|
GreyjoyBastard posted:I mean, heck, I was raised Episcopalian and still have a fondness for the sect, but I felt something in a very specific branch of shakta Hinduism and was moved to convert to it. Which one? Not the same thing, but I really dug The Narada Bhakti Sutra. (eta: The Yoga Sutras, the Gita and the Upanishads are also pretty great.) Red Dad Redemption fucked around with this message at 21:47 on Jun 13, 2016 |
#
?
Jun 13, 2016 21:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 17:07 |
|
|
Annual Prophet posted:I'm guessing Twain read some Diogenes. Not that I fully buy his perspective, since being born and existing does change the game a bit. Obviously I don't want to die any time soon, but once I am dead there won't be a me to care about being dead any more, so there doesn't seem to be much reason to fret about it now.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2016 21:52
|
|
|
Well, yes, but looking at our lives we can say, for example, "I love my family, with all their quirky weirdness; and it saddens me to think that that experience of love and togetherness is a finite one, even if after it ends I won't be around to lament its finitude." The argument certainly has some force, I just personally don't see it as a complete answer to concerns about death.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2016 21:58
|
|
|
Prism Mirror Lens posted:Thanks for the very involved answers! I'm not religious, but I have a hard time grasping why a person would worship a God that is, arguably, inferior to them. If we assume that God's will is the The Bible (plus/minus some stuff), then I can easily see myself acting in a manner that is "more good" than God. If I can be more good than God, who is presumably THE benevolent being, then this is a being who is unworthy of my faith and prayers. If God is going to condemn souls to hell for the sin of being gay, eating shellfish, or insufficient praise or faith, then to quote one of the greatest philosophers of our age, "I will face God and walk backwards into hell." God is supposed to be... I don't know, more than us? But if he is actually concerned with such petty human things, he's a joke.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 02:45
|
|
|
Rhjamiz posted:God is supposed to be... I don't know, more than us? But if he is actually concerned with such petty human things, he's a joke. A good book: https://archive.org/download/TheHumanityOfGod-KarlBarth/The%20Humanity%20of%20God%20-%20Karl%20Barth.pdf Essay 2 is the relevant one. This is the important part: "In Jesus Christ there is no iso- lation of man from God or of God from man." Edit 2: maybe this is more explanitive, God's revelation isn't the Bible in Christianity it is human person, Jesus. Bar Ran Dun fucked around with this message at 03:29 on Jun 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 03:16
|
|
|
I used to be a believer in a higher power, but mainly it was because I was scared of death. I was frightened, almost cripplingly so, by the prospect of never feeling, thinking, seeing, or doing, ever again. The memories of everything I did and everyone I loved would be gone. It took years to overcome my death anxiety, but now I can't view God as anything but the potential of an individual to make a tremendous mark on this world. We live in the memories of those we leave behind, so let's make the world tremble with our war for self-actualization.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 03:50
|
|
|
Atheist here, so I'm not really super qualified to buy in, but in my flirtations with religion and based on some stories in this thread, I'd like to put forward a phenomenon that happens when things are poo poo and you have no control, which I have as a pet theory for why some people believe: Lacking Control Increases Illusory Pattern Perception - Science paper on it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mllPKpwNIes - Narrated by Morgan Freeman! quote:We present six experiments that tested whether lacking control increases illusory pattern perception, which we define as the identification of a coherent and meaningful interrelationship among a set of random or unrelated stimuli. Participants who lacked control were more likely to perceive a variety of illusory patterns, including seeing images in noise, forming illusory correlations in stock market information, perceiving conspiracies, and developing superstitions. Additionally, we demonstrated that increased pattern perception has a motivational basis by measuring the need for structure directly and showing that the causal link between lack of control and illusory pattern perception is reduced by affirming the self. Although these many disparate forms of pattern perception are typically discussed as separate phenomena, the current results suggest that there is a common motive underlying them. Basically they did some experiments on people where they created an atmosphere of powerlessness, then asked them see if there were patterns in white noise (and some other tests). Turns out the less power you have the more your brain starts finding meaning in noise to try to regain semblance of control and understanding. If things are going poo poo for no reason then it's a common response to try to attach a meaning to it. It's a broad extrapolation of the study to say this is why people believe, and I know it's a lot more complex than just 'things are poo poo, turn to god', but I think it might be one factor. It would also make sense that as the West is slowly losing it's religious fervor as we have more security and certainty in our lives than what we did in our past, while people in countries in less fortunate circumstances turn radical and hyper religious.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 04:47
|
|
|
I'm surprised how many people fear nonexistence after death, to me it seems pretty sweet as long as its painless. No more worries or annoyances or things you've got to do in the morning or aches and pains, you're just gone. Whereas I can easily imagine the afterlife being horrific, boring, or just weird and depressing like in The Lovely Bones, and it's loving ETERNAL! I guess if you're a strong believer then the afterlife is a 'known' (you'll get into heaven, it will all be great, whatever) but for a weak believer or atheist it's a much bigger unknown than the state of not existing, which as has been pointed out, we were all already in before birth.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 09:51
