Religion?

[March Hare]

After yesterday's funeral, I'm going to have to make a few amendments to my last post.

Responsibility to keep it to yourself? Not at all times. Definitely not. The minister was adamant, exalted almost, and the beneficial effects upon the mourners were evident. There was something very powerful at work there that morning, a sense of community, a sense of great support and comfort in hard times. Some of the pain of grief was taken away by true and sincere Christian faith, and I thought it was beautiful. I sang along with the psalms and it didn't feel like a betrayal of my own beliefs at all (well, I admit I sang "he" and "him" sometimes where it said "I" and "me"), because it wasn't about me. It was about the deceased and his family and I was there to support and comfort in a way that was good for them.

Of course it was easier because I wasn't deeply involved personally. But, then again, if I had been, things would have gone the way I and my loved ones feel best about.

So in short, religion can be a very beautiful and beneficial thing at times like these. It's personal, yes, but it's communal too. And all things communal require a certain amount of open-ness toward the others' feelings and needs. I set my own aside for a little while, but was fortunate enough not to have to do too much of that. It was greatly appreciated. My man set his convictions aside for the sake of being there for his family, and he pulled it off wonderfully. There was such a strong sense of community, of togetherness there, it was worth it.

So it's not about wanting to be right, whatever the cost. It's not about one truth that excludes everything else. It's about accepting each other's differences with good grace and recognising the good intentions behind what people say and do.

Good intentions, people. Give each other a break. They're NOT all out to get you personally.

[tma]

So it's not about wanting to be right, whatever the cost. It's not about one truth that excludes everything else. It's about accepting each other's differences with good grace and recognising the good intentions behind what people say and do.

Good intentions, people. Give each other a break. They're NOT all out to get you personally.

I appreciated everything that you said and understand it. This last in particular.

[AbigailAnarcki]

I dont believe in a god. I need evidence to have a belief.

[March Hare]

There's two kinds of empirical evidence, though. The thing is that only one of them is, to a certain extent, conveyable/transferable to others, through language or models. But I a not so sure that that automatically renders the other kind invalid.

[vote_for_pedro]

I'm aware of empirical evidence that is exactly the same regardless of who is seeing said evidence - not subjective.

But what is the other kind?

[tma]

Well... I do know that science always changes. Definition of science from a science methods teacher.

Science

• Observing and experiencing through the senses
  
• Inductive-open ended and exploratory
  
• In search of meaning
  
• Making inferences (creating ideas, explainations and conclusion through experimentation) ** ie scientists do not always know**
  
• Different explainations relative to the time they were proposed or discovered
  
• Not a collection of certain facts
  

to *me* and I understand that many (possibly most) people of faith made go through these processes with their faith (or even ideologies - whether political, self-philosophy, or whatever). But... I'd like to at least imagine the people that grow the most and get the most out of their faith do these.

Again- disclaimer - my p.o.v.- not to be confused with the "Truth"

[March Hare]

I'm aware of empirical evidence that is exactly the same regardless of who is seeing said evidence - not subjective.

But what is the other kind?

Visions, for instance. Near-death or psychostimulant-induced experiences. If you fiddle with certain parts of someone's or your own brain, you fiddle with their or your own perceptions. If the definition of "empirical" is "as perceived by the senses", then everything perceived by the senses is empirical. Though, then again, can it be called "evidence" if only one person perceives it with their (altered, stimulated, addled) senses?

Of course there is similarity between various near-death-experiences, and also between the experiences that ingesters of psychedelic substances have had. So maybe it could be called evidence after all. Some people even manage to put their experiences into words that sort of represent the gist of those visions, those perceptions.

[vote_for_pedro]

Though, then again, can it be called "evidence" if only one person perceives it with their (altered, stimulated, addled) senses?

No, it absolutely cannot. Empirical isn't just perceived by the senses. It has to be verifiable. So even though we know that you can fuck with someone's perceptions with drugs and and the NASA vomit comet, the experiences by the individual are anecdotal.

Getting high and seeing a rainbow colored unicorn is not evidence that rainbow unicorns exist. It's evidence that drugs are fun have the ability to alter your perceptions. Losing a lot of blood to your brain and seeing dead relatives is not evidence of the other side. It's evidence that neurons do crazy things when they're rapidly firing due to the inability to function normally.

