Religion?

[jordanread]

[...]
Some people, many, in fact, are incapable of developing "reasonable" core ethics, morals and basis' for reasonable behavior without some kind of force.
[...]

Is this anecdotal, or is there something more solid that I missed?

[Runge]

There simply has been no concrete proof of any religion being true in the past 2000 years, possibly even forever. I believe religion was started for many reasons, it offered ancient people simple answers to things we didn't understand or know at the time. It also provided a sense of community and control. (Specifically for government and religious leaders, which worked together in many cases)

...

Over time it grew to be something much more, and there are many terrible problems that resulted in it. (IP was right when he said it is the people, not the religion. But religion is what started it) Many problems still exist today. From what I understand it sounds like Jesus was an innovative leader and thinker, with many great ideas. -This simple reason is why so many people followed his beliefs.

But the reality is the leaders of that time DID NOT want people speaking out, and conflicting with what they wanted. (This could have resulted in disorder of the people) While we will never know if he actually had a real relation to the supposed "God", we know he was punished for his beliefs. - Exactly the same way many religions are punished today, such as atheism.

Lots of good comments and questions in there, but allow me to address this subset. I think most people believe that Jesus did actually exist as a human, at least that's what I've gathered from listening to a lot of different ideas and arguments from a very revolutionary teacher, prophet, or actually God in the flesh. I think many people accept that he was here on Earth due to many historical accounts. It's my understanding that it's generally accepted that non-fiction/historical records written 2000 years ago at the time were easily separated from fiction writings.

Historical accounts were held to a high standard of accuracy, specifically in the first few centuries, therefore since the first couple books of the New Testament (the Gospels) were written as historical records of Jesus's teachings they would also be held under the same scrutiny as other historical records. How would this affect all of the miracles that are performed by Jesus within those Gospels? Healing leprosy with a simple touch, turning water into wine, some how making a handful of fish feed thousands upon thousands in one sitting, bringing Lazarus back to life after he died 4 days earlier, Jesus himself escaping his tomb and appearing to hundreds of people.

All throughout the OT and NT, God presented himself and his teachings in the ways that those cultures needed to see. 1st Century Jews were looking for signs and miracles and they got them. Greeks wanted intellectual reasoning, the Apostle Paul gave that to them through his letters, for example the book of Romans. Paul backed up his teachings and claim as an Apostle by performing miracles and wonders.

I'm not trying to convince anyone, just posing some counter arguments to think about and research on your own.

Science is just a way of understanding the universe around us by observation.  It's the most systematic and least flawed way we've devised to do this so far.

Science has a good track record explaining the behavior of matter and energy, but there isn't a repeatable experiment that demonstrates that matter and energy are the only things that exist.

I can't prove that matter or energy are the only things that exist, just that nothing else is observable.  This is where the extraordinary claims involved with religious belief come into play.  An absence of evidence, is not proof supporting your claim.

I completely agree with this. Ultimately I'm of the belief that it all adds up as evidence for some sort of intelligent designer. There's so much that we likely don't know about our universe, but what we do know really is amazing and something to be excited about and celebrated over. I still think there's more out there that we don't know and will never know, can never prove nor disprove. Fascinating stuff really. Rob Bell's Everything is Spiritual tour https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2rklwkm_dQ is one interpretation of how science relates to religion.

[isbjshaffer]

I've often wondered this as well. I actually started a blog inspired by MMM but with a religious twist. I feel like a lot of his reasons for wanting to retire early align with many foundational beliefs of many religions like spending time with nature, freeing your time to life and enjoy life, nature, the world, your friends and family, etc. Learning to live on less so that you can realize those more important things is key. Learning how wasteful many of us are. Or how needy or selfish...all of these things usually coincide with most religions in today's societies.

That being said, my family is Christian. I also claim the faith but not so much in the "dress up for church, tithe 10%, pray a prayer" kind of way. I've always thought that your faith should have practicle actions to back it up. Especially Christians who claim that they are called to "Stand Out" from the world or not live in the world or whatever, but they still purchase their BMW's, buy their coffee, have the brand name clothes, credit cards, etc. They look exactly the same as the rest of the country. Somehow I don't think that Jesus would look like the typical American, but would be more like MMM - constantly making himself better.

[Beric01]

One major reason atheism is looked down on is because so many religions believe that if you are atheist - you will not go to heaven, you will be punished in some way. (In my eyes the reason for this belief is SIMPLE. - It was used to control religious peoples from straying away from what was wanted of them by their leaders.)

It's my understanding that the reason atheism is frowned upon by religious people has nothing to do with where non-believers will spend eternity and everything to do with the fact that religious followers derive their morals and ethics from their religion.  Because of that, they tend to view those without religion as having no reason to be moral or ethical, which makes them untrustworthy.

Which of course is silly, but that's the mindset from what I've gathered.

Perhaps, but it is even more illogical then to assume you have to follow a traditional religions beliefs just to be a fair, just, ethical person.

Personally, most, if not all atheists I have met are fair, logical, ethical, and smart people.

As a non-believer, I also think it's illogical that morality/ethics and religion are linked.  But this is not the belief of the religious (those that would look down on atheists at least)  Your original statement was that religious people dislike atheists because they are going to hell, but I don't think that's why.  I'm saying they don't like atheists because they don't view them as trustworthy in this life.  I'm not trying to assign logic to that belief.  I've long given up trying to assign logical thought to religious beliefs.

Here's a poll on those who think it is necessary to believe in God to be a moral person.

In 22 of 39 countries surveyed, clear majorities say it is necessary to believe in God to be moral and have good values.

I found this chart the most interesting:

[k-vette]

InvestFourMoreMM - Without being distracted by the many other comments, here is my take on your questions.  I ran through just the questions and outlined my answers below.

1.    I have no idea what MMM’s religious views are.  He seems like he believes in being a good person and doing what’s right, with no apparent affiliation.  I could however be totally wrong.

2.    You ask if one religion could be correct and all the others wrong.  I say yes.  There can only be one God, and prophets must be true or false.  I don’t say this to be harsh.  I believe there are many good people in many religions.  However, I believe that only one can have the full truth.  The others may have (and do have) bits and pieces of the truth, but it has been twisted and slowly changed over time.  With each person that disagrees and creates their own religion or sect, they grow further and further from the truth.  I also believe there was a time of Great Apostasy, in which no one had the full truth on the earth.  You mention no physical evidence for the last 2,000 years or so.  That is a relatively accurate statement.  The majority of that period is what I call the Great Apostasy.  That time however is over.  The truth does now exist on the earth.

3.   I believe the stories in the bible are literal.  (and believe the bible – as far as it is translated correctly.  There are translation errors.)  Noah’s ark was already found, there was a documentary years ago on it.  It’s on youtube.  This sounds ridiculous I know, but look it up and decide for yourself.  (note that this is NOT something claimed or backed by my personal religious affiliation, but seems accurate)

4.   Would I be in the same religion if I was born somewhere else, or with a different family?  I hope that my own personal thoughts would lead me in the right direction.  If I was born in China or some country where my belief is not allowed, then unfortunately not in this life.  I also believe however that everyone will have a chance to receive the truth.  Not everyone will accept it.

5.   I do not believe that I am chosen, special or lucky to be born into a belief.  Anyone can choose to believe what they want.  God is no respecter of persons.

6.   A book that was written primarily on the American continent starting several hundred years before Christ, and ending several hundred years after, was revealed in the early 1800’s.  This is the only “proof” that is available.  You still have to read the book, and choose whether or not you believe it.

7.   I am a “Mormon” and member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.  I believe in Jesus Christ, and that he has always been the head of his church on the earth.  When Adam and Eve were on the earth, Christ taught them.  They taught their children, and children’s children.  But as we see from Cain and Abel, not everyone listened.  We have our choice how to live our life here.  Further prophets such as Abraham, Noah, etc taught the same principles and the coming of a Savior.  They followed the “Law of Moses” which represented the coming sacrifice.  People didn’t always listen, often they killed the prophets.  When Christ came, the law was fulfilled.  However, once again, no one listened.  They crucified Him, and if you do some history, you’ll find that they killed off the apostles one by one as well.  After the apostles had all died, no prophets were left to teach.  Hence the Great Apostasy.  If no one listens, why should God give them another prophet right away?  Nothing that hadn’t happened before, just a larger break in time when no prophet of God was on the earth.  I believe there is a living prophet today.  There are also apostles, and they receive direction from Jesus Christ.  The same Jesus Christ on the cross, the same that appeared to all previous prophets, the same that created the world.

I think that sums it up for me!  On that note, I leave you with a short message by the current prophet titled, “Are we prepared?”  https://www.lds.org/ensign/2014/09/are-we-prepared?lang=eng

Here’s my favorite part:  “Many more people could ride out the storm-tossed waves in their economic lives if they had a supply of food and clothing and were debt-free. Today we find that many have followed this counsel in reverse: they have a supply of debt and are food-free.”

[Beric01]

There can only be one God

I'm curious about your justification for this statement. Is it a religious one? As an agnostic, I'm not aware of a justification for why, if there were to be a God, there should be only one.

[k-vette]

That is my belief.   From a scientific point, I suppose you need to define God first.  But its somewhat difficult to define something science cannot prove or disprove exists.