|
|
|
Wafflecop posted:What is God? A thing/everything? The universe itself? A mind/all minds? You've essentially just intuited Spinoza's definition of God, as well as his corresponding argument against any kind of personal deity whatsoever. That's not really answering your question, but just FYI in case you might want to read up on him a bit, because Spinoza really owns.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 09:56
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:I mean, heck, I was raised Episcopalian and still have a fondness for the sect, but I felt something in a very specific branch of shakta Hinduism and was moved to convert to it. I'd love to hear more about this - what convinced you to switch, and why do you remain in it today? (Assuming you still do). Goffer posted:Atheist here, so I'm not really super qualified to buy in, but in my flirtations with religion and based on some stories in this thread, I'd like to put forward a phenomenon that happens when things are poo poo and you have no control, which I have as a pet theory for why some people believe: This is absolutely fascinating.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 15:25
|
|
|
For my part, I was taught about and believed in God as early as I can remember. One of my earliest memories, in fact, is from the age of 4. I acted up and got sent to bed early. Feeling terrified that by disobeying my parents I was going to hell, I asked for salvation. Looking back, that did nothing for me because a four year old can't possible grasp the true concepts of faith and God. Oddly enough, I've had a lot of negative interactions with Christians. I went to a pair of small, private schools from second through ninth grade. At both I experienced being ostracized for wholly non-Christlike reasons as well as dealing with an overly authoritarian environment. The pastor who ran the first school and the church which housed it never smiled. He didn't believe in television, he didn't allow music in the home unless it was oldies gospel music on a Sunday, and he took "thou shalt not spare the rod" quite seriously. The second school was more concerned with religious legalism and charging $2.5k/year for tuition than helping anyone grow in the Lord. These experiences played a huge part in leading me to a rough decade. Before I started at these schools I was an incredibly exuberant child who would walk up to strangers and ask them how they were doing, if they knew Jesus. Afterward, I was a reclusive teenager with depression, social anxiety, and a complete lack of identity. I tried alcohol, weed, and professional therapy to get myself out of it; none of them helped. Looking back, over the years there were a few incidents where I should have been injured, and one where I should absolutely have died but I didn't. Over the last two years I started getting back into church, first with family, and then with a friend. Slowly, and with a good deal of backsliding here and there, I've come to truly be in a place where I am walking with God and I can feel it. Despite that, I have to be fully honest and admit that I don't always act the way God wants me to. It's evident in my post history, in the kind of language I sometimes use, and other parts of my life. With that said, God has helped me remove things from my life that weren't good for me in either a spiritual or non-spiritual sense and there is an indescribable sense of connection with Him. That's probably one of the bigger points that non-believers struggle with - no believer can prove God exists, and it does sound absolutely mad to say "Well I can't prove it, I just feel it." Much like falling in love, or losing a loved one, or using a drug, it's something that a person can even write a book trying to describe, but despite the greatest abilities of the words in our languages the description doesn't do justice to the actual experience. For non-believers I get that there are a lot of things in Christianity that are hard to understand or agree with or accept; believing in God and trusting Him doesn't make those things go away. I have read things in the Bible that confuse me and perhaps always will. I don't believe it's fair that all of us on this earth are born condemned because of the sin of Adam and Eve, I don't fully understand or find fairness in the concept of predestination, but the experiences I have had across my life have brought me to where I can feel the presence and work of an invisible God who loves all of us and whose mind we cannot possible understand in our imperfect state. I hope that wasn't too long, rambling, or E/N life story. I wanted to give a picture of the varying experiences I've had and the road to where I am now in regards to God, and hopefully that contributes something to this thread. Also as an aside, let's assume that I'm wrong and God doesn't exist. What do I lose? I've lived a better life with greater consideration for others, a better sense of peace, and worst case scenario is upon death I cease to exist as a consciousness. And if you're looking for miracles, look at this thread reaching four pages without becoming a gas-worthy trainwreck.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 20:03
|
|
|
Vorenus posted:worst case scenario is upon death I cease to exist as a consciousness.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 20:13
|
|
|
Vorenus posted:That's probably one of the bigger points that non-believers struggle with - no believer can prove God exists, and it does sound absolutely mad to say "Well I can't prove it, I just feel it." I think it's not so much that the feeling is hard to describe but that it shows itself in a multiplicity of world religions. The salient question is, "how do you know that this feeling leads to the real God when that same feeling in others is apparently leading them to the wrong God?" Of course, I don't know for sure that "other religions go to hell" is part of your theology, so do you care to expand on this any?
