Religion

Well they have found some historical evidence of things, it wasn't just pulled out of thin air like a monkey living upstairs. I'm fine with people not believing, it just kinda bugs me when people call me stupid for thinking there is a God. I'm not saying you were, I'm just saying in general. I respect other people's beliefs, so I'd like for them to do the same.

i really dis like the people who try and shove their religion and belifes down peoples throat, like i said i dont belive in god, or anything like that, but i dont judge people or say they're wrong, and id expect peole to do the same, or people who have to try and prove people wrong.

arollo wrote:

Well, that would be the definition of agnosticism, then.

--------snip snip--------

At any rate, this is just my argument against agnosticism. Feel free to call me a dumbass. That's how we get to new ideas.

Haha, I've no reason to call you a dumbass since you clearly know what you're talking about. I totally understand where you're coming from with atheism, although as I say I can't quite agree entirely.

For me it's the very fact that it's virtually impossible to know the truth that keeps me wondering. I'm completely behind the ideas of logic and using science to prove and disprove theories, but knowing that something can't be proven either way (in the foreseeable future)... I can't help but wonder if there is something more, a greater power. Yet, I disagree with organised religion on the basis that blind faith in an omnipotent power is a ridiculous idea since people have no way of tracing where all these "words of the lord" in the bible and other holy books have actually come from.

I think the holy books have a lot to offer, good morals etc as I said previously, but should be treated as storybooks rather than absolute truth, which again is where organised religion falls flat on it's face. In a perfect world I think people should have their own idea of what they think God and religion is and follow it for themselves to the extent they wish to follow it; be that 12 hours prayer per day or denouncing God entirely in the name of science. Which leads me nicely onto...

JAPSoccer13 wrote:

i really dis like the people who try and shove their religion and belifes down peoples throat, like i said i dont belive in god, or anything like that, but i dont judge people or say they're wrong, and id expect peole to do the same, or people who have to try and prove people wrong.

I couldn't agree more. Free will and freedom of expression in faith are two of the most important fundamental rights as a human, in my opinion, but that should certainly not include forcing your views down the throats of others.

I've probably rambled on a lot and not made much sense here, but I'm vaguely under the influence still and it's 6am here now so cut me some slack :p

6 AM?!? Where do you come from!?!? Just kidding

CHEERS.

lol, still 10pm where you are isn't it?

Thursday 20th > Wednesday 19th to be honest

Cheers
(might have to add that to my sig)

I think JamaicaSka just set his computer clock wrong. Everyone knows Britain is just an old wives tale, and Prince Charles was just invented to scare children.

.....But I kid the British.

JamaicaSka wrote:

...I've probably rambled on a lot and not made much sense here, but I'm vaguely under the influence still and it's 6am here now so cut me some slack :p

I think I get your point. I think you are arguing along the same lines as I, except where I demand that a choice be made, you see no problem in withholding judgement. I suppose either course is fair.

I suppose my line of thinking comes from my general line of thinking. I have heard people speak of two worlds, the physical and the spiritual, and indeed, some religious people think along the lines of having a 'spiritual life' along with whatever you would call your day to day, dull ass life. I've always been sort of put-off by any way of thinking that allowed for the world to be partitioned like that, because it seems much more reasonable to have one rule set for everything instead of all these damned exceptions to rules (See also: Ockham, William of).

I suppose a specific example of this would be....er.....oh damn, I can't really think of a specific thing right now. My friends and I always argue about this or that, current events or politics or whatever, and my general position is that if a thing is right or wrong in one instance, then it should be right or wrong in all instances, generally. I suppose arguments for or against the death penalty are the best case to involve this line of reasoning. People tend to argue based upon the severity of the crime, you know, the drug addict who knifes his dealer deserves no mercy, but the old man who shoots the burglar in the face deserves clemency. Of course - OF COURSE - there's room for argument all over the place. My point being that if murder is wrong, then murder is wrong. If murder is not wrong some of the time, then murder isn't wrong. I think that makes things much more sensible than saying "murder is wrong, except when...." and tacking on anything you like. That's just crap.

