Main Menu

Tip jar

If you like CaB and wish to support it, you can use PayPal or KoFi. Thank you, and I hope you continue to enjoy the site - Neil.

Buy Me a Coffee at ko-fi.com

Support CaB

Recent

Welcome to Cook'd and Bomb'd. Please login or sign up.

March 28, 2024, 10:12:33 AM

Login with username, password and session length

Are you religious?

Started by Cliche Guevara, April 23, 2005, 04:16:16 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Well, are you?

Yes, I went to the Pope's funeral and cried.
20 (7.2%)
No, I've already booked the flight to Hell.
259 (92.8%)

Total Members Voted: 279

Voting closed: April 23, 2005, 04:16:16 AM

Deadman97

Quote from: "Cliche Guevara"In today's scientific world where most things can be explained...
Can they, though? We know plenty about our own physiology, we can do technology and computers and all that guff, but I wouldn't say "most things can be explained"... I think the whys and wherefores of life are still pretty grey. And, on-topic, no I'm not. Wormfood.

Cliche Guevara

Quote from: "Tina"im sure it can be emotionally soothing to believe something nice even if its not provable. its certainly better than going through life miserable and pessimistic.

I disagree. If the truth is miserable and pessimistic then tough. Why stick your head in the sand and compromise yourself?

Cliche Guevara

Quote from: "Deadman97"
Quote from: "Cliche Guevara"In today's scientific world where most things can be explained...
Can they, though? We know plenty about our own physiology, we can do technology and computers and all that guff, but I wouldn't say "most things can be explained"... I think the whys and wherefores of life are still pretty grey. And, on-topic, no I'm not. Wormfood.

Well, quite a lot can be explained. Certainly science offers more viable alternatives than religion. I was really trying to highlight that point.

Big Jack McBastard

Personally I'm a confiremd heathen, or perhaps heretic, yeah I like the sound of heretic far more.

I used to think of myself as an atheist but it's such a dull sounding title to give yourself and it essentially equates to 'no belief' like 'amoral' it's more of a term to describe your attitude rather than a definition. So heretic suits me fine.

Tina

Quote from: "Cliche Guevara"
Quote from: "Tina"im sure it can be emotionally soothing to believe something nice even if its not provable. its certainly better than going through life miserable and pessimistic.

I disagree. If the truth is miserable and pessimistic then tough. Why stick your head in the sand and compromise yourself?
why not!  if it makes you happy. if one likes to believe that when they die they'll go to heaven and be with their long lost loved ones, why not.

i personally dont. id actually like to. but i dont.

and i  dont look down on people who do. their choice. makes no difference eitherway, we all die in the end and none of the living know what happens beyond that.

its bad when someone is forced to be part of some religion, but in cases when an adult decides to believe in something spiritual, whatever it is, its certainly not cos its going to emotionally harm them.
They benefit from it, they do. Emotionally.

Bogey

Quote from: "Cliche Guevara"I was possibly using "our" to mean the species.

Morality is a collective control which certainly doesn't help the individual. It holds him/her back, in fact.

So either way it doesn't seem rational to believe that morality is an instinct.

That would be true if we weren't social animals though, but we clearly are. If there is a group which works together and one of them is a consitent cheater or freeloader, then he's likely to be punished by or ostracised from the group. After millions of years of living together, those with better social skills are those more likely to have survived which, to me, explains feelings of guilt and remorse, as well as that awful feeling in the stomach when you know you've been cheated, and hence the desire for vengence.
So in the context of group living (assuming the chances of survival on ones own were minimal) toeing the line is your ticket to success, for the most part.

Bogey

Quote from: "Tina"its bad when someone is forced to be part of some religion, but in cases when an adult decides to believe in something spiritual, whatever it is, its certainly not cos its going to emotionally harm them.
They benefit from it, they do. Emotionally.
That's a bit of an idealised view of religion though - I suppose outside of organised religion the control and the guilt (don't forget the guilt) are sidelined.
I'm sure it's true that a lot of people derive great solace and peace and whatnot from such things, but they're certainly not helping anyone else, and who knows, they might start getting all muddle-headed about such things as GM food and that awful concept of "playing god", and they might be more susceptible to new-age healing hokum, psychic mediums and so forth. And they keep Mystic fucking Meg's pockets lined.

