Religion and Lack of Religion

[opaltiger]

well the reason i ask is that i am practically on the verge of declaring myself deist but i have my reservations (mostly in how rational i'm being, since i'm more or less "convinced" that there is/was an Architect but i'm not sure that it's sensible) so i wanted some thoughts from a) atheists, b) deists, or c) whatever.

i appreciate the response though!

Deism doesn't really avoid any of the rational arguments that can be brought against theism, though. I mean, sure, you don't have to answer questions like "why is there evil?" but you've still got to account for the existence of your Architect in the first place.

 

[Teh Ebil Snorlax]

To be honest, I think deism is a bit silly, because it's simply not rational to believe that reality had an architect, so believing that deistic beliefs are rational is irrational.

 

[Zuu]

Deism doesn't really avoid any of the rational arguments that can be brought against theism, though. I mean, sure, you don't have to answer questions like "why is there evil?" but you've still got to account for the existence of your Architect in the first place.

which is what i am concerned with. there are more than one cosmological arguments for it but mostly it's causal stuff, which basically leaves me with a few questions, like ... (ALSO excuse me but i'm tired as fuck so this will probably be dumb)

(presumably) every physical event is preceded by a physical event that caused the second (or so it seems, i'm not convinced of this but it seems consistent?), and it seems illogical that something can come from nothing; however it seems kind of hard (see: impossible) to imagine what properties (or lack of properties) the nothingness before time and space would have had so is it logical to assert that there was some uncaused nonphysical something that brought forth our physical reality, our universe, into being, or can we simply assert that the universe sprung from what was seemingly nothing? obviously the first concerns the supernatural, which we can't have tangible evidence of, but the second seems to violate everything that i know about the "natural" and contradicts all of my experience (which supports that everything has some previous cause).

other arguments involve things like "look at natural laws and principles! these show some evidence of design or intelligence" which by itself is far more convincing than "look at this flower! it looks so designed!" but the two are inseparable claims, or so it immediately strikes me. it's one thing to assert that something specifically designed humans, which is ridiculous, but is it really another to claim that something set laws in place? hhhrgh.

i don't know~

also TES i find your assertion interesting and i want you to expand on it.

 

[Dannichu]

I've baptised a couple of people in my time. Most memorably, a good few years ago, a friend and I baptised a militant athiest friend of ours in his sleep. Yes, most people write WANKER backwards on their friends' heads when they fall asleep in a public place, but we sprinkled him with water and said "lol, we baptise you"*.

Though I must say, if it turns out that specific part of Christianity is right, he'll get a rather nice surprise when he dies :D

*Seriously, the Vatican itself states that anybody who has themselves been baptised can baptise someone else, even with normal water - so it was actually legit

 

[Teh Ebil Snorlax]

also TES i find your assertion interesting and i want you to expand on it.

If there was an intelligence that designed reality and was the first cause of that reality, then that designer would itself need a designed and first cause and so on, leading to an infinite loop.

It's more logical to assume that the Big Bang model is accurate. I know that you raised the issue of not being able to comprehend primordial existence, but I'd like to raise two points in response;

(1) Your inability to comprehend primordial existence does not imply that such cannot exist.
(2) The laws of physics only started after the Big Bang, so trying to apply post-Big Bang rules to pre-Big Bang existence is an exercise in futility.

 

[Flora]

So, er, I'm Christian...sorta. I was baptized a Catholic, but I have many, many, many issues with their teachings and crap like that. (like abortion...and gay marriage...and in vitro...and how priests care more about the amount of people in their church rather than the people themselves*...)

Actually I'm kinda in the "doubting-ish" section (hell, I believe in guardian angels more than I believe in God...I actually do have a story or a few behind this), but that's beside the point.

* Case in point: My English teacher was telling us about how in a discussion about in vitro fertilization all the students were like "lol it's wrong it's against the Church" (gotta love Catholic school) except for one girl who was an in vitro baby herself. And was refused Baptism because of it. Until her grandmother threatened that if the priest did not baptize the child, the entire family would leave the Church. At which point she was baptized.