[Jemmabean]

Given that fact that (to name one single example; there are tons) in scientific studies, NDEs (Near-Death Experiences) have actually been induced with high doses of ketamine and other dissociatives, I think that sort of precludes them from having mystical, otherworldly meaning... unless heaven is at the bottom of a K-hole!

($0.02)

()

[VoOs]

Though, then again, can it be called "evidence" if only one person perceives it with their (altered, stimulated, addled) senses?

No, it absolutely cannot. Empirical isn't just perceived by the senses. It has to be verifiable. So even though we know that you can fuck with someone's perceptions with drugs and and the NASA vomit comet, the experiences by the individual are anecdotal.

Getting high and seeing a rainbow colored unicorn is not evidence that rainbow unicorns exist. It's evidence that drugs are fun have the ability to alter your perceptions. Losing a lot of blood to your brain and seeing dead relatives is not evidence of the other side. It's evidence that neurons do crazy things when they're rapidly firing due to the inability to function normally.

I have to agree with VFP here. There is only one kind of empirical evidence, and it cannot be applied to 'otherwordly' experiences. You cannot prove that gods or spirits exist. A person can have experiences that make them believe in these things, but they can't prove it to anyone else.

This is the reason why I could click "0" in this poll without any hesitation. I have never experienced anything that could make me believe in anything supernatural. Until that day comes, I am an atheist. It's as simple as that.

[March Hare]

Fair enough, to be sure. If anything, the empirical-science methods are our current local optimum when it comes to seeking general truth and understanding. Personal truth and understanding, however, belong in an entirely different conceptual frame.

And this is why we should all just cut the nonsense about how science and religion are mutually exclusive and acknowledge that there can be truths that concern the entire world and truths that concern only one's own perceptions.

(Yes, I'm a Humanities major. STFU. )

[MissMercy]

I'm an eclectic pagan. I believe the in what I call "the Wild Gods". I celebrate older Norse and Celtic holidays with my inner circle ( family). I dance, drink and sing my passions as well as try to live the best that I can.

For me, it works. It makes me happy and helps regulate stress in my life. I love seeing magic in everything and everybody, I think that we are all amazing creatures regardless of belief.

Just my two cents.

[murphy dee]

I spent a lot of time from age 16-24 bouncing between a whole bunch of things from athiest to Hare Krishna, but I mostly identify as Unitarian Universalist now, as it's kind of a catch-all.

My personal beliefs about god now typically range from "I don't think he exists" to "he does exist and I hate him". I tried to be Christian once, I honestly did. I really don't know how anyone can do that for their whole lives, though. It was exhausting and just made me sad all the time. ):

[tma]

I tried to be Christian once, I honestly did. I really don't know how anyone can do that for their whole lives, though. It was exhausting and just made me sad all the time. ):

I would think that it would be like that with any religion if one is simply tied in with "following the rules'. Particularly if one lives in a place where a particular fiath is very much tied in with the local culture. It was actually more difficult to feel like an authentic Christian (for me)- in the Midwest, because there was Way more pressure as to that Christians *have* to do or believe x), y), or z).

I think that just like life can be drudgery and repetitive, so can faith practices. But... I don't feel that one's faith and/or the core of one's beliefs should be a source of negativity and an energy drainer. I think that questioning and searching for what connects with you and helps you grow- that is a *good* thing and if someone disses on you just because you don't believe what they do- then that shows negatively on them.

[murphy dee]

I would think that it would be like that with any religion if one is simply tied in with "following the rules'. Particularly if one lives in a place where a particular fiath is very much tied in with the local culture. It was actually more difficult to feel like an authentic Christian (for me)- in the Midwest, because there was Way more pressure as to that Christians *have* to do or believe x), y), or z).

That wasn't really what made it a bad experience for me. I enjoyed going to church as much as I could, and I liked discussing the bible with the friends I had met, and I liked to pray and follow the rules and all that jazz.

What upset me was that, looking around, I felt like every other Christian I knew had a connection with god. And I just...didn't. And I couldn't understand why, because I tried so hard. I prayed and prayed, hoping that I might feel his presence, just feel something. But it never came. And my friends would talk about feeling blessed or feeling Christ leading them in their lives, and I never felt that, ever. It really embittered me over time, so I after a few months I finally just had to walk away. It sucked.

