Matthatter

This is a bit all over the place, I apologize for that. Nonetheless, I think most religion/athiest debates are a little two one sided, simple, dull and irritating. Anyone want to jump in and give their thoughts/opnions on any parts of it?





The word religious, divorced from its associations with any institution or group, refers to a subjective state of mind. The state of mind can simply be described as one that cannot be categorized by the user with any words that refer to the material world.

One may even say that the religious feeling is the absorption of inexpressible sensations. There are certain nonreligious words that one may have at their disposal to describe them—bliss, ecstasy, (or, when one is horrified by the experience) bad-trip, psychosis, etc—but if one lacks a personal (and oftentimes cultural) standard with which to interpret the sensation, one feels that their being is “enraptured” or “possessed” by a (“higher” or “greater”) encompassing something.

Science keeps discovering more about the mind works, which seems to describe, at least to a higher degree, what the states are associated with, providing more words to categorize the sensations, explaining the constant conflict with the “uneducated” bourgeois (assuming it is only they who clutch to myths for the relief of life’s sufferings) and the “educated” men and women of “common sense”, who assume themselves to see the world “objectively.”

But can every sensation truly be adequately described, to actually explain the five W’s (and will we ever, can we ever, arrive at an objective WHY)? Science excels in describing the shapes of the puzzle piece, and how they go together, but can it explain why they go together, and how we ought to use the puzzles at our disposal?

Is the religion-science conflict due to a lack of vocabulary, an inability of language to make sense out of (at least some of) the conscious experience, some combination of the two? Is the religious mindset inevitable, and one that should be embraced, as long as one doesn’t center the practical matters of living and treating other’s around them (ie prayer/contemplation/etc as an exercise to creatively balance the body, letting one’s mind freely dance and explore itself, rather than actually believing the images to be objectively true, and forcing other’s to accept your own manifestations)?

BOURBON

*tumbleweed blows by*

Intel

*Eats a bourbon biscuit*

__________________
Don't worry if I write checks, I write rhymes.

AA

*blinks*

__________________
There's not much else to say about that.

A-L

*looks around nervously*

Non Serviam

I'm with you up to here.

And now I feel all confused. Are you familiar with scientific literature on consciousness? Are you referring to a specific scientist or author that you can cite? Because I don't recognise this picture from recent science at all.

Well, no. To the religious mindset, that's a matter for deities or priests or holy texts or theologists; to the atheist, it's a matter for philosophers (personally I subscribe to Dan Dennett's view of consciousness).

I think our language will be adequate to describe consciousness once we can picture it more clearly. Because nobody's ever found a way to perform meaningful experiments on consciousness, there isn't a scientific picture at the moment. (There's theory and philosophy, but to a scientist, that's nothing without experiment.)

It's certainly not inevitable, because there's such a person as Richard Dawkins.

There's always a choice about what you believe.

__________________
Thoughtcrime does not entail death. Thoughtcrime IS death.
http://www.theoddvillepress.com/html/download.html

pabs

I don't believe it is inevitable. That's because many people have different views about what exactly religion is. I see it as a vessel through which I am to subscribe myself to a being I can't see who can control me, without rule of law, and damn me to burn forever (of course he loves me). As you said, and I agree, you should not force your beliefs (whether they be belief or disbelief) upon others. For example, most would agree that state religion (or non-religion, but I don't believe there are any at the moment) is a bad thing that takes away an inalienable right: the right to believe what ever you want to.

Ungood

Good post.

The division between Naturalistic Ideals and Religious Ideals is firmly set into the idea of if there is or is not something beyond the observable physical world.

But in truth the conflict is more about ideals then the ability to communicate those ideas. In many cases I have had people understood exactly what I was saying but simply disagreed with it.

Language and vocabulary have never been the boundary.

Ungood.

__________________

ash somers

"my religion is very simple, my religion is kindness"

_ the dalai lama

just boring ole me again *yawn* i think i might have a lay down

Blood

*plucks nose hair*

__________________
"...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defense of custom. But tumult soon subsides. Time makes more converts than reason...."

Thomas Paine

Zensati

My religion is total dominance, and Pleb annihilation.

__________________
http://www.writingforums.com/short-s...al-artist.html

Admit it. Zensati is our god. - JHB

Malone

I believe the religious sensations you mention are entirely explainable. Gathering in a group, building said group into a fervor, praying, worshiping, etc. will set off a series of chemicals in the brain that give the feeling of pleasure and create a high. Our monkey brains automatically relate this to the activity being partaken at the time, religion, and therefor the mind misinterprets these feelings as some kind of divine spirit of God washing over them, and the association sticks. This is always what I assume is the case when people tell me about how the feel God, have a relationship with God, or have felt God work through them. It doesn't seem that hard to fathom.
I think this all stems back to when most men lived solitary, isolated lives. Reading the historical records, including the Bible, show how the ancient God was a personal God who would come and visit, share food, and what not, and has progressed to merely a concept that no longer literally speaks to people. I would guess the indoctrination from birth, along with the apparent human need you discuss that still lingers (and no, I can't explain this, although I imagine scientist who study such things have a good idea), explains the continuation of such bizarre myths. The desire, the want, to believe that there is something better out there, some place you go after death, and that it's not just "the end" and nothingness, clearly plays a part as well.
Intellect, wealth, and lifestyle obviously don't play a part in the faiths. Some very smart, wealthy people I know (well, most of them actually) all believe in God. I think it's more a case of the non-believers being the ones who have something wrong with them. Clearly, there is some abnormality with our brains that allow us to see the "truth" and dismiss these ancient myths, as we are the minority and therefore the freaks. I can only hope that more abnormal people are born each day.
I certainly wouldn't go to a doctor who practiced medicine according to a two thousand year old text that had been translated and re-translated over twenty time, and to me it's basically the same situation with religion.

__________________
There Is A Policeman Inside All Our Heads: He Must Be Destroyed


Malone's Mind
Everyday Madness Kindle Edition

Ungood

Question: How do you know it is the "truth". Can you validate that it is the truth or are you the "freak" because you are being influenced by a personal delusion caused by a chemical imbalance in the brain.

Like a sociopath might view human empathy as an illusion and that people have been fed a lie regarding this. There is no human empathy,and for them, they think what they are feeling is correct.

Logic and science supports them as well. We kill and eat animals, humans are animals, so the idea that human life is valuable is a lie, humans as a life form are no more valuable then a cow or rodent (Which we kill on regular basis with out any remorse), so treating human life with any value or importance is a myth and lie that has been fed to the masses.

They can only hope that some day people will finally see the truth.

Ungood.

__________________

Non Serviam

Personally, I don't know it's true. For me this is a matter of faith (and the definition of "faith" in my signature is highly relevant!)

I have faith in the non-existence of God.

I shall now quote from my own holy text, the Apatheist's Book of Unreliable Mendacity, Chapter 1, Verse 1:

"There is no God, and Richard Dawkins is His prophet."

__________________
Thoughtcrime does not entail death. Thoughtcrime IS death.
http://www.theoddvillepress.com/html/download.html

Malone

Ungood: I put "truth" in quotations marks to point out that it was only my truth. Maybe I am a sociopath, because I agree that human life is not really any more valuable than a cow, ant, or dog. We have a slightly higher conscience, so I do give us a little more value, but overall, I think we're all just animals. I stopped killing animals when I began believing that, but I still eat meat, and if I had to, would gladly kill for my dinner. That's just nature. I suppose I'd eat a human if I had to as well (or if I found out that they taste as good as hamburger).

__________________
There Is A Policeman Inside All Our Heads: He Must Be Destroyed


Malone's Mind
Everyday Madness Kindle Edition