Atheist vs. Religious

[Lokhtar]

We first need to agree that there can possibly be something behind that curtain before we even bother to describe what that is.

You're putting the cart before the horse. You have to describe it before I can tell you if its possible for it to exist.

How can I agree or disagree about the possibility if I don't even know what you're talking about?

You: "Hey, we can talk only if you believe I can do X?"
Me: "What's X?"
You: "Just say if you think its possible."
Me: "But.."
You: "SAY IT."
Me: "Fine. Yes."
You: "X = running a 30 second marathon. Haha, sucker."

Now if X means running a marathon at all, I would say it's possible theoretically, and I'd have to know a little bit about your fitness level to give you my opinion on whether you'd be able to do it.

One scenario is worth having a discussion on, the other isn't. I can't say I agree to the possibility of something without knowing what that is. It makes no sense.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[354844]

"I would love to believe that when I die I will live again, that some thinking, feeling, remembering part of me will continue. But much as I want to believe that, and despite the ancient and worldwide cultural traditions that assert an afterlife, I know of nothing to suggest that it is more than wishful thinking. The world is so exquisite with so much love and moral depth, that there is no reason to deceive ourselves with pretty stories for which there's little good evidence. Far better it seems to me, in our vulnerability, is to look death in the eye and to be grateful every day for the brief but magnificent opportunity that life provides."

- Dr. Carl Sagan
"In the Valley of the Shadow," Parade, 10 March 1996​

 

[KinasePro]

I can't say I agree to the possibility of something without knowing what that is. It makes no sense.

You've obscured our original exchange (which was you disagreeing with a description of God that I offered) and have ignored my last response entirely. Getting back to the original framework, you just described what is essentially question B) from my last post. You're saying "I won't believe it unless you can describe it," which ignores the possibility that "it" can exist but cannot be adequately described.

Now, you could accuse me of getting "too philosophical" and metaphysical in this discussion (as one poster has earlier in this thread), but I'm afraid there's no way around it. At it's core, the question of whether God exists is similar to questions of whether love or virtue exists. They're intrinsically nebulous questions that can't be proven empirically, unlike your curtain & marathon analogies which are readily negotiated.

 

[Lokhtar]

OK, I accept the possibility.

Can you describe it now please?

(And, as an aside, you can prove both love and virtue exist, they have definitions that we can agree upon, and then we can look at a specific behavior and argue and agree or disagree about if that behavior meets the definition).

 

[chemsmith]

i must be agnostic, it doesn't make sense to claim certainty either way

 

[peteB]

You've obscured our original exchange (which was you disagreeing with a description of God that I offered) and have ignored my last response entirely. Getting back to the original framework, you just described what is essentially question B) from my last post. You're saying "I won't believe it unless you can describe it," which ignores the possibility that "it" can exist but cannot be adequately described.

Does it even matter whether something exists or not if you cannot describe it? What's the point of arguing whether thing X exists or not when you know nothing about thing X?

 

[Akali]

Christianity doesn't actually teach any of this. Have you read this thread?

Logic alone is as simplistic as science alone and still has the problems of solipsism and potentiality.



This isn't true at all if there is an objective reality & truth, which nihilism rejects.

Oh, it doesn't teach any of those things does it? According to the so-called "word of god":

Leviticus 25:45: Owning slaves.
Deuteronomy 22:28: Raped women must marry their rapist.
Leviticus 20:10: If you cheat, you are to be punished by death. So is the woman you had relations with.
Leviticus 20:13: Homosexual men must also be killed.

Please be more of a blind sheep. If I could make a stupid law like your god loves to do, I would decree that nonsensical people like you be barred from practicing medicine.

 

[KinasePro]

OK, I accept the possibility.

Can you describe it now please?

(And, as an aside, you can prove both love and virtue exist, they have definitions that we can agree upon, and then we can look at a specific behavior and argue and agree or disagree about if that behavior meets the definition).

Unfortunately, I don't have a particularly good description of God apart from my religious views. At a fundamental level, I accept that there is the possibility of God, and to better understand God, I turn to religion.

Regarding love an virtue, we absolutely cannot define it objectively so it cannot be proven empirically. Try to get a tea party republican and east-coast liberal to agree on the definition of virtue. Or to take this thought to an extreme example, I guarantee that your idea of love & virtue is far different from Hitler's. So who's right? We must accept that both are right (making virtue non-existant or meaningless) or turn to an external objective benchmark. There are other ways to try to deal with this, but IMO they boil down to this ultimatum.

Does it even matter whether something exists or not if you cannot describe it? What's the point of arguing whether thing X exists or not when you know nothing about thing X?

Because when you look at the history of the world, belief in God (in particular, the Judeo-Christian God) has fundamentally changed the way we treat each other (see: founding fathers, all men created equal, abolition of slavery, civil rights movement). It's easy to only see the mistakes people have made in the name of religion (I agree, there are many), while missing the contributions religion has had to our very basic idea of right and wrong (see also the earlier discussions on infanticide).

Oh, it doesn't teach any of those things does it? According to the so-called "word of god":

Leviticus 25:45: Owning slaves.
Deuteronomy 22:28: Raped women must marry their rapist.
Leviticus 20:10: If you cheat, you are to be punished by death. So is the woman you had relations with.
Leviticus 20:13: Homosexual men must also be killed.

Please be more of a blind sheep. If I could make a stupid law like your god loves to do, I would decree that nonsensical people like you be barred from practicing medicine.

Straw man argument. No serious Christian believes the Bible should be taken literally, save for some fundamentalist nut jobs. You clearly don't know what Christianity actually teaches, so why are you so bigoted against all Christians? You're literally making up beliefs that no serious Christian holds, and chastising Christians for your own erroneous views of their faith.

And I shouldn't be allowed to practice medicine? That's a lot of prejudice coming from someone who is attempting to take a moral high ground. Very ironic.

 

[Akali]

Unfortunately, I don't have a particularly good description of God apart from my religious views. At a fundamental level, I accept that there is the possibility of God, and to better understand God, I turn to religion.

