Print Story I knew I shoulda taken that left turn at Albuquerque
Religion & Philosophy
By purr (Thu May 26, 2011 at 09:08:38 PM EST) (all tags)
thoughts of ponder


Everything Big started as something small
Insignificant really
but even the teeny, tiny
not worth a thought thing
can build and grow and
eventually blow up in your face
all because you originally ignored it from the start

So pay attention.
to notice of all things whether they be great or small
don't discount or underestimate anything
because that little thing today
could be the very large thing
tomorrow!



What religion are you?
< things I hate doing | New phone time >
I knew I shoulda taken that left turn at Albuquerque | 36 comments (36 topical, 0 hidden) | Trackback
Religion ? by Phage (2.00 / 0) #1 Fri May 27, 2011 at 03:41:29 AM EST
Raised a Catholic.
Now...is it pragmatic agnosticism ? Possibly ignostic.

None by Merekat (2.00 / 0) #2 Fri May 27, 2011 at 05:52:04 AM EST
It is a long and short story.

Pismo beach and all the clams you can eat by Herring (4.00 / 1) #3 Fri May 27, 2011 at 06:26:16 AM EST
None. It's never made any sense to me.

christ, we're all old now - StackyMcRacky
It's not a religion. by me0w (4.00 / 1) #4 Fri May 27, 2011 at 10:07:52 AM EST
Buddhist


"the only reason we PMS is because our uterus is screaming at our brain to go out, get fucked, and have a baby ... and it makes us angry."

ANSWER THE QUESTION! /nt by ni (2.00 / 0) #5 Fri May 27, 2011 at 10:16:56 AM EST



"These days it seems like sometimes dreams of Italian hyper-gonadism are all a man's got to keep him going." -- CRwM
[ Parent ]
The sound of one hand by Herring (2.00 / 0) #6 Fri May 27, 2011 at 10:22:50 AM EST
fapping.

christ, we're all old now - StackyMcRacky
[ Parent ]
Venerated scriptures which proscribe activities. by ammoniacal (4.00 / 1) #15 Fri May 27, 2011 at 08:48:03 PM EST
Smells like religion to me.

"To this day that was the most bullshit caesar salad I have every experienced..." - triggerfinger

[ Parent ]
Or a university English course. by ni (4.00 / 3) #16 Fri May 27, 2011 at 09:38:41 PM EST
Or the constitution.


"These days it seems like sometimes dreams of Italian hyper-gonadism are all a man's got to keep him going." -- CRwM
[ Parent ]
Religion? by Gedvondur (4.00 / 1) #7 Fri May 27, 2011 at 10:39:31 AM EST
I'm an athiest.

My parents were (as in they are not practicing anymore) Catholic with 1950s Catholic primary school educations.  They had me baptized Catholic, and participated in the Church while I was a baby.  Then they started getting bills from the church for contributions.  That lead to an argument with the priest and the end of their attendance to church before my first birthday.

Growing up in an area that is primarily Catholic and not getting any real religious education other than Charlton Heston movies lead to some huge misunderstandings on my part about religion and the world in general.

First, I didn't understand that not everyone was Catholic.  My extended family, both paternal and maternal were Catholic, most practicing. All my friends and neighbors were Catholic (with the exception of one Jehovah family).  There were two primary schools in my little farming community, the public one and the Catholic one, All Saints.  I knew intellectually that there were Jews and Hindus and Muslims and Baptists.  But I didn't KNOW any of them.  In my little town there were like three churches.  Catholic St. Mary's and two others.  For years, I thought the two other churches were overflow for St. Marys.  Or backup churches if St. Mary's needed repairs or painting or something. Or if like two people died at the same time, or there were two weddings.  The idea of Lutherans just never occurred to me. I wasn't even sure what a Lutheran was.  (To this day, I find the docternal differences between Lutherans and Catholics to be....more or less trifling compared when compared to things like the Jewish faith or Muslims. But I have no skin in that game. And yes, I know about Martin Luther now and Catholic church abuses.)

Common bible stories and cultural references simply didn't make any sense to me unless they were in the context of Charlton Heston movies.  Oh, I knew about Jesus, the birth story and the Easter story.  But not a lot else.  I still get tripped up here and there.

