Religion: why you believe what you believe, and how can you prove it.

[crazyhazey]

crazyhazy, while you make some points in your op that are indisputable empirically, i think they're are some flaws in logic.

while there are many people who claim to "know" what God wants us to do based on reading what are some very old texts, indeed, this does not mean that those books were necessarily written for that purpose. Nor is it of any value (for argument's sake) that these religious texts are very old.

In my opinion, the purpose of the religious text is to provide a space for spiritual meditation or the contemplative pose. By and large, the world's religions preach similar primary messages: Love each other, take care of each other, and be happy. Many eastern religions focus this through the lens of divesting yourself of desire which, in western terms, means getting away from materialism. If one reads these texts--the vedas, the upanishads, the mahabarata, the bhagvad-gita, the bible (in all its incarnations), the tora and talmud, the koran, the writings of great religious leaders and philosophers--it can offer great instruction on how to approach, how to formulate and maintain, an existence in which love, peace, justice, and happiness are maximal.

I agree that many institutionalizations of these messages have fallen to the corruption which always becomes possible when power structures are invested in those institutions. what this means, i think, in short response to your op, is that the problem is not with the religion itself, but with the churches, mosques, temples, etc.

I think there is an instructive Buddhist vis-a-vis Hindu principle that you will find enlightening and agreeable: Do not believe anything that does not make sense to you. or, contrariwise, believe only that which makes sense to you.

NOW, the whole bit of searching for proof in all this, well, you will never find that. there is no proof. that is why these become matters of faith and debate. We can sit on and argue endlessly about the merits of rationale, emotion, spirituality; we can go back and forth on moral conundra forever; we can approach philosophical questions from diverse vantage points and still resolve nothing. Thats, in my suspicion, part of the fun of being a human being. God, or whatever you want to call the primordial force of the universe, had a pretty good sense of humor when he started the evolution of man on earth: now there's a whole big faction of our species that does nothing but sit around and argue about what our purpose in existence is when it has never changed: be happy.

my two cents

be easy

im glad you can look at religion from a moral stand point, but by cherry picking these books and through different interpretations, its as if theres no right way to be a religion, so if you cherry pick a religion, are you truly that? i mean, if you completely follow a book this means you follow every last bit of it. i do have a problem with the institutions these churches put up, and by the scamming and corruption that takes place, i just wish people didnt look at it blindly and think about 10% of their salary going towards "a good cause", which is probably the priests wallet. not to mention, they preach how men are sinners, yet how is someone to judge whos a sinner if they are human. and ironically, these priests end up committing some sick things, i dont even have to mention what priests do, doesnt that mean anything? if you ask me thats just proof that making someone the leader of "judging" whos a sinner will only drive these people to be the thing he preaches against everyday. yes, religions may hold some knowledge about the spirit and all that, but much of the flawed info was never corrected, some still disregard science, thats the problem. i do agree with the idea that you shouldnt accept anything you dont believe, but much of the things in these books are just common sense. these lessons can be taught to you without having to search through opinionated texts, many of which go against the very laws of nature(evolution especially). and imagine how far ahead we would be without religious restriction on stem cell research, or abortion. dont get me wrong, abortion is a horrible thing, but is it better to raise a foster child who may have mental/physical health problems from not being properly reared by parents? if those who cant support a child want to get an abortion, the government has no right to step in and tell women what to do with something that is being created inside your body. not to mention fetuses and umbilical cords could be used to repair almost any tissue, im talking blind people being able to see again, paraplegics could possibly make some sort of recovery too with stem cells, yet we stand by and throw away these valuable cells since its blasphemy, but would "god" rather have sick people live again at the cost of a few stem cells, or save a baby that may never have a proper childhood. religion holds too much power, it shouldnt interfere with government matters, or better yet private matter like what a woman wants to do with her womb.

i will admit, you may find a good piece of advice, but really, why couldnt you just go out into the world and learn these things first hand, or better yet look at a book from this century? we've advanced as a species, we're much smarter than we were all those years ago. it sounds stupid, but the only way christians would get my support would be a new new testament, one that would actually prove useful during our age, and maybe no(or less) lies this time, and they should also pay taxes since their property could be supporting our government, rather they take the loop hole and pocket whatever they're not spending on "church missions" or "donations". saying your a religion restricts you from believe outside knowledge if you truly only believe that book, and lets get this straight, all those books dont teach all the lessons to life. they should be learned hands on, with an open mind, or possibly found in a book that is non-fiction.

and yeah, we can always debate faith, until those who say they have faith(remember, jesus said nobody truly has faith, if anyone had a grain of faith it could "move a mountain", christians even accept this, idk how they interpret it but i dont think they're taking it how they should) finally admit that they just dont want to do research and find the facts of life, theyd rather sit in a corner, read their fairy tales, and hope to get all the answer you would get by actually reading something useful or getting out into the world. also, another huge problem i have with religion is the idea of prayer, give me a fuckin break thats blatant laziness and we all know it, if you wanna go help someone go do it you lazy religious fatasses. and stop thanking god for the food at your table, if your "god" was providing the food everyone in the world should be eating.

if there is truly a god, which i dont believe(but i do believe our galaxy does have some complex secrets to it, the recent discoveries with orions belt have blown my mind), he certainly does have a sense of humor. he can just sit back while people kill each other over which "form" of him they believe, they cant just side their argument and accept their religion is just another knockoff. most of it originated from hinduism, im sure an educated person such as yourself notices the similarities in all these books, its just different names and slightly different stories.

