Religion

[KageSora]

I dunno, it seems old enough to realize that a certain religion doesn't really make sense.

 

I recall myself being very young and saying things that my parents had to "correct" me on because they were wrong according to our religion, and thinking that it was silly that they way that I was wrong because they couldn't know for sure. (Most notably the idea of "Well, I guess when we die we find out who was right" and I was told "No, we know that we're right already" and I always thought that was weird because how could we know? God himself wasn't literally telling us that.)

 

 

I want to say I was less than 8 myself, since around 8 was when we moved and I'm preeeeetty sure I recall saying that in the kitchen of our old house.

 

So, even since I was quite young I myself wasn't firmly religious and didn't understand it. I think that's what gave me so much anxiety and ultimately helped me break from trying to follow a religion--I just never was able to have it "click" and it never felt right. I always questioned it too much to be a good little follower when I found holes in it. Even from childhood.

[PrinceVertigo]

Yes, but there's a difference between finding a plot hole that doesn't sit right and completely denouncing something. While I'm all for throwing off the shackles of religon, I seriously disagree that such a conclusion can be made around the same time you're still learning basic addition and subtraction. Your story literally says that. At a young age, religon didn't click with you, and later on you became fully atheist. The other person is straight up claiming he full on denounced religon at age six.

Edited March 5, 2014 by PrinceVertigo

[pudding]

Uhm, well, I think that's a bit young to be firm in anything you believe, mainly cause plausible/logical formation of questioning and the like really isn't something a 6 year old could do.

I wasn't 6 but I was 7 or so when I first became interested in religion. My parents were not atheist at the time, but were simply too busy to bring my brother or I to church and work overtook religion for them. My friends, however, had a variety of religious beliefs. I followed my best friend to church on several occasions, had my parents buy me storybook versions of holy books that I could read and had my other friends take me to their religious meetings. By the time I was 9, I had been exposed to Jewish, Christian, Buddhist and Hindu stories, as well as a variety of mythologies. And I looked at all of them, looked at my parents and decided that religion wasn't for me. I was formally agnostic since I couldn't decide if I knew a god existed or not (Or which one, for that matter). But that quickly changed over to atheism within a few months.

 

So I was exploring by 7, questioning by 9 and not believing soon after that. And even though I was young, I still think that my decision was acceptable given the fact that I had done my research on the topic and explored it until I was able to strongly explain WHY I had my beliefs. Denouncing something is one thing. Explaining why is another.

[TikindiDragon]

That is a good example. However, it isn't exactly what you are trying to accomplish. Person A did not have the information of person B about the street lights. This is another set of data that, had person A been exposed to, should have logically altered his time schedule to leave earlier to accomodate for it. Thus, this is not an example of two people with the same data and information coming to seperate, equally rational answers.

 

It is also not an example of why emotions should be placed in logical arguments. Emotions are illogical so putting them in a logical argument would be illogical. The addition of the new point is not an illogical data set so, thus, it cannot be compared to emotions.

 

Let's take childbirth. There is a mother who discovers that her fetus does not have a brain and will never develop one. Logic says that this fetus will not form into a functional member of society, will most likely die within the first few days and will be a waste of resources while it is alive. Logic says get rid of it.

Emotions come in with the silly notion that perhaps a miracle will happen and the baby will turn out alright. It doesn't have a brain so it won't be able to see, hear, touch, taste or smell. But emotions say give birth to it. This is illogical but overpowers the system and many choose to keep the fetus and give birth to it in hopes it will turn out okay. This is a waste and we can see emotions corrupting the logical system and skewing it away from rationality.

This is why emotions should not be counted as a variable. They ultimately interfere and overpower the other, logical variables in the dataset and usually lead to irrational decisions.

Incorrect - emotions change the bahviour of the people around you. If you fail to take emotions into account as a variable then your predictions of what people *should* do will never match up to what they *actually* do.

 

You are trying to keep your logical judgements in the purely theoretical sphere - I am pointing out to you that in the actual, practical world life doesn't function that way. Not only that, but by trying to make life function that way you would actually be creating the kind of chaos in the herd that you have said is the ultimate in undesireable.

 

Take your example of the mother. Let us say that the medical profession has acted purely logically and terminated the fetus for her. They also logically reason that the woman is perfectly healthy, and capable of bearing further children, and discharge her home with no further support.

 

However the woman, being unable to properly mourn a child she was never able to hold, commits sucide on what should have been the anniversary of the child's birthday.

 

If you applied logic, and did not take the woman's emotions into account as a variable, you would have said that, being healthy and capable of bearing more children, she should have been fine after the termination of the malformed child. If her emotions *had* been taken into account as a variable one would have realised that she required counselling to help her through the emotional process. It can, further, be argued that if the woman had been allowed to hold her child she would have had an easier time coping with it's loss.

 

As you, yourself, have said humans are not rational creatures. Attempting to impose pure logic and rationality on the other humans around you only serves to alienate them.

 

Incidentally I am not sure wether or not you realise it, but you are coming across with an extremely holier-than-thou attitude. You have stated that you consider logic to be the only moral choice, you have stated that you consider humans in general illogical, and you follow this by stating that any emotions lead to irrational decisions. Wether you mean to or not, the conclusion that most people *will* drawn from that information is that you look down upon the rest of the human race for being illogical and emotional and that you hold yourself as being more worthy because you eschew that.

 

It is not a nice attitude.

[Fightandspawn]

Uhm, well, I think that's a bit young to be firm in anything you believe, mainly cause plausible/logical formation of questioning and the like really isn't something a 6 year old could do.

I was gifted. And everyone is over 13, right? Ok, that's also the age I stopped believing in Santa. I never had childhood innocence, and sometimes I wish I wasn't gifted. This isn't a brag, it's the reason for my beliefs.

 

 

[Marrionetta]

Just as a general bit of advice; religious debates that revolve around the notion 'you weren't there, you can't know!' generally get nowhere. We were not there for either a big badass boom or a great sky fairy shaping everything, so trying to use a lack of direct sensory observation to debunk theism OR a scientific approach to understanding origins is kind of moot.

 

-streaks through thread-

[Fuzzbucket]

Just as a general bit of advice; religious debates that revolve around the notion 'you weren't there, you can't know!' generally get nowhere. We were not there for either a big badass boom or a great sky fairy shaping everything, so trying to use a lack of direct sensory observation to debunk theism OR a scientific approach to understanding origins is kind of moot.

 

-streaks through thread-

Very much this. I don't believe in any kind of god; I can't prove (scientifically or empirically) that there isn't one, but no-one can prove there is, either.

 

We are all entitled to believe in whatever we like. Faith is not a matter of PROOF. Faith just IS. There are a few things held as tenets of faith that can be "disproved" (I don't choose to list them all, as I am VERY much against antagonising those with other faiths but transubstantiation would be the big one.) So what ? If that is something someone genuinely believes in, that is fair enough. If the ultimate result of my non-belief means I wake up in hell after I die - fair enough; I will do my level best to use that experience to come back here and say "hey guys; they were RIGHT" I already have a deal with a believer friend that whoever dies first will come back and let the other one know what it's all about ! (I DO believe in life after death, though am still considered exactly what that might mean ! but there are too many coincidences involving dead people for me not to believe in it !)

 

I believe in quite a lot of supernatural things - just not a god. But the ONLY issue I have with religion is when people try to use it to make laws affecting "non-subscribers" That is NOT OK. I'm not wild about proselytism either. But for that reason - I never see the point of a thread like this. No-one will be converted as a result, and all such threads seem to do is foment discord. I haven't seen anyone become convinced of anything in all the (HOW many ??) pages of this,

[MasterWeavile898]

Not only that, but by trying to make life function that way you would actually be creating the kind of chaos in the herd that you have said is the ultimate in undesireable.

Ooh, ooh, pick me!

 

Yeah, logic without emotion = Chaos. I am proof enough of that. I don't know how you can come from such a similar position from me and end up so opposite. But my attempts at removing emotion and making decisions solely based on logic have landed me where I am

 

And honestly, morals are inherently emotional. Morals are what stop us from only doing the logical thing and allow us to listen to our emotions and do what's right. That's why they make no sense to me. Logic is worthless without emotion (Listen to her, being all hypocritical, isn't she just so cute? Yeah, don't worry, I'll change my mind in like ten minutes when I don't feel so much of this idiotic regret)

[Fuzzbucket]

Ooh, ooh, pick me!

