Religion: why you believe what you believe, and how can you prove it.

**crazyhazey** · 06-02-2012, 10:24 AM

Originally Posted by Dr.J20

crazyhazy, while you make some points in your op that are indisputable empirically, i think they're are some flaws in logic.

while there are many people who claim to "know" what God wants us to do based on reading what are some very old texts, indeed, this does not mean that those books were necessarily written for that purpose. Nor is it of any value (for argument's sake) that these religious texts are very old.

In my opinion, the purpose of the religious text is to provide a space for spiritual meditation or the contemplative pose. By and large, the world's religions preach similar primary messages: Love each other, take care of each other, and be happy. Many eastern religions focus this through the lens of divesting yourself of desire which, in western terms, means getting away from materialism. If one reads these texts--the vedas, the upanishads, the mahabarata, the bhagvad-gita, the bible (in all its incarnations), the tora and talmud, the koran, the writings of great religious leaders and philosophers--it can offer great instruction on how to approach, how to formulate and maintain, an existence in which love, peace, justice, and happiness are maximal.

I agree that many institutionalizations of these messages have fallen to the corruption which always becomes possible when power structures are invested in those institutions. what this means, i think, in short response to your op, is that the problem is not with the religion itself, but with the churches, mosques, temples, etc.

I think there is an instructive Buddhist vis-a-vis Hindu principle that you will find enlightening and agreeable: Do not believe anything that does not make sense to you. or, contrariwise, believe only that which makes sense to you.

NOW, the whole bit of searching for proof in all this, well, you will never find that. there is no proof. that is why these become matters of faith and debate. We can sit on and argue endlessly about the merits of rationale, emotion, spirituality; we can go back and forth on moral conundra forever; we can approach philosophical questions from diverse vantage points and still resolve nothing. Thats, in my suspicion, part of the fun of being a human being. God, or whatever you want to call the primordial force of the universe, had a pretty good sense of humor when he started the evolution of man on earth: now there's a whole big faction of our species that does nothing but sit around and argue about what our purpose in existence is when it has never changed: be happy.

my two cents

be easy

im glad you can look at religion from a moral stand point, but by cherry picking these books and through different interpretations, its as if theres no right way to be a religion, so if you cherry pick a religion, are you truly that? i mean, if you completely follow a book this means you follow every last bit of it. i do have a problem with the institutions these churches put up, and by the scamming and corruption that takes place, i just wish people didnt look at it blindly and think about 10% of their salary going towards "a good cause", which is probably the priests wallet. not to mention, they preach how men are sinners, yet how is someone to judge whos a sinner if they are human. and ironically, these priests end up committing some sick things, i dont even have to mention what priests do, doesnt that mean anything? if you ask me thats just proof that making someone the leader of "judging" whos a sinner will only drive these people to be the thing he preaches against everyday. yes, religions may hold some knowledge about the spirit and all that, but much of the flawed info was never corrected, some still disregard science, thats the problem. i do agree with the idea that you shouldnt accept anything you dont believe, but much of the things in these books are just common sense. these lessons can be taught to you without having to search through opinionated texts, many of which go against the very laws of nature(evolution especially). and imagine how far ahead we would be without religious restriction on stem cell research, or abortion. dont get me wrong, abortion is a horrible thing, but is it better to raise a foster child who may have mental/physical health problems from not being properly reared by parents? if those who cant support a child want to get an abortion, the government has no right to step in and tell women what to do with something that is being created inside your body. not to mention fetuses and umbilical cords could be used to repair almost any tissue, im talking blind people being able to see again, paraplegics could possibly make some sort of recovery too with stem cells, yet we stand by and throw away these valuable cells since its blasphemy, but would "god" rather have sick people live again at the cost of a few stem cells, or save a baby that may never have a proper childhood. religion holds too much power, it shouldnt interfere with government matters, or better yet private matter like what a woman wants to do with her womb.

i will admit, you may find a good piece of advice, but really, why couldnt you just go out into the world and learn these things first hand, or better yet look at a book from this century? we've advanced as a species, we're much smarter than we were all those years ago. it sounds stupid, but the only way christians would get my support would be a new new testament, one that would actually prove useful during our age, and maybe no(or less) lies this time, and they should also pay taxes since their property could be supporting our government, rather they take the loop hole and pocket whatever they're not spending on "church missions" or "donations". saying your a religion restricts you from believe outside knowledge if you truly only believe that book, and lets get this straight, all those books dont teach all the lessons to life. they should be learned hands on, with an open mind, or possibly found in a book that is non-fiction.

and yeah, we can always debate faith, until those who say they have faith(remember, jesus said nobody truly has faith, if anyone had a grain of faith it could "move a mountain", christians even accept this, idk how they interpret it but i dont think they're taking it how they should) finally admit that they just dont want to do research and find the facts of life, theyd rather sit in a corner, read their fairy tales, and hope to get all the answer you would get by actually reading something useful or getting out into the world. also, another huge problem i have with religion is the idea of prayer, give me a fuckin break thats blatant laziness and we all know it, if you wanna go help someone go do it you lazy religious fatasses. and stop thanking god for the food at your table, if your "god" was providing the food everyone in the world should be eating.

if there is truly a god, which i dont believe(but i do believe our galaxy does have some complex secrets to it, the recent discoveries with orions belt have blown my mind), he certainly does have a sense of humor. he can just sit back while people kill each other over which "form" of him they believe, they cant just side their argument and accept their religion is just another knockoff. most of it originated from hinduism, im sure an educated person such as yourself notices the similarities in all these books, its just different names and slightly different stories.

**Dr.J20** · 06-02-2012, 10:52 AM

Alright, I'm sure you consider yourself very educated, correct? It sounds as though you have some educational background, and you offer many of the stock arguments: "How could God really be there? all these people killing in his name? and he does nothing?"
Yet, earlier in your post you clearly identify that priests (human beings) contort and pervert what good there is in their "religion." Now there's some troubling conflation taking place throughout where Catholicism and Christians are being generalized. This is problematic. As is presuming that a religion is the same thing as a religious text. Where in the bible does a hierarchy every get expilcitly established for the catholic church? (i'm sticking with christianity from here on out, since this seems to be where your bone to pick with God originates).

What's confusing is that you use the fact that man is corruptible as proof that God doesn't exist? Perhaps all of this killing and hatred comes from man's hatred and fear of change, his troubling egoism, and a latent fear of the Other (call it a metaphysical xenophobia).

What merit is there in stepping in and saving people over and over? They never learn when you do that. We are very frail and insecure species at this point in our history. These religious texts all hit upon the fact that by divesting ourselves of judgment, desires, seeking personal power, we can cultivate a happy, free, peaceful existence. God is a human word for a force that started it all. You can go back in time and history to a point before earth even existed, but you can't pre-date existence itself. So when you remove time all that you have left is cosmic energy that has always existed and will always exist: that's God.

Now, to move on to the statement that you can just learn from living: this is true but only true because books provide a way for knowledge to be passed on indefinitely: we need all kinds of books, including ones which discuss our metaphysical nature(s), if only for fodder to contemplate and argue against. You see, you have articulations with these religions you reject: how could you reject them without their existence and knowing something of them?

I do believe there is a sense of arrogance in someone who thinks that God sees killing the same way we do, and so supposes God doesn't exist. God is inevitably of stronger spirit and will than you, He also sees a much bigger picture than you do, and who knows, maybe all the innocent slaughtered are rewarded once their state of existence changes/passes through life? Your presumption is grand but as contradictory as the religions you lambast. It seems like you say science will reveal all of the facts of existence, essentially demystifying reality, but ask any real scientist and you'll find that the ultimate limits of science provoke some of the greatest leaps of faith.

I agree there are a lot of people who don't know and don't care to know about themselves and what they believe. Your grievance about cherry picking, however, is a little epistemologically puerile. Do you really suppose that a God who created a world which only thrives through adaptability and diversity really expects there to be only ONE right answer to how to live your life? Again, religions are, IDEALLY, for the purpose of providing a guide for achieving that peaceful happy existence. The problem is when man becomes extremely power crazed and fearful--in that metaphysically xenophobic way--and starts repressing logically harmless, amoral activity (AMORAL NOT IMMORAL).

In short, following the spirit of a religion is not cherry picking and does not invalidate anything. A religion is a group of people who declare that they share a set of beliefs which will offer the best, most peaceful, happiest life to everyone. to some extent even atheism is a religion.

be easy

**Dr.J20** · 06-02-2012, 11:03 AM

Also, it seems as though you're misinterpreting some of my writing...churches themselves are institutions, not the charities they set up...which are also institutional in nature but somewhat more of an organized bureaucracy...

i doubt i'm gonna convince you of anything, i'm not trying to argue and i'm honestly too baked to do this right now..i just reread what i posted and its not even worth trying to go back and edit...

if you believe there are some kind of cosmic mysteries you believe in some form of a metaphysical "god" figure and therefore are arguing semantically---you just don't like the word God

and i take extreme umbrage at the notion fiction has nothing to teach: what about poetry, drama, painting, sculpture, architecture, gardening, indeed any aesthetic communique, or anything aesthetically crafted whatsoever? can't learn anything from them either?
i mean the idea that only non-fiction books are of any epistemological value is just asinine.
be easy

**crazyhazey** · 06-02-2012, 11:35 AM

Originally Posted by Dr.J20

Alright, I'm sure you consider yourself very educated, correct? It sounds as though you have some educational background, and you offer many of the stock arguments: "How could God really be there? all these people killing in his name? and he does nothing?"
Yet, earlier in your post you clearly identify that priests (human beings) contort and pervert what good there is in their "religion." Now there's some troubling conflation taking place throughout where Catholicism and Christians are being generalized. This is problematic. As is presuming that a religion is the same thing as a religious text. Where in the bible does a hierarchy every get expilcitly established for the catholic church? (i'm sticking with christianity from here on out, since this seems to be where your bone to pick with God originates).

What's confusing is that you use the fact that man is corruptible as proof that God doesn't exist? Perhaps all of this killing and hatred comes from man's hatred and fear of change, his troubling egoism, and a latent fear of the Other (call it a metaphysical xenophobia).

What merit is there in stepping in and saving people over and over? They never learn when you do that. We are very frail and insecure species at this point in our history. These religious texts all hit upon the fact that by divesting ourselves of judgment, desires, seeking personal power, we can cultivate a happy, free, peaceful existence. God is a human word for a force that started it all. You can go back in time and history to a point before earth even existed, but you can't pre-date existence itself. So when you remove time all that you have left is cosmic energy that has always existed and will always exist: that's God.

Now, to move on to the statement that you can just learn from living: this is true but only true because books provide a way for knowledge to be passed on indefinitely: we need all kinds of books, including ones which discuss our metaphysical nature(s), if only for fodder to contemplate and argue against. You see, you have articulations with these religions you reject: how could you reject them without their existence and knowing something of them?

I do believe there is a sense of arrogance in someone who thinks that God sees killing the same way we do, and so supposes God doesn't exist. God is inevitably of stronger spirit and will than you, He also sees a much bigger picture than you do, and who knows, maybe all the innocent slaughtered are rewarded once their state of existence changes/passes through life? Your presumption is grand but as contradictory as the religions you lambast. It seems like you say science will reveal all of the facts of existence, essentially demystifying reality, but ask any real scientist and you'll find that the ultimate limits of science provoke some of the greatest leaps of faith.

I agree there are a lot of people who don't know and don't care to know about themselves and what they believe. Your grievance about cherry picking, however, is a little epistemologically puerile. Do you really suppose that a God who created a world which only thrives through adaptability and diversity really expects there to be only ONE right answer to how to live your life? Again, religions are, IDEALLY, for the purpose of providing a guide for achieving that peaceful happy existence. The problem is when man becomes extremely power crazed and fearful--in that metaphysically xenophobic way--and starts repressing logically harmless, amoral activity (AMORAL NOT IMMORAL).

In short, following the spirit of a religion is not cherry picking and does not invalidate anything. A religion is a group of people who declare that they share a set of beliefs which will offer the best, most peaceful, happiest life to everyone. to some extent even atheism is a religion.

be easy

im somewhat of a humble person, so i dont consider myself to be really anything, im just a human making observations. its not that im mad with christians/catholics either, just the ignorance of most religious people and how they let their beliefs effect the world we live in. our government is strongly christian/catholic also, im sorry if i use them as examples but they are the epitome of a flawed religion. and im not exactly saying god doesnt exist due to human atrocities, but think about this... if he "created" us, then he knows this is going to happen, he knows we are going to suffer, argue about his existance, and kill each other for not believing. he realizes we are all going to suffer due to some peoples need to be reliant on something, religion usually acts as a crutch for most, or out of fear they join. and i dont read much of the bible but i dont know if hierarchy of the church was ever discussed, better yet i dont think jesus would have wanted a church, he didnt want people to wear crosses either but people do this all the time. (sorry if some of this seems a bit unorganized, im really tired and im probably going to bed after this post, so dont take everything i say here into account until i can justify it tomorrow when im not half asleep.)

im not saying that god doesnt exist because man is corrupt, but rather because he stands by while his "children" kill one another over nothing, i agree that the atrocities committed by man are cause by fear and ego as well so we're on the same page here.

your definition of god is the only one that has made sense so far, i was talking about orions belt earlier because it reminds me of some sort of cosmic "god" or creator of some sort. im not saying there isnt an ultimate creator, of course there is, but the god im saying is not real is the one that you pray to, or the one you thank your food for, that was what i was trying to say earlier. and i dont expect god to come down and lend a hand, but its as if many rely on "him" to make their decisions, you may as well ask god to untie you from train tracks. idk if all religious texts follow that either, if we're talking about christianity still i dont believe that to be true, christians tell you to ask for forgiveness in hopes to stay away from a burning pit of fire, if thats not old school way traumatize children with an extensive imagination, idk what is. some religions do want us to be happy, and not worry about any after life. most eastern religions have this sort of characteristic, and they're more a way of life if anything.

i believe some literature is beneficial, others may leave your mind ridden with all sort of false knowledge, one of the other reasons i find religious texts to be a bad source of knowledge. yes, there will be facts in there, i dont think all religious texts are completely the same but most(except most of the eastern religions of course) dont give you much more than common sense and a few fictional stories that are supposed to teach you morals. yes,i reject these religions, as should many who believe the facts of life that make these texts false, had they not existed, our world would be much less segregated, jerusalem would be peaceful... hell we may have not even separated into different countries. this thread would not exist either, and possibly plenty of wars could have been avoided.

once again, its not the idea of god i reject, its the form of god that religions explain. i dont think god is a he or she, i dont think its a being at all, maybe it doesnt even make choices, but it was the first thing to really exist. i do believe science hold the facts of life, and everything can be proved by it, however we havent come far enough to really know anything, we know nothing of space, our universe, or anything. we dont know nearly enough yet to underestimate something as sure as science.

the problem i have with cherry picking, is that you can take one piece of the book you live by, but then reject another? what makes the first piece of knowledge better than the next? and if this book has bad advice, why are you following it at all.
and by cherry picking, you dont believe all the same beliefs, you cherry picked so you only believe some parts. idk how atheism is a religion either, please elaborate.

and im so tired im hallucinating right now, ill be back on here in the morn, thanks for the intriguing conversation dr j20, youve made some very valid points.

**Heisenberg** · 06-02-2012, 12:18 PM

ask any real scientist and you'll find that the ultimate limits of science provoke some of the greatest leaps of faith

Could you give some examples of science incorporating faith into it's answers?

Originally Posted by Dr.J20

if you believe there are some kind of cosmic mysteries you believe in some form of a metaphysical "god" figure and therefore are arguing semantically---you just don't like the word God

This seems to be a false dilemma. Acknowledging that the universe has complex mysteries is much different than saying it contains an interactive god who answers prayers and dictates behavior. Which religion do you know of that knowingly worships cosmic mysteries?

**st0wandgrow** · 06-02-2012, 12:28 PM

If Jesus were alive today, he'd be standing on a soap box at a busy intersection in New York city spreading his "word" .... and we'd most likely find a comfy bed for him in a padded room.

**Dr.J20** · 06-02-2012, 12:31 PM

I'm sorry, this has gotten out of hand...
this bit about cherry picking makes no sense: so human judgment should never be exercised? we should discard anything if it is ever wrong on any single point? a single wrong statement invalidates an entire work?

you have no idea what you're talking about right now. this is not an insult or a criticism, it has become apparent that you're talking about things you have not yet researched. This is not a bad thing entirely, as it is encouraging to see such curiosity. YOu should satisfy this curiosity.

Your anger seems to lie with the earthly manifestations of faith. there will be no proof for a belief, that is why it is a belief.
given my rendition of "religion" (i.e. its definition) atheism is most certainly a religion: a group of people who say we believe X and will use X as our guiding principle for the cultivation of a peaceful, happy existence.

get some rest, if you want to continue these kinds of debates its going to take a lot.

In honesty, and i don't want to sound preachy or condescending here, but it sounds like you're doing what corrupted religions themselves do: find a scapegoat for the earth's ills, a tidy simple answer for why all thats wrong is wrong...

if you took away religion people would find something else to fight about pal, thats the value of all these ancient texts...read some virgil, we've been longing for a peaceful pastoral since before christ. literally. So, take heart, I know it seems like theres a ton of bad shit in the world, but there's a lot of good, so no matter your views on religion, living ethically and morally, and really considering every action, you'll live a healthy happy life

be easy

**cannabineer** · 06-02-2012, 12:34 PM

Originally Posted by st0wandgrow

If Jesus were alive today, he'd be standing on a soap box at a busy intersection in New York city spreading his "word" .... and we'd most likely find a comfy bed for him in a padded room.

Since Reagan? He's on his own!! cn

**Heisenberg** · 06-02-2012, 12:44 PM

Originally Posted by Dr.J20

Your anger seems to lie with the earthly manifestations of faith. there will be no proof for a belief, that is why it is a belief.
given my rendition of "religion" (i.e. its definition) atheism is most certainly a religion: a group of people who say we believe X and will use X as our guiding principle for the cultivation of a peaceful, happy existence.

All beliefs have proof except pseudoscientific ones. We believe a proposition because we trust that it accurately represents a state of reality. From a simple belief like "I tied my shoes this morning" to a complicated belief like those behind chemotherapy, this remains true. Even a superstitious belief, like fear of black cats, follows the mechanism of trusting that it states something about reality. Basic survival demands we be accurate about our reality. Beliefs become principals of action. We rightfully attempt to justify beliefs with some sort of evidence. We seek for them to cohere both logically and comparatively with each other. This is why individuals are able to construct a personal view of the world that largely agrees with others. Even something simple like knowing what I mean when I say words like 'danger', 'upwards', or 'seven' stems from this shared connection. Religious beliefs are not distinct; they are not exempt from this premise, so why should they be exempt from the constraints we apply to all other beliefs?

And as we point out often on these forums, Atheism is NOT a belief, it is the lack of a belief. It is a position utterly without content. Atheists do not say 'I believe X' they say, essentially, 'I reject the argument for a deity'. The reasons for rejection can be personal, logical, or simply rebellion, but atheism itself begins and ends at rejection. Knowing someone is atheist tells you only one very specific thing about them, that they are not a theist. This includes anything that is not theism, even indecision. Some atheists go on to say 'I believe there is no god", but that is done in addition to and outside of atheism.

Furthermore, just saying I believe X and will use X as my life's philosophy' is not a religion, even if a bunch of people do it together, it's a discipline based on an ideology. This is what religion and skepticism or secularism have in common. The distinction, in the context of this discussion of course, is that religion tries to relate specifically to spirituality and superhuman agency.

**Dr.J20** · 06-02-2012, 02:31 PM

I had a response to all of this but i'm not sure if we're going to get anywhere having failed to define our terms at the outset. I agree that a group of people living by a philosophy is not actually a religion. deconstructing what a religion is, however, does yield a group of people who have, often for a long time, invested their belief in a set of principle often codified by the same group. the problem with these forums is context is very difficult to maintain. The thrust of my posts have been largely to recommend that the reasons for being atheist are no more certain than the reasons for being a theist. the point being, reason is not preeminent, that is fairly old hat. the sciences fall under this camp, often, though it is not necessary for that to be the case. The ultimate question here is one of faith. a nonbeliever will not believe and a believer will. That there exist peaceful, happy, non-harming practitioners of all faiths does speak loudly for the fact that you can maintain some set of religious beliefs and be a good person, not harming anyone else. And, that there are some atheists who do terrible things only says that there is a capacity for evil inherent in every individual, his or her atheism had little to do with his or her terrible actions.
im out

Religion: why you believe what you believe, and how can you prove it.

Cannabis Cafe

LinkBack

Thread Tools

Display

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions