there's actually a mixture of animal and human souls

animals can be reincarnated as humans

Animal souls... really? Which tradition says that?

Taoist-Buddhist, not Hindu - at least that's what I was told when I was a Taoist-Buddhist

I'm no expert, so you're really barking up the wrong tree. I would assume that the souls have always existed, in one form/dimension or another.

Well if you believe that a negative event is proof of or points to God's non-existence, I was wondering there must be positive things in life, so why don't they influence you towards a belief in God? If death a reason for non-belief shouldn't the inverse be the equally acceptable? Life is the reason for a belief in God?

So you have blind faith?

I think that generally religion is moving towards a more personal based philosophy in which individual spirituality plays a more important role. I guess this has pretty much been true since the Reformation for Christianity. This is a positive trend, in my opinion.

Reformation also intro'd some things I dislike - such as a literal interpretation of the Old Testament

of course it is individual & personal, God gives us freewill, after all

Oh, I see where you're coming from. While I was not the person who posted the negative event, I can certainly speak for myself.

If your god was a just god, then wouldn't he (or she) have prevented those catastrophic events, such as the Holocaust, from happening? (It's an over-used example, but an adequate one). Why would he (or she) allow some of his (or her) "children" to endure poverty and sickness while people in other countries live in "sin" and lead lives where they have shelter and sustenance? I'm not saying that if there was a god, then there wouldn't be any negative events (for we wouldn't learn anything). I just think there would be less (in both numbers and size).

As for the positive things in life, I think it depends on the person's definition of positive (but I won't go too much into that). Everyday science explains to us about the universe. Everyday... god does not. Positive events occur out of a cause-and-effect system (just as negative events do), and can be logically and scientifically explained (just as negative events can). While I am not a scientist, I have faith in science because it can back up its claims (while god cannot).

Look, I'll continue this discussion because I feel I owe you some answers, but I want to tell you that I'm not too thrilled about it. I think the belief in god allows people to accept unfortunate events that happen within their lives (which can lead to happily-lived life). There have also been psychological studies by the A.P.A. that prove that the belief in god/following of a religion promotes a healthy lifestyle that benefits people both mentally and physically. Needless to say, however, I do not like the idea that people pressure/convert others to their own religion OR bash people because of their religion (which is not what I am trying to do). Of course, this is not as prevalent as it once was a century or two ago, which is why, for the most part, I have no problem with people believing in a higher power.

I hope some of that helps.

If you sodomize children, murder them, and bury them in your back yard, does it really matter whether or not you volunteer at the local homeless shelter?

Beats the hell out of sodomizing children, murdering them and burying them in your backyard and then just sitting around eating Cheez-Its.

Tell that to the workers at the Cheez-It factory.

no future, noooooo fuchure for youuuuuuuuuuuuu

With regard to this, I'd argue that the opposite (to some degree) is the truth. Religious fanaticism is very much alive and well, possibly more so than in past times.

For example, 50 years ago the Creationist movement didn't exist in anything like the present form it takes now in organisations like Answers In Genesis, with its multi-million dollar ministry and Creation Museum. No Tea Party either (although this is a poliitical organisation, much of its membership is made up of conservative middle-class Christians).

Even here in the UK, there seems to be a religious battle of sorts, with many examples. One is the proposed academies system of schooling, where a private company could sponsor a school and help in running it for a say in what is taught. Inevitably, this has led to several fundamentalist religious groups (mostly Christian) proposing their own bids for their own faith-ran schools, which could then teach Creationism. Infact, one school here has been criticized for teaching Creation Science as a 'viable alternative to evolution'. This is something that even 20 years ago would be unthinkable.

(I must admit that the two examples above are both to do with Creationism, but that's not the only issue).

But to answer the OP fully, I can understand the role religion plays in the history of humanity, and I believe that rather than disappearing, it will simply morph into something else which fits in with the society of the time. It may not necessarily be that there is any concept of 'God' in these religions either, just as the ideas behind Buhddism and Shinto have no real concept of God. It may be that the future religion relies more on critical thinking and philosophical thinking that dogma and theology.