 

Yeah, logic without emotion = Chaos. I am proof enough of that. I don't know how you can come from such a similar position from me and end up so opposite. But my attempts at removing emotion and making decisions solely based on logic have landed me where I am

 

And honestly, morals are inherently emotional. Morals are what stop us from only doing the logical thing and allow us to listen to our emotions and do what's right. That's why they make no sense to me. Logic is worthless without emotion (Listen to her, being all hypocritical, isn't she just so cute? Yeah, don't worry, I'll change my mind in like ten minutes when I don't feel so much of this idiotic regret)

Even Spock bypasses logic when that is the RIGHT thing to do

Edited March 5, 2014 by fuzzbucket

[edwardelricfreak]

And honestly, morals are inherently emotional. Morals are what stop us from only doing the logical thing and allow us to listen to our emotions and do what's right. That's why they make no sense to me. Logic is worthless without emotion (Listen to her, being all hypocritical, isn't she just so cute? Yeah, don't worry, I'll change my mind in like ten minutes when I don't feel so much of this idiotic regret)

That sounds more like ethos, or ethics, rather than pathos, which is emotion.

 

Pretty sure morals are based on what we think is right and ethical. Yes, emotion is tied to it, but it sounds more like you're trying to describe ethics.

 

ethic:

a set of moral principles, esp. ones relating to or affirming a specified group, field, or form of conduct

 

It's not that emotion is bad, but it's INCREDIBLY strong and persuasive. For the most part, when going for facts, it's better to follow logic and stay away from highly persuasive emotional appeals. That's all. ^^

Edited March 5, 2014 by edwardelricfreak

[Awdz]

That sounds more like ethos, or ethics, rather than pathos, which is emotion.

 

Pretty sure morals are based on what we think is right and ethical. Yes, emotion is tied to it, but it sounds more like you're trying to describe ethics.

 

ethic:

a set of moral principles, esp. ones relating to or affirming a specified group, field, or form of conduct

 

It's not that emotion is bad, but it's INCREDIBLY strong and persuasive. For the most part, when going for facts, it's better to follow logic and stay away from highly persuasive emotional appeals. That's all. ^^

So here's a question... Do we settle on the ethics we abide by because of our emotional responses to events, or do we have emotional responses to events based on the ethics by which we abide?

[edwardelricfreak]

ethics ≠ emotion

 

All three are used in balance when forming laws, etc (or should be, anyway). Logic deals with the facts and numbers and things that make sense. Ethics deals with if it's morally right or wrong. Emotion deals with how you feel about it.

 

I think both of those are true and also depend on the situation at hand. They're ignoring the logical side, though.

 

I think usually emotion will win out, mainly because we're emotional creatures and it's very powerful, so we end up thinking that whatever impacts us emotionally in whatever way is ethical or not.

 

 

 

I feel like this is deviating from religion, though...I don't think questioning each others' morals, etc, is really the way to go, but I guess they kind of fit in with the topic?

[Awdz]

I feel like this is deviating from religion, though...I don't think questioning each others' morals, etc, is really the way to go, but I guess they kind of fit in with the topic?

Well the question of where you get your morals (ethics) came up when a non-believer commented that believers should not have to get their morals from reading a book (with the attitude that the Bible is a collection of myths).

 

Are morals/ethics intrinsic or taught? If intrinsic, why do they vary so much between people? If taught, then from what source?

 

Also, my earlier question did not assume ethics = emotions. It assumed that one was dependent on the other. The question was, in which direction?

Edited March 6, 2014 by Awdz Bodkins

[edwardelricfreak]

Well the question of where you get your morals (ethics) came up when a non-believer commented that believers should not have to get their morals from reading a book (with the attitude that the Bible is a collection of myths).

 

Are morals/ethics intrinsic or taught? If intrinsic, why do they vary so much between people? If taught, then from what source?

 

Also, my earlier question did not assume ethics = emotions. It assumed that one was dependent on the other. The question was, in which direction?

I don't think you'd have to get them from a book, personally. The Bible does have some good teachings in it that should be followed, though.

 

I think they're taught for the most part. Some are intrinsic only because if we were to do certain things, like kill each other all the time, then it would wipe out the species. We aren't taught from one single source, though. We learn from parents, society, media, laws, etc.

