logo Sign In

Religion — Page 91

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Okay then.

moviefreakedmind said:

chyron8472 said:

Meanwhile, I know God exist inasmuch as I know I exist and that other people I encounter in real life also exist. I also know he cares about me in a similar way that I know other people who are close to me care about me. For me to say I’m not certain God exists would be in the same argument of positing that I don’t really exist nor any of my family or friends.

Do you believe you’ve been singled out by God to be cared for?

I wouldn’t use the phrase “singled out.” Cared for, yes. But singled out? In a way, yes. In a way, no. It’s not that I’m super special. I mean, why me? But then again, maybe I am to Him. Maybe everyone is to Him.

And to say “I believe in God because he’s been good to me before” as you put it sounds so… banal. There’s much more to it that that. It’s much deeper and more meaningful. And there are real things that have and do happen to me and people I know.

Maybe I am special to Him. Because He’s not just God, He’s my Father. And Jesus is not just my savior, He’s my friend.

TV’s Frink said:

chyron just put a big Ric pic in your sig and be done with it.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

The reason I asked is because––and I know that this a very tired argument against religion but it applies to statements like these––a lot of people are dealt very shitty hands in life. If you believe that an omniscient God has blessed you and befriended you, then as banal it may sound you are essentially saying that you’ve been singled out over others since a lot of people have no relationship with the God you 100% believe exists and plenty are not so blessed. A friend of mind who I don’t talk to anymore but I used to be friends when we were children was severely mistreated in his youth. He and his brothers and sisters had a maniacal father that would beat them and rape them and starve them and then at some point before or during middle school, I don’t even exactly remember, his father was jailed or died or something and then he was homeless and lived in shelters and sometimes on the streets and then even when he got older was taken advantage of and mistreated (I think he might be mildly mentally challenged or stunted somehow) so overall, a pitifully depressing life. Now, I don’t really bring that up to challenge your personal experience. I just bring it up because I have never understood why someone would find the idea pleasant that God has had a positive impact on their own life when others obviously weren’t so lucky. You say “why me?” but I think “why not him?” If I believed that somebody was choosing to better my life whilst choosing not to help someone else, I wouldn’t be comforted by that thought.

The Person in Question

Author
Time

CatBus, the problem with your imaginary duck hypothetical is that it relates to nothing. If theists viewed God in that way it would be just as nonsensical.

Most theists believe in God based on what they can perceive and find it implausible that a deity doesn’t exist based on those perceptions. There are very flawed conceptions of God and I agree with Frink, at least to an extent, that really understanding God is beyond our capacity. But that doesn’t mean we can’t have a basic (and necessarily flawed) understanding that does us some good.

The blue elephant in the room.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

@mfm

I do know people who have known serious abuse, neglect, et al. And they have shared how God has helped them and blessed them. God does not say that there will not be trouble in this life. He says He is with us through the trouble. It’s more than just comfort. It’s more than “been good to me.”

Why not them? I don’t know. Ask Him. I can’t answer that. But I also know that what they’re going through and how He can help them is between them and Him.

JEDIT:

Mrebo said:

really understanding God is beyond our capacity. But that doesn’t mean we can’t have a basic (and necessarily flawed) understanding that does us some good.

I do also agree with this. I do believe that I am wholly incapable to fully understand God. But I also believe that I understand some part of Him; that I can have a relationship based on that understanding; and that as I grow in that relationship, that understanding will grow and continue to shape itself.

TV’s Frink said:

chyron just put a big Ric pic in your sig and be done with it.

Author
Time

Along Frink’s line of reasoning, I also consider the various religious gods to be highly unlikely, for the very reason that their descriptions are comprehensible to us. Any being that could create our universe must be so many intellectual/evolutionary rungs above us, that we couldn’t possibly understand essentially anything substantive about it.

Further, I see no reason for god to try explaining anything to us. If we found some sort of primitive protozoic life on Europa, would we try explaining anything to it? Its life is all about eating, pooping, and splitting. We might feed it, but in so doing we wouldn’t be revealing anything of substance to it about us. Similarly, our life of physics, math, art, etc. would likely be so primitive compared to whatever thoughts/processes god utilizes, that I see no point in him “communicating” at all with us. I think we are just patting ourselves on the back if we think that god wants a relationship with us.