[Simple Abundant Living]

3.   I believe the stories in the bible are literal.  (and believe the bible – as far as it is translated correctly.  There are translation errors.)  Noah’s ark was already found, there was a documentary years ago on it.  It’s on youtube.  This sounds ridiculous I know, but look it up and decide for yourself.  (note that this is NOT something claimed or backed by my personal religious affiliation, but seems accurate)

Fellow Mormon here.  This is a quote from the church news room. 

"There is a broad range of approaches within the vast mosaic of biblical interpretation. For example, biblical inerrancy maintains that the Bible is without error and contradiction; biblical infallibility holds that the Bible is free from errors regarding faith and practice but not necessarily science or history; biblical literalism requires a literal interpretation of events and teachings in the Bible and generally discounts allegory and metaphor; and the “Bible as literature” educational approach extols the literary qualities of the Bible but disregards its miraculous elements.

The Church does not strictly subscribe to any of these interpretive approaches. Rather, in the words of Joseph Smith, it regards the Bible to be the word of God, “as far as it is translated correctly” (8th Article of Faith). Accordingly, Church members believe that during the centuries-long process in which fallible human beings compiled, translated and transcribed the Bible, various errors entered the text. However, this does not override the overwhelming predominance of truth within the Bible. As Elder Ballard noted, “Without the Bible, we would not know of His Church then, nor would we have the fullness of His gospel now.” Part of that fullness is the Bible’s seminal instruction that God reveals Himself to those who seek Him. The Bible is a living invitation to know personally the sacred revelatory experience that fills its pages."

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/reverence-for-the-bible

[Gin1984]

There are many scientists who believe in a or multiple deities, and there is no evidence to the contrary.

This is yet another reason why I don't buy religion. With this line of reasoning I could propose any belief system that you can't disprove, yet claim that it is true and do what I want while claiming religious freedom.

I believe there is a giant invisible monkey living at the core of Jupiter whom we must please, and if we don't please it then we are doomed. I must also convert as many people as possible to my way of thinking and collect money from them. There, I just created my own 'religion' out of something you can't prove does not exist. Now convert or I will declare war against you and take your money!

Maybe there is something to this whole religion thing after all...

I was fine with you till the second to last line, lol.  Religion is like a penis, I don't care if you have one or not, as long as you don't shove it in my face.  :D

[Tetsuya Hondo]

Historical accounts were held to a high standard of accuracy, specifically in the first few centuries, therefore since the first couple books of the New Testament (the Gospels) were written as historical records of Jesus's teachings they would also be held under the same scrutiny as other historical records.

Unless I'm mistaken, our modern interpretation of historical accuracy and how to establish it is very different from the ancients. There's only a handful of authors that even approach a modern conception of objective history and fact (e.g., Herodutus, Livy, etc.). Considering that the authors of the gospels were (most likely) written at a time and place well removed from the life of Jesus, it's tough to take it them as a historical record in any modern sense.

(I hate myself for getting sucked into this thread, going off on a tangent that has nothing to do with the OPs questions, and which has absolutely nothing to do with FIRE. Yet, I can't seem to help myself.)

[Beric01]

(I hate myself for getting sucked into this thread, going off on a tangent that has nothing to do with the OPs questions, and which has absolutely nothing to do with FIRE. Yet, I can't seem to help myself.)

I just am stunned at how polite and mild-mannered this discussion is. I have never seen such a peaceable discussion of religion among people of such diverse viewpoints in my over 10 years of online forums. The Mustachian really is a different breed.

[Cwadda]

(I hate myself for getting sucked into this thread, going off on a tangent that has nothing to do with the OPs questions, and which has absolutely nothing to do with FIRE. Yet, I can't seem to help myself.)

I just am stunned at how polite and mild-mannered this discussion is. I have never seen such a peaceable discussion of religion among people of such diverse viewpoints in my over 10 years of online forums. The Mustachian really is a different breed.

+1, This forum rocks!

[domustachesgrowinhouston]

One major reason atheism is looked down on is because so many religions believe that if you are atheist - you will not go to heaven, you will be punished in some way. (In my eyes the reason for this belief is SIMPLE. - It was used to control religious peoples from straying away from what was wanted of them by their leaders.)

It's my understanding that the reason atheism is frowned upon by religious people has nothing to do with where non-believers will spend eternity and everything to do with the fact that religious followers derive their morals and ethics from their religion.  Because of that, they tend to view those without religion as having no reason to be moral or ethical, which makes them untrustworthy.

Which of course is silly, but that's the mindset from what I've gathered.

Perhaps, but it is even more illogical then to assume you have to follow a traditional religions beliefs just to be a fair, just, ethical person.

Personally, most, if not all atheists I have met are fair, logical, ethical, and smart people.

As a non-believer, I also think it's illogical that morality/ethics and religion are linked.  But this is not the belief of the religious (those that would look down on atheists at least)  Your original statement was that religious people dislike atheists because they are going to hell, but I don't think that's why.  I'm saying they don't like atheists because they don't view them as trustworthy in this life.  I'm not trying to assign logic to that belief.  I've long given up trying to assign logical thought to religious beliefs.

Here's a poll on those who think it is necessary to believe in God to be a moral person.

In 22 of 39 countries surveyed, clear majorities say it is necessary to believe in God to be moral and have good values.

I found this chart the most interesting:

Matt 19:24
Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God.  :). Good Lord, now im quoting scripture; what a topsy turvy world.

[HappyRock]

+1, this forum is amazing to talk about anything, and thanks kvette and Green for your views, here is another interesting thought i have.

I find that the differences in beliefs of Mormons and Christians on Jesus alone are actually pretty significant.

But how can a religious group created less than 200 years ago claim that their beliefs are correct, while others aren't?

In my eyes it is quite simple : it is the same reason every other major religion or cult was created. In religions case, it was a well respected prophet who claimed to have an interaction with what appeared to be a higher power, or "god". (Could this possibly have been misinterpreted? To me it is just as likely that this is the case). And mostly for the reasons listed below :

We do not know if this was truly a god, but we know this much : Not all of them can be correct, because these so called "Messengers of God" were told that there is one true god, and each had varied beliefs - This is one of the reasons why following a specific religion can be hard for some people that were not raised religious.

Every famous prophet claimed to have interacted with some type of higher power, and influenced millions through their leadership skills (And were devoted because they probably did have some type of interaction with something they couldn't explain at the time. -  In my opinion this is what started most religions.

We already established the idea that if all the famous prophets were correct, and did have real interactions with god - then all monotheistic religions are incorrect. In my eyes, I think many ancient stories and biblical writings were misinterpreted in some way.

The point about Noah's Ark is also good, because I strongly believe that many ancient stories must have had some real truth. (To have been started to begin with)
Thanks for the different perspectives, it will be interesting to see what the future will change about religious beliefs (The popes changes alone go against what millions of devout Catholics believed) Some suggest that in the future a universal religion would result in more equality and peace. And at the same time less conflict and war.

I also like to think of Mustachianism as a religion in a way, with MMM as our prophet :)

I hope you continue commenting, and love to hear any devouts points of view, so please share if you don't mind.

[Beric01]

Matt 19:24
Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God.  :). Good Lord, now im quoting scripture; what a topsy turvy world.

That's actually very Mustachian! In richer nations people depend mainly on money and material possessions to give their lives meaning. It's good for people to move beyond just wanting those material possessions and search for more meaning in their lives (not saying that meaning is religion).

[Jazzpolice]

I just am stunned at how polite and mild-mannered this discussion is. I have never seen such a peaceable discussion of religion among people of such diverse viewpoints in my over 10 years of online forums. The Mustachian really is a different breed.
[/quote]

+1, This forum rocks!
[/quote]

+2...Agree!!  This community's awesome...and just wanted to mention The Book of Mormon was a great Musical.  I'm curious if any Mormons who saw it were offended?

[Glenstache]

The great thing about truth is that it doesn't change depending on whether you believe in it or not.

In our own lives, we each make that call about truth for ourselves and, statistically speaking, most are probably getting it wrong either at the first order or in the details. Some make that call by default/inheritance without introspection, for some it is a moment of clarity, for some it is a convoluted journey of experimentation, and for others it is an acknowledgement of simply not knowing.  So long as that doesn't lead to a set of beliefs and associated actions that harm others, so be it, and best wishes.

My only real take on the application of Mustachian principles to religion is that to the extent that it shapes their lives, a person should be informed about what they are pursuing in the religious sense, and that they live their life according to what is important. So, I don't really care about MMM's personal religious beliefs. If they were an important part of the content of his blog, I'm sure we would know by now.

Editorial note: Neil De Grasse Tyson said, "the good thing about science is that it’s true whether or not you believe in it." He is one of many scientists I respect whom I've heard say the same thing for many years. The intent of the opening sentence is not to conflate science with religion, or a religious style of belief.
Oh, and I've very much enjoyed the very thoughtful and respectful discussion!

[domustachesgrowinhouston]

I just am stunned at how polite and mild-mannered this discussion is. I have never seen such a peaceable discussion of religion among people of such diverse viewpoints in my over 10 years of online forums. The Mustachian really is a different breed.

+1, This forum rocks!
[/quote]

+2...Agree!!  This community's awesome...and just wanted to mention The Book of Mormon was a great Musical.  I'm curious if any Mormons who saw it were offended?
[/quote]

I wonder if its from practical experience. Id be willing to bet there are a great many people on here that have discovered what a profound effect a few small life changes can make, probably emotionally or spiritually as well as fiscally.  And id bet just as many have found it very difficult to help others see the same things that they can see.  In the end, we have to accept people as they are and be willing to help as we can when needed.  I suppose thats the main reason i started frequenting this forum, to find others that have an understanding of the path i am following. And maybe even someone to explain it to me :)

[k-vette]

I normally dony participate in online religious discussions.  I only commented since everything was so cordial for once.

