What's Your Religion?

[PaperLuigi]

Opium can make us perceive something that isn't really there. Religion is very similar in that it makes us perceive something that may not exist. Wouldn't it be better for humans not to assume something without substantial evidence supporting it?

[Koopaslaya]

Since you never explicitly mention God in you response, let's work in general terms. With your line of thought, all metaphysical inquiry is false, because the only thing that exists is matter. Does that mean that we are nothing more than our bodies? Does this mean that anything without matter is non-existent? I suppose, then, that you believe that the concept of number does not exist because it is not "physical." Love, hate, justice, prudence, and the like are all either (a) illusions and delusions, or (b)chemical processes in our brains.

I posit a different solution to your opiate analogy. Metaphysical inquiry IS possible. The person is not simple dead matter in motion. Existence transcends the physical. I can go into more detail a little later. My main idea is that you seem to deny anything that is not sensible as delusion.

Opium can make us perceive something that isn't really there. Religion is very similar in that it makes us perceive something that may not exist.

So does water when we look down at a fish. The water bends the light to make the fish SEEM like it's in a place that it actually is not.

[PaperLuigi]

Not once did I say that things without matter are non-existent. My argument applies to God. While it's true that things without form exist, that doesn't mean God does.

So does water when we look down at a fish. The water bends the light to make the fish SEEM like it's in a place that it actually is not.

The fish still exists though, correct? Religion makes us perceive things that may not exist period. God, soul, heaven, hell, etc.

[Chupperson Weird]

So, apparently you don't think you have a soul? Which basically means you think you don't have self-awareness? Short of that, you think you don't have some kind of consciousness driving your physical actions?

[Lizard Dude]

The concept of the soul, self-awareness, and consciousness are valid terms for describing aspects of how it feels to be an organism and what drives organisms, but they don't exist through metaphysical or magical means. They are

(b)chemical processes in our brains

[Koopaslaya]

The concept of the soul, self-awareness, and consciousness are valid terms for describing aspects of how it feels to be an organism and what drives organisms, but they don't exist through metaphysical or magical means.

Do doubt all metaphysical inquiry? Is all metaphysics simply magic to you? In your line of thought how does the concept of number exist? Is number physical always, id est,without 2,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 x10^100,000,000,000,000,00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 things, then does said number does not exist? Or, could a number exist which does not have enough physical things in the universe to represent it physically?

Further, how do you respond to the argument of appearance?

1)Two sticks can appear themselves to be both equal and unequal at the same time.
e.g.

<------------------------------>

>------------------------------<

2)But in thought itself, equality never appears to be the same as inequality. That means that:
3) there need to be at least some universal idea, apart from matter, which is eternal and unchanging, right? The sorts of things I have in mind here are equality, length, largeness, smallness, etc...
-- The above argument is my abridged version of Plato's from his Phaedo, regarding materialists like yourself.

Let's not think of God, soul, love, hate, or other "feeling" types of metaphysical terms just yet. Let's simply arrive at some consensus with a priori metaphysical principles which drive the physical world (largeness, smallness, equality, etc.). From there we can move onto Goodness, justice, and the like, and then to God.

The major flaw of this thread is the Religious fervor which drives heated debates about ancient doctrines and misrepresented claims about religious intolerance by other religions. What this thread should be doing is carefully defending faith (or lack thereof) through well-reasoned logical arguments and rebuttals.


Response to Paper Luigi:

The water deceives us in that it makes us sense that the existence of the fish is other than it actually is, just as you might claim that religion makes us believe that the concept of heaven is other than it is (misplaced).

You say non-material things exist. Do you think that there is any order to these non-material things? For instance is the non-material concept of "good" better than the non-material concept of "bad"? I am interested to know how you handle gradation in the non-physical realm without God.

N.B. I am not yet talking about the Christian God. I am simply speaking of the highest being, or highest existence.

[Lizard Dude]

No, I don't deny the concept of numbers larger than the amount of atoms in the universe. I understand the concept of thinking about things that don't actually exist, and why it is useful.

You appear to have plunged into philosophy bull[dukar]-speak, by the way.

[Koopaslaya]

You appear to have plunged into philosophy bull[dukar]-speak, by the way.

I very much have plunged into philosophy because religion, in my estimation, is always compatible with reason, but I do not think philosophical language to be bull[dukar]-speak. It takes a certain precision in language to convey things that are not self-evident or common to physical experience. I understand that I might come off as verbally-bloated or whatever, but it is nearly impossible to enter into discussion about things of this nature without differing to such language. I am certainly not a skilled-enough writer to pull off a discussion of non-physical concepts with the simplicity of conventional English. If I could wield my pen as swiftly and nimbly as a mighty warrior a sword, then I would. But alas, I cannot; for that I am sorry.

But, I insist, these Philosophical foundations are essential components of why it is that I believe what I believe. I think that this is a most fitting place for me to discuss these things, especially in this way. This topic has alwyas encouraged debate about religion. I find these logical arguments a worth means to that end. Now, if you are not willing to accept my arguments, fine, but dissent with arguments of your own. You jumped into the argument and I responded to your statements. It's fine if you disagree with my arguments, but casually and deprecatingly dismissing my arguments to establish what it is that I sought to convey won't either win you any points or make you come across as very bright. It is my belief that you just dismissed my language as bull[dukar] because you have no response, and you didn't want to admit checkmate. If you do have a response, I kindly invite you to share it.

And finally, let me get this straight: you acknowledge the concept of things that have no physical existence, but yet, you say that you understand the concept of thinking about things that don't actually exist (a statement which suggests to me that the concept in the first sentence of your reply you actually find to be non-existent). So... what is it? Do you think this concept exists or not? 

[Glorb]

I think that this whole God deal is looking pretty sweet to me since both arguments for and against it in this topic have devolved into insane gibberjabber at this point.

[Lizard Dude]

I didn't dismiss your arguments; I agreed. There are "things" that have no physical existence. They are called... concepts!

[PaperLuigi]

The water deceives us in that it makes us sense that the existence of the fish is other than it actually is, just as you might claim that religion makes us believe that the concept of heaven is other than it is (misplaced).

You're saying that religion distorts the concept of heaven. I'm saying that religion makes us believe in the concept of heaven.

Also, belief is not always truth.

[PaperLuigi]

I think that this whole God deal is looking pretty sweet to me since both arguments for and against it in this topic have devolved into insane gibberjabber at this point.

What you perceive as babble, we perceive as a philosophical conversation.

Truth is not perception though, so I may be wrong.

[Chupperson Weird]

Why do you
















post




























in





























2s

[Lizard Dude]

Glorb's right, man. All the stuff about the fish and KS's last three posts were insane gibberjabber.

[Koopaslaya]

You're saying that religion distorts the concept of heaven. I'm saying that religion makes us believe in the concept of heaven.

Also, belief is not always truth.

I think we've strayed far from the original point of this example. I think we've both been misunderstanding one another here. I do not think faith is an opiate. The water example was just meant to show that water has a similar property to opium, so water (and a vast host of other perception-bending things) could also be considered a opiates in these Marxian terms.  I do not think that religion blurs the truth, especially when grounded and backed by solid philosophical and logical arguments. Religion holds to faith in beliefs, but I can assure you that these beliefs are all, at the very least, logical possibilities.