 

[Dr.J20]

Alright, I'm sure you consider yourself very educated, correct? It sounds as though you have some educational background, and you offer many of the stock arguments: "How could God really be there? all these people killing in his name? and he does nothing?"
Yet, earlier in your post you clearly identify that priests (human beings) contort and pervert what good there is in their "religion." Now there's some troubling conflation taking place throughout where Catholicism and Christians are being generalized. This is problematic. As is presuming that a religion is the same thing as a religious text. Where in the bible does a hierarchy every get expilcitly established for the catholic church? (i'm sticking with christianity from here on out, since this seems to be where your bone to pick with God originates).

What's confusing is that you use the fact that man is corruptible as proof that God doesn't exist? Perhaps all of this killing and hatred comes from man's hatred and fear of change, his troubling egoism, and a latent fear of the Other (call it a metaphysical xenophobia).

What merit is there in stepping in and saving people over and over? They never learn when you do that. We are very frail and insecure species at this point in our history. These religious texts all hit upon the fact that by divesting ourselves of judgment, desires, seeking personal power, we can cultivate a happy, free, peaceful existence. God is a human word for a force that started it all. You can go back in time and history to a point before earth even existed, but you can't pre-date existence itself. So when you remove time all that you have left is cosmic energy that has always existed and will always exist: that's God.

Now, to move on to the statement that you can just learn from living: this is true but only true because books provide a way for knowledge to be passed on indefinitely: we need all kinds of books, including ones which discuss our metaphysical nature(s), if only for fodder to contemplate and argue against. You see, you have articulations with these religions you reject: how could you reject them without their existence and knowing something of them?

I do believe there is a sense of arrogance in someone who thinks that God sees killing the same way we do, and so supposes God doesn't exist. God is inevitably of stronger spirit and will than you, He also sees a much bigger picture than you do, and who knows, maybe all the innocent slaughtered are rewarded once their state of existence changes/passes through life? Your presumption is grand but as contradictory as the religions you lambast. It seems like you say science will reveal all of the facts of existence, essentially demystifying reality, but ask any real scientist and you'll find that the ultimate limits of science provoke some of the greatest leaps of faith.

I agree there are a lot of people who don't know and don't care to know about themselves and what they believe. Your grievance about cherry picking, however, is a little epistemologically puerile. Do you really suppose that a God who created a world which only thrives through adaptability and diversity really expects there to be only ONE right answer to how to live your life? Again, religions are, IDEALLY, for the purpose of providing a guide for achieving that peaceful happy existence. The problem is when man becomes extremely power crazed and fearful--in that metaphysically xenophobic way--and starts repressing logically harmless, amoral activity (AMORAL NOT IMMORAL).

In short, following the spirit of a religion is not cherry picking and does not invalidate anything. A religion is a group of people who declare that they share a set of beliefs which will offer the best, most peaceful, happiest life to everyone. to some extent even atheism is a religion.

be easy

 

[Dr.J20]

Also, it seems as though you're misinterpreting some of my writing...churches themselves are institutions, not the charities they set up...which are also institutional in nature but somewhat more of an organized bureaucracy...

i doubt i'm gonna convince you of anything, i'm not trying to argue and i'm honestly too baked to do this right now..i just reread what i posted and its not even worth trying to go back and edit...

if you believe there are some kind of cosmic mysteries you believe in some form of a metaphysical "god" figure and therefore are arguing semantically---you just don't like the word God

and i take extreme umbrage at the notion fiction has nothing to teach: what about poetry, drama, painting, sculpture, architecture, gardening, indeed any aesthetic communique, or anything aesthetically crafted whatsoever? can't learn anything from them either?
i mean the idea that only non-fiction books are of any epistemological value is just asinine.
be easy

 

[crazyhazey]

Alright, I'm sure you consider yourself very educated, correct? It sounds as though you have some educational background, and you offer many of the stock arguments: "How could God really be there? all these people killing in his name? and he does nothing?"
Yet, earlier in your post you clearly identify that priests (human beings) contort and pervert what good there is in their "religion." Now there's some troubling conflation taking place throughout where Catholicism and Christians are being generalized. This is problematic. As is presuming that a religion is the same thing as a religious text. Where in the bible does a hierarchy every get expilcitly established for the catholic church? (i'm sticking with christianity from here on out, since this seems to be where your bone to pick with God originates).

What's confusing is that you use the fact that man is corruptible as proof that God doesn't exist? Perhaps all of this killing and hatred comes from man's hatred and fear of change, his troubling egoism, and a latent fear of the Other (call it a metaphysical xenophobia).