I'm not a very decisive person anyway, so I'm quite used to withholding judgement.

But murder... heh, I know exactly what you mean about murder- I'm a law student myself so the mass of excuses for murder is fairly familiar; insanity, diminished responsibility, duress... Some work some don't, it's all circumstantial, at least in the court system anyway. I know my life would be much simpler if things were black and white; kill someone => murder, etc.

There was a famous case back in the 1880s, where 4 guys had a yatch which sunk 1000 miles from anywhere, and ended up being stuck in a life raft for a while with 2 tins of turnips and a baby turtle they managed to catch.

So they killed and ate the cabin boy, who was on the verge of death anyway, in order to survive. They were rescued 4 days later.

They were tried and convicted of murder upon return to the UK and sentenced to death. But then (you'll love this if you kid the british!), the queen stepped in and had the sentence reduced to 6 months imprisonment.

If they hadn't eaten the kid they could've been there for weeks more for all they knew, and they'd have died. The point of killing him rather than letting him die was something to do with blood being more beneficial from a freshly killed corpse than one which had died naturally; I know, it sounds insane to me too. I certainly hadn't heard of that before this case...

I think my point is something along the lines of: in certain extreme circumstances perhaps it is ok to kill. An overtly rigid system of dealing with issues can be beneficial for a large part, making a lot of things very easy, but in certain situations there has to be flexibility. I like to think religion is one of those situations.

In short I think we're agreeing to disagree, although neither of us likes organised religion

I believe in God, my views though are always changing. I've embraced many different ideas, including agnosticism, deism, and pandeism.

I think the general reason for any thought on religion, association with religion, and ideas against religion all revolve around ending discontent. Humans have a natural inclination to want to feel safe and secure, and to know they can live and die without worrying about unknown consequences. We want to know so we can live better and live with less anxiety.

black_flags_raised_high wrote:

I believe in God, my views though are always changing. I've embraced many different ideas, including agnosticism, deism, and pandeism.

I think the general reason for any thought on religion, association with religion, and ideas against religion all revolve around ending discontent. Humans have a natural inclination to want to feel safe and secure, and to know they can live and die without worrying about unknown consequences. We want to know so we can live better and live with less anxiety.

I agree with you, to a point.

Why is it that human beings always want to create systems of laws or rules to create harmony, and yet an intrinsic part of these systems is that everyone else is fucking wrong? I think it is human nature to want to just get by, but it's also human nature to be an evil, greedy, worthless thing. For the most part, our systems are evolving (see also: representative democracy, more or less fair judicial systems, the rise of secularism, multiculturalism, and the looming global monoculture). Though we're far from there yet (well, some people are just stupid, and there's not much to be done about that, like religious fundamentalists, racists, and nationalists of varying degrees).

I've been on a Randy Newman kick these past few days, and I ought to post the lyrics to "God's Song":

Cain slew Abel Seth knew not why
For if the children of Israel were to multiply
Why must any of the children die?
So he asked the Lord
And the Lord said:

"Man means nothing he means less to me
than the lowiliest cactus flower
or the humblest yucca tree
he chases round this desert
cause he thinks that's where i'll be
that's why i love mankind

I recoil in horror from the foulness of thee
from the squalor and the filth and the misery
How we laugh up here in heaven at the prayers you offer me
That's why i love mankind"

The Christians and the Jews were having a jamboree
The Buddhists and the Hindus joined on satellite TV
They picked their four greatest priests
And they began to speak
They said "Lord the plague is on the world
Lord no man is free
The temples that we built to you
Have tumbled into the sea
Lord, if you won't take care of us
Won't you please please let us be?"