"Close the blast doors!"
Puggo’s website | Rescuing Star Wars

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Mrebo said:

CatBus, the problem with your imaginary duck hypothetical is that it relates to nothing. If theists viewed God in that way it would be just as nonsensical.

The duck was a man-made invention that was purpose-built to be an entity that can neither be disproven nor fully understood. So in that sense it’s exactly like gods – the fact that theists and atheists view such things differently was the point. The feathers were added to highlight the implausibility angle.

Most theists believe in God based on what they can perceive and find it implausible that a deity doesn’t exist based on those perceptions. There are very flawed conceptions of God and I agree with Frink, at least to an extent, that really understanding God is beyond our capacity. But that doesn’t mean we can’t have a basic (and necessarily flawed) understanding that does us some good.

And here I agree. I think religion does more good than harm, which is where I part ways with jerkwads* like Richard Dawkins. Religion helps people in tangible ways regardless of the underlying truth of the tenets (and perhaps if the duck hypothesis were more fully fleshed out, I could find a way to make belief in the duck provide similar tangible benefits). So in that sense it doesn’t matter if God exists or not, believing in him is probably a net positive if you can swing it. I just can’t swing it, that’s all.

* I know we’re supposed to be polite in the Religion thread, so I suppose I shouldn’t say “jerkwads”. What I meant was “assholes”.

Project Threepio (Star Wars OOT subtitles)

Author
Time

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

I think we are just patting ourselves on the back if we think that god wants a relationship with us.

This. It is much more plausble that we made God in our own image than it is the other way around.

Author
Time

I definitely disagree that religion does more good than harm. I don’t know how you can come to that conclusion. Maybe a personal belief in a god can be a net positive maybe, but religion definitely not.

The Person in Question

Author
Time

Yeah, religion doesn’t exactly have a great track record.

Author
Time

CatBus said:

TV’s Frink said:

CatBus said:

TV’s Frink said:

CatBus said:

Chyron knows there’s a God. He’s 100% certain of this. I know there aren’t any gods. I’m 100% certain of this as well.

How can you possibly know that? The only thing I find more unlikely than someone knowing for certain God exists is someone knowing for certain that gods don’t exist.

Basically via Occam’s Razor, but not even that philosophical. I am comfortable making the following statement:

There is absolutely, positively, not a giant pink-and-mauve duck flying in space, hidden in the dark side of the moon, with the capacity not only to survive in space, but also to be undetectable to any attempt to observe it.

Now, this duck, by its very definition, cannot be proven not to exist, yet I am absolutely certain that it does not.

Gods are far more implausible than the duck, so by extension I am certain that they also do not exist.

You do realize that the nature of God would be such that the odds are we can’t even conceptualize it, right?

As with the duck. It’s more of a wibbly-wobbly, timey-wimey astro-duck. And it ain’t there.

God :
God

Author
Time
 (Edited)

moviefreakedmind said:

I definitely disagree that religion does more good than harm. I don’t know how you can come to that conclusion. Maybe a personal belief in a god can be a net positive maybe, but religion definitely not.

Basically because all the ills commonly attributed to religion have very little if anything to do with religion. War, genocide, terrorism. IMO that’s just mankind being mankind. People just put a not-very-convincing religious gloss over these things to add legitimacy/justification to the actions they were going to do anyway. Meanwhile religion actually brought us mass literacy (where’s Gutenberg without the Bible?) and science (Mendel, Leibniz). Yeah, religion leads to some bad things too, but overall, I’d say we’re better off with it.

Project Threepio (Star Wars OOT subtitles)

Author
Time

chyron8472 said:

To explain why I’m certain would probably be one of these outer circles:

This is one of the most pretentious things I have ever seen.

