Topic awaiting preservation: Belief System (Page 2 of 2)

*another replicated post - sorry - a bit click-happy of late*

(Edited by White Hawk on 05-27-2004 14:09)

This isn't my looooooong post - I'm just bored at the office for the moment...
___

I second that, Sangreal,

I also think that there would be a lot of happy despots in the world if topics like religion and politics were successfully made taboo.

There was a time when the idea of questioning established 'facts' was considered heresy. You were either crazy or heretic if you suggested that the world was round, or that it wasn't the centre of the universe. Crazy or heretic, the result was usually the same - horrific death.

I believe absolutely, that we are returning to such a time by gradual degrees.

The greatest problem we face is that your average religion just isn't practiced with the conviction that it once was. Moderation is breeding extremism. A vacuum has formed in the order of belief systems which will be (is being?) filled by the more extreme religions.

This is an age of increasing cultism and superstition - simply because people seem to need to grasp a faith that can help them to cope with a world beyond their understanding.
Fundamentally, it is simpler to blame/excuse/thank god for the things that happen in one's life, than to face them without faith in some almighty plan.

Whether or not God exists, he will always be believed in - humans require that greater mystery to explain all the lesser ones.
___

Oh, I've changed my mind, by the way:

You can't kill the god that exists in modern religions.
The pagan gods and spirits were all ways of explaining the ebb and flow of nature. They would eventually have been superseded by science as the systems behind events in the universe were explained.

Taking the Christian god as an example: the principle concept of the faith is that you can never truly know god. The wonders and marvels of a scientific universe are flippantly attributed to the power of god. For this reason, he exists as an unreachable, unprovable, unquestionable entity beyond the mortal's ability to truly conceive.

His mystery becomes his insurance - omnipotence through enigma.
___

And finally, I'm wondering how many people will read my last posts and consider the question I posed.

Principally - how many people would consider my question without actually assuming the truth of the father? How many people will first consider the question of whether or not the man is truly the father of the child?

Is that just obscure logic? I'm losing the thread of that thought now... *sigh*

_______________________________

Seek not truth with deceitful intent...
...for that way lies the seed of dissent.
_______________________________

quote:

---

If a child grows to believe that a man is his father and never discovers otherwise - in fact, dies believing that man was his father - does that belief make the truth of whether or not the man was his father?
Also, if you gave him the opportunity on his death bed to know the truth - would he:
1) want to know?
2) be better off knowing?

---

A fact is a fact...belief does not change this. The child may believe that the man is his father - and dies, still believing so. But it doesn't change the [b]fact[/] that this is not so.

The answer to the question

"if you gave him the opportunity on his death bed to know the truth - would he:
1) want to know?
2) be better off knowing?"

is a subjective one, that can only be decided by the person in question. How should I know what he wants, or what is better for him? Let it be his own decision.

quote:

---

Principally - how many people would consider my question without actually assuming the truth of the father? How many people will first consider the question of whether or not the man is truly the father of the child?

---

"Assuming the truth of the Father"...I take it you mean, that the actual "truth" that you suppose in the first question (or the fact that you give - the Father is not really the father of the child). What, should we then doubt this given fact? Based on what clue, or information? For if I am supposed to consider "doubting" that this is indeed fact (as given), then I must doubt everything that you propose, or say...and that makes the effort then silly, doesn't it? In end effect, I should then just ignore you. Maybe that is the reason that I am the only one answering your question.

WebShaman | Asylum D & D | D & D Min Page

Actually, the whole point was that I did not suggest either way. It is the belief either way that is in question - the truth is entirely ignored by the question.

Did you miss that entirely?

And perhaps doubting what I say is a good start? You might otherwise blindly believe anything I tell you!
It is people like you that make the world a little more bearable.

AND yes: it might all be silly after all. Are you offended by this possibility - you seem agitated.
Have you had your shock therapy lately? I book myself in for an intensive session at least every few days. Keeps the brain nice and loose.

