Jump to content

Beliefs, Religion and Faith.


Assume Nothing

Recommended Posts

Depression after someone's death is influenced by multiple factors. Exactly, depression at a funeral makes no sense if you're directly sad for a person's death, especially if you believe in an afterlife. People become sad for the same reasons when a loved one has to leave on a voyage from which they will never return (but, eliminate communication channels). It's a personal sadness.

I fail to see the relevance.

 

I fail to see the point in asking me to clarify what depression is.

 

I'm giving you room to prove my perspective wrong, asserting that I'm wrong is not a solid counter-argument, it's your job to find evidence outside of personal experience that contradicts what I'm saying, it should be easy if I'm truly incorrect.

 

This is what can be defined as hypocrisy. You wish for me to support my claims, yet you refuse to support yours, and then claim it is my job to prove you wrong. That is like me claiming it is your job to prove there is no such thing as a god.

 

I am neither insulting your point of view, nor claiming you are downright wrong. All I am saying is that you should base claims on something other than nothing.

 

Completely missing the point. Consider for a moment the scenario where I somehow backtrack through everything I have learnt up to this point, quoting like crazy, providing statistics, charts, everything. What would you say then? Your only argument is that I'm not spoon-feeding sources. I'm not going to waste my time doing that, sorry to say. Especially since you haven't provided anywhere near enough incentive.

 

Sure you can disagree, but justifying the disagreement with a personal account is like me claiming 'you're likely to roll one six out of six dice rolls' then you disagree because you have never rolled a six your entire life. We're discussing universal tendencies, not instances.

 

I have nothing else to discuss with you. Reply if you wish, but I will not respond again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
  • Replies 411
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I see nothing wrong with celebrating Christmas as an atheist, to myself and many people I know it is a secular holiday; a season of good will and a time for family and friends. Just because I don't relate it to the religion doesn't mean I shouldn't celebrate it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Should atheists celebrate Christmas?

Easy question to answer. No if by Christmas you mean celebrating Jesus' birth.

 

If you mean secular 'Christmas', no one is forcing them to celebrate or not celebrate.

pMcEU.png

| My Tumblr |

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For me....I could believe that there is some deity. It might also be possible there is none. But I simply can't believe that one single religion could be right.

 

Simply put, how do you know that your holy book(or whatever) is right and the others are wrong? With what arguments can you justify that?

 

For me there are basically three options:

 

There is no god at all, and all religions are wrong(Though of course they may still be important on moral levels, and them being wrong doesn't mean they're bad)

 

There is some kind of deity, but no humans have been able to grasp it and all religions are still wrong(This is what I personally more or less believe, though I do keep swaying a bit :P)

 

And the third option would be that all religions are true, and that god for some reason has put those different religions into people's minds. At the same time, this would mean that the religion isn't strictly true, but rather that it is indeed derived from god, though maybe not in the sense that the religious person itself believes.

 

 

 

But being follower of exactly one religion is something I can't exactly understand. Simply put, how do you know the Bible is correct and not the Quran?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But being follower of exactly one religion is something I can't exactly understand. Simply put, how do you know the Bible is correct and not the Quran?

 

 

Imagine one morning you wake up, and you "just know" that the Qu'ran is correct and not the Bible, or anything else but the Qu'ran. That really is the answer to "how do you know", you just wake up one morning and you do. Or you have a similar experience at some non-morning time. :P

 

The "what empowers one religion over the others" is a powerful logical argument. But, since the above paragraph is not really logical, it doesn't necessarily apply. It is "pre-logical", in a sense which I will develop now. If you have 20 eyewitnesses to a crime, there's a good chance they'll all give slightly different accounts. But that doesn't mean that one of them can't have the facts perfectly correct, or at least most correct. To this argument, the "which eyewitness do you believe" is a powerful logical argument that you can't trust eyewitnesses accounts. But if you're one of the eyewitnesses, and you're sure you're that one of the 20 who really saw what happened, aren't you going to believe it, despite that argument?

