What And Why You Believe please write logical posts.

[MajesticTreeFrog 0]

So, I am curious, what do the people here hold as religious faiths? And, at least as importantly, why do you believe it? Please be specific, as pbolduc has noted, there a thousands of forms of chrisitanity, and there are similar variations(though usually not so extreme) in most(all?) religions.Also, please no posts of the sort 'because its true!!!'. We know you think that(at least to some extent) because you are an adherent. Tell why you think it is true, and at least try to back it up a bit. Finally, don't post unless you are willing to open up your views to criticism. I am not saying I will do so(though it is very possible that I will question them), but be aware that any such posting opens you to criticism, and be prepared for that.So, what do you believe, and why?

[whafizi 0]

if this topic is running, i'bet it will be a hot one. but telling your faith to others might not be a good things, because nowadays things are not doing so well with among many faiths in this world. .

[pbolduc 0]

Good Topic Majestic,

I would respond here, but I basically have done so in God's Role in Natural Disasters in response to your last post there.

http://forums.xisto.com/topic/81244-topic/?findpost=1064283559

I'm sure as time goes on I'll be putting in my 2 cent here.


PS. I haven't had much discussion with hashbang except in response to his post.


pete

[lhunath 0]

Personally, this is what I believe:Religion is the most logical consequence of ignorant creatures that have the ability to think about things, but that can't understand what makes those things happen.If you try to explain something, but you haven't the knowledge to explain it, then the most logical result would be pointing at a superpower who caused it. If we hear things move in the dark we think it's ghosts. But when it's light we know it was the cat. Why did we think they were ghosts? Because we didn't understand, and we could not.Gods have always been the answer to unanswerable questions, and as more answered dawned; more questions appeared, thus life will go on and religion will probably always consume the minds of the ignorant.I hold true to the scientific way of thinking. A theory is valid until an event in reality contradicts with how the theory would predict that event's occurance. If your theory says any and all objects can fly when released in the air; and when, if you let your cup go 2 meters above the ground, it drops to the floor, you know that your theory was flaud and you have to abandon it.What's sad is that religion is stubburn. People don't want to give up on it, and when answers are formulated that contradict with religion's theories, then religious people are mostly unwilling to accept; unwilling to realise the flaudedness of the theory or give it thought, or will in their own ignorance try to bend the religious theory in such a way that it will allow for the recent discovery but doing so makes it incoherent and unrational.I think religion is for those who believe in "ignorance is a bliss". And I will not dispute that it is, because in more than many cases, it most certainly can be. But religion is something that keeps people happy with a theory that is based on guesses and not on logic.And I believe, that there is nothing, that is not according to logic.Not even the way your girlfriend reacts when she sees you watching porn again.

[hashbang 0]

Gods have always been the answer to unanswerable questions, and as more answered dawned; more questions appeared, thus life will go on and religion will probably always consume the minds of the ignorant.

 

I hold true to the scientific way of thinking.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Fundamentally, I agree with Ihunath. Where I would slightly differ is in the general view of religion. I think religion does serve a useful purpose for us. Although it does not give us ‘real’ answers or scientific answers, it does assist in setting moral and philosophical standards. Religion has a moral and emotional aspect that assists many.

 

Like most products, no single brand will satisfy everyone. Some people feel better taking ibuprofen while others prefer paracetamol. The bottom line is that they both work in relieving headache pain. In humans, some of us prefer to organise our thoughts and seek answers to life’s questions from science while others choose religion to answer their queries. My biggest issues come when religious zealots insist on ‘proving’ their religion. Their arguments become very tedious an illogical to me.

 

I cannot accept that man is special and is here for a purpose. To do so would mean that there is a divine hand guiding organism development. The only difference between humans and other animals is our ability to manipulate tools coupled with sophisticated communicative ability. Had not the dinos been severely disadvantaged by a cataclysmic event, they may have developed the same technological sophistication we have today.

 

To quote one of my favourite essays from Asimov:

A watch implies a watchmaker, say the creationists. If you were to find a beautifully intricate watch in the desert, far from habitation, you would be sure that it had been fashioned by human hands and somehow left it there. It would pass the bounds of credibility that it had simply formed, spontaneously, from the sands of the desert.

By analogy, then, if you consider humanity, life, Earth, and the universe, all infinitely more intricate than a watch, you can believe far less easily that it "just happened." It, too, like the watch, must have been fashioned, but by more-than-human hands—in short by a divine Creator.

This argument seems unanswerable, and it has been used (even though not often explicitly expressed) ever since the dawn of consciousness. To have explained to prescientific human beings that the wind and the rain and the sun follow the laws of nature and do so blindly and without a guiding would have been utterly unconvincing to them. In fact, it might have well gotten you stoned to death as a blasphemer.

