God/Religion. Why?

[Elise]

Religion is interpreted by many different people as many different things. Theres no solid ground for establishing what exactly one should believe or do and religious communities will always disagree to some extent on how one should worship a god and live their lives. Keeping in mind there are hundreds of different religions, how can you be sure yours is even the more 'correct' one? You cannot, but you will blindy follow it anyway and just have faith for the best. This is on the same grounds as someone who has a life threatening ilness and you have faith they will just get better by themselves without treatment. Science could save their life.

I personally only believe in the Abrahamic religions to be the true ones.

Why only Abrahamic ones?
They all share the same belief in one Creator and stress the same values. Distortion is another matter to discuss. There are other man-made religions or tribal beliefs that are more like organisations to me. Although I would encourage all values that encourage goodness and love, but I see no reason to trust them or treat them as divine.

Why Islam?
My belief in it greatly relies on the logic behind religion itself. I explained this earlier saying that religion is the way God communicates to mankind through messengers, because they cannot reach absolute truths by themselves. Islam completes Christianity and Judaism and corrects what people have changed in it (we can discuss this point). Muslims believe in both Christianity and Judaism, in Moses and Jesus, in the Torah and Gospels, but both Christians and Jews don't believe in what came after, no Muhammed, no Quran, and until now I cannot understand why, Islam offers most of the same values and clearly came from the same place.

Also, it is stupid if any religious person only prays to God in sickness, but does not seek scientific medicine. It is also stupid to pray for help and sit at home without working for what you want. I believe in combining both. As for the discussion between your co-workers; this is rather a complex matter, in a way "it was their time" but not entirely; concepts like fate and time are only relative and they are subject for change. If you eat healthy and adopt a healthy lifestyle; your time will "increase" but it will also be "your time", same goes for the opposite.

Use your logic to strip away their gods, and you have done more than removed cosmogeny, but a system of society.

I agree with your statement. It is more difficult for me to argue with Christians than to argue with agnostics or atheists because of this reality. Although it is easier for the later to hide in a corner of uncertainty where I cannot reach, but it's not the case for the first (I mean no disrespect =)

I never tear down people's religious beliefs, I am only interested in "sending a message" of my beliefs through my actions mostly, and through words when asked only, because many people start itching when hearing the word "religion".


Also, about the agnostic/atheist subject, based on all the discussion so far I will have to agree with Heartless Angel on the definitions. Simply because my first question when I have a discussion with an atheist is: give me a proof.

[Imposter]

Heartless aren't you making a pretty bad assumption there? Your assuming that that society would still care for the enviroment in the same capacity with or withour their belief. Do you have an example of a society that has done this?

I don't think I know about world history enough to give any evidence to your supposition here. But I think there is evidence to the opposite, take Nietzsche for example and his idea of abandoning the concept of the Christian God. In taking out this pillar in the belief system (the existance of a divine order) the whole system collapses and opens up what? The rejection of absolute values themselves and everything becomes subjective. Then you cannot even tell that society that taking care of enviroment is good and should be done because what is good?

Look at North America there are activists that state the importance of keeping the enviroment clean for the future but it falls on deaf ears mostly. The majority of the populace drive what they want and waste what they want further damaging the enviroment. Why? Without a higher moral absolute than mankind's there is no objective truth making everything subjective and humanity can do what they wish without consequence. Comparatively as a whole which society would care for the enviroment more?

[Rowan]

This is in response to people who believe abondoning there beliefs will result in some for of anarchy.

If you need a stone tablet/book to tell you that killing and stealing is wrong, then you are stupid. I once was more agnostic than atheist and when I educated myself furthar, all roads pointed toward atheism, I didnt abondon any of my morals or values which include not killing other people or destroying the environment.

Perhaps I've misread these posts, but I really question a persons integrity/humanity if they feel that destroying the world is a good idea if they find out god doesnt exist.

edit: Noone here needs to be told that destroying the environment or murder is bad, so noone here is stupid. Just needed to be pointed out.

[Elise]

If you need a stone tablet/book to tell you that killing and stealing is wrong, then you are stupid. I once was more agnostic than atheist and when I educated myself furthar, all roads pointed toward atheism, I didnt abondon any of my morals or values which include not killing other people or destroying the environment.

I agree with this, and to be honest I met some atheists or agnostics who have more morals than some people who claim, only with their mouth, that they are religious. It is even worse when they have a high position in a religious society. These religious teachings about morality are to maintain the humane goodness every single person is born with.

However, religion is more about society than one person. Some people do need this physical moral restraint to prevent them from committing bad actions, and others do need to be warned of punishment if they do something bad. Sometimes even people with high morality could slip, with changes in their environment, to do something bad, it's good to have a 'reminder'. Also, in a society without religion the first concept to be eliminated is family, which is the foundation of every society, and what is happening in the world today is enough witness.

[Alpha]

If the belief was rooted entirely in an assumption that was obviously complete and utter nonsense, is the system of belief really worth preserving? They could just as easily abandon the silly myths and care for the environment for a reason rooted in reality, such as the fact that the environment supports and sustains them, or that they simply like their environment and wish to keep it in the relatively good condtion it's in. You don't need ridiculous fairytales to motivate you to do something you want done. If you strip away the silly rituals and myths, what you're left with are the best parts of the beliefs, the ideology that has made people want to subscribe to the religion in the first place.

This is in response to people who believe abondoning there beliefs will result in some for of anarchy.

If you need a stone tablet/book to tell you that killing and stealing is wrong, then you are stupid. I once was more agnostic than atheist and when I educated myself furthar, all roads pointed toward atheism, I didnt abondon any of my morals or values which include not killing other people or destroying the environment.

Perhaps I've misread these posts, but I really question a persons integrity/humanity if they feel that destroying the world is a good idea if they find out god doesnt exist.

edit: Noone here needs to be told that destroying the environment or murder is bad, so noone here is stupid. Just needed to be pointed out.

I only agree to an extent.

I agree because my own system of 'belief' does this. As I've explained in the past, I consider myself a Christian Humanist. Although that's a little strong, because I'm actually agnostic. I don't have any moral absolute, but I have a moral guide, which is what I consider to be the gospel values (compassion, forgiveness, mercy, servitude, etc.).

All religions and religious texts are open to subjectivity. There is no moral absolute for anyone. That's how we end up with the Westboro Baptist Church, and the Catholic charitable organisation Caritas, both purporting to follow the teachings of the same book:

To take myself as an example, I consider myself an environmentalist. This position, in part, is taken from my Christian Humanist foundation, where I feel obligated to take responsibility for the environment, as it is 'God's creation' (note that, for me, the existence of God is not the central aspect). Yet there are groups (and they're a minority) of Millenialist Christians who believe that the Second Coming is so imminent that we shouldn't care about the state of the environment at all, because we are about to inherit a new Earth. Even further along the crazy chain, we get the Millenialists who believe the Second Coming can only come once the environment is degraded enough -- they go out of their way to damage the environment to bring Christ back sooner.

