What's your religion?

[roriconfan]

Originally Posted by Cipher

But you do have the choice to ignore needs and the pain resulted from it. Perhaps there are examples of such individuals?

Yes, and their name is Budha.

[Quzor]

Originally Posted by Cipher

I understand that the "self" is proven but how does this provide evidence for "reality"? Self-existence is an axiom but it does not "describe" true reality, or does it? Having Self-existence does not remove a "breach" of "reality", or does it?

How is perception reality until proven otherwise?

Again, this is delving far more into philosophy than religion. There is no religion in the world, that I know of, that makes it's basis upon the fact that we are not, and do not, exist in a real reality.

Originally Posted by roriconfan

About free will... it can never be entirely free. You need to choose between a certain number of choices. You can't do anything you want and therefore you don't have infinite possibilities to do something. If you are rich, fanatized or very aware of a subject you can have a lot more options but still not infinite. Also, even choosing the best of all options you have before you, you still are not exactly free. You still choose based on your needs and desires. You are a slave to your needs that dictate your course. So, no free will not even there.

By the way, a Hindu philosopher had a great catchphrase about this.
"There is not such thing as free will. It is made of two words that contradict one another".
...And in a way he is damn right. If you want something you are not really free.

My issue concerning free will was not that it is outside the influence of certain needs or wants, it was that it must remain outside the influence of the divine. As I've said before, if God knows the decision you are going to make before you make it, then you are not making a decision; you are acting directly in line with the pre-determined will of God. By definition, if man is to have free will (that is, free of God), then God must not know the outcome of the decisions which man must use his free will to make. If he does, they are not decisions according to the free will of man.

[roriconfan]

Originally Posted by Quzor

There is no religion in the world, that I know of, that makes it's basis upon the fact that we are not, and do not, exist in a real reality.

Well, it makes sense in a way. Religions promise a better way of life by presenting the current one as faulty. And they are right in a way. Each religion provides a set of rules for the believer to feel more secure in his actions.

Although there are nature based religions that are just telling you how to live in harmony with nature or the way the world works.

[Quzor]

Originally Posted by roriconfan

Well, it makes sense in a way. Religions promise a better way of life by presenting the current one as faulty. And they are right in a way. Each religion provides a set of rules for the believer to feel more secure in his actions.

Although there are nature based religions that are just telling you how to live in harmony with nature or the way the world works.

Be that as it may, those religions still accept this "-ness" as reality. There are none that hold, as a major tenet, the idea that we as people do not currently exist in reality. Well, except for maybe the Heaven's Gate people, but they thought there was a spaceship behind the comet Hale-Bopp, so...yeah.

[Cipher]

Originally Posted by Quzor

Again, this is delving far more into philosophy than religion. There is no religion in the world, that I know of, that makes it's basis upon the fact that we are not, and do not, exist in a real reality.

Originally Posted by Quzor

Be that as it may, those religions still accept this "-ness" as reality. There are none that hold, as a major tenet, the idea that we as people do not currently exist in reality. Well, except for maybe the Heaven's Gate people, but they thought there was a spaceship behind the comet Hale-Bopp, so...yeah.

I just wanted you to acknowledge that hunter-gatherers and other survival-motivated humans do, in essence, have a belief---and that is the belief in this unproven reality.

[Quzor]

Originally Posted by Cipher

I just wanted you to acknowledge that hunter-gatherers and other survival-motivated humans do, in essence, have a belief---and that is the belief in this unproven reality.

Umm...what?

I've acknowledged nothing of the sort. I'll try to go over this again...

A hunter-gatherer, in the truest sense of the phrase, is precisely that. They hunt, they gather. That is how they survive. They are not interested in beliefs about anything. They are not interested in the idea of a "false reality." They hunt, they gather, they survive. If you told them "Hey, you know this reality might not really be real," they'd grunt at you, and then probably hunt and gather you for survival.

A true, honest, 100% hunter-gatherer does not follow a set of beliefs that do not directly correlate to its own survival. They believe that if they hunt and gather, they will survive. And they do. And that's it. I suppose if you want to say that their belief is "the belief in hunting and gathering to survive," then fine... I'll concede.

[Cipher]

Originally Posted by Quzor

Umm...what?

I've acknowledged nothing of the sort. I'll try to go over this again...

A hunter-gatherer, in the truest sense of the phrase, is precisely that. They hunt, they gather. That is how they survive. They are not interested in beliefs about anything. They are not interested in the idea of a "false reality." They hunt, they gather, they survive. If you told them "Hey, you know this reality might not really be real," they'd grunt at you, and then probably hunt and gather you for survival.

A true, honest, 100% hunter-gatherer does not follow a set of beliefs that do not directly correlate to its own survival. They believe that if they hunt and gather, they will survive. And they do. And that's it.

Its a form of "automatic" belief. Its not by choice but by instinct. But perhaps there are individuals among them that does otherwise---not accept reality and therefore suffer and die.