Regarding love an virtue, we absolutely cannot define it objectively so it cannot be proven empirically. Try to get a tea party republican and east-coast liberal to agree on the definition of virtue. Or to take this thought to an extreme example, I guarantee that your idea of love & virtue is far different from Hitler's. So who's right? We must accept that both are right (making virtue non-existant or meaningless) or turn to an external objective benchmark. There are other ways to try to deal with this, but IMO they boil down to this ultimatum.



Because when you look at the history of the world, belief in God (in particular, the Judeo-Christian God) has fundamentally changed the way we treat each other (see: founding fathers, all men created equal, abolition of slavery, civil rights movement). It's easy to only see the mistakes people have made in the name of religion (I agree, there are many), while missing the contributions religion has had to our very basic idea of right and wrong (see also the earlier discussions on infanticide).



Straw man argument. No serious Christian believes the Bible should be taken literally, save for some fundamentalist nut jobs. You clearly don't know what Christianity actually teaches, so why are you so bigoted against all Christians? You're literally making up beliefs that no serious Christian holds, and chastising Christians for your own erroneous views of their faith.

And I shouldn't be allowed to practice medicine? That's a lot of prejudice coming from someone who is attempting to take a moral high ground. Very ironic.

Yeah, most Christians don't actually believe those particular scriptures, but that in itself is one of the serious problem with religion. The things that Christians do believe, including the central premise that their god even exists, are based on other passages in the Bible. It's cherry-picking. It makes no sense. It's illogical. Humanity needs logic and sensibility, which are the foundations of science. It's logic-based science, not some faith-based religion, that is responsible for us even being able to have this discussion on an internet message board.

And actually, quite a number of Christians DO believe in the verse against homosexuality. I would presume few would actually want homosexuals to be put to death, but many use the Bible as their reason for thinking homosexual sex to be immoral.

And I don't actually think you shouldn't practice medicine, that would be ridiculous. I was just using it as an example trying to emphasize that many of the Judeo-Christian's god's rules are ridiculous.

 

[pdxhopeful]

I would say I'm agnostic. Never had any experiences that would lead me to believe in the supernatural, but I'm open to the possibility such things exist.

Trying to figure out whether or not there is a god or gods doesn't keep me up nights though, because I don't find the question all that relevant. If there is no god, my job is to do the best I can to lead a good life and help people. If there is a god, and he/she/they is/are worthy of the name, my job is still to do the best I can to lead a good life and help people. Pretty simple.

 

[KinasePro]

Yeah, most Christians don't actually believe those particular scriptures, but that in itself is one of the serious problem with religion. The things that Christians do believe, including the central premise that their god even exists, are based on other passages in the Bible. It's cherry-picking. It makes no sense.

The problem is that Christianity has been significantly distorted in the last ~70 years. If you look across history, the Bible has long been understood in the Church as a compilation of documents; some historical, some mythical, some poetic, some prophetic. Without the perspective of the true Church, they can be misconstrued to mean terrible things (see: westboro baptist).

Humanity needs logic and sensibility, which are the foundations of science. It's logic-based science, not some faith-based religion, that is responsible for us even being able to have this discussion on an internet message board.

While I empathize with this line of thought, it still takes a great deal of faith to abide by it. We discussed this in depth in the first few pages of this thread, that relying on your own perspective of logic and empirical science doesn't actually free you from relying on faith.

And actually, quite a number of Christians DO believe in the verse against homosexuality. I would presume few would actually want homosexuals to be put to death, but many use the Bible as their reason for thinking homosexual sex to be immoral.

IMO, this is another topic that has been blown out of proportion in recent years by fundamentalist Christians. There's so much fuss over gay marriage while the country has >50% divorce rate... It makes no logical sense to be concerned with what the government's interpretation of marriage is when they have already botched the institution by the church's standard anyway.

 

[Seahawk]

Yeah, most Christians don't actually believe those particular scriptures, but that in itself is one of the serious problem with religion. The things that Christians do believe, including the central premise that their god even exists, are based on other passages in the Bible. It's cherry-picking. It makes no sense. It's illogical. Humanity needs logic and sensibility, which are the foundations of science. It's logic-based science, not some faith-based religion, that is responsible for us even being able to have this discussion on an internet message board.

And actually, quite a number of Christians DO believe in the verse against homosexuality. I would presume few would actually want homosexuals to be put to death, but many use the Bible as their reason for thinking homosexual sex to be immoral.

And I don't actually think you shouldn't practice medicine, that would be ridiculous. I was just using it as an example trying to emphasize that many of the Judeo-Christian's god's rules are ridiculous.

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M4YuMxRpY1M[/YOUTUBE]

 

[sibitrum]

Unfortunately, I don't have a particularly good description of God apart from my religious views. At a fundamental level, I accept that there is the possibility of God, and to better understand God, I turn to religion.

Why do you arbitrarily choose the Christian interpretation of a god though? Why not Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, ancient Greek polytheism? Do you think that the Christian god actually directed the development of the bible? If so, what's your evidence?

 

[kpcrew]

Why do you arbitrarily choose the Christian interpretation of a god though? Why not Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, ancient Greek polytheism? Do you think that the Christian god actually directed the development of the bible? If so, what's your evidence?

Geographical considerations.

 

[Lokhtar]

Unfortunately, I don't have a particularly good description of God apart from my religious views. At a fundamental level, I accept that there is the possibility of God, and to better understand God, I turn to religion.

Based on what do you accept the possibility? There must be SOME description of God you can give? Something as fundamental as 'entity that created the universe." Otherwise what the hell was the point of this whole song and dance about asking me to accept the possibility first? You could have just said this six posts ago and saved us both the time.

Regarding love an virtue, we absolutely cannot define it objectively so it cannot be proven empirically. Try to get a tea party republican and east-coast liberal to agree on the definition of virtue. Or to take this thought to an extreme example, I guarantee that your idea of love & virtue is far different from Hitler's. So who's right? We must accept that both are right (making virtue non-existant or meaningless) or turn to an external objective benchmark. There are other ways to try to deal with this, but IMO they boil down to this ultimatum.

Wanna bet? I bet we can agree to a definition. Even with my tea party family. And if we can't, we are at least putting forth our definitions and disagreeing. You aren't even doing that. You're evading the question every time.

As for Hitler, I bet his definition of love was probably the same as us. I'm sure he loved his girlfriend and he would describe that feeling the same as us. He just hated whole groups of people and did very evil things because a lot of people gave him that power. Nazism wasn't about one evil guy at the top, there were millions of people (a LOT of them Christians and atheists and all sorts) who all were complicit and believed the same thing which allowed the evil acts to continue. I'm sure they too loved their mothers, wives, children. I highly doubt they would have a different definition.

 

[KinasePro]

Why do you arbitrarily choose the Christian interpretation of a god though? Why not Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, ancient Greek polytheism? Do you think that the Christian god actually directed the development of the bible? If so, what's your evidence?

I touched on this briefly earlier in the thread, where I provided essentially a twitter summary of the major world religions. Christianity appeals to me for 2 main reasons (there are others, but I'll keep it simple): 1-- it's central concern/twitter summary is one that I believe is very poorly dealt with by humanity in a vacuum (namely, what defines right vs. wrong) and 2-- if you look at world history, Judeo-Christian teaching has brought more lasting moral truths into our every day philosophy than any other faith or secular ideology, that goes for theist and anti-theist alike.

The ancient greeks, hindus, and muslims accept tremendous moral transgressions, and while I admit that in some instances I partly agree with their insights on who/what God is, they are by my assessment clearly further from the truth than Christianity (particularly in their ideas on the value of human life and equality).

 

[Lokhtar]

The problem is that Christianity has been significantly distorted in the last ~70 years. If you look across history, the Bible has long been understood in the Church as a compilation of documents; some historical, some mythical, some poetic, some prophetic. Without the perspective of the true Church, they can be misconstrued to mean terrible things (see: westboro baptist).



While I empathize with this line of thought, it still takes a great deal of faith to abide by it. We discussed this in depth in the first few pages of this thread, that relying on your own perspective of logic and empirical science doesn't actually free you from relying on faith.



IMO, this is another topic that has been blown out of proportion in recent years by fundamentalist Christians. There's so much fuss over gay marriage while the country has >50% divorce rate... It makes no logical sense to be concerned with what the government's interpretation of marriage is when they have already botched the institution by the church's standard anyway.

Yea cause its not like before the past 70 years, they really did anything like that.

 

[Lokhtar]

I touched on this briefly earlier in the thread, where I provided essentially a twitter summary of the major world religions. Christianity appeals to me for 2 main reasons (there are others, but I'll keep it simple): 1-- it's central concern/twitter summary is one that I believe is very poorly dealt with by humanity in a vacuum (namely, what defines right vs. wrong) and 2-- if you look at world history, Judeo-Christian teaching has brought more lasting moral truths into our every day philosophy than any other faith or secular ideology, that goes for theist and anti-theist alike.

The ancient greeks, hindus, and muslims accept tremendous moral transgressions, and while I admit that in some instances I partly agree with their insights on who/what God is, they are by my assessment clearly further from the truth than Christianity (particularly in their ideas on the value of human life and equality).

Actually the people who started rejecting judeo christian philosophy brought more lasting moral truths into our lives (eg the enlightenment).

I find it hilarious that you think your morals come from the Bible. If they did, what's considered moral by a majority of Christians wouldn't keep changing every generation. The truth is, society decides for itself what's moral and then looks for justification for those beliefs in their holy books. And what do you know, they tend to find it.

 

[KinasePro]

Based on what do you accept the possibility? There must be SOME description of God you can give? Something as fundamental as 'entity that created the universe." Otherwise what the hell was the point of this whole song and dance about asking me to accept the possibility first? You could have just said this six posts ago and saved us both the time.

As I said in my original response to you:

if we're talking about my faith, I'd say God isn't meant to be an entity w/ properties that describes things. Christianity teaches that God is existence, sometimes referred to as "I am." It's basically panentheism, and God's nature is admittedly mysterious.

My point in later posts was that our conversation would be fruitless for us both if we couldn't agree on the possibility, as it's putting the cart before the horse. But now that we agree on the premise, I'm def interested in your take on how to handle the possibility of God. Above is mine.

Wanna bet? I bet we can agree to a definition. Even with my tea party family. And if we can't, we are at least putting forth our definitions and disagreeing.

This is what it boils down to. Who's right?

 

[peteB]

The ancient greeks, hindus, and muslims accept tremendous moral transgressions, and while I admit that in some instances I partly agree with their insights on who/what God is, they are by my assessment clearly further from the truth than Christianity (particularly in their ideas on the value of human life and equality).

I'm interested to know what the tremendous moral transgressions are that Hindus accept? I've read Hindu texts and I'm not sure what you're referring to.

 

[KinasePro]

Actually the people who started rejecting judeo christian philosophy brought more lasting moral truths into our lives (eg the enlightenment).

This is actually the last time I'm going respond to this argument, because I've already done so multiple times in this thread and clearly no one is actually reading the older posts. This whole discussion is endlessly spinning in the sh:tter.

For the last time, the sanctity of human life and human rights was a uniquely Judeo-Christian idea. If you don't believe me, feel free to read this thorough history or western thought written by a famous atheist.. We don't leave unwanted infants to die in the sun because the Jews prohibited it first, for purely religious reasons. Be objective and read history to see for yourself.

 

[peteB]

This is actually the last time I'm going respond to this argument, because I've already done so multiple times in this thread and clearly no one is actually reading the older posts. This whole discussion is endlessly spinning in the sh:tter.

For the last time, the sanctity of human life and human rights was a uniquely Judeo-Christian idea. If you don't believe me, feel free to read this thorough history or western thought written by a famous atheist.. We don't leave unwanted infants to die in the sun because the Jews prohibited it first, for purely religious reasons. Be objective and read history to see for yourself.

The ideas you mention were present in Eastern philosophies too, they are not uniquely Judeo-Christian. The history your refer to is only that of Western philosophy. Western philosophy and is not the only philosophy in the world! Also, history as written by Westerners has been shown by Eastern historians to be lacking and biased when it comes to describing the history of the East.

 

[sibitrum]

For the last time, the sanctity of human life and human rights was a uniquely Judeo-Christian idea. If you don't believe me, feel free to read this thorough history or western thought written by a famous atheist.. We don't leave unwanted infants to die in the sun because the Jews prohibited it first, for purely religious reasons. Be objective and read history to see for yourself.

Why does it matter which religion thought of an idea first (assuming they did)? I may happen to agree with many of the ten commandments, but I don't believe in Noah's arc, the burning bush, miracles, etc. Ideas are separable from other ideas. They don't come wrapped in indigestible bundles. One aspect of a religion does not imply the truth value of the rest of the religion.

 

[KinasePro]

I'm interested to know what the tremendous moral transgressions are that Hindus accept? I've read Hindu texts and I'm not sure what you're referring to.

The caste system, karma, and reincarnation have some significant implications in the way you should treat others, IMO. But I'm not here to bash them by any means, just giving personal reasons for disagreeing with some themes in their faith.

I'm honestly not looking to cut other faiths down, but for such a personal question I can only provide a personal answer. Had I been born into a hindu/ancient greek/muslim culture, I readily admit that I likely would be a member of one of those faiths. But given my culture, freedom, and privilege to explore all faiths, its my opinion that those faiths aren't right for me.

 

[KinasePro]

The ideas you mention were present in Eastern philosophies too, they are not uniquely Judeo-Christian. The history your refer to is only that of Western philosophy. Western philosophy and is not the only philosophy in the world! Also, history as written by Westerners has been shown by Eastern historians to be lacking and biased when it comes to describing the history of the East.

This is an interesting point and a large can of worms. Suffice to say history disagrees with your first statement, but you raise in interesting objection in you last statement. A lot of truths were reached completely independently in the east and west, but history shows us that the Jews were the first to prohibit infanticide and promote sanctity of human life, which later became a (nearly) global truth.

Why does it matter which religion thought of an idea first (assuming they did)? I may happen to agree with many of the ten commandments, but I don't believe in Noah's arc, the burning bush, miracles, etc. Ideas are separable from other ideas. They don't come wrapped in indigestible bundles. One aspect of a religion does not imply the truth value of the rest of the religion.

Agreed, and its by this logic that I discriminate among the other faiths. But if you take the stance of someone who believes in an objective truth, than it's a legitimate concern where that truth is found.

IMO, this becomes a very personal choice, and I don't doubt that being a westerner has biased me toward Christianity. I'll also admit that I'm not in any position to make judgement calls on followers of other faiths (I may have done the same in their shoes), I can only speak for myself as to why I chose mine.

 

[peteB]

The caste system, karma, and reincarnation have some significant implications in the way you should treat others, IMO. But I'm not here to bash them by any means, just giving personal reasons for disagreeing with some themes in their faith. Honestly not looking to cut other faiths down, but it was a personal question and that's my personal answer.

OK I understand your viewpoint. I just want to clarify something about "caste" since you've brought it up. I'm no expert in Hinduism but I've read enough to realize that the idea of caste and its relevance in Hinduism is grossly misinterpreted by many.

It is much like the parts of the Bible that refer to stoning people or killing homosexuals or suppressing women. It is not a center point of Hindu thought. The caste system was actually enforced in India through laws put into place by the British as part of their divide-and-conquer approach to rule. There is plenty of evidence that prior to the British, caste was a fluid idea, and was not at all central to the Hindu philosophy. Some very prominent schools of Hinduism, such as Advaita Vedanta, actually have always been openly critical of the idea of caste.

If you read the Bhavagat Gita and other Hindu texts, you will find that Hindus are actually told that each human being is part of the "Immortal Self" and as such they should be treated with kindness and respect regardless of their station in life. The idea of "caste" is much like the idea of specializations in medicine. Some people are merchants, other people are warriors, other people are priests, etc. It's a way of organizing society and isn't really relevant to spirituality. Of course, it was corrupted by those who aspired to have power and control over others, as happens in just about every religion.

Karma and reincarnation are God's domain. God punishes or rewards people based on their actions. It's a very fair system in my opinion. That doesn't affect how people are expected to treat each other. In fact, being kind to a person who is suffering is always a good thing in Hinduism, regardless of whether that suffering is due to that person's own evildoing in a past life.

 

[sibitrum]

but to even imply that my ability to produce evidence has any (ANY) impact on the probability of existence is simply wrong. As I said earlier, logically absurd. Absence of evidence is never evidence of absence. This logic is not (ever) to be used to imply that lack of negative evidence supports the claim. Both statements are equally ridiculous and guilty of the same logical fallacy. That is the point I have been making all along.

I realized I didn't address this point earlier in the thread, and it is a very important one. Absence of evidence does actually provide evidence of absence.

Not understanding the prinicple has resulted in atrocities in the past. This article explains it well:
http://lesswrong.com/lw/ih/absence_of_evidence_is_evidence_of_absence/

If something does not exist then it will 100% not provide any evidence of its existence. However, if something does exist, it may be unlikely to provide evidence of existence, but it is a number less that 100%. In the context of a god, depending on your view, this percentage could be close to 0 (if you're gullible enough to believe in unverified supernatural occurrences), or closer (but not at) 100%, if you believe in a god who likes to sit back and relax.

 

[peteB]

This is an interesting point and a large can of worms. Suffice to say history disagrees with your first statement, but you raise in interesting objection in you last statement. A lot of truths were reached completely independently in the east and west, but history shows us that the Jews were the first to prohibit infanticide and promote sanctity of human life, which later became a (nearly) global truth.

Actually the idea of the sanctity of human life is found as early as the Rig Veda, which is thought to have existed earlier than 3000 BCE and was thought to have been finalized around 1700 BCE. The exact dates are not well known, but it definitely predates Judeo-Christian religions a lot by everyone's measure. You can read more about the concept of 'atman' if you are interested. "History" as we know it is very Western-centric, so we can't rely on it alone to make judgments about the entire world. There's a lot of stuff that happened in the world from the dawn of mankind, and western historians knew mostly what their religions and cultures were up to, not so much what was going on thousands of years before that in other parts of the world.

Interestingly, as a side note, the Rig Veda even recognizes homosexuality and trans-sexuality as normal.

 

[KinasePro]

OK I understand your viewpoint. I just want to clarify something about "caste" since you've brought it up. I'm no expert in Hinduism but I've read enough to realize that the idea of caste and its relevance in Hinduism is grossly misinterpreted by many.

It is much like the parts of the Bible that refer to stoning people or killing homosexuals or suppressing women. It is not a center point of Hindu thought. The caste system was actually enforced in India through laws put into place by the British as part of their divide-and-conquer approach to rule. There is plenty of evidence that prior to the British, caste was a fluid idea, and was not at all central to the Hindu philosophy. Some very prominent schools of Hinduism, such as Advaita Vedanta, actually have always been openly critical of the idea of caste.

If you read the Bhavagat Gita and other Hindu texts, you will find that Hindus are actually told that each human being is part of the "Immortal Self" and as such they should be treated with kindness and respect regardless of their station in life. The idea of "caste" is much like the idea of specializations in medicine. Some people are merchants, other people are warriors, other people are priests, etc. It's a way of organizing society and isn't really relevant to spirituality. Of course, it was corrupted by those who aspired to have power and control over others, as happens in just about every religion.

Karma and reincarnation are God's domain. God punishes or rewards people based on their actions. It's a very fair system in my opinion. That doesn't affect how people are expected to treat each other. In fact, being kind to a person who is suffering is always a good thing in Hinduism, regardless of whether that suffering is due to that person's own evildoing in a past life.

interesting stuff. Thanks for your insights. I definitely haven't given the Bhavagat Gita as much attention as it deserves, perhaps I'll tackle it after step 1.

 

[peteB]

interesting stuff. Thanks for your insights. I definitely haven't given the Bhavagat Gita as much attention as it deserves, perhaps I'll tackle it after step 1.

Sounds good. I'm a Christian by birth but I've realized that it doesn't make sense for me to just accept the only religion that I know, so I've gone out and read as much as I can on the other schools of thought. What I've realized is that no one can really understand all the religions in the world, ever. It takes so long just to understand one philosophy that the idea of understanding them all and making a truly informed decision about them is really not possible.

Hinduism alone has so many different schools of thought. Many people believe it's a singular religion, but it's not. In fact schools like advaita and dvaita directly contradict each other. The same's true for Buddhism and lots of other religions as well.

That's one of the reasons that it's hard for me to be religious. How can I possibly be sure I've got the truth when I haven't even really got to the point of understanding my own religion thoroughly, much less every other religion in the world? How can anyone, really? For all I know the truth could be in some small religion somewhere that has been kept in a tiny village somewhere with little contact to the outside world.

How many Christians have even read the whole Bible? Forget actually understanding all of it..

 

[KinasePro]

Actually the idea of the sanctity of human life is found as early as the Rig Veda, which is thought to have existed earlier than 3000 BCE and was thought to have been finalized around 1700 BCE.

We could probably do a great bit of squabbling over what the "sanctity of human life" means, but in terms of preserving every human life, I'd disagree that the Rig Veda espouses this explicitly (at least from what I've seen). It's approached metaphysically, but not delineated in any concrete religious laws.

 

[SpecterGT260]

I realized I didn't address this point earlier in the thread, and it is a very important one. Absence of evidence does actually provide evidence of absence.

Not understanding the prinicple has resulted in atrocities in the past. This article explains it well:
http://lesswrong.com/lw/ih/absence_of_evidence_is_evidence_of_absence/

If something does not exist then it will 100% not provide any evidence of its existence. However, if something does exist, it may be unlikely to provide evidence of existence, but it is a number less that 100%. In the context of a god, depending on your view, this percentage could be close to 0 (if you're gullible enough to believe in unverified supernatural occurrences), or closer (but not at) 100%, if you believe in a god who likes to sit back and relax.

this is just mincing words. In terms of falsifying hypotheses, absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence. In fact, your own reasoning doesn't support your claim. and that link is absolutely absurd.... as is the attempt to link that to what we are discussing here. Because 1 A-hole decided to use that line in an unfortunate way does nothing to discredit its validity. In fact, the last line of my quote there covers exactly what your link discusses. Unfortunately the author simply misses the point in his/her title.

Let's put it another way - Absence of evidence is simply absence of evidence. Nothing more. By definition you have failed to show ANYTHING. It constitutes "nothing". So, you are now arguing in favor of drawing a conclusion based on "nothing". This is the EXACT thing you are criticizing in theists. I will see you in church next sunday Seriously... we keep going round and round in circles here, and people fail to realize that the hypocrisy in their attempts to attack the alternative view point.

You can easily say that in terms of evidence, the probability is low enough that you choose to believe option A over option B, but you cannot attempt to extend that to say that option B cannot be a possibility. Well... you can... but such an attempt would only demonstrate a poor grasp of the logic involved in making such decisions


and just to get a little philosophical here...... Your numbers only work if you confine the idea of a deity to your (our) current understanding and experience. Such a god would have to be within a system in order to leave evidence within that system. It would have to be subject to the governing laws which dictate physical interactions within the system. IMO if the classic idea of "a god" is even approached it is silly to assume such constraints. I think assumptions such as the one you make here occurs when people misunderstand the basic principles.... "god" isnt assumed to be hanging out up in space as a physical being trying to dodge the hubbel space telescope, but such things seem to be implied by your assertions here.

Food for thought: have you ever heard the school of thought which says that if you know the exact positions and velocities of all particles in a system you can predict the future positions of each? Basically, this suggests that the entire history of the universe was set at the moment of the big bang - that while random, all future events are a direct product of this event. There are even those who suggest that all of our personal experiences, choices, whatever, are simply manifestations physical probabilities (hawking had a cool little blurb on free will awhile back... not that anyone has to accept that, nor do I think he believes it. But rather he was just making a comment on the application of physics). If that is true at all, any entity which could have stacked the deck for the big bang would easily fulfill every claim any religion has ever made. Also, no evidence within the system other than the existence of the system itself would ever be measurable.

 

[peteB]

We could probably do a great bit of squabbling over what the "sanctity of human life" means, but in terms of preserving every human life, I'd disagree that the Rig Veda espouses this explicitly (at least from what I've seen). It's approached metaphysically, but not delineated in any concrete religious laws.

Fair enough. I don't know enough about Vedic Laws to discuss this. My point was that the concept that all human life is sacred has existed before Judeo-Christian thought. As far as its implementation- I'm not sure, I'd have to read more.

