Concepts #4: Religiousity
Religion is very important to a lot of people, but if expressed publicly, can be a major detriment to the truth movement. Again, religion in itself is not necessarily bad for the movement, but when you coincide beliefs with facts, you form an instant contradiction that discredits all further discussions.
Religion is defined as follows:
“A religion is a system of human thought which usually includes a set of narratives, symbols, beliefs and practices that give meaning to the practitioner’s experiences of life through reference to a higher power, deity or deities, or ultimate truth. Religion is commonly identified by the practitioner’s prayer, ritual, meditation, music and art, among other things, and is often interwoven with society and politics. It may focus on specific supernatural, metaphysical, and moral claims about reality (the cosmos and human nature) which may yield a set of religious laws, ethics, and a particular lifestyle. Religion also encompasses ancestral or cultural traditions, writings, history, and mythology, as well as personal faith and religious experience.”
The relevant part to this discussion is the fact that religion is a system of faith that contradicts reason and evidence, and therefore, invalidates any attempt to use reason and evidence. This is crucial, because the majority of society only accepts arguments on the basis of reason and evidence. Granted most people are religious, but they will still use religion as argument against you referencing the logical contradiction. They will be much more crude in their description of this contradiction, but they draw comparisons based on your beliefs and your reason and evidence. The media does this all the time. Instant debunking. This is how people will perceive it.
This can certainly come across as a case to remove religion itself from the people in the truth movement. That is not necessarily the case, and that is beside the point. My first point is credibility, which the truth movement is very lacking right now. Public admission of religious beliefs only complicates that issue. My second point is that religious beliefs should be a personal and private matter in the first place. It has no place in the public sphere; even if it was not a detriment to the movement. When I say “public sphere”, I mean in places where there are people from many religions and people with no religion.
In attempt to provide some clarity to exactly where the logical contradiction lies, I will provide the proof for the non-existence of god. This proof is based on the lack of evidence for God.
1. The definition of non-existence is the lack of evidence sufficient to prove existence.
2. There is no empirical evidence for the existence of God.
3. Therefore, God does not exist.
This is not the same thing as saying God could not exist. Of course, it is possible that anything exists, but it is not reasonable to make presumptions without evidence. If there is no evidence, logically it is a non-issue, and not worth debating.
What should one take out of this article? If you want to add credibility and move the truth movement forward, please heed this advice:
Please let religion be a personal matter that should not be discussed in the public sphere. This will only serve to discredit the truth movement.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion
Religion is defined as follows:
“A religion is a system of human thought which usually includes a set of narratives, symbols, beliefs and practices that give meaning to the practitioner’s experiences of life through reference to a higher power, deity or deities, or ultimate truth. Religion is commonly identified by the practitioner’s prayer, ritual, meditation, music and art, among other things, and is often interwoven with society and politics. It may focus on specific supernatural, metaphysical, and moral claims about reality (the cosmos and human nature) which may yield a set of religious laws, ethics, and a particular lifestyle. Religion also encompasses ancestral or cultural traditions, writings, history, and mythology, as well as personal faith and religious experience.”
The relevant part to this discussion is the fact that religion is a system of faith that contradicts reason and evidence, and therefore, invalidates any attempt to use reason and evidence. This is crucial, because the majority of society only accepts arguments on the basis of reason and evidence. Granted most people are religious, but they will still use religion as argument against you referencing the logical contradiction. They will be much more crude in their description of this contradiction, but they draw comparisons based on your beliefs and your reason and evidence. The media does this all the time. Instant debunking. This is how people will perceive it.
This can certainly come across as a case to remove religion itself from the people in the truth movement. That is not necessarily the case, and that is beside the point. My first point is credibility, which the truth movement is very lacking right now. Public admission of religious beliefs only complicates that issue. My second point is that religious beliefs should be a personal and private matter in the first place. It has no place in the public sphere; even if it was not a detriment to the movement. When I say “public sphere”, I mean in places where there are people from many religions and people with no religion.
In attempt to provide some clarity to exactly where the logical contradiction lies, I will provide the proof for the non-existence of god. This proof is based on the lack of evidence for God.
1. The definition of non-existence is the lack of evidence sufficient to prove existence.
2. There is no empirical evidence for the existence of God.
3. Therefore, God does not exist.
This is not the same thing as saying God could not exist. Of course, it is possible that anything exists, but it is not reasonable to make presumptions without evidence. If there is no evidence, logically it is a non-issue, and not worth debating.
What should one take out of this article? If you want to add credibility and move the truth movement forward, please heed this advice:
Please let religion be a personal matter that should not be discussed in the public sphere. This will only serve to discredit the truth movement.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion
Comment
-
Comment by Jeff on December 13, 2009 at 3:42pm
-
Ezekiel, I have a great friend here, a very valued friend, who's devout and I am an Atheist. The reason we're great friends has nothing to do with his perception of or personal presentation of religion. We are friends because he is intelligent and dispenses that intelligence with intellect. His name is Yahya, below.
I have a great enemy on this web site who is also devout. The reason we're enemies has little to do with religion. We are enemies because he is not terribly well educated meaning he is incapable of discussing differing perspectives with a rational approach. He is offended by my position and fails to understand the benefit of dialogue.
That said, I agree with you. Unless a person is highly intelligent and can use that intelligence with a high degree of intellect, religion poses significant problems. Since most people are not terribly intelligent and lack intellect bringing religion into the fold muddies the water. It takes intelligence combined with intellect to be able to insert faith into factual arguments that pertain to social, economic and political issues affecting humanity.
As you can see from the comments below discussing religion with Yahya is an educational experience in which an exchange of ideas takes place illuminating both participants to ideas and themes they might not otherwise have entertained or encountered and it produced a give and take dialogue that as a result has great value.
We agree, for similar yet different reasoning.
-
Comment by Mark on December 9, 2009 at 7:46pm
-
I can see where you're coming from, but I have to disagree. A Christian would not have a statistically significant negative view against someone that is undefined with regards to religion. Likewise, an atheist would not have a statistically significant negative view against someone that is undefined with regards to religion. On the other hand, a Christian that wore his religion on his sleeve would have a negative impact on the perceptions of all other religions and atheists and vice versa.
-
-
Please keep responses relevant to the topic. If you disagree that the public perception of being openly religious is not a detriment to the truth movement, please point out why.
-
-
That is beside the point of the article. I really hope some people can appreciate the message here. Responding to your question, evidence of future time is not relevant, because you cannot obtain empirical evidence from it now. Otherwise, time is irrelevant.
-
-
I am writing a series of articles that are a critical examination of the truth movement. You're correct--religion in the public sphere is one of many issues that discredit the truth movement. I intend to cover them all.
"Destroying the New World Order"
THANK YOU FOR SUPPORTING THE SITE!
Latest Activity
- Top News
- Everything
Whatever Happened?
Whatever Happened? The unsung heroes will go about their dayRegardless of the welcome they've…See More
"cheeki kea Nice work! Thank you! "
"Chin up folks, once the low hanging fruit gets picked off a clearer view will reveal the higher…"
"Your right LP it's insane for sure and hopefully improbable, keeping an open mind. Checking…"
"The white dude in the center is Bill Gates!!! "
"How can this scoundrel walk free? Because he's just one of the many similar ones."
"This insane. As if there was a extra-terrestrial enemy who wants to destroy us all."
© 2024 Created by truth.
Powered by
You need to be a member of 12160 Social Network to add comments!
Join 12160 Social Network