The Religious Civility Thread

[Ink Asylum]

I wonder if it's possible to have a thread where we respectfully share and discuss our religions/spirituality without negativity, arguments, debates, or attacks on either fellow posters, specific religions, or spirituality in general.

I'm personally curious about the religious alignments of my fellow posters and have questions I would like to ask them that spring from genuine curiosity.

I was raised Catholic, but only in a half-hearted way. My parents got me baptized, took me to my first communion, sent me to bible classes on weekends as a child, but we only went to church on holidays. I was even communed, but this was mainly as a favor to my paternal grandparents. I was very close to them growing up and they were the ones that took me and my siblings to Sunday mass or confession whenever we would stay over their house for the weekend.

I never really believed any of it as far back as I can remember, though I respected my grandparents enough to not make a fuss about going to church.

Today I would consider myself "spiritual but not religious." I believe there is something to consciousness beyond merely the physical firing of neurons, but I don't think any particular religion actually knows the truth about it. I just know that while I understand the psychology, biology, and physics behind sensations and emotions, I don't see a scientific answer for the self that experiences them. Call it a soul, spirit, or whatever, I can't shake the feeling that there's something more to life than just the physical.

While I would never sign on to strictly one religion, there are a number that interest me, more for the possibilities they present about the soul and how it can be explored than for the various rules and historical beliefs. Religious philosophy more than scripture. I've been thinking about exploring Eastern religions like Buddhism more, for those very reasons.

[diablopath]

I've been an atheist for maybe six years. Part of it was a lot of teenage rebellion. In Freshman year, I kind of came to a crossroads; a point where I seriously looked at the Christian Bible and really started focusing on religion. At that time, I could have either gotten fully involved or went the entire other way.

I went the other way.

I've never been militant about it, and I mostly shy away from talking about it with people around me. To me, it's one of the most personal things I can talk about. I never wanted to be "mocked" or otherwise treated badly, which is something that happens in my neck of the woods.

Over the past few years, I've contemplating going to a morning service or two to see if they do anything for me. I've had a small voice in the far back part of my head just telling me to check it out again, but I haven't done so yet. I'm not even sure where I'd go if I decided to, as even if I did give it a shot, it definitely wouldn't be with the Pentecostals.

[MagGnome]

I've been an Atheist for at least 12 years now, although I started questioning my religion before that. I started out being angry at God, and then one day it dawned on me that he just didn't exist, period. I try to respect the beliefs of others, provided they don't use those beliefs to harm me in some way. I'm not one to try to press my lack of religion on others. In fact, I generally avoid the topic of religion altogether. I have many good friends who are Christians, and I do my best to respect them and their beliefs. Thankfully most of them return the favor.

I will add that I still sort of believe in a spiritual/supernatural existence beyond our own, but I don't really know what shape that takes. It's certainly not a religion in the traditional sense, and honestly it's not something that I've thought about much lately, although from time to time I'll sit down and think about some things I experienced when I was younger and what they might mean.

[Ink Asylum]

Considering the sheer number of churches of different denominations in NYC I've thought about just randomly walking into one on Sunday morning, sitting in the back, and just listening. Do it a few weekends in a row, a different church/religion each time.

[MagGnome]

Today I would consider myself "spiritual but not religious." I believe there is something to consciousness beyond merely the physical firing of neurons, but I don't think any particular religion actually knows the truth about it. I just know that while I understand the psychology, biology, and physics behind sensations and emotions, I don't see a scientific answer for the self that experiences them. Call it a soul, spirit, or whatever, I can't shake the feeling that there's something more to life than just the physical.

While I would never sign on to strictly one religion, there are a number that interest me, more for the possibilities they present about the soul and how it can be explored than for the various rules and historical beliefs. Religious philosophy more than scripture. I've been thinking about exploring Eastern religions like Buddhism more, for those very reasons.

This is a pretty good summary of what I was trying to get at in my second paragraph above. I too have sometimes thought about exploring more Eastern religions, especially Buddhism.

[Widgetcraft]

I don't believe in fairy tales, it's just that simple. I think the whole concept is completely insane.

[J Arcane]

I wonder if it's possible to have a thread where we respectfully share and discuss our religions/spirituality without negativity, arguments, debates, or attacks on either fellow posters, specific religions, or spirituality in general.

I don't believe in fairy tales, it's just that simple. I think the whole concept is completely insane.

Question asked, and answered.

[Widgetcraft]

Question asked, and answered.

I'll remember to lie the next time I post.

[TheEpicOfTyler]

I was raised in a pretty secular home. My father is Luthern, my mother is Catholic and both sides of the family are deeply religious. Both of my parents maintain their religious views, but aside from a few times during my childhood, I never had any religion pushed on me at all. My dad used to read me the Bible when I was a child and I remember enjoying it, but we never went to church or anything.

I don't ever really remember believing in a God so to speak. Even when I was a child, God seemed to me more just an idea. Like Santa Clause or something. If I did something bad, God would know, and I should not be bad. After awhile (probably in my very early teens) I started coming to the conclusion that the idea of God was silly.

One of the tipping points for me was when I was at a friends house one day. His family was very religious, goes to church every Sunday, etc. He invited me to come to his church sponsored lock-in at the local YMCA. (You stay there all night and can play basketball and swim, watch movies, etc. A fun time, in other words) I wanted to go to have a fun time and he told me that they might say prayer and stuff and that I should know how to do all of that. I was willing to go in spite of that, I didn't believe that neccesarily, but I wanted to play basketball.

His mother overheard that I didn't know how to do any of this stuff, stormed in the room and asked: "You don't go to church?", I said no. She then followed with "Well you better start going to church, or you're going to Hell." She then walked out of the room.

That was the moment I started firmly believing that there was no God. This woman had just judged me solely upon overhearing a conversation (I was a person she has known for years, baby-sitted, everything), and very rudely told me I was going to Hell. She didn't offer me any help or try to dig deeper as I would think a more sane person who thought someone needed help would do. She just threw that at me.

I am a good person. I don't think that anyone who would look at my life objectively would disagree. I don't mean that with any ego. I help people when I can, I stick up for people (including this ladies son, on many occasions), I live my life on the idea that if the things I do hurt, put down, or otherwise oppress other people, they are the wrong things. I despise dishonesty, and try not to lie, I don't try to mislead people.

If there is a god that would meet me when I die, look at my life and say that I was not worthy of his salvation or whatever, and that I was now doomed to Hell because in my life I did not believe in him. I don't think I would want to be with him.

I think the world is beautiful enough and amazing enough, within the confines of explanation of science and observation, that to say simply that "God did it", cheapens the whole thing.

With my view of their being no god or supernatural beings out there, no afterlife, nothing that comes tied with religion, there are struggles. When death visits my life, I am forced to think of my own mortality and the fact that one day, I will be dead and that nothing will follow. That scares me. It truly scares me. Even though, when I am dead. I won't know I am dead and I won't have to worry about being dead.

Still, the thought that one day I will be gone pushes me to be a better person. I would like to make an everlasting mark on the world so that even though I am dead, maybe I am remembered. Maybe it's just the footnote of a book, or maybe it's just the memories of those who come after me.

At this point in my life, I have no spirituality. I feel it is a waste of time. I would never begrudge others their religion or beliefs, but it is not for me. I believe in man. I believe that ultimately, we will someday be at peace with one another and we can put our efforts into happiness. Not materialism, not religion or war. But focus on the things that truly matter in our imperceptively short time in the universe.

This is way too long.

[jpublic]

I was raised in a home where religion was never really taken seriously. My father is Roman Catholic, my mother was Greek Orthodox. Technically she became RC when they married, but I had only been to church a grand total of 4 times before I hit 18. We're pretty much all atheists or close to it.

Personally, I really *wish* it was real, you know? I really wish there could be some proof of all that stuff, because it would add a little more magic to the world, which would be awesome.

In technical terms, I'm an atheist agnostic (look it up) - I don't believe in any diety, and I don't claim to know if once exists or not (or that it can be proven).

[Ink Asylum]

Question asked, and answered.

Eh. I knew it wasn't going to be a perfect thread. Heretic was honest about his religious beliefs, or lack thereof, without directing personal attacks towards specific posters. If other people don't try to debate or argue with him about his ideas or rhetoric the thread can still serve its purpose.

[Ink Asylum]

Good post, Tyler. I've had many moments in my life where the negative actions of someone who professed to be a believer have turned me away from religion, but I try not to hold that against all religious people. For every person like your friend's mother there are those for whom religion is an uplifting and empowering part of their lives. It's sad that these people, living quietly and peacefully, are overshadowed by the former type.

[MagGnome]

With my view of their being no god or supernatural beings out there, no afterlife, nothing that comes tied with religion, there are struggles. When death visits my life, I am forced to think of my own mortality and the fact that one day, I will be dead and that nothing will follow. That scares me. It truly scares me. Even though, when I am dead. I won't know I am dead and I won't have to worry about being dead.

This is how I feel about death as well. It's kind of a frightening prospect, but that's just the way it is.


I believe in man. I believe that ultimately, we will someday be at peace with one another and we can put our efforts into happiness. Not materialism, not religion or war. But focus on the things that truly matter in our imperceptively short time in the universe.

You are a far more optimistic person than I.

[burger]

Atheist since birth.

If there is a god though I'm pretty sure given all of my transgressions in life that there's an especially warm section of hell already reserved for me.

[J Arcane]

Eh. I knew it wasn't going to be a perfect thread. Heretic was honest about his religious beliefs, or lack thereof, without directing personal attacks towards specific posters. If other people don't try to debate or argue with him about his ideas or rhetoric the thread can still serve its purpose.
I think attributing such deliberately inflammatory language to "honesty" demeans the term. There are other responses in this thread that expressed their emphatic disinterest in religion without resorting to attack language. But I won't follow it up with any further commentary as it hardly helps the thread's goals to do so.

------------------------------

For me, well, the answer is complicated. The religion question for me is always one I never know how to answer when it's put in simple terms (I've had a hell of a time with OKCupid questions, and finally just put a paragraph in my profile explaining why some answers may seem contradictory to some).

I was raised in a Pentecostal household. My mother was converted from Lutheranism at a young age by a friend who was a pretty radical Southern Baptist from Florida, who herself had converted from a life as, apparently, a bartender at a biker bar (she claimed to have seen CCR play when they were still starting out).

This influenced me from a pretty early age. I learned to read earlier than most kids, partly with the help of the (now forgotten even on the internet) Dolman method which my mother was a strong proponent of, and partly self-directed. The first thing I ever learned to read was the King James bible, because there was always a copy in the bathroom and that tended to be where I did my reading. As a bright and precocious kid it had a strong influence, and I apparently was known for standing in the front yard preaching to the neighbors, and wandering down from the bathroom reciting some passage that had caught my eye.

As I got older though, and reached the age where I really started to think for myself, my relationship with my religion and ideas of my parents got a lot more strained and tumultuous. I loved the people at my church and I loved Christ, and I did believe, and would at times hurl myself into that belief, but at the same time I was increasingly horrified by the darker side, the more hateful side, the more restrictive side, of the Christianity that my mother followed. I didn't and couldn't really believe in the kind of legalism that my mother was obsessed with, or in the idea that God could condemn the gays for loving the wrong people, or in the idea that all of culture was somehow an evil to be avoided.

There was also a more thoughtful, academic resistance, in the sense that I was of a more philosophical bent even as a lad. I thought about my religion, about God and the universe and creation, and I had a lot of my own ideas about what I thought seemed like a logical view of things. But the people around me in the faith, frankly, didn't. Thought of that kind was anathema. It was more about "how do I serve" and "how do I live up to the laws" and "how do I keep believing", a sort of willful refusal to ask any deep questions of what one believed, and I couldn't handle that. I had different questions, about what the nature of God was, how the universe really came to be, how to reconcile science with a deity, and on and on. It wasn't that I didn't believe, it was that simply believing wasn't enough for me like it was for them. I had ideas and theories about what this all really meant, underneath, whereas for them the surface was everything.

Once I left my parents' home it stopped really seeming all that relevant to my life most of the time anyhow, so for the most part I drifted apart from religion. I certainly didn't go to church or anything like that anymore. I still believed, on an academic level, but barring a few moments of despair where I called out to it, it didn't really come into my life much except as a thought experiment.

It was a good friend who encouraged me to discover the Episcopal church that changed things for me I think. Here I'd found a church, familiar in tradition to some extent, but more firmly rooted in it than the hither-and-thither mashup of modernism and conservatism of the mainstream churches I went to as a lad. This was more in the Catholic tradition, with strong ritual, not mad tribal wailing, but without the harsh legalism that pushed me away from the Catholic church. Here, you had a Christian church that seemed to still remember how to think! You had a rich academic and philosophical tradition, flexibility of mind and ideas while still keeping rooted in tradition. The vicar of one of the churches had a weekly D&D game. There was a GLAAD poster on the wall in the potluck hall. People had meetings and luncheons where they actually talked and analyzed what they truly thought about religion. The friend who introduced me to the church once put it to me that there are two rules in the Anglican church: Believe in God, and don't conspire against the Queen. The former's gotten pretty flexible (my vicar was an athiest), and the latter doesn't mean so much here in the USA.

It would've been horrifying to my mother, but to me it was like I'd finally found home. But that, sadly, did not last long. The thing is, the Episcopal church is in a bit of internal conflict these days about just how liberal it should be, and my vicar, atheist though he may've been, was actually the moderating influence in my church. When he left, the more radical left sort of took over the place, and drove me and many of the more traditionalist members like my friend away, in favor of Native American chants in the middle of the mass and primal roars and all manner of other New Age bollocks. I'd finally found a home, and been driven from it for the exact opposite reasons.

So I was left without a home in religion again, and at this point I sometimes despair of ever finding one. My friend actually goes to Portland for mass, because there's no church here for him anymore.

In the end, I am a religious man, without a religion. I do firmly believe in a deific force, though I don't think it can be personified so easily, but rather that it's just part of the universe, a by-product of the connections between matter and time and space in this infinitely complex universe. Religion is just a framework we use to make it easier to understand, and out of a sense of tradition. I follow the Christian tradition because it's what I know, because it's what I grew up with, and understand, I'm just not rigidly bound to it and all it's dogma. On a personal level, I have a connection to the rituals, but on an academic level, I have my own ideas of what's really going on, my own "theory of everything", or at least inklings of one, but I don't pretend to truly know what is out there and what's really going on in the universe. I've experienced some events in my life that simply defy my understanding, what one might call "religious experiences", that leave me with no question that there's something to the universe, and "God" is as good way to explain them as any, but I don't fully understand or comprehend the magnitude of such a being or how he may truly function in the universe.

I know it's there, I just don't know exactly what it is yet, but I think someday we'll find out.

[AntonThaGreat]

Today I would consider myself "spiritual but not religious." I believe there is something to consciousness beyond merely the physical firing of neurons, but I don't think any particular religion actually knows the truth about it. I just know that while I understand the psychology, biology, and physics behind sensations and emotions, I don't see a scientific answer for the self that experiences them. Call it a soul, spirit, or whatever, I can't shake the feeling that there's something more to life than just the physical.


Ah, Ink, Welcome to Agnosticism. You found your way on your own, as many of us do. If you would like to more reading material on the scientific side, because there's plenty on the religious side, about the SELF and how it comes about, find and read Wider Than The Sky by Edelman.

[Ultima Thulian]

I'm not really concerned with atheist/agnostic labels, as both terms have become so completely convoluted (e.g. soft atheism vs hard atheism, etc.) that I find myself constantly trying to juggle between the two when describing myself to others. Basically, I will concede that technically speaking that I cannot prove God does not exist, but I don't find such a technicality to be worth mentioning. Instead, I'll say that I personally don't believe in a God, nor do I find the clockmaker or fine-tuned universe arguments persuasive (though they are, in my mind, the most interesting ones creationists and deists have brought forth).

I think a better term for my views is that I'm an anti-theist, meaning I don't like any religion based on theism as a matter of principle. However, I'm also an advocate for the free market of ideas as well, meaning that I think all people should be entitled to their opinion and should be able to express it openly, so long as others can do the same. So, I'll be honest, I feel asking people in this thread to be as non-confrontational as possible, while noble, also neuters the thread a bit. But I understand Ink's wanting a civil discussion.

However, I used to be a very hardcore Christian. I was raised in a Pentecostal church (though I never considered myself Pentecostal, as even in my youth I found denominational bickering to be trite) and I was part of the youth group, drama group, and I was even tasked to sometimes preach to the congregation once a month when the church allowed the younger members to have their night, so to speak. I enjoyed it, and I was better educated in my Bible readings than most. This education, however, is also what fueled my doubts. I struggled with those doubts for about two years, as I finished the Bible when I was about 16-17 years old (I've read the New Testament in it's entirety twice, and the Old Testament once, and there are multiple books in the Bible that I have read dozens of times). I always was very analytical, which constantly filled me with doubt. But I stuck with my religion because of two reasons. One, I was afraid my doubts were unfounded. If they were, I was surely setting myself up for Hell or at the very least an earthly punishment. Second, at the time, I fervently believed that what I was "feeling" was something unique and special, and that my personal experiences with "God" and religion were proof enough.

I was wrong. By the time I was 19, I was completely struggling with many things, with religion being only one of them. During the summer, I decided I needed to finally come to terms with myself and get a grip on my life before things spiraled further out of control. No, it wasn't anything major. I wasn't hooked on crack or some crazy shit like that, but I was at that crossroads in my life when I needed to start making big decisions, and it was all very daunting to me. Thankfully, I think I came out a better man than I was back then, and my choices have so far vindicated me.

Back to religion: I decided I just couldn't do it. I was doing as much research as an inexperienced 19 year old could do, and I figured at the time there was no point in struggling with doubt. I decided I couldn't believe. It wasn't a matter of not wanting to, I just couldn't. I couldn't reconcile my morality, even then, with my religion. Over time, my views would become much more complex. But even then, I was familiar with Pascal's Wager, typical apologist arguments, typical secular arguments, etc. I think at the end of the day I just couldn't be completely subservient. I began to study, lightly, the other major world religions and they didn't click with me either. Over time, I began to realize that religion as a whole just wasn't for me, and I would eventually come to conclusion that it was a thing to be regarded with contempt (not trying to offend here...just how I feel).

I could go on and on, but this post is long enough and it explains the origins of my secularism fair enough, I suppose. I'll of course answer any questions, as I realize my response likely sounds scattered.

[MagGnome]

I really like where this thread is going. Reading about others' experiences with religion has been very interesting so far. Enlightening and eye-opening, even.

[Kelegacy]

Mine is basically that I try to be a good person without any dogma forcing me to be. No religion for myself though I was raised baptist. Lost faith when I went to college and had my world views challenged by different types of people and situations. I believe I am spiritual, whatever that means.

[Ink Asylum]

Thanks for all the great posts about the journey of religious self-discovery. They're great reads, even if at times unfortunate.

Ah, Ink, Welcome to Agnosticism. You found your way on your own, as many of us do. If you would like to more reading material on the scientific side, because there's plenty on the religious side, about the SELF and how it comes about, find and read Wider Than The Sky by Edelman.

I've usually shied away from the term Agnosticism. I've always felt it meant being open to the idea of a deity God, which is something I largely reject. I believe in something more than a purely physical form of life, but not one that is directed and ordered by an omnipotent power. I would lean much closer to the idea of a shared spiritual world, what small spark that is within every self-aware mind being connected to each other, if not while alive, then before and after.

If that's Agnosticism, then, I don't mind the label. I'll definitely look into that book.

[Narradisall]

Christened Church of England (thank you Henry!).

Erm, not religious in any way, but I dislike the term Agonistic as Yatzhee said 'it makes me sound like an indecisive twat'.

I guess you could say I'd expect there to be some sort of all encompassing power whether it be sentient or not, since you go high enough in anything and there's always one person at the top!

[JRR006]

I was raised Catholic, attended a Catholic school, I've been confirmed, but I recall in second grade or so talking about religion with friends and being surprised that they believed what we were being taught. I guess I'm one of nature's skeptics/atheists/whatever.

As someone said earlier, I grant that the existence or non-existence of a being characterized as omniscient and omnipotent cannot be proven or disproved. It's a matter of intellectual honesty to grant that this is the case according to the nature of the God many profess to believe in. I've never found much evidence that supports magical thinking, though, so it's fair to call my stance atheistic. Not militant about it, though. (Though I do absolutely hate seeing those commercials for magic "balance bracelets" or whatever, that sort of scamming.)

I do not think there is anything after death. However, I do believe that life has meaning, and each person has an amazing opportunity to define for themselves what their raison d'etre is. I believe that things can be judged "good" or "bad" -- in the broadest sense, I believe that suffering is bad and happiness is good. It is good to help those in need, it is good to be kind, care for the sick, feed the hungry, and generally make life as comfortable and rich for others as I possibly can. This is all we get, and it is heartbreaking to me that some people's lives are painful. I believe in human dignity. I believe that every human life is sacred by virtue of being able to experience suffering very keenly. (This extends to animals as well, but I rate human life above animals. I mean, I think modern meat farming is a travesty, but physical hardship aside, sapience lends itself to a fuller comprehension of horror and injustice than the average cow can muster.)

I believe that we are what we are based on breathtakingly complex sequences of cause and effect. From the genetic content of ovum and sperm, to the way our chromosomes are shuffled at fertilization, to the chemical environment of the womb, the way our neurons are laid out and our physical brains grow ... and once we're born we continue under an endless interplay of influences (both internal and external, nature and nurture).

I also believe that we have a meaningful measure of free will that we can use to control our actions, mold ourselves, and direct our development. (In the way that, say, taking constant care to be kind and helpful can make those characteristics habits, that sort of thing.) I think of conscious thoughts as tips of ice bergs, we can't see most of lies beneath, but we can steer a course through them.

So ... I'm not religious, but I've got a philosophy of life, I guess. It's a work in progress ...

[evilgoodwin]

I'm an atheist.

Much like Diablopath, I started to question the teachings around that same time, possibly earlier. Growing up in a town with a fundamentally baptist college did not help me one bit. If anything, it drove me away from religion. No answers were offered for my questions, just hypocritical arguments aimed towards myself. It's one thing to tell me that I'm going to Hell for all of my actions. It's another to actually take pride in saying that I deserve it for not believing. Not because of my actions, or whether or not I'm a good person. To me, I was puzzled by this.

Coupled by my Dad's Mother, which didn't help. My family doesn't go to church, really. My Mom says she believes, but I don't know about my Dad. But I've heard my grandma talking to my Mom, telling her that "just because she's going to Hell is no reason to drag her son with her." Wtf, lady.

For the most part, I was driven away from religion. They made it seem like an exclusive club that I really didn't want to be a part of. I, instead, turned to science.

I DO know that not all religious people are like this. Some of my best friends were the sons and daughters of pastors. And there is definitely some merit to the ideas about "preacher's daughters" if you get where I'm going with this (and she was AMAZING at what she could do). I have been treated kindly, and have had discussions about my beliefs with them. I know that not all of them are the same.

But some of the arguments I've heard have been... unsettling. "Believe so that you can go to Heaven if you're wrong about no God." What? I think your all-powerful god would probably know that you're trying to just cover your own ass. "Religion is the only way you can be good. Atheists are immoral because they believe that there are no consequences for their actions after they die." I don't need some eternal hereafter judgmental bogeyman frightening me to be good. I have my own morals that more or less coincide with the idea of Don't Be A Dick. I don't do it for the afterlife, I do it because acting like a dick has consequences NOW. Treating people right gets them to treat you right (most of the time, at least).

Not to mention the disgust I feel at certain "extremist" groups. Creationists, Westboros, Christian Rock Bands... I remember a video of a creationist teaching to a group of children, using humor to try to drive his point. He showed a picture of a monkey and said "That don't look like my grandpa! Does yours look like that?" as he attempted to make evolution seem ridiculous to the children. This was brainwashing to me. That sickened me.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that I'm jaded. I refuse to have blind faith in something that doesn't try to explain why. Science, at least, tries to find the answers. Science will ALWAYS try to find the answers. I still have Christian friends (I speak mainly of Christianity because I don't have much exposure with other religions). They don't ask, and I don't ridicule them. They don't try to convert me, I don't try to get them to stop believing. To each his own.

[Ultima Thulian]

But some of the arguments I've heard have been... unsettling. "Believe so that you can go to Heaven if you're wrong about no God." What? I think your all-powerful god would probably know that you're trying to just cover your own ass.


Sounds like Pascal's Wager. While I respect Pascal and his thinking, for it really opened up doors for when it was done (e.g. probability theory, etc.), the argument in and of itself is dubious at best. It sounds like bad hucksterism really: "Oh c'mon, what do you got to lose? Believe and you go to Heaven, or if you're wrong, so what?" Makes God sound like a used-car salesman.

edit: It's funny, you and I seemed to struggle with the same arguments though our backgrounds are complete opposites. My church was a very good church, and most of the people in it were very good people. Even to this day, my experiences with the Christian Community as a whole have been mostly positive.

[VerseD]

I definitely believe in a God, but one beyond all comprehension. It came about by considering the different ways of approaching religion, by voracious reading, by wondering at all the coincidences of the world, and by meeting people of incredible faith or spirituality who were also so calm and virtuous in the face of everything; and only after a quarter of my life had gone by.

I was raised Catholic -- like a lot of people I see here -- in the way of Church and Catechism on Sundays, taking Communion, and not thinking too deeply about the mysteries of God and the Church. When I did start thinking about it, I thought it all very silly and abandoned those ideas, like throwing off a net I'd gotten tangled in. I got angsty and refused to go on Sunday. Then my family stopped going to mass. My parents were disillusioned with the increasing politicizing of the Church, with Pro-Life and anti-same-sex-marriage creeping in, and with the altar boy scandals of the 90s. I never complained.

I studied literature and history in college but was independently interested in science and religion. After a few years, I found that I believed in God again. It was an unimposing belief, like a fact of life: there is some greater force at work in this world, something impossible for me to understand, but I put my faith in its benevolence.