There are many aspects of the universe that still cannot be explained satisfactorily by science; but ignorance only implies ignorance that may someday be conquered. To surrender to ignorance and call it God has always been premature, and it remains premature today.

In short, the complexity of the universe—and one's inability to explain it in full—is not in itself an argument for a Creator.

https://l'>Read the entire Asimov essay here

 

I think we are all athiests although I believe in one less god than those who pursue modern religions. When they understand why they dismiss all the other religions' gods, then they may understand why I don't believe in theirs.

 

So, to Ihunath, I say ditto although I’ll reserve a softer spot for religion.

 

Cheers

hashbang

[MajesticTreeFrog 0]

Ilunath's view makes sense to me, though it is clear that he has not had much experience outside of western religions(though I could be wrong). That being said, his criticism of all religions only to the extent that a religion attempts to give factual answers to things(such as the beginning of the world, its formation, or even what creatures eat) as opposed to giving answers to our emotional and philosophical problems, eg 'should I lie?', 'how do I know what I should do', 'how should I respond to problems?', etc...The problem as I see it for western religions is that the answers they give to the moral problems rest on believing in their answers to factual questions. Thus, when evidence arises that threatens those factual answers, it seem the whole thing, including ideas of morality, will go down with the ship, and nobody wants to hear that. Instead of worrying about whether or not god exists or not, what creationists and atheists must do is end this dependence. Find a communal interpretation that is acceptable to both sides.For instance, may I suggest the following answer to the creation/evolution debate:A divine, all knowing being may be expected to create the world in the most efficient way possible. Thus, instead of worrying about the details, this being sets up it's creation to work without it's constant supervision(I assume dieties have better things to do than mess with annoying details) Thus, in a single act, the being, in its infinite knowledge, sets the stage for creation to handle itself. As any engineer knows, setting up a system to be so self maintaining is much harder than setting up a system that is not. Therefore, it should surprise no one that the univese exists in such a way.So, evolutionists who believe that the world was sort of 'self made' can consider themselves correct. Creationists may ALSO consider themselves correct.

[hashbang 0]

Ilunath's view makes sense to me, though it is clear that he has not had much experience outside of western religions(though I could be wrong). 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Buddism, in my opinion offers the best philosophy which can also be considered 'religious'. I like what the Dalai Lama said:

“This is my simple religion. There is no need for temples; no need for complicated philosophy. Our own brain, our own heart is our temple; the philosophy is kindness.

Rather than seeking answers to material questions ... I prefer religion to seek compassion and kindness to humanity.

 

cheers

hashbang

[MajesticTreeFrog 0]

I suppose this is as good a time as any to post my 'religious experience'.I had taken a philosophy of religion course in college, and found it interesting. In response, I began to study religious philosophy outside of that covered by the course(which was christian apologetics).So, I began to check out other religion's philosophies. So, I began studying the Tao and Buddhism. The Tao was interesting, but that was about all. Buddism was also interesting, but seemed to have more depth(though its hard as hell to find good books, by my definition). I ended up having unanswered questions about karma and rebirth, which were particularly prone to conflicting reports. Not only did my sources fail to agree about such things as what exactly these things were/meant, but also how important they were, and even their place in the philosophy at all.So I decided to go to an authority. As it happens, I live down the road from the largest Theravada monastery in NC. So, I picked a day I was free, got in my car, and went down the road.When I arrived I saw a monk busy stacking wood outside the monastery. He was, from a distance, a middleaged oriental man, with the darker skin of southeast asia.I went up to talk to him, and he stopped and turned at my approach.I remember very little clearly after this point. What I do remember is the almost physical power of the man's presence. The word 'serene' is....inadequate. I am normally a very direct, forcefull person, but I must admit that I have basically no memory of the man's face, which I presume means I was unable to easily look him in the eye, being so humbled. As I talked with him, my consciousness began to adjust to the monk, and I became able to comprehend another, less obvious aspect of the man's presence. People speak of 'compassion', or 'love', and I know what both of these things are. However, they once again do not do a true justice to my sensation. Put most simply, I felt that the man in front of me would, though he had met me only minutes before, give his life to aid me. A better word might be 'selflessness', and this was indeed how he reacted to me. My problems were his, and all things were the same as himself.I went away that day with my original questions only partially answered(apparently even monks don't agree on those matters of doctrine). However, those questions paled in comparison to the questions I now had.Does this mean I am a buddhist? No. As I mentioned in a previous post, doubt is a powerful adversary.some of my questions about karma and rebirth have been answered, but the only interpretations that can survive doubt to any extent do not match the 'traditional' interpretations of scripture(which can be pretty off base by any reading, the extent depends heavily on the form of buddhism involved). There are other issues as well. How much of my experience was partially my own creation? I have met other monks, and they have not affected me so, nor has that monk on other occassions(though they are still some of the nicest people, if not THE nicest, I have ever met). Also, there is a difference between the monk and his creed. Just because one monk can have such an affect does not mean that their religion made them this way, it may very well be something specific to that person. And so on and so forth.So, much later I have a large set of knowledge of buddhism, some of which has survived doubt, and some of which has not. In this case, it is the more important, 'core' ideas(the 4 noble truths) which have survived better than the less core ideas(karma, rebirth) and most of the mahayana doctrinal interpretations.

