Religion is a fascinating phenomenon to me. A few people in my life have tried their best to find purpose through it, with varying succes. This search for a purpose puzzles me. Cults, Eastern teachings, Western religions, New Age nonsense … it’s quite the list. But I left ‘faith’ behind me around the time I stopped believing in Santa and the Easter Bunny. I get more satisfaction from logic and discussion. Also, I’ve never been much of a group person, so the mandatory meeting of people every Friday, Saturday or Sunday is out of the question anyway.

I’m reading ‘The God Delusion‘, by Richard Dawkins and enjoying it very much. I’d recommend it to anyone interested in religion. And if you’re not much of a reader, there’s always Christopher Hitchins’ piece about Mother Theresa on YouTube. If you like your holy houses steamrolled.

Edit:
I’ve made a topic in the forums if anyone wants to share his views.

3 Comments

Ian R. Taylor
/

Although I haven’t read “The G-d Delusion,” it’s pretty easy to refute his arguments as stated on wikipedia. Not to start one of those passionate debates whereby we both pointlessly shout at each other, but consider the following:

In reality, it’s impossible (as of now) to disprove G-d. If it were possible, this wouldn’t be an issue. Ultimately, for every argument against G-d, there’s an equally valid argument for G-d. If you actually want to maturely debate this, I can give you a few. Essentially what it boils down to is this: atheism is simply another religion where you worship human observation (science). At the core of it, since there’s no surefire way to disprove G-d, you’re operating on the basis of faith with evidence, and that my friend is religion.

Don’t take this as me trying to proselytize you, I don’t do that. I don’t even consider myself a creationist at this point. But hopefully, this will make you be objective, and you’ll realize that you’ve put your faith in something, and though you’ve put faith in logic, faith is by definition not logical. Basically, I’m just saying don’t turn into one of those atheist jerks who insists that they’re right without really giving the issue some serious thought.

oh wait, you did a comic too! good job hahahaha!

Rembrand
/

Ah, some life in the comments! Hooray!
No worries, I’m not going to gonna put down anyone because they’re religious. I’d like to point out though that you’re assuming that I haven’t given the other point of view any serious thought. But I have. One of my friends is an adamant Catholic, I’ve talked to Jehova’s Witnesses and Protestants and it’s given us great discussions.
You say it’s easy to refute Dawkins’ arguments, and from religious viewpoint a lot probably are. I just fear we have a different view on what logic, faith and religion are. And so we’ll probably never agree. Half the time it’s like comparing apples to oranges. But that’s alright by me as long as we can make sense of the world and each other.

On the fact that you can’t disprove the existence of God, I agree. But you can’t prove it either. It’s the “What is more likely?”-argument.
Science and logic aren’t a religion as far as I’m concerned, and neither is atheism. It’s the opposite. It’s not about worship, it is about what is more likely to be, considering the facts at hand. Science isn’t just about human observation anymore (e.g. quantum mechanics is pure math). Logic is the way the brain and the universe work because it can be proven time and time again that it’s a solid base to work with. Everything after that is in a constant state of doubt and “what is more likely at this point”. No faith involved. I’ve heard your argument about “trust in logic = faith” before but I could honestly never see that.

So, to me, science and logic make sense on their own, is open for critisism, it can change, you can build on it, … Just like religion, it will offer an explanation but it can be challenged and it evolves quickly. You’ve got a hypothesis (= basic assumption) which is either backed by facts or not. If it isn’t, you throw it away. If it is, you can build on it.
While the religions, in my eyes, are largly static (dogmas, ancient texts and such), not open for critisism by the outside but can change to fit the needs of the interpreter (priest, head of church, …).

I made a topic on forums.tnppress.com in the general section. Cause the comments section isn’t the best place for loooong posts. :p