Having God in the equation, or taking him out, doesn't change a lot -- morality is still subjective.

But I think this is complicated outside of the Abrahamic faiths. The Abrahamic faiths are predicated almost first and foremost on the idea that man and nature are separate. Take God out of the Christian, and what changes in respect of their environmental attitudes? Except for a few exceptions (like the Millenialists), the answer is nothing. Because God is already not part of nature. Because man is separate again. Nature < Man < God. There's the hierarchy.

But what of my example of the indigenous faith (Maori traditional beliefs). I explained that they consider the environment (animate AND in-animate, like mountains and rivers) and themselves as one, descended from the gods.

To explain a bit further, they have a concept called mauri, which means life force, or spiritual energy. Everything has mauri. Tress have mauri. People have mauri. Cars have mauri. Some things have more mauri than others. When you use something, such as, say, a tree, you must respect its mauri. It defines how or whether you are to harvest the tree. It defines who is allowed to carve the tree, and into what type of waka (canoe). You are only allowed to use the tree for an end purpose befitting its mauri: befitting one's own ancestors.

If one was to weave a food basket to only be used once, it still must be a thing of beauty. Because it has mauri. To create something that serves the purpose of carrying food is not enough, because such a thing may not respect the mauri of the materials used to create it.

Now when you come to this world with your logic, what can you say?

You use your logic as though it is universal. But it is absolutely meaningless to these people. You tell them mauri does not exist, because it is a 'positive claim', and the burden of proof is on them to demonstrate that mauri exists. Of course, they can never prove that mauri exists. But that is not why they hold the concept central to their world view.

This is what annoys me about atheism, as opposed to agnosticism. It claims universal truth when it does not have that. It assumes that 'nothing' is the start point, and that any spiritual claim cannot possibly be true or worthwhile because it cannot be proven. But that misses the whole point.

There is no universal truth. There are many truths. That is what post-modernism reminded us.

You can keep your logic, as long as you keep it to yourself. Failure to do so reveals arrogance of the same nature as the colonial Christian missionaries.

[Heartless Angel]

Oh boy, lotsa stuff to reply to.

I would never claim to be agnostic as that would sugguest Im open to religion and the idea of god, when I honestly think its utter nonsense. I dont think that I would be agnostic for knowing that if someone could prove god to me, I would believe. becuase I honestly believe that noone can. Im having trouble grasping your definition. I agree with a lot of points you bring to the table HA, but for simple reasons I would disagree with your definition of atheism. I dont think either of us is wrong its just i've a different understanding of how I would identify myself.

edit: you say that your beliefs lean toward atheism, for example, 99 percent atheist 1 percent agnostic, I would call you an atheist.

If you're NOT open to the possibility, you're actually thinking quite irrationally. Not betting on that possibility based on the understanding that its probability is low is normal and logical, brushing it aside as an absolute impossibility is illogical. An open mind is one open to all possibilities. Meaning you don't reject an idea until it is no longer a possibility, meaning is has been proven to be false.

Everybody believes something, it's pretty much impossible not to. What defines a person as theist or atheist is whether or not they mistake that belief for knowledge. A theist, an agnostic, and an athiest all believe there is or is not a God. None of the three knows whether there is or is not a god. In those aspects, each position is the same. The difference is, that both the theist and the atheist think they know there is or is not a god. The agnostic knows only that he doesn't know. He can still believe something, he can beleive it very strongly, he just doesn't claim knowledge of the truth of his beliefs. This is my case. I value logic, reason, empircal data and science very highly. These beliefs lead me to the belief that there isn't a God. However, since they have failed to rule out the possibility of one, I can't reject that possibility and remain open to hearing and to the best of my ability seriously considering any argument posed for a religious belief. If I had to pick one to bet on based on the sum of my beliefs (or knowledge if you'd rather call it that since I base them on as much logic and evidence as I possibly can), I'd pick atheism, but I don't know, because the logic and reason I value so highly also lead me to the conclusion that I CAN'T know. For me to say there is definitely no God would be to spit in the face of my own values just as much as saying there definitely is.

Also, it is stupid if any religious person only prays to God in sickness, but does not seek scientific medicine. It is also stupid to pray for help and sit at home without working for what you want. I believe in combining both.

On the other hand however, every time I've sought scientific medicine with absolutely no prayers at all, I've gotten better. Every time I've gone out and done whatever was nescessary to acomplish a goal without prayer, I've acomplished it. One can stand entirely on its own, while the other can only stand with the first as a crutch. Again this leads me to the conclusion that religion isn't a nescessity in the world. Some people enjoy having it and place a great deal of value on it, it may even lead them to believe it strengthens their actions and ideas based on science and logic, but the world would by and large work just fine without it.

I agree with your statement. It is more difficult for me to argue with Christians than to argue with agnostics or atheists because of this reality. Although it is easier for the later to hide in a corner of uncertainty where I cannot reach, but it's not the case for the first (I mean no disrespect =)

The only reality illustrated here is that you disagree with Christians less than you do agnostics and atheists. It's less to do with the possible arguments you could make then it does your willingness to make them. The way I see it, uncertainty is more akin to the middle of the room, with its corners being beliefs. Having strong beleifs, much like hiding in corners gives one a feeling of security, the thing they're hiding from being uncertainty. To accept that one knows nothing is a frightening idea to most, so they cling to what they've decided is truth with all their strength, trying to stay where ever they think that uncertanty can't reach, fearing what it means for them if it does. While everyone else is in corner covering their eyes, I'm standing in the middle of the room looking around for the door, because I know no matter how close I squeeze into any of those corners, I'm still stuck in the room. IF that door isn't there to find, I'm not getting out of the room anyways, and pretending otherwise is useless. The middle of the room really isn't all that bad once you're used to it. Much less cramped. Plenty of room to move around. It's kinda nice actually.

Heartless aren't you making a pretty bad assumption there? Your assuming that that society would still care for the enviroment in the same capacity with or withour their belief. Do you have an example of a society that has done this?

Not at all. If their beliefs were that the environment was more important than anything else, silly myths and rituals or not, they'd still care for the environment above all else. The reason we don't see this in reality is because nobody with the power to really shape the environment actually HAS that belief. If car companies believed the atmosphere was more important than profits, cars would be made that put out fewer emissions. If energy providers believed the environment was more important than profits, they'd be more interested in cleaner alternative energy. The same is true for anybody else with the power to reduce pollution and the destruction of the environment. If they valued the environment more than their reasons for damaging it, they wouldn't choose to damage it. The people in control simply don't believe this, so these beleifs are not the ones that shape our world.

