If you hate religion and don't believe in God, why?

[cliffy1]

The "Bible" has no "view" - it's a collection of works. You should read it some time. The stories therein are rife with Jesus rebelling against organized religion.

He also railed against the self righteous. And therein lies the irony of Christianity.

[Glacier]

Exactly. It wasn't organized religion that Jesus condemning, it was hypocrisy and self-righteousness.

[36Drew]

Exactly. It wasn't organized religion that Jesus condemning, it was hypocrisy and self-righteousness.

According to "the good book" - he rallied quite strongly against the pharisees, who were the Jewish leaders of the day. He seemed to have a hard time with rites, rituals, titles, doctrine, dogma... It's hard to say, since the catholic church didn't exist for a long while after - but I'm pretty sure that all of those very same complaints that he listed in his letters to the churches then might apply quite similarly to the catholic church of today as well as many protestant churches.

Organized religion breeds hypocrisy and self-righteousness. Jesus was exactly against that, and therefore to this day would have a problem with today's religious leadership just as he would have had with those of his day.

[Glacier]

Yes, the letters to the 7 churches. Remember that not all of the those churches received a scolding. Most, but not all.

Organized religion (as apposed to disorganized religion) is susceptible to the problem (hypocrisy), but it not the problem. It's kind of like on-line forums. They are susceptible to the problem (name-calling), but they are not the problem.

[jimsenchuk]

god.jpg

[zensiert]

Since when have all the people in lab coats been atheists? Last time I checked there wasn't a ban on theists from pursuing certain occupations.. Perhaps in North Korea, but not in Canada.

No, you are entirely correct. However, even formal studies on atheism and higher education has shown a clear inverse relationship between how much you know about the world (especially as determined and described by Science) and how religious you are. While there are many religious people doing Science, they are vastly outnumbered by those who became non-religious as a result of their Science-based education.

Just to make my point clear: while there are always exceptions, becoming obsessed with reality (getting a good, science-based education) tends to severely damage religious belief far more often than not. While it doesn't necessarily create atheists, being obsessed with reality does tend to make people question the existence of homicidal psychopathic semi-incompetent invisible sky beings.

[zensiert]

the extreme complexity of biology does point to intelligent design

On the contrary, if you truly look into the vast majority of body parts (the retina, our esophagus, etc.) you will see that any intelligence behind the design of those body parts is one of extreme incompetence.

Not a Biology major, but more than enough classes to know what I'm talking about.

[Glacier]

No, you are entirely correct. However, even formal studies on atheism and higher education has shown a clear inverse relationship between how much you know about the world (especially as determined and described by Science) and how religious you are.

Which studies are those? Do they take into account "correlation doesn't imply causation"?

Someone (Steven Lloyd maybe?) posted a study a while ago that said otherwise. The conclusion was along the lines of education having no bearing on whether or not someone is religious, but it does on the peripheral aspects of their particular religion.

ETA: here is a good starting point for you to look for those studies: http://www.skeptive.com/disputes/5627

[cliffy1]

Thoughts of God Make Us Slackers, Study Suggests

No matter if you're a believer, thinking about God and religion may turn you into a slacker, according to a new study.

"More than 90 percent of people in the world agree that God or a similar spiritual power exists or may exist,"study researcher Kristin Laurin of the University of Waterloo in Canada, said in a statement. "This is the first empirical evidence that simple reminders of God can diminish some types of self-regulation, such as pursuing one's goals, yet can improve others, such as resisting temptation."

Even for those without a personal belief in God, U.S. culture is saturated with religious references and imagery that could impact them, Laurin said. The study's results were independent of the participants' religious beliefs. Even without knowing it, these signs and signals can have a psychological effect.

MORE:
http://news.yahoo.com/thoughts-god-us-slackers-study-suggests-160609895.html

[zensiert]

No, you are entirely correct. However, even formal studies on atheism and higher education has shown a clear inverse relationship between how much you know about the world (especially as determined and described by Science) and how religious you are.

Which studies are those? Do they take into account "correlation doesn't imply causation"?

Someone (Steven Lloyd maybe?) posted a study a while ago that said otherwise. The conclusion was along the lines of education having no bearing on whether or not someone is religious, but it does on the peripheral aspects of their particular religion.

