Religion is a scam built to take advantage and control the uneducated masses.
Except that many highly educated people are also into religions :(
Childhood indoctrination works wonders to keep you scam going.
The whole life has a purpose and eternal soul thing make people want to believe as well
Plenty of educated religious people are converts. I was raised atheist and converted to Buddhism in my late teens. The same was true of many of the other students in my university’s religious studies department.
The fact is, being religious doesn’t depend on lack of education or childhood indoctrination. People will still be religious in the absence of those things.
I think that more than a few highly successful people who are both religious and not stupid, have realized what religion actually is and manipulate it to their advantage.
Not all, but I suspect there’s more than a few.
You know everything, apparently.
Religion is “built” by the actions of countless religious people. There is not a single cohesive force shaping its development. Religion has also been used for education, political liberation, charity, and emotional healing. Reality is complex.
As an aside, people who are bothered by my arguments should consider watching Contrapoints’ recent video on conspiracism. The points I am making in this thread are the same points she makes against conspiracy theories.
Atheists like the OP suggest (ironically) that religion is an intentionalist, evil force, but a basic survey of the history of religion easily disproves this type of thinking. Intentionalism and binarism are cankers on the pursuit of truth. Like politics, religion is nuanced; it is not a grand conspiracy, even if there are groups in it who conspire. Atheists would do well to be wary of conspiracism, lest they place their hatred of religion over their pursuit of truth.
Religion is to calm a heart when it has nowhere to turn to.
Problem is the same as with comunism, few in power get greedy.
Many religions are. The ones that focus inward to better yourself are not bothering anyone. When was the last time a Buddhist knocked on your door and asked you to find Buddha?
Edit: The self-righteousness of some atheists is truly hypocritical. Persecution is wrong, whether it’s of an atheist by a religious person, or vice versa. Yet another reason to be disappointed in my fellow man, I guess.
Buddhism is a religion in the same way that Christianity is a religion. I.e. it’s an abstract concept and not an implementation.
The implementations are invariably the problem. Just look at Myanmar.
Don’t look up events in Myanmar.
When was the last time a Buddhist knocked on your door and asked you to find Buddha?
Buddhism (and the Hinduism it is rooted in) isn’t intended to accrued disciples as part of an elaborate religiously flavored MLM. It is intended to justify existing, generational, disparities in wealth, power, and property.
You won’t find one knocking on your door. You knock on their doors, and hope to ingratiate yourself to their superiors by adopting their customs in exchange for status and business relations.
[Buddhism] is intended to justify existing, generational, disparities in wealth, power, and property.
Uh, no, this simply isn’t true. In South Asia, these disparities are instantiated in the hereditary varna system (usually translated as “caste”, though conservative Hindus will object to this), in which the highest social class is the Vedic clergy called the “brahmins”. Brahmin supremacy has been a constant feature of South Asian society going back millennia, and it is still widespread today.
As the Buddha said in the Vasala Sutta, “Not by birth is one an outcast; not by birth is one a brahman. By deed one becomes an outcast, by deed one becomes a brahman.”
This runs counter to the idea of generational class, which was the general attitude of brahminical society and was how brahmins maintained their power over others.
The Buddha elaborates on this idea in the Vasettha Sutta:
While the differences between these species
are defined by birth,
the differences between humans
are not defined by birth.
Not by hair nor by head,
not by ear nor by eye,
not by mouth nor by nose,
not by lips nor by eyebrow,
not by shoulder nor by neck,
not by belly nor by back,
not by buttocks nor by breast,
not by groin nor by genitals,
not by hands nor by feet,
not by fingers nor by nails,
not by knees nor by thighs,
not by color nor by voice:
none of these are defined by birth
as it is for other species.
In individual human bodies
you can’t find such distinctions.
The distinctions among humans
are spoken of by convention.
This is essentially an early version of social constructionism.
The Buddha goes on to criticize the various things that brahmins do, saying that e.g. doing sacrifices makes you a sacrificer, not a brahmin. He ultimately says that only people who are virtuous, detached from pleasures and free from disturbing emotions are really “brahmins”. So, the Buddha actually taught a countercultural criticism of hereditary class.
As the Buddha said in the Vasala Sutta, “Not by birth is one an outcast; not by birth is one a brahman. By deed one becomes an outcast, by deed one becomes a brahman.”
Why did the noble Japanese Buddhists boil Portuguese Christians alive? Was this one of those Brahman Deeds?
The Buddha goes on to criticize the various things that brahmins do
Much as Jesus critiqued the Pharasises. And yet modern Christian Dominionists have far more in common with Pharasises - even Roman Pagans - than the fishermen and slaves and prostitutes that were it’s original disciples.
Why did the noble Japanese Buddhists boil Portuguese Christians alive? Was this one of those Brahman Deeds?
Because of their afflictive emotions of fear, hatred, and so on, which are the real “enemy” that Buddhists should oppose. Unfortunately, most Buddhists are just ordinary people with no particular control over their disturbing emotions.
Much as Jesus critiqued the Pharasises. And yet modern Christian Dominionists have far more in common with Pharasises - even Roman Pagans - than the fishermen and slaves and prostitutes that were it’s original disciples.