Has anyone else heard of the (or subscribe to) the theory of Ancient Aliens/Astronauts?

Ancient astronauts - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Very Interesting. If (as theorized) all of the "Gods" of our religions were actually extraterrestials, it still begs the question of THEIR creation and how they came into existance.

I wish religion would die.

The truth is that we will never be able to explain everything, and even if we could, we couldn't persuade everyone to pay attention long enough to understand it.

It's my hard view that religion has absolutely nothing to offer that can't be had a better way. I compare it to a drug, except one that you're looked down upon for refusing, and a drug who's users are constantly trying to dictate society. If you can't already tell, I don't like religion. If I'm dying the hospital, I'm not going to convert to any religion for infinitely small chance that I've chosen the right one let alone that there is a correct one. I'd rather live knowing and accepting reality, and allowing myself to grow fond of that reality. I have no need to confuse an already over complicated world with religion.

I actually subscribe to this more:-

Cthulhu - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm familiar with it but it doesn't strike me as particularly likely.

Both of those theories are enticing, but ultimately, there is only one true God.

Flying Spaghetti Monster - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Religion doesn't claim in any way that we WILL know everything.


Religion has some incredibly good messages for humanity. And also, there are several religious belief systems where it doesn't matter whether you're a believer or not. Buddhism in one, deism another, and also (interestingly) Judaism also. In the case of Judaism, anyone who is righteous, Jew or not, has a share in the World to Come.

I'm personally a deist, and I believe that any God capable of creating a race of poeple isn't going to let some be roasted in hell for all eternity simply for not believing in some petty rules.

:D

That was amazing.

Deism is non-commital atheism. Kudos to some of the forefathers of America for having the balls to adopt it, but I don't even choose to entertain the idea of God in any meaningful sense. I don't deny it's possible, I just don't think it's any more possible than any other thing I know isn't true.

Even Buddhism I'm not a fan of. I'm not saying that religion has nothing good to offer, I'm saying that everything good religion does have to offer, can be attained without the negative effects of irrational belief. And I hold myself as an example. I don't need God to have morals; I think I have a very good set of ethics, but I'm the one who chooses them. It's called free thought, and it's hard to employ while also confining yourself to religious belief in anything. It's ok to take lessons from religion, it's not ok to take every "lesson" religion has to offer as fact.


edit: realizing now that this reply goes well with the video above.

cardboard adolescent: That video really was great. I'm not sure if it was supposed to be a rebuttal, or if you were agreeing with me in some way, or if it's something in the middle, but thanks for sharing. I agree with the message of the video.

I was agreeing, mostly :)

Deism is actually fairly distinct from atheism in a number of ways. And deists in their many forms are in no way 'atheists too scared to admit it' or 'atheists who are scared of Pascal's Wager'. Problem is that the deist god often gets put into the same mould as the magical gods of holy books, whilst actually being nothing like this.

THis is actually a problem I have with Dawkins. I noticed in reading The God Delusion that his entire refutation of God relies on God being actually involved in human affairs, smiting sinners, rewarding believers in the afterlife and so on. All these are characteristics of a Bible or Qur'an god, but not the deist one. In short, he's attacking a Judeo-Christian god, not God as a whole concept.


It's wrong to think that all and any religious belief is irrational. Belief in God does not tie you down to any dogma unless you so decide that your idea of God fits into some religious system such as Islam or Christianity (which is where the absurdities start). But it's perfectly possible to say 'God exists in some form' and not tie yourself to what you term 'irrational beliefs'. Supposed irrrational beliefs aren't a prerequisite to believing in God. They're only characteristic of some set belief systems.

And religious belief (in any sort of higher power) does not mean cutting yourself off from free thought also. Religious belief only cuts yourself off from critical thought if you allow it to do so- many people who hold religious beliefs are also intelligent people capable of independent and critical thought.

Suppose one thinks that belief in God is, itself, irrational?

That's a matter of personal opinion. It would also depend on what you consider to BE God.

