My Objection to religion

Originally posted by lucifershammer
If you were a native of Tibet you'd be doing the same.

So what?

Doesn't change the relative merits of each.

They're mutually exclusive beliefs.
Both can't be true. One or other (or both) must be false!

Originally posted by Halitose
...and your view of religion is somehow immune from this claim? Suggesting truth to be relative, as you seem to have done here, is ultimately self-defeating and leads to a loss of reason.

My mother has strong religious beliefs & my father was agnostic.
I am not restrained by doctrine.
Tell me what I have posted that is not based on reason - I'd be interested to know!

Originally posted by Squelchbelch
Religion is just a function of society, geography & peer pressure.

If you were a native of Tibet you'd be trying to convince everyone of the virtues of Buddhism - a religion that is vastly different & mutually exclusive to the one which you believe in now.

Guess what though - you're from the US & your a................. Christian.
How remarkable!😛

Your argument is that because there are many religions, no one religion can claim to absolutely or exclusively "correct". I agree.

That does not mean that ANY religion is therefore invalid. Each religion may be of benefit to the people of the society where it is found.

Each religion may also be an expression of how different people experience the same thing, i.e. a God or gods.

Originally posted by Squelchbelch
My mother has strong religious beliefs & my father was agnostic.
I am not restrained by doctrine.
Tell me what I have posted that is not based on reason - I'd be interested to know!

SB: Religion is just a function of society, geography & peer pressure.

In this statement you claim that propositions about religion are societal constructs. Ironically, this is also a proposition about religion, and hence by your definition merely a societal construct. As I tried to point out earlier, this is a self-defeating statement*.

*http://humbugonline.blogspot.com/2005/01/self-defeating-argument.html

My mother has strong religious beliefs & my father was agnostic.
I am not restrained by doctrine.

So what? You might think that you're "not restrained", but by your definition, it's merely a special blend of "society, geography & peer-pressure". There's no escaping the far-flung reaches of your first assertion.

Tell me what I have posted that is not based on reason - I'd be interested to know!

Uh... I didn't suggest anything of the sort. If you read my statement again, you'll see where I contend that relative truth infers a loss of reason. Relative truth is where one proposition cannot be preferable or valid above another.

Originally posted by Halitose
SB: [b]Religion is just a function of society, geography & peer pressure.

In this statement you claim that propositions about religion are societal constructs. Ironically, this is also a proposition about religion, and hence by your definition merely a societal construct. As I tried to point out earlier, this is a self-defeating statement*.

*http: ...[text shortened]... . Relative truth is where one proposition cannot be preferable or valid above another.[/b]

So then, if you are in agreement with me, surely I should be trying to demonstrate the virtues of Christianity, since I have had the most exposure to it!
What I'm saying is that by buying into a societal belief system, people are allowing the pressures of society/family/tradition to govern their "beliefs", much in the same way as they have "chosen" their 1st language!
I have looked at alternatives (including Christianity) & rejected them in favour of what most people would call freethinking.
I wouldn't call myself an atheist - I cannot say to myself that God doesn't exist. I just think it highly improbable given the evidence.

No amount of wordplay can truly conclude that my earlier statement is hypocritical, as by rights, according to your statement, I should be a Christian!

Originally posted by Squelchbelch
So then, if you are in agreement with me, surely I should be trying to demonstrate the virtues of Christianity, since I have had the most exposure to it!
What I'm saying is that by buying into a societal belief system, people are allowing the pressures of society/family/tradition to govern their "beliefs", much in the same way as they have "chosen" the ...[text shortened]... ment is hypocritical, as by rights, according to your statement, I should be a Christian!

I think we're talking past each other.

Originally posted by whodey
Can I go on a rant as well?

My objection to those who attack theism.

We are nicely and neatly grouped together in one category and subsequently labeled. All theists must renounce science and evolution and claim that Genesis is in conflict with such findings when, in fact, that is not necessarily the case. Could evolution be nothing more than an exten s being "the problem" is what creates conficts in general. Are you not doing the same here?

Well I say the only good theist is a dead theist. Then the rest of the world will finally live in peace.
Me, I have had it up to my eyeballs the death and destruction brought about by all the evil religions in the world and those who kill in some god's name.