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 20:15
|
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:I think it's not so much that the feeling is hard to describe but that it shows itself in a multiplicity of world religions. The salient question is, "how do you know that this feeling leads to the real God when that same feeling in others is apparently leading them to the wrong God?" Of course, I don't know for sure that "other religions go to hell" is part of your theology, so do you care to expand on this any? Some people take the view that the experience, strange and ineffable as it is, is the heart of the matter, with the rest secondary - potentially useful (e.g., metaphor), potentially not (e.g., cultural accretion). Huxley, for example, had that perspective: https://www.amazon.com/Perennial-Philosophy-Aldous-Huxley/dp/0061724947
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 20:42
|
|
|
twodot posted:If you're the kind of person who thinks it's possible to continue to exist after dying, the worst case scenario should be something like "I was wrong, but there is a true religion, and it thinks I deserve infinity torture". Well yes, but I believe I am saved from that by God. I don't believe there is any other deity or power that can impose a sentence of eternal punishment aside from the God in whom I believe. The concept of existing for eternity, even in a perfect joy beyond what mortal minds can comprehend, is somewhat unnerving to me because eternity is such a big concept. It's time without limit, it goes on and on and never ends on we as humans (or at least I) naturally have a bit of an issue really grasping that concept. I can't imagine believing in an eternal suffering that might be a possibility for me. GAINING WEIGHT... posted:I think it's not so much that the feeling is hard to describe but that it shows itself in a multiplicity of world religions. The salient question is, "how do you know that this feeling leads to the real God when that same feeling in others is apparently leading them to the wrong God?" Of course, I don't know for sure that "other religions go to hell" is part of your theology, so do you care to expand on this any? I try to limit my theology to what's in the Bible and what I've experienced in hand with that. I'm no scholar by any means. I do have questions and I've come across interesting theories that don't have Biblical support, yet aren't contradicted by Scripture and in those cases I like to go "Ooh, that's really interesting." while being careful to recognize that I can only be sure of what's in the Bible. If that makes sense. Anyway, the Bible teaches that the only way to eternal salvation is Jesus, so of course I have to go with that. Without potentially insulting other belief sets or religions, yes. The Bible teaches that the only to eternal salvation is believing in Jesus' status as the Son of God who lived a sinless life, died for our sins, and was resurrected by the power of God. Nothing else can achieve it. Of course this does lead to other issues, e.g. predestination, the fate of those who lived and died without ever being exposed to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and other things that are way beyond my full comprehension. quote:"How do you know that this feeling leads to the real God when that same feeling in others is apparently leading them to the wrong God?" This is a big one, and I think this question alone could have (and has had) years of debate without reaching a consensus. A big part of it is upbringing, and I vaguely recall a past study which found that the vast majority of Christian believers came up being taught those beliefs from a young age as I was. I don't think it necessarily locks you into that belief, but it definitely has an impact. This is something I ultimately can't answer, it's more of a question for me to think about and challenge myself on because I absolutely can't explain it. As much as I would love to think that, for example, Islam is God's gospel for another culture, I haven't found the evidence to back that up (or with any other religion). Again, that's a conversation that goes down a very deep rabbit hole of philosophy, which isn't a bad thing but is entirely outside of the scope of what I'm capable of discussing with any hope of coherence/authority.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 21:33
|
|
|
As someone who has had my own undeniable religious experiences but wasn't raised super-christian, when a christian starts talking about all the dumb poo poo they have to do and believe to feel appropriately close to god it makes me scoff like a motherfucker. It's self-evident to me the god is everwhere (but most importantly inside yourself) and that there's nothing in particular you have to do to touch it other than the volitional aspect of the experience. You might as well say, "the air wants me to do magic tricks." You have people living their lives by tribal rules written thousands of years ago by idiots so they can feel at peace with the universe, when the answers to all the dumb, profound, meaningless questions you could ever ask are laid out all around you. Conveniently coded in ways that you have senses to percieve. To quote a song I like: "Don't ask god. Just holler at the sky, cuz she'll tell it to you plainly in the clouds that whisper by. And praise the shapes, and then praise the way they change, it'll teach you not to pray to light without you pray to rain." Just to be clear, I'm not going after anyone. Nor am I attempting to be insulting. I understand that more orthedox thinkers might feel patronized and that's valid. But I'm stating this opinion in the hopes it's conducive to discussion, not to troll people.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 23:48
