The merits and shortcomings of religion, spirituality, and nonbelief

I have a lot I'd like to say.  I just don't have much time these days.  But for now, instead of clogging up threads devoted to answering questions about a particular faith, if someone would like to simply say, "This is why my belief system is better," or "This is why that belief system is no good," this is a good thread to do so.  All are invited to attack or defend, instead of leaving it up to the OP.

My reasons for not believing the following religions:

Protestantism: I don't believe in Sola Scriptura (Scripture Alone) because that makes little sense seeing as (a) it doesn't say that that ought to be the case anywhere in the Bible, in fact in 2 Thessalonians 2:15 it says that tradition is to be valued as well; (b) the books of the New Testament were not all completed until at least the end of the first century, were not compiled until the fourth century, and were not made readily available until the fifteenth century when the printing press was invented; and (c) I think the Church should be unified as suggested in the New Testament, which would be impossible with private interpretation (there are 41,000 Christian denominations!). I don't believe in Sola Fides (Faith Alone...I'm not sure if I got the Latin right) because again, that cannot result in unity which I believe is important. I have other reasons as well, but I don't have time to go into depth right now.

Mormonism: The lack of archaeological evidence of the events found in the Book of Mormon is suspicious, but otherwise, I have a lot of respect for Mormons and their religion and those I have met (including d_e ;) ) have given me a good impression of them overall. The polygamous Mormon sects are a different case though.

Judaism: This one is fairly obvious. I obviously believe the Messiah has already come and believe he dispensed with the fine details of the Mosaic Law and gave the next step up.

Islam: Despite what many insist, Islam is certainly not a religion of peace and this is apparent from the Qur'an. I believe in peace (though I think war is necessary sometimes), thus I cannot maintain the ideals of this religion.

Hinduism: I'm not going to even bother explaining. The same goes for the ancient Greek, Babylonian, Roman, Egyptian, etc. gods and mythology.

Atheism: The relative subjectivity of atheist's morals doesn't attract me very much. I believe that right and wrong are fixed and do not evolve over time. Atheists believe so many different things and my reasons may not apply to all of them, but I am also opposed to moral subjectivity because of all the potential problems that can spring from it; the certainty of the nonexistence of any god seems no more reasonable than the belief in such a god and atheism doesn't explain so many things (science may one day, but I doubt it); atheists (this is not necessarily a problem with atheism itself) frequently try to impose their "superior intellect" on us primitive religious, a trait I find greatly detracts from their cause, as I think humility is a great virtue that would solve so many problems if more people possessed it; and I cannot agree with the ideals and ideas held by many atheists since they conflict with many ideals and ideas that are positive and beneficial in my personal experience and examples throughout history.

Agnosticism: Not much to say about this one. Similar to atheism, but not as bad.

Hey guys this is a great thread!

A question to all, you are very clearly very happy with your religion, what religion are your parents?

What made you pick the religion that you think is better than all the others?

Do you think you would be that religion if you were born in another country, say India or Afghanistan?

......and a thing to remember, atheism isn't a religion, it's not believing in a deity.

Off is not a TV channel

J

I'm not as bad as the atheists.  Woo-hoo!

No Frink, you're mixing up people and their beliefs/actions again. :P

I think agnosticism is better than atheism.

I don't currently subscribe to theologically conservative, inerrant Christianity because I find -- from what is admittedly only a theologically-uneducated layman's POV -- vast chunks of the Bible to be either internally inconsistent or historically inaccurate. I do think there could be validity to theologically liberal, non-inerrant forms of Christianity, though.

I also don't subscribe to atheism. I find it presumptuous to reach such a conclusion when mankind hasn't even reached full understanding of the physical universe, let alone what might be beyond it. Also, on a more emotional note, I'm not comfortable with the nihilism I believe is inherent in an atheistic universe.

As for other religions/metaphysical worldviews, I don't know enough to reach a conclusion on them. All I can say is that, from a superficial reading of them, some are more appealling to me than others.

I'm not really comfortable with my agnosticism -- I want to believe in God -- but in lieu of objective or subjective evidence for such an entity, I find cautious indecision to be the best course of action at this time.

Leonardo said:

RicOlie_2 said:

My reasons for not believing the following religions:

[...]