I don't think I know about world history enough to give any evidence to your supposition here. But I think there is evidence to the opposite, take Nietzsche for example and his idea of abandoning the concept of the Christian God. In taking out this pillar in the belief system (the existance of a divine order) the whole system collapses and opens up what? The rejection of absolute values themselves and everything becomes subjective. Then you cannot even tell that society that taking care of enviroment is good and should be done because what is good?

Look at North America there are activists that state the importance of keeping the enviroment clean for the future but it falls on deaf ears mostly. The majority of the populace drive what they want and waste what they want further damaging the enviroment. Why? Without a higher moral absolute than mankind's there is no objective truth making everything subjective and humanity can do what they wish without consequence. Comparatively as a whole which society would care for the enviroment more?

Absolutist moral theories have little to no logical basis. This is for one simple reason, normative conclusions must be derrived from at least one normative premise. Meaning it is quite ltierally impossible for any theory of morallity to be 'fact'. This means that at best, morallity is subjective. At worst, completely meaningless. As a moral nihilist, I believe the latter, because I believe that subjective beliefs and meaningless ones are one in the same.

In the complete abscence of any ideas of morality, what exactly would change? Not a whole lot really. Causality is as good or better motivation to decide to do or not to do something than morallity. I don't decide not to go on mass killing sprees because I think it's 'wrong'. I decide not to go on mass killing sprees because I have absolutely nothing to gain from it, and plenty to lose, as I would suffer punishment from the law. In the abscence of law, I'd suffer a different form of punishment from my fellow man who decided my actions were deserving of punishment. The idea of morallity is derrived from basic human instinct. We don't abhor killing because there's some concept of right and wrong floating around in space or because we all know divine daddy is going to be mad if we do it. We abhor killing, because like any lifeform, our most basic desire is to survive, and those who are willing and able to kill are a percieved threat to our survival. And like any other animal with instincts, we seek to remove threats to our continued existence. Like other animals, once we are guarenteed our survival, we want to thrive and take more than we need, so we also see those who steal and commit other crimes that make this difficult as threats to our desires that must be dealt with if we are to satisfy them. This concept works its way all the way up Maslow's hierarchy of needs until we hit the level that we haven't yet established sufficient order to get everybody up to.

Now when you come to this world with your logic, what can you say?

You use your logic as though it is universal. But it is absolutely meaningless to these people. You tell them mauri does not exist, because it is a 'positive claim', and the burden of proof is on them to demonstrate that mauri exists. Of course, they can never prove that mauri exists. But that is not why they hold the concept central to their world view.

Logic on some level has meaning to everybody. What varies is how much they value it, and how well it stands up to beliefs they've come to hold. Simply taking away their absolute certainty isn't enough to make most people abandon their beliefs. Now if I could prove to these people that their mauri didn't exist in a way they understand and could not possibly refute, it's unlikely they'd continue to believe it did. This is the point at which I ask, what changes? Here's the pragmatic aspect of it. Their beliefs, whether true or false, certain or uncertain worked for them. If they enjoyed their way of life, it's unlikely they'd choose to give it up, even if I was able to prove their myths incorrect.

To further illustrate this idea, a story from my own past.

Once upon a time, long long ago, I learned there was no Santa Clause. I didn't stop celebrating Christmas because of this. I didn't decide I didn't want to get any more presents, I didn't decide to stop giving them. The custom was fun whether the beliefs I had about it were true or not. And even if there wasn't a Santa, I still beleived it was Jesus' birthday, and was worth celebrating.

Hell, I'm agnostic, and I lean towards atheism now, I no longer hold ANY of the religious beliefs about Christmas, and I STILL celebrate Christmas. I don't do much praying (at least not real praying, I still hold hands, bow my head, shut up, and say amen when we're done simply out of respect for the rest of my family's beliefs), I don't believe the day has any divine significance. But I enjoy the opportunity to spend time with my family, give and exhchange gifts, eat a good meal, and just in general have a good time. I still stick a dollar and whatever random change I have in my pockets at the time into the baskets by the annoying guys ringing the bells outside the grocery store because I'm feeling more charitable during the holiday season even in spite of the bell ringing driving me half insane as I walk from my car to the building. I still go carolling now and then if somebody invites me to simply because it's an enjoyable experience to spend time with friends or family members I like. Peace on earth, good will toward men, making others happy and in turn being made happy. Those are the aspects of the tradition I value. I don't need religious beliefs to value the concepts the religions promote. Nobody else does either if they truly value those things independant of the belief that it is divine daddy's will.

[Elise]

On the other hand however, every time I've sought scientific medicine with absolutely no prayers at all, I've gotten better. Every time I've gone out and done whatever was nescessary to acomplish a goal without prayer, I've acomplished it. One can stand entirely on its own, while the other can only stand with the first as a crutch. Again this leads me to the conclusion that religion isn't a nescessity in the world. Some people enjoy having it and place a great deal of value on it, it may even lead them to believe it strengthens their actions and ideas based on science and logic, but the world would by and large work just fine without it.

Everything that happens in this world is linked to specific causes, and any human being must take the requisite measures in accordance with these causes. This takes us back to the very beginning whether the nature of this system is a result of creation or not. Your actions of not praying does not eliminate the system of the cause and the causative, or cause and effect, or action and reaction, but when believing in something greater than the system will naturally, and logically, result in believing that this greater force is capable of anything above the system itself. It has also been scientifically proven through several conducted studies that faith in God raises people’s morale and thus resulting in quicker recovery. This supports my earlier claim that praying is for ourselves before anything else, praying to God is an acknowledgement of a belief.

The only reality illustrated here is that you disagree with Christians less than you do agnostics and atheists. It's less to do with the possible arguments you could make then it does your willingness to make them. The way I see it, uncertainty is more akin to the middle of the room, with its corners being beliefs. Having strong beleifs, much like hiding in corners gives one a feeling of security, the thing they're hiding from being uncertainty. To accept that one knows nothing is a frightening idea to most, so they cling to what they've decided is truth with all their strength, trying to stay where ever they think that uncertanty can't reach, fearing what it means for them if it does. While everyone else is in corner covering their eyes, I'm standing in the middle of the room looking around for the door, because I know no matter how close I squeeze into any of those corners, I'm still stuck in the room. IF that door isn't there to find, I'm not getting out of the room anyways, and pretending otherwise is useless. The middle of the room really isn't all that bad once you're used to it. Much less cramped. Plenty of room to move around. It's kinda nice actually.

So we have a room now?
In my opinion, what’s frightening is not uncertainty, but being open-minded to other beliefs or no belief in fear of losing what you already have. I have my beliefs, I still think of myself as open-minded, and I live in a secular “Christian” country, so I am not just going with the flow or affected by the psychological security society has to offer, it’s challenging, but I like it this way because it makes my faith grow stronger. The real question is not where is the door? Or is there a door or not? But; if everyone is inside the room; who made the room and put everyone inside? If we are able to answer this question it will prove the superiority of our minds to the superiority of the maker, which is of course illogical because if our minds are so superior we wouldn’t be inside the room in the first place.

