crash course in believing :) not pointing at anyone *cough*mangled*cough*

[Mangled*]

Look, I don't know about you, each to their own, but...

If someone believes in something, why would you try and take that away from them. My brother used to know a guy in prison serving a life sentence who thought he had lost it all, his house, his wife, his kids, his freedom and eventually he tried to kill himself because he had nothing to live for. The prison guards found him with his wrists cut sitting in his cell and they patched him up. he told my brother that while he was trying to commit suicide he was struck by divine intervention which saved his life and gave him something to live for. Instead of trying to kill himself and feeling like there was no hope, he changed his life completely and become a better person. All because that's what he believed.

I'm not saying he was right and you're wrong, but it seems to me like you bring people down for this and it's not right. Why take away something that people put value in, It's like me taking away your house and your job, some people need faith. So why does it matter if they believe?

I don't understand what you're trying to achieve... I mean, you've got your own views which is great, all people should be able to mold their own beliefs and opinions, but why do you discount other people's so openly?

Why are they stupid for believing? Why aren't you stupid for believing in science?
All i'm trying to ask is where is the line, and why are you somehow above everyone else?

I think you've got me wrong.

Yes, I'm strongly opinionated. But I'm not out to bring people down or convert people or take away peoples faith.

My quarrel isn't with the followers of a religion, its with the religion itself and the clergy.

However, I do feel that people settle too easily for what they've been taught earlier in their life. Children can't know better, they rely on their parents to raise them and give them direction, when a child is brought up religiously, they really don't have any choice, they accept what they have been told as the truth and are often deterred from questioning it by the social climate around them or they may not have even been taught that you should question things.

I am of the opinion that you can only truely know yourself by scrutinizing yourself, your beliefs and your tastes. You can watch a film and think that you like it, but few stop to ask themselves what exactly they like about that film. The choreography? The writing? The quality of acting? The atmosphere?

In the last couple of years I have learnt more about myself than I ever knew before by doing just that. Before, I was something of a blank canvas which couldn't be impressed upon.

I think life is about self-discovery, one must find their self before they can possibly find what they truely want. I think religion more often than not prevents people from doing this. It teaches them not to think, question or reason. It teaches them to accept what it teaches and adhere to it for a reward.

As for the guy in prison... When he cut his wrists and began to feel faint perhaps he came to a realisation. A realisation that he did not want to die, he was afraid to die just as anyone is. Perhaps for the first time he prayed, prayed to God that he would some how survive. By coincidence two prison guards find him and the rest is history.

[STM1993]

I think life is about self-discovery, one must find their self before they can possibly find what they truely want. I think religion more often than not prevents people from doing this. It teaches them not to think, question or reason. It teaches them to accept what it teaches and adhere to it for a reward.

^ I agree with the bold sentence. I haven't found myself yet and therefore I haven't truly settled down (I'm extremely indecisive), though I'm slowly finding small little pieces of a jig-saw puzzle.

I've met Christians who are, in fact, very intelligent and smart, yet they still believe in their religion. So I won't be surprised to know that there are also people who follow a religion, because what they themselves believe is very close to the religion (and therefore there are people who admit that parts of their religion are indeed extreme), or they realized that religion is the way to go for them. Rather than because they are raised to follow the religion or they are too believing.


EDIT:
Basically, to sum up the entire debate:

Religion is meant to be a choice.

[{LAW} Gamer_2k4]

If there is a God then which God is the God that is God? Because there's thousands of Gods that have been worshipped since the dawn of man. Surely the earliest one has more chance of being correct.

So because different people give the same God different names, that proves one doesn't exist? Is Allah really THAT different from the Christian God? Besides, I think I could estimate conservatively that 90% of the people in the world believe in some sort of higher power.  Of course there are going to be some differences, but if most people believe something to be true, doesn't that sort of lend that thing credibility?

That's the catch to all religions, you can't know if you've wasted your life worshipping the wrong one until its too late.

Like I said earlier to your other point, that only applies if you assume that religion is a contrived belief system.  If one believes that religion is divinely inspired, it's very easy to understand how someone can KNOW something so well, so undisputedly, that it transcends normal knowledge.

However, I will admit that that's a problem with both sides of the debate: they're self-fulfilling.  Religion works if you assume that it works, and it fails if you assume that it doesn't.

Once you die, friend, its lights out... you won't even know you're dead. You won't know anything.

Your personal belief, based on your idea that "anything I can't see can't exist."

