Another Big Big Thread of Religious Discussion

[Serenity]

Originally Posted by I_Like_Swordchucks

You have no evidence other than your perception, which unfortunately can't be shared with anyone else. And he's right... its not evidence to him. You can't prove it to him.

But you just said that I wanted to show my friend color! Either I can show my friend color and make him happier, or I can't and shouldn't bother trying to tell him about it. You need to decide.

Originally Posted by I_Like_Swordchucks

Simply because it makes sense to you, the world without God doesn't make that much sense to me.

How so?

Originally Posted by I_Like_Swordchucks

Then we get people like Richard Dawkins who says that if he had his way, any belief in God would be banned/made illegal.

I find it rather unlikely that Dawkins ever said that. Do you have a source?

Originally Posted by I_Like_Swordchucks

I realize there have been many evil theists throughout the years, but that could be said of any group, including atheists. For the most part, Christians are good people. For the most part, so are atheists. Are we really that different?

Yes.

Originally Posted by I_Like_Swordchucks

Has history shown ANYTHING good coming from forcing a certain belief on somebody? Trying to convince in loving, caring way is one thing... but forcing it is something else. Calling people with a different belief than you 'stupid' or 'idiotic' or any of those other things Dawkins, and people even on this forum, have said about Christians is unfair, arrogant, and just plain wrong.

Is it acceptable to call someone stupid or idiotic if they believe the Earth is flat?

Originally Posted by I_Like_Swordchucks

The same way you can't lump atheists together, you can't lump Christians together.

Invalid analogy. Christianity is a religion which has a series of texts which are a fundamental part of it, and you cannot belong to it without believing those texts are true in some form or another. Atheism doesn't.

Originally Posted by I_Like_Swordchucks

Is it any more right to condemn Christian as an illogical fool for what he believes anymore than its right for the Christian to treat you as a godless pagan for your beliefs? I think no.

Is it any more right to condemn a bully for being a jerk because of his behavior than its right for the bully to treat you as a worthless sack of trash for yours?

Originally Posted by I_Like_Swordchucks

In fact, people that become worse people after becoming religious is incredibly rare.

Where do you think the justification for racism came from?

[ZAKtheGeek]

Originally Posted by Elminster_Amaur

If you look back in history, you'll see that almost all innovators would fit this description, so why is it so hard to believe that someone can experience something different from everyone else and not be wrong? I mean, Einstein experienced reality differently from most of us, but I don't see you saying he was insane.

Those people don't literally sense something nobody else does. They worked with much the same facts, they just connected the dots better.

[TheSpacePope]

For the most part, the only reason Christians try to spread their belief is because, like the person who sees color, they think that other people's lives will be enriched and happier as a whole with God than without. The whole 'not going to hell' contributes too.

Again this is my main problem in organized religion. It makes god sound like a bully.
I don't think that this is the case.
And I want to know how many of the christians on the boards believe in Their particular faith because they are scared of the consequences.

[I_Like_Swordchucks]

Originally Posted by Fifthfiend

Well apparently you are, in fact, condemning people to eternity in perdition for not believing as you do, so I'm really not seeing what grounds you have for complaint here.

I'm just explaining why some Christians feel the need to shove their belief down your throat. They're trying to save you. They don't realize their being annoying. I mean, we don't WANT you to go to hell. I hope with all my heart that hell isn't what some theologians say it is. I also think the Bible makes heaven and hell seem more like a spectrum than an either or thing anyway. But no, we aren't condemning people. I don't get to say whether or not you go to hell. If I did, I would say no.

Its like saying someone else told me they were going to murder you unless you cut your hair, so I tried to convince you to cut your hair. Is it me condemning you to death, or am I trying to save you from it? I really don't think you can claim that I am condemning anybody to hell. In keeping with Christian theology, you're the only one who can determine whether or not you go there. Seriously, though, Fifth even though we disagree on pretty much every matter, I like you and I don't even know you and I'd probably chop off my own hand if I knew it was going to save you from eternal damnation.

