Religious affilition, what do you believe?

[Starcadia]

While I agree with you, Subtilo, that many horrible things have happened in the name of religion, I think there's a danger in a secular society devoid of a sense of spirit. Science can only go so far, according to its own rules, and only deals with the material world - and does a damn fine job at it. I think you can imagine the folly of having a strictly materialistic society. Just as matter must have energy, yin must have yang, material must have spirit. To ignore spirit, or mind, and focus strictly upon external, material things will have grave repercussions, as we saw increasingly in the 20th century. All things start to disintegrate.

Multiinc mentioned Buddhism and its focus on non-attachment. This is such a major aspect to the religion because it is so crystal clear that attachment to material things ultimately causes suffering. Therefore, a society that subsists on attachment to material things is a doomed society.

What I would love to see, and indeed think it would be the next step in human progress, is a new enlightenment that finds an equilibrium between material and spirit. Right now the two are not very good friends, are not cooperating, and simply do not understand one another. If they could find a way to do so, I think we'd be on the road to far more productive and expansive existence.

[Slydel]

To be a Premium Parrot:

I must move my used matter out and take more unused matter in (see previous post).

Well, I do have a somewhat serious question: How does an atheist sleep at night? I don't always sleep comfortably myself mind you, but the fear of non-existence and the fact that you will probably go through years if not months of failing health leading towards your demise truly terrifies me. How do you deal with that aspect of atheism? Maybe there is not an easy way?

Cheers.

[jamesstew]

I always sleep great, despite having a few close calls with Mr. Death. Then again I'm a borderline agnostic that believes if there were, by some crazy chance, he wouldn't base admission on how much he were adulated but on the life one has lead.

[Premium Parrots]

To be a Premium Parrot:

I must move my used matter out and take more unused matter in (see previous post).

Well, I do have a somewhat serious question: How does an atheist sleep at night? I don't always sleep comfortably myself mind you, but the fear of non-existence and the fact that you will probably go through years if not months of failing health leading towards your demise truly terrifies me. How do you deal with that aspect of atheism? Maybe there is not an easy way?

Cheers.

To be a Premium Parrot:

What is that supposed to mean?



As far as months of failing health goes........yea you are right. I am too dam close to the end and what bothers me most is suffering for months or years knowing the end is near. When its my time I would like it to just be over without too much pain. The biggest question is "whats next"? Anything? Or nothing? I was raised Roman Catholic and still go to church on the holidays but I'm not much for formalized religion. I'm happy believing that there is a univeral God. For without any God this world would clearly be an uncivilized place. Theres ten commandments, most people follow them, thank God.

[justintempler]

Well, I do have a somewhat serious question: How does an atheist sleep at night? I don't always sleep comfortably myself mind you, but the fear of non-existence and the fact that you will probably go through years if not months of failing health leading towards your demise truly terrifies me. How do you deal with that aspect of atheism? Maybe there is not an easy way?

Cheers.

Why would I worry about something I have no control over. You have a 100% chance of dying. I didn't know I existed before I was born and I won't know I existed after I die. I will live on in the memories of the people that I leave behind on this earth.

Here's a quote from Battlestar Galactica: Guess What's Coming to Dinner (#4.7)" (2008)

Number Six and the meaning of being human:

Number Six: In our civil war, we've seen death. We've watched our people die. Gone forever. As terrible as it was beyond the reach of the Resurrection ships, something began to change. We could feel a sense of time, as if each moment held its own significance. We began to realize that for our existence to hold any value, it must end. To live meaningful lives, we must die and not return. The one human flaw that you spend your lifetimes distressing over... Mortality is the one thing... Well, it's the one thing that makes you whole.

[Snusages]

I would say atheist, but that isn't totally accurate. Atheism seems to take the ground that you KNOW there is no God, when no one will ever prove such a thing. More agnostic really, but I use the term atheism because I'm pretty damn sure there isn't. lol. But who knows?

[justintempler]

Atheism seems to take the ground that you KNOW there is no God,

Just try and prove to me Santa Claus doesn't exist. Do you KNOW there is no Santa Claus. Are you agnostic about the existence of Santa Claus too? :roll:

You don't have to have absolute proof that God doesn't exist to be an atheist. Lacking a belief in God and the high probability he/it doesn't exist is all that is necessary.

Atheists can't prove God doesn't exist and Theists can't prove that he does exist. Does that make theists agnostics too?

[Starcadia]

Again, there's a difference between Santa Claus and God. Santa Claus is a mythological being, whereas God is a metaphor for something humans are not capable of understanding. If you think of God the way many people do, unfortunately, even the religious themselves, as a man-creator with a beard who's controlling things, then your understanding is flawed and you would be doing yourself a favor to seek education on the matter. Unless, of course, it makes you feel good to have a target for your anger, which is entirely understandable, albeit uselessly destructive, of the self and otherwise.

