The great and all powerful religion thread!

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

...well, yeah...

 

[AchrisK]

I think it's just that most people are afraid of dying, and of their lives having no meaning after their death.

And I'm not sure you can really say that there are huge numbers of people "naturally" embracing religion, since most religious people are brought up by religious parents.

Btw, I don't really feel like reading over the discussion leading up to the point I was attempting to argue against earlier, so I'll just go ahead and apologise for my unwarranted dickishness. I feel pretty bad about it now tbh.

No worries, dude.

I don't know how most people are, but dying and ceasing to exist sounds like a fine option to me. I would tend to think that religion breeds more fear of death than atheism. Maybe I am wrong.

Yeah, religion is definitely taught. Obviously, specific beliefs must be taught. But I am more thinking about the part of us that gravitates toward a belief in the existence of a supernatural supreme being of some sort. This is evidenced in all the trippy beliefs that secluded tribes end up having, and that recorded human history is full of it, and that religion, or at least the belief in some supreme being, continues as a massive reality among modern people.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

This is evidenced in all the trippy beliefs that secluded tribes end up having,

Explained by the lack of scientific thought in those societies.

and that recorded human history is full of it, and that religion, or at least the belief in some supreme being, continues as a massive reality among modern people.

Explained by tradition (read: parental brainwashing and theocracy).

 

[skeptik]

The Catholic church has long held the position that unbaptized babies go to hell, tbh, and in case you forgot, Catholicism is kind of a big deal. In fact, they only changed their stance on the issue last year. That is, of course, depending on your beliefs in limbo, though many Catholics actually maintained the Augustinian belief of unbaptized babies going to hell when they die. There was also a very strong following of beliefs of this nature in 18th and 19th century Puritan/Calvinist and other similarly 'conservative' sects of Christianity who held the belief that babies in general, baptized or not, would go to hell, so I'm not just talking out of my ass.

 

[seedofvengeance]

Well it seems contradictory hand to claim that God imbues fetuses with souls and then kills them before they even have a chance at life

Well, I don't think God kills them. If you say that, he kills everyone in the world who dies. That brings us back to the (imo) stupid argument of "If there's a God, why is there so much suffering?" In the general argument for God, he essentially bows out of human affairs except for extreme circumstances. He would have no more control over a miscarriage as he would someone being shot in a school shooting.

This is all moot, as I don't believe in the abstract idea of souls.

It's weird that I spend more time arguing in the contrary to my own beliefs.

 

[skeptik]

There is a significant enough number of people in the world who believe that history is already written out and that God already knows who will die when and what will happen and so forth for this to be a critical issue. Why do you think people believe that they see hidden predictions in the Bible? It's because they believe God put them there. In other words, they believe in predestination. So for these people, the death of unborn children could actually be a very serious dilemma.

 

[Alter]

There is a significant enough number of people in the world who believe that history is already written out and that God already knows who will die when and what will happen and so forth for this to be a critical issue. Why do you think people believe that they see hidden predictions in the Bible? It's because they believe God put them there. In other words, they believe in predestination. So for these people, the death of unborn children could actually be a very serious dilemma.

I never believed that part of my religion. God does not cause untimely deaths, disasters or the like.

 

[cookiecutter]

No worries, dude.

I don't know how most people are, but dying and ceasing to exist sounds like a fine option to me. I would tend to think that religion breeds more fear of death than atheism. Maybe I am wrong.

I think you are in the minority on this. A lot of people are convinced they will go to paradise when they die. Some people kill themselves in order to get there faster. There is also the comfort it can give to the living to believe that there loved one is in a "better place". I personally agree with you that ceasing to exist is not that bad, but I think that because I don't think there is anything better.

Well, I don't think God kills them. If you say that, he kills everyone in the world who dies. That brings us back to the (imo) stupid argument of "If there's a God, why is there so much suffering?" In the general argument for God, he essentially bows out of human affairs except for extreme circumstances. He would have no more control over a miscarriage as he would someone being shot in a school shooting.

