Your Religious Views

[v_various]

I still love reading all these arguments and counter points. I don't think there's an apple under that bowl.

I think, as with most opinions, this polarization of atheist's and theist's is a good thing. It's a balance to culture, we sort of even eachother out. And we each contribute useful ideas to society. I love science, I love questioning everything. And I love the support that was there in the church for my Grandma when she was older, it was part of her life and I think it did her good. There are things I don't agree with, sure, but that's just me. I know there are plenty of people out there who really enjoy their religion, the faith they have and the social support if gives. I would hope that no one is here it trying to change the others mind, but rather, explain where we all come from.

I stopped going to church because it was easier to tell my mom I didn't want to go, rather than tell her I didn't want to wear nylons. I HATE nylons. Almost as much as I hate singing, both of which made me dread going to church.
(and honestly, I was never that into it).
I do volunteer work every sunday, I've always felt it a better use of my time.
: )

 

[suecornish]

Okay, there is no "truth" in religion or faith. Faith means taking an idea, belief, assumption or theory and believing in it with having anything "proven". Truth comes with proven results, ie- the Sun is hot is a theory and the proof is that if you sit out in it long enough you will burn your skin so the truth that the Sun is hot is proven. It is a shame that a lot of people take what they have faith in as is it was proven fact and then deride other that don't believe their way.

Actually what is under the bowl is a ............ cornsnake. :crazy02:

 

[suecornish]

Sorry, should have said withOUT anything proven

 

[Eremita]

Exactly, so isn't it premature for religions to make such bold declarations about the "truth" as they do before the view from that overhead camera is available? And what would count as the overhead view? I don't think that anything will ever happen that will put everyone on the same page. The fact that one can not prove the absence of something already suggests that religions will continue to persist creating their own versions of reality and the truth. :awcrap:

The fact that these are all just versions of what is right based on differing perspectives doesn't make them any more right. They can not all be correct and the correctness of one (if one is even correct) mutually excludes the correctness of the others.

I'll bite. Let us for a moment entertain the possibility that there is more than one world. Each person comes with a world of their own, and worlds overlap to the extent that we agree on the facts of something. But essentially, I have my own version of you in my world, and you have a version of me in yours. So, when you die, in my world you go to hell. This is true in my world, even though in your world you become nothing and your world collapses and we have no overlap any longer. We are each correct, but we are referring to different "you"s. If I were to go first, your "me" would become nothing while my me would be drinking margaritas on the beach with Rapoon playing on an invisible but very hi-fi audio system.

This can be taken as either a varient of idealism/solipsism or a many-worlds hypothesis, depending on your audience. The underlying system that supports our individual worlds are unknown to us, though, because we are immersed in our worlds and have no way of perceiving outside of them. Nonetheless they are true and perhaps fully consistent within themselves.

None of this should be taken to imply that we are not also wrong about our own worlds, but it does resolve your little dilemna. Dialectics are kool.

-Sean

 

[zwyatt]

This can be taken as either a varient of idealism/solipsism or a many-worlds hypothesis, depending on your audience. The underlying system that supports our individual worlds are unknown to us, though, because we are immersed in our worlds and have no way of perceiving outside of them. Nonetheless they are true and perhaps fully consistent within themselves.

None of this should be taken to imply that we are not also wrong about our own worlds, but it does resolve your little dilemna. Dialectics are kool.

Honestly, I don't see how it resolves anything. Each "world" is just a euphemism for each person's individual story of what they believe to be correct. In each individual's mind their own version of the story is correct. Just changing the name from story to world doesn't change the dynamic. The two worlds are still mutually exclusive because they are both different versions of the same reality and are trying to describe the same thing (creation, for example) just from two different points of view. Those two worlds can not occupy the same space. Only in each individual's own mind can all of these worlds co-exist.

However, if this philosophical mumbo/jumbo is all that's left of this discussion, I think I will have to take my leave. This type of stuff is, by design, completely gray and there's no way to ever resolve anything by discussing it.

I believe there is only one reality: We live on a planet that goes around a star inside of a spiral galaxy that is part of a vast universe... There can only be one way in which we have reached this reality. Therefore, only one truth ("story") about how we have reached this reality can exist. If two stories exist and are in conflict, only one or neither of them can be correct. There is no need to get into the "What I believe from my point of view" or "What you believe from you point of view" or my world and someone else's world. It's not open to interpretation. It can't be. If it is, then that is proof that we don't know anything and are making it up to suit our needs or desires.

 

[Eremita]

Honestly, I don't see how it resolves anything. Each "world" is just a euphemism for each person's individual story of what they believe to be correct. In each individual's mind their own version of the story is correct. Just changing the name from story to world doesn't change the dynamic. The two worlds are still mutually exclusive because they are both different versions of the same reality and are trying to describe the same thing (creation, for example) just from two different points of view. Those two worlds can not occupy the same space. Only in each individual's own mind can all of these worlds co-exist.

However, if this philosophical mumbo/jumbo is all that's left of this discussion, I think I will have to take my leave. This type of stuff is, by design, completely gray and there's no way to ever resolve anything by discussing it.

