The Faith & Religion mega Thread

I've actually never believed in those silly things. I was raised by firmly agnostic parents. I was baptized by my great grandfather only because of my mothers respect for him, not out of any inclination of religious necessity

Previously in LQ:

Originally Posted by Grife Could any religious person give me just one good reason to believe in supernatural god-beings?

Originally Posted by Simon You mean for oneself or for other people?

Originally Posted by Grife ... maybe some of the religious ones here could enlighten me with some good reasons. I'm sure all of you have a good reason.

Doesn't directly answer the question. But you seem to be asking for "the good reason" that I myself, personally, believe? What is, as it were, my good reason for such a belief.

This presupposes that I need a good reason, or any reason at all. In my personal case, for eg, I have more fun that way ... specifically: I get laid more.

A good reason for others to believe (see my question)? Because it makes them easier to manipulate. That way you can set yourself up with power over them, if you are that way inclined. Remember: power corrupts, but absolute power is fun.

There is nothing "written on the hearts" of any men (or women).

Maybe not on the heart but definitely on the brain. Consult your local neurobiologist to find out more. If (s)he is keeping up with the current state of research, you will learn that religion triggers areas in the brain that are not activated by anything else.

Yes, it is personal experience. Mere personal experience.Even trivial personal experience

Says enough. If you think that your rational world view justifies trampling people's experiences and feelings underfoot, it isn't any better than religion. We have seen quite a few versions of this: "You are nothing, your God/nation/ancestors... is everything." Maybe if you stopped kidding yourself, you'd end up seeing that personal experiences are all that make life worth living. Or do you choose your company and surroundings on scientific grounds?

What failings are those precisely? Because I fail to acknowledge something which provides no evidence for itself? that's not a failing.That's called being rational.

Yes, and you should be proud of your rationalism. Rationalism has more blood on its hands than all the religious fundamentalists since the dawn of time. I tend to prefer reason over rationality.

Basically, god is a nipple for adults.

Ah yes, the French positivist argument. Maybe non-believers refuse the nipple because they have found a better one?

rocks , metals , minerals , seeds and animals are for mankind to cut , to study , to extract , to pound , to step on , to exploit , to rip off , many manytime even to sing about ... and to bring home ...

they are here to serve mankind ... and they are just that ... mankind not moving forward and not moving backward ... it is time and age , protein and egg yolk ...

now , why are we so different ... ?? hell , we dont even need to think before this questioning ...

how are we going to "advance" forward ... ?? by the way of stones and marbles ... ?? gold and silver ... ?? wood and clay ... ?? pocelein and glass ... ?? probably mankind need to be able to see something else out of all these which animals simply cant let alone the rest of earth's toys that are at the same level "precisely" like our animals ...

mankind need to be tamed and domestized with coercion and compliancy by abstractions ... certain amount of "confession" may be needed though as mankind cant just follow "the path of nature" which is not quite enough for mankind however people may find long lost wisdoms(as if like real mankind dropped them somewhere in the woods long long time ago)out of them ...

we need something else and more ... probably we need to look forward ...




.

Originally Posted by Tinkster Define reason? If it's something that "makes sense" I'd happy to try; if it's based on the delusion that humans can be purely rational, and you're asking for a proof of the existence of God - sorry, I can't. Cheers, Tink

In the context I gave you really can't start playing with words, it's dead simple question. I'm not asking a proof of God as there isn't any, I just want to get one good reason to believe in God.

Originally Posted by JMJ_coder Hello, Look at the awe inspiring creation. Even the most ardent skeptic still doesn't know how creation started. They say it started with the Big Bang (which is a theory created by a Catholic Priest, by the way) and I do believe in the Big Bang. But ask them where did the matter of the Big Bang come from - or how did the Big Bang get ignited? They don't know. The scientists can only get as far as about a billionth of a second after the Big Bang. But I know - God said let there be light <BIG BANG> and there was light. Look at morality. What can explain the transcendence of morality throughout mankind. We just know that it is wrong to steal, murder, lie, etc. The reason is because God has written His law upon our hearts. If you want a more indepth discussion, I recommend this book for reading: Reasons to Believe by Dr. Scott Hahn

That's not a good reason. "God of the gaps" is very very lame reason to believe in God, almost insulting if you think about it. Besides, if you really wonder complexity of nature and wonder how it could just happen and come to conclusion that something had to make it, then you are having very very bad logic as well. If something created something as seemingly uncertain as the whole Universe, then surely the creator had to be much more complex himself than the whole Universe, thus making the creator just that much more uncertain to exist him/her/itself.

Gaps in knowledge != God

Jeebizz, your funny!
I believe in Linux it never lets me down! I'm not big on the idea we're here because of incest. Being Atheist pretty much stops a person from being exploited. Strange topic for a Linux forum.