This is all moot, as I don't believe in the abstract idea of souls.

It's weird that I spend more time arguing in the contrary to my own beliefs.

If you ever notice, God always wins. When someone escapes a deadly situation or does something good, God saved them or helped them. When something shitty happens, God saved it from being worse. Even when God is thought to have "taken" someone before their time it is often explained as being taken to heaven, not hell or nonexistence.

 

[seedofvengeance]

If you ever notice, God always wins. When someone escapes a deadly situation or does something good, God saved them or helped them. When something shitty happens, God saved it from being worse. Even when God is thought to have "taken" someone before their time it is often explained as being taken to heaven, not hell or nonexistence.

I was talking about the intelligent argument for God. But, I can see what you're saying.

 

[cookiecutter]

I'm just commenting generally on religious hypocrisy

 

[Matt]

The Catholic church has long held the position that unbaptized babies go to hell, tbh, and in case you forgot, Catholicism is kind of a big deal. In fact, they only changed their stance on the issue last year. That is, of course, depending on your beliefs in limbo, though many Catholics actually maintained the Augustinian belief of unbaptized babies going to hell when they die. There was also a very strong following of beliefs of this nature in 18th and 19th century Puritan/Calvinist and other similarly 'conservative' sects of Christianity who held the belief that babies in general, baptized or not, would go to hell, so I'm not just talking out of my ass.

Conservative sects such as these annoy the hell out of me. Especially Catholicism.

Basically, I believe in the Deist idea that God created the Earth according the laws of science and physics and then let it run itself

 

[Alter]

Liberal sects make me want to burn down Willowcreak, their stronghold over here in Chicago. Catholics are much better.

 

[Matt]

Catholicism is fucking bullshit.

 

[Death Aflame]

I have a question of clarification to ask regarding atheism for those in the know:

Atheism, as far as I understand it, is the negation of the belief in a deity or existence following death. Thus atheists, it seems, get angry when people try to represent the Atheist doctrine as a belief system in itself. Rather, they argue, again as far as I can tell, that their philosophical position is based on a lack of belief. However, is not the lack of belief (or disbelief) if you will a belief in and of itself? To make an analogy it seems remarkably similar to the postmodern condition in that it purports that their is no grand narrative, or grand truth, however, by arguing this the postmodernists are in turn arguing in a ultimate truth: that truth being the lack of ultimate truths. Anyways, what I am getting at, is that if Atheism cannot escape being a 'belief' system than it means that Atheists fundamentally believe in something. Thus, the 'negation of the belief in existence (that is, something) beyond death and/or a deity that controls all' appears, to me, to be synonymous with 'the belief in non-existence following death, or, in other words, the belief in nothing following death'. The problem arises here that believing in nothing, in itself, seems undefinable. Hence, 'nothingness' and 'somethingness' are synonyms not antonyms in this sense for since a state of nothinginess or non-existence is so elusive, so fleeting if you will, that it posits similar qualities as somethingness (at least in the sense of somethingness beyond death). Therefore, it seems to me that Atheism is simply purporting that a state of nothingness exists (irony) following death, but since nothingness is synonyous with somethingness in this metaphysical regard could not these seemingly disparate beliefs be hinting at the exact same thing?

I guess what I am getting at is that it appears to me that the distinction between Atheism and Theism breaks down when we strip back all the rhetoric of each and examine the primary terms that attempt to distinguish each belief system from the other. My question then is, how do atheists deal with this issue? Because it seems to me like a fundamental problem in the Atheist doctrine that would seem to undermine the whole point behind Atheism to begin with.

 

[Valerie]

Connotations aside, the actual word "atheist" just means someone without any theological belief. A theist is specifically a person with a belief in a creator, be it the Christian/Jewish/Islamic God, or other gods. Thus an "atheist" is one who doesn't believe in those things. They can believe in other things, for example, I believe that destiny and fate do not exist and that human beings are solely responsible for their actions and defining their own purpose.