Havent seen the book of mormon play.  I did like the fact that the church used some ads during that said, "The book is better."  Found that funny!

[Eric]

The great thing about truth is that it doesn't change depending on whether you believe in it or not.

Hey man, if you're going to bastardize Neil DeGrasse Tyson's quote, at least give the man credit!  I mean look at that vest!!

[southern granny]

If you are a devout Christian, Mormon, Muslim, Jew, do you believe that your beliefs would be the same if you were born in a different culture? (Or family with different beliefs)
Would it be logical for you to push your beliefs, rights, ideas if you think about this?


I am Christian, but was not raised in church.  The only time I attended Church was if a neighbor took me, but we moved a a lot, so that never happened for very long.  My grandmother was a Christian and took me to church a few times.  Yet, somehow I feel that I always believed.  I remember as a young teenager, walking a good distance to attend a church on my own.  I feel a deep personal connection that is incredible.   I don't have any bad feelings for atheists, I only feel sadness for them.  My daughter, who I love with all my heart, says she is agnostic/atheist .  There is not a kinder person on the planet than she.  I pray for her every night.   So, I was not raised in a Christian home but am very religious .  My daughter was raised in a Christian home and was taken to Sunday School and church and she is not Christian. 

[Simple Abundant Living]

If you are a devout Christian, Mormon, Muslim, Jew, do you believe that your beliefs would be the same if you were born in a different culture? (Or family with different beliefs)
Would it be logical for you to push your beliefs, rights, ideas if you think about this?


I am Christian, but was not raised in church.  The only time I attended Church was if a neighbor took me, but we moved a a lot, so that never happened for very long.  My grandmother was a Christian and took me to church a few times.  Yet, somehow I feel that I always believed.  I remember as a young teenager, walking a good distance to attend a church on my own.  I feel a deep personal connection that is incredible.   I don't have any bad feelings for atheists, I only feel sadness for them.  My daughter, who I love with all my heart, says she is agnostic/atheist .  There is not a kinder person on the planet than she.  I pray for her every night.   So, I was not raised in a Christian home but am very religious .  My daughter was raised in a Christian home and was taken to Sunday School and church and she is not Christian.

(Mormon)
I look at my children as little investigators. I teach them in my home and take them to church, but someday they will choose for themselves. I don't believe you can live on someone else's testimony for long. Either you must grow one yourself or you will drift away.   One of our Heavenly Father's most precious gifts to us is free agency, and I don't believe that parents should take that away. However, I do believe that I am accountable to God for raising my children with a knowledge of truth and to try to set them on the path of happiness.

[HappyRock]

If you are a devout Christian, Mormon, Muslim, Jew, do you believe that your beliefs would be the same if you were born in a different culture? (Or family with different beliefs)
Would it be logical for you to push your beliefs, rights, ideas if you think about this?


I am Christian, but was not raised in church.  The only time I attended Church was if a neighbor took me, but we moved a a lot, so that never happened for very long.  My grandmother was a Christian and took me to church a few times.  Yet, somehow I feel that I always believed.  I remember as a young teenager, walking a good distance to attend a church on my own.  I feel a deep personal connection that is incredible.   I don't have any bad feelings for atheists, I only feel sadness for them.  My daughter, who I love with all my heart, says she is agnostic/atheist .  There is not a kinder person on the planet than she.  I pray for her every night.   So, I was not raised in a Christian home but am very religious .  My daughter was raised in a Christian home and was taken to Sunday School and church and she is not Christian.

What exactly makes you feel sadness for them? Do you think they will be punished after death, or they are missing out on something in life? Also, what are you praying for exactly? (In regards to your daughter)

I think a lot of what religion you practice also has to do with your personality type, and I am sure many atheist and agnostic people are just as okay with themselves as many religious people are.

[xenon5]

I have no religious affiliation.  I don't see a logical reason to think Christianity or any modern religion is any more valid than atheism or old Egyptian, Roman, or Native American beliefs.  The pyramids were built with the same religious fervor as the Vatican, but I don't think there are many Ra worshipers around these days.  It seems odd to me to believe that the tale you were most exposed to is conveniently the correct one without very serious scrutiny, when billions of people throughout human history believed otherwise with equal certainty and evidence.  If there is one correct answer to the questions "Why/How does the universe exist", statistically the most likely answer is that nobody is correct, or even close.  There's an infinite number of possible permutations that a faith can exist in and no way to gauge the accuracy of any particular guess.  Unfortunately we have no way to prove what exists outside of the observable universe.

I'm willing to accept that I'll never know why the universe exists and that humanity is probably insignificant in the grand scheme of Everything.  Regardless, humanity is very significant to us humans, and we should strive to understand as much as we can based on evidence, wherever that leads.  I should cooperate with others the best I can while I'm here and make the best of my time.  If a deity happens to exist and is good and rational, he'd be able to appreciate that.  If he's evil, there's no reason to worry about appeasing him in this life anyway.  If he doesn't exist, worship is futile (beyond the psychological benefits while living).  My bases are covered in all 3 scenarios are far as I'm concerned.

I don't doubt that believers literally feel power in their faith.  My guess is that the power comes from within and is unlocked by our psyche, much like practicing stoicism can give us a greater appreciation for our circumstances or help us fight negative temptations.  Whether or not a faith is correct (in the absolute sense) in identifying the state of our universe, it clearly has utility (in positive, negative, and neutral ways) for many people.

[PloddingInsight]

I don't have time to respond to everything you wrote but I want to focus on this.

Science is impossible without mathematics, right?  In order to demonstrate that scientific laws hold, we have to measure quantities and reason mathematically.  But what does mathematics rest on? 

Science certainly isn't impossible without mathematics.  There are no immutable scientific laws.  Science is just a systematic way of understanding things.

Math rests on a solid foundation of observation, reproducibility, and evidence.

Mathematics rests on human intuition about truth and falsity.  Mathematics is simply an expression of logic, which rests on our gut intuition about truth.  Humans also have a widespread intuition that God exists!

No, it doesn't.  I'm not following how you are equating math to intuition at all.  When you have two cupcakes and eat one, you are left with one cupcake.  There's literally no intuitive jump to be made.  You can get two cupcakes and experiment if you are having a crisis of mathematical faith.

Logic is a branch of mathematics, and doesn't rely on intuition.

Absolutely not, no no no no, and no.  The mathematical expression 2 - 1 = 1 does not rely on any empirical observation whatsoever.  You could be a brain in a jar with no sense input and still (if you were so inclined) develop an understanding of logic and mathematics.  The truth in this can be seen if you consider that bringing cupcakes into it was completely arbitrary.  There isn't any material thing that mathematics is about.  You can verify mathematical truths in your head, with certainty, and without reference to sensory input.  (Try studying gravity that way.)

Furthermore, logic is not a branch of mathematics.  Quite the opposite.  Mathematics is a specialized subset of logic, which itself is a subset of philosophy.  Mathematics is logic applied to quantities.

Most fundamentally, mathematics is necessarily true.  There might be another universe unconnected to ours, with physical laws completely different from ours, a universe we are unable to contemplate or experience.  But in that universe, mathematics would be exactly the same.

Source:  I am a mathematician.

See also:  http://xkcd.com/263/

[smalllife]

I have no religious affiliation.  I don't see a logical reason to think Christianity or any modern religion is any more valid than atheism or old Egyptian, Roman, or Native American beliefs.  The pyramids were built with the same religious fervor as the Vatican, but I don't think there are many Ra worshipers around these days.  It seems odd to me to believe that the tale you were most exposed to is conveniently the correct one without very serious scrutiny, when billions of people throughout human history believed otherwise with equal certainty and evidence.  If there is one correct answer to the questions "Why/How does the universe exist", statistically the most likely answer is that nobody is correct, or even close.  There's an infinite number of possible permutations that a faith can exist in and no way to gauge the accuracy of any particular guess.  Unfortunately we have no way to prove what exists outside of the observable universe.

I'm willing to accept that I'll never know why the universe exists and that humanity is probably insignificant in the grand scheme of Everything.  Regardless, humanity is very significant to us humans, and we should strive to understand as much as we can based on evidence, wherever that leads.  I should cooperate with others the best I can while I'm here and make the best of my time.  If a deity happens to exist and is good and rational, he'd be able to appreciate that.  If he's evil, there's no reason to worry about appeasing him in this life anyway.  If he doesn't exist, worship is futile (beyond the psychological benefits while living).  My bases are covered in all 3 scenarios are far as I'm concerned.

I don't doubt that believers literally feel power in their faith.  My guess is that the power comes from within and is unlocked by our psyche, much like practicing stoicism can give us a greater appreciation for our circumstances or help us fight negative temptations.  Whether or not a faith is correct (in the absolute sense) in identifying the state of our universe, it clearly has utility (in positive, negative, and neutral ways) for many people.

Well said.

[GuitarStv]

I don't have time to respond to everything you wrote but I want to focus on this.

Science is impossible without mathematics, right?  In order to demonstrate that scientific laws hold, we have to measure quantities and reason mathematically.  But what does mathematics rest on? 

