Serious Does some sort of God exist? And why?

Thoughts on the following?

"It is often argued that science and religion are enemies, because both seek the truth, yet each finds a different truth.

The fact is that science and religion are allies. Science is interested above all in power. Religion is interested above all in order. Together, they are a winning team.

Science is a very expensive affair, and it has managed to achieve wonders thanks only to the willingness of governments and businesses to channel billions into research and development. Governments and businesses have funded science not out of pure curiosity, but because they believe it can help them gain more power and attain some cherished goals. And who sets these goals? Not science – but religions and ideologies.

Our religious and ideological beliefs are the ultimate source of funding for science, and in return, they get to shape the scientific agenda and to determine what to do with the resulting discoveries."

http://www.ynharari.com/topic/science-and-religion/

I know this doesn't really touch on what you said, but it's just something I'd like to hear your opinion on given that your statement was already challenged (plus you also sort of pointed out a contradiction in your own statement...). I think the bolded in particular is quite an interesting idea.



ISIS isn't a religion (and neither are extremist christian groups). I think I understand your point though.

In response, I'd like to ask you if it is your belief that a society free from religion is an ideal society then? Do you have any thoughts on countries/states that have/had atheism as their national doctrine? e.g. Cambodia under the Khmer Rogue, the USSR, North Korea, current China, or any of the countries listed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism ?

I think my initial question remains unanswered. How exactly is religion holding back humanity? ISIS exists and yet we live in an era of unparalleled prosperity - I guess the argument would be that we are at this point in spite of religion and its efforts to keep us in the dark ages. But I'm not sure I'm really convinced by that.
In regards to the thing you quoted regarding science and religion there are two things I take strong objection to. The first is that science is about power- this is blatantly false and shows a fundamental misunderstanding of scientific principles. Science is at its core a process based upon logic, critical thinking and the process of developing theories that make specific, testable hypotheses about how the world around us works and then testing those hypotheses. Nowhere in that description does power play a role. Even the depiction of science as an entity with particular motivations is inaccurate as there is no one scientific body dictating goals and such, but instead an open community where anyone can challenge any given claim if they've got the evidence to back it up. Institutions like the catholic church can easily be said to be more about power than science, while on the flipside science has disciplines such as paleontology and evolutionary biology, which aren't exactly of much use for those interested in power.

Secondly, conflating religion and ideologies is just sooooo wrong. Ideology is a very broad term that can describe a massive range of positions on various issues, and ideologies derived from religion are only a small subset of this. This seems like a logical fallacy on the part of the author (cbf looking up the proper one), hoping to bundle religion alongside general ideologies in a way that can be claimed to be valid in that it's true of ideologies but not always true of religion, but nonetheless misleads by implying that religion is the source of all scientific advances, a claim that is blatantly false.

In regards to the question of nations with atheism as their doctrine, it's pretty obviously implying that an atheist state is morally bankrupt, resulting in the kinds of dictatorships you list as examples. This is an invalid conclusion as it falsely attributes causality to atheism, ignoring the real reason the societies you describe can be considered objectionable; that they are dictatorships, and to varying extents prevented their citizens from deviating from atheism. If you were to assert that atheism was responsible for these countries forming dictatorships, then I'd have to ask for evidence because such a claim seems extremely implausible. A healthy society wouldn't enforce any "official" religion, instead leaving the people free to believe what they believe most accurate, like in most democracies. There's also the obligatory point that there are plenty of dictatorships arising from religious ideologies as well, but I don't think you meant to imply otherwise
 

TMan87

We shall bow to neither master nor god
is a Site Content Manageris a Forum Moderatoris a Community Contributoris a Top Smogon Media Contributor
Thoughts on the following?

"It is often argued that science and religion are enemies, because both seek the truth, yet each finds a different truth.

The fact is that science and religion are allies. Science is interested above all in power. Religion is interested above all in order. Together, they are a winning team.

Science is a very expensive affair, and it has managed to achieve wonders thanks only to the willingness of governments and businesses to channel billions into research and development. Governments and businesses have funded science not out of pure curiosity, but because they believe it can help them gain more power and attain some cherished goals. And who sets these goals? Not science – but religions and ideologies.

Our religious and ideological beliefs are the ultimate source of funding for science, and in return, they get to shape the scientific agenda and to determine what to do with the resulting discoveries."

http://www.ynharari.com/topic/science-and-religion/

I know this doesn't really touch on what you said, but it's just something I'd like to hear your opinion on given that your statement was already challenged (plus you also sort of pointed out a contradiction in your own statement...). I think the bolded in particular is quite an interesting idea.



ISIS isn't a religion (and neither are extremist christian groups). I think I understand your point though.

In response, I'd like to ask you if it is your belief that a society free from religion is an ideal society then? Do you have any thoughts on countries/states that have/had atheism as their national doctrine? e.g. Cambodia under the Khmer Rogue, the USSR, North Korea, current China, or any of the countries listed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism ?

I think my initial question remains unanswered. How exactly is religion holding back humanity? ISIS exists and yet we live in an era of unparalleled prosperity - I guess the argument would be that we are at this point in spite of religion and its efforts to keep us in the dark ages. But I'm not sure I'm really convinced by that.
Maybe I'll repeat what has been said above, but while science is obviously funded with people having a certain goal in mind (nations fund research because they want to discover new technologies to turn into products that they can sell, for example), science itself seeks to gather knowledge and does not have an end goal per se. Fundamental research just investigates anything that's reachable, applied research turns the results into added value.

Is a society free from religion an ideal society? Probably not, as religion does have some benefits, but I'd rather have it toned down and playing a strictly "moral support" role. Maybe something akin to spiritualities (like buddhism probably, though I don't know much about this field)?
 
In my opinion the sooner religion dies the better. There may well be some kind of afterlife, but all the evidence indicates that this is the only life you're going to get so you might as well make it count for something. Nobody ever started a war over who believed in less gods.
 
