Anyone non-religious here? Please be nice!

[Bluemoon420]

To me, morality is a choice. You choose to act the way you act. If you are angry, you made a choice to be angry, etc. I also agree, you treat others the way you expect to be treated in return. Now granted, I've done or said things I regretted later on. BUT, I was always first to point that out, and apologize.

I've been around a lot of different customs, religion, and beliefs, and almost every one of them has a morality clause. Whether the people choose to follow them is entirely up to them. So, that's why I always felt it was all about choice.

Bluemoon

 

[mom'sfolly]

Prettiest Frog, I'm not nearly as eloquent as you, but I'll try to answer the god/supernatural and science thing.

I think the acts of god on earth might be measured sciencifically, but they would be only of a part of what most consider god/the divine. The whole idea of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, and eternal being means it can't be measured, so the bits and pieces that interact with the natural world be what is left.

Scientific study needs a repeatable, measurable phenomenon, for instance, dropping a ball. You can do it over and over, you can measure speed, height, rate of acceleration etc.
To measure god/the divine, you would need a repeatable, measurable miracle. I can think of several reported miracles that are repeated, most of which only happen once in a lifetime: the incarnation of a new lama, a new prophet in the Mormon church or the seating of a new pope, etc. One miracle that is said to happen virtually daily, all over the world, is the Roman Catholic Transubstaniation, the literal transformation of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ. However, only the substance is altered, not the physical breadness of the bread. I don't quite understand the arguments about the way it is supposed to work, but it also gets around the cannibalism issue. However, I don't know how you would set up an instrument to measure the philosophical difference between blessed and unblessed host, since it is not an physical change. It would also test only an aspect of the divine, not all of the godhead. If you could disprove transubstaniation, it would not disprove god, only that aspect of god.

Prayer is also one that receives a great deal of attention. Some of the human aspects have been documented. There are changes in the brain that happen with prayer, especially repetitive prayer or chanting. I don't think this is the god/the divine; I think it is an aspect of humanity. There would be no way to measure if prayer were answered. What would be the variables, what would be measured, would the person praying make a difference, would the deity being prayed to, would the language of the prayer make a difference, would the number of repetitions, how would you determine the prayer had been answered.....lots of questions, way too many variables.

I don't know if any of this makes sense or explains anything....just some of my thoughts on the matter.

 

[I have WHAT in my yard?]

Most religions have codes of conduct. Wicca's is my favorite: Harm None.

Two words. Work it out yourself.


My personal fav right now =- The Church of The Flying Spaghetti Monster! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster

This had me rolling!!!

 

[Prettiest Frog]

mom'sfolly :

I think the acts of god on earth might be measured sciencifically, but they would be only of a part of what most consider god/the divine. The whole idea of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, and eternal being means it can't be measured, so the bits and pieces that interact with the natural world be what is left.

The whole idea of an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent being is a logical flaw, you cannot have all three. You really can't even have two of the three.

It comes down to this, if it exists, it is measurable. I can even measure emotion by relative strength if not by unit, I love my son more than I love pancakes.

Scientific study needs a repeatable, measurable phenomenon, for instance, dropping a ball. You can do it over and over, you can measure speed, height, rate of acceleration etc.
To measure god/the divine, you would need a repeatable, measurable miracle. I can think of several reported miracles that are repeated, most of which only happen once in a lifetime: the incarnation of a new lama, a new prophet in the Mormon church or the seating of a new pope, etc.

There has never been a proven and documented miracle.

The problem is that, if any given religious doctrine was in fact, correct, miracles would be repeatable and measurable.

Per the bible, if you are a true believer in Christ, you can safely drink poison. Based on this, either no one on earth is a true believer, or the bible is in error. Based on biblical doctrine and the teachings of the church (namely, god is infallible) I could at this point claim I have wholly disproven Christianity. Or I've wholly disproven reality, one or the other.

This is the difficulty I have with the whole concept of religion. All religions are internally inconsistent with each other, and with a little effort (very little, in some cases) can be disproven via their own dogma. Which brings me back to my original point, what is the definition of 'god'? What is 'god'?

If I take an anthropological view of 'god', one that includes folks like Zeus and Ba'al and Neptune, then turn to the bible, there are several gods, and not just Jesus and Jehovah. You could relegate folks like Goliath and Moses as demigods, but they have traits that would demonstrate them to be 'divine'.