As for the girl speaking tongues.... I've seen people who are mentally ill, braindamaged or off their head on smack speaking tongues.

See? This is what I'm talking about.  "Evidence of spiritual intervention can't be valid because spirits don't exist."  And you accuse US of not being able to step back and get a larger view of the situation? Now who's the hypocrite?

Reading this, even though you mispelled fundamentalists twice, has made me rethink my being a Catholic. I find what you said to be a very interesting fact and will probably mention it to a few people I know and hope for an interesting reaction.

You just earned some respect there jrgp. I am finding you a more and more likable person in these forums as someone who can stand back and get a larger view of the situation.

Translation: I like you because you agree with me.

[excruciator]

I dunno. Why believe in something that does not exist? Or better, why believe something that hasn't been proven which also happened to be impossible to prove?

Perhaps atheists such as myself are more interested in dealing with reality and truth rather than fictions.
I means sure you can believe it, but you can't really use that knowledge to do something. And that is useless.

[{LAW} Gamer_2k4]

Perhaps atheists such as myself are more interested in dealing with reality and truth rather than fictions.
I means sure you can believe it, but you can't really use that knowledge to do something. And that is useless.

It's useful because it gives me a reason to live, and it gives me something to look forward to after I die.  If there IS an afterlife, then it's kind of important to figure out how to get into the good one.

Besides, if you take away God, you take away morality.  What reason do we have for treating humans well, except that they're created specifically by God? Otherwise they're just animals.  There's nothing preventing us from exploiting others for our own personal gain, and there's no reason we should be offended when they do the same to us.  And yet, we DO consider exploitation wrong and we ARE offended when it happens to us (or even to others).  For some reason, we believe that humans are special, even though evolution-based logic tells us otherwise.

Remember, I'm not saying that atheists can't be good people, because I know many that are.  I'm just saying that "good" isn't a logical concept from an atheistic perspective.

[Demonic]

Oh we had that God ~ morality thing at school.

It's common sense, really, to treat others well. If you go by your own law, that being selfish will lead to fulfillment, and it's okay to exploit others, you're going to stumble upon someone stronger, and you end up on the wrong side of the dick. Collabotaring, forming alliances, altruism have LOTS of benefits, and my example is just the most pragmatic one.

I find the last sentence of your middle paragraph funny though - we may not be special in a divine term, but we sure are at the top of the food chain. We are not special because we were made special, but because we, as a race, fought all our way through nature's disasters. Twas a long and bloody battle, lasting through eons and claiming lives of species as strong as us, that we came down from the tree and got into McDonalds. Treasue that thought pumpkin. Put it next to the clothes you wear, the food you eat, the appliances you use, all put together by people working for a pathetic wage barely enough for their daily ration - and even in their miserable circumstance, they haven't been as rich ever over the last two thousand years.

[excruciator]

Does it help if I said that you purpose as a dude is to inject your liquid into females?

I think you are just rationalizing, fooling yourselves into thinking that you have a higher purpose than being spermbags.

Besides, if you take away God, you take away morality.

Not quite, confuism(whatever its called) talked about morality, and there was no god involved. People followed it because it was right.

[The Philanthropist]

My quarrel isn't with the followers of a religion, its with the religion itself and the clergy.

Mangled sir, if you kept your posts centered around such a thesis as the above here, you would not have a problem with pretty much anyone who is arguing with you right now. Be veeewwwyyy cawefuwl with your semantics, it can be misconstrued to mean other things here.

But the tangents your argument currently shuffles about on aren't really adhering to this above truth, that people are essentially retarded. Christianity, at the root, has the 10 commandments. Love everyone. The entire Bible could be a fucking fairy tale, but it really doesn't matter because what the religion is really about is love; Christians believe that God is love.

Touting burning in hell as a major flaw in a faith is absurd, for an example. While yes, people do take it literally, it's quite easy to believe something different. Have you not felt guilt after doing something wrong? Hell, (C WAT I DID THAR?) I still think back on some of the fuckups in my life, and still feel terrible. That's pretty hellish. Could hell possibly be a parallel for guilt? ENding your life with guilt, to me, sounds horrific. This is just an example, but if you attempted to take the myth out of the scripture, you can find things that relate to most of it, in a visceral sense.

Sure, the church is corrupt. Sure, there are some really crazy people who take the Bible literally. Sure, Not everybody who says they belong to a faith really know what's going on.

Religion the institution is corrupt, not Religion the spiritual lifestyle.

