Why are there still religious people in modern world, when it is pretty obvious that modern times...

Ebin hat maymay xD

>not understanding general sociological trends
Mendels research wouldn't be possible two hundred years earlier. It was only possible since Christianity in his time took on a more abstract and spiritual form = It was less interfering in human life = It was slowly fading away.
None of the great inventors or scientists in modern history would be able to do their research if church wouldn't lose their influence, and religion became less dogmatic and more open minded. Sure they were religious, but compared to any other religious person in all of history before them, they were decadent atheists.

You and your SJW counterparts are the death of humanity.
Practically walking embodiments of memes and shame.

Go eat your gods dick ya fuckin faggot.

Modern religion claims it supports logic, because it became obvious that logic is the superior choice, and its just going to blend in with times.

Medieval religion was all against logic and only promoted dogmatic thinking that simplified the lives of its followers (which is literally the point of religion, you don't have to question anything, you just claim its all a "gods plan" and you don't have to worry about it)

To some extent, we have to sympathise with the OP because the most popular western religion is based on hebrew mythology. It's quite plainly based solely on the works of man. Intellectually speaking, it can be dismissed as quickly as Harry Potter; they're both works of a human author with no superior, independent proof.

The metaphysical and theological teachings of, say, Plato and Aristotle, cannot be handled this way. They are far superior to the works of hebrew mythology fans, and everyone must appreciate this fact.

>religion thread

>atheists trying to present arguments
>religiousfags screeching "fedora xDD"
I am not even atheist, but this fedora meme killed any reasonable discussion about religion on Veeky Forums nowadays

>Plato and Aristotle
>theological teachings

If you explain religious dogma without knowing but the basics, of course they would sound unreasonable.

Nobody knows what heaven is. Don't try to explain it with the whole "other dimension" thing, because God isn't one of your sci-fi cartoons. We only know that there's an afterlife, and that to get there you have to follow the Commandments, that's it. Anything else is you talking out of your ass.
Let me ask you, who the fuck do you believe you are to ask God to hold a pen? If you need such evidence to believe in the Lord, then you would renounce him even if he stood in from of you.
The myths of the Genesis are just that, myths. Even in the II century were they considered that, only american fundamentalists believe in that literally. They are not pointless, though, just not literally true.
Jesus didn't die to protect us from the wrath of God, he died to save us from our sins and to usher the new Alliance with the Lord. Also, he didn't kill himself, we killed him.
God didn't create the Devil.
Don't know about the word of God thing. It's been translated in nearly every language on Earth, and it is written, so a deaf person shouldn't have any problem with it.
Who are you refering to in the last part?

Yes, theological, although obviously I don't mean in the sense of mythological tales about anthropomorphic magical beings (although such tales are contained in certain works).

Go on and tell me about the theological teachings of Aristotle.

You are a fucking idiot who doesn't know shit about history of science.
Who is your favorite "scientist"? Neil DeGrasse Tyson or Bill Nye?

Let me ask, what's more interfering in a human's life than being a monk?

The foundation for his ethics, of course. He explains a moral system which is ultimately based on the unmoved movers. It has gone from a neutral metaphysical account to an account of the good, what is divine.

Low Quality Bait

>The myths of the Genesis are just that, myths. Even in the II century were they considered that, only american fundamentalists believe in that literally
Nice meme.

'attempts to reverse that' have been going on for 500 years user

also practicaly all major figures in the whole western scientific development thing were deeply spiritual people, a lot of them were priests and friars, a lot were alchemists and didnt make much distinction betveen science and magic, which is how they developed science, a lot of them were into philosophy and mysticism, most contemporary scientific thought practicaly couldnt exist without metaphysics, descartes was told to devote his life to developing rational scientific thought in a vision after a set of intense vivid dreams that had religious meaning to him, and so he developed rationalism

even today most important scientists have some outlook that is all tied up in metaphysics and esotheric stuff, and a lot are simply theists

there isnt even a real dichotomy betveen the things youre juxtaposing, unless you think autistic bullshit like creationist vs newatheist arguments have any baring on anything in modern science

You can always try to twist it some way it seems right, or make up some excuse. Thats the advantage of religion, you can always claim "it wasn't literal" "its a metaphore" or whatever, and there is no way to prove you wrong. That the basis of dogmatic thinking. doublethink. When somebody points out something bad about your religion, you just find a way to twist it so he is wrong.

