If Religion is About Belief...

[Lain]

As to who had the better argument, we might disagree.

That's true, but one makes the best attempt to be without prejudice by any means necessary and hopefully that won't happen, but looking at the state of the world it still happens a lot, even when a person becomes better to be able to judge better (and that in itself involves another list of claims to be proven or disproven by the same process).

 

[TiredOfTuesdays]

Or faith, then what is there to debate about?

It's all based on opinion isn't it?
Nothing can be proven or dismissed.

One might be persuaded by someone's else's opinion but based on what? Since I can say whatever I want and not worry about supporting it because it's a belief, not a fact.

Not that I'm judging as I do it too but I realize I can say pretty much whatever I want with almost no concern about proving it. Certainly a materialist like myself has a more difficult job needing to support some statement they made.

A religious debate, isn't it all just sophistry?

No it’s much deeper than Sophistory. It’s philosophical, Especially in regards to legitimizing ethics and morals. I’ve studied philosophy long enough to understand, that everything matters or nothing matters at all, you can’t get around that regardless of how many triangles you draw to the contrary.

Without divinity there is no objective truth. Everything is subjective. Secular objectivism has been disproven many times over the years by many accredited philosophers, specifically the post modernists who tear the argument of Objectivist truth In humanism to shreds. Ultimately, Humanity decides what is ethical and what is moral in their ideology (if no divinity exists). The pursuit of power over the narrative and who controls it ultimately decides the morals and the ethics of Society. The means justify the ends, While the ideology is essentially Descartes’s Demon. All for the sake of controlling what the majority of the population or the population that has the most resources access to it into that society thinks. Everything else is second to achieving that goal.


Meanwhile if you’re religious you believe that some sort of higher power beyond or equal to that of humanity decides what is ethical or what is moral. Therefore human interpretation (which is subjective if secular [Jean Paul Sartre prove this in their works]) Is not the ultimate say in what is ethical or moral.

If humanity is the ultimate say in ethics or morals then the only thing that mattered is the pursuit of power To enact those morals ethics through legislation over a population that submits to it.

If what you say is true that it all is just opinion. Then essentially sociopaths and psychopaths have the ultimate moral and ethical authority because they’re willing to go to whatever lengths to achieve it.

 

[TiredOfTuesdays]

No it’s much deeper than Sophistory. It’s philosophical, Especially in regards to legitimizing ethics and morals. I’ve studied philosophy long enough to understand, that everything matters or nothing matters at all, you can’t get around that regardless of how many triangles you draw to the contrary.

Without divinity there is no objective truth. Everything is subjective. Secular objectivism has been disproven many times over the years by many accredited philosophers, specifically the post modernists who tear the argument of Objectivist truth In humanism to shreds. Ultimately, Humanity decides what is ethical and what is moral in their ideology (if no divinity exists). The pursuit of power over the narrative and who controls it ultimately decides the morals and the ethics of Society. The means justify the ends, While the ideology is essentially Descartes’s Demon. All for the sake of controlling what the majority of the population or the population that has the most resources access to it into that society thinks. Everything else is second to achieving that goal.


Meanwhile if you’re religious you believe that some sort of higher power beyond or equal to that of humanity decides what is ethical or what is moral. Therefore human interpretation (which is subjective if secular [Jean Paul Sartre prove this in their works]) Is not the ultimate say in what is ethical or moral.

If humanity is the ultimate say in ethics or morals then the only thing that mattered is the pursuit of power To enact those morals ethics through legislation over a population that submits to it.

If what you say is true that it all is just opinion. Then essentially sociopaths and psychopaths have the ultimate moral and ethical authority because they’re willing to go to whatever lengths to achieve it.

ends justify the means my bad lol

 

[Nakosis]

No it’s much deeper than Sophistory. It’s philosophical, Especially in regards to legitimizing ethics and morals. I’ve studied philosophy long enough to understand, that everything matters or nothing matters at all, you can’t get around that regardless of how many triangles you draw to the contrary.

Without divinity there is no objective truth. Everything is subjective. Secular objectivism has been disproven many times over the years by many accredited philosophers, specifically the post modernists who tear the argument of Objectivist truth In humanism to shreds. Ultimately, Humanity decides what is ethical and what is moral in their ideology (if no divinity exists). The pursuit of power over the narrative and who controls it ultimately decides the morals and the ethics of Society. The means justify the ends, While the ideology is essentially Descartes’s Demon. All for the sake of controlling what the majority of the population or the population that has the most resources access to it into that society thinks. Everything else is second to achieving that goal.