[Quzor]

Originally Posted by Cipher

Its a form of "automatic" belief. Its not by choice but by instinct. But perhaps there are individuals among them that does otherwise---not accept reality and therefore suffer and die.

So... because I exist in this reality, I believe that this is reality? That's conveniently circular, don't you think?

And no, hunter-gatherer's do not "not accept reality and therefore suffer and die." If they suffer and die, it is because something bigger and stronger came and killed them, or because they did not put in the work to perpetuate their own survival.

[roriconfan]

Even hunter gatherers had leaders who dictated the will of the pack. And their motto was "hunt and gather".

And if you put it like that the Amis people don't produce anything. They also just live by and they are very religious.

[Quzor]

Originally Posted by roriconfan

Even hunter gatherers had leaders who dictated the will of the pack. And their motto was "hunt and gather".

A motto is not a belief structure.

And if you put it like that the Amis people don't produce anything. They also just live by and they are very religious.

The Amish(?) people produce quite a bit. The Amish people are also very religious. The Amish people are NOT hunter-gatherers. They are farmers and workers; a step above in the evolutionary chain.

Obviously this a generalization, as I realize the Amish are far more than that. I use the terms farmers and workers to illustrate that they use sophisticated tools and production means to perpetuate their survival, in a far greater capacity than they may hunt or gather. Hunter-gatherers, in this sense, did not have access to those tools that farmers and workers did.

[Cipher]

Originally Posted by Quzor

So... because I exist in this reality, I believe that this is reality? That's conveniently circular, don't you think?

Indeed it is. But I'm just trying to correct. I also welcome you to correct me.

And no, hunter-gatherer's do not "not accept reality and therefore suffer and die." If they suffer and die, it is because something bigger and stronger came and killed them, or because they did not put in the work to perpetuate their own survival.

I meant a "rare" individual. Someone who, perhaps, has too much pride to not let hunger and other needs dictate his actions. I know it sounds stupid but it could be a possibility.

[Throne Invader]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

I mean, the Catholic Church was founded by Jesus' first disciple. The man on whom Jesus said he'd build his Church. Protestant churches, OTOH, were founded hundred of years later by people who'd never met Jesus.

This is another thing Protestants also disagree on that Peter was the first pope.I don't quite remember the exact locations mentioned, but Protestants I know said that Peter was never in Rome and his remains were found somewhere else. They also said that it's not on Peter that God, the Father would build his church on. Jesus was the rock the church was to be built on, not Peter.

[monster]

Originally Posted by Nogitsune

We will always be influenced by something.
We can reject one influence and embrace another, but there has to be a reason for this, and this reason would automatically be another influence - one we might not even be aware of.
If you can call that a free will, then why not say a cat or a wolf also has one? The only thing they lack is the ability to make a rational decision, but if that's what free will is about, then small children and some other people don't possess one, either.

The ability to make a rational decision is only a tool which humans can use when exercising one's will. But they can also make decisions outside the confines of reason. Humans' capacity of forming that will, no matter if it was rationally thought of or not, is why they have free will.

As for whether animals also have free will, I can't say either way. But that is irrelevant to my faith because the Bible is not intended for animals.

Some do, yes. And that's a huge problem for me.
Who says animals don't have a soul? The Bible? People who like performing vivisection? Whenever you can't justify a moral belief through something that is actually tangible, it can't be a good thing. Why are homosexuals bad? Because God says so. Why are women supposed to behave in a certain way? Because the Bible says so. Why are we superior to other species? Why, because there's something called a soul, and they don't have it! How can we know we have one and they don't? Well, that's common sense, really!
...I don't like it.

Well, wether you like something or not is up to you. That is why you have a free will.

Originally Posted by Quzor

This reminds me of a small converastion from Futurama:

Bender: Do you know what I'm going to do before I do it?
God: Yes
Bender: Well, what if I do something different?
God: Then I don't know that.

The Biblical God could possibly say: You could've, but I already know you won't since long before you even existed.

Is that how it is? If God knows the path I am going to choose before I choose it, am I still allowed to pick the other path? If the answer to that question is no, then I still really didn't get to make a choice. Even though God didn't directly intervene, and say "You're going that way and that's final," I was forced me to choose in accordance with his will. That is not a choice; it is a command.

You're confusing possibilities with what will actually happen. You could've chosen the other path, but assuming God didn't interfere, you chose the path which he knew you will take.

Then it's not "free" will, it's just "will."

If it is your will which you freely made, then it is free will.

By definition:
Free - Not subject to the control or domination of another; not determined by anything beyond its own nature or being; choosing or capable of choosing for itself.

I don't see anything there that says it can't be known by others beforehand. As long as you can make the decision yourself, then it won't matter if God knew about it. That will is still free.

