Religion

Magrus · Post by **Magrus** » Sun Nov 21, 2004 11:21 pm

Religion, is a subject that I have a strong opinion on simply because it's my view that too many people don't think for themselves.

For example, both of my parents were raised catholic, went to church, read the bible, etc. They met, conceived me, ran to the church to get married, church refused to perform the ceremony, parents abandoned association with the catholic church and got married without the church's involvement. I was informed that I should read the bible once I had been taught to read, if I found it to my liking and was interested in seeing church they would take me. We never went to church though as my parents weren't interested anymore, unless someone died, or was to be baptised in another branch of the family or married.

Another, my grandparents on my father's side, have switched between the different denominations of Christianity so many times in my lifetime, I have no clue what they call themselves anymore. They've been Catholic, Protestant, Baptist, Puritan and something else, I cannot for the life of me recall. They switch religious beliefs like most people switch favorite sports teams.

Myself, I have formed my own religion, for reasons of my own. I believe in a polytheistic religion, as it just happens to make more sense to me. I DO believe in "GOD", Buddha, and most other deities you can throw at me. Why? There ARE different forces out there that I cannot, and no one around me can explain with science. I believe there are life forms out there that we could say are higher up on the food chain so to speak than humans. Whether or not they seek to control our destiny is up to the individual. I believe there are other planes of existance, and those beings fight over those, and planets and such just like humanity has fought over land here on earth over time.

I follow my own rules, ones I make for myself, and some I've picked out from other sources that seem to fit. I will not bend to any other system as if I will follow a rule, I will choose the rules I follow of my own free will. Too many people follow religious doctrine because daddy and mommy do, or convert to marry and some such nonsense. I say nonsense because, you are setting yourself up with a doctrine in which you determine your life/existance with, why choose one for someone else's approval? Why choose one that doesn't seem to fit you? It IS YOUR life, why not fit it into something you truly believe.

I am against organized religion, for many reasons. I will try to keep things generic as I've avoided getting involved in the history of most of them after hearing the basic history of things in school and the majority of what I've been submitted to would be Christianity.

1. Corruption. Power corrupts, not everyone, not consistantly, but it does corrupt. Just like every other office that grants you power, somewhere down the line you will find someone working for their own ends. Examples? Simple, essencially any time you can look back into history and see one man in a religious position ranting about a holy war being needed. If the divine being this person served really found something so necessary to demand blood and violence in his name, I'm fairly certain it would cook up something more than a middle aged peasant turned world power no?

2. Greed. Follows under corruption. Any deity that requires magnificent structures to be built to house the people who serve that person and collect cash to buy pretty shiny things, obviously isn't all the benevolent. I'd say someone threw aside what their lord wanted to get some comfort and gold.

3. Lack of thought for yourself. It's all well and good to pick up a book and find something inspiring, but isn't there something the author put in there that you don't agree with or something you feel was left out that was vitally important to your beliefs? If you feel the need to worship someone, or follow certain beliefs, whatever they may be, or whichever diety you worship, good for you. I'll support you on that one. Just make sure its what YOU believe in, not what you found somewhere and said "ehhh, good enough for me".

4. People coming up to others and forcing what they believe down someone ELSES throat to save them. I had to beat some poor fool up because he would not take "i'm not interested" for an answer. Day, after day, after day I was approached by the same person and insulted, ridiculed and pushed, physically, into some form of religious writing. I had about enough of that. I DON'T appreciate phone calls, letters, house calls, or conversations from people thinking they need to save me. I'll come to you if I happen to be in some sort of crisis that demands a reshaping of my entire belief system, thank you very much.

5. Big one, misinterpretation of what the religious doctrine truly is/was. Not going into it, as, who knows what it truly was? Who knows if its changed in the mind of the divine being you've chosen to serve?

6. I'll have to include those who fall under "Your wrong, and here's why..." category. PROVE it. If I happen to be wrong, prove it. Don't lecture me, show me I'm wrong. I hate discussing with someone that says that what I happen to believe is wrong because there's no tangible proof to it. Well, wheres the tangible evidence I AM wrong hmm? Perhaps I'm right, and whatever you believe may be right too?

It's MY belief, that everyone should be able to think what they want, believe what they want, and do what they want, and be free to do so within reason. Harming others and such excluded, but the general idea I think people have. I'm not hurting anyone harboring my personal beliefs. I never push it on other people, and rarely share them with others, even when asked to for the simple fact that, most people react in a very negative manner to them. My reaction generally amounts to "what makes you special enough to think your right and I'm wrong and no question about it?" and walk away. If someone wants to join up with a religion and do their thing, great for them. Keep it to yourself, it is YOUR belief, that YOU chose, wasn't it? Not your neighbors, so theres no need to demand he choose too, not your children's, because hey, they have a mind of their own, and lets not forget everyone else you meet. I may not believe everyone HAS a brain worth mentioning, but they should still have their own say in what they stand for you know?

If you want to be Jewish, or Muslim, or Buddhist, or Christian, or a Satanist, or Wiccan, or worship Appollo on your roof because you want sandals just like he has in the stories, GO FOR IT. Just make sure your doing it for reasons that make sense for you.

