on from this religious belief system that exists in our society and go to the next level.I am not sure if that means moving towards a whole new level of spirtuality or not but it is just an idea.:p |
|
|
| Alex |
| quote: | Originally posted by spacechica
i never understood the difference between Catholicism and Christianity |
You're a tard, honestly.
I think the mistake a lot of atheists make is that they do not look deep enough into the other side of things.
C.S. Lewis is a perfect example of a well read atheist (no longer one, mind you) that brought excellent arguments to the table in a number of written works. Then again, Lewis has brought some really great "pro-God" arguments since converting.
An atheist will also say "well I've read the bible, and I STILL think it's a load of ".
In reality they've probably formed their entire view of the bible on Genesis (Aka Genesis: The first book of moses for all you jews). Which is unfair since any reasonable Christian will admit Genesis is a pile of crap and is almost entirely metaphorical. Having that belief about Genesis and creationism (which is almost entirely based on one book of the bible) I've been called a Jew, a heretic, a muslim and a devil worshiper by a countless number of Baptists, Evangelicals, Witnesses and Mormons on various message boards and in person when I've discussed this . Proof again that the die hard, know-nothing wings of Christianity are the most opinionated and by default the most out-spoken (yet most widely listened to) bunch of idiots that give atheists and agnostics the view that all Christians are dumbass hicks that aren't of sound mind.
Religion plays it's part in our lives whether it be to make fun of Christians or to live your life according to the words of Moses and Jesus.
There remains countless questions in philosophy that have yet to be explained away, and that religion (well, Christianity) has an answer for; Such as the word and use of said word: Perfection. A word that is used quite often in a descriptive sense, but a word atheists for instance deny can be applied to a being... Yet how can they go ahead and compare anything to perfection if they don't have a basis of a perfect being to begin with?
Anyways, it's a ridiculous time of day and I'm on a rant so I'll just leave you with some names to check out and hopefully some of you atheists take a look-see and you may simply be interested in the theological arguments presented by these guys, if you're open to it that is:
Norman L. Geisler
William E. Nix
C.S. Lewis
James Moffatt
They are all Christian apologists in their own right and offer some great insight into the faith as a whole, and from a rather wide range of stances. (IE: Geisler/Nix are hardcore conservatives, so spot the bias, Moffatt on the other hand is very very liberal). |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Alex
I think the mistake a lot of atheists make is that they do not look deep enough into the other side of things.
C.S. Lewis is a perfect example of a well read atheist (no longer one, mind you) that brought excellent arguments to the table in a number of written works. Then again, Lewis has brought some really great "pro-God" arguments since converting.
An atheist will also say "well I've read the bible, and I STILL think it's a load of ".
In reality they've probably formed their entire view of the bible on Genesis (Aka Genesis: The first book of moses for all you jews). |
yeah, because reading the return of the king is gonna make me believe in elves and rings of power ;)
as for the part that i've bolded, from where do you get that argument from? there are innumerable problems and contradictions (not to mention obvious lies) within the bible that only the truly gullible would believe it ever resembled the word of god.
no, i havent read all of it and no im not going to bother; its one of the worst works of scifi/fantasy that ive ever attempted to read.
| quote: | Originally posted by Alex
There remains countless questions in philosophy that have yet to be explained away, and that religion (well, Christianity) has an answer for |
its easy to provide the answers when you can just make them up. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
no, i havent read all of it and no im not going to bother; |
You've just lost any credibility when it comes to questioning the validity or value of the Abrihamic religions. You cannot be expected to be taken seriously in a discussion on any subject when you won't even take the time to understand what it is you're discussing. |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by Alex
An atheist will also say "well I've read the bible, and I STILL think it's a load of ".
In reality they've probably formed their entire view of the bible on Genesis (Aka Genesis: The first book of moses for all you jews). |
Personally, I've read quite a few books (and I must've read each each of the gospels at least 4 times when I was a teen... my family was deeply religious, and we read the bible three times every week).
| quote: | Originally posted by Alex
Anyways, it's a ridiculous time of day and I'm on a rant so I'll just leave you with some names to check out and hopefully some of you atheists take a look-see and you may simply be interested in the theological arguments presented by these guys, if you're open to it that is:
Norman L. Geisler
William E. Nix
C.S. Lewis
James Moffatt
They are all Christian apologists in their own right and offer some great insight into the faith as a whole, and from a rather wide range of stances. (IE: Geisler/Nix are hardcore conservatives, so spot the bias, Moffatt on the other hand is very very liberal). |
Interesting. Anyway, the last good Atheist philosopher I read was Yujin Nagasawa, and he had some really interesting arguments against the existence of God. That's my way to thank for the recommendation and add something more to the discussion :) |
|
|
| diggerz |
"...The growing success of popular print accounts of 'The German State' after victory in the Franco-Prussian War and the formation of a German Empire was something about which Nietzsche was evidently concerned. He was also worried, though, about the increasingly 'religious' tone of representations of history in monuments, festivals and public imagery. There was, he believed, an excess of history. To distance himself from the history-loving middle class and scholars like Immanuel Kant, Leopold Von Ranke, Georg Hegel and Fredrich Schiller, Nietzsche outlined three models of history - two problematic, and one 'life affirming' - which he labels respectively the 'monumental', 'antiquarian', and the 'critical'.
A 'monumental' understanding of history entails the presentation of and support for a grand or master narrative of historical progression culminating in a foundation of myth for the present. He explains that for monumental historian,
...The great moments in the struggle of the human individual constitute a chain, that this chain unites mankind across millennia like a range of human mountain peaks, that the summit of such a long-ago monument shall be for me still living, bright and great - that is the fundamental idea of the faith in humanity which finds expression in the demand for a monumental history...Of what use, then, is the monumentalistic conception of the past, engagement with the classic and rare of earlier times, to the man of the present? He learns from it that the greatness that once existed was in any event once possible and may thus be possible again; he goes his way with more cheerful step, for the doubt which assailed him in weaker moments, has now been been banished.
*Source: Fifty Key Thinkers on History by Marnie Hughes-Warrington (Routledge 2nd Ed.) |
|
|
| whereinutep |
Is religion beneficial? I dont know, let me ask this guy...
Or him..
I'll just go straight to the source...
 |
|
|
| diggerz |
I read about that guy this morning at school, ing genius.
oops nvm. i meant the man who invented nike. |
|
|
| whereinutep |
| quote: | Originally posted by diggerz
I read about that guy this morning at school, ing genius.
oops nvm. i meant the man who invented nike. |
|
|
|
|
|