|
|
|
Nathilus posted:As someone who has had my own undeniable religious experiences but wasn't raised super-christian, when a christian starts talking about all the dumb poo poo they have to do and believe to feel appropriately close to god it makes me scoff like a motherfucker. It's self-evident to me the god is everwhere (but most importantly inside yourself) and that there's nothing in particular you have to do to touch it other than the volitional aspect of the experience. You might as well say, "the air wants me to do magic tricks." Without actually believing, that's basically my view of things. Actually, Marcus Aurelius summed it up better than I ever could; Marcus Aurelius posted:Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones. I am not afraid.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2016 00:58
|
|
|
Vorenus posted:That's probably one of the bigger points that non-believers struggle with - no believer can prove God exists, and it does sound absolutely mad to say "Well I can't prove it, I just feel it." As someone who has always been atheist (I grew up in a family where both my parents also weren't religious, which extended to never being told about stuff like Santa or the tooth fairy), I don't think this is particularly strange, much less "absolutely mad." Since I don't really know what other people have experienced, it would be wrong of me to claim that their experiences are invalid. What I DO think sounds "absolutely mad," however, is when religious people act like they're making a remotely persuasive argument. I can totally understand someone believing for personal reasons and accepting that they can't prove it one way or the other, but I can't really understand why someone would think that anyone else should believe them. It's like some of these people are completely incapable of putting themselves in someone else's shoes and understanding why their arguments make absolutely zero sense to someone who either wasn't raised with similar beliefs and/or has the knowledge/intelligence to discern what constitutes a reasonable argument. This isn't to say it's wrong for religious people to try and persuade others; it's only natural for them to do so. It's more the idea that you must be wrong if you don't agree with their argument, rather than accepting that maybe you aren't being persuasive enough.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2016 01:59
|
|
|
I'm not, nor will I ever be, religious. I take a great interest in theology and mythology just because everyone has to have a hobby. That said I've met a lot of religious folk and the majority of their reasons are faith based or complexity arguments. My brother believes because he was overcome by the spirit one day and started speaking in tongues. I lived with some very devout and humble evangelicals as roommates at one point and they appealed more to morality arguments as seen earlier in the thread. That said the best reasoning I've ever heard was from the most Christ-like person I've ever met. She works at a non-profit, feeding and clothing the less fortunate, a lot of the other folks I mentioned are engineers or teachers or IT folks. She said she believes because she wants to, and shrugged.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2016 02:22
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:This isn't to say it's wrong for religious people to try and persuade others; it's only natural for them to do so. It's more the idea that you must be wrong if you don't agree with their argument, rather than accepting that maybe you aren't being persuasive enough. They probably shouldn't (in most cases) even be using words as a tool of persuasion. As the quote attributed to St. Francis puts it "Preach the Gospel at all times. Use words if necessary." Or, more prosaically (but to the same effect), "[a]ll the Friars . . . should preach by their deeds." A shared experience would, of course, be even better (imagine two people arguing about the flavor of ketchup where either (i) one of them had never tasted it, or (ii) neither had).
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2016 02:25
|
|
|
Annual Prophet posted:They probably shouldn't (in most cases) even be using words as a tool of persuasion. As the quote attributed to St. Francis puts it "Preach the Gospel at all times. Use words if necessary." Or, more prosaically (but to the same effect), "[a]ll the Friars . . . should preach by their deeds." A shared experience would, of course, be even better (imagine two people arguing about the flavor of ketchup where either (i) one of them had never tasted it, or (ii) neither had). The issue with promoting your religion through your actions is that there's nothing unique a believer can do that a secular person can't do also. So if I can have the same kind of love and compassion for my fellow man as you, why would I need to go to the extra trouble of adopting beliefs that don't actually add anything of value (that I can tell)?