Author
Time

I don’t think it’s intended that way, I think it’s more like “I have trouble expressing what I’m thinking.” But it certainly could be read your way.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

We’re definitely not better off with it in this day and age. We got mass literacy and science in spite of religion. The fact that such incredible technology was invented and implemented during the Roman Empire that was not improved upon for centuries is a great example of that. For all of your examples of furtherances, there are huge obstacles caused by religion. The opposition to evolutionary theory is a perfect example and most of the banned books throughout history have been banned because of them causing offense to religious sensibilities. Just because the Sistine Chapel is painted beautifully doesn’t mean that religion hasn’t done far more to censor art than it has to further it. Fundamentalist Islam has motivated the destruction of so many historical artifacts and works of art. Religious fundamentalism provides mankind, which I agree sucks, with an easy justification for its atrocities and even sometimes motivates its atrocities. Sane people wouldn’t be beheading people for apostasy if their religion didn’t call for it. Sane people wouldn’t be campaigning against gay rights if religion didn’t condemn homosexuality. I could go on and on.

It’s also funny that you bring up mass literacy when the Catholic Church forbid the Bible to be read or translated in any language other than Latin for centuries.

The Person in Question

Author
Time
 (Edited)

moviefreakedmind said:

We’re definitely not better off with it in this day and age. We got mass literacy and science in spite of religion. The fact that such incredible technology was invented and implemented during the Roman Empire that was not improved upon for centuries is a great example of that.

And we had soap in Roman times, lost it for a bit, and got it back again. Developments come in fits and starts.

The opposition to evolutionary theory is a perfect example and most of the banned books throughout history have been banned because of them causing offense to religious sensibilities.

Evolutionary theory? You probably mean Darwin’s theory of natural selection rather than Mendel’s theory of inheritance, because the church was cool about that one. Big radical new theories are often opposed very strongly – the Missoula Floods, for example. Opposed by scientists for quite a long time until finally the evidence was just too much. Your modern remnant opposition to Darwin, and book burning, is more about the anxiety of becoming culturally irrelevant than religious dogma.

When a huge group of people believe they’ve become irrelevant in the modern world, that anger can be channeled to achieve political aims a la the rise of Wahhabism during the Ottoman Empire. Yeah, there are some religious bones to throw, but there are usually other political aims which are paramount. Is it really a coincidence that science-denying, book-burning religious Americans are also reliably voting to make really rich people even richer? If religion didn’t exist as a tool to mobilize these voters, these same snake oil salespeople would use oh, I dunno, maybe race, to achieve the same goals.

Just because the Sistine Chapel is painted beautifully doesn’t mean that religion hasn’t done far more to censor art than it has to further it.

People like to tell other people how to live their lives. I agree religion plays a part in that, but less of a part than you’re implying.

Fundamentalist Islam has motivated the destruction of so many historical artifacts and works of art.

IMO fundamentalism is the application of hyper-literalist interpretations onto otherwise fairly sane religions, with the explicit purpose of coming to insane conclusions. You want to justify genocide? Just read enough Old Testament with enough of a literal bent and a complete disregard for context and you’ll find it. IMO fundamentalism is about seeking how to weaponize religion, it is not religion in its own right. YMMV.

Religious fundamentalism provides mankind, which I agree sucks, with an easy justification for its atrocities and even sometimes motivates its atrocities. Sane people wouldn’t be beheading people for apostasy if their religion didn’t call for it. Sane people wouldn’t be campaigning against gay rights if religion didn’t condemn homosexuality.

Aside from what I’ve already said about fundamentalism, people behave very badly to people they don’t like, that much I agree with. Were it not for religion, though, I believe people would find another justification to injure those same people. Religion provides easy justification for bad things, certainly. But I think you overlook mankind’s ability to seek out other easy justifications.

Also, I want to stress that I’m not trying to let religion off the hook completely. It does help lead to many of these things. But it is just one of many, many things.

Project Threepio (Star Wars OOT subtitles)

Author
Time

What this thread brings to my mind: a discussion between three people — a man who speaks modern American English, a man who speaks middle English, and a man who speaks Engrish. There’s some level of mutual intelligibility, but truthfully, they don’t understand each other at all and likely never will.

Author
Time

DuracellEnergizer said:

What this thread brings to my mind: a discussion between three people — a man who speaks modern American English, a man who speaks middle English, and a man who speaks Engrish. There’s some level of mutual intelligibility, but truthfully, they don’t understand each other at all and likely never will.

Can I be the Middle English guy?

