Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

I am religious and believe in free will

70 (27.6%)

I am religious and do not believe in free will

10 (3.9%)

I am not religious and believe in free will

113 (44.5%)

I am not religious and do not believe in free will

61 (24%)

Total Members Voted: 249

[Rolan7]

[...]  That nobody, no matter how rational, is immune to being indoctrinated.  Just look at how many brilliant people embrace religions.  It's hardcoded in the human mind.  It's necessary to either avoid it, or to face it head on.  To look at the apologetic arguments, and the rebuttals, and decide for yourself.  To stay rational.

If you just sit there in church with nothing else to pay attention to, you will eventually believe.  That's what hymns do, and fellowship, and sheer boredom.  Lack of external stimuli is the core of brainwashing.  That's WHY THEY DO IT.

Err, this bit is very misleading. It's lacking the criticality of noting the subjects it mentions (and lacking specificity to the attitude it claims to be hardcoded. When you're working with concepts and how concepts are being accepted into the field of logic...please don't mix up how the process works. >_<

... Tiruin, you're great, but I really don't understand what you're saying this time ):
I'm advising free thought and skepticism.  I'm also pointing out that churches brainwash, or let's say "indoctrinate".  And that even the smartest people can be swayed by these tactics given enough time, pressure, and sensory deprivation.

But I'm also saying not to jump on the antitheist bandwagon, even though I think it's correct.  So what's wrong?

[Bohandas]

I'm gonna go with my fallback suggestion here, which is to quote Ecclesiastes all the time

I'm...not sure I follow. I'll have to read more into Ecclesiastes and digest this.

Ecclesiastes is a book in the bible which for the most part promotes a nihilistic worldview. While it asserts the existence of God it states that many other points of religious faith, in particular the afterlife and the idea that there exists such a thing as the meaning-of-life, are questionable at best. Also it could probably be used to argue in favor that "just going through the motions" of worship is sufficient, as its view on worship is (this explanation is extremely simplified, btw) that it should be done not because it's worthwhile - especially not in this life - but because there's not anything worthwhile to do anyway.

[Bohandas]

With regard to science vs. religion, here is an experiment I would like to attempt if I ever get the resources:

Now let them give us two oxen; and let them choose one ox for themselves and cut it up, and place it on the wood, but put no fire under it; and I will prepare the other ox and lay it on the wood, and I will not put a fire under it. Then you call on the name of your god, and I will use a butane lighter and gasoline, and the God who answers by fire, He is God

[Tiruin]

... Tiruin, you're great, but I really don't understand what you're saying this time ):

I love you too, dude. x3
But...um, my messy wording aside, what I mean is the word 'indoctrinated' is...a bit more of a presumption, given how you worded your stuffs there. Or how you say, a superlative (given that it implies a lacking critical nature towards what beliefs you will inculcate) :O People can believe a religion, and be rational. People can also not believe in a religion and be rational.

I'm advising free thought and skepticism.  I'm also pointing out that churches brainwash, or let's say "indoctrinate".  And that even the smartest people can be swayed by these tactics given enough time, pressure, and sensory deprivation.

But I'm also saying not to jump on the antitheist bandwagon, even though I think it's correct.  So what's wrong?

Uhhh ._. I think what seems wrong (but isn't wrong as in 'you mentioning it = wrong') is how your wording follows.
...
It's like one of those old behaviorism interrogation methods by that kind of wording. xD (But I can get what you mean)
What's lacking is the scope of how far it applies. There are many churches which advocate understanding of the religion they follow (because that's pretty much important and ethical...in as much as there are churches which follow-to-the-point because 'it's what is written down here' [not-that-much-noticing that they're already following an interpretation]), but that's a whole field of generalizing which I won't get into because of how unspecific it goes.

Free thought and skepticism is totally ok People do that no matter where they are, but context is just as important as how you follow with free thought and skepticism (it's also that vocalism also gives room to how much exposure they receive, and this influences how their concepts go.). Like in DDP's example--his mother just wants the best for him, and that includes his immortal soul o_o That's something we can't fully advise him in because of the context of his situation which remain unknown to us, and the experiences that influence him/her. So...my point was that, advise shouldn't be dictative, but more for understanding.

With regard to science vs. religion, here is an experiment I would like to attempt if I ever get the resources:

Now let them give us two oxen; and let them choose one ox for themselves and cut it up, and place it on the wood, but put no fire under it; and I will prepare the other ox and lay it on the wood, and I will not put a fire under it. Then you call on the name of your god, and I will use a butane lighter and gasoline, and the God who answers by fire, He is God

In which the experiment is more literal than anything else [God gave you fire via butane lighter and gasoline{...}].
But yeah .__. Not the best way to introduce a discussion, that one.

