Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
is kind of about putting aside logical and material evidence to maintain an unshakeable belief in god...
in the person's mind their faith is based on unshakeable logic. Therefore it is not irrational.
idve thought the point of faith was that it was irrational and didnt really need logical justification.
and unrelated to verifiable evidence? I don't think that is the definition which is commonly used.
I don't think it is correct
must exist, if only in the minds of the people who have a faith. Obviously whether there is a physical entity is irrelavent, because the idea of a god guides millions of people through their daily lives, on a moral basis.
The closest thing to god for me is Super Ally!
The more proctracted one I can't be bothered with is maybe
as like opposed to goddess?
Why do you ask?
Its a very general question that you ask? I suspect many people who are into the abrahemic religeons also dont really believe in god, many will just file
'the unknown' or
'its too difficult' or the
'I cant be arsed to join up my arguments and lifestyle with my personal morality'
I suspect 'Belief in God' is a flag of convenience for many
of belief or faith that is not irrational, as it is a reconnection with reality. A connection that is ripped asunder when we undergo being 'broken in' from human animal children to non-animal human adults
with other beings around us, this is ripped and reconstructed along societorial lines rather than natural lines and as such something is lost, something that people cant seem to identify and this is what religeous belief can help with for some, it seals over this gap, that many people feel.
a tv series? I wish i had seen it sounds interesting, is it literal?
except Im more like jesus (and would never force myself on someone knowingly)
but has given up on humanity, instead of believing that he never existed at all.
But then i'm past caring. What's the point in worrying about something we cannot possibly comprehend as mere humans?
As Richard Dawkins says "Its madness!"
Its so easy to press your buttons! XD
Makes you think, doesnt it?
in scrabble terms.
on Dawkins, while I find him a bit smug he does make an awful lot of interesting and valid points on religion and what have you. Watching sanctimonious religious types squirm without answers to Dawkins questions is always good viewing.
so chill out. eat, drink, wank, smoke and try not to be a cunt. then if there is a God and heaven exists, you've probably done enough to qualify, if there isn't, then you decompose like everyone else. big deal.
I got the epic-fail-lolol-wrong-end-of-stick.
It's shaky but I can't not believe in God. It's either a deep spiritual knowing that ost humans carry around as they are indeed part of God themselves (as God is one and everything, the absolute and even the nothing is between the something is God) therefore man is part of God.
Or I'm just scared about dying. I dunno.
that I reach old age, i'll start believing. Its hedging your bets, innit?
I will if he lets me know he exists though
I've not trusted any of those types since Father Christmas proved to be a SHAM AND A LIE.
I think it's something that has grown out of superstition, folklore and ignorance, and is now used to control people and as a comfort blanket to avoid thinking about the harsh truth.
I think Richard Dawkins is a smug twat though, BTW.
We're not in the 19th century
in the UK
Check out Jesus - he claimed to be God and acted as if he was God. That's the only evidence I've found of God interacting with mankind at a fixed point in history and convinced me to become a Christian, which was the best thing I ever did.
If Jesus's claims aren't true then no-one else in the history of the planet has convincingly claimed to actually be God - apart from some nutters! Lead figures from the other major religions have never claimed to be God, rather having a set of rules to follow instead. I found Christianity to be different in that I'm not following a set of rules to get to know God and stay in his good books, it's already happened. Hope that's helpful!
the son of god?
Never trust a chimp called badger folks! :OP
What you just said doesen't actually mean anything.
Jesus existed - yes
and acted like God - if we say so
and acting like God is evidence of God interacting with people - if we say so.
allagorically, to show that he could speak the truth just as much as the oppressive heirarchical priesthood, because, although the people were cowed by the priests special robes, status, power and arcane obscure knowledge, they did not necessarily have any more truth, and that the heirarchy of priesthood made the people even further from god, and that Jesus was a son of god, so why not speak directly to god, either through yourself, by realising that YOU are a child of god or the earth (or whatever deity or science or nature seems most applicable to you) or through jesus's more simple truthful teachings.
the 'teachings of jesus' as i remember them being taught seemed mostly fine and humanist, so what is the difference for those who dont believe in the bible and the teachings of say 'Smith' or 'Keynes'
economists in the secular consumercapitalist society, believe teachings of 'great men'
It is a weaker facet of humanity that more attention is paid to things when they can be hung on the cult of 'a great man' What i find a shame is that the biblical teachings of Jesus cannot be accepted as being fine as a body of philosophical morality which we would all like to aspire to but cant always because of our societys demands and our roles.......basically his philosophy could be said to enable us to realise that we (the inner us) can be innocent and pure if we tried, except that outside influences will muddy us and make that whe=ich we might like to aspire to, to be impossible or impractical.
