Your Views on Religion?

[jenny]

ok, that's cool. if there is no way in which xtianity is attempting to claim that it is a logical truth, then what system of thinking is it using?

[moimeme]

FAITH

 

I reiterate my challenge to all the 'scientists' who dispute the existence of God:

 

 

Prove to me that love exists

 

Nobody has yet taken up this challenge, or provided proof.

[BlockHead]

HokeyReligions

maybe I'll jam a Buddha on top of the tree this year!

Whether or not the tree is a Christian symbol, is not an issue. What bothers me is the intent. I don’t think someone should spite a religion because that person has contempt for it. For example, I think it is wrong for me to masturbate with a Buddha statue, even when away from prying eyes.

 

jenny

Blockhead, can you take a shot at explaining how one bridges the gap from uncertainty to religion while remaining logically intact?

I can think of two certainties in life. Death and taxes. There is a great deal of uncertainty and that also applies to science. If I am remembering correctly, even Einstein acknowledged that he would be proven wrong someday.

 

“relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity”

I will call science a religion. It is the pursuit of truth using scientific method, and it has its roots in philosophy. Believe it or not, uncertainty is also factored in.

 

If you want to argue the existence of a deity, you cannot prove nor disprove its existence. The uncertainty will be there until one is dead.

[jenny]

Prove to me that love exists

 

Nobody has yet taken up this challenge, or provided proof.

 

i don't know if love exists. i don't know why i would attempt to prove that. so i would not attempt to assert the objective scientific existence of love.

 

 

Blockhead:

I will call science a religion. It is the pursuit of truth using scientific method, and it has its roots in philosophy

 

that's interesting - can you explicate further? (interestingly, i think this is the path my Jewish friend used to batten down my argumentative hatches )

 

lol, i just noticed this:

For example, I think it is wrong for me to masturbate with a Buddha statue

that's very disturbing, and for some reason, very funny. it would make an awful christmas card picture.

[Ryan]

FAITH

 

This is the problem though.....it immediately becomes circular.

 

You believe in the Christian god because you have faith.

But faith IS the belief.

There's no room in there to arrive or depart from the thought.

 

 

Prove to me that love exists

 

Is your assertion that love does exist?

 

 

If you want to argue the existence of a deity, you cannot prove nor disprove its existence. The uncertainty will be there until one is dead.

 

Which is exactly why I make no conclusions.

[moimeme]

Is your assertion that love does exist?

 

There is something I have felt that, according to my comparison with the stories of others who have felt it, should be defined as 'love'. That is as much proof as I have, which, admittedly, is pretty much none at all. Nonetheless, no matter whether what I have felt is what it is 'supposed' to be, it has been pretty amazing; enough so that I'd sure like to do it again.

 

It's like vision to me; how do I know for sure that the colour I see which is supposedly called 'purple' is exactly the same thing that you see when you look at something that is supposedly 'purple'? How does aspirin work?

 

There are vast quantities of unknowables; that fact comforts me rather than disturbs me.

[Ryan]

There is something I have felt that, according to my comparison with the stories of others who have felt it, should be defined as 'love'.

 

So you believe/participate in the idea of love.

So do I.

 

Can love exist if NOBODY believes/participates in it?

[cindy0039]

My opinion is that love is a feeling, not a belief.

[moimeme]

So you believe/participate in the idea of love.

So do I

 

This could spoil your reputation as a curmudgeon!

 

Can love exist if NOBODY believes/participates in it?

 

If a tree falls in the forest and there is nobody around does it make a sound?

[VASH THE STAMPEDE]

AHHHH, The argument that never ends it goes on and on my friend.

Why must we continue to strive forward in science and technology?????

Is it not to better our selves or to be the superior being in this world?

Do you not have faith in the traffic signal at a busy intersection ,that is not green on all 4 ways?

Do you have not the faith to put the key in your ignition to start that car of yours.

Faith is everywhere how you use it is your sole decision.

For Christians is the belief that there is a GOD who watches over us and in the end would deliver us unto heavens gates.

Everyone will view it different so why continue to argue????

Why continue to try to prove each other wrong??

[VASH THE STAMPEDE]

[Originally posted by VASH THE STAMPEDE

Do you have not the faith to put the key in your ignition to start that car of yours?

 

Thats if you don't have a pinto.

[Ryan]

I wasn't being facetious....that's a legitimate question.

[cindy0039]

Originally posted by moimeme

If a tree falls in the forest and there is nobody around does it make a sound?

