Zelaron Gaming Forum - My Objection to Religion

Zelaron Gaming Forum (http://zelaron.com/forum/index.php)

- Opinion and Debate (http://zelaron.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=332)

- - My Objection to Religion (http://zelaron.com/forum/showthread.php?t=41042)

?What goes well?

An argument like this won't be resolved because of people's strong beliefs.

If anything, it will go forgotten to the bottom of the topic index.

yeah thats true, interesting isn't it?

You're speaking my mind! Demon! You're a witch! BURN HER!

Ah. An example of Christianity causing dissonance. Burning witches at the stake, an uncalled for excuse to 'explain' the unexplainable. Thank God we live in an age where science isn't deemed witchcraft.

haha thats right, imagine if what atnas said was true

maybe some of the science geeks wouldn't be here......you know, thats not a bad idea

I'd have been used as extra kindling if there wasn't enough wood to burn the witches. >=|

the hell with the witches, lets burn the science geeks!!

Damn their Heliocentricity!

heliocentricity?
erm, lets just go with burning them k?

Heliocentricity

Compared with the age-old religious belief that all celestial bodies, including the Sun, orbited Earth as it's obviously the centre of the known Universe, the Heliocentric theory states that all celestial boodies, including Earth, orbit the Sun.

I loved how I didn't have to look it up. Though if I had quit being so lazy I would've found it's base words and figured it out.

An 8th grade guess....
Helio(sun) Centricity(a circular property in motion around a focal point, relating to or having revolutive properties)
Am I right?

And who makes up these words to begin with? It'd be a pretty awesome night-job.

That's what I'm here for. :p

It was a 16th-17th Century term, believed to be true by Copernicus, Galileo, and Kepler - all three of whom had to go into hiding due to radical ideas that went against the Churches teachings - other than Geocentricity (Earth at centre).

Now I can't remember whether I learnt that in History, Physics, or RS.

LENNY FUCKING GO TO BED!!!

I did...

It was only 20 past 2, and I was playing with my websites.

I e-mailed this to my father, and thought I'd post his reply here:

Quote:

Now that Ive had time to read and understand it, let me first congratulate you on an excellent paper. It clearly and substantially argues against the supremacy of religion in society. I summarize your arguments below:

N1. Absurdity of religious mythology

N2. Absolutism and consequent suppression of critical thinking

N3. Indoctrination of religious dogma since early part of ones life

N4. Creationism and refutation of scientific facts

N5. Rise of fundamentalism and the inability of moderates to counter them

N6. Violence in the name of religion

N7. Greater risk of catastrophic destruction in this age of WMDs

It seems that N1,N2,N3 are the characteristics of religion whereas N4,N5,N6 are the negative effects of those characteristics and N7 is a potential catastrophic effect. And, I think that the effects N4N7 are the motivation for your paper.

However, if you look into human capabilities and resulting behavior, youd realize that a vast majority of people have limited ability to think critically and cannot understand nature and its consequences very well. Thus their behavior is driven by their emotions, feeling of what they like or dislike, rather than reason. They think they reason but in most cases it is only rationalization within the contexts of their feelings. In some way, aforesaid characteristics of religion N1,N2,N3 address human limitations and also help result in the following additional positive effects of religion.

P1. Helps deal with events beyond ones control

P2. Gives hope where hopelessness would rule otherwise

P3. Facilitates camaraderie - a social network which is a safety net to people

P4. Helps people channel their emotions

P5. Helps people lead meaningful and satisfying lives

P6. Facilitates order in the society

In my view, if you consider historical negative effects N5,N6 in the context of the positive effects P1P6, the positive effects would outweigh the negative effects. Therefore, I think that religion improves lives and still has a place in the society today.

So, how can the paper be improved and should it be published thereafter?

A. I think that if published as is, it could infuriate some people, as rejection of their beliefs would be hurtful to most. As you said it, indoctrination from childhood renders them incapable of questioning their beliefs. Since this is a logical paper, most people would not be able to understand it and react to it by their gut feeling. They will see you as a biased atheist rather than as a rational being. So, I think that it would be helpful to include some of the positive characteristics of religion, if you want to publish this article. You want people to think critically when they read this, instead of them reacting to an article that rejects their beliefs outright. You want to appear as an impartial and balanced student. On the contrary, newspapers like to publish controversial articles; if you are balanced they could think that you lack conviction and might choose not to publish it because it is not incendiary enough.

B. Also, I think that the closure, the last paragraph, could be improved. Elaborate on how it is an expression of human emotion (e.g. we are small and fragile in the grand scheme of things). Explain how religion is more harmful today. Also, instead of saying that it does not deserve a place in society, I would say that its role should be diminished and that moderates ought to counter fundamentalists.

C. The title could be improved perhaps to Undesired Characteristics and/or Consequences of Religion or Arguments Against Supremacy of Religion ; make it less personal

D. I would also prefer to cite references wherever you have stated a scientific fact.

Had not really thought about publishing it before, but it is an idea.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mjordan2nd

From my experiences, I have come to a conclusion which seems to contradict common sense. It would seem natural that as one gets older he questions things more, but from what I've seen it is the other way around. Younger children tend to have a lot of questions on the world, but as people grow older they grow more accepting of answers provided to them by authority.

I read an article from the Houston Chronicle earlier which I found interesting, and goes to show why I have come to the conclusion that I state in the quote above.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/...e/4370733.html

Your dad and you have a way with words, don't you?

You better be the first black president, mjordan2nd. >=|

And you should publish it. Might wanna reword it just a tad and follow what your dad said though.

Quote:

Originally Posted by KagomJack

Might wanna reword it just a tad

What/How would you suggest?

maybe he was just bored when he posted?