When I was a teenager, (16-17) I thought a lot about religion.  Did a lot of studying.  Talked to a really nice and sympathetic Catholic priest about some of the big questions.  Talked to a Lutheran pastor (nice guy, not really helpful to a confused teenager asking about some of the obvious religious contradictions.  Kept chalking everything up to "just believe".)  Read up on the major religions of the world.  Even read the Bible and parts of the Koran.  

When I was done, I came to some conclusions for myself.  This is not judgement on any of you that are religious, this is the conclusions I came to for myself.  God is Santa Claus for adults. When you die, you are GONE. There is no reincarnation, there is no heaven.  You will not see your loved ones. There is no Divine Judgement.  There are no angels, ghosts, spirits, poltergeists or anything else. Astrology is a fantasy.  Mediums are fake or crazy.  There are no miracles and there is no magic. (In the Harry Potter sense) 

That being said, I try not to be the Asshole Atheist.  I actively respect other people's beliefs.  I think that religion gives others solace that they would not normally have in their lives, and I wouldn't take it away from them.  To think as I do, things like death are extremely difficult. For loved ones, there is no seeing them again.  My precious pets are not waiting for me at the rainbow bridge. And I tell you what kids, that is fucking hard.  For that comfort alone I would never deny anyone else their religion.

But for myself, I cannot reconcile God, or any form of supreme being other than math and chance.  I wish I could, but I cannot.


Wow, that turned out to be WAY longer than I expected.



"Adrenaline dumbs pain" - xth
I agree a lot with that by Phage (4.00 / 2) #8 Fri May 27, 2011 at 11:26:23 AM EST
The closest I come to spiritual is the sense of wonder at the world. There's some weird out there.

[ Parent ]
Comfort yeah by Merekat (4.00 / 1) #10 Fri May 27, 2011 at 02:07:43 PM EST
But part of my atheism was formed watching family members destroy themselves and loved ones in this life in the belief there would be something afterwards in which they would be rewarded for having done this.

That...well, it chokes me.

[ Parent ]
Are.you atheist or agnostic? by dmg (4.00 / 1) #17 Fri May 27, 2011 at 10:29:18 PM EST
Atheism seems to me to be a logically untenable position to take, unless you're talking probablisticly and even then. On respecting other's beliefs I have a real hard time with this. I can just about tolerate other people's (batshit insane) beliefs, up to a point, but respect them? Fuck no! I have a particular bone to pick with certain practioners of Islam on this point, but also to a greater or lesser extent with most other religions. Why do people even suppose they are capable of understanding the nature of reality? We don't assume fish in a pond have any idea about life on dry land. In short, the average person's metaphysical model of the world is probably wrong, so why can't they justshut up and don't hassle me with it.
--
dmg - HuSi's most dimwitted overprivileged user.
[ Parent ]
"logically untenable" by lm (2.00 / 0) #19 Sat May 28, 2011 at 05:28:17 PM EST
Perhaps you should take a course in logic. There are many rigorouse logical arguments for hard atheism (the belief that the proposition that "God does not exist").

For example, I had a friend in high school that had a rather horrific childhood. She was an atheist based on the reasoning that (a) if God exists he would not have allowed event y to happen, (b) event y happened, therefore (c) God does not exist. That logic is impeccable.

But logic is only half the story. A quick trip through the pages of Lewis Carroll's texts on symbolic logic will amply illustrate that being "logical" doesn't mean that something makes sense. Moreover, just because something is logical, doesn't mean that it corresponds to reality. For this reasons, logicians distinguish between lvalid and sound arguments. Both valid and sound arguments are equally logical. All sound arguments are also valid arguments. But only those arguments that have true premises are sound. Such arguments have a valid structure and their premises are known to be true. But most arguments (at least the ones I find interesting) have controversial premises. That is to say that some people accept the truth of their premises but other people do not. Logic, on its own, says nothing about the truth of a premis.