Nice argumentation

The point is that they were allowed to ask questions, to question their faith. The society became more open minded, which applied to monks same as to peasants (even more to the monks in fact, since they had available knowledge)

Your high-school is showing

Op you need to grow up

Religion is for the weak and fearful who can't stand accepting the truth that their lives are meaningless and when they die they cease to exist forever.

You seem to consider "logic" as a kind of magic superpower to know all the truth about everything. Logic is a set of rules BASED ON OUR HUMAN EXPERIENCE that helps us understand and organize the world around us, like "everything is equal to the sum of its parts" or "every thing is preceded by a cause and followed by a consequence". It's been proven useful when it comes to everything backed by experimental facts, but reason falls apart when we try to take it further. God is beyond anything we've seen on the universe, and thus, not entirely explainable by logic alone. When it comes to the Lord, faith always comes before logic, because without faith, our reason would be overwhelmed and we wouldn't be able to grasp the divinity.

...

You are embarrassing yourself.
You don't know about what you are talking about. You think you look like a "critical thinker", but you look like a damn idiot who repeats what his idiotic highschool teacher said to him.

>Medieval religion was all against logic and only promoted dogmatic thinking that simplified the lives of its followers
Medieval Religious figures used aristotelian logic, though. When arguing whether the Earth did rotate, they used what they could to observe this phenomena. Aside from "we'll I don't feel we're moving", they did "expeiments" like firing 2 cannon balls in opposite directions. They covered the same distance so they came to the conclusion that the earth doesn't move, which was logical at the time. It wasn't mainly just "duh bibel said so". it's just they had much less to work with than we do now.

Nice argumentation

This whole discussion is funny. Especially the parts about apologetics. When Darwin finished "The Origin of Species" Most Orthodox Christians praised it for further revealing the work of God through creation. Since we realize there is some mystery to scripture instead of trying to dogmatize EVERYTHING, there is room for science and scripture. Any resistance to science in the OC has come mostly from protestant influence unfortunately.

I don't think most of scientific advancements would lead so anyone questioning their faith

Religion is literally why we have progressed this far....

Says the guy who hasn't cited a single source this entire thread (something which is very unscientific, i might add).
>ohms law is invented
>wtf god isnt real now

>If you explain religious dogma without knowing but the basics
Considering I know a fair bit more than the basics and we both have access to google, I see no problem with brevity on a website that very rarely presents counter points.
>of course they would sound unreasonable.
Because they for the most part are. Bear in mind that the religious dogma we tend to attack is not likely your personal framework that you abide by but rather the general mentality and it's overall effect on society.
This is not an unreasonable statement considering my paraphrasing was drawn from more than two faiths.
>Nobody knows what heaven is.
While technically true, it is misleading and impractical to imply that mainstream believers don't have a commonly shared view of what heaven is and that religious authorities make very little effort to correct them, if any.
>Don't try to explain it with the whole "other dimension"
Several different scriptures and schools of though within various religions describe it as a different world.
Some jews describe it as just being cliser to gods "light" muslims describe it as a literal incorporeal garden with sex slaves
And Christians depending on the sect have a wide range if views. But most laymen would ultimately picture it as an extra dimension whether they care to admit it or not, that's the only way to explain it's and its derivatives (the soul) lack of measurability in the real world.

>
Secondly there wer evarious other explanations regards to earth's rotations that not only were as logical as Heliocentrism, but also followed the religious belief. For e.g the sun rotated around the Earth, but the various planets and other planets and shit would rotate around the sun simultaenously (Tychonic system).
It isn't just "don't worry, it says so here so don't question it", but it's more of what was logical to them wasn't because they were dumb, it's just that they worked with what they had and thus came to these sorts of conclusions. Even a simple "well look at the sky, the sun is clearly moving" could've been considered logical then.

