What's your religion?

[Hooves]

Originally Posted by Ricky Controversy

That is one reason, but it is far from being 'the' reason that people believe in God, no more than having bad experiences being raised in a religious environment is 'the' reason people are atheist or anti-theist, or experience with death and cruelty 'the' reason people become pessimistic nihilists.

One can't hope to understand a person's reasons for thinking what they do without investigating it on a personal level.

Well its impossible to exactly tell the amount of reasons people convert to religion for spiritual guidance. There will never be an exact amount of ways I was just saying one of the ways that people choose religion.

[EnchantingPrincess]

Originally Posted by Hooves

Well, that is true that there is not much philosophy needed to just live a good, original life, unless you are near fanatics who are always encouraging people in any way to join a religion.



Well people get the idea of a god, or gods because they might be in a tough situation, and seek imaginary advice from a being that they believe exists. Usually its just the luck spurring in, but the people think it was a miracle of god's work. So that is why people believe in a god or gods. There are millions of people in the world, some have said they have word from God, making them idealistic prophets. But to many people for one being to contact with

Just my thoughts on why people believe in God.

My brother once told be people couldn't come up with such things with out seeing it Like a dragon for example he told me a person just couldn't imagine it unless a person sees something.... So he was saying something like imagination comes from seeing something real.... (I can't explain it any better) So that could be another reason
I know someone might try to argue with what I was saying, but please don't try it its just another opinion and I am not saying it is true or not, but I kind of believe what he says is true
Almost like ideas come from other ideas...erm

[Tsuyoshi]

Originally Posted by SweetPrincess

My brother once told be people couldn't come up with such things with out seeing it Like a dragon for example he told me a person just couldn't imagine it unless a person sees something.... So he was saying something like imagination comes from seeing something real.... (I can't explain it any better) So that could be another reason
I know someone might try to argue with what I was saying, but please don't try it its just another opinion and I am not saying it is true or not, but I kind of believe what he says is true
Almost like ideas come from other ideas...erm

This is partly true. Some of the things they see could inspire one's imagination. Otherwise, this would imply dragons did exist irl, but whoever came up with dragons most likely saw something like this:

Spoiler for Real dragon:

Or vampires even. Someone could easily have seen a Vampire bat, or be bitten by one, and the thought occurred to him/her: what if humans could do this? Not all bats suck people's blood after all. And thus, Dracula was born.

Imagination and creativity could be inspired from any given source, be it an animal, a place, a thing, you name it.

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by Tsuyoshi

Or vampires even. Someone could easily have seen a Vampire bat, or be bitten by one, and the thought occurred to him/her: what if humans could do this? Not all bats suck people's blood after all. And thus, Dracula was born.

Doubt it. Vampire bats are South and Central American. Dracula's Eastern European. From before Columbus' discovery.

[Hooves]

Now this is just folk-tale but people have believed Vampires have existed ever since the Mesopotamians, Hebrews, Ancient Greeks, and Roman times. Meaning that it could have just passed on from generation to generation till now. But the vampires we know now originated at the 18th century Southeastern Europe. But as Anh_Minh said, Dracula has existed before Columbus' discovery... Or is that what you meant?

[Anh_Minh]

No, I mean that Dracula was Eastern European and lived before Columbus' voyage. And yeah, bloodsuckers are an old myth. But the link between the Western tradition of vampires and vampire bats is a recent addition. (Can't vouch for South American tales of bloodsuckers, if there are any. And there may have been a link between Western bloodsuckers and non-vampire, European bats).

[EnchantingPrincess]

Originally Posted by Tsuyoshi

This is partly true. Some of the things they see could inspire one's imagination. Otherwise, this would imply dragons did exist irl, but whoever came up with dragons most likely saw something like this:

Spoiler for Real dragon:

Or vampires even. Someone could easily have seen a Vampire bat, or be bitten by one, and the thought occurred to him/her: what if humans could do this? Not all bats suck people's blood after all. And thus, Dracula was born.

Imagination and creativity could be inspired from any given source, be it an animal, a place, a thing, you name it.

I think some people may have also come up with dragons because Eve, when she was tempted to bite the apple, she saw a serpent with wings and legs. So that could be another reason (Also thats what I was told)
Thank you for making what i was trying to say clearer

[Tsuyoshi]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

Doubt it. Vampire bats are South and Central American. Dracula's Eastern European. From before Columbus' discovery.