_______________________________

Seek not truth with deceitful intent...
...for that way lies the seed of dissent.
_______________________________

By the way - I think you may have been caught up in the semantics of the question, rather than the relevance of the analogy?

What do I know? Even I don't understand what I'm getting at half the time...

_______________________________

Seek not truth with deceitful intent...
...for that way lies the seed of dissent.
_______________________________

I couldn't help laughing out loud at this, WebShaman:

quote:

---

Rush Limbaugh, Mr. Bush, I'm sure there are others...

*whistles innocently, while striding towards the door*

---

Bugimus & Ruski:

Before we start saying which deity(s) are real, perhaps we need to define what 'Real' means. If I'm not mistaken that is one of the main points of this thread.

To it seems clear that anything that is thought of (any idea or concept) exists. The best test I can think of for 'reality' is this: Does the Object in question have an effect on anything else? If so, it exists and is therefore 'Real'.

Object as in-

God myDeity=new God();

Hey....! Forget Artificial Intelligence, coding new gods is way cool! Sounds like a worthwhile Ozone Asylum project to me.

Of course, since Satan has already been compiled there will be no need to use Visual Basic.

*laughing hysterically*
(time for another shock session)

_______________________________

Seek not truth with deceitful intent...
...for that way lies the seed of dissent.
_______________________________

White Hawk, Belief is not a substitute for Truth, for fact (though many believe it is). It is irrelevant, what the child believes - the man is/is not his biological father, as the case may be.

The belief will not change the fact that the man is/isn't, as the case may be (biologically, anyway). However psychologically and emotionally, that is an entirely different story. If the child believes, then the man is his father psychologically and emotionally.

I see, and understand the allegory behind what you are saying. Metaphorically, one could compare the child with a Believer - of either Religion, or Science, as the case may be (though I would tend to disagree on the terminology here - Science is a method of learning based on Facts, on repeatable results, Religon is based on Faith). In the example you give, the answer is not known (the fact, if you will) - that just leaves the "Belief".

Thus, the answer to the second part, would be the urge to either Disprove/prove existance of God - Science or Spread the Faith - Religon. Or not to. It could even allegorically, be seen as God himself, debating whether or not He should inform the "child" a non-believer, etc...but I wander.

WebShaman | Asylum D & D | D & D Min Page

At last! I could kiss you, I really could.

_______________________________

Seek not truth with deceitful intent...
...for that way lies the seed of dissent.
_______________________________

...but I won't.

*Breathes sigh of relief*

WebShaman | Asylum D & D | D & D Min Page

In the interest of time, I'm going to respond to 2 immediate posts, and then read the rest of the posts since yesterday, I think I need to clarify (due to my haste yesterday afternoon...)

WS - I did say "generally"... I realize that's probably not as true today as it has been in the past. Quite possibly, if I'd had the chance to re-read the post first, I would have made that a little more clear.
And, uh, raising, brainwashing, they mean the same in terms of bringing up children in a society, right?

Ruski, I only commented that the particular comment was bigoted, and for the most part, the rest of my post was directed at the general populous, not just you. I'm not accusing you of anything - except perhaps not taking the time to go back and rephrase yourself so you aren't mistaken for being intolerant. As you can ^see^, I am also guilty of rushing every now and then... .

Now that I've had a chance to read a little more thoroughly...

quote:

---

but what decent moral grounding can one truly expect from a religion which condones the fatal stoning of an unmarried mother, for instance?

---

You take my meaning entirely too literally. I mean mainstream religion, of course. What shapes our society (through Christianity) is not the literal stories from the Bible, but the form and function of attending worship services, and all of the rules and societal etiquette that go along with it and the whole "church" experience. It's the interaction of the community in a formal setting that does the work - not the stories the people are actually talking about. Not to mention the reward of eternal life in heaven as a means to coax good behavior out of young people. Not, mind you, that this has been terribly effective in recent years. I use Christianity as an example only because it is currently the predominant religion in the US, which is the only society I can appropriately speak about, since I'm part of it.

edit: not that religion is the sole means of shaping children into adults these days either - it is only one means to the end...