And the Lord said
And the Lord said

"I burn down your cities--how blind you must be
I take from you your children and you say how blessed are we
You must all be crazy to put your faith in me
That's why i love mankind
You really need me
That's why i love mankind"

I think everyone is unsure, to a point. But we're also seeking knowledge. If someone wants to unquestionably use the book of Genesis to explain to origin of the universe, they're giving a very lazy rationalization. But they still are trying to fill their holes up.

There's no single driving factor for human nature. We all want to understand, we all want to be content, we all want to be happy, we all want to know love, we all want to know peace, though at the same time we all want to overcome challenges and we somehow thrive on conflict. We all want personal freedom yet all are inclined to seek power. We all want to create and we all want to destroy.

The religious debates still rage however, and I'll consider one of 2 options. The truth is either a middle ground or mix between everything we have ever thought or imagined, or, from the billions of humans in our thousands of years of existence, we have not even come close to the truth at all.

black_flags_raised_high wrote:

The religious debates still rage however, and I'll consider one of 2 options. The truth is either a middle ground or mix between everything we have ever thought or imagined, or, from the billions of humans in our thousands of years of existence, we have not even come close to the truth at all.

Option 3: There is no universal truth. (Since we have science, that's clearly not true.)

Option 4: The truth is actually much simpler than anyone thinks, and the life you have is all that there is, because in all of the billions and billions of lives led thus far, not a single damned one of them has been much different, overall, than any other. Shakespeare slept, ate, loved, and went to the bathroom just as much as you do. Hitler, Jesus, Elizabeth I, and the Gordon Brown are all in the club too.

The aspects of things that are most important to us are hidden because of their simplicity and familiarity. -Ludwig Wittgenstein

This seems somewhat relevant.

I'm wierd when it comes to religion. I'm a very devoted and involved Christian. I go to church at least twice a week, and am a leader in my chuch's middle school group. My faith is extremely deep, (not trying to boast)way beyond what most adults aproach. But, don't take the Bible literally, I believe in evolution, don't have any problem with homosexuality, don't get what's wrong with swearing, and strangest of all, don't think you're going to hell if you aren't Christian. I see the most improtant part of Christianity as loving others, loving God and everything that feeds into. If something doesn't connect to those things, I don't view it as necesary.

Cliche Guevara wrote:

I'm wierd when it comes to religion. I'm a very devoted and involved Christian. I go to church at least twice a week, and am a leader in my chuch's middle school group. My faith is extremely deep, (not trying to boast)way beyond what most adults aproach. But, don't take the Bible literally, I believe in evolution, don't have any problem with homosexuality, don't get what's wrong with swearing, and strangest of all, don't think you're going to hell if you aren't Christian. I see the most improtant part of Christianity as loving others, loving God and everything that feeds into. If something doesn't connect to those things, I don't view it as necesary.

You go to a non-denomination church, or at least a liberal church, am I right?

JamaicaSka wrote:

The aspects of things that are most important to us are hidden because of their simplicity and familiarity. -Ludwig Wittgenstein

This seems somewhat relevant.

Yeah, but I could use that to argue both for and against theism.

Sometimes people are vague to feign wisdom.

Haha, yeah. It's why astrology is so damned popular.

arollo wrote:

You go to a non-denomination church, or at least a liberal church, am I right

Technically its evangelical, but your right, is is very liberal. The main focus of my church is loving God and loving people. while they dont promote all of my beliefs, they dont take a hard lined stance on them that might push people away because of something they, and I, see as trivial.

Cliche Guevara wrote:

arollo wrote:

You go to a non-denomination church, or at least a liberal church, am I right

Technically its evangelical, but your right, is is very liberal. The main focus of my church is loving God and loving people. while they dont promote all of my beliefs, they dont take a hard lined stance on them that might push people away because of something they, and I, see as trivial.

You're probably also not from the south, either.

