A lot of people believe in the existence or reality of love, but it only manifests in the observances of 'love'. Proof of the factual existence of love would be very hard, and disputed.
I enjoy your posts Seth, usually fact and reasoned. But this one sounds to me like tosh.
It will never not blow my mind that grown adults believe in any god or religion.
And start war's over it.
Did you read that in a pop up book?
Wars aren't fought by faiths, they are the indulgence of men. Faith isn't the issue, greed and power are.
WWII Civil Wars - China's, Russian WWI Sino-Japanese Wars Spanish Conquests of the Americas
More recently the war in the Ukraine.
The fighting in Israel is a land conflict.
Crusades (11th-13th centuries): A series of religious wars initiated by Western European Christians to regain control of the Holy Land from Muslims.
Thirty Years' War (1618-1648): Initially a conflict between Protestant and Catholic states in the Holy Roman Empire, it later evolved into a broader European war involving political and territorial disputes.
French Wars of Religion (1562-1598): A series of conflicts between Catholics and Protestants in France, marked by massacres, assassinations, and sieges.
Islamic conquests (7th-8th centuries): Military campaigns led by Islamic caliphs to spread Islam and conquer territories across the Middle East, North Africa, and parts of Europe.
Reconquista (8th-15th centuries): A long period of military campaigns by Christian kingdoms in the Iberian Peninsula to reconquer territory from Muslim rule.
Jewish-Roman Wars (1st and 2nd centuries): Revolts by Jewish communities against Roman rule, motivated partly by religious beliefs and resistance to Roman religious and cultural practices.
Wars of the Reformation (16th century): Conflicts across Europe sparked by the Protestant Reformation, pitting Catholic and Protestant states against each other.
Irish Confederate Wars (1641-1653): Conflicts in Ireland between Catholic Confederates and Protestant English and Scottish settlers, fueled by religious, political, and ethnic tensions.
Bosnian War (1992-1995): Although primarily driven by ethnic and political factors, religious identity played a significant role in the conflict between Bosnian Muslims, Serbs, and Croats.
Northern Crusades (12th-16th centuries): Military campaigns by Christian kingdoms and orders to conquer and convert pagan Baltic tribes in the Baltic region.
And you haven't even mentioned the big one, The Taiping Rebellion, which caused 20 million deaths, was started by a bloke who claimed to be the brother of Jesus Christ and whose aim was to convert people to his particular brand of Christianity.
My fault for not including that. Call it a Taiping error.
A lot of people believe in the existence or reality of love, but it only manifests in the observances of 'love'. Proof of the factual existence of love would be very hard, and disputed.
I enjoy your posts Seth, usually fact and reasoned. But this one sounds to me like tosh.
That's funny, because I thought this post from Seth was quite enjoyable. It's all his other ones that are tosh.
The majority of religious people I know have a faith for social or mental health reasons, and I don't see anything wrong with that.
There will always be beliefs that can be used for good or harm.
For example, I find nationalism similar to religion in its blind faith in the concept of the nation. Nationalism is useful in uniting people but it has led to murder, discrimination and war.
Another example. We all agree on the sanctity of life to prevent murder and suicide, but then you get the anti-abortion nutters making death threats to doctors in abortion clinics.
There are extreme cases where useful beliefs such as freedom of speech, private property, human rights, etc. lead to nonsensical conclusions or are used as a pretext for bad actions.
It is a bit like that with religion: it gives life its meaning to many but can also be used by crazy people to inflict misery on others.
It will never not blow my mind that grown adults believe in any god or religion.
Not only that. There are people who are extremely clever that believe. I worked for years with a physicist who was as you can imagine no slouch upstairs yet was a very active Christian. Always baffled me.
I'm an atheist too, however I find your opinions rather patronising. To suggest that a person cannot be both intelligent whilst also having a faith is nothing but ignorant.
It may be patronising, although I don’t think it is, but it’s unfathomable rather than ignorant.
Brain washed Catholic here. Jacked it in aged 17 and it felt like a massive weight was lifted off me. Seemed odd to me that my mum who went to a Catholic school was taught that the Bible was all true (she still believes this) while I went to a Catholic school and was taught that the Bible was just stories.
