Why are you religious/not religious?

The one thing I don't understand is why do people even follow a religion? You don't have to be religious to be happy, and none of the heaven and hell shit can be proven, so why potentially restrict yourself with religious moral codes and conduct, when you can live happily without religion? You mention that people don't analyse their own feelings Dud, but have you stopped to realise that you might not need a religion to live your life?

Ziggy wrote:The one thing I don't understand is why do people even follow a religion? You don't have to be religious to be happy, and none of the heaven and hell shit can be proven, so why potentially restrict yourself with religious moral codes and conduct, when you can live happily without religion? You mention that people don't analyse their own feelings Dud, but have you stopped to realise that you might not need a religion to live your life?

You sound exactly like this atheist I met one time, I mean aside from a few slight word changes he said THAT exact same thing. >.>

If religion helps you get through the day then how does it hurt? I mean if it helps you with moral standards, and keeping your hopes up regardless, why not practice it?

No I'm not saying that's what you're saying, but most scientific things can't be proven either which makes this debate pretty much useless, pointless, and way to drawn on which is why I still find it baffling as to why people (myself included) continue to ag this thing on.

Have you stopped to consider that almost no one's beliefs can be proven and that we don't need any beliefs to get on with life, but that some people find religion of various forms to be fulfilling and to give them purpose in what is otherwise a brief and exceedingly meaningless existence in which we spend all of our time miserable in the hopes that sometime in the future, we won't be miserable, just to find out that the future sucks just as bad, if not worse, than the past, and that we're twice as miserable and wish we could go back to how miserable we were before, and that the addition of some greater hope for a future beyond death, where we can leave this shitty world and move onto something that doesn't suck, has a tendency to increase one's morale, when considering their otherwise bleak life that will ultimately be so inconsequential as to beg the question as to why we fight so vigorously to survive in the first place?

Or have you stopped to consider that atheists have the same vindictive belief that they must cram their beliefs down everyone's throats as theists do, but not because they believe people's lives depend on it, rather simply because everyone else is so insufferably less "intelligent" than they are that somehow by making them wind up drones who all agree with you, they will become enlightened, and that in the end of things, or during the process of things, there is actually no real benefit of atheism, other than that you can look down on all the "ignorant" people while you sip your wine and bang your head against a wall?

Point in case. All faith is illogical: Christianity, Islam, Atheism. It's all the same. The only logical conclusion that anyone can come to on the matter is that there might possibly be a God, maybe, and that we simply don't have enough evidence, or indeed know what evidence to look for, in order to make any further assertion. Meanwhile, agnostics must find some way to deal with the fact that life is a bleak, meaningless existence of ripping out your hair to futilely try and make life for yourself later easier, while indulging in petty things to try and keep your mind off of how your life is a ultimately irrelevant and that a decade after you're gone, no one will mourn your passing and few will remember that you even existed.

tl;dr: If one day, you wake up and find yourself trapped in an existential quandary full of loathing and self-doubt and wracked with the pain and isolation of your pitiful meaningless existence, at least you can take a small bit of comfort in knowing that somewhere out there in this crazy mixed-up universe of ours there's still a little place called Albuquerque.

Rotaretilbo wrote:Have you stopped to consider that almost no one's beliefs can be proven and that we don't need any beliefs to get on with life, but that some people find religion of various forms to be fulfilling and to give them purpose in what is otherwise a brief and exceedingly meaningless existence in which we spend all of our time miserable in the hopes that sometime in the future, we won't be miserable, just to find out that the future sucks just as bad, if not worse, than the past, and that we're twice as miserable and wish we could go back to how miserable we were before, and that the addition of some greater hope for a future beyond death, where we can leave this shitty world and move onto something that doesn't suck, has a tendency to increase one's morale, when considering their otherwise bleak life that will ultimately be so inconsequential as to beg the question as to why we fight so vigorously to survive in the first place?

Well I don't know about you, but heaven does sound like a nice place.

I suppose it would make for a better outlook on life, but when you can't prove it exists you know, doesn't that make you wonder?

I know many christians, but if I were to go up to them and ask them "What drives your will to live?" I'm sure most of them wouldn't say "To get into heaven." So like Ziggy said, do they really need religion to go on with life? No, not really, so why do they do it? Well i've come to the conclusion that that's how they were raised really, and, why change?