Yes. Unfortunately it’s easier for one person to be exceptional than a whole society. I think religions’ greatest failure has been their neglect of the role that material conditions play in people’s lives. Until we have exceptional material conditions, exceptional people will not be the norm.
Yeah, I used to think that about Sikhism as well. Then I did some research. Every religion can and has been abused.
Of course it can, just as science has the ability to do the same. Do we brand all scientists as unethical because of Unit 731 or the Nuremberg trials? Ironically, this entire thread is very unscientific in its criticism of the religious.
Right, except religion serves no purpose that a non-religious group can’t do. Do you see why equating religion and science is pretty silly?
The only purpose of religion is to spread. Everything else is just a means to an end. Just take every good aspect of religion and remove the faith and the god from it. It becomes better. Teach people to do stuff because it is right, not because X god says so.
Exactly!!
They fall into the same category of people that look inward and find themselves as a train or an anime character or some other spirit animal / past life bullshit.
These are all people that need mental help and prescription medication.
That’s where atheists overstep. Why does it matter what someone believes if it has no effect on you? Isn’t that exactly what you criticize the religious of doing?
Other people’s beliefs directly impact me constantly through laws justified by religious doctrine, social pressures, imposing themselves into government offices, and being used to promote lying politicians who claim to be members but never following the teachings while gaining votes for being on the same team.
It has negatively affected me my entire life, even if it isn’t a obvious as racism and misogyny.
100%
So you’re saying that you want separation from religion. Why can’t they have that from you? I agree that religion doesn’t belong in government. What about that justifies extermination of religion?
I didn’t say anything about extrrninating religion, I responded to your comment saying people’s beliefs have no affect on an atheist.
Atheists being against religion is a reaction to the default assumption that everyone is part of a religion. The label atheist only exists as a response to beliefs.
Right, until they harm someone or themselves by thinking they can fly if they believe hard enough or that they can get into a magical afterlife if they kill enough people. If you are open to that magic thinking then you are open to be manipulated and used.
Or their beliefs turn extremists because religion like cancer or capitalism needs unending growth to fuel its existence. People need to be kept uneducated and gullible enough to buy into the fantasy and to donate more money to make the clergy that will inevitably rape some kids.
These same people are bringing their fantasy into politics and look where that brought America and or the religious war going on.
Way to project. Find me articles on Buddhists harming people because they think they can fly. While I’m waiting, would you like me to provide scientific research that resulted in harm?
You can’t have it both ways. If you want boundaries that protect you from the religious, then you yourself must respect the same boundary.
https://allthatsinteresting.com/sokushinbutsu
This is absolutely self harm that is caused by a mentally disturbed individual that is trying to achieve the nonexistent.
That kind of mental instability can lead to any number of self harm or escalation of hurting others in the name of any god or religion.
Religion needs to be wiped out through education, mental health services and ultimately taxation and banning from all political systems.
I didn’t ask about self harm. I asked about others. Are you afraid you’re going to harm yourself, or that a religious person could harm you? How is an individual’s beliefs your business if they don’t impact you? You sincerely believe that the way to solve religious persecution by some is to persecute all of the religious?
Like every large religion, a significant portion of the followers will ignore any teaching in the right contexts. Christians are about turning the other cheek and loving thy neighbor except for the crusades and witch trials, Islam is the religion of peace except for when it isn’t, and Buddhism has its own exceptions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_violence
As found in other religious traditions, Buddhism has an extensive history of violence dating back to its inception.
These remarks followed the 1973 student-led uprising, as well as the creation of a Thai parliament and the spread of communism in neighboring East Asian countries. The fear of communism shaking the social forms of Thailand felt a very real threat to Kittivuddho, who expressed his nationalist tendencies in his defense of militant actions. He justified his argument by dehumanizing the Communists and leftists that he opposed. In the interview with Caturat he affirmed that this would not be the killing of people, but rather the killing of monsters/devils. He similarly asserted that while killing of people is prohibited and thus de-meritorious in Buddhist teachings, doing so for the “greater good” will garner greater merit than the act of killing will cost.
“I’m 14 and this is deep.”
Accurate tho
Not really. If you read about the history of medieval universities, madrasahs, and mahaviharas, you will see how deeply and widely religious people have studied throughout history. It was customary for religious scholars to learn all kinds of topics, such as grammar, logic, and medicine.
Religions are made up of people, and have accommodated all kinds of people. Some are wise scholars, and others are ignorant conspiracists. Religion can’t really be boiled down to one side or the other, though I understand how the rise of fundamentalist Christian fascism might make this hard to see.
this is a common fallacy with religion, but basically it’s not that religion has aided studies, but rather studies have made it despite religion. just because it happened under religion doesn’t mean religion is what helped it.
basically it’s not that religion has aided studies, but rather studies have made it despite religion
In some cases, sure, and in other cases, no. For example, Buddhism is supported by nine other fields of knowledge – the vidyasthanas – including such things as grammar and logic. Religious teachers draw examples and ideas from these fields when giving religious teachings. One must study these other fields to become a “learned one” (pandita/mkhas pa).
