Religion

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by Comrade Temuzu, Feb 15, 2011.

  1. Link NO SWAG

    Member Since:
    Feb 13, 2011
    Message Count:
    5,515
    Likes Received:
    256
    Trophy Points:
    134
    Location:
    Koprulu Sector
    Its by far what I'm most familiar with. Plus, its the only one I've ever had to deal with IRL.
  2. KC The Greater New Member

    Member Since:
    Feb 14, 2011
    Message Count:
    37
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Because science has yet proven everything. To some people God is a very convenient answer to things that they cannot explain. Irrational? Maybe, but how rational are we really? Religion in many cases certainly enhances morality. With regards to why believe in one instead of the other, it's simply a matter of liking, liking of the morality that the religion teaches. As you have mentioned religion does not simply mean believing in a god, it's a tradition. Not all religion NEED a god, say take the druids for example, they worship nature. Does nature exist? Yes. So would you worship nature? It's somply a matter of choice.
  3. EoinSpectre Member

    Member Since:
    Feb 24, 2011
    Message Count:
    88
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    21
    That is freaky, I was going to say that! Well, almost. Just change the begining to say 'I do believe in God', but the rest is my view.

    But know to my comment. When people ask me to prove God exists and I say what I mean wrong, some people (atheists/or just plain pricks with a view on religion almost the same as a racists view on thery chosen race) use my inability to explain myself properly to 'prove' that God doesn't exists and 'prove' that I and all others that have a religion are idiots. These types of people are no better, in my opinion, than the oppotunistic socialpathic fuckers that used religion as an exuse to dominate and destroy other people. They believe that religion is so bad that they can't see what little good it does; that while religion has been used as an exuse to commit terrible thing, they probably would of happened in a different way using a differnet reason, but religion has brought people together and tought people to help one another. They don't see that there crusade to free people from religion is in fact causing more damage than the 'evil' religions. They find joy in taking away peoples one they that keeps them from giving up. Some people just can't live in a world where what happens isn't for some greater purpose and is all random and for no reason. They just aren't strong enough to live in that type of world.

    Wow, this a long rant. But seriously, some people don't want to disprove religion because they think its wrong, they want to disprove religion because they hate it and those that believe it.
  4. UnitRico Well-Known Member

    Member Since:
    Feb 14, 2011
    Message Count:
    4,737
    Likes Received:
    1,339
    Trophy Points:
    193
    Location:
    Pangaea
    The thing is though - it's pretty much impossible to disprove religion as a whole, as it's based on believing something, not hard evidence. To me, religion just doesn't make sense, that's why I don't believe it.
    Everyone has their reason to believe or not believe - and all those reasons should be respected. However, convincing others that you are right seems to be in human nature. People who don't believe in any deities will always try to convince those who do that there exist no such deities, and the other way round. The decision for each individual is who to believe.
  5. D3VIL Well-Known Member

    Member Since:
    Feb 18, 2011
    Message Count:
    885
    Likes Received:
    82
    Trophy Points:
    78
    Location:
    UK
    So you don't like people pointing out flaws in your beliefs? Well then, keep them to yourself. I also think that religion does more harm than good so you're not likely to get any praise from me. "...religion has brought people together and tought [sic] people to help one another[.]" unfortunately it usually brings people together in opposition against the others, and helping others is not limited to religion.
  6. Kalalification Guest

    Member Since:
    Message Count:
    0
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    In the sense that any human organization, by its nature, will be conflicting with some other human organization. The only reason you see opposition more frequently is because it's more visible; believe it or not we religious folk don't stand around plotting the doom of our enemies all day.
  7. Rannos22 New Member

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2011
    Message Count:
    24
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    GB, WI, USA
    If God created the life, the universe and everything, who or what created God? What is the purpose to God's existence?
  8. Chelsea366 Retired Moderator

    Member Since:
    Feb 13, 2011
    Message Count:
    6,865
    Likes Received:
    1,923
    Trophy Points:
    183
    Location:
    Gensokyo
    I am a Christian in that I believe God exists and that Jesus is the son of God. However I do not agree with everything the bible says or churches preach. Mostly that about homosexuality. I have always been bi but more into my own sex, but as a Christian I am constantly told that this is wrong and that God hates it. If God hates homosexuality and made us why would he make us something that he absolutely hates? This I have never agreed with. Some might say it was to test us perhaps but it's not much of a test if you are born this way and nothing will change it. I see nothing wrong with it but the bible and a lot of Christians do. So I have a different view on certain things than most Christians that I know.
  9. D3VIL Well-Known Member