 

[Zuu]

If there was an intelligence that designed reality and was the first cause of that reality, then that designer would itself need a designed and first cause and so on, leading to an infinite loop.

It's more logical to assume that the Big Bang model is accurate. I know that you raised the issue of not being able to comprehend primordial existence, but I'd like to raise two points in response;

(1) Your inability to comprehend primordial existence does not imply that such cannot exist.
(2) The laws of physics only started after the Big Bang, so trying to apply post-Big Bang rules to pre-Big Bang existence is an exercise in futility.

oh. i thought i had made it clear that i agreed with and acknowledged those two points but i guess i am more tired than i thought. and of course i believe the Big Bang model to be accurate; what concerns me is what its origin was. that's pretty much the only thing that hangs me up.

also i think the point of the Architect is that it IS the first and foremost Cause, the Prime Mover, not natural in our sense of the word; and maybe not intelligent in our sense of the word, either. it doesn't even have to refer to something which we'd refer to as an entity. a force of some sort - somehow the source of the natural laws of the universe and its beginnings.

whether it exists or not is a slightly different question, and of course this is all conjecture.

 

[Music Dragon]

but the second seems to violate everything that i know about the "natural" and contradicts all of my experience (which supports that everything has some previous cause).

also i think the point of the Architect is that it IS the first and foremost Cause, the Prime Mover, not natural in our sense of the word; and maybe not intelligent in our sense of the word, either. it doesn't even have to refer to something which we'd refer to as an entity. a force of some sort - somehow the source of the natural laws of the universe and its beginnings.

I don't understand. You won't believe that the universe had no cause because it violates everything you know about the natural, but you don't mind believing in an Architect who is explicitly supernatural?

I'd like to remind you that intuition is not always reliable. Time dilation is counter-intuitive. The Earth constantly orbiting around the Sun is counter-intuitive. You may feel that everything must have a cause, but that does not make it so.

 

[Zuu]

I don't understand. You won't believe that the universe had no cause because it violates everything you know about the natural, but you don't mind believing in an Architect who is explicitly supernatural?

I'd like to remind you that intuition is not always reliable. Time dilation is counter-intuitive. The Earth constantly orbiting around the Sun is counter-intuitive. You may feel that everything must have a cause, but that does not make it so.

oh, no, i mind very much! that's why i brought it up. note that i won't say that i won't believe that the universe had no cause, since i used to believe that and might still believe that anyway. i'm just in an odd theological spot right now.

i guess for me it really boils down to: is it more rational to believe in 1) something explicitly supernatural or 2) something that violates all my previous knowledge. you make a good point about intuition, and so i conclude that choice 2 is more rational, but both of the choices violate my inner sense of reason with the same magnitude. so either way i am unsatisfied. :( anyway i apologise for all of these posts, i realise i'm making myself look quite foolish.

 

[opaltiger]

oh, no, i mind very much! that's why i brought it up. note that i won't say that i won't believe that the universe had no cause, since i used to believe that and might still believe that anyway. i'm just in an odd theological spot right now.

i guess for me it really boils down to: is it more rational to believe in 1) something explicitly supernatural or 2) something that violates all my previous knowledge. you make a good point about intuition, and so i conclude that choice 2 is more rational, but both of the choices violate my inner sense of reason with the same magnitude. so either way i am unsatisfied. :( anyway i apologise for all of these posts, i realise i'm making myself look quite foolish.

All your previous knowledge is based on observations made about the universe. Those observations are utterly meaningless in a pre-Big Bang reality. Thus, there is absolutely no reason why "the universe has always existed" or "the universe spontaneously came into being" should, as you put it, violate your inner sense of reason.

 

[Crazy Linoone]

All your previous knowledge is based on observations made about the universe. Those observations are utterly meaningless in a pre-Big Bang reality. Thus, there is absolutely no reason why "the universe has always existed" or "the universe spontaneously came into being" should, as you put it, violate your inner sense of reason.

I think it's more of "evolution has not conditioned the human mind to think at that sort of scale" kind of thing. It's impossible, or at least ridiculously hard, for most humans to imagine and truly comprehend the sheer size of the universe. It just doesn't make sense .