Science certainly isn't impossible without mathematics.  There are no immutable scientific laws.  Science is just a systematic way of understanding things.

Math rests on a solid foundation of observation, reproducibility, and evidence.

Mathematics rests on human intuition about truth and falsity.  Mathematics is simply an expression of logic, which rests on our gut intuition about truth.  Humans also have a widespread intuition that God exists!

No, it doesn't.  I'm not following how you are equating math to intuition at all.  When you have two cupcakes and eat one, you are left with one cupcake.  There's literally no intuitive jump to be made.  You can get two cupcakes and experiment if you are having a crisis of mathematical faith.

Logic is a branch of mathematics, and doesn't rely on intuition.

Absolutely not, no no no no, and no.  The mathematical expression 2 - 1 = 1 does not rely on any empirical observation whatsoever.  You could be a brain in a jar with no sense input and still (if you were so inclined) develop an understanding of logic and mathematics.  The truth in this can be seen if you consider that bringing cupcakes into it was completely arbitrary.  There isn't any material thing that mathematics is about.  You can verify mathematical truths in your head, with certainty, and without reference to sensory input.  (Try studying gravity that way.)

Furthermore, logic is not a branch of mathematics.  Quite the opposite.  Mathematics is a specialized subset of logic, which itself is a subset of philosophy.  Mathematics is logic applied to quantities.

Most fundamentally, mathematics is necessarily true.  There might be another universe unconnected to ours, with physical laws completely different from ours, a universe we are unable to contemplate or experience.  But in that universe, mathematics would be exactly the same.

Source:  I am a mathematician.

See also:  http://xkcd.com/263/

Science is simply a way of understanding the world around you through observation, experimentation, and verification.  Your claim that science requires math is easily dis-proven by direct proof.  You observe that when doctors wash their hands, their patients get less sick after surgery.  You run an experiment with a group of doctors who wash their hands and a group who don't.  You notice that more of the patients with doctors who don't wash their hands get sick.  The experiment is repeated, the results the same.  Now you draw a conclusion about hand washing.  No math involved, but you've just performed 'science'.

Disagree with your brain in a jar idea.  How exactly would your 'brain in the jar with no external stimulus' develop the concept of quantity?  Why would it develop any concept with no data to analyze?  I'd argue that without input of some sort, your brain will never develop any thought.  Look at people's attempts to create brains in jars . . . neural nets.  They are utterly useless without stimulus, because it's not possible to learn without experience.

The reason that mathematics doesn't require intuition as you claimed in your earlier post relies on the definition of the world intuition:
"the ability to understand something immediately, without the need for conscious reasoning."

You can consciously reason out anything in math.  You can then verify and prove it in many ways.  There is no need for intuition because of this.  As a mathematician, I'm assuming you already know this though.  You're right that the expression 2-1=1 doesn't rely on empirical observation to come to the answer . . . but that's only because the expression already encapsulates years of empirical observation regarding cupcake eating.  Without the background of proof, nobody would learn math.  You are claiming that religion is the same as mathematics but forgetting a rather huge difference - that there is no verifiable background of proof with religion.

I can buy the argument of math being a subset of logic.  It's possible my symbolic logic courses in university (which were held by the math department) influenced my thinking that things were the other way around.  :P

Science is just a way of understanding the universe around us by observation.  It's the most systematic and least flawed way we've devised to do this so far.

Science has a good track record explaining the behavior of matter and energy, but there isn't a repeatable experiment that demonstrates that matter and energy are the only things that exist.

I can't prove that matter or energy are the only things that exist, just that nothing else is observable.  This is where the extraordinary claims involved with religious belief come into play.  An absence of evidence, is not proof supporting your claim.

I completely agree with this. Ultimately I'm of the belief that it all adds up as evidence for some sort of intelligent designer. There's so much that we likely don't know about our universe, but what we do know really is amazing and something to be excited about and celebrated over. I still think there's more out there that we don't know and will never know, can never prove nor disprove. Fascinating stuff really. Rob Bell's Everything is Spiritual tour https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2rklwkm_dQ is one interpretation of how science relates to religion.

Agreed.  I like the concept of an all powerful force that may have acted as a designer of things myself.  There's clearly beauty in the way the universe is ordered to my eyes.

A big problem regarding faith in faith is that it's too easy to hack the brain in measurable ways.  Pump someone full of an entheogen (or just directly stimulate the correct part of the brain) and you can induce a religious experience pretty easily in just about anyone.  Create plenty of stressors in their life, and the pattern matching in static that people are predisposed to do goes into overdrive as some sort of built in response.  Get into brain chemistry, and tiny little changes can induce completely different behaviour that is undetectable by the subject.  This is why you can't always trust what you think.  :P

[PloddingInsight]

Science is simply a way of understanding the world around you through observation, experimentation, and verification.  Your claim that science requires math is easily dis-proven by direct proof.

Nope, I will just underline the math part in your example:

You observe that when doctors wash their hands, their patients get less sick after surgery.  You run an experiment with a group of doctors who wash their hands and a group who don't.  You notice that more of the patients with doctors who don't wash their hands get sick.  The experiment is repeated, the results the same.  Now you draw a conclusion about hand washing.  No math involved, but you've just performed 'science'.

A more general form of my argument would say that science relies on logic (and especially mathematical logic) which relies on intuition.

Disagree with your brain in a jar idea.  How exactly would your 'brain in the jar with no external stimulus' develop the concept of quantity?  Why would it develop any concept with no data to analyze?  I'd argue that without input of some sort, your brain will never develop any thought.

We disagree.  It might be pointless to argue about what a brain in a jar would do, since it's more or less impossible.

  Look at people's attempts to create brains in jars . . . neural nets.  They are utterly useless without stimulus, because it's not possible to learn without experience.

Neural nets are not brains.  They aren't conscious.  They don't think anything, even when you give them lots of data.  They are just a bunch of switches in a computer, with a lot of positive and negative charges embedded on a disc.

The reason that mathematics doesn't require intuition as you claimed in your earlier post relies on the definition of the world intuition:
"the ability to understand something immediately, without the need for conscious reasoning."

You can consciously reason out anything in math.  You can then verify and prove it in many ways.  There is no need for intuition because of this.  As a mathematician, I'm assuming you already know this though.  You're right that the expression 2-1=1 doesn't rely on empirical observation to come to the answer . . . but that's only because the expression already encapsulates years of empirical observation regarding cupcake eating.  Without the background of proof, nobody would learn math.  You are claiming that religion is the same as mathematics but forgetting a rather huge difference - that there is no verifiable background of proof with religion.

You have intuition about the conscious reasoning.  You grasp what is being expressed by 1+2=3 and what is being expressed by 1+1=3.  Your intuition is what tells you that one is true and one is false.  Now, you may believe a mathematical expression for other reason.  You may simply believe it because someone you trust told you it was true.  But that's not doing math.  Suppose your senses see one object and another object come together and the result is that there are three objects.  If your brain rejects that and insists that the sensory input is wrong, because you have absolute certainty that 1+1=2, then congratulations, you are now a mathematician who has arrived at a mathematical truth.  If you throw up your hands and say, "I guess 1+1=3 now", then you have only learned expressions of mathematics by rote without ever understanding what they are about.

[HappyRock]

I have no religious affiliation.  I don't see a logical reason to think Christianity or any modern religion is any more valid than atheism or old Egyptian, Roman, or Native American beliefs.  The pyramids were built with the same religious fervor as the Vatican, but I don't think there are many Ra worshipers around these days.  It seems odd to me to believe that the tale you were most exposed to is conveniently the correct one without very serious scrutiny, when billions of people throughout human history believed otherwise with equal certainty and evidence.  If there is one correct answer to the questions "Why/How does the universe exist", statistically the most likely answer is that nobody is correct, or even close.  There's an infinite number of possible permutations that a faith can exist in and no way to gauge the accuracy of any particular guess.  Unfortunately we have no way to prove what exists outside of the observable universe.

I'm willing to accept that I'll never know why the universe exists and that humanity is probably insignificant in the grand scheme of Everything.  Regardless, humanity is very significant to us humans, and we should strive to understand as much as we can based on evidence, wherever that leads.  I should cooperate with others the best I can while I'm here and make the best of my time.  If a deity happens to exist and is good and rational, he'd be able to appreciate that.  If he's evil, there's no reason to worry about appeasing him in this life anyway.  If he doesn't exist, worship is futile (beyond the psychological benefits while living).  My bases are covered in all 3 scenarios are far as I'm concerned.

I don't doubt that believers literally feel power in their faith.  My guess is that the power comes from within and is unlocked by our psyche, much like practicing stoicism can give us a greater appreciation for our circumstances or help us fight negative temptations.  Whether or not a faith is correct (in the absolute sense) in identifying the state of our universe, it clearly has utility (in positive, negative, and neutral ways) for many people.

Well said.

+1, My thoughts exactly

On a side note, it is also incredible how much time and effort was put into building the Great Pyramids and many other monuments. It just seems impossible how everything was built near-perfect so long ago.

[Gin1984]

I have no religious affiliation.  I don't see a logical reason to think Christianity or any modern religion is any more valid than atheism or old Egyptian, Roman, or Native American beliefs.  The pyramids were built with the same religious fervor as the Vatican, but I don't think there are many Ra worshipers around these days. It seems odd to me to believe that the tale you were most exposed to is conveniently the correct one without very serious scrutiny, when billions of people throughout human history believed otherwise with equal certainty and evidence.  If there is one correct answer to the questions "Why/How does the universe exist", statistically the most likely answer is that nobody is correct, or even close.  There's an infinite number of possible permutations that a faith can exist in and no way to gauge the accuracy of any particular guess.  Unfortunately we have no way to prove what exists outside of the observable universe.