Because there are churches who do the opposite of yours, and people are completely behind it. Kill the fags, kill the niggers, women are subservient to men, America is better than everyone else! Now let's all listen to a Toby Keith hymn.

And there are black churches who preach the evils of whitey, but also that gays are evil and all the rest.

And there are people who don't agree. No, I know it's not fair to lump people together. Not fair at all.

But you know who makes the most money? Those churches that play country and western, and tell arenas full of people that God is going to punish the Jews and the homos.

Hell, the Roman Catholic Church has it's own country despite spending their history preaching nothing but evil (no one should use condoms! Burn the gays! Science is evil!).

Religion is supposed to be good, but usually ends up being evil in completely new and surprising ways. It makes even the nicest, most remarkable people say shit like "the gays want to corrupt my family".

It's nice that you're an intelligent Christian. But you are the minority.

arollo wrote:

You're probably also not from the south, either.

Because there are churches who do the opposite of yours, and people are completely behind it. Kill the fags, kill the niggers, women are subservient to men, America is better than everyone else! Now let's all listen to a Toby Keith hymn.

And there are black churches who preach the evils of whitey, but also that gays are evil and all the rest.

And there are people who don't agree. No, I know it's not fair to lump people together. Not fair at all.

But you know who makes the most money? Those churches that play country and western, and tell arenas full of people that God is going to punish the Jews and the homos.

Hell, the Roman Catholic Church has it's own country despite spending their history preaching nothing but evil (no one should use condoms! Burn the gays! Science is evil!).

Religion is supposed to be good, but usually ends up being evil in completely new and surprising ways. It makes even the nicest, most remarkable people say shit like "the gays want to corrupt my family".

It's nice that you're an intelligent Christian. But you are the minority.

Oh ya, there are a lot of Christians that piss me off. Here's a good lesson religion bad, faith good. Religion is believe what I tell you, do this, do that, don't think for yourself. Faith is what you make it.

I was a practicing muslim for over 10 years, now my practice has waned but I still love many aspects of the religion of Islam.

I thinks its messed up when people talk down on religions if you dont agree you dont have to talk down on it

Lil RoRo wrote:

I thinks its messed up when people talk down on religions if you dont agree you dont have to talk down on it

I was 'talking down' previously, and for that I do apologize.

However, I do feel that there is a good argument for what I suppose would be called an "extremist" atheism.

I would say that religion is, universally, false. And it is a falsehood which requires that people believe or act in ways which are harmful. A good example would be something like the popular opposition toward certain aspects of scientific research on moral (not ethical) grounds. Evolution is wrong because it runs counter to a belief. Stem cell research is wrong because it runs counter to a belief. As a result of this sort of thinking, progress, new ideas, and things which may (not will, but may) benefit people on the whole are not found, or at least found much later.

This is harmful.

As such, I think that all religion must be "talked down" upon. Every man has the right to think and be, but not at the expense of every other man. And religion is a way of thinking that does, at it's core, denigrate men who are not of that religion. because that's what religion is - THE way. THE truth. No matter how liberal or open minded the church may be, or the follower, the core of the belief is that everyone else is wrong and will be punished.

So bearing all of that in mind, you are wrong for being religious. And religions are all wrong. The alternative to the harmful philosophies of theism is atheism, which is literally "no theism", a-theism. It is not a belief system, it is the absence of a belief system. The absence of belief that people who are not like you will be punished for not being like you. The absence of a belief that life does not matter because there is another, better one. The absence of abdicating responsibility for one's actions.

So no, we should all "talk down" to religion.

religion was created as an attempt to answer questions that people could not answer by themselves (many of these questions have been answered by science since the creation of religion). since then, it has become a medium in which a 'believer' can 'justify' the bullying of a scapegoat to express their own mental strife.

i believe that all humans are born exactly equal, and that the only way a person can define their self is by the choices they make in their life.

that said, i respect someone's freedom to believe whatever they please, as long as they dont go out and make negative changes in the world.......