Is it though? Suppose we define "rational" as "agreeable to reason; reasonable; sensible". What reason do you have to offer for justifying faith in God? Isn't an essential component of defining faith itself that faith cannot be explained through reason or evidence? That it is just an emotion, something you "feel", something you "know"?

I suppose for this scenario, God would be anything supernatural of which cannot be empirically tested or verified through thiswordly means.

What reason do you have to mistrust your emotions/intuitions? You've had no intuitive experience that there is a higher power, fine, you have no reason to believe it. Other people have had this intuitive experience, so they find a reason to believe. Reason and intuition are not at war, they're complementary. Some people rely more on reason, some rely more on intuition. Some believe that their reason is superior to intuition, and that intuitive 'feelings' are anomalies that should be ignored. Some believe that their intuition is superior to reason, and that reason, common sense, or science should be ignored. Ideally, intuition and reason can operate hand in hand, at whatever level they've been developed, and we can keep an open mind toward other people's experiences. After all, we're always growing, always experiencing new things, new depths we didn't imagine were there before.

Oh yeah, and arguing about this stuff is pointless. Still. Never going to stop being pointless. The argument might also never disappear, but individuals will pop in or drop out.

It also depends if you believe in fairytales.

He's basically saying what I would have said but here's something else to.

For me, a belief in God itself is irrational. I can respect Deism as a fairly reasonable conclusion to make through the rejection of religious belief and then through various other arguments that basically bring you to the ultimate conclusion that if there is a God, he doesn't actually effect us in any way other than having possibly created us or (well I don't know the exact specifications of your particular view).

To me, God just serves no purpose. It's just a further complication of one of the only unsolvable questions. Occam's Razor. I think traditionally, deism has been a product of religion, in that it forces people to consider God a necessary aspect of our model of the universe. The reality is, that isn't probably or necessarily true.

TYPICAL GOD'S CHARACTERISTICS: All knowing, All Powerful, All Present.

Unrelated but:

The first one obliterates our free will because God would have to create us with the knowledge of our fate and the "sins" we would commit. Thus making him responsible for our actions and our fate since he alone would have chosen to create us in our particular form and fate. Not to mention it helps with the implication of thought crime, which given his responsibility for our thoughts doesn't make sense... also highly immoral to say that someone is punishable for having thought the wrong thing.

The second one doesn't mean much... but you can always ask if God can create an immovable rock, and then ask if God can move it... good way to make a bible thumper either go away or have a migraine.

Third one would creep me out.


Of course Deism wouldn't support all of these three characteristics. AND I guess all of that relates to the "what do you consider to be God/god/GOD" question. If you define God as something that I can agree exists, then... I will agree that God exists. But then you're just naming things in a confusing way, so it's kind of pointless. Most poignant definitions of God, I will reject.

Good reason. My emotions have lead me astray many times.

I usually respect and agree with what you have to say, but I'm afraid that in this case, your input is a bunch of pseudological crap. A quick search of Google lead to the following definitions of "intuition".

Dictionary.com: direct perception of truth, fact, etc., independent of any reasoning process; immediate apprehension.
Answers.com: The act or faculty of knowing or sensing without the use of rational processes; immediate cognition.
Merriam-Webster.com: the power or faculty of attaining to direct knowledge or cognition without evident rational thought and inference

Correct me if I'm wrong, as perhaps I'm interpreting "intuition" too narrowly, but it seems to be directly "at war" with reason. Reaching a conclusion and forming some belief through intuition is vastly different than forming some belief through reason.

For example, a large majority of human civilization used to hold the belief, formed through intuition, that the Earth was flat. That just seemed to make sense, didn't it? It felt right. But through the use of reason and the acquisition of evidence, we now know that the Earth is not flat. This is one of infinite cases where beliefs formed on intuition are flat out unjustifiable, unprovable, and false.

That's not to say that reason and intuition are mutually exclusive when forming beliefs. I recognize that an intuition about something X might lead to the discovery and formulation of reasons to hold X true, but a belief formed solely upon intuition cannot be said to be "complementary" to a belief formed upon reason.