Gaining an understanding of what God is - the idea of God - makes the question of whether or not it exists, and all the labels that occur because of it, from atheism to agnosticism to Christian to Jewish to Muslim, seem foolish. What's fascinating to me is how so much complexity can surround such a simple idea.

To question the existence of an idea makes zero sense. It exists. Very simple.

[justintempler]

...God is a metaphor for something humans are not capable of understanding....
....Gaining an understanding of what God is ...

talk in circles much? 8)

If it makes sense to you, knock youself out and enjoy

[Multinic]

Ok, my interpretation:

1 Uncertainty about the existence of God but a belief (= high subjective probability) in God's existence: religious agnostic.

2 Uncertainty about the existence of God and a belief (= low subjective probability) in God's existence: atheist agnostic

3 Subjective belief in personal knowledge of the non-existence of God: 100% atheist

4 Subjective belief in personal knowledge of the existence of God: 100% religious

5 Subjective belief in personal knowledge of the existence of God including all the details regarding creation of the world, behavioral rules etc.: religious fundamentalist

If you ever doubt that your beliefs are true, you belong in category 1 or 2. I belong to category 1, while some of the others here belong to category 2. I have however met people from all 5 categories. Even if you have had a personal spiritual experience, it is possible - and I would say advisable - to belong to category 1, since it's possible that your brain or some other natural cause has induced the experience (but you may still conclude that it's unlikely or even extremely unlikely).

I believe that most people who actually call themselves agnostics put the probability of God's existence in the neighborhood of 50%.

[justintempler]

Multinic,
Very similar to:

Dawkins scale : http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=742

Where do you stand on the probability of God's existence?

1.00: Strong theist. 100 percent possibility of God. In the words of C.G. Jung, 'I do not believe, I know.'

2.00: Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. De facto theist. 'I cannot know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there

3.00: Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. Technically agnostic but leaning towards theism. 'I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.'

4.00: Exactly 50 per cent. Completely impartial agnostic. 'God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.'

5.00: Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. Technically agnostic but leaning towards atheism. 'I don't know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be sceptical.'

6.00: Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. 'I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.'

7:00: Strong atheist. 'I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung 'knows' there is one.'

[Multinic]

I didn't know about this scale, but it seems to capture the same idea.

My position? Mostly 2, but sometimes 3 (when I'm in a skeptical mood).

You could also use this scale for the theory of evolution. In that case I'm always at 2 (for all practical purposes, I accept the theory of evolution, but never claim to have 100% knowledge regarding any theory).

Note, however, that the case for the existence of God is much stronger than the case for the existence of some sacred text. This is why I think it's extremely manipulative when fundamentalist Christians try to persuade potential converts in terms of the existence of God but then impose the totally arbitrary assumption God = the God of the Bible.

So when people have religious experiences (which I think are sometimes likely, but not certain, to be true), a problem is that we are all culturally conditioned, which means that people tend to interpret whatever experiences they have on the basis of their religion or the dominant religion in their society. Most Americans will interpret such experiences in a Christian way while most Indians will interpret them in a Hindu way. I interpret the Bible, the Koran etc. from this perspective: human beings had spiritual experiences and interpreted them from the perspective of the dominant religion in their respective societies. And religious traditions, as opposed to individual spiritual experiences, are evolutionary adaptations to the local environment, which fulfill some minimal (but not optimal) fitness requirements.

[Starcadia]

...God is a metaphor for something humans are not capable of understanding....
....Gaining an understanding of what God is - the idea of God -...

talk in circles much? 8)

If it makes sense to you, knock youself out and enjoy

Quick edit to your quotation. Now take a look. I was careful about that wording. You'll see that you're simply arguing to argue, not out for philosophical freedom. This is the main problem with materialism versus spirituality: By and large, neither one is willing to try to understand the other side, but would rather just assume that their own belief is the important one, whereas both are equally important. It's like a fist fight where both people are blindfolded. It's clumsy and brutal, and is caused by active stubbornness, intolerance and ignorance.

[justintempler]

...God is a metaphor for something humans are not capable of understanding....
....Gaining an understanding of what God is - the idea of God -...

I left it out because it didn't add anything, "The idea of God" is an empty shell that is meaningless unless you want to define what that idea consists of.

With thousands of gods over the millennia (and even today with thousands of sects of Christianity), I'd say that empty shell you label "the idea of god" has been put to wide use. When "the idea of God" can mean anything, it means nothing.

A concept of "the idea of God" can't infer it's own existence, it's still just a concept.
All you've got is a big empty box with a nice bow on it and call it God.

[Starcadia]

I left it out because...

Okay, that's clearly not getting us anywhere. Let me ask you two questions instead.

1. Do you think human beings currently know everything there is to know about the universe?

2. If not, do you think everything about the universe is ultimately knowable by human beings?