RELIGION
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /r9k/ - ROBOT9001
You are currently reading a thread in /r9k/ - ROBOT9001
Religious beliefs baffle me.
Checking and verifying everything as you go along to slowly build your knowledge over time is much more rational than assuming you have all the answers immediately because of your faith. In that respect, religion is the pinnacle of arrogance, while science acknowledges that it does not have all the answers but provides a means for finding them, if you work hard.
How is it logical to assume that the universe was made by a God that considers humanity to be special, as with Judeo-Christian beliefs? Is it just because some people wrote it down on some scrolls at some point, and people still take it as fact? How does this agree with the fact that our planet is just a mere speck of burnt out star matter floating in almost nothingness?
How do people live their entire lives believing that their religion is the only way to live? How can any logical being say that billions of others are dammned to eternal suffering purely because they don't live according to their interpretations of an ancient book that was never verified for accuracy?
How can people be this stupid?
Also, any opposing viewpoints?
>>29207140
I've theorized this before, that religion (even if not intentional) was and became a tool for reigning the masses, to shape society.
For example if you told someone that if you don't hit someone you'll get icecream by the end of the week, you wouldn't hit anyone. Religion is the same concept on a larger scale.
Why anyone believes it now is beyond me.
>>29207140
humans need a belief to deal with death.
its a product. you're selling comfort and community.
>>29207288
Could it be that religious people are just those who cannot accept death? It could be that they need to believe that at least a part of their experience will continue on after death, in either heaven or hell.
Confirmation bias
People live by narratives so not having one is uncomfy
Exertion of control over others and yourself
Only half-assed argument I really have is that no source of information can really be trusted, that some people have extraordinary experiences not yet explained by scientific consensus, and that some people might actually be privy to some kind of knowledge that eludes you, though again whether it can be trusted is up in the air (even moreso because no social support, which religion "aims" to create)
>>29207420
Most religions are structured so that death seems terrifying, carrot and stick style.
>>29207421
>no source of information can really be trusted
This is true. But in that case, wouldn't you rather believe an idea that was born of the scientific method and peer reviewed rather than in idea that was passed down through the generations with no supporting evidence?
I'm not trying to argue, I just really honestly have a hard time accepting that people capable of logic can believe this shit.
>>29207258
>I've theorized this before, that religion (even if not intentional) was and became a tool for reigning the masses, to shape society.
Wow, this is some wild free-thinker shit right here. Fucking blew my mind... no, wait, this is every babby's first idea when they start questioning religion.
And here we go with another beautiful mind >>29207288 that's brilliant.
Real original, gais. Now drop the intellectual laziness quote from Dawkins and you've hit the teenager angst trifecta.
>>29207468
These people believe there to be supporting evidence, and the religious community is essentially the same thing as a peer review.
Problem with a lot of religious concepts is that you can't apply the scientific method to them in any meaningful way, because the scientific method relies on the ability to carefully control environmental conditions. Religious concepts are often outside of the scope of your control.
>>29207507
what's your take on religion?
>>29207468
>But in that case, wouldn't you rather believe an idea that was born of the scientific method and peer reviewed rather than in idea that was passed down through the generations with no supporting evidence?
The scientific method has its problems. There are numerous widely documented phenomena that speak against our only currently supported model of reductionist materialism, but the scientific community will go out of its way dismiss all of it.
And this isn't some tinfoil theory, I mean, we've had truly unexplainable UFO sightings (read: that appear to break the laws of physics) since we've had written history, but anyone researching the phenomenon was publicly ridiculed and blackballed from the scientific community until a few years ago.
>>29207140
Putting aside the fact that you're speaking of religion - a concept that has been with us since the beginning - as a monolith, humans are curious and irrational creatures. We're not rational. We surely pretend we are, but we're not.
So with this combo of needing to know things we can't, we have all the elements we need for religions to come about.
>>29207692
That's like asking
>what's your take on the world
Religious beliefs are an integral part and product of society.
I found a simplex solution for the "how can anyone be this stupid" problem. I listen to some atheist-theist debates and dialogues and one argument that consistently comes up on both sides is the burden of proof. For so long Ive heard exasperated atheists claim that it was on theists to give evidence for their claim only to be met with the argument that atheists are the one making a claim. Ive come to believe that this is a matter of prception. I think atheists fenuinely believe the claim that a god exists to be a claim in a default secular worl (as do i), but somehow, a theists perception of the world is one in which god is a default as opposed to secularity. Therefore it is of course absurd to them that atheists would make what claims they do. Also, this, of coure, doesnt speak to every theists mindset, but instead just a general prediction of why this occurs.
>>29207706
I'd take it a step further and suggest that rationality can only apply to whatever set of rules it is designed to make sense of.
The heart of rationality is irrationality because even though we have a consistent and stable universe, the fact that it even exists is irrational, and anything extrinsic to it might follow its own rules that don't match up with our own, making it internally rational but irrational relative to whatever else may or may not be "out there" (which is a popular religious fixation). Basically rationality can only ever be internally applied so when you think outside of whatever system you're trying to explain in order to find that explanation, you have to either hope its extremely similar to the universe itself or that it doesn't exist at all, because otherwise you're left with intangible madness
its dumb to think scientific theory could ever be capable of solving the problems faith solves of why we were created, what is morally right, and what we should do for the duration of our lives.
