The Big Big Thread of Religious Discussion

[Azisien]

Originally Posted by Sithdarth

We don't need aliens to give us an objective view point. All the mumbo jumbo I said is the objective view point. It just has an arbitrary human filter of names on top of it. We can get rid of that by just using universal units. Which are ironically what we'd expect to be the first means of communication between us and an alien species because they would be the same without having to explain to the aliens what a meter is.

I agree. I (attempted) to say the same thing in the very passage you quoted. But there is more to the human experience than some universal units (your link is broken by the way). We HAVE seen some of what I would call the true objective viewpoint. However, the vast, vast, vast, vast majority of all of our experiences are still humanly objective. Aliens for instance would be a great means, if not a necessity (though they very well might be for some concepts).

Originally Posted by Funka Genocide

just wanted to point out that this tangent is not only eating up ridiculous amounts of space with a pointless (at least in my opinion) argument, and that I haven't seen so much as one word referring to religion in a couple thousand.

Is it too much to ask that we get back on track?

Jesus, yes, it is! Hah, all right... (Booya, first reference in a cople thousand!)

I do find it ironic you deem our tangent pointless in a religious discussion, though. I've got little to say on the topic of religion, much of it has been said already. Even you launched some fiery atheist claims some pages back, but unfortunately it got no bites.

Well I could go for a bit of history about myself, I suppose, like someone tried to start up dozens of pages ago. I consider myself an atheist, though as a scientist I also make myself open to possibilities. If there's a God, it won't manage to make me bow on faith alone, given those statements about myself.

I was raised essentially with an empty slate. My mother is Anglican, but doesn't practice openly. My father was raised Roman Catholic but became atheist by his own decision at some point before I was born. To be honest, the topic of religion almost never ever came up during my childhood. Aside from the media, of course, from time to time, but as a kid I think I was more interested in playing soccer and basketball, riding my bike, and owning my mom at Super Mario Kart to care about Islamic fundamentalists and Evangelical Christians and whatever.

As I grew up, I eventually started to question my parents about their beliefs. The response was essentially the same in both cases: "We're not going to force anything on you, believe what you want and make your own decision." The statement actually carries itself beyond the topic of religious belief, it's the same thing they tell me if I ask what they think I should be when I grow up, only the "believe" is replaced with "do."

In grade 8, I went from a public school (and the one I attended, from my experience, was absolutely free of religious influence, aside from Christmas, which was really more the commercial aspect with Santa and such) to a Roman Catholic high school. I stayed there until I graduated. Now if there was a time to convert me, those years were probably it.

And those were the years I started asking harder questions. Around the same time one of my grandmothers who had been suffering from a debilitating terminal disease finally passed away, and given the new Catholic influence in my life (daily prayer, mandatory Religion class, a general Catholic teaching atmosphere), I started searching for a God, so to speak.

Suffice to say, nothing came. I eventually tried to go through the motions and pray in earnest, but prayers of course go unanswered. I never once felt any special experience, regardless of any of the stresses or events I went through in high school. I started at page one of the Bible and made it to the end of Deuteronomy (sp?) before I gave up, now pretty much officially atheist. I drew the conclusion that searching for a God is a fruitless affair. Given the very notion of faith, there can be no answered prayers. There can be no magical experiences. There can be no direct or indirect evidence of a God, because that goes against the notion of faith. I, however, require observable proof. Otherwise, believing in God to me is blind devotion, the kind of thing that can get you killed in a different scenario ("There's a bunch of riches at the bottom of this cliff edge, all you have to do is jump off!" "Won't I get hurt? How do I know it's there? Can I look?" "NO! Just JUMP man!")

Religious scripture, to me, is simply written by the hand of man, with no "divine" inspiration. Inspiration and human creativity, sure, but no magical force moved the hand of those writers.

I see many of the traditions of Catholicism as entirely pointless, and I reject the notion of God. There are, however, valuable ethical and philosophical innards to every religion. Since I define my self as a culmination of my genetics and my experiences in given environments, I'd be lying if I said going to a Catholic high school for 5 years didn't affect me in some way. At the very least, some of the morality rubbed off. Of course, I've refined my own conception of morality since then, and I no longer follow the Catholic/Christian rule (directly anyway, there are parallels to almost all moral views).

