Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[G-Flex]

I'm just going to leave a note here-people say the church has done so many terrible things in its past (crusades, inquisition, etc.) but what about all those benevolent services done by religious institutions? The Salvation army is a good example, or the smaller charity activities done by local churches.

What about them? I believe they exist. On the other hand, I feel their religious dogma sometimes gets in the way (see: Catholic charities operating in AIDS-stricken Africa who don't dare suggest using condoms). I believe that charity can exist without religion, and that wars can exist without religion, and I certainly never meant to suggest that religion is an entirely negative thing.

[Megaman]

I'm just going to leave a note here-people say the church has done so many terrible things in its past (crusades, inquisition, etc.) but what about all those benevolent services done by religious institutions? The Salvation army is a good example, or the smaller charity activities done by local churches.

What about them? I believe they exist. On the other hand, I feel their religious dogma sometimes gets in the way (see: Catholic charities operating in AIDS-stricken Africa who don't dare suggest using condoms). I believe that charity can exist without religion, and that wars can exist without religion, and I certainly never meant to suggest that religion is an entirely negative thing.

Yes, but there are those who would suggest it is indeed entirely negative. Though there are those who would suggest it's nothing but charity, despite all that happened. Both sides are, in a way, wrong. Indeed, members of both the atheist and religious appear to suffer from some feeling of powerful self-righteousness. "Your idols are false! For I and other atheists know that only logic and disbelief in your silly God is the way to wisdom!" Or, "HEATHEN! THOU HAST SINNED AND YEE SHALL BE DAMNED TO HELL!" etc.

[Frumple]

If the existence of any non-empirical entity is irrational, how do you decide what the right thing to do is?  When you get to a fork in the road, how do you decide which way to go?  (In philosopher-speak, how do you derive normative statements from exclusively positive empirical statements?)

Faith is a lot trickier than religious belief and can include untested but not untestible propositions (such as "I believe going right will get me to place X more effectively"). It's still a faith claim, but of quite the different sort. A number of scientific theories and axioms fall under that umbrella. One of the larger issues with a great deal of metaphysically motivated faith claims is that they tend strongly to fall under the latter category -- you have no means of testing (and perhaps more importantly, communicating or replicating the tests you do make). So, you don't need untestable faith to decide which way to go, you just need have prior knowledge of, say, a map and extrapolate from that which direction to take.

There's also plain random chance, or simply choosing without sufficient justification for discrimination -- in the former case, you let some (sufficiently) random principle (coin toss, RNG code, whatev') choose for you. In the latter case, it's a simple principle -- if you have no reason to favor one choice over the other, either will do. The old philosopher's example is with an animal set before two piles of food, of equal size, quality, and distance from the animal, with no other influences on the animal's choice. Tellingly, the animal will not starve because it cannot choose between two choices in all ways equal, and neither will humans. You choose one and go along.

Just as the parallel postulate (or its negation) lets you make lots of interesting conclusions about space, belief in god (or any other normative principle) lets you make lots of interesting conclusions about the rightness or wrongness of certain behavior.  Unless you are willing to adopt some faith-based belief (christian god or no) how can we know how to act?

Belief in god isn't a normative principle -- belief in a particular religion's moral doctrine (Particularly regarding the implications of that god's existence) might be, though. 

As for normative beliefs, my preference is aiming for whatever has the least metaphysical burdens, if for no other reason than that less moving parts means less chance of breaking. Moral good does not require divine mandate, and can be rationalized by an appeal to social structure or self-interest (or a few other things as well, really). The simple answer is that there's not many conclusions reachable through religiously motivated normative beliefs that can't be reached by ones that aren't so motivated (and certainly none I've thus far been interested in holding)-- and in which case, why complicate things needlessly? Especially when there's a historically repetitive occurrence of needlessly assumed metaphysical burdens contradicting or interfering with themselves

I just kinda' like to start and stop my normative belief formation with "Be awesome to one another as much as possible," basically. Because I'd like you to be awesome to me, and assume that's reciprocal. When folks don't let their burdens get in the way of that, well, we're cool, y'know? We don't actually need more than that if everyone'd stick to it.

Talking about religion on the net never goes well, but believing in god myself, it's interesting to see why others lack faith.

I'm just going to leave a note here-people say the church has done so many terrible things in its past (crusades, inquisition, etc.) but what about all those benevolent services done by religious institutions? The Salvation army is a good example, or the smaller charity activities done by local churches.

I think the same about those as I do about non-religious charities, m'self. Good works are good works, regardless of metaphysical burden or lack thereof. Some of them are discriminatory based on religious beliefs, though, which kinda' highlights the interfering metaphysical burden thing.

[Graebeard]

Talking about religion on the net never goes well, but believing in god myself, it's interesting to see why others lack faith.

This is frequently true, but we're usually a pretty well behaved bunch and I hope we can keep things positive and interesting.

I appreciate your comment.  I thought I would get a strong agnostic and atheistic response, but this was even stronger than I expected.  I imagine the normal situation of theists being the in-group and non-believers being the out-group is reversed here, and I appreciate your williingness to contribute.

If you're interested in sharing, I'd love to know what your opinion is on the provability of the existence of god and the importance of that question.  For instance, the role of faith in giving meaning to belief has been fundamental to some I've spoken with, while others approach (or justify) belief in other ways or on other grounds.  I'm not interested in persuading anyone to change their beliefs, and I know you're opening your beliefs up to attack (which I hope won't happen), I'd jost love to evoke a broader range of beliefs in the hope of more interesting discussion.

[Megaman]

Talking about religion on the net never goes well, but believing in god myself, it's interesting to see why others lack faith.

This is frequently true, but we're usually a pretty well behaved bunch and I hope we can keep things positive and interesting.

Well, we turned a thread about a TV-show about horses into... that thing

If you're interested in sharing, I'd love to know what your opinion is on the provability of the existence of god and the importance of that question.  For instance, the role of faith in giving meaning to belief has been fundamental to some I've spoken with, while others approach (or justify) belief in other ways or on other grounds. 

God's existence is often said to be disproved by lack of evidence saying that He does exist, but there is also a lack of evidence that He does not.  Whether he exists or not, however, will not change the fact that religion gives people morality and meaning in life. Certainly, so many peasants a long time ago refrained from killing themselves because they believed God was there to give them a reason to exist. As for morality, which I will acknowledge has oft been abused, can stop people in positions in power from abusing it to such an extent they would have. Will you torture political prisoners for laughs if God himself tells you (indirectly, perhaps) to be merciful?

[Graebeard]

Talking about religion on the net never goes well, but believing in god myself, it's interesting to see why others lack faith.

This is frequently true, but we're usually a pretty well behaved bunch and I hope we can keep things positive and interesting.

Well, we turned a thread about a TV-show about horses into... that thing

If you're interested in sharing, I'd love to know what your opinion is on the provability of the existence of god and the importance of that question.  For instance, the role of faith in giving meaning to belief has been fundamental to some I've spoken with, while others approach (or justify) belief in other ways or on other grounds. 

God's existence is often said to be disproved by lack of evidence saying that He does exist, but there is also a lack of evidence that He does not.  Whether he exists or not, however, will not change the fact that religion gives people morality and meaning in life. Certainly, so many peasants a long time ago refrained from killing themselves because they believed God was there to give them a reason to exist. As for morality, which I will acknowledge has oft been abused, can stop people in positions in power from abusing it to such an extent they would have. Will you torture political prisoners for laughs if God himself tells you (indirectly, perhaps) to be merciful?

Thanks for the response.  I agree that faith is a path towards morality and meaning.  I think athiests and agnostics too frequently overlook that aspect of it.

A lot of people above mentioned that the burden of proof lies with the person making an affirmative statement.  I think that same principal applies here: if someone finds a basis for morality or meaning that doesn't have to do with faith, then the burden is on them to demonstrate how morality and meaning arises from that basis.

This is frequently where I stumble.  I find the concept of a creator distasteful for many of the reasons people have already provided.  But when I have tried out different ways of saying my life has meaning without relying on theological concepts, none of them have been satisfying to me in a permanent way.

[Reudh]

My views are simple.

The universe is nearly infinite, and there are many different possible universes out there.
So it's likely that somewhere, sometime, there probably is an omnipotent being. Just not here.

When such a being proves its existence, then I would accept it as existing. Until such a time I'd say I'm 'humanist', that is, I prefer to put stock in humanity rather than wishing upon a star, so to speak.

Faith, while beginning to become outdated, is a very useful thing to have. But those who do not have faith should be allowed to believe what they believe. There is too much anger and hatred directed at "they are not us" types.

[Megaman]

But those who do not have faith should be allowed to believe what they believe. There is too much anger and hatred directed at "they are not us" types.

Really, that probably has little to do with faith. The social rejection, I mean. People want to associate with those who think alike, and hate those that are 'not us'. Also,a single one of those people is probably too many, but vocal minorities. Far fewer religious are close-minded bigots than many estimate.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

So it's likely that somewhere, sometime, there probably is an omnipotent being. Just not here.