All faiths generally answer these questions, but what faith is, is believing without proof. You will never be given proof, sure science may some day prove the big bang happened due to these reasons, but it will never be able to use empirical evidence to suggest everyone should lead an altruistic lifestyle.
I find religion hard to believe in though.
>>29207883
Morals have a pretty simple solution, imo, and that is that they are a product of objective phenomena interacting with each other, and that "good"ness and "bad"ness do actually, objectively exist as signals in the brain derived from interactions with other objects. The perception of positive and negativeness might be subjective, but those perceptions are derived from objective interactions- they are the meaning of the interactions themselves.
I doubt that anyone's moral schematic is complex enough to capture the entirety of what is "ideal" for humans and humanlike objects, which is why people default to saying it's subjective and therefore doesn't mean anything, when in reality I would say that it means something but far from everything. An incomplete picture =/= no picture at all
>>29208079
If good and bad are so complex then, then the current scientific method cant be used on it. Something more advanced would be needed.
>>29207879
>Basically rationality can only ever be internally applied so when you think outside of whatever system you're trying to explain in order to find that explanation, you have to either hope its extremely similar to the universe itself or that it doesn't exist at all, because otherwise you're left with intangible madness
If you're speaking in terms of afterlife, sure, but I think theoretical physics took the dive into the rabbit hole of intangible madness when string theory arose.
But at the core of religious beliefs are the unanswerable questions, like how/why did we end up here, and what is consciousness. They will always remain with us, regardless of any technological success we may have.
>>29208123
I disagree
If we could become aware of every minute interaction in every given situation, instead of seeing it from our subjective lens (which really only describes how a situation is relevant to us and not to itself), every variable would be accounted for and a proper solution could be inferred. But yeah considering the human condition this is just about impossible.
>>29208286
>If we could become aware of every minute interaction in every given situation, instead of seeing it from our subjective lens (which really only describes how a situation is relevant to us and not to itself), every variable would be accounted for and a proper solution could be inferred
God damn it. Human is not a computer, it's an organism. There's a difference.
>tips fedora
If god isn't real then how is the world real?
2 fucking planets can't combine and make this planet, that's just fucking retarded
>>29207140
>>29208426
I JUST came here to say that I was surprised nobody has spammed fedora memes yet.
I'm an atheist, but my opinion of religion is that it will outlive me. It was here before I was born, it will be here after I die. It exists in many aspects, and even if you tried to 'eliminate religion', you'd either get a massive chaotic war, or you'd have religion morph into another phase and then continue on from there, which it has done throughout time.
It gives people a purpose and a moral compass, of course that doesn't stop people from doing bad things anyways, but that's life. I've talked about this a lot years ago and it's out of my system. But vigorously promoting atheism or religion is a dead-end, since it is a very complex spectrum that ebbs and flows based on particular times and places.
>>29207770
That's exactly what I said in my post and you fucking tell me I'm wrong
Fuck you asshole
>>29208426
>posts fedora meme
your arguments ends with that
>>29208373
We're organic computers on at least a physical level.
I don't think this devalues the significance of what we experience if you think that's what I was implying. If anything it allows us to ascertain the value of what we experience more easily, and the fact that we can "compute" what happens to us with the acuity that we can makes it all the more important to take that into account when dealing with other biocomps
>>29207770
Maybe for societal reasons, but do you believe in any of it?
>>29208426
You're an idiot. A miracle is a suspension of the natural order, the initiation of a natural order is not a miracle. The universe doesn't owe it to be compatible with your monkey common sense.
>>29208485
No, sir, you were far more specific, and you even used the specific phrasing that euphoric manchildren use.
>>29208500
>We're organic computers on at least a physical level
It's like you didn't even read the one-line post. Let me explain this to you, like I would to a six-year-old (yes, offense):
>computer is designed to do repeated, complex operations effectively and an extremely high rate of consistency
>the brain is not
>>29208636
And MOST IMPORTANTLY, unlike the human brain, the computer hardware is not altered by the process of running operations.
>>29208636
A computer performs computations. This is semantics, we were using different defi nitions
Still unclear on how this has anything to do with my original post.
>>29208636
And also the brain does perform complex operations with a high rate of consistency because if it didn't you would be dead, so your point fails itself a bit.
I think you're not understanding what I meant.
>>29207140
>implying your science isnt just another funny replacement for God/A Big Other
>this thread yet again
>>29208727
>A computer performs computations. This is semantics, we were using different definitions
Your analogy is fatally flawed. This
>If we could become aware of every minute interaction in every given situation, instead of seeing it from our subjective lens (which really only describes how a situation is relevant to us and not to itself), every variable would be accounted for and a proper solution could be inferred
does not make sense in a context where the hardware (the brain) is altered by every operation. The notion of inferring common solutions from variables implies the brain in fact is analogous to a computer.
>>29208855
see >>29208658
Not like a computer it doesn't.
>>29208870
I'm an atheist myself, but OP doesn't seem to understand that we are finite beings. Just because someone's brain cannot comprehend God, or an afterlife, or any reasoning for our existence, it doesn't mean that it all ends there.
Atheists also are very high up on the autism spectrum, and as such, many of them cannot perceive the universe beyond the "logic" they've come to grasp.