I believe there is only one reality: We live on a planet that goes around a star inside of a spiral galaxy that is part of a vast universe... There can only be one way in which we have reached this reality. Therefore, only one truth ("story") about how we have reached this reality can exist. If two stories exist and are in conflict, only one or neither of them can be correct. There is no need to get into the "What I believe from my point of view" or "What you believe from you point of view" or my world and someone else's world. It's not open to interpretation. It can't be. If it is, then that is proof that we don't know anything and are making it up to suit our needs or desires.

There are more things in heaven and earth, Zach. I was not intending to inspire withdrawal, but so be it; if you refuse to even consider that your universals may be relative after all, then that does not reflect on my argument whatsoever. But I will call you out if you decide to show your avatar once more: on what basis do you insist that everything is the same for everyone unless they are deranged? To what do you appeal? Your claim is an assumption, nothing more, and whether I believe it or not, whether others believe it or not, it is as unprovable as our dear and possibly departed God. This is just like the old question of how one determines one is not dreaming. There is no way.

And read some Schopenhauer, why don't ya? Mumbo-jumbo my butt.

-Sean

 

[zwyatt]

There are more things in heaven and earth, Zach.

What? When did I inventory anything? And when did I admit belief in the existence of a heaven?

I simply responded to your OP rationally and without hostility. Yet, I am attacked for having a perspective different from your own, when the entire argument you put forth was that two perspectives (worlds) can co-exist and both be correct. How ironic.

I haven't withdrawn from anything. The fact of the matter is that it is impossible to have a rational discussion coming from opposite ends of the spectrum. I will continue to insist on what I think to be the case, and you will do the same, except you will cite authors of works that give their readers a feeling of superiority and enlightenment simply for having read them. Is it my fault that most people don't bother to write and express the viewpoint that I have simply because it is so widely accepted that it need not be written?

Perhaps, before making any more comments about what you like to refer to as my "universals" you should have the slightest idea of what they are. I find the fact that I, personally, am being derided so vehemently over the suggestion that I think that reality might simply be the world that surrounds us and that the only perceptual differences you and I see are shaped by our past experiences and that I fail to accept the product of someone else's imagination, which is considered rational and plausible simply because it written in a book, completely laughable.

Let's not lose sight of the fact that the viewpoints that I've put forth and defended are not some two-bit theories that I cooked up to fly in the face of rational thought. My point? My point is that I'm being made out as the bad guy for suggesting that I don't believe that the fact that the Earth goes around the sun is up for debate. I may be the only one willing to stand up and claim it (in this thread), but I will guarantee I'm not the only one with these same thoughts about the nature of reality and "universals". So let's not take a tone like I'm some sort of ignoramus when you yourself admit that you can't disprove the truth of what I believe anymore than I can disprove you.

And read some Schopenhauer, why don't ya?

Don't believe everything you read, why don't ya? Not everything there is to learn or contemplate about life need be read from a book from the perspective of someone who is supposedly a scholar or an expert, but who is actually just expressing opinionated thought. It is okay to think about these things on your own and have original thoughts and come to your own conclusions.
You know, I've read books, too. I've taken philosopy in school. Shoot, I even went to church for a few years. I don't need to be told how to think, and I'm certainly not required to read someone else's thoughts on a subject to come to my own, educated conclusions.



You can cite Schopenhauer all you want. I'll cite South Park.

What's better than telling people a stupid story and having them believe you? Having them pay you for it, stupid!

 

[Snakespeare]

And read some Schopenhauer, why don't ya? Mumbo-jumbo my butt.

Schopenhauer? Schopenhauer subordinates logic, philosophy, and science to aesthetics. This isn't a terribly persuasive appeal to authority (or reason or science) in a post-Darwinian and post-Einsteinian world. And I don't think one can even begin to turn this discussion in this direction without talking about the discontinuities between the metaphysics of Kant and Schopenhauer on this point.

All of the philosophical mumbo-jumbo aside, I think the point of many of these responses is that there are surely "truths" that we can all agree on. That unicorns don't exist. That it is statistically impossible for Tampa Bay to go to the World Series. That the earth is round rather than flat (pace the new lady on The View). That the earth revolves around the sun. That the speed of light is 186,282.397 miles per second. There's no mysterious corn snake deity under the cereal bowl involved here (though I love the idea--all hail the corn snake god!).

Kudos to suecornish, by the way, for her generous and ecumenical understanding of faith and religion. If one must believe, this is probably the most elegant and poetic (and non-confrontational) way to do it. This is the kind of believer I want to talk to over a glass of wine, because such believers are more interested in exploring the power of the mysterious and the numinous (things that both believers and non-believers are probably drawn to) than in "spiritual truth." But if there are aspects of Islam that Sue rejects, she suffers the danger of being labeled an apostate, which is punishable by death according to the Hadith. And this is the kind of "spiritual truth" that many of us are bothered by.

 

[suecornish]

That unicorns don't exist.

