The Reasons Behind Following a Religion

[humanino]

...

Is it not Wager[/url] ?

 

[GeorginaS]

Is it not Wager[/url] ?

That would be, yes.

 

[robertm]

BTW, I love my faith. It may be a complete figment of my imagination, a total illusion, but so what? It gives me more peace of mind than anything. It gives me a moral compass, direction, purpose, a sense that my life doesn't end here on earth. A sense of companionship where I would otherwise be lonely. I sense of community and brotherhood with those that share my faith.

This is all great and warm and fuzzy and just peachy with me; so long as you and your community stay out of my life and government affairs.



Edit: For clarification: "so long as the creeds that you and your community chose to adopt..."

 

[humanino]

This is all great and warm and fuzzy and just peachy with me; so long as you and your community stay out of my life and government affairs.

We have been trying hard to keep this discussion going. Thanks for your input.

 

[robertm]

We have been trying hard to keep this discussion going. Thanks for your input.

I'm sorry, how is the separation of church and state not relevant to religious practice?

Does my wish that others do not attempt to force upon me their own ethical and behavioral religious rules offend you?

Would you say that the religious at large do not attempt this on a massive scale everyday, as well as historically? Creationism, is a particularly succinct example.

Why can I, as a man, not marry another man, if I so wished, in most of the united states?

I hope that the wish to live and let live is not grounds for the closing of this thread.

Edit: I have added some clarification of my point to post #73.

 

[Cyrus]

I'm sorry, how is the separation of church and state not relevant to religious practice?

Does my wish that others do not attempt to force upon me their own ethical and behavioral religious rules offend you?

Would you say that the religious at large do not attempt this on a massive scale everyday, as well as historically? Creationism, is a particularly succinct example.

Why can I, as a man, not marry another man, if I so wished, in most of the united states?

I hope that the wish to live and let live is not grounds for the closing of this thread.

Edit: I have added some clarification of my point to post #73.

You anger The Palin

Appease her with lavish gifts of clothing and trinkets!

 

[Huckleberry]

I think the creator made turtles, but that was yet another by-product of the ultimate objective of kitty-cat making. Turbo and I are split on the reason for humans. I say by-product, he says slave race for the kitties.

http://www.iamaturtle.org/" all the way down.

 

[BobG]

Prayer obviously does not work? Do you even know what prayer is?
I have met few other than children that truly believe all you have to do is pray for something and God will bring it to you if you're good, as if God is like Santa Claus or something and all you have to do is be a good little boy or girl to get your presents. To the vast majority of the religious prayer is a sort of meditation. A way to look for understanding. If you have never prayed or never prayed properly then how can you really know whether or not it 'works'?

I've always felt that praying for a miracle to deliver a person from an unpleasant situation is silly and pointless. It's better to pray for the strength and insight to handle the situations life hands you. In the end, the person becomes the miracle.

I have problems with a lot of particular religions, but I do think there's a whole side to human psyche that's not explained or helped by science or logic.

As far as religion being selected for, of course it is when you're talking about survival of cultures - which means you have to consider the things that are inherited socially; not just genetically. The problem with inherited traits, whether genetically inherited or socially inherited, is when those traits are carried into a new environment and become a liability that can't be shed. Most of my problems with particular religions is that their beliefs become so locked in by history that they carry around as many liabilities as benefits.

 

[skeptic2]

It's weird how you'll just believe something until someone finally contradicts it and it makes you start thinking. Like for example, years ago I read that your heart stops when you sneeze. I didn't question it, I just automatically assumed it as true. For years I believed it until someone told me it was a myth. Right when they said that, it enlightened me. I thought wow, it probably is a myth. At that moment, I finally thought about how it didn't make much since now that someone told me it wasn't true. It took that person's contradiction for me to use my own brain and the intelligence I had the entire time, to give it a second thought.

I thinks this happens because most people learn about religion as children before they are able to logically evaluate the claims. Later, as adults, if there never is a need to question what they were taught as children, those beliefs remain with them.

 

[humanino]

Does my wish that others do not attempt to force upon me their own ethical and behavioral religious rules offend you?

