NationStates Jolt Archive

Now I know most on here aren't very religious, myself included. But in a way I wish I was, I wish I could believe in something. I've tried, I just can't. So if you're not religious, do you feel this way? And if you are, you do ever wish you weren't? That you could shake the feeling/belief of something bigger than us?

So if you're not religious, do you feel this way?Not in the slightest.

pfft...no. Those suckers have to waste half their Sundays while I get to sleep in.

I'm quite happy as I am, and I don't think I'd become any happier if I believed in something else.

I'm me. That's pretty damn awesome to start with, and until I've sorted my own being out (financially, personally and ethically), I don't really see the value in worrying about anything else.

Now I know most on here aren't very religious, myself included. But in a way I wish I was, I wish I could believe in something. I've tried, I just can't. So if you're not religious, do you feel this way? And if you are, you do ever wish you weren't? That you could shake the feeling/belief of something bigger than us?

You used to be quite the ardent Muslim. That was pretty funny.

I am religious myself. Not of an Abrahamic faith, though.

pfft...no. Those suckers have to waste half their Sundays while I get to sleep in.

Even when I was a Catholic, church only took an hour.

Sometimes, sure. But I enjoy my atheist perks, too.

I'm quite happy as I am, and I don't think I'd become any happier if I believed in something else.

I'm me. That's pretty damn awesome to start with, and until I've sorted my own being out (financially, personally and ethically), I don't really see the value in worrying about anything else.Narcissist! :eek:
Kidding, kidding. :p
I have lots of time on my hands, and I think about religion a lot. It doesn't appeal to me at all. Does nothing to reassure me.

Even when I was a Catholic, church only took an hour.

You mean not all churches are 18th century Presbyterian-style? Damn. And here I've been spending eight hours a day in a shack without climate control. God damn it.

You mean not all churches are 18th century Presbyterian-style? Damn. And here I've been spending eight hours a day in a shack without climate control. God damn it.

Sorry to disappoint.

Even when I was a Catholic, church only took an hour.

My family isn't Christian. They're usually gone all Sunday, while I get the house to myself. Also, their place of worship is like a 2 minute walk from our house.

My family isn't Christian. They're usually gone all Sunday, while I get the house to myself. Also, their place of worship is like a 2 minute walk from our house.

Odd.

My family isn't Christian. They're usually gone all Sunday, while I get the house to myself. Also, their place of worship is like a 2 minute walk from our house.

Do I really have to spell this out?

Now I know most on here aren't very religious, myself included. But in a way I wish I was, I wish I could believe in something. I've tried, I just can't. So if you're not religious, do you feel this way? And if you are, you do ever wish you weren't? That you could shake the feeling/belief of something bigger than us?

You mean you don't believe in anything? Nothing at all? You have no beliefs in anything? Not even a political ideology? Damn no I envy you, well no I don't and I don't envy religious people hard to envy yourself.

I don't envy them, although I understand the sentiment. But I do believe in things--things that can not be proven--just not a higher power.

I believe, for instance, that people are basically good, despite hourly evidence to the contrary. I believe that there are a very few people in this world who love me and whom I love unconditionally. I believe that in the end you die and nothing matters, because there is nowhere and nowhen for it to matter and no one to care, and I'd wager that gives me as much solace as any God can.

Now I know most on here aren't very religious, myself included. But in a way I wish I was, I wish I could believe in something. I've tried, I just can't.

Sometimes I indeed wish I could just belong. Not be critical of blind faith, but just embrace it, letting it envelop me and letting others think for me.

Sometimes I also wish I had Down syndrome. Life would be so much simpler.

Now I know most on here aren't very religious, myself included. But in a way I wish I was, I wish I could believe in something. I've tried, I just can't. So if you're not religious, do you feel this way? And if you are, you do ever wish you weren't? That you could shake the feeling/belief of something bigger than us?


As I've said in other threads, the day I realized that I wasn't required to believe in anything was the most liberating day of my life.

Do I really have to spell this out?

huh?

Now I know most on here aren't very religious, myself included. But in a way I wish I was, I wish I could believe in something. I've tried, I just can't. So if you're not religious, do you feel this way? And if you are, you do ever wish you weren't? That you could shake the feeling/belief of something bigger than us?

Why should I be? I still have beliefs of my own, and I'm no less of a human being for not believing in any sort of higher power or spirituality.

Faith is not necessarily a virtue, but neither is it a fault. It simply is, and having it or not should not determine someone's value.

No, I like thinking for myself and coming to my own conclusions.

Now I know most on here aren't very religious, myself included. But in a way I wish I was, I wish I could believe in something. I've tried, I just can't. So if you're not religious, do you feel this way? And if you are, you do ever wish you weren't? That you could shake the feeling/belief of something bigger than us?

Nope, why would I?

Even when I was a Catholic, church only took an hour.

If you have a religion, you don't worry about how much of your time it takes, though in Islam there is an element of time-serving, it's true.

Nope, why would I?

I don't think the OP was making a judgement that you should or shouldn't. Faith isn't necessarily good or bad, some people have it and others don't, and do those who don't feel they are missing out? There is no more judgement implied than in saying some people have long hair whilst others don't, and do short haired people feel left out.

No, I'm not jealous. All I see from religion is people willing to be brainwashed and accept whatever nonsense someone 'ordained by god' will throw their direction... and I am honestly saddened by it. I guess I sort of pity them.

I have nothing against the concept of a god/gods, just the concept that you have to believe in a specific way or go to hell.

I sometimes do miss the psychological comfort offered by religion, but I don't exactly eny religious people.
However, I know that to me it would be cold comfort indeed, as I would know it to be insincere and superficial. It was that knowledge that eventually turned me from Catholic to agnostic to atheist.
Overall I don't envy religious people much, though. Most of them have to continually justify their actions, thoughts and feelings in terms of their religion, or bend their religion to comply with what they actually believe. I think that's very hard work for a little comfort.

Do I envy surrendering to an idea, rather than choosing my own path in life? No sir, I do not. :)

I don't belong/consider myself to belong with any particular religion and I definately don't feel that I'm missing out or lacking because of it in any way but I've also met many others who do feel the desire/need to believe in some higher power. From what I got from them they just can't bring themselves to accept/embrace religious ideologies and I've also talked at length with devout religious people who can't seem to identify with the idea of a religion devoid of organisation.

Lots of people seem content or happy with themselves; which is fair enough and I've always gone for the opinion that whatever you choose to have faith in, is good so long as it works for you.

But... nope, I don't feel as though I'm missing out by not belonging to a religion or some such.

:p

I don't envy them that I know. The universe and its mysteries are big enough for me.

Overall I don't envy moral people much, though. Most of them have to continually justify their actions, thoughts and feelings in terms of their morals, or bend their morals to comply with what they actually believe. I think that's very hard work for a little comfort.

Now I know what you were trying to say Cabra, however, plenty of non-religious people have to do exactly the above themselves they have to justify their actions and thoughts that deal with their morals or other beliefs that aren't always religious in nature.

No. Especially not the manically grinning happy, clappy ones.

Now I know most on here aren't very religious, myself included. But in a way I wish I was, I wish I could believe in something. I've tried, I just can't. So if you're not religious, do you feel this way? And if you are, you do ever wish you weren't? That you could shake the feeling/belief of something bigger than us?
sometimes.

having that spirituality is an aspect of the human psyche that i dont get to exercise. it would be nice if it didnt mean pretending to believe in bullshit.

You mean you don't believe in anything? Nothing at all? You have no beliefs in anything? Not even a political ideology? Damn no I envy you, well no I don't and I don't envy religious people hard to envy yourself.
politics isnt a substitute for religion and it shouldnt be.

Just out of curiosity - does anybody have faith in humanity?

:p

Now I know what you were trying to say Cabra, however, plenty of non-religious people have to do exactly the above themselves they have to justify their actions and thoughts that deal with their morals or other beliefs that aren't always religious in nature.

Nope, that's exactly the opposite of what I'm talking about.

