Why has religion retained its appeal?

[truman]

Oh, we're extremely fortunate to be living in a scientific age. We'd most definitely be up you know where without a paddle if it wasn't for science. But on the flip-side, branches of science such as physics is responsible for giving us the atom bomb, it's responsible for giving us nuclear capability, it's responsible for the damage to the o-zone layer and global warming which is being linked to freak weather and natural disasters that are occurring more and more frequently nowadays.

 

On the whole I reckon science has more going for it than against it.......

Edited August 17, 2018 by truman

[danot]

I feel that 'non-believer' doesn't explain atheism, more that it's a lack of belief. To me, if you're a non-believer, it's that there is evidence that you choose not to accept, so you do not believe. Whereas a lack of belief is that there isn't enough evidence on which to believe in a god, so you are unable to choose to be anything other than atheist/agnostic.

 

But I don't think science in of itself is misleading - science is just a process used to find answers. The scientists themselves could use data and statistics to mislead, but there will always be someone else who will counteract an argument/experiment. That's the beauty of science, it can be held up picked apart because it's physical and works, mostly, in the physical world that we can see and feel. I know there's theoretical physics, but it is just that. However, where religion is concerned, the arguments against are only counteracted with words like 'faith' and 'interpretation'. These things are difficult to disprove because it's how a person feels, so we could prove that there are no gods, but someone could still keep the faith and 'believe' that there is.

 

I don't think science is saying that a creator isn't necessary, because by that thinking it means that a creator exists, it's just not needed. I think it's just saying that the universe wasn't 'created' by a supreme being, it was a natural occurrence.

 

That's my twopenneth anyway...

 

I consider this misleading. Krauss claims that empty space still weighs something. By this he means if all matter, all the energy, all the particles and all the radiation were removed, empty space still weighs something? Clearly. everything hasn't been removed if there's still an invisible energy that weighs something?

[lottiecass]

I feel that 'non-believer' doesn't explain atheism, more that it's a lack of belief. To me, if you're a non-believer, it's that there is evidence that you choose not to accept, so you do not believe. Whereas a lack of belief is that there isn't enough evidence on which to believe in a god, so you are unable to choose to be anything other than atheist/agnostic.

 

But I don't think science in of itself is misleading - science is just a process used to find answers. The scientists themselves could use data and statistics to mislead, but there will always be someone else who will counteract an argument/experiment. That's the beauty of science, it can be held up picked apart because it's physical and works, mostly, in the physical world that we can see and feel. I know there's theoretical physics, but it is just that. However, where religion is concerned, the arguments against are only counteracted with words like 'faith' and 'interpretation'. These things are difficult to disprove because it's how a person feels, so we could prove that there are no gods, but someone could still keep the faith and 'believe' that there is.

 

I don't think science is saying that a creator isn't necessary, because by that thinking it means that a creator exists, it's just not needed. I think it's just saying that the universe wasn't 'created' by a supreme being, it was a natural occurrence.

 

That's my twopenneth anyway...

 

There is no evidence to prove any god,never has been.

[danot]

Debating about religion is a fascinating subject. It is funny how people confuse religion with belief. In my view religion is all about what religious habits and maybe which faith an individual belongs to or follows. Whereas belief is what deity(s) they believe in, or pretend to believe in.

 

In my view religion is the real issue which causes all the trouble, because it is setup by men and interpreted by the people who replace the original founders. Depending upon the leader's prejudices and rules, the congregation and wider community are affected whether they want to be or not.

 

Whereas belief is something that rarely changes. Most people will decide what they believe and stick to it right throughout their life.

 

I don't see religion as being the problem. I feel it's humans plain and simple. If religion wasn't available to us we'd still be commiting the same atrocities disagreeing about something else. The one sure thing that human history can teach us is that there's no escaping our true nature.

[Robin-H]

I don't see religion as being the problem. I feel it's humans plain and simple. If religion wasn't available to us we'd still be commiting the same atrocities disagreeing about something else. The one sure thing that human history can teach us is that there's no escaping our true nature.

 

That comment implies that because religion is available to us it prevents us from some of the atrocities. Surely you don't believe that to be true?

 

Religion has been the cause of countless atrocities.

[danot]

That comment implies that because religion is available to us it prevents us from some of the atrocities. Surely you don't believe that to be true?

 

Religion has been the cause of countless atrocities.

 

No Robin. It implies no such thing. Religion is just one of many things that cause our emotional juices to boil over bringing the darker side of our nature to the surface. Taking religion away wouldn't alter anything Robin. Religion is just a coincidental factor that crack-pots commit atrocities in the name of.

[gomgeg]

After reading some of the debate (<removed>) on this thread it's no wonder religion has lost its appeal to most people.

Religion is an insurance policy for most people who believe in it ( and good luck to them) in the extremely unlikely event that there will be an afterlife.

Why would anyone who genuinely believed in heaven, paradise or whatever you may call it want to stay living? If after dying they were to be re-united with their loved ones who'd already died and enjoy all the other benefits of living in paradise.

A few years ago millions of pilgrims went to Saudi Arabia to worship and throw stones, no I don't understand that either, a few people started running then the instinct of self preservation kicked in, overcame any religious feeling and a stampede started with the resultant tragedy that hundreds were killed.

Having said all that if someone wants to believe in their own particular religion I don't have a problem with that at all as long as it doesn't affect the rest of us.

Edited August 18, 2018 by nikki-red

[Robin-H]

No Robin. It implies no such thing. Religion is just one of many things that cause our emotional juices to boil over bringing the darker side of our nature to the surface. Taking religion away wouldn't alter anything Robin. Religion is just a coincidental factor that crack-pots commit atrocities in the name of.

 

I'm glad you think so. Religion is entirely unnecessary.

[danot]

I'm glad you think so. Religion is entirely unnecessary.

 

Whereas as I think your 'I don't believe so no one should' attitude is unnecessary.

[Robin-H]

Whereas as I think your 'I don't believe so no one should' attitude is unnecessary.

 

What is the rationale for behind believing something in which there is absolutely no evidence?

 

Religion of course is even worse than that. I would be fine with people believing in what the hell they like if it didn't impact on anybody else. That of course is not the case.