The Dreamers' religious discussion thread. (2 Viewers)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jul 23, 2010
441
That's actually very true. If God doesn't exist, people could commit obscene crimes and as long as they don't get caught, they will never suffer for them. But what I've realized is that even though it's very frightening thought indeed; it would be erroneous to have faith in God because you can't accept the world as it is.

Just because life might be harsh and brutal and meaningless, it doesn't mean it cannot be real . If you were to have faith in God because somehow a belief in a higher power provides comfort to you that there will be an ultimate justice or purpose if you will, then you need to reassess the connotations underlying your entire belief system.
What's your opinion then on religion?

Btw, best signature ever.
 
Jun 13, 2007
7,231
What's your opinion then on religion?

Btw, best signature ever.
Thanks.

I think religion is essentially something pure and holy, but has manifested into something obscene and disgusting through the hands of corrupt religious authorities over the course of many centuries. As for which religion is the right one, I think it's best to reserve my opinion to when I'm more informed. If you take away the bogotry and fundamentalism associated with religion. I think it can be very helpful to any society.

I believe the problem is that we tend to be more interested in justifying our opinions in the interest of being right rather than genuinely seek truth. You barely see any theists buy a book for Hitchens or Dawkins, or a atheists buying a book for Craig or C.S Lewis. Instead of weighing both sides of the argument and then choosing a side, most people seem to do it the other way. They choose a side and then become interested in finding supporting arguments for their side.
 

Martin

Senior Member
Dec 31, 2000
56,908
I believe the problem is that we tend to be more interested in justifying our opinions in the interest of being right rather than genuinely seek truth. You barely see any theists buy a book for Hitchens or Dawkins, or a atheists buying a book for Craig or C.S Lewis. Instead of weighing both sides of the argument and then choosing a side, most people seem to do it the other way. They choose a side and then become interested in finding supporting arguments for their side.
I agree. But the reason for that is also (imo) really obvious. If the debate was "is a hammer a good tool for knocking in nails or a bad one?" then you could buy one book for each side of the argument, study the physics they present, do your own calculations, and at the end you would have some definite conclusion.

But when the debate is about undefinable, unmeasurable concepts then all you can hope to gain from reading "both books" is to cloud your mind more and more to the point that you have no idea where you are.

This is why "the new atheists" (stupid name imo) criticize literal religion, because if you take the bible literally then it means something that is either true or not. But there's no way to argue with people who can't even explain what they believe.
 

*aca*

Senior Member
Jul 15, 2002
869
That's actually very true. If God doesn't exist, people could commit obscene crimes and as long as they don't get caught, they will never suffer for them.
So if you knew for certain that there is no god (hypothetically speaking), what would be the first obscene crime you would commit?

And if you wouldn't commit any crime, why wouldn't you?



Just because life might be harsh and brutal and meaningless, it doesn't mean it cannot be real . If you were to have faith in God because somehow a belief in a higher power provides comfort to you that there will be an ultimate justice or purpose if you will, then you need to reassess the connotations underlying your entire belief system.
I'd like to comment on this, but i'm not entirely sure what you are trying to say.

Need to reassess the connotations of your god belief to what end?
 
Jun 13, 2007
7,231
I agree. But the reason for that is also (imo) really obvious. If the debate was "is a hammer a good tool for knocking in nails or a bad one?" then you could buy one book for each side of the argument, study the physics they present, do your own calculations, and at the end you would have some definite conclusion.

But when the debate is about undefinable, unmeasurable concepts then all you can hope to gain from reading "both books" is to cloud your mind more and more to the point that you have no idea where you are.

This is why "the new atheists" (stupid name imo) criticize literal religion, because if you take the bible literally then it means something that is either true or not. But there's no way to argue with people who can't even explain what they believe.

I can't say I agree here. The truth does not have to be as measurable as a physics calculation. In the case with atheism vs theism. It is a philosophical debate, and while it may take a long time to complete, it is by no means impossible to approximate which side seems more rational in your opinion. So I don't think it clouds your mind, I think it opens your mind if anything. It challenges you to ask yourself more questions, to review your beliefs and what you assume to be true.

The new atheists cannot treat a philosophical question such as, "Does God exist?" in a scientific manner. It is a philosophical question and can only be argued from a philosophical perspective. Try solving a physics equation with an economics formula. It's silly.




So if you knew for certain that there is no god (hypothetically speaking), what would be the first obscene crime you would commit?

And if you wouldn't commit any crime, why wouldn't you?





I'd like to comment on this, but i'm not entirely sure what you are trying to say.

Need to reassess the connotations of your god belief to what end?


I probably wouldn't commit any crime. Why not? Because I have no motivation to do so. The point I was trying to make is that without God, there wouldn't be any justice ultimately which is a given really. So someone who raped a thirteen year old girl but was never caught and went on to live a happy life will never get punished. I absolutely believe that you can lead a moral life without the existence of God however.

I said he needs to reassess the connotations underlying his belief system. Meaning he is basing his entire belief in God on very shaky grounds that aren't logically sound nor necessary.
 

Martin

Senior Member
Dec 31, 2000
56,908
I can't say I agree here. The truth does not have to be as measurable as a physics calculation. In the case with atheism vs theism. It is a philosophical debate, and while it may take a long time to complete, it is by no means impossible to approximate which side seems more rational in your opinion. So I don't think it clouds your mind, I think it opens your mind if anything. It challenges you to ask yourself more questions, to review your beliefs and what you assume to be true.
Actually, all it does is string lots of long words together whose meaning I don't know (or barely know), and whose totality means nothing to me. And of course it's completely on purpose. That's theology in a nutshell.

I probably wouldn't commit any crime. Why not? Because I have no motivation to do so. The point I was trying to make is that without God, there wouldn't be any justice ultimately which is a given really. So someone who raped a thirteen year old girl but was never caught and went on to live a happy life will never get punished. I absolutely believe that you can lead a moral life without the existence of God however.
Yeah, that's pretty much what's happened. Not just that, he also brags about it sometimes. And his movie making friends protecting because "he's a great artist". Plus in France he's a "great national hero" so they want the charges dropped.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Polanski_sexual_abuse_case
 

*aca*

Senior Member
Jul 15, 2002
869
I probably wouldn't commit any crime. Why not? Because I have no motivation to do so.
No. I'll venture to say that you would not commit any crime because you are, like the rest of us, a social animal. You know, wanted or not, that if you give yourself freedom to hurt other because there is no ultimate punishment, others will have the same freedom to hurt you. We all have motivation to steal, lie & hurt. few do it, and not for the fear of punishment.

The point I was trying to make is that without God, there wouldn't be any justice ultimately which is a given really. So someone who raped a thirteen year old girl but was never caught and went on to live a happy life will never get punished.
Hey but that is happening all the time. Just look at the catholic priests.

The danger of belief in ultimate justice is that if there is ultimate justice, it is easy to believe that there is no need for earthly one. IF there is such a creature usually referred to as god, who is to claim to be better arbiter of justice than him? We should just let thing be and god will punish them for eternity.

I absolutely believe that you can lead a moral life without the existence of God however.
No arguments here.:)

I just go a step further. I don't believe it, i know it.

I said he needs to reassess the connotations underlying his belief system. Meaning he is basing his entire belief in God on very shaky grounds that aren't logically sound nor necessary.
no arguments here either. :)

But i'll go (yet again :D) a step further. If persons needs & finds comfort in religion of any kind & shape, and as long as that belief is private and it does not infringe in any way on the right of other that do not subscribe to the same set of beliefs, I'm all for it.

Unfortunately, as regards to majority of adherents of the big monotheistic faiths, this is not the case.
 

*aca*

Senior Member
Jul 15, 2002
869
If i find time, i'll open a thread on morality & justice from psychological development perspective where we can continue this in topic in a more streamlined way.

if that is possible in this forum :lol:
 
Jun 13, 2007
7,231
Actually, all it does is string lots of long words together whose meaning I don't know (or barely know), and whose totality means nothing to me. And of course it's completely on purpose. That's theology in a nutshell.