Arrylium · Post by **Arrylium** » Mon Nov 22, 2004 3:24 am

Magrus, I agree with what you say about the problems in some religions these days - I have seen many of these problems myself - although I don't agree with your beliefs on everyone simply choosing what they want to do. I most wholeheartedly agree that religion has to be something we choose for ourselves, that we think through, think about and make our own decisions in regard to. The problem arises when it comes to telling others our beliefs. I certainly disagree with the idea of shoving religion down people's throats - it doesn't make them change anything, it gets them upset and it actually makes them listen to you less. But I think it is important to be able to tell others about our beliefs, and to be open when listening to theirs, because I believe there is absolute truth - this is partially a reply to Xandax as well.

Just take life after death as an example. I know people, including myself, who believe in life after death. I know other people who don't believe in life after death. But when we die, we will find that one of us is right. No matter how many people believe whatever, how loud they yell or how many people they convince or how strongly they believe, life after death I think either exists or does not exist. So some people are right, and some people are wrong. That's just an example of the way I think of absolute truth - it exists although from our present state we can't always know what it is. So if we shut ourselves off from listening to others because we're totally happy with our religion then we could be running away from the truth. If God doesn't exist and when we die we're just going to rot in the ground then it doesn't really matter what we believe or how we live - Christians, Muslims, Atheists, everyone will die and rot. But if God(s) exist then he/they will probably (not definitely) have some idea of how they would like us to run our lives, and there could be consequences either way. I just don't personally see a point in ignoring that point by ignoring every other viewpoint that comes up.

Proof is a very difficult thing because I don't think it exists. I can't prove anything 100%. We can't prove completely that God exists or doesn't exist just as we can't even prove completely that gravity exists. We see evidence for one side or other of the argument, and we make a decision based on that. So I don't personally think much of demanding of anyone that they prove their viewpoint conclusively before we believe it, because our own beliefs aren't proven conclusively either.

I personally believe in God because I don't believe that 'something' can come from 'nothing' - I believe God created it. I'm a Christian and I love God because I believe His son came to earth in the man Jesus Christ, who died and rose again. Everyone else who started religions - Buddha, Mohammed, everyone else died and is dead in the ground now. I've looked at the evidence and I believe Jesus rose from the dead. He conquered death, and a guy who can conquer death is a guy I want to follow. Now you may (and I think you do!) disagree with this, but I think the point of the forum is to actually discuss what we believe, and why we believe it. So if you have a problem with Christianity I think it would be sensible to speak it - we can discuss it. If I have a problem with something someone else says I'll say so, and we can discuss it. If one of ends up changing our minds then fine, if neither of us change our minds then fine. That's just the way I see it.

[QUOTE=Chanak]The term "religion" has, in my mind, developed a rather negative connotation over time. Rather than being an indicator of people losing interest in spiritual matters, I think it more has to do with the oppression that entire peoples and cultures suffered by the hands of certain spiritually-oriented groups with an aggressive interest in their own secular advancement. A gentle way of putting it, but an accurate one I think. [/QUOTE]I agree completely. Some people abuse or misuse or misinterpret religion and others are hurt by it, and this gives religion in general a bad name. I don't think it means all religion should be written off.

[QUOTE=Fable]Agnosticism, for example, is the uncertainty about whether any deity exists. You can hardly hold to tis "with ardor and faith." You can try, but it hardly any agnostic I'm aware of, does.[/QUOTE]I never really thought of agnosticism as a religion - not trying to offend any agnostics by saying that - is it generally considered to be a religion?
A book I read says that everyone has religion, religion is just what is most important in our lives. It's not a proper definition or anything, I'm just mentioning it because I thought it kind of interesting.

[QUOTE=Aegis]For instance, I have faith that when I sit down in a chair, that chair will support my weight. That is a proven faith, one that has proven itself time and again, and can be relied on. It is also different from religious faith.

Faith in God, on the other hand, is an intangible faith. As it stands, there is no perfect proof on the existence of God. This belief is based on a faith that he is there, not a knowledge.[/QUOTE]I don't really see where the line lies. What about faith in the wind? We can't see it. Does that make it an intangible faith? I agree there is no perfect proof on the existence of God, but I think there is no perfect proof that a chair will hold you either. I don't think faith in an object you can see is different from faith in someone you can't see.

[QUOTE=Sean the Owner]i guess so....[/QUOTE]But what is the state in between? I figure it has to be either right or wrong but if you don't think it's either then what is it?

CM · Post by CM » Mon Nov 22, 2004 3:32 am

[QUOTE=arno_v]CM, what do you think of people that are atheist, or have another religion?[/QUOTE]

Personally I see it as their choice. You can choose to believe in god or you can choose not to. As for another religion. In Islam we have 2 distinctions. The "Kufar" and the "Ahlya-kitab". Kufar means infidels or those who do not believe in a single god or god in general. This includes Buddhists, Hindus and Atheists.

