[kenberg]

blackshoe, on Dec 31 2007, 01:01 PM, said:

re: Virgin Birth. How long had Mary and Joseph been married at the time Jesus was born? How long was she pregnant? And how in the Hell did Mary convince Joseph to set aside his marital "right" to have sex with her?

I don't believe it either.

Removed

[pclayton]

Which reminds me, I heard a great one about a Hindu in a barbeque restaurant.

Can we just stfu about the religious jokes? It amazes me how people can be tolerant toward every sub-section of society, but Christians are somehow fair game.

[kenberg]

pclayton, on Dec 31 2007, 02:08 PM, said:

Which reminds me, I heard a great one about a Hindu in a barbeque restaurant.

Can we just stfu about the religious jokes? It amazes me how people can be tolerant toward every sub-section of society, but Christians are somehow fair game.

I apologize. I meant no ill, but I take your point. Still, it would test the limits of a guy's trust in his wife. I took it with that in mind. No offense intended.

[Al_U_Card]

Just replace Christian, Muslim or Hindi beliefs with Set, Osiris, Ra etc. Where is the difference? In what you make of it. They are all the same.

[kenberg]

No, I was wrong

[kenberg]

To say maybe one more word. My religious friends and I can share a joke and quickly correct bad feelings. We trust each other. That's not the same as an online comment that is picked up by folks I don't know at all.

My regrets, Phil.

[EricK]

kenrexford, on Dec 31 2007, 04:39 PM, said:

Merely assuming that the world is governed by logic is an assumption that is not provable.

True enough. But this can't lead you anywhere. If you accept the world is governed by logic then you can deduce things about the world. If you assume the world isn't governed by logic then ... nothing.

As I said in an earlier post, what annoys me is the use of logic most of the time, except when that would lead to their having to discard their pet theory.

[pclayton]

kenberg, on Dec 31 2007, 12:45 PM, said:

To say maybe one more word. My religious friends and I can share a joke and quickly correct bad feelings. We trust each other. That's not the same as an online comment that is picked up by folks I don't know at all.

My regrets, Phil.

No sweat.

[barmar]

EricK, on Dec 31 2007, 04:52 PM, said:

kenrexford, on Dec 31 2007, 04:39 PM, said:

Merely assuming that the world is governed by logic is an assumption that is not provable.

True enough. But this can't lead you anywhere. If you accept the world is governed by logic then you can deduce things about the world. If you assume the world isn't governed by logic then ... nothing.

As I said in an earlier post, what annoys me is the use of logic most of the time, except when that would lead to their having to discard their pet theory.

The problem is that religion is, by definition, not provable, it's based on faith. So if you're religious, you are essentially required to believe that there are things about the world that are beyond the reach of logic and the scientific method.

And not only do these things exist, many of them are some of the most important things in life, such as morality, purpose of living, etc. So how can you really expect a devout person to stick only to the scientific concensus when deciding how to raise their children?

This is what makes it so pernicious. If you're religious, you practically can't help trying to pass it on. And most kids will accept the transfer. This is why religion is one of the most successful memes in the memetic pool (there's also a conjecture that we're genetically predisposed to accept religion -- I've mention the justifications for this over in the other thread about religion).

However, as you point out, even religious people will use logic when it serves their purposes. If there were no rules to life and the world, nothing would make sense and it would be hard to live. Also, it's hard to argue with success -- scientists have managed to build lots of devices that work, so there must be something to what they're doing. They just argue that it's not the only source of knowledge about the world -- religion provides a second source. And when they conflict, religion holds the trump cards (oops, we're not supposed to talk bridge here, are we?).

[EricK]

barmar, on Jan 1 2008, 06:47 PM, said:

However, as you point out, even religious people will use logic when it serves their purposes. If there were no rules to life and the world, nothing would make sense and it would be hard to live. Also, it's hard to argue with success -- scientists have managed to build lots of devices that work, so there must be something to what they're doing. They just argue that it's not the only source of knowledge about the world -- religion provides a second source. And when they conflict, religion holds the trump cards (oops, we're not supposed to talk bridge here, are we?).

Indeed they do say they have an alternative source of knowledge. The trouble with their alternative method of arriving at what they would claim to be truths is that it is functionally equivalent to the methods of rival religions which arrive at rival truths. So it is clear that their's is not a method which arrives at truths after all.

[kenberg]

EricK, on Jan 1 2008, 05:35 PM, said:

barmar, on Jan 1 2008, 06:47 PM, said:

However, as you point out, even religious people will use logic when it serves their purposes.  If there were no rules to life and the world, nothing would make sense and it would be hard to live.  Also, it's hard to argue with success -- scientists have managed to build lots of devices that work, so there must be something to what they're doing.  They just argue that it's not the only source of knowledge about the world -- religion provides a second source.  And when they conflict, religion holds the trump cards (oops, we're not supposed to talk bridge here, are we?).