 

Oh, I wasn't directing it at your comment specifically, just clearing it up cuz sometimes it gets similar, I guess. It was mostly towards earlier posts muddying up ethics and emotion. But all of them are dependent on each other. The direction depends on the situation.

[Shienvien]

If intrinsic, why do they vary so much between people?

Mutations and environmental influences.

[Treine]

My religion is something like slavic paganism (i believe in soul of any thing, power of my ancestors, spirits, magic) but i don't like most "slavic pagans" coz no one says "go love our tradition, create a beautiful future, dance to the glory of our gods" more often it sounds like: "go hate Christians, believe in the delusion, neo-fascism, xenophobia"

 

Here is some type of neo-paganism (my vision, imho and broken english )

 

"rodreligion" (type of neo-paganism in Russia, mishmash of beliefs in mystic power of family relations, slavic goods under version of a Soviet scientist (sic!), folklore)

"vedism" (type of neo-paganism in Russia, belief in power of fake book Slavic-Aryan Vedas (something like book about mostly forgotten slavic past ~40,000 years),

"anastasiyareligion" (another type of neo-paganism in Russia, belief in power of mystic girl Anastasiya, who lives in tayga with children, can view the future, do wonders. Adepts will live in tayga too, for leading ecological farming. But no one saw her, exсept leader)

 

Sadly, but in Russia most people join hands for hates, faith in delusion (like xenophobia, telegony, fight against vaccination, etc). Orthodox church kindle this fire, condemning any heterodoxy. TV kindle this fire too. There are not many ways to find religious identity.

[High Lord November]

Are morals/ethics intrinsic or taught?  If intrinsic, why do they vary so much between people?  If taught, then from what source?

Both; nature vs. (or rather, and) nurture. Nothing is one or the other, almost everything is a combination. Your parents (or you) being religious has nothing to do with morals; while religion does teach morals, society, experience, and common sense do too. Those are ultimately much more important than religion in deciding your morals and ethics. They vary so much because each and every individual on this planet experiences a different environment growing up, which will contribute to shaping their being. They are taught by your parents (who are individuals themselves), and also vary because of your interests, media, your friends, your personal experiences, etc.

 

It sounds like you are searching for a black and white line; "it's either one or the other." Almost nothing in life is like that, least of all this.

Edited March 6, 2014 by High Lord November

[PrinceVertigo]

Black and white logic is almost never applicable. In the words of one of my friends, "Life is nothing but a plethora of shades of gray.''

[Kestra15]

Both; nature vs. (or rather, and) nurture. Nothing is one or the other, almost everything is a combination. Your parents (or you) being religious has nothing to do with morals; while religion does teach morals, society, experience, and common sense do too.

I would argue that religion does have something to do with morals, as religion is based on providing a moral and spiritual framework. As an example consider how in the more strict Islamic countries the views on women, their place in society, their rights, and what is considered morally acceptable ways to treat them. It is heavily influenced by culture and society yes, but it is a culture and society based on religion.

 

My ex found it immoral to sleep with someone before marriage, and this was founded solely in her religious beliefs - she said as much. Despite coming from a culture where pre-marital sex is acceptable, both of us being in university where it is accepted without prejudice, and that I don't have any problems with responsible pre-marital sex, her belief and morality was still based on her religion.

[Awdz]

Both; nature vs. (or rather, and) nurture. Nothing is one or the other, almost everything is a combination. Your parents (or you) being religious has nothing to do with morals; while religion does teach morals, society, experience, and common sense do too. Those are ultimately much more important than religion in deciding your morals and ethics. They vary so much because each and every individual on this planet experiences a different environment growing up, which will contribute to shaping their being. They are taught by your parents (who are individuals themselves), and also vary because of your interests, media, your friends, your personal experiences, etc.

 

It sounds like you are searching for a black and white line; "it's either one or the other." Almost nothing in life is like that, least of all this.

I agree that morals are learned from multiple sources, including from religion. All of us seem to get at least some guidance from an outside source, and while many choose not to abide by the teachings of the Bible per se, I still consider it a very excellent source. For many people, the practice of religion (gathering with others of the same faith, the society piece) reinforces the morals and ethics taught within it. I found the comment "you should not have to get your morals from a book" to be less correct than it is rude - particularly when you consider those who do not have that "common sense" innate moral compass.