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2016 02:34
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:The issue with promoting your religion through your actions is that there's nothing unique a believer can do that a secular person can't do also. So if I can have the same kind of love and compassion for my fellow man as you, why would I need to go to the extra trouble of adopting beliefs that don't actually add anything of value (that I can tell)? For a lot of people there's something fairly powerful about living your beliefs (at least if they are about, for example, compassion and love), and it's sufficiently uncommon that it's noteworthy and inspiring when you see it, whether the person is an MSF physician or Pope Francis washing the feet of convicts and members of other faiths. You might conclude that the person is simply an extraordinary individual, and that would presumably be correct most of the time. But you might also think that perhaps the person's conduct was itself inspired or informed by something, something that might be worth further investigation, or that it is simply worthwhile as an end in itself. Those are pretty good reasons to preach through conduct both for the person doing the preaching and for the person on the receiving end. Can selfless action (or a commitment to or propensity for that) comprise or give rise to religious experience, standing alone? Karma yoga sadhakas would probably say yes; personally I think it's more commonly a necessary or facilitating condition rather than sufficient in and of itself. Is there the possibility of religious experience beyond selfless action? I would suggest yes (and that there's therefore something else potentially of value worth considering). But you'd have to see for yourself. Most people are disinclined to do so, and there's obviously nothing wrong with that. Does that require a particular doctrine or adopting a new set of beliefs? I would suggest no, though I guess many would differ with me.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2016 04:26
|
|
|
Annual Prophet posted:Which one? Not the same thing, but I really dug The Narada Bhakti Sutra. Sri Ramakrishna's branch, more or less. I only follow the post-him actual movement very loosely, but his (English-translated) sermons really made an impression on me that Christian arguments had never quite managed. He was a (weird, mildly nutso) product of Calcutta's shakta traditions, but wound up swinging in an even more unitarian sort of direction than Hinduism already inherently is. He's also pretty big on not trying to force spiritual progression - don't feel pressured into asceticism and so on. This has a somewhat different flavor in traditional Hindu communities but is still applicable to me working on finding what works best for me.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2016 04:31
|
|
|
Rhjamiz posted:Without actually believing, that's basically my view of things. Actually, Marcus Aurelius summed it up better than I ever could; Yeah, that Aurelius quote is pro. But I don't have the.... Uh, call it luxury to call out ifs like he did. When you've had a religious experience, doubt becomes insanely difficult to harbor. As difficult to quantify as the feeling of exaltation is, it is also substantial. To feel it and not believe is to breathe and yet not believe in oxygen. Or to have your eyeballs cooked out by the sun while firmly denying light. If at the end of the day my brain chemistry has merely pulled a really good trick on me, that's ok too. But religious experiences are such that I sure as hell wouldn't bet on it. Also I figure that voltaire was right when he said that if god doesn't exist s humans would find it necessary to create him. Conceptions always preceed implementation. If our species lasts long enough to come up with the means I have no doubt that we will attempt to create our own divinity. Arguably some have already tried. Making a living on near-living deity used to be as simple as trapping a kid in a hut and letting it live or die while including appropriate venerations. This is a primitive and limited technique by our standards even as our own methods wouldn't be able to approach any of those important omni words. That doesn't mean those limits are unreachable though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2016 04:57
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:Sri Ramakrishna's branch, more or less. I only follow the post-him actual movement very loosely, but his (English-translated) sermons really made an impression on me that Christian arguments had never quite managed. Wow that's great! I visited the Ramakrishna Vivekananda Center in NYC back when I lived there, and it made a strong impression. Wound up getting most of Vivekananda's books, and I still have The Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna more or less on my nightstand. Wish I'd had the opportunity to pursue it more fully. Do you practice as part of a group or on your own? If the former how do you find the group dynamics / teachers?
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2016 05:14
|
|
|
Marcus Aurelius the stoic... Ah stoicism, with its assertions that each of us have a part of the logos immanent in us. Stoicism where Christians get talk of logos and spirit and many other concepts from.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2016 05:23
|
|
|
Annual Prophet posted:Wow that's great! I visited the Ramakrishna Vivekananda Center in NYC back when I lived there, and it made a strong impression. Wound up getting most of Vivekananda's books, and I still have The Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna more or less on my nightstand. Basically on my own, for geographical reasons if nothing else. Vivekananda is an awesome dude in his own right. I actually started with the abridged Gospel, which probably isn't the worst idea - it has a huge pile of helpful notes and tries to distill his teachings a bit. (The extended version is conveniently available for free at http://www.belurmath.org/gospel/ ) Edit: I should note that calling Ramakrishna mildly nutso is not derogatory at all. He would regularly go catatonic for periods of time and had several other Weird Incidents, but he also often brought back from those some very cool insights. I see no particular reason someone cannot be both, ahem, psychologically nonstandard and divinely inspired - if anything, the first may often help with the second. My favorite non-catatonia-related Incident is a possibly-apocryphal account of his role in popularizing the Bengali depiction of Kali(/Durga/Shakti/etc) with her tongue sticking out. Ramakrishna was having a nice stroll through the jungle on the Calcutta outskirts, and happened to come across a young woman bathing in the river who was, as far as he was concerned, transcendentally beautiful. She happened to notice this weird old dude ogling her and stuck her tongue out in embarrassment, and shortly thereafter Ramakrishna went running back to the temple going "I HAVE SEEN THE GODDESS! I HAVE SEEN THE GODDESS!". Leaving behind a young woman who had an extremely weird day that may, in hindsight, have gotten even weirder if she ever heard the story. Goatse James Bond fucked around with this message at 05:53 on Jun 15, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2016 05:46
