Agree or Disagree: Religion is needed to be a morally just person [or act as one].

You're stretching it a whole lot there. Religion provides answers science can't. I'm not going to go into why I think religion isn't what you've scorned it as because as much as I like being talked down to in condescending words like I'm a moron, it's not worth discussing as neither side will fold.

@MJGunner, I hope you find the time to share your thoughts with us. I'm always interested in how people perceive things (it's always cool seeing how others view things); what does it matter if both sides don't fold? There might be users on the forum who aren't sure what to believe, I think it would be cool for you to put your ideas out there.

But who am I to say what you should or shouldn't do, just wanted to put my two cents out there.

I myself am not sure what to believe; I come from a family that allowed me to think freely. My father is atheist, my brother is agnostic and my mother and I are "spiritual" religious; not really sure how to explain that.

MJGunner wrote:You're stretching it a whole lot there. Religion provides answers science can't.

Such as?

I'm not going to go into why I think religion isn't what you've scorned it as because as much as I like being talked down to in condescending words like I'm a moron,

Wasn't the intention to insult you. The point I was trying to bring across is that the belief in God is essentially the belief in nothing, because you cannot prove there is a God. You could say that the belief in God is the same as scientists believing in "nothing" prior to the Big Bang, because there's no information for them to explore beyond this point - the exact same thing with people who settle at religious writing for their understanding of our universe.

it's not worth discussing as neither side will fold.

Why should either side fold though? I think it's important to discuss because it brings different perceptions and thoughts out there so you can reflect on them and understand why people believe one way or the other.

Senor Penguin wrote:
Atheism doesn't really need defending because there's not much to defend. The stance is just that you don't believe in deities and religion.

The deal with atheists is that rely on science, which does its best to provide evidence based on the reality we live in and with the tools we have available. Relying on religion though, is somewhat relying on nothing. Because if you settle at the belief that someone/something created the universe and it's beyond our comprehension, you've basically done nothing and proved nothing.

I'm inclined to agree with you here. I always thought that's why they called it taking a leap of faith, you're choosing to believe something that you can't prove.

I have a friend who is a huge believe in god and at times I feel like that is handicapping him. He tends to feel like good things will come his way because of his belief (not saying everyone goes about it this way), but I'm certain there are others in the same boat. You begin to feel this entitlement over others and it's not healthy at all.

I've always had an issue with people questioning "the higher power", if you choose to believe in him/her/it, shouldn't you give them the benefit of the doubt? Or athletes who decide to thank god for where they are today, don't they (the athletes) deserve the credit for working hard and achieving their goals? At times I feel that this belief in a "higher power" can take away from us living/enjoying our own lives.

At a young age I was hesitant to believe a lot of what the religions around me were trying to preach, I was never one to believe things just because someone said it was the truth. I enjoy thinking for myself and analyzing and seeing how other people view anything and everything. At the end of the day, all I can do is try to be the best person I can be; I accept everyone for what they are and try to help out when/where I can.

TetraHydroC 10 wrote:I'm inclined to agree with you here. I always thought that's why they called it taking a leap of faith, you're choosing to believe something that you can't prove.

That was pretty much my point. The belief in a deity is an illusion of a belief in nothing. If I were to be really cheeky, I'd say that believing in a deity is the same as atheism. Because both believe in nothing. Whoops ... Think that one might have slipped.

I have a friend who is a huge believe in god and at times I feel like that is handicapping him. He tends to feel like good things will come his way because of his belief (not saying everyone goes about it this way), but I'm certain there are others in the same boat. You begin to feel this entitlement over others and it's not healthy at all.

That is one of the negatives that many people believing in religion seem to share. They believe that there's someone pulling the strings and that there's a destiny which is controlled by this "someone". Obviously, they're so special and unique that they'll get a better destiny than the rest of us.

I've always had an issue with people questioning "the higher power", if you choose to believe in him/her/it, shouldn't you give them the benefit of the doubt? Or athletes who decide to thank god for where they are today, don't they (the athletes) deserve the credit for working hard and achieving their goals? At times I feel that this belief in a "higher power" can take away from us living/enjoying our own lives.

The reason you feel that way is because people attribute tangible achievements to something that is not real. If you scored a really great goal and you attribute it to God, was it really you who scored? Lol.

At a young age I was hesitant to believe a lot of what the religions around me were trying to preach, I was never one to believe things just because someone said it was the truth. I enjoy thinking for myself and analyzing and seeing how other people view anything and everything. At the end of the day, all I can do is try to be the best person I can be; I accept everyone for what they are and try to help out when/where I can.

And that's the best life philosophy to have.

MJGunner wrote:I find it easier to believe hat we were created rather than say there was nothing, then there suddenly was, then life suddenly became, then it decided to change through complex laws that just were. To me, Atheism is shaky ground to defend.

easier it might be but that doesn't mean it's true

the universe doesn't owe anyone understanding its principles

MJGunner wrote:You're stretching it a whole lot there. Religion provides answers science can't. I'm not going to go into why I think religion isn't what you've scorned it as because as much as I like being talked down to in condescending words like I'm a moron, it's not worth discussing as neither side will fold.

I hope you don't feel "talked down to" as that was never my intent, though I cannot speak for others. I merely enjoy the debate.

On this topic I see religion as the grey area that science can't delve into. Science loves working within what can be seen, touched, tested and proven. That is the foundation upon which all scientific theory is based. Granted, science does theorize as to the answers to questions that extend beyond what is "known", but those theories are based on the tangible experiences that have come before.

Religion is practically the opposite. Religion is built upon what a person believes about what they cannot see, smell, touch or taste. It is almost wholly based upon what we feel. There is no religious answer that will satisfy scientists, nor is there a scientific answer that will satisfy the religious, because they are approaching problems from a completely different place. That isn't to say that the two cannot coexist. Think of the two disciplines of philosophy and cognitive science. Think they are completely different? They're not. In fact, they deal with a VERY similar topic: what it means to be a person. Cognitive science approaches it from a very mechanical standpoint, thinking about what brain functions and thought processes define us as people. Philosophy takes a different route, delving into the ethereal topic of consciousness. Is either the "better" route? I would say no. They are merely different roads to the same ultimate truth. (This, of course, assumes you believe there is a single ultimate truth. There is just as much possibility that there are no answers and Life the World and Everything really was just a giant screwup... but that's a conversation for a different time. ) What I'm saying is that is is going to be hard to talk about religion to people of science and equally difficult to talk about science to people of religion. In times like this, I am reminded of one of my favorite quotes: "Writing about music is like dancing about architecture." I think it applies here. We're all dancing. We all want to know the answers. The difference between us is that I'm doing the Charleston and you prefer East Coast Swing.

I would like to express the respect I feel towards each one of you and your respective beliefs. I realize that you are analyzing in a very factual and scientific way, and approaching God and religion in that manner. Correct me if I'm wrong.

If any of you haven't, I would highly recommend reading "Life of Pi". The book is an "elegant proof of God" as Barack Obama said. Even if you come away with a different point of view, it is still a very beautiful story.