Does Religion benefit?

[Dizzle229]

The Bible could have been near flawless if not for two things.

 

 

 

1. Changing times. It needs to be more flexible. Evolution works guys.

 

 

 

2. People who take it literally. Everything with Jesus and forward is recorded history, stuff that actually happened. But how could we possibly know about Adam and Eve? Most of the stuff before Jesus is just stories that have a lesson in them. Adam and Eve and the Garden of Eden, for example, is "Don't bite the hand that feeds you."

[magekillr]

Bari, how open about your personal faith are you willing to go? It's a personal thing, and some people are shy about questions when it comes to their own "personal" belief system. They have that right, and I respect that right. This is why I ask, because if you don't mind, I have a few questions? We can go to PM if you'd like.

[i_love_burritos]

Barihawk should be the King Solomon of political and religious threads.

 

Nothing further to add.

 

 

 

EDIT:

 

 

 

Found this.

 

Archived, January 1986.

 

 

 

 

I like this one.

[Barihawk]

Bari, how open about your personal faith are you willing to go? It's a personal thing, and some people are shy about questions when it comes to their own "personal" belief system. They have that right, and I respect that right. This is why I ask, because if you don't mind, I have a few questions? We can go to PM if you'd like.

 

 

 

If you mean how open am I to discussing my faith, by all means.

[Da_Latios]

Religion helps society, yes, but I'm not religious.

[lobsta]

This saddens me. I am a devout Christian yet I am also actually well versed in all forms of science.

 

Why are you a Christian? (i am not asking why you are religious, but why you have chosen christianity)

 

 

 

I was raised on Christian morals and when I was twelve my pastor sat me down like all the other children and said "You are growing up and it's time you started to decide for yourself what you believe in." And thus began an intensive study into other religions and cultures, reasonings and ideas and I found that I explain the Universe around me with the teachings of the Bible.

 

 

 

To me, it's logical that a divine being created the Universe, and that the Universe echoes with his creation. However, I also approached my conclusion through years of study and research. I'm a Christian because I choose to be. And here I am.

 

 

 

 

 

In the end, it's what I believe that matters to me. And what should it matter to you? That's the problem I have with most of these threads is the complete closed-minded hypocrisy that comes from, ironically, the very people who claim to have open minds.

 

 

 

I am very open minded thank you very much, however to empircal data, there is absolutely no proof for the existence of God. I was simply trying to have a discussion with you. Do you not believe that an intelligent designer that created the universe, is more illogical than not having one? Do you believe in evolution? Why do you believe in something, for which there is no evidence for?

[WookieeMania12]

Depends on what religion you are talking about.

[dragoonson]

I'm not very religious,personally.I'm born to a Taoist family on my mom's side and a Christian/Catholic (Some are Christian,some Catholic.),attended a Roman Catholic styled kindergarten,my primary school was decidedly Buddhist (despite bearing a rather nazish sign) and I mingled with Muslims in secondary school.I know religions.They just don't appeal to me.

 

 

 

Like,while I disliked Harry Potter,not reading it because it opposes your beliefs is ridiculous.I've read numerous rightwinging books,I've read numerous books telling me I'm an [wagon],Hell,I've read the bible and its not part of my beliefs.

[Barihawk]

 

 

 

I am very open minded thank you very much, however to empircal data, there is absolutely no proof for the existence of God. I was simply trying to have a discussion with you. Do you not believe that an intelligent designer that created the universe, is more illogical than not having one? Do you believe in evolution? Why do you believe in something, for which there is no evidence for?

 

 

 

Empiricism can not be applied to everything. Biblical matters are historical and unless you have a time machine, empirical study can not be applied. As for "absolutely no proof" that's an extremely shallow statement. If you say that, than you must also state that there is "no proof for the non-existence of God."