>99% of technological advancement followed directly after the era of enlightenment
>enlightenment is philosophy based primarily on reason
>religion prefers dogmatic thinking to reason
I don't need source for any of those claims, thats pretty basic knowledge

>wtf earth isn't the center of the world

>earth isn't the center of the world

>I'm just going to ignore the fact they were religious and undermine my godawful OP to say Augistinian Friars in the 19th century were basically atheists

>Earth isn't the center of the world
What?

>religion prefers dogmatic thinking to reason
What a great generalization you've made there, I guess that's why the Catholic Church discouraged literal interpretation since Augustin isn't it? Because they were so dogmatic?

>after the age of enlightenment
it has literally nothing to do with religion, considering that most of the people involved in the age of enlightenment were still religious. Technology just follows an exponential model of growth, nothing more.
>religion prefers dogmatic thinking to reason
You actually do need a source for that because it's a general blanket statement with numerous examples to prove you wrong (including but not limited to the vast amount of philosophical and theological debate that follows along with interpreting the bible and the quran).

>because God isn't one of your sci-fi cartoons.
Depends on the religion.
Once again, stop assuming I'm talking about your personal belief sysyem as if you were thevgold standard of religious faith and dogma.
>We only know that there's an afterlife, and that to get there you have to follow the Commandments, that's it.
*You* only *believe*
>Anything else is you talking out of your ass.
Anything else is speaking very plainly and frankly about what most of your kind can be brought to believing without question.
>Let me ask you, who the fuck do you believe you are to ask God to hold a pen?
Are you retarded? Your purported god claims to be capable of ressurecting the dead and creating the Universe. Holding a pen should be a trivial matter.
And in his infinite wisdom, he should be able to recognize that it is not too trivial since it entails the grafting of one of those many wild stocks onto his holy trunk.
>If you need such evidence to believe in the Lord, then you would renounce him even if he stood in from of you.
This is literally the antithesis of logical thinking. Which was my original point. Religious dogma is extremely antagonistic to logical reasoning.
>The myths of the Genesis are just that, myths.
Indeed, too bad people believe in them due to enforced religious dogma and unreason.

Read theological works instead of watching youtube fedoras

jordan petersons vids on psychological sig of the bible is a pretty good intro to why relig is not useless, and can teach us a lot of prinordial lessons about how to live properly. I dont think its about not believing, itd zbout believing but being willing to criticize and point out the flaws of the system. If you believe without doubt then youre a zealous mouth breather who doesnt even understamd how to have faith. I think stupidity is the reason many people do believe and the reason many people think they cannot
>a good rule of thumb is like 85% of the population is essentially braindead

Faith is retarded. Peterson is the definition of a pseudo. His proclamations about the good of religion are all subjective nonsense I don't care about.

>Even in the II century were they considered that, only american fundamentalists believe in that literally.
You will be surprised to know, I suppose the number of people who argued in court that they were innocent of a crime due to possession or the ones accused of witch craft that werent in america.
Or how about the routine persecutions and censorships of scientific discoveries that contradicted the bible?
Examples include the dating of ancient egyptian artifacts, the discovery of dinosaur fossils and the Famous (if exaggerated) galilao debacle.
>They are not pointless, though, just not literally true.
They are quite pointless. In the same way the fedora meme became pointless.
Whatever metaphorical wisdom it contained has long since sucumbed to the vicissitudes of history and "reinterpretation"
>Jesus didn't die to protect us from the wrath of God, he died to save us from our sins
The sins that incur the wrath of god in the first place. This is what we call circular logic.
>and to usher the new Alliance with the Lord.
You can't ally with a mindless force of inevitability.
>Also, he didn't kill himself, we killed him.
Yes he did. He had complete control on whether or not he was to die. Christianitys whole gimmick is that he chose to die in order allow humanity a conduit to salvation through accepting him. Thereby releasing themselves of the "original sin"
>God didn't create the Devil.
Then there is more than one god.
I'm sorry, I had not realized I was speaking to a Catharist.
>Don't know about the word of God thing.
That's Islam.
As I said before. Multiple religions.
>Who are you refering to in the last part?
Applicable to Muslims, Sihks, jews, Baha'is and Gikuyu worshipping tribes.