    Member Since:
    Feb 18, 2011
    Message Count:
    885
    Likes Received:
    82
    Trophy Points:
    78
    Location:
    UK
    How can you believe in something so open to interpretation? If your interpretation is different to everyone else's, either you are wrong or everyone else is. You might as well write your own list of morals and imaginary friends to believe in because you're already cherry picking your faith.
  10. Chelsea366 Retired Moderator

    Member Since:
    Feb 13, 2011
    Message Count:
    6,865
    Likes Received:
    1,923
    Trophy Points:
    183
    Location:
    Gensokyo
    Well for me it's either believe this or believe in no God at all. Nothing after death, just this life being all there is would be harder for me to live with than what I believe personally. If I am wrong and there is no God what harm has it done to me for believing this? I would get the same result as if I had believed it.
  11. Kalalification Guest

    Member Since:
    Message Count:
    0
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So it's sort of a reverse Pascal's Wager for you. The problem with that is that there are essentially infinite alternatives to Option A (God exists) and Option B (God doesn't exist)—it's a false dichotomy. One might wager that the marginal cost of being devout is significantly outweighed by the marginal benefit of eternal paradise, and vice versa with temporal living and eternal damnation, but neither of these results is dependent on the existence or nonexistence of God. In fact there is no way to determine anything at all about the probability of someone being accepted into an eternal paradise on death because, for instance, God might not care that you are devout, or He might specifically grant anti-theists eternal paradise. There is no proof to be had because, as is religion's nature, it cannot be questioned by the scientific method.

    So in essence what I'm saying is that your belief in God isn't inherently superior to disbelief simply because you don't have anything to lose; it's all equal in the eyes of logic. That said, I am myself religious, but not because I seek the marginal benefit of eternal paradise.
  12. Link NO SWAG

    Member Since:
    Feb 13, 2011
    Message Count:
    5,515
    Likes Received:
    256
    Trophy Points:
    134
    Location:
    Koprulu Sector
    Who thinks I'm going to hell/ an undesirable reincarnation bc I'm an atheist. (Experiment to discern the good theists from the bad ones.)
  13. C_G Well-Known Member

    Member Since:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Message Count:
    2,447
    Likes Received:
    320
    Trophy Points:
    143
    Location:
    Wu Tang Province
    Religion is definately a grey area for me. First and foremost I consider myslef an agnostic, because neither can you rationalise everything about religion and neither can relgion fill in all the gaps without claiming that God is the uncausable cause, therefore all things stem from God (because that is irrational thinking).

    One interesting view that I heard once is that God came before a universe existed, therefore no time existed in which nothing can either begin or end - it just is. That got me thinking though, being the agnostic that I am i questioned if this state of existence can exist at all, after all something has to begin and everything will inevitably end as nothing can ever last forever.

    If anyone has an opinion on this, please express your opinions.
  14. Kalalification Guest

    Member Since:
    Message Count:
    0
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    From a purely practical perspective it is definitely possible to have an object exist outside of time. There wouldn't be a before or an after from the object's frame of reference, but it would definitely be present. Existence is not contingent on having a beginning; it's merely contingent on being within the frame of possibility (where it exists as a concept) or an observable feature (where it physically exists).
  15. Saito Well-Known Member

    Member Since:
    Feb 22, 2011
    Message Count:
    646
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    68
    Location:
    Chicago

    As a nominalist, and a realist, I reject the contradiction of the statement "From a purely practical perspective it is definitely possible to have an object exist outside of time." Something cannot exist outside of time unless it exists outside of space. Even in the inner reaches of a black hole, time still exists, no matter how dilated it is. If you added space onto that, that would be the definition of God, as he exists outside time and space, and his existence, or lack of existence, is impossible to prove or disprove. ...And yet does nothing to affect us here on Earth, noticeably or otherwise. Why do I bring this up? Because you have just admitted that God is an unprovable hypothesis, by implying there are things outside of time and space. Deism in and of itself is no harm, however acting on the Deism in day to day life only for the reward it offers you, can be infuriating to the observer. If you are saying to yourself that you do not practice religion for the rewards, what do you practice them for, because it is right? Then you get pleasure from doing what is right, and your actions are self motivated. Because of fear? Then you fear for your own life and you are purely self motivated. In this world there are no actions that are not self serving.