This is a living tradition that continues to the present day. For example, the Dalai Lama has heavily promoted education in modern science among Buddhists, and has co-authored several books on the connection between the two.
The idea that religion is just some anti-educational brainrot is, ironically, anti-educational brainrot. Religion definitely can function that way, but it cannot be reduced to it.
When your viewpoint is fairly tales, even a 14 year old can bust your view.
The more you know, the more you know you don’t know.
The less you know, the less you know you don’t know.
Edgy 14yo post
Look at your fucking username before you blabber about edgy 14 yr olds
There is also an idea in philosophy of science called “pessimistic meta induction”. Basically the concept is that science is a continually evolving process where we get increasingly accurate understanding about how things work. However since science progresses by falsifying previously held beliefs we can speculate that all of our current scientific theories are technically false.
It’ll end up like the Bohr model. Someday we’ll miss the elegant simplicity of everything just being vibrating strings.
Out of concern for how much the “Bible Belt” throws in with Israel’s Zionist bullshit, I did some basic searches on the topic, and the discussion was a bit different than I thought it’d be.
People need a place to belong. For many, they have communities in cities that fit. For rural areas, it’s one thing to say “Stop listening to that televangelist ordering you to deposit your savings”, but you’d need something else to take that place - something to believe in.
That’s where more progressive preachers, people similar to the current pope, are shaming themselves for not stepping up enough, recognizing people’s needs and being genuine voices of compassion; not trying to be the economic “immigrants pay taxes” or scientific “colleges fuel cure research” voice, but the “Be good to your neighbor” voice.
So even though I’m not a believer, I’m at least seeing the way churches can bring communities together rather than leave all one’s connections to Facebook. The important thing is what sort of voice is unifying them - because by god, there’s a million ways to pervert the message of any major religion into one of hate.
I get the sentiment, but check out the length of the Taoist cannon, it would challenge even some modern day myth lengths like Marvel super hero comics.
Here I thought that the Taoist canon was only the Tao Te Ching (which is pretty short).
canon = approved literature
cannon = large gun that fires grapeshot, etc.
Now I can’t help thinking about what a Taoist Megaman villains gallery would look like
Ennui man, Hubris man?
What you know about a few cultures built around one monotheistic religion does not generalize to all religion.
Yeah cause other religions are so progressive and constantly evolving for the better lol
I often see this sentiment on the internet, but I wonder what definition people who hold this view are using for “religion” to reach this conclusion. I have found that the definitions of “religion” and “faith” in use by people are so varied or vague that they are almost pointless to use. The way I define them, everyone is religious and faith is a necessity.
life presents a dilemma to me: I would like to conclusively know everything about the universe and reality before deciding what choices to make, but I do not have that luxury. I must make decisions daily with what amounts to almost no information. Faith is not an optional part of life. Some people recognize that necessity and others do not. It is merely a question of who and what you place your faith in.
Rather than use the word “religion”, I would be much more interested in asking about people’s worldviews. Wikipedia gives this description: One can think of a worldview as comprising a number of basic beliefs which are philosophically equivalent to the axioms of the worldview considered as a logical or consistent theory. These basic beliefs cannot, by definition, be proven.
I have boiled this down to two essential questions about the nature of life/existence/reality that can be graphed on a quadrant:
The horizontal axis is the duration of existence. The difference between a worldview with an infinite existence and a worldview with a finite existence is immeasurable. If I believe in an infinite petsonal existence, then my actions have infinite consequences which I must experience the results of. Short of infinite personal existence, I may believe that life/the universe will exist forever, but that I will personally cease to exist when I die. In this case, my actions may still have infinite consequences (for future generations) but I will not personally experience them. A purely finite/temporal worldview would mean that I believe that everything will end in the heat death of the universe or similar life ending event. In this case, it ultimately doesn’t matter what I, or anyone else does in life, everything will end the same way for everyone and all life.
The vertical axis represents the nature of our existence. Is the source of life personal or impersonal? If I believed a completely impersonal worldview, then I would believe that we are essentially just biologically pre-programmed to live our lives based on the DNA that we have been built from and that person hood/personal agency is a construct of the mind with no higher meaning. If I believed in a completely personal worldview, then I would believe that I am created by a personal being that is also interested in a personal relationship with me, and I am created as a reflection of their person hood.
These are foundational questions about the nature of reality that demand an answer. Every choice I make in my life should reflect the answers to these questions. But where are the answers?
