The Faith & Religion mega Thread

Originally Posted by tyler92 On the other hand, argument on religion, faith and will take us nowhere. Since all of us have different views and belief regarding that matter.

This is slippery ground, I agree, however discussions like this may help, sometimes, to fix misconceptions on both parts. While rational thought should not automatically reject less rigorous forms as if they were pure bullsh*t, on the other hand religious thought should not reject more rigorous forms by projecting on them its own issues and contradictions. Also, when discussing things one should try at least to use words with their correct meaning, otherwise the discussion itself *will* degenerate into a mess. It's not easy to keep such a discussion on track, however sometimes it may be worth and interesting to try, while a "politically correct" form of respect might not always be the best approach.

You want argument? Ok then. Watched Animatrix? Humans are able to create - robots or other stuff doesn't matter - even in real life. So why we couldn't be created in past? If we can create and soon we will finish AI project stuff then we will be able to create biorobots etc. and we would be God's to them!

The agnostic side of me says there are two choices we are aliens or a "creator" (in it all from the same) was alien (I've planted seeds, spliced plants, enjoyed pets,) the atheist side of me says "god's" only kill (sadly preferably blindly shouldn't give them ways to feel better about it or justified.)

P.s: I made reference to a movie Snowpiercer in an edit a few back, spoiler: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowpiercer

Edit here's another just saw: http://www.hulu.com/watch/619619#pla...miere_date-asc

Originally Posted by Arcane You want argument? Ok then. Watched Animatrix? Humans are able to create - robots or other stuff doesn't matter - even in real life. So why we couldn't be created in past? If we can create and soon we will finish AI project stuff then we will be able to create biorobots etc. and we would be God's to them!

What you are citing is a work of imagination, it is *science fiction*, and as such it cannot be considered as a source of knowledge, or an argument in support of whatsoever point of view. It might be enjoyable, and suggest thrilling details of possible or impossible situations, but it remains a work of imagination, created by the movie industry for entertainment purposes. The idea that «if we can create something ourselves, then we might have been created as well» is an easy and understandable analogy, however there is no evidence that supports it, and imagination alone doesn't prove anything. On the contrary, facts show that evolution is by far the best explanation of our origins.

By the way, there's an index to creationist claims, with answers to each one of them, which is really interesting to read.

Originally Posted by jamison20000e The agnostic side of me says there are two choices we are aliens or a "creator" (in it all from the same) was alien (I've planted seeds, spliced plants, enjoyed pets,) the atheist side of me says "god's" only kill (sadly preferably blindly)

Yup, it is interesting to see how the most popular divinities that humans have conceived literally condense the best AND the worst of the human kind itself. This might be a clear suggestion about which one created the other. Regarding distinctions, the risk of (literal) atheism is that it can be easily perceived as a religion itself, whereas agnosticism is probably closer to a more open way of thinking. However I don't care much about these distinctions.

Another video from DM2525 came out Perfect Double Standard which includes visual arguments already mentioned. Too bad religious people not watch them because they provide enough discussion material.

life's not for living or dying but proving if a tree falls in a forest ... it does make a sound!

I guess that last one was more for my side, for the average religious thoughts (at lest from my point of view:) "why ask why?"


Edit\add: another thing I'd like to add (if not already,) science doesn't destroy old information found to be wrong it simply moves on where as religions try desperately to destroy facts to change truth!

An interesting work by G. Pennycook and others (University of Waterloo, ON, Canada) provides evidence in support of a negative relation between religious belief and analytic reasoning style (i.e. sensitivity to cognitive conflicts). The paper is worth reading and can be found here (PDF).

Besides, conflicts that might be experienced by a religious person, when contradictory statements do face themselves in his or her mind, might be easily explained (at least in part) with the cognitive dissonance theory proposed by L. Festinger, which might also explain very well the nature of the heavy and life-long effects that a religious education very often has on children. That is, when children are taught not to believe too much in what they see and experience themselves, drawing conclusions from their experience (as children are usually pretty keen and sharp observers, i.e. they do often have an innate scientific attitude), then their cognitive and analytic faculties will probably (and sadly) be dumbed down forever.

Cognitive dissonance theory (PDF)
Cognitive consequences of forced compliance (L. Festinger)

Originally Posted by Arcane Another video from DM2525 came out Perfect Double Standard which includes visual arguments already mentioned.

