Is christianity, or religion in general, a belief of convinience?

To Yaro:Interesting case you have there, Yaro, though far from uncommon.In a case like this, it is generally advisable not to debate religion/evolution/genesis/etc. with friends. Faith is a touchy topic, and while some don't see what all the fuss is about, others devote their entire lives into it.Personally, I see religion as a tool for life: Some people use it to get through life, others don't. Some people will tell you that your life is more fulfilled with faith; others will inform you that your life can be meaningful if you simply live the best life you can. In general, I have no qualms with one type of people or another.The only time when religion irates me is when believers insist on their religion being the "only truth", and arrogantly define the world according to their faith, irrespective of what the rest of the world says or what evidence around them shows.And also, consider this: you would be thanking all the christians in your friend's life if she ever became suicidal and faith in a hypothetical God became her only reason for living. I guess you would be less hostile towards her faith then, yes? ^_'Patiently awaiting your reply.

---

"Respect is like money, it can only be earned. When it is given, it becomes pittance"

To Yaro:Thank you for your reply.Reply to your post:I understand exactly where you're coming from. However, you may notice that some people are happier with a closed mind than an open one. After all, ignorance IS bliss.Surely you've heard of Karl Marx's description of religion as the "opium of the people". To me, it appears that you are thinking from the same perspective - that religion makes you calmly euphoric, safe from challenges and critical thinking about some of the big questions in life. It creates a sense of false security, and buffers the will against hardship through the help of an imaginary, all powerful paternal figure.I share your disapproval of Christian literalist. Yet I constantly have to remind myself that for some people out there, the pains of life is simply too great to bear. Remember that religion is an analgesic that strips you of independent thought while injecting you full of purpose. Some people's lives are just so deficient in purpose that religion fills the hole perfectly.To me, life is a pursuit of happiness. If some people are happy to imagine themselves as slaves to an imaginary father figure, more power to them. Ignorance is not a crime.Returning to your question: you've found that your friend has changed and doesn't challenge herself anymore. To this I ask: yould you prefer your friend to be happy, or to be self-challenging?Another question: It is obvious that the challenge of existing thinking results in innovation and (in some cases) enlightenment. Yet who is to say that challenges are "good"? If your friend takes "happy pills" that are free, makes her happy, has no adverse physical side-effects, but closes her mind to intellectual challenges, who are you to stop her from taking them?I welcome your perspective. Patiently awaiting your reply.

---

"Respect is like money, it can only be earned. When it is given, it becomes pittance"

To contracycle:Thank you for your reply.Reply to your post: Just as a state of drug-induced euphoria or hallucination provides a mean for escape from the unpleasantness of heartache, hardships and disappointment in the real world.The flaw in this comparison (religion vs. opiates) is that consumption of opiates almost always lead to a worse outcome, thus it fails to acknowledge the positives that could emerge out of religion. Is this the point you are making? Oh, but I am not contesting that. If your next point is: "So with religion, you can justify/rationalise anything you do by claiming that your actions are moral and consistent with the teachings of your faith." then I would besiege you to read the "Satan/Lucifer is...bad?" thread - where I challenged the concept of spiritual morality.Of course it is very easy to use religion for self-rationalisation. Yet I am suggesting that in reality, some people live more happily (though perhaps NOT more meaningfully) when they can indulge in the "security" that religion provides. I am not saying that it is a "good" way of living life, but if they enjoy it and their behaviours don't bother me, who am I to argue?Patiently awaiting your reply.

---

"Respect is like money, it can only be earned. When it is given, it becomes pittance"