WHAT????!!!!! Unicorns don't exist. But, I thought they all changed into Narwhales because they were being hunted so much as horses. :crazy02:

On the point of the Hadith. This is one I need to mull over. You see, Hadith's are the sayings of the Prophet and as the Prophet was a man (even though guided by God) I am not completely sure the Hadiths can be followed with the same strictness as the Quran. I follow the Quran as best I can, along with the Bible and the Torah. Essentially to be a Muslim is to believe in the words of the Prophets (Abraham, Moses, Jesus, Mohammad and others) as they were instructed by God. I believe that Muslim is the belief while Islam is the religion and I am weary and weary of religions because most of them have other agendas than following God.

Thank you , Shakespeare, for the kind words. I like discussions of this type but it is hard to find people who can do such without getting insulted or outrage because you don't believe what they do or agree with them.

Just remember "Men in Black" and the galaxy that was encased in a marble - the ending may be as true - aliens playing marbles with universes encapsulated in marbles. We just don't know and it's not a crime or a sin to say "We don't know" just as it is not an insult or put down to say "but this is what I believe".

My grandmother used to say, "Believe 10% of what you hear, 25% of what you read and 75% of what you see." But she also said, "You have a brain, figure it out yourself."

We do the best figuring with what we have when it comes to spiritual beliefs based on what information we have. Some get stuck with what they are comfortable with, some of us continue on. I was stuck with Islam until I continued questioning and now I continue on. If I am damned to Hell, then so be it. I am the Captain of my Soul and I would rather it be damned by me than by blindly following others.

 

[Eremita]

Zach, you were never attacked, and I had no interpretation of your learnedness outside of a lack of familiarity with my referenced philosophies. You, however, have clearly implied that my reading and my studies serve no purpose other than to pump my ego, and that the content of it is obviously such nonsense that you can dismiss it without familiarizing yourself with it at all. I do not consider this a valid method of discussion and will entertain your posts on this matter no further. (Your method of expressing yourself has sure changed from this post.)

Snakespeare, a fine retort, but a bit off the mark. I have not aligned myself with Schopenhaer, but I do feel that his explanation of idealism was short and easy to understand. I would not direct someone to Kant to rout out the elements of idealism. Regardless, you can measure and predict everything you want and get no further towards refuting its premise. Its failure is that is leaves nothing for anyone to pursue. Anyway, you would be the audience that should have checked out my reference to the many worlds hypothesis, which is the physicists' take on there being many actual worlds, even if in that case the laws are the same in all of them. My point was not to promote a system (I don't believe it either) but merely to resolve a dilemma that seemed to be a sticking point for another member. Contradictions between religions should not hinder the serious consideration of any.

And while you are perusing Wikipedia, check out variable speed of light before making blanket claims about items on which everyone agrees.

:cheers:
-Sean

 

[ssmith_1187]

I like discussions of this type but it is hard to find people who can do such without getting insulted or outrage because you don't believe what they do or agree with them.

I would agree.

However, there are those too who do not partake in these types of discussion not because they fear being insulted or at becoming outraged but rather because they hold firm to their beliefs (whatever they may be) and aren’t going to be persuaded to change their point of view.

I learned long ago never to debate religion…I know what I believe in. It works for me and has served me well over the years. What you believe in is your own business.

Regards,
Steve

P.S. I use "you" to refer to people that think differently than I do.

 

[Momto3boys]

there will never be peace as long as there's religion

 

[djfreebase]

religion is the rooy of all evil

 

[tanner123]

nnooo money is the root of all evil religion is next on the list

 

[Arby]

WOW! A forum thread devoted soley to religion that (so far) lasted 30 pages without being closed? That must be some kind of world record .

As for me, I'm Atheist. But if you can prove to me the existance of a god then I'll consider it . I'm one of these people that doesn't tend to believe something unless I can see it with my own eyes or experiance it myself, or have it proven scientifically / mathematically.

 

[Roy Munson]

I'll risk being pedantic by pointing out that while there is such a thing as a mathematical proof, science doesn't deal in proving-- only disproving.

 

[Arby]

True, I find it funny how scientists "prove" (or at least theorise something to the point of being 99.99999% accurate) something, and then another scientific theory comes along that blows their thinking right out of the water.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, I don't tend to believe in things unless there's proof. On the other hand, I don't try and force my views on people, which a lot of people I've met seem to like to do .

 

[Siren]

I am Wiccan. I was raised Catholic and converted when I was 18 to Wicca.

 

[Nova_C]

there will never be peace as long as there's religion

I hope that was sarcastic and not a deliberate attempt to antagonize the vast majority of the world's population.

 

[Arby]

I hope that was sarcastic and not a deliberate attempt to antagonize the vast majority of the world's population.

No, it's a good point. There will always be different religions of different opinions, they will always disagree with each other and wage holy wars on each other and try to eradicate each other for not believing in "their" god.

Whenever you have two or more sets of people of opposing views, there will always be conflict. Politics and Religion being the more foremost and most "explosive" causes of these conflicts.