Arguing Religion and God - Why?

originally posted by: Expat888
Whats even more hilarious is that the three abrahamic religions all worship the same god yet slaughter each other over it claiming that they are the chosen ones ..

Meh.. never will understand westerners and their religion ..

One might consider that there are at least a couple of things, beliefs, what have you, that are central and fundamental to this belief system that , when coupled with human nature, cause cracks and fizzures in the system on down the line. For instance, the dominion aspect. Go forth, be fruitful, multiply, have dominion over everything basically. Basically god makes everything and immediately turns it over to their ancestors to play around in. Then, anybody that stands in the way of that, even if it is another tribe around the corner who believe the same scripture, needs to be subjugated and dominated.

I wonder if there have ever been studies on this. What might be the core tenants in this Abrahamic tradition that make these folk like this.

a reply to: Realtruth

All three heavily stress the family. And family values built upon this Abrahamic tradition, as they see it. And they all see themselves as gods family, his children. So we have Abraham coming out of Ur of Chaldea (wasn't it?) and he gets his message and blessing from god, and passes this chosen concept along to his family. Then his family expands. And expands and expands until they have become an unwieldy collection of people who have expanded beyond what any of us might consider any realistic concept of a family to be. Holding this thought, allow me to introduce another thought in a quote.

Robin Dunbar is a British anthropologist and evolutionary psychologist and a specialist in primate behaviour. He is currently head of the Social and Evolutionary Neuroscience Research Group in the Department of Experimental Psychology at the University of Oxford

Dunbar's number is a suggested cognitive limit to the number of people with whom one can maintain stable social relationships. These are relationships in which an individual knows who each person is and how each person relates to every other person This number was first proposed by British anthropologist Robin Dunbar, who found a correlation between primate brain size and average social group size. By using the average human brain size and extrapolating from the results of primates, he proposed that humans can only comfortably maintain 150 stable relationships.[7] Proponents assert that numbers larger than this generally require more restrictive rules, laws, and enforced norms to maintain a stable, cohesive group. It has been proposed to lie between 100 and 250, with a commonly used value of 150,Dunbar's number states the number of people one knows and keeps social contact with, and it does not include the number of people known personally with a ceased social relationship, nor people just generally known with a lack of persistent social relationship, a number which might be much higher and likely depends on long-term memory size.

Dunbar theorized that "this limit is a direct function of relative neocortex size, and that this in turn limits group size ... the limit imposed by neocortical processing capacity is simply on the number of individuals with whom a stable inter-personal relationship can be maintained."


Primatologists have noted that, due to their highly social nature, primates must maintain personal contact with the other members of their social group, usually through social grooming. Such social groups function as protective cliques within the physical groups in which the primates live. The number of social group members a primate can track appears to be limited by the volume of the neocortex. This suggests that there is a species-specific index of the social group size, computable from the species' mean neocortical volume.

If this is the case, then holding a concept of family must be limited to ancient tribal sizes which could mean that holding beliefs that have sprung from it, that they wish to extend to millions of people is impossible without strict laws and regulations to follow. And we know where that leads.

My apologies if I did not manage to blend my thoughts in a coherent manner here as I have just now begun to try to do so.

To the OP:

You seem to be under the premise that one cannot know whether or not God exists, whether or not God is real. That is a false premise.

You are correct, however, in assuming that one cannot reach actual realization of God through logic or texts.

The ones who fight over what God is or isn't, are the ones who have no idea.

The ones who have realized God, are often silent. The only times they speak of its Suchness is when asked by devotees or truth seekers....and they only speak so to try and lead the searchers to their own realization. The words, descriptions, and attemps at speaking on the Suchness do not come close to actually representing the reality of Suchness.

a reply to: supermarket2012

is suchness actually a word? i find it amusing that people actually invent new words or new definitions to old words because thats the only way they can define their understanding. feels like every time that happens, theyre inventing a new god entirely.

but what do i know? i'm a heretic lol

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: supermarket2012

is suchness actually a word? i find it amusing that people actually invent new words or new definitions to old words because thats the only way they can define their understanding. feels like every time that happens, theyre inventing a new god entirely.

but what do i know? i'm a heretic lol

en.wiktionary.org...

originally posted by: supermarket2012

The ones who have realized God, are often silent. The only times they speak of its Suchness is when asked by devotees or truth seekers....and they only speak so to try and lead the searchers to their own realization. The words, descriptions, and attemps at speaking on the Suchness do not come close to actually representing the reality of Suchness.