In regards to the thing you quoted regarding science and religion there are two things I take strong objection to. The first is that science is about power- this is blatantly false and shows a fundamental misunderstanding of scientific principles. Science is at its core a process based upon logic, critical thinking and the process of developing theories that make specific, testable hypotheses about how the world around us works and then testing those hypotheses. Nowhere in that description does power play a role. Even the depiction of science as an entity with particular motivations is inaccurate as there is no one scientific body dictating goals and such, but instead an open community where anyone can challenge any given claim if they've got the evidence to back it up. Institutions like the catholic church can easily be said to be more about power than science, while on the flipside science has disciplines such as paleontology and evolutionary biology, which aren't exactly of much use for those interested in power.
I think you're misunderstanding what Harari is trying to say. The rest of the quote does a better job of putting the phrase in context. You're agreeing with Harari by saying that science has no particular motivations - that's precisely what Harari is arguing. What drives the type of science that is done is religion and ideology. In a vacuum, yeah, science is exactly as you state it. But the world does not exist in a vacuum and so the realities of the world impose themselves upon science and that has to do with political/economic/religious motivations. The power of science is that it creates new technologies that give power to those behind the science. At least that would be my interpretation of it.

I think you would agree that not all science is equal? Certain science is just more useful/relevant to society than others. cba to look it up but my guess is that things like nuclear research and cancer research weren't done for any pure pursuit of knowledge or something like that.

Secondly, conflating religion and ideologies is just sooooo wrong. Ideology is a very broad term that can describe a massive range of positions on various issues, and ideologies derived from religion are only a small subset of this. This seems like a logical fallacy on the part of the author (cbf looking up the proper one), hoping to bundle religion alongside general ideologies in a way that can be claimed to be valid in that it's true of ideologies but not always true of religion, but nonetheless misleads by implying that religion is the source of all scientific advances, a claim that is blatantly false.
I don't really understand the point you're trying to make here or what is a fallacy (and I think you're again missing the main idea). I think your confusion is based off the first sentence which discusses religion but not ideology? Harari seems to view ideologies as religions which is what I think he's doing there.

Here's another quote that justifies his logic in case you're wondering at all.

"Godless religions are nothing new. Thousands of years ago Buddhism put its trust in the natural laws of karma and paṭiccasamuppāda (dependent origination) rather than almighty deities. In recent centuries creeds such as communism and Nazism have also upheld a system of norms and values based on allegedly natural laws rather than on the commandments of some supernatural being. These modern creeds prefer to call themselves “ideologies” rather than “religions” but, seen from a long-term perspective, they play a role analogous to that of traditional faiths such as Christianity and Hinduism. Both Christianity and communism were created by human beings rather than by gods, and are defined by their social functions rather than by the existence of deities. In essence, religion is anything that legitimises human norms and values by arguing that they reflect some superhuman order.

I don't really see the issue with conflating religion and ideologies - aren't you saying that religions are a subset of ideologies...not sure I see the issue then. If you don't agree - where would you say scientific advances come from? luck?

In regards to the question of nations with atheism as their doctrine, it's pretty obviously implying that an atheist state is morally bankrupt, resulting in the kinds of dictatorships you list as examples. This is an invalid conclusion as it falsely attributes causality to atheism, ignoring the real reason the societies you describe can be considered objectionable; that they are dictatorships, and to varying extents prevented their citizens from deviating from atheism. If you were to assert that atheism was responsible for these countries forming dictatorships, then I'd have to ask for evidence because such a claim seems extremely implausible. A healthy society wouldn't enforce any "official" religion, instead leaving the people free to believe what they believe most accurate, like in most democracies. There's also the obligatory point that there are plenty of dictatorships arising from religious ideologies as well, but I don't think you meant to imply otherwise
I'm not trying to imply anything regarding an atheist state except that perhaps it is not the end all be all as some posters seem to be suggesting itt. your conclusion is in fact my point and is essentially what I'm trying to say - if a "healthy society" is one that doesn't enforce any official religion, doesn't that essentially describe...most of the first world ???

So that leads me back to my initial question: how is religion holding humanity back? if it's not holding back humanity, why the need to get worked up about it? i really dont get it
 
One could argue that secular philosophy provides just as much of an ideological backbone for a society's goals and subsequently scientific funding. One could also argue that a sufficiently well ingrained secular philosophy is functionally similar to institutionalized religion. But yes, it's indisputable that the questions that religion attempts to answer are very important. If we as a whole were more self aware about the role of religion and our role in shaping its impact we might have a healthier community.
like I said in response to Ortheore, Harari's definition of religion seems to encompass more than just what is typicial thought of as religion. I think he considers/would consider secular philosophy to be the same.

I guess your other question depends on what kind of prosperity you're talking about? Like sure we can have religion and coexist with science and science funding or economic prosperity or peace time or whatever, but I'd argue we have long cultural strides to make with this specific implementation of institutionalized religion holding us back.
I mean, I'm talking about economic prosperity, quality of life, life expectancy, etc. I'm saying there's no better time to be human than right now.

I guess happiness doesn't really apply because I'm not really sure we are happier than we were before but I really just don't know.

How is institutionalized religion holding us back? Do you have any specific examples? I can think of a lot of things that are "holding us back" that go beyond organized religion.

Maybe I'll repeat what has been said above, but while science is obviously funded with people having a certain goal in mind (nations fund research because they want to discover new technologies to turn into products that they can sell, for example), science itself seeks to gather knowledge and does not have an end goal per se. Fundamental research just investigates anything that's reachable, applied research turns the results into added value.

Is a society free from religion an ideal society? Probably not, as religion does have some benefits, but I'd rather have it toned down and playing a strictly "moral support" role. Maybe something akin to spiritualities (like buddhism probably, though I don't know much about this field)?
Is buddhism not a religion? Religion toned down from what? What do you mean by that/

In my opinion the sooner religion dies the better. There may well be some kind of afterlife, but all the evidence indicates that this is the only life you're going to get so you might as well make it count for something. Nobody ever started a war over who believed in less gods.
lol
 

Asek

Banned deucer.
In my opinion the sooner religion dies the better. There may well be some kind of afterlife, but all the evidence indicates that this is the only life you're going to get so you might as well make it count for something. Nobody ever started a war over who believed in less gods.
Why do you boil down the purposes or religion to a) justify war and b) provide some sense of afterlife? have you ever been involved with any kind of faith or at the very least studied religion before?

