Religion vs Ajna

[Ajna]

I propose that ALL religious beliefs- including atheism (which by definition is the rejection of any divine or mystical possibility) is based in mental weakness.

There are big questions such as "what happens when we die", "how did we get here" etc... that make the average person very uncomfortable to think about.. because there is no answer. None of us are dead, and none of us were alive during the universes conception (or lack there of) The human mind struggles to control everything.. even things that we cannot.
So there are blueprints for your life... little comforts that alleviate the stress of not having those answers through your own journey and thoughts. Those blueprints are called religion.

If your parents die... its very comforting to think that they go to a beautiful place filled with joy where they can visit all their dead loved ones and drink tea with Einstein and smile down on you when your having a bad day... but thats simply an ideal. its what wed "like" to believe. It is much easier just to believe this and keep living our lives without the stress of the big question "what happens when we die".
This is a classic case of (i apologize for anyone following my posts if your seeing a trend in this point but...) Complacency vs Truth. It is the dividing line between most people as I see it. Matrix red pill vs blue pill.

In my life, i refuse to accept something as truth just because it makes things easier on me- or it feels nice to believe. Ignorance is bliss... but its an illusion of bliss. You are living in a house of cards, while someone who endeavors to create thier own beliefs based on an individual spiritual journey have a foundation of bricks... but they had to form all thier bricks by hand and have many sleepless nights building their structures.

Discuss!!


__________________

 

[Jam Stunna]

I find it very difficult to believe i can be proven wrong about this...

That's not really the best way to start a debate.

 

[Ajna]

That's not really the best way to start a debate.

Agreed. I had moved this from the pool room where it got locked... when i posted it, i was quite passionate. Edited.

 

[KrazyGlue]

Interesting topic, Ajna. I myself am agnostic, meaning I don't purport to know the answers to these questions, and I don't try to answer them. Judging by your post, I'm assuming you're agnostic as well (correct me if I'm wrong)?

However, religion does not just entail answering all these unanswerable questions. They also provide a code of living. Buddhism is a great example of this. While they also have mystical beliefs about the afterlife, there is a strong focus on simply living a peaceful and righteous life.

 

[Ajna]

Interesting topic, Ajna. I myself am agnostic, meaning I don't purport to know the answers to these questions, and I don't try to answer them. Judging by your post, I'm assuming you're agnostic as well (correct me if I'm wrong)?

However, religion does not just entail answering all these unanswerable questions. They also provide a code of living. Buddhism is a great example of this. While they also have mystical beliefs about the afterlife, there is a strong focus on simply living a peaceful and righteous life.

I dont fancy labels so much, but by definition I am agnostic. Which is basically the choice to accept that there are things that you cant know or control.

I agree with many things in my personal life choices that the Buddhists believe. However, simply choosing to be Buddhist still applies to what im arguing against.
By claiming to be Buddhist you are adopting exactly what you coined "a code of living", as I called it "A blueprint" for your life. I am suggesting that adopting a prefabricated code of living is denying your intellectual and spiritual right to come to your own conclusions... which is arguably a much more fulfilling and steadfast result.
By simply accepting something to be true, you are living in a house of cards. There is always the "what if..." that could just blow your whole house down periodically throughout your life. Spirituality and Religion are separate entities in your consciousness.

One could compare the radio to religion. If you choose to strictly listen to whats on the radio to decide what you like and dont like... you are missing out on an enormous amount of music, most of which will be free of alot of foolish criteria the industry/radio station puts on songs. However... you wont have to search for music that truly appeals to you, and it will be generally easier to relate to your peers rather than to find other people that can relate to your specific tastes.

Complacency vs Truth is something that I have been noticing more and more of lately.
Just accepting things the way they are (that path of complacency/ignorance is bliss etc.)- is comparable to walking down a long highway, where people occasionally give you rides (though they decide where they drive you) and every 100 miles someone gives you a hot dog.
While choosing to find your own answers to things, to think about your actions and your decisions... is like climbing a tremendous mountain. you are guaranteed to go days without food.. and fall several times... but once you reach the top, not only will you be in excellent shape but you wil be standing on top of the mountain with a beautiful view of the whole world.

 

[KrazyGlue]

I agree with many things in my personal life choices that the Buddhists believe. However, simply choosing to be Buddhist still applies to what im arguing against.
By claiming to be Buddhist you are adopting exactly what you coined "a code of living", as I called it "A blueprint" for your life. I am suggesting that adopting a prefabricated code of living is denying your intellectual and spiritual right to come to your own conclusions... which is arguably a much more fulfilling and steadfast result.
By simply accepting something to be true, you are living in a house of cards. There is always the "what if..." that could just blow your whole house down periodically throughout your life. Spirituality and Religion are separate entities in your consciousness.

One could compare the radio to religion. If you choose to strictly listen to whats on the radio to decide what you like and dont like... you are missing out on an enormous amount of music, most of which will be free of alot of foolish criteria the industry/radio station puts on songs. However... you wont have to search for music that truly appeals to you, and it will be generally easier to relate to your peers rather than to find other people that can relate to your specific tastes.

Complacency vs Truth is something that I have been noticing more and more of lately.
Just accepting things the way they are (that path of complacency/ignorance is bliss etc.)- is comparable to walking down a long highway, where people occasionally give you rides (though they decide where they drive you) and every 100 miles someone gives you a hot dog.
While choosing to find your own answers to things, to think about your actions and your decisions... is like climbing a tremendous mountain. you are guaranteed to go days without food.. and fall several times... but once you reach the top, not only will you be in excellent shape but you wil be standing on top of the mountain with a beautiful view of the whole world.

Oh I see now... might want to edit the OP, because when you wrote that it seemed like you were mainly discussing afterlife and creation questions.

Back on topic, the problem with your argument now is you can choose what religion to follow and even to some degree how to interpret the ethical code of that religion. A religion also doesn't have to be one of the big name ones, such as Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism, etc. A religion is simply a set of beliefs. You can choose to have your own religion, or to have none at all. If everyone was forced to pick one of the well known religions and follow them, then what you are saying would be right. However, religion is determined by the individual, so religion is only restrictive if you force it to be.

 

[Ajna]

Oh I see now... might want to edit the OP, because when you wrote that it seemed like you were mainly discussing afterlife and creation questions.

Back on topic, the problem with your argument now is you can choose what religion to follow and even to some degree how to interpret the ethical code of that religion. A religion also doesn't have to be one of the big name ones, such as Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism, etc. A religion is simply a set of beliefs. You can choose to have your own religion, or to have none at all. If everyone was forced to pick one of the well known religions and follow them, then what you are saying would be right. However, religion is determined by the individual, so religion is only restrictive if you force it to be.

Well i believe its possible you may be confusing religion and spirituality.
I dont believe that the terms are interchangeable. Religion is a set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a group of people. Whether the religion is ancient or if it was made yesterday and only contains a group of 3 people... It is still defined and has box whether the practitioners choose to acknowledge that box or not.
I am suggesting that spirituality, which is a much broader and more amorphous term than its limited and defined cousin religion, should be a personal and individual experience.

The reason i chose the specific topics I chose in the OP was not to limit this debate to those topics, but to give examples (a few drops in the ocean of farce) of how people use organized religion as a mental crutch.
That being said, even if we were to use the term religion more broadly, and put everyone's individual spiritual beliefs into the category of personalized religions... you could falsify and pretty much shatter the foundation of any one defined belief.
We cant know anything for sure..
Perhaps what im trying to say, is having a generally "agnostic" mind-set is the only logical approach to the big questions. The firm stance of "I dont know, and you don't either".

It seems to the analytical mind, most roads would end up there. Because regardless of how poignant your questions are to yourself, you will undoubtedly eventually hit a brick wall, the limitations of the human perspective. If there is an exception, I would challenge the readers of this post to enlighten me to their existence.

additionally, you claimed that if everyone was forced to choose a religion, that my original point would be correct. However, my argument is generally geared toward either those who have already chosen a religion... or have never truly explored their own feelings and thoughts about spiritual subjects- not against anyone who doesn't believe exactly as I do.

 

[Sucumbio]

I propose that ALL religious beliefs- including atheism (which by definition is the rejection of any divine or mystical possibility) is based in mental weakness.

You are living in a house of cards, while someone who endeavors to create thier own beliefs based on an individual spiritual journey have a foundation of bricks... but they had to form all thier bricks by hand and have many sleepless nights building their structures.

Yah it did get lock... Well I'm glad you posted it here, cause I wanted to give you a chance to resolve this contradiction for me (yellow vs lime). Now unless I'm misreading you have basically said that religious beliefs are a weakness, unless one has a personal spiritual journey. Is this correct?

If so...

