it is inconceivable that I intended that

i'm not equating the 'people' who 'practice' what they deem to be their faith or their interpretation of their 'religion'... i'm going after the religion itself irrelevant of what its practitioners have convinced themselves it means.

i dont think its the 'christian' or the 'muslim' or the 'amish' persons that are faulty... but the religion which they have 'faith' in.

scare quotes make the argument

5/5 would buy again

And what of my previous question:

Do you see that in calling all religions equally false, you are actually making an exclusive truth claim and developing your own religion?

How can you know that all religions are false? Why can you see clearly, as a pluralist, yet everyone else be incorrect? What makes your belief true and others untrue?

@bartdogg - no i do not.

I am a deist personally - so I do believe there are powers and forces above and beyond the human capacity to comprehend and quantify - the think I personally find comical is the incessant attempts to quantify and comprehend those forces.

Those who claim to have 'faith' are, in my humble opinion, fooling themselves into believing that they comprehend those great forces of the universe. and all iterations of religion are the simplest way to pretend to 'understand' when one is only trying to feel calmed in this sea of unknown that is our universe.

so no... just as i would claim that a story about an invisible pink spaghetti monster in the sky is falacious, i equally claim that stories about raining frogs, noah's ark, a speaking snake, etc etc etc are just that... stories. myths and fables.

the one religion which i find has less of all that than any of the others is actually Confucianism... but that is more a philosophy than a religion to begin with.

Richard Dawkins probably better explains all this than I ever could, so if you genuinely want to know where this line of thinking or this mentality leads, i suggest you read his books.

http://richarddawkins.net/RDbooks

start with "The God Delusion"


ps. my mentality on this subject predates his publication of this book, and in fact, I have not even read it. but I have seen enough of his interviews and speeches online that I know he speaks far more eloquently about this subject than I ever could.

a vid: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gnHeCgcMSw

"Richard Dawkins probably better explains all this than I ever could"

Oh dear ;_;

So, Babak, let me understand:

All faiths are fallacious, to some degree. You assert this. If we define a religion as a set of principles and truths upon which we make judgments and see the world, then you are essentially creating a religion that says "No truth exists and no faiths/religions are true." Do I misunderstand your position?

This new religion then, because it surely cannot be proven in any way whatsoever, avails itself to be a step of "faith" itself! Agreed?

So, I ask again, what makes your "faith" or "religion" true and others untrue?

"If we define a religion as a set of principles and truths upon which we make judgments and see the world..."

Is that how we define religion? By that definition science is a religion. Is science a religion?

The "world" isn't necessarily the physical world, but more all-encompasing, something science doesn't make assertions or judgments about. Also science is not about truths. It is about immutable facts. So, while some worship it like a religion, it is not a religion by that definition.

I agree that science is not a religion. I am curious to know if bartdogg42 thinks it is a religion.

A couple of things though, Draugnar.
What do you mean that science is not about truths? Surely there are things that science holds to be true? Or is there a difference between a proposition which is "true" and "a truth"?
Also you say science is about immutable facts? Is this really true? I would say science is more about probabilities than immutable facts. (That is "probable facts".)

Truths are philosophical and based on perspective. Facts are not. I wall accept that it isn't all immutable facts, but probable facts and therories based around them are what makes the sciences and mathematics what they are.

Here is the definition I refer to, although there are others that call truths facts...

actuality (3) often capitalized : a transcendent fundamental or spiritual reality

I see that make sense. So when Babak asserts "All faiths are fallacious, to some degree." (or rather as Bartdogg42 paraphrased Babak). Was Babak asserting a "truth" or a "probable fact"?

Babak, may I make a suggestion. Since you have cited Dawkins, you are combating fervently against these nutjob defenders of religion and "reason?" I have a suggestion. I too, only short while ago was a Deist, but only because I could not logically explain the universe and my beliefs in Science without one. Now I am an atheist. Try the mental switch, you will find that deism and atheism are closer than you think.

re: "is science a religion"

I think I'd like a definition of "science" also.