The Ahlya-kitab is translated into people of the book. The people of the book are Christains, Jews and Muslims. As we muslims believe we all have the same god and follow the same religion. With regard to people of the book we are allowed to inter-marry and live in their society.

We can not do this with the Kufar societies and have been ordered to convert these people or ignore them. In extreme cases and interpretations we are to wage a war to eliminate them.

Xandax · Post by **Xandax** » Mon Nov 22, 2004 4:07 am

[QUOTE=Arrylium]<snip>
I personally believe in God because I don't believe that 'something' can come from 'nothing' - I believe God created it. <snip>
[/QUOTE]

This is one of the main arguments I'll most always jump at, because it is so unlogical that it springs in my eyes when used in connection to faith.

If something can not spring from nothing - then where did "God" come from. It is a matter of the chicken and the egg.
If "God" always have been, as I've seen mentioned in similar discussions, then that is the same as saying something else (some form of matter, a state) could have been prior to the Big Bang (if one follows that theory) that have instigated it - thus something out of something.

As for the absolute truth, then using the afterlife as an example is not what I argued for. As I wrote, then I view "absolute truth" when discussion religion as an aspect of human behaviour - not as much stuff like the earth rotates, or the sun will continue to burn some time still.
Granted, that either there is none or there is some form (reincarnation, Eden or what else is possible) but I'm viewing the concept of "absolute truth" much more abstractly then that.
When I say I don't belive there to be absolute truth when discussion religion is because of the religious moral codes, teachings of the "books" and similar things dosen't need to apply to other people in other situations then our own.

But still - I can spin death away from an absolute truth as well.
Maybe there are possible alternatives outcomes. Maybe we are allowed to choose which path we take after we die, to be reincarnated, live in an Eden or simply rot in the ground. Far out thought experiment sure - but we don't know (yet), so saying there is only one possible outcome dosen't really fit, when discussing something we dont' know about

fable · Post by **fable** » Mon Nov 22, 2004 9:12 am

[QUOTE=Arrylium]I never really thought of agnosticism as a religion - not trying to offend any agnostics by saying that - is it generally considered to be a religion?[/quote]

No, it isn't, by any means. My comments began with a quote from Corsair, who said, "Not beliveing in God is a belief that most Athiest and Agnostics hold with ardor and faith." I was correcting this. I don't know any agnostics who regard their lack of belief, one way or the other, on this subject as a religion. By definition, it can't be.

This isn't how I feel; I'm (as I stated) a trad/Gardnerian witch and Wiccan. But as my beliefs are based on intuited, subjective comprehension, I'm not going to spread these beliefs to anybody else. If someone in my area were interested in joining a training coven, I could start one up. I've done it before, both leading 'em, and simply taking part in those led by others. It's feels natural to me, but I could understand why it wouldn't to anybody else. Nor have I any desire to convince anybody else who my intuited truths should be theirs.

Aegis · Post by **Aegis** » Mon Nov 22, 2004 12:16 pm

[QUOTE=Arrylium]I don't really see where the line lies. What about faith in the wind? We can't see it. Does that make it an intangible faith? I agree there is no perfect proof on the existence of God, but I think there is no perfect proof that a chair will hold you either. I don't think faith in an object you can see is different from faith in someone you can't see.
[/QUOTE]
You've misinterpreted what I've said. Note that I didn't say that a persons faith in the chair is perfect, because, as you have said, the chair might not hold. These faiths on based upon peoples active knowledge. We have sat in enough chairs, openned enough doors, felt the wind enough, to know that, for the most part, they will always be there, and will more than likely work.

I don't subscribe to the Ostrich theory, in that, if I can't see it, it's not there. It's a naive theory to follow. But, I do demand some sort of evidence that something is there. In the case of wind, we can feel it, hear. We know it exists. We've seen it's impact on the world around us. We've also seen that chair hold people's weight, time and again, breaking only on occassion. We've seen that door open, and close. These are all evidence towards building up this tangible faith.

That's where the line is. For people such as myself, there has been no tangible proof of God. When something happens, people only say that it was God's doing. But, God's doing tends to work through other means, such as the elements, or people. To me, that is not proof of God's existence, that is someone's faith in God attempting to make that connection.

Do not misunderstand. I believe faith is a wonderful thing for people to hold. It has allowed people to surpass numerous hard ships and challenges in their lives, and has given thousands of people reason to live. I don't need it though. I don't need to beleive in a God, nor can I believe in a supposedly 'All-Loving' God, that will still punish numerous souls upon the Judgement Day, simply because they didn't pray to him, or followed the tenants of another religion. To me, that attitude alone isn't divine.

Magrus · Post by **Magrus** » Mon Nov 22, 2004 7:41 pm

Arrylium, I believe I gave the wrong impression, I've no problem with a calm discussion in sharing beliefs with others. The problem comes in when people I discuss mine with decide to interrupt, say "no" and then proceed to tell me how things ARE in their mind. Whatever happens to float there boat is fine with me, so long as it doesn't tread on others. I'll discuss my religion with anyone that I believe is truly open to hearing it out with and open mind. The problem lies with those who aren't religious, they tend to not care or speak over me until I listen to them tell me how wrong I am. Then again, with those who are religious the same, only to tell me how THEIR beliefs are right.

