73 replies to this topic

[Sister Midnight]

Blade 619, on 06 Oct 2016 - 17:50, said:

Sister Midnight, on 29 Sept 2016 - 20:39, said:

<SNIP>That implies that faith is a choice. In my experience we believe, or we do not. If you force yourself to believe in something that your heart simply doesn't accept you are going through the motions, really. That said, in mental health it is considered a strength to be religious as those with faith are less likely to commit suicide, less likely to be depressed, and statistically those who belong to a church tend to live longer with better physical health due to the community the church or temple provides.

Faith is almost by definition a choice. I choose to have that when I throw a stone it will at some point return to earth. I do not always see it return, but I believe that it does. I believe in the same way people will interpret the things they observe in their life to either support or oppose that which they believe. As the concept of the "heart" is only a subset of consciousness I see no reason why people cannot choose whether or not to believe something, and with time, that may well impact their "heart".

I know someone who desperately wants to believe in God, but cannot find it in herself to believe. You beleve the rock will hit the ground because you have concrete evidence and education and experience with gravity and object permanency. The person I'm talking about has nothing to go on that there is a God, other than belief based upon faith. How is that a choice? She WANTS to believe, but cannot do so. I have heard it said that ffaith believing in something without needing concrete evidence. As Voltaire said, "Faith consists in believing when it is beyond the power of reason to believe." Is that a choice? I don't know. I do know that there are people who cannot bring themselves to believe what they perceive as not reasonable, despite wishing they could. I understand that Mother Theresa's journals show that there was an extended, agonized period in which she realized she was an atheist. Idk if she found her faith again, but surely she didn't just decide to be an atheist.

As I said earlier, religious belief tends to make for happier people, if belief a choice, then why would people not choose happiness?

Addendum: I am currently on an airplane way up in the sky. I am choosing to trust that I am safe, and the odds against a deadly event are in my favor,but I am well aware that terrible things might happen at any moment. How does that apply to faith, if it does at all?

[ccabal86]

SM, why does this person want to believe in God so desperately? What is this person seeking to gain by doing so?

[Sister Midnight]

ccabal86, on 06 Oct 2016 - 22:33, said:

SM, why does this person want to believe in God so desperately? What is this person seeking to gain by doing so?

She is struggling with her current conclusion that when she dies there is nothing, she just ceases. If she believed in God, she could believe in an afterlife.

[Fox Fire]

My thoughts on theism:

Theism is impossible. If you believe in the Big Bang then you essentially believe that everything in the universe is one thing that is expanding and separating itself into countless different aspects.

This same idea is a core concept of Taoism (my religion) called the "10,000 things phenomena" (10,000 being the ancient Chinese number used to express infinite). It implies the concept of Pantheism, that everything is one and individual "things" are simply the countless aspects of the one. Now if this is true, it goes down to the most fundamental levels. Meaning that even simple concepts like good, evil, up, down, light, dark, and everything that makes up perception and ego are all contained within the universe because they are simply different aspects of that universe. 

That being said, we cannot apply any kind of concepts to a diety that may exist outside the universe. Whenever we make a statement about God, or apply a concept to God, we are by default, wrong. For example: If we say "God is good" we are wrong. Because the concept of "good" is just an aspect of the universe and contained within it. Anything that exists outside of this universe cannot possibly be described because it is beyond any and all concepts we can possibly conceive.

Or in the words of Lao Tzu:

 

Tao Te Ching: Verse 4 (As translated by Ralph Alan Dale)

 

Quote

The Great Integrity is an endless abyss,
yet, it is the inexhaustibly fertile
source of the universe.

It blunts all sharpness,
unties the entangled,
and merges with the dust!

Hidden but ever present-
this parent of the gods-
whose child may it be?

 

Tao Te Ching: Verse 25

 

Quote

What preceded life? The earth.
What preceded the earth? The universe.
What preceded the universe?
The soundless and shapeless, origin of origins,
ever transforming and having no beginning nor end.

This Mother of the universe is boundless, and nameless.
But if we wanted to share with you anything
about this remarkable non-executing executor,
we must invent a name for it.

We call it the Tao because Tao means great.
Incredibly great because it occupies infinite space,
being fully present in the whole universe, and in every infinitesimal particle.

