Other What's your religion?
- Thread starter Zombocalypse
- Start date
Wixard
Thinkerer
mmhmm
Grey
Dialectical Hermeticist
Christmas trees, your own examples of the trinity and immortal soul, Mithraic principles of sacrifice and rebirth, structural elements of the Roman Imperial Cult, the entirety of the Old Testament, vernal equinox celebrations, elements of Stoic and Platonic philosophy, Neoplatonism, Gnosticism, elements of Manichaeaism, the syncretism of Saxon religion with Christianity under Charlemagne in order to secure conquest of their lands.
Also, consider the items of pre-Christian Judaism that were cut to make it an easier sell, like circumcision (pun not intended).
This is found in myths of Glycon, Zoroaster, and Horus who all predate Christianity. I believe there may be others, but the similarities fewer.
After careful post-hoc revisions of political necessity that discarded anything inconvenient to the primacy of the church and support of extant monarchies. The Nicene Council is the most obvious example, convened so the Byzantine Emperor could get the various Christian schismatic sects to agree on something and stop disrupting the empire with their fighting.
To address @Shireling; It is really not difficult to derive ethical principles from available evidence and enlightened self-interest, if one will not simply act with empathy. The idea of objective morality is a nonsense, and I reject thoroughly the notion that coercion by threat of eternal torment is necessary to encourage a majority to behave with love and kindness. If you must be threatened to be good, what good are you?
To require religion for these purposes is to underestimate and insult your fellow persons, as though they would not be capable of recognizing the ethical choices were they but armed with the education and freed from the stresses of oppression by those who have failed the common cause, who dress their iniquities in faith and pomp and claim righteousness while children die who could have been saved. I'll not suggest that religious organizations and people have done no good, but I firmly believe no dogma was necessary for good to have been done.
Nietzche died over one hundred years ago without access to the knowledge we have today, and the world does not change overnight; we are moving ever closer to a superior ethical model.
EDIT: Apologies; got rather impassioned there. I don't mean to be confrontational.
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm gonna drop some things here.
What is God Like?: Crash Course Philosophy #12
Neil deGrasse Tyson: Atheist or Agnostic?
Leonard Susskind - Arguments for Agnosticism?
Debunking Young Earth (Part 1)
Debunking Young Earth (Part 2)
Debunking Young Earth (Part 3)
Heuristics and Biases
I posted this video on my other forum to see what other people thought and a fellow forum member, Nitrox, wrote about it. Here is what he said.
"DISCLAIMER: While I myself am atheist, I have nothing against religious people in general, and don't intend to start a heated argument as opposed to a discussion.
A few points I'd like to make regarding this video:
The fine-tuning required for the planet to exist doesn't strike me as a particularly strong argument. Yes, life is extremely rare in the universe, and a lot of conditions have to be met for it to appear, but there are a lot of planets in the universe, and it's not like we would be around to discuss it if it didn't happen to be true. A parallel I've seen drawn to this argument and similar arguments is that if you have water in an irregularly shaped puddle, the water will change shape in order to fit the puddle. The puddle wasn't designed for the water; rather, the water's shape was influenced by the puddle itself. The fact that it seems that the life we know about (exclusively Earth life) could only survive on Earth is unsurprising: all life on Earth evolved to tolerate conditions on Earth, and probably wouldn't fare well on other planets. However, it's pretty easy to imagine a form of life that evolved on a planet constantly barraged by meteor showers: maybe they would live deep underground, maybe they would be very durable, etc.
The second argument, about the cosmological constants and the like, is much harder to answer conclusively. I'm not an expert on theoretical physics by any means, but I know that a current leading theory is the multiverse theory, which states (in a very, very simplified fashion) that there are an infinite number of universes, with different values of these constants and different events playing out. There is mathematical support for this theory (don't ask me to explain it; I'm not a theoretical physicist), although it has yet to be conclusively proven and it's difficult to experimentally test. Still, I think the video should have mentioned it, as it's the main retort to its argument. In addition, it's important to consider that pretty much any sentient deity would have to be extremely complicated: if an intelligent creator deity that has the ability to create a universe with the right properties to support life can spontaneously appear, why not a universe with the right properties to support life by itself, which seems to me a whole lot simpler?
Finally, one last point I'd like to address: most of the time, when people use arguments like this, they use them as support for their religion. None of this evidence points specifically toward a Judeo-Christian God, or Allah, or any other number of possible creator deities. Science does not yet know for sure how the universe was formed, but if there was some kind of sentient motive force behind it, I see no reason to believe that it's benevolent, comprehensible to us, or plays any kind of role in the workings of the universe (which seem to be based on concrete physical laws)."
What is God Like?: Crash Course Philosophy #12
Neil deGrasse Tyson: Atheist or Agnostic?
Leonard Susskind - Arguments for Agnosticism?
Debunking Young Earth (Part 1)
Debunking Young Earth (Part 2)
Debunking Young Earth (Part 3)
Heuristics and Biases
I posted this video on my other forum to see what other people thought and a fellow forum member, Nitrox, wrote about it. Here is what he said.
"DISCLAIMER: While I myself am atheist, I have nothing against religious people in general, and don't intend to start a heated argument as opposed to a discussion.
A few points I'd like to make regarding this video:
The fine-tuning required for the planet to exist doesn't strike me as a particularly strong argument. Yes, life is extremely rare in the universe, and a lot of conditions have to be met for it to appear, but there are a lot of planets in the universe, and it's not like we would be around to discuss it if it didn't happen to be true. A parallel I've seen drawn to this argument and similar arguments is that if you have water in an irregularly shaped puddle, the water will change shape in order to fit the puddle. The puddle wasn't designed for the water; rather, the water's shape was influenced by the puddle itself. The fact that it seems that the life we know about (exclusively Earth life) could only survive on Earth is unsurprising: all life on Earth evolved to tolerate conditions on Earth, and probably wouldn't fare well on other planets. However, it's pretty easy to imagine a form of life that evolved on a planet constantly barraged by meteor showers: maybe they would live deep underground, maybe they would be very durable, etc.
The second argument, about the cosmological constants and the like, is much harder to answer conclusively. I'm not an expert on theoretical physics by any means, but I know that a current leading theory is the multiverse theory, which states (in a very, very simplified fashion) that there are an infinite number of universes, with different values of these constants and different events playing out. There is mathematical support for this theory (don't ask me to explain it; I'm not a theoretical physicist), although it has yet to be conclusively proven and it's difficult to experimentally test. Still, I think the video should have mentioned it, as it's the main retort to its argument. In addition, it's important to consider that pretty much any sentient deity would have to be extremely complicated: if an intelligent creator deity that has the ability to create a universe with the right properties to support life can spontaneously appear, why not a universe with the right properties to support life by itself, which seems to me a whole lot simpler?
Finally, one last point I'd like to address: most of the time, when people use arguments like this, they use them as support for their religion. None of this evidence points specifically toward a Judeo-Christian God, or Allah, or any other number of possible creator deities. Science does not yet know for sure how the universe was formed, but if there was some kind of sentient motive force behind it, I see no reason to believe that it's benevolent, comprehensible to us, or plays any kind of role in the workings of the universe (which seem to be based on concrete physical laws)."
Last edited by a moderator:
Wixard
Thinkerer
ugh. and you didn't even label them *pouts sarcastically*
Grey
Dialectical Hermeticist
I'm glad the Puddle Argument came up. I'd been thinking about referencing that one but decided it wasn't necessary.
Shireling
A Servant of King and Country
You make an error as to what religion truly is when you characterize it as coercion. Yes, religious faith can, and has historically been, coerced, but one could argue that such "conversions by the sword" do not actually produce religious belief. Likewise, doctrinal teachings on Hell are good-naturedly, but wrong-headedly characterized as eternal torment. The Bible merely characterizes Hell as a state of spiritual separation from God. So, only through bad theology do we arrive at the concept of Godly wrath to maintain morality. The true context of most faiths is that observance of holiness allows one to enjoy the good aspects of a relationship with God while unfaithfulness merely removes the benefits of such a relationship. This is actually a form of positive reinforcement, to use the language of operant conditioning.
It is also a mischaracterization of my statements to suggest that ethics cannot exist without objective morality. We in the West reject objective standards of morality, and yet still have ethics. What then was my point? Well, if you are familiar with the Marquis de Sade, he was novelist and philosopher as well as an Epicurean. His name is actually from whence we derive the term "sadist." Now, according to the Marquis, the greatest devotion of Man should be pleasure. He believed that the greatest pleasure was to defy the conventions of one's society. Who are you to say rape, murder, polygamy, or any other number of crimes are morally reprehensible? What logic is their for me to reign in my naked self interest other than the suffering of others, and even then, why should I value the suffering of others if they are merely material beings, a dime a dozen, to be disposed of and replaced a million times over? For Nietzche and the moral relativists, they don't have an answer other than perhaps "the maintenance of the social order" and even then, why is that maintenance a desired outcome? Why must I yield in the pursuit of my pleasure to the need of society? And truthfully, a moral relativist has no answer other than coercion by the government in the form of law enforcement. And then one may argue, on what principle are those laws based? If it is for the common good of all, who defines what is commonly good, and why should I be expected to yield to it?
I paraphrase the Marquis here mostly. My argument is not that religion is necessary for ethics, but that religion is necessary to give ethics some foundation other than "we said so because we believe that this will improve the human condition."
Zombocalypse
Quintessential Badboy
I have no friggin' clue what the hell you're talking about but I LIKE IT!
Are you a Christian?
Grey
Dialectical Hermeticist
Is that first paragraph not functionally saying No True Scotsman? No True Theology is based on the threat of suffering? Is not separation from your god of choice characterized as a form of suffering? Do you not then deny people their own means of achieving happiness by insisting it is granted externally through devotion to a non-human entity?
Religion has, and continues, to coerce behaviour from people with the threat of suffering. Further, it allows people to inflict suffering for transgressions in the belief it is necessary for their own salvation to punish sinners, and necessary for the sinners' salvation that they suffer. The truly disturbing part of this is that the transgressive act may be wholly harmless (such as being homosexual) but due to indoctrination it is perceived as harmful and answered with emotional and physical harm.
And you may argue these are not True Believers, but they would not agree with you, would they? And there is no evidence of god descending from on high to pardon genocide as over-enthusiasm, is there? Many would defend the actions of their religious in-group, however heinous, because they are part of the group and even if it sufficiently crosses their lines of decency or morality, they instinctively want to protect the tribe from outsiders. Religion provides even well educated people with an effective tool of self-delusion, in this regard.
It takes advantage of a number of cognitive biases. It's neurological hacking.
If you were to expunge all concept of divine judgement from people who might otherwise, for example, 'righteously' victimize homosexuals and then present them with the evidence that queer people are in no way inherently harmful or unnatural, they would not commit violence against them - but with the indoctrination in place, evidence is not enough to overcome their cognitive dissonance and, in tragically hilarious fashion, merely strengthens their resolve.
I will concede, however, that as you suggest it can be used as a means of positive reinforcement, but simply because it can does not mean it is the most efficient means nor that there is no tradeoff - it can promote some good while facilitating some bad and may fail to address this.
It seems that you regard religion as a necessary manipulative tool of human invention, then? Merely curious. I used to feel positively disposed towards it for that reason myself, but over time I've come to feel it would be inadequate in the long-term.
----------------------------
I am familiar with the works of de Sade and subsequent criticisms, to which I say modern scientific methods exist. Why should the proto-nihilistic arguments of a pornographer who lived two-hundred years ago be relevant today? Everything is rooted in measurable physical phenomena, even if not all those phenomena are yet measurable. The human brain has a hard limit on empathy and sadism is a spectrum with corresponding biochemical markers (for example, the brains of sociopaths are recognizably distinct from those of non-sociopaths - and strikingly, not all sociopaths are antisocial), and I see therefore no reason that we cannot determine a socio-political model that ensures freedom, security, and comfort for as many people as is feasible based in physical reality.
Foremost, the idea that life is meaningless frees us to impose upon it our own meaning. Ignoring for the moment specious arguments of 'ah, but what if I do not empathise with other humans?', if one applies to oneself a concept of 'worthiness to exist' it should so follow that all humans share this worthiness. If this is insufficient, recall that humans are social animals and not wholly self-sufficient, leading us to enlightened self-interest; care of others is an extension of care for the self, because their social approval has a measurably positive impact on the individual medically and a qualitatively positive impact emotionally, and their physical contributions to the society in which an individual lives (labour, art, research, education, etc.) benefits the individual.
Further, witnessing suffering has a measurable negative impact ergo the prevention of suffering to others is desirable. If we must again turn to enlightened self-interest over empathy, the resentment of the suffering may be transmuted to violence against the oppressive or indifferent.
Yes, people are capable of disassociation from other people to the degree they can ignore or rationalize their pain, exploit them, and feel nothing, but this is a flaw in homo sapiens which we should seek to overcome now that we are aware of it.
If a person wishes only their own pleasure at the expense of others, consider first how such exploitation would lead that person to behave, and realize that it is apt to met by others with some form of violence or restraint, a deprivation of the pleasure the person desires. Through negotiation and planning, it may be possible to secure those pleasures while minimizing risk to the self and harm to others even if they must be reduced. Indeed, this is a form of coercion, but at least it is based in negotiable principles rather than immediate threat or execution of violence. Regrettably some form of governmental oversight entrenched by the will of the majority may always be necessary, but at least it can be rooted in rehabilitation or containment over retributive punishment. Some people, afterall, are simply victims of their own biology. A little empathy may go a long way in protecting them from themselves and protecting others from them.
Remember that criminality is a product of flawed governmental and socio-economic structures, and violent criminals are a minority; most people do not desire to do harm without direct or indirect provocation.
I'm aware this isn't a flawless model and there are surely things I've not addressed, but I consider it preferable to abstract navel-gazing about what is really good or bad. Neither do I necessarily hold that absolutes are truly possible; I am pro-choice, for example, but I am not comfortable with the fact I have to be and I am not certain it is inherently ethically superior a position to being anti-choice, only that I consider the secondary effects of my position to be preferable for the foresseable future. I would prefer a society where I do not have to take such a position because contraceptive care and reproductive healthcare render abortions anomalous. Sometimes we must accept that a gray area will have to be good enough, at least until more data becomes available or circumstances change to clarify affairs. Sometimes we will have to resort to 'our best guess is that this is positive', ideally in an environment of mutual respect and educational equality where such a thing can be debated in good faith and accepted as it becomes necessary.
To conclude, we are stronger together, and by supporting each other we are better able facilitate any one of us contributing to that strength. Being paralyzed by the notion of an amoral universe will achieve nothing and the best possible outcome for religion is to render itself obsolete by staying out of the way where it does not support progress. Hrm, I suppose that at this point I have wrapped around to agreement with your position in principle but opposition in application.
It is probably not hard to tell from this that I am socialist proponent of transhumanism.
Religion has, and continues, to coerce behaviour from people with the threat of suffering. Further, it allows people to inflict suffering for transgressions in the belief it is necessary for their own salvation to punish sinners, and necessary for the sinners' salvation that they suffer. The truly disturbing part of this is that the transgressive act may be wholly harmless (such as being homosexual) but due to indoctrination it is perceived as harmful and answered with emotional and physical harm.
And you may argue these are not True Believers, but they would not agree with you, would they? And there is no evidence of god descending from on high to pardon genocide as over-enthusiasm, is there? Many would defend the actions of their religious in-group, however heinous, because they are part of the group and even if it sufficiently crosses their lines of decency or morality, they instinctively want to protect the tribe from outsiders. Religion provides even well educated people with an effective tool of self-delusion, in this regard.
It takes advantage of a number of cognitive biases. It's neurological hacking.
If you were to expunge all concept of divine judgement from people who might otherwise, for example, 'righteously' victimize homosexuals and then present them with the evidence that queer people are in no way inherently harmful or unnatural, they would not commit violence against them - but with the indoctrination in place, evidence is not enough to overcome their cognitive dissonance and, in tragically hilarious fashion, merely strengthens their resolve.
I will concede, however, that as you suggest it can be used as a means of positive reinforcement, but simply because it can does not mean it is the most efficient means nor that there is no tradeoff - it can promote some good while facilitating some bad and may fail to address this.
It seems that you regard religion as a necessary manipulative tool of human invention, then? Merely curious. I used to feel positively disposed towards it for that reason myself, but over time I've come to feel it would be inadequate in the long-term.
----------------------------
I am familiar with the works of de Sade and subsequent criticisms, to which I say modern scientific methods exist. Why should the proto-nihilistic arguments of a pornographer who lived two-hundred years ago be relevant today? Everything is rooted in measurable physical phenomena, even if not all those phenomena are yet measurable. The human brain has a hard limit on empathy and sadism is a spectrum with corresponding biochemical markers (for example, the brains of sociopaths are recognizably distinct from those of non-sociopaths - and strikingly, not all sociopaths are antisocial), and I see therefore no reason that we cannot determine a socio-political model that ensures freedom, security, and comfort for as many people as is feasible based in physical reality.
Foremost, the idea that life is meaningless frees us to impose upon it our own meaning. Ignoring for the moment specious arguments of 'ah, but what if I do not empathise with other humans?', if one applies to oneself a concept of 'worthiness to exist' it should so follow that all humans share this worthiness. If this is insufficient, recall that humans are social animals and not wholly self-sufficient, leading us to enlightened self-interest; care of others is an extension of care for the self, because their social approval has a measurably positive impact on the individual medically and a qualitatively positive impact emotionally, and their physical contributions to the society in which an individual lives (labour, art, research, education, etc.) benefits the individual.
Further, witnessing suffering has a measurable negative impact ergo the prevention of suffering to others is desirable. If we must again turn to enlightened self-interest over empathy, the resentment of the suffering may be transmuted to violence against the oppressive or indifferent.
Yes, people are capable of disassociation from other people to the degree they can ignore or rationalize their pain, exploit them, and feel nothing, but this is a flaw in homo sapiens which we should seek to overcome now that we are aware of it.
If a person wishes only their own pleasure at the expense of others, consider first how such exploitation would lead that person to behave, and realize that it is apt to met by others with some form of violence or restraint, a deprivation of the pleasure the person desires. Through negotiation and planning, it may be possible to secure those pleasures while minimizing risk to the self and harm to others even if they must be reduced. Indeed, this is a form of coercion, but at least it is based in negotiable principles rather than immediate threat or execution of violence. Regrettably some form of governmental oversight entrenched by the will of the majority may always be necessary, but at least it can be rooted in rehabilitation or containment over retributive punishment. Some people, afterall, are simply victims of their own biology. A little empathy may go a long way in protecting them from themselves and protecting others from them.
Remember that criminality is a product of flawed governmental and socio-economic structures, and violent criminals are a minority; most people do not desire to do harm without direct or indirect provocation.
I'm aware this isn't a flawless model and there are surely things I've not addressed, but I consider it preferable to abstract navel-gazing about what is really good or bad. Neither do I necessarily hold that absolutes are truly possible; I am pro-choice, for example, but I am not comfortable with the fact I have to be and I am not certain it is inherently ethically superior a position to being anti-choice, only that I consider the secondary effects of my position to be preferable for the foresseable future. I would prefer a society where I do not have to take such a position because contraceptive care and reproductive healthcare render abortions anomalous. Sometimes we must accept that a gray area will have to be good enough, at least until more data becomes available or circumstances change to clarify affairs. Sometimes we will have to resort to 'our best guess is that this is positive', ideally in an environment of mutual respect and educational equality where such a thing can be debated in good faith and accepted as it becomes necessary.
