Are you religious?

Yes
18% (7 votes)
No
82% (32 votes)
Total votes: 39

Posted By

TangoMash
Feb 8 2006 17:18

Tags

Share

Attached files

Comments

Sugarflow573
Feb 15 2006 15:34

There is no proof of either, so why would you feel bad for me for having a belief, that on the contrary, is no more valid. There is no proof that, saying there is a God, that he did not cease to exist with our creation, or that he does have better things to do? The fact you hold yourself in such high regards to think a being of his stature would want to mingle with the transitory creatures of this world is (just to rebut your insult) is a tad cocky.

Sugarflow573
Feb 15 2006 17:28

All religion is created out of nothing, through pure rational thought, through reasoning... so what’s not to say its counterpart cannot have the same creator. With the drawer example, if it really holds, then religion is just as unintelligible as god, sciences, reality, the senses, thought, and the future. If you’re not trying to figure out "what’s in the drawer" then you’re stagnant. That is why people have religion and beliefs, to give whatever perception of existence they have meaning...

smt4185
Feb 15 2006 17:29

There is political power in religion. And because the vast majority of the people in this world are caught up in one religious belief system or another, colossal fences have been erected.

These fences between religious groups have been a tool for spiritual warfare that frequently erupts here on this planet. For example, the Jews and Moslems battle in the Middle East; not because of territory or racial differences, which don't exist; but because of different belief systems.

The same can be said for the Catholic Irish and Protestant Irish.

Or the Catholic, Protestant and Moslem Bosnians.

The "believers" of all faiths tend to attack anyone who dares to claim that the god they bow down to is wrong, or that the way they have chosen for worship is in error. It is even worse when this so-called external god is declared a figment of the mind and nothing more. Costello said, "Belief is a defensive measure to help people hide from the fact that their lives have no grand meaning and that nothing they do has any real significance." IMO People believe because they want to feel that there has to be something more than just life on Earth. Belief is what gets people out of bed in the morning

jef costello
Feb 15 2006 17:38
smt4185 wrote:
For example, the Jews and Moslems battle in the Middle East; not because of territory or racial differences, which don't exist;

Territory does exist and race has a less tenuous existence than religion.

Quote:
through pure rational thought, through reasoning...

I don't think so.

I am not arrogant just because I don't believe that any of the religious narratives that are contradictory and full of holes. On the contrary, I don't expect people to have 'faith' when they agree with me. I expect them to use logic, which while not perfect is probably a better method than pure invention.

I just served a guy called Christian Rock. I love my job grin

cantdocartwheels
Feb 15 2006 18:08
Jef Costello wrote:
cantdocartwheels wrote:
Do you mean religion or beleif? Because asking if beleif exists or if its a hoax is a somewhat silly and pointless question surely.

belief exists but Tangomash was asking about religion, he seems to have changed the first post I have a feeling it made more sense before.

Religion is designed to control people and to utilise belief.

ok in that case then yes, religion is a hoax, but then as i said in my post, the latin origin of the word religion kinda gives that away. But then lots of things in life are hoaxes. I drink a cup of coffee before work to hoax myself into thinking 4 am is an acceptable time to wake up. Such is life.

Quote:
Belief is a defensive measure to help people hide from the fact that their lives have no grand meaning and that nothing they do has any real significance.

Since we have no idea what the significance of anything is this is just circular logic and strikes me as being rather stale nihilist rhetoric. Its also indicative of a rather crude and determinist view of conciousness as far as i can see.

Quote:
Why on earth would it be comforting?

because the whole immature and intolerant ''athiesm as dogma'' thing about anarchism pisses me off immensely

Quote:
Unless you like to look down on the unenlightened.

Typical wink

Quote:
May I ask what you believe in?

Not an awful lot really, i just happen to suspect that it may be possible that consciousness is not simply a scientifically explanable phenomenon, I could of course be completely wrong there, but until we have a far greater scientific understanding i fail too see what the point is in deciding one way or the other.

Quote:
If you tell me you don't believe in organised religion but believe in a higher power then I really do pity you.

define 'higher power' then, because i don't personally beleive in a godhead but i fail to see what you mean exactly

Sugarflow573
Feb 15 2006 18:09
revol68 wrote:
Sugarflow573 wrote:
All religion is created out of nothing, through pure rational thought, through reasoning... so what’s not to say its counterpart cannot have the same creator. With the drawer example, if it really holds, then religion is just as unintelligible as god, sciences, reality, the senses, thought, and the future. If you’re not trying to figure out "what’s in the drawer" then you’re stagnant. That is why people have religion and beliefs, to give whatever perception of existence they have meaning...

