What's your religion?

[Cipher]

Notice: Just want to, or at least try to, clear off some stuff so I ask for consideration concerning any possible divagation from the thread.

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

Then he's been right since the beginning and you're a solipsist.

I am not a solipsist. I think the reason why I do and will often not share my own religious views is because of my hesitation to "assume". I do not know what things should be considered as knowledge and truth. And is it rational to believe without knowledge? Is faith self-evident? I don't know. I probably shouldn't participate before I figure this out...

This is an interesting diagram but I do not know if it is an accurate objective representation of these concepts I am trying to understand.

Which is an utterly useless position to take. Not provably wrong, just useless.

I do not understand why it is useless.


@Ascaloth

I do not understand why or how you've come to such a conclusion nor do I care but it would be appreciated if you show and reconsider data before you judge people.

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

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?

What I am wondering about solipsism is the proof for self-existence. How is thought axiomatic to existence?

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

Beats me.


-----


"1 + 1 = 2" is only true if reality is used as a principle. On the other hand, the idea of "1 + 1 = 2 if X(reality) is true"(#1) is an objective truth. It's like needs versus wants. If you want something, you objectively have to need to do something for it(#2). These ideas(#1 & #2), however, still exist within perception. Nonetheless, perception does not make said abstractions subjective. They may originate from subjective principles but they themselves are manifestations of objective logic. Now how does this relate to knowledge and beliefs? Belief, in its purest term(I think), is subjective. Knowledge, in its purest definition, is objective. The idea that "1 + 1 = 2 if x(reality) is true" is therefore knowledge. Even false knowledge is still knowledge. Then again, are the foundations of abstractions, subjective and objective, necessarily mutually exclusive?

How does this relate to religion? How does each religion define "knowledge", "truth" and "belief"? How does "religion" help those who seek "truth"? Or does "truth" even exist?

[TinyRedLeaf]

Originally Posted by Proto

Is there any concrete proof/experiment/notion that free will is anything more than a phylosophical construct made to make us feel better?

No more than you can prove that "free will" is determined by our genes. I believe we have already gone through this before.

And, in any case, I did not claim that "free will" exists to make us feel better, but rather that having free will means we must take responsibility for our deliberate actions. If everything we do is determined by evolution, then there is absolutely nothing remarkable about anything we do. We are simply highly advanced robots carrying out a predetermined programme. Our actions would then be neither praiseworthy nor reprehensible. They simply are.

Originally Posted by ChainLegacy

Decisions influenced by our evolved traits or AI's programming, but ultimately at the choice of the agent.

So long as you accept that traits influence but do not determine our choices, we are in agreement. Moreover, so long as you believe in the validity of choice, then the study of ethics and morality matters, because we need to understand what is "right" before we can take "right" actions.

Originally Posted by Reckoner

Emotions are fleeting, and once you reach this ultimate knowledge, you also have nothing left to search for. Isn't this fact boring and depressing in itself?

Is "ultimate knowledge" even possible for a human being?

On that point alone, I would consider your question moot. There will always be something new to learn, so long as you do not close your mind to the possibility of new knowledge.

Originally Posted by Reckoner

I was just asking if emotions could really be a part of true fulfillment, achieving the truth. I understand that we are emotional creatures, and thus we seek to stimulate these emotions in different ways, but if our end goal is to do this, doesn't this render the truth itself meaningless as many human beings do not need it to live happily?

As I've said before, there are probably many paths to "truth" or "truths", whatever they might be. It is up to you whether you wish to deny your emotions and focus on "facts" alone, although I would question the extent to which it is possible to separate emotions, a key aspect of our ability to perceive, from fact-finding.

Also, you contradict yourself. "(Emotional) truth is itself meaningless as many human beings do not need it to live happily" you say. What then is that happiness you speak of if not an emotion?

Originally Posted by Reckoner

I should probably clarify, but I find this world, this universe itself meaningless. Meaning is attached to anything that humans see fit. With that fact in mind, I just see existence as itself. It just exists for the sole purpose of existing. Anything else we attach to it is subjective interpretation of reason of being.