Yeah man as a high schooler you really just have it all worked out and your stance isn't subjective at all

Its going to blow your fucking mind when you realize what math is

>Examples include the dating of ancient egyptian artifacts, the discovery of dinosaur fossils and the Famous (if exaggerated) galilao debacle.
What do you think the Galileo debacle was about user?

Many people today treat science like a religion, there is even a religion literally named after science. Not to mention many scientists are religious men themselves.

Also the so-called "lgtbt", feminnazists, even atheists...etc nowadays often act like a bunch of psychotic degenerated cultists but yet they still always self-claimed as "progressive".

So no, things really are not that simple as you think.

Just because you had to go to catholic school or your parents dont like gay people doesnt mean their justification for it, relig, is to blame. Its your braindead parents, kid

When we decided god was irrational and regressive, we found other excuses to be irrational and regressive in a group. Humanity really has very few surprises whaa

Fabricating a theological scandal in order to Drag a poor disinterested pope out of the lateran so he could shame an old friend.

>but the abandonment of religious thinking is a clear sign they all have.
Mendel was a priest all his life and Newton was arguably more interested in theology than science. Further, their existence shows that we were already progressing without having abandoned religion. The onset of secular thought merely accelerated the process because more and more scientists were emerging period. Acting like it was some binary on/off scenario is laughable.

>Many people today treat science like a religion
It is the one religion that requires the least faith.
>there is even a religion literally named after science.
If it's pic related then I must inform you that those people are completely anti scientific.
Believing in things like souls and a universe thats older than 13.7 billion e
Years old despite overwhelming evidence tends to be frowned upon in the scientific world.
>Not to mention many scientists are religious men themselves.
I doubt this is the majority
Mostly Theists perhaps. Less than likely to be religious unless we are speaking more widely in terms of philosophies entailing faithful adherance to moral principals

>Also the so-called "lgtbt", feminnazists, even atheists...etc nowadays often act like a bunch of psychotic degenerated cultists but yet they still always self-claimed as "progressive".

>So no, things really are not that simple as you think.
Agreed

>dogmatic spiritualist way of thinking

So what you're saying is, the only way to be religious is to be dogmatic and fundamentalistic?

Seems like you lack the ability to see nuance then. If 1,3 billion Christians and 1,3 billion Muslims believed in their religion like people did in the 13th century, the world would've been destroyed long ago with the exact technological advancement you are talking about.

>SJWs
>conventionally religious

They're usually secularists who still apply the same old religious thinking to their pet cause, much like fedora tippers.

>atheists trying to present arguments
Weird, because all I've seen presented so far are tired memes that everyone else keeps poking full of holes.

newton was into hermetism, working with theology was just a part of that, newtonian physics is a byproduct

also he learned a lot of his basics from books by boscovich, a jesuite priest

And the funny thing is that in a purely mechanistic uncaring universe, the idea of moral strength /weakness is a personal fairy tale in of itself, and easily discarded in favor of the basic existential utility offered by religion.

All opinions are subjective.

We made math up. It works perfectly because we made it as such.

I find no utility in falsehoods.

>it works perfectly

Not quite.
In the causal universe we live in morality is a quantifiable result of our being living things that will i evitably gravitate towards certain behaviours.
This constitutes an objective truth to the universe with regard to living things.

It's an objective truth in that it exists.

But the actual feeling of morality - ie what is right and what is wrong, are subjective. Anything can be considered good or bad.

Apparently your idea of poking holes is deflection, half truth and deliberate distortion of the arguments presented.

Any meaning you imagine morality to have is an illusion. It is at best a group consensus brought on by their ape genes and modified by their local environment. It has no greater bearing on anyone if they choose to ignore it, aside from social consequences.

People who strive towards greater morality are usually the most valuable in society. Martin luther king jr. Or guy who created polio vaccine and dgaf about monetizing it so he could save lives

>hur hurr Newton and Mendel were in the verge of atheism and we were totally not progressing at all without religion because no one could question their faith which definitely had things to say about these phenomenon and I'm definitely not receiving any counter-narrative otherwise, no siree.