I'm willing to accept that I'll never know why the universe exists and that humanity is probably insignificant in the grand scheme of Everything.  Regardless, humanity is very significant to us humans, and we should strive to understand as much as we can based on evidence, wherever that leads.  I should cooperate with others the best I can while I'm here and make the best of my time.  If a deity happens to exist and is good and rational, he'd be able to appreciate that.  If he's evil, there's no reason to worry about appeasing him in this life anyway.  If he doesn't exist, worship is futile (beyond the psychological benefits while living).  My bases are covered in all 3 scenarios are far as I'm concerned.

I don't doubt that believers literally feel power in their faith.  My guess is that the power comes from within and is unlocked by our psyche, much like practicing stoicism can give us a greater appreciation for our circumstances or help us fight negative temptations.  Whether or not a faith is correct (in the absolute sense) in identifying the state of our universe, it clearly has utility (in positive, negative, and neutral ways) for many people.

Yes, actually there are pagans who worship Ra and the other Egyptian dieties, and what does tombs being built have to do with the worship?

[southern granny]

If you are a devout Christian, Mormon, Muslim, Jew, do you believe that your beliefs would be the same if you were born in a different culture? (Or family with different beliefs)
Would it be logical for you to push your beliefs, rights, ideas if you think about this?


I am Christian, but was not raised in church.  The only time I attended Church was if a neighbor took me, but we moved a a lot, so that never happened for very long.  My grandmother was a Christian and took me to church a few times.  Yet, somehow I feel that I always believed.  I remember as a young teenager, walking a good distance to attend a church on my own.  I feel a deep personal connection that is incredible.   I don't have any bad feelings for atheists, I only feel sadness for them.  My daughter, who I love with all my heart, says she is agnostic/atheist .  There is not a kinder person on the planet than she.  I pray for her every night.   So, I was not raised in a Christian home but am very religious .  My daughter was raised in a Christian home and was taken to Sunday School and church and she is not Christian.

What exactly makes you feel sadness for them? Do you think they will be punished after death, or they are missing out on something in life? Also, what are you praying for exactly? (In regards to your daughter)

I think a lot of what religion you practice also has to do with your personality type, and I am sure many atheist and agnostic people are just as okay with themselves as many religious people are.

What makes me sad is that they do not know the joy that comes through Christ and that if they die unsaved they will not go to heaven.   What I pray for "exactly" for my daughter is that she will open her heart to Jesus and it may be a selfish prayer, but I also pray that I will not die before I know that she will join me in heaven. 

[MicroRN]

I'm not particularly concerned with the MMM family beliefs or lack thereof.  Personally, I'm an atheist who reads a lot of christian SAHM blogs.  While our motivations may be different, I take knowledge where I can get it, and gardening, canning, cooking, and other homesteading topics interest me.  I just scroll past any religiously oriented posts with an eye-roll.   

I'm sure my parents wish I were religious.  I grew up in the episcopal church, but can't remember a time when I actually believed anything I was told there.  My mom recalls that when I was about 5 or 6, I told my sunday school teacher that the story we were learning about didn't make any sense.  They have always been very active in their church, and my husband's family is very religious as well.

[DoubleDown]

If a deity happens to exist and is good and rational, he'd be able to appreciate that.  If he's evil, there's no reason to worry about appeasing him in this life anyway.  If he doesn't exist, worship is futile (beyond the psychological benefits while living).  My bases are covered in all 3 scenarios are far as I'm concerned.

(See first sentence I put in bold above). You are only covered if you are correct that "good and rational" is the measure the deity actually uses. From the Christianity perspective, your bases are not covered. The deity can be good and rational, but also have a simple mechanism you need to follow to accept your "inheritance." You could think of it like a free money handout: A super wealthy benefactor could say, "I'm giving away $10 million to anyone who accepts it; you just have to show up at my house or send me a postcard to claim the bags of money." If you don't bother to claim the money, it doesn't mean the benefactor isn't good or rational, or doesn't appreciate your own goodness to your fellow man; it just means that you failed to claim the free gift that was offered, and so you get nothing.

[HappyRock]

If you are a devout Christian, Mormon, Muslim, Jew, do you believe that your beliefs would be the same if you were born in a different culture? (Or family with different beliefs)
Would it be logical for you to push your beliefs, rights, ideas if you think about this?


I am Christian, but was not raised in church.  The only time I attended Church was if a neighbor took me, but we moved a a lot, so that never happened for very long.  My grandmother was a Christian and took me to church a few times.  Yet, somehow I feel that I always believed.  I remember as a young teenager, walking a good distance to attend a church on my own.  I feel a deep personal connection that is incredible.   I don't have any bad feelings for atheists, I only feel sadness for them.  My daughter, who I love with all my heart, says she is agnostic/atheist .  There is not a kinder person on the planet than she.  I pray for her every night.   So, I was not raised in a Christian home but am very religious .  My daughter was raised in a Christian home and was taken to Sunday School and church and she is not Christian.

What exactly makes you feel sadness for them? Do you think they will be punished after death, or they are missing out on something in life? Also, what are you praying for exactly? (In regards to your daughter)

I think a lot of what religion you practice also has to do with your personality type, and I am sure many atheist and agnostic people are just as okay with themselves as many religious people are.

What makes me sad is that they do not know the joy that comes through Christ and that if they die unsaved they will not go to heaven.   What I pray for "exactly" for my daughter is that she will open her heart to Jesus and it may be a selfish prayer, but I also pray that I will not die before I know that she will join me in heaven.

Thanks for the response, i find it interesting that you said "Joy that comes through Christ", as if stating that following Christ will automatically bring you joy. This is simply not the case. Many atheists have more joy and happiness than Christian followers, and vise versa.

I also like how you bring up the part about "dying unsaved", and not going to heaven. (As stated in the old testament, from what I hear. This was most likely to gain control over ignorant followers of that time)

But my question is this : Christianity itself was not even considered until Jesus was born, where exactly did all the people who died before go? Did they go to hell for being "unsaved"?


Also, think about this for a moment : At least 50% of atheist people (probably much, much more) were born with different personalities and thought processes - therefore resulting in different beliefs. If you must follow Christ to be "saved and go to heaven", or to be "brought joy", then why would god allow people to be born with these differences in how their brain works?

For example, from what I learned from a young age, and since I was not raised Christian, it is simply not logical for me to have these beliefs. (This is how my brain works, and probably your daughters)

[southern granny]

If you are a devout Christian, Mormon, Muslim, Jew, do you believe that your beliefs would be the same if you were born in a different culture? (Or family with different beliefs)
Would it be logical for you to push your beliefs, rights, ideas if you think about this?


I am Christian, but was not raised in church.  The only time I attended Church was if a neighbor took me, but we moved a a lot, so that never happened for very long.  My grandmother was a Christian and took me to church a few times.  Yet, somehow I feel that I always believed.  I remember as a young teenager, walking a good distance to attend a church on my own.  I feel a deep personal connection that is incredible.   I don't have any bad feelings for atheists, I only feel sadness for them.  My daughter, who I love with all my heart, says she is agnostic/atheist .  There is not a kinder person on the planet than she.  I pray for her every night.   So, I was not raised in a Christian home but am very religious .  My daughter was raised in a Christian home and was taken to Sunday School and church and she is not Christian.

What exactly makes you feel sadness for them? Do you think they will be punished after death, or they are missing out on something in life? Also, what are you praying for exactly? (In regards to your daughter)

I think a lot of what religion you practice also has to do with your personality type, and I am sure many atheist and agnostic people are just as okay with themselves as many religious people are.

What makes me sad is that they do not know the joy that comes through Christ and that if they die unsaved they will not go to heaven.   What I pray for "exactly" for my daughter is that she will open her heart to Jesus and it may be a selfish prayer, but I also pray that I will not die before I know that she will join me in heaven.

Thanks for the response, i find it interesting that you said "Joy that comes through Christ", as if stating that following Christ will automatically bring you joy. This is simply not the case. Many atheists have more joy and happiness than Christian followers, and vise versa.

I also like how you bring up the part about "dying unsaved", and not going to heaven. (As stated in the old testament, from what I hear. This was most likely to gain control over ignorant followers of that time)

But my question is this : Christianity itself was not even considered until Jesus was born, where exactly did all the people who died before go? Did they go to hell for being "unsaved"?


Also, think about this for a moment : At least 50% of atheist people (probably much, much more) were born with different personalities and thought processes - therefore resulting in different beliefs. If you must follow Christ to be "saved and go to heaven", or to be "brought joy", then why would god allow people to be born with these differences in how their brain works?

For example, from what I learned from a young age, and since I was not raised Christian, it is simply not logical for me to have these beliefs. (This is how my brain works, and probably your daughters)

I am sure there are happy atheists.  I hope they are.  My daughter seems content with her life as it is.  But for me, I know that the closer I get to God, the happier and more fulfilled I feel.  I am never alone or lonely.  There is always someone who will listen to me.  I feel the love.  This is what I want for my daughter, but she must make her own choices.  I don't preach to her.  I have told her my story, that is all I can do.  I am not a bible scholar.  I don't know how old testament people earned their place in heaven, but somehow they did. The 23rd Psalm says " Surely goodness and mercy will follow me all the days of my life, and I will dwell in the house of the LORD forever" That was written before Christ.  But the writer felt confident of their forever home.  I am leaving this thread now and going back to the financial threads, but I have enjoyed it.  I wish you all the best.