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:The issue with promoting your religion through your actions is that there's nothing unique a believer can do that a secular person can't do also. So if I can have the same kind of love and compassion for my fellow man as you, why would I need to go to the extra trouble of adopting beliefs that don't actually add anything of value (that I can tell)? I think that's understating the gulf between good people and saintly people. I don't mean saintly in a religious context here, more that while I think most human beings are fundamentally good people, there are those whose goodness really shines like a beacon over others. Acts of extreme charity, complete selflessness, martyrdom; these things have a powerful impact on other people who see them. Most philosophies call their adherents to such acts, but those who practice them are rarely able to fulfil them. I agree in that sense there's nothing special about Christianity, but merely being present as a Christian and being able to say "Christ gave me the courage and conviction to do this" is a powerful and persuasive argument to those who witness such actions. It doesn't mean the person's beliefs are correct, but there's a difference between a persuasive argument and a correct one, and living a saintly life in view of others is, I'd say, the most persuasive argument in favour of your belief system, regardless of what that belief system is.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2016 06:07
|
|
|
Vorenus posted:This is a big one, and I think this question alone could have (and has had) years of debate without reaching a consensus. A big part of it is upbringing, and I vaguely recall a past study which found that the vast majority of Christian believers came up being taught those beliefs from a young age as I was. I don't think it necessarily locks you into that belief, but it definitely has an impact. This is something I ultimately can't answer, it's more of a question for me to think about and challenge myself on because I absolutely can't explain it. As much as I would love to think that, for example, Islam is God's gospel for another culture, I haven't found the evidence to back that up (or with any other religion). Again, that's a conversation that goes down a very deep rabbit hole of philosophy, which isn't a bad thing but is entirely outside of the scope of what I'm capable of discussing with any hope of coherence/authority. So I suppose the next probing question is: why doesn't it bother you to not have answers on this? And not simply the question of "how do you know you're right?" but also importantly "how do you know they are wrong?" You acknowledge that those having what we could call inauthentic religious experiences are being convinced by them of a false God, and you acknowledge that those people convinced of a false God are - as far as you can tell, based on the Bible - hellbound. In a religion like Islam, this is conversely true for them in regards to you - that is, they feel as though you are having the inauthentic religious experiences, following a false God, and are destined for hell. What if they're right? What convinces you that they aren't, enough to declare yourself a Christian? Or, putting it differently, what difference do you perceive between your experiences and theirs that allows you to discern that Christianity is the right creed to follow?
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2016 16:55
|
|
|
Griffen posted:Your entire post is predicated on this statement, and yet you offer no reason or proof for this statement. Why do you believe that faith in God must be illogical simply because you yourself have not seen Him? I didn't elaborate because this thread was not meant to be a debate about whether God exists or not, and because it should be self evident. You've probably heard this countless times before but it's ultimately a matter of proof. There is no evidence, physical or logical, that isn't weak, contradictory, or fallacious, that supports the belief in any specific God. For example, let's look at the second part of your post: quote:My belief in God has been built over the years by His continual presence in my life and what He has done for me. Despite being brought up in a church, my theology has been developed solely from my own study of His word and my experiences, not from what someone else has told me. I do not believe anything "just because" but have faith in my Creator because even today does He still reach out to help in my my times of need and to make manifest in my life the love He has for me. God is a fundamental truth in the universe and in my life because He has said "test me in this; ask and you shall receive, seek, and you shall find, knock and the door shall be opened," and He has never failed me yet. If someone tells me something, I might question it; if I see it for myself, I might consider it; if I experience it for myself, I know it to be true. You say your theology has been developed by a study of His word and your experiences, and not what someone else has told you. When you refer to "His word", are you referring to religious texts? Things that other people have written (that's something that someone else has told you), which contain numerous contradictions, which have been translated from language to language in which much of the original meaning may have been lost, for which there is absolutely zero proof that it was in fact, God that said these things? If you think that a belief in one specific God is not illogical, then what logical reason is there to believe that those words are the truth? Maybe you saw God. Great. Read my next two posts. Unless other people can see God the same way you did and agree that it is the same God, it's not proof, it's hearsay, and hearsay is not a logical proof of the existence of anything. edit: and to elaborate further on the "my beliefs developed from my own experiences thing", well let's recognize that nobody lives in a vacuum, we are all influenced by our environment. But let's say you were the only person on the entire Earth. Given enough time, you could, by observation of nature, figure out all the known laws of the universe that we currently know. God, on the other hand? If you were the only person on Earth, there is nothing in nature that would drive you to the conclusion that "well one specific God did this and said that". That conclusion does not follow logically from anything in nature that we can detect with our senses. There is as much reason, as given by what exists in the universe that we can sense, to believe in one specific God as there is reason to believe in literally any other God or entity. Subyng fucked around with this message at 15:13 on Jun 16, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2016 01:31
