# Why do people believe in religion?



## Cnote11

Here is a more neutral thread that allows more discussion from both sides of the field (as advised by Sid James) and also lowers the perceived hostility. People can even chime in with their personal reasons they hold their particular religious viewpoints. You can approach this from an anthropological, biological, psychological, theological, or any other -logical point of view you wish.


----------



## Dodecaplex

Ethics

And

Aesthetics

One and the Same


----------



## Cnote11

Explain, Dodie.


----------



## brianwalker

Why do people believe in morality and meaning?

Why do people believe in anthropology?


----------



## Cnote11

You're starting to sound like me now. :lol:


----------



## Dodecaplex

Cnote11 said:


> Explain, Dodie.







I'm serious.


----------



## Cnote11

I understand now.


----------



## brianwalker

Why haven't I blown up the earth yet and get rid of these pointless questions? 

I must get to it. 

Where are the nukes?


----------



## Dodecaplex

Cnote11 said:


> I understand now.


Then I guess this is one of those rare threads that actually conclude. Very nice.


----------



## Cnote11

brianwalker said:


> Why haven't I blown up the earth yet and get rid of these pointless questions?
> 
> I must get to it.
> 
> Where are the nukes?


It wasn't pointless... you could learn a thing or two from Dodecaplex's responses. Don't be so arrogant, brianwalker.


----------



## Sid James

I think it's about community, having a sort of spiritual focus, a kind of anchor. Also tradition, the history & maybe ritual as well. There are many other things, like the social justice aspect of many religions. I have a more liberal & modern view of religion, more practically focused. I think we should retain aspects of the past but firmly integrate it into today's life, into today's world. It has to be relevant, it has to be real and inclusive. That's my take on relgion in a nutshell.


----------



## Cnote11

I agree that there are relevant concepts in religion, but what positives do we gain, in your opinion, by keeping these within religion as opposed to divorcing them?


----------



## Polednice

The thread's already off to a shaky start! Perhaps we could avoid the flames for once? 

Of course, there are two separate, core issues here. One is why people would choose to initiate or maintain religious belief, and another is why people are led to religious belief in the first place. I'm inclined to think that most people need to be led to belief in order for it to be maintained - some people find it in adulthood, but I think if you're not exposed to it as a child, you're unlikely to believe later on. I think it's then a matter of people cultivating whatever sense of religion fits with their natural tendency to be power-hungry and hateful, or loving and caring. There are also much more complex factors - for example, I read a study indicating that belief in god goes up when trust in government goes down, and vice-versa. We have certain needs for safety blankets and controlling influences.


----------



## Couchie

It gives their life meaning; a social circle; "it's god's will" is more comforting than "**** happens"; they are unable or unwilling to be critically introspective; they are undereducated in one or more of evolutionary biology, logic, or statistics; they lack the confidence to break with the expectations of family, friends, or greater society; they were indoctrinated at a very young age and have lacked exposure to alternative ways of living; it's is a nice, grounding, tradition; it relieves their guilt or uncertainty.


----------



## Dodecaplex

Cnote11 said:


> It wasn't pointless... you could learn a thing or two from Dodecaplex's responses.


Hey, I was being absolutely serious. If you have more questions, then just ask, instead of posting these witty one liners.


----------



## Cnote11

Dodecaplex said:


> Hey, I was being absolutely serious. If you have more questions, then just ask, instead of posting these witty one liners.


Who says I'm not being serious? You could always provide more content than that video though :lol:


----------



## Dodecaplex

Cnote11 said:


> You could always provide more content than that video though :lol:


Ethics: Cannot be explained

Aesthetics: Cannot be explained

Print Gallery: Cannot be completed

Religious Beliefs: Cannot be explained

Voila.

Any more questions?


----------



## Sid James

I see that as a stereotype of the more conservative/dogmatic "takes" on religion. Not what I belive which is to modernise religion.



Couchie said:


> It gives their life meaning; a social circle; "it's god's will" is more comforting than "**** happens"; they are unable or unwilling to be critically introspective; they are undereducated in one or more of evolutionary biology, logic, or statistics; they lack the confidence to break with the expectations of family, friends, or greater society; they were indoctrinated at a very young age and have lacked exposure to alternative ways of living; it's is a nice, grounding, tradition; it relieves their guilt or uncertainty.


----------



## Cnote11

If you whitewash religion with secular values, what is the point of keeping the religion? Doesn't it become empty, in a way? Especially when you consider the original text still to be pertinent, even if it really isn't anymore to the lifestyle of most modernized religious people.


----------



## Cnote11

Dodecaplex said:


> Ethics: Cannot be explained
> 
> Aesthetics: Cannot be explained
> 
> Print Gallery: Cannot be completed
> 
> Religious Beliefs: Cannot be explained
> 
> Voila.
> 
> Any more questions?


You don't believe any facets of the above can be explained?


----------



## Dodecaplex

Cnote11 said:


> You don't believe any facets of the above can be explained?


Print Gallery cannot be _completed_. Don't confuse the two.


----------



## Couchie

Sid James said:


> I see that as a stereotype of the more conservative/dogmatic "takes" on religion. Not what I belive which is to modernise religion.


My post speaks just to my personal experience of losing my own faith. Some of those things were hard to give up.


----------



## Sid James

Cnote11 said:


> If you whitewash religion with secular values, what is the point of keeping the religion? Doesn't it become empty, in a way? Especially when you consider the original text still to be pertinent, even if it really isn't anymore to the lifestyle of most modernized religious people.