[Rolan7]

Okay, I think I understand better.  Thanks!
When I spoke of churches, I was speaking of those that put people into a room with nothing to do but listen to a preacher.  Providing constant distraction with loud memetic music, and maybe constantly distracting people's thoughts by having them stand up and sit down.

That scenario is an optimal indoctrination situation.  Community pressure, sensory deprivation, confusion, and very loud repetitive claims from an authority figure. 

But that's just my experience from Baptist church.  Maybe other churches or denominations don't do that?
I *think* they do, but I don't really know.

That wasn't all my church did, to be fair.  There were Bible studies as well.  They took place on Wednesdays, AFTER church, at people's houses instead of church.  Those were fun, rational discussions.  Even though nobody questioned the book (openly), there was still disagreement and actual discussion.  It was nothing like the preaching, which was simply literally indoctrination.

And that preaching was terrifying to me, then and now.  As terrifying as if I was in 1984 being forced to participate in 2 Minute Hate, except it lasts an hour.  I don't want to be brainwashed, and I don't think I'm immune.

In case this isn't clear, I think I would have been an excellent Mormon, Muslim, Catholic, or Puritan...  I simply got lucky and had parents who (despite both being Christian!) let me grow up without indoctrination.

I feel drawn to such doctrines, like something's missing.  It's very scary.  Particularly since I'm not drawn to any particular one.  That's why I'm sure it's just a weakness, one I'm especially vulnerable to.

Edit:  And that's largely why I feel the need to argue against them, rationally.  I shouldn't need reasons not to adopt these doctrines, but it helps to have reasons.

Edit2:  I say "lucky" but I'm convinced I would be happier serving a doctrine.  It's just how I am.  I satisfy it with my work and my fucked up family, instead.

[TD1]

Given insanity has been defined as doing the same thing many times and expecting different results, does prayer fit the bill?

[origamiscienceguy]

uhh... it is written by Solomon.

EDIT: I have no idea who else is the "Son of David, King of Jerusalem"

[Fenrir]

Given insanity has been defined as doing the same thing many times and expecting different results, does prayer fit the bill?

That's a terrible definition of insanity. And I think most religious people expect prayer to be a crapshoot anyway.

[DragonDePlatino]

Given insanity has been defined as doing the same thing many times and expecting different results, does prayer fit the bill?

"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."
 - Albert Einstein

To be honest, I'm not sure that quote could be applicable to religion. If I recall correctly, in the original context Einstein was talking about the scientific method. And if you think about it, the scientific method is pretty insane. You come up with a hypothesis, prove yourself right via testing, then spend the rest of your life repeating the experiment and trying to prove yourself wrong. In contrast to religion, science revolves around constantly trying to prove itself wrong. It is...insanity.

[hops]

I'm not sure that quote is applicable to most things except politics and socializing.

[Graknorke]

It's not insane, trying to prove yourself wrong is the best way to show yourself to be right.

[Grimlocke]

Okay, I think I understand better.  Thanks!
When I spoke of churches, I was speaking of those that put people into a room with nothing to do but listen to a preacher.  Providing constant distraction with loud memetic music, and maybe constantly distracting people's thoughts by having them stand up and sit down.

That scenario is an optimal indoctrination situation.  Community pressure, sensory deprivation, confusion, and very loud repetitive claims from an authority figure. 

But that's just my experience from Baptist church.  Maybe other churches or denominations don't do that?
I *think* they do, but I don't really know.

That wasn't all my church did, to be fair.  There were Bible studies as well.  They took place on Wednesdays, AFTER church, at people's houses instead of church.  Those were fun, rational discussions.  Even though nobody questioned the book (openly), there was still disagreement and actual discussion.  It was nothing like the preaching, which was simply literally indoctrination.

And that preaching was terrifying to me, then and now.  As terrifying as if I was in 1984 being forced to participate in 2 Minute Hate, except it lasts an hour.  I don't want to be brainwashed, and I don't think I'm immune.

In case this isn't clear, I think I would have been an excellent Mormon, Muslim, Catholic, or Puritan...  I simply got lucky and had parents who (despite both being Christian!) let me grow up without indoctrination.

I feel drawn to such doctrines, like something's missing.  It's very scary.  Particularly since I'm not drawn to any particular one.  That's why I'm sure it's just a weakness, one I'm especially vulnerable to.