Tina

Quote from: "Bogey"
Quote from: "Tina"its bad when someone is forced to be part of some religion, but in cases when an adult decides to believe in something spiritual, whatever it is, its certainly not cos its going to emotionally harm them.
They benefit from it, they do. Emotionally.
That's a bit of an idealised view of religion though - I suppose outside of organised religion the control and the guilt (don't forget the guilt) are sidelined.
I'm sure it's true that a lot of people derive great solace and peace and whatnot from such things, but they're certainly not helping anyone else, and who knows, they might start getting all muddle-headed about such things as GM food and that awful concept of "playing god", and they might be more susceptible to new-age healing hokum, psychic mediums and so forth. And they keep Mystic fucking Meg's pockets lined.
well there is a fine line between having personal beliefs and being a religious freak...

Cliche Guevara

Quote from: "Tina"
Quote from: "Cliche Guevara"
Quote from: "Tina"im sure it can be emotionally soothing to believe something nice even if its not provable. its certainly better than going through life miserable and pessimistic.

I disagree. If the truth is miserable and pessimistic then tough. Why stick your head in the sand and compromise yourself?

why not!  if it makes you happy. if one likes to believe that when they die they'll go to heaven and be with their long lost loved ones, why not.

It's just being dishonest with yourself. What's the point in that?

Quote from: "Big Jack McBastard"Personally I'm a confiremd heathen, or perhaps heretic, yeah I like the sound of heretic far more.

I used to think of myself as an atheist but it's such a dull sounding title to give yourself and it essentially equates to 'no belief' like 'amoral' it's more of a term to describe your attitude rather than a definition. So heretic suits me fine.

How about a sacrilegist or blasphemer?

Bogey

Quote from: "Cliche Guevara"It's just being dishonest with yourself. What's the point in that?

Well, I agree with you 100% on that, but some people don't think the truth is particularly important. I think some people aren't really that interested in finding things out... but that can't be true. It just can't.

Tina

tell you what.

imagine youre dying. youre terminally ill, and youre dying.
what will make your death easier for you?
believing that in a few hours your brain will stop working, you will stop thinking,t here will be no more consciousness, no more existance, no more being, the you will be gone.
or believing that in a few hours you will go to a nicer place where you will meet all the deceised people you loved, and where the ones you love will one day join you too, and be with you forever?

id like to believe in the latter. sadly i dont. i wish i really really did.

ive been trying hard to not say the overused "i dont agree with organised religion" line here. guess its not gonna work. no i dont like it. i dont think highly of anyone who is a believer and looks down on people who dont believe the same thing they do.
Same as i dont think highly of anyone who goes to any sort of religious extremes, like not seeing real doctors but only energy healers, or any other ridiculous harmful things people do in the name of religion.

but im not so radical to say that because organised religion can be abused in order to control masses and can be harmful if forced on someone who doesnt have their heart in it, that it means religion in general is bad and should be ebolished, and people who believe in god are delusional. Or whatever the statements i so often hear online are.

I know individuals who are capable of maintaining the perfect middle, keeping the belief to themselves, for personal comfort.

And thats whats great about it. Theyre not stupid people, theyre not delusional, theyre not religious freaks. They just found comfort in something, whatever it is. Its better than no comfort at all.

Sorry to spread the story but, my uncle was terminally ill a few years ago. We thought he was going to die. He was a man of science, and he never went to church. I never thought he would believe in god or anything even remotely spiritual.
But he survived his illness. And later on, he told us he knew the doctors gave him little chance to live, but he was peaceful, because he felt someone above was comforting him and waiting for him, and he didnt mind going to a better place, and he was happy.  
That philosophy also helped his wife get through the many diffcult months of expecting him to die.  Seeing him at peace made it easier for her.