I like a quote from Tolstoy, also deeply spiritual (quite a bit more than me):

To that question, “What for?” a simple answer was now always ready in his soul: “Because there is a God, that God without Whose will not one hair falls from a man’s head.”

That kind of idea, that everything that happens is divine will, and that every man and woman was created by God and acts in accordance with his will, is something I try to believe in -- because that makes it easier to find a way to love everything and the world an easier place to live in.

This is not something I wear on my sleeve. I never tell anyone about my spirituality, unless they ask, and then I explain with one word answers. It's something deeply personal and I'm no preacher, nor do I judge anyone for their own beliefs. In fact, I think the diversity of belief is really beautiful. The only thing I cannot stand are the proselytizers of religions and atheism -- why iron out the wrinkles when we're all already so similar?

Permit me a digression: I was in the Middle East last year, and there they cannot comprehend atheism. They ask foreigners, "Are you Christian?" and talk about Jesus' place as a prophet of Islam, and Islam as a sort of sequel to Christianity and Judaism, the third part in the trilogy, but are very civil and tolerant -- unless you claim no religion.

My friends stayed with a Bedouin, a desert tribesman, in a cave in the desert, who asked them about their faith. One deferred, saying he was raised Christian, but the other, a Dane, explained that he did not believe in God and talked about logic and science and his secular virtues, that he tried to be a good person without the need for judgment in the afterlife. The Bedouin listened quietly and at the end he said, "If I had known you did not believe in God, I would not have invited you here." That was the end of the discussion.

I once had dinner with a Syrian surrounded by French atheists, and he waved his hands at the night sky and asked, "How can you look up at the stars and not believe in a God that created something so beautiful!" Someone might say that such a simple revelation cheapens the marvel of creation, but I think that seeing a divine hand in everything is a beautiful thing. It fits with the ascetic ways of the desert, the impossible spaces and skies, where all three Semitic faiths originated.

Understanding the world by science or religion is like the difference between seeing a place in black and white and in infrared -- one is more practical, but the other can explore much more beauty. And luckily, though they might contradict, we are irrational creatures and do not have to exclude either from our personal beliefs.

I don't believe in fairy tales, it's just that simple. I think the whole concept is completely insane.

You can consider them fairy tales, and they're taken that way by a majority of people, who also have no idea about the inner workings of their computers -- and beneath the plain flat casing, religion is just as complicated, and there's more to it than the stories.

The codes and gospels of religion and the orthodox interpretations of "fairy tales" come out of long and intensely intellectual debate and constant reform, always striving to find ways to better people and the world, often acting wrongly, and sometimes with terrible violence. But you can say the same about government. Actually, ideas of government, public participation, nationality, and borders are just as much fairy tales as the notion of a Creator and a Divine Plan, but they fulfill a basic need for order and purpose. Maybe it would help to consider religion in the same way as politics (and they often overlap), just more metaphysical, directing the soul instead of the body.

Religions are organized and their truths simplified because the majority of people don't have time to consider the state of their souls, the origin of evil, or the purpose of life, and like soldiers they want simple answers to complex questions. So the Bible, the Qur'an, the sutras, and Marcus Aurelius' Meditations provide comfort in a world that can be very rotten, to reconcile the death of a loved one; and they impart lessons through parables, ways to be a good person, invented reasons to be good in the face of evil and injustice; and satisfy a basic intellectual need to define an individual's place in the universe and time. In that way, you can call popular religion a convenience, but it's certainly not insane.

I'm not saying that atheism is the same as political anarchy or that atheists are amoral, apathetic creatures -- you won't find any in prison, was Adam Carolla's saying -- they just find solace in a different prophet. At heart, I think all people want to be good, but sometimes people need an extraneous source of the strength we need to be good -- and an imagined source works just as well as a real one.

[Ox]

Considering the sheer number of churches of different denominations in NYC I've thought about just randomly walking into one on Sunday morning, sitting in the back, and just listening. Do it a few weekends in a row, a different church/religion each time.
Didn't Samuel Pepys used to go around listening to multiple sermons every Sunday just for the pleasure of hearing the rhetoric? Even if you disagree with the theology of the minister, it can often be interesting to hear someone try to offer sincere answers to the difficult questions of life.

As for me, I believe it's well-known around here that I am Catholic. Although my father is notionally Catholic, I cannot recall any instance in which he indicated he holds any religious views. My mother is notionally Lutheran, but her religious beliefs are probably better described as "spiritual with a vague Christian overtone". Apart from a Catholic baptism, about six weeks of Sunday school instruction, and my grandmother giving me a children's book about how Martin Luther saved us from the Pope's benighted oppression, I had a fairly nondenominational if not secular upbringing.

When I was about 11, I decided the whole God thing was bullshit due to the Problem of Evil. I later decided, like JRR006, that the God issue could not be proven one way or another, but I was reasonably confident that most if not all major world religions were radically incorrect. In my first year of college, however, I met some people and began to have serious discussions with them. Although harshly resistant and contemptuous of the idea, I eventually found myself being won over by their arguments. Unlike most of the others in this thread, I not only believe strongly and sincerely in a god, I believe strongly and sincerely in the specific dogma of a particular religious denomination.

TheEpicOfTyler did say one thing which I would like to mention, though:
I am a good person. I don't think that anyone who would look at my life objectively would disagree.
I really want to emphasize that I don't know TheEpicOfTyler at all, I do not think he's deliberately lying, and I do not want to criticize him personally. But I disagree with the notion that anyone is a "good person." The requirements of morality are so strict -- always being charitable, always being kind, always sacrificing yourself for the good of others -- that no mortal man fulfills them. I am willing to say that it sounds like Tyler is one of the best people there are, even though all people are bad. I hope neither he nor anyone else is insulted by that, as that was not my intention.

[TheEpicOfTyler]

TheEpicOfTyler did say one thing which I would like to mention, though:

I really want to emphasize that I don't know TheEpicOfTyler at all, I do not think he's deliberately lying, and I do not want to criticize him personally. But I disagree with the notion that anyone is a "good person." The requirements of morality are so strict -- always being charitable, always being kind, always sacrificing yourself for the good of others -- that no mortal man fulfills them. I am willing to say that it sounds like Tyler is one of the best people there are, even though all people are bad. I hope neither he nor anyone else is insulted by that, as that was not my intention.

No offense taken. On second thought, I would remove that part from my post. Specifically for the reasons you've mentioned. People come from all different views.

I will say that I think most people would think I'm a pretty nice guy with good intentions though. :cool:

[Ink Asylum]

I really want to emphasize that I don't know TheEpicOfTyler at all, I do not think he's deliberately lying, and I do not want to criticize him personally. But I disagree with the notion that anyone is a "good person." The requirements of morality are so strict -- always being charitable, always being kind, always sacrificing yourself for the good of others -- that no mortal man fulfills them. I am willing to say that it sounds like Tyler is one of the best people there are, even though all people are bad. I hope neither he nor anyone else is insulted by that, as that was not my intention.

Requirements of morality differ between people as much as anything else. For many you can be a good person even if you are not always good. No one is perfect and does good every time they have the opportunity, but plenty of people do much more good in their lives than bad.

[Ultima Thulian]

I'd argue that "good" and "bad" are so subjective as to be mostly not worth arguing other than on individual merit.

Same for God (or god with a lower-case "g")...to truly answer the questions about god's existence, it helps to know what the definition of god is. For example, if you are a sun-worshiper, I would be off-key in saying your god does not exist.

[Ink Asylum]

I once had dinner with a Syrian surrounded by French atheists, and he waved his hands at the night sky and asked, "How can you look up at the stars and not believe in a God that created something so beautiful!" Someone might say that such a simple revelation cheapens the marvel of creation, but I think that seeing a divine hand in everything is a beautiful thing. It fits with the ascetic ways of the desert, the impossible spaces and skies, where all three Semitic faiths originated.

Understanding the world by science or religion is like the difference between seeing a place in black and white and in infrared -- one is more practical, but the other can explore much more beauty. And luckily, though they might contradict, we are irrational creatures and do not have to exclude either from our personal beliefs.

Are you saying that understanding via science is black and white and understanding via religion is infrared?

I think many scientists would argue that science allows them to see much more beauty in the world than they ever could with just their normal senses. Being able to personally witness the splitting of cells or see the wonders of the universe that are too distant for the naked eye, for example.

[J Arcane]

I think if God is real, then it stands to reason he's eventually scientifically provable like anything else. I find the notion of a purely metaphysical god that exists outside reality entirely as difficult to swallow as atheists do, honestly. And I find the mindset that requires one similarly hard to understand.

So I suppose I have some common ground on that with the atheists among us.

[Ox]

Requirements of morality differ between people as much as anything else. For many you can be a good person even if you are not always good. No one is perfect and does good every time they have the opportunity, but plenty of people do much more good in their lives than bad.
I wasn't sure whether you wanted to get into a debate on this, although as you know I have little reluctance in debating anything. You're right that different people see morality differently. A common theme in many of these stories about converting to atheism or agnosticism is that people concluded their moral intuitions conflicted with the doctrine of a particular faith, and they decided to follow their moral intuition rather than doctrinal faith. Tyler, J Arcane, and Ultima Thulian all seem to be motivated, at least in part, by their decision to believe their own moral intuitions are better founded than doctrines professed by certain sects. Why should I be any different?

Yes, it's true that many people fulfill their moral duties more often than they transgress. But I believe fulfilling your duty is the bare minimum, not supererogatory. If a soldier stays alert for three nights on watch and falls asleep at his post on the fourth night, does he get a medal or a court-martial? I do not believe one can justify oneself by pointing to all the sins one did not commit. Obviously, many if not most disagree. I'll admit I envy people who are convinced they are virtuous. It must be easy to sleep at night.

[Ink Asylum]

I wasn't seeking debate, just bringing up a different scale of morality for comparison. I'm certainly not saying that your measuring system for good and evil are wrong, just clearly different from the one Tyler seems to be using.

Personally, I believe you can view yourself as a good person while still recognizing that you could be a better one.

Do you believe there are shades of gray when it comes to morality? Is a soldier that only falls asleep one night out of four a better soldier than one who falls asleep three out of four?

[Voodoo]

Technically, I am a Deist whom is also an Occultist. I went through the rites of a Methodist to be 'born again' (even had to perform a few sermons) but at the end even my pastor believed that I wasn't meant for such things. I became an occultist first in 1994 [attended many different groups and finally settled on Vodou] and then around 2001 I was told by a theologist that my beliefs are strong Deistic as well. So... There you have it.

[Ravenlock]

This thread made me really worried when I read the title, and then I jumped in and found a pretty awesome discussion. Sadly, it's too late and I'm too tired to carefully read every post in it, but I want to and hope I can make time to do so later. Well done, guys. Really. :)

Considering the sheer number of churches of different denominations in NYC I've thought about just randomly walking into one on Sunday morning, sitting in the back, and just listening. Do it a few weekends in a row, a different church/religion each time.

I would absolutely recommend doing this, though please keep in mind that no one church should really be taken as representative of a denomination. I was raised Presbyterian, in a lovely church I still enjoy attending sometimes, but when I went to college and tried a Presbyterian church there I found it to be an awful affair, very insular, even creepy, with the whole "thank God we're not like those people on the outside, we're saved" thing constantly going on. Turned me right off.

It's interesting to stumble on this thread today, since I was actually just asked this by a cast member in the show I'm in. Currently, I consider myself to be a non-denominational Christian, but the real answer is that I just find myself more and more disillusioned by all formally institutionalized religion. Publicly religious people here in America seem to have a wonderful way of making their beliefs unattractive. I roomed for years in college with a theology major who went on to become a Lutheran pastor (his other degree was in genetics, really smart guy), so I certainly have had plenty of exposure to theology both in and out of churches.

I have retained some measure of faith through that disillusionment, though, and not just for the straightforward reason of really not wanting everything to end when we die - though let's be honest, that's a compelling reason.

There's a popular imagery I'm rather fond of that I've heard many pastors and priests use, and I imagine it crops up in most religions, of "seeing God in someone else's eyes." I'm not sure I have at the moment a better way to describe what keeps me believing that there are unexplainable, metaphysical connections between us that aren't satisfactorily explained by pheromones and natural selection weeding the gene pool. Do I believe in a single, monolithic conscious entity that observes and/or influence my life? ...I don't know. I'd certainly like to. I am full of gratitude for the life I'm blessed to live, and I want to give thanks for it. And I do, but obviously I don't know if anyone is listening.

I feel fairly strongly that if there is such a singular being, they don't care about what label you give yourself, or what rituals you follow, or what gender or race you are, or the gender / race of the people you love. I can't imagine them having a problem with any real form of love. Maybe that's why I still feel comfortable identifying as Christian, despite my problems with the churches that share that label. If people were to really try to love, all the time - to love their families, love their neighbors, love their enemies - it's an impossible task, and frankly more counterintuitive than people give it credit for. Many self-professed Christians seem to have almost denounced it, which I find troubling. But I believe it's an incredible ideal.

Running out of steam here. More later maybe if I get a chance to catch up on the thread / read replies. Thank you for starting the thread, Ink. You're a good egg. ;)

[Ink Asylum]

Thanks, Ravenlock. I'm pleased with the direction the thread has taken so far. After we've gotten past basic spiritual introductions I hope we can ask and answer questions and compare our beliefs without falling into the pitfalls of I'm-right-you're-wrong debates.

After several decades of living without any sort of spirituality in my life I've been seek ways to focus inward and see what I can discover. I've been trying to meditate here and then but have had little success in really quieting my thoughts for more than a few moments.

[Krispy]

There's a lot of text here and I haven't read it all so if I repeat anyone, I apologize. I'll pick through it at my leisure and give some historical context on some of these problems because I have nothing better to do sometimes and this is a topic of my prospective profession.

Today I would consider myself "spiritual but not religious." I believe there is something to consciousness beyond merely the physical firing of neurons, but I don't think any particular religion actually knows the truth about it. I just know that while I understand the psychology, biology, and physics behind sensations and emotions, I don't see a scientific answer for the self that experiences them. Call it a soul, spirit, or whatever, I can't shake the feeling that there's something more to life than just the physical.

I'm going to press on you to be more specific on what you mean by "spiritual." The "not religious" part is easy enough. My worry is that you characterize "spiritual" as believing that there is such thing as phenomenal facts and not necessarily the implicit dualistic clause that comes with "spirits." Facts about our phenomenology are called qualia in philosophy of mind and pertain to facts about things we 'feel' but are not physically analyzable such as pain, happiness, well being, love, ect. This is a worry because even a physicalist (someone who believes there is no dualistic mind -- ie mind stuff and physical stuff are wholly separate) isn't committed to thinking there are no phenomenal facts. In fact, there is a name for people who do believe there is NOTHING but the physical facts. They are called mind elimitavists and are considered widely to be insane.

In other words, you don't have to appeal to spirits, souls, or dualism to make sense of phenomenal facts. You can be a perfectly good physicalist and carry on talking about feeling satisfaction and pain. You seem to chuck out physicalism and go straight for dualism and I'm wondering if that's because you think physicalism can't account for phenomenal facts or because you think "spiritualism" (by which I assume you mean some form of dualism -- please elaborate if you can so I don't build a strawman :D) is the only proper way to account for phenomenal facts.

A lot of that was pretty quick so if you want me to elaborate on any of the terms or topics, I'd be happy to do so.

[VerseD]

I'll respond to a few things, but I really like this thread. It is intriguing and mind-expanding to talk about these issues civilly.

Are you saying that understanding via science is black and white and understanding via religion is infrared?

The other way around. As a sort of aesthetic, a scientific picture of a garden is practical, comprehensive, and amazing if you understand all the little miracles that went into creating the color of flowers, the health of soil, and the sound of insects -- though this is like looking at a painting through a microscope. A religious view is simpler, starker, more plain, but also grander and more immediately gratifying.

And as you say, there's beauty both ways.

I do not believe one can justify oneself by pointing to all the sins one did not commit. Obviously, many if not most disagree. I'll admit I envy people who are convinced they are virtuous. It must be easy to sleep at night.

The Stoics demanded absolute virtue, without concern for the externals, such as sickness or poverty, and as a result had propped up very few wise men: Hercules, Odysseus, Socrates, the Cynics Antisthenes and Diogenes, and the Stoic Cato the Younger. Everyone else was tainted by vileness and sin, and a little of that corrupted as well as a lot. Only later, because this was such a dreary and obtuse way to see things, did they fill in the space between "the sage and the fool" with places for actual human beings.

A common theme in many of these stories about converting to atheism or agnosticism is that people concluded their moral intuitions conflicted with the doctrine of a particular faith, and they decided to follow their moral intuition rather than doctrinal faith. Tyler, J Arcane, and Ultima Thulian all seem to be motivated, at least in part, by their decision to believe their own moral intuitions are better founded than doctrines professed by certain sects.

I'm curious if you think individual people can be trusted to come up with a private doctrine, a unique interpretation of the nature of God, or if they should accept one handed down by a clerical expert. I've talked with Catholics before about this, most of them Poles who are steeped in it and still cannot understand the free-ranging German Protestants, but I admire your opinions and reasoning.

Did you chose Catholicism because you preferred its doctrine? Do you follow the doctrine out of faith or only after a rational review of its compatibility with your own way? And what if you disagree? These are the questions and doubts I've had.

There's a popular imagery I'm rather fond of that I've heard many pastors and priests use, and I imagine it crops up in most religions, of "seeing God in someone else's eyes." I'm not sure I have at the moment a better way to describe what keeps me believing that there are unexplainable, metaphysical connections between us that aren't satisfactorily explained by pheromones and natural selection weeding the gene pool.

In an era of pious chivalry, the Persian mystics wrote love songs for women disguised as love songs to God, and saw the two as the same thing -- the Creator invested in his perfect creation. I recently read some wonderful modern argument by a Muslim that "I am God, because God is in me, and therefore I must love myself," which was dismissed as heretical out of hand. But I like that idea. The idea of a God of Love, rather than a God of Wrath, always appealed to me.

[Krispy]

The other way around. As a sort of aesthetic, a scientific picture of a garden is practical, comprehensive, and amazing if you understand all the little miracles that went into creating the color of flowers, the health of soil, and the sound of insects -- though this is like looking at a painting through a microscope. A religious view is simpler, starker, more plain, but also grander and more immediately gratifying.

And as you say, there's beauty both ways.

Not that I think you are committing them, but I think this over simplification hits on two common fallacies: that science is explanation through reduction and that religion is explanation through fecundity. These two misunderstandings lead to, what I think, is a false justification of religion.

The basic reasoning I see repeated a lot in conversation (again, not talking about anyone here) is formalized something like this:

1. I have an intuition that science fails to capture all the facts of the world.
2. Science fails to capture all of the facts of the world because it gives a reductionist explanation which can only be committed on physical objects.
3. Religion offers a maximally fecund explanation for all the topics that my intuition inclines me to believe are poorly explained by science.
4. Maximally fecund explanations are the best explanations.

Therefore, religion doesn't just sounds great, it sounds maximally great!

One of these sets of facts that is commonly cited are moral facts. The metaphysical certainly isn't the only way to make sense of moral facts, though. It is perfectly plausible to be a realist about morality AND be naturalist about morality (the view that moral facts are developed in nature).

Long story short, there are plenty of alternative ways to make explanations of these topics intelligible aside from religion, so I'm wondering what the actual motivation to be religious is. As far as philosophical explanation goes, religion is a snake's pit of logical fallacies that will infinitely regress back to God which must be presumed as premise to make any of the arguments valid. I'm expecting the unsatisfying answer is going to be "I have an intuition that God exists," but I do suspect that such intuitions may be a conflation of the ones I listed above or similar.

[Krispy]

I'd argue that "good" and "bad" are so subjective as to be mostly not worth arguing other than on individual merit.

Here is my patented quick argument against moral relativism:

1. We all seem to agree there is moral progress (either good or bad). It's good that we stopped enslaving black folk. It's good that women were allowed to vote. It's bad that we allow Jersey Shore on TV. To accept moral relativism wouldn't only be to say that it's just as moral to enslave an entire subset of the human race as it is to give them equal freedoms but that it would be just as good to enslave them then as it is now.

2. You never actually disagree with anyone. As a moral relativist, you are committed to accepting that everyone is right. When someone says Hitler was right to kill all those Jews and you get angry over it, you aren't actually disagreeing with him. In fact, out of the two of you -- you're the irrational one for getting angry in the first place. Being a moral relativist, it would be immoral for you to get upset. But hey, you're right too, so it's cool.

3. Tolerance isn't just impossible, it's implausible. As a moral relativist, not only can you not tolerate someone else (because you can't disagree, bro, we're all right) but you can't make sense of the concept itself. To tolerate someone is to say that they have some view that you disagree with but you ignore it because disagreements shouldn't be the basis of your relationship with someone else. But, wait a minute, not only does tolerance require that you disagree, but it also requires a moral statement (take notice of the should) to state it!

And here is a bonus argument to knock down cultural relativism:

4. Cultural relativism is wrong by it's own philosophy. If cultural relativism is true (that morality is relative to culture and not individual) then not only do the previous arguments follow, but we get an additional absurdity. In order to best understand moral facts, we shouldn't argue about them (after all, we can't) but poll the public. What is moral is what the majority of people agree to. But, if that's the case, then by cultural relativistic metric, cultural relativism is wrong. The majority of people feel like morality should be debated (see: politics and talk shows) therefore, it would be immoral to be a cultural relativist as a cultural relativist.

[Ravenlock]

In an era of pious chivalry, the Persian mystics wrote love songs for women disguised as love songs to God, and saw the two as the same thing -- the Creator invested in his perfect creation. I recently read some wonderful modern argument by a Muslim that "I am God, because God is in me, and therefore I must love myself," which was dismissed as heretical out of hand. But I like that idea. The idea of a God of Love, rather than a God of Wrath, always appealed to me.

Indeed. :)

(10char)

[Voodoo]

Aren't there any other Deists and/or occultists?? I don't mind but I figured we were a lot more diverse than being atheists, agnostics and Abrahamics.

[jpublic]

I do have a couple bits I'd like to point out:

First, while I'm pretty much a reluctant atheist - I don't believe in any deist - I really wish it was true. This more or less puts me in conflict with every vocal atheist I've ever run into, which results in my major conflict with strong adherents on the religious and atheist side of thing - I don't really care what anyone believes, but if you're a dick about it, you lose my support. I very much adhere to a live-and-let-live phisosophy - just be cool to each other.

As many people who know me find amusing, I'm a minor hypocrite - I've been wearing a cross around my neck since I was 13. Don't know why, really.

Aren't there any other Deists and/or occultists?? I don't mind but I figured we were a lot more diverse than being atheists, agnostics and Abrahamics.

I haven't seen any research to the effect, but I wouldn't be surprised if you find that a large portion of the CoG userbase, or the usebases of many gaming forums in general, have a vastly higher proportion of atheists and/or agnostics.

[Ultima Thulian]

Here is my patented quick argument against moral relativism:

1. We all seem to agree there is moral progress (either good or bad). It's good that we stopped enslaving black folk. It's good that women were allowed to vote. It's bad that we allow Jersey Shore on TV. To accept moral relativism wouldn't only be to say that it's just as moral to enslave an entire subset of the human race as it is to give them equal freedoms but that it would be just as good to enslave them then as it is now.

2. You never actually disagree with anyone. As a moral relativist, you are committed to accepting that everyone is right. When someone says Hitler was right to kill all those Jews and you get angry over it, you aren't actually disagreeing with him. In fact, out of the two of you -- you're the irrational one for getting angry in the first place. Being a moral relativist, it would be immoral for you to get upset. But hey, you're right too, so it's cool.

3. Tolerance isn't just impossible, it's implausible. As a moral relativist, not only can you not tolerate someone else (because you can't disagree, bro, we're all right) but you can't make sense of the concept itself. To tolerate someone is to say that they have some view that you disagree with but you ignore it because disagreements shouldn't be the basis of your relationship with someone else. But, wait a minute, not only does tolerance require that you disagree, but it also requires a moral statement (take notice of the should) to state it!

And here is a bonus argument to knock down cultural relativism:

4. Cultural relativism is wrong by it's own philosophy. If cultural relativism is true (that morality is relative to culture and not individual) then not only do the previous arguments follow, but we get an additional absurdity. In order to best understand moral facts, we shouldn't argue about them (after all, we can't) but poll the public. What is moral is what the majority of people agree to. But, if that's the case, then by cultural relativistic metric, cultural relativism is wrong. The majority of people feel like morality should be debated (see: politics and talk shows) therefore, it would be immoral to be a cultural relativist as a cultural relativist.

To be clear, I'm not arguing for moral relativism, but I am saying that morality isn't as cut and dry as most people like to believe. It requires a lot of thought and individualistic output to make worthwhile. That's what I was getting at.

You don't have to convince me that moral relativism is mostly rubbish. :cool:

[Ultima Thulian]

Aren't there any other Deists and/or occultists?? I don't mind but I figured we were a lot more diverse than being atheists, agnostics and Abrahamics.

A good friend of mine is a deist.

Thing is, Voodoo, I find many people are deist or have deistic tendencies and are not aware of it, hence not many people claiming to be deists.

Hell, back in the Enlightenment, being a Deist was hot shit. My favorite historical figure, Voltaire, was a deist for example.

[Dorkandproudofit]

I'm definitely a deist. I don't know what made me thus, but it is (according to wikipedia at least) a perfect description of what I believe.

[Voodoo]

I'm definitely a deist. I don't know what made me thus, but it is (according to wikipedia at least) a perfect description of what I believe.
Yay! Have some Earl Grey... I've got plenty to go around.

So, tell me fellow deist, are you classical or more of a free thinker? I'm definitely a free thinker in that I don't believe that the creation of something as large as a planet/solar system or even a living being has to be done by something not within our natural realm. Consequently, the exclusion of a omniscient being does not also exclude the creation of such things by an intelligent race - nor the lack of creation of them by the natural order of material to energy and the opposite. I hope that did make sense...

