Fed Up with Religion and Fed up with No Religion - Any Alternatives?

Logical Fallacy · 26-08-2011 11:23AM

Comic Book Villanism has always served me well.

jester77 · 26-08-2011 11:23AM

Look at it this way, if you have time to incorporate religion or anti-religion into your life, then you are not living enough.

Mr. Incognito · 26-08-2011 11:26AM

Burky126 wrote: »

.............nihilism?

The Big Lebowski has ruined that one for me.

"Will they hurt me?

No Donnie these men are nihilists"

"Ve believe in nothing, Ya"

cosmicfart · 26-08-2011 11:27AM

The only thing worse than people who follow a religion are the people who claim they are irreligious, atheists and the like, obnoxious bunch the whole lot of them.

Funglegunk · 26-08-2011 11:34AM

cosmicfart wrote: »

The only thing worse than people who follow a religion are the people who claim they are irreligious, atheists and the like, obnoxious bunch the whole lot of them.

That leaves you in a tight spot doesn't it.

weeder · 26-08-2011 11:37AM

OP become a dudist

cosmicfart · 26-08-2011 11:43AM

Funglegunk wrote: »

That leaves you in a tight spot doesn't it.

Enlightened

bob the bob · 26-08-2011 11:46AM

Most of these religions have been built on the fact that people like the OP have a gap in their lives and need SOMETHING to fill it no matter how fanciful. This something might be
As others have said, just get on with your life without religion, stop worrying about what others believe/don't believe in. There enough things in life to keep you busy without religion.

ScumLord · 26-08-2011 11:56AM

bob the bob wrote: »

Most of these religions have been built on the fact that people like the OP have a gap in their lives and need SOMETHING to fill it no matter how fanciful.

I don't think it's as simple as that, humans can notice things other animals don't and it's filled us with curiosity, thousands of years ago it must have been great to have some sort of answer to all the things we would have started to notice about nature, ecosystems animal behaviour.

People often need answers to to stop the question bugging you, the best they could come up with at the time was that their was a bigger more power king in charge making all these things work.

Shenshen · 26-08-2011 12:02PM

cosmicfart wrote: »

The only thing worse than people who follow a religion are the people who claim they are irreligious, atheists and the like, obnoxious bunch the whole lot of them.

Damned if you do and damned if you don't....

Parsley · 26-08-2011 12:04PM

secular humanism.

bullpost · 26-08-2011 12:05PM

The cult of Sheelanagig for you so!

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

What's left? There must be something outside the box- Yes and being boards obviously we are going to get the flying spaghetti monster and Jedi but at the moment if I had to pick something to worship my religion would be described as "vagina" seeing as I spend more time trying to get into that than some intangible heaven.

Anyone else have any ideas or you want to join my genitalia based belief system??

Sofaspud · 26-08-2011 12:23PM

OP, your post reeked of the exact kind of smug superiority you accuse atheists of. The "book" that atheists allegedly worship is based on scientific and psychological facts, so it's "worshipped" as much as people who speak English "worship" the dictionary.
I'm an atheist but it never crops up in my day-to-day life, people know what I believe but I don't force it on anyone. You are an atheist. Atheism does not describe a type of person or a belief system, it describes a lack of belief system. It's possible to be an atheist and believe that the universe is really a giant toaster and we're the crumbs.

Wattle · 26-08-2011 12:30PM

Then the other side we have the Athiests- There is no God. They run around all superior licking Dawkings ball sack proclaiming science to have all the answers and being all smug and superior. Yeah, guess what, you have basically subscribed to a belief system written in a book- sound familiar?

Yes but the Bible is manifestly unproveable nonsense whereas the science book is proveable on every level.

Mr. Incognito · 26-08-2011 12:36PM

Wattle wrote: »

Yes but the Bible is manifestly unproveable nonsense whereas the science book is proveable on every level.

Not really.

Big Bang- Theory, based on observations.

Bosom Higgs Particle- Theory. Physists at the Large HC pretty much have come out and said- whoops- maybe it doesn't exist after all all.

SOME science is provable. A huge chunk of it is theory. Most of the stuff that deals with lifes fundamental mysteries that enters the realm of religious debate is every much a faith system as religion itself.

I reject both as some sort of universal explanation.

And an athiest is someone who doesn't believe in any diety. I might, just couldn't be arsed with the Bee-Jee Jesus and Mohammad.