And it doesnt matter if believing that was a delusion. It helped them, made them feel better.  And if it was any other kind of belief, if it made them feel easier , no one can deem it wrong.

Quote from: "Cliche Guevara"
Quote from: "Tina"
Quote from: "Cliche Guevara"
Quote from: "Tina"im sure it can be emotionally soothing to believe something nice even if its not provable. its certainly better than going through life miserable and pessimistic.

I disagree. If the truth is miserable and pessimistic then tough. Why stick your head in the sand and compromise yourself?

why not!  if it makes you happy. if one likes to believe that when they die they'll go to heaven and be with their long lost loved ones, why not.

It's just being dishonest with yourself. What's the point in that?

It's not being dishonest, they believe in it.  It makes life easier, and death.

Tina

just in case you still didnt get me right

im not talking about believing in literally every word written in the bible.. or any book of that kind.

its more on the level of.. like, how many of us talk to ourselves when were alone. Most of us do.  BUT WHY? NO ONE IS LISTENING YOU FOOL!
Yeah it doesnt matter, you feel easier saying things out loud to yourself if something that triggers some emotional reaction happens. Thats just us humans. We pretend someone is listening even when theyre not.
And its not harmful. Its good.
And thats what praying is like to many people. Just believing someone is listening, it makes them feel better.

Thats the kind of approach to religion that i appreciate, and i wish i had myself.

But alas, my dad read me Carl Sagans "Cosmos" for bedtime instead of stories from the bible, so im a little washed out in that aspect hahaha

Ciarán2

Those evangelical christians I met last week...they were horrible, they were a bit like Ned Flanders. No, they were worse. They made me want to do devillish things. Awful people, and friendly at the same time. My head is still spinning. I don't know if I'm religious ot not. I'm meant to be a Catholic but I haven't been to mass for about 15 years - don't tell me ma.

Ulp

QuoteIt's just being dishonest with yourself. What's the point in that?

I don't think it's a question of being dishonest.  You could say that no-one truly knows if there is a God.  Just as you cannot prove it, you cannot disprove it.  Some people think one way, some another.
Why does either have to be a matter of deluding yourself?  Why can't it be a matter of both groups answering a question in different ways?  This idea that religious people are somehow deluding themselves is countered by religious people who then say that it is athiests who are doind the same  Both are a particular kind of fundamentalism, surely?  Both take the question and paint those who answer it in a different way to them as stupid or self-deluding.


QuoteMorality is a collective control which certainly doesn't help the individual. It holds him/her back, in fact.

Depends on what morals you are talking about.  As has been mentioned, as long as humans live in a society, certain morals do help the individual.  Like it being wrong to kill another person, or steal, or cheat.  If Mr. Hobbes (in a round-about sort of way) has taught us anything, it's that.


QuoteI see something very Orwellian, if not unnatural, about people routinely responding like sheep at a service every Sunday.

Debatable perhaps, but as Tina has noted, there is a difference between a religion and how that religion is practiced.  In fact, I would argue that in many cases of wrong-doing related to religion throughout history, you can put the wrong-doing down to how people have practiced the particular faith in question.
So it's a matter of interpretation of the texts rather than the texts themselves (not in all cases, but quite a few of the big'n's).  That's one problem with religion that I have- why did God send His message down in the form of single men who then had to spread it through a book.  I can think of more comprehensive ways for an omnipotent God to spread his Word.

Bogey

Well, if there is a creator guy (which is religion in its most distilled form, no?), then he's done an absolutely appalling job and must, therefore, be a malevolent cunt. In which case hell most likely does exist. And we're probably all going there.
Jesus was just a drippy apologist.

Bogey

Quote from: "Ulp"I don't think it's a question of being dishonest.  You could say that no-one truly knows if there is a God.  Just as you cannot prove it, you cannot disprove it.  Some people think one way, some another.
Why does either have to be a matter of deluding yourself?  Why can't it be a matter of both groups answering a question in different ways?  This idea that religious people are somehow deluding themselves is countered by religious people who then say that it is athiests who are doind the same  Both are a particular kind of fundamentalism, surely?  Both take the question and paint those who answer it in a different way to them as stupid or self-deluding.