 

[KinasePro]

That's one of the reasons that it's hard for me to be religious. How can I possibly be sure I've got the truth when I haven't even really got to the point of understanding my own religion thoroughly, much less every other religion in the world? How can anyone, really? For all I know the truth could be in some small religion somewhere that has been kept in a tiny village somewhere with little contact to the outside world.

How many Christians have even read the whole Bible?

You raise some great objections and I agree that these are the central problems of religion. The question of "which religion?" is a deeply personal one that has a lot of inputs, and I'm in no position to judge others based on my own conclusions.

But I'd offer that at its core, all religion is about the individual and his/her pursuit of truth. In my mind, someone who is honestly searching for truth is in a way religious. That's one of the reasons I'm so fond of Christopher Hitchens, despite how strongly I disagree with him. He strived for the truth and was consistent in thought like no other atheist I have heard.

 

[peteB]

You raise some great objections and I agree that these are the central problems of religion. The question of "which religion?" is a deeply personal one that has a lot of inputs, and I'm in no position to judge others based on my own conclusions.

But I'd offer that at its core, all religion is about the individual and his/her pursuit of truth. In my mind, someone who is honestly searching for truth is in a way religious. That's one of the reasons I'm so fond of Christopher Hitchens, despite how strongly I disagree with him. He strived for the truth and was consistent in thought like no other atheist I have heard.

What do you think about the idea that most religions have that if you don't accept their version of truth, then you will subject to harsh punishment, often eternal? If you spend your life honestly and earnestly searching for truth, but you just can't make up your mind (because it's an incredibly complex question) before you die, do you think God would really punish you for that?

 

[KinasePro]

What do you think about the idea that most religions have that if you don't accept their version of truth, then you will subject to harsh punishment, often eternal? If you spend your life honestly and earnestly searching for truth, but you just can't make up your mind (because it's an incredibly complex question) before you die, do you think God would really punish you for that?

I'd say that the traditional/orthodox church teaches that Christians are not in the position to make judgements on others' souls. Faith is a very personal endeavor, and trying to "convert" or proselytize others is discouraged (this is starkly different from western protestantism, i know). While we maintain that our traditions are the best way to know God, we can't judge how earnest followers of other faiths, or other non-religious truths, will relate to God. I'd also argue that the destiny of other souls has never really been the focus of true Christianity. This can be seen in the lives of many of the saints, who literally lived alone in the desert for most of their lives.

That being said, I do believe that we have the faculties to find the best version of the truth that is available to us, and I feel accountable for seeking out that truth and living according to it.

 

[peteB]

I'd say that the traditional/orthodox church teaches that Christians are not in the position to make judgements on others' souls. Faith is a very personal endeavor, and trying to "convert" or proselytize others is discouraged (this is starkly different from western protestantism, i know). While we maintain that our traditions are the best way to know God, we can't judge how earnest followers of other faiths, or other non-religious truths, will relate to God. I'd also argue that the destiny of other souls has never really been the focus of true Christianity. This can be seen in the lives of many of the saints, who literally lived alone in the desert for most of their lives.

That being said, I do believe that we have the faculties to find the best version of the truth that is available to us, and I feel accountable for seeking out that truth and living according to it.

OK -- now do you think that the true God, whoever/whatever God is, would punish people for not arriving at the actual truth, assuming that they have used their faculties, as you described, to seek out the best version of the truth they can? Many religions, Christianity included, seem to suggest that it doesn't matter how hard you try, if you pick the wrong God, you're in trouble. (First Commandment) This seems a bit unfair given how hard it is to answer the question of "what religion?" What do you think? I personally think that God would be more concerned with how you have lived your life - morally, ethically, etc.

 

[RandomChampion]

We could probably do a great bit of squabbling over what the "sanctity of human life" means, but in terms of preserving every human life, I'd disagree that the Rig Veda espouses this explicitly (at least from what I've seen). It's approached metaphysically, but not delineated in any concrete religious laws.

The Rig Veda represents what is known as Sanatana Dharma (the pure and original form of what is today known as Hinduism). "Hinduism" as practiced and defined today is a corruption of Sanatana Dharma and is not the same thing.

In fact, Sanatana Dharma is not actually a religion as other formal creeds with lists of laws such as Christianity, Islam, Judaism, and other "typical" religions are. Sanatana Dharma gives reverence to individual spiritual experience over any formal religious doctrine. Wherever the Universal Truth is manifest, there is Sanatana Dharma — whether it is in a field of religion, art or science, or in the life of a person or community. Wherever the Universal Truth is not recognized, or is scaled down and limited to a particular group, book or person, even if done so in the name of God, there Sanatana Dharma ceases to function, whatever the activity is called.

Sanatana Dharma rrecognizes only one Supreme/"God" (a better term would be Truth) . It is thoroughly scientific religion and science meets hand in hand. Here theology is based on upon science and philosophy.

"The Vedic revelationis of all revelations the only one whose Ideas are in perfect harmony with Modern Science, as it proclaims the slow and gradual formation of the world."

You raise some great objections and I agree that these are the central problems of religion. The question of "which religion?" is a deeply personal one that has a lot of inputs, and I'm in no position to judge others based on my own conclusions.

But I'd offer that at its core, all religion is about the individual and his/her pursuit of truth. In my mind, someone who is honestly searching for truth is in a way religious. That's one of the reasons I'm so fond of Christopher Hitchens, despite how strongly I disagree with him. He strived for the truth and was consistent in thought like no other atheist I have heard.

OK -- now do you think that the true God, whoever/whatever God is, would punish people for not arriving at the actual truth, assuming that they have used their faculties, as you described, to seek out the best version of the truth they can? Many religions, Christianity included, seem to suggest that it doesn't matter how hard you try, if you pick the wrong God, you're in trouble. (First Commandment) This seems a bit unfair given how hard it is to answer the question of "what religion?" What do you think? I personally think that God would be more concerned with how you have lived your life - morally, ethically, etc.

What you both describe here is at the core of Sanatana Dharma. All that matters is Truth, and that Truth (what can also be translated as God - Sanskrit is very hard to translate into English) pervades everything. "[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Truth behind all ephemeral truths. The Vedic concept of God/Truth is an architect whose structures all exist within him. Nothing can exist outside the Supreme Reality".

It doesn't even matter what you call yourself. A self-proclaimed Muslim, Christian, even atheist can all follow the path of Sanatana Dharma (he/she will probably be doing it unknowingly, though).