I'll pretty much discuss, if it is in truth a discussion, or even argue, should it be something civil and those involved having an open mind to at least processing the sides of argument presented, anything thrown at me. It's when communication breaks down at some point I regret entering into any engagement of the sort. When I get a proposal that another person wants to discuss religion, and as soon as they find something they don't like about mine, they shout me down to say so, I get irritated.

I believe in the Judeo-Christian deity, and Jesus. Do I follow either, or believe its worth it to pay attention to them? No. I've thrown my lot in elsewhere and thats how it is. No one will change my mind on that for me, if I happen to find out something is different than I thought it was, or something happens to change, whether with myself, or around me perhaps I will be forced to adjust my beliefs but thats not likely.

As for sharing your beliefs with someone, it's a lot like politics. Some people can handle such a discussion, and others lose it and go off the deep end and start ranting and becoming aggressive. I'd have to say there is a time and place for such things, and in my mind, unless I decided to step into a religious building, or up to a religious figure, and question them about it, or come to someone else and question them about it, there shouldn't be people babbling about how great there religion is and why I should think so too. If someone has some sort of question for me on my religion, I would answer it. Me going up to someone else throwing pamphlets promising torments after death for not believing the same things as me would probably cause them a good deal of frustration. I don't see why anything of the sort is legal at all.

As for life after death, I have my own views on death itself, and what comes after. For myself, I have no fear of death and to those who don't understand that, well I live my life according to the belief so long as I give others the respect they deserve, I should end up with a fairly decent after life. Not such an uncommon belief in general I would have to say.

; I'm (as I stated) a trad/Gardnerian witch and Wiccan. But as my beliefs are based on intuited, subjective comprehension, I'm not going to spread these beliefs to anybody else. If someone in my area were interested in joining a training coven, I could start one up. I've done it before, both leading 'em, and simply taking part in those led by others. It's feels natural to me, but I could understand why it wouldn't to anybody else. Nor have I any desire to convince anybody else who my intuited truths should be theirs.

I'd have to say this is a fairly good expression of how I decided on how to go about with my beliefs. Everyone of the beliefs I have picked out to hold true to, have guided me through situations in my life. These beliefs I either did research to find, whether asking for advice or reading, or just thought them through for myself. I have converted others into adopting bits and pieces of the way I see things and act and believe. I have throughout my life gone out of my way to help others with whatever problems they come to me with and through those times, people have absorbed some of my ideals. I don't push, or attempt to convert others, simply act as I feel is best, and if someone happens to pick those habits up for themselves I would say they learned something valuable. If I believed someone was in need of the knowledge I have, whether spiritual or not, and they wanted to learn, I would teach them. I've gone through training with a group that taught different aspects of spirituality you might call it and learned some things there too. They simply started teaching others because people kept coming up to them being curious of what they knew.

Proof is a very difficult thing because I don't think it exists. I can't prove anything 100%. We can't prove completely that God exists or doesn't exist just as we can't even prove completely that gravity exists. We see evidence for one side or other of the argument, and we make a decision based on that. So I don't personally think much of demanding of anyone that they prove their viewpoint conclusively before we believe it, because our own beliefs aren't proven conclusively either.

My point exactly. I got into a heated debate with my friend who's in college for an engineering degree, twice. The first time he decided there was too much out there that is simply unexplained and he was open to the fact there may be something out that guiding certain things. The next year, he took some classes that apparently shut the door on this issue for him and he decided that math solves everything. He couldn't put down anything conclusive on blackholes and such like that, you know the things scientists are still theorizing. Apparently "strong hypothesis" is good enough for him as downright truth and fact. Another friend of mine I'd have to say went from atheist to agnostic going through the same course. The opposite effect, all of these theories and such don't PROVE anything, they simply state what MIGHT be an explination for the unknown. In his mind, he isn't comfortable with the thought of something bigger and better than him as in a deity, but whos to say thats more far out than some of the theories that are out there scientists have come up with? No proof there, just faith. I'd say he's made some growth in opening his mind a little from shouting me down in arguments the year before.

If something can not spring from nothing - then where did "God" come from. It is a matter of the chicken and the egg.
If "God" always have been, as I've seen mentioned in similar discussions, then that is the same as saying something else (some form of matter, a state) could have been prior to the Big Bang (if one follows that theory) that have instigated it - thus something out of something.

This I really happen to like. I'm still puzzling out the truth behind those I happen to follow, where they come from and such. To me, its not really a priority though. However, I do happen to still consider it as simply another life form in a different environment than us. I don't outright worship, I follow, like those who would pledge themselves to a leader of some sort. It makes more sense to me that these beings came from somewhere else, landed where they are, fought over different areas, and set up rulerships of such areas and sought about seeking followers. Not much different than most humans, or natural animal thought process. Seek out territory to exist on, breed, expand to survive and dominate the area you happen to consider home. Now, there are animals that don't seek to dominate, but those happen to be lower on the food chain and end up serving as food for those who DO seek to dominate. Just like humans have systematically killed off, domesticated or scared away most species in any area where large numbers gather.