Attended a faith awareness course at work a few years back with 7 or 8 religions represented (included a Druid). Hearing the subtle and yet the same differences in the various religions brought home to me the ridiculousness of all of them, and someone could have stood up with the others expounding a belief in Santa or a flat earth and it would have been just as ludicrous.
The last laugh of course will be those expecting the after life and finding there’s no such thing!
It will never not blow my mind that grown adults believe in any god or religion.
And start war's over it.
Did you read that in a pop up book?
Wars aren't fought by faiths, they are the indulgence of men. Faith isn't the issue, greed and power are.
WWII Civil Wars - China's, Russian WWI Sino-Japanese Wars Spanish Conquests of the Americas
More recently the war in the Ukraine.
The fighting in Israel is a land conflict.
Crusades (11th-13th centuries): A series of religious wars initiated by Western European Christians to regain control of the Holy Land from Muslims.
Thirty Years' War (1618-1648): Initially a conflict between Protestant and Catholic states in the Holy Roman Empire, it later evolved into a broader European war involving political and territorial disputes.
French Wars of Religion (1562-1598): A series of conflicts between Catholics and Protestants in France, marked by massacres, assassinations, and sieges.
Islamic conquests (7th-8th centuries): Military campaigns led by Islamic caliphs to spread Islam and conquer territories across the Middle East, North Africa, and parts of Europe.
Reconquista (8th-15th centuries): A long period of military campaigns by Christian kingdoms in the Iberian Peninsula to reconquer territory from Muslim rule.
Jewish-Roman Wars (1st and 2nd centuries): Revolts by Jewish communities against Roman rule, motivated partly by religious beliefs and resistance to Roman religious and cultural practices.
Wars of the Reformation (16th century): Conflicts across Europe sparked by the Protestant Reformation, pitting Catholic and Protestant states against each other.
Irish Confederate Wars (1641-1653): Conflicts in Ireland between Catholic Confederates and Protestant English and Scottish settlers, fueled by religious, political, and ethnic tensions.
Bosnian War (1992-1995): Although primarily driven by ethnic and political factors, religious identity played a significant role in the conflict between Bosnian Muslims, Serbs, and Croats.
Northern Crusades (12th-16th centuries): Military campaigns by Christian kingdoms and orders to conquer and convert pagan Baltic tribes in the Baltic region.
Put that in your pipe and smoke it, Mr Popicon, as my Grandparents would have said. Why, I’ve no idea.
Brain washed Catholic here. Jacked it in aged 17 and it felt like a massive weight was lifted off me. Seemed odd to me that my mum who went to a Catholic school was taught that the Bible was all true (she still believes this) while I went to a Catholic school and was taught that the Bible was just stories.
Attended a faith awareness course at work a few years back with 7 or 8 religions represented (included a Druid). Hearing the subtle and yet the same differences in the various religions brought home to me the ridiculousness of all of them, and someone could have stood up with the others expounding a belief in Santa or a flat earth and it would have been just as ludicrous.
The last laugh of course will be those expecting the after life and finding there’s no such thing!
Or not finding there is no such thing, not having any consciousness any more with which to do the finding.
Brain washed Catholic here. Jacked it in aged 17 and it felt like a massive weight was lifted off me. Seemed odd to me that my mum who went to a Catholic school was taught that the Bible was all true (she still believes this) while I went to a Catholic school and was taught that the Bible was just stories.
Attended a faith awareness course at work a few years back with 7 or 8 religions represented (included a Druid). Hearing the subtle and yet the same differences in the various religions brought home to me the ridiculousness of all of them, and someone could have stood up with the others expounding a belief in Santa or a flat earth and it would have been just as ludicrous.
The last laugh of course will be those expecting the after life and finding there’s no such thing!
Or not finding there is no such thing, not having any consciousness any more with which to do the finding.
The Lord bless you and keep you; the Lord make his face to shine upon you, and be gracious to you; the Lord lift up his countenance upon you, and give you peace. Amen
A lot of people believe in the existence or reality of love, but it only manifests in the observances of 'love'. Proof of the factual existence of love would be very hard, and disputed.
I enjoy your posts Seth, usually fact and reasoned. But this one sounds to me like tosh.