Really? Who has disproven Secular objectivism. Not saying you are wrong but I'd certainly like to had a go at them.

Meanwhile if you’re religious you believe that some sort of higher power beyond or equal to that of humanity decides what is ethical or what is moral. Therefore human interpretation (which is subjective if secular [Jean Paul Sartre prove this in their works]) Is not the ultimate say in what is ethical or moral.

If humanity is the ultimate say in ethics or morals then the only thing that mattered is the pursuit of power To enact those morals ethics through legislation over a population that submits to it.

If what you say is true that it all is just opinion. Then essentially sociopaths and psychopaths have the ultimate moral and ethical authority because they’re willing to go to whatever lengths to achieve it.

No, there is also enforcement and agreement which everyone including the sociopaths and psychopaths have to deal with.

 

[TiredOfTuesdays]

Really? Who has disproven Secular objectivism. Not saying you are wrong but I'd certainly like to had a go at them.



Dude I was in the exact same boat with that opinion. I loved Ayn Rans philosophy of objectivism when I first introduced myself to philosophy (still do love her as an author) she was my go to philosopher. They were good philosophies and they were bad philosophies of my opinion and objectivism is one of the better ones despite the fact it’s wrong.

There is a whole entire book about it that was written 100 years earlier than her time by Immanuel Kant called the Critique of Pure Reason. It’s an extremely complicated critique, but its basis is that reason cannot be pure, for in order to reason one must judge and to Judge one must observe (unless one judges without observing, which is unreasonable), and to observe one must perceive. The problem is the perceiving, human beings ultimately cannot perceive the exact same thing to the 100% of its capability. Modern psychology is based on that notion, and there was tons of evidence to support that. No perception is the same regardless of how similar it is, all perception is unique to The individual human being even if it is a very small metaphysical difference it’s still a difference. “The EYE of the beholder” is ultimately what decides

Therefore reason cannot be pure for if something is pure it cannot be tainted or corrupted. If everyone has a different perception on something regardless of whether or not they can agree or disagree with it then who is to define what is pure if anything cannot be perceived the exact same way? That’s why reason cannot be pure/objective unless there is an entity that can perceive beyond that of the limits humanity. Jean Paul Sartre took that even further and said that if this is the case then pinpointing causation of anything is irrational Because one cannot tell the difference between a causation and correlation due to the uniqueness of the individuals perception.


As for the psychopath and sociopath thing you were talking that was pretty vague and That’s all my fault because I was being more vague. essentially those who Believe the ends justify the means.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Or faith, then what is there to debate about?

It's all based on opinion isn't it?
Nothing can be proven or dismissed.

One might be persuaded by someone's else's opinion but based on what? Since I can say whatever I want and not worry about supporting it because it's a belief, not a fact.

Not that I'm judging as I do it too but I realize I can say pretty much whatever I want with almost no concern about proving it. Certainly a materialist like myself has a more difficult job needing to support some statement they made.

A religious debate, isn't it all just sophistry?

I realize that many religions are primarily about belief. But it doesn't mean that it is so with all religions. Judaism focuses on actions, not beliefs. In Judaism, the question is whether you obey the commandments that are the covenant between God and Israel. IOW, Orthopraxy, not Orthodoxy.

 

[Nakosis]

I realize that many religions are primarily about belief. But it doesn't mean that it is so with all religions. Judaism focuses on actions, not beliefs. In Judaism, the question is whether you obey the commandments that are the covenant between God and Israel. IOW, Orthopraxy, not Orthodoxy.

Ok, but I am mainly wondering why we debate about the religious part.
If one religious group say the Trinity is true and another says it is not, how would we prove who is correct?
The point being we can't actually. We can't actually know/prove who is correct.

Yet still we do, knowing that neither side can prove the fact of their theology.

And, is there not different interpretations of the Mitzvah? You fulfill the commandment in one manner, someone else fulfills it by a different interpretation. Is there ever debates about how to properly fulfill these commandments?

 

[DNB]

Or faith, then what is there to debate about?

It's all based on opinion isn't it?
Nothing can be proven or dismissed.