Perhaps whatever it was that caused this planet to form caught some beings attention and they said "hey, a new toy" and decided to claim it? Who knows. It's another theory though.

frogus23 · Post by **frogus23** » Wed Nov 24, 2004 3:54 pm

I ascribe most to the Freudian view that religiosity is a kind of psychological defect. I do not believe that religious people are mentally inferior in any way, nor I believe that anybody can chose to have faith or otherwise. I just believe that holding theistic beliefs prevents one from living entirely where they ought to - in living in faith, IMO they are living in daydream, and thus a religious life is a life wasted, to a greater or lesser degree. For example, the life of a monk is entirely wasted. However, I have no evidence for my own value system, and thus am making a blind gamble - I do not dissaprove of theists, I uncertainly pity them, not expecting to ever find out if my pity is justified, but unable to escape the belief that it is.

What existed before the beginning of the universe?

This is possibly the most worthless question to ever be asked. Every concept of knowledge, intuition or perception that we have becomes redundant at the point of the universe starting, and so 'knowledge' of anything before the beginning of the universe is impossible if we understand what 'knowledge' means at all.
Likewise our language is entirely contingent, and even contingent from the contingent universe - so any knowledge of what went before would be inefible in real language. Also, any quick reflection upon our conceptions of the words 'before', 'creation' and 'exist' reveal that we can only ask 'what existed before time' or 'what exists outside the universe' or 'what created everything' in a metaphorical sense. The questions are metaphorical, and therefore we do not know how to recognise the real answers, as we cannot express the real questions behind these metaphors.

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Wed Nov 24, 2004 7:43 pm

I am a tad more modern than Frogus, so I attribute religion to several by-products of psychological mechanisms that have had survival value during evolution. (Attachment is one such mechanism, for instance.)

Like Frogus, I think religious beliefs are one of many possible filters that keeps humans from living in reality, but as long as people don't harm others with their beliefs - directly or indirectly - I do not make any moral assessment of how we choose what reality we wish to live in.

[quote="Corsair]
Not beliveing in God is a belief that most Athiest and Agnostics hold with ardor and faith. [/quote]

No it is no"]scientific atheist[/i], which means that I do not believe in a god until it is demonstrated scientifically that a god exists.

Not believing is not a belief, even though I have seen this erranous argument before at fundamentalist websites. It is however not a valid argument. When one discuss god and religion, it is important to learn the terms and learn what is a valid argument and not.

There are many good basic textbooks about religion, theology, philosophy and psychology of religion that are worth reading if you are interested in the subject.

Arrylium · Post by **Arrylium** » Sat Nov 27, 2004 10:31 pm

[QUOTE=Xandax]If "God" always have been, as I've seen mentioned in similar discussions, then that is the same as saying something else (some form of matter, a state) could have been prior to the Big Bang (if one follows that theory) that have instigated it - thus something out of something.[/QUOTE]I could be totally wrong in this view but I generally see a spontaneous Big Bang, and especially evolution, as an attempt to scientifically explain life, the universe etc without bringing God into it. The thing that I find is that God is God, and I believe he is all-powerful and can be outside of time whereas I think it is unscientific to suggest something that can be outside of time. So in the general sense, I believe that nothing can exist outside of time, that is, have no beginning and/or no end, but God being all-powerful can be an exception to that rule. No scientifically explainable animal, vegetable, or mineral could be outside.

[QUOTE=Xandax]Maybe there are possible alternatives outcomes. Maybe we are allowed to choose which path we take after we die, to be reincarnated, live in an Eden or simply rot in the ground. [/QUOTE]Completely out of interest, do you actually believe that or are you suggesting it?

[QUOTE=Xandax]so saying there is only one possible outcome dosen't really fit, when discussing something we dont' know about [/QUOTE]I understand exactly what you mean by that but, coming from my viewpoint there is an answer. If you want to learn to play the digeridoo you ask someone who knows how to play the digeridoo. If you want to learn maths you ask someone who knows maths. So I believe that in order to learn what happens after death you need to ask someone who knows about it - someone who's been through death. I believe Jesus Christ has died and come to life again which makes him, in my books, definitely the best source of information on what happens after death. Now I'm guessing most people here don't believe that Jesus rose from the dead, or maybe that he died, or maybe even that he ever lived in the first place. And if no-one has been through death and lived to tell about it then yes I agree we can't know, just as we can't know for certain who created the universe if no-one was there, but I just thought I'd point out I personally believe both of those questions can be answered because I believe we can have a relationship with the God who created the universe, and Jesus, who went through death and lived to tell about it.

[QUOTE=Aegis]You've misinterpreted what I've said.[/QUOTE]Well I really am sincerely sorry for that. I'm not trying to upset or offend anyone here, and certainly not trying to twist what they say.

