Nowadays, whenever there is a storm and it thunders and lightnings, you would be mocked for claiming it was God's vengeance.
Little more than 500 years ago, most people thought that this was exactly what it was - God voicing his wrath.
Luckily mankind has discovered through empirical reasoning, that there is a natural explanation for the noise and light of a thunder storm.
Eventually, we will accept that the cosmos is one ever repeating loop, and that there are no souls, heaven or hell.
"God" will have then do no explanatory work whatsoever, and will cease to have meaning as a concept for everyone.
Originally posted by howardgee Nowadays, whenever there is a storm and it thunders and lightnings, you would be mocked for claiming it was God's vengeance.
Little more than 500 years ago, most people thought that this was exactly what it was - God voicing his wrath.
Luckily mankind has discovered through empirical reasoning, that there is a natural explanation for the noise and lig ...[text shortened]... hen do no explanatory work whatsoever, and will cease to have meaning as a concept for everyone.
if i remember correctly, david wilkerson claimed that the september the 11th attacks on america were Gods wrath. i believe him. i think i've got the sermon on my computer at home so i'll look for it, and i'm pretty sure i've posted it here already.
Originally posted by genius if i remember correctly, david wilkerson claimed that the september the 11th attacks on america were Gods wrath. i believe him. i think i've got the sermon on my computer at home so i'll look for it, and i'm pretty sure i've posted it here already.
I bet you also believe Pat Robertson when he says hurricane Katrina was punishment for New Orleans' sinful jazz music scene.
Based on these three topics you have created to explain to us why religion in general is dumb, one suspects your experience and understanding of world religions is a bit narrow. Granted, we may define 'religion' differently when asked to do so.
From your topics, your definition of a religious person is one who believes in a creator god that rewards and punishes us for our behavior; who holds tightly onto the teachings of a holy book, and believes in its infallibility; who believes in heaven, hell, and souls.
You are leaving out the significant number of religious people around the world who don't believe those things, but still practice a religion. Indeed, your topics present a sort of cartoonish image of religion. Very funny (I like the idea of the creator cockroach), but it is leaving out a lot of the world that find inspiration and direction from mythology without feeling like they have to believe in a flying spaghetti monster. Is that, maybe, a little less 'dumb' in your opinion? What about people who pray or meditate, rarely talk to anyone else about it, but use it constructively and find that it helps them get over themselves and relate to others? Is that, maybe, a little bit less 'dumb'?
Surely, religion is often taken to ridiculous extremes and it is easy to fasten our attention to that. There is a lot of other data to consider when you take on the topic of 'religion' and how it is experienced and practiced.
Originally posted by Algernon ...your topics present a sort of cartoonish image of religion. Very funny (I like the idea of the creator cockroach), but it is leaving out a lot of the world that find inspiration and direction from mythology without feeling like they have to believe in a flying spaghetti monster.
Originally posted by howardgee Nowadays, whenever there is a storm and it thunders and lightnings, you would be mocked for claiming it was God's vengeance.
Little more than 500 years ago, most people thought that this was exactly what it was - God voicing his wrath.
Luckily mankind has discovered through empirical reasoning, that there is a natural explanation for the noise and lig ...[text shortened]... hen do no explanatory work whatsoever, and will cease to have meaning as a concept for everyone.
Not only are you again confusing scientific-type issues with the questions that religion is really interested in, you are assuming that one explanation precludes the other. Why can't God control thunder and lightning to voice a little wrath once in a while?
Originally posted by howardgee Nowadays, whenever there is a storm and it thunders and lightnings, you would be mocked for claiming it was God's vengeance.
Little more than 500 years ago, most people thought that this was exactly what it was - God voicing his wrath.
Luckily mankind has discovered through empirical reasoning, that there is a natural explanation for the noise and lig ...[text shortened]... hen do no explanatory work whatsoever, and will cease to have meaning as a concept for everyone.
I'm incurably agnostic, but I take issue with your two sentences.
How can be ever establish for certain that the universe is an ever-repeating loop as opposed to a spontaneously emerging or deliberately created realm?