Well I take what I want from religion, and that is the basic underlying values. I'm not much interested in eg. the Old Testament, as Christ came to reform that in the New Testament. The Old Testament is more or less historical background to what came after. However, Judaism has many things in common with Christianity. There are liberal and modern views of both, and carried out in practice. I am not happy with people tarring all religous people with the same fundamentalist brush. It's not the reality today, it hasn't been for a long time. Religions are always updating themselves and renewing, that's why they have remained relevant to many people for so long imo.

As for secularism, yes I do support a secular society in terms of law. I would not want to live in theocracies - countries where religion is the law - such as Iran. Although in Western societies we have separation of church and state as an ideal, there is still a role for the churches in many areas. Social justice is a large part of that still. Religion was often a safeguard and a safe place against tyranny and dictatorships of the 20th century. It also bought about social change for the greater good, eg. the civil rights movement in the USA, one if it's main leaders was Reverend Martin Luther King. There are many examples like this.


----------



## Ukko

I suppose I need to point out that there is a difference between 'believing in religion' and believing in the tenets of _a_ religion. The former is philosophy, the latter... theosophy?


----------



## Sid James

Couchie said:


> My post speaks just to my personal experience of losing my own faith. Some of those things were hard to give up.


I understand that, I know people like you, I don't try to convert them, it's not my job or what I believe. I emphasise common values and what is practical. I don't force my beliefs on others. But I like to talk about these issues, if someone says they are an atheist it doesn't put me off. Doesn't mean we don't agree on many things - we often find out we do! But it's hard online sometimes to do that, very hard.


----------



## Polednice

Some serious questions, Sid: do you believe in the divinity of Jesus? Do you believe in miracles? Do you believe God has laid out rules by which we will be rewarded and punished? Do you think belief in each of these things is necessary to be a Christian? Or do you treat the Bible as a philosophical text and call yourself a Christian because you like Christ's ideas, while not believing he was actually resurrected?


----------



## Sid James

Polednice said:


> Some serious questions, Sid: do you believe in the divinity of Jesus? Do you believe in miracles? Do you believe God has laid out rules by which we will be rewarded and punished? Do you think belief in each of these things is necessary to be a Christian? Or do you treat the Bible as a philosophical text and call yourself a Christian because you like Christ's ideas, while not believing he was actually resurrected?


^^Man, that sounds almost like the enquiry in the house of un-American activities in the 1950's. Senator McCarthy & all that. "ARE YOU A COMMUNIST?" "Communism" defined by the prosecutor. Is that right?

Anyway, my reply is whimsical in a way.

I think that Christianity can be personally interpreted. I am same with Christianity as with anything. I take the big picture view. I won't quote passages for you from the Bible since I don't know it verse and chapter. I probably have the view of Christ as a great prophet and a role model on how to treat people. I think it's the human aspects, the community that is of most value to me. I think that it's more useful for me in this way than trying to fit a square peg into a round hole like the more dogmatic views of religion. The world has changed since 2000, let alone since 1 AD. So I am for adaptiveness and change, basically.

I'm not dodging your questions, just that I rarely think of those things, but parts of the New Testament like the Sermon on the Mount, or the parable of the good Samaritan, or how Christ defended Mary Magdalene "let them cast the first stone who are themselves without sin" (a paraphrase!), these are the things that guide me, basically.

As in a lot of opera, I take the _highlights_ that I need, I don't need to know the whole thing by heart (& why should I, I'm no theologian - they have been debating your questions to me for centuries).


----------



## Couchie

Sid James said:


> ^^Man, that sounds almost like the enquiry in the house of un-American activities in the 1950's. Senator McCarthy & all that. "ARE YOU A COMMUNIST?" "Communism" defined by the prosecutor. Is that right?
> 
> Anyway, my reply is whimsical in a way.
> 
> I think that Christianity can be personally interpreted. I am same with Christianity as with anything. I take the big picture view. I won't quote passages for you from the Bible since I don't know it verse and chapter. I probably have the view of Christ as a great prophet and a role model on how to treat people. I think it's the human aspects, the community that is of most value to me. I think that it's more useful for me in this way than trying to fit a square peg into a round hole like the more dogmatic views of religion. The world has changed since 2000, let alone since 1 AD. So I am for adaptiveness and change, basically.
> 
> I'm not dodging your questions, just that I rarely think of those things, but parts of the New Testament like the Sermon on the Mount, or the parable of the good Samaritan, or how Christ defended Mary Magdalene "let them cast the first stone who are themselves without sin" (a paraphrase!), these are the things that guide me, basically.
> 
> As in a lot of opera, I take the _highlights_ that I need, I don't need to know the whole thing by heart (& why should I, I'm no theologian - they have been debating your questions to me for centuries).


Sounds like you are about as Christian as I am.


----------



## Cnote11

What is the point of calling yourself Christian, then? Can't you take those things from the Bible without actually defining yourself as Christian? I'm not really sure how Christianity can be personally interpreted. That is saying that your concept is higher than the word of God, which would be blasphemous. Sure, what you're saying can work, but only if you recogonise that there isn't an actual god of Christianity. Then that makes Christianity less "harmful", because there isn't any higher moral judgement attached to it and its validity of "superiority right" disappears, yeah?


----------



## Dodecaplex

In other words: it all boils down to self-interest.


----------



## Polednice

You sound very much like my partner, Sid. He's nominally Christian, but doesn't engage much with the the actually quite central theological issues. My argument, quite simply, is that there are more thoroughly argued, better conceived, secular philosophical and moral treatises that offer the same guidance as the Bible, and more, and yet don't come with the inevitable baggage of claims to divinity and moral absolutism. I have no problem with using the Bible as one of many texts to turn to for guidance, but I think that labelling oneself Christian if you don't believe in supernaturally ordained vicarious redemption is, at best, unhelpful.


----------



## Ukko

Dodecaplex said:


> In other words: it all boils down to self-interest.


