Religion

[xoggoth]

I don't know why people bother discussing this abstract issue. You first have to establish that god actually rewards or punishes us for what we do in life. If that is not the case, if we are just animals like all the others and nothing we do changes our fate, the existence of god is just an academic question.

Please add "Who give a damn?" to the poll.

[SpontaneousOrder]

If (godExists) {
consequences1;
}
else
{
consequences2;
}

It's not possible to prove nor disprove the existence of God. Some people say "ah, yes, but extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof". Usually because they read it somewhere.

1) Who is is the final arbiter of what constitutes an extraordinary claim? I might say that the non-existence of God is an extraordinary claim, since it's obvious to me that God does exist.
2) The existence of an objective reality might be an extraordinary claim, and that's proved (!) extraordinarily hard to prove.

If you think God exists then your world view will be coloured by that, and you'll see the good that your particular belief systems intrinsically holds. If you think God doesn't exist, then you might hold the view that religion causes harm because it's based on a falsehood.

Therefore I'm going with that it's a matter of choice based on evidence from personal experience for those who've ever actually thought about. Please also observe my sig.

That's a very long way to say "some people like to believe it, even though they have no evidence to suggest that they should".

[SpontaneousOrder]

What does religion bring to science, that money or philosophy alone could not bring to it? Why do we need to add on the superfluous nonsense? I mean I acknowledge that many religious tenets are/were codifications of common sense survival tactics, ethical principles etc. But they're not necessary for it, at all...and I don't see how resorting to such nonsense adds meaning to one's life. That is for the individual to purpose for themselves. No need for some sky tyrant to bestow it upon us.

It's the same seen vs unseen argument in economics.

[SpontaneousOrder]

If (godExists) {
consequences1;
}
else
{
consequences2;
}

It's not possible to prove nor disprove the existence of God. Some people say "ah, yes, but extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof". Usually because they read it somewhere.

1) Who is is the final arbiter of what constitutes an extraordinary claim? I might say that the non-existence of God is an extraordinary claim, since it's obvious to me that God does exist.
2) The existence of an objective reality might be an extraordinary claim, and that's proved (!) extraordinarily hard to prove.

If you think God exists then your world view will be coloured by that, and you'll see the good that your particular belief systems intrinsically holds. If you think God doesn't exist, then you might hold the view that religion causes harm because it's based on a falsehood.

Therefore I'm going with that it's a matter of choice based on evidence from personal experience for those who've ever actually thought about. Please also observe my sig.

Plus Godel's argument is moronic.

[SpontaneousOrder]

Some people say "ah, yes, but extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof". Usually because they read it somewhere.

No, they say it because it's common sense - derived from an understanding that man could not survive in
a world where all unobserved possibilities were deemed reasonable regardless of their perceived probability.

People who do live in a world approaching such a state are, by definition, insane. Some to the point where they would not survive without assistance.

By your logic, without any leaps or stretches required at all, you should pray daily to your sofa incase there's an invisible unicorn hidden inside who will get pissed if you don't worship him - and will give you man-boobs as punishment.

Do you do this? And should I be worried that I don't?

Sikhs and some groups of Jews can prove they are genetic from one particular geographical area, which is why they are categorised as ethnic groups.

Christians, Muslims etc regardless of denomination, group or sect can be from anywhere in the world.

Some people like to label themselves to explain why they do things that are different from other people. For them it's easier to explain they are X rather than they were brought up to think pigs were dirty. (And to hide the fact it isn't a good idea to eat meat from pigs in some hot countries for a variety of reasons.)

So some people label themselves (or are labelled) with a religion, but are in fact not religions? I still don't understand the point you're trying to make?

Like I've said before, observed reality begets words to describe it - words (including labels) do not create reality.

[NotAllThere]

...

By your logic, without any leaps or stretches required at all, you should pray daily to your sofa incase there's an invisible unicorn hidden inside who will get pissed if you don't worship him - and will give you man-boobs as punishment....

That's known as the Great Pumpkin argument . However, the main thrust of what I've written has just passed you by. I'm not arguing that God exists, nor that the idea that God exists should be taken seriously, rather that beliefs may not be amenable to proof and are arrived at through evidence experienced personally (i.e. necessarily subjective), and are not therefore irrational or based on irrational premises.

i.e. it's a matter of choice based on evidence from personal experience for those who've ever actually thought about

That last clause is inserted to remove from the argument people who believe without having thought about it. I.e.. people who've been raised as Catholics or Muslims or Pastafarians (or even atheists) and have just gone along with it. For such people, as William James put it, the choice to believe contrary isn't "live" to them - they've no interest in it.

If all non-provable beliefs were irrational (see sig.) then it would be true that all such beliefs are equal. However, my argument intends to show that belief in non-provable beliefs is not irrational. Given that, it is clear to see that not all beliefs are equal in their power. No-one has ever gone out and done good nor killed anyone because of the invisible unicorn in the sofa, nor is their a complex system of philosophical musings on invisible unicorns. Studying the complexities of a religion like Hinduism takes rather more intellectual effort than studying the mysteries of the Great Pumpkin (or Creationism).

The belief that God doesn't exist is not based on proof or probability. It's an axiom of the atheistic belief system. It may even be right. None of the above has anything to do with whether God exists or not, nor whether it is right for you to believe in God, the Great Pumpkin or invisible unicorns.

Like I've said before, observed reality begets words to describe it - words (including labels) do not create reality.

Like the t-shirt says. There are words in many languages that don't have an exact equivalent in other languages. I'm fairly sure that reason that generally Germans aren't as courteous as the English is that their language doesn't really have a word that embodies "courtesy" in all its nuances. The word creates the reality of the behaviour.

Words like schadenfreude embody an internal emotional experience. Observable only to individual, and therefore not really part of the shared "objective" reality (which can't be proved to exist anyway - though most of us choose to believe it does, based on personally experienced evidence).

[scooterscot]

I don't know why people bother discussing this abstract issue.

It's disconcerting because religion claims to have the answer to everything, as stated in a book. There's no scope of reason, evidence based logic to think - just closed. I recall reading about a professor lecturing on clinical psychology at UCL stating that a 1/3 of his students identified themselves as believing in God. And then there's bible belt Americans who imo just as dangerous as those running amok in the Iraqi outback.

I just hope I can survive this point of human history where we transition from faith to reason without being blown up.

[VectraMan]

Clapton is God, and I know he exists as I've seen him in real life. So yes.

[SueEllen]

It's disconcerting because religion claims to have the answer to everything, as stated in a book. There's no scope of reason, evidence based logic to think - just closed. I recall reading about a professor lecturing on clinical psychology at UCL stating that a 1/3 of his students identified themselves as believing in God. And then there's bible belt Americans who imo just as dangerous as those running amok in the Iraqi outback.

I just hope I can survive this point of human history where we transition from faith to reason without being blown up.

Ain't going to happen.

Groups of humans need something to fight about/justify their wars - religion is the easiest to use as the internet and TV have helped diminish other differences.

[darmstadt]

http://www.amazon.com/Helping-Retard...ews/0570063507