Just because the topic has strayed slightly, and we have some new folks in here, let me just clarify my position on religion.

I am a spiritual person. I feel the wonder of the natural world around us, and I am pretty convinced that there is a focused creative force involved somehow, but I do not now,and have not for some years, felt the need to give it a name of any kind. I was raised in the Episcopal Church, and my mother in an ordained minister. I have studied religions on my own as a hobby and interest, and through my formal studies as a student of Anthropology.

I have, over the last 10-12 years, given religion a great deal of thought, and have decided that it is only what the individual makes of it. The basic tenets and beliefs of all major religions boil down to the same ideas: be nice to yourself, be nice to other people, believe in a higher power, and keep your thoughts on the positive outcome. Whatever trappings you decide to surround these ideas with become your own personal dogma. Whether you do it on your own, or you do it in a community, real spirituality is distinctly personal.

Even so - organized religion serves its purpose, as I said above. The last 10 years or have seen a major shift in popular view, from a society that welcomes all faiths, to a society that seems to no longer have need of any. Even Christianity is beginning to suffer in light of the aformentioned shift. I firmly believe that as humans, it is an integral part of ourselves to nurture some sort of spiritual belief. It doesn't really matter what you believe, just that you do believe. Otherwise, one is left feeling slightly bereft and empty. And "empty" people leave themselves open to being sucked into less "savory" types of activities/practices...

(Edited by bodhi23 on 05-27-2004 21:00)

White Hawk, I hadn't replied to your question because I just hadn't gotten around to it yet. But now I can do so.

quote:

---

If a child grows to believe that a man is his father and never discovers otherwise - in fact, dies believing that man was his father - does that belief make the truth of whether or not the man was his father?

---

The child's belief that the man was his father does NOT determine whether or not the man was, in fact, his father.

quote:

---

Also, if you gave him the opportunity on his death bed to know the truth - would he:
1) want to know?
2) be better off knowing?

---

Only the child could answer the first question. If he were Carl Sagan I suspect he would want to know as I recall a quote of his

quote:

---

It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
--Carl Sagan

---

The second question is very interesting. I would say that in most cases it would be better NOT to reveal the truth to the child on his death bed. Why? Although the father was not the "biological" father, he was the child's "actual" father. If you define father, as I do, as the one who actually does the fathering then this makes sense. But I suspect you're more focusing on the biological truth of fatherhood and since I place very little emphasis on that, I say telling the child would serve no purpose whatsoever under the circumstances.


norm, I mean that before this world existed (yes, I deny the world is eternal) God was. He was then, is now, and ever will be completely independent of our thoughts and existence. He is not dependent on us for anything whatsoever. That is really real. It's about as real as it gets. No, it is the ultimate reality.

So that is how I view real. I hope that helps to clarify where I'm coming from in my comments above about the Hindu "Trinity".

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . . : Justice 4 Pat Richard : . .

White Hawk: If questioning facts makes you a heretic today as it did in those days then I claim the title of WORLD'S BIGGEST HERETIC. I love anyhting that has a fighting chance to overhtrow any given fact. Without anyone to have faith in a god or the christian god (like to point out now that I am Methodist by more or less my own choosing, But not entirely of my own volition) than wouldn't that god stop having power. A miracle would be difined as any work by any god(s) and those miracles can only come through faith therefore NO faith equals NO miracle.

I'm sorry I haven't had the time to make a post yet, but I do want to thank Bugimus, because it seems that he has said all the things I have wanted to say. But back on topic, I would like to say some other things.

quote:

---

White Hawk said:

there are plenty of ways to interpret the bible as a manual for all-out-war too,
methinks.

---

I do not know where in the Bible it says something like that. When i have read it, it only points to a loving God who wants to have a relationship with you, like Bugimus said. He doesn't want you to go and kill people that are against you. If you can find a part in the bible that condoles the unneccesary use of force, I would like to know.

quote:

---

White Hawk said:

but what decent moral grounding can one truly expect from a religion which
condones the fatal stoning of an unmarried mother, for instance?