It doesn't hurt, and it doesn't help, so i'm fine with christianity as a coping mechanism for all that then. (All that being a nihilistic view on life)

rot wrote:
Meanwhile, agnostics must find some way to deal with the fact that life is a bleak, meaningless existence of ripping out your hair to futilely try and make life for yourself later easier, while indulging in petty things to try and keep your mind off of how your life is a ultimately irrelevant and that a decade after you're gone, no one will mourn your passing and few will remember that you even existed.

What? Would you kindly explain what you mean by that, I certaintly don't think life is bleak or meaningless, nor do I think people other than nihilists do...
Life isn't meaningless for the agnostic, life is what they make it.

rot wrote:tl;dr: If one day, you wake up and find yourself trapped in an existential quandary full of loathing and self-doubt and wracked with the pain and isolation of your pitiful meaningless existence, at least you can take a small bit of comfort in knowing that somewhere out there in this crazy mixed-up universe of ours there's still a little place called Albuquerque.

I suppose that's one way to cope with that, or you could take anti-depressants. I don't think that Christianity is the only answer to that situation, not that you said it was, but no one still needs religion to survive.

Gauz wrote:I suppose it would make for a better outlook on life, but when you can't prove it exists you know, doesn't that make you wonder?

Of course. Doubt is part of life. If we didn't doubt, we wouldn't be human.

Gauz wrote:I know many christians, but if I were to go up to them and ask them "What drives your will to live?" I'm sure most of them wouldn't say "To get into heaven." So like Ziggy said, do they really need religion to go on with life? No, not really, so why do they do it? Well i've come to the conclusion that that's how they were raised really, and, why change?

All you've done is made an assertion that the desire for Heaven is not required to be happy. You have yet to provide evidence in which the desire for Heaven has not played a major role in people's ability to make it through tough times.

Gauz wrote:It doesn't hurt, and it doesn't help, so i'm fine with christianity as a coping mechanism for all that then. (All that being a nihilistic view on life)

Isn't helping someone cope helpful?

Gauz wrote:What? Would you kindly explain what you mean by that, I certaintly don't think life is bleak or meaningless, nor do I think people other than nihilists do...
Life isn't meaningless for the agnostic, life is what they make it.

You should take another look at life, then, because I can assure you, it is generally without purpose, meaning, or true joy. We spend our childhoods going through hell to prepare for adulthood, and our adulthood looking back wishing we hadn't wasted our childhood, because adulthood blows. We exist for less than a century, generally have no lasting impact on anyone, and then are forgotten completely.

Gauz wrote:I suppose that's one way to cope with that, or you could take anti-depressants. I don't think that Christianity is the only answer to that situation, not that you said it was, but no one still needs religion to survive.

I'm not asserting that religion is the only way to cope. I'm simply saying that religion is not this useless thing, even from a purely logical standpoint. I could also go into Pascal's Wager, which is another interesting piece of logic, if you'd like, though I've been told that use of it is fallacious, though I, myself, cannot figure out what fallacy it is supposedly using.

Anti-depressants don't make you happy, hurr.

Anyway, it may be a personal choice, but people should maybe look at their lives and other ways to fix it if they suddenly experience some existential crisis and require a deity and a promise of afterlife to feel happy. Personally, I see a lot of religious practises as cruise control for dealing with personal issues and qualms. I wouldn't go so far as to say that religion is useless for people, but I think that a lot of people just use religion to attain happiness, albeit very superficially.
I'm much more of a self-examining kind of guy. I deal with my own thoughts and issues, instead of turning to a bible. That's my personal preference.

Rotaretilbo wrote:
at least you can take a small bit of comfort in knowing that somewhere out there in this crazy mixed-up universe of ours there's still a little place called Albuquerque.

With sauerkraut.

Rot wrote:I'm not asserting that religion is the only way to cope. I'm simply saying that religion is not this useless thing, even from a purely logical standpoint. I could also go into Pascal's Wager, which is another interesting piece of logic, if you'd like, though I've been told that use of it is fallacious, though I, myself, cannot figure out what fallacy it is supposedly using.

The fallacy of Pascal's wager is the same fallacy that permeates everything you're saying. It's the notion that belief is based on personal will. You can't just look at something, like the idea of going to hell, and DECIDE to believe in God. It doesn't work that way, or at least it doesn't work that way for me. I can follow the teachings of Pascal's wager, and I can tell myself every day that I'm Christian. That won't change anything. Deep down, I'll still be agnostic.

