Religion- Oh no not that again

[Oniya]

For me, the big turn-off in Catholicism was "God sends unbaptized babies to Purgatory, because they're born sinful". Yeah, really? You sure that's not just mortal men trying to frighten people into bolstering the ranks of the "faithful"? Because if there's a God (and I really don't believe there is) and babies are indeed sent to Purgatory, God's either the meanest, cruelest being who's ever been, or he just doesn't give enough of a damn. Either way, not someone who deserves my faith, prayer or worship.

Just as a note, Purgatory is defined in every place I've looked as a temporary 'cleansing station' on the way to Heaven.  (From L. pūrgāre  to cleanse.) Even if you go with the Dantean depiction (where unbaptized babies and 'virtuous Pagans' go to Limbo) the only 'cruelty' they suffer is to pass eternity outside of God's presence.  Which, if you follow a different Path to begin with, ain't all that bad.

[Tiberius]

Basically even Dante says Purgatory is a place where non-Christians go.

[Zakharra]

 So one person's Heaven is another person's Hell?

[Missy]

I've heard every place outside of the presence of god referred to as hell. Meaning the earth is hell, unless you have some form of spiritual connection with god.

It's not something I agree with having explored things which god doesn't approve of and finding them to be actually quite agreeable in most cases.

[Oniya]

Basically even Dante says Purgatory is a place where non-Christians go.

Incorrect.  According to Dante, the 'virtuous Pagans' were those that (like Virgil) didn't have a chance to know Christ, and they went to Limbo (which was described in Canto IV of the Inferno as the 'first circle of Hell').  As I said before, though, it was described as a place without any suffering other than being outside of the Presence of God.  It wasn't bad, but it was a static state.

Purgatory (again, per Dante) was a separate place entirely, where the 'penitent dead' could work off their sins, and eventually move upward to Paradise.  Although there was some suffering (dependent on the degree of sin), it was accepted willingly as a way to achieve Grace.  Pagans (as non-penitents - or at least, with no interest in gaining access to the Christian Paradise) wouldn't fit into that cosmology.

(Sorry, I've read the Divine Comedy numerous times since 9th grade.  Need to replace my copy of Purgatorio at some point.)

[MasterMischief]

I'll say the same thing I said to a woman who once said she wished God would just program and force everyone to love him.  Forced love and adoration is worthless and meaningless.  Imagine a whole bunch of slaves that are charmed to adore you unconditionally.  Sure, it would be great at first, but eventually it would get annoying.  That, and you would know they didn't love you as a person.  There would be no connection.  It would be empty.

Also, that would defeat the purpose of life.  We all have our own paths, and the world is full of diversity because of it. 

As I see it, that only works so long as god is not all powerful.  He/she/it has to obey the rules of reality.  As soon as you imagine an all powerful god, we no longer can apply the rules of our universe.  An all powerful god can make forced adoration quite wonderful.  He/she/it can make the meaning of life whatever they want.

Putting all that aside, without presenting his/her/itself, how can we ever know we are loving the 'right' god?  If I just have to rely on faith, what is the difference between putting faith in the judeo-christian god from the hindu gods from the norse gods from...well, hopefully you get the idea.  The idea of 'opening your mind and feeling what is right' smells too much like the placebo affect.  If you 'try' any religion hard enough, you are going to get that warm fuzzy.

[YaoiRolePlay]

I feel like this is relevant to the discussion:

Open-mindedness

[Missy]

thanks for the vid Yaoi, excellent pick bro. I think I'll post it to facebook.

One thing I want to add is that while it does seem, in my experience anyway, that religious people are more prone these sorts of logical fallacies I think it's just as possible for Aetheists to be closed minded about ideas presented by religious folks. I choose to be a Secular Aetheist and not an anti-theist in order to maintain an open mind about the possibility of the supernatural or deity. In my experience there is little evidence presentable for either however, as it almost always seems, in my experience, that those who argue for the supernatural and deity seem to do so with a sort of foregone conclusion in mind. In my experience, it seems almost always whatever the argument or event or anything else is 'god had something to do with it', they say: 'well it was the priesthood holders blessing that made the difference' and if you suppose the CPR was more likely to have saved the kid's life than a prayer then it's: 'well maybe that's just god's way of making it happen'. I would be fine with religion if it seemed rational to me, but ti seems that so often it's not about the logical process as it is about the dogmatic 'god is' as a foregone conclusion. I feel ethically obligated to explore the possibility that god does or does not exist, I have found little evidence that god does. No offense is intended.

Since I have the feeling Yaoi's post was partially directed at me I hope that explanation puts some of my feelings into context and makes my position a bit more understandable, or at least makes me seem less unreasonable.

[Isobel]

Great post MCsc.  Evidence is the key.

For me, once I asked 'is Faith really a good idea?' the religion I was brought up in fell apart instantly.

[vtboy]

As I see it, that only works so long as god is not all powerful.  He/she/it has to obey the rules of reality.  As soon as you imagine an all powerful god, we no longer can apply the rules of our universe.  An all powerful god can make forced adoration quite wonderful.  He/she/it can make the meaning of life whatever they want.