>>29207140
only christianity and islam damn nonbelievers. Hindus and buddhists do not requirenyou believe them to not get sent to asian hell
>>29209069
>very high up on the autism spectrum
As a theist, I'd like to see you coming forward with citations.
The fact that you don't have to check for anything is the whole point of faith, Religion and belief are above logic.
In the end, no one can ascertain wether anything has any importance or not, logic is axiomatic you might aswell believe in god if you want to. In the end, everything is a belief,
>>29208916
In such a situation further alterations could be accounted for and dealt with accordingly. The brain doesn't sporadically alter itself, it follows cause and effect like everything else. Understanding every variable would lead to understanding further effects that would be caused, understanding a situation would naturally lead to understanding how a situation would alter itself to be understood again, because those variables are still the cause of further change. It's seamless, there is no compartmentalization.
I never implied otherwise or know why you thought I did
>>29209158
>Understanding every variable would lead to understanding further effects that would be caused
>blackbox testing a system with practically inifinite complexity and unknown amount of variables
Sounds real legit, bro. You should go to college.
>>29209158
Basically, the operation itself and the change it would induce could be accounted for like anything else once properly understood
>>29209209
The hypothetical situation was one where evey variable is initially understood. I clarified that this is ideal but impossible for humans
Fuck you're dense
>>29209116
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2039690/Atheism-autism-Controversial-new-study-points-link-two.html
http://www.livescience.com/20654-autism-belief-god.html
Anyways Mr. Theist, take a look at how faggot OP worded his first post. He literally proclaimed his superiority over everyone else that did not see eye to eye with him. I could feel the autism when I first read it.
>>29209239
>The hypothetical situation was one where evey variable is initially understood.
Yes, and if cows could fly they'd all migrate to India. Like you, I'm totally contributing to the conversation.
>>29208574
That's because I did theorize it. I wrote a 5000 word essay dancing around the topic.
>its another armchair philosophy thread
>>29209297
My point was that if every detail of reality were understood, a universally correct course of action could be taken. That morals as we hold them are not meaningless but instead based on fragmentary truths limited by our subjective experience.
You missed the entire point, fucking dumbass.
Religion came about as a tool to create an arbitrary economic hierarchy among societies (caste systems, aristocracy etc.). Some people lied about their connection to a "god" and other people believed them and served them, and the remnants of those hierarchies still exist today (think people who own large family estates etc.). People still like to use religion as an arbitrary decider between who's special and who isn't (ex. I believe in my religion but you don't, so I'll go to heaven and you wont; I cherrypicked some tenets from my religion to follow that you don't follow, so even if things seem unfair now in the end I'll win and you won't; I happen to have solely upper middle class white friends because I met them at church and not because I'm latently racist etc.). People like to say religion is just a crutch for dealing with existential issues, but in practice it's mostly just used as a tool to practice cultural and class-based discrimination.
>>29207140
Religion is the rational approach to the fact atheism has never been proven accurate or correct by evidence.
>>29209286
Well I'll be a son of a gun. It is consistent with the sort of disconnect with humanity autistic people tend to have.
I did notice it. But as a hopeless romantic, I was inclined to interpret it merely as a combination of ignorance and hubris, brought upon by the newly found identity as a "rebel", against the feeble-minded general population. I may have been wrong.
>>29209302
You say that as if that was somehow a merit. Congratulations, you are able to read and write, but for all we know you know jack shit about the topic.
>>29209286
I don't think this is a valid criticism. This (plus those articles) seem to imply that because they're autistic you should consider their opinions less seriously than other opinions, it's effectively mudslinging.
>>29209389
>That morals as we hold them are not meaningless but instead based on fragmentary truths limited by our subjective experience.
That makes no sense whatsoever. What truth?
>>29207507
They aren't wrong, just unoriginal.
>>29207706
Out of curiosity, what are some examples of this phenomena? (Not disagreeing, just curious because I've always heard the whole "scientific method is god" shtick and it'd be nice to hear something that puts it into perspective).
>>29209435
Their disconnect from others leads them to believe that it's because of their 'superiority'. They cannot see the world beyond the "logic" their brains have specifically come to understand in their lifetimes. They literally cannot grasp another viewpoint, as 'smart' as they may be.
>>29209502
It is a valid criticism though. How am I supposed to take an autistic person seriously when they proclaim their superiority over everyone else, and they only do that because they cannot comprehend another point of view?
>>29209505
Interactions between physical objects and that self-aware objects are self-aware, so whatever they experience is a product of being aware of something, which represents a truth. Without omniscience, determining what this truth IS is nigh-impossible, but the truth exists, otherwise nothing would have happened.
Hence why the scientific method exists, to determine the significance of each individual part of a situation with regards to the situation itself- to find their true meaning
>>29207770
>Religious beliefs are an integral part and product of society.
Except they aren't though, especially in the modern age. Religion used to exist as a means to create an arbitrary hierarchy between upper class and lower class people -- this has been replaced by economic power. There's really no need for it.
It's a reasonable question to ask (he probably means do you believe in a religion? If so, which one and why?)
>>29209607
I literally explained all of this in my earlier posts so please read them before you mindlessly criticize.
>>29209605
Whether or not they think they're superior is irrelevant. They could claim they have a 14 inch penis and then continue on with their argument, the question is: "is their argument valid"? And if not -- why not? If your point of view is in direct opposition to theirs then it makes sense that one of them should be wrong, for a reason other than "oh they're stubborn/close minded".
