Why do people still follow religion?

[outhouse]

You're stretching. Yes, some people are motivated by religion to do violence- but, for the most part, it is a human problem that we would have even if there were no religion. It isn't the religion, per se, as much as the humans involved.

Very true.

I think it needs to be brought up though, to explain that certain people use events like this to focus on the negative impact. They have always represented the minority.

While religion is not innocent, focusing on the negative does not shine a truthful light on the matter, that religion as a whole is not only positive, but peaceful.

 

[averageJOE]

No, I know exactly what religion teaches: Hate

Could you please explain how Buddhism and Wicca teaches hate?

 

[The Wizard]

Science has pretty much disputed every part of religion, and all religion has down has caused problems and taught hate. Why do you still believe it?

I take the beliefs that objectively bring to me more values in Life. Religion is a belief system with which has real effects. Beliefs are real objects that affect and annimate a million things in a million subtle ways. Like for instance causing you to post your OP in the first place. Its not really other's problem that science can't quantify or understand all of it or of which various nitwits use religion or the area of belief in a bad manner..

 

[Secret Chief]

Could you please explain how Buddhism and Wicca teaches hate?

'all religion' in the OP means 'the ones I know about.'

 

[Secret Chief]

The neo-atheists seem to take their cue from people like Dawkins. They take what they know of through their own upbringing and culture (in Dawkins' case it is Christianity) and apply their opinion of it to all religions, on the basis that they are essentially all the same (not very rational or scientific but hey ho). It is a combination of arrogance and ignorance. Of course not all atheists are the same, as religionists are not, but it seems to me a common trend. Dawkins should stick to science rather than patronisingly pronouncing on ALL religion.

 

[Heim]

Science do not provide me what my religion gives me. Your statement "all religion taught hate" applies to my religion, it teaches to hate the false, evil. And I not only believe my religion but I practice it.

So true. The belief component is often overemphasised by neo-atheists. Practice is such an important aspect of religion.
A little quote by Karen Armstrong.

“Religion is not about accepting twenty impossible propositions before breakfast, but about doing things that change you. It is a moral aesthetic, an ethical alchemy. If you behave in a certain way, you will be transformed. The myths and laws of religion are not true because they they conform to some metaphysical, scientific or historical reality but because they are life enhancing. They tell you how human nature functions, but you will not discover their truth unless you apply these myths and doctrines to your own life and put them into practice.”

 

[methylatedghosts]

Science has pretty much disputed every part of religion

oh? News to me!

, and all religion has down has caused problems and taught hate.

no, silly. A religion can't teach. People do the teaching. I've known loads of lovely people teaching beautiful things with their religions. Likewise, I know loads of people teaching ugly things with their religions.

Why do you still believe it?

I don't ascribe to any religions. Just pointing out some serious flaws in your thinking here.


Happy to be of service ^_^

 

[WyattDerp]

Because scientific discovery does not grant a feeling of community or purpose that religion does. In fact, in most situations it robs the psyche of both.

I think people have community because they are social, and a sense of purpose because the desire to live makes them come up with one, or several. Science is one expression of that, Religion is another... but neither "grant" any of it, that's hilarious. Though religion loves to take credit for it, of course. Before they came to Sinai, the Jews didn't even know murder and theft were bad things, nobody had told them! Yeah, right. I remember Hitchens being quite indignated about that one, and though I often found him a bit too much, that's one of the bits I fully agreed with; the idea that religion gives people morals is patronizing nonsense.

And even if we assumed it's the other way around: Being a Star Wars fan also gives a "feeling of community or purpose", as does being a member of a criminal organization, or even being a drug addict (doesn't even have to be very hard drugs, though that certainly helps). Heck, pure greed can do that, just look at Silicon Valley haha... disrupting markets with oh so aweseome gadgets while rubbing shoulders with oh so smart people seems to be very intoxicating for some, at least they can't stop blogjaculating about it. Have you seen the movie "Slither"? You could say it's about a group of people finding a new sense of community and purpose, too.

But again, I think it's the other way around. Our desire to have community and to see(k) a purpose creates both religion and science. Though also our failure to love and and live with purpose can create pseudoscience, and religions obsessed with unbelievers and unbelief. I'd say community at the exclusion of most is not community, it's a walled garden *within* the human community that existed before any of them. Religion, at worst(!), is a bunch of people disappearing up trees, and science at best(!) is, among other things, looking where they went. Religion proceeds to fling poop, hilarity ensues.

 

[WyattDerp]

So true. The belief component is often overemphasised by neo-atheists. Practice is such an important aspect of religion.
A little quote by Karen Armstrong.

“Religion is not about accepting twenty impossible propositions before breakfast, but about doing things that change you. It is a moral aesthetic, an ethical alchemy. If you behave in a certain way, you will be transformed.

But it's not the only aspect, is it. That quote basically says the doublethink doesn't matter, because there are also some nice exercises that come along with it -- ignoring that those work just fine without the baggage, and are mostly common sense found in all religions, as well as anywhere else.

 

[oldbadger]

I'm going to assume you're Christian. Do you know the bible says if a man marries a woman, and she is not a virgin, she will be executed. If you see your neighbor working on a Sunday, you can, kill him.

Explain to me how people pervert, it's meaning

Ouch! Ouch!

