The Faith & Religion mega Thread

Originally Posted by jamison20000e We wouldn't need to fight monsters if we'd stop making them... what is it that Fairytales get?

That is different way but same as i wrote..why not be just normal people? Fairytales? They get some kind of love in them.

Originally Posted by hazel Enorbet asked in another thread what I meant by "rational faith" as he doesn't believe in the existence of any such thing, despite having been given a fairly good example of it earlier in the thread (#3). So I thought I'd post my own definition here.

First of all thank you hazel for your thoughtful consideration to post this here, rather than derailing the other thread. I respect that a lot even though I am sometimes carried away and guilty of such tangents. Anyway, on to this one...

.. Actually I didn't say I don't believe in rational faith. I said it seems an oxymoron, which leads me to "no confidence" conclusion. The difference is slight, but I think it matters.

Originally Posted by hazel Rational faith means believing something because the evidence in favour of it seems to you more convincing than the evidence against (that's why it's rational), while accepting that other honest and intelligent people might come to a different conclusion (that's why it's called faith and not knowledge).

For me, there lies the contradiction. Granted, for things of little consequence, I do trust in the word of people who have earned such a place of trust with me with little question, unless it is about a subject where I see conflict and doubt. Then, I require evidence and that seems to be "the crux of the biscuit" - What to you (not necessarily you, hazel, but anyone) qualifies as objective evidence?

Originally Posted by hazel In the case of religious faith, that evidence might include personal religious experience, the experiences of other people whom you trust, historical evidence (how could the apostles ever have got away with the claim that Jesus had risen from the dead when the whole of Jerusalem could go and check out whether his tomb was actually empty or not?), and the degree to which the existence of God explains other things that you feel need explanation: Why does the world even exist? Why should there be anything rather than nothing? How does it come to be comprehensible to minds like ours, and so orderly and predictable that science can actually determine how it works? How come that all the fundamental constants have values that have allowed life to develop here on earth when a difference in the second decimal place in most of them would make that impossible? Where does reason come from? We routinely discount arguments that we can trace to irrational causes ("You only believe that because....") so how could our own reason arise purely from an irrational mess of electrochemical tissue? Where do right and wrong come from? Feelings about right and wrong might be planted in us by evolution, but how could they possibly correspond to anything real that would justify us taking note of them?

There is a statement regarding statistics that "if the odds of something happening to you are 1/10th of 1 percent in a group of a million, that may be accurate BUT if it does in fact happen to you, then for you, the odds are 100%". Horse... meet cart. Other than in specific and theoretical localities, we don't really know anything of nothing. In every attempt to produce a pure vacuum, there are still fluctuating fields in which particles and anti-particles wink in and out of existence endlessly. This Universe which may be the only universe or just one of many, came into existence as energy, an energy that may simply be a property or consequence of SpaceTime. We may never know exactly how that transition occurred buit that it did, we, after the fact see order simply because in order to come into existence and continue to exist it must have coherent rules, a healthy balance between chaos and order. That it does apparently has led recently...VERY recently!.. to us. We came from it. We are part of it. We are subject to the same rules as every other energy and particle in existence, or it all would likely collapse in far less that ~14 billion years.

I'm sure from things you say that you are aware that had there been perfect balance between matter and anti-matter, existence would have ended in mere moments. That there wasn't a perfect balance led to all there is, and we, in it, are incapable of comprehending any other consequence beyond "To be, or not to be" while it is possible there are other universes with completely different laws and components. I don't trust that there is. I only recognize it as possible. Still, the point is that it appears, given the timeline, this universe wasn't made to suit us. We were made to suit it.

Originally Posted by hazel I find it rational to believe in God in the face of all this but, like MensaWater in the other thread, I call it belief and not knowledge because I can't prove it conclusively to someone who is determined to believe the opposite.

I sincerely hope you have gathered from my responses that I don't begrudge you that one iota. I welcome the right to choose what to trust in for everyone as long as it isn't used to hurt others, and especially me and mine, of course. It seems to me simply a matter of what constitutes solid evidence and where we draw the line between inconsequential and meaningful. I also hope you understand that I am not "determined to believe the opposite". From my POV there is extremely little if any advantage in not being a believer and there is considerable advantage in being one. I certainly didn't seek to become an atheist. It simply happened to me as a consequence of what my standards for evidence evolved into and has never been countered by any other evidence in which I can trust.

