Another Big Big Thread of Religious Discussion

[Fifthfiend]

EDIT: I have to say, though, I'm rather glad you're leaving. Your constant antagonism was making me sick to my stomach.

Wow you just don't ever let up do you?

You know Serenity, Chucks, I'm just going to remind you guys that while behavior in this thread is unmoderated, the thread itself can be closed any time I or any other mod deems it necessary. I haven't done that yet cause everyone else posting here seems able to comport themselves with, if not propriety, then at least something not quite amounting to continual snarling hostility and wholly gratuitous insults. That said, if I see any more crap from either of you in here I'll be entirely happy to take away everybody's toy.

...Which I guess for you Serenity would be basically just as good as a banning, considering as from what I can tell the only reason you come to this forum is to start shit right here in this thread.

[ZAKtheGeek]

Originally Posted by I_Like_Swordchucks

You can take everything we know for sure about abiogenesis and substitute God in there, and it still works.

Didn't we talk about this already?

[Sithdarth]

Hey, dude, there's a teapot at the precise median point between the orbit of Mars and Earth that is so small that it cannot be perceived by our instruments.

You can't disprove it, so you can't draw any conclusions.

Hey dude that's no where near disproving my point. Either I can somehow detect it via its effects or I can treat it as not existing. That is, if it is undetectable directly and it causes no detectable effects I can treat it as non-existent without coming to any conclusions about if it does exist or not because it simply doesn't matter. (I could choose to postulate it being there but then it'd be eliminated by Occam's Razor by convention if it didn't effect anything at all.) If it does have some measurable indirect effect then I can find that information and draw a conclusion about its existence. So either its completely undetectable and I can ignore it without actually drawing a conclusion about it or it has some sort of effect I can find and then use to draw a conclusion.

[POS Industries]

Originally Posted by Fifthfiend

I'm just saying, even by your own hypothetical, it's still unreasonable. Irrational gut feelings aren't reasonable.

Obviously not, but it's an indication of some stimulus that's causing a sensory reaction. Is it a psychosomatic response? An extrasensory perception? An instinctual command? It's obviously something, or else the feeling wouldn't happen.

I wouldn't go so far as to suggest it's the existence of a deity, but I wouldn't go so far as to suggest it's not, either.

[ZAKtheGeek]

I'm still having trouble (read: what the hell are you talking about) imagining some sort of strong gut feeling that indicates to you that there's a god as anything better than, "I really really want there to be a god."

Originally Posted by Sithdarth

Either I can somehow detect it via its effects or I can treat it as not existing. That is, if it is undetectable directly and it causes no detectable effects I can treat it as non-existent without coming to any conclusions about if it does exist or not because it simply doesn't matter. (I could choose to postulate it being there but then it'd be eliminated by Occam's Razor by convention if it didn't effect anything at all.) If it does have some measurable indirect effect then I can find that information and draw a conclusion about its existence. So either its completely undetectable and I can ignore it without actually drawing a conclusion about it or it has some sort of effect I can find and then use to draw a conclusion.

I'm writing this down. Do you mind? ...I don't really care. I'm writing this down.

[POS Industries]

Originally Posted by ZAKtheGeek

I'm still having trouble (read: what the hell are you talking about) imagining some sort of strong gut feeling that indicates to you that there's a god as anything better than, "I really really want there to be a god."

I'd put the idea at the same subjective perception line as "I really want this hamburger to taste good". Can you prove that the hamburger is delicious without subjective analysis? No, it's just a feeling you have when you eat the burger.

[Funka Genocide]

I'd just like to clarify that the term God is merely an overly poetic simplification of what could be an observable phenomenon. Intelligent design seems feasible, but God is completely farcical.

To be precise, I seek to refuse the specific religions. Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, ancestor worship, anything with a specific and unsupported mythos behind it. There's no way they're correct, you can't reason it, you can't believe it without remaining willfully ignorant to the inherent contradictions.

All religions are mutually exclusive, thusly universally refuting each other. And you're going to tell me with a straight face that Jesus is the true savior because you heard it first? Or because that story gives you a warmer fuzzier than the tale of Mohammed?

Seriously, take a step back from your self imposed madness and just think about how that sounds, about what you're truly saying.

"I am right because I feel right."

But honestly, you can't just walk away from this major foundation of your personality can you? Ha ha, it'd be like deciding to never eat meat again, or quitting smoking, or breaking up with your girlfriend, or...

Oh wait, people do shit like that all the time.

Point is we cling to things that we're comfortable with, even if they might have outlived their usefulness, even if they're causing us harm. We cling until we are finally ready to let go, when we've had enough, when we break the pattern of denial. And the strangest thing is that after we're free from our delusion, we always ask ourself the same fucking question.

"What the hell was I thinking?"

as if we don't know our own thought processes, my god.

Still, of all the things in life to be irresponsible about, the basis of your morality seems a pretty shitty choice.