My problem with this is you've basically discounted anyone who cannot take a pilgrimage to Jerusalem, Mecca, Tibet, McDonald's (oh, yeah that's another problem, highly subjective it is this ... spiritual journey of which you speak), wherever. You've also simultaneously discounted anyone who hasn't taken such a physical journey, but who may have "found God" so to speak, by means of witnessing a true Miracle (when God makes the impossible or highly probable, possible) or otherwise having a "divine" intervention (near-death experience, out-of-body experience, encounter with an Angel, etc.)

You've also discounted anyone who bases their faith not on 2nd hand smoke, but on 1st hand knowledge. Someone (Catholics mainly), for instance, whose read scripture (new and old) and catechism and can deduce logically and historically that there is a God, that he sent his only son to Earth to die for our sins, etc etc.

If not...

Then could you clarify for me why religious beliefs are necessarily the result of ignorance and/or self-comforting? That's certainly true of a great many people, I won't deny that. But not all people. For every person you have whose intellect cannot afford them the chance to question if God exists, and to fill in the seemingly mystical gaps or trying times in their life, you have one or even two who not only question his existence, but his motives as well:

"I don't believe in God, but I'm afraid of Him."

"I absolutely believe in God. And I absolutely hate the ****er."

 

[Ajna]

Yah it did get lock... Well I'm glad you posted it here, cause I wanted to give you a chance to resolve this contradiction for me (yellow vs lime). Now unless I'm misreading you have basically said that religious beliefs are a weakness, unless one has a personal spiritual journey. Is this correct?

If so...

My problem with this is you've basically discounted anyone who cannot take a pilgrimage to Jerusalem, Mecca, Tibet, McDonald's (oh, yeah that's another problem, highly subjective it is this ... spiritual journey of which you speak), wherever. You've also simultaneously discounted anyone who hasn't taken such a physical journey, but who may have "found God" so to speak, by means of witnessing a true Miracle (when God makes the impossible or highly probable, possible) or otherwise having a "divine" intervention (near-death experience, out-of-body experience, encounter with an Angel, etc.)

You've also discounted anyone who bases their faith not on 2nd hand smoke, but on 1st hand knowledge. Someone (Catholics mainly), for instance, whose read scripture (new and old) and catechism and can deduce logically and historically that there is a God, that he sent his only son to Earth to die for our sins, etc etc.

If not...

Then could you clarify for me why religious beliefs are necessarily the result of ignorance and/or self-comforting? That's certainly true of a great many people, I won't deny that. But not all people. For every person you have whose intellect cannot afford them the chance to question if God exists, and to fill in the seemingly mystical gaps or trying times in their life, you have one or even two who not only question his existence, but his motives as well:

"I don't believe in God, but I'm afraid of Him."

"I absolutely believe in God. And I absolutely hate the ****er."

I am equally glad that you found the new thread and decided to post! as I wanted to reply to your competent question in PRoom but could not. so anyway...

I think your initial summary of what my point is, is somewhat limiting in comparison to my argument... but that is my fault alone, partially for making such a broad topic and perhaps partially for a poor choice of words in "spiritual journey".

Now to clarify my intention by being a little more direct.
For one thing, I was not speaking of a physical journey by any means... as your initial rebuttal was inquiring about those who did not have the means to make a physical pilgrimage to wherever.... this is of no consequence. The "journey" takes place in your own mind, through the simple act of not allowing there to be taboo questions in your thought processes, and begin chipping away at the mountain of thought ahead of you with a hammer and chisel.

Now when your talking about divine intervention as a means of a religious epiphany, I believe we have a perfect example of what I am trying to say. Ponder on this:
You are sitting in a room, only you are in the room... drinking a glass of water.
The glass of water suddenly floats into the air for a second and flies across the room... shattering against the wall... with no interaction from you , or any other physical force.

Now we have a situation where there is no logical explanation of what happened... and no evidence to deduce what could have happened.
I think it would be safe to say that the average person, would initially come to the conclusion that there was some kind of paranormal interference.... basically a ghost.

HOWEVER, you DONT know it was a ghost... so this persons claim that it is would be completely foundation-less... based on the limited information that their experiences and perception have lent them.
Literally anything could have made that glass fly across the room. The possibilities are not limited to things that either one of us could even imagine on our most creative days... but the moment itself is unnerving, and that unresolved situation in this persons mind is put at ease to some degree by claiming it was a ghost.

Now before i risk digressing, if you haven't already drawn this parallel, this directly applies to claims of divine intervention. If a man has an out of the ordinary experience, he can try to relate it to divine intervention, because that's the only thing he could perceive it as... and he struggles to control the otherwise chaotic situation in his mind.

While I would be perplexed as the next person by the glass situation, and equally perplexed by anything happening in my life that the average person would identify as divine intervention... I would not attempt to make it tangible so I can understand by claiming it was anything at all... I can accept that there are things I am incapable of perceiving or understanding.
When you begin these kind of control-relinquishing thoughts, it gives you what I see as a much stronger intensity of peace.. because its unfalsifiable.
Example: I do not fear death, even though I have no opinions on what happens when I die. The reason for this is that, regardless of what I believe or dont believe... i WILL die, and the events that take place (or lack there of) will happen regardless of how many of my eggs i put in any basket. Death is part of life, and fearing it is foolish.
Now.. comming to that conclusion.. think of the peace of mind that brings. I simply accept what i can understand and do not struggle to understand what is beyond my perception at this point. The alternative is pouring your heart into something that you could never know because its emotionally easier to believe it to be so. like you and your love ones going to paradise after death.


I think its a really huge stretch to say that Catholics (or anyone) can logically or historically prove that there is a god. However, I welcome you to debate this point further if you wish.. because I do not see how this claim has any clout.

Regardless of your relationship with god, to believe without a shadow of a doubt that he exists, or that it is impossible for him to exist I believe is equally illogical. You cannot know such things either way.

 

[Dre89]

TC you're assuming people just believe something for convenience's sake, which is not true (although some people do that).

People believe in things because they find them logical, feeling that a belief in such faith is well-founded. This is the reason why Catholics are not Muslims, and why atheists are not Jews, is because they have reason to believe in that particular faith.

Also, yes whilst several claims of spiritual phenomena are most likely dellusions or lies, there are some that could not have been mere dellusion, for some exhibitied information the witness didn't already know, such as having someone speak to them in another language, or having psychics speak of dead relatives without the customer saying a single word to them at all etc. Also, other experiences have just simply extended beyond normal bodily capablities, such as having an 'out-of body-experience' and attaining a visual perception from above your body, looking down on your head and rest of your body. What this stuff proves is that there is more to the world than just nature.

You're basically a subjectivist, a skeptic or a nilhist. The problem is you contradict yourself. In saying that we can't know anything, you're saying that you know we can't know everything, which is contradictory. You're saying there are no objective truths, except for the objective truth that there are none.

The problem is, you're using reason to say that using reason to attain faith is unreasonable, which itself is a faith. You cannot escape faith, any application of reason while subsequently employ faith, for faith is needed to trust in one's reason.

The reality is that there is truth in the world. Ask yourself whether God exists or not, it's a yes or no answer, meaning only one of them can be true. The fact that the potential of humans is limited means that our reality is also limited, which gives it a solid, true form.

Basically, the whole 'everything is subjective' argument and 'there are no truths' is conflicted by the fact that reality is objective.

Humans, like every other being, have a certain structure, or form. This form is essentially our essence, it is a combinaation of our attributes, and emasures what is good and bad for us.

Animals have a different form to humans, which is why it is natural, and perfectly fine for them to predate other animals, yet for us to kill another human is wrong, because we are failing to fulfil our function as humans. In this way, we acknowledge that there is some form of objective morality. Humans are also reliant on logic, it's just how we are intrinsically, without logic we would not have progressed as a species. As a result, it is the objective of humans to use reason, and perhaps emotion and intrinsic instinct to determine what the truth is.

Also, the way you speak of it, sayings thing such as people having faith because it makes things easier, or comforts them after a death, only really relates to simple-minded people off the street who aren't really educated at all in these issues. Those reasons for faith are not well-founded, and others who believe in some objective truth will be the first to tell you they are foolish for having a faith for those reasons.

I don't mean to sound elitist, but I think DHers, and probably even most PGers (not sure, haven't been here long enough) are beyond that level of thinking where they just believe something for convenience's sake.

If you genuinely believed that the reasons you mentioned were the reasons people had faith, or that that was the intellectual peak pro-faith thought, I suggest you perhaps read some works by theologians or theistic philosophers before you make such broad, sweeping statements.

It's a very interesting topic though, so good luck trying to get into the DH.

 

[Ajna]

People believe in things because they find them logical, feeling that a belief in such faith is well-founded. This is the reason why Catholics are not Muslims, and why atheists are not Jews, is because they have reason to believe in that particular faith.

Have you ever seen the popular mechanics refute of 9/11 conspiracy? they claim that the conspiracy minded person already has a belief, and struggles to build a case around what he/she believes rather than look at an entire body of knowledge and facts and make their opinion based on that. I believe the same applies here.
Lets say i grow up Catholic. I reach a certain point in my life where I begin asking lots of questions. Instead of genuinely giving the possibility that everything Ive been told and everything i believe is a lie a true day in court... I struggle to find reasons to legitimize my original beliefs. multiply this by centuries and centuries.

Also, yes whilst several claims of spiritual phenomena are most likely dellusions or lies, there are some that could not have been mere dellusion, for some exhibitied information the witness didn't already know, such as having someone speak to them in another language, or having psychics speak of dead relatives without the customer saying a single word to them at all etc. Also, other experiences have just simply extended beyond normal bodily capablities, such as having an 'out-of body-experience' and attaining a visual perception from above your body, looking down on your head and rest of your body. What this stuff proves is that there is more to the world than just nature.

This is something that Ive already spoken about.
I agree that these things loosely prove there is more to the world than we currently comprehend. Though there are better tangible examples of this, such as the potential infinite nature of space.
The flaw I see in the reasoning that someone has an out of body experience and directly claims interference from god, is the immediate calling out of god. You know that it was god about as much that you know it was an alien.

You're basically a subjectivist, a skeptic or a nilhist. The problem is you contradict yourself. In saying that we can't know anything, you're saying that you know we can't know everything, which is contradictory. You're saying there are no objective truths, except for the objective truth that there are none.

And your basically what you are denying to be, which is an elitist from what I have read. you find yourself above the common man, and make claims that there is greater knowledge out there that has not been touched upon in this thread. I do not doubt this, however you have not brought any of these arguments to the table, you simply state that they exist.

I am claiming that objective reality is perceived. once you go beyond the world of this perceived objective reality, all you can do is try to relate it to experiences you've had in your objective reality or create a subjective opinion. Any claim that you make you know "for sure" at this point in the experience to me is presumptuous.

The problem is, you're using reason to say that using reason to attain faith is unreasonable, which itself is a faith. You cannot escape faith, any application of reason while subsequently employ faith, for faith is needed to trust in one's reason.

Well stated. I cannot deny that I am placing faith in a lack of faith in any one idea. However, I believe that the agnostic belief is the only tangible unfalsifiable faith to have, because I am accepting that there are things beyond my reach of knowledge, instead of assuming I know for sure what is beyond our perceived objective reality.

The reality is that there is truth in the world. Ask yourself whether God exists or not, it's a yes or no answer, meaning only one of them can be true. The fact that the potential of humans is limited means that our reality is also limited, which gives it a solid, true form.

Basically, the whole 'everything is subjective' argument and 'there are no truths' is conflicted by the fact that reality is objective.

Those are some extremely bold claims.
But basically you are saying... if a tree falls in the woods and there is no one there to hear it... it doesn't make a sound? and you know this for sure?
That sounds very humanist to me. The limitations of human perception only solidifies our idea of reality. It does not define all of reality. Quantum physics has "proven" that right where you are sitting right now, there are almost an infinite amount of things going on in that very spot that you could never perceive or understand.
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/27640
Try to picture a color that you've never seen before.... you cant, to my knowledge its impossible. but does that mean that no other colors exist that you cant perceive?

Also, the way you speak of it, sayings thing such as people having faith because it makes things easier, or comforts them after a death, only really relates to simple-minded people off the street who aren't really educated at all in these issues. Those reasons for faith are not well-founded, and others who believe in some objective truth will be the first to tell you they are foolish for having a faith for those reasons.

I don't mean to sound elitist, but I think DHers, and probably even most PGers (not sure, haven't been here long enough) are beyond that level of thinking where they just believe something for convenience's sake.

I do not doubt that several people, including yourself have more founded reasons in your faith than has currently been expressed. However, that is the issue in and of itself.

If we are in the realm of opinion and objective reality, simply saying "Aristotle thinks blah blah blah" is no more evidence than me making my "broad sweeping statements" to the opposite effect. If you believe there is a firm and well founded argument to have faith in a specific creed, then by all means, enlighten me, and we can move from there.

It's a very interesting topic though, so good luck trying to get into the DH.

And you are a competent opponent, so good luck to you as well.

 

[KrazyGlue]

Well i believe its possible you may be confusing religion and spirituality.
I dont believe that the terms are interchangeable. Religion is a set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a group of people. Whether the religion is ancient or if it was made yesterday and only contains a group of 3 people... It is still defined and has box whether the practitioners choose to acknowledge that box or not.

Actually, religion is rarely defined as having to be a group.

1 a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

No mention of groups here. I'm sure you can find it defined in the way you're describing, but the point here is a religion doesn't have to be a group.

The reason i chose the specific topics I chose in the OP was not to limit this debate to those topics, but to give examples (a few drops in the ocean of farce) of how people use organized religion as a mental crutch.
That being said, even if we were to use the term religion more broadly, and put everyone's individual spiritual beliefs into the category of personalized religions... you could falsify and pretty much shatter the foundation of any one defined belief.
We cant know anything for sure..

Actually, some people have very strong beliefs and feel they are sure that God exists. And who are we to tell them that it's a mental weakness?

Perhaps what im trying to say, is having a generally "agnostic" mind-set is the only logical approach to the big questions. The firm stance of "I dont know, and you don't either".

It seems to the analytical mind, most roads would end up there. Because regardless of how poignant your questions are to yourself, you will undoubtedly eventually hit a brick wall, the limitations of the human perspective. If there is an exception, I would challenge the readers of this post to enlighten me to their existence.

additionally, you claimed that if everyone was forced to choose a religion, that my original point would be correct. However, my argument is generally geared toward either those who have already chosen a religion... or have never truly explored their own feelings and thoughts about spiritual subjects- not against anyone who doesn't believe exactly as I do.

Again, we can't force people to have an agnostic mindset. I agree that people should think of their own spirituality and decide individually what they believe or don't believe in. However, if they really consider their own spirituality and they honestly have beliefs that coincide with a religion, then it's not a mental weakness.

 

[Sucumbio]

The "journey" takes place in your own mind, through the simple act of not allowing there to be taboo questions in your thought processes, and begin chipping away at the mountain of thought ahead of you with a hammer and chisel.

Ok, well that's also what I was referring to. Physical or mental, the journey of spirituality (which you are taking a fairly Zen approach yourself) is met by countless individuals. It manifests itself in ways that CAN come to the conclusions you've made. But it may also be present in say, a Priest. Or even a member of a Congregation. Also it should be noted that all life is perception, technically. Even our existence, is a perception of existence, not existence itself.

Now when your talking about divine intervention as a means of a religious epiphany, I believe we have a perfect example of what I am trying to say.

I thought as much, this would be why I brought it up.

Ponder on this:
You are sitting in a room, only you are in the room... drinking a glass of water.
The glass of water suddenly floats into the air for a second and flies across the room... shattering against the wall... with no interaction from you , or any other physical force.

Now we have a situation where there is no logical explanation of what happened... and no evidence to deduce what could have happened.
I think it would be safe to say that the average person, would initially come to the conclusion that there was some kind of paranormal interference.... basically a ghost.

HOWEVER, you DONT know it was a ghost... so this persons claim that it is would be completely foundation-less... based on the limited information that their experiences and perception have lent them.
Literally anything could have made that glass fly across the room. The possibilities are not limited to things that either one of us could even imagine on our most creative days... but the moment itself is unnerving, and that unresolved situation in this persons mind is put at ease to some degree by claiming it was a ghost.

If the glass had no physical force applied to it, it wouldn't have moved, lol. If it had no PERCEIVABLE physical force applied to it, then we can continue.

True, we don't know it was a ghost. It might have been a microfiber string tied around it that you hadn't felt and someone in the other room yanking it away from you. That's up to the individual, however. Besides, someone who needs to see miracles to believe, isn't a true believer are they? The whole point of faith-based religion is in the Question, not in the Answer.

So yes, if you wish to charge that anyone who relies on "miracles" to substantiate their Faith as being weak-minded, I agree! But this isn't ALL religions, including atheists, as your OP speculated.

When you begin these kind of control-relinquishing thoughts, it gives you what I see as a much stronger intensity of peace.. because its unfalsifiable.

Again this is a Zen belief. Your OP stated 'all religions' so you're either also saying you yourself are weak-minded, or you're saying that zen Buddhism is better than any other religion including atheism. Which is it?

Example: I do not fear death, even though I have no opinions on what happens when I die. The reason for this is that, regardless of what I believe or dont believe... i WILL die, and the events that take place (or lack there of) will happen regardless of how many of my eggs i put in any basket. Death is part of life, and fearing it is foolish.
Now.. comming to that conclusion.. think of the peace of mind that brings. I simply accept what i can understand and do not struggle to understand what is beyond my perception at this point. The alternative is pouring your heart into something that you could never know because its emotionally easier to believe it to be so. like you and your love ones going to paradise after death.

You cite this as an example of your zen belief. I cite it as an example of you being a sociopath. Who's to say either of us are wrong? You indeed do not fear death. However Religion oftentimes provides us with an end to our means. Of course we'll all die eventually. The point isn't that it is inevitable, so it doesn't matter. The point in religions (Buddhism also) is that leading a GOOD life (and there's the rub - morals, bah!) before you die is IMPORTANT.

Why? Depends on your religion. All of 'em. Even atheists!

You, however have conveniently removed yourself from that responsibility. By your account you could commit mass genocide, and it still wouldn't really matter, because you'll die anyway (as were they also so destined), with no consequences for your actions. "Well I fear what would happen to me during my life, jail, death penalty, etc." Yeah, sure, if you're caught! Religion provides a -moral- check on us lame-brained humans to do the right thing, constantly, and for our entire lives. True one can argue that there's an inherent "fellow feeling" inside, a moral center in the brain that determines right from wrong. But it's on instinctual, it only accounts for a handful of situations. Regions account for all the rest that our intellect brings by complicating the much baser instincts we're born with.

I think its a really huge stretch to say that Catholics (or anyone) can logically or historically prove that there is a god. However, I welcome you to debate this point further if you wish.. because I do not see how this claim has any clout.

It's totally a huge stretch, which is why faith is important to most religions. Regardless of how much proof can be generated you still have to decide to either believe in it, or write it off as happenstance and coincidence. Poor accounting. False documents. Etc. I -choose- to believe because honestly? I don't wanna ever be wrong on something like that, lol. It's just as peaceful for me to believe as it is for someone to not care.

Regardless of your relationship with god, to believe without a shadow of a doubt that he exists, or that it is impossible for him to exist I believe is equally illogical. You cannot know such things either way.

That's what Faith is! Of course we can't know beyond a shadow of a doubt. Any doubt one has, is cast aside because of faith. You've cast your doubts aside, because of faith. You have faith in your own intellect to afford you a clean outlook on life regardless of how bizarre or treacherous it may be. Faith exists, my friend, and I believe your thesis is an attempt to equate Faith, with Weak mindedness. But as we can see, even the strongest of minds, of which you appear to be calling yourself, still employ faith. To consider them opposites is to not understand the meaning of the word.

 

[Ajna]

It's totally a huge stretch, which is why faith is important to most religions. Regardless of how much proof can be generated you still have to decide to either believe in it, or write it off as happenstance and coincidence. Poor accounting. False documents. Etc. I -choose- to believe because honestly? I don't wanna ever be wrong on something like that, lol. It's just as peaceful for me to believe as it is for someone to not care.

That's what Faith is! Of course we can't know beyond a shadow of a doubt. Any doubt one has, is cast aside because of faith. You've cast your doubts aside, because of faith. You have faith in your own intellect to afford you a clean outlook on life regardless of how bizarre or treacherous it may be. Faith exists, my friend, and I believe your thesis is an attempt to equate Faith, with Weak mindedness. But as we can see, even the strongest of minds, of which you appear to be calling yourself, still employ faith. To consider them opposites is to not understand the meaning of the word.

I believe this is a flawless argument against my claims.
It is undeniable that many have faith for foolish reasons, but faith is not based in logic, its more of an emotion- and i firmly believe that while we should question our impulses- it is wrong to completely ignore an emotion.. there is too much gray area to call ALL faith a result of weak mindedness.

 

[RDK]

Succumbio, atheism is not a religion.

 

[Sucumbio]

I propose that ALL religious beliefs- including atheism

Succumbio, atheism is not a religion.

I know that, RDK, but I didn't feel compelled to point that out. Besides, he's calling out all religions -and- atheists as being weak minded because of their reliance on Faith (even atheists have to have "faith" that there is no god.)

defined - a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

So yeah, I had tucked that one away just in case I needed it for later...

I believe this is a flawless argument against my claims.

Apparently I don't.

 

[Dre89]

RDK atheism is widely considered a religion now, not by everyone, and it's not an indisputable fact by any means, but there are good premises for the conlcusion. Whether atheism is a religion or not is not really important to me so I'm not gonna bother defend either side, I just don't really like when people state claims as if they're indisputable fact.

And your basically what you are denying to be, which is an elitist from what I have read. you find yourself above the common man, and make claims that there is greater knowledge out there that has not been touched upon in this thread. I do not doubt this, however you have not brought any of these arguments to the table, you simply state that they exist.

I'm not an elitist, I do not claim to be above the common man, I do not claim to be intellectually superior to anyone here, and I do not claim that my theories/beliefs are indisputable fact.

What I was trying to get at was that you were straw manning the reasons why people had certain beliefs, in both this thread and in the humanism one as well.

Also, If I ever say that this board is not the at the summit of the intellectual 'metagame', as a group of young undergraduates understandably never would be, I'm not saying that I actually am at the summit. The wisest thing I've done is acknowledge my own limitations and ignorance.

I couldn't really be bothered debating your other claims, I just felt it necessary to counter your inaccurate claims of my character, I apologise if I sounded like an elitist.

 

[RDK]

RDK atheism is widely considered a religion now, not by everyone, and it's not an indisputable fact by any means, but there are good premises for the conlcusion. Whether atheism is a religion or not is not really important to me so I'm not gonna bother defend either side, I just don't really like when people state claims as if they're indisputable fact.

Whether or not atheism is a religion is not a matter of opinion; it is one of fact. By definition atheism is not religion.

Atheism; a. disbelief in the existence of a deity

Obviously there are strong and weak forms of atheism, but this is the basic premise of the concept.

Widespread opinion does not have any influence on facts. Are you arguing that if enough people believe gravity pushes objects up instead of pulling them down, then it must be true?

 

[Eor]

[

Widespread opinion does not have any influence on facts. Are you arguing that if enough people believe gravity pushes objects up instead of pulling them down, then it must be true?

Gravity can push objects "up"

 

[RDK]

Gravity can push objects "up"

Depends on which way is "up".

 

[Bomber7]

Interesting topic. Looked at alot of good counterpoints and this is what I think.

One thing I honestly believe about Religion, no matter what religion it is, you can't prove/disprove it with reason yet you have shown with respectable effort to use your reason to disprove such beliefs by certain immature comments. When you get right down to its roots, I guess you could say it's metaphysical beyond explanation. There's a reason why beliefs are beliefs; they are just values to an individual, it is almost like a philosophy only it is not a way of thinking, it's more of a way of life.

 

[Dre89]

Whether or not atheism is a religion is not a matter of opinion; it is one of fact. By definition atheism is not religion.



Obviously there are strong and weak forms of atheism, but this is the basic premise of the concept.

Widespread opinion does not have any influence on facts. Are you arguing that if enough people believe gravity pushes objects up instead of pulling them down, then it must be true?

The theory that atheism is a religion is based on the theory that faith and reason are the same, or at least heavily intertwined.

It has nothing to do with the the specific belief.

 

[Sucumbio]

heh, ok I see what you're saying, Dre, but lets change the wording a bit.

The idea that Atheism is -like- a Religion is evident by the concept that Faith and Reason are heavily intertwined.

Now, that can be argued. Before it would have been impossible because you were saying apples are oranges, lol no offense. Definitively speaking, Atheism is NOT a Religion, it's technically the exact opposite.

That said, there is very little difference between an atheist and a believer, except what it is they focus on as being "the truth." Other than that, they both proceed along the same lines of belief. They both require Faith, because God can neither be proved, nor disproved, by anyone. They both assemble, one in churches, the other in consortium. They both have laws as well, the scientific method vs the ten commandments, for example. These parallels have often been used to draw a negative connotation against atheists as having "replaced" God with Science, or that Science is the "new" God. Christians will further use this to say that Science is a False Prophet, and should be outright ignored, banned, etc. Fortunately, the Catholics of whom Christianity's true roots lay, have indeed embraced Science as being of utmost importance in the dedication to their Faith. They use Science to authenticate "miracles" for instance, because without this, the world will be rampant with fakes. The Church -has- used science to prove a miracle. Bleeding Eucharists for example, WEIRD STUFF!

So yeah, it's a bad argument to try to paint them on opposite sides. In point of fact, they both belong to the same side, which is they both know and don't know a lot of things. They simply use different methods to understand what they don't know, and either is just as effective, or ineffective as the case may be.