In post 4, outhouse left you a clue. He wrote:-

I'm as far from religion as one can get,...............

Ouch!

 

[BruceDLimber]

Science has pretty much disputed every part of religion, and all religion has down [sic] has caused problems and taught hate. Why do you still believe it?

You need to correct your statement above as it isn't even clear what you were trying to say.

But you overlook several major points, including:

• Some religions endorse science and get along very will with it, with no problems whatever!
• Most (if not all) religions do NOT "teach hate" and in fact stress the very opposite! You apparently haven't examined enough of them to discover this.

So the reason why billions of us believe in, endorse, and support religion are in fact very clear for anyone not obsessed by prejudice ("pre-judging").

And BTW, science is in fact INCAPABLE of addressing religion and therefore tends to say nothing whatever about it, little as you seem to realize this.


Peace,

Bruce

 

[Breathe]

Science has pretty much disputed every part of religion,

Naw.

and all religion has down has caused problems and taught hate.

Naw.

Why do you still believe it?

To annoy you.

 

[Tarheeler]

Another excellent example that ignorance, hatred, and intolerance isn't dependent on religious belief.

Thank you, Bigbman, for reminding us of this very important lesson.

 

[ChristineES]

The neo-atheists seem to take their cue from people like Dawkins. They take what they know of through their own upbringing and culture (in Dawkins' case it is Christianity) and apply their opinion of it to all religions, on the basis that they are essentially all the same (not very rational or scientific but hey ho). It is a combination of arrogance and ignorance. Of course not all atheists are the same, as religionists are not, but it seems to me a common trend. Dawkins should stick to science rather than patronisingly pronouncing on ALL religion.

It might even go a little bit deeper than that. We know that not all Christians are the fire and brimstone variety, but it once again goes back to the people following it. Some parents who may be of a faith, might encourage their child to follow their faith but ultimately let their children make their own decisions while other parents drum it into their children "Follow my faith or you're going to burn" or whatever. And you are right, not all faiths and religions believe in any hell at all (I would guess that most of them don't). Not even all Christians believe in a literal hell- I know of very many of them.
I would assume that at least some of the anti-religion types had a bad experience with it with the parents who followed it- and not really the faith/religion itself. It is blanketing all faiths. With children who were abused from parents who follow a faith- it would be understandable.

And lastly, there are some forms of Christianity that I wouldn't even follow- and I have a strong faith. They can be pretty harsh and the parents can be awfully harsh on their children.

 

[Slave of Allah]

Science has not disputed Islam... in fact, Islam works with science and will go where ever it goes please refer to scientific miracles of the quran on Google

 

[Sha'irullah]

Science has not disputed Islam... in fact, Islam works with science and will go where ever it goes please refer to scientific miracles of the quran on Google

So obviously we know that the earth is flat then? And that mountains are pegs and fold the ground firm despite the fact they are the tell tell signs of an epicenter?
The Qur'an does not make many scientific claims which is of little importance honestly in regards to faith.

 

[Caladan]

Science has pretty much disputed every part of religion

Did science dispute the fact that Norse literature inspired great operas? or that the Hebrew Bible was instrumental in forming a background for Shakespeare or William Blake? or that medieval Islamic scholars gave us great travel logs of the world as it used to be during the Middle Ages?
In other words... apples and oranges my friend. Much of world religion has nothing to do with physics or biology so there's no point comparing and contrasting them. In questions of biology we should refer to science, religion on the other hand answers psychological and collective needs of individuals and communities.

and all religion has down has caused problems and taught hate. Why do you still believe it?

While I 'don't believe' in religion, I can't help but point that unless you limit religion here to specific hateful groups you are simply ignoring the charitable, brotherly, or inspirational aspects of religion.
Many people practice faith in order to come together with their family and friends, other people follow their own individual religious aesthetics. In either case there are numerous reasons for people to practice religions, none of which has to do with teaching hatred.

This will probably fall on deaf ears, but all of the above was needed to be said.

 

[Sir Doom]

Science has pretty much disputed every part of religion,

Which science would that be?

and all religion has down has caused problems and taught hate.

Which problems do you specifically attribute to religion?

Why do you still believe it?

Well, that answer would take too long. Instead I'll just say that I don't think your points have any merit whatsoever. So, its very easy to continue believing what I believe in spite of them. I'm a bit anxious to hear your answers to my questions though, they should illustrate the issues I'm having pretty clearly.

 

[Secret Chief]

How is religion caused problems? How about the crusaders killing all non-believers. How about the Holocaust. How about the fact that it has been used to justify almost every genocide in history. More people have died in wars fought over religion, than any other war.

The Holocaust? The Jews were amongst the scapegoats in a war of German nationalism. It was not a religious war.

Almost every genocide? Stalin? Mao? Pol Pot? Is your knowledge of history as solid as your knowledge of religion? Many wars have been about resources (including land) and religious differences were incidental or irrelevant.

 

[Secret Chief]

Ok, I'll "expound" on science. Since obviously I know nothing on science why don't you listen to an expert

Look up Richard Dawkins, Why there almost certainly is no God

Dawkins is an expert in a particular field of science, he is not an expert on religion (although materialist atheists may think so). By the same token no one would cite the Pope as an expert in science.