    To disprove my argument you would have to prove god existed in time AND space, or prove with evidence that something happened because of God. Even at that point you have not proved his benevolence. This might be controversial to say but he obviously does not respond to prayers, and, either created diseases and strife and death as a tool of retribution or he is not omnipotent.
  16. Kalalification Guest

    Member Since:
    Message Count:
    0
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I have been consistently supporting this fact; earlier I pointed this out directly:


    Your phrasing seems to suggest that there is harm in religious practice and thought...

    I believe in God because I have no reason to and yet I do. I am a pretty rational guy, and I consider myself pretty intelligent. I certainly have considered the atheistic point of view (as well as many other religions) and I can even see the appeal to a permanent end to my life, but I simply can't take myself seriously when I try to think these things. On a personal level I am compelled to believe that God exists, though certainly not under the same standards that most people would see Him.

    As I stated in my first post, I think that an omniscient, and omnibenevolent entity wouldn't condemn someone for defying a strict code of conduct. God isn't stupid, He is aware of our thoughts and reasoning, and as far as I can tell compassion and intelligence together would lead to the conclusion that a person should be judged by their standards alone. If you legitimately believe in the core of your soul that what you are doing is right, then God certainly wouldn't fault you for that. And even when you do commit grievances, God wouldn't have a desire to punish you, but to motivate you into correct action.

    I agree that all actions are self serving, but that doesn't invalidate them.

    I never argued that God's existence could be proven; if you look at the post I was speaking to the idea that it is definitely possible for an object to exist without the presence of time. Time merely creates context with which we can view an object and assign meaning to it.

    Ah, the classic problem of evil... It's really quite simple to answer though—if God is accepted to be omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent, then His creation would be the optimum state of existence for maximizing good. It's silly to believe that just because there is evil in the world that there exists a better state of creation; if we accept all of these traits to be true then there is one result, that the world is optimally adjusted to maximize good. Problem of evil solved.
  17. Fafe Active Member

    Member Since:
    Feb 13, 2011
    Message Count:
    86
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Location:
    Brazil
    Maybe I didn't understand what you said, but I think your thinking is a little controversal...

    If you agree all actions are self serving, do you agree everyone do what they think it's the right thing to do, when considering their 'standards' ?
    So people aways believe what they are doing is right. If "a person should be judged by their standards alone", there is no blaming, and ultimately (don't know if this is the word I was looking for :p), there are no mistakes.
    How can a person commit grievances, and how would God motivate them into correct action? What is the standard for correct action?
  18. Kalalification Guest

    Member Since:
    Message Count:
    0
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Well many people know what's right and wrong and act against that knowledge anyways. It's extremely common for people to take the immoral (and easy) way, knowing full well that what they're doing isn't right. I'm guilty of it, as I'm sure pretty much everyone is. The fact that all of our actions are self-serving isn't really relevant because it doesn't affect the perception of right or wrong that we have of the action. I was simply acknowledging a fact.
  19. Fafe Active Member

    Member Since:
    Feb 13, 2011
    Message Count:
    86
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Location:
    Brazil
    If you think something is the right thing to do, that is because it will bring you something you vallue, be it moral, material, whatever. Because all actions are self-serving.
    If you don't do it, deciding to take the imoral and easy way, it is because you are preserving something you vallue, be it moral, material, whatever. Because all actions are self-serving.

    How can you judge the action taken, by one's own standards, if the action itself is the result from a measure of those vallues, which defines one's standards?

    That is what I meant, and that is why I disagree with your statement that "The fact that all of our actions are self-serving isn't really relevant because it doesn't affect the perception of right or wrong".
  20. Kalalification Guest

    Member Since:
    Message Count:
    0
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Okay, to illustrate my point look at the example of a criminal. They know what they did was wrong 99% of the time, not just by society's standards, but by their own. This would be an example of improper behavior—when you go against what you believe to be moral action. There are certain people who value immediate pleasure over all other things and honestly believe that seeking it out is the right thing to do. But the overwhelming majority of the population believes that pleasure and morality aren't intrinsically linked. And if you believe something to be wrong and do it anyways, then who's to blame but yourself?

    Again, only an extreme minority (maybe in the thousands) of people actually believe that seeking immediate pleasure is paramount and any action they take in pursuit of it is justified by the end result, so only an extreme minority of the population would actually fit the model of having their moral standards being dictated by the reality that actions are driven by selfishness.

Share This Page

Facebook: