Are you religious?

[Raminagrobis]

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...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.

Even though I agree with most of what you wrote in your post, I have to take issue with this. It seems to me that there are two main positions in this thread, one that denies there is any value at all in religious belief, and one that tentatively proposes that there is value in personal religious belief, but only when it is 'comforting' to the individual. Isn't there a third position? (let it be known at this point that I'm not coming at this as a 'believer' myself) What about those great minds throughout history that have stuggled with the question of religion? Were they seeking to bypass difficult questions about the nature of the universe simply in order to lead a comfortable life believing in a lie? Of course not, they were choosing to engage directly with those difficult questions. When Kierkegaard wrote about Christian belief, was he trying to dispose of the difficulties and contradictions and paradoxes in order to sugar the bitter pill of religious belief? Of course he wasn't: he found a value in the Christian legacy precisely in those paradoxes and difficulties. Religion is interesting and valuable and worth thinking about NOT because it is a source of comfort and solace, a sweet lie, but because it is, at its core, intellectually complex and difficult and counter-intuitive. I'm not just talking about the 'mystery of faith' here, or the attempts by small-minded 'religious' people to throw a spanner into the works of rational thought. I'm talking about 'hard' philosophy, a direct engagement with all the stuff that makes religion difficult.

Somebody else in this thread said that a belief in God in an abdication of moral responsibility. That person was using this as an argument against belief in God. But let's follow it up: what if that is the very basis of belief in God? Why was Abraham ready to sacrifice Isaac? If, as Kierkegaard (and Zizek) thought, the ethical must be suspended in order for the 'authentic act' to emerge, then to me, that's a pretty scary concept, and not at all comforting. What if the entire Judaeo-Christian legacy is founded on an event that is a violation of every value that that legacy lays claim to (and it is)? So we take this to its logical conclusion: why is the foundational act of Christianity so sublimely paradoxical? What are the implications of the idea that God could debase himself utterly out of love for humanity? I mean, fucking hell, we're talking about GOD here, for Christ's sake.

Anyone who considers himself a thinking person cannot afford to ignore questions like these. Religious belief is an intellectual challenge. To my mind, anyone who calls himself an 'atheist' has shown that he is not up to that challenge.    

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.

The idea you've just proposed there (facetiously, I realize) is not 'anti-religious': it is, of course a well-established religious belief (the Gnostic heresy). Somebody earlier said they'd rather be called a heretic than an atheist. Well there's a fundamental difference between a heretic and a non-believer: heretics do believe, they just believe too much, they think obsessively about belief and its implications, and they take belief to its extreme conclusions.

[MojoJojo]

Agree with Raminagrobis, Religion is often not a comfort.
Remember that "Religion" covers a huge set of beliefs and practises. Some of which are obviously "unhealthy". Some of which are not.


I, for one, think that the entirity of human experience cannot be described empirically. Things go on inside my head which are not direct outcomes of external stimulus. Spirituality can perhaps best be understood as an exploration of these internal acts; note how religions almost always have some sort of ritual meditation. Also, Buddhism and Christianity (and I strongly suspect most other religious faiths have similar tales) have stories of remarkable acts being commited through "faith".
Religion and Faith are intensely personnal things, and this limits the language that can be used to describe it. Try describing the colour blue without using similie or metaphor*. There is no language, and no way of developing a language. Thus religion can be thought of as trying to describe personal experiences through metaphor. Few christians I know would describe God as a big bloke with a beard on a cloud. That's a personification, but a personification of what? Chrisitians do, however, often talk of being "in touch with god" or "one with god" after intense prayer, and they they seem to know what each other is talking about.
Now most religious people don't view religion in this way, but that is part of the problem with a lack of language, in that there is no framework to understand it. But Religions provide a framework for understanding.

The moral/ethics and much of the dogma is tied with centuries of tradition. I would point out that many "ethical" actions are similar to common meditative actions, such as fasting, however, in that they involve ignoring physical needs and in some sense the overcoming of the "id" by the "ego", to use terribly unfashionable Freudian terms. However, the ethical framework isn't why most truely religious people are involved.

This is all confused by people without any spirituality who use religion purely as tool to bludgeon other people's opinions however, or those who follow religion in a screaming fangirl fashion, trying to compete with their colleagues in who can love god more.
Religion is much abused.



*to the smart alecs who are just about to lookup the wavelength of blue light. That is an empirical world example, based upon external stimulus.