"Science" can be a religion, of sorts, if we believe that to believe anything it must first be empirically proven. Let me walk it through:

I hold that nothing can true unless it is empirically proven.
Someone then may ask me to prove empirically that to find something true it must be empirically proven. I obviously cannot do this. Thus I must, ultimately, be holding a belief system. A religion.

Therefore, to claim that all "religions" are fallacious is just philosophical hypocrisy.

my definition of religion is a little bit more than just "faith" religion is a rigid system (most times unless we're talking daoism) that has the following components: ethics (morals), liturgy, and theology. don't think science offers all three of these, so in my mind it is not a religion. the term religion should not be so loosely applied. come on this is basic high school stuff (any of you take "World Relgions" class)

man people are coming up with all sorts of subjective definitions (whoops square circle!)

I hope you realize that definitions are subject to perspective. If people make definitions then, no shit, they're going to be subjective. Very little is definite, or true. This is because of the infinite universe....

That would make them useless for communication :bigteach:

are you making an Orwellian reference there? 1984, man, that is some good shit. it's true. most things exist only in your head. however, when a bunch of people come to together in believing essentially the same thing, there is an illusion of absolute objectivism, which makes practice of the idea applicable.

>Science" can be a religion, of sorts, if we believe that to believe anything it must first be empirically proven. Let me walk it through..."

You mean science says that before we say something is true, we should find out if actually is true? Sounds good to me.

>Someone then may ask me to prove empirically that to find something true it must be empirically proven.

In most cases Science doesn't actually talk about things being 100% certain, but rather probable. Thus if something is true there are probably facts (evidence) that will support this conclusion. It might be the case that these facts have not yet been discovered, but that's the wonderful thing about science, scientific knowledge grows and changes over time.

>I obviously cannot do this. Thus I must, ultimately, be holding a belief system. A religion.

Science is a system for discovering and organizing knowledge. If this makes it a belief system then yes it is a belief system. Religion may also be a belief system but this does not mean it is the same thing as science. That sounds to me like this argument: all humans are animals, all dogs are animals, therefore all humans are dogs. Clearly this doesn't follow.

Therefore, to claim that all "religions" are fallacious is just philosophical hypocrisy.

I don't think science categorically states that all regions are fallacious, but rather specific claims made by religious are demonstrably fallacious.

God you're all silly bastards with this thread but thank you for entertaining me ^_^ I'm suprised rlumley hasn't jumped in with b.s. lol

*sigh*

It seems my presence is requested.

I didn't read all of this, but I know a little about Scientology. And if you think about it objectively, it's no more crazy (OK, maybe a little) than any mainstream religion.

To illustrate my point: Does it make any logical sense that an omnipotent god would send his son to die on the cross for our sin? Why doesn't he just simply abolish our sin? How does some dude dying abolish it? Or, here's a though, if he created us, why didn't he create perfect beings?

Throughout history, the function of most religions has been to exploit some group of people (usually the most able) to the benefit to some other group of people (The founders, the poor, etc.). Whether or not this was the founders purpose is debatable (I'd say it probably was) but Scientology is no different, L Ron Hubbard is simply honest about it. How is it any more moral for a religion to ask for your money to give to the poor as opposed to giving it to the religious leaders? (I think there is some "reason" that Scientology has, but I don't know what it is off the top of my head - the point stands) The amazing thing about religions is that they have made it (And I don't think we, as a society, ever even had this discussion) a presupposed fact that morality is selflessness, and not selfishness. You can argue the issue (I don't want to, and won't respond to it - we have done that in other threads) but I think the most damaging thing that religion as an institution has done (Which is saying something) has been to repress that societal discussion.

Compared to other religions, I think that Scientology is no more destructive or crazy or evil. That's not to say that it isn't, but religion as a whole has been an incredibly destructive force on society.