|
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:It might be. Do you believe that if a man lives his life as a good and kind man, but holds an 'illogical' belief that he's less of a good man? In the same way, is a man who does an evil deed because he thinks God wants him to more evil than one who does it just because he wants to? I don't think there's anything wrong with holding illogical beliefs as long as it doesn't affect others around you. However, unless you live in seclusion, your beliefs will end up influencing your actions in a way that will affect someone else. FilthIncarnate posted:It'd be this, frankly; the argument being that there are moral laws which inhere in the fabric of the world, like gravity, and, like gravity, they are true whether you believe in them or not. The idea that there are moral laws which are true in the same way gravity is true is a frightening thought, because currently, we have no way in which to objectively measure or determine what moral ideas or true and false, only hearsay. And we have people in parts of the world that make laws and carry out punishments based on hearsay. Is this morally right, to judge other people based on someone's word rather than a measurable, objective truth? I know gravity is true because I can measure it. I can measure it and form a model with which I can make predictions, and if reality is consistent with the prediction, then I know that my model is true. And other people can perform the same experiments, and if they come up with a model that is consistent with my model and produces the same result, we can agree that is the truth. With morality, all I have to go on is "some book said so". But some other book said something else. How do we reach an agreement? Until we can do the same with morality as we can with gravity, we should not impose our own moral beliefs on others. edit: as an aside, my own personal moral beliefs more or less follow the rule of "as long as nobody gets hurt (too much)". I don't think homosexuality is wrong because it doesn't hurt anybody. Rape is wrong because it hurts somebody (the victim). As a personal observation, this seems to be more or less how actual laws work. Things that don't hurt anyone are generally legal, and the only exceptions are in cases where there are religious influences (i.e. homosexuality). I don't believe morality is fundamental to the universe. It's relative. And it's a result of human interaction. Which is why the field of ethics exists. I wonder what God's answer to the Trolly Problem would be. Do religious texts ever elaborate on these moral gray areas? Subyng fucked around with this message at 15:16 on Jun 16, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2016 01:42
|
|
|
technotronic posted:You are not very good in not being inflammatory. You also failed to address specific reasons, experiences and beliefs that God believers in this thread had already provided and instead you opted for a poorly thought-out blanket statement. Your post could most aptly be described as "stupid". I didn't address them because they all fall under the same blanket statement. That's like saying I'm making a poorly thought out blanket statement to say that oranges, apples, and bananas are all fruits without addressing each item individually. quote:To give a simple answer anyway, suppose you could do X and live a happier life. X isn't costly, doesn't hurt anyone, is easy to practice and can get you support from other people who also do X. Why wouldn't you do X? Well, for many people X is having a set of beliefs and speaking with God in inner voice. You can scrutinize their beliefs and prove that they are not 100% consistent and logical, but neither are love, friendship, law, sports, enjoying of art, family relations, education... I think that it would be much more irrational and illogical to discard X and thus live a less happy life. Trying to make yourself feel good, if one's goal is to make yourself feel good, is not illogical. If a belief in God makes yourself feel good, and that is your objective, then one could argue that you are taking the logical step toward a state of feeling good. This doesn't change the fact that the belief itself is illogical. Someone who has OCD will perform rituals that have no purpose other than to ward of anxiety. They might check that their car door is locked exactly 10 times before stepping away. Rationally, they know that once the car door is locked, it will not unlock. Checking it an additional 9 times is not a rational act, even if it makes sense, to them, that the act is necessary. And because goons, I'm not implying that religious people are mentally ill with my OCD example. Subyng fucked around with this message at 02:08 on Jun 16, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2016 01:54
|
|
|
Subyng posted:I don't think there's anything wrong with holding illogical beliefs as long as it doesn't affect others around you. However, unless you live in seclusion, your beliefs will end up influencing your actions in a way that will affect someone else. So all religious people should live in total seclusion?  