Sorry, screwed up my point.What I meant was, you don't have to do much to go to heaven in most religions. Pray, follow your religious code as best you can, etc. And forgivness is universal in Christianity, Judaism, and Islam (although I'm mostly sure that in all these religions, you need to follow up on what you must do for redemption. Also, I was told that in Islam, having more than one God while still saying worshiping Allah glues a one-way ticket to hell to you, no questions ask). Hinduism is different, but a man who has betrayed his caste for a dozen generations can rise to reach Moksha; although the views are rather split.In other words, all you really need to do is pray and follow your religious code. Not very hard.
God real or not?
Started by
Guest_stubblehamster
, Feb 15 2005 12:22 AM
6399 replies to this topic
#4177
Guest_lxc789
Guest_lxc789
-
- Guest
Posted 12 April 2007 - 07:10 AM
Alright, now I understand what you mean. and I guess what I mean is that even though you don't have to do much in order to go to heaven (besides asking for forgiveness sometime before death) and lead a simple good life, there is still the pretense of going to heaven. For me, when I was religious I'll admit achieving heaven made me feel like my life had meaning, but once I 'denounced' my religion, I still felt as if I my life had a meaning, without me having to look forward to death or an afterlife. (Not saying I was looking forward to death, but what I believed after I died). I still don't think I am getting my point across the way I want to, but I give up.This is all for me tonight, besides what I'm going to add after this, but I would like to get a few individual's responses on if they believe religion is a precursor to 'good' and 'evil' or if religion has a significant effect humanity at all.
#4178
Guest_cbwolf
Guest_cbwolf
-
- Guest
Posted 12 April 2007 - 05:06 PM
I don't pay attention to religion. Too bothersome to think about.
#4179
Guest_rehnii
Guest_rehnii
-
- Guest
Posted 13 April 2007 - 01:27 AM
I dont believe in God, because I'm realist. God dont give me money, God dont give me food, God dont give me luck, God dont give me water, God dont give me drugs and clothing...
#4180
Guest_Big Robb
Guest_Big Robb
-
- Guest
Posted 13 April 2007 - 02:38 AM
In a few ways I do believe... But sometimes I have so much trouble in life that I just start to slip away from believing... I guess what I am saying is... What if reincarnation is real? We die, we come back with no memories and then we live our lives believing what we want to, then we die again and the process starts again. It sounds logic... But so does the Idea of there being a god that loves everyone, and Dieing and going to heaven. I just don't know what to believe in anymore. I try not to think about it... But I can't keep away from it... I want to find out, but I don't want to have to die to do it... Maybe both of the ideas are real. Maybe we have a choice of heaven or reincarnation... Its just something I think about too much... Anyways Back to my video games...
#4181
38542788
-
- Member
-
- 366 posts
Winged Serpent
Reputation: 2
Neutral
Posted 13 April 2007 - 02:46 AM
^ Or neither?How exactly is either idea logical?
#4182
Guest_lxc789
Guest_lxc789
-
- Guest
Posted 13 April 2007 - 02:53 AM
Yeah, explain how reincarnation is logical when you're dealing with a human soul/spirit which is the foundation for many points of Hinduism. And the idea of God and everything being laid out perfectly by him has no logic in it at all. Unless you count the Bible as logic...Azndragon-- if you weren't raised to believe in God do you think you would now? and, do you have doubts about His existence; because how you worded what you said makes think that you believe because you are told to, but what if you had the choice to disregard what you are told to beleive? An honest question, not trying to be jerk or anything.
Edited by lxc789, 13 April 2007 - 03:01 AM.
#4183
38542788
-
- Member
-
- 366 posts
Winged Serpent
Reputation: 2
Neutral
Posted 13 April 2007 - 03:19 AM
I can't really tell what you're trying to say...I just meant to challenge the reasoning behind what he said, there are many other possible options aside from reincarnation or (apparently) human sacrifice and transcended to a higher plane of existence, why are these two ideas "logical"?Yeah, explain how reincarnation is logical when you're dealing with a human soul/spirit which is the foundation for many points of Hinduism. And the idea of God and everything being laid out perfectly by him has no logic in it at all. Unless you count the Bible as logic...
