-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
How did any of you arrive at your conclusion?
- Thread starter St Dionysius
- Start date
What I am interested in is "why [religion]?" where [religion] is christianity/buddhism/judaism/etc. Many theists argue that "the universe is too complex, there had to be a creator, etc, etc." But "there had to be a creator" does not imply a specific religion because many religions have creation stories. So how do you choose between the many belief systems? (I think this is what the OP was trying to get at, correct me if I'm wrong)
I believe spirits are responsible for emotions: happiness, depression, and love.
Fear is a result of the brain telling you "This is stupid." It's more of a warning than an emotion.
Anger is a result of jealousy; it's your mind motivating you to win whatever it is over.
I also believe the spirit is responsible for the fact I see through my eyes and nobody else's. As a toddler, it always puzzled me. Why is first person from my eyes and nobody else's? Recently, I deduced that it's my spirit that chose this body, and, for some reason, I just didn't need any further explanation. I felt content with that.
Perhaps the bottom line is that I believe in spirituality because it feels like a root to me, and it fulfills my curiosity; I'm not left needing anymore answers.
I've also witnessed Reiki (a form of spiritual healing) actually work. An acquaintance of mine was extremely distraught, so I headed up to another acquaintance that practiced reiki, and told her the situation. She came in and said she would do what she could. Soon after, he was feeling a lot less depressed (but still a litlte bit), and she was kind of exhausted. This was long distance on all 3 ways, too.
Yes, there are a few holes, but I always grasp the explanation that seems the most logical to me, and spirituality has been fulfilling that role for the past 5 years.
I won't blindly say that science is wrong. Science comes first. But if it makes me happy, and I'm aware of what's rational and not, what difference does it make what I believe in? Or for that matter, anybody?
My take on the Bible is that God is fictional, and used as an intimidating figure to propose good living morals that a philosophical author had...and then people took it too literally.
This happened with scientology. Why couldn't have happened with Christianity?
Fear is a result of the brain telling you "This is stupid." It's more of a warning than an emotion.
Anger is a result of jealousy; it's your mind motivating you to win whatever it is over.
I also believe the spirit is responsible for the fact I see through my eyes and nobody else's. As a toddler, it always puzzled me. Why is first person from my eyes and nobody else's? Recently, I deduced that it's my spirit that chose this body, and, for some reason, I just didn't need any further explanation. I felt content with that.
Perhaps the bottom line is that I believe in spirituality because it feels like a root to me, and it fulfills my curiosity; I'm not left needing anymore answers.
I've also witnessed Reiki (a form of spiritual healing) actually work. An acquaintance of mine was extremely distraught, so I headed up to another acquaintance that practiced reiki, and told her the situation. She came in and said she would do what she could. Soon after, he was feeling a lot less depressed (but still a litlte bit), and she was kind of exhausted. This was long distance on all 3 ways, too.
Yes, there are a few holes, but I always grasp the explanation that seems the most logical to me, and spirituality has been fulfilling that role for the past 5 years.
I won't blindly say that science is wrong. Science comes first. But if it makes me happy, and I'm aware of what's rational and not, what difference does it make what I believe in? Or for that matter, anybody?
My take on the Bible is that God is fictional, and used as an intimidating figure to propose good living morals that a philosophical author had...and then people took it too literally.
This happened with scientology. Why couldn't have happened with Christianity?
I find myself to be a borderline Agonostic-Atheist. I strongly doubt that there is a God or any kind, but I am willing to intellectually discuss any such deity with anyone who might be willing, though usually I take a hypothetical stance. I've found that if you look at all religous founding stories, i.e. the Bible, it sounds ludicrous once the concept of "God" is taken out of the situtation, and even then it sounds far fetched at best.
Actually, its because your eyes are connected to your brain and other peoples eyes are not connected to your brain.
Any evidence to back that up? Neuroscientists have a pretty good idea as to what is responsible for our ability to feel emotion (hint, it starts with a B and ends with rain). They also have research to back up their theory.
As for your second point, I highly recommend you take an anatomy class. You should learn how an eye works.
edit: It might be unclear why I responded to this post. It is a bit unusual for people to say agnostic-atheist, instead of just atheist. In my experience the people that use agnostic-atheist think that just using the term atheist implies that you are a gnostic atheist, though that is not the case.
