As Above, So Below - the religion thread (formerly: People of California, beware)

The disaster they cause to their families and the society around them, especially in small towns, villages and closed communities, is equally harmful, imo. All religious fanatism is extremely dangerous and of equal harming powers, with no exceptions imo.

all fanaticism is bad. People die at soccer games, arguments over stupid silly meaningless stuff at a bar, riots over non religious issues. Many people who have a religious belief just leave others alone unless they ask for help. These people are sometimes harmed by sick people who ridicule their belief in something they can't see or explain. If I want to believe and hurt no one why do people have to harm me? I have faith which is all I will say. I'm a survivor of the stroke because of it. No doctor believes it but I know. Why do they have to tell me otherwise? I get off the path but most of the time I know that there is a plan for me in life. I don't have to understand faith I just accept it.
Thomas

Faith in and of itself is no bad thing , and neither is it always religious in nature (though unfortunately it's a concept hijacked by religious discourse). For example, I have 'faith' that scientists will one day come across a workable and testable "theory of everything", but I base that faith on the evidence I have read: particularly that of scientific discoveries and understanding and the progress currently being made (for example, the Large Hadron Collider in Switzerland/France). But it's not a certainly; it's more a hope than a certainty. I hope that scientists one day find this "theory of everything", and it seems as though they are getting ever closer -if gradually- toward reaching that particular goal - but at the same time I fully accept they may never find it.

So for me it depends on what you believe and how you believe it. Let's assume you had faith that you would survive the stroke, a faith in a higher power of sorts, and because of that faith you believe it helped or indeed was the main cause of your survival. It seems a little arrogant to believe that by some cosmic fluke, you were ascribed some degree of importance over those whom aren't so lucky concerning the survival of strokes. On the other hand, let's assume you simply had faith that you were going to survive and that alone is what helped. This, I find, is far less arrogant than the former since 'faith' is really just another name for 'hope' - and hope, particularly with what you experienced, is surely a good thing (and could arguably have real physiological benefits).

Either version of faith is not particularly harmful as they have a more personal quality about them, as Peter described above (although the former could have indirect repercussions). The latter especially, which is again an extreme case of hope, is certainly no bad thing! But if your faith happens to coincide with the belief that by killing yourself and others around you allows you into heaven, you can see where things might start to get a little iffy.

So different faiths are NOT equal, and although no one can tell you what you should or should not believe, we can certainly criticize the faith depending on what it is and what effects it might have on others. Some are based on arrogance, ignorance, hope and some even on sound logic and reason. The type of faith that causes so many detrimental effects to the world and its societies are invariably those based on the former two.

And that's fair enough. Personally I can't escape the thought that if God had spared me in such a situation, why not others? What makes me so special, but -to use a rather extreme example- allows a child to be raped and murdered? (Or indeed those 99% of other people to die from a stroke.)

I would not be able to come to terms with that, and I find it particularly arrogant for those who can.

I find it odd that God apparently has the power to save people from illnesses that we as humans are either capable of curing or surviving on our own terms, but never seems to save those within a certain radius of a bomb going off.

I wonder, is he only allowed to micro-manage his miracles on the level of microbes, cells and atoms but not allowed to effect larger things like explosions?

Not only Norse mythology, Tim. The concept of laughing God (Deus ridens) was alive from *al least* the Renaissance until the Enlightement. It also combines the idea of the word being a theatre (theatrum mundi), which basically today would be just God watching the world with some popcorn, watching the best comedy ever and laughing his arse off. It's not only the Norse mythology, but I CAN imagine that it could have stemmed for that, because as we all know, Christianity stole something from *every* other culture it conquered. Part of it was of course the fact that it worked very well to adapt some parts of it to christianize the countries.

Of course not. In a situation like that, mockery or ridicule would have got him no where, not to mention it would have upset Tom in an already delicate situation. (But then no one here IS ridiculing or mocking the individual for their religious beliefs, nor are we advocating it - so I'm not sure why Tom even brought it up?)

Then again, I do believe that the ridicule of certain religious beliefs, or even non-religious beliefs, are almost a necessity. The belief that God singles out one person to be saved in light of countless others whom suffer far worse fates is a belief I believe is worth ridiculing, simply for its arrogance and stupidity. That's not to say the individual should be mocked or ridiculed for having such a belief, absofrigginlutely NOT (nor is the person necessarily arrogant or stupid; their belief just happens to be).

Then I guess we differ on that, because I think it's a belief strife for ridicule. I'd certainly be interested as to why it's a belief that makes sense you? (You may have elaborated, but I might have forgotten too!)

The simplest reason I find it to be a repulsively arrogant belief is that you instantly prescribe yourself and your survival as somehow more important than that of any other human (or non-human) that died under similar circumstances, and even different circumstances. To put it into perspective, and to use a horrible but necessarily extreme example again, God was able to save Tom from his stroke yet is unable to save a child from being murdered and raped? Why? What possible reason could God have for intervening in our earthly matters so as to let Tom survive but do nothing for the child? (Or indeed the other stroke victims.)

If it's a matter of faith, then God is petty for allowing the child to be murdered simply for not having faith in him. If it's a matter of 'it was meant to be', part of his plan, then I see no good reason whatsoever that such a horrible act could have a beneficial outcome. Nothing is worth such a horrible act. Then again, if God wanted to act but couldn't, it stands to reason that he is not all-powerful - which goes squarely against the beliefs inherently related to the one we're discussing now, running into many a philosophical quagmire (giggedy).

There is, to my mind, no sane explanation for this belief except for the arrogance and vanity of the human mind.

