180 replies to this topic

[Fabbrizio]

Wouldn't you want to base that around something that's true?

Thank you for quoting that part but completely ignoring the other half of my post. >_> Seriously.

Honestly, I don't give a crap if God is real or not. God is not part of the end result for me. That belief in God is just my way of getting to the end result.

Edited by PowerGauntlets, 08 August 2011 - 11:04 AM.

[Lemon]

Honestly, I don't give a crap if God is real or not. God is not part of the end result for me. That belief in God is just my way of getting to the end result.

Everyone's quest for "truth" should just be something like this. Figure out what you want, and figure out how to get there. I don't feel the god bit is necessary for myself, but if it is for others, so be it. As long as the belief doesn't make people prejudiece or infringe on the happiness of others.

Religion should be a personal thing completely. I think all the problems associated with religion simply come from people trying to turn something personal into something cultural.

[Sheik]

Maybe that's the aspergers in action, but it works for me, so I'm completely content.I'm not hurting anyone, and I'm not telling anyone else to do what I'm doing. It works.

Do you believe that God and God's will/morals/actions are unquestionable and undenyably right and won't change ever? If you do, I could understand where you are coming from argueing with Asperger's, because that'd be a pretty solid base to hold on to. Because if God was beyond question, you would've found something that's "safe" and it would spare you the uncomforable unsureness that usually is a big problem for Asperger's and autistic persons. In that scenario it's less of placebo but rather a protective mechanism which keeps you from questiong the base of you understandings of the world/ of life (which Asperger's would naturally like to avoid) too much.
I'm just speculating, though. I have no idea about your psyche, I'm just trying to make your reasoning work argueing with the "classic" Asperger's. I might be quite off.

[Fabbrizio]

Do you believe that God and God's will/morals/actions are unquestionable and undenyably right and won't change ever? If you do, I could understand where you are coming from argueing with Asperger's, because that'd be a pretty solid base to hold on to. Because if God was beyond question, you would've found something that's "safe" and it would spare you the uncomforable unsureness that usually is a big problem for Asperger's and autistic persons. In that scenario it's less of placebo but rather a protective mechanism which keeps you from questiong the base of you understandings of the world/ of life (which Asperger's would naturally like to avoid) too much.
I'm just speculating, though. I have no idea about your psyche, I'm just trying to make your reasoning work argueing with the "classic" Asperger's. I might be quite off.

The Asperger's is just pertaining to how well I can delude myself into believing in this made up God.

It's not a protective thing, it's more to do with motivation, I guess is what I'm trying to say. If left to my own devices I'd be too lazy to accomplish anything. But if I imagine that a God is looking down on my actions and telling me to move forward, I'm more likely to get stuff accomplished. So yeah, I think my placebo metaphor would be a better comparison.

[Sheik]

Ah, I see. Well, great if it works for you, than.

[NoeL]

Thank you for quoting that part but completely ignoring the other half of my post. >_> Seriously.

I didn't ignore the rest, it just wasn't relevant.

Honestly, I don't give a crap if God is real or not. God is not part of the end result for me. That belief in God is just my way of getting to the end result.

Eh, suit yourself. I choose to let real things motivate me, like "if I finish my uni degree I'll be better poised to get into my preferred line of work". Pretending there's someone giving me a pat on the back every step of the way is just... pretend. Why strive for a pretend pat on the back when I can pretend to pat myself whenever I want? But whatever, if it works for you it works for you.

Everyone's quest for "truth" should just be something like this. Figure out what you want, and figure out how to get there. I don't feel the god bit is necessary for myself, but if it is for others, so be it. As long as the belief doesn't make people prejudiece or infringe on the happiness of others.

I couldn't disagree more. Truth doesn't care about what we want, it's completely impartial. How badly we want something has absolutely no bearing on whether or not it's true. If you start off with "this is what I want to be true" and then proceed to "how do I get there?" you're putting the horse before the cart. You should start with "how do I find what is true" and then proceed to "how can I make the most out of the truth".

Religion should be a personal thing completely. I think all the problems associated with religion simply come from people trying to turn something personal into something cultural.

I disagree again, but more on a semantic basis. Philosophy should be a personal thing, and while a person's religion may (and usually does) house all or part of their philosophy they're not the same thing. Religions make claims about the nature of reality, what does/doesn't exist etc. Philosophy involves different ways of modelling reality, and different methods of interpreting what we know to exist.