To mike_the_wiz:Thank you for your reply.Reply to your post:It gives me great pains to see that you're still trying to debate with me. Every single time we have debated in the past, you have ran away from the thread, ignoring posts and sometimes formulated childish remarks. I have two threads currently awaiting your reply, but I believe you will simply ignore my refutation of your points and continue spreading your unsupported assertions and refuted arguments wherever you go. I am very confident that you will do the same on this thread.Yet I will humour you with a reply because I am bored. Bible literists are ignorant of the intrinsic ambiguity and contradictions that accompany a literal reading of the bible.But I AM (somewhat) ignorant of the bible, and I have never contested that. What IS your point? faith ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fth)n.1) Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2) Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief. See Synonyms at trust.
3) Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
4) often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
5) The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
6) A set of principles or beliefs.Right. And faith is not religious.You know what, I don't consider my dog a "dog" because he doesn't eat dog biscuits. Instead, I consider him a constituent of the canine family, and I believe that this is a much more accurate portrail of what he is.*sigh* Well no. I disapprove of extremists more so than Christian literists. What's your point?I prefer to eat mouldy fruits rather than maggoty meat. So now mouldy fruits are fine cuisines? Give me a break! Use the word "tolerate" with care. I hope you know its meaning by now. Now THIS is a gem. Consider:We have 2 restarunts - the first charges high prices but serves poor quality food and provides poor quality services, while the second restarunt serves dog excrements.Which do you think would be given more criticism from a foodie magazine?The answer is the first one.The reason is because people simply do not recognise the second establishment as a restarunt, and so they will ignore it completely instead of criticising it.Patiently awaiting your reply.

---

"Respect is like money, it can only be earned. When it is given, it becomes pittance"

To schrafinator:Thank you for your reply.Reply to your post: Ahhhhh....yes. I agree with your perspective to a degree. From a personal basis, I don't view religion as a "good" way of approaching life because of the reasons you have outlined. Yet I believe that I would be overstepping my boundaries should I criticise how someone else conduct their lives.Some people are addicted to the internet, others to cigarettes, others to alcohol. None of them are breaking the law, all of them are conducting their lives in ways I do not approve of. Yet they are obviously enjoying themselves and not affecting me, so who am I to argue?If we want to take things one step further, some people indulge in the security provided by physical strength, others in wealth, still others in power. None of these obsessions are particularly "healthy", yet they are all accepted in the society. Oh I don't know about that. Fundamentalists tend to question why the world is not running their way A LOT ^_^. But I understand what you mean. They carry on in life accepting no new information, and unquestioningly conduct life as prescribed by a book written over 2000 years ago. This is sad, to say the least. Perhaps. But again, some people believe that power and money are the answers to their every problems (no ambiguity). Who are we to tell them otherwise? Well, in the way they treat others, I would agree. In the sense that they vote and purchase, I would have to withhold my judgment. Afterall, the things I consume and the way I vote may seem stupid to others. And large corporations always support political parties which give them the greatest material gains. If we are to criticise religion based on how it affects its followers, and in turn affect the government or the economy, then I would say that we are taking it a bit too far.Patiently awaiting your reply.

---

"Respect is like money, it can only be earned. When it is given, it becomes pittance"

To Hangdawg13:Thank you for your reply.Reply to your post: Where does God come from? How was the universe made? Why did God create Satan/evil? Why is the bible contradictory? Where is Heaven? Where is Hell? Do stillborns go directly to Heaven? Why is Adam and Eve's sin passed on to me? Why did God smite all those people why died in the great flood even though He must know full well that they would become sinful when he created them? Why did God create cancer?Ask your pastor the above questions and you'll see how thoughts are discouraged in Christianity. Personally speaking, I observed that the atheist and agnostic positions are usually taken as a conclusion by people who have studied some religious teachings. To blatantly declare that something cannot exist without valid thoughts, reasonings or research would be indulging in ignorance, and this is shunted regardless of what position you take. To unquestioningly accept a premise without valid reasonings, research and evidence is gullible, regardless of what position you take. Christians tend to bring this up a lot.To me, no one's thinking is valid or everyone's thinking is valid. Take your pick.The only times when we would ever be in conflict would be when: 1)you tell me that I'm going to hell because I don't share your thinking, or 2) if you actively force me to accept you thinking as my own, or 3) if you prohibit me from pursuing what I think is right or enjoy doing , even though it doesn't affect you or anyone/anything else. Well, this IS the basic premise. I think therefore I am. How basic can you get? So be it:Death is meaningful.Death is a dreadfully effective tool for eliminating the existence of those who cannot sustain themselves in this world. This achieves the purpose of reallocating resources to organisms which can better make use of them and proliferate.Patiently awaiting your reply.