Yes but we work shit out not by creating nice lil fairy tales that cover all the angles, rather we look for problems, inconsistencies, patterns and other things and devise from that.

What i am saying is that you can never work anything, because everything can be disproved, by any angel of the arugment. just because you can see and feel, does not mean that it is the true immage of it. our senses are very failible, to rely completely on them is infintial.

cantdocartwheels
Feb 15 2006 18:11
revol68 wrote:

I mean I don't know whats in the drawer next to me but if I started telling you it was a Unicorn would you believe me or disbelieve me, or be a tit and say "I don't no either way so I suppouse it is as likely to be a unicorn as anything else.".

How bigs a unicorn then? wink

Sugarflow573
Feb 15 2006 19:57
Jef Costello wrote:
smt4185 wrote:
For example, the Jews and Moslems battle in the Middle East; not because of territory or racial differences, which don't exist;

Territory does exist and race has a less tenuous existence than religion.

Quote:
through pure rational thought, through reasoning...

I don't think so.

I am not arrogant just because I don't believe that any of the religious narratives that are contradictory and full of holes. On the contrary, I don't expect people to have 'faith' when they agree with me. I expect them to use logic, which while not perfect is probably a better method than pure invention.

I just served a guy called Christian Rock. I love my job grin

.............pure rational thought is logical, it is reason, it is knowledge, are we agreeing or are you trying to confuse me

jef costello
Feb 15 2006 21:27
cantdocartwheels wrote:
Jef Costello wrote:
cantdocartwheels wrote:
Religion is designed to control people and to utilise beliefok in that case then yes, religion is a hoax, but then as i said in my post, the latin origin of the word religion kinda gives that away.

In that sense? In what sense is it not a hoax. It seems like you're agreeing with me.

Quote:
Quote:
Belief is a defensive measure to help people hide from the fact that their lives have no grand meaning and that nothing they do has any real significance.

Since we have no idea what the significance of anything is this is just circular logic and strikes me as being rather stale nihilist rhetoric. Its also indicative of a rather crude and determinist view of conciousness as far as i can see.

Isn't it circular to counter the fear of the unknown by creating a more knowable "unknown"?

I don't know what you mean by nihlism, its often used as an insult by religious types. I don't believe in religion, I don't think that makes me a nihlist, if it does then I don't mind.

I believe that consciousness is something we enjoy, I intend to maximise the pleasure I take from the short time I expect to have it. Surely religion with its acceptance of suffering and its promise of a better afterlife is treating our consciousness in a very dismissive way. Also crude and determinist if you want to argue it that way.

Quote:
Quote:
Why on earth would it be comforting?

because the whole immature and intolerant ''athiesm as dogma'' thing about anarchism pisses me off immensely

Atheism isn't dogma it's common sense.

Quote:
Not an awful lot really, i just happen to suspect that it may be possible that consciousness is not simply a scientifically explanable phenomenon, I could of course be completely wrong there, but until we have a far greater scientific understanding i fail too see what the point is in deciding one way or the other.

I find it odd that you would pick the side for which there is no evidence.

Surely when given two choices you pick the one that doesn't require a leap of faith? I don't believe in a God and I won't until I have some proof that one exists. It's impossible to disprove the existence of a God, so while I may change my position you will not. Don't try to make out that you are the open-mided one in this case.

Sugarflow573 wrote:
.............pure rational thought is logical, it is reason, it is knowledge, are we agreeing or are you trying to confuse me

I'm not trying to confuse you. I think I agree that pure rational thought is logical. It requires knowledge, religion, no matter how logical requires faith not knowledge. It can never be truly logical as it is based upon premises that are unproven and cannot even be reasonably demonstrated to be true.

If there is a God then he must be a tremendous egomaniac who is obsessed with himself. To demand our belief/love etc based upon so little evidence. I've tried to satisfy a person who was like this, it's impossible. I think a Deity would be even harder to please. We're onto a loser here so why not enjoy the time that we know that we have.

Steven.
Feb 16 2006 01:07
smt4185 wrote:
For example, the Jews and Moslems battle in the Middle East; not because of territory or racial differences, which don't exist; but because of different belief systems.

The same can be said for the Catholic Irish and Protestant Irish.

Or the Catholic, Protestant and Moslem Bosnians.

I disagree with that completely - those conflicts aren't about religion, they're about rival power blocs

Sugarflow573
Feb 16 2006 02:09
Sugarflow573 wrote:
.............pure rational thought is logical, it is reason, it is knowledge, are we agreeing or are you trying to confuse me

I'm not trying to confuse you. I think I agree that pure rational thought is logical. It requires knowledge, religion, no matter how logical requires faith not knowledge. It can never be truly logical as it is based upon premises that are unproven and cannot even be reasonably demonstrated to be true.