Yeah, and such conflicting issues will probably require the believer (the one who is aware of them) to do a continuous and demanding interior work, in order to neutralize them, with mixed results. Theology provides a systematized and hair-splitting version of such a work, and is a "closed-source" institution itself, which struggles in order to preserve some kind of (i.e. its own) statu quo: the problem is that usually it doesn't accept patches from the real world, and the results are often ridiculous, or dramatic.

"Poppycock!"

I grew up in the "Baptist Bible-Belt South(ern United States)," yet somehow managed to survive the experience relatively unscathed.

Furthermore, as the (never-mind just how many ...) years have creeped by, I find that I have a greater tolerance of it ... because, I think, I have a greater understanding of it.

In short: "Not only do I no longer feel that I must impose 'my answers' upon the rest of society, but I no longer believe that 'my answers' ... or anyone(!) else's!! ... are 'correct™!' "

Let me explain. Please.

Everyone, everywhere, in human society, earnestly wants to say that they possess ... "The Big-Kahuna™ Answer." That "Big Answer" could be (Dogmatic) Religion, or it could equally-well be (Dogmatic(!)) Science. Doesn't matter, really: "we got it, and therefore you don't. So There.™"

Well-l-l-l ... what if it turns out that both viewpoints are equally "right," simply because (say ...) both viewpoints are in fact "equally wrong?"

All of us are thrust upon this planet for "X many years," without being given any warning at all ... then we are plucked from it equally without warning ... within which interval we never do actually figure out "what the heaven-or-hell is really going on." Maybe we get to see The Answer two minutes after our heart stops beating ... and, heh, maybe not.

The biggest mistake that I think that any of us can possibly make, is to presume that our "Big-Kahuna™ Answer," whatever it may be, "is Right.™"

If we weren't "so cock-sure," and especially if we didn't feel the need to be "so cock-sure," perhaps we would begin to think outside the box. Perhaps we would expand our thinking wide enough to realize that both points-of-view are simultaneously valuable to the point of being precious. And that both of them, if we would but do it, could in fact live side-by-side within the breadth of human experience.

Originally Posted by sundialsvcs I grew up in the "Baptist Bible-Belt South(ern United States)," yet somehow managed to survive the experience relatively unscathed. Furthermore, as the (never-mind just how many ...) years have creeped by, I find that I have a greater tolerance of it ... because, I think, I have a greater understanding of it.

That's good.

Everyone, everywhere, in human society, earnestly wants to say that they possess ... "The Big-Kahuna Answer." That "Big Answer" could be (Dogmatic) Religion, or it could equally-well be (Dogmatic(!)) Science. Doesn't matter, really: "we got it, and therefore you don't."

This is certainly true when different religions face each other and start arguing about who's right, and it is also the attitude many people have when discussing with others. Regarding science, a "Dogmatic Science" is not science anymore, because science, being a rational, curious, prudent, collaborative approach to what there is, is the very opposite of dogmatic thought, for reasons that have already been explained in previous posts, and elsewhere. Remember that science had, at some point, to react against those who wanted to shut it down in order to protect their absolute "truths" from being dismantled by knowledge. Who was the victim then is something easy to find out. Today, the followers of those old absolutists try to project on science their own issues, which are not the issues of science at all, but theirs.

All of us are thrust upon this planet for "X many years," without being given any warning at all ... then we are plucked from it equally without warning ... within which interval we never do actually figure out "what the heaven-or-hell is really going on."

This is true, provided that when asking the question "What's really going on?" you are expecting a complete, absolute, definitive answer to every possible question ever. If there is such a heavy requirement, then of course we don't know at all what's going on. However, if we do not insist on absolute answers, we will realize that we already know quite a bit, which of course is probably nothing when compared to what we don't know. That's it, I guess we agree at least about this.

The biggest mistake that I think that any of us can possibly make, is to presume that our "Big-Kahuna Answer," whatever it may be, "is Right."

That would certainly be a big mistake, as reasoning about absolutes would be a flawed approach to any form of discussion.

If we weren't "so cock-sure," and especially if we didn't feel the need to be "so cock-sure," perhaps we would begin to think outside the box. Perhaps we would expand our thinking wide enough to realize that both points-of-view are simultaneously valuable to the point of being precious. And that both of them, if we would but do it, could in fact live side-by-side within the breadth of human experience.