 

 

 

I choose what I believe because there is no evidence to the contrary. But much more for what I believe. I base my opinions and beliefs on the facts that are present, rather than the fallacy of "lack of fact." There is significant historical and archeological basis to lead that the events of the Bible happened. Whether or not you believe that God guided these historical events or that they were documented in the Bible ex post facto is up to you. I choose to believe the former.

 

 

 

As for evolution, I believe in it, but not to explain the existence of man. There is no smooth evolution of man. Forty thousand years ago man simply appeared out of nowhere in essentially the very form we exist in today. That is documented, archeologically. It's a sharp contrast from the other "missing link" manlike creatures that we have found. Whether you believe that man was created or that the fossil record is incomplete is inconsequential, those are the facts.

 

 

 

I still fail to see your insinuation that there is "evidence" against a Creator like being. Because there is none.

[lobsta]

I choose what I believe because there is no evidence to the contrary. But much more for what I believe. I base my opinions and beliefs on the facts that are present, rather than the fallacy of "lack of fact." There is significant historical and archeological basis to lead that the events of the Bible happened. Whether or not you believe that God guided these historical events or that they were documented in the Bible ex post facto is up to you. I choose to believe the former.

 

The historical data for the Bible is incomplete and inconsistent. If you truly based your beliefs on the facts that are present, then you would not believe in God. There are no facts that support the existence of god.

 

 

 

As for evolution, I believe in it, but not to explain the existence of man. There is no smooth evolution of man. Forty thousand years ago man simply appeared out of nowhere in essentially the very form we exist in today. That is documented, archeologically. It's a sharp contrast from the other "missing link" manlike creatures that we have found. Whether you believe that man was created or that the fossil record is incomplete is inconsequential, those are the facts.

 

 

 

This is a very interesting statement, and if you prove it to be true then please let the scientific community know about it. Man appeared out of nowhere? As I am sure someone with your intellectual capacity will be aware, the fossil record is incomplete and we are lucky to have fossils if at all. The archaeological archive is incomplete. Man appeared after millions of years of accumulative change. Advances in Biology have enlightened us to the existence in D.N.A. If we were to remove all fossils from existence, there would still be an insurmountable amount of evidence for evolution.

 

 

 

I still fail to see your insinuation that there is "evidence" against a Creator like being. Because there is none.

 

I was not insinuating that there is evidence against him. I was quite clearly saying that there is no evidence to suggest that he does exist.

 

 

 

As for "absolutely no proof" that's an extremely shallow statement. If you say that, than you must also state that there is "no proof for the non-existence of God."

 

Sir, it is not I that must prove the non-existence of God, that is impossible. It is you, who must prove his existence. It is impossible to disprove the existence of anything. You can not disprove the existence of the flying Spaghetti monster... But I promise you he exists (unless you can disprove his existence?)

 

There is no proof of Gods existence, therefore it would be logical to not believe unless proven otherwise.

[Barihawk]

You know, I never really noticed when you stopped politely asking me what I believed in and started a debate. Which is the whole damned reason I stay out of these threads.

 

 

 

You are closed minded in the sense that it bothers you that someone else believes in something different. That's what I meant by my original comment. That's why these threads turn into page after page of insult, mockery, and turmoil. Because it ceases to be an informational thread and a battle of "my beliefs are better than your beliefs."

 

 

 

I'm sorry I even fell into that trap and made my preceding post.

[lobsta]

I've been trying to stay out of this uneducated inexperienced hogwash that this forum presents as "scientific discussion" but some of the turds of a post in this thread required me to step in. I'm sorry if that makes me sound arrogant, but as a scientist and quite frankly in the top 6% of educated Americans I feel I need to step in and start some fun discussion. At the very least give some harsh lessons in reality.

[Barihawk]

Here's the difference. I'm not telling people that their ideologies are wrong. I'm simply stating that their notions of other people's beliefs are.

[assassin_696]

To quote Einstein (and the quote I asked someone above me to read) "Science without religion is lame (mute). Religion without science is blind." In the end, a balance between the two must be maintained.