Jesus might just have been a great teacher, trying to teach by a mixture of means (not all literal) He was maybe trying to show people better ways or trying to free them.
The thing is if people stop thinking for themselves then the wisdom he tried to help people with will not get updated (as we see seeming sensible advice subverted by 'ways round it')
Unfortunately the bible was not really attributably added to by further great teachers (OK please dont get too literal with me, i know paul revised it a lot and politically expediant revisions have occured often as well as arbitory selection for what is considered to be a biblical text)
reclaim jesus's teachings as just nice aspirations and philosophy/teachings and example (but in a humanist rather than deified way) then the christian church will get angry and try to say that this is WRONG, which is a shame that they could not condone this interpretation, and this is why many non religeous people find the whole subject a big turn off, denying even that which they could accept (if the church (as a whole) werent percieved to be so intransegent)
what he said.
(although i dont recollect hearing that Jesus did) that would mean I was a nutter?
I cant claim that of course, i would feel uncomfortable, mortal men can only ever be demi gods at best.
I would however feel comfortable about claiming that which Jesus did, cos like hes the son of god.......we're all sons and daughters of god (or as I would say 'children of the earth'.....some of us subsect and call ourselves other things as well such as 'children of circe')
he would be locked up straight away as a dangerous nutbar. Hopefully he would be able to convince the government to commision a tightly controlled experiment in which he would do some amazing miracle (televised throughout the world). If he could do it the whole world would believe and we would all be saved.
If he actually didn't have any powers at all we would think he was the biggest mentalist in the world and ridicule him endlessly.
But he limited what he said to what he thought might achieve something positive.......
It is very difficult to convince people that you mean them no harm and have no versted interest when people are so totally owned by mammon, and when those that do visibly totally reject mammon are only tolerated within cults (some beligerant some benign (krishnas))
When I chose to live in humble surroundings voluntarily giving up tv fridge bath/shower electronic music machine alcahol then I found that instantly people see you as a nutter (unless you attach some established cultishness or something that can be named as being your ethos)
Some people try to live humbly in the wild in the UK but they either are, or regarded as shy hermits who are persecuted and ridiculed................people who sensibly run away to hide in say goa jungles or live somewhere wildernessy are said to be 'escaping' or running away.
It is virtually impossible to escape from mammon yet be within society.
So i dont blame people for being in mammons grip.
What I have problems with is people extohling and praising mammon.......praising their weakness.......praising their captor and soon to be executioner
Why is this? why would one proudly wear ones greed and avarice as a badge of honour?
"I only want nice things whats wrong with that?" people bleat like some little lost lambs
they make ME want to be their shepherd and guide them to safety
(Im desperately trying to think of a suitable way to allagorically tie up a) mammon as a wolf they need protecting from and b) what will be my sheepdog/wolfhound.............perhaps I should switch the allagory to chicken run, with Mrs Tweedy as 'Mammon' and Mr Tweedy as 'government (at its best being democracy)' )
why shouldn't humans try to put themselves in a jesus type role.....some will fit some wont, but if none tried then its less likely, not every event in history is entirely predictable so that hindsight will judge many as nutters.....many will be nutters, but at least they're trying, unfortunately (of course) giving nutters their head might allow Hitler's and Stalin's or Domitian's.
What I find really wierd is that despite all the secular pragmatic ridiculing of religeon (and ignoring the fact that religeon only tends to pay lip service to these tenets)
Is that they do all tend to suggest that Mammon is daemon that can be evil and destroy us.
Yet this truth that religeons do mention, is not then documented within pragmatic secularism.
Someone recognising this evident truth might conclude that pragmatic capitalist secularism was therefor the land of Mammon and possibly everyone therein tainted by evil......indeed some people do conclude this, you know who i mean, yet these people are visited (at present by another daemon (one whose name is not fully known or understood by most at this time) The war on terror is one that is occur between two daemon armies (as far as I see it......mythographically speaking of course)
as my posts a bit further up, but in this last post I'm talking mythologically, I guess that religeous people might not get this either, im just trying to point out that it isnt as mad as it sounds, it was posted with an audience in mind (even if that audience is only in my mind)
And I don't have some in depth explanation either.
women don't need to, only men need to......because we can't be fully divine (mythographically), only women can
Do I believe in any of the religions? Absolutely not.
Crazy white beard dude in the sky? No.