When I replied to Alpha I meant that by saying I don't know puts you in a secure area with its own unique structure. When you have nothing you have nothing to prove, and that has its security, which I referred to sometime ago as an escape, but it doesn't change the fact that you have nothing.

[Heartless Angel]

Everything that happens in this world is linked to specific causes, and any human being must take the requisite measures in accordance with these causes. This takes us back to the very beginning whether the nature of this system is a result of creation or not. Your actions of not praying does not eliminate the system of the cause and the causative, or cause and effect, or action and reaction, but when believing in something greater than the system will naturally, and logically, result in believing that this greater force is capable of anything above the system itself. It has also been scientifically proven through several conducted studies that faith in God raises people’s morale and thus resulting in quicker recovery. This supports my earlier claim that praying is for ourselves before anything else, praying to God is an acknowledgement of a belief.

Belief that you'll get better increases morale and hastens recovery whether you have that belief based on religion or not. The placebo effect is a fine example of this. They don't work because god imbues the sugar pills with magic, they don't work because you pray for them to. They 'work' because we think they work. The mind thinks it should feel better, so it feels better. The mind is connected to the body, the only cause and effect here is the relation between that mind and that body, there is nothing divine involved in this relation. That people have and are motivated by beliefs does not in any way lend credibility to those beliefs.

So we have a room now?

Well, unless your corner was created by two or three walls sitting around in the middle of nowhere doing nothing in which case those corners wouldn't be very good hiding palces in the first place, yeah.

In my opinion, what’s frightening is not uncertainty, but being open-minded to other beliefs or no belief in fear of losing what you already have.

Is being unable to rule out and having to accept that other beliefs which contradict your own are possibile not the very definition of uncertainty?

The real question is not where is the door? Or is there a door or not? But; if everyone is inside the room; who made the room and put everyone inside? If we are able to answer this question it will prove the superiority of our minds to the superiority of the maker, which is of course illogical because if our minds are so superior we wouldn’t be inside the room in the first place.

That question is actually extremely simple to answer. The room is not a metaphor for the universe, but the limits of knoweldge. Outside the walls lay absolute certainty, the walls are the faith which prevents us from reaching it. Contained within the walls is the thing we must all deal with, uncertainty and a lack of knowledge. The room was created by us the very instant we began to use reason. Unfortuantely we built the walls around ourselves. We got ourselves stuck in here. The door represents the way we could pass through the barrier created by the essential first faith by being able to not rely on it and cross into the territory of absolute knowledge. Finding that door, THAT would prove our minds superior and deserving of the absolute knowledge that lies beyond the walls. We haven't found that door yet, and most of us aren't even trying. It may not be there. If it isn't, we can never escape, because most of us are only able to stand by leaning on the very walls we seek to escape. The agnostic who no longer needs those beliefs to feel secure can stand without leaning on the walls, so he stands in the middle. He's just as trapped as everyone else, but he no longer hides from and denies that reality. To surpass the creator of the room is only to surpass ourselves. To become more than we are. To transcend the need for faith.

When I replied to Alpha I meant that by saying I don't know puts you in a secure area with its own unique structure. When you have nothing you have nothing to prove, and that has its security, which I referred to sometime ago as an escape, but it doesn't change the fact that you have nothing.
So we have a room now?
In my opinion, what’s frightening is not uncertainty, but being open-minded to other beliefs or no belief in fear of losing what you already have. I have my beliefs, I still think of myself as open-minded, and I live in a secular “Christian” country, so I am not just going with the flow or affected by the psychological security society has to offer, it’s challenging, but I like it this way because it makes my faith grow stronger. The real question is not where is the door? Or is there a door or not? But; if everyone is inside the room; who made the room and put everyone inside? If we are able to answer this question it will prove the superiority of our minds to the superiority of the maker, which is of course illogical because if our minds are so superior we wouldn’t be inside the room in the first place.

When I replied to Alpha I meant that by saying I don't know puts you in a secure area with its own unique structure. When you have nothing you have nothing to prove, and that has its security, which I referred to sometime ago as an escape, but it doesn't change the fact that you have nothing.

The lack of knowledge and acceptance of beliefs as fact is the least secure of all positions. It's not accepting a belief which cant be disproven or one that I don't have to prove. It's accepting absolutely no belief at all. I'm out in the open with nothing to rely on but my knoweldge, which ammounts to nothing. I have no walls to lean on. I have to stand by myself. There's no structure to the emtiness of the middle of the room that keeps me secure. It's no escape. It's giving up the effort to try and escape by cramming oursleves into corners, because we've come to the realization that it isn't working. It's the beginning of searching for the real way out. We all have nothing, I'm just willing to admit it. I don't need to have something, because I can stand up on my own without anything. In fact, I've become so comfortable standing without leaning on the walls, that my ultimate desire is to leave the room and distance myself even further from the walls.

[OnOneRyder]

I love the morality argument, philosophers really do it justice. I do not believe morality is dependant on religion, in fact I'd wager religion to be more dependant on morality. Following a set of rules set forth for you is not morality, it is submission. There is a difference between knowing what to be right, and what to be wrong vs. memorizing what is right and what is wrong. I believe this also holds true when people make the claim that religion teaches you how to dictate what to be right or wrong, it's still subjecting yourself to a specific doctrine. Morality is based on the needs of an individual vs the needs of society from the way I see it, this transfers to animals very well also. The claim that we are in need of a reinforcing moral compass negates the purpose of morality to begin with.

[The Doctor]

Pascal once said that promises are cool. That's not what he said, but since we like metaphor & analogy, you have two people. One who promises you a sweet, and holds one hand behind his back(he may have his fingers crossed.) The other simply tells you to **** off. It doesn't matter who's telling the truth. We all gravitate to what we want to be true. Some feel superior feelings of...faith and divinity and that's fantastic.
I love saviors, can't have too many of them. Christian, Hindu, Moonies...cept for the Heaven's Gate lot...too much commitment. But, my point, why fold when you can still check.
I'm gonna go wash all the hypothetical analogy, metaphor and allegory tar off mesself. But the joy is, I think I've explained my outlook pretty fairly.

[Rowan]

But, my point, why fold when you can still check.

Because not everyone is checking, people are raising, its upto you wether to call or not. Will you fold and let them win? Or do you think your hand is strong enough to win the pot, thats what we are talking about.