#4184
Guest_lxc789
Guest_lxc789
-
- Guest
Posted 13 April 2007 - 04:11 AM
I guess what I was trying to say was the concept of having a soul, or a part of you that leaves your body and goes elsewhere, and how that could be considered logical.
#4185
Guest_lxc789
Guest_lxc789
-
- Guest
Posted 13 April 2007 - 04:50 AM
Good point about science saying dinosaurs, while the Old Testament states Adam and Eve were first. What I don't understand is the religious people who say there was an evolutionary process, but God played a part in it. That would contradict everything that was said about the beginnings of Earth, Also, dinosaurs, and other prehistoric creatures were not mentioned in the Bible, if God is omnipotent, wouldn't he know about the dinosaurs and thus mention them in the beginning of the Earth? Science shows that dinosaurs came first then humans, whereas the Bible states, Humans were first, then all other life forms. (Although other lines say animals then humans is the order, so I guess God likes to contradict Himself whenever possible, just to confuse the blind masses already)
Edited by lxc789, 13 April 2007 - 04:52 AM.
#4186
Guest_Zennalathas
Guest_Zennalathas
-
- Guest
Posted 13 April 2007 - 06:16 AM
Honestly, a week or so ago, I had to wait days between posts, but now I find myself away from the forums for a mere twenty-four hours, and there's been a myriad of posts with which I have to deal with. This should be long...Edit: After I posted this, I noticed a big quoting error...I didn't quote a passage, but it was in my post. So if there are any other weird quotes in here that I've missed, will you please tell me?
Something being harder to grasp than something else does not equate to the prior being less accurate. Take quantum mechanics as an example. The movement of particles and the way they act is completely at odds with how things work in the world we observe. Particles jump about, burrow through scalar fields, etc. In spite of the exotic movement of objects at quantum levels, this branch of physics is much more accurate when describing how the world around us functions than "Medium World" physics, such as Newton's Laws. So, again, just because scientific definitions of creation are more complex and require more straining of the imagination does not make them incorrect, or less valid than a religious definition. Prayer is certainly not the only prerequisite to acceptance into heaven/nirvana as per religious teachings. Catholics must be baptized. Muslims must fast and go on a pilgrimage. Jehovah Witness's must convert others (all though, they'll never get into heaven regardless). Buddhists must detach themselves from personal effects. Baptism aside, these things aren't exactly a cake walk. Either way, the difficulties of the actions aren’t relevant to the discussion you're trying to propagate. The statement you're trying to argue with was: Religious people are living to die. Or, religious people spend their lives preparing for the afterlife. The 'point' of their lives is to adhere to certain guidelines in order to reach salvation. They spend inordinate amounts of time in religious services, learning God-given codes, fasting, meditating, and waiting around for the Second Coming. All of this time and effort could easily be put to uses that actually further a person's life status or education or monetary value. In essence, heaven, in this way, can become analogued by a piece of real estate, in that people save up over the years in order to buy a slice of land. That little slice of heaven is supposed to give someone purpose? The point here is: if that little piece of land does not exist, can life still have meaning? Well, there are a lot of other things to buy other than real estate. Okay, obviously that's taking the analogy too far, but I'll, with certainty, say that heaven does not give life meaning. Without belief in it, we can love, meet friends, have sex, eat nice food, or whatever it is that gives one's life flavour. Life's meaning could very simply be to experience said life. How is that less logical than life being made explicitly to make it to heaven? Atheists certainly have just as much meaning in their lives. A religious person might say, "But, we're busy forging a connection to God, and it's so rewarding!" Well, I can make a rewarding connection to an imaginary friend too. I just don't have to go to church to do it. Having someone there to "listen to your problems" certainly is rewarding. It's more rewarding, though, if the person is physically there, and not reading all the less holy thoughts you're also having. Is it really comforting to know that God knows all those unwholesome thoughts too? He may be forgiving...but that doesn't make him any less of a creeper. Peeping Toms can be forgiving too! Are they comforting? More to the point, how does God being comforting prove his existence? It simply doesn't, and the subject, as ridiculously entertaining as it might be, should be dropped.^The thing is, though, the thought of something coming from something, which is indeed the Big Bang, is rather hard to grasp.Except that prayer isn't that hard. And it really isn't that bad for a person. Actually, the knowledge that someone is listening to your problems can be rather calming.