What merit is there in stepping in and saving people over and over? They never learn when you do that. We are very frail and insecure species at this point in our history. These religious texts all hit upon the fact that by divesting ourselves of judgment, desires, seeking personal power, we can cultivate a happy, free, peaceful existence. God is a human word for a force that started it all. You can go back in time and history to a point before earth even existed, but you can't pre-date existence itself. So when you remove time all that you have left is cosmic energy that has always existed and will always exist: that's God.

Now, to move on to the statement that you can just learn from living: this is true but only true because books provide a way for knowledge to be passed on indefinitely: we need all kinds of books, including ones which discuss our metaphysical nature(s), if only for fodder to contemplate and argue against. You see, you have articulations with these religions you reject: how could you reject them without their existence and knowing something of them?

I do believe there is a sense of arrogance in someone who thinks that God sees killing the same way we do, and so supposes God doesn't exist. God is inevitably of stronger spirit and will than you, He also sees a much bigger picture than you do, and who knows, maybe all the innocent slaughtered are rewarded once their state of existence changes/passes through life? Your presumption is grand but as contradictory as the religions you lambast. It seems like you say science will reveal all of the facts of existence, essentially demystifying reality, but ask any real scientist and you'll find that the ultimate limits of science provoke some of the greatest leaps of faith.

I agree there are a lot of people who don't know and don't care to know about themselves and what they believe. Your grievance about cherry picking, however, is a little epistemologically puerile. Do you really suppose that a God who created a world which only thrives through adaptability and diversity really expects there to be only ONE right answer to how to live your life? Again, religions are, IDEALLY, for the purpose of providing a guide for achieving that peaceful happy existence. The problem is when man becomes extremely power crazed and fearful--in that metaphysically xenophobic way--and starts repressing logically harmless, amoral activity (AMORAL NOT IMMORAL).

In short, following the spirit of a religion is not cherry picking and does not invalidate anything. A religion is a group of people who declare that they share a set of beliefs which will offer the best, most peaceful, happiest life to everyone. to some extent even atheism is a religion.

be easy

im somewhat of a humble person, so i dont consider myself to be really anything, im just a human making observations. its not that im mad with christians/catholics either, just the ignorance of most religious people and how they let their beliefs effect the world we live in. our government is strongly christian/catholic also, im sorry if i use them as examples but they are the epitome of a flawed religion. and im not exactly saying god doesnt exist due to human atrocities, but think about this... if he "created" us, then he knows this is going to happen, he knows we are going to suffer, argue about his existance, and kill each other for not believing. he realizes we are all going to suffer due to some peoples need to be reliant on something, religion usually acts as a crutch for most, or out of fear they join. and i dont read much of the bible but i dont know if hierarchy of the church was ever discussed, better yet i dont think jesus would have wanted a church, he didnt want people to wear crosses either but people do this all the time. (sorry if some of this seems a bit unorganized, im really tired and im probably going to bed after this post, so dont take everything i say here into account until i can justify it tomorrow when im not half asleep.)

im not saying that god doesnt exist because man is corrupt, but rather because he stands by while his "children" kill one another over nothing, i agree that the atrocities committed by man are cause by fear and ego as well so we're on the same page here.

your definition of god is the only one that has made sense so far, i was talking about orions belt earlier because it reminds me of some sort of cosmic "god" or creator of some sort. im not saying there isnt an ultimate creator, of course there is, but the god im saying is not real is the one that you pray to, or the one you thank your food for, that was what i was trying to say earlier. and i dont expect god to come down and lend a hand, but its as if many rely on "him" to make their decisions, you may as well ask god to untie you from train tracks. idk if all religious texts follow that either, if we're talking about christianity still i dont believe that to be true, christians tell you to ask for forgiveness in hopes to stay away from a burning pit of fire, if thats not old school way traumatize children with an extensive imagination, idk what is. some religions do want us to be happy, and not worry about any after life. most eastern religions have this sort of characteristic, and they're more a way of life if anything.

i believe some literature is beneficial, others may leave your mind ridden with all sort of false knowledge, one of the other reasons i find religious texts to be a bad source of knowledge. yes, there will be facts in there, i dont think all religious texts are completely the same but most(except most of the eastern religions of course) dont give you much more than common sense and a few fictional stories that are supposed to teach you morals. yes,i reject these religions, as should many who believe the facts of life that make these texts false, had they not existed, our world would be much less segregated, jerusalem would be peaceful... hell we may have not even separated into different countries. this thread would not exist either, and possibly plenty of wars could have been avoided.

once again, its not the idea of god i reject, its the form of god that religions explain. i dont think god is a he or she, i dont think its a being at all, maybe it doesnt even make choices, but it was the first thing to really exist. i do believe science hold the facts of life, and everything can be proved by it, however we havent come far enough to really know anything, we know nothing of space, our universe, or anything. we dont know nearly enough yet to underestimate something as sure as science.

the problem i have with cherry picking, is that you can take one piece of the book you live by, but then reject another? what makes the first piece of knowledge better than the next? and if this book has bad advice, why are you following it at all.
and by cherry picking, you dont believe all the same beliefs, you cherry picked so you only believe some parts. idk how atheism is a religion either, please elaborate.


and im so tired im hallucinating right now, ill be back on here in the morn, thanks for the intriguing conversation dr j20, youve made some very valid points.