Not at all, and I appreciate your clarification. Thank you for elaborating. I was only concerned that a short message could have been misinterpreted.

 

[Topher925]

You anger The Palin

Appease her with lavish gifts of clothing and trinkets!

I guess we know who Cyrus "prays" to every morning.

Cryus, have you made your hajj to Alaska yet?

 

[negitron]

I guess we know who Cyrus prays to every morning.

Is that what they call it these days? My gramma always told me it would make you go blind.

 

[drankin]

This is all great and warm and fuzzy and just peachy with me; so long as you and your community stay out of my life and government affairs.



Edit: For clarification: "so long as the creeds that you and your community chose to adopt..."

Unfortunately for you we share the same government. So, it's not going to happen. And since government affects your life there will be a conflict there as well. Welcome to the USA (if you are Ameerican).

 

[Pupil]

Unfortunately for you we share the same government. So, it's not going to happen. And since government affects your life there will be a conflict there as well. Welcome to the USA (if you are Ameerican).

If you're in the USA then you shouldn't be saying it's "unfortunate for you," because it's unfortunate for everyone. Our country is built to have a secular government, and any breach of that is bad for everyone, not just Robert.

 

[Cyrus]

Is that what they call it these days? My gramma always told me it would make you go blind.

Blasphemous!

 

[drankin]

If you're in the USA then you shouldn't be saying it's "unfortunate for you," because it's unfortunate for everyone. Our country is built to have a secular government, and any breach of that is bad for everyone, not just Robert.

Of course religion should not influence government policy but religious people are in government, that was my point. Our Constitution makes it a point to both keep religion out of policy and at the same time protect the freedom of religion. Religious people with religious values are always going to be in office. It is a protected freedom. "[N]o religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."- Article 6

 

[Pupil]

Of course religion should not influence government policy but religious people are in government, that was my point. Our Constitution makes it a point to both keep religion out of policy and at the same time protect the freedom of religion. Religious people with religious values are always going to be in office. It is a protected freedom. "[N]o religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."- Article 6

Yes, but their decisions better not be based on religious motives. Many times this is not the case. C'est la vie, I suppose.

 

[drankin]

Of course, sometimes there are religious motiviations. I would not be surprised if there are not hundreds of people who hold office primarily because they feel it is their religious calling. Just look at the signers of the Constitution and their religious affiliations: http://www.adherents.com/gov/Founding_Fathers_Religion.html"

The Quakers even!

 

[Cyrus]

Of course, sometimes there are religious motiviations. I would not be surprised if there are not hundreds of people who hold office primarily because they feel it is their religious calling. Just look at the signers of the Constitution and their religious affiliations: http://www.adherents.com/gov/Founding_Fathers_Religion.html"

The Quakers even!

Yeah, because if you were non-religious (of the religion of the town you represented) no one would vote for you, and you would probably be ran out of town.

 

[robertm]

Of course, sometimes there are religious motiviations. I would not be surprised if there are not hundreds of people who hold office primarily because they feel it is their religious calling. Just look at the signers of the Constitution and their religious affiliations: http://www.adherents.com/gov/Founding_Fathers_Religion.html"

The Quakers even!

Yeah yeah yeah, the founders were religious (although the two coolest ones, Ben and Tom, were deists). This is meaningless. It is written into the constitution that:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

There is a reason that this is the first sentence of the first amendment. Societal decisions should be based on pragmatic observations. What guides our laws should be what works best. Not what arbitrary religious myths one or most people prescribe to. This is the definition of secular state.

If politicians want to "bless" America every time they open their mouths fine, but they can not make any policy based solely on a given religion's creed.

If a persons religion effects they way they govern, then the first amendment is being breached. If my representative's religious beliefs effect my life, the first amendment is being breached. Personal opinion should have no place in Government.

Of course, you will notice I keep saying "should". Obviously, none of this is the case.

 

[seycyrus]

Most atheists I know came to that state after being raised like most people (i.e., with religious beliefs taught to them by their family), yet came to question religion.

Most religious peole I know don't do much fretting about whether god exists or not...it's pretty much a settled question to them.

It's a mystery to me how you're reading that as egotistical.

Sorry for the late reply, real life you know.

It is quite apparent how it is an egotistical statement.

1) You obviously consider thoughtful investigation to have higher merit than thoughtless acceptance.

2)You squarely place yourself in the group that has "...thought about it a lot more..."

Therefore considering 1) and 2), it is obvious that you consider yourself amongst the group that is more enlightened than those relatively ignorant savages who practice religion.

How can you not realize that your statement *was* egotistical?

Considering the fact that your data is entirely anecdotal and at least partially biased I must ask you (and any others that choose to answer)...

How are you different from the clergy and such, in the dark ages (for example) who looked down upon the unlearned and ignorant comon folk and laughed in disdain at their ignorance?

They were certainly more educated and "thought about it more" than the average workmen.

I know you will say "But they were wrong, and I am right! The most educated, brightest minds of our time say so!"

Ahh...

You are the same then, at least in your words.

 

[seycyrus]

I would have to agree with you lisab.

Most of the people I know that belong to a religion belong because that's how they were raised and they've never thought about questioning it.

Most of the people I know who are religous think about their faith on a daily basis.

Most of the atheists I know, only think about their atheism when it comes time to mock religion in general, or the beliefs of others, specifically.

Furthemore, most of the people I know who are atheists have a belief system that stemmed from their rebellious teenager years when they rebelled against mommy and daddy without even a stray thought passing through their mind.

 

[Topher925]

Sorry for the late reply, real life you know.

It is quite apparent how it is an egotistical statement...

Fox News called. They said they want to give you your own show, right after Glen Beck.

 

[seycyrus]

should be based on pragmatic observations. What guides our laws should be what works best.

What??

Works best for who (whom)? According to what criteria?

If a persons religion effects they way they govern, then the first amendment is being breached.

No its not. Not unless it is directly related to the establishment of religion, or the free exercise thereof! You just quoted it.

 

[seycyrus]

Fox News called. They said they want to give you your own show, right after Glen Beck.

Uhm, sorry comrade, if I offended by my commentary.

 

[Pupil]

1) You obviously consider thoughtful investigation to have higher merit than thoughtless acceptance.

I literally laughed out loud when I read this. Obviously. Yes. Thoughtful investigation has higher merit than blind acceptance.

Therefore considering 1) and 2), it is obvious that you consider yourself amongst the group that is more enlightened than those relatively ignorant savages who practice religion.

She never said she was more enlightened and only ignorant savages practice religion. You're burning straw men at the stake, here.

 

[drankin]

I guess it's safe to say that religion influences policy but does not in a way that respects a particular religion.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I would have to agree with you lisab.

Most of the people I know that belong to a religion belong because that's how they were raised and they've never thought about questioning it.

How would you know? Same to you lisab. How would you know what personal struggles a person has with their faith; and what makes you think they would admit it to you when they do?

The fact is that all people of faith struggle with their faith at times; generally not all the time [for some it is all of the time], but at times. Even Mother Theresa admitted that she struggled with her faith. It is a common theme found in every church I have ever attended. Sooner or later, they all address the issue. There are also many books available for people going through a crisis of faith. You all want to make this as if people are brainwashed zombies, but that is nonsense. No matter how a person was raised, eventually faith is a choice. And anyone who chooses faith will struggle with that choice at times. In fact, one the the more famous bible verses is about how even Jesus lost faith [a wild idea for people who believe he was a deity].

In my opinion, what you can't accept is that other intelligent and rational people made a different choice than you did.

 

[seycyrus]

I literally laughed out loud when I read this. Obviously. Yes. Thoughtful investigation has higher merit than blind acceptance.

I never said I disagreed with that sentiment.

Rather, I disagree with her anecdotal evidence regarding who have "thought about it more".

She never said she was more enlightened and only ignorant savages practice religion. You're burning straw men at the stake, here.

Not at all. Note, I said "relatively". When you define a merit system and strongly place yourself in the higher caste, you are making a statement about your own perceived status.

It is evident in which group she self-identifies. It is equally evident regarding into which group she places those that practice religion.

Therefore, in accordance with her belief system (and yours) the non-practitioners have higher merit than the practitioners.