Originally Posted by dad Strange topic for a Linux forum.

General is an off-topic. But yes, usually religious threads are closed rather quickly. It seems this one has survived cause members are being mature about the discussion instead of letting it turn personal and into flames.

Gaps in knowledge != God

Yeah, but that idea is irrelevant anyway. Think about it, a believer of the monotheistic kind must believe that God is one and all-inclusive. Defining God as what has not been explained in scientific terms yet would be nonsense. It would make for a shrinking God who for some reason also hasn't got anything to do with much of the universe.
I think it's much more convincing to return to the ideas of the first christian theologians, who defined God as the foundation of knowledge and the universe. For example, why is it that circles are round? Why does gravity exist? What is the point of moral judgments? All of these questions can be analyzed scientifically and in much detail too - but science can never give the ultimate answer because it can't even justify itself. By justify I mean: prove irrefutably that it has to be practiced and that its findings are beyond dispute.
Maybe evolutionary biologists will point out that science is a feature of the human species that emerged at some point in history - but that still doesn't tell us that it needs to continue. At one point in time we also practiced cannibalism and slavery. Not to mention that from an evolutionary perspective, "knowledge" is a questionable concept as it depends on the human constitution. Imagine what the world would be like if we had a dog's nose or a bat's sonar. There's a good chance that much of our knowledge would then appear to be not only wrong or at least incomplete; more importantly, much of it would be considered irrelevant. However, if one believes in God - any God, one is also convinced that there really is some universal truth . Something that no scientist with a little common sense can ever claim for his/her own discipline.
But frankly, as a gnostic, I couldn't care less about the relationship between God and the "creation". Or I do but only to the extent that gnosticism teaches that anything material (the universe, man, science, even organized religions) are the creation of a lower manifestation of God that many mistake for the real thing. Looking at nature to discover God or the truth or whatever is bound to fail because the material world is itself a failure.

Originally Posted by jay73 I think it's much more convincing to return to the ideas of the first Christian theologians, who defined God as the foundation of knowledge and the universe. For example, why is it that circles are round?

Who says they need a reason? Now, how it is that there is "roundness"... what is it about our symbology that requires the classification of shape in this way? These are interesting questions in psychology.

Why does gravity exist?

Who says it needs a reason. Now, how it is that bodies exhibit mass and gravitation... especially considering the statistical nature of energy and position... these are interesting questions in physics.

What is the point of moral judgments?

They are an emergent behavior in our evolution. Otherwise no point.

All of these questions can be analyzed scientifically and in much detail too

Indeed - all of these form an important part of study in the fields indicated.

but science can never give the ultimate answer

That would be "42".

because it can't even justify itself.

Who says it needs to, and what does justice have to do with it anyway?
By justify I mean: prove irrefutably that it has to be practiced and that its findings are beyond dispute.[/quote]This is a straw man: science doesn't need to do these things. In fact, the practise of science is such that no finding is befond dispute.

Maybe evolutionary biologists will point out that science is a feature of the human species that emerged at some point in history - but that still doesn't tell us that it needs to continue.

Another straw man: nobody is claiming that science "needs" to continue. Some of us just think that it is doing well so far. Chances are there will come a way of knowing that replaces science. (Though the people using it will probably use terms we'd translate as "science".) Aleady, the science we practise is substantially different to the science practised by Newton.

Not to mention that from an evolutionary perspective, "knowledge" is a questionable concept as it depends on the human constitution. Imagine what the world would be like if we had a dog's nose or a bat's sonar. There's a good chance that much of our knowledge would then appear to be not only wrong or at least incomplete; more importantly, much of it would be considered irrelevant.

Well - incomplete anyway. Considering the effect our circumstances and scale in things affects our measurements and the kind of observations we make is an important exercise for students of science. This is also why scientists are always seeking alternate points of view.

However, if one believes in God - any God, one is also convinced that there really is some universal truth . Something that no scientist with a little common sense can ever claim for his/her own discipline.

But the God one believes in is' itself, a social and evolutionary construct. Just the same way as "knowlegde" you described before. What sort of gods would we believe in if we had a dogs nose or a bats hearing? And why do we need a "universal truth" (whatever that is) anyway?

But frankly, as a gnostic, I couldn't care less about the relationship between God and the "creation". Or I do but only to the extent that gnosticism teaches that anything material (the universe, man, science, even organized religions) are the creation of a lower manifestation of God that many mistake for the real thing. Looking at nature to discover God or the truth or whatever is bound to fail because the material world is itself a failure.

But we can investigate the nature of the failure.

Gnosticism is pretty good on the problem of evil, but suffers a double-dose of the issue of simplicity (now you need two supernatural beings, and a posited relationship between them) along with an inconsistency (unless the greater part of God is unaware of what the lesser is doing and has done). Also doesn't account for how it is that the universe makes sence as much as it does. Or the existence of roundness in circles and all those other things you opened the post with.