.It is also important to note that the Vedic concept of God is not like God as generally known to people. God in Sanatana Dharma is not the personal God like that of the Abrahamic religions. I don't even know how to describe it - its nondualism is really beyond monotheism - which creates a fundamental duality of God and man. Evil is not envisaged as a quality opposed to good. It is the absence of good, just as darkness is the absence of light, not its opposite quality. This is just as Truth has no opposite quality, just the absence of truth.

It is very difficult to explain all of this, though, since the Vedas and other Shruti are written in Sanskrit, meaning it's extremely difficult to properly translate the meaning into English. I am the first generation in my family to not know Sanskrit but at least my grandma has been teaching and explaining these to me for as long as I can remember time using a combination of English and Hindi.

Also, the Bhagavad Gita is not on the same category as the Vedas. The Vedas are what are known as Shruti, meaning it is what was revealed from the "divine breath" itself. The Bhagavad Gita is Smriti, meaning it is more of a remembered story portraying dharma. Basically, the Shruti is supreme in Dharma.

Edit: The caste system is BS lol. One of the many corruptions (like vegetarianism)

 

[UCSFx2017]

Francis Collins on how he decided to convert:

"I was hiking in the Cascade Mountains on a beautiful fall afternoon. I turned the corner and saw in front of me this frozen waterfall, a couple of hundred feet high. Actually, a waterfall that had three parts to it — also the symbolic three in one. At that moment, I felt my resistance leave me. And it was a great sense of relief. The next morning, in the dewy grass in the shadow of the Cascades, I fell on my knees and accepted this truth — that God is God, that Christ is his son and that I am giving my life to that belief. "

Brb, gonna go visit a waterfall.

Here's how C.S. Lewis converted from staunch Atheist to devout Christian. He went on a long motorcycle ride to the zoo with the creator of the Lord of the Rings and Hugo Dyson. They rode all through the night. The next morning, "Lewis believed in the Son of God."

[youtube]www.youtube.com/watch?v=ub4-3GYlHTw[/youtube]

Famous Harvard psychiatrist examines and compares the lives of Lewis and Freud. Both great men suffered a great deal of emotional and physical pain yet one was better equipped to embrace the suffering and the other was not.

If you believe there is enough inferential proof to completely disavow the "slim" possibility that God exists like most rational people, good for you and carry on with your life. But you'll have to admit that life is a chasing after the wind. There is no means to the end. You'll just make one life goal after another, trying to fill a supposed "God-hole." You might try to distract yourself from your existential angst with family, friends, work, and materialistic entertainment. Ultimately, you're hopeless; you're hopeless in terms of no culmination at the end of your short life. Under this healthcare culture, you'll grow as old, sick, and crippled as medically possible until you finally croak. The universe is so infinitely old and large, your physical body and length of existence is so small and insignificant, and yet your mind is infinitely complex that you can comprehend that existence is pointless.
If you feel like you have a God-hole, why not go ahead and look for God in ancient writings. Godspeed and good luck because you'll need it to find a religion that makes sufficient sense and consistency.

[YOUTUBE]www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymjuxVPBZYc[/YOUTUBE]

^ Discussion round table.

 

[UCSFx2017]

Yea cause its not like before the past 70 years, they really did anything like that.

If you met a rare, genuine Christian, you'd realize how attractive their humanity is. I could not help but be drawn to them regardless of how much I wanted to point out my opinions on the Bible and argue with them.
Nothing in the New Testament or the life of Christ would strongly suggest that murdering millions of innocent people is justified for the real reasons why the institutions went to war in the first place.

This guy does not seem like a murderous dick.
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?....143186307391.136681.721232391&type=1&theater

 

[UCSFx2017]

Francis Collins on how he decided to convert:

"I was hiking in the Cascade Mountains on a beautiful fall afternoon. I turned the corner and saw in front of me this frozen waterfall, a couple of hundred feet high. Actually, a waterfall that had three parts to it — also the symbolic three in one. At that moment, I felt my resistance leave me. And it was a great sense of relief. The next morning, in the dewy grass in the shadow of the Cascades, I fell on my knees and accepted this truth — that God is God, that Christ is his son and that I am giving my life to that belief. "

Brb, gonna go visit a waterfall.

Obviously sarcasm but I think that picture is quite interesting. Waterfall empties into a single spring which further empties into many rivers or streams.
It wasn't the physical waterfall that turned Collins into a Christian. The waterfall is most likely a picture of the process that their Triune God (God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit are one; 1^3 = 1) went through. The waterfall symbolizes the Father as the source. God the Father is outside of time and seeks a counterpart like the way a man seeks a wife. Or more allegorically, the way God's creation Adam sought the making of Eve as his wife and counterpart. Note God's quote, "It is not good for man to be alone." Well then its probable that God is also not happy with being alone.
With this goal in mind, the Triune God enters time as Jesus, a morally perfect God-man. The spring that is sourced from the waterfall symbolizes Jesus. Jesus lives this perfect human life and dies on the cross and thereby saves humanity from their sinful nature, not just their sins.
But saving this group of people was not the only purpose of Jesus' death. It was through this death, that Jesus also "became a life-giving Spirit." Not in a transitive or modal sense but as a process. This Spirit is able to enter man and transform the once sinful man into a replication of Jesus' humanity and from the inside-out [Spirit -> Soul -> and eventually the physical body]. This Spirit entering the spirit of men, which each man possesses, is symbolized by the many rivers or streams sourced from the spring.
These people's souls are spiritually transformed to the moral equivalent of Jesus' perfect humanity via extensive life-long Bible reading, prayer, and experience. They do this until they die and hopefully they are completely transformed before they die. If their souls are transformed into a perfect humanity through these steps, their souls are saved and they become a constituent of the New Jerusalem, mentioned in Revelations, which is supposedly the Bride of God. The same counterpart that God in eternity sought after before the creation of man. It's an interesting love story. What exactly happens in eternity? Nobody I've asked really knows. Some say it's everlasting enjoyment or bliss. But then I'd ask, what's the point of everlasting bliss? What's the point of anything including eternity?

