Blind Faith (NOT A RELIGIOUS PISSING CONTEST)

[elSmoko]

Man, let me tell you something about faith: Its all around us, regardless of what religion you choose to subscribe to. We are all indoctrinated in the beliefs of others... There is no escaping that. Right now, our society is focused on the religion of science, which has brought both good and bad. But to question religious faith, simply because it doesn't adhere with science is ridiculous. You have an equal amount of faith in all the experiements and scientific findings that you never proved yourself. Even if you do go about proving things that discredit texts like the bible, the proof will be a product of the internal scientific set of beliefs, and thus unprovable and useless for those outside of the aforementioned "scientific indoctrinate".
In Waco, Texas, the United States governement made the fatal assumption that everyone involved was at core following a general american belief system... unfortunately, the waco religious members had been indoctrinated with the belief that the world would end in a violent cataclysm: The FBI raid only served to validate and strengthen the internal beliefs of this so called cult.
Any strong set of beliefs is entirely self sufficient, and internally-validating... otherwise, it just don't last long enough to multiply.
I happen to be an atheist, however after just leaving a relationship with a devout mormon, I've been left with many new and interesting thought processes to explore in my idle time
I hope this is fair, and that I haven't offended anyone.

- ElSmoko

 

[gunf1ghter]

I thought if you were an atheist, you didn't have guilt?

*sigh*

this is a common stereotype about Atheists, and for most of them is completely wrong.

Atheists believe that we are all accountable for our own actions.... we have morality.

 

[troglodytis]

i know nothing. not even that.


truth is truth, regardless of you or i, or what we each beleive is true, or something else.

 

[poop]

Atheists believe that we are all accountable for our own actions.... we have morality.


If you do not believe in a higher authority, then were do morals come from? To have faith in fundamental Truth (ie right and wrong - morals) is to have faith in the metaphysical. I thought atheists did not believe in the metaphysical. Am I mistaken?

I think you are referring to ethics, which is totally different. One may feel he or she committed an unethical act without feeling they committed something fundamentally wrong.

I sometimes wonder if we are responsible for our actions. Free will could be an illusion, you know. Though that is a different discussion entirely.

 

[Tauren]

I believe most christian morality is based on fear. You only do the right thing in fear of retribution or the reward of going to heaven not because it is the right thing to do. That is the way christianity is implemented by humans. GOD is a great concept it's the implemetation that sucks.

 

[Dan]

Darn! I thought this was going to be a thread about the early 70's supergroup. (Eric Clapton, Steve Winwood, Rick Grech & Ginger Baker.) Oh well....

 

[Windogg]

My God can piss further than your God!! 'nuff said.

Windogg

 

[~zonker~]

Tauren

I think alot of religions use fear as a motivating tool, unfortunartely.

It has little to do with genuine faith, be it blind or rationalized and percieved..

 

[yata]

poop

Your religion has made morals so "Godly" that they're out of reach! Either that gives you something to reach for, or it's what one ought to act, but don't, thus getting away with nonsense and hurt.

The thing is: you'll never reach those morals following the Bible. Carrying with the frustration, you want others to feel the same way.

That's why atheists hate Christian zealots to the bone. Life's all about seize the moment and give it all you got. To feel good for ourselves. The Book wants you to be the opposite, not to mention anti-women stuff.

 

[poop]

What, exactly, is my religion? I don't really think there are any followers of poopism

I, personally, feel that morals are a bunch of hogwash. But... A good sense of ethics is necessary for everyone to get along and enjoy life. I came to the conclusion this way:

Say you and 20 other people are put in a room to decide what how people should treat each other. In this room, you know nothing about yourself or the others. It is like amnesia. So there is no race, color, sex, or national bias. You have no preordained sense of right and wrong. The laws you come up with will almost definitely be very socialistic and fair. Since you do not know if you will be at the bottom or top, you will likely make fair laws. This is why I think we should treat each other fairly. Not because of some bogus sense of morals, but out of a sense of fairness. It all has roots in human selfishness, as the motivation is to protect one's own ass. The end result is good for all of society.

This is what I base my sense of ethics on. We will all enjoy life more if we are fair to one another. Life does not get any better or more enjoyable if you spend all your time serving an esoteric model for life written two millenia ago.

I borrowed this from the social philosopher John Rawls. I think his idea on justice as fairness makes a lot of sense.

I guess that would mean I have some faith in the concept of fairness as a guide. But I came to this through reasoning, not because it was preached to me. I am equally willing to understand other theories on life and ways of living. I just feel that Rawls makes more sense than Apostle Paul for our day and time.

 

[Athanasius]

poop:

On a certain level, Rawls make sense. But if you explore it more deeply, it falls apart. Under normal situations, "justice as fairness" motivated by a desire to "protect one's ass" sounds reasonable, but what about times of heroic self-sacrifice?