Sure, life is sometimes shitty, and it certainly is meaningless and futile. I think it would be nice to believe that there is a heaven, and I'm gonna live forever with the people I love and all that great stuff. However, as much as I like the idea... that has nothing to do with whether or not I believe it. I'd like to think that Carl Sagan was a prophet sent down by some sort of God, to encourage us to continue in our exploration of Universe.

I still don't think it's true...


This is that fundamental difference between religious and non-religious people that I'm getting at. You seem to have the ability to believe in things based on pure will. It's either that, or you don't "believe" it to the same degree that you present yourself as doing so.

I can't believe something because I want to, or because it's a pleasant idea, or because believing in such a thing would be beneficial. That's just not how it works.

ReconToaster wrote:

Rot wrote:I'm not asserting that religion is the only way to cope. I'm simply saying that religion is not this useless thing, even from a purely logical standpoint. I could also go into Pascal's Wager, which is another interesting piece of logic, if you'd like, though I've been told that use of it is fallacious, though I, myself, cannot figure out what fallacy it is supposedly using.

The fallacy of Pascal's wager is the same fallacy that permeates everything you're saying. It's the notion that belief is based on personal will. You can't just look at something, like the idea of going to hell, and DECIDE to believe in God. It doesn't work that way, or at least it doesn't work that way for me. I can follow the teachings of Pascal's wager, and I can tell myself every day that I'm Christian. That won't change anything. Deep down, I'll still be agnostic.

Sure, life is sometimes shitty, and it certainly is meaningless and futile. I think it would be nice to believe that there is a heaven, and I'm gonna live forever with the people I love and all that great stuff. However, as much as I like the idea... that has nothing to do with whether or not I believe it. I'd like to think that Carl Sagan was a prophet sent down by some sort of God, to encourage us to continue in our exploration of Universe.

I still don't think it's true...


This is that fundamental difference between religious and non-religious people that I'm getting at. You seem to have the ability to believe in things based on pure will. It's either that, or you don't "believe" it to the same degree that you present yourself as doing so.

I can't believe something because I want to, or because it's a pleasant idea, or because believing in such a thing would be beneficial. That's just not how it works.

Everyone has doubt, nobody is certain. It was said in the Bible that if you believed in God totally, you would have the power to move mountains.

Faith is belief beyond doubt. I personally believe, due to personal experiences, that God exists. If you turned to God, and at least attempted to put faith in him, and looked for a sign, i believe that you would find that you can believe in him, because he has shown himself to you.

The reason religion is such a poor debating subject is because an utter lack of evidence and it simply becomes logic vs. faith to a point, and a lot of delusions. Atheists generally think that all Christians are fucktards and have serious superiority complex issues, while a lot of Christians believe in God just because they have been taught to do so.

Perhaps that's what's so great about religion? It's a personal choice, no amount of persuasion, logic, evidence, or anything i have ever seen sway anybody on the internet, and there never has been an obvious winner unless one side was being an idiot. No amount of outer force can ever choose your religion for you.

Ziggy wrote:The one thing I don't understand is why do people even follow a religion? You don't have to be religious to be happy, and none of the heaven and hell shit can be proven, so why potentially restrict yourself with religious moral codes and conduct, when you can live happily without religion? You mention that people don't analyse their own feelings Dud, but have you stopped to realise that you might not need a religion to live your life?

Fear of hell... hope for an eternal life of paradise afterwards... foundation for morals... besides, religion is not near as restricting as you may think.

CivBase wrote:
Fear of hell... hope for an eternal life of paradise afterwards... foundation for morals... besides, religion is not near as restricting as you may think.

do the main religions support promiscuous sex?

KristallNacht wrote:

CivBase wrote:
Fear of hell... hope for an eternal life of paradise afterwards... foundation for morals... besides, religion is not near as restricting as you may think.

do the main religions support promiscuous sex?

I don't think anybody really does, religious or not.

Ukurse wrote:

KristallNacht wrote:

CivBase wrote:
Fear of hell... hope for an eternal life of paradise afterwards... foundation for morals... besides, religion is not near as restricting as you may think.

do the main religions support promiscuous sex?

I don't think anybody really does, religious or not.

Hookers?

Gauz wrote:

Ukurse wrote:

KristallNacht wrote:

CivBase wrote:
Fear of hell... hope for an eternal life of paradise afterwards... foundation for morals... besides, religion is not near as restricting as you may think.

do the main religions support promiscuous sex?

I don't think anybody really does, religious or not.

Hookers?

Silly gauz, hookers aren't people.

Ukurse wrote:I don't think anybody really does, religious or not.

plenty of people do.

look at your average college-aged female