Yet another religion thread: what constitutes weird?

[hyena]

@siren: thank you for the support. the point is that i'm just exhausted at being attacked left right and center for what i believe, given that i do not launch in massive conversion campaigns, nor have a scandalous lifestyle, nor anything else that could actually explain why everyone feels they're entitled to give it a shot. it's not like my brother's stupidity or my friend's immaturity actually make me doubt my faith - they just make me wonder why i cannot be close to people with a bit more salt in their head (is this actually an expression in English too?)

as for the values, yes, that's exactly what i think. but my friend is one of those types who actually think that fighting against religion is a value in itself. and, as proven by previous posts on this thread, it's kind of hard to reason with such people...

 

[Siren]

@hyena: I kinda know what you're talking about. I've been faced with similar attacks, though not regarding my religious beliefs. For some reason everyone thinks that my feelings and choices in personal life are something wrong, which i'm called to defend in lenghty discussions (wtf). And for the record, i'm not having a scandalous lifestyle either. I know how unnerving it is and i don't think there's anything we can do about it, except for stopping such discussions the minute they begin.

 

[rahvin]

@hyena: Wounds. Salt in their wounds. I'm irked by the anti-religion fighters even though I'm not a believer, so go figure. Unfortunately, it seems impossible to make them understand that a fanatic is defined by its one-track mind when it comes to hostility against a mindset, so they qualify as much as any fundamentalist.

@Siren: I'm not sure it's the same when it comes to feeling. I can see people not wanting to subject their faith to rationality, but terrible emotional choices are terrible emotional choices, period. It's nice that not everyone is willing to hit you on the head for what they think are terrible emotional choices, of course, nor do I encourage treating them with drama, but they might be terrible regardless. Just sayin'.

 

[Siren]

@rahvin: Of course it's not the same, but there is an analogy. For example, faith relies a lot on emotion too, and logic is not easily applied to either. Feelings and faith are not something you can change at will (at least not so easily).
As for terrible choices, yes, they might be terrible, but everyone has the right to make them for themselves. Just like with faith, everyone should be able to believe what they want.

 

[hyena]

I can see people not wanting to subject their faith to rationality

You know, if only half of what I'm told was rational, I'd gladly oblige. At this point, I'm trying not to subject my faith to utter bullshit.

 

[soulburner]

For example, faith relies a lot on emotion too, and logic is not easily applied to either.

i know i'm a minority, but (not going deep into details) my faith in God (more as a higher power than an old man up in heaven) relies on logic as much as it relies on, well, faith. i can't say I'm very religious person, though; and I hate orthodox church with passion... but I do have some pretty strong reasons to believe.

and answering to the very first post in this thread: from my impression, vast majority of deeply religious people are, to a certain degree, crazy. (as are the passionate religion-haters.) although it's not really because of some particular points or assumptions they have, that's just my personal impresion of having a conversations with such people.

 

[ian.de]

You know, if only half of what I'm told was rational, I'd gladly oblige. At this point, I'm trying not to subject my faith to utter bullshit.

hyena:
I'm interested in the arguments presented by non-believers that are not rational. Either the people you are talking to are not grounded in reality themselves, or they are misinformed about much of what they are talking about.

soulburner:
What are your logical/reasonable reasons for believing in God?

I'm not asking to be a condescending dickhead I'm asking to see if maybe I am missing something.

 

[hyena]

hyena:
I'm interested in the arguments presented by non-believers that are not rational. Either the people you are talking to are not grounded in reality themselves, or they are misinformed about much of what they are talking about

@ian: well, there is one particular brand of argument on the part of certain nonbelievers (not all of them, thankfully) that strikes me as particularly vacuous, and it goes along the lines of "i don't like it, so it is not true". one famous example was given to me by someone in high school, who was - like many teenagers - concluding that god does not exist because the catholic church forbids pre-marital sex. now, rahvin, who is an agnostic, spotted the absurdity before i did: of course this is neither here nor there, where is the logical connection? what does a behaviour rule on sexuality tell you about the metaphysical questions about the existence of god? i reckon that one could take the argument to a structural level and point out that it is unlikely that a benevolent god would give sexuality to humans and then regulate its use so strictly, but then again this is entirely different from what my classmate was arguing.