What others call religious power, or spirit, or experiences, I call our own human strength. Subconscious human strength. We are not masters of our own minds, we reason and exert control with only a very small portion of it, because that's the way we've evolved. What others might call the power of religious community or the success of such communities, I simply consider that the success of human altruism, and the success of humanity as a species on the planet. We are a herd animal, we function at our absolute best when we are in absolute cooperation. Religion can actually be a vehicle for such cooperation, but I do not see a God in any of that. (Though I must wonder how many hundreds of thousands or millions of people the early Jews or Christians had to eradicate or convert to become the "good guys.")

I ate science right up in high school, and now into university. It led me to other statements like "Religion is a means to achieve the answers we like to hear." Which is something I pretty much agree with as of right now. I later dove into philosophy, stating to my friends campy claims like "I want to learn both sides!" Because everyone, everyone gives me a funny look when I tell them I'm simultaneously in Biology and Philosophy.

Where do I stand now? Well, I'm an atheist, but given my scientific influence, you might call me an atheist-agnostic. Perhaps there's a better term for what I consider myself. The existence of a God is to me an unfalsifiable hypothesis, and not worth my consideration at this time. Even beyond that, it seems almost eternally unfalsifiable, worse than something like elements of M-Theory, which at least we have some vague technological projections for. I much prefer the scientific venture, which not only moves mankind forward in the modern age (in places where religion is trying its very hardest to keep us stagnant, or move us back), but it gives me answers to my liking. Answers I can accept. Science is not a static belief system, it evolves in a way almost analogous to the process of evolution itself. Thus, I don't consider my trust in the scientific engine as something analogous to faith.

And the claim out of that latter statement that bugs me the most is "well, what if science is all wrong?" A claim which doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense to begin with. What, exactly, will be shown wrong? Is the proton actually going to be suddenly NOT what it is? Will our buildings suddenly all crumble because science is somehow inherently wrong, and only in our hindsight observation, we'll notice this? I've never understood where that claim comes from, and yet I hear it over, and over, and over again by theists.

Science is of course fallible, because it is performed by fallible organisms. But I think the dynamic structure of the methodology is such that we weed out the bad and move in a positive direction, almost exclusively. No, our history of the fossil record is not complete. However, it grows completer with each passing day. The notion of evolution, both micro and macro, becomes more convincing to me with each passing day. No, our understanding of physics is not complete, but it grows completer with each passing day. No, we don't know what caused the Big Bang, or what preceded the Big Bang, but then we didn't know what a Big Bang was one hundred and fifty years ago. We're already probing some of the most fundamental phenomenon in the universe, where three hundred years ago you'd probably get burned for being a witch if you went on about electrons and atoms and molecules (even though the Greeks had a notion of an indivisible particle at some point, it was the usual wild speculation of the time).

I've found comfort in my ability to be uncertain. I would rather say "I don't know. Yet" than "God did it." We don't have all the answers, but I and others will search for them. And we'll find them.

Well, I'm running out of things to say right now, so I do believe I will bring this rant to a close.

[ZAKtheGeek]

That's the trouble with tangents... People forget what the hell they were talking about in the first place. It now seems possible that I'm the only person in this thread that knows what point I'm trying to make...

So, to clarify. My original point was that all logic is based on assumptions. You assume something to be true, find implications of those things, and conclude that those implications must also be true (for example). This was met with heavy resistance; claims that we didn't need assumptions when we had "facts." In order to present an example of what I meant, I stated the simplest, constantly taken assumption that came to mind, which is that our observations give us consistent and accurate information about the reality around us. Since then, all I've been trying to do is show how it could be possible for our senses to be flawed without us being any the wiser. I've been trying to demonstrate why this assumption is necessary: because without it, obviously, we basically know nothing; and because you can't conclude it from anything in a definite way.

Now'en.

I'm sorry ZAK, did you just say "Our senses might be wrong, but for all logic we have to assume that they are right. But all logic is wrong, because we can never be sure about anything!"

I don't recall making a statement even remotely similar to that second sentence... All I've been showing is how anything is up for grabs if we don't use the accuracy of our senses as an assumption.

Its logically inconsistent because if our senses lied to us in anyway even a small one we would eventually end up with a argument that has no flaws and yet does not hold to be true.

Provide an example?