You're asserting that, just because God is there directing us, and knows exactly what we're going to do at every single moment in time, does not mean that we don't have free will. Except that's exactly what it means. If we cannot act outside of the will of God, then we do not have free will. Even if he gives us the right to choose for ourselves, it is not free will if, in the end, we must succumb to the will of God. What if Abraham had said, "But I want to kill my son!"? What if Jonah had said "Psh, I'm stayin' on this boat!"? What if the Pharaoh had said "Get the hell out of here, Israelites! I'm not dealing with this plague crap!"? They couldn't, because they were being forced to succumb to the will of God. Abraham stopped because God told him to. Jonah went overboard because he knew God was mad at him. The Pharaoh kept fighting the plagues because God wanted to prove to the Israelites that he was God.

If you can't choose something outside of the will of God, then you do not have free will. You simply have the ability to make a decision, and then wait for God to tell you if it's right or not.

Again, you're mixing up controlling and knowing. God knows everything and he can control everything.

But here's the most important point: God doesn't always control human will. So by default, you can make your own choices even if it goes against the will of God.

[Vexx]

Hunter-gathering groups typically revere the animals they hunt and "give thanks" to them. One of the earliest forms of religion, if you will. They also tended to have anthropomorphic views on natural forces (lightning, thunder, rivers, etc) and attempt to appease them so that the hunt would go easier.

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by FragrantFlora

This is another thing Protestants also disagree on that Peter was the first pope.I don't quite remember the exact locations mentioned, but Protestants I know said that Peter was never in Rome and his remains were found somewhere else. They also said that it's not on Peter that God, the Father would build his church on. Jesus was the rock the church was to be built on, not Peter.

Actually, academic scholars of both Catholic, Protestant (and other) persuasions recognize that the historical evidence for Peter actually being the first Pope and whether he's actually buried in Rome is very scanty and apocryphal. Its "legendary" in the true murky sense of the word.

As for the "rock"... those Protestants you mention either didn't communicate clearly or were misinformed about their own religion. Jesus himself is quoted as saying that Peter would be the foundation/rock on which the faith/church would be built. However, to be fair - here's the somewhat tortured reasoning *some* Protestants use to argue that Jesus is "the rock": http://www.wordoftruthradio.com/questions/47.html (this is an argument used by some evangelical groups).

One thing to remember when researching/learning about a religion is that frequently its own adherents have no flipping idea what they're talking about in regard to their own religion. They haven't done their homework or read their own materials. Sometimes they are cherry-picking the texts.

Also, (and this seems to be a larger and larger problem) - remember that EVANGELICALS do not speak for the entirety of Christianity, they only assert they do (much like the radical muslim groups claiming to speak for all who follow Islam when they do not). Personally, I often find it fascinatingly odd when evangelical christians quote the Old Testament much more often than the New Testament...

[Anh_Minh]

Jesus as the rock makes little sense. Unlike "Peter", "Jesus" doesn't mean "rock".

Originally Posted by Quzor

Why is agnosticism 0? Agnosticism, like atheism, has it's own non-strict set of beliefs, and so would fall somewhere between the 0-100. Again, the 0 is a complete absence of anything remotely resembling a belief structure.

Apatheism, then. Now, explain to me what's so bad about it that atheism or religion are unquestionably better. That it is, in fact, the worst possible position (Since from what I gathered, your scale doesn't go into the negatives).

To put it bluntly; 0 is humans as hunter-gatherers, simply doing only what is absolutely necessary each day to perpetuate their survival for another day, and nothing more. No beliefs of any kind. They simply do what is necessary to survive.

As Vexx pointed out, just because you're a hunter-gatherer doesn't mean you're without beliefs. Any more than being a farmer or an engineer. Jury's still out on politicians. IIRC, funeral rites - indicative of some kind of belief - are older than homo sapiens.

Anything that you can label (Agnosticism, Atheism, Buddhism, Islam, Catholicism, etc.) has a set of beliefs that accompany it. Be they clearly defined, or open to interpretation, they still carry with them that set of beliefs.

Fortunately or unfortunately, we've come up with labels for practically everything in that area.

[Cipher]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

Apatheism, then. Now, explain to me what's so bad about it that atheism or religion are unquestionably better. That it is, in fact, the worst possible position (Since from what I gathered, your scale doesn't go into the negatives).

Tell me: Do you know a single person who is strongly apathetic? A person who doesn't believe in anything even reality itself.

[Haak]

Well there was Pyrrho but I don't think he was all that right in the head...

[Vexx]

The Neanderthals clearly believed in respect for the dead and what may have been some form of after-life (based on how they buried their dead). They were also altruistic (caring for clearly disabled). And... they were not our ancestors - they were a parallel branch to CroMagnon. We shared a common ancestor but they existed alongside of us. Two sentient species...

Every sentient creature has a "belief structure" (code of living, set of ethics, ideas about how the universe works, who's in charge, etc). How that structure is developed is pretty key though ... structure via revelation? (usually religion) structure via scientific method? (hypothesize, data collect, modify or throw out model, repeat), some combination?

[Proto]

One may be surprised that elephants also show a level of respect and interest in death.

Some people say that the study of nature and the so-called 'marvels' of the universe only reinforce their faith. For me sometimes it only works to reassure myself in how self centred humanity is to believe all of that.