 

[Death Aflame]

Connotations aside, the actual word "atheist" just means someone without any theological belief. A theist is specifically a person with a belief in a creator, be it the Christian/Jewish/Islamic God, or other gods. Thus an "atheist" is one who doesn't believe in those things. They can believe in other things, for example, I believe that destiny and fate do not exist and that human beings are solely responsible for their actions and defining their own purpose.

Interesting, but isn't that side-stepping my question?

 

[Valerie]

Interesting, but isn't that side-stepping my question?

Defining what Atheism actually is kind of negated your question tbh.

 

[Death Aflame]

Defining what Atheism actually is kind of negated your question tbh.

I am breaking down Atheism and Theism into their core words and meanings, at least as far as I see it. All I am saying is that when you step back and define 'god' as somethingness beyond death and when you break down atheism to an essential belief in nothingness beyond death the two look remarkably similar. Maybe my question wasn't great, but what is your reaction to the whole of my original post, as an Atheist I assume?

 

[Valerie]

I am breaking down Atheism and Theism into their core words and meanings, at least as far as I see it. All I am saying is that when you step back and define 'god' as somethingness beyond death and when you break down atheism to an essential belief in nothingness beyond death the two look remarkably similar. Maybe my question wasn't great, but what is your reaction to the whole of my original post, as an Atheist I assume?

Well, like has been said, the core of Atheism is the lack of belief in God or gods only. Using just that definition, Atheism is almost like Agnosticism, but people associate it with other things, like believing God doesn't exist. With those connotations, Atheism can be considered a belief, but when you get down to it's actual dictionary definition, it's impossible for Atheism to be an actual belief. I don't think of it as a belief. I'm usually careful about how I word what I have to say; instead of saying, "I believe God doesn't exist," I just say, "I don't believe in God."

 

[seedofvengeance]

I have a question of clarification to ask regarding atheism for those in the know:

Atheism, as far as I understand it, is the negation of the belief in a deity or existence following death. Thus atheists, it seems, get angry when people try to represent the Atheist doctrine as a belief system in itself. Rather, they argue, again as far as I can tell, that their philosophical position is based on a lack of belief. However, is not the lack of belief (or disbelief) if you will a belief in and of itself? To make an analogy it seems remarkably similar to the postmodern condition in that it purports that their is no grand narrative, or grand truth, however, by arguing this the postmodernists are in turn arguing in a ultimate truth: that truth being the lack of ultimate truths. Anyways, what I am getting at, is that if Atheism cannot escape being a 'belief' system than it means that Atheists fundamentally believe in something. Thus, the 'negation of the belief in existence (that is, something) beyond death and/or a deity that controls all' appears, to me, to be synonymous with 'the belief in non-existence following death, or, in other words, the belief in nothing following death'. The problem arises here that believing in nothing, in itself, seems undefinable. Hence, 'nothingness' and 'somethingness' are synonyms not antonyms in this sense for since a state of nothinginess or non-existence is so elusive, so fleeting if you will, that it posits similar qualities as somethingness (at least in the sense of somethingness beyond death). Therefore, it seems to me that Atheism is simply purporting that a state of nothingness exists (irony) following death, but since nothingness is synonyous with somethingness in this metaphysical regard could not these seemingly disparate beliefs be hinting at the exact same thing?

I guess what I am getting at is that it appears to me that the distinction between Atheism and Theism breaks down when we strip back all the rhetoric of each and examine the primary terms that attempt to distinguish each belief system from the other. My question then is, how do atheists deal with this issue? Because it seems to me like a fundamental problem in the Atheist doctrine that would seem to undermine the whole point behind Atheism to begin with.

Theism means you believe in God, Atheism is the opposite, it's like English class.
Most of us believe when you die, you die. You go away, you don't exist. Your brain stops working, there is no soul. No "state of nothingness." Just end of existence. You put way too much thought into that. Atheism doesn't mean you don't believe in anything, because that's just stupid, you always believe something. It just means you don't believe in God.