[vote_for_pedro]

What upset me was that, looking around, I felt like every other Christian I knew had a connection with god. And I just...didn't.

Ah yes. I know what you mean. I never felt a fucking thing either. They used to tell me it was my own fault because I wasn't opening myself up to god. But at this point in my life, I'm pretty convinced that it's because people are really good at convincing themselves that certain things exist based solely on the fact that they WANT them to exist.

[Orionbob]

I'm pretty convinced that it's because people are really good at convincing themselves that certain things exist based solely on the fact that they WANT them to exist.

I really don't feel like the existence of god is a point that can be argued, because it's so deeply entrenched in personal beliefs. The strange thing about belief is that it comes in such different forms, one thing will feel utterly right to one person that just doesn't feel right at all to another.

Using myself as an example, I've never felt the presence of any god in my life. I thought I was Christian when I was younger because everyone around me was a Christian so I just assumed I was too. But simply saying, "I have no idea what's out there" feels right to me, and I genuinely couldn't believe anything different even if I wanted to. People who do strongly feel the presence of a god in their lives feel the same way - I don't have an argument to make about the existence of any kind of god but I can't argue that the feeling is as real and true to religious people as my great big symbolic question mark is to me.

I think the important thing to remember is that, to deeply religious people, God is very real. To me, god isn't. Everyone's perspective is so different that what each person feels is "reality" is going to drastically vary from person to person anyway, so why shouldn't religious belief be included in that? For me and this hypothetical Christian, maybe neither of us is wrong. Maybe reality is subjective. Who knows? I think the most important thing, the aspect of this that will most impact all of our lives, isn't whether or not God is real but how we react to people who feel so deeply about something that we'll never be able to truly understand.

[tma]

I don't have an argument to make about the existence of any kind of god but I can't argue that the feeling is as real and true to religious people as my great big symbolic question mark is to me.

I think the important thing to remember is that, to deeply religious people, God is very real. To me, god isn't. Everyone's perspective is so different that what each person feels is "reality" is going to drastically vary from person to person anyway, so why shouldn't religious belief be included in that? For me and this hypothetical Christian, maybe neither of us is wrong. Maybe reality is subjective. Who knows? I think the most important thing, the aspect of this that will most impact all of our lives, isn't whether or not God is real but how we react to people who feel so deeply about something that we'll never be able to truly understand.

I really like how you put that.

Maybe I'm odd... (ok... yes I am... ) but... I feel like for all the downsides and crappy stuff that people of certain religions might do or say- that really are people out there who's inner beliefs and their particular "faith path" do motivate them to be caring and more open. People who question and wonder, and people who think that "this is it"- can also use their own beliefs in how the Universe operates to be jerks or to be caring and open. It's the "fruits" of a person's beliefs that show what is in their hearts.

As I wrestle with certain things, my faith helps *me*. I'll admit that I have gone through times of feeling nothing, and I have Lots of questions and I've even had times where my religious affliation was negative for me. I refuse to judge people for whom their beliefs and views cause them to be lights and to be caring and loving to others. How are they making things bad by living their beliefs and helping people and the world? Seriously.

I've had some things happen recently that depending on one's view would be "Providence", "kismet", "karma", or "happy coincendence". I think that no matter what you term it it adds up to the same thing and it provides hope and strength.

Anyway... enough rambling. lol!

[vote_for_pedro]

I'm pretty convinced that it's because people are really good at convincing themselves that certain things exist based solely on the fact that they WANT them to exist.

I really don't feel like the existence of god is a point that can be argued, because it's so deeply entrenched in personal beliefs. The strange thing about belief is that it comes in such different forms, one thing will feel utterly right to one person that just doesn't feel right at all to another.

I respect what you're saying, but I completely disagree. Making the claim that god exists means that the burden of proof is all on you. As long as people keep making that claim, it can and will be argued by both sides. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. It's not about feeling right. This isn't a pair of pants that you're worried about making your butt look fat. It's a supernatural being responsible for everything in the world, including whether your afterlife is eternal bliss or eternal suffering.

[Orionbob]

I really like how you put that.

