Have your religious/spiritual beliefs changed in the past year?

[cookiecutter]

I don't think my opinions regarding these matters have changed substantially in the past year. I'm still an agnostic. I used to be Catholic when I was very young, but as George Carlin would say, I stopped being a Catholic when I reached the age of reason.

The godless view of the world I find rather depressing, but I can't help but be inclined to gravitate towards it. I think the whole notion of giving your own meaning to your existence is bullshit and stupid and an awfully poor substitute. It's not surprising why one would want to turn to religion.

Here's a question that never gets asked in these sorts of discussions: What is the value of seeking truth, especially in these matters? Is it as valuable as people make it out to be? Why? It seems like nobody ever asks this question, but the value of having nothing but true beliefs is always taken for granted.

I don't find anything depressing. If anything I feel happier because I know my beliefs are based on sound reasoning. I don't feel like I lost anything because what was to be gained was not real.

The value of seeking truth for me is simple. I like to know I am right. I feel bad when I am wrong.

What about it?

If you understood it, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Observational (empirical) data is the basis for rational conclusions.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

Indeed, it doesn't make a difference.


Also, V-G:

V.V.V.V.V. - does this sound correct to you? This is pretty much my whole point.

What we observe, test, and theorize IS rational.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

I think that this depends mostly on what the eventual answer is (that we will most likely never reach), but also of course the value that the individual puts on it, but pragmatically it of course generally makes little to no difference.

Pragmatically, our entire lives are focused around making them as satisfying as possible. Spirituality is incredibly successful at this for many people.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

Like I always say, it's your prerogative to be incorrect, but don't try to take me with you.

 

[cookiecutter]

And don't get all uppity when we make fun of you

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

 

[Alter]

I propose this question to anyone. This is for a smart discussion and I am not picking my side yet.

If the big bang was composed of an extremely dense group of material that than exploded to create the cosmos, than what I would like to know what was before and how that material came to group together and how that material was created. Was it a higher being that set nature on its course or was it another form of science.

 

[skeptik]

Pragmatically, our entire lives are focused around making them as satisfying as possible.

I'm not sure how (universally) true this is.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

If you understood it, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Observational (empirical) data is the basis for rational conclusions.

What we observe, test, and theorize IS rational.

Point taken. Sorry if I led us into an unnecessary game of semantics. I'll have to think about this for a while, though; it doesn't sound quite right to me.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

I propose this question to anyone. This is for a smart discussion and I am not picking my side yet.

If the big bang was composed of an extremely dense group of material that than exploded to create the cosmos, than what I would like to know what was before and how that material came to group together and how that material was created. Was it a higher being that set nature on its course or was it another form of science.

This is a perpetually unanswerable problem.

 

[cookiecutter]

I propose this question to anyone. This is for a smart discussion and I am not picking my side yet.

If the big bang was composed of an extremely dense group of material that than exploded to create the cosmos, than what I would like to know what was before and how that material came to group together and how that material was created. Was it a higher being that set nature on its course or was it another form of science.

As far as I know this is still an unknown in science. Since there is no evidence that anything was "before" (time started with the big bang) the default position is to believe nothing was before.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

And don't get all uppity when we make fun of you

Don't make me kick your ass.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

Mr. Uppity would like to have a word with you sir.

 

[cookiecutter]

Don't make me kick your ass.

 

[Cythraul]

Why?

Well, I don't have some kind of rigorous argument for it. I just find it psychologically unsatisfying. It's like if I took a rock I found lying on the ground and said "The meaning of this rock's existence is for it to be thrown at an emo kid's head by me." It might affect how I act; I might throw the rock at an emo kid's head. But none of that really changed anything about the true nature of the world. It's still a meaningless rock. The only difference is that I said it had a meaning and then proceeded to throw it at somebody. It feels like I'd just be deluding myself if I actually thought I was doing something significant by proclaiming the rock had this or that meaning. Does that make any sense at all?

 

[Mort Divine]

The belief that your thoughts/beliefs/views are the only correct ones because you based them on science or something is pretty irrational tbqh.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

That is actually the very definition of rationality (well, that your scientifically-backed ideas about faith/lack thereof are correct and "truthful" as far as logic can deduce). Please learn something before posting stupid things.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

I'm not sure how (universally) true this is.

It's true for most people though (including you and me), right?

I really don't view spirituality as a universally bad thing to have in one's life. That seems to be the general sentiment among atheists here, though.

 

[cookiecutter]

Mort, I've explained time and time again why science is the definition of rationality.

Spiritually is not necessarily a bad thing, but it is a false thing, and I personally feel believing false things is not good.

 

[Cythraul]

That is actually the very definition of rationality. Please learn something before posting stupid things.

No it's not.