This is a classic example of why religious confusion gets people into wars, and arguments.

The "I'm in the know" and "everyone else is lost" mentality, this type of posturing inflames those with religion, because their is the only way.

Different paths lead to one source perhaps?

The reason I choose agnosticism is I cannot prove, not disprove the existence of "God", but I do believe we are all part of a universal power. No one is greater, nor lesser.

Peace,

RT

a reply to: Realtruth
Just my thoughts, of course, but I see the current landscape you describe as a long overdue backlash against religious oppression, and forced indoctrination that has been going on for thousands of years. It isn't likely to die down any time soon. In fact, look for it to rise in intensity. Religion is oppressive, and sooner or later, people will begin to fight their oppressor, once the oppressor is recognized as such.

a reply to: Realtruth

I do believe we are all part of a universal power.

I am not going to ask you for proof.

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: Realtruth

I do believe we are all part of a universal power.

I am not going to ask you for proof.

That's the problem with religions, everyone wants external proof. When a group of people look at the statue of liberty, do all of them think and believe the same things? Of course not.

Our views of what a "Universal power" is should be ours alone and most likely they are not the same.

That's my whole point of this thread. Why the need to argue? Just respect the other persons viewpoint instead of trying to change their minds.


Unfortunately we do have those that use religions and dogma's to facilitate destructive agendas; those individuals are the people in our society that are led by fear, and rule by fear.

originally posted by: Realtruth

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: Realtruth

I do believe we are all part of a universal power.

I am not going to ask you for proof.

That's the problem with religions, everyone wants external proof. When a group of people look at the statue of liberty, do all of them think and believe the same things? Of course not.

Our views of what a "Universal power" is should be ours alone and most likely they are not the same.

That's my whole point of this thread. Why the need to argue? Just respect the other persons viewpoint instead of trying to change their minds.


Unfortunately we do have those that use religions and dogma's to facilitate destructive agendas; those individuals are the people in our society that are led by fear, and rule by fear.

That is why I didn't ask you for proof.

And I am not 'downing' you for believing in something that can't be proven.... as long as your belief doesn't make you start beheading those that don't agree with you.

I love to talk about ancient history and spirituality, we can debate with out being snarky, that would be lovely

a reply to: Realtruth

Metaphysics, Religion, or (God) cannot be argued with logic, nor proven with it, well maybe it can, but it's called circular argumentation, meaning one passage is used to prove another, and it's invalid.

It is not circular if it corresponds to the real world. For example, take a card. On one side says "The statement on the other side of this card is true". On the other side of this card reads the statement "The statement on the other side of this card is false". This is circular, and could represent the whole theist/atheist debate. However, if it reads "The statement on the other side of this card is true", and on the other side of this card reads the statement "Chickens lay eggs". The logic corresponds to the real world.

In the case of the God debate: "The statement on the other side of this card is true". On the other side of this card reads the statement "God is a character in the Bible", is not illogical, nor circular, and corresponds to the real world . In the opposite form, "The statement on the other side of this card is true", and on the other side of this card reads the statement "God is an omniscient, omnipotent being", it has no correspondence to the real world, and thus, no truth value.

originally posted by: Words

It is not circular if it corresponds to the real world.

Unfortunately it is in formal logic.

Let's look at the definition of circular argumentation.

en.wikipedia.org...

Circular reasoning is not a formal logical fallacy but a pragmatic defect in an argument whereby the premises are just as much in need of proof or evidence as the conclusion, and as a consequence the argument fails to persuade.

www.logicallyfallacious.com...

Example #2:

The Bible is the Word of God because God tells us it is... in the Bible.

Formal logic has no business in religion, nor trying to explain, or prove the existence of a higher power through words.