It always seems that, when confronted with some aspect of religion's teachings that just don't make no sense nohow, the faithful always fall back on the excuse that god's ways and purposes exceed the capacity of man's understanding.

But, doesn't religion, at least the Abrahamic ones, also teach that god made man in his image? I never thought this was meant to suggest a physical resemblance, but instead expressed a more fundamental similarity -- that man and god are of the same nature, and are alike in their perception and conception of reality. If so, doesn't our inclination to understand the world through reason mirror the same trait in god? And, if that is true, how can it be that god would ever ignore reason and empiricism, much less hold man in any less esteem for preferring these to faith?

[Rinzler]

It always seems that, when confronted with some aspect of religion's teachings that just don't make no sense nohow, the faithful always fall back on the excuse that god's ways and purposes exceed the capacity of man's understanding.

But, doesn't religion, at least the Abrahamic ones, also teach that god made man in his image? I never thought this was meant to suggest a physical resemblance, but instead expressed a more fundamental similarity -- that man and god are of the same nature, and are alike in their perception and conception of reality. If so, doesn't our inclination to understand the world through reason mirror the same trait in god? And, if that is true, how can it be that god would ever ignore reason and empiricism, much less hold man in any less esteem for preferring these to faith?

Because god works in mysterious ways, of course!

Sorry. Couldn't resist. In any case, I agree - it's a tiresome, hackneyed, circular utter non-argument which gets even more timesome when the complacent godbot who offers it up then sits back with a smug look on his or her face, as if they'd just issued some exquisite theological profundity that would surely have made Aquinas shit himself with elightenment to hear it.

[YaoiRolePlay]

Since I have the feeling Yaoi's post was partially directed at me I hope that explanation puts some of my feelings into context and makes my position a bit more understandable, or at least makes me seem less unreasonable.

Actually no, it wasn't intended towards anyone in particular. I just thought it would add a lot to the discussion.

One thing I want to add is that while it does seem, in my experience anyway, that religious people are more prone these sorts of logical fallacies I think it's just as possible for Aetheists to be closed minded about ideas presented by religious folks. I choose to be a Secular Aetheist and not an anti-theist in order to maintain an open mind about the possibility of the supernatural or deity. In my experience there is little evidence presentable for either however, as it almost always seems, in my experience, that those who argue for the supernatural and deity seem to do so with a sort of foregone conclusion in mind. In my experience, it seems almost always whatever the argument or event or anything else is 'god had something to do with it', they say: 'well it was the priesthood holders blessing that made the difference' and if you suppose the CPR was more likely to have saved the kid's life than a prayer then it's: 'well maybe that's just god's way of making it happen'. I would be fine with religion if it seemed rational to me, but ti seems that so often it's not about the logical process as it is about the dogmatic 'god is' as a foregone conclusion. I feel ethically obligated to explore the possibility that god does or does not exist, I have found little evidence that god does. No offense is intended.

That is what religion does. It starts with the conclusion "God exists" and works backwards, creating the arguments and the data to fit the conclusion, with said conclusion already established. Science is exactly the opposite. Science looks at the data and comes up with the arguments that fits the data and ending in the conclusion. This is the reason why science and religion have fought each other so hard throughout history because they are, at their very core, incompatible with each other.

[rick957]

Open-mindedness

Very nice video presentation.  As to the actual ideas contained therein?  Erm, "methinks the lady doth protest too much."  I found his logic quite wanting.  But then again, how does anyone argue against an opponent with such a formidable accent?  It's just a hopeless undertaking! :)

Why I Hate Religion, But Love Jesus || Spoken Word

Did anyone else get through this?  IMO, and despite the fact that I don't agree with all of it, I thought it was the meatiest, most original, most subversive, and least conventional proposition I've encountered yet in this thread.  (Not to snub anyone though, I've enjoyed the discussion on all sides).  Of course, it's a bit facile to introduce such a sophisticated proposition relying entirely on someone else's polished formulation of the argument, but that doesn't make the argument any more or less substantial.  IMOOOOoooo

Putting all that aside, without presenting his/her/itself, how can we ever know we are loving the 'right' god?  If I just have to rely on faith, what is the difference between putting faith in the judeo-christian god from the hindu gods from the norse gods from...well, hopefully you get the idea.  The idea of 'opening your mind and feeling what is right' smells too much like the placebo affect.  If you 'try' any religion hard enough, you are going to get that warm fuzzy.

Is this what religion is for, this "warm fuzzy" you speak of?  Hehehehe :)  Seriously though, in my opinion, the answer is that your heart/gut/innermost self will -- must, in fact -- sniff out the truth from all the heaping mountains of variegated bullshit ... if and only if you put your goddamn head down and prepare for a very long dig.  :)  Again IMO.  (Full disclosure:  I am a Christian.)  (I.E., dismiss my views altogether!, if you have any sense whatsoever.)

[YaoiRolePlay]

Very nice video presentation.  As to the actual ideas contained therein?  Erm, "methinks the lady doth protest too much."  I found his logic quite wanting.

How so?

[Rinzler]

Is this what religion is for, this "warm fuzzy" you speak of?  Hehehehe :)  Seriously though, in my opinion, the answer is that your heart/gut/innermost self will -- must, in fact -- sniff out the truth from all the heaping mountains of variegated bullshit

Has to be said, the heart/gut/innermost self is pretty good for sniffing out the truth - it can even find a truth that contradicts another person's truth!  ;D

[YaoiRolePlay]

Is this what religion is for, this "warm fuzzy" you speak of?  Hehehehe :)  Seriously though, in my opinion, the answer is that your heart/gut/innermost self will -- must, in fact -- sniff out the truth from all the heaping mountains of variegated bullshit ...

I feel like my innermost self is telling me that there are giant pink unicorns everywhere outside. -looks outside- But it's the truth for me! It must be real! -goes and cries- Why are you trying to prove that my giant pink unicorns aren't real? :( You just hate giant pink unicorns don't you?

As for the gut:

I'll let Colbert say it for me.

[Tiberius]

Pink unicorns? Are your eyes out of whack? I thought they were blue unicorns! O.o

[YaoiRolePlay]

No you uneducated heathen, they are pink. Damn, sometimes the low intelligence of humanity astounds me.

[Tiberius]

I know right! O.o

[Haloriel]

Personally, I do not, nor have I ever found my religion nor my trust in science and the methodology espoused by both to be on opposite ends, or at war or anything else.  I am perfectly fine accepting that the universe is quite large - as well as praying because there is a tradition for me to do so.

Religion does not bring about strife, war, or anything else.  It is like, in my humble opinion, blaming a gun for a persons death - or the oft quoth blaming of any diety - regardless of whether said all powerful or not being is Abrahamic, derived of Buddhism, or any other systemic and specifically community oriented part of a way of life.

Just as science is simply a way to explain something, so to is religion.  For me, they are merely chapters in a story that is yet to be completed, and indubitably never will be.  Happy Easter, and Pesach or whatever else to all that celebrate and a good weekend to those that do not.  O:)

[Rinzler]

Just as science is simply a way to explain something, so to is religion.

Sorry, but with all due respect, if you're looking to explain something correctly, religion just doesn't do a good enough job of it.

[Tiberius]

Religion doesn't have all the facts while it is able to prove some things, other things they cannot and say its the will of god because they dont have an answer for it

[MasterMischief]

Is this what religion is for, this "warm fuzzy" you speak of?  Hehehehe :)  Seriously though, in my opinion, the answer is that your heart/gut/innermost self will -- must, in fact -- sniff out the truth from all the heaping mountains of variegated bullshit ... if and only if you put your goddamn head down and prepare for a very long dig. 

You do not find it the least bit suspicious that everyone's innermost self always finds 'the truth' in whatever they are most exposed to?

[Haloriel]

Sorry, but with all due respect, if you're looking to explain something correctly, religion just doesn't do a good enough job of it.

I said - more or less - that a belief in something that is not science does no harm, just as a trust in the scientific method as a way of discovery as well is also valid.  Let all men and women believe as they wish so long as it hurts no one.  I placed no bank of truth in one over the other.  As a writer, a historian, and hopefully a good parent - that would make absolutely no sense at all for me.  Throughout human history, lands have been stolen, snatched; war happens to every nation and people - it is the way of empires to rise and fall like the oceans - because we as humans make it so.  To then comment that something is not done 'correctly' ... sadly, but with all due respect - I felt no respect at all in your commentary.  If I recall correctly, humans have used the excuse of 'correctness' to destroy so many cultures and whom knows what else - I tend to count all ancestors as guilty of being ordinary.

Religions, and our various philosophies do so much more than explain how the world works.  If I tried to explain to a child the biology of man according one view, I would end up at the same end result - more questions - the same as I wouldn't get anywhere trying to explain morally why it is not nice to be a jerk, or consider a persons views with cynicism rather than with an open heart and mind ... there would be more questions.

For plenty of people, the adage of civilisation works for them.  So why poke at it because it doesn't fit your world view?  When I see a person that believes fully and completely in their Catholic dogma, or Karmic wheel ... I do not ever mock them, nor would I say - your beliefs are incorrect, or that my way is better.

Telling a person they are wrong is probably how we get in these silly messes in the first place.  The fact that I was rather kind - and took neither side and as well took a moment to wish everyone well and the only thing noted in my post was my correctness or perceived thereof ... truly makes me rather sad ... not offended, but sad.

So then, upon what side do we spread our butter on the bread?  Side up or down?  I like both if I eat it at all.  Truth is the same as beauty - but I like to think that every person has a small piece of the story - which isn't all bad.  Else what exactly is the point to continue to exist?  Surely not for new cars and other such nonsense.  Even villains likely have a purpose, as truly depraved as some can be.

It seems as though it is why blanket statements rules the internet.

[vtboy]

Though I believe empiricism the only true guide to understanding the world, I have no issue with anyone who seeks understanding through faith. One cannot deny, though, that organized religion has had a rather checkered history when it has come to its efforts to establish the kingdom of heaven on earth. Thus, to the advantages I perceive in science over religion as a method of truth finding, I would add its preference for conducting debate at the podium rather than at the stake.