No! That's just not fair at all. First of all, all religions are saying different things, to a greater or lesser extent, so are they all on the same side against the atheists? Or does each one have equal standing? If they're on the same side, what is the argument? It can't be a simple pro/anti god one: what about polytheism, spirits, demons etc. It can only be: the existence of things for which there is no evidence vs. their various non-existence.

If you're going to suggest something exists, you should state clearly what it is and, if possible, how you know it exists. The burden of proof is on you.
It's the dragon in the garage argument. (there's a dragon in my garage... it's invisible... etc).

Why on earth should non-believers have to disprove the existence of something?

Ulp

QuoteNo! That's just not fair at all. First of all, all religions are saying different things, to a greater or lesser extent, so are they all on the same side against the atheists?

Not entirely sure what you're saying here.  I think it's fair to say  - although I could be wrong - that in all religions (or all the ones I know of anyway) there are believers who say that athiests are deluding themselves - that deep down they all have a 'God-shaped hole' (as it has been put to me before) which they refuse to fill, even though they know it is there.  Admittedly, I don't know much about polythiestic religions, and would be interested to know if the same type of argument is used by some believers in them.


Quote
If you're going to suggest something exists, you should state clearly what it is and, if possible, how you know it exists. The burden of proof is on you[/i].

Why on earth should non-believers have to disprove the existence of something?

They don't have to.  But they could, and I would argue should,  accept that they do not, at the end of the day, know.  And they should accept that other people have a faith that means that their logic as regards burden of proof doesn't work like that.  In other words, they should not argue that religious people are deluding themselves - that deep down they know God does not exist, but they need faith so much that they force themselves to believe (that's how I've read 'deluding oneself' anyway.  Is that a mis-reading?)

For me, any argument with a religious person on such a topic should perhaps involve, from my side, a stance that says "but we don't know, so please try to tolerate difference" - not that it would necessarily make much difference in the long run.  But to say that they are deluding themselves is just taking the polar opposite of the religious argument, and casting the other side in the same terms.  I would argue that that is not good enough, on a question where no-one can be sure, either way.

Tina

Quote from: "Ulp"
QuoteIt's just being dishonest with yourself. What's the point in that?

I don't think it's a question of being dishonest.  You could say that no-one truly knows if there is a God.  Just as you cannot prove it, you cannot disprove it.  Some people think one way, some another.
Why does either have to be a matter of deluding yourself?  Why can't it be a matter of both groups answering a question in different ways?  This idea that religious people are somehow deluding themselves is countered by religious people who then say that it is athiests who are doind the same  Both are a particular kind of fundamentalism, surely?  Both take the question and paint those who answer it in a different way to them as stupid or self-deluding.

thats very well put.

All Surrogate

I'd largely agree with Banana Woofwoof's first post in this thread.  I went to CoE Sunday School for roughly the first thirteen years of my life and although I was pretty 'good' at it, I never actually believed in God; simply failed to engage me as a concept.

Quote from: "Banana Woofwoof"I can't communicate properly with very religious people.
I have difficult communicating with atheists, let alone religious people.  I'm not very good at leaving things be, I'm afraid.

Quote from: "Banana Woofwoof"I think the world is a beautiful and mysterious place and that if humans got their act together and realised that *we* have the power to control and change our own lives and this world, things could be better.  The only thing I believe in is the power inside of us all, and in love, compassion and truth.  The world lacks in all three, and to be honest, I'd say religion had a lot to do with that.

QuoteForbidden generosity.  There is not enough love and kindness in the world to permit us to give any of it away to imaginary beings
Guess who!

My two pennyworth:

If God is taken to be the source of moral codes, then the believer is wilfully abdicating moral responsibility, and therefore is suspect.

If God is taken to be The Cause, then the believer misapplies causation.