Again, that's your opinion that this particular belief is worthy of ridicule. There are many of us (not necessarily even devout) who believe it's not so (and I certainly don't agree that emotion overrides logic in everyone). I have no problem with anyone's thoughts on it, as long as they don't try to pass it off as THE Truth. I wrote about it in the earlier posts here, and don't feel like doing it all over again (got exams going on, and my preparation is near ZILCH! ). I'll say though that the concept of God killing someone for lack of faith is something I don't believe in. I'm not a Christian, but I found this quote at one of my friends' pages, and will re-quote it here anyway -

"Today I saw the dead body of a bird lying on the ground and was bothered by Jesus' claim that if our Father can take care of the needs of sparrows, he can certainly take care of us too. I wished that I could have asked Jesus how, if animals suffer and die as people do, are his words any comfort? Then these words occur to me: 'Whom do you think knows better the needs of the creature and the best time to provide them...the... creature itself, or the One who created it?' The dead bird bothered me no longer."

Thank you. For the rest of my views, please refer to the earlier discussions.

You certainly have a good understanding of how to bait someone, monsieur.


Aye, the key word is opinion. The "most" can be on either side of the fence.



Some are, some aren't. I'd say it's incorrect to tar them all with the same brush.



I guess we can agree to disagree on that. I'm not saying it's the absolute Truth, but it's not anything absurd either. No. Certainly not something as simple as "pre-school logic" defying either. Ah well.


I asked myself that question at least as much as you have. I can only say that the answer is not definitive, and deeper than something tangibly apparent. The person doing the raping/killing is doing it out of his own choice. He had a right to make his choice, but he used it to commit an act supremely wicked, and his punishment will catch up with him, sooner or later. The child did not in any way deserve a fate like that. Shall, in some other life, he receive an unknowing compensation for what he unjustly suffered now? Who knows. I'm not telling you to believe anything, nor am I saying it's the proven Truth or anything. You asked, my opinion here.

I didn't get the impression that Tom said that in his post, but if he did, then I don't agree. Let's say, God gave his "approval" for the operation to be a success, for whatever the reason. The surgeon's work was the most vital factor, and with a divine "nod", the operation was successful. There are famous doctors here who themselves thank God for helping their tough operation become a success, and I woundn't say they're illogical or men of blind faith.

There are many well-educated, rational people who don't find it illogical and absurd. It's not a fact, not a conclusion. Like I said before, nothing like saying the Earth is flat or something. But I don't think we''re only going to go in circles regarding this, so I'd respectably lay it at this.



You're saying that it's a fact that everything related to God or anything divine/religious is born out of blind faith, and supported by emotionally insecure and weak people only. For me, nothing could be farther than the truth. As far as I'm concerned, there's more to these things than blind beliefs or emotionally biased superstitions. But again, I won't press on this like I said above.



And I stand equally firmly behind what I said, that it's not absurd in any way. If you're not convinced, I understand since I don't claim to be omniscient. But it's not unreasonable in any way.



The facts are not being twisted here, it is simply a train of thought. Choice/will and ability are both important for something to happen. You might have the ability to do something, but you choose not to. Why? I can't answer that, because I'm not God.

My own philosophy is that our body is a mortal shell which shall be destroyed upon death. The soul is eternal and shall continue its journey, until it gets the approval to once again merge into the Supreme Soul. Did I do something in my soul's previous life that I now suffer the consequences so much later? Or am I pure and innocent, and subject to griveous injustice, and get compensated for it later? The pain we suffer in this birth is but a nanosecond compared to the life of the soul. If that is the decision for me, I might as well accept it and trust the decision made. Again I stress, I can't convince you if you find this inane, but it is not so for me, and many other rational men whose opinions I respect.



Your call!

Whether they are well-educated or rational is beside the point. I'm asking for a good reason as to how it could make sense, and why it could be rational. I've yet to see any good reasons why, so I'll continue to assume it's not rational. ("I don't know but believe it anyway" is usually what these discussions get down to.)



No, not at all. I'm saying that emotional beliefs are simply hard to change through logic or reason. You don't necessarily need to be emotionally insecure or weak to fall prey to such beliefs, but at the same time they do have a tendency to go hand in hand. (To use an analogy, you don't need to be a genius to write a great piece of music, but great pieces of music and genius do tend to be intimately related, if not always directly a result of each other.)



And that's fine. I'm not saying you shouldn't continue to believe whatever it is you believe, but as you've entered into the discussion, and have responded to my points in earnest, I do ask that you at least give reasons why you believe what it is you believe. So I remain unconvinced simply because you have yet to put forward anything particularly convincing! In which case, I am perfectly happy to leave it at that. You believe it because you believe it, so to speak.



But again you're sidestepping my point and doesn't really give a particularly good reason why one should believe that God would choose Tom over the hypothetical child (who also happens to be real). Obviously, you're not trying to convince me of that belief, that I understand. But having entered into the discussion, one would assume you have reasons why you believe it. (And from what I gather, the answer is simply "I don't know"... which is certainly not a very convincing stance from my point of view!)



Fair enough. For people like me, I would need very strong evidence to even entertain such fanciful notions - but since there are none, I shall continue to assume otherwise. For those who do believe them, that's fine... just don't try to convince anyone else, because you will likely get no where! (Although I happily admit you aren't trying to, which is great.)

So yeah, going round in circles it is.

Definitely! When it comes to matters of the 'heart', for me they tend to be about art, relationships and things of that nature - things I rarely use my head to come to terms with!

But when it comes to prescribing truths about nature, "truths" literally outside of our own minds, then I don't think the heart is a particularly fruitful way to go. If science has taught us one thing, then it is that human intuition is not necessarily a good indication of a theory being true or false; many tested and proved theories go squarely against Homo sapiens intuition built up from years of evolution. (And I certainly wouldn't want the engineer of a plane to use only his heart in designing it.)

I'm more concerned with testable "truths" than "truths" of the heart. So it's exactly as you say: different approaches.