Print

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

I am religious and believe in free will

71 (27.7%)

I am religious and do not believe in free will

10 (3.9%)

I am not religious and believe in free will

114 (44.5%)

I am not religious and do not believe in free will

61 (23.8%)

Total Members Voted: 251

[Vilanat]

Former Christian, technically still an ordained priest of the Latter Day Saints.
Currently resides somewhere closer to Buddhist beliefs, and is a firm believer in reincarnation.
Reporting, as much as that matters.

As a believer in reincarnation, what is it you believe reincarnate? our soul, meaning a distinct entity that gets reborn into another human being? what gets carried on through this distinct entity (or in other words, what are the qualities and characteristics of this entity)?

Yes, I believe that there is some form of "soul" that persists between incarnations.
To better explain it: I believe that the "purpose" of life is simply to learn. There are many religions that believe this. In any case, it's not possible, in any sense, to learn all there is to know, or even all that you want to know, within a single lifetime.
So I do believe that there is some form of knowledge or information that resides within the soul, that could possibly be transfered to the present physical body. (Whether you'd realize it happening or not wouldn't really matter)
Obviously, though, you wouldn't remember them, because your ability to learn is skewed when you have prior experience, because you already think you understand how it works, and aren't as open to new ideas, as if you had a blank slate for your memory.

As I imagine it will inevitably be asked where souls come from, the Bhagavad-Gita (One of the many book of Hindu scripture, but it shares a lot of beliefs with Budhisim) does a better job of explaining than I could do, in that it explain that just as God is immortal, and has always existed, with no beginning, so too has every person's soul, always having been.

Sorry for the VERY late reply. finally someone brings some of the eastern wisdom into here! i have read the bhagavad gita few times over the years and while its quite a straight forward text, i can't even pretend i truly understand half of it. the birthless, deathless, unchanging characteristics of the soul in the bhagavad gita does not support your belief. a birthless, deathless, unchanging nature of the soul means it can not learn, since new knowledge, or new experiences are "qualities" of the ever changing mind and are its constructs. what changes the mind is the knowledge, the "soul" stays the same. it also says in the bhagavad gita that the Mokasha is when one fully realize his soul is one and the same as the Absolute one that is in everything which kinda negates the notion of individual knowledge that is passed through the soul between bodies. i am aware that the text also point to some sort of transmigration between bodies, but i have not understood what is it that transmigrates.

If you take the "selfless" view of the east, then each thought/concept that floats before "your" consciousness is temporary and less you than a drop of water is a river and in the same sense, its just as you as the drop of water is the river. so the thought, concept or cloud of concepts that passes to others (A-la Dawkins Memes) is something of you that got reborn in another person.

Speaking of Moksha / spiritual experiences / enlightenment and psychadelic drugs, U.G kirsnamurty, who described his own Moksha not as enlightenment but as a calamity (That is if you believe him that he has been enlightened, which is very understandable if you don't since he generally just fools around and nowhere near what you would expect from a spiritual man), because he said it destroyed "Him" completely and that its the last thing "anyone" would want, said that all the spiritual exercises are useless since you can just take a shroom and achieve exactly the same thing without all the hassle and time wasting. he maintains that if we ever invent machines that make us reach those experiences then there is no reason not to use those since the "way" to the experiences is utterly meaningless and that those experiences has nothing to do with the enlightenment.

I mean it kinda fits with the Holy Spirit but there are a few bits in the bible specifically speaking about god and his interactions (see Job? IIRC) which mean he's not mans conciliate as but his own entity

The book of job is part of the "Writings", especially what is considered the "Poetic" books, meaning, there is a very high chance its all a fable rather than attempt at historic recording.

[MaximumZero]

In as many words, yes. Religion was useful when people couldn't explain strange phenomena in the world, when people were still afraid of thunder and had no explanation for pork and shellfish killing them, because they didn't know about foodborne illnesses. The problem is, though, if you continue to use a crutch after your legs are healthy, you never really learn to walk.

So am I inherently less curious, less intelligent, or less human because I believe there is a god (which happens to be God)?

Inherently? No. You're just not applying the same filters to your religion, or you're willing to give it a pass. You're very much just as human as any other human, and judging by your external thought processes, quite intelligent. There are a lot of things about christian mythology that don't make sense, or are contradictory, or go against modern/forward thinking, and those flaws weaken its base to the point where a lot of us can't believe in it, even if we wanted to, because it's rationally too weak.

I'll try not to bore you with arguments that have been made thousands of times. I'm sure you've heard of Russell's Teapot. I'm sure you've heard the Epicurean Question. If you apply the scientific method to any religion, they fall apart.

Not doing that doesn't make you dumb, or less human, or less curious, or anything like that. It just means that you're willing to leave a blind spot in your intellectual integrity, which is less me trying to be insulting, and more just being a little disappointed.

[Arx]

I see. I'm inclined to disagree with you, but I don't think that's a point we'll ever agree on, so we should probably leave it there.

I was, I think, slightly put off by your crutch analogy. If it is a flaw (as in your paradigm), it's still confined only to one area (which is, frankly, not particularly relevant to most areas of life. I've once been asked about my religion) as opposed to my entire life.

Also, I'm sorry to have disappointed you MaximumDad/MaximumSenpai.

[TD1]

I read the God Delusion. Dawkins is a huge ass. An intelligent one, with some compelling arguments, but still an ass.

Religion, whilst flawed, contradictory and in a lot of cases out-right disproven, does provide some form of help. It stops existential crises, helps people deal with death, gives them a meaning they believe they need. I mean, I understand the desire to reach out and find something else, something better. It's not surprising that religion is so powerful in all its varied forms. It is a crutch. One that "explains" (sorry, I had to put the quotation marks in ) the universe and holds people together.

It is so full of interpretation that it only provides the smallest of bases on which to work, and is a reflection of the person and how they were taught. Morally speaking, anyway. It does have its uses, and its downsides. But then, as does everything.

[Arx]

I read the God Delusion. Dawkins is a huge ass. An intelligent one, with some compelling arguments, but still an ass.

Compelling enough for me to try to get hold of a copy despite the ass?

in a lot of cases out-right disproven

Can I see some of those cases?

[Frumple]

I read the God Delusion. Dawkins is a huge ass. An intelligent one, with some compelling arguments, but still an ass.

Compelling enough for me to try to get hold of a copy despite the ass?

I'd probably say no, honestly. Dawkins is one of those ones where even if you overall agree with him, he's still fairly abrasive.

Mind you, his non-atheism stuff is notably less irritating. Still somewhat flawed, last I checked, but stuff like the Selfish Gene (which is a pretty decent book on evolution) is definitely pretty decent. Dude's got his problems, but he's both pretty influential and competent on the net of things. Hell, he's the guy that coined "meme".

Just don't bring up religion, basically.

[Criptfeind]

Can I see some of those cases?

Basically any time that a religion makes a testable claim that goes against reality? Faith healers come to mind, have you ever heard of Peter Popoff?

[TD1]

Compelling enough for me to try to get hold of a copy despite the ass?

Depends how much you like being insulted and held in contempt.

Can I see some of those cases?

Geocentric universe.
Whilst not directly mentioned, it seemed held as Geocentric in the Bible. "Sun, stand thou still at Gibeon." The sun being seen as what was moving. " the world stands firm, never to be moved." "For the pillars of the earth are the Lord's, and on them he has set the world."

[scrdest]

in a lot of cases out-right disproven

Can I see some of those cases?

Insects allegedly having four legs.

[Arx]

I'll pass on the Dawkins, then. I thought it might be worth it - you know, in the name of expanding my mind and such. If it's just going to be an exercise in anger...

Can I see some of those cases?

Geocentric universe.
Whilst not directly mentioned, it seemed held as Geocentric in the Bible. "Sun, stand thou still at Gibeon." The sun being seen as what was moving. " the world stands firm, never to be moved." "For the pillars of the earth are the Lord's, and on them he has set the world."

The second two seem thoroughly figurative to me (especially considering the first is from a psalm; the second is also from a prayer, wherein Hannah says a bunch of stuff about God), and the first seems logical enough to me. If I was not an astronomer, and no-one else within my community was, I might well believe the sun went around the Earth; or at least describe it as such.

It seems to me that the first one there is the only one with literal merit, but by the measure that says that verse supports geocentrism, the Bible is fundamentally flawed because it's not a physics textbook.

in a lot of cases out-right disproven

Can I see some of those cases?

Insects allegedly having four legs.

That's from Leviticus, right? The verse I'm thinking of specifically dictates that locusts, for instance, are acceptable because they have another pair of legs carried lifted above the others when not hopping. The verse bars such things as house flies, which only walk on four of their six legs (the front two are raised).

[TD1]

There are huge assumptions about how the universe is geocentric, many more than I posted, throughout the bible. Are there any suggesting otherwise? Throughout the ages, assumptions about the Bible have been kept. Assumptions in the Bible have been kept, until they are thoroughly disproven. Then, the assumptions become figurative, some bits of the Bible are no longer taught, the religion adapts. Not that that is bad, IMO.

That the universe is geocentric fits in with Genesis. The earth was made, then everything else. The sun and stars were made after the earth- which would you suggest is more important?

I realised afterwards that this is a bit of a tangent from current discussion, so spoilered to separate it

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Then we add moral problems, problem of evil, problems with religious experience, problems with design argument, a huge gaping hole in the Ontological argument, problems with the cosmological argument, problems with every single argument in favour of God.

Then, there are internal contradictions within the bible.

Then, there is the huge amount of other religions which you would claim are false, where yours has the exact same amount of merit, or lack thereof.

