General religious discussion thread

[NameIess]

21 minutes ago, JJDReffitt said:

I haven’t read the ENTIRE forum, but…

I, like many of my generation I’d think (I am the ripe age of 24), were raised with religion and religious values. But upon seeing the darker side religion can bring out of people, I abandoned my belief in the 7th grade. I was… 13 or 14? I became an Atheist from that moment forward.

Now, forgive me, but to get to my point I must provide context. (Or maybe I don’t I just feel the want to do so).

 

Near the end of my stint in college I began to reform my ideals and views, again. Suffice it to say I had some… issues to work through, and I did so by going ‘full nut job’ and researching Confucianism (and then writing my own interpretations based on modern views. Cringe, I know). This was mostly brought on by my fascination with East Asian culture.
 

I was a Japan studies major at one point, switched to minor, but I still practice my Japanese language skills after my drop out. From this stemmed my interest in Shinto.

 

All of this culminates into my religious view, you see. I believe everything has energy, EVERYTHING. And in a scientific sense it does. The only vacuum where there are no particles is outer space, the greatest unknown. Even still, there are rogue particles which carry charges.

 

More to the religious point, I believe it is the morality of our actions that determines our charges as we progress through life. We are all born into this world with a neutral moral charge, and as we progress we accrue charge, positive or negative. When we die… Well I don’t know the logistics of moral energy ghosts, but your moral charge determines your reincarnation (I forgot to mention my brief interest in Buddhism).

 

Well at any rate, the point in my making this post to begin with was to get help putting a name to this belief of mine. I must express, I do not believe in a deity. If anything, much as Shinto, I believe we are all deities in our own right. I believe the universe was born of neutral energy and thus we were all born at the beginning of time. We are merely manifestations of the universe experiencing itself. I guess I’m one of those folk from Stormlight, I feel bad for having forgotten the name of the religion.

 

But again I digress, and now I throw the ball to your alls court, the court of public opinion. How nuts am I, oh great jury of my peers? Or better yet, what think you of my belief? I am genuinely curious. Oh, and please help me identify my a name for this. Thanks for coming to my ted talk 

What decides whether actions have a positive or negative moral charge, in your view?

[Trutharchivist]

36 minutes ago, JJDReffitt said:

I guess I’m one of those folk from Stormlight, I feel bad for having forgotten the name of the religion.

The religion was never given a name apparently,but it's practiced by the Iriali people in the northwest of Roshar.

Those are interesting beliefs, not sure what to say beyond that.

[JJDReffitt]

59 minutes ago, NameIess said:

What decides whether actions have a positive or negative moral charge, in your view?

In my view? In my view it would be inherent, but this is likely a result of my own moral compass as I strive for net positivity.

The issue is that morality is not only an element of self, but an element of society. 
Say I were to give you the old trolley problem, pull a lever and save one life or don’t and save three. My moral choice may be different than that of a group making said decision.
If there were an established church, that would be more easily determined. But then there would be the chance for corruption, which is what turned me from religion… 

Let me be clear so I’m not misunderstood: I am absolutely not saying I’m the moral decider I’m saying this is the first time I’m putting my views out there, so I’m aware there are flaws, some I have seen and some I haven’t 

[TheRavenHasLanded]

On 5/22/2022 at 10:03 PM, Chaos said:

Time for me to jump into this, because I'm very curious about something for those of you who believe: what is a spiritual experience?

I'm an atheist, but was raised technically Christian. I say "technically" because my dad never opened his Bible and never took us to church. It was easy for me to fall away from religion, and it was unnecessary to my worldview. But I can truly say that I don't think I have ever had a spiritual experience in my life. I am married to the most incredible woman, I've seen gorgeous views in nature, all sorts of amazing things, but I couldn't say I ever felt anything spiritual in any of this, or anything.

I am genuinely fascinated with religion because I don't really understand it. I get it intellectually for a variety of reasons, but I feel like I completely lack the ability to comprehend what it's like. I think in my own fantasy works, I end up writing about religious characters because I like exploring this, even though I don't really get it myself.

For me, its quite literally just been me reading a book. Ill have a nice warm fuzzy feeling inside, or maybe ill have a warning. we arent humans having a spiritual experience, its the other way around.

[Chaos]

1 hour ago, TheRavenHasLanded said:

For me, its quite literally just been me reading a book. Ill have a nice warm fuzzy feeling inside, or maybe ill have a warning. we arent humans having a spiritual experience, its the other way around.

