Forum: Author Hangout

Once again, I'm coming to the discussion late and playing catch-up:

If you completely ignore the cosmological aspects of religion, the social aspects may have value. There is good evidence that people who go to a house of worship live longer. It's possibly similar to the benefits from participating in other ongoing social activities.

More than that, it seems clear that humans, because of our better capacity to intuit meaning to random events, are naturally drawn to spirituality. It turns out that most atheists, though they don't believe in either God or his associated spirits (i.e. souls) still consider themselves to be deeply spiritual.

I'm a good example, despite being an avowed atheist, I really enjoy attending weekly services (I attend a Unitarian Universalist congregation, which offers a LOT of leeway concerning personal beliefs). If you've read many of my stories, they're all about people searching for bigger meanings in their lives, whether it's an advanced alien culture, other dimensional beings or fate, we each want things to work out and for the good guy to win, despite the odds against them.

But then, I'm the son of a minister, and grew up playing under the alter as a child.

@StarFleet Carl

Part of my is simply due to ... well, experimentation (and actual success) with non-drug induced out of body experiences when I was younger, followed by serious out of body experiences while undergoing major surgery and having heart failure. So yeah, I died on the table.

There was a government experiment years ago, where the researched gave a group of men LSD. The research was suppressed, mainly because it was illegal in the U.S. to publish any paper concerning a class 1 drug, regardless of it's scientific value, but even after the men were told that their 'religious' experiences were entirely fabricated via the drug, every single one of the men (20 I believe in total) went on to become ministers of one sort or another, include the three who were atheists (and who still are).

Again, many cultures regularly use hallucinogenic drugs for religious purposes, and they also seek out the most 'off the wall' individuals within their communities to 'explain' what their experiences mean (making those with modern 'mental illnesses' respected members of the community who provided links to the gods and the dead).

On the flip side, there's a common joke among UU congregations: "We always have trouble with singing hymns, because we're so busy reading ahead to find which words we don't want to sing." So that's probably more of Darian's problem. It's not so much that he's against searching for 'ultimate' truths, but hearing the common cliches about God just rankle him. They certainly do me.

@Awnlee Jawkling

I'm an agnostic, in the broader sense of "don't know" rather than "unknowable".

When I first met my wife, somehow religion never come up. But during pre-marital counceling, the counselor raised the issue. My then-to-be wife said (afterwards) that "I can't imagine being with someone who doesn't have God in his life". So at that point, I officially switched from being an atheist to an agnostic, but was fine with her, she just didn't like not dealing with God. But since our divorce, when I went full atheist again, she's had trouble with my position (though once again, we don't discuss it much).

Now, since I've already wasted yet another day chasing minor details, I'm going to bow out before I blow any more time.

I wonder what is meant "spiritual". I fail at times but my moral standard is to seek what the retired King of Bhutan calls 'Gross National Happiness'. For example, I consider myself almost obliged to agree to something which is inconvenient for me, but only minor, but provides a greater benefit for someone else. I do so for the very practical and selfish reason that it makes me more happy in the long run. Is that being spiritual?

I'll keep this one brief, since I got such flack the last time I mentioned spirituality. But long story short, spirituality does NOT mean 'a believe if spirits', it instead refers to a belief in things bigger than oneself, or more broadly, things on a wider scale, up to and including fate, predestination, or an afterlife.

That's what those studies show, is that even though atheists uniformly reject God (I'm in a subclass, in that I don't believe in the existance of a soul, which thus refutes the notion of the one big father-figure soul "who rules them all"), it doesn't diminish the same part of humanity which constantly strives for some deeper, more personal meaning to things. (i.e. It's not the fear of burning in hell for all eternity which makes men good, it's inherent in humanity, and religion merely abuses these notions to enhance their own power.)

I do.

I do also. However, churches claim to be the authorized go-between between God and the rest of us. Somehow, I sincerely doubt God ever asked the churches to fill that position.

However, churches claim to be the authorized go-between between God and the rest of us. Somehow, I sincerely doubt God ever asked the churches to fill that position.

According to the churches, He did.

That's where I ended up having issues, as several movies happened to come out about the same time I was doing some in depth reading of the Bible. That one line, "I'll not let you destroy MY church!" really ended things for me, because at the same time I saw that movie was when I also realized from actually reading scripture that the Catholic Church is the worlds biggest cult - according to scripture.

Damn! I hate it when I disagree with your conclusion but find everything in your argument reasonable. :-)

Were you referring to the social aspects of a church as my conclusion?

You really want to see me confuse people, consider that I'm deep in the Bible belt. And I tell people that the closest religion that matches my personal beliefs is Zoroastrianism.

Since I also happen to be a Chivalric Knight of the Holy Order of the Fellow Soldiers of Jacques DeMolay and a Free and Accepted Mason, makes for some fun times. You'll note that the latter two are NOT in actually in conflict with the former.