I have been a member of a lot of atheist forums. You would be surprised to know that the majority of atheists are agnostic atheists. In fact, I personally find gnostic atheists as frustrating as gnostic theists. The claim "there is definitely no god" requires just as much evidence as "there is definitely a god."
Here's a bit of insight for you to consider.
I'm what I consider a Teapot Atheist. Basically, what I'm saying is there is no God, because there's no evidence that there is, and the idea that there is an invisible being controlling everything that's utterly undetectable is an extraordinary claim. I have no proof that there isn't a God, so then your conclusion is that I'm using just as much faith as a Christian in my statement with no evidence.
So consider this. Suppose I say there is a teapot orbiting the sun between Earth and Mars in space. Do you believe there is one? Most certainly not. Do you or will you have any evidence to prove me wrong? No. And that's completely reasonable to believe that it doesn't exist.
Here's the original quote I based this off of.
Bertrand Russel said:
I think God is a lot like a teapot. Why should I believe something is true that I'm only even THINKING about because other people told me to, when no one, no where down the line has a shred of evidence to support their claim? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
I think I phrased my post poorly.
I know the Russell's Teapot comparison. Yes, it is reasonable to believe that the teapot does not exist.
However, I find it unreasonable to say that you are 100% certain that a divine entity does not exist. There is always the possibility that something is out there. It is ridiculous to believe in that something without evidence, but I find it equally ridiculous to state that you are 100% sure that nothing is out there.
I am about 99.99% certain that there is nothing out there. I realize that it technically is possible for a deity to exist hence the .01% uncertainty. I accept the possibility that there is a god, and I am willing to believe in a god if there is ever a significant amount of critically robust evidence for that deity. Until such time I will live under the assumption that said deity does not exist.
I've heard this argument before. It makes no sense. In theory you could search every cubic centimeter of space to see if there was a teapot or not, making it provable. You can't do that with a god.
If you can't stand yours or other peoples beliefs being questioned then what are you doing in this thread?
I understand that people just have faith, but I'm asking them why their religion seems more plausible than any other. I'm curious as to what solidified their beliefs and made them fully believe.
Could you please go into more detail on the evidence of god?
How? Many churches/monasteries/whatever had many monks repeating the scriptures and translating them. Hell, in the dark ages the only texts that really got referenced and copied was the bible. How is this evidence that god exists? Do you believe that Harry Potter exists? J.K. Rowling, the immortal martyr who wrote for our sins was a mere human and the Harry Potter Series and merchandise took the world be storm.
This was very common for that era.
This is where the half baked logical reasoning just explodes and you stop trying. Your reasoning for believing in Christianity is that you'd rather live in a world with a purpose rather than not have a purpose and that you'd rather believe in a life after death than not. So, Islam, Mormonism and Judaism are as plausible to you as Christianity?
As long as there is an afterlife you'll believe in it? What of the morals? Are you against homosexuality simply because it says so in a book that you only believe in because it mentions the afterlife?
How is spending copious amounts of hours praising fiction, sitting in church and not having sex with hot chicks because it's immoral win/lose? To me it sounds more like snore/snore.
Well. Obviously. Any other reasons?
Instead of believing that it was the will of some cosmic being who does nothing why not research it and think about it. That's what science is for.
I actually really enjoyed this post, it had sound reasoning and made sense.
Spot on, I pretty much agree with this.
I lol'd at this post. Man will commit atrocities and do good deeds with or without religion. Do you have any proof that rape and murder is sometimes stopped by religion? I have proof that religion has been used to justify murder and rape.
First of all, what the fuck does OTOH mean? Second of all, I don't like your tone mister. Look, just because without the threat of eternal damnation you'd be a rapist, murderer and an asshole in general doesn't mean all of us non god fearing folk are.
If you're that primitive that you need to be in constant fear to behave morally then maybe it is is you and your supposedly moral religious god fearing posse that should listen to the atheists for a change.
