I've been on this site for a while, and it seems that when we debate religion long enough the fundamental difference between why the nonreligious disagree with the religious is a matter of faith. In other words, the nonrelgious rely on reason, whereas the religious subscribe to faith. I have often seen the religious describe reason as a flawed tool, and as something unnecessary to their beliefs.

Okay, so if that's the case, if reason is shunned in matters of religion, why do you (if you're religious) choose your particular religion over any other?

Are you convinced your religion is more reasonable than another? And if you use reason to distinguish between two religions (in other words, to determine which is "more believable") are you in fact contradicting the idea of faith by using reason at all?

my religion is Truth.

its the only message that all cultures share.

but as an adult i know people lie so to beleive without reasoning is foolishness.

lets sum up the best description of some religious words.

Truth is Reality
Hope is the Future
Faith is Survival

I would not believe if I did not have a reason. That reason is feeling the Spirit being poured out on my flesh when I praise Jesus, when I read Him, and when I pray to Him. For this reason I do not expect others to believe and find it a foolish enterprise to attempt to convert the masses or force them to follow my path for I know they are simply unable to and would find a dead faith if they tried. Three people can read the Bible, one would find nothing but rabble, another a good story, and a third would find a guide to the communing with the Spirit. If all I found was a dead faith on this path I follow I would not believe either. I do not suspend reason or think anyone ever should. People should follow whatever path they choose or none at all but if they are on a path and find it dead and stale maybe they are on the wrong one. That though is for them to decide and not me.

I consider what I think to be the most reasonable system of beliefs that I have come across. Why else would I hold to them?

I don't really view reason as flawed by I do view my reason as potentially flawed. Perhaps this is what people mean when they say that reason is a flawed tool. I would also describe it unnecessary in so far as some of my beliefs don't exist in my head because I have reasoned them out but simply because I want to believe in them. I make no claim that they might be true and I am in fact one of the first people to point out that they might be false. Somebody could convince me using reason that my beliefs were flawed simply because I couldn't actually believe in something that seemed unreasonable.

Thats just me though....

Really, the only reason why anyone would suscribe to one religion instead of another is because of the culture that they were brought up in.

It's not as if there was any reason to believe in any religion.

That's untrue, your beliefs are based entirely on faith and the suspention of reason and logic.

I don't think thats true for everyone I was brought up as southren baptist & now I am a Pagan.... HUGE difference. Although my grandmother was American Indian she lived in a time where that was looked down on & untill this day she would never admit it.

Religion = closure.

Nobody wants to be alone in this world.

That's my take on it.

Of course conversions are possible, but the vast majority of people believe in what they were told to believe as a child.

Very true people to tend to stay with that they were taught as a child & most just accept it without question..... I guess thats why Christianty never felt right to me personally.

I think we are starting to see a shift. Children are rebelling against the teachings from their upbringing.. more now than ever.

Yes, the developed nations are becoming less religious all the time. But I don't think it's because of rebellion. If every generation becomes a little less religious, the following generations will be even less religious.

Hopefully religion will dissapear at some point.

I didn't choose mine as a kid, I grew up just thinking it was right. Everybody around me was christian that mattered so I didn't second guess it till later on... Then the 2x4 of rational thought cracked me upside the head. Though it didn't stop there... Traveled a bit and fought damn hard to keep faith... Finally arrived at atheism because I didn't want to be slave in submission and for the fact I can think for myself. Once you take a step back from your own prejustices and look at the world with eyes clear, you'll see for yourself that you can't make any more excuses for yourself, you can't make yourself feel better with fairy tales, you will not step back into the terrorism of religion if it be hell, bad reincarnation, or whatever... And you will be your own person that can think for thereselves.

I see time and time again that believers when faced with tough questions or answers that they do not like point to anything that will allow themselves to make an excuse to justify their faith... For it be being evolution is wrong, bibical god was actually right in torturing to death an innocent baby to there needs to be some peace in this world to move on and the rest of the world will simply burn for their mistakes because they are too caught up in their own delusion of faith.