[MonkeyHead]

My favourite error in the bible (and there are plenty...) is bats being described as birds.

[Leafsnail]

I don't think Dawkins is that much of a dick for God Delusion specifically (there's some more recent Twitter stuff that qualifies, although it's not really relevant).  The title of the book makes it pretty clear what you're getting yourself into when you read it.  He certainly pulls no punches and it would probably be difficult to read if you are deeply religious, but I don't think there's any unnecessary mockery.

[That Wolf]

I believe as far as religions go I dont like the bible, I have read it. It has a dietary guide in it for porks sake. Many things arnt mentioned and you would think if god wrote the book it would have gotten a few more things correct, bats as birds lol.
So many things have been disproven by science, and while you can say its a metaphoric meaning to it or that you have to contemplate the meaning, but if it gets the basics of science wrong then why do people cling to it?
Because we are people. Obviously that thunder was gods anger. Oh I stood on this plant and it rained, I sacraficed a human for the gods, all ritualistic and pointless BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD
In a drought you wont see a dog praying for god to make it rain, you wont see it prepare a ritual to make the crops grow.

An animal isnt stupid enough to waste its energy in a fruitless task.
While we will and we get the same result as a dog does doing nothing.

Former Christian, technically still an ordained priest of the Latter Day Saints.
Currently resides somewhere closer to Buddhist beliefs, and is a firm believer in reincarnation.
Reporting, as much as that matters.

As a believer in reincarnation, what is it you believe reincarnate? our soul, meaning a distinct entity that gets reborn into another human being? what gets carried on through this distinct entity (or in other words, what are the qualities and characteristics of this entity)?

Yes, I believe that there is some form of "soul" that persists between incarnations.
To better explain it: I believe that the "purpose" of life is simply to learn. There are many religions that believe this. In any case, it's not possible, in any sense, to learn all there is to know, or even all that you want to know, within a single lifetime.
So I do believe that there is some form of knowledge or information that resides within the soul, that could possibly be transfered to the present physical body. (Whether you'd realize it happening or not wouldn't really matter)
Obviously, though, you wouldn't remember them, because your ability to learn is skewed when you have prior experience, because you already think you understand how it works, and aren't as open to new ideas, as if you had a blank slate for your memory.

As I imagine it will inevitably be asked where souls come from, the Bhagavad-Gita (One of the many book of Hindu scripture, but it shares a lot of beliefs with Budhisim) does a better job of explaining than I could do, in that it explain that just as God is immortal, and has always existed, with no beginning, so too has every person's soul, always having been.

Sorry for the VERY late reply. finally someone brings some of the eastern wisdom into here! i have read the bhagavad gita few times over the years and while its quite a straight forward text, i can't even pretend i truly understand half of it. the birthless, deathless, unchanging characteristics of the soul in the bhagavad gita does not support your belief. a birthless, deathless, unchanging nature of the soul means it can not learn, since new knowledge, or new experiences are "qualities" of the ever changing mind and are its constructs. what changes the mind is the knowledge, the "soul" stays the same. it also says in the bhagavad gita that the Mokasha is when one fully realize his soul is one and the same as the Absolute one that is in everything which kinda negates the notion of individual knowledge that is passed through the soul between bodies. i am aware that the text also point to some sort of transmigration between bodies, but i have not understood what is it that transmigrates.

If you take the "selfless" view of the east, then each thought/concept that floats before "your" consciousness is temporary and less you than a drop of water is a river and in the same sense, its just as you as the drop of water is the river. so the thought, concept or cloud of concepts that passes to others (A-la Dawkins Memes) is something of you that got reborn in another person.

Speaking of Moksha / spiritual experiences / enlightenment and psychadelic drugs, U.G kirsnamurty, who described his own Moksha not as enlightenment but as a calamity (That is if you believe him that he has been enlightened, which is very understandable if you don't since he generally just fools around and nowhere near what you would expect from a spiritual man), because he said it destroyed "Him" completely and that its the last thing "anyone" would want, said that all the spiritual exercises are useless since you can just take a shroom and achieve exactly the same thing without all the hassle and time wasting. he maintains that if we ever invent machines that make us reach those experiences then there is no reason not to use those since the "way" to the experiences is utterly meaningless and that those experiences has nothing to do with the enlightenment.

I mean it kinda fits with the Holy Spirit but there are a few bits in the bible specifically speaking about god and his interactions (see Job? IIRC) which mean he's not mans conciliate as but his own entity

The book of job is part of the "Writings", especially what is considered the "Poetic" books, meaning, there is a very high chance its all a fable rather than attempt at historic recording.

This sums it up.
And Vilanat yes you should have been here earlier, youre much better with words than I

"Any religion that insists that you hold faith in its teachings is not worth learning, true knowledge requires you to ask the hard questions even if they dont have answers"

[TD1]

Also, remember the post I wrote about how religion isn't all that bad?

This made me facepalm afterwards.