[Bob The Mercenary]

Originally Posted by Funka Genocide

Still, of all the things in life to be irresponsible about, the basis of your morality seems a pretty shitty choice.

How is basing my morality off the Bible irresponsible?

[Serenity]

Originally Posted by Bob the Mercenary

How is basing my morality off the Bible irresponsible?

Well, the Bible, even if you cut out the entire Old Testament except the first ten commandments, does promote religious persecution and the idea of ancestral sin. Or how about total absolution for any crime by a being that is not the one the crime was committed against?

If you do include the rest of the Old Testament, you've got quite a bit more horrible things, including race-based slavery, the idea that a women's period is sinful, that gathering sticks on the Sabbath is a sin worthy of death and that homosexuality is also a sin worthy of death.

[Elminster_Amaur]

Originally Posted by Fifth

-- I really don't see where an explicitly irrational reaction can somehow be posited as a rational basis for belief.

Now, I know other people have addressed this, but I'd like to share a personal analogy. I'm not sure that anyone on this forum can relate, considering some supposed Masters have never directly experienced some of the effects I routinely feel, but if there is someone who can relate, they'll know what I'm talking about. If not, well, this will just be a crazy story that someone you don't know in person is saying on the internet and can't prove to you without being in the same room as you.

Qi. It is known by many names, but chi/qi is the most commonly used one, so I'll use it here. I practice something called qigong or chi kung, of the Shaolin Cosmos Qigong style. Of all the known styles, it takes the most heat because of the simply outrageous claims that Sifu makes, which happen to be true. The National Qigong Committee considers him the one of the highest experts at teaching qigong. My story begins here:
There are certain effects that students of internal martial arts look at to see if they've had "progress" in their practice, and these effects are often described differently, and are quite commonly called "indescribable". It's not that it's not possible to describe the experience, it's just that any description will never do it justice. Common effects are "heat" or "cold" in various body parts, "ants" or "crawling" sensations, a feeling of "disembodiment", body parts "growing" in feeling, etc.

I dislike these, because they are distracting. I routinely have what we call "Cosmic Showers", merely because I feel like cleansing myself. To describe it myself, I'd say it's like...qi is raining, but inside you. It is a glorious feeling, that leaves me feeling refreshed and invigorated. However, the feeling is, again, a mere experience that I don't like to fixate on. Instead, the fact that I've become healthier than I've ever been, haven't had an illness in over a year, and enjoy far more mental clarity than I had when I first started my practice is why I continue. However, this isn't the crazy part that I doubt you'll believe.

The "exercise" that I've been doing for the longest period of time is called "Golden Bridge". It is a force building exercise that was derived from "Horse Stance zhan zhuang", which itself is designed to build internal force. In the past you must attain at least five minutes of Horse Stance before being allowed to learn form and function, for your own safety. My practice lasts about 120 breaths, or roughly 10 minutes, depending on various factors, since I practice outside. Immediately upon completion, instead of going about my business, I allow that newly-stored energy to go into use, instead of stagnating. I jump from my low horse stance, and remain completely relaxed, so that I don't interfere with the flow. What happens next? Well, you'll call me a liar for speaking the truth, so I don't particularly want to. Anyone who does want to know can PM me, and I'll tell you.

The point is that from these direct experiences I know two things: qi is quite real and I can easily manipulate it, just as it can manipulate my body if I allow it to do so. Even some highly respected "masters" do not believe the first, and think that the second is some type of charade meant to coax money out of students. Well, I don't know any of you, and have nothing to gain by lying here, so either I'm completely deluded, or they're wrong.

That is why I know that there are things that I don't know. If someone who is considered a master by many can be wrong about something that I almost take for granted, perhaps Vampire Jesus really did come back to save us. The point is I know certain things beyond a shadow of doubt that most people say is just superstition, a hokey religion or witchcraft. It is a big jump for me to assume that some people may indeed have been granted a knowing of the truth of what we call God and that their reason might be just as hard for them to explain to others as the idea of "Flowing Breezes Swaying Willows" is to me? Surely not. That is why I shall not call a man a liar if he says he knows the Truth, but will continue to test and examine. If his Way will lead me to where I need to go, then I can adopt it as my own, if not, then I will not, but to know if it will lead me there, I must test his premise, and ask if I wish to go through the trouble of doing so if the rewards are not great enough.

To be precise, I seek to refuse the specific religions. Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, ancestor worship, anything with a specific and unsupported mythos behind it. There's no way they're correct, you can't reason it, you can't believe it without remaining willfully ignorant to the inherent contradictions.

Perhaps they are all correct, and everyone has just been interpreting literally or close to literally when they have all meant the same thing. Perhaps they are all parts of the Truth. You will find Truth in strange places if you look hard enough. Of course, I could just be interpreting the Bible and Friends from my slightly Buddhist point of view.