The delusion of faith is what keeps the different religions going... They each make excuses for each other and for themsevles to keep thinking they're right while branding everything else wrong for whatever reason suits their needs.

I'd go with the cultural thing, though it doesn't explain the minority that convert, it does explain the masses. Most people aren't like some of the brilliant individuals who have reached their faith through their own conclusions - they aren't willing to look into other faiths to "make sure they are right".

Of course, truth and being right is personal. Even in provable situations. If you believe something enough, it becomes truth. This isn't a bad thing. Truth for one person is not truth for another.

My father's girlfriend is Iranian, brought up with Islam all around her. She moved to Italy and became a "Catholic" (although quite possibly, the worst catholic in the world). She complains about Islam all the time, because shes experienced living under it's rules and disagrees with them.

Having a "bad experience" puts you off a religion. It's hard, for example, for those unfamiliar with Islam to see past the terrorist attacks in recent years in the supposed name of Islam.


I think I agree, but then I have to question do you think you are ultimately right? If you do, it seems to contradict what you're saying. If everyone should find their own path, then none of them can be right. If none of them are right, why find any path?

It's practical in this world, from an atheist perspective anyway, to follow the path which is your own... But from a religious perspective, how does that work? The point of faith is not only to lead a positive life (which is the bit I agree with) but to amount to something when you leave this world (the part I don't agree with).

The thing about picking a religion is, in theory, one must be right... And nobody has any more than personal ideas about which one is. "Finding your own path" is all very well, but quite frankly, what is the point?

I hope that was easy to understand?

No, you might end up thinking that your views are true, but they don't become true. Just like thinking that 1+1=3 will never become true, no matter how much you believe in it.

No, not a single one of them is necessarily right. How did you come to that conclusion?

Wow, you define close mindedness, don't you? You're very certain of everything you say with brick wall answers.

Your problem seems to be you take things far too literally. I meant if you are in any way religious, the nature of following a path means one must be right. The nature of belief in anything is that someone must be right.

Your example with numbers is funny, for me. I'm dyscalculic. I really struggle with manipulation of numbers. To me, 1+1 doesn't equal anything. I am correct, it doesn't equal anything. Look... The numbers have no context. You can't add nothings together. 1 nothing + 1 nothing = nothing. For me, the numbers need context for my brain to be able to manipulate them. 1 apple + 1 apple = 2 apples. Of course, I'm fine with small amounts such as the example you gave - I know you think the answer is 2. But without context, it's 0.

People always say that when they have no real argument to present. Feeble.

Right, but that doesn't mean that any one religion is right. They could all be wrong.

What are you on about? Maths is logic, it doesn't require "context" to be true.

Anyway, my point is that believing that something is true doesn't make it true. The same rules apply to the apple example. 1 apple + 1 apple = 3 apples will never be true, regardless of how much you believe in it.

Maths isn't logic to me if it has no context. Numbers are man made. There is NO reason to mindlessly add numbers without context, because they will always equal nothing! Give me an example where you add amounts of nothing together to produce something? Never. Numbers are always about amounts of things. It does require context to be true.

1 apple + another apple may = two. But there are many things that you add together which produce greater or smaller numbers. Think about it biologically.

All our brains work differently. Yours is very narrow minded and literal, for example, which is probably why you have such a hard time with this discussion... I never meant what you suggested. From the perspective of a believer, one belief must be right. You're forgetting that atheism is a belief too. We cannot prove or disprove the existence of God, yet. There's a logic, and I'm with you on it, that It's certainly better to assume there isn't than assume their is. But you also need to be willing to accept you may be wrong, instead of throwing incorrect "facts" around.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_proof

That is not true, theoretical maths is just as valid.
It is only the name for numbers that is man made, amounts exist no matter what.

Amounts have to relate to things! Give me an example of where they do not.

Amounts of nothing equal... nothing!

No they don't, that is why you can pure mathematics.