I am trying to say that to criticise people for believing in (a) God whose existence can’t be proved, could be applied to people who believe in the existence of Love. Something else that can’t be scientifically proved or agreed upon by everybody.
A lot of people believe in the existence or reality of love, but it only manifests in the observances of 'love'. Proof of the factual existence of love would be very hard, and disputed.
I enjoy your posts Seth, usually fact and reasoned. But this one sounds to me like tosh.
I am trying to say that to criticise people for believing in (a) God whose existence can’t be proved, could be applied to people who believe in the existence of Love. Something else that can’t be scientifically proved or agreed upon by everybody.
Call it ‘love’ or whatever, those feelings are a caused by a chemical change in your body. This is scientific theory and is proven using tests. Just like anger, fear, sadness etc.
There has never been one iota of actual tests proving the existence of god. It would even be nice to narrow it down to what one of the 3,000 gods humans have believed in over time.
It will never not blow my mind that grown adults believe in any god or religion.
Not only that. There are people who are extremely clever that believe. I worked for years with a physicist who was as you can imagine no slouch upstairs yet was a very active Christian. Always baffled me.
I'm an atheist too, however I find your opinions rather patronising. To suggest that a person cannot be both intelligent whilst also having a faith is nothing but ignorant.
Not going to get into a slanging match over this with you. What I will say though is that I find it difficult to understand people of science who have built their careers on evidence based practices who leave that all to one side and believe in a religious story with absolutely zero. That’s zero evidence. Not one piece of verifiable substance. If that isn’t baffling to you then fair enough. It is to me.
A lot of people believe in the existence or reality of love, but it only manifests in the observances of 'love'. Proof of the factual existence of love would be very hard, and disputed.
I enjoy your posts Seth, usually fact and reasoned. But this one sounds to me like tosh.
I am trying to say that to criticise people for believing in (a) God whose existence can’t be proved, could be applied to people who believe in the existence of Love. Something else that can’t be scientifically proved or agreed upon by everybody.
Call it ‘love’ or whatever, those feelings are a caused by a chemical change in your body. This is scientifically proven. Just like anger, fear, sadness etc.
Hmmn. I would agree that science can certainly detect chemical change in a body, serotonin or hormones or whatever. It is people who choose to say those changes are about something called ‘love’. My case is that love is a complex concept, mused over but poets, musicians, artists, scientists and people generally for centuries. To connect a chemical change to the concept of ‘love’ in all its shapes and sizes is surely an act of faith and belief. I think that kind of thing, faith and belief, is what people who believe in God do. Personally I think there are more grounds for criticising organised religions and their practices and behaviours than there are grounds for criticising an individual person for having faith in something…especially if that something is aspirationally ‘good’. For some people their moral compass is dictated by parents, or by the law, or by mutual self interest, or by belief in something that goes beyond selfish desire.
For many that moral debate is internal, for others they look outside themselves in order to determine what doing the ‘right thing’ is. Hence the power of religion.
Other people's beliefs should be respected unless they hurt others. I don't like beliefs or even non beliefs imposed on or being used to oppress people. Jones' religion shouldn't matter to us one iota. And I'm sure it doesn't as what we are interested in is his managerial abilities.
Why should we respect someone’s views just because we attach the word religion or faith to them. I don’t respect the opinions of someone who believes that the earth is flat. Or that viruses don’t exist. It flies in the face of 100% of the evidence. It’s stupid. No more stupid though than believing in a story that also has no evidence whatsoever to support it. If it was a harmless faith I would just park it alongside the flat earthers but religion time and time again for all of its history has been the cause and remains the cause of wars, death, misery and destruction. Respect. I have none.
No, ‘Love’ is just a human created word for a collection of chemical change in your body. You’re not gonna tell someone you are madly deeply in constant release of endorphins, it doesn’t have to same ring to it. You might believe you’re in love when you’re not, just like some people believe they’re ill when they’re not. That’s just a misconception or lying to yourself. Just like believing there is a god, that’s the only similarity I can see.
A lot of people believe in the existence or reality of love, but it only manifests in the observances of 'love'. Proof of the factual existence of love would be very hard, and disputed.
Love is a chemical emotion. An in built mechanism that provides our species with an advantage in perpetuation of the species. No different to fear or sorrow. All are observable if not measurable phenomena.
A lot of people believe in the existence or reality of love, but it only manifests in the observances of 'love'. Proof of the factual existence of love would be very hard, and disputed.
I enjoy your posts Seth, usually fact and reasoned. But this one sounds to me like tosh.
I am trying to say that to criticise people for believing in (a) God whose existence can’t be proved, could be applied to people who believe in the existence of Love. Something else that can’t be scientifically proved or agreed upon by everybody.
Call it ‘love’ or whatever, those feelings are a caused by a chemical change in your body. This is scientifically proven. Just like anger, fear, sadness etc.
Hmmn. I would agree that science can certainly detect chemical change in a body, serotonin or hormones or whatever. It is people who choose to say those changes are about something called ‘love’. My case is that love is a complex concept, mused over but poets, musicians, artists, scientists and people generally for centuries. To connect a chemical change to the concept of ‘love’ in all its shapes and sizes is surely an act of faith and belief. I think that kind of thing, faith and belief, is what people who believe in God do. Personally I think there are more grounds for criticising organised religions and their practices and behaviours than there are grounds for criticising an individual person for having faith in something…especially if that something is aspirationally ‘good’. For some people their moral compass is dictated by parents, or by the law, or by mutual self interest, or by belief in something that goes beyond selfish desire.
For many that moral debate is internal, for others they look outside themselves in order to determine what doing the ‘right thing’ is. Hence the power of religion.
Interesting topic Seth.
I think people know if they love someone, it is your own personal feeling, and not a fact for someone else. it doesn’t have to be quantifiable to anyone else. It is like saying I really love pizza - how can you prove that to someone else ? Someone else may like pizza just as much but to them it is ‘I quite like pizza’
Whereas saying there is a god/creator is stating a fact that cannot possibly be shown to be true.
Love is definitely something we have and it probably comes down to something that helps us keep the species going and we see it in animals too who look after their young. Then we see animals that have lots of babies and leave them to it. It is quite an amazing thing what a species does to survive. But it is all explainable scientifically. That doesn't mean we don't feel love and affection as we most certainly do.
It is interesting to me that science claims to prove the existence of love. I agree that certain actions are described as loving, but can one extrapolate from that the existence of 'love' in a way that can't be reasonably disputed. We choose to construct the meaning of 'love', but sometimes it is contradictory.
It is interesting to me that science claims to prove the existence of love. I agree that certain actions are described as loving, but can one extrapolate from that the existence of 'love' in a way that can't be reasonably disputed. We choose to construct the meaning of 'love', but sometimes it is contradictory.
Love or whatever we should call it, is an evolutionary mechanism that has developed over millennia to provide human babies, a helpless young person to survive those vulnerable years, to adulthood. It keeps or helps to keep the keepers or parents of the young human in a partnership that provides the best and safest environment to ensure the new persons survival and therefore a continuation of the species. Having a chemical bond (love) inspires a person to protect and go beyond the instinct for personal survival. I don’t think it’s any different from other chemical responses like fear or flight or anger. All serve a purpose in evolution.
It will never not blow my mind that grown adults believe in any god or religion.
And start war's over it.
Did you read that in a pop up book?
Wars aren't fought by faiths, they are the indulgence of men. Faith isn't the issue, greed and power are.
WWII Civil Wars - China's, Russian WWI Sino-Japanese Wars Spanish Conquests of the Americas
More recently the war in the Ukraine.
The fighting in Israel is a land conflict.
Crusades (11th-13th centuries): A series of religious wars initiated by Western European Christians to regain control of the Holy Land from Muslims.
Thirty Years' War (1618-1648): Initially a conflict between Protestant and Catholic states in the Holy Roman Empire, it later evolved into a broader European war involving political and territorial disputes.
French Wars of Religion (1562-1598): A series of conflicts between Catholics and Protestants in France, marked by massacres, assassinations, and sieges.
Islamic conquests (7th-8th centuries): Military campaigns led by Islamic caliphs to spread Islam and conquer territories across the Middle East, North Africa, and parts of Europe.
Reconquista (8th-15th centuries): A long period of military campaigns by Christian kingdoms in the Iberian Peninsula to reconquer territory from Muslim rule.