Nope. _Cnotell_ makes several baseless assumptions about how _Sid_ must view Christianity in order to hold his views.


----------



## Dodecaplex

I don't understand. Cnote's response seems to follow directly from Sid's statements about Christianity. What are the baseless assumptions?


----------



## Cnote11

Uh, yeah Hilly, I'm rather confused about what assumptions I made about Sid...


----------



## Couchie

So am I, Hilltroll.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

Cnote11 said:


> *Why do people believe in religion?*


If only it had a chance of staying on this question...

But then, into the equation comes:


Cnote11 said:


> If you whitewash religion with secular values, what is the point of keeping the religion?


and


Polednice said:


> do you believe in the divinity of Jesus? Do you believe in miracles? Do you believe God has laid out rules by which we will be rewarded and punished? Do you think belief in each of these things is necessary to be a Christian? Or do you treat the Bible as a philosophical text and call yourself a Christian because you like Christ's ideas, while not believing he was actually resurrected?


and


Cnote11 said:


> What is the point of calling yourself Christian, then? Can't you take those things from the Bible without actually defining yourself as Christian?


... and we've alighted upon Mission Creep- emblematized.


----------



## Cnote11

It is a discussion. I was asking Sid about his viewpoint. Sid actually private messaged me about the last thread, as referenced by my opening post. How does a discussion go anywhere without follow up questions? How am I supposed to understand Sid Jame's viewpoint if I don't ask him about it? It is you who is placing personal judgement on those questions due to your assumptions about what those questions are for.


----------



## Sid James

People's questioning more liberal view of Christianity is common and probably logical. But I agree with Chi-townPhilly, I was just answering the OP's questions. I actually said to Couchie my aim is not to convert or undermine atheism or views different from my own. So cut back on the _Mission Creep _guys, as C-tp says.

It's funny as there's a very liberal reverend on radio here, he has a radio show. & when he says he supports things like gay marriage or refugees or Aboriginal rights or believes in evolution or is pro-choice, many people call him on the phone, which is broadcast on air (it's a talk-back radio show). He's actually more liberal than I am on some issues. & more conservative/dogmatic Christians say similar things to him what the gist of criticism of me is above - eg. you are not a _real _Christian. Stuff like that.

But then again, all kinds of people call this reverend to tell him what a great job he's doing - eg. with providing social services for the poor here - and also that they agree with him. Regardless of religion or whatever. So, actions do speak louder than words.

So it seems that liberal or more modern view Christians are stuck in the middle of the fundamentalist Christians and atheists (or more likely, those atheists who want us to be atheist, see that as logical, and what we are doing as not matching their logic). So piggy in the middle, falling between the two chairs kind of_ game._

But I think it's good in a way to be in the middle. I actually don't see any fence, as I've stated before. Let's get rid of these damned dogmatic fences and just emphasise the common things. & most importantly, don't assume things and assign useless labels to people.

I can understand people being put off by dogmatic forms of relgion, but that goes with anything. Here's the deal, the topic of this thread is not about converting people, it's a dialogue. So let's just go with that.


----------



## Cnote11

I feel quite offended with the accusation of "Mission creeping" when I ask you to clarify your viewpoint. I am the OP after all, so when you answer my question I'm going to ask about your answer. I'm not attempting to convert you, I'm asking you how your viewpoint works. 

Also, if you say it is probably logical to question it, the you say atheists should move more to the middle, are you then saying that we should go against logic in order to achieve some type of greater peace?


----------



## Dodecaplex

And Sid still hasn't addressed any of your questions properly. Makes me very sad.


----------



## Cnote11

I don't get this concept of my questions as if they are trying to bait people and I'm playing a game to prove they are wrong or something. I'm rather genuine with my questions.


----------



## Sid James

Cnote11 said:


> I feel quite offended with the accusation of "Mission creeping" when I ask you to clarify your viewpoint. I am the OP after all, so when you answer my question I'm going to ask about your answer. I'm not attempting to convert you, I'm asking you how your viewpoint works.
> 
> Also, if you say it is probably logical to question it, the you say atheists should move more to the middle, are you then saying that we should go against logic in order to achieve some type of greater peace?


Okay, well I just took _Mission Creep _on the fly. It's C-tp's expression, but what I take it to mean is to try and convert people to what one believes in.

As for clarifying my viewpoint, I have done several substantial posts on this thread. I answered your original question as best as I could.

As for moving to the middle, or emphasising common things as I say, it's not about convincing atheists or anyone. Great people in recent times are already doing this. I gave Reverend Martin Luther King as an example, I think he's a shining example. So what I'm saying is to take things we have in common that are already there and move forward together. But this is really an add-on to your question, it's a kind of extra thing I said to tie up my argument, not the body of my answer, if that makes sense.


----------



## Dodecaplex

Cnote11 said:


> I don't get this concept of my questions as if they are trying to bait people and I'm playing a game to prove they are wrong or something. I'm rather genuine with my questions.


That's what you claim on the outside. But on the inside, you're just like me.

Admit it


----------



## Cnote11

But you have to understand that Martin Luther King was fighting against discrimination by combating racists. In the same way, it is people combating widespread religious intolerance that is causing discrimination. Perhaps you can't relate because you're not from the United States, but people use their religion to justify their behavior on a large scale. I don't see how you can expect atheists to move towards the middle with "middle-ground Christians" when the middle-ground Christians enable such behavior here in America. That is why I can't understand your last sentiment. If you feel like you cannot answer my questions any further then I withdraw them. Thank you.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

Cnote11 said:


> I feel quite offended with the accusation of "Mission creeping" when I ask you to clarify your viewpoint. I am the OP after all, so when you answer my question I'm going to ask about your answer.