It is the same as stating "In my experience, those with dark hair are harder workers and more intelligent than those with fairer colored hair." "Oh yes, my hair *is* very dark, why thank you."

 

[Pupil]

Not at all. Note, I said "relatively". When you define a merit system and strongly place yourself in the higher caste, you are making a statement about your own perceived status.

It is evident in which group she self-identifies. It is equally evident regarding into which group she places those that practice religion.

Therefore, in accordance with her belief system (and yours) the non-practitioners have higher merit than the practitioners.

It is the same as stating "In my experience, those with dark hair are harder workers and more intelligent than those with fairer colored hair." "Oh yes, my hair *is* very dark, why thank you."

Again, you're just assuming her opinion on things when you have no basis for doing so. She didn't define a merit system, or place herself in a higher cast, or talk about her belief system, and you have no right to tell me what my belief system is or how I look at practitioners.

She made an empirical statement that she observed most people who are atheists questioned their religion and most people who are theists did not.

I agree with what she said, as I have had the same experience. It does not follow that I think I am in a higher cast than religious people or look at them as ignorant, etc, and I find it absurd that you presume I do.

 

[seycyrus]

Again, you're just assuming her opinion on things when you have no basis for doing so.

My assumption is based on her statements. You have yourself validated my assumptions with your commentary after your "I laughed out loud statement".

She is an atheist.

She believes that thought has more merit than non-thought.

Do you disagree with the above? If so, which one?

She didn't define a merit system, or place herself in a higher cast, or talk about her belief system,

Yes she did, in the exact manner that I explicitly showed in my previous posts.

and you have no right to tell me what my belief system is or how I look at practitioners.

First of all, I laugh at your attempt to tell me what I have the right to tell you. Where does it end? I have given solid reasons for my beliefs regarding your beliefs. Furthermore, I have every right to do as I like and you have the right to reply as you see fit.

She made an empirical statement that she observed most people who are atheists questioned their religion and most people who are theists did not.

Anecdotal evidence which I countered with my own anecdotal evidence.

I agree with what she said, as I have had the same experience. It does not follow that I think I am in a higher cast than religious people or look at them as ignorant, etc, and I find it absurd that you presume I do.

I find it absurd that you cannot follow the logical progression.

IF 1) You think that thinking has more merit than non-thinking (or less-thinking as the case may be).

AND 2) Atheists think more than non-atheists.

THEN ...*drum roll*

Atheists have more merit than non-atheists!

Not according to what I have defined as your belief system, but what YOU have defined.

Furthermore...

IF 3) You consider yourself an atheist AND hold the above beliefs.

THEN *keep them drums a rolling*

You think you have more merit than non-atheists!

Note: If one were to include a few qualifiers such as "some", or "many" then there would be room to slide, but unfortunately none were mentioned.

 

[lisab]

Sorry for the late reply, real life you know.

It is quite apparent how it is an egotistical statement.

1) You obviously consider thoughtful investigation to have higher merit than thoughtless acceptance.

2)You squarely place yourself in the group that has "...thought about it a lot more..."

Therefore considering 1) and 2), it is obvious that you consider yourself amongst the group that is more enlightened than those relatively ignorant savages who practice religion.

How can you not realize that your statement *was* egotistical?

Considering the fact that your data is entirely anecdotal and at least partially biased I must ask you (and any others that choose to answer)...

How are you different from the clergy and such, in the dark ages (for example) who looked down upon the unlearned and ignorant comon folk and laughed in disdain at their ignorance?

They were certainly more educated and "thought about it more" than the average workmen.

I know you will say "But they were wrong, and I am right! The most educated, brightest minds of our time say so!"

Ahh...

You are the same then, at least in your words.

Comment #1: why yes, I DO consider thoughtful investigation to have higher merit than thoughtless acceptance. Wow, just who the hell do I think I am, valuing thoughtful investigation?

As to your comment #2, tell me exactly where I put myself in that second group, seycyrus. And while you're at it, point out to me where I have ever referred to people of faith as "ignorant savages" or "unlearned and ignorant comon folk." Are you aware ad hominem attacks are not allowed on this forum?

Wow, you are actually putting words in my mouth (see the bolded text). Don't make me into your strawman.

You speak angrily, and as if you know me...you don't. You have no idea about my beliefs, which are more complex than checking a box on a multiple choice form.

It still mystifies me why you choose to feel so victimized here.

 

[Evo]

How would you know? Same to you lisab. How would you know what personal struggles a person has with their faith; and what makes you think they would admit it to you when they do?

Because I have had discussions with many, many, people about religion, and I can honestly say that in my life, the majority that attended church, only did so out of habit. Some admitted they went to keep up appearances, or to appease family/spouse, or just incase there might be an evil supreme being that really would torture them for eternity if they didn't show up, no matter how good they were. I also know some wonderful people that take religion very seriously, but they don't agonize over it, they are happily into it 100%. I don't know anyone that agonizes over it. Over the past 30 years I am meeting more and more atheists. Every man I've met in the last 20 years has been an atheist. And they have no inner struggles about it. Go figure.

 

[robertm]

I guess it's safe to say that religion influences policy but does not in a way that respects a particular religion.

This is not true. Ideas specific to the most popular religion(s) in the US directly influence policy.

Do Buddhists have a problem with gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender rights? Do Catholics want intelligent design creationism taught at school? Why do the large majority of the popular religious institutions in the US preach anti-science or pseudoscience and why does it seem to effect policy? The belief that the 'soul' enters the zygote at the moment of conception has hindered social progress in family planning and scientific progress in stem cell research.

Why are churches tax exempt? Even the ones that have no real charitable function.

Why can't the holy men and their flocks simply enjoy the freedom to do whatever amongst their own community? Why haven't and why can't believers ever seem to be able to keep it to themselves?

Why do so many people consider faith to be a respectable state of mind?


Seycyrus:

Works best for who (whom)? According to what criteria?

This of course, is not a simple manner. But adding unfounded faith-based mythical beliefs into the mix does not advance the argument one iota; indeed it makes good decision making unlikely in many cases.

Dogma and bias are highly effective blindfolds that we should not want our representatives to be wearing.

No its not. Not unless it is directly related to the establishment of religion, or the free exercise thereof! You just quoted it.

When an official makes an official decision which is based on his/her religious beliefs and that decision brings into effect public policy, the policy and the reasoning behind it respect the establishment of whatever religion the official happens to adhere to. Which is, apparently, unconstitutional.


Critical thinking skills are what is key for life, liberty, and the pursuit of whatever. Steadfast adherence to unfounded beliefs promotes and condones credulity and inflexibility.

 

[lisab]

How would you know? Same to you lisab. How would you know what personal struggles a person has with their faith; and what makes you think they would admit it to you when they do?

The fact is that all people of faith struggle with their faith at times; generally not all the time [for some it is all of the time], but at times. Even Mother Theresa admitted that she struggled with her faith. It is a common theme found in every church I have ever attended. Sooner or later, they all address the issue. There are also many books available for people going through a crisis of faith. You all want to make this as if people are brainwashed zombies, but that is nonsense. No matter how a person was raised, eventually faith is a choice. And anyone who chooses faith will struggle with that choice at times. In fact, one the the more famous bible verses is about how even Jesus lost faith [a wild idea for people who believe he was a deity].

In my opinion, what you can't accept is that other intelligent and rational people made a different choice than you did.

Well, coming from a Mormon family, I know many of my relatives didn't do much questioning. My father did, he was expelled, literally violently (he was beaten and thrown out of town at age 17). He was made an example of to anyone else who may have blasphemous ideas, I suppose.

And I know that faith is a huge comfort to people, and people who have it are...um...blessed (can I use that word ). I just can't, can't make myself believe in anything supernatural.

Ivan, you mentioned in an earlier post how hard it is to come to terms with the idea of a final judgement. I understand that. Similarly, it's hard to come to terms with death being absolutely final, and this life being a one-act show. I have one child, and I love my daughter with all my heart...it gives me nearly unbearable pain to think that when I die, I'll never see her again...and I will leave her all alone in the world.

Neither path is easy.