[Cliche Guevara]

This is all confused by people without any spirituality who use religion purely as tool to bludgeon other people's opinions however, or those who follow religion in a screaming fangirl fashion, trying to compete with their colleagues in who can love god more.
Religion is much abused.

Like these raving crazies. They believe that dinosaurs lived with man and evolution is a farce.

They've got an area "4 kidz" too. The "z" stands for "zealousness" don't you know.  Habu's Corner is quite generally offensive while, unsaved public enemy number 1, old Mr. Gruff should inspire a laugh. Here's an image of the end times:

 

Ah yes, always up for causing a laugh.

"Darth Maul": Commercialized symbol of evil whose name sounds like "mall". Coincidence?

Oh sure, I really doubt it. Of course it's a coincedence, silly. It probably derives from his tendency to be rough with enemies.

And here's their proposed new version of the US flag:



Ah well, I'm sure they're nice people if you got to know them. Especially young Kyle Goldman - an inspiration and true model for us all.

Kyle started out hating Christians. He listened to anti-Christian music, played violent video games, and created a website attacking various Christian organizations while praising the work of Chris Harper. Kyle was a troubled boy. However, this all changed when he found Jesus. Since then he has gotten himself cleaned up, has started listening to Christian rock, and is now a respectable looking young lad. His parents - being Jewish - were hesitant to accept his new found faith, but they do consider it better that Kyle is now following Jesus instead of Marilyn Manson. Kyle has recently graduated from Fellowship Christian High School and is now attending Fellowship University. When not studying, he helps maintain our web site.

[Tina]

Even though I agree with most of what you wrote in your post, I have to take issue with this. It seems to me that there are two main positions in this thread, one that denies there is any value at all in religious belief, and one that tentatively proposes that there is value in personal religious belief, but only when it is 'comforting' to the individual. Isn't there a third position? (let it be known at this point that I'm not coming at this as a 'believer' myself) What about those great minds throughout history that have stuggled with the question of religion? Were they seeking to bypass difficult questions about the nature of the universe simply in order to lead a comfortable life believing in a lie? Of course not, they were choosing to engage directly with those difficult questions. When Kierkegaard wrote about Christian belief, was he trying to dispose of the difficulties and contradictions and paradoxes in order to sugar the bitter pill of religious belief? Of course he wasn't: he found a value in the Christian legacy precisely in those paradoxes and difficulties. Religion is interesting and valuable and worth thinking about NOT because it is a source of comfort and solace, a sweet lie, but because it is, at its core, intellectually complex and difficult and counter-intuitive. I'm not just talking about the 'mystery of faith' here, or the attempts by small-minded 'religious' people to throw a spanner into the works of rational thought. I'm talking about 'hard' philosophy, a direct engagement with all the stuff that makes religion difficult.

ok, sure. but how exactly is that contradicting anything i said? its just another reason pro. nothing i said negated it.

[Tina]

Agree with Raminagrobis, Religion is often not a comfort

OFTEN being the crucial word in your sentence.

[Jemble Fred]

Here's an interesting fact. We've had so many long detailed heated theological discussions on CaB over the past several years that we've unwittingly arrived at the true Meaning Of Life on four seperate occasions. Perhaps we'll do it again if this one reaches ten pages or more as well.

So on we go.

[El Unicornio, mang]

For me, yes. I wouldn't be happy living an unquestioning life worshipping a false idol. The truth is the only thing with any real value. I'd rather make an attempt at least to pursue it. Otherwise I'd feel I was compromising myself.

I'd honestly rather believe in God and be happy, but I don't and I'm not. I'm not a believer in the truth always being the best thing, I don't understand personally compromising my own happiness in pursuit of reality.

Pretty much everyone I work with is religious, such is this one woman who is currently calling to change her new cellphone number because it begins with '666' and she believes that it's a message from the devil.

[Tina]

such is this one woman who is currently calling to change her new cellphone number because it begins with '666' and she believes that it's a message from the devil.

actually that fits more into superstition than religion id say...

[Cliche Guevara]

For me, yes. I wouldn't be happy living an unquestioning life worshipping a false idol. The truth is the only thing with any real value. I'd rather make an attempt at least to pursue it. Otherwise I'd feel I was compromising myself.

I'd honestly rather believe in God and be happy, but I don't and I'm not. I'm not a believer in the truth always being the best thing, I don't understand personally compromising my own happiness in pursuit of reality.