>>29207706
>The scientific method has its problems. There are numerous widely documented phenomena that speak against our only currently supported model of reductionist materialism
we don't know how X works therefore god did X, in other words god of the gaps
Christians don't make assumptions about the universe out of arrogance, they have certain beliefs because they believe they were handed down by God. It would be more arrogant for a man who finds himself starting to think that Jesus Christ may have been the Son of God, to deny all of the God's revelations because of his own human frailty. Oh well, I can't know.
This is what faith is. It's not about believing in Christianity with no evidence, that would be a heresy called fideism. Faith is about, having established certain premises, having confidence and trust in God to deliver on his promises. We all place our faith in something or another, and ultimately Christians see it as man's task to reorient his will to place his faith in that which is infallible and infinitely benevolent - as opposed to the temporary, flawed things of this world.
I don't know if I believe it, but the majority of people who are eager to shit on religion don't even know the first thing about what they're talking about. More knowledge generally brings humility, even if one disagrees.
You're asking questions OP, but I know you don't expect to find the answers here. If you want to honestly inquire, ask Christians themselves.
>>29209549
You can be unoriginal and over-simplify things only for so long until what you're saying is false.
>>29209589
For an example, multiple mild forms of ESP. Dr Rupert Sheldrake have whatshisname a ton of statistically significant results about things like
>being able tell to who's calling you even though it's randomized programmatically
>sharing images telepathically
and as I said, UFO sightings being legitimized is a major win, as it's a concrete example of how the taboo cripples the scientific community's able to grasp beyond the limits of what's "accepted".
On the topic of dogmas in science, you should look up Dr Rupert Sheldrake's book
>the science delusion
it's actually quite interesting. You can get it online.
>>29207706
>Putting aside the fact that you're speaking of religion - a concept that has been with us since the beginning - as a monolith
This isn't a valid excuse for being religious. Racism, sexism etc. are behaviours that have been with us since the beginning as well, yet as a society we recognize they're harmful and as a result try to avoid being racist and sexist. Religion is really no different. Just because something's existed for a very long time doesn't justify its existence.
>Checking and verifying everything as you go along to slowly build your knowledge over time is much more rational than assuming you have all the answers immediately because of your faith
Kids typically aren't taught to question anything.
>>29209401
>Some people lied about their connection to a "god" and other people believed them and served them, and the remnants of those hierarchies still exist today
This opinion has no basis in history, but entirely in feelings. The early Christian church leaders were all persecuted violently, and continued to spread their teachings in spite of it.
>>29209695
>doesn't agree with the current model, therefore he must be religious
That is what we call a non-sequitur.
>>29209621
I said religious beliefs, you said religion. Two different things, pal.
>>29209759
Why is what they're saying false? Is it not true that a lot of people believe in religion because they can't cope with the notion of nothing after death? Is it not true that religion has "shaped society" in that it's created race and class based hierarchies and influenced the way people behaved on a mass scale?
>the science delusion
This seems pretty neat though, I'll look into it.
>>29209803
Sorry, why are religious beliefs integral to society then?
>>29209764
>implying that post was in defense of religion
>implying that post was about being religious
>implying you need excuses to be religious
You just went full fedora.
>>29209816
>religion
>creating race and class boundaries
I don't understand how you come to this conclusion. They existed before and alongside religion, but I can't see how most religions, especially those of the Western tradition like Christianity, could have been the source of this at all.
>There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
Galatians 3:28
>Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.
Matthew 19:24
You people seem to just make things up.
>>29209830
Gee, I don't know, maybe because well over 90% of people have religious beliefs of some kind.
I know your world view is narrow, given that you live in a basement somewhere in the white suburbs of the West, but the large majority of people out in the world are flat-out religious.
>>29207140
Religion as a projection-based belief is indeed stupid.
I am a devout Christian, but nothing irks me more than other Christians who spend time trying to control others and tell them how to live their lives. Here's the thing:
To me, religion is a personal thing. Certain things about the lessons and teachings provides a sense of comfort and mindfulness that helps me ENJOY life. i am able to be grateful for everything- bad days/events make me appreciate the other parts of my life which arnt so bad. I actually enjoy getting to know other people. I'm not afraid of death.
Additionally, science and religion are not mutually exclusive. I totally believe in evolution and scientific theories- I just believe that those processes occur because of god. I see God in those processes, so it also is upsetting to see Christians reject those ideas because I feel they are rejecting a part of god's gift.
I don't condemn people. I am not God- what right do I have to judge the immortal fate of others? Playing God like that is a sin in it's own right- so anyone telling you about how you're gonna go to hell is the one "sinning".
Religion is a tool. It can be used to expand your mind and make you wise/well adjusted if used correctly. It can make you ignorant and angry if used poorly. The lessons that people extract from the religious texts reflect their soul. Some of the most hateful people I've met have been religious, and some of the most generous and kind have also been religious.
I only became Christian two years ago. Before that I was athiest. When I started looking in to christianity, I realized that faith is a cruelly a whole new type of knowledge. It's something hard to understand that helps improve the way you understand things. It takes work to be able to understand, but if you're able to stretch your mind in the right ways, it will make you happier.