And, we can still get a long way by examining a mistake. So far, it looks good that what gnosticism teaches is wrong.

Originally Posted by jay73 Maybe not on the heart but definitely on the brain. Consult your local neurobiologist to find out more. If (s)he is keeping up with the current state of research, you will learn that religion triggers areas in the brain that are not activated by anything else.

You're right, there is a place in the brain that can trigger an intense feeling of there being a spiritual presence nearby. Searching for God in the Brain - Scientific American That can easily be seen as simply more evidence that gods are a delusion brought on by a difference in brain chemistry. It seems in that article that the feeling was triggered not by "God" but by focused electromagnetic stimulation. That kind of throws your argument here right out the proverbial window.

Originally Posted by jay73 Says enough. If you think that your rational world view justifies trampling people's experiences and feelings underfoot, it isn't any better than religion. We have seen quite a few versions of this: "You are nothing, your God/nation/ancestors... is everything." Maybe if you stopped kidding yourself, you'd end up seeing that personal experiences are all that make life worth living. Or do you choose your company and surroundings on scientific grounds?

You clearly misunderstood my intent with that statement. JMJ_Coder was trying to say that his experiences and feelings somehow equated real external evidence, even Law. I will trample that sophistry at any opportunity. If all he said was that those were his thoughts and that they were not indicitave of anyone else's thoughts, I would have been fine with it.

Originally Posted by jay73 Yes, and you should be proud of your rationalism. Rationalism has more blood on its hands than all the religious fundamentalists since the dawn of time.

Really? I'll have to ask for proof here. I'm of the thought that neither religion nor rationalism have been the main case of atrocious acts through history, rather power was the main cause. With either reason or religion being just one of a myriad of excuses used along the way.

Originally Posted by jay73 I tend to prefer reason over rationality.

I must assume that you think "God" is a reasonable proposition. Why?

I'm so tired of the "there is no absolute truth/morality without god/religion" - argument... and science doesn't have the answers... Neither does religion!... or does it? - I'll make these questions double-spaced for easy multi-quoting.

What are the absolute moral values your religion provides?

What is the universal truth about something?

What is the purpose of our life?

Originally Posted by jay73 Yeah, but that idea is irrelevant anyway. Think about it, a believer of the monotheistic kind must believe that God is one and all-inclusive. Defining God as what has not been explained in scientific terms yet would be nonsense. It would make for a shrinking God who for some reason also hasn't got anything to do with much of the universe. I think it's much more convincing to return to the ideas of the first christian theologians, who defined God as the foundation of knowledge and the universe. For example, why is it that circles are round? Why does gravity exist? What is the point of moral judgments? All of these questions can be analyzed scientifically and in much detail too - but science can never give the ultimate answer because it can't even justify itself. By justify I mean: prove irrefutably that it has to be practiced and that its findings are beyond dispute.

You are saying that as if that was a bad thing... who cares. You search, and what you find is what you find. A circle is round because if it wasn't round it wouldn't be a circle :P... But ultimately, who cares.

At one point in time we also practiced cannibalism and slavery. Not to mention that from an evolutionary perspective, "knowledge" is a questionable concept as it depends on the human constitution.

You're absolutely right.

Imagine what the world would be like if we had a dog's nose or a bat's sonar. There's a good chance that much of our knowledge would then appear to be not only wrong or at least incomplete; more importantly, much of it would be considered irrelevant.

We have a dogs nose, a bats sonar - actually much better, and we can see the whole spectrum of light because we have built machines to do it for us.

However, if one believes in God - any God, one is also convinced that there really is some universal truth . Something that no scientist with a little common sense can ever claim for his/her own discipline.

- That nobody with a little common sense can claim for him or her.

Originally Posted by oskar What is the purpose of our life according to your god?

I'm not religious but that's a given answer: To worship.

If you weren't worshiped, then you are not a God, at least by definition.

Originally Posted by jay73 There's a good chance that much of our knowledge would then appear to be not only wrong or at least incomplete; more importantly, much of it would be considered irrelevant. However, if one believes in God - any God, one is also convinced that there really is some universal truth . Something that no scientist with a little common sense can ever claim for his/her own discipline.

Thanks for a lenghty post, I'll just quote the part which seems to answer my question "Good reason to believe in God?".

So a good reason to believe in God is to justify existence of universal truth in the mind of a believer? As you mentioned, belief in any God is enough and that in turn just brings up some universal truth. Isn't that just plain self-deception? What are the gains? Peace of mind? Please elaborate further.

EDIT: "some universal truth" is very absurd concept. there oughta be only one universal truth (whatever it is) but saying "some universal truth" puts that universal truth actually in plural form, thus mentioning possibility of more than one universal truths which by simple logic isn't possible. at all.