Because this Great Integrity created the universe,
and the universe created the earth,
and the earth created us, we are all incredibly great.

Life derives from the nature of the earth.
The earth derives from the nature of the universe.
The universe derives from the nature of the Great Integrity.
And the Great Integrity is the omnipresent, omnigenous omniform,
the universal material and the spiritual substance,
and the holoversal interlinkage and coition of existence.

[Kitkat16]

ccabal86, on 06 Oct 2016 - 16:23, said:

 

Kitkat16, on 06 Oct 2016 - 00:45, said:

I don't see why an all-powerful being is improbable. Why is it improbable that God would have the power to make billions of stars? As for how God came to be, Christians and Muslims alike agree that He is eternal and has no beginning.

If God can influence the natural world, then it also must have its roots in the natural world. There must be observable mechanisms through which it acts, however mighty it is. If there are NO WAYS in which this can be done, then one might say it resides purely in the realm of imagination.
 If God however is rooted in the natural world, then the "no beginning" is problematic, as then we have to explain how it can exist, let alone act outside of space time (as it must have before the beginning of the universe).

 

As I said, too many questions, and you're only further complicating your model

 

 

I disagree. If you read William Lane Craig's writings on the kalam cosmological argument, he says that God existed outside of time, and in creating time and space entered time. There's no logical inconsistency there. What that means is that God need not have a beginning.

 

(As an aside: Christians, of course, believe God is Trinity. That means that God the Father is outside of time, and God the Son is within time. So God is both inside of time and outside of time.)

 

You're also presuming that God has to act within the physical laws of the universe. Christians believe in the uniformity of natural causes within an open system. In other words, we do accept that the universe behaves according to physical laws, however, these laws are subject to reordering by God: hence why Jesus could rise from the dead. That is not an impossibility. Look at developments in quantum physics: at a quantum level, electrons and various components of atoms do not act according to any discernible laws. So what?

 

As to how precisely the spiritual world interacts with the physical world: sure, there are limits on what we can know as human beings. That doesn't make the concept of God affecting stuff in the physical world *improbable* per se, it simply means that we don't know how precisely that occurs. Isn't that exactly what we should expect when it comes to God? He is infinite, we are finite: there are some things we should not expect to understand, especially as we operate in the physical world.

 

I am a former militant atheist who converted to Christianity after a series of supernatural events in 2008, climaxing in one particular experience which has absolutely changed my life. As a result of that encounter I went instantly from hardcore atheist to believer. I can say without the shadow of a doubt that God is real and that spirits (good and evil) can affect the physical world because I have witnessed that with my own eyes. You can believe me or not but when we start having an abstract conversation about how exactly God or evil spirits affect the physical world I just find it a moot point.

[Fox Fire]

Kitkat16, on 07 Oct 2016 - 00:36, said:

 

ccabal86, on 06 Oct 2016 - 16:23, said:

 

Kitkat16, on 06 Oct 2016 - 00:45, said:

I don't see why an all-powerful being is improbable. Why is it improbable that God would have the power to make billions of stars? As for how God came to be, Christians and Muslims alike agree that He is eternal and has no beginning.

If God can influence the natural world, then it also must have its roots in the natural world. There must be observable mechanisms through which it acts, however mighty it is. If there are NO WAYS in which this can be done, then one might say it resides purely in the realm of imagination.
 If God however is rooted in the natural world, then the "no beginning" is problematic, as then we have to explain how it can exist, let alone act outside of space time (as it must have before the beginning of the universe).

 

As I said, too many questions, and you're only further complicating your model

 

 

I disagree. If you read William Lane Craig's writings on the kalam cosmological argument, he says that God existed outside of time, and in creating time and space entered time. There's no logical inconsistency there. What that means is that God need not have a beginning.

 

(As an aside: Christians, of course, believe God is Trinity. That means that God the Father is outside of time, and God the Son is within time. So God is both inside of time and outside of time.)

 

You're also presuming that God has to act within the physical laws of the universe. Christians believe in the uniformity of natural causes within an open system. In other words, we do accept that the universe behaves according to physical laws, however, these laws are subject to reordering by God: hence why Jesus could rise from the dead. That is not an impossibility. Look at developments in quantum physics: at a quantum level, electrons and various components of atoms do not act according to any discernible laws. So what?