Edit:  And that's largely why I feel the need to argue against them, rationally.  I shouldn't need reasons not to adopt these doctrines, but it helps to have reasons.

Edit2:  I say "lucky" but I'm convinced I would be happier serving a doctrine.  It's just how I am.  I satisfy it with my work and my fucked up family, instead.

I'd guess that any person with an inclination to thinking stuff through is going to find some pretty massive loopholes in any religious doctrine.

Yet there is a fairly large number of people who do quite a bit of thinking while still holding to some religion or another. I imagine that would require some 'double thinking', hooray for 1984 and useful references!

That said I think you may be overestimating the strength of doctrine. It's terribly vulnerably to people thinking on their own, which is why religions and police states in both past and present have highly discouraged it would rather you leave that to your local priest/party member.

Lots of religious groups have been stepping away from that kind of mentality though so if you feel the need for something spiritual in your life you can always see if there are any more moderate sects nearby, or even just practice religion without the need for churches and priests. Their usefulness has always been debatable anyway.

What I'm trying to say is, spirituality does not necessarily require dogma and institute, and anyone who can think for themselves won't be that happy with dogma anyhow.

[Frumple]

What version would you suggest? I've read some pretty old literature so I wouldn't mind reading the King James Bible if that's the most accurate and/or popular one. Or should I try one of the newer versions?

NIV is the better version these days, iirc. Think there's a couple other ones that at least don't screw up as much as the KJV does, too. KJV is probably still more popular, but it does things like manage to screw up the ruddy 10 Commandments, among other issues -- it's something I'd recommend to pretty much no one at this point, save to see what many others are (unfortunately) reading. While you're at it, you might want to pick up the Vedas (generally a much more fun read than the biblical texts, which is why I'd recommend them first), maybe a few other holy books for flavor. Even if many of them are full of really nasty stuff, there's still a lot of rather aesthetically pleasing writing and good moral/spiritual lessons among the mess.

In any case, if you're looking for spiritual insight of substantial note, you're not going to find it limiting yourself to one belief system. Shop around, as the saying goes, and realize there's truths to be found in nigh on everything, but the likelihood of any one thing having the Truth is essentially nil. No text written by the hand of man can fully express the will of the divine, no matter how inspired those words are.

As for the whole commitment thing... just. Don't? There's no real need, save as a psychological salve for other people, and a lie works just as well there as actual investment, with considerably less needless personal sacrifice. If your parent's worried about your soul, you could always give a try of gently reminding them that it's God that decides what happens on that front, not them, not the church, and not you, and that you feel that chaining yourself to a single denomination is against its plan for you. Things will go according to its plan, and attending church or proclamation of adherence to a particular denomination will no more change that than you can lift a mountain with one hand. Could even be a true statement, ha.

[Arx]

There are some nice passages as far as hope for the atheists go, as well. which you could point out to your mom. One in one of Paul's epistles I think about Christ dying especially for those who believe (implying for unbelievers too), a pretty rough one in late Matthew about the sheep and the goats (it's pretty famous) that suggests that it's not strictly impossible to avoid being a goat even if you don't believe, and I think there's something in Romans about each being judged on their deeds.

As for reading the Bible, plus one to the NIV. It's a very good, very tight translation. Good News and... NRSV, I think, are a little worse for hard study but easier reading if the exact phrasing and translation doesn't matter that much to you. I'd rather have an NIV in an argument, though.

I'd avoid the KJV, except to see the differences. It uses pretty archaic English and has some (IIRC) straight-up mistranslations. It's got quite a nice poetic style to it which I enjoy reading sometimes, but I'd say one of the biggest weaknesses of the Skeptic's Annotated is that it's based on the KJV.

Biblegateway.com and biblehub.com are good online resources. Particularly Biblehub lets you easily compare translations of a passage, which is nice.

Obviously I think you should believe, but telling you that doesn't help much. Knowing what you want to do is good. Making an informed decision is also good.

[inteuniso]

Upon reading up on  Carthaginian Child Sacrifice and the new camp that says that it's probably a blood libel the Romans came up with, I'm wondering if the whole sacrifice of Isaac story was fabricated by the Council of Nicaea.

I guess that's my problem with Christianity, and all human religion. They haven't actually fixed the problems we have been dealing with for millenia and the largest religions primary tenet is "it will get better when you're dead." Anyway, suppose it doesn't matter. With how fast the world is changing we'll probably have brand new religions in nine years.