Parsley · 26-08-2011 12:41PM

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

Not really.

Big Bang- Theory, based on observations.

Bosom Higgs Particle- Theory. Physists at the Large HC pretty much have come out and said- whoops- maybe it doesn't exist after all all.

SOME science is provable. A huge chunk of it is theory. Most of the stuff that deals with lifes fundamental mysteries that enters the realm of religious debate is every much a faith system as religion itself.

I reject both as some sort of universal explanation.

And an athiest is someone who doesn't believe in any diety. I might, just couldn't be arsed with the Bee-Jee Jesus and Mohammad.

yeah, the fact that you're posting on an internet forum from a small box with buttons is - as you've said - all based on 'theory'. science f*cking works.

Mr. Incognito · 26-08-2011 12:44PM

Parsley wrote: »

yeah, the fact that you're posting on an internet forum from a small box with buttons is - as you've said - all based on 'theory'. science f*cking works.

Of course it works. Perhaps take your bunsen burner out of your ears and read.

Physics works.
Chemistry works
Maths works.

That's science.

What happens when we die- how was the universe created- Do we have a soul

That's theory. Science has sought to explain some of these questions through observational theory but it has failed. Doesn't mean that believing a fat old man in the sky with a fondness for kiddies is a more valid explanation. I'm just saying that Science isn't either.

Also- Big Bang Theory- falling out of favour in a big way atm

Wattle · 26-08-2011 12:54PM

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

Not really.

Big Bang- Theory, based on observations.

Bosom Higgs Particle- Theory. Physists at the Large HC pretty much have come out and said- whoops- maybe it doesn't exist after all all.

SOME science is provable. A huge chunk of it is theory. Most of the stuff that deals with lifes fundamental mysteries that enters the realm of religious debate is every much a faith system as religion itself.

I reject both as some sort of universal explanation.

And an athiest is someone who doesn't believe in any diety. I might, just couldn't be arsed with the Bee-Jee Jesus and Mohammad.

Ok well let's just say of the two I'd rather hang my hat on science.

Mr. Incognito · 26-08-2011 12:58PM

Wattle wrote: »

Ok well let's just say of the two I'd rather hang my hat on science.

See this is the problem I have with athiesm.

They say- oh look science explains it and I'll hang my hat on that and then they don't actually go away and look up what science says or do any investigative thinking.

That's the same "blind faith" as catholicism-

God Did it. How? Dunno, just did.

Science Did it. How? Dunno, just did.

Turtwig · 26-08-2011 01:05PM

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

See this is the problem I have with athiesm.

They say- oh look science explains it and I'll hang my hat on that and then they don't actually go away and look up what science says or do any investigative thinking.

That's the same "blind faith" as catholicism-

God Did it. How? Dunno, just did.

Science Did it. How? Dunno, just did.

I love posts that start with "they" and have a lovely and conveniently generalised group. The majority of Catholics and atheists I know don't provide as near as stupid convenient answers as the one's you are alluding to. Anyone who says "science did it" hasn't a f**king clue about the scientific method or skepticism.

Brief explanation of the modern scientific method:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcavPAFiG14

Brief explanation of skepticism :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIHoPJSGgp0

Eggy Baby! · 26-08-2011 01:07PM

Science!

Mark200 · 26-08-2011 01:09PM

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

Of course it works. Perhaps take your bunsen burner out of your ears and read.

Physics works.
Chemistry works
Maths works.

That's science.

What happens when we die- how was the universe created- Do we have a soul

That's theory. Science has sought to explain some of these questions through observational theory but it has failed. Doesn't mean that believing a fat old man in the sky with a fondness for kiddies is a more valid explanation. I'm just saying that Science isn't either.

Also- Big Bang Theory- falling out of favour in a big way atm

So what if science hasn't found the answer to a few questions yet? Science doesn't profess everything to be absolutely true. It is continuous and ever-changing. That's the whole difference between science and religion - science tries to find the truth, and if it finds a theory to be wrong then it will change that theory. Religion says it knows the truth.

All of physics is a theory, because it is all based on observation. Labelling something as "just" a theory does not mean that it shouldn't be accepted. A scientific "theory" is different to how we use the word "theory" in every day life. Gravity is a theory, yet if you drop something I can tell you that it's going to fall at an acceleration of roughly 9.8m/s/s.

