... not sure what a hedonist is, but i get the feeling it's a derogatory term, in which case: "last time i checked, talking to a non physical entity is usually diagnosed as schizophrenia"
A hedonist is someone who, when making decisions, consults primarily their own pleasure (rather than consulting things like duty or pragmatics).
Basically, the claim in my status is that, given the chance, we humans all seek our own pleasure first & foremost. And that we do so because God does the same.
The statement is the starting point of a chain of reasoning to establish that, if we're all hedonists, then both our & God's greatest pleasure is God being glorified for who He is.
It's an uncomfortable realisation for a Post-Modern mindset, but once you get down to brass tacks the logic is irrefutable.
'-' ... I think i'll keep my stance on schizophrenia thanks, it's a lie to me quote :D (and yes, it IS a joke, believing in god doesn't make you schizophrenic... well, unless you actually see him, it means you need an explanation for things that you don't understand)
Fwiw though, there *are* sound explanations for believing in the existence of a supernatural deity. It's just that engaging with the reasonings behind those explanations are _highly_ uncomfortable because the reasonings suggest that we're not as in control of things as we'd like to be, which puts us WAYYY outside our comfort zone
(and this applies to practically everyone-- even if you've been brought up to believe that there is a God out there, actually grappling with these issues [and maintaining your intellectual honesty!] is a difficult [and often humbling] process).
Also, fwiw: If you're ever interested in talking about such things in detail with a non-Bible-bashing kinda guy (who won't try to, you know, shove his convictions down your throat), feel free to hit me up. ;)
I can buy a belief in multiple powers beyond our comprehension, but not in the same way as god. Actually, I almost like the asian religion's concepts better, kind of a cross between the Hindu Brahma and japan's idea of kami, either way polytheistic, not mono.
I don't understand people who believe in monotheism, for any reason other than that's how they were brought up and they are unable to think for themselves to change their minds from what their parents told them. Either way I'm atheist.
2. Human nature dictates that we NEED to rationalize things, to try and explain how they work, it's part of our curiosity, without it we would be no different from the rest of the animals on this planet, and religion is how people do this.
3. Some people (especially ones who've had bad things happen to them) NEED something to believe in, some concept of purpose, because going through every day thinking life was meaningless would drive them insane
I'll try to wrap this up as quickly as possible and stop the spam:
a) i think people like #1 are ignorant and closed minded
b) Science is a much better way to rationalize things than religion (#2), the bible and other such writings are all age old, clearly man made, and are extremely outdated and proven incorrect by science. <--- That's what I believe in.
c) I think that my a fore mentioned poly thing is a much more believable then a single being sitting up in the clouds and watching us, that's just silly
Basically, for #2, it's good for people to need to rationalize things, but religion is outdated and, to be quite frank, wrong (no offence meant); science is the answer to our curiosities.
For #3, I don't believe in a religion, I believe in a belief system. I think it's ok for people to need to believe something, and I'm fine with people believing in "god" for this purpose, but I personally don't find that to be believable, and I don't think it should be too serious.
lol, that's a lot of spam, but: "Also, fwiw: If you're ever interested in talking about such things in detail with a non-Bible-bashing kinda guy (who won't try to, you know, shove his convictions down your throat), feel free to hit me up. ;)". You asked for it.
Actually, there are a plethora of reasons why a mono-theistic (rather than poly-theistic) model is a better 'fit' with the world we live in, but explaining it now would take more time than I have. PM me about it some time.
(Oh, and I agree, some god just sitting up on the clouds watching us is a silly idea; which is why none of the serious monotheistic faiths have that.)
---
"1. They were brought up believing in it and they aren't smart enough to think for themselves."
Going why what you say here, seems you're assuming that the only reason people stick with a belief they were raised in is because they can't/won't "think for themselves". Fair enough, there are people out there like that.
What about people who *have* thought about it-- and after thinking things through decided to stick with the faith of their upbringing? Or does ascribing to any conceptual framework other than from the scientific model automatically brand one as "ignorant and closed minded"?
---
--age old--
Shakespeare is also age old, but the proof of S's literary genius is that the stuff he wrote then is still relevant now. Being 'old' isn't, in-and-of-itself, a problem.
--clearly man made--
Oh? How do you mean? (i.e. there are several ways to read this point, plox to give a fuller explanation of this point) Also, what is your understanding of the idea of 'divine inspiration'? Because how you understand that will strongly sway your view one way or the other.