[pedro1405241472 0]

I suppose this is as good a time as any to post my 'religious experience'.

 

I had taken a philosophy of religion course in college, and found it interesting. In response, I began to study religious philosophy outside of that covered by the course(which was christian apologetics).

 

So, I began to check out other religion's philosophies. So, I began studying the Tao and Buddhism. The Tao was interesting, but that was about all. Buddism was also interesting, but seemed to have more depth(though its hard as hell to find good books, by my definition). I ended up having unanswered questions about karma and rebirth, which were particularly prone to conflicting reports. Not only did my sources fail to agree about such things as what exactly these things were/meant, but also how important they were, and even their place in the philosophy at all.

 

So I decided to go to an authority. As it happens, I live down the road from the largest Theravada monastery in NC. So, I picked a day I was free, got in my car, and went down the road.

 

When I arrived I saw a monk busy stacking wood outside the monastery. He was, from a distance, a middleaged oriental man, with the darker skin of southeast asia.

I went up to talk to him, and he stopped and turned at my approach.

 

I remember very little clearly after this point. What I do remember is the almost physical power of the man's presence. The word 'serene' is....inadequate. I am normally a very direct, forcefull person, but I must admit that I have basically no memory of the man's face, which I presume means I was unable to easily look him in the eye, being so humbled. As I talked with him, my consciousness began to adjust to the monk, and I became able to comprehend another, less obvious aspect of the man's presence. People speak of 'compassion', or 'love', and I know what both of these things are. However, they once again do not do a true justice to my sensation. Put most simply, I felt that the man in front of me would, though he had met me only minutes before, give his life to aid me. A better word might be 'selflessness', and this was indeed how he reacted to me. My problems were his, and all things were the same as himself.

 

I went away that day with my original questions only partially answered(apparently even monks don't agree on those matters of doctrine). However, those questions paled in comparison to the questions I now had.

 

Does this mean I am a buddhist? No. As I mentioned in a previous post, doubt is a powerful adversary.

 

some of my questions about karma and rebirth have been answered, but the only interpretations that can survive doubt to any extent do not match the 'traditional' interpretations of scripture(which can be pretty off base by any reading, the extent depends heavily on the form of buddhism involved). There are other issues as well. How much of my experience was partially my own creation? I have met other monks, and they have not affected me so, nor has that monk on other occassions(though they are still some of the nicest people, if not THE nicest, I have ever met). Also, there is a difference between the monk and his creed. Just because one monk can have such an affect does not mean that their religion made them this way, it may very well be something specific to that person. And so on and so forth.

So, much later I have a large set of knowledge of buddhism, some of which has survived doubt, and some of which has not. In this case, it is the more important, 'core' ideas(the 4 noble truths) which have survived better than the less core ideas(karma, rebirth) and most of the mahayana doctrinal interpretations.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

The theme of faith is a theme that comes for more than what the common people believe

The faith is a part of the human being but the casualida makes one feel that at the most the ignorant person is the person but faith has you are to say for a person that is mental that is an engineer or interceded etc

It is not easy to think that religion is good, religion and science are the same thing that the Catholic church not him comviene that be joined

The big bang was not anything less than discovered in the year 1927 for a Catholic priest

Religion is the road to understand the science in a close future they are going to fuse one with the otr

I recommend you to read a named book

 

Angels and devils

They dan brown he is the author

[MajesticTreeFrog 0]

The theme of faith is a theme that comes for more than what the common people believe

The faith is a part of the human being but the casualida makes one feel that at the most the ignorant person is the person but faith has you are to say for a person that is mental that is an engineer or interceded etc

It is not easy to think that religion is good, religion and science are the same thing that the Catholic church not him comviene that be  joined

The big bang was not anything less than discovered in the year 1927 for a Catholic priest

Religion is the road to understand the science in a close future they are going to fuse one with the otr

I recommend you to read a named book

 

Angels and devils

  They dan brown he is the author

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I appreciate your attempt to communicate. However, I cannot understand that last passage.