Sorry, what does that last line even mean? I get that's trying to be profound, but honestly I can't even begin to parse it. We are spirits having a human experience? What? But we have human experiences and emotions all the time. How is this experience any different? It seems pretty clearly like a subset of emotions, rather than some special spiritual thing. Are nice emotions automatically spiritual? Is there a distinction? How do you determine that distinction?

[TheRavenHasLanded]

7 hours ago, Chaos said:

Sorry, what does that last line even mean? I get that's trying to be profound, but honestly I can't even begin to parse it. We are spirits having a human experience? What? But we have human experiences and emotions all the time. How is this experience any different? It seems pretty clearly like a subset of emotions, rather than some special spiritual thing. Are nice emotions automatically spiritual? Is there a distinction? How do you determine that distinction?

We are spiritual beings having a human experience (i was lazy and didnt wanna write the whole thing out). ok, in order of the questions you asked: We are humans but we are spirits. we couldnt have a human experience without being a human. yes. tbf, it isnt much different. why is it when you have something you really love it brings you closer to some (or feels like it) divine deity? Also, emotions are simply part of life, i try not to complicate things too much right now. Religion should be simple, and honestly, seeing all the complexities people try to assign it hurts me to a degree. As for the distinction, thats for you to decide.

[Chaos]

1 hour ago, TheRavenHasLanded said:

We are spiritual beings having a human experience (i was lazy and didnt wanna write the whole thing out). ok, in order of the questions you asked: We are humans but we are spirits. we couldnt have a human experience without being a human. yes. tbf, it isnt much different. why is it when you have something you really love it brings you closer to some (or feels like it) divine deity? Also, emotions are simply part of life, i try not to complicate things too much right now. Religion should be simple, and honestly, seeing all the complexities people try to assign it hurts me to a degree. As for the distinction, thats for you to decide.

Well, respectfully, this just sounds like brain signals. I do not believe in anything supernatural--i would love for such things to be real, but I need more than feelings. I need actual demonstration. If people want to attribute feelings to divinities, you certainly can, but I don't think that's a strong case. I think it's fairly weak, actually. When our brain is damaged, our "self" is changed. That certainly does not indicate that we are spirits. It indicates that we are meat. Is it possible there's something more? Sure. It just sounds to me that people want to have a special, divine purpose, and have looked for patterns to justify it.

If there is literally nothing supernatural, there is nothing out of the ordinary. I personally see no reason to attribute these natural emotions--which we know for sure are things that it exist--to something we cannot demonstrate, like the supernatural.

I just think if magical powers, divine powers, or something that was literally omnipotent, I could get more than a feeling. If God was real, this seems like a very bad way for us to get to know Him. Extremely unreliable. The warm fuzzy feelings you could attribute to any religion's deity, or nothing, and there is no way to distinguish which one is correct via them. 

[TheRavenHasLanded]

1 minute ago, Chaos said:

Well, respectfully, this just sounds like brain signals. I do not believe in anything supernatural--i would love for such things to be real, but I need more than feelings. I need actual demonstration. If people want to attribute feelings to divinities, you certainly can, but I don't think that's a strong case. I think it's fairly weak, actually. When our brain is damaged, our "self" is changed. That certainly does not indicate that we are spirits. It indicates that we are meat. Is it possible there's something more? Sure. It just sounds to me that people want to have a special, divine purpose, and have looked for patterns to justify it.

If there is literally nothing supernatural, there is nothing out of the ordinary. I personally see no reason to attribute these natural emotions--which we know for sure are things that it exist--to something we cannot demonstrate, like the supernatural.

I just think if magical powers, divine powers, or something that was literally omnipotent, I could get more than a feeling. If God was real, this seems like a very bad way for us to get to know Him. Extremely unreliable. The warm fuzzy feelings you could attribute to any religion's deity, or nothing, and there is no way to distinguish which one is correct via them. 

Do you remember what the kandra say to Sazed about religion? it applies here as well. You will always find logical fallacies, but sometimes you just got to believe! I mean, of the people who left the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, many would die saying that the Book of Mormon came from the power of God. They had already left. Why would they keep endorsing it?

