Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 66 (9164 total)
12 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,465 Year: 3,722/9,624 Month: 593/974 Week: 206/276 Day: 46/34 Hour: 2/6


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is religion good for us?
Larni
Member
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


(1)
Message 5 of 181 (576522)
08-24-2010 11:29 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Dogmafood
08-23-2010 10:23 PM


Here's the thing: that warm fuzzy feeling is actually good for people to have. It is good way to stave off several debilitating psychological problems from stress, to depression, to reaction adjustment.
While this is true for any given individual it is also true that religion also serves as a common unifying concept for different groups of people.
People who are xian can know that they will most likely be on the same page as other xians (maybe more theoretically than in fact with xianity but the point stands). This allows them to function better in that cultural group.
It does mean that for an in group to exist you will tend to have out groups. This is where the problem comes into play: depending on how seriously you take your chosen faith it can motivate you to perform terrible acts in the name of your faith (which is of course the right one).
I see religion as a problem when it rejects every other religion and cannot live in harmony with the out groups.
Of course, by our very nature we form in groups and and demonise out groups so it's hard to say that religion courses it. Religion does do a bang up job of maintaining out groups, however.
Religion is anti intellectual inso far as it is irrational, but people are irrational anyway (and in fact we need to be) so it is hard to blame this on religion per se. However, religion is very good at building on people's inbuilt irrationally and motivating people to ignore reality by assuming that the irrational is in fact rational.
That for me is my beef with reigion: it make people too irrational (more so than they need to be).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Dogmafood, posted 08-23-2010 10:23 PM Dogmafood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Dogmafood, posted 08-24-2010 5:43 PM Larni has replied

  
Larni
Member
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 46 of 181 (576702)
08-25-2010 7:48 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Dogmafood
08-24-2010 5:43 PM


It's about having something that people can believe in that is absolutley certain. People like certainty, when we are not certain we can become anxious.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Dogmafood, posted 08-24-2010 5:43 PM Dogmafood has seen this message but not replied

  
Larni
Member
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 173 of 181 (759241)
06-10-2015 7:27 AM
Reply to: Message 171 by Phat
06-10-2015 3:14 AM


Re: Wow! talk about off topic !!!
If there is no evidence to convict John of killing Keith we can't just say:
"But I believe he did".

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286
Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by Phat, posted 06-10-2015 3:14 AM Phat has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 174 by Jon, posted 06-10-2015 7:41 AM Larni has replied
 Message 180 by MrHambre, posted 06-10-2015 9:03 AM Larni has not replied

  
Larni
Member
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 178 of 181 (759247)
06-10-2015 8:05 AM
Reply to: Message 174 by Jon
06-10-2015 7:41 AM


Re: Wow! talk about off topic !!!
Okay.
What I should have said was that we can't say "I believe he did it" and expect to get a conviction as there is no reason to suspect John if there is no evidence to inform that opinion.
Abe: I'm talking about evidence, not proof.
Edited by Larni, : No reason given.

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286
Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by Jon, posted 06-10-2015 7:41 AM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by Jon, posted 06-10-2015 8:11 AM Larni has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024