Quite frankly it is a bit unusual for me to spend as much time as I have here in this thread on a subject of little consequence to me and if I'm thoroughly honest with myself I think I got caught up in it when I first joined this thread years ago when I was feeling the emotional impact of religions at odds, mainly Islam vs/ Christianity of course but also the increase in anti-semitism. The words of John Lennon in the song "Imagine" came to my mind and it seemed a cause worth fighting for... namely to interject some reason, demonstrate that atheists aren't necessarily bitter or immoral, and hopefully assist in an increase in tolerance to reduce powder keg conflicts that has plagued us as a species for so long.

Simple for me.

I hate to be controlled.
Ergo.
Figure it out.

Thank you, Enorbet. That was an extremely thoughtful post, not typical of a lot that you get in this thread. I'm not going to critique it thoroughly but I will make a few points.

Originally Posted by enorbet What to you (not necessarily you, hazel, but anyone) qualifies as objective evidence?

How "objective" does it have to be to qualify? Remember, we are not talking about the degree of evidence that would lead you to say "I know that men have walked on the moon." We are talking about sufficient evidence that would cause someone to believe something.

This Universe which may be the only universe or just one of many, came into existence as energy, an energy that may simply be a property or consequence of SpaceTime. We may never know exactly how that transition occurred buit that it did, we, after the fact see order simply because in order to come into existence and continue to exist it must have coherent rules, a healthy balance between chaos and order. That it does apparently has led recently...VERY recently!.. to us. We came from it. We are part of it. We are subject to the same rules as every other energy and particle in existence, or it all would likely collapse in far less that ~14 billion years.

Yes, of course. There are always possible alternative explanations for these things. The question is: do these explanations seem to me more convincing than the theistic one? In this case no. For example, I have always found it easier to believe in one God than in an infinite number of coexisting universes (which is what you need for any functioning anthropic argument). It's more economical.

Anselm hated inductive arguments precisely because they can't produce certainty. So he invented a deductive "proof" of the existence of God which I think is absolutely cock-eyed, but which would make the matter certain if it was valid. He described his attitude as one of faith seeking understanding, but I think he was actually seeking knowledge, which is a very different thing from faith.

... to demonstrate that atheists aren't necessarily bitter or immoral, and hopefully assist in an increase in tolerance to reduce powder keg conflicts that has plagued us as a species for so long.

That's why I don't think you really are an atheist. I prefer to regard people who simply feel that they have no reason to believe in God as agnostics. An atheist, in my book, is someone like Dawkins, someone who hates the whole idea of God and is determined that He should not exist. THERE IS NO GOD! GRR!!

I once witnessed a decent inductive argument for the existence of God, from a comedian. He said....

"OK guys I'm going to not only prove that God exists but that he is not a mathematician ... he's a comedian. Ready? OK many men who had healthy, bushy hair in their 20s around the age of 40 begin losing their hair which can be rather disturbing. But they needn't worry because in a few years the loss of hair on your head will be compensated. New hair will come back...growing all on it's own..... in your damned ears!!!. Now I ask you.... who else has the time and inclination to plan a 50 year punchline?"

I hope that's not offensive to anyone but I find it quite playfully funny from several points of view all the while illustrating "Leaps of Faith".

Originally Posted by hazel An atheist, in my book, is someone like Dawkins, someone who hates the whole idea of God and is determined that He should not exist. THERE IS NO GOD! GRR!!

Also known as an anti-theist: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antitheism

Originally Posted by jamison20000e Originally Posted by jsbjsb001 So I downloaded TempleOS and tried to install Agnostic 20.19, but it complained that it couldn't find libgod.200BC.so So then I tried to install firm believer 1.0, it said there was a conflict between libchristianity.so, libislam.so, libqur'an.so, libbible.so and libreligion.so, and therefore firm believer 1.0 could not be installed. So I tried to install Atheist 20.19 instead, it said "Exec format error". So I gave up on it, what a waste of time... alien

I also tried installing alien too...

It said there was a conflict between libskeptic.so and libbeliever.so And libalien.so was the incorrect version...

Unfortunately philosophical as well as political platforms are often co-opted by the most popular and reviled people that profess such views - the figureheads if you will. The ideas and concepts get boiled down to personification, almost always flawed as we all are. I don't have a problem with the concept of anti-theism in that I do think mankind would be better off once and if it grows out of what I view as a medieval throwback, but I do have rather extreme problems with the so-called "leaders" who have personified anti-theism and mainly on political terms... in fact the same terms I find in much of theism - mainly political power. Far more important to me than whether or not someone believes in a supernatural Creator is what one subscribes to politically and in this I am especially referring to force... the power to coerce.

