Ah! I see! That settles it then!
Ha!!!
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Ah! I see! That settles it then!
Anyone noticing a trend in the thread?Atheists view of religion. Old folks on old technology old science antiquated and dangerous.
View attachment 16202
Next, religions view of atheists as immoral science is God fanatics that do unnatural acts. Not natural for Harleys to do that so it must be immoral!! And unfriendly as well.
View attachment 16203 which is the correct bird?
Since all religions are pure bull**** when viewed from outside, the only defendable position is the lack of any religion (=atheism).
Who made that claim?So religion is just a political philosophy.
But yet science discards old ideas when proven wrong, and has gave us the framework for technology undreamed of even just 20 years ago.Science is completelu shackled to the past the last I checked!!!
Yes, actually it did, and we know the egg was around way before the chicken.Did science ever answer the question of which came first, the chicken or the egg? Religion says God created the chicken so there was a chicken before there was an agg.
So? It still stands there has never been a positive or negative correlation established between religiousness and IQ. As far as science is concerned, being religious or not has no bearing on your IQ.
Who made that claim?
You did!! It's just political philosophy nothing more
But yet science discards old ideas when proven wrong, and has gave us the framework for technology undreamed of even just
That's a just a political study.just replace the word religion with political is all. Not that hard.Generally, for such a study, you ask what their religious views are. If they identify with a religion, you count them among the religious, and when they have no such affiliation or beliefs, you count them among the non-believers.
Only American scientists are valid!!!' There is no science in New Zealand just sheep and rugby, and Peter JacksonThat's fine, but it has little to do with the quote I provided at the beginning of this thread.
The link from the data I provided you which you have quoted back at me is based on the USA. Americans may believe in 'America first' but most of us who live elsewhere don't. I would want to see data that considers scientists globally rather than just America.
So what are you advocating in regards to new approaches towards spirituality.
Quit being ignorant:CRUD! Religion may be what you need to make you believe you are human, whatever that mean to you! There is ZERO biological/evolutionary reason why humans need to be religious.
I said "part of" what makes us human. (There is evidence that non-human animals have what can be called spiritual experiences, as well.) Read more carefully next time before flying off at the handle in offense.When you really think about what you are saying, you are dehumanizing anyone that doesn't have any religious beliefs. According you you, someone that lacks religion is not a human, but a robot. I take offense at your opinions. Your religious beliefs do nothing to make you human, and my lack of religion does nothing to negatively impact my humanity.
Science is completelu shackled to the past the last I checked!!! The last I checked the dead past gives rise to the living present. I thought we do a spectacular job of pretending the present determines the past for some odd reason. Are you proposing a new detachment from the past to replace the old detachment from the past? And ovrr time wil your new detachment from the past just be seen as nonsense and replaced with more nonsense? One only has to look into religion to realize how disconnected it is from it's past. It has no sense of history except in its own internal reality separate from before it. The scientifically call it intelligent design or creationism. Is that what you are proposing a better intelligent design?
Only American scientists are valid!!!' There is no science in New Zealand just sheep and rugby, and Peter Jackson
Can you vouch for me as a decent fella inspire of being American seeking asylum in new zealand!!!! Lol.
Wrong. There's plenty of people who can defend their religious beliefs quite well.Since all religions are pure bull**** when viewed from outside, the only defendable position is the lack of any religion (=atheism).
No, I never made that claim.You did!! It's just political philosophy nothing more
No, it's not a political study but rather a model for a scientific study to examine any links between religiousness and IQ. There has never been such a correlation established. Yes, you could replace "religious beliefs" with "political views," but that would turn it into an entirely different study.That's a just a political study.just replace the word religion with political is all. Not that hard.
Your own exact claim:Edit: Oh, no one said humans "need" to be religious, only that there's evolutionary reasons why humans are religious and why it's not going anywhere.
We aren't robots without religion, and evolutionary purpose doesn't mean we need it (psychosomatic disorders evolved for a likely reason, but we don't need those to exist), and religion isn't what makes us human. If you ask some, such as Jane Goodall, we aren't even the only species to experience a concept of religion. If this were truly a need, it is doubtful we would see the widespread cross-generation even across multiple cultures increase in those not having any religious affiliation or beliefsReligion is part of what makes us human. Unless you prefer us to be robots? There are biological and evolutionary reasons why humans have the need be religious.
I should've worded it better. Regardless, mythology, story telling, rituals, etc. are part of humanity and there is something that drives us towards those things.Your own exact claim:
We aren't robots without religion, and evolutionary purpose doesn't mean we need it (psychosomatic disorders evolved for a likely reason, but we don't need those to exist), and religion isn't what makes us human. If you ask some, such as Jane Goodall, we aren't even the only species to experience a concept of religion. If this were truly a need, it is doubtful we would see the widespread cross-generation even across multiple cultures increase in those not having any religious affiliation or beliefs
Even in Japan people are increasingly identifying as atheist/agnostic rather than the tradition/norms of Buddhist or Shinto.I should've worded it better. Regardless, mythology, story telling, rituals, etc. are part of humanity and there is something that drives us towards those things.
Religion is not in decline globally. Religious demographics are just in flux. Christianity is in decline in the West, but it's growing in places like across Africa and China. Religion is going nowhere.
Religion and atheism aren't mutually exclusive, so that's not saying much, or anything really.Even in Japan people are increasingly identifying as atheist/agnostic rather than the tradition/norms of Buddhist or Shinto.
"Throughout history, the primary agents of spiritual development have been the great religions. For the majority of the earth’s people, the scriptures of each of these systems of belief have served, in Bahá’u’lláh’s words, as “the City of God”, a source of a knowledge that totally embraces consciousness, one so compelling as to endow the sincere with “a new eye, a new ear, a new heart, and a new mind”. A vast literature, to which all religious cultures have contributed, records the experience of transcendence reported by generations of seekers. Down the millennia, the lives of those who responded to intimations of the Divine have inspired breathtaking achievements in music, architecture, and the other arts, endlessly replicating the soul’s experience for millions of their fellow believers. No other force in existence has been able to elicit from people comparable qualities of heroism, self-sacrifice and self-discipline. At the social level, the resulting moral principles have repeatedly translated themselves into universal codes of law, regulating and elevating human relationships. Viewed in perspective, the major religions emerge as the primary driving forces of the civilizing process."
Am I seeing a rather obvious disconnect here? And is it not true to say that your second quote, rather than the first, much more accurately encapsulates religion's history? As your first quote had it: "To argue otherwise is surely to ignore the evidence of history"."Religion should unite all hearts and cause wars and disputes to vanish from the face of the earth; it should give birth to spirituality, and bring light and life to every soul. If religion becomes a cause of dislike, hatred and division it would be better to be without it, and to withdraw from such a religion would be a truly religious act. For it is clear that the purpose of a remedy is to cure, but if the remedy only aggravates the complaint, it had better be left alone. Any religion which is not a cause of love and unity is no religion." Abdu'l-Baha
Am I seeing a rather obvious disconnect here? And is it not true to say that your second quote, rather than the first, much more accurately encapsulates religion's history? As your first quote had it: "To argue otherwise is surely to ignore the evidence of history".