The Big Big Thread of Religious Discussion

[phil_]

Hopfully helpful imput! Locke, here's a troll doing Sudoku, taken from that nifty short story you linked to. Spoilers will continue until I move on to my other imput, because I don't want to spoil the pattern of the story. Go read it, folks, if not for this argument, then for your enjoyment.

The Cosmic AC surrounded them but not in space. Not a fragment of it was in space. It was in hyperspace and made of something that was neither matter nor energy. The question of its size and nature no longer had meaning in any terms that Man could comprehend.

So, Man can no longer understand the manner of the Cosmic AC's existance. If they were capable of understanding, the Cosmic AC could have explained it to them. But the Cosmic AC presumably understands the way it exists. The logistics of its existance are beyond man, but known to itself.

This is what folks would like to convey when they speak of God's logic. God makes sense to himself, but the way he exists and operates can't be fully understood by humans, even if he tried to spell it out for us. It can only be understood by an almighty being who exists outside reality. That understanding is divine logic.

Now, probably unhelpful critisicm. I too have had religious experiences, notasfatasmike. I didn't even use drugs. But I don't consider them proof of God's existence. Self-hypnotic suggestion, wishful thinking, youthful optimism (like I ever had that); maybe one of those. But I no longer consider those feelings God's presence. But, yeah, non-believer, had those experiences, doesn't convince me.

[42PETUNIAS]

Originally Posted by notasfatasmike

An atheist, on the other hand, actively states that there is *no* god. For an atheist, the non-existance of god is a simple fact that no amount of evidence would change, much like the existance of god for a religious person. Either you're really an agnostic, or you're misusing the term atheist.

Well first, i might be wrong in this usage, but I've always used atheist as believing there is no god, and agnostic as someone who either refrains from belief, or from serious belief knowing that there is no way to prove or disprove the existence of a god.

Secondly, atheist is someone who will not believe in god no matter what evidence?! Is that a joke? There may be five people on earth, for any religon, who could look at all the evidence in the world and not feel doubt in their beliefs.

If Zeus came down from Mt. Olympus, lightning bolt clutched in his hand, dressed in a toga, followed by the entire set of greek gods, and then visited everyone on earth to deliver a set of extraordinary feats, then I, an atheist, would convert. Seeing this, you, seeing incredible evidence, would probably convert. Many, many, many religious people would convert. Does this mean I'm agnostic? By your definition, pretty much all of the world is agnostic, despite the fact that they feel very, very strongly that what they believe is correct, and are willing to live by their religon.

[TheSpacePope]

As a whole, the athiest movement on the boards is not wrong, per se, however, anyone that believes that their standard is "more correct" than any other is totally wrong.

I said that there is not a more correct religious viewpoint, because they are all attempting to define the undefinable. I thought we were talking religion, not science. You at most are taking it out of context. I am not here to dispute scientific fact. Empirical evidence is not required for the faithful. It is a matter of trust as Nique said. Again, it is just a statement that people should not look at their personal viewpoint as more correct as someone else when it comes to matters of the faith. It is fine that you think that they are wrong, but it doesn't make you more right than they are when you don't know how the final hand is dealt either. You simply cannot know, because you have not experienced the phenomenon, to use Asizens science to make the point. I know that you feel strongly about that, and you think that they may very well be deluding themselves, but that in and of itself is no reason to call them deluded. * perhaps deluded is to strong, this was not meant to be taken as an insult to anyone, jsut an observation* They believe what they believe, it is only when religion is used as a pretext towards violence that it no longer has anything to do with faith and falls into the realm of politics.

I'm not discounting it "just because" I disagree. Claiming that is a) circular logic, b) a fallacy itself. I am discounting it for more than binary reasons: because I truly believe it is sociologically harmful. And I think the evidence is on my side. Is that not reason enough? This idea of "ideological neutrality" is another cop-out that's been brought about by religious apologetics. Would anyone claim that we should be ideologically neutral about racism, or alchemy? Again: the concept in and of itself of persuading people toward truth isn't inherently flawed. It is not on this point that I have a problem with religious people--in a sense, we are both trying to do the same thing: project truth, which is a noble thing. Then, it simply comes down to dissecting the logic of each proposition: one clearly stands the test of time, and the other doesn't.