[Runge]

...

Thanks for the response, i find it interesting that you said "Joy that comes through Christ", as if stating that following Christ will automatically bring you joy. This is simply not the case. Many atheists have more joy and happiness than Christian followers, and vise versa.

I also like how you bring up the part about "dying unsaved", and not going to heaven. (As stated in the old testament, from what I hear. This was most likely to gain control over ignorant followers of that time)

But my question is this : Christianity itself was not even considered until Jesus was born, where exactly did all the people who died before go? Did they go to hell for being "unsaved"?


Also, think about this for a moment : At least 50% of atheist people (probably much, much more) were born with different personalities and thought processes - therefore resulting in different beliefs. If you must follow Christ to be "saved and go to heaven", or to be "brought joy", then why would god allow people to be born with these differences in how their brain works?

For example, from what I learned from a young age, and since I was not raised Christian, it is simply not logical for me to have these beliefs. (This is how my brain works, and probably your daughters)

Paul addresses this in Romans 4. Paul here is addressing the idea that only good works will make you righteous (and thus be considered "saved", able to enter heaven), when it's actually your faith that allows God to make you righteous. I'm bringing this up because Paul, in Romans 4, is using Abraham as an example. He quotes Genesis 15:6 which says "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness." Therefore, according to Genesis, and reaffirmed by Paul, Abraham was able to enter heaven after he died because he was made righteous. This can be extrapolated to countless others who's faith in God allowed them to enter heaven.


I don't see how being born with different thought processes and personalities excludes people from being a Christian. That doesn't make logical sense to me. Ultimately it all boils down to two things, Love God/Christ, and love your neighbor. Luke 10:27. (If you want the whole passage, read Luke 10:25-37.) Every single person has be made the way they are for a purpose, and it doesn't matter what background you come from, how you think, what your personality is, what color your skin is, what your gender is, what language you speak, what country you're from, none of that disqualifies you from ever being able to follow Christ.

Yes, if you do chose to truly follow Christ, it can and will completely change who you are. That's because you're called to turn away from the sin in your life. It's the sin in all of our lives that keeps holding us back because that's what it's designed to do. It's designed to separate us from God, separating us from the ultimate source of love and joy.

That's not to say that if you aren't a Christian that you can't love or have joy. It's a human emotion that is ingrained within us all. The best way that I know how to explain the difference is when you meet the love of your life. It's indescribable and you can't fully explain why you love that person, you just do, and all the other girls/guys that you had an interest in just simply can't measure up. It's the same way with God's love, and I believe that's what frugalconfederate is getting at. It's something that it's extremely difficult to understand until you understand it.

[rocksinmyhead]

If a deity happens to exist and is good and rational, he'd be able to appreciate that.  If he's evil, there's no reason to worry about appeasing him in this life anyway.  If he doesn't exist, worship is futile (beyond the psychological benefits while living).  My bases are covered in all 3 scenarios are far as I'm concerned.

(See first sentence I put in bold above). You are only covered if you are correct that "good and rational" is the measure the deity actually uses. From the Christianity perspective, your bases are not covered. The deity can be good and rational, but also have a simple mechanism you need to follow to accept your "inheritance." You could think of it like a free money handout: A super wealthy benefactor could say, "I'm giving away $10 million to anyone who accepts it; you just have to show up at my house or send me a postcard to claim the bags of money." If you don't bother to claim the money, it doesn't mean the benefactor isn't good or rational, or doesn't appreciate your own goodness to your fellow man; it just means that you failed to claim the free gift that was offered, and so you get nothing.

Yeah but I don't think that's a great analogy. A better one would be, a national newspaper reports that you must show up at the benefactor's house or send a postcard to claim the bags of money. But on the radio, you hear that you're actually supposed to call a special hotline in order to receive the money. THEN, on the local TV news station, you see a report that said benefactor is actually NOT honoring his commitment to give away money, and instead a DIFFERENT benefactor is giving away money and you need to show up at his house.

See what I mean? HOW DO YOU KNOW WHAT TO BELIEVE?!!?! In my view, a "good and rational" God would see that it is really not possible to know for sure which religion is right, at least while we're here on earth. He will forgive me for being confused and we will figure it all out one day. At least that's my belief.

[domustachesgrowinhouston]

If you want to know about god, ask.  But ask god, not people. If you have a bad relationship with your spouse, or no relationship, and you wanted to change it, you could ask me about my relationship with my wife, but it wouldnt do you much good because its my relationship, not yours. You may gain some insight or some new ideas, but the only way to repair or create your relationship is through you. So ask your question to god and then listen for the answer... And really, really listen.  If you dont hear one, ask again, and then ask again and again.  You may eventually be surprised with an answer, like a facepunch :), but the funny thing is, the answer was there from the beginning, you instead find the only thing that changed is you, you were ready to listen.

On the other hand, people are great for debate - everyone's got an opinion...

[HappyRock]

...

Thanks for the response, i find it interesting that you said "Joy that comes through Christ", as if stating that following Christ will automatically bring you joy. This is simply not the case. Many atheists have more joy and happiness than Christian followers, and vise versa.

I also like how you bring up the part about "dying unsaved", and not going to heaven. (As stated in the old testament, from what I hear. This was most likely to gain control over ignorant followers of that time)

But my question is this : Christianity itself was not even considered until Jesus was born, where exactly did all the people who died before go? Did they go to hell for being "unsaved"?


Also, think about this for a moment : At least 50% of atheist people (probably much, much more) were born with different personalities and thought processes - therefore resulting in different beliefs. If you must follow Christ to be "saved and go to heaven", or to be "brought joy", then why would god allow people to be born with these differences in how their brain works?

For example, from what I learned from a young age, and since I was not raised Christian, it is simply not logical for me to have these beliefs. (This is how my brain works, and probably your daughters)

Paul addresses this in Romans 4. Paul here is addressing the idea that only good works will make you righteous (and thus be considered "saved", able to enter heaven), when it's actually your faith that allows God to make you righteous. I'm bringing this up because Paul, in Romans 4, is using Abraham as an example. He quotes Genesis 15:6 which says "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness." Therefore, according to Genesis, and reaffirmed by Paul, Abraham was able to enter heaven after he died because he was made righteous. This can be extrapolated to countless others who's faith in God allowed them to enter heaven.


I don't see how being born with different thought processes and personalities excludes people from being a Christian. That doesn't make logical sense to me. Ultimately it all boils down to two things, Love God/Christ, and love your neighbor. Luke 10:27. (If you want the whole passage, read Luke 10:25-37.) Every single person has be made the way they are for a purpose, and it doesn't matter what background you come from, how you think, what your personality is, what color your skin is, what your gender is, what language you speak, what country you're from, none of that disqualifies you from ever being able to follow Christ.

Yes, if you do chose to truly follow Christ, it can and will completely change who you are. That's because you're called to turn away from the sin in your life. It's the sin in all of our lives that keeps holding us back because that's what it's designed to do. It's designed to separate us from God, separating us from the ultimate source of love and joy.

That's not to say that if you aren't a Christian that you can't love or have joy. It's a human emotion that is ingrained within us all. The best way that I know how to explain the difference is when you meet the love of your life. It's indescribable and you can't fully explain why you love that person, you just do, and all the other girls/guys that you had an interest in just simply can't measure up. It's the same way with God's love, and I believe that's what frugalconfederate is getting at. It's something that it's extremely difficult to understand until you understand it.

First, thanks for the response. But I think you are missing my entire point :

"I don't see how being born with different thought processes and personalities excludes people from being a Christian."
"Yes, if you do choose to truly follow Christ, it can and will completely change who you are."

I will try to help you understand what I said, this is what I am talking about when I say brain and thought processes - (Read below)

 Myself and at least 50% of other Atheist or Agnostic people CAN NOT CHOOSE to follow Christ. Our brains simply DO NOT think in the way yours does when it comes to following this religion.

This can be caused by a number of things that I mentioned earlier, such as the religion you were brought up with, personality, thought processes, etc. In my opinion it is very logical, can you explain more about why you think that it isn't?

Edit : A good way to understand it is this - If you were born to, and raised by a Islamic terrorist group, do you think you would be following Christ right now? If not, is it because you didn't "choose" to follow Christ, or  because you did not "reach enlightenment"? Or was it because of how you were raised and grew up to think?

Also, I find it very interesting how you assume following Christ can, and will change who you are. I agree that this is true as far as religious beliefs. But are you also saying this will automatically change you for the better? Or make you happier? Now this, in my opinion does not make logical sense. Because I think of it this way :

There are millions of Christian followers who are murderers, rapists, and pedophiles. Thousands of years ago the highest ranking Christian officials were pedophiles or murderers. Were their lives changed from following Christ? Was it "sin" that caused this? Or was it because it was the way they were born - the way there brain works, etc.

Also, a few questions I have for you :

Do you believe life exists on other planets? And if so, do you think that "God" sent messengers to those civilizations, and that they follow Christ as well? (This isn't the case, another reason I don't buy religion)

And also, what were the angels, and the Christian "God" doing during the initial phases of Earth's creation?