Offended that your motivation is laid bare?

The "clarification of... viewpoint" reads more like cross-examination of a hostile witness. I've seen a whole lot of threads like this in my time- so has Sid- we're both very experienced message-board participants- I don't think either one of us is misapprehending the implicit sub-text.:tiphat:


----------



## Dodecaplex

So what if it's like a cross-examination of a hostile witness? It still doesn't justify not answering the questions properly.


----------



## Sid James

Cnote11 said:


> But you have to understand that Martin Luther King was fighting against discrimination by combating racists. In the same way, it is people combating widespread religious intolerance that is causing discrimination. Perhaps you can't relate because you're not from the United States, but people use their religion to justify their behavior on a large scale. I don't see how you can expect atheists to move towards the middle with "middle-ground Christians" when the middle-ground Christians enable such behavior here in America. That is why I can't understand your last sentiment. If you feel like you cannot answer my questions any further then I withdraw them. Thank you.


I do not know the situation in the USA that well, obviously. I was giving Rev. Martin Luther King as an example because the whole world knows and remembers him. The fact is that at that time many people marched with him and took part in his peaceful protests which lead to positive change. It was not only a church movement but a broader social movement for social justice and change. It involved people who came together, it emphasised people coming together.

I don't want to comment on the present situation in America, eg. who are the more liberal Christians there & what they do and don't support. What I'm going off is the situation here, and there are a good deal of more liberal or modern Christians here, including reverends and church ministers, who are like the one I mentioned anecdotally doing the radio show & getting opposition from more dogmatic Christians. These people are doing good things, and seen by the wider community as doing good. Such people get flack from all sides, and especially what I'd call both extremes. Again, it's about what's going on here, not where you are.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

Dodecaplex said:


> So what if it's like a cross-examination of a hostile witness? It still doesn't justify not answering the questions properly.


I don't see it that way, Dode. You understand, the yoke's unequal: if a couple of people play "Inquisitor" and a lone figure plays the role of person in The Dock, it doesn't even have the pretense of a discussion conducted on equal footing, anymore.


----------



## Cnote11

Chi_townPhilly said:


> Offended that your motivation is laid bare?
> 
> The "clarification of... viewpoint" reads more like cross-examination of a hostile witness. I've seen a whole lot of threads like this in my time- so has Sid- we're both very experienced message-board participants- I don't think either one of us is misapprehending the implicit sub-text.:tiphat:


I believe you are. I'm pretty sure I know my intents better than you do. Your bias is blatantly obvious. So what if I ask my questions in an apparent "blunt" manner? You act like you can read my tone through my text. Seriously, get off your high horse. When Sid James said he couldn't answer my question further I withdrew them for a reason, you know? No need to be an insufferable prick about a discussion.


----------



## Dodecaplex

Chi_townPhilly said:


> I don't see it that way, Dode. You understand, the yoke's unequal: if a couple of people play "Inquisitor" and a lone figure plays the role of person in The Dock, it doesn't even have the pretense of a discussion conducted on equal footing, anymore.


Irrelevant. If Sid could justify his position, it wouldn't matter how many inquisitors there were. He could have easily demolished us all with one thorough post.


----------



## Cnote11

You miss the part where I wasn't playing the role of an "Inquisitor". No wonder the Christians here have such a bloody persecution complex. Seriously paranoid, you people. I didn't know a few questions about a viewpoint I don't quite understand is considered attacking it. Why are people afraid of a couple of questions?


----------



## Dodecaplex

Yes, but even if you were the inquisitor, so what?


----------



## Sid James

Dodecaplex said:


> Irrelevant. If Sid could justify his position, it wouldn't matter how many inquisitors there were. He could have easily demolished us all with one thorough post.


My aim is not to demolish this topic, I am not a wrecking ball. As I said, it's a dialogue. But I can't win, nobody can win this _game_. It's carrot and stick. Us versus them. That kind of thing. Which as I said, doesn't match how I see things, but who cares? Let's just play labelling games, prejudge people, etc. Seriously, playing _pin the tail on the donkey _would be more productive, imo.

So I'll take my leave of here as well. _Ain't no use _as the song goes.


----------



## starthrower

What Sid mentioned concerning like minded people coming together is related to the Latin meaning of religion, to bind together.

There is a Christian hymn, Bind Us Together, Oh Lord. My father, who is a bit of a joker, used to make fun of this tune as it reminded him of constipation!


----------



## graaf

There's a persistent type of forum posters that want to walk the thin line of not offending religious people and at the same time not being seen as "too religious". If the behaviour described sounds spineless - it's because it is spineless. Obviously, we can't go around asking or even pressuring people to confess (let alone prove) their belief or their atheism, but we can ask (in a very straightforward fashion) those same things anyone who decided to take part in a discussion about it. It's not like anyone is dragged into this thread; once you are here, we'd like to hear where you stand. And avoidance of the clear answer is something I happen to have little respect for. Calling it whimsical (the term already overused) does not change the avoidance part of it.

I do understand that some people are not clear about their stances. Some people didn't give it any thought - they are as they were raised (this can apply both to believers and atheists). The more important the question is in our society, it would be more and more practical to reconsider where do we stand on it, like with any other social issue - more or less immigration, more or less corporatization, more or less social benefits, etc.

For some people (Polednice, I would guess), religious sentiment in the society seems to have a lot of influence on the way he will be able to conduct his life, for others it might not be important at all, but in a discussion in which we are all "self-invited", clear answers to clear questions should be a bare minimum.

