Do you believe in God?

[Takoush]

This has nothing to do with arrogance. I already said it's not my intention to appear humble; it is to be right. And I still am. Takoush is just not interested in understanding that there is no connection between religion and morality/love/devotion/caring. It's not my problem if she ignores my points to maintain her beliefs but throwing around words like "arrogant" as if they had some kind of epistemological merit is absurd -- what this basically means is that you cannot gain an understanding of the universe and of nature by assigning arbitrary labels to arguments.

 

Ashot, the only reason what I say won't mean anything you is because you don't want to understand it. The incorrect beliefs you, your friends and your family have always held are important to you because you feel they are important to have. And when someone comes along to inform you that they are not important and there is no reason to have them, the reaction is classic textbook stuff. And one of these classic things is to make me seem like a bad person so that you can validate ignoring all of the arguments posed. If you think I didn't expect all of this you're wrong.

 

Edward there is nothing wrong with anything I am saying including my delivery. I expected the attempt to discredit me by rhetorical arguments because the logical ones didn't exist.

 

You have repeatedly called me toots when I asked you not to.

 

 

 

[Ashot]

Arvestaked, when you argue with someone and refuse to understand them you can't possibly expect to have them understand you. Ever since you have started posting in this thread you have been in constant arguments and you still think you are right, and the only right one in here. I'd like to inform you, you are not... some of the words you have said may have been rigth, but your idea to preach in here aint working, and it will never work... It's one thing to explain your position it's another thing to try and make everyone to do the same as you. It will never happen, I don't know how stupid someone has to be to change the way they think and start thinking like you. And yes every word you write has to do with arrogance. You will never accept our understanding that GOD DOES EXIST, and you will always try to insult us and try to makes us believe GOD DOES NOT EXIST. You are not worth the arguments, you have nothing better to do in this life. And when you say you don't have beliefs in RELIGION, well my friend what you are doing is RELIGIOUS! People like you make the ATHEISM RELIGION!!!

 

Go eat some cherios and grow into it brother, you are arrogant and you will never be the type of a person to consider some facts around!!! You don't even believe in your own soul, there is nothing much that can be discussed with you, besides the counter insults!!!

[Vera]

This has nothing to do with arrogance. I already said it's not my intention to appear humble; it is to be right. And I still am. Takoush is just not interested in understanding that there is no connection between religion and morality/love/devotion/caring. It's not my problem if she ignores my points to maintain her beliefs but throwing around words like "arrogant" as if they had some kind of epistemological merit is absurd -- what this basically means is that you cannot gain an understanding of the universe and of nature by assigning arbitrary labels to arguments.

 

Ashot, the only reason what I say won't mean anything you is because you don't want to understand it. The incorrect beliefs you, your friends and your family have always held are important to you because you feel they are important to have. And when someone comes along to inform you that they are not important and there is no reason to have them, the reaction is classic textbook stuff. And one of these classic things is to make me seem like a bad person so that you can validate ignoring all of the arguments posed. If you think I didn't expect all of this you're wrong.

 

Edward there is nothing wrong with anything I am saying including my delivery. I expected the attempt to discredit me by rhetorical arguments because the logical ones didn't exist.

 

I think everyone should read this post as if it was said to them. We all live half-asleep-half-awake and very often ignore valid points in order to protecting our delusions.

 

There's no need to take offence from the challenges presented by Arvestaked, Sip and others. None of them has voiced a disrespectful remark so far, in my opinion. What believers (and skeptics such as myself) should do is to look for flaws in their logic, and if it turns out that they have formed wrong opinions, we should point that out and keep debating until things become more clear. I am sure that the truth can be found only through logical and intelligent debates, regardless how stong our impulse is to be emotional.

 

When I opened this thread, I didn't expect that I would set up a stage for such an interesting debate. I really feel proud to be Armenian... It is true that we are largely an intelligent nation. Such debates in many other societies would have been much more hopeless with people like Rog being the overwhelming majority. I really hope Rog will be able to unlearn the 98% of nonsense that makes up his upbringing, which apparently is nothing but brutal indoctrination.

[Takoush]

Vera, I have no problem in a good discussion; but we have to respect each other's wishes not to use a certain language when it is asked of you.