[hybrid]

I have no religious affiliation.  I don't see a logical reason to think Christianity or any modern religion is any more valid than atheism or old Egyptian, Roman, or Native American beliefs.  The pyramids were built with the same religious fervor as the Vatican, but I don't think there are many Ra worshipers around these days.  It seems odd to me to believe that the tale you were most exposed to is conveniently the correct one without very serious scrutiny, when billions of people throughout human history believed otherwise with equal certainty and evidence.  If there is one correct answer to the questions "Why/How does the universe exist", statistically the most likely answer is that nobody is correct, or even close.  There's an infinite number of possible permutations that a faith can exist in and no way to gauge the accuracy of any particular guess.  Unfortunately we have no way to prove what exists outside of the observable universe.

I'm willing to accept that I'll never know why the universe exists and that humanity is probably insignificant in the grand scheme of Everything.  Regardless, humanity is very significant to us humans, and we should strive to understand as much as we can based on evidence, wherever that leads.  I should cooperate with others the best I can while I'm here and make the best of my time.  If a deity happens to exist and is good and rational, he'd be able to appreciate that.  If he's evil, there's no reason to worry about appeasing him in this life anyway.  If he doesn't exist, worship is futile (beyond the psychological benefits while living).  My bases are covered in all 3 scenarios are far as I'm concerned.

I don't doubt that believers literally feel power in their faith.  My guess is that the power comes from within and is unlocked by our psyche, much like practicing stoicism can give us a greater appreciation for our circumstances or help us fight negative temptations.  Whether or not a faith is correct (in the absolute sense) in identifying the state of our universe, it clearly has utility (in positive, negative, and neutral ways) for many people.

Well said.

+1, My thoughts exactly

On a side note, it is also incredible how much time and effort was put into building the Great Pyramids and many other monuments. It just seems impossible how everything was built near-perfect so long ago.

+2, I was going to post and realized I have nothing to add. Well, right up until InvestFourMoreMMM commented, that is. Read his comments in bold above. Now take that exact same statement in full, and substitute creating The Universe for building the Great Pyramids.

Here's the thing. The Great Pyramids are neither impossible nor incredible, Invest is simply unaware of how they came to be. Just like all of us are unaware of the vastness of the Universe and how it came to be. Just because we don't the answer doesn't mean there isn't an answer, however. Religion, IMO, is the fictional attempt to explain the incomprehensible. We as a species understand so much more of our world today in just a few millennia but the basic fact remains that some questions have no ready answers and religion provides those ready answers. There will always be religion. I prefer the peaceful ones.

[Simple Abundant Living]

First, thanks for the response. But I think you are missing my entire point :

"I don't see how being born with different thought processes and personalities excludes people from being a Christian."
"Yes, if you do choose to truly follow Christ, it can and will completely change who you are."

I will try to help you understand what I said, this is what I am talking about when I say brain and thought processes - (Read below)

 Myself and at least 50% of other Atheist or Agnostic people CAN NOT CHOOSE to follow Christ. Our brains simply DO NOT think in the way yours does when it comes to following this religion.

This can be caused by a number of things that I mentioned earlier, such as the religion you were brought up with, personality, thought processes, etc. In my opinion it is very logical, can you explain more about why you think that it isn't?

Edit : A good way to understand it is this - If you were born to, and raised by a Islamic terrorist group, do you think you would be following Christ right now? If not, is it because you didn't "choose" to follow Christ, or  because you did not "reach enlightenment"? Or was it because of how you were raised and grew up to think?

Also, I find it very interesting how you assume following Christ can, and will change who you are. I agree that this is true as far as religious beliefs. But are you also saying this will automatically change you for the better? Or make you happier? Now this, in my opinion does not make logical sense. Because I think of it this way :

There are millions of Christian followers who are murderers, rapists, and pedophiles. Thousands of years ago the highest ranking Christian officials were pedophiles or murderers. Were their lives changed from following Christ? Was it "sin" that caused this? Or was it because it was the way they were born - the way there brain works, etc.

Also, a few questions I have for you :

Do you believe life exists on other planets? And if so, do you think that "God" sent messengers to those civilizations, and that they follow Christ as well? (This isn't the case, another reason I don't buy religion)

And also, what were the angels, and the Christian "God" doing during the initial phases of Earth's creation?

IFMM-
I think you are confusing self-proclaimed Christians with those who truly follow Christ.  Christ himself referred to these in the parable of the 10 virgins.  When the 5 foolish virgins came late to the feast, they cried "Lord, Lord, open to us.  But he answered and said, Verily I say unto you, I know you not."  They knew who He was, but they were not true followers and were not allowed to come to the feast. 

As far as asking whether you would be some other religion, if you had no choice (Islamic terrorist example), I'm sure you would be whatever those around said you were.    There are people in areas where they do not have freedom of religion, who choose to follow a different religion in their hearts.  When free to consider it, I do think that many who are raised in a family tradition or religion will still look for something that's missing.  Even you, with doubting views are looking.  Is it merely curiosity, to give doubt to others, or is your soul looking for answers to questions that it can't answer.

The other questions about the creation, other civilizations, and etc. can only be answered by each individual religious sect.  In my religion, God is the God of the whole universe(s) and worlds without number.  I'm not sure I understand what you're asking in the other questions.

[Runge]

I appreciate the response and further questions.

...

First, thanks for the response. But I think you are missing my entire point :

"I don't see how being born with different thought processes and personalities excludes people from being a Christian."
"Yes, if you do choose to truly follow Christ, it can and will completely change who you are."

I will try to help you understand what I said, this is what I am talking about when I say brain and thought processes - (Read below)

 Myself and at least 50% of other Atheist or Agnostic people CAN NOT CHOOSE to follow Christ. Our brains simply DO NOT think in the way yours does when it comes to following this religion.

This can be caused by a number of things that I mentioned earlier, such as the religion you were brought up with, personality, thought processes, etc. In my opinion it is very logical, can you explain more about why you think that it isn't?

Edit : A good way to understand it is this - If you were born to, and raised by a Islamic terrorist group, do you think you would be following Christ right now? If not, is it because you didn't "choose" to follow Christ, or  because you did not "reach enlightenment"? Or was it because of how you were raised and grew up to think?

I'm still not quite fully understanding how a certain group of people cannot possibly ever know Christ. I believe that all people of all nations, of all cultures, of all personalities, of all backgrounds CAN come to know Christ because we are made in God's image. (Gen 1:27) If we're made in the image of God, then how could we not have the biological, psychological, rational ability to know our creator?

If I'm still missing the essence of your question, please help me understand. I'll continue to dig and find other examples that might help convey my viewpoint.

Also, I find it very interesting how you assume following Christ can, and will change who you are. I agree that this is true as far as religious beliefs. But are you also saying this will automatically change you for the better? Or make you happier? Now this, in my opinion does not make logical sense. Because I think of it this way :

There are millions of Christian followers who are murderers, rapists, and pedophiles. Thousands of years ago the highest ranking Christian officials were pedophiles or murderers. Were their lives changed from following Christ? Was it "sin" that caused this? Or was it because it was the way they were born - the way there brain works, etc.

I believe that -truly- following Christ can and will change who a person is because I've seen it first hand in my own life and in others' lives.

I've heard of and talked to men who were raised in a culture that essentially bred them to become sex traffickers, kidnapping, stealing, buying and selling girls for sex exploitation for years and years, yet one day something clicked and they completely changed. Now instead of buying and selling girls as slaves, they're working to bring Christ to all of those in that industry.

I've talked to people who are living in India and the Middle East who are ministering to Hindu and Islamic people and the stories they tell are fascinating and fantastic.

I do believe that it is harder for certain group/type of people to believe in Christ. As someone earlier in the thread said (I can't remember who and can't seem to find it, sorry) in reference to Matthew 18:23-24. "... Truly I tell you, it is hard for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God."

Rich applies to anyone who thinks they're too smart, have plenty of money, have all the power and/or success. (gah that is a dangerous statement on this forum, but it's the truth) I do think we can all live a great, wonderful, happy life completely on our own, but there's more to life than that.

(well..that was quite a tangent, oops.)

Also, a few questions I have for you :

Do you believe life exists on other planets? And if so, do you think that "God" sent messengers to those civilizations, and that they follow Christ as well? (This isn't the case, another reason I don't buy religion)

And also, what were the angels, and the Christian "God" doing during the initial phases of Earth's creation?

I apologize, but I'll have to answer these at a later time. I have to leave the house for the day.

[smalllife]

I appreciate the response and further questions.

...

First, thanks for the response. But I think you are missing my entire point :

"I don't see how being born with different thought processes and personalities excludes people from being a Christian."
"Yes, if you do choose to truly follow Christ, it can and will completely change who you are."

I will try to help you understand what I said, this is what I am talking about when I say brain and thought processes - (Read below)

 Myself and at least 50% of other Atheist or Agnostic people CAN NOT CHOOSE to follow Christ. Our brains simply DO NOT think in the way yours does when it comes to following this religion.

This can be caused by a number of things that I mentioned earlier, such as the religion you were brought up with, personality, thought processes, etc. In my opinion it is very logical, can you explain more about why you think that it isn't?

Edit : A good way to understand it is this - If you were born to, and raised by a Islamic terrorist group, do you think you would be following Christ right now? If not, is it because you didn't "choose" to follow Christ, or  because you did not "reach enlightenment"? Or was it because of how you were raised and grew up to think?

