Religion...

[ignatius]

There are many patterns that come from natural forces.  I think we don't give enough credit to nature's power, which is hard to comprehend over billions of years since we've only been around for a fraction of that time. 

And early humans didn't give themselves enough credit for ideas - many in history had to attribute ideas to their gods in order for the idea to be taken seriously.  Before writing or later, common literacy, using the power of a god's word (or dead ancestry in some cultures) was much much more effective in getting ideas accepted.  Early leaders knew this and exploited it.

There's no ego in an 'atheist' to understand these things.

[Jess]

There are many patterns that come from natural forces.  I think we don't give enough credit to nature's power

[/quote]

What about religious viewpoints that DO give credit to nature's power, as extensions of the power of the Creator?

[ignatius]

That's not giving full credit to nature.  That view involves the use of our extremely powerful imagination.

[aknowledgeableperson]

NO.

For many nature and God are one.

That is one of the great things about this country though.  I do not have to prove there is a god nor do you have to prove there is no god.  Yes, there are some that want to put God into everything about this government but at the same time there are some that want to take God out of everything in our government.  Yes, there are some that want to have school prayer but at the same time there are others who do not want religious organizations using government property as non-religious organizations are allowed to use.

Yes, a citizen should not vote or not vote for a candidate because of that candidate's religious beliefs or non-beliefs but it is fair game to ask about a candidate's beliefs since many may have views that are influenced by one religious beliefs.

[ignatius]

I haven't been talking about universal proofs, but about what is more reasonable to each person, to you.  Natural forces can be reasoned through and doesn't need faith.  Explanations by supernatural forces is entirely reliant on faith (the word of another) and essentially ignores reason.  It simply perpetuates superstitions of early humanity.

Do you acknowledge that humans are capable of superstition? 

[aknowledgeableperson]

Do you acknowledge that humans are capable of superstition? 

Yes, we are capable of superstition.  But to call a belief in a god is only a superstition really is just a way for you to avoid the issue.

Do you have a particular superstition that you believe in, a lucky charm, or a habit you are afraid to break because you fear the consequences?  If so, then one might argue that your superstition, charm, or habit is a belief in something supernatural.  Do you believe in ghosts, or in something being haunted, or in anything else similar?  Then the same applies.  You may want to tie a superstition or a charm or a habit or ghosts into something religious but those do not have anything to do with a belief in a god, or at least the Christian/Jewish/Muslim God.

You can look at the beauty, and the ugliness, of the world and that is all you see.  Others can look at the same beauty and ugliness and see it is the work of God and the devil (or some evil).  I tend to believe that if one accepts there is a God that is good then on the flip side there also exists something that is bad or evil.  I am not saying that the two sides are always fighting over everything for I also believe that sometimes "shit" happens and it has nothing to do with God or the devil.

[mean]

Do you have a particular superstition that you believe in, a lucky charm, or a habit you are afraid to break because you fear the consequences? 

No...

[ignatius]

Curious response AKP.  You just acknowledged that superstitions and belief in supernatural forces are one in the same.   I do not find any of the superstitions you listed as reasonable.   When something can't be explained, the first assumption from believers is that it is a power above nature rather than just to accept they don't understand it yet. Bogus explanations often come from those who are insecure of being uncertain.  As our understanding of nature has grown through the course of humanity, supernatural explanations have become less reasonable, not more reasonable.

Not sure where you are going with the beauty/ugliness thing.  That's based on internal human emotions.  Those human emotions (and love/hate, etc) make no claim that an external force above nature is causing something.  Superstitions claim outside omens and forces above nature interact with our lives, based on fear, misunderstanding or just ignorance.  The only form of support for these is faith (trust in the word of another), not reason.

When an individual seriously bases their life around loner superstitious ideas, it's called insane.
When an isolated group of people delve into superstition and build a system around it, it's called a cult.
When the masses accept common systematic superstitions and it gains political power, it's called a religion.

[ThaMexican]

Interesting take. I look at pictures from Hubble and ponder how we're all essentially composed of molecules ejected from ancient dying stars, and it's amazing and overwhelming to think about how intricately intertwined we are with the universe, and how we have become (as far as we know) uniquely capable of pondering and discussing those origins. It truly boggles the mind, and while I don't consider this kind of pondering to be spiritual in nature, I think it offers the same kind of awe and wonder.

This remind me of something, would you guys consider that an atheist would actually also have faith? By that I mean you have to have faith on the Big Bang Theory and evolution Theory cause they can not be proven either. Also do u know the probability of the Big Bang Theory happening? Mathematically speaking?

[LenexatoKCMO]

This remind me of something, would you guys consider that an atheist would actually also have faith? By that I mean you have to have faith on the Big Bang Theory and evolution Theory cause they can not be proven either. Also do u know the probability of the Big Bang Theory happening? Mathematically speaking?

Big Bang and Human evolution are associated with Naturalisim - not necessarily Atheisim.  A person could be Atheist and completely dismiss core concepts of Naturalisim. 

[ignatius]

This remind me of something, would you guys consider that an atheist would actually also have faith? By that I mean you have to have faith on the Big Bang Theory and evolution Theory cause they can not be proven either. Also do u know the probability of the Big Bang Theory happening? Mathematically speaking?

Instead of repeating myself, I'll point you to these two posts.  The bottom line is that I don't in any way put faith in science, but many do.  I do sometimes put faith/trust in a person though, as a personal risk, not as an explanation of nature.

http://forum.kcrag.com/http://www.kcrag ... 12#p359512

http://forum.kcrag.com/http://www.kcrag ... 77#p359977

[aknowledgeableperson]

Curious response AKP.  You just acknowledged that superstitions and belief in supernatural forces are one in the same.   

No.  This is what I said:

You may want to tie a superstition or a charm or a habit or ghosts into something religious but those do not have anything to do with a belief in a god, or at least the Christian/Jewish/Muslim God.

[ignatius]

You're stating that without an explanation.  Please explain how a belief in a god is different than a belief in other superstitions.  I've explained how they are related but you have neither addressed my explanation or explained yourself how they do not have anything to do with each other.  You simply just made a statement with nothing to support it.  Case in point, this seems to be a common practice in superstitious beliefs - state whatever you want with no reasonable explanation.

[AJoD]

Please explain how a belief in a god is different than a belief in other superstitions.

A belief in God is far more rational (and moreso than disbelief in God) whereas a belief that walking under a ladder brings bad luck is not.

But this is really a semantic argument bound for stalemate.  One's understanding of "superstition" depends on what one believes to be true.

It's not too different from saying ghosts aren't real because they're imaginary.

[Jess]

I think there's a ton that goes on in life that defies rational explanation (including human emotion).  I don't really have a huge need to find and assign explanations for things, but I acknowledge that it must make some people feel in some way more in control, and it works for them.

[ignatius]

A belief in God is far more rational (and moreso than disbelief in God) whereas a belief that walking under a ladder brings bad luck is not.
But this is really a semantic argument bound for stalemate.  One's understanding of "superstition" depends on what one believes to be true.
It's not too different from saying ghosts aren't real because they're imaginary.

I disagree.  I'm not talking about what is real or proofs.  I'm talking about reasoning things through.  You would need to explain the 'rationality' of believing in a god in order for us to understand how it's different than beliefs in superstitious omens.  My case is that early humanity was literally guiding themselves with superstitions.  A belief in supernatural forces was simply one of them.  We now know that thunder isn't from angry gods.  Hurricanes can be explained in natural terms and it's unreasonable to imply they're a wrath of a god, as early humanity did.

I do understand Jess' point though that many things occur that defy rationalization.  But there's a difference between unexplained phenomena (including love, hate, emotions, etc) and humans using supernatural forces as explanation of how things work or as guides to your own behavior.  The chances are much much higher that these ideas are in your heads than actually an external force.

[ignatius]

Switching the direction for a sec, I just saw a show on near death experiences that I was particularly interested in as I had a similar experience.  I had severe pneumonia, mid-90s, and nearly died.  Was in the hospital for several days and dependent on oxygen things stuck up my nose.  The doctor said I would have died if it weren't for the meds that recently came out. 

The oxygen hurt my head severely for some reason.  It felt like pitchforks were shoved into my eye sockets. Most excruciating pain I could imagine.  I was somewhat delusional and was taking the oxygen leads out because it hurt my eyes so much when breathing.  It got the point that I wasn't getting much oxygen in my brain (though I wasn't considered to be near death).  I had what seemed to be an OBE.  I saw the light, saw myself dead at a friend's front lawn, laying face down at the base of a flag (black or red flag I think) that was at half mast.  I was floating over the roof of the house looking down at my body.  I felt friends and family were there but not any gods or other forces.