But really, I don't know about the "fool" part but I really don't get why you're so upset about the illogical part, as you yourself are describing your belief - specious analogies to sensory perception set aside - as what is rather straightforwardly an entirely inexplicable compulsion to believe. That's not a logical thing. I mean it could even be right, that still wouldn't make it logical.

Yeah, I don't really care about the illogical part so much. It is the 'fool' that cuts me to the core... I try so hard to be sensible...

Originally Posted by Krylo

The problem with the color analogy is this--we know green exists. Even in a colorblind world we would know green exists. It's simply the wavelengths of light between about 500-550nm in the visible spectrum.

So its not a perfect analogy, but in the imaginary world I designed nobody has ever seen color before, so how would somebody know that 500-550 nm is 'green'? Green is merely how we perceive that wavelength, so if we didn't perceive it, how would we know? You're basically critiquing my hypothetical 'nobody knows color exists' with 'but we know color exists' thereby ignoring that whole hypothetical part I mentioned.

Originally Posted by Mirai Gen

That's actually one of the foremost reasons I don't believe in God.

Why would God send you to hell for not knowing he exists? If he's all powerful and has a divine plan, what would be the point of creating a life that doesn't know about him so he can send it to hell?

I see that as being more a problem with the Christian definition of God rather than God itself...

But anyway, my own personal belief isn't always meshed exactly with popular Christian theology. For instant, I believe God is powerful, but I do believe he has limits. I believe God has a certain nature by which he has to abide. I don't always think he has a 'choice' in the matters. Omnipotence by itself is a contradiction.

Also I don't believe he created hell for bad people. I also don't believe hell is the popular 'fire and brimstone' place its popularized as. I believe hell is place separate from God, which in itself sucks. Kind of an eternity of knowing that it could have been so much better... I also believe there's a spectrum. Even within heaven the Bible lists that your reward can vary dependent on your earthly deeds, so I would imagine a similar thing would be for hell.

It mentions the lake of fire, but it never mentions people going there. Only the devil and his angels.

But anyway, I could go on for pages talking about all the intricate details and reasons behind my beliefs... lets just say I don't quite buy into ALL the stereotypical Christian concepts.

[ZAKtheGeek]

I think what Krylo's trying to say is that, while seeing colors makes us more sensitive to various properties of things in the world, it gives us no insight we couldn't otherwise have. Like, just because you can't see that something is green doesn't mean that you are completely unable to know that it reflects light of a certain wavelength, which is all seeing green really tells you.

And you know what? Colors really don't exist. No, I'm not being facetious. What we call a color is just a way we interpret a certain range of radiation. As I'm sure you're aware, various animals can see greater ranges of light than humans can. So, just because a bee can see ultraviolet colors and you can't, are you somehow unaware of the existence of something? No, there's nothing you're unable to know for not being able to perceive such short wavelengths.

So, a person that can see color in a colorblind world doesn't know anything extra, and shouldn't claim to. This is, of course, in contrast to people that say they can feel God, as they are claiming to know something others don't.

[I_Like_Swordchucks]

Originally Posted by ZAKtheGeek

So, a person that can see color in a colorblind world doesn't know anything extra, and shouldn't claim to. This is, of course, in contrast to people that say they can feel God, as they are claiming to know something others don't.

Actually, now you're taking things out of my analogy that I didn't place there. I never talked about knowing anything extra or anything like that, I talked about perceiving the world in a different way and the reasoning behind coming to a different conclusion about the nature of the universe.

I didn't say anything about knowing more. I clearly stated I was talking about different perspectives, and how it might be more reasonable to come to the conclusion that God exists from people with a different perspective. I mean, you clearly know as much as I do. You just perceive it differently.

[TheSpacePope]

I didn't say anything about knowing more. I clearly stated I was talking about different perspectives, and how it might be more reasonable to come to the conclusion that God exists from people with a different perspective. I mean, you clearly know as much as I do. You just perceive it differently.

