Religion And Common sense

[QProtocol]

Okay, this is not a Spam or Flame war thread.
Just discuss why you do or don't practice a religion etc.

I don't
Thats not bad, it my way of life.
I would rather make sure something goes a certain way in a situation than prey that it turns out alright.

 

[Sui]

i do not carry out any religios.... things..... because i see no point in it. I definately dont go against religeon though, e.g. i wouldnt swear on anyones life. (unless i was REALLY sure on it).

 

[Lil' Timmy]

interesting to see how long this one stays civil..

anyway, i don't practice any religion or 'spirituality' (afaik) b/c i've never felt like i needed explanations for anything beyond normal reality.. i never really thought about something and said, "gee, that has to have something supernatural or metaphysical involved". i'm pretty laid-back, and don't fuss over things i don't understand too much though

i've never experienced anything that would lead me to believe that there is more to this world than those things that i experience day-in and day-out, nor have i any cause to believe that that set of experiences contains anything 'metaphysical' or what have you.

 

[Sui]

that pretty much sums up everything that i belive but couldnt be arsed to type in one.

 

[Pseudonym_]

I'm not religious, but I'm very spiritual. In my eyes religion is the dogmatic, faith driven(spirituality, for me, has been based much more on personal experience than faith in something that is unexperienced), and often commercialized version of spirituality. Thats not to say that organized religion is wrong, I just think alot of the spiritual aspects of religion that were included in the beginning have been forgotten along the way. I watch a bit of christian TV just to see what those guys are preaching, and none of it has anything to do with developing yourself spiritually. All they do is repeat this or that Bible verse, and hammer it into your head. They don't really provide anything more than Bible school did for me when I was 7 years old. This is why the church today lacks spirituality. Church, and religion in general, has become a social status function rather than an institute for spiritual development.

 

[Lil' Timmy]

hi pseudonym

 

[[Matt]]

Religion And Common sense.... dont mix??

 

[D33]

I really couldn't state my reasons without going into an essay and I really cba to write an essay.

 

[Lil' Timmy]

Religion And Common sense.... dont mix??

well.. common things are rarely sensible.

 

[Maskirovka]

Church, and religion in general, has become a social status function rather than an institute for spiritual development.

totally agree with that. I was brought up Catholic, but as soon as I was old enough to think for myself I realized that what they were preaching had nothing to do with spirituality and everything to do with making sure that I conformed to the Church's teachings (which are really demands and decrees)

I'm still somewhat of an agnostic...I believe there is some kind of higher power. I've come to that conclusion through life experience and it'd be really really hard to explain why. The thing that always stumps everyone is the paradox of "what happened before creation" ...what was there before God created the universe...or before the Big Bang or whatever else you believe in.

 

[ductonius]

well.. common things are rarely sensible.

That would explain the popularity of atheism amongst adolecents.

(I dont want to start a flame war, but I couldnt resist)



In any case, someone said that they had never expierence anything that would make them religous. I would like to say that I too have never expierenced anything that can remotly resemble divine, however, I do practice a religion simply becuae the existance of a god (God, Lord, Allah, Jehova, whatever you want to call him) or a first mover (if you want to be more technical about it) is implied by the meerly by the fact that the universe exists.

I therefore thank the first mover (or God, Lord, Allah, Jehova, whatever) for allowing my existance.

The religion I chose I picked because its 1) teachings made the most sense and 2) the book of the religion was written by the prophet himself so no one is interperiting what he said. In fact, the interperitation is up to me.

 

[Varg|Hund]

Nope, I'm an atheist.
I have no idea if there are any gods or not, and I don't want to know.
I'm much happier not believing anything then I would be if I knew that some big pink pixie in the sky was watching everything I did.

 

[Lil' Timmy]

he's actually more of a taupe.. :|

/spam

 

[Maskirovka]

I do practice a religion simply becuae the existance of a god (God, Lord, Allah, Jehova, whatever you want to call him) or a first mover (if you want to be more technical about it) is implied by the meerly by the fact that the universe exists.

I therefore thank the first mover (or God, Lord, Allah, Jehova, whatever) for allowing my existance.

The religion I chose I picked because its 1) teachings made the most sense and 2) the book of the religion was written by the prophet himself so no one is interperiting what he said. In fact, the interperitation is up to me.

that "first mover" argument was developed by St. Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century because he was troubled by inconsistencies in the church's ideology at the time. He wrote this poem:

Things are in motion, hence there is a first mover.
Things are caused, hence there is a first cause.
Things exist, hence there is a creator.
Perfect goodness exists, hence it has a source.
Things are designed, hence they serve a purpose.

the "first mover" argument or "proof" for a god has been disproven by physics. The conservation of energy is proof enough that motion can exist without a "first mover".

for example, gas molecules may bounce against the walls of a container without requiring anyone to get them moving. In principle, these molecules can move forever, requiring no beginning or end.