Atheism:

 What Jaiteia said, if you make a list and write "religions", atheism doesn't belong there. But I'm sure this is merely an oversight.

Yes, that was merely an oversight. I was writing in the wee hours of the morning and wasn't at my sharpest. What I should have written was "My reasons for not placing my belief/unbelief in the following".

The relative subjectivity of atheist's morals doesn't attract me very much. I believe that right and wrong are fixed and do not evolve over time. Atheists believe so many different things and my reasons may not apply to all of them, but I am also opposed to moral subjectivity because of all the potential problems that can spring from it;

You say that like there's a 50/50 chance that an individual without the moral compass of the bible might turn out a criminal. In reality most people have what's called common sense, and don't steal or kill or [insert dangerous act] because 1) they're worried about the consequences (pissing someone off) and 2) it would be a dick thing to do. What we really have is a much higher percentage of people that act like behaved citizens and don't steal their neighbours' car etc, and another percentage of people we call "criminals" that clearly do not understand the consequences of their actions. And let me remind you again, that in the real world not all of these criminals are atheists.

Once again I attribute my lack of clarity to my lack of sleep. :)

What I meant is that I disagree with those atheists (it is an atheist and perhaps agnostic viewpoint, though not all--and maybe only the minority--hold it) who believe that morals evolve over time. I believe they are fixed from the beginning. Those who believe in moral subjectivity don't believe that there is such thing as right and wrong. I am aware that this doesn't mean that they can't distinguish between the two, but they deny its existence.

In case I didn't make it any clearer, I am not of the opinion that atheists have no concept of right and wrong at all, but I am condemning moral subjectivity or evolution.

the certainty of the nonexistence of any god seems no more reasonable than the belief in such a god

I beg to differ. It may seem unreasonable to you, because you come from the postulate "there is a god". But I assure you, it is not unreasonable. And I do understand the merits and reasons of theism.

Again, my choice of words was perhaps unclear. I don't mean that atheism is less reasonable, but just that it is not more reasonable. I don't necessarily believe that it is any less resonable either.

and atheism doesn't explain so many things (science may one day, but I doubt it)

If you're talking about the Arche, then neither science nor atheism are supposed to explain that (even though science started out that way). It's interesting to think that we could find a first cause, and it would sound like common sense that it should be an entity, and individual. Just like when we're children we ask "why is the sky blue?", the quest for knowledge is an enchanting and elightening one. But some questions may be wrong in the first place. And by wrong I mean "syntax error" kind of wrong. We look at the origin of the cosmos and ask "Who?". Maybe we're asking the wrong question.

I am not referring to the Arche or anything else which will likely remain a mystery forever, but rather I am referring to so-called supernatural experiences (which I naturally do believe are supernatural for the most part) and miracles.

As someone who does not need theism, I don't feel like I'm using "my superior intellect versus a primitive mind" cause I'll be the first to admit, I am a moron. I'll just say, try to look beyond your postulates. It ain't so bad.

 I'm glad you're not one to pull the superior intellect card, as I find that greatly detracts from a person's character. I find that my religion gives more answers than questions, so I stick with it and nothing yet has given me reason to believe that it is false.

Jaitea said:

Hey guys this is a great thread!

A question to all, you are very clearly very happy with your religion, what religion are your parents?

My parents were both born and raised Catholics. My mother remains such, but my father is now agnostic.

What made you pick the religion that you think is better than all the others?

I gave a brief answer to this in the second post of this thread.

Do you think you would be that religion if you were born in another country, say India or Afghanistan?

Depends where. There are a lot of Catholics in India. Of course I could have been born into a different religion, in which case I would probably still belong to that religion. I would be an entirely different person had I been born somewhere else and I cannot therefore speculate as to whether or not I would have stuck with it.

......and a thing to remember, atheism isn't a religion, it's not believing in a deity.

Off is not a TV channel

J

 Again, that was just an oversight. I do recognize the distinction.

Leonardo said:

RicOlie_2 said:

My reasons for not believing the following religions:

[...]

Atheism:

 What Jaiteia said, if you make a list and write "religions", atheism doesn't belong there. But I'm sure this is merely an oversight.

I don't see a problem with it being mentioned there.    That list is a list of what people believe in regards to religion.   Atheists believe there is no God.  