@HAJiME, numbers are an abstract concept, and I'm sorry you can't graps them. But your inability to understand numbers does not make maths incorrect. And since you are asking, an example of when maths doesn't need to relate to anything is 1+1=2, or any other of the infinite calculations.

Besides, it has nothing to do with the point of the discussion.

Well, you obviously thought it does, otherwise you'd not have used the irrelevant example in the first place.

1+1=2 has no purpose. It's not an example as it means nothing.

Well it does. It means if you have one anything and get another one you will have two. It is just a very basic formula.

But what "it means" isn't always true. If you have one of some things and add another one, you don't always get two of those things.

My original point was people have different ways of seeing things... And whilst believing enough doesn't make something truth as in absolute, it does make it truth in every other way - to you, personally.

Since we do not know the absolute facts of anything, arguing that believing doesn't equate to fact is stupid.

Truth is personal.

Can you give me an example when that would not be true?


I disagree truth is not personal. Belief and opinion are.

Things that react with one another and multiply, or cancel one another out?

One rabbit plus another rabbit often equals many more than two. If you'll argue that the male rabbit is a different "thing" to a female rabbit, I'm sure I could go find examples where two identical things added together make more than two.

Other examples...

In Boolean logic 1 + 1 does not equal 2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boolean_algebra_%28logic%29

What about decimals?

1 is a quantity between 0.5 and 1.49.....

Then if we double each of the outer definitions

0.5 + 0.5 = 1

rounding to 1dp it would say that 1 + 1 = 1

Or....

1.49..... + 1.49...... = 2.9...........

which to 1dp would give

1 + 1 = 3


In English, 1+1 is 11.

Mathematics requires definitions. That's what I was always taught.


As for Truth... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth More often than not it's individual, as you can see.

I have mostly always believed in God in a generic sense. I never followed a specific path/Faith because I used to believe that the Creator/God was too big to be defined by any Faith. I took the general view that all beliefs contained some Truth and were simply their way of describing a being that was too big to be confined by a set of beliefs.

I believed that through my early life and teenage years. In my late teens/early twenties, I read the Bible and came to the conclusion that what it had to say was true and accurate and had important information for me if I were to understand who and what God truly was. There was no suspension of doubts for me, as far as I saw it, it was as clear as a really clear object that had just been cleaned in a clear solution. As a result of this, I decided to put my Faith in God (Trust the promises God made in the Bible).

As an aside, I don't follow a particular Religious Organisation. I do attend an Anglican Church, but my Faith is not in the organisation itself. I do not subscribe wholly to the teachings of any earthly group. All denominations of Christianity are only human attempts to understand God. None are infallible. My Faith is based not in the oranisations but in the words in the Bible that I believe were spoken by God.

In a nutshell that is the reason I believe what I believe.

~ Regards, PA

That is the problem with people who take things far too literally, which might be OK, but then when they attempt to shove their viewpoint down everyones throat and tell everyone they are wrong I simply have to disagree then feel a tad bit sorry they are trapped in such a negative mindset.

As far as 1+1 you really make much sense. I never thought about it before but I understand your view perfect. Without a context it is meaningless. Especially if it is 1 liter + 1 chicken....you do not have 2 of anything in the end except maybe 1 wet chicken.

As far as my beliefs I guess I was lucky in that when I became older say...12 or so. I could make up my own mind. I did not have to go to church and guess what I didn't. But I always remembered my parent's example of holiness and their true belief in the Word. I never had to rebel. And like PA it was crystal clear to me. Everytime I revisted the Word it was clear to me.

Anyways I like the way you think HAJiME it is outside of the box and that is where mankinds best pushes forward have ever came from. Imagine once people ate their meat raw and bloody. Then the first person who decided to use fire was probably laughed out of the camp. Maybe even condemned as a sorceror. Most likely it was a woman and it was the men who did not understand. Well I could be wrong...

May I ask why?