Also, be aware that agnosticism is a form of atheism. It is soft atheism to be sure (the belief that the proposition "God exists" has not been adequately proven to be true). But it is a rather problematic form of soft atheism in that it holds a metaphysical position that is quite problematic. Agnostics hold  that answering the question of whether God exists or not is inherently unanswerable. At least in classical agnosticism (Huxley, etc.), this is not restricted to a pragmatic concern. (The assertion that "We do not have at present sufficient evidence to confirm the truth or falsity of the proposition 'God exists'" is not what is at the heart of agnosticism in its classical formulation.) Consequently, the claim requires accepting no small number of rather dubious propositions.

Moreover, both hard and soft atheist positions should probably be distinguished from "I don't give a fuck if any religions is true." Such an attitude would certainly be irreligious but doesn't really count as atheism save for archaic definitions of the term that count any "ungodly" lifestyle as being atheistic.


There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]
Dubious propositions.. by dmg (2.00 / 0) #21 Sat May 28, 2011 at 07:33:50 PM EST
Exactly. There seems to be an assumed set of axioms that the self proclaimed atheists take as given. Your friends logic implies we agree with the first axion. An argument can be valid based on a set of axioms but the axioms are really where the argument is to be had. "I am capable of valid reasoning about the ineffable" seems to be an axiom a lot of people subscribe to. I personally do not.
--
dmg - HuSi's most dimwitted overprivileged user.
[ Parent ]
Not necessarily "assumed" by lm (4.00 / 1) #24 Sun May 29, 2011 at 08:19:56 AM EST
But certainly, assumed, presumed, suposed, or reasoned to. In classical terms, premises should be evident, self-evident, or the conclusion of a previous argument. The problem is not everyone has the same standards of evidence and not everyone holds the the same things as self-evident.

Take you gloss on the ineffable. Not only is there disagreement about whether the ineffable can be reason about but there is also disagreement about what really counts as ineffable.

IMO, the only time this is a real problem is when someone takes the position "if you don't agree with me, then you're being irrational."


There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]
In my worldview by dmg (2.00 / 0) #26 Sun May 29, 2011 at 10:27:49 AM EST
Nothing is really self-evident, or evident. All truths are provisional. I don't one can meaningfully state that something is in some way objectively true. We can have a strong suspicion, or experiential hunch about something but how can we be sure? E.g are we realty matrix-style brains in vats?
--
dmg - HuSi's most dimwitted overprivileged user.
[ Parent ]
You're more than welcome to that worldview by lm (4.00 / 2) #27 Sun May 29, 2011 at 01:20:26 PM EST
I don't find it particularly compelling. It necessary ends in epistemic relativity (i.e. Quine's observation that the Greek Gods have the same epistemic value as modern science).

Moreover, the brains in a vat scenario is self-refuting. Read through Wittgenstein's sections on private-language in the Philosophical Investigations to see why.

But my qualms with such a worldview is really neither here nor there. My point is that if you start with the worldview that you do and if you go on to say that people who disagree with it are necessarily being irrational (that is to say, you claim that they aren't even making sense), then you're cutting off any change at a meaningful conversation.


There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]
If God comes down and smites my enemies... by ammoniacal (2.00 / 0) #23 Sat May 28, 2011 at 11:17:05 PM EST
I will then, and only then, believe in Him. I'm open to that, but by your term, I'm not a "classical agnostic." Which sort am I?

"To this day that was the most bullshit caesar salad I have every experienced..." - triggerfinger

[ Parent ]
My best guess by lm (4.00 / 2) #25 Sun May 29, 2011 at 08:22:57 AM EST
One part soft atheist, one part "I don't give a fuck, and a dash of suspicions that hard atheism is true, shaken in a tumbler with ice and served with a straw and a little paper umbrella.

There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]
Whereas if god turns up for me by Merekat (2.00 / 0) #30 Mon May 30, 2011 at 03:13:57 AM EST
Enemy smiting and whatnot, I'd say fuck off.

[ Parent ]
Athiest by Gedvondur (2.00 / 0) #34 Mon May 30, 2011 at 11:36:37 PM EST
I don't find it a hard position to take at all.  God, Allah, or whatever overriding spiritual force people believe in is purely a social construct. I see no more logic in belief in Santa Claus than I do God.  Same thing.

As far as respecting others I try to do it because it's the decent thing to do.  I don't care to be preached at either, and I certainly don't support the extremists in Islam or Christ's followers.  I find their positions abhorrent.  But what it really comes down to is as much as I don't like getting hassled about religion, I don't want to make anyone else uncomfortable about their beliefs either.  It's not a goal I always achieve, sadly.  