As long as mass and energy are conserved, a "first mover" is not needed.

"perfect goodness exists" is a moral argument, and therefore is the weakest, since it is logically wrong as soon as someone disagrees with it.

and evolution shows that there need be no "first designer". things can be "designed" out of randomness.

it's fine if you want to choose a religion because of its teachings and such, but don't rely on a 700 year old proof to back your choice up. In no way am i knocking anyone's choice of religion, I just wanted to point out the flaws in some of the "proofs" that (a) god exists.

 

[JunkieXL]

Pure atheist here, my friend.

 

[Letters]

I was raised as Catholic and have stuck with it, having been 'confirmed' and all that... I do, however, keep an open mind on everything and I will *never* let my religion come in the way of something I want to do, nor let it force me into something I *don't* want to do.

Hey, I figure it can't hurt, eh?

 

[Maskirovka]

i was "confirmed and all that" as well...the problem is, unless you keep a closed mind and *let* your religion come in between you and reality, you're not being a "good catholic."

 

[Letters]

i was "confirmed and all that" as well...the problem is, unless you keep a closed mind and *let* your religion come in between you and reality, you're not being a "good catholic."

Oh well...

 

[ductonius]

the "first mover" argument or "proof" for a god has been disproven by physics.

Most of the physics your probably thinking of have to do with the origin of the universe etc etc.

This branch of physics is highly theoretical and is therefore no kind of proof whatsoever. In addition, although the math they base their predicitons and suppositions on may seem very concrete, it literally gets turned over and invaldiated every day by some other mathematical discovery.

In addition, you are making the classical mistake that science can make conclutions, it cannot.

The conservation of energy is proof enough that motion can exist without a "first mover".

Actually, its not because conservation of energy fails to explain where that energy came from in the first place.

As long as mass and energy are conserved, a "first mover" is not needed.

As long as mass and energy exist, they need to have been "produced" .

"perfect goodness exists" is a moral argument, and therefore is the weakest, since it is logically wrong as soon as someone disagrees with it.

Also incorrect. If the quality of goodness exists, there must be something that has the greatest ammount of this quality.

It is not a moral arugment at all. Read some Aristotal and your'll know more about what Aquinas is talking about.

and evolution shows that there need be no "first designer". things can be "designed" out of randomness.

Evolution only explains speciation and is a very fractured theory at that. There are literally dozens of differnet models of evolution and they need not bear any resemblence to each other.

In addition, evolution does not show that things can be designed from randomness. It shows that under very specific sets of circumstance certain adaptations will be made, that is, animals do not arise randomly but in concert with their environment.

Yes, you could say it was random mutation, but when you concider how DNA works this falls apart. DNA is designed to destory itself if it is randomy mutated. Only certian combinations of genes are allowed to exist. You may call the mutations random, sure, but whatever the DNA uses to select those which it is allowed to keep is certainly not.

In addition, the one thing evolution cannot explain is how life started at all.

it's fine if you want to choose a religion because of its teachings and such, but don't rely on a 700 year old proof to back your choice up.

Its fine that you choose not to beleive the first mover proof, but dont rely on scraps of scientific theory to back your beleif up.

 

[Maskirovka]

In addition, the one thing evolution cannot explain is how life started at all.

Its fine that you choose not to beleive the first mover proof, but dont rely on scraps of scientific theory to back your beleif up.

people have created the building blocks of life (the precursors to amino acids) in the lab with sparks and seawater...there's your "start" of life.

and don't tell me to "read some aristotle" or some such crap..."there is goodness" is a moral argument...period. I can just as easily say "there is randomness". I can say that there is no "good" or "bad". There is just reality...and people choose to label that. Everything related to "good" or "bad" can be changed depending on your point of view, which in and of itself makes it a moral discussion that depends on your view of what is good and bad.

and your only argument to back up aquinas was that the mass and energy must have been produced in some way first....DUH. I never said science had all the answers. I was just disproving Aquinas.

I was trying to draw parallels between science and religion, but i failed to point that out sufficiently. I was taking apart Aquinas piece by piece so of course i should've expected you to take my "argument" apart piece by piece. What i should've done is sum what i was trying to say up in a better way.

My real point was that science is almost exactly like religion in many ways. They are both ways of explaining things that cannot be immediately explained. Of course science hasn't solved the mystery of "what existed before creation?" neither religion nor science can answer that question.

science tries to explain it, but Einstein's theories fail at the extremely tiny distances that existed at the very beginning of the big bang....so there can be no proof. religion tries to explain it, but there is no concrete proof...nothing tangible. Therefore religion and science are almost exactly the same thing...this is where i get my spirituality from.

the fact that after 2000 years of science fighting religion, they have come to be stuck on the same issues...both lacking proof in one way or another. that's what gives me that sense of awe and hope and all that stuff people get from having a religion.