 

I thought the exact same thing when I read that post. Scary. hehe

[moimeme]

I wasn't being facetious....that's a legitimate question

 

Yes, but like the tree in the forest question, it's unanswerable. It isn't possible to postulate a world where nobody believes or participates in love because to do so, you'd have first come to an agreement on what 'love' is and right there you'd get stuck. Ask whether life would end if nobody believed in or participated in it and I'd say yes. But whether love itself existed - it's the same as asking whether God would exist. Both are as unprovable in their presence as in their theorized absence.

 

To get really convoluted, it has to exist for an absence to be recognized so even at the meta-level, you run into problems. You might be able to discuss what would happen if nobody believed in the concept of love, but then you'd have to know what that was, as well. So you see, my answer was not at all facetious. Rather, it was analogous.

[moimeme]

I thought the exact same thing when I read that post. Scary. hehe

 

[amerikajin]

No two people will see the same face of God. What we refer to as God, what we define as our spiritual beliefs and everything that results therefrom, is shaped by our own experiences as individuals. No two individuals will ever share an identical experience. Not even genetic twins. Not even conjoined twins. There's always something slightly different in the way two individuals experience the outside world, and consequently, there are always going to be differences in the way two individuals perceive it.

 

Communal spirituality isn't necessarily a societal scourge. As individuals, our experiences comprise an infinitesimally small proportion of the collective consciousness that is humanity. Sharing our experiences in an effort to reach a better understanding of the phenomena around us is, I think, at the heart of our existence as humans. We are creatures of insatiable curiosity, and spirituality in its purest form is an attempt to satisfy that curiosity.

 

What offends those of us who consider ourselves religious skeptics is when fallible humans assume the role of messengers and attempt to indoctrinate masses of people. History is littered with examples of how organized religions create and establish hierarchy, and that those who sit comfortably at the apex of this social food chain often subjugate the meek. The resistance you witness on these boards and among free-thinking people around the world is one that questions the need for hierarchy, one that questions the wisdom or rules or procedures so that we may become closer to our Creator - a force that ordinary humans presumably cannot understand in its entirety, if at all.

 

What do we make of faith? Faith, as it is commonly understood, is the assumption that there will be a certain outcome. While I respect the "faith" of others and would never seek to shake such spiritual foundation, I find the notion of faith in a predicted outcome beyond our physical lives here on earth to be of limited utility. On the one hand, there is no doubt some degree in comfort among those who accept the outcome that has been laid out before them; on the other, it contradicts the sensibilities of those who accept the fact that there is so much in this world we cannot know, cannot understand, cannot explain, that to assume we understand an experience none of us yet have (death), simply wouldn't be too prudent.

[BlockHead]

VASH THE STAMPEDE

AHHHH, The argument that never ends it goes on and on my friend.

It will end once humanity is extinct.

 

VASH THE STAMPEDE

Do you not have faith in the traffic signal at a busy intersection ,that is not green on all 4 ways?

Statistically, there is a failure rate. The probability that all four lights will be greed does exist. Not all bombs that are dropped will explode. Not every hamburger will be rat free. How many grasshoppers will you find in your bowl of cereal today?

[Ryan]

It isn't possible to postulate a world where nobody believes or participates in love because to do so, you'd have first come to an agreement on what 'love' is and right there you'd get stuck.

 

This is not an issue, because you can define love however you want. It doesn't change the fact that you ARE defining it.

Now let's suppose nobody defines it because nobody believes in it or participates in it. Does love still exist?

 

 

Ask whether life would end if nobody believed in or participated in it and I'd say yes.

 

This is not what I asked.

 

Both are as unprovable in their presence as in their theorized absence.

 

I beg to differ.

 

To get really convoluted, it has to exist for an absence to be recognized so even at the meta-level, you run into problems.

 

Not an issue either...we're not assuming a CHANGE in existence. There is no recognized absence because there is no recognized presence. This is the crux of the question and I don't want to get too far away from it.

 

You have two possible choices:

 

1. Love exists even if nobody believes/participates in it. If you go with this answer, you have the hefty task of explaining how it does so external from the human mind.

 

2. Love does not exist if nobody believes/participates in it.....or otherwise stated, love exists if at least one person believes/participates in it.

[amerikajin]

I think that love is felt and defined by an individual. I think it is relatively safe to say that humans are creatures of emotions, possessive of both likes and dislikes (as we generally understand both). As it is commonly understood, love and hate are respective extremes on the same sliding scale. They are subject to the perceptions of the individual, which gets back to the individual experience.

