[sleeper]

Originally Posted by Lie

I don't think the idea of you being very spiritual is ridiculous or contradictory. I also didn't mean to say that I think that religion is "inherently unknowable," if you thought I was, what I meant is that if you're going to delve into questions concerning knowledge of religion, you're approaching it from an entirely different angle from someone seeking spiritual guidance and you have to acknowledge that to a certain extent, otherwise there's really no point in exploring it anyway. I personally have never understood the way that "most people" relate to religion; I have no problem admitting that. When I look at religions I primarily see funtionality, not spirituality, but obviously a lot of people belonging to a religion would be insulted or confused by that.

I think what we're mainly talking about in all of this is a question of superstition, like you said, but I find that very sketchy as well in terms of where to draw the line. Greek and Roman mythology, for example, seems far more superstitious than modern-day Christianity, as many Christians don't even take the Bible or the story of Christ as literal, and yet in a lot of ways those systems of belief were less of a "worldview" than Christianity and the monotheistic religions that dominate today, as well as containing more of a concern for explanations of nature than absolute morals. What religion is changes, I think, thoughout history, and so does the idea of morals and the way people relate to both of them, so it's very difficult to pin any of them down. It could be that a thousand years from now, there will be a way of rejecting belief that is stronger and more "logical" in many peoples' way of thinking than atheism.

Faith, I think, is commodity that exists in itself. I think people can have a kind of practical faith in themselves without ever resorting to religion and yet I think it's something that can be gained from religion as well. I think there's a difference between "believing in God." and "believing in the existence of God." For my own part I see no purpose in believing or not believing in the existence of God or creationism, etc. I don't think scientific evidence or lack thereof should challenge a person's "faith" in any way whatsoever...I think that's pathetic. The fact is that I would live my life exactly the same whether I knew for an absolute fact that there was or was not a definite higher power, and if that higher power was consistent with fundamental beliefs and would chuck me into hell for dressing the wrong way or taking the name of the Lord in vain, then nothing I feel about myself or life is true and there is no center to creation, it's all random and I might as well go to hell anyway...in terms of pure spirituality it makes no difference. I think most people know this at heart and when they choose to believe or not believe in God what they are really choosing is whether they need the concept of God or not. I just don't necessarily see anything inherently wrong with deciding you do. Sometimes people need to choose their own answers for a time. It doesn't mean they have to go bothering you about it. That makes it political in a sense already, which it doesn't have to be. It doesn't mean a soldier sniffing his girlfriend's panties before going into war for good luck is a bad thing, and it's not any worse of a thing if he wears the cross his mom gave him for confirmation and asks Jesus to protect him. Possibly either of those things will actually give him the presence of mind to make it through alive. If you want to know my personal feelings about it, you need look no further than that.

If I could say anything really awful about religion, or anything about it that really annoys me in general, I think it would be that it attemps to co-opt certain phenomena and truths and names them for its own: heaven, hell, miracles, etc., these are all parts of reality that exist in an environment that does not have to supernatural in any sense, but what some people consider supernatural in concept is what I might just call normal.

I certainly think it's a good idea (besides just being fun), to de-mystify things as much as possible, but the way I see it, if any of that challenges a person's faith, then probably they should re-think the way they are living their lives in the first place.

Really, I think if you just recognized that I hate religion when used in the political sense as much as you do, but that this is entirely different from judging people who belong to a religion (even if they decline to talk about it, which is often the case), there would be hardly any disagreement at all.

When people consider themselves part of a religion but decline to talk about it or use it in argument or in relation to anything else....that is something that I entirely respect and will absolutely not judge them by that or try to figure out what's going on in their head concerning it. I think to treat that situation otherwise is to just shortchange or stress myself out for no good, practical reason I can discern.

for the record, i said "pretty spiritual," not "very." im in a strange and uncomfortable land with this spiritual thing and i have to be fierce and protective

i used to be the same way and still, obviously, kind of am. i used to just see it as irrational and moronic and end it at that, but if you actually do try and see it from their perspective, which i recommend you try for a second (tether yourself), its really neat. its a world apart, and thats what so hard to realize about it. try and imagine something that just is absolutely apart or above or independent from what you currently see or understand or know. i mean, what is futile is trying to describe it, its inherently beyond words. this is that "leap of faith" that people talk about. it makes me sick

i just checked out britannicas definition of that idea and i found it very interesting

to describe commitment to an objective uncertainty, specifically to the Christian God. For Kierkegaard, God is totally other than man; between God and man there exists a gulf that faith alone can bridge.Kierkegaard was equally opposed to the German philosopher G.W.F. Hegel's rationalized Christianity and to orthodox attempts to demonstrate the truth of the Christian faith by rational argument, and he insisted that religious truth is incapable of objective proof and can be appropriated only by an act of will. Kierkegaard praised aesthetic and ethical responses to life but maintained that they do not free man from dread and despair. Man requires a relationship with God founded on a commitment that has no conclusive evidence to recommend it; faith is a risk or, as the 17th-century French writer Blaise Pascal put it, a “wager.”

i absolutely love that word "wager" being used for that, that is perfect. i was kind of psychologically anticipating what word it would be in the millisecond between reading and understanding the part of the sentence before it ("as x described it..") and it complemented the thread of thought i had so excitingly well. ah that felt so good


i agree that there are layers of stupidity to the whole thing that superstition alone doesnt have, one of which certainly is this idea that its a system, its a set of beliefs, an entire worldview, an answer to life. i hate the fact that people can at once fully and totally adopt such an answer to life and at the same time be entirely ignorant of the world. im saying that that possibility exists within this. its ridiculous

it changes throughout history, sure, in terms of its purpose or basic identity or whatever, but surprisingly little that is actually critical to it seems to change

well if that persons faith makes positive claims about the world around us, then scientific evidence alone can and should unseat that faith. this issue youre bringing up about how some people need it, about how it does some good, etc, is really clouded, but, nevertheless, i still think its wrong. "slightly but unmistakably smelly" to quote the moron christopher hitchens.
for one, like i said before, theres the question of good or bad and right or wrong. i dont see them as being so translatable, where something being good (having a good practical effect, like helping that soldier survive) means its right. some people evidently do need it, and it does sometimes do some good, but i still dont think that necessarily justifies it. it might excuse it in some minds, but it doesnt do much for me. i also dont even agree that it actually does that good on the whole. some good things may come, ok, but all kinds of good things can come from bad things without having that jusify the bad thing. its like when people say WWII was great for the development of science and technology, which it was, but that wouldnt serve justify, just to mitigate, the war. again, a loaded example, but theres a general principle here that applies with regards to your argument. i dont think its wholly good because i dont agree that that choice (choosing religion or not) is -- or, indeed, even can ever be -- so contained. or contained enough to make it just like a "i believe in this, you believe in that" kind of thing. it depends on a million things, but, just in principle, it does matter. this whole thing really is clouded though, i dont know where to hack away. like it depends on that person choosing religion, or if theyre just choosing god, as in the existence of, it still depends on to what degree. but just the basic idea, that because x does y good thing its alright, i dont like