One might be persuaded by someone's else's opinion but based on what? Since I can say whatever I want and not worry about supporting it because it's a belief, not a fact.

Not that I'm judging as I do it too but I realize I can say pretty much whatever I want with almost no concern about proving it. Certainly a materialist like myself has a more difficult job needing to support some statement they made.

A religious debate, isn't it all just sophistry?

Not entirely, Nakosis. The belief is in what one has discerned to be truth. We are attempting to elucidate facts that are somewhat elusive in nature - but not impossible to know.
One believes a proposition to be true, another does not believe it to be so. Both believe something that they are equally unable to establish as an unequivocal fact, but this does not mean that both are incorrect.
A guy believes that a girl likes him, his friends think otherwise. And, yet, even if the girl was to offer her opinion, there is still the question of her sincerity. In other words, believing in something that cannot be proven immediately, does not discredit all the speculators opinions.

There are some things that cannot be quantified, and therefore, no one can go past the belief stage in their convictions. For, to some, no matter evidence is put before them, they still won't believe an axiomatic fact.

It is not the belief in something that undermines its veracity, it is the process involved in attaining to that belief that determines the credibility of the claim.

 

[DNB]

I realize that many religions are primarily about belief. But it doesn't mean that it is so with all religions. Judaism focuses on actions, not beliefs. In Judaism, the question is whether you obey the commandments that are the covenant between God and Israel. IOW, Orthopraxy, not Orthodoxy.

But, IC5559, the belief in Judaism lies within the conviction that God established the Covenant with Israel, and proclaimed His laws to Moses.
You said that your religion is more practical, than another religion that is solely based on faith and prayer , for example. But your rituals are precipitated by what you believe to be ordained by God.

So, unless I didn't follow your point correctly, I don't believe that you are correct in stating that there is not a requisite belief in your religious system. Every single religion requires an initial belief, that cannot necessarily be substantiated by quantifiable facts.

 

[firedragon]

Or faith, then what is there to debate about?

It's all based on opinion isn't it?
Nothing can be proven or dismissed.

One might be persuaded by someone's else's opinion but based on what? Since I can say whatever I want and not worry about supporting it because it's a belief, not a fact.

Not that I'm judging as I do it too but I realize I can say pretty much whatever I want with almost no concern about proving it. Certainly a materialist like myself has a more difficult job needing to support some statement they made.

A religious debate, isn't it all just sophistry?

No you are absolutely wrong. Religion has predominantly been about Philosophical and logical rationalisation. Not just blind faith or someones opinion and others worship the opinion and the opinionated.

People do have blind faith. Some always do. For example, some atheists believe that science will answer everything and every question. Thats blind faith and they have blindly worshiped an opinion of an opinionated. Same happens all kinds of people.

But that's not what atheism as a whole is about or anything else as a whole is about.

 

[rational experiences]

Common sense.

Natural human life is hu man as equals.

First. No teaching preaching which is group choice separation.

Theism led to science led to machine reactions led to destroyed attacked sacrificed human life.

Ceremony. Life and death. Ceremony to remember plays an important tradition memorium for a better life future. Religion.

 

[metis]

Judaism focuses on actions, not beliefs.

But the actions are primarily based on beliefs.

 

[Nakosis]

No you are absolutely wrong. Religion has predominantly been about Philosophical and logical rationalisation. Not just blind faith or someones opinion and others worship the opinion and the opinionated.

People do have blind faith. Some always do. For example, some atheists believe that science will answer everything and every question. Thats blind faith and they have blindly worshiped an opinion of an opinionated. Same happens all kinds of people.

But that's not what atheism as a whole is about or anything else as a whole is about.

I'm not talking about blind faith. I'm talking about creativity. One can create a God and give it whatever attribute they feel appropriate. What limits God more than anything else is our own lack on imagination.

 

[firedragon]

I'm not talking about blind faith. I'm talking about creativity. One can create a God and give it whatever attribute they feel appropriate. What limits God more than anything else is our own lack on imagination.

Dang. Nakosis. I didnt even know it was you.

Anyway, thought you are right that anyone can create their own god and give it what ever attribute they feel like. But see, what you are really ttreading on is sociology of religion. This in fact is a whole study, and people do degrees, masters and Phd's on this particular topic alone. As an atheist, I think you should approach this as a completely sociological study.