 

[Heisenberg]

ask any real scientist and you'll find that the ultimate limits of science provoke some of the greatest leaps of faith

Could you give some examples of science incorporating faith into it's answers?

if you believe there are some kind of cosmic mysteries you believe in some form of a metaphysical "god" figure and therefore are arguing semantically---you just don't like the word God

This seems to be a false dilemma. Acknowledging that the universe has complex mysteries is much different than saying it contains an interactive god who answers prayers and dictates behavior. Which religion do you know of that knowingly worships cosmic mysteries?

 

[st0wandgrow]

If Jesus were alive today, he'd be standing on a soap box at a busy intersection in New York city spreading his "word" .... and we'd most likely find a comfy bed for him in a padded room.

 

[Dr.J20]

I'm sorry, this has gotten out of hand...
this bit about cherry picking makes no sense: so human judgment should never be exercised? we should discard anything if it is ever wrong on any single point? a single wrong statement invalidates an entire work?

you have no idea what you're talking about right now. this is not an insult or a criticism, it has become apparent that you're talking about things you have not yet researched. This is not a bad thing entirely, as it is encouraging to see such curiosity. YOu should satisfy this curiosity.

Your anger seems to lie with the earthly manifestations of faith. there will be no proof for a belief, that is why it is a belief.
given my rendition of "religion" (i.e. its definition) atheism is most certainly a religion: a group of people who say we believe X and will use X as our guiding principle for the cultivation of a peaceful, happy existence.

get some rest, if you want to continue these kinds of debates its going to take a lot.

In honesty, and i don't want to sound preachy or condescending here, but it sounds like you're doing what corrupted religions themselves do: find a scapegoat for the earth's ills, a tidy simple answer for why all thats wrong is wrong...

if you took away religion people would find something else to fight about pal, thats the value of all these ancient texts...read some virgil, we've been longing for a peaceful pastoral since before christ. literally. So, take heart, I know it seems like theres a ton of bad shit in the world, but there's a lot of good, so no matter your views on religion, living ethically and morally, and really considering every action, you'll live a healthy happy life

be easy

 

[cannabineer]

If Jesus were alive today, he'd be standing on a soap box at a busy intersection in New York city spreading his "word" .... and we'd most likely find a comfy bed for him in a padded room.

Since Reagan? He's on his own!! cn

 

[Heisenberg]

Your anger seems to lie with the earthly manifestations of faith. there will be no proof for a belief, that is why it is a belief.
given my rendition of "religion" (i.e. its definition) atheism is most certainly a religion: a group of people who say we believe X and will use X as our guiding principle for the cultivation of a peaceful, happy existence.

All beliefs have proof except pseudoscientific ones. We believe a proposition because we trust that it accurately represents a state of reality. From a simple belief like "I tied my shoes this morning" to a complicated belief like those behind chemotherapy, this remains true. Even a superstitious belief, like fear of black cats, follows the mechanism of trusting that it states something about reality. Basic survival demands we be accurate about our reality. Beliefs become principals of action. We rightfully attempt to justify beliefs with some sort of evidence. We seek for them to cohere both logically and comparatively with each other. This is why individuals are able to construct a personal view of the world that largely agrees with others. Even something simple like knowing what I mean when I say words like 'danger', 'upwards', or 'seven' stems from this shared connection. Religious beliefs are not distinct; they are not exempt from this premise, so why should they be exempt from the constraints we apply to all other beliefs?

And as we point out often on these forums, Atheism is NOT a belief, it is the lack of a belief. It is a position utterly without content. Atheists do not say 'I believe X' they say, essentially, 'I reject the argument for a deity'. The reasons for rejection can be personal, logical, or simply rebellion, but atheism itself begins and ends at rejection. Knowing someone is atheist tells you only one very specific thing about them, that they are not a theist. This includes anything that is not theism, even indecision. Some atheists go on to say 'I believe there is no god", but that is done in addition to and outside of atheism.

Furthermore, just saying I believe X and will use X as my life's philosophy' is not a religion, even if a bunch of people do it together, it's a discipline based on an ideology. This is what religion and skepticism or secularism have in common. The distinction, in the context of this discussion of course, is that religion tries to relate specifically to spirituality and superhuman agency.

 

[Dr.J20]

I had a response to all of this but i'm not sure if we're going to get anywhere having failed to define our terms at the outset. I agree that a group of people living by a philosophy is not actually a religion. deconstructing what a religion is, however, does yield a group of people who have, often for a long time, invested their belief in a set of principle often codified by the same group. the problem with these forums is context is very difficult to maintain. The thrust of my posts have been largely to recommend that the reasons for being atheist are no more certain than the reasons for being a theist. the point being, reason is not preeminent, that is fairly old hat. the sciences fall under this camp, often, though it is not necessary for that to be the case. The ultimate question here is one of faith. a nonbeliever will not believe and a believer will. That there exist peaceful, happy, non-harming practitioners of all faiths does speak loudly for the fact that you can maintain some set of religious beliefs and be a good person, not harming anyone else. And, that there are some atheists who do terrible things only says that there is a capacity for evil inherent in every individual, his or her atheism had little to do with his or her terrible actions.
im out

