Log in

View Full Version : Truth about God and Religion


Sempre Solipsist
2004-10-24, 03:04
There are an infinite number of “gods” that exist as the mental manifestation of those powers, energies, patterns, forces, forms and ideas that lie outside of the material plain. These “gods” take the form of (G)ods, angels, demons, spirits, (g)ods, fae, ghosts, mythological creatures, Ultimate Realities, Creators, demigods, man-gods, saints and patrons. There are a number of beliefs about these beings and none of them are true. None of them are false. Insofar as they exist outside of the material plain, they are completely and wholly experienced as incorporeal entities associated with ideas, concepts, places, animals, objects, events and activities; these entities are a product of the imagination, but are real nonetheless. Religion is the application of mythological principles and nothing else. “Reality” has nothing to do with it, because the spiritual is not the kind of thing that depends upon material/corporeal existence. The effects of religious experience are very real and extremely important to understand before you attempt to discern what is “true” and what is “false”.

Atheism is the absence of religious belief and activity. It is not more “realistic” because it is not submitting a more “real” belief system. It is merely suggesting that a complete lack of belief works better for them. Agnosticism is the result from an individuals inability to decide what they think about religious belief and activity, typically because they are not sure how to not believe in something that doesn’t exist, but can still be talked about. Everything that can be talked about either exists in material form or exists as an idea. If it exists as an Idea than the idea must have been derived from some experience. Because no one can experience an experience except for the person who experienced it, there is no language that can be used to qualify the “reality” of the experience insofar as it was interpreted by the mind of the individual. Religions, however, create a language capable of talking about religious experiences common to a group and/or groups of people.

People join religions typically for one of two reasons. The first reason is that they were born into a family that “practices” a particular religion and they are taught to view the world their the language sets and perspectives of their particular religious system. The second reason people join religions, is because they have “felt” or “experienced” something that they cannot define outside of spiritual language sets; and so they set forth to find a religion that best “fits” with their experience.

Where religion goes bad is when it claims to be a universal truth, or when they claim that their idea of divinity is superior to everyone else’s idea of divinity. Which leads me to the virtue of paganism, as paganism asserts no “universal truth” and assumes that each person may have their own religious language to describe their experience of divinity. They do not question the “truth” or “validity” of a persons belief. It is only with a particular tradition that individuals feel comfortable quarrelling over particular beliefs, because these beliefs are already predicated upon certain assumptions and principles that have been commonly accepted. Therefore logic applies and can brake down at any point an error in reasoning has occur. In other words, when two people share the same language set and the same initial religious assumptions, certain beliefs can contradict accepted principles.

We should consider criticizing the behavior of others and not their beliefs.

evolove
2004-10-24, 12:45
MUAH!

xEnigma
2004-10-24, 18:57
That's is the most sense I've heard on this subject in a long time. I've said the same thing countless times on other forums in response to those typical "god is for the weak" kind of threads.

Religion is just humanities answer to our innate spiritual tendencies. Debating the envidence for a literal existence of god is pointless and beside the point.

Religion is believed to develop in the frontal lobe of the brain and strengthens with age - which would explain why people "find" religion later in life. Also religious tendencies are often seen to be triggered by near death experiences and disorders of the frontal lobe.

quote:People with temporal lobe epilepsy (TLE) often become obsessively religious. It could be because seizures strengthen neural connections between the inferior temporal cortex and the amygdala, the emotional arbiter of the brain, so that everything takes on special meaning. Alternatively, seizures might alter neural circuits that deal with religious experience.

The real "weak" people are those who do not acknowledge this fact and accept a set of religious beliefs as they come.

Most religions truly believe their historical teachings but I believe that the origins of all religions were to accomodate and satisfy religious tendencies. So "choosing a religion" is not as profane as it might seem.

[This message has been edited by xEnigma (edited 10-24-2004).]

Sempre Solipsist
2004-10-25, 00:25
quote:Originally posted by xEnigma:

Religion is just humanities answer to our innate spiritual tendencies. Debating the envidence for a literal existence of god is pointless and beside the point.

I couldn't agree more. Furthermore, I think there is a bit of virtue in recognising that so much of our "beliefs" depend upon the imagination. Every "true" belief is predicated upon an assumption or sensational antecedent at one point or another.

There is really very little reason to suggest that religion is "stupid" - it is the behavior of the "religious person" as individuals and groups that is stupid.

xEnigma
2004-10-25, 02:53
quote:Originally posted by Sempre Solipsist:

I think there is a bit of virtue in recognising that so much of our "beliefs" depend upon the imagination. Every "true" belief is predicated upon an assumption or sensational antecedent at one point or another.

I think the greatest virtue is in the tolerance of other peoples religions. Non-religious people should recognise what religion serves to accomplish.

quote:Originally posted by Sempre Solipsist:

There is really very little reason to suggest that religion is "stupid" - it is the behavior of the "religious person" as individuals and groups that is stupid.

I agree. Religion is far from stupid. For many people, The belief in god gives them the emotional comfort of the answers science cannot provide.

Religion can be explained scientifically, God cannot:

Through the process of learning, humans become self-aware. Animals' brains operate on a subconscious level but humans have the ability of conscious reasoning. This is why we are the only species who have sex for non-procreational purposes. It is also the reason why we are the only species who are aware of our own eventual fate; Death.

With our ability to reason, our knowledge of our own death leads to the question "what is the purpose in life". Religion is the brain's answer to this question, it gives people a reason for living. The concept of afterlife, reincarnation or heaven comforts the idea that death is the end of the "spirit".

The weak succumb to religion, the intelligent explain it. The only drawback with the latter is that we are still looking for the answer to the question "what is the purpose of life?".

Sempre Solipsist
2004-10-25, 06:32
lol. I'm amazed we agree. From previous posts I figured we'd hate each other! lol. (not that that is out of the question...it's just I find it much more difficult to dislike people with, you know, brains and such. http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

xEnigma
2004-10-25, 19:18
quote:Originally posted by Sempre Solipsist:

lol. I'm amazed we agree. From previous posts I figured we'd hate each other! lol. (not that that is out of the question...it's just I find it much more difficult to dislike people with, you know, brains and such. http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

Nah, I never judged you based on that. If you got a passion about something it's easy to get carried away and come off making a stronger point than you maybe intended. I'm just glad we agree on something.

Sempre Solipsist
2004-10-25, 21:09
Personally, I have trouble staying in the middle when it comes to online conversations. If someone wants to be intellectual, I'll converse intellectually, but once things turn into a giant flame war - I'm all for mindless flaming too. http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)