To provide just one example of where religion has impacted society, look at the consitutions / legal documents of most of the worlds western democracies. The laws and rights contained within a lot of these documents loan off catholic moral teaching, hell a fair amount of these documents contain explicit reference to god. Do you think the rights we have and laws we follow (assuming you are from a fellow western democracy here....) would be as they are without the strong influence christianity had on society? Perhaps for a more modern example you should hear speeches from the pope, or read some papal encyclicals from pope francis. You will find the church has been quite vocal in supporting awareness on the issue of global warming, and is well known for speaking for the syrian refugees who cannot speak for themselves.... issues in which other powerful institutions in the world (without naming names) have been ambivalent or just chosen to ignore.

Im not going to try argue that war hasnt been fought for religions sake but behind every conflict that is 'fuelled' by religion / faith there exists much more real political reasons for those parties to be going to war (i.e for the most commonly cited example, the crusades, the waning influence of the byzantine empire over the middle east / anatolia in general played a huge role in the papacys descision to support the crusades...)

Ultimate reality is an important part of christianity (cannot speak too much for other religions here), but ultimately just a part in a very big group of teachings and belief system. Your understanding or religion as only really providing that is pretty shallow....

this is at least the second time ive seen you popping off about religion when in all honesty you seem extremely uninformed on the subject. I suggest doing some basic research as to what religion actually entails before coming into threads preaching how better off we would be without religion.
 

TMan87

We shall bow to neither master nor god
is a Site Content Manageris a Forum Moderatoris a Community Contributoris a Top Smogon Media Contributor
Is buddhism not a religion? Religion toned down from what? What do you mean by that
Buddhism, to me, is a more "friendly" type of religion, probably because I see it being based around principles that don't require all of humanity to follow them. From what little I know about it, it really is more a lifestyle than it is a religion in the western sense, and I don't think buddhists (or taoists) really interfere in stuff like state affairs, which is my main problem with the three western monotheist religions (each one of them has some sort of direct influence in the political system of at least one country).
Feel free to prove me wrong if you are more knowlegdeable about it though, but this is how I see it from my limited point of view.
 

Asek

Banned deucer.
Buddhism, to me, is a more "friendly" type of religion, probably because I see it being based around principles that don't require all of humanity to follow them. From what little I know about it, it really is more a lifestyle than it is a religion in the western sense, and I don't think buddhists (or taoists) really interfere in stuff like state affairs, which is my main problem with the three western monotheist religions (each one of them has some sort of direct influence in the political system of at least one country).
Feel free to prove me wrong if you are more knowlegdeable about it though, but this is how I see it from my limited point of view.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Muslims_in_Myanmar
may be of interest to you
 
Why do you boil down the purposes or religion to a) justify war and b) provide some sense of afterlife? have you ever been involved with any kind of faith or at the very least studied religion before?

To provide just one example of where religion has impacted society, look at the consitutions / legal documents of most of the worlds western democracies. The laws and rights contained within a lot of these documents loan off catholic moral teaching, hell a fair amount of these documents contain explicit reference to god. Do you think the rights we have and laws we follow (assuming you are from a fellow western democracy here....) would be as they are without the strong influence christianity had on society? Perhaps for a more modern example you should hear speeches from the pope, or read some papal encyclicals from pope francis. You will find the church has been quite vocal in supporting awareness on the issue of global warming, and is well known for speaking for the syrian refugees who cannot speak for themselves.... issues in which other powerful institutions in the world (without naming names) have been ambivalent or just chosen to ignore.

Im not going to try argue that war hasnt been fought for religions sake but behind every conflict that is 'fuelled' by religion / faith there exists much more real political reasons for those parties to be going to war (i.e for the most commonly cited example, the crusades, the waning influence of the byzantine empire over the middle east / anatolia in general played a huge role in the papacys descision to support the crusades...)

Ultimate reality is an important part of christianity (cannot speak too much for other religions here), but ultimately just a part in a very big group of teachings and belief system. Your understanding or religion as only really providing that is pretty shallow....

this is at least the second time ive seen you popping off about religion when in all honesty you seem extremely uninformed on the subject. I suggest doing some basic research as to what religion actually entails before coming into threads preaching how better off we would be without religion.
I'm not denying that religion has contributed in a good way to the world, and there have been people who did great things for their god.

The purpose of religion (at least those with the heaven / hell system, can't speak for others) is control. Control through a combination of hollow promises and fear. Why do you think the ancient Greek & Roman religions have all but dissapeared? They couldn't compete with Christianity, as that has a reward for living a good life and punishment for living a bad one - in the Greek/Roman religion, everyone went to the Underworld. Christianity was far better for controlling the masses. The purpose of religion is to turn you into a blind slave - follow god without question, and you'll be rewarded. Don't worry about the problems in your life - this one's just a test.

The world will be better off without religion. It would encourage people to improve their own lives, instead of hoping for something better when they die. It wouldn't make the world a perfect utopia - humanity is too flawed for that to ever happen. But it would be a good start. Just imagine if you'd never heard of Christianity, and someone told you all that stuff tomorrow. You'd think "that's stupid".

And to answer your question, yes I was part of a religion. I went to 2 Chruch schools and have read the bible.

Welp, another proof that religion wars aren't over.
Isn't there any completely pacifist religion/spirituality/whatever out there?
Maybe Wicca? Off the top of my head I can't name any atrocities they've committed.
 

Don Honchkrorleone

Happy Qwilfish the nightmare
is a Smogon Discord Contributor Alumnus
I'm not denying that religion has contributed in a good way to the world, and there have been people who did great things for their god.