---

"Respect is like money, it can only be earned. When it is given, it becomes pittance"

To schrafinator:Thank you for your reply.Reply to your post:By the internet/alcohol/cigarette examples, I was attempting to highlight the fact that obsessions CAN exist with no dire consequences for other people. It has always been my philosophy that everyone should be tolerant of other people's beliefs, as long as they do not affect them.Your point about being subjected to second-hand smoke is a valid one, but you have to concede that it is possible for courteous smokers to NOT leave ash and butts lying around or to refrain from smoking in your vicinity. The fact that some smokers (or most, if you like) are rude, insensitive morons does not mean that smoking should be banned.Smoking and indulging in alcohol are not healthy activities to engage in, but neither is over-eating or not exercising - but these activities are not penalised with respect to health care cover applications.All in all, I believe that religion is a choice that people have the rights to make without my criticism - as long as they refrain from bothering me and everyone/everything else. When they over-step their boundary, I believe they're fair game. Well, the situation is USA is actually that they/you have elected a president who is, in my humble opinion, a moron. It matters not where he got his ideas from. A president can be a devout Muslim or Christian Fundamentalist or a Satanist or Atheist. But he/she can STILL be a good president by intellectually separating what's good for the nation from his/her own personal values. The fact that Bush was unable to do so is an obvious lacking on his part, and this is perhaps (I believe) not necessarily reflective of Christian Fundamentalism.Of course, you may advance the argument that Bush was unable to separate his own religious values from his job BECAUSE of the nature of his religion, yet I'm not sure if you're going to take that step.Patiently awaiting your reply.

---

"Respect is like money, it can only be earned. When it is given, it becomes pittance"

To Mike_King:Thank you for your reply.Reply to your post:You seem to be knowledgable in the realms of Christian doctrines, so I hope that you would be able to elaborate on your answers to my questions - to be read with reference to your post:1) So...we're going to leave it at that? No one knows. Period? That's not very thought-provoking...2) Why is science finding out how God made the universe as opposed to finding out how the universe materialised or came into existence? If we can find out how God made the universe, can't we then in turn find out how God was "made"?3) Not so. God being omniscience must have foreseen the rebellion of Satan when He made Lucifer. This implies that God created Lucifer with Satan in mind.4) These are...claims? Assertions? Where did you get this from?5) Noooo...what about origninal sin?6) Your explanation is a non-sequitur to my question.7) But God's omniscience must have foreseen man's fall into the abyss of wickedness PRIOR to the creation of humanity. Sounds to me like God made human just so that He can kill them.8) Again, a non-sequitur to my question.I am happy for your mother's "miraculous recovery" (pun intended), but your answers disappoint me. Some of them fail to address the question, while others imply an inconsistent Christian God.Patiently awaiting your reply.

---

"Respect is like money, it can only be earned. When it is given, it becomes pittance"

To Hangdawg13:Thank you for your reply.Reply to your post: Au contrare. Please read my reply to his post. Why wouldn't you want to know the answers to the those questions? Why would your pastor be annoyed with answering them? Doesn't this demonstrate Yaro's point about Christianity inhibiting critical thinking? Philosophy does not assume that there is a perfect model or reasoning to solve any problems. All "thinkings" are flawed, to some extend. It's just that Christians are unable to grasp this concept and apply it to their own religion.A line of thinking is "accepted" or used if it is presented as the least flawed of those presented, after strigent debates and aggresive discussions. Sometimes, two or more theories may possess comparable merits and that's where dilemmas enter stage.In answer to you, nothing in debates is assumed to be perfectly valid - just relatively. That has always been the case. Consider the Amish community. And the problem with that is....? You know the good thing about societies? If you don't like one, go to another! Riiight....and saying that you are correct about anything is the secondary sin of flamboyance by my books (this is a joke). By the way, the definition of "atheism" does not include "placing all the trust on yourself".Coincidentally, my philosophy DOES place all my trust on myself, and I'm technically not an atheist. (Side note: I think many atheists share my philosophy but do not know it). Wahahahahahahaha......you asked for an example of "meaningful" by my standards. I give you one of many concepts I deem meaningful, and you generalise my entire purpose in life as the pursuit of this one concept?Friendly advice: next time, don't dive in the deep end so quickly. You run the risk of making yourself look foolish.Patiently awaiting your reply.