[Qop 0]

Personally, the only belief I find acceptable is Buddhism. Officially this isn't a belief at all, but a conviction. They don't have a central god, that's why. The buddha isn't a god.

 

There are two sorts of Buddhism:

The Mahayana, meaning Big vehicle. This is the belief for "normal" people. In this belief, there are a few gods. They are called Buddhisatva's. These are all inferred of the Boeddha. This is the belief for people who can't or don't want to give up everything they have.

The Hinayana, meaning Small vehicle. In this form of Buddhism one has to give up everything he owns, just like the Buddha did. These people mostly live in Tibeth.

[MajesticTreeFrog 0]

Personally, the only belief I find acceptable is Buddhism. Officially this isn't a belief at all, but a conviction. They don't have a central god, that's why. The buddha isn't a god.

 

There are two sorts of Buddhism:

The Mahayana, meaning Big vehicle. This is the belief for "normal" people. In this belief, there are a few gods. They are called Buddhisatva's. These are all inferred of the Boeddha. This is the belief for people who can't or don't want to give up everything they have.

 

The Hinayana, meaning Small vehicle. In this form of Buddhism one has to give up everything he owns, just like the Buddha did. These people mostly live in Tibeth.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Frankly, the info you just gave is...well... horribly innaccurate, to say the least

 

1. Mahayana does mean big vehicle, but there are no gods. Bodhisatvas are more correctly understood as saints. This form of buddism has many sects, such as pure land, nicheren, and Zen. Tibetan buddism is considered a subset of this, though others place it in its own realm, and it is refered to as Vajrayana(diamond vehicle). I will go into the differences later.

 

2. Hinayana does mean small vehicle, but that is not the usual term used anymore. The correct term is Theravada, which means way of the elders(it is sorta like the difference between protestant and catholic christianity). Theravada is the older school of buddism, and it DOES NOT come from tibet. It comes from india and dates from the time of the buddha. Its practicioners are in Southeast Asia(cambodia, laos, thailand, sri lanka, burma, and some area of vietnam I believe).

 

These are two seperate traditions, views, etc. NEITHER demand that you 'give up everything you own'. The only people who do that are the monks. They live by a code of rules known as the vinaya. Anyone may become a monk, and you may leave the monkhood freely.

 

hmm, I have to run to work, I will finish this later.

[pedro1405241472 0]

Hello, sight in different parts of the world the beliefs vary according to the culture which they are to submitted, that faith is only a word to identify a sentiment of belief toThe ignoracia in my opinion is synonymous of faithDo not forget that the church in a business be as be here in South America the people are manipulated by the churchesMy belief is a little but scientist than her normal,No himself if your you know than her what the religion does is to mask the science of a way veryUnderstandable to certain levelIt is necessary to know the science in order to know god's heart

[Qop 0]

Firstly, let me apologise for my inaccurate information, though I must add I got it all from my schoolbook, and I'm, well, a bit shocked, that my book provides wrong information .

 

1. Mahayana does mean big vehicle, but there are no gods.  Bodhisatvas are more correctly understood as saints.  This form of buddism has many sects, such as pure land, nicheren, and Zen.  Tibetan buddism is considered a subset of this, though others place it in its own realm, and it is refered to as Vajrayana(diamond vehicle).  I will go into the differences later.

I thought Zen originated from Hinayana

 

2. Hinayana does mean small vehicle, but that is not the usual term used anymore.  The correct term is Theravada, which means way of the elders(it is sorta like the difference between protestant and catholic christianity).  Theravada is the older school of buddism, and it DOES NOT come from tibet.  It comes from india and dates from the time of the buddha.  Its practicioners are in Southeast Asia(cambodia, laos, thailand, sri lanka, burma, and some area of vietnam I believe).

Again, I apologize for my wrong information. But I DO know one thing about Buddhism: it's a great thing.

[MajesticTreeFrog 0]

Firstly, let me apologise for my inaccurate information, though I must add I got it all from my schoolbook, and I'm, well, a bit shocked, that my book provides wrong information .

 

I thought Zen originated from Hinayana 

Again, I apologize for my wrong information. But I DO know one thing about Buddhism: it's a great thing.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Your schoolbook writers need to be beaten with a stick. (I hope you get the joke). Zen is an easy mistake, in its doctrinal differences from other mahayana sects(such as pure land, and the lotus schools) it moves towards theravada/hinayana philosophy.

 

Who wrote your book? I want to know so I can try and have that fixed. That level of incorrect should be illegal.

 

If you like, I can write you out a breif tretise on buddism so that you will be more or less correctly 'edumacated'.