Maybe I'm odd... (ok... yes I am... ) but... I feel like for all the downsides and crappy stuff that people of certain religions might do or say- that really are people out there who's inner beliefs and their particular "faith path" do motivate them to be caring and more open. People who question and wonder, and people who think that "this is it"- can also use their own beliefs in how the Universe operates to be jerks or to be caring and open. It's the "fruits" of a person's beliefs that show what is in their hearts.

*hugs* Thank you. And yeah, I agree - it's easy to generalize, to attach certain expectations of someone to their belief system, but even within the same system of beliefs you can have two people who believe the exact same thing and react to those beliefs in entirely different ways. Some people do horrific things in the name of their spiritual beliefs, and it's easy to blame a whole religion for what one person (or one group of people) does. But if someone does that it's not the religion itself to blame, it's the individual and the way they react to it.

I respect what you're saying, but I completely disagree. Making the claim that god exists means that the burden of proof is all on you. As long as people keep making that claim, it can and will be argued by both sides.

I agree that people will probably be arguing about the existence of god as long as people exist to wonder about it. The topic of whether there is a sentient being who created existence is one with potentially immensely important implications. I apologize if I gave the impression I didn't think it was important and, in many settings, worth discussing. I disagree, though, that it is a topic that should be debated in every situation. If someone is trying to convert someone else to their religion, or if one person is trying to make another live by rules that are based on a religion, then yes I agree that the burden of proof is on the person who set out to do the convincing. But if someone goes about their lives believing in God while not expecting anyone else to do the same, simply believing what they do shouldn't automatically come with the requirement that they must fight it out with anyone who doesn't agree.

And conversations like this are another thing altogether - in conversations like this, especially relatively public ones, taking part could be viewed as volunteering to be questioned on your faith. I would argue, though, that the purpose of this thread leans more toward getting to know one another and respecting our differences.

[Jorm]

Practically speaking I'm an atheist, but philosophically I consider myself an agnostic in that I acknowledge that I cannot know one way or another. I like to describe myself as a militant agnostic. I don't know and neither do you.

[doggo]

Practically speaking I'm an atheist, but philosophically I consider myself an agnostic in that I acknowledge that I cannot know one way or another. I like to describe myself as a militant agnostic. I don't know and neither do you.

Heck, can I make a T-shirt out of this?

[hails]

I believe that there's a world of living people and a world of dead people, and kind of like the Ancient Greek belief, if you were bad in life you have to go to purgatory/punishment for a certain amount of time depending on your crime and then you can go to the normal world of dead people. My family is Catholic and I go to church a lot but I don't hold with a LOT of Catholic beliefs so I consider myself as a person who just believes in a different religion every week....

[Sneeze999]

I am Church of England, which is basically Protestant. I believe in a higher power, but i also believe that it does NOTHING to interfere in our lives......otherwise, it's gift of free-will would have been pointless lol

That is why i do not hold with with religious ceremony's or going to church and stuff like that, as that is a MAN's idea of how we should show our faith, when in reality, we don't need to show it, just believe what you believe

Also, I believe Religious instituions to be just a way of controling others, if they dont worship how you tell them to then they are bad, in my view, this is crap lol

I am also very VERY tolerant of other religions, i have no problems with Catholics, Muslims, Hindu's or any other religion, i just don't see any reason why i would have to, unless they were trying to force their beliefs on me, which is why i kinda have a problem with Jehovah's witnesses. (No disrespect or insult meant to any Jehovah's witnesses who read this post, i just have a couple of them who visit my house every month even though they have been told we are not interested )

[tma]

am also very VERY tolerant of other religions, i have no problems with Catholics, Muslims, Hindu's or any other religion, i just don't see any reason why i would have to, unless they were trying to force their beliefs on me, which is why i kinda have a problem with Jehovah's witnesses. (No disrespect or insult meant to any Jehovah's witnesses who read this post, i just have a couple of them who visit my house every month even though they have been told we are not interested )

Same here.

Although- I evidently scare the Jehovah's witnesses who came by. Evidently a woman who went to seminary is too much for them to handle. I actually invited them to have a religious conversation- they wanted to talk to husb.- we both said that I could talk to them and that I had been to seminary- and then *FLEE!!!* I kid you not!