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 (27.6%)

I am religious and do not believe in free will

10 (3.9%)

I am not religious and believe in free will

115 (44.7%)

I am not religious and do not believe in free will

61 (23.7%)

Total Members Voted: 252

[McTraveller]

As I understand it, hell isn't a "place" so much as a "condition": existence without God's involvement, to be precise.

The most oft overlooked evidence for afterlife & spirituality is - the fact that we have such concepts in the first place.  These are not concepts which can arise from merely looking at nature, so where do they come from? The two options are there is indeed some kind of supernatural influence that prompted that idea or it really is the figment of imagination. Primitive humans weren't dumb - why would you think that the only way to form lightning or make fire or a volcano is some kind of supernatural being, when clearly (supposedly?) nobody even in that time period ever saw such a being.  Unless maybe I don't know enough about primitive psychology and that is a thing.  I mean at least in Abrahamic religions there are claims that there were "supernatural beings" (e.g., nephilim, giants, etc.) that wandered around and people saw - so this at least gives the idea of there was something that people saw that wasn't just "theoretical sky beings, take my word for it!".

I'd be interested in an experiment to see if you could somehow create a society in a truly isolated environment and see if and, if so, what kind of religion develops.

[jipehog]

To me non-existence sounds rather peaceful.

There are worse thing than death, like fear of pain and dying.

[Strongpoint]

As I understand it, hell isn't a "place" so much as a "condition": existence without God's involvement, to be precise.

If an omnibenevolent God created a system in which existing without his involvement is an eternal torture, then I question his omnibenevolence. Especially if the best way to get that eternal torture is merely not believing something.

The most oft overlooked evidence for afterlife & spirituality is - the fact that we have such concepts in the first place.  These are not concepts which can arise from merely looking at nature, so where do they come from?

There are some evidence the concept of soul comes out of observing and misunderstand breathing and air. And the fear of death is a very powerful uncomfortable instinct, why can't mind invent something to lessen the discomfort of such fear and\or pain of losing relatives? Spirituality began with burials and burials began because human's emotional attachments didn't let them see their loved ones rotting (it was also evolutionary favored, tribes that did bury their dead would suffer less related illnesses)

The two options are there is indeed some kind of supernatural influence that prompted that idea or it really is the figment of imagination. Primitive humans weren't dumb - why would you think that the only way to form lightning or make fire or a volcano is some kind of supernatural being, when clearly (supposedly?) nobody even in that time period ever saw such a being.

It is logical to assume that if something happens it happens because of someone's actions. It is what we observe since early childhood. So I see nothing dumb here. I also see nothing dumb in thinking that animals and plants should have been made by something. When you have no idea of biological evolution, a mighty being making those extremely complex things IS a logical explanation.

As for "no one has seen those beings"... hallucinations existed. Including ones caused by drugs. Also people are liars, people who invented the first stories didn't necessarily believe them.

Also, stories mutate and get exaggerated. What started as a tale about a real mighty bear could,e something to share at the fire, could be exaggerated into a bright myth.  Or extremely important explanations of observant ancient astronomers could be misunderstood by less intelligent members of the tribe and lead to the worship of the sun.

Also, there is a nasty ability of our mind to see patterns when there are none. I did X and there was much-needed rain and it happened a few times, therefore it is my X actions that caused it. It is how the first rituals were born.

And so on. There are many plausible explanations.

[McTraveller]

Sure, ok, I'll give you the drug or other situation induced hallucination theory.

But I don't buy the "people only observe actions happening when caused by an (intelligent) entity causing them" theory, because there are many, many observable things that are "uncaused."  I think it's irrational extrapolation to assume that theory.

Also if you have children - you know that children don't naturally assume this either. There's a developmental phase related to object permanence which establishes this cause and effect thing.  Being a parent gives some interesting insights into the world.

[Grim Portent]

The origin of supernatural beliefs would most rationally be from fables which grew over generations of retelling.