Mine was just an example to give an idea of how people could come up with things. I didn't mean that's how it actually happened, but how myths could come to be. That was really the point of what I was trying to say.

[Kaijo]

All myths are based upon something. And that something gets distorted with time, like the game of "telephone" where you all sit in a circle, and one person whispers something into a person's ear, and it travels around the circle... the last person speaks it aloud, and it no longer bears any resemblance to what it started as.

And some things are just stories made to entertain, that somewhere along the line, people accept as the gospel truth. Humans have great imaginations.

[ChainLegacy]

The thing I like about the myths of hunter gatherers around the world is how they essentially put god in the position of the plants and animals from their region and often the sun as well. It makes sense to me that they see these life sustaining elements as god itself, and seems a lot better position than many of the religions which ultimately became warped by civilization (sometimes even as a tool of control).

[Ascaloth]

So. Many. Uses.

I would say I am astounded at how so many of you have failed to see what Cipher is trying to play at, but given his propensity for prolixity, that becomes a lot less of a surprise.

Basically, what Cipher is attempting is really one of the oldest known debating methods in history . If you guys are wondering why he seems to be asking questions for the sake of asking questions....well, that is the point. Because he takes a solipsist viewpoint, that particular debate technique is suited for his motives, given that it is designed to demonstrate ignorance in the questionee.

To summarize, Cipher believes himself wise because he claims ignorance of the true nature of reality. So, instead of putting out his own propositions which he will have to defend, he makes himself immune to enquiry by not doing so, and instead poses questions liberally salted with logorrhea to draw others into giving their propositions, which he can then attack through more questions. What he's aiming for here is to attack others' propositions regarding the true nature of reality; eventually forcing people to the conclusion that since the true nature of reality cannot be known, the "rational" choice would be to believe in a Demiurge who is the creator of this reality, while being outside reality itself.

In short, Cipher is just attempting what I've apparently gained a reputation for, minus the fallacies. Somebody's been learning.

Now you know.

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

What I'm likely to have said is an iteration of the above, that because of the limitations of our senses, there are very likely things that are forever beyond our ability to know. That being the case, the proper attitude of one who sincerely wishes to learn is to keep as open a mind as possible, to always question one's basic assumptions, because there is always a chance that we may have unwittingly closed our minds to other ways of perceiving truth.

By that I do not mean to imply that there are many "kinds" of truth, but rather that there are many possible ways to the "truth". In any case, it's a bit pointless to ask whether there is just one truth or many truths because we will never have any way of getting that answer, let alone verify it.

I would like to ask if this is just your way of stating a belief in polylogism?

In the end, religion is but one out of many possible worldviews. In particular, it provides one of the most obvious means for finding or creating meaning for our existence, that which gives our life value. From this perspective alone, I can find something of profound value in religion, something worthy of respect, secular though my worldview may be.

To paraphrase Dawkins, "There is something infantile in the presumption that somebody else has a responsibility to give your life meaning and point."

[Ricky Controversy]

Originally Posted by Ascaloth

*Snip for obvious*

You're a little overly generous with poor communicators, has anyone ever told you that? XD

To paraphrase Dawkins, "There is something infantile in the presumption that somebody else has a responsibility to give your life meaning and point."

Unless the meaning of your life is in the fact of existence, all structures of meaning will inevitably draw on some external source. Dawkins himself is a fine example, since he has hitched himself firmly to his advocacy. To measure value in relation to external factors is not always a bad thing. It's a matter of being wise in pursuit of whatever value you are focused on. Take note that I'm not denying that existence itself can be its own merit, but why does that inherently make external values inherently 'infantile'?

[ChainLegacy]

I do think there is an innate worth in humanity. We're insignificant in the grand scheme of things, but we are sentient beings with some knowledge of the vastness of the universe we inhabit. Our species (and any other sentient species that may or may not exist in the universe) are almost a mouthpiece for existence itself. With this in mind, I don't necessarily think worth can only be achieved through a creator, even if that is a more familiar concept to humans.

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by Ascaloth

So. Many. Uses.