[BlockHead]

moimeme

There is something I have felt that, according to my comparison with the stories of others who have felt it, should be defined as 'love'.

This is a poor definition, and it could mean almost anything. For example, did you get this feeling after sex, after insulting a friend, or after beating an animal?

 

Ryan, how do you define love?

moimeme, do you want to redefine it?

 

Here is the definition of love according to Paul.

1 COR 13

Love is patient, love is kind. It is not jealous, [love] is not pompous, it is not inflated, it is not rude, it does not seek its own interests, it is not quick-tempered, it does not brood over injury, it does not rejoice over wrongdoing but rejoices with the truth. It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never fails.

 

Why are we talking about this? This is way off topic.

[cindy0039]

2. Love does not exist if nobody believes/participates in it.....or otherwise stated, love exists if at least one person believes/participates in it.

 

Ryan, I'm afraid I'm not following you on the love question. My theory is: We (as humans) exist, therefore our feelings and emotions exist. Love is one of them. Do you disagree?

[moimeme]

M:

Ask whether life would end if nobody believed in or participated in it and I'd say yes.

R:

This is not what I asked.

 

I knew that. However, I asked and answered it.

 

because you can define love however you want. It doesn't change the fact that you ARE defining it.

Now let's suppose nobody defines it because nobody believes in it or participates in it. Does love still exist?

1. Love exists even if nobody believes/participates in it. If you go with this answer, you have the hefty task of explaining how it does so external from the human mind.

 

Apparently, it is your contention that nothing exists or can exist outside of the human mind and that is the basis for your question. Surely you realize this premise is flawed. The earth is round. It was round when nobody could possibly understand or prove the roundness of the earth. Eventually, people figured out how to prove it.

 

That would be my contention about love, God, or anything. That we cannot prove their existence only means we are too unskilled and unknowing to figure out how to prove them, not that they don't exist. You might as well ask whether purple flying people-eaters exist. My answer is the same. Whether our minds can conceive of things is irrelevant to the fact of their existence.

 

If you disagree with this, I'd love to hear your supporting ideas.

 

M:

Both are as unprovable in their presence as in their theorized absence.

 

R:

I beg to differ.

 

Then please do! Explain how either would be provable either in their presence or absence.

 

There is no recognized absence because there is no recognized presence.

 

We haven't even established that it exists now when people believe in it and, ostensibly, participate in it Surely you'd agree that positing the theoretical absence of something which may already be absent is inutile.

 

I want to return to my original question: Does love exist here and now? If yes, prove it.

 

moimeme, do you want to redefine it?

 

I wasn't defining it in the first place. I said that I had read others' definitions which seem to describe an experience I have had and that's the only way I surmise that I may have loved.

 

BH

Why are we talking about this? This is way off topic.

 

To reiterate one more time again; my reply to people who demand I prove that God exists is that they prove love exists. I have no intention of 'proving' it exists and therefore won't be drawn into that discussion. I want you to prove it to me.

[Ryan]

Apparently, it is your contention that nothing exists or can exist outside of the human mind and that is the basis for your question.

 

Nope...and this is irrelevant.

 

Then please do!

 

I'm trying to....but I'm not getting much cooperation. People are reading and analyzing a ton into the topic, which is getting way off my point.

 

I want to return to my original question: Does love exist here and now? If yes, prove it.

 

I will....if you stick with my original question. Don't stretch it into some philosophical imperative ...don't pick pieces of it out to analyze....don't get mired in semantics.

 

I asked you if you believed/participated in love. You said yes. I also said yes.

 

Now, can love, which is an idea, exist if NOBODY believes/participates in it?

[moimeme]

love, which is an idea

 

IF you have decided to define love as 'an idea', now I can answer. Of course it can exist even if nobody participates or believes. If love is an idea, it already exists as an idea! That a person believes in an idea is apart from its existence as a concept. So the purple-people-eater exists as a concept, certainly.

 

However, if it is your question whether can love exist if the idea or concept of love never existed, that's a whole other question

 

which is getting way off my point.

 

Yes, but Ryan, your point got off my point which is 'prove that love exists'. My point was not 'see if Merry can prove love exists'.

[BlockHead]

moimeme

Now let's suppose nobody defines it because nobody believes in it or participates in it. Does love still exist?

If it isn’t defined, you cannot call it love. It would be a set of feelings or emotions that a person cannot explain or understand, and because of that, a person cannot act on them.

 

Imagine that my parents never showed me affection, I had no friends, and the whole world was against me. I only experienced pain, misery, loneliness, and humiliation. Could you explain to me what love is? Does love exist in my world?