going beyond teenage pseudo-arguments, the person i was talking to the other day kept on saying that he is interested in keeping his children free from religion because "otherwise they will be repressed". now, this is again a manner of reasoning that does not really hold water: one should decide on passing christian values on to one's children or not based on whether they believe these values are correct, repression has nothing to do with it. also, i am under the impression that there are several brands of religious education, and not all of them include the lash. i will dare to say that, in this day and age and in western countries, most of them do not include the lash. now, the whole story was especially annoying because he was assuming that i was brought up in an abusive way due to religion, which is not only utterly untrue, but he knows it is untrue. but this is besides the point.

i do not believe that arguments in favor or against religion can ever be entirely rational, because after all religion involves faith. but i do believe, in the words of one medieval theologian or other, that "faith seeks understanding", and this is why i always try at least to keep conversations on the theme on a logical track. all arguments that proceed from "i do not approve of consequence x of denomination y, so god isn't there" are just bloody stupid. if i claimed that it wasn't raining now, based on the fact that i don't want to get wet while riding my scooter to work, everyone would rightly take me for an imbecile.

 

[Matse]

The problem is that the first thing many people associate with god are strict rules and religious wars. This is due to the fact that they associate god with the "material" part of a certain denomination and not just with the faith itself.

@ Hyena: Just being curious: Would you consider yourself part of a certain denomination or do you think of yourself as a theist and that is it (not meant in a negative way)? Sorry if you have posted that somewhere else before. Just hint me in the right direction in that case and I'll search for it.

 

[hyena]

@matse: i am a garden-variety roman catholic. probably more hard-liner than feel-good, but i'm not a lefebvrian by any means. and i certainly never had a repressive upbringing.

 

[ian.de]

hyena:

I've found in my discussions that it is pointless to break Christians up into different denominations. It's easier to debate the universal beliefs of all christians/religions.

I'm no longer in the business of faith-killing, so I don't get into many arguments nowadays, or I try to stay somewhat neutral. There are times when I wish was still a believer and I wouldn't want to take that away from anyone, it must be nice.

If you are interested in some of the more logical arguments try www.godisimaginary.com , its full of easy to understand articles and even video demonstrations.

 

[soulburner]

soulburner:
What are your logical/reasonable reasons for believing in God?

I'm not asking to be a condescending dickhead I'm asking to see if maybe I am missing something.

my logical reason is that, as crazy and stupid as it may sound, i've seen it actually working. and it wasn't hypnosis, self-hypnosis, mind tricks, "voices in my head" kind of stuff, or any other bullshit. i'm 100% sure about it being real. and I just don't want to go into personal details (especially since the whole thing doesn't really involve me, and it's not the kind of things you tell of forums).

i'm not going to deny the fact that sometimes, some really unique people can do things with faith/prayers, just because 99.99% of people pretending to do actually something with religion are cheating bastards.

 

[hyena]

its full of easy to understand articles and even video demonstrations.

that's great, i'm slow on the uptake.

 

[Siren]

If you are interested in some of the more logical arguments try www.godisimaginary.com , its full of easy to understand articles and even video demonstrations.

Awww, that's so nice of you. Too bad their articles are long and i have a short attention span and no time. Now my eyes will never be opened.

 

[hyena]

@siren: congratulations, you've obviously been pwned by religious brainwashing

 

[ian.de]

If you don't want the other side of the argument then don't read/listen to it. The website has an excellent possition against religion and I posted the link for people who may not be 100% in their faiths.

If you can't read an article for more than 5 minutes, click on the video and watch/listen. If you don't care to do that, then whatever floats your boat.

I realize that we all have a different walk in life, and what is credible to you may not be credible to me. And because we have different credibility standards, it doesn't matter to you that Adam and Eve are a fairy tale, that it is impossible to feed 1000's with a single loaf of bread, and that the bible was written by men 2000 years ago. You still believe in Christianity for whatever reasons, even if it's basis and it's only "proof", the bible, is a man-written tome of fables.