[High Lord November]

I would argue that religion does have something to do with morals, as religion is based on providing a moral and spiritual framework. As an example consider how in the more strict Islamic countries the views on women, their place in society, their rights, and what is considered morally acceptable ways to treat them. It is heavily influenced by culture and society yes, but it is a culture and society based on religion.

 

My ex found it immoral to sleep with someone before marriage, and this was founded solely in her religious beliefs - she said as much. Despite coming from a culture where pre-marital sex is acceptable, both of us being in university where it is accepted without prejudice, and that I don't have any problems with responsible pre-marital sex, her belief and morality was still based on her religion.

Ah, you're right, sorry.

 

What I meant to focus on was that religion is in no way necessary to be a good person, or guide morals and ethics, and that quite a lot of our morals actually come from other sources. It depends on the person; it isn't necessary at all, but it can influence or be a big part.

Edited March 8, 2014 by High Lord November

[georgexu94]

Religion. *nods* It's a broad topic.

 

Anyway, I do think that one can have two or more religion, considering that Buddhism is considered a religion of sorts. I'm quite confuse and annoyed a bit when people say I can't do Tai Chi or meditate because I'm Catholic (They think I'm Catholic because we're in a Catholic school; I'm not. I would generalise myself as a Christian but with leanings on Protestant).

[Awdz]

Happy Easter to all celebrating it!

[Ælex]

I was brought up as a Christian, I was told all the same propaganda, attended church with my family, even enjoyed myself being part of all those ceremonies. I also loved the idea of being immortal and passing onto a better place when I died. It made the whole inevitability of death a whole lot fluffier and nicer.

 

But then I discovered the internet in my early teens.

It blew my mind away, all the information I ever needed was there.

I read page after page after page with information as to mankind's findings about the origin of our planet, our galaxy and our universe...

And it's pretty obvious that what I found bent my faith over and spanked it silly. It made a whole lot more sense then the vague bible interpretations and constant quotes my pastor always used to answer my questions, when I had them...

 

One day, I asked my mother what one would call someone who doesn't believe in god. She told me those people are called "Agnostics", but seeing as how mother is the same woman who filled my head with bible dribble, I felt compelled to google it.

 

The next day, I decided to just come out with it and tell her I'm an atheist now. We had a calm discussion, thankfully no rash decisions were made. She told me she was sad that I'd "lost my way", but aside from that, we were fine. As for father, he if he cared, he certainly didn't show it.

 

To this day, I remain curious as to the ways our universe functions. I'm currently in a university studying mathematics and physics as majors. Despite my honest hopes that some day, maybe some day I'd find even a shred of evidence to support the existence of a god, the mountain of evidence against him just keeps on getting bigger, and bigger and bigger with each page I read.

 

At one point in my life, I think it was about when I hit 20, I started feeling down for a while, now knowing that there is in fact no logical way there can be life after death, what with us being simply the collective of our thoughts, experiences and memories stored within a very delicate system. In short, once the brain dies, it's over. I didn't want to simply cease to exist, but in the end, I accepted it. There was no changing it, at least not yet... we haven't gotten that far, unfortunately.

 

So here I am today. I'll graduate soon, looking forward to living my only life as best as I can.

Edited April 22, 2014 by Ælex

[Awdz]

now knowing that there is in fact no logical way there can be life after death, what with us being simply the collective of our thoughts, experiences and memories stored within a very delicate system.

I think there is a big difference between knowing in a provable way and not knowing because there is no physical evidence as proof. Logic requires a premise, and different starting premises often lead to different conclusions.

 

I am a firm believer in eternal souls, for which our physical body/brain acts as a filter. We just do not have the technology (yet) to measure/detect them per the scientific method.

 

Part of the logic that drives me to that, is that so many cultures have a drive to seek out spiritual fulfillment. Normal bodily drives are to nurture our survival - we hunger because we need nourishment, we shiver & seek warmth because we get too cold, etc. In my mind, we seek spiritual fulfillment because we have souls that need nurturing as well.

Edited April 23, 2014 by Awdz Bodkins