Religion Unfiltered
|
10-10-2012, 09:23 PM
Post: #1
|
|||
|
|||
Religion Unfiltered
I didn't want to hijack Spyder's political thread with this discussion, so I decided to make this topic since some of you were interested in a religious discussion.
First up, Ollie, I'm sorry that I haven't been able to view the Christopher Hitchens videos you provided earlier. My VPN has been blocked by the Great Firewall of China (one of the lovely benefits of living in a communist/socialist society), and I am currently unable to view most of the sites you guys enjoy on a daily basis (youtube, facebook, IMDB, etc...). I promise you though that I will check them out once my VPN is up and running again. That being said, I've got a few different areas of religion I'd like to touch on, including Atheism vs. Deism, the historical Jesus, etc... I'll divide each of those ideas into different posts, so that people can choose which, if any, they feel deserve response, rebuttal, or debate. The only thing I'm gonna ask in return, if possible, is that we keep it respectful towards each other. I include myself on that list, as I certainly have my own history of vomiting out a torrent of obscenities on numerous occasions. Let's begin. Warriors Don't Show Their Heart Until The Axe Reveals It. |
|||
10-10-2012, 09:51 PM
Post: #2
|
|||
|
|||
Religion Unfiltered
ATHEISM versus DEISM
These are my own personal views Just from my own experience, I've noticed that most atheists have a very specific disbelief of certain religious systems. I very rarely hear arguments geared towards the general concept of God. They are, more specifically, geared towards God as he is portrayed in the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.) To me, that is a fundamentally weak argument to make. Even if you could disprove those religions, you've done nothing to disprove the existence of God. Additionally, when you look at the upbringing of the staunchest, most hardcore of atheists, they will usually tell you stories about how they grew up in, or were exposed to, extremely religious viewpoints. It's always this point that is the most telling for me. I don't think these particular atheists are really arguing the non-existence of God at all. To me, many of them sound like children with unresolved daddy issues, rebelling like a teenager against a system they've deemed to be stupid, unfair, out of date, etc... Atheism vs. Deism (God) should go beyond Atheism vs. Christianity, but it rarely ever does. I will never, ever participate in a debate over Atheism vs. Christianity, as I believe it is a fruitless endeavor for both sides. At this point you are arguing faith, not science or fact. Other thoughts As has been mentioned previously, Atheism itself is a form of faith. It is, literally, a faith in nothing. Furthermore, atheism in its purest form goes against science, as atheism attempts to bypass (unsuccessfully) the idea of causality. Science dictates that causality must always exist. But no matter how far back atheists want to take their theories on the origin of life, they can never account for the beginning. A big ball of gas and energy, by mere chance, collected together, exploded, and led to the direct creation of life. That's well and good. But where did the energy come from? Where did the gas come from? Where did the universe come from? No matter how far you take it, you must, in the end, tell us where (or how) that link in the chain came to be. The blind faith that it came from somewhere is not dissimilar to the blind faith deists have, except that deists do have a root cause, whereas atheists don't. As stated, causality rules our universe. Or, as Einstein put it, laws govern our universe. That is what science is, really, a set of laws that all things must abide by. And as Einstein stated, all laws must come from a law-giver. Einstein did not believe in a personal God (i.e. a god in the clouds who loved mankind and intervened in his life), but he most certainly believed in a higher power, some cosmic force that set creation and universe into play. He himself termed it as a "cosmic religion." Final Thoughts At this time, I really just don't find the argument of atheism to be a compelling one. At best it fails to provide true causality in creation, at worst it attempts to bypass, ignore, or obfuscate that argument altogether. A lack of causality necessarily equals a lack of evidence. A lack of evidence means faith is all that is left to go on. Faith in nothing. Literally. Deism, at least, confronts the issue of causality. The idea is generally that of a self-sustaining, omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent creator who is the root of all things. Is that form of causality tenable? Well, that's an issue of faith. But I personally find faith in something infinitely more appealing than faith in nothing. Warriors Don't Show Their Heart Until The Axe Reveals It. |
|||
10-10-2012, 10:20 PM
Post: #3
|
|||
|
|||
Religion Unfiltered
I'll keep my shit short and sweet. I believe in God - a higher power, supreme to human beings. Creator of heaven and earth? All that is seen and unseen? Not sure. I was raised a Catholic, went to private catholic schools my entire education; had the shit jammed down my throat by Catholic Irish and Catholic Italians. I say all that to say this - I have respect for everyone's idea of what "God" is, to the extent it doesn't infringe on anyone else's right to their own beliefs. Just as important as that, I personally feel that instilling certain types of religious teachings/beliefs (I'm looking for the right words there and not sure I can find them at this late hour) are a plus for the moral fibers of a civilized society. In short, it teaches good, moral behavior. Differences between right/wrong. Its NOT the ONLY means, but it is a means.
I believe there's something going on out there. I can't be ignorant enough to claim to have a grasp on defining it, but when my back's up against it, I have been know to get down and fucking pray. |
|||
10-10-2012, 10:42 PM
Post: #4
|
|||
|
|||
Religion Unfiltered
I've come to my own opinion about religion over the last few years.
My family have always been Christian's, though mum and dad didn't go to church religiously, my mum and all my relatives are strong christians. I have an aunt and uncle who are extremely passionate though, too much for me. But I love them and they are great people. I always used to believe in god, but looking back, I think I just shared the same beliefs as everyone else around me. Right now, I don't know if there is a god, I don't know if there isn't one........but to be honest, I don't actually care anymore. I won't say it's a waste of time, because that would be stupid, as it may not be for many people. But for me personally, I think it's a waste of time for me. In the world, religion causes more problems IMO, when it is supposed to do the exact opposite, but it doesn't. I don't need an out of date book from any religion to tell me what's right or wrong, I don't need to go to a specific building or some statue and worship it to make me a good person. I have my morals right (though nobody is perfect), if there is a god, he gave me my own brain to think on my own. If there turns out to be a god, I hope he isn't arrogant enough to not let me in just because I didn't worship, despite living a good life. I have never and will never disrespect someone for their beliefs. The closest people to me, share these beliefs and I still do the prayers that family will do at times. As far as my family, I'd say they are under the impression that I still believe in god. I just have little interest in something that NOBODY can prove what is right or wrong, and to me, that's a lot of time to waste to fight for something with no definitive answer. I also never liked the idea that you need to worship objects to a lot of religions. I'm not really of the opinion that there is or isn't a god. I just choose to not put too much thought into it now, or not worry about it. The only thing that bugs me about any religion or belief is when someone can't accept someone else's belief or opinion. Very extreme people regarding religion, and they try to convince you. I don't like that no matter where the opinion comes from, and just from my experience, I get a lot of that from muslims in the past. I much prefer to just live my life, do good things, use common sense and show respect to others etc. |
|||
10-10-2012, 10:43 PM
Post: #5
|
|||
|
|||
Religion Unfiltered
I used to pray as well as a kid, I used to say a blessing in my head before every meal, lol.
|
|||
10-10-2012, 11:10 PM
Post: #6
|
|||
|
|||
Religion Unfiltered
Warlord Wrote:ATHEISM versus DEISMOK so here goes................... I really try to avoid the position of having to choose a 'faith' as the only thing I can categorically state and know with 100% certainty upon entering this debate/discussion is that I have no fucken clue as to what awaits beyond this world. I don't have any empirical evidence either way, as I cannot disprove God any more than I can prove God. What I can do is take a stance based on the facts as I see them and my own relation to 'faith' and come up with a 'best guess scenario.' Ultimately the Christian has no more 'evidence' than the Muslim does but they both have faith that their God is the one that truly awaits them ( and will subsequently banish those of the 'wrong' faith.) No religion has more evidence than the non-believer and vice versa. Someone (a lot of people) are going to be wrong here. Apologies for veering off course slightly, because as you rightly stated we are here to debate the existence of God rather than a specific religion, although I don't believe the two are mutually exclusive of one another. If I have to choose I'd settle for Agnostic Atheism. That is the best I can do in the circumstances and I would be loathed for the stated reasons above to label this a 'faith' as I am wholly ready to concede that I could well/will be proved wrong. Causality does rule our universe I agree, but why does this automatically mean that this can be traced back to a creator or more pertinently a higher power? The phrase 'higher power' strikes me as purely man-made invention to explain the inexplicable and faith an invention designed to soothe us from the inevitable, that this is all there is. That once our lives on earth end, they end. Faith, religion, call it what you like, appeals to an inner solipsism in us all. Agreed though, folks do cling to it because it is the more appealing option than the other alternative. I'm not sure I totally agree that Deism confronts the issue of causality. I mean it is a broad explanation of a possible reason as to how our universe came into being but it is a guess at best. But is current Deism also a reflection of how far we have come in the study of science and nature? Where/how did Deism fit in when the Flat Earth Society was all the rage? We know it did, because as long as man has been able to record history faith has been present, but I suspect Deism was probably a lot different than it is today based on the limited amount of knowledge available to man at the time. Ergo is faith something that merely and conveniently changes over time as we acquire more knowledge? I'm not sure Deism has nailed Causality either. P.S Sorry about those vids, I did think when posting them up that you might not be able to access them in China. “Shakespeare? I ain’t never hoid of him. He’s not in no ratings. I suppose he’s one of them foreign heavyweights. They’re all lousy. Sure as hell I’ll moider dat bum.”—Tony Galento |
|||
10-10-2012, 11:24 PM
Post: #7
|
|||
|
|||
Religion Unfiltered
Method Wrote:Just as important as that, I personally feel that instilling certain types of religious teachings/beliefs (I'm looking for the right words there and not sure I can find them at this late hour) are a plus for the moral fibers of a civilized society. In short, it teaches good, moral behavior. Differences between right/wrong. Its NOT the ONLY means, but it is a means.Yeah this part I'm not so sure about, but I do get that you are framing it as part of an overall picture of what morality may entail rather than a specific solution. I do highlight it though as this argument (morality is a direct result of religion/faith is one that rages between believers, non-believers and everyone in between.) For me my own morality comes predominantly from my parents who are not religious teaching me the basics. Y'know stuff like "would you punch yourself in the face? No, so don't do it to others." I personally don't believe such emotions as compassion, concern etc can only be the result of 'faith.' I understand I leave myself somewhat exposed with that statement, but I just don't. “Shakespeare? I ain’t never hoid of him. He’s not in no ratings. I suppose he’s one of them foreign heavyweights. They’re all lousy. Sure as hell I’ll moider dat bum.”—Tony Galento |
|||
10-10-2012, 11:25 PM
Post: #8
|
|||
|
|||
Religion Unfiltered
Fitz Wrote:I've come to my own opinion about religion over the last few years.I understand/share many of your sentiments here Fitz. “Shakespeare? I ain’t never hoid of him. He’s not in no ratings. I suppose he’s one of them foreign heavyweights. They’re all lousy. Sure as hell I’ll moider dat bum.”—Tony Galento |
|||
10-11-2012, 12:15 AM
Post: #9
|
|||
|
|||
Religion Unfiltered
Good stuff so far, guys.
Fitz, your notion that religion is responsible for a lot of the world's problems today is a valid one. I concur to a point. But in reality, I ultimately believe that people are responsible for the world's problems today. In the past religion was used as an expansionist tool. It validated colonialism and exploitation. But religion itself wasn't the problem, it was the excuse. Human frailty was the true problem, and the root cause for the violence and subjugation that followed. Buddhism and Christianity are 2 of the most peaceful, passive, non-aggressive religions in the world. Anyone who truly believed and/or understood those religions would never use it to justify violence. Moving away from that, I want to touch on another aspect of Religion. MORALITY As I stated in the political thread, we are living in Darwin's world. That is a fact. Nature does not recognize morality, the concept of right and wrong, just and unjust. Nor does she recognize altruism. Nature only recognizes strength. The strong rule, and the weak become food for the strong. Period. The only law of nature is strength. And every species on the planet is subject to that law. They can not evade it, they can not break it, they cannot conceptualize beyond it. Every species except one. Ours. Different scientists and geneticists have different names for it, but the general idea is that human's possess a gene unique to our species, one that allows for abstract thought, or higher functions. This allows us to communicate through language, recognize signs, and to conceptualize or visualize abstract thoughts / ideas. But does this gene inform our morality as well? If so, who programmed the gene? Or did it program itself? (The causality problem again.) Many people argue that morality is a social construct, but I largely disagree with that. Familial love is a universal concept for humans. There is not, nor has there ever been, as far as I know, a social group in our planet's history that condoned patricide or infanticide. Is it just a coincidence that social groups throughout history just happen to share, by and large, a general consensus on morality, of right and wrong? I don't think so. If morality really were a social construct, it would differ in differing societies. But it doesn't. Not as far as I know. I don't know how many of you would agree with me, but I believe that morality, the ideas of right and wrong, are hard-wired into our brains. In isn't just present in religion, it is present in mythology, folk-lore, fairy tales, literature, art, film, music, etc... And it always has been. If it is hard-wired into our brain, the question becomes, why? This idea is obviously contrary to that found in the natural world. So did it originate in nature, or from some external source? The odds that life could have come into being purely by chance are calculated at 1 in 4^300. I don't know how many of you are good at math (I'm not), but when you're talking about numbers that large, it isn't very likely at all for life to come into being in the approximately 13 billion years that our universe has existed. (I've seen much larger odds calculated, by the way. Carl Sagan put it at 1 in 10^2,000,000,000! I took the smallest number for my example.) By comparison, a team of monkey's smashing away randomly on a type-writer have a better chance of creating a Shakespearean sonnet than life had for coming into being purely by chance. And assuming the miracle did happen, I wonder what the odds would be that one of those species would evolve into the human species we have today, when you compare us to the billions of species that have populated our planet and failed to reach the heights that we have. By this I mean that if we died out today, what are the odds that one of the other species on our planet would ever evolve into anything remotely close to what we did? Of those billions of different species, could/would any of them ever develop morality, or abstract thought, or language communication? They haven't so far. And I don't see them ever doing so. Because I don't think those things happened by chance. And neither do the odds reflect that theory either. Warriors Don't Show Their Heart Until The Axe Reveals It. |
|||
10-11-2012, 05:16 AM
Post: #10
|
|||
|
|||
Religion Unfiltered
Enjoyed reading everyones posts so far.
Warlord, have you ever read CS Lewis' 'Mere Christianity'? If you haven't, I defiantely recommend you take a look at it. I think the way humans are 'hard wired' to believe and adhere to certain way of thinking and acting are very interesting. Imagine you see a man drowning in a river, calling out for help. You'll feel two desires; 1. Run away and save yourself from being pulled in (due to the instinct for self presevation) 2. To help the man (due to your herd instinct) You will also find inside you aside from these two impulses, a third feeling which tells you that you ought to follow the impulse to help the man and suppress the impulse to run away. But the thing that that judges between the two instincts, that decides which one should be encouraged, cannot be itself either of them...that feeling, is our Moral Law, not herd instincts. You probably want to run away and preserve your body and life more than you want to risk your life to help; but the moral law tells you to help him all the same. In these moments, when we are most conscious of moral law, it usually tells us to side with the weaker of the two impulses. Apart from maybe social acceptance, no one would chose risking death over being completely safe. But something inside us tells us to help. Now if we're fighting over these two instincts and battling with ourselves to make one stronger, then clearly we're not acting from instinct. If we deliberately chose to make an 'instinct' stronger than it is, then it's not instinct. The thing that tells you that 'your herd instinct is asleep; wake up!', cannot itself be the herd instinct. If life has been formed by accident, by chance, by fluke and just 'is', then there can be no right or wrong can there? There can only be the present and what's happening now that counts. If life did evolve from a ball of gas that formed big rocky planets, and then we evolved from the rocky planets and life is just one big mistake, a chance happening, then who's to say what's right and what's wrong? We all think murder is wrong, stealing is wrong, ignoring a drowning man is wrong, but why? To ANYONE interested in this thread, I've read the two following books and they've been great; 'Mere Christianity' by CS Lewis 'The Case for God' by Tim Keller |
|||
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)