I guess it comes down to this:  While I don't agree with those with religion and don't really understand their belief, I refuse to practice intolerance.  It would make me as bad as any of religious zealots.


"Adrenaline dumbs pain" - xth
[ Parent ]
Orthodox Christian by gzt (2.00 / 0) #9 Fri May 27, 2011 at 11:30:47 AM EST
ie funny hats.

Meh, by ambrosen (4.00 / 1) #11 Fri May 27, 2011 at 03:04:47 PM EST
why do you need to know what religion I am? That part of my identity is important to me, but I'm not keen on people thinking more of me or less of me or thinking differently about how I behave just because my metaphysics is similar or different to theirs.

Personally, I find that religion is seldom... by lm (2.00 / 0) #20 Sat May 28, 2011 at 05:36:37 PM EST
... about metaphysics.

Don't get me wrong, most religions have some sort of metaphysics. And sometimes you'll even find people that convert from one religion to another over metaphysical doctrines.

But, for the most part, religion isn't about metaphysics but about personal experiences. I think this is why I find fault with the Christians, Buddhists, and Secular Humanists that claim that their beliefs are not religions but ways of life. It seems to me that a set of values that determine the modes of behavior in which one is willing (or unwilling) to engage is the essence of what a religion is. Such values may have a metaphysical basis. They may also imply a good deal about metaphysics. Or they might just be based on tastes and preferences such as, "I don't like it when people behave like assholes so I will endeavor to not be an asshole."


There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]
I don't need to know but I am curiuos. by purr (2.00 / 0) #22 Sat May 28, 2011 at 10:54:09 PM EST
I am simply weighing the thoughts and opinions of others. I am conflicted over the issue and I am still trying to gain insight by listening to the words of my peers. My ideas on the matter are very controversial and theoretical. 
Life is good when you are young. Then it sucks when you are old. And then you die. Live it while you got it.
[ Parent ]
syncretic agnosticism by iGrrrl (4.00 / 1) #12 Fri May 27, 2011 at 04:11:09 PM EST
With a dash of immanent wonder.

"Beautiful wine, talking of scattered everythings"
(and thanks to Scrymarch)

Church of flying spaghetti monster by duxup (2.00 / 0) #13 Fri May 27, 2011 at 04:19:11 PM EST
n/t
____
Here we are... by ana (2.00 / 0) #14 Fri May 27, 2011 at 05:16:45 PM EST
Anglo-Catholic, with a side of medieval mysticism.

"And this ... is a piece of Synergy." --Kellnerin

Not so much a religion by jimgon (2.00 / 0) #18 Sat May 28, 2011 at 09:43:21 AM EST
I would consider myself a follower of the Covenant of Noah.  My thoughts increasingly turn to the Covenant of Moses.  It's a major commitment.  I won't bore you with how I got here.  It's the story of twenty-five years of religious discovery. 




---------------
Technician - "We can't even get decent physical health care. Mental health is like witchcraft here."
How does a covenent differ from a religion? by lm (2.00 / 0) #28 Sun May 29, 2011 at 05:28:47 PM EST
If we're going to lump mystery cults (Mithras, etc.), the Roman cult of emperor worship, various indigenous religions movements, most forms of monotheism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Sikhism, etc. into the rubric "religion", how does the covenant of Noah differ from any of those?

There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]
The difference by jimgon (2.00 / 0) #31 Mon May 30, 2011 at 08:19:34 AM EST
and maybe this is poor logic, but religions typically offer some sort of salvation.  Maybe that's a modern perspective.  The Covenant of Noah does not offer salvation. 




---------------
Technician - "We can't even get decent physical health care. Mental health is like witchcraft here."
[ Parent ]
I think that is a modern perspective by lm (2.00 / 0) #32 Mon May 30, 2011 at 10:41:07 AM EST
The idea of salvation didn't seem to be essential to religion before the sea change around Isaiah, Buddha and Zathrustra. Increasingly after that new religions tended to pack salvation into their teachings. For example, Jewish scriptures older than Isaiah don't speak to anything that most moderns would recognize as salvation but only only speak of the preservation of the Jewish people as the Jewish people, "do these things and you and your children will live long in the land ..."