[Elise]

Belief that you'll get better increases morale and hastens recovery whether you have that belief based on religion or not. The placebo effect is a fine example of this. They don't work because god imbues the sugar pills with magic, they don't work because you pray for them to. They 'work' because we think they work. The mind thinks it should feel better, so it feels better. The mind is connected to the body, the only cause and effect here is the relation between that mind and that body, there is nothing divine involved in this relation. That people have and are motivated by beliefs does not in any way lend credibility to those beliefs.

All mater in the universe existed in the form of power before taking any form of action, this power did not just happen, there has to be someone who runs the system. Those sugar pills have existed for what? 2? 3 centuries? And I’m sure they weren’t credible or acknowledged by the medical community all that time. Teachings like praying existed long before the world knew what morale even means. So now, just because I know a thing or two about human psychology or uncover some mysteries in the universe, I reject all that has passed and call religion an outdated tradition? Certainly not! It only proves to me that a superior knowledge has always existed and has always been right, the more I discover and learn about the universe the more I believe in it.

Well, unless your corner was created by two or three walls sitting around in the middle of nowhere doing nothing in which case those corners wouldn't be very good hiding palces in the first place, yeah.

I wasn’t speaking of a corner in "literal" terms

Is being unable to rule out and having to accept that other beliefs which contradict your own are possibile not the very definition of uncertainty?

Being open-minded is being unprejudiced. Just because my mind is receptive to other ideas and arguments it doesn’t mean that I am uncertain of my own. I am simply curious about everything, but not everyone can or will be this way because they are afraid. If having my eyes open proves anything then it’s that I am certain of my beliefs enough to endanger them because I am certain of their survival.

Our different definitions of uncertainty and open-mindness change the structural qualities of the room, and the locations of all inside.

[OnOneRyder]

All mater in the universe existed in the form of power before taking any form of action, this power did not just happen, there has to be someone who runs the system.

You assert the eternal existence of matter (speculative) is somehow proof that an individual is in charge of the universe? That is a HUGE assumption you are trying to pass off as truth, you're attempting to use logic without evidence as fact...you cannot do that.

[Heartless Angel]

All mater in the universe existed in the form of power before taking any form of action, this power did not just happen, there has to be someone who runs the system.

That is an extremely bold claim which I don't believe you or anybody else has sufficient evidence to back up without ultimately relying on ciruclar reasoning which establishes nothing.

Those sugar pills have existed for what? 2? 3 centuries? And I’m sure they weren’t credible or acknowledged by the medical community all that time. Teachings like praying existed long before the world knew what morale even means. So now, just because I know a thing or two about human psychology or uncover some mysteries in the universe, I reject all that has passed and call religion an outdated tradition? Certainly not! It only proves to me that a superior knowledge has always existed and has always been right, the more I discover and learn about the universe the more I believe in it.

People also knew they didn't float before they discovered the force of gravity. Whatever they thought the cause of this was before that discovery was not superior knowledge. It was stupid people attempting to explain things beyond their understanding. People from different times having the same, true, observation does not mean all their explanations for it have been correct.

Yes, praying has always 'worked' in that regard. At the time it was beleived that it was because a divine entity restored their health. In this day in age we know that there is in fact a relation betwen mental state and physical state which has absolutely nothing to do with divine favor. It wasn't 'superior knoweldge' that religion granted. It was a simple observation which unenlightnened people explained in religious terms because it was all they understood. A man who believed he would get better without prayer would've expereinced exactly the same beneficial effects of having the belief that he'd get better. But nobody would notice or ask why, because they didn't observe him doing anything which they believed had any impact on his recovery.

Being open-minded is being unprejudiced. Just because my mind is receptive to other ideas and arguments it doesn’t mean that I am uncertain of my own. I am simply curious about everything, but not everyone can or will be this way because they are afraid. If having my eyes open proves anything then it’s that I am certain of my beliefs enough to endanger them because I am certain of their survival.

If you're still absolutely certain of your own beliefs, then there is absolutely nothing to fear about being open minded and listening to arguments you beleive you 'know' are false before hearing them. If you can't lose, you're not gambling. If you don't believe the possibility of losing exists, you have nothing to fear, and nothing to lose. The only thing we have true reason to fear, is the possibility that we're wrong. That is uncertainty.

Our different definitions of uncertainty and open-mindness change the structural qualities of the room, and the locations of all inside.

Not at all, only our perceptions of these things change. Th reality of it remains constant. The extent of human knowledge is the extent of human knowledge regardless of who you are and how you define it and whether you realize it even exists. What we think we know is absolutely irellevant to what is true, and therefore what we actually know.

[Elise]

That is an extremely bold claim which I don't believe you or anybody else has sufficient evidence to back up without ultimately relying on ciruclar reasoning which establishes nothing.

Any other reasoning offers no answer and never will.
Not all circular reasoning is fallacious. We make arguments because logic exists; but also our arguments are based on logic. I believe in the existence of logic even though it’s a victim of circular reasoning. You would say that you know nothing because everything is circular, but I think there are different types of circular reasoning, certain things can prove themselves, and the proof is that we use them and depend on them in everything, and they work.

People also knew they didn't float before they discovered the force of gravity. Whatever they thought the cause of this was before that discovery was not superior knowledge. It was stupid people attempting to explain things beyond their understanding. People from different times having the same, true, observation does not mean all their explanations for it have been correct.

That’s your opinion and you are entitled for it, and so does anyone who agrees with you. I wasn’t referring to ordinary people randomly making claims that may be right or wrong. I was referring to religious text, practically the Quran. I believe we have discussed this point before so I won’t elaborate this time.

YIt wasn't 'superior knoweldge' that religion granted. It was a simple observation which unenlightnened people explained in religious terms because it was all they understood.

Again, that is your opinion. You cannot just come and say that unenlightened people explained it in religious terms. Of course I disagree with your statement, and not just about praying.

If you're still absolutely certain of your own beliefs, then there is absolutely nothing to fear about being open minded and listening to arguments you beleive you 'know' are false before hearing them. If you can't lose, you're not gambling. If you don't believe the possibility of losing exists, you have nothing to fear, and nothing to lose. The only thing we have true reason to fear, is the possibility that we're wrong. That is uncertainty.

The points I made about open-mindness are a result of the type of fear I witnessed in some societies regarding being educated about others. No one should be afraid of knowledge and we all should be curious about it, this goes with every instinct in me, even if one is certain of what they already have.


A less relevant point:
This week was Freshers' Fair in my university where societies and clubs were advertising themselves. I don't know who designed the layout, but the Atheist, Islamic and Christian societies were all jammed in one corner, it was so weird and all I could do was laugh like an idiot seeing all the sparks flying around. I instantly remembered this thread... the reason I'm mentioning it here =)

[Heartless Angel]

Any other reasoning offers no answer and never will.