 

Otherwise, we have a lot that we can learn from each other and at the very least have respect towards each other while we are having differences of opinions. This is what this Forum is all about, right?

 

 

 

[Takoush]

Vera,

 

We can debate and talk and have fun too, if we try to respect each other and communicate in a humanly manner. That is a requirement. I should think so.

 

 

[Sip]

When I opened this thread, I didn't expect that I would set up a stage for such an interesting debate.

 

I think when I joined this forum many years ago, it was something like on page 10 of a long discussion about bread (in the religion section)

[Anoushik]

We've always had interesting debates about religion in this forum. For some reason I thought that this time it wouldn't continue so long, but I was wrong!

[Arvestaked]

Arvestaked, when you argue with someone and refuse to understand them you can't possibly expect to have them understand you. Ever since you have started posting in this thread you have been in constant arguments and you still think you are right, and the only right one in here. I'd like to inform you, you are not... some of the words you have said may have been rigth, but your idea to preach in here aint working, and it will never work... It's one thing to explain your position it's another thing to try and make everyone to do the same as you. It will never happen, I don't know how stupid someone has to be to change the way they think and start thinking like you. And yes every word you write has to do with arrogance. You will never accept our understanding that GOD DOES EXIST, and you will always try to insult us and try to makes us believe GOD DOES NOT EXIST. You are not worth the arguments, you have nothing better to do in this life. And when you say you don't have beliefs in RELIGION, well my friend what you are doing is RELIGIOUS! People like you make the ATHEISM RELIGION!!!

 

Go eat some cherios and grow into it brother, you are arrogant and you will never be the type of a person to consider some facts around!!! You don't even believe in your own soul, there is nothing much that can be discussed with you, besides the counter insults!!!

 

 

It may not work but not because I'm incorrect but because people refuse to understand me.

 

I'm not expecting to convert anyone any way. It is just my responsibility as a rational human being to promote these ideas.

 

I don't call myself an atheist.

 

I don't see why people keep calling me arrogant as though it's going to affect me in some way and make me feel bad. It won't.

 

And I'm not the only right one: Sip seems to be doing well for himself.

 

I don't know why I even responded to this post.

[Sip]

All the fighting aside, I also don't subscribe to the abstract concept of "soul". Much like a lot of other creatures on Earth, we start from some microscopic mating of different parts, grow and develop into whatever our dna has programmed for our physical development as a species, and then die. There is never any real indication that there is any such thing as "soul" that would transcend this physical existence or any magical force that enter and leave the body. The only reason the concept of "soul" has come to be around seems to be our own superstitions and the desire to tell ourselves that we don't stop to exist at death.

 

Some have even gone as far as claiming we reincarnate and come back to life All this, without a SINGLE shred of real evidence or proof. So again, is such a thing possible? Sure. Is it probable? Of course not.

 

Why? Well for one thing, how often has our unproven imagination later at some point proven to have been correct about anything? Just those sheer probabilities alone should be enough to convince anyone that without scientific proof, our imaginations can get VERY wild and take us to some very stupid conclusions about the world and the realities surrounding us.

[Sip]

By the way, in case it wasn't clear from what I said, obviously I don't think "self-awareness" has anything to do with "soul". What is self-awareness and where it comes from is a very different discussion IMO.

[Harut]

Religion has nothing to do with morality. we have morality because it is necessary for society and that pre-dates religion. You have an inherent morality that is completely uninfluenced by your religion.

 

you didn't answer my question... i'm not denying that morality pre-dates religion... nor am i denying that MY morality TODAY is uninfluenced by MY religion... i'm asking for your opinion whether you think religions have helped the evalution of morality (in a positive direction)? probably an extreme speculation, but nevertheless, do you think we would be in the same moral level today if some 2500 years ago the idea of religion vanished?

 

 

[Harut]

Religion evolve as a reflect of a society. Religion is not the reason of morality, but morality is the reason of religion. Ancient religions were more agressive less moral, they evolved to be more moral as a society evolved. Religion survived as an evolutionary process because the reasons why it exist were human behaviors which were faviored by natural selection.

 

The source for the belief of a god, is that humans can not concieve something which can be there without someone placing it there or having invented or build it. More particularly facing the complexity of life.

 

if the religion is the result of existing moral level in the society, then how do you explain forced conversions (namely, from paganism to christianity (a moral step-up))?