And if you look at most forms of Paganism prior to late antiquity, it's all about "O savior protect my cattle" rather than "O savior save my soul." It is perhaps relevant that in Plato's dialogues, one of his repeated arguments was that the the soul was immortal. It would seem that his interlocutors had to be convinced not only that the soul was immortal but that our actions in this life have anything to do with the state of the soul after the body's death. Without both of those premises, there is no need of salvation.

But then along with a renewed mysticism from the sources mentioned above, late aniquity also saw the arrival of various mystery cults. The notion that there is a soul and that it needs to be saved became more and more widespread. Religions that didn't have this  component began to adopt it. Most new religions that developed put it at their core.

But there are good counter examples. For example, the Nation of Islam used to teach that the soul died with the body. (I don't think they still do. IIRC, this is one of their doctrines that they've brought into line with mainstream Islam. But I may be misremembering.) The salvation offered by the teachings of Elijah Muhummad was a corporate salvation of the black man who would overcome the power of the white man who was the devil.

I think that perhaps Wittgenstein's linguistic theory of family resemblence is useful for understanding what religion is. Pick any two religions, they may not have any resemblences between each other just like if you pick two people from any large extended family, they may not look anything alike at all. But you can follow the chain, this religion looks a little bit like this other relgiion which in turn looks a little bit like yet another and so on and so forth. Eventually you've traversed the chain of resemblances to find that the two religions that looked nothing alike belong to the same "family."


There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]
Modern Concept of Religion by jimgon (2.00 / 0) #33 Mon May 30, 2011 at 07:02:52 PM EST

Salvation does appear to be a more recent innovation.   I tend to take a mix of philosophical and anthropological, both of which would point toward the mix of Greek and Engyptian mysticism in developing Western Religion.  Interestingly I also found that Buddhism has a similar traits, but with a development.  Of course I haven't really looked into how much influence Greece had in the region that could have mixed with Hinduism to develop Buddhism.  Judaism for me seems like a purer form of early religion.  And, yeah, I'm familiar with the basis of retaining Jewish identity which is why conversion is such a big deal.  You're not just joining a religion, but becoming a member of the tribe.






---------------
Technician - "We can't even get decent physical health care. Mental health is like witchcraft here."
[ Parent ]
I've been trhough quite a few phases by lm (4.00 / 2) #29 Sun May 29, 2011 at 05:36:23 PM EST
I was brought up in a Roman Catholic extended family by a woman who described herself as a born-again Pagan lesbian.

I went from supposing that the faith of my extended family was true, to being an agnostic, to being Pagan, to not giving a fuck before I finished high school.

Once I got around to living on my own, I converted to stereotypcial Bible Belt style Protestantism to narrowly sectarian Protestantism that viewed most organized "Christendom" as part of the Whore of Babylon, to less narrowly sectarian Protestantism to the Eastern Orthodox faith over the course of about a decade.

During that decade, I also did quite a bit of reading. From an epistemological perspective, I judged that two world views managed to be consistent and make sense of the world: Zen Buddhism and Orthodox Christianity. But I wasn't willing to take the epistemic step that Zen Buddhists do and deny the law of non-contradiction. This left me facing east so to speak. And in 2001, I received into the Orthodox Faith.


There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
militant agnosticism by infinitera (2.00 / 0) #35 Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 12:48:39 PM EST
I don't know, and neither do you.

(This promotes arguments with both atheists and theists who claim to 'know')

[…] a professional layabout. Which I aspire to be, but am not yet. — CheeseburgerBrown

I was truly disappointed by purr (2.00 / 0) #36 Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 04:08:32 PM EST
that no one claim hindu or islam or even wicca. 

I'm not a firm believer of the Bible.  I have issues with free will of man interferring with translations. It's hard to believe that all pieces of the Bible we written solely by men or that maybe not all the piece were included because of prejudice.  let's just say I have issues.


Life is good when you are young. Then it sucks when you are old. And then you die. Live it while you got it.
[ Parent ]
I knew I shoulda taken that left turn at Albuquerque | 36 comments (36 topical, 0 hidden) | Trackback