Jewish-Roman Wars (1st and 2nd centuries): Revolts by Jewish communities against Roman rule, motivated partly by religious beliefs and resistance to Roman religious and cultural practices.
Wars of the Reformation (16th century): Conflicts across Europe sparked by the Protestant Reformation, pitting Catholic and Protestant states against each other.
Irish Confederate Wars (1641-1653): Conflicts in Ireland between Catholic Confederates and Protestant English and Scottish settlers, fueled by religious, political, and ethnic tensions.
Bosnian War (1992-1995): Although primarily driven by ethnic and political factors, religious identity played a significant role in the conflict between Bosnian Muslims, Serbs, and Croats.
Northern Crusades (12th-16th centuries): Military campaigns by Christian kingdoms and orders to conquer and convert pagan Baltic tribes in the Baltic region.
Put that in your pipe and smoke it, Mr Popicon, as my Grandparents would have said. Why, I’ve no idea.
Faith or religious fighting account for about 6% of all wars.
Faith was quite different through the middle ages and the renaissance period. It was the centre of EVERYTHING. Storms, famine, diseases, people actually believed these were punishments sent by god.
Other people's beliefs should be respected unless they hurt others. I don't like beliefs or even non beliefs imposed on or being used to oppress people. Jones' religion shouldn't matter to us one iota. And I'm sure it doesn't as what we are interested in is his managerial abilities.
Why should we respect someone’s views just because we attach the word religion or faith to them. I don’t respect the opinions of someone who believes that the earth is flat. Or that viruses don’t exist. It flies in the face of 100% of the evidence. It’s stupid. No more stupid though than believing in a story that also has no evidence whatsoever to support it. If it was a harmless faith I would just park it alongside the flat earthers but religion time and time again for all of its history has been the cause and remains the cause of wars, death, misery and destruction. Respect. I have none.
Whilst science tells me that there is no God, I have no proof that there isn't some higher power beyond human comprehension, just as I have no proof that there is. We do have incontrovertible evidence that the earth is not flat and that viruses do exist.
A lot of people do have a lot of comfort from their faith and I respect that, even if I believe that on balance there is probably no God.
What I find difficult to understand is that a supposedly loving God can allow the suffering that we see all over the world. What is the purpose of making anything suffer if you have the power to stop it. So many wars are fought in the name of religion, that is where I draw the line.
Other people's beliefs should be respected unless they hurt others. I don't like beliefs or even non beliefs imposed on or being used to oppress people. Jones' religion shouldn't matter to us one iota. And I'm sure it doesn't as what we are interested in is his managerial abilities.
Why should we respect someone’s views just because we attach the word religion or faith to them. I don’t respect the opinions of someone who believes that the earth is flat. Or that viruses don’t exist. It flies in the face of 100% of the evidence. It’s stupid. No more stupid though than believing in a story that also has no evidence whatsoever to support it. If it was a harmless faith I would just park it alongside the flat earthers but religion time and time again for all of its history has been the cause and remains the cause of wars, death, misery and destruction. Respect. I have none.
Whilst science tells me that there is no God, I have no proof that there isn't some higher power beyond human comprehension, just as I have no proof that there is. We do have incontrovertible evidence that the earth is not flat and that viruses do exist.
A lot of people do have a lot of comfort from their faith and I respect that, even if I believe that on balance there is probably no God.
What I find difficult to understand is that a supposedly loving God can allow the suffering that we see all over the world. What is the purpose of making anything suffer if you have the power to stop it. So many wars are fought in the name of religion, that is where I draw the line.
We can’t disprove the existence of the tooth fairy or the Loch Ness monster but there is zero evidence to support the view that they exist. Attach the words religious or faith to the story of something with zero evidence to support it makes it no more in need of respect than the former two pieces of nonsense. In fact science doesn’t tell you there is no god. It just comments that there is no evidence to support the theory that there is.
Brain washed Catholic here. Jacked it in aged 17 and it felt like a massive weight was lifted off me. Seemed odd to me that my mum who went to a Catholic school was taught that the Bible was all true (she still believes this) while I went to a Catholic school and was taught that the Bible was just stories.