The purpose of religion (at least those with the heaven / hell system, can't speak for others) is control. Control through a combination of hollow promises and fear. Why do you think the ancient Greek & Roman religions have all but dissapeared? They couldn't compete with Christianity, as that has a reward for living a good life and punishment for living a bad one - in the Greek/Roman religion, everyone went to the Underworld. Christianity was far better for controlling the masses. The purpose of religion is to turn you into a blind slave - follow god without question, and you'll be rewarded. Don't worry about the problems in your life - this one's just a test.
Uhhh no. Christianity "won" (which it didn't but wait for my PhD dissertation in 4 years, till there read Peter R. L. Brown's "The Rise of Western Christendom", which is EXCELLENT yet not Brown's best book) because it was much easier to rule with a single official deity (as Constantine the Great eventually realized) than with a lot, eventually getting rid of a priestly elite for only one priest. Unlike the Egypt of Akhenaton, who tried the same but the sociocultural conditions and the priestly class were vastly different, the election of a monotheistic deity as the only one or Christianization (NOT Christendom nor conversion) worked for a shit-ton of factors I can't post now because I'm at the dentist, and it was also a strategy to consolidate his power in Byzantium whereas the power from the Roman emperors dwindled. Wasn't until St. Theodosius in 395 that Christianity became the official and only creed allowed by the Empire, and Constantine was known for his tolerance especially with the Jews and polytheists. Greek and Roman polytheism, in fact, didn't die but was saved by the church writers and still practiced by peripheric communities where the imperial and episcopal power had difficulty to reach, or else how would we even know about them today? Christ almighty, and then people say history is useless...

The world will be better off without religion. It would encourage people to improve their own lives, instead of hoping for something better when they die. It wouldn't make the world a perfect utopia - humanity is too flawed for that to ever happen. But it would be a good start. Just imagine if you'd never heard of Christianity, and someone told you all that stuff tomorrow. You'd think "that's stupid".

No wait...
 

Don Honchkrorleone

Happy Qwilfish the nightmare
is a Smogon Discord Contributor Alumnus
Hitler was more of an occultist than a Catholic per se as the whole concept of Jesus, a jewish man by blood, is contradictory with Nazism (there's a good dissertation about that and the role of the Catholic Church in Third Reich but it's in portuguese so sorry :[ ), but you started it so why not?

And addressing another one of your extremely narrow-minded and kinda dangerous views of religious people, at least for me and my family (be them the protestant ones, the spiritist ones, or the voodooist one) we see religion as a way of gratitude with whichever force(s) we believe that created us and that guides our life. The Heaven, in my and the Christian side of my family's thought, is not what we aim. We aim at a closer contact with what we believe that gave us life and continues to look upon and help us. And the feeling of being closer to God, a.k.a. what I called "experience" a page ago, is wonderful and really soothing. I hate to point out again but I couldn't care less if anyone believes or not in whatever deity they can name from the top of the tongue, but a hypocritical and generalizing attack on all people of faith (not even "religious" in the sociological sense, but just having faith) coming from someone who can't see shit done by disbelief is just really unbearable. Claiming that a world without institutionalized control of thought (as you put on your own words your views on religion, which I don't necessarily disagree but with reservations) would be good for humanity is just as straw man stupidity as you claim I'm doing, if not more. But as a drill is about to cause me pain and novocaine will kick in my blood, I'll rest for now.
 
I don't understand why people are debating about evilness of religion when it's completely irrelevant regarding god's existence or lack of. Religion is merely a method of worshiping god(s) or other divine beings or whatever. Even if all religions created in past and in future are wrong, it does not prove nor disprove god's existence.
 
Good point tbh, but I mean you can see how it would naturally pop up

I think you're misunderstanding what Harari is trying to say. The rest of the quote does a better job of putting the phrase in context. You're agreeing with Harari by saying that science has no particular motivations - that's precisely what Harari is arguing. What drives the type of science that is done is religion and ideology. In a vacuum, yeah, science is exactly as you state it. But the world does not exist in a vacuum and so the realities of the world impose themselves upon science and that has to do with political/economic/religious motivations. The power of science is that it creates new technologies that give power to those behind the science. At least that would be my interpretation of it.

I think you would agree that not all science is equal? Certain science is just more useful/relevant to society than others. cba to look it up but my guess is that things like nuclear research and cancer research weren't done for any pure pursuit of knowledge or something like that.



I don't really understand the point you're trying to make here or what is a fallacy (and I think you're again missing the main idea). I think your confusion is based off the first sentence which discusses religion but not ideology? Harari seems to view ideologies as religions which is what I think he's doing there.

Here's another quote that justifies his logic in case you're wondering at all.

"Godless religions are nothing new. Thousands of years ago Buddhism put its trust in the natural laws of karma and paṭiccasamuppāda (dependent origination) rather than almighty deities. In recent centuries creeds such as communism and Nazism have also upheld a system of norms and values based on allegedly natural laws rather than on the commandments of some supernatural being. These modern creeds prefer to call themselves “ideologies” rather than “religions” but, seen from a long-term perspective, they play a role analogous to that of traditional faiths such as Christianity and Hinduism. Both Christianity and communism were created by human beings rather than by gods, and are defined by their social functions rather than by the existence of deities. In essence, religion is anything that legitimises human norms and values by arguing that they reflect some superhuman order.

I don't really see the issue with conflating religion and ideologies - aren't you saying that religions are a subset of ideologies...not sure I see the issue then. If you don't agree - where would you say scientific advances come from? luck?



I'm not trying to imply anything regarding an atheist state except that perhaps it is not the end all be all as some posters seem to be suggesting itt. your conclusion is in fact my point and is essentially what I'm trying to say - if a "healthy society" is one that doesn't enforce any official religion, doesn't that essentially describe...most of the first world ???

So that leads me back to my initial question: how is religion holding humanity back? if it's not holding back humanity, why the need to get worked up about it? i really dont get it
Well yeah as far as power goes it's no doubt a factor in science and religion as well, but you could legitimately argue that power is factor in everything humans do, that doesn't mean it makes any sense to say science is all about power.

As far as the Harari thing goes, if your entire argument hinges on the fact that you're ignoring the definition of a word that is accepted by literally everyone else in favour of your own it's not a very convincing argument- their points can't be said to hold any weight in this discussion because pretty much none of us are using the term "religion" as Harari is. I never said that religions are a subset of ideologies, instead that there are ideologies derived from religion. In any case the fact that they're a subset indicates that they're not really synonymous- all religious ideologies are ideologies, but not all ideologies are religious in nature. Anyway, this has been entirely too much arguing over semantics and definitions for my liking.