PS
All of this reminds me of the misuse of the term "agnostic". When people are reluctant to answer whether they believe in God or not, they sometimes try to cope out by saying they are agnostics, without realizing that agnostic can be both believer and atheist. Agnostic is simply the person who states that question of God's existence can never be answered - that we are fundamentally unable to answer it. Some believers say the same thing - that we can't know God (some og them might add "in this life"). Many atheists also are agnostics; I, for example, happen to think that the idea of God is so ill defined that its existance is not provable nor falsifiable (as Wolfgang Pauli used to say "It is not even wrong"), and for that reason alone it can never be answered.


----------



## Polednice

Chi_townPhilly said:


> If only it had a chance of staying on this question...
> 
> But then, into the equation comes:andand... and we've alighted upon Mission Creep- emblematized.


I actually cannot believe that even you would find my honest questioning of the details of Sid's beliefs objectionable. That is really quite silly.


----------



## Polednice

Chi_townPhilly said:


> Offended that your motivation is laid bare?
> 
> The "clarification of... viewpoint" reads more like cross-examination of a hostile witness. I've seen a whole lot of threads like this in my time- so has Sid- we're both very experienced message-board participants- I don't think either one of us is misapprehending the implicit sub-text.:tiphat:


I've managed to read the rest of the thread now, and I can't conclude anything but that the thread was fine until you came along and started making accusations about people's implicit motives. You can't _know_ with certainty why Cnote, I, or anyone else is asking the questions we ask, and you have no right to declare your assumptions with authority as though you can see into our souls. I utterly resent and reject the accusation that I'm trying to subtly convert Sid to my way of thinking with my questions. I mean, for goodness' sake, I already pointed out that my _partner_ has pretty much the same opinion as Sid - I have _respect_ for that position, and I was trying to understand it a little better. Do you think perhaps you could give all members an equal chance, and equal opportunity for not being jumped on if you don't like their opinion?


----------



## kv466

Faith alone won't sustain us anymore.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

*A Metaphor*

Q: I know this fun game we can play.
C: Really? How does it go?
Q: I'll tell you in a bit- but first... I couldn't help noticing your house. It looks really interesting.
C: You think so!? Thanks! I can't say it's for everybody... but it's served me pretty well over the years. Like me, it's been around and seen some things. Weathered more than a few storms. Even held firm during that hurricane three years back- and that earthquake not long ago.
Q: Yeah... but how good is it, really?- which gets me back to the point of this game.
C: All right then- how do we play?
Q: Well- you see that corner over there? The spot where it looks like it could use a little tuck-pointing? I'd like to train a couple of sledgehammers on it- you know- to see if it's really all right. And that spot on the roof where you can see the tar-paper coming out from under the shingle? Let's hit it with a couple of oxy-acetylene torches. If your abode sustains no further damage, you _win_.
C: I don't think I'll like this game...


----------



## graaf

Q: I know this fun game we can play.
C: Really? How does it go?
Q: I'll tell you in a bit- but first... I couldn't help noticing your house. It looks really interesting.
C: You think so!? Thanks! I know not everybody wants to live in it... but the people that refuse it will have to live for eternity in a fiery basement with no hope of leaving, while we will sunbath in penthouse.
Q: Really? Where did you get that? Was it written on the wall of the house?
C: Yeah, written by the very people who built it.
Q: Well, wasn't that about 2000 years ago?
C: Yeah, prety much.
Q: You see, after 2000 years, some parts of the house are not as stable as they used to be. For example, your roof is kinda loose and it might fall off at any time.
C: Really? Well, it is still my house and I like it.
Q: Sure thing, but you see, it might fall on the house of those neighbours of yours, and damage it.
C: Which ones? Those two guys living together in the house next to mine?
Q: Yeah, those two.
C: Well, even if it does, what does it matter, they are already doomed to eternity in fiery basement by not living in my house - which is open to all.
Q: I respect that, but they kind of like it in their house, they are just that way I guess... So, would you consider fixing your roof again?
C: You know what? That's just insulting. Just because people had few millenia of progress in building houses does not mean that my house needs fixing!
Q: Even if it means endangering others with it?
C: Hey! I'm the one playing victim card here!
Q: So I guess that there's no way of explaining to you that they are the victims in this particular case? I mean, with a small roof fixing, your house can be as beautiful as it was, but it would mean your neighbours a lot. After all, in all honesty, it wouldn't be the first repair done, now would it?
C: How dare you - that's even more insulting! My house was never repaired!
Q: But come on - they didn't have iron in the bronze age, did they?
C: OK, I had enough of this conversation. [enters house, slams the door]
Q: [shrugs his shoulders]


----------



## Guest

kv466 said:


> Faith alone won't sustain us anymore.


Ah, I used to listen to Bad Religion all the time until I became a classical music nut. I have a soft spot for punks with Ph.D.'s (Greg Graffin of Bad Religion and Milo from the Descendents).


----------



## regressivetransphobe

DrMike said:


> Ah, I used to listen to Bad Religion all the time until I became a classical music nut. I have a soft spot for punks with Ph.D.'s (Greg Graffin of Bad Religion and Milo from the Descendents).


believe it or not, the guy who wrote this has one too:


----------



## science

I'm on both sides of this issue because intellectually I'm an atheist/agnostic, but emotionally I'm a Christian.

Intellectually, I am utterly unaware of anything even close to a very convincing for any _particular_ religious tradition; though "God" or gods/spirits/"the supernatural" in the abstract has at least a few things going for it, it isn't persuasive to me.

But if you have ever been in love, you know it's not the kind of thing subject to rational analysis, and I have been in love with (one version of) the God revealed in Christ, and I have never gotten over it. I deeply, strongly wish it were true, and if I could make it true, I would, at any cost.