If there is a God then he must be a tremendous egomaniac who is obsessed with himself. To demand our belief/love etc based upon so little evidence. I've tried to satisfy a person who was like this, it's impossible. I think a Deity would be even harder to please. We're onto a loser here so why not enjoy the time that we know that we have.

We are the ones that say he wants our love. which make us the egomanics. to think someone with his soposed potiential, wanting to mingle with the likes of us... hu!

Peter Good
Feb 16 2006 08:32

As one who visited those cold Godless cities of Eastern Europe the prospect of surrendering my spiritual needs to some hairy-armed workers' committee fills me with dread. A visit to a centuries-old Orthodox monastry that had been turned into a saurkraut-bottling factory made me feel physically sick. In a free society I'd much sooner see streets full of shamans, djims, priests, wandering monks, ju-ju men, mullahs, temples, mosque, shrines....

It seems an integral part of people to need the irrational. The more advances we make in astrophysics the more we want to believe in crop circles, the more advances in medicine the more we want alternative therapies, the more argi-business the more we need organics. The mind-numbing logic of rationality has much to answer for too.

Peter Good (TCA)

Steven.
Feb 16 2006 10:48
Peter Good wrote:
In a free society I'd much sooner see streets full of shamans, djims, priests, wandering monks, ju-ju men, mullahs, temples, mosque, shrines....

What and Moonies, Scientologists, David Koreshes... and what about other irrationals like nazis?

Quote:
It seems an integral part of people to need the irrational. The more advances we make in astrophysics the more we want to believe in crop circles, the more advances in medicine the more we want alternative therapies, the more argi-business the more we need organics.

The second two statements are non-sequiturs - what's your justification for the first?

Mystical belief was far more widespread in the past than today.

And how is it an "integral" part of people? It's socialised. Plenty of people, like myself, have no need to believe any mumbo-jumbo bollocks to get them through the day. So it's not "integral" at all - it's socialised.

Rob Ray
Feb 16 2006 11:32

Much as there are religious types who are highly useful to work with and very decent people, it has no place in an advanced and logical society, as it distracts and detracts from organising people in defence of their position in the here and now.

In partial answer to the question (which is horribly poorly phrased btw), it has both been an enormous hoax played on the working class, and a major contributor to their emancipation, depending on which of its adherents you look at. Methodist preachers were among the most potent organisers of field hands in the late 19th century of all (incidentally, I'm copying out an account written in the 40s of the great lockout of 1873 for the easf website's wiki, along with various other bits we found in a book called 'Sharpen the Sickle' we randomly found in Southwold, would Libcom want a copy?).

Rob Ray
Feb 16 2006 17:53

K will cc it when I'm done (typing out book chapter by hand, blech) angry

sam sanchez
Feb 16 2006 19:33

Richard dawkins made a good point. He said on TV recently that whilst there is no proof of God, we cannot prove that he doesn't exist. But we cannot prove that there is not a teapot orbiting saturn at this very moment, because it would be impossible to investigate thoroughly enough. In practise, though, we're all teapot atheists.

jef costello
Feb 16 2006 20:26
sam_frances wrote:
Richard dawkins made a good point. He said on TV recently that whilst there is no proof of God, we cannot prove that he doesn't exist.

I said that. Fucking Richard Dawkins, stealing my thoughts. angry

888
Feb 16 2006 23:54

I think there is a teapot orbiting saturn. remnant of an anceint civilisation based on a saturnian moon. their excess caused the destruction of the moon and the formation of saturn's rings.

jef costello
Feb 16 2006 23:57
888 wrote:
I think there is a teapot orbiting saturn. remnant of an anceint civilisation based on a saturnian moon. their excess caused the destruction of the moon and the formation of saturn's rings.

Saturn's rings are from when someone put down a celestial teacup without a saucer

lucy82
Feb 17 2006 15:48

which caused the spillage we know today as the milky way...

cantdocartwheels
Feb 17 2006 18:47
Jef Costello wrote:
cantdocartwheels wrote:
Jef Costello wrote:
cantdocartwheels wrote:
Religion is designed to control people and to utilise beliefok in that case then yes, religion is a hoax, but then as i said in my post, the latin origin of the word religion kinda gives that away.

In that sense? In what sense is it not a hoax. It seems like you're agreeing with me.

About religion yes, about beleif no.

Quote:
Quote:
Belief is a defensive measure to help people hide from the fact that their lives have no grand meaning and that nothing they do has any real significance.

Since we have no idea what the significance of anything is this is just circular logic and strikes me as being rather stale nihilist rhetoric. Its also indicative of a rather crude and determinist view of conciousness as far as i can see.

Isn't it circular to counter the fear of the unknown by creating a more knowable "unknown"?

I don't know what you mean by nihlism, its often used as an insult by religious types. I don't believe in religion, I don't think that makes me a nihlist, if it does then I don't mind.

I believe that consciousness is something we enjoy, I intend to maximise the pleasure I take from the short time I expect to have it. Surely religion with its acceptance of suffering and its promise of a better afterlife is treating our consciousness in a very dismissive way. Also crude and determinist if you want to argue it that way.

sorry mate, i think your missing what i'm getting at. What i mean is religion is crudley speaking a ''hoax'', beleiving in the as yet scientifically unfounded, is not.

I don't personally beleive we constantly enjoy conciousness, because a lot of the time it isn't very enjoyable at all, you know, loved ones dying, fear, pain, illness, loss and all that, but fair play to you i guess if thats what you want to beleive in. Me personally i'm quite tolerant of even such irrational beleifs as that wink

Quote:
Quote:
because the whole immature and intolerant ''athiesm as dogma'' thing about anarchism pisses me off immensely

Atheism isn't dogma it's common sense.

Na its definitely dogma. Anyways i was referring to a quote by marx about bakunin at a time when bakunin was in his most mental ''god = the state'' phase.

As i noted, any debate about religion in society with an average anarchist produces an immature and intolerant response. And don't claim its logical or rational, it has all the rationalism of some half-crazed maoist blabbering on about some balls from the cultural revolution. The idea that after the revolution all forms of religion and spiritual beleif will somehow just vanish, or that you can predict such an occurrence is just complete enlightenment addled wank. Sorry to take this tone but it really irritates me.

Quote:
Quote:
Not an awful lot really, i just happen to suspect that it may be possible that consciousness is not simply a scientifically explanable phenomenon, I could of course be completely wrong there, but until we have a far greater scientific understanding i fail too see what the point is in deciding one way or the other.

I find it odd that you would pick the side for which there is no evidence.

Surely when given two choices you pick the one that doesn't require a leap of faith? I don't believe in a God and I won't until I have some proof that one exists. It's impossible to disprove the existence of a God.

Can you entirely explain all your behaviour as rational then? Because i can't. Personally i don't beleive in a god as such, certainly not in the judaeo-christian way you are alluding to, but who knows.

petey
Feb 17 2006 18:47
888 wrote:
their excess caused the destruction of the moon

an example of decadence, perhaps?

sam sanchez
Feb 18 2006 11:54
Quote:
Can you entirely explain all your behaviour as rational then?

Its not rational to believe in something that there is no empirical or logically valid reason to believe in. The empirical reason (the order of the universe) has been disproven by science and especially natural selection, and anarchists point out that to say that order requires a supreme leader (God) os just the cultural bias of a hierarhcical society.

I terms of pure rationalism the only argument is the ontological argument:

God is perfect, he wouldn't be perfect if he didn't exist, therefore he must exist to be perfect, which he is by definition because he's God. But I could imagine a perfect island, or a perfect pink and green monster, but just because I have the concept of a perfect being in my head does not mean that this concept has any basis in reality. Why should the universe care if I imagine a perfect being or not?

Therefore since all reasons to believe in God have failed to prove it conclusively, the rational thing is not to believe in God (or to sit on the fence, since we can't prove she doesn't exist either). So thats why its rational.

And no one says that all spiritual belief will dissappear "after the revolution", but anarchists can still think that the worship of a supreme deity asanything other than a personification of the world/nature is inherently authoritarian, leading to an absence of critical thought and obedience to the self appointed messengers of God.

jef costello
Feb 18 2006 12:22

nice post

cantdocartwheels
Feb 19 2006 23:49
sam_frances wrote:
Quote:
Can you entirely explain all your behaviour as rational then?

Therefore since all reasons to believe in God have failed to prove it conclusively, the rational thing is not to believe in God (or to sit on the fence, since we can't prove she doesn't exist either). So thats why its rational.

as marx once said

''In this sense all proofs for the existence of God are proofs for his non-existence; they are refutations of all conceptions of a god. Valid proofs would have to state, on the contrary: "Since nature is imperfect, God exists."

"Since a non-rational world exists, God exists."

"Since there is no rationale in things, God exists."

What else does this mean ecxcept that God exists for the man whom the world is non-rational and who is therefore non-rational himself? In other words, non-rationality is God's existence.''