 

[Gorgon]

You should ve make a poll with what is ur R:

Jew
Chris
Muslim
Bodisim
PrayForCow
PrayForFire
PrayForxxx

 

[Prince of China]

Christianity(me)
Judiasm and Catholism + Christianity are pretty related.
Dedicated to God, but Christianity i's God's man-God son:Jesus, Judiasm goes another way and Catholism I think has something to do with Romans.(Not Sure)

 

[Maskirovka]

You should ve make a poll with what is ur R:

Jew
Chris
Muslim
Bodisim
PrayForCow
PrayForFire
PrayForxxx

PrayForGorg0ntonotpostanymore :\

sorry dude...not to flame...just to tell you i have very little respect for anything you say. and not that you should care what i think...just letting you know that i think the vast majority of your posts are either childish, contain unfunny "humor" or don't make any sense.

 

[Maskirovka]

Christianity(me)
Judiasm and Catholism + Christianity are pretty related.
Dedicated to God, but Christianity i's God's man-God son:Jesus, Judiasm goes another way and Catholism I think has something to do with Romans.(Not Sure)

thanks for that uhhh...lesson. but why is that on topic? (read the first post)

 

[Lil' Timmy]

well, i can't say i had high hopes for this thread..

 

[Prince of China]

thanks for that uhhh...lesson. but why is that on topic? (read the first post)

Didn't want people to get confused:|lol
It isn't on topic, just thought it would be nice to let those how don't know to know.

 

[Maskirovka]

well, i can't say i had high hopes for this thread..

i don't have any hope for any thread :\

but if they're gonna crash & burn, i prefer them to do so in 2 or 3 pages....not 23

 

[Pressure]

Hmmmm...If this God like figure in all the religions is so forgiving he wouldn't care what religion you are. He would know we don't know what the truth is or which religion is the right one and wouldn't care what religion you are because you only had good intent.

 

[Pseudonym_]

wouldn't care what religion you are because you only had good intent.

That seems reasonable.......until you realize it's flawed in that you make the assumption that what seems good to us must also seem good to God. And it is clearly not the case. Hitler had good intent, from his perspective he was making the world a better place. Thats an extream, but the point is God decides what is good, not the individual. You can do nothing but what seems good to you your entire life, and still be going against the will of God at every turn.

There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death. - Proverbs 14:12

 

[Korgoth]

Well I think religion is a good thing. There are a few simple rules/laws in any religion that if followed we could all benefit. Now, religous fanatics are dangerous, and often times do the exact opposite of what they "believe"...
Faith, and hope are good things as well, really its all a matter of personal opinion. Whatever makes you happy then go with it.

 

[csmighty1]

I'm a follower of a religon but i never go to church...I guess that makes me a non-believer in the social ring of things.

Anyways, I noticed that whenever I'm at a funeral (I'm sure we all have been) I kind of believe in some other divine force. Did you ever get that feeling? It's pretty hard to explain. I think when I'm about to crap my pants, I would want to believe that something else exists in death because it would definitly make my last thoughts more comforting. Ya know what i mean? If there's nothing in death, then what the hell is death?

 

[ductonius]

people have created the building blocks of life (the precursors to amino acids) in the lab with sparks and seawater...there's your "start" of life.

#1. those same experiments create hydrocarbons, which are toxic to all but a few organims on earth.

#2. Amino acids are the building blocks of life just as bricks are the buildising blocks of walls. A bunch of bricks sitting by themselves will no more assemble into a wall than amino acids will assemble into a living organism.

#3. Those are experiments in a lab done under carefully controlled conditions. There is little reason to think that those same conditions could be exactally replicated in nature at a great enough frequency for life to arise. In addiiton, even if they did, they would create material toxic to that life at the same rate.

and don't tell me to "read some aristotle" or some such crap..."there is goodness" is a moral argument...period.

Oh, how I wish putting "period" at the end of a sentance closed an argument, but alas, it does not.

Saying "there is goodness" is a statment that the property of "goodness" exists. In contrast, moral arguments make judgements on the level of the property "goodness" in an action, situation or whatnot.

This is an improtant distincition. It is the differce betwen saying "there is temperature" (statement that a property exists) and saying X item is cold (a statment of the level of temperature).

I can just as easily say "there is randomness".

Your absolutly right. You could say that a property of "randomness" exists. This would mean that something has the greatest ammount of randomness and another has the least.

