Page 1 of 3

Reasons 41 - 50

Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 1:31 pm
by Chris OConnor
Reasons 41 - 50

Please use this thread for discussing Reasons 41 - 50:

41. Science can't explain everything.

42. Society would fall apart without religion.

43. My religion is so old, it must be true.

44. Someone I trust told me that my god is real.

45. Atheism is a negative and empty philosophy.

46. Believing in a god doesn't hurt anyone.

47. The earth is perfectly tunes to support life.

48. Believing is natural so my god must be real.

49. The end is near.

50. I am afraid of not believing.

Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 5:35 pm
by Penelope
41. Science can't explain everything.

Well, we don't know what 'black holes' are do we? We don't know what anti-matter is do we? But we know they are there. We haven't explained them yet. There is plenty of time though. An eternity, in fact.

42. Society would fall apart without religion.

Society would fall apart without laws. In the past religion has been used to make people abide by the laws. Then religion has been blamed when people stopped wanting to abide by the laws.

43. My religion is so old, it must be true.

On the grand scale.....no religion is very old. Humans haven't really been here on the earth for very long.....we are still evolving....if we don't exterminate ourselves first.

44. Someone I trust told me that my god is real.

Only my own experience implies that the god part of me is real.....what people have told me has made it all seem 'unreal' at times, not to say downright stupid.

45. Atheism is a negative and empty philosophy.

Atheism is just a state of being. Perhaps you need to reject 'taught' religion as stupid before your inner god enlightens you. If and when you want to be enlightened.

46. Believing in a god doesn't hurt anyone.

Believing and trying to impose your belief on others can hurt millions. Never-the-less, I defend my 'right' to believe. Perhaps I shouldn't. I'll pray about that.

47. The earth is perfectly tunes to support life.

Earth is perfectly tuned to support 'some' forms of life unless we bugger it all up completely.

48. Believing is natural so my god must be real.

The search for a satisfying spiritual life is natural to me.....and actually is very real to me. I only feel half alive if I stop searching...

49. The end is near.

There is no end. There is end of the physical....the soul is infinite and transcends the spiritual.....I THINK!!!!!

50. I am afraid of not believing.

Yes.....I think, therefore I am....if I stop thinking I might stop being.....and in spite of everything....I quite like being.

I'm pink therefore I'm Spam!!!!!

Phew....have I finished? Thank you Chris for posting all these topics/reasons. I am sure I have not answered them to your satisfaction.....but I have answered them to mine.....so:- :kiss:

ch 41: science can't explain everthing

Posted: Sun Aug 24, 2008 11:58 pm
by ginof
p290 - Harrison asks why hasn't a scientist become rich and famous by proving that evolution is wrong.

I think the creationists would say that they have, but science is too close minded and can't look at itself. Of course, this flies in the face of every other change that's happened in science: relativity, big bang, etc, etc, etc.

ch 43: my religion is so old, it must be true

Posted: Mon Aug 25, 2008 12:01 am
by ginof
p 305(bottom) I really liked Harrison's analysis here. I hearby bow my head to Apollo :laugh:

I remember my High School Sr religion teacher telling me about this reason why being catholic must be true. Of course, he didn't bring up Judaism!

ch 45: atheism is a negative and empty philosophy

Posted: Mon Aug 25, 2008 12:06 am
by ginof
p319 -
There are different varieties of agnosticism but the popular version of it takes the odd position that gods are unknowable.
Wow, is it just me? I have never heard this definition before. my understanding has always been believer (obvious definition) agnostic (person who is unsure if there is or is not a god) and atheist (person who believes there is no god). Am I alone in having a different definition than the author?

ch 49: the end is near

Posted: Mon Aug 25, 2008 12:11 am
by ginof
p346 - In this chapter, Harrison again uses an argument he's used a number of times in the book: why aren't the Christians afraid of the Muslim hell and vice versa. If they are not afraid of the stories of the other religion, why are they afraid of the stories of their own, given that the proof for each set of stories is the same, i.e. nothing!