For the bolded part I will always love you. That is the exact statement that I am trying to make. That religion is supposed to be a noble cause, one to teach men how to treat each other and how to live. As for the red part, that seems a little slanted, just because I harbor no Ideological Bias, and do not judge people based on their religion, just as I do not judge based on race, that is hardly equal in comparison to racism or alchemy. Now I agree that both racisim and religion have caused evil. But it was not the pure idea of religion that caused these things. It was men. Not to pick on science again, but Science invented the atomic bomb, but we hardly are willing to give up science because it devised a way to kill us all, are we?
Nique, I believe that I owe you an explanation. I actually take offense to you calling this statement that I think that you took out of context bigoted. I want to soldify what this means.

We as people can look beyond the bounds of our limited faith and bring each other together.

That is more of a call for those of different faiths to stop laying waste to one another than an indictment of any particular belief. I believe that we can look past our differences and find what makes us similar. That is all I am saying, that ideological bias can have an effect on how we view things, as well as statements, I assure you that no offense was ment. Please do not throw the bigot word at me, that was uncalled for, and it is quite a hurtful word for me, given the fact that I do not judge anyone base on their race, religion, creed, anything. Like I said in my first post, I believe that we all came from the same fount, no matter how you believe that came to be, the evidence points to civilization rising in Africa first. I also believe that we can go back to all being one people if we could for once not argue about what is going to happen to us, (In the global sense, with the war and the killing and the ethnic cleansing and the whatnot) and focus on how we can rise above our differences. I never insulted your religion, I actually said that I admire your faith. No insult was meant by those words.
Also, I agree with Locke, I think that this IS going well. I want more input. Also I am really interested to hear what everyone's personal belifs ARE. That way we may come to a better understanding about each others faiths and belifs. I actually want to know Nique, what religion you believe in so that I may better understand what my error was in your eyes. I am interested. You seem to have a very strong faith, and I would like to know how you are focusing that energy.

[Krylo]

you think that they may very well be deluding themselves, but that in and of itself is no reason to call them deluded.

Indeed.

How many times have I been called deluded for my unwavering faith in the Invisible Pink Unicorn, blessed be her hooves? Far too many, I shall wager. Simply because the non-believers, and those whom she does not favor, shall never be gifted with her numerous blessings does not mean she does not exist. Indeed, the Invisible Pink Unicorn, blessed be her hooves, lives with all of us (though not within us, that's just silly). Our beliefs are just as logical and valid as any other. We have faith that she is pink, and we know that she is invisible because we cannot see her.

How is THAT deluded?

[TheSpacePope]

How is THAT deluded?

How does that sarcasm contribute to the discussion?
Are you indicting religion with your statement, or trying to be funny? I really am confused in this respect. I don't really take that as blatantly insulting, although I am sure quite a few others would.

I can only assume you were being sarcastic. Like I said, it does not matter what you believe in. As long as you are not hurting anyone by doing it, go ahead and worship the Invisible Pink Unicorn. What, in reverse gives you the right to call someones divine creator a Pink unicorn, or a flying spaghetti monster even, that in of itself is a cop-out of a discussion. Putting someone's faith in a ridiculous light does not make you right in the least. That would be calling a 12th century doctor deluded because he thinks that tiny living things are on your insides and they are devouring you. (Which they did) Which was later proven. ( taking a bit of creative license here but hey...) So I guess that in the absence of definite proof then we should believe in nothing. I personally have never been to Europe, and therefore think that it is figment of the liberal media. I am sure those of you that claim to live in this "Europe" would disagree with me, but all I have is circumstantial evidence that you exist, sorry.
And just because I support other people's belief gives you very little right to insult it. (not that I care personally, you aren't insulting my belief structure.)
Not a fair way to discuss this matter though.

Blessed be her hooves Krylo. Blessed be her hooves.

[Krylo]

Originally Posted by TheSpacePope

Not a fair way to discuss this matter though. .

