Beliefs, Religion and Faith.

[Assume Nothing]

I don't see how faith is a relevant issue unless we're arguing about theists themselves as opposed to religion. I go by the dictionary definitions of faith - to believe something unconditionally - i.e. without true critical analysis. No argument, reason or evidence would ever convince a person of faith that their beliefs may not be true (do note the terminology).

 

Then its a shame your not arguing with a dictionary. You might find it easier to understand what people are saying if you allow the context of words to help convey the meaning, because while English has an incredible number of words that allow you to convey the same things with very subtle differences in meaning, it does not actually have a word for everything. This more of a general point though. My point was that it would be easier to understand the arguments people make if you had some understanding of why people (can) believe in things without evidence, rather than just going "that's stupid" and walking away. You are either unable, or unwilling to comprehend the whole concept. Also, by using the pure believing in things unconditionally definition, you are inadvertently painting moderates as fundamentalists since moderates do ask questions.

 

I don't like false hope and reassurance - is it not better to grieve and finish grieving about the death of a loved one, than to falsely believe that it's all part of some malevolent plan that involves a myriad of suffering, torture and death for the majority to save a tiny, tiny minority?

As it applies to death, I don't see how it makes a difference. False hope is only an issue if the possibility of finding out that hope was false actually exists. Either I am right and the hope wasn't false, or I am wrong and I'll never find out (since as it stand now, the question can't be answered for me until I die, and if I am wrong, I won't exist to know I am wrong).

 

And Malevolent plan? Again, assuming we are talking about death, then its neccesity, not malevolence. People need to die. If we were immortal in so far as we never grew old and died, then we would all eventually starve or suffocate as our population consumed all the resources available to us. If we we're immortal, then we would also essentially need to be sterile, and you can't have a species like that since there would be no way to start it, except artificially. And that's not a religious point so don't mistake it for one.

 

I don't like the idea that we should use religion to fill in the blanks that science currently has, either - I see it as a curiosity stopper. If we say 'God done it', and leave it unquestioned - when can we ever get the answer? Even in moderate Christianity, questioning God is considered a generally negative thing, correct? If so, that's your curiosity stopper.

Doesn't matter if you like it. We all do it. Religion comes from humans, so all the assumptions are of human origin anyway. I'll use Evolution as an example. You don't need religion to assume that humans have always been humans. It's actually the logical conclusion unless your either 100,000 years old, someone who studies bacteria, or someone who studies archaeology and has found the right evidence. Even when Evolution is working as fast as it can (and it can work quite fast, such as African Elephants being born noticeably more often tuskless as a result of poaching), its probably going to be a few lifetimes before you can really notice it. It is unobservable unless you have been alive for way to long, you study something that reproduces incredibly fast (such as bacteria), or you have access to fossil records. Religions (plural - since I think this applies to pretty much every religion ever) assume that the creator made us as is because for thousands of years, there was no way to observe otherwise.

 

At this point I should probably mention that I believe the works that make up the Bible were all written by humans, not God.

 

You didn't need to believe in anything to come to the logical conclusion that humans had always been humans, and always would be humans.

 

As for a curiosity stopper...for some people I suppose its possible, but only for those who need to know everything about the world (and to think you know even close to that would require a terribly small imagination anyway I think). I have a drive to know how things work, be it a mouse climbing something (they have fantastic grip), that camera that broke and I can finally take it apart, or how skates move so easily on ice. My curiosity and drive to know things is greater than anyone else I know.

 

When I say it answers questions that science can't, don't make the mistake of thinking that I am filling in blanks like the grand unifaction theory with religion. I don't know how to quantify what I mean, and its a very individual thing anyway. Some people look to religion to tell them how to live(running the gambit from 'be kind and forgiving' to 'these are the absolute rules you live by', others to tell them what the meaning of live is. I guess it depends on what the questions are.

 

You've completely misunderstood my post. It seems that the strong level of bias has some surmountable effect, but I digress.

 

I use well accepted, dictionary definitions because it conveys the correct message. Arguments are meaningless if we're not agreeing on what we're referring to. What meaning does it have if I'm referring to a purportedly omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent creator god when you're referring to a God that's the equivalent of say... energy? I'm not accusing you of doing so - I'm posing a hypothetical, or an analogy as such.