I really don't mean to hate on religion as much as I do. I enjoy going to church. Mostly because I really like the hymn style of music, and hanging out with friends of mine, but it's interesting to hear what is (Sometimes) an intellectual argument for a philosophy I largely disagree with. And I don't think less of anyone who is religious. I won't get into my personal beliefs anymore than to say that they are not what you would expect from reading the majority of this post.

so many good points made above by spyman and rumley, i dont feel the desire or need to respond to every single point... but a few items jump out...

the way I would define science (and I'm sure a dictionary would do a better job) is that it is a methodology, not a belief system. Science is a 'means' or a 'tool' to reach an end - which is understanding of our physical (and to some degree metaphysical) world.

religion, i would argue (again, a theologian or seminary student might want to jump in here - Jacob?), is a set of strictly held beliefs about the way things 'are'. religion is not so much a 'means' to an end as it is an 'end' onto itself.

so bartdog, I think Science and Religion are two very different things despite the fact that they share some common characteristics (spyman did a good job of delineating this above as well)


@bd -
"All faiths are fallacious, to some degree. You assert this."

yes. though i explicitly said that the various 'stories' that are a part of all religions are individually 'fallacious'... though the better word would be false, or untrue. so yes, those individual cases of falsehood stacked up on top of one another do indeed make each of those faiths/religions untrue/fallacious IMHO.

"If we define a religion as a set of principles and truths upon which we make judgments and see the world,"

ok...

"then you are essentially creating a religion that says "No truth exists and no faiths/religions are true." Do I misunderstand your position?

no. because what I am creating is not a 'religion' based on some 'falacious stories' in some text that tells me what the 'truth' is. it is rather a reasoned or logical conclusion i reach based on rational thought. so when I claim that the story of the rising of jesus into heavan is false. or when I claim that there was NO world-wide flood that killed off everything except for one boat with a million pairs of genetically unique beatles, I'm not simply making something up based on a 'book' or based one what someone else (my pastor) told me... I'm basing my 'beliefs' on scientifically provable (ie based on testable evidence and experimentation) facts.

so the difference being that religion demands that we simply accept certain things as true 'because someone said so' vs what I'm saying is based on 'hey look, i can prove that water can not be turned into wine'.

"This new religion then, because it surely cannot be proven in any way whatsoever, avails itself to be a step of "faith" itself! Agreed?"

no. remember, logic 101 - one can not 'prove' a negative. if I say "you can not turn water into wine", i can not PROVE this. its simply impossible by virtue of the definition of the word 'prove'.

"So, I ask again, what makes your "faith" or "religion" true and others untrue?"

because what I'm claiming is not religion. nor do I take it on 'faith'. i believe it based on reason, logic, and evidence versus a religious person who simply accepts it DESPITE reason, logic, and lack of evidence.

a few more tidbits of thought...

Scientology is arguably, LESS crazy than other religions because it has lead to far less death, destruction, and division than most of the others.


and here is some food for thought...

"Life is empty and meaningless,
and its empty and meaningless
that its empty and meaningless." (I believe this wholeheartedly)

another cool and VERY deep quote worth its own thread:

"A superstition is not a superstition when it is a superstition,
and it is a superstition when it is not a superstition"

above... in response to bartdog's explicit question "DO I misunderstand your position?", I should have written 'yes. because...' not 'no'

sorry for the confusion. the 'no' refers to the statement before his question. that probably is confusing. sorry.

really though, babak you should not be a deist but rather an atheist

I am a firm believer that there is nothing god-like out there.
Not to say that we do not have a creator: life on earth could have been influenced because of a different alien race or such. Aliens could well exist.

I just believe that it wasn't a supernatural or deic force that created the universe and worlds within it.

But scientology to me isn't so much a religion as a bunch of crazy people who decided to follow this invented religion that someone thought up.