--extremely outdated--
Oh? I'm honestly intrigued as to what criterion you're using to judge whether something is 'outdated' or not. Plox to give a fuller explanation of this point.
--proven incorrect by science--
Oh? Which incidents/accounts are you referring to? Are you referring to various miracles that are recorded, or something else? I'm asking 'cos the very definition of a miracle is 'a temporary suspension/violation of natural laws', so our inability to replicate miracles in a lab environment is both unsurprising & meaningless to the debate.
---
I hate to rain on your parade, but if you think about it the terms 'religion' & 'belief system' are linguistically equivalent. This is why I class 'Atheism' as a religion-- it's a *non-theistic* system for organising one's understanding of the universe, just like Christianity & Islam are *mono-theistic* systems for organising one's understanding of the universe. ;)
---
Whether you've just been taught to think this way (or whether it's something you've cooked up on your own) I really don't think (to be completely frank & [I'm sorry!] brutally honest with you) you've given the topic of religion as much thought as it deserves. <3
(NB: I say the above without any snark or ill-will intended-- it's just the impression I get as I've been working through your points. I realise that you've tried to be a succinct as possible, but the fact remains that some of these arguments you're mentioned are even less helpful than a wet paper bag in a knife fight. :L)
Okay, I need to go work now. Laters my friend! :3 <3
"What about people who *have* thought about it-- and after thinking things through decided to stick with the faith of their upbringing?" Then they fall under #3, which i made a bit too extreme, not so much NEEDING to have the idea of some purpose for life,
but also if someone was taught to believe in it and they aren't just following blindly but they have entertained the idea that there is no purpose but would much rather believe in one
reading back through what i said, a lot of things came out a bit over aggressive/abrasive, which wasn't intended,it's just that usually when I'm having the religion debate it's with these two other people,
one of who's views is "there's a god no matter what you say, I'm just here to argue with you" and the other's being "I'll try and discredit any of your points i can, and if it's a good point I can't do anything about then I'll pretend you never said it"
what I meant by "man made" and "outdated", was that the religious scriptures were written by people, even if you believe that your religion's writings were written by god, there's more than one religion, and they can't ALL be right; the books were written by people, and therefore everything in them should seriously be taken with a grain of salt.
By "outdated", I meant that our cultural standards have gone through some serious changes since when they were written, so once again, take them with a grain of salt. The thing is, some people don't take them with a grain of salt, and others simply use them as excuses.
People claim it's perfectly ok to hate gays because the bible says it's a sin for a man to lie with another man, so they go out with some friends and talk about how much they hate gays while eating a platter of shrimp, which according to the bible is also a sin. A lot of people only take what's convenient for them out of these writings
There's also a lot of sexism and whatnot in all of them, because back in the time that they were written, almost every civilization considered men to be superior to women, I'm just saying that while ideas like this may have been ok back then, they have no place in today's advanced society.
as for the proven wrong by science thing, that wasn't really aimed at any scriptures in particularly, but just in general people's ideas back then, (especially the church...), The earth is NOT at the center of our solar system, as a fore mentioned church would have had you believe way back when, all objects fall at the same rate, etc. etc.,
basically what I meant was that people need the concept of "god" to explain why the world works, like in how some asian religions there was a belief that the sun went away at night because a dragon swallowed it, and it came back in the morning because the dragon spit it back up again. This belief came about because people needed to understand why the sun rose/set.
It's perfectly natural for humans to feel this need to explain things, but these explanations are wrong, the sun doesn't rise/set because of a dragon, it just has to do with the earth's rotation. What i'm trying to say is, if you look to religion for answers scientific answers, you're going to get the wrong ones.
I do agree with you that monotheistic religions blend better with western societies than polytheistic ones though, I just meant that I personally don't find them as believable.
Although this bit may sound a little harsh again, I still believe the only legitimate reason to believe in a religion is if you want/need the idea of a purpose behind everything, and that people who use religion to rationalize life or because they were brought up believing and they can't change their minds are wrong.
Although I do admit that #1 was pretty harsh, and that there is a fine line between #s 1 and 3, it's just that I get really mad at people who follow something blindly just because they were told it was true, although those aren't the only kind of people.
Visit the Beginner's Box
Introduce yourself, read some of the ins and outs of the community, access to useful links and information.
Comments on Profile Post by FuzzyBlueBaron