Is religion rational?

[Kubanator]

I don't find religion irrational, being christian myself, I find it calming and explains alot of things for me, not like creation and stuff although it does that too, I mean just why I feel certain emotions at times, and I am alot happier then when I was an atheist.

So anti-thiests, if you care to actually explain why there is something wrong with what this chap here has said?...

I'll give you a clue... There isn't. End of story. Why? Because he/she is happy. Is being happy irrational? No. Case closed.

Nothing wrong with it. But it's not something everyone can do. I wish I could simply ignore all of the fallacies I've found with God, and simply believe and not worry about it. But I can't. So I have to disprove the fallacies to be at peace. Or just accept life as it is. But that may take longer.

Also, ignore Bright_Raven. He may share your name, but not your intelligence.

You know, we DID let religion control society once... It was called the dark ages.

*<url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_age_of_Islam>cough*

I hate to support the troll, but:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran

 

[Skeleon]

Thats true. I wasn't saying irrationality was bad, but that it's perfectly rationable to want to be happy.

Yes, everybody has that desire. But is that rational?
Isn't happiness itself irrational and wouldn't a perfectly rational person not be touched by emotions either way?
I'm not saying that it would be good to be rational, I'm just saying that happiness or the pursuit thereof isn't necessarily rational.

By extension I'm saying that for what could be considered the right reasons, being religious isn't inherintley irrational.

No, I have to disagree with you there. There are a lot of things we could do to feel happy that are totally irrational. Taking drugs, for example. We are aware that they are harmful, yet we enjoy using them. Not comparing drugs to religion (Marx already did that), I'm just making a point.

Again, I would not consider the pursuit of happiness rational (to a purely rational mind, what does happiness or sadness matter?) but that doesn't diminish the use it has for us human beings. Why? Because we aren't purely rational beings. We evolved from animals that base their behaviour on instincts and emotions, of course we cannot just get up and shed our irrationality. And why would we want to? Irrational thinking has brought forth not only religion but also various kinds of art, writing, painting, it helps keep a community together or be charitable towards others, it's what makes us humans human in many ways.

 

[NeutralDrow]

You know, we DID let religion control society once... It was called the dark ages.

*<url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_age_of_Islam>cough*

I hate to support the troll, but:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran

How is that supporting him? Iran's a mixed bag, to be sure, but not all of that can be laid at the hands of the clerics. Besides, his point was already destroyed.

 

[Kubanator]

How is that supporting him? Iran's a mixed bag, to be sure, but not all of that can be laid at the hands of the clerics. Besides, his point was already destroyed.

Women's rights?

Thats true. I wasn't saying irrationality was bad, but that it's perfectly rationable to want to be happy.

Yes, everybody has that desire. But is that rational?
Isn't happiness itself irrational and wouldn't a perfectly rational person not be touched by emotions either way?
I'm not saying that it would be good to be rational, I'm just saying that happiness or the pursuit thereof isn't necessarily rational.

By extension I'm saying that for what could be considered the right reasons, being religious isn't inherintley irrational.

The pursuit of happiness is completely rational. Happiness is feedback mechanism for actions. It's the compound success of short term and long term. As soon as you cease to pursue it, you cease to grow, and you cease to succeed.

 

[NeutralDrow]

You know, we DID let religion control society once... It was called the dark ages.

*<url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_age_of_Islam>cough*

I see that it is called the "Islamic" golden age, but it seems to refer more to the cultural group then the religion.

You know, we DID let religion control society once... It was called the dark ages.

*<url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_age_of_Islam>cough*

I see that it is called the "Islamic" golden age, but it seems to refer more to the cultural group then the religion.

Yes. The cultural group that includes Arabs, Persians, Africans, Turks, Europeans, and Indians, among others, I suppose. Who happened to all share a religion that was very open to humanistic and scientific endeavors.

 

[Heathrow]

http://www.myconfinedspace.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/if-you-could-reason-wth-religious-people-there-would-be-no-religious-people-house-500x375.jpg

 

[Enzeru92]

I really don't think religion is rational and at best its just folklore and stories

 

[Doug]

I guess it really just depends on the subject matter you speak about, for example, Christianity teaches you (I am pretty sure) to love thy neighbor, dont fight, be helpful to people in need so on and so forth, THAT is rational thought I feel.

however, suspending your belief for Metaphysics, is Irrational.

That and "God is bipolar, alright" given how God seems to have a massive personally switch between the Old and New Testment

 

[ThreeWords]

No.

Does it need to be?

 

[Woodsey]

I'd say religion is pretty rational. Seeing as we're conscious beings I don't find it absurd that we attempt to explain our existence. Religion at least partially springs forth from that idea.

Our need to explain our existence may be a rational need, but that's different to religion.

OT: Completely irrational. For 1000s of years people have believed in Gods, and why did they do it all that time ago? Because it was the only way they could bloody explain anything.

Now we have centuries of science, (evolution and the existence of, albeit tiny, life on Mars etc.), and still people choose to believe in some sort of God. How many wars have been caused and lives lost through time have there been due to religion?

The only rational part of religion that is actually understandable is that people are religious because they're terrified there's nothing next and that they're really all alone.

 

[Raven's Nest]

Nothing wrong with it. But it's not something everyone can do. I wish I could simply ignore all of the fallacies I've found with God, and simply believe and not worry about it. But I can't. So I have to disprove the fallacies to be at peace.

I agree, accepting organised religion is not something everyone can do. And for good reasons. I think the bible is dated for lack of a better word. It's views on a few things like homosexuality and people who wear glasses simply don't belong in modern society and it needs to be dropped. But many religious groups are reluctant to lose anything of what can be considered holy scripture. This is what causes friction within religous sects and when the frustration builds up, it can lead to extreme fundamentalism. But this is true of any group of people sharing an idea. Look at the Nazi's and what they "achieved". Look what America's attempts to bring democracy to the east has brought.

If people cling on to beliefs and refuse to even consider the alternatives, time and progress will soon leave them behind. Religion isn't a broken concept, it just needs a new drafting. And to give people a little nudge in the direction of trying to provide their own answers is what they need.

And it never hurts to keep an open mind.

 

[Soxafloppin]

Well i dont believe in god, mainly because theres no real proof and the idea of people healing and preforming miracles just seems silly. But i can see why people do, it would be nice to have something to believe in. In that sense it is rational.

 

[Guitarmasterx7]

Faith is defined as "belief that is not based on proof"

...do I really need to say any more?

 

[NeutralDrow]

You know, we DID let religion control society once... It was called the dark ages.

*<url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_age_of_Islam>cough*

I hate to support the troll, but:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran

How is that supporting him? Iran's a mixed bag, to be sure, but not all of that can be laid at the hands of the clerics. Besides, his point was already destroyed.

Well, god does not exist and religion is only causing pain in the modern age.

The first part is debatable (possibly unknowable, something I'm banking on as an agnostic). The second part would be wrong to the point of pants-wetting hilarity, if it wasn't downright insulting. I don't mind bashing people like, say, <url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muqtada_al-sadr>this guy.

Declaiming any credit for <url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desmond_Tutu>this guy, on the other hand, would be like spitting on Ghandi.

 

[scotth266]

Snip.

Dude, just give up trying to reason with that one. Obvious troll is REALLY FREAKING OBVIOUS.

I refuse to respond to the topic at hand, partially because I'm pretty sure this is a repeat thread, and partially because I'm not going to convince anyone here of anything, and only get jeered at and mocked for stating my opinion.