 

[Dr.J20]

Whoever has a mind has the ability to delude themselves with what they wish,yet even more scarey, delude others that are with weaker mind,which are far to many in number.People that believe they talk to higher powered beings never left pretend time as kids,yes I would be inclined to think they are schitzo for sure.I use to believe in this stuff as a kid through early teen,but never heard any special voices and never made any invisible friends with omnipotency.I guess some people get so desperate for hope that they will happily delude themselves into faith because it is so easy to rest all of your concerns about truth on an intangible being.It is like hitting the easy button to claim faith as youre reasoning behind the belief,so that the mind may circumvent the effort to ask the important Who,what,where,when and WHY.

while i do agree some people claim "faith" when they don't want to reason something out. that's not really faith though. this is what i mean with define our terms. faith can only be cultivated through great struggle, and arduous contemplation. Arguing with yourself, trying to find something very sound and reasonable. And i don't think you really need faith for anything that can be proven so theres a fairly limited scope for faith. but just claiming you believe something because you have faith without considering it reasonably and looking for all possible holes in that belief before subscribing to it, then you're just dicking around and being lazy.

 

[mindphuk]

What's confusing is that you use the fact that man is corruptible as proof that God doesn't exist?

Certainly there are facts about our world and humanity that disprove some types of deities such as those that are 'perfect' and whose creation is 'perfect.' Omnibenevolent along with ominipotence and ominiscience are inherently and logically contradicted unless one alters definitions.

God is a human word for a force that started it all. You can go back in time and history to a point before earth even existed, but you can't pre-date existence itself. So when you remove time all that you have left is cosmic energy that has always existed and will always exist: that's God.

Seems to me that if god is the word given to a basic, fundamental part of nature, that diminishes the idea of a god and makes it meaningless. If god is nature then we are all theists but there will still be people arguing that god is intelligent and created this or that. We then are basically arguing what kind of theist are we, deistic, interventionist, etc. This is one of the many problems I have with pantheism.

You see, you have articulations with these religions you reject: how could you reject them without their existence and knowing something of them?

If one rejects the idea of an intelligent agent that created the universe, we don't need to know details of the religion to reject it if it believes in such god(s) at its core.

I do believe there is a sense of arrogance in someone who thinks that God sees killing the same way we do, and so supposes God doesn't exist.

I see the arrogance is in people that claim to have knowledge about the thing(s) that they tell us we cannot really know such as....

God is inevitably of stronger spirit and will than you,

and ...

He also sees a much bigger picture than you do,

and who knows, maybe all the innocent slaughtered are rewarded once their state of existence changes/passes through life?

Who knows? No one. Pretending you have knowledge of these things, especially to the point of claiming knowledge of such a god's existence, is arrogant.

Your presumption is grand but as contradictory as the religions you lambast.

The presumption of non-existence of things without evidence is not grand, it is basic and should be the default position on everything. Claiming it is contradictory is ridiculous and indemonstrable.

It seems like you say science will reveal all of the facts of existence,

Science will reveal what is possible to know. If something is beyond the reach of science, it is most likely unknowable and hence will remain in the realm of philosophy.

ask any real scientist and you'll find that the ultimate limits of science provoke some of the greatest leaps of faith.

I'm a real scientist and I have no faith of the religious kind.

to some extent even atheism is a religion.

Atheism is an accusation by those that believe in a god. If there were no believers, there would be no word for atheism. Atheism is therefore an answer to a question. It has no tenets or beliefs, it is not a doctrine, it only says I don't accept the claim that a god exists.

 

[Heisenberg]

The thrust of my posts have been largely to recommend that the reasons for being atheist are no more certain than the reasons for being a theist. the point being, reason is not preeminent, that is fairly old hat.

The only reason needed to be an atheist is the failure of the theist argument to be convincing. There needs to be no certainty involved. When you speak of certainty you are speaking of a specific subset of atheists who are speculating beyond the ideology. Absolute certainty requires a degree of faith, that is true in every case, but you can't axiomatically assign certainty to the atheist position.

To say that reason is no more distinct than speculation misses the very purpose of reasoning. Faith guesses and pretends certitude and that is the heart of the issue, no matter what position that faith is supporting. This is an idea inherit to science, which is why no scientific positions, including atheism, require faith.