Ulp

QuoteForbidden generosity. There is not enough love and kindness in the world to permit us to give any of it away to imaginary beings

Interesting point, but I'm pretty sure that religious people would agree with that concept as it stands.  The argument they would make is that God isn't actually imaginary.  And of course there is nothing in that quote that suggests that God does not exist.

Almost Yearly

Quote from: "Bogey"I think some people aren't really that interested in finding things out... but that can't be true. It just can't.
Quote from: "Cliche Guevara"Everything must be questioned.

All Surrogate

Quote from: "Ulp"
QuoteForbidden generosity. There is not enough love and kindness in the world to permit us to give any of it away to imaginary beings

Interesting point, but I'm pretty sure that religious people would agree with that concept as it stands.  The argument they would make is that God isn't actually imaginary.  And of course there is nothing in that quote that suggests that God does not exist.
Ever since I read it, I liked that quote.  It cuts to the nub of my thinking on religion - that is, its inhumanity.  I don't understand how people can think of atheism as 'cold' when theism specifically neglects humanity to concentrate upon god.  This also applies to other ideologies.

Quote from: "Ulp"
QuoteIt's just being dishonest with yourself. What's the point in that?

I don't think it's a question of being dishonest.  You could say that no-one truly knows if there is a God.  Just as you cannot prove it, you cannot disprove it.  Some people think one way, some another.
Why does either have to be a matter of deluding yourself?  Why can't it be a matter of both groups answering a question in different ways?  This idea that religious people are somehow deluding themselves is countered by religious people who then say that it is athiests who are doind the same  Both are a particular kind of fundamentalism, surely?  Both take the question and paint those who answer it in a different way to them as stupid or self-deluding.



Now, I am really sorry for the quoting of Prof. Dawkins theme that is running through my threads, but I could never put it any better, hence;


A friend, an intelligent lapsed Jew who observes the Sabbath for reasons of cultural solidarity, describes himself as a Tooth Fairy Agnostic. He will not call himself an atheist because it is in principle impossible to prove a negative. But "agnostic" on its own might suggest that he though God's existence or non-existence equally likely. In fact, though strictly agnostic about god, he considers God's existence no more probable than the Tooth Fairy's.
    Bertrand Russell used a hypothetical teapot in orbit about Mars for the same didactic purpose. You have to be agnostic about the teapot, but that doesn't mean you treat the likelihood of its existence as being on all fours with its non-existence.
    The list of things about which we strictly have to be agnostic doesn't stop at tooth fairies and celestial teapots. It is infinite. If you want to believe in a particular one of them -- teapots, unicorns, or tooth fairies, Thor or Yahweh -- the onus is on you to say why you believe in it. The onus is not on the rest of us to say why we do not. We who are atheists are also a-fairyists, a-teapotists, and a-unicornists, but we don't' have to bother saying so.

Prof. Dawkins

Ulp

QuoteThe onus is not on the rest of us to say why we do not. We who are atheists are also a-fairyists, a-teapotists, and a-unicornists, but we don't' have to bother saying so.

Interesting and fair point.  But an atheist shouldn't then talk about religious people as if they are 'deluding themselves', because the atheist happens to view proof as necessary before faith.  It's not deluding oneself to have faith, it's just different.  I don't like the sneering pride that some atheists take in attacking religious beliefs - as if having faith makes you stupid, or ignorant, or worthy of being looked down upon.

I suppose my main complaint with that type of fundamentalist attitude (I'm going to persevere with that phrase I'm afraid) is that anyone using it is simply mirroring that which they are complaining about:

Johnny Religious: 'I believe in God.  Those who don't are just deluding themselves.'

Penelope Atheist: 'Pah, how dare you say I am deluding myself - you're the one who believes in something that you have no proof of!  You're just deluding yourself!'

Erm, me: 'Perhaps neither of you are deluding yourselves - perhaps you are just coming at an inherently unanswerable question from a different angle?'

Kenneth Trousers: I am the strongest man who ever lived.

Penelope Atheist: Pah, prove it!