Yeah, the first world is pretty close to what I'm describing, but this ties into your initial question I think, as the separation of church and state is still something that people are concerned about, with the US being the easy example with how some parts regard creationism and sex ed. For me, I don't mind other people believing in whatever god they want, but as soon as that is seen to be influencing decisions that will significantly affect other people I perceive that as flawed rationale because I don't think religion is true- would you want say, a politician to be making decisions based on some superstition or shaman nonsense? Of course not, but to me that kind of thing and established religions like christianity aren't all that distinct. This is especially important because religious organisations will often weigh in on social issues and generally take consequential action in various ways, often in controversial areas. As long as this occurs at any level, there'll be those who oppose them and it'd only stop if religion were rendered totally incapable of influencing the world. That's taking things to an extreme, but I think it's a scenario most people can imagine easily enough and unless you hold the dominant belief it's absolutely horrible, as you can't really act on what you believe to be true. Anyway, those are just some thoughts on why people get passionate about this sort of thing
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ed
Buddhism, to me, is a more "friendly" type of religion, probably because I see it being based around principles that don't require all of humanity to follow them. From what little I know about it, it really is more a lifestyle than it is a religion in the western sense, and I don't think buddhists (or taoists) really interfere in stuff like state affairs, which is my main problem with the three western monotheist religions (each one of them has some sort of direct influence in the political system of at least one country).
Feel free to prove me wrong if you are more knowlegdeable about it though, but this is how I see it from my limited point of view.
that's slightly invalidating, saying that just cause a religion doesn't force you to x, y and z doesn't mean it should be treated with less credibility

but yes, I do agree that the belief of Buddhism are the most tame or peaceful and are the most reasonable as it doesn't really affect your personal opinions on life e.g. homosexuality, women and generally human rights

sorry if this is dead weight to the conversation, but in my honest opinion of any religious beliefs cause any harm to others, then i don't agree or like the religion. but that's just my 2 cent

and the word religion literally just means your beliefs, so it really gets you thinking how many doors could be potientally opened for "religions"
 

Myzozoa

to find better ways to say what nobody says
is a Top Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Past WCoP Champion
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joan_of_Arc#Trial
"
The trial record contains statements from Joan that the eyewitnesses later said astonished the court, since she was an illiterate peasant and yet was able to evade the theological pitfalls the tribunal had set up to entrap her. The transcript's most famous exchange is an exercise in subtlety: "Asked if she knew she was in God's grace, she answered, 'If I am not, may God put me there; and if I am, may God so keep me.'"[78] The question is a scholarly trap. Church doctrine held that no one could be certain of being in God's grace. If she had answered yes, then she would have been charged with heresy. If she had answered no, then she would have confessed her own guilt. The court notary Boisguillaume later testified that at the moment the court heard her reply, "Those who were interrogating her were stupefied."[79]

Several members of the tribunal later testified that important portions of the transcript were falsified by being altered in her disfavor. Under Inquisitorial guidelines, Joan should have been confined in an ecclesiastical prison under the supervision of female guards (i.e., nuns). Instead, the English kept her in a secular prison guarded by their own soldiers. Bishop Cauchon denied Joan's appeals to the Council of Basel and the Pope, which should have stopped his proceeding.[80]




"This is what can be said with some certainty about the Apostle of Armenia; but a famous life of him by Aganthangelos (see below) embellishes the narrative with wonderful stories that need not be taken very seriously. According to this life, he was the son of the Parthian Anak who had murdered King Khosrov I. Anak in trying to escape was drowned in the Araxes with all his family except two sons, of whom one went to Persia, the other (the subject of this article) was taken by his Christian nurse to Caesarea and there baptizedGregory, in accordance with what she had been told in vision. Soon after his marriage, Gregory parted from his wife (who became a nun) and came back to Armenia. Here he refused to take part in a great sacrifice to the national gods ordered by King Trdat, and declared himself a Christian. He was then tortured in various horrible ways, all the more when the king discovered that he was the son of his father's murderer. After being subjected to a variety of tortures (they scourged him, and put his head in a bag of ashes, poured molten lead over him, etc.) he was thrown into a pit full of dead bodies, poisonous filth, and serpents. He spent fifteen years in this pit (Khor Viraps), being fed by bread that a pious widow brought him daily. Meanwhile Trdat goes from bad to worse. A holyvirgin named Rhipsime, who resists the king's advances and is martyred, here plays a great part in the story. Eventually, as a punishment for his wickedness, the king is turned into a boar and possessed by a devil. A vision now reveals to the monarch's sisters that nothing can save him but the prayers of Gregory. At first no one will attend to this revelation, since they all think Gregory dead long ago. Eventually they seek and find him in the pit. He comes out, exorcizes the evil spirit and restores the king, and then begins preaching."

these first two in some way, are experiential proofs, or even proofs from disbelief.

Joan of Arcs trial testimony is astonishing, miraculous, only if one doesn't believe it would be possible for an illiterate peasant to evade the semantic and esoteric trappings of a rigged inquisition.

In the second case, St. Gregory the Illuminator, there is much that could be unpacked. If a person believes that humans are self-interested and greedy by nature, then Divine Command, Revelation, and/or miracle (indeed all my by found in the chronicles of st gregory) might be needed to explain behaviors such as human kindness. In the canon account of Khor Viraps (the deep pit), St. Gregory is deposited in the pit and forgotten by all except a widow that supplies St. Gregory with bread. According to the hagiography, the miracle of the pit is not that St. Gregory survives there for 12 years, but the widow's kindness and steadfastness.

lastly, what follows are two different ways of stating a proof solely from sincere testimony:

"

If immaterial light were poor in its essence, then its need would not be for a dusky dead substance, for it would not be proper that the more noble and complete should be founded on that which is not in that direction [toward nobility], and how could the dusky benefit the light? So, if the immaterial light is needy in its occurrence, then there should be for it a supporting light. Then the ordered supporting lights will not go on to an infinite regress, as you know from the proof for the necessity of an end for things ordered into collections. So, there must be an end to the supporting lights, and their accidents and barzakh [mediation] and shapes are [directed] to a light beyond which is no further light, and that is the Light of Lights, the Comprehensive Light, the Self-Subsistent Light, the Sacred Light, the most Magnificent and Lofty of Lights, and this is the Almighty Light, and this is the absolutely needless, for no other thing is beyond it.