Yeah, that's pretty much what's happened. Not just that, he also brags about it sometimes. And his movie making friends protecting because "he's a great artist". Plus in France he's a "great national hero" so they want the charges dropped.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Polanski_sexual_abuse_case
I never said anything about theology. I was talking about philosophy.





The danger of belief in ultimate justice is that if there is ultimate justice, it is easy to believe that there is no need for earthly one. IF there is such a creature usually referred to as god, who is to claim to be better arbiter of justice than him? We should just let thing be and god will punish them for eternity.
I'm sorry I don't see how that logically follows.
 

king Ale

Senior Member
Oct 28, 2004
21,689
Anyway, it's not a fairy tale, it's the exact opposite. To me the fairytale would be the ability to live life freely. If I was an atheist like you, I would really be enjoying life. I'd have sex non stop and always be drunk and on drugs. I wouldn't care about people's feelings and I wouldn't care about anything in general. After all, nothing matters, so why bother? I could do whatever the hell I want and have the perfect life.
This is what happens when you only get to know people of your own belief, talk only to them, live only with them. To you, atheists don't care about anyone or anything except themselves and what makes themselves happy so you come up with such (a retarded) definition of those who don't think like you do.

You actually define yourself with that bit when you say "if I was an atheist like you". You won't do anything good unless there is something, anything, you believe in. You need a God to be a good man. You need something to be sacred of to behave. You need any kind of reward or punishment to actually care about other people around you. You are like a prisoner who don't do anything wrong only because he can't.
 
Jun 13, 2007
7,231
If there is ultimate justice, what exactly is the point of our earthly one?
Why should be subject people to suffering and abuse in this life when we have the power to prevent it? Why should the thought of the afterlife even matter, it's now that counts regardless of whether or not ultimate justice even exists.

It's like you're saying why wash my car today, in the end it's only going to get dirty right?
 

*aca*

Senior Member
Jul 15, 2002
869
Why should be subject people to suffering and abuse in this life when we have the power to prevent it? Why should the thought of the afterlife even matter, it's now that counts regardless of whether or not ultimate justice even exists.

It's like you're saying why wash my car today, in the end it's only going to get dirty right?

I'm not saying that we shouldn't. We do & we should do more :)

But if there is ultimate justice, our earthly justice pales in comparison. Not only that the perpetrator will be ultimately punished in an ultimately just manner, the innocent will be awarded eternal bliss. IT is an absolute & ultimate justice and reward system. Who are we to doubt the ultimate justice? Who are we to try & enforce poor justice system created by fallible humans when there is the ultimate arbiter? What if our skewed justice/morality system is wrong? What if we punish the innocent due to our misunderstanding of god's will? Are you the one to stand before the ultimate being and tell him that you thought that you can do his work?

You said that it doesn't follow logically. It does and a little bit too much.


If we need the ultimate punisher, we better watch out on what kind of punishments we earthlings enforce, because we don't know the mind of ultimate justice giver. We should reserve our opinions and urge for revenge/justice & let the ultimate being decide.

scary world isn't it? ;)
 

Martin

Senior Member
Dec 31, 2000
56,908
You actually define yourself with that bit when you say "if I was an atheist like you". You won't do anything good unless there is something, anything, you believe in. You need a God to be a good man. You need something to be sacred of to behave. You need any kind of reward or punishment to actually care about other people around you. You are like a prisoner who don't do anything wrong only because he can't.
I actually don't take this seriously, people say it all the time. And I don't believe they've even thought about "what it would be like" for a second. If they had, their statements wouldn't all be the same boilerplate.

In fact, this mindset is epidemic of religious discourse. It's like most of the people internalized "the story" as they've heard it repeated many times and they just deliver it when they're talking to you. It's when I hear a nuanced point of view that I actually believe the person has done some thinking on the subject.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 2)