I obviously made it through and did some research on NDEs and OBEs, especially across many cultures.  There is definitely a common theme in any culture in terms of white light and OBEs.  But they will see themselves in a situation influenced by their cultural experiences and beliefs, not of other cultures. And then I found that pilots who are knocked out by G forces experience the same thing even though no where near being dead.  They can duplicate the experience over and over in G force chambers.  Knocked out pilots see the white light, have an OBe and then may experience something related to visions after death.  The explanation is not enough oxygen and/or blood in the brain for a period, and it can be duplicated.  It's apparently what happened to me - not death, just a shortage of oxygen in brain. 

I saw a study that took people from different cultures, placed them in G force situations to put them in an OBE state.  The end result was that the visions they had were relevant to their cultural upbringing, not a common vision of the same presence of external forces (gods, ancestors, etc) other than white light and OBE experiences. 

Point being, there are natural explanations for these phenomenon too that are only recent.  Beforehand through the entire history of mankind, there would have been assumptions of some kind of supernatural experience.  So in many cases (well in ALL cases I would propose), things humans think are supernatural, are all in the head.

[AJoD]

You would need to explain the 'rationality' of believing in a god in order for us to understand how it's different than beliefs in superstitious omens.

We've been over that upthread, I think.  I realize you disagree.  It's easy to point to Aquinas' "proof."  I'm not saying it's foolproof, but no one accuses Aquinas of being anything less than a very precise and rational thinker.

There are countless, educated writings throughout Church history.  I'm just not sure how you can plausibly claim that all these thinkers are simply irrational and superstitious, in the same way that someone who believes your mother will break her back if you step on a crack.

Entirely different meanings of the word "superstition."  And then there are intermediary definitions...are the myths of Greek gods more superstitious than the teachings of Buddha?

Personally, I wouldn't use the word "superstitious" to describe any religious belief, even ancient myth, because the everyday meaning of "superstition" seems to me expressly separate from the idea of a highly organized belief system.  Which is why I still think the argument is semantic.

If you want to have the semantic argument (or argue it's not semantic), how do you define "superstitious"?  (Apologies if you did so upthread and I missed it.)

***

Your OBE example again illustrates just how far apart we are on premise.  While I understand what you're saying about how religion or supernatural belief can be used, it is really irrelevant to my understanding of or belief in religion and God (and, I would argue, that of the Catholic Church).  I wouldn't use God or the afterlife to explain these phenomenon instead of science, nor would I say that having scientific, "natural explanations" is at all counterintuitive to the existence or influence of the divine.

[ignatius]

It's easy to point to Aquinas' "proof."  I'm not saying it's foolproof, but no one accuses Aquinas of being anything less than a very precise and rational thinker.

There are countless, educated writings throughout Church history.  I'm just not sure how you can plausibly claim that all these thinkers are simply irrational and superstitious, in the same way that someone who believes your mother will break her back if you step on a crack.

That is specifically what I'm suggesting.  They had a belief system to protect and used sophistry and twisted logic as needed.  Aquinas was one of my favorites as he was indeed brilliant.  I've probably studied him more than most Catholics (and I wasn't raised Catholic).  As purely logical as he was, he was ultimately applying logic to superstitions, not validating the superstitions proposed.  What that leads to is a very dangerous series of speculations and the Church developed strict rules, expecting people to live their lives based on speculations they considered fact. No need to get into the Inquisition and the Crusades I'm sure. Appalling.

You can have pure logic applied to a meaningless system.  If Gogogoes > Blugas and Blugas > Jududus then Gogogoes > Jududas.  Those are meaningless words yet logic still applies to them.  Aquinas did exactly this and there are more modern thinkers who have thoroughly debunked, not his methods, but how he applied them.  Even the most Aquinas oriented Catholics will say that faith is still required, and faith is what I've been challenging.

[aknowledgeableperson]

and faith is what I've been challenging.

That is what "faith" is.  A belief in something that you cannot or do not have to prove.  You don't have faith or a belief in a God so those that do must follow some sort of superstition since that faith or belief is irrational.  Well, for people of faith or belief it is not irrational to have a God.

I do not have to prove nor have someone prove that there is a God.  For now I accept that there is one and will find out the truth when I die.

As a side note, I think it is funny that there are people trying to find Noah's Ark.  I guess if they find the ark it proves something, that if is found that somehow justifies their faith or belief.  In a way that might be you, trying to find something that is real to "prove" that there is a God.