I think non-believers can live very happy lives. I was a very very happy non believer from the time I was 10 through 26 years old. In fact I get tired of hearing preachers talk about how wonderful Jesus will make your life. As if it isn't wonderful not to have Jesus. I think religion is only proper as it produces loving relationships. So if someone is religious but their relationships are all screwed up I wouldn't think their religion is working properly. Just my biased opinion.
We are talking about God and not specific religions. Maybe you just have not found one that makes sense to you.
Who makes god? Well thats a question no one knows but if you do believe in god then you believe in a good god. You just have to have faith and hope.
I think that's kind of the point of God, the Unmoved mover and all. He was not made, but has always been. If you're arguing for the existence of God it's important you understand that point.
forgive me, but this thread gives me no compelling reason to change my belief that God is a human construct. i do agree with rhester though, "intelligence" is overrated. LOVE, LOVE, LOVE... it's really al you need
Some religions do value all life in its entirety. Jainists, in particular, go out of their way to avoid harming insects. Others see death as part of the natural order. In order to live, another form of life has to die. Perhaps one day the technology will become sophisticated enough to avoid harming living animals to feed our selfish desires and computer models can eliminate animal testing. In the meanwhile, one has several options, such as forsaking meat or animal tested products or researching into the process that brought the meat on your table and understanding what it took for it to happen. Our culture of convenience goes out of its way to deliver us a clean and polished product when the process is the exact opposite. Overall, I think you realize that animal life isn't the same as human life. Murdering a dog in cold blood won't get the same response, social or penal, as murdering a person. The free potential and impact of a fetus carried to term is much higher than a single ape's. I think the ignorance and/or apathy that comes into play during the destruction of any life is in many cases far more damaging than the actual act. Consumers would avoid buying ivory if they knew where it directly came from. People would eat less beef if they witnessed the slaughterhouses first hand. It's interesting you fault Western religion for not taking up that value when you haven't offered an alternate institution that could better serve your concern. Does that mean the 'unconscious' baby's well being hinges upon the choice of its parents? Pre-natal care can be a financial strain and burden. What rights does the unconscious baby have? Sure, it's dangerous to apply literal interpretations in texts that could be purely metaphorical. I'm not sure if there is a "perfect way" to balance things, but eliminating a side is extremism. Religion goes beyond morality. It's a way of life. It changes the way you perceive and approach things. This inherent system of morality you see is a reflection of that individual's society. Feral or abandoned children left to their own devices end up different than those with two parents. A cynic wouldn't think about forgiving an enemy or turning the other cheek as inherent behavior at all. Some religions don't require an all powerful being. When I went to AA meetings I noticed something peculiar. Recovering addicts had to go through a process of shutting down the burden of facing the consequences of their actions by themselves. They had to willingly trust others and forgive themselves. They had to be aware that everything wasn't their fault. These people found strength in accepting their Higher Power/God(s). Whether they knew it or not, they used religious themes to stay away from the bottle day by day. Maybe there is a scientifically valid explaination why accepting that Higher Power is neccessary for recovery. Perhaps it easily fits all of Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Maybe they traded addiction for delusion. But if you're willing to assume that addicts also include intelligent people, then that doesn't explain why they're able to kick the bottle longer than other treatments despite being experts on lying and giving excuses. AA isn't a 100% effective in curing alcoholism, but what is? It's the exact opposite to me. A societal use only serves to control the masses. I think you're relying too heavily upon the preconceptions of God washing away our troubles or the lure of a promising afterlife. There's the promise of a greater level of thought, and the reward of breaking things down to practical levels. In my opinion, science has become the evolution of humanity. Even if we stop evolving physically, science and our recorded history is now the physical proof of our change. Religion's role should be our personal evolution. Just as people will fall through the cracks as populations of scale and governments become even larger, it should be religion's role to magnify the Enlightened ideal that everyone's life has a meaning. Sometimes, it's more of a failure to understand and communicate than an outright dismissal. At that point, both sides are convinced of their rightness and are less willing to compromise. Other times, you have extremists hijacking a cause and assuming its banner. PETA should be a tolerable group in principle, yet their failure to transform public opinion provokes them to use radical measures. The NRA is hell bent on preventing an abstract slippery slope that it pursues an agenda counter to American opinion. So is this a religious issue or another human trait to understand? That could be the case, or maybe a person will change his mind yet again and decide likewise. Science and religion has been opposing each other since Galileo and the Church's endorsement of Aristotle. Their qualities support that statement. Science is about change. Whereas organized religion is deeply rooted in tradition. But religion itself is about personal change. As long as we age, we're forced to change. Most of these grand debates or conflicts come when the parties try to fit a square peg into a circle slot or vice versa. We all rely on others to make the life we know it work. Whether it's some engineer controlling the power sent to your home, or doctor who treats your injuries. A life of self-reliance and self introspection seems like some romanticized rugged American lifestyle, but really... who would want to undergo that for the rest of their life? Real introspection comes when you throw yourself into the world and through interacting with other people. It's harder to run away from personal traits you don't really like. You live upfront with the idea that some things are unpredictable and out of your control. It's difficult to have the faith to see it through because it's much easier to see what you want to see. That goes for religious and non-religious people. What people should realize is their power to transform reality with their thoughts and words. If they believe things at surface value, then that's all there is. If you can find lasting meaning with what you say, by all means, pursue it. The main issue of this thread is intelligence and religion. Science doesn't hold a monopoly on intellectual pursuits. The irony is that its boosters are claiming otherwise.
In the history of the Faith, loving relationships are often "one way." All the O.T. prophets seem like pretty lonely people, John the Baptist wasn't exactly "Mr. Relationship," and while Jesus was loving, though harsh at times, He was ultimately forsaken by His closest friends. The Apostles didn't fair too well either. Maybe relationships aren't the test of "true religion?!"
I'd say that George Carlin has religions number on the question of who has dominion of Earth. "This planet will shake us off like a bad case of fleas"
It is to my belief that religion has taught us morals and family values. Without them I think we would just be savages quite frankly. People who currently dont have a religion are not savages and do have values such as morals and ethics because of religious influences around them.
I would think maternal instinct was the catalyst for morality, as it predated language and any notion of God. As in evolutionary terms, our mothers ever more doting attention began a feedback system where memories were encoded with emotion.