Picking a religion because of that is pretty much the equivalent of attempting to solve a complex math problem, realizing halfway in that you aren't good enoguh at math to get the answer, and deciding just to write in a number at random after the equals sign for the sake of saying you have an answer. That answer isn't worth a whole lot when you didn't arive at it using the proper method. Yeah, I suppose there is a one in infinity chance it's right, but odds like that aren't exactly smart to bet on.

Not all circular reasoning is fallacious.

Yes it is actually. In fact, begging the question (which is to include the conclusion of an argument as its own premise) has been identified as a formal logical fallacy. Circular arguments are by definition fallacious. The form is always completely invalid, there is no varience. Circular arguments are invalid, their conclusions are not supported nor proven in any way.

We make arguments because logic exists; but also our arguments are based on logic. I believe in the existence of logic even though it’s a victim of circular reasoning. You would say that you know nothing because everything is circular, but I think there are different types of circular reasoning, certain things can prove themselves, and the proof is that we use them and depend on them in everything, and they work.

Belief does not equal truth. Everything we think we know is true ONLY if our beliefs about them are true. In the abscence of that, we don't know. We can't know. No matter how much comfort it brings us to think and pretend we know, we still don't know. Nothing can prove itself anymore than a word can be its own definition. This isn't true in most cases, this is true in EVERY case. An argument with its only premise being its own conclusion is not an argument at all. It's a baseless arbitrary belief with absolutely no support. Beleiving it in spite of this is all well and good, and if it works for you, wonderful, have fun with it. But that doesn't help you break away from the reality that you still know nothing.

You speak in terms of pragmatic 'truth', I speak about real Truth. Correspondant Truth. Pragmatic truth is not real knowledge. Based on the pragmatic theory, it was also at one point 'true' that the earth was flat, and at the center of the universe. People believed it, and until somebody came along and disproved it with much greater observations, primative observation supported it, and it worked at the time. In spite of it serving its purpose, we now know it to be 100% false. ANY belief can be pragmatically true. Atheism is pragmatically true to atheists at the same time religion is pragmatically true to you. This kind of truth is pretty much worthless when it comes to real knowledge.

That’s your opinion and you are entitled for it, and so does anyone who agrees with you. I wasn’t referring to ordinary people randomly making claims that may be right or wrong. I was referring to religious text, practically the Quran. I believe we have discussed this point before so I won’t elaborate this time.

That's not an opinion. It's a fact. The source of obsolete explanations doesn't change the fact that they have been made obsolete by superior knowledge. Religions and religious texts are no different. Regardless of who makes an incorrect claim, it is still an incorrect claim. Now the ultimate claim of religion has not yet been made obsolete, because logic can't reach a conclusion to prove or disprove it, but many religious explanations for many things have been replaced with scientific ones. Prayer among them. Again, two opposing postions may be able to be pragmatically true simultaneously, but not correspondantly true.

Again, that is your opinion. You cannot just come and say that unenlightened people explained it in religious terms. Of course I disagree with your statement, and not just about praying.

Not really. Even if religious theories were correct, it was still all they understood, and all they could explain observations in terms of. Later on, we've replaced a great deal of those religous beliefs with scientific ones that even the churches agree with. I can say anything I like providing I have some basis for it, which I do. That you disagree with it does ot refute my claim anymore than my lack of accepting the existence of the divine disproves it.

The points I made about open-mindness are a result of the type of fear I witnessed in some societies regarding being educated about others. No one should be afraid of knowledge and we all should be curious about it, this goes with every instinct in me, even if one is certain of what they already have.

Societies only fear new knowledge that has the power to change them. They only have this power is they have the potential to be correct. Knowledge, true knowledge about reality can be a very frightening thing, because it is possible that it could destroy every belief we have simply by not agreeing with them. What you seek is not knowledge of reality. You have nothing to fear, because you don't seek the truth, merely to understand opposing views about it. New ideas are only frightening when you're faced with the possibility that they are correct.

If you aren't affraid, it is not because of bravery, but because you never put yourself or your beliefs in any real danger. You set them out in the open for anyone to take a shot at believing they'll withstand the assault. The belief itself may not be able to withstand the assault, however you have confidence it will becase you hide it behind an impenetrable barrier of faith which you use to deflect any and all arguments. The only thing here known to be strong enough to withstand attack is your faith, the strength of your belief is completely unknown, because you never test it, keeping it hidden behind that faith at all times. I didn't just put my beliefs in a position for somebody to attack whilst I did my best to defend it. I took away its shield of faith, turned on my beliefs of my own volition and attacked them myself, because I truly did not fear the possibility that they were incorrect. If they couldn't withstand my attacks, they were not deserving of my faith. The faith I once had in God was strong enough to deflect any argument, but the very moment I decided to test the strength of the belief itself rather than the strength of my faith in it, I realized just how weak it was and abandonned it.

[Elise]

Well this has reached a not very pretty place...
My ideologies are not a shell, they are not surrounded by a defense shield while being empty on the inside, how would you know that I never test them?! Or that I don't seek the truth?! Sadly I can't prove to you the correctness of my statement because you don't know me, and things like these can only be proven by actions, not words. Just because your personal beliefs weren't strong enough to be worthy of your faith it doesn't mean that I, or anybody else, is the same.

[Heartless Angel]

Without removing faith, you never really test a belief, only the faith that protects it. That you have openly stated that you rely so much on faith, and value it so highly, I can only conlude that it is what protects your beliefs, because it's the only response you've had to any argument I've posed that actually conflicts with your beliefs. Without that shield of faith, a belief is left with nothing left to stand on but logic. From what I've observed here thus far, not only do you not test the strength of that logic, you acknowledge its weakness, and look to strengthen it with even more faith. There's nothing wrong with that, but that is not seeking truth. It's fortifying your system of beliefs against it. People everywhere do the same every day to reinforce nearly every belief they have. But this does not test the strength of their beliefs, only the strength of their faith in them.

If you have truly tested your belief as I have, I can only assume that you reached the same conclusion about it that I have, because from what I've seen here so far, your logic is strong enough to reach that conlusion, but instead of choosing to abandon the belief as I did, chose to fortify it with more faith because you enjoyed having the system of beliefs based upon it. Again, there's othing wrong with that. It works for people. But in doing so, you make a search for truth a second priority with the first being to ensure your belief can withstand it in case you find it and don't like it.

I've offended you with this, or any other post thus far, you'll have to forgive me. I'm moderately sociopathic, and naturally undeveloped emotionally, and a generally not particularly gifted with figuring out how people will take the things I say. If I've offended you (or anyone else for that matter) at any point here, my apologies.

[ultima_trev]

I'd guess my beliefs range somewhere in between deist and agnostic.

As it stands, I very much doubt the existence of the Abrahamic God. There could very well be a godlike figure out there somewhere, but the Abrahamic mythos just seems too far fetched. Maybe Jesus did walk on water, turn water to wine, cure the blind and diseased, raise from the dead, et cetera; It might very well be true. However, until I witness it with my own eyes, I can never fully believe.

Then there's the whole bit about the Abrahamic god condemning those to eternal torment for being skeptical of his intentions or existence (or both, depending how you interpret). Pretty sadistic if you ask me.

All in all, if damnation is the price I must pay for my skepticism, then so be it. Satan probably knows how to throw a better party anyway.

[Cyanist]

I've seen too much to deny god's existence. But even from the viewpoint of an atheist, this world is a better place because we believe.

[OnOneRyder]

Please expand on that, why is the world better with faith?

[Sasquatch]

Please expand on that, why is the world better with faith?

I can't be positive what cyanosuke meant, but here's my take on it.

(And I assume that you're referring to religious faith, not general faith, as all of us rely on general faith every day.)

While all of us have a sense of ethics, for some people, that's not enough. The vast majority of us are brought up to know the difference between right and wrong. But even though our personal ethics may vary, there are some people who do "the right thing" -- or simply refrain from doing "the wrong thing" -- only because it's the legal thing to do, and to do otherwise would possibly get them in trouble. Obviously, however, there are still people who don't care much about the law, and will do whatever they think they can get away with.

And for those types of people -- those who need something more than threat of earthly punishment to tell them "don't do this" -- religion provides that added incentive. It adds a sense of morality to the already-present sense of ethics, which is especially helpful when ethics just aren't enough.

Think about it. Religious people are generally more peaceful (save, of course, extremists), more lawful, and more charitable than non-religious. Even if you focus on the bad things done in the name of religion, they are still outweighed by the good things done in the name of religion. We all disagree with certain religions, or with religion in general, but it's relatively easy to see that, generally, religion has improved the world.

[Heartless Angel]

I don't know if I would necessarily agree with that, though it is a common point thrown out there in favor of religion. Plenty of criminals identify themselves as members of various religions, but they still do the things they do. That isn't to say there's no such thing as an atheist criminal, because there are. Really it just seems to me that bad people are bad people whether they think there's a god or not. Theist criminals generally seem to care for the laws of God no more than they do the laws of man. Those who follow a moral code they got from a religion are generally decent ethical people anyways, and I'd probably be willing to bet they'd be decent people even if they were atheist. I suppose most of this is speculation, so I won't say I'm right you're wrong or anything of that sort, but I'll say I'm not entirely convinced that religion has really made that big a difference as far as acting morally goes.

[OnOneRyder]

Think about it. Religious people are generally more peaceful (save, of course, extremists), more lawful, and more charitable than non-religious.

Forgive me for not addressing the rest of your post, I just wanted to focus on this. I'd really like to see some statistics that back this up. I think you're making some extremely bold claims here and I'm definitely willing to provide some stats to the contrary.

Lets focus on America primarily ok? Most statistics you'll find online will be based on the American population so that only makes sense. Look at the demographics of people being incarcerated, the ratio of black/Hispanic males to Caucasians in prison as compared to law-abiding free citizens is by no means even. Their likelihood of being imprisoned is substantially higher than a white males, around 6 times more likely while a Hispanic male is twice as likely to be incarcerated. The national incarceration rate for whites is 412 per 100,000 residents, compared to 2,290 for African Americans, and 742 for Hispanic. What is interesting and relevant about this is over 80% of African Americans identify as holding religious beliefs, with over 70% claiming strong religious beliefs which affect their lives. The statistics for Latino's are even higher. Such high religious faith statistics yet substantially higher incarceration statistics vs. Caucasian Americans. By your argument their religious affiliation should make them more law abiding, but the statistics clearly show that it does not.

Another statistic which shatters your argument is incarceration rates of those who identify as holding some religious faith. According to the 1997 Federal Bureau of Prisons report of those poled only 0.21% identified themselves as atheist, substantially lower than the national average.

As far as peaceful, I think that too is false. One need only look at conflicts in the world and compare the stats for faith/non-faith to see that by no means does having a religious affiliation make you any more peaceful. I'm also not claiming that those who identify as non-theists are any more peaceful as I am not aware of any studies that have shown this, though I suspect they most definitely are. I'd be quite surprised if countries which had higher percentages of non-theists ranked lower on the Global Peace Index. Yes it is mostly to do with their development, but it is still relevant.

[Sasquatch]

Forgive me for not addressing the rest of your post, I just wanted to focus on this. I'd really like to see some statistics that back this up. I think you're making some extremely bold claims here and I'm definitely willing to provide some stats to the contrary.

No problem. I'll look around for some statistics that religious people are more charitable, peaceful, and lawful, and you look around for those opposing that idea.

I will say, however, that it would be difficult to gauge, since being religious entails more than just saying, "yeah, I'm religious". It could easily be said that somebody who doesn't follow, or at least support, religious teachings cannot be labeled as a member of that religion. Just as a pale white guy named Patrick O'Malley can call himself full American Indian all day long.

Look at the demographics of people being incarcerated, the ratio of black/Hispanic males to Caucasians in prison as compared to law-abiding free citizens is by no means even. Their likelihood of being imprisoned is substantially higher than a white males, around 6 times more likely while a Hispanic male is twice as likely to be incarcerated. The national incarceration rate for whites is 412 per 100,000 residents, compared to 2,290 for African Americans, and 742 for Hispanic. What is interesting and relevant about this is over 80% of African Americans identify as holding religious beliefs, with over 70% claiming strong religious beliefs which affect their lives. The statistics for Latino's are even higher. Such high religious faith statistics yet substantially higher incarceration statistics vs. Caucasian Americans.

Is religion more relevant than, say, economic standing? Education level? Drug use, dropout, teen pregnancy, etc. rates?

A quick Google search tells me that 83% of Americans claim to be religious, not including Atheists. If 80% of blacks and 70% of hispanics are religious, their specific race would be below the national average, and it would actually show that lack of religion is more common in races more likely to produce criminals, exactly the opposite of what you're claiming.

Another statistic which shatters your argument is incarceration rates of those who identify as holding some religious faith. According to the 1997 Federal Bureau of Prisons report of those poled only 0.21% identified themselves as atheist, substantially lower than the national average.

Are you talking about Atheists or non-religious? The poll you're referring to labeled prisoners by religions they identify themselves as. This obviously doesn't count people who don't identify themselves as belonging to any religion. From the same poll that came up on aforementioned quick Google search, 0.2% of prisoners identify themselves as Atheist, whereas 19.2% of prisoners claim no religion.

I found more -- that Scotland and England both have a higher percentage of non-religious in their prisons than in their general population -- but I only took a quick glance at a few blogs that said the same general thing. Once I get some actual statistics, I'll bring 'em.

I remember watching a South Park episode in which the kids somehow go to the future, or some alternate universe without religion, and instead of fighting over religion, the societies there (giant beavers or hamsters or something) were instead fighting over something similar, like their particular brand of Atheism or Evolutionism or whatever it was. Sounds about right.

[OnOneRyder]

[QUOTE=Sasquatch;1327140]
Is religion more relevant than, say, economic standing? Education level? Drug use, dropout, teen pregnancy, etc. rates?

A quick Google search tells me that 83% of Americans claim to be religious, not including Atheists. If 80% of blacks and 70% of hispanics are religious, their specific race would be below the national average, and it would actually show that lack of religion is more common in races more likely to produce criminals, exactly the opposite of what you're claiming.

Pew Forum: A Religious Portrait of African-Americans

I couldn't find an article supporting my claims earlier so I couldn't give an exact figure but I remember reading they were above the %'s for the entire nation. They also possess stronger beliefs than the rest of the nation, 79% vs the 56% of all US adults who claim strong religious beliefs. I had it backwards though, with Latino's being slightly lower yet still above the averages for the entire country.

Yes the contributing factors play a huge role, but you're claim that religious affiliation makes them more peaceful and law abiding doesn't jive with the stats. While the percentages of African Americans and Hispanics living below the poverty line and in single parent homes is significantly higher than for whites, the percentages are not off 6 times that of whites.

[Heartless Angel]

As interesting as these statistics may be, they don't really prove the conclusion, since we're talking about a form of causality here. If you're suggesting religion CAUSES people to be more lawful, peaceful and charitable, it takes more than a correlation to establish that. Proving causality is a huge pain in the ass, especially when statistics like that are the only way we really have to go about it.

It could just as easily be that people who are naturally bad don't bother following a religion because they are bad as it could be that they're bad because they don't have a religion. I'd also be more inclined to believe that peaceful, charitable, lawful people are more attracted to religion because it agrees with and promotes their values than that those people are peaceful, charitable, and lawful because they were attracted to religion.

Also, that was an awesome South Park Episode, Cartman tried to freeze himself in ice for two weeks so he wouldn't have to endure the waiting for the Nintendo Wii release, was defrosted several hundred or thousand years in the future where religion had been done away with, and there were three factions, two human, and one otter fighting in a war over what the 'official atheist organization' should be named of all things. While fun to reference, one must keep in mind, South Park is written for the purpose of being ridiculous, and its 'messages' are generally rooted in the beliefs of Matt and Trey (Which I'll admit, I often agree with). Also keep in mind the end of that episode, after fixing the timeline Cartman returns to the future where religion exists again and the humans and Otters are friends, they're still at war with communists or Muslims or something. Only thing that episode really means to me is that stupid people will ALWAYS find something ridiculous to fight over.

[Rowan]

Sasquatch, are you saying that morality comes directly from religion and its teachings? So if someone made moral decisions, they would be decisions created by an absolute morality that exists because of a religion?

On the topic of faith, I'm still not sure if the word is meant to be used solely in a religious sense. If I park my car in the street, I dont need to have faith that it will be there when I get back. A co-worker and friend of mine says to me a lot "oh cmon, have faith bro!" as if having 'faith' would impact on a situation in a positive way. This is nonsense and there's absolutely no way to back that claim up, so why believe it in the first place?

[sayian]

I'm a believer in God, and ill tell you why.. a personal experience..

Back in 07' i had a 92 corvette that had a knocking problem in the engine (crankshaft). well, my uncle and i rebuilt the engine. it took us 3 days and 4 nites.. i had travelled to to pine bluff from rogers, ar for this and was eager to get back home because i'd been gone too long(so i thought).

Well, the very last nite, after we'd gotten Everything back together, the very last thing we did was put the spark plugs in.. If you dont know vetts, the back spark pleases are a bitch to get in. it took us atleast an hour working on the last 2 plugs.. at about 1am i was pretty tired but i was still gonna try and make it home(i had a business, a pet, and bills needed to be paid).. while my uncle was getting that last plug in.. i closed my eyes and prayed.. "God, Im tired and i need to get home.. please let me make it safe".. <--words were pretty close to that..

God puts things together because he knows whats going to happen..

So im driving and getting sleepy.. then falling asleep at the wheel.. LIKE LEGIT FALLING THE FK ASLEEP drivin this corvette like 80mph at 2am.. Have u ever fell asleep drivin and had a dream? Im telling u, i woke up one time smiling and didnt know wtf i was dreaming about or how long.. Still driving on the interstate mind you.. Another time i feel asleep and woke up about 3 inches from a desil then my side rear mirror hit the gas tank..... NO LIE!! that was the last time i fell asleep.. Im pretty awake now but i had 2 hours left to drive and im in ozark, ar. then my belt slips and by battery dies.. so im stuck in ozark at exit37 by the loves gas station..

I calls my ex gf at 3am to come get me from fort smith, ar. and shes on her way... it'll take her about an hour to get to me and im tired as shyt.. but instead of sittin in the car waiting.. i decide to cross the interstate and walk towards the gastation(i was bored and didnt want to fall asleep)

so i hop out my car and walking i went.. then i heard a bomb... a big ass truck hit my vette and completely destroyed it.. I WAS RIGHT THERE..

turns out, the guy driving the truck had fell asleep and my car just so happened to be in that 1 in a million spot on the side of the interstate that it needed to be at to slow his truck down and save his life.. Talk about killin 2 birds with one stone,, God is real... i could do nothin but thand God because i recognized that he HEARD MY PRAYER and IM alive to tell u about it......

I would killed myself that nite and so would that truck driver had I been a non believer in God..

[RamesesII]

I have had a question digging in the back of my head since the day I mutilated my old work ute into a tree at 100km/h.

How do you differentiate between a god and fate or luck.

I myself believe that it was luck that I was able to steer the vehicle as well as I did considering the fact that I think I closed my eyes just before I hit it.

But other people would take it that god had saved them that day.

Interesting to know that my great grandmother on my wifes side of the family especially blessed our family in her prayers that night/morning.

Taking this into to account I still don't believe in a god and I don't have a religious faith. When you think about it I take it to be a naive approach to life and I don't mean any disrespect by this comment, but when you look at ancient history and see what the people of old believed in and that each country and race of people had many and different gods because the were naive they had nothing else to believe in they had no way of explaining how things happened.
What I believe was that religion and gods were created to rally people to follow one person for example many leadership figures also claimed to be prophets and or channels of gods.



On another note
Having faith in a religion or being religious doesn't provide that person good moral values, the person themselves is the only person that has control over that, religion may teach their values and morals but it is within the person to execute those teachings. Not only that but it also comes down to how a person was raised by their parents, 100% of how we raise our children is embedded into our brains on how we were raised by our parents.
We are not born with the ability to be perfect parents as soon as we come out of the womb.
So it is up to the individual to either pass the moral values that they were taught or to correct what their parents have instilled upon them as long as you can pull yourself up on these things.