 

 

 

I like this quote a lot, and although I'm not accusing you of the misrepresentation that the Marx quote often gets I think it's worth quoting the passage from which it comes in full:

 

 

 

Even though the realms of religion and science in themselves are clearly marked off from each other, nevertheless there exist between the two strong reciprocal relationships and dependencies. Though religion may be that which determines the goal, it has, nevertheless, learned from science, in the broadest sense, what means will contribute to the attainment of the goals it has set up. But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.

 

Though I have asserted above that in truth a legitimate conflict between religion and science cannot exist, I must nevertheless qualify this assertion once again on an essential point, with reference to the actual content of historical religions. This qualification has to do with the concept of God. During the youthful period of mankind's spiritual evolution human fantasy created gods in man's own image, who, by the operations of their will were supposed to determine, or at any rate to influence, the phenomenal world. Man sought to alter the disposition of these gods in his own favor by means of magic and prayer. The idea of God in the religions taught at present is a sublimation of that old concept of the gods. Its anthropomorphic character is shown, for instance, by the fact that men appeal to the Divine Being in prayers and plead for the fulfillment of their wishes.

 

 

 

I think the subtle difference is that Einstein is talking about how religion and science are often asking the same questions, and that kind of questioning probably comes from the same place within us. The faith that Einstein talks of isn't one of dogma or historical texts, it's more a sense of awe and wonder at the world guided by reason and the scientific method. These common goals of religion and science I admire, but Einstein's views on organised religion and personal gods are much less favourable.

[Barihawk]

Agreed, but they are still wise words. I like them, especially as a historian, as it is difficult to understand something without approaching it from multiple angles. To simply rely on your own feelings, beliefs, or dogma (whether religious or scientific) is not going to have much success when it comes to understanding the world around you.

 

 

 

That, and I think that religion and science can coexist to a degree, at least in the eye of the beholder. Like many things, the extremes are never good.

[assassin_696]

I absolutely agree that a many-angled approach is needed to fully understand things. I'm fully in favour of objective religious education being provided alongside every other subject at school. You can't understand so much of history without understanding religion, and vice versa. I also somewhat agree that science and religion can co-exist. Although the philosophy of taking something on faith and empirical proof are fundamentally at odds I don't think that means that science and religion taken as a whole are incompatible. Having an appreciation of multiple disciplines informs your understanding of others. Both sides of the debate are foolish to dimiss any incompatibilities between their worldviews and only seek confirmation bias.

[Barihawk]

I completely understand and agree, although I am beginning to learn in graduate school that empiricism isn't everything. For instance, history. History was practiced empirically as a social science from it's first appearances in the Enlightenment, but in the past 50 years we have started to move away from empiricism because barring the use of a time machine, we can't gather empirical data about the past, truly. Even primary documents might be riddled with bias or simple mistakes. Thus secondary sources began to be used more and it came down to a multi-approach science that could provide for amazing results.

 

 

 

Empiricism gives a sense of order and control, but it can not be simply used for everything. It can only prove what can be tested. That's where faith (secular sense of the word) comes in. If you can gather enough information from sources, you can put your faith in educated opinion, although it will never have the absolutist approach of empirical study. Although it's simply the best we can do.

[mmmcannibalism]

I like to think everything should be approached from an empirical point of view with the acceptance there are limits. It goes back to the teapot in space thing, the belief in something like god at its very base requires non empiric faith but that doesnt make it less logical then something that is empirically defined.

[Barihawk]

I like to think everything should be approached from an empirical point of view with the acceptance there are limits. It goes back to the teapot in space thing, the belief in something like god at its very base requires non empiric faith but that doesnt make it less logical then something that is empirically defined.

 

 

 

Great example. The problem is that a lot of these arguments have people that seem to ignore the possibility that anything beyond empiric study exists.

[magekillr]

I'll ask my questions via PM, Bari.