 

As to how precisely the spiritual world interacts with the physical world: sure, there are limits on what we can know as human beings. That doesn't make the concept of God affecting stuff in the physical world *improbable* per se, it simply means that we don't know how precisely that occurs. Isn't that exactly what we should expect when it comes to God? He is infinite, we are finite: there are some things we should not expect to understand, especially as we operate in the physical world.

 

I am a former militant atheist who converted to Christianity after a series of supernatural events in 2008, climaxing in one particular experience which has absolutely changed my life. As a result of that encounter I went instantly from hardcore atheist to believer. I can say without the shadow of a doubt that God is real and that spirits (good and evil) can affect the physical world because I have witnessed that with my own eyes. You can believe me or not but when we start having an abstract conversation about how exactly God or evil spirits affect the physical world I just find it a moot point.

 

Yet there is no explanation as to how a fully formed ego can exist outside of existence itself. Because it can't. If God exists, he simply another aspect of the phenomena known as existence. Otherwise, he does not exist.

[Robert2424]

It comes to a question that in the beginning. Science dose not provide the answer. God is eternal and has no beginning. You ended in a roundabout endless cycle of something have to be before that without that. Otherwise it doesn't make sense, there is either a god that created everything or we have a universe that makes no sense and we actually don't exist. Just my view.

[Fox Fire]

Robert2424, on 07 Oct 2016 - 02:30, said:

It comes to a question that in the beginning. Science dose not provide the answer. God is eternal and has no beginning. You ended in a roundabout endless cycle of something have to be before that without that. Otherwise it doesn't make sense, there is either a god that created everything or we have a universe that makes no sense and we actually don't exist. Just my view.

And my view is exactly what you just mentioned. That we are a universe that does not make sense. The phenomena of existence, with or without a god, is completely illogical. As a Taoist, my view is that existence itself is a paradox. There is no beginning or end. Simply endless being. 

 

EDIT: But I should avoid this thread. I like debating but I shouldn't preach. 

[Robert2424]

I understand where your coming from fox fire. That's why I said I believe God doesn't have a beginning.

[The Warrior]

ccabal86, on 06 Oct 2016 - 20:48, said:

 

Quote

To claim that the incidences of child abuse which occured within the Catholic church only occured because od religion is just so absurd I don't even kno how to begin. Child abuse has always and likely will always occur globally, it has become systemic within certain political, religious, and cultural establishments. The factor which links all of these is that you get some men and some women who are just fucked up and are into that kinda freaky shit.

 

I don't think I ever claimed child abuse in the RCC and other Churches happen BECAUSE of religion. If that's what it looked like, apologies for not articulating that argument better. The point I tried to make is that I find it rather frustrating that a good portion of society regards these Churches and their officials as a source of morality, as solid points of reference for anyone's moral compass, when in fact, they routinely practice, cover up, and get way with deplorable behavior.

Every man is sinful. We were born into sin and therefore all have fallen short of God's glory. The RCC is, of course, no exception. The actions that we are referring to here are completely unacceptable by all accounts and unfortunately you will find people that do these sort of deplorable acts in all walks of life. These actions were clearly against what the RCC preaches and were the direct result of sin. No one can always claim the moral high ground because we are all plagued by sin.

 

Having said that, I am going to make a general observation that you probably won't agree with and that's fine. Even though all are sinful and constantly fall short of God's glory, those who hold certain Christian beliefs do tend to have a firmer moral compass than those who don't. Is it true of everyone? No, because like I said we are all sinful, but those who hold these beliefs generally hold themselves to a certain higher standard or should anyway.

[Sister Midnight]

The Warrior, on 07 Oct 2016 - 14:47, said:

ccabal86, on 06 Oct 2016 - 20:48, said:

Quote

To claim that the incidences of child abuse which occured within the Catholic church only occured because od religion is just so absurd I don't even kno how to begin. Child abuse has always and likely will always occur globally, it has become systemic within certain political, religious, and cultural establishments. The factor which links all of these is that you get some men and some women who are just fucked up and are into that kinda freaky shit.