[QUOTE=Aegis]Note that I didn't say that a persons faith in the chair is perfect, because, as you have said, the chair might not hold. These faiths on based upon peoples active knowledge. We have sat in enough chairs, openned enough doors, felt the wind enough, to know that, for the most part, they will always be there, and will more than likely work.[/QUOTE]And I believe we have felt and seen the presence and the works of God enough to form a reasonable belief that He is there. I know you don't believe it but I suppose that's part of what we're here to discuss, isn't it?

[QUOTE=Magrus]I'll discuss my religion with anyone that I believe is truly open to hearing it out with and open mind. The problem lies with those who aren't religious, they tend to not care or speak over me until I listen to them tell me how wrong I am. Then again, with those who are religious the same, only to tell me how THEIR beliefs are right. [/QUOTE]I'm totally with you there.

[QUOTE=Frogus23]I just believe that holding theistic beliefs prevents one from living entirely where they ought to - in living in faith, IMO they are living in daydream, and thus a religious life is a life wasted, to a greater or lesser degree. [/QUOTE]I'm not offended or anything (just in case you cared) - for interest would you be able to explain why you belief theism prevents one from living life to the fullest?
Interestingly enough I believe everyone lives in faith. It's who or what your faith is in, that people question.

[QUOTE=C Elegans]As for me, I am a scientific atheist, which means that I do not believe in a god until it is demonstrated scientifically that a god exists. [/QUOTE]What constitutes 'demonstration' of a theory, in your mind? What sort of things do you believe have been demonstrated scientifically?

fable · Post by **fable** » Sat Nov 27, 2004 11:23 pm

The problem lies with those who aren't religious, they tend to not care or speak over me until I listen to them tell me how wrong I am. Then again, with those who are religious the same, only to tell me how THEIR beliefs are right.

Magrus, I've noticed that from people who firmly believe either in their respective deity or no deity at all; but I don't think you'll find much condescension here. I've seen some really angry posts about religion in general, but that's to be expected: how many of us, after all, were subjected to religious indoctrination as children, and see the further effects of it in politics, as well? The problem is sometimes separating the individual from the group. As humans, we automatically form preconceived expectations because they furnish useful shortcuts to dealing with reality. But they can also interfere in truly understanding a given person; and that's where, *hopefully*, a forum can be one part of making a difference.

Xandax · Post by **Xandax** » Sun Nov 28, 2004 3:11 am

Arrylium wrote:
If "God" always have been, as I've seen mentioned in similar discussions, then that is the same as saying something else (some form of matter, a state) could have been prior to the Big Bang (if one follows that theory) that have instigated it - thus something out of something.

I could be totally wrong in this view but I generally see a spontaneous Big Bang, and especially evolution, as an attempt to scientifically explain life, the universe etc without bringing God into it. The thing that I find is that God is God, and I believe he is all-powerful and can be outside of time whereas I think it is unscientific to suggest something that can be outside of time. So in the general sense, I believe that nothing can exist outside of time, that is, have no beginning and/or no end, but God being all-powerful can be an exception to that rule. No scientifically explainable animal, vegetable, or mineral could be outside.<snip>

The Big Bang is the scientiensts way of explaining the birth of our universe to so speak, which they have found some evidence to support such a theory. (Like the expanding universe, how stars and planets seems to form due to dust out of exploding stars etc).
It isn't really an attempt to keep "God" out of the equation, it is just a way to try and descripe the mechanics that have been opserved obectively and not subjectively.

Arrylium wrote: <snip>
so saying there is only one possible outcome dosen't really fit, when discussing something we dont' know about

I understand exactly what you mean by that but, coming from my viewpoint there is an answer. If you want to learn to play the digeridoo you ask someone who knows how to play the digeridoo. If you want to learn maths you ask someone who knows maths. So I believe that in order to learn what happens after death you need to ask someone who knows about it - someone who's been through death. I believe Jesus Christ has died and come to life again which makes him, in my books, definitely the best source of information on what happens after death. Now I'm guessing most people here don't believe that Jesus rose from the dead, or maybe that he died, or maybe even that he ever lived in the first place. And if no-one has been through death and lived to tell about it then yes I agree we can't know, just as we can't know for certain who created the universe if no-one was there, but I just thought I'd point out I personally believe both of those questions can be answered because I believe we can have a relationship with the God who created the universe, and Jesus, who went through death and lived to tell about it.
<snip>

Yes and all this is naturally your right and all the power to you for it - but at the core of all you just have said is that you *belive* it to be so.
But you don't *know*.
And therefore it is in my oppinion that everybody (religion as well as otherwise) else that belives there is different path in life have equal justification and are just as right, because it is what they belive. Thus my "all religions are equal" from ealier posts - as long as they don't try and infringe on other peoples "belives or rights"
(which presently and historically is a problem with some people and religion around the world)

Arrylium wrote: <snip>
Maybe there are possible alternatives outcomes. Maybe we are allowed to choose which path we take after we die, to be reincarnated, live in an Eden or simply rot in the ground.

Completely out of interest, do you actually believe that or are you suggesting it?
<snip>

What I belive is really irrelevant, because it holds true to me and I use that as a guideline in my life.
But no - I don't belive the example I stated, it was just to exemplify that we don't know what happens after death. We can belive what happens, but we don't know.
I belive that we will rot in the ground when we die based on logical deducton, and that this life is all the life we get.
I would like to belive in an afterlife or reincarnation or what not because it is a "comforting thought", but I don't, and doubt I can ever bring myself to do so.