 

It's difficult for logic to overpower our sense of "really seeing what I saw". Which came first--your sense of logic, or your perceptions of the universe? Were you born with a logical intuition, or did you develop a logical sense from watching the world around you behave according to physical laws which are describable with a logical system of postulates? I would argue that it is the latter. Thus, we see that perception is "pre-logical". More precisely, learning to perceive is identical with formulating a logical system for extracting narrative sequences from the configuration space also extracted from the various sensory apparatuses, but that would take too long to put into normal english. Realizing that human perception is imperfect and therefore logic should be used to recursively limit prelogic perception seems inductively true to me, but not deductively true. The fact that sensory perception and processing can be improved through systematic training has been experimentally verified, albeit more in a task-area based way than in general way.

 

If you haven't ever had the experience of "just knowing that this religion is true, and not all the others" then it's much easier to apply the powerful logical argument "what privileges one religion to be true over all the others" to dismiss them all, in the same way in which it is easier to doubt eyewitness accounts than it is to doubt one's own sensory inputs. Investigation of the various sensory illusions is useful in the latter area, there are various lines of inquiry performing a similar function for the former.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But being follower of exactly one religion is something I can't exactly understand. Simply put, how do you know the Bible is correct and not the Quran?

 

 

Imagine one morning you wake up, and you "just know" that the Qu'ran is correct and not the Bible, or anything else but the Qu'ran. That really is the answer to "how do you know", you just wake up one morning and you do. Or you have a similar experience at some non-morning time. :P

 

The "what empowers one religion over the others" is a powerful logical argument. But, since the above paragraph is not really logical, it doesn't necessarily apply. It is "pre-logical", in a sense which I will develop now. If you have 20 eyewitnesses to a crime, there's a good chance they'll all give slightly different accounts. But that doesn't mean that one of them can't have the facts perfectly correct, or at least most correct. To this argument, the "which eyewitness do you believe" is a powerful logical argument that you can't trust eyewitnesses accounts. But if you're one of the eyewitnesses, and you're sure you're that one of the 20 who really saw what happened, aren't you going to believe it, despite that argument?

 

It's difficult for logic to overpower our sense of "really seeing what I saw". Which came first--your sense of logic, or your perceptions of the universe? Were you born with a logical intuition, or did you develop a logical sense from watching the world around you behave according to physical laws which are describable with a logical system of postulates? I would argue that it is the latter. Thus, we see that perception is "pre-logical". More precisely, learning to perceive is identical with formulating a logical system for extracting narrative sequences from the configuration space also extracted from the various sensory apparatuses, but that would take too long to put into normal english. Realizing that human perception is imperfect and therefore logic should be used to recursively limit prelogic perception seems inductively true to me, but not deductively true. The fact that sensory perception and processing can be improved through systematic training has been experimentally verified, albeit more in a task-area based way than in general way.

 

If you haven't ever had the experience of "just knowing that this religion is true, and not all the others" then it's much easier to apply the powerful logical argument "what privileges one religion to be true over all the others" to dismiss them all, in the same way in which it is easier to doubt eyewitness accounts than it is to doubt one's own sensory inputs. Investigation of the various sensory illusions is useful in the latter area, there are various lines of inquiry performing a similar function for the former.

 

Not a bad answer, but not sufficient for me :P

 

The simple difference for me is that one is an observable fact. Religion isn't. And because of that, I cannot see how you can rationally argue that your religion is the correct one, or that any of them is correct. Of course, you can still believe in that religion. I know some people like that. They say "I don't know why I believe in my religion. I don't know if it's true and I can't really argue that it is. But it doesn't really matter to me, I simply believe it and I'm happy how it shapes my life"

 

That position, I can understand. Faith isn't something dictated by rationalism. But there are people claiming their own religion to be true, not only for themselves, but for other people too, and they try to argue from a rational point of view, and that's something I'm not able to understand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not a bad answer, but not sufficient for me :P

 

The simple difference for me is that one is an observable fact. Religion isn't. And because of that, I cannot see how you can rationally argue that your religion is the correct one, or that any of them is correct. Of course, you can still believe in that religion. I know some people like that. They say "I don't know why I believe in my religion. I don't know if it's true and I can't really argue that it is. But it doesn't really matter to me, I simply believe it and I'm happy how it shapes my life"

 

That position, I can understand. Faith isn't something dictated by rationalism. But there are people claiming their own religion to be true, not only for themselves, but for other people too, and they try to argue from a rational point of view, and that's something I'm not able to understand.

 

I think it actually is sufficient for you, in the sense that it covers your first example. "But it doesn't really matter to me, I simply believe it and I'm happy how it shapes my life"

 

when it comes to your second example: "But there are people claiming their own religion to be true, not only for themselves, but for other people too, and they try to argue from a rational point of view, and that's something I'm not able to understand." Someone arguing from a rational point of view, for the positive proof of something for which they don't have evidence--they're wrong. So, that covers your second example.

 

That covers both examples, right? If you're asking why someone would do the second example, they're either deluded or trying to deceive you, and if you're asking why that is, I'd refer you to the classic Propaganda, 1928 by Edward Bernays, and if you want to know why that book is true I'd refer you to Daniel Dennett's later work, etc. How far up the chain do you want to go? :P

 

There's a bit of an implied false dilemma of omission in your post, as you don't mention people trying to convert other people to their religion using irrational means. Are you against that, and why?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Should atheists celebrate Christmas?

 

Happy solstice day :lol:

 

Also it makes for a funny convo if your employed.

 

Me - Merry Christmas

Customer - Oh im not christian

Me - Well neither am I, trollface.png

 

lol I like that. What about:

 

Me- Merry Christmas

Customer - Oh, I'm not Christian.

Me- Oh, me neither, -beat-, but you believe in Santa right? *Angrily stare at heathen customer*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In short; a feeling of spiritual revelation - unexplained epiphanies attributed to an invisible, intangible being that's almighty. Is it really necessary though? How does religion benefit society as a whole?

James = William James

 

"One metaphysical problem that James endeavors to pragmatically consider is that of "materialism or theism?". James inquires as to the practical differences that come with holding that "the facts of experience up to date are purposeless configurations of blind atoms moving according to eternal laws, or that on the other hand they are due to the providence of God."23 James asserts that retrospectively, no practical difference obtains; "those facts are in, are bagged, are captured; and the good that's in them is gained, be the atoms or be the God their cause."24 But, James stipulates, prospectively, there is a difference. When considering future facts of experience, we ask, as James puts it, "'what does the world promise?'"25 In other words, what sort of experience will be brought into effect if materialism and theism make good on their solemn pronouncements?

James believes that materialism and theism offer strikingly different answers to this question. Materialism has it that the stuff of the world is transient and that eventually, all will decay with nothing remaining to represent that which was. "This utter final wreck and tragedy," states James, "is of the essence of scientific materialism as at present understood."26

 

The energies of our systems will decay, the glory of the

sun will be dimmed, and the earth, tideless and inert, will

no longer tolerate the race which has for a moment disturbed

its solitude. Man will go down into the pit, and all

his thoughts will perish. The uneasy consciousness which

in this obscure corner has for a brief space broken the

contented silence of the universe, will be at rest. Matter

will know itself no longer. ‘Imperishable monuments’

and ‘immortal deeds,’ death itself, and love stronger than

death, will be as though they had never been. Nor will

anything that is, be better or be worse for all that labour,

genius, devotion and suffering of man have striven

through countless generations to effect. (from Balfour’s
The Foundations of Belief
)

Theism, on the other hand, has it that "tragedy is only provisional and partial, and shipwreck and dissolution not the absolutely final things."27 According to James, this is because although the perishing of objects of the world is acknowledged by theism, theism makes an assurance that materialism never could, namely, that of an eternal preservation of moral order. Because he regards the "need of an eternal moral order" as "one of the deepest needs of our breast,"28 James characterizes theism as offering "a world of promise, while materialism's sun sets in a sea of disappointment."29 That is to say that in its affirmation of an eternal moral order, theism promises a world of promise, or hope, while in its denial of an eternal moral order, materialism promises the opposite. Settling this question pragmatically consists in deciding which promise one wishes to accept." Source

 

Thought it was an interesting take on the issue when I learned it in philosophy class this semester and that I would share it for fun (not saying I agree completely). :grin:

pMcEU.png

| My Tumblr |

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could you post your own thoughts, as opposed to quoting large sections of philosophical texts? It's difficult to read and it's disputably more difficult to see the connection between your point and what you've copied and pasted.

 

I don't understand why religion has to condemn those who don't believe though -

 

Here's a quick video on the islamic penality for apostasy;

 

 

If the moral values of religion is good, then why do they condemn non-believers to hell, or worse - an actual death penalty?