However, the problem with declairing the property "randomness" is that actions that we humans see as random are not in fact random. They appear random becuae we cannot concieve of all the factors that attribute to the situation. If you were able to comprehend, predict and account for all the factors that went into a lottery draw you could pick the winning numbers every time. However, there is such an astonishingly large number of factors in the situation that no one and no computing device can predict the outcome.

We call this random.

It is a way of politely declaring our ignorance.

I can say that there is no "good" or "bad". There is just reality...and people choose to label that. Everything related to "good" or "bad" can be changed depending on your point of view, which in and of itself makes it a moral discussion that depends on your view of what is good and bad.

That dosent take away from the fact that the property of "goodness" exists. Your argument is that people choose to assign different levels of it to the same thing. This would be a good argument against a notion that the exact level of "goodness" in something can be determined. However, it is not an argument against the existance of the property "goodness".

and your only argument to back up aquinas was that the mass and energy must have been produced in some way first....DUH. I never said science had all the answers. I was just disproving Aquinas.

You see, thats the problem, it dosent disprove aquinas since it cannot say where the matter and energy came from. Aquinas's argument concerns itself with the origin of matter and eneregy, not what happens after they already exist.

My real point was that science is almost exactly like religion in many ways. They are both ways of explaining things that cannot be immediately explained. Of course science hasn't solved the mystery of "what existed before creation?" neither religion nor science can answer that question.

That is one view of it, however, that is not how I view sience and religion in teh slightest. The emperical principal states that science will concern itself with that which can be sensed or detected; the physical world. This is fine, since it has defined its role to one branch of life and I have never konwn a science text to contain moral directives.

Religion concerns itself with social order, interhuman relationships and spiritual guidance. I have found this to be a good definition and have never known a holy book to contain a thesis on astrophysics. It therefore concerns itself with another branch of life.

science tries to explain it, but Einstein's theories fail at the extremely tiny distances that existed at the very beginning of the big bang....so there can be no proof. religion tries to explain it, but there is no concrete proof...nothing tangible. Therefore religion and science are almost exactly the same thing...this is where i get my spirituality from.

Human knowledge in imperfect. I dont expect religion to solve questions best left to science. However, I have found many instances where the teachings of science and religion coincide.

the fact that after 2000 years of science fighting religion, they have come to be stuck on the same issues...both lacking proof in one way or another. that's what gives me that sense of awe and hope and all that stuff people get from having a religion.

We have only really had "science" for much less than 2000 years. Before that and even after the emperical principal came into use, many of the scientific advancements were made by monks and holy people becuae they had the time to think about things other than survival. Case in point: Gregor Mendel.

Science and religion are not opposed, nor do the principals on which they run conflict. As usual, us humans have screwed things up enterly.

 

[pat_thetic]

Inbetween athiest and agnostic... Can't stand organized religion.. Having to go to Catholic school and being preached to everyday why athiests are horrible people, and other such crap, makes me hate religion even more...

 

[Pressure]

Well find out what God thinks of us when were dead.

 

[pat_thetic]

Also, why if your a great guy, do nothing wrong in your life, but your an athiest you have to go to "hell"??

 

[Prince of China]

Meow!

LOL! I can' believe they made Jedi a religion...
Oh, and Pat, you don't go to hell for being an atheist, I don't know where you got that impression.

 

[Pseudonym_]

Also, why if your a great guy, do nothing wrong in your life, but your an athiest you have to go to "hell"??

God decides whats right and whats wrong, not the individual. You may believe that your not doing anything wrong, and you may have good intentions, but that doesnt mean your doing what is right in God's eyes.

The very act of being athiest is rejecting God, and therefore every athiest lives a wicked life because he continually rejects God.

 

[Pressure]

Also, why if your a great guy, do nothing wrong in your life, but your an athiest you have to go to "hell"??

I seriously doubt that true. If there is a God he'd let you go into Heaven anyway I say. Thats just religions trying to scare you into believing them. What kind of God wants people to worship him out of fear? If that was true I wouldn't call him merciful or forgiving because hes sending someone to hell for doing nothing wrong.

 

[Prince of China]

God decides whats right and whats wrong, not the individual. You may believe that your not doing anything wrong, and you may have good intentions, but that doesnt mean your doing what is right in God's eyes.

The very act of being athiest is rejecting God, and therefore every athiest lives a wicked life because he continually rejects God.

You can't go to Tibet and tell the Buddhists there that because they don't believe in him and believe in another religion-they're going to the SAME hell you may be going to.

 

[Pseudonym_]

If that was true I wouldn't call him merciful or forgiving because hes sending someone to hell for doing nothing wrong.

Again, you dont decide whats wrong and whats not. God does. If you live a life that continually rejects him, why should he not reject you?