Do others find this argument effective? It seems to me that you are not really answering the question. I don't believe in those stories because I don't believe in that religion. So, from a believers point of view, I think they are being consistent. Of course, studying the other religions would hopefully make them thing more.....

Posted: Mon Aug 25, 2008 12:36 am
by Frank 013
Ginof,

I do not think that the argument would be effective against believers, but it is a valid point. What makes one religion so much more valid than others?

The answer is that a person is generally well too indoctrinated before such questions arise in their minds.

Later

Re: ch 49: the end is near

Posted: Mon Aug 25, 2008 3:15 am
by Robert Tulip
ginof wrote:p346 - In this chapter, Harrison again uses an argument he's used a number of times in the book: why aren't the Christians afraid of the Muslim hell and vice versa. If they are not afraid of the stories of the other religion, why are they afraid of the stories of their own, given that the proof for each set of stories is the same, i.e. nothing! Do others find this argument effective? It seems to me that you are not really answering the question. I don't believe in those stories because I don't believe in that religion. So, from a believers point of view, I think they are being consistent. Of course, studying the other religions would hopefully make them think more.....
For anyone, being afraid of a supernatural hell is really stupid when our species is busy turning our planet into a natural hell. Hell and heaven are nothing more than a throwback from a false pre-modern cosmology, except as they are useful analogies for use in material life. I was just reading Stephen Jay Gould's comment that evolution proceeds by long periods of expanding diversity followed by sudden massive decimation, by which he means loss of 90% rather than 10%. That is scary. Harrison concedes too much to the feasibility of obsolete religious ideas. It would be better if he developed a coherent cosmology which respects the mythic content of religion while setting it within a scientific framework.

Posted: Mon Aug 25, 2008 4:25 am
by Frank 013
RT,

Changing an existing religion is a very volatile task; it is likely to cause strife between the existing faithful and the faithful of the new religion. History shows us that the advent of a new religion does not necessarily cause the downfall of older ones except in the case where the other religions were condemned by the state or forcefully annihilated.

History gives us some very good examples of this... Judaism to Christianity... Christianity's victory over paganism, Judaism to Islam... the many factions of Christianity... In fact I cannot think of one example that does not involve massive blood letting, and with the exception of the genocide of such religions (the Pagans , Cathars) none of these factions have disappeared from view, they simply remain to continue the fight for their respective view of god.

Enlightenment comes from the absence of religious doctrine, not its manipulability.

Later

Posted: Mon Aug 25, 2008 9:05 am
by Robert Tulip
Frank 013 wrote:RT, Changing an existing religion is a very volatile task; it is likely to cause strife between the existing faithful and the faithful of the new religion. History shows us that the advent of a new religion does not necessarily cause the downfall of older ones except in the case where the other religions were condemned by the state or forcefully annihilated. History gives us some very good examples of this... Judaism to Christianity... Christianity's victory over paganism, Judaism to Islam... the many factions of Christianity... In fact I cannot think of one example that does not involve massive blood letting, and with the exception of the genocide of such religions (the Pagans , Cathars) none of these factions have disappeared from view, they simply remain to continue the fight for their respective view of god. Enlightenment comes from the absence of religious doctrine, not its manipulability. Later
Thanks Frank, nice comment, but I think that enlightenment can be reconciled with religion. The agenda should be to retain what is useful from religion within a scientific framework. Hence it is a matter of re-interpreting Christian concepts rather than opposing them - looking at how they are useful within a materialist framework rather than simply critiquing them on an objective basis. If heaven is redefined as our goal for the earth, (as per the Lord's Prayer) we can find a lot more meaning in the Gospels than if we define heaven and hell as imaginary abodes of human immortality (as per the church). On this basis, hell can be redefined as anything that weakens our connection to our real cosmic identity, while heaven is about restoring that connection to enable human fulfillment.