Jump to content

Your Views on Religion?


Recommended Posts

I am a trained scientist and engineer, and fully rational. However, my education never taught me that the supernatural could not exist - rather, it teaches me to explain the natural world by natural means, and leaves open the possibility of reality beyond what we can possibly perceive. In fact, the more advanced physics I learned, particularly quantum mechanics, the more I realized that human perception of the natural world is necessarily flawed - not just now, for trivial or technical reasons, but fundamentally, inherently and for all time.

 

 

agreed. but how are you making the leap from uncertainty to god?

Link to post
Share on other sites
VASH THE STAMPEDE

ArdeaCandidissima,

Thanks, same to you

I would like to apologize for my behavior in this thread,the last times I posted,I let ignorance get the best of me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
leaves open the possibility of reality beyond what we can possibly perceive. In fact, the more advanced physics I learned, particularly quantum mechanics, the more I realized that human perception of the natural world is necessarily flawed - not just now, for trivial or technical reasons, but fundamentally, inherently and for all time

 

I absolutely, totally, unequivocally agree. The more one learns, the more one (one hopes) understands how little we actually know and how vast the possibilities are among the unknown (and possibly unknowable). I think that people who conclude that man has amassed enough knowledge to make a definiteve statement that God does not/cannot exist are still filled with the hubris of all young scholars. Once you know a little, you think you know everything. When you know a lot, you realize that you know almost nothing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
HokeyReligions

Boy howdy! Did I ever miss a thread! :)

 

My views on religion, well, I could write a book.... oh, wait -- that's been done! :p

 

I was raised to believe in a Christian God. The phrase "put the fear of God in you" was one I hear A LOT! I worshipped the way I was taught because of that FEAR! As I got older I was told to LOVE God before any other - including spouse, children, parents, etc. The love for God was to be the top of my life and that love was to be so pure and that there would be lots of room to love others. I never achieved that -- too full of fear I guess! When I asked how I was supposed to love God when I was also terrified of him I got all sorts of confusing and conflicting answers. That, and the behavior of some self-claimed-so-called Christians, drove me away and brought up more questions than anyone could answer and I began getting "You just have to have faith" as a response. Blind Faith.

 

I'm not one for blind faith. I like to be in control of my own destiny and meandering through life with a drooling grin on my face, happily ignorant of where my next meal is coming from just is not for me. At least, not the way I've had Christianity presented to me. My mother's other daughter claims to be DEVOUT - as though that word had some power over me. She used that word like a weapon and like a shield and didn't care who she sliced along the way. She was DEVOUT and had BLIND FAITH and to her that meant that she expected to be provided for. She thought it gave her the right to take what she wanted from those who worked hard for it and did not offer it to her. Her prayers were answered that a family memeber worked to earn and achieve something that she felt she should have with no effort. I won't go into more detail than that - but stealing in the name of her God because she was DEVOUT and prayed and worshipped in a certain way led me to ask many more questions.

 

I finally came to my own conclusion that the Bible was written by men and no matter if they were interpreting a God - the writings are filtered through their own belifs and interpretations of events of that time. The Bible is a metaphore.

 

That doesn't mean that its not based on fact, and there may be a God or many Gods. I don't know, but I highly doubt it. A God that is worshipped and loved would not treat his/her deciples the way I've seen them do - that would be a spiteful God, and a viscous God. Who would want to worship that? (okay, I know there are some that would - hence Satan worshippers, etc.)

 

I trust more evidence proving that there is not a God than I see evidence that there is a God. Of course, that comes back to FAITH. I trust things I can understand and experience. (I don't understand how 1's and 0's can make up a computers data - but I can see it so I trust that it is real). I can see a tree and know it's reproduction method, but I lack the faith to see a tree and think "God made that". Partly I think that God was an invention of mankind to explain the unexplainable. As a species I think part of our evolution into thought and communication was the instinctive need to preserve our awarness after death and God stemmed from that need.

 

There may be some kind of energy signal left behind when our bodies die and it may be felt or intuited by the living and that may be where ghosts come from.

 

I don't know - I may be wrong about everything and when I die an angle in burnt rags with fire shooting out its butt may greet me at the gates of Hell and my mothers other daughter may be sitting on a cloud above me shaking her finger and hollering down to me "I told you so." I'll give her both fingers then, walk thru the gate to find all my friends and a large part of my family waiting for me, and hope the devil has a sense of humor!