The list goes on and on. But like I said those pieces of information don't sway many faithful people, especially when you have personal testimonies and faith experiences.
Different strokes for different folks.

 

[Siren]

@ian.de: I read halfways through a few articles and even managed to watch half a video. Their arguments seemed weak and not very logical or objective to me, more like based on wild analogies, arbitrary assumptions, animosity and irony. Way to go for a site that wants to prove the other side is the irrational one. As a result the site couldn't hold my interest for more than 10 minutes, let alone convince me of anything. I also didn't appreciate the fact that, while it is clearly stated that it's assumed that i'm a smart, educated person with common sense, they then proceed to treat me like an idiot.

 

[ian.de]

@ian.de: I read halfways through a few articles and even managed to watch half a video. Their arguments seemed weak and not very logical or objective to me, more like based on wild analogies, arbitrary assumptions, animosity and irony. Way to go for a site that wants to prove the other side is the irrational one. As a result the site couldn't hold my interest for more than 10 minutes, let alone convince me of anything. I also didn't appreciate the fact that, while it is clearly stated that it's assumed that i'm a smart, educated person with common sense, they then proceed to treat me like an idiot.

Why waste your time? You obviously only peaked at the site to have something to say about it, you didn't read any of the information to actually think about the ideas being presented. Which articles did you read halfway through? And which video did you watch halfway through?

I'll be honest, I can't imagine being a faithful person and reading the site without getting angry. His writing style is very condescending and matter of fact. Like I said, this is more for people who are on the fence about religion.

No one likes being called delusional lol

 

[Siren]

@ian.de: Ok, let's see. I read 1, 4, 14, 15, 17, 18, 35, 37, 39 (halfway through) and watched the optical illusion video (actually all of it, it took two tries, that's how badly made it is). Why waste my time, indeed? I went there to see if there were any interesting arguments, and not just for the sake of bashing the site. Contrary to what you might believe, i'm not a closed-minded person just because i have certain beliefs. How do you know i did not actually read any of the information? See, more wild assumptions there for you.

If an article as long as those that i mentioned above can't provide any interesting information or logical arguments halfway through, why would it do so in the remaining half?
If someone is right and has logical arguments that he/she believes are obvious and true, why aim them only at people "who are on the fence about religion"?
Furthermore, why would anyone appreciate someone who is condescending and trying to take them by the hand and lead them wherever he wants through degradation, unless they're a very confused person who are used to being treated like shit?

I'll be honest with you too. I'm a faithful person and i didn't get angry while reading that site. The arguments were in my opinion laughable, and nothing that could piss me off. What annoyed me to no end is the fact that they were written as if the reader is an idiot. But maybe that's the target audience of the guy indeed.

 

[ian.de]

The author writes to discredit religion. His target audience is the religious person. But someone who is deep in their faith is obviously not going to be swayed by him in the least bit. Someone who is less deep in their faith/less fanatical may be swayed by the arguments on the website, as they have less emotion invested into their faith.

I would say that you need to read the articles all the way through to get each of his points... much of the begining is a background/set up for the rest of the argument.

Article 17 is a very good one and I feel the argument is strong. http://www.godisimaginary.com/i17.htm
Tell me what is illogical about this argument?

Article 18 starts off feebily but he makes his point very clear toward the end but you have to read that far.

"Heaven is a fairy tale invented by human imagination. And each person's fairy tale is different.
There is also the absurdity that comes when you compare any two people's views of heaven. For some it involves harps and clouds and halos. For others it involves hot and cold running virgins. For some people, the actual body is transported magically to heaven as described in the "Left Behind" books. For others, your "soul" floats out of the body and makes it way to St. Peter. And so on. People make up anything they like, because heaven is a completely imaginary place. "

I mean you skimmed only 9 out of the 50 articles.

What was wrong with the optical illusion video? It's a flawless example of how prayer is meaningless.

I used to be a faithful person and I'm sure if I had wanted to stay a Christian I would have stayed a Christian. In my search for the truth I found that there is a a mound of evidence against the existence of a god opposed to no evidence for the existence of god, so I became an atheist.

Siren if you are looking to challenge your faith I would suggest reading a book by Richard Dawkins. No website can really do a religious argument justice.