What about the soldier who throws himself on the grenade to save his friends? Where does "protect my ass" fit into that? If it doesn't, then how do we determine the relative merit of his decision to sacrifice himself? Was it a "good" thing to do? Shouldn't the soldier's actions be encouraged?

Most people would say, "Yes." But "justice as fairness" cannot explain why self-sacrifice (with no hope of reward in this life) would, in ceratin situations, be the best thing that could be done.

"Justice as fairness" motivated by "a desire to protect myself" is part of a genuine ethic, but it is not the core concept. The core concept is vicariousness, which is "good suffers for the less good so that more good can come to more people."

That is what motivated Paul, and more importantly, what motivated his Lord, Jesus of Nazareth.

Though few recognize "vicariousness", I consider such blindness subconscious but deliberate. We simply don't want to live that way so we settle for less while expecting more.

Yet vicariousness is prevalent all around us. The "good" spouse does more and suffers at the "bad" spouse's hands so that the family benefits. I could give many mor examples, bit for sake of brevity I'll stop

 

[poop]

Athanasius I do not really see what you call 'vicariousness' a hole in Rawl's reasoning.

All of your examples are not inherently acts of goodness. They are simply acts of preserving the species. Why does this generally go unnoticed? Well, it is instinct; instinct is based in our subconcious. Just as we all feel the need to eat, sleep, procreate, and breathe, we protect our own species without thinking. If we were missing this trait, humans would have died off long ago.

This is also why we punish those that kill. The killer is putting the existence of the species at risk. The danger to our existence must be averted, so that member of society is ostracized (or killed him/herself)

Whether you call it instinct or morals is really a functionally minor distinction. The results of this trait are the same. This natural law exists because we would not be without it. I don't see why this trait necessitates the existence of God (as C.S. Lewis commonly argues). I often feel the existence of God would come first in any argument on morals, but I guess it is really a chicken and the egg thing.

With that said, I think I will have to rephrase my theory on ethics:
Ethics are the rules thought up to cover one's ass, and the collective ass of his or her species.

On another note, I am really enjoying this thread. With a few exceptions, there is very little bashing going on. I often tire of the exact same arguments and rantings in spritiual/deity based/religious threads. Of course, I could one day realize my arguments are equally as petty and tired.

 

[Athanasius]

poop:

OK, let's use the example I gave of the soldier, if you find that example a suitable one to illustrate our different perspectives.

You are suggesting that ethics come from a desire to "protect my ass." Then you suggest that a soldier would sacrifice himself for the "good of the species." To me, these two actions are contradictory. In fact, they clash often enough (in lesser and greater ways) that I think it highly unlikely that either one is really the core of a true ethic.

You draw no clear distinction between morals and instinct, yet here are two instincts that are clashing: the instinct for self-preservation and the instinct for survival of the species. What instinct comes into play that enables the one soldier to choose the instinct he ought to choose when the others run for cover?

I suppose one could argue that the stronger instinct wins out. By atheistic or agnostic evolutionary theory, you seem to believe the stronger instinct would be survival of the species. If so, then why would so few soldiers choose to dive on the grenade? Most would run for cover in what Rawls' reasonings would suggest is an entirely ethical act (they were "saving their own ass&quot.

Well, the other soldiers may not be acting unethically, but it is self-evident to most people that the sacrifical soldier did the better thing. If he did the better thing, than he is at that moment the better, more fit man. Yet he died. Is that fair? Or is it vicarious?

If it is vicarious, and such behavior is deemed ethical and thus should be encouraged, then we are telling those who we deem the most fit that they should sacrifice themselves for the survival of the less fit. I actually agree with that ethic, but it flies totally in the face of unguided, pragmatic darwinianism.

 

[Elledan]

Why does a soldier throw himself on a grenade?
Why does someone commit suicide?

I think both cases have many similarities. More than you would wish.

 

[Athanasius]

Elladan:

I would be interested in what you think the similarities are (besides the obvious physical ones).

Suicide is a self-absorbed act*. Sacrifice to save other lives is an altruistic act. There may be physical similarities, but I suspect the psychological state of the two people a moment before their respective deaths is often radically different.



*NOTE: By self-absorbed, I do not necessarily mean selfish.

 

[thraashman]

every time we have a topic that discusses religion, everyone jumps in and everyone argues. I'm usually happy to attack religion (usually christianity) but today I'm getting kinda tired of it. Someone asked why it is everyone attacks christianity, and I feel like answering that. I think we tend to use christianity as our target becuase 1. we know more about it than Judaism, Islam, or Hinduism. 2. Christians try to convert people to their religion more than anyone else. 3. Christianity is still the world's most spread religion.

I'm not sure if the 22% statistic for christianity is right, it seems to me that it is still a little more than that, but it is declining. Atheism is now the second most common religion in the US. I think this is because people are questioning their faith more often and when they do they realize how they really feel.

I never questioned my beliefs until I was about 15. Then I realized what I truly believe. and now I'm Atheist. Trying to use science to support or discount the Bible is not a good idea because the Bible has concepts in it that go beyond where science could work with. God is supposed to be omnipotent, so science would say certain things that the Bible says happened couldn't have like water turning to wine, or an entire sea beyond parted down the middle. but God should supposedly be able to get around physics and other natural sciences. but science has also proved that the Earth is far older than 5000 years (yes I know the Bible never specifically says this, but if you date everyone's lifespan in the Bible, that's about how old it comes out to be) this disproves a concept in the Bible. Science has shown that the Mediterranean Sea had a huge swelling and flooded much of Eurasia and Africa (the whole Noah's Arc story) this supports the Bible. Science also has shown that in approx. 4 B.C. a large comet passed close to Earth and was visible for several months similar to Heybob(or whatever it was called) that passed by a few summers ago. It showed that based on the area in space it was expected to have passed over that anyone trying to follow it would be led to the general area of what we call Bethlehem (hence the star the 3 wisemen followed) this also supports the Bible. I'd also like to mention here that both the 4 B.C. and what we know as Jesus birthdate are approximations and that the monk who started the concept of B.C. and A.D. was very likely off by several years considering he did this about 600 years after the death of Jesus. (and for those who don't know it A.D. means Ano Domini - In the year of our Lord. Not After Death. It's Latin people). And yes science has shown that there is about a 90% chance that evolution does and has happened. but without being able to duplicate it, there is no definate proof.

My whole point here is I'm tired of people trying to call science a religion and saying that science directly supports or directly discounts any religion. they are seperate things. science simply takes things we know are true and can show are true and uses them to try to find out the truth about things we cannot fully explain. (i think I made sense with all that.) well I'm hungry now so I'm gonna shut up and go eat.


I think this is the first religious thread that I didn't all out attack christianity with.

 

[Athanasius]

thraashman:

keep the wheat, throw the chaff to the wind. Yes, most religious or political thread get nasty and sink into pointless ad hominem. But, in almost every thread, I have found well-thought posts that challenge, encourage, or stretch me. Sometimes all at the same time.

Religion and politics are heartfelt. For that very reason, they should be thoroughly discussed, even if discussing them means we have to "part the Red Sea" of ad hominem flames to walk on the "dry ground" of reasoned apologetics.

 

[Elledan]

<<Suicide is a self-absorbed act*. Sacrifice to save other lives is an altruistic act. There may be physical similarities, but I suspect the psychological state of the two people a moment before their respective deaths is often radically different.>>

No

The decision to take that particular action is made before they do it, i.e. they decide to sacrifice themselves to save the others or that they aren't interested in their life anymore not while carrying it out.

Their mental state will be the same: focused on their task. No thought disturbing their concentration. Then... Nothing. For logic rules out the possibility of an afterlife in which you remember everything.

 

[Athanasius]

Elledan:

Granted, the split second before they act, the thought is one of intense focus. I don't think it is appropriate to ignore the motives that brought the two men to that point, or to isolate the motive from the final thought that preceded the act. At least not in the context of discussing ethics and instincts.

On a secondary note, how does logic rule out an afterlife of personal memories?

I probably won't have time to respond today, but I would be interested in your thoughts even if I can't respond to them. I can always find the thread later

 

[Thorn]

<< On a secondary note, how does logic rule out an afterlife of personal memories? >>


Yeah, I'd like to know the reasoning behind this too.

 

[Elledan]

<<On a secondary note, how does logic rule out an afterlife of personal memories?>>

I've thought about this topic for a long time (6-8 hours at least) and came to this conclusion:

If we accept the idea of each Human having a soul, which contains his/her personality (I think. It already doesn't make much sense here, for what is a soul?) then the following happens when a Human dies:

1) The body dies
2) The soul is no longer 'bound' to the body and leaves it (energy traveling out of itself?) and sets off for 'heaven'
3) The soul reaches heaven and stays there for eternity (how much space takes a soul? how many souls will fit into this place called 'heaven? Out of which material is 'heaven' build up?)

Contrary to what many people believe, the soul isn't the person itself as it was on earth, for the following reasons:

> A soul doesn't contain any DNA or any other 'blue-print' of the body, so once the soul reaches 'heaven' it will be shapeless, like a concentrated 'sphere' of energy. No traces of the origional Human body will be left. This leads us to the conclusion that
> Since the body dies, the brain dies with it (even before the body stops breathing and all other processes stop (digestion, hartbeat etc.) the brain already stopped functioning minutes earlier). Memories are stored in the brain, so when the brain stops functioning (or the memory gets damaged before the organism dies) the memories stored will be erased (although they can possible be recovered after the organism dies by scanning the brainstructure. This will require technology currently unavailable).
Memories aren't stored in the 'soul' so all that will be left of the person (the 'soul') will be some kind of 'life-energy'.

So 'heaven' would be merely a gathering of energy, instead of the populair belief of a happy meeting of long-lost relatives and friends (and enemies?).

I really think we need both a better definition of what a 'soul' is and some prove to support the existance of it.

I hope that I've been clear enough.

 

[GroundOO]

oi! crezy but it's really nice this hasn't turned into mindless bashing (yet , see if I can change that! haha) It's hard to resist bashing what I feel to be stupid logic but I know that nobody would learn anything from that. And knowledge is what I'm all about

I haven't, and don't think I'll ever, settle on a belief system. Every day something new has an impact on my understanding, and hence beliefs. I don't believe in God now and unless there's some huge change in logic in my mind, I don't see how I ever will; there's just too much that points the other way, as I see it. (Oh and btw, telling me I'll go to hell will have aproximately 0 (read: zero) effect on me 'cuz I don't believe in it, duh.)

This is the opposite of how it normally happens, but when I became atheist (if you like labels) I really became at peace with everything. I guess I'm less at peace with zealots of any type because I'm really open minded and that lack of acceptance disturbs me.

Anyway, this whole discussion of what morals and rightVSwrong and ethics are I find pretty stupid. I guess if you want to get really technical (philisophical) you can say there aren't any definite rights or wrongs. (Or just no definites at all.) But come on, true morality is selflessness, which also happens to be just what the bible teaches.

I live my life by morals and my parents have no idea that I'm an atheist (they'd probably take my car ) I hold open doors constantly, respect woman as equals (okay, so maybe I'm not quite like a Xian haha, j/k), and go out of my way to help people all the time, sometimes even if they will never know it was me (like not littering.) I don't do it to &quot;save my own ass&quot;, not even to &quot;save my species' asses&quot; I do it to make other people and myself happy. I think the Beatles hit it right on the mark, &quot;All you need is love&quot;, the rest follows. Sounds quite biblical &quot;Love is patient, love is kind&quot; so you can tell I don't disagree with the morals the bible teaches. Some people can't figure those things out on their own or need to be convicted of them. I'm not saying that's the only reason for religion though.

I need to goto bed, this stupid thing for German class tomorrow morning at 6!!! usually I don't wake up 'til 6....PM. oh well, the things I do for 30 points extra credit.

Ooh, one last thing though. All these people goin' &quot;evolution is stupid because nobody can prove it.&quot; (not necessarily in this thread) Well you can't prove anything without a doubt (and if you think you can, you're...wrong) but there has been really remarkable evidence for it for years and years. So many things about it have been proven (again, that's relative) that any person that's been educated on the topic will tell you it's not a belief or faith thing. It's as proven as gravity (which is not proven but all opposing theories are much &quot;less-proven&quot; and frankly hard to believe)

Moral of the story, know what you're talking about! Just because it seems like a stupid idea to you doesn't mean anything, if you're not fully educated on the topic, you have no right imposing your beliefs as truth on anyone else.

Sleep on this, as I soon plan to do.....zzzzzzzzzz

 

[MrPALCO]

<< A soul doesn't contain any DNA or any other 'blue-print' of the body, >>



This is correct.

Man the Spirit, is identified with a code that is similar to the DNA code that identifies the body of the Man. Each Man the Spirit ever created has a unique Spiritual DNA code as every physical body ever created has a unique physical DNA code.

The Soul is a storage area within the Spirit of man and contains the Mind, the Will and the Emotions. The soul of the Man can be modified using common methods. Every event in the life of the Man is recorded in the Soul.

Only God is licensed to modify the Spirit.

 

[Elledan]

<<
Man the Spirit, is identified with a code that is similar to the DNA code that identifies the body of the Man. Each Man the Spirit ever created has a unique Spiritual DNA code as every physical body ever created has a unique physical DNA code.

The Soul is a storage area within the Spirit of man and contains the Mind, the Will and the Emotions. The soul of the Man can be modified using common methods. Every event in the life of the Man is recorded in the Soul.>>

Okay, I guess that it's now my turn to ask:

Do you have any evidence to support this? And I don't mean quotes out of books or from sites when I say 'evidence', but either some well known experiment or a reasoning based on logic, not on faith/religion.

 

[MrPALCO]

<< Do you have any evidence to support this? >>



Yes.

Will I share that evidence with you?

No.

Search for the truth by going to God for yourself, he will tell you all things.