Science vs Religion

[FairDooz]

You can live a very fulfilled live while being an atheist

 

I don't doubt it. But it's probably not because you are an aetheist that you are fulfilled.

[Halibut]

I don't doubt it. But it's probably not because you are an aetheist that you are fulfilled.

 

Are you claiming it is otherwise for theists?

[FairDooz]

Are you claiming it is otherwise for theists?

 

I'll let them speak for themselves but I would think it more likely that someone could become fulfilled because of something they positively believe in and act upon.

 

Someone might find fulfilment by playing golf. Non-golfers might be equally or more fulfilled, but not because they don't play golf - probably because they do something else.

[quisquose]

Are you claiming it is otherwise for theists?

 

I've no doubt that a positive interest in religion can lead some adherents to a more fulfilled life, just as a positive interest in any hobby can.

 

I have often argued that religions should be treated as a hobbies. On that basis they can provide fulfilment to the adherents, but their place in society is known. Religious practices should have special privileges to the same extent that other hobbies have them, typically not at all. It is when people of specific religions try to claim more privileges than other hobbies have that atheists and people of other religions tend to object.

 

It is acceptable for people to want to share their interest in their hobby with their children, but if they want to force them to share their hobby it becomes a problem. It becomes unacceptable when people want to enforce their hobby, or rules pertaining to their hobby, on others.

 

In general, it is when people become obsessional about their hobby, that it becomes a problem to themselves and others.

[Bloomdido]

That's because we have a state religion that's funded by the tax payer and part of their 'remit' is to provide a place of 'sanctuary' for those in need. It's more of a 'happy accident' than anything else but also provides an easily accessible audience leading to an opportunity to preach and proseltyse.

 

Well said. It is in their interests to recruit at least as many people who leave, or the religion will die. I bet they are so happy that the government encourages the indoctrination of children into faith to further their cause.

[janie48]

That's because we have a state religion that's funded by the tax payer and part of their 'remit' is to provide a place of 'sanctuary' for those in need. It's more of a 'happy accident' than anything else but also provides an easily accessible audience leading to an opportunity to preach and proseltyse.

 

Well said. It is in their interests to recruit at least as many people who leave, or the religion will die. I bet they are so happy that the government encourages the indoctrination of children into faith to further their cause.

Typical isn't it! Attacking religious organisations who are doing charitable work.How would you know they are preaching to people in order to recruit them into the church? Have you witnessed it personally.? Its a cynical and false accusation in my opinion, and a groundless allegation.

Don't kid yourselves into thinking religion is some day going to be crushed.It will never happen.In fact, if there was any possible likelhood of that happening there would be many more people attending church, and i would be one of them.

 

Look what happened to Russia when the atheists leaders tried to put a total ban on religion,and the people dared not publicly announce they held a belief for fear of discrimination. The nation didn't put up with that for long did they!

[FairDooz]

That's because we have a state religion that's funded by the tax payer ...

 

I'm sure you're not right on that point ...

 

"The Church of England, although an established church, does not receive any direct government support" You'll need to update Wikipedia if you have evidence to the contrary ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_England

 

I have often argued that religions should be treated as a hobbies.

 

mmm yeah ... I probably wouldn't use the word "hobby" but I do think it would be a good idea to separate state and church ... although it is interesting that in the UK, Tony Blair (and I'm sure many others) felt it necessary to play down their religion to appeal to the voters, but in the States, where the constitution forbids "any law respecting a religious establishment", it is necessary to promote your beliefs, or at least play down any notion that you are a non-believer.

[Ryedo40]

That may be fine in theory, but what I'm arguing for is that a little bit more of that theory gets put into practice.

 

Apart from the fact that there are plenty of secular charities throughout the country - some of which may have once been faith-based - a great many non-believers donate & volunteer (just as believers do).

 

Secular charities already utilise reason, empathy and logic. They put it into practice all the time by not using their work as an opportunity to proselytise their personal religious beliefs(if any) - or to show prejudice towards people of a different ethnic background, beliefs, sexual preference and gender.

 

I'm sure faith-based charities, with some exceptions, also utilise reason, empathy and logic to do the same.

 

What your asking for already exists. And religion isn't needed for using reason, empathy and logic.

 

Now, whatever the faults of the church, the mosque, the synagogue (past and present) I see more people with faith helping the poor, the under priveleged and the homeless on a daily basis, than I do people from organisations professing reason, empathy and logic in their mission statement.

 

Apart from the fact that I've done quite a bit of charity work - including working as a supervisor for teams who helped the elderly, terminally ill and disabled - I rarely came across people of faith. My team members were almost all atheist/agnostic and token Christians(in name only); who criticised religion just a fervently as the most ardent atheist.

 

That aside, are you saying faith-based organisations don't use- or use little - reason, empathy and logic?

 

Forgive me for being facetious, but how grateful are the world's poor, or Sheffield's homeless for your reason, empathy and logic?

 

I'm sure they are extremely grateful. After all, without reason, empathy and logic, they'd probably receive a great deal of prejudice, no charity - and a massive dose of you're going to burn in hell for not being a believer(or worse).

[RootsBooster]

I'll let them speak for themselves but I would think it more likely that someone could become fulfilled because of something they positively believe in and act upon.

 

Someone might find fulfilment by playing golf. Non-golfers might be equally or more fulfilled, but not because they don't play golf - probably because they do something else.

 

....Which is the same for atheists, so what point were you trying to make when you originally said it?

[FairDooz]

... so what point were you trying to make when you originally said it?

 

We're going round in circles here mate - I was replying to your point - specifically:

 

I do not feel unfulfilled by being without belief in God.