>>29209882
You pulled that number straight out of your ass and why would that mean that the majority of people being religious equates to religion being integral(essential, good, requirement) to society
btw stop flinging insults you butthurt bitch
>>29209903
Actually*
Not "a cruelly"
>>29209816
Considering the context (we're on 4chcan) and the tone, reducing the entire concept of religion to those characteristics reeks of condescension and euphoria.
>Is it not true that a lot of people believe in religion because they can't cope with the notion of nothing after death? Is it not true that religion has "shaped society" in that it's created race and class based hierarchies and influenced the way people behaved on a mass scale?
So a philosophy's original motivations are defined by followers who adopt it?
>>29209903
Pardon if I am being rude but I want to disagree with you strongly.
>To me, religion is a personal thing.
But anon, this is a very recent development because of the increasing individualism of society. "To me" should mean very little to a Christian, who is meant to hold himself according to God's will.
Religion is a communal thing. I think, stemming from your idea of religion as a personal activity, you also shun the idea of people being told that what they are doing is sinful. I can understand this, given the way a lot of "Christians" in our recent cultural memory have conducted themselves, but the response should not be to withdraw into a live and let live philosophy. Almost every time God interacts with humanity in the Bible, He tells people about what they are supposed to do - either through parables, laws, or good deeds. Jesus comes down to Earth and He says, "your sins are forgiven, go and sin no more." He tells people what they are doing is wrong.
It is more cruel to let people live in sin without informing them of a better way to live, all because you don't want to offend anyone. I am gay, and the reason I am attracted to the Catholic Church is because I see that they don't compromise. They offer something more fulfilling than all the shitty sex I've had, and they say "you can come in here, and we'll give you every resource available to help you live the way God wants us to, through confession and mass and everything."
Also I agree with you on the science and evolution thing, a common theme among Christian thinkers throughout the middle ages is the unity of scientific enquiry to religious revelation.
>>29207140
Basically every atheist argument gets automatically discredited because they always function under the assumption they are somehow smarter and have more "knowledge & science" than someone with religious faith. You claim that anyone with any scientific knowledge should automatically dismiss religion because religious people claim to have the answers already so they stagnate, when this is as far from the truth as possible.
No Christian (I'll go with Christianity here as it is usually the atheist punching bag) claims to have all the answers to the universe. Instead of claiming the universe sprung from a cosmic fart and nothing more, they claim that there is a creator that created the universe. Outside of that, there are more answers as to why we are what we are, what exactly space is, any of the answers scientists seek to find. If your assumption that religion causes stagnation, then why are religious scientists still trying to uncover the mysteries of the world? According to you, religious people have all the answers already so there is no point in doing anything more than living by the moral code of the bible, dying and going to heaven. Except, we don't, we still have to discover the ways of the world like anyone else, we just have an end goal in God. Religious people have faith in something bigger than them, but anyone with intelligence realizes that the search for God is a lifelong process and we will never have all the answers. Nobody of faith claims they do, you are making that up.
As for fear of death spawning religion, sure, I guess. This is also lying under the assumption that atheists are somehow redpilled on death and accept nothing happens then staunchy standing behind this, dismissing any other claim as simply a fear of mortal man and stupid people. In the end, you don't know any better than anyone else. Prove nothing happens when you die. You can't, much like a religious person can't prove their afterlife exists.
>>29210052
Difference is the religious person had faith that one exists, while the atheist has no faith in anything. You like to believe this somehow makes you superior or smarter, but you are simply arguing semantics at that point.
>>29209932
>why would that mean that the majority of people being religious equates to religion being integral(essential, good, requirement) to society
Speaking of pulling things out of your ass, why does your definition of integral include good? Secondly, you still confuse having religious beliefs with being religious.
Religious beliefs are integral to society because most of us are not so autistic that we think that given enough time, hydrogen turns into people. But I'm sure to you meaning or purpose hold no value.
Now what reason on God's green Earth would I have to be butthurt?
>>29210071
Atheists makes religion out of their unbelief.
>>29210052
>This is also lying under the assumption that atheists are somehow redpilled on death
I chuckled.
atheists should be eradicated like the vermin they are
>>29210124
Indeed they do. I like how Neil deGrasse Tyson put it
>Do non-skiers have a word and come together to talk about how they don't ski?
>>29210106
I literally googled the definition of integral because I knew you would pull this bullshit. Define integral.
>Religious beliefs are integral to society because most of us are not so autistic that we think that given enough time, hydrogen turns into people
oh, that's what it is. how does that mean religion is "integral" to society
you're extremely passive aggresive, come on bro
>>29210286
if skiers forced people to ski, waged wars because they didn't like one another's skiing techniques, and constantly discriminated against people who don't ski I guarantee there would be people who would call themselves that and united because they do not ski
>>29210106
>Religious beliefs are integral to society because most of us are not so autistic that we think that given enough time, hydrogen turns into people.
holy shit youre thick
>>29210286
This is silly, even as a Christian. Theist and atheist are useful terms to describe two dominant philosophical positions. Skiing is an activity that is self-contained and you either do it or you don't.
>>29210340
but the vast majority of skiiers actually dont do those things, and many are great global citizens. atheists cherrypick just as much as they claim religious people do.
>>29210278
aah, a true believer spoke
>>29210377
Doubtful. It was probably a /pol/ cultural christian at most.