[Smegma]

Look, the true point of religion isn't to believe in God nor is it to form some type of half-assed community where you get together to pray. The true from of religion doesn't depend on the clergy, it doesn't depend on biblical texts, it doesn't depend on morals/ethics/ideals. The true form of religion is like the true form of any philosophy. Its a f**king manifestation of an ineffable truth. Of course its going to fail! Science failed too, at least in backing up its argument to a large list of dogmas.

If you think that believing in a God makes you religious, well by all standard definitions it could, but you are missing the point. And if you want to point that God hasn't any proof to confirm or deny, then you are arguing with the wrong crowd. I'll be the first to admit too, mangled, that empiricism is THE BEST way we have to deal with the contingent world. Have at it, its fun and rewarding, but that isn't to say there is no merit in skepticism, mysticism, or natural theologists (though the latter has kinda fallen flat with the clinging to old propositions).

All you are doing is arguing over an issue which both groups have formulated from the same idea. Its pointless. You're group just has a lot more intellectual integrity because we are operating as contingent beings.

Oh, and mangled, the point of worshiping isn't the goal to reach a better place. A person doing that isn't really religious. Its the same reason you pursue atheism.
----

Okay, just glancing through. About the God = morality thing, the proof for that is lacking as you can substitute God for any theorized human condition and it will still hold tight.  If I replace GOD with HUMAN NATURE, it works and there is no defense against that because I've stopped the buck at the exact same place you have, I just gave it a different name.

[Kazuki]

Oh GOD I just love religious threads.

Hahah! I'm only participating as a Christmas present to you. <3

Theravada Buddhism, or Zen Buddhism. Probably Taoism and Confucianism as well...

They don't have a specific object of worship, and the object of their faith can only be reached through their moral codes.

Theravada never really rang home with me because of the Hindu influence of Karma, but Zen buddhism is rather interesting. You essentially are given a riddle and told to solve it, and the answer leads you to enlightenment. You use unlogic to reach that place though. Taoism and Confucianism aren't as much religions as they are a way of functioning in society I guess...

Buddhism, I would say, is the religion which is closest to what I would call a true religion. That's because moral cultivation precedes the discovery and acknowledgment of a deity and it attempts to achieve the happiness of a human being without negatively affecting other human beings (which is just about the same goal as any moral code out there). The problem I have with Buddhism is that it is full of contingencies. It does not derive its teachings from a set of chronologically rational arguments. Take the Four Noble Truths.

1. Life leads to suffering. <-- Contingent statement. Why? Examples may be given, but that's where the proof ends.
2. Suffering is caused by desire. <-- Once again a contingent argument, though one which can be proven rationally more easily.
3. Therefore, suffering is ended by reaching a "liberated state of Enlightenment" as one rids oneself of one's delusions. <-- Probably the most derivative of the four.
4. One can reach Enlightenment by following the teachings of the Buddha. <-- Why? How can one logically assure that this is true?

Taoism can be interpreted differently by everyone and Confucianism is a set of social rules based on a localized social norm.

I'm 40 minutes in, and it has jack shit to do with religion so far. So it's kinda irrelevant to the discussion.

... I'm not sure which film you're watching. ;P At 40 minutes, Part 1 of the film, which is the part strictly dedicated to religion, ends. By that time, you should have seen most of the film's focus on religion.

On the topic of Zeitgeist, I myself thought that a large chunk of the film was exaggerated to an unhealthy extent, but to echo Mangled, it did drill into my head that I shouldn't believe everything I'm told before analyzing it, and that applies to the film itself as well. I still find it extremely interesting.

It's more than probable that I am being too strict on existing religions and that I unrealistically demand rationality from them. However, if any of you have several days to spare, I suggest you read Immanuel Kant's Metaphysics of Morals and Religion Within Bounds of Mere Reason in that order. You'll get a much more in-depth idea of what I'm talking about if you read his works.

Also, Smegma can teach us many good lessons in being laid back. ;P

[Smegma]

Well, I think Buddhism explains God/Truth just as well as atheism.

[{LAW} Gamer_2k4]

It's common sense, really, to treat others well. If you go by your own law, that being selfish will lead to fulfillment, and it's okay to exploit others, you're going to stumble upon someone stronger, and you end up on the wrong side of the dick. Collabotaring, forming alliances, altruism have LOTS of benefits, and my example is just the most pragmatic one.

