Agnostic.com

15 4

"To dismiss religion without being aware of the evidence is to do the same thing so many religious people do to science." BY SKADO

This is taken from a thread on THE JAPANESE VERSION OF RELIGION WHICH DOES SEEM BASED A LOT ON RITUAL NOT BELIEF.

I thought it was important enough to start a.new thread starting with my reply to SKADO

You can include a link to that post in your posts and comments by including the text "Religion without belief

Most Japanese reject religious belief while embracing multiple forms ...
"
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.

@Skado My contention is that there is no way to properly compare religion with science but the dismissal of science by religion is NOT the same as the dismissal of religion by science.

In the end it is your choice and that choice hinges entirely on your view of what evidence is and your experiences of both science and religion. I would defend the right to keep that choice but not with my life . I suspect religionists WOULD give up their lives.

That is the first difference worth noting .

As a second difference: ANYONE with moderate intelligence can verify the principles science provided they can put in the effort and perhaps are guided with their reading ( just as religionists do) . Religion prefers to have its own ‘ experts ’ ,explanations and its own “magisteiria” (realm of content) . Science deals with all everything in the universe and with anyone who care to put up an hypothesis.


For a third 

Science does have worldwide bodies who organize conferences etc but more importantly common standards of evidence and checking of anything done or said by individuals . The scientific community prefers to get evidence empirically, by anyone and as many times as possible.It works as one body naturally because each individual knows that unless they are backed up by colleagues in the same field to investigate veracities of theories and any meaningful conclusion, they will not get a grant for the search that they desirer be able to publish a book which will not waste other scientist time.

Religionists are too competitive with other religions and insist on truths which only apply to the religion which they own and invest time with.

There are other differences I am sure

As a science teacher in both mixed ability and separatist schools for over 30 years Have worked tome the gap between abilities smaller. I believe I can add things to make science easier for everyone. It can only be done by actually doing science -once you know what it IS and how to apply it for your own direct benefit.

And that is another difference.Science gets easier when it feeds into your life. Religion just gets more sacrificial, commanding and mysterious.

I will end by saying that I do respect religion. A lot does depend on how happy each lifestyle makes you . But I can live without Religion..

Mcflewster 8 June 7
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

15 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

0

I must quickly add that I do respect Skado and his wide and deep thinking. This post was never meant to be an attack on Skado .It is the sort of exchange which will show us the best way forward over religion and agnostic is the best traveling vehicle.

I just wish that Skado could find time to really look into science as deeply as he does into other religions and lifestyles. We just cannot leave science to the scientists any longer.We are given science abilities at birth and then they are squashed out of us and it is extremely difficult to get them back on full power .

I am currently writing a piece "In Praise of Science",if anyone wants to help please join my Science Teachers group on this site. Praise is not just useful in religions .If you cannot manage to praise science then praise man and womankind .

I am often mistaken for a religionists, but I assure you it is just an intelligence gathering trip to gauge reactions during a trip to the enemy camp.

I do hope that Skado replies.

1

Reading all this..I get lost, and realize so much of what is said is over my head...I do think the religions I've heard about, have encouraged followers to invest in beliefs in the mystical, and irrational solutions, such as "faith. ...I do see this as harmful philosophies and particularly when its being ingrained in children....I think of all the ways I see religions stunting rational thought, and how it overlaps into stunting mans ability to survive, and blame that sort of irrationality for all the killings going on....the irrationality of so much of the politics being praticed.

Faith has been used outside of religion for centuries. Every time you "believe without evidence"you are using the human construct of faith.One continually has to use faith because one has no choice, from having faith that the postman will not steal your letters to having faith in the government's promises [OR NOT. ]

Trouble is religions have hijacked this word [as they do with a lot of words] and suggest that it also has a magical ingredient that everything with faith is bound to come to pass.

In reality you always have the choice to accept faith for convenience or otherwise or start a scientific investigation.

@Mcflewster I do tend to treat the word "faith" as a dirty word, and a usless action, a reaction given freely, and demanding so much...as you say a word high-jacked by religion.....the examples you use, mailman, government promises, I guess I substitue the feeling of "trust", ...anyway, thanks for the reply

@HankSherman yes, again you are right , Trust is closely related but in the case of trust there is usually some evidence.

@Mcflewster agreed. Just can't recall ever trusting without reservations...perhaps as a child......