To conclude, we are stronger together, and by supporting each other we are better able facilitate any one of us contributing to that strength. Being paralyzed by the notion of an amoral universe will achieve nothing and the best possible outcome for religion is to render itself obsolete by staying out of the way where it does not support progress. Hrm, I suppose that at this point I have wrapped around to agreement with your position in principle but opposition in application.
It is probably not hard to tell from this that I am socialist proponent of transhumanism.
The Mechanist
Everyone's favorite cybernetic robot! 🤖
Wow this thing is still goin?
TeaMMatE11
The Ninja. Now you see me, Now you don't.
Apparently, and looks like it devolved into a debate that I do not want to get into.
The Mechanist
Everyone's favorite cybernetic robot! 🤖
I didn't read it, last I was here it was only a couple pages long, now it's 9, ain't gonna bother
Zombocalypse
Quintessential Badboy
Grey
Dialectical Hermeticist
I dunno if I'd say devolved - I should thank @Shireling for the civil and stimulating opportunity for discussion, if my idealism and passion have not been so abrasive as to offend or so ignorant as to rob the conversation of value.
TeaMMatE11
The Ninja. Now you see me, Now you don't.
Zombocalypse
Quintessential Badboy
Grey
Dialectical Hermeticist
That's rather uncharitable. I can't say I'll be remotely convinced by your defense, but I'll surely read it and endeavour not to be discourteous in any reply.
EDIT: Assuming, of course, that your defence is directed at me specifically. I'm mostly trying not to debate with people of strong faith because we occupy such radically different positions, I fear we'd only alienate each other. I'd rather focus on common ground and matters of historical record, you know? I don't really intend to challenge anyone's faith or dismiss their experiences - it's why I chose to respect Zombopocalypse's story of a miracle rather than rationalize it. Anything else felt impolite.
Last edited by a moderator:
Windsock
Two Thousand Club
Pastafarianism
nah I don't believe in anything lmao
nah I don't believe in anything lmao
Zombocalypse
Quintessential Badboy
Last edited by a moderator:
Windsock
Two Thousand Club
I'll humor you. Please feel free to, do your best.
Last edited by a moderator:
TeaMMatE11
The Ninja. Now you see me, Now you don't.
Still, you are a very knowledgeable and well spoken. I can't say the same for myself. I just feel like the evidence I have in my brain would be very, very weak to use, because I am not an apologetic, in fact, nowhere near one.
But I would like to say this: Christianity is a faith-based religion. You can throw out as many facts as you possibly can, but a lot of people will stay as believers. A lot of people had incidences that they cannot explain what they saw or happened other than it being divine and God-like. Christianity raises more questions than it answers, and we may never have the answer to everything. I know there is some evidence linking science and Christianity together.
I would also like to point out that one of the heads of NASA, Robert Jastrow, said that the Biblical accounts and the scientific accounts of the beginning of the universe may be different, but the story is the same.
Talon
The Music Birb
This is interesting bro!¡!¡ Im a christian myself, but more into the spiritual side of things.
Grey
Dialectical Hermeticist
I have in my time been a Roman Catholic, a Church of England Protestant, and a Jehovah's Witness. I read voraciously on philosophy, sociology, anthropology, and psychology with some small university education in these fields. You are certainly welcome to make the attempt, friend, but I am committed to good deeds for their own sake and so unlikely to be converted.
Zombocalypse
Quintessential Badboy
@Windsock
Very well. Here are my beliefs... And then after that, the reason why I believe them.
Here's why I believe them.
Very well. Here are my beliefs... And then after that, the reason why I believe them.
Here's why I believe them.
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
