This thread has plenty of anti-religious stances and oversimplified explanations that just mock those that are religious. Despite how exhausting it will be to think about the replies, I feel that some balance is needed for the sake of good content and discussion. I’m terrible at this shit, so take it with a grain of salt. Obligatory “I’m not religious” - I’m not defending those that have twisted religion to be used for personal gain, perversion, or for enacting upon hatred, but to say there’s zero benefit to religion and that it shouldn’t exist is naive; it is, however, in need of improvement.
Religion provides community, philosophy, and despite what everyone in the comments here are saying, education. You can deny a specific diety all you’d like, but it poses potential answers to questions science has yet to figure out. Did a diety create the universe via The Big Bang? When does life begin? What happens after death? What happens before we’re born? Etc.
Church provides support for those struggling. You can argue that praying to a diety may not do anything on its own, but to have a pastor say that someone in the church has been struggling with something and everyone includes that in their prayers - it helps a lot to cope with the passing of someone, addiction, debt, etc. Some churches will do events to help raise money for a cause. Some will pull you aside to help give direction to resolve the struggle in your life. Some host meetings for AA and other similar programs.
Einstein rejected a conflict between science and religion, and held that cosmic religion was necessary for science.
Multiple strong atheists including my college Language Arts teacher throughout my life have said that The Bible is one of the greatest books ever written - not for the diety, but for the teaching of morals, the poetry, the individual pastorals, and the story overall. Is it the only source to learn morality? No. Additionally, any source where you learn morality from will also have immoral characteristics, so don’t let any strawman arguments prevent you from learning from it.
Nothing and no one is perfect, so use your own judgement to discern the morality from the immoral, and question it. For those interested in pro-religioua debate, books on Apologetics can be an interesting read.
Einstein didn’t say that religion was needed for science. Cosmic religion is not a good term because any reader will associate it with our umbrella term religion while he defined something else. Writing it without context is manipulating any reader who does not have/take the time to read up on the term.
He firmly stated that he does not belief in any religion associated with any god or gods like all the religions OP probably means. Even going so far as calling such beliefs expression and product of human weaknesses.
He also wrote “the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish.” And “I, like yourself, I am predominantly critical concerning the activities, and especially the political activities, through history of the official clergy.” So he does se a conflict between religion like OP means and science. He only once made a statement in support of the traditional religions when he said he was positively surprised that the christian church opposed the Nazi regime. He later backtracked on this because the church supported the Nazis partially during the further years of the war.
He still stated he is no Atheist because he believes in the existence and governance of the fundamental laws of nature and what he sometimes called religion he defined as the aspiration to pursue the research on these fundamental laws.
This thread has plenty of anti-religious stances and oversimplified explanations that just mock those that are religious. Despite how exhausting it will be to think about the replies, I feel that some balance is needed for the sake of good content and discussion. I’m terrible at this shit, so take it with a grain of salt. Obligatory “I’m not religious” - I’m not defending those that have twisted religion to be used for personal gain, perversion, or for enacting upon hatred, but to say there’s zero benefit to religion and that it shouldn’t exist is naive; it is, however, in need of improvement.
Religion provides community, philosophy, and despite what everyone in the comments here are saying, education. You can deny a specific diety all you’d like, but it poses potential answers to questions science has yet to figure out. Did a diety create the universe via The Big Bang? When does life begin? What happens after death? What happens before we’re born? Etc.
Church provides support for those struggling. You can argue that praying to a diety may not do anything on its own, but to have a pastor say that someone in the church has been struggling with something and everyone includes that in their prayers - it helps a lot to cope with the passing of someone, addiction, debt, etc. Some churches will do events to help raise money for a cause. Some will pull you aside to help give direction to resolve the struggle in your life. Some host meetings for AA and other similar programs.
Einstein rejected a conflict between science and religion, and held that cosmic religion was necessary for science.
Multiple strong atheists including my college Language Arts teacher throughout my life have said that The Bible is one of the greatest books ever written - not for the diety, but for the teaching of morals, the poetry, the individual pastorals, and the story overall. Is it the only source to learn morality? No. Additionally, any source where you learn morality from will also have immoral characteristics, so don’t let any strawman arguments prevent you from learning from it.
Nothing and no one is perfect, so use your own judgement to discern the morality from the immoral, and question it. For those interested in pro-religioua debate, books on Apologetics can be an interesting read.
Einstein didn’t say that religion was needed for science. Cosmic religion is not a good term because any reader will associate it with our umbrella term religion while he defined something else. Writing it without context is manipulating any reader who does not have/take the time to read up on the term.
He firmly stated that he does not belief in any religion associated with any god or gods like all the religions OP probably means. Even going so far as calling such beliefs expression and product of human weaknesses.
He also wrote “the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish.” And “I, like yourself, I am predominantly critical concerning the activities, and especially the political activities, through history of the official clergy.” So he does se a conflict between religion like OP means and science. He only once made a statement in support of the traditional religions when he said he was positively surprised that the christian church opposed the Nazi regime. He later backtracked on this because the church supported the Nazis partially during the further years of the war.
He still stated he is no Atheist because he believes in the existence and governance of the fundamental laws of nature and what he sometimes called religion he defined as the aspiration to pursue the research on these fundamental laws.