Everybody has morals. And most people's morals will at one point or another directly contradict the religion they subsribe to.
For example : many people feel that as long as nobody gets hurt, people should be allowed to live thier sexuality however they see fit. However, this directly contradicts all three of the Abrahamic religions. So many people confessing to believe in any of those, but at the same time believing that the happiness of the individual is something to strive for as long as nobody else gets affected or hurt can spend hours justifying how they can believe both one and the other.
The arguments range from "Those statements need to be taken in the context of the time" to "it's a mistranslation".

Their morals are fine. It's just that they don't allign with their religion, causing friction and unnecessary agonising.

Just out of curiosity - does anybody have faith in humanity?

:p

I try to, but they don't make it easy, let me tell you.

Just out of curiosity - does anybody have faith in humanity?

:p

As a species? NO

As individuals is where I see our potential.

I try to, but they don't make it easy, let me tell you.

mm Likewise - I have faith we'll develop and spread further than our own wee planet... eventually anyway!

Just out of curiosity - does anybody have faith in humanity?

:p
not in a religious way

No, I like thinking for myself and coming to my own conclusions.
And religious people by definition don't? :rolleyes:

And religious people by definition don't? :rolleyes:

Well, per definition they come to somebody else's conclusion, don't they?
I mean, how many Muslims do you think would be around today if people didn't time and again came to Mohammed's conclusions about life?

politics isnt a substitute for religion and it shouldnt be.

No but it is a set of beliefs.

I PITY THE FOOLS!
Somebody got a Mr. T pic?

Well, per definition they come to somebody else's conclusion, don't they?
I mean, how many Muslims do you think would be around today if people didn't time and again came to Mohammed's conclusions about life?

So you think that they don't think about it before coming to the same conclusion?

No but it is a set of beliefs.
so is science (for non-scientists like myself) but its no substitute for religion.

Now I know most on here aren't very religious, myself included. But in a way I wish I was, I wish I could believe in something. I've tried, I just can't. So if you're not religious, do you feel this way? And if you are, you do ever wish you weren't? That you could shake the feeling/belief of something bigger than us?
In spite of what many atheists say, being religious doesn't make you a moronic drone. Religious people still have doubts, still have to wrestle with moral problems, still must find their own path in life and still fear for their health and safety.

No but it is a set of beliefs.

Not really. It's a tool. Some people assume one version of the tool is better suited to fix society's problems, others go for another tool.
Esentially, a political belief is a system of possible actions, not faith in something unknowable.

Well, per definition they come to somebody else's conclusion, don't they?
I mean, how many Muslims do you think would be around today if people didn't time and again came to Mohammed's conclusions about life?
Do you really think that all Muslims come to the same conclusions?

Nope, that's exactly the opposite of what I'm talking about.

Everybody has morals. And most people's morals will at one point or another directly contradict the religion they subsribe to.
For example : many people feel that as long as nobody gets hurt, people should be allowed to live thier sexuality however they see fit. However, this directly contradicts all three of the Abrahamic religions. So many people confessing to believe in any of those, but at the same time believing that the happiness of the individual is something to strive for as long as nobody else gets affected or hurt can spend hours justifying how they can believe both one and the other.
The arguments range from "Those statements need to be taken in the context of the time" to "it's a mistranslation".

Their morals are fine. It's just that they don't allign with their religion, causing friction and unnecessary agonising.

And you miss my point a non religious person may have a set of morals however may do something or come into contact with something that conflicts with their morals now they can and do compromise their morals and rationalise it to solve the friction that is being caused with their actions and their morals.

Not really. It's a tool. Some people assume one version of the tool is better suited to fix society's problems, others go for another tool.
Esentially, a political belief is a system of possible actions, not faith in something unknowable.
I disagree, ideologies are more than just tools to fix society's problems, they're different ways of looking at the world. Just like it's impossible to establish objectively which religion is right and which is wrong, it's impossible to establish which way of looking at the world is right and which is wrong.

Not really. It's a tool. Some people assume one version of the tool is better suited to fix society's problems, others go for another tool.
Esentially, a political belief is a system of possible actions, not faith in something unknowable.

Yes so if I believe that all people should be allowed the freedom of association and yes it is a belief and requires faith that this belief is true. whether it is true or not it is still something people believe in. To have faith and belief does not always have to be religious in nature.

Huh, well I see Sovietstan's conversion from Atheism to Islam was every bit as genuine and long lasting as I'd suspected.

so is science (for non-scientists like myself) but its no substitute for religion.

Did I ever say it was? Or politics for that matter?

So you think that they don't think about it before coming to the same conclusion?

Possibly. The argument might be made that since so many people come to the same conclusion, there must be some truth in it. However, I sincerely doubt it for a very simple reason :
If there was truth and relevance, people all over the world would have come to more or less the same conclusions, over and over again. Yet what happened was that not one religion was thought of, but myriads. And apart from them all more or less incorporating the Golden Rule (an anthropological and social concept without which human society couldn't have evolved), no two are alike. It would seem that humanity only came up with each religion once.
I think only the founders of religion ever really thought things through by themselves.

Do you really think that all Muslims come to the same conclusions?

Don't you know the Shiites and the Shia sects do have the same beliefs as ecah other?

And you miss my point a non religious person may have a set of morals however may do something or come into contact with something that conflicts with their morals now they can and do compromise their morals and rationalise it to solve the friction that is being caused with their actions and their morals.

True. It's a struggle between being moral and being selfish, a bsic human state of mind.
However, religious people might find themselves struggling with the decision of being moral, or selfish, or follow their religion.

Possibly. The argument might be made that since so many people come to the same conclusion, there must be some truth in it. However, I sincerely doubt it for a very simple reason :
If there was truth and relevance, people all over the world would have come to more or less the same conclusions, over and over again. Yet what happened was that not one religion was thought of, but myriads. And apart from them all more or less incorporating the Golden Rule (an anthropological and social concept without which human society couldn't have evolved), no two are alike. It would seem that humanity only came up with each religion once.
I think only the founders of religion ever really thought things through by themselves.

I like it how you make your own argument and then go ahead and rebut it very good and gives good practice unfortuanatly that is not what I asked and nor what I was implying.

I think only the founders of religion ever really thought things through by themselves.
If that's true, then how come that hundreds of theological works are published every year?

True. It's a struggle between being moral and being selfish, a bsic human state of mind.
However, religious people might find themselves struggling with the decision of being moral, or selfish, or follow their religion.

Unless their religion is their set of morals? But as I say your original quote isn't always true as non religious people must also justify their actions or attempt to prove to themselves why they must do something that may contradict with what they believed (which isn't religious) and must now rationalise and justify it.

Yes so if I believe that all people should be allowed the freedom of association and yes it is a belief and requires faith that this belief is true. whether it is true or not it is still something people believe in. To have faith and belief does not always have to be religious in nature.

Nope, it doesn't require faith.
What do you belief would happen if everybody had freedom of association? Why would it be good or bad?

It's neither. The rationale is that morally, you cannot deny others the freedoms you claim for youself. There's no belief in it whatsoever. In fact, I know that this right might result in as much good as it will in bad. I cannot honestly make the claim that it's a right to be defended because it will result in anything positive.
But morally, there is no way to argue against it.

Do you really think that all Muslims come to the same conclusions?

Yep. They came to the conclusion that they want to believe what the Q'ran says.

And then, as their morals conflicted with the Q'ran's messages, they split into sects.
Same as the Christians did.

I like it how you make your own argument and then go ahead and rebut it very good and gives good practice unfortuanatly that is not what I asked and nor what I was implying.

I was just typing out my thoughts.

What did you asked, specifically, then?

If that's true, then how come that hundreds of theological works are published every year?

As I said, religious people tend to find themselves in conflict between what they find they should believe (because it's spelled out in the book of their choice), and what their morals tell them.

So they tend to interpret away at the book of their choice, hoping to get it to justify thier morals.

Well, per definition they come to somebody else's conclusion, don't they?
I mean, how many Muslims do you think would be around today if people didn't time and again came to Mohammed's conclusions about life?

That depends on how you define religion. In the case of most organised, orthodox religions, the majority of believers follow blindly. But even the Catholics train their Jesuits in critical thinking skills.

And then there are those who don't follow an organised religion, but do have a coherent nonsecular worldview.

Unless their religion is their set of morals? But as I say your original quote isn't always true as non religious people must also justify their actions or attempt to prove to themselves why they must do something that may contradict with what they believed (which isn't religious) and must now rationalise and justify it.