---

If you are talking about Christianity or the Jewish faith, then yes that has happened in the past. If it happens in any Christian church now, then it should stop, but back then it did happen for a reason. The people of Israel were very easily led, like sheep. They were going to fall into the laps of the other religions, unless strict rules were laid out. The rules had to be enforced, and the reason that they would stone to death someone is so that they could rid the community of of the evil. A premarital pregnancy or a "bastard" is usually a sign that the woman was commiting adultry. That is why she had to be stoned. She had committed a sin, and they didn't want the sin to infect the community. And sin is contageous. Just look at America. Sin rampages throughout America because it is unchecked. But anyway, they didn't want the sin to infect the whole community. They had to get rid of the offender in the worst way possible, which was death. It was quite effective too. I mean, if you stoned someone with a rock that you picked up, and you hurled it at them, and you killed them, then you would be less likely to commit that sin too, for fear of being stoned. If you just banished the person, then you are saying that it is bad, but not bad enough to take your life away, then some people would say,"lets do it too." That would have been bad.

quote:

---

White Hawk said:

but it is religion in general that people use as much to excuse
their actions as to control them.

---

I do agree with this, and that too many people have taken advantage of churches and used them for "Holy Wars". I am strictly against that. I think that God wrote "Thou shalt not kill." on the tablet for a reason. People are lost sheep, and they do follow. That is why so many churches have been corrupted.

Why is what doctors do called a "practice"?

Bugimus, let me start off by saying that you have some very good arguements and that I do not expect either side of this particular debate to truly win merely come to some sory of comprimise since:
1. To prove the system wrong you MUST come up with concrete evidence (other than firm belief) that God, Yahweh, Jehovah..... whatever you wish to call him is the one TRUE GOD and not man-made. And I am confident yet saddened in the fact that this shall never happen.
2. To prove the system correct you MUST come up with concrete evidence (other than firm belief) that God..... is NOT the one TRUE GOD. I am also confident in the fact that this shall never happen.

That said I shall say this:
How can you believe in God and then not believe in the supernatural/paranormal (as you stated in the thread Belief in the Paranormal). Since God is in fact Supernatural/Paranormal?

If one match can start a forest fire then why does it take the whole box to start a BBQ Grill?

I suggested earlier that the bible could be interpreted as a manual for all out war. Perhaps this was an over-statement...

Gideon said:

quote:

---

I do not know where in the Bible it says something like that. When i have read it, it only points to a loving God who wants to have a relationship with you, like Bugimus said. He doesn't want you to go and kill people that are against you. If you can find a part in the bible that condoles the unneccesary use of force, I would like to know.

---

The Bible suggests:

quote:

---

When the Lord your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you many nations ... then you must destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy.
(Deuteronomy 7:1-2)

When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. When the Lord your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. ... This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby.
However, in the cities of the nations the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. Completely destroy them--the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites--as the Lord your God has commanded you.
(Deuteronomy 20:10-15)

---

You asked..?

As regards god wanting to have a relationship with me (!), he'd better keep his hands to himself. I'm a tolerant man, but I just don't swing that way!

Oh yes Gideon, regarding the horrors of the past...

Just the other day I watched an old (as in, last year) BBC report on a young woman who was awaiting her death sentence (stoning) for bearing a child out of wed-lock in some developing country or other.

Do you know what an honour killing is under Islam?

Several young London women would be able to tell you... if they hadn't been stabbed or bludgeoned to death by their own fathers/families for so-called promiscuity (or, in some cases, being too friendly with white men).

Yeah, that was in the past - so will the next one be, and the one after that, and the one after that. It's hardly inappropriate for me to mention something that occurs in my own country every year (despite the fact that the reports have become less high-profile of late).

quote:

---

I think that God wrote "Thou shalt not kill." on the tablet for a reason. People are lost sheep, and they do follow. That is why so many churches have been corrupted.