So yes, Zuu, your inner voice of reason won't like the pre-Big Bang world very much because you are human and your brain cannot comprehend anything that violates the laws you've known and lived in for all your life. Logic, however, says that it's more rational to believe that there is no Architect.

 

[Coroxn]

I'm just looking at this, and I'm just...not seeing a huge problem. I mean, she's a little overboard, I know, and at times, a little creepy, I agree, but...they're not beeing brainwashed. It's not like when they're older they'll be incapable of choosing for themselves.

Okay, the Anti-Harry Potter rant is too much, and the guilt trips, but...
This just looks like scare stuff to me. Just something sensationalized to rile people up. At times, she's extreme, and I agree she should have been shut down, but this is not EVIL. This is a women, scared what the world will be without God, and trying to ensure her code of ethics gets passed on, by forcing it down the throat of the next generation.

It's wrong, but, understandable.

 

[Zero Moment]

I'm just looking at this, and I'm just...not seeing a huge problem. I mean, she's a little overboard, I know, and at times, a little creepy, I agree, but...they're not beeing brainwashed. It's not like when they're older they'll be incapable of choosing for themselves.

Okay, the Anti-Harry Potter rant is too much, and the guilt trips, but...
This just looks like scare stuff to me. Just something sensationalized to rile people up. At times, she's extreme, and I agree she should have been shut down, but this is not EVIL. This is a women, scared what the world will be without God, and trying to ensure her code of ethics gets passed on, by forcing it down the throat of the next generation.

It's wrong, but, understandable.

Wait what.
What are you talking about?

 

[Tarvos]

I'm just looking at this, and I'm just...not seeing a huge problem. I mean, she's a little overboard, I know, and at times, a little creepy, I agree, but...they're not beeing brainwashed. It's not like when they're older they'll be incapable of choosing for themselves.

Okay, the Anti-Harry Potter rant is too much, and the guilt trips, but...
This just looks like scare stuff to me. Just something sensationalized to rile people up. At times, she's extreme, and I agree she should have been shut down, but this is not EVIL. This is a women, scared what the world will be without God, and trying to ensure her code of ethics gets passed on, by forcing it down the throat of the next generation.

It's wrong, but, understandable.

As "understandable" as it is that the woman is a lunatic, she's still a lunatic.

 

[Coroxn]

Lunatic...
Explain this view of her.
Is it just because her views are different to yours?

 

[Phantom]

Ha, indoctrination. I hated it. Seriously, years of religion classes forced down my throat, nasty backwash wine, and flavorless crackers that made me wish that Jesus had known the existence of Jimmy Johns. And I never had a choice in it growing up. I understand wanting your ideals passed on, but when they are forced they never have the same impact as they would if the person had made their on decision on it.

Who is going to be the better Catholic, the person who is forced to go to Church, who goes there as a kid and never pays attention, never listens to the Mass, never participates unless forced to, and who thought religion was simply something you had to do, it was something they had to do to satisfy others not what they wanted to do? Or the person who chose to go to Mass and willingly participate and become involved and listen because they are actually interested?

Catholicism is very heavily based on Indoctrination. I think they would loose most of their worshipers if they left it open to the individual rather than the parents.

 

[Tarvos]

Lunatic...
Explain this view of her.
Is it just because her views are different to yours?

No, because her views are lunatic.

 

[Coroxn]

I agree with you there, Phantom. In my school you must do one class of Mass every monday. To be honest, it's a refreshing break from class and a nice way to feel connected to God, but I hate what the priest says. He once told us that loners were "Lying bastards who live in their own little world, ignoring everyone because they think we are beneath them and thinking only of what's good for them, not about God, but how to please themselves, and the devil!!!"

I laughed at him. (In my head. I don't want to be expelled....)

 

[Phantom]

We had Mass every Friday. And I kind of had to listen, I was the altar server. For me that time would have been better spent in class. Rather than be in front of the entire school in funny clothes and half burning myself on the damn Pascal candle, I hated that thing.

 

[Aobaru]

Hey TCoAtheists.

What, in your opinion, is the ultimate argument against theism?

Go!