No it doesn't. If you used a machine to measure a wavelength of light that you perceived as blue and it spit out a wavelength between yellow and orange instead of 475nm you know something is wrong. You know something is wrong because 475nm is defined as blue.

But remember, when we encounter yellow-orange photons, we also see blue! We'd have no way of knowing that something was wrong. Indeed, we'd have no reason to think that there was any error.

Is not the actual definition of reality. However, the definition of reality contains within it the requirement that the effects of reality are real and extend into all aspects of what is real. Thus the statement.

Then we're right back to the dual meaning. You still seem to be defining what our senses tell us as "reality," then complaining that reality is inconsistent. But as I've already said, what our senses tell us cannot be called reality, because our senses are possible liars, based on the first premise.

Further, we know if the machines are flawed because we can compare the measurement they make of say a known length(we known the length cause we held it next to the standard) to what the known length actually is. Thereby we can fix the error in any number of ways.

"The standard" would undoubtedly be provided by yet another machine of measurement, You're maintaining one machine with another. The flaw in this is that machine could also have a flaw, and any machine that you'd use to test the tester, and so on and so forth.

[Archbio]

I'll take this opportunity to point out that I'm well aware that these things are massively ridiculous bullshit. But at the same time, we can't discount them under a deductive system.

Have you explained why that is, by the way? Bullshit is bullshit.

There is such a thing as a logical assumption, or the common sense of ignoring fatuous nihilists of convenience, if you prefer.

[Nique]

It's unfortunate to me that people turn their back on faith becuase they expected to get the winning lotto number, or that they expected some miraculous force to make them into a nicer/better/healthier/good-looking/whatever person.

I was never taught to believe that God was going to solve all my problems - quite the contrary, that I would need to put forth the effort for any improvements, and the imidiate provision I was given in a spiritual sense was the ability to cope, endure... something much less tangible, and internal.

This is a response to something that was stated a while back (and probably repeated); I am also extremely offended at the implication that I am somehow mentally deficient becuase of my faith. I exhibit a reasonable level of inteligence and communicative skill, but reach an unfavorable (to some) conclusion, and I'm suddenly a moron now?

[Krylo]

and the imidiate provision I was given in a spiritual sense was the ability to cope, endure... something much less tangible, and internal.

Problem being that the athiestic amongst us do that just as well, and--in some cases--better than, the religious amongst us.

So, for those of us who cope just dandy without God, and, indeed, have found God to be a source of extraneous stress (with questions as to why/how god would do some of the fucked up shit that happens in this world, completely devoid of human interference [diseases, natural disasters, etc]), something else is needed. More than needed, really.

I exhibit a reasonable level of inteligence and communicative skill

Oh man. Thanks a lot. I needed that.

Hey guys! The Jehovah's Witness thinks he's smart! Sorry, Nique. I couldn't resist.

[Long-Haired Narcissist]

Be lucky since I never share this belief with anyone and that I'm just bored enough to share it.

I believe that there is no omnipotent god, but that there are unseen beings that make things happen to/for people. These unseen beings could be what some consider angels, demons, luck, muses, or whatever else you choose to call it.

I believe that the afterlife is determined by a person's state of mind, not what a person has done. For example, happy, or optimistic people would go to heaven: and people who lived their lives angry, scared, pessimistic, or in any other negative state would go to hell.
The afterlife is basicly an eternal uninterrupted dream.
Heaven is a place where all of a person's wants can be attained.
Hell is a person's worst fears for eternity.

Any questions, comments, or converts?

[Mesden]

Originally Posted by Loto

Be lucky since I never share this belief with anyone and that I'm just bored enough to share it.

I believe that there is no omnipotent god, but that there are unseen beings that make things happen to/for people. These unseen beings could be what some consider angels, demons, luck, muses, or whatever else you choose to call it.

I believe that the afterlife is determined by a person's state of mind, not what a person has done. For example, happy, or optimistic people would go to heaven: and people who lived their lives angry, scared, pessimistic, or in any other negative state would go to hell.
The afterlife is basicly an eternal uninterrupted dream.
Heaven is a place where all of a person's wants can be attained.
Hell is a person's worst fears for eternity.

Any questions, comments, or converts?

Deepak Chopra much?

Just saying, looks about exactly the same line of reasoning he gives.