And also by another route: A thing does not require its own nonexistence, otherwise it would not occur. The Light of Lights is a unity; in itself it has no conditions. All else is subject to it. Since it has no condition and no opposite, there is nothing which can void it, so it is self-sufficient and everlasting. And the Light of Lights is not attached to any sort of shape, whether luminous or dark, and attributes are not possible for it in any aspect."

"And it is stated that existence, as was mentioned before, is a single, simple, objective reality . There is no difference in the essences of its individuals, but only in perfection and imperfection and in intensity and weakness, or in other matters [not related to existence itself], for example, that between the whatnesses of the same species. The ultimate perfection for which there is nothing greater is that which does not depend on anything else, and nothing greater than it can be imagined, for all imperfect things are dependent on others, and are in need of the more complete. It has become clear that the complete is prior to the imperfect, and activity is prior to potentiality. Existence is prior to nothingness. It has also been made clear that the completion of a thing is that very thing with an addition. Therefore, existence is either independent of others or essentially in need of others.

The First is the Necessary Existent, which is Pure Existence than which nothing is more complete, and It is unmixed with non-existence and imperfection. The second is other than this, but is Its actions and effects, which rest upon nothing but It. And, as was mentioned, the reality of existence has no deficiency, and if any imperfection occurs in it, it is only due to its being an effect, and this is because the effect cannot be of an equal degree to the existence of its cause. So, if existence were not something made , dominated by that which brings it into existence and brings it about (as according to what it requires), it would not be imaginable that it should have any sort of imperfections. For the reality of existence, as you know, is simple. It is unlimited, not determinate, except for pure activity and occurrence, otherwise there would be mixture in it or it would have some essence other than existence in it.

We have also mentioned that if existence is an effect, then it is in itself something which is made by a making which is simple, and its essence in itself is in need of a maker, and it relies in its substance and essence on its maker. Thus, it has been proven and made clear that existence is either complete reality necessary in its ipseity, or it is essentially in need of it [i.e. that which is necessary in itself], substantially relying on it. According to each of these alternatives it has been proven and demonstrated that the existence of the Necessary Existent is in its ipseity needless of any other. "

"We do not worship God.
We perceive and attend God.
We learn from God.
With forethought and work,
We shape God.
In the end, we yield to God.
We adapt and endure,
For we are Earthseed
And God is Change.

God is power
Infinite,
Irresistible,
Inexorable,
Indifferent.
And yet, God is Pliable
Trickster,
Teacher,
Chaos,
Clay.
God exists to be shaped.
God is change.


A victim of God may,
Through learning adaption,
Become a partner of God,
A victim of God may,
Through forethought and planning,
Become a shaper of God.
Or a victim of God may,
Through shortsightedness and fear,
Remain God's victim
God's plaything,
God's prey.

All that you touch,
You Change.

All that you Change,
Changes you.

The only lasting truth
Is Change.

God
Is Change."

From 'Earthseed: The Books of the Living'
 
Last edited:

Coronis

Impressively round
is a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnus
Obligatory bg: raised Christian (think Simpsons, mainly just church every Sunday) until our parents decided we were old enough to choose for ourselves, and they themselves stopped going too.

I don't believe in any God, personally. I've seen no logical or rational argument or any evidence to convince me of such a being's existence. Whether there is or isn't a God, I don't frankly care, as if there is one, they don't seem to care much for me or humanity in general. Their existence or lack thereof isn't going to have a direct effect on my life, so I'm not fussed.
 

Myzozoa

to find better ways to say what nobody says
is a Top Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Past WCoP Champion
"God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him.

"How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it? There has never been a greater deed; and whoever is born after us -- for the sake of this deed he will belong to a higher history than all history hitherto."

"“We give lip service to acceptance, as though acceptance were enough. Then we go on to create super-people - super-parents, super-kings, and queens, super-cops - to be our gods and to look after us - to stand between us and God. Yet God has been here all along, shaping us and being shaped by us in no particular way or in too many ways at once like an amoeba - or like a cancer. Chaos.” "
 

OLD GREGG (im back baby)

old gregg for life
Throughout history man has been driven to seek out his origins to determine whether he's the result of a divine plan or merely the sum of all his yesterdays. But what happens if, at the end of his search, he should discover he's neither?
 
if god exists, what kind of god is it?
is it a kind god?, good, then i'm sure he will understand that i just want to do my thing instead of wasting my time on things i don't care about.
is it a pesky god that wants me to spend my whole life worshiping him?, good, i don't care, to hell is where i'm going, i will not live my life on my knees.

while i'm more inclined to say i don't believe in god, it really doesn't matter to me, whenever there is a god or not as it doesn't change anything for me. Discussing it is a waste of time.
 
I think a lot of people in this thread are misunderstanding the point of faith in the context of religion. Generally, a big part of most (not all) religions is the journey of your soul through your physical life and then your eternal afterlife. In the case of Christianity for example, this pertains to Heaven and Hell. Heaven is supposed to be the utopian realm where your soul can spend eternity with God. Now, the idea is that God will choose who gets into heaven and who doesn't. If this is the case, there must be a system by which he judges and chooses. Many Christian denominations differ in their beliefs of what it takes to get into heaven, but one principle most agree on is that you must believe in God.
If heaven is an eternal utopia, it's obviously not going to be easy to get into. With this in mind, God only wants to populate it with souls who truly believe in Him. Therefore, to make it a sufficient challenge, God purposefully does not allow for definitive proof of his existence. If he did, everyone would believe in God and there wouldn't be really any incentive or risk. Getting into heaven would be easy, and it would end up being diluted by souls who only did what they were required to get in, as they were coerced into good behavior by a definitively proven consequence.
Tl;dr Faith in the religious sense is continued belief in something that cannot be definitively proven in the first place, so as to show one's willingness to risk their life for the sake of a relationship with God, and thus gain entrance to Heaven. God offering proof of his existence defeats the purpose of this, so the lack of concrete evidence is intentional.