What doesn't make sense to me is how we, as in our souls, are supposed to find meaning and value in our lives through the Christian religion when it expects us to lose our soul life by losing and transforming our soul to match the humanity of Christ. To me this losing of the soul-life is almost the equivalent of not existing in the first place. Maybe we aren't meant to seek meaning and value in our lives. I don't understand what the ultimate Christian reward is. How is it less vain than the view of atheists who believe their only purpose is evolution's purpose which is to just procreate?

 

[yellowbird12]

Agnostic here, but open to truth, it if ever presents itself

Matthew 7:7-8 NKJV
7 "Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. 8 For everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened.

Jeremiah 29:13NKJV
13 And you will seek Me and find Me, when you search for Me with all your heart.

Seek search go on a quest to know the Truth;
don't be passive about this.
Would it not be the wise smart thing to make sure you know?

 

[Lokhtar]

Sanatana Dharma rrecognizes only one Supreme/"God" (a better term would be Truth) . It is thoroughly scientific religion and science meets hand in hand. Here theology is based on upon science and philosophy.

"The Vedic revelationis of all revelations the only one whose Ideas are in perfect harmony with Modern Science, as it proclaims the slow and gradual formation of the world."

That by definition makes it not science. Proclaiming anything without providing evidence is not scientific. Whether it happens to turn out to be right in one area is besides the point.

lso, the Bhagavad Gita is not on the same category as the Vedas. The Vedas are what are known as Shruti, meaning it is what was revealed from the "divine breath" itself. The Bhagavad Gita is Smriti, meaning it is more of a remembered story portraying dharma. Basically, the Shruti is supreme in Dharma.

Edit: The caste system is BS lol. One of the many corruptions (like vegetarianism)

I've read the Bhagvat Gita - I don't think you want to be taking morality from there either.

 

[sibitrum]

Matthew 7:7-8 NKJV
7 "Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. 8 For everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened.

Jeremiah 29:13NKJV
13 And you will seek Me and find Me, when you search for Me with all your heart.

Seek search go on a quest to know the Truth;
don't be passive about this.
Would it not be the wise smart thing to make sure you know?

The whole idea of religion is predicated on the notion that it attempts to never let you see whether its claims are true or not. Submitting yourself to the will of a religious institution is literally the exact opposite of a way to seek truth.

"Carl Sagan once told a parable of a man who comes to us and claims: 'There is a dragon in my garage.' Fascinating! We reply that we wish to see this dragon—let us set out at once for the garage! 'But wait,' the claimant says to us, 'it is an invisible dragon.'
Now as Sagan points out, this doesn't make the hypothesis unfalsifiable. Perhaps we go to the claimant's garage, and although we see no dragon, we hear heavy breathing from no visible source; footprints mysteriously appear on the ground; and instruments show that something in the garage is consuming oxygen and breathing out carbon dioxide.

But now suppose that we say to the claimant, 'Okay, we'll visit the garage and see if we can hear heavy breathing,' and the claimant quickly says no, it's an inaudible dragon. We propose to measure carbon dioxide in the air, and the claimant says the dragon does not breathe. We propose to toss a bag of flour into the air to see if it outlines an invisible dragon, and the claimant immediately says, 'The dragon is permeable to flour.'

Carl Sagan used this parable to illustrate the classic moral that poor hypotheses need to do fast footwork to avoid falsification. But I tell this parable to make a different point: The claimant must have an accurate model of the situation somewhere in his mind, because he can anticipate, in advance, exactly which experimental results he'll need to excuse....'
Source: Belief in Belief

 

[UCSFx2017]

This is actually the last time I'm going respond to this argument, because I've already done so multiple times in this thread and clearly no one is actually reading the older posts. This whole discussion is endlessly spinning in the sh:tter.

For the last time, the sanctity of human life and human rights was a uniquely Judeo-Christian idea. If you don't believe me, feel free to read this thorough history or western thought written by a famous atheist.. We don't leave unwanted infants to die in the sun because the Jews prohibited it first, for purely religious reasons. Be objective and read history to see for yourself.

Why does your example of the "Golden Rule," which is to treat others as you would like to be treated, have to originate from God-inspired Judaic law or any other religion? Couldn't such values be argued to have had unwritten and much older evolutionary origins? We can see examples of this all throughout the animal kingdom.

 

[SpecterGT260]

Why does your example of the "Golden Rule," which is to treat others as you would like to be treated, have to originate from God-inspired Judaic law or any other religion? Couldn't such values be argued to have had unwritten and much older evolutionary origins? We can see examples of this all throughout the animal kingdom.

I agree with you for the most part.... but I am unaware of this in the animal kingdom.... I think any examples will be stretched a little too thin to take seriously.

 

[UCSFx2017]

My observations say there probably is no God; my intuition says that there is a God. Yet my intuition has no conviction of the existence of the flying spaghetti monster or a unicorn.

 

[SpecterGT260]

I agree with you for the most part.... but I am unaware of this in the animal kingdom.... I think any examples will be stretched a little too thin to take seriously.

My observations say there probably is no God; my intuition says that there is a God. Yet my intuition has no conviction of the existence of the flying spaghetti monster or a unicorn.

oh... yeah I see how that answers the question

 

[AFMD]

Always wondered this--I know most scientists are atheists, wondering how med students compare.

I'd be interested to see of the research on that.

 

[KinasePro]

Why does your example of the "Golden Rule," which is to treat others as you would like to be treated, have to originate from God-inspired Judaic law or any other religion? Couldn't such values be argued to have had unwritten and much older evolutionary origins? We can see examples of this all throughout the animal kingdom.

This isn't the golden rule we're talking about here. The historical example I'm highlighting is infanticide, which is an entirely different moral quandary. The moral question is "why bother to care for an infant that will cost my family excessive resources and gain us nothing?" and before the Jews, the answer was universally "don't bother, just let the it die in the elements." It happens in the animal kingdom all the time, and it happened plenty throughout the course of human history.

It's perfectly logical to let the infant die if you don't have the resources to support it, so I can't say I blame any of the ancient societies for this practice. But if you look at history, the Jews were the first culture to prohibit this based on concept Imago Dei, and now it's a commonly held moral "instinct" in the western world. People try to explain it away with pop/evolutionary psychology, but there's a clear place in human history where this widely-accepted moral originated.