The Big Big Thread of Religious Discussion

[ZAKtheGeek]

Originally Posted by Nique

You know, in a way, I agree with this. You would no doubt agree that faith in any claim should come after proof of some kind.

Sure. And what I'm saying is that nice morals are weak proof at best.

Originally Posted by Nique

I meant for this argument to be a little more encompassing than just morals. I guess I got sidetracked with that as my example. It would be more like "this religion's overall teachings about life, morality, exsistance, makes sense to me and appear to be pretty coherent".

It's probably best not to lump too many things together here. Morals, unlike some things, are subjective. Following certain morals leads to a certain society. If that sort of society is what you think society should be like, then you agree with the morals. Something like existence, on the other hand, is an objective matter. That means that there isn't much room for "makes sense to me;" just "makes sense" in general. As in, "is rational." So then what you're saying becomes equivalent to, "If the religion says rational things about the world (etc), then it must be right." Something of a tautology, really...

What's my point again? I'm not sure. I think it's that, if people believe in their religions due to such reasoning, it should be exceedingly easy to convince others as well. Seeing as there's hardly any world religion, it means either people just aren't trying to be convincing or their faith is not based on these things.

[Nique]

I think it's that, if people believe in their religions due to such reasoning, it should be exceedingly easy to convince others as well. Seeing as there's hardly any world religion, it means either people just aren't trying to be convincing or their faith is not based on these things.

Conforming to a doctrine/teaching that is uncomfortable, even if it is, let's assume, completely rational, leads to, I guess, a kind of manufactored doubt as to it's validity. This is not an uncommon human trait, in any aspect.

And I wouldn't claim that all religions, attempts to appeal directly to rational thinking. One of the reasons I am so satisfied with my faith, is not only becuase I have done research on my own, but I was always actively encouraged to understand the reasoning, rather than merely to accept.

I mean, the Bible tells us as much;

(Proverbs 18:13) When anyone is replying to a matter before he hears [it], that is foolishness on his part and a humiliation.

I hope it's understood, and I think it is, that my defense of religion as a concept (or also on a personal level) does not amount to granting amnesty for wrongs/ socially unhealthful influences accomplished under it's banner.

[ZAKtheGeek]

Originally Posted by Nique

Conforming to a doctrine/teaching that is uncomfortable, even if it is, let's assume, completely rational, leads to, I guess, a kind of manufactored doubt as to it's validity. This is not an uncommon human trait, in any aspect.

I'm sorry, have we just gone from religion as a crutch to help cope with life's problems to it being uncomfortable?

Originally Posted by Nique

And I wouldn't claim that all religions, attempts to appeal directly to rational thinking.

I would say that few do. That's why I was trying to make the point that people don't usually believe in their religions because they make any sense (I think that was my point, anyway). You, however, seem to, so:

Originally Posted by Nique

One of the reasons I am so satisfied with my faith, is not only becuase I have done research on my own, but I was always actively encouraged to understand the reasoning, rather than merely to accept.

Then convince me?

[Nique]

Maybe you're misunderstanding my usage of the word uncomfortable? it was said in reference to 'converting' by reason - I guess, it's like... If someone really liked to drink too much, so kind of took issue with biblical ideas about not over-indulging, even though following such a path would be clearly to his benefit? The idea of conforming to this behavior is 'uncomfortable', regardless of it's being rational.

Then convince me?

Sure. That sounds like a healthy exercise. But I'd rather have that conversation in a pm. If we wanted to repost it here later, that would be fine. I'm just not totally willing to open myself up to incoming arguments from every person here all at once if we're going to get very specific. Too overwhelming.

[ZAKtheGeek]

Originally Posted by Nique

Maybe you're misunderstanding my usage of the word uncomfortable? it was said in reference to 'converting' by reason - I guess, it's like... If someone really liked to drink too much, so kind of took issue with biblical ideas about not over-indulging, even though following such a path would be clearly to his benefit? The idea of conforming to this behavior is 'uncomfortable', regardless of it's being rational.

No, I understood that. But you'd think that in light of knowledge about great confounding mysteries (knowledge which is supposed to be making sense at this point), people would prioritize better.

Originally Posted by Nique

Sure. That sounds like a healthy exercise. But I'd rather have that conversation in a pm. If we wanted to repost it here later, that would be fine. I'm just not totally willing to open myself up to incoming arguments from every person here all at once if we're going to get very specific. Too overwhelming.

Fine... although "private sessions" have happened here too (see validity of perception subdebate).

[GOD OF IRONY]

i have no place to talk (ie was not reading other posts this is basicly post suiside) but it comes to my attention that religoin was the personification of the vast and crazy place that we call home. with out this said personifcation we'd be long dead before we evolved the lasting effects is that the kind*(*evil) people used this as a way of law promising rewards in the after life forhard work and law abiding in there long*(*drasticly short do to over use of said "law") and needed* (meaningless) lives

[Nique]

I tried to post something the other day... internet went down just as I hit "post" apparently.

Fine... although "private sessions" have happened here too (see validity of perception subdebate).

True. Just would rather not have the overwhelming amount of arguments coming from both sides in this disscussion, as is natural to happen when we get to the specifics of doctrine. I mean, maybe it wouldn't be too bad. I just wouldn't nessecerily want to monopolize the thread with a specifically one-on-one discourse.

Originally Posted by GOI

ie was not reading other posts this is basicly post suiside

Not really. The thread is huge, so new comments are probably welcome?

Your post is pretty illegible though. I'm going to introduce you to this little fellow "here". His name is 'Capitalization'. Maybe once you get to know him, he will introduce you to some of his other friends.

I am joking a bit here, of course, so I don't mean to discourage your participation... But seriously, if you want us to understand what you're saying on a conceptual level, the structure has got to conform at least loosely to some normal grammer rules. I mean, the asteriks alone...

I guess what you're saying is that religion is just a means to control and advance the populace? Can you give us an example of this, maybe to better understand what you mean?

[Demetrius]

Morals, unlike some things, are subjective.

Morality is not subjective, it is an absolute. There is right and wrong, these are absolute values with nothing between, despite how we may feel. We twist the precepts of morality and create a grey area in between right and wrong to operate in because it makes us feel better when we do something that is morally wrong.

[Nique]

Morality is not subjective, it is an absolute. There is right and wrong, these are absolute values with nothing between, despite how we may feel. We twist the precepts of morality and create a grey area in between right and wrong to operate in because it makes us feel better when we do something that is morally wrong.

This is assuming that there is a creator who made us to work better within a system of morals that he defined and further that as creator he has a right to determine what those are.

Which I do, but that issue has to be resolved before we can move on to the subjectivity of morals. Don't let the tail wag the dog.

[Demetrius]

Morality is expressed in terms free of religion in many cases (medicine and law chiefly). If something is right it cannot be wrong and if something is wrong it cannot be right; they are mutually exclusive, encompass all actions and therefore absolute. A person may take something and try to shade it in one direction or the other, but in the end any and all things fall into one category or the other.