See various water spirits for example. Most are clear analogies for actual threats found in or around water, presumably to keep children away or prevent people from drinking stagnant water. Some, especially of the horse variety such as the Kelpie, presumably grew out of specific incidents of people dying in accidents. Are there really horses that drown people by ensnaring them in their skin and hair and then galloping into lakes? Of course not, but after a person drowns because their horse slipped or bolted and fell into a lake and they got tangled in the riding equipment it's not a far stretch that the incident gets blown up from there until a few generations later someone is saying the horse was an evil fairy spirit.

Same thing with dragons and treasure, they probably grew out of incidents of snakes hiding in holes in trees or riverbanks and humans stashing things in those places to hide them from raiders (or their families). Go back to get your stuff and disturb a snake in the bargain, even if it doesn't bite you over time the story gets more and more exaggerated until the snake is massive and has fangs dripping with venom, at which point it's exactly how dragons were depicted in some mythology.

Or selkies, which were probably an excuse for why women would sometimes leave their husbands or be murdered and never found. Or changelings, which were an explanation for birth defects and mental health problems in children. Kid's a congenital sociopath? Clearly he's a soulless changeling and the real kid was stolen by fairies.

There's also animism to take into account, the belief that everything has a spirit. Trees, rivers, big rocks. Sometimes this seems to be relevant to fables for warning kids not to be stupid. A story about the river god being easily angered and temperamental is just a way to tell kids to stay away from the water during flood seasons or heavy rain.

Some gods might be from exaggerations of tales about kings and doctors and soldiers. Humans have been able to communicate since long before we used tools, so it's entirely plausible that some of our cultures and beliefs are influenced by tales that have been passed down through a game of telephone for longer than we've been humans as we would recognise them.

[Frumple]

If an omnibenevolent God created a system in which existing without his involvement is an eternal torture, then I question his omnibenevolence. Especially if the best way to get that eternal torture is merely not believing something.

The omnibenevolence is a lie invented by believers (or, probably more specifically, proselytizers) in direct contravention to stated (and, assuming it exists in any sense even remotely similar in capability to what's attributed to it, observed) behavior, yes. This is true especially for the various abrahamic/monotheistic gods, but more generally as well. Existent reality just does not cohere to a tri-omni god in particular, nor a benevolent one less specifically unless it's remarkably powerless or ignorant.

Staggeringly little about the state of reality or attributed behavior in various religious traditions makes a single goddamn lick of sense if the divine was actually omnibenevolent, and it stretches things real hard just to be benevolent at all. The only way theologians have been able to even a little square that circle is by pissing all over the meaning of the word benevolent(/good)... which can be fun to watch if you're in the right mindset, but in most cases is just varying levels of infuriating. Religious language is interesting right up until it tells you god was being benevolent, actually, when it had your child die screaming in a fire, bleh.

Things make more sense if you acknowledge the divine are exactly as spiteful, petty, and murderous as they're described. It's a miserable sort of sense if you think they actually exist, mind, because it means everything is a spate of suffering wound up and manipulated by a omnipotent egotistical hatebeast that could at any time just slaughter pretty much your entire species on a whim, and is probably taking time to figure out how to torture (sorry, "test") you for its amusement, but it's at least coherent.

If there's a wise statement I've seen come out of religious belief, it's that if you meet God on the road, you should cut the miserable thing down.

[jipehog]

The most oft overlooked evidence for afterlife & spirituality is - the fact that we have such concepts in the first place.  These are not concepts which can arise from merely looking at nature, so where do they come from?

Functionalism? How did we came up with Mathematics, social concepts etc ?

Otherwise, many beliefs fulfill psychological needs, help us make sense of uncertain or chaotic events, and feel in control.

The two options are there is indeed some kind of supernatural influence that prompted that idea or it really is the figment of imagination. Primitive humans weren't dumb - why would you think that the only way to form lightning or make fire or a volcano is some kind of supernatural being, when clearly (supposedly?) nobody even in that time period ever saw such a being.

Inability to say I don't know, belief without concrete evidence, interpretation of hidden or mysterious forces is that the supernatural or a conspiracy theory?

We maybe smarter but we still often see what we want to see. We sill tell stories about right/wrong with forces of evil/good and notions of hell/heaven just using different terms

[Strongpoint]

Sure, ok, I'll give you the drug or other situation induced hallucination theory.

But I don't buy the "people only observe actions happening when caused by an (intelligent) entity causing them" theory, because there are many, many observable things that are "uncaused."  I think it's irrational extrapolation to assume that theory.

Also if you have children - you know that children don't naturally assume this either. There's a developmental phase related to object permanence which establishes this cause and effect thing.  Being a parent gives some interesting insights into the world.

And when that phase passes you get (at least from some children) a phase of myriads of "why?" and "how?". People are curious creatures and "I don't know" answer makes us uncomfortable. I suspect it is evolutionary because if your answer to "Is there a predator in the bushes?" is "I don't know" and you are satisfied with it then you won't live long.

[Rolan7]

lmao what?
Ah yes: The evolutionary advantages of paranoid schizophrenia.  I'll just hallucinate all the things all the time, then I'll always be on my guard!

False positives are bad too actually

[lemon10]

But I don't buy the "people only observe actions happening when caused by an (intelligent) entity causing them" theory, because there are many, many observable things that are "uncaused."  I think it's irrational extrapolation to assume that theory.

Really? Can you name one thing that you know for sure is uncaused?

lmao what?
Ah yes: The evolutionary advantages of paranoid schizophrenia.  I'll just hallucinate all the things all the time, then I'll always be on my guard!

False positives are bad too actually

Humans are pattern seeking machines, because the humans that successfully find patterns (such as animal migration patterns, where food/water usually is, or the fact that that dude in the cave down the river really hates you) live and those that don't die.

Apophenia has also come to describe a human propensity to unreasonably seek definite patterns in random information, such as can occur in gambling.

This of course gives false positives, but evolution has clearly decided that people being paranoid or seeing patterns that aren't there sometimes is very much worth it.

People are curious creatures and "I don't know" answer makes us uncomfortable.

Agreed. A very firm answer is more often more convincing then someone just saying they have no clue even if there is no actual proof.

[Strongpoint]

lmao what?
Ah yes: The evolutionary advantages of paranoid schizophrenia.  I'll just hallucinate all the things all the time, then I'll always be on my guard!

False positives are bad too actually

Evolution can favor "bad" over life-ending

Situation 1: You have 10 possible encounters with a predator, you ran 10 times out of 10. Predator was there only once. You did waste some energy on running away but you are alive and procreate later

Situation 2: You have 10 possible encounters with a predator, you ignored it 10 times out of 10. 1 time there was a predator. You are eaten. You don't procreate

Being paranoid is evolutionarily favored. Not to the point when you waste too much energy or hurt yourself but it is favored. We can see it in prey animals. Deers or rabbits won't check if a suspicious sound or shadow is indeed a predator, they'll flee.

[MaxTheFox]

I understand that there are many atheists who are quite comfortable with mortality and I envy them. I am not one of those. I do want to continue existing. What is more important, I don't want to lose my loved ones forever...

But yeah, ceasing to exist is very much preferable to eternal slavery to the evil tyrant described in the Bible. Especially if I'll know that billions of people are suffering in hell (not that I, a blasphemer, have a chance to avoid hell )

To me non-existence sounds rather peaceful. The complete cessation of all sensation and myself. There's a lot I'd like to experience in my life, but it's not like I'm going to regret what I missed out on when I'm dead, and the end of my internal monologue* sounds pretty good tbh, even if I won't be around to enjoy the peace and quiet. No anxiety, no depression, no anger, no sadness, no hunger or pain. Just nothing, not even a me to experience the nothing.

*I have one of those internal monologues that never stops. I find it hard to imagine anything else, but I am told that's not the case for everyone.

idk this sounds terrifying to me. I am just scared of things ending.

If an omnibenevolent God created a system in which existing without his involvement is an eternal torture, then I question his omnibenevolence. Especially if the best way to get that eternal torture is merely not believing something.

The omnibenevolence is a lie invented by believers (or, probably more specifically, proselytizers) in direct contravention to stated (and, assuming it exists in any sense even remotely similar in capability to what's attributed to it, observed) behavior, yes. This is true especially for the various abrahamic/monotheistic gods, but more generally as well. Existent reality just does not cohere to a tri-omni god in particular, nor a benevolent one less specifically unless it's remarkably powerless or ignorant.

Staggeringly little about the state of reality or attributed behavior in various religious traditions makes a single goddamn lick of sense if the divine was actually omnibenevolent, and it stretches things real hard just to be benevolent at all. The only way theologians have been able to even a little square that circle is by pissing all over the meaning of the word benevolent(/good)... which can be fun to watch if you're in the right mindset, but in most cases is just varying levels of infuriating. Religious language is interesting right up until it tells you god was being benevolent, actually, when it had your child die screaming in a fire, bleh.

Things make more sense if you acknowledge the divine are exactly as spiteful, petty, and murderous as they're described. It's a miserable sort of sense if you think they actually exist, mind, because it means everything is a spate of suffering wound up and manipulated by a omnipotent egotistical hatebeast that could at any time just slaughter pretty much your entire species on a whim, and is probably taking time to figure out how to torture (sorry, "test") you for its amusement, but it's at least coherent.

If there's a wise statement I've seen come out of religious belief, it's that if you meet God on the road, you should cut the miserable thing down.

Cope. Seethe. Mald. Dilate.

On a serious note, @McTraveller I think it's a fool's errand to try and provide any kind of real evidence for spiritual beliefs. That way lies crackpottery of all kinds. Science and religion should be kept as separate as possible or you get things like YECs. Or bullshit new-age con artists.

[jipehog]

But I don't buy the "people only observe actions happening when caused by an (intelligent) entity causing them" theory, because there are many, many observable things that are "uncaused."  I think it's irrational extrapolation to assume that theory.

Really? Can you name one thing that you know for sure is uncaused?

Since it is a matter of perception, illusions can trick us to observe something that is 'uncaused' (if I understand your meaning). Otherwise we also tend to confuse correlation with causation.

This of course gives false positives, but evolution has clearly decided that people being paranoid or seeing patterns that aren't there sometimes is very much worth it.

Yes such behaviors was advantageous, though I am not sure if it is still so in the modern age. Given the time scale on which evolution works, the pace of development we see today and our social support, I doubt evolution can be called upon for answers.

[Strongpoint]

Science and religion should be kept as separate as possible

Science is merely a method to understand how things work. Separating it from something is willful ignorance.

[lemon10]

But I don't buy the "people only observe actions happening when caused by an (intelligent) entity causing them" theory, because there are many, many observable things that are "uncaused."  I think it's irrational extrapolation to assume that theory.

Really? Can you name one thing that you know for sure is uncaused?

Since it is a matter of perception, illusions can trick us to observe something that is 'uncaused' (if I understand your meaning). Otherwise we also tend to confuse correlation with causation.

To explain what I meant a bit more my post related to the watchmaker argument and how its impossible to prove that god does not exist even for a modern human.
Since many people both believe and believed in the distant past that the cosmos came from the actions/death/children of some primordial diety, to them all things would be inherently caused by that primordial god.
So if you were to say something as simple as "that rock is uncaused" such a statement lacks proof (and directly contradicts the worldview of the vast majority of humans to ever live).

Yes such behaviors was advantageous, though I am not sure if it is still so in the modern age. Given the time scale on which evolution works, the pace of development we see today and our social support, I doubt evolution can be called upon for answers.

Unlike some other evolved behaviors (such as wanting to eat super high-sugar foods) even in the modern age pattern-seeking is super advantageous, not just in one aspect of life, but in nearly all of them since its a fundamental aspect of learning.
And not just education learning, its part of learning/practicing social skills (eg. noticing that every time you come home late from the bar your wife is angry at you), learning on your own how to do jobs and what the right tool is, playing games, reading/watching movies, ect.

Its impossible to say if its overtuned or not for the modern age, but with the increased focus on education in the modern age I suspect it may be even more important now then it ever was.