 

 

 

In the meantime:

 

 

 

CBN News has learned that President Obama will create a President's Council on Faith. The council will be announced at Thursday's National Prayer Breakfast in Washington tomorrow. The President has not been shy talking about his faith. This new council will be made up of religious leaders across the ideaological spectrum. Their main task will be to provide public policy input on faith related issues ranging from healthcare to poverty. They will meet regularly and discuss their ideas with the President. The council will be part of an overall faith-based office. The President is also expected to lay out his vision for that office at the prayer breakfast.

 

 

 

http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/534646.aspx

 

 

 

I think this is a fantastic idea. The far left is going to be pissed off at this, but I think it's a great way to open up dialogue towards the RR and get them to get away from issues like banning homosexuality, and focus more on poverty and disease. It could also result in interfaith chatter, so maybe they understand each other more.

[mmmcannibalism]

I like to think everything should be approached from an empirical point of view with the acceptance there are limits. It goes back to the teapot in space thing, the belief in something like god at its very base requires non empiric faith but that doesnt make it less logical then something that is empirically defined.

 

 

 

Great example. The problem is that a lot of these arguments have people that seem to ignore the possibility that anything beyond empiric study exists.

 

 

 

agreed, its a shame really as good religious discussion is always very interesting.

[warri0r45]

I'll ask my questions via PM, Bari.

 

 

 

In the meantime:

 

 

 

CBN News has learned that President Obama will create a President's Council on Faith. The council will be announced at Thursday's National Prayer Breakfast in Washington tomorrow. The President has not been shy talking about his faith. This new council will be made up of religious leaders across the ideaological spectrum. Their main task will be to provide public policy input on faith related issues ranging from healthcare to poverty. They will meet regularly and discuss their ideas with the President. The council will be part of an overall faith-based office. The President is also expected to lay out his vision for that office at the prayer breakfast.

 

 

 

http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/534646.aspx

 

 

 

I think this is a fantastic idea. The far left is going to be pissed off at this, but I think it's a great way to open up dialogue towards the RR and get them to get away from issues like banning homosexuality, and focus more on poverty and disease. It could also result in interfaith chatter, so maybe they understand each other more.

 

 

 

I don't suppose the irreligious will be included, will they? I'd support it if it got the point of view of the non believers, too. Ultimately though, policy should be down to pragmatism and common ideals rather than any one religious stance.

[magekillr]

I'll ask my questions via PM, Bari.

 

 

 

In the meantime:

 

 

 

CBN News has learned that President Obama will create a President's Council on Faith. The council will be announced at Thursday's National Prayer Breakfast in Washington tomorrow. The President has not been shy talking about his faith. This new council will be made up of religious leaders across the ideaological spectrum. Their main task will be to provide public policy input on faith related issues ranging from healthcare to poverty. They will meet regularly and discuss their ideas with the President. The council will be part of an overall faith-based office. The President is also expected to lay out his vision for that office at the prayer breakfast.

 

 

 

http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/534646.aspx

 

 

 

I think this is a fantastic idea. The far left is going to be pissed off at this, but I think it's a great way to open up dialogue towards the RR and get them to get away from issues like banning homosexuality, and focus more on poverty and disease. It could also result in interfaith chatter, so maybe they understand each other more.

 

 

 

I don't suppose the irreligious will be included, will they? I'd support it if it got the point of view of the non believers, too. Ultimately though, policy should be down to pragmatism and common ideals rather than any one religious stance.

 

 

 

I'm not sure. I mean, someone's going to be left out somewhere. I'm not necessarily counting on him to include the Church of Latter Day Saints, or Scientology. He did include "non-believers" in his inauguration speech, however, so I wouldn't count atheists/agnostics out just yet.

[Barihawk]

I'd just call that appeasement, magekllr, but I'll keep my eye on it. Thanks for informing me.

[magekillr]

I'll ask my questions via PM, Bari.