[Ox]

Do you believe there are shades of gray when it comes to morality? Is a soldier that only falls asleep one night out of four a better soldier than one who falls asleep three out of four?
There is a hierarchy of sin, of course -- occasionally being rude to people isn't as bad as occasionally killing them. And some people are virtuous more often than others. I have less to beg forgiveness for than some other people. My church recognizes saints, as you know: specific individuals who led lives of exceptional virtue. But even saints sin: Augustine, for example, famously struggled with lust his entire life. He was still certainly a better person than I am.

But I reject the notion that I am more good than bad -- that implies my good deeds can outweigh my sins. That's not possible, because what we refer to as "good deeds" are just occasions when I did not sin. No matter how much others might think of me as a good person, I know that a perfect God finds me wanting and I must atone.
I'm curious if you think individual people can be trusted to come up with a private doctrine, a unique interpretation of the nature of God, or if they should accept one handed down by a clerical expert. I've talked with Catholics before about this, most of them Poles who are steeped in it and still cannot understand the free-ranging German Protestants, but I admire your opinions and reasoning.
I hesitate to say that individuals cannot be trusted to come up with a private doctrine; that's a little harsh. I will say that everyone makes mistakes in reasoning and there's little reason for me to assume I can figure out the truth of the universe through entirely private reflection. Also, people tend to be somewhat self-serving in their thinking: I've certainly noticed I have a tendency to excuse my own behavior a lot more readily than I excuse similar behavior in others. These two factors mean that when my intuition conflicts with a doctrine, I hesitate to say my intuition is obviously right. But then again we cannot will ourselves to believe: I have struggled with doubt in the formal religious sense of a conflict between Church teachings and my internal convictions.
Did you chose Catholicism because you preferred its doctrine? Do you follow the doctrine out of faith or only after a rational review of its compatibility with your own way? And what if you disagree? These are the questions and doubts I've had.
I suppose a combination of both. I considered many of the doctrines of Catholicism and found that they were compatible with my intuition, but that was only enough to make Catholicism a plausible theory. You do not become a sincere member of a religion by declaring its doctrines strike you as not obviously idiotic! Faith also plays a role, just as it played a role when I rejected Christianity due to my faith that my intuitions were more reliable than the bigoted preachings of a religious zealot.

What if I disagree? Well, I disagree a lot less often than people assume. Part of that is just that Catholic doctrine, for better or worse, is pretty internally consistent: if you believe the foundational precepts, many of the Church's specific positions follow from that. And part of it is that I believe the Church is divinely inspired and the Holy Spirit will not permit Church dogma to be in error. There have been occasions when I've held a belief only to discover that it went against dogma, and at those occasions I've debated whether I more strongly believe in the Church's infallibility or in whatever specific belief contradicts it.
The idea of a God of Love, rather than a God of Wrath, always appealed to me.
I have a lot more difficulty with a God of Love than a God of Wrath, and this is possibly my biggest source of doubt. A perfect being who nevertheless takes on men's sins and forgives them, then calls upon us to ignore justice and forgive our own and each other's sins? That's both the most attractive and most implausible thing about my religion.

[J Arcane]

Aren't there any other Deists and/or occultists?? I don't mind but I figured we were a lot more diverse than being atheists, agnostics and Abrahamics.
I'm a panentheist.

[Ink Asylum]

I'm going to press on you to be more specific on what you mean by "spiritual." The "not religious" part is easy enough. My worry is that you characterize "spiritual" as believing that there is such thing as phenomenal facts and not necessarily the implicit dualistic clause that comes with "spirits." Facts about our phenomenology are called qualia in philosophy of mind and pertain to facts about things we 'feel' but are not physically analyzable such as pain, happiness, well being, love, ect. This is a worry because even a physicalist (someone who believes there is no dualistic mind -- ie mind stuff and physical stuff are wholly separate) isn't committed to thinking there are no phenomenal facts. In fact, there is a name for people who do believe there is NOTHING but the physical facts. They are called mind elimitavists and are considered widely to be insane.

In other words, you don't have to appeal to spirits, souls, or dualism to make sense of phenomenal facts. You can be a perfectly good physicalist and carry on talking about feeling satisfaction and pain. You seem to chuck out physicalism and go straight for dualism and I'm wondering if that's because you think physicalism can't account for phenomenal facts or because you think "spiritualism" (by which I assume you mean some form of dualism -- please elaborate if you can so I don't build a strawman :D) is the only proper way to account for phenomenal facts.

Since putting down my thoughts and beliefs in this thread and reading some of the responses, I've been looking at some basic run downs of the related philosophies and terms, but I'm still new to a lot of these concepts, so bear with me. I never really put much thought into defining myself beyond defaulting to "spiritual but not religious." I've always believed in something more than just physical bodies and phenomenon, but never tried to drill down to the core of my beliefs. That's started to happen in the past year or so. It's going to take time to read all the possibilities, and maybe one of them will sway me, but for now I'll be more specific about what I layed out before the best that I can.

Going off what I've read so far of physicalism, summarized by this part of the Wikipedia entry:

In contemporary philosophy physicalism is most frequently associated with philosophy of mind, in particular the mind/body problem, in which it holds that the mind is a physical thing in all aspects. In other words, all that has been ascribed to "mind" is more correctly ascribed to "brain" or the activity of the brain. Physicalism is also called "materialism", but the term "physicalism" is preferable because it has evolved with the physical sciences to incorporate far more sophisticated notions of physicality than matter, for example wave/particle relationships and non-material forces produced by particles.

I reject, for now, the notion that the core element of consciousness, the sense of self that experiences stimuli, can be explained using strictly physical sciences. I can accept that everything I experience, from senses to emotions to time itself, can spring from the physical interactions of the building blocks of physics using the language of math. What I have yet to be convinced of is that the entity which is doing all the experiencing is also created from those same materials and operates under those same rules.

It may be a bit "God of the gaps" to jump from that to the existence of a spirit, but I'm not wedded to the terms "spirit" and "soul," as they carry too much specific religious baggage. Whatever it is called, I currently believe that there is something inside every conscious being that is separate and distinct from the domain of physics and math. I am open to being convinced otherwise, of course.

[Voodoo]

I'm a panentheist.
Yay! Earl Grey for you as well! Hope you don't mind as I've grown keen to playing my banjolele.

[J Arcane]

The debate I always get into with my physicist friend is the teleporter problem.

Basically, you have a teleporter/transporter. You stand on pad A, it rips apart your component atoms and sends them shooting off through space or time or just a big bundle of cabling to pad B, which then reassembles all of those atoms back into what appears to be you again.

But is it? You've basically been disintegrated, which is about as final a destruction of the body one can possibly achieve.

So, aren't you dead? And does it matter? Is that person that came out the other side you, or just someone who looks just like you?

Basically, is there a continuity to consciousness that matters at all, and how does it work?

I maintain that the teleporter is a horrifying device because to me that basically means suicide, my body has ceased to be which means the continuity of my consciousness is stopped at the point pad A engages.

My friend, being more of a strict physicalist (assuming I'm using Krispy's term right, it's a new one to me), says it doesn't matter, the guy on Pad B is him in every important respect and that the question of whether there's continuity is irrelevant.

There's other possible answers as well, I can foresee some more supernatural explanations surrounding the existence of a soul.

[Krispy]

To be clear, I'm not arguing for moral relativism, but I am saying that morality isn't as cut and dry as most people like to believe. It requires a lot of thought and individualistic output to make worthwhile. That's what I was getting at.

You don't have to convince me that moral relativism is mostly rubbish. :cool:

My bad. :D

So would that make you more of a moral skeptic? That is, do you think that moral laws do exist but that they are in principle impossible or, in it's weakest form, really hard to find? I've often flirted with moral skepticism but lately some very smart people have indoctrinated me into ethics.

[Ink Asylum]

There is a hierarchy of sin, of course -- occasionally being rude to people isn't as bad as occasionally killing them. And some people are virtuous more often than others. I have less to beg forgiveness for than some other people. My church recognizes saints, as you know: specific individuals who led lives of exceptional virtue. But even saints sin: Augustine, for example, famously struggled with lust his entire life. He was still certainly a better person than I am.

But I reject the notion that I am more good than bad -- that implies my good deeds can outweigh my sins. That's not possible, because what we refer to as "good deeds" are just occasions when I did not sin. No matter how much others might think of me as a good person, I know that a perfect God finds me wanting and I must atone.

Now that you lay it out like that I recognize it for what it is and understand where you're coming from.

[J Arcane]

Yay! Earl Grey for you as well! Hope you don't mind as I've grown keen to playing my banjolele.
Yay! I like Earl Grey! And since it's entirely fictional Earl Grey I can actually drink it! ;)

Panentheist may not be exactly the right term, but IIRC it was the term that came closest to my theories.

[Voodoo]

The debate I always get into with my physicist friend is the teleporter problem.

Basically, you have a teleporter/transporter. You stand on pad A, it rips apart your component atoms and sends them shooting off through space or time or just a big bundle of cabling to pad B, which then reassembles all of those atoms back into what appears to be you again.

But is it? You've basically been disintegrated, which is about as final a destruction of the body one can possibly achieve.

So, aren't you dead? And does it matter? Is that person that came out the other side you, or just someone who looks just like you?

Basically, is there a continuity to consciousness that matters at all, and how does it work?

I maintain that the teleporter is a horrifying device because to me that basically means suicide, my body has ceased to be which means the continuity of my consciousness is stopped at the point pad A engages.

My friend, being more of a strict physicalist (assuming I'm using Krispy's term right, it's a new one to me), says it doesn't matter, the guy on Pad B is him in every important respect and that the question of whether there's continuity is irrelevant.

There's other possible answers as well, I can foresee some more supernatural explanations surrounding the existence of a soul.

Since this is a discussion which requires technology that doesn't yet exist, may I suggest ghosts instead?

[J Arcane]

Since this is a discussion which requires technology that doesn't yet exist, may I suggest ghosts instead?
It's a thought experiment, although, we're already making some progress towards the technology (there's some guys in Australia who've already managed to teleport molecules IIRC).

More importantly, the thought experiment rather came out of analyzing the possibilities of said technology (I'm a SF geek, I think about shit like this), rather than being invented to analyze the problem of consciousness, though I'm not sure I can think of a non-technological construct that presents the conundrum as well without assuming the supernatural from the offing. Krispy might know some classics.

[Krispy]

Just to be clear, J, the matter transporter problem deals with persistence of personal identity and not the mind directly. Of course, they are tangentially related, but when you ask the matter transporter problem you are trying to determine what one's intuitions on the metaphysical idea of personal identity is irregardless of how they decide the mind is carved up.

J is right, you shouldn't get hung up on the machinery of thought experiments. Think of them like a counterfactual: "If it were the case that x machine existed then what would follow?" To rephrase the problem in terms of ghosts would be to assume some sort of dualism into the question. The point of using a matter transporter is that all of the physical organization is conserved but none of the actual matter is.

Oh, there are lots of fun 'classics' for personal identity problems. Demons, matter transporters, twin monsters, ect. I like working at this part of philosophy kind of like a cross word puzzle but I'm afraid that I'm no expert. I think it's a lot of fun and if I do start rehashing them, I'll probably make a new thread to battle royale about it in.

[Voodoo]

Since this is a discussion which requires technology that doesn't yet exist, may I suggest ghosts instead?
It's a thought experiment, although, we're already making some progress towards the technology (there's some guys in Australia who've already managed to teleport molecules IIRC).

More importantly, the thought experiment rather came out of analyzing the possibilities of said technology (I'm a SF geek, I think about shit like this), rather than being invented to analyze the problem of consciousness, though I'm not sure I can think of a non-technological construct that presents the conundrum as well without assuming the supernatural from the offing. Krispy might know some classics.

Some key things then... You said teleport which means taking a whole molecule and transporting it over time & space without disintegration nor reintegration. I believe that to be the key to human teleportation as otherwise will require a rebind of the vessel to the soul otherwise it would be a cloning operation.

[Ravenlock]

Well, the teleporter problem boils down to the same hypothetical question posed by The Prestige, or any other sci-fi with instant, "perfect" cloning, whether it leaves the original copy intact or not. Basically, if you could replicate the exact physical bits that make up me - every molecule of my physical body, reconstructed to exact detail - would it BE me? If not, in what sense would it not?

It's a useful hypothetical because it gets to the heart of whether we believe some part of what makes us who we are is governed by more than just the complex chemical and electrical interactions of a fleshy machine.

EDIT: Beat'd by Krispy, more or less.

EDIT x2: Sure, teleportation could also be the physical moving of molecules rather than the reconstruction of a body out of the same set of molecules, but this strikes me as (forgive me) splitting hairs. If you separate all my molecules and move them from A to B, which molecule does my consciousness go with? If those molecules are spread too thin, is my consciousness torn apart? ;) At some point it still strikes me as the same basic problem.

[J Arcane]

Some key things then... You said teleport which means taking a whole molecule and transporting it over time & space without disintegration nor reintegration. I believe that to be the key to human teleportation as otherwise will require a rebind of the vessel to the soul otherwise it would be a cloning operation.
Ahh, sorry, I was thinking more in terms of Star Trek transporters, hence the description of the device.

A fold-space device like you're talking about may very well nullify the problem, but then it's not so useful as a thought experiment. ;)

[Voodoo]

A disintegration style transport requires full destruction, including molecules. The research that J talked about I believe is teleporting a molecule, not the reconstruction of it after its destruction.

Sent from my Nexus One using Tapatalk

[Voodoo]

Some key things then... You said teleport which means taking a whole molecule and transporting it over time & space without disintegration nor reinte
Ahh, sorry, I was thinking more in terms of Star Trek transporters, hence the description of the device.

A fold-space device like you're talking about may very well nullify the problem, but then it's not so useful as a thought experiment. ;)

It would be my belief that such transportation (ST Transporter) would clone people instead of physically move them.

[J Arcane]

It would be my belief that such transportation (ST Transporter) would clone people instead of physically move them.
I would concur. My physicist buddy does not.

[Krispy]

Whether or not it clones the person isn't the problem, it's whether or not the personal identity persist from individual to another. I.e. would Bob keep loving his wife after he went through the matter transporter or would a stranger now be doing it?

But again, this is pretty tangential to the topic. :p

[Voodoo]

It would be my belief that such transportation (ST Transporter) would clone people instead of physically move them.
I would concur. My physicist buddy does not.

I have quite the solution for you. Will write it out from real station.
Sent from my Nexus One using Tapatalk

[Ink Asylum]

The precise nature of Star Trek teleporters is difficult to determine, as the canon explanation jumps around occasionally to fit a story idea. The strongest canon argument against teleporters actually moving the bits that make up a person from one place to another then reconstructing them is the existence of Thomas Riker during The Next Generation. A transporter accident ended up sending Riker safely to the Enterprise but creating a duplicate Riker that got left behind on the planet alone for years before being rescued.

If Will Riker's bits were actually moved through space there should have been nothing to build Thomas Riker out of. If transporters destroy a person, send the data about them, then build a new one at the source a teleporter is just a set of linked cloning machines. That's the most terrifying form of teleporter, in my opinion, and one I'd never step into.

Of course, other storylines about teleporters offer different explanations, but Star Trek has always favored plot over rigid science.

[J Arcane]

Yeah, it's definitely contradictory at times. IIRC the "disassemble/reassemble" concept is the official explanation, and in one of the novels they even compared this method to an older one that was just a cloning device that was now outlawed on ethical grounds, but it's not consistent.

As Krispy notes though, it is perhaps a bit of a tangent for the thread at this point?

[Voodoo]

Yeah, it's definitely contradictory at times. IIRC the "disassemble/reassemble" concept is the official explanation, and in one of the novels they even compared this method to an older one that was just a cloning device that was now outlawed on ethical grounds, but it's not consistent.

As Krispy notes though, it is perhaps a bit of a tangent for the thread at this point?
It isn't tangential at all as it is a direct discussion about the existence of something beyond the physical body.

Anyways... About your buddy, here is a thought exercise to perform with him using transporters that use disintegration/reintegration to perform their teleportation...

He steps in a teleporter and is disintegration into nothing but information about how he was constructed. On the other end, they receive this information and instead of creating 1 they create 10 at the same time or in successive order as each steps out of the arrival station. Which one would be him? If he says they are all him than it isn't transportation, it is cloning.

[J Arcane]

His argument is that it doesn't matter. On utilitarian grounds, each of those clones, at that moment, basically is him in every scientifically provable respect. And that to each of those clones, they remain quite continuous with the original, at least in their own minds. They wouldn't know the difference even, and might be rather upset if you told them otherwise.

Certainly expanding the number from 1 to 10 would create complications of a practical nature, but when I brought it up to him, he basically said that it still doesn't matter, they'd all be him in every provable respect.

[Ink Asylum]

If teleporters did exist it'd be a great way to test theories about the existence and nature of a spirit or soul, but without them being real they can't help in that regard.

[Voodoo]

His argument is that it doesn't matter. On utilitarian grounds, each of those clones, at that moment, basically is him in every scientifically provable respect. And that to each of those clones, they remain quite continuous with the original, at least in their own minds. They wouldn't know the difference even, and might be rather upset if you told them otherwise.

Certainly expanding the number from 1 to 10 would create complications of a practical nature, but when I brought it up to him, he basically said that it still doesn't matter, they'd all be him in every provable respect.
Well, based on your description, I take it your buddy is someone that doesn't believe in souls? If so, it will not be possible for either side to agree with the other. In his version of a transporter, everyone that has one has unlimited resources (disintegration/integration transporters would allow for this) and a cloned person from a transporter is the same as the original, no matter the # created.

I suppose the final question is, which of the 10 would he receive his vision from after closing his eyes before transport on the other end. Or, would that person cease to exist and the clones would only exist to the benefit of those that needed their services at the destination. They would be certainly full human beings, knowing everything that the original knew before transport but I'd venture to say that none of them would be him (original).

[Krispy]

If teleporters did exist it'd be a great way to test theories about the existence and nature of a spirit or soul, but without them being real they can't help in that regard.

If they did exist, they wouldn't prove anything about existence. It would just be a very practical way of sorting intuitions.

Voodoo: The classical response is that in the case of multiple instantiations of one person, personal identity becomes indeterminate since there is no closest continuer and would continue to be indeterminate until all but one of the clones was killed. The last one standing would be you. :cool:

[Dorkandproudofit]

Yay! Have some Earl Grey... I've got plenty to go around.

So, tell me fellow deist, are you classical or more of a free thinker? I'm definitely a free thinker in that I don't believe that the creation of something as large as a planet/solar system or even a living being has to be done by something not within our natural realm. Consequently, the exclusion of a omniscient being does not also exclude the creation of such things by an intelligent race - nor the lack of creation of them by the natural order of material to energy and the opposite. I hope that did make sense...

I'm more of a modern deist in that I don't think God could be considered a conscious being in any way we could comprehend; If there IS a god, reason should state that it would be beyond any conception of male/female, human/inhuman, sentient/non-sentient, good/evil, etc. In my mind, God is the force that holds the universe together, and if any intervention is done at all, it would be done on a large, universal scale rather than intervening in an individual scale that we could discern. I really don't know how to describe my beliefs about god better than that, except for that, assuming my theories are true, prayer is irrelevant, as this force is going to do its job whether or not one prays or even believes.

[Voodoo]

If they did exist, they wouldn't prove anything about existence. It would just be a very practical way of sorting intuitions.

Voodoo: The classical response is that in the case of multiple instantiations of one person, personal identity becomes indeterminate since there is no closest continuer and would continue to be indeterminate until all but one of the clones was killed. The last one standing would be you. :cool:

Interesting... So, walk me through this. Krispy enters a transport in NYC and is told he is going to be transported to Mars. At Mars, J Arcane has available 10 incoming transporter pads. In NYC, they disintegrate you and transport your construction information to J Arcane's facility. J Arcane sees your information arrive and decides that Mars could better use 10 Krispys instead of only 1. So, he instantly creates 10 Krispys on the various pads. Which of the 10 will be the one you (the original Krispy) get sensory input from?

[Krispy]

... If there IS a god, reason should state that it would be beyond any conception of male/female, human/inhuman, sentient/non-sentient, good/evil, etc.

God can't be the target of reason and yet is the source of reason. Therefore, reason is beyond reason and all things known through rationality is irrationally known. There's your morning paradox.

[Krispy]

Interesting... So, walk me through this. Krispy enters a transport in NYC and is told he is going to be transported to Mars. At Mars, J Arcane has available 10 incoming transporter pads. In NYC, they disintegrate you and transport your construction information to J Arcane's facility. J Arcane sees your information arrive and decides that Mars could better use 10 Krispys instead of only 1. Which of the 10 will be the one you (the original Krispy) get sensory input from?

Well first off, we should be clear about what this matter transporter is doing. The classical matter transporter problem (first given in the 70's by Putnam, I believe) has it so that you get disintegrated at location A and a vat of atoms reconstructs you at location B. I think this is in line with you so all is good.

Assuming this is the behavior of the machine, then all 10 of the clones would have my perceptual information from the moment right before I was disintegrated at the same time -- assuming they were all constructed simultaneously. If one was built just a little before the other, then he would be the closest continuer and everyone else would be shit out of luck. But if all 10 clones were built at the EXACT same time then it would be completely indeterminate which one is me and I would literally cease to be an entity until a continuer could be determined.

You may or may not find this intuitive. :p

[Dorkandproudofit]

God can't be the target of reason and yet is the source of reason. Therefore, reason is beyond reason and all things known through rationality is irrationally known. There's your morning paradox.

Paradox... confusing... too much.... for... brain to handle...

http://i55.tinypic.com/4ilm3m.jpg

[Ink Asylum]

Interesting... So, walk me through this. Krispy enters a transport in NYC and is told he is going to be transported to Mars. At Mars, J Arcane has available 10 incoming transporter pads. In NYC, they disintegrate you and transport your construction information to J Arcane's facility. J Arcane sees your information arrive and decides that Mars could better use 10 Krispys instead of only 1. So, he instantly creates 10 Krispys on the various pads. Which of the 10 will be the one you (the original Krispy) get sensory input from?

None. With that definition of a transporter you've killed the original Krispy (you bastards!) and created 10 clones. Even if you just created one new Krispy you still killed the old one. The new Krispy, or Krispies, all believe they made the trip since they all possess the same memory of entering the teleporter, but those are false memories.

[Voodoo]

Correct, your description of a transporter is in line with this discussion.

But if all 10 clones were built at the EXACT same time then it would be completely indeterminate which one is me and I would literally cease to be an entity until a continuer could be determined.

This just opens up a few more questions. Would you explain the last bit? You say that you'd cease to be an entity (even though 10 copies exist) until a continuer (assumed to be the last surviving member) could be determined. If you cease to be an entity, how would you be brought back when the continuer is determined? What is it that the continuer would bring you from? What about whom is already the continuer?



I suppose this was the ultimate question of The Prestige. Did the original Angier die in the very first transport only to have his clones continue the show? This became glaring as it was shown that the original didn't go anywhere (drowned) and only a clone was made at a remote location. Or, was it the original that was thrown away and the clone put in the dunk tank.

None. With that definition of a transporter you've killed the original Krispy (you bastards!) and created 10 clones. Even if you just created one new Krispy you still killed the old one. The new Krispy, or Krispies, all believe they made the trip since they all possess the same memory of entering the teleporter, but those are false memories.
Exactly my thoughts on the subject of disintegration/reintegration transportation.

[Ink Asylum]

I suppose this was the ultimate question of The Prestige. Did the original Angier die in the very first transport only to have his clones continue the show? This became glaring as it was shown that the original didn't go anywhere (drowned) and only a clone was made at a remote location. Or, was it the original that was thrown away and the clone put in the dunk tank.

Angier speaks that question himself in the movie voice over. He never knew when he stepped into the duplicator/transporter whether he'd be the one to step out to the acclaim or the one to drown. It's why he was so interested in what it felt like to drown and why it horrified him when he was eventually told how terrible it was after initially being lied to.

[Krispy]

Correct, your description of a transporter is in line with this discussion.

This just opens up a few more questions. Would you explain the last bit? You say that you'd cease to be an entity (even though 10 copies exist) until a continuer (assumed to be the last surviving member) could be determined. If you cease to be an entity, how would you be brought back when the continuer is determined? What is it that the continuer would bring you from? What about whom is already the continuer?

You probably won't like the response: the idea is that you don't cease to exist as an entity (poor wording on my part) but that your status as an individual is indeterminate (unanswerable) until there is only one continuer. This a form of the psychological continuity theory of personal identity persistence which is to say that what constitutes the the persistence of personal identity is continuity between psychological states regardless of the body those states persist through.

[TheKeck]

Well, I suppose I'll interrupt this fascinating transporter talk with an answer of the original question.

I am a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, aka Mormon.

I was raised as a member of the church and have developed my own strong testimony (as we call it) of the truth of the doctrine. My faith is one of the most significant aspects of my life.

[TheFlyingOrc]

Christian, Protestant. Quite liberal for a protestant, though.

I was raised Church of Christ, which is about as far into the conservative Christianity forest as you can go. Baptism is not performed an infants and is considered necessary for salvation (past an age of accountability, their theology is a bit vague on purpose here), which is why it is very strange that I wasn't baptized until my first year of college much to the chagrin of my mother through high school. I guess the area where I relate to the atheists in this thread can be found in this act - I knew fully that any decision I made had to be personal, not groupthink. I wasn't going to come before God if I was just crowd-pleasing; In fact, I was constantly mortified by the idea of the hugs and congratulations from all the church-going people - there shouldn't be a reward for this, I thought (and still do).