---

Is this the same (infallible and unchangeable) god who instructed his followers to kill unfaithful wives and husbands, to stone a girl to death if charges of promiscuity could not be dis-proved, or to kill homosexuals for 'detestable' acts?

I agree: people have somewhat corrupted that particular set of commands over time, haven't they?

Oddly, you also stated:

quote:

---

Sin rampages throughout America because it is unchecked. But anyway, they didn't want the sin to infect the whole community. They had to get rid of the offender in the worst way possible, which was death. It was quite effective too.

---

So, I take you are an advocate of the death penalty?

And Bugimus...

quote:

---

The child's belief that the man was his father does NOT determine whether or not the man was, in fact, his father.

---

...is an answer relevant to the thread, seeing as we were discussing the possibility that a god might exist simply because it is believed in. I think you lost me with the rest though - I was attempting an analogy which, it is now obvious to me, was redundant anyway.

To clarify - would you rather die believing that god does or does not exist, or find out the truth (whatever it is) before you die? As a believer, this question would be pertinent. Most non-believers would happily consent to being told the truth by someone (or something) in authority.

Typically though, this is one of those 'unknowables'. If there is no answer before death, then God may still exist simply because he is 'unknowable'. On the other hand, should an after-life therapist appear with a form to fill out declaring you sound of spirit and seeking asylum in the nether-reaches of an un-expectedly capitalist and commercial after-life....?

Bodhi, you said:

quote:

---

You take my meaning entirely too literally. I mean mainstream religion, of course.

---

And what could be more 'mainstream' than the fastest growing religion of them all? I refer you to the first few lines of this post.

quote:

---

And, uh, raising, brainwashing, they mean the same in terms of bringing up children in a society, right?

---

That's exactly what most religious leaders would have us believe! ;)

I wasn't brain-washed by my parents. I was brought up with a few basics on the differences between right and wrong, and a healthy belief in myself and my abilities. I was also encouraged to explore my own spiritual beliefs from a very early age.
I strive to be polite at all times, respect other people, and obey (most :D ) of the laws of men.
However, I have known plenty of religious thieves, muggers, drunkards, and a wife-beater. That last one was the only person (first and last) I ever deliberately and intentionally attacked with the aim of causing harm, but my defence is temporary insanity - I abhor unnecessary violence in any form.

Life is a marvelous and beautiful thing for me, regardless of whether or not there is a 'why' behind it all. I don't need a belief in a deity to make me appreciate the world, or to fill an emptiness inside me. Though I sometimes moan about long hours at work, the state of public transport, the failing standards of education, or the terrible behaviour of kids today - I can honestly say that I am content with my lot, and even somtimes, quite happy... ;)

____________________________________________

And the lord said unto Moses, "Come forth" . . .
...but he came fifth and won a pink teddybear instead.
____________________________________________

quote:

---

BRAINWASHING: Dictionary Entry and Meaning
Pronunciation: 'breyn`wâshing

WordNet Dictionary

Definition: [n] forcible indoctrination into a new set of attitudes and beliefs

See Also: indoctrination

---

I was, initially, being facetious with that remark... But now I have to make a point. In a society of humans, adults are required to bring up their offspring to be productive, contributing members of that society. The young are given no choice in the matter. You have children, you live in a specific society, you bring the children up to know and accept the rules of the society they will have to live in. If this isn't brainwashing in it's most raw form, I don't know what is.

You might think your parents didn't brainwash you, but your whole outlook on life is a construct of your parents tutelege. Regardless of how much a free-thinker you take yourself to be. Now, don't take this on the defensive, I'm not trying to insult anyone. Just making a point. Children learn by imitation. Parents do what they know, necessarily their children grow up indoctrinated into society simply by their existence in the family group. In anthropology, it's known as "enculturation", but it means the same. You may hold some different opinions, but you still know how to function in society, and that is where you are "brainwashed". The older I get, and the more I interact with my parents as people, the more I see that this is exactly the case. I am so much like both of them it makes me ill. How does one undo a lifetime of conditioning?