----------



## science

science said:


> I'm on both sides of this issue because intellectually I'm an atheist/agnostic, but emotionally I'm a Christian.
> 
> Intellectually, I am utterly unaware of anything even close to a very convincing for any _particular_ religious tradition; though "God" or gods/spirits/"the supernatural" in the abstract has at least a few things going for it, it isn't persuasive to me.
> 
> But if you have ever been in love, you know it's not the kind of thing subject to rational analysis, and I have been in love with (one version of) the God revealed in Christ, and I have never gotten over it. I deeply, strongly wish it were true, and if I could make it true, I would, at any cost.


Following that up, if you'll indulge me a bit:

Add on the psychological, emotional benefits of a strong community, frequent reminders of a inspiring ethical ideal, dramatic liturgy and music - and it is plain to me that the only, only, only things atheism has going for it are the fact that it is intellectually almost unassailable and the fact that horrible things are often done at least in the name of if not inspired by religion.

But on the first point, who can live a purely intellectual life? We are only somewhat intellectual creatures; for a psychological healthy person the much higher priority (consciously, semi- or sub-consciously) must be community.

And on the second, who can completely avoid association with all blood-stained institutions? I think the only way to do so is hermitry, which is unnatural.* But the key point here is the "sin" of pride: sure, there's a ton of spilled blood there, and beside the occasional genocidal wars against foreigners there were peasants and serfs systematically oppressed by the machinery of an exploitative state legitimized by the religion for the benefit of the rulers--and it is just a-rearin' to get a-goin' again if the elite of the world can figure out how to dupe or force the rest of us into it.

But frankly, I'm not such a great saint that I can stand in judgment of, say, the Eastern Orthodox Churches. I was born on land taken barely a century earlier by force and in blatant violation of previous treaties. God alone _might_ know all the ways I've benefitted from the oil taken out of, say, Saudi Arabia, at the cost of the systematic oppression etc. of its people. And from hour to hour in the course of a day, what good do I do the world? The closest I get to a good deed is sending money.

No, I am in no place to judge the Church (or just about any other significant religious organization, community or tradition) - I need its judgment more than it needs mine. Its judgment, like God's, may well do me good; whereas I have little or nothing of value to contribute to it. (Strange that Christians so often treat the judgment of a God that is supposed to be LOVE as if the judgment were a thing they should fear rather than seek: shows what they _really_ think about their God.)

The conclusion of the whole matter is that I'm looking for a way to be Christian without "faith." Of course this is taking "faith" in its common modern English usage, as intellectual assent to dogma, rather than in its Biblical sense as "trust"/"solidarity." But even if we take it to mean "trust," I don't think I can get that far. I have to find a way to be a Christian of hope alone. Besides hopefully getting me on the good side of the mods here, it will probably be better for me as a person.

*(A good line from Aristotle's _Politics_ for those of you who like to throw such things around: "Man is a political animal." In the polis-centered world of ancient Greece, "Man is a social animal" would be a pretty good paraphrase, if not a better translation. A very good line: a man "who has no need [to live in a polis/society] because he is sufficient for himself, must be either a beast or a god.")


----------



## PetrB

Dodecaplex said:


> Ethics And Aesthetics
> 
> One and the Same


You really cannot go making up your own definitions when already clear ones are commonly understood and in general usage. May as well, to exaggerate the import of your statement, make up one's own language and expect people to understand it / you


----------



## samurai

@ Science, As a non-practicing and non-observant {obviously} Jew, I think I know exactly about what you speak and struggle with; I think both of us--as are many others, I'm sure-- more interested in and concerned with the positive, life-affirming aspects/values of their religions than with the "Holier than Thou" pronouncements and mumbo-jumbo of arcane rites and ceremonies. I think it is the latter aspects of* all *religions which has caused--and will continue to cause--so much strife and bloodshed in the world, as there will always be the "unbelievers" {defined as anyone who doesn't believe in the same faith or way of worshipping "God" as our group does}. I, too, consider myself to be an atheist, but with a strong core of Judeo-Christian* secular *values underpinning my philosophy and outlook on life. :angel:


----------



## Dodecaplex

That's good enough for you geezers, but for us whippersnappers, we require answers. And, unlike you guys, we haven't given up on the great questions yet. Our curiosity and imagination provide us with the powerful energy of youth.



And to post on the internet is to be at war. So don't fire unless you're prepared to be fired at.


----------



## mamascarlatti

Dodecaplex said:


> And to post on the internet *is to be at war*. So don't fire unless you're prepared to be fired at.


Not on this forum it isn't.

Please note the new guidelines for the community forum.



> Any/All discussions about Politics or Religion are best suited for the Social Groups as opposed to the open boards and is strongly encouraged.
> 
> Members can create their own Social Group. If you need assistance, please contact a staff member via Private Message.


If you want a war, take it to the social groups.


----------



## Dodecaplex

I hope you know that no one cares about or visits the groups anymore. Furthermore, you have exterminated all the passion and vigor that made these controversial threads so artistic and beautiful. 



What, pray tell, do you have against the passion?


----------



## mamascarlatti

Here's the deal. This is a classical music forum. It was created by its owner as a forum to discuss music. It is not a politics and religion forum. If he'd wanted to set up and pay for one of those, presumably he would have. However there are plenty of other fora on the internet where you could discuss these subjects to your heart's content.

So whether people visit the groups is not really relevant to this discussion.

And rather than passion and vigour, what I've been seeing recently is vulgarity, boorishness and deliberate provocation.


----------



## Krummhorn

Dodecaplex said:


> I hope you know that no one cares about or visits the groups anymore. Furthermore, you have exterminated all the passion and vigor that made these controversial threads so artistic and beautiful.