I don't think I ever claimed child abuse in the RCC and other Churches happen BECAUSE of religion. If that's what it looked like, apologies for not articulating that argument better. The point I tried to make is that I find it rather frustrating that a good portion of society regards these Churches and their officials as a source of morality, as solid points of reference for anyone's moral compass, when in fact, they routinely practice, cover up, and get way with deplorable behavior.

Every man is sinful. We were born into sin and therefore all have fallen short of God's glory. The RCC is, of course, no exception. The actions that we are referring to here are completely unacceptable by all accounts and unfortunately you will find people that do these deplorable acts in all walks of life. No one can always claim the moral high ground because we are all plagued by sin.

Having said that, I am going to make a general observation that you probably won't agree with and that's fine. Even though all are sinful and constantly fall short of God's glory, those who hold certain Christian beliefs do tend to have a firmer moral compass than those who don't. Is it true of everyone? No, because like I said we are all sinful, but those who hold these beliefs generally hold themselves to a certain higher standard.

If you are referring to the beliefs that the Bible says Jesus preached, I agree that they are moral for the most part. Sadly, I think Jesus would be very upset by the actions and beliefs held by a huge portion of those who call themselves Christian/Catholic, and I think he'd heartily approve of actions and values held by many atheists. It is fine if you disagree, but that has been my observation.

To clarify, I am not just talking about "sinners," I think Jesus would tell the mostly "pious" people who think that anyone who doesn't agree with their beliefs will go to hell to stop judging others.

On a personal note, I think the world would be a much better place if we learned to not just tolerate people who are different from ourselves, but to actually celebrate those differences.

[Fox Fire]

The Warrior, on 07 Oct 2016 - 14:47, said:

those who hold certain Christian beliefs do tend to have a firmer moral compass than those who don't.

Now that's just silly.

[Sister Midnight]

The Warrior, on 07 Oct 2016 - 14:47, said:

Every man is sinful. We were born into sin and therefore all have fallen short of God's glory. The RCC is, of course, no exception. The actions that we are referring to here are completely unacceptable by all accounts and unfortunately you will find people that do these sort of deplorable acts in all walks of life. These actions were clearly against what the RCC preaches and were the direct result of sin. No one can always claim the moral high ground because we are all plagued by sin.
 
Having said that, I am going to make a general observation that you probably won't agree with and that's fine. Even though all are sinful and constantly fall short of God's glory, those who hold certain Christian beliefs do tend to have a firmer moral compass than those who don't. Is it true of everyone? No, because like I said we are all sinful, but those who hold these beliefs generally hold themselves to a certain higher standard or should anyway.

You know, I was thinking about this, and I mean no disrespect, but don't you think that the person who does good deeds because s/he wants to make the world a better place is more moral/ethical than the person who does good deeds to avoid going to hell? In that sense, isn't the atheist who performs for the greater good, rather than personal gain, i.e. avoiding hell, holding himself/herself to a higher standard? Also, isn't morality subjective, depending upon society?

[onbekende]

Well atleast Muslims aren't born in sin, hence they don't baptize

 

Besides, you blame the woman for the sin of the born child, talk about being petty >_>

[ccabal86]

Sister Midnight, on 06 Oct 2016 - 23:02, said:

 

ccabal86, on 06 Oct 2016 - 22:33, said:

SM, why does this person want to believe in God so desperately? What is this person seeking to gain by doing so?

She is struggling with her current conclusion that when she dies there is nothing, she just ceases. If she believed in God, she could believe in an afterlife.

 

 

Yes, this is a frightening prospect, and something that is also used to be an issue for me. While I would cherish the prospect of an afterlife, with all its perks like the chance of seeing my loved ones again, or continuing to exist as a person, I believe it is futile to try and trick yourself.

 

Mortality is certain, but there is some comfort to be had:

1. Instead of worrying, she should cherish the time she has here. Focus on the pleasant aspects of life, and spend time on what she thinks is important, be that learning new things, traveling, spending time with loved ones, etc.
2. If she has kids, she will live on, in some sense. It's not just her genetic material, but the time she spent rearing them will leave its mark, and will carry aspects of her personality over to them.
3. Who knows what the future holds? It may not be far when information stored in a person's brain may be downloaded to a digital medium and therefore someone's personality may be saved as well. There might discover other methods too.

[Fox Fire]

I think dying is not the end. People just need to realize that the ego is an illusion. It's a temporary state. Dying isn't the end. It's just the end of your perception of "me". What lies beyond death is inconceivable and futile to attempt to describe since it is beyond concepts of perception. When you die, you return to the nature from which you came. And you're already there anyway. You've always been there, even before you were born. People shouldn't worry about death since it's an inevitable fact of nature. They should concern themselves with life and doing what they truly believe. Fear of death shouldn't dictate peoples beliefs. Death is nothing to be craved, but nothing to be feared either. The thought of "no me" might scare some people but that's silly. You can't be scared if your ego doesn't exist. You will exist beyond concepts, even time itself.

[DarkFox]

Fox Fire, on 07 Oct 2016 - 02:33, said:

That we are a universe that does not make sense.

 

 

If that were true, then why does so many thinks make sense? It always seemed to me that everything was set up in a manner that it is not chaos, everything has a reason why. For me that makes it seem like someone arranged it. With that said if we bring up death I wonder; if matter never disappears and only changes shape, then if a soul exists that means that death is not the end.

 

Also neat, I have never met a Taoist before.

[Fox Fire]

DarkFox, on 14 Oct 2016 - 01:51, said:

 

Fox Fire, on 07 Oct 2016 - 02:33, said:

That we are a universe that does not make sense.

 

 

If that were true, then why does so many thinks make sense? It always seemed to me that everything was set up in a manner that it is not chaos, everything has a reason why. For me that makes it seem like someone arranged it. With that said if we bring up death I wonder; if matter never disappears and only changes shape, then if a soul exists that means that death is not the end.

 

Also neat, I have never met a Taoist before.

 

It doesn't make sense in the sense that we can't understand it. We've taken things to the most fundamental level of existence and gotten down to the Plank Epoch. But according to the Big Bang, the Plank Epoch is not the "beginning" in the way we understand the term "beginning". Unfortunately, the Plank Epoch is essentially the beginning of time itself so attempting to describe anything beyond it is futile and trying to understand "beginning" in irrelevance to time is pointless. 

The universe, according to physicists is not as random as you might think. If you think of a Light Cone, Destiny or Fate is a thing, although it can be altered and perceived differently in certain places and distances. Essentially everything is chaos and ordered at the same time. But we can only base our perceptions on our own extremely limited experience. The true nature of nature is simply beyond our comprehension. To us, it seems like a paradox and according to our logic it likely is. 

 

And yes, I don't believe death is the end. Just like you said, our material goes on. I believe we lose our "ego", or our sense of self, but our existence certainly continues in a way that we can't possibly conceive. In Taoism there is a lot of debate about death because the religion itself doesn't really touch on that subject. Its largely ignored and considered irrelevant.

I believe that consciousness is a temporary state. We didn't originate as consciousness nor will we end that way. The idea of "no me" is obviously concerning but it wont be while you're in that state. Because your ego will be gone, but everything that makes you up is still there, always will be and (referring to the light cone again) still impacts the evolution of the universe. 

[DarkFox]

The big bang is merely a theory, one that can not be proven or disproved with our current level of technology. Much of the BBT (big bang theory) is based upon assumptions, which is something it has a lot in common with most astronomy. Also really depressing when you think about it, being as with it the entire universe will cease to exist eventually, but this is pretty off topic.

[Fox Fire]

DarkFox, on 14 Oct 2016 - 05:55, said:

The big bang is merely a theory, one that can not be proven or disproved with our current level of technology. Much of the BBT (big bang theory) is based upon assumptions, which is something it has a lot in common with most astronomy. Also really depressing when you think about it, being as with it the entire universe will cease to exist eventually, but this is pretty off topic.

The Big Bang Theory is pretty damn solid. More than that. It's mostly based on math and physical observations. Doubting it is the equivalent of doubting gravity or that the sky looks blue. Having a great interest in cosmology I can certainly say it's about as proven as science allows something to be proven. Also, I don't think the universe ever actually "ends", like I explained above. I think it's a paradox.