I've never yet met anybody subscribing to a particular religion who actually believed in absolutely everything their holy book said. Not a single person.

The only people I guess you could claim line up their morals with their religion (or the other way around, doesn't matter really) would be spiritualists who don't buy into any of the "normal" religions, but rather make up their own as they go along.

Nope, it doesn't require faith.
What do you belief would happen if everybody had freedom of association? Why would it be good or bad?

It's neither. The rationale is that morally, you cannot deny others the freedoms you claim for youself. There's no belief in it whatsoever. In fact, I know that this right might result in as much good as it will in bad. I cannot honestly make the claim that it's a right to be defended because it will result in anything positive.
But morally, there is no way to argue against it.

Well only if my morals were that I cannot deny them that, something which many people don't believe and can and do make arguments against it as it goe against their morals and beliefs. If I want to believe that I can trust someone to say perform a task for me I not only need to believe that he can but I also need faith.

I've never yet met anybody subscribing to a particular religion who actually believed in absolutely everything their holy book said. Not a single person.

The only people I guess you could claim line up their morals with their religion (or the other way around, doesn't matter really) would be spiritualists who don't buy into any of the "normal" religions, but rather make up their own as they go along.

Well then that means they must come to different conclusions about their own personnel beliefs.

As I said, religious people tend to find themselves in conflict between what they find they should believe (because it's spelled out in the book of their choice), and what their morals tell them.

So they tend to interpret away at the book of their choice, hoping to get it to justify thier morals.
What about people who don't accept the book of their choice as the sole source of truth? :confused:

I was just typing out my thoughts.

What did you asked, specifically, then?

Actually I don't think I asked anything I think I stated something but it wasn't that if a lot of people come to the same conclusion then there must be some truth in it. But I wouldn't claim that as an argument after all that is an argumentative fallacy.

That depends on how you define religion. In the case of most organised, orthodox religions, the majority of believers follow blindly. But even the Catholics train their Jesuits in critical thinking skills.

And then there are those who don't follow an organised religion, but do have a coherent nonsecular worldview.

I've been educated by Jesuits. I does show sometimes. ;)

It's true that they do encourage critical thinking. But they were in fact the most obvious example of what I'm talking about I've ever come across :

They are Catholic, and as such strongly encouraged to believe in Catholic dogma.
Yet at the same time, they are educated, intelligent and critical. They have to bend and twist their faith on a very regular basis, sometimes to breaking point.
We had a biology teacher who - from what I could tell - couldn't for the life of her bring herself to believe in Mary's virginity.
We had a religious education teacher who could not find justification for damning sex before marriage.
We had a history teacher who was torn between being for equal rights, but had to justify the Vatican's ban on female priests.

The list is very long.
And while I, as I said, sometimes miss the warm, comforting feeling of being religious, the intellectual struggle is just not worth it.

What about people who don't accept the book of their choice as the sole source of truth? :confused:

Most of those books tend to condemn them for that, as far as I know.

Well then that means they must come to different conclusions about their own personnel beliefs.

Which means that they do not 100% believe in what their religion asks them to believe.

I know that many people can live with this situation quite happily, mostly by avoiding thinking about it. Personally, I can't do that.

Actually I don't think I asked anything I think I stated something but it wasn't that if a lot of people come to the same conclusion then there must be some truth in it. But I wouldn't claim that as an argument after all that is an argumentative fallacy.

I think it was about how religious people would think to come to their faith, wasn't it?

Well, I can't look into people's heads to read the thoughts, I can only conclude their thoughts from their actions. And their actions in this case would be to choose the same faiths as millions of others... which leads me right back to my musings in the post in question ;)

Just out of curiosity - does anybody have faith in humanity?

:p
I have faith in their ability and willingness to disappoint me.

I've been educated by Jesuits. I does show sometimes. ;)

It's true that they do encourage critical thinking. But they were in fact the most obvious example of what I'm talking about I've ever come across :

They are Catholic, and as such strongly encouraged to believe in Catholic dogma.
Yet at the same time, they are educated, intelligent and critical. They have to bend and twist their faith on a very regular basis, sometimes to breaking point.
We had a biology teacher who - from what I could tell - couldn't for the life of her bring herself to believe in Mary's virginity.
We had a religious education teacher who could not find justification for damning sex before marriage.
We had a history teacher who was torn between being for equal rights, but had to justify the Vatican's ban on female priests.

The list is very long.
And while I, as I said, sometimes miss the warm, comforting feeling of being religious, the intellectual struggle is just not worth it.

And then there are also theologians who are not afraid to change their beliefs to champion human rights, have more liberal views about marriage and sex, or accept the lack of biological miracles in our day and age.

So we have examples of religious people from orthodox communities who are obviously coming to their own conclusions.

We also have examples of individuals who are coming to their own conclusions, or as you phrased it, 'making it up as they go along'.

By the way, not even the Abrahamic religions make the book the sole source of truth. St. Francis isn't in the Bible. The dress of the Hassidic is not described in the Torah.

Which means that they do not 100% believe in what their religion asks them to believe.

I know that many people can live with this situation quite happily, mostly by avoiding thinking about it. Personally, I can't do that.

Well know but they have their own personnel beliefs from doing this which may not be 100% with their religion but it is apart of their own beliefs and faiths.

If you can't do that then that is fair enough I have no qualms with that (and why would it matter even if I did) but others can and will combine their religion along with other beliefs (not necessarily religious) to come with their own beliefs. Something that was kind of taught to me at a Catholic school that follows the Jesuit faith coincidentally.

Which means that they do not 100% believe in what their religion asks them to believe.

I know that many people can live with this situation quite happily, mostly by avoiding thinking about it. Personally, I can't do that.

Religions don't ask you to believe anything. They are not agents of action. Religious people will ask others of their religion to believe the same things, but that's something else.

I envy atheists, actually.

It's a simple world view, and it's far easier to rationalise what is apparently divine as hallucinations or delusions than to accept something that is unprovable to others in an objective manner.

I wish life were so simple.

Which means that they do not 100% believe in what their religion asks them to believe.

I know that many people can live with this situation quite happily, mostly by avoiding thinking about it. Personally, I can't do that.
I accept that there is a difference between my faith (my own beliefs) and my religion (the Vatican's beliefs). My religion (the organised, hierarchical institution) tells me that women can't become priests, that marriage is a union between a man and a women, etc... my faith doesn't, my faith tells me the exact opposite. I can only speak for myself, but I think that's the case with many of us. :wink:

Most of those books tend to condemn them for that, as far as I know.
Mine doesn't. As far as I'm aware, the Roman-Catholic Church has never taught the doctrine of the Sola Scriptura. :cool:

We also have examples of individuals who are coming to their own conclusions, or as you phrased it, 'making it up as they go along'.

Hardly making it up as they go along though, changing your beliefs during life whatever they might be is normal and natural some people may have once believed that Australia needs to become a Republic whereas they have changed their mind and believe that it shouldn't change after hearing various arguments.

Well know but they have their own personnel beliefs from doing this which may not be 100% with their religion but it is apart of their own beliefs and faiths.

If you can't do that then that is fair enough I have no qualms with that (and why would it matter even if I did) but others can and will combine their religion along with other beliefs (not necessarily religious) to come with their own beliefs. Something that was kind of taught to me at a Catholic school that follows the Jesuit faith coincidentally.

As I said, I've seen it many times.
But why would I have an interest in making up my own faith?
Either what the bible says is right, then I had better believe it. Or I cannot believe it, but then why bother with believing something I made up?

I envy atheists, actually.

It's a simple world view, and it's far easier to rationalise what is apparently divine as hallucinations or delusions than to accept something that is unprovable to others in an objective manner.

I wish life were so simple.

I don't envy them, that is not to say I look down on all atheists (some I do but that is for different reasons) and think I am better than them or anything but I don't envy them.

I envy atheists, actually.

It's a simple world view, and it's far easier to rationalise what is apparently divine as hallucinations or delusions than to accept something that is unprovable to others in an objective manner.

I wish life were so simple.

I never said I don't accept that others experience reality differently?

I think it was about how religious people would think to come to their faith, wasn't it?

