The Faith & Religion mega Thread

Words are only kind of a reality... bamboo-cotton blend, quite comfortable and breathy?

Fun to dream of utopia but be more fun if we evolved to it!

The only way to get there is to.

Evolving: religion, politics, psychology, &pee likely leads to dystopia...

If we looked at the world as aliens, we'd say?

I'm pretty sure it whouldn't be: "They've not heard of Zorb, let's bring them the word..." 👽

Originally Posted by igadoter . Now the question is where this disappointment comes from?

Just one example.

Originally Posted by igadoter Essentially many people here have strange concept of reality. Reality for them is like wearing clothes. When discussing with religion people, they wear different clothes than when discussing other things than religion. This reality concepts are just convenient tools to express disappointment about religion. In convincing way. Now the question is where this disappointment comes from?

+1 leclerc78 - we had our own scandals here too.

Many religions give every sign of being counterfeit, that's where the disappointment comes from. People throughout time have noticed this

Originally Posted by Voltaire It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets.

Religion is an insult to human dignity. Without it you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, it takes religion.

So people put on religion, and take it off. I was very surprised to see the number of folks who do that. They have largely stopped putting it on in cities here now, but if they come from rural parts, they don't care for disturbance socially, and go through the ritual when they visit rural areas. Many churches have ways of facilitating the a la carte approach: In the Churchy of England, you can be a 'Modernist,' and believe as little as you like; Judaism has interpretations that allow agnostics, and Christians. Even Islam has interpretations covering a wide spectrum of variations.

Originally Posted by business_kid Many religions give every sign of being counterfeit, that's where the disappointment comes from.

this would really require much more explanations than just statement. Atheists are tend to end every debate one they feel arguments stop to work. This is how I see quoting Voltaire here. As a cheating. This quote of Voltaire says only that he was another disappointed atheists. Problem is that atheism is often dogmatic. Atheists has in truth no idea how to explain why they are atheists. It is just not possible to prove which of sentences "God(s) exist(s)" or its negation are true. It is very easy in terms of logic: if you can't prove a statement. Then you can't prove its negation. You can only turn one of these statements in dogma. Something we accept and don't discuss. But in personal life - in our human life - for personal reason we are changing what to accept what to reject. But usually it is not only our own choice. There are people around who can influence our opinions, choices. Children can became atheists or believers for reason to befriend someone. For example.

I thought I was stating the obvious to a man who reads the Bible, and would therefore have done his own evaluation. I genuinely didn't know Voltaire was atheist. While we are exchanging views, demands for levels of proof are somewhat out of place. But if you want another source, how about a Catholic Irish Writer?

Originally Posted by George Bernard Shaw Christianity might be a good thing if anyone ever tried it.

I am resisting voluminous historical proof and comparisons of doctrine with Scripture, as a plainly stated truth often offends.

Originally Posted by business_kid I thought I was stating the obvious to a man who reads the Bible, and would therefore have done his own evaluation.-

Let make this straight. I am Catholic and my religion is rooted in book called Catechism. Full Catechism is very complex document originally written in Latin - then translated. There are many sources of Catholics teaching. Among them is Bible. I mean some of part - but first of all Gospels, Letters. The other sources are teachings of so-called Church Doctors: Saint Augustin, Thomas and many others. All these are summarized in Catechism. And due to its complexity one really needs to start learn it at very young age. From childhood. Personally I read Bible - but it is not very common among Catholics. The other problem - if you can say that - is local churches have great level of autonomy. So you can be greatly surprised when visiting other country. Finally in my opinion connections between Judaism and Christianity in form of Catholic Church are very, very weak. It is just not possible to create any such reasonable connection. Although some people try.

Originally Posted by business_kid I genuinely didn't know Voltaire was atheist.

Me neither. I concluded this because of that quotation.

Originally Posted by business_kid But if you want another source, how about a Catholic Irish Writer?

Situation in modern Church is that where there are two priests there are three opinions - at least two are opposite. People are confused. But you see the same division almost everywhere.

Well, faith is a fine thing to find in anyone. Too many abandon it, or are brought up to take all religion with a pnch of salt. I should butt out and lurk on this thread and follow your dialogue with sundialsvcs. I'd only hold things back.

To nail my colours to the mast, I was born Catholic, educated by Jesuits and resigned in writing from it in my 20s, which was not something that was allowed in the country generally. I am a Jehovah's Witness for 45 years now, and frankly only look back in increasing horror at the things they did in this country and in history. But we don't have to go there - I firmly believe in God reading hearts.

Originally Posted by igadoter Atheists are tend to end every debate one they feel arguments stop to work.

I'm not certain exactly what you mean, especially the use of the word "one", but that's probably just that English is not your native language. You do reasonably well at it but in this sentence, "one" is confusing. You could be saying that atheists tend to stop an argument when they think they are losing but that point is likely a dead end, since it should be obvious to anyone who values Reason, that if there is no evidence, there is no argument really and that's exactly the point IMHO.

Originally Posted by igadoter Problem is that atheism is often dogmatic. Atheists has in truth no idea how to explain why they are atheists.

Please explain how it is that you not only think you know atheists, but MOST atheists? I can only speak for myself and note that many have the same position. I know exactly why I'm an atheist. Not only is there no evidence let alone proof, there CAN BE no evidence let alone proof. It is a non-issue for me beyond the issue of Organized Religion's tendency to authoritarianism and dogma.

Incidentally it is as incorrect to call atheism dogmatic as it is to say "1 = 5".