In our current society, it seems to be accepted that science and religion are diametrically opposed and cannot co-exist. I have observed, especially on the internet, that if I espouse to be religious, then it is assumed that I believe in flying spaghetti monsters and think the earth is flat. I believe that intellectually honest people will find that they are actually in more similar circumstances than they realize. It would be foolish for me to disregard scientific observation and experimentation, but it would be equally foolish for me to disregard the limitations of those observations and experiments:
It is impossible to take a zero-trust approach with science (never trust, always verify). I don’t have access to a Large Hadron Collider to observe the Higgs boson for myself. I don’t have access to the LUX-ZEPLIN to experiment with dark matter. I don’t have access to the LIGO Lab to observe gravitational waves. I trust that these experiments are conducted correctly and that their findings are correct, but by doing so I am placing my faith in the scientists performing the experiments. I do so also knowing that complete objectivity is impossible. I have a personal bias. My own life experience and observations skew the way I see the world. I assume this is the same of other people, scientists included. Even if I had access to all the equipment necessary, and dedicated my entire life to scientific experimentation, I would only be able to conduct a tiny fraction of experiments necessary to explore just a few of the questions about the nature of the universe. At the end of my life, I would likely have more questions about the universe than when I began. Even if I had the time, ability, and equipment necessary to conduct all necessary experiments to explore my questions about the universe, I would be making a fundamental assumption that I am actually able to observe everything. I have no idea if there are other dimensions that I will never be able to observe or experiment with. I simply have to accept by faith that these do or do not exist. Even if I assumed that everything is observable, and I had the capacity to conduct all necessary experiments, I would still have an impossible problem from a practical standpoint: I need to make decisions on a daily basis. I don’t have a lifetime to wait and scientifically determine the nature of the universe before I make a decision about how I want to live my life. I am living it right now. The fundamental truth about the universe matters in the decisions that I have to make right now.This is why faith is a necessity. I look around, and I see that I am just one of over seven billion people on this Earth, and that Earth is just one of eight planets orbiting our Sun, and that our Sun is just one of billions of stars in our Milky Way Galaxy, a galaxy that is so vast, even travelling at the impossible speed of light, would take me thousands of lifetimes to traverse, and that galaxy is just one of possibly trillions of galaxies in what is just the observable universe. One thing is for sure. I am very small, in every sense of the word. To sit here, and read this paragraph again, and then think that I really know-it-all would make me one of the most arrogant beings in the universe. I know very little, and I live by faith.
Trust and Faith are not the same thing. A belief is not the same as a fact. Language is a terrible way to talk about this, which is why science uses math.
While trust and faith aren’t perfect synonyms they are closely related: https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/trust
As for math, are you familiar with Gödel’s incompleteness theorems?
This is a good explanation/interview for anyone who is not: https://youtu.be/u3GYrEOoKGk
Tldr?
The TLDR is that science requires a much faith as religion, and that people aren’t willing to take ten minutes to read more than a couple paragraphs and contemplate the fundamental nature of reality, because you know, it’s not as important as a meme…
This is literally a meme board, so yeah. If I wanted to seriously contemplate reality I would seek it elsewhere.
Most people use “religion” to mean “organized religion” in particular, and many people further take it to mean christianity and christianity-like religions. Religion is a word that is hard to define, but I think that although there are many edge cases, most people mostly agree on what is and what isnt a religion. My point here is that, just because they are not definable in a strict sense, does not mean the words “religion” and “faith” are “pointless”. They very much have meaning.
Many words are like that: no clear definition but they refer to real things or ideas. For example, existentialism, postmodernism, artistic styles (such as cubism or impressionism), etc. And even many terms in the sciences are like that. None of the words mathematics, physics or philosophy have clear-cut definitions. Hell, i can take this to the extreme. Even words like water or gold do not have a clear definition, in the way that lay people use them. Seawater is water even though it is made up of more than just H2O. 95% ethanol is never called water, even though 5% of it is water.
My point is that memes like this use religion as a strawman because they don’t actually want to discuss the foundational concepts expressed by the meme. Which is what I addressed, in my admittedly very lenghy, response.
People who think Science and Religion are opposed to one another don’t understand either one.
What is science? Observing how to world works and learning from that.
What is religion? Philosophy (Here how you should behave, and how to live a good life)
Science has no reason to argue with religion, because religion is not scientific. There is nothing that can be proven or disproven.
Religion has no reason to argue with science, because whatever religion believes about the origin of the world, science just seeks to better understand that world. Knowing how electrons move is not an affront to God.
Arguing Science vs Religion is like arguing Painting vs Music. Sure, they’re both art but they are completely different and do not overlap. There are plenty of scientists who follow one religion or another.
ITT: people with firmly held personal beliefs that Religion is anti-Science, and refusing to listen to rational arguments or studies that say otherwise. Proving that you can’t logic someone out of their personal beliefs and it’s a waste of time to try.
Religion has no reason to argue with science,
Well, that sounds good on paper. It would be nice if over the centuries, religion wouldn’t have ceaselessly attacked and persecuted scientists. If religion was “only philosophy”, there wouldn’t be so many religious zealots not only denying but actively trying to ban the teaching of evolution at schools. Nope… religion is anti-science. It has to be, because science is the one thing that has gradually taken away religion’s authority over the minds of people. Religion is a mind virus, science is the cure.
Again, there are plenty of scientist who follow one religion or another:
According to the poll, just over half of scientists (51%) believe in some form of deity or higher power
https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/
It doesn’t make sense to claim religion is by default anti-science when scientists are just as likely to be religious as not. If religion was as anti-Science as you claim then no scientists would be religious.
People who don’t understand science or religion are anti-science, and they use religion as an excuse.