Why did you come to the conclusion that it was accurate and truthful, in terms of who's word it is? And have you read, for example the Quaran? Do you think that without knowing every teaching, it's possible to conclude one is right and the other is not?

I feel the topic question isn't answered without answering that.

Thanks Clovis.

As far as literalness goes, it's a difficult one for me. I have far too many mental arguments with myself over it. You can see that in my topics, I guess.

I don't think I've ever had a reason to rebel, either. But I like to find arguments against even things I (think I) agree with. It's the only way to see someone else's point of view for me, and I find it important, if a little confusing... And people, as a general rule, don't like people who "argue for the sake of it".

I guess for some people, some things are crystal. Nothing ever has been for me. I practically torture myself with mental arguments. Sometimes I enjoy them, sometimes they frustrate me.

That "negative mindset" is called reality. I'm not going to be recruited into saying that I support your crazy fantasies.

Even if it was "meaningless" without context, it would still be true.

On what do you base those ideas?

I believe it is quite possible for something to be "right" for one person and "wrong" for another.

I am a jazz musician. This means a considerable amount of my time is spent studying, practicing, and executing improvisation. Every single improviser on the planet has a different approach to it, and every single improviser hears different intervals, pitches, chords, lines, scales, etc differently. This is why improvisation is so very difficult to teach.

There are "rules" set by western music theory as to what notes and scales supposedly "work" over what chords, for instance. You CAN teach these to people. However, in a real application, many people break those "rules" constantly. They are rules that have been dictated for centuries in western music. For instance, the idea that if the next chord is an F major triad, you should use the F major scale, and not the F# major scale, for the latter has no common tones whatsoever with the chord, while the former is the scale the chord was built from. There are people who experiment with this "glaring theoretical error" - Millions of us - and many use it regularly, myself included. Some people don't ever figure out how to get it to sound right, even if they "borrow" lines and approaches from people who do. This is because people do not hear dissonances (combinations of notes deemed "unpleasant" in a given type of music) the same way. Some of us do not even hear dissonance at all. I know because I am one of those people. Others, such as an old friend of mine from high school, heard every dissonance in western music in such a way that it was literally painful to him. This was completely unfathomable to me. It came to the point where we could not play together, because to me his style was too calm and uninteresting, and to him mine was too harsh and destructive. (and no, it's not because either one of us "sucks" - we were both and still are fairly respected players in the community).

So this is a prime example of something being right to one person and not to another. Spiritual paths are the same way.

One rabbit plus one rabbit is equal to two rabbits. 1r + 1r = 2r. To say that they might reproduce afterwards is irrelevant, that's going beyond the confines of our little equation, which still holds true.



Then the sum is 1 + -1 = 0.

See how that's not 1 + 1 = 2?



Now you've changed the values so we're no longer discussing 1 + 1 = 2, so any point you might have derived from this is irrelevant. The value of a rounded approximation differs from a numbers' true value, it's known as rounding error for a reason.

1+1=10 in binary

But not in arithmetics.

But we were never talking about math. We were talking about 1+1.I was just told believing 1+1=3 will never make it right... Well, yes, it will, I just proved it will.

Philosophically, the answer to "1+1" is often not 2. Numbers are abstract, they only become meaningfull when applied to amounts of things. Amounts of things added together do not always produce what math "logic" suggests.


Lol. What?

I'm sure there must be chemicals which you add together and they = 0.

I think Wombat was the one who started this, and his point was that your beliefs can't change facts? So arithmetically speaking, 1 + 1 = 2, and no matter what you think will change that. That's all he was saying.

You're right, numbers can mean anything, it all depends on the framework they're used in. I could use binary and say that 1 + 1 = 10, but that's irrelevant because Wombat's point was that opinions can not change facts, and he gave an arithmetic example.

The closest two things I can think of which would summate to zero would be matter and antimatter, if they come in to contact they'll annihilate and disappear from existence, leaving nothing but energy behind.

what I believe is my own understanding of God . Raised Roman Catholic and now I don't fit under any religions umbrella that I'm aware of . and that's ok.