On the contrary. It's the ONLY way to discuss this matter. Attempting to use normal logic only leads to "Well, religion is illogical" or "All view points are equal." Only by presenting a viewpoint that is OBVIOUSLY inequal and then equating it to religion, can one even HOPE to make the point that... no, not all viewpoints are equal.

Like I said, it does not matter what you believe in. As long as you are not hurting anyone by doing it

Your views are not the views of society, nor should they be. If I were to begin believing that a painting had a headache (an actual case of schizophrenia), I would be medicated until I no longer believed that the painting had the headache.

Why? Well there are many reasons. Firstly: So long as I am believing in things that are not real, these ficticious beliefs will paint my entire worldview, and cause me to act irrationally, and often in harmful manners.

Good examples range from people who think they're Cleopatra, to religious people who refuse to so much as talk to those who are not of the same faith.

Now, while it's entirely POSSIBLE to subscribe to false worldviews without causing MUCH problem, that doesn't make it actually healthy. Most children believe in the Boogey-man, for instance. And, this is, for the most part, harmless. They do a thorough search of their room before bed and they're fine. It, however, DOES interfere with their life in negative ways.

But, let us place this 'harmless' view on a wider spectrum. What if most of congress and the president believed in the boogey-man? What if they believed he would kill and eat children? Would there be strike teams of trained soldiers attacking closets? Would this 'harmless' belief quickly lead to a harmful reality? The answer, if history and current events (ahem, homosexuality, ahem) have taught us ANYTHING, is yes.

Secondly: There is always a chance that someone who is seeing, hearing, or believing in things that are not there will do something violent to themselves or someone else. What if that picture on the wall started telling our friend the schizophrenic that the only way to fix its headache was to kill himself? And repeated it over and over, along with how worthless he is? There's a good chance he's going to hurt himself.

On the same note, there are murderers and serial killers whose faith has perverted their world view enough to lead them to murder. I'm not even going to bother discussing Islam. No, let's hit closer to home. Such as the mentally disadvantaged boy from the mid 90's whose parents were siblings. He went to church and in church he heard that incest was a sin. A rather mighty sin. In response this boy killed his parents, and claimed that it was God's will.

Of course, you don't need to KILL someone for religion to be detrimental to other people. Take our dear friend Reverend Fred Phelps, for instance. He believes himself to be doing God's work. Now, I could sit here and point out why, even IF there were a god, he would be terribly wrong--however, that particular debate hasn't been sparked yet. Instead, let me simply ask the readers here today what Phelps would be like were religion not around.

Religion is, and has been, a constant source of hate and strife just as much as it has been a source of hope and love. The Crusades. The Heresay Examinations. The Witch Trials. Great degrees of sexism. The villification and enslavement of the human sex drive--which leads to all kinds of other problems. Or even things as small as social ostracization and the splitting of society amongst invisible and man made lines of belief. If you want to call that little.

It's fun to say that you can believe what you want so long as you don't hurt anyone else, but the fact of the matter is that religion, as a whole, IS HURTING PEOPLE RIGHT NOW AS WE TYPE THIS.

I can not stress that enough.

And no. Belief in God is NOT an equal assumption. You might be able to call it a valid assumption, but never, ever, an EQUALLY valid assumption. In the absence of evidence the more valid assumption is that something does not exist--so long as it remains an assumption and not a statement of absolute undeniable proof. Just as it is more valid to assume than an invisible parakeet who hovers via telekinesis without displacing air is NOT hovering behind you and getting ready to eat your brain. You have no proof that he isn't--yet it is obviously a more valid assumption that there is, in fact, no parakeet there.

If you really want to, you can accept the minute possibility of the parakeet, but to live your life according to that possibility is fallacious.

[TheSpacePope]

You lovable scamp, why didn't you just say that the first time, I worked out a frenzy on WII Boxing before I posted.