Citing a study about science in the USA, a very religious country, as if that in any way reflected the world of science as a whole… well, okay then.
Yes, and a lot of Science has historically happened in the USA, a very religious country.
You committed a logical fallacy, were called out on it and now you try to pretend it didn’t happen. Talking to you is futile.
What logical fallacy? The fact that the US is a very religious study doesn’t change the fact that they have scientists that are religious. If religion was anti-science then you wouldn’t have scientists that are religious, regardless of how religious the country is.
You’re the one committing the fallacy. How religious the the country is has no barring on the argument presented.
You presented the world of US science as the whole world of science. You pretended just because in America, 50% of scientists are religious, that would mean 50% of scientists in the entire world are religious, which is far from the truth. And you still refuse to accept that this renders your whole argument baseless. So stop wasting my time.
You don’t need to tell us about this. Religion needs to learn this.
“you don’t need to tell us not to be anti-religious because of Science, you need to tell people not to be anti-Science because of religion.”
My dude, I’m telling both. Which group is more common in this comment section?
To put it bluntly, Science wouldn’t give any shits about religion if religion would stay in their lane.
While there’s plenty of atheists who have taken up the charge of destroying religion as much as they possibly can, with limited success, Science has, to my knowledge, never tried to influence religious teachings. Religion, conversely, has tried to stop, slow or otherwise discredit, scientific research, and understanding.
It seems to me that if religion would stay in its lane, this problem wouldn’t exist.
Science has, to my knowledge, never tried to influence religious teachings
The meme I was responding to seems to be specifically trying to use Science to discredit religion.
Religion, conversely, has tried to stop, slow or otherwise discredit, scientific research, and understanding.
And I argue strongly against any idiots trying to do that. However It’s incredibly disingenuous to claim “Religion” as a whole does this. Many scientist are religious in some for or another, so it’s not the concept of “Religion” that tries to discredit scientific research, it’s specific groups using religion as an excuse. The AntiVax MAGA crowd aren’t trying to stop vaccines for religious reasons, they’re doing it for political reasons. Some of them might try to use religion as an excuse (despite their religious literature saying nothing that would oppose vaccines) because they do not actually understand either religion or science.
I understand your argument, and I recognize that you’re discussing the current state of affairs on the current political and social landscape.
My statements, as a whole, are not specific to the current state of affairs. Religion and belief tried to deny that the earth revolves around the sun, as an example. Of course, there’s hundreds of examples of this kind of interference. Darwin’s evolution theory is another prime example. I won’t go on or this will turn into an anti-religion rant.
The problems I’m pointing at are much broader in scope and longer in the timeline / deeper in history than what you seem to be discussing.
I’m only generalizing about “religion” rather than a specific group or religion, because it’s happened so often and come from so many different sources that it’s hard to not generalize as “religion” vs naming all the various belief systems that have hindered scientific progress and understanding.
Certainly religion, as a concept as a much more broad and lingering effect on our society, from state religions (mostly eliminated in developed nations), like the church of England, and other, similar religious organizations, where you were obligated to believe in that religion if you lived in that nation or state, to policy set by proxy, by religious groups or extremist believers. Things that oppose bodily autonomy, and equality… Among others. While these are relevant to our society, both historically, and presently, they are not necessarily blocking, refuting, denying, or otherwise trying to remove scientific knowledge and understanding. It’s a sad state of affairs that we allow such things to have a significant impact on our society, but these things are not significantly impacting our ability to make scientific discovery and progress.
Speaking strictly of direct interference from religious organizations and belief, both now and especially historically, and the damage it has caused to scientific progress and discovery, is difficult to quantify. Needless to say, it has been a significant detriment to scientific progress.
I cannot think of any examples of Science, or any scientist, trying to influence what religion teaches, or what the followers of that religion believe. Science is happy to let entire swaths of people deny what they say and believe whatever the hell they want. Science and scientists will proceed with the information they have; nobody cares what you think your sky daddy has to say about it.
There will always be people using Science to denounce bad teachings from the church, but this is limited in scope, and generally on an individual basis; typically atheists who are anti-religion will use scientific truths to dissuade beliefs in general, not any specific teaching. Any/all scientific organizations have no comment on the matter.
You contradict yourself:
I cannot think of any examples of Science, or any scientist, trying to influence what religion teaches, or what the followers of that religion believe.
There will always be people using Science to denounce bad teachings from the church
The most charitable interpretation I can give you is that “scientists” aren’t trying to use science to discredit the religion, “people” are.
So people who understand science aren’t trying to use science to attack religion, people who don’t understand science are, which was my original point. Just like it’s people who don’t understand science that try to use religion to attack it.
I didn’t claim it doesn’t happen from either science or religion. I claimed the people doing it don’t understand and it’s a pointless waste of time.
I recognize that you’re discussing the current state of affairs on the current political and social landscape.
Yes. Historically speaking everything is terrible. There is a long history of Science doing terrible and unethical experiments. There is a long history of governments doing terrible things. There is a long history of immoral and cruel laws. The history of humanity is full of atrocities.