---

"Respect is like money, it can only be earned. When it is given, it becomes pittance"

To contracycle:Thank you for your reply.Reply to your post: Well, a casual browse on the net allowed me to rip:"General effects of narcotic analgesics include: sedation, slowed reflexes, raspy speech, sluggish "rubber-like" movements, slowed breathing, cold skin, and possible vomiting. However, as a user continues to abuse narcotic analgesics he or she will build a tolerance to the drug, therefore causing the effects to diminish. Heroin, a very strong narcotic depressant, completely destroys the users ability to reason."from http://www.sayno.com/opiates.html.It is the physical effects (last point in bold) and not the social effects that I am using to draw the parallel between the topic we are discussing (religion inhibiting critical reasoning/thinking) and opiates. Can you please elaborate on this point. I don't follow. Well, here's where you have to be careful. To you, they may be living in an "unreal" or "insane" world created out of their own fantasies, but you have to consider the possibility that you may appear just as unreal and insane to them.The point I'm raising is value. You don't value what they value, and you consider their doctrines unreal and insane. Fine. But what gives you the rights to judge them? Similarly, why shouldn't they judge you?Question: What makes you so sure that you're the "real" and "sane" one here?This is the exact reason why intolerance is not accepted in most civilised societies: conflict can only be minimised if everyone keeps their beliefs, thoughts and actions to themselves if they offend others.Patiently awaiting your reply.

---

"Respect is like money, it can only be earned. When it is given, it becomes pittance"

To Schrafinator:Hahahahahaha....well, the correlation is clearly there, but we just can't conclude causation at this point in time. ^_^Thanks for your post.

To Mike_King:Thank you for your reply.Reply to your post: The point here is not so much you don't know, but why you didn't think about it? THIS is the point of Christianity inhibiting critical thinking - you're putting things off as "we can't know" or "it's not for us to know" or "it's beyond our understanding" and chose instead to adhere to dogma unquestioningly. You are willing to accept the notion that an all-powerful, all-knowing being that has no consistent physical form has "always existed", but you are unwilling to accept the notion that the universe around us that HAS physical form and had left physical evidence of its history has "always existed"?In layman's terms, instead of assuming that an eternal creator created the universe, isn't it far more logical to just assume that the universe itself is eternal in the first place? This fails to address my point: the apparent contradiction between God's omnibenevolence and His creation of Lucifer. This is a non-sequitur. And where did you obtain these "likely possibilities" from? The bible never went into the details of where heaven is, so I guess you just made up the assertion that it is in another dimension. Original sin dictates that all human are deemed "unclean" in the face of God, so that in theory, anyone who has not had the chance to accept Jesus as their saviours will fry in sunny hell. This includes stillborns and anyone who has not heard of the bible. Sounds to me like you're not familiar with your faith. Non-sequitur means that what you have answered does not address what I have asked. For example, if I asked you if an apple is sweet, and you answered that the sky is blue, then it would be a non sequitur. And you can reconcile this with the mass murder in the flood incident...how? Again, this fails to answer the question. The question is simple: Why did God create cancer?Patiently awaiting your reply.

---

"Respect is like money, it can only be earned. When it is given, it becomes pittance"

To Hangdawg13:Thank you for your reply.Reply to your post: Challenging and questioning a notion because of curiosity and doubt is rude (lack poise and manners) and discouraged? Isn't this a textbook definition of "inhibiting critical thinking"? How can this be any more obvious? Questions are usually asked in the aims to learn something. If you are not allowed to ask questions when you feel the need to know something, how can you truly call that learning?Every university/education institution has a feedback system for students to ask their teachers questions if they have doubts. Teachers are generally discouraged from NOT answering the student, as long as the question pertains to the topics being taught. What I've just described here is education. But you can. If you've paid (tuition fees) for the knowledge, and you've booked the appointments, the professor is your private source of knowledge and wisdom within that time slot, regardless of your intentions. Are you dictating how learning MUST occur? Can't we learn by asking questions? Does asking questions lead to no learning? And I would like to know, why not a debate?In the academic realm, if I choose to make a fool out of myself, I can very much invite a professor of any faculty to debate with me.Buddhist monks have been holding regular debates in the last thousand years to sharpen their intellect and expand their knowledge. Are you claiming that this is a pointless venture? So? The point of debates is mutual learning. I learnt plenty when I debate with others, hopefully you did too. You have a very shallow understanding of what debates are and what philosophy entails. How's this for hypocritical?You asked me what I believe to be a meaningful concept. I state it, along with an explanation (unrefuted so far) of why I believe it to be meaningful.Without ANY intellectual feedback to support your stance, you set about "cynically portraying" the "stupidity" of my statement.How's this for a textbook example of "lacking poise and manners"?Patiently awaiting your reply.

