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!
I have a Danish teaching book for in effect add on trainng for the Danish variant of social workers.
My focus was health psychology. And I studied the psychology of religion from my own interest.
That's mostly because you have never understood it. You feel quite pleased I'm sure with the imagined superiority of your godless bias and so have no reason to investigate religion any further.
Sure, Ive never understood the thing you claim is true, and fail consistently to explain it in any coherent way. And the social sciences offer more plausible explanations.
What bias?
Then if they are going to claim they have a truth in open discussions then they have an obligation to demonstrate it’s objectively true and something I’m missing or ignoring. They don’t.
Let’s find out.
Dang, an anti -science attitude expressed right here. Science can’t seek the findings it wants. It makes predictions and tests to see if the data supports it. Get science right.
Notice the claim and a complete lack of evidence. You would make a poor scientist.
With respect, you haven't addressed the questions.
Religions are just a collection of psychological tools. It’s people that are responsible for how they use or abuse those tools.
Science, religion, philosophy, and art are all tools we humans can use to investigate and negotiate with the mystery that is our reality. We are responsible when we abuse those tool, and for neglecting to use them as needed.
.. Excellent .. another convert ! Welcome to the Path of Light Sister F1F
That all sounds rather directionless. No discipline, religion included, has responsibility for encouraging humans towards mutual decency, you say?
The word is useful to believers, not to atheists like myself. It's your word, and if it's meaninful to you then It's odd you avoid defining it.
None of my words. Maybe you can explain what this means.
None that I have seen in tis thread. You're able to repeat your definition here.
It's your word that holds meaning for you. Or maybe it's empty of meaning and your evasion verifies it.
Right. Are you a cancer fan? Are you pleased that your God won't end cancer, and makes many people and families suffer?
I wouldn't have to believe in a real God that actually performs acts that corrects its previous immoral decisions. We don't have to believe in real things. We only believe in things we aren't sure exist, but have decided they do.
Slow down. You haven't defined what God is, or that it exists. You haven't demonstrated that cancer has ceased to be as of today. And you haven't shown that the God is the reason cancers are gone.
Yes they are but they are not as strong as the psychological tools gained through the countless studies completed by some of the best brains in human history.
No, that's what the atheists say. The theists will say God is providing that directed encouragement. And some of them will say God is doing so through their religion.
Great, we can measure our selfish stupidity as we destroy each other.
There is no "moral authority" but ourselves. It's why religions invented their gods and endowed them with imaginary moral authority.
You've fallen into the muck of you own bias, again. You really should try to stop doing that.
Perhaps this kind of idea is what we should be discussing with our fellow humans instead of fighting with them about their belief in their gods.
Nothing wrong with reasoned inquiry. But let's not raise it to the level of some new kind of God. Which seems to be a very common trait among the science-worshipping materialists around here. Because when reason fails, as it very often will, other methods become the more appropriate and effective. Like intuition, or faith, or even chance.
I have given numerous definitions of God why are you talking false nonsene. The ability to hurl lightning bolts from the sky through force of will is one example of a Godly power.
I take it you'd rather not know what the problem actually is, or its size, then.
No one here is doing that. But it would be dumb, would it not, to fail to explore the avenues it opens, and to admire its successes, that is, its ideas and consequent products that work. It does things all the time that we benefit from, of kinds that religious faith has never achieved.
You appear to want there to be more than the material universe out there without evidence ie for no reason but that you want it. You want your wishes to be true without intellectual input, let alone effort. We appear to have even less common ground than I thought.
Not in your responses to me. I don't read most of your comments since they are often incoherent, poorly worded and badly structured.
Yet we don't see any of this happening. There are natural lightening strikes, but none that are supernatural. So is this how you debate, making false claims with false examples, and deflection from being asked for facts?
Because you asked what would impress me that a God existed and I said cancer being eliminated, and then you acknowledged that. I asked you if you are a fan of cancer since your God created it. No answer. You can't even say if you dislike cancer. Is this what religion does to minds that would otherwise have to make its own moral judgments?
I'm not convinced any Gods exist. I believe you are a flawed human given your statements. You make no effort that I can see to adjust your attitudes and beliefs to be more mvirtuous, more rational, and more of a mind that values political liberalism.
The question for you hard line believers is your answer to why your God created disease in the first place. You have no answer. It's a bit of an embarrassment for those who assert their God is loving and moral. The facts squeeze out any gaps where Gods were traditionally stationed. The desperation and fear of believers is noted.
They are not very effective as tools. At best they are learned mechanisms for coping, but not solving problems. The social science exist as an effective way to examine behavior and cognition, and create effective tools for helping individuals solve problems. At best religions are like a horse and buggy (which can work but very limited) and the scoail sciences are Formula 1 cars (which is the pinnacle of engineering).
This exposes a weakness in your perspective, because many people haven't learned respibility, and religion is very poor at teaching independence. Religions tend to teach obedience and dependency, and this is when people lack the tools to self-sufficiency. The social science have models of child development that will help teach children the tools that religion never has in its long traditions. Again, its a horse and buggy in a world that has greater needs.
There you go again with your safe word "mystery". In my experience curious minds discover the self as it explores the world. These minds ren't left confused by mystery. One are one of several members who think your personal needs and perspective should apply to everyone, and it's explained to you how it's not only not needed, it's a liability to be avoided. Not having answers isn't a mystery, we have to be responsible for the questions we have. A good friend of mine died in acar wreck a week ago, along with his mom and one of his daughters. It was the fault of a 16 year old driver who was speeding and lost control. We has a gathering last night to remember him, mostly bike racers, and none of us asked why it happened. There's no answer. There's no mystery. There's no guarantee to life. I talked to his sister about whether the kid will be charged, and we both didn't really care, because what difference would it make? If he was negligent then the legal system will do its thing. We share a world that is largely religious yet way too many kids have not been taught to be responsible citizens. I assert that religion has made many lazy.
What has religion done to prepare citizens to be responsible? Most everyone aligns to some religion, so what explains the failures of so many if they are religious? Can you consider the possibility that religion has made many people lazy and irresponsible? And the contempt that you and otehr religious people have for science has turned off many to using those tools to help them be more mature?