Link to post
Share on other sites

actually, it's considered an error in logic to state definitively that god (or X) does not exist - specifically the 'from ignorance' fallacy, the one both moi and andrea noted. it is also an error to state postivitely that Santa does not exist, for example. it is also an error to state that it/they/He *do/es* exist; unless one can prove it using acceptable methods of evidence. and, as ryan stated it: the burden of proof is on the assertion.

 

so, we can be certain of uncertainty but any other claims are only speculative at best.

 

o! and reading Hokey's last post - this is probably the point where faith enters and my understanding of the subject exits :)

 

cheers, j

Link to post
Share on other sites
when I die an angle in burnt rags with fire shooting out its butt

 

Would that be a right angle? :p

 

Sorry - just could NOT resist :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

The way I see it, for some of us, spirituality is considered a religion,

and for some it is not. For some spiritualists, we still see them dealing

with their spiritual belief and see them stuck between two worlds. One

world is the "new belief system" based on our personal growth, soul

growth and our evolution, and their second world is also attached to

one, or some part of, religion that makes it a hard time to let go

regardless of the reason, but still wants to move beyond that belief

system. That will create a conflict that when we decide we want to

grow sometimes we are not allowed to bring the old system with us.

That will slow us down. Think about it!!!

 

 

If said it once I wiil say it again It take Courage!

Link to post
Share on other sites

The way I see it, for some of us, spirituality is considered a religion,

and for some it is not. For some spiritualists, we still see them dealing

with their spiritual belief and see them stuck between two worlds. One

world is the "new belief system" based on our personal growth, soul

growth and our evolution, and their second world is also attached to

one, or some part of, religion that makes it a hard time to let go

regardless of the reason, but still wants to move beyond that belief

system. That will create a conflict that when we decide we want to

grow sometimes we are not allowed to bring the old system with us.

That will slow us down. Think about it!!!

 

 

If said it once I wiil say it again It take Courage!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Think about it!!!

 

i'd like to, but i am unclear what i would be thinking about. could you go over this again, slowly?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Think about it!!!

 

i'd like to, but i am unclear what i would be thinking about. could you go over this again, slowly?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here are some definitions.

 

Main Entry: re·li·gion

Pronunciation: ri-'li-j&n

Function: noun

Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back -- more at RELY

Date: 13th century

1 a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance

2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices

3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS

4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

- re·li·gion·less adjective

 

Main Entry: re·li·gious

Pronunciation: ri-'li-j&s

Function: adjective

Etymology: Middle English, from Old French religious, from Latin religious, from religio

Date: 13th century

1 : relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity <a religious person> <religious attitudes>

2 : of, relating to, or devoted to religious beliefs or observances

3 a : scrupulously and conscientiously faithful b : FERVENT, ZEALOUS

- re·li·gious·ly adverb

- re·li·gious·ness noun

 

Main Entry: cult

Pronunciation: 'k&lt

Function: noun

Usage: often attributive

Etymology: French & Latin; French culte, from Latin cultus care, adoration, from colere to cultivate -- more at WHEEL

Date: 1617

1 : formal religious veneration : WORSHIP

2 : a system of religious beliefs and ritual; also : its body of adherents

3 : a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious; also : its body of adherents

4 : a system for the cure of disease based on dogma set forth by its promulgator <health cults>

5 a : great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work (as a film or book); especially : such devotion regarded as a literary or intellectual fad b : a usually small group of people characterized by such devotion

- cul·tic /'k&l-tik/ adjective

- cult·ish /-tish/ adjective

- cult·ish·ly /-lE/ adverb

- cult·ish·ness /-n&s/ noun

- cult·ism /'k&l-"ti-z&m/ noun

- cult·ist /'k&l-tist/ noun

- cult·like /-"lIk/ adjective

 

 

Courage

I will call Spirituality both a religion and a cult.

I recommend that you get an account of your own. You will be able to keep up with this thread, and get messages by doing that.

 

The Main Argument

LadyX argued that many Christians are hypocrites who also abuse their power, and because of that, she thinks Christianity is illegitimate.

 

I think that there are people in this world that will abuse and corrupt everything within their power and this includes religion, science, political power, and other people. One can argue that because a few people associated with a religion are evil, then the whole religion is evil. You can throw out the religion, but in doing so, you could also throw out something valuable in the process.

Link to post
Share on other sites
HokeyReligions
Originally posted by moimeme

Would that be a right angle? :p

 

Sorry - just could NOT resist :)

 

:eek:

 

Okay, so I didn't check my spelling very well! :o I know how ANGEL is spelled! I just didn't catch it! :D:laugh:

 

 

As as sidebar: Even tho I'm a self-claimed agnostic a Christmas Tree just wouldn't be a Christmas Tree without an angEL on top. It just wouldn't *feel* right to me. Tradition? Fond Memories from childhood? Brainwashing? Maybe the Christians are right and there IS a God? Maybe I just get a perverse satisfaction out of seeing a branch stuck up an angEL's butt? Hmm... women (angELs) have had to endure this stick-up-the-patootie for centuries - maybe I'll jam a Buddha on top of the tree this year! :D

Link to post
Share on other sites
Christmas is a religious holiday. What do tree's have to do with it?

 

You seriously don't know?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Spirituality and respect for a higher authority can be a beautiful thing when it's a matter of individual choice. But when it is imposed on people by way of threat, coersion or force, it's nothing more than a tool for social control.

 

I think the people who wrote the Bill of Rights were onto something here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Blockhead, can you take a shot at explaining how one bridges the gap from uncertainty to religion while remaining logically intact? i'm getting no answers here, and if anyone can do it, i expect it would be you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

mmmm...the idea of religion as being credible under scientific principles was introduced; uncertainty was proven but nothing else. if objective authority is the ante on the table, the cards are nowhere to be seen.

 

if religion cannot ultimately be defended logically, that's cool. i get that, i just want to point out that the invoking of science as support of anything but uncertainty was an error.

 

and, if religion can not be argued logically, what system is in place there to make sure thought is rigourous and useful?

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want to go by the science, you'll have to check out the guy who did the mathematical model which posits that the probablity that God exists is greater than that the Earth and life on it arose spontaneosly. I haven't the reference easily handy nor the time to find it right now but I'm sure you could dig it up.

Link to post
Share on other sites
HokeyReligions
Originally posted by moimeme

I was just funnin' ya!

 

I know. I didn't mean to sound sarcastic. :bunny:

 

Thanks for the link about the Christmas Tree - it was well stated & brief!

 

 

Blockhead, how many christians do you know who celebrate christmas and do not have trees as their centerpiece decoration? like any decoration - it is used as a symbol and we each make of it what we will. i was taught that the tree is a symbol of life and purity and that whenever we look upon a tree we should think of God (that's a very simplified version). by bringing a tree into the house at christmas it follows tradition and serves to be a daily reminder that christ died for our sins. and angel has always been on the top of the tree to represent the angels who watch over us.

 

a symbol - like anything else. like tying a string around your finger to help remember something. or a planning calendar, or pda. or a post-it note on the PC, or a note on the fridge. its a reminder - its up to us of what we want it to remind us. now i just love christmas decorations - not for the religious symbolism, but i just like the color and sparkle and the idea of dressing up the house every year! i have half a garage and most of a barn filled with decorations.

 

i love giving gifts and try not to feel pressured, or pressure anyone else, into gift giving. but its fun for me and its tradition and i look forward to it as my favorite festivus. color me blond (no offense to any of you blonds out there!) but i just like all the sparkly-things that come out after thanksgiving! :D

Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by moimeme

If you want to go by the science, you'll have to check out the guy who did the mathematical model which posits that the probablity that God exists is greater than that the Earth and life on it arose spontaneosly. I haven't the reference easily handy nor the time to find it right now but I'm sure you could dig it up.

 

hmmm...i agree the probability of spontaneity is shaky, but i cannot believe that logic would ever posit that a human created narrative is somehow more likely to have created it. and, the thing is, this is your assertion. i'm willing to learn, but i have no idea why i would look up such a theory when i don't understand the system from which it emerges. if you believe this, it seems to me you should be able to defend it rigourously in your own words. i'm all for citation, but i think the ratio should be about 85%/15% responsibility on the main author's side. i think we both know the link can be a useful cop-out.

 

i have not yet met a christian who could do so, though i have met Jewish people who did so. it seems plausible to me that Blockhead might be able to defined xtianity without the use of the vague; i think it would be fun to get argued down.

 

cheers, j

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't need the math or the science. I no more require proof of this than I require proof that love exists therefore I don't wring myself into knots about it. I noted that this mathematician had produced a theory which might appeal to people who demand science only because there might be a minute hope that such people would believe his theory. However, I firmly believe that confirmation bias is at play in matters such as these so I realise it isn't really worth it trying to offer evidence to those so firmly predisposed to not believe.

 

If you want science, it exists, and you're welcome to find it if you genuinely want to read the proof that was offered by a scientist. I don't need it for myself.

 

the thing is, this is your assertion. Um. No. It is that fellow's.

 

The link isn't a copout. It's for people who *need* some sort of logic. You want to argue it, argue it with the mathematician who came up with it. He is the author, not I.

Link to post
Share on other sites
×
×
  • Create New...