 

[Dr.J20]

I'm fairly certain I have not expressed myself well and I can see how I have made statements which elide certain steps in my thought process. However, I don't believe that I claimed to have certain knowledge of anything: I tried to propose some different manners of thinking on the subject of whether god exists and why people have belief. I apologize if I have offended anyone in so doing, but I remain certain that the petty foibles of man neither prove nor disprove the existence of a God

 

[420IAMthatIAM]

title says it all, im just curious how people can look into ancient text and find their purpose in life? especially since most of these books go by life thousands of years ago. most of you also cherry pick the books you live by also, but why only live by some words and not the others? if these people made this book and you completely take their word without any of their proof, doesnt it defeat the purpose when you reject on fallacy but accept another? how do you go about judging what is morally right in the books you live by, when you base your morals on said book?

also, has anyone ever taken into account, when someone believe they spoke to "god" or some other "higher being", do you ever wonder if this person may have been schizophrenic? possibly even on drugs, or maybe just dreaming? how do you live by the words of something that has no proof, and ignore something that shows evidence of proof like science?


oh and one last thing, for the last question dont answer by saying "faith", elaborate a little bit.

may be people really dont believe even though they may say they do. Heb 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. in other words if my coffee cup is empty..and my hope is that on the count of 3 it will be full...the presence of the coffee is the substance and the evidence of my belief,,aka faith... Jas 2:26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

 

[crazyhazey]

I'm sorry, this has gotten out of hand...
this bit about cherry picking makes no sense: so human judgment should never be exercised? we should discard anything if it is ever wrong on any single point? a single wrong statement invalidates an entire work?

you have no idea what you're talking about right now. this is not an insult or a criticism, it has become apparent that you're talking about things you have not yet researched. This is not a bad thing entirely, as it is encouraging to see such curiosity. YOu should satisfy this curiosity.

Your anger seems to lie with the earthly manifestations of faith. there will be no proof for a belief, that is why it is a belief.
given my rendition of "religion" (i.e. its definition) atheism is most certainly a religion: a group of people who say we believe X and will use X as our guiding principle for the cultivation of a peaceful, happy existence.

get some rest, if you want to continue these kinds of debates its going to take a lot.

In honesty, and i don't want to sound preachy or condescending here, but it sounds like you're doing what corrupted religions themselves do: find a scapegoat for the earth's ills, a tidy simple answer for why all thats wrong is wrong...

if you took away religion people would find something else to fight about pal, thats the value of all these ancient texts...read some virgil, we've been longing for a peaceful pastoral since before christ. literally. So, take heart, I know it seems like theres a ton of bad shit in the world, but there's a lot of good, so no matter your views on religion, living ethically and morally, and really considering every action, you'll live a healthy happy life

be easy

all im saying about cherry picking is why would you believe one piece of knowledge from a book you supposedly live your life by, but reject another? isnt there something wrong with that? i mean yes, there is such thing as human judgement, but dont you take that out of account when following something as mindless as religion? religion makes you a drone to whatever religion you are. some decide to take outside knowledge, many of them deny the facts of science, this is one of the biggest problems i have with religion, people have the answers now but these unappreciative thick headed smug shit heads(im speaking of mostly christians, im sorry but my whole state is flooded with them and i have never liked their attitudes towards different beliefs) read a book that was altered many times, that has no background proof, then deny something that has been well proven.

dont get me started on the old testament either, talk about bad advice, theres one line that says "eat your children", i dont remember the exact quote but im sure you know what im talking about since your a bit more informed on this religious propoganda, and you believe it tells you to live a happy life but the institutions of the church have completely changed the way people use a bible, they ask so much more than you to live happy, they want your money, and your time. i know youll say "but these texts have some use", yes, but why fall into these petty beliefs rather than reading something useful. every hotel room has a bible(i use the back pages for joint papers when desperate so thats the only good thing that comes of them), but why not an encyclopedia or something that has some sort of useful knowledge, not made up shit that has been altered over years to work off the fear of burning in a fire pit and the guilt of "jesus dying for your sins". its sad to me that these people fall for one of the biggest schemes known to man, even china knows to not let western religion effect their culture, all the church wants is power.

so to sum it up, yes, i do have problems with both religion(mostly western religions, ones that focus on theism, spreading their word, and stopping the non believers, etc) and its institution, i think you have realized this by now.


i think i know a bit about what im talking about, once again im a humble person so i wont claim anything, i know im a curious person, thats why i come on here to debate with people, im sorry if my statements show some sort of anger towards religion, ive grown up in a state that emphasizes how essential religion is, if you say your atheist here people think of you differently, so of course im not happy about their smug religion. im still pretty young, i have plenty of time to learn more about this shit so dont think im calling you wrong or anything, when discussing religion nobodys right or wrong.

i do have a problem with faith when one outweighs fact with faith, that makes 0 sense to me. as an atheist i believe you shouldnt listen to things you dont have proof for, and to live a happy existence you should let people change your outlook on life, get out there, experience as many cultures possible, and see how the human race works. all religions were created because science wasnt yet advanced enough to give these people answers, we live in an age where we have them now yet we still rely on these books to give us answers, does that make sense to you? it doesnt to me, i mean there is some knowledge to be found in those texts but its nothing you cant learn from getting out in the world, or reading something about common sense, which i dont think would be necessary since culture will shape you into what they believe is right, as will religion.

im not stating religion is the scapegoat of our worldly problems, although many could be avoided without it. take all the words from these books with a grain of salt, thats the only advice id give if you choose to let your eyes wander into these works of propaganda(once again, mostly western religions). its just another dividing factor, race is already enough for man to fight so why let another dividing factor get in the way of the coexistence of man. im glad you want me to live a happy existence and all, but there are many out there who let religion restrict them from doing so much, especially our government, its religiously biased and i believe religion has nothing to do with government, yet our currency still says one nation under god. religion shouldnt be as abundant as it is, its involved in much more than it should be.