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Sun Nov 28, 2004 4:15 am

Arrylium wrote:I could be totally wrong in this view but I generally see a spontaneous Big Bang, and especially evolution, as an attempt to scientifically explain life, the universe etc without bringing God into it.

Your view is incorrect. Scientific theories like abiogenesis, evolution and big bang are not at all attempts to exclude a god, but attempts to explain how certain observed phenomena (existance and development of life on earth, existance of the universe). None of these scientific theories exclude the possibility of the existance of one or more gods, magical pink unicorns or extraterrestial beings - they simply demonstrate that none of this is necessary to explain existance of the universe and life on earth.

What constitutes 'demonstration' of a theory, in your mind? What sort of things do you believe have been demonstrated scientifically?

My mind is really totally uninteresting, but a scientifically valid demonstration of the existance of a phenomena, must include independent observations and objective measurements, it must include predictions that are tested, and the results must be replicable. Here is a schematic description of the scientific process:

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

Thus, unicorns, gods, telepathy and Bigfoot are not demonstrated to exist. E. Coli, Uranus, the weak force and Tourette's syndrome are examples of phenomena that are demonstrated to exist.

Qark · Post by **Qark** » Sun Nov 28, 2004 8:01 am

Personally I lost my faith very young. However, I have nothing against Christians, Muslims, Jews, or followers of any other god/gods. With the notable of exception of any sects, cults, followings, groups and any religion practicing human sacrifice or any other type of live animal sacrifice.

That being said I distrust any type of organized religion. Organized religion too quickly becomes a hierarchy. And any organization that buts one man above another is going to attract a certain type of people. They may not be the majority, but there will be those willing to use the organization. Using it not to promote the ideals of their messiah, but to promote their own ideals and to give them power over others. And knowing this about human nature I find it impossible to believe that the religious texts has not been corrupted by men only seeking to promote themselves and their power. Especially seeing how these things have happened many times throughout history. Even today there are priests and "wisemen" deceiving their followers for their own glory and not for the glory of their god or messiah.

In short, mankind's ability to willingly deceive others for personal gain has made me a skeptic and made me unable to believe words or gospel preached by my fellow man.

Arrylium · Post by **Arrylium** » Sun Nov 28, 2004 7:59 pm

[QUOTE=Xandax]The Big Bang is the scientiensts way of explaining the birth of our universe to so speak, which they have found some evidence to support such a theory. (Like the expanding universe, how stars and planets seems to form due to dust out of exploding stars etc).
It isn't really an attempt to keep "God" out of the equation, it is just a way to try and descripe the mechanics that have been opserved obectively and not subjectively.[/QUOTE]OK, I understand science isn't always just trying to get rid of God - some scientists are actively trying to, some are trying to prove he exists, and some are just trying to ignore him or do things without him like you say. But scientists, I think it is generally agreed, like to believe that everything can be explained by science - not that that's bad, just what I think.

[QUOTE=Xandax]And therefore it is in my oppinion that everybody (religion as well as otherwise) else that belives there is different path in life have equal justification and are just as right, because it is what they belive. [/QUOTE]I don't understand how everyone can be just as right as each other when they believe different things. If one person believes God exists and another believes God does not exist, either God exists or does not exist so one person is right and one is wrong - one is more right than the other.

[QUOTE=Xandax]as long as they don't try and infringe on other peoples "belives or rights" (which presently and historically is a problem with some people and religion around the world)
[/QUOTE]This has come up a few times so far - why is it that the one universal truth of religion seems to be you're not allowed to infringe on other religions? From whence does this seemingly common belief actually come?

[QUOTE=C Elegans]they simply demonstrate that none of this is necessary to explain existance of the universe and life on earth. [/QUOTE]Do you mean they are successful in proving this, or that this is what they attempt to show?

[QUOTE=C Elegans]Thus, unicorns, gods, telepathy and Bigfoot are not demonstrated to exist. E. Coli, Uranus, the weak force and Tourette's syndrome are examples of phenomena that are demonstrated to exist.[/QUOTE]So, personally, do you only believe things that have been proven scientifically or is it just the method you choose to apply as far as God?

I agree with everything Qark said about most organised religions and heirarchies etc - this is why I am not too keen on religion myself. Rules, regulations, rituals, I've never been particularly interested in.

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Sun Nov 28, 2004 8:09 pm

Arrylium wrote:Do you mean they are successful in proving this, or that this is what they attempt to show?

I mean science has successfully demonstrated that no gods nor magical unicorns are needed in order to explain life on earth etc. This was not the aim though, it is a side effect of the aim to understand and describe the natural world.

So, personally, do you only believe things that have been proven scientifically or is it just the method you choose to apply as far as God?

I only believe in things that can be demonstrated scientifically. Thus I do not believe is ESP, astrology, Bigfoot, unicorns or alien abductions.