It would be far more relevant to drive this point home in this topic. Creationism is the only point at which science can disprove or prove God's existence. Scientific evidence points more and more to a situation that needs to help of a god-figure, and should the case be that evidence does display the lack of a god's existence, then everything religion is based upon would be void. That is simply the facts of the situation, and they work in reverse as well. Should a god exist with whom the holy books correlate, then much of science would also be voided.The reality of the situation is: universal creation is becoming more and more a secular theory, and has no signs of switching to a theistic tone, or gathering any sort of data that would suggest theistic explanation.Well, Zennalathas, someone I'm in the middle of a debate with, seems to think that since Creationism is entwined with religion, and this makes religion wrong.That, however, is bull****.
The idea is called "conversational pressure". Read up on it. It's how the Renaissance was so effective. It certainly caught on, didn't it?Amen. Zen seems to think that with "discussion between regular people" should convert everyone to atheism (I don't know how he worded it; it's in the "Should wars be fought for religion" thread).
I believe "to what end?" is answered by thermodynamics. Eventually the universe will cool down to a point where nothing can function any longer because of a lack of potential energy. This has been named Heat Death, and I would certainly say that, in relation to existence, it certainly gives an "end" to the universe. Obviously this is not quite the same "end" as was put forward by your question, but it does, in a way, fit and relates to the topic. If there is some inherent "reason" to the universe existing outside of the notion that our laws of nature created it thus, this "end" to the universe takes a certain air away from that "reason". In fact, Heat Death would suggest that the universe, if created, was made to end. Certainly a god-figure could be more creative?As to the "why" part of the question, from a scientific stand-point it is often indistinguishable from that of the "how". To pin down this rather abstract statement, allow an example: scientific analysis states that a genetic trait survives natural selection because it was better suited to survival than rival genes. It even elaborates on the idea by stating why a gene is more suited to survival than another: an example is needed to display this. The gene that gives tiger stripes (Yes, this is a very broad example that relates to a very large scale genetic trait) survives because the tigers that did not have stripes were less effective at hunting, and starved more often than tigers with stripes, thus removing the inferior gene from the gene pool. In this way, both the "Why" and the "How" of the example are the same. This is just an example of how scientific reasoning is structured. It may be imperfect in dealing with some philosophical questions, but in the realm of science and what science applies to, it suffices.Science is concerned with how things work, and what causes them to work that way. "Why" in relation to purpose is not something that is within science's scope of care. Darwin was not answering the question: why are we the way we are? He answered the question: How is it that we came to be like this? There is a subtle difference there that becomes paramount to a philosopher. Science cannot answer the question: Why is it wrong to murder someone? There is no causation, or empirical value there. Now, Dawkins does not deal with religion on a philosophical level, because, as he lays out in The God Delusion, the question of the existence of a god-figure is a scientific question. The question is "Does God Exist?" not "Why does God exist?". Even the "Why does God exist?" question can be rephrased without change of meaning to: How is it that God exists? Even the cop out proof by necessity (he exists because we need purpose, or morality, or whatever) fits the second question even though it seems to try and keep empiricism out of the idea. The proof by necessity says God exists because he fills the need of the people. The answer applies equally to each question. Sorry, tangent aside now: The question "Does God Exist?" is empirical and therefore scientific in scope. God either does, or does not exist. God's existence isn't contingent on whether or not universe creation has meaning. The meaning behind creation, however, may certainly seem contingent on God's existence.Therefore, Dawkins and Harris continue through their books under the pretence that they have no need to disprove God philosophically. They need only prove that he does not exist in the empirical sense. Philosophy can discuss "why" God exists, but that still has no bearing on the ultimate question.Also, Harris does address religious moderates, perhaps not in his book, which I have not yet read. He does so in a lecture for the New York Society for Ethical Culture: Center for Inquiry. This lecture aired November 16th, 2005 and is primarily structured to address moderates. I would assume that it complements his book appropriately, and would be something of a supplement to all of those interested in his work and views. I believe that the broadcast was done only on C-SPAN2 -- Book TV. But, I may be wrong about that. The lecture follows to state that moderates simply harbour the thoughts of fundamentalists, and create a large taboo around the discussion of any problem one might have with theism. The taboo, he suggests, is what makes religious thought so incompatible with logical, honest discourse, and lies at the very root of the religious fundamentalist problem. Moderation is not a solution, it is simply less violent, but still propagates all the violent religious tendencies found in fundamentalism. He talks at length of the hypocrisy of these moderates, labelling them as: people who do not look to religion for empirical evidence for their faith, but for meaning in its stead. In short, they believe that since the message of their religions is "good", then it is still logically valid. Of course, most modern morals and ethics follow nothing in the bible in a literal sense, and very little in an abstract sense, so this faith is ill placed still, even if evidence through spiritual "meaning" were logically valid in the first place. Just because moderates' faith is based on non-literal interpretation of a scripture, than doesn't say anything for the proof of God one way or the other, and thus adds no logic to the basis of that scripture. This said, that doesn't mean moderates do not take some passages from the bible literally (they certainly do).Basically, the idea stands that moderates are just as lacking in logic as fundamentalists, and just as dangerous to modern society.Well but the big bang is merely a scientific theory which describes the birth of our universe. It does not answer the deeper questions of "why?" or "to what end?" These are the sort of questions which can only be answered with the improbable theories I've been referring to, and one of these theories is God.lxc: I've read Harris and Dawkins, as well as Dennet (another leading neo-atheist thinker.) Most of what they say I fully embrace as true, however the arguments of all three have two key weaknesses: First, they fail to disprove the concept of God philosophically, but continue speaking as if they have done so; and second, they never make a clear or effective attack on "religious moderates," which seems to be a far more palpable solution to the problems they outline.
I'm not really sure that I share your conviction that this is a problem at all. The philosopher of the past is simply the scientists now. Philosophers had no way of looking at the world and explaining it through anything except postulation. Now, we have the ability to view the world in various empirical and accurate ways, and even educated guessing is less legitimate than hard proof. This obviously doesn't make philosophy invalid, but simply changes its scope. Ethics are certainly still outside the scope of science and in that of philosophy, and I don't see that changing any time soon. (All though at times, such as issues with abortion, the two overlap and require corroboration.)A problem I'm beginning to see more and more with this neo-atheist awakening of sorts is that people are beginning to think that there are merely two ways of arguing: Scientifically, through empirical evidence; or religious, through silly passages in one of many God-written books. It seems the philosopher is losing his legitimacy in the contemporary debates of the world because he is not entirely committed to either empirical evidence or silly books written by gods.
Religious liberalism is not what religious moderates keep to. You, sir, are not a religious moderate. You are a non-religious deist. Of course, these titles are annoyingly futile, but necessary in relation to your post. Harris deals with the bible in the way he does, because so many people do, in fact, believe in the literal truth of the bible. Even religious moderates believe some passages to be true. I believe the statistic, and I may be well off - it actually comes from the Harris lecture but I may have mixed it up with another one - of those in America who actually believe that Jesus rose from the dead is 80-83%. So, while you may think that Harris does not deal with the most effective argument for God's existence, as is being presented and argued from the deist point of view, he is certainly addressing the largest argument base. The purpose of the book was not to address Deism, but to address religion.Deism is not a religion. It has no church. It does not have a Pope. It has no holy book by which to live by. It is simply the belief that God may logically fit into the creation of the universe. So, Harris and Dawkins focus on actual religion, because that is what they perceive to be a threat to humanity and reason. Deism is just a very slight differing theory, with which they have little qualm. They may not share the same view, but can respect a belief that is equally probable to theirs and does not dictate a way to live life. Certainly, in this respect, Deism can be viewed as something of a stepping stone to Atheism. I'm sure neither minds that notion.As to keeping the bible about, I would like to see it moved to the fiction section of book stores. That aside, it would do no harm to humanity if it were not interpreted so dangerously.I think that's Harris's foolish way of looking at the Bible, and this goes back to my point that Harris fails in attacking religious liberalism effectively. Religious moderates pride themselves as intellectuals, and anyone with half a brain is aware that the Bible isn't merely a singular work of God, but rather a collection of works written by all different kinds of people over the course of thousands of years. Once one realizes this, it becomes very sensible to ignore certain passages. This, however, does not mean that one cannot see divine wisdom behind other books written by other authors within the collective work. Why then even keep these works in the Bible? I would argue that the Bible is a work of literature which has three elements: the spiritual message of the Judeo-Christian tradition, the history of Israel, and the laws of Israel. Of course then, there are going to be instances which are all history or all law and no spirituality. That does not change the fact that the Sermon on the Mount is one of the most spiritually compelling works ever composed.
Edited by Zennalathas, 13 April 2007 - 09:17 AM.
#4187
Guest_dragoonv76
Guest_dragoonv76
-
- Guest
Posted 13 April 2007 - 07:26 PM
im not going to give an opion on all of that but i disagree that God is not comforting.most of the people who belive in God were raised in that way, from birth religious families teach them religion, rules, take them to festivals ,etc ,etc. this is their way of life.because they were raised with the idea (if i may) that God exist, it is not a speacial thing that comforts them but a normal thing that is part of their lives, religous teachings from their family gives most of them a moral compass, im not saying atheists are evil or have no morals but religious teachings are like moral guidlines.those who have been converted usally have exsperienced a miracle or a religous exsperience. this may be disproved by science but these events give the people a feeling that they know somthing great is out there.you say that God is creepy because he knows of wrong things, but that is the same as saying "I am a pervert because i know what porn is" or "i definetly hungry because i know he is" just cause you know doesnt mean you are.my point is, people dont belive in God just to get in heaven, people dont pray every hour and waste thier time communicating to God. people belive in God because they do. so while you say they could be doing something purposeful instead of gathering in a church, they are do somthing, they meeting people, they are talking to people. you dont have to goto church to pray to God, it is just a meeting place for that. it is a social activity and should be respected.
#4188
Guest_Zennalathas
Guest_Zennalathas
-
- Guest
Posted 13 April 2007 - 09:56 PM
I agree that people don't believe in God just to get to heaven. The point being argued was: Atheists, because they don't believe God exists, have no purpose in life. So, that points to religious people finding purpose in heaven since, what else actually differs in atheists' and theists' lives? Not anything so significant as to be equated to a life purpose.The God being a creeper comment was a joke, sort of. You're analogy doesn't quite hit home, though. It isn't the same that you know what porn is. God knows every unwholesome thought going through every person's mind at any given moment, should he exist. This would equate to, if you really wish to keep the pornography metaphor: "I am a pervert because I know exactly what porn you are looking at when you are masturbating, and I know when you're masturbating without porn, and what you're thinking about during it." If that were a person, you'd call he/she a creeper. Now, I've never said that God isn't comforting. I suggest that he certainly should not be! I do not think I should reiterate those points yet again, just yet.As for being raises to believe in God, I've argued that that it morally wrong since the beginning. Also, finding comfort in being without any proof of existance, not only does not prove his existance, but severely questions the believer's sanity. A schitzophrenic (SP??) might find comfort in a person that actually see and does not exist. These people have one up on religious experience! You don't see God. These people are labelled insane, and given lithium. Why is it that theists get some sort of pass in this area? The reasoning seems to be the same: you find comfort, or discomfort, in something that does not exist, speak to that something, and believe in its reality. Difference? God has scripture, and I think we've all ready established that such scripture is credulous.Now, to morality. Morality is not based upon religious doctrine. If it were, well we'd all be in a sorry state. Do you believe that forced female circumcision is morally sound? A scripture, nay a religion say it is so. Do you believe that slavery is morally sound? No religious doctrine, except perhaps Buddhism in a technical sense, denounced the slave trade. Do you believe murder is morally sound? Well, so long as it's in the name of god, or the victim does not share your religion, your scriptures do not dispute it. Morality does not come from the Bible, or some other scripture. So many things have changed since their writing, and it's all been independant of that religious doctrinization. The moral guidlines are there without God, or religion, or scripture. In any case, the proof through morality is not valid. Romans had morals that were taught by their religious institutions. Does that mean we should accept their gods? Babylonians develloped the first set of laws based on morals. Does that mean we should accept their gods? The proof is not sound. Morality evolves and exists far beyond the perameters of religion. So, if families are finding comfort in the fact that relgion gives them a moral compass, they should be looking else where for that comfort. They've been mislead.As to the relgious miracles/experiences, I hope they are all something along the lines of God standing before them, turning water into wine, and saying, "See, totally real!" Else, yes, science does disprove them, or at lest call into question their validity. And, just once more, just because someone feels that they know something exists, does not make that something exists. If it worked that way, the believers would be more powerful than God.im not going to give an opion on all of that but i disagree that God is not comforting.most of the people who belive in God were raised in that way, from birth religious families teach them religion, rules, take them to festivals ,etc ,etc. this is their way of life.because they were raised with the idea (if i may) that God exist, it is not a speacial thing that comforts them but a normal thing that is part of their lives, religous teachings from their family gives most of them a moral compass, im not saying atheists are evil or have no morals but religious teachings are like moral guidlines.those who have been converted usally have exsperienced a miracle or a religous exsperience. this may be disproved by science but these events give the people a feeling that they know somthing great is out there.you say that God is creepy because he knows of wrong things, but that is the same as saying "I am a pervert because i know what porn is" or "i definetly hungry because i know he is" just cause you know doesnt mean you are.my point is, people dont belive in God just to get in heaven, people dont pray every hour and waste thier time communicating to God. people belive in God because they do. so while you say they could be doing something purposeful instead of gathering in a church, they are do somthing, they meeting people, they are talking to people. you dont have to goto church to pray to God, it is just a meeting place for that. it is a social activity and should be respected.
#4189
Guest_darkxinwen
Guest_darkxinwen
-
- Guest
Posted 14 April 2007 - 02:57 AM
i'm not sure of myself, im Roman Catholic and arent so religious cant say im not loyal.I always have the heart for the god but somehow, i wish god could speak to me and give me the answer to my everything.There is something unsolved in me, which have been for more than 10 years; every year i wish i could speak to the lord and get the answer...but maybe it isn't the time.I do not care of the Religion, if i would hate, that's the Code and Law of each Religion has. Whoever married with Muslim HAS TO convert to Muslim, if you refuse, you WILL find yourself in the COURT.all i can say, believe in your heart, mind and soul whether you're Atheist or not - live well, live proudly, live happily.
#4190
Guest_accretia
Guest_accretia
-
- Guest
Posted 14 April 2007 - 04:46 AM
Is it okay to believe in God and only worship him by enjoying free holidays?
#4191
Guest_flemrudiger
Guest_flemrudiger
-
- Guest
Posted 14 April 2007 - 05:40 AM
If god is the creator of man and all else and man is creator of our own current place within the universe which we can't even dare say we slightly comprehend and man can create building and other life upon the planet we call earth are we not in some sense gods ourselves?I believe there is more out there and spirits, but it is all based within thought or philosophy.Everyone chooses what is best for them to go on within the life they live. If you want a Matrix reference you have your red and blue pills.One stays in the safety of a thought that everything is good from start to finish if you follow a set of morals (occasionally altered by leaders who are corrupt...)The others try to see things from a perspective away from the others foundations and questions everything within existence itself.now that is generalized and has many openings to be picked apart from but hey I'm not looking to side with any set choice. Choice is individual and as long as we can deal with the simple fact everyone is allowed to pick their own path then need we worry? Or are we going to go back 200-400 or more years back and kill each other for thinking differently do to the situations beyond our control that shape all our societies into what they currently are?