• Scientific education leads to atheism
• Why Do Atheism Rates Correlate With Education Levels?
• High IQ turns academics into atheists
• Wikipedia: Religiosity and intelligence

Considering that some recent studies that point out that continuing education can actually improve IQ and that it is not set for life, I would say that education goes far in reducing the incidence of irrational and unsupportable superstitious beliefs.

[Glacier]

Yes, but correlation does not imply causation. Other studies (strangely ones you didn't reference) show contradictory evidence for the assertion that education causes non-belief... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ecome.html

P.S. you don't need a high IQ or a science background in order to think logically and critically. I know many Arts majors who can reason with the best of them.

[steven lloyd]

I would say that education goes far in reducing the incidence of irrational and unsupportable superstitious beliefs.

The first mistake in proposing level of education is directly related to the probability of embracing the paradigm of atheism is the mistaken assumption that belief in something, some possibly binding universal force of purpose and connectivity that cannot be understood or explained and for no other reason could be termed “God” must for some reason be dismissed as superstition is that you are basing that on nothing more than your own limited ideology and assumptions. There are many scientists, including physicists, biologists, geneticists, anthropologists, astronomers, etc. who are in fact strongly convinced that there is most likely something quite wonderful and powerful and meaningful to our existence that is beyond our understanding but definitely worth wondering about (perhaps even meditating on or even praying to), because without the arrogance of their cohorts they recognize that each new discovery leads to ten new questions. You could find and review some of the things they’ve discovered if you wish, but accepting it will require the courage to consider the possibility you might have been wrong all this time. We’re not talking political paradigms here. This can be really scary – but really exciting too.

[fluffy]

I would say that education goes far in reducing the incidence of irrational and unsupportable superstitious beliefs.

I would echo Steven's comments and add that lack of proof in favour of the existence of a higher power does not constitute proof against. It is hard for some to accept that matters beyond human understanding are simply that, beyond our understanding, and therefore immune to our judgements of what is true or not.

[zensiert]

I would say that education goes far in reducing the incidence of irrational and unsupportable superstitious beliefs.

I would echo Steven's comments and add that lack of proof in favour of the existence of a higher power does not constitute proof against. It is hard for some to accept that matters beyond human understanding are simply that, beyond our understanding, and therefore immune to our judgements of what is true or not.

The problem with a higher power is that any claim for it is an extremely extraordinary claim. And as such, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, for which there is none (in this case) whatsoever. (Badly translated iron-age books don't count, because the chain of custody has been broken innumerable times, rendering them invalid as evidence)

But it goes further than that. Claims that border on (or are fully based upon) insanity cannot be disproven because of their underlying insanity. For example, let's make the assumption that I believe that there is an invisible pink flying unicorn beside me that created all of reality, but has decided to remain invisible, intangible and utterly undetectable so as to not interfere with our free will. Disprove that, and you have become the first person in history who can successfully disprove god. Problem is, due to my "belief" in this pink unicorn (an insanity that involves a suspension of critical thinking), such a belief can never be effectively combated because you cannot disprove the unprovable.

And this is, at its core, the fundamental difference between reality and fantasy.

Reality can ALWAYS be measured, examined or recorded in some way fashion or means. As such, even if we do not yet have the technology to do so, we can certainly devise experiments that could (once we reach the appropriate technological sophistication) examine and test the things we are looking at. Science is the tool with which we examine reality, because through Science we can examine different things and determine if they are real or not. We can test them, and more importantly, we can create tests for disproof -- we can test to see if our original assumptions were correct to begin with. Without this ability to test for proof (and more importantly, the ability to test for disproof), the item being considered simply cannot exist within the framework of reality.

Fantasy requires taking things on faith. Fantasy requires belief without proof. As such, Fantasy is a term that perfectly encapsulates and defines any and all supernatural events that "cannot be explained by Science" -- like god. For in the end, without the ability to test the premise in question, how does one truly tell the difference between a traditional Abrahamic god and my pink flying invisible unicorn? There is simply no way to tell the difference -- and therefore, no way to tell which is real. Ergo, Fantasy.

[steven lloyd]