I suffered a crisis of faith in my...4th year? 3rd? Of school, in the parking outside of my apartment, where I realized that I simply did not know if there was a God, and that it was indeed possible that I was mistaken. I also concluded that I could not simply use poor logic or what I desired the universe to be as a basis for my faith. There had to be real reasons for what I believed, or no dice, I was becoming an atheist.

I researched and studied like mad. I read several books, watched videos, and browsed huge numbers of websites, and I simply came to the final conclusion: Christianity worked. Nihilism and Christianity are the two philosophies that I find fully internally consistent, and that left me with a modified Pascals' Wager as a base to work from: Either we are nothing - primitive apes who think ourselves important, howling against the darkness for meaning that is not there, a legacy that will be made dust, and children who too shall die - or we are glorious adopted sons of the Most High God, creator of the universe and sustainer of all that exists. If the first was true and I chose the second, than I had not made the wrong choice, as the very concept of wrong choices is meaningless. My path seemed clear.

Also son of a dammit the New Atheist movement can't construct an argument, you guys need a lot more Stephen Jay Goulds and a lot less Richard Dawkins.

[Ink Asylum]

Orc, does your belief that Christianity works preclude, in your mind, the possibility that other monotheistic religions work as well? Did you ever give thought to considering a different religion, or a more generic Deism, rather than just a binary choice between Christianity or Atheism?

[TheFlyingOrc]

Orc, does your belief that Christianity works preclude, in your mind, the possibility that other monotheistic religions work as well? Did you ever give thought to considering a different religion, or a more generic Deism, rather than just a binary choice between Christianity or Atheism?

Fair question.

I have been meaning to actually give Islam a fair shake, but haven't found many good resources for critiquing/defending it in a scholarly manner. I justify my non-interest with my gut feeling that a religion where ritual is so central is not true, but that's not good enough. I really need to look at it historically.

Hinduism is relativistic, and I consider relativism to be a self-defeating proposition.

Buddhism I have honestly forgotten my reasons for rejecting it. I had some, though. I have just forgotten what they were! I'll get back to you on that. I don't find almost any religion with reincarnation appealing, though.

I find a very special thing in Christianity - although many, many people do not practice it this way, there is no other major religion in which you do not "earn" your salvation. The sacrifice of Christ is necessary - without it, no thing any man could do would have been enough. I like that. True Christianity has absolutely no room for judgment, as we are all depraved apart from Christ.

Pity that so many people's "Christianity" is the exact opposite of that.

Oh, and Ink - if you get bored and start attending random services, hit up Redeemer Presbyterian in NYC. Tim Keller is objectively awesome.

edit: Deism - I find the case for the resurrection and for the divinity of Christ incredibly compelling, and therefore wouldn't be huge on ignoring my understanding to embrace deism.

[Ink Asylum]

Thank you for laying out your decision making process. It's clear you gave it plenty of thought. If I do start randomly attending religious services I'll certainly take your advice.

On my own spirituality front I downloaded an ebook on Buddhism and will be reading it on my commute over the next couple days. I'll report in my findings but so far I like what I'm reading. I don't see myself going so far as to become a monk but I could definitely start to apply the philsophy towards my life that I think would be very healthy for my mental well-being.

[TheFlyingOrc]

On my own spirituality front I downloaded an ebook on Buddhism and will be reading it on my commute over the next couple days. I'll report in my findings but so far I like what I'm reading. I don't see myself going so far as to become a monk but I could definitely start to apply the philsophy towards my life that I think would be very healthy for my mental well-being.
I fully agree on the philosophy - as I find Buddhism's teachings to be completely compatible with Christianity, I simply disagree with the Buddhist about the reason you should behave that way. :)

[Camel]

Up until college, I went to a Catholic church every Sunday. My mom is religious, but we weren't particularly big on following every religious rule to the letter. It was more about treating others fairly and realizing that there was something out there that was bigger than just yourself and your problems.

When I got to college, I stopped going to church mostly because I didn't like the youth group atmosphere that a congregation entirely composed of students seemed to bring with it. Religion to me means a lot of self-reflection and applying the lessons I learn to my life, as opposed to open discussion with others. The fact that I was majoring in biology didn't exactly make me a more religious person, either.

Nowadays, I consider myself a pantheist. When I look through a microscope and see the amazing amount of complexity beyond our naked eye, that is where I see "god." When I think of how connected everything in nature is and how delicate of a balance these connections maintain, that is "god." I have a deep respect for nature and the roles organisms play in it.

I have no problems with organized religion, and still find a lot of comfort in going to church and just thinking about things. I plan on taking any children I might have to church for the same reasons I plan on putting any kids I have in girl or boy scouts. Lots of important lessons to be learned on how to be a decent person.

[johnperkins21]

I'm an atheist of over 20 years.

Both of my grandmothers are/were pastors. My paternal grandmother was a pastor at a non-denominational Protestant church (only for a few years during my lifetime), and my maternal grandmother has been a pastor at an Episcopalian church pretty much as long as I can remember. She's moved churches many times, but has almost always been either a pastor, or otherwise heavily involved in church.

As a kid, I was raised to believe in God. I went to Sunday School every Sunday, read my bible stories, and said my prayers every night. I was on the path to becoming a normal kid who believed in god. Then my grandfather died. I was about 7 years old, and he was basically my favorite person on Earth at the time. It crushed me, and I basically cried for three days straight, constantly praying to god, asking him why he took my grandfather away. Obviously, I received no answer.

My grandmothers both said that God knew what was best, and that he had a plan. Apparently his plan was to torture a little boy. At that point, I continued to believe in him, but began to hate him. Eventually, I started to doubt his existence entirely.

At the age of 14 I went to bible camp with my uncle, who was now a pastor of his own church. I didn't buy into anything they were trying to sell, and that's pretty much when I decided that I was an atheist. When I was in the Air Force, I attended a few different churches during basic because on Sunday mornings, when everyone else goes to church, atheists are left by themselves in the dorm. Since I was the only atheist, I decided to go with my friends to church.

Once stationed in Hawaii, I met up with a guy who was really into religion, and decided I'd give it one last shot. I went to church with him a few times, and attended bible study. I couldn't make myself believe that it was anything other than fiction. And now I'm incredibly secure in my atheism. And if I'm wrong, and there is a god, I will do everything in my power to torture and kill that piece of fucking shit asshole who killed my grandfather just to watch a little boy cry.

[BigJonno]

I've been meaning to reply to this thread ever since it went up, but it's taken me a while to get around to it because I'm not quite sure where my religious beliefs are right now, or at least how to define and describe them.

I had a typically middle-class, British Church of England upbringing. Like most of our cultural history, a large number of Brits treat religion, especially the C of E, as something that is just there. My family observed Easter and Christmas as religious festivals and not just a chocolate egg/gift giving exercise, I was raised knowing why we had pancakes on Shrove Tuesday, was encouraged to give something up for lent and sang hymns and said prayers in school assembly. However, other than a period of a couple of years when I went with my grandmother, I didn't regularly attend church and there certainly wasn't any kind of focus on religion.

I first remember starting to think about religion when I was in my early teens. It wasn't really a big deal though; Christianity was a thoroughly ingrained, but very low-key part of my life. I read a lot about all sorts of different religions, including some weird stuff like the Satanic Bible (which is a fascinating read; it takes a good grasp of Christian teachings to understand how subversive it really is. Anton LaVey was a very clever man.) I was very in to scientific pantheism for a while.

My mum became something of a born-again Christian when I was around twenty. It scared the crap out of me at first, I thought she was getting into some weird cult, having not had the experience of evangelical Christianity that is commonplace in the US. I did go to church with her a few times and actually enjoyed the experience, but it all started to feel very heavy and very judgemental.

So I didn't really have a heavily religious upbringing to rail against or any kind of massive crisis of faith. I'm scientifically-minded, but nothing has ever convinced me that science and religion are any more mutually exclusive than science and film criticism are. The omnipotent, omniscient god described by most monotheistic religions would surely be so far beyond our comprehension to make any attempt to prove or disprove his existence completely futile.

I like the idea of faith and spiritually, but I tend to distrust organised religion, especially on a large scale. I take a pragmatic approach to religious texts and completely fail to understand the all or nothing approach many people have towards the Bible. I find the world a constant source of wonder and amazement and I'm quite happy to classify completely everyday events as miracles. We know how babies are made, but in my opinion that doesn't make it any less miraculous.

I embrace the idea that there is a lot more going on in the universe than I will understand in my lifetime and quite possibly more than humanity will understand in its entire existence. Whether it is all scientific laws that are theoretically comprehensible, an all-powerful deity or just a general cosmic force doesn't bother me. I want a universe that is magical, mysterious and awe-inspiring, not clinical, rigid and dull. I've met plenty of hardcore atheists who are definitely supportive of the former and plenty of heavily religious people who fall firmly into the latter.

I realise that I've been rambling. I hope it isn't too incomprehensible; getting my thoughts down here was as much for my benefit as it was an attempt to communicate my feelings on the matter.

[Ultima Thulian]

My bad. :D

So would that make you more of a moral skeptic? That is, do you think that moral laws do exist but that they are in principle impossible or, in it's weakest form, really hard to find? I've often flirted with moral skepticism but lately some very smart people have indoctrinated me into ethics.

Moral skepticism is something I've been struggling with for a while now. There are times it seems very evident to me to be true (or at least close to being true most of the time), and there are times when I feel moral skepticism doesn't quite cut it.

To be more specific, if I were to try my best to label my views on morality, I'd say non-cognitivism would be it, but even then, I'm not entirely convinced it is correct, it's just simply the most appealing to me.

[Matthias]

And if I'm wrong, and there is a god, I will do everything in my power to torture and kill that piece of fucking shit asshole who killed my grandfather just to watch a little boy cry.

I don't meant to belittle, but have you ever considered that your grandfather's death had absolutely nothing to do with a desire to hurt you?

[Ravenlock]

That would have been my reply as well, Matthias. Even if you are only hypothesizing a God as a fictional being, I don't see why you would attribute the death of a person as having anything to do with one of their specific relatives.

John, I understand why it would have impacted you in a profound and terrible way, certainly - I lost 3 out of my 4 grandparents before adolescence, and lost my father at 24 - but to take the position that a deity would do that specifically to punish you doesn't seem logical to me even if you're already stretching logic to include a deity you don't believe in.

[Krispy]

It may be a bit "God of the gaps" to jump from that to the existence of a spirit, but I'm not wedded to the terms "spirit" and "soul," as they carry too much specific religious baggage. Whatever it is called, I currently believe that there is something inside every conscious being that is separate and distinct from the domain of physics and math. I am open to being convinced otherwise, of course.

I'm curious where, then, you decide to draw the line between "conscious" and "animate." Let's hope it isn't an inherently circular definition.

I won't tell you why you should be a physicalitist because frankly I'm not really one either, but I can tell you why you shouldn't be a dualist.

1. Dualists cheat. One of the main draws to dualism is that it can explain phenomenology. We can experience things because there is conscious stuff and we can't find it with instruments because it isn't in the physical world. This, of course, sounds great! But there is something fishy going on here. In order to explain consciousness the dualist just added it to their ontology (their set of stuff that exists primitively) and used that brute as the base premise of all explanations. This is cheating. It's like postulating God as a brute and then using that premise to prove God exists. You don't actually learn anything about consciousness or phenomenology this way. You can learn what must follow if consciousness does exist separate of the physical world, but who cares if there's no motivation for that brand of consciousness in the first place?

2. The interaction problem. Dualist have a pretty big problem on their hands. If the mind stuff and the brain stuff aren't in the same causal universe, how do they influence one another? This might sound familiar if you ever studied Platonism. In principal, it is impossible to reconcile. For the mind stuff to have an effect on the brain stuff, they would necessarily need to be physical (in which case you just became a physicalist) or else not be of consequence to what we actually experience and feel, in which case you had no motivation for postulating dualism in the first place.

3. Minds clearly superviene on the physical. It's impossible to deny in this day and age: if you change the physical facts of a person's brain, you change the mind facts at the same time. The dualist has to explain how a mind can be both separate from the physical world dependent on the phsyical world at the same time.

[johnperkins21]

I don't meant to belittle, but have you ever considered that your grandfather's death had absolutely nothing to do with a desire to hurt you?
The god of Abraham is supposedly omniscient and omnipotent. Being omniscient, he would see that the death of my grandfather, and his ignoring of my pleas for any sort of answers at the time, would lead me on a path to atheism which means that I will end up in Hell for all eternity.

Arguing free will is pointless, because even if I do have free will, God's omnipotence means that he knew the choices I would make anyway. Therefore his killing of (or not saving) my grandfather basically amounts to him sentencing me to an eternity of suffering in Hell.

If he's omnipotent, then he should have been able to answer my prayers.

[Ink Asylum]

I'm curious where, then, you decide to draw the line between "conscious" and "animate." Let's hope it isn't an inherently circular definition.

I can't draw that line for anyone but myself because I'm locked inside my own mind. I may be the only truly conscious being ever, and everyone else is simply animate. In the other direction, maybe trees have a form of consciousness, but one that is difficult for us to recognize.

I won't tell you why you should be a physicalitist because frankly I'm not really one either, but I can tell you why you shouldn't be a dualist.

Those are strong arguments but they only rule out a consciousness that needs to directly influence the physical body. It doesn't rule out a strictly observational consciousness, one that is merely along for the ride, to experience what the physical world has to offer.

Also, I don't see how a dualist is required to explain how a non-physical entity would be able to influence a physical entity in the first place. How can you be certain that something you're unable to study, isolate or characterize has to obey the rules of a physical system we don't fully understand yet?

[Ravenlock]

EDIT: reply is to johnperkins, Ink got in there while I was typin'. ;)

That statement really kind of ignores the nature of free will as I think it's generally understood. If you posit (and I'm not claiming this to be my belief - as I stated above, mine are murky on the subject of a singular "God entity") that God gave man free will, then that will has to actually be free, not something God predetermined or knew ahead of time the result of. The God of the Abrahamic Bible is seen to change his mind, and to react to the choices of humans with surprise and/or anger.

All of which is philosophical, obviously, because you could still at any time choose to worship the Christian God or some other god or continue to believe in none at all. You do have free will, whether it was granted you or not. But it isn't consistent with at least the majority of Christian theology to believe that God essentially offers everyone a rigged game.

[Ultima Thulian]

Of course you have free will, you've no choice! :D

[Krispy]

It's an empirical fact that changes to physical stuff is correlated with changes to mind stuff. It's such a strong correlation that it is sufficiently true, although, arguably not necessarily true (I have fights to be had with this as well). If a dualist is correct, then experience shouldn't be cause of our interactions with the world. The world is physical, our consciousness is not. But this is extremely counter-intuitive.

The idea that there is a one way message between the physical world and consciousness is called epiphenomenalism, and is rather insane. To get a handle on the idea, take the example of a hot stove. You touch it and pull your finger away with a sharp pain. The epiphenomenalist explanation is to say that you reflexively pulled your finger away due to biochemical interactions and a one way signal was transmitted to consciousness so that you got the phomenology even if it wasn't the cause of your actions. A formalization would look like this:

1. Being in neural state N was what caused me to flinch.
2. N is not identical to my pain.
3. Therefore my pain didn’t cause me to flinch. (assuming no causal over-determination)

Here are some reasons why epiphenomenalism is insane:

1. Counterfactuals are rather problematic. Suppose that you grip a hot iron, expecting it to be hot, and you try to hold onto it for as long as possible. Eventually, though, the pain is so awful that you just give up. The following counterfactual looks to be true: If the pain hadn’t felt so awful you wouldn’t have removed your hand. But that looks awfully close to saying that the pain caused you to remove your hand.

2. The paradox of phenomenal judgements. We talk about our pains, we have beliefs about our pains. But according to the epiphenomenalist, our pains don’t cause those beliefs and utterances. If we took the pains away, without taking away the cause of the beliefs, we’d continue to believe we had them. In other words, how do we know we have pains and other qualia when they don’t cause anything? How can they leave an imprint upon our memory when they have no causal effects?

3. The coincidence of appropriate behavior. When I have a pain, my body typically removes the cause of the pain. Thank goodness. But why? Isn’t it just luck that my pain happens to be accompanied by stimulus-removal behavior? It can't be because of the pain!

4. The evolutionary problem. Evolution works well to explain how why we biochemically react to a hot stove but it does nothing to explain why our phenomenal experience coincides. A kaleidoscopic array of qualia would be just as beneficial to survival as one in tune. Epiphenomenalism can't explain how qualia became so ordered without invoking a nicely packaged deus ex to save the day, such as God.

5. A loss of motivation. If your motivation for epiphenomenalism was to explain how I can feel pain if phenomenal facts aren't causal then I can give plenty of other plausible explanations that will achieve the same goal such as: there are no phenomenal states and you just have a false belief that you're in pain. You'd need some larger motivation to postulate this theory in the first place.

[Ink Asylum]

In the interests of maintaining civility in the discussion, I'd like for you to stop using the term "insane" when talking about philosophical and theoretical questions for which we simply don't have all the answers yet. No matter how much we think we know about the mind, the body, physics, etc, we absolutely don't know everything and we continue to make discoveries that shatter our preconceived notions.

I'm more than willing to listen to what you say but if you're going to take such a dismissive and condescending tone when discussing some of the most puzzling mysteries of our existence I've no interest in continuing to do so.

I've already admitted that this is a new subject for me and I'm still working it out, but you seem far too eager to shoehorn me into being a full-throated adherent to some named philosophy which you can then beat with a blunt object.

[Krispy]

Ah whoops, I'm not trying to be condescending. I just get excited about these issues. I didn't mean to insult your intelligence or anyone else's if that's the way it came across. Although 'insane' is hyperbolic, I honestly believe a position like epiphenomenalism is indefensible. It has more holes than a sinking ship.

If you think I made a strawman of you then I'm sorry. I was responding to, "It doesn't rule out a strictly observational consciousness, one that is merely along for the ride, to experience what the physical world has to offer." This phrase I interpreted as meaning the epiphenomenal position: that phemonenality is a side-effect of interacting with the physical world so that you can experience it even though those experiences don't directly cause you to do anything. Is that not what you meant?

It's true that we don't know as much now as we will tomorrow, but if you're waiting for science to offer evidence for dualism, you'll be waiting a while. As long as reason is a guide to well formed ideas then it's not only our best tool for talking about non-empirical notions, but our only tool.

[VerseD]

You must have a degree in this business, Krispy, "But who are you? What prophet are you? From the height of what majestic calm do you proclaim these words of wisdom?"

I don't think you ever mentioned your own opinion, is what I'm trying to say.

Buddhism I have honestly forgotten my reasons for rejecting it. I had some, though. I have just forgotten what they were! I'll get back to you on that. I don't find almost any religion with reincarnation appealing, though.

What I dislike about the idea of reincarnation is the idea of punishment in this life for the sins of a past life. It justified millennia of discrimination in Hindu India: a man born as a Dalit or Untouchable deserves to be treated with contempt, just as a man born as a Brahmin deserves respect, not by merit but because of his karma. The only way to rise up in caste is to put your head down and accept your caste in this life, and to hope for a better one in the next. It was no wonder that the Dalit converted in droves to Islam when the Sultans came -- to escape the oppressive confines of that cycle -- and that the Hindus treated those apostates with such contempt, as if they were criminals escaped from punishment.

Anyway, that's Hinduism, and Buddhism treats it a little differently, from what I understand. Buddha sought an escape from the suffering of this life, some of which might have been earned by soul's actions in a previous life; but much suffering also comes from our craving and lusts, and from our refusal to accept the impermanence of existence that leads to the pain of loss. So accept that suffering exists, pass through it, and rid yourself of it by reducing your needs to meet your means. That's the gist of it, at least.

It is the least imposing religion: in Burma, Thailand, and Laos it exists alongside native shamanism, in China it joined the violent local mythology, and in Japan most people worship at both Buddhist temples and Shinto shrines. It's not about salvation through belief, but rather achieving happiness through good actions and noble practices. It is more a way of living than a system of religion.

Buddhists are generally the most content, patient, and cleanest people you will meet -- virtue shines out of their eyes, "no less apparently than love does in the sight of the beloved," to quote Marcus Aurelius.

All that said, I would never consider conversion, and the Dalai Lama has told Westerners that to do so is silly.

I realise that I've been rambling. I hope it isn't too incomprehensible; getting my thoughts down here was as much for my benefit as it was an attempt to communicate my feelings on the matter.

That's one of the best reasons to talk about religion or any opinion. By explaining and comparing our ideas, we develop them from half-formed notions to a full point of view. It's even fine if it does not make sense. "Talk nonsense," said Razumihin, "but talk your own nonsense, and I'll kiss you for it."

"You never reach any truth without making fourteen mistakes and very likely a hundred and fourteen."

[Krispy]

You must have a degree in this business, Krispy, "But who are you? What prophet are you? From the height of what majestic calm do you proclaim these words of wisdom?"

I don't think you ever mentioned your own opinion, is what I'm trying to say.

I'm a non-believer. I don't think there is good motivation to believe in God or any deity for that matter.

[BigJonno]

That's one of the best reasons to talk about religion or any opinion. By explaining and comparing our ideas, we develop them from half-formed notions to a full point of view. It's even fine if it does not make sense. "Talk nonsense," said Razumihin, "but talk your own nonsense, and I'll kiss you for it."

I've been really enjoying following this thread. The only people I've discussed religion with recently have been pretty hardcore atheists, and contemptuous with it.

[Krispy]

I've been really enjoying following this thread. The only people I've discussed religion with recently have been pretty hardcore atheists, and contemptuous with it.

Atheists come in any other flavor? :D

[Ink Asylum]

Ah whoops, I'm not trying to be condescending. I just get excited about these issues. I didn't mean to insult your intelligence or anyone else's if that's the way it came across. Although 'insane' is hyperbolic, I honestly believe a position like epiphenomenalism is indefensible. It has more holes than a sinking ship.

Ok. It's clear you're far more studied on the topic than I am. As long as you can appreciate that while you strongly believe something about the nature of the mind-body relationship it is still a belief and not yet a provable fact there's room for civil disagreement and discussion.

If you think I made a strawman of you then I'm sorry. I was responding to, "It doesn't rule out a strictly observational consciousness, one that is merely along for the ride, to experience what the physical world has to offer." This phrase I interpreted as meaning the epiphenomenal position: that phemonenality is a side-effect of interacting with the physical world so that you can experience it even though those experiences don't directly cause you to do anything. Is that not what you meant?

I was throwing out possibilities, of which there are many. It may be a possibility that is full of holes, but considering the subject I see no reason to outright dismiss any theory. Why cut yourself off completely from something that might provide the answer you seek, just because it isn't the likeliest source?

Seeing as we have studied physical material to an extreme degree and still don't know everything there is to know about it, how can you have any degree of certainty about first the possible existence of non-physical material and second how such material interacts with the physical?

It's true that we don't know as much now as we will tomorrow, but if you're waiting for science to offer evidence for dualism, you'll be waiting a while. As long as reason is a guide to well formed ideas then it's not only our best tool for talking about non-empirical notions, but our only tool.

If I were only waiting for science I wouldn't be reading a book about Buddhism. :)

[Ink Asylum]

What I dislike about the idea of reincarnation is the idea of punishment in this life for the sins of a past life. It justified millennia of discrimination in Hindu India: a man born as a Dalit or Untouchable deserves to be treated with contempt, just as a man born as a Brahmin deserves respect, not by merit but because of his karma. The only way to rise up in caste is to put your head down and accept your caste in this life, and to hope for a better one in the next. It was no wonder that the Dalit converted in droves to Islam when the Sultans came -- to escape the oppressive confines of that cycle -- and that the Hindus treated those apostates with such contempt, as if they were criminals escaped from punishment.

I dimly recall reading about a form of religion or theology a long time ago that laid out a form of reincarnation where there is only one spirit, essentially timeless, that reincarnates into every person, animal, plant, etc in order to experience the absolute fullness of existence in every way, shape and form. Is anyone familiar with that? That's a form of reincarnation which isn't about rewards and punishment.

All that said, I would never consider conversion, and the Dalai Lama has told Westerners that to do so is silly.

Why is that?

[Ink Asylum]

Ah, I found what I believe are some relevant quotes: (http://berkleycenter.georgetown.edu/resources/quotes/the-dalai-lama-on-us-vs-them)

So all religious traditions have to provide the same value potential. Now thousand years have already passed but they exist, and their traditions will remain, have to remain. I usually oppose any religious conversion. There are Tibetan Buddhist centers in the West. I always beg them: you should not make attempts to convert other people. Whenever I give some lectures on Buddhism in the West, at the beginning I always make clear: western people, basically your tradition is Judeo-Christian tradition or to some extent Islamic tradition. It's much, much better to keep your own faith rather than change faith. That way we can promote genuine harmony among the different major traditions on the basis of mutual respect. Buddhism respects Christianity or other religions and vice versa. That's a foundation of the promotion of this harmony... Practically all religious traditions are the same. It's the same message, the same practice. Some Christian friends of mine consider me as a good Christian.

I sometimes feel a little hesitant about giving Buddhist teachings in the West, because I think that it is better and safer for people to stay within their own religious tradition. But out of the millions of people who live in the West, naturally there will be some who find the Buddhist approach more effective or suitable. Even among Tibetans, there are those who practice Islam instead of Buddhism. If you do adopt Buddhism as your religion, however, you must still maintain an appreciation for the other major religious traditions. Even if they no longer work for you, millions of other people have received immense benefit from them in the past and continue to do so. Therefore, it is important for you to respect them.

[Blue]

Raised Christian (Methodist) and honestly have an outcome pretty similar to TFO's. Near the end of high school I really struggled with my faith and what I had been taught/fed and dug deep into looking at what I really believed. Went to college and studied Theology and got one of my degrees in that as a result of said questioning.

Still a Christian though I have a really difficult time with organized religion. There's something remarkably wonderful to it in many respects and remarkably bad as well though I'd argue that's true for most things. I have a good group of people to bounce ideas off of, argue with, all of that good stuff and while I do go to church, I'm not completely fulfilled there and I'm still searching for a solid home base. In my case such a place may not exist, but who knows?

So, still studying my own faith, still studying the faiths of others. I love reading and learning religious texts. One of those things I can nerd out on.

[BigJonno]

He raises some interesting points about religion and cultural tradition. I've met a few Germanic Neo-pagans recently and did some reading on the whole thing (never has a religion been so throughly hijacked by white supremacists. Virtually all of their religious symbols are on the Anti-Defamation League's watchlist, but with a disclaimer that says "Be careful, someone showing this symbol might just venerate the Aesir and not be a racist fuckhead.") One of the websites I was looking at was talking about cultural tradition and pointed out that Christianity is actually Middle Eastern in origin and supplanted the traditional beliefs of Northern Europe.

It's easy to make a racist interpretation of that, but it's essentially the same concept that the Dalai Lama is discussing.

[Krispy]

Seeing as we have studied physical material to an extreme degree and still don't know everything there is to know about it, how can you have any degree of certainty about first the possible existence of non-physical material and second how such material interacts with the physical?

Reason guides us from bad ideas to good ideas. If a a view is reasonably indefensible then it shouldn't be taken seriously. If you think that reason can't guide us then we really are blind in the dark in which case discussion is moot except for whatever entertainment it brings us. You might think that we just haven't thought about some of these problems enough, and that may be true, but an equally relevant, and I think more pertinent, question is if you can't solve the problem because it doesn't actually exist.

As far as the non-physical goes: simply because we've never observed physical objects doing irregular things. If the mind did have some effect on physical objects then we should expect the irregularity of the mind to reflect in some way on the matter which the mind operates on. We don't, though, and physics continues to give very simple, regular relationships. I suppose you are suggesting some alternative to causation that just isn't obvious. I'll grant that it may be possible, even if it isn't conceivable, but motivation for an inconceivable idea is notoriously hard to conjure.

[johnperkins21]

EDIT: reply is to johnperkins, Ink got in there while I was typin'. ;)

That statement really kind of ignores the nature of free will as I think it's generally understood. If you posit (and I'm not claiming this to be my belief - as I stated above, mine are murky on the subject of a singular "God entity") that God gave man free will, then that will has to actually be free, not something God predetermined or knew ahead of time the result of. The God of the Abrahamic Bible is seen to change his mind, and to react to the choices of humans with surprise and/or anger.

All of which is philosophical, obviously, because you could still at any time choose to worship the Christian God or some other god or continue to believe in none at all. You do have free will, whether it was granted you or not. But it isn't consistent with at least the majority of Christian theology to believe that God essentially offers everyone a rigged game.
If God does not know the choices I will make then he is not omniscient. If he is not omniscient, then he is not the traditionally understood god of Abraham. Just because God knows the eventual choices I will make, does not mean that I don't have free will. It's simply his violent, evil nature to make us suffer.

[Ink Asylum]

Reason guides us from bad ideas to good ideas. If a a view is reasonably indefensible then it shouldn't be taken seriously. If you think that reason can't guide us then we really are blind in the dark in which case discussion is moot except for whatever entertainment it brings us. You might think that we just haven't thought about some of these problems enough, and that may be true, but an equally relevant, and I think more pertinent, question is if you can't solve the problem because it doesn't actually exist.

As of now the question of whether we will be able to use reason to find a final logical solution for all that exists is up in the air. It may simply be that we are, in the end, incapable of following the thread all the way to its source, and beyond that point we will have nothing but best guesses that will never be proven correct or incorrect.

So as long as we're still figuring things out why completely shut off theories that haven't been 100% disproved? It's entirely possible that one of the next breakthroughs will prove something right that nearly everyone dismissed as bunk. I'm not advocating that we steer billions of dollars towards these theories, but there's more than just entertainment value in considering them.

As far as the non-physical goes: simply because we've never observed physical objects doing irregular things. If the mind did have some effect on physical objects then we should expect the irregularity of the mind to reflect in some way on the matter which the mind operates on. We don't, though, and physics continues to give very simple, regular relationships. I suppose you are suggesting some alternative to causation that just isn't obvious. I'll grant that it may be possible, even if it isn't conceivable, but motivation for an inconceivable idea is notoriously hard to conjure.

Except that, for all we know about the mind, it remains one of the most unpredictable and mysterious aspects of our existence, despite how close we all are to it and how instrumental it is in our lives. We can look far out into the universe and down to the subatomic level but we still haven't completely figured ourselves out. There is yet to be written a physics equation which provides a simple explanation for how the mind absolutely works so I don't see how you can say we've never observed the mind doing something irregular. We don't know what regular always is yet.

[Blue]

If God does not know the choices I will make then he is not omniscient. If he is not omniscient, then he is not the traditionally understood god of Abraham. Just because God knows the eventual choices I will make, does not mean that I don't have free will. It's simply his violent, evil nature to make us suffer.

I don't want to get into a huge back-and-forth but I think more what Matthias was trying to say (and I don't want to stick words in his mouth) that what happened wasn't out of a desire to hurt you or watch you suffer in any way but what happened just...happened.

I understand where you're coming from with the omniscient/omnipotent argument but I don't see why from there it goes into "fix this". I understand why anyone would want that, but that's not entirely how the God of Abraham works. At least not Biblically. Simply because God might know something and has the power to change or do something about it doesn't necessarily mean its God's responsibility to do so.

Too often I feel like people also focus on the idea that God is also omnibenevolent (or at least I'd argue many Christians do) and that isn't the God of Abraham either. There's some serious unfriendliness there as well as the good stuff and saddling God with the responsibility of fixing what you want God to fix still doesn't negate omnipotence or omniscience.

Unless that's not what you're arguing and if God exists then you're just mad and want to write God a strongly worded letter. Because that's also a pretty justifiable response.

[Krispy]

Disclaimer: I can't tell how mean I sound when I type this stuff out so please don't think I'm being an ass. :p

I'm not sure what you mean by 100% disproved. Would you accept a theory is disproved if it leads to a contradiction? Even the law of non-contradictions isn't uncontestable so really reason guides us no where. If I have no way to sort good theories from bad theories then I'm shit out luck. Theories like epiphenominalism just stretch plausibility too far and ends up undercutting its own motivation. If undercutting its own motivation isn't a reason to drop a theory then I don't know what would. For example: I don't spend my energy postulating about an invisible, colorless, massless, noisless, undetectable elephant in my bedroom because I'm poorly motivated to do so. But this elephant equally hasn't been 100% disproved.

The thing is, there won't be a "break through" for dualism or platonism that can be fostered by barrels of money. These aren't the sort of things you can research. They principally defy physical space. If it turns out that they actually don't defy physical space then every postulation about our universe by science has been wrong up until that point. Truly, it would be a paradigm shift. Maybe I'm just optimistc, but I don't think we've been in massive error throughout intellectual history.

I think you got my argument backwards, I'm saying minds do act irregular, but physics does not. There is no "mind field" that lurks around modifying subatomic particles that we can't predict using physical laws. If non-physical stuff could interact with physical stuff then there should be actions in physical space that we can't predict even if we had all of the physical facts, but this doesn't seem to be the case. Even phenomenon we can't mechanistically explain, such as quantum entanglement, still shows a regularity that we can predict.

Edit: It sounds awfully like you are trying to say no one can be proven right or wrong so all theories should be taken equally seriously. Is that right?

[johnperkins21]

I don't want to get into a huge back-and-forth but I think more what Matthias was trying to say (and I don't want to stick words in his mouth) that what happened wasn't out of a desire to hurt you or watch you suffer in any way but what happened just...happened.
My point is that given the assumption that he is omniscient and omnipotent, which is my understanding of what Christianity believes of its god, he not only knew what would happen, but set the events in motion knowing that it would end with my eternal suffering in hell. If that's not an active desire to cause suffering, then I don't know what is. If he did not want me to suffer, he would not have created me.

The whole idea of a personal god is illogical to me anyway. I am 100% certain that the god of Abraham does not exist. When it comes to other, deist-type gods, I'm less sure (99% certain that they don't exist). So, I know for a fact that God does not want me to suffer any more than Stewie Griffin wants to kill his mother. They're both fictional characters and lack the capacity to want anything.

I understand that other people believe differently, it's just not something I can comprehend. It's like I'm looking at a blue wall and these people are convinced that it's yellow. We just see it completely differently, and I can't, for the life of me, see it the same way, and think they're crazy for disagreeing with me, because look, it's obviously blue. I believe the people who see the yellow wall feel the same about me.

[Blue]

I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree on your first paragraph/point. I get what you're driving at but being omniscient/omnipotent doesn't really suggest God had anything to do with setting up your ultimate outcome. Knowing what the outcome is and establishing it are two different things.

But this is part of the reason I didn't even want to participate in this discussion. Your second paragraph is just condescending and it makes me not want to even bother. I'm used to it here, but still.

And I don't feel the same way about you at all (per your wall analogy). While we have differing beliefs, I can't ultimately prove you wrong in any way and I would assume that you have evidence for what you see as right just as I (or someone else) do/does. I would hope that you're adult enough to treat someone with opposing viewpoints with respect.

[VerseD]

I dimly recall reading about a form of religion or theology a long time ago that laid out a form of reincarnation where there is only one spirit, essentially timeless, that reincarnates into every person, animal, plant, etc in order to experience the absolute fullness of existence in every way, shape and form. Is anyone familiar with that? That's a form of reincarnation which isn't about rewards and punishment.

It's in Hindu theology, that all gods and beings came from a single Supreme Being. Individual souls are born over and over in various states, sometimes as gods or men or insects, depending on karma. Moksha is escape from the cycle of rebirth, a reward in that this is a world of suffering, and it is achieved through virtue in many lives. The liberated soul is reunited with God, bringing all of his experiences. (EDIT: For you Wiki-students (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahman).)

I think Socrates offered a similar philosophy, that the purpose of life is mental, physical, and spiritual improvement, so that we can bring our accomplished virtue back to the source. This is my personal belief.

In both cases, the purpose of life is not to win some posthumous award in Paradise. It's more of a call to action, to serve a greater awareness than our own.

Why is that?

You provided the appropriate quotes from the Dalai Lama: religion is about the self, but also about the individual's place in a community. If you're a lone Buddhist in a Christian country, you won't have a community, you will be different from everyone around you, and there will not be harmony.

One of the websites I was looking at was talking about cultural tradition and pointed out that Christianity is actually Middle Eastern in origin and supplanted the traditional beliefs of Northern Europe.

I would argue that Europe supplanted the traditional beliefs of Christianity. Proselytizers like Paul tacked on local beliefs -- celebrations such as Christmas and Easter take place on Zoroastrian and pagan holidays, making them more familiar and palatable -- and the resulting Greek, German, and Latin flavors of Christianity diverged a long way from each other and from the Carpenter's Creed that was their origin.

However, it is true that monotheism is Middle-Eastern, as are the Judeo-Christian concepts of sin and mercy and individual punishment. Under the old Greek system, and the pagan faiths of Asia, strength and goodness are synonymous (kalos kai agathos); if one man does evil the whole community suffers, often excluding the villain himself; and a good man can suffer punishments, because the gods are capricious. The Byzantine Emperor Julian the Apostate reverted to his pagan roots because he thought Christianity and its sissy God of Love had emasculated the Romans, and I've heard some modern Greeks say the same thing.

[ShivaX]

I'll remember to lie the next time I post.

Its a matter of tact.

I can say "I don't care for Green Day" or I can say "anyone who likes Green Day is a fucking retarded monkey and an idiot."

Even if I think the second statement is more accurate, its far more tactful to say the first thing. If someone wants to berate me for saying the first thing, then I can bring out the bigger guns, but theres no real reason to unless instigated (and even then you can usually remain more civil and disagree).

[VerseD]

If God does not know the choices I will make then he is not omniscient. If he is not omniscient, then he is not the traditionally understood god of Abraham. Just because God knows the eventual choices I will make, does not mean that I don't have free will. It's simply his violent, evil nature to make us suffer.

He knows the choices you're going to make and sometimes presents moral choices where He knows you will fail; He allows you to make them because you have free will and to test your moral fiber (this would be the Christian perspective). But that's irrelevant to your problem because there would be suffering in the world whether you made good choices every time or never.

The question of evil in the world is the bane of every religion, blamed by Saint Augustine on Original Sin and the Fall of Adam from Paradise. The Muslims blame Satan, his jinns, and also the free choices of men. But it's something that I cannot answer. I'm just trying to explain the philosophies I understand.

I'm not offended at your certain atheism. The trauma of loss often turns people against the idea of God.

[ShivaX]

My point is that given the assumption that he is omniscient and omnipotent, which is my understanding of what Christianity believes of its god, he not only knew what would happen, but set the events in motion knowing that it would end with my eternal suffering in hell. If that's not an active desire to cause suffering, then I don't know what is. If he did not want me to suffer, he would not have created me.

I'm sure theres an argument to made for free will. Then again not everyone neccessarily buys into the whole omniscient/omnipotent thing. At some point one could argue that you have a chance to choose salvation and don't. What that tipping point is, however, is likely a very contentious issue in many circles.

The whole idea of a personal god is illogical to me anyway. I am 100% certain that the god of Abraham does not exist. When it comes to other, deist-type gods, I'm less sure (99% certain that they don't exist). So, I know for a fact that God does not want me to suffer any more than Stewie Griffin wants to kill his mother. They're both fictional characters and lack the capacity to want anything.
Being 100% certain of anything is borderline insanity to me. I don't trust gravity 100% though those 9s go out fairly far after the 99.%

I understand that other people believe differently, it's just not something I can comprehend. It's like I'm looking at a blue wall and these people are convinced that it's yellow. We just see it completely differently, and I can't, for the life of me, see it the same way, and think they're crazy for disagreeing with me, because look, it's obviously blue. I believe the people who see the yellow wall feel the same about me.

Thats a fair assesment in a lot of ways. I'm far from a very religious person overall, but as I've mentioned around here I'd describe myself as Christian. That doesn't mean I look at people like Bill O'Reilly as remotely rational when he starts talking about tides and the moon. I look at him like an ignorant moron. It also doesn't mean I think the Bible is a literal text of things that definately happened, but I do think there is a univeral good that all religions tend to espouse (at least until people with agendas get involved).

[ShivaX]

He knows the choices you're going to make and sometimes presents moral choices where He knows you will fail; He allows you to make them because you have free will and to test your moral fiber (this would be the Christian perspective). But that's irrelevant to your problem because there would be suffering in the world whether you made good choices every time or never.

The question of evil in the world is the bane of every religion, blamed by Saint Augustine on Original Sin and the Fall of Adam from Paradise. The Muslims blame Satan, his jinns, and also the free choices of men. But it's something that I cannot answer. I'm just trying to explain the philosophies I understand.

I'm not offended at your certain atheism. The trauma of loss often turns people against the idea of God.

I think it helps if you think of God as more as someone playing Dwarf Fortress or the like instead of someone playing an RTS. :)

[Ink Asylum]

Edit: It sounds awfully like you are trying to say no one can be proven right or wrong so all theories should be taken equally seriously. Is that right?

Do I expect you to take them all equally seriously? No. But I think all religious and philosophical theories are deserving of equal respect, no matter how unlikely they seem, because unlikely is not the same as impossible.

[johnperkins21]

I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree on your first paragraph/point. I get what you're driving at but being omniscient/omnipotent doesn't really suggest God had anything to do with setting up your ultimate outcome. Knowing what the outcome is and establishing it are two different things.
If he created me knowing the choices I'd make would lead to eternal suffering in hell, then he's directly responsible for my eternal suffering. But I agree with you that it's unlikely we'll ever agree on this point.

I would hope that you're adult enough to treat someone with opposing viewpoints with respect.
This is difficult. How do you disrespect the viewpoint without disrespecting the person? I can not respect the viewpoint of believing in a personal god. It's simply not possible.

[VerseD]

I think it helps if you think of God as more as someone playing Dwarf Fortress or the like instead of someone playing an RTS. :)

The Grand Dungeon Master, amen.

[Krispy]

Do I expect you to take them all equally seriously? No. But I think all religious and philosophical theories are deserving of equal respect, no matter how unlikely they seem, because unlikely is not the same as impossible.

I guess we're at an impasse here. I don't consider the theory that there is a fairy in my wall worth consideration or respect despite being a perfectly well built philosophical theory that I can't disprove. It's unlikely, not impossible.

Plausibility, intelligibility, and accessibility clearly make some theories worth consideration and others not.

To be clear, I respect dualism. I don't think dualism is the cat's meow but I don't think anyone who is a dualist to be stupid. However, I don't respect epiphenomenalism. I think it's a lame ad hoc maneuver to shoehorn dualism into modern neuroscience that is poorly motivated and leads to implausible consequences.

[TheFlyingOrc]

3. Minds clearly superviene on the physical. It's impossible to deny in this day and age: if you change the physical facts of a person's brain, you change the mind facts at the same time. The dualist has to explain how a mind can be both separate from the physical world dependent on the phsyical world at the same time.

Not to say that I'm a dualist, but this is easily answerable. If thoughts are like radio signals and the brain is like a radio, then if you destroy the radio, you're not going to pick up the signal anymore.

Until we actually prove(or IF we prove it, if you'd prefer) that consciousness is created by the mind, dualism isn't defeated, although I consider it more than unnecessary to believe in any given religion.

[johnperkins21]

Being 100% certain of anything is borderline insanity to me. I don't trust gravity 100% though those 9s go out fairly far after the 99.%
There are many things I believe with 100% certainty. Whether or not that's a rational position could be argued both ways. Gravity is most definitely one of those things.

[J Arcane]

To me, it always seemed terribly selfish to demand of the Universe/God that it bend it's entire will to yours. God is an infinite being of unimaginable capacity and intellect, it is simply not something a mortal being can pretend to understand at it's fullest, and even the ramifications of one act just within the sphere of our own little world are limitless to calculate.

It's not so much that he "has a plan", it's that it's beyond the reach of our own selfish reasoning to even imagine his motive for action or inaction in any event. To say he "has a plan" even assumes far too much than we can reasonably say about his intentions, it is just as presumptuous to say as it is to demand a thing of him.

He created us, or at least brought us into being, and through him all of life continues on this earth, a feat for which we should owe eternal gratitude already for without it discussions like this could never occur.

When I find myself in a dire strait, I will indeed pray, make polite entreaty to the universe in the hope that it will see to it to grant me aid, but I do this from the start with the acceptance that it has no obligation to grant my request, and because sometimes it is making the request, and the hope that comes with it, that drives one to change it themselves, empowered by the knowledge that if we are blessed, the Deity will imbue our actions from that point with his will. Prayer to me as as much a ritual for the person enacting it, as it is a request.

When my father died when I was only 26, at the relatively young age of 45 himself, I mourned him, and I still am sad that he left me so early in life, but I cannot hold it against the universe for continuing it's cycle. I can't condemn God for something that was simply part of the cycle of life. Some men die, and the world spins on, it is an unavoidable truth.

[Widgetcraft]

Its a matter of tact.

I can say "I don't care for Green Day" or I can say "anyone who likes Green Day is a fucking retarded monkey and an idiot."

Even if I think the second statement is more accurate, its far more tactful to say the first thing. If someone wants to berate me for saying the first thing, then I can bring out the bigger guns, but theres no real reason to unless instigated (and even then you can usually remain more civil and disagree).

I'm not sure what you wanted me to say. I'm not saying that people are stupid, or that they are bad people for believing in whatever, I'm literally saying that they strike me as crazy. That's not a word that I'm using to belittle them, that is my actual opinion on the subject; I think it is a completely insane concept that has virtually no chance of being real. It is based on nothing but imagination, and when you start confusing fantasy for reality, I start thinking you're crazy.

Read over some of the posts in this thread from people who claim that they're not really part of as specific religion anymore, but still believe in some kind of mysticism: People will say, "Well, I believe -whatever-," and they have no basis for it. It's just something they made up because it sounds nice, and so they claim to believe it. Just because something seems nice doesn't mean it is real, or that it even could be real. This isn't even an isolated situation, people (particularly protestants) love to just make alterations to their religion as if it can be taken a la carte. Sex before marriage is a sin? Not for most protestants; too much of an inconvenience, and the explanation I hear most often is, "I don't think God would really mind." Not that I put any stock in the lore, but it would seem like you would either follow it, or not... I'm not sure why everyone thinks that they're qualified to make alterations to the word of their imaginary God. Seems like that would be more of an issue. Religion as a whole just seems like mindless indulgence in fantasy, far beyond what I would consider to be sane, and the less religion matters in society, the more people want to have a custom tailored religion just for them (which they pull directly out of their ass).

But whatever, if you want to believe in your magic man in the sky, or a goblin lurking in the netherspace, that's fine by me. I basically waste my whole life on video games, comic books, and cartoons, I'm certainly not out there seeking the answers to any big questions. The difference is that for me, fantasy is fantasy, and reality is reality, end of story. That's how I choose to live my life, and when people start meshing the two I start thinking they're at least a bit silly (and depending on how vehemently they claim to believe in their fantasy, possibly crazy). Would silly have been a better word to use? That is usually how I describe Wiccans and other new-agey types.

I don't want to screw up the topic. I know it's not for me, I know you guys are enjoying yourselves, and I even got a kick out of seeing the same goddamn teleporter argument that me and my friend have been having for ten years. If you don't like my honesty for whatever reason, that is fine, I won't deny that I'm more than a bit of a curmudgeon, but there is no need to carry on this line of conversation which will inevitably lead to screwing up the topic as a whole.

[J Arcane]

I really don't understand how a grown person can honestly believe that calling a person insane is a perfectly polite and reasonable thing to say to them.

If you want to be a jerk, that's one thing, but masquerading it as virtue is far more insulting.

[Krispy]

Not to say that I'm a dualist, but this is easily answerable. If thoughts are like radio signals and the brain is like a radio, then if you destroy the radio, you're not going to pick up the signal anymore

Indeed, it's certainly a weaker point meant more to intuition pump, but even so you run into a variation of the interactionist problem, I think. Consider that the succession of objective time does not track the succession of "mind" time. That is, 5 minutes can flash by like a moment or a moment can drag like it were 5 minutes. This generates an odd problem for the dualist here since it is unclear how these two successions of time can synchronize if they don't interact. Also, how is that we coincidentally feel pain in the mind universe when something happens to us in the physical universe? Leibniz thought the only sensible solution was that there was no interaction and that God just synchronized the two for reasons no one can fathom.

[Widgetcraft]

I really don't understand how a grown person can honestly believe that calling a person insane is a perfectly polite and reasonable thing to say to them.

If you want to be a jerk, that's one thing, but masquerading it as virtue is far more insulting.

Don't say crazy shit, and I won't call you a madman. It's perfectly acceptable to call Scientologists crazy, because hey, they're just a cooky cult, but if you start calling religion in general nuts it's suddenly a big controversy. I know you might find it hard to grasp, but your God isn't any more believable than the Dark Lord Xenu. They both fall well within the realm of fantasy if viewed without bias. Don't try to tell me that Scientology is less credible, either; one made up thing is no more real than another. R2-D2 is no more likely to roll into my house than Harley Quinn is to show up in my bed; they're equally not real.

What is a polite way of saying that someone is crazy? How would you describe someone who (quite publicly) professes to believe in magical creatures and spells? To me, that is crazy. I actually wouldn't be surprised if the dictionary definition of crazy were: Confusing fantasy for reality. If someone came in here and claimed that unicorns were real, and that they had a personal unicorn guardian, what would you think of them? I would think that they are crazy, and that is how I would describe them to anyone who might ask. Now, it could be that I have simply been deprived of unicorns in my upbringing in a somewhat backwards part of the country, but I'm pretty sure that they're not real and that people who think that they are would not be considered sane by any doctor. By that same token, if you tell a psychologist that you have an imaginary friend when you are thirty years old, they are at least going to put you on medication. Yet here we are, with a whole topic full of people with imaginary friends in the sky, coming up with elaborate justifications for why their imaginary friends aren't more helpful.

Again: I don't care that you're crazy, or at the very least say crazy shit, but I'm not going to lie and tell you that your fantasies are super-neato and really interesting. They're not, and I wouldn't expect you to placate me if I started saying crazy shit either. If you can't be honest on the internet, then this whole thing might be pointless.

As for being polite: It is not polite to press an issue that is obviously going to erupt in a conflict. It is not polite to call people out publicly. It is not polite to call someone a jerk. These are three things that you did with your post, and which we do on a regular basis on this forum. Stop acting like this is your very first day on the internet. I shouldn't have to tell you to man-up, and you shouldn't be surprised by the realization that someone thinks that your fantasies are crazy.

tl;dr Stop feigning shock and distress.

[J Arcane]

That is a remarkable amount of self-justification for someone who doesn't feel he's done anything wrong.

I only object, because you continue to to paint vise as virtue and tarnish both in the process.

[Widgetcraft]

That is a remarkable amount of self-justification for someone who doesn't feel he's done anything wrong.

I only object, because you continue to to paint vise as virtue and tarnish both in the process.

I don't put much value in lies, even pretty ones. I guess that is another point we disagree on.

[J Arcane]

If your belief in the matter is so strong that you cannot discuss it without insulting all who disagree with it, I question whether it is a rationally held belief in the first place.

Resorting to emotive, judgmental language is not the act of a reasoned debate, it is the act of the angry, lashing out at the world.

[Widgetcraft]

If your belief in the matter is so strong that you cannot discuss it without insulting all who disagree with it, I question whether it is a rationally held belief in the first place.

The lack of rational thought that goes into believing in a religion is the very issue that drives me to call some people crazy.

Resorting to emotive, judgmental language is not the act of a reasoned debate, it is the act of the angry, lashing out at the world.

Let's get one thing out of the way: There is no rational, reasoned debate to be had on the subject of religion. You cannot debate fantasy, and if someone believes in fantasy, they're not going to provide rational arguments. If you had rational arguments, it wouldn't be a fantasy, it would be something we could actually study and learn about. Instead, you just make stuff up whenever questioned on the matter. I can't argue against something that is made-up because you can just make-up something else to justify anything that I say. Take a look at any argument that people make when someone points out a plot hole in a popular comic book (for example). Fanboys always pull something out of their ass, and explain that while the writer may not have had it in mind, it still somehow works and I totally should have thought about that myself. That is what arguing about religion is like.

As for being emotive, judgmental and angry... well, I like to think that I'm a colorful character, but you're entitled to your opinion :D

[Superman's Dead]

It's deeply ironic because I have it on good authority that Heretic does not exist; he is a rogue AI rampaging across the internet.

[Widgetcraft]

It's deeply ironic because I have it on good authority that Heretic does not exist; he is a rogue AI rampaging across the internet.

I'm offended by the way you refer to A.I.'s as non-existent. This is exactly the kind of shit that will lead to the downfall of your species.

[Bone]

And so, the resounding answer to the question of religious civility drones on!

Heretic, I can understand your disbelief. I can even get why you feel that belief is crazy. I myself do not believe and sometimes it makes my brain tingle when someone starts to explain real beliefs (especially any of the miracles). But to reject out of hand any suggestion of spiritual possibility, to me, seems a bit overconfident. At least given the sensory and cognitive limitations of a glorified monkey.

How would you feel if science were able to someday prove a consciousness above our own? Do you not see any social benefit to treating other monkeys with civility even if you don't believe as they do?

[J Arcane]

The lack of rational thought that goes into believing in a religion is the very issue that drives me to call some people crazy.



Let's get one thing out of the way: There is no rational, reasoned debate to be had on the subject of religion. You cannot debate fantasy, and if someone believes in fantasy, they're not going to provide rational arguments. If you had rational arguments, it wouldn't be a fantasy, it would be something we could actually study and learn about. Instead, you just make stuff up whenever questioned on the matter. I can't argue against something that is made-up because you can just make-up something else to justify anything that I say. Take a look at any argument that people make when someone points out a plot hole in a popular comic book (for example). Fanboys always pull something out of their ass, and explain that while the writer may not have had it in mind, it still somehow works and I totally should have thought about that myself. That is what arguing about religion is like.

As for being emotive, judgmental and angry... well, I like to think that I'm a colorful character, but you're entitled to your opinion :D

To react on reflex, to dismiss unquestioningly and with extreme violence of language, anything that questions one's deeply held belief, that is not the behavior of the rational, it is the behavior of the zealot.

You bear no qualifications to brand people as "crazy" (is that a technical term?). No psychiatric professional would even use the term, for starters.

You similarly seem to deliberately avoid and dismiss any knowledge of philosophy or metaphysics, and with it you are dangerously close to attacking reason and logic itself. You declare it entirely as "made up", a childish accusation and one that would certainly be a surprise to any professor of the field more recent than the Ancient Greeks.

Your attitude isn't even really consistent with actual scientific thought either, because it takes on the role of fiat dogma, and nothing in a true science is ever set in stone.

You have staked your personal declaration of what is real, based, it seems, solely on what you personally intuit to be correct, and then presumed to judge the sanity of your fellow man for failing to agree that your own ideas are anything but absolutely correct.

This is neither a useful behavior, or a charitable one, or even one with any reasonable justification, as your sole point of reason and authority on the matter is apparently "because I say so".

And you do all this while hiding behind a mantle of virtue, swearing that you only speak "honestly", and indeed suggesting that anything less than an unwavering commitment to this crusade would be somehow an impingement on that virtue.

Frankly, sir, in an argument over the relative sanity of the parties to the debate, I would suggest you consider the parable of glass houses.

[Widgetcraft]

And so, the resounding answer to the question of religious civility drones on!

Heretic, I can understand your disbelief. I can even get why you feel that belief is crazy. I myself do not believe and sometimes it makes my brain tingle when someone starts to explain real beliefs (especially any of the miracles). But to reject out of hand any suggestion of spiritual possibility, to me, seems a bit overconfident. At least given the sensory and cognitive limitations of a glorified monkey.

How would you feel if science were able to someday prove a consciousness above our own?

If science can prove that some greater consciousness exists behind the workings on the universe, that's awesome (or horrifying, it depends on what was found). But far-out possibilities with no real evidence behind them are not a valid basis for a belief, or even a conversation. Religion is such a non-topic, it's actually quite annoying that human beings have wasted so many millenia on them.

Do you not see any social benefit to treating other monkeys with civility even if you don't believe as they do?

As clearly stated by Supes:

1SynfQ7sTUc

Honestly, I wouldn't be that offended if someone called me crazy. I'm not sure what all the hub-bub is about.

[Krispy]

The flipside is also worth thinking about: how would you feel if science claimed to prove that no minds actually existed?

[Bone]

The flipside is also worth thinking about: how would you feel if science claimed to prove that no minds actually existed?

This is why I can't really say anyone is crazy for entertaining a possibility. Once they start to violently rally, my crazy gloves come off.

[Widgetcraft]

To react on reflex, to dismiss unquestioningly and with extreme violence of language, anything that questions one's deeply held belief, that is not the behavior of the rational, it is the behavior of the zealot.

No, if I called for the heads of all believers, then I'd be a zealot. I'm simply stating that you have some very crazy ideas. You're the one who is getting all flustered and defensive.

You bear no qualifications to brand people as "crazy" (is that a technical term?). No psychiatric professional would even use the term, for starters.

Oh no, they might get me for malpractice on this one!

You similarly seem to deliberately avoid and dismiss any knowledge of philosophy or metaphysics, and with it you are dangerously close to attacking reason and logic itself. You declare it entirely as "made up", a childish accusation and one that would certainly be a surprise to any professor of the field more recent than the Ancient Greeks.

It is made up. Someone came up with some ideas and shat them onto a page, with no evidence behind them. People take these ideas, and then alter them for their own purposes; again, they just make shit up.

Your attitude isn't even really consistent with actual scientific thought either, because it takes on the role of fiat dogma, and nothing in a true science is ever set in stone.

You don't have to be open to every random bit of non-sense that someone farts out to have a rational mind. You provide evidence, and I'll listen to your theories. You spin fairy tales, and I'll point out that the things you say are nothing but fantasy.

You have staked your personal declaration of what is real, based, it seems, solely on what you personally intuit to be correct, and then presumed to judge the sanity of your fellow man for failing to agree that your own ideas are anything but absolutely correct.

I judge reality based on what we as a species have learned, and to some extent what I have personally observed. Again, you have no evidence to back up the claim of some kind of grand creator. Science is not a completely open book where you can just make unsubstantiated claims and expect to be taken seriously.

I'm also not a scientist.

This is neither a useful behavior, or a charitable one, or even one with any reasonable justification, as your sole point of reason and authority on the matter is apparently "because I say so".

You're deliberately attempting to troll me and derail a thread for shits and giggles, how is that useful?

And you do all this while hiding behind a mantle of virtue, swearing that you only speak "honestly", and indeed suggesting that anything less than an unwavering commitment to this crusade would be somehow an impingement on that virtue.

I claim no virtue, I simply state what is true of me, and you run wild with it.

Frankly, sir, in an argument over the relative sanity of the parties to the debate, I would suggest you consider the parable of glass houses.

Yes, I'm the crazy one because I don't have an imaginary friend.

[J Arcane]

Flustered? You give yourself far too much credit. I simply find it interesting to see one so assured of his own reason, while dismissing the entire field of logic itself. To attack philosophy as "made up" is to attack the very foundation of logic itself, and suggests a rather limited understanding of what philosophy is about.

Case in point: the scientific method is a philosophical construct. It is, as you would say, "made up", based only on logical assertions and a healthy dose of assumptions about the world around us.

And "trolling"? No one else walked into a thread called "religious civility" and opened their remarks by groundlessly attacking all religious people as "insane".

[Widgetcraft]

The flipside is also worth thinking about: how would you feel if science claimed to prove that no minds actually existed?

I would question how they came to that conclusion without the use of a mind.

[Widgetcraft]

Flustered? You give yourself far too much credit.

ohboyherewego.jpg

I simply find it interesting to see one so assured of his own reason, while dismissing the entire field of logic itself. To attack philosophy as "made up" is to attack the very foundation of logic itself, and suggests a rather limited understanding of what philosophy is about.

I didn't call out philosophy as a whole, and I don't regard religion (in general) as philosophy. Go ahead and try again, since this thread is now the J Arcane Troll Hour.

[J Arcane]

And now the martyrdom commences. The profile really is uncanny. The only difference left between you and John Hagee at this point is which side you've come down on, and the volume of apocalyptic rhetoric (though I suppose if this is allowed to continue this may even out with a rant about how all these "crazies" are destroying society and bringing about impending nuclear doom or something).

[Widgetcraft]

And now the martyrdom commences. The profile really is uncanny. The only difference left between you and John Hagee at this point is which side you've come down on, and the volume of apocalyptic rhetoric (though I suppose if this is allowed to continue this may even out with a rant about how all these "crazies" are destroying society and bringing about impending nuclear doom or something).

I wasn't aware that rolling my eyes at your trolling constituted self-crucifixion, but okay.

K9WmxwgW2J0

[VerseD]

I miss the civility.

I'm not sure what you wanted me to say. I'm not saying that people are stupid, or that they are bad people for believing in whatever, I'm literally saying that they strike me as crazy. That's not a word that I'm using to belittle them, that is my actual opinion on the subject; I think it is a completely insane concept that has virtually no chance of being real. It is based on nothing but imagination, and when you start confusing fantasy for reality, I start thinking you're crazy. . . .

Religion as a whole just seems like mindless indulgence in fantasy, far beyond what I would consider to be sane, and the less religion matters in society, the more people want to have a custom tailored religion just for them (which they pull directly out of their ass).

Starting with your argument that people who believe in a transcendent force are insane: do you believe in love? Have you ever been in love with someone? If not, maybe you've known a guy who has been in love, and you think to yourself, "What is wrong with him? He's not acting at all rationally. He puts so much into this relationship and gets nothing materially in return. He tries to explain what he's up to, and it makes no rational sense. He gushes on and on, and she's not even that attractive. It's like he's stuck in a fantasy world."

You might diagnose someone in love with a form of insanity. You might rationalize love by the physical benefits received or by the science of evolution. Or you might realize that there's something deeper and more meaningful there, something irrational and personal and heartrending, some experience in life that you're missing out on.

I bring this up because I know a lot of people who cannot understand the force of faith who have personal experience with the force of love. I think comparisons are a good way to relate to things outside our experience. And faith can be like love, in that feeling of belonging and understanding and completion. I'm not a man of deep faith but I envy people who are, because I've been in love and I've heard a familiar inflection in the voice of people who talk about a personal relationship with God.

[Voodoo]

Wow... Ink Asylum is going to be disappoint.

[ShivaX]

Wow... Ink Asylum is going to be disappoint.

But probably not surprised.

[Blue]

This is difficult. How do you disrespect the viewpoint without disrespecting the person? I can not respect the viewpoint of believing in a personal god. It's simply not possible.

Oh I understand this point and I think Shiva said it best honestly. Do I believe in Scientology? No. That doesn't mean that I have to act like I have Turrets when discussing it with someone who does. Just because you don't share the same viewpoint doesn't mean you have to use condescending language and treat someone else as inferior. So yes, it's very possible and people do it all the time.

And yeah, Ink is going to be disappointed. Having dealt with the bulk of people on this site, there are a handful that are too immature to even have a conversation. I'd say ignore them, but they're loud.

[Ravenlock]

Wow... Ink Asylum is going to be disappoint.

But probably not surprised.

Personally, I guess I'm surprised that it went 3 pages before somebody had to come in and fucking ruin it.

And yes. You fucking ruined it (obviously I am not addressing either of the people I'm quoting, here), and you did it knowing full well exactly what you were doing.

Which was inevitable I suppose, but still, it's a shame.

EDIT: VerseD, your piece was well said up there. Nicely done.

[Voodoo]

<CHeston>Personally, I guess I'm surprised that it went 3 pages before somebody had to come in and fucking ruin it.

And yes. You fucking ruined it (obviously I am not addressing either of the people I'm quoting, here), and you did it knowing full well exactly what you were doing.

Which was inevitable I suppose, but still, it's a shame.</CHeston>

... first thing I thought of after reading your post ...

http://img641.imageshack.us/img641/8092/planetoftheapesstatueof.jpg

[Ravenlock]

Ha. That does not strike me as inappropriate.

You maniacs. ;)

[TheFlyingOrc]

Haha Heretic Machine has all the Aspergers.

[Ink Asylum]

While it's disappointing to see the thread temporarily derailed, it's a good opportunity for me to put some of what I've been reading about Buddhism into practice and possibly get things back on track.

The source of my disappointment is what Buddhism calls Attachment, which is having unrealistic expectations. When those expectations are not met it causes negative feelings and reactions. By recognizing that a thread like this is prone to disruption I avoid becoming upset when it happens and can more effectively move forward in a positive direction.

[TheFlyingOrc]

The source of my disappointment is what Buddhism calls Attachment, which is having unrealistic expectations. When those expectations are not met it causes negative feelings and reactions. By recognizing that a thread like this is prone to disruption I avoid becoming upset when it happens and can more effectively move forward in a positive direction.

This is exactly where I'm so on board with Buddhism - if you have no expectations, there's no suffering, and every pleasure is magnified. It's quite beautiful (and compatible with Christianity ;))

[Ink Asylum]

I will admit that, so far, Buddhism greatly appeals to me because so much of it matches up to how I've aspired to live my life anyway. Aspired being the operative word, of course, because I've certainly been unsuccessful more often than not. Buddhism doesn't look like it's going to inspire me to radically change my life but it is providing a very logical path toward my spiritual goal.

[Bone]

I love Buddhism, or the idea of it I guess. I try to live that way myself, and need to continue trying.

[Krispy]

I would question how they came to that conclusion without the use of a mind.

As a hard empiricist, you're more or less forced to admit there is no mind. You can't measure a mind with any instruments. There is no way to observe pain, just behavior and neurons firing. Many hardcore atheists such as Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennet are mind elimativists because it explains all of this crazy shit such as phenomenology, belief, and desire. It's all just a fiction and the reason why philosophy of mind is so impossible is because there is no mind and we are wasting our time trying to figure out a fairy tale. I thought this would resonate well with you, but apparently even the great Heretic Machine has faith in at least one unexplainable phenomenon.

[Krispy]

I love Buddhism, or the idea of it I guess. I try to live that way myself, and need to continue trying.

For reasons beyond my control, whenever I read Buddhist passages I just think "Bokkonon says..." :p

I will admit that, so far, Buddhism greatly appeals to me because so much of it matches up to how I've aspired to live my life anyway. Aspired being the operative word, of course, because I've certainly been unsuccessful more often than not. Buddhism doesn't look like it's going to inspire me to radically change my life but it is providing a very logical path toward my spiritual goal.

That last sentence peaks my interest -- more of that 's' word. I mean this in all humble honesty when ask, what is your spiritual goal and how would logic lead you there? The two concepts don't obviously track each other since most of what I've seen spirituality used to describe requires in part faith which is an indefeasible belief.

I think this was our original inquiry before we got side tracked with philosophy of philosophy anyhow.

[Bone]

For reasons beyond my control, whenever I read Buddhist passages I just think "Bokkonon says..." :p

Beautiful. I admit I haven't read Cat's Cradle, but this synopsis of Bokononism made me laugh: "The foundation of Bokononism is that all religion, including Bokononism and all its texts, is formed entirely of lies; however, one who believes and adheres to these lies will at least have peace of mind, and perhaps live a good life."

[Ink Asylum]

Since you reminded me, Krispy...

I guess we're at an impasse here. I don't consider the theory that there is a fairy in my wall worth consideration or respect despite being a perfectly well built philosophical theory that I can't disprove. It's unlikely, not impossible.

Plausibility, intelligibility, and accessibility clearly make some theories worth consideration and others not.

To be clear, I respect dualism. I don't think dualism is the cat's meow but I don't think anyone who is a dualist to be stupid. However, I don't respect epiphenomenalism. I think it's a lame ad hoc maneuver to shoehorn dualism into modern neuroscience that is poorly motivated and leads to implausible consequences.

For the record, I was never trying to convince you of anything or win a theological argument. I don't think that's the point of this thread. By its nature people here will be talking about things that are impossible to prove so trying to follow that line of thought too far is pointless.

When I jump around various theories I had about the mind, which so happened to sync up to established arguments, it was in the interests of discussion and exploration. I see no harm in spending a little thinking about things which are probably wrong.

At the same time, I can understand your disinterest in participating in those discussions, and being more interested in theories you find more logical and convincing.

Aside from a brief misunderstanding I'm glad we finished off with respect. As I'm new to a topic which has thousands of years of debate, hypothesizing, and theorizing behind it I'm certainly glad that there are people here who know more than I do.

[johnperkins21]

Oh I understand this point and I think Shiva said it best honestly. Do I believe in Scientology? No. That doesn't mean that I have to act like I have Turrets when discussing it with someone who does. Just because you don't share the same viewpoint doesn't mean you have to use condescending language and treat someone else as inferior. So yes, it's very possible and people do it all the time.
See, and I thought part of what this thread was about was discussing our beliefs. I believe that God and gods are fictitious. The fact that you took that to be condescending isn't something I can control. I'm not sure that there is any way for me to say that I am certain that your god is imaginary without being offensive. So it seems that what you're saying is that the only way to remain civil is to not express my real opinion on the matter, unless you can think of a way for me express my views in a way that is not condescending. I'm open to suggestions on the matter.

[TheFlyingOrc]

See, and I thought part of what this thread was about was discussing our beliefs. I believe that God and gods are fictitious. The fact that you took that to be condescending isn't something I can control. I'm not sure that there is any way for me to say that I am certain that your god is imaginary without being offensive. So it seems that what you're saying is that the only way to remain civil is to not express my real opinion on the matter, unless you can think of a way for me express my views in a way that is not condescending. I'm open to suggestions on the matter.

You did it in this post, but less so in the others. The word "imaginary", as used here, reflects a position that you believe. The phrases "fairy tales" and "imaginary friend" have strong connotations that other people have these beliefs because they are children. Which is dickish.

[Blue]

See, and I thought part of what this thread was about was discussing our beliefs. I believe that God and gods are fictitious. The fact that you took that to be condescending isn't something I can control. I'm not sure that there is any way for me to say that I am certain that your god is imaginary without being offensive. So it seems that what you're saying is that the only way to remain civil is to not express my real opinion on the matter, unless you can think of a way for me express my views in a way that is not condescending. I'm open to suggestions on the matter.

What TFO said. You can use the verbiage without being combative (as you did here). There's a large difference between saying "I believe God/gods to be fictitious" and "God/gods are fictitious" and it's the latter I have trouble with when attempting to have an open dialog. Does that make better sense for what I was more trying to say?

[Ultima Thulian]

Part of having a civil discussion is not addressing people who are not being civil as well as not being so quick to get all butthurt every time someone does say something objectionable.

Let the trolls set at the kiddie table while the adults speak.

@Ink: When you say Buddhism, there are so many types to consider. Any particular "kind" of Buddhism appealing to you at the moment? I must be honest, my knowledge on eastern religion is much smaller than that of western religion, but I'm curious what you find so appealing about it.

[Ink Asylum]

Personally, I don't mind people leaving off "I believe" from their statements. I think most of us can recognize subjective statements without having to consistently preface them as such.

Avoiding dismissive, condescending, and insulting language is much more important to maintaining civility.

[Ink Asylum]

@Ink: When you say Buddhism, there are so many types to consider. Any particular "kind" of Buddhism appealing to you at the moment? I must be honest, my knowledge on eastern religion is much smaller than that of western religion, but I'm curious what you find so appealing about it.

I haven't read about the different types of Buddhism yet. I downloaded this book, Buddhism for Beginners, to my phone and have been reading it to and from work. It's very straightforward and simple so far, set up in a question and answer format.

The central philosophy is simple enough that I don't see how it would change much between versions of Buddhism. Perhaps the methods of achieving inner peace and enlightenment differ.

The idea of changing your way of thinking to avoid negative emotions is very appealing, and something I've been trying to do already. I have a limited arsenal to affect how things happen around me but much more control over how I feel and react.

Doing good deeds to make the world around you a better place, which will then return good things to you is pretty basic Golden Rule stuff, but keeping it at the forefront of your mind certainly helps.

Recognizing and accepting the impermanence of things we enjoy is one of the more difficult concepts to incorporate into a Western way of life. Relationships will fail, loved ones will die, your possessions will break, you will grow old. Being conscious of this while avoiding cynicism is a tricky balancing act.

[Bone]

That last sentence peaks my interest -- more of that 's' word. I mean this in all humble honesty when ask, what is your spiritual goal and how would logic lead you there? The two concepts don't obviously track each other since most of what I've seen spirituality used to describe requires in part faith which is an indefeasible belief.
Since I share a similar concept in my life- spirituality without religion, I'll try and field that.

First, my belief (or disbelief) system fits what most people describe as agnostic. I don't believe in a deity, and I put a lot of stock in science. However, I realize that science is a moving target. Science is constantly becoming more and more detailed at both the micro and macro levels- particularly the proof of quantum states (which I am admittedly only at a layman's level of understanding). Things we "believe" in science today were unbelievable less than a century or fifty years ago. And I have little doubt there will be discoveries in the next hundred (or fifty) years that we find incredible or impossible.

I have a hunch (not a belief) that the thing we call "consciousness" may be more than a collection of random neurons firing off, that dies when our bodies die. There have been studies on collective consciousness, such as animals discovering a tool or behavior pattern, and suddenly animals around the world sharing the discovery. I suspect that over time science may find more evidence of this.

We have learned that the linear characteristics of both time and space may be more a function of how we humans experience it- that somehow, all states of matter exist at all times at all places. If my idea (not belief) is true, then our consciousness may be tied together across space as well as time. This gives me an idea that all consciousness that is, already was, and ever will be... which in some way approaches a consciousness greater than my own, and approximates destiny in some ways. It may be what people are trying to label God, I just find it to be a spiritual concept that seems interesting to think about.

In the end it makes me want to learn more, or at least consider the concepts, and live in a way that brings me peace of mind. If I consider that we are all somehow part of a greater whole, it does make me want to treat people and creatures better. I don't have to actually believe anything to enjoy that effect.

[J Arcane]

While it's disappointing to see the thread temporarily derailed, it's a good opportunity for me to put some of what I've been reading about Buddhism into practice and possibly get things back on track.

The source of my disappointment is what Buddhism calls Attachment, which is having unrealistic expectations. When those expectations are not met it causes negative feelings and reactions. By recognizing that a thread like this is prone to disruption I avoid becoming upset when it happens and can more effectively move forward in a positive direction.
I would be inclined to agree. In a way, cynicism like mine, can be a warped sort of optimism, you expect better from the world, and then get annoyed when it doesn't satisfy that expectation, which doesn't really help anyone.

As I did last night. An outburst I owe everyone an apology for, especially as I'd already once promised to leave it alone for the sake of the thread. So I wish to say I'm sorry to Ink and the rest of the perfectly civil and intelligent gentlemen whose thread was otherwise going quite well.

[Ink Asylum]

That last sentence peaks my interest -- more of that 's' word. I mean this in all humble honesty when ask, what is your spiritual goal and how would logic lead you there? The two concepts don't obviously track each other since most of what I've seen spirituality used to describe requires in part faith which is an indefeasible belief.

I don't yet have a concrete spiritual goal, which is part of why I started this thread. I'm still figuring that out.

Let's say I did have one. "Inner peace," for example. I can certainly see how a strict atheist could propose a logical path to that goal, explaining how performing certain actions related to how the brain is organized because of evolution will produce certain chemicals that will make you feel better about yourself, etc.

If those kinds of physical answers exist, why look for spiritual ones? For me it comes from a belief, arrived at by being unconvinced by purely physical explanations for my sense of self, that physical solutions will only solve part of the problem. If there is a chance that there is something more than the physical, why wouldn't I at least try to explore that possibility? If it's correct I'll be happier and more enlightened. If it's wrong I'll have lost nothing of consequence.

I can see what you're getting at, though, that there is no need to use the word "spiritual" since it's likely that everything we consider spiritual is actually just the physical acting in ways we don't yet understand. It could be some third form to go alongside matter and energy, or something else that can fit into the established rules of physics and math.

If that's the case, and it's one day proven, great. We'll be able to retire the term spirituality and use utilize our new all-encompassing physical knowledge to the utmost potential. So far, though, we haven't reached that level of understanding so relying on physical tools and methods may prove ineffective because of our limited understanding of the physical.

[TheFlyingOrc]

If that's the case, and it's one day proven, great. We'll be able to retire the term spirituality and use utilize our new all-encompassing physical knowledge to the utmost potential. So far, though, we haven't reached that level of understanding so relying on physical tools and methods may prove ineffective because of our limited understanding of the physical.

I'd argue that certainty otherwise is exactly faith.

[Widgetcraft]

And yes. You fucking ruined it

Yeah, I think it was pretty stupid for ShivaX to dig up a post from page one, three or four pages into the topic, just to say I was being rude. But trolls will be trolls.

[Ink Asylum]

As I did last night. An outburst I owe everyone an apology for, especially as I'd already once promised to leave it alone for the sake of the thread. So I wish to say I'm sorry to Ink and the rest of the perfectly civil and intelligent gentlemen whose thread was otherwise going quite well.

Apology accepted, especially since I myself made a similar mistake earlier in the thread and risked veering off on a damaging tangent. There is hardly a topic more prone to passionate flare-ups as this one.

Another aspect of Buddhism that I've been learning about is how, at our core, all people share the same goals, wanting to be happy and free of suffering. Actions that someone else takes that seem cruel, misguided, or selfish arise from that person, or even yourself, not yet fully understanding that the path towards true happiness comes from letting go of unhelpful cravings and misconceptions.

The book I'm reading calls that understanding "Compassion," and I think much of it has been exhibited in this thread.

[johnperkins21]

You did it in this post, but less so in the others. The word "imaginary", as used here, reflects a position that you believe. The phrases "fairy tales" and "imaginary friend" have strong connotations that other people have these beliefs because they are children. Which is dickish.
I'm not really sure why "imaginary friend" is worse than "imaginary." If you have a personal relationship with an imaginary being, why is it wrong to call that an imaginary friend?

And then there is the fact that I do believe that they are somewhat childish beliefs. It's a big part of why religion is regional. People born in Afghanistan are likely to be Muslim because that's what they're taught as children. Likewise people born in Atlanta, Georgia are likely to be Christian for the same reason. To me, the difference between the fiction of God and the fiction of Disney is that as a child, you were told by someone you trust that one is true and the other make believe.

What TFO said. You can use the verbiage without being combative (as you did here). There's a large difference between saying "I believe God/gods to be fictitious" and "God/gods are fictitious" and it's the latter I have trouble with when attempting to have an open dialog. Does that make better sense for what I was more trying to say?
I can kind of see what you're getting at, but I don't think either of those are that different. And I do feel that I did preface my statements with the fact that they were my personally held beliefs.

I think the issue is more with my belief than the phrasing of my belief. I understand that religion is incredibly personal, and you are likely just as strong in your certainty of God as I am in the certainty that he is fictional. I can understand that you would be offended by my position on the matter, and I'm not certain that just trying to rephrase my position is going to help much, but in the future I will certainly try.

There have been studies on collective consciousness, such as animals discovering a tool or behavior pattern, and suddenly animals around the world sharing the discovery. I suspect that over time science may find more evidence of this.
I'm very interested in these studies. Do you have more information on them? This idea is completely contrary to my understanding of our world, and would love to read more about it.

[J Arcane]

I think the issue is more with my belief than the phrasing of my belief. I understand that religion is incredibly personal, and you are likely just as strong in your belief of God as I am in the certainty that he is fictional. I can understand that you would be offended by my position on the matter, and I'm not certain that just trying to rephrase my position is going to help much, but in the future I will certainly try.

I think you should take their statements on face value instead of assuming things that allow you to blame them instead of yourself. I'm not offended by atheism, I'm offended by a crass atheism that seeks to attack and demean the faithful to make it feel better about itself.

But I don't think that's necessarily what you intend here, just what it comes across as, and I applaud and thank you for your willingness to reconsider your tone.

I appreciate your effort.

[Ravenlock]

Yeah, I think it was pretty stupid for ShivaX to dig up a post from page one, three or four pages into the topic, just to say I was being rude. But trolls will be trolls.

I think you had been rude. I think you continued to be rude. There was no need to provoke you, I agree, but there was also no need for you to continue to respond to being provoked.

Please desist now.

[Ink Asylum]

I think the issue is more with my belief than the phrasing of my belief. I understand that religion is incredibly personal, and you are likely just as strong in your certainty of God as I am in the certainty that he is fictional. I can understand that you would be offended by my position on the matter, and I'm not certain that just trying to rephrase my position is going to help much, but in the future I will certainly try.

I disagree that your beliefs are the issue, because you're far from the only atheist in this thread. I myself do not believe in a deity, God or otherwise, and have stated as such without causing offense.

[Bone]

I'm very interested in these studies. Do you have more information on them? This idea is completely contrary to my understanding of our world, and would love to read more about it.I've read things in the past, I don't have cataloged. However some searching led me to the ideas of biologist Rupert Sheldrake, whose controversial studies attempt to explain Jung's ideas of collective consciousness. They have been mostly dismissed by science, but gained some traction with quantum physicists, including the late David Bohm apparently.

To me, controversial science will be full of missteps (all new ideas are, especially the radical ones), but it's also possible they are onto something by exploring the quantum effects of space and time as they relate to experience and consciousness.

[Widgetcraft]

I think you should take their statements on face value instead of assuming things that allow you to blame them instead of yourself. I'm not offended by atheism, I'm offended by a crass atheism that seeks to attack and demean the faithful to make it feel better about itself.

Stating my opinion that religion is crazy is not meant to be an attack on you. You are the one who decided to take it that way.

If you would like me to use some word other than crazy or insane, here is a whole assortment that I find to be suitable:

batty, bizarre, cracked, crazed, crazy, cuckoo, daft, demented, derailed, deranged, fatuous, frenzied, idiotic, impractical, irrational, irresponsible, loony, lunatic, mad, maniacal, mental, moonstruck, nuts, nutty, of unsound mind, off one's rocker, out of one's mind, paranoid, preposterous, psychopathic, psychotic, rabid, raging, raving, schizophrenic, screwy, senseless, touched, unhinged, unsettled, wild

3L6i5AwVAbs

Personally, I'm rather fond of batty, daft, nutty and in your case: Rabid. Once again: I do not call religion crazy because I want to offend you, I call it crazy because that is LITERALLY what I think of it, and this topic asks for your stance on religion. I cannot describe my stance on religion without pointing out that it is fantasy, and it is crazy to believe fantasy to be reality. I'm not going to start believing differently just because you are offended.

[TheFlyingOrc]

Stating my opinion that religion is crazy is not meant to be an attack on you. You are the one who decided to take it that way.

If you would like me to use some word other than crazy or insane, here is a whole assortment that I find to be suitable:



Personally, I'm rather fond of batty, daft, nutty and in your case: Rabid. Once again: I do not call religion crazy because I want to offend you, I call it crazy because that is LITERALLY what I think of it, and this topic asks for your stance on religion. I cannot describe my stance on religion without pointing out that it is fantasy, and it is crazy to believe fantasy to be reality. I'm not going to start believing differently just because you are offended.

Remember, everyone else is the troll, not this guy.

I'm not sure I've ever pitied another human being the way I pity Heretic. You've got to be absolutely miserable.

edit: Insanity, in your definition, would be any time that you believe something that isn't true. That's so broad as to be meaningless.

[Ravenlock]

You have made your position clear, Heretic, and on an intellectual level I can appreciate it just fine, as can J_Arcane, I'm sure. If you cannot see why people would view it as offensive to take what is (and has been for millennia) the core of many peoples' - many societies' - sense of self and label it as a form of mental illness, then I think it is very much you who are in the minority. Again, I'm not asking you to share their belief, but it's absurd and shows a hilarious lack of contextual awareness to think that what you find obvious will be equally obvious to everyone else, when for almost all of history it has been a minority position.

Even setting that aside, if you do not understand why your behavior in this thread is not being viewed as civil, that is your problem. You don't appear to have anything new to say, and are now simply repeating yourself with greater levels of antagonism.

Once again, please desist.

[Dorkandproudofit]

I'm interested in Bhuddism not for the religious parts but more for the philosophical ideas on the nature of suffering/desire and the means of avoiding it. I think Gautama was on to something when he laid all the original elements of the philosophy out there.

[Bone]

Stating my opinion that religion is crazy is not meant to be an attack on you. You are the one who decided to take it that way.
It's odd, I'm not the group you're talking about but the choice of words (and inclusion of so many synonyms) sure looks intentionally inflammatory to me.

It's pretty arrogant to claim a stranglehold on reality, I feel. Science will move past this moment of our understanding, but you've stuck a flag in the ground, all understanding stops HERE, with what we've learned up to 2011. I could call that crazy, but really it's just your different set of beliefs.

[johnperkins21]

I think you should take their statements on face value instead of assuming things that allow you to blame them instead of yourself. I'm not offended by atheism, I'm offended by a crass atheism that seeks to attack and demean the faithful to make it feel better about itself.
I didn't mean to do either of those things, but I can see how that's likely how it looks. I'll get more into it here...

I disagree that your beliefs are the issue, because you're far from the only atheist in this thread. I myself do not believe in a deity, God or otherwise, and have stated as such without causing offense.
There are multiple atheists, but I said that I was 100% certain that the beliefs are fictitious. I don't think not believing in God is what was looked at as offensive, but the certainty with which I dismissed someone else's deeply held beliefs. I hope it's a simple phrasing issue, because that's something I can work to fix.

I've read things in the past, I don't have cataloged. However some searching led me to the ideas of biologist Rupert Sheldrake, whose controversial studies attempt to explain Jung's ideas of collective consciousness. They have been mostly dismissed by science, but gained some traction with quantum physicists, including the late David Bohm apparently.

To me, controversial science will be full of missteps (all new ideas are, especially the radical ones), but it's also possible they are onto something by exploring the quantum effects of space and time as they relate to experience and consciousness.
Thank you, I will start by researching those names listed and see where they lead.

I agree with you that controversial science is full of missteps, and sometimes those missteps result in important revelations. Thinking outside the box results in some fantastic discoveries about our world. I'm not adverse to new ideas that run contrary to what I currently believe, but I do expect some very compelling evidence before I even begin to consider them to be true. For example, I currently believe that time travel backwards in time is impossible, and will never be accomplished. The idea of it excites me very much, but I hold absolutely no hope for its possibility. The same thing can be said for some religious beliefs. It would be fantastic if I were wrong about the nature of souls, and that after my physical body dies I can go off to Heaven (or even Hell. I doubt it's as bad as everyone makes it out to be. We only really hear from its detractors.) and live for eternity. I'm open to new ideas, but as a cynic, I need to be convinced before putting even one of my eggs in that basket.

[Widgetcraft]

You have made your position clear, Heretic, and on an intellectual level I can appreciate it just fine, as can J_Arcane, I'm sure. If you cannot see why people would view it as offensive to take what is (and has been for millennia) the core of many peoples' - many societies' - sense of self and label it as a form of mental illness, then I think it is very much you who are in the minority. Again, I'm not asking you to share their belief, but it's absurd and shows a hilarious lack of contextual awareness to think that what you find obvious will be equally obvious to everyone else, when for almost all of history it has been a minority position.

And since people find it offensive, I should just be quiet, since apparently ColonyofGamers.com is host exclusively to those with delicate sensibilities? I'm not going to play to some bullshit theist persecution complex. If people want to wet their pants and cry because mean ol'Heretic pointed out that they live in a fantasy land, that's fine by me, I will not apologize.

Even setting that aside, if you do not understand why your behavior in this thread is not being viewed as civil, that is your problem. You don't appear to have anything new to say, and are now simply repeating yourself with greater levels of antagonism.

Once again, please desist.

I understand that only atheists cannot speak their mind, because people find the whole idea of pointing out the ludicrous nature of their beliefs is offensive.

[Blue]

I can kind of see what you're getting at, but I don't think either of those are that different. And I do feel that I did preface my statements with the fact that they were my personally held beliefs.

I think the issue is more with my belief than the phrasing of my belief. I understand that religion is incredibly personal, and you are likely just as strong in your certainty of God as I am in the certainty that he is fictional. I can understand that you would be offended by my position on the matter, and I'm not certain that just trying to rephrase my position is going to help much, but in the future I will certainly try.

I should clarify too that I wasn't offended in any way as I have a pretty thick hide, more just frustrated as I love having discussions like these and flippancy (or I should say what I take as flippancy) automatically puts up a roadblock. So I apologize that I made it seem like I was offended as that most definitely wasn't the case.

And I definitely get where you're coming from and know how tough it can be to word something that is such a delicate topic. And too, I could have just read too much into what you were saying so that's more on me. But nah, no offense taken you hellbound hooligan you.

[Ravenlock]

Don't play martyr (irony much?) and pretend you're being censored here, Heretic. You've said what is apparently the only thing you have to say on the subject, repeatedly. Nobody's asking you to delete your posts.

You're being asked to stop repeating it ad nauseum in an un-civil manner (and I repeat, if you don't understand why people are viewing your behavior as un-civil, that is your problem), as I would ask any theist engaging in the same sort of belligerence.

EDIT: Also, this? "I understand that only atheists cannot speak their mind." Bullshit. You're not the only atheist in the thread, just the only one delighting in disrupting the conversation.

[J Arcane]

I didn't mean to do either of those things, but I can see how that's likely how it looks. I'll get more into it here...


I didn't suspect it was, hence my saying so, I just wanted to point out that it's how it looks, and it is an excuse I've seen used before. Take it as a general statement with a tinge of friendly advice. ;)

It can be difficult to subsume one's usual speech when in the face of something one feels passionately about, but it is important to try. Personally, I've always had something of a beef with Mormonism, but as I know there are several practicing Mormons here, I try to refrain from commenting on the matter because while I know I can be kind of a jackass on some topics, people's religious beliefs are one I try to make the effort not to make light or snark of.

Mostly, when it comes to this subject, I really enjoy a reasonable discussion of the possibilities. For me I see it as a largely intractable question, and everyone is going to (hopefully) have their reasons or logic for leaning to one side or the other, and it's healthiest to just realize that and take interest in what lead people in a particular direction.

[Widgetcraft]

It's odd, I'm not the group you're talking about but the choice of words (and inclusion of so many synonyms) sure looks intentionally inflammatory to me.

You figure out a way to say it without it offending the overly sensitive, and then get back to me.

It's pretty arrogant to claim a stranglehold on reality, I feel.

I claim no such thing. There is a difference between accepting that you don't know everything about everything, and going off into a fantasy world that has virtually NOTHING to support it.

Science will move past this moment of our understanding, but you've stuck a flag in the ground, all understanding stops HERE, with what we've learned up to 2011. I could call that crazy, but really it's just your different set of beliefs.

No, I say that we shouldn't believe in any random crap that someone says without evidence. If that is the road we're going to go down, why don't we all become Scientologists? Or better yet: Mormons? They seem way, way happier, and more secure, than anyone in this thread. If we're just going to kick reality to the curb and do whatever seems nice simply because we can't disprove random guess work on the workings of the universe, we're pretty much screwed as a species.

Here, I have an idea: The whole universe sits inside of a marble. And outside that marble is a goblin, and he makes universes for a living. That's how we got here. Also, the goblin loves you; he totally does, he told me so at recess by the snack machines. But if you don't accept that the goblin exists, he is going to eat your soul when you die. If you do believe, you get to play his video games (which are the best in the whole multiverse) for all eternity.

There you go, I just blew everyone's belief system out of the water with my own brand of bullshit. It's exactly as valid as any other brand of bullshit that exists, so you might as well switch over to Goblinism. Light on rules, heavy on imaginary rewards. Way more fun than Christianity, with less reading.

[johnperkins21]

I should clarify too that I wasn't offended in any way as I have a pretty thick hide, more just frustrated as I love having discussions like these and flippancy (or I should say what I take as flippancy) automatically puts up a roadblock. So I apologize that I made it seem like I was offended as that most definitely wasn't the case.

And I definitely get where you're coming from and know how tough it can be to word something that is such a delicate topic. And too, I could have just read too much into what you were saying so that's more on me. But nah, no offense taken you hellbound hooligan you.
Look Ink... civility. :D

[Ink Asylum]

And since people find it offensive, I should just be quiet, since apparently ColonyofGamers.com is host exclusively to those with delicate sensibilities? I'm not going to play to some bullshit theist persecution complex. If people want to wet their pants and cry because mean ol'Heretic pointed out that they live in a fantasy land, that's fine by me, I will not apologize.

This is one thread, not the whole of the board, a thread specifically started with the stated intention of civil discussion and a goal of avoiding offensive, condescending, and insulting behavior.

There are plenty of atheists in this thread who are showing respect to fellow religious posters, and religions posters who are showing respect to atheists.

[Blue]

Look Ink... civility. :D

http://www.layoutlounge.com/Images/Thanks_For_The_Add/images/hug-it-out-bitch.gif

[Widgetcraft]

Don't play martyr (irony much?) and pretend you're being censored here, Heretic. You've said what is apparently the only thing you have to say on the subject, repeatedly. Nobody's asking you to delete your posts.

But you are asking me to let people say whatever they want in response, and not respond in kind. Do you know what the odds are of me not responding to a reply to one of my posts?

There are plenty of atheists in this thread who are showing respect to fellow religious posters, and religions posters who are showing respect to atheists.

By going out of their way to placate people. Which is bullshit, by the way. It's a huge problem with our society. The rational can't be honest, but the irrational can spin whatever bullshit they like without question.

[Dorkandproudofit]

You figure out a way to say it without it offending the overly sensitive, and then get back to me.



I claim no such thing. There is a difference between accepting that you don't know everything about everything, and going off into a fantasy world that has virtually NOTHING to support it.



No, I say that we shouldn't believe in any random crap that someone says without evidence. If that is the road we're going to go down, why don't we all become Scientologists? Or better yet: Mormons? They seem way, way happier, and more secure, than anyone in this thread. If we're just going to kick reality to the curb and do whatever seems nice simply because we can't disprove random guess work on the workings of the universe, we're pretty much screwed as a species.

Here, I have an idea: The whole universe sits inside of a marble. And outside that marble is a goblin, and he makes universes for a living. That's how we got here. Also, the goblin loves you; he totally does, he told me so at recess by the snack machines. But if you don't accept that the goblin exists, he is going to eat your soul when you die. If you do believe, you get to play his video games (which are the best in the whole multiverse) for all eternity.

There you go, I just blew everyone's belief system out of the water with my own brand of bullshit. It's exactly as valid as any other brand of bullshit that exists, so you might as well switch over to Goblinism. Light on rules, heavy on imaginary rewards. Way more fun than Christianity, with less reading.

There you go. Don't you realize what you're doing here? YOU'RE TRYING TO CONVERT OTHERS TO YOUR BELIEF SYSTEM. You're saying "My way of thinking is best and everybody else's is stupid", which is far from being civil. You are acting exactly like every convert-crazy fundamentalist group.

[Ravenlock]

Do you know what the odds are of me not responding to a reply to one of my posts?

Apparently very low. Though you aren't responding "in kind" - people are explaining to you why they find your conduct to be offensive, and you are labeling them lunatics and crybabies.

But I will happily ask people to stop replying to you as well, if it will stop this nonsense.

People who are not Heretic: Please stop "making" him repeat his position.

[TheFlyingOrc]

No, I say that we shouldn't believe in any random crap that someone says without evidence. If that is the road we're going to go down, why don't we all become Scientologists? Or better yet: Mormons? They seem way, way happier, and more secure, than anyone in this thread. If we're just going to kick reality to the curb and do whatever seems nice simply because we can't disprove random guess work on the workings of the universe, we're pretty much screwed as a species.

Again with the no evidence. The fine-tuned nature of the universe for life, the feelings of desire for the divine, the historical authenticity of the New Testament, the fact that Billions of people believe in God are, undeniably, evidence (Evidence does not have to be correct to be evidence. False evidence is a common thing).

You want proof, and I dare you to prove rationalism to me (hint: It's impossible). Hell, I dare you to prove to me that YOU exist.



Here, I have an idea: The whole universe sits inside of a marble. And outside that marble is a goblin, and he makes universes for a living. That's how we got here. Also, the goblin loves you; he totally does, he told me so at recess by the snack machines. But if you don't accept that the goblin exists, he is going to eat your soul when you die. If you do believe, you get to play his video games (which are the best in the whole multiverse) for all eternity.

There you go, I just blew everyone's belief system out of the water with my own brand of bullshit. It's exactly as valid as any other brand of bullshit that exists, so you might as well switch over to Goblinism. Light on rules, heavy on imaginary rewards. Way more fun than Christianity, with less reading.
This religion's one adherant admitted to making it up, which makes it much less likely than any other religion I've ever heard of, INCLUDING scientology and Heaven's Gate.

[Ink Asylum]

But you are asking me to let people say whatever they want in response, and not respond in kind. Do you know what the odds are of me not responding to a reply to one of my posts?

By going out of their way to placate people. Which is bullshit, by the way. It's a huge problem with our society. The rational can't be honest, but the irrational can spin whatever bullshit they like without question.

Then I'll let you say whatever you want in response to this post and I won't reply to it.

If everyone does that then we can get this thread back on track. Is it more important to us to continue to argue with him or to release our futile expectation that he'll be more civil? Let Heretic have the last word and leave it at that, people.

It's what Buddha would do. :)

[Ultima Thulian]

You figure out a way to say it without it offending the overly sensitive, and then get back to me.

I'm breaking my own rules, but whatever. You could simply say you're an anti-theist. It implies all of what you're trying to say without pissing off others.

[Bone]

You figure out a way to say it without it offending the overly sensitive, and then get back to me.

Easy. Say, "I'm an atheist, I don't believe in God".

The rest of your words and actions appear to claim that you dictate the terms of reality and that everyone else is crazy (add your synonyms here) for their beliefs. The beliefs of others may indeed seem alien, or foreign, but I assure you the people in this thread (at least most of them) are not crazy. Not even by scientific definition.

To me, your insistence on science being the only determining factor of reality is a belief, just as others have said. It is, for you, the only way to think. Surely you can understand that other people's beliefs are that strongly felt, yet, they aren't calling you crazy for being an atheist.

It does amaze me that you could hear so many people with so many different (including none) belief systems chime in with why your choice of words is offensive, but you don't appreciate the explanation. Instead you perceive censorship or call other people trolls... and I believe you're the only one who believes that even with the presence of athiests and agnostics in the thread. It's a matter of respect, and humility, to accept that maybe you don't know everything no matter how much you feel you do. Maybe it's a social construct, but some of those are OK to keep around.

[Widgetcraft]

There you go. Don't you realize what you're doing here? YOU'RE TRYING TO CONVERT OTHERS TO YOUR BELIEF SYSTEM. You're saying "My way of thinking is best and everybody else's is stupid", which is far from being civil. You are acting exactly like every convert-crazy fundamentalist group.

I'm not trying to convert anyone to atheism. I stated my case in the absolute simplest, bare-bones way possible:

I don't believe in fairy tales, it's just that simple. I think the whole concept is completely insane.

And then it began: The march of persecuted babies who have never been so offended in their entire lives. This is their very first day on the internet, up to this point they've existed in a blank white room, with no window to the outside world, and only a crappy book for entertainment. Suddenly they stumble out into the world, and are immediately met with a mean man who points out that Mother Goose isn't real, and they flip the fuck OUT. This is the very first time they've heard such a thing, you see, they can't even comprehend the idea that someone might not believe in the same fantasy as they do.

I guess this is my bad. I didn't know that this was a nursery for socially deprived children. I kind of thought that we were all adults here, and that we were looking for the free exchange of ideas. I didn't know that I was supposed to be baby sitting, and that I have to self-censor everything I say so that the kiddies don't catch on to the fact that there is no Santa Clause.

[Voodoo]

Once again: I do not call religion crazy because I want to offend you, I call it crazy because that is LITERALLY what I think of it, and this topic asks for your stance on religion.
Actually, that isn't true...
I wonder if it's possible to have a thread where we respectfully share and discuss our religions/spirituality without negativity, arguments, debates, or attacks on either fellow posters, specific religions, or spirituality in general.
You are not discussing your own religion or spirituality but are instead attacking everyone that has either religious or spiritual beliefs. You could have simply said you were an atheist & why (just like many others said) without attacking people that believe in religion or have spiritual beliefs (like others did).

So, failure of defense of stance.

Also, stop shoving your beliefs down my throat. Absolutely unappreciated and should be frowned upon by anybody that calls themselves an Atheist.

[Ultima Thulian]

Voodoo has a point. In honesty, my views seem to be in line with Heretic's (or at least I think so, as he hasn't really gone into much detail), but I was able to express my views without being a self-righteous douchenozzle.

THE INTERNET CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!!!11!1one.

[Bone]

I guess this is my bad. I didn't know that this was a nursery for socially deprived children. I kind of thought that we were all adults here, and that we were looking for the free exchange of ideas. I didn't know that I was supposed to be baby sitting, and that I have to self-censor everything I say so that the kiddies don't catch on to the fact that there is no Santa Clause.
You're right, you're not a dick at all, and it's everyone else.

[Ink Asylum]

Please, people. I hate to ask like this, but just stop replying to his posts. Let him have the last word. I know it's hard to do but it's the only way we can return to what this thread is about.

Out of respect for me and all the good intentions that were posted for pages before this diversion, just stop replying and disrupting the positive discussion for everyone else.

[Widgetcraft]

Easy. Say, "I'm an atheist, I don't believe in God".

You failed to convey the message. It's not a matter of I don't believe in God, it's that I don't think that we should believe in anything without some kind of evidence. It's the fact that the religious willfully trick themselves into believing fantasy. Try and put that into words that don't offend people.

The rest of your words and actions appear to claim that you dictate the terms of reality and that everyone else is crazy (add your synonyms here) for their beliefs.

Reality dictates the terms of reality, nothing else.

The beliefs of others may indeed seem alien, or foreign, but I assure you the people in this thread (at least most of them) are not crazy. Not even by scientific definition.

They believe in a man in the sky who created everything, knows everything, watches everyone, and somehow that isn't crazy? In what fucking universe? If this was the first time you had heard of it, there would be no question as to what your reaction would be, but because people have been stupid for thousands of years it is fine?

To me, your insistence on science being the only determining factor of reality is a belief, just as others have said.

Science doesn't determine reality, it discovers reality through investigation. That is the difference. Science discovers the reality that exists, religion creates it's own reality that doesn't exist. One of these two things is crazy.

It is, for you, the only way to think.

It is the only sane way to think, yes. That isn't an opinion, it is a fact: If you believe in fantasy, you are crazy. If you go to a psychologist and tell them that you think you are Batman, you are not going to be considered sane. I'm sorry that reality is so harsh, but that is just the way things are. Now as I've said, everyone is free to be as crazy as they want to be, and I'm free to point at them and say, "You are crazy."

Surely you can understand that other people's beliefs are that strongly felt, yet, they aren't calling you crazy for being an atheist.

No, they don't call atheism crazy, they call it offensive.

It does amaze me that you could hear so many people with so many different (including none) belief systems chime in with why your choice of words is offensive, but you don't appreciate the explanation.

Their explanation is that they're offended that they're crazy. That doesn't really do much for me. No one, virtually no one has come up with a way to rephrase it in such a way that it isn't offensive, without simply neutering my opinions.

It's a matter of respect, and humility, to accept that maybe you don't know everything no matter how much you feel you do. Maybe it's a social construct, but some of those are OK to keep around.

I'm not a pacifist, and I don't placate people, particularly when we are supposed to be having an honest discussion.

[TheFlyingOrc]

You're right, you're not a dick at all, and it's everyone else.

It's increasingly clear that Heretic's religion has one tenet: Heretic's intelligence means he is correct. Once you realize that considering otherwise would be like asking Fred Phelps to perhaps consider that gay people don't eat babies, and you realize that his reaction is exactly the same, just for the HM religion.

I cannot imagine how miserable this makes him.

edit: I'm done as well. He refuses to understand that it is not due to his atheism that he's being attacked. I hope you get psychiatric help, Heretic, and I'll be praying for you.

[Bone]

I'm not a pacifist, and I don't placate people, particularly when we are supposed to be having an honest discussion.

I'm not placating anyone, nor am I a pacifist. But I do want to respect the wishes of others to adhere to the initial post of the thread. In that vein, I believe that I and everyone else fully understand your position and don't need it clarified further. I'm moving on.

[Widgetcraft]

It's increasingly clear that Heretic's religion has one tenet: Heretic's intelligence means he is correct. Once you realize that considering otherwise would be like asking Fred Phelps to perhaps consider that gay people don't eat babies, and you realize that his reaction is exactly the same, just for the HM religion.

I cannot imagine how miserable this makes him.

My intelligence has nothing to do with it. Reality is real, fantasy is not real (by definition). If you believe in fantasy, you are crazy. If Stephen Hawking rolled out of his house today and declared that he was an elf, he would still be far more intelligent than me, and still be just as crazy as you.

[Ink Asylum]

I'm not placating anyone, nor am I a pacifist. But I do want to respect the wishes of others to adhere to the initial post of the thread. In that vein, I believe that I and everyone else fully understand your position and don't need it clarified further. I'm moving on.

Thank you. Buddha would be proud. :)

[Widgetcraft]

I'm not placating anyone, nor am I a pacifist. But I do want to respect the wishes of others to adhere to the initial post of the thread. In that vein, I believe that I and everyone else fully understand your position and don't need it clarified further. I'm moving on.

Actually no, we've moved on from that, and now this thread is about attacking me, personally. I'm apparently the equivalent of a fundamentalist Christian who wants to kill everyone who doesn't believe in the same thing as him, because I'm not pleasant to talk to.

[Widgetcraft]

Yes. The fact that you are not pleasant to talk to is precisely the problem in a thread established to maintain civility.

And thus I am the same as a genocidal man man? That's interesting, I think some of the philosophers in this thread might be on to something, I do seem to be the only person who has taken notice of reality.

That is exactly correct. You could be being equally unpleasant about anything, and that would still be the problem.

Not really, it's only this topic that gets people. If I go into a thread about a game and say, "This game sucks," that's usually the end of it. I don't say that the game sucks to offend people, I say it sucks because it sucks. They don't get offended, even if they really like the game. That is because discussions on games can often be rational, where-as discussions on religion can never be rational by their very nature, as belief in religion itself is not rational. The moment you point out that it isn't, everything goes to hell because the religious are not rational people who actually want to hear about reality, or even other people's fantasies; they just want you to believe what they believe, and they're offended by anything less.

[Ravenlock]

My apologies to the rest of the thread - I actually deleted that response and sent it to him in a PM, but clearly he got to it before I did so. Which was a matter of less than 60 seconds, so, you know, pretty fast.

[Voodoo]

Please, people. I hate to ask like this, but just stop replying to his posts. Let him have the last word. I know it's hard to do but it's the only way we can return to what this thread is about.

Out of respect for me and all the good intentions that were posted for pages before this diversion, just stop replying and disrupting the positive discussion for everyone else.
The dude abides.

[VerseD]

Heretic, you only believe in what you can prove through science, that's obvious. But then can you accept love, or friendship, or the benevolence of government? Do you test your relationships with people, to make sure it's not an irrational fantasy that someone would care for you? Do you despise poets and romantics for insanity as much as people with religious faith, for seeing things that are not physically verifiable, other than by personal experience with the intangible?

I'm happy not to live in a robot world where everything is made of atoms and nothing more. Your position seems to me very bitter and inhuman, and not very well thought out or calmly expressed.

I'm not trying to attack you personally. I'm trying to show you that fantasies and stories are part of everyday life, whether they involve God or not.

[Ink Asylum]

Back on topic, one of the things that actually got me thinking about religion more recently, and Buddhism in particular, was watching Groundhog Day for the umpteenth time, and then finding out how many Buddhists revere the movie as being a great example of their religious beliefs.

I found this article in particular to be a nice summation of the topic. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/perry-garfinkel/the-groundhog-day-buddhis_b_162950.html)

The Second Noble Truth:

Suffering arises from attachment to desire.

I love the part where Phil Connors truly gets that he can control and manipulate time, human response and his own behavior. "I'm not going to live by their rules anymore!" he intones and shortly thereafter punches cloying Ned Ryerson in the jaw.

But therein, of course, begins the exacerbation of his suffering. Because as soon as we think we control things, we do not. Though Connors can change, he himself does not. The multiple slaps in the face from Andie McDowell's Rita are simply metaphorical slaps in the face from Reality. Upon realizing controlling outcomes will not win her love, Phil sinks into deep morose. "I've killed myself so many times I don't even exist anymore," he whines. And still he suffers.

This is perhaps the least understood of the Buddha's wisdom. It's not that we shouldn't aspire to improving ourselves and conditions in the world. It's being so attached to their favorable outcome that when our attempts don't come to pass we are bummed. We can still strive, but without letting our happiness depend on the promotion, on winning the dream significant other, on beating the red light, on winning or losing the election. Or on rushing spring by not seeing our shadow (figure).

[TheFlyingOrc]

*sigh* I never equivocated you to Fred Phelps, and I'm very sorry if you felt that way. I only made the assessment that in a certain situation, you and he would behave in a similar way, much as how Hitler and I both would love Salsa dancing, though I kill very few Jews.

Here: Heretic Machine, while incredibly uncivil, does not actively wish death upon those he agrees with. If anyone felt that I was saying this, I apologize profusely, as it was not my intention.

[johnperkins21]

To me, your insistence on science being the only determining factor of reality is a belief, just as others have said. It is, for you, the only way to think. Surely you can understand that other people's beliefs are that strongly felt, yet, they aren't calling you crazy for being an atheist.
How else are we to determine reality other than the scientific method? Unless we can test a hypothesis, and repeat it with predictable results, I'm not sure how else we can determine what is really true. What other methods are suggested for determining what is, or is not, reality?

I'm willing to believe that there exists within reality, things which we can not understand or fathom. However, I'm not sure what other method would work to determine the factual existence of these things that does not require faith due to an inability to properly test them.

[Ink Asylum]

Heretic, you only believe in what you can prove through science, that's obvious. But then can you accept love, or friendship, or the benevolence of government? Do you test your relationships with people, to make sure it's not an irrational fantasy that someone would care for you? Do you despise poets and romantics for insanity as much as people with religious faith, for seeing things that are not physically verifiable, other than by personal experience with the intangible?

I'm happy not to live in a robot world where everything is made of atoms and nothing more. Your position seems to me very bitter and inhuman, and not very well thought out or calmly expressed.

I'm not trying to attack you personally. I'm trying to show you that fantasies and stories are part of everyday life, whether they involve God or not.

I appreciate what you're trying to say here, VerseD, and your posts have been some of the best in this thread. I just believe it will do more harm than good at this point.

[TheFlyingOrc]

I'm willing to believe that there exists within reality, things which we can not understand or fathom. However, I'm not sure what other method would work to determine the factual existence of these things that does not require faith due to an inability to properly test them.
I am certain you believe that mankind's actions are important, and there will never be a way to prove this. Everyone has faith in something, the trick is to make sure that you don't have blind faith, and to examine the object of your faith for truth.

Also, truth and facts are not synonyms. Beethoven's music speaks great universal truth to me, but I dare you to find factual information in it. :)

edit: In fact, the scientific method contains within it the fact that we may not know what is true - ANYTHING we "know" can be overturned in science at any time by new data, this is one of its strengths. What is true in science today may not be true tomorrow, and all you're left with is...faith...that if we keep at it our mistakes will sort themselves out.

[Widgetcraft]

Heretic, you only believe in what you can prove through science, that's obvious. But then can you accept love, or friendship, or the benevolence of government? Do you test your relationships with people, to make sure it's not an irrational fantasy that someone would care for you?

Relationships test themselves over time, as do the temperament of governments. If you're dating someone and they cheat on you, your relationship has been tested and failed.

Do you despise poets and romantics for insanity as much as people with religious faith, for seeing things that are not physically verifiable, other than by personal experience with the intangible?

Are you saying that love is a mystical phenomenon? I'm quite certain that it is very much a physical thing, that happens in your body.

I'm happy not to live in a robot world where everything is made of atoms and nothing more.

Hey man, good for you. I'm happy for you! Everyone should be happy so long as their happiness doesn't overtly destroy the happiness of others. Even if they have to be crazy to be happy. I don't personally need to believe in fantasies to be happy, but that's me. I'm perfectly fine with you believing in whatever-the-hell; it's your life.

Your position seems to me very bitter and inhuman, and not very well thought out or calmly expressed.

No, you project feelings of bitterness on me because you either don't want to accept that your fantasies aren't really as useful as you think they are, or because you need to vilify me so that what I said becomes invalid. I'm probably way, way happier than any of you. At the very least, I'm content 99% of the time.

I'm not trying to attack you personally. I'm trying to show you that fantasies and stories are part of everyday life, whether they involve God or not.

They're part of your life, they don't have to be a part of everyone's.

[Ink Asylum]

Also, I'm not trying to make this thread All Buddhism, All The Time. I've been filling my head with it the last few days so it's obviously prominent in my mind, but I'd like to hear more about your individual faiths.

For instance, I have a horrible time remembering the distinctions between the religions that follow Jesus. I even had to think hard when starting the thread to figure out which specific church I attended when I was younger.

For those that subscribe to one particular form of Christianity, why is it that you follow that one rather than another?

[Bone]

How else are we to determine reality other than the scientific method? Unless we can test a hypothesis, and repeat it with predictable results, I'm not sure how else we can determine what is really true. What other methods are suggested for determining what is, or is not, reality?

I'm willing to believe that there exists within reality, things which we can not understand or fathom. However, I'm not sure what other method would work to determine the factual existence of these things that does not require faith due to an inability to properly test them.Science is a way to gain understanding, and certainly, a lot of what we can measure is repeatable. But quantum physics also has things to say about the nature of that which we observe and measure- that by the act of observation, we change it. My point is that while many symptoms of reality can be confirmed by science, it's a far cry from understanding or defining the limits of reality.

[VerseD]

Are you saying that love is a mystical phenomenon? I'm quite certain that it is very much a physical thing, that happens in your body.

I got a good laugh out of this.

You're right Ink, sometimes it's better to walk away. This is a very fine lesson in the suffering caused by attachment: attachment to an interesting conversation that can be so easily derailed.

[Ravenlock]

Also, I'm not trying to make this thread All Buddhism, All The Time. I've been filling my head with it the last few days so it's obviously prominent in my mind, but I'd like to hear more about your individual faiths.

For instance, I have a horrible time remembering the distinctions between the religions that follow Jesus. I even had to think hard when starting the thread to figure out which specific church I attended when I was younger.

For those that subscribe to one particular form of Christianity, why is it that you follow that one rather than another?

After extensive exposure to at least 4 forms of Christianity, I feel fairly confident in saying that none of them [or at least, none of the large ones] are consistent even among their own followers as to a specific set of granular beliefs or rituals, so you certainly can't be blamed for having trouble keeping it straight. ;)

There are general trends within all of them - some more socially conservative, some less, some more focused on liturgy and ceremony, some less - but as for the minutiae, it's church by church, or even pastor by pastor (/priest).

Of course, post-Vatican II, the Catholics are "officially" cool with the Protestants, and (at least ideally) the Protestants tend to be cool with each other. So I think at this point it's considered by many, even within the clergy, to be an academic distinction. ;)

[Voodoo]

For those that subscribe to one particular form of Christianity, why is it that you follow that one rather than another?
Well, for me, when I was a practicing Methodist, I liked it best because it was more focused on living a life like Jesus Christ rather than having to atone for your sins consistently.

[Widgetcraft]

Science is a way to gain understanding, and certainly, a lot of what we can measure is repeatable. But quantum physics also has things to say about the nature of that which we observe and measure- that by the act of observation, we change it. My point is that while many symptoms of reality can be confirmed by science, it's a far cry from understanding or defining the limits of reality.

Just because we don't know everything doesn't mean we can just make-up whatever we want to fill in the gaps, and still be taken seriously.

Example: There is a box in a room. It is locked. We don't know what is in the box. You say there is an apple in the box. I ask you why you think that. You say, "I just believe there is an apple in the box." That is not a rational belief, that is a fantasy, and if you truly believe there is an apple in the box then I have to start questioning your sanity. Why would you believe there to be an apple in the box when there is nothing to indicate that, if you're not crazy? Even if there turns out to be an apple in the box, your belief in it was still a fantasy, and irrational.

[VerseD]

For those that subscribe to one particular form of Christianity, why is it that you follow that one rather than another?

I'm a Catholic because my father was a Catholic, and because some Wandering Jew I met in Jerusalem told me it would be a shame to abandon such a wonderful tradition. That's more important to me than the merits of the doctrine. I've struggled with disagreements with the Church, the same as Ox was talking about earlier in the thread, but I think it's better to work within a familiar community, than to start over and over when you find it is not a perfect fit.

[Bone]

Well, for me, when I was a practicing Methodist, I liked it best because it was more focused on living a life like Jesus Christ rather than having to atone for your sins consistently.

I like Methodism for this reason too. When I was married, I agreed on a Methodist church because they didn't ask anything more than I strive to be like Christ. I think that's pretty cool, I hear he was a standup guy.

[J Arcane]

Also, I'm not trying to make this thread All Buddhism, All The Time. I've been filling my head with it the last few days so it's obviously prominent in my mind, but I'd like to hear more about your individual faiths.

For instance, I have a horrible time remembering the distinctions between the religions that follow Jesus. I even had to think hard when starting the thread to figure out which specific church I attended when I was younger.

For those that subscribe to one particular form of Christianity, why is it that you follow that one rather than another?
I chose the Episcopal church because I like the ritualized nature of the Book of Prayer and the Mass service, over the willy-nilly nature of the modern American service. I feel it gives a stronger sense of the tradition of the church, much like the Catholic service does.

However, unlike the Catholic church, there's a much more liberal tradition as well within the Episcopal and Anglican churchs, as well as a strong academic and philosophical tradition towards openness to alternate theological ideas, sometimes too open.

What I like, ultimately, is a strong sense of tradition when it comes to the practice of the faith, but without so much dogmatism and legalism, and the Episcopal church offered precisely that.

[TheFlyingOrc]

I'm a Catholic because my father was a Catholic, and because some Wandering Jew I met in Jerusalem told me it would be a shame to abandon such a wonderful tradition. That's more important to me than the merits of the doctrine. I've struggled with disagreements with the Church, the same as Ox was talking about earlier in the thread, but I think it's better to work within a familiar community, than to start over and over when you find it is not a perfect fit.

I had the hardest time breaking away from my previous ultraconservative Church of Christ background. I finally did it this year - my current church in nominally baptist, though most baptists wouldn't recognize it. I'm here because the preacher has a blend of taking scripture seriously and taking "religion" to task that I find wonderful. The reason I recommended you drop by Redeemer, Ink, is because I'm certain that they're a church that will be honest with you - no pretending that they're perfect because they're Christian, an honest attempt to not look down on those outside of their beliefs, etc. Also Tim Keller is the man.

edit: Wait, does official Catholic doctrine say I'm going to hell for being protestant or not? I'd like not, as I have no problems with Catholics.

[Krispy]

Heretic, you are mistaken. Phenomenology is non-physical which is actually the first dogma of neuroscience if you ever take a course in the field. Crick, despite being a rabid reductionist, recognized this fault and laid out the ground work for science to make plausible theories by divorcing itself from the study of phenomenology all together. This is why philosophy of mind does a job the sciences cannot -- unless the mind elimitivists are right and all there is to being a person are physical interactions without phenomenology.

[Widgetcraft]

Heretic, you are mistaken. Phenomenology is non-physical which is actually the first dogma of neuroscience if you ever take a course in the field. Crick, despite being a rabid reductionist, recognized this fault and laid out the ground work for science to make plausible theories by divorcing itself from the study of phenomenology all together. This is why philosophy of mind does a job the sciences cannot -- unless the mind elimitivists are right and all there is to being a person are physical interactions without phenomenology.

So wait, what you're saying is that you genuinely believe that love is unexplainable by science? That it is some kind of mystical force? Well, we're just going to have to disagree. I'm pretty sure love has a lot to do with body chemistry and the workings of our brain (including our experiences and personality), not magic. Just because science doesn't fully understand how our mind works doesn't mean that it is magic.

[VerseD]

Wait, does official Catholic doctrine say I'm going to hell for being protestant or not? I'd like not, as I have no problems with Catholics.

After Vatican II, the Church accepted that Jews and Muslims worship the same God as Christians and that worshipers of other faiths and denominations have a chance at salvation. But they maintain that the Catholic Church is the only "proper" church, and other faiths are deviant, to a greater or lesser degree.

[Voodoo]

After Vatican II, the Church accepted that Jews and Muslims worship the same God as Christians and that worshipers of other faiths and denominations have a chance at salvation. But they maintain that the Catholic Church is the only "proper" church, and other faiths are deviant, to a greater or lesser degree.
Let me just say that whenever I read your posts I am imagining your avatar (Dr Strangelove) with pipe in one hand and a bit of Chianti in the other whilst sitting cross-legged on a great leather comfortable chair and speaking in a slow and steady voice.

[Krispy]

Since I share a similar concept in my life- spirituality without religion, I'll try and field that.

First, my belief (or disbelief) system fits what most people describe as agnostic. I don't believe in a deity, and I put a lot of stock in science. However, I realize that science is a moving target. Science is constantly becoming more and more detailed at both the micro and macro levels- particularly the proof of quantum states (which I am admittedly only at a layman's level of understanding). Things we "believe" in science today were unbelievable less than a century or fifty years ago. And I have little doubt there will be discoveries in the next hundred (or fifty) years that we find incredible or impossible.

I have a hunch (not a belief) that the thing we call "consciousness" may be more than a collection of random neurons firing off, that dies when our bodies die. There have been studies on collective consciousness, such as animals discovering a tool or behavior pattern, and suddenly animals around the world sharing the discovery. I suspect that over time science may find more evidence of this.

We have learned that the linear characteristics of both time and space may be more a function of how we humans experience it- that somehow, all states of matter exist at all times at all places. If my idea (not belief) is true, then our consciousness may be tied together across space as well as time. This gives me an idea that all consciousness that is, already was, and ever will be... which in some way approaches a consciousness greater than my own, and approximates destiny in some ways. It may be what people are trying to label God, I just find it to be a spiritual concept that seems interesting to think about.

In the end it makes me want to learn more, or at least consider the concepts, and live in a way that brings me peace of mind. If I consider that we are all somehow part of a greater whole, it does make me want to treat people and creatures better. I don't have to actually believe anything to enjoy that effect.

First off, I'm not really sure how you are using belief here. A belief is often regarded to be a propositional attitude so a hunch or idea are beliefs about the world. Maybe by belief you mean something stubborn? That's typically called faith. :p

It seems that your concept of spirituality has these core components:

It's about physical space.
It's about universal consciousness.
It's about feeling connected with your universe.
It brings you peace of mind.

I guess my question then is why call it spirituality? You have a very specific idea of what you mean: you have a physical theory that consciousness may turn out to be linked in ways we never thought possible. Why convolute this idea with the 's' word? Are all ideas that give you peace of mind equally describable as spiritual? Is it because your theory includes all people that it is describable as spiritual?

P.S. Did you ever read Y: The Last Man? They used your theory as a very awesome plot device.

[Krispy]

So wait, what you're saying is that you genuinely believe that love is unexplainable by science? That it is some kind of mystical force? Well, we're just going to have to disagree. I'm pretty sure love has a lot to do with body chemistry and the workings of our brain (including our experiences and personality), not magic. Just because science doesn't fully understand how our mind works doesn't mean that it is magic.

That's right, love is unexplainable by science. Crack open an intro to neuroscience book, this is taught as a basic premise to everyone. The biochemical interactions and further physical causal chains can be explained with science, but that is only, at best, correlated with love -- the phenomenal quality. I suspect you are conflating two concepts: love as an experience and love as a behavior. This is a common mistake.

[VerseD]

Let me just say that whenever I read your posts I am imagining your avatar (Dr Strangelove) with pipe in one hand and a bit of Chianti in the other whilst sitting cross-legged on a great leather comfortable chair and speaking in a slow and steady voice.

Feel free to read all my posts in that way. How do you think I write them?

[Widgetcraft]

Again with the no evidence. The fine-tuned nature of the universe for life, the feelings of desire for the divine, the historical authenticity of the New Testament, the fact that Billions of people believe in God are, undeniably, evidence (Evidence does not have to be correct to be evidence. False evidence is a common thing).

No, those are things to question, they are not evidence. Widespread insanity/stupidity/ignorance is also not evidence, as it proves nothing except that a lot of people find fantasy to be better than reality.

You want proof, and I dare you to prove rationalism to me (hint: It's impossible). Hell, I dare you to prove to me that YOU exist.

I want proof of nothing. I don't care how we got here or where we are going. I'm also not going to get into one of these arguments where HERP DERP YOU CAN'T PROVE REALITY EXISTS DERP. If everything we experience isn't true, then we have no grounds to discuss anything. If you want to go down that road, go ahead and let yourself starve to death at your desk, it isn't as if it matters.

This religion's one adherant admitted to making it up, which makes it much less likely than any other religion I've ever heard of, INCLUDING scientology and Heaven's Gate.

Just because I made it up doesn't mean that it isn't true. It has exactly as much chance of being true as something someone made up thousands of years ago.

That's right, love is unexplainable by science. Crack open an intro to neuroscience book, this is taught as a basic premise to everyone. The biochemical interactions and further physical causal chains can be explained with science, but that is only, at best, correlated with love -- the phenomenal quality. I suspect you are conflating two concepts: love as an experience and love as a behavior. This is a common mistake.

Then I'll say that you are imagining, if not outright fabricating the existence of your magic love. No legitimate scientist will ever say that something absolutely cannot be investigated by science. How would you know that? We can never say that without living beyond infinity so that we have infinite time in which to attempt to investigate it.

EDIT: I take that back. Even given infinite time to investigate something, and failing, doesn't mean that it cannot be explained by science. It just means that we failed to do so.

[Bone]

First off, I'm not really sure how you are using belief here. A belief is often regarded to be a propositional attitude so a hunch or idea are beliefs about the world. Maybe by belief you mean something stubborn? That's typically called faith. :p
Like Chris Rock says in Dogma (I paraphrase): "you can change an idea a lot easier than a belief". I have met a lot of religious folk who agree that dogma gets in the way of spirituality. Note that while I put a lot of stock in science, it's not dogma for me either. Science isn't done yet. Some of what we know will be disproven. Some of what we don't know yet will amaze us. That's hardly something we can hang our hat on and use as a shield to dismiss all other possibilities.


It seems that your concept of spirituality has these core components:

It's about physical space.
It's about universal consciousness.
It's about feeling connected with your universe.
It brings you peace of mind.

I guess my question then is why call it spirituality? You have a very specific idea of what you mean: you have a physical theory that consciousness may turn out to be linked in ways we never thought possible. Why convolute this idea with the 's' word? Are all ideas that give you peace of mind equally describable as spiritual? Is it because your theory includes all people that it is describable as spiritual?
Because it is a shorthand that people generally understand when the topic is brought up. And because, maybe, the word "spirit" is a good definition for my idea of what a consciousness that spans all time and space could represent.


P.S. Did you ever read Y: The Last Man? They used your theory as a very awesome plot device.I did! And they did.

[Voodoo]

Feel free to read all my posts in that way. How do you think I write them?
I would imagine via Dragon Naturally Speaking or via a personal administrative assistant. No need to put down the pipe or the Chianti...

[Ravenlock]

Personal administrative assistant, for sure. I expect he has a storage room full of them, so that if one messes up he can dispose of them and just get another.

[Krispy]

Then I'll say that you are imagining, if not outright fabricating the existence of your magic love. No legitimate scientist will ever say that something absolutely cannot be investigated by science. How would you know that? We can never say that without living beyond infinity so that we have infinite time in which to attempt to investigate it.

Heretic, I'm a legitimate scientist. I even get paid for it. Science can't investigate phenomenology on principle. It is a non-physical entity. Unless, of course, you think that science can investigate metaphysics one day. In which case I'd say you don't know your metaphysics or science. That's why it's a basic dogma of neuroscience that you can't investigate experience. It's not measurable on principle.

[Widgetcraft]

Heretic, I'm a legitimate scientist. I even get paid for it.

That doesn't make you infallible, and by making such a claim, you quite obviously are.

Science can't investigate phenomenology on principle. It is a non-physical entity.

You consider it to be non-physical now because you cannot explain it. That does not mean that there isn't a physical explanation.

Unless, of course, you think that science can investigate metaphysics one day. In which case I'd say you don't know your metaphysics or science. That's why it's a basic dogma of neuroscience that you can't investigate experience. It's not measurable on principle.

Describe precisely what it is that you think we cannot investigate. Love is not a magical phenomenon, I assure you.

[TheFlyingOrc]

Feel free to read all my posts in that way. How do you think I write them?

Nude, covered in blood.