The fundamental flaw in religion as I see it

[Hardcore Newbie]

^^^ The flying spaghetti monster again, eh? Reading about that thing always makes me hungry.

Hardcore Newbie Reviewed by Hardcore Newbie on 07-09-2007. The fundamental flaw in religion as I see it I should start off by saying that I consider myself agnostic, as I acknowledge the possibility that there may be a higher power out there somewhere but I certainly wouldn't say I believe in a god. Now, I could write volumes about how preposterous the notion of religion is (for this discussion I will focus exclusively on the Abrahamic religions of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam), but the fundamental flaw I referred to in the thread title revolves around one question for you religious Rating: 5

[Hardcore Newbie]

Very nice quote!
Anyway, like the skeptical children who does not believe their parents advise and are eaten by the crocodiles, im sure that sceptical people who doesnt believe in God will burn forever in hell... the logic is the same...

Yeah, I guess we weren't explaining *why* religion works. People were stating that religion works because children listen to their parents, not that parents are always right.

I'm sure the people who are sceptical of their parent's scientology teachings will.... whatever that religion has as a negative (unsolved problems in past lives to milk you of your money), and the muslim extremist children will go to hell for not being sceptical about blowing themselves up for virgins. Not all parents can be right about everything. If parents were right about everything they wouldn't tell us about Santa and the easter Bunny.

But yeah, you're analogy is perfect! The fact that you have a little lickey smiley face in regards to your belief that your fellow man will be tortured in hell simply for a deity choice is no reason for concern, hey, but at least you think you're "right".

[Quincyboy]

Dude, no need for the name calling.... you asshole! (j/k ) . He didnt' actually say all people of these places are the same religion, just the very true point that religion, at least initially, is based on which culture you were born into. He also never said that new religions couldn't come up, that people don't rebel, or that one can change faith, he's just talking about the general population for which the religion resides. Does a poster really need to specifically state ".... or he would be Hindu if born in India. And by that I mean if he was born into a Hindu family, and no sihk's or muslims tried to convert him, and etc etc etc..." The basic point is there, you're blowing it out of proportion for not going into uncessesary specifics that are a given.

I apologize for the name calling and I did take things a little to literally

Well I totally agree with you that religions were invented to explain the unexplainable, but how did they become "harder to refute" as we learned more? Thunder was attributed to a blacksmith of the gods one time, stars were explained as pinprick glimpses into heaven, neuro-chemical imbalance later explained what christians initially thought was the work of demons. If anything I'd say religion becomes more and more difficult to justify as human knowledge expands. Of course once you explain one thing, they move onto the next thing we haven't yet explained and say "well how could that possibly work by itself? I don't know so that proves god did it!".

my meaning is that, the first religions had very abstract ideas to explain everyday forces like the sun rising but as human knowledge progressed, these ideas becamed explained by science but there a certain things that will never be explainable such as creation that will always leave room for a god, without an explanation of somthing there will always be an abstract idea not based on proof to explain it some may be rediculous and other may be more beleivable

Sorry but my BULLSHITOMETER is through the roof. I can't count how many times I've heard the argument that atheism requires "faith". It's a typical theist tactic, yet another, to try and put religion on equal grounds of rationality with science.
Religion is a matter of faith, faith in the unseen and the unproven, faith in the existence of things and beings unverified. Atheism is not "I KNOW there's no god!", atheism is a rational decision to not believe in god until there's is ample evidence to do so. The very notion that you have to have "faith" for non-belief is rediculous. If I say gremlims have a mining colony at the center of the sun, can you disprove it? Do you need to have faith that the gremlims aren't there? Or are you just rational enough to know it's illogical to believe in the gremlims without evidence of them?

If a lack of belief in god requires faith, then it's no more faith than a lack of belief in everything else imaginary. In which case, God has no more credibility than the tooth fairy or the flying spagetti monster. It baffles me to this day that millions have now become convinced that "faith" not only applies to belief, but lack of belief as well. This is a very typical example of people who don't understand that atheism is not knowing there isn't a god, it is knowing god is no more plausible than everything else that doesn't exist, until god has been proven or at least has some supporting evidence.

you have a very different take on atheism than from most people, even most atheists in my expirience. but the way you explain it make it sound more like agnostic than atheistic simply the fact that you would be open to the idea of there being a god if there was ample proof leans you more towards agnostic

everybody has their own opinions about their own religiouns and beliefs there is no uniform religious where everybody belelives the exact same thing and in the same way your subjecting all atheism to be that it is the denial of god untill he can be proven when the definition of atheisn with simply the denial of god

take it as you will

[KevinFinnerty]

For me, I am a spiritual person, based mostly on life's experiences. I've lost many loved ones, people very close to me, I watched them die.

Real life experiences > mental gymnastics and criticisms on Abrahamic thought

I don't mean to be rude, but what is this supposed to mean? How does losing a loved one make you say "okay, now I believe that there has to be some sort of higher power out there"? Or is it just that after losing a loved one, you become so distraught over your loss that you're unwilling to even acknowledge the possiblity that your loved one has now completely ceased to exist.

Seriously, what are you trying to say here?

Have you tried Kundalini Yoga?
Have you tried Reiki Healing?
Have you studied Native American rituals?

LOL at only making an analysis of Abrahamic religions.... you have to make an analysis of EVERYTHING.

I guess I should have been more clear. The reason I focused on the Abrahamic religions is because my issue is with religions that tell people "believe in this, or suffer eternal damnation." I didn't discuss yoga because, from what I understand, it deals with things like meditation and finding inner calm and not with how to avoid eternal damnation.

Anyway, the main point of my original post was that if the Christian God were as loving and forgiving as described, it would be paradoxical for him to send Ghandi, let's say, to Hell, yet according to the Bible he would do just that. Even though Ghandi lived as purely and altruistically as anyone, he did not believe that Christ had a son named Jesus who died for our sins etc., so he would be forced to suffer eternally.

The bottom line is that I never really get an answer when I ask someone why they believe in one religion as opposed to another. The response is usually something along the lines of "just because." I think it's clear that the real reason is always either familial pressure or because they want to believe that a certain religion speaks the truth (which, as I stated in my original post, is not a valid reason for believing that one set of fairy tales is true and another is false, just like I don't believe that I'll win the lottery if I buy a ticket just because I want it to happen). That being said, I truly believe that EVERY member of any religion which promises eternal paradise in the afterlife in exchange for obedience, on some level, knows that they really have no clue how this universe came to be and has made the conscious decision to deny any possibility that they're wrong about their faith just so they can live easier "knowing" they're going to heaven.

[johneg]

There Is No God

I believe that there is no God. I'm beyond atheism. Atheism is not believing in God. Not believing in God is easy -- you can't prove a negative, so there's no work to do. You can't prove that there isn't an elephant inside the trunk of my car. You sure? How about now? Maybe he was just hiding before. Check again. Did I mention that my personal heartfelt definition of the word ''elephant'' includes mystery, order, goodness, love and a spare tire?(stumble.com)

[Oh My High]

Quincyboy:
Religion serves one purpose and one purpose only, to explain the unexplainable, that is how the first religions were started and why they were mostly polytheistic.

I agree to the extent that explaining the unexplainable is one function of religionâ??the god in the gaps as we atheists sayâ??but I disagree it's its only purpose. Religion fulfills at least three other functions: to comfort from the viciousness of the human life cycle, to comfort from the inevitability of our own demise, and to provide a sense of meaning to life and of the cosmos. I really don't think, anymore, that philosophical musings of first cause is primarily central to why people believe. When an atheist is discovered by theists, the first response is never "I'm shocked! How could you NOT believe in creationism?" but rather "I'm shocked! How can you live a moral life?"

as the human mind expanded and began to explain these things religions became more and more hard to refute and as more and more people began to believe in certain religions other people saw the opportunity to use this to their own gains (this is where all the politics the apparently forms the basis of every religion comes in)

I'm more inclined to take the position that it has always been so. Religion and its power has been around for about 250,000 years but science has only existed for about 500, starting with the Greeks somewhat but not really kicking in until the 1500's. It was Edward Gibbon who stated various forms of worship were considered by "the people" as equally true, by philosophers as equally false, and by the magistrate as equally useful.

Blind faith is one of the most important aspects of the major Abrahamic religions but even though you wouldnâ??t like to admit it is also a major aspect of atheism

No, blind faith is not a component of atheism. It's the difference between assumptions and presumptions. Atheism takes a leap of belief, surelyâ??it's called provisional acceptanceâ??but a much, much smaller leap.

the first religions had very abstract ideas to explain everyday forces like the sun rising but as human knowledge progressed, these ideas became explained by science but there a certain things that will never be explainable such as creation that will always leave room for a god, without an explanation of somthing there will always be an abstract idea not based on proof to explain it some may be rediculous and other may be more believable

I think Stephen Weinberg said it best during the BBC documentary "The Atheism Tapes":

There is a mystery, I have to admit. We try to understand nature and we ask questions and we get answers and then we ask follow-up questions. "Why is that true?" Ultimately, we hope to come to a set of elegant physical principles that describe everything and when we have it, the mystery will still be there because we will have to ask, "Why is it that theory and not some other theory?" One answer is the regularity imposed on it by a spirit, a designer, but that doesn't answer anything. Then you have to say, "Why is the designer like that?" Either by a designer you have something in particular in mindâ??a god who is benevolent, jealous, or humorousâ??whatever!â??or you have nothing in mind and then let's not talk about it. If you have something in mind, then the question arises, "Why is that true?" So, I don't see that having a designer puts us at rest. I think we are permanently in the tragic position of not being able to understand at the deepest possible level why things are the way they are, and you just have to live with that. But saying it's a designer doesn't settle it, doesn't help.

johneg:
"I believe that there is no God. I'm beyond atheism. Atheism is not believing in God. Not believing in God is easy -- you can't prove a negative, so there's no work to do. You can't prove that there isn't an elephant inside the trunk of my car. You sure? How about now? Maybe he was just hiding before. Check again. Did I mention that my personal heartfelt definition of the word ''elephant'' includes mystery, order, goodness, love and a spare tire?"

I instantly recognized that Penn Jillette quote. :thumbsup:

[Coelho]

Yeah, I guess we weren't explaining *why* religion works. People were stating that religion works because children listen to their parents, not that parents are always right.

I'm sure the people who are sceptical of their parent's scientology teachings will.... whatever that religion has as a negative (unsolved problems in past lives to milk you of your money), and the muslim extremist children will go to hell for not being sceptical about blowing themselves up for virgins. Not all parents can be right about everything. If parents were right about everything they wouldn't tell us about Santa and the easter Bunny.

But yeah, you're analogy is perfect! The fact that you have a little lickey smiley face in regards to your belief that your fellow man will be tortured in hell simply for a deity choice is no reason for concern, hey, but at least you think you're "right".

Hey... dont take what i said so seriously... even if its a good analogy, i said it as a joke, so the . I just did see that i could twist the meaning of that citation, and could not resist to doing so...

[birdgirl73]

Oneironaut, as always, does an amazingly articulate job of explaining how and why people get religion and how religions are arbitrary belief systems, which I wholly agree with.

The fundamental flaw I personally see with religion is very simple. It's belief in the supernatural, and I don't believe in the supernatural.

[couch-potato]

The fundamental flaw I personally see with religion is very simple. It's belief in the supernatural, and I don't believe in the supernatural.

Ignorant, abhorrent sheep you all are! The Flying Spaghetti Monster will properly dispose of all ye naysayers come judgment! Every fork will bend, every taste bud shall water, and every napkin tainted with sauce!

[Hardcore Newbie]

Hey... dont take what i said so seriously... even if its a good analogy, i said it as a joke, so the . I just did see that i could twist the meaning of that citation, and could not resist to doing so...

Apologies But it's not a good analogy