Omnipotence is not possible within the basic logical boundaries of our reality. "Can God create a rock so heavy he cannot lift it?" and all that.

[Osmosis Jones]

God's existence is often said to be disproved by lack of evidence saying that He does exist, but there is also a lack of evidence that He does not. 

Megaman, the issue of burden of proof is ultimately the stickler in any religious debate. Such a pity

Whether he exists or not, however, will not change the fact that religion gives people morality and meaning in life. Certainly, so many peasants a long time ago refrained from killing themselves because they believed God was there to give them a reason to exist.

This is true, religion can be used as a way to give an answer for what to do with life. However, in all fairness, so do many other things; life is what we make of it, and meaning can be found in many places. Perhaps the simplest example; to care for your family and friends, to make their lives better, is a goal that many people live by. Alternatively, to do good by your fellow man, to learn the secrets of the universe, or even to become a world record stamp collector; all can be valid meanings for living your life, even if sometimes a touch trite.
@Graebeard, in my experience, the reason many athiests and agnostics overlook that topic is we simply feel that it's your own business, and there's so much to live for, why worry about trying to explicity define it? (That said, my personal primary motivator is knowledge, I'm a curious bastard )

Now, morality is a thornier issue; religion is an undeniably effective way of disseminating a set of morals. Up to a given point, it will even help in enforcing it; crime rates drop in highly homogeonous catholic and protestant communities with both increasing homogeonity and increasing religiosity.¹
That said, it can also be negative; even overlooking regions of sectarian conflict (which, honestly, also often have political, social, ethnic and economic factors) there are issues where religion can cause direct harm. Probably the best example, and one that has come up already, is the distribution of condoms in AIDS stricken countries.

The problem, therefore is that while religion can be a powerful supplier of morality, that morality may not necessarily be moral by objective standards (the objectivity of ethics in general is a thorny question, but I believe you can find a good start by working towards minimising overall suffering. Only a start, mind you, deep thought is always necessary). For this reason, any system of morality should be judged from an external viewpoint, and should never be followed blindly.

As for morality, which I will acknowledge has oft been abused, can stop people in positions in power from abusing it to such an extent they would have. Will you torture political prisoners for laughs if God himself tells you (indirectly, perhaps) to be merciful?

The counterpoint is (in line with my above topic), would you torture and kill the same prisoners if god tells you to be vengeful? That's the problem. If no, then where does that refusal come from?

Believe whatever you want, but always make sure you understand why you believe what you do

Really, that probably has little to do with faith. The social rejection, I mean. People want to associate with those who think alike, and hate those that are 'not us'. Also,a single one of those people is probably too many, but vocal minorities. Far fewer religious are close-minded bigots than many estimate.

Oh god ( ), this. A sad, sad thing I see far too much of are people (mainly teenagers, but no age is immune) who have just discovered athiesm, and suddenly transform into loud mouthed idiots anxious to tell everyone how wrong they are. When you press them on it, they say they are fighting back against religious intolerance; religious intolerance, that for the most part, they have never experienced, and never will. Nevertheless, if you listen to them, every theist is a screaming fanatic. Idiots like that do so much harm to the topic. Couple it with the idiots on the other side of the fence (why are they always the loudest ones? ) and an interesting, enlightening topic will always devolve into a shitfest.



1) Trawick & Howsen, Crime and community heterogeneity: race, ethnicity, and religion, Applied Economics Letters, Volume 13, Issue 6, 2006

[Reudh]

A simple argument I've used in the past is thus:

Is our god Omnipotent and Good? If so, then why does disease, famine and other horrors occur?
If our god is not Omnipotent but is good, then why believe in his/her ability to change things?
If our god is Omnipotent and Malevolent, then we're screwed.

[Megaman]

Is our god Omnipotent and Good? If so, then why does disease, famine and other horrors occur?

Because we must fend for ourselves. If we rely on god for everything, are we truly free? Does He want us to be His pets? If you give any mortal any kind of free choice for any amount of time, they will, at some point, screw it up. Some may think, "But I would rather remove suffering in the world than be totally free!" However, is living under the constant adjustment of a God not suffering? Question marks?

[MetalSlimeHunt]

It could have just created humans without need or capacity for suffering, then.

If there is one it decided to make us without flying, and that alone is pretty sufficient proof that it doesn't like us.

[Reudh]

A world where Dracunculiasis, Irukandji syndrome and botfly exist is not a sign of a pleasant and well mannered god to me.

[penguinofhonor]

Also hangovers. "Yeah, so pleasure is going to have repercussions because... uh, it builds character or something."