Attended a faith awareness course at work a few years back with 7 or 8 religions represented (included a Druid). Hearing the subtle and yet the same differences in the various religions brought home to me the ridiculousness of all of them, and someone could have stood up with the others expounding a belief in Santa or a flat earth and it would have been just as ludicrous.
The last laugh of course will be those expecting the after life and finding there’s no such thing!
Or not finding there is no such thing, not having any consciousness any more with which to do the finding.
The Lord bless you and keep you; the Lord make his face to shine upon you, and be gracious to you; the Lord lift up his countenance upon you, and give you peace. Amen
Well, if he/she/it actually existed, that might mean something.
Other people's beliefs should be respected unless they hurt others. I don't like beliefs or even non beliefs imposed on or being used to oppress people. Jones' religion shouldn't matter to us one iota. And I'm sure it doesn't as what we are interested in is his managerial abilities.
Why should we respect someone’s views just because we attach the word religion or faith to them. I don’t respect the opinions of someone who believes that the earth is flat. Or that viruses don’t exist. It flies in the face of 100% of the evidence. It’s stupid. No more stupid though than believing in a story that also has no evidence whatsoever to support it. If it was a harmless faith I would just park it alongside the flat earthers but religion time and time again for all of its history has been the cause and remains the cause of wars, death, misery and destruction. Respect. I have none.
Whilst science tells me that there is no God, I have no proof that there isn't some higher power beyond human comprehension, just as I have no proof that there is. We do have incontrovertible evidence that the earth is not flat and that viruses do exist.
A lot of people do have a lot of comfort from their faith and I respect that, even if I believe that on balance there is probably no God.
What I find difficult to understand is that a supposedly loving God can allow the suffering that we see all over the world. What is the purpose of making anything suffer if you have the power to stop it. So many wars are fought in the name of religion, that is where I draw the line.
We can’t disprove the existence of the tooth fairy or the Loch Ness monster but there is zero evidence to support the view that they exist. Attach the words religious or faith to the story of something with zero evidence to support it makes it no more in need of respect than the former two pieces of nonsense. In fact science doesn’t tell you there is no god. It just comments that there is no evidence to support the theory that there is.
I think what you say holds up in terms of God as described in the bible and the books of other faiths whilst there could be a creator of which we know nothing about. So as you say, there could be but we don't have any evidence for it. The trick a lot of religions have is making it a cornerstone of belief that you don't need any evidence although you will find very religious people trying to show evidence which ultimately isn't evidence but contradicts their position as why is evidence required if you don't wish to use it?
It will never not blow my mind that grown adults believe in any god or religion.
And start war's over it.
Did you read that in a pop up book?
Wars aren't fought by faiths, they are the indulgence of men. Faith isn't the issue, greed and power are.
WWII Civil Wars - China's, Russian WWI Sino-Japanese Wars Spanish Conquests of the Americas
More recently the war in the Ukraine.
The fighting in Israel is a land conflict.
Crusades (11th-13th centuries): A series of religious wars initiated by Western European Christians to regain control of the Holy Land from Muslims.
Thirty Years' War (1618-1648): Initially a conflict between Protestant and Catholic states in the Holy Roman Empire, it later evolved into a broader European war involving political and territorial disputes.
French Wars of Religion (1562-1598): A series of conflicts between Catholics and Protestants in France, marked by massacres, assassinations, and sieges.
Islamic conquests (7th-8th centuries): Military campaigns led by Islamic caliphs to spread Islam and conquer territories across the Middle East, North Africa, and parts of Europe.
Reconquista (8th-15th centuries): A long period of military campaigns by Christian kingdoms in the Iberian Peninsula to reconquer territory from Muslim rule.
Jewish-Roman Wars (1st and 2nd centuries): Revolts by Jewish communities against Roman rule, motivated partly by religious beliefs and resistance to Roman religious and cultural practices.
Wars of the Reformation (16th century): Conflicts across Europe sparked by the Protestant Reformation, pitting Catholic and Protestant states against each other.
Irish Confederate Wars (1641-1653): Conflicts in Ireland between Catholic Confederates and Protestant English and Scottish settlers, fueled by religious, political, and ethnic tensions.
Bosnian War (1992-1995): Although primarily driven by ethnic and political factors, religious identity played a significant role in the conflict between Bosnian Muslims, Serbs, and Croats.