It's bad for business, a sense of right and wrong, it's against the law (basically the same as your argument really), empathy, not wanting to have the same treatment when they're down on their luck, because it's kind of a dick thing to do.
Whether someone is religious or not it has a limited effect on their actions and is only ever used as an excuse or justification for said action/behavior.
Anyway, I think I'll respond to the posts in this thread again a bit later.
Let's make the argument it's an invisible teapot that evades being touched physically so you couldn't tell it was there even if you somehow managed to search all of the infinite vastness of space. Is it still ridiculous enough to be untrue?
(When the quote was written, space travel wasn't possible)
You're missing the point though by picking apart the argument. The only reason you're telling me it's absurd to believe something not true when there's no evidence that it is not true (how do you prove something doesn't exist anyway?) is because other people, a lot of them, believe in an idea that had to have been created by humans themselves. We wouldn't even be thinking of this if someone didn't write books about it and people believed it.
Not true.
Atheism: I don't spend any portion of my 80ish years on Earth reading, studying, thinking about, or partaking in any religion. That's, say, 3 hours a week, roughly 5 days a year, times 80, equals, a whole extra year of my life I wouldn't otherwise have.
After I die, either nothing will happen, I'll go to Heaven, or I'll go to Hell. I am what I consider a morally straight person, and intend to do no harm to any other human being. If a God gets pissy because I didn't believe in him enough that he'd condemn me to eternam damnation for not throwing a dart at a wall and picking whatever religion it landed on, and getting it RIGHT, then he's not exactly a God worth worshipping, now is he?
Christians lose a year of their lives (possibly more depending on devoutness) and MIGHT get to go to heaven. If they picked the right religion, remembered to confess every single sin, and did everything Jesus told them to do, which includes selling everything they own. Really, their odds aren't much better than mine at all, with the thousands of other religions that have equal chances of being correct.
Tangerine said:
John 3:16 is cool and all, but what about Luke 18:18-22, which dictates you must sell everything you own? Does this take more precedence than that?
Your wording is kind of awkward, but anyway. The belief in a higher being, in general, actually has a good probability of being true: 50%. Because there are only two possibilities: A god(s) or no god(s). I do not worship or actively think about a god or gods because I believe that if one did exist, and it wanted to be worshiped, it would tell me. However, this does not mean I disregard the probability that a "higher being," whatever that may mean, could exist.
The idea that given 2 options, both are automatically equally likely is completely idiotic. Right now, I could either be posting this message alive, or using ESP from the grave. Under your logic, there is a 50% chance I am posting from the grave.
mods, if any of you are thinking about locking this thread, i beg you to reconsider: linkshot might have more to post
It is not 50/50 just because two possibilities exist.
A giant meteor will either strike the Earth tomorrow and kill everyone, or it won't. Is the chance of a giant meteor wiping out humanity tomorrow 50%?
edit: I should have refreshed the page. Beaten by 6 minutes :(
The Internet said:
Read that last line again. How could a cat remember what color it is?
Sorry that I just ruined your religion.
O.K: Here is my logic flow for 50%:
1. We do not know whether or not gods exist
2. A god or gods can either exist or not (50% chance of existence)
3. There are no other possibilities...are there? <--This is where I get 50%. I cannot see another possibility besides existence or non-existence
Nerv, your meteor comparison is...off. A meteor could be anywhere in the three dimensional space in our universe, so there is a very small probability it will hit one specific object in one specific place. Now, whether or not the meteor actually exists...there is a 50% chance of either.
I hope that explains it well enough....I'm tired and going to bed.
~Arrivaderci Signori.
1. We do not know whether or not gods exist
2. A god or gods can either exist or not (50% chance of existence)
3. There are no other possibilities...are there? <--This is where I get 50%. I cannot see another possibility besides existence or non-existence
Nerv, your meteor comparison is...off. A meteor could be anywhere in the three dimensional space in our universe, so there is a very small probability it will hit one specific object in one specific place. Now, whether or not the meteor actually exists...there is a 50% chance of either.
I hope that explains it well enough....I'm tired and going to bed.
~Arrivaderci Signori.
You really need to take a probability class.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5NPpoM5lIQ (watch until about 2:00 minutes)
Thunder can either paralyze or not paralyze, thus there is a 50% chance it will paralyze.