Originally Posted by Webster's Dictionary Definition of dogmatic 1 : characterized by or given to the expression of opinions very strongly or positively as if they were facts

Since it is not merely an opinion that no objective information passes from outside our SpaceTime into it, there can be no evidence. You may point to scripture but con artists selling snake oil, or companies hiring 5 doctors so they can read a script they planned and wrote so they could say "4 out of 5 doctors say our cigarettes have health benefits and don't cause cancer". There is no way to verify the Bible, any bible, is anything but a book written by a man or men. Saying God revealed it, assumes the conclusion in the premise and that's illogical and error-ridden.

Originally Posted by igadoter if you can't prove a statement. Then you can't prove its negation.

What? That's absurd. Some things actually are Binary. They are either correct or they are wrong. 1 == 1. 1 != 5. However in regards to the existence of a Creator there is absolutely nothing to go on to make a decision either way other than mere odds based on experience in relevant fields. For starters, the odds that superstitious people thousands of years ago who believed in all manner of fantastic creatures, thought the Earth was the center of Everything, that Gods and Spirits lived in (conveniently) impossible to reach places, got it right as to something so far beyond their comprehension as creating a Universe. They didn't even have a clue what the Universe is.

The most fundamental "raison d'etre" of all religion is "What is the meaning of Life" and it's corollary, "What does it mean to die?" To my knowledge there has never been, not one, not a single instance of any evidence whatsoever that there is any existence of an immortal soul nor even any instance of actual communication with someone who has died. It would be absolutely wonderful if there was, but there isn't. That is a reality.

Originally Posted by enorbet Originally Posted by igadoter if you can't prove a statement. Then you can't prove its negation. What? That's absurd.

I don't see how it's absurd, it's just kind of irrelevant. What igadoter says is entirely correct for classical deductive logic. Of course we can't do much with statements like "God exists" in deductive logic so we usually apply inductive logic instead (and therefore get out only odds/probabilities instead of true/false results, as you rightly pointed out).

Originally Posted by business_kid I genuinely didn't know Voltaire was atheist.

According to Wikipedia, he was a deist.

(I actually thought he was an atheist until I checked)

Originally Posted by enorbet The most fundamental "raison d'etre" of all religion is "What is the meaning of Life" and it's corollary, "What does it mean to die?"

No. Most important thing is relation between God and us. Us as a people of common religion but also me as a person. The rest follows.

I don't think anyone has enough imagination, to imagine themselves, as everyone else PPF?

Bring on the electrodes..

Originally Posted by ntubski I don't see how it's absurd, it's just kind of irrelevant. What igadoter says is entirely correct for classical deductive logic. Of course we can't do much with statements like "God exists" in deductive logic so we usually apply inductive logic instead (and therefore get out only odds/probabilities instead of true/false results, as you rightly pointed out).

I see the absurdity as one existing in reality not the abstract. Whether we consciously think it or just go by gut, we are constantly evaluating odds to guide our behaviour and decision making. For example, theoretically there is a finite if really Really REALLY tiny possibility that in the next instant I will find myself on Mars. Those odds are so low that I never bother to think about them other than to flesh out a point. It's functionally absurd in my view.

Somewhat closer at hand, the odds that the next time I drive in certain locations and condition the odds can be significant that it could be my last drive anywhere. My behaviour and decisions are influenced by such things as weather, condition of my vehicle and my own state of health.

You obviously and rightly pointed out I'm applying inductive logic rather than deductive since deductive logic doesn't apply in such areas. I thought I qualified my assessment of absurdity in real world terms as you duly noted by the above emboldened quote segment... though I would have left out the "only" qualifier since odds are all we really have.

In this world I find that there are "athiests" – people who do not believe in a god but really don't mind if you do – and "anti-theists," who seem to be actively opposed to the idea that people do believe, and to any sort of social expression which aligns to the presence of religious thought. They're the ones who are determined to get in your face about it. Like the folks who recently sued the State of Missippi to get "In God We Trust" taken off their license plates. (I don't know what they do with their coins and paper money ...) It bothers them that those words are there, and they can't manage to leave well enough alone. They have to oppose it . . . to impose their distaste upon the people of the entire state . . . to demand that the state must change its practices to suit them.

Originally Posted by enorbet You obviously and rightly pointed out I'm applying inductive logic rather than deductive since deductive logic doesn't apply in such areas.

It does not matter. You see no evidences for God(s) existence - premises. I see no evidences for God(s) non-existence. It is like claiming that person belief depends on tossing of coin. That's absurd. Did you choose to be atheists tossing coin? If you really want to be honest in inductive conclusions, then from beginning you need to collect evidences pro- and contra-. When person shows bias - then for sure conclusions cannot be accepted. They only aimed at supporting taken from nowhere claim - in other words dogma.

Originally Posted by sundialsvcs In this world I find that there are "athiests" – people who do not believe in a god but really don't mind if you do – and "anti-theists," who seem to be actively opposed to the idea that people do believe, and to any sort of social expression which aligns to the presence of religious thought. They're the ones who are determined to get in your face about it. Like the folks who recently sued the State of Missippi to get "In God We Trust" taken off their license plates. (I don't know what they do with their coins and paper money ...) It bothers them that those words are there, and they can't manage to leave well enough alone. They have to oppose it . . . to impose their distaste upon the people of the entire state . . . to demand that the state must change its practices to suit them.

If stupidity exist, aren't we supposed to stamp it out?

Religions, states and laws just wanted to define things differently than reality dse...