Ulp: 'Perhaps neither of you are deluding yourselves - perhaps you are just coming at an inherently unanswerable question from a different angle?'


The fact is, if you are to come out with fantastic claims then you must have fantastic evidence.
If a bloke turned up at your door and told you he could save £££`s off of your gas bill if you just gave him your details, then you would ask for some sort of proof. Proof of ID, proof he could save you money.
Yet when a person tells you that he believes in an omnipresent entity that created the world in 6 days and who guides your destiny through life and eventually judges you, casting you into the lakes of fire if you fucked up, you aren't aloud to ask for any proof and if you do then you are a sneering atheist?

Sherringford Hovis

Hurry! The closing date's the 28th!

http://jobs.guardian.co.uk/browse/media/publishing/vacancy-913602.html

Should I get an interview, I'm considering going along dressed up as some sort of anti-religion warrior in a budget straight-to-video release: somewhere between how Nick Frost's Spaced character Mike might look if he dressed as a Witchfinder General while he watched Buffy and Corey Feldman festooned with garlic, stakes etc in The Lost Boys.

They're seemingly as po-faced as proper god-botherers, that lot - even the British Humanist Association President Lynda Smith describes herself as a 'broadcaster' rather than 'comedian' in her intro at http://www.humanism.org.uk/site/cms/. Her delivery may feel a bit clinical at times, but I think it's a shame that she feels she has to slightly misrepresent what she does for a living in order for the Humanists to get taken seriously.

Ulp

QuoteYet when a person tells you that he believes in an omnipresent entity that created the world in 6 days and who guides your destiny through life and eventually judges you, casting you into the lakes of fire if you fucked up, you aren't aloud to ask for any proof and if you do then you are a sneering atheist?

Eeeeeeeeee.  Of course you can ask for proof.  I do, and haven't got it yet.  But what you shouldn't do is cast religious people as dull-brained, delusional idiots, who because they have faith before proof are deluding themselves, and denying to themselves what they really think.  That makes somone a sneering atheist, in my book.

The difficulty is the fact that many religoius people who take that fundamentalist attitude cannot be shaken from their belief because it is so cast iron to them.  But then again, who cares?  If they cannot accept that we are coming at it from a different angle, and that we are not evil goblins denying God's greatness, then that's their badness.  We should rise above it, or at least continue plugging away according to the view that I have described.  Then, you may truly be the biggest man in the world.

That's all I'm saying.  Need proof - that makes sense to me.  But don't treat those who don't need it (or don't need it in the same way as you do) as stupid.  That is a) not true, and b) unhelpful in the extreme.

EDIT: that 'eeeeeeee' noise is not an exasperated groan, by the way.  It's more like the noise of a little mouse.  Just to make that clear.

slim

Quote from: "Sherringford Hovis"Her delivery may feel a bit clinical at times, but I think it's a shame that she feels she has to slightly misrepresent what she does for a living in order for the Humanists to get taken seriously.
Yes, they'd never take her seriously if she put "sneery, unengaging show-off", would they? :)

Cliche Guevara

Quote from: "Banana Woofwoof"
Quote from: "Cliche Guevara"
Quote from: "Tina"
Quote from: "Cliche Guevara"
Quote from: "Tina"im sure it can be emotionally soothing to believe something nice even if its not provable. its certainly better than going through life miserable and pessimistic.

I disagree. If the truth is miserable and pessimistic then tough. Why stick your head in the sand and compromise yourself?

why not!  if it makes you happy. if one likes to believe that when they die they'll go to heaven and be with their long lost loved ones, why not.

It's just being dishonest with yourself. What's the point in that?

It's not being dishonest, they believe in it.  It makes life easier, and death.

But if you believe wholeheartedly in something, which there is no evidence for, then aren't you deluding yourself somewhat? Evidence would seem to suggest that it is more likely God doesn't exist. Faith doesn't beat evidence in any debate.

The same applies to those who claim there is no God. There is no way of proving this statement fully so they are also deluding themselves.

In both cases it's a denial of rational thought.