As for myself, I do believe that God exists, but I've not done enough of my own scientific research to debate with people properly. My faith works for me, and others are welcome to pursue whatever belief system works for them in life.
I mean I know you're not looking for a debate but to me this is somehow converting artificial and baseless assumptions into statements that are delivered in a way such that they are portrayed as objective truths. Some of these assumptions are:
  • Exclusivity is necessary for a utopia- you need to explain why this is the case.
  • If exclusivity is somehow necessary for a utopia, belief in the right god is somehow the most important criterion in determining who can join said society
  • That the christian god is so insecure that it can only tolerate being surrounded by individuals that literally worship it
  • People would believe in a god if there were sufficient evidence- this ignores the fact that there are significant numbers of creationists and climate change deniers in the world right now, despite evolution and human induced climate change being backed by mountains of evidence. People believe in dumb shit all the time and evidence only does so much to counter it.
  • That if definitive proof of a god existed, then believing in said god and following its commandments doesn't count for anything if you're motivated by, say, logic and reasoning.
  • That if getting into heaven were easy then it would be "diluted" by the addition of souls. First, what is meant by "diluted" and second, how do you know this. This sounds like a very specific phenomenon that would require some reason to believe it
Actually your tldr is weird imo, risking one's life for the sake of a god and the existence of concrete evidence in said god are not in any way mutually exclusive. Also believing in said god when there's no evidence is hardly risking for your life.

Also this post literally tries to use a lack of evidence for a deity as justification for believing in said deity. I mean it's worth reflecting on that for a moment... ... ...aliens are literally using humanity as lab rats in an experiment, and there's no evidence for this because if we knew we were in an experiment it would ruin the experiment and that's why I believe in aliens

(sorry if I was being an ass in that last bit, I'm just a bit flabbergasted)
 

tcr

sage of six tabs
is a Tutor Alumnusis a Team Rater Alumnusis a Smogon Discord Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnus
I think a lot of people in this thread are misunderstanding the point of faith in the context of religion. Generally, a big part of most (not all) religions is the journey of your soul through your physical life and then your eternal afterlife. In the case of Christianity for example, this pertains to Heaven and Hell. Heaven is supposed to be the utopian realm where your soul can spend eternity with God. Now, the idea is that God will choose who gets into heaven and who doesn't. If this is the case, there must be a system by which he judges and chooses. Many Christian denominations differ in their beliefs of what it takes to get into heaven, but one principle most agree on is that you must believe in God.
If heaven is an eternal utopia, it's obviously not going to be easy to get into. With this in mind, God only wants to populate it with souls who truly believe in Him. Therefore, to make it a sufficient challenge, God purposefully does not allow for definitive proof of his existence. If he did, everyone would believe in God and there wouldn't be really any incentive or risk. Getting into heaven would be easy, and it would end up being diluted by souls who only did what they were required to get in, as they were coerced into good behavior by a definitively proven consequence.
Tl;dr Faith in the religious sense is continued belief in something that cannot be definitively proven in the first place, so as to show one's willingness to risk their life for the sake of a relationship with God, and thus gain entrance to Heaven. God offering proof of his existence defeats the purpose of this, so the lack of concrete evidence is intentional.

As for myself, I do believe that God exists, but I've not done enough of my own scientific research to debate with people properly. My faith works for me, and others are welcome to pursue whatever belief system works for them in life.
I don't think that Ortheore's post was in any way condescending. Pointing out your flawed logic and circular reasoning isn't condescending, an argument could be made for his alien example to be a bit much but even then its just a parallel to what you were saying.

The thing is, people are already "coerced" into good behavior by the very potential prescence of a utopian afterlife counterbalanced by eternal damnation. Either you fear God in his wisdom and power and force yourself to be a good person or you end up in Hell for all eternity. It seems highly illogical that your actions as living would somehow impact your eternal infinite future as the dead (like thats like being imprisoned for the rest of your life because you bullied someone when you were 5 years old, its such a small part of "infiniteness" that the short 60-80 odd years on someone's life have such a huge impact on the rest of their eternity). Not only this, but God supposedly has infinite compassion and foresight (omnibenevolent, omnipotent, omniscient). Why then does he allow his children to sin and damn themsevles to oblivion. Why does there have to be a "risk" associated with utopian heaven? If he was truly kind and caring then he would allow all of his flock to amass themselves near his glory and wouldn't care about "dilution" of souls.

The whole "faith has to be built on things that can't be proven" concept is tripe as well. If God's physical existence, i.e. "proof" somehow defeats the purpose of faith and admission ticket into heaven, then why did Jesus, son of God and physical manifestation of his glory on this earth exist? Either Jesus was the physical form of God and the Holy Spirit and thus any claims of faith only being useful in the face of a lack of evidence are rubbish, or Jesus was not the physical manifestation of God nor his kin and thus what's the point of the entire religion of Christianity in the first place?

I do not believe that God exists in the traditional sense. He is simply a caricature used to scare people into following some moral code or giving them a reason to be kind to strangers and not kill each other instead of, you know, people just doing it because its the right thing to do. You don't need a reason or threat of eternal damnation to stop you from murdering someone as empathy isn't a solely intrinsic part of religious scripture. The sense of "God" is simply compassion and peace in all things, in my mind that is universal oneness. Everything is connected to something else, a classic example is the cycle of death and life in nature, where things that are dead end up feeding and often giving birth to new life to where the cycle continues. A different example would be climate change. I do not believe there is any sort of one, all powerful creator orchestrating everything and pulling the strings because logic simply defies any such being.