[Chaos]

5 minutes ago, TheRavenHasLanded said:

Do you remember what the kandra say to Sazed about religion? it applies here as well. You will always find logical fallacies, but sometimes you just got to believe! I mean, of the people who left the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, many would die saying that the Book of Mormon came from the power of God. They had already left. Why would they keep endorsing it?

I mean, you should choose an example from a religion you do not believe is true to see the problem with this logic. Lots of people from a variety of backgrounds say the same thing, and probably make the same claim you're making here. I'm sure any Muslim apologist probably does the same. So which is correct? Not both! So that means something is flawed here. Are those people from those other religions or backgrounds not sincere? How could you possibly evaluate that?

I actually find Sazed's comments to be... Well. I honestly don't like them anymore, as I've progressed, that there is an element of truth to every religion. The implication there is that religion is something necessary and good, and it is my opinion that is not the case. 

As for me, I don't find belief without evidence compelling for anything. I want to believe in true things, not false things. Like, it's hard to explain to believers who think God's existence is so obvious, how the arguments for God are super weak, and the physical evidence is weak. It sure seems for those trying to verify the claims, God sure likes hiding. And He sure likes to hide from people who genuinely do not want to lose their faith (this is the problem of divine hiddenness).

Faith, to me, is not sufficient. Many people believe lots of things, and the strengths of their beliefs does not make it true. People believed the sun rotated around the earth. That is false. So I don't mean to be crass, but if I already have to agree with you to see it's true, that just isn't a strong case for me. People can believe really hard and be sincerely mistaken, yes? There are many times I am dead convinced someone said something, and my recollection is inaccurate. I was sincere, yet wrong.

I know you didn't come here to prove the existence of God, though. Thank you for trying to answer my initial question on spiritual experiences! 

[TheRavenHasLanded]

1 minute ago, Chaos said:

I mean, you should choose an example from a religion you do not believe is true to see the problem with this logic. Lots of people from a variety of backgrounds say the same thing, and probably make the same claim you're making here. I'm sure any Muslim apologist probably does the same. So which is correct? Not both! So that means something is flawed here. Are those people from those other religions or backgrounds not sincere? How could you possibly evaluate that?

I actually find Sazed's comments to be... Well. I honestly don't like them anymore, as I've progressed, that there is an element of truth to every religion. The implication there is that religion is something necessary and good, and it is my opinion that is not the case. 

As for me, I don't find belief without evidence compelling for anything. I want to believe in true things, not false things. Like, it's hard to explain to believers who think God's existence is so obvious, how the arguments for God are super weak, and the physical evidence is weak. It sure seems for those trying to verify the claims, God sure likes hiding. And He sure likes to hide from people who genuinely do not want to lose their faith (this is the problem of divine hiddenness).

Faith, to me, is not sufficient. Many people believe lots of things, and the strengths of their beliefs does not make it true. People believed the sun rotated around the earth. That is false. So I don't mean to be crass, but if I already have to agree with you to see it's true, that just isn't a strong case for me. People can believe really hard and be sincerely mistaken, yes? There are many times I am dead convinced someone said something, and my recollection is inaccurate. I was sincere, yet wrong.

I know you didn't come here to prove the existence of God, though. Thank you for trying to answer my initial question on spiritual experiences! 

That wasnt the intention, no. and your welcome! its harder to speak with power over a screen, but i feel like i did ok.

[The Honorable One]

6 hours ago, Chaos said:

I mean, you should choose an example from a religion you do not believe is true to see the problem with this logic. Lots of people from a variety of backgrounds say the same thing, and probably make the same claim you're making here. I'm sure any Muslim apologist probably does the same. So which is correct? Not both! So that means something is flawed here. Are those people from those other religions or backgrounds not sincere? How could you possibly evaluate that?

I actually find Sazed's comments to be... Well. I honestly don't like them anymore, as I've progressed, that there is an element of truth to every religion. The implication there is that religion is something necessary and good, and it is my opinion that is not the case. 

As for me, I don't find belief without evidence compelling for anything. I want to believe in true things, not false things. Like, it's hard to explain to believers who think God's existence is so obvious, how the arguments for God are super weak, and the physical evidence is weak. It sure seems for those trying to verify the claims, God sure likes hiding. And He sure likes to hide from people who genuinely do not want to lose their faith (this is the problem of divine hiddenness).