Apparently you still haven't worked on reading comprehension during your break...
1) The citation I have quoted is far, far, far away from John 3:16 (not to mention John 3:16 has zero significance to this discussion ANYWAY). Not sure why you're trying to pull shit out of your ass.
2) Read the passages carefully, including the one you have quoted to contradict this. The reason why Jesus told the rich man to sell everything he had to follow him was because the rich man loved money more than God. Oh wait. You wouldn't know this because you just pulled it out of some dumb website that makes Christianity look extreme. How... not surprising.
If you're going to raise a point just for the sake of being pedantic I honestly recommend you doing some research - this is a very consistent pattern I've been noticing about any of your posts. You're so quick to point out things to "prove your point" even though they have nothing to do with each other and it has different contexts. What are you trying to get at? It's obviously clear you haven't even read the Bible and yet you're trying to use passages from it? Please.
What are you even trying to do here, CiM? you're not making a point with your teapot example - I could care less if you believed in a teapot or not, nor would most people, because if you believe it for some reason. The point is that you believing in the teapot isn't going to affect me in anyway bar you trying to make some pedantic strawman out of this entire thing. I could care less if people believe in the flying spaghetti monster or pink fluffly elaphants that live in dimensional gorges, they're irrelevant as an attack against any form of a religion because they literally do not affect anyone through your beliefs. If Christianity is the same way, then sure, it'll have no effects, and it'll die down over time, because why would people pay to believe in it? No one will ever claim that faith is rational - it's far from rational. It's not hard to see that there is a draw to being in a religion or to believing in a "god" that your theory of a teapot or flying spaghetti monster or whatever nonsense you will come up with simply because of the effects of such beliefs. That's why your example utterly fails. It's not "You wouldn't believe in a teapot would you so why would you believe in God", it's "I wouldn't believe in a teapot since it does literally nothing significant". If you want to expand it into your own little religion and believe in it, that's great - but don't expect people to join you.
I am an atheist.
I first began to read the arguments for the existence of a god from both sides.
I found that when the burden of proof was placed upon christians they can't do much more than reach into their bag of illogical fallacies and hope it will cover up the truth.
Eventually after reading enough information and a little personal study into various sciences I decided that it was very unlikely that any god exist and less likely that the christian god does.
There is no more evidence for one god than another, oh and the fact jesus is pretty much no more than a photocopy of older gods sealed the deal for me.
Attis (Greece 1200BC): Born of a virgin, Born on Dec 25th, Crucified, Dead for 3 days, Resurrected.
Krishna (India 900BC): Born of a virgin, A star in the East heralded his birth, Performed miracles, Resurrected.
Dionysus (Greece 500BC): Born of a virgin, Born on Dec 25th, Performed miracles, Known as the "King of Kings" or "Alpha and Omega", Resurrected.
Mithra (Persia 1200BC): Born of a virgin, Born on Dec 25th, Had 12 Disciples, Performed miracles, Dead for 3 days, Resurrected, Referred to as "The Truth" and "The Light", Sacred day of worship was Sunday.
That doesn't even crack the surface of gods that have been copied. (Look up Horus, there are literally the same in every way)
I first began to read the arguments for the existence of a god from both sides.
I found that when the burden of proof was placed upon christians they can't do much more than reach into their bag of illogical fallacies and hope it will cover up the truth.
Eventually after reading enough information and a little personal study into various sciences I decided that it was very unlikely that any god exist and less likely that the christian god does.
There is no more evidence for one god than another, oh and the fact jesus is pretty much no more than a photocopy of older gods sealed the deal for me.
Attis (Greece 1200BC): Born of a virgin, Born on Dec 25th, Crucified, Dead for 3 days, Resurrected.
Krishna (India 900BC): Born of a virgin, A star in the East heralded his birth, Performed miracles, Resurrected.
Dionysus (Greece 500BC): Born of a virgin, Born on Dec 25th, Performed miracles, Known as the "King of Kings" or "Alpha and Omega", Resurrected.