Compromising happinness in pursuit of reality or not, reality is still the only thing which stands up to well-reasoned argument. I can't kid myself into believing in things I cannot back up.

[Cliche Guevara]

such is this one woman who is currently calling to change her new cellphone number because it begins with '666' and she believes that it's a message from the devil.

actually that fits more into superstition than religion id say...

Aren't they essentially very similar anyway? They both talk about the existence of some 'other' force which dictates worldly happenings.

[Jemble Fred]

Religion is superstition, and vice versa. Surely, in the context of this thread at least. All we're doing is using a catch-all term for 'bollocks'.

[Tina]

such is this one woman who is currently calling to change her new cellphone number because it begins with '666' and she believes that it's a message from the devil.

actually that fits more into superstition than religion id say...

Aren't they essentially very similar anyway? They both talk about the existence of some 'other' force which dictates worldly happenings.

well theres a reason why there are two words in the first place.
superstition can be anything stupid like, thinking "if i touch wood i wont curse myself", but it doesnt necessarily have a deep philosophical background on the meaning of life, morals you need to follow or very deep emotional involvement. Religion does.

[Sid8800]

I think that even if good, relaible evidence was found that backed up religion alot of athesists would dismiss it. Like how religious people dismiss and try to disprove evidence that contradicts thier beliefs.

[Tina]

i think if such evidence was found, it would be a top  government secret. ;)

[Cliche Guevara]

such is this one woman who is currently calling to change her new cellphone number because it begins with '666' and she believes that it's a message from the devil.

actually that fits more into superstition than religion id say...

Aren't they essentially very similar anyway? They both talk about the existence of some 'other' force which dictates worldly happenings.

well theres a reason why there are two words in the first place.
superstition can be anything stupid like, thinking "if i touch wood i wont curse myself", but it doesnt necessarily have a deep philosophical background on the meaning of life, morals you need to follow or very deep emotional involvement. Religion does.

Fundamentally the difference is minimal.

Religion:
1.a) Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe that control human destiny.
b) A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

Superstition:
1. An irrational belief that an object, action, or circumstance not logically related to a course of events influences its outcome.
2.a) A belief, practice, or rite irrationally maintained by ignorance of the laws of nature or by faith in magic or chance.
b) A fearful or abject state of mind resulting from such ignorance or irrationality.
c) Idolatry.

Religion just seems to be more organised and have some form of credibility for the reason that it is so traditional and ingrained.

[Jemble Fred]

I think that even if good, relaible evidence was found that backed up religion alot of athesists would dismiss it. Like how religious people dismiss and try to disprove evidence that contradicts thier beliefs.

No, that makes no sense. Surely all atheists base their philosophy on good, reliable evidence? That's what being atheist is, relying on the logic, based on the knowledge that the human race has amassed. So if undeniable proof of a god were to be found, then how could any atheist dispute it?

EDIT: Religion may be organised superstition, but it's still superstition.

[Cliche Guevara]

I think that even if good, relaible evidence was found that backed up religion alot of athesists would dismiss it. Like how religious people dismiss and try to disprove evidence that contradicts thier beliefs.

No, that makes no sense. Surely all atheists base their philosophy on good, reliable evidence? That's what being atheist is, relying on the logic, based on the knowledge that the human race has amassed. So if undeniable proof of a god were to be found, then how could any atheist dispute it?

Exactly, it would be both irrational and illogical to dispute such evidence. Just as it is to dispute any evidence with a reliable footing.

[Borboski]

Yep Jemble you're right.  It really isn't good enough to say "ah-ha! you materialists treat science in the same way as the rest of us! you to have 'faith'!".

Atheists (and agnostics) would welcome any evidence - we'd soon jump on the bandwagon!

[Sid8800]

I think that even if good, relaible evidence was found that backed up religion alot of athesists would dismiss it. Like how religious people dismiss and try to disprove evidence that contradicts thier beliefs.

No, that makes no sense. Surely all atheists base their philosophy on good, reliable evidence? That's what being atheist is, relying on the logic, based on the knowledge that the human race has amassed. So if undeniable proof of a god were to be found, then how could any atheist dispute it?

EDIT: Religion may be organised superstition, but it's still superstition.

Atheists don't believe in god, It has nothing to do to with the following of evidence.