Which brings us to the major reason I'm not religious. I question things and don't accept answers that do not work with reality. I don't take anything 'on faith', as it were. If something flies in the face of logic, rationality, and truth, I question it, which is incidentally also the reason why I reject membership in any political party.

One miracle that is said to happen virtually daily, all over the world, is the Roman Catholic Transubstaniation, the literal transformation of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ. However, only the substance is altered, not the physical breadness of the bread. I don't quite understand the arguments about the way it is supposed to work, but it also gets around the cannibalism issue. However, I don't know how you would set up an instrument to measure the philosophical difference between blessed and unblessed host, since it is not an physical change. It would also test only an aspect of the divine, not all of the godhead. If you could disprove transubstaniation, it would not disprove god, only that aspect of god.

It doesn't happen. The substance is bread, and it remains bread. The substance is wine, it remains wine. The SYMBOLISM is the important part, and the part that matters.

Prayer is also one that receives a great deal of attention. Some of the human aspects have been documented. There are changes in the brain that happen with prayer, especially repetitive prayer or chanting. I don't think this is the god/the divine; I think it is an aspect of humanity. There would be no way to measure if prayer were answered. What would be the variables, what would be measured, would the person praying make a difference, would the deity being prayed to, would the language of the prayer make a difference, would the number of repetitions, how would you determine the prayer had been answered.....lots of questions, way too many variables.

The same changes in the brain happen when cheering at a pep rally.​

 

[mom'sfolly]

You'll note, I said "reported miracles" and "said to happen". I don't have any real religious beliefs for the reasons you have stated. I'm not sure that I can absolutely say that I don't believe in god or a higher mind or a creator; but certainly not one that fits into to parameters of any religion. I think that if a god did set things in motion, that god isn't involved. I am most familiar with Christianity, and the inconsistencies of that religion and of the Bible (just who did Cain marry, and why did god find Abel's offering unacceptable). I choose not to partake. But I've also learned that you can't argue with faith. People who believe profoundly aren't going to change on a point of logic, or a reasoned debate on the internal inconsistencies in their inerrent book.

 

[Prettiest Frog]

mom'sfolly :

You'll note, I said "reported miracles" and "said to happen".

I saw.

I'm not sure that I can absolutely say that I don't believe in god or a higher mind or a creator; but certainly not one that fits into to parameters of any religion. I think that if a god did set things in motion, that god isn't involved.

The problem I have with the concept of the 'creator', is who created the creator?

But I've also learned that you can't argue with faith.

That's fine. Faith is a personal thing. But it goes both ways. I'd happily go through my life never arguing with the 'faithful' if they'd quit trying to press me into their faith. My opinion is simply, if you offer up a viewpoint for debate/discussion, you should be able to debate/discuss it. If you can't, best not to get into debates and discussions about it, but just keep it to yourself. If you can't stand having your viewpoint challenged, don't offer it in a public forum. Freedom of speech does go both ways.​

 

[OccamsTazer]

Prettiest Frog, I think I love you.

 

[redux]

Quote:
I know, I am quite a fan as well.

 

[Kev]

Another fan.. saying stuff way better and more pointed than I can. Wish I had that skill!

 

[mom'sfolly]

Prettiest Frog, you hit the nail on the head for me so many times on this forum. I agree with so much you have said, only you've said it better than I can.

This is going to sound awful, but I'm going to say it anyway. I have a family member with serious mental illness, and she is occassionally delusional. You can't talk to her about her delusions, for her they are real and they happened. Her experience says so. It is useless to argue or debate with her about these things. I feel that many people of faith are similar. They may be completely logical and reasonable in every other aspect of their lives, but their logic breaks down on the topic of their religion. They don't want the inconsistencies debated or the logical flaws pointed out. To them, they simply don't exist.

I wish people would keep their religions to themselves. I find attempts at conversion condescending and rude. If only I knew their scripture, if only I was exposed to their god, my life would be transformed in some wonderful way. It's rude to assume that I'm not happy the way I am, and to feel that I need to be changed. It is presumptive to assume that I've never been exposed to their religion, and it is condescending to believe that I'm too stupid to know what I'm missing.