Possibly the most famous example to disprove the almighty is Epicurus' principle. Its assumed that God is all powerful, all knowing, and infinitely compassionate. Otherwise, whats the point in worshipping something that lacks one of those three traits as that is what seperates humans from God. However that triad is thrown out the window when the concept of evil is put into the works. If God was infinitely compassionate and truly loved his constituents, he would prevent any form of evil from touching them. He would have stopped Adam from eating the apple stopped Satan from rebelling, etc etc. That he didn't shows he either doesn't have the power to do so (thus lacking omnipotence and painting himself as limited in scope) or he didn't know that it would happen (same thing except lacking omniscience). If he has both omniscience and omnipotence but chooses to do nothing then he is not worthy of compassion and blind worship. People always flock to the "God works in mysterious ways" and "but God wants you to have Free Will!!" aspects, where argument one sidesteps the question and is the equivalent of an abused spouse ignoring her husband beating her to death (ie stockholm syndrome) whereas argument two contradicts itself with the concept of Heaven and Hell and the concept of omnipotence.

Tl;dr there are far too many logical errors, fallacies, and circular reasoning to ever justify the existence of an all powerful Creator, not just in the scriptures but in depictions of a god in general to ever support itself. One can argue that "God works in mysterious ways" but that is little more than plugging your ears to the debate at hand and no discussion can come from people who keep their head buried in the sand. Not to say believing in God is a bad thing, people are more than entitled to believe in faith or religion or what have you, it is just my personal belief that no reasoning supports an almighty creator and it is mightily convenient to wave everything in creation to his works without ever questioning who created the creator.
 

OLD GREGG (im back baby)

old gregg for life
I took Waterbomb's post to mean that the response he was provided was not condescending in words but in how readily his point of view was dismissed. The arrogance that comes off of some of the academic types just isn't that cool. With all due respect we do not have all the answers and trying to shut down, intentionally or not, conversations that need to be had is not a good thing. In order to understand the mind of the believer it is very important to place yourself in their shoes. Having differing opinions is amazing and I do not understand how this is so frowned upon by people who think themselves intelligent. Fact is there is no objective observable verifiable truth to this conversation so regardless of what YOU believe we should be open to hearing these differing opinions, unless you know we are too good to entertain differing ideas, because it may be that we are all wrong about this; nobody knows for sure.

Why then does he allow his children to sin and damn themsevles to oblivion. Why does there have to be a "risk" associated with utopian heaven? If he was truly kind and caring then he would allow all of his flock to amass themselves near his glory and wouldn't care about "dilution" of souls.

The whole "faith has to be built on things that can't be proven" concept is tripe as well. If God's physical existence, i.e. "proof" somehow defeats the purpose of faith and admission ticket into heaven, then why did Jesus, son of God and physical manifestation of his glory on this earth exist? Either Jesus was the physical form of God and the Holy Spirit and thus any claims of faith only being useful in the face of a lack of evidence are rubbish, or Jesus was not the physical manifestation of God nor his kin and thus what's the point of the entire religion of Christianity in the first place?
That is where the whole "Free Will" thing comes into play.


I do not believe that God exists in the traditional sense. He is simply a caricature used to scare people into following some moral code or giving them a reason to be kind to strangers and not kill each other instead of, you know, people just doing it because its the right thing to do. You don't need a reason or threat of eternal damnation to stop you from murdering someone as empathy isn't a solely intrinsic part of religious scripture. The sense of "God" is simply compassion and peace in all things, in my mind that is universal oneness. Everything is connected to something else, a classic example is the cycle of death and life in nature, where things that are dead end up feeding and often giving birth to new life to where the cycle continues. A different example would be climate change. I do not believe there is any sort of one, all powerful creator orchestrating everything and pulling the strings because logic simply defies any such being.
I agree but logic does not entirely rule out anything. One person's logic is another person's stupidity and what I mean by this is that the idea of a supreme being may not be logical to you but to someone else it very well might make complete sense. Personally, I don't buy the all powerful entity spiel myself.


Possibly the most famous example to disprove the almighty is Epicurus' principle. Its assumed that God is all powerful, all knowing, and infinitely compassionate. Otherwise, whats the point in worshipping something that lacks one of those three traits as that is what seperates humans from God. However that triad is thrown out the window when the concept of evil is put into the works. If God was infinitely compassionate and truly loved his constituents, he would prevent any form of evil from touching them. He would have stopped Adam from eating the apple stopped Satan from rebelling, etc etc. That he didn't shows he either doesn't have the power to do so (thus lacking omnipotence and painting himself as limited in scope) or he didn't know that it would happen (same thing except lacking omniscience). If he has both omniscience and omnipotence but chooses to do nothing then he is not worthy of compassion and blind worship. People always flock to the "God works in mysterious ways" and "but God wants you to have Free Will!!" aspects, where argument one sidesteps the question and is the equivalent of an abused spouse ignoring her husband beating her to death (ie stockholm syndrome) whereas argument two contradicts itself with the concept of Heaven and Hell and the concept of omnipotence.
You cannot prove or disprove, that is the way it is like it or not. Perhaps religion doesn't have all the answers, perhaps science does not either. Perhaps that is the way it is meant to be and looking for absolutes is a complete waste of time?


Tl;dr there are far too many logical errors, fallacies, and circular reasoning to ever justify the existence of an all powerful Creator, not just in the scriptures but in depictions of a god in general to ever support itself. One can argue that "God works in mysterious ways" but that is little more than plugging your ears to the debate at hand and no discussion can come from people who keep their head buried in the sand. Not to say believing in God is a bad thing, people are more than entitled to believe in faith or religion or what have you, it is just my personal belief that no reasoning supports an almighty creator and it is mightily convenient to wave everything in creation to his works without ever questioning who created the creator.

I agree for the most part but in my life there have been certain times when synchronicity has occurred to a bewildering degree. I cannot wrap my mind around some of the events that take place in this world as just coincidental.
 

WaterBomb

Two kids no brane
is a Forum Moderatoris a Smogon Discord Contributoris a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnus
Moderator
Welp, I tried to articulate an idea in my own words to help people understand it better, but apparently all I've done is make it worse. I'll leave it to people who have done more studying than myself.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 1, Guests: 0)

Top