Well, I can't look into people's heads to read the thoughts, I can only conclude their thoughts from their actions. And their actions in this case would be to choose the same faiths as millions of others... which leads me right back to my musings in the post in question ;)
I think I understand what you are trying to say. It is that people join a religion even though they do not accept every single one of its tenets and, when confronted the points of disconnection, they try to rationalize it away by putting various spins on either the secular reality or the religious doctrine.

You also seem to be saying that religious people, by definition, adopt another person's way of thinking and abandon their own independent thought processes.

If this is correct, then I have the following issues with it:

1) Being more or less dishonest about what you think/believe and making up rationalizations to make the disconnect appear to go away when it is exposed is hardly unique to religious people. I don't think it is valid to cite that as a characteristic of religious people dealing with their religion, as if it is not also done in non-religious contexts and also done by non-religious people. Although religion provides fertile ground for hypocrisy, it is by no means the only place you find it, nor the only place it holds a lot of power and can do a lot of damage.

(Sidebar: I wonder (idly) if people show a disconnect between what they say they think and what they actually do more in regards to religion or sex?)

2) It strikes me as rather rigidly puritanical (or rigidly orthodox; not sure which is the better term) to criticize religious people for not adhering to every single detail of their religion's doctrine. I think that is an unrealistic standard that appears to have no purpose but to allow you to make a blanket statement about all religious people -- one that just happens to be negative.

3) Your arguments that religious people all reach the same conclusions and all choose to follow other people's thinking rather than their own are likewise overbroad and unrealistic. You yourself acknowledge that schisms and the creation of new sects/churches spun off from older ones are evidence that not all religious people reach the same conclusions or follow others' thinking/teaching. You also ignore the fact that group-think (or even just simple agreeing with other people about something) is also not exclusive to religion, making this another criticism of religion that does not really speak to religion itself, but more to common human habits.

4) Finally, your two points contradict each other. If religious people pick and choose what parts of their religion to ignore, then they are not following someone else's teachings about what to think/believe and thus all reaching the same conclusion about things. On the other hand, if they are following others' teachings and reaching the same conclusions, then they would not be picking and choosing what things to agree with or which rules to follow. You can't have it both ways.

As I said, I've seen it many times.
But why would I have an interest in making up my own faith?
Either what the bible says is right, then I had better believe it. Or I cannot believe it, but then why bother with believing something I made up?

Well that is a question only you can answer.

Your second question I don't understand. Now you can believe the bible depending on various factors and different books of the bible some our based on historical events some have a list of guidelines and 'rules' which you can muse over and come to your own conclusion if you do want to follow these beliefs and rules or not. You don't have to or you can if you want to, it really is a personnel choice.

As I said, I've seen it many times.
But why would I have an interest in making up my own faith?
Either what the bible says is right, then I had better believe it. Or I cannot believe it, but then why bother with believing something I made up?
Why would believing in something you made up strike you as less valid than believing in something someone else made up?

Now I know most on here aren't very religious, myself included. But in a way I wish I was, I wish I could believe in something. I've tried, I just can't. So if you're not religious, do you feel this way? And if you are, you do ever wish you weren't? That you could shake the feeling/belief of something bigger than us?
And to address the OP:

Envying other people is a waste of time, and time is too precious to waste.

I think I understand what you are trying to say. It is that people join a religion even though they do not accept every single one of its tenets and, when confronted the points of disconnection, they try to rationalize it away by putting various spins on either the secular reality or the religious doctrine.

You also seem to be saying that religious people, by definition, adopt another person's way of thinking and abandon their own independent thought processes.

If this is correct, then I have the following issues with it:

1) Being more or less dishonest about what you think/believe and making up rationalizations to make the disconnect appear to go away when it is exposed is hardly unique to religious people. I don't think it is valid to cite that as a characteristic of religious people dealing with their religion, as if it is not also done in non-religious contexts and also done by non-religious people. Although religion provides fertile ground for hypocrisy, it is by no means the only place you find it, nor the only place it holds a lot of power and can do a lot of damage.

(Sidebar: I wonder (idly) if people show a disconnect between what they say they think and what they actually do more in regards to religion or sex?)

2) It strikes me as rather rigidly puritanical (or rigidly orthodox; not sure which is the better term) to criticize religious people for not adhering to every single detail of their religion's doctrine. I think that is an unrealistic standard that appears to have no purpose but to allow you to make a blanket statement about all religious people -- one that just happens to be negative.

3) Your arguments that religious people all reach the same conclusions and all choose to follow other people's thinking rather than their own are likewise overbroad and unrealistic. You yourself acknowledge that schisms and the creation of new sects/churches spun off from older ones are evidence that not all religious people reach the same conclusions or follow others' thinking/teaching. You also ignore the fact that group-think (or even just simple agreeing with other people about something) is also not exclusive to religion, making this another criticism of religion that does not really speak to religion itself, but more to common human habits.

4) Finally, your two points contradict each other. If religious people pick and choose what parts of their religion to ignore, then they are not following someone else's teachings about what to think/believe and thus all reaching the same conclusion about things. On the other hand, if they are following others' teachings and reaching the same conclusions, then they would not be picking and choosing what things to agree with or which rules to follow. You can't have it both ways.

1) I never claimed that this applies only to religious people. On the contrary, I'm very well aware that it it something an awful lot of people tend to do.

2) Many people tend to use religion and religious books in a pick-and-choose kind of way. I personally find that extremly dishonest. If you want to use your book of choice to justify any of your actions, you ought to make sure all your actions comply with the book.
Also, the book tends to be what it will eventually boil down to when discussing belief with religious people, so that is why I refer to them, sort of as the common denominator.

3) Good point. However, that ties back to what I said about justifying yourself with the book... if you cannot justify your actions in any other way, you had better make sure to be able to justfiy all your actions that way.

4) Again, good point.
I originallt made the argument about religion sometimes being comfort for people. And I pointed out that I could only feel that comfort when I ignored all the glaring intellectual gaps and leaps inherent in religion.
I do realise that people can easily make them, and sometimes not even notice that they make them. The mental capacities required for that are quite stunning I should think. But I'm just not capable.

Now I know most on here aren't very religious, myself included. But in a way I wish I was, I wish I could believe in something. I've tried, I just can't. So if you're not religious, do you feel this way? And if you are, you do ever wish you weren't? That you could shake the feeling/belief of something bigger than us?

I envy the complete blind faith they have in something that is highly unlikely (it's existence, I mean). But I don't envy their religious ensalvement.

Why would believing in something you made up strike you as less valid than believing in something someone else made up?

It doesn't. But most people believing in what someone else made up don't believe it's made up in the first place.
If I believe in something I made up, I know it's made up.

I envy the complete blind faith they have in something that is highly unlikely (it's existence, I mean). But I don't envy their religious ensalvement.

This is something else I hear a lot but I never understand why people think religious people are salves.

My religion isn't a religion in the western/Abrahamic sense. It's more of a philosophy.

This is something else I hear a lot but I never understand why people think religious people are salves.

Well, they're very effective if you put them on burns. You should try it sometime.

This is something else I hear a lot but I never understand why people think religious people are salves.

I consider them slaves to a set of specified doctrines. And many (and let me stress that, I don't want to generalize) do not stray from that doctrine, even if it cost them their lives.

I view religion as a form of surrender. To bow down before another person's way of life.

I consider them slaves to a set of specified doctrines. And many (and let me stress that, I don't want to generalize) do not stray from that doctrine, even if it cost them their lives.

So, do you have a problem with religious people, religious people who are slaves to doctrine, or all people who are slaves to doctrine?

1) I never claimed that this applies only to religious people. On the contrary, I'm very well aware that it it something an awful lot of people tend to do.
It is my opinion that this makes it invalid as a criticism specifically of religious people. In other words, I don't think it's valid to criticize relgion/religious people specifically for doing A, when everyone/every group does A.

2) Many people tend to use religion and religious books in a pick-and-choose kind of way. I personally find that extremly dishonest. If you want to use your book of choice to justify any of your actions, you ought to make sure all your actions comply with the book.
Also, the book tends to be what it will eventually boil down to when discussing belief with religious people, so that is why I refer to them, sort of as the common denominator.
Like I said, that strikes me as a rigidly puritanical and unrealistic way of thinking about it. It assumes the authority to tell religious people that they are not allowed to evolve in their thinking.

3) Good point. However, that ties back to what I said about justifying yourself with the book... if you cannot justify your actions in any other way, you had better make sure to be able to justfiy all your actions that way.
I'm sorry, I don't see what your insistence on adherence to the books has to do with the flaw I pointed out in your statement. You can't claim that religious people do A, and in the same argument point to examples of religoius people doing the opposite of A, and still expect your argument to hold together. Your reference to expecting people whose religion has a book, which they claim to follow, to adhere to every part of that book does not reconcile that disconnect in your statements.

4) Again, good point.
I originallt made the argument about religion sometimes being comfort for people. And I pointed out that I could only feel that comfort when I ignored all the glaring intellectual gaps and leaps inherent in religion.
I do realise that people can easily make them, and sometimes not even notice that they make them. The mental capacities required for that are quite stunning I should think. But I'm just not capable.
You seem to be repeating your assertion that religious people ignore glaring gaps and leaps. This does not in anyway address the contradiction between your two arguments. The willingness to live with that contradiction is a mental capacity that I guess I lack. :tongue:

I consider them slaves to a set of specified doctrines. And many (and let me stress that, I don't want to generalize) do not stray from that doctrine, even if it cost them their lives.

Even if that code demands their life.

I view religion as a form of surrender. To bow down before another person's way of life.

There is a certain kind of surrender I see as an act of love. The surender of self to the one you love. The surrender of your soul and in turn, the surrendering of the soul of the one who loves you. But surrendering your faith, blindly, to a deity... that bothers me. I mean, I won't desestimate the possibility of the existence of a god. It's probable. But I won't go ahead and blindly state that there IS a God.

There is a certain kind of surrender I see as an act of love. The surender of self to the one you love. The surrender of your soul and in turn, the surrendering of the soul of the one who loves you. But surrendering your faith, blindly, to a deity... that bothers me. I mean, I won't desestimate the possibility of the existence of a god. It's probable. But I won't go ahead and blindly state that there IS a God.

You have hit the nail on the head Yuki-Chan, that is kinda what I meant.

So, do you have a problem with religious people, religious people who are slaves to doctrine, or all people who are slaves to doctrine?

I think I have a problem with people who are slaves to doctrines, be them relugious or secular, but as I already said, I don't or won't venture into desestimating the possibilty of the existence of a god. Perhaps I'm the wrong one and rleigious believers are onto something.:wink:

Well, they're very effective if you put them on burns. You should try it sometime.

You little bastard :p Slaves SLAVES SLAVES :D

There is a certain kind of surrender I see as an act of love. The surender of self to the one you love. The surrender of your soul and in turn, the surrendering of the soul of the one who loves you. But surrendering your faith, blindly, to a deity... that bothers me. I mean, I won't desestimate the possibility of the existence of a god. It's probable. But I won't go ahead and blindly state that there IS a God.

Why do you make the faulty assumption that all people who have religious beliefs have somehow 'blindly surrendered their faith' to a deity?

There is a certain kind of surrender I see as an act of love. The surender of self to the one you love. The surrender of your soul and in turn, the surrendering of the soul of the one who loves you. But surrendering your faith, blindly, to a deity... that bothers me. I mean, I won't desestimate the possibility of the existence of a god. It's probable. But I won't go ahead and blindly state that there IS a God.

More than blindly surrendering your faith to a Deity, most religions expect you to surrender your faith to what someone else tells you that Deity is.

Why do you make the faulty assumption that all people who have religious beliefs have somehow 'blindly surrendered their faith' to a deity?

I apologize if my assumption was a generalization. Not everyone who has faith in God has blindly surrendered to Him, I am aware of that.

I consider them slaves to a set of specified doctrines. And many (and let me stress that, I don't want to generalize) do not stray from that doctrine, even if it cost them their lives.

Well a lot of people may be like that on different issues, and if someone doesn't want to compromise what they believe in even if it means they are killed I don't see why that should be considered a fault. After all people died believing that the American colonies should be free from English oppressors, people died because they refused to stay quiet about how their country was being run even if it means they are killed, people may be locked up because they disagree with the government. I don't see what is wrong with that.

The question is Nanatsu would you rather die on your feet or live on your knees?

I view religion as a form of surrender. To bow down before another person's way of life.

See but your not bowing down to another person's way of life you are just choosing to follow that same way of life.

It doesn't. But most people believing in what someone else made up don't believe it's made up in the first place.
If I believe in something I made up, I know it's made up.
So?

Let's say you have a personal experience of a god -- just imagine it for a moment. And you decide to commemorate that experience by creating a ritual in reference to it and maybe writing a book about it.

Now, some people would say you made up every part of that, from the god, to the ritual, to the book. They might differ as to whether they think you made up the god-experience part deliberately or if it was an experience generated undeliberately by your own mind. Other people might say that they are willing to accept your god-experience as real, but obviously you made up the ritual and book.

So what part of that would be invalid or unreal to you? What part would not be worth following because you knew you had made it up?

Obviously, if you made up a fictional god-experience, then you'd know that wasn't real.

But what if you did not deliberately make up a fictional experience? What if your experience came to you spontaneously, or was triggered by something outside you, or (since this is a what-if) was even real?

In that case, you would have no reason to think that you had made up your own experience, but clearly, you would know that you had made up the ritual and book about it.

So, what then would you not be able to follow? If you had a real experience, would you simply assume it was fake because it was yours? Or would you refuse to commemorate it because that would require you to make up some way to commemorate it?

See, I don't get what parts of religion you think are made up, that would make you find it less valid to follow something you had made up than something someone else had made up.

It is my opinion that this makes it invalid as a criticism specifically of religious people. In other words, I don't think it's valid to criticize relgion/religious people specifically for doing A, when everyone/every group does A.


Like I said, that strikes me as a rigidly puritanical and unrealistic way of thinking about it. It assumes the authority to tell religious people that they are not allowed to evolve in their thinking.


I'm sorry, I don't see what your insistence on adherence to the books has to do with the flaw I pointed out in your statement. You can't claim that religious people do A, and in the same argument point to examples of religoius people doing the opposite of A, and still expect your argument to hold together. Your reference to expecting people whose religion has a book, which they claim to follow, to adhere to every part of that book does not reconcile that disconnect in your statements.


You seem to be repeating your assertion that religious people ignore glaring gaps and leaps. This does not in anyway address the contradiction between your two arguments. The willingness to live with that contradiction is a mental capacity that I guess I lack. :tongue:

Ok, let's try it this way:
A vegetarian is a vegetarianbecause he/she does not eat meat.
If you ask any Christian or Muslim what makes them Christian or Muslim, they will tell you it's their belive in the bible/the Q'ran.

If you ever talked to a vegetarian who tells you he/she does eat meant, because in their view the meat isn't what vegetarianism is all about, what would you call such a person? You'd be stuck between calling them not vegetarian or a liar.

Of course the vegetarian might argue that meat of animals that were killed painlessly is ok to eat, or that fish isn't meat, etc. But that doesn't change the definition of vegetarian = no meat-eating.

Religion isn't quite that straight-forward, definitely, but I don't make any claims religious people don't make over and over again every day : that they believe in their holy book.

The Rastafarians tend to have pretty good grass...

I consider them slaves to a set of specified doctrines. And many (and let me stress that, I don't want to generalize) do not stray from that doctrine, even if it cost them their lives.
Non-religious people can do that, too, but when they do it, it's called "standing on principle."

I find not being religious to be better. When I was younger, I sort of believed, but only because we did a small prayer at the end of assembly in school so it was logical for me to think like that, even though it didnt make much sense. As I got older it made less sense, so I stopped believeing.
Now I look at other religions and just accept that this is what some people believe, and that I do not. I can look at others with more understanding than if I was of a certain religion, and just accept people for who they are.

Well a lot of people may be like that on different issues, and if someone doesn't want to compromise what they believe in even if it means they are killed I don't see why that should be considered a fault. After all people died believing that the American colonies should be free from English oppressors, people died because they refused to stay quiet about how their country was being run even if it means they are killed, people may be locked up because they disagree with the government. I don't see what is wrong with that.

The question is Nanatsu would you rather die on your feet or live on your knees?

And if they want to live their lives willing to die for their God or for a cause that they deem worthy, it's fine. I just find that disturbing. I never said it was faulty, just disturbing.

I don't know if I'd do it. I have never been placed into a position to choose in such a way. And perhaps, if given the choice, in any way, I would refuse to lay my life down for god or country. If I'm labeled a coward, so be it.

There is no deity, or person, at the moment, that deserves me putting my life on the line for. Solely my family, but nothing/no one else.

Gleam the answer to your question from my words.

The question is Nanatsu would you rather die on your feet or live on your knees?

"You have it backwards. It's better to live on your feet than die on your knees."

(Catch 22, Joseph Heller)

And if they want to live their lives willing to die for their God or for a cause that they deem worthy, it's fine. I just find that disturbing. I never said it was faulty, just disturbing.

I don't know if I'd do it. I have never been placed into a position to choose in such a way. And perhaps, if given the choice, in any way, I would refuse to lay my life down for god or country. If I'm labeled a coward, so be it.

There is no deity, or person, at the moment, that deserves me putting my life on the line for. Solely my family, but nothing/no one else.

Gleam the answer to your question from my words.

And that's fine if you want to do that though people may be willing to die for other causes why is that not disturbing as much as willing to die for a set of beliefs, as Muravyets said when people do it for other reasons it is standing on principle.

Ok, let's try it this way:
A vegetarian is a vegetarianbecause he/she does not eat meat.
If you ask any Christian or Muslim what makes them Christian or Muslim, they will tell you it's their belive in the bible/the Q'ran.

In my experience, most Xians claim that it is their personal relationship with Jesus that makes them Christian, not the belief in the Bible. I would assume that Muslims would say the same about Allah and the Quran.

And that's fine if you want to do that though people may be willing to die for other causes why is that not disturbing as much as willing to die for a set of beliefs, as Muravyets said when people do it for other reasons it is standing on principle.

I'm going to venture to say that what makes dying for other causes less disturbing is that these tend to be tangible. If you die for a loved one, for example, the loved in question is someone you can touch. Belief in Allah or God is untangible. Willing to die for a god you cannot "see" or touch takes a lot of strenght and what I consider to be, to me, blind faith. You can't "see" Allah or God. You can't "touch" them. But you can touch the loved one.

Am I explaining myself correctly?:confused:

In my experience, most Xians claim that it is their personal relationship with Jesus that makes them Christian, not the belief in the Bible. I would assume that Muslims would say the same about Allah and the Quran.

Good for them. And where did they learn about Allah/Jesus?
They believe in the characters as described in the book.

Well, per definition they come to somebody else's conclusion, don't they?
I mean, how many Muslims do you think would be around today if people didn't time and again came to Mohammed's conclusions about life?

Thanks, couldn't have said it better myself.

Ok, let's try it this way:
A vegetarian is a vegetarianbecause he/she does not eat meat.
If you ask any Christian or Muslim what makes them Christian or Muslim, they will tell you it's their belive in the bible/the Q'ran.

If you ever talked to a vegetarian who tells you he/she does eat meant, because in their view the meat isn't what vegetarianism is all about, what would you call such a person? You'd be stuck between calling them not vegetarian or a liar.

Of course the vegetarian might argue that meat of animals that were killed painlessly is ok to eat, or that fish isn't meat, etc. But that doesn't change the definition of vegetarian = no meat-eating.

Religion isn't quite that straight-forward, definitely, but I don't make any claims religious people don't make over and over again every day : that they believe in their holy book.
What about people who call themselves vegetarians but eat eggs and milk?

What about people who eat a 95% or more vegetarian diet but occasionally eat meat under certain circumstances -- such as a special occasion, or there isn't anything else, or they are being polite to their hosts?

Whether a person who eats animal products can still call themselves a vegetarian I think depends a lot on why the word "vegetarian" is being applied to them or is being claimed by them.

Those who define "vegetarian" as one who refuses to kill animals for food are perfectly justified in eating eggs and milk because those do not kill the animals.

Those who define "vegetarian" as one who avoids meat for health reasons and who succeeds in avoiding meat the vast majority of the time, is perfeclty justified, in my opinion, in calling themselves vegetarian even if they occasionally choose to eat meat for social reasons or to avoid hunger.

Those who define "vegetarian" as one who never eats any animal product under any circumstances, no matter what, is not justified in calling themselves vegetarian if they ever eat meat, eggs, or milk. However, I should point out that such people do not call themselves "vegetarian." They call themselves "vegan."

Also, I think that glat-veggie vegans who would claim that vegetarians lose the right to call themselves vegetarians if they ever eat any animal product are being puritanical and judgmental. And i think that non-vegetarians who would make the same claim about vegetarians have got a lot of damned nerve to pass judgment on someone else's lifestyle.

And that's kind of what I think of non-religious people who presume to judge just how closely a religious person has to follow their book in order have the right to call themselves a member of their religion.

Good for them. And where did they learn about Allah/Jesus?
They believe in the characters as described in the book.
Not necessarily. Many religious people say they have direct personal experiences of their god(s), and that is why they believe in it/him/her/them. Adopting the book and rituals comes later or is beside that.

Not necessarily. Many religious people say they have direct personal experiences of their god(s), and that is why they believe in it/him/her/them. Adopting the book and rituals comes later or is beside that.

In the Middle Ages, where most people could not read, write and let alone understand Latin, the knowledge of God was imparted through the imagery painted and sculpted in church walls, not from the Bible.

What about people who call themselves vegetarians but eat eggs and milk?

What about people who eat a 95% or more vegetarian diet but occasionally eat meat under certain circumstances -- such as a special occasion, or there isn't anything else, or they are being polite to their hosts?

Whether a person who eats animal products can still call themselves a vegetarian I think depends a lot on why the word "vegetarian" is being applied to them or is being claimed by them.

Those who define "vegetarian" as one who refuses to kill animals for food are perfectly justified in eating eggs and milk because those do not kill the animals.

Those who define "vegetarian" as one who avoids meat for health reasons and who succeeds in avoiding meat the vast majority of the time, is perfeclty justified, in my opinion, in calling themselves vegetarian even if they occasionally choose to eat meat for social reasons or to avoid hunger.

Those who define "vegetarian" as one who never eats any animal product under any circumstances, no matter what, is not justified in calling themselves vegetarian if they ever eat meat, eggs, or milk. However, I should point out that such people do not call themselves "vegetarian." They call themselves "vegan."

Also, I think that glat-veggie vegans who would claim that vegetarians lose the right to call themselves vegetarians if they ever eat any animal product are being puritanical and judgmental. And i think that non-vegetarians who would make the same claim about vegetarians have got a lot of damned nerve to pass judgment on someone else's lifestyle.

And that's kind of what I think of non-religious people who presume to judge just how closely a religious person has to follow their book in order have the right to call themselves a member of their religion.

I wouldn't call a person who occasionally eats meat vegetarian, and I can't think of anybody who would do so.
And yes, people who don't eat meat are vegetarians. People who don't eat any animal products are vegans. I've never heard of a vegan claiming that vegetarians shouldn't call themselves vegetarians if they eat animal products but no meat.

Again, I'm not the one claiming anybody should follow any book. But I've been told over and over again by religious people that they do or don't do certain things because their book tells them to. I'm not saying someone can or cannot call themselves Christian, all I'm saying is that if they use something to justify themselves or their actions, they should at least be honest about it.

Not necessarily. Many religious people say they have direct personal experiences of their god(s), and that is why they believe in it/him/her/them. Adopting the book and rituals comes later or is beside that.

Funny... most religious people I know have experienced it exactly the other way around.

I feel that when it comes to religious beliefs - it always seemed more sincere and meaningful to me for an individual to follow 'holy texts' in the context of who they percieve themselves to be rather than just literal/complete/strict/rigid followings for no other reason than what a 'holy text' reads must be right so must be followed absolutely.

Gosh, I dislike organised religion!.. Thought I might as well throw that in too.
:p

In the Middle Ages, where most people could not read, write and let alone understand Latin, the knowledge of God was imparted through the imagery painted and sculpted in church walls, not from the Bible.

Not forgetting of course the congregation looking at religious imagery in said churches would be there listening/taking advice from the robed chap up front apparently citing verses from ze 'holy text'.
;p

And if you are, you do ever wish you weren't? That you could shake the feeling/belief of something bigger than us?

While all religious people have moments of doubt, I have yet to wish I could just shrug off God.

In the Middle Ages, where most people could not read, write and let alone understand Latin, the knowledge of God was imparted through the imagery painted and sculpted in church walls, not from the Bible.
True, which is fun when you compare the illustrations from different artists.

Btw, they also claimed personal experience then more often than nowadays.

I wouldn't call a person who occasionally eats meat vegetarian, and I can't think of anybody who would do so.
And yes, people who don't eat meat are vegetarians. People who don't eat any animal products are vegans. I've never heard of a vegan claiming that vegetarians shouldn't call themselves vegetarians if they eat animal products but no meat.

Again, I'm not the one claiming anybody should follow any book. But I've been told over and over again by religious people that they do or don't do certain things because their book tells them to. I'm not saying someone can or cannot call themselves Christian, all I'm saying is that if they use something to justify themselves or their actions, they should at least be honest about it.
Well, then, you fall into the category of people I would describe as puritanical. With that comes a perception that you are rigid in your thinking, intolerant, and judgmental, and that you claim for yourself the ability to define others' lives for them (as "honest" or "dishonest" for example). Sorry, but...

I'm going to venture to say that what makes dying for other causes less disturbing is that these tend to be tangible. If you die for a loved one, for example, the loved in question is someone you can touch. Belief in Allah or God is untangible. Willing to die for a god you cannot "see" or touch takes a lot of strenght and what I consider to be, to me, blind faith. You can't "see" Allah or God. You can't "touch" them. But you can touch the loved one.

Am I explaining myself correctly?:confused:

Yes you are but not all beliefs religious in nature or otherwise that people have died for are tangible anyway.

True, which is fun when you compare the illustrations from different artists.

Btw, they also claimed personal experience then more often than nowadays.

I once read a very interesting article saying that while religious experience in form of visions of Christ, Mary and family have been in decline for the last few decades, reports of UFOs and alien abductions have in the same timeframe risen to about that same level. ;)

Just saying.

Funny... most religious people I know have experienced it exactly the other way around.
Perhaps you should consider broadening your perspective a little, beyond your own personal social circle. You know, if you're going to pronounce opinions about what people in general do. Just a thought.

Well, then, you fall into the category of people I would describe as puritanical. With that comes a perception that you are rigid in your thinking, intolerant, and judgmental, and that you claim for yourself the ability to define others' lives for them (as "honest" or "dishonest" for example). Sorry, but...

Well, then that's how you preceive me.

Perhaps you should consider broadening your perspective a little, beyond your own personal social circle. You know, if you're going to pronounce opinions about what people in general do. Just a thought.

I think my own social circle, encompassing two continents and several religious cultures, is quite wide enough, thanks.

I once read a very interesting article saying that while religious experience in form of visions of Christ, Mary and family have been in decline for the last few decades, reports of UFOs and alien abductions have in the same timeframe risen to about that same level. ;)

Just saying.
I'm familiar with that idea. In the context of this discussion, I'm not sure it means what you think it means.

Also, "just saying" what? That religious people are not the only people you feel comfortable making dismissive or negative blanket statements about? :tongue:

Well, then that's how you preceive me.
I'm not happy about it.

I think my own social circle, encompassing two continents and several religious cultures, is quite wide enough, thanks.
But then you reinforce it. :(

Oh, well, enough said, I think.

I don't envy religious people. I occasionally wish there was some greater purpose to things. But the thing is, I'd have to be a very different person for me to suddenly believe in and worship an all-knowing, all-seeing being based on no more evidence than a book written millennia ago, a book that I have no reason to trust. Especially since most religions would probably disapprove of how I live my life.

I'm not happy about it.


But then you reinforce it. :(

Oh, well, enough said, I think.

No, I do not tolerate intellectual dishonesty well.
That doesn't mean that I don't tolerate those practising it, unless I've got reason to believe they are aware of it.
Yes, I tend to be dismissive about the "it's intangible and not rational and you have to have experienced it before you can understand" argument, when it's used to justify negative behaviour towards others, be that by trying to outlaw aspects of people's lives or by straight-out going to war against unbelievers.
No, I do not view religion as something inherently good, but rather something inherently damaging.

None of the above mean that I will ever treat anybody in a disrespectful way or that I would go out and desecrate churches and try to convince people that god doesn't exist. I may not approve, but that doesn't mean I can't tolerate it.
The way they choose to live their lives - as long as they don't try and tell me how to live mine - is completely up to them.

And my social circle just widened to another continent today. So no need to worry about me isolating myself.

Good for them. And where did they learn about Allah/Jesus?
They believe in the characters as described in the book.

Please quote the passage in the Bible mentioning Francis of Assisi. Or please show me that Catholics do not believe in him. Or simply admit that holy texts are not the only source of knowledge about the divine, even for orthodox religious communities.

Or show me the holy book for any aboriginal spritual system. You get extra points if you can do this for preliterate aboriginal groups.

I don't envy religious people. I occasionally wish there was some greater purpose to things. But the thing is, I'd have to be a very different person for me to suddenly believe in and worship an all-knowing, all-seeing being based on no more evidence than a book written millennia ago, a book that I have no reason to trust.
"Belief" and "evidence" kinda contradict each other. :)

"Belief" and "evidence" kinda contradict each other. :)

Not at all. I 'believe' things based on evaluating the 'evidence' in front of me

Now I know most on here aren't very religious, myself included. But in a way I wish I was, I wish I could believe in something. I've tried, I just can't. So if you're not religious, do you feel this way? And if you are, you do ever wish you weren't? That you could shake the feeling/belief of something bigger than us?

You're joking, right?

And my social circle just widened to another continent today. So no need to worry about me isolating myself.

A whole other continent and everybody in it. My, my you have been a busy little bee.

No, I do not tolerate intellectual dishonesty well.
That doesn't mean that I don't tolerate those practising it, unless I've got reason to believe they are aware of it.
Same here. And hence...

Yes, I tend to be dismissive about the "it's intangible and not rational and you have to have experienced it before you can understand" argument, when it's used to justify negative behaviour towards others, be that by trying to outlaw aspects of people's lives or by straight-out going to war against unbelievers.
No, I do not view religion as something inherently good, but rather something inherently damaging.
Thank you for acknowledging your prejudice.

None of the above mean that I will ever treat anybody in a disrespectful way or that I would go out and desecrate churches and try to convince people that god doesn't exist. I may not approve, but that doesn't mean I can't tolerate it.
The way they choose to live their lives - as long as they don't try and tell me how to live mine - is completely up to them.

And my social circle just widened to another continent today. So no need to worry about me isolating myself.
I'm sorry, but I don't take your personal experience to be a sufficient base on which to make your pronouncements about people you don't know have any validity.

I find it ironic that you dismiss religious people's arguments as being too dependent on personal experience, while at the same time you claim your own personal experience is enough for you to make claims about what religious people in general do and think.

Look, enough of this. My opinion of your opinion is negative, and I've done my best to explain why. It's a shame that's the way it worked out, but I don't want to make this discussion be about just criticizing one person's point of view.

Yes you are but not all beliefs religious in nature or otherwise that people have died for are tangible anyway.

Just do understand that I'm not criticising this blind faith. I mean, everyone's entitled to his/her own opinion. I just find it disturbing and I know I wouldn't do it.

Not at all. I 'believe' things based on evaluating the 'evidence' in front of me
Then you don't actually believe, or rather you are using that word in its broadest sense, which isn't all that relevant in the context of this discussion.
believe: to have confidence in the truth, the existence, or the reliability of something, although without absolute proof that one is right in doing so

Then you don't actually believe, or rather you are using that word in its broadest sense, which isn't all that relevant in the context of this discussion.
believe: to have confidence in the truth, the existence, or the reliability of something, although without absolute proof that one is right in doing so

I don't think that really clashes with what I said. There's no absolute proof of anything. Any theory is just that; a theory. It is very difficult to prove a positive. You can prove many theories wrong by providing contrary evidence, but you can never eliminate the possibility that there is an even better and more accurate explanation than the ones you have currently at hand. I don't have absolute proof for anything I believe. I believe it on the basis of the evidence I have. There's some doubt, and I'm not arrogant enough to proclaim I know all the answers, so I am talking about belief. Now, what I was saying that (as well as rejecting much of how I live my life) to believe the Bible or any other religious text I would have to have a dramatically lower threshold of concrete evidence required before I am willing to believe something.

I don't think that really clashes with what I said.
oops :eek: I wanted to write something insightful but I ran out of time
But in a nutshell: I believe despite having absolutely no proof. I believe because I chose to try and I was met halfway. My experience can easily be explained as a brain fart, but if I couldn't dismiss it as such, would I still be free?
:waves:

oops :eek: I wanted to write something insightful but I ran out of time
But in a nutshell: I believe despite having absolutely no proof. I believe because I chose to try and I was met halfway. My experience can easily be explained as a brain fart, but if I couldn't dismiss it as such, would I still be free?
:waves:

Well, of course you don't have proof. As I said, its very difficult to prove anything definitively. But you do have evidence to base your belief upon. If you are willing to accept it as such, holy texts, the complexity of the world etc can be taken as evidence of a God. What I was getting at I suppose was to say that I'd have to change the way I think substantially if I was to accept that as legitimate and convincing evidence for me personally.

Sometimes, when I feel down about how meaningless everything is.

Now I know most on here aren't very religious, myself included. But in a way I wish I was, I wish I could believe in something. I've tried, I just can't. So if you're not religious, do you feel this way? And if you are, you do ever wish you weren't? That you could shake the feeling/belief of something bigger than us?Envy the religious? No. More like pity them.
It's not necessary to buy into the dogma of any established religion to believe in "something bigger than us". It's not even necessary to define that something. Religion tries to answer the 'big' questions of creation and death and fails miserably IMHO. But they offer something that the insecure can grasp at and that's why they succeed.
I personally would rather gaze into the abyss fully aware of my ignorance and incomprehension of what lies beyond than delude myself with the smoke, mirrors and snakeoil that is organized religion.

Just do understand that I'm not criticising this blind faith. I mean, everyone's entitled to his/her own opinion. I just find it disturbing and I know I wouldn't do it.

What you would not have blind faith? Never, ever, not once in your whole life?


Naaaa I can't belive that.

What you would not have blind faith? Never, ever, not once in your whole life?


Naaaa I can't belive that.

Perhaps when I was a little girl. Not anymore.

I was bought up in a Protestant School - I simply rejected what I was taught because I read so many books that made me doubt it. I got in trouble a lot. :p

I don't think that really clashes with what I said. There's no absolute proof of anything. Any theory is just that; a theory. It is very difficult to prove a positive. You can prove many theories wrong by providing contrary evidence, but you can never eliminate the possibility that there is an even better and more accurate explanation than the ones you have currently at hand. I don't have absolute proof for anything I believe. I believe it on the basis of the evidence I have. There's some doubt, and I'm not arrogant enough to proclaim I know all the answers, so I am talking about belief. Now, what I was saying that (as well as rejecting much of how I live my life) to believe the Bible or any other religious text I would have to have a dramatically lower threshold of concrete evidence required before I am willing to believe something.



Heh and this post is a clear indiction that in fact you do belive.

Perhaps when I was a little girl. Not anymore.

Ahhhahhh!:wink:

Ahhhahhh!:wink:

Teehee!:$

Why would I envy the delusional?

Sometimes, when I feel down about how meaningless everything is.

When I was an atheist, I found that idea liberating.

Imagine an entire universe that just happened to evolve sentient beings capable of play.Now imagine they had no destiny or meaning to their lives. No role that they are destined to follow. Nothing except their freedom and their ability.

Doesn't that sound beautiful?

When I was an atheist, I found that idea liberating.

Imagine an entire universe that just happened to evolve sentient beings capable of play.Now imagine they had no destiny or meaning to their lives. No role that they are destined to follow. Nothing except their freedom and their ability.

Doesn't that sound beautiful?

XKCD time ;) ?

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/nihilism.png

XKCD time ;) ?

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/nihilism.png

Yes. Someone understands.

Now I know most on here aren't very religious, myself included. But in a way I wish I was, I wish I could believe in something. I've tried, I just can't. So if you're not religious, do you feel this way? And if you are, you do ever wish you weren't? That you could shake the feeling/belief of something bigger than us?

So...you are a Nihilist? That must be tiring :(

i are a religeous people. just a non-standard one.

i believe in a god of straingeness, not of the tediously mundane.

Now I know most on here aren't very religious, myself included. But in a way I wish I was, I wish I could believe in something. I've tried, I just can't. So if you're not religious, do you feel this way? And if you are, you do ever wish you weren't? That you could shake the feeling/belief of something bigger than us?

Given that I spend a large part of my time singing in religious services and listening to religious music, perhaps it would make sense if I was religious. However, I can't say I've ever wanted to have belief in a deity or supernatural force. It just seems totally unnecessary. And the dislocation between my beliefs and those in the music doesn't seem like a problem, I can easily understand the concepts and/or mould them into ones I'm more familiar with, so the empathy exists in my singing and response to listening.

Religion and love are the two main objects of music and I see no reason to change this. I find many sentiments in religious texts and music are extant in friendship and family bonds, and altruism in general.

So...you are a Nihilist? That must be tiring :(How'd you draw a eference to Nihilism out of that?

Not really. I think it would be cool if supernatural things really existed, but I wouldn't want to believe in the things religious people actually believe in.

Possibly. The argument might be made that since so many people come to the same conclusion, there must be some truth in it. However, I sincerely doubt it for a very simple reason :
If there was truth and relevance, people all over the world would have come to more or less the same conclusions, over and over again. Yet what happened was that not one religion was thought of, but myriads. And apart from them all more or less incorporating the Golden Rule (an anthropological and social concept without which human society couldn't have evolved), no two are alike. It would seem that humanity only came up with each religion once.
I think only the founders of religion ever really thought things through by themselves.

Disagreement does not mean none of them are right. The scientific method as we know it evolved from modern European culture; something similar can't really be found anywhere else in earlier times. However, it's clearly a very good way to learn about the workings of the natural world. (I don't mean to use the scientific method example to underhandedly imply science requires just as much faith as religion; it doesn't.) Especially for religions that are revelation-based, it isn't inconceivable that one group got it right and the rest didn't.

As for the OP's question; I am religious and so can't really answer. However, I will say I envy the confidence all of the atheists I know have in their world-view. Even if I stopped being religious, I doubt I could do that; it just goes against my personality.

No, I don't envy them. The thing about not being tied to any particular religion, is that not only do you not have any obligations to a religion, but, when you have a need of something 'more' you make up something more, and when you have no more need of it, you forget it.

Though, it could also be benificial in this case to have a good imagination.

well i don't see any reason there couldn't be lots of things we don't know anything about.
i mean it seems to me, big universe and all, its almost certain that there are.

but when people pretend to know things about things they've never encountered themselves, and then try to tell other people what to think about them, i mean, doesn't this make it even more likely to be dissappointed then it would be to just love the unknown for being what it is, without having to pretend to know anything about it we haven't ourselves experienced?

i mean there are things we can feel emotionally, that are out there, that don't move the needles on meters or show up tangably, but it seems like an awfully far leap from that, to what so many people seem to adamantly insist they know about something, because someone else, another human someone just like themselves, said something in a book, or to them in some kind of situation.

i mean i have no trouble believing in some kind of wierd unimaginably kind of a god, or even just a lot of little friendly little invisible furry critters curling up on my covers, snuggling up all warm and friendly and all.

but no, i don't at all envy anyone who narrows their perception of the diversity that surrounds them, down to limitting anything the're willing to perceive to what the're already familiar with.

How'd you draw a eference to Nihilism out of that?

Now I know most on here aren't very religious, myself included. But in a way I wish I was, I wish I could believe in something. I've tried, I just can't. So if you're not religious, do you feel this way? And if you are, you do ever wish you weren't? That you could shake the feeling/belief of something bigger than us?

Nihilist believe in nothing. I thought at least you would have caught the joke.

You haven't watched "The Big Lebowski" obviously :)