Back to Home

God & Science Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | God and Science | Post
Login

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
I Need To Iron Out A Few Creases In My Argument

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Mario Dovalina on April 27, 2001 18:35:37 UTC

I don't think I'm seeing things the way I want to see them:

"Is love something "real" or just something that your brain comes up with? The answer is that it doesn't really matter."

"That's what I think it's wrong with atheism, atheists keep shouting the mantra that religion is only inside our brains, and theists reply that that fact alone doesn't make any difference."

That's the way I took your statements, that you think that truth is either subjective or objectivity doesn't matter. If you meant them another way then I apologize.



Anyway, I think we disagree on the very definition of religion. Philosophical thought, meditation, morality, inner peace, and other such things don't really qualify as religion under my definition, and if they do in yours, that may be the cause of much of our disagreements. I do accept much of the MORAL beliefs of religion (love thy neighbor, not steal, etc.) but the basis of that morality is not religious. And why should it have to be? Treat your neighbor like you want to be treated, why do you need a religion to get that message across? I agree that the basis of religion is right, loving your common man, and so forth. But the WAY IN WHICH RELIGIONS PRESENT THEIR MESSAGE is what angers me. Jesus is God's son, he said to love they neighbor, therefore you have to. It's an indirect way of creating order. Start with a belief in God, then make a list of everything you want society to do, and bingo! I don't NEED religion for my morality, that's my point. And again, maybe we disagree on the definition of religion. I'm referring to the specific institutions.

"If religion is a lie then it's not useful. It's true that religion has problems but shouldn't we work to solve those problems so that we can preserve the usefullness, instead of getting rid of religion altogether? What can we possibly gain by discarding what the majority of people regard as the most important human institution?"

Discarding religion will never work. Many people could not handle a moral system apart from theism. I accept that. But I disagree with you on one point: if religion is in fact a lie than it IS still useful. It holds people in line and offers an insoluble basis for morality: do this because God wants you to. Religion is a neccesary evil. But that deoesn't make its tenets fact. Science is the most reliable source for that.

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
Google
 
Web www.astronomy.net
DayNightLine
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2021 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins