An interesting take on religious thought - written by me.

Hey guys.
First of all, I would like to clarify that I am only expressing my opinion about this matter and that I am not a “militant” anything or have any less respect for people who are religious and definitely don’t want to offend anyone. Actually I rarely bother speaking about religion, but I would like to add my point of view to this conversation between sneapsters.
"You don't have faith, how could you ever expect to see God?"
You don’t need faith to see something when it is real. Worst case scenario, you will only need an open mind .Faith however, can make you “think” that something is real.
When the basis of your way of thinking is keeping an open mind and seeking the truth, you will find some real answers and a lot of questions that cannot be answered (not yet at least...).
When the basis of your way of thinking is faith ,you will only find convenient answers that suite this faith .In most cases ,these answers are already given to you by others since you were a child (The Holy Bible ,religious parents ,TV etc) .Then of course ,you realise that some things are not applicable in your era ,and you start distorting the religion in order to fit it to your needs, and ironically you feel open minded for doing that ,but that’s another story and it doesn’t happen to everyone anyway.
It is a common human characteristic (a weakness in my opinion), choosing a convenient lie over the truth.
Example: What? You don’t believe in God (or something greater than us or whatever…)? Then how was the universe created?
-Wrong answer: Hmm…yes you are right, there must be a God .
-Right answer: Well I don’t know, and I am not going to make a story to answer it .But maybe the next generations will find out.
One thing that history teaches us, is that we as a species, are constantly learning more about the world .A few centuries back, we couldn’t explain what a thunder is or how it is created, (so we made stories about gods that are angry and things like that…) and now we are able travel to other planets. Imagine what knowledge will we have about the world in 500 years from now.
It is not embarrassing to say “I don’t know, but maybe someday I will find out” .What is embarrassing (especially given the history of mankind) is to create stories about things you don’t understand yet.
* To the religious person, their faith is rational, logical, and empirically verifiable. *
They see and feel the presence of God.
Agreed ,but so is the boogie man in the closet, or Santa Clause for a 6 year old…not to mention what mentally ill people see and hear .But it doesn’t mean these things are real .
• The factual validity of Jesus, the Bible, etc, doesn't matter.
• What matters is the religious stories and their power.
• Religious stories (Buddhist, Christian etc) but most importantly Christian stories, can inspire true agapeistic love. For example, the pure love that Jesus fosters in the stories of the Christian faith is one that cannot be found elsewhere.
• These stories provide a moral compass that is useful (and beyond that, are pinnacle of humanity's moral history), regardless of their empirical worth.
You don’t need religion to tell you what is moral and what is not, neither you need religion in order to feel love for someone. Btw, “love” is one word with many different levels, to describe many (not very) different human emotions ,resulting in confusions like…what is “true” love etc. PEOPLE! The human language is poorer that the human mind .If what you feel for your brother and what you feel for your girlfriend are both called “love” ,then maybe there should be different words to describe it…whatever. My point is this: Don’t let the language itself get in the way of your thinking .
• Humanity has an inherent need to search for truth.
Unfortunately, humanity has an inherent need to search for answers, not for truth. That’s why religions occurred in the first place .And as long as humanity will not have answers for everything, religions will be there to fill the gaps, and replace the truth.
• People see beauty in almost all things.
Absolutely irrelevant.
• We feel love for others. This love extends beyond love for just other humans. (The subtext here is: attraction to other people can be explained by a biological drive to reproduce, but then why would we love animals, feel love for a complete stranger of the same sex, or love old people beyond the capability for reproduction?)
Again ,you don’t need religion in order to love .
• Humanity has, for all of history, felt a very real sense that, "something is out there greater than us."
Explained above .Simply put: need answer->make a story->convince your self it’s true->that’s it!
Bottom line, I believe that religion is a mental prison, but when someone doesn’t know that he is imprisoned, is he really imprisoned? And If he is ok with it, who am I to judge…
I apologise for the size of this post, I tried to make it as small as I could. I guess I failed.
 