I will never forget an Indian portrayal of Jesus I saw. If I find that image, I will post it here for sure. They had turned Jesus into a blue Krishna like figure. I am serious. Jesus was blue. And he is on the cross, surrounded by a pantheon of deities. This is how different people can turn their divinities according to their social needs, and a lot of other stuff.

Anyway, God is still a topic that was and is discussed philosophically, not only based on relative faith.

Cheers.

 

[Nakosis]

It is not the belief in something that undermines its veracity, it is the process involved in attaining to that belief that determines the credibility of the claim.

For the individual right?
Your process can certainly be different than mine. At which point who is to say which POV is correct.
You make one claim about God, I make another claim. Both of us sincerely believe what we claim based on our experience of the universe. What is there to debate really?

 

[Nakosis]

Dang. Nakosis. I didnt even know it was you.

Anyway, thought you are right that anyone can create their own god and give it what ever attribute they feel like. But see, what you are really ttreading on is sociology of religion. This in fact is a whole study, and people do degrees, masters and Phd's on this particular topic alone. As an atheist, I think you should approach this as a completely sociological study.

Yes, I understand but what I'm saying is that there is no provable right or wrong here. We can discuss or views and even call it a debate but can't resolve our differences to a provable truth. IOW I could create a theology based on my experience with the universe. Who can really prove I'm wrong about it?

I will never forget an Indian portrayal of Jesus I saw. If I find that image, I will post it here for sure. They had turned Jesus into a blue Krishna like figure. I am serious. Jesus was blue. And he is on the cross, surrounded by a pantheon of deities. This is how different people can turn their divinities according to their social needs, and a lot of other stuff.

I think I've seen both.

Anyway, God is still a topic that was and is discussed philosophically, not only based on relative faith.

Cheers.

That's fine, I consider a debate though an attempt to prove one has the more correct knowledge of God and sometimes I see people making claims about God with a great deal of conviction that their version of God is the correct and true version that everyone must accept.

 

[halbhh]

So your belief is factual because it is whatever you happen to believe

Since you're responding to my example of the moon orbiting the earth (I'm assuming you meant to respond to my post above), then does this mean you see my understanding that the moon orbits the earth as a belief that I just 'happen to believe'?

Is that what you are suggesting?

To me, an understanding I have based on observing external reality isn't in the same category as a
"happen to believe" as if I have a choice. It's more like "recognizing reality."

 

[firedragon]

Yes, I understand but what I'm saying is that there is no provable right or wrong here. We can discuss or views and even call it a debate but can't resolve our differences to a provable truth. IOW I could create a theology based on my experience with the universe. Who can really prove I'm wrong about it?

Well. Honestly that would be an awesome exercise. So create your own theology, and lets see.

I think I've seen both.

Please be kind enough to share that image.

That's fine, I consider a debate though an attempt to prove one has the more correct knowledge of God and sometimes I see people making claims about God with a great deal of conviction that their version of God is the correct and true version that everyone must accept.

True. Well, hell, there are people who worship their wives as Gods. But speaking about other people, this person, that person, and what some people do is like a gossip session across the picket fence. Why not opt in to understand first philosophy, theology, and the god of the physico?

 

[Nakosis]

Since you're responding to my example of the moon orbiting the earth (I'm assuming you meant to respond to my post above), then does this mean you see my understanding that the moon orbits the earth as a belief that I just 'happen to believe'?

Is that what you are suggesting?

To me, an understanding I have based on observing external reality isn't in the same category as a
"happen to believe" as if I have a choice. It's more like "recognizing reality."

Sorry, I was referring to your religious belief being more than opinion. Often people present these as fact.

 

[Nakosis]

Well. Honestly that would be an awesome exercise. So create your own theology, and lets see.

To be honest, one was, I believe, created by my subconscious mind. I don't share it because I don't feel anyone would consider I have any authority when it comes to God.

Please be kind enough to share that image.

True. Well, hell, there are people who worship their wives as Gods. But speaking about other people, this person, that person, and what some people do is like a gossip session across the picket fence. Why not opt in to understand first philosophy, theology, and the god of the physico?

I did. However I suspect this adds fuel to my subconscious to aid in the creation of a God I would find acceptable based on what I think I know.

I see an conscious and an unconscious element to God. This unconscious element I don't think we have a lot of control over. I don't like giving my unconscious mind that much control over God, therefore I harbor no beliefs about God in order to take away its influence.