Zierro Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 Which is inevitable. Our actions are influenced by our beliefs. Okay... let me try a different approach. Yes, our actions are influenced by our beliefs. Knowing that you can always be wrong about something since you don't have enough evidence to support it is a belief too and your actions (not acting on anything without support) can be influenced by that belief. This is the type of belief that I condone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
venomai Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 Acknowledging one's own ignorance is a great thing (agnosticism). However, particularly in religions where "the word of God" is likened to an absolute truth, this is rarely the case. I am generalizing, of course. There are many religious practices (e.g. Buddhism, certain Christian sects, etc) that encourage you to challenge your faith rather than believe in it blindly and absolutely. But the vast majority, at least the vast majority of those in question in this debate, do not encourage such doubt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lenticular_J Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 The prime of the two Buddhist schools of thought isn't quite that, I'm afraid. Ma[racist term]a is a lot more like a religion. Siddhartha didn't want to be a God, I believe. That's why I think many of the ideas of Theravada Buddhism to be more beneficial. It's more of a school of thought than a religion, and they treat the Buddha with courteous detached respect - I believe that if there was a classification of this that believed the same of Christ and followed more Christian traditions, that'd likely be how I classify my religion. Now it's just Christianity. Yeah, I really like Buddhism and Zen thought. I want to learn how to form my own Zen koans, but it's a very difficult, thought-provoking process. This is probably my favorite: The caterpillar said, "One side will make you grow bigger and the other side will make you grow smaller" "One side of what? The other side of what?" thought Alice to herself. "Of the mushroom," said the caterpillar. Alice looked at the mushroom, trying to make out which were the two sides of it, as it was perfectly round. Although if we bring up Ma[racist term]a Buddism, which believes Siddhartha Gautama as their God, I guess this discussions could technically be over, as he did exist. catch it now so you can like it before it went so mainstream Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
venomai Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 It's more of a school of thought than a religion Ideally, I would like to see 'religion' (in the strict and organized sense that we generally understand it) put to an end, and replaced by the looser and more individual 'spiritualism': philosophies of a sort driven not by blind faith but human curiosity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lenticular_J Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 Faith and curiosity are somewhat of a curiosity themselves. I see them as being bound to one another, yet quite the opposite. catch it now so you can like it before it went so mainstream Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lateralus Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 Faith and curiosity are somewhat of a curiosity themselves. I see them as being bound to one another, yet quite the opposite. I would consider religious faith to be a barrier to curiosity. If you trust in dogmatic scriptures then there's really no reason for you to investigate anything. La lune ne garde aucune rancune. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mmmcannibalism Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 Faith and curiosity are somewhat of a curiosity themselves. I see them as being bound to one another, yet quite the opposite. I would consider religious faith to be a barrier to curiosity. If you trust in dogmatic scriptures then there's really no reason for you to investigate anything. If by religious faith you mean standardized churches then I agree with you; however, belief in God by itself does not have to impede natural curiosity. Orthodoxy is unconciousnessthe only ones who should kill are those who are prepared to be killed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lateralus Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 Faith and curiosity are somewhat of a curiosity themselves. I see them as being bound to one another, yet quite the opposite. I would consider religious faith to be a barrier to curiosity. If you trust in dogmatic scriptures then there's really no reason for you to investigate anything. If by religious faith you mean standardized churches then I agree with you; however, belief in God by itself does not have to impede natural curiosity. Of course I agree; I mentioned scriptures quite purposefully. Deism doesn't really trouble me at all, but if you have a book that says "This is why this happens and believing otherwise is disagreeing with God" barriers obviously start to appear. La lune ne garde aucune rancune. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lenticular_J Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 I find it the same way when teachers tell me there's only one way to solve a math problem, or describe something scientifically. It's ridiculous. I find many of my school's scientific textbooks worthless because of this reason (well, that and the fact that they're from 2002 and apparently that's already totally out of date). I find trying to establish your own Rock of science that cannot be wrong just as bad as putting up a Rock that nothing about your religion can be wrong. catch it now so you can like it before it went so mainstream Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pureprayer Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 I actually have an invisible deity named Oswald the Spunky. No one can see him, but trust me, he's there. I wrote a book about him, and all the bad things that happen to you if you don't believe in him. He has powers, like he can control any event, and has a special purpose for everyone. Seriously, I'm not kidding. How is that any different thatn Christianity and God? Besides the lack of mass followers... is the book 1,500 pages + with no evidence against it or is it like 7 pages? Pureprayer, you're awesome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meol Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 I actually have an invisible deity named Oswald the Spunky. No one can see him, but trust me, he's there. I wrote a book about him, and all the bad things that happen to you if you don't believe in him. He has powers, like he can control any event, and has a special purpose for everyone. Seriously, I'm not kidding. How is that any different thatn Christianity and God? Besides the lack of mass followers... Your religion has no sense of morals, and it doesn't fulfil any purpose like giving hope or meaning. The difference is very clear if you're a little more pragmatic. Religion can gather people for charity, and it enforces a positive ethic. Religion is less of a fairy tale and more of a parable, and it doesn't matter if there's a huge book compiling the teachings or not. It seems that both you and most fundamentalists fail to see that. This signature is intentionally left blank. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flyingjj Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 I actually have an invisible deity named Oswald the Spunky. No one can see him, but trust me, he's there. I wrote a book about him, and all the bad things that happen to you if you don't believe in him. He has powers, like he can control any event, and has a special purpose for everyone. Seriously, I'm not kidding. How is that any different thatn Christianity and God? Besides the lack of mass followers... Really, it's not. If you want to believe in him, go ahead. But nobody really cares. I only take offense when people start calling believers delusional. It is my belief that everyone is delusional to somebody, but nobody should attack someone for what they believe. And I'm sick of the attacks on Christianity. Yes, it has been used for bad things, but so has science. It's a problem with religious institutions, not religion, so don't make it out to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
warri0r45 Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 I find it the same way when teachers tell me there's only one way to solve a math problem, or describe something scientifically. It's ridiculous. I find many of my school's scientific textbooks worthless because of this reason (well, that and the fact that they're from 2002 and apparently that's already totally out of date). I find trying to establish your own Rock of science that cannot be wrong just as bad as putting up a Rock that nothing about your religion can be wrong. "(well, that and the fact that they're from 2002 and apparently that's already totally out of date)." It looks like you proposed and solved your own problem all in the same post. Obviously, there is more than one way to come at an issue scientifically, otherwise science text books wouldn't need new editions every two years or so. Science isn't a rock that can't be wrong. Whoever told you that should be shot, because science is the most accountable, malleable system of understanding we have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lenticular_J Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 You see science as that. I only see sentience as "the most accountable, malleable system of understanding we have." That and the only one, really ... catch it now so you can like it before it went so mainstream Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
warri0r45 Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 You see science as that. I only see sentience as "the most accountable, malleable system of understanding we have." That and the only one, really ... You didn't seem to understand the nature of science, so I corrected you. You're right that it's my opinion that science is the most accountable, malleable system of understanding we have (perhaps I should have added the word "objective" in there), but to say that it's a rock that can't be changed is simply wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mmmcannibalism Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 You see science as that. I only see sentience as "the most accountable, malleable system of understanding we have." That and the only one, really ... You didn't seem to understand the nature of science, so I corrected you. You're right that it's my opinion that science is the most accountable, malleable system of understanding we have (perhaps I should have added the word "objective" in there), but to say that it's a rock that can't be changed is simply wrong. agreed Science is always going to be wrong in some small way; what makes science the key to objective understanding of the universe is being in a constant state of fixing the errors so the picture becomes clearer and clearer as time passes. Sure, the errors will always be their but we can reduce the number until they are one in ten billion Orthodoxy is unconciousnessthe only ones who should kill are those who are prepared to be killed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lenticular_J Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 You see science as that. I only see sentience as "the most accountable, malleable system of understanding we have." That and the only one, really ... You didn't seem to understand the nature of science, so I corrected you. You're right that it's my opinion that science is the most accountable, malleable system of understanding we have (perhaps I should have added the word "objective" in there), but to say that it's a rock that can't be changed is simply wrong. Would you not find someone ignorant or stupid, if even for a moment, if they claimed that atoms were not made up or protons or neutrons? Even if it turned out they had irrefutable proof? Or say the same with gravity. At first, you'll be in extreme disbelief. You seem to have an open mind, so you'd accept it easily, but there are people that would still call this person stupid or ignorant, or argue with him. But you also seem to believe faith has to be blind and can only, well, blind people. That is just as wrong, in my eyes. catch it now so you can like it before it went so mainstream Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Draconic Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 I have been and probably always will be an atheist. I see absolutely no reason to believe in any invisible diety of any sort; there is simply no evidence. But first- is the book 1,500 pages + with no evidence against it or is it like 7 pages? Three words- -argon/argon dating. When you go feather dragon god, you never go back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
warri0r45 Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 You see science as that. I only see sentience as "the most accountable, malleable system of understanding we have." That and the only one, really ... You didn't seem to understand the nature of science, so I corrected you. You're right that it's my opinion that science is the most accountable, malleable system of understanding we have (perhaps I should have added the word "objective" in there), but to say that it's a rock that can't be changed is simply wrong. Would you not find someone ignorant or stupid, if even for a moment, if they claimed that atoms were not made up or protons or neutrons? Even if it turned out they had irrefutable proof? Or say the same with gravity. At first, you'll be in extreme disbelief. You seem to have an open mind, so you'd accept it easily, but there are people that would still call this person stupid or ignorant, or argue with him. But you also seem to believe faith has to be blind and can only, well, blind people. That is just as wrong, in my eyes. If it was in fact the case that such people had irrefutable proof for opposing theories then no, I wouldn't find them to be stupid or ignorant at all, and neither would scientists. Science isn't a religion with dogmas or blasphemies; if a hypothesis or theory fails a test, then the nature of science says to revise it or throw it out. Mind you, it's not like the scenario you described is at all likely. Well established scientific paradigms generally take more than one person (and more than one finding) to topple over. The reason isn't that science is a rock that can't be moved as you claim, it's because the current explanations are so well supported by evidence and are so refined by constant revision that it would take way more new evidence to show that they're in need of major revision. Having said that, there have been paradigm shifts in the past and I'm sure there will be more in the future. As for the faith thing, yes, I think that faith in religion essentially boils down to nothing substantial at all, i.e. it's "blind". That's not to say that believers don't have their reasons for believing. Personally, I just don't have any good reason to believe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zierro Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 Personally, I just don't have any good reason to believe. Just out of curiosity, what reasons do you have to disbelieve? And no, I don't mean the burden of proof - I mean what makes you want to be an atheist. I don't know about you, but the idea that we have something 'sheltering' over humanity sounds comforting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barihawk Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 Personally, I just don't have any good reason to believe. The best reason not to. There's no need to trash religion or waste your time whining about it when you can just simply ignore it. It's our choice to follow religion, it's your choice not to. That's what it boils down to and that's where it should stop, really. My heart is broken by the terrible loss I have sustained in my old friends and companions and my poor soldiers. Believe me, nothing except a battle lost can be half so melancholy as a battle won. -Sir Arthur Wellesley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
warri0r45 Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 Personally, I just don't have any good reason to believe. Just out of curiosity, what reasons do you have to disbelieve? And no, I don't mean the burden of proof - I mean what makes you want to be an atheist. I don't know about you, but the idea that we have something 'sheltering' over humanity sounds comforting. Firstly, there's no good evidence of a god. Second, there is no need for a god. The best argument is probably the argument from first cause, but still, the answer to that problem can just as easily be that there's no god and the universe "has always been". Another decent argument is that the universe's fundamental constants were fine-tuned for life, but it could just as easily be the case that we're part of some greater multiverse and any percieved "fine-tuning" is due to anthropocentrism. Third, gods are often used in a "god-of-the-gaps" fashion, which I detest in every way. If we don't know something, that doesn't automatically mean that some god is the answer. The problem I see here is two-fold: science can and has answered questions that were once attributed to god, and, in principle you can use god as a scapegoat for anything purely because it's a supernatural being and can't be scrutinised or tested by natural means. It's always going to be out of reach to any criticism simply "because it's god". If we're talking about specific gods, like the Judeo-Christian God, I don't believe for the above reasons, but also because I don't believe that this universe is the product of an all-loving being at all. It seems to cold, harsh and uncaring to me. Added, some of the instructions in the Bible aren't at all the product of a morally perfect being as far as I'm concerned. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- All that aside, I'm not the kind of person to believe in something because of the perceived benefits. I'll judge the merits of an idea based on whether I think it's true or not. For example, it would be just great if the economic crisis ended tomorrow, but believing that it will isn't going to make it true no matter how much we want it to be. Trust me, I'd love to talk to god and know everything there is to know about the way the universe works. I just don't believe that will ever happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shinjula Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 The best argument is probably the argument from first cause, but still, the answer to that problem can just as easily be that there's no god and the universe "has always been". Another decent argument is that the universe's fundamental constants were fine-tuned for life, but it could just as easily be the case that we're part of some greater multiverse and any percieved "fine-tuning" is due to anthropocentrism. Its one thing to apply the anthropic principle to something like evolution, we know that other stars exist, but to theorise a multiverse with no evidence is surely as bad as theorising a god on no evidence? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
assassin_696 Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 Personally, I just don't have any good reason to believe. The best reason not to. There's no need to trash religion or waste your time whining about it when you can just simply ignore it. It's our choice to follow religion, it's your choice not to. That's what it boils down to and that's where it should stop, really. I wouldn't consider debating one of the biggest questions in life a waste of time, but I'm sure that's not what you meant. I think religion has to be open to criticism, it's not whining if it has some point to it (i.e. challenging people's beliefs). I'm all for live and let live, but I absolutely think religious people should be willing to debate their beliefs, particularly when it's had and is still having such a big impact on the world. "Da mihi castitatem et continentam, sed noli modo" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perakp Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 Personally, I just don't have any good reason to believe. Just out of curiosity, what reasons do you have to disbelieve? And no, I don't mean the burden of proof - I mean what makes you want to be an atheist. I don't know about you, but the idea that we have something 'sheltering' over humanity sounds comforting. Tell us more about this shelter :| eternal life is stupid bad stuff still happens even when you have this shelter There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to believe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now