I'm still not quite fully understanding how a certain group of people cannot possibly ever know Christ. I believe that all people of all nations, of all cultures, of all personalities, of all backgrounds CAN come to know Christ because we are made in God's image. (Gen 1:27) If we're made in the image of God, then how could we not have the biological, psychological, rational ability to know our creator?

Forgive me for butting in, but it's the starting point that is the difference.  You assume that a creator is a foregone conclusion, therefore christ is available to all.  The other side wonders if the creator stories are really true from their earliest memories, and without that foundation are unable to believe in a derivative of that foundational belief.  No "made in image of god", no god to know and no christ to know.  It's a fundamentally different viewpoint, likely tying to brain chemistry - there's growing research on the subject, for which there is no choosing to follow something which you are pretty sure doesn't exist.

[jordanread]

I appreciate the response and further questions.

...

First, thanks for the response. But I think you are missing my entire point :

"I don't see how being born with different thought processes and personalities excludes people from being a Christian."
"Yes, if you do choose to truly follow Christ, it can and will completely change who you are."

I will try to help you understand what I said, this is what I am talking about when I say brain and thought processes - (Read below)

 Myself and at least 50% of other Atheist or Agnostic people CAN NOT CHOOSE to follow Christ. Our brains simply DO NOT think in the way yours does when it comes to following this religion.

This can be caused by a number of things that I mentioned earlier, such as the religion you were brought up with, personality, thought processes, etc. In my opinion it is very logical, can you explain more about why you think that it isn't?

Edit : A good way to understand it is this - If you were born to, and raised by a Islamic terrorist group, do you think you would be following Christ right now? If not, is it because you didn't "choose" to follow Christ, or  because you did not "reach enlightenment"? Or was it because of how you were raised and grew up to think?

I'm still not quite fully understanding how a certain group of people cannot possibly ever know Christ. I believe that all people of all nations, of all cultures, of all personalities, of all backgrounds CAN come to know Christ because we are made in God's image. (Gen 1:27) If we're made in the image of God, then how could we not have the biological, psychological, rational ability to know our creator?

Forgive me for butting in, but it's the starting point that is the difference.  You assume that a creator is a foregone conclusion, therefore christ is available to all.  The other side wonders if the creator stories are really true from their earliest memories, and without that foundation are unable to believe in a derivative of that foundational belief.  No "made in image of god", no god to know and no christ to know.  It's a fundamentally different viewpoint, likely tying to brain chemistry - there's growing research on the subject, for which there is no choosing to follow something which you are pretty sure doesn't exist.

Now that's an angle I hadn't really thought of before. I'll have to look up those studies. I've been beginning to shift my thinking in regards to why religious people are religious. I used to think faith and logic were mutually exclusive. Logic requires evidence, while faith requires a lack thereof. But after talking to some people who've found their way to religion by way of well thought out and logical steps, I've found that the disparity comes at the conclusion. We all wind up in awe at this amazing universe we live in. I come to the conclusion that there is so much left to learn about this random series of events that brought us here, and I get excited as we make more and more discoveries. Others go the route of attributing it to some kind of intelligent design.
I have some thoughts on why this is, and I'll write about them later, but once I started looking at religion in this light, I no longer feel malice or contempt for those who go that route. The only issue I have with it now is that sometimes it can short circuit progress. Not all people do this, but if you've come to a conclusion that answers everything, I have seen it cause people to stop looking for answers, and that scares me a bit, because without a quest for answers, how do we grow as a species?

[HappyRock]

I just started watching the new Cosmos series (2014 version). I know someone had mentioned MMM was a fan of it in this thread. And it is by far one of the best shows I have ever seen. The visuals alone are incredible, but it can also allow you to develop an entirely new perspective on how life works.

This show describes how amazing the cosmos is, which could also be used as a reason that some type of super being or "God" exists. At the same time, it is now even harder for me to believe that any one religion started by humans can be the correct or the "right" one.

I recommend everyone watch this

[FreeWheel]

These two questions have always stumped me.

If the existence of a complex universe seems so grand and amazing that it must have a creator, isn't the existence of a creator powerful enough to make it even more problematic and unbelievable? Where did this creator even more spectacular than the universe come? If he 'always was', why couldn't a universe (of some sort) without a creator have always been?

God knows all vs. free will. How can this be? If god knows I'm going to rob a bank tonight, before I actually commit the crime, then how do I have free will? What if I change my mind? If I actually have the freedom to choose whether or not I do it, how could god know my choice beforehand?

[DoubleDown]

Good questions. Here are my answers (from a believer):

If the existence of a complex universe seems so grand and amazing that it must have a creator, isn't the existence of a creator powerful enough to make it even more problematic and unbelievable? Where did this creator even more spectacular than the universe come? If he 'always was', why couldn't a universe (of some sort) without a creator have always been?

It could. Belief in a creator, though, hinges on much more than just thinking something must be responsible for all the creation. One reason is the order observed in the universe, but that is really only a very small reason. More important reasons for a Christian, for example, are the historical record and testimony of Christ's life, and the evidence behind the death/resurrection story. And, of course, just plain ol' faith, for which there is no evidence. Many also report a "feeling" which cannot be quantified (for example, why do we humans seem to have this yearning to look for a creator, why do we seek it out?).

God knows all vs. free will. How can this be? If god knows I'm going to rob a bank tonight, before I actually commit the crime, then how do I have free will? What if I change my mind? If I actually have the freedom to choose whether or not I do it, how could god know my choice beforehand?

This is a paradox, and a pretty well-known/discussed one (preordination vs. predestination). As a paradox, it cannot really be resolved. Believers would essentially say that God knowing what you will choose before you choose it does not remove your ability to make that choice. Kind of like in the movies, where the guy can see the future, but cannot actually do anything to change it or stop it. God could change it, but he won't.

[sol]

Where did this creator even more spectacular than the universe come? If he 'always was', why couldn't a universe (of some sort) without a creator have always been?

This is one of the central flaws with all theistic religions.  If you believe that something can not come from nothing, and therefore the universe had to be preceded by a god, then what preceded the god? 

If your answer to the question of where the universe came from is "God did it" then where did God come from?  You haven't really answered anything, you've just passed the buck.  You've pushed the answer one step farther down the road.  It's like a parent telling a child "because I said so"; it's a reason without any reason.

God knows all vs. free will. How can this be?

I think this one is far less of a problem.  Why do you think you have free will?  Why would free will, if it actually existed, be in conflict with an omnipotent being?  He could make you think you have free will while still retaining complete control of you.  Or he could give you free will and then ignore you, not caring what you choose.  This is the same questions as "can God make a boulder so heavy even he cannot lift it" and is about as fruitful as the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin.  It's a fun evening's diversion if you're high, but not exactly anything that matters.

And to be entirely honest about it, modern neuroscience suggests that what you perceive as free will is largely illusory anyway.  An MRI machine can tell what you're about to decide long before you've consciously made up your mind.  Your brain seems to exist in a sort of constant state of retroactive justification, fooling itself into thinking that the things it just did automatically a moment ago are instead happening now and are under your conscious control. 

[FIPurpose]

Where did this creator even more spectacular than the universe come? If he 'always was', why couldn't a universe (of some sort) without a creator have always been?

This is one of the central flaws with all theistic religions.  If you believe that something can not come from nothing, and therefore the universe had to be preceded by a god, then what preceded the god? 

If your answer to the question of where the universe came from is "God did it" then where did God come from?  You haven't really answered anything, you've just passed the buck.  You've pushed the answer one step farther down the road.  It's like a parent telling a child "because I said so"; it's a reason without any reason.

Theistic belief is that nothing preceding God, and that God exists outside of time. The larger question would be: what is the origin of matter if there isn't a being to create matter?

But whether you are theistic or non-theistic, the origin of the originator is still unanswered, or at the very least not understood. Since as far as I know, everything must come from something that already exists. Theists simply explain that God exists outside of that, because what in our universe can create matter without first consuming matter?

Some people would say that matter has simply just always existed, but that is just as unsatisfactory.

[smalllife]

More important reasons for a Christian, for example, are the historical record and testimony of Christ's life, and the evidence behind the death/resurrection story. And, of course, just plain ol' faith, for which there is no evidence.

See, where Christianity loses me is precisely that historical record you mention.  I'm a historian and researcher by nature, so naturally I looked into the history for the holy book of my faith growing up.  What I found were church doctrine that changed with the eras (there's justification for anything in a book with 30,000 contradictions), grossly edited manuscripts, power struggles in downplaying the gnostic camp in the 300-400s, stories more easily explained by piggy backing old stories (Horus anyone?), etc. etc.  Basically, the Bible has no credibility to me - hence why I understand the deist position, which I reckon to be similar to Aristotle's First Mover, but not a god or policy based on the words in that compilation of writings.  Did a man named Jesus exist?  Almost certainly.  Did he preach?  Yes, most likely a doomsday preacher similar to others at that time with an added "give up your worldly possessions and be kind (read: inclusive) to others" twist.   Was he crucified?  Yes.  Was he supernatural?  Eh, I don't think so - even by the writings of his own followers he never claimed to be.  Take in mind that as Christianity grew, stories about him became more fantastical and expressly sought to fill gaps in the previous stories or settle doctrinal disputes at the time.  It just all makes so much more sense without the supernatural element.