They can be artistic and beautiful ... but not here ... they always get ugly and result in tempers getting heated, people offended, complaints running rampant, infractions being issued, and finally the threads getting locked down, posts deleted and such. People have left this forum because of those threads and that is not acceptable. When we get complaints, it causes grief for everyone, including the forum staff. Infracting members is the last thing any of us want to do ... but when the lines are crossed, and the rules are broken, it backs us into a corner and we must take action.

There are over a quarter million other forums for discussing religion and politics, many of which are totally un-moderated and have lots of "passion" within _*their*_ walls. That is *their* forte ... that is _*their*_ passion ... it is not our forte or passion. I doubt seriously that all of those 250k+ forums have heated discussions about Classical music.

Our "forte" and "passion" is to talk about Classical music ... hence its name ... That's what we do best here, and we do that very well. So well, in fact, that we are one of the most respected classical music discussion forums on the entire internet ... and it's going to stay that way.

As for people not "caring" or "visiting" the groups anymore ... that is their choice ... they are the ones losing out on the opportunity to chat all they want about "passionate" and/or "artistic" topics without being routinely watched by the mod team ... that is unless we are called in, at which point we will take actions to enforce the forum rules. The rules apply to all areas of the forum ... Private Messaging, Visitor Messaging, Profiles, Social Groups, Albums, Blogs, Threads and Posts.

As for the rules here ... every member agreed to abide by them when they registered. The opening screen for new registrations reads thus:

_"Registration to this forum is free! We do insist that you abide by the rules and policies detailed below. If you agree to the terms, please check the 'I agree' checkbox and press the 'Complete Registration' button below. If you would like to cancel the registration, click here to return to the forums index."_

Further, on the same page the words after the "I agree checkbox" reads thus:
_
"I have read, and agree to abide by the Classical Music Forums - Talk Classical rules."_

There is nothing more to say.


----------



## Sid James

I am just honest and I get showered with mudballs. Pays not to be honest, not to open up the armour a bit. Not talk directly but in riddles and offer pseudo intellectual jargon and psychobabble. Not talk about yourself but theorise about how the world is and shut others out.

There are so many things about me people don't know, yet you still generalise. It's very sad if people get their kicks from this sort of thing.

I can avoid what I want, but at least I don't insult people. I used the word whimsical in relation to music most of the times, graaf. Another cheap point, you win, I lose.

I had nothing to do with cnote's banning. Nothing whatsoever, I did not complain to the mods about him or anything like that.

Yes, better to leave this sort of thing to the groups. Which I don't participate in.


----------



## Dodecaplex

@Krummhorn

Nonsense, the community forum is for anything and everything, as long as the thing doesn't cross the vulgarity line. This thread was going perfectly fine until Chitown decided to disturb the peace. And why did he do that? Just so that Sid James wouldn't have to admit how false and illogical his viewpoint is.

And this is precisely how irrationality persists. You just ignore it and move on with your dinner.

Really, why would you destroy such a beautiful thread?


----------



## Dodecaplex

Sid James said:


> I am just honest and I get showered with mudballs. Pays not to be honest, not to open up the armour a bit. Not talk directly but in riddles and offer pseudo intellectual jargon and psychobabble. Not talk about yourself but theorise about how the world is and shut others out.
> 
> There are so many things about me people don't know, yet you still generalise. It's very sad if people get their kicks from this sort of thing.
> 
> I can avoid what I want, but at least I don't insult people. I used the word whimsical in relation to music most of the times, graaf. Another cheap point, you win, I lose.


We feel so sorry for you, since you've had to go through such unbearable trauma. Please forgive us.


----------



## Ukko

Dodecaplex said:


> That's good enough for you geezers, but for us whippersnappers, we require answers. And, unlike you guys, we haven't given up on the great questions yet. Our curiosity and imagination provide us with the powerful energy of youth.
> [...]


We geezers have learned the answers to the Great Questions, and are willing to pass them on to you. The problem is, you whippersnappers don't know the Great Questions. You do know a lot of Dumb Questions...


----------



## Philip

Dodecaplex said:


> @Authority
> 
> Nonsense,


I'd pay to see you in basic training.


----------



## Vaneyes

Why do people believe in religion?

Keeps them out of trouble?


----------



## Krummhorn

Dodecaplex said:


> @Krummhorn
> 
> Nonsense, the community forum is for anything and everything . . .


Nope ... not "anything" and "everything". Kindly remember that we are all guests of Frederik Magle, the site owner, and he can run this forum any way he so pleases, including what to limit topics to be discussed, after all, he's the one footing all the expenses of this forum out of his own pocket without any other financial aid.



mamascarlatti said:


> Here's the deal. This is a classical music forum. It was created by its owner as a forum to discuss music. It is not a politics and religion forum. If he'd wanted to set up and pay for one of those, presumably he would have. However there are plenty of other fora on the internet where you could discuss these subjects to your heart's content.


Exactly ... If one wishes to have the freedom of having "anything" and "everything", they are encouraged to create their own forum site and run it as they so choose.

As said before, there are several hundred thousand other forums to discuss politics and religion ... that is *their* forte ... that is _*their*_ passion ... it is not _*our*_ forte or passion, nor desire to promote as a site that was created specifically and dedicated to Classical Music discussions. The Community Forum was designed for those fun, and not so serious topics.


----------



## Badinerie

Yeah...play nice....I come here because I like classical and Opera Music because its free of Religious influence and controversy....


----------



## PetrB

Dodecaplex said:


> That's good enough for you geezers, but for us whippersnappers, we require answers. And, unlike you guys, we haven't given up on the great questions yet. Our curiosity and imagination provide us with the powerful energy of youth.
> 
> And to post on the internet is to be at war. So don't fire unless you're prepared to be fired at.


Us old whippersnappers haven't given up, become jaded or anything else. We recognize a sophomoric completely never answerable question about faith and know that by its very nature "Faith" excludes logic or scientific proof, which is why it is called 'Faith.' Religions are based on faith - believing in something which is neither tangible or provable.