Indeed they do say they have an alternative source of knowledge. The trouble with their alternative method of arriving at what they would claim to be truths is that it is functionally equivalent to the methods of rival religions which arrive at rival truths. So it is clear that their's is not a method which arrives at truths after all.

Religion can be a way of organizing one's life, a guide to decent behavior, many things along those lines. Problems arise only when religion brings people to decide what there must do. If I tell you how to lead your sex life you quite properly tell me to mind my own business, Ah, but I explain that it's not just my view, it's God's view. Of course I should still butt out but some religious people have a tough time grasping this.

The trick, imo, is not to convince religious people that there is no God. This will fail. But, at least with some, it may well be possibble to convince them that their religion may be a fine guide for them but it is not for them to decide how someone else chooses to live. Non-religious people sometimes need to learn that lesson as well.

[luke warm]

barmar, on Jan 1 2008, 01:47 PM, said:

~~So if you're religious, you are essentially required to believe that there are things about the world that are beyond the reach of logic and the scientific method.

you lump 'logic' and 'the scientific method' as if i (for example) can't make use of one and not the other, or the other and not the one... i believe Christ was crucified and arose... this is not testable, but how is my belief illogical?

[jdonn]

luke warm, on Jan 1 2008, 10:30 PM, said:

barmar, on Jan 1 2008, 01:47 PM, said:

~~So if you're religious, you are essentially required to believe that there are things about the world that are beyond the reach of logic and the scientific method.

you lump 'logic' and 'the scientific method' as if i (for example) can't make use of one and not the other, or the other and not the one... i believe Christ was crucified and arose... this is not testable, but how is my belief illogical?

So your definition of logical is "unable to be proven false"?

[han]

His definition of logical is "what sounds logical to me".

[matmat]

Hannie, on Jan 1 2008, 10:42 PM, said:

His definition of logical is "what sounds logical to me".

that seems logical.

[han]

Better than what sounds logical to someone else, true.

[han]

BTW, I voted for "I have another view". Parents try to raise their kids in the way they think is best, and I can't expect that to be the same as the way I think is best. So basically I agree with DrTodd, but I won't admit to that.

[CSGibson]

For those of you that don't believe in God or religion, think of it in terms of mathematics. The square root of -1 does not exist- it is illogical, impossible, whatever- but it is still a tool that we use to make better mathematical structures.

Even if you believe that religion and God are illogical, impossible, or whatever, that doesn't mean that it doesn't make for a tool for a better structure of life. I am a lapsed Christian Scientist, and though I have strong doubts about the truth of my religious upbringing, I will try to expose my children to those beliefs because I believe that the belief structure encourages a lifestyle that will ultimately make my children better people. The underlying moral code that can only be understood by emmersing yourself in a religion is what you hope sticks, not necesarily the specific beliefs.

Oh, and I also feel as though the question you posed is loaded with unnessesarily negative connotations. Use indoctorinize instead of brainwash, please, if you are truly interested in what people have to think. Or, I guess if you are merely trying to make your own point, then do whatever.

[sceptic]

Quote

For those of you that don't believe in God or religion

I do not believe the is a GOD

I know for a fact there is religion

[sceptic]

one of the reasons I posted this question, I was having a discussion with some friends and I said no matter what you discus is right or wrong with this world, Religion is always going to be more contencious and divisive subject than politics or racism (so far that would appear true in this thread)

another reason was to get some views about whether I was doing the right thing with my kids (they are all stable one has a degree all work or are still studying all are pretty normal and most of all pretty honest and law abiding) without a religious indoctrination (if that is the posh word for brainwashing I will use it)

Religion should in my humble opinion be banned, if you believe in God fantastic, I wish you spend your time in the after life with him or her and hope you are happy, I await the proof

I would argue that yes to some extent religion (which appers to me to only be a set of beliefs, nothing more(I think it is a huge cash cow for some people)) brings a set of values to a society, (and that is how religion came to be, scare tactics for the oppressors to control their subjects or lack of understanding and a not very advanced society and a few people with the foresight to realise that people are sheep and in general there are not so many leaders of men)

Though it is quite amusing just what the different religions decide are the values they want instilled in their society

I live in a mainly christian country, where there appears to be a huge (hidden, I doubt other countries are any different) problem with male priests and young underage boys. I find it difficult comprehend why if there is a GOD he allows this sort of thing to go on under his own roof ( I would love to hear the explanation for this justification)

I wonder where you all got your own religious beliefs from, how many of you were indoctrinated in your current belief system and never really had another choice which religion you followed, NOT whether you followed a religion or did not follow a religion

also, I wonder how open minded religious people really are ???????? Not very I suspect

One last thing how many of you actually changed religious beliefs or became religious in adulthood, the few converts I have met in real life became Jehovahs witnesses as adults, I can only say they were social misfits who probably just wanted somewhere to belong

This is my humble opinion and mine alone, no offence at any individual or religion is intended, please excuse my lack of written skills if you find offence in any thing I have said because I have not explained myself well