 

 

 

In the meantime:

 

 

 

CBN News has learned that President Obama will create a President's Council on Faith. The council will be announced at Thursday's National Prayer Breakfast in Washington tomorrow. The President has not been shy talking about his faith. This new council will be made up of religious leaders across the ideaological spectrum. Their main task will be to provide public policy input on faith related issues ranging from healthcare to poverty. They will meet regularly and discuss their ideas with the President. The council will be part of an overall faith-based office. The President is also expected to lay out his vision for that office at the prayer breakfast.

 

 

 

http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/534646.aspx

 

 

 

I think this is a fantastic idea. The far left is going to be pissed off at this, but I think it's a great way to open up dialogue towards the RR and get them to get away from issues like banning homosexuality, and focus more on poverty and disease. It could also result in interfaith chatter, so maybe they understand each other more.

 

 

 

I don't suppose the irreligious will be included, will they? I'd support it if it got the point of view of the non believers, too. Ultimately though, policy should be down to pragmatism and common ideals rather than any one religious stance.

 

 

 

warri0r, I think you'll be pleasantly surprised:

 

 

 

 

 

READERS are going to start thinking I'm obsessed, but I think the final proof that Barack Obama plans once and for all to elevate respect for Americans who don't practice a religion came at this morning's National Prayer Breakfast:

 

 

 

There is no doubt that the very nature of faith means that some of our beliefs will never be the same. We read from different texts. We follow different edicts. We subscribe to different accounts of how we came to be here and where were going next and some subscribe to no faith at all...

 

We know too that whatever our differences, there is one law that binds all great religions together. Jesus told us to "love thy neighbor as thyself." The Torah commands, "That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow." In Islam, there is a hadith that reads "None of you truly believes until he wishes for his brother what he wishes for himself." And the same is true for Buddhists and Hindus; for followers of Confucius and for humanists. It is, of course, the Golden Rule - the call to love one another; to understand one another; to treat with dignity and respect those with whom we share a brief moment on this Earth.

 

 

 

A notable repetitionnot just once, rote, but twice, to let you know he means it.

 

 

 

As for that second passage, did Mr Obama just endorse a name for the group struggling to name itself? Some don't like "atheist" or "nonbeliever" because they are definitionally negative. The coinage of "Brights" has failed to catch on for the obvious reasons. But "humanist" has a nice, positive feeling, and a history.

 

 

 

Mr Obama went on to announce a White House of Faith-Based and Neighbourhood Partnerships. A Bushian thing to do? No, he continued:

 

The goal of this office will not be to favor one religious group over another - or even religious groups over secular groups. It will simply be to work on behalf of those organizations that want to work on behalf of our communities, and to do so without blurring the line that our founders wisely drew between church and state.

 

 

 

Interesting. I'm not sure if Mr Obama isn't trying a little too hard to please everyone here, but the fact that he is trying to please everyoneand remember that a major presidential candidate said not long ago that "freedom requires religion"is striking.

 

 

 

Now that he is not doing backflips for Rick Warren, citing his favourite Bible verse in a "faith debate" or dodging conspiracies that he is a Muslim, Mr Obama is also free to say things like:

 

 

 

I was not raised in a particularly religious household. I had a father who was born a Muslim but became an atheist, grandparents who were non-practicing Methodists and Baptists, and a mother who was skeptical of organized religion, even as she was the kindest, most spiritual person I've ever known. She was the one who taught me as a child to love, and to understand, and to do unto others as I would want done.

 

 

 

A few years ago, Daniel Dennett, an atheist philosopher, wrote:

 

 

 

"Politicians don't think they even have to pay us lip service, and leaders who wouldn't be caught dead making religious or ethnic slurs don't hesitate to disparage the "godless" among us. From the White House down, bright-bashing is seen as a low-risk vote-getter."

 

 

 

Not this White House.

 

 

 

 

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democrac ... tinued.cfm