>>29209882
So? If they didn't have it it's not like society would stop functioning. "Integral to society" implies that if religion didn't exist society would collapse -- which is simply false. As people get increasingly educated, and economic globalization spreads religion is becoming a pretty antiquated and unimportant part of society. It serves no functional purpose.
>>29210449
Don't be fooled into thinking technological progress means that we're advancing culturally too.
>>29209967
The posters basically just stated what I said/you greentexted; my point is they aren't wrong, and it's not an oversimplification or anything. Moreover if the adoption of a philosophy ends up causing questionable results when put into practice, then it's a reasonable thing to criticize. Communism might make sense in theory, but people still don't take it seriously because in practice it's had pretty awful results. Religion is no different (not that it makes sense in theory, but you know what I mean).
>>29209466
There's really not many materials regarding the creation of older religions, which is why you have to rely on the reason people create new cults or factions of religion, coupled with the large amount of gullibility humans had 2000+ years ago.
>>29210022
> "To me" should mean very little to a Christian, who is meant to hold himself according to God's will.
I do hold myself according to god's will (atleast, I try the best I can.)
God's will is not the same as the church's will, however. I reject the idea of "the church". The church is portentially one of the most corrupt, non-Christian things on this earth, and the bible specifically warns against blindly following its teachings.
Let me clarify that by "the church"- I am talking about the system that deals with and distributes power among Christians.
Historically, the church has proven time and time again through many religions just how corrupt it is. The wickedness of humans basically culminates in the church- an area where others are weak, trusting, and naive.
One of the reasons why I was athiest for so long is because I have vivid memories of sitting in church and hearing nothing about the teachings of God. Instead, all my pastors would talk about was how to convince other people to be Christians, how to specifically target people who felt weak and hopeless, and to tell them to join our church, not just any church. After that they'd pass around the big tithe basket to collect our money "to further the will of God" (aka to buy new stuff for the church).
That repulsed me.
That type of manipulation in order to further one's own power is not Christian at all, and the only reason why "converting others" has become a pinnacle of Christian beliefs is because humans have made it that way to take advantage of eachother.
Obv one's beliefs should not be hidden- I am openly a Christian. But I do not push that on to others unless they specifically ask.
(Continued)
>>29210494
Of course not, technological progress usually happens at the cost of severe environmental degradation, it's not necessarily a good thing. But that's not what I'm implying. I'm implying that religion is not integral to society in any way -- it's wholly obsolete. It's not integral to any "culture" either because the only culture it's historically spread have been incredibly divisive ones that just increase race, culture and class divides.
>>29210340
>waging war because of religion
>because religion is the cause and not a vehicle
Oh, honey...
>atheists are being discriminated against
I bursted out laughing. You are funny.
>>29210363
>not believing in God
is a philosophical position now?
>>29210501
>coupled with the large amount of gullibility humans had 2000+ years ago
citation needed
not only was the Roman civilisation - and the Jewish one too - a bastion of education and culture, most of the people living back then probably had tenfold more life experience than most of us talking now
>>29210358
>quoting out of context
>>29210528
> you also shun the idea of people being told that what they are doing is sinful.
telling people that they're going to hell and telling them that they're sinning are two different things- but even so it's not smart to just tell someone that they're sinning. In fact, most non-Christians equate that statement with "you're going to hell". We all sin. It's a bad thing, but simply committing a sin does not make you abnormally evil or bad. If one of my friends is committing a sin that j think I have the right to comment on. I try to approach it from a non-Christian perspective in order to actually connect with them. Most sins are sins for actual reasons, not just because they violate some randomly established religious sentiment. Spouting off religious buzzwords at someone who does not believe them is ineffective.
>He tells people what they are doing is wrong.
Again, it's not that you can't tell people when they're wrong. But you should do it out of a place of love and concern. You should ask WHY they did something and then share how it could potentially have negetive effects. You don't need to take a religious stance to get that point across, even if your actions are religiously influenced.
>It is more cruel to let people live in sin without informing them of a better way to live, all because you don't want to offend anyone.
Ok, but there are very FEW people (atleast in America) who are unaware that by a Christian standard, it is "wrong" to be gay. The realization that indivhdual doesn't want to be gay is personal, and Christianity provides the resources to help those people when they want to start living a Christian lifestyle. it's not that I don't want to offend people- it's that it's ineffective. There's no point wasting your breath telling someone that a core part of who they are is wrong unless they already believe that.
>>29210496
>Moreover if the adoption of a philosophy ends up causing questionable results when put into practice, then it's a reasonable thing to criticize.
Following that logic, veganism is bad because people who adopt it become (or wait, maybe they always were) douchebags who can't stfu about it.
>>29210501
>which is why you have to rely on the reason people create new cults or factions of religion, coupled with the large amount of gullibility humans had 2000+ years ago.
Your condescension and content towards religious people is almost palpable.
>>29210449
>As people get increasingly educated, and economic globalization spreads religion is becoming a pretty antiquated and unimportant part of society.
>le intelligent atheist meme
>>29210528
Thank you for answering.
>I reject the idea of "the church"
You reject Jesus' gift to mankind?
>Historically, the church has proven time and time again through many religions
>through many religions
But we are not talking about many religions, we are talking about God's answer to religion, the 'ultimate' Church established by God Himself, rather than man.