People either believe or not.........this is called "Faith"

Definition of Faith

strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

a reply to: Realtruth

"People either believe or not.........this is called "Faith" "

Unfortunately, they don't just walk around believing or having faith. They believe in and have faith in the propositions of the Bible.

I agree that in order to believe in the Bible one must employ circular reasoning and fallacy. It is fallacious to assume the initial point. But we only know that because we have applied logic to religion.

I think you are right to say that if logic is employed within the strict confines of religious ideas, fallacy is what results.
In order to do so, logic is thrown right out the window.

I find that it's basically pointless to talk about religion or God or whatever, because in order to have a discussion or argument or debate about something, you first have to reach a common understanding of the terms and concepts used in the discussion. But if you ask 10 people what they think "God" is, you'll get 10 different answers, many of them inherently contradictory or paradoxical.

So these days when somebody asks me if I believe in God, I honestly have to answer that I don't understand what they're talking about. I'm thinking that doesn't even qualify me as an atheist, since even atheists can usually interpret the concept as something specific that they know they don't believe in. You might as well ask me if I believe in (-------------). I don't know what you're talking about.

I can discuss what positive and negative things various religions have to offer people in their lives. But I don't see where there's any benefit in discussing the supernatural aspects of it that no one can properly define.

My perspective on the situation is that there are an infinite number to paths that all lead in the same direction. God as an infinite being. Is not limited by the various ways to relate to God and so therefore, each of us can access a personal orientation to God that is unique to the individual.

With respect to the OP. There is a matter that reflects negatively upon extremist positions. This in relation to such lofty issues as we are discussing. To put it simply a fact is based upon having access to all information related to any particular thing.

When a person suggest otherwise. They are engaging in behavior that contradicts this essential conclusion, necessary to make their point valid. Qualifying the existence or non-existence of God can only be accomplished by access to everything (all information) there is to know about reality.

Anyone that is educated to the equivalent of a Masters Degree in the United States. Is required to take a singular course that covers this issue in detail.

Any thought?

originally posted by: Words

Unfortunately, they don't just walk around believing or having faith. They believe in and have faith in the propositions of the Bible.

My friend you have just summed up all religious ideologies in one sentence.

This is the conundrum of religions.

originally posted by: Kashai

When a person suggest otherwise. They are engaging in behavior that contradicts this essential conclusion, necessary to make their point valid. Qualifying the existence or non-existence of God can only be accomplished by access to everything (all information) there is to know about reality.

Any thought?

Reality is subjective.

All information is not attainable, imo in our current state of being, and even if it were attainable would this accomplish or prove the existence of God?

Again God is a metaphysical concept and trying to quantify something non-physical in a physical reality is, again imo, not attainable.

People laugh and scoff at psychic's, but these people are merely trying to express metaphysics, in a physical reality.

We are a society blinded by ignorance and hypocrisy's, so even if logic were to somehow prove the existence of "God" most would scoff at the premises, and conclusion.

a reply to: Realtruth

Oh those humans, always making such a confuddle...All humans plopped on this earth have wondered, What is this? Why am I Here? God is what you believe. Not a bearded guy wearing a toga...That guy is tired and he wants to retire. God is love and forgiveness, Safety and kindness, God is not being an a$$hole to other humans. God is respect and introspection. God is understanding...

a reply to: Realtruth

My impression is that our capacity to understand reality in relation to the five common senses.

Is the result of our ability to observe an internal representation of objective reality.


What we see, hear, smell, feel and taste represent the abilityto interact with objective realty, enough to allow for the essential needs of survival.

Consciousness in premise as cause for the creation of reality is not entirely subjective. In as much as this premise is correct. Fundamentally consciousness would need also to have, fundamental elements to it that are objective.

In my experience's I have no real reason to consider psychic ability to something to ridicule. I was not initially raised to regard Western society. In some absolute way, in relation to understanding psychic ability. Rather my indigenous upbringing I prioritized due in part to the successes I have had towards the training I was afforded.

Nonetheless implied in my comments. I cannot establish God or Psi to you, only you can.