I meant nothing more than, "Oh! Those seem like a sensible and decent attitudes towards life. :-)"

Oh, good. I would hate to think that you and I were actually agreeing on something. :)

The Sun

That was my tabloid du jour. It most certainly needed my money :(

(I'm an agnostic, in the broader sense of "don't know" rather than "unknowable".)

AJ

I also know that every single religion that is practiced was created by man and has evolved over time.

I vaguely remember an article in which scientists used circumstantial evidence to postulate a species of animal other than humans had a form of religion. Sorry I can't remember any details.

AJ

Was it elephants mourning when one of their herd dies, and showing remorse when one of their herd kills a human?

I honestly can't remember, but since they pass my criteria for sentience, elephants must be strong candidates.

AJ

"Isn't God Omnipotent and Omnicient?"

"Of course! He knows everything that is, was & will be."

God is supposed to be able to see and know all, that is a major aspect of most religions. However, neither term in the bold says God knows everything in advance, that's just how some church leaders interpret things for their own power.

Don't Moslems believe that everything that happens is the will of Allah?

AJ

Don't Moslems believe that everything that happens is the will of Allah?

The Christian equivalent of that is "it's all part of God's Plan." Again, another contradiction with the concept of free will.

Actually I was thinking more along the lines of if a supreme being willed humans to carve massive faces in a cliff, no doubt with significant loss of life, why would said supreme being subsequently require his followers to blow up the cliff?

AJ

Good point, but the immediacy has more impact :(

AJ

Don't Moslems believe that everything that happens is the will of Allah?

see my points 2 and 3 above.

That's what the leaders teach for their own purposes - Christian leaders do the same.

Actually, that's a logical fallacy. The fact that I know that you will or will not do something in no way influences your ability to choose to do or not do it. The choice is still yours.

Parents see it all the time with their kids. You tell them if you do x then y will occur. They do x and y occurs. You didn't make them do x they made their own free will choice.

Now, using force to make a person choose the way you want is a different kettle of fish. Using the parent example again. I would calmly tell my kids when they would try to get stubborn "You can do as I ask or I can beat your ass and then you can do as I ask. I really don't care which you choose, but you have to choose now." Normally, they would do what I wanted because they knew I didn't bluff.

To use such tactics on someone who has reached their ethical and moral majority is considered abuse, criminal and signs of a despotic government.

Once when I was spanking one of my children in public a woman tried to interfere. I asked her if she wanted to be next. She left for some reason. I would have spanked her too. Not because she was a woman, but because she was out of place. I was not beating my child. I was disciplining them as is my job as their parent.

Actually, that's a logical fallacy. The fact that I know that you will or will not do something in no way influences your ability to choose to do or not do it. The choice is still yours.

If some deity knows my choices before I make them, then my choices are not choices because this imaginary deity already knows what my decisions are and will be. There is no possibility of making a surprise choice. I cannot "choose" to be good or evil by this deity's definitions because it already knows what I will do. In your example, using the omniscient powers of a deity, you should go ahead and beat your kid in advance because you already know what his or her choice will always be, even before they are given a choice or face a decision.

If some deity knows my choices before I make them, then my choices are not choices because this imaginary deity already knows what my decisions are and will be.

You may make a specific choice. However you may also choose to change your mind and make a different choice. You may go through several choices before you make your final choice.

Just because the deity knew your final choice did not stop you from making different choices. So each of your choices was your exercising your free will to make a choice.

Of course if you choose to not exercise your free will and make other choices, then the deity will know that and then your initial choice will be your final choice.

Quit arguing, there is no such thing as a deity. If there were one it would have been fired long ago for being such a lousy guardian ;)

Think of deity as the same as the head of state of a country - they know what's going on in the country (as a general rule) but they don't give a damn about what each person is doing.

I agree that most government heads don't give a damn but at least we know without a doubt that they exist, something we can't say about deities.

I'm not going to go further with that because we then start to get into the realm where Lazeez will be upset enough to lock the thread due to the religious discussion. However, I will say we acknowledge the existence of many things based solely on their effects on other things and not on any ability to directly see them - to choose what you believe is up to you.

I'll also say - for some people supporting a political party or concept has all of the same aspects of a religious belief, and they treat it the same way.

Belief isn't really a problem. Zealots intent upon forcing their belief on others IS the problem. Unfortunately whatever belief you care to name, there will be zealots.

true.

As I get even older I think it would be nice if life after death were true. Evidence doesn't seem convincing to me. On the other hand, it might not hurt to act as if it might be.

That's the very definition of an agnostic. I don't really believe it, but since I'm not sure, I'll hedge my bets and play along, just in case.

However, that's also why many on both sides of the debate see agnostics as simply those who 'can't pick a side'.

As I get even older I think it would be nice if life after death were true. Evidence doesn't seem convincing to me. On the other hand, it might not hurt to act as if it might be.

Pascal's wager!

AJ