 

EDIT -

 

I think this may be useful

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a quick video on the islamic penality for apostasy;

 

If the moral values of religion is good, then why do they condemn non-believers to hell, or worse - an actual death penalty?

 

Why are you using Islam and religion interchangeably? Islam is one religion, not equal to religion in general.

 

 

On the James quote:

 

1. He makes a false dilemma between materialism and theism.

2. He quotes the theory of his time on how the universe would end according to cosmographers. Now there are many theories as to what might happen, rendering his interpretation outdated.

3. His assumption that man's need for eternal moral order, while clearly stated as an assumption by the compositor of the quotes, is not only not an assumption that I share, but it doesn't even seem that tenable.

4. Interestingly, the belief in a recurring physical universe, such as one with enough matter to contract into a big crunch leading into another big bang, does seem to result in an "eternal moral order" without requiring theism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"James characterizes theism as offering "a world of promise, while materialism's sun sets in a sea of disappointment."29 That is to say that in its affirmation of an eternal moral order, theism promises a world of promise, or hope, while in its denial of an eternal moral order, materialism promises the opposite. Settling this question pragmatically consists in deciding which promise one wishes to accept."

 

There. That provides his take on it. And that's all I wanted to share. (materialism in this case is basically the denial of God)

 

EDIT: Feel free to tear apart his ideas. They aren't mine. I just thought they were interesting. :thumbup:

pMcEU.png

| My Tumblr |

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a quick video on the islamic penality for apostasy;

 

If the moral values of religion is good, then why do they condemn non-believers to hell, or worse - an actual death penalty?

 

Why are you using Islam and religion interchangeably? Islam is one religion, not equal to religion in general.

 

 

On the James quote:

 

1. He makes a false dilemma between materialism and theism.

2. He quotes the theory of his time on how the universe would end according to cosmographers. Now there are many theories as to what might happen, rendering his interpretation outdated.

3. His assumption that man's need for eternal moral order, while clearly stated as an assumption by the compositor of the quotes, is not only not an assumption that I share, but it doesn't even seem that tenable.

4. Interestingly, the belief in a recurring physical universe, such as one with enough matter to contract into a big crunch leading into another big bang, does seem to result in an "eternal moral order" without requiring theism.

 

I should have clarified that the video on Islamic religions are only an example of religious condemning of non-believers. Apologies for any misinterpretations.

 

EDIT @Duff

 

It's not saying much to assert that 'not all of them' condemn non-believers, considering that the most widely practiced ones, which include Christianity (I think it's approx 60% of the United States alone) and the Islamic (which covers much of the Eastern world) most certainly do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with quoting an article without any additional information would be the fact that the ideas the quoted author holds says nothing about his own opinion until he responds and confirms/denies. It may be silly to respond to the argument, if nothing can be accomplished from it (a rational person is unlikely to defend a belief that they don't hold, should they not hold said belief).

 

That's why I prefer thoughts to be clearly articulated as opposed to copying large sections of the Bible, or any other source in an attempt to persuade readers to accept a position.

 

I still hold that religion is no longer necessary in our society, and therefore it should be a social aim to abolish what's considered the religious wrongdoings - examples being: the condemning of non-believers and homosexuals, misogynistic views, genocidal acts such as war, scientific and medical oppression, racial/gender discrimination, condoning of non safe-sex, and 'brainwashing' (fear of God, suppressing one's feelings, preventing children from accessing information, being a cause of guilt in regards to normal sexual behaviours, disrespect of non-believers...) etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

 

It's not saying much to assert that 'not all of them' condemn non-believers, considering that the most widely practiced ones, which include Christianity (I think it's approx 60% of the United States alone) and the Islamic (which covers much of the Eastern world) most certainly do.

 

I would like to point somerthing out. Not all Islamic or Christian people condem non believers. I'm Christian, and my particular faith has never made claim to be the right religion let alone condem those that don't follow it. That would be on par with claiming that all Muslims wan't to see America burned to the ground. The church I belong to is the United Church of Canada, which is the second largest religion in the country second only to Catholicism. The second largest religion in the second largest country in the world (by land mass :thumbsup: ) doesn't give a flying [bleep] what religion people belong to. Anyone is welcome regardless of their faith, and we don't judge anyone who either doesn't believe in God, or chooses to worship God in another way.

 

I'll grant you that some denominations of Christianity most certainly do consider themselves to be the one true path, seek to convert others, and even condemn those who don't believe what they believe. But Christianity and Islam are big religions, with a lot of denominations. Not all Christians get along with each other any more than all the Islamic faiths do.

 

Just something to think about before you paint such a broad stroke.

 

I've probably mentioned this before, but as long as someone else's faith doesn't impede my ability to practice my faith, and doesn't endanger other people (that means no active conversion, no religious wars, no human sacrifice, etc.), then its not my place to judge or object. If someone doesn't believe in God, that's cool too. The way I see it, as long as someone does the best they can, that's all anyone or anything could ever ask.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it operates slightly differently in Canada. In contrast, I'm pretty certain that Christian churches in America does indeed endorse anti-atheist views and thus condemn them in not only verbal damnation, but sometimes by influencing the legal system.

 

I would agree that if religious practices did not interfere with others, there would be little problem in the concept and it could be brushed off to be 'trivial'. It's unfortunate that it's not true - religion is such a prevalent concept that religious ideas imposed do affect others, directly or indirectly, since for a large part of society, the Bible acts as a moral code - what it endorses for Christians will ultimately have an effect on a Christian society, such as affecting the bills being passed in a democratic state.

 

I think you have yet to grasp the vast social effects, both good and bad, religion has. It's one of the reasons why these debates are such a 'hot' topic.

 

If what I've said is currently unclear, it's because it's 5am and I'm failing miserably at articulating my thoughts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

True, I'm not really sure how it works in the States. Even our Catholics up here in the north have toned it down a bit, but a huge portion of Canada isn't even religious at all at last count iirc (something like 40%). I can sort of see it since religion seems to play a hefty part in American politics, where as up here, I don't even know what religion if any, any of our politicians belong to (nor do I care), and I'm certain most people would be just as clueless on that subject as I am. Not saying we pick anything better to base our elections on, since our politicians are just as big a bunch of liers as yours, just saying religion is a much smaller factor in our day to day lives.

 

I also realise that a lot of people cant seem to grasp the live and let live philosophy. I will never understand how someone else practising a different faith than yours can possibly offend anyone, though a quick look at something called history is showing that a lot of people get very offended over this, for reasons that totally baffle me (this is one case where I don't even want to understand how people can be like that, lest I risk becoming that way myself).

 

At the moment, I am not too tickled pink with some atheists since at least around here, they are the only group making a stink about religion (which I am finding to be no end of irony).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a mini compilation of questions for Christians and theists alike;

 

If God is so loving, why would he punish those who don't believe in him? If God is merciful, would he be just? If you pray for something, and it's not in God's divine plan, would God grant your prayer? If it's his bidding/will, why pray in the first place? If God is the creator of the Universe, who created the creator? If a God exists, why doesn't he present himself in a way that's observable? How do you tell the difference between a natural remission with a miracle, if you're Christian?

 

Is there any difference between a world where no God exists and things occur naturally, with religion invented to keep people in line, to our current one? If all else fails, would Pascal's wager be a sound argument for religion? Does the benefits of religion outweigh the drawbacks, and is there no alternative?

 

Feel free to pick apart only a few of the above to elaborate more deeply. I struggle to believe in the Christian God because of the many logical inconsistencies it has.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a mini compilation of questions for Christians and theists alike;

 

... If God is merciful, would he be just? If you pray for something, and it's not in God's divine plan, would God grant your prayer? If it's his bidding/will, why pray in the first place? ...

 

Feel free to pick apart only a few of the above to elaborate more deeply. I struggle to believe in the Christian God because of the many logical inconsistencies it has.

 

Well, since he is God, of course he is just. Even though he is merciful to those that choose to love him and those that may, to be the ultimate authority he *must* be just. He is called "Judge" and that's what judges are supposed to be. That's one of the consequences of sin, (i.e. separation from God), you have to face those consequences. If your prayer is not in God's plan, then he will answer with a no, but, I believe, with something better in the long run. As for why to pray in the first place, I believe that God likes to hear from us, regardless of being omnipotent. It's part of that free will he has given us; we can ask for things and choose to follow his will or not. It's that kind of relationship he desires that makes him who he is. I hope this at least partly answers some of the questions you have. :)

Mess_of_Me09.png

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.