[Sithdarth]

Originally Posted by ZAKtheGeek

But remember, when we encounter yellow-orange photons, we also see blue! We'd have no way of knowing that something was wrong. Indeed, we'd have no reason to think that there was any error.

If you mean that for some god awfully strange reason our eyes, from the beginning of recorded history, interpreted some color we define currently as yellow-orange as blue instead then you argument is pointless. Blue is a subjective measurement. Subjective measurements are never wrong. Well unless you purposely make them wrong. Blue is 475nm because we defined blue as 475nm. If we saw the same shade at the yellowish-orange part of the spectrum we would still have named it blue. The actual shade we interpret has no physical meaning beyond the human mind. So it could be that way but it doesn't matter because it is subjective fact not objective fact. Basically the spectrometer would still about the same length in nm as for what is currently yellow-orange light we'd just call it blue instead.

Originally Posted by ZAKtheGeek

Then we're right back to the dual meaning. You still seem to be defining what our senses tell us as "reality," then complaining that reality is inconsistent. But as I've already said, what our senses tell us cannot be called reality, because our senses are possible liars, based on the first premise.

No see because the effects of reality happen if we see them or not. As much as you might want to believe it when a try falls in the forest when no one is around it does make a sound. Also:
Our senses can produce false information
All of the information we gather through our senses is external reality
are slightly logically incompatible but I forged on to find a more clear cut inconsistency.

Originally Posted by ZAKtheGeek

"The standard" would undoubtedly be provided by yet another machine of measurement, You're maintaining one machine with another. The flaw in this is that machine could also have a flaw, and any machine that you'd use to test the tester, and so on and so forth.

The meter is an arbitrary unit. The standard can't be wrong because the meter has no meaning outside of human society. We could make it as large or as small as we wanted and it wouldn't change anything. Its a tool so we don't have to use Universal, or Planck Units. They are hard as hell to do calculations in.

Originally Posted by ZAKtheGeek

Provide an example?

Well using the light example, if we measured the wavelength of light to be 450nm instead of 475nm then the predictions of the photoelectric effect would suddenly become meaningless. Since 450nm light should have more energy that 475nm light we would expect a greater power output. For that to suddenly not happen would invalidate the principle.

Originally Posted by ZAKtheGeek

So, to clarify. My original point was that all logic is based on assumptions. You assume something to be true, find implications of those things, and conclude that those implications must also be true (for example).

No. Deductive logic, they kind I've been using and talking about requires you start with indisputable facts and then come to a conclusion.

Inductive logic allows you to start with less than absolute truth and go from there. You are trying to apply the rules of inductive logic to all logic which just doesn't fly.

[Demetrius]

So what does this all have to do with religion of beliefs? The small discussion into the nature of reality aside, I can use that old arguement that states, basically we really can't know; Say that there is an all powerful being who created us and placed us here for his amusement and that his power is so great that he can make anything he wants happen, is there any way we could be able to tell? Adding in uncertainties and the true nature of reality and truth does nothing more than add layers of confusion to the subject.

[Azisien]

Originally Posted by Demetrius

So what does this all have to do with religion of beliefs? The small discussion into the nature of reality aside, I can use that old arguement that states, basically we really can't know; Say that there is an all powerful being who created us and placed us here for his amusement and that his power is so great that he can make anything he wants happen, is there any way we could be able to tell? Adding in uncertainties and the true nature of reality and truth does nothing more than add layers of confusion to the subject.

Given the massive tangent on logic and such, I question whether this is an "argument," or if it's one worth much consideration (given the premises?)

But under those circumstances, well, since there is no way of knowing whether an apparently male superbeing is just toying with us about everything, it doesn't change anything. You might as well just live out your life, or do what you were doing before you arrived at this conclusion.

To me the argument is similar to the "what is reality is all an illusion?" To which I reply, well, all right, then we have a definitional problem of the terms reality and illusion. If it's all an illusion, it isn't an illusion, that's what reality is.

I'm not interested in faith. It just doesn't fly with me. Intelligent and wise as many theists are, you are still fallible, still capable of making errors in judgement. Same goes for everybody. I haven't "lost" my faith, because I never had it. I "turn my back" on faith because I find the notion of it ridiculous, irrational. I often consider it a consequence of the power of our own intellect. It has some uses, to some, especially in the past. But, I think that's where it needs to go and stay; the past.