You referenced the Higgs Boson particle. The whole point of the LHC is to find it. Just because it has not been found yet does not mean that it does not exist or that it won't be found. All scientific calculations show that this particle does exist. If it's subsequently found that it does not exist, the scientists will be the first one to acknowledge it. That system of experimentation is not comparable to religion.

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

And as for Athiest and Agnostic being the same forum- sure why not. Superior athiests are claiming them, I thought the whole point of agnostic is that you don't disbelieve either- How are they lumped together is it just that when you are too lazy to even bother thinking about a belief system you are hardly going to get indignant if it is being subsumed into another.

Atheism is often mistaken for agnosticism. Atheism isn't a disbelief, it's a lack of belief. Someone who says "I don't believe in a God" is an atheist, rather than just someone who says "I believe there is no God".

Agnosticism is related to the degree of certainty in your belief or lack of belief.

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

That's the same "blind faith" as catholicism-

God Did it. How? Dunno, just did.

Science Did it. How? Dunno, just did.

Actually, anyone with any clue would say "I don't know what did it, but science is trying to find out".

CrazyRabbit · 26-08-2011 01:18PM

Money is the one true God. Believe in that, for there is proof everywhere.

Mickeroo · 26-08-2011 01:30PM

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

Not really.

Big Bang- Theory, based on observations.

Bosom Higgs Particle- Theory. Physists at the Large HC pretty much have come out and said- whoops- maybe it doesn't exist after all all.

SOME science is provable. A huge chunk of it is theory. Most of the stuff that deals with lifes fundamental mysteries that enters the realm of religious debate is every much a faith system as religion itself.

I reject both as some sort of universal explanation.

And an athiest is someone who doesn't believe in any diety. I might, just couldn't be arsed with the Bee-Jee Jesus and Mohammad.

AFAIK the Higgs Boson is a hypotheisis not a theory as it hasn't been proven to exist yet? They've come close to proving it but not quite, I think some doubt over it's existence was raised recently at CERN after
THey thought they found it., I could be wrong though.

Big Bang is a theory, which means it's pretty much accepted as fact, based on observation yes, but observation of solid evidence.

To suggest science is based on faith suggests you just don't understand how it works, your post also suggests you don't understand what the word theory means scientific terms.

The great thing about science is to properly appreciate it you have to have an open mind and be ready to accept you could be proven wrong.

Eggy Baby! · 26-08-2011 01:32PM

READ:

http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/p67.htm

26-08-2011 01:32PM

I don't get where people got the idea that science disproves religion?

I was present at (but keeping out of) an argument between two friends the other day, one of which is the "I'm superior and figured everything out at 15" type. He basically said that fossils disprove religion. If there is a God, what's to stop him having created fossils? Or what's to stop him having created the primordial soup we came out of?

Science can be totally compatible with the idea of a God. Choosing to believe one doesn't mean you can't believe in the other.

chopperbyrne · 26-08-2011 01:33PM

You can have faith without religion.

Failing that, there's Scientology.

RichieC · 26-08-2011 01:35PM

you could become a half arsed buddhist like myself, yea I eat meat and I drink beer, but it makes me sound a bit cool, Unitarian Universalism is another "cool" sounding religioney thing.

Shenshen · 26-08-2011 01:35PM

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

Not really.

Big Bang- Theory, based on observations.

Bosom Higgs Particle- Theory. Physists at the Large HC pretty much have come out and said- whoops- maybe it doesn't exist after all all.

SOME science is provable. A huge chunk of it is theory. Most of the stuff that deals with lifes fundamental mysteries that enters the realm of religious debate is every much a faith system as religion itself.

Not really.... once they've established that the Higg's Bossum doesn't exist, they'll ditch a good few theories.

When's the last time you saw a religion ditch its dogmas based on evidence?

Shenshen · 26-08-2011 01:37PM

true-or-false wrote: »

I don't get where people got the idea that science disproves religion?

I was present at (but keeping out of) an argument between two friends the other day, one of which is the "I'm superior and figured everything out at 15" type. He basically said that fossils disprove religion. If there is a God, what's to stop him having created fossils? Or what's to stop him having created the primordial soup we came out of?

Science can be totally compatible with the idea of a God. Choosing to believe one doesn't mean you can't believe in the other.

It all depends on how you modify your idea of god, I suppose.

Fed Up with Religion and Fed up with No Religion - Any Alternatives?

Comments