Science is the new religion! People put there faith in it just as much as other religions do. Science is always one new study away for "proving" its last hypothesis wrong. Then when it does, nobody discredits it... they just believe, without personal proof. I mean you don't do the experiment, but you believe it's supposed outcome, hook line and sinker, because its "Science"

New study proves old study was wrong :)
 
I personally don't see the "life of Jesus" as respectable as other people. The light is always shining on the good stuff and generally taken as such among believers or not.
There are things that he purportedly did that I do not agree with and find down right disturbing. No amount of hula hooping has changed my mind on these as of yet.
 
Science is the new religion! People put there faith in it just as much as other religions do. Science is always one new study away for "proving" its last hypothesis wrong. Then when it does, nobody discredits it... they just believe, without personal proof. I mean you don't do the experiment, but you believe it's supposed outcome, hook line and sinker, because its "Science"

New study proves old study was wrong :)

In a philosophical way, you may be right. But if that where the truth, than it would require a global conspiracy among Scientist world wide.
 
In a philosophical way, you may be right. But if that where the truth, than it would require a global conspiracy among Scientist world wide.


No, I don't think so. Scientist dismiss other Scientist findings all the time.

There is as much unity in beliefs, in the scientific community as there is in the religious community.
 
But aren't some things just constants...

You trust in gravity, you drink because you're thirsty and whatever...

These things never change.

The world around you isn't changing. Perhaps what's in your head, but that's not altering reality to the forces of the universe.

What could change to suddenly make you think anything significant about there being a higher being?

needing to drink and gravity... those things just are... I don't worship gravity, nor do I worship the need for sustenance...

Also, I think ones perception is in fact, one's reality.

as far as your last question goes, I don't know... thats sort of the beauty of all of this is that I don't believe in a god or higher power but I do believe in the possibility.
 
needing to drink and gravity... those things just are... I don't worship gravity, nor do I worship the need for sustenance...

Also, I think ones perception is in fact, one's reality.

as far as your last question goes, I don't know... thats sort of the beauty of all of this is that I don't believe in a god or higher power but I do believe in the possibility.

Yeah fair dos man.

I guess I look at life as too "Logical and matter of fact".

My argument would be... well what if you'd just taken a bag of shrooms or drank a bottle of vodka. You know full well you're tripping, or talking non-stop to some girl who you think now suddenly wants you because you're under the influence.

I guess it is real at the time, but the morning after, or whenever you recover, is that not the true perception of reality? You weren't yourself last night.

I'm not even sure if I'm making sense any more. lol. I think I've lost direction :)

* Or even totally irrational situations, for example severe anxiety or panic attacks.

These are results of one's body going in to fight or flight mode, when there is absolutely no threat. I understand your point, that to yourself, it is very real, but the reality is in fact quite the opposite.
 
Science is the new religion! People put there faith in it just as much as other religions do. Science is always one new study away for "proving" its last hypothesis wrong. Then when it does, nobody discredits it... they just believe, without personal proof. I mean you don't do the experiment, but you believe it's supposed outcome, hook line and sinker, because its "Science"

New study proves old study was wrong :)

ironhide_facepalm-540x409.jpg
 
Science is the new religion! People put there faith in it just as much as other religions do. Science is always one new study away for "proving" its last hypothesis wrong. Then when it does, nobody discredits it... they just believe, without personal proof. I mean you don't do the experiment, but you believe it's supposed outcome, hook line and sinker, because its "Science"

New study proves old study was wrong :)

We put "faith" in any scientific model that can be proven over again and again with the same results. This is just simply indisputable. Look at all the technology around you. These are all proven concepts. Now try praying and willing your computer to come on with the help of Jesus.

Science is happy to admit when it's wrong, in fact, it thrives on it, because that means a new breakthrough. That's the key difference. Religion is pretty hard set in it's ways for if it admits small parts of it are wrong, then of course, it throws the whole Bible in to disrepute as the word of God.

Just because the theory of evolution is not proven, it does not give equal measure that Creationism is a valid theory. The scales are very much tipped in favour of evolution being the truth based on the evidence we have.
 
I agree with most of what you said, but how is evolution not proven?

It is to me :)

I am very much sold. All I meant is, this is one of the favourite religious arguments....

We have mountains of evidence to suggest evolution. Anyone not of a religious persuasion will instantly see the sense, but still, I guess under strict "scientific study", it cannot be called absolute fact as we simply can't rewind or fast forward 400 million years and observe it and repeat the process.

So they're sure as hell gonna keep arguing that one!
 
Science is the new religion! People put there faith in it just as much as other religions do. Science is always one new study away for "proving" its last hypothesis wrong. Then when it does, nobody discredits it... they just believe, without personal proof. I mean you don't do the experiment, but you believe it's supposed outcome, hook line and sinker, because its "Science"

New study proves old study was wrong :)

All you've really done here is demonstrate your complete lack of understanding of science.

Fuck off.
 
It does get a bit annoying when people start saying crap like "Science is a religion" and "You're just part of the Atheist religion".

"What proof and evidence do you have that athiesm is accurate and correct?" - An idiot on youtube.
 
I'm a engineer, I use science all the time. I'm not saying there isn't truth in it, just saying how people will follow it without question, just like people follow religion without question. I just wanted to offer up a perspective that most have not thought of, I'm in no way religious.
 
The two most important two word phrases in existence:

"Question everything."
and
"But why?"

Science isn't exempt, nor is religion. Nothing wrong with that.
 
Holy shit there's some absofuckinglutely retarded remarks in this thread that I'm not even going to respond to.

I'm a engineer, I use science all the time. I'm not saying there isn't truth in it, just saying how people will follow it without question, just like people follow religion without question. I just wanted to offer up a perspective that most have not thought of, I'm in no way religious.

Stupid people will be stupid people, whether they're religious or not. Smart people will learn to be critical of any scientific study, and can sift through the bullshit (ie. http://www.queerty.com/whats-with-a...high-school-boys-kissing-other-boys-20101028/).

If you keep asking this question at some point there won't be any answers anymore.
You are a happier person if you don't even go that far.

Perhaps we were happier as cavemen, who knows. But to live in wilful ignorance seems like a pretty pathetic existence to me.

Öwen;9468582 said:
Doesn't seem like a stupid question to me. :)

This is why I didn't like labelling myself as an atheist for a long time. Atheism is NOT an active disbelief of God, or Christianity, or whatever. It's a LACK OF BELIEF. I don't believe that there's a force greater than gravity going the opposite direction and cancelling it out because that's retarded, it doesn't make sense and its not at all observable. I don't need proof that this force doesn't exist, I need proof that it DOES exist. Same thing with God.
 
This is why I didn't like labelling myself as an atheist for a long time. Atheism is NOT an active disbelief of God, or Christianity, or whatever. It's a LACK OF BELIEF. I don't believe that there's a force greater than gravity going the opposite direction and cancelling it out because that's retarded, it doesn't make sense and its not at all observable. I don't need proof that this force doesn't exist, I need proof that it DOES exist. Same thing with God.

This is semantics:

a·the·ism   
[ey-thee-iz-uhm]
–noun
1.
the doctrine or belief that there is no god.
2.
disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

Lack of belief or active disbelief is more a state of disinterest.

Thats not atheism, thats just apathy.
 
Öwen;9469118 said:
This is semantics:



Lack of belief or active disbelief is more a state of disinterest.

Thats not atheism, thats just apathy.

I disagree with that definition, and if that is the true definition of atheist, what doyou call someone who doesn't give a fyck?

As for apathy, I doubt you spend nights wondering whether this potential oppositional gravitational is real, so why should God be the exception? And, going back to Dawkins quote, why do none if the other thousands of Gods deserve the same treatment from you?

Yes, I am completely apathetic towards the existence of imaginary things. You are too.