#4192
Guest_الِش
Guest_الِش
-
- Guest
Posted 14 April 2007 - 07:17 AM
I'm not going to bother with the religion arguement, simply because to me, it's pointless, but
Matters of faith =/= Matters of art and music.The idea is called "conversational pressure". Read up on it. It's how the Renaissance was so effective. It certainly caught on, didn't it?
#4193
Guest_Zennalathas
Guest_Zennalathas
-
- Guest
Posted 14 April 2007 - 08:39 AM
That was a joke right? The Renaissance heralded the shift to Humanism in philosophy and morality. The theologians famous for that period included the theists: Desiderius Erasmus, Huldrych Zwingli, Thomas More, and Martin Luther. All of the forementioned play key roles in the Reformation that also occurred during the Renaissance. Even the Catholic Church went through it's own mini-reformation. Matters of faith were certainly changed and discussed in the Renaissance, just as much, if not more so, than the matters of art and music.Matters of faith =/= Matters of art and music.
#4194
Guest_الِش
Guest_الِش
-
- Guest
Posted 14 April 2007 - 09:22 AM
^I consider anything after 1500 to be past the Renaissance, sorry.My mistake.However, look at Europe today; Protestants only make up England, Germany (actually, there are about an equal number of Catholics), and (I think) Switzerland. And even then, the Anglican church is seperate from all those other divisions.Even with England ruling one in four people during the Age of Imperialism, today, Protestants and Anglicans are still hugely outnumbered by Catholics. Also, This.Edit: WTF? Algeria has no real Catholic population? I knew that there was an Islamic majority due to the fact that the flag has a cresent, but a hundred years of French colonial rule has to leave more than just impact on the language...
Edited by الِش, 14 April 2007 - 09:36 AM.
#4195
Guest_StarMist
Guest_StarMist
-
- Guest
Posted 14 April 2007 - 09:31 AM
It's hard to say. In this day in age, with so many different beliefs, it is truly up to the individual. Personally, the theory of evolution makes the most sense to me, but then again, it's always a huge controversy. *shrug*
#4196
Guest_Zennalathas
Guest_Zennalathas
-
- Guest
Posted 14 April 2007 - 10:18 AM
There was still the Catholic Reformation...and that plays out nicely in my point. In fact, nothing you've just posted has any bearing on my point at all. We established that there was religious matters discussed though conversational pressure during the Renaissance. What point did that post have?^I consider anything after 1500 to be past the Renaissance, sorry.My mistake.However, look at Europe today; Protestants only make up England, Germany (actually, there are about an equal number of Catholics), and (I think) Switzerland. And even then, the Anglican church is seperate from all those other divisions.Even with England ruling one in four people during the Age of Imperialism, today, Protestants and Anglicans are still hugely outnumbered by Catholics. Also, This.
#4197
Guest_الِش
Guest_الِش
-
- Guest
Posted 14 April 2007 - 10:24 AM
True. However, you're going in the instance that religious change spread quickly during the Renaissance, whereas I'm pointing out that there are today more Catholics than Protestants.You're going on the idea that someday, through conversational pressure, more and more people will become atheists, comparable to the Renaissance.However, today, Protastantism makes up only 6-7% of the world religions. Why do you think that atheism will increase more than Protestantism did?
#4198
Guest_Zennalathas
Guest_Zennalathas
-
- Guest
Posted 14 April 2007 - 10:49 AM
Very simply, because this isn't a change based upon semantics, but one based upon foundation. This is also a much broader scope than that of the Reformation. There is no reforming in this situation, simply that of abolishment. Believers can debate semantics over articles of abstract faith, but there is no semantics in this atheist change. There is simply fact replacing ancient fiction. Remember, before you trounce on the "fact" part, that religion is what will be replaced, because God, very simply, may be an answer to the creation problem. I'll argue though, that if an Athiest does his job correctly, there should be no one believing in a possible answer before it is proven. They may hope for a certain answer, but that is a completely different matter to be addressed. Science begs us to deduce answers from evidence, not induce evidence for answers.True. However, you're going in the instance that religious change spread quickly during the Renaissance, whereas I'm pointing out that there are today more Catholics than Protestants.You're going on the idea that someday, through conversational pressure, more and more people will become atheists, comparable to the Renaissance.However, today, Protastantism makes up only 6-7% of the world religions. Why do you think that atheism will increase more than Protestantism did?
#4199
Guest_الِش
Guest_الِش
-
- Guest
Posted 14 April 2007 - 11:05 AM
Wait, now I'm lost.A Catholic becoming Protestant is one thing, a Catholic becoming Protestant is another. While the Reformation did have a lasting effect on the world, there are comparitivly few Protestants compared to Catholics. Changing the interpretation of the Bible is one thing that many Catholics accepted and became Protestants; removing the Bible from the picture is a totally different thing.Explain why a religious person would give up the book that has guided him in religion, and his ancestors, for a belief that has less than 3%.In other words, explain why this conventional pressure idea works.
#4200
Guest_Zennalathas
Guest_Zennalathas
-
- Guest
Posted 15 April 2007 - 07:26 AM
Conversational Pressure:The idea that things will change without significant discourse is ridiculous. People talk about issues among themselves, and either come to concensuses or disagree and follow in arguement. A point many neo-Athiests bring up is: outside of religion sanctioned events, the questioning of another's belief is a taboo subject. People, in general, do not question someone's belief no matter how ridiculous it is if it has to do with religion. Upon seeing someone on a small carpet praying in a certain direction three times a day, the average person will not question the act beyond the answer: It's part of my religion. The questioning would follow something like this: "Why are you doing that?" "It's part of my religion." "Oh." Not many actually follow up with: "Isn't it kind of silly to be required to pray three times a day? Does God really need your prayer? If you miss a prayer, are you going to be punished. That sound silly." It's taboo to do so. The fact that "It's part of my religion" is actually a valid response in a mode of discourse is astonishing. Along similar reasoning: "Why do you chew tabacco?" "I'm a baseball player." "Oh." Shouldn't that conversation go more like: "Why do you chew tabacco?" "I'm a baseball player." "You know it's horrible for your health, right? You could just as easily chew gum." That type of questioning is reserved for topics outside the scope of religion. Conversational pressure is to continue to question a person's actions or beliefs even after the taboo is present. You apply pressure to their believes to bring about the person's own questioning of those beliefs. The baseball player after the interogation may very well begin to think to himself: "Maybe gum would be better for me to chew..." That realization may not come from the first discussion of the matter, but if the person recieves similar discourse from many other individuals, that self-doubt is inevitable. Religion, if put under similar pressures, would also follow suit in such modes of discourse. And, should the individual recieve enough questioning, the person may take it upon themselves to actually read up on the subject, and make some decisions that his/her pastor/priest did not prescribe to them. The belief that religious thought is correct is also negligible in these terms. The logic here follows that if you believe a square has four sides, and are told by an inordinate amount of people that it had five, you'll eventually go look up the answer to verify which is correct. So, even if religious thinkers believe themself correct, they are not outside the scope of doubt when subjected to mass questioning. Now, religious thinkers may simply just go and look into their scripture for the answers, but if the atheist party in the conversation did his work properly, he should have brought up points, like I have, in the discussion that require further research. A man cannot look into the bible to disprove quantum physics. He has to look at a book regarding that subject matter. The point of conversational pressure is to get the part under pressure to look to alternatives and consider them. It hinges upon mass co-operation, or at least significant discussion to work, so it is not a quick process, but it is an effective one.This is certainly not a comprehensive definition of the idea. Again, read Dawkins and Harris thoroughly to get a real idea of what the concept entails. It is not enough to just take my word for it. They go into the idea at much more length and at greater detail. So, before you try to poke holes into the logic produced here, remember this is a summation that cannot hold nearly as firmly as a Ph.D. certified book can.