I'm not sure anymore about what we are talking here. If "both of them" means a scientific, rational approach to life on the one side, and religion on the other side, then I shall ask: which religion? Because in order to embrace one I would necessarily have to discard all the others, mercilessly, along with everything else which contradicts it. Very invasive, and the choice itself would be a problem: which one is the best, the greatest of them all, the true one? However, because we want to avoid the "big answers", I guess that you are thinking about something more abstract and vague, like "spirituality", or "something which is above us", or "the feeling of something greater then us". Then I might call it "everything which we don't know", or "that, which we are not even able to talk about", and I'd consider myself more that satisfied.

Originally Posted by Philip Lacroix I'm not sure anymore about what we are talking here. If "both of them" means a scientific, rational approach to life on the one side, and religion on the other side, then I shall ask: which religion? Because in order to embrace one I would necessarily have to discard all the others, mercilessly, along with everything else which contradicts it. Very invasive, and the choice itself would be a problem: which one is the best, the greatest of them all, the true one?

I disagree. Choosing one religion doesnt mean discarding all the others. Its something that is commonly believed, but its mostyly a feature of the monothestic and middle eastern religions (e.g. judaism, christianity, islam, to some degree zoroastrianism).

In the far eastern and in some traditional religions, its basicly a non issue.

BTW, I do find your 'the best, the greatest of them all' interesting. Sometimes it seems to me that there has been a bit of an arms war between the monothestic religions and the varius sects they have, where the weapons are dogma, philospohy and and whatever claptrap can be dreamt up with them (e.g. descartes).

Originally Posted by cascade9 Choosing one religion doesnt mean discarding all the others. Its something that is commonly believed, but its mostyly a feature of the monothestic and middle eastern religions (e.g. judaism, christianity, islam, to some degree zoroastrianism). In the far eastern and in some traditional religions, its basicly a non issue.

Thanks for pointing this out. I'm aware of that, however in contexts where aggressive religious kinds, sects or movements are pervasive, the natural tendency is to associate the concept of "religion" with that kind of exclusive attitude. I agree that we should better call these particular cases "aggressive and dogmatic religious kinds with universalistic claims".

BTW, I do find your 'the best, the greatest of them all' interesting. Sometimes it seems to me that there has been a bit of an arms war between the monothestic religions and the varius sects they have, where the weapons are dogma, philospohy and and whatever claptrap can be dreamt up with them (e.g. descartes).

That's true, and real weapons were also used when convenient. Of course religion is sometimes (as the past teaches) a mere pretext in order to achieve less transparent, more mundane goals. Take for example the Thirty Years' Slaughter (hem... war) which sweetly entertained Europe in the XVII century. Today things cannot be done so blatantly anymore, there are more subtle ways, but religion can still be used as a powerful weapon that allows to manoeuvre minds collectively and efficiently. Take more recent events, when "Crusades" where invoked to describe the "need" for long-term bombing of foreign lands, or the revival of the ancient "Good vs. Evil" myth (where "Good" means "we", whereas "Evil" means "them") which of course would imply the need for an "Infinite Justice" (i.e. "war", "predation", and so on). One might say that these are "only words", however when such bullsh*t is used repeatedly among properly oriented and brain-washed minds (and "guts"), it can make a huge difference when it comes to decide who's going to be in charge, i.e. in the control room. Besides, such words were followed by real, bloody facts. Follow the guts for too long, trusting obscurity, then the bad damage will be done and it will probably be too late to go back.

Oh, and (again) I'm not dismissing at all things such as feelings, emotions, beauty, marvel, love, and so on and so forth. What I'm addressing here is the organized (and sometimes aggressive) promotion of ignorance and intolerance, which is a de facto description of what many religious organizations actually do. Of course there are also many non-religious organizations that do this, but then we would be slightly off-topic.

I'm glad I got public schooled so I could choose from more rational brainwashing. If it had much to do with it? As a kid in sunday school I knew then it was fabales and some good rules to live by.

Edit\add: thank "god" I was not tought as a: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannibalism

Cannibalism (f-ing clueless bastards!)

Originally Posted by sundialsvcs {...}The biggest mistake that I think that any of us can possibly make, is to presume that our "Big-Kahuna™ Answer," whatever it may be, "is Right.™"{...}

Not if your presumption(s) are based on existing valid points! Take Kundalini for example - everyone has it but only few people have access to it on regular basis like switch On&Off.
BTW: Kundalini supports Creation.
Speaking about kundalini - watch this mandatory video about kundalini power i finally managed to put because youtube has bs policies!