Indeed.

[erneiz_hyde]

I have my truth of science that nothing "physical" actually existed.

Science has explained that a single atom contains some neutrons, electrons, and protons, with certain configurations of neutron and protons in the core and electrons orbiting around them. Thing is, between the core and the very first electron, there is a huge, empty, void space. A single whole atom is actually 99,9999% empty space. Which leads to the conclusion that EVERY SINGLE THING made of atoms will consist of EMPTINESS abysmally close to zero. Not to mention that electrons, protons and neutrons themselves are 99,99% empty space too.

Our existence and the whole universe is that feeble.


another topic


I also believe that "true objectivity" does not exist, or at least WE don't possess it. What does exist is the "general subjectivity" which is enough to be accepted by most as an objectivity.

I have my favorite example. We humans perceive the color "red" as is because our eyes translated the corresponding wave form the color emits as red, it's a generally accepted objective approach perfectly explained by science. However, if there are other beings from humans perceive the same wave form that color emits as, for example, "blue", then the objectivity of "red" is destroyed. Ultimately objectivity belongs only to the object being perceived itself, in this case, the color "red" is objective only in the specific wave form it emits. An observer actually destroys objectivity.

The only thing that is closest to objectivity that we humans know about is mathematics. There is no room for perception in mathematics in its "purest" sense. However, the use of numbers and symbols that only us humans understood had once again sent mathematics as a general subjectivity.

My point is, discussions outside human boundaries and limitations are flawed and moot since there is no truth.

[Reckoner]

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

Also, you contradict yourself. "(Emotional) truth is itself meaningless as many human beings do not need it to live happily" you say. What then is that happiness you speak of if not an emotion?

.

I meant that if happiness is achievable through other means than the "truth," why does it even matter?

Although under your interpretation, I suppose the truth would be whatever makes each person happy.

[james0246]

To step in for a second, please stop with all of these off-topic discussions. Whether God exists or not; can morality exist without God; What is the meaning of life; how does one define "truth"; et cetera et cetera are all amazingly complex and wonderful questions/discussion/debates that have no place in this thread.

"What's your religion?" is dedicated to, you guessed it, describing what religious beliefs (if any) an individual poster has. Whether those beliefs are good or bad, happy or sad, or adversely affect others or not, are all side points that have no bearing on the actual topic. This thread is not dedicated to topics concerning Religion (especially not debates), it is only dedicated to the topic of describing your personal history and what lead you (the individual posters) to your current world view (consequently, discussion of how you came to be religious or not is encouraged, but debating the merits of a world view are outside the scope of this threads topic).

So please, stop with these extraneous discussions that, while interesting and invigorating, have no place in this thread. Consider this a general warning.

[Reckoner]

Originally Posted by james0246

So please, stop with these extraneous discussions that, while interesting and invigorating, have no place in this thread. Consider this a general warning.

Oh my lord, do you threaten to smite us with the almighty ban hammer of Thor?

======================

Well to get us back more on topic I will just explain that my previous posts have a lot to do with my own personal struggles with the idea of "greater purpose" and how my thoughts about it make me increasingly more Agnostic/atheist.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by Reckoner

Oh my lord, do you threaten to smite us with the almighty ban hammer of Thor?

The name of the hammer is Mjolnir.

Come to think of it, at this day and age, I am wondering if anyone still believe the ancient gods of Valhalla - Hinduism is still prevalent in India and they have got a thousand gods; including the three-formed ultimate Shiva, supposedly the creator and destroyer.

[Hooves]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

The name of the hammer is Mjolnir.

Come to think of it, at this day and age, I am wondering if anyone still believe the ancient gods of Valhalla - Hinduism is still prevalent in India and they have got a thousand gods; including the three-formed ultimate Shiva, supposedly the creator and destroyer.

Well it is quite hard to believe in the ancient gods of Valhalla after all that time

[james0246]

Originally Posted by Hooves

Wait... Hinduism believes in Shiva?

Cute. SaintessHeart was talking about the Hindu deity, not the week long period of bereavement in Judaism.

[Haak]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

The name of the hammer is Mjolnir. .

LOL. I actually thought you meant monir until i looked it up XD.

[Archon_Wing]

Anyhow, to get the topic back on track-- I don't hold any religion. I generally do not care about the existence of a supernatural deity and if one existed nobody could comprehend it anyways. And I certainly wouldn't rely on what other people told me about it.

[Sing4ever9]

I was born and raised Roman Catholic.

Quick fun fact: In the Catholic church, when it comes time for one to undergo confirmation (usually high school age), you get to choose a confirmation name if you so choose. You have to choose the name of a saint or of a biblical character or you keep your baptismal/birth name. The reason you choose a name is because it represents which saint/person's life you wish to emmulate.
For me, it was Veronica, the woman who wiped the face of Christ before he was crucified (that, and Veronica is also my grandmother's name) . She showed great kindness and charity by wiping the face of a man whom she had no obligation to. In return, Jesus left an imprint of his face on the cloth. Therefore, I wish to emmulate Veronica's charity and kindness as part of the commitment I made to God.

Generally, though, I have no problems with other religions. We're all the same inside and this world is diverse because God made everything in the known universe different. All He wants is for us to accept and love one another, no matter what.

[Hooves]

Anyhow, to get the topic back on track-- I don't hold any religion. I generally do not care about the existence of a supernatural deity and if one existed nobody could comprehend it anyways. And I certainly wouldn't rely on what other people told me about it.

I agree with you all the way. Thats why I follow the path of an Atheist

[Miyuki-ism]

One of these days I'm going to read the bible from front to back and then decide whether I want to follow in my mother's footsteps on this topic.

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by Miyuki-ism

One of these days I'm going to read the bible from front to back and then decide whether I want to follow in my mother's footsteps on this topic.

Do yourself a favor and also read up on the history of Christianity starting with before the Roman Empire took it up as their state religion, carry it on through the Dark Ages and up through the Reformation. Then pay attention to the period from 1600s-today with the various splintering sects/denominations.

[Honoakari]

Originally Posted by Miyuki-ism

One of these days I'm going to read the bible from front to back and then decide whether I want to follow in my mother's footsteps on this topic.

Here's a hint - when reading the Bible, make sure you take in consideration the many logical fallacies scattered throughout it. Most Christians just ignore them, and this tells a lot about their religious beliefs, in my opinion.

[Haak]

Originally Posted by D0rYn

Here's a hint - when reading the Bible, make sure you take in consideration the many logical fallacies scattered throughout it. Most Christians just ignore them, and this tells a lot about their religious beliefs, in my opinion.

I don't think there's anything wrong with not wanting to concern yourself with evalutaing your own beliefs so long as you simply intend to live your life without fuss.

Though I think it would certainly be important if you wish to express an opinion based on such beliefs.

[edit]

This isn't offtopic again, is it?

[Hooves]

Originally Posted by Haak

I don't think there's anything wrong with not wanting to concern yourself with evalutaing your own beliefs so long as you simply intend to live your life without fuss.

Though I think it would certainly be important if you wish to express an opinion based on such beliefs.

[edit]

This isn't offtopic again, is it?

No its not off-topic I think. But the Christians did cut out alot of parts from the Bible, so its really hard to understand "everything" about it. Unless you can find a source that tells you what they had in the Bible during the history that has passed.

[EnchantingPrincess]

Originally Posted by Hooves

No its not off-topic I think. But the Christians did cut out alot of parts from the Bible, so its really hard to understand "everything" about it. Unless you can find a source that tells you what they had in the Bible during the history that has passed.

That would mean going back to the day the bible was first written
I really wouldn't know
but by now most likey A LOT of changes were....changed in the Bible...

[monster]

Originally Posted by Hooves

But the Christians did cut out alot of parts from the Bible

It's not like the Christian Bible was originally one book, so it's inaccurate to say that parts were cut.