This does not mean Science, Politics, Law, and Humanity should be by default considered bad. People who used Religion to attack Science were dumb as fuck then and are dumb as fuck now.Science is happy to let entire swaths of people deny what they say and believe whatever the hell they want. Science and scientists will proceed with the information they have; nobody cares what you think your sky daddy has to say about it.
So if science doesn’t care (which I agree with by the way) then making memes that imply science cares is a waste of time. Not only that, by acting like science cares and has something to say about religion it implies that religion has something to say about science. Instead of treating them like they have nothing to do with each other, it invites more “Religion vs Science” BS.
Which group is more common in this comment section?
Lemmy is a predominantly young, leftist or liberal community, religion is going to be a minority here in all regards. When you come in “both siding” religion broadly, you’re asking a lot of people who already have discarded religion to accept some part of it without giving a good reason or argument why.
You don’t need religion to come up with morality, philosophical ideas about nature or anything else religion claims to have the monopoly on. It’s fine if people want to have belief for themselves about higher powers or spirituality, but again, that shouldn’t even be placed on the same table as actual systems of reason and logic and material science.
When you come in “both siding” religion broadly
I am not “both siding”, I am saying they have nothing to do with each other.
you’re asking a lot of people who already have discarded religion to accept some part of it
Where did I do that? I simply said there is no point and no reason to try to use science to argue against religion. The fact that people seem to find that offensive makes me think there are a lot of people wasting their time trying to use science to argue against religion.
People who think Science and Religion are opposed to one another don’t understand either one.
This was your first paragraph, you are starting with the thesis that someone like me, who has defended truth from religious attacks for decades, that I simply “misunderstand” the people who are screaming that God doesn’t want us to get vaccines or learn about cosmology.
Science is on the defense against a powerful, hateful, spiteful ideology that has been wearing us all down for millenia. Religion is fucking HOSTILE so no, you need to focus your statement against the actual antagonist here. This isn’t a place to use this pathetic neutral language, we have active fucking book-burnings happening in the USA right now, as schools become defunded even more than they already are.
you need to focus your statement against the actual antagonist here.
Agreed. The USA is less religious now than it has ever been. If “Religion”, as a monolithic group, was anti-science then book burnings would have been commonplace for its entire existence and vaccines never would have been allowed.
The fact that these are more common now while the USA is less religious would suggest the problem is not the monolithic group of “religion” but instead a specific group. To me it looks a lot more politically driven than it is religious, but I would not claim that “politics is anti-science”.
Yah, that’s not the problem, it’s the fact that religion is designed to push itself where it isn’t, and it claims to be able to solve not just the moral problems, but the logical and societal problems as well.
If religion was just fucking “philosophy” we would all be fine with it, there would be no conflict. Science isn’t trying to invade people’s homes and tell them what they can and cannot do as consenting adults. Science isn’t trying to give people an excuse to be passive about injustice. Science doesn’t condone slavery and hate and violence and organize mass numbers of people to adopt hateful views.
There is material HARM that comes from religious ideology because it’s trying, and has BEEN trying to supplant logic and reason and the scientific process since science became a thing.
This is not a “two sides” issue and I strongly resent the framing as such. Religion is trying to drag the world down to a state of willful ignorance and subservience to magical-thinking as an entity, and science is just a word to describe a process for investigating the universe. They are not equivalent. Do better.
Edit: readers, do not pursue this, you can’t “fix” this person, they’re some kind of closet theist trying to pretend to be intellectual but they have no idea what they’re doing and will lead you in intellectual circles for hours and hours.
Science isn’t trying to invade people’s homes and tell them what they can and cannot do as consenting adults. Science isn’t trying to give people an excuse to be passive about injustice. Science doesn’t condone slavery and hate and violence and organize mass numbers of people to adopt hateful views.
People have tried to use science to do all these things. Eugenics was used as an excuse to push horrific policies.
The problem with blaming “Religion” is you are excusing the people who are doing the horrible shit. Instead of blaming the person who is being a homophobic shitbag you blame religion, dismissing the agency of the individual and excusing their terrible behaviour because “religion make them do it.” Don’t fall for it. Don’t let them hide behind religion and use it as an excuse. Blame the person for being a piece of shit and treat them accordingly as someone who has willfully chosen to do so.
There is material HARM that comes from religious ideology because it’s trying, and has BEEN trying to supplant logic and reason and the scientific process since science became a thing.
And scientists have never done material harm by performing unethicall experiments citing “logic and reason” as an excuse… Clearly all Science must be bad then because some “scientists” are pieces of shit.
This is not a “two sides” issue and I strongly resent the framing as such
The meme in the OP is framing it as a “two sides” issue and that is what I am arguing against. I agree that this is not a “two sides” situation. This is a “two completely different things that have nothing to do with each other” situation.
They are not equivalent.
I have been explicitly saying that they are not the same at all. I used an analogy of Painting and Music which are not equivalent because they are two completely different things. My entire point is people shouldn’t be comparing the two or conflating the two.