[Eurysilas]

I'm not religious or theistic. About the only religion I don't detest is Buddhism, and that's only because

A. Compassion is one of its central focuses.

B. Its religious head (Siddartha Guatama) EXPLICITLY disclaimed divinity.

C. I've never heard of a Buddhist Crusade or Jihad. In fact, I've never heard of them performing ANY violence on a massive scale.

The world is indifferent to us. There is no loving familial entity to shield us from it. If we were wiped off the Earth by a comet or asteroid, reality would just keep ticking away (no four horsemen allowed). These realizations don't scare me NEARLY as much as this:

What if we humans are, by our very biology, congenitally insane? Surely 6,000 years (and that's what we can document in writing) is enough to come to certain basic rational conclusions, like "War is bad." and "My invisible friend Allah/Yaweh/Zeus/Baal does not really exist.". So why do we continue the march of insanity, generation after sorry generation? Though I hope not, the possibility that our species is INCAPABLE of overcoming its own inane primal tendencies must be considered.

[NoeL]

C. I've never heard of a Buddhist Crusade or Jihad. In fact, I've never heard of them performing ANY violence on a massive scale.

Do some reading on the Tibetan monks. Wasn't on a massive scale but they were brutal.

[Fabbrizio]

Eh, suit yourself. I choose to let real things motivate me, like "if I finish my uni degree I'll be better poised to get into my preferred line of work". Pretending there's someone giving me a pat on the back every step of the way is just... pretend. Why strive for a pretend pat on the back when I can pretend to pat myself whenever I want? But whatever, if it works for you it works for you.

But this all just brings it back to square A: If I'm doing something just for myself, I'll never get it done. No one's relying on me, I'm relying on myself, and THAT'S when I have absolutely no motivation. But if I feel like someone's relying on me to get stuff done, I'm MUCH more likely to get it done. But of course, with my current obligations it's COMPLETELY for myself. So what do I do? I IMAGINE that there's someone who's counting on me.

Edited by PowerGauntlets, 09 August 2011 - 08:38 AM.

[Sheik]

C. I've never heard of a Buddhist Crusade or Jihad. In fact, I've never heard of them performing ANY violence on a massive scale.

The tradition of Hinduism which Ghandi attened to is a nice example of how a religion can be centered around pacifistic ideals. While the society system the hinduistic tradtions hold on to is pretty inexcuseable, the ideal of not hurting any living being makes Hinduism much more of a "peace-religion" than Christianity for example could ever claim to be.

[dcsyxx]

I'm torn between antitheism or worshiping the paperclip at the top right-hand part of this page.

[Vinyl Scratch]

I'm torn between antitheism or worshiping the paperclip at the top right-hand part of this page.

What paper cli-

OH, I think I adblocked him. :/

---

Anyway, I voted non religious, non theistic. I just find the whole God thing too hard to believe.

[Skipper]

Used to be super religious. Grew up in a religious household, with religious friends; went to a private, Lutheran school from preschool to eighth grade, youth group every Wednesday and Thursday...

And then, really, I began to see how asinine religious beliefs are and how they completely lack an ever-evolving scientific basis.I guess I kind of learned to think for myself. Why should I praise and worship such a selfish god? There are oxymorons and fallacies left and right in the bible; it basically contradicts itself. In my eyes, religion is a crutch. A crutch that I don't need.

Long story short, I went from being a super-devout bible-thumping christian to an angry atheist after having been indoctrinated into Christianity without any other choice at an early age. I refuse to follow a set of beliefs that are based on bronze-age ieaologies and beliefs when we have come so much farther, when science can answer every single question we will ever have, if we give it time.

I believe in science. Not silly bronze-age superstitions. Btw if anyone replies to this out of anger/ranting/whatever, I'm not replying. I'm not adding fuel to the fire.

[Red Phazon]

Even though the data may be somewhat unreliable due to confusion on what "theist" and "religion" mean, I am still interested in the fact that as I type this almost three weeks after the topic was opened, 44% (33/75) voters are non-theistic and non-religious. The number is far higher than I predicted.

[NoeL]

Same. We may even see the tide turn from a theist majority to an atheist majority in a single generation!