I am against coercion in any form beyond the most basic. I'm not a Pacifist in that if you hurt me or those I love I will retaliate BUT I will also not seek to initiate hurt on anyone. "Live and let live" is far more than some tired cliche to me. It may be simple but it is not simplistic It is The Social Contract and I find physical violence reprehensible and often stupid, a last resort for those of intellect, Compassion, Tolerance, and Reason and a first resort for those who can't think of anything smarter. That's why it is often accompanied by the adjective as in "Brute Force".

I am an atheist in the sense that it is entirely my personal conclusion that no description of a Creator seems rational to me and more importantly I completely trust that no human being is even remotely capable of defining let alone comprehending one. Therefore it is absolutely to me, a Non Issue... until or unless some believer tries to coerce my life while I conform to and trust in The Social Contract.

Unfortunately, Evangelism is commonplace and often morphs into "witch hunting" and Inquisitions. It seems to me that anti-theism, at least as personified by Harris, Hitchens, Dawkens, and especially Ayaan Hirsi Ali, is guilty of that same threat of coercion. To all of those extremists who appear as if they are in opposition but yet subscribe to the same fundamental tenets of imposing on others, I say "Don't Tread on Me". That is the most fundamental code of behavior that can and should exist between two or more humans, and it doesn't require a Creator.

God Hates Finland? Who knew? People are funny.

https://imgur.com/gallery/wkJMF

Just make up stuff and try to control the situation as it unfolds.
Christians are not the only one with lock on this.

Other religions get their belief system hijacked also.

Best religious comment I have read in ages:

LAND OF THE SODOMITES just doesn't have the same, terrifying ring to it as it once did. Besides, it's not just guys that enjoy butt stuff.

Originally Posted by hazel Yes, of course. There are always possible alternative explanations for these things. The question is: do these explanations seem to me more convincing than the theistic one? In this case no. For example, I have always found it easier to believe in one God than in an infinite number of coexisting universes (which is what you need for any functioning anthropic argument). It's more economical.

Yours, as far as I know, is an original application of Ockham's razor, as an argument in favour of monotheism. String theorists will appreciate.

I prefer to regard people who simply feel that they have no reason to believe in God as agnostics. An atheist, in my book, is someone like Dawkins, someone who hates the whole idea of God and is determined that He should not exist.

A-theist: not a theist. The word is often overloaded with arbitrary interpretations, in my opinion. For instance, I can easily identify myself as an atheist without having to agree with Dawkins' positions.

Originally Posted by enorbet {...}I am an atheist in the sense that it is entirely my personal conclusion that no description of a Creator seems rational to me and more importantly I completely trust that no human being is even remotely capable of defining let alone comprehending one.{...}

But there is one description that is rational just unproovable from outside cause requires study of inside.

Originally Posted by Arcane But there is one description that is rational just unproovable from outside cause requires study of inside.

I just don't get it, Arcane. To me that makes as much sense as saying "If you want to travel all over the world, stay at home"

If Richard Dawkins did not exist, do you think American fundamentalists would have invented him?

Originally Posted by hazel If Richard Dawkins did not exist, do you think American fundamentalists would have invented him?

I get the joke but in actuality it seems to me it has been done repeatedly... and then they were tortured, "run through" or shot, pushed off bridges bound and gagged, hanged, drawn and quartered and burned at the stake.

Originally Posted by enorbet I just don't get it, Arcane. To me that makes as much sense as saying "If you want to travel all over the world, stay at home"

More or less.

Our third eye is part of our energetic body, it has been with us since the very birth of our physical body, and it has always been activated and spinning. I highly recommend to contemplate childhood experiences around the age of 3 to 5 (or as far as you can remember), and reflect on things like: confidence, truth, willpower, and trust. As children, before our mind switches to the state of conditioned being, we are ultra-sensitive and fully aligned with our spiritual selves, but as children we don’t see it that way, we’re just happy to be alive, happy to experience all that life has to offer. It’s very common for the modern human being to reach early adulthood with sever depression, anxiety and fear about life, the self, and the future. The period from age 6 to 20 is so intense and overwhelming that we completely lose ourselves in the illusion of materialism and egoism. article

As jamison2000e already wrote : we live in conditioned society where our true beliefs are ignored for benefit of everyone else.