Northern Crusades (12th-16th centuries): Military campaigns by Christian kingdoms and orders to conquer and convert pagan Baltic tribes in the Baltic region.
Put that in your pipe and smoke it, Mr Popicon, as my Grandparents would have said. Why, I’ve no idea.
Faith or religious fighting account for about 6% of all wars.
*Made up stat alert!!!!!!!!
I'm afraid you lost all credibility when you claimed the current tensions in the middle east weren't about religion.
I can’t claim to be the thinker behind this but if as science tells us one believes that the universe is some 13 billions of years old then quite why the creator decided to wait until the last couple of thousand years to take an interest in mankind and disregarded the earliest forms of man and everything that went before a few shamen decided it was a good screw to look mysterious and make up stories to get the respect and fear of their fellows whilst not actually doing very much work.
From my perspective the discussion is about the internal existence we all have. Perhaps it is our psychology, our curiosity, our morality, our compunction, our desires, our internal needs. All of these are areas of study both intellectually and scientifically, and firm conclusions can turn out to be not so firm after all, it is as much about the journey as the destination. Some people turn to some notion of religion to satisfy those internal needs. Personally I don't believe organised religions are a good thing, I don't believe in theocracies, or that belief in a particular construct is a racial thing either. I think a belief system is internal, and often shaped because of influences people have in life.
Comments
There will always be beliefs that can be used for good or harm.
For example, I find nationalism similar to religion in its blind faith in the concept of the nation. Nationalism is useful in uniting people but it has led to murder, discrimination and war.
Another example. We all agree on the sanctity of life to prevent murder and suicide, but then you get the anti-abortion nutters making death threats to doctors in abortion clinics.
There are extreme cases where useful beliefs such as freedom of speech, private property, human rights, etc. lead to nonsensical conclusions or are used as a pretext for bad actions.
It is a bit like that with religion: it gives life its meaning to many but can also be used by crazy people to inflict misery on others.
Attended a faith awareness course at work a few years back with 7 or 8 religions represented (included a Druid). Hearing the subtle and yet the same differences in the various religions brought home to me the ridiculousness of all of them, and someone could have stood up with the others expounding a belief in Santa or a flat earth and it would have been just as ludicrous.
The last laugh of course will be those expecting the after life and finding there’s no such thing!
I would agree that science can certainly detect chemical change in a body, serotonin or hormones or whatever.
It is people who choose to say those changes are about something called ‘love’.
My case is that love is a complex concept, mused over but poets, musicians, artists, scientists and people generally for centuries. To connect a chemical change to the concept of ‘love’ in all its shapes and sizes is surely an act of faith and belief.
I think that kind of thing, faith and belief, is what people who believe in God do.
Personally I think there are more grounds for criticising organised religions and their practices and behaviours than there are grounds for criticising an individual person for having faith in something…especially if that something is aspirationally ‘good’.
For some people their moral compass is dictated by parents, or by the law, or by mutual self interest, or by belief in something that goes beyond selfish desire.
I agree that certain actions are described as loving, but can one extrapolate from that the existence of 'love' in a way that can't be reasonably disputed.
We choose to construct the meaning of 'love', but sometimes it is contradictory.
Faith was quite different through the middle ages and the renaissance period. It was the centre of EVERYTHING. Storms, famine, diseases, people actually believed these were punishments sent by god.
A lot of people do have a lot of comfort from their faith and I respect that, even if I believe that on balance there is probably no God.
What I find difficult to understand is that a supposedly loving God can allow the suffering that we see all over the world. What is the purpose of making anything suffer if you have the power to stop it. So many wars are fought in the name of religion, that is where I draw the line.
I'm afraid you lost all credibility when you claimed the current tensions in the middle east weren't about religion.
Perhaps it is our psychology, our curiosity, our morality, our compunction, our desires, our internal needs.
All of these are areas of study both intellectually and scientifically, and firm conclusions can turn out to be not so firm after all, it is as much about the journey as the destination.
Some people turn to some notion of religion to satisfy those internal needs.
Personally I don't believe organised religions are a good thing, I don't believe in theocracies, or that belief in a particular construct is a racial thing either.
I think a belief system is internal, and often shaped because of influences people have in life.