>argumentation

No, when you admit that the universe exists i.e it's subject to a causal progression, you are thereby admitti.g that there is a such thing as life and that all humans that aren't dead are degined in common.
Morality, reslative to the universe seperate from humanity us indeed subjective.
However it is relative to all humanity, a universal thing inherant in their being living things.

>striving toward greater morality
Yeah, this has never ended up backfiring hard because said greater morality is not completely subjective at all.

Taking a real phenomenon and framing it as an "illusion" because you now understand it's mechanism is a reactive emotional response to something that up until its understanding was neutral.
I should think it would be relief to know that, if you have a personal vision thst seperates you, then that's the only morality you need to follow.

Well that's the definition of objective so I don't see what you're saying. The very concept of valuation is by definition subjective - value can only be produced subjectively. Whether it exists is a different matter from its definition - ie, what is right or wrong, which cannot be empirically determined.

Axiomatic declarations of egalitarian principals do tend to backfire. Though since it's all subjective, I suppose it technically didn't.

No, that user is right. Acting like morality has some inherent meaning is just plugging your ears and pretending humanity's LARPing has some impact beyond basic utility.

If we can, axiomatically, determine exactly what someone's goal is, "backfiring" can be objectively verified. But you have to nail the goal down exactly, or there's room to wiggle around it.

If it exists then can it remain undefined if so then does it exist?
We have just recognized that it exists given an objective truth or reality to the universe which there is, whether you choise to recognize it personally or not.
At that point we are not describing morality as subjective or objective.
We are simply laying dowm a dichotomy for miral and immoral. With those who due to the imeasurably minute differences in probabilities choose to not act in accordance with a near universal princopal falling in the "immoral" category.

Look, I'll put this in perspective for you:

"Hitler did nothing wrong."

Now try to disprove that statement in purely secular terms. And before you try the utalitarian angle, I'll remind you that it requires first assigning value to humanity, which in of itself is a subjective judgement.

Hitler did nothing wrong though why would anyone dispute that?

Makes sense. I hadn't considered that the axiomatic declaration of principle naturally comes with axiomatic an axiomatic declaration of expectations.

That being said, it appears to me that whether these expectations are met usually has no baring on the adherants declaration of principals.

Almost as if it wasn't the real actualization of his principals and they haven't been tried yet.

That very outlook is subjective. If the "immoral" one sees their actions as immoral, you can't make them accept otherwise, and since morality doesn't mean anything objectively, they're only immoral from your perspective, and anyone who agrees with you.

Hitler lost

Because it is possible. All you have to do is agree that everything Hitler did was right and it becomes a true statement.

Okay.

Relative to the universal definition of man as a living thing, hitler could have more efficiently served the human race and is thus found at fault.

I would not like being one of hitlers victims. Thats why I think Hitler did bad things.

What an embarrassing thread.

Did you not read the latter half of my post at all? Still utterly subjective. Hitler could just turn around and say "well I don't care about serving humanity like that" and you wouldn't have any counterpoint besides your personal indignation.

I'm not claiming that there arent differences. That is not what the debate between subjective vs objective is about otherwise it would defeat it's own purpose.

Im stating that their is a universal truth on morality relative to every human being and wjether or not the individual human chooses to recognize and abide by that truth or not has no baring on it's reality, definition or ultimate effect.

I did and I'm trying to draw your attention to that what you call assigning value, I call a simple recognition of what exists.
Humans . I.e. living things. I.e. things that attempt to propagate themselves and order the universe around them to that end. I.e. the literal universal definition of human morality is their simple "being" something that at its core "wants" something for lack of a better word.
And since that "want" is practically the same in all functiining humans, then it in itself cannot be described as subjective but rather the individual human units relationship to it is.

No there isn't, simply due to the fact that it is not possible to force everyone to agree what that truth is.

If we go into a discussion without bith having made in common basal assumptions of the truth then there is no point in discussing at all since communication is in effect impossible.

>There are people on this board still living in a pre post-modern world
wew

I would not like to be one of allies victims either