Whippersnappers have figured out where, and with what, to spend our time more efficiently and practically, like in actually pondering upon and solving questions and problems not yet solved which are likely, 'solvable.'

Your youthful banner and rally cry is echoed by every generation of teens and twenty-somethings, until they one day have that satori where they recognize some abstract things, including questions on illogical unscientific faith, are forever unaddressable and insolvable, a brick wall that will leave your forehead bloody if you keep beating that tattoo, and with no medals forthcoming or awarded.

Sorry to 'one-up you,' but really, your egocentric view that because you are a teen you are superior to all others not a teen is hubris-like, and pretty intolerably arrogant.

_"And to post on the internet is to be at war. So don't fire unless you're prepared to be fired at."__* ... as trendy, fashionable, meaningless and silly as skinny jeans *_


----------



## Sid James

Badinerie said:


> Yeah...play nice....I come here because I like classical and Opera Music because its free of Religious influence and controversy....


Yep, and it's the last time I foolishly wade into a quagmire like this. It's like quicksand. The more you go in, the more you try to get out, you're sucked down. Even in matters of controversy related to music on this forum that's the case, but in matters like politics, religion, morality, etc. it's many times worse. So I'll just stick to music from now on, politics and all that are largely divisive and we go back to the tribal mentality. Everyone has to conform and be part of a certain warring faction. Well stuff that.


----------



## Sid James

PetrB said:


> Us old whippersnappers haven't given up, become jaded or anything else. We recognize a sophomoric completely never answerable question about faith and know that by its very nature "Faith" excludes logic or scientific proof, which is why it is called 'Faith.' Religions are based on faith - believing in something which is neither tangible or provable.
> ...


You are brave to say that. I get some flack in the real world for saying what I think, even though I'm a moderate. I have copped flack, and of course insults like "what you believe is fairy stories." That kind of thing. Similar has happened on this site. So I think people can understand how someone might be reluctant to answer certain questions directly. Then you get showered with more mudslinging. Even if you don't want to convert anybody. Thanks but no thanks.


----------



## PetrB

Sid James said:


> You are brave to say that. I get some flack in the real world for saying what I think, even though I'm a moderate. I have copped flack, and of course insults like "what you believe is fairy stories." That kind of thing. Similar has happened on this site. So I think people can understand how someone might be reluctant to answer certain questions directly. Then you get showered with more mudslinging. Even if you don't want to convert anybody. Thanks but no thanks.


I don't think it is brave: I have a perhaps unfortunate ability to clearly remember I was not always the way I now am, including some of those 'earlier phases' where I was certain I knew it all - lol.

At times, people gave me good and blunt advice, comments as to 'how I was carrying myself,' or advice on other interpersonal dynamics. Some of that was understood immediately and became of continual benefit. Some of it was the sort of advice which echoed in my mind as having being told to me five years earlier -- only when in the midst of a situation five years later when 'It all came clear.' Those were the moments when I would recall, 'that person five years ago was right!."

I see it just as if you told someone they were walking into the path of an oncoming bus - a sort of civic duty. In this case it is the oncoming 'silly bus.' Whether the walker listens and avoids getting hit by the bus, or exercises their free will and continues to walk and get struck down by the silly bus is not the point.

A tiny bit brave but no hero. You have to allow for free will, stubbornness, and let the person do what they will - including getting smacked down by the silly bus. I'm simply paying forward what was given me, expecting similar 'results,' including none at all or results much later than this one moment.

If your memory is good I'm sure you recall walking in front of that bus once or twice and surviving - no harm in someone shouting out a warning though. The rest is up to the party walking into the path of that oncoming bus.


----------



## Dodecaplex

PetrB said:


> Us old whippersnappers haven't given up, become jaded or anything else. We recognize a sophomoric completely never answerable question about faith and know that by its very nature "Faith" excludes logic or scientific proof, which is why it is called 'Faith.' Religions are based on faith - believing in something which is neither tangible or provable.
> 
> Whippersnappers have figured out where, and with what, to spend our time more efficiently and practically, like in actually pondering upon and solving questions and problems not yet solved which are likely, 'solvable.'
> 
> Your youthful banner and rally cry is echoed by every generation of teens and twenty-somethings, until they one day have that satori where they recognize some abstract things, including questions on illogical unscientific faith, are forever unaddressable and insolvable, a brick wall that will leave your forehead bloody if you keep beating that tattoo, and with no medals forthcoming or awarded.


Yeah, that's precisely what Wittgenstein said, until he found out that he was completely wrong. And, just like him, you are wrong too. It's just that you're unfortunately too old and decrepit now to get the little gray cells to work.

Also, it is the case that every idea will eventually be falsified, including this idea.


----------



## Sid James

PetrB said:


> ...
> 
> At times, people gave me good and blunt advice, comments as to 'how I was carrying myself,' or advice on other interpersonal dynamics. Some of that was understood immediately, and was of lifelong benefit.
> 
> ...


I agree, only thing is that I usually only give advice if it's asked for. & try to put it less blunt but still direct & not get too emotional (very hard at times).



> ...Some of it was the sort of advice which echoed in my mind as having being told to me five years earlier, only when in the midst of a situation five years later where 'It all came clear.' Those were the moments when I would recall, 'that person five years ago was right!."...


Been there, done that, many times. Hindsight. I guess if many people say about the same thing to you, approximating the same sort of advice, it's good to think about that at least.

But humans are most resistant to one thing, a big thing - CHANGE.


----------



## Dodecaplex

Oh, how cute - the geriatrics are comforting each other.


----------



## mamascarlatti

This thread is now closed.


----------