Faith, to me, is not sufficient. Many people believe lots of things, and the strengths of their beliefs does not make it true. People believed the sun rotated around the earth. That is false. So I don't mean to be crass, but if I already have to agree with you to see it's true, that just isn't a strong case for me. People can believe really hard and be sincerely mistaken, yes? There are many times I am dead convinced someone said something, and my recollection is inaccurate. I was sincere, yet wrong.

I know you didn't come here to prove the existence of God, though. Thank you for trying to answer my initial question on spiritual experiences! 

There was once a wise teacher. One day, he took his class out to the front of the school, and showed them hedges that spelled out the school's name. He asked the class "How did the hedges get in such a complicated pattern? Did they just grow that way?" The class responded "No, of course not. Someone deliberately cut them into this pattern."

The wise teacher smiled, and said they were correct. "Now think about the human ear," he said. "You have the outer ear, made out of many different components, working together to capture sound waves and channel them into the ear canal. Next, there is the middle ear. The ear canal funnels sound waves towards the eardrum, and into the inner ear. The inner ear has nerve endings, which transform vibrations into electrical impulses, then travel to the brain. The brain interprets these signals and that's how we hear."

"Now, think about how complicated that process is, and ponder this: did it just grow that way?"

True story.

Edited February 5 by The Cowardly One

[The Bookwyrm]

The problem that I've come to find when trying to prove God's existence is that the "evidence" people try to use for - or against - his existence can easily be used by those arguing something different. I believe in God, and so while I see the wonders of creation as manifestations of His divine love and power, someone else might choose to look at those same things and think how lucky they are that the rolling dice of the universe and the mechanics of physics and evolution put such a beautiful thing in the world. Because according to the understanding of science we have, the things we see could just come about by natural processes. It's our choice whether to put a creator behind those or not.

I choose to, but that's my choice.

I think everyone here can agree that nature is beautiful, whether it came from a divine Creator or not. I think we should focus on that in light of disagreement.

The real reason I believe in God is because of experiences I've had, and experiences I've heard from others, that can't really be explained in any other way. But the issue is that those are experiences that I've had. My personal proof of God isn't going to work to prove his existence for anyone else, not on its own. It's like tasting salt; someone can't really describe it to you; you have to have it for yourself. 

I do understand the reasons for not believing in a creator...and I'll be honest, if I hadn't had the experiences I'd mentioned above, my position in my faith would be far less stable, if not nonexistent. And I still have plenty of questions. But I believe that someday they'll be answered. And that peace of mind is enough for me.

But yeah. I digress.

[JJDReffitt]

16 hours ago, The Cowardly One said:

There was once a wise teacher. One day, he took his class out to the front of the school, and showed them hedges that spelled out the school's name. He asked the class "How did the hedges get in such a complicated pattern? Did they just grow that way?" The class responded "No, of course not. Someone deliberately cut them into this pattern."

The wise teacher smiled, and said they were correct. "Now think about the human ear," he said. "You have the outer ear, made out of many different components, working together to capture sound waves and channel them into the ear canal. Next, there is the middle ear. The ear canal funnels sound waves towards the eardrum, and into the inner ear. The inner ear has nerve endings, which transform vibrations into electrical impulses, then travel to the brain. The brain interprets these signals and that's how we hear."

"Now, think about how complicated that process is, and ponder this: did it just grow that way?"

True story.

In response to the wise teacher, the ear is an older invention than spelling words with hedges. Evolution, over millions of iterations until the perfect formation of components was achieved, is one explanation for its existence. One could say yes, the ear did grow that way.

But, who’s to say evolution is not just the hand of a deity creating a perfect ear like one would shape a hedge.

Its not my belief… but I won’t deny its validity 

[Highprince10]

 

19 hours ago, The Bookwyrm said:

I think everyone here can agree that nature is beautiful, whether it came from a divine Creator or not. I think we should focus on that in light of disagreement.

I agree with you Bookwyrm we can argue up and down on what created this world and what pushes us to do what we do but I think what we need to keep in mind is that we all agree what ever happened was amazing and the result is incredible. I love that story @The Cowardly One it does make you wonder how such a complicated system came to be and that we have hundred of things in our bodies that act like that. The beauty of things like these is a big part on why I believe there must be a God I am part of apostolic christian church and we believe the bible the one true word of God and how  we act should be based on how Jesus said we should act. I think this is a awesome discussion because I love to get to understand what others believe and why they believe what they do.