Using science to “argue” against religion makes as much sense as using religion to “argue” against science: none. They do not operate in the same spheres, they do not seek to answer the same questions. They do not share and of the same purposes or goals. People need to stop treating them like they have anything in common.
You are still trying to weigh these two ideas against each other like they are neck-and-neck in a race, and again, I am saying your dichotomy is bullshit, and you should feel bad.
If you think experiments with eugenics is anywhere comparable to the thousands of years of wars fought in the name of some God or another, or the constant and unending hate that religion is using right now to justify abusing children, if you think that people make some choice like “will I use science or religion to figure this out” if you think that they are anywhere close to the same thing, you are too dense to have this conversation.
You are scared of death, I get it. We all are. Religion offers comfort, but no evidence of anything other than people like to tell stories about things they’re scared of.
I have been explicitly saying that they are not the same at all.
I didn’t fucking say you’re saying they’re the same, I am saying you’re fucking EQUATING them against each other, and you’re doing it with a fervor, and if you say you’re not, you’re either lying or unaware of what you’re doing. Again, go watch some actual atheist debates and understand that you’re not treading new ground here, you’re falling into the exact same mental fallacy that many so-called “religious intellectuals” get in. You don’t need religion or God to have a better world, a better personal perspective of the universe or anything else.
Using science to “argue” against religion makes as much sense as using religion to “argue” against science: none.
Okay here is where the crux of your stupid argument is. What exactly do you think is happening? Do you think science is waging war on Christianity? Do you believe science is trying to “kill god”? Do you think people adopt science for the same reasons they adopt religion? Do you think that if “both sides just stopped fighting it would be better”? Because if you say yes to any of these questions, again, you are radically misinformed or your perspective is tainted by religion and you are not being honest with yourself.
Science is, and I say this fucking again, a system for finding truth. It’s not designed to attack religion, it’s not competing for anything, you can indeed have both spirituality and religion and science in your life without conflict. But that’s not what Christians and theists broadly do, is it? They’re the ones trying to burn textbooks and trying to get schools to teach creation. Science is not invading churches and forcing them to teach motherfucking geology.
They do not operate in the same spheres, they do not seek to answer the same questions. They do not share and of the same purposes or goals. People need to stop treating them like they have anything in common.
I’m glad you agree, now why are you doing it?
You are still trying to weigh these two ideas against each other like they are neck-and-neck in a race
I am not. How is repeatedly saying they have nothing to with each other treating them like they are in a neck-and-neck race? One is running down a track and the other is painting a picture. They have nothing to do with one another
if you think that people make some choice like “will I use science or religion to figure this out”
Again, if they have nothing to do with one another, why would I think “people make some choice like ‘will I use science or religion to figure this out’” ? That makes as much a thinking people use some choice like “I will use math or art to figure this out.” I have said repeatedly they are not the same and you keep arguing as if I have been claiming otherwise.
I am saying you’re fucking EQUATING them against each other
No more than the meme is, and I am pointing out the pointlessness of doing so.
You don’t need religion or God to have a better world
Never claimed you did.
What exactly do you think is happening?
I think people on the Internet who don’t properly understand Science or Religion try to use one to argue against the other without realizing it makes no sense and is useless.
It’s not designed to attack religion, it’s not competing for anything, you can indeed have both spirituality and religion and science in your life without conflict.
That is exactly what I said, yes. I’m glad we agree.
But that’s not what Christians and theists broadly do, is it?
If you think the majority of Christians and Theists are trying to burn books and force creationism is schools then you will be shocked when you find out how many Christians and Theists actually exist in the world. The majority of Americans are Theists. The fact that some sect is trying to force creationism in schools, and it’s not there by default, would be evidence that that is not a broadly held opinion by thesists. Afterall, if the majority of people wanted it it wouldn’t be that hard to implement.
now why are you doing it?
Where specifically did I do it?
I was raised devout and my parents wanted me to become a pastor, I know a little about religion and what it looks like out there. This is why I know the motivations of the Christian Right and the threat they pose to everyone on Earth. It’s a dangerous fucking death-cult.
I said already what your error of framing was, how you have been using the weakest, most neutral language here because you’re afraid of pushing away theists and think that being like “both sides don’t understand each other” that you will make more progress to get people to get along.
Maybe you could get a bite in a Christian forum, but it’s inappropriate in this community because most of us are not religious and see it for the threat it is. Religion is a threat to us all, it’s a scourge, a cloud of locusts that consumes the world around it. We don’t need to be told that the people who practice it are misguided and don’t understand science. We need someone to tell THEM that, because we’re the ones being attacked.
This is why I know the motivations of the Christian Right and the threat they pose to everyone on Earth. It’s a dangerous fucking death-cult.
I agree, the Christian Right is fucking insane. So it’s the Taliban. Note how we are now talking about specific groups instead of Religion as some monolithic entity (Something you were opposed to people doing to Science.) Also note that trying to use Science has never successfully convinced these groups to behave differently.
because you’re afraid of pushing away theists and think that being like “both sides don’t understand each other” that you will make more progress to get people to get along.
You are inferring a lot here. I’m not scared of pushing anyone away. I’m also not trying to get everyone to get along. I’m saying it’s a waste of fucking time and makes no sense for either one.
