I do like how some topics sleep for a while but you know that they will have an inevitable return. It seems that there are a lot of views on here aired by people who have not been present on one of these previously.
I think, when debating any point, predicting an outcome or trying to explain human action, it is invaluable to put yourself in the same situation. Pick out your incentives, threats and plans from the perspective of someone else and then rationalise what course of action you must take. This is probably what makes me most cynical about most forms of religion. I'm aware that this is also the counter-argument to suggest one God but religions miles apart have so many common themes that I can't help but believe human intervention must have been prevalent, manipulative and divisive.
In theory, I'm happy to believe in the existence of a divine being because of the chances of an Earth full of free-thinking creatures being so slim but then infinity is a long time in which it could have occurred. When looking upon something you can't fully comprehend, it's often easy to overlook certain factors which you could never be aware of. For all I know, you may get a fully functioning earth every time you have a Big Bang but that thought is largely a product of a world which adapts to change.
However, my main suspicion on the subject of religion is that even if a divine being does exist, the message has been corrupted by human interpretation. I honestly don't think I have time nor inclination to write a complete summary of my thoughts although one day may have to. One recent concern I had was on the subject of morality.
If I was living many years ago in a society with dubious morals and a simplistic view of the world, it would seem sensible to create some form of body to help guide choices and teach a sense of morality to the world. If I was to do that, first of all, I would make an authority who could never be questioned and secondly I would make a set of rules that conformed generally with simple right/wrong beliefs but also included ills which may affect weakness of the human character. The specific point that sprung to mind (hardly surprising given my occupation) was gambling.
Having distanced myself from religion somewhat, I feel as though I am now defining my own sense of right and wrong based on gut instinct, consideration of myself in someone else's position and reaction of friends. Fortunately, most Christian morals fit in with this but I've never yet understood how gambling can be included in this. The UK society has a bizarre approach to gambling. Phrases such as "If I was a gambling man", "x has to be favourite here" and "against the odds" are all common phrases in the language and most of the country has bet in the last year on 'clean' gambling such as the lottery. It is, however, widely frowned upon and if you tell someone you've placed 300 bets in a year, they suddenly start wndering if you're falling in to some sort of immoral trap.
The same goes for poker which seems to be judged as a deeply immoral pastime but the murky past can't help it at all. It seems as though the only constant between gambling activities is the unknown variation in outcomes which makes the judgement of gambling all the more inexplaicable to me when other activities such as trading on the stock exchange are encouraged with no religious objection.
Anyway, I digress somewhat. I've not ruled out religion at all and i think in the right hands, it is a useful set of moral guidelines but in the main, it seems like an excellent tool for "the weak to control the strong" and large parts supported by the modern day church seem at times ridiculous beyond belief.
The video below actually sums up my thoughts pretty well (you'll need sound and not really the video to be honest).
Youtube Dan le Sac vid