[Arvestaked]

you didn't answer my question... i'm not denying that morality pre-dates religion... nor am i denying that MY morality TODAY is uninfluenced by MY religion... i'm asking for your opinion whether you think religions have helped the evalution of morality (in a positive direction)? probably an extreme speculation, but nevertheless, do you think we would be in the same moral level today if some 2500 years ago the idea of religion vanished?

 

I don't believe religion was important in that way. As a matter of fact it did more to compromise our morality. So my answer to your last question is yes. We may even have been better off.

[Arvestaked]

if the religion is the result of existing moral level in the society, then how do you explain forced conversions (namely, from paganism to christianity (a moral step-up))?

 

There is no reason to believe that pagan religions are inherently morally inferior to Christianity. "Pagan" is simply not Christian, Muslim, or Jewish.

[Ashot]

Arvestaked, the whole religion idea came from one single place and spreaded around trough different interpretations, this is the reason why all of the religions and the books are so much alike, therefore, religion is a religion, and those who are religious do believe in God, whatever you want to name it, the idea is the same!!! Sure there are too many of them, different names for religions, but they are all the same!!!

[Arvestaked]

Arvestaked, the whole religion idea came from one single place and spreaded around trough different interpretations, this is the reason why all of the religions and the books are so much alike, therefore, religion is a religion, and those who are religious do believe in God, whatever you want to name it, the idea is the same!!! Sure there are too many of them, different names for religions, but they are all the same!!!

 

What in Darwin's name are you talking about?!

Edited April 22, 2008 by Arvestaked

[garmag]

What in Darwin's name are you talking about?!

 

Arvestaked,

As you deemed unnecessary to answer my queries about your stances regarding beliefs ...and substitutes you think logical to replace these if needed...!

Would you be kind enough to explain your views as to why, in RECORDED HISTORY and lore, humans have always needed some beliefs to worship at all times and independently in different parts of this earth?

Thanks

 

 

[Arvestaked]

I'm assuming that this is to what you want me to reply (it's all I could find) so I will give it a try...

 

Arvestaked,

 

Your non-theic advocacy bears some responsability if you wish to propagate a new approach for our (so called higher organisms on earth) through logic and scientific proofs, explaining in simple terms... how did life begin?

Please, not the usual chemistry and given the optimum coditions theory.

If this was so why have we not been able to create life from nothingness?

My question is childish... but children often leave us dumbfounded with innocent queries.

 

I will be very interested to know your views, as to how a society should function with a non-theic approach.

What legal forms should be enacted... Built on what credos?

 

I am fully aware of the multiple ...isms that were created to control and exploit the masses by rulers/powermongers!

Would not a non-theic authority of logical/scientific humans, in time, become fully corrupted as well.

Who or what should be an impartial director of Earth?

In order to change what we have now, not very appetizing in itself, what should the new order according to your advocacy be?

 

So far all scientific beleifs have not been able to logically proove "WHAT IS THE PRIMORDIAL ENERGY GOVERNING THE UNIVERSES ? Big Bang? Who/what started the big bang? ad-infinitum...

Theoretically many views have been advanced by logical scientists in the history of our world... only to be refuted by newer views).

No sarcasm is intended in the above.

Another seeker of meanings.

Thanks.

 

 

One thing you need to understand -- and this is something that vociferous believers always ignore -- is that science does not need to prove anything to show religion to be wrong or unreasonable. Logic defeats religion by showing that there is no reason to believe in the things religion posits; it does not need to defeat religion by alternate proofs (though sometimes it can if things are know). Another thing vociferous believers always fail to understand is that science does not claim to have all of the answers; it only claims to be the best way to gain knowledge. That doesn't mean it already has the knowledge. These are two different things. And for that reason it is illogical for one to think that by demonstrating gaps in scientific understanding they somehow prove an opposing belief. Some of the questions would best be answered by actual scientist and for others I can say that there is no answer. But you must understand that just because there is no answer yet doesn't make religious beliefs true. I don't need to answer these questions because I am confident that there is no logical reason to have beliefs in the supernatural and I can have that confidence without the answers to those questions. I hope you understand this because it is quite clear and basic.

 

 

Would not a non-theic authority of logical/scientific humans, in time, become fully corrupted as well.

Who or what should be an impartial director of Earth?

 

Humans always will have the potential to be corrupt, with or without religion. I am confident that any corruption in such a scenario would be because of human nature and not because of non-theism. A non-theist can be corrupt but not because he is a non-theist; but a theist can be corrupt becuase of his theism.

 

[Arvestaked]

Arvestaked,

As you deemed unnecessary to answer my queries about your stances regarding beliefs ...and substitutes you think logical to replace these if needed...!

Would you be kind enough to explain your views as to why, in RECORDED HISTORY and lore, humans have always needed some beliefs to worship at all times and independently in different parts of this earth?

Thanks

 

 

This question begs an enormous response I don't feel like providing and in some ways can't provide. There are many opinions on this and not necessarily mutually exclusive ones. I'll throw a few sketches out for thought.

 

Humans evolved from an earlier form that lived in smaller, pack-like groups, with alphas, or leaders. In these groups it was beneficial to be predisposed to listen to the alphas. If the alpha says don't go over the mountain because a bear will kill you, those who listen don't die and those who do not, get killed. Once the groups got larger and developed into society, there were no real alphas but the genetic desire to listen to an alpha may have remained, leaving a perfect little whole for religion to fill.

 

The perpetuation of religious thought may be explained similarly. It is beneficial for an animal to be born with the predisposition of trusting its parents. If the parent says don't leave the cave until it's light outside, the babies that listen live and those that don't may die, making it more likely that a majority of the animals would be predisposed to trusting their parents. but the prediposition doesn't discriminate: if the parent says a god exists, a child would be just as likely to accept that.

 

It could also come from curiosity. Man developed a curiosity which developed their intelligence which became a beneficial survival trait. (Picture here the apes from the film 2001: A Space Odyssey.) However, a side-effect of said curiosity may be discomfort with ignorance that cannot be satisfied at which point speculation becomes fact.

 

There can be many examples such as these. However, it doesn't really matter why people believe because that doesn't add to the truth value of the beliefs. We already can understand that believing is illogical so the believing itself is no proof otherwise.

 

(I won't go into the fact that many religious beliefs are incompatible and therefore not all of them can be right which means that the act of believing cannot be used as a proof.)

[garmag]

... I'll throw a few sketches out for thought.

 

There can be many examples such as these. However, it doesn't really matter why people believe because that doesn't add to the truth value of the beliefs. We already can understand that believing is illogical so the believing itself is no proof otherwise.

 

(I won't go into the fact that many religious beliefs are incompatible and therefore not all of them can be right which means that the act of believing cannot be used as a proof.)

 

Since you dwelt in the realm of skeching your thoughts... allow me to ask why HUMANS NEEDED SOME FORM OF BELIEFS in the first place?

 

Your examples suggest learning by rote for survival... being a major cause for belief creation. This sounds too simplistic.

Logically, according to your views, if safety of being can be achieved, humans might shed blind beliefs...

Why have these beliefs persevered to this day even in the most secure environments... (i.e. US presidents devotion?)

 

If we are in the age of "logicalism" (another credo?)... are you suggesting all believers are dupes?

 

Could it be that for a lot of humans finding solace in some spirituality, even if contradictary to physical proofs, is

sufficient dope to be able to face LIVING on this Earth with hope?

 

BTW do you consider hope to be a belief?

 

Please do not label me as a blind faithful.

I am trying to understand your logical solution that humans should undetake to free themselves from the religious opiates.

 

How will humans get rid of their exploiters that come in all shapes and forms?

Nihilism is no option as far as I am concerned.

[Arvestaked]

Since you dwelt in the realm of skeching your thoughts... allow me to ask why HUMANS NEEDED SOME FORM OF BELIEFS in the first place?

 

Your examples suggest learning by rote for survival... being a major cause for belief creation. This sounds too simplistic.

Logically, according to your views, if safety of being can be achieved, humans might shed blind beliefs...

Why have these beliefs persevered to this day even in the most secure environments... (i.e. US presidents devotion?)

 

I have already answered this. My explanation was simplified but the concepts are not simplistic. And even if they were, what difference would that make?

 

If we are in the age of "logicalism" (another credo?)... are you suggesting all believers are dupes?

 

Yes.

 

Could it be that for a lot of humans finding solace in some spirituality, even if contradictary to physical proofs, is

sufficient dope to be able to face LIVING on this Earth with hope?

 

Most people who have religious beliefs have never lived without them so they think they need them when they really do not. And I think a lot of people who have religious beliefs deep down do not really believe them. As a Christian, if someone close to you died and you were very upset, this tells me that you are not entirely convinced that they went to heaven for an eternity of joy and that you will one day join them. Anyone who really believes in the Judeo-Christian-Muslim afterlife should be either unaffected or happy by such a death. But you are not because you have certain rational qualities there are left unsatisfied by the beliefs. And even then, religion has such an ability to cause pain and suffering that its ability to console is left in the dust. And further still, and this is something I have said before, my position is about whether something is true or not. Consolation doesn't make the beliefs true. They are still not facts. And yet people tout them as knowledge. This is wrong.

 

BTW do you consider hope to be a belief?

 

Hope is hope. It doesn't matter anyway.

 

Please do not label me as a blind faithful.

I am trying to understand your logical solution that humans should undetake to free themselves from the religious opiates.

 

It's not a "solution"; it's just knowing when something is or is not true and accepting it for what it is.

 

How will humans get rid of their exploiters that come in all shapes and forms?

Nihilism is no option as far as I am concerned.

 

Unavoidably, some humans exploit other humans and the solution to that, if one is possible, has nothing to do with the question of truth in the supernatural.

[garmag]

...Hope is hope. It doesn't matter anyway.

 

It's not a "solution"; it's just knowing when something is or is not true and accepting it for what it is.

 

*Unable to answer about what is not physical but a sentiment like (hope) or many other non physically proovable, yet very real human experiences... seems to stifle your logical reasoning! Like saying... life is life so what?

If that's the case why are you maintaining this non issue discussion?

 

Do you love, do you aspire, do you dream, do you plan, can you imagine?????

You do agree that everything is not clear cut via physical sciences as you have acknowledged previously.

 

*By your logical assupmtions, all who disagree with your nihilism, are dupes? WOW.

How are your views different from popes or other religious entities, mono-theic or multi-theic that profess, if you're not with us you're against us?

 

*Knowing truth being abused according to your arguments, has triggered you to efforts in explaining to the believers about their wrong ways...I guess you are a new form of believer. Not necessarily a known religious type but, a believer non the less in your truths of form ?

 

*Since you do not suggest any solutions maybe we should continue as is, till a better way can be found.

 

I disagree to your type of philosophical nihilist and blinkered approaches to life.

Without being a blind worshipper of deity in all shapes or forms, my beliefs are based on inherited, learned and practiced moral codes, those that allow humans to co-exist on this earth, with a semblance of civility towards each other!

 

[Arvestaked]

*Unable to answer about what is not physical but a sentiment like (hope) or many other non physically proovable, yet very real human experiences... seems to stifle your logical reasoning! Like saying... life is life so what?

If that's the case why are you maintaining this non issue discussion?

 

 

You must be joking. What hope is has nothing to do with truth in the supernatural! You can't just ask random meaningless questions and expect that you are somehow revealing my flaws! Hope has nothing to do with this epistemological discussion!

 

Do you love, do you aspire, do you dream, do you plan, can you imagine?????

 

What the phuck are you getting at? Again, you're asking a bunch of meaningless questions that have nothing to do with the truth value of supernatural beliefs.

 

You do agree that everything is not clear cut via physical sciences as you have acknowledged previously.

 

Clear cut? That is a vague phrase. I can't even respond to it.

 

 

*By your logical assupmtions, all who disagree with your nihilism, are dupes? WOW.

How are your views different from popes or other religious entities, mono-theic or multi-theic that profess, if you're not with us you're against us?

 

*Knowing truth being abused according to your arguments, has triggered you to efforts in explaining to the believers about their wrong ways...I guess you are a new form of believer. Not necessarily a known religious type but, a believer non the less in your truths of form ?

 

*Since you do not suggest any solutions maybe we should continue as is, till a better way can be found.

 

I disagree to your type of philosophical nihilist and blinkered approaches to life.

Without being a blind worshipper of deity in all shapes or forms, my beliefs are based on inherited, learned and practiced moral codes, those that allow humans to co-exist on this earth, with a semblance of civility towards each other!

 

 

You know what? You're wasting my time. I'm not going to respond to you anymore because you have no idea what your talking about. And I could not care less what you believe about me at this point because I don't respect your intellect enough for it to matter. Say what you will. think what you will. Good bye.

 

[Sip]

Would you be kind enough to explain your views as to why, in RECORDED HISTORY and lore, humans have always needed some beliefs to worship at all times and independently in different parts of this earth?

 

I know this was directed at Arvestaked but I too have often thought about this. My current expanation is that there are MANY things we do not understand the most important of which are our finite-ness (i.e. when we start and when we end in death). A convenient short-cut for ANY lazy mind, when faced with an unknown, is to try to explain that a higher power has set things in place and in motion. The benefits of this are three fold:

 

1. It provides an explanation for things that would otherwise go unexplained.

2. It creates the illusion that things are somehow controllable and that our lives are not subject to utter chaos.

3. Makes the idea of death inherently less scary by attaching some sort of context or meaning to life.

 

Of course this higher power has been rather arbitrary things so far like fire, earth, thunder, wind, God(s), cows, aliens, etc etc. Now what's the down-side?

 

The down-side is that such lazy-mental shortcuts can manifest themselves in the utter rediculousnesses that we have seen throughout history ... burning of "witches" ... killing of "non believers" ... cutting-off of baby peniseses and vagina parts ... and of course training humans to start to categorically ignore and dismiss real knowledge in place of that which supports previous such superstitions and dogma.

 

Fortunately however, it seems that as our human race is getting smarter and smarter, the need for believing in the supernatural is slowly starting to deminish. There is still a long way ahead but at least now, a lot of people are starting to realize they can have their "faith" (and the safety it provides) while at the same time looking for answers about themselves and their enviornments, and the truth without being limited by what the ancients (who believed the Earth was flat and had no clue about dinosaurs, planetary motion, genetics, microbes, diseases, etc etc) have been telling them.

Edited April 24, 2008 by Sip

[garmag]

Fortunately however, it seems that as our human race is getting smarter and smarter, the need for believing in the supernatural is slowly starting to deminish. There is still a long way ahead but at least now, a lot of people are starting to realize they can have their "faith" (and the safety it provides) while at the same time looking for answers about themselves and their enviornments, and the truth without being limited by what the ancients (who believed the Earth was flat and had no clue about dinosaurs, planetary motion, genetics, microbes, diseases, etc etc) have been telling them.

 

 

Open mind is a true path that will enable humans to find answers to a variety of puzzling phenomena that can be explained logically and proven scientifically.

Blind belief in anything is myopic and lazy. But since humans are not born equally endowed with similar brain capabilities and "meme" retention, we have to accept them for what they are... humans with equal rights for life and health and beliefs, even if said beliefs are illogical and idiotic.

 

However, people like Arvestaked, a new rebel that has aspirations to become a memetic engineer, has all the ingredients of a fanatical disciple with all the youthful arrogance for a new found "faith"! in memetics...

 

His guru Richard Dawkins, ( I did not say his saviour) is far more humble presenting his theories of "meme", at the same time acknowledging that all memetic pass ons from brain to brain...ARE SUBJECT TO MUTATIONS AND PERMUTATIONS.

 

Based on this assumption, the theory of memetics starts on a precarious foundation. The multitudes of unknowns to create a solid scientific definition is far from obvious! It is a new theory in waiting...with potentials.

 

The arguments presented here are not for the propagation of the supernatural!

Feelings and intelligence are very specific to each individual in intensity and understanding.

The degree of difference from one human to another is such that, scientifically it has been impossible to explain why we have, acceptable for the times, geniuses once in a while instead of many! ( Some geniuses were proven wrong in due course?)

 

Granted, humans are on an upsurge of knowledge and capabilities in decifering the enigmas of physical life, but the last frontier and the most complex happens to be the brain!

In this field of neurological unquantifiable permutations, hence our individual characteristics, even with inherited genes and "meme" we have not managed to create one identical, physically and mentally cloned being since humans existed!

 

Jumping on a new band wagon of "meme" as a new fad is commendable, but ramming it down throats is childish to say the least!

 

Patience is another unquantifiable philosophical mode, independent of "meme", as we cannot seem to have it passed on from other brains to ours

Edited April 25, 2008 by garmag