And up the window did he hastily,
And out his erse he put full privily
Over the buttock, to the haunche bone.
And therewith spake this clerk, this Absolon,
“Speak, sweete bird, I know not where thou art.”
This Nicholas anon let fly a fart,
As great as it had been a thunder dent;
That with the stroke he was well nigh y-blent;
But he was ready with his iron hot,
And Nicholas amid the erse he smote.

Project Threepio (Star Wars OOT subtitles)

Author
Time
 (Edited)

chyron8472 said:

TV’s Frink said:

“I have trouble expressing what I’m thinking.”

^

see also:

chyron8472 said:

ZigZig said:

chyron8472 said:

Nuance is difficult for me in a text-only setting.

FTFY

Yes.

“Ce qui se conçoit bien s’énonce clairement” (Nicolas Boileau)

or, in English : “What is clearly thought out is clearly expressed”.

So maybe this whole idea of “I’m 100% sure that God exists but I cannot explain clearly why” is not as clearly thought as you say it is…

Author
Time
 (Edited)

ZigZig said:

chyron8472 said:

TV’s Frink said:

“I have trouble expressing what I’m thinking.”

^

see also:

chyron8472 said:

ZigZig said:

chyron8472 said:

Nuance is difficult for me in a text-only setting.

FTFY

Yes.

“Ce qui se conçoit bien s’énonce clairement” (Nicolas Boileau)

or, in English : “What is clearly thought out is clearly expressed”.

So maybe this whole idea of “I’m 100% sure that God exists but I cannot explain clearly why” is not as clearly thought as you say it is…

There’s a difference between forming an opinion, and being asked to explain why one has that opinion or how one arrived at it. I certainly know more than enough to say I’m not parroting someone else’s belief, but have arrived at my own. Plus, I haven’t actually tried to explain why I believe what I do to someone who doesn’t take me at my word.

Just because I haven’t formulated an explanation of events, ideas, and experiences that have led me to hold my opinion, and in a manner that might sway a skeptic into at least believing that I believe what I say, that doesn’t necessarily invalidate my opinion.

TV’s Frink said:

chyron just put a big Ric pic in your sig and be done with it.

Author
Time

moviefreakedmind said:

DuracellEnergizer said:

Since God dwells within everyone*, everyone has a relationship with God, regardless of whether they’re aware of it or not, whether they believe or disbelieve.

That’s my 2¢ opinion, anyway.

*Everyone born with a conscience, anyway.

I don’t like the idea that conscience is related to God. I’m very secular in morality. The idea that we need God at all to be empathetic people is, in my opinion, unfair.

FWIW, this is something I think the Dalai Lama tried to address in Beyond Religion. I don’t think he actually succeeded in what he set out to do, but it was a worthwhile effort, and I’d recommend the read.

Project Threepio (Star Wars OOT subtitles)

Author
Time
 (Edited)

CatBus said:

DuracellEnergizer said:

What this thread brings to my mind: a discussion between three people — a man who speaks modern American English, a man who speaks middle English, and a man who speaks Engrish. There’s some level of mutual intelligibility, but truthfully, they don’t understand each other at all and likely never will.

Can I be the Middle English guy?

And up the window did he hastily,
And out his erse he put full privily
Over the buttock, to the haunche bone.
And therewith spake this clerk, this Absolon,
“Speak, sweete bird, I know not where thou art.”
This Nicholas anon let fly a fart,
As great as it had been a thunder dent;
That with the stroke he was well nigh y-blent;
But he was ready with his iron hot,
And Nicholas amid the erse he smote.

How did I miss this?
That’s amazing. I laughed so hard.

JEDIT: No, I don’t recall having read The Canterbury Tales.

TV’s Frink said:

chyron just put a big Ric pic in your sig and be done with it.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

TV’s Frink said:

chyron8472 said:

JEDIT: No, I don’t recall having read The Canterbury Tales.

Really?

If I did in school, it would have been in my high school sophomore English class. But, no, I don’t recall. I remember talking about The Canterbury Tales, so I’m familiar with it, but I don’t remember having read it.

It could be that it was just so long ago. Then again, I do remember other things from that class. I just don’t remember that.

TV’s Frink said:

chyron just put a big Ric pic in your sig and be done with it.