Why religion is so important in our lives - Page 5

Originally posted by: *Woh Ajnabee*

Religion is a way of life. It helps us understand the world around us,what way.. it doesnt explain physics chemistry bilogy, psychology..... puts things in perspective, meaning delusional and gives us a set of guidelines to live our life by. what guidelines set by 1000 years ago!!! Some of us take these "guidelines" more seriously then others, but the main goal is to be able to believe in something, to have explanations.again being delusional believing without reason I think that we, as humans, don't like not knowing things. We have a tendency to question everything, and to a certain degree religion gives us answers. And I think one of the greatest strengths of human nature is that we have the power to believe. And our beliefs are so strong, that we can lead our whole lives alongside those beliefs.

We need religion the same way we need scientific theories or philosophical theories. It is all a means of answering our "why's". how many why's have u had answered... some i know.. why we dont fight and kill each other.. why we dont have peace in the world... why people have to be atheistic😆

Well sadly religion and politics always separate people.

Originally posted by: Summer3

Well sadly religion and politics always separate people.

actually politicians use religion to separate people who r already separated. religion is not a bad thing nor is politics its just that human beings have interpreted it in a wrong way and used it in a wrong way.

Originally posted by: qwertyesque

Qwerty ji, perhaps i cannot prove the existence of God, but as long as you cannot disprove it either, you have no sufficient evidence to support your viewpoint. 😉😆 You're just playing devil's advocate here.

What is there to physics, chemistry, or biology? Religion does not tell you that the only book you have is a religious scripture. Religion does not stop or undermine progress. Science isn't against any religion either. Just because no religious scripture speaks about cells, and gravity, and carbon, does not mean that we as humans, cannot attempt to initiate discoveries. Why is religion always accused of prohibiting scientific progress? On the contrary, I think religion nurtures sciences.

Perhaps, blindly believing in God or a religion is delusional. But to someone who believes in the existence of God 100%, can just as easily say that you're delusional, for not believing in a particular religion.  Its all a matter of faith. As I said in a different post earlier, I personally think that our greatest power as humans, is perhaps the power to believe, if we set our mind to something, we can convince ourselves of pretty much anything - whether that's religion or no religion.

And yes, I've had many "why's" answered. Including why religion is of significance.

Anyways, have you heard that Bollywood song? ---- Meri nazar se tum dekho toh yaar nazar woh aaye. Aye Haye. 😆

Originally posted by: angelic_devil

actually politicians use religion to separate people who r already separated. religion is not a bad thing nor is politics its just that human beings have interpreted it in a wrong way and used it in a wrong way.

The question of God and religion also raises the important question of reward and punishment.

I doubt God generally gets involved in all such detailed work, so the theory of karma comes in which works on its own. But guess God is able to intervene.

Originally posted by: Summer3

. I doubt God generally gets involved in all such detailed work, so the theory of karma comes in which works on its own.

Ahh ! God himself uses shortcuts !

And then they blame it on human nature !😆😆

The one making up the claim is under the burden to prove it, not the one denying it. Since you cannot prove a negative, the burden of proof is on his shoulder who is making the claim, and not the other way around. Also, disbelief isn't a belief of its own - it's a state of mind. Atheism, too, isn't a state of belief, it's a state of being (that's highly debatable, though; if atheism isn't a state of belief, but the default position, then what state would agnosticism be? Would it be anymore logical to label the 'I-don't-know' position as the default one? Maybe I should go and start a new thread on that one).

I do not believe in the existence of Harry Potter, hence I am not under the burden to prove that he does not exist / disprove his existence (which, logically speaking, is impossible and makes no sense; the concept of disproving something, either a physical object or a hypothetical concept arises when there are sufficient evidences for it - evidence to the contrary are only provided when evidence for it are available). Rather it is those, who believes Harry to not only be a fictional character, but a real one, are the one's who needs to prove me otherwise before I disprove it. Also, disbelieving in Harry Potter to be real isn't a belief of its own, believing it to be real is what is. I do not need 'faith' to disbelieve in Harry's existence; though, the one making up the claim of Harry existing needs to.

*Excuse the bad analogy; just trying to make up a point.*

Along the same line, one is free to say God does not exist, and yet be considered as a person without any form of [religious/theological] belief[s] - so long as he does not close his mind regarding evidences to the contrary (close-minded, militant atheists could be classed into the same position as the believers).

That is the only place where I disagree with WA.

Heck, I'm not an atheist, even if my lecture sounded highly atheistic.
Edited by PhoeniXof_Hades - 14 years ago

Originally posted by: PhoeniXof_Hades

The one making up the claim is under the burden to prove it, not the one denying it. Since you cannot prove a negative, the burden of proof is on his shoulder who is making the claim, and not the other way around. Also, disbelief isn't a belief of its own - it's a state of mind. Atheism, too, isn't a state of belief, it's a state of being (that's highly debatable, though; if atheism isn't a state of belief, but the default position, then what state would agnosticism be? Would it be anymore logical to label the 'I-don't-know' position as the default one? Maybe I should go and start a new thread on that one).

I do not believe in the existence of Harry Potter, hence I am not under the burden to prove that he does not exist / disprove his existence (which, logically speaking, is impossible and makes no sense; the concept of disproving something, either a physical object or a hypothetical concept arises when there are sufficient evidences for it - evidence to the contrary are only provided when evidence for it are available). Rather it is those, who believes Harry to not only be a fictional character, but a real one, are the one's who needs to prove me otherwise before I disprove it. Also, disbelieving in Harry Potter to be real isn't a belief of its own, believing it to be real is what is. I do not need 'faith' to disbelieve in Harry's existence; though, the one making up the claim of Harry existing needs to.

*Excuse the bad analogy; just trying to make up a point.*

Along the same line, one is free to say God does not exist, and yet be considered as a person without any form of [religious/theological] belief[s] - so long as he does not close his mind regarding evidences to the contrary (close-minded, militant atheists could be classed into the same position as the believers).

That is the only place where I disagree with WA.

Heck, I'm not an atheist, even if my lecture sounded highly atheistic.

Labib, you took my comment seriously. I was joking with Qwerty ji, obviously I do not expect him to disprove the existence of God or the need for religion.

And if I were to really attempt to prove the existence of God, then I will tell you now, that I couldn't do that. When I really want something, when I'm feeling down, when I feel lost, or even when I'm overtly joyful, I think of God. Perhaps its a means of comfort, or perhaps I am delusional, but I cannot help it. I like knowing that He's up there, somewhere, watching. And that's all that matters.

Anyways - you need to learn to take things more lightly, silly boy. 😛