<dawkins>I feel quite sad for anyone who takes them at all seriously, i mean really, do you not have some level of common sense?</dawkins>
people seem to think he's a genius because he points out "oh, by the way, you know how EVERYONE thinks that god is like some big bearded man? Well how is that even possible?! YEAH YOU HEARD ME!"
he has a lot of research to back up his beliefs, i don't think he does what he does just for money or to enrage folk. He is a scientist who puts forward perfectly logical arguments against religion/god and manages to draw some real venom from a lot of folk because of this.
but doesnt he love always providing soundbite simplistic (obviously antagonising) chunks on demand when appearing on tv or radio.....just to keep the controvesy simmering......hes a player, maybe he was sincere, but now he appears to be happily commisioned in Mammons army
his arguments are only enlightening to people who havn't thought about it... at all. That's why so many people think he's a genius.
is only enlightening to people who haven't thought about it...at all!
Dawkins has far more proof in his cannon than religious folk do!!
cannon barrels than Dawkins (OK they're not all conventional logic cannonballs, im using spoons and forks jewellry anything....like in pirates of the carribean....cos i had to ditch the cannonballs of conventional logic as they slow down your thinking...they may be the best way of sinking others dreams and hopes, but i dont really want to do that....winning by accepting loss of parts of the human race is not an option for me.......nor should it be for any deity that is worthy of human worship, or political system that is worthy of your vote)
in a way that sometimes works.
Have any of you watched 'Being There' (with peter sellers)
Unfortunately his simplistic pronouncements are effective and celebrated because we live in a soundbite generation of adverts.
I represent the opposite where I dont always get round to making the point.....and this annoys many of you, but I will defend that non brevity can be superior to brevity, sometimes you cant come up with a simple answer, because linguistical logic is not uniform across everyone, everyone 'weights different concepts and words differently' simplistic truths uncaringly applied, alienate some and divide some people, not unite them or establish more communication.
In this respect Dawkins is mischievous, i suspect there is a certain amount of revenge, behind his brutal statements and pronouncements (I can also be guilty of this, we all can)
He should know better, just cos in a moment of clarity he believes he sees the pure shining truth, does he imagine that just cos he blares it out in unconsidered manner (to celebrity fortune). That just cos he says things, that that will help others see the same thing as well?
No he is childish....his attitude of "you're stupid if you dont believe me when i tell you the obvious truth" is ignorant of what he must know of humans
while I am a fan of The God Delusion and Dawkins I take on board that there is a smugness to him and there might be a little revenge on his mind when getting a point across, I think that this is probably due to him having to deal with holier than thou sanctimonious religious types. I would no doubt have a bit of a dig myself as lets face it, atheists haven't exactly always had the floor!
he is now rich through this so he should be more professional, it is his job, he should swallow his pride and anger and still respond reasonably, not get angry, he should try to get it accepted by as many people as possible, not alienate them from listening to his more reasoned bits, he is wrong to come across as "They're stupid so they wont listen to reasoned argument, why should I dilute my message for stupid people"
It is his duty (if he believes his message to be truthful and good) to not just Statte 'his truth', but to patiently make his truth as aceptable to as many as possible, even if they slam the door in his face and throw poo at him.......that is what a true guru would do, try a different tack, one that different people would listen to
to get a reputation for being compassionate and understanding, people often do only come to things because they trust people......trust their knowledge and learning and sincerity, but also their compassion......not everyone thinks in the same logical reasoning that Dawkins is, he must accept this and try to find a way to reach them.........I feel he is actually very limited as a teacher or guru, he only appeals to the converted, he builds few bridges, which ultimately makes HIS 'truth' not a very significant one.
Hence my Dawkins quotes.
However he's not far from the mark a lot of the time. Religion is harmful, people take it as gospel (lol), they won't question it or change their views.
I find it frustrating that people can't apply simple logic of the scientific method in so far as "look for evidence' and in the face of evidence against your theories then you adapt them to match observation.
I guess my issue is with 'religious' people and where they fall on the scale of "I believe in some kind of creator" and "everything in the <holy book of choice> is 100% true". The former being entirely reasonable and the later being utter simpletons.
any more or less reasonable?
The bible (as an example) is full of inaccuracies, contradictions, allegories taken as truth.
People who refuse to even consider evidence against their belief astound me.
The difference is applying the act of reason, something the latter lacks, no?
I think that an element of why some people have belief in that which they cannot proove, is in essence the same as some research science......i.e.
They weigh up the available proof....what is provable and measurable, and taking this into account they feel that there is something missing.....the fact that what they can see does not add up to the whole, points to there being something else that cannot be proven or seen or touched or measured.
