I usually tend to avoid debates which involves belief. Simply because nothing new is rarely brought to the table and settling on “lets agree to disagree” never seems to be enough for certain individuals. Usually the same individuals who would either start or happily join in on a debate regarding belief. Though since I consider myself somewhat the most sane person under such circumstances that a such debate would arise I will give you my two cents on the topic.

First of all everything is essentially a belief. As all knowledge exist within the mind its hard to to escape some inclined bias. After all Plato defined knowledge as “justified true belief”. In other words if you find justification for believing in something its true. But then again justice is subjective. Scientist however find justification through the scientific method, however the since the scientific method in short is based on observing a phenomenon and being able to recreate it under the exact same circumstances it would be totally unable to prove what some followers of religion would call “miracles”. This because “miracles” usually is dictated by a an advanced will which would fall beyond any laws of nature or quantum physics.

The next thing which sort of bothers me is when people who claim to be adhering to a strict logical approach to life seemingly argues rather unlogical. Most frequently through a mass of logical fallacies. I notice that certain individuals tend to speak of religious followers as if it applied to all of them. Sure enough there are extremists who do spread hate upon certain groups in society, but that hardly makes up everyone. There are those who will inflict terror upon those who won’t share their belief and there are those who will demonise those of an opposing sexual orientation however that is not a problem with religion itself. I would say that matter such as poverty and ideological preference is a stronger contributor to the creation of hateful minds. Religion can house such people, but is rarely the underlying problem. Under certain circumstances the humand mind grows more welcoming to the excuse to blame others. Sadly this is how it is used and somewhat stains the name of everyone else who actually isn’t like that. Another thoughtless arguement is: “Its unfair that unbelievers go to hell because I can’t believe in god”. I might imagine a christian saying that for instance, but for someone who does not believe in hell I find it odd that they worry about going there. Especially when they have the freedom of choice. The worst of all is that many self-proclaimed rational people pass these arguements as valid. In any other debate they might call out the invalidity of such arguements, but as long as they serve their own interest they seem highly uninterested in doing so. Which really says alot about their level of integrity.

Of course theres more. There is a huge circulation of memes and other uncontemplated arguements which tend to spoil the integrity of the debate. One famous one is: “Religion causes wars”. I honestly cannot fathom how simple the matters of war suddenly has become in the eyes of certain people. I would actually say that ideologies and economic interests is what is causing wars, religion is simply used as propaganda. And sometimes religion can be the target of propaganda. Hitler surely must have had something against the jews, but its arguable that it was more valued as a tactical asset. When you create an external enemy people tend to lose track of the internal ones and more focused on rallying against the common foe. This is why Argentina decided to wage war against the brits over the Falklands. Having massive internal problems and civil unrest the governemnt decided it was time to take back what they considered to be theirs and surely enough the people followed and forgot about any earlier discussion they had at their dinner table.

I also tend to observe more hateful individuals who wish for a total abolishment against religion. I find that rather counter-liberal. During the French revolution the freethinkers and scientist called for freedom of religion, not the absence of it. While they surely might not have agreed with the church, the early pioneers of democracy atleast had the courtesy to respect individual choices. After all that was what democracy was about. The seemingly descendants of these spirits have though seemed to forget, in a time where they atleast are free to choose for themselves. There are those who complains about followers of religion pushing their belief in their face, however I find that to be true on both sides and is hardly a symptom of one or the other. Rather a symptom of a somewhat toxic individual in my honest opinion.

There is of course also a tense feeling regarding creationism in school. While I must admit it all seems rather pseudo-science school isn’t exclusive for science. Its also for art, dance, music and woodwork amongst many other subjects. I believe we should teach about religion in school and I do not neccesarily believe this will enforce it upon the mind in the youth in any way. And if it did and the a child decides to spend his or hers remaining life preaching about god while giving fortune to the poor, I still cannot bring myself to see the harm in it. Some see science being on the pedestal of learning, however that is extremly biased and narrow in terms of learning. If we really want to give people free will which some claims religion is taking from them, then we ought to teach kids about everything so everyoen can find what appeals the most to them. I have my doubts about giving all favor to science because most people won’t become scientists. Which is problematic as science is basing itself on theories, and I do not believe in teaching people things and presenting it as the real deal without being assured that they would also know the full context. I believe it would be problematic because it would build up bias against certain topics on the background that its just how it is.

I have much respect for scientist but they must understand that the consumer is usually only interested in the products they can create and not neccesarily the data behind it. And if they are lead to believe that science hold all answers without fully investigating all sides of society I do not believe they will take themselves the freedom to do so, simply because for some conforming is enough. And if people conform to one idea because it just is then they might never experience another idea which might fulfill them more than the one they’ve learned to live with.

In the end Id say live and let live. Treat not followers of religion as the manifestation of it, but as individuals. Call them out of unethical actions and words. Do not let crimes go unpunished. But do not blame an abstract idea for the deeds of men, because its actually kind of stupid and pointless. And as always stay sane everybody.