 

[crazyhazey]

may be people really dont believe even though they may say they do. Heb 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. in other words if my coffee cup is empty..and my hope is that on the count of 3 it will be full...the presence of the coffee is the substance and the evidence of my belief,,aka faith... Jas 2:26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

correct me if im wrong, but basically, faith has no ground proof and you wont get anything out of praying or believing something. if only faith was reliable, every night id wish for my plants to finish over night lol. and i dont really believe in the spirit, i think we use spirit to define our consciousness more or less. we'll never have proof of it although.

 

[Dr.J20]

CrazyHazy,
I really can't respond because I'm not really sure what your statement is now. It seems there are some issues with terminology. A religious text is not a religion. Someone who blindly follows the bible's every single word is called a literalist. These people occupy a vast faction of American Christendom, but not the whole of that religion.

What you seem to be looking for from a religion is a how-to guide for a happy life. Some religions, especially the younger, western ones you seem to have a problem with, do present themselves as just that. They fully believe if they place all of these crazy restrictions on themselves they will live a very happy life, indeed, and see it as necessary to force everyone around them to believe those same crazy restrictions. These people tend to be like the ones who are in your state, forcing their beliefs on you. I have a huge problem with this as well. But my problem is not with religion in general, it is with those who have, as you say, only cherry picked quotations from the bible to support beliefs they already hold....a practice which goes on today everywhere from foxnews to these forums.

I agree with you that there are many evangelists that will select one part of the old testament but have no explanation for that part's contradiction later in the same book of the bible. However, that doesn't mean we should throw out all religion totally.

What I think you're suffering from is being inundated with a particular brand of self-styled "Christianity" which foregoes Jesus of Nazareth's total motif of teaching: love your neighbor more than yourself (where neighbor means everyone).

As for your fetish for proof: Let us make clear a number of points: 1) I do not wish to foray into a debate about science vs. religion and apologize for making general claims which were unclear and seemed to contradict the words of scientists themselves. (2) There are matters in science which are purely theoretical, meaning they have no way of being proved even though these theoretics seem to hold up in reality more often than not. Heisenberg, think of your principle (for those not Heisenberg, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle); or Gravity, that's a good one that breaks down at the quantum level but is clearly observable and predictable at the macro level.

Given these two points, I would like to re-clarify my earlier point that my initial mention of science has been to illustrate only at the very FRINGES of exploration, that theorization must take place. I then, in another step that went unstated, elided theorization and belief on a philosophical ground that takes both belief and theory to require a great deal of contemplating relevant information before hammering down your final belief or theory. That stated, the quasi-synonymous statements of belief and theory were interchanged such that I could make the statement that, even a real scientist will tell you that some belief is involved at the EDGES of the discipline.

So, while I take,well, your point about wanting proof, I am merely pointing out the counterpoint that even that which is regarded as scientific fact is merely a datum held in the vast sphere of knowledge that we all AGREE is sound. To some extent, facts are only facts because enough well reasoned people agree that they are facts (*obviously this is a huge simplification for our point in history*)

The long and short of this is a desire to stop you from making the mistake of thinking that reason, science, logic, and fact are or ought to be the preeminent qualities of existence. That is, these things are good, but they are not the absolute most important. There is something to be said for a the existence of the metaphysical, man's mythopoetic bent, the emotional, the spiritual. Hell, athletes provide a great intersection of the seemingly impossible and possible, as do musicians. Athletes must struggle with the physics of kinematics and musicians with the physics of acoustics and oscillations. But what they produce is oftentimes (at least the great ones) beyond their own capacities for explanation.

I'm not sure where I was really going with that last bit but i suppose the long and short of my point is to get you to not be too black and white about this.

All religion is not bad, and all those who claim allegiance to a religious faith are not proselytizing fatheaded fascists. Nor is all religion good and there are some assholes who pervert a religion based on that religion's text(s).
I'm sorry if my point came across the wrong way, I really only want to avoid conflating your average anti-gay, anti-drug, anti-fun, anti-freedom evangelist with the extremely enlightened buddhist, or hindu, or taoist, or jesuit, or rabbi, or Imam

Its always a spectrum and there's always a middle ground

be easy

 

[crazyhazey]

CrazyHazy,
I really can't respond because I'm not really sure what your statement is now. It seems there are some issues with terminology. A religious text is not a religion. Someone who blindly follows the bible's every single word is called a literalist. These people occupy a vast faction of American Christendom, but not the whole of that religion. What you seem to be looking for from a religion is a how-to guide for a happy life. Some religions, especially the younger, western ones you seem to have a problem with, do present themselves as just that. They fully believe if they place all of these crazy restrictions on themselves they will live a very happy life, indeed, and see it as necessary to force everyone around them to believe those same crazy restrictions. These people tend to be like the ones who are in your state, forcing their beliefs on you. I have a huge problem with this as well. But my problem is not with religion in general, it is with those who have, as you say, only cherry picked quotations from the bible to support beliefs they already hold....a practice which goes on today everywhere from foxnews to these forums.