When a theologian (maybe the wrong word) found that there was significant evidence (i.e. less than 5% chance of it occuring by chance) that there was a "code" in the bible that predicted future events many prominant atheist scientists desperately tried to disprove it. When then couldn't, they ignored it and continued not believing.

[Cliche Guevara]

I think that even if good, relaible evidence was found that backed up religion alot of athesists would dismiss it. Like how religious people dismiss and try to disprove evidence that contradicts thier beliefs.

No, that makes no sense. Surely all atheists base their philosophy on good, reliable evidence? That's what being atheist is, relying on the logic, based on the knowledge that the human race has amassed. So if undeniable proof of a god were to be found, then how could any atheist dispute it?

EDIT: Religion may be organised superstition, but it's still superstition.

Atheists don't believe in god, It has nothing to do to with the following of evidence.

When a theologian (maybe the wrong word) found that there was significant evidence (i.e. less than 5% chance of it occuring by chance) that there was a "code" in the bible that predicted future events many prominant atheist scientists desperately tried to disprove it. When then couldn't, they ignored it and continued not believing.

Link me up baby!

[Cliche Guevara]

Atheists don't believe in god, It has nothing to do to with the following of evidence.

Of course not. Because you can't follow negative evidence that isn't there. You cannot prove a negative. It's impossible.

[MojoJojo]

Since we seem to being using dictionary,com as evidence today

2 entries found for atheist.
a·the·ist  
   One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

An atheist can be a complete idiot, basically, like everyone else. To say that an atheist bases their philosophy on sound scientific evidence is applying what you want being atheist to be to the word.

And this isn't arguing that "faith" in science is the same as religious faith. It's saying that atheism is a question of belief (whatever that is based upon).

(Which, according to Cliche Guevara's comparison, makes it the same as Religion and Superstiton. Isn't it amazing what you can prove with a dictionary.)

[Jemble Fred]

Atheists don't believe in god, It has nothing to do to with the following of evidence.

Well that's offensive nonsense, for a start. Sorry, but it is. And again, it's self contradictory. What has your second sentence to do with your first?

Secondly, what has a supposed 'code' in a collection of different books written by many different people thousands of years ago got to do with evidence or proof of any kind? That's no sodding way to try and understand our existence.


EDIT: I'm not getting suckered into this discussion. It's all good stuff, and long may it last, but there've been so many on here over the years which I've devoted hours of my time to and I can't go through it all again.

[Sid8800]

I think that even if good, relaible evidence was found that backed up religion alot of athesists would dismiss it. Like how religious people dismiss and try to disprove evidence that contradicts thier beliefs.

No, that makes no sense. Surely all atheists base their philosophy on good, reliable evidence? That's what being atheist is, relying on the logic, based on the knowledge that the human race has amassed. So if undeniable proof of a god were to be found, then how could any atheist dispute it?

EDIT: Religion may be organised superstition, but it's still superstition.

Atheists don't believe in god, It has nothing to do to with the following of evidence.

When a theologian (maybe the wrong word) found that there was significant evidence (i.e. less than 5% chance of it occuring by chance) that there was a "code" in the bible that predicted future events many prominant atheist scientists desperately tried to disprove it. When then couldn't, they ignored it and continued not believing.

Link me up baby!

It was an episode of horizen, possibly called the bible code. The code was enentually disproved, but it would still say that my point about the ignoring of evidence stands.

That's what being atheist is, relying on the logic

Surely agnoism is the conclusion that would be reached if relying on logic.

[Cliche Guevara]

[That's what being atheist is, relying on the logic

Surely agnoism is the conclusion that would be reached if relying on logic.

Oi, you! You've misquoted me. It wasn't me wrote that. It was Jemble Fred.

Anyhow, other than that, what you say is correct. Agnosticism is the most logical conclusion as the existence of God can be neither proven or disproven. I don't dispute that.

Edit: Looking at the dictionary definition of "athiest" and the use of the word "disbelieving" rather than "not believing" it seems that agnosticism is more apt and rational. In future I will call myself an agnostic who doesn't believe in God as there is no evidence to prove this and most evidence suggests that it is unlikely. On the other hand I also will not close my mind to the possibilty that God does exist as there is no way of proving that either. It would be arrogant of me, or anyone else, to claim I knew what was right.

[Sid8800]

Atheists don't believe in god, It has nothing to do to with the following of evidence.

Well that's offensive nonsense, for a start. Sorry, but it is. And again, it's self contradictory. What has your second sentence to do with your first?