Honestly, perception defines reality, and in your reality God is a constant, definite figure, while in Zak's reality it's not.
That doesn't mean either of you are right,
just your different perceptual concepts define your realities.

[ZAKtheGeek]

Well, what conclusions about the nature of the universe could seeing color possibly grant you?

I'm just going by this:

Originally Posted by you

Eventually he gets annoyed with you and says how you can't prove any of this. You have no evidence other than your perception, which unfortunately can't be shared with anyone else. And he's right... its not evidence to him. You can't prove it to him. But do YOU need proof to know that color is there? No. You can literally sense it. You can't rationalize it or reason it out, after all you're only going by what your senses are telling you. But for you, thats really all you need in order to believe that yes, grass is totally green.

Belief in God is kind of like that. No we can't prove it or rationalize it in anyway, but we perceive it. And our perception is enough for our own belief, even if its unable to convince others. In our heads it makes total sense. The same way its most logical for the color-blind world to believe there is no color, it may be most logical for you to believe there is no God (heck, there's no physical evidence at all, right?)...

...where you're talking about a colorseer trying to convince others that color is there even though they can't see it. But that's the thing: color isn't there, it's just a perception.

[Toast]

A note about this colour analogy. We actually can perceive wavelength without perceiving colour. The area of the occipital lobe that processes wavelength is the V1 area, the area that processes colour is V4 (also sometimes referred to as MT). Brain damage to the V4 area results in a condition known as achromatopsia. Here is a quick overview. The point I'm trying to make is that it's entirely possible to distinguish colour based on wavelength alone without being able to perceive colour itself.


For my own views. I look at it like this. God isn't an actual 'being' in what's generally considered the Christian sense. God is more like a form of spiritual energy within the human collective unconscious that people can draw from in different ways. This means that God exists, but only because he is believed to exist.

Most people tend to not make the distinction between religion and spirituality. To me, that distinction is clear, but that's my perception of it. Religion is a social construct, nothing more, that imposes its own pursuit of happiness and relief from suffering over what is natural. I know I'm probably going to get slammed for that one, so in my defense I quote Freud's essay Civilization and its Discontents.

The religions of mankind must be classed among the mass-delusions of this kind. No one, needless to say, who shares a delusion ever recognizes it as such.

and

Religion restricts this play of choice and adaptation, since it imposes equally on everyone its own path to the acquisition of happiness and protection from suffering. Its technique consists in depressing the value of life and distorting the picture of the real world in a delusional manner--which presupposes an intimidation of the intelligence. At this price, by forcibly fixing them in a state of psychical infantilism and by drawing them into a mass-delusion, religion succeeds in sparing many people an individual neurosis. But hardly anything more. There are, as we have said, many paths which may lead to such happiness as is attainable by men, but there is none which does so for certain. Even religion cannot keep its promise. If the believer finally sees himself obliged to speak of God's 'inscrutable decrees', he is admitting that all that is left to him as a last possible consolation and source of pleasure in his suffering is an unconditional submission. And if he is prepared for that, he could probably have spared himself the detour he has made.

Now you also have to remember where Freud's coming from. He identified himself as a non-practicing Jew--that is, he was Jewish by ethnicity, not religion. He also stated earlier in this essay that he didn't feel that 'feeling' that some of you have talked about and that I would identify as spirituality.

[POS Industries]

Originally Posted by Toast

For my own views. I look at it like this. God isn't an actual 'being' in what's generally considered the Christian sense. God is more like a form of spiritual energy within the human collective unconscious that people can draw from in different ways. This means that God exists, but only because he is believed to exist.

Most people tend to not make the distinction between religion and spirituality. To me, that distinction is clear, but that's my perception of it. Religion is a social construct, nothing more, that imposes its own pursuit of happiness and relief from suffering over what is natural. I know I'm probably going to get slammed for that one

I just wanted to note that I more or less agree with everything in this statement. Including the part about him getting slammed for it because, let's face it, somebody's going to.