Arrylium · Post by **Arrylium** » Sun Nov 28, 2004 8:21 pm

[QUOTE=C Elegans]I mean science has successfully demonstrated that no gods nor magical unicorns are needed in order to explain life on earth etc.[/QUOTE]So they've decided they've proven it? The interesting thing from what I've read is that Francis Bacon, who actually believed in God, decided that scientists should make the assumption in their works that God did not exist, so that they could apply scientific methods etc properly. So when they began a project they generally kept God out of it just as an assumption. Then people believed that science had disproven God, which was not actually true.

[QUOTE=C Elegans]I only believe in things that can be demonstrated scientifically. Thus I do not believe is ESP, astrology, Bigfoot, unicorns or alien abductions.[/QUOTE]Do you believe that Leonardo Da Vinci painted the Mona Lisa?

Gromph · Post by **Gromph** » Sun Nov 28, 2004 8:23 pm

So you don't believe in aliens? OR just in abductions? because there is a good chance that aliens exist, what with there being several billion stars, theres a good chance that at least several formed the correct conditions to create life, and if they have life then why wouldn't they come to visit from time to time? think about it

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Sun Nov 28, 2004 9:11 pm

Arrylium wrote:So they've decided they've proven it? The interesting thing from what I've read is that Francis Bacon, who actually believed in God, decided that scientists should make the assumption in their works that God did not exist, so that they could apply scientific methods etc properly. So when they began a project they generally kept God out of it just as an assumption. Then people believed that science had disproven God, which was not actually true.

??? Please reread my post. Your seems to confusing things. I am saying that science has demonstrated a god is not necessary to explain the existance of the universe and life on earth.

Are you refering to sir Francis Bacon, the Renaissance writher who lived 1561-1626 or the Irish painter or some other Francis Bacon? If you refer to the Renaissance Bacon, firstly, what we today call the scientific method was not defined is his time, so his opinions about modern science is not relevant. Secondly, what do you mean by quoting him, I don't understand the relevance to the topic at hand. It is impossible to "disprove" that something exists, you cannot demonstrate scientifically that something does not exist. I recommend you to read the Knowledge thread, and the first 11 pages of this web book about science and psedoscience:
http://books.nap.edu/books/030907309X/html/1.html

Do you believe that Leonardo Da Vinci painted the Mona Lisa?

Yes, I believe he did since it was sufficiently documented and it has also been analysed by art experts. However, it is also known that many Renaissance master let their students paint parts of their work under their supervision, so it is possible that some of Da Vinci's students contributed more to the painting than he did himself in terms of handicraft. What makes this less likely though, is that "Mona Lisa" was not at all an important painting by the time it was created.

Gromph]So you don't believe in aliens? OR just in abductions? [/quote] I mean exactly what I wrote wrote:alien abductions[/i]. To answer your question, we must make a distiction between justified belief and unjustified belief. Please read the Knowledge thread, Vicsun has posted a good post about this.

There is no evidence that life on other planets exists. However, statistically speaking it is likely that it does. Thus, I believe it is statistically likely that life on other planets exist. There is however no evidence they have been here and abducted humans, and it is not statistically likely either. Thus I do not believe aliens have been here, and even less that they have abducted humans.

Xandax · Post by **Xandax** » Mon Nov 29, 2004 12:20 am

[QUOTE=Arrylium]OK, I understand science isn't always just trying to get rid of God - some scientists are actively trying to, some are trying to prove he exists, and some are just trying to ignore him or do things without him like you say. But scientists, I think it is generally agreed, like to believe that everything can be explained by science - not that that's bad, just what I think.
[/QUOTE]

Of course - scientists wishes to explain things from scientifct facts. That is what they (should) do. They shouldn't make assumptions and explain things from what is believed but from what is known.
So when studying something - they can't include God for nothing is known about (any) God. However they can include the workings of the Universe that is known to us at this given time.
Scientists aren't out to "get" God, because currently - there isn't anything to "go after".

[QUOTE=Arrylium]
I don't understand how everyone can be just as right as each other when they believe different things. If one person believes God exists and another believes God does not exist, either God exists or does not exist so one person is right and one is wrong - one is more right than the other.
[/QUOTE]
This is the same as before. Because you *belive* something which can't be proven (yet) and others *belive* something else that can't be proven (yet) - how do you judge who has more "right".
You say God exists - I say he doesn’t, but I could be saying that Odin and Thor from Norse mythology exists.
How do you prove your ideas are more right then mine?
One might be right ultimately - but until that given point on tme - how would you even start to conclude that you are more right then me?

[QUOTE=Arrylium]
This has come up a few times so far - why is it that the one universal truth of religion seems to be you're not allowed to infringe on other religions? From whence does this seemingly common belief actually come?
[/QUOTE]

It comes out of respect for your fellow human beings.
Because by letting a religion infringe on others - one are deeming himself more right then others based on things that isn't known - but only believed. There is a huge difference between knowing and believing.
And if for instance you think your religion is better or more worth then other people’s ideas or religions and act on that, then other people can think and do the same.
This is happening in the world and has happened throughout history and is the cause of many a bloodbaths.