I really don't see why what I said is offensive, please explain?

Someone said that being an atheist was about FOLLOWING evidence and reason, and I said that being an atheist doesn't nessesary imply that reason and logic were followed.

[Labian Quest]

By a bit of a coincidence, I have just started reading an interesting book called 'The History of God'  it's mainly about Christinity, Judaism and Islam - the main monotheistic religions and one of the points that stuck in my mind was about how Muslims are not allowed to try and depict God in visual imagery - it's supposed to be a reminder of how the reality we call God exceeds all human expression. Which does make it rather hard to debate the subject on an internet forum - how do you discuss something you can't even define?

[Cliche Guevara]

I think that even if good, relaible evidence was found that backed up religion alot of athesists would dismiss it. Like how religious people dismiss and try to disprove evidence that contradicts thier beliefs.

No, that makes no sense. Surely all atheists base their philosophy on good, reliable evidence? That's what being atheist is, relying on the logic, based on the knowledge that the human race has amassed. So if undeniable proof of a god were to be found, then how could any atheist dispute it?

EDIT: Religion may be organised superstition, but it's still superstition.

Atheists don't believe in god, It has nothing to do to with the following of evidence.

When a theologian (maybe the wrong word) found that there was significant evidence (i.e. less than 5% chance of it occuring by chance) that there was a "code" in the bible that predicted future events many prominant atheist scientists desperately tried to disprove it. When then couldn't, they ignored it and continued not believing.

Link me up baby!

It was an episode of horizen, possibly called the bible code. The code was enentually disproved, but it would still say that my point about the ignoring of evidence stands.

Decided to have a look at this. It's interesting.

The BBC[/url]"]Michael Drosnin is an American journalist and best selling author. He has written two books claiming that he can see into the future using a 3000 year old code, hidden in the Bible.

"We may have less than three years to save our world"
Michael Drosnin, journalist and author
What he can see is truly horrific; according to Drosnin, the world could end in an atomic holocaust - in 2006.

It sounds preposterous yet Drosnin claims to have serious scientific backing. Behind his findings lies the work of one of the world's most brilliant theoretical mathematicians, an Israeli professor called Eliyahu Rips.

In 1994, using exactly the same ancient code, Michael Drosnin accurately predicted the assassination of the Israeli Prime Minister Yitzak Rabin - twelve months before it occurred.

Drosnin's books on the Bible Code have been translated into most of the world's major languages and are read by millions of people. If he's right, he's stumbled on one of the most important discoveries ever made.

[kenneth trousers]

Atheists don't believe in god, It has nothing to do to with the following of evidence.

When a theologian (maybe the wrong word) found that there was significant evidence (i.e. less than 5% chance of it occuring by chance) that there was a "code" in the bible that predicted future events many prominant atheist scientists desperately tried to disprove it. When then couldn't, they ignored it and continued not believing.

When mathematicians and statisticians went on to rubbish all his evidence, then the atheists rightly ignored it and continued not believing.

What's your point Sid?

[domesticgoddess]

I have to disagree with Tina.  You said

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.

Believing in something that brainwashes you into thinking you are inherently bad, and will never come up to scratch no matter how much you try and how much you have faith is intensely damaging.  I feel more damaged and fucked up by my years of involvement with the church than by anything else, and I have a few nasty experiences to compare it to.  Christianity works by making people feel guilty, sinful, inferior, unworthy and unfulfilled.  If that is not emotionally damaging or harmful in some other way then I don't know what is.  It preys on people's weaknesses, fears and insecurities, and fails to deliver on its promises.  We call people who do that charlatans, and often punish them by sending them to prison for the harm they have caused.  Whence the trial of God?

Also, just a pedantic point, but you don't decide to believe soemthing or not.  That's not how belief works.  I cannot make myself believe that my grandpa is alive, just by deciding to do it.  Even if I pick something without incontrovertible evidence it doesn't work.  For instance, I can't just 'decide' to believe that there is a teapot circling the moon.  I can entertain the notion that it might be a possibility.  I can agree that I cannot prove it doesn't exist.  But I cannot make myself believe it.

Oh, and you also said this:

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.

That's not the only alternative!  I'm not miserable or pessimistic, and it's not because I believe in something soothing.  And what about fairy tales?  They can be pretty soothing - everything works out well in the end.  Is believing in those better than facing reality, even if I would be a little more pessimistic?