0

Odd that you seem to fail to understand the article posted by @Skado ....instead twisting it to skewer him, As IF he wrote it, even leaving out parts you "quote" that would reveal just how nasty this post really is towards him.
I found the original article extremely interesting, and it pointed out something that I have been aware of for decades, that people love & crave rituals. (Which gives religion a powerful tool!)
It gave me great hope for a future, where satisfying those needs/wants could be accomplished by separating "ritual" from religion, thus filling a need without all the claptrap of religious belief.
And demonstrated somewhere (Japan) where that very desirable scenario is actually coming to fruition.
But nooooo, let's attack the OP.
SHAME on you!

0

Well here we go yet again, imo, Arch-Bishop @skado has yet again donned his robe of office, girded up his loins and begun yet another Proselytizing Campaign to spread amongst us Heathens and Pagans his mysticisms and woo-woos.
Imo, it was only to be expected since it is the time of year when the cuckoos start to leave the nests.

2

Ritual and/or tradition has a lot in common with religion when not examined through a critical thinking lens.

My favorite example, the running of the bulls in Spain. Very ritualistic. Very traditional. Also, very stupid.

In summary, the fact that it is ritual or tradition does not make it better than religion. All of them rituals/traditions/religions should be frequently reviewed and rejected if stupid and/or baseless.

4

There is no evidence to support religion.

Do you thing the numbers of followers of a religion is inany way acceptable as 'Evidence'. We have a long way to go in understanding the existence of facts which might be proved to be evidence in all situations.

@Mcflewster The number of suckers who believe a lie does not in any way serve as evidence that the lie is true.

@BitFlipper True.

1

I have no time for Skado.

2

Skado claims that his position is, that he does not believe a word of the supernatural claims, but that he thinks the goatherders wrote, really great books filled with wisdom.

Which is why I am happy to contest with him. Because to my mind believing there was once a golden age of wisdom and truth, or that popular culture preserves only the wisdom and truth from the past. Just makes an irrational god out of tradition, and your own personal interpretation of what could be seen as metaphor, a fake source of authority, no better than believing old texts have authority because the sky fairy wrote every word of them.

But then I suppose that for some snobs and pompus narcissists who looks down on the rest of the human race, and think that they are in need of their own wisdom as gurus, and are doomed to chaos without it, and the superior wisdom of people like them, then they may want a fake source of authority, to lend them gravitas. (Not that that is remotely like our Skado of course, that is just hypothetical.)

Dang, looks like I missed something on here. Based on some of what I read, sounds like that there @skado feller is becoming a controversial character on this site.

Joking aside, agree or disagree with him, but he does raise logical points in his posts, and said posts are in more detail than the average philosophical post on here.

@SpikeTalon Yes he does raise some good points and stops this site being an echo chamber. But sadly I now find that most of them are shallow. Probably because my early thought that he was a thinker, was mistaken, and I now find that most of his posts/comments are just mindless parroting of the apologetic culture with which he is inbedded.

1

In my church daze I had respect for religion. It taught me that if I followed and was a good guy god would not burn me in hell. I studied a lot and later I wondered which god and which hell? Today I have zero respect for religion of any type. Why do people think they have to worship anything?

6

Nice reply.

My only difference with you is that I have no respect for religion. None.
I only tolerate its existence because that's the law.

I think all religion is evil and inherently dangerous.

@Gwendolyn2018 I would find a middle way between you two, and say that religion did once do good and may even still do so, but its destiny is to fall ever deeper into darkness in the future, and there is no way back.

Because religion was always at its strongest when it gave people an alternate voice, to the nation state and the mainstream oppinon. But when most modern states embrace welfare and democracy as their main purposes, ( The US maybe exceptional.) and science is seen as the best source of truth, then what sort of people want an alternate voice to that ?

@Gwendolyn2018 We all get to think what we want.
I'm pretty picky about what I will respect.
Many things that people think are deserving of respect I don't agree with.

@Fernapple There is no longer any "middle ground" to be found.
At least, I'm no longer looking for any.

@KKGator It is a middle ground much closer to your ground, than most others. Real respect for your stance.

@Gwendolyn2018 At the very least I find that religious believers, fall into two groups, those who use religion to manipulate, and those who are manipulated. For those who manipulate, I have nothing but contempt, especially since they are usually motivated by narcissism. And for the manipulated, I try to find pity at least.

@KKGator Do you not think Agnosticism is a "Middle Ground"?

@Mcflewster I know agnostics may think so.
I am not an agnostic.

@Mcflewster No it is quite a clear position in its own right. The middle ground I was refering to, was the middle ground between Gwendolyn and KKGator, on the one small issue between them.