I'm a born and raised Catholic in an area where "being Catholic"and "being alive" are pretty much the same. After confirmation I pretty much became a lapsed one (as so many Catholic children do), never really doubting the Church or the faith but never really thinking about it either. This only changed when I developed a strong interest into liturgy from when I was around 16 or 17 or so. I remember telling my (deeply religious) about some liturgical minutiae that fascinated me, and she just asked me why I would only read about them instead of experiencing them by going to church. I didn't have a good answer, took it to mind and started going to church more often from that point. My fascination with liturgy eventually also led to me reading up on theology and finally (re-?)discovering a sense of being connected to, well... let's just call it "the Divine". I'm still an active and practicing Catholic, and I still love going to church - singing the ancient songs, hearing the organ play, smelling the candles and the incense, knowing that many parts of the liturgy date back literal millennia... this is the next best thing to heaven to me, pretty much  This is not to say that I spend every minute in church or something, on the contrary - I'm just as likely to be unwilling to leave the bed on a cold Sunday morning as everyone else. I've never ever regretted going to church though; I always got the feeling that I got something out of it in some way. There's also the additional aspect that I feel a strong connection to where I grew up, and as this area has been virtually 100% Catholic for the last 1500 years or so this may also play into my being religious.I had a hard time coming to terms with some aspects of Catholic theology as well. I'm not just talking about the "classic" points like no contraceptives, gays are icky etc - these are all points of contention to me and I dearly hope that my Church will at some time choose to walk a different path in these regards. What I really had to wrap my mind around at first were things like Apostolic Succession, the Trinity, intercession of the saints and especially the Eucharist. After a time I just accepted that even a mostly internally logical body of thought like Catholicism has some core areas that simply defy logic and reason. So I instead act like I was a firm believer, even if I'm not. "Fake it until you make it", and the crazy thing is: it works! I know fully well about the historical background of many of these doctrines and how and why they became to be, but I still pray to the saints and "believe" (for lack of a better term, because it's far more than just "acting as if" as well) in the transubstantiation as well and feel super good about it ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Eventually I'm pretty sure that my belief came about from my upbringing and my desire to be part of something greater. Who knows, maybe I would be an enthusiastic communist who knows all the songs if I had grown up elsewhere? I see no reason whatsoever to give up all that, because a) I want to, b) it has given me nothing (well okay, almost nothing) but joy, c) it's now a great part of how I see myself and d) because I have grown immeasurably as a person because of it. In short: it makes me feel good, and why would I change that then? 
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2016 08:12
|
|
|
System Metternich posted:So all religious people should live in total seclusion? Haha of course not. No human is perfectly logical or rational. However if you believe something totally asinine like homosexuality is wrong because of your religous influences, then you should definitely go seclude yourself. If you believe the moon landings were faked, well thats pretty dumb too but you're less likely to hurt someone because of that belief. It's not black and white. Subyng fucked around with this message at 15:11 on Jun 16, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2016 15:08
|
|
|
I am a radical anti-theist. No, I don't think religion should be abolished or outlawed. I think when we die we should all storm heaven and beat up God. Who does he think he is, dictating rules? Heaven belongs to the people! Hell is a political prison!
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2016 17:12
|
|
|
Subyng posted:Haha of course not. No human is perfectly logical or rational. However if you believe something totally asinine like homosexuality is wrong because of your religous influences, then you should definitely go seclude yourself. If you believe the moon landings were faked, well thats pretty dumb too but you're less likely to hurt someone because of that belief. It's not black and white. It feels like to you it is pretty black and white, to be honest. What about the many religious people who aren't anti-gay and all? You seem to be convinced that 'affecting others' is an inevitability if you're religious.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2016 17:37
|
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:You seem to be convinced that 'affecting others' is an inevitability if you're religious. I think "it's nearly impossible to make beliefs exclusively private" and/or "a sincere belief will inevitably show up in your actions in some way" aren't terribly unsupported positions to take. That's why I find "just keep your beliefs to yourself!" as a solution to our religious diversity in this world a little naive and divorced from reality. The salient question really is, "do these manifestations of personal beliefs do more harm than good?" Which I think is certainly a discussion worth having - a little orthogonal to this thread topic, but not exactly irrelevant either.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2016 18:49
|
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:It feels like to you it is pretty black and white, to be honest. What about the many religious people who aren't anti-gay and all? You seem to be convinced that 'affecting others' is an inevitability if you're religious. GAINING WEIGHT answered this perfectly. Harmfully affecting others is not inevitable if you're religious. Certainly religion has been the catalyst for a lot of good. But the underlying issue is that the motivation behind a harmful act and a beneficial act in this context is the same: religious dogma.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2016 22:23
|
|
|
Rakosi posted:To the people who answered about why they believe in a specific God; why do you not believe in any of the many other Gods? Ah was wondering how long till the Atheist asked "Why don't you believe in Thor"? Well I believe in the God of All Creation. Who is the prime mover, who is not constrained by the universe. Those others are. Rhjamiz posted:I am a radical anti-theist. No, I don't think religion should be abolished or outlawed. You know there is a really lovely war porn about that on the internet. Also its loved by the retards on  .
Crowsbeak fucked around with this message at 23:12 on Jun 16, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2016 23:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 17:07 |
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:You know there is a really lovely war porn about that on the internet. Also its loved by the retards on Oh no. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2016 00:16
|
|