Leonardo said:

the certainty of the nonexistence of any god seems no more reasonable than the belief in such a god

I beg to differ. It may seem unreasonable to you,

he didn't say it was unreasonable, he said it was no more reasonable than believing in a God.   And I agree with him on that point. 

RicOlie_2 said:

My reasons for not believing the following religions:

Protestantism: I don't believe in Sola Scriptura (Scripture Alone) because that makes little sense seeing as (a) it doesn't say that that ought to be the case anywhere in the Bible, in fact in 2 Thessalonians 2:15 it says that tradition is to be valued as well; (b) the books of the New Testament were not all completed until at least the end of the first century, were not compiled until the fourth century, and were not made readily available until the fifteenth century when the printing press was invented; and (c) I think the Church should be unified as suggested in the New Testament, which would be impossible with private interpretation (there are 41,000 Christian denominations!). I don't believe in Sola Fides (Faith Alone...I'm not sure if I got the Latin right) because again, that cannot result in unity which I believe is important. I have other reasons as well, but I don't have time to go into depth right now.

Mormonism: The lack of archaeological evidence of the events found in the Book of Mormon is suspicious, but otherwise, I have a lot of respect for Mormons and their religion and those I have met (including d_e ;) ) have given me a good impression of them overall. The polygamous Mormon sects are a different case though.

Judaism: This one is fairly obvious. I obviously believe the Messiah has already come and believe he dispensed with the fine details of the Mosaic Law and gave the next step up.

Islam: Despite what many insist, Islam is certainly not a religion of peace and this is apparent from the Qur'an. I believe in peace (though I think war is necessary sometimes), thus I cannot maintain the ideals of this religion.

Hinduism: I'm not going to even bother explaining. The same goes for the ancient Greek, Babylonian, Roman, Egyptian, etc. gods and mythology.

Atheism: The relative subjectivity of atheist's morals doesn't attract me very much. I believe that right and wrong are fixed and do not evolve over time. Atheists believe so many different things and my reasons may not apply to all of them, but I am also opposed to moral subjectivity because of all the potential problems that can spring from it; the certainty of the nonexistence of any god seems no more reasonable than the belief in such a god and atheism doesn't explain so many things (science may one day, but I doubt it); atheists (this is not necessarily a problem with atheism itself) frequently try to impose their "superior intellect" on us primitive religious, a trait I find greatly detracts from their cause, as I think humility is a great virtue that would solve so many problems if more people possessed it; and I cannot agree with the ideals and ideas held by many atheists since they conflict with many ideals and ideas that are positive and beneficial in my personal experience and examples throughout history.

Agnosticism: Not much to say about this one. Similar to atheism, but not as bad.

 Buddhism? Sikhism? 

RicOlie_2 said:

Islam: Despite what many insist, Islam is certainly not a religion of peace and this is apparent from the Qur'an. I believe in peace (though I think war is necessary sometimes), thus I cannot maintain the ideals of this religion.

what about the all the Muslims that do live peacefully?

Warbler said:

RicOlie_2 said:

My reasons for not believing the following religions:

Protestantism: I don't believe in Sola Scriptura (Scripture Alone) because that makes little sense seeing as (a) it doesn't say that that ought to be the case anywhere in the Bible, in fact in 2 Thessalonians 2:15 it says that tradition is to be valued as well; (b) the books of the New Testament were not all completed until at least the end of the first century, were not compiled until the fourth century, and were not made readily available until the fifteenth century when the printing press was invented; and (c) I think the Church should be unified as suggested in the New Testament, which would be impossible with private interpretation (there are 41,000 Christian denominations!). I don't believe in Sola Fides (Faith Alone...I'm not sure if I got the Latin right) because again, that cannot result in unity which I believe is important. I have other reasons as well, but I don't have time to go into depth right now.

Mormonism: The lack of archaeological evidence of the events found in the Book of Mormon is suspicious, but otherwise, I have a lot of respect for Mormons and their religion and those I have met (including d_e ;) ) have given me a good impression of them overall. The polygamous Mormon sects are a different case though.

Judaism: This one is fairly obvious. I obviously believe the Messiah has already come and believe he dispensed with the fine details of the Mosaic Law and gave the next step up.