---

"Respect is like money, it can only be earned. When it is given, it becomes pittance"

To contracycle:Thank you for your reply.Reply to your post: Oh I see. In that case I stand corrected. Thank you for pointing that out. Do you mean it "is" one, or "could be" one? Some people use religion to augment their lifestyle in the hope of pursuing meaning from a spiritual perspective. This process can take place with or without the assumption of an afterlife. Well, I would have to disagree strongly with this one. For one thing, science does not deal with truth (the "true" face of reality) because it neglects anything that cannot be physically measured or identified. This restriction means that we cannot define "real" with the scientific method.Furthermore, sanity is a qualitative concept whose definition may differ from time to time and from culture to culture. Behaviours considered "reasonable" and "sane" in one culture and time would be deemed "insane" in another. Science DEFINITELY can't help us with that.(Note: given the appropriate measures of sanity, science can be used to assess how "sane" someone is. However, your point seem to suggest that the scientific method can DEFINE sanity, and this is simply not true.)Patiently awaiting your reply.

---

"Respect is like money, it can only be earned. When it is given, it becomes pittance"

To Mike_King:thank you for your reply.Reply to your post: Change my mind about what? I wouldn't know, really, because I have yet to receive any form of answers I deem "satisfactory" - even when I lowered my standards. In this case I respect you and appreciate your efforts to answer my queries. 1. So then you're really lending support to my argument - namely that christianity discourages critical thinking. What you've stated is dogma. By definition, dogma cannot be refuted and must be accepted on faith. This is incongruous to critical thinking. 2. Ahhhhhh.....nicely done. We may have physical evidence suggesting that the universe has a beginning, yet we have no evidence to suggest that God was the creator of the universe. Nor do we have any evidence for the existence of God. 3. A huge difference, actually. If God has foreseen Lucifer's fall, and yet chose to make him, then Lucifer does not have true freewill. This point may be applied to everyone in this world - resulting in the conclusion that freewill does not exist. I suggest you read the "Power of prayers vs. divine plan" thread before discussing this point.4. Well, since no evidence has been found to support the existence of Heaven, my explanation would be that until we find some support for the notion, we should simply dismiss the assumption that heaven exists in the first place. Technically speaking, the existence of heaven is both an assumption and a dogmatic assertion. Food for thoughts - Why can't Heaven be on another planet? The point is NOT whether the bible explains it or not, but rather that christianity inhibits thoughts. For example, have you considered the possibility that "God" and "Satan" could have been opposing alien civilisations living on different planets?The God clan could have created human through genetic engineering and dispersed the "human creatures" onto "Earth" for experimental purposes. Genesis could have been a brief historical account of the terraforming of earth to suit human inhabitance.Either way, the above interpretation would make MUCH more sense than an omnipotence God becoming human to die for our sins.5. So...are you telling me that stillborns, cot deaths, and children are "clean" and "sinless" in the eyes of the lord and so can enter the gates of heaven? I think you are heading towards a contradiction in the scriptures. Sorry, but "no one goes to the father except through me" kind of contradicted what you've just asserted.7. And like I said before, this is incompatible with an omniscient, omnibenevolent God.8. Now you have made a blatant contradiction to the bible. God created EVERYTHING. Surely you should know that by now?Patiently awaiting your reply.

---

"Respect is like money, it can only be earned. When it is given, it becomes pittance"