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

[Rolepgeek]

So rolepgeek made an unsupported assumption, k33n claimed it was false...  Then you demand that k33n provide proof?  I wouldn't comment except that I feel like I offered the counterexample you're asking for...

While I'm not denying that I didn't provide support for it, if you believe that there is nothing more to the universe than the interactions of atoms, there is no such thing as something being inherently right or wrong, objectively speaking. Things just are. Going by the opinion of the vast majority of people accomplishes nothing in this regard (certainly not for me). But yes, that's not an objective basis for morality, which was my point.

Humans are very good at making finding connections and patterns that don't exist, origami. It's how narrative works. No offense meant. Happens in most things with a brain. Correlation doesn't necessarily imply causation, and with small enough sample sizes, it doesn't even do that. Given a wide enough interpretation, you can justify anything as having happened (as I was saying when I made the WALLOFTEXT post about predictions and oracles).

[Rolan7]

The funny thing about prayer is that it is not you placing your will and desires on God, but you conforming to God's will. So whatever reason God had for not answering your prayers in the way you think they should be answered is all part of his will for your life.

But that means God didn't want me.  And while that may sound like a "gotcha" now...  At the time, it was just disappointing.  Painful, to be honest, because I *needed* something.

And the things I found, in desperation, aren't... let's say, things the Bible approves of.  And this was ~8 years ago.  So if this is God's plan, it's a long plan indeed.  We'll see, I suppose.

Faith as defined by the Bible is "being sure of what you hope, and certain of what you do not see."

... Thank you for trying to explain, but I still have trouble understanding how someone could consider that a good or reasonable course of action.  Obviously it goes against reason and science, but more than that...  It goes against harsh experience.  Hope is something we consider possible, even if it's probably wrong, because we need it.  "This *might* be true, despite all indications".

Which is useful, even necessary for survival.  But why would one try to convince others -
Oh right.  Christianity, and other successful religions, have probably evolved to be evangelical.  Which is why they're successful.
There are more Christians than Jews, after all.

Ain't that the truth.

yeah.  That sure is like some nightmares I've had, over and over.

As Jehovah demands that people believe or be punished... imagine the opposite.  The more you know of them, the more they see you.
_{There are no Androsynth now, only Orz.}

[Rolepgeek]

Hope is in part having faith that it is true, Rolan. At least for some people. People just think different.

When someone comes to me and tells me their moral system says X and Y? If mine doesn't match up, then I tell them that they built it wrong.

[Rolan7]

So rolepgeek made an unsupported assumption, k33n claimed it was false...  Then you demand that k33n provide proof?  I wouldn't comment except that I feel like I offered the counterexample you're asking for...

Democratic morality isn't objective, though. It's going to change over time as popular opinion changes. It's subjective by definition.

...I actually missed the word "objective" in:

Psychosis is believing that something is true, in your heart, without evidence or even against evidence.

FTFY

There is no objective basis for morality that does not lead to conclusions that the vast majority of people find repugnant. Wireheading or Pascal's Mugging or the Repugnant Conclusion or the Sadistic Conclusion.

Maybe because... what the hell does objective mean in that context?  Either there's objective morality or there isn't, it doesn't matter whether people find it repugnant.

So I was pointing out that there are definitely moral codes that the "vast majority of people" wouldn't "find repugnant".  Meaningful, useful ones...  Which happen to be the 10 commandments (minus the Jehovah-worship and women-as-property).  Are they "objective"?  They're objectively useful, and I don't know what else to say.

[origamiscienceguy]

Faith is almost required by Science. We have to make assumptions at some point and we can use stuff like Ockham's razor to narrow them down but in the end, you still have to assume something that has not been proven.

[Orange Wizard]

That's not really the same thing. The assumption made at the core of science is that we can observe reality. The assumptions made at the core of various religions are a little more far-fetched - there is/isn't a god, X book is accurate to said god's intention, and so on.

[origamiscienceguy]

I suppose so. Nevermind. I need sleep.

[jaccarmac]

Orthodoxy is apparently considered "Other Christian sect" while Protestantism and LDS get their own poll responses...

[MetalSlimeHunt]

As we all know, Orthodox don't use the internet because it causes their beards to spontaneously combust, and as such no poll option is required.

[Orange Wizard]

Huh, I never even noticed that. Most of those were added on request, and Orthodox was apparently never requested.

[Adragis]

scientology for most faithful religion 2016

[TD1]

I'm gonna go have nightmares about that Hidden Person video.

As for morality, it's my view that you simply learn how best to interact within society. There are always new rules being made up on how to be moral - highway code - and we should follow them where reasonable as it helps society get along better,

[Bohandas]

Psychosis is believing that something is true, in your heart, without evidence or even against evidence.

FTFY

There is no objective basis for morality that does not lead to conclusions that the vast majority of people find repugnant. Wireheading or Pascal's Mugging or the Repugnant Conclusion or the Sadistic Conclusion.

Most of this seems to be unnecessary qualifiers. Let's jsut leave it at "there is no objective basis for morality"

[Antioch]

So I read (part of) the bible recently and I read the Illiad and Odyssey and it occurred to me that I could find no reason why one of the 2 works should be considered to have a greater validity than the other.

Why DO people think the Bible/Quran/other religious books give an accurate description of reality?

[TD1]

People used to think the Iliad and Odyssey were real as well.

It's not a question of which is more valid as a reality - it's a question of the book which is being taught as real in whatever period of time. Today, it's the Bible. Yesterday, Homer. Tomorrow? Who knows.

Ultimately, one's believed because people want to believe it. It's got nothing to do with which is more likely.