Islam: Despite what many insist, Islam is certainly not a religion of peace and this is apparent from the Qur'an. I believe in peace (though I think war is necessary sometimes), thus I cannot maintain the ideals of this religion.

Hinduism: I'm not going to even bother explaining. The same goes for the ancient Greek, Babylonian, Roman, Egyptian, etc. gods and mythology.

Atheism: The relative subjectivity of atheist's morals doesn't attract me very much. I believe that right and wrong are fixed and do not evolve over time. Atheists believe so many different things and my reasons may not apply to all of them, but I am also opposed to moral subjectivity because of all the potential problems that can spring from it; the certainty of the nonexistence of any god seems no more reasonable than the belief in such a god and atheism doesn't explain so many things (science may one day, but I doubt it); atheists (this is not necessarily a problem with atheism itself) frequently try to impose their "superior intellect" on us primitive religious, a trait I find greatly detracts from their cause, as I think humility is a great virtue that would solve so many problems if more people possessed it; and I cannot agree with the ideals and ideas held by many atheists since they conflict with many ideals and ideas that are positive and beneficial in my personal experience and examples throughout history.

Agnosticism: Not much to say about this one. Similar to atheism, but not as bad.

 Buddhism? Sikhism? 

 I haven't done much research on these religions, and I rarely come across Buddhists and Sikhs, so I have had less reason to learn about their religions than I have had to learn about religions like Islam and Mormonism. I plan to read up on these and other religions in the near future, but my interest in religions other than my own is a recent one.

Having said that, I do have another religion to add to my list:

Baha'i: This seems like too much of a compromise to unify everybody to me. The ideals of its prophets seem to go back and forth and contradict each other. Assuming I understand its beliefs correctly, I don't think it is possible. Mohammed was against Christianity, but the Baha'i religion accepts both Christ and Mohammed as prophets proclaiming the truth.

Warbler said:

RicOlie_2 said:

Islam: Despite what many insist, Islam is certainly not a religion of peace and this is apparent from the Qur'an. I believe in peace (though I think war is necessary sometimes), thus I cannot maintain the ideals of this religion.

what about the all the Muslims that do live peacefully?

 They live peacefully, but the Qur'an doesn't tell them they should be living that way.

Former Muslim Discusses Islam

Muslim Apologists Explain That So-Called Radical Beliefs Aren't Radical According to the Qur'an

These videos explain that fact. A lot of Muslims may be peaceful people, but their religion isn't.

Leonardo said:

RicOlie_2 said:

and atheism doesn't explain so many things (science may one day, but I doubt it)

[arche?]

I am not referring to the Arche or anything else which will likely remain a mystery forever, but rather I am referring to so-called supernatural experiences (which I naturally do believe are supernatural for the most part) and miracles.

Sorry, science has already debunked all of them as hoaxes or mass hysteria. So called pre-mortem experiences have already been reproduced outside of life-threatening situations, with the use of drugs. If there are scientists who say "it's a miracle", they're theists.

 

 I am curious as to what the scientific explanation for incorruptibles is. As far as I am aware, there isn't one, but if you can prove me wrong, go for it.

RicOlie_2 said:

No Frink, you're mixing up people and their beliefs/actions again. :P

I think agnosticism is better than atheism.

 My beliefs are better than their beliefs.  Woo-hoo!

TV's Frink said:

RicOlie_2 said:

No Frink, you're mixing up people and their beliefs/actions again. :P

I think agnosticism is better than atheism.

 My beliefs are better than their beliefs.  Woo-hoo!

 No, your unbeliefs are better than their unbeliefs. ;)

By the way, this is a church I can get behind, if I must pick one.

http://www.uua.org/beliefs/index.shtml

That is an interesting article. I read another article earlier today which directly contradicts the one you linked to (it was not from a Catholic or even Christian viewpoint, BTW).

As I have no direct experience with incorruptibles, I don't know what to believe.

nevermind.

Bodies that are preserved after death without embalming or mummification, et al.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorruptibility

http://www.howstuffworks.com/incorruptible.htm

I see that Warbler wishes that we never mind his comment, but I'll leave the links up for those who have Googlitophobia.

RicOlie_2 said:

That is an interesting article. I read another article earlier today which directly contradicts the one you linked to (it was not from a Catholic or even Christian viewpoint, BTW).

 link?