I completely agree, but I find it intellectually stimulating to discuss it nonetheless.

Intuition is by my definition... and in a business sense relating to rationality: a subconscious process of the brain that relates past experience to the current scenario, and draws conclusions based on those past experiences. I think there have been studies to show that this is what happens when people experience what they call intuition. (again that's my definition not the dictionary's or a legitimate sources :P)

It's the same reason that they say when you're sort of guessing something, it's normally best to go with your first thought.

I don't think you should apply intuition to God, because you don't have any valid past experience to draw from. You're intuition is likely derived from indoctrination, as with many things. But most beliefs can be in some way supported by science or practical means... where as spiritual matters are an exception.

And if I did what my emotions told me to all the time, I would probably be dead by now.

Was the notion that the Earth was flat really intuitive? I think you could just as easily attribute it to reason. Here's an experiment: take the longest string you can find in the village. Maybe it's a mile long, if you live in a fancy sit-around-all-day and weave kinda village. Now, have three people with equal length sticks. Two are holding the ends of the string and are supporting it with their sticks. The third gets in the middle and sees if the string is higher or lower than his stick. If the string is at stick-level, this proves the world is flat!

Well, obviously it doesn't. While this process is reasonable, it hasn't been refined to the point where it would give us an accurate answer. But then, we never quite know how refined our process needs to be until we realize we've been wrong all along.

Reason and intuition both evolve. Maybe your emotions have burned you in the past, but your reason has probably burned you in the past too. That's why I'm saying it's not reason or intuition, it's both, supporting each other, helping each other become more refined and subtle.

Some discoveries might be purely intellectual or purely intuitive. However, such a discovery is only really problematic if it poses a huge challenge to the other side. Wave/particle duality, for instance, is a giant intellectual leap that poses a huge challenge to many people's intuition. Similarly, the intuitive experience of 'synchronicity' challenges many people's reasonable belief that events in the universe are random and disconnected. But that doesn't mean they should be discarded at face value. It's simply a challenge to continue to dissect these phenomena and to question and refine the other side of the equation. If we have a powerful intuitive experience that doesn't sit well with our rational beliefs, maybe we should see if there are any blind spots or contradictions there. If we make a powerful intellectual realization that is intuitively incomprehensible, maybe we should see if there's anything we're not allowing ourselves to feel, or if there's some subtler aspect to life that we've been looking past.

Our intuition and intellect can both make mistakes. Mistakes are how we grow. Just because intuition and intellect are defined as polar opposites doesn't mean that they're 'at war.' That's like saying the wave and particle are 'at war' because they're opposites. Maybe some things are so far in the domain of reason that they'll never find an intuitive expression, like the square root of -1. But then, maybe some things are so far in the domain of intuition that they can't be rationalized or conceptualized. Who knows? All we can do is keep experiencing the universe.

Also, this isn't necessarily about forming beliefs. The scientific mindset will eagerly recognize that every belief is simply a hypothesis, open to revision. A person truly in tune with their intuition will recognize the same thing. This is just how I feel right now, the general impression I carry at this moment of the universe around me. It might change, after all, it has changed many times in the past. Living in the moment means to be open to novel ideas, which lead to novel techniques, which lead to novel inventions, and to be open to novel feelings, which lead to novel insights, which lead to self-reinvention.

I believe religions will certainly be around in the future. It will end when God comes to destroy the earth. I realise a lot of people will disagree with this, but accept that I am Christian and I will never lose my faith no matter what is thrown at me.

What leads you to a literal interpretation of the Book of Revelation?

Hahaha sorry this made me laugh. I can't take people with faith too seriously because all faith in religion is blind. Also it will only be around if it is allowed to be around.

Meh.

It's okay, I understand it's hard for others to see how people of faith can believe the things they do. We all have an opinion which is sweet. :)

Could just as easily say the same thing about someone who blindly knocks it even thought it obviously works for a lot of people.

I'm not religious in the slightest, doesn't mean I can't see the good that it does in people who want it.