i agree with this but down here open-mindedness is out of question, quite literally almost all of them are what you call a literalist. some of the newer religions dont have just one general message although they do say treat other how you want to be treated, theres many other things they live by, such as these ridiculous restrictions to remain "pure" in the eyes of their god. also many other aspects to those religions due to difference of interpretations. i feel cherry picking is like half assing a religion, why call yourself anything if you dont believe all the parts of it, nobody should call themselves a religion if they believe only a small percent of it, you cant say "im 7% christian because i listen to 7% of the bible. if you disagree with points, you shouldnt have faith in said religion at all. if you disagree with some of these religious texts then go read something about common sense, thats basically the bible minus all of the bullshit.

I agree with you that there are many evangelists that will select one part of the old testament but have no explanation for that part's contradiction later in the same book of the bible. However, that doesn't mean we should throw out all religion totally.
What I think you're suffering from is being inundated with a particular brand of self-styled "Christianity" which foregoes Jesus of Nazareth's total motif of teaching: love your neighbor more than yourself (where neighbor means everyone).

why deny something? what makes the ones you accept any better? and taking trust in a book that has been alter for years isnt smart, just my opinion although.

As for your fetish for proof: Let us make clear a number of points: 1) I do not wish to foray into a debate about science vs. religion and apologize for making general claims which were unclear and seemed to contradict the words of scientists themselves. (2) There are matters in science which are purely theoretical, meaning they have no way of being proved even though these theoretics seem to hold up in reality more often than not. Heisenberg, think of your principle (for those not Heisenberg, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle); or Gravity, that's a good one that breaks down at the quantum level but is clearly observable and predictable at the macro level.

lol can you blame me for wanting evidence? this is an example, but if your a cop you cant just believe things, you need evidence before taking actions. i believe the same thing when making something my own belief. i wasnt saying you contradicted the words of science, but like i said earlier id take sides with whoever has proof. science can prove theories though, after its been tested enough it becomes fact, those that remain theories are beyond our knowledge, but we should not let religion answer these questions, we should push to understand them more. science will only give us better answer to the simpler questions, and it will be much more predictable than an observation.

Given these two points, I would like to re-clarify my earlier point that my initial mention of science has been to illustrate only at the very FRINGES of exploration, that theorization must take place. I then, in another step that went unstated, elided theorization and belief on a philosophical ground that takes both belief and theory to require a great deal of contemplating relevant information before hammering down your final belief or theory. That stated, the quasi-synonymous statements of belief and theory were interchanged such that I could make the statement that, even a real scientist will tell you that some belief is involved at the EDGES of the discipline.


So, while I take,well, your point about wanting proof, I am merely pointing out the counterpoint that even that which is regarded as scientific fact is merely a datum held in the vast sphere of knowledge that we all AGREE is sound. To some extent, facts are only facts because enough well reasoned people agree that they are facts (*obviously this is a huge simplification for our point in history*)

i believe a fact can only be proven by testing it over and over through numbers, numbers never lie like people can.

The long and short of this is a desire to stop you from making the mistake of thinking that reason, science, logic, and fact are or ought to be the preeminent qualities of existence. That is, these things are good, but they are not the absolute most important. There is something to be said for a the existence of the metaphysical, man's mythopoetic bent, the emotional, the spiritual. Hell, athletes provide a great intersection of the seemingly impossible and possible, as do musicians. Athletes must struggle with the physics of kinematics and musicians with the physics of acoustics and oscillations. But what they produce is oftentimes (at least the great ones) beyond their own capacities for explanation.

im sure theres an explanation we have not yet found, any christian can call it a miracle but man will do its best to survive, as will all life forms no matter the task. i believe the mind is the most powerful thing in the universe, if someone knew how to use it all who knows what they could accomplish.

I'm not sure where I was really going with that last bit but i suppose the long and short of my point is to get you to not be too black and white about this.

All religion is not bad, and all those who claim allegiance to a religious faith are not proselytizing fatheaded fascists. Nor is all religion good and there are some assholes who pervert a religion based on that religion's text(s).
I'm sorry if my point came across the wrong way, I really only want to avoid conflating your average anti-gay, anti-drug, anti-fun, anti-freedom evangelist with the extremely enlightened buddhist, or hindu, or taoist, or jesuit, or rabbi, or Imam


Its always a spectrum and there's always a middle ground

be easy

yes, im glad you see it how i do and i fully agree there is some good that may come of certain religions, unfortunately this is almost never the case in our country. with beliefs, politics, etc, we should all stay in this middle ground. i agree you should try to learn something from all sides of the spectrum since they all have something to offer. you have made some excellent points, thanks for your time and thoughts on religion, this conversation has made me a bit more open to some of the things that these religious texts can offer, as do any texts made by man. i realize reading wont hurt, but like i said earlier, i take everything with a grain of salt and faith simply cant be the answer to questions.

 

[drive]

crazyhazey I gather you have never been touched by the lord. Its a wonderful feeling to except Jesus into your heart.