But in situations where there are no long-term effects, we still act the same way.  If I give money to a homeless guy, I'll still feel that it was "right."  I'll never see him again.  I'll never be affected by him.  I'm not giving him money because I think it'll help me in some way; I'm doing it because altruism is a "good" thing.  If I run into a burning building to save someone, I'm not doing it because it benefits me.  I don't think that the action will result in enough benefit to justify me risking my life.  I'm doing it because it's the right thing.

Yes, in many cases, there will be ulterior motivations for actions.  I might give money to a homeless guy because my friends are watching me and I know they'll think better of me as a result.  I might help someone because there's a reward for doing so.  However, there are many more cases where altruism is just that: help with no expectation of reward; help because it's "right."

Does it help if I said that you purpose as a dude is to inject your liquid into females?

Doesn't help at all.  Self-propagation isn't a valid reason for existence.

Besides, if you take away God, you take away morality.

Not quite, confuism(whatever its called) talked about morality, and there was no god involved. People followed it because it was right.

Right? What are you using as your scale here? What makes something more right than something else?

Logic says that in order for something to be measurable, there needs to be a standard against which you can compare it.  If you say that I did a math problem wrong, you must have some notion of the right way to do it.  If you say that a meal is good, there must be something that makes it better than other meals, and also something that could be considered the "best" meal.  In the same way, if you can say something is wrong, you must have a concept of what's "right."  If you have a concept of what's right, you must have some idea of what's "perfect."  And it's logical to assume that the representation or source of that perfection would be "God."  After all, a god should be perfect, and if something is perfect, then it must be supreme.

Okay, just glancing through. About the God = morality thing, the proof for that is lacking as you can substitute God for any theorized human condition and it will still hold tight.  If I replace GOD with HUMAN NATURE, it works and there is no defense against that because I've stopped the buck at the exact same place you have, I just gave it a different name.

If you replace God with human nature, you're still admitting that for some reason, humans have a common and innate understanding of good and evil.  I don't mind if you don't want to call the source "God," but my point is that humans have a desire to do good that extends beyond doing what's best for themselves.

[PANZERCATWAGON]

at this moment in time

i apologize to mangled

i dont think im in the right state of mind to be thinking straight

i have a small point to make to mangled that i cant pin down right now but tbh i know its kind of complex and im just not able to think logically at the moment

but ill let you know that this point is not in objection to everything you say, its just a minor thing i think you should consider when it comes to your beliefs

at the moment, what i have said is wrong in many places and i wouldnt listen to any of it



tl;dr i need some time to think


-_________________________-

[Demonic]

But in situations where there are no long-term effects, we still act the same way.  If I give money to a homeless guy, I'll still feel that it was "right."  I'll never see him again.  I'll never be affected by him.  I'm not giving him money because I think it'll help me in some way; I'm doing it because altruism is a "good" thing.  If I run into a burning building to save someone, I'm not doing it because it benefits me.  I don't think that the action will result in enough benefit to justify me risking my life.  I'm doing it because it's the right thing.

Yes, in many cases, there will be ulterior motivations for actions.  I might give money to a homeless guy because my friends are watching me and I know they'll think better of me as a result.  I might help someone because there's a reward for doing so.  However, there are many more cases where altruism is just that: help with no expectation of reward; help because it's "right."

See Smegma's point. We're just built so goddamn nice. Memetics give a so-so explanation for this (in short: altruist behaviour helps spreading memes, and this is a subconcious, powerful order like breeding is to animals). You see the same type of behaviour with people who have different ideas of God, or deny his existance completely: they still do it, and that can't really be connected to God. Well, you could, but that would be like saying 'a wizard did it'. And by what we know of how this world ticks, the answer is probably much more complicated than that.

[excruciator]

law, my scale would be everyone. You interact with my different people, some might be atheist, some could be christian.
Now there is certain differences in morality between individuals. But most of them act similarly. Atheist or not.

This shows that God is not necessary in shaping ones morality.

Also your gene is the single most important thing you carry. The fact that your gene survived hundred thousands of years by going from one carrier to another sorta shows how important they are.

sadly, the reality is you are nothing but a walking spermbag, after you donate your gene, you can be easily discarded if necessary, without a second thought.

[Slashnoob]

ITT: Mangled's same old rampant about religion and god, jrgp is a tool, and panzercatwagon is getting high.

boy, religion threads rock.

[ds dude]

I saw god in my dream once.  He started talking to me.  He said not to waste my time to get people to believe in him, because he said that they will know the truth when they die.


I got his number.