Mithra (Persia 1200BC): Born of a virgin, Born on Dec 25th, Had 12 Disciples, Performed miracles, Dead for 3 days, Resurrected, Referred to as "The Truth" and "The Light", Sacred day of worship was Sunday.
That doesn't even crack the surface of gods that have been copied. (Look up Horus, there are literally the same in every way)
@Tangerine
I specifically wasn't responding to your post's arguments about religion (I didn't really care to argue against it or whatever). I just wanted to ask someone religious how they interpreted the Bible's other stated "requirements for heaven", and you seemed rather intelligent, in fact clearing up one of my misconceptions (albeit, berating me in the process, but if I haven't grown to expect that I wouldn't be here now) Though you're right, I should have made them in PM because it is completely off topic other than "being about religion". I'd prefer if you'd be more civil with me in the future, I mean well. All the merrier now.
I specifically wasn't responding to your post's arguments about religion (I didn't really care to argue against it or whatever). I just wanted to ask someone religious how they interpreted the Bible's other stated "requirements for heaven", and you seemed rather intelligent, in fact clearing up one of my misconceptions (albeit, berating me in the process, but if I haven't grown to expect that I wouldn't be here now) Though you're right, I should have made them in PM because it is completely off topic other than "being about religion". I'd prefer if you'd be more civil with me in the future, I mean well. All the merrier now.
It's weird that atheists have to use the bible to argue with christians since they're the one making the positive claim: GOD EXISTS, yet do nothing to defend it. The bible can contradict itself yet if an atheist points this out he's obviously not reading into the context and just got it off on of those "dumb sites that make Christianity look extreme.
Hey, I've read the bible but I don't even know which parts are relevant and I can guarantee that many Christians have different opinions in this, I'm not going to list all the things from the old testament that the Christians don't believe in/practice but it's a lot.
But I will pose this question to the christians in this thread, if your religion comes with a handbook, why are large chunks of it irrelevant?
It's used as an example to show how silly most of the reasoning that religious people use to counter anti-religion arguments. I don't really know what you were trying to prove with that little rant of yours.
Hey, I've read the bible but I don't even know which parts are relevant and I can guarantee that many Christians have different opinions in this, I'm not going to list all the things from the old testament that the Christians don't believe in/practice but it's a lot.
But I will pose this question to the christians in this thread, if your religion comes with a handbook, why are large chunks of it irrelevant?
It's used as an example to show how silly most of the reasoning that religious people use to counter anti-religion arguments. I don't really know what you were trying to prove with that little rant of yours.
You should have phrased it a lot better if it was an actual curiosity question since it 100% sounded like you were trying to contradict me.
It's weird that atheists claim to be so superior to christians but yet is incapable of reading comprehension. It's weird that atheists accuse christians of nagging yet atheists can't even mind their own damn business and pretend everything revolves around them.
herp derp i'm sure you get my point so stop trying to be ridiculous over something CiM was clearly wrong about since you literally have no idea what you're talking about.
What are you even talking about? Where are you even trying to go with this? Where did I say anything about anything you've said... at all?
At least I know why you've read the bible but you dont know which parts are relevant...
It's irrelevant if you let it be so. I've found pretty amazing interpretations of many, many parts of the bible that I have found completely irrelevant in the past.
All I said was the analogy is pretty silly and the arguments behind it is silly (both sides) so why even bother responding to it? There's usually more reasons than "I believe in it and you can't disprove it nyah nyah" to religion - or else no one rational would ever, ever, even consider believing in it.
Let's dumb it down a bit. If the only justification for anyone to believe in God was "You can't disprove it".... why would they believe it in the first place? That's a ridiculous assumption. I think the better assumption would be that most of these people dont know how to reason properly (then again most atheists can't either so i guess it evens out...)
Oh, but it wouldn't be Chris is me if I had even the slightest bit of tact, now would it?
Good point. I think one could better counter Abuse's point (that Christians have to act in the manner he portrayed them as in order to defend their religion, while Atheists (as well as Christians) can be unsmug, capable of reading comprehension, etc..) by directly addressing why Christians don't have to follow some of the assumptions he made (It's not completely obvious that some Christians don't take the Bible literally, or the other reasons one wouldn't use the Bible to defend their faith). This one works too though. :D