Me personally i'm happily sitting on the fence, although i personally think the idea of a conscious godhead is ridiculous and highly unlikely, but fairly obviously it would be extremely crude to equate all ideas of god with the concept of a judaeo-christian godhead.

Quote:
And no one says that all spiritual belief will dissappear "after the revolution", but anarchists can still think that the worship of a supreme deity asanything other than a personification of the world/nature is inherently authoritarian, leading to an absence of critical thought and obedience to the self appointed messengers of God.

Oh come off it, that sort of 'beleif has no place in a socialist society' type silliness has veen alluded to by several people on this thread alone, and don't try to pretend the anarchist movement has a mature critical approach to relgion (as if they ever have a mature critical approach to anything at all) when they clearly act like a bunch of nihilistic teenage punks as soon as someone mentions the word god.

cmdrdeathguts
Feb 20 2006 00:23

ok, so what isn't authoritarian about subservience to an alleged superior being?

i don't really care. in most of the developed world, religion is already dead, just a few rituals of cultural nostalgia married to a inherited political ideology more and more often propounded in materialist terms (eg the abortion debate now centers on 'viability' and suchlike).

jef costello
Feb 20 2006 00:27

Religion is not dead unfortunately.

CDC how is believing in God keeping an open mind?

As I said before, believing something with no evidence isn't being open-minded. Not believing in something until you see it is.

Steven.
Feb 20 2006 00:31
cantdocartwheels wrote:
Oh come off it, that sort of 'beleif has no place in a socialist society' type silliness has veen alluded to by several people on this thread alone, and don't try to pretend the anarchist movement has a mature critical approach to relgion (as if they ever have a mature critical approach to anything at all) when they clearly act like a bunch of nihilistic teenage punks as soon as someone mentions the word god.

It's not being a "nihilistic teenage punk" - I'm intolerant of all irrationality. Politically I'm not that bothered, but it is very stupid.

daniel
Apr 17 2006 20:25

as i see it you can't argue with people what believe in religion, because they come from a standpoint of believing (i.e. with no proof or anything). when scientists found fossils religious people claimed they was put there by Satan to tempt people into believing in evolution and not god. when i normally argue with people about religion it ends up with them saying "its just about believing" and walking away. something based upon faith is something you can't argue with.

so i normally take the position that religion and faith is bad from a utilitarian perspective.

a) if your thinking is based on faith rather than logic you may act irrationally (like those fucking primitivist eco-fascists going on about how great AIDS, 9/11, and the Oklahoma City bombing is cuz iof "MOTHER EARTH").

b) if you're constantly looking around trying to find some kind of "meaning of life" you won't find any God or anything and you'll feel like shit.

c) religion closes up your mind. its a simplification of reality. the thing about humans is that we have evolved to try to figure stuff out, and the primitive form this took was religion. Cause (god) and effect (lighting or something) --- thats the prelude to science. but it lacks sound reasoning because it doesn't take in the whole picture (why is god there, how did he get there, what will happen to god) it is static, simplistic reasoning.

d) in religion somebody always claims to have special access, giving them power. it always happens, because religion is focused upon predisposed to believe that someone is "better" than they are since the god(s) they are worshipping is "better" than them. anti-authoritarian religion is an oxymoron.

then of course we gotta look at religion around us. it divides us and entrenches us because the basis is purely objective and cannot be seen the same way by everybody.

i think its bullshit that people are saying that atheism/materialism "is bougois enlightenment-era crap" or whatever. anarchism and materialism belong firmly together, and its just subversive hippy bollocks about "objective reality" and "hey, man, its all cool, yeah anything that wonders into my head is just, like, totally real". THAT is bougois crap! hippies are killing anarchism from my perspective, if by anarchism ya mean "the social movement of the labouring masses" like what it says in the Platform. if its about, hey, just, like, lying on the ground contempating your naval then yeah sure, I guess you could say reality is objective. but i think you may find that not many people are going to listen to you. thats why i think the anarchist movement isn't doing so great --- back in the early 20th century and before that anarchism was a big, dangerous movement. now... well. and i think its because anarchism used to be much more serious. i look around me where I live and the working class think hippies and that sort of "objective reality everythings cool" attitude is bollocks and as the anarchists around me here are a bunch of bloody hippies they think anarchism is just about fuckingo off and smoking weed. GREAT

so a very obnoxious first post but i feel very strongly that anarchism needs to get back to reality. red n black star

knightrose
Apr 17 2006 20:34

Worth a visit all you unbelievers. http://www.landoverbaptist.org/