And if the latter either-or, couldn't God function to explain (rightly or wrongly) the existence of such a universe?
Originally posted by howardgee Nowadays, whenever there is a storm and it thunders and lightnings, you would be mocked for claiming it was God's vengeance.
Little more than 500 years ago, most people thought that this was exactly what it was - God voicing his wrath.
Luckily mankind has discovered through empirical reasoning, that there is a natural explanation for the noise and lig ...[text shortened]... hen do no explanatory work whatsoever, and will cease to have meaning as a concept for everyone.
Is the purpose of religion primarily explanatory? You seem to be conceiving of God as though He were analogous to the unobservables posited in the empirical sciences (e.g., electrons). I'm not sure why a theist ought to grant you this.
Originally posted by howardgee Nowadays, whenever there is a storm and it thunders and lightnings, you would be mocked for claiming it was God's vengeance.
Little more than 500 years ago, most people thought that this was exactly what it was - God voicing his wrath.
Luckily mankind has discovered through empirical reasoning, that there is a natural explanation for the noise and lig ...[text shortened]... hen do no explanatory work whatsoever, and will cease to have meaning as a concept for everyone.
So in summary,religion is dumb because:
A person of faith attributed something as an act of God before there was empirical evidence to explain it. You are omniscient.
Originally posted by BigDoggProblem I bet you also believe Pat Robertson when he says hurricane Katrina was punishment for New Orleans' sinful jazz music scene.
He said that? Well what would you expect from a supposedly
religious icon who advocates the assasination of political leaders who
do not agree with his philosophy or politics.
Originally posted by sonhouse He said that? Well what would you expect from a supposedly
religious icon who advocates the assasination of political leaders who
do not agree with his philosophy or politics.
Originally posted by bbarr Is the purpose of religion primarily explanatory? You seem to be conceiving of God as though He were analogous to the unobservables posited in the empirical sciences (e.g., electrons). I'm not sure why a theist ought to grant you this.
In answer to yours and other people's objections, I am merely demonstrating that "God" is historically a catch-all explanation for the unknown.
As we discover the true explanations and reasons for events and phenomena, our concept of God is diluted.
I hope that this will help believers to realise that what they believe in is completely redundant; an empty meaningless concept.
This is just one of many reasons why religion is dumb.
Originally posted by howardgee In answer to yours and other people's objections, I am merely demonstrating that "God" is historically a catch-all explanation for the unknown.
As we discover the true explanations and reasons for events and phenomena, our concept of God is diluted.
I hope that this will help believers to realise that what they believe in is completely redundant; an empty meaningless concept.
This is just one of many reasons why religion is dumb.
While I tend to agree with your premise, did you ever think that maybe religion does suit a purpose? As some of the xtians here have pointed out, 'finding god' has meant (for some) a means to alter destructive behaviour in their own lives. Even if the reason they're making these changes is based on fallacy, the end result is...they quit drugs, or give up stealing, or what-have-you. It also helps people to deal with the loss of loved ones, providing a sense of hope that allows them to continue with their own lives.
Originally posted by David C While I tend to agree with your premise, did you ever think that maybe religion does suit a purpose? As some of the xtians here have pointed out, 'finding god' has meant (for some) a means to alter destructive behaviour in their own lives. Even if the reason they're making these changes is based on fallacy, the end result is...they quit drugs, or give up ...[text shortened]... nse of hope that allows them to continue with their own lives.
Man, I need to go wash up now.
It is true that religion gives some people comfort. The trouble is that this comfort is a false hope:
Believing in going to heaven may make your suffering on earth more palatable - trouble is that heaven does not exist.
Praying to God to help you may offer comfort - trouble is he does not exist, thus you are talking to yourself.
It comes down to whether you believe that a glimmer of hope, even if based on a lie, is worthwhile. I personally think that such comfort is worthless as it is without foundation in reality. You might as well go through life with your eyes closed, believing everything is OK whilst it burns about you. Such a life would be utterly without achievewment and value.
Why religion is dumb - reason 3 (lightning)
25 Sep '05 08:29
Back to Top