>One of the reasons why I was athiest for so long is because I have vivid memories of sitting in church and hearing nothing about the teachings of God. Instead, all my pastors would talk about was how to convince other people to be Christians, how to specifically target people who felt weak and hopeless, and to tell them to join our church, not just any church. After that they'd pass around the big tithe basket to collect our money "to further the will of God" (aka to buy new stuff for the church).
That's an unfortunate experience anon, and I hear many stories like it. But that doesn't sound like a Catholic church, correct me if I'm wrong, which is the church I mean. I can't relate since I was raised in a secular, atheist family and have only started attending mass in my adulthood, which I have found to be an incredibly pleasant and warm experience.
>and the only reason why "converting others" has become a pinnacle of Christian beliefs is because humans have made it that way to take advantage of eachother.
I think you're getting ahead of yourself. I don't deny that people will have ulterior motivations and make certain things benefit themselves, but you realise that Jesus Himself commanded the early Christians to spread the faith and baptise all the nations of the Earth? If you had such important knowledge, it would be imperative to spread it. Like a man who makes an important scientific discovery shares it and we celebrate this as a good thing that contributes to society, but there are also scientists who share their knowledge for pay too. That's human nature, but it doesn't tarnish all of it (cont)
>>29209681
I'm an atheist though. God, and the afterlife, existing has nothing to do with whether we believe in it or not. All their arguments are, are "It doesn't exist because I cannot perceive it".
>>29210577
>telling people that they're going to hell and telling them that they're sinning are two different things
Yes to an extent. I agree shouting "you're going to hell" isn't charitable, nor is it going to help, nor can you certainly know that. However, I do think it is important to understand that sin by it's very nature is something that leads to damnation.
I agree with you that you need to be tactful and to be warm and honest, but at the same time I'm very cautious about any softening of the message of Christ. Stuff like, "oh well, it's fine ha ha" The Catholic term is "fraternal correction," which I think provides a pretty good idea of the best way to approach someone you see doing wrong, which is as a brother.
>Most sins are sins for actual reasons, not just because they violate some randomly established religious sentiment
How do you mean? I agree that this is probably the case, but I can't understand who you'd be referring to as believing this.
>The realization that indivhdual doesn't want to be gay is personal
>There's no point wasting your breath telling someone that a core part of who they are is wrong unless they already believe that.
How about logic, reason and morality? Again, as a man attracted to men myself I can certainly understand where you're coming from, because meaningless religious plattitudes are indeed unconvincing. The actual, thought-out, structured moral system described by Catholics on the other hand IS something that allowed me to reflect on my actions.
Anyway, Biblical citations for the claims in my posts.
>And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Matthew 16:18
>And he said to them, 'Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation.
Mark 16:15
>>29210713
>you reject Jesus' gift to mankind?
No, as I established, by "they church" I am referring to "the system that deals with and distributes power to Christians"
It's a human creation, not a holy creation. Even if the idea of the church itself (the congregation of Christians to further the word of God) is pure, humans have inevitably tainted it.
And the Christian church is not immune, and is directly responsible for purposefully manipulating and murdering hundreds of thousands though our history.
>this doesn't sound like a Catholic Church
Again we're talking about two different things. The church that I attend now is very small, humble, and full of genuine people. The money that I give from tithe is ACTUALLY put towards helping those in need rather than buying new resources for the church. It is as close as I could find to what the church "should" be. It sounds like you've found a good church too, which is great. Unfortunately, the good churches don't usually do as well as the bad ones since the bad ones focus solely on getting more members and raising money.
The bad ones embody the idea of "the church" as I have been talking about it- corrupt systems in which humans are taking advantage of the trusting nature of Christians to control them.
The good ones (like yours and mine) more closely resemble the idea of "The church" as it is meant to be. Those churches are few and far between, but they are the ideal, and they are excluded from the catagory that I'm talking about when I refer to "the church".
>realise that Jesus Himself commanded the early Christians to spread the faith and baptise all the nations of the Earth?
Yes, before chistianity was well known and before the Internet, it was EXTREMELY important that Christians focus on spreading the words so that the religion didn't die out.
I'm not arguing that people shouldn't convert- but you should not try to convert people by reaching out through awkward rehearsed dialogue or fear tactics.
(C)
>>29210870
>How do you mean? I agree that this is probably the case, but I can't understand who you'd be referring to as believing this.
Like, if a friend of mine stole something, I would not tell them "you just committed a sin, [insert 2-3 relevant passages here]"
I'd tell them "hey, why'd you take that?" Then after they respond with something that is not justified, I'd say "hey dude that's not cool- you should go give it back and apologize. They had to work hard for that [object] and just stealing it from them is wrong. Plus it's not worth the feeling of guilt."
>The actual, thought-out, structured moral system described by Catholics on the other hand IS something that allowed me to reflect on my actions.
I'd actually like to hear more about your situation (as it is an uncommon one).
When did you become a Christian? When did you realize that you wanted to convert? What events brought about that realization? How did you convert?
>>29210931
>No, as I established, by "they church" I am referring to "the system that deals with and distributes power to Christians"
What do you mean by power?
>Even if the idea of the church itself (the congregation of Christians to further the word of God) is pure, humans have inevitably tainted it.
Yes, of course, but this does not make the Church any less the Church established by Christ and lead by the Holy Spirit. It would be impossible for the Church to exist without corruption and sin, because it would then have to exist outside of human nature. The Church is an institution run by and for humans.