(In big partical coliders for instance, scientists might conclude lots of things.....without direct evidence....i.e. partical collides mass + total energy afterwards is not the equal to that before some is missing, scientists hypothesise that the remaining mass or energy is now in a different dimension where we cannot measure it........this is seen as logical.....yet if you think about it, there is absolutely no proof whatsoever that there is another dimension and that this explains it (other than appearing neat and beautiful) the 'unknown' in this case is given a tangible name "another dimentsion" the deduction that there is an unknown is not illogical, the naming or suggesting of it could be said to be illogical and without reason.
Similarly you are wrong to knock the motivation for believers faith to be illogical, although you could be right to knock the logic of much religeous doctrine that insists their 'naming' and detail of the unknown is the absolutely right.
This is the crux of the problem, religeous knockers attack the whole religeous experiance of believers, rather the specifics of when the believers are being unreasonable
religeon knockers want to knock 'believers' because historically religeons (especially abahimic ones) have applied unspiritual literality (as it suits the ruling power) to interpretation and sometimes enforced this illogicality with censure all the way up to extreme and brutal violence against individuals or groups......however nowadays in this country this does not apply.
I myself have been systematically censured, and I sometimes feel like just kicking back. Luckily loving humans is still more important to me than this payback desire. (although I appreciate that people who have had loved ones brutally slain may not be able to feel this way so easily)
I think to claim that religion and brutal violence are not an issue in this country is very narrow minded*.
* Note: I don't mean this in a malicious way, merely not looking bigger picture.
It's almost unfair to wholly pin historic blood-shed on religion. It's merely the lowest common denominator for conflict and has been hi-jacked as a means for power so often in the past (and still is).
People could still fight without religion, and they could still be completely chill as atheists.
waas meaning, that last post was to say that I can understand that the viewpoint of religeon haters might be that> I certainly would not wholly blame blood shed on religeon, hence i said '(as it suits the ruling power)' Often it is the marriage between religeon and power that makes religeon evil, because organised religeon can seem to command peoples spirituality and say 'you dont know best' when otherwise people might oppose the ruling power more. Expediancy is the name of the game.
A strictly heirarchical and obediance demanding religeon mirrors, ro an extent, that which a ruling centralised authoritarian government will want. It was due to this near match in sensibilities that in the end christianity was adopted by the roman empire and the christ organisation re-arranged itself along the authoritarian centralised control model, and stamped out dissent within and without its own ranks.
Religeon in this sense has little to do with spirituality, Religeon in this sense has more to do with trying to control how people behave according to what they believe is right or wrong or unjust.
It is the harnessing of the religeous network, by unpopular centralised authority that has made organised religeon look unattractive to those without.
Of course I realise that ostensibly, some bloody violence still occurs (in the name of religeon in this country) but I am still correct in saying it doesnt really happen in this country much anymore. Many things are easier to describe and report on if you put things under a banner...a name.
Anyway the point is my last post was not meant to be making any point beyond saying that I can understand why Dawkins might hate and want to 'get a few sneaky kicks in' on religeous believers, although I think he is intellectually immature for doing so
There are entire branches of modern physics that are untestable right now, an awful lot of quantum mechanics is based on , as you said, making things "neat and beautiful".
1) What is untestable now may well be testable in the future.
2) "Neat and beautiful" in that sense refers to mathematics, where you're describing the physical properties observed. You are theorizing an explanation and then trying to disprove it.
My point was that by and large scientists are included to testing and re-examining their beliefs and changing them accordingly where as religious believers are quite the opposite.
That is why I made the point about the later being less reasonable, and I feel it's fair.
I only made my case against religion, not the nebulous concept of 'God'. My original post was quite carefully worded in that respect.
When you get in to the realms of the real unknown, where science claims ignorance, you're really talking about the origin of the universe.
I'll quite happily accept the idea of Pantheism, but at that point you are so very very far removed from the the ideals and ideas presented in the vast majority of modern religions.
Hence 'define God'.
god is a verbal word that means so many different things and hues and weightings to different people (and this varies within individuals over time, despite protestations and declarations of constancy.....all that means is complacency.
Anyone who was truely spiritual should constantly nbe searching, looking examining, reevaluating, to do otherwise is being condescending to the world (which is what I consider my deity.....'existance' 'the universe')
My personal view (i'll avoid the rather loaded term 'belief') is close to that of Pantheism.
We are the universe, the universe is us. We merely happen to perceive a place where things are very seperate and not made of the same 'stuff'.
However I find that concept very difficult to reconcile with modern religion, hence my rather contrary view towards it. There's no worship, no "help in times of need", no preference, there only "is".
underpangs and creakyknees.
I enjoyed reading all that!
What do I look like to you? An idiot? Christ.
"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
'God' in the Judo-Christian sense actually took the lives of more human beings than 'Satan'.
I find this interesting.