I would say I am astounded at how so many of you have failed to see what Cipher is trying to play at, but given his propensity for prolixity, that becomes a lot less of a surprise.

Basically, what Cipher is attempting is really one of the oldest known debating methods in history .

I'm no expert, but I'd say he's doing it poorly. Not enough forward momentum. We've already acknowledged that solipsism isn't wrong. Why can't he move on?

If you guys are wondering why he seems to be asking questions for the sake of asking questions....well, that is the point. Because he takes a solipsist viewpoint, that particular debate technique is suited for his motives, given that it is designed to demonstrate ignorance in the questionee.

To summarize, Cipher believes himself wise because he claims ignorance of the true nature of reality. So, instead of putting out his own propositions which he will have to defend, he makes himself immune to enquiry by not doing so, and instead poses questions liberally salted with logorrhea to draw others into giving their propositions, which he can then attack through more questions. What he's aiming for here is to attack others' propositions regarding the true nature of reality; eventually forcing people to the conclusion that since the true nature of reality cannot be known, the "rational" choice would be to believe in a Demiurge who is the creator of this reality, while being outside reality itself.

What? "The universe is unknowable, therefore God"? How does that work?

[Ascaloth]

Originally Posted by Ricky Controversy

You're a little overly generous with poor communicators, has anyone ever told you that? XD

First time I've heard of it, but it probably won't be the last.

Unless the meaning of your life is in the fact of existence, all structures of meaning will inevitably draw on some external source. Dawkins himself is a fine example, since he has hitched himself firmly to his advocacy. To measure value in relation to external factors is not always a bad thing. It's a matter of being wise in pursuit of whatever value you are focused on. Take note that I'm not denying that existence itself can be its own merit, but why does that inherently make external values inherently 'infantile'?

The key in that quote here, is "somebody else". Measuring value in relation to external factors is not, as you said, inherently bad in itself; the problem begins when people assume that some other being must be responsible for their well-being and meaning in life.

I cut "(parents in the children, God in the case of adults)" from the sentence I quoted to avoid neg reps, but apparently doing so would cut out some key ideas, so.....damned if I do, damned if I don't.

As ChainLegacy said, there are plenty of alternatives from which we can draw meaning in our lives, without having to invoke some sort of deity to ascribe us this meaning. I'd give an example, but as always, there's always someone who says it better than I do.

"We are going to die, and that makes us the lucky ones. Most people are never going to die because they are never going to be born....We know this because the set of possible people allowed by our DNA so massively exceeds the set of actual people. In the teeth of these stupefying odds it is you and I, in our ordinariness, that are here." - Richard Dawkins, Unweaving the Rainbow

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

What? "The universe is unknowable, therefore God"? How does that work?

Ask him. I haven't a clue.

[Haak]

Originally Posted by Ascaloth

To paraphrase Dawkins, "There is something infantile in the presumption that somebody else has a responsibility to give your life meaning and point."

Well if you think God is just 'somebody else'.

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by Haak

Well if you think God is just 'somebody else'.

I... think it's worse than merely "infantile" to think that you yourself are God.

[Ascaloth]

Originally Posted by Haak

Well if you think God is just 'somebody else'.

I do say that "God", if "He" exists, is certainly 'somebody else'. I would not presume to be "Him".

[EnchantingPrincess]

Originally Posted by Ascaloth

I do say that "God", if "He" exists, is certainly 'somebody else'. I would not presume to be "Him".

Well they do say "Men" are made under Gods image....
Unless that means all humans....

[Haak]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

I... think it's worse than merely "infantile" to think that you yourself are God.

Originally Posted by Ascaloth

I do say that "God", if "He" exists, is certainly 'somebody else'. I would not presume to be "Him".

Let me clarify: I could understand Dawkins point if he was talking about some other fallable human being. But I don't think it's infantile if you believe that somebody else is infallable, omnipitent, omniscient, and not just has the responsibility to give your life meaning and point but everything else in existence. 'Somebody else' makes it sound as if it's no one special.

In any case I don't think it's fair to say it's "infantile that somebody else has a responsibility to give your life meaning and point". Why not? If there's no intrinsic meaning to life and it's all what we make it then the meaning we give is all relative. If that's the case then who are we to judge the meaning other people give? I think he oversteps his own boundraries by saying things like that.