>The money that I give from tithe is ACTUALLY put towards helping those in need rather than buying new resources for the church
Usually there are several things you can donate to, because a lot of churches rely on charity alone to exist. This is the contribution you are allowed to make to them for the free service they provide you, I don't see what's wrong with this.
>it was EXTREMELY important that Christians focus on spreading the words so that the religion didn't die out.
It was extremely important it didn't die out for the sake of the people that needed to hear its message. I am sure the early Christian church reached a point where they could have subsided and become another minority religion in Rome like the Jews (who have existed as a self-contained religion for more or less their entire existence), but this is not what the aim of the Church is. It is a universal church (hence the term 'catholic,' meaning universal)
>I'm not arguing that people shouldn't convert- but you should not try to convert people by reaching out through awkward rehearsed dialogue or fear tactics.
I don't disagree, anon. But I don't think this is what you were implying before.
(cont)
>>29211033
>Like, if a friend of mine stole something, I would not tell them "you just committed a sin, [insert 2-3 relevant passages here]"
For sure. If my friend were a Christian though, and either needed reminding or were assured of the fact that what they were doing wasn't sinful, then I would certainly cite those verses if appropriate.
>I'd actually like to hear more about your situation (as it is an uncommon one).
No problem, I'd be happy to!
I can't really pinpoint when I became a Christian. It was more of a long transition than a spontaneous moment of conversion. I guess formally I finally became a Christian when I got baptised and confirmed this easter.
I basically grew up in a pretty secular family, in a country where religion isn't given much importance (australia), unlike America where it seems to be a big deal. I kinda grew up with all the typical atheist ideas and rhetoric ingrained in me, thanks to older siblings and such, and I even had a particularly edgy atheist phase at 13. This was probably compounded by the fact that I was coming to terms with my sexual attraction to men at the time, too.
It's hard to pinpoint, but a lot of it was me maturing on my own and gradually coming to a worldview that was pretty similar to a lot of what Christianity has to say. It was kinda like, "oh crap, the Church has been saying this stuff I only just realised all along." I also began getting exposed to actual religion, instead of caricatures, and kinda began doing my own research as well. It's hard to pinpoint exactly cause it all happened a few years ago.
Actually building up the courage to go to churches and meeting the people there and engaging in communities helped me a lot. I remember reading some C.S. Lewis a bit later and he talked about the "glow" certain religious people have, and that was something that struck a chord with me. I also visited a church in a foreign country and had a meeting with the priest there, by chance(?), that was pretty touching.
>>29207140
Ok.
We human beings (aside from animals, insects, microbial organisms, etc.) are the only form of life in existence. There is no proof that an extra-terrestrial form of life exists. I as a Christian, believe that God made man to worship him, plain and simple. The Bible is not made by man, it is a letter from God to his people. Of course there are parts of the bible written by man, but those are just describing their journey through discipleship. Our planet is not just some mere speck, it is a work of art. There is no way that everything was created coincidentally. We have air to breath, water to drink, and food to eat. Technically a religion is a belief that determines your faith/destiny as a human being. Even people who dont believe in anything have a religion because that is their belief. It is up to what the person really wants, they are not obligated to believe anything.
>>29211524
>We human beings (aside from animals, insects, microbial organisms, etc.) are the only form of life in existence
What is your reasoning? How do you glean this from scripture/theology/whatever
>>29211699
Im not gleaming this from any religious standpoint.
In society today, there is no proof or evidence that there is other life among us.
>>29211747
Oh, right. You are correct, there isn't any. But I think that the statement "we human beings are the only form of life in existence" is not a conclusion you can make with certainty merely because no empirical proof has presented itself. The universe is an incredibly large place. Statistically it only makes sense for other life to have emerged elsewhere, and also for it to be very far away from us given how large the distances between objects in space are.
>>29207140
>Checking and verifying everything as you go along to slowly build your knowledge over time is much more rational than assuming you have all the answers immediately because of your faith. In that respect, religion is the pinnacle of arrogance, while science acknowledges that it does not have all the answers but provides a means for finding them, if you work hard.
I don't get it. Where does this "science and religion are opposed!" meme come from? Can't you study physics/chemistry if you have religious beliefs or something?
>>29211852
Ill believe it when i see it bub.
>>29210665
Eh, depends on their religion. All I'm saying is now that we have laws- there's pretty much no real reason to tack on more rules to yourself.
It's pretty much just tulpamancy, the feelings and senses people get from religion are all conjured.
>>29211962
If people followed all the laws of society but adhered to none of their underlying morals or social conventions in their life, society would probably collapse.
>>29212059
I think morals are more of a cultural thing rather than an organized precticed religion. I agree with your statement otherwise though.
>>29211524
>We have air to breath, water to drink, and food to eat.
you got it the wrong way around, we breath oxygen either because we evolved in an oxygen-heavy planet or oxygen is required to produce life, same for water
>>29207140
This board is the proof that there is no god.
>>29207258
That's exactly what religion is. The ice cream example is especially appropriate because religion is the source of many of our moral values in society today. The thing is, this is not a bad thing. Religion is an incredibly important aspect of any society and whether you like it or not, the western world was build on christian values.
>>29213076
I forgot to add, I am an atheist and do not practice any religion. However I do recognize it as an important aspect of society and I wish it had a larger role in our current society.