I actually agree with you. In a lot of cases, belief has hurt people, and it is hurting people right now. *ahem Israel and Iran ahem* I just would like to talk about a constructive way to bring people together that wont sacrifice their faith. Which may not be even possible.
I have a more scientific belief viewpoint and will share it, as soon as some others share their viewpoints. It could be as simple as the word science, or your particular doctrine of religion. I will read it if you send it to me. I try and read on all faiths, to give myself a better idea on how to bring people together, again without abolishing the religion that some need so much to go on. I respect that person that needs their faith, that it drives them, because Life is beautiful, and if you have a lens to focus that beauty, it helps you see it up close. With science and Art we do these things, religion is just another aspect of that lens.

Religion is, and has been, a constant source of hate and strife just as much as it has been a source of hope and love. The Crusades. The Heresay Examinations. The Witch Trials. Great degrees of sexism. The villification and enslavement of the human sex drive--which leads to all kinds of other problems. Or even things as small as social ostracization and the splitting of society amongst invisible and man made lines of belief. If you want to call that little.

This is the problem, and I am desperately seeking a solution.

Not absolution.

[POS Industries]

Originally Posted by krylo

It's fun to say that you can believe what you want so long as you don't hurt anyone else, but the fact of the matter is that religion, as a whole, IS HURTING PEOPLE RIGHT NOW AS WE TYPE THIS.

Actually, that's not exactly true. People are hurting people over religion right now, which is in now way different from all the people hurting each other over land, food, water, drugs, race, shoes, politics, wedding dresses, and even the very concept of true love. If a person is the type that's going to kill someone for any given reason, they're going to come up with a reason to do it whether that reason is religion, the last piece of pie, or whatever-the-hell.

See, there's (A) believing in something, and there's (B) being part of an organized religion. Now, it's nigh impossible to have B without A, but very easy to have A without B, and much more pleasant. This, I think, is where Krylo is having a hard time making a separation. While I feel organized religion is the source of many of the major problems throughout history, I would never dare to mock a person for believing in it, especially if they themselves aren't hurting anyone with it, and furthermore if those beliefs inspire them to help people.

And this has, moreover, been my experience. Belief in a god has caused a great deal of strife in the world, but it does a lot of good for a lot of people. Religious organizations have fed, clothed, and given shelter to the homeless, found families for orphans, aided the sick in underprivileged countries. Just as people are hurting other people over religion, many more or helping people thanks to their beliefs.

Just because I don't happen to believe in, say, the divinity of Jesus Christ doesn't mean I'll slight the good works done in his name.

[Mirai Gen]

Originally Posted by POS Industries

Actually, that's not exactly true. People are hurting people over religion right now, which is in now way different from all the people hurting each other over land, food, water, drugs, race, shoes, politics, wedding dresses, and even the very concept of true love. If a person is the type that's going to kill someone for any given reason, they're going to come up with a reason to do it whether that reason is religion, the last piece of pie, or whatever-the-hell.

Baseless. You can't just tell the individual evil humans that they're doing something wrong even though their religion (Which told them to do that) is okay.

Yes, humans do the evil, but if it's my damn religion that wants to say I'm going to go perform female genital mutilation because God or Allah or whoever told me to, I'd like to see you tell me I'm wrong. It's like Divine Right of Kings all over again. God told me to do this. Are you going to get in the way of His will?

I'm not going to be the first person to urge to start some changes. But I know that just because it's a religion doesn't make it right, and using the blanket of "Humans do evil, not religion" is just bullshit.

It's like the Batman villain Scarface. If there isn't the influence of the puppet who says "Do evil things!", the Ventriloquist is perfectly normal. Who are we really punishing here, the stupid puppet, or the Ventriloquist?

[POS Industries]

Well, organized religion itself is pretty much a purely man-made concept, in my opinion, and it's a human-made idea that inspires some humans to do evil, so yes, I'm going to blame individual, real people that exist in this particular plane of existance for the wrongs they commit in the name of a doctrine of order that another bunch of humans probably came up with. Religion (by which I don't mean a god, to be clear), not being a conscious living thing, cannot be responsible for anything because it doesn't think, it doesn't feel, and it doesn't act.

To say it's religion's fault that crazy people go crazy and kill each other is no different from blaming video games for doing the exact same thing.