@Mcflewster, @Gwendolyn2018 Different religions vary, it is true and theist religions are certainly the worst. When they are not manipulative I would stop calling them religions anyway, and use the terms belief system or philosophy instead.

@Gwendolyn2018 And when it chooses a young girl as a goddess incarnate, it is being manipulative. So yes a religion.

1

The problem with trolls throwing shit at a wall to see what will stick is that it is the same old shit that has been tossed forever. And they know that, but being a troll means being a mediocrity and spewing mediocrities for the sake of ATTENTION and DRAMA. We should have sympathy for such pathetic people, more so because their insecurity means they cannot be educated. They're looking for validation, rather than truth.

2

Produce the evidence first.

3

In the end. All religion is the belief that some special chosen people are given final truth as a special gift, and science is the belief that you can never have final truth, but that anyone can get closer to it with work and effort.

The two may sometimes be compatible, but they approach life from opposite directions.

But when you approach truth from the opposite end to religion, then you have to ask. What sort of person would want or need given final truth or the pretense of such? And then you have to answer. Only those who think there may be a need to suppress some if not all attempts at truth. Because the faking of final given truth, is a tool which could only be used for that purpose.

have you ever given consideration to the notion that imagination is a real feature of the universe and has shaped our existence in it? god is real even if exclusively imaginary?

@hankster Of course, but I can also imagine rape and murder. What is imagined is real, but not all that is imagined is good.

Also I can imagine that there is a fairy at the bottom of my garden, but that does not mean that I have access to its pot of gold. And it would be very dangerous for you to lend me money, on the basis that I told you that the fairy would act as a guarantor.

Imagination is real, but we do not allow imagination alone to be a source of authority, for things we do, at least not if we are wise. Not because imagination can not be good, but because imagination has no limits, and does not alone admit of qualifications.

I have long had a personal definition of religion which serves me well, though it is not the only one possible, and some may prefer others. It is that. The word "religion" is a synonym for the fallacy of, "proof by authority". Whether that authority comes from supernatural revelation, tradition, institutions or artistic metaphor, it does not matter.

All world views have to include some axioms, but honesty and wisdom requires that we should try to keep those axioms to a minimum, and openly admit that they are axioms unsupported by empirical evidence. The dishonesty of religion, is to pretend that they can support many of their axioms by appeal to the false evidence, of authority, and that therefore they are not axioms.

@Fernapple very well stated and i find no argument in it really, yet good or bad has nothing to do with it, and the quality or nature of evidence may be completely missed. just thinking about what i can't know.

@As to the evidence for religion, well there is a lot of it, vast amounts in fact. Go into any church bookshop and you will encounter literally tons of it, lining the shelves, there is certainly no shortage of evidence. But almost all of it is either derivative and based on a few texts, which are supposed to be authoritative, but for which we do not have any original copies, any proof that the authors ever existed, or that they are even third hand eye witness accounts, in short the worst possible evidence.

While that which is not derivative, consists of some of the most pathetically unconvincing philosophical arguments, like the Cosmological and the Ontological which are so bad they are almost jokes. And which are endlessly reworded, in presumably the vain hope that one day, a wording will be found that will make them sound, even a little, convincing. Often backed up by bad linguistic trickery, label swapping and pseudo - science or the misinterpretations of real science, which basically show that their employers have become so lost in their subculture that they have even lost contact with basic moral principles, like honesty.

Which brings me to the point, which is. That if there was a single good bit of evidence or proof for any of it, do you not think that the apologists would long ago have dumped all the dross, and just concentrated on that one main point. What sort of an idea requires propping up with bad, banal, weak, and often dishonest evidence. The best evidence against religion, is the evidence in favour of it.

For life is short, too short to study everything, of what use therefore is it to waste time on an ideology, which makes its supporters dishonest pedallers of trash, if an ideal makes you a worse person, why waste time on it ?

4

Skado is a religious apologist, perhaps not even agnostic. I blocked him ages ago because I place no value on his position. Your arguments are all self evident and irrefutable but worth repeating and worth reading.

I will end by saying that I don't respect religion. Its foundations have no basis in fact and any perceived benefit is outweighed by its inherent dangers.

I blocked that freak long ago as well. And fuck fuck fuck religion…..🤠

@Buck add a couple more fucks and I'll agree 😜

7

I don't have to hear Islamic apologetics to dismiss their BS religion any more than I need to hear your arguments to dismiss your religion. I once thought that to reject an idea required hearing it all out but it's a HUGE waste of everyones time to hear the argument from religion. It's not a waste of time to hear the arguments from science, that's called education.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:670366
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.