Religion is a threat to us all
Do you see what happened there? You were talking about the Christian Right and the problems they cause, and then suddenly changed to the monolithic group of “Religion” as a whole again, as if the Christian Right was every religion and religious person in the world.
Lol do you live in a cave or something, religious organizations used to straight up torture and kill scientists if they made any claims that were not in line with what the religion claimed, read up on what they did to the early astronomers who were figuring out that the sun and not earth is the center of or solar system, and that’s just one instance, I can point to a million other atrocities that today’s society views as barbaric done by organized religion. Religion has nothing to do with living a good life, it’s about centralising power and control over the masses and making them obey your commands.
Lol do you live in a cave or something,
religiousPolitical organizations used to straight up torture and kill scientists if they made any claims that were not in line with what thereligionpolitics claimed, read up on what they did to the early astronomers who were figuring out that the sun and not earth is the center of or solar system, and that’s just one instance, I can point to a million other atrocities that today’s society views as barbaric done by organizedreligionpolitics.ReligionPolitics has nothing to do with living a good life, it’s about centralising power and control over the masses and making them obey your commands.I guess all politics are bad and we would be better off if banned all politics.
People using religion as an excuse does not mean all religion is bad and that the people doing these things are not culpable for their actions. You are dismissing the people who chose to do these things and blaming Religion instead. Don’t let them get away with that. Blame the person for being a piece of shit.
There are just as many scientist that are religious in some fashion as scientist that are not. If religion was antithetical to science you wouldn’t have scientists with religious beliefs.
There are aeronautical engineers who think the world is flat. Human beings aren’t rational creatures, so it’s not surprising that there are scientists that are religious, but acting like it’s some bad apples who give religion a bad name is also not correct. Might I remind you the vatican itself has helped hide multiple crimes committed by the clergy over the years, everything from shielding child raping priests by moving them around to burying the bones of the native American children that were kidnapped from their families and brutalized in church grounds. Point me to any country on the map that’s a theocracy and I’ll show you how they brutalize their population. I’m not against religion, but religion shouldn’t be allowed to interfere in other people’s lives, should not have any say in how a goverment runs and how laws get passed and should be forced to pay taxes like any other business. Religious people with power over others are a danger to society.
This take is funny AF as an aero astro engineering PhD because, no, you don’t graduate as a flat earther. People are not rational, as exhibited by the fact that you’re super jazzed to provide turndown service to high school kids to bang it out all night long in your house and you think it’s an A+ idea.
Go think about your life bro. Your shit is fucked up.
I even agree with you about religious perspectives, but holy hell you got some issues going on. You should get help.
Says they guy whos texts get more and more unhinged with each reply lol
Point me to any country on the map
that’s a theocracyand I’ll show you how they brutalize their population.FTFY. Don’t tell me it’s “some bad apples”, clearly all government’s are bad.
religion shouldn’t be allowed to interfere in other people’s lives, should not have any say in how a goverment runs and how laws get passed and should be forced to pay taxes like any other business
I agree 100%. I don’t know what you think you’re arguing against because I never said otherwise.
What is religion? Philosophy
I wish people just saw religion as a metaphor, but they really do believe there is a god and act accordingly even though there is no evidence of any gods existing.
This pokes at one of my biggest gripes with it, if there is a big guy with pearly gates upstairs, and doing good in life is a reward, does that mean you only do good things because your paid? It cheapens the entire philosophy and moral compass they proport to have.
On that topic. Religions does have philosophy, but it requires more effort than just showing up to what ever service you attend, I personally only know 3 religious people who have even read Aquinas (which is sad, because his work is a good read even if christiantiy aint your jam). For everything else religion is a crutch, its easier to scare kids into not steal things and acting with good-enough morals than it is to plonk a tomb of Plato or Confucius in front of them and tell them there will be a quiz on ethics at dinner.
even though there is no evidence of any gods existing
This is that Science arguing with Religion thing that I already said doesn’t actually make sense.
Science isn’t out there making rules for owning slaves. And so that line about philosophy is utter bs. Philosophy also doesn’t lay out rules for owning slaves.
Science isn’t out there making rules for owning slaves.
Okay, I just said science and religion do not overlap so saying religion does something science does not just further supports my argument.
And so that line about philosophy is utter bs
Philosophy is not science
Philosophy also doesn’t lay out rules for owning slaves
Depends in the philosopher:
Aristotle, in the first book of his Politics defends slavery …
“Where then there is such a difference as that between soul and body, or between men and animals (as in the case of those whose business is to use their body, and who can do nothing better), the lower sort are by nature slaves, and it is better for them as for all inferiors that they should be under the rule of a master. For he who can be, and therefore is, another’s and he who participates in rational principle enough to apprehend, but not to have, such a principle, is a slave by nature.”The fact that people can have a religious book that has rules for owning slaves, while they themselves are opposed to owning slaves, indicates they are taking the “philosophy” they find useful from the book and not strictly adhering to everything in it.
Gould’s “non overlapping magisteria.”
I’m six teen and this is deep.