 

I think I was referring to fundamentalists in my little rant about not questioning. But, even if that was a given (i.e. it's actually true and not simply proclaimed) - what use is it if you're simply going to accept it? I don't quite know the workings of moderate Christianity, and since people have evidently been reluctant to clarify precisely what they refer to, I feel this conversation is becoming a little moot. If you're not believing things unconditionally - then what are you basing it upon? I'd like to know, instead of being told that I don't understand the concept - because that's meaningless and does nothing to help resolve the conflict.

 

I express contention with false hope not because it's false - but rather, we base our decisions and actions upon those hopes. I believe that believing a comforting lie is more destructive than an inconvenient truth. We know little to nothing for certainty, but we can deduce the likelihood of it being false by analysing the claims that's being made. If they're contradictory and thus cannot both be true at the same time, then obviously something must be false. It is evident in Christian fundamentalism - but I'm not sure what, precisely, Christian moderates believe so I won't comment on those denominations as of yet.

 

I called the plan malevolent in reference to unnecessary suffering in the world. We should be able to agree on that point that unnecessary suffering exists.

 

I don't quite follow your point on 'we all do it' - were you implying that because we do, we ought to? Are you suggesting that this is a good thing? What precisely are you trying to suggest? It seems to be a moot point at best. Oh, and since we're at it, what defines a creature to be human, and what defines a human to be a person?

 

The curiosity stopper statement was not aimed at you - as you are not representative of the group I'm aiming at. Rather, I'm aiming it at the typical (predominant) group, aiming for a consensus ideal as opposed to personal philosophy.

 

I'm not sure how you mean when you say 'fill the blanks' - care to elaborate?

[Randox]

Alright then.

 

I suspect that I believe in heaven because I wan't to, because it makes death a bit easier for me to deal with (not mine, other people's). As for God, I suppose the idea of something that is 'better' than us has some appeal for me. I guess what I would consider the defining point between the moderate and the fundamentalist, is that I don't know that I am right, I simply trust that I am in the absence of evidence. If science comes up with an answer to what happens after we die, I am not going to assume some sort of conspiracy. Depending on what would hypothetically be found out, I might be dissapointed though. Cross that bridge when I come to it, but I trust my logical mind to win that fight.

 

For the assumption point, it would seem I misspoke. Most people make assumptions, though I suppose not all (the exception would be an agnostic). Since lack of evidence does not constitute proof or evidence to the contrary, the belief that God exists or does not exist is an assumption either way. One might me more logical than the other, but they are still assumptions. That was what I meant by fill in the blanks. As it stands right now, we can't know what happens after death, so we make an assumption, the most logical of which is that our awareness simply ceases to be.

 

And my definition of Human is the taxonomic classification, Homo Sapiens. The assumption here being that in time, humans will continue to evolve to the point where future archeologists will classify us as as a different species of the Homo genus than they use for themselves (as in, rather than classify themselves as Homo Sapiens they will be Homo [insert Latin word]).

[Assume Nothing]

I guess that's the fundamental point where we disagree. I believe that holding more true beliefs are better than holding false, but comforting ones. I base this on the idea that accepting the truth is the most meaningful objective, and the vast majority of flawed beliefs has had some effect on veering towards making poorly judged actions/decisions, with religion being no exception (we can go into examples if you wish).

 

I console in the idea that although we don't yet know about the facts so relevant, but so unanswerable - that we may eventually know the truth. To assume Yahweh's existence on the basis that the idea is comforting seems a little irrational to me. It takes much distortion and careful manipulation of theology to make it morally permissible - which is why I also contend moderate Christianity.

 

I don't think you fully understand the notion of agnosticism. It's in reference to self-proclaimed knowledge (in the case of agnosticism, the lack thereof) - so to express that you're an agnostic would not answer 'Do you believe in God'. On the other hand, atheism/theism/ignosticism/apatheism/pantheism all refer to belief in the existence of a deity. I claim I make no theological assumptions because when I say I'm an atheist, I mean I'm an agnostic atheist.

 

I can't be sure that Gods don't exist, but I can logically deduce that a specific one doesn't by verification (e.g. checking Mount Olympus for Zeus), or for the more recent Gods - contradiction in definition. Contradictions would always be logically invalid because to accept the truth of one position within the contradiction is to also admit the falsehood of the other position presented by the same author. Logic, rationality, and reasoning has always served the purpose of attaining the truth - or what's closest to it.

 

I'm not sure what relevance the humanity point really has, so I'll leave no comment on that.

 

Here's a relevant video to have a brief look at. Yes, the author is a male->female.

 

 

[hide=The video transcription]If you're not a believer, you may be perplexed

When you see how they treat their most sacred of texts

Interpreted, twisted, distorted, and flexed,

Their exegesis leaves us feeling quite vexed

For whenever you quote what their holy book said,

They'll claim that it doesn't - you must have misread

If you think you've found something to leave their face red,

They've reasoned it means something different instead.

 

Six days made the earth? Just a metaphor, fool

We're allowed to buy slaves? That's no longer a rule

And Adam and Eve, with a literate snake?

It's only a parable, make no mistake

Does it preach death for gays? No, they're just damned to hell

You can let witches live, but they're hellbound as well

And all of those laws that regard menstruation?

An old, obsolete, bureaucratic creation!

 

Excuses abound, with their long-practiced skill

They can write off most anything - you know they will

But then comes the twist in this splitting of hairs:

Their comrades have much different answers from theirs!

They've rationalized it a whole different way

You won't get a straight answer, I'm sorry to say

For the doctrines of everyone other than they

Are the very beliefs against which they inveigh.

 

From Catholic to Baptist, Messianic Jew,

Presbyterian, Methodist, Lutheran too,

LDS, Christian Science, they all get their due

As each one insists that the rest are untrue

So who's figured out the correct world view?

Which one do we follow? Which ones to eschew?

Who among them is right? Have they even a clue?

There's so much to sort through. So let's start our review...

 

Can women be clergy, or only the men?

What happens when Jesus comes back here again?

Was he even a god? Or a man, nothing more?

Was he stuck to the cross with three nails or four?

Could this holy wafer be part of his head?

A leg or a thigh, or just plain old white bread?

Did humans evolve? Were they made in a week?

Is Hell full of screaming, or nary a squeak?

 

Is the pontiff the antichrist? Some say it's true

Is salvation by faith, or are works needed too?

Are gays really sinners? Just maybe, they're not

Should saints be ignored, or petitioned a lot?

Must priests remain celibate? What's the result?

Should infants be baptized, or only adults?

Is the Bible correct to the very last letter?

Did Joseph Smith Jr. write something much better?

 

And let's not forget the apocalypse lore,

With horsemen and dragons and angels galore

Do we all have our own resurrection in store?

Or just one-hundred-forty-four thousand, no more?

Do we even know when it might happen, if ever?

Like 2012, on the fifteenth of never?

You might be surprised, because some people say

That the world ends once there are too many gays.

 

And that's just a slice of the faith smorgasbord,

The diversity's simply too vast to record

But if you cite the Bible, you won't be ignored

You'll be set upon by a devout, raging horde

From every direction, in mob and in throng,

They'll rush to accuse you of reading it wrong

Though they shouldn't be shocked when this doesn't hold sway

For they all would be wrong, if they all had their way.

 

You can see how it makes for a frustrating time

When this mishmash of faith has no reason or rhyme

It's enough to make atheists throw up their hands

And tell Christians to go figure out where they stand

But amidst all the turmoil, confusion and stress

Something very revealing comes out of this mess

For these plain contradictions, dissensions and shouts

Give us great ammunition for our kind of doubts.

 

In particular, one frequent question you'll see

Can be answered quite swiftly - if you've got the key

"So God's not your thing," pounds the old Christian drum,

"But where do you get your morality from?"

 

Yes, it's common enough to make anyone ill

Do they really believe that we'll swallow this pill?

As if no one could possibly know wrong from right

Without putting their faith in a myth that's so trite

Nope, I'd have no idea just what I should do

If I hadn't read tales from around the year 2

I'd be paralyzed, frozen, bewildered and lost

Without moral advice from some guy on a cross.

 

To claim this sincerely is silly enough

Yet it raises a question that's really quite tough

You're telling me that's how your ethics were seeded,

But how did you know it was this that you needed?

Just why did you think that the Bible was true,

And not the Qur'an, or the Mormon books too?

And once you'd picked out your religion of choice,

How'd you find the best church with the right faithful voice?

 

What made you decide contraception was bad,

And the Catholics are right when they get very mad?

Why did you believe that God loves all the gays,

And the liberal churches have found the true way?

What made you dismiss all that snake-handling crap?

Does your church say religion's a self-righteous trap?

On origins, sexism, Hell, and the pope,

What made up your mind? Tell me, how did you cope?

 

It's clear that you couldn't be morally impotent

You picked your own favorite brand of omnipotent!

That was your ethical judgment in action

And we have that, too - it's not owned by your faction

We use our own judgment to filter beliefs,

We just don't make religion our ethical chief

While you claim your morals are guided by scripture,

I think we all know this is not the whole picture.

 

No matter your faith, and no matter how strong,

You use your own sense of what's right and what's wrong

Meta-ethically speaking, your god's not a plus,

So please don't pretend that you're better than us.

[/hide]

 

EDIT - to make a further point - consider why there are so many denominations of the same religion. I consider the multiple interpretations to be deliberately manipulating the scripture to fit one's personal philosophy, because it's simply comforting to 'believe in something' than to allegedly 'believe in nothing'. I don't believe it's necessary, and it functions more as a burden than it does an enlightening spiritual thing. It's also a false dichotomy since atheists don't 'believe in nothing' - they typically believe in humanity, hence why they affiliate themselves with secular humanism.

[Jonanananas]

I guess that's the fundamental point where we disagree. I believe that holding more true beliefs are better than holding false, but comforting ones. I base this on the idea that accepting the truth is the most meaningful objective, and the vast majority of flawed beliefs has had some effect on veering towards making poorly judged actions/decisions, with religion being no exception (we can go into examples if you wish).

Indeed? I wouldn't know many examples of this if we ignore fundamentalists.

 

 

I console in the idea that although we don't yet know about the facts so relevant, but so unanswerable - that we may eventually know the truth. To assume Yahweh's existence on the basis that the idea is comforting seems a little irrational to me. It takes much distortion and careful manipulation of theology to make it morally permissible - which is why I also contend moderate Christianity.

 

 

No, we'll never know "the truth" - as something supernatural cannot effectively be proven nor disproven. And yes, to assume his existence is irrational. But that's simply how religion works. In the end, whether he exists or not doesn't actually matter, as long as there's no definitive proof of either thing. Christianity or really any religion works just as well without

 

I don't think you fully understand the notion of agnosticism. It's in reference to self-proclaimed knowledge (in the case of agnosticism, the lack thereof) - so to express that you're an agnostic would not answer 'Do you believe in God'. On the other hand, atheism/theism/ignosticism/apatheism/pantheism all refer to belief in the existence of a deity. I claim I make no theological assumptions because when I say I'm an atheist, I mean I'm an agnostic atheist.

 

I can't be sure that Gods don't exist, but I can logically deduce that a specific one doesn't by verification (e.g. checking Mount Olympus for Zeus), or for the more recent Gods - contradiction in definition. Contradictions would always be logically invalid because to accept the truth of one position within the contradiction is to also admit the falsehood of the other position presented by the same author. Logic, rationality, and reasoning has always served the purpose of attaining the truth - or what's closest to it.

 

 

You cannot prove that a god doesn't exist. You may be able to prove that certain elements of a religion are wrong, but that doesn't disprove the god. It should be obvious to anyone that humans themselves dabble a lot in the theology and that certain teachings change over time, so it's no wonder that at least parts of a religion are wrong. Whether the god does exist is impossible to prove.

 

 

Here's a relevant video to have a brief look at. Yes, the author is a male->female.

 

 

[hide=The video transcription]If you're not a believer, you may be perplexed

When you see how they treat their most sacred of texts

Interpreted, twisted, distorted, and flexed,

Their exegesis leaves us feeling quite vexed

For whenever you quote what their holy book said,

They'll claim that it doesn't - you must have misread

If you think you've found something to leave their face red,

They've reasoned it means something different instead.

 

Six days made the earth? Just a metaphor, fool

We're allowed to buy slaves? That's no longer a rule

And Adam and Eve, with a literate snake?

It's only a parable, make no mistake

Does it preach death for gays? No, they're just damned to hell

You can let witches live, but they're hellbound as well

And all of those laws that regard menstruation?

An old, obsolete, bureaucratic creation!

 

Excuses abound, with their long-practiced skill

They can write off most anything - you know they will

But then comes the twist in this splitting of hairs:

Their comrades have much different answers from theirs!

They've rationalized it a whole different way

You won't get a straight answer, I'm sorry to say

For the doctrines of everyone other than they

Are the very beliefs against which they inveigh.

 

From Catholic to Baptist, Messianic Jew,

Presbyterian, Methodist, Lutheran too,

LDS, Christian Science, they all get their due

As each one insists that the rest are untrue

So who's figured out the correct world view?

Which one do we follow? Which ones to eschew?

Who among them is right? Have they even a clue?

There's so much to sort through. So let's start our review...

 

Can women be clergy, or only the men?

What happens when Jesus comes back here again?

Was he even a god? Or a man, nothing more?

Was he stuck to the cross with three nails or four?

Could this holy wafer be part of his head?

A leg or a thigh, or just plain old white bread?

Did humans evolve? Were they made in a week?

Is Hell full of screaming, or nary a squeak?

 

Is the pontiff the antichrist? Some say it's true

Is salvation by faith, or are works needed too?

Are gays really sinners? Just maybe, they're not

Should saints be ignored, or petitioned a lot?

Must priests remain celibate? What's the result?

Should infants be baptized, or only adults?

Is the Bible correct to the very last letter?

Did Joseph Smith Jr. write something much better?

 

And let's not forget the apocalypse lore,

With horsemen and dragons and angels galore

Do we all have our own resurrection in store?

Or just one-hundred-forty-four thousand, no more?

Do we even know when it might happen, if ever?

Like 2012, on the fifteenth of never?

You might be surprised, because some people say

That the world ends once there are too many gays.

 

And that's just a slice of the faith smorgasbord,

The diversity's simply too vast to record

But if you cite the Bible, you won't be ignored

You'll be set upon by a devout, raging horde

From every direction, in mob and in throng,

They'll rush to accuse you of reading it wrong

Though they shouldn't be shocked when this doesn't hold sway

For they all would be wrong, if they all had their way.

 

You can see how it makes for a frustrating time

When this mishmash of faith has no reason or rhyme

It's enough to make atheists throw up their hands

And tell Christians to go figure out where they stand

But amidst all the turmoil, confusion and stress

Something very revealing comes out of this mess

For these plain contradictions, dissensions and shouts

Give us great ammunition for our kind of doubts.

 

In particular, one frequent question you'll see

Can be answered quite swiftly - if you've got the key

"So God's not your thing," pounds the old Christian drum,

"But where do you get your morality from?"

 

Yes, it's common enough to make anyone ill

Do they really believe that we'll swallow this pill?

As if no one could possibly know wrong from right

Without putting their faith in a myth that's so trite

Nope, I'd have no idea just what I should do

If I hadn't read tales from around the year 2

I'd be paralyzed, frozen, bewildered and lost

Without moral advice from some guy on a cross.

 

To claim this sincerely is silly enough

Yet it raises a question that's really quite tough

You're telling me that's how your ethics were seeded,

But how did you know it was this that you needed?

Just why did you think that the Bible was true,

And not the Qur'an, or the Mormon books too?

And once you'd picked out your religion of choice,

How'd you find the best church with the right faithful voice?

 

What made you decide contraception was bad,

And the Catholics are right when they get very mad?

Why did you believe that God loves all the gays,

And the liberal churches have found the true way?

What made you dismiss all that snake-handling crap?

Does your church say religion's a self-righteous trap?

On origins, sexism, Hell, and the pope,

What made up your mind? Tell me, how did you cope?

 

It's clear that you couldn't be morally impotent

You picked your own favorite brand of omnipotent!

That was your ethical judgment in action

And we have that, too - it's not owned by your faction

We use our own judgment to filter beliefs,

We just don't make religion our ethical chief

While you claim your morals are guided by scripture,

I think we all know this is not the whole picture.

 

No matter your faith, and no matter how strong,

You use your own sense of what's right and what's wrong

Meta-ethically speaking, your god's not a plus,

So please don't pretend that you're better than us.

[/hide]

 

EDIT - to make a further point - consider why there are so many denominations of the same religion. I consider the multiple interpretations to be deliberately manipulating the scripture to fit one's personal philosophy, because it's simply comforting to 'believe in something' than to allegedly 'believe in nothing'. I don't believe it's necessary, and it functions more as a burden than it does an enlightening spiritual thing. It's also a false dichotomy since atheists don't 'believe in nothing' - they typically believe in humanity, hence why they affiliate themselves with secular humanism.

 

Basically the same as above. Yes a lot of religions contradict themselves. It doesn't matter. If you choose to believe it, what does it matter? As long as they're happy with it and don't infringe the rights of others, they can do as they please. Of course, belittling others for interpreting scripture "wrongly" or to claim that atheists can't have morals isn't something that should happen.

 

" I don't believe it's necessary, and it functions more as a burden than it does an enlightening spiritual thing. "

 

For quite a while I've believed the same. But watching the people around me, I've come to the conclusion that for most religious people, their religion helps them a lot more than it harms them(and others). And as long as that's the case, there's no issue with religion, even if rationality suggests it's not true.

[Assume Nothing]

Why would you ignore fundamentalists? I'll have to revisit the past pages to give examples of moderate Christians making ill judgements on the basis of the religion - do give me some time to find them; they're not as obvious or direct as fundamentalist immorality.

 

I do think we can eventually learn 'the truth' - if we're referring to the origins of the universe. If we're referring to life after death, then you're right - we're unlikely to, if it's possible at all - but I wasn't referring to that. If we're referring to the existence of a deity - that'll never be possible by its very definition, so it's meaningless to criticize on this point.

 

"[T]o assume his existence is irrational. But that's simply how religion works. In the end, whether he exists or not doesn't actually matter, as long as there's no definitive proof of either thing. Christianity or really any religion works just as well without." I don't understand what you mean - are you saying it's justified because that's how religion worked? I'm not sure what you're trying to imply.

 

I should have clarified when I asserted that the non-existence of God(s) could be proven. I meant that I could prove that a characteristic of a God is impossible, so the specific depiction/portrayal of that God cannot exist - in other words, I'm not referring to the deity itself, but the depiction of the deity. I do realise that it's impossible to prove the non-existence of anything, unless by contradiction or by pointing out how it violates universal laws (e.g. faster than light particles, if Einstein's theory is correct - still under debate due to recent findings though).

 

As I've said before, I believe in the importance of believing as many true things as possible, and dismissing as many false things as possible. That's why I believe we should question the existence of the purported deities as oppose to assuming the existence of them, even if its a comforting thing. On a slightly tangential note - it has too much potential to veer out of control into a brainwash programme (fundamentalism), so it's good to have some opposition against it.

 

I'm not sure how you're getting this 'religion does more good than harm' notion. If you're referring to self professed statistics, then of course that'll be the case. The flaw with that would be the fact that its not necessarily true, and in the case of religion, this may be the case to some significant extent. What we need is revealed data on how they actually behave, and subsequently extrapolate the findings from that.

[Jonanananas]

Why would you ignore fundamentalists? I'll have to revisit the past pages to give examples of moderate Christians making ill judgements on the basis of the religion - do give me some time to find them; they're not as obvious or direct as fundamentalist immorality.

 

 

Ugh. Haven't we been over this a hundred times already? It's obvious that fundamentalist's views cause harm and don't really make sense so there's no reason to discuss it. No matter how big of an influence they have, if you're going to discuss whether religion makes sense/does harm/has any useful purpose, don't use fundamentalists but moderates, becaue honestly with fundamentalists it's a rhetoric question and discussion about it is a waste of time.

 

 

I do think we can eventually learn 'the truth' - if we're referring to the origins of the universe. If we're referring to life after death, then you're right - we're unlikely to, if it's possible at all - but I wasn't referring to that. If we're referring to the existence of a deity - that'll never be possible by its very definition, so it's meaningless to criticize on this point.

 

"[T]o assume his existence is irrational. But that's simply how religion works. In the end, whether he exists or not doesn't actually matter, as long as there's no definitive proof of either thing. Christianity or really any religion works just as well without." I don't understand what you mean - are you saying it's justified because that's how religion worked? I'm not sure what you're trying to imply.

 

 

Glad we agree on the first point. Now to my quote: What I am saying is: Whether a religion is true or not doesn't matter in the slightest as long there is no definitive proof(which would lead to people not believing it anymore). Christianity has shaped the world in a certain way. Whether that was good or bad I'll cover later :P Never has the fact whether God existed or not in reality made any difference. It doesn't matter if people believe in God and he doesn't exist or if they believe in him and he does exist. As long as there is no proof(which obviously there never will be) nobody can be sure and as such for personal behaviour it doesn't matter whether he exists or not.

Of course, if, say a very revengeful god, exists who kills us because we didn't believe in him it makes a difference, but as we couldn't have known either way we didn't behave the "wrong" way.

 

edit: This is kind of difficult to explain, I'll try to portray it with an example.

 

Person A believes in God.

Person B doesn't.

We are going to take a simplicistic and a bit extreme view of god: Those who follow his will get rewarded, those who don't get punished in the afterlife. If they are being rewarded/punished in present life isn't able to be determined, so the same situation we are in.

 

Scenario 1: God exists

Person A acts according to the will of God. He possibly gets rewarded in his current life(but this isn't able to be determined). He gets rewarded in the afterlife.

Person B doesn't do that. He possibly get punished, but again not being able to be determined. In his afterlife he has to suffer.

 

Scenario 2: God doesn't exist

Person A still acts according to the will of god(or rather, now the religion). He doesn't get rewarded, though he may think of some of the things happening to him as a reward.

Person B doesn't act accordingly. He doesn't get punished.

 

 

As you see, while the final outcome may be different depending on whether god exists or not, the behaviour of the persons doesn't change. Both cannot possibly know whether the god exists or not and as such are acting on their own beliefs as good as they can. As nobody changes their behaviour regardless of whether god exists or not, our current life doesn't change either. As such, whether god exists or not is irrelevant.

 

 

I should have clarified when I asserted that the non-existence of God(s) could be proven. I meant that I could prove that a characteristic of a God is impossible, so the specific depiction/portrayal of that God cannot exist - in other words, I'm not referring to the deity itself, but the depiction of the deity. I do realise that it's impossible to prove the non-existence of anything, unless by contradiction or by pointing out how it violates universal laws (e.g. faster than light particles, if Einstein's theory is correct - still under debate due to recent findings though).

 

Okay, agree then.

 

 

As I've said before, I believe in the importance of believing as many true things as possible, and dismissing as many false things as possible. That's why I believe we should question the existence of the purported deities as oppose to assuming the existence of them, even if its a comforting thing. On a slightly tangential note - it has too much potential to veer out of control into a brainwash programme (fundamentalism), so it's good to have some opposition against it.

 

I'm not sure how you're getting this 'religion does more good than harm' notion. If you're referring to self professed statistics, then of course that'll be the case. The flaw with that would be the fact that its not necessarily true, and in the case of religion, this may be the case to some significant extent. What we need is revealed data on how they actually behave, and subsequently extrapolate the findings from that.

 

Well you do believe in the importance of that. I don't do that necessarily(as in teh case for religion). Again, I see no big harm with (moderate!) religion even if I do believe they're wrong. And yes I'm getting my notion of 'religion does more good than harm' out of my "self professed statistics" or, as you might call them, my experiences. Where do you get the notion from that it does more harm than good? Let me guess, your personal experience? Data on this would be great but it would be incredibly difficult to conduct.

 

I should also clarify that when I said "religion does more harm than good" I again refer to moderate religions and not the fundamentalist view. Given that you yourself have said you don't really know a lot about this, while I have experienced it for quite a while and have no biased reason to defend it(As I do not believe in it myself) I will dare to say, hopefully without coming over as arrogant, that I believe I am able to judge this better than you.

 

 

And no I don't believe that religion has too much potential to become fundamentalism. Of course the possibilites are there but (okay just to avoid any attacks on this: purely my opinon, not any fact) fundamentalism will get mostly passed on through education of children. Moderate religious people becoming fundamentalists will be a tiny minority. Besides, just because something taken to the extreme is bad doesn't mean that it should be condemned when it's not bad in itself.

[Assume Nothing]

The notion of more harm than good is evident in fundamentalism - but we're ignoring that point at the moment. I can't find too many statistics on moderate Christianity, which is why I'm reluctant to make a firm position on moderates. I think it would take some time to find some examples, but I can be fairly certain that there's a few good examples out there (depending on definition of 'good').

 

I do think you have vested interest in protecting the name of moderate Christianity, so your credibility is not as high as you deem it. I don't claim to be of an expert in the field of moderate views either, so I don't make any claims on that. I just don't think you're supreme in this respect.

 

When I make reference to 'self-professed statistics', I'm really saying that statistics on what people say are different to what people really do. I've forgotten my original example, but this should be easily provable by how inaccurately people report say... their earnings to their actual earnings, or their happiness to their actual happiness.

 

I think this might be the case in religion, where the existence of a confirmation bias means that what is actually a non-spiritually derived form of happiness (goose bumps in church) may be falsely attributed to religion.

[Jonanananas]

The notion of more harm than good is evident in fundamentalism - but we're ignoring that point at the moment. I can't find too many statistics on moderate Christianity, which is why I'm reluctant to make a firm position on moderates. I think it would take some time to find some examples, but I can be fairly certain that there's a few good examples out there (depending on definition of 'good').

 

So you concede that it might be difficult to find examples. At the same time I can think of quite a number of examples around my area.

 

I do think you have vested interest in protecting the name of moderate Christianity, so your credibility is not as high as you deem it. I don't claim to be of an expert in the field of moderate views either, so I don't make any claims on that. I just don't think you're supreme in this respect.

 

Nope, I haven't. I couldn't care less about religion, I merely have seen your statements which I believe to be wrong, or rather, looking at it one-sided. I have to say I'm actually a bit surprised I have ended up on the "defending" side given that are several issues I personally have with religion.

 

 

When I make reference to 'self-professed statistics', I'm really saying that statistics on what people say are different to what people really do. I've forgotten my original example, but this should be easily provable by how inaccurately people report say... their earnings to their actual earnings, or their happiness to their actual happiness.

 

I think this might be the case in religion, where the existence of a confirmation bias means that what is actually a non-spiritually derived form of happiness (goose bumps in church) may be falsely attributed to religion.

 

I didn't go around and ask people...it's what I experience in my everyday life. And sure, some will have hidden issues that can be attributed to religion but I believe that number to be small, given that I haven't personally encountered anyone despite knowing a number of people well enough to determine if this was the case.

[Assume Nothing]

I wasn't suggesting that you did ask people. I just believe that its probable you're basing much of the 'happiness theory' on what people claim (without needing to question) or otherwise express. I'm suggesting that these are likely to be flawed, because we have a strange habit of attributing things to the wrong causes (e.g. god). That's why I don't believe that strand of reasoning is a particularly strong one.

 

I think we're mostly in agreement, but it seems that my posts are frequently misinterpreted because of the nature of my position (anti-religious), evidenced from the repeated need to clarify.

 

I'm not conceding that it's difficult to find examples, I'm merely stating it. If I had stated that its easy to find examples, I may have been referencing something else. If I hadn't, then I made an error of judgement during the post. I'd still try and find some nonetheless - give me some time for it.

[Jonanananas]

Meh you might be true on that one, but it's equally as hard to prove the opposite. As long as there is no real evidence for either side(which will be hard to get) we're just working of our personal feelings.

 

 

I don't think I misinterpret you because of your position, but rather your general way of posting and the tone of your writing, given that I seem to have similar problems at times on other threads.

 

 

As for the last: Yes sorry, that wasn't expressed well. Anyhow, I don't feel pulling examples out in an attempt to get statistics is going to help the discussion. I'm sorry as I was the one who brought this up, but...say you find a few examples(which I guess should be possible)....does it prove anything or help the discussion? I don't really think so.

[Assume Nothing]

Well, that was speculative, so you may be right in that you're interpreting my posts in a different way because of the tone of my posts. It does feel that my words get twisted intentionally because of the frequency of it occurring, which is frustrating to